Public Doubts Congress Will Aid Economy

By Steven Shepard

November 8, 2011

With time ticking down on the first session of the 112th Congress, Americans generally prefer that Congress act on priorities supported by Democratic members and the White House, but they are very pessimistic about any of these initiatives actually being realized before the end of the year, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.

The public’s low expectations for Congress combined with what a large number of surveys show is a sour national mood—dissatisfied with the economy and even more so with political leaders—don’t show signs of abating, but there are ideas that curry favor with the public.

The survey tested five different policy proposals related to Americans’ economic and fiscal situation, asking respondents how important it was that Congress come to an agreement on each.  Americans disagree on what is most important for Congress for the rest of the year, but they are unified in believing that Congress will not be able to agree on anything, reflecting a growing belief that Congress is incapable of acting on national priorities.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans said it was “very important” that Congress agree to new federal spending to try to create jobs—specifically, rehabilitating public schools, improving roads and public transit, and preventing layoffs of “teachers, police officers and other first responders,” according to the poll.  Just 13 percent of Americans said it was “not too important” or “not at all important” that Congress reach agreement on that kind of spending.

The inclusion of “police officers” and “first responders” in the question is likely to elicit support from the poll’s respondents, compared to a question that asked only about preventing layoffs of “public employees,” for instance.  But the wording of the question also tests a main Democratic argument for President Obama’s jobs legislation, and the poll shows that argument could be a persuasive one. Indeed, throughout the fall, the survey has found, to varying degrees, large public support for the president’s policy ideas.

The proposal that ranked second-highest, according to the poll, is also a prominent Democratic priority. Fifty-eight percent said it was “very important” for Congress to agree to new legislation to reduce the federal budget deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on wealthy Americans, an important aspect of the Obama administration’s plan to pay for its jobs initiatives.

Ranking third is legislation “to make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower rates,” with 56 percent of respondents saying that is “very important.”

A Republican-backed proposal for reducing the deficit—focusing solely on spending cuts, including cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid—is less popular.  Just 40 percent said it was “very important” Congress acts on that proposal, while 34 percent said it was “not too important” or “not at all important.”

Finally, just 35 percent of Americans say it is very important for Congress to try to create jobs by cutting Social Security taxes for workers and employees, though 30 percent say that is “somewhat important.”

The Congressional Connection Poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on Nov. 3-6, surveying 1,005 adults. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points and included live telephone interviews conducted via landline and cell phones. It is the latest in a series of national surveys that will track the public’s priorities for Congress—and its assessment of Washington’s performance—during most weeks that Congress is in session through 2012.

Respondents who said that it was “very important” for Congress to enact more than one of the proposals were then asked to choose the most important.  When results of the two questions are combined, 36 percent choose new federal spending to create jobs as most important, followed by 21 percent who choose cutting the deficit by cutting spending and increasing taxes on high-income families.  Just 12 percent believe cutting the deficit solely through spending cuts is most important.

Among independents, 33 percent said federal spending to create jobs was most important, while 23 percent chose closing the federal budget deficit with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases for the wealthy.  Just 10 percent said the most important thing for Congress was to cut spending solely by cutting federal programs such as entitlements.

But Americans are pessimistic about their government these days—an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Sunday showed that only 20 percent of Americans were satisfied with how the federal government works—and the new Congressional Connection Poll reflects that.  Asked how likely it was that Congress would accomplish each of the five proposals tested in the poll, majorities say it is either “not too likely” or “not at all likely” that Congress acts on any of them.

In fact, the proposal that more Americans think is most important—federal spending to create jobs—is the initiative they give the smallest chance of succeeding in Congress by year’s end.  Only 8 percent think it’s “very likely” Congress acts to spend money to create jobs, while 19 percent say it’s “somewhat likely,” 35 percent say it’s “not too likely,” and 35 percent believe it’s “not at all likely.”  Forty percent of independents think Congress is not at all likely to agree on a spending package to try to create jobs.

The proposal deemed most likely to succeed is legislation aimed at making it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower rates, but the majority of Americans are pessimistic about even that succeeding: Just 12 percent say Congress is very likely to pass such legislation by the end of the year.

On the other three items—cuts to Social Security taxes and the two competing debt-reduction plans—the percentages of respondents who think it is unlikely that each passes Congress is greater than 60 percent.

The Lesser Depression

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 21, 2011 

These are interesting times — and I mean that in the worst way. Right now we’re looking at not one but two looming crises, either of which could produce a global disaster. In the United States, right-wing fanatics in Congress may block a necessary rise in the debt ceiling, potentially wreaking havoc in world financial markets. Meanwhile, if the plan just agreed to by European heads of state fails to calm markets, we could see falling dominoes all across southern Europe — which would also wreak havoc in world financial markets.

