Home | About | Donate

Why We Need The People’s Budget’s $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan


Why We Need The People’s Budget’s $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

Isaiah Poole

Set aside for a moment concerns about political gridlock on Capitol Hill. Think about the actual gridlock that could await lawmakers and citizens on their way to Capitol Hill.


Isaiah Poole:
"It is true that this budget has no realistic chance for passage in a Republican Congress. But this isn’t simply about a short-term budget fight. This is about whether we have a president and an electorate united in moving forward a sane economic platform that will strengthen the American economy in the uncertain years ahead, or if we will allow the ideologues and big-money interests to succeed in taking the wheels of the American economy and driving us all off a cliff. Yes, the People’s Budget is audacious. But that’s only because in these times, given how much more ground working people must make up to compensate for decades of economic inequity, we need audacious solutions, along with a grassroots movement to encourage a corresponding level of audacity from our next president."

Beyond Poole's frame of what future Congress and President might do and might be able to do, it is important to demand what we want and need, and not "pre-compromise" by asking only for what we think we can realistically expect from agents of corruption.

Demand what we need, and organize a popular movement to get it, irrespective of any election-year politics. Ultimately, the most powerful way we will affect Congress, is by organizing our movements irrespective of Congress.


If President Sanders succeeds in breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks, many trillions that will no longer be needed for bailouts can be redirected to Medicare for all and infrastructure.


While the bank bailout was a bad idea, it turns out the government made money on it.


"Couldn't you just let failing companies go bankrupt...." ? After 1933 when FDR's new Deal regulated bank size and activities, YES, you , me, the government COULD let the failing companies go bankrupt without taking the rest of the economy with them. When Bill Clinton became president the 5 biggest banks controlled 10% of US bank assets...not a problem. After ongoing deregulation (mostly during the Clinton years) those banks controlled 25% of US bank assets when they crashed the economy in 2008, resulting in Congress putting US taxpayers on the hook for $16 trillion in various bailout schemes. By the time Obama leaves office those 5 banks will control 50% of US bank assets, requiring even larger taxpayer funded bailouts after the next downturn. Since 2008 insurance and drug companies have merged so they can be too-big-to-fail in the next crash and hop on the bail out gravy train.

As long as the government prevented companies from becoming too big, they never had to break one up.

Seeing how GM used the bailout money to buy back stock, reduce domestic manufacturing capacity to the extent that today they produce more vehicles abroad than in the US, YES.


The Federal Reserve printed more money to pay TARP to make it APPEAR that "the government made money on it".

Even TARP architect Neel Kashkari is now calling for breaking up the banks, and discounting the stories about TARP making money.