Five Ways President Obama Changed My Life

Baratunde Thurston of Jack and Jill Politics recorded this video:

Stimulus Plan Likely To Do Little For Small Businesses

Lloyd Chapman, head of American Small Business League, was critical of the stimulus package in an interview with Tavis Smiley over the weekend. Chapman echoes some of the problems with the stimulus Bill that I mentioned back in January.

Listen Here (you may need to disable firewall temporarily if audio does not load)

“Free Trade” vs. “Protectionism” is a False Debate

Labor activist Jonathan Tasini over at the Working Life Blog makes a good point when he says:

[N]o one is against trade. Trade has taken place since the beginning of human history. The only question is what RULES we put in place to manage trade. The issue of so-called "free trade" and, by extension, how one views the power of corporate America to shape our economic lives is, from my little vantage point, THE deep, systemic change question on the economic vision side.

I have argued for a very long time that "free trade" is just a marketing phrase. It does not exist in the world today -- and perhaps never has. What we have are a very set of complex rules that are about one thing: seeking the lowest wage possible.

He adds:

So-called "free trade" lives in the same economic neighborhood as sub-prime mortgages, CEO greed, the attack against unions and the divide between rich and poor -- all of which point to the real challenge we must address: the collapse of wages for most Americans. Until we take that head on, we won't get out of the economic crisis we find ourselves mired in.

The issue of so-called "free trade" is precisely an area where we need to have a vigorous, consistent, unyielding "loyal opposition" to the Administration. We can't depend on the president to change the debate on trade because he is a captive of a system that can only see trade in the prism of the debate between two false marketing phrases: "protectionism" versus "free trade".

In another post, Tasini radically re-frames the argument on economic policy beyond the limitations of “free trade” versus “protectionism” to one that examines the relationship between wage growth and productivity. He says:

Basically, the basic bargain was roughly this -- if you worked hard and became more productive, you would see that sweat of the brow in your wages. And from the post-war era until the 1970s, that deal basically held -- as you can see from the lines that are basically close together until the 1970s. (The graphic in the link illustrates his point).

Then, the lines diverge--dramatically. You can see it yourself. If the lines had continued to track closely together as they did prior to the 1970s, the MINIMUM WAGE would be more than $19 an hour. THE MINIMUM WAGE!!!

So, in short: people had no money coming in their paychecks so they were forced to pay for their lives through credit -- either plastic or drawing down equity from their homes. There are lots of reasons that this happened -- greed, the attack against unions, de-regulation, dumb trade deals.

But, the point is: we will never fix the economic crisis, whether through short-term economic stimulus and certainly not through tax cuts, until paychecks are re-inflated. Dramatically.

Tasini argues for a radical way of re-framing the bailout and stimulus debate and designs a bailout plan for the working and middle class in this post.

What do you all think? I think Tasini is on to something. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, I think he is absolutely right on target when he says the “free trade” vs. “protectionism” debate is a false one between two empty and meaningless marketing phrases. We have to get beyond that type of thinking if we are to come up with creative and effective ways to cope with and come up with solutions to this economic crisis.

For all those GOP Hypocrites, I give you Rude Pundit

It has been making my blood pressure rise, and my eyes roll, watching these GOP lowlifes degrade the Stimulus package, all the while saying, ' sure we'll take the money'. Then there are the lunatics, whose states are collapsing around them, posturing that they're 'debating' about not taking the money.

I give you Rude Pundit:

2/19/2009
Shut the Fuck Up and Take the Money:

Really, Republican Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Sarah Palin of...well, you fuckin' know? Really? You're really thinking about rejecting some of the money coming to your states in the federal stimulus? Well, not really, since the law says your legislatures can take the money without your okay. So you can huff and puff and talk about "strings attached" or what-the-fuck-ever, but in the end, you know that you're gonna shut the fuck up and take the cash, bitches.

