Home » Posts tagged "economy" (Page 2)

Fed: Household wealth plummets 23% in two years

Evans Liberal Politics
March 28, 2011

 

Fed: Household wealth plummets 23% in two years

Fed: Household wealth plummets 23% in two years, Daily Kos, March 26, 2011, by Joan McCarter, used with permission of Joan McCarter and quoted verbatim: Thank You!

This is one of the more alarming reports of the week.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The average American family’s household net worth declined 23% between 2007 and 2009, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

a pair of black eyeglasses sit on top of a foreclosure notice in this article about a Fed report on plummeting American wealth

A rare survey of U.S. households, first performed in 2007 but repeated in 2009 in order to gauge the effects of the recession, reveals the median net worth of households fell from $125,000 in 2007 to $96,000 in 2009….

Federal Reserve officials said Thursday the new report offers a look at exactly how hard the recession hit families, and how they reacted.

The numbers paint a stark picture.

Families that owned stock saw their portfolios drop by more than a third to $12,000 from $18,500, on average. The value of primary real estate holdings decreased by an average of $18,700.

And families took on more debt, pushing median total debt levels to $75,600 from $70,300. They also made less money. Media household income dropped to $49,800 from $50,100.

High unemployment, rising food and medical costs, tanking stock portfolios and complete loss of equity make for a world of hurt for American families. Which makes the single-minded focus in DC on the deficit and austerity all the more inexplicable. And frightening for our future. Krugman:

[J]obs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy. Unfortunately, it’s a strategy that has been abandoned in the face of phantom risks and delusional hopes. On one side, we’re constantly told that if we don’t slash spending immediately we’ll end up just like Greece, unable to borrow except at exorbitant interest rates. On the other, we’re told not to worry about the impact of spending cuts on jobs because fiscal austerity will actually create jobs by raising confidence.

How’s that story working out so far?

Not so great, if the Fed and its report is to be believed. Yes, the report’s data is a year old, but while stock prices have rebounded, unemployment is still unsustainable, housing prices continue to fall, and food and medical costs continue to rise.

Posted on March 28, 2011 by , Reply

As the Global Economy Trembles, Our Nation’s Capital Fiddles

Evans Liberal Politics
March 19, 2011

 

As the Global Economy Trembles,
Our Nation’s Capital Fiddles

As the Global Economy Trembles, Our Nation’s Capital Fiddles, March 17, 2011, by Robert Reich, photo of tsunami damage in Wakuya, Japan courtesy of U.S. Navy and Wikimedia Commons, article used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Why isn’t Washington responding?

The world’s third largest economy suffers a giant earthquake, tsunami, and radiation dangers. A civil war in Libya and tumult in the Middle East cause crude-oil prices to climb. Poor harvests around the world make food prices soar.

Japan 2011 Tsunami Damage

U.S. Navy photography of tsunami damage in Japan's 2011 killer earthquake

All this means higher prices. American consumers, still reeling from job losses and wage cuts, will be hit hard. (Wholesale food prices surged almost 4 percent in February, the largest upward spike in more than a quarter century.)

Even before these global shocks the U.S. recovery was fragile. Consumer confidence is at a five-month low. Housing prices continue to drop. More than 14 million Americans remain jobless, and the ratio of employed to our total population is at an almost unprecedented low.

So you might think our elected representatives would want to avoid a repeat of what happened the second half of 2010 when the fragile recovery began tanking. They’d certainly want to prevent a double-dip recession.

You’d think they’d be creating booster rockets to counter these recessionary forces – freeing up more spending, exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes, imposing a moratorium on bank foreclosures, giving Americans another six months to file their income taxes, lending states whatever money they need to prevent more of their own budget cuts.

Think again.

Amazingly, the big debate in Washington is about how whether to cut $10 billion or $61 billion from the federal budget between now and September 30.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently stated the Republican view succinctly: “Less government spending equals more private sector jobs.”

In the past I’ve often wondered whether they’re knaves or fools. Now I’m sure. Republicans wouldn’t mind a double-dip recession between now and Election Day 2012.

OCInkjet.com 250x250 banner,<br /> image is updated by season.

They figure it’s the one sure way to unseat Obama. They know that when the economy is heading downward, voters always fire the boss. Call them knaves.

What about the Democrats? Most know how fragile the economy is but they’re afraid to say it because the White House wants to paint a more positive picture.

