Fact Sheets & Briefs

The Economic State Of The Union 2012

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:53:08 -0500

These charts from the Economic Policy Institute, first published in December 2011, present some important snapshots of the economic conditions facing working-class and middle-class people. When weighing the priorities set by President Obama in his State of the Union address and the Republican response, these are the realities those priorities must be measured against.

Unemployment

Job-seekers ratio

There are currently more than four unemployed persons for every job opening. While this ratio of job seekers to openings has improved since the depth of the recession, there is still a long way to go to reach a healthy job market.

From Job-seekers ratio remains above 4-to-1 for 34th straight month

Slack in the labor market

The labor market remains weak. In addition to unemployed workers, millions of people who want to work full time can only find part-time work or are so discouraged that they have stopped looking.

From The State of Working America

Impact on children

The recession has hit kids especially hard. In 2010, 10.6 percent of children had at least one parent unemployed, and 18.4 percent of children had at least one unemployed or underemployed parent.

From Sept. 8 Economic Snapshot

Too few openings

The number of unemployed workers far exceeds job openings across industries. This suggests that the unemployment problem is a result of the recession, and is not due to a mismatch between work skills and employer needs.

From The State of Working America

Labor force erosion

The jobs crisis is hitting everyone, regardless of their formal education. Those with higher levels of education are leaving (or never entering) the workforce at the same rate as those with just a high school degree. Those with less than a high school diploma have not seen the same declines since 2009.

From Dec. 8 Economic Snapshot

Wealth

Uneven distribution

Over the last quarter-century, the vast majority (81.7 percent) of increases to wealth have gone to the wealthiest 5 percent, while those in the middle saw declines in their wealth.

From Sept. 15 Economic Snapshot

Income

Uneven pie

Incomes have become increasingly unequal over time, with the top 10 percent (and the top 1 percent) taking an outsized slice of the pie.

From The State of Working America

CEOs vs. workers

Not everyone is feeling the pain of the recession. CEOs continue to fare better, making 243 times as much as the average worker in 2010.

From Nov. 9 Economic Snapshot

Lack of mobility

African Americans are more likely to experience downward mobility. For example, 45 percent of African Americans whose parents were middle-income are in the bottom fifth, while only 16 percent of whites are at the bottom.

From The State of Working America

Budget

Deficits

Current deficits are mostly due to the automatic effects of the recession (for example, from lower tax revenue) and the emergency efforts to create jobs. Bush-era tax changes and unfunded spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also contributed. Without these factors, the deficit would be approximately balanced.

From May 18 Economic Snapshot

Public investment

Investments as percentage of GDP

Private companies have increased their investments in equipment and software since the end of the recession. In fact, the pace of investments have exceeded the last three recoveries, suggesting that regulatory costs or uncertainty is not a pressing problem.

From Regulatory uncertainty: A phony explanation for our jobs problem

Quotes From Behind The Conservative Wrecking Ball

Eric Hunt — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:16:13 -0400

Rep. Michele Bachmann

"I have no intention of voting to raise the debt ceiling because, right now, the federal government continues to spend more money than what it takes in."
"It isn't true that the government would default on its debt. ... It is scare tactics." Instead, she said the U.S. could avoid a default by paying only the interest on U.S. obligations while lawmakers work on a deal to cut spending dramatically as part of a new debt ceiling. Such an approach has been derided as unworkable by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
"We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world; we need to drop that significantly, so that we have a pro-business, pro-job creation environment. So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains rates, allow for 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way toward job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment."

(From the June 26 CBS Face the Nation Interview)

On fixing the deficit : "I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this." (Alternet.org)
“Social Security, like I told you, is out of money. This year it is borrowing from the general treasury.” (Politifact.com. For the truth on Social Security's finances, see this fact sheet.)
"So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains, right, allow for a 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way towards job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment. But right now, businesses are looking at the uncertainty. They know that 'Obamacare' is coming down the pike. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 'Obamacare' will cost the economy 800,000 jobs." (Health Justice Network)

Tim Pawlenty

"There's a group of folks who say look, pay the outside creditors first. So there is no default. Take away that concern. Take away that fear. And then have the debate be about the rest of the domestic spending. That is something that I have advocated for many months" (CBS News)
"I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors." (Politifact.com. For our perspective on corporate taxes, see this fact sheet.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell

[On raising taxes] “That’s not serious[ and it is my hope that the president will take those off the table today so that we can have a serious discussion about our country’s economic future.” (Washington Post)
“Not only is there bipartisan opposition, the consequences of massive new tax hikes would be fewer jobs.” (Washington Post)
“Throwing more tax revenue into the mix is simply not going to produce the desired result. It won't pass.” (Christian Post)
“Well, I think we've gotten to the point where we ought to put aside our talking points and get down to what can actually pass. As I was just trying to point out to you, the whole business of raising taxes, regardless of how you go about it, is something that this Congress is not likely to do. The last Congress wasn't willing to do it. So we need to talk about what can pass.” (ABC's This Week)
“We have a spending problem. We don't have a problem because we tax too little.” (Slate.com)

Rep. Eric Cantor

“We have hit the point at which we are really talking about big numbers, and everything, as I’ve said before, is on the table, except tax increases. That includes Medicare, Medicaid and the other mandatory as well as discretionary spending.” (The Washington Post)

Jon Kyl

“If you want to kill the economy, raise taxes. Are we going to vote to absolutely put another anchor around the neck of the economy which is struggling to try to recover here? Absolutely not. It's terrible policy.” (The Hill)

Newt Gingrich

"The left understands how to destroy the American economy. They're working at it diligently." (Reuters)
“Democrats are faced with a real crisis. The president is about to preside over the United States defaulting on its debt — he can’t do that. So he is going to have to in the end agree to something. The Republicans are in a position to say they are very happy to avoid a default if he will sign a spending-cut bill.” (newsmax.com)

Gov. Rick Perry

"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times — and I think we’re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don’t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government." (ThinkProgress.org)

Herman Cain

"I don’t think the current minimum wage is necessary because most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage." (ThinkProgress.org)
"We must empower our economy with lower taxes on businesses and workers. All we have to do is look at the success of the 1960s and 1980s." (The Daily Caller. Tax rates today are actually lower than they were in the 1980s and especially the 1960s. But U.S. economic growth was slower in the 2000s than it was in either decade. For more on the consequences of conservative economic policy, read this.)

