President Obama gave a major talk on the economic crisis on Friday. While the choice of Las Vegas for its location might be considered ironic, given the fact that Big Bank gambling created the crisis, there's good news: The President's speech could serve as a blueprint for an improved economic and political outlook -- if the President and his party back it up with action.
"Our first mission," he began, "was to break the freefall of the deepest and most vicious recession since the Great Depression." That's exactly the framing that's been needed for some time. The President should not say that the Dodd-Frank bill will "prevent a crisis like this from happening again," as he did last week,, since that's probably not true. In Vegas, he presented it as the first step in a series of needed reforms and stimulus measures, which the public is more likely to accept. And how can reformers push for additional action once they've claimed to have "prevented the next crisis"?
Politically, the President and his party have to take credit for stopping a massive monthly loss of jobs and creating a slight upward trend, and he did. But they also have to say exactly what he said on Friday: "Of course, that's not nearly enough. I don't have to tell you that." As with financial reform, he must walk a thin line between making the case for what's been done so far and recognizing the urgency of what remains to be done. He struck the right balance this time.
The President's talk was given after three major (and interconnected) news stories struck Washington: First, large business interests led by the US Chamber of Commerce announced that they plan to raise $200 million to fight Democrats in November. Second, a Carville/Greenberg poll showed that 55% of likely voters think the President is "a socialist." Lastly, a sudden rash of lobbyist-fed news stories suggested that big corporations aren't doing their part to help the recovery because their leaders believe that the President is "anti-business." (We discussed one egregious example here.)
Since it's Vegas, wanna bet it's merely coincidental that those were the three leading political stories of the week? Didn't think so.
Granted, that "socialist" result is a headline-grabber, and it's the logical product of a year-long propaganda campaign on the right. But here's one finding from the same poll that didn't get much coverage: 56% of likely voters either think that the economy isn't getting any better (34%) or think it will get worse (22%). Here's another: Likely voters were almost evenly split when asked to choose between a statement that said "Obama and the Democrats are more concerned with creating jobs for ordinary Americans" (45%) and one that said "Obama and the Democrats are more concerned with bailing out Wall Street" (44%).
In other words, people saw a lot of money go to big banks in the bailout, but things don't look better for them. In their eyes that's "socialism," all right -- but it's "Wall Street socialism."
The President was off to a good start in responding to these three narratives. "I believe the greatest generator of jobs in America is our private sector," he said. That's a good move. He needs to send the message that he and his party are pro-business. But which business? In an (admittedly oversimplified, yet) important sense, there are two kinds of businesses in the United States: non-productive banking businesses, the largest of whom are places where people get fabulously wealthy by skimming money from the economy and keeping it for themselves. Then there are the other kinds of businesses -- the ones that hire people and provide goods or services.
The President has to make it clear that he's for businesses that do things, but that he'll fight any business that wants to prosper from parasitism or reckless gambling. After all, polls show that Americans like business but hate Wall Street. Legislators and the White House must understand that distinction. They must show that they're fighting for productive businesses -- especially medium-sized and small businesses, since that's where most of the jobs are -- and fighting those who threaten the economy.
Nor should Democrats take the "socialism" bait and decide that public sector jobs should be stigmatized. Public sector jobs are a necessary part of the stimulus process. And while the public may lament "socialism," public sector careers are among our most beloved and respected: Teacher. Public health worker. Cop. Soldier.
The implicit blueprint in the President's speech should be made explicit: "We're creating jobs, fighting big bankers, and helping real businesses grow." That means targeted tax credits to stimulate hiring, a comprehensive and focused stimulus plan, and reform which forces banks to lend out the money they get at low interest from the Federal Reserve. In other words, a key part of the government's strategy should be to help businesses that help people. Call it "entrepreneurial populism."
The Las Vegas speech was a start. "We've cut dozens of taxes for the middle class and small business people," said the President. We must "break down barriers that stand in the way of innovation" and "unleash (our) ingenuity." He promoted a tax credit to clean energy companies and promised to ask for more. Regarding Dodd-Frank, he said that "we fought to eliminate wasteful subsidies that go to banks" (for administering student loans)" while enacting reforms that will "help prevent another crisis." (His use of the word "help" was nuanced correctly -- it positions the bill as a start, but acknowledges there's more to be done.)
Obama wasn't reluctant to take on the Republicans in Vegas, either, decrying "a wall of opposition and obstruction from leaders across the aisle." That's the right kind of talk -- but it needs to be backed up with action. Too often the President and Congressional leaders have cut backroom deals with Republicans to win their support, only to have it withdrawn anyway. Or they've refrained from introducing bills whose passage is in doubt, because Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats will resist.
After a year and half of this appeasement, the public thinks he's a "socialist" anyway. That means a different approach is called for, one that matches this new rhetoric: Introduce the bills, let their opponents make their opposition public, and give voters the opportunity to hold them accountable in November. The President kept alluding to Harry Reid's early career as a boxer, but as another former fighter (rockabilly singer Ronnie Hawkins) once said: "You can work the heavy bag as much as you want, but it's no substitute for getting in the ring." The sound you hear is the bell being run for the next round.
Here's what wasn't in the President's speech, thankfully: The words "national debt" or "Federal deficit." In another piece of interesting timing, a recent story suggested that the President's "political advisors" are telling him that the public is worried about Federal spending. so they're advising against stimulus spending. But context is everything: As the Carville poll suggests, the real problem is that voters have seen a lot of money go to Wall Street and they're still struggling. Who wouldn't be opposed to massive spending under those circumstances, when it appears to benefit only the wealthy? Cutting their social safety net would only increase their fear and anger.
