CONYERS: Heartless Trump Budget Hurts Nation's Most Vulnerable And Undermines Access To Justice

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), today released the following statement on President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2018 budget:

Dean of the U.S, House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“There is no doubt that President Trump’s budget starves many essential government programs across the board.  These proposed cuts threaten to undermine the Justice Department’s critical public safety efforts and jeopardize essential community-based justice programs,” said Conyers. 

Guts Legal Services Program for America’s Most Vulnerable:

Conyers continued, “The Trump Budget effectively eliminates the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a program that for more than 40 years, with bipartisan support, has provided civil legal representation of hundreds of thousands of Americans in every county in every state and the territories.  By cutting all LSC funding, the Trump Budget would harm America's most vulnerable: seniors victimized by consumer fraud scams, families facing foreclosure and eviction, women trying to escape domestic abuse, and veterans seeking promised benefits.  Last year alone, LSC grantees helped nearly 100,000 veterans and their family members nationwide.  Rather than address the enormous gap between the number of people who need legal services and the resources currently available to LSC to meet their needs, the Trump budget instead guts this critical program, which is particularly needed in rural communities where 20% of the Nation’s population resides in rural areas, but only 2% of lawyers serve these communities.”

Strips Funding from National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Program:

“After the Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, a bipartisan measure to require and fund the addition of qualifying mental health information into the background check system,” said Conyers.  “The Trump budget reduces funding for this effort. We must maintain our commitment to making sure this system is as comprehensive as possible to reduce the chances that guns are sold in error to people who are legally prohibited from possessing them.”

Harms Crime Prevention Efforts:

Conyers continued, “The Trump budget severely underfunds programs that help the formerly incarcerated get back on their feet. At a time when we must focus our efforts on programs that actually work to reduce crime, we must not back away from funding critical programs under the Second Chance Act that help prisoners successfully transition back to their communities and thereby reduce recidivism.” 

Americans Foot the Bill for Trump’s Border Wall:

“This budget funds a militarized police force which has the potential to expose Americans to greater racial profiling and additional interrogations at the border. With this budget, Americans will foot the bill for Trump’s un-American border wall,” Conyers concluded.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Trump Budget Fails To Make USA Safer, Undermines Access To Justice & Jeopardizes Millions Fleeing Violence, Famine & War

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today released the following statement on President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“President Trump’s budget blueprint starves essential government programs across the board.  Under the guise of reprioritizing federal spending in the name of advancing the “safety and security of the American people,” the Trump Budget will make Americans less safe, deny them access to justice, and fund discriminatory immigration policies at the expense of hardworking Americans who need vital federal services such as “meals on wheels,” public broadcasting and critical environmental protections. 

“The President’s shortsighted budget cuts threaten to undermine the Justice Department’s critical public safety efforts.  Cutting DOJ funding could very well jeopardize essential community-based justice programs such as the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) Program and the Violence against Women Act (VAWA) Program.            

“The Trump Budget also proposes to cut all funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a program that for more than 40 years, with bipartisan support, has provided civil legal representation of hundreds of thousands of Americans in every county in every state and the territories.  By eliminating all LSC funding, the Trump Budget would harm America's most vulnerable: families facing foreclosure and eviction, women struggling to escape domestic abuse, and veterans trying to obtain promised benefits.  More than 150 of the Nation’s largest law firms agree that funding LSC is essential so that it continue to provide civil legal services to the poor.       

“While slashing these critical federal programs, the Trump Budget would build a wall and deport millions of immigrants – increasing spending on immigration enforcement by $3 billion. It invests $2.6 billion in border technology, including the border wall;  requests an additional $1.5 billion to detain and deport our neighbors, our friends, and our family; and proposes an additional $314 million to hire more Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents to create the promised “deportation force.” 

“With this budget, Americans are being asked to foot the bill for Trump’s border wall through their tax dollars and every time they fly on an airplane. The Trump Budget proposes to raise the Passenger Security Fee to pay for TSA security operations, while simultaneously slashing funding for TSA security screenings. This budget reduces state and local Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants by $667 million and eliminates FEMA no cost match grants. In exchange for these cuts, Americans will be exposed to greater racial profiling and additional interrogations at the border.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Lawmakers to oppose spending bill over cyber language

A small group of lawmakers will vote against the sweeping omnibus spending deal because of the inclusion of a cybersecurity bill.