Mitt Romney

"We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy." (Politifact.com)

Ron Paul

“We must completely revamp the U.S. tax system and move to a territorial model that does not tax foreign source income... We need to abolish the income tax altogether.” (Ron Paul campaign site)

Afghanistan By The Numbers

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:30:51 -0400

October 7, 2001	Date the Afghanistan war started
1,632	Number of Americans killed in Operation Enduring Freedom (October 10, 2001-June 20, 2011)
64.22%	Percentage of all coalition forces killed in Operation Enduring Freedom who are American
11,191	Total number of U.S. casualties through May 2011 ^[1]
8,832	Total number of Afghan civilians killed from 2007-2010^[2]
$27.36 billion (2010 est.)	Afghanistan’s gross domestic product^[3]
$426.2 billion	The amount the United States has spent on the Afghan war since 2001^[4]
3.43:1	The ratio of money U.S. spent on the Afghan war in fiscal 2010 to Afghanistan’s GDP^[5]
$56 million	Gross income value of opiates raised by Afghani farmers in 2001^[6]
$605 million	Gross income value of opiates raised by Afghani farmers in 2011^[7]

[1] http://icasualties.org/OEF/

[2] United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. “Afghanistan – Annual Report 2010 Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.” March 2011. http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Final%20Engish%20version%20of%20Exec%20Summary.pdf. The Human Rights Unit of UNAMA first kept keeping statistics on civilian deaths in 2007.

[3] CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html

[4] National Priorities Project. Cost of War. http://costofwar.com/en/

[5] Helene Cooper. “Cost of Wars a Rising Issue as Obama Weighs Troop Levels.” The New York Times. June 21, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/politics/22costs.html

[6] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Afghanistan-Annual Opium Poppy Survey 2001. http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/report_2001-10-16_1.pdf. pg. iii.

[7] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Afghanistan Opium Survey. December 2010. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdf. pg. 24.

Why We Need Action For Good Jobs Now

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:25:43 -0400

The Economy Remains In Trouble

This economy is not working for working people. Corporate profits are up; large corporations are sitting on almost $2 trillion in cash. CEO salaries are soaring; bank bonuses set a new record in 2010.

23 million Americans are in need of full-time work.

24% of all teenagers are unemployed; 40% of African American teenagers are unemployed.

45% of the unemployed have been without a job for more than six months.

There is one job available for every 5 people looking for work.

The share of the population that is employed has fallen to levels not seen since the 1980s.

Wages are not keeping up with prices, especially on such basics as food. Companies are using the crisis to force cuts in health care and retirement benefits.

Home prices have fallen 33% from their peak, and are still falling in every major U.S. city except Washington, D.C.

States and municipalities have cut 446,000 jobs since September 2008; they are expected to cut even more jobs in the coming months.

Our Economic Problems Are Not Short Term.

The middle class has been losing ground for three decades.

Since the 1980s, productivity has been up; workers have seen little benefit.

Wages have stagnated as unions have gone from representing one-third of the private workforce to representing only about 7% of today's workers.

CEO salaries were 35 times greater than those of the average production worker in 1980; by 2009, they were 185 times greater than the average production worker.

The wealthiest 1% earned 56% of all income growth over the last three decades, while the bottom 90% earned just 16%. The United States has the largest concentration of wealth and income at the top since the onset of the Great Depression.

Top-end tax rates have been cut from 70% in 1980, to 30% today, while working families have been hit with higher payroll taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher fees for everything from school activities to bus fares.

The Cost Of Basics Continues To Increase

Americans pay nearly twice as much per person for health care than any other advanced industrial nation. Corporations are pushing more health care costs onto workers, while conservatives in Congress are actively working to push more of the costs of Medicare onto seniors and the disabled.

The cost for college is soaring. In August 2010, total student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time, $830 billion to $826.5 billion.

Half of all companies offer no retirement plan, while 40% of Americans 55 years and older have less than $25,000 saved for retirement.

Working past the age of 65 has become a reality for more and more Americans; one-third expect to work past the age of 70 or never retire, 54% expect to work at least part time.

America Continues To Ship Good Jobs Abroad

General Motors now sells more cars in China than in the U.S.; more and more companies make most of their profits abroad.

Companies have used the recession to lay off workers in this country, while expanding employment in other countries where they are able to pay lower wages.

During the financial collapse of 2008, Wall Street's corporate profits plummeted. But since then, they have rebounded faster than any other sector, taking in 30% of corporate profits and climbing.

The Bottom Line: We need a new strategy for America in the global economy, one that works for working families, not simply for CEOs or big banks.

A Progressive Jobs Agenda

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 27 May 2011 10:42:39 -0400

Two years after the end of The Great Recession, more than 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have simply given up looking for a job. Conservatives continue to exert considerable control over the political agenda in Washington, but they have contributed nothing constructive to the debate about how to put Americans back to work. On the contrary, their “jobs plan” amounts to votes for budget cuts and top-end tax breaks that many of the nation’s top economic experts agree will actually cost the economy jobs as well as impose needless pain on those struggling to make ends meet in today’s weak economy.

Progressives believe that nothing is more important to the future of our country than for Americans to get back to work. The loss of more than 8 million jobs during the 2007-2009 recession is one of the main reasons the federal government is grappling with a large budget deficit. Majorities of Americans in multiple polls have said that while they are concerned about the deficit, they are even more concerned about subjecting millions of people to the specter of long-term unemployment.

The White House and Congress would be wise to unite behind an agenda that can bring jobs back to America’s main streets. Progressive leaders are ready with elements of that agenda.

