Blog

Isaiah J. Poole

By Isaiah J. Poole
Executive editor of the blog site OurFuture.org

Most of the media this week ignored two significant mass defections from the Chamber of Commerce line that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans must be extended indefinitely, even though doing so will worsen the federal deficit and won’t help produce middle-class jobs. President Obama and and Democrats in Congress should take this as a sign to stand firm against a “compromise” that locks in what has already proved to be disastrous economic policy.

On Thursday a group calling itself “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength” set up an online petition calling on Congress and the White House to end the Bush tax breaks for people earning more than $1 million. Their statement is signed by  41 “loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more. We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.”

On Tuesday, a group comprised mainly of small-business owners, Business for Shared Prosperity, had gone even further, saying that Congress should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on families earning more than $250,000 a year. Their statement is significant because a key Republican talking point is that small businesses need the continued tax break as an incentive to hire new workers. Not true, this group’s statement says.

“Congress should not let Wall Street and big business CEOs hide behind small business to justify a budget-­busting $700 billion tax giveaway over the next decade that would be even more harmful for Main Street than it was the last decade. Instead, Congress should build on constructive action like the Small Business Jobs Act and the overdue infrastructure investment we need to create jobs and stay competitive in the global economy,” the statement says. (more…)

For the decade just ended on Dec. 31, 2009,  the U.S  total trade deficit with all nations totaled $6 trillion, by far the most in our history! Why is this figure important? Answer: it’s the best single measure of how well America is competing in its own domestic market, by far the largest and richest in the world. The huge, ever-growing trade debt says we’re losing badly in that competition. Every day, the United States must borrow $2 billion abroad to cover it. How did this happen? Who benefits and who is hurt by it? Most important, can it be stopped and turned around to our advantage? Who from business should take the lead with labor to get government action? Here are the blunt answers.

First, our trade deficits needn’t have happened at all!  America’s multi-national companies were the main culprits. Until the mid-1970’s, the United States maintained total annual balance of payments surpluses with the rest of the world. But with globalization growing, those companies urged very open U.S. trade policies to gain easier access  to other countries’ markets. They went too far in attacking existing trade policies that had helped domestic industries like textiles, steel, and autos. They claimed that free trade would work wonders for America! They stand by that claim despite our ravaged domestic industry and millions of unemployed. It’s time we all face the damage and correct it for the good of our country.

Most important, where does patriotism come into play? Who should take the lead to stop this national tragedy. Answer: The same multi-nationals that caused the problem! They have the power! They’ll benefit too under the right policies. The best known solution is based on a 2003 idea by Warren Buffett, one of the wisest business leaders. He said, “Our trade deficits are selling America out from under us.” We’ve got to stop it now! We must return to balanced trade with the rest of the world! He explained what happens to any nation that doesn’t earn as much as it spends in trade with other nations – it loses its freedom of action and becomes poor. That’s the fate that patriotic Americans cannot permit happening.

A bill to implement this idea was drafted in 2006, but got nowhere under President Bush and has not been taken up by President Obama due to opposition by  some “free trade” economic advisors. An estimated 5 million jobs would be created within 2 years and without any deficit spending, just by passing and instituting the needed legislation.

Where do we stand with U.S. multinationals on this proposal? There’s been no open dialog with them. Recent confidential discussions with one leading multi-national that also has big domestic U.S. operations were disappointing.  They like free trade policies and don’t see the domestic economy as their responsibility. For now, the blunt answer is “We strongly believe there’s a balanced trade policy that’s the answer for America, but we haven’t won the multi-nationals yet.”

Will a bold leader please stand up!

Kenneth N. Davis, Jr.
President, Economic Strategy Associates, Inc.
Stamford, CT
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce/International, IBM vice president and chief financial officer, and investment banker

Kenneth Davis

***

To submit a blog to Free Speech Zone, e-mail it to bstack@usw.org. Keep it to 250 words or fewer. You MUST include your full name, hometown, and state. You may attach a photograph of yourself. Please include a phone number. This WILL NOT be published. Posting any given blog is within the discretion of the USW.  No blog using foul language (this is a family site), false information (we don’t want to get sued), or unnecessary personal attacks (again, we don’t want to get sued) will be used. Wait a reasonable period of time, then blog again! This is a Free Speech Zone.

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

It’s an unending sequel. The election ends; Democrats crash; the circular firing squad opens up. Already conservative Democrats are urging the president to fire his advisors, trim his sails, “move to the center,” and spend less attention catering to his base and more trying to appeal to independent voters.

This is a staple of conservative Democratic rump groups from the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (that transmuted into Reagan neocons), the Democratic Leadership Council (that flirted with a third party after the 1994 debacle), and now the Third Way, esteemed advisors to the Blue Dogs that just lost half of their members in the election debacle.

