A Debate Worthy of a Great Nation in Trouble

Lipstick on pigs, sex ed for pre-K, earmarks gone wild -- this presidential campaign is descending to a bridge to nowhere. We cannot let that happen again. This country is up against it: The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Gilded Age inequality, Iraq and Afghanistan, catastrophic climate change, the lawless presidency and more. The next president will face stark challenges that cannot be ignored. We need a debate worthy of a great nation in trouble. And the only way that will happen is if citizens insist on it.

Today in the New York Times, the Institute for America's Future begins a series of "op ads" designed to highlight critical crises this country must address -- and to enlist others in challenging the media and campaigns to address them. For the first of these op eds, go here. We should all join in this effort. Challenge the gotcha journalism, the politics of diversion, lies and posturing -- and demand that this presidential campaign get down to the real questions the next president must face. (Full disclosure: I co-direct the Institute, although I post here in my individual capacity.)

For example: How do we make this economy work for most Americans?

Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the metastasizing financial cancer now threatens global recession or worse. How and whether to bail out the banks, how to avoid a severe downturn should be at the center of our debate.

But for the next president, the financial mess shouldn't obscure this economy's deeper problems. Underneath the current crisis is a stark reality: even when it is doing well, this economy hasn't been working for most Americans. In the last seven years, for example, when the economy was growing, when Treasury Secretary Paulson was hailing the "strongest world economy I've seen in my business lifetime," when President Bush and Senator McCain were declaring -- McCain as recent as yesterday -- that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong," working and middle income families did not share in the benefits.

From 2000-2007, corporate profits were up, productivity was up, but incomes did not keep up with prices. For the first time since the Census Bureau started publishing the records in the 1940s, the typical family actually lost ground over the seven years of "recovery." And the costs of basics -- health care, housing, gas and home heating, college tuitions -- soared. Poverty spread. More Americans went without health care. Savings were consumed. More added debt, tapping into their home's equity, providing the kindling for the mortgage inferno. And that's when the economy was "good." (For detailed analysis see EPI's new Stateof Working America) No wonder the Rockefeller/Time Magazine poll released in July revealed that fully half of Americans no longer believe the American dream is attainable by working hard and playing by the rules. Something is fundamentally wrong.

And it isn't like the weather. It isn't an act of God. Some blame "technological change," but America's middle class was built on the technological revolutions of the post-World War II period; technological change may expand the pie; it doesn't determine who gets what slice. Others blame globalization. It's true that the US strategy in the global economy has given corporations a club in negotiations with workers. We lost one in seven manufacturing jobs over the past seven years. But service jobs that don't compete in the global economy haven't fared well either. Others say the workers are at fault, for they lack the education they need. But as the Wall Street Journal reported last week, even incomes for college graduates also didn't keep up over the cycle.

The fact is that the very few captured the benefits of growth. The 15,000 richest families -- one one-hundredth of American households -- captured fully one quarter of all the growth of national income. The vast majority of households lost ground. (See Scott Lilly's analysis here)

This hollowing out of the American middle class is rather a direct expression of policies designed to benefit wealth at the expense of work, to empower CEOs and weaken workers, to privilege Wall Street over Main Street.

Over the last 30 years, conservatives and their ideas dominated Washington. Both parties joined in. Under Reagan and Clinton, banks were deregulated and a casino financial system grew in the shadows. Global trade deals protected property rights, not worker rights. Taxes were lowered on the wealth and raised on work. With the crushing of the PATCO air comptrollers strike, Reagan declared open season on unions. The minimum wage was frozen for a decade, lowering the floor. Companies under pressure from speculators and global competitors began shredding the promises once made to workers -- cutting health care, abandoning pensions, ignoring rules on hours and overtime. Undocumented workers were easily exploited. Even Microsoft, the most profitable monopoly of the time, resorted to using permatemps -- permanent temporary workers -- to avoid paying folks full-time benefits. Under Bush, this all came to a head.

What's needed is a fundamental change of direction. Instead of trickle down growth, we should be driving the economy from the bottom up. Instead of focusing on freeing up capital and executives, we should be empowering workers. The IAF ad suggests three fundamental reforms that reflect a growing consensus among progressive economists.

