EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Address the Jobs Crisis, Build a Movement
Does anyone care about the American middle class? The working middle class -- especially its younger members -- now faces a prolonged period of high unemployment, declining wages, and diminished public services.
Meanwhile, the cost of things that you need to enter the middle class, like college tuition and affordable health care, keep outstripping paychecks. The housing crisis is somehow stripping asset values from those who do own homes without offering many bargains to aspiring young homebuyers, because banks belatedly have tightened credit requirements.
As unemployment keeps rising and the economy faces a period of prolonged stagnation, political elites of both parties can only yammer about debts and deficits. But reducing the deficit before we get a recovery going will only worsen joblessness, cut back essential public services, and deny government the needed tools to produce an economic recovery.
What's needed is a mass movement to shake the dominance of the austerity lobby. Here's a start: the Change to Win labor federation has begun a 12-city organizing tour, working with the House Progressive Caucus, to throw a spotlight on continuing joblessness combined with the failure of government to clean up banking abuses.
While the US Chamber of Commerce prepares for another "Jobs Summit" this afternoon, featuring GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who heads President Obama's competitiveness initiative, and emphasizing tax and budget cutting and more deregulation, Change to Win is partnering with the AFL-CIO, Demos, and the Economic Policy Institute on a pre-emptive Monday morning summit on the jobs crisis and the future of the middle class. This counter-event, moderated by former New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, will try to break through the austerity storyline.
For the straight scoop, you can't do better than this three-minute video produced by Change to Win.
The leaders of the unions make three core points. The creation of the American postwar middle class didn't just happen. It was socially constructed during the postwar boom, built on public investment, low-interest rates combined with right regulation of finance, and a strong labor movement which assured that as productivity rose, wages would rise with it. The postwar middle class went to public universities, could buy affordable homes, enjoyed rising wages, and could afford to raise kids often on one income.
The June jobs report could not have come out at a worse time for those on the political right and center who are obsessing about the deficit and the debt. Every key indicator is down, and we face prolonged economic stagnation.
The Republican story is that cutting public spending, deregulating, and refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy are the keys to job creation. That did not work so well for George W. Bush. Indeed, if low taxes and light regulation were all that it took to create jobs and sustain prosperity, John McCain would be president.
The political center -- Obama, the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation -- offers essentially the same austerity medicine, but wants tax hikes as well as spending cuts. So eager is Obama to make a deal that he is now willing to throw Social Security and Medicare, as well as trillions in other spending cuts, into the pyre. But that centrist austerity formula won't work any better than the right-wing version. It won't restore jobs or prosperity.
In the short run, Obama may be saved from himself by two factors -- the right and the left. With each passing day, the Republicans become more in thrall to the know-nothings of the Tea Party. The White House keeps offering them the family jewels, but they won't accept. Meanwhile, Democrats in both houses are growing more and more wary of the kind of deal Obama seems all too willing to make.
The budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus produces a surplus within 10 years, but does so by increasing taxes on the rich, plowing the money into social investment, increasing jobs and social programs, cutting back spending on military adventures, and safeguarding social programs. This should be the White House budget.
Until we get a recovery going, austerity will only breed more austerity. With consumer demand flat, business hesitant to invest, and banks reluctant to lend, there is only one economic force that can jump-start a recovery and that is government investment.
We need a massive public investment program, of the kind that finally ended the Great Depression. That was called World War II. Imagine if we put all that money to peaceful public purposes like rebuilding our communities and converting to clean energy.
With Republicans increasingly intransigent on any budget bargain that raises revenues, a deal would depend heavily on Democratic votes. But the Democratic caucuses in both houses, which have been largely ignored by the White House in Obama's evidently futile courting of Republican House Speaker John Boehner, are now refusing to vote for cuts in Social Security or Medicare.
The Republican stance is such bad economics and so irresponsible as budget politics that a president with strong convictions and a feel for how you use the bully pulpit to move public opinion would be eating their lunch. But we have long since realized that this is not the president we have.
Even commentators who have been willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt are now out of patience. "I've been stunned, both in the spring during the government shutdown negotiations and now, that Obama has hardly ever gone to the American people to insist firmly that there are some things he would never abide," writes my former colleague Michael Tomasky in Daily Beast/Newsweek. Though Republicans are practically inviting Obama to define a new progressive center, he just won't deliver.
There are two ways progressives can prevent this economic calamity from turning into a deeper political catastrophe -- an inside game and an outside game. Progressives in Congress can refuse to cave in. That part of the fight is going better than one might have feared. Democrats in the House and Senate are resisting the capitulation impulses of a Democratic president. The other way is to build a movement. Better yet, we need to do both, and it is encouraging to see the two labor federations coming together and working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
There are far worse fates for this Republic than to miss the nominal deadline of August 2 for raising the debt ceiling. One would be to capitulate to Republican blackmail and give away the fruits of 40 years of struggle. The other would be to fail to seize this moment to build a movement of our own.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllAs long as the so called "progressives" in Congress remain in the Democratic Party they will be strongarmed by Team Obama.
Unless the "progressives" stage a mass defection from the Party and become independents, the Democratic Party will continue its rapid march rightward.
Team Obama doesn't give a rip about creating jobs, Team Obama cares only about raising a billion dollars for the 2012 campaign.
Mr. Kuttner says "build a movement" but gives no direction thereafter. Why not give a plug to the Green Party, which already has a progressive platform and structure? Why not tell people to insist that Independents and Third Party candidates have equal time in the media and debates? I doubt if we can change the will of those already in power. People like Mr. Kuttner who have regular media exposure should encourage the rise of Third Parties, citing the success of the Greens in Europe for example, and start educating people about the existence of alternatives. Instead of "build a movement" how about "join the ongoing struggle of the Third Party movement".
Actually Mr. Kuttner does offer a direction. He is urging a coalition of labor and progressives with a focus on jobs and the preservation of the middle class.
Demanding that independents and third parties have equal time in the media is not sufficient to make it happen. It will happen only when a movement emerges with a loud enough voice that it can't be ignored.
That takes leadership -- of which there seems to be a paucity these days.
I sure do agree with you about the paucity of leadership. But the Green Party already has this coalition of labor and progressives, and has a focus on the middle class and social responsibility and equality. Why not build on that? Wouldn't it be better if the voice for reform came from an actual Third Party with the values we all want?
Based on prior election results, the Green Party is highly unlikely to win. But if the Greens joined this Progressive coalition under the banner of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it might. Unfortunately, there is no such party and it could not prove itself before the next election. As a Progressive Democrat "third party" within the majority party, it could easily win a victory for Greens and all progressives.
Why should we preserve the "middle class"?
What is the "middle class" besides the world's most "entitled" class?
What is the "middle class" other than a class that enables the upper echelons in hopes that one day it, too, will be able to reap the benefits of oppression.
Until we abandon this "middle class makes us great" mentality we will see no real progress forward, favoring instead our tired, old traditions of barbarism.
Equality for all. Opportunity for all.
Well the leaders need to wake up and Washington is sure doing a great job to put thinking back into the tank. I am ready to support a real movement here in the United States since the status quo is dead on arrival.
Talk is cheap but action is grand.
I worked for and voted for Obama. Since then I have become very disillusioned. He wants to give away the Farm, so to speak.
Obama took any advantage he had and only talked of compromise. And what he calls compromise appears to be trying to make the Republicans happy. It was obviously the Republican Agenda to "Just say No", across the board. Make Obama look bad. And I grant that there is a learning curve for a first time President. But Obama's inherent nature appears to be non-confrontational. So the Republicans circled like vultures and demanded more and more and Obama gave it to them.
I find it Ironic that only 27% of voters are Republican and only 4% of that 27% are Tea Party types. Democrats are 36% and the rest are Independents. So why are 4%, orchestrated by Karl Rove, Rupert Murdock, Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers, allowed to run our politics??
I work with low income families and of the 200 families that I worked with last month, only 9 families had a person working full time. Construction workers have an almost 50% unemployment rate. Employers are hiring part time, Even McDonalds, company stores in my town, have cut all their workers to 20 hrs per week. Indiana work laws for high school students allow a 40hr wk week while these kids are in school. Now they are talking about lowering the minimum wage for students to more than $2 less than for an adult. With no employment, children will, again, be supporting their families. This is profitable for the Corporations but not for America.
Obama and his team are nonconfrontational only when dealing with Republicans. and others who would never vote for him in a million years. Every time the Republicans tell Obama to jump, his response is "how high and how far" ?
Team Obama has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to be confrontational with those who voted for him, chastising them as "F____ing Retards, the professional left, the hard left", and accusing them of being "high on drugs".
Sooooo, Robert, whom are we voting for next year, hmmmmm?
It's good to hear that Change to Win and the AFL-CIO are working together on this. I hope it goes beyond the "usual suspects" and showing the flag on this 12-city tour. Of course it's not enough, but it's a start.
As for electoral strategy, this is not the time to divide "our side" and hand over total power to the the Republicans. Obama has proven that he has to be forced to do the right thing, so that's what we have to do. With all due respect, when the Greens elect some members of Congress, then we can talk about them as an option. I agree with ezeflyer above; right now the Progressive Caucus has to be the center of the "people's coalition" in the electoral/legislative arena.
Brad (and Ezeflyer), I agree that Congress would be a great place for Green candidates to focus their attention. And I like the Progressive Caucus Budget plan. But I just can't bring myself to vote for either corporate party again.
Especially since Obama recently announced his goal to compile a billion dollar 2012 campaign war chest.
You don't get a billion dollar war chest from struggling working folks...that war chest will come with lots of corporate strings attached.
Why? The so called Prog. C. did nothing when Obama stuck a knife in all our backs and handed us all over to the Health Ins. lobby. He's going to fold again and hand us over to his pal Pete Petersen whose life long ambition has been to gut SSI and medicare. Obama is a Republican don't u get that? We need to break up the phony D party its over it doesn't exist except on paper ( $$$.) Its merely a wing of the $$$ party as Nader has accurately characterized it. ENOUGH already abandon the D's start over. PEOPLE POWER down with the fascists elites!
Seaglass,This is the comment I was waiting for on the way to the comment box. ANNOUNCEMENT: Democrats, I will not be voting for you again. I didn't vote for Obama because I felt I had a better choice with McKinney. But even if I don't get a better choice than the Democrat I am going to leave that one blank. The Repukes lost me when it turned out Nixon's only secret plan to get us out of Nam was to get us into Laos and Cambodia too. The whole system is a shambles. I don't trust who counts the votes( I live in Wisconsin), so I'm not even sure I'll be voting. I'll still be engaged in the political process but I'm beginning to think I don't want to sanction the travesty that are elections in our Faux Deux Vichy system of Empire, by being a participant to them. When someone says "Well if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain about the results" I'm going to say back, "The hell I can't. It used to be I voted, it was a travesty and I complained/appealed for redress. Now I'm just going to skip that extra step that didn't make a difference anyway." I'm going to the polls tomorrow, primary for recall in Wisconsin, but don't know yet what I will do until I get there.
Perhaps just limiting your vote to Wisconsin would be a good option?
Brad in Socal,
'As for electoral strategy, this is not the time to divide "our side" and hand over total power to the the Republicans. Obama has proven that he has to be forced to do the right thing, so that's what we have to do."
With all due respects this is exactly the time to divide "our side" precisely because of what you yourself wrote about Obama. "He has to be forced to do the right thing."
When that is the case then we should damn well withhold our support. Every time we vote for someone like Obama (disclaimer, I'm guilty - but no more) because "our side" needs to be united we further erode our side. Essentially what you're proposing is that if Michelle Bachman was the sitting Democratic President then we should support her to keep a unified party. So my question for you, one I had to come to terms with, is how is that working out so far? NAFTA, GATT, Banking deregulation, Telecom deregulation, FISA, USA Patriot Act Extension, Bank bailouts, Social Security cuts, and more war with a nearly five fold increase in military spending since 2000.
The reason the Republicans are falling all over themselves to be the absolute bat shit craziest in the primaries is precisely because their party WILL withhold support.
I used to think like you did, that unity was a good thing. And it is - but not at the expense of trading away our values. Its not enough to put a Democrat (or any other label in office) you need to put someone in who actually represents your values.
Quite frankly, Obama doesn't just not represent the values of the left - he's the antiethisis of those values.
Solidarity and inclusion are what we need, not division. The Greens do a lot of great things.I work with them on election integrity and no one does it better than they do.
I would be proud to work with them to turn this country around.
With a coalition of like-minded folks working together for the same purpose, I don't see how we could lose. We could even invite disaffected Republicans. There are more than you think out there.They are quiet and embarrassed by the crazies in their party.
You have to remember that Ike was a Republican, a real one. If you look at the 1955 Republican platform, you will be surprised how much it sounds like the Democratic one today.
Division will destroy America. We have too much in common (remember this is "Common Dreams") not to work together.
I have a dream, to borrow from MLK, that we will stop playing divisive politics and work together. Obama said, "Make me do it." Ok, I accept the challenge. Lets all make Obama "do it".
Good but this should have started in 1980 as a reaction to Reagan. How did things get so out of hand?
Raygun had great stage presence, Americans loved him and he is more popular with Americans today than he was during his occupancy of the oval office. Those of us who questioned anything Raygun did were looked upon as heretics.
During his 2008 campaign and since becoming president, Obama has repeatedly compared himself to Raygun.
The Greens are a joke unfortunately. My university alumni watched with horror as Cynthia McKinney's VP candidate was asked about the war in the Middle East by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. Her reply was that if the Green's were elected, she would pull all the troops out of IRAN immediately. Amy gave her a chance to correct herself, but the VP candidate did it again oblivious to her mistake. The woman doesn't even know where the U.S. Army is fighting... for Christ's sake!
Ralph Nader is a good alternative, but he has received so much bad press, that the American public actually thinks that he's undermining the Democratic Party. Instead it is both the Dems and the Repubs that are undermining democracy with their corporate allegiance and empty rhetoric.
Until a politician argues effectively for full employment, unions for all, universal healthcare, drastically slashing the military budget, ending all foreign troop campaigns and the War on Drugs, taxing the richest 1% and going to war with Wall Street and the MIC instead of teachers, the unemployed and immigrants, the Progressives will remain leaderless.
Not saying the Green candidate was not confusing Iran with Iraq, but U.S. forces HAVE been fighting in Iran. The SEALS team murdered bin Laden was openly praised for their Iranian missions.
I have been sliding toward separatism. Won't do Obama again. "Fool me once ..."
If it was possible to push hard to show Bernie Sanders there was enough support to make an Independent run, maybe he would do it. But then he'd probably get shot.
What they would do to Bernie is simply shuffle his committee assignments and make it so he couldn't get anything accomplished in Congress. Then they'd full out run some Republican light with good sound bites against him in the congressional elections.
True enough, Space Cadet. My final comment right now is that until a party or candidate espousing the above comes along, radicals and socialists must vote tactically. In Wisconsin now it makes sense to vote for the Ds to derail the Walker agenda. Later one can fight over the best way beyond. As for Obama next year, I suggest that we shouldn't decide yet--it depends on who he is up against. We know now, if we didn't in 2008, that he must be pressured to do what is right on every issue, but that doesn't negate the fact that he (probably) isn't a fascist. That matters, absent a positive alternative. (Sorry, but McKinney doesn't pass that test.) Ralph has done a lot of good, and was unfairly blamed for the Gore debacle in 2000, but he isn't a movement builder, clearly. And he has earned a pass this time. Bernie isn't a D, for those who weren't clear on that. He's an independent socialist who caucuses with the Ds. (But Vermont is different...)
Any progressives out there who want to volunteer? Anthony Weiner has great name recognition! :)
Where you go wrong in your logic is in thinking that voting for Prez is the most important thing we can do, treating political participation as the equivalent of consumer choice, forgetting that not all of us are in the Blue party, and forgetting -or pretending to forget- that your ideas are what people have been doing for more than 40 years now and things have just gotten worse.
Voting tactically should accompany the building of a party at the very least.
As for me, I'll be restricting my vote to the State level and using a Constitutional Convention litmus test to judge my votes. If I end up only voting on the referendums and initiatives and local candidates because of that, so be it.
I don't feel like making the same mistake my mother made in 1968 just because folks like you are unaware of or confused about (or lying about) political history, thanks. ;)
-matti.
Another lamentation with an unrealistic conclusion. Centralized solutions are so last century. When will they finally go away? The decentralized methods that have become the lifeblood of daily existence will be utilized when the people are ready to apply them and not before. The People are not yet sufficiently aroused. When they are, look out!
The author makes one _big_ mistake ... he thinks Obama is in the center. Many times over the past couple years I've seen profiles that show him to be to the right of center, even though the press has pushed the center well to the right. In some ways he is as far to the right as Bush.
The center has been pushed so far to the right that reasonable, moderate, sensible people like Kucinich are views as radical lefties. And Lieberman, who spent 2006-8 tripping over Bush, trying to be more to the right, is called a "centrist".
Unfortunately the AFL-CIO is no longer in the position in our society to build a strong movement of the People.
Unions in the U.S. are once again a jobs-and-benefits protection club for a small minority of workers as in the Knights of Labor days 130 years ago.
We have got to get Ralph Nader to run for President again!!!!! He's the only decent Democrat remaining.
I suspect he would get the vote of every Democrat in the country!