Go Home

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (546)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (916)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Last week, Laura Tyson laid out what everyone knows is needed to get the economy properly on track: a second stimulus package:

The conventional wisdom about the stimulus package is wrong: it has not failed. It is working as intended. Its spending increases and tax cuts have boosted demand and added about three million more jobs than the economy otherwise would have. Without it, the unemployment rate would be about 11.5 percent. Because about 36 percent of the money remains to be spent, more jobs will be created — about 500,000 by the end of the year.

But by next year, the stimulus will end, and the flip from fiscal support to fiscal contraction could shave one to two percentage points off the growth rate at a time when the unemployment rate is still well above 9 percent. Under these circumstances, the economic case for additional government spending and tax relief is compelling. Sadly, polls indicate that the political case is not.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO says the same thing. And he's far from alone. Everyone with a bare understanding of Keynesian economics knows we need a second stimulus -- and real leadership would make it happen.

Unfortunately, that's one thing we won't find with the Obama White House:

"There have been a lot of reports and rumors on different options being considered -- many of which are incorrect," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

"The options under consideration build on measures the president has previously proposed, and we are not considering a second stimulus package. The president and his team are discussing several options, as they have been for months, and no final decisions have been made," she said.

Great, that's just swell. As Susie observes, these kinds of half-assed measures are only going to ensure continued unemployment and economic malaise -- which also means there's going to be a lot of Democratic seats lost this November unless someone begins taking bold action now to reassure voters that jobs really are their highest priority.

Already, the DCCC seems to be treating this as a kind of eventuality. But it doesn't have to be that way.

This is about defending progressive policies because we know they work. Just because President Obama isn't willing to expend any political capital to make a difference in the coming elections doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit still.

Indeed, there is hope -- in boldness. Every progressive Democrat needs to read Drew Westen's analysis of the situation and take heart -- and heed:

The question today is whether Democrats can channel the populist anger we are seeing around the country this late in the game. The answer is that we'd better try. Having recently tested messages on economics and jobs, including how to talk about deficits and taxes -- widely assumed to be Democrats' Achilles Heel, particularly now -- there is little question that if Democrats and progressives from center to left simply say what they believe in ways that are evocative, values-driven, and speak to people's worries and anger, many stand a good chance of surviving November, particularly when their opponents have nothing to say other than warmed-over rhetoric about cutting taxes to millionaires and multinationals and fiscal restraint except where it cuts into profits of their campaign contributors. Even the most evocative boilerplate conservative messages fall flat against honest messages that speak to the need to get Americans working again. And on issue after issue, no message is more resonant right now than one that sides with working and middle class Americans and small business owners against special interests, big business, and their lobbyists.

....

On every one of these issues, a strong populist message trounces anything the other side can say. But Democrats need to play offense. They need to take up-or-down votes on bill after bill, including those they expect the other side to block, knowing that every one of those votes has the leverage of a campaign ad behind it. They need to change the narrative from what sounds to the average American like a whiny and impotent one -- "the Republicans won't let us do it" -- to a narrative of strength in numbers shared with their constituents. And they need to make every election a choice between two well-articulated approaches to governance -- and to offer their articulation of both sides' positions and values.

That leads to a final point. What Democrats have needed to offer the American people is a clear narrative about what and who led our country to the mess in which we find ourselves today and a clear vision of what and who will lead us out. That narrative would have laid a roadmap for our elected officials and voters alike, rather than making each legislative issue a seemingly discrete turn onto a dirt road. That narrative might have included -- and should include today -- some key elements: that if the economy is tumbling, it's the role of leadership and government to stop the free-fall; that if Wall Street is gambling with our financial security, our homes, and our jobs, true leaders do not sit back helplessly and wax eloquent about the free market, they take away the dice; that if the private sector can't create jobs for people who want to work, then we'll put Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools; that if Big Oil is preventing us from competing with China's wind and solar energy programs, then we'll eliminate the tax breaks that lead to dysfunctional investments in 19th century fuels and have a public-private partnership with companies that will create the clean, safe fuels of the 21st century and the millions of good American jobs that will follow.

There are smart and powerful progressives in Congress who can champion this kind of stimulus package. Yes, they face an uphill battle, thanks to the Fox News/right-wing propaganda machine. But they face that anyway. Better to turn and face the fight than just timidly give in and surrender. Too much is at stake.

Share This Post

Link To This Post


48 Comments
moraltrumpslegal's picture
fastfeat's picture

The 'Thugs are laughing all the way to the bank the next election.


"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."

---Southwest Airlines

My sentiments exactly for either one.

Nangleator's picture

Don't worry, I'm sure our bold president will have the gumption to veto the upcoming bills to repeal Social Security, every last bit of assistance to the poor, destroy the EPA, Department of Education and many of the Amendments. He'll have the balls to veto... actually, nothing.

