Posts Tagged ‘liberal Christian politics’

Compassionate Conservatives – Mitt Romney: ‘I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor’

Feb 2nd, 12 / 0 Comments

Logos57: A Caring Community

 

With One Liberal Christian’s
Story of Poverty

Compassionate Conservatives – Mitt Romney:
‘I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor’

Mitt Romney: ‘I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor’, The Huffiington Post, February 1, 2012, by Luke Johnson, excerpts quoted verbatim, with essay on poverty by Logos57 owner Paul Evans:

Note by Paul Evans: I cannot republish this entire article because of copyright, however, I just want to re-emphasize that these Republicans truly do not care about us, the very poor, for I belong to that category. I will have more to say about this later.

Huffington Post: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Wednesday that he’s “not concerned about the very poor,” citing the social safety net in place for that segment of the populace and adding that he’s focused on the middle class.

*Midnight Oil*
Under the Overpass

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it,” the Republican front-runner said Wednesday on CNN, following his victory in the Florida primary. “I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien pressed him on his comments, adding that they may sound odd for Americans who are very poor.

“Well you had to finish the sentence, Soledad,” he replied. “I said ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.’ The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans.”

“We have a very ample safety net,” said Romney. “And we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Programs in the “safety net” are also suffering during the economic recession. Medicaid, for example faces cuts as states attempt to balance budgets at a time when more people are using the program. GOP lawmakers have also eyed cuts in food stamps as food prices rise, even though more Americans are using the the program as a consequence of the economic recession.

Romney’s policies call for cutting federal spending and reconfiguring the social safety net. He calls for an immediate five-percent cut to non-discretionary spending, which would hit the safety net hard. He proposes turning Medicaid into a block grant program and undertaking a “fundamental restructuring of government programs and services.” He also calls for capping spending at 20 percent of GDP — a significant cut — and adds that he “will pursue further cuts” as spending comes “under control.” ….

Read the full article here.

See Mitt Romney Praises Safety Net He Wants To Shred.

UPDATE: See Romney: I ‘misspoke’ about the poor, The Raw Story, February 3, 2012, by David Edwards.

Click the Old
CIA E. Street Sign
to Visit Paul’s Playlist
of 230 Rock & Pop Hits
* Free! No Registration! *


photo of the CIA's old 2430 East Street Headquarters sign serves as a link to Paul's Playlist of 183 hot rock and pop hits, Free, No Registration;

My Own Story
of Poverty and Faith

Commentary by Paul Evans: I happen to be one of the “very poor.” There are two people living with me I rescued from homelessness. I did not know them at first, but took a chance because I thought it was the right and Christian thing to do at that time. I never looked back. For almost two years now, the three of us have struggled with my own disability for mental illness, while attempting to live in my father’s house.

We are trying to pay for repairs to the home, such as replacement of a hot water heater, and also we are somehow responsible for paying the property taxes, even though my Dad owns the house. I am in severe danger of losing the home because of non-payment of these taxes. I make $8,400 as our total income. (Parenthetically, did you know that as of last February, the rate of unemployment for those making $20,000 a year or less was 31 percent?)

I actually GOT a job this last spring designing websites for a software firm in Wooster, and doing cold call telemarketing to get more work. Immediately, Social Security deducted an amount almost equal to half of what I receive from them, my food stamps were almost cut in half, and I had a new “medical spenddown” so that I was making about as much NOT working as I did with my 20 hour a week job. Is THIS how the government encourages people to get off of disability???

To just about finish our chances at survival here, six miles out in the country, we have been without a car for the last six months. (There is a chance I might actually buy a pickup this Friday. HEY!)

Do you know what it is like to go to a gas station and beg for someone to please give you a few dollars so you can drive home? Do you know what it is like to be out of money halfway through the month, for two years? Do you know actual hunger… and not being able to buy the three of you McDonald’s 99 cent double cheeseburgers? Do you know what it is like when your friends first avoid you, then drop you as friends? Well, I guess “liberal” “charity” has its limits.

I truly think that all these “moderate” or “compassionate” conservatives should have to spend six months of their lives in some kind of situation like ours, manditorily, doing some kind of service. Then we would see what kind of legislation they would come up with. For years now, we have seen exactly how little Republicans care about the little guy. People, Wake Up!!!

Most people in the United States of America will never understand this kind of poverty. But when a candidate for President of the United States says and then confirms that he is “not concerned about the very poor” in this country, it upsets me terribly, even though I totally expect that, and worse, from them. Of course it upsets me! Enough to write this post, when I have never described my poverty on this website before. For shame, Mitt Romney!

Please Share Logos57: a Caring Community
with Friends and Contacts

A Message for Patriotic Americans, Republicans, and Tea Party types: I imagine conservative Christians or conservatives in general may think that figuratively I am the “devil” or in some way dangerous. I want to briefly set the record straight. My Dad was a Marine in World War II. His father was a career Marine officer who finished his career in command of the Marine battalion guarding Washington, D.C. in that same war. It was the last time (so far) that we have had troops stationed in Washington. Before that “Skipper,” as we called Dad’s Dad, chased the original Sandino (think Sandinistas) around the Nicaraguan countryside, and then was in command of the Marines guarding the gunboats which patrolled the Yangtze river in China. So Dad spent three years of his childhood in (Nationalist) Shanghai.

Continuing on with my Dad’s story, after World War II, with a masters from Georgetown in Russian history, he worked for 13 years for ASA, NSA and CIA. In 1971 he received his doctorate in Russian language and literature from Yale University. I am 55 and have lived with my father my entire adult life except when I was in college. He translated eleven books that I was the editor for. He taught me. He is 86, and is in a local nursing home, with senile dementia. Please say a prayer for him if you would.