Here’s what progressives propose:

Implement a two-year accelerated emergency investment program. This $500 billion per year federal program would be designed to spur rapid growth and job creation. Of that, $100 billion per year would go to states and localities to prevent layoffs and service cuts that are undermining an already weak economic recovery. During this two-year effort, these investments should not be “paid for” by revenue increases or budget cuts. The goal of these expenditures is to get unemployment down by increasing economic demand.

Rebuild national infrastructure. Establish an “infrastructure bank” and expand public transit. Congress should immediately pass, and fully fund, the long-delayed surface transportation reauthorization bill, which would quickly create new jobs in construction, manufacturing and other industries by building and restoring bridges, highways, and public transportation.

Meanwhile, passage of the “BUILD Act” would create a $10 billion “infrastructure bank” that, by leveraging private capital, would provide loans and loan guarantees for as much as $640 billion worth of transportation projects and other public facilities, creating millions of jobs in a broad range of industries in every corner of the country.

Change the financial system so that it rewards job creation. A National Commission on Economic Renewal would bring together business leaders, former governors, union leaders and scholars to develop a comprehensive strategy for American economic development, focused on meeting the goal of full employment.

Create the jobs of the future, including green energy jobs. Investing in green technologies creates new skilled jobs, reduces the U.S. economy’s dependence on foreign oil and helps slow climate change. Creating a Green Corps and funding training programs would provide jobs and skills for young people in retrofitting homes, apartments and public buildings.

Encourage companies to “Make it in America” – and institute currency reform. Congressional Democrats have introduced a “Make it in America” plan, a set of bills designed to accelerate the creation of good jobs and restore our economic competitiveness, beginning with a national strategy for manufacturing. Included are bills that if enacted would level the trade playing field by holding accountable countries that create an unfair trade advantage by manipulating their currency; bring together government, labor and industry to develop a national strategy to increase manufacturing; boost Workforce Investment Act programs to help workers make the transition to new career opportunities; and ensure that taxpayer dollars spent on water projects are spent first on U.S.-made materials and equipment.

Invest in education and in research and development. President Obama proposed hiring 100,000 more public school teachers over 10 years, and that initiative is needed now more than ever as cash-strapped states and localities lay off thousands of teachers and close schools—precisely the opposite of what the country must do to stay economically competitive in the 21^st century. Increased support for higher education, including support for public colleges and universities as well as community colleges, is essential to maintaining a world-class work force and insuring that future generations will have a better future. Progressives also believe that it is vital that the federal research and development spending that gave birth to such innovations as the Internet continue in order to support private sector innovation and broad public benefits.

Expand broadband access. Our digital infrastructure is crucial to our future economic growth and global competitiveness, and equitable and affordable access to high-speed Internet access is key to making the learning and job opportunities of the future available to everyone. That is why progressives support making the federal government a partner with the telecommunications industry in ensuring that no one is left behind by the broadband revolution.

For more on progressive solutions to the jobs crisis:

♦ Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future: Solutions for addressing the nation's unemployment and growth crisis.

♦ Don't Kill Jobs and Growth: A statement by leading economists and thought leaders on how to rebuild the economy.

♦ The American Majority: Where the public stands on jobs, growth and the deficit.

Progressive Approaches To Taxes And Deficits

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:15:39 -0400

Federal tax rates for everyone are at or near record lows, but that’s especially true for the wealthiest Americans and for corporations. The average tax rate paid by the 400 richest Americans has fallen 53 percent since 1992, far more than the average decline in the tax rate for all taxpayers of 6 percent. It is true that the wealthy Americans do pay a significant share of the nation’s total tax bill, but the share they pay has not kept pace with the rise in their wealth—a 281 percent increase in income for the top 1 percent between 1997 and 2009, compared to a 16 percent increase for the bottom 20 percent. (These charts from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities help illuminate this issue.)

In April, The Congressional Progressive Caucus released “The People’s Budget” for fiscal year 2012, and a key distinction between that budget and other proposals is its proposals to raise revenues as well as eliminate unnecessary spending in order to reduce the deficit. While the “People’s Budget” was voted down by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, it contains ideas that should remain a part of the discussion of how the government addresses the budget deficit.

The budget, if enacted, would:

Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and incentives for children, families, and education.
Immediately rescind the "Bush tax cuts" in December’s tax deal for those earning more than $250,000 a year.
Index the Alternative Minimum Tax, the minimum upper-income earners have to pay after all deductions are taken, for inflation for the next decade.
Implement the millionaire tax rates proposal from Rep. Jan Shakowsky, adding a 45% tax rate for persons earning more than $1 million on up to 49% for persons earning more than $1 billion.
Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income.
Enact a progressive estate tax. (Sen. Bernie Sanders’ estate tax plan would repeal the current law that raised the estate tax exemption from $7 million to $10 million per-couple and lower the top rate from 45% to 35%.)
Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28% for high earners.
Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer.
Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned, eliminating a common tax avoidance scheme.
Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas and coal companies.
Enact a financial responsibility processing fee.
Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange).
Reinstate Superfund taxes.
Raise the Social Security payroll tax cap on employees so that it applies to 90 percent of total employee earnings, and eliminate the taxable maximum that employers would have to pay.

The Institute for Policy Studies in April highlighted several proposals for raising needed revenue, some in this report on "unnecessary austerity" and others in this fact sheet on innovative ideas for global corporate tax reform. Among them:

A small financial transactions tax on each trade of stocks, derivatives, currency and other financial instruments that could raise $150 billion a year.
A currency transactions tax, a form of financial transactions tax, on foreign exchange transactions and their derivatives.
Taxing income from dividends and capital gains at the same rate as regular income.
Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Ending tax breaks, subsidies and other supports to the fossil fuel industry would free up funds for incentives for green energy sources.
A carbon tax on every ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
Curtailing illicit money flows out of developing countries, increasing transparency rules for flows of capital that is illegally earned, transferred, or utilized.