Out of his sexual lust for acceptance by his enemies, he wouldn't veto a bill to nuke all American cities.

eroded47095's picture

that Progressives keep putting on his desk.


I'm a lot like Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes: Why?

NoBuddy's picture

If the Dems want to win, they ought to support the Ron Paul/Barney Frank proposal to reduce overseas military bases in a big way. It ought to be the centerpiece of the fall campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-fran...

The one thing about overseas spending is, it creates a Keynesian effect on the overseas economy. We need to be spending that money domestically.

Karen's picture

We have progressives in Congress, just not enough of them who are in a position to effect any real change.

I'm starting to believe we need a kind of "out" campaign. We need to get progressives out of the closet. All across the country. In the most conservative, teabagger, small towns. You know, "real" America. There are progressives all over this country, demoralized and disillusioned. We need to reach them. We need to make it okay for people to come out in their communities all over the country and admit that they are progressive. We need to make them realize it, and we need to make them proud of it. Maybe then, we can begin to have a bottom-up movement to change the country. Maybe then we can actually infiltrate the party that used to represent us.

But the Democratic Party as it is is not going to do anything but be less worse than the Republicans. Not the president and not Congress.

(No, I'm not saying to stay home on election day, or that the Democrats are the same as the Republicans, or that it won't matter who's elected. I'm just done with the people who run the party.)


Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?

freequark's picture

Unless we're willing to hold Democratic politicians accountable by voting them out of office, then clearly Democratic leaders have no incentive whatsover to listen to progressives. My message is: either put up or shut up. If the rightward drift of the Democrats is intolerable to you, then use your vote to do something about it. If not, then stop complaining.

Karen's picture

freequark:

Your postscript undercuts your message[.] Unless we're willing to hold Democratic politicians accountable by voting them out of office, then clearly Democratic leaders have no incentive whatsover to listen to progressives.

I think that's a perfectly fair retort to my words. My response is as follows:

No matter how bad the Democratic Party is right now, the Republicans can only make things worse. Infinitely worse. At this particular point in time, I do believe it is important enough to prevent a Republican resurgence to vote in the manner that best preserves the Democratic majority. I have voted for third party candidates or progressive opponents of Blue Dogs in primaries, but in the general election, have opted for the lesser of the evils. The greater of the evils is so evil it is imperative that it be thwarted.

But that's not enough of an answer to your words, for that is the very behavior the Democratic Party counts on, and indeed, as you note, part of the problem. In and of itself, it does not provide any incentive for the party to begin to listen to people left of the increasingly rightward-drifting center. In the long term, it provides the opposite incentive.

So, I continue: My postscript was designed to stave off the continued assault from the president's supporters that his detractors are uniformly unrealistic, left-wing wackaloons who expect miracles and are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Were I writing an essay instead of an off-the-cuff blog post, I would have used it as an introduction instead of a postscript disclaimer.

Ultimately, preventing a Republican is simply not enough. If we stop there, the world will proceed exactly as you describe. We need long-term, bottom-up, progressive (or liberal, as ysbaddaden suggests) movement in this country. It's how the conservatives radical theocratic right took over the Republicans, and we have to be willing to do the same. It will take decades.

There are only a few months until the next putrid election in this country. We'll stage no progressive takeover at this point. I'll vote in the most practical and pragmatic way I can in the district I live in. (At the moment, it's in a very blue part of Oregon, so I can't really affect Congress much anyway. In the past, I have indeed found the Democrat "representing" me so unacceptable that I have voted differently.)

To the extent that you might believe that I should let the Republicans take over in order to show the Democrats that they don't automatically get votes, I hear you. I just think the Republicans are so disgusting that preventing their majority is important enough in the short term to vote for the particular Democrats running in my particular area this time.

My message is: either put up or shut up. If the rightward drift of the Democrats is intolerable to you, then use your vote to do something about it. If not, then stop complaining.

But that's just it. Voting isn't all there is to it. Oh, how I wish it were. Voting in this system is always a tactical decision for those of us on the left.

I would say this: Use your vote wisely, and do more than vote.


Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

I prefer calling myself liberal.

Then we have to organize the raw material.

Because it's the nature of politics to look for mandates before sweeping changes.

But mandates even became a joke, when boosh claimed to have one after a sqeaker of an election, where the outcome is still in doubt.

Without mandates they think issue positions have no strength, and strive for incrementalism, or "tinkering" as some would have it.

And besides which mandates sounds homoerotic.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Karen's picture

Remember when Reagan said he wanted to make "liberal" a dirty word?

Consider that he succeeded. No, not just that he forced the word out of the lexicon, and got liberals to start using the term progressive. And not just that the likes of FUX News and Rash Limbo capitalize on it.

No, consider that Reagan's strategy actually reached the hearts and minds of . . . liberals.

