Jan Schakowsky Announces New Budget Plan With Focus On Jobs

[highplainsdem]

Source: Huffington Post

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.

-snip-

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.

-snip-

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

[Stuart G]

1. K and R for Jan..just look at the number of jobs created...that's it..nt

[highplainsdem]

2. It's a brilliant plan.

[AbigailThomas]

25. Dems Need to Get Behind This!! Raise the Noise!!

You can read more about bill on her facebook: http://fb.com/janschakowsky

We ought to do more than quietly applaud this bill on a lone thread in DU. Conservatives are jumping all over Schakowsky on Twitter. We need to show that Americans want emergency jobs!!! I hope this bill comes up when Congress come back. :/

[Divernan]

3. She's a Democrat from Illinois. Will Obama speak out in support?

Are the DU Obama supporters allowed to have their own opinions on this? If so, I look forward to hearing from them.

[cstanleytech]

9. I'm still a supporter

for a number of reasons the main one being imo if we were to try and elect someone else it might lead to a republican winning the whitehouse but anywayyyyyy as for this plan, I like social programs and think they do alot more good than harm however I doubt that such a budget will get past those idiots (the republicans) in congress, they can barely figure out that the earth is round after all let alone that good social spending programs actually help the country.

[Divernan]

21. Thank you for replying.

[grahamhgreen]

12. Snort - choke. One would hope so, but he never mentioned the Peoples budget, either.

[Zenlitened]

4. Hearty K&R. - n/t

[Booster]

5. I applaud Jan and wish her good luck. If only she could get all

the Dems, including Mr. Obama, to back her plan, but I doubt that that will happen. At least someone's trying to make things better in this country.

[jwirr]

6. This is what we need. Now we ALL from the lowest to the highest

need to get out and fight for this. I am thinking of some ways to show support.

[madamesilverspurs]

7. Gotta be shouting this from the rooftops.

Let the whole country know about it, that it's Boehner and his minions who have refused to bring jobs bills to the floor.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat...


-

[JDPriestly]

8. And all those employed through these programs would develop their

skills, their work ethic and their leadership and teamwork abilities.

Unemployed people don't have the opportunity to develop themselves.

[jtuck004]

10. K&R. But need 10 million put to work - that would still be less than half of the 24 million looking.

So not nearly enough. Even at $113,500 per person you wind up with the good being overshadowed by conditions after the stim ends, much like the results of our current stimulus programs. (If one assumes the various stimulus programs were responsible for the almost negligible growth in the past few months). It is virtually all service work that, once done, doesn't create anything for sustainability. Which leaves more people in pain and another absurd fight down the road.

It's like throwing buckets of water on a big housefire. Some good, but at that rate it's gonna burn to the ground. Just a little slower.

People need to get some vision, ask for the big stuff. You know they are gonna try to beat some (or all) of this down, might as well start with something large enough to make a real damn difference. Add in some discussion about if our country can create an economy that will sustain over 300 million people in the style to which they have become accustomed. (I don't think so, but I would love to be proved wrong). Add in some training in entrepreneurship, some years of schooling for millions of people to fix the real structural deficiencies, some money to rebuild manufacturing and educate neighbors as to why it helps them to pay higher prices to support their local economy.

But good for you, Congresswoman Schakowsky. It should amp the conversation up closer to where it should be.

[HappyCynic]

13. Directly created jobs

The numbers appear to be those for directly created jobs. There will actually be more jobs created due to the needs of the programs enacted and as a result of people having more money to spend.
More may be needed, but it's probably a better idea to introduce multiple bills rather than one mammoth bill. A single bill means the Republicans can make their usual claims (evil socialism, spending too much, etc.) which will be gladly echoed by the "liberal" media. Then, they knock one bill down and they're done. Introduce multiple bills and they'll have a harder time arguing against all of them, as each one costs much less. They'll also have to kill each one separately. The Republicans will then be on record as killing many jobs bills rather than just a single expensive one. This can be presented to the public as a pattern of Republicans voting against jobs.