Fiscal 2012 Budget Resolution: "Path To Prosperity" Is Really A Roadmap To Ruin

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:08:53 -0400

The Legislation

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan on April 5 unveiled a budget resolution for fiscal year 2012 that he labeled a "path to prosperity." The budget blueprint was approved on a 22-16 party-line vote by the House Budget Committee on April 6 and sent to the House floor for an expected vote the week of April 11.

The resolution would cut projected federal spending by $6.2 trillion below what the Obama administration has proposed over the next 10 years, and $5.8 trillion below what would be spent under current law. For 2012, the budget under Ryan would be $102 billion below President Obama's budget request and $72 billion below appropriated spending for fiscal year 2010.

Some of the most significant changes the resolution proposes are in Medicare and Medicaid.

Seniors eligible for Medicare starting in 2022 would be enrolled in private insurance plans, with a portion of the premium underwritten by the government. How much of the premium seniors would end up paying would be based on income. This plan assumes that costs would be controlled by "market competition" among insurance companies and medical providers. It is not clear the extent to which government subsidies would adjust over time based on increases in health care costs, but critics of Ryan's plan presume that the value of the subsidy would not keep up with health care cost inflation, meaning over time seniors would increasingly be pressured to shoulder more costs on their own or obtain less care. Ryan's resolution assumes $30 billion in Medicare savings over current law within its 10-year window, some of which would be gained by barring what the resolution calls "abusive and frivolous lawsuits" by Medicare patients.

Medicaid, the health care subsidy program for the poor, would be converted into a block grant program to the states. Each state would receive a fixed amount of funding each year from the federal government, and the states would then decide who receives medical care with that funding, and how. Ryan's resolution anticipates $771 billion in Medicaid savings over current law over 10 years.

Among the other spending changes proposed by Rep. Ryan:

The federal mortgage guarantee agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would be replaced by private secondary mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a key role in enabling millions of working-class people to be successful homeowners; the private firms Ryan envisions filling in the vacuum would be under no such mandate.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as the "food stamp" program, would be converted into a state block-grant program and be subject to work requirements and time limits along the lines of the 1990s welfare "reform" rules. States would no longer be encouraged as they are today to ensure all eligible people receive food assistance.
Housing aid for the poor would be reduced, and work requirements would be imposed on aid recipients.
Funding for Pell Grants would be reduced to what they were before 2008, targeted to the "truly needy," and would intentionally not keep pace with rising tuition costs above the rate of inflation.
Dozens of specialized federal job-training programs would be consolidated into "career scholarship programs" that would funnel job-training recipients into such institutions as community colleges and for-profit and nonprofit training centers.
The federal workforce would be subject to a five-year wage freeze (and would actually see a loss of take-home pay once increases in their required health care and retirement contributions are factored in) and would be reduced in size by 10 percent in three years.

The resolution does not contain a detailed plan for Social Security—appropriately, since Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit—but it does embrace the view that the program is facing a financial crisis, says the fact that the program is solvent for the immediate future is based on "dubious government accounting," and is antagonistic to the idea of raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.

In a commentary in The Wall Street Journal, Ryan wrote, "Our budget offers the nation a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American idea: free-market democracy, open competition, a robust private sector bound by rules of honesty and fairness, a secure safety net, and equal opportunity for all under a limited constitutional government of popular consent."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, in a statement criticized the Ryan budget for its "lopsided approach" to deficit reduction, noting that among other things it makes permanent the Bush administration's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. “The question is not whether to reduce the deficit, but how. To govern is to choose, and it is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies, and other big money special interests while slashing our investments in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans. That’s not courageous, it’s wrong."

The Middle-Class Position

Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal is a real "roadmap to ruin" for both low-income and middle-class people. It catastrophically weakens the safety nets that seniors and other economically vulnerable people depend on for their basic needs, and it does the same to the stepping stones that millions of people depend upon to aid their climb up the economic ladder. At the same time, it would lock in lower tax rates for the wealthiest individuals and corporations, and would take insufficient steps toward ending billions in tax giveaways to corporations and the super-rich.

Two-thirds of the program cuts in the budget—roughly $3 trillion—come from programs that directly benefit low-income (and some middle-income) Americans. But the financial impact on households would be even broader.

Health care—On health care, Ryan’s budget plan would push rising health care costs onto those least able to afford them – the elderly, the disabled and the poor. It would do nothing to curb the rising costs imposed by the powerful complexes – insurance and drug companies, private hospitals – that now force Americans to pay twice as much for health care, while experiencing worse health outcomes, than people of any other industrial nation. And because at the heart of its health care proposals is the repeal of the health care reform passed in 2009, consumers lose the considerable benefits and deficit reduction that resulted from that law.

By replacing Medicare's system of guaranteed, comprehensive health coverage with a "defined contribution" to a private insurance plan that each senior would choose, seniors would find themselves paying more out-of-pocket costs or choosing to self-ration medical care. The Congressional Budget Office found that by 2030, typical 65-year-olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, rather than 25 percent under current law.

In fact, advocates for this plan view that as a good thing: As "consumers," they reason, seniors will seek out the lowest-cost health care options and the market would cater to that demand. In reality, it would be the health insurance industry—which is in effect an oligopoly—that would drive costs to protect its profit margins. Ryan's plan is silent on how it would be possible for seniors to get the care they need through private insurance (which has four to six times the administrative overhead of Medicare) while saving taxpayers money for good reason: The only way that is possible is for seniors to pay more.

In converting Medicaid to a block grant, low-income people would find themselves at the mercy of 50 different standards for the amount of health care the citizens of their state would be willing to offer. We already saw the consequences of a health care system that treats people's health conditions differently depending on where they live in late 2010 when Arizona's government decided to no longer subsidize the costheart transplants for low-income state residents. The reality is states differ widely in their ability to meet the health care costs of their neediest residents. That is why governors in the past have pushed the federal government to assume all of the costs of Medicaid.

For a more detailed analysis of how Ryan's Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security proposals would affect seniors, read Richard Eskow's analysis on OurFuture.org.