And most of them are afraid of calling for what must be done because it runs so counter to the dominant deficit-cutting theme in our nation’s capital that they fear being marginalized. So they’re reduced to mumbling “don’t cut so much.” Call them fools.

The U.S. economy is flirting with another dip at a time when the global economy is teetering and most Americans are still in economic trouble. But nothing is being done in our nation’s capital because knaves and fools are in charge.

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His recent book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. Reich’s newest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future has been released September 21, and is available for ordering at this link (Amazon.com). The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.

Robert Reich’s commentaries are available for listening to at Publicradio.com. Watch the video Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future (about his new book). Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.

InformIT (Pearson Education)

Posted on March 19, 2011 by , Reply

How Democrats Can Become Relevant Again (And Rescue the Nation While They’re At It)

Evans Liberal Politics
March 2, 2011

 

How Democrats Can Become Relevant Again
(And Rescue the Nation While They’re At It)

How Democrats Can Become Relevant Again (And Rescue the Nation While They’re At It), Robert Reich.org, March 1, 2011, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Republicans offered Democrats two more weeks before the doomsday shut-down. Democrats countered with four. Republicans held their ground. Democrats agreed to two.

Click President Obama
to Visit our Famous Guide
to Politics on the Web

funny Mad Magazine cover titled 'Obama, the first 100 minutes'

This is what passes for compromise in our nation’s capital.

Democrats have become irrelevant. If they want to be relevant again they have to connect the dots: The explosion of income and wealth among America’s super-rich, the dramatic drop in their tax rates, the consequential devastating budget squeezes in Washington and in state capitals, and the slashing of public services for the middle class and the poor.

It is not a complicated story. Begin with what’s happened to the typical American, whose wages have been stagnant for thirty years. Today’s typical 30-year-old male (if he has a job) is earning the same as a 30-year-old male earned three decades ago, adjusted for for inflation. (Although women are doing better than they did 30 years ago, their wages still trail men’s.)

The bottom 90 percent of Americans now earn, on average, only about $280 more per year than they did thirty years ago. That’s less than a 1 percent gain over more than a third of a century. Families are doing somewhat better but that’s only because so many families now have to rely on two incomes.

But wait. The American economy is more than twice as large now as it was thirty years ago. So where did the money go? To the top. The richest 1 percent’s share of national has doubled – from around 9 percent in 1977 to over 20 percent now. The richest one-tenth of 1 percent’s share has tripled. The 150,000 households that comprise the top one-tenth of one percent now earn as much as the bottom 120 million put together.

Given this explosion of income at the top you might think our tax system would demand a larger share from them. But you’d be wrong. You’re not taking account of the power of the super rich. As income and wealth have risen to the top, so has political power. As a result, their taxes have plummeted.

From the 1940s until 1980, the tax rate on the highest earners in America was 70 percent or higher. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich were paying a far higher share of their income than at any time since.

Paul Krugman: Income Inequality
And the Middle Class

Under Ronald Reagan the top rate dropped to 28 percent. Under Bill Clinton it rose to 39 percent and then under George W. Bush dropped to 36 percent. As you recall, Republicans have managed to keep it there. Their avowed aim is to keep it there permanently.

Meanwhile, estate taxes (which hit only the top 2 percent) have been slashed, as have taxes on capital gains – which comprise most of the income of the super rich. In the late 1970s, capital gains were taxed at well over 35 percent. Under Bill Clinton, the capital gains rate was 20 percent. Now it’s 15 percent.

So who’s going to foot the bill for everything we need? Even before the Great Recession, the middle class’s share of the nation’s total income had shrunk. Yet their tax burden had grown. They were paying a bigger chunk of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes than decades before.

Then came the Great Recession – and with it, lower tax revenues. That means all levels of government are squeezed. Obviously, the middle class can’t pay more in taxes. But because the Democrats seem to lack the intestinal fortitude to suggest the obvious – that taxes need to be raised on the super rich – we’re left with a mess.

Teachers are being fired, Pell grants for the poor are being slashed, energy assistance for the needy is disappearing, other vital public services shriveling. Regulatory agencies don’t have the budgets to pay the people they need to enforce the law. Even if it wanted to the Securities and Exchange Commission couldn’t police Wall Street.

