Chamber of Commerce Leading Congress Astray

January 30, 2009
Economy in Crisis ww.economyincrisis.org
by Craig Harrington

The United States Chamber of Commerce is supposed to represent the best interests of American corporations and act as their legislative lobby. Unfortunately many of its efforts are counterproductive and effectively work to undermine the overall competitiveness and stability of U.S. companies. In the past week the Chamber of Commerce has petitioned Congress to drop “buy American” clauses from the newly approved Obama stimulus package – which is already wrought with wasteful spending. It has also increased its efforts to stimulate the development of new broader “free trade” agreements (FTAs) with nations around the world.

The reason the Chamber of Commerce is against so-called “buy American” clauses is due to its belief that such measures would increase the cost of projects while simultaneously creating a “trade war” with those nations who were left out of the bidding. The concept it fails to grasp is that there already is a trade war and the United States is being severely beaten.

The Chamber of Commerce's reasoning for even more FTAs is the misguided belief that the agreements actually result in surpluses for the United States. They highlight the fact that the U.S. is running surpluses with 9 of the 10 nations it entered into FTAs with since 2004. Unfortunately this statistic is misleading. The nations with whom we have established FTAs in the last four years are marginal developing economies; the nations which we run deficits with are massive and well developed economies. For example, the United States has a $10 billion surplus with Australia (one of the 9 successes) – and our largest surplus was $14.5 billion with the Netherlands in 2007. No export surplus exceeds $15 billion annually.

Meanwhile, the U.S. runs simultaneous import deficits with dozens of other countries and our 20th largest deficit (Thailand) roughly cancels out our largest surplus – our deficit to Thailand is $14.3 billion. We were in deficit $256 billion to China alone in 2007. If you add up our five largest surpluses you get roughly $58 billion gained. If you add up our five largest deficits you get roughly $522 billion lost. That is a net loss of $470 billion from just five countries. (Trade Stats Express)

The Chamber of Commerce also points out that nearly half of our trade is with countries that have FTAs with the United States. This statistic is meant to imply that we could make international exchange cheaper with the other half if we enter into FTAs with them. However, this overlooks the fact that our international trade is a net loss for the U.S. Why would we want to make a bad situation worse by giving nations even more reason to send their shoddy products here in exchange for our money?

The Chamber of Commerce has a strong voice in Washington and if history is any proof it will likely carry the day. “Free trade” will probably be the linchpin of American economic policy as long as the same old talking heads preside over the halls of Congress. The Chamber of Commerce is funded by business elites and these elites benefit from international economic liberalization. They have an agenda which serves them and they have the right to that self serving idealism. The United States government on the other hand should have only one agenda in mind – our best interests. It is being sold snake oil by the business interests of this country as well as those from overseas.

If we have no means of cutting off or drowning out this bad information we have to put people in office who know their way around the flashy sales pitches. They need to realize that the Chamber of Commerce represents just what its name implies – Commerce. Commerce has increased in the “free trade” era, but living standards have fallen and that is all that matters to the rest of us.

We Don't Ask - National Ad for the Employee Free Choice Act

Tim Shipe: A Child's Right to Thrive

Excellent column by Tim Shipe from Florida Today:

Pro-life advocates should back programs to aid children
Florida Today www.floridatoday.com
Tim Shipe, Guest Columnist
January 25, 2009

The issue of abortion was not the compelling concern for a majority of Americans in the last elections, but it is still a powerfully divisive legal and moral contest that pits pro-life versus pro-choice in a heated competition for hearts and minds.

It is tough to find common ground or fresh areas for public debate, but as a pro-life Democrat I am accustomed to thinking outside the pack.

Most pro-choice political leaders are quick to say that they are not pro-abortion, but are interested in abortion reduction without outlawing the procedures. Many pro-life leaders similarly claim they are also committed to reducing the numbers of abortion even as they seek a final legal solution of defining the right to life.