Higher education—For working-class and middle-class families expecting to send children to college, the Ryan plan's cuts to Pell grants would put an affordable college education out of reach of significant numbers of college students.

Ryan's rationale is that increased aid to college students is driving tuition increases, but there is no evidence that less federal aid to college students would cause tuition costs to rise more slowly. In fact, state-level cuts of higher education subsidies have resulted in significant state college tuition increases. These state-level cuts, in fact, are likely to continue, if not accelerate, if the Ryan budget were to take effect because of the dramatic reductions in grants to state governments for a broad range of services.

Homeownership—The dream of middle-class homeownership will end up being beyond the reach of millions of more families if Ryan's plan to fully privatize the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as mortgage financiers. And there is nothing in Ryan's plan that speaks to the millions of households that have faced or are in danger of facing foreclosure; House Republicans have in fact already voted to dismantle the meager homeownership aid programs the Obama administration had in place.

Ryan promotes the myth that the housing bubble that helped fuel the Wall Street financial crash was created by Washington over-regulation. In reality, as this OurFuture.org article details, it was the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became in essence Wild-West private companies whose casino bets were covered by the taxpayers, rather than companies that kept capital flowing through the housing market, that spawned the behavior that led to their implosion. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a mandate from Congress to make sure the housing market is accessible to working families. The private companies that Ryan foresees replacing these enterprises would have no such mandate. Plus, they would operate in a highly deregulated environment, allowing the same high-risk and even fraudulent behavior by lenders that helped cause today's depressed housing market with its continuing wave of foreclosures.

Tax policy—Under the Ryan plan the Bush-era tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 a year, extended through 2012, would be locked in permanently. That alone costs $700 billion over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Undoing the estate tax break that was cut last December that meant lower taxes for the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans when they transfer their estates would save tens of billions of dollars.

The Ryan plan makes a nod toward "ending corporate welfare," but what it calls "corporate tax reform" is actually a corporate tax cut, from a top rate of 35 percent—which virtually no large corporation actually pays—to 25 percent. It does not ask corporations to pay a larger share of taxes even though corporate profits are at record highs. And the Ryan plan would not end corporate subsidies to oil and coal, but its "ending corporate welfare" in energy would be limited to what the plan derisively calls "the president's allied industries"—wind, solar and other emerging renewable energy industries. In the name of "not picking winners and losers," the Ryan plan picks a winner—Big Oil. And it robs middle-class households of the promise that cleaner, cheaper alternatives are on the horizon that will also be the source of millions of new well-paying jobs.

Impact on jobs—Rep. Ryan makes the assertion that his budget "creates nearly 1 million new private-sector jobs next year, brings the unemployment rate down to 4 percent by 2015, and results in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade." This claim, based on a paper from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, should be laughable based on the failure of the George W. Bush administration to create jobs through top-end tax cuts and corporate deregulation, a failure that led the Wall Street Journal to label his presidency as having the "Worst Track Record On Record" on jobs.

The Economic Policy Institute says that Ryan budget could actually cost the economy well over a million jobs over the next five years. In any event, its analysis says, the assumptions that are used to justify the Ryan-plan-creates-jobs claim are just plain false.

Middle-class households have been clear that they want Congress to act on the deficit—and they have been explicit in poll after poll about how they want Congress to proceed toward that goal: End the tax giveaways to the wealthy, invest in such job-creating activities as upgrading our transportation network, improve our schools and keep college affordable, and foster the growth of new industries that will produce jobs with solid middle-class wages in America. Rep. Paul Ryan's budget path leads us away from prosperity in all of these areas.

Summit Launches Movement to Demand Jobs

Liz Rose — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:57:02 -0400

On March 10, 2011, the Campaign for America’s Future held the Summit on Jobs and America’s Future. Economists and organizers, labor and business leaders and civic reformers met to build a movement to hold leaders accountable for creating jobs.

Solutions discussed at the Summit include:

• Rebuild national infrastructure. Set up an infrastructure bank and expand public transit.
• Change the financial system to reward job creation, not gambling.
• Create green energy jobs.
• Change policies to encourage companies to Make it in America – and institute currency reform.
• Support for Reps. George Miller and Keith Ellison’s Local Jobs for America Act to create jobs in communities.
• Invest in education and research and development, and expand broadband access

While some of this agenda would aim at long-term, sustainable job creation, summit speakers also called for action to quickly spur job creation in the public and private sector. What they called for included:

1. Ending the destructive budget cuts – and attacks on public employees.
2. Aid to states to prevent layoffs of teachers and police and other critical workers.
3. An emergency infrastructure investment program – to put people to work building things we need, such as roads, bridges and energy systems.
4. A new focus on making things in America and currency reform so that countries like China will buy what we make.

At the summit, the Campaign for America’s Future released an article called "Jobs Now: A Call for American Economic Renewal" by co-director Robert Borosage.

To watch video and read more about the Summit on Jobs and America’s Future visit ourfuture.org/jobssummit.

Progressive Groups Respond to the White House Deficit Commission Report

Eric Hunt — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:43:06 -0500

Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO

"With this report the Deficit Commission once again tells working Americans to ‘Drop Dead.’ No proposal on fiscal issues is serious that leaves the Bush tax cuts for the rich in place while raising taxes on the middle class and slashing Social Security and Medicare. All commission members should vote no on this misguided plan. All members of Congress should also oppose these job-killing policies if they are raised in future legislation or budgets.

Our nation IS facing an immediate jobs crisis. Last night 800,000 Americans lost their unemployment insurance, and that number will grow to two million by Christmas. One hundred workers from across the country have come to Washington today to lobby Congress to extend unemployment insurance. It is unconscionable that this commission is proposing to slash these very workers’ Social Security and Medicare.

This whole discussion reeks of hypocrisy. The faux deficit hawks on the commission – and Senators who claim unemployment insurance must be paid for -- have no problem clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

We need to focus now on the jobs deficit. Fifteen million people are out of work, and another eleven million have given up looking or are working part-time involuntarily. We need to end tax breaks that send American jobs overseas and invest in jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and green technologies.