All of which is precisely where Republicans want the nation to be. It sets them up perfectly to blame government, blame public employees, blame unionized workers. It lets them pit workers against one another, divide the Democratic base, and promote the false idea that we’re in a giant zero-sum game and the nation can’t afford to do more.

It diverts attention from what’s happened at the top – so no one sees how well CEOs and Wall Street bankers are doing again, no one views the paybacks and tax giveaways engineered by their Republican patrons, and no one focuses on the tide of money flowing from the likes of billionaires Charles and David Koch into Republican coffers.

Where are the Democrats? Shuffling their feet, looking at the floor. “Please oh please give us four weeks before you shut us down,” they ask. “No,” say the Republicans, “you’ll get only two.” “Well, alright then,” say the Democrats.

Here’s what Democrats should be saying:

Hike taxes on the super-rich. Reform the tax code to create more brackets at the top with higher rates for millionaires and billionaires. Absurdly, the top bracket is now set at $375,000 with a tax rate of 35 percent; the second-highest bracket, at 33 percent, starts at $172,000 for individuals. But the big money is way higher.

The source of income shouldn’t matter – salary, wages, capital gains, other unearned income – all should be treated the same. There’s no reason to reward speculators. (Don’t penalize true entrepreneurs, though. If they’re owners who have held their assets for at least twenty years, keep their capital gains low.)

And while you’re at it, raise the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes. And bring back the estate tax.

Do this and we can afford to do what we need to do as a nation. Do this and you prevent Republicans from setting the working middle class against itself. Do this and you restore some balance to a distribution of income and wealth that’s now dangerously out of whack.

Do this, Democrats, and you have a chance of being relevant again.

See REALITY: The GOP is F***ing up the economy on purpose so they can blame it on Obama, Daily Kos, March 1, 2011, by MinistryOfTruth.

Microsoft Store

Visit our well known Guide to Liberal News & Politics on the Web, where you find out where to find out the truth.

HEY! Did you guys know my rock, pop and electronic PLAYLIST of 230 rock, pop and electronic songs on five pages, plus separate playlists by genre, by name groups is absolutely FREE!?? (no registration) – listen while you surf the web! We are currently ranked #4 on Google search for “rock and pop playlist” out of 10,900,000 results!

Have a Listen to Our Playlists of Classic Rock Only Music, the Liberal Christian Rock Playlist, or Pure Electronic Music, or just have a Listen to the master Playlist of 230 Rock, Pop & Electronic Hits. Get your music fix while you browse the news.

EMERGENCY APPEAL
Please Help Us Stay On Air!

In the next several days Evans Liberal Politics may well be forced off the air for nonpayment of my phone/internet bill. We have made emergency appeals before, but this one is urgent and there will be nothing I can do to bring you the news unless we get significant donations, soon. Please help me stay on air, and have fuel oil to heat my home, as currently my furnace is shut down and just a few, small electric heaters are giving us a little heat.

To Help, please send a money order to Paul Evans, 5396 Overton Road, Wooster, OH 44691. I’m saying a little prayer to God that some few kind and well-off souls will send us some help. Thank you and God Bless you. ~ Paul Evans

Acknowledging my Fans: My top eight cities for Tuesday, March 1, in terms of the numbers of visitors were: Mountain View, California (222, Google, you are the best – tell your fellow techs about us!); Cabot, Arkansas (210 visitors, good to see you guys back near the top of the list, spread the word!); Redmond, Washington (103 visitors – Microsoft, we love you guys, too – tell all your IT friends about us!); Alexandria, Ohio (74 visitors – thank you and go Bucks!); Bucharest, Romania (45 visitors, thank you sooo much!); Mt. Laurel, New Jersey (43 visitors – thanks for your loyalty!); New York, New York (39 visitors – I haven’t made it to the Big Apple since about 1970 or so, guess that makes me pretty old!); and Bloomington, Illinois, home of Illinois Wesleyan and nearby Illinois State (35 visitors, thank you!). A Special Hello to my Friends in China (93 visitors), Brazil (91 visitors) and Thailand (59 visitors)! Get YOUR city into the game: Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends and contacts, using the icons at bottom of each post!