We can only hope that the politicians huddled in Washington and Brussels succeed in averting these threats. But here’s the thing: Even if we manage to avoid immediate catastrophe, the deals being struck on both sides of the Atlantic are almost guaranteed to make the broader economic slump worse.

In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended.

Let’s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed.

The great housing bubble of the last decade, which was both an American and a European phenomenon, was accompanied by a huge rise in household debt. When the bubble burst, home construction plunged, and so did consumer spending as debt-burdened families cut back.

Everything might still have been O.K. if other major economic players had stepped up their spending, filling the gap left by the housing plunge and the consumer pullback. But nobody did. In particular, cash-rich corporations see no reason to invest that cash in the face of weak consumer demand.

Nor did governments do much to help. Some governments — those of weaker nations in Europe, and state and local governments here — were actually forced to slash spending in the face of falling revenues. And the modest efforts of stronger governments — including, yes, the Obama stimulus plan — were, at best, barely enough to offset this forced austerity.

So we have depressed economies. What are policy makers proposing to do about it? Less than nothing.

The disappearance of unemployment from elite policy discourse and its replacement by deficit panic has been truly remarkable. It’s not a response to public opinion. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of the public named the economy and jobs as the most important problem we face, while only 7 percent named the deficit. Nor is it a response to market pressure. Interest rates on U.S. debt remain near historic lows.

Yet the conversations in Washington and Brussels are all about spending cuts (and maybe tax increases, I mean revisions). That’s obviously true about the various proposals being floated to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis here. But it’s equally true in Europe.

On Thursday, the “heads of state or government of the euro area and the E.U. institutions” — that mouthful tells you, all by itself, how messy European governance has become — issued their big statement. It wasn’t reassuring.

For one thing, it’s hard to believe that the Rube Goldberg financial engineering the statement proposes can really resolve the Greek crisis, let alone the wider European crisis.

But, even if it does, then what? The statement calls for sharp deficit reductions “in all countries except those under a programme” to take place “by 2013 at the latest.” Since those countries “under a programme” are being forced into drastic fiscal austerity, this amounts to a plan to have all of Europe slash spending at the same time.

And there is nothing in the European data suggesting that the private sector will be ready to take up the slack in less than two years.

For those who know their 1930s history, this is all too familiar. If either of the current debt negotiations fails, we could be about to replay 1931, the global banking collapse that made the Great Depression great. But, if the negotiations succeed, we will be set to replay the great mistake of 1937: the premature turn to fiscal contraction that derailed economic recovery and ensured that the Depression would last until World War II finally provided the boost the economy needed.

Did I mention that the European Central Bank — although not, thankfully, the Federal Reserve — seems determined to make things even worse by raising interest rates?

There’s an old quotation, attributed to various people, that always comes to mind when I look at public policy: “You do not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed.” Now that lack of wisdom is on full display, as policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic bungle the response to economic trauma, ignoring all the lessons of history. And the Lesser Depression goes on.

(Look for my mega-post on the economy, debt, taxes, etc. next week)

The Ultimate Political No-Brainer

William Rivers Pitt truthout OpEd

I am beginning to strongly suspect the Democrats in Congress would vastly prefer to lose their majority status come November, rather than continue to carry the apparently onerous burden of being in charge.


The number of alternate explanations for their behavior of late is becoming sparse. Sure, yeah, there are plenty of people who will tell you there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, especially on Capitol Hill. Both parties are beholden, for the most part, to the same corporate paymasters, and so Democrats acting like Republicans is no big surprise.

But the thing is, the Democrats aren't acting like Republicans. Republicans, for all their myriad flaws and faults, always play to win. They go for the throat every time, are not shy about saying or doing whatever is required to win the day, and have a knack for turning a sound bite into a stiletto and jamming it under the fifth rib of whatever opponent happens to present themselves.

When the GOP held majority control for the first six years of the George W. Bush administration - minus that little interregnum that came about when Jeffords woke up on the left side of the bed - they absolutely bulldozed the Democratic minority just about every single time they wanted something passed. You remember, right? There were little pieces of Democrat all over the place after virtually every vote. They were relentless.

Of course, the GOP eventually blew it by 2006, thanks to an avalanche of scandals and the final national realization that a dunderheaded war freak was sitting in the White House. The fact that they lost their majority control, however, didn't change the way they operated. Quite the contrary, as we have seen. They vote en masse even against legislation they approve of if it means beating the Democrats. They roll boulders into the road to thwart everything, and do so with neither shame nor remorse. I disagree with virtually every aspect of Republican philosophy, and my disagreements have gone even deeper since the GOP became the Far-Right-Teabagger-Birther-Taliban-Christian-Nutbag Party, but I will say this: if the Democrats had acted more like Republicans when they were in the minority, there would almost certainly be a lot less dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this country would be a lot less broke.

