![]() |
|
Stop by any corner grocery store and ask the people standing in line: What do you worry about most—jobs or the nation’s budget deficit?
If they don’t choke up laughing, chances are real high they’ll give the same response as did the public in two recent polls:
Priority #1: Jobs.
Priority #2: Jobs.
Priority #3: Jobs.
A poll for Democracy Corps published Nov. 30 found that when given a choice, “voters embrace a bold jobs initiative over a long-term deficit reduction program by two-to-one.” A survey taken by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) earlier this fall revealed the same: The Hart Research Associates poll found that by a margin of 53 percent to 42 percent, the public is more concerned about rising unemployment rates than the rising federal deficit.
Yet some in Congress continue to cry “Wolf” about the federal budget deficit, pushing the Obama administration to focus on cutting the deficit rather than on creating jobs. Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) are trying to create a “deficit-reduction commission” that would override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate.
The jobs-killing commission—because ultimately, that will be its effect—has the distinct odor of the “flush government down the toilet” expediency we’ve seen before. Got a crisis? Use it to kill public programs that help—the public.
In a statement sent yesterday to all members of the U.S. House and Senate, 30 national groups, including the Campaign for America’s Future and the AFL-CIO, strongly urged Congress to oppose creation of such a commission.
Those supporting this circumvention of the normal process have stated openly the desire to avoid political accountability. Americans—seniors, women, working families, people with disabilities, young adults, children, people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others—expect their elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching legislation.
The undemocratic commission is among several roadblocks or diversions Republicans and their willing sycophants (David Broder is all in favor of it—need we say more?) are pushing to derail movement on what working people in this country really need: a strong jobs program spearheaded by federal initiative. Even as President Obama’s Jobs Summit is wrapping up this afternoon, House Minority Leader John “No one supports a public option” Boehner is holding a faux jobs summit to drain the traditional media’s limited attention away from the Obama initiative.
Taking part in today’s White House Jobs Summit, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is discussing our five-point jobs creation plan, which calls for extension of unemployment insurance, which will expire for millions at the end of the year, as well as spending on infrastructure, to jump-start the economy in the short-term. Long-term measures also will be needed, and those should be funded by a financial transactions tax that would generate $150 billion in annual revenue. More than 200 economists have signed on in support of a financial transactions tax. It would quickly pay back the deficit spending necessary and is wrapped in a nicely named bill sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.): “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act.”
In a conference call about the nation’s jobs crisis this week, economist James Galbraith agreed with the multiplicity of economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman and University of California professor Brad DeLong, that now is not the time to cut deficits. (Scarecrow covers Galbraith in-depth here.) In fact, funding a jobs program now will save money in the future by slowing the damage being done to the economy—to working people. Says Galbraith:
The reality is that the budget deficits are the medicine that have kept the economy from completely imploding. They are the life support system that have provided the stabilization that to some extent has occurred.
Those pushing “deficit reduction commissions” and other distractions are presuming—or pretending—that jobs will come back and all will be well in Whoville if nothing is done. Wrong, say smart economists like EPI’s Heidi Shierholz:
If we don’t do more…all things are working against a quick recovery. We’re facing a real threat we could fall back into another technical recession.
The nation needs to create jobs—now. Private-sector corporations have totally failed at the task, so as usual, government must step in and clean up the mess left by Wall Street greed and corporate outsourcing. As Galbraith put it, approvingly quoting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):
We will never have deficit reduction without jobs creation.




68 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thanks for this Tula.
For myself, I sure would like a job that would allow me to stop MY deficit spending. Not that there’s going to be much for the bnaksters to come after if I don’t get a job.
The people are not the deciders ! If you haven’t noticed yet, this is not a stinking Democracy!
Oh, Tula, I hate to burst your bubble, but only campaingn contributors count. (Under the rubric that corps create jobs.)
Hey public officials…are you listening to the, uh, public? Time to think about the pesky civilian sector.
I fear without a real revolution they are not coming back. Globalization, NAFTA and CAFTA have succeeded as planned
I haven’t been on much today. Forgive me if you all have already talked about this. Good article by the brilliant Elizabeth Warren.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html
I’ve been watching a slomo train wreck for years. Hard to tell when it will bite.
At least in Rome there was bread to go with the circuses. All we get is the circus (OMG TIger gets laid by women! OMG Folks with no appreciable talent want to be on TV!) with no bread.
Death of Glass-Stegall and birth of NAFTA – devastating Republican legislation!
24 Trillion taxpayer dollars transfered to Wall Street – only in a Corporatist friendly Republican world.
Timothy Geithner, – priceless!
Tiger gets made by gazillions from Burmese Military Junta supported Chevron. Fuck him!
