Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington. Show all posts

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Why Is Washington Obsessing About the Deficit and Not Jobs and Wages?


Watch: ‘SNL’ Honors Connecticut School Shooting Victims

How Republicans Would Benefit From John Kerry Secretary of State Nomination

GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns

The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook


Reports * NEW! *
By Robert Reich * NEW! * The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook
By Bill Blum * NEW! * Dear God! When Will It Stop?
By Marian Wright Edelman  * NEW! * Questions I Ask Myself About the Connecticut School Shooting
By Juan Cole
Ear to the Ground * NEW! * How Republicans Would Benefit From John Kerry Secretary of State Nomination Red States Surrender Health Care Oversight to Federal Government Insurance Industry Is Taking Climate Change Seriously Weaker Social Networks a Cause of Black Unemployment, Study Finds Dream of a Global Climate Deal Is Over, Experts Say U.N. Conference Produces No Internet Treaty
A/V Booth * NEW! * Watch: ‘SNL’ Honors Connecticut School Shooting Victims * NEW! * GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More Mike Huckabee Blames Connecticut Shooting on Separation of Church and State
Arts & Culture Hollywood’s Raid on Convention
By Richard Schickel Understanding Economics in Plain English
By Thomas Hedges, Center for Study of Responsive Law Regulate Dissent in Hong Kong, Jackie Chan Says
Fighting Manifest Destiny
By Jonathan Yardley
Digs The Questions Education Reformers Aren’t Asking
Dig led by Mike Rose

Gore Vidal: His Life and Legacy
Dig led by Truthdig Staff


Truthdig Bazaaradvertisement

--> One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate
One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British MandateBy Tom Segev

advertisement

--> Factory Girls
Factory GirlsBy Leslie T. Chang
$17.16

advertisement

-->
Women’s Tank Top$18

more items
 Reports Email this item Email    Print this item Print   Share this item... Share

Tweet Posted on Dec 16, 2012

By Robert Reich

This post originally ran on Robert Reich’s Web page, www.robertreich.org.

It was the centerpiece of the President’s reelection campaign. Every time Republicans complained about trillion-dollar deficits, he and other Democrats would talk jobs.

That’s what Americans care about — jobs with good wages.

And that’s part of why Obama and the Democrats were victorious on Election Day.

It seems forever ago, but it’s worth recalling that President Obama won reelection by more than 4 million votes, a million more than George W. Bush when he was reelected — and an electoral college majority of 332 to Romney’s 206, again larger than Bush’s electoral majority over Kerry in 2004 (286 to 251). The Democratic caucus in the Senate now has 55 members (up from 53 before Election Day), and Republicans have 8 fewer seats in the House than before.

Advertisement

So why, exactly, is Washington back to obsessing about budget deficits? Why is almost all the news coming out of our nation’s capital about whether the Democrats or Republicans have the best plan to reduce the budget deficit? Why are we back to showdowns over the deficit?

It makes no sense economically. Cutting the budget deficit — either by reducing public spending or raising taxes on the middle class, or both — will slow the economy and increase unemployment. That’s why the so-called “fiscal cliff” is so dangerous.

In the foreseeable future our government has to spend more rather than less. Businesses won’t hire because they still don’t have enough consumers to justify additional hires.  So to get jobs back at the rate and scale needed, government has to be the spender of last resort.

The job situation is still horrendous. Twenty-three million Americans can’t find full-time work. Less than 59 percent of the working-age population of the nation is employed, almost the lowest percent in three decades. 4.8 million Americans have been out of work for more than six months. The 40-week average spell of joblessness is almost three times the post-1948 average.

And even those who have jobs are finding it harder to make ends meet. Jobs created since the trough of the recession pay less than jobs that were lost. The median wage is 8 percent below what it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation. And wages are still heading downward: Average hourly earnings in October were 3.1 percent below what they were in October, 2010.

This isn’t just an ongoing tragedy for 23 million Americans and their families. It also robs all of us of what these people would produce if they were fully employed – roughly $2 trillion worth of goods and services that won’t be created this year.

These folks would also be paying taxes — and they’d require less unemployment insurance, fewer food stamps, and less public assistance than they do now. According to estimates by Bloomberg News, the total cost of those lost tax revenues and the extra social spending is more than twice what taxpayers will shell out this year to pay interest on the federal debt.

