Even the most jaundiced American will tell you our political parties are Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, but that Democrats will give the little guy something; and Republicans will give them nothing.
After 30 years of trench warfare in Washington, that's what's left of the Democrats' New Deal sheen; they promise to respect you in the morning, and the Republicans just change the subject.
It's a revolting development for the party that gave America a middle class, sixty years of prosperity, and a framework for social justice, but there you are; the Democrat's posture of moral superiority is paper-thin. But it still stands -- more or less.
So it was disappointing, at best, to watch Democratic senators shred what political edge they've got.
They did that, of course, by fleeing Washington for Memorial Day picnics, without passing the recent House bill extending unemployment benefits -- by the minimum they could get away with--and in any event, without extending the benefits of those whose unemployment has run its course (the extension only applies to new applicants). This, after weeks of barely resisting demands to tell America's long-term unemployed that they're on their own.
The bill could have been a gift to Democrats -- an opportunity to paint Republicans as hard-hearted toadies of the uber-rich, perfectly willing to hide behind new-found anxieties about the government finances they'd wrecked, as long as their masters didn't have to pay for it. Meanwhile, they could show the world that Democrats look out for the little guy.
Instead, they accepted the GOP premise that spending is out of control -- ceding the debate to the opposition, and ignoring the lessons of 1937. That was the year the nation's climb out of the Great Depression was reversed, after Democrats allowed the GOP to raise taxes and cut spending. In fact, history shows that you spend -- not save -- your way out of recession.
World War II saved our bacon that time. And post-War rebuilding, worldwide, laid the foundation for that sixty years' prosperity. But this time around, I don't think hoping for a catastrophe is a good plan.
The Senate Democrat's skedaddle was especially stupid because signs abound that the economy will be, at best, stalled in November, and probably sinking.
The most worrisome events, of course, are in Europe, haunted by economic problems that began in Greece, but that now show unmistakable signs of spreading to the big boys. Over the weekend, for instance, Reuters reported that France -- France -- could lose its AAA bond rating.
The problems in Europe have been growing slowly. First Iceland defaulted, followed by serious problems in the PIGS -- Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Spain lost its AAA rating over the Memorial Day weekend. If France is joining the list, the entire Euro framework is endangered.
As this slow-mo crisis grinds on -- there's no sign of anything else -- more than just the European banking system is at risk. Trillions of dollars of those pesky credit default swaps include a Euro-based counterparty, and a highly-leveraged loan. That threatens another round of defaults at America's major finance houses.
According to veteran banking analyst Richard Bove of Rochdale Securities, five companies alone -- led by CitiGroup, Morgan Stanley, and J.P. Morgan Chase -- have $2.5 trillion in exposure to Europe's problems.
The risk of what economists call contagion in this pass is high, and new wounds inflicted on America's big banks will mean even less lending, in an economy not marked by any eagerness at said banks to lend to Main Street. In fact, Reuters reported in February that the main TARP beneficiaries lent less that month than they had when they cashed their TARP checks.
Less lending, of course, means less hiring and more unemployment -- especially, more long-term unemployment, which the bill was intended to address.
And in fact, even without the problems now looming, the economic outlook is unpromising.. According to the St. Louis Fed, the economy as a whole is slowing and in any event, faces what it called "another jobless recovery."
In Washington, this means that the mid-term elections will be held in a declining economy with rising unemployment -- just the climate in which Democrats want to appear to be the friend of the little guy.
Instead, they've opened themselves up to another round of wrangling with Republicans, and their own Blue Dog Democrats, over the fate of the long-term unemployed -- reminding the country that they didn't squarely address the problem this time, while narrowing the differences between them and their opposition.
Hanging the long-term unemployed out to dry was dumb even without the mid-term elections; ours is still a consumer-based economy, and people without money are not shopping -- they're hunkered down.
Looked at that way, Congress is choosing to cripple what economic recovery we have -- and can look forward to.
Meanwhile, the outlook for the long-term unemployed is worse than many imagine. They comprise more of the total unemployed than most people think -- 51.8% of the 15 million Americans now out of work have been permanently laid off -- and the typical time people need to find jobs today is 31 weeks. This is the longest since the government started keeping such records in 1948. And the number of long-term unemployed is rising.
