Progressive Breakfast is the morning roundup of what progressive movement members need to know to start the day.
Obama May Invest $1T To Revitalize Economy
Following the release of Institute for America's Future $900B, 2-year Main Street Recovery Plan as a "floor, not a ceiling," the WSJ reports Obama's economic team is moving in the same direction:
With the unemployment rate now expected to hit 9% without aggressive intervention, Obama aides and advisers have set $600 billion over two years as "a very low-end estimate," one person familiar with the matter said. The final number is expected to be significantly higher, possibly between $700 billion and $1 trillion over two years.
...
As economic conditions worsen, Obama economists now say the package will have to be larger than expected to ensure the needed stimulus actually reaches the economy. Households will save some percentage of the initial tax cut. And some amount of spending, especially on infrastructure, won't reach the economy in the expected time frame of the package, since contracts and projects may be delayed.
...
Mr. Obama has said the package will include an initial tax cut and a massive infusion of funds for roads, bridges, water systems, school repair, spreading broadband access, promoting health-care information technology, improving energy efficiency in buildings, renewable-energy projects, and assisting struggling state and local governments. But the balance of those projects is still under debate.
On ABC's This Week, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said he is raising the amount of his ideal package from $600B, while saying his remaining concern is "finding enough stuff to spend on ... it is not that easy, believe it or not, even Washington can't spend $600 billion in a year very easily. So, to push north of that is hard to do."
Conservatives, still lacking any alternative ideas, try mocking. Michelle Malkin: "We’ve graduated from Crap Sandwich to Crap Super Stuffed Sub. The stimulus boondoggle went from $300 billion to $500 billion to $600 billion to $1 trillion in less than a month." Flopping Aces: "Liberals Worry That There Are Not Enough Entitlement Programs To Throw Money At."
On NBC's Meet The Press, political shapeshifter Mitt Romney positioned himself to be either supporter or critic of the plan by 2012: "Greg Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, says that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect, more bang for the buck even than more spending. On the spending front, though, we're also going to have to spend more ... I want them to move quickly and with a broad-based economic stimulus plan that doesn't waste money, that doesn't have earmarks for very special projects that congressman and senators want. I want instead the normal process going through departments, with criteria published as to how the money's going to get spent."
Sunday W. Post piece sets up false choice -- "the crumbling economy, while giving impetus to big spending plans, has also put a new emphasis on projects that can be started immediately ... and created a clear tension between the need to create jobs fast and the desire for a lasting legacy" and then resolves it -- "Defending the emerging list of projects, the [transition team] aide ... said there simply is a vast need for [immediate] repairs. But ... the Obama team also has its eye out for longer-term projects to invest in, and that for all the emphasis on quick spending, the recovery plan is considered a two-year undertaking."
Calls for Green Investment
Miami Herald oped by Michael Eckhart: Renewable energy as a core solution to many policy challenges
Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman: "The infrastructure built with that enormous sum of money will set development and lifestyle patterns for two generations, just as the interstates did. Inevitably, roads and bridges must be part of that investment. But if Obama and Congress are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and making this country more fuel efficient, a significant portion of that investment must also be put into projects such as transit and rail lines."
The Star (Malaysia) reports: "The economic crisis should not stop governments from serious action to combat climate change, but should instead be an opportunity to fund climate-related activities. This was a clear message that came out of the last days of the United Nations climate talks at Poznan in Poland."
White House Still Pondering Auto Rescue
Reports that Bush has not decided what to do about the auto industry are raising conservative hopes that he'll let the industry collapse.
BUT, the WSJ indicates the White House is pondering how to temporarily stave off collapse, not if. "The administration is trying to determine how much money it will take to help the car companies, and is discussing a rescue totaling $10 billion to $40 billion or more."
Pro-rescue Felix Salmon knocks the dithering: "Shorter WSJ: Will the government use TARP funds to bail out the automakers? Maybe. Will it ask Congress to release the second tranche of TARP funds? Don't know. If it did, would there be ugly scenes in Congress? Don't know. Will the government require the automakers to declare bankruptcy? Don't know. Is there any way to bail in bondholders without forcing the automakers into bankruptcy? Don't know. How much will all this cost? Don't know, could be anywhere between $8 billion and $50 billion. Shorter shorter WSJ: With banks, you need to get things done over the weekend. With automakers, evidently, not so much. This all bespeaks a lack of leadership, which is the one thing clearly needed to avoid a worst-case liquidation scenario which is looking increasingly likely. [per Naked Capitalism]"
Bailout Loophole
W. Post reports that the $700B financial industry bailout legislation contains a loophole inserted by the Bush White House undermining Congress' intention to limit executive pay. Atrios: "The great $700 billion theft."