Posted on March 2, 2011 by , 3 comments

Why We Should Raise Taxes on the Super-Rich and Lower Them on the Middle Class

Evans Liberal Politics
February 16, 2011

 

Why We Should Raise Taxes
on the Super-Rich and Lower Them
On the Middle Class

Why We Should Raise Taxes on the Super-Rich and Lower Them on the Middle Class, Robert Reich.org, February 15, 2011, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

My proposal to raise the marginal tax to 70 percent on incomes over $15 million, to 60 percent on incomes between $5 million and $15 million, and to 50 percent on incomes between $500,000 and $5 million, has generated considerable debate. Some progressives think it’s pie-in-the-sky. Here, for example, is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer for Salon:

the grim reaper serves as a pictorial reminder that tax day is coming soon

A 70 percent tax bracket for the richest Americans is pure fantasy – even suggesting it represents such a fundamental disconnect with the world as it exists today that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. I would be deeply worried about the sanity of a Democratic president who proposed such a thing.

Fantasy? I don’t know Mr. Leonard’s age but perhaps he could be forgiven for not recalling that between the late 1940s and 1980 America’s highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent. (Many considered Reagan’s own proposal a “fantasy” before it was enacted.)

Incidentally, during these years the nation’s pre-tax income was far less concentrated at the top than it is now. In the mid-1970s, for example, the top 1 percent got around 9 percent of total income. By 2007, they got 23.5 percent. So if anything, the argument for a higher marginal tax should be even more realistic now than it was during the days when it was taken for granted.

A disconnect with the world as it exists today? That’s exactly the point of proposing it. For years progressives have whined that Democratic presidents (Clinton, followed by Obama) compromise with Republicans while Republican presidents (Reagan through W) stand their ground – with the result that the center of political debate has moved steadily rightward. That’s the reason the world exists the way it does today. Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?

Would a Democratic president be insane to propose such a thing? Not at all. In fact, polls show an increasing portion of the electorate angry with an insider “establishment” – on Wall Street, in corporate suites, and in Washington – that’s been feathering its nest at the public’s expense. The Tea Party is but one manifestation of a widening perception that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.

More importantly, it will soon become evident to most Americans that the only way to reduce the budget deficit, preserve programs deemed essential by the middle class, and not raise taxes on the middle, is to tax the top.

In fact, a Democratic president should propose a major permanent tax reduction on the middle class and working class. I suspect most of the public would find this attractive. But here again, the only way to accomplish this without busting the bank is to raise taxes on the rich.

Republicans have done a masterful job over the last thirty years convincing the public that any tax increase on the top is equivalent to a tax increase on everyone — selling the snake oil of “trickle down economics” and the patent lie that most middle-class people will eventually become millionaires. A Democratic president would do well to rebut these falsehoods by proposing a truly progressive tax.

Will the rich avoid it? Other critics of my proposal say there’s no way to have a truly progressive tax because the rich will always find ways to avoid it by means of clever accountants and tax attorneys. But this argument proves too much. Regardless of where the highest marginal tax rate is set, the rich will always manage to reduce what they owe. During the 1950s, when it was 91 percent, they exploited loopholes and deductions that as a practical matter reduced the effective top rate 50 to 60 percent. Yet that’s still substantial by today’s standards. The lesson is government should aim high, expecting that well-paid accountants will reduce whatever the rich owe.

Besides, the argument that the nation shouldn’t impose an obligation on the rich because they can wiggle out of it is an odd one. Taken to its logical extreme it would suggest we allow them to do whatever antisocial act they wish – grand larceny, homicide, or plunder – because they can always manage to avoid responsibility for it.

Some critics worry that if the marginal tax is raised too high, the very rich will simply take their money to a more hospitable jurisdiction. That’s surely possible. Some already do. But paying taxes is a central obligation of citizenship. Those who take their money abroad in an effort to avoid paying American taxes should lose their American citizenship.

Finally, there are some who say my proposal doesn’t stand a chance because the rich have too much political power. It’s true that as income and wealth have moved to the top, political clout has risen to the top as well.

But to succumb to cynicism about the possibility of progressive change because of the power of those at the top is to give up the battle before it’s even started. Haven’t we had enough of that?

Microsoft Store

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His recent book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. Reich’s newest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future has been released September 21, and is available for ordering at this link (Amazon.com). The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.

Robert Reich’s commentaries are available for listening to at Publicradio.com. Watch the video Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future (about his new book). Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.

