Showing posts with label Economic stimulus bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic stimulus bill. Show all posts

Thursday, December 3, 2020

Republicans Brutally Imposes Corporate Bailouts For the 1% In Response to Proposed Stimulus Legislation for the Working Class During the Covid-19 Crisis As National Rightwing Protects the Wealthy At the Expense of the 99%

https://truthout.org/.../as-covid-spikes-the-gop-pushes.../

News
Economy & Labor
As COVID Spikes, the GOP Pushes Bans on Suing Negligent Businesses
by Billy Corriher
Facing South
December 3, 2020 
Truthout
PHOTO: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell removes his face mask as he leads fellow Republican senators into a news conference in the Mike Mansfield Room at the U.S. Capitol on December 1, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

As COVID Spikes, the GOP Pushes Bans on Suing Negligent Businesses 
Officials estimate that 1 million people in Florida are infected with COVID-19 in the wake of the 2020 Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Meanwhile, state legislators are meeting with business lobbyists at a conference, which includes a golf tournament at the Orlando Ritz-Carlton, to discuss legislation that could prohibit consumers from suing businesses that negligently exposed them to COVID-19.
One of the sponsors of the event is Publix. The Florida-based, employee-owned chain of grocery stores throughout the Southeast is facing a lawsuit filed by the family of Gerardo Gutierrez, who worked behind a deli counter at the company’s Miami Beach store. The lawsuit alleges that Gutierrez, who was 70 years old, asked to wear a mask at work when the pandemic began, but the company wouldn’t let him. He contracted COVID-19 from a coworker and died in April.
Publix then changed its policy to allow masks and gloves. A report in April by the Tampa Bay Times described the company’s slow response to the pandemic compared to other grocery store chains. A spokesperson told the paper that Publix has been “keenly focused on intensive, ongoing protective measures in all our stores.” The Gutierrez family’s lawsuit said the company “chose to protect sales over the health and well-being of its employees and customers.”
With the lawsuit pending, Publix is co-sponsoring this week’s Associated Industries of Florida conference with lobbyists and legislators, all Republicans except for newly-elected Democratic Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, former mayor of Parkland. Lawmakers will discuss their priorities for the 2021 legislative session.
Republican legislative leaders have discussed plans to introduce a bill next year to limit lawsuits over COVID-19 exposure. Senate President Wilton Simpson, for example, suggested that legislators consider legal immunity for companies that follow CDC guidelines. House Speaker Chris Sprowls said their intent is to ensure people “don’t get blindsided by a frivolous lawsuit, while making sure that if somebody is doing the wrong thing, that they’re still held accountable.”
Simpson said the bill shouldn’t include “a blanket statement that no one would have any liability associated with COVID.” He also rejected a proposal from the RESET Task Force, an alliance of industry groups, to grant blanket immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits for “essential businesses” like grocery stores, which stayed open when others shut down in the early months of the pandemic.
The head of Florida’s Chamber of Commerce argued legal immunity is necessary because Florida has the “fifth worst legal climate in the United States.” He was presumably referring to a biannual survey of corporate lawyers and executives conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, which spends millions of dollars lobbying for legislation to limit lawsuits by injured workers and consumers.
In an editorial opposing immunity, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel argued that “campaign contributions and high-power lobbying leave [the legislature] perpetually predisposed to make life easier for employers and harder for workers.”
Although Simpson said he “cannot imagine that we are going to let people off the hook for negligence,” the immunity laws passed by Southern states all prohibit COVID-19 lawsuits based on negligence, the normal legal standard, while allowing lawsuits for gross negligence, intentional harm, or another higher standard.
The enacted bills are temporary, with the expiration tied to the governor’s declaration of a public health emergency. But the emergency shows no signs of abating in Southern states, where many hospitals are overflowing with COVID-19 patients. Thousands of meatpacking workers in the rural South have also contracted the virus.
If Florida passes an immunity bill, it would join states around the country that have passed bills that keep people who get COVID-19 from suing their health care providers, “essential businesses,” or government entities.
Governors and legislators from both parties have signed on to bills that prohibit lawsuits against negligent businesses or health care providers. As Facing South reported, the Republican-led North Carolina legislature unanimously passed a COVID-19 relief bill in May that included legal immunity for essential businesses. The legislature, with just 13 Democrats voting no, then broadened immunity from COVID-19 suits to cover any individual, corporation, or other “legal entity.”
Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper signed both bills into law. And in Louisiana, Democratic governor John Bel Edwards signed a bill that immunized restaurants and other businesses from lawsuits. Republican governors in Alabama, Arkansas, and other Southern states have issued executive orders giving certain businesses immunity. And many of them have called on Congress to pass a federal immunity bill.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other Republicans have been insisting that any further COVID-19 stimulus bill, which could include more stimulus checks and aid for desperate state and local governments, also include legal immunity.
McConnell’s proposal would override every state’s laws for holding businesses accountable for injuries to their workers or customers. Nearly every personal injury lawsuit in the U.S., even many cases filed in federal court, are now governed by state law. That’s how it has worked since America’s founding. But the Republican-led U.S. Senate wants to change that to keep businesses from getting sued when people contract COVID-19.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have generally opposed immunity. Pelosi recently said that she doesn’t support McConnell’s proposal but thinks “there is a balance that can be struck.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, said legal immunity would allow corporations to “expose their workers to COVID without repercussions.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Billy Corriher is a senior researcher with Facing South who specializes in judicial selection, voting rights and the courts in North Carolina.
PHOTO:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell removes his face mask as he leads fellow Republican senators into a news conference in the Mike Mansfield Room at the U.S. Capitol on December 1, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
As COVID Spikes, the GOP Pushes Bans on Suing Negligent Businesses