“I just think it’s very troubling,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told The Hill. “The bill should not be in the omnibus. It’s a surveillance bill more than a cyber bill.”

“I’m going to vote against the omnibus as a consequence,” she added.

The cyber bill would encourage businesses to share more data on hackers with the government.

“There’s plenty wrong with this omnibus, but there's nothing more egregious than the cyber language they secretly slipped in,” Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) told The Hill by email.

Proponents of the bill say the the decision to attach was necessary to avoid further delays on much-needed legislation. A broad swath of lawmakers, many industry groups and the White House support the measure as a critical first step to help the country better respond to cyberattacks.

“This is the most protective of privacy of any cyber bill that we have advanced and we need to keep in mind the overriding interest all Americans have in protecting their privacy from these innumerable hacks,” Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a cosponsor of his panel’s cyber bill, told The Hill. “Our privacy is being violated every day. And the longer we delay on measures like this, the more we subject ourselves to those kind of intrusions into our privacy.”

But privacy groups and civil liberties advocates have warned the bill will could shuttle more of Americans’ personal data to the National Security Agency (NSA).

Lofgren and Amash were two of the four lawmakers who signed a letter Tuesday expressing frustration at how lawmakers had merged three bills to create the final version, which was released overnight as part of the $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill.

Lawmakers have been working on the cyber language the Senate passed its Intelligence Committee-originated bill in October. The House passed its two complementary bills in April: one from that chamber's Intelligence panel and another from Homeland Security.

But rather than conduct a more formal conference between the two chambers, lawmakers relied on unofficial discussions to produce the compromise text, due to some disagreements between the House and Senate over the conference process and the unusual need to combine three bills.

Lofgren and Amash joined Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) on the letter that denounced this process.

“Neither negotiations — nor even bill text — have been made public,” they said. “We cannot cast such a consequential vote with no input.”

A spokesman for Polis said the tactic heavily contributed to the lawmaker’s decision to vote against the omnibus.

“There are several provisions in the bill that concern him, but the last-minute addition of the cybersecurity bill is one of the most serious,” said the representative in an email.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the other cosponsor of his committee’s bill, told The Hill that several senators had threatened to permanently stall an official conference.

“Then you have a dead process,” he said. “And you have cyberattacks occurring.”

“You’ve got to attach it to something,” said House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who cosponsored his panel’s bill. “We were not able to get a conference on the bill itself, so this is a vehicle. That’s how I see it.”

Schiff acknowledged that the process wasn’t perfect. But it was the best path under the circumstances, he said.

“In an ideal world we wouldn’t have omnibuses, but I think after three years of working to move this issue forward we were fortunate to get on the train that’s moving,” he told The Hill.

Late Wednesday, Lofgren sent a follow-up letter to her colleagues detailing objections to the actual text.

“What was intended to be a cybersecurity bill to facilitate the sharing of information between the private sector and government was instead drafted in such a way that it has effectively become a surveillance bill, and allows information shared by companies to be used by the government to prosecute unrelated crimes,” the letter reads.

Amash, Polis signed the letter, as did Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).

The bill's backers have aggressively pushed back against these claims, pointing to myriad privacy clauses and anti-surveillance language in the text.

But these protests are shared by a small and vocal contingent of privacy- and civil liberties-minded lawmakers on both the left and the right.

Whether the group unites under their cyber bill opposition to try to stall the omnibus is less clear.

“A number of members have talked to me about it,” Lofgren said. “They’re concerned about it, but they have to weigh the other elements of the [omnibus], which I understand.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, the upper chamber’s leading critic of its cyber bill, is a prime example.

The Oregon Democrat has vowed to fight or alter the cyber bill using every means possible. But as the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Wyden will be forced to consider his cyber opposition against numerous other provisions he may support.

Wyden’s office said the lawmaker had not yet decided how he would vote on the omnibus.

Amash encouraged his colleagues to stand with him.

“A vote for the omnibus is a vote to support unconstitutional surveillance on all Americans,” he said. “It's probably the worst anti-privacy vote in Congress since the Patriot Act.”

The bill’s backers don’t believe this cyber opposition is enough to derail the entire omnibus.

“I hear there are a lot of issues around the omnibus, but I have not heard that cyber is one of them,” Thompson said.

“I think there are much bigger fish to fry in the omnibus in terms of what people are concerned about,” Schiff agreed, citing controversial oil provisions.

Nunes thinks the cyber bill has given omnibus critics an easy out to explain their opposition.