Posted on February 16, 2011 by , 2 comments

Robert Reich: Who Says Republicans Have No New Ideas

Evans Liberal Politics
February12, 2011

 

Robert Reich: Who Says
Republicans Have No New Ideas

Who Says Republicans Have No New Ideas, Robert Reich.org, February 11, 2011, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Quiz: Which of the 2012 presidential aspirants delivered the following words at the Conservative Political Action Convention, now underway in Washington?

Skyscraper - Pharmacy Checker Approved and CIPA certified Online Pharmacy

We have seen tax-and-tax spend-and-spend reach a fantastic total greater than in all the previous 170 years of our Republic.

Behind this plush curtain of tax and spend, three sinister spooks or ghosts are mixing poison for the American people. They are the shades of Mussolini, with his bureaucratic fascism; of Karl Marx, and his socialism; and of Lord Keynes, with his perpetual government spending, deficits, and inflation. And we added a new ideology of our own. That is government give-away programs….

If you want to see pure socialism mixed with give-away programs, take a look at socialized medicine.

If you guessed Jim DeMint, you could be forgiven. He talks a lot like this. But you’d be wrong. Newt Gingrich didn’t utter these precise words, either, although he uses much the same language and offers the same themes.

You’d also be wrong if you guessed Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Tom Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Haley Barbour, John Thune, Mitt Romney, or Mitch Daniels. (Sarah Palin isn’t attending.)

But again, your mistake would be understandable because these words sound a lot like theirs. Any of them could have delivered this message – and all of them have, over and over again. It’s the Republican message of 2011.

The perfectly correct answer is Herbert Hoover.

Herbert Hoover didn’t deliver these words at this week’s Conservative Political Action Convention, though. He delivered them at the Republican National Convention in Chicago on July 8, 1952.

That was almost sixty years ago.

Republicans haven’t come up with a single new idea since. They haven’t even come up with a new theme.

Herbert Hoover, you may remember, didn’t have a sterling record when it came to the economy. As president, he presided over the Great Crash of 1929 and ushered in the Great Depression. He had no idea for what to do to help the nation out of the Depression except to balance the federal budget. By the time he was voted out of office in 1932, one out of four Americans was unemployed.

By 1952, Hoover had been proven irrelevant and hidebound.

After Dwight D. Eisenhower won the 1952 Republican nomination and went on to become president, he wisely disregarded everything Hoover had advised.

Under Ike, the marginal income tax on America’s highest earners was 91 percent. Eisenhower also commenced the biggest infrastructure program in the nation’s history – the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act, which replaced America’s meandering two-lane roads with 40,000 miles of straight four and six-lane highways. He signed into law the National Defense Education Act, which trained a whole generation of math and science teachers, and upgraded American classrooms for the future. The Federal Housing Authority subsidized home ownership. The Defense Department spawned future technologies in aerospace and telecommunications.

Did the U.S. suffer fascism, socialism, deficits and inflation, as Hoover predicted? No. The U.S. economy soared. The median wage rose faster than ever before. And the incomes of America’s working class and poor rose at the fastest pace of all.

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His recent book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. Reich’s newest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future has been released September 21, and is available for ordering at this link (Amazon.com). The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.

Robert Reich’s commentaries are available for listening to at Publicradio.com. Watch the video Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future (about his new book). Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.

Microsoft Store

Visit our well known Guide to Liberal News & Politics on the Web, where you find out where to find out the truth.

Have a Listen to Our Playlists of Classic Rock Only Music, the Liberal Christian Rock Playlist, or Pure Electronic Music, or just have a Listen to the master Playlist of 230 Rock, Pop & Electronic Hits. Get your music fix while you browse the news.

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

Posted on February 12, 2011 by , Reply

Why the Republican Attack on “Job-Killing Regulations” is Dumb

Evans Liberal Politics
February 11, 2011

 

Why the Republican Attack
On “Job-Killing Regulations” is Dumb

Why the Republican Attack on “Job-Killing Regulations” is Dumb, Robert Reich.org, February 9, 2011, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Republicans aim to end all “job-killing regulations” — especially those that, according to House Speaker John Boehner, are “strangling” business with detailed requirements over health, safety, the environment, corporate governance and finance.

Here’s another instance of where the White House’s attempt to preempt Republican rhetoric (the President said last week his administration would root out all nonsensical and inefficient regulation) ends up legitimizing it — and reframing the public debate around an issue that’s hardly central to what ails America.