NOTE:  This post can also now be found here at the Panopticon Review On Facebook page.

Wednesday, December 2, 2020

All,

WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF BEING COMPLETELY FUCKED OVER BY A DEADLY COMBINATION OF COWARDLY DEMOCRATIC "CENTRISTS" AND RUTHLESSLY DEMAGOGIC REPUBLICAN RIGHTWINGERS BANDING TOGETHER TO GIVE US MERE CRUMBS AND A VICIOUS SUSTAINED ASSAULT ON OUR VERY HUMANITY

BEWARE.

BECAUSE THE WORST IS YET TO COME AND AT THIS RATE IT WILL BE HERE VERY SOON. IF THE PANDEMIC DOESN'T KILL US CONGRESS WILL

EITHER WAY IT'S MASS MURDER BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR IT...

IF COLLECTIVELY WE DON'T DEMAND MUCH MORE OF WHAT WE NEED AND DESERVE WE WILL GET NOTHING IN RETURN BUT THESE CRIMINALLY RICH ASSHOLES'S CONTEMPT AND VIOLENT INDIFFERENCE.

DON'T SIMPLY LAMENT YOUR SO-CALLED "FATE"

FIGHT BACK!!!

Kofi

https://www.nytimes.com/…/…/politics/pardon-white-house.html

A bipartisan group of centrist senators announced yesterday morning that they were working on a $908 billion compromise stimulus bill, but within a few hours Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, said he was working up his own substantially smaller proposal with Republican leaders in the White House and the House. Since May, McConnell has refused to allow a Senate vote on the $3 trillion stimulus bill passed by the Democratically controlled House.

The compromise framework, spearheaded by Senators Joe Manchin and Susan Collins, would restore federal unemployment benefits that lapsed over the summer, but at $300 a week instead of $600. It would also provide $160 billion for state, local and tribal governments.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, defended his decision to cut short lending programs set up under stimulus legislation passed this year, a move Democrats have said will sabotage the economy under Biden. Mnuchin said yesterday that the economy had “regained 58 percent of the lost jobs” and was recovering more quickly than expected.

https://www.nytimes.com/…/econo…/biden-economy-stimulus.html

Biden and His Economic Team Urge Quick Action on Stimulus as Risks Mount

The president-elect introduced key nominees in Delaware, while lawmakers exchanged new proposals with prospects for a deal still dim.

by Jim Tankersley, Alan Rappeport, Jeanna Smialek, Emily Cochrane and Luke Broadwater
December 1, 2020
New York Times

PHOTO: President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. acknowledged that any stimulus agreement would necessarily fall far short of the trillions of dollars that Democratic leaders have insisted on for months.Credit...Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Tuesday introduced the economic team he will rely on to help rebuild the U.S. economy at a perilous moment, with coronavirus cases soaring, the Federal Reserve chair warning of challenging months ahead and lawmakers in Congress still struggling to reach agreement on a rescue package.