Mom had a bachelor’s degree in botany and her father, with whom we all lived eight years of my childhood, was Curator of the Smithsonian Division of Cultural Anthropology for decades. My sister, who died tragically in 2004, was a veterinarian, and well-known in dog showing circles. Yes, things might have been very different for me, had not mental illness intervened: I will note that currently I have no symptoms. As for my own credentials, although I have a bachelor’s from Miami University (of Ohio), and an “all-but-thesis” of a masters, I am about the least of my family in credentials. But I am a patriotic American, as was my Dad and his Dad before him, thank you very much. Just to set the record straight.

I also believe that I have described a very plausible situation where someone of good education could be in danger of homelessness, but I ask: Does Mitt Romney or any of that 90 percent of the middle class care?

By the way, Republicans and rich folk everywhere, what part of that thing Jesus said about a camel, the eye of a needle, and the kingdom of heaven don’t you get?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rethinking the Abortion Debate from a Liberal Christian Perspective (Updated)

Jan 8th, 12 / 5 Comments

Logos57: A Caring Community
January 8, 2012

 

Rethinking the Abortion Debate
from a Liberal Christian Perspective (Updated)

By Placing Obsessive Emphasis on a Fetus’ Life
Many Christians Demean Women and Potentially Weaken Our Society

Logos57: A Caring Community, Rewritten and edited, January 8, 2012, originally published May 13, 2011, by Paul Evans:

I have been searching my soul and re-examining the whole debate on abortion for the last couple of years, and thought it was time to let my readers have my thoughts on this divisive issue.

Skyscraper - Pharmacy Checker Approved and CIPA certified Online Pharmacy

In the past, Evans Liberal Politics has generally but conditionally come out on the side of life, as Christian opponents of abortion generally understand the term. Let me go back to an article we featured on May 28, 2010, TN GOP proves that “pro-life” ends at birth, which was from Daily Kos, by benintn. At that time, I was basically holding a liberal sort of conception of an anti-abortion stance, and I said:

This article gets at the heart of the reason I have a problem being anti-abortion (as I have been), even though a developing fetus has a measurably human brainwave at eight days after conception. If we eliminate first trimester abortions, this will dump about 300,000 unwanted infants annually, into the social services pool. Caring for that many children is a huge burden on the system. However even though I remain basically anti-abortion insofar as my own personal ideas, I believe that something so personal as abortion should be a matter between a woman, her counselor of choice, and God. In other words, upon reflection, I would let Roe v. Wade stand.

I generally cannot STAND these righteous Republican moralizers who rant against abortion, or incite or threaten violence over the issue. These are the last people on earth who would be willing to cut out one of their vacations each year in order to pay for the costs of caring for the infants who would be born if there were no abortion. They rave on against abortion, but they are not willing to pay the social costs for not having it. It’s truly root hog or die with these hypocrites. That is NOT to say that many Republicans aren’t willing to pay these costs, but the Grand Old Party is kneejerk and lockstep in opposition to programs to care for our people. (So far as I can see, Republican’s major push, as it has been for several years, is to slash entitlements, and then put the money saved into tax cuts for the rich and very rich.)

Far from wanting to alleviate suffering in the worst economic turn-down since the Great Depression (voting almost in lockstep against extending unemployment benefits any further), Republicans are now preparing an onslaught against tried and tested safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Watch for this one folks: right wingers are now saying we can’t afford to pay for these programs and it will be a big campaign issue in 2012.

So if I were to speak my own conclusive summary on abortion, I might say: “If you want to do the crime, ya got to do the time (and pay for the social, costs).”

I have been doing a lot of soul searching, as a person who is both very liberal and also committed to Christianity, and I also did a lot of reading on the subject around the net. We are in the midst of a big time austerity push where Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as currently constituted are under determined attack by the wealthy in this nation, and their agents, the GOP, as well as some conservative Democrats.

I can’t see America ever putting out the kind of resources it would take to care for 300,000 unwanted infants in any kind of coordinated, funded program that would establish federal rules for these infants to be cared for by society. Nor will the individual states deal with abortion fairly or at all uniformly. If society doesn’t care for the newborn infants, who will? Are we going to sell them? To whom? It is simply a fact that there are not that many people willing to adopt and care for that many unwanted infants each year. To think otherwise is wishful, delusional thinking.

I have always put the mother’s life first. Forcing a mother that is the victim of rape or incest to carry an unborn fetus to term is highly morally repugnant to me. I also think that forcing a 15 year old to carry an developing fetus to term is not something that should be legally required. It should be up to the parents, in consultation with their doctor and any spiritual advisers they wish to consult. And for God’s sake, let’s have realistic sex education as early as junior high school, realizing that these kids have bodies which are in many or most aspects adult and will engage in adult sexual behavior. While we’re at it, let’s give high school kids condoms through the agency of the school counselors or else the kids’ parents. All this to me has always been moral, realistic as well as Christian in its direction.

The real hang-up I have had is over more “standard” first-trimester abortions, and in the past, I have been generally against them after eight days after conception, because at that time a fetus develops a recognizably human brainwave, as scientifically measured. Yet the fact remains, looking at the matter stone cold realistically, society is not going to expand the social safety net to care for the additional 300,000 infants a year that would result if first trimester abortions were outlawed.

I guess it’s that simple to me. I look at it in terms of a sort of “overall misery index” and at this point, very reluctantly, I would let Roe v. Wade stand and continue with first trimester abortions staying legal. By the way, I would make free “morning after pills” available all over the place and have the government pay for them.

There are those fundamentalist Christians who go so far as to say that birth control itself should be illegal since it might deny a potential life that would come to be if birth control were not available. And there are those pharmacists who will not fill prescriptions for the morning after pill or even birth control, citing religious grounds. Moreover, some state laws have supported a pharmacist’s right to refuse this to people. Thank God, this is not prevalent and we do not live in a theocracy yet. And I DO mean “thank God.”