“The appropriate question to ask people complaining about this is, ‘So let’s pull out cyber, you going to vote for the omnibus?’” he said.

“I think I know the answer.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

U.S. House Passes 3 Amendments By Rep. Conyers To Defense Spending Bill To Protect Civilians From Dangers Of Arming And Training Foreign Forces

WASHINGTON— Late yesterday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.”  During consideration of the legislation, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Congressman Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) offered bipartisan amendments to block the training of the Ukrainian neo-Naziparamilitary militia “Azov Battalion,” and to prevent the transfer of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles—otherwise known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS)—to Iraq or Ukraine.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“If there’s one simple lesson we can take away from US involvement in conflicts overseas, it’s this: Beware of unintended consequences.  As was made vividly clear with U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistance or the hyper-weaponization of conflicts can have destabilizing consequences and ultimately undercut our own national interests,” said Rep. John Conyers.  “I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions.”

Ukraine’s Azov Battalion is a 1,000-man volunteer militia of the Ukrainian National Guard that Foreign Policy Magazinehas characterized as “openly neo-Nazi,” and “fascist.”  Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who oversees Ukraine’s armed militias, announced that Azov troops would be among the first units to be trained by the Pentagon in Operation Fearless Guardian, prompting significant international concern.

Since their initial use on a battlefield in 1978, MANPAD attacks have resulted in nearly 1,000 civilian deaths.

Added Conyers, “Both U.S. and Israeli officials have feared that these weapons could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial jets.  As the boundaries are increasingly blurred between insurgents fighting the Syrian government and those fighting the Iraqi government, providing additional arms could further destabilize the Middle East.  The same can be said for Ukraine, where an anti-aircraft missile allegedly downed Flight MH17 last September, killing 298 civilians. The possibility that MANPADS—or any weapon—could fall into the hands of radical groups in Iraq, Syria, or Ukraine, would unquestionably increase the already-devastating human toll in both of these volatile regions.”

According to Reuters, The Azov battalion originated from a paramilitary national socialist group called "Patriot of Ukraine", which propagated slogans of white supremacy, racial purity, the need for authoritarian power and a centralized national economy. Azov’s controversial founder, Andriy Biletsky, organized the neo-Nazi group the Social-National Assembly (SNA) in 2008.

“The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites,” wrote The Telegraph.  Since Azov was enrolled as a regiment of Ukraine's National Guard in September and started receiving increased supplies of heavy arms, however, Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric, Reuters reported. According to the Washington Post, battalion members “could potentially strike pro-Russian targets on their own — or even turn on the [Ukrainian] government” if it pursues a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: GOP BUDGET PLAN IS DESTRUCTIVE AND DISINGENUOUS

WASHINGTON – Following his vote against the House GOP’s federal budget resolution, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) issued the following statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Congressional Republicans’ federal budget proposal is a decisive step in the wrong direction.  The budget plan seeks to reduce investments in retirement security, education, infrastructure, and healthcare while attempting to hide irresponsible increases in Pentagon spending through accounting gimmicks.  While this measure is a guiding framework for Congressional action—and not binding law—it nonetheless paints a disturbing picture of Republican priorities for the upcoming federal funding process.  I will continue to reject Republican efforts to cut funding for key national priorities and call on President Obama to veto any efforts to put struggling seniors, students, and families at risk.  

“At a time of rising insecurity for America’s retirees, the Republican budget resolution seeks to turn Medicare into—of all things—a voucher program.  Republicans are trying, in other words, to turn Medicare’s healthcare guarantee into mere coupon clippings for seniors.  Their proposal also undercuts struggling families and young Americans, attempting to turn Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Programs into limited “block grants” to states that can be diverted to other programs and priorities.   

“At a time when America’s students are struggling with unsustainable debt, the GOP budget proposal seeks to eliminate nearly $85 billion in Pell Grants, making higher education more expensive for students in need.

“At a time when families across the country are struggling to put nutritious food on the table, the GOP budget proposal also seeks to turn essential food security programs including the SNAP program into “block grants” that can be compromised or cut by states.  Just when 16 million previously-uninsured Americans finally receive quality healthcare through Obamacare, the GOP budget seeks to repeal the Affordable Care Act without offering recourse to people who need coverage.   

“The Republican budget seeks to protect the Pentagon from budget cuts through a disingenuous accounting maneuver:  shifting up to $187 billion over the next several years into a shadowy war spending account known as Overseas Contingency Operations Fund.  In other words, the GOP budget seeks to shift the burden of deficit reduction away from weapons-makers and well-funded Pentagon programs onto struggling seniors, students, and families. 