There are a couple of bills coming back for consideration in Congress that will test the truthfulness of these politicians’ claims.

The Pregnant Women Support Act is being promoted by Democrats for Life as a means of reducing abortions 95 percent over the next 10 years.

This bill would provide more adoption incentives, much needed funding for WIC programs that provide food for women, infants and children, and provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child.

There is so much good in this bill I can only pray President Obama will seize upon it to demonstrate he isn’t going to be the most pro-abortion president in history, as is now claimed about him in pro-life circles.

The Feminists for Life organization has been spreading the word that “45 percent of women who have abortions are college age” and that “women with some college had the highest abortion rate of any educational group.”

They also tout statistics that 71 percent of 18-19 year olds and 58 percent of 20-24 year olds said they had abortions because having the child would interfere with their education or career. Feminists for Life have been promoting the “Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act” to address these sad realities.

I would like to introduce a fresh approach to the abortion wars. I like to say there is a right to thrive that encompasses the right to life and it addresses the fact that we have a societal obligation to all children.

When I hear fellow pro-lifers rage against social programs and government’s role in ensuring the common good, I cringe. When I hear fellow Democrats rage against traditionally religious folk who are trying to take responsibility to stop the killing of unborn human lives, I want to weep.

When I want to make the pro-life case to my students in the classroom, I don’t show shocking pictures of aborted fetuses. I show the National Geographic documentary “In the Womb.”

It is my belief the unborn will win their human rights when everyone opens their eyes to the fact that every human life passes through the same stages.

Pro-life must also be whole-life. For me economics, war, immigration, health care and education are all life issues, and children and pregnant mothers take priority over the rest of us.

Shipe is a teacher at Melbourne Central Catholic High School and serves on the board of advisors of Florida Democrats for Life.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090125/COLUMNISTS0205/90123037/1138/OPINION

NY Gov Paterson Announces Kirsten Gillibrand to Fill Senate Seat

NEW YORK, Jan. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU, UFCW):

The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) welcomes the choice of Kirsten Gillibrand as the new United States Senator from New York.

The labor movement worked hard to elect Ms. Gillibrand in both her previous races for Congress. Representative Gillibrand has a near perfect voting record on pro-worker legislation and is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act.

As Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand will be a strong and vocal advocate for issues that are important to working families and the RWDSU looks forward to continuing our work with her.

SOURCE Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union http://rwdsu.info/

Barack Obama speech at the Lincoln Memorial

Digital Journal: Clean Energy Could Mean More Nuclear

From Digital Journal.Com
January 17, 2009
by Joan Firstenberg

Nuclear Energy - we haven't talked about it for 30 years in this country. But now it's the talk of the town as far as clean energy is concerned and it could be the perfect solution to President-Elect Obama's goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Nuclear power is back in vogue. A number of big U.S. companies are banking on President-elect Barack Obama's goal to reduce carbon emissions in this country by 80-percent by 2050 to propel the nation into a nuclear-power building boom. In fact, Barrons reports that nuclear plants produce the most amount of energy without emitting any greenhouse gases. And there are plans to build 26 new nuclear plants. No new plants have been built in the U.S. for 30 years.

Some scientists are approving of the idea. Tom Neff, a physicist and research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies says,
"Nuclear power is in a renaissance."

Nuclear energy has re-emerged as a good energy source as fears about its safety have eased. Exelon, the biggest nuclear-power generator in the U.S. and other operators have addressed the problem of nuclear-waste disposal with "dry-cask storage" -- high-tech sealed containers that they keep on their sites. Because of innovations like that, many of the safety concerns that arose after accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) in 1986 have eased.

Nuclear plants now have the stamp of approval from a founding member of Greenpeace. Patrick Moore, a scientist who began supporting nuclear energy a few years ago, says,

"It's safer to work in a nuclear plant than it is in real estate."

Moore points to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and says that a Columbia University study published in 2004, which followed 54,000 nuclear-plant workers for 15 years, found that they had fewer cancers, less disease and lived longer than the average person.