To address long-term deficit issues the AFL-CIO supports the core principles underlying the “Investing in America's Economy Budget Blueprint.” We need to put jobs and economic growth first; we must invest in education and infrastructure to be competitive in the 21st century; Wall Street and the wealthy must bear their share of the burden; and we need to deal with the growth of health care costs."

Mary Kay Henry, International President, SEIU

“This proposal is a jobs killer at a time when our number one priority must be putting America back to work. The American people expect real solutions to create good jobs that support a family and bring fairness to our economy.

It's time for our policies to move beyond the Beltway to reflect the real world. For too long, we've forced the American people to pay the price for the failed economic policies that plunged our economy into crisis and racked up our debt. We need to reduce the deficit - and we can do so without breaking the back of American workers. We can do so without cutting the jobs of nurses, educators, first responders, fire fighters, and millions of other Americans.

What the proposals by Representative Schakowsky, EPI, Demos and the Century Foundation, and the Citizens' Commission all demonstrate is that we can reduce the deficit without cutting jobs or undermining the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare. These proposals offer real solutions to move our economy forward, reject the failed policies that created our current crisis, and respond to the demands of the American people to create good jobs.

We can reduce our deficit, create jobs, and restore economic security to our communities. It's time for our leaders to find the political courage to invest in real job creation and challenge those responsible for the crisis we face.”

Tamara Draut, Vice President of Policy and Programs, Demos

"The final recommendations released today illustrate how out of touch many on the Fiscal Commission, and many of those wielding influence in the Beltway, are with the everyday economic concerns and fears of Americans everywhere. This plan ignores the need for immediate public investments to spur job creation, relies too heavily on discretionary spending cuts, and slashes Social Security at a time when fewer Americans can count on a secure retirement.

Outrageously, it embarks on a job-killing austerity path next fall (fiscal year 2012), when unemployment is still projected to be near 10 percent. In addition to imperiling the recovery in the short-term, the arbitrarily low debt target also hamstrings our ability to invest in our own economy – as our global competitors are doing.

Are the $4 trillion Bush tax cuts (the same amount saved by the Commission’s proposals) worth sacrificing America’s place in the world? The Our Fiscal Security blueprint shows that we can rebuild the middle class, invest in our own economy, and put our nation's finances on a sustainable path. The Commission’s recommendations would guarantee that America’s greatest days our behind us."

Eric Kingson, Co-Chair, Strengthen Social Security Campaign

“Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Erskine Bowle’s and Alan Simpson’s latest proposal to radically change Social Security once again slashes Social Security benefits for most Americans, now and in the future. Again, it disregards the will of the American people who do not want Social Security benefits cut. The Simpson-Bowles proposal was dead on arrival once; it should be considered even deader the second time around.

Their plan would reduce the COLA when it should be increased because it does not keep pace with health care costs. It would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69 for today’s young workers and cut benefits overall by 17 percent to 36 percent for young, middle-income Americans entering the workforce today. (See chart showing the benefit cut to a medium wage earner.)

About 60 percent of the House Democratic caucus – 136 members – have written to President Obama opposing all Social Security cuts, including raising the retirement age. Cuts to Social Security are opposed by 8 out of 10 Americans – from Tea Partyers to union households, young and old – according to a recent poll of Election Day voters by Lake Research Partners. And 2 out of 3 Americans support lifting the payroll tax cap so that all earnings are subject to the tax, which currently taxes income up to $106,800.

Yesterday the Strengthen Social Security Campaign members made tens of thousands of calls to their Senators and Representatives. Their message: Do not cut Social Security. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit. Cutting benefits will not fix the deficit. It is time for the Fiscal Commission and elected officials who would undermine the economic security of Americans to heed this call. If elected officials do not, the 2012 elections could be very ugly indeed."

Justin Ruben, Executive Director, MoveOn.Org

"The Fiscal Commission report confirms that elites in Washington intend to ask middle class Americans to once again shoulder the burden to make up for the irresponsible spending of the Bush-era. Raising the retirement age and cutting Social Security--a program that cannot by law contribute to the deficit---for hard-working Americans while giving giant corporations a tax break is irresponsible and immoral. If it hopes to maintain credibility with 98 percent of Americans who are not millionaires, Congress must reject this plan and instead focus on reigning in the deficit by ending tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.”

Ben Cohen, Founder, TrueMajority.org

"To the editor:

We have a big problem in this country and it looks like the co-chairs of the President’s fiscal commission are ready to face it. For decades we have wasted the money we should have been spending on kids and the environment by buying overpriced weapons that don’t work and staffing Cold War-era military bases around the world. Now it seems those bad ideas are on the chopping block to the tune of $100 billion in cuts.

Groups as diverse as the Center for Defense Information, CATO, Tea Partyers, TrueMajority.org and USAction all agree. These cuts don’t need to be a partisan issue. Many of the Republicans elected to the new Congress have pledged to put Pentagon spending under a microscope, and I know many Democrats would rather spend our tax dollars on essential things like education and health care – or perhaps programs to create jobs and bring down the unemployment rate. (Recent studies indicate that the Pentagon is just about the worst jobs generator of all federal expenditures.)

Politicians on both sides of the aisle should welcome a real debate on Pentagon spending. Every weapon system, every proposal to increase the size of the force, every plan for deploying our military abroad or expanding current operations must be scrutinized.

Thank you President Obama for taking these cuts seriously. Our children thank you too.

Ben Cohen"

John S. Irons, Research and Policy Director, EPI

"Today, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform presented a revised version of their plan, but also announced that a final vote would be delayed until later this week.

With the delay, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Bowles-Simpson plan will not receive the required 14 votes to send the report to the President and Congress. The rejection of the proposal should not be seen as a failure to take deficit reduction seriously, but rather that the policy approach adopted by the co-chairs is flawed.

