President Obama is a smart man. When Gallup surveys suggest that unemployment is around 10 percent -- and that unemployment plus underemployment is 19 percent of the workforce -- then it's clear that the best way to raise revenues and close the deficit is to put people back to work. President Obama surely knows this. But his actions don't seem to follow this obvious logic. Why is that?
Part of the reason lies in a group of people who pour money into our political system but don't necessarily want the same things that ordinary Americans want. In fact, these people benefit from municipal crises, breaking teachers unions, and increasing the fear of the workforce. They fall disproportionately into the group that Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig identified as "the funders" in his recent TedX Talk in San Antonio, Texas. The increasing power of this group produces political contortions by buying results in Congress that do nothing for regular folks. Their influence also steers President Obama to focus on his reelection rather than trying to change the climate of opinion and become America's Great Persuader. The public has now heard the conservative mantra that government is the problem and not the solution for 40 years. Couple that with the experience of valid rage following the bank bailouts, and it's not surprising that the public overwhelmingly feels that the government has become an instrument of the wealthy and powerful. Strong leadership is needed to challenge this narrative. But the President seems content to conform to the prevailing suspicion of government. He fails to convince the public that the government can have an active response to the jobs crisis that benefits them.
And that suits many funders in the top 3 percent of the wealth distribution just fine.
With profits so high and so many slack resources, it is sad that President Obama continues on the path of "triangulation" and chooses to "pre-concede" so much to the Republicans. In electoral terms, the breaking of all of the unions at the state and local level will serve to benefit the Republican party in many regions and exacerbate inequality. It is surprising the the President does not resist this for the benefit of his own party's future. But Presidents often fly solo rather than represent their party when reelection looms -- especially in a post-Citizens United world that will be influenced by unprecedented rivers of money.
Looking forward, we can see that our infrastructure is worn out in many, many places. We can also see that a dearth of public goods, education, basic science and infrastructure portend a weakening of the living standard of our nation. President Obama seemed to acknowledge this in his State of the Union address vision. But his budget strategy does not. The current budgets, both Democrat and Republican, appear to be imposing cuts on the lower middle class and poor. We are, as Paul Krugman said in The New York Times on Monday, are eating our future.
Unfortunately, the proposed budget appears more likely to contribute to the ongoing widening of wealth and income inequality. And it seems more likely to increase, rather than reduce, the idle resources in our society. This budget logic makes little sense, and the human costs are dreadful. Only the logic of power sheds light on our path of dysfunction in the USA. Andrew Mellon must be smiling.
Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.
Follow Rob Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjocean
RE Social Security. Our challenge is to make sure we all understand that the word “SOCIAL” did not get into the name “Social Security” by accident. In the 30’s Congress understood that although every income earner had to make a contribution to the pension fund, that a majority of them had income too modest to contribute enough to fund the pension entirely.
In addition, people were expected to die somewhere in their 60’s. Now we need to adjust bearing in mind that this is not just an insurance plan but a SOCIAL plan. So, TO DO :
Reduce or eliminate the exemptions to the payment of the SS tax. Make the SS tax rate
a fraction, however modest, of the taxpayer’s income tax rate, eliminating the “flat” rate.
Set a modest income level as a requirement to the receipt of the “pension”.
Again bottom line, this is “SOCIAL” not just a conventional pension plan. Even with a SMALL scale of such changes or adjustments, SS would be in black forever. This is not just my opinion but that of financial economists too numerous to mention. Just Google it.
"Wouldn't it be nice if it didn't cost money to run for public
office."
The foregoing quote from our commentor, CUTS RIGHT TO THE HEART of the matter.
Regarding Pres. Obama’s recently proposed budget, he has two serious problems he had to face and I don’t envy him.
First, not only he but the American people will experience a tragedy if he fails to win re election! In that endeavor, he clearly needs all the financial support he can muster from high and low places to counteract the billions which are going to be spent by the corporate and the powerful to defeat him. Therefore, he is compelled to tread like he was on thin ice.
Secondly, Republican’s are beating their breasts about Obama’s duty being President and our “Leader”, must be the FIRST to jump into the raging political waters with proposals to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The first to jump must be BOTH parties together. The crisis is to big for cheap conventional politcs.
If you want change find and support a third party.
I think if Americans want change, they've got one choice: put aside their differences and come together in numbers too big and powerful for Congress and special interests to ignore. There are MANY areas in which the large majority of citizens have the very same interests and can agree.
I really don't think a third party would hurt...but I don't think it's the answer, either.
I don't think a third party is the easy answer. But I'm quite confident there are NO answers to be found in the two major parties.
To me, having vigorous primary challengers in 2012 is the only way to keep Obama from becoming even more like Reagan. Until now Dems have rarely tried to hold Obama's feet to the fire, as political bases often do, and so Obama has felt free to move toward the right. The Dem base has been taken for granted for too long, and we need to have a primary race.
Both the Dems and Repubs are becoming more and more alike. They simply represent the interests and ideas of different segments of the the plutocracy. If the Dems are unable to remember the meaning of the New Deal and the Great Society, then we need a progressive, populist third party.
http://changecomesslow.com/2011/02/15/cut-cut-cut-cut-cut/
Looking at History, FDR came to power at the end of a 40 year progressive populist movement in rural America. The right used social wedge issues and fear over a rapidly changing world to hijack this populist movement. And it has only gotten worse.
Anyone voting for Obama and hoping he would somehow magically change the will of the American people was not dealing with political reality.
All this will end when people stop voting against their own economic interests through fear and social wedge issues. Until then, matters will only get worse, and no one man can stop it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008
"The campaign raised much of its cash in small donations over the internet, with about half of its intake coming in increments of less than $200."
Maybe I just need to learn to ignore all Harvard professors, past and present.
http://www.progressivesunited.org/crmapi/subscribe/main
Did you see LHoney's post above? I myself really hope Russ Feingold runs for president next year as the Progressive Party candidate. It could happen.
If you can't be a candidate, this will be an over the INTERNET party, plus touch the hearts and minds of the voters, you could run an election in your country or state. This is not just about the Feds. It is also from school boards to country commissioners to police leaders and state house and senate races. Two parties mean hard fights in trenches, three parties demand agreements and progress. Your choice in the next election, stalemate and shouting or a congress that moves America forward.
Obama knows that some of his base will be disgusted with most of what he's doing, but he's betting that we will be even more disgusted with the Repubs and tea baggers and so we will go like sheep to the polling booths and vote for him as the lesser evil. Surely that's a conscious calculation. However, he would change his tune very quickly if a strong contender appeared in the primaries. Even if the contender lost, s/he would force Obama to listen more closely to his base. And without solid base support, no Dem will win the WH in 2012. Having primary contenders would strengthen the final Dem candidate, not weaken him/her.