The only fly in the ointment of getting these plants going could be obtaining the financing necessary because of the recent credit crisis. But Sheila Slocum Hollis, a partner at the Washington law firm of Duane Morris, which specializes in energy law says,

"If you honestly believe that greenhouse gas is the seminal issue of the day, as world population and economic growth continue to expand, so will the need for electric capacity. Whether to power electric vehicles or for general manufacturing needs, ultimately people are looking toward nuclear as the big power source. I have seen a sea change in public acceptance of nuclear power. People have seen it for 35 years now, and it's working and it has a lot of jobs associated with it in many communities."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265396#tab=article&sc=0&local=

Jeff Madrick: The Case for Big Government

Make America Happen - Again

Senator Sherrod Brown: A Fighter for American Workers

Economy in Crisis pays a well-deserved tribute to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. A leader in the fight for fair trade, Brown has worked tirelessly to protect American jobs.

Our Current Economic Environment is No Longer Sustainable
Published 01/15/09 Dustin Ensinger
www.economyincrisis.org

Editor's Note: American government officials are elected for one
purpose: To represent the best interest of their constituents. In
today's society more and more elected officials shun their duties
after taking office, and opt to pursue their own best interests to
the detriment of America as a whole. However, in the midst of a
politically corrupt sea of ill-willed politicians, a few individuals
remain fighting the good fight, these individuals are our "Free Trade
Foes."

If it were more than a mere symbolic accessory intended to signify
that "the struggle continues," the canary lapel pin worn by Sen.
Sherrod Brown might forewarn of the toxic air that is the modern day
American economy. Life is gradually sucked out by ill-conceived trade
policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World
Trade Organization, leaving a gigantic void in what was once the
backbone of America`s flourishing economy: its manufacturing base.

But, that emblematic gesture does indeed mean so much more.

You see, for centuries miners died by the thousands each and every
year because there were no safety laws or trade unions to demand
protections or lawmakers ordering more precautionary measures be
taken. It was just the hard-working men and a caged canary toiling
miles under the earth`s surface. The bird was no mascot, however, it
was the only tool the miners had to warn them of potentially
hazardous air conditions: if the bird croaked, it was time to get
out - and quickly. Today, the canary symbolizes the progress made by
working men and women over the intervening years - child labor laws,
mandatory safety regulations, 40 hour work weeks, collective
bargaining rights - and the ongoing struggle that continues today.

It is fitting then that the bird known for protecting the working men
of years past is now proudly worn by the one of the working men and
women's strongest advocates in Congress, the junior Senator from
Ohio, Sherrod Brown.

Throughout the course of his career Brown has been derided by critics
as "a demagogue on trade," a "protectionist" and as someone standing
in the way of progress in the perennially downtrodden economies of
Third World nations. Washington Post columnist David Broder once
described Brown as "a loud advocate of protectionist policies that
offers a false hope of solving all our trade and job problems."

The reality, however, is that Brown just gets It, writing in an April
Op-Ed piece "Eight times I have taken the oath of office to support
and defend the United States. My colleagues and I commit ourselves to
protecting our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That
includes protecting our neighborhoods from unsafe products. And, yes,
that also means protecting our workers and businesses from unfair
competition."

Protecting American businesses and workers is how Brown made a name
for himself in the me-first world of American politics. An economic
populist with both a homespun, down-to-earth Midwestern style and an
Ivy League background, he rejects the conventional wisdom that "free
trade" is great for everyone involved and is not afraid to make
blunt, politically unpopular assessments of the consequences of
unfettered "free trade."

"This is what's at stake when we talk about trade policy: America`s
middle class and the American Dream" Brown wrote in a 2006 Washington
Post Op-Ed piece.

