Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Bush administration came close to a perfect end Previous entry: If Obama fails, it’s more too late than too little

Slicing up this bill just means more bills

Economy

All I think really needs to be said about Obama’s speech last night is that I continue to be concerned that he’s sticking to the catastrophic-times-mean-catastrophic responses line.  I mean, it’s true and it might be the only thing he’s got, so I can’t hold it against him, but it doesn’t set him or congressional Democrats up to transition into the next round of legislation that will cause Republicans to have faux heart attacks all over cable news.  It’s not just universal health care, though we need that more than ever because it will help get people into the more temporary jobs that the stimulus bill has in it. (Though, ideally, the infrastructure built will encourage economic growth—-fascinating how much conservative rich people rail against systems that will make them more money, if the side effect is that the working class does better?  Seems like a lot of people would choose fucking their neighbor over enriching themselves every single time.)  We’re going to have to do another round of stimulus spending after so much was cut from this package, I suspect. 

Reading Dean Baker from the Center for Economic and Policy Research only reconfirmed my suspicion.

The moderates in the Senate of both parties are very proud of themselves for having negotiated a slimmed down version of the stimulus package. They apparently knocked out more than $100bn in spending, trimming the package to less than $400bn a year.

This led to a round of self-congratulations at what this crew considered a major accomplishment. Those of us who were not a party to the negotiations, and who don’t share the peculiar thought processes of the moderate clique, see the primary outcome of this effort as having taken one million jobs out of the stimulus.

 


Emphasis mine.  I’m not entirely sure what the clique of centrist fools means to achieve by leaving one million people out of work that would provide money that the workers in turn would inject into the economy while building infrastructure, but I have my suspicions.  From everything I’ve read, there’s been a lot of interest in the job creation part of this package in improving people’s resumes and job skills so they can turn around and get even better jobs when the economy improves.  Better jobs than their stimulus jobs, but probably better jobs than the ones they had before the economic crisis.  As Baker explains:

This is why the utterances coming from the centrist cabal were so bizarre. Many of the senators indicated that they considered healthcare, education or some other type of spending to be very important, but that the specific category of spending did not constitute stimulus.

As Baker notes, the point is to create jobs and spending in health care and education creates jobs.  I’m going to add that these sectors not considered stimulus are sectors where people can get jobs and either keep them or use the experience they got at this job to get a better, more stable job in the future.  As one example, most women I’ve known who’ve gone into nursing started off with a low-level health care job and found that they liked the job, and they were able to get the support of their employers to get the education they needed to become nurses.  Which means more pay and more job opportunities, and it means that they’re never going to have to work for $8 an hour at Wal-Mart again. 

I shouldn’t have to point out twice that health care and education are job sectors that rely heavily on the female half of the workforce, and that probably helped centrists convince themselves that the jobs created in this sector aren’t “real” jobs. 

Okay, one more quote from Dean because I have one more point to make.

In addition to not grasping the concept of stimulus, these folks still don’t seem to appreciate the seriousness of the downturn. The loss of almost 600,000 jobs for the third straight month should have been enough to convince any remaining sceptics that this is really serious. (Actual job loss was probably even more than the data show). When Alan Greenspan sinks the economy, he doesn’t mess around.

One thought that’s been haunting me over these past few days is this: FDR had two solid years of the Depression before he took office.  By the time Hoover was done non-reacting to the crisis, the unemployment rate had gone from about 5% to just under 24%.  When Dean says the centrist cabal doesn’t realize the seriousness of this situation, this is exactly what he means.  24% unemployment and all the attendant horrors such as Hoovervilles and block-long lines for soup kitchens meant that, by the time FDR stepped into office, he had the political will to do something.  But it also means that the damage was so bad that he was able only to relieve the crisis, not turn the economy around, which didn’t happen until WWII. 

The lesson of comparing the past few weeks to the Depression are this: 1) People are idiots, and they won’t do anything to help themselves until it’s too late, and 2) If you let an economic crisis spiral out of control before you do something about it, then there will be permanent damage that will be nigh impossible to alleviate.  Right now, I’m pretty relieved that Obama’s going out there swinging and, for once, feeling pretty fucking good about the candidate I supported for office.  But I’m concerned that he doesn’t have the rhetorical strategy or the will to do what needs to be done after passing this stimulus bill, which is get to work on the next agenda items to relieve the economic crisis, because with one million jobs sliced out of the bill and millions more hemorrhaging from the private sector, that’s what he’s going to need to do.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:06 PM • (16) Comments

Even though smaller, the Republican noise machine is just as loud as ever and just as inane, not to mention ingenuous.

So, if we take some of these things and run them as separate bills does that mean that they will support them or even bother to consider them?  That’s a rhetorical question if you couldn’t guess.

The Rethugs are so used to “packaging” arguments to sell them than saying what they actually mean that they lie when the truth would suit better.  O.k., we’ve fed them enough rope, it’s time to spring the trap.

Comment #1: Magis  on  02/10  at  01:14 PM

They won’t support them.  But the thing is that Obama claimed he’d pass a bipartisan bill on this stimulus, and he didn’t promise that for future bills.  So if they slice up other agenda items into separate bills, they will be able to pass them as straight partisan bills.

Unless Republicans filibuster.  Which I continue to think Democrats should force them to do if they threaten it, especially on piss ant bills.  In times of crisis, the last thing the Republicans need is to send out the message that they’ll stand there reading the phone book to stop a minor Medicaid expansion for family planning.  In fact, it would be ideal if they forced Republicans to filibuster *that*, since it polls at around 90%.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/10  at  01:40 PM

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  The more reasonable that Obama appears, the more wacky and pigheaded the Republicans appear, and the more Obama can accomplish with the support of the citizenry.