Battle Brewing On Education
Sunday's NYT reviews the battle surrounding Obama's upcoming choice for Education Secretary: "Will he side with those who want to abolish teacher tenure and otherwise curb the power of teachers’ unions? Or with those who want to rewrite the main federal law on elementary and secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act, and who say the best strategy is to help teachers become more qualified? The debate has sometimes been nasty ... Editorials and opinion articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have described the debate as pitting education reformers against those representing the educational establishment or the status quo. But who the reformers are depends on who is talking."
The Nation's Alfie Kohn, in support of Obama's transition team leader Linda Darling-Hammond, criticizes those claiming the education reform mantle:
To be a school "reformer" is to support:
§ a heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests to evaluate students and schools, generally in place of more authentic forms of assessment;
§ the imposition of prescriptive, top-down teaching stand-ards and curriculum mandates;
§ a disproportionate emphasis on rote learning--memorizing facts and practicing skills--particularly for poor kids;
§ a behaviorist model of motivation in which rewards (notably money) and punishments are used on teachers and students to compel compliance or raise test scores;
§ a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling, the point being to prepare children to "compete" as future employees; and
§ charter schools, many run by for-profit companies.
Notice that these features are already pervasive, which means "reform" actually signals more of the same--or, perhaps, intensification of the status quo with variations like one-size-fits-all national curriculum standards or longer school days (or years). Almost never questioned, meanwhile, are the core elements of traditional schooling, such as lectures, worksheets, quizzes, grades, homework, punitive discipline and competition. That would require real reform, which of course is off the table.
TNR's Seyward Darby defends those "reformers" and criticizes Darling-Hammond.
Conservative Dem Power Play in Senate
Sen. Evan Bayh is forming a conservative Dem "Blue Dog" caucus in the Senate, joining the one already in the House.
Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "In the House, the Blue Dogs are not only overly cozy with corporate lobbyists, this is a coalition reluctant to embrace a progressive vision on issues like climate change, and committed to a financial plan focused on spending reductions and balanced budgets -- precisely when the federal government needs to be doing the opposite. That Bayh wants a similar group working in the Senate is discouraging, to put it mildly." Open Left's Matt Stoller: "power is concentrated in the hands of conservative Democrats and a few Republicans, and that's how these guys wanted it."
Booman Tribune keying off Sunday's NYT expose of Sen. Chuck Schumer cozy dealings with Wall Street, sees "profound" political shifts afoot: "The GOP is morphing into a poorly-funded regional-interest party that is dependent almost exclusively on social-values voters for financial support. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is expanding and splintering at the same time. The previous split between progressives, Blue Dogs, and New Democrats is morphing into something much more complex. The emergence of [Rep. Bruce] Braley's Populist Caucus is one sign of this. Will Southern Democrats gravitate away from the budget-minded Blue Dogs to the anti-Free Trade, anti-Wall Street Populists? Will urban progressives line-up at the Wall Street trough, or join with the Populists in pursuit of universal health care and college tuition relief? And will the Republicans continue their drift away from Wall Street and towards anti-elitist, know-nothing populism? Whatever happens, Chuck Schumer's legacy will be complex. He combines a stunning level of success with a large dose of culpability for the economic conditions we now face.
The Left and Obama
Christian Science Monitor reports: "Obama and the wary left. Despite policy pullbacks and some appointments, most liberals are happy.":
Roger Hickey, co-director of the progressive Campaign for America’s Future, is well aware of the angst pouring forth on liberal websites – including his own organization’s blog – but he is willing to cut the president-elect some slack.
“I think that Obama’s right on target, and he is talking very boldly both on foreign policy and domestic economics and global economics,” Mr. Hickey says.
“They’re dealing with economic realities that no president has dealt with since [Franklin] Roosevelt,” he adds. “So while many of us might have quibbled with some Clinton retreads being appointed to high economic posts, it’s very obvious that everybody in the new team understands that there’s an economic crisis, and that the policies that might have worked in the Clinton era have to be thrown out the window.”
Salon.com hosts roundtable on "Obama's First 100 Days," with CAF's Rick Perlstein, Steve Clemons, Winnie Stachelberg and Tom Schaller. Perlstein observes:
Without a doubt. My favorite Reagan quote these days is when he used to say, "There is no left or right, there's only up or down." I'm personally willing, as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, to say if Barack Obama manages to deliver to the American citizenry, end the Cuban embargo, bring our troops home from Iraq, produce $80 trillion of green jobs and calls it all conservative, as a liberal I'm perfectly willing to fall on my sword.
updated at 11:25 AM ET