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

I’m going to let my arguments and thoughts end at this point, providing some of the articles I have read which helped bring me to my current viewpoint. To summarize the reasons for my position, it is driven by 1.) the compassion I feel for all living beings, in this case putting the life of the pregnant woman ahead of that of the unborn fetus, 2.) a general conclusion based on what is possible politically to care for potential unwanted infants and thus 3.) an overall feeling of compassion and regard for the misery versus the health of women and unborn fetuses as well as society. For those of you who might question my credentials as a true Christian, I suggest you read my article, My Christian Religious Views.

I also have one last thing to say: abortion is a very difficult issue. I KNOW the seriousness of aborting a fetus and I have thought about this a lot. I can honestly say, I don’t know what’s right, yet these are my thoughts on the matter. It really bothers me that a fetus has a scientifically measured, recognizably human brainwave at eight days after conception, but I am not really convinced that this means that aborting such a fetus is killing a human being. It is alive, it has a human brainwave, but is it a human being? I guess such fetuses… well we need to think long and hard about this as individuals before we would decide to have an abortion. I might make some kind of law requiring counseling, but then the question is, who does the counseling, for that would determine what gets done, wouldn’t it? And finally, it has to be a woman’s right to choose an outcome. Although I have written this article from logical and compassionate analysis from one man, it is women who must make such difficult decisions, and so for the first trimester, I would leave it up to them.

I pray to God that my thinking here has some kind of decent validity and moral correctness. But I don’t really claim to know for sure. We certainly shouldn’t kill each other over this, nor threaten violence. Here are some of the articles which have contributed to my viewpoint on abortion:

I have been thinking about this for a long time. See The Rise of the Religious Left — Why Christianity Isn’t Just for Conservatives, AlterNet on Evans Liberal Politics, October 17, 2009, by Anna Hartnell.

See The Human Sacrifice Encouragement Act of 2011 (Updated), Daily Kos on Evans Liberal Politics, February 5, 2011, by dengre: In this bill, Republicans wanted to turn pregnant raped women who are about to die during pregnancy away from hospitals and out in the streets rather than allow abortion of any kind, ever. I’m not quite sure what ever happened to this legislation.

See John Stewart on Sen. Kyl’s ‘political strategy known as lying’, The Raw Story on Evans Liberal Politics, April 12, 2011, by Kase Wickman:

… one of the last sticking points in reaching a budget deal to avoid government shutdown was whether Planned Parenthood would receive federal funding or not. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does,” when abortions actually account for only 3 percent of PPFA’s services. When confronted, his office said that it was “not intended to be a factual statement.”

One of the best religious articles I read on the subject of abortion was Liberal Christians and Abortion, Anitra.net, no date:

One thing to understand about Liberal Christianity is that it tries to adhere to the spirit of scripture and not necessarily to the letter. There are often no specific scriptural texts on a particular subject. Or the specific texts may say the opposite, taken literally, than what a Liberal Christian would understand to be the spirit of scripture as a whole.

If you ever go back to look at the 19th century debates about abolishing slavery, you will see what I mean. Not a single text in the bible says that slavery ought to be abolished. On the contrary there are specific instructions to slaves to be diligent and obedient to their masters. So the supporters of slavery had lots of scriptural backing for their position, and the abolitionists had very little. But the abolitionists based their case on what the bible teaches overall about the nature of human beings, and God’s love for each and every one, and drew the conclusion, in spite of what a surface reading of scripture seems to say, that slavery was morally wrong and ought to be abolished.

When it comes to abortion, I cannot speak for all Liberal Christians, but this is my take on it.

1. Every conception creates a human life and God loves and honors that human life and wants it to develop to its full potential. Every abortion is tragic insofar as it ends a human life.

2. Every woman’s life is dear to God as well. God loves the mother as much as the child and wants childbearing to be a joy for her. God never values the child above the mother (as most anti-choice advocates do) nor the mother above the child.

3. In some circumstances, bearing a child would bring great hardship to the mother and to others in her family. In such a case, one may have to weigh whether the cost of bringing a new life into the world is justified when the impacts on other lives are considered. This is a never a judgment to be made lightly, nor is there a simple rule one can follow, as the circumstances vary so much from one situation to another. All things considered, in some circumstances it is better not to continue the pregnancy. (Just as, in some circumstances it is better not to continue a marriage.)

Also see Sex and the Liberal Christian, National Sexuality Resource Center, July 10, 2006, by Timothy F. Simpson.

Also see Abortion Access: Current beliefs by various religious and secular groups, Religous Tolerance.org, no date, which has a pretty complete listing of mainline and liberal Christian denominations which support a woman’s right to choose.

Also see Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes, September 16, 2008, by David D. Kirkpatrick, which discusses how the abortion issue contributed to splitting the Catholic vote in the Presidential election of 2008.

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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Robert Reich: The GOP Ticket in 2012: Romney-Rubio

Jan 4th, 12 / 1 Comment

Logos57: A Caring Community
January 4, 2011

 

A Caring Place Where People
May Help Each Other
and Talk Politics or Religion

Robert Reich: The GOP Ticket
in 2012: Romney-Rubio

The GOP Ticket in 2012: Romney-Rubio, RobertReich.org, January 2, 2012, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Since my New Year’s prediction that Obama would select Hillary Clinton for his running mate in 2012 (and Joe Biden would become Secretary of State), I’ve been swamped by requests for my GOP prediction. Here goes.

Microsoft Store

You can forget the caucuses and early primaries. Mitt Romney will be the nominee. Republicans may be stupid but the GOP isn’t about to commit suicide. The other candidates are all weighed down by enough baggage to keep a 747 on the tarmac indefinitely.

For his running mate, Romney will choose Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida. Why do I say this?