Most fundamentally, the report fails to fully acknowledge the current economic crisis. The report states that the reductions in annual appropriations would require “serious belt-tightening” beginning in just 10 months, despite the fact that the unemployment rate is expected to remain between 9% and 10% at that point. Despite paying lip-service to a payroll tax holiday, the plan includes no concrete, immediate action to create jobs or to spur economic growth in the near term.

We sometimes hear that having a long-term plan for attaining fiscal balance opens up the possibility for a rigorous near-term intervention to create jobs, which requires deficit spending. In this plan we get extensive long-term pain for no short-term gain.

The Bowles-Simpson plan also continues to misdiagnose the problem by focusing on cutbacks in domestic investments and Social Security—neither of which is a prime driver of the deficit in the short- or long-run. Nearly one-quarter of the near-term reductions (2012-15) in the report come from blunt-force cutbacks to domestic investments; however, the report is short on specific recommendations about how to accomplish this. Instead the proposal primarily recommends budget process changes, agency reviews, and even the creation of yet another committee to identify savings. Rather than taking on the hard choices, the Bowles-Simpson plan kicks the deficit-reduction can down the road. But the plan’s failure to explicitly reject a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—a giveaway that will add $700 billion to the deficit—is perhaps the clearest example of ducking hard choices.

Although the overall direction remains flawed, this proposal does have some positive elements. In particular, its recommendation to reduce spending by the Department of Defense, its attempts to build on cost-savings measures included in the Affordable Care Act, and some of its illustrative tax policies, such as its treatment of capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. However, it falls short of a comprehensive proposal in two critical ways: its inadequate approach to revenue collection and its counter-productive approach to job creation and economic growth."

Karen Higgins,Co-President, National Nurses United

The revised, final report by the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility is an "unwarranted, outrageous attack on the health, safety, and retirement security of millions of nurses and tens of millions of other working people and should be immediately rejected by the Obama administration and Congress," said the nation's largest union and professional association of registered nurses today.

"It is time for the White House and Congress to stand up and send a clear message to the American people that they will not agree to further erode our retirement security and standard of living while continuing to promote further tax breaks and concessions to Wall Street and the most wealthy among us," said Karen Higgins, RN, co-president of the-160,000-member National Nurses United.

Among its most egregious proposals, the report calls for raising the retirement age to 69 and the age for early retirement to 64, which especially targets workers with the most physically demanding jobs, including nurses who suffer more back injuries, for example, than any other employment group. NNU also opposes the proposal to cut benefits of up to 36 percent of younger workers, reducing the annual cost-of-living adjustment, and the decision to put far more of the burden of deficit reduction on working people than those on the top.

"Most long-term RNs worked for years with substandard pensions, and many now face new demands by employers to sharply erode their retirement plans. Therefore, cuts in Social Security would hit nurses especially hard. Raising the retirement age to 69 would force nurses, like other working people with physically demanding, stressful employment to delay retirement, at risk to themselves and their patients," Higgins said.

Cook County RN Dorothy Ahmad, a Chicago resident, criticized Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a commission member, who said that raising the retirement age to 69 would be "acceptable to me."

"How would he like his nurse to be 69, rolling into his hospital room in a wheelchair or scooter with his medication, trying to take care of him? At 69 years old, a nurse should be able to retire in dignity with security for herself and her family, not be forced to still be working at risk to her patients and herself. Chicago nurses are disappointed with Sen. Durbin’s response," Ahmad said.

Higgins, who works in critical care, said she "cannot even fathom nurses at 69 still being required to work. You need to have the highest mental and physical alertness to be able to provide safe care. The idea that nurses would be able to do that at 69 is dangerous to patients, but forcing us to be in a position that we would have to is disgraceful."

Retired California RN Elizabeth Pataki of Sacramento said protecting Social Security is vital for the many RNs who have been forced to "retire early with back injuries and a long work history that involved great stresses on their backs and joints. Most nurses cannot work to the usual age of retirement."

Too many RNs, said Pataki, "have seen their pensions lessened and their savings lessened, and don't have a comfortable margin to retire on. So Social Security is critical. To require them to work longer is unacceptable and will further handicap a nurse for the rest of her life."

Women are also particularly threatened by the proposal, said Higgins. "More women are living below the poverty level and must depend on Social Security. They are frequently paid less than men and are also likely to move in and out of the workforce as they raise families and therefore the benefits they receive are less."

"We see elderly people coming in who are just trying desperately to hold on, to provide for themselves and sometimes others. They are trying to pay their rent, put food on the table, and pay for their medications. It is often the medications that they give up, running the risk of being declared 'noncompliant.' Many are helpless, having nowhere to turn."

"I think it is disgusting that we should even consider cutting back on Social Security benefits or reducing Medicare provision."

Craig Jennings, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch

OMB Watch today panned the plan proposed by the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to reshape the nation’s fiscal priorities. While the plan contains some praiseworthy provisions targeted at the tax code and the federal budget process, overall, it represents an unfortunate step backward in meeting the needs of the nation’s working families.

Craig Jennings, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy at OMB Watch, said, "The commission, in its zeal to balance the budget in what it sees as a politically palatable way, failed to equitably distribute the burden of deficit reduction among all Americans."

Certain elements of the commission’s plan, "The Moment of Truth," deserve to be highlighted for the improvements that they would make in the federal budget process, including ending the abuse of emergency spending and setting aside funds to pay for unforeseen disasters. Also praiseworthy is the commission’s recognition that the $1 trillion in tax breaks found in the tax code, known as tax expenditures, are a form of spending and should be treated as such by Congress.

Unfortunately, as a whole, the proposed plan is a misguided attempt to confront the nation’s short- and long-term fiscal challenges. It ultimately balances the budget on the backs of the middle class, cripples the ability of the federal government to protect Americans, and diverts revenue enhancements to decrease tax rates for the wealthy instead of to reduce the deficit.

The plan also fails to confront the primary driver of the long-term fiscal imbalance – rapidly rising health care costs. While the commission recommends certain changes in Medicare and Medicaid that would curtail some costs through 2020, it has no solutions to stem the doubling of federal spending on health care between 2020 and 2050. Additionally, the commission has seen fit to put forward benefit reductions and tax increases to “fix” Social Security, yet Social Security plays no significant role in the degradation of the nation’s short- and long-term deficits.