Michelle sez let them eat organic cake.
The deficit can be reduced by raising taxes on those who can afford to pay. Eliminating the cap on FICA taxes is one way. Why should a guy who earns 100K pay 15% when a guy who makes 5 mil doesn’t? Some Brit had the idea of taxing financial transactions, say a penny per share for buyer and seller. It’s a great idea, but Geithner shot it down. He should be fired for that unless Obama agrees with him which would be too bad. Cutting military expenditures is another good way to cut the deficit, but the MIC would object.
For some reason redistributing wealth is a dirty phrase. Roosevelt was called a traitor to his class, when he saved the class for some three generations. These people are so selfish and stupid they do not see they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
here’s the thing;
creating jobs will “in the long run” lower the deficit
the only thing wrong with the economy right now is the fact that there are no help wanted signs, to which I wrote a diary a long enough ago that the president should have heeded my advice;
with people working there is more investment by those who have stopped investing, values rise, taxes improve, productivity increases, less spending on the indigent, fewer foreclosures, fewer people going bankrupt, more mad spending, more businesses openeing, fewer closing
now that isn’t with money funded by income, it comes with the increase of gnp
anyway, if it’s done right, by creating living wage jobs, we will be able to decrease the deficit by expanding the economy and reaping those financial rewards
when we create government jobs we are investing and getting something back for that investment, we’re improving the roads or developing new technology, we’re cleaning the envirnemnt or cooling the planet, we’re teaching more people, educating others for better more productive jobs and we’re winding up with something for those dollars spent on job creation
ianae
Howdy Tula and Firedogs,
fyi – Richard Trumka will be talking about this tonight on the Ed Show
You are right, but what you propose is so far off the radar screen, you might as well comfort yourself with your favorite vice.
Had he been corralled in the veal pen yet?
Don’t they understand that tax receipts go UP the more people are employed?
What is WRONG with these people atop our government? Deficit reduction is a jobs-killer.
in public?
I might get arrested but
Do it online.
hey ecahn, as compared to the size of our economy, is the government bigger now then it has ever been?
if not, how many times was it bigger, if so, by what percentile?
I think that’s what the internet was invented for!
How long will it take you to suspend your disbelief and realize that drowning the government in the bathtub is also a DLC dream.
Deficit reduction is a welfare state killer.
Oh dear, I no longer can answer your q with accuracy. No longer have easy access to the data. I assume you mean federal govt.
I think the general idea is that tax receipts are relatively low relative to GDP but spending is toward the top end of its historic post-WWII range. WWII, of course, would have been a spike. Different composition, though, with entitlements a much larger % than ever before, and getting larger looking ahead with the boomers going on SS & Medicare.
Cheetos & PJs.
The whole idea the deficit can be reduced by cuts in spending is a fraud. The spending cuts pursued by blue dogs and right wing media flaks ( and of course republicans) are only to turn the political discussion to tax cuts and cuts in enforcement budgets of safety, labor and environmental regulations. The whole ridiculous argument that the deficit can be reduced by spending cuts, even without the ineveitable demand for tax cuts that offset any “savings” is political lie 100%. the only thing that would reduce the deficit is an increase in exports, and ideally a simultaneous decrease in imports.
Tobin tax on derivatives and other smoke and mirror financial transactions would not be unhelpful.
Surely you jest, now that we are the United States of Goldman Sachs.
I hope some credible and relatively popular and respected historian writes a book and pinpoints the precise sequence of events which led the US from being a (nominally) free republic to being a complete and wholly privately owned and governed banking subisidiary.
off topic but I had an epiphane today and really can’t wait till it’s on topic to share it;
everyone remember “planet of the apes”?
if so, do you remember the underlying cause of conflict?
the general powers wanted to hide the fact that they evolved from humans!
man we all thought that was a REDICULOUS premise in these times of an educated middle class
go figure, that’s what they’re doing right now, life follows art
maybe they got the idea from the movie?
rethugs:
0. cutting taxes for the rich does not create some sort of mysterious massive multiplier to new economic activity, which can be mysteriously used to generate more in tax revenue than what you eliminated with your cuts. This pet theory of yours is the fiscal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine and it can only exist as a figment of Newt Gingrich’s imagination.
therefore:
1. if you cut taxes for the rich and don’t decrease the budget because you feel a need to fight unnecessary wars of aggression, the deficit will increase. This is the Reagan model.
2. if you cut taxes for the rich and increase the budget to fight unnecessary wars of aggression, the deficit will increase. This is the current Republican model before the teabaggers came out of the woodwork.
3. if you cut taxes for the rich and decrease the budget, you just reduce the effectiveness of the government by shrinking everything. Then you can’t fight unnecessary wars of aggression or provide basic services or stop destroying your children’s legacy. This is the Katrina model, and apparently your new pary doctrine.