Wall Street contributions to Democratic congressional candidates are already down 65% this year, so why not make the implicit positions in the President's Las Vegas speech explicit? It's time to say that "Wall Street socialism" was the last administration's specialty, and now that it's been saved it's time to make bankers fulfill their part of the bargain. It's time to talk about helping Main Street businesses thrive so that people can go back to work and the economy can get moving. This speech began to lay out the approach. Now the President and Congress have to go back to Washington and put it into action.
Let's hope that, for once, what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas.
_______________________________________________________________
(Note: Speech quotes are from the prepared transcript.)
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
But, it is best to judge him by his actual behavior.
Obama and the Democrats have given lots of taxpayer money to banks and insurance companies - with no trickle down to the "real" economy required. The result has been no loans.
Obama and the Democrats have created a banking bill that doesn't, actually, control bad banker behavior at all - it is a fraud.
Obama and the Democrats have created a healthcare bill that forces people to buy healthcare insurance from the big, non-competitive, protected, healthcare insurance companies - else face govenrment. A protection racket for insurance companies.
Obama and the Democrats bailed out big companies.
Obama and the Democrats say they changed the SBA rules - but give Small Business funds to Fortune 500 companies.
Most of the so-called stimulus money is being spent on improving the D.C. government buildings so that government employees will work in even better digs - D.C. is, now, one big construction zone. The rest of the country, however, gets little.
Obama spends more on Afghanistan country building than on American.
Obama is using government money to fix the problems created by BP's gross negligence.
For the average American? Obama and the Democrats sent them the bill.
And, Democrats are so ineffective they cannot even pass an unemployment extension or an effective stimulus.
I watched Obama's speech also. I considered it poorly thought out and scattered with symbols and political posturing rather than any economic policy substance. Obama's problem lies within himself for surrounding his administration with financial lackeys and wealthy, worthless clients parading themselves as populists. Nothing worthwhile will come out of his lips and Office as long as he is insulated from realtiy by traitorous cabinet members such as Geithner and Summers and a delusional Fed Chairman who defines a society by the number of multibillionaires and corrupt bankers the Federal Reserve can nourish.
President Obama better bring in new patriotic, competent administrators or become a pariah leadership with membership unwilling to follow. The first priority must be competent administration. The second priority must be prudent policy recommendations for Congressional consideration and action. Then Americans will support this new, developing President. They will continue to decline a leader who can not recognize errors and show willingness to make corrections.
Maybe a chance that Obama meant well and got duped into being funded to run for President, or maybe he was ambitious and did not reall care? Just another politician?
In any case he has caved-in to Wall Street, the Big Banks, Israel, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially with Iran.
Nothing I can think of that has not been caved-in upon, or watered-down to the point of being meaningless.
C'mon Obama-lovers. Refute this.
I suggest that if you espouse "liberal values" (as I do), then you will have to perform mental somersaults, if you try to substantiate how Obama has 'changed' anything, or represents 'hope'.
Afghanistan is not only a disaster, it is a sham because there is no real way to 'win'. You cannot bomb a medieval culture into the 21st century. And, it's obvious that we are not there for Al Qaeda because they aren't there anymore. I think it is more about Pakistan now and not really Afghanistan. The author of "Three Cups of Tea" is probably helping more than our military efforts because he is helping to build schools for all children and winning hearts and minds in return. Unless our military is doing the same for the people and not simply protecting the corrupt Karzai government who is not only stealing from his own people but billions of dollars from the U.S, then this is just an exercise in futility on our part.
As I read in a book by Morris Berman, the GOP will make this country into a disaster in a very fast period of time. The Dems will do the same only on a little bit slower time frame.
He despized the "lumpenproletariate" ... and rightly so, because the great majority of people know nothing.
Sure.
One wonders how long after the big celebration of the greatest financial reform in the history of the planet that the over leveraged Wall Street Casino will finally drive us off the cliff.
How much you want to bet that the "smart money" will all land on their feet while the rest of us start looking for soup lines?
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_aboutsba_perf_summ.pdf
Everything else you say is correct, but I feel that you are trying to blame Dems for this. Both parties are at fault. neither party has tried or is trying to address the problem.
"By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community." – Oscar Wilde
"The new regulations, which kick in at the start of 2012, require any taxpayer with business income to issue 1099 forms to all vendors from whom they purchased more than $600 of goods and services that year. That promises to launch a fusillade of new paperwork: An estimated 40 million taxpayers will be subject to the requirement, including 26 million who run sole proprietorships, according to a report released this week by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson."
IF ONLY big business had to operate the same way small business does....
Banster derivative gambling, sucks trillions out of main street reality investing.
What a joke.
Comments like, 'Introduce the bills, let their opponents make their opposition public, and give voters the opportunity to hold them accountable in November', will only make Americans more angry at this absurd rate of unsustatainable spending because, so far that's all that's being proposed by the democrats and Obama. They are throwing children into the street by refusing to use the 100's of billions left from the in the 787 billion stimulus checking account to extend unemployment.
Comment: 'As the Carville poll suggests, the real problem is that voters have seen a lot of money go to Wall Street and they're still struggling. Who wouldn't be opposed to massive spending under those circumstances, when it APPEARS TO BENEFIT ONLY the wealthy?'
This is a joke right? Appears to benefit the wealthy? Obama's concessions to Wall St. make Bush's support of Big Corporations and Wall St. look like pocket change. Obama has guaranteed CEO salaries, golden parachutes, 2nd and third homes, given them back their obscene profits, and otherwise done everything to favor Wall St over Main street.
If only Obama were just a socialist. Instead, he wants turn this country into an oligarchy ruled by the robber barrons of Wall St, and he intends to be one of them not one of us. The fools on the left don't mind reducing their standard of living to 3rd world status. God help the rest of us.