I think there are so many people living in so many parts of this country who are liberal (or progressive, whatever your choice of labels), and who are ashamed of it. They're in a closet similar to closeted gay people and closeted atheists.

Despite the continued polls that show most people in this country support a progressive platform, progressives aren't represented in proportion to those numbers. Nowhere near. There are myriad reasons for the disconnect, but one could very well be that liberals are now in the closet. In their communities, they are literally afraid to say who they are. Because of the constant drumbeat of the right wing noise machine and all its propaganda, people just can't come out of this closet in their communities.

I think the 50 State Strategy began to reach these forgotten people, but it didn't bring them out of the closet. The voting booth is just another section of the closet, where they might exercise their conscience if they can get passed their own shame. The internet, of course, can be accessed from the closet too.

Thus my idea for an "out" campaign. It's an idea I'm working on. Will likely flush it out later. For now, just food for thought.

:)


Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

On the DMN blogsite they're ridiculing the president's plans for infrastructure saying we should use prison labor.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

thx11380's picture

Bahaha....of course Obama announced today 50billion for infrastructure along with a permanent Infrastructure bank.

But don't let that stop you from whining seeing as how that's what you have obviously decided to do today.

freequark's picture

This announcement proves that Obama and his people are totally out of touch with reality. We're too heavily dependent on oil as it is, and they're idea is to build more friggin' highways. Clearly the infastructure in this country needs to be rebuilt around mass transit and in-town living, not superhighways and suburbia.

thx11380's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Part of mass transportation is buses,

And buses use highways too,

As do hybrid cars.

Here in Dallas buses don't even run on regular petrol, but liquid nitrogen gas.

I'm sure other forms can be found as well.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

Do you mean liquid petroleum gas, or LPG as it is called.

Nitrogen is incombustible.


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

freequark's picture

We need to rebuild cities using the pedestrian-friendly cities of Europe as our guide. Most states will simply use highway money to widen roads and develop more suburbs. They won't use it to build streetcar lines or sidewalks. In fact, that's precisely what happened when Clinton passed a big infrastructure bill.

uglywolf's picture

Liquid Natural Gas


Be as you wish to seem

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

That's what I meant to say.

I've been low energy for several days.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

all hail the hypno toad's picture
Karyn's picture

need infrastructure for that, no?

thx11380's picture

You know if you so called progressives put in half the energy to get progressives elected as you do pissing and moaning that the prez (with a conservative congress) is not progressive enough. You might actually get the US moving in a more progressive direction.

But no, just like you have done for decades, you sit out midterms and often prez elections then yo u wonder why the country is not moving in a progressive direction.

The cognitive dissonance in that is astounding!

Rich H's picture

Progressives vote every election, that is their nature. That's what progessive means - you know, "change." And you don't get change if you don't do anything about it - so quit raging on progressives. If you want to look at fault, please look within. It's those who go with the flow, think we're doing all we can, accept the minimum, that are causing the problem.

Your constant whining, complaining and finger pointing are giving me a headache. And it's hasn't stopped since you began posting.

Are you even old enough to know what we've done for decades - or are you just reading a script?

**oh, forget it, time to put you on the ignore list.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Already been on mine for some time...

He probably wasn't even old enough to vote in 2000, maybe not even 2004.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Rich H's picture

part I enjoy reading the banter much more than I actually comment. But this morning, man, it was just something else.

Hope your having a good holiday weekend. I had two days off and worked half a day today - not too bad.

upchuck's picture

Talk to your grandparents. Learn how to garden, can your own food, make your own furniture, and sew your own clothes. I'm sure they will enjoy the company and you would be surprised just how easy it is to make yourself more self-sufficient and less dependent upon Corporate America.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Problem with gardening is what about condo and apartment dwellers.

And for homeowners I wouldn't be surprised if some HOA have rules against that.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

MountainMan23's picture

David Neiwert: There are smart and powerful progressives in Congress the House who can champion this kind of stimulus package. Yes, they face an uphill battle, thanks to the Fox News/right-wing propaganda machine and the impotent Senate, not to mention the sellouts in the WhiteHouse.

Sorry David, regardless what the Progressives in the House do, there's no way they can invigorate the impotent Senate or awaken the SellOuts in the White House.

Corporate America Rules.


When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?

Not soon enough!

readerOfTeaLeaves's picture

The GOP has no real economic ideas that can deal with the issue of 'public goods', which is infrastructure.

They do not understand the structural, fundamental economic shifts we are undergoing in an era of resource scarcity. **All** their economic ideas focus on extracting from public lands, water rights, minerals, and other resources. As long as there was enough land, minerals, and fresh water to easily extract private wealth, the GOP messaging worked.