Mr. Biden, speaking in Delaware, called on Congress to pass a substantial relief package to help keep businesses, households and local governments afloat while his Treasury secretary nominee, Janet L. Yellen, called the damage done so far “an American tragedy” that could lead to long-term devastation if not quickly corrected.

“Right now, the full Congress should come together and pass a robust package for relief to address these urgent needs,” Mr. Biden said.

But he acknowledged that any stimulus agreement would necessarily fall far short of the trillions of dollars that Democratic leaders have insisted on for months, saying that “any package passed in a lame-duck session is lucky to be at best just a start.”

Mr. Biden’s nominees made it clear that they were thinking expansively about how to revive the U.S. economy and looking beyond just restoring lost jobs and livelihoods to finding ways to widen economic wealth, broaden opportunities and repair safety net programs.

“This is a moment of urgency and opportunity unlike anything we’ve faced in modern times,” said Cecilia Rouse, Mr. Biden’s nominee to lead the Council of Economic Advisers. “The urgency of ending a devastating crisis. And the opportunity to build a better economy in its wake — an economy that works for everyone, brings fulfilling job opportunities and leaves no one to fall through the cracks.”

But those goals, which were at the center of Mr. Biden’s campaign, are likely to run into obstacles in Congress, where Republicans, who spent the past four years on a spending spree, have resurrected their concerns about the federal deficit. They have cited it as a reason to forgo the kind of large stimulus package that Mr. Biden and other top Democrats have said is needed.

The political divisions were on display Tuesday, as a bipartisan group of centrist senators announced in the morning that they were working on a $908 billion compromise stimulus package. By the afternoon, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, announced that he had been discussing his own proposal with Trump administration officials and Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader.

That package would be hundreds of billions of dollars smaller than the bipartisan plan — and thus a nonstarter with Democrats. But Mr. McConnell seemed to suggest that President Trump would not sign a more expansive bill, reminding Republicans in a private conference call and reporters during a news conference that a presidential signature is needed.

The continued likelihood of congressional gridlock before Inauguration Day threatens to saddle Mr. Biden’s economic team with dim prospects come Jan. 21, when it will confront an economy that has seen a slowdown in hiring growth, manufacturing activity and other key measures in recent weeks. Millions of Americans are set to lose unemployment assistance at year’s end. Others could face eviction and foreclosure as government moratoriums expire.

“The pace of improvement has moderated,” the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, told the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, saying the rise in virus cases was “concerning and could prove challenging in the next few months.”

“The risk of overdoing it is less than the risk of underdoing it,” Mr. Powell said.

Administration officials have shown little sign of worry about recent economic developments, insisting the recovery is on track while Mr. Trump continues his legal quest to overturn his re-election defeat at the polls.
ImageTreasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday.Credit...Al Drago for The New York Times

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, appearing alongside Mr. Powell, downplayed the broader risks facing the economy and blamed economic shutdowns in some states for slowing progress. While he called for targeted relief for sectors that have been hit hardest by the pandemic, like restaurants and airlines, he said the economy had recovered faster than many had expected and that the economy had “regained 58 percent of the lost jobs.”

RELATED: Paul Krugman: A deeper look at what’s on the mind of Paul Krugman, a world-class economist and opinion columnist.

He defended his decision to end several of the Fed’s emergency lending programs on Dec. 31. He has also requested that the central bank return the Treasury funds supporting those programs. Democrats said the moves amounted to economic sabotage.

“Either you’re purposefully trying to stop President-elect Biden and Janet Yellen from getting to work for the people we all serve, or you’re so delusional that you think because the stock market is back up, everything is fine,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. “Either way, it’s malpractice.”

Mr. Powell, who told lawmakers that the Fed would have preferred to keep those lending programs going while acknowledging that it was Mr. Mnuchin’s place to decide, painted a more dire picture of the economic outlook. He pointed to continued uncertainty around the speed of a vaccine rollout, the reality that millions remain out of work and the fact that small businesses could fail in the winter months.

“We do have a long way to go,” Mr. Powell said. “We’ll use our tools until the danger is well and truly past, and it may require help from other parts of government as well, including Congress.”