Of course, you won't admit why you find your state budgets going down the shitter. Because to do so would mean that Republicans would have to admit that their beloved federalism is a big fuckin' failure, another rank ideological stench emanating from the Reagan era. You put more and more control of projects in the individual states, you pile ungodly debt on top of tax cuts, you toss in a few unfunded mandates (see No Child Left [with a seat for their] Behind), and that piss sound you hear is trickle down, conservatives, except it's the costs that are trickling to the states, not any largesse. Until, you know, right now.

So, sure, Bobby Jindal, you exorcisin' great Republican hope, you go ahead and say you don't want the $308 million in highway construction funds or the half a billion or so in Medicaid money or the over $400 million for education in a state more notable for its official attempts to keep its students stupid (see creationism bills over the years). Which part are you gonna tell Washington to keep? The unemployment benefits? The tax credits?

You're fuckin' adorable. You go ahead and say it all you want. Say how you wouldn't have voted for the bill if you'd still been in Congress. And then, at some point, probably after you give your cute little response to Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Tuesday, with your state's budget shortfall on the fast track to $2 billion and cuts happening everywhere, you know you're gonna have to shut the fuck up and take the money. Same goes for all of the idiot Republicans.

And don't worry. No matter if it helps a little or a lot, no one will expect you to say, "Thanks." At this point, we all know what ungrateful, selfish dicks you are. Like what the quickly crumbling Governor Sanford said this morning. Being against the bill "doesn't preclude taking the money." The thought of that $8 billion not coming to his state? Well, no one's an atheist in a foxhole, right?

Ah, the sweet, plaintive, familiar sigh of Republican hypocrisy. It echoes from the domes of DC to the state houses around the nation.


// posted by Rude One @ 9:08 AM

Kit Bond and Other Republicans Are Being Slick

They are quietly playing both sides of the fence on the economic recovery legislation (when in reality they hope that the economy collapses because they see that as a path to return to power in 2010, 2012 and beyond). And by playing both sides, they are hoping that they can fool the public.... and sadly...they might succeed in doing it. Americans have a very short memory.

But this just shows how depraved the Republicans are.

Kit Bond has been traveling Missouri touting the creation of jobs from the Stimulus....basically taking credit for job creation that he had nothing to do with...since he voted against the legislation....twice. Wait a minute Mr. Bond... didn't you just slam the bill.... claiming that it wouldn't create jobs? Now you are taking credit for creating jobs from the stimulus in small town Missouri?

Unreal! Republicans are something else.

Interesting information about Japan's Recession

See here and here.

What Did We Get In The Stimulus Bill?

From Al Giordano over at The Field:

Stimulating!
Posted by Al Giordano - February 13, 2009 at 6:25 pm

The US House has approved the final House-Senate conference committee agreement on the Stimulus Bill by a vote of 246 to 183 and the Senate is voting on it now (where it will pass with at least 60 votes later on tonight).

That means that more than half-a-trillion ($500 billion) dollars will go to job creation and social programs, much of that through state governments. That includes:

$127 billion to health care

$101 billion to education

$63 billion in aid to the poor

$61 billion to green energy ($30 billion for improving the electric grid, $20 million in loan guarantees for alternative energy development, $6 billion for weatherizing state and federal buildings, $5 billion for weatherizing homes...)

$53 billion to roads, bridges and other infrastructure

$22 billion to development of technology

$18 billion to environmental clean-up and protection

...and about $60 billion more for direct cash subsidies to people and other miscellaneous programs.

It also includes $285 billion in "tax cuts" but a different kind of tax cut than the term has meant over the past eight years (aimed at people, not for corporations, and not for the five percent of wealthiest Americans).

Rest of article at link above.

The President did his job. Got a little messy, but he pulled it through.

Senate Passes The Economic Stimulus Bill

From DailyKos:

Senate Passes The Economic Stimulus Bill
by Barbara Morrill aka BarbinMD
Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 07:48:13 PM PST


Following the House of Representative's lead, the U.S. Senate has passed the $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, by a vote of 60 - 38.

