The Progressive Budget Plan: Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act

[FayeforCure]

OK, so we have seen the Republican slash and burn approach, that is costing us essential services for education, firefighting, disability, elderly, sick, reducing us from a civilized nation to a nation resembling third world conditions. And no mention of increasing revenue through restoring tax levels for the ultra-wealthy to pre-Bush levels.

But what would an approach like that of FDR and Harry Truman look like?

Jan Schakowsky Announces New Budget Plan With Focus On Jobs

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announced on Wednesday that she will introduce a progressive-minded budget outline aimed at putting more than two million people to work.

Titled the “Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act,” the plan would cost $227 billion and would be implemented over two years. It would be financed by separate legislation introduced by Schakowsky called the "Fairness in Taxation Act," which would raise taxes for Americans who earn more than $1 million and $1 billion. It would also eliminate subsidies for big oil companies while closing loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas.

The congresswoman said that her plan would create 2.2 million jobs and decrease the unemployment rate by 1.3 percent.

"If we want to create jobs, then create jobs," Schakowsky said in a press release. "I’m not talking about "incentivizing" companies in the hopes they’ll hire someone, or cutting taxes for the so-called job creators who have done nothing of the sort. My plan creates actual new jobs."

Schakowsky’s proposal reads more like a progressive wishlist than legislation likely to be signed into law. But it does provide a template of sorts to help Democrats frame their budget argument as lawmakers enter the high-stakes super committee negotiations.

Under her plan, the following policies would be implemented:
•The School Improvement Corps would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs by funding positions created by public school districts to do needed school rehabilitation improvements.
•The Park Improvement Corps would create 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 16 and 25 through new funding to the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service’s Public Lands Corps Act. Young people would work on conservation projects on public lands including the restoration and rehabilitation of natural, cultural, and historic resources.
•The Student Jobs Corps would create 250,000 more part-time work study jobs for eligible college students through new funding for the Federal Work Study Program.
•The Neighborhood Heroes Corps would hire 300,000 new teachers, 40,000 new police officers and 12,000 new firefighters.
•The Health Corps would hire at least 40,000 health care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and health care workers to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas.
•The Child Care Corps would create 100,000 jobs in early childhood care and education through additional funding for Early Head Start.
•The Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.

In addition, the bill would give priority to the longterm unemployed -- the so-called "99ers" who have exhausted both their state and federal unemployment benefits. Federally extended unemployment benefits are set to expire this year, even though nearly 14 million Americans remain out of work and it takes the average worker nine months to find a new job.

“The worst deficit this country faces isn’t the budget deficit," Schakowsky said. "It’s the jobs deficit. We need to get our people and our economy moving again.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/jan-schakowsky-jobs-to-restore-american-dream-act_n_923899.html

I also think this outline exemplifies a major difference in thinking about the role of government............it isn't just to stimulate and incentivize business, it is forcing accountability on business.

Two examples of failed incentivizing legislation come to mind:

1. the HOPE act, which incentivized banks to reduce principal balance on homes that were underwater and facing foreclosure. Banks declined the incentives and homeowners weren't helped.

2. Department of Defense's Homeowners Assistance Program, or HAP, a program that reimburses qualifying service members for part of their losses from their home sales, if they don't have funds from a sale to pay off their mortgages. http://www.inman.com/buyers-sellers/columnists/maryumberger/military-families-battle-real-estate-distress

The idea behind this one was........why would a military person being forced to transfer to a new place of duty have to bear the credit downgrade of a forced short sale or foreclosure due to the real estate bubble bust.

Neither program has worked because banks don't "voluntarily" cooperate, despite the "incentives"

This is where government has the duty to protect consumers from being duped by the banking business, and FORCE banks to play a productive role in rectifying their misdeeds.

And yes, I know Republicans claim we need "small overnment," but really, do they really believe that our complex society can survive the way a primitive society can with "small government"?

So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time.

[JeffreyS]

This deficit thing has become quite a distraction.  It is jobs and the economy that should be priority.  We enacted some cuts balance that  with some revenue enhancement and move on.

[BridgeTroll]

So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time.

Then you change (amend) the constitution... you (we) dont just ignore or (get off) the constitution.

[JeffreyS]

I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it. 

[BridgeTroll]

Agreed Jeffrey... in fact I will go a step further.  We all agree that the founders were a pretty bright bunch of guys... so bright that even they recognized the need to update and amend the constitution and provided a mechanism to do just that.  We have done so in the past... and I would welcome efforts to do so in the future.

[NotNow]

"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government.  We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."

So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest.  I'll keep the Constitution thank you.

[FayeforCure]

I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.