First, Romney will need a right-winger to calm and woo the Republican right. Tea Partiers are attracted to Rubio – an evangelical Christian committed to reducing taxes and shrinking government. Rubio’s meteoric rise in the Florida House before coming to Congress was based on a string of conservative stances on state issues.

Rubio is also a proven campaigner, handily winning four Florida House elections starting in 2002, and then beating popular incumbent Republican governor Charlie Crist in 2010 — with the help of Tea Partiers.

Moreover, he’s only 40, thereby giving the GOP ticket some youthful vigor.

And he’s Hispanic – a Cuban-American – at a time when the GOP needs to court the Hispanic vote.

Rubio’s only baggage is the “son of exiles” controversy – his suggestion that his parents were refugees forced out of Cuba by Castro when in fact they moved to the United States before the Cuban revolution.

But this isn’t the sort of slip that would keep him off the ticket. In fact, Romney has defended Rubio, saying “I think the world of Marco Rubio, support him entirely and think that the effort to try to smear him was unfortunate and bogus.”

Finally, and most critically, Florida is a crucial swing state. Rubio would help deliver it.

So it will be Obama-Clinton versus Romney-Rubio.

And what’s my prediction for Election Day? Obama-Clinton hands down.

I warn you, though. Political predictions, economic forecasts, and astrology differ in only one respect. Astrology has a fairly good record of being correct.

Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Chancellor’s 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.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Romney leads Paul in Iowa poll, Santorum surges

Jan 1st, 12 / 1 Comment

Logos57: A Caring Community
January 1, 2012

 

A Caring Place Where People
May Help Each Other
and Talk Politics or Religion

Romney leads Paul
in Iowa poll, Santorum surges

Romney leads Paul in Iowa poll, Santorum surges, Reuters, January 1, 2012, by John Whitesides and Steve Holland:

(Reuters) – Republican Mitt Romney narrowly leads rival Ron Paul in Iowa three days before the state kicks off the party’s presidential nominating race, according to a Des Moines Register poll released on Saturday.

The closely watched poll, which has a strong track record in Iowa races, showed Rick Santorum surging past Newt Gingrich into third place in a fluid race where 41 percent of likely caucus-goers said they could still change their minds.

The newspaper’s poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, showed Romney with 24 percent support, Paul with 22 percent, Santorum with 15 percent and Gingrich 12 percent. In fifth place was Rick Perry with 11 percent while Michele Bachmann was sixth with 7 percent.

Read the full article here.

See Also With 48 hours left, Romney close to Iowa breakthrough, Reuters on Yahoo News, January 1, 2012, by John Whitesides, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Romney, who spent millions in Iowa in 2008 only to lose, has not campaigned hard here until recent days.

He picked up the endorsement on Sunday of Iowa’s Quad-City Times newspaper, which praised his business background as a former head of a private equity firm and said he had the best chance of beating Obama.

*****

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Logos57: A Caring Community with friends! In order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news, politics, social and economic justice and articles with an emphasis on caring, we really need you to SHARE this website with your friends and contacts. Can you help us today?

POVERTY ACTION ALERT
Folks We Are in Real Need

EMERGENCY APPEAL: From Paul Evans: We need your donations, ASAP. I myself and two other friends live six miles outside of Wooster, Ohio, out in the country. For almost the last six months, we have not had a car. Neither can we afford to heat our home, and we are delinquent on our property taxes. Finally we have saved up $600 and have found a car we can purchase for that amount. Believe me, this alone is a huge relief for us. However, because of the need for that payment, we may have to discontinue our phone/internet for a month or more, unless we get help from you. If you enjoy Logos57: A Caring Community, please send a money order to Paul Evans, 5396 Overton Road, Wooster, OH 44691. Help keep free journalism alive and help my family have gas for my car and continued phone internet service, so I can keep bringing you the kind of news you like. Thanks for considering us.

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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supply Side Economics, The Bush Tax Cuts & John Boehner Completely Discredited

Dec 31st, 11 / 1 Comment

Logos57: A Caring Community
December 31, 2011

 

Supply Side Economics, The Bush Tax Cuts
& John Boehner Completely Discredited

The Bush Tax Cuts and Supply Side Economics
by Now Should Be Completely Discredited
as Economic Evidence, History Show

Logos57: A Caring Community, edited version published December 31, 2011, original version May 15, 2011, by Paul Evans: This article is dependent on John Boehner says Bush tax cuts created 8 million jobs over 10 years, PolitiFact Truth-O-Meter, May 11, 2011, The Laffer Curve in Real Life, Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 15, 2010, by Jay Bookman, and other sources, especially the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Also Published on OpEdNews.

Be Sure and Watch Top 10 Greatest GOP Moments of 2011 on Video.

Starting Point: FALSE: John Boehner says Bush tax cuts created 8 million jobs over 10 years

In 1980, Ronald Reagan swept into office on the corpse of Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation” (economic stagnation with increased unemployment + inflation of about 17.5 percent, I remember it well). Republicans were chanting a new mantra called supply side economics, which stated, basically, cut taxes, particularly cut taxes for the rich, and this will result in economic growth. They even had so-called mathematical theory to back them up in a graphical representation known as the Laffer curve.

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

A cursory look at the literature on the economic successes of recent administrations shows that Boehner’s claim and supply side economics in general are base lies. The only real reason for supply side economics is to raid the nation’s resources (hopefully for the right wingers in terms of cuts to entitlements, or at the least privatization of them), to make the rich richer. The record, as documented below, shows that higher tax rates, particularly higher tax rates on the wealthy, have resulted in 1.) higher GDP economic growth, 2.) lower deficits and 3.) a healthier economic climate with lower unemployment.

In private meetings, the wealthy chortle over their success at hoodwinking the American people into lowering taxes for the wealthy. In an article by Mark Weisbrot called Extending the Tax Cuts: The Ninety-Eight Percent Solution, published in at least 29 newspapers or websites, the snobbery and effrontery of the rich is laid bare:

George W. Bush summed it up at an $800-a-plate dinner back in 2000 with a joke: “This is an impressive crowd – the haves and the have-mores,” he said. “Some people call you the elites; I call you — my base.” What made the joke really funny is that it was true.