Republicans insist that the economy is recovering and that the United States does not need to borrow more money for another big relief package, while Democrats insist that a large jolt of stimulus is necessary and that now is not the time to worry about deficits.,

“There’s a reason states and localities have to have a balanced budget but we’re allowed to have a deficit to deal with crises and emergencies as we have in the past,” Mr. Biden said. “We have to keep vital public services running, have to give aid to local and state governments to make sure they can have law enforcement officers, firefighters and educators as we did in 2009.”

After months of deadlock on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of senators tried to move things forward with the $908 billion compromise stimulus proposal, funded in part by repurposing the money that Mr. Mnuchin clawed back from the Fed lending programs.

The proposal, spearheaded by two centrists — Senators Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine — and a handful of senators from both parties, has not been publicly endorsed by either Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California or Mr. McConnell.

Intended as a stopgap measure to last until March, it would restore federal unemployment benefits that lapsed over the summer, but at half the rate, providing $300 a week for 18 weeks, and does not include another round of checks for every American. The measure would provide $160 billion to help state, local and tribal governments facing fiscal ruin — a fraction of what Democrats had sought. Also included was $288 billion to help small businesses, restaurants and theaters, and a short-term federal liability shield from coronavirus-related lawsuits.

In contrast, the framework circulated on Capitol Hill by top Republicans does not include funds for state and local governments and curtails a short restoration of federal unemployment benefits even further.

“The advantage of our compromise bill is it has bipartisan, bicameral support,” Ms. Collins said. “I want a bill that can become law.”

The bipartisan plan is an attempt to find a middle ground between the dueling stimulus proposals that Democrats and Republicans have haggled over for months. Its cost is less than half of what Democratic leaders had pushed for in the weeks leading up to the election but nearly double the latest proposal from Republican leaders.

PHOTO: A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday unveiled a $908 billion compromise stimulus proposal on Capitol Hill.Credit...Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

It includes most of the main ingredients that Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have called critical for a deal, a possible sign that it could form a basis for a compromise that Mr. Biden could get behind.

Asked about the plan by reporters after his event with his economic team, Mr. Biden replied: “I just heard about it. I’ll take a look at it when I get back.”

The fresh attempt at a bipartisan compromise came as Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Mnuchin held their first phone discussion since late October, when they had a flurry of pre-election conversations that failed to culminate in a deal. Ms. Pelosi said she and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, had sent a new proposal of their own to Republican leaders on Monday.

John Lettieri, the president of the Economic Innovation Group think tank in Washington, which has pushed for more small-business aid, said the bipartisan plan “seems close to being the sweet spot” for a possible compromise — if one is possible.

Some Senate Republicans on Tuesday reiterated opposition to any deal that sends money to support state and local government budgets, with Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana challenging Mr. Powell at the hearing about whether states are really in such bad straits and suggesting the money would be used to shore up shaky pension funds.

“I’ve always said, I think it’s an area that’s worth looking,” Mr. Powell said, noting that states are among the largest employers in the economy and that they provide critical services.

Mr. Biden’s appointees all sounded an urgent tone as the incoming administration faces the prospect of a double-dip recession.

His nominees, all of whom must win Senate confirmation, talked about the pain of the pandemic recession, noting that it was falling hardest on traditionally marginalized Americans and widening the divide between the rich and the poor.

Ms. Yellen, a former Fed chair and an academic labor economist, said she had gone into economics “because I was concerned about the toll of unemployment on people, families and communities.” She warned that inaction in the face of the current economic crisis “will produce a self-reinforcing downturn causing yet more devastation.”

Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Jim Tankersley covers economic and tax policy. Over more than a decade covering politics and economics in Washington, he has written extensively about the stagnation of the American middle class and the decline of economic opportunity. @jimtankersley

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters in the era of President Trump. He previously worked for The Financial Times and The Economist. @arappeport

Jeanna Smialek writes about the Federal Reserve and the economy. She previously covered economics at Bloomberg News, where she also wrote feature stories for Businessweek magazine. @jeannasmialek

Emily Cochrane is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. She was raised in Miami and graduated from the University of Florida. @ESCochrane

Luke Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of investigative articles at the Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 2, 2020, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Biden Urges a ‘Robust’ Stimulus as Risks Mount. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper

PHOTO: President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. acknowledged that any stimulus agreement would necessarily fall far short of the trillions of dollars that Democratic leaders have insisted on for months.Credit...Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York Times

nytimes.com
 
NOTE:  This post can also now be found here at the Panopticon Review On Facebook page.