But they didn't do that, of course, and since gaining the majority in Congress, the Democrats have been as limp and useless as a dead jellyfish, and never more so since Obama took office. The last two years have been agonizing to watch on any number of levels, mostly because these people can't seem to get out of their own way.

They're not acting like Republicans, except when they vote for legislation that serves their dual paymasters, of course, but that's not what I mean. They don't play to win, ever. They don't seem to know how to do it. If you listen closely, you can hear Tip O'Neill spinning wildly in his grave; under no circumstances would that grand old Speaker have tolerated the kind of dishwater spinelessness evinced by this current crop of Democrats.

I really do think they want to get beaten in November, so they can return to the safe, responsibility-free environs of the minority. There are very few other explanations, especially now that they have right in front of them the biggest no-brainer tactical move in the history of the universe: repealing the Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The issue is a big fat meatball floating right over the plate, and it seems all too evident that these nimrod Democrats are just going to watch it as it sails by.

The numbers on this issue are staggering, and Congressional Democrats have had it explained to them in Technicolor by one of the heaviest pollsters in the game. Stanley Greenberg, of the polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, was invited to speak to members of the Democratic caucus several days ago, and he laid it out as plain as could be.

According to his numbers, only 38 percent of Americans favor keeping the Bush tax cuts for rich people, and if the Democrats vigorously embrace repealing them, they stand to make tremendous gains nationally against the GOP in what looks to be a rough midterm season. After Greenberg was finished, Speaker Pelosi followed up with a plea for the party to dive into this potential boon headfirst.

First of all, it blows my whole mind to think these people actually needed to have such a simple concept explained to them by an expert with bar graphs and pie charts. Beyond that, however, is the staggering fact that, after having the data spoon-fed to them, they still don't seem to have a stomach for the fight.

It would be one thing if they just agreed with the GOP and wanted to keep those tax cuts in place. It would be sickening, but it would make sense. There are some Democrats who do agree, but you'd think a desire to win elections and maintain majority control would trump that, especially given how bleak the prospects are for November.

Junking the Bush rich-folks tax breaks would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years, which sounds like pretty spiffy fiscal responsibility given our current economic situation. It would maintain tax relief for the middle class, which desperately needs the help. It would be a fork in the eye of the same GOP brigands who passed the damned things in the first place. And it would show the American people that Democrats actually stand for, well, something.

The fact that they actually have to sit down and think this one over tells me more than anything else that Congressional Democrats are either trying to lose, or don't have the stomach to fight for something that will help millions of people, because the GOP might be mean to them.

I really do think they want to lose. If they fail to embrace this issue with both arms, that's exactly what will happen.

Wall Street Can't Police Itself

Last week Congress passed a Wall Street reform bill that created a new federal agency in charge of protecting consumers. The agency was an idea that came from Elizabeth Warren--a Harvard professor and consumer advocate. And she's the best person to head it up.

But Wall Street bankers, Republicans and some in the Treasury Department don't want her in the top post. So I signed a petition telling President Obama and Congress that voters want a tough advocate on our side--and we want Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Can you join me at this link? (You can see a clip of her on the Daily Show there too):

http://pol.moveon.org/warren/?r_by=21938-1847710-xdbJK_x&rc=paste

Thanks!

Blaming Obama Is Easy and Irresponsible

15 June 2010

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. - President-Elect Barack Obama

When President Obama accepted victory in Grant Park, he called on all of us to join him in ushering in the change we all were seeking. Did we answer the call? Have we rolled up our sleeves and fought for real change?

I would argue that very few did. Most of us celebrated and waited for Obama to do the heavy lifting. The country was facing a devastating financial crisis while conducting two wars. We were celebrating the victory, but not looking at the overwhelming challenges our new leader was facing. We expected sweeping change, but for the most part we left the battlefield and expected Obama to bring us that change.

The Economy

Immediately, Obama took steps that did save us from economic collapse. I am no economist, but I will accept the opinion of Paul Krugman and others that without the bailouts things would have been much worse.