[humankarenball]

23. +1

[jtuck004]

28. That's exactly where we are now. Little stimulus attempts, none

of which are sufficient whether taken individually or in sum, much of which has been directed at banks and the wealthy,
(as if making their lives better will enrich the rest of us). Multiple smaller plans would give the opposition repeated opportunities to preach their message, ie "evil socialism, spending too much, etc" (conservative talk show hosts would love it). Frankly, if people haven't figured out by now that the Republicans are voting against jobs, against the security of this nation, they are partisan and nothing you or anyone else can do is going to change their minds.

Today there are 50 million of our neighbors with no health insurance (increasing in number), 45 million on food stamps (increasing in number), over 650,000 living in homes that have been foreclosed on but not taken by banks because there are 3 million foreclosed homes already on their books (increasing in number) and another 5 million or more homes yet to be foreclosed on. There are 8000 people a day turning 65, and according to the SS Administration fully a third of them have no other income - none - than social security. The ONLY thing between them and utter poverty (SS) is being used as a bargaining chip. By a Democratic president.

Millions of people are hurting. And we should waste our time (and their lives) on plans that don't do enough?

The year before the current administration took office we lost 4.5 million jobs. In the first year we lost another 4.5 million. That plans and policies didn't emerge as a call to save the nation was jaw-dropping. Instead the policies became about finger-pointing and a grab-bag of progressive ideas, virtually none of which did anything for job creation. (Although women are now more easily able to sue AFTER they have been screwed over in the workplace).

Jobs were not the first priority, and minimum wage Home Health Care Aide jobs are the fastest growing job in the nation. The U6 unemployment rate tells us there are about 24 million people wanting full-time work who cannot find jobs, yet the unemployment rate went down a bit in the past month. It dropped, not because enough jobs were created, but because more people quit actively looking for work (called marginally attached on the BLS jobs report), because they know there are no jobs for them. (Check the JOLTS survey - only 3.5 million jobs available). That's a terrible result after 3 years work, and excuses pale in comparison to the misery in some people's lives.

We are living with the result of repeated small, weak, and insufficient efforts. Why do more of the same?

It may be kind of an academic exercise, however, based on recent history. There has been nothing at all put forward which seems to be up to the task of proposing what we need to do for the future of this country. It's too bad, but the result is we are almost holding the door open and writing the scripts and speeches for the opposition.

I think most politicians believe the unemployed don't vote. Next year may be different, because there will be more newly unemployed people, more working poor (who didn't used to be) - people who are used to voting - than there were 3 years ago. And with no plan to put a really large percentage of them back to work the results may be really ugly.

We will see...

[jtuck004]

30. One other little point - little plans have been tried before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwEnA8HXNl4

Yet here we are, still.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Doesn't seem to be trickle-downy enough

How can the 99% be helped by stimulus programs unless we give the cash to the Job Creators? It's a well-fact that if you give a dollar to a Job Creator, she'll give $5 to the Little People. At least that's how it works in Oxycontin-fueled fantasy worlds, or Very Serious Third Way planning sessions.

[Firebrand Gary]

14. K&R...But Congresswoman, can you times it by four?

Please.

[NAZLib]

15. Not to throw cold water on this but.....

The numbers don't add up. There are only around 300,000 - 400,000 people making over a Million/yr for a grand total of maybe 400-600B in earnings. Now consider that they already pay on average around 40% of their income in Fed, State, Local taxes and that only leaves 200-300B in total if you take every last nickel. Of course if you take everything they'll just move or quit working so how much could you actually get? Maybe 50B? 100B? I don't know but it is going to take some serious new math to get 200B out of them.

The other problem is that most of those jobs are just "make work" and don't actually produce anything of lasting value. I'd suggest that if we're going to spend significant $$$ we spend it on retraining the unemployed and help them get out from under the mortgages they cannot afford so they can move to wherever the jobs are.

[HappyCynic]

18. Funding and jobs

Don't forget about the second part of the financing:

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.

Many of the jobs address current needs:

* 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 Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.

Many do not appear to be "make work" projects and seem to be long term jobs:

* 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.

Even the "make work" projects will provide jobs now and put more money into the economy (through indirectly created jobs such as restaurant workers - more employed people = more people eating out). Spending on retraining won't do much good without actual jobs. Mortgages can be addressed by a separate bill. If the Democrats win back the House and retain control over the Senate, then additional and bigger, better jobs bills can be enacted and passed. In that case, the "make work" projects can serve as an important way to keep people employed until then.