By rejecting the gospel of "free trade," Brown, in 2006, became the
first Democratic senator from the state of Ohio since John Glenn
retired in 1998. Brown's 2006 defeat of Republican incumbent Mike
DeWine was the pinnacle of a political career that began soon after
he graduated from Yale. State Democratic officials persuaded him to
run for a seat in the state legislature at the ripe old age of 21.
Showing the fight and determination that is readily evident in the
working men and women Brown has supported throughout his career, he
knocked on 20,000 doors in his district, helping him defeat a popular
incumbent Republican. By age 29, Brown was elected Secretary of
State. In 1992, he was elected to represent Ohio's 13th District in
the U.S. House of Representatives, where he would serve six terms.

It was here, during his time in Congress, that Brown built a
reputation as a fiery populist ready to fight tooth-and-nail for the
working-class families of his district. He fought on issues ranging
from minimum wage, to universal health care, to sick leave, but
especially on trade issues, which had become a political lightning-
rod in Rust Belt states like Ohio as good-paying jobs seemingly
disappeared faster than a field of snow in May. "Free trade" had
decimated the industrial base of Ohio and left its victims jobless
and demoralized, but Brown was there to fight the good fight.

His father a local physician and his mother a one-time civil rights
activist, Brown had been instilled with a sense of righteous justice,
and seeing none in America's trade policies he was determined to
deliver it.

In 1993, in a losing effort, Brown led the fight against NAFTA -
which since has cost Ohio manufacturing 200,000 jobs. Not to be
deterred, members of the Democratic leadership in the House would
appoint him liaison in trade policy fights because of his manifest
grasp and passion of the issue. In 2005, Brown was charged with
leading the opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement
Though CAFTA would pass, the fact that it was carried by just two
votes, 217-215, in contrast to the passage of NAFTA by 34 votes 12
years prior, heartened Brown. He decided to make a run for the U.S.
Senate, where he is now one of the upper chamber's leading advocates
of "fair trade," describing America's current trade policies as "a
global race to the bottom as corporations troll the world for the
cheapest labor, fewest health, safety and environmental regulations
and the governments most unfriendly to labor rights."

On nearly every major piece of trade legislation over the past 15
years, Brown has been there, fighting for the rights of American
workers against unfair trade policies. In addition to his opposition
to NAFTA and CAFTA, Brown has actively and vigorously opposed trade
bills with the Andean nations, Singapore, Chile and Oman among
others. He has twice voted for the immediate withdrawal of the U.S.
from the World Trade Organization. He opposed giving the president of
his own party fast-track authority, which would have effectively cut
Congress out of any negotiations on further trade deals. He has been
a proponent of country-of-origin labeling on imported food products.
He has railed against corporations' corrupting influence on
government. Until recently, after urging from his wife, Brown refused
to accept the Congressional health insurance. He paid for it out of
his own pocket because many hard working men and women are unable to
afford health insurance. And Brown is the author of Myths of Free
Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed.

America needs more lawmakers like Sen. Sherrod Brown, fighting for
the working men and women of America. Without them, the canary-in-the-
cage may keel over and die, warning us that our current economic
environment is no longer sustainable.

To learn more, or to encourage Senator Brown to keep fighting the
Good Fight, click here.

To contribute to Senator Brown's campaign war-chest to ensure that he
remains one of the leading voices of the fair trade movement in
Congress, click here
http://sherrodbrown.com/pages/about

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/2333

Thom Hartmann - Conservative Economics Is Toxic

Obama Economic Plan: Create Made in America Jobs

From AFL-CIO Now Blog
by Tula Connell, Jan 10, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama today laid out some of the details of his economic recovery plan. While the current President focuses on giving the Medal of Freedom to the leader of a country that has the highest number of trade union murders in the world and on spending nearly $600,000 on new china for the White House days before leaving office, Obama is moving to clean up the Bush economic mess. Giving the Democratic radio address this morning, Obama said:

Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again. This is an extraordinary challenge.

Obama said his plan was in part crafted by economist Jared Bernstein, an ally of the labor movement at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and now economic advisor to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

We’ll create nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy–by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes. These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced.