Sunday, July 1, 2012

Law Professor Roberto Unger's Critique of President Obama and the Public Policy Failures of the Democratic Party Neoliberal Elite

"BEYOND OBAMA" BY ROBERTO UNGER
"BEYOND STIMULUS" by DR. ROBERTO UNGER:

All,

As a fellow independent leftist who also strongly objects to and opposes Obama's endless political opportunism and glaringly obvious ideological and social policy weaknesses vis-a-vis both the Republican and Tea Party right, as well as his evasive tepid incrementalism masquerading as a generally substantive alternative to the oppressive domination of Wall Street, multinational corporations, and openly rightwing policies, programs, and positions in the areas of labor, women's rights, and massive racial and class disparities (not to mention major and increasingly worsening structural inequalities in employment, income, housing, healthcare, and education) I agree emphatically with every single thing that Professor Unger says here EXCEPT his monumentally irresponsible, oxymoronic, absurd and untenable position that the 2012 presidential election should be won by Mitt Romney(!). That would be a far greater political and economic catastrophe than the re-election of the President in both the short and long term at this point and anyone who doesn't see and understand that fundamental FACT is not simply 'wrong' but DELUSIONAL...

Having said that however we should also not delude ourselves into thinking that President Obama is remotely 'progressive' or even a dedicated liberal. The truth is that we are currently trapped in a profound political and economic dilemma. On that score Unger is 100% correct. Because like the Democratic Party generally, Obama is nothing but a self serving political moderate and neoliberal hack AT BEST and thus should not be perceived as a politician who's primarily concerned with fighting for any truly significant or large scale economic and social justice and democracy in either our political economy specifically or civil society in general.

As always: NOTHING IMPORTANT AND LASTING IS GOING TO PROGRESSIVELY CHANGE IN THIS SOCIETY UNTIL WE COLLECTIVELY DEMAND IT AS CITIZENS WHO THROUGH SUSTAINED AND ORGANIZED MASS DEMOCRATIC ACTION SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDE THE FUNDAMENTAL ALTERNATIVES THAT WE SAY WE SEEK AND NEED.

Until such time as we get really serious and actually do the grassroots organizing work we desperately need to do to transform our lives we will all simply remain dependent, complicit, servile, and exploited "prisoners of the American Dream" as the renowned social activist and political theorist Mike Davis so aptly put it back in the 1980s. No matter what we must all be willing and able to "face reality" (as CLR James used to say) in politics and life and this election (and its dire consequences "one way or the other") should not be dismissed or evaded. We all got a LOT of work to do-- to say the least!-- and it's only just begun...(and I'm talking about far more than just the election here)...

Kofi


Roberto Unger, Obama's Former Harvard Law School Professor, Says The President 'Must Be Defeated'

by Bonnie Kavousi
June 17, 2012
The Huffington Post

One of President Barack Obama's former professors appears to have turned against him, according to a recent YouTube video.

"President Obama must be defeated in the coming election," Roberto Unger, a longtime professor at Harvard Law School who taught Obama, said in a video posted on May 22. "He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States."

Unger said that Obama must lose the election in order for "the voice of democratic prophecy to speak once again in American life."

He acknowledged that if a Republican wins the presidency, "there will be a cost ... in judicial and administrative appointments." But he said that "the risk of military adventurism" would be no worse under a Republican than under Obama, and that "the Democratic Party proposes no new direction."

"Give the bond markets what they want, bail out the reckless so long as they are also rich, use fiscal and monetary stimulus to make up for the absence of any consequential broadening of economic and educational opportunity, sweeten the pill of disempowerment with a touch of tax fairness, even though the effect of any such tax reform is sure to be modest," he said. "This is less a project than it is an abdication."

The professor went on to list his complaints:


  • "His policy is financial confidence and food stamps."
  • "He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices."
  • "He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money."
  • "He has disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice."
  • "He has reduced justice to charity."
  • "He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunity to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight."
"He has evoked a politics of handholding, but no one changes the world without a struggle."

Unger also criticized the nation's current economic policies in a recent YouTube video called "Beyond Stimulus."