In other words, unemployment is hugely expensive. Debt, by contrast, is relatively cheap. The yield on the 10-year Treasury is only about 1.7 percent. Creditors worldwide are willing to lend America money that won’t be repaid for a decade at the lowest rate in living memory. 

So why are we debating how to cut the deficit when we should be debating how best to use the cheap money we can borrow from the rest of the world to put more Americans to work?

Because too many Democrats inside and outside the Beltway have ingested the deficit cool-aide that the “serious people” on Wall Street have serving for two decades.

And the President has been all too willing to legitimize their deficit obsession by freezing federal salaries, appointing a deficit commission, and, now that the election is over, going back to deficit-speak.

A month after the election Obama was on Bloomberg Television saying business leaders need “a deal on long-term deficit reduction” before they’ll increase hiring.

That’s just not true. Before they’ll increase hiring they need customers.


Robert B. Reich, chancellor’s professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective Cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including the best-sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest, “Beyond Outrage,” is now out in paperback. He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Beyond Outrage Expanded Edition: What has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy, and how to fix it


TAGS: barack obama congress democrats election 2012 employment fiscal cliff fiscal cliff deal jobs republicans wages



Related EntriesHow Republicans Would Benefit From John Kerry Secretary of State Nomination How Republicans Would Benefit From John Kerry Secretary of State NominationTruthdigger of the Week: Dean Baker Truthdigger of the Week: Dean Baker‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and MoreUnderstanding Economics in Plain English Understanding Economics in Plain English SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.NewsletterGet Truthdig in your inbox


Follow Truthdig

Newsletter Sign-upNewsletter

Become a Fan of Truthdig on Facebook Become a Fan

Follow Truthdig on Twitter Follow Us

Subscribe to Truthdig RSS Feeds Subscribe

     Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
       #donation_div {display:none;}.popup {background:#FFF; border:1px solid #333; padding:1px;}.popup-header {height:65px; padding: 30px 40px 10px 50px;}.popup-header h2 {margin:0; padding:0; font-size:18px; float:left;}.popup-header .close-link {float:right; font-size:11px;}.popup-body {padding: 20px 70px 20px 50px;}a {color: #990000;}LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Close

Give the gift of independent journalism.

Support Truthdig by making a donation of at least $25 in someone's name, and we'll send him or her a signed letter of appreciation from our publisher.

With your support, we've been able to pay writers such as Chris Hedges, Col. Ann Wright, Mr. Fish and Nomi Prins.

We've sent reporters around the world, from Afghanistan to Cairo to Cuba.

Thanks to you, our mission to find and publish a range of insightful opinion and analysis from a progressive point of view continues.

Support Truthdig

HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+ Google+
FeedList A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2012 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. Web site development by Hop Studiosfree hit countersQuantcast 

View the Original article

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Washington Post: Keystone XL Rejection Has ‘Little Rational Basis’

More on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Washington Post editorializes:

“President Obama’s refusal so far to authorize Keystone XL has little rational basis. … Attracting foreign investment in projects that will create U.S. jobs requires predictable regulatory procedures. The way to encourage the efficient extraction and delivery of the oil that the United States will require for decades is to make clear that government won’t use the issue as a political football.”

The editorial makes a couple of other points:

Opponents of Canadian oil sands (and the Keystone XL) are mistaken to believe that stopping the pipeline will keep 170 billion barrels of oil in the ground – because Canada has other means to get the oil to market, as well as other markets willing to buy it.Political skirmishing in Washington has been detrimental to overall progress on the project.

Meanwhile, POLITICO has this guest opinion piece by Karl Rove, pointing to the administration’s Keystone XL rejection as a prime example of a self-inflicted inability to create jobs:

“Exhibit A is the Keystone XL pipeline. It would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands and North Dakota’s prolific Bakken field to Gulf Coast refineries, factories and chemical plants. This would have created tens of thousands of private-sector jobs and reduced U.S. dependence on [imports]. … No matter. Extreme environmentalists opposed this vital infrastructure project. Rather than offend them, President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline’s construction.”

The two pieces help underscore the point that there are no good reasons to hold up the Keystone XL project, and that the administration is squandering a great opportunity to create jobs and help strengthen U.S. energy security. As the Post says, the president’s refusal to approve this shovel-ready project makes little rational sense.

An all-of-the-above energy approach must include oil and natural gas because it is our primary energy source now and into the future. The Keystone XL pipeline would be an integral part of such a strategy, which could see all of our liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada by 2024.


View the original article here