Getting back to the PolitiFact article, from which I take one of the main subjects of my own article, that is, John Boehner’s claim about the Bush tax cuts (in other words, one of the main of examples of supply side economics in practice) and these tax cuts’ economic effectiveness, PolitiFact introduces the subject as follows:

During an interview on NBC’s Today show (May 10, 2011), House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered some job-creation statistics to cast a favorable light on the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003.

Host Matt Lauer said to Boehner, “You talk about creating jobs. When the Bush era tax cuts were passed in 2001, unemployment in this country was 4.5 percent. Today it’s at 9 percent, just down from 10 percent. So why are the Bush era tax cuts creating jobs?”

Boehner responded that the tax cuts “created about 8 million jobs over the first 10 years that they were in existence. We’ve lost about 5 million of those jobs during this recession.”

Let me state, before we get into the Bush tax cuts and supply side economics, with a summary of PolitiFact’s arguments and also additional evidence, that PolitiFact’s conclusion was that, essentially, Boehner’s statement is FALSE. PolitiFact examines Boehner’s claim about the Bush tax cuts in the time frame of 2001 to 2009, but an examination of the U.S. economy in a larger time frame is more instructive, as we shall see.

There were two Bush tax cuts, the first passed in June, 2001. PolitiFact points out that this means that Boehner’s contention cannot be true, in that ten years have not passed since the tax cuts (the first package) went into effect. They note, moreover, in the first place that there is no direct evidence that it was these tax cuts which accounted for the job growth during the Bush administration at all. Any rational examination can put job growth during these years as the result of a housing bubble and stock speculative bubble, and not true economic growth with a valid basis — but that is just my opinion, although it is held by many.

Let’s look at PolitiFact’s numbers more closely. There are actually two measures of job growth used by economists. By the most commonly used measure, the “Current Economic Statistics” or CES figures, here is what PolitiFact found was true for the Bush years:

June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
Increase during that six-and-a-half-year period: 5,949,000 people

That’s roughly 6 million jobs — significantly below the 8 million Boehner cited.

Now let’s turn to the jobs lost during the recession. We once again calculated the numbers in the way most favorable to Boehner — from the peak of employment (January 2008) to the lowest point (February 2010). Here are the figures:

January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
February 2010: 129,246,000 people employed
Decrease during the roughly two-year period: 8,750,000 people

That’s almost 9 million jobs lost — almost twice what Boehner had said on Today.

Don’t you love the way politicians throw numbers around without checking the facts? (Many times, of course, they are well aware of the facts and are just baldly lying.) Here please note that the figures indicate that in the time, thus far, since the Bush tax cuts began, that is, from June, 2001 to the time at which PolitiFact’s analysis ends, February 2010, or less than nine years, the economy actually lost about 2.8 million jobs, by the CES statistics. (Boehner’s claim for jobs created by the Bush tax cuts was for ten years.)

As it turned out, Boehner got his figures as provided by that paragon of intelligence, Michael Steele, and from a different set of economic numbers, the “Current Population Survey” or CPS data, and those figures more or less bear him out, to some extent:

June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed
January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed
Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people

January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed
February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed
Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people

So using the CPS figures, Boehner actually underestimated the jobs created after the passage of the Bush tax cuts, rather than overestimating them. And his number of jobs lost in the recession was closer to the CPS number than to the CES number.

Politifact is not stressing the main point here, that Boehner was making his claim of job growth owing to the Bush tax cuts for a span of ten years, and that even by the CPS numbers, only about 1.75 million jobs have been created (thus far). His figures for jobs lost during the recession, while somewhat inaccurate by either measure, are somewhat closer to the mark, but so what? Bush caused the economic and regulatory climate which led to the recession, did he not?

PolitiFact does in fact examine the job creation numbers over a much wider time frame encompassing various recent presidents, citing numbers from Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the Brooking Institution. Burtless looks at the first 81 months of several presidencies, examining only those presidents who served two terms:

Employment under Bush grew by 4.5 percent using CES and 7 percent using CPS, whereas employment grew by double digits under presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, and also under the combined eight-year administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, who finished Nixon’s term after he resigned, and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Only under Eisenhower was job growth more sluggish than it was under George W. Bush, and even then, it was only the case using one of the two BLS statistics. (Burtless did not compare job growth during the administrations of George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter because they served only one term each.)

Where does all this leave us? First, under the most common yardstick for measuring employment — the CES data — Boehner’s claim is significantly overstated. Second, while Boehner is closer when using a different statistic, it’s only more accurate if he uses a time period much different than the one he stated in the interview. And third, his suggestion that the tax cuts are primarily responsible for subsequent job growth is contentious at best (and the job growth he points to is modest compared to previous administrations).

So the numbers Boehner offers are accurate only with significant adjustments. Overall, we find his statement too flawed to give it a rating higher than False.

Score one for PolitiFact. It’s good to see centrist news and politics websites which claim to discern the truth of politicians’ statements get it right. Let’s look at a similar, but more devastating analysis by Jay Bookman, The Laffer Curve in Real Life, Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 15, 2010. There is no better way to describe this analysis — and it is devastating to any who would maintain that supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy — than to make an extensive quote from the article:

Click the Magic Dollar Sign
to Visit Our Rock &
Pop Playlist – 230 Songs
#1 Rated by Google

A magic dollar sign serves as a link to Paul's Playlist – Listen to hours of streaming rock, pop and electronic music

So how do we gauge the effectiveness of supply-side theory in practice? I propose we look at three specific measures:

  • The core claim of supply-siders is that tax cuts spur investment, so we’ll look at growth in private investment;
  • Supply-side theory also claims that tax cuts increase government revenue, so we’ll look at whether that actually occurred;
  • And since growth in gross domestic product is the ultimate aim of any economic policy, we’ll include that in the analysis as well.