“Made-in-America jobs.” What sweet words after eight years of an administration bent on giving endless corporate incentives to move U.S. jobs overseas. Here’s more from Obama’s radio address:

Put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure–our crumbling roads, bridges and schools.
Build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband lines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.
Work to achieve bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage; a $1,000 tax cut for 95 percent of working families; and assistance to help states avoid harmful budget cuts in essential services like police, fire, education and health care.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/01/10/obama-economic-plan-create-made-in-america-jobs/

Free Market Baloney

Single payer is the solution to medical care crisis

Dr. Oliver Fein, President of Physicians for a National Health Program www.pnhp.org, makes a strong argument for single payer health care in the United States. Single payer isn't such a radical idea. In fact, President Harry Truman advocated national health insurance back in 1948. Truman stated “Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.” Sixty years later, it is long past time for America to provide decent medical care to all citizens.

There is a cure available for our health care woes
By DR. OLIVER FEIN
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, December 14, 2008

The report last week that the U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs this year, and 533,000 jobs in November alone, sent shudders through our nation’s households. That’s the biggest one-month plunge in jobs in 34 years. “Horrendous” was how one economist put it, while others said the number of unemployed, and underemployed, could easily double over the next year.

These job losses spell disaster for our health. Millions of people are losing their employer-sponsored health insurance, joining the 46 million who already lack coverage. Millions more are finding it harder to pay their co-pays and deductibles and are scrimping on their medications and doctor visits. Many go without care, risking their health and often their very lives.

In short, affordable health care has never been more urgently needed. Yet most of the health reform proposals coming out of Washington these days won’t get us there.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) recently unveiled his proposals for incremental health reform, which largely mirror the ideas of President-elect Barack Obama and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

However well-intentioned, the Obama/Baucus/Kennedy approaches share a fatal flaw: they preserve a central role for the private health insurance industry.

To varying degrees, they would mandate that everyone buy private health insurance — the private insurance that is failing us today. Some of these plans offer a Medicare-like, public option that people could buy into, but experience with Medicare shows that the private plans refuse to compete on a level playing field. They cherry-pick healthier patients and insist on more than their share of payment.

Experience with mandate-based plans in Washington state (1993), Oregon (1992) and Massachusetts (1988 and today) shows that they simply don’t work, achieving neither universal health care nor cost containment.

As long as we rely on private health insurers, universal coverage will be unaffordable. These companies generate immense overhead costs and force doctors and hospitals to spend heavily on billing and paperwork.

Administration consumes about one-third of every health care dollar in the U.S. By contrast, in countries with nonprofit national health insurance, administrative costs consume only half that amount.

There is a cure, however. Eliminating the private insurance industry would save $400 billion annually in administrative costs, enough to ensure that everyone is covered and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles.

At this critical juncture, a single-payer plan is the only medically, morally and fiscally responsible path to take.

We already have an example of an American single-payer system that works — traditional Medicare. It’s not perfect, but people with Medicare are far happier than those with private insurance. Doctors face fewer hassles in getting paid, and Medicare has been a leader in keeping costs down, at least until Washington politicians decided to pay private insurance plans to enroll seniors at a cost 12- to 19-percent higher than traditional Medicare.

Single-payer systems give patients complete freedom to choose their doctor and hospital. They also enhance cost containment through global budgeting, the bargaining power of being the sole buyer, and an emphasis on primary care and prevention.

With a universal plan of this type, doctors and other health professionals could return to their main task: caring for their patients.

Single payer, or an improved Medicare for All, is embodied in the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and 92 other members of Congress.

Opponents of single payer often admit it’s the best, most efficient and equitable way to provide quality care, but say it’s not politically feasible and is therefore off the table in this round of the debate. How so? A solid majority of physicians, 59 percent, and an even higher percentage of the public, 62 percent or more, support national health insurance, recent surveys show. Single payer should be front and center.