The commission’s plan also unwisely places an arbitrary cap on federal revenues. Jennings noted, "By restricting the federal government’s ability to provide sufficient revenue for our national priorities, the plan would make it even harder to responsibly balance the federal budget, especially if unforeseen circumstances arise."

At the same time, setting random caps on discretionary spending, like the ones in the proposal, would seriously hinder the ability of the federal government to provide working families with vital services such as education, employment resources, transportation infrastructure, and access to nutrition.

Jennings added, "Should the commission vote to approve this plan for congressional consideration, OMB Watch would strongly encourage Congress to reject it." He noted that other plans, such as those by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) (see http://schakowsky.house.gov/images/stories/1118_Schakowsky_Deficit_Reduc...), the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future (see http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/citizens-commission-report-fina...), and Our Fiscal Security (see “Investing in America’s Economy: A Budget Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility,” http://www.ourfiscalsecurity.org/storage/Blueprint_OFS.pdf), do far more to address the actual budget problems we face today while strengthening that which makes our nation great.

Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President, National Women's Law Center

“The plan proposed today by the Co-Chairs of the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform contains the same flaws as the one they released a few weeks ago: it threatens the economic security of women and their families as well as efforts to rebuild a strong economy.

The nation’s most crucial priorities in the short term should be to create jobs and promote a sustainable recovery. In the long term, the priority should be to reduce the deficit by a far greater reliance on additional revenues from a fair and responsible tax system than the Co-Chairs propose.

The Co-Chairs’ plan relies heavily on deep cuts to federal programs that are especially important to women, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and critical domestic discretionary programs. Overall only one-quarter of the nearly $3.9 trillion in deficit reduction that the plan claims to achieve by the end of the decade would come from revenue increases.

Although one stated principle is that the plan should not disrupt the economic recovery, the plan’s spending cuts are scheduled to take effect before a full recovery is likely. These cuts will jeopardize that recovery and inflict further harm on the victims of the economic downturn. The vast majority of the plan’s revenue reforms—already smaller than its spending cuts—would not start until after the program cuts begin.

The cuts proposed to Social Security would be particularly painful for women, who depend more on Social Security than men do. The plan would cut benefits for current retirees by reducing the cost of living adjustment, eroding the value of benefits for women who live longer than men. It would reduce benefits for all types of beneficiaries, including retired and disabled workers, widows and children, by changing the benefits formula. It would increase the retirement age, further reducing benefits for today’s young workers. And it would reduce benefits below scheduled levels for all but the poorest beneficiaries.

In addition, many of the plan’s health cuts would disproportionately hurt women and simply shift costs and cut programs that women depend on. Among the harmful cuts, the plan would transfer more Medicare costs to beneficiaries, requiring low-income beneficiaries to pay higher out-of-pocket costs. For example, a recipient at 200 percent of poverty would have to spend a shocking 35 percent of income on medical costs before reaching an out-of-pocket cap. This cost-shifting threatens the financial and physical health of vulnerable seniors on Medicare—the majority of whom are women.

The Co-Chairs’ proposal stands in stark contrast to more responsible alternatives released by Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Our Fiscal Security, and the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits, and America’s Economic Future. These proposals address the nation’s immediate needs by promoting short-term spending to stimulate growth and create jobs. They also simultaneously reduce the deficit while preserving Social Security benefits, reducing inequality in the tax code and providing effective options for controlling the growth of health care costs.

The Commission members need to stand up for women and their families and reject the Co-Chairs’ proposal. Jeopardizing the well-being of women and families is no way to improve the nation’s bottom line."

Progress Report On Jobs Legislation In Congress

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:57:25 -0400

Local Jobs for America Act (HR 4812)

House Sponsor: Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.
Senate Sponsor: None as of May 24, 2010.
Progress so far: Awaiting action by the House Education and Labor Committee.

Through a funding formula based on the Community Development Block Grant program, the bill would direct $75 billion to cities, towns and counties to save municipal jobs and prevent layoffs. Of the $75 billion, $52.5 billion would go directly to communities with at least 50,000 residents, and $22.5 billion would go directly to states to distribute to communities with fewer than 50,000 residents. The funds may only be used for compensation of full-time, full-year positions and jobs that are regular government or local community organization jobs, under the proposed legislation.

It also includes $23 billion to help states support an estimated 250,000 education jobs; $1.18 billion to put 5,500 law enforcement officers on the beat; and $500 million to hire and retain fire fighters and $500 million for approximately 50,000 additional on-the-job training positions slots to help private business expand employment.

Keep Our Educators Working Act (S 3206)

Senate Sponsor: Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
House Sponsor: None as of May 24, 2010 (but provisions are contained in HR 4812, above, and jobs legislation that passed the House in December).
Progress so far: Referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It may be added as an amendment to the H.R.4899, the Supplemental Appropriations bill.

The Keep Our Educators Working Act will create a $23 billion Education Jobs Fund modeled after the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund that was established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Funding could be used for compensation and benefits and other expenses necessary to retain existing employees, and for the hiring of new employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary, secondary, or postsecondary educational and related services; or on-the-job training activities for education-related careers.

American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (HR 4213)

House Sponsor: Sander Levin, D-Mich.
Senate Sponsor: Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Progress so far: Versions passed the House December 9, 2009 and the Senate March 10, 2010. A revised version of this legislation was sent to the House floor on May 27, 2010.

Sometimes referred to as the "tax extenders" bill, this legislation would continue extended unemployment and health care benefits created to address recession-related long-term unemployment, authorize $1 billion for 300,000 summer jobs, and keep on the books a series of tax credits and programs designed to promote business and economic development, including the Build America Bonds program. To cover the cost, the legislation closes several tax loopholes at least partially, including the "carried interest" loophole that enables investment income to be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. The legislation also contains what's called the "doc fix," increasing doctor reimbursement rates for Medicaid.