First, empower workers to organize. Unions help workers gain a fair share of the profits they help generate, and help to enforce agreements on hours, conditions and treatment. Since companies now systematically squelch organizing efforts, pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to choose how to organize -- either through by getting a majority to sign membership cards or by holding an election, and mandate negotiation of a first contract.

Second, forge a public social contract to replace the private one that the companies are now shredding. Mandate companies to provide basic health care, contribution to a public pension, paid vacation and sick days, a decent minimum wage, pegged to inflation. These mandates can be phased in over time; mom and pop stores can be exempted. The point is to enforce -- as other industrial countries do -- basic minimums in law so that companies can't compete on the low road, by driving wages and conditions into the ditch.

Third, make full employment the stated goal of our economic policies -- both the fiscal and trade policies of the administration and Congress and the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve, with the government acting as an employer of last resort to keep employment levels up. Over the last 30 years, market fundamentalists -- reflecting the priorities of Wall Street's investors -- have made inflation the priority, not full employment. But wages rose across the board only -- as in the last years of the Clinton administration -- when the economy neared full employment. When jobs are plentiful, workers can negotiate a better deal from their employers because they are better able to abandon a bad deal.

The Presidential Debate

How do the presidential candidates stack up on this agenda? McCain declares himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution," embracing the basic mantra of market fundamentalists -- lower taxes (particularly for the wealthy and the corporations), less regulation, less domestic spending. He is skeptical of unions, and has voted repeatedly against raising the minimum wage, much less extending a public social contract to workers. He wants to unravel employer based health care, not mandate it. His basic promise is to shake up government, make it less wasteful, reduce taxes for companies and the affluent, and get out of the way. In this election, he is the proud representative of the course we've been on.

Obama, due in part to the contested Democratic primary race, has put forth a bolder agenda. He pledges to support the Employee Free Choice Act, and to reverse Bush's anti-union executive orders. He hasn't called for a new public social contract, but favors raising the minimum wage, and pledges health care for all. He's said little about running a full employment economy, much less about government as an employer of last resort. But he does call for a public investment bank, and large public investments in new energy and conservation, in modernizing our infrastructure and in investing in education and training.

The Debate We Deserve

Presidential campaigns aren't policy seminars. Candidates need to inspire voters, define themselves and their opponents. Insult, invective, lies and distortions have been part of American elections from the beginning.

But Americans also deserve a debate that exposes the choices each candidate would make on the fundamental questions facing the country. Why not make this a feature of the TV debates, rather than rehashing old distortions or trying to gin up personal conflicts? What if a debate stated with this question:

Most Americans saw little of the benefits of the last years of economic growth. Wages didn't keep up. Poverty spread. More people went without health care. And that's when the economy was growing. Both of you claim to be candidates of change. What fundamental changes would you make to insure that this economy works for working people?

Wouldn't that be a more interesting question than whether Sarah Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it?

A debate worthy of a great nation in trouble. That's not too much too ask. Nor too much to demand.

Comments

[Furby]

Mr Bosage, your piece has stirred quite a bit of interest for a non-headliner. As a Canadian, I've found the posts here candid, honest and intense. I apologize for snarking a bit but am truly optimistic after reading the comments your article inspired. Here in Canada, three things have kept us sane (apart from our social mindedness) 1) government funded elections with caps - you don't have to be rich or have rich friends to run for Prime Minister 2) Publicly funded media - the CBC (two third funded by tax dollars), a media outlet beholden to no one. You'll never read about the government of Canada or some corporation intefering with what's reported on the CBC, and 3) our sense of humour about the hardships of life. I know the US has it in them too, I'm reminded of it every time I visit the US and speak to Americans one on one, but they just have to get past this irrational fear that some socialization turns you into a pinko commie. Good luck to you and keep up the good work.