The reason we have continued sky-high unemployment has nothing to do with excessive regulation. There was no sudden outpouring of federal regulation in 2007 before the economy tanked and millions lost their jobs.

If anything, the economy unraveled because of too little regulation. Wall Street went on a binge, remember? The Street could get almost free money from the Fed (which had reduced interest rates to near zero) and do just about whatever it wanted with it. Thirty years of deregulation, culminating with the dismantling of Glass-Steagall and the abject failure of regulators at the Fed and the SEC to use the authority they still had, enabled the Street to make bundles of money and expose the rest of the economy to unprecedented levels of risk.

The Fed had slashed interest rates in the early 2000s, by the way, because the corporate looting scandals at Enron, Worldcom, Sunbeam, and other major corporations had sapped investor confidence. Those scandals themselves wouldn’t have happened had securities regulations been stronger and better enforced.

No one wants unnecessary regulation. And rules ought to be clear and simple. But let’s be real. Most of the complexity and verbiage that finds its way into the Code of Federal Regulations is the result of industry lawyers and lobbyists who exploit every potential ambiguity to avoid doing what lawmakers intend — thereby necessitating ever-more detailed and picayune rules to close the loopholes. It’s an endless cat-and-mouse game that runs from regulatory agencies through the courts and then back again. And it’s occurring right now, as regulations are being drawn up to put the healthcare and financial laws into effect.

There’s no necessary tradeoff between regulations and jobs. Regulations that are designed well — that tell industry what to achieve by a certain date but don’t dictate exactly how (such as fuel economy standards) — can generate innovation as companies compete to find the most efficient solutions. And innovations can lead to more jobs as they spawn new products and industries.

Even where there is a tradeoff — where regulations are costly and those costs result in fewer jobs — it still makes sense to opt for regulation when the public benefits exceed the costs to industry. We could have millions more jobs tomorrow if we eviscerated all health and safety regulations and allowed our air to turn yellow and our rivers and lakes to become fetid stinkholes. But that would be dumb.

“Job-killing regulations” is a silly phrase that substitutes for real thought. And it’s a distraction from the hard work of creating more jobs in America.

Microsoft Store

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His recent book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. Reich’s newest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future has been released September 21, and is available for ordering at this link (Amazon.com). The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.

Robert Reich’s commentaries are available for listening to at Publicradio.com. Watch the video Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future (about his new book). Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.

Acknowledging my Fans: My top five cities for Thursday, February 10 in terms of the numbers of visitors were: Cabot, Arkansas (564 visitors – who’d have thought it!); Redmond, Washington (208 – Microsoft, we love you guys, too!); Bellefontaine, Ohio (136 – thanks guys!); New York, New York (62 – let’s hear it for the Big Apple!); and Bloomington, Illinois (33 – thanks!). My top foreign cities were Beijing, China with 31 visitors and Berlin, Germany with 28 visitors. Get YOUR city into the game: Share Evans Liberal Politics with friends and contacts, using the icons at bottom of each post!

Visit our well known Guide to Liberal News & Politics on the Web, where you find out where to find out the truth.

Have a Listen to Our Playlists of Classic Rock Only Music, the Liberal Christian Rock Playlist, or Pure Electronic Music, or just have a Listen to the master Playlist of 230 Rock, Pop & Electronic Hits. Get your music fix while you browse the news.

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

Posted on February 11, 2011 by , Reply

Robert Reich: Obama’s Deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Evans Liberal Politics
February 9, 2011

 

Robert Reich: Obama’s Deal
with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Obama’s Deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Robert Reich.org, February 8, 2011, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

“We can, and we must, work together,” the President told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today. “Whatever differences we may have, I know that all of us share a deep, abiding belief in this country, a belief in our people, a belief in the principles that have made America’s economy the envy of the world.”

Click the pretty lady
to Visit Paul’s Playlist for
Great Rock & Pop Music!
230 Hot Tracks!

a pretty brunette draped only in an American flag serves as a link to Paul's Playlist of great streaming electronic rock and pop music

Really? I’ve been watching (and occasionally trying to deal with) the Chamber for years, and all I know is it has a deep, abiding belief in cutting taxes on the wealthy, eroding regulations that constrain Wall Street, cutting back on rules that promote worker health and safety, getting rid of the minimum wage, repealing the new health-care law, fighting unions, cutting back Medicare and Social Security, reducing or eliminating corporate taxes, and, in general, taking the nation back to the days before the New Deal.