(Note: All data below have been adjusted to account for inflation.)

Private investment:

After the ‘81 Reagan tax cuts, private nonresidential investment over the next seven years grew at an annual rate of 2.8 percent.
After the ‘93 Clinton tax hike, private investment over the next seven years grew annually at 10.2 percent.
After the 2001 Bush tax cut, private investment grew annually at 2.7 percent. (Data source: CAP/EPI study, Sept. 2008,, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data.)

Federal revenue:

From 1981-1993, federal revenue increased by 20.7 percent over 12 years.
From 1993-2001, federal revenue grew by 46.6 percent over 8 years.
From 2001-2009, federal revenue decreased by 13.9 percent. (Even if you don’t include the deep recession year of 2009 — you might say we’re invoking the mercy rule — revenue increased just 3.3 percent over the eight years of Bush’s presidency.
(Source: OMB Historical Table 1.2)

GDP growth

From 1981-1993, real GDP grew by an annual average of 2.97 percent.
From 1993-2001, real GDP grew by an annual average of 3.56 percent.
From 2001-2009, real GDP grew by an annual average of 1.56 percent.
(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)

In conclusion, in all three categories central to the claim of supply-side proponents, the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.

Also see In Addition to Geithner, Republican Economists Also Argue That Tax Cuts Do Not Pay for Themselves, Center for Economic and Policy Research, August 5, 2010, no author, in which both Timothy Geithner and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “a prominent Republican economist who was the chief economic advisor to John McCain in his presidential campaign,” dismissed the contentions that tax cuts pay for themselves as “myths.”

Come on people. We are not fools. Looking at Jay Bookman’s analysis, which seems pretty formidable to me, as it would to any logical thinker, and giving credence to Timothy Geithner as well as the PolitiFact analysis, I believe supply side economics, the damned Laffer curve, and the Bush tax cuts should be pretty thoroughly discredited. And the American people think so too! According to a recent look at Americans attitudes on taxes, Americans Believe in Tax Equity, Center for American Progress, April 15, 2011, by James Hairston, we overwhelmingly want progressive tax rates and dislike the Bush tax cuts:

  • More than four-fifths of Americans favor a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning more than $1 million a year, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
  • Almost 7 out of 10 Americans favor eliminating the Bush tax cuts for households earning $250,000 a year or more.
  • (Also): The least popular deficit-reduction proposal is turning Medicare into a voucher program where seniors get government coupons for private insurance, as House Republicans have proposed.

Here it is worthwhile to note that Representative Ryan’s budget plan to gut and privatize Medicare, according to the New York Times (CEPR article), “would add $30 trillion to the cost of buying Medicare equivalent plans over Medicare’s 75-year planning horizon.”

This is not the sum transferred from the government to beneficiaries. It is the increase in total costs — waste to the government, income to insurers and health care providers. This $30 trillion figure is approximately 6 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. It comes to almost $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

Well, Boehner and the Republicans have had their way, and by way of budget blackmail, the Bush tax cuts have been extended for two years.

These tax deals have been going on for some time, either with Obama’s complicity or out of political necessity. See the Guardian.co.uk, in an article by Dean Baker of CEPR, about tax cuts for the rich passed at the end of 2010. On this also see Tax Cut Deal: Extends Current Programs, Provides Little Spur to Further Job Growth, CEPR, December 7, 2010, by Eileen Applebaum, an article originally published in The Hill. Again, this was an earlier giveaway that Republicans forced Obama to make to the rich.

Now we have at least two more years of the Bush tax cuts, thanks to Boehner’s and the Republicans’ blackmail, and the political necessity of accepting a deal to get a budget which Obama faced passed. At this point, there are a few things we should know about these tax cuts. They won’t stimulate investment. And there is no evidence they will create much job growth or overall economic growth in the economy. At least if history means anything. All it will do is line the pockets of the Republicans’ real base, and their real masters, the rich and very rich.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Two Inspirational Videos to Watch and Think About

Dec 27th, 11 / 5 Comments

Evans Community of Caring
December 28, 2011, 2011

 

Two Inspirational Videos
to Watch and Think About

Evans Community of Caring, December 28, 2011, revised commentary by Paul Evans: This one is a repeat from February 17, 2011 and January of 2010.

I really wanted you to see these videos and think about them. (I wouldn’t have republished this post twice if the videos did not strongly resonate with me.) Partly, it just comes from my own worry about the future of mankind and his increasing capacity for destruction.

O’ Caritas
by Cat Stevens – 1976

The first video is about the fear of apocalypse and the end of the world. The second video, on the other hand, is a strong example of a society starting from a traditional viewpoint and adapting (or evolving) in a way which is progressive and healthy, as should be obvious if you watch it. The common thread is caring and love, in the first case from a fear of the end of our society, and the second an inspirational example of a society’s successfully adapting when a change seemed needed.

O’Caritas: What an apocalyptic vision, set to music! This deeply affected me a few decades ago, about 1987 and at times since. “Caritas” is Latin, as are most of the words sung by Cat Stevens, but the video provides English subtitles. The word means spiritual love or compassion. From the album, Catch Bull at Four. If by some unlikely chance you don’t already know this, THIS (the end of the world) is what some people believe neocons are actively trying to MAKE happen. In their idiotic, simple view, because the Book of Revelation is in the Bible, and that says the end of the world will come on judgement day after a final, consuming battle, these militaristic fools are actively seeking to bring about the battle of Armageddon. I have read that the Book of Revelation is the second most influential written influence on our history, culture and society. Well, you know, in Genesis, God created light and dark on the first day, and yet the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. So how does that work, can anyone tell me? No, Virginian, the Bible is not literally true, although certainly the truth is in it.