Medicare for All is within reach, but only if we are prepared to take on the private health insurance industry. The time is now. It requires only the political will.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/14/equaled.html

Dr. Oliver Fein is associate dean and professor of clinical medicine and public health, Weill Cornell Medical College in New York and president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

http://www.pnhp.org

Mr. President (Have Pity on the Working Man) - Randy Newman

Great tune from 1974 by New Orleans-born singer/songwriter/pianist Randy Newman.

Lyrics

We've taken all you've given
But it's gettin' hard to make a livin'
Mr. President have pity on the working man

We're not asking you to love us
You may place yourself high above us
Mr. President have pity on the working man

I know it may sound funny
But people ev'ry where are runnin' out of money
We just can't make it by ourself

It is cold and the wind is blowing
We need something to keep us gong
Mr. President have pity on the working man

Maybe you've cheated
Maybe you've lied
Maybe you have finally lost your mind
Maybe you're only thinking 'bout yourself

Too late to run. Too late to cry now
The time has come for us to say good-bye now
Mr. President have pity on the working man
Mr. President have pity on the working man

Stimulus package must include fiscal accountability

All too often conservatives accuse those of us who favor a strong role by government of enabling waste and abuse by bureaucrats. Given the record of our private sector in recent years, it is clear that inefficiency is by no means limited to government but we do have a responsibility to make sure tax dollars are being used wisely. I can think of two Democratic leaders from the past who point the way to how Democrats can support activist and efficient government.

The late Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a traditional New Deal Democrat, often admonished his colleagues that "to be a liberal, one does not have to be a wastrel. We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane." Democrats need to be leading efforts to make government work effectively to provide services and enforce regulations to protect workers and consumers. During his long Senate career, the late Senator William Proxmire was a strong believer in activist government and yet a zealous opponent of bureaucratic waste. Proxmire introduced the "Golden Fleece" awards, which exposed wasteful practices in government. Proxmire noted that "highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste."

Along the same lines, Dustin Ensinger at Economy in Crisis stresses the importance of accountability for the billions of dollars in economic stimulus spending.

Obama's Early Wish List: $500 billion
Published 12/12/08 Dustin Ensinger
Economy in Crisis www.economyincrisis.org

One of the things on President-elect Barack Obama's early wish list
in the first few days of his administration is a huge stimulus
package, reportedly in the area of $500 billion to $1 trillion
dollars. According to Robert Puentes, a fellow with the Brookings
Institution's Metropolitan Policy Project, the money could be a
blessing or a curse, depending on how much oversight is in place to
ensure that the money is being spent properly.

Obama's stimulus package would provide the perfect opportunity for
Obama to implement one of his campaign promises: Google for
government. He has proposed creating a digital database that details
how each and every dollar of taxpayer money is being spent and this
huge infrastructure project provides ample opportunity to do so.

Because a large chunk of that money will be funneled to state and
local governments to be spent on infrastructure projects, there are
enormous opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse.

"It's the closest thing we have to a blank check," Puentes
said. "it's a fact-free zone."

While Puentes acknowledges that the money needs to be spent quickly
to put people to work, he also said there must be strict oversight
and accountability, otherwise it could be a giant waste of taxpayer
money.

"We should only spend quickly on the existing system," said
Puentes. "We shouldn't use this as an opportunity to build more
projects on the fringe" of cities.

According to Puentes, Obama should focus on repairing roads, bridges
and water and sewer systems, focusing on more long-term projects only
after comprehensive oversight is in place.

To ensure that taxpayer money is not simply wasted, the government
needs to create an independent panel to oversee how and where the
money is spent. In addition, there should be an unprecedented amount
of transparency to instill confidence in taxpayers that their money
is not being frivolously spent on pork projects.

Please write to President-Elect Obama and encourage him to implement
a digital database that details every cent of government spending, so
we can ensure our tax dollars are not spent in vain.

Source CNNMoney:

In just over a month, hundreds of billions of dollars of your money
could be funneling through the hands of every politician, from the
president to the mayor of the smallest American town, in a plan to
jumpstart the economy.

For maximum effect, experts say the cash should be doled out quickly.
The plan could be approved just days after President-elect Obama
takes office. Done right, it could create millions of jobs and
lubricate the economy. Done wrong, it presents innumerable
opportunities for waste and fraud.

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/2194

Thom Hartmann - Why Do We Have An Economy?

New book says globalization causes inequality, insecurity and wage loss

A new book by economist Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute www.epi.org provides a compelling reason for the Obama administration and Congress to think big about how to reduce economic inequality and insecurity in the years to come: Most working Americans have suffered steady and significant income losses that stem from global integration.

Everybody Wins Except for Most of Us: What Economics Teaches About Globalization finds that trade flows likely cost a full-time U.S. worker earning the median wage $1,400 in 2006. This loss rivals or exceeds what median wage-earners experienced during the recession of the early 2000s. For workers on its losing end, globalization has felt like a chronic (if largely unseen) recession – one that requires a policy response as ambitious as that offered against today's very visible economic downturn.

Bivens shows even as total national income rises due to trade, the majority of workers lose – not just those displaced by imports but also those competing with these laid-off workers for the jobs that remain. Meanwhile, the benefits of trade flow mainly to a small number of employees and managers whose capital, skills and credentials insulate them from global competition. This redistribution of income is best measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and has contributed to the widening gap between growth in typical workers' wages and national productivity.

In Everybody Wins…, Bivens explains the best-practice techniques that scholarly research has developed to quantify the impact of trade on U.S. wages and then uses them to reach unconventional-sounding but well-documented conclusions about how globalization affects working Americans. Lastly, he translates these research findings into understandable numbers to inform the public debate.

Besides finding that globalization now costs most American workers on the order of $1,400 in annual earnings, Bivens also notes that globalization may well reduce American wages in the future to a much greater degree than experts once thought possible as new technologies make industry that can transfer its output via data lines vulnerable to global competition.

“If the predictions of some very well-credentialed economists about the reach of service-sector offshoring hold true, this could potentially drag on the growth of living standards for a huge number of American workers for decades to come,” Bivens warns.

Bivens, a Ph.D. economist, writes that the basic patterns of these outcomes are predicted by basic economic theory but have been too often ignored in the rush to sign ever more trade agreements. He notes, "The irony is that those worried about what the integration of the rich U.S. economy and a much poorer global economy means for their living standards have a much better grasp of their underlying economics.”
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States and around the world. EPI's mission is to inform people and empower them to seek solutions that will ensure broadly shared prosperity and opportunity.

The book's findings indicate that much more needs to be done to cushion the blow of global competition. “To deal with harm as serious and widespread as that imposed by globalization, we need to think much more ambitiously about public policy that re-links aggregate and individual prosperity.” He urges policymakers to “think big,” and to use "all of the levers available to re-link the aggregate and individual prosperity that globalization has helped wedge apart: social insurance, public investment, fairer economic rules, and redistribution through the government budget and tax policy when other measures fail to provide egalitarian outcomes.”

Presented previously in research papers and interviews, Bivens’ analysis has helped shape public debate on the need for policy-makers to insure U.S. workers’ livelihoods in the face of expanded global trade. Among other outlets, his work has been cited by: New York Times columnist and Nobel winner, Paul Krugman; the Times editorial page; the Economist magazine; and three of the most widely read economics bloggers: Brad DeLong, Dani Rodrik, and Mark Thoma.

About the author Bivens joined EPI in 2002. His research concerns the effects of globalization on developed and developing nations, macroeconomics, and social insurance. His writing has appeared in The American Prospect, Challenge Magazine, the Guardian and Worth, as well as in academic journals including the International Review of Applied Economics and the Journal of Economic Issues. He was an editor and contributor to Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs: Labor Markets and Informal Work in Egypt, El Salvador, India, Russia and South Africa.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_everybody_wins#exec_summary

Saxby Chambliss out of touch on the economy

IAVA - Welcome Back Veterans

EPI: A New Day for U.S. Economic Policy

A statement on the economic implications of Barack Obama's historic election victory, by Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank founded in 1986:

At long last, the center of economic thinking in the United States has shifted, and we can declare with confidence and relief that the conservative era is over. It is now possible to build an economy with widely shared prosperity.