In addition to having this "automatic" stabilizing effect, the government has stepped in to rescue the financial sector. You can argue (and I would) that the bailouts of financial firms could and should have been handled better, that taxpayers have paid too much and received too little. Yet it's possible to be dissatisfied, even angry, about the way the financial bailouts have worked while acknowledging that without these bailouts things would have been much worse. - Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html)

Ok, not a ringing endorsement, but nonetheless even critics of the bailouts acknowledge that they slowed the decline. That brings us to the present time - where is our anger? The corporations are flush with cash but they are not hiring. Why are we not out in the streets demanding jobs from the institutions that got the bailout money? Instead, we are letting the fringe Tea Party movement blame Obama for the mess that the previous administration left him with. It wasn't just the previous administration, but the greed of corporate America that has put us in this mess, and instead of fighting we have conceded the playing field to birthers, racists, and people who are inspired by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

We can criticize the bailouts all we want, but if more banks and financial institutions had failed, Main Street would have been hurt as much as Wall Street, probably more. It was a decision that no one wanted to face, but Obama was forced to act or be blamed for a depression.

Should the stimulus have been bigger? Probably, but was the political will there? Did we go fight for it and send a message to the deficit hawks that they would pay the price for opposing a bigger stimulus? Obama erred in thinking that the bank bailout would free up capital for small businesses and create more jobs. The administration didn't foresee the sustained job losses, and they low-balled the stimulus package. It was a mistake, and while we should call him on it, the way to do that is to demand more. Giving up and pointing fingers will not solve anything.

There is spending in the energy bill that will help. While we may not want more offshore drilling, more nuclear power and more coal, we must fight for the good in the energy bill. No legislation ever gives us everything we want, but no energy bill will be devastating to our economy.

The Wars

Why are we silent? Other than Cindy Sheehan and other dedicated activists, the rest of us have gone silent. We marched and made noise when we had a president that could care less what we said. Now we have a president who needs our support to win, why not let him know what we want? A hundred thousand people in Washington would have a much larger impact on Obama than it had on Bush. We always make the mistake of thinking our job is over after we elect a Democrat. The truth is, with a Democrat in the White House we should increase the pressure since there is a chance they might just listen.

Many are mistaken that believe Obama pledged to get out of Afghanistan. He campaigned on finishing the job there. There has never been a mass movement around getting out of Afghanistan, so the Obama administration believes they are doing what their constituents elected them to do. The war in Afghanistan will continue until it becomes political suicide to support it. Again, if Liberals and Progressives stood up and demanded an exit from Afghanistan Obama would be forced to listen, we are his base.

While the war in Iraq is winding down, many of us would like it to end faster. We should call for a faster withdrawal of troops. We need a movement that creates a political climate for what we are for, not one that focuses on what we are against. Barack Obama can be an agent of change if we unite and call for the change we want. Calling Obama a war criminal and tearing him down accomplishes nothing. We need to unite around themes that we agree on: money for jobs, not for war; build homes, not bombs. We need to create a climate for the change we seek.

Environment

The disaster in the Gulf should be used to create a climate for green energy. We must demand an end to offshore drilling. The tragedy in the Gulf should also be a call to act against other potentially dangerous forms of energy. Are we prepared for a nuclear disaster? Wind farms and solar energy will not result in the destruction that fossil fuels and nuclear power can lead to.

Obama's support for offshore drilling, nuclear energy and "clean" coal is not ideological; it is political, and can be reversed. He would rather pass an energy bill that does not include increases in any of those options. In the current political climate Obama must compromise to get anything. While it is true that the Republicans still say no, the lobbyists make the deal and the Democrats in their pockets go along.

That has to change.

On that historic night in Grant Park, Obama also said:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president.

He was right, many liberals and progressives disagree with many of Obama's policies, but let us focus on what we agree on.

While it isn't a perfect bill, millions of Americans will have access to health care that didn't before, and millions more will not lose their health care coverage if they get sick.

Did you know that Obama signed legislation that forces banks to honor your lease if your landlord goes into foreclosure? I wonder if McCain or Bush would have done that?

While the financial reform legislation isn't as strong as we wanted, it is more than we would have gotten from "Keating Five" McCain.

Then there is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that moves us closer to pay equity for women.

The list goes on, but too often we forget the gains and focus on the areas that we disagree on with the president.

Obama always said he couldn't do it alone; the entrenched powerful interests in Washington are not going to just surrender. We need to support him when he is doing the right thing, and create a new political climate that allows him to change his policies when we think he is wrong.

I believe that he believes in the right things, but he can only achieve what the political climate allows. We have failed to provide the political climate for the change we believe in. It is time for us to organize and seize back the momentum for change.

I hope I haven't offended any of you, if you are active and fighting for change keep going, many of you are doing more than I am. I am speaking to those who went and voted for Obama and expected him to change everything on his own. I am speaking to the people who only criticize him, and are doing nothing to help. And I guess I am asking everyone not to give up.