

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
President Obama's jobs speech before Congress last night struck an uncomfortable balance between the art of the possible and the sophistry of defeatism.
The speech did offer some serious ideas about reinvigorating the stagnant economy. But for all the talking points--from infrastructure investment to initiatives to promote hiring of veterans and the long-term unemployed--his eloquent words sidestepped the ideological barriers imposed by Washington's reactionary ideologues. Meanwhile, the groups suffering the worst of the economic crisis--the poor, people of color, single women--may be hurt more by his careful omissions than they'd be helped by his proposals.
First, it's far from clear whether the initiatives laid out in the speech, particularly the tax-cutting provisions, would make a significant dent in unemployment. The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild points out that the structure of Obama's highlighted payroll tax cut could be considered "regressive," in that it will be weighted toward the pockets of higher income-earners rather than the working poor.
More broadly, the pitch for cautiously modest, though earnest, stimulus measures seemed designed to ease the path toward more deficit slashing and cutbacks on social programs in the long run. The subtext appears to be a drive toward austerity and "entitlement reform"--pivoting toward conservatives who routinely demonize "nanny state" institutions like Social Security and Medicare. So despite rhetoric that pundits praised as "Trumanesque" and "fiery," celebrating historic public works and exhorting Congress to cooperate for once, the speech was silent on the institutional pillars that should buttress any job creation plan.
Since the proposed new spending, while perhaps significant, wouldn't offset the crippling damage to the workforce over the past few years, there will still be millions mired in hard times. And these folks will need the economic and social stability that is most efficiently delivered by comprehensive programs that support child care for working parents, health coverage for struggling families, and broad unemployment benefits--ideas that tend to be attacked or ignored in Washington.
Another overlooked factor in the jobs formula are critical regulations that protect the most vulnerable workers and communities. Conservative attacks on "job-crushing" regulations (e.g. rules that curb smokestacks that belch toxins into the air or help prevent coal mine explosions) have pushed Obama toward an anti-regulatory stance. He did, however, say in his speech that he "reject[s] the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety"--an invitation for progressives to hold him to his word.
Obama's greatest error of omission is actually society's error of commission--the silence surrounding the racial and gender demographics of the economic devastation. Colorlines.com's graphic depiction of the unemployment crisis displays how unevenly the jobs crisis has fallen on blacks and Latinos.
The Institute for Women's Policy Research reports that the "recovery" continues to exacerbate economic gender gaps, with women steadily trailing men's job gains:
If we count all the job losses from the prior seven months, dating back to May of 2007, when men's job losses actually began, then men have regained 27.2 percent of the total 6.2 million jobs they lost. Men are recovering at about three times the speed of women, but the jobs recovery is slow for both men and women. Since October of 2009 when men's and women's total jobs numbers were virtually equal, women have failed to gain any jobs, whereas men have gained 1.6 million. The gap between women's and men's employment in August is currently 1.6 million.
The gap may be due to structural biases--such as women's concentration in the hard-hit public sector--or outright discrimination in hiring. Either way, Obama's infrastructure investment plan, with its focus on construction related industries, seems poised to maintain this status quo and could leave women even further behind. The IWPR suggests measures to build equity into a recovery program, such as emphasizing Equal Opportunity guidelines in hiring, offering tax incentives to employers that promote more generous, family-friendly paid leave and benefit policies, and focusing on job fields that women tend to dominate (particularly in the public sector), such as education, human services and health care.
But none of those ideas are likely to factor prominently in the campaign-trail talking points as the administration tries to charm conservatives bent on wiping out social welfare. Between the hopeful lines of Obama's speech was a message of resignation: equity is a luxury in a time of austerity.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President Obama's jobs speech before Congress last night struck an uncomfortable balance between the art of the possible and the sophistry of defeatism.
The speech did offer some serious ideas about reinvigorating the stagnant economy. But for all the talking points--from infrastructure investment to initiatives to promote hiring of veterans and the long-term unemployed--his eloquent words sidestepped the ideological barriers imposed by Washington's reactionary ideologues. Meanwhile, the groups suffering the worst of the economic crisis--the poor, people of color, single women--may be hurt more by his careful omissions than they'd be helped by his proposals.
First, it's far from clear whether the initiatives laid out in the speech, particularly the tax-cutting provisions, would make a significant dent in unemployment. The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild points out that the structure of Obama's highlighted payroll tax cut could be considered "regressive," in that it will be weighted toward the pockets of higher income-earners rather than the working poor.
