Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Progressive Caucus) Co-Chair Keith Ellison on the Default Crisis, "This Is Our Moment"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 02:36 PM
Original message
(Progressive Caucus) Co-Chair Keith Ellison on the Default Crisis, "This Is Our Moment"

Huffington Post: Co-Chair Keith Ellison on the Default Crisis, "This Is Our Moment"

America has an historic opportunity. We have the chance to address our budget deficit in a manner not seen since President Bill Clinton created a budget surplus in 1999. And if we do it right, we could pave the way for a vibrant American economy based not on gimmicks like giveaways for special interests, but on job creation for working Americans. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I urge us to avoid a default on the faith and credit of the United States while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

At every step of the way, Republicans in Washington have blocked a fair plan. The American people are demanding that our government resolves deficits while maintaining our promises to the middle class. Yet, an uncompromising political faction is stonewalling and ignoring the clarion call of this historic moment.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus stands with the American people. Long before Republicans took our economy hostage, we introduced the People's Budget, the most fiscally responsible deficit plan introduced this year. The People's Budget would eliminate the deficit in 10 years. Economists across the political spectrum have called it courageous and responsible. Introducing this budget was one of my proudest moments as a Member of Congress, because it shows the power of Progressive policies and values. Creating an economy that reduces deficits and creates jobs is a progressive value, not just a slogan as it is for the Tea Party.

As the People's Budget has proposed, and the President has affirmed, our solution must reflect the same values that have motivated us historically. We believe in a fiscally healthy America because it leads to an economically healthy America. A balanced budget is critical precisely because it allows us to maintain the services that the middle class depends on. Any deficit deal that takes money away from seniors and American workers who rely on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid undermines the original goal of deficit reduction. Any deficit deal that cuts food stamps but pampers the wealthy is not only bad for the most vulnerable Americans, but damages our fiscal health.

Progressive economic policies lead to a sustainable economy. Americans understand this and history confirms it. Progressive policies implemented since the early 1900s launched America into the modern age and created a vibrant, middle class. Yet, for 10 years, Republicans have given more money to special interests, while the middle class has footed the bill. They passed the biggest tax cut ever for millionaires and billionaires, without paying for a dime of it. They passed a giveaway to the pharmaceutical lobbyists that will cost $1 trillion over 10 years. And it was George W. Bush, not President Obama, who ran roughshod into two unfunded wars, which alone are estimated to have cost us $4 trillion, more than 20 % of the deficit.

The stakes are too high now. Republicans have taken us to the brink of default, and it is already hurting our economy. If we do default, the pain our middle class feels would be even worse. Retirement investments would be threatened by plummeting stock prices; higher interest rates would make it more expensive for Americans to pay off credit bills; and the unemployment rate would skyrocket in the face of decreased consumer spending. House Speaker John Boehner's proposal is less a good-faith effort to avoid a default than an appeal to a narrow sliver of his political base. As Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote yesterday, " could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history." Most worrisome of all, it wastes our opportunity for a long-term solution and stalls progress for another six months. Credit agencies have already hinted Boehner's plan would not convince them that America is able to pay its bills.

Progressives know this is America's moment to lead. The deadline is upon us--but so is the opportunity.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Then take it. More of you than the Tea Party Caucus right? Use 'em. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
montanacowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. I really have a lot of respect for Keith Ellison
he is a voice of sanity. I wish he was my representative instead of that POS I have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. he's selling the same false choice as everyone else
default vs. massive deficit reduction.

He talks about "...if we do it right, we could pave the way to a vibrant American economy...".

I don't think any of the plans on the table could do that. I think all of them will do just the opposite. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe massive spending cuts will help the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. So
"he's selling the same false choice as everyone else"

...does that mean he's just as RW as Obama?

We have the chance to address our budget deficit in a manner not seen since President Bill Clinton created a budget surplus in 1999. And if we do it right, we could pave the way for a vibrant American economy based not on gimmicks like giveaways for special interests, but on job creation for working Americans.

In context, he's saying a surplus, not "gimmicks like giveaways for special interests" is doing it right.

The fact is that his emphasis is on revenue not tax cuts.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. if cutting these trillions will lead to a Clinton-like economy
then why are we even fighting them? That would be fantastic! I'd be all for it. I'd switch to the GOP in a second if I thought their policies would lead us there. I just don't believe that, unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Hmmm?
"if cutting these trillions will lead to a Clinton-like economy then why are we even fighting them? That would be fantastic! I'd be all for it. I'd switch to the GOP in a second if I thought their policies would lead us there. I just don't believe that, unfortunately."

So you think Clinton got to a huge surplus without spending cuts?

Do you think cutting $1.2 trillion from the defense budget could free up money for other programs?

The problem is thinking that spending cuts have no impact on budgets. The other problem is believing that spending cuts mean not additional spending.

The administration can divert $1.2 trillion from war and use some of those funds to pay for a program that creates jobs and also reduces the deficit (the climate change bill for example).

Spending cuts alone isn't going to do it. Increasing revenue is likely the best route, but what's wrong with eliminating wasteful spending, such as spending on war?

The health care bill cuts the deficit (by eliminating fraud and abuse and through savings), creates job and strengthens the safety net.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. you're selling ponies
we're facing massive spending cuts, Pelosi's talking about ENTERING an age of austerity, as if we've been in some kind of boom, and you're telling us about defense cuts and cutting "waste".

It happens every time. Deny, deny, deny, and then when it happens, tell us afterwards that if we don't like it we're naive and we wanted ponies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Sorry
"you're selling ponies we're facing massive spending cuts, Pelosi's talking about ENTERING an age of austerity, as if we've been in some kind of boom, and you're telling us about defense cuts and cutting 'waste.'

It happens every time. Deny, deny, deny, and then when it happens, tell us afterwards that if we don't like it we're naive and we wanted ponies."

I don't deal in "ponies."

What "happens every time"? Have the Democrats cut Social Security and Medicare? Some have been saying this is the plan since Obama took office. Nothing yet!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Oh snap!
+1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Somehow I doubt we'd pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan anytime soon enough
Edited on Thu Jul-28-11 04:41 PM by Armstead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Having a surplus would destroy the economy.
Where is it that you imagine the money to build the government surplus will come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Can you answer my question above, Prosense?
I would really like to know what impact you think a government surplus would have on the economy as a whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. I dig this cat!!!!
Sorry about the antiquated verbage. The influence of an old school Democrat has taken me back a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC