300 Economists Warn: Don't Put Jobs Behind Deficit Reduction
300 economists warn politicians jobs must come before deficit reduction. WSJ: "Today, some 300 economists and 40 civic and labor unions released a statement today making the case for aggressive new spending. Their argument: More spending will juice the economy and create jobs, which will increase tax collections and ultimately help reduce the deficit. They are calling on the White House and Congress to pass another aggressive round of stimulus spending, including dollars for infrastructure, public jobs and aid to states."
Read the statement at DontKillJobs.org
OurFuture.org's Robert Borosage summarizes the economists' call: "It is time for bold steps to put people to work ... Grab this moment to rebuild America ... A premature turn to deficit reduction won't reduce deficits ... Building the new economy will help get our nation's books in order."
At announcement, Robert Kuttner lays out the proper path to recovery and deficit reduction. HuffPost: "'This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance,' said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement .... 'The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery. There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy.'"
New Deal 2.0's Bryce Covert also reports on the announcement: "The storyline that we have out of control government spending right now is 'one hundred eighty degrees from reality,' said Dean Baker..."
Daily Kos' Meteor Blades praises focus on public investment and tax reform: "There's good reason to focus on America's outdated, crumbling infrastructure. Not only would spending there create jobs immediately, it would be an investment in the future, the same kind of investment that, for instance, is being made by China, which plans to spend $738 billion on renewable energy projects alone over the next decade. The statement also recommends new sources of revenue, among them a financial transaction tax, a high-income surcharge, the Wyden-Gregg corporate loophole-closing proposal, ending billions in subsidies to Big Energy."
Elizabeth Warren To Be Appointed Today
"Consumer advocates were thrilled ... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was appalled," reports McClatchy.
Warren will also lead search for first director of consumer bureau reports HuffPost.
Time explains what's behind Warren's mouthful of a title: "...for the purposes of authority, Warren needs to work for Geithner to be the one setting up the agency: hence 'Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the CFPB.' But for the purposes of satisfying the left, and perhaps the politically savvy Oklahoma-native herself, Warren needs an indication of Geithner-independent swat: hence 'Assistant to the President.'"
Mike Lux calls the Warren appointment "a home run for our side": "...some progressives are arguing this joint appointment to the White House and Treasury is somehow a weak attempt to fool us ... The people arguing that just don't know Elizabeth very well, or understand what motivates her. I do not believe for a minute that she would meekly accept a powerless window dressing job, or would put up with it very long if that is what it turned into."
Some progressives worry Warren won't ever get nomination to run bureau for full term reports CNN.
DailyKos' Markos Moulitsas doesn't want Warren to serve a full term ... in the executive branch: "...we don't want her heading this board for the full five-year term. We'll want her back in Massachusetts in 2012 to take out accidental Republican Sen. Scott Brown and reclaiming that seat for a true progressive consumer champion. So the interim appointment is just about perfect."
Rep. Barney Frank says Elizabeth Warren doesn't want a full term appointment anyway. HuffPost: "...Frank, a Warren ally, delivered that message to the White House, he told HuffPost in an interview Thursday. 'She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job,' he said. ...Frank said that she'll have more than enough time to set up the agency and get it moving in the right direction before she heads back to the Harvard faculty or elsewhere in politics."
But if she does, this move will help. Simon Johnson:: "... this step does not avoid a debate in the Senate -- it merely postpones it to a more advantageous moment ... she would go before the Senate Banking Committee with a real track record of achievement as interim head."
Republicans, Dodd complain. LAT: "'This is … the czar of all czars,' said Sen. Bob Corker ... Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, moderate Republicans from Maine who provided pivotal votes to pass the financial overhaul bill, both criticized the Warren appointment ... 'They still need to have a nominee,' said Dodd..."
Tax Cut Debate Churns
Time's Michael Scherer argues Obama is winning the tax cut debate: "Take the phrase 'We should not hold middle-class tax cuts hostage.' Barack Obama scribbled that line onto a speech draft just a few days before traveling to Cleveland this month ... Instead of sticking to his party's script, Boehner ... backed down ... several of his colleagues were forced to disagree publicly ... Boehner held an awkward press conference in which he seemed to be walking back on his comments ..."
Speaker Pelosi appears to crack open door for tax cut compromise. CNN: "responding to a question about whether there is any chance the top tax bracket tax cuts will be renewed, she appeared to not rule it out. 'The only thing I can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended this Congress.' ... Pelosi aides worked to clarify her comments. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami told CNN, 'She is not open' to extending tax cuts for the wealthy."
Some Senate Republicans getting behind temporary extension instead of permanent. W. Post: "A two-year extension would give Obama's deficit-reduction commission time to complete its work and Congress a chance to debate its recommendations. 'That's page one,' [Sen. Bob] Corker said ... Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also would prefer a two-year approach ... Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said he would consider voting for anything that keeps tax rates from rising ... Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) volunteered his plan for a three-year extension ...
Daily Kos' McJoan points to a study showing that the rich don't spend tax cuts: "...what Congress needs to do to address the economy is extend the cuts for the middle class, create a 5th Tier of unemployment benefits for the millions of people whose benefits have run out, and save a quarter of a million existing jobs by extending TANF funding."
NYT's Paul Krugman calls GOP obstruction on tax cuts "blackmail": "...the G.O.P. is, in effect, threatening to plunge the U.S. economy back into recession unless Democrats pay up."
KY Senate candidate Rand Paul wants to filibuster any budget with a deficit, while backing massive tax cuts. Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo: "The entire [tax cut] package costs more than $3 trillion over ten years, while extending just the tax cuts for the rich costs $830 billion over ten years (and $36 billion next year alone). So Paul would dig the fiscal hole that much deeper before turning to the spending side of the ledger ... Paul would have to raid the mandatory budget — which is largely composed of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — to entirely eliminate the deficit in a single year, unless he is planning to ditch the FBI and the Secret Service overboard. "
Economist Nouriel Roubini advocates for a payroll tax cut to avert "double-dip recession": "The reduced labor costs would lead employers to hire more; for employees, the increased take-home pay would boost much-needed economic consumption and advance the still-crucial process of deleveraging households..."
Record Number In Poverty
43.6M in poverty last year. W. Post: "That is the largest number of people since the census began tracking poverty 51 years ago."
TIme's Stephen Gandel explores why poverty has risen so much in this recession: "...the percentage of unemployed people who have been out of a job more than six months was 42% ... That's much worse than in past recessions ... Second, income equality is a lot worse in the US than it used to be."
Angry Bear's Robert Waldmann pins the blame on welfare reform: "Compared to 1983 a smaller fraction of people are in poverty but a larger fraction of people are in severe poverty. I think that welfare reform is the only plausible explanation ... Only specialists reconsidered the analysis of welfare reform with any data not collected during the amazing boom of the late 90s."
TNR's Jonathan Cohn notes unemployment insurance extension kept the poverty rate from getting worse: "According to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, extensions of unemployment insurance kept an additional 3.3 million jobless people from falling into poverty ... And it's because of all that dreaded government spending."
Food stamp increases lifted up millions more out of poverty. WSJ: "[The poverty rate] only takes into account monetary income, while omitting the many benefits that now form the backbone of the government efforts to lift the poor ... the government estimates if the food stamp program was counted, it would have lifted 3.6 million people above the poverty threshold last year."
The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild says that Democrats need to address the poverty issue: "During this campaign season, barely any candidate is talking about the poor. Mostly what we’re hearing from Dems are pledges to keep middle class tax cuts ...There’s no moral reason why politicians shouldn’t be addressing both groups of people. But there are a couple of political reasons: A lot more people are in the middle class, and they vote at a higher percentage than those in poverty."
Matt Yglesias says the new poverty numbers further argue against cutting off stimulus: "...the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act kept at least six million people out of poverty so it’s not like Obama’s been running around impoverishing folks. These calls to rescind stimulus money or freeze outlays at 2008 levels are calls to impoverish millions of Americans. ...Unfortunately, Congress is typically more interested in the tax burden of millionaires than in the welfare of the poor and near-poor."
Even More Without Health Insurance
America hit 50 million uninsured before passage of health care reform. USA Today: "'Of ever one needed an affirmation about how essential the Affordable Care Act is, this is that affirmation,' says Ron Pollack, executive director of the health consumers group Families USA. 'The clear message for people now is that help will be on the way.'"
As political movements go, Kate Pickert says the Tea Party is outdoing progressives — wielding influence in their respective parties: "While the Tea Party appears, in many ways, to be steering the ship of the Republican Party ... 30 Democrats who voted against the Affordable Care Act and are running for re-election. All have won their primaries, despite scattered efforts by the left to knock them off the ballot."
TNR's Jonathan Cohn reviews what Republicans would "replace" the Affordable Care Act with: "... most experts believe the mainstream Republican proposals won't significantly bend the cost curve. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has famously put forward a more radical plan, to transform Medicare into a voucher system. But the Republican leadership had refused to back up that idea, perhaps because it would control costs only by dramatically reducing the insurance coverage that seniors get."
Will They Shut Government Down?
House Min. Leader Boehner tries to shut down conservative hopes for a government shutdown. NYT: "'Our goal is not to shut down the government.' ... But at a conference last week, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican, reportedly asked conservative activists to stand with the party should a shutdown occur in the future..."
GOP Sen. Jim DeMint claims gridlock = certainty. Bloomberg Businessweek "'I've been told by businesses that if we would stop the tax increases the best thing that could happen for business after that is complete gridlock. At least gridlock is predictable,' he tells Bloomberg Businessweek, taking a quick break between TV appearances. His goal, he says, is to stop programs that violate his anti-Big Government ideology. 'What happens in the Senate is the Republicans sink to the lowest common denominator,' he says. 'People want an alternative to some kind of watered-down Republican philosophy.'"
GOP planning to release alternate policy agenda, details "scant." Politico: "One of the GOP proposals would require bills to have a specific citation of constitutional authority ... The second major initiative would encourage — though not require — members of Congress to read bills before they vote ... Other bills and initiatives that are likely to be launched alongside the agenda include tax policy proposals, health reform proposals and jobs-related measures, though GOP aides involved declined to release any specifics ahead of the unveiling."
USA Loves EPA
Americans actually like the EPA. NRDC's Peter Lehner, in Grist: "A new poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp/Infogroup for NRDC found that 82 percent of Americans support the work of the EPA. And 73 percent support protecting the EPA's authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities and other major industrial polluters."
Sen. Ben Nelson backing anti-EPA climate bill. The Hill quotes: "I haven’t done any sort of whip count on that legislation, so I haven’t talked to any of my colleagues, but it wouldn’t surprise me, with the arrogance of the EPA, that it’s gaining momentum."
Brad Johnson points out 8 Senate races critical to the climate change fight: "A Wonk Room analysis finds that there are six key Senate races in which a strong vote for climate action runs a serious risk of being replaced by a global-warming denier."
The AJC's Cynthia Tucker laments how climate science denial has gripped the GOP: "...not a single Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate supports aggressive action to mitigate climate change. The last science literate, Delaware Congressman Mike Castle, was defeated by tea party favorite Christine O’Donnell."
Drilling moratorium had minor impact on jobs. NYT: "... overall employment in the five Louisiana parishes most dependent on offshore oil and gas activity remained constant, the study found, largely because of the jobs created by the cleanup."
Breakfast Sides
Small biz lending bill clears Senate. W. Post: "The 61 to 38 vote came just after noon, with two Republicans joining the Democratic majority to give President Obama a legislative victory he has been pursuing for months ... the House ... is expected to approve the Senate version next week."
Basel III international banking rules may be tougher than initially advertised. W. Post: "The panel of global regulators that recommended higher capital standards for banks last weekend has also approved a related set of regulations that could curb some of the riskier activities that contributed to the recent financial crisis ... could force major banks to raise more capital than many analysts and regulators have recognized ... The new rules are still not fully fleshed out by the Basel group and have yet to be adopted by the United States and other governments."
SEIU recruiting Wall St. whistleblowers, reports In These Times' Mike Elk: "One of the best kept secrets of the financial reform bill passed in July is tough whistleblower laws to protect bank workers who expose shady lending, credit card and fee practices. But do U.S. bank workers actually know about the new protections? A new Service Employees union campaign aims to make sure they do."