The argument is old-doughnut stale. Progressives say Democrats were hurt because the base was discouraged and disengaged. Turnout among young voters was down dramatically (from 18 in 2008 to 11 in 2010), and they gave Democrats a lower percentage of their votes (56% down from 63%). [All data from a Campaign for America's Future-Democracy Corps poll by Greenberg Associates found here.]

Turnout among African Americans was down (from 13% in 2008 to 10%) and they too offered up a somewhat lower percentage of their vote. The rising American electorate (single women, minorities, and the young) that constituted 46% of the electorate in 2008 declined to about 40% in 2010, and again gave Democrats a lower percentage (60% compared to 67% in 2008.) The electorate that showed up in 2010 probably would have elected John McCain. Had the base been engaged, Democratic losses would have been far smaller. As it was, Latinos, roused by the right, helped staunch the tea party wave in the West. (more…)

Dave Johnson

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future

Holy Toledo! I downloaded the Pledge To America document. Before reading I skimmed through it and noticed the photos. You try it. Download it and look at the photos. It is clear just who is and who is not “American” in their eyes.

After looking at the pictures, read the thing. Like the pictures, it’s about some kind of white fantasy America. The rich won’t have to pay taxes, “other” spending will be cut — but not anything that might affect you or any programs you like (since nothing is specified) no matter who you are, people won’t need government assistance and certainly won’t get it, companies won’t need to be regulated, women won’t need an abortion even to save their life, the environment won’t need to be protected or cleaned up. Oh, and no one will need to sue corporations – because you won’t be able to anymore. And if people do need those things, well too bad.

The deficit they created with tax cuts will be cured by … tax cuts? The TARP bank bailout they left us with will be cured by … tax cuts? The jobs that never appeared after their tax cuts will be created by … tax cuts? The health care bill will be replaced by … tax cuts? Terrorists will be fought with … tax cuts?

RJ Eskow names it:  GOP’s “Pledge” To Rob The Middle Class: No Jobs, No Health Care, No Security, (more…)

Some special interests would have us believe that the Obama administration has failed in its efforts toward recovery from the recession.  Those whose actions may properly be said to have caused the recession are even trying to deny that there was a recession.

The recent report from the National Business Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), states that this recession, the longest one since WWII, and which began in December 2007, began recoverery in June 2009.

It also states that two previous post-war recessions, each lasting 16 months, occurred in 1973-75 (Nixon and Ford administrations) and 1981-82 (Reagan administration).

An analysis of the report by Catherine Rampell appears in the NYT. In this article, take particular note that one member of the committee is quoted as saying, ”…the lag between a turnaround in gross domestic product and a turnaround in the job market was even worse after the 2001 recession.”

In other words, there were two recessions during the Bush administration, one starting in 2001 and the second in 2007, and the job market recovered even more slowly after the 2001 recession than in the current recession.

While Republican politicians would have us believe that they are the experts on the economy, the fact that the three worst recessions since WWII occurred during Republican administrations cannot be denied and should not be ignored.  It would be interesting to hear those “experts” explain how the worst recessions in the last half century all occurred under Republican administrations.

We should be grateful to President Obama and his economic advisors for their role in lessening the effects of what could have been a much worse recession.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA

Leo Toribio

***

To submit a blog to Free Speech Zone, e-mail it to bstack@usw.org. Keep it to 250 words or fewer. You MUST include your full name, hometown, and state. You may attach a photograph of yourself. Please include a phone number. This WILL NOT be published. Posting any given blog is within the discretion of the USW.  No blog using foul language (this is a family site), false information (we don’t want to get sued), or unnecessary personal attacks (again, we don’t want to get sued) will be used. Wait a reasonable period of time, then blog again! This is a Free Speech Zone.

Bill Scher

By Bill Scher
Executive editor of LiberalOasis.com

We know the pathetic disaster response to Hurricane Katrina by the Bush administration was rooted in anti-government, pro-privatization conservative ideology. President Bush removed FEMA from the cabinet, repeatedly appointed FEMA chiefs with no disaster management experience, and privatized key functions.

Have conservatives learned anything from that experience? Apparently not.

The conservative movement’s intellectual leaders at The Heritage Foundation are attacking the Obama administration for … no, I’m not kidding … using FEMA too much.

Heritage’s Matt Meyer yesterday urged governors to “stiffen their spines and FEMA to get its finger off the declaration trigger.” He continued:

In the continuing (over)reaction to the failures of Hurricane Katrina five years ago, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) once again “leaned forward” in anticipation of a hurricane…

…Since his inauguration, President Barack Obama has issued 195 FEMA declarations despite the fact that not a single hurricane has hit the United States in that time span and only one minor earthquake has occurred. In less than two years, FEMA under President Obama has issued more declarations than the Eisenhower (106), Kennedy (52), Johnson (93), Ford (101), Carter (176), and H.W. Bush (174) Administrations and only slightly fewer than the Nixon (212) and Reagan (225) Administrations did throughout their entire presidencies…

…As we have long argued, this country needs to get FEMA out of the routine natural disaster business and reserve its capabilities for catastrophic events.