More broadly, the pitch for cautiously modest, though earnest, stimulus measures seemed designed to ease the path toward more deficit slashing and cutbacks on social programs in the long run. The subtext appears to be a drive toward austerity and "entitlement reform"--pivoting toward conservatives who routinely demonize "nanny state" institutions like Social Security and Medicare. So despite rhetoric that pundits praised as "Trumanesque" and "fiery," celebrating historic public works and exhorting Congress to cooperate for once, the speech was silent on the institutional pillars that should buttress any job creation plan.
Since the proposed new spending, while perhaps significant, wouldn't offset the crippling damage to the workforce over the past few years, there will still be millions mired in hard times. And these folks will need the economic and social stability that is most efficiently delivered by comprehensive programs that support child care for working parents, health coverage for struggling families, and broad unemployment benefits--ideas that tend to be attacked or ignored in Washington.
Another overlooked factor in the jobs formula are critical regulations that protect the most vulnerable workers and communities. Conservative attacks on "job-crushing" regulations (e.g. rules that curb smokestacks that belch toxins into the air or help prevent coal mine explosions) have pushed Obama toward an anti-regulatory stance. He did, however, say in his speech that he "reject[s] the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety"--an invitation for progressives to hold him to his word.
Obama's greatest error of omission is actually society's error of commission--the silence surrounding the racial and gender demographics of the economic devastation. Colorlines.com's graphic depiction of the unemployment crisis displays how unevenly the jobs crisis has fallen on blacks and Latinos.
The Institute for Women's Policy Research reports that the "recovery" continues to exacerbate economic gender gaps, with women steadily trailing men's job gains:
If we count all the job losses from the prior seven months, dating back to May of 2007, when men's job losses actually began, then men have regained 27.2 percent of the total 6.2 million jobs they lost. Men are recovering at about three times the speed of women, but the jobs recovery is slow for both men and women. Since October of 2009 when men's and women's total jobs numbers were virtually equal, women have failed to gain any jobs, whereas men have gained 1.6 million. The gap between women's and men's employment in August is currently 1.6 million.
The gap may be due to structural biases--such as women's concentration in the hard-hit public sector--or outright discrimination in hiring. Either way, Obama's infrastructure investment plan, with its focus on construction related industries, seems poised to maintain this status quo and could leave women even further behind. The IWPR suggests measures to build equity into a recovery program, such as emphasizing Equal Opportunity guidelines in hiring, offering tax incentives to employers that promote more generous, family-friendly paid leave and benefit policies, and focusing on job fields that women tend to dominate (particularly in the public sector), such as education, human services and health care.
But none of those ideas are likely to factor prominently in the campaign-trail talking points as the administration tries to charm conservatives bent on wiping out social welfare. Between the hopeful lines of Obama's speech was a message of resignation: equity is a luxury in a time of austerity.
President Obama's jobs speech before Congress last night struck an uncomfortable balance between the art of the possible and the sophistry of defeatism.
The speech did offer some serious ideas about reinvigorating the stagnant economy. But for all the talking points--from infrastructure investment to initiatives to promote hiring of veterans and the long-term unemployed--his eloquent words sidestepped the ideological barriers imposed by Washington's reactionary ideologues. Meanwhile, the groups suffering the worst of the economic crisis--the poor, people of color, single women--may be hurt more by his careful omissions than they'd be helped by his proposals.
First, it's far from clear whether the initiatives laid out in the speech, particularly the tax-cutting provisions, would make a significant dent in unemployment. The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild points out that the structure of Obama's highlighted payroll tax cut could be considered "regressive," in that it will be weighted toward the pockets of higher income-earners rather than the working poor.
More broadly, the pitch for cautiously modest, though earnest, stimulus measures seemed designed to ease the path toward more deficit slashing and cutbacks on social programs in the long run. The subtext appears to be a drive toward austerity and "entitlement reform"--pivoting toward conservatives who routinely demonize "nanny state" institutions like Social Security and Medicare. So despite rhetoric that pundits praised as "Trumanesque" and "fiery," celebrating historic public works and exhorting Congress to cooperate for once, the speech was silent on the institutional pillars that should buttress any job creation plan.
Since the proposed new spending, while perhaps significant, wouldn't offset the crippling damage to the workforce over the past few years, there will still be millions mired in hard times. And these folks will need the economic and social stability that is most efficiently delivered by comprehensive programs that support child care for working parents, health coverage for struggling families, and broad unemployment