So what, exactly, is the deal Obama is pitching to the Chamber?

He said his administration will “help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate,” by eliminating “barriers that make it harder for you to compete – from the tax code to the regulatory system,” and by completing more trade deals.

In return, the President said he wants businesses to hire more Americans. “Many of your own economists and salespeople are now forecasting a healthy increase in demand. So I want to encourage you to get in the game,” he said. “And as you hire, you know that more Americans working means more sales, greater demand and higher profits for your companies. We can create a virtuous cycle.”

Virtuous cycle? American businesses are doing quite nicely as it is. Their profits are soaring. And one reason they’re doing so well is they’re holding down costs, especially payrolls. So why would they ever agree to add more workers now?

From the standpoint of the nation as a whole more Americans working may mean even higher profits overall. But publicly-traded companies aren’t in the business of spending money to help other companies. To the contrary, they’re competing with one another to show high quarterly earnings in order to boost their share prices. They’ll “get in the game” and begin to hire large numbers of Americans only when it helps their own bottom lines.

And when will that be? Not long ago I debated a conservative economist who argued American workers had priced themselves out of the global labor market and would therefore have to settle for lower real wages and benefits before they’d be hired back in large numbers. By his logic, many health and safety regulations would also have to be compromised or abandoned, since they also make American workers more expensive.

If this is the tacit bargain the President is offering business, it’s not a good deal for American workers.

There’s no secret to creating lots of jobs by reducing the median wage, slashing benefits, compromising health and safety at the workplace, and, effectively, reducing the standard of living of millions of Americans. We’ve been doing it for years.

And it doesn’t lead to a “virtuous cycle.” It leads to the kind of economy we’ve had for years – including, right now, the most anemic recovery from a deep trough since the mid-1930s. Indeed, when the debt bubble popped in 2008, we discovered how many Americans no longer had the ability to buy enough to keep the economy going. In this and other ways, 2008 bore an uncomfortable resemblance to 1929.

The alternative is to create lots of jobs with high disposable incomes.

In the short term, this means expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit wage subsidy right up through the middle class, and cutting income and payroll taxes for everyone earning less than $80,000 a year – making up the lost revenues by raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes and hiking marginal taxes on the rich.

In the longer term, this means investing in a world-class education for all the nation’s kids, including college or high-quality technical education beyond high school. Here again, we’d have to rely on the top 1 percent (who now take home more than 20 percent of all income) to foot the bill.

Might the CEOs and top executives who comprise the U.S. Chamber of Commerce go along with this? After all, they profess to be patriotic. As the President said, they “share a deep, abiding belief in this country, a belief in our people, a belief in the principles that have made America’s economy the envy of the world.”

I don’t mean to sound cynical but I doubt it.

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His recent book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. Reich’s newest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future has been released September 21, and is available for ordering at this link (Amazon.com). The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.

Robert Reich’s commentaries are available for listening to at Publicradio.com. Watch the video Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future (about his new book). Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.

Microsoft Store

EMERGENCY APPEAL

EMERGENCY APPEAL: From Paul Evans: It’s a miracle that I am still able to bring you Evans Liberal Politics. I am in severe poverty and although the Salvation Army was good enough to grant me 100 gallons of fuel oil (God Bless you guys), this won’t last even a month. Please help us! CenturyLink, my phone company and DSL provider, was kind enough to give me a short extension on bill payment, but in fact, I don’t have the money to pay the electric bill. Folks, this won’t go on forever. We need your donations, ASAP. Please send checks OR money orders to Paul Evans, 5396 Overton Road, Wooster, OH 44691. Help keep free journalism alive and help my family have gas for my car and something to eat. If you can help though a direct donation, call me at 330-262-0571. Thank you and Bless you all.

Visit our well known Guide to Liberal News & Politics on the Web, where you find out where to find out the truth.

Have a Listen to Our Playlists of Classic Rock Only Music, the Liberal Christian Rock Playlist, or Pure Electronic Music, or just have a Listen to the master Playlist of 230 Rock, Pop & Electronic Hits. Get your music fix while you browse the news.

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

Posted on February 9, 2011 by , 1 comment
First « 12345 » Last