Friday, November 5, 2010

Telling the Whole Truth About the U.S. Economy--and What Needs To Be Done About It: Paul Krugman Speaks

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

All,

Paul Krugman is one of the very few individuals in this country writing about politics and economics today who consistently and relentlessly tells the straight-up unadorned truth about exactly what is happening and why with real insight, clarity, depth, intelligence, courage and, yes, FOCUS. He also never fails to spell out precisely what a sound, practical alternative should be in his critiques. In this rancid climate I consider his tireless outstanding work to be positively intellectually and politically heroic. If only Obama had chosen this man as his major economic advisor instead of those corrupt Wall Street cronies and financial insider hacks Timothy Geithner and Laurence Summers (who took his crass opportunist ass back to Har-vard last month). But to choose someone like Krugman for his cabinet would have required the President to be a genuine progressive (or at least a real liberal) in the first place...Now it's too late. The thorough beatdown that the Republican and Tea Party right administered just two days ago absolutely ensures that NOTHING will be done on the legislative front for at least the next two years. Barack and the Democratic Party have seriously blown a major opportunity over the past two years to transform the direction of the country when the President and the DP controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. It's a major failure of political nerve and vision that can't possibly be papered over by merely claiming that the inheritance of the Bushwhacker's huge mess wouldn't allow for any other viable alternative(s). That ain't true and we shouldn't pretend that it is. The stakes are much too high in the present environment for those kind of easy excuses to be made without a serious challenge...

Kofi



OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Focus Hocus-Pocus
By PAUL KRUGMAN
November 4, 2010
New York Times

Democrats, declared Evan Bayh in an Op-Ed article on Wednesday in The Times, “overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation during a severe recession.” Many others have been saying the same thing: the notion that the Obama administration erred by not focusing on the economy is hardening into conventional wisdom.

But I have no idea what, if anything, people mean when they say that. The whole focus on “focus” is, as I see it, an act of intellectual cowardice — a way to criticize President Obama’s record without explaining what you would have done differently.

After all, are people who say that Mr. Obama should have focused on the economy saying that he should have pursued a bigger stimulus package? Are they saying that he should have taken a tougher line with the banks? If not, what are they saying? That he should have walked around with furrowed brow muttering, “I’m focused, I’m focused”?

Mr. Obama’s problem wasn’t lack of focus; it was lack of audacity. At the start of his administration he settled for an economic plan that was far too weak. He compounded this original sin both by pretending that everything was on track and by adopting the rhetoric of his enemies.

The aftermath of major financial crises is almost always terrible: severe crises are typically followed by multiple years of very high unemployment. And when Mr. Obama took office, America had just suffered its worst financial crisis since the 1930s. What the nation needed, given this grim prospect, was a really ambitious recovery plan.

Could Mr. Obama actually have offered such a plan? He might not have been able to get a big plan through Congress, or at least not without using extraordinary political tactics. Still, he could have chosen to be bold — to make Plan A the passage of a truly adequate economic plan, with Plan B being to place blame for the economy’s troubles on Republicans if they succeeded in blocking such a plan.

But he chose a seemingly safer course: a medium-size stimulus package that was clearly not up to the task. And that’s not 20/20 hindsight. In early 2009, many economists, yours truly included, were more or less frantically warning that the administration’s proposals were nowhere near bold enough.

Worse, there was no Plan B. By late 2009, it was already obvious that the worriers had been right, that the program was much too small. Mr. Obama could have gone to the nation and said, “My predecessor left the economy in even worse shape than we realized, and we need further action.” But he didn’t. Instead, he and his officials continued to claim that their original plan was just right, damaging their credibility even further as the economy continued to fall short.

Meanwhile, the administration’s bank-friendly policies and rhetoric — dictated by fear of hurting financial confidence — ended up fueling populist anger, to the benefit of even more bank-friendly Republicans. Mr. Obama added to his problems by effectively conceding the argument over the role of government in a depressed economy.

I felt a sense of despair during Mr. Obama’s first State of the Union address, in which he declared that “families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.” Not only was this bad economics — right now the government must spend, because the private sector can’t or won’t — it was almost a verbatim repeat of what John Boehner, the soon-to-be House speaker, said when attacking the original stimulus. If the president won’t speak up for his own economic philosophy, who will?

So where, in this story, does “focus” come in? Lack of nerve? Yes. Lack of courage in one’s own convictions? Definitely. Lack of focus? No.