While Senate Republicans weren't able to match their House brethren's perfect, browbeating effort, they did remain true to their family values by forcing Sherrod Brown to fly back from Ohio, where he was attending his mother's wake, to cast the crucial 60th and deciding vote. Comity ain't what it used to be.

President Obama is expected to sign the bill on Monday.

President Obama's Stimulus Town Hall in Indiana

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Folks, time to call your Congressman and Senator

From Micheline

Rikyrah,

Is it possible to do a post on the necessity for people to call their senators in support of President Obama's stimulus package. Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads are tying up the phones.

So, our favorite racist junkie radio host is telling his knuckledraggers to call Congress.

Well, YOU can call Congress too. And, you can send an email blast to everyone you know to call Congress.

The junkie gets $100 million to spew his hate, so he doesn't give a rat's ass if this country goes down the tubes. And, his audience....well, ignorance is ignorance.

So, everyone out here knows someone who is hurting. Someone who would be helped by this Stimulus package. It's part of that continued involvement that our President and First Lady discussed always on the campaign trail.

A phone call isn't that hard.

Here is the site for Congress. Just find your Representative up top to get their number.


Here is the site for the Senate. This is the link to the page where all the Senators and their phone numbers are listed.

If you can fax, do that too.

President Obama Tells Which Way Is Up

This is a clip of his address to the Democrats at their retreat.





The entire speech is HERE AT C-SPAN. (couldn't find an embed code, so I'm sending you to the site.)

Republicans Hope to Be Obstructionists Towards Obama

Let me get this straight... the Party that primarily brought the Country to economic ruin, now believes that we should follow their advice on bringing the Country back to financial health??? Talk about delusional. They want more tax cuts... but we did that for several years already under their watch... and it didn't work. And of course they are offering no real alternatives.

When will Obama face the fact that the Republicans don't care about helping the Country... and that they are mainly interested in seeing him and the Country fail? Their leader, Rush Limbaugh, basically stated so last week. And the fact that Obama is non-white just aggravates them even more. It's killing them. Therefore, there won't be any bipartisanship in Washington. They plan to obstruct everything proposed by Obama and the Democrats. Since most of the Republican members of the House of Representatives are in "safe seats", they will cater more to their Conservative base. Unfortunately, having tea or Cocktails at the White House once a week isn't going to change any Republican minds. It appears as if they will be forced to play to the racial fears & partisan feelings of their constituents at home (particularly in the South...where most of these folks are concentrated). This may end up being a good thing for Obama... particularly if Obama can turn the economy around within the next two years. It will help keep the Southern Party marginalized.

Something tells me that half of these RepubliKlans go to bed at night just praying that Obama fails... or worst... that something happens to him.

But I like Obama's approach to them... by taking the high road and reaching out, Obama will keep the GOP marginalized for quite some time... he will blunt arguments that Obama is a far left partisan or doesn't listen to their concerns.

I do agree with some Conservative economists who believe that the stimulus is not the best piece of legislation. There seems to be little in the "stimulus" bill for sustainable job creation....or job creation over a wide range of industries. Obama's economic advisers believe that increasing employment in the Construction and heavy equipment industries will somehow spread through the rest of the economy. I don't see how temporary infrastructure projects will help the retail clerk, the telecom worker, the Bank rep, the Sales rep, the Restaurant manager, the Real Estate agent, or customer service person who has lost a job. This bill has plenty of money.... spends a lot, but does not seem to wisely target the money to areas that would create the best return - creating jobs (sustainable jobs). Although it will help the economy...simply because it is so massive. And apparently there was not much Republican input.... could there have been more...probably... but then again, Obama has the support of the American electorate to move in a different direction of economic policy. Why should we go back to what failed under Bush? The Republicans are behaving as if there is fresh evidence that their fiscal policies actually work. They don't!