[NAZLib]

19. Funding & Jobs

I saw the bit about getting money from the Corps but there's even less to be had there than in the rich. Corps. currently pay about 200B in taxes so a few tweaks here & there to the tax code are unlikely to generate more than a few Billion.

As for the "needed work", lets just say that I'm pretty sceptical that our government could identify needed work if it were right in front of them. The problem is that they take, say 1 million from some community in the form of taxes that would have been spent on things they actually needed and then return that same 1 million with a string attached that says they can only spend it on something that's more of a luxury. No new money has been created, they've just shifted it around. Here's a concrete local example. A nearby city got a stimulus grant to pay for a large quantity of specialised swat gear that they almost never use (thankfully) and wouldn't have bought if they had to pay for it themselves. At the same time they had to ground the search and rescue helicopter which was used all the time because of a lack of funds to pay the pilots. Now they've got a helicopter sitting around in a hanger and a bunch of swat gear in storage and the community is less safe than it was before.

Lastly, the money put into the economy via make work jobs is money that was just taken out in the form of taxes so there's really no net benefit.

[NAZLib]

40. HappyCynic and the effectiveness of stimulus

Even the "make work" projects will provide jobs now and put more money into the economy (through indirectly created jobs such as restaurant workers - more employed people = more people eating out). Spending on retraining won't do much good without actual jobs. Mortgages can be addressed by a separate bill.

I think this is pretty much the heart of the problem. If you take 100K from rich person A and pay it to person B to pick up trash in the local park you say that's putting money into the economy but I say that those indirectly created restaurant workers are no different than what would have been created if person A had spent the money on whatever he/she wanted. If person A buys a jet with the money then someone still has to build it and that person still eats out etc so I just don't see how there's any net economic gain. There may be some intangible gains like the fact that you and I gain more from a cleaner park than from some rich guy's jet but that's not an economic gain that actually grows the economy.

The nice thing about retraining and education is that it better matches the available workers with the available jobs and thus improves efficiency and grows the economy. Consider a simple thought experiment. You've got a guy who spent the last 20 years operating a B210 series crane in Detroit. He's really good at it and makes 100K but due to the lack of commercial building he's out of the job and there just isn't anyone else who needs B210 operators within driving distance. He's basically screwed. Even if there's a job opening in Texas he can't afford to pay his current mortgage as well as rent in Texas so there he sits on unemployment. Is it more economically efficient to pay him to pick up trash or is it better to train him to do something that takes advantage of his excellent hand-eye coordination and trustworthiness? Even during training the indirect jobs will still be created (he'll be employing teachers) so there's no loss there but when he's done he'll be contributing more to the economy.

That's my take on it. What am I missing?

[Hugin]

20. Instead, you're gonna throw a slew of RW talking points on it?

They already pay 40% of their income in taxes? :spray:

Oh, that's RICH! :rofl:


Okay, seriously... Cite a source other than the Club for Growth in support of this fantasy.

[NAZLib]

31. Is the CBO good enough?

I was working from memory but the the CBO <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml> claims that the top 1% pay about 31% of their income in federal taxes. I don't have a good number for the states but I know they spend around $800B per year and generally have balanced budget requirements so they're clearly getting the money from somewhere. Considering how hard it is to get away from sales and property taxes I don't think 10% of a person's income going to state and local taxes is an unreasonable guess. Do you really want to fight over a couple of percent either way?

[Hugin]

32. You've only told me how much they're SUPPOSED to be paying.

This is not the payments in reality... Even as it's reported with pride in the M$M.

Those who rely on Capital Gains pay at most 15% and many pay... NOTHING.

Still waiting....

[NAZLib]

33. CBO is not the M$M

The CBO is the "Congressional Budget Office" and has nothing to do with the M$M. From that link "Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, REALIZED CAPITAL GAINS, cash transfer payments......"

So yes capital gains are already included. Care to try again?

[Hugin]

37. Can't find it, can you?

How much in taxes is really paid by the rich welfare barrons.

Alas, that's a well kept secret... What with the shelters, off-shore accounts, and cans buried in the yard. It's no wonder.