“There’s a better way.  As a proud co-author of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, I believe we must strengthen our safety net and invest in 21st-century infrastructure, manufacturing, education, and environmental protection.  We need investment—not austerity.” 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

A Progressive Answer to the GOP's Regressive Budget

By John Conyers, Jr.

Dean of teh U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr/

A federal budget is a statement about our society's values.

If you believe in this notion as I do, there's a conclusion we can't help but reach: The GOP's new House budget proposal makes some troubling assertions about what's right and wrong.

In a time of unprecedented retirement income insecurity and student debt, the GOP budget cuts funding for the elderly, the ill, and students in order to boost bloated Pentagon budgets, offer tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, and protect corporate welfare for multinational firms that ship American jobs overseas.

While this troubling budget plan will likely win approval in the GOP-led House of Representatives, the regressive proposals it contains have little chance of making it past President Obama's desk.

But we have a bigger task than blocking the conservatives' backward march. Our task is to present and implement our own positive progressive vision that elevates the interests of jobs, justice, and peace.

This week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) presented just such an actionable vision.

By strengthening the safety net and investing in 21st-century infrastructure, manufacturing, education, and environmental protection, the CPC's "People's Budget"will create 8.4 million new jobs and give low- and moderate-income Americans a much-needed raise.

The CPC budget focuses like a laser on achieving full employment. This is essential because, though the official headline unemployment statistics show the jobless rate at 5.5 percent, more than 20 million Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or unwillingly out of the labor force. Taking all these factors into account, the real unemployment rate is closer to 13 percent. In both rural and urban pockets of the country, including my hometown of Detroit, the rate is closer to 25 percent. The investments in the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget will boost employment while addressing the most pressing challenges of our time: repairing America's rapidly aging roads and bridges, upgrading our energy systems to address climate change and adapt to its impacts, keeping our communities safe, and preparing our young people to thrive as citizens and workers.

By restoring full employment, the People's Budget addresses the persistent problem of stagnant wages, ensuring that working people have the purchasing power needed to sustain balanced economic growth. The last time our country achieved full employment -- under the Clinton administration in the late 1990s -- workers across the country gained the power to bargain for higher wages, and working families' share of the nation's income rose precipitously.

It's important to note that the Progressive Caucus budget achieves all this without breaking the bank. By cutting excessive Pentagon spending, enacting fair marginal tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, equalizing the tax treatment of capital income and labor income, making the estate tax more progressive, abolishing inefficient corporate tax loopholes, putting a fee on too-big-to-fail banks, and enacting a tax on Wall Street transactions, our proposal expands safety net programs like Medicare while reducing the nation's deficits. The budget's tax proposals are sound ways to not only raise revenue but restore fairness in our economy. It's unconscionable that, in the 21st century, a major multinational firm like GE could pay no federal tax, or that a billionaire like Warren Buffett could enjoy a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary.

If we believe that budgets are "moral documents," then the dueling budgets released this week present a remarkable contrast in values. Having served in Congress for the past half-century, I can say with authority that the values that define this country are not "survival of the fittest" and "winner takes all."

The values our budget should reflect are the values that the Reverend Martin Luther King spoke of 50 years ago and that the People's Budget reflects today: jobs, justice, and peace.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS REINTRODUCES THE ONE-SENTENCE BILL TO CANCEL THE SEQUESTER

WASHINGTON– Today, Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) introduced the “Cancel the Sequester Act of 2015.”  This one-sentence bill would repeal the across-the-board-cuts that are scheduled to go into effect once again this fall. 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Six years after the onset of the financial crisis, there are still millions of Americans seeking full-time employment and a livable wage.  The misguided budget cuts known as ‘the Sequester’ would make life significantly harder for these hard-working people and the families they struggle to support,” said Conyers.  “These across-the-board budget cuts are unique among American public policies for a simple reason: They were purposefully designed to be a bad idea.  During the debt ceiling standoff of 2011, the Sequester was designed as a default option so revolting to both Democrats and Republicans that it would force the bipartisan “Super Committee” to form a workable budget plan.  While that committee failed at this objective, the American people have been left to pay the price.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Sequester, if fully implemented, would put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk—including many associated with small businesses.  Macroeconomic Advisers, an independent consulting firm, estimated that the first round of sequestration and the related budget battles of the 112^th and 113^th Congresses have cost the United States roughly $700 billion in economic activity.