I hope Obama succeeds. The Republicans are gambling... hoping that he fails as President....and that the Country goes down the tubes too. That's how desperate they are to regain power... hoping for the downfall of their own Country. But if the stimulus plan works (and there is probably a 50-50 chance that it will help enough to cause the economy to at least turn around), the Republicans will have to live with their vote. Hopefully the Democrats won't let American voters forget how the Republicans voted....that they actively voted against improving the lives of Americans during a time of economic hardship. I hope Obama takes some of his campaign money and runs ads reminding people that every Republican in the House of Representatives voted against his bill. Because you know what the Republicans will do.... if the stimulus fails... they will distance themselves from it (the whole purpose for their vote)...but if it succeeds... they will claim that they were responsible for it succeeding...and they will steal the success from Obama by lying their asses off....it's the same trick that they always play around election time.

Meanwhile, while the Congress twiddles its thumbs... the economy continues to slide further into a hole.

Problems With Obama's Economic Recovery Plan

I see a few fundamental problems with Obama's $800 Billion economic stimulus plan as it is currently being presented. Today's economic situation has created an opportunity to establish new sustainable industries. However, the plan doesn't focus on providing incentives and seed capital for the creation of "Green" Companies.

There are three main reasons why this is important:

1. The Federal government doesn't have the capacity to create jobs like the private sector could. It's the private sector that will have to create the bulk of the 3 million new jobs over the next few years that Obama says he wants.

2. The infrastructure projects will probably have a very narrow impact in terms of job creation. It will be great for the road construction contractors, the concrete suppliers, folks who are in the construction trade, and the few businesses that will get a residual benefit. However, I don't see how this will help workers across the board who have either lost their jobs or who are in danger of losing their jobs. Most of the job loses have been across the spectrum... from finance/banking, to retail and manufacturing, to tech companies and airlines. In fact, one of the only healthy and insulated job sectors is in the Healthcare industry. There will always be a need for nurses, hospital staff... billing agents, pharmacists, etc. But other than that... workers are feeling the pinch across the whole spectrum of employment. So narrowly focusing on certain kinds of infrastructure improvements (which the Country does need) doesn't seem to make much sense to me. This probably won't be a benefit to most of the workers who have lost jobs over the past year or so... or to those who are about to lose their jobs.

Furthermore, it will take quite a long time for this kind of spending to trickle down through the rest of the economy, and even when it does, it will be so narrow that the impact may not be as fruitful as policymakers hope.

3. The benefits from this kind of spending will be temporary. Once roads and bridges are built or rehabbed and all the money is spent, the jobs created through temporary State and Federal contracting will have to be eliminated. There is no sustainability involved in the plan. Where will the jobs come from once the construction projects start or when they are completed?

Solution

As I have mentioned before in a suggestion to Change.org... The Obama Administration should create a quasi-government entity (like the FDIC, TVA, Corporation for Public Broadcasting...there are templates for this already), that would be responsible for allocating funding to help seed the creation and development of new industries to meet current and future challenges. This entity would provide grants and low interest or no interest guaranteed loans for start-up companies. This government entity would also help spur innovation by encouraging competition among existing and future companies, and encouraging research (including doing research of its own). Once this entity is in place, massive amounts of money could go towards establishing new sustainable jobs in new industries. Green jobs, jobs in technology, education, transportation, urban development and housing could all be created...and these would be sustainable jobs that would be around years after the initial funding dries up.

The current plan seems to focus too much on throwing massive amounts of money into a black hole, rather than investing the money and directing it to the areas of the economy that would create the biggest and most sustainable return on the investment over time. There would be more Federal and State tax revenues as a result of a more comprehensive and sustainable job creation plan, and there would be a much wider impact from the residual jobs that would be created (jobs that would be created in sectors that support the larger industries receiving the Tax money).