To give you an idea of how tone-deaf Washington politicians are on the subject: A friend of mine, who is only entitled to 79 weeks of benefits -- which were running out -- was referred to his Congressman, Michael Arcuri (D.-NY), to discover if he could somehow qualify for a full 99 weeks of benefits. He called his Utica, NY office and waited a week without a callback. So he called again. My friend spoke to a guy who said he hadn't gotten the first message, and promised to get back to him. After another week my friend called again and was told the man had just stepped into a meeting. My friend still hasn't heard from the man.
What do you think my friend's opinion is of Mike Arcuri?
As it happens, the state unemployment office couldn't explain to my friend why he's not entlted to a full 99 weeks' benefits, and referred him to his state assemblyman, who in turn referred him to his Congressman, since all unemployment benefits past 26 weeks are funded by the Feds, not the state.
There's an easy way to avoid making yourself look like an idiot; know what you're talking about. My friend was making $100K a year when his company was pushed into Chapter 11 and laid off the staff. He's in the position he's in through no fault of his own.
As for not finding a job so far: If you assume he's applied for three jobs every week, he's applied for well over 200 jobs. He's had one interview, and uncomplainingly drove 9 hours to get there.
Then, he's a journalist, which has has an unemployment rate three times the national average--30 percent. Translation, since you may be mathematically challenged: If on average every job has 15 applicants, every journalism job has 45 applicants.So not finding a job isn't his fault either--it's just numbers.
Faced with facts like these, people like you proceed to get self-righteous and claim that in America, anybody who wants to work can find a job. This is only true for the unskilled.
ROFL!
Another thing that needs to addressed is using the "%" of unemployed. People cannot picture what that % means. For example, Senator Baucaus, from Montana has 7.1% unemployment in his state. Sounds like a lot, and not to take anything away from anyone unemployed in Montana, his 7.1% unemployment roughly turns out to be 39,000 people. This is based on the 970,000 population of his state, in which I used half of the population as eligible to work. Now where I live, the population is 12,900,000, with 11.5% unemployment. That comes to roughly 741,000 unemployed. Do you see the difference? That is what people of this country need to see. The true numbers, and not the %.
In addition to failing to extend unemployment benefits, the Congress has also failed to correct immigration laws which currently permit businesses in the United States to fill over 1.2 million vacant positions this year with "new hires" from abroad who are brought here ostensibly as temporary workers. So while millions of Americans and permanent legal residents remain unemployed, drawing unemployment benefits which eventually run out, our nation's political leaders allow the growth of a large, temporary workforce holding positions in computer technology, nursing, teaching,banking, etc.,...certainly not all of these vacancies could be filled by our unemployed and underemployed, but many could be, to the ultimate benefit of both workers in search of positions and taxpayers.
Research and support a third party or get used to having no representation in DC.
Members of Congres and occupants of the Whiote House from both parties have told us through their action that they don't care. They continue to support this status quo. Promises about change have proven empty.
Voters need to wake up to the fact no help will be coming from the government or our political parties as they now exist.
Immigrants marched Saturday. Where were the unemployed?
Dems are complacent-have no fear that they will be held accountable
Perhaps if someone bought Sen. Reid a day planner and a large calendar..
The feeling among dems is that with obama as president, they have all of the black people in their hip pocket and that none of the true liberals will leave them no matter what they do. So, the attitude is that they can afford to thumb their nose at the taxpayers....
This didn't just start happening. The destruction of the US steel industry as a result of trade agreements was the writing on the wall that we ignored. The automobile industry was next. Our government has always been indifferent to the workers it has adversely affected with its trade policies. They haven't changed. We're just becoming aware.
Our politics have changed. We have drifted so far to the right that our current "Democrat" president is to the right of Nixon on most issues.
I see 3 points where we could have stopped the shift to the right, but they all went the wrong way.
-RFK in '68. If he lived to become president, he would have gotten us out of vietnam early and would have continued the progressive politics of his brother and LBJ, plus we would have never had Nixon.
-Carter/Kenedy in '80. If the Democratic party had been more open to the idea of kicking Carter to the curb, we probably wouldn't have had a president Reagan. Imagine how much better things could be if we had never had the "Reagan revolution," "Reaganomics," or Reagan worship.
-Thurgood Marshall's retirement in '91. If he would have been healthy enough to last another couple of years, we wouldn't have Clarence Thomas. Without Thomas, we wouldn't have had Bush II. Without Bush II, less money shifts to the top 1%, no Iraq war, no patriot act, maybe even no 9/11.
3 chances, 3 strikes. I suppose it could have been worse. If Nixon had won in '60, there would have been nuclear war and all of this would be moot...