Get it?
there’s the thing about a war, if you don’t intend on acquiring land then you get nothing for your investment, you are spending funds and they simply evaporate
well.. I dunno about land, but ‘lil Caligula did want to seize their oil, right?
Credible, respectible historians will have to stop shaking their heads in disbelief before they can write a book.
What prez Doctrine was it to defend ME oil with U.S. force?
I see that as interfering in the “God’s work” Goldman Sachs does atop our feudal economy.
What god, I wonder? Yahweh, Allah, Christ? Those reporters never ask the right Qs. (Apologies to other gods, whose names I don’t know. Don’t condemn me to everlasting suffering in the afterlife, jest cause I’m ignorant.)
yup
here’s what they don’t understand, their “strategy” has the tail wagging the dog
wealth migrates from bottom up, it doesn’t trickle from top down;
this is self evident, product comes before profit not the other way around, before there was wealth there was a product that was traded for another product thus increasing value in an expanding economy
this is the principle that sounds “ponzi” since the economy seems to need to continually grow for their to be wealth
however products use up their duty cycle or become obsolete, new technology and new products replace old, and at times money literally evapoorates, for instance in a depression, so it’s not quite as ponzi as it seems
which begs the question;
when there is too much money running around, is it possible “depreessions” where money evaporates are orchestrated deliberately?
one of my biggest fears during the bush presidency was the fact that they were printing too much money and if that money ever got spent we would be in serious inflationary collapse
however the bush depression evaporated money and maybe there was some good that came of it in the decrease of too many greenbacks
ianae
not really, he wanted to stop production and control/reduce the flow
supposedly, Iraq has more prime petro then saudi arabia and sadam was about to use it to fund his socialist policies
they couldn’t have that, so it wasn’t really to get access to the oil it was to restrict production
Precisely, the U.S. economy as a Ponzi scheme.
see my 36, tell me how far off base I am with that postulation becuase ianae
I agree, but what you type is not inconsistent with what Blub typed. You have to seize the oil before you can turn off the spiggot.
Mea culpa.
aren’t all economies that use a monetary system ponzi?
value has to increase for their to be profit, that increased value has to be synthetically paid for with a larger monetary system
I can’t see how any economy but barter would be anything but ponzi
even when the monetary system is based on some hard asset, that asset has only the precieved value the economy promoted
I propose a dollar be worth some dirvitive of a living wage hour,for instance a dollar – 2 minutes of work or something
it would be hard to underpay someone if that were the basis
Jobs are evidently such a high priority for the Democratic Party they have done approximately nothing about it in ten months.
U.S. economy is a Ponzi scheme dependent on increasing borrowing by middle class who have no other way to finance it. When that borrowing comes to an end, as it did a year ago, it’s called a liquidity trap and the economy collapses.
It is absolutely amazing that this site can one day have a piece about a war surtax, justifying such a tax by claiming the war is too expensive and then the next day claim we absolutely have to spend $300 Billion on jobs. Again, the hypocrisy is staggering.
No, not at all. If consumer spending gains result from gains in real wages and/or gains in employment, then it is a positive sum game. What has been happening in the last decade or more, however, is in my 44.
got it, per my 42, tell me if this would work or couldn’t even if seriously tried;
I propose a dollar be worth some dirvitive of a living wage hour,for instance a dollar – 2 minutes of work or something
it would be hard to underpay someone if that were the basis
You might be irony challenged. If the U.S. can’t afford medical care or jobs for its citizens, surely it can’t afford war against countries that aren’t enemies. Therefore, the war surtax is a straw man to highlight that discrepancy on the right. But, of course, you knew that. I have great confidence in your intelligence.
“House Minority Leader John “No one supports a public option” Boehner is holding a faux jobs summit to drain the traditional media’s limited attention away from the Obama initiative.”
And what do we a have here? Yet more hypocrisy. You accuse media commentators of being sycophants and then you turn right around and demand that the media only cover the pathetic jobs summit theater being orchestrated by Obama and ignore the one being held by Boehner. It is the media’s job to cover the news, not pick and choose which events they will cover based upon some partisan criteria set forth by Obama sycophants. And given who wasn’t invited to Obama’s pathetic jobs summit, the one held by Boehner is every bit as legitimate
As for the health care bill, get back to me when you can produce one single poll showing more Americans in support of the reform bill than are opposed.
you really aren’t understanding anything at all
war produces nothing for the investment but death
job spending produces a far more vast economy and you are left with assets for the investment
you use that word hypocrasy and I really do not think it means what you think it means and you are being considered a pretty rediculous fellow as it seems the biggest word you use is used incorrectly
try another word for a while, see how that goes
Not gonna happen. Power sturcture is such that the only way that labor is “fairly” compensated is when they organize or when govt is on their side. Neither of which is true today.