If, God forbid, the world might end somehow, let it be God’s decision in God’s own time. We don’t need people advocating the projection of American force in any manner which might by the furtherest stretch of the imagination let loose some devastation on earth. Pray that God’s love might yet save this old world.

Something to think about.

Be sure and watch both videos.

*****

The Dance
Robert Miribal – Navaho

You are going to be surprised by this video, based on how it starts and how it “gets going” a little way into it. Think about how the Navajo culture has adapted here, away from its static tradition, as all healthy cultures must over time. If a culture does not adapt and change, it dies, like the Maya.

“He who has ears, let him hear”

Change or perish.

Will western culture change enough, soon enough?

*****

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! In order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Can you help us today?

POVERTY ACTION ALERT
Folks We Are in Real Need

EMERGENCY APPEAL: From Paul Evans: We need your donations, ASAP. I myself and two other friends live six miles outside of Wooster, Ohio, out in the country. For almost the last six months, we have not had a car. Neither can we afford to heat our home, and we are delinquent on our property taxes. Finally we have saved up $600 and have found a car we can purchase for that amount. Believe me, this alone is a huge relief for us. However, because of the need for that payment, we may have to discontinue our phone/internet for a month or more, unless we get help from you. If you enjoy Evans Caring Community, please send a money order to Paul Evans, 5396 Overton Road, Wooster, OH 44691. Help keep free journalism alive and help my family have gas for my car and continued phone internet service, so I can keep bringing you the kind of news you like. Thanks for considering us.

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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why People Stay On Welfare or Disability: My Story of Disillusionment

Dec 16th, 11 / 3 Comments

Evans Community of Caring
December 16, 2011

 

Why People Stay on Welfare or Disability:
My Story of Disillusionment

Evans Liberal Politics, December 16, 2011, origninally publbished on June 13, 2011, by Paul Evans:

I don’t really know how to introduce this true story of mine. I have real difficulty accepting it, or believing that the Federal and State of Ohio governments are this incredibly stupid — or evil. Frankly, my conclusion is that this is the way the deck is stacked for people like me. Once you are down on disability, and reach some age in the 50-year-old range, you simply are not supposed to recover from that. The financial rules and regulations which Social Security and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services are supposed to enforce, do not allow anybody like me to make a comeback and lead a normal life.

photo of Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans from June, 2011

I have been on full disability since 1987, for mental illness. In the last year that was paying me $307 in SSI and $387 in (earned) SSA from Social Security, for a total of $694 a month. Everything was OK for many years because I lived with my nuclear family and we were all doing O.K. Then my sister, who as a veterinarian was making good money, passed away unexpectedly, and soon after, my mother died. I had cared for Mom and Dad for two years before Mom passed on, and then cared for Dad for 3 years, until the beginning of 2010. Then, at the very end of 2009, with me having a short spell in a mental hospital, there was no one to care for Dad. The first call I made from the hospital was to the local Hospice, begging them to please look after Dad, but they did not, and Dad soon ended up in the emergency room, for eight days, and almost died there.

Since then Dad has lived in a local nursing home. As a mental patient, and I might add as one who has never been arrested and one who very strongly loves his Dad, at this point someone in power decided I was not fit to look after Dad, whose senile dementia was growing worse. So they appointed a guardian for dad, I might add, a guardian who has never helped me with one cent of the bills he promised to pay for me at a meeting in May, 2010 (but not in writing, alas).

And here’s a warning for all those whose parents are getting older: Medicare will pay for only two months of physical therapy. But all the health insurance contracts providing nursing home insurance are rigged. After two months, when the physical therapy stops, there is a clause in all the health insurance contracts that physical therapy stopping means that the health insurance provider stops paying for the nursing home stay. In our case, Dad had nursing home insurance for one full year, but they stopped paying when the physical therapy stopped, two months into his stay at the nursing home.

Insofar as I can tell, this sort of clause is in all the health insurance policies that I am aware of. So beware!

So anyway, at that point we eventually get Medicaid to pay for Dad to stay in the nursing home, but at least in Ohio, when Medicaid is used to pay for an elderly person’s nursing home stay, this cuts off all access to the patient’s funds, even by his or her family. In other words, Dad has three small retirements coming in, but as soon as Dad went on Medicaid, I could not hope to have the use of any of Dad’s money at all. Using Medicaid to pay for a nursing home stay, in the state of Ohio at least, cuts off all access to the patients’ funds for all family members.

I badly needed these funds to take care of Dad’s home, where I live. A water heater and a cold water well tank had to be replaced. A couple of electrical outlets blew up. I could not use Dad’s money to pay for needed repairs to his own house. I have not been able to pay these bills and some repair people have already sued me. Some states (14 so far) now allow for jail for failure to pay your debts.

By this time, I had taken in two people who needed help, from a homeless shelter in Akron, but we were flat broke most of the time, and the three of us were living just on my disability checks. These two new people who were living with me had past records which made it especially hard for them to find jobs.

Then, about five months ago, my old car died and we were stranded except for the kind decency of a few friends who gave us rides. We are still looking for a car as charity as of the publication date of this article. We live six miles out in the country. We cannot even afford to heat the whole house. A few rooms are warmed with electric heaters, although of course that makes the electric bill something we often cannot afford to pay.

So, getting back to my attempts to get off disability, I thought, perhaps and hopefully the time had come that I would be able to hold down a job myself. I worked six to seven weeks about 20 hours a week at my new job of website design and telemarketing to get website design customers, for a good man who took a chance and hired me, despite my lack of much of an employment history.

Then came the bad news. Despite the fact that I had worked through the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, Social Security did NOT give me any time to get back on my feet before they informed me that each month, after $65 dollars free and clear, they were deducting HALF of what I made from my SSI check. Then the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services kicked in. Those kind folks reduced my food stamps benefit from $480 a month to $277 a month. They also initiated a monthly medical spenddown, starting at $36 a month, before I would receive my Medicare or Medicaid benefits at all.