Beyond 'privatizing' the planet, the GOP has no grasp of current economic realities, which will profoundly rely on the ability of governments to create infrastructure, and build civil societies. At this point, the GOP economic ideas are downright dangerous, but the fact remains that to a lot of people who are scared the GOP offers what's 'familiar', even though it sucks and is going to tank us in the future.

The Dems have to be bold.
If they are weenies, their losses are guaranteed.

Boldness is their only hope.

A lot is at stake.

Peter G's picture

He certainly doesn't have any banked with the left or the right even if one restricts that spectrum to just the internal breadth of opinion within the Democratic party. Yep the union membership has taken their strike vote and is backing their leadership 50 per cent. That's a recipe for success isn't it?


Hasa Diga Eebowai

thx11380's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
Geronimo.'s picture

Audit the Fed. And then End it. Andrew Jackson fought it. Abraham Lincoln had to bypass it. JFK was working around it. Kill the foreign and privately owned Central Bank. Bring the power to issue and coin our currency interest free back under the U.S. Treasury.


"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Excelsior's picture

Already, the DCCC seems to be treating this as a kind of eventuality.

Are you sure you don't mean "a kind of inevitability"? Because "eventuality" just implies a possible outcome, but a certain one.


There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits

Mugsy's picture

This is infuriating because the "Stimulus Packages" they suggest are too small to jumpstart a $12 TRILLION DOLLAR ECONOMY.

It's like trying to get a freight train moving with a little push.

And when the first push fails, they suggest a second tiny push, which will accomplish ONE thing and one thing only... to give Republicans ammunition to claim "the Stimulus doesn't work", and it is foolish to "keep throwing 'your' money away." :(

Do it right once, or don't do it at all!

Sign my Green Jobs petition.


* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.

surfjac's picture

Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"

NoBuddy's picture

The economic argument is there, but the political argument is also succinct. Winning elections is marketing, and the winning sales pitch is fiscal restraint like it was in 1938. That's why I think the Democrats should endorse the low hanging fruit that the Ron Paul/Barney Frank overseas base closing proposal represents, with $1 trillion in savings over 10 years. They have got to start getting specific.

All I see for ads in my neck of the woods is the Republican and the Democrat trying to represent themselves as the lesser of two evils. Entirely negative ads. The Democrat and Republican are neck and neck in the polls. I think that whoever endorses that overseas base proposal wins, if either of them do it.

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

To Hell with Keynes!

Repeal Capitalism!


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Isn't your slogan at odds with itself?

Or was that meant to be a statement of irony?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

Ha!

For me to know and you to…


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

The point is: we need the moral imperative of Social Libertarians, as we call them, or the Anarchists, as the Europeans call them, but they can never organize to accomplish their objectives.

That may be called irony, though actually, it is as one would expect.

My little phrase is meant to illustrate that fact.


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Peter G's picture

as there are anarchists. Splitters!!!


Hasa Diga Eebowai

Abbybwood's picture

Comrade!!

Ha!

BTW....Here's a memo to David Neiwert:

Don't count on any so-called "Progressives" in Congress doing ANYTHING that is progressive.


"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn

It would be most appropriate for the elected members of both houses to take up this issue. We forget too often that the President cannot spend a single penny of the nations money. He can only sign or not sign the legislation being sent to him from congress. He can support or not support efforts to get such legislation passed, but in the end, the initiative MUST come from the congress itself. This is why we need more progressives in congress rather than fewer. We need to impress this point on all of those who want to blame the President for the current situation; it is specifically those running during this mid-term race that are the most important for getting our country back onto, or off of, the right (left?) track.

Shell5960's picture

Poor Greta! It seems she went REALLY right-wing about the same time her plastic surgery was botched. Isn't that the same with most Republicans? They are in pain, and lash out. Too bad their mommies didn't teach them about grace under pressure and that everyone has pain, but you need to deal with it in a healthier manner.

tweakerbelle's picture

what you need to do is the following:

0. Abandon the Empire. Bring ALL troops home. Cut the military budget 50% every year until it is the size per capita of China or the EU. If some cockamaimie country decides to invade its neighbour - fine. Let 'em. It's NOT your problem. You only have to worry about being invaded by Mexico or Canada, neither of whom are in any position to do so.

1. Dismantle the Fed and force the gov't to be responsible for the money supply.

2. Nationalise the largest banks and most insolvent banks (like, most of them, if not all)

3. Simply hire people into Federal jobs to get the work done that needs doing - building the America of the 21st century. That means:
a. electrifying the entire railroad system
b. building massive wind and solar energy systems
c. building massive public transport systems in the cities

That is what you have to do. Don't like it? Fine. Watch your nation disintegrate into a hellhole of regional warlords. Because if you don't fix it, and fix it now, power abhors a vacuum, and who's ever biggest and meanest and has the most guns will simply take over.


It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin

Comments are closed on this entry