There are varying ideas about what really happened to the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy in the shrub years, but a graph of M1 (money supply) raises some interesting questions:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1
Look at the rate of change here:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s1id=M1&s1transformation=pc1
Clearly, the recent changse are due to recession-driven relaxation, but heck if I can understand what happened in 2002 to 2004. I’m not a monetary economist, but I think everybody has a lot of questions about what precisely the shrub Fed was doing.
The one thing that is clear is that expansionary money supply policies seem to coincide with periods of rethug rule, which, as we know, seem to coincide with the greatest deficit expansion. Causation here is a queston, but, from a rethug perspective, there is clearly a relationship between monetary and fiscal policy, and it isn’t the one they like to trumpet.
Gotta smash my potatoes. Be back soon.
I know it’s not gonna happen but would it work?
the graph shows m1, according to what I skimmed, that represents money available not money printed?
is m3 the amount of money printed?
I believe bush banished the reporting of m3 so we would have no idea for what m1 is
I think I read that Senator Wellpoint [Evan Bayh] is also a member of this commission. They should have removed their collective thumbs from their collective asses eight years ago when Bush and his merry band of criminals were gang raping the country. I realize there is a certain segment of society that take these buffoons seriously, but I am not among them. Without jobs we will continue our steady spiral toward third-world-dom. And WalMart will own the world.
M1 is the money outside of the Federal system that is in the real economy and available for spending. It’s the “tight” measure that the good ole Milton Friedmanites liked to use to measure fiscal probity (they wanted tight controls on M1 growth). As you can see, Milton should be returning from the dead to smite the rethugs, from these numbers. If I remember correctly, the religious Miltonian rethugs beleived that M1 growth should be limited to an average of about 1% a year, on a steady level – the average velocity between 1947 and 2000. They felt that growth beyond 1% meant inflationary pressures, bubbles and other bad things. According to these graphs, the shrub Fed might’ve hit that target for a total of about a month in 8 years of misrule. Like I said, Milton should smite him.
I think you’re thinking about M0, which just refers to treasury and Federal Reserve system assets.
There has to be some flexibility in wage determination. As there should be, but isn’t, in profit determination. I am in favor of govt programs to shift the power structure toward workers, away from corps, that in the present system have all the economic power. But do not favor rigid rules.
m3
m3 is how hard the printing presses are working, if you don’t know m3 I don’t think you can know too many other “m”‘s
M3 is supposed to be the broadest measure of all monetary assets, including foreign US-dollar denominated stuff, like repo agreements and eurodollar holdings. I don’t think that’s what you mean to invoke, and it captures a lot of other stuff beyond US policy, like much of China’s capital account. It’s not terribly meaningful and difficult to control. I suspect that shrubco got rid of it because they wanted to pay homage to Miltonian purity.. little good it did ‘em.
M1 and M0 are the best indicators of how hard the presses are working in the short term – they’re the first measures touched by monetary adjustments undertaken by the Fed.. then the consequences flow outward from there toward M3.
but there would be wage flexibility, some jobs/people would clearly be worth more then others and a person would obviously be able to get a raise
something like that would make it hard for inflation to really hurt
got it, thanx, wiki agrees with you;
off for a spin, see all later
The relationship between money supply & the economy changes all the time. Don’t bother looking at money supply data. You won’t learn anything useful.
ah.. as a good fiscalist I absolutely agree with you, but this isn’t about what we believe, it’s about what the rethugs say they believe. Speculating on that relationship between fiscal policy, rethug monetary policy and M1 is what makes this discussion meaningful (albeit highly speculative) – and what puts the lie to the publicly articulated rethug theory. It’s not about what the numbers mean – it’s about what the rethugs say them mean when they say they want (orderly) monetary policy to totally displace fiscal policy. Clearly, monetary policy gets less orderly, not more orderly, under rethug rule, and that disorder has to do one suspects with their more capricious and extreme use of fiscal policy. In other words, they lie. Their whole approach is one giant lie.
before I go, must post this on topic link
scary stuff this president he is
Go back and read the history prior to FDR. Hoover and the media were saying the same things. Worry about the deficit, “fiscal responsibility,” workers want too much, business just can’t afford to hire, all those foreign countries unfair competition, etc etc. Much helpless hand wringing.
i don’t think that’s right. the money supply isn’t “difficult to control” it is NOT controllable by the fed (volker tried and failed) because the vast majority of if is created by economic activity. best explanation of this i’ve seen is steve keen’s post, “The Roving Cavaliers of Credit” (warning: it’s wonky):