My friend, the late Mike Harrington, used to describe his politics as "on the left wing of the possible." It's a fine aspiration. But if anything, economic problems have become more politically intractable since Mike died in 1989.
Scanning the various economic ills afflicting our Republic and its citizens, it's evident that nearly all of the solutions lie beyond what is currently deemed thinkable in mainstream politics -- beyond the left edge of the possible.
It's not that my own views and values have become more radical in two decades. What has changed is that the American political center has shifted further to the right, while the twin assault on the good society by the private financial system and the organized right has become more intense.
There are only two possibilities: either we act to expand the boundaries of the possible, or we suffer the consequences.
Consider these five prime economic challenges:
Economic Recovery and the Budget. We are told by Beltway solons of both parties that the prime malady harming the economy is the budget deficit. But nobody can explain how fiscal austerity will promote economic recovery. On the contrary, the more we cut, the more we retard economic recovery and the more we remove the cushions that make the recession slightly more bearable for regular people.
Out here in the real world, the problem isn't the deficit; it's the recession, the high rate of joblessness and the stagnant earnings.
The solution? Significantly more public investment to get the economy on a faster road to recovery and to generate more and better jobs. In the short run, the deficit increases. But over time the economy grows faster and the debt burden recedes.
Unfortunately, both parties are mainly jousting over budget cutting. We have the party of cuts versus the party of deeper cuts. Neither is putting forth a serious recovery plan. The win-win solution that benefits Main Street is beyond the left edge of the possible.
The Health System. Once recovery comes and tax receipts return to something like normal (assuming that the right doesn't further gut the tax code), America doesn't have a deficit problem; we have a health system problem.
President Obama's Affordable Care Act insures more people, but does so through the private insurance system, and doesn't reduce overall health care costs. The Republicans would cut costs by cutting care.
Every other wealthy nation insures everyone for about 10 percent of GDP. Our system leaves out some 50 million people, and costs 17 percent of GDP. That's a difference of seven percent of GDP, far more than the structural budget deficit.
The solution? National health insurance, of course; or if you'd like to sound more like motherhood and apple pie, Medicare for All. Polls show that large majorities of Americans support it. But in mainstream politics, national health insurance is considered beyond the left edge of the possible (makes you wonder who controls mainstream politics.)
The Banking/Housing Mess. Seven million Americans are on a path to foreclosure, one home in three has more mortgage debt than the value of the home, and housing values declined last year in 18 of the top 20 metro areas. Home ownership as a ticket of lifetime asset accumulation is being denied to the next generation.
The Administration's relief program, the Home Affordable Modification Program or HAMP, is voluntary to the banks. It is helping less than one out of ten homeowners in trouble. Stronger medicine to keep people in their homes is rejected because it would force banks to recognize losses. So foreclosures continue and housing prices continue to sag.
The solution: give bankruptcy judges the power to order reductions in mortgage principal owed. Use leverage on banks rescued by government to insist on deep refinancings, so that distressed homeowners are not forced onto the street. In the long run, banks would incur less loss, neighborhoods would be less blighted.
Are you kidding? The banks would never sit still for this, and they own too many legislators of both parties. The common-sense solution is in the usual place -- beyond the left edge of the possible.
American Economic Competitiveness in the World. We are getting our clock cleaned by Chinese state capitalism. "We," in this case, is the American economy. American-owned business is doing just fine.
The rules of the trading system, as indulged by U.S. presidents of both parties, allow China and other mercantilist nations to subsidize their industry, and to make American business an offer it can't refuse -- locate in China on our terms, and you get state subsidies and docile workers. All you have to do is give sensitive trade secrets to your new Chinese partners, who will soon displace you.
The U.S., uniquely among western nations with the exception of Britain, doesn't mind if domestic industry gets hollowed out. Industrial policy is considered a sin, but it's okay for our fate to be an artifact of China's industrial policy.
The solution: one set of rules for all nations that benefit from the trading system, and strategic investments to rebuild U.S. industry.
Sorry, neither party will touch that one with a rake -- beyond the left edge of the possible. Business may complain a bit about intellectual property theft, but basically the business elite likes the present deal just fine.
Petroleum and Global Climate Change. Rising oil prices, reflecting revolutionary events in the Middle East, have dealt another setback to the shaky U.S. economy. Imported oil adds hundreds of billions of dollars to our trade deficit, and contributes to escalating global climate change.
You would think that investment in clean, domestic, job-creating, revolution-proof renewable energy, would be a no-brainer.
But that sensible policy is in the usual place, beyond the left edge of the possible.
Every one of these areas has in common this reality: the longer we delay the sensible solution, the more we suffer. Only bankers, corporate elites and oil companies gain. Tea parties benefit from the citizen confusion and frustration.
None of these alternative policies is extreme. They are simply impossible given the present constellation of American politics. Rather, it is the politics that pass for mainstream conventional wisdom that are extreme -- in the sense of extremely unhelpful.
I draw one simple conclusion. We need to take back our politics, so that what is sensible is also possible. Maybe, just maybe, events in Madison and elsewhere are the beginning of that process.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril.
But no, this is too centrist or far right for the left who want to take ever more of other people's earnings to spend on their "helpless" constituents through their, read our, largesse.
