Home | About | Donate

Prosperity Not Austerity: New Progressive Budget 'Prioritizes Well-Being of People and Planet'


Prosperity Not Austerity: New Progressive Budget 'Prioritizes Well-Being of People and Planet'

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

The Congressional Progressive Caucus unveiled on Thursday what it calls "a down payment on a brighter future for all Americans"—a progressive budget for 2017 that offers a blueprint for tacking systemic injustices while creating over 3.5 million jobs.

The Caucus, headed by co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), entitled the document The People’s Budget: Prosperity Not Austerity; Invest in America.


Yes, where is the PC endorsement of Sanders? Its time for all true progressives to stop waffling or fence-straddling and stand-up to be counted!

The states Hillary won on Super Tuesday ALL went Repub in 2012 (except Virginia) along with all their electoral votes! The states Sanders won or tied (Mass) are critical to winning the electoral college and the presidency! Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota, Vermont - don't buy the "inevitability" lie!
GO Bernie!


No legitimately progressive budget can exclude a system of poverty relief. We are stuck in the realm of reality. In real life, not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren't jobs for all. A progressive agenda would shine a spotlight on our poverty crisis as proof of the grave shortcomings of our current deregulated capitalism.

Without a legitimate system of poverty relief, what we have is an updated version of trickle down economics.


Not so incidentally, various plans to "reduce poverty by 50% in 10 years" have been pretty routine for decades. You can't reduce poverty without legitimately addressing it. On just one point, consider that you can't get a job once you no longer have a home address, phone, bus fare. You're just out.


Several Congresscritters who identify with the PC have endorsed Clinton.

Showing as much disrespect to Cesar Chavez as they possibly could, today the United Farmworkers Union (UFW) endorsed Clinton. Corruption in Murka runs deep and wide.


Reproducing a press release from the "progressive" caucus—which mightily tries to portray half-hearted, incremental changes as something bold and progressive—hardly seems to qualify as news.

Yes, they propose cutting the defense budge by—be sure you're sitting down—one percent! Bravely, they offer "affordable" (not tuition-free) college. Single-payer healthcare? Won't find it here. Any cuts to the "homeland security" budget black hole? Good luck.

See warisacrime(dot)org/content/congressional-progressive-caucus-believes-war

The Congressional Progressive Caucus Believes in War


I believe the two congress people mentioned are supporting Sanders? So take a hard line and make a stand ---Healthcare as a right for all Americans-A $15 minimum wage-And I would add affordable housing------the commons, land and water rights,not for corporations but people. Sanders is showing that people support these issues, but there needs to be a cost to those who don't.
I have already asked my congress rep who is a dem if he supports healthcare as a right and the $15 minimum wage-----of course he has failed to respond---We need progressive leaders taking a clear hard line.

We have been in austerity as a policy with both Obama and the republicans but is never talked about in the media.

I hope in this next dem debate Sanders will move away from the corporate media questions and address the real concerns confronting people daily. Free water for corporations vs.people on the bottom paying high bills-ask Hillary Clinton---Is healthcare a right? Pay day loans and what Debbie W. Schultz is doing to stop Sen Warren.--------Don't let the corporate media shape the debate.


Sometimes I genuinely like your comments.


Most poverty can be alleviated by creating well paying sustainable jobs where the poor live. I am welling to bet my last dollar that a shoe factory in Detroit will be highly profitable making made in USA high quality shoes cheaper than what Nord Strom charges. That's just one example of thousands of factories, small businesses, locally owned and operated banks, etc... using low interest government loans to complete with the corporate chain stores.
Those who are unable to work should be dealt with dignity, love and respect and provided basic needs free of charge. We can do all of the above by cutting off corporate welfare and corporate tax loopholes.


You are right. We also need to enact a minimum income which would allow most who can work to do so part-time opening up more jobs.


Please consider the effects of requiring sovereign debt to be backed with Commons shares.

Accepting that a Commons share may be claimed by each adult human, one only, that will cease to exist on the humans death, and shall be deposited in trust with a local financial institution along with execution of a social contract.

In this way each human will receive equal interest payments from sovereign debt.

This establishes the sovereignty of each human.

As a sovereign entity, each individual would have access to sovereign debt for home, farm, or secure interest in employment, relative to a portion of the value of their Share.

For illustration, in round numbers, a share with a value of $1 million would return about $1 thousand/month, if it all was borrowed, at a growth sustainable rate around 1.2%.

Current sovereign debt would return about $10/month, $20 if corporate government debt is included, (observing that corporations are governments subordinate to their charters) which would be significant in many parts of the world. Individuals could borrow a significant fraction, but maximum return would likely require states to borrow all remaining shares.

I suspect that a nation with 1 million residents could borrow the entire $1 trillion (equivalent) of resident shares as reserve cash and devise a plan to increase revenue by the $12 billion/yr (equivalent) required to pay the interest. The U.S. example of a $268 trillion debt, a $250 trillion treasury, and $3 trillion annual interest payment seems equally optimistic.

With all currencies tied to the Commons, and the proportional increase in wealth flow in all states, exchange rates and trade can stabilize.

The increased spending on basic needs will necessarily reduce the cost of providing them.

Since the spending of money is restricted by the availability of materials and labor, and “full employment” is restricted by the availability of money, recognizing and distributing the value of the Commons in this way would simply “fill the reservoir” so the world economic system may act more like a “Free Market.” This restriction, and most familiar others, would promote an orderly increase in money supply, with most new money in reserves and increased valuation.

Please consider the notion, and as you view the worlds problems, and crises, imagine how this would alter those conditions. The perspective change for each individual so enfranchised is critically needed.

Thanks so much for your kind indulgence,



So? Do you have a problem acknowledging that he lies?


I read through the abstract of 'The People's Budget', which this article provides a link to,

We should understand it as a political document, meant to rouse opposition to the existing order, than as something to actually govern by.
I make comments to a few of its bullets:

  • Returns to Clinton-era tax rates for households making over $250,000 and implements new brackets for those making over $1 million

Typical political for naming dollar amounts, but a progressive plan would be more useful if it named an income %, such as a higher [even punitive...?] taxation level on income above the @ top 1% level, regardless of what # of $ '1%' is. And true equality warriors would not be bothered if subsequently the income distribution had a steep cliff at the 1% mark, with no one earning at 1.2 x the top 1% income level.

  • Ends unlimited executive pay tax write-offs

This is meant to remind people of their resentments towards top company executives and how well they are paid. It is worth describing the situation a bit more. Executives already pay taxes on all of their income, even on 'standard deductions and exemptions', which are phased out for people who make 'too much money'. There are disputes about the tax rate that executives pay on their pay...
-- What the Progressive Caucus appears to be targeting is the exemption that companies have on their corporate taxes for labor compensation. Such exemption is capped at $1 million salary of each person the company pays, unless that pay is 'performance based'. I will bet that the Progressive Caucus wants to eliminate the 'performance based' loophole; that if an executive is worth more than $1 million to the company, then the company has to pay taxes to the Federal Government for that guy.
-- Not mentioned is that true progressives probably want corporate taxation made more progressive, so that the bigger the company and the higher it pays its executives, the higher the tax rate % it pays the government.