The long and the short of it is that I found myself making about the SAME in wages and benefits while working about 20 hours a week than I was if I just sat there and stayed on full disability, doing nothing.

Absolutely incredible, crazy and stupid as hell, I know, but that is the truth.

To complete the picture, making no more money than I did while I was disabled, I could not at that point pay my phone and internet bill. I needed this very much for my job, not to mention for Evans Liberal Politics.

Ah, but there is still more. At the beginning of October, which is about three months after I had to quit my job, Social Security informed me that they had made an overpayment to me, so that for October, November and December of this year, my SSI payment would not be the usual $307 but only $239 a month. I thought that was a nice touch, don’t you?

So there you have it. I have apologized profusely to my boss, Tom, who is a wonderful Christian gentleman and understood completely. But without phone and internet, I could not do my job, and so I told Tom that I would be unable to work for him.

I just find it so incredible that this is the way the government encourages people to get off of disability/welfare, taking so much away in reduced benefits that the disabled person is actually making less than if he/she simply stayed on welfare. This is no rant, I simply wanted to get the truth of my own situation out there. I don’t expect that any change or help will come to me by writing this post, but I very much DO want all the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” and “take personal responsibiilty” people out there to realize: our own government is making it impossible for disabled people to get back to work. I want to work, I am well enough to work, but there is NO PROGRAM for a disabled person to gradually get back on their feet.

Guess I’m headed back to the welfare dime. Seems like that’s where the government wants me. I really have no choice in the matter. No one will hire me for a good paying, full time job, and if they did, I would lose my Medicare and Medicaid benefits for good. Do you think some prospective employer is going to replace THAT??? Do you really think that at age 54, having been on disability since 1987, I am going to take a chance like that (assuming I could get hired at a good paying job)??

No, like the song says, “when you’re down, that’s where you’ll stay”. That seems to be the way the government wants it.

How about you, my readers? Have any of you experienced similar horror stories in trying to get off of the welfare dime and getting back to work? If so, please feel encouraged to leave a comment below. ~ Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The President’s Bold Jobs Bill (Maybe)

Aug 18th, 11 / 0 Comments

Evans Liberal Politics
August 18, 2011

 

The President’s Bold Jobs Bill (Maybe)


Robert Reich.org, August 17, 2011, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

The President is sounding like a fighter these days. He even says he’ll be proposing a jobs bill in September – and if Republicans don’t go along he’ll fight for it through Election Day (or beyond).

InformIT (Pearson Education)

That’s a start. But read the small print and all he’s talked about so far is extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits (good, but small potatoes), ratifying the Columbia and South Korea free trade agreements (not necessarily a job-creating move), and creating an infrastructure bank.

An infrastructure bank might be helpful, depending on its size.

Which is the real question hovering over the entire putative jobs bill – its size.

Some of the President’s political advisors have been pushing for small-bore initiatives that they believe might have a chance of getting through the Republican just-say-no House. They also figure policy miniatures won’t give aspiring GOP candidates more ammunition to tar Obama as a big-government liberal.

But the President is sounding as if he’s rejected their advice.

That’s good policy and good politics.

Good policy because any jobs bill has to be big enough to give the economy the boost it needs to get out of the gravitational pull of the Great Recession.

Right now all the old booster rockets are gone. The original stimulus is over. The Fed’s “quantitative easing” is over.

Combine the budget cuts state and local governments continue to make with the slowdown in consumer spending, the reluctance of businesses to expand or hire, and the magnitude of unemployment and under-employment, and you need a big new booster rocket. I’d estimate the shortfall in aggregate demand to be $300 billion to $500 billion this year alone.

A bold jobs plan is also good politics. With more than 25 million Americans looking for full-time jobs, the wages of people with jobs falling, and an economy on the verge of a double dip, the President has to come out fighting on the side of average people.

Besides, Republicans won’t go along with any jobs initiative he proposes – even a tiny one. Better they reject one that could make a real difference than one that’s pitifully small and symbolic.

If Republicans reject it, Obama can build his 2012 campaign around that fight. Maybe he’ll even call Republicans on their big lie that smaller government leads to more jobs.

What would a bold jobs bill look like? Here are the ten components I’d recommend (apologies to those of you who have read some of these before):

1. Exempt first $20K of income from payroll taxes for two years. Make up shortfall by raising ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes.

2. Recreate the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps to put long-term unemployed directly to work.

3. Create an infrastructure bank authorized to borrow $300 billion a year to repair and upgrade the nation’s roads, bridges, ports, airports, school buildings, and water and sewer systems.

4. Amend bankruptcy laws to allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on their primary residence, so they can reorganize their mortgage loans.

5. Allow distressed homeowners to sell a portion of their mortgages to the FHA, which would take a proportionate share of any upside gains when the homes are sold.

6. Provide tax incentive to employers who create net new jobs ($2,500 deduction for every net new job created).

7. Make low-interest loans to cash-starved states and cities, so they don’t have to lay off teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and reduce other critical public services.

8. Provide partial unemployment benefits to people who have lost part-time jobs.

9. Enlarge and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit – a wage subsidy for low-wage work.

10. Impose a “severance fee” on any large business that lays off an American worker and outsources the job abroad.

Some of these won’t cost the federal government money. Others will be costly in the short term but lead to faster growth.

Remember: Faster growth means a more manageable debt in the long term. Which means the President could tie this (or any other jobs bill of similar magnitude) to an even more ambitious long-term debt-reduction plan than he’s already proposed.

A bold jobs bill is good politics and good policy. Let’s wait to see what the President actually proposes.

OCInkjet.com 392x72 banner, image is updated by season.

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.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,