Compare Clinton, who picked two controversial, revolutionary battles which went down in flames, and who spent the rest of his administration caving in to the Republicans. (NAFTA? Eliminating welfare? GMAFB.)

Comment #3: Hector B.  on  02/10  at  02:38 PM

But it also means that the damage was so bad that he was able only to relieve the crisis, not turn the economy around, which didn’t happen until WWII.

Let’s not buy into that line as well.
Most analysts agree that the crisis was over years before WWII.
The war only helped to align the employment situation.
Sending 5 million workers over seas helps unemployment quite a bit.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/11/what-ended-the.html

Comment #4: cynickal  on  02/10  at  02:56 PM

I agree with Hector. It seems to me Obama is getting political mileage out of having tried to compromise, and the Republicans not responding. It’s quite possible he’s going to build momentum and get a lot more done later. Right now, the sooner some money gets out there, the better, so starting with the easy stuff makes sense.

Comment #5: Samantha Vimes  on  02/10  at  03:43 PM

But, p.s. yes about nursing needing a boost! We’ve got a shortage of workers there that is likely to get worse; anything that will get new people training for it is a good thing.

Comment #6: Samantha Vimes  on  02/10  at  03:45 PM

One of the things I’m bitter about (and directly affected by) is that the Senate removed a large amount of funding for scientific research from the stimulus package. Everything from the USDA to the NSF to NASA. As though scientists don’t employ people when we buy reagents or hire people to work in the lab and field. As though our work doesn’t lead to new industries and opportunities and improved quality of life. Republicans must think things like the Polio vaccine are magical gifts from Jesus instead of products of years of work by many people that cost lots of money.

Comment #7: Entomologista  on  02/10  at  03:47 PM

Science has been leaving the building for quite a few years. It really saddens me, because it is one area where international collaboration is extremely beneficial. But instead of hiring good science teachers, our schools spend money on football coaches.

Comment #8: the matthew show  on  02/10  at  04:02 PM

Entomologista:  Republicans think the Polio vaccine is a curse; it keeps poor people healthy, when they should be wretched.

Comment #9: Punditus Maximus  on  02/10  at  04:08 PM

Living on the coast and working in the ocean sciences (a growth field with all the attention being paid to global change—who knew?), the other grad students and I haven’t been hit *too* hard, but my friends in other departments have been talking about funding drying up and fewer proposals being accepted…I just don’t understand how anyone can think that falling behind in science could ever be a *good* thing for a nation. </frustrated>

Comment #10: Felka  on  02/10  at  05:11 PM

i think a lot of the resistance to science is due to the culture wars, to be honest. i mean, if they invest in scientific research, somebody might cure AIDS! or come up with a male birth control! or any number of things that will inevitably lead to the end of the world.

Comment #11: akzidenzgrotesk  on  02/10  at  06:09 PM

“I’m not entirely sure what the clique of centrist fools means to achieve by leaving one million people out of work that would provide money that the workers in turn would inject into the economy while building infrastructure, but I have my suspicions.”

We all know what they want to achieve: 2-more or 6-more years, depending on whether they’re in the House or the Senate.  That’s all any of them want, really.  That and some way to make a killing when they “join the private sector”...

Comment #12: MikeEss  on  02/10  at  06:23 PM

Pure speculation here:  I think the anti-science drive is part of old school pay-to-play crony capitalism.  So much scientific research is done through academic institutions, many pols don’t want the money going to colleges; they’d rather the funds go to large companies (publicly traded?) with vested political clout.  You don’t get the big money donations from PhD candidates at major science universities that you get from the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies.

Comment #13: deep6  on  02/10  at  06:25 PM

So much scientific research is done through academic institutions, many pols don’t want the money going to colleges; they’d rather the funds go to large companies (publicly traded?) with vested political clout.

This gets even better, as though it were possible, especially when it relates to pharmaceuticals.  A lot of research gets done at universities where there’s a deep pool of trained, skilled, and low-paid labor (grad students and postdocs), and where a lot of the costs are borne by the National Institutes of Health and other government entities.

You see where this is going: pharmaceutical companies wind up with the patents that result from the university research, usually for far, far less than they make on manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the results of those patents.  The government gets a lot of not much.  Why do we pay higher prices for drugs here in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world?  Supposedly to pay for the research the pharmaceutical corporations do.

Which is not to say that they don’t do any research in-house; they do.  Just not as much as their lobbying efforts would like us to believe.

And anyway, why should they be guaranteed an income?  Or private for-profit health insurance companies?  We subsidize both, and they do not serve the public need.  They had a good run, but it’s got to stop.

Comment #14: kaninchen  on  02/10  at  07:42 PM

Why do we pay higher prices for drugs here in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world?  Supposedly to pay for the research the pharmaceutical corporations do.

And if you believe that, Eli Lilly just made a bridge in Brooklyn available as surplus to their requirements, for which I am the sole broker…

Comment #15: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/11  at  04:36 AM

I’m so glad you quoted Dean Baker - he’s the best I’ve seen on this economic crisis.  Anyone else read his new essay in the book Thinking Big?  It’s called “From Financial Crisis To Opportunity” and contains his exact prescription for how to get us out of this mess.

Comment #16: KoKo  on  02/13  at  05:08 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.