I am sick unto death of "progressives". There is nothing progressive about taking from working people to support your agenda.
I know what I am talking about. For three decades I was a "lefty" and I believed that "good" government was the answer to all of our problems; that what I couldn't or wouldn't do for myself or for others, good government would do.
I now pity anyone who still believes it to be true. I stand on my own two feet, and if I have to crawl, I have two good knees and if I don't make it, I will at least have tried.
Do you know what most people in the center and the right really want? Let me let you in on a little secret...we want to be left alone. We want to be free of you and your efforts to control our lives, whether by debilitating taxation or classroom brainwashing. It's that simple but it is painfully obvious that it is beyond the left to grasp.
Government does the things that individuals cannot do. If your electoral system was not so corrupted then government might work. Even so, you clearly have no idea how your country works. Unravel it all if you wish - you might prefer to live in a USA which works like it did at the time of the pilgrims. Somehow I doubt you would last long...
The US for all practical purposes is now an oligarchy. The oligarchic theories of limited governmentÂÂ, deregulatiÂÂon and privatizatÂÂion have taken us there. They have brought us to a place from where, history teaches, there is usually no return. Civilized societies cannot operate successfulÂÂÂly when decisions regarding regulation and control of vital systems and resources and, a secure social safety net are in the hands of a small minority. I hope that the US can reform itself politically. If it does not, history teaches and current events in the Middle-East are signaling, that we can be looking at a modern version Paris of 1792.
In the end you may be right, because we have no cooperation and a toxic political system, the opposition will chip away at the legislation bit by bit until it's completely dysfunctional and the GOP will blame the Democrats for the dysfunction.
We need to build the promise of our nation. That promise is a good job for all, the opportunity to have a rewarding career, and the chance for a good education. The tax and budget cut mania does not promote quality education, good jobs, nor rewarding careers. It only digs the hole deeper. Cutting k-12 and higher education makes matters worse.
So, we need to put teachers, firefighters, nurses, police back to work and stop cutting these jobs. Then, they will buy groceries, gasoline, pay rent, buy houses, and create private sector jobs. It is called demand. You can’t cut your way out of the recession. Cutting jobs makes the recession worse. Just look at the current situation of Ireland and Great Britain. You can see what a budget cut approach produces- stagnation.
Harrington was, of course, one of the founders of Democratic Socialists of America. You can join in the democratic socialist tradition at www.dsausa.org
The economic recovery is tied to the deficit and regardless of the pain americans will have to balance this b udget or we will not recover. The flat tax with no exception or deductions would go a long way to fix this mess, it would greatly reduce the IRS and then there would be no reason any entity would escape paying their fair share.
The health system is another entitlement and needs to wait until we get the budget under control.
The banks haver to be reined in, as I understand it they can foreclose on a Fannie/Freddie loan and get 80% from the government and still sell the property at a reduced rate and keep the profits, who thunk this scam up?
I think all agree in order to keep our competitiveness we need one set of rules for all, the problem is getting congress to act on this in a manner in our best intrest, this comes from poor leadership including all our elected officials of both parties. Re-electing no one will go a long way.
Unfortunately, we have many potential allies who don't share this perception. I include in this group those who still hold out hope for Obama, and to unions that still intend to back Democratic candidates despite years of being sold out by them.
I suggest that we are wasting our time arguing with right-wing ideologues. They are not the ones who need convincing, nor are they malleable.
The real fight is on the left, to draw those who are ostensibly in our camp back from their drift towards the center.
I also knew Michael and Stephanie Harrington, and found at the time that their politics, while socialist, were farther right than mine. Alas, compared to then, their positions today feel almost ultra-left.
But I'm not proposing that my allies must be socialists. It is enough that we try to build a labor party to represent working people. The right built a Tea Party. It is not inconceivable for the left to build a workers' party.
But it requires, as Bob suggests, that people recognize how far to the right the discourse has moved, and be prepared to pull back over that "left edge," rather than capitulating to the centrist-driven insistence that we must continue to support the lesser evil.
Average Americans lack political awareness and background (intentionally so), and are duped into believing that what's good for big business is good for America... Ergo, the mess American middle class is in, and it is only beginning... It's the system, and getting worse (see Citizens United decision).
The irony is that this big money owning everything movement will destroy the country and with it all these poor buggers that think they are being patriotic... Like the Tea Partyers, for one...
What I don't understand is, where does the money come from to make up the difference between the amount the borrower contracted to pay back and the reduced amount the judge determines? Does the US treasury pay that to the bank? Or is the bank supposed to accept this as a loss?
Assuming the latter, why?. The buyer borrowed the mortgage amount from the bank and gave it to the seller in exchange for the house. Then the judge reduces the mortgage principle by, let's say, $50,000. The bank doesn't have that money; they gave it to the buyer, who gave it to the seller. The seller is the one who made the big profit: he got $50K more for the house than the judge says it's worth now. He's the one with the missing money.
So shouldn't we be tracking down the sellers of these overpriced homes and making them return some of their windfall profits? Why is it that of the three parties in that sale, we only expect the bank to lose?
Now the banks have not only been bailed out but they have been given millions to help those in foreclosure so which sceniro do you think is really the most equitable in this light? I am sorry I hold no pity for the banks anymore as they have brought this upon themselves.