There’s a lot of nonsense there to break down. (more…)

Eric Lotke

By Eric Lotke
Research Director at the Campaign for America’s Future

Today’s new unemployment report contains no news, just decimal point changes. It tells us what we already know, that times are bad. The question is whether our great nation can rise to the challenge.

Unemployment remains unchanged at 9.5 percent, with 14.6 million people out of work. In July, we lost 202,000 jobs in the government sector as the census winds down, and we gained 71,000 jobs in the private sector. African American unemployment grew fractionally worse to 15.6 percent, and teenagers to 26.1 percent.

But the micro details don’t change the big picture. People are out of work and out of hope. Mortgages are underwater, savings are in the tank and fewer than half of grown-ups think their kids will be better off.

So what are we going to do about it? Our 200 year old democracy ended slavery and turned the Great Depression into the New Deal. Can we thrive in this century too?

We know what doesn’t work. Asset bubbles and trade deficits. Tax cuts and supply side economics. Shopping for cheap stuff made in China. (more…)

Robert Creamer

By Robert Creamer
Political organizer, strategist and author

President Obama has proposed to eliminate the massive deficit-busting Bush tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans — while maintaining tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. He is spot on.

The Bush tax breaks are set to expire at year’s end, so there is real pressure on Congress to act. Congress should maintain the cuts for individuals earning $200,000 or less, and families earning $250,000 or less. And it should restore the Clinton-era tax rates to the very rich.

It is the right thing to do economically, politically and morally.

First the economics. When it comes to creating jobs, the last people who need more money in their hands are the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich — and returning them to Clinton-era levels — would be a “job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession.” Let’s recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990′s, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years — the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero. The Republican position amounts to nothing more than baseless pandering to the greed of their many wealthy donors.

To create more jobs, our economy needs more economic demand. We need people who are willing to go out and buy products and services. Our economic problem is not that we lack enough people who will go out and work to create the products and services we need to have better lives. Our problem is that there is not enough demand to entice businesses to increase their work forces or buy new plants and equipment. (more…)

I get a lot of anti-Obama stuff these days. My response is as follows, to all of them:

I am a progressive, not a Democrat, but CERTAINLY not a Republican. My biggest problem with Obama is that he tries to pander to the right too much. 

At the end of the day, on his worst day, Obama is exponentially better for this country than George Bush was. I’ll go even further – since 1980, this country has been headed down the wrong path at breakneck speed. Worker productivity has consistently gone up, while wages have gone down. Reagan’s trickle down economic policy, moderated only slightly by Bill Clinton, has crippled our economy. While it has been very good for the very rich (about the top 0.1%), it has been a nightmare for the middle class, which has been decimated to the point that there aren’t many of us left.

I just wish that all of these naysayers, many of whom are suffering from the avalanche started by Reagan, could see that we are in the mess we’re in because of the Republicans, albeit with the complicity of the Democrats. While Democrats are less hostile to the middle class, they are still beholden to the multi-national corporations to the extent that they can give little more than lip service to the problem that they at least admit exists. 

Having said the above, why is anybody surprised that Obama hasn’t turned the Titanic around? If anybody, Democrats included, thought that ANYBODY could turn around the disaster that has been foisted upon America for the last 30 years in less than a year, they were kidding themselves. 

I just shudder to think how bad it would be if Obama had not been elected. Worse, I tremble at the thought that the electorate might consider the likes of Sarah Palin to replace him!  

Steve Walls
Vardaman, Miss. and Nashville, Tenn.

***

To submit a blog to Free Speech Zone, e-mail it to bstack@usw.org. Keep it to 250 words or fewer. You MUST include your full name, hometown, and state. You may attach a photograph of yourself. Please include a phone number. This WILL NOT be published. Posting any given blog is within the discretion of the USW.  No blog using foul language (this is a family site), false information (we don’t want to get sued), or unnecessary personal attacks (again, we don’t want to get sued) will be used. Wait a reasonable period of time, then blog again! This is a Free Speech Zone. 

Peter Morici

Peter Morici
Professor, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland

Analysts expect the Commerce Department to report today that the deficit on international trade in goods and services was $39 billion in May, down slightly from the $40.3 billion in April because of lower oil prices.

Non-oil and petroleum imports are rising faster than exports, and the overall trade deficit will increase sharply when oil prices rebound, threatening the economic recovery.

President Obama has cautioned Americans about the dangers of another boom financed by excessive borrowing; but unless the Administration implements policies to reverse the huge trade deficits on oil and with China, the nation risks economic stagnation or depression.

The trade deficit rose dramatically during the Bush expansion and was $66.4 billion in July 2008. This depressed demand for U.S.-made goods and services, causing layoffs in manufacturing and supporting service industries, even as finance, housing, retailing, and other industries grew more important. (more…)