But who would have thought the Republicans would have made a big stink over the constitution as a huge distraction, at the time we can least afford it? Like NOW. That should have been done in the 50's when we first started dealing with a more complex and prosperous society where a laisez faire approach of "small government" doesn't work anymore.

[NotNow]

"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government.  We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."

So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest.  I'll keep the Constitution thank you.

unless of course it means cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war, right?

Please.  Of all people.  Don't pretend you give two figs about the constitution.  You stood by and cheered while W raped it in front of you. 

Don't really have anything useful to add to the conversation, huh?

[FayeforCure]

"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government.  We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."

So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest.  I'll keep the Constitution thank you.

unless of course it means cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war, right?

Please.  Of all people.  Don't pretend you give two figs about the constitution.  You stood by and cheered while W raped it in front of you. 

Don't really have anything useful to add to the conversation, huh?

Stephen actually showed that your concern for the constitution is moot if you weren't ever concerned about :

cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war

I agree with Stephen.

[JeffreyS]

I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.

But who would have thought the Republicans would have made a big stink over the constitution as a huge distraction, at the time we can least afford it? Like NOW. That should have been done in the 50's when we first started dealing with a more complex and prosperous society where a laisez faire approach of "small government" doesn't work anymore.

I know and I like the plan but let's not ignore the constitution just because we believe the Reps do.

[BridgeTroll]

I agree BT if we think something needs to be done that does not meet constitutional criteria we have to amend before we do it.

But who would have thought the Republicans would have made a big stink over the constitution as a huge distraction, at the time we can least afford it? Like NOW. That should have been done in the 50's when we first started dealing with a more complex and prosperous society where a laisez faire approach of "small government" doesn't work anymore.

I know and I like the plan but let's not ignore the constitution just because we believe the Reps do.

no one is considering ignoring the constitution.  Its just the usual claptrap from Right Wing McGillicuddy and the Barnstorm Boys of Nabobbery.  Faye unfortunately tries to respond to them.

Actually... it is unfortunate that I responded to her.  Perhaps I misread what this sentence means...

"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."

[NotNow]

"So, please get off that constitutional garb, when we all know it was written during a much more primitive societal time."
Faye, the US Constitution is the guiding document of our way of government.  We are a nation of laws and we can't "get off" it. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people."

So in our modern society, the STATES can take the actions that you suggest.  I'll keep the Constitution thank you.

unless of course it means cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war, right?

Please.  Of all people.  Don't pretend you give two figs about the constitution.  You stood by and cheered while W raped it in front of you. 

Don't really have anything useful to add to the conversation, huh?

Stephen actually showed that your concern for the constitution is moot if you weren't ever concerned about :

cancelling the writ of habeus corpus, institution of the doctrine of the Unitary Presidency, and lying to congress about the reasons for going to war

I agree with Stephen.

The fact that you and StephenDare! consider my opinion on Constitutional matters "moot" because of your political partisanship says much more about the two of you than it does me.  While I don't believe that any citizen is "more" qualified than any other for any reason, it also strikes me that the two of you are almost always critical of our nation.  I also believe that I...and any other veteran, have earned the right to offer my opinion on the Constitution that I risked my life for.  So to sum up, screw what you think of my opinion.

[Pottsburg]

meh.  anyone who has travelled to other countries since your political opinions on the conduct of the war, and the writ of habeus corpus and torture became US policy risks their lives.  So thanks for trying to establish why your opinion on the constitution is more valuable on one hand and claiming that everyone has an equal right to an opinion on the other hand.

Your opinon, while you obviously have the right to have it, is in fact moot.  Because it is logically inconsistent.  Having the right to an opinion doesnt give you the right to have that opinion taken seriously be anyone, you know.

Please tell me your one of this people Dare that puts a Canadian flag on his backpack so u dont have to claim your a American?  I have traveled all over this world and have never experienced or felt my life was being thretened.  Everyone always wants to talk about Obama and asks why are we still in a war that he said he would get us out of.  Just got back from Indonesia (a Muslim country) and everyone was so nice, everyone asks where are u from when u say America they thank you for all the help dished out by our government, and they may give you a slightly steeper price on something u want to buy. Lol!  The only people I have run into that don't like Americans are Canadians and Mexicans traveling abroad.

[NotNow]

Your opinion of military service is well known, and although you are quite wrong you have the right to express it.  You apparently have no inkling of how you hold that right. 

As for your idea of "logic", I will simply say that I will place my statements and my history against yours anytime and I feel quite comfortable with the comparison. 

No one's opinion is "moot".  Your desire to declare it so in itself indicates your lack of logic and facts as well as your fear of the truth.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

  The only people I have run into that don't like Americans are Canadians and Mexicans traveling abroad.

you forgot other americans.  we all seem to hate each other.