[cct1984]

Borosage, you talk a good game but I don't think you really want to have this debate, since you immediately reach for the well worn, "rich vs. poor," dogma of the left. There is nothing new in BO's positions, they are nothing more than warmed-over liberal policies from the 60s--they were a failure than and are sure to be a failure now. Take for instance minimum wage: you will not change the life of a low wage worker to any significant degree by raising minimum wage--you certainly will not lift them out of "poverty"--what is more likely to happen is businesses will simply hire fewer workers. Putting the very people you presume to help out of work. Another "great" idea is the employee free choice act. Sounds great, but in reality it is an underhanded way of coercing workers to vote for labor unions: instead of voting via secret ballot, workers are forced to take a public position for or against labor unions. A worker's vote will be known to all, putting them in a difficult position if they should vote against unionizing, since they would be at risk of retaliation by those supporting unionization. Also, "investing" in job creation is a misnomer. The federal government does not "create" jobs per se; rather it simply takes money out of taxpayer's pockets and spends it someplace. Taxpayer's can just as easily spend the money themselves, thus "creating" a job that the market actually demands.

[waverly]

"Take for instance minimum wage: you will not change the life of a low wage worker to any significant degree by raising minimum wage--you certainly will not lift them out of "poverty"--what is more likely to happen is businesses will simply hire fewer workers." This does not hold water.

Raising minimum wage creates more consumption of goods. More money for the consumer means more profit for the businesses. Profit means expansion. What goes around comes around.

Low minimum wages is nothing more than the ability to pay obscene CEO salaries. The money is just redirected. Rather than expansion you have contraction of the business market.

Having millions of people spending more money rather than just a few is good for business and the economy.

[researcher]

avery self centered self righteous very greedy imperialistic nation is in economic trouble.

go figure!

imperialism? 765 military bases around the world and a war based on lies and deception as a war for oil.

self righteous? we actually think we have the right to be there.

it goes on and on but no one will heed words must have outcomes then maybe we will learn.

but first we blame people like politicans rather than look at the system that created this behavious.

few have knowledge to do that.

same way with organizations blame people not the system or paradigms that created the defects.

[BCubedReg]

Robert Borosage, you are preaching to the choir here. We have been waiting for the great debate for a while now.

[proudcalib]

The banality of this campaign is stunning given the complexity of the issues facing our nation.

I think it is incumbent on Obama to break through the mindless clutter and address the grave problems we are facing. The McCain campaign is obviously pandering to the lowest common denominator, and the media seems incapable of covering anything but the horserace or the slander du jour.

[robotsoul]

While I agree that we need to forge a new social contract with our government there is something to be said for individual citizens fulfilling their social obligations by comparing news coverage to scrutinize not only the candidates themselves but also how the media covers them.
Yes, we do deserve a clear debate; we do deserve clear descriptions of policy initiatives. But we also need to ask for those things. I think the Institute for America's Future ad series is a great step toward that end. But we have to go beyond that on an individual level by not only remaining informed but also by demanding more from our news media.

[Furby]

The question isn't really how to get the people to care about the real issues. If the people aren't presented with the real issues, how can they care? The question is how to get the media to do their job and direct the discussion towards the real issues. Governments are only motivated to stay honest when pressured by the electorate. No pressure, no honesty. The most disastrous blurring of lines of separation is not between church and state, it's between corporations and media. If the only information the electorate receives is approved by the corporations that own media outlets, you're kind of screwed aren't you. Example, would your article have been published if it stated that media is to blame for the public's ignorance of the facts? Or do you somehow think it's the government's responsibility to keep itself honest. Deja vu. See how that worked on Wall Street.

[Bud111]

CNBC HELPED CREATE THIS ECONOMIC DISASTER
Most of the pundits at CNBC advocate laissez faire capitalism, deregulation, total privatization, free trade etc. These philosophies helped get us into the mess we are in. When someone like Rava Batra, an economist who warned CNBC about the pending economic disaster and had the audacity to suggest it would be good to break up the monopolistic oil companies, most of the pundits on CNBC, dismissed him, and he was not asked back on CNBC.
RAVI BATRA WAS RIGHT; CNBC WAS WRONG!!

[lefty74]

The nation as a whole is worthy of a debate, sure. As for the citizens demanding it.. well, I am sure many would demand it. The rest (who are needed in bringing about any significant change) are watching Dancing With The Stars. That is part of the fundamental problem in this country.