I mean, how many were there who had millions and perhaps billions laundered by the Swiss? There were rumblings it was in the tens of thousands. However, they were only the poorer uber-rich, but, they managed to buy their way out of it. (for pennies on the dollar, if any fines were rendered at all)

I know you're not going to find a number you'll be able to accept. So, maybe we should discuss the regressive nature of planning taxes as percentages and how in real terms a 28% tax on the middle class is far more of a burden than even your mythological 40% tax is on a millionaire.

[NAZLib]

38. I've already told you.

I've provided the best estimates I have for how many people making over $1M there are in this country and how much they make and pay based on the CBO and other figures. Is that just an estimate? Yes it is and if you've got a better one please provide it. Yesterday you claimed I was just repeating numbers from the M$M. When I showed you that I wasn't then you claimed that I wasn't accounting for other legal forms of income like capital gains and when I showed you that I was you now change your argument completely to "their all hiding their income". Ok, so maybe they are so what's your estimate for how many people in the US make more than 1M/yr and how much to they earn in total? BTW just to be clear, are you saying that they are lying on their tax forms or are you saying that there is some legal tax loophole that I've not accounted for and that accounts for tens of Billions annually? I think the CBO numbers account for nearly all the legal shelters but obviously they don't account for people who simply lie.

As for fairness, that's a completely different topic. My argument is strictly about the practicality and economic consequences of the plan.

[Enthusiast]

35. We don't like Teabaggers on DU.

Go away.

[NAZLib]

36. Not a "Teabagger"

What part of "I'd suggest that if we're going to spend significant $$$ we spend it on retraining the unemployed and help them get out from under the mortgages they cannot afford so they can move to wherever the jobs are." sounds like a "Teabagger" position to you? Look I'm with you guys on a lot of issues. I've got no problem with Gays. I think the Feds should stay out of abortion. I think Gitmo and the Patriot Act were terrible Ideas. I think the war on drugs has been a giant waste of time and, more importantly freedom. That said, some of the economic thought I see here borders on magical thinking. Don't get me wrong, the neocons are/were just as bad for the last 30 years when they acted like taxes were bad but borrowing was just fine. FWIW I'll probably disagree with you guys at times on 2A and environmental/energy issues as well if that matters to you. I tend not to post when I agree so I'll probably appear more conservative than I really am.

That said, I've been respectful and brought my own thoughts and data with me, not taking points from some blog or Faux. I'm sure I do bring some different underlying assumptions like the idea that a true free market allocates resources more efficiently (not necessarily more fairly though) than government in most cases. If you think my numbers are wrong that's great, tell me what YOU think they should be. If you disagree with my reasoning then tell me where you think the flaw is and more importantly WHY. If you find having an intelligent discussion threatening and would prefer living in an echo chamber then I'd suggest it's time to step away from the keyboard for a bit and go experience the world. If I step over the line I'm sure the mods will let me know.

Cheers!

[kimsarah]

16. Nice that someone

is talking a broader spectrum of jobs, not just hard-hat laborer jobs. I applaud her.
Meanwhile, let's wait and see what Paul Ryan has to say about it before we endorse it.

[kimsarah]

17. Better yet

Let's create a bipartisan commission with six Grover Norquist Republicans and six Bluedog Democrats to study this plan to death, then make a recommendation after the 2012 election.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Good plan

But we also need infrastructure projects in there. At least hall a million. I'm AOK with incurring more debt in the short term for greater prosperity long term. So sunset the Bush tax cuts and get it done.

Basically we've neglected America for ten years - and ten years ago the bridges were crumbling. So a one two punch is required.

[swilton]

26. The way forward!

[Roland99]

27. Holy crap if that doesn't sound like the best prescription heard to-date!

[TwilightGardener]

29. I like it. I know it has no chance in hell in the House. But it's good to reinforce

what Dems stand for, and what GOPers stand against (jobs, improving the economy).

[SomeGuyInEagan]

39. Should've been proposed in January 2009, when the Dems had the WH, House and Senate ...

... as many were pushing and there was considerable public support.

Might've passed then. Also might've shown who in Washington (in both parties) is actually working for the majority of the country and not just the corporations ... oh, wait, that may be why it didn't get introduce until there was no chance of it passing.

Nevermind.

[Enthusiast]

34. Jan Schakowsky for President! nt