Without this, Obama's plan runs the risk of falling flat, while costing taxpayers more than a Trillion dollars... debt that the Country already cannot afford, but that would be even harder to pay back in the context of a failed jobs creation effort. These new jobs and new industries will not sprout up on their own. Banks simply don't want to loan money for corporate projects; and existing transportation, technology and energy companies aren't being pressured to innovate due to inadequate competition and the lack of new markets to sell their goods and services. Companies have no incentive to spend money on R&D, especially at a time when everyone else is pulling back on spending and watching every cent. They want to be certain that there will be a market (that would create a return for them almost immediately) before they invest tons of money on new projects. Therefore, the Federal government must intervene to act as sort of a seed factory and incubator for the creation and development of new industries. It must also encourage innovation and competition among existing companies by doing research of its own, by creating a market that companies will want to compete for (Federal Government contracts, retrofitting Federal buildings for energy efficiency, providing Fuel efficient autos, etc), and by supporting new entrants.... start-up companies that will be the companies of the future.

Much more should also be done to stabilize the Housing Market... where one of the main focuses should involve helping homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The Economy, Recession and Ordinary Folks

Check out The Boom Was a Bust For Ordinary People, by Barbara Ehrenreich from this Sunday's Washington Post:

For years now, that strange stimulus-crazed beast, the economy, has been going its own way, increasingly disconnected from the toils and troubles of ordinary Americans...

So thoroughly is the economy decoupled from ordinary experience that according to a CNN poll, 57 percent of Americans thought we were already in a recession a month ago. Economists may complain that this is only because the public is ignorant of the technical definition of a recession, which specifies at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. But most of the public employs the more colloquial definition of a recession, which is hard times. And -- far removed from whatever happens on Wall Street, the Nikkei, Dax, or the curiously named FTSE -- most Americans have been living in their own personal recession for years.

The economy, for example, has been expanding, at least until now, and growth is supposed to guarantee general well-being. As long as the gross domestic product grows, World Money Watch's Web site assures us, "so will business, jobs and personal income."

But hellooo, we've had brisk growth for the past few years, as the president has tirelessly reminded us, only without those promised increases in personal income, at least not for the poor and the middle class. According to a study just released by the Economic Policy Institute, real wages actually fell last year. Growth, some of the economists are conceding in perplexity, has been "decoupled" from widely shared prosperity....

Whether you like Ehrenreich or her politics or not, you can't deny that her diagnosis of our ailing economy and the insecure state of working and middle class people is right on target. While so-called experts are debating whether or not the U.S. is officially in a recession, many people haven't noticed a debate was ongoing because they are already living in a state of hard times.
Ehrenreich's prescription is government intervention:

Government intervention, whether short-term or long-term, needs to get to the heart of this problem by offering a hand to the poor and the unemployed. Until the House capitulated to Bush two weeks ago, Democrats seemed to be standing solidly behind a stimulus package that would include an increase in food-stamp allotments and an extension of unemployment benefits, both of which are screamingly obvious measures. Current unemployment benefits last just 26 weeks in most states and end up covering only a third of people who are laid off. Food stamps are in even shabbier shape, with an allotment amounting to about $1 per meal. Nothing could be more stimulating than putting money in the hands of those who will spend it quickly.

But you can't jump-start a car that lacks a working battery. We need less titillating talk about "stimulus" and more commitment to some fundamental repairs -- higher wages, a real safety net and a return to progressive taxation among them. The challenge isn't just to prop up stock prices but to rebuild an economy in which everyone shares the good times -- and no one is consigned to a permanent recession.

This is the point where Ehrenreich might lose some of people who, otherwise, would agree with everything else she says. (See comments section here). While some might agree that the country is experiencing hard times, they are fundamentally opposed to government intervention. Some commenters even go as far as to red-bait Ehrenreich with the boogaboo S-word--Socialism--in an attempt to discredit her and her powerful essay.

I say enough with ridiculous red-baiting. If you agree with Ehrenreich's diagnosis but fundamentally disagree with her prescription what would you offer as a solution?

Cross posted in An Ordinary Person.

Politics, Corporate Media, and the Economy

Click Image To Enlarge