And why would failing to tackle health care have produced a better outcome? The focus people never explain.

Of course, there’s a subtext to the whole line that health reform was a mistake: namely, that Democrats should stop acting like Democrats and go back to being Republicans-lite. Parse what people like Mr. Bayh are saying, and it amounts to demanding that Mr. Obama spend the next two years cringing and admitting that conservatives were right.

There is an alternative: Mr. Obama can take a stand.

For one thing, he still has the ability to engineer significant relief to homeowners, one area where his administration completely dropped the ball during its first two years. Beyond that, Plan B is still available. He can propose real measures to create jobs and aid the unemployed and put Republicans on the spot for standing in the way of the help Americans need.

Would taking such a stand be politically risky? Yes, of course. But Mr. Obama’s economic policy ended up being a political disaster precisely because he tried to play it safe. It’s time for him to try something different.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Paul Krugman On the Failure of the President To Act More Decisively on Domestic Economic Policy--and the Severe Political Fallout

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

All,

As he consistently does the progressive economist Paul Krugman absolutely nails what is really at stake both politically and economically and what the President--and most importantly the rest of us--have so far failed to do to meet the severe challenges of the present social, economic, and ideological fiasco...

Kofi


October 24, 2010

Falling Into the Chasm
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times

This is what happens when you need to leap over an economic chasm — but either can’t or won’t jump far enough, so that you only get part of the way across.

If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program — a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states — was more conservative than his election platform.

A few commentators will point out, with much more justice, that Mr. Obama never made a full-throated case for progressive policies, that he consistently stepped on his own message, that he was so worried about making bankers nervous that he ended up ceding populist anger to the right.

But the truth is that if the economic situation were better — if unemployment had fallen substantially over the past year — we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would, instead, be talking about modest Democratic losses, no more than is usual in midterm elections.

The real story of this election, then, is that of an economic policy that failed to deliver. Why? Because it was greatly inadequate to the task.

When Mr. Obama took office, he inherited an economy in dire straits — more dire, it seems, than he or his top economic advisers realized. They knew that America was in the midst of a severe financial crisis. But they don’t seem to have taken on board the lesson of history, which is that major financial crises are normally followed by a protracted period of very high unemployment.

If you look back now at the economic forecast originally used to justify the Obama economic plan, what’s striking is that forecast’s optimism about the economy’s ability to heal itself. Even without their plan, Obama economists predicted, the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent, then fall rapidly. Fiscal stimulus was needed only to mitigate the worst — as an “insurance package against catastrophic failure,” as Lawrence Summers, later the administration’s top economist, reportedly said in a memo to the president-elect.

But economies that have experienced a severe financial crisis generally don’t heal quickly. From the Panic of 1893, to the Swedish crisis of 1992, to Japan’s lost decade, financial crises have consistently been followed by long periods of economic distress. And that has been true even when, as in the case of Sweden, the government moved quickly and decisively to fix the banking system.

To avoid this fate, America needed a much stronger program than what it actually got — a modest rise in federal spending that was barely enough to offset cutbacks at the state and local level. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: the inadequacy of the stimulus was obvious from the beginning.

Could the administration have gotten a bigger stimulus through Congress? Even if it couldn’t, would it have been better off making the case for a bigger plan, rather than pretending that what it got was just right? We’ll never know.

What we do know is that the inadequacy of the stimulus has been a political catastrophe. Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan. But voters respond to facts, not counterfactuals, and the perception is that the administration’s policies have failed.

The tragedy here is that if voters do turn on Democrats, they will in effect be voting to make things even worse.

The resurgent Republicans have learned nothing from the economic crisis, except that doing everything they can to undermine Mr. Obama is a winning political strategy. Tax cuts and deregulation are still the alpha and omega of their economic vision.

And if they take one or both houses of Congress, complete policy paralysis — which will mean, among other things, a cutoff of desperately needed aid to the unemployed and a freeze on further help for state and local governments — is a given. The only question is whether we’ll have political chaos as well, with Republicans’ shutting down the government at some point over the next two years. And the odds are that we will.

Is there any hope for a better outcome? Maybe, just maybe, voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.

But right now it looks as if the too-cautious attempt to jump across that economic chasm has fallen short — and we’re about to hit rock bottom.