“A new round of sequestration this fall would undermine educational quality, research output, and military readiness while leaving us with longer airport security lines, more untreated mental illnesses, more hunger, more homelessness, and fewer federal criminal prosecutions.  We have an obligation to act.  This legislation would repeal the section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that created these job-killing budget cuts.”  

Original Congressional co-sponsors of the Cancel the Sequester Act of 2015 include: Reps. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) , Gwen Moore (D-WI), James McGovern (D-MA), Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Mark Pocan (D-WI), and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: GOVERNMENT SPENDING DEAL IS A GIVEAWAY TO WALL STREET AND AN AFFRONT TO DEMOCRACY

WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) released the following statement in advance of the vote on the temporary government funding spending bill – also known as the “CRomnibus” - a combined Continuing Resolution and Omnibus spending package:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“America urgently needs investments in job-creation, rising wages, infrastructure upgrades, education, healthcare, and environmental protection.  Sadly, the government funding bill—known as the ‘CRomnibus’ —disinvests from these priorities while rolling back essential financial protections, weakening campaign finance laws, and flouting the will of voters. If this bill stands as it is now, I have no alternative but to oppose it.  

“The ‘CRomnibus’ includes a provision that allows Wall Street banks to engage in some of the same high-risk conduct that caused the 2008 financial crisis.  The Republicans’ refusal, under the bill, to fund the Department of Homeland Security will set the stage for another government shutdown while undermining the President’s efforts to set priorities for immigration enforcement.  Another last-minute provision added by the GOP would intensify the corrupting influence of big money in politics by increasing tenfold the limit on an individual’s maximum contribution to a national political party. 

“The ‘CRomnibus’ is about enriching Wall Street cronies, not prudently funding the government.  It is simply unbelievable that six years after taxpayers were forced to bailout Wall Street, this measure makes F.D.I.C. bailouts automatic.

“If Congressional Republicans wish to pass legislation to undo financial reform and flood politics with big money, they should have the courage to debate these measures in the light of day.  Instead, they have opted to surreptitiously insert them in the annual spending bill just as the nation approaches a government shutdown deadline.  I urge my colleagues to defeat the ‘CRomnibus’ and pass a funding measure that upholds Americans’ real priorities and respects the democratic process.”  

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Even the Rich Should Reject the Ryan Budget

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

By John Conyers, Jr.

It's no secret that the House Republican budget being considered this week would hurt the livelihoods of low-income Americans. Since winning control of the House in 2010, GOP leaders and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan have used the federal budget process to slash funding for education, nutrition, and job-training in order to pay for tax breaks for a fortunate few. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates, 69 percent of the cuts in the new Ryan budget come from programs for the poor.

But here's a surprise about the Ryan budget: its drastic cuts would be painful even for the nation's wealthiest one percent. Here's why:

Businesses need well-trained workers. Successful CEOs understand that America will never be able to compete with China and India on the basis of low-wages. Rather, our nation needs to compete on the basis of world-class skills and technical expertise. To do so, we must ensure access to infant nutrition, universal pre-school, well-funded public schools with reasonably-sized classes, after-school enrichment programs, and affordable colleges and technical schools. While President Obama's budget and the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget strongly prioritize these investments, the Ryan budget would cut child nutrition, demolish Head Start, reduce funding to Pell Grants, slash grants for teacher training, and end nearly all federal funding for arts, humanities, and libraries.

Investors need greater consumer demand. With inflation-adjusted wages at historic lows and still more than three applicants for every single job opening, too few Americans are able to afford homes or cars or even to eat meals out at restaurants. This shortage of consumer demand is stifling economic growth, hurting housing market recovery, and denying businesses the customers they need in order to make payroll and turn a profit. By shifting Medicaid and food assistance programs into block grants, cutting funding for low-income heating programs, and slashing federal pensions, the Ryan budget would further diminish individual Americans' purchasing power. This is one reason why the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the GOP budget would cost at least a million jobs in its first year and up to 3.3 million in its second year, while the Progressive Caucus budget would create an estimated 8.8 million jobs by 2017.