The bundle of approaches favored by supply-siders from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, and embraced by candidate John McCain — featuring tax cuts for corporations and the rich; deregulation of business and financial activity; weak environmental, consumer and workplace protections; and unrestrained globalization — has been soundly rejected by voters, who overwhelmingly identified the economy as their single most important issue.

It is now clear that the failed supply-side, market fundamentalist experiment has wrecked the economy. Misguided monetary policies, deregulation and lax oversight created stock market and housing bubbles that suddenly popped, erasing trillions of dollars in household wealth. Meanwhile, middle class wages and incomes have stagnated, inequality has soared, manufacturing has been put on life support, and millions have been thrown out of work. Voters realized that the policies that led us into the current crisis won't get us out. They want pragmatic government intervention to solve our energy problems, fix the health care system, restore manufacturing competitiveness, obtain more progressive taxation, generate broad-based wage growth, and provide retirement security for working Americans.

Democrats were already aligning their policies to this new reality before the recent financial meltdown made change all the more urgent. This can be seen by comparing the proposals of the leading candidates in the recent Democratic primaries to those offered in 2000 and 2004. All the recent candidates emphasized major public investments in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources (green jobs), and endorsed universal health care proposals relying on a large, public plan (such as Medicare) alongside existing employer-provided plans. They recommended caution in moving ahead with further globalization and endorsed enforceable labor standards as a core element in trade policies. All were vocal in their support for a vibrant labor movement (and thus, the Employee Free Choice Act) and for substantially raising the minimum wage. There was less talk about balancing the budget and more talk about balancing the need for public investment with other fiscal goals.

The fact that the American people are now open to change does not mean that they are no longer skeptical of government intervention. Who would not be skeptical after the last eight years of misguided or incompetent policies, a time when the effect of government intervention was mostly to erode individuals' constitutional rights?

The task ahead is to fashion policies that will improve the economic circumstances of the vast majority, and thereby restore confidence. There is much to overcome. For roughly thirty years, with the exception of the late 1990s expansion, there has been little wage growth for the vast majority and increased economic insecurity, primarily related to health care and retirement security. The last business cycle from 2000 to 2007 failed to generate any growth for middle class working families — on average, they lost over $2,000 a year in inflation-adjusted income. This erosion of earning power happened even as the economy, through its workers, became increasingly productive. In fact, productivity growth — which measures the creation of goods and services per hour worked — has been historically high since 1995, but the fruits of that growth have gone to the already-wealthy. Our economy has been a huge skimming operation for the well-to-do.

On top of these long-term problems, a new recession brought us to 6.1% unemployment in September, even before the global financial meltdown. Now we are looking at several years of high unemployment (peaking at 8% or more) and widespread income losses that will take many more years to overcome.

To address this set of challenges we will need bold — even 'audacious' — policies. We at EPI have compiled an Agenda for Shared Prosperity to get us back on track and an economic recovery package to pull us out of the unfolding recession. The basic capacities of government will need to be rebuilt and policymakers will need to rigorously focus on cost-effective policies. The solutions will need to be ambitious, at the scale of the problems we face, rather than a timid tweaking at the margins.

We certainly can no longer grow based on asset bubbles in housing or in stocks or from increased personal debt: the demand for goods and services from our increased productivity will need to come from consumers who earn family-supporting paychecks. We will need new government spending on infrastructure, education, health care and the safety net, re-regulation of the financial and insurance markets, changes in and enforcement of our labor laws. Above all, we need a guiding philosophy that understands the purpose of government is not to get out of the way, but to help lead the way through difficult times.