Why does 'lipstick' and '100 year war' stories get press? Because that's all the typical American voter makes time for. This sound byte society is certainly deserving of a healthy debate. Whether or not it will be demanded... well that's where I think we fall short.

[kkuchenb]

I fundamentally disagree that health care should be laid at the feet of employers. What other country ties health care to employment? This system has worked for a long time for a lot of people, but in a time when we are supposed to expect to retrain and change jobs and even careers multiple times in our working lives, this model makes no sense whatsoever.

This "system" seriously impedes both worker mobility and business competitiveness. I disagree 100% with John McCain's plans for healthcare, but I think he is dead right that is needs to be taken out of the employment arena. Adding more burdens to business will make us much less competitive in a global market and will hurt workers and the economy. McCain is trying to give another handout to business when he proposes moving employees into the unregulated open market for health care, but where is it written that we have to continue with this model that really not working for anyone anymore.

[duchessdorleans]

It does seem cumbersome to tie health care to employment in an increasingly fluid job market, but it makes sense to make large companies responsible for negotiating health care plans for all their employees in bulk as they have a lot more power than individuals do on their own to demand affordable coverage. This is because they are able to not only pool their financial resources for buying health care coverage but also they can pool their risk.

[Furby]

Countries in the world that provide some sort of universal healthcare: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

No, it's not perfect but to say that more people die waiting for treatment in a universal healthcare system, than die from having no healthcare at all is ridiculous. Countries that accept the need for universal healthcare also accept the fact that the resources will be spread over a larger population. It is after all a form of altruism.

[Spiritgirl2]

Thank you for calling for an honest debate! What is really disturbing are the people that promote continuing these trickle down theories! Of course those types of questions can only be asked by some "independent" journalist, not the current crop of corporate owned and elitist "questioners" that currently do the asking! This country hasn't had real questioning since the League of Women Voter's asked George H.W. Bush questions that he didn't like and was stuck on!

[ChiMan1]

Right On Bob!!! worst economic crisis in ??? . . . and caused by Democrat Incompetence, with
names like Dodd, Frank, Raines, Gorelick, Johnson . . . and Barry Rezko ??? . . CLUELESS!

[edva]

The only way to "make this economy work for most Americans" is to, yes, correct the huge inequities in the distribution of wealth. The rich and powerful HIDE behind the mantra of "free market capitalism", but they have perverted everything to the point where those are now just empty words, used to fool the public into thinking it's OK. The best thing we could do is to treat capitalism, and capitalists, like the greedy, primitive, destructive garbage it is, and set our sights much higher, on a sytem based on ALTRUISM. Capitalism will destroy the economy, the environment, and eventually human society itself, unless we make such a change.

[terrymill]

My family is mostly Republican backed religious neo-Cons. One of them told me just yesterday that we ARE a nation of whiners...the economy is not great but its not all that bad either. Just look at the CPI..it is down 1/20th of 1 percent! Interest rates just got cut! (I am%

[terrymill]

My family is mostly Republican backed religious neo-Cons. One of them told me just yesterday that we ARE a nation of whiners...the economy is not great but its not all that bad either. Just look at the CPI..it is down 1/10th of 1 percent! Interest rates just got cut! (I am so relieved he let me know all of this because I can finally stop worrying about our economic woes). He goes on to tell me that debt is not all that bad, health insurance is a privilege, the government is not responsible to making sure that jobs stay in America, and believes that what government SHOULD do is stay off of Wall Street and get back to the business of telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Scary prospect, that John McCain is.

[dwt]

Barack is wrong about American Society.

As this post reveals, it is a sad and sorry fact that there IS, INDEED, a Red State America and Blue State America.

Worse, the divide between the two is so utterly stark and absolute, that, in the words of Rudyard Kipling speaking of Eastern vs. Western culture in the 19th Century, "Never the twain shall meet."

I am to the point where I can't stomach and don't want to be remotely associated with "those red state people" any more than they with me. And some are in my own family, as well.

Shades of the war between the states.