The wealthy need medical research and environmental protection, too.As The Huffington Post's Sam Stein has documented, budget cuts since the GOP takeover have devastated scientific and medical research efforts that are indispensable to the development of American products as well as the discovery of life-saving cures. These cuts affect rich and poor alike. Budget cuts have likewise undercut efforts to combat climate change and related issues of drought, ecosystem damage, and extreme weather--phenomena that are not only destroying lives and property but also projected to significantly reduce global economic growth. Because the world is at a crossroads in history, with drastic climate change all but certain absent equally drastic preventative measures, these cuts do little more than exchange present conveniences for future hardship. By making drastic cuts to scientific research, clean energy development, environmental protection, and emergency management, the Ryan budget would make all Americans -- rich and poor alike -- more vulnerable.

In the decades following the Second World War, Congress passed budgets that invested in full employment, a reliable safety net and great public institutions. From the Eisenhower highway system to Medicare to the space program and public research universities, these investments paid dividends to workers and businesses alike. Workers earned the wages needed to buy American goods and services, and, in turn, businesses had the confidence needed to keep investing and hiring. I am supporting the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Better Off Budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, and the House Democratic budget because they represent a return to this tradition of shared gains.

As the House votes on a budget plan this week, the choice is not between serving the rich or the poor. It's a choice between investing in broad-based prosperity and continuing a failed experiment of austerity.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why a progressive budget works

By John Conyers, Jr.

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Budgets are moral documents. In allocating government funds, the federal budget makes a definitive statement about our values and the kind of country we aspire to be.

In the decades following the Second World War, this statement was loud and clear: Congress invested in job-creation, a strong safety net and world-class public institutions. From the interstate highway system to Medicare to the Apollo Program, federal budgets facilitated full employment, rising living standards and unprecedented technological progress.

All this was good for business. Workers had the income needed to buy goods and services, which, in turn, gave employers the certainty needed to invest and hire more people. This shared prosperity paved the way not only for GDP growth but also for progress toward a more socially-inclusive society.

Contrast Congress’s postwar budgets with those of today. With nearly 30 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, Congress continues to make reckless cuts to education, infrastructure, science research, environmental protection, and the criminal justice system. These cuts cost jobs.

The consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers recently estimated that recent budget cuts and the government shutdown have cost the country up to $700 billion in economic activity and about two million jobs. In addition, these cuts have degraded our public institutions. A big decline in federal revenue sharing with states has made higher education unaffordable for millions of students at public 

universities and vastly worsened fiscal conditions in cities including Detroit.

While we tend to associate conservatism with tradition and progressivism with new thinking, sometimes the opposite is true. In 2014, the progressive vision for the federal budget aims to return to the shared gains and economic stability of the postwar era, while a conservative version aims for a brave new world of shrinking safety nets and reckless short-term profit maximization.

Great business leaders think long-term. That’s why the private sector should support a far-sighted federal budget that prioritizes job-creation through infrastructure upgrades and workforce training, investments scientific innovation and quality education from pre-K to post-secondary, stronger consumer demand through a fair minimum wage and reliable safety net, as well as action to address environmental risks from drought to rising sea levels.

Some conservatives in Congress might call this “big government.” It is more accurate to call it “smart capitalism.” When people are trained, working, earning a salary, and contributing to the tax base, there’s less need for government assistance, and there are higher levels of consumer demand and investment.

As a result, there’s less debt and more economic growth. It should come as no surprise that the 

Congressional Progressive Caucus’s new “Better Off Budget”—a proposal that’s estimated to create 8.8 million jobs by 2017—would also reduce the deficit by $4.08 trillion over the next 10 years.

The United States has a long history of making foresighted investments in its workforce as well as in education, innovation, and conservation. This month, as Congress votes on its budget plans for Fiscal Year 2015, I will urge my colleagues to uphold this proud tradition.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Votes Against Budget Deal, Calls for Congress to Immediately Pass Extension of Jobless Aid

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 332 to 94 to pass H.J. Res. 59, the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.” This two year budget agreement is the result of negotiations between Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Following his vote against the budget deal, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Unfortunately, I was unable to support this legislation as the ‘Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013’ does not address the sequester for fiscal years 2016-2018, and the deal reduces the cost of living adjustment for new service members in our armed forces. Worst of all, this legislation does not include an extension of Emergency Unemployment Compensation, that will expire for 1.3 million Americans this December 28^th, and for 1.9 million more individuals in the first half of 2014. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation is a lifeline for millions of hardworking Americans seeking work, and it is unthinkable that Congress would leave millions out in the cold in the middle of the holiday season. Congress should not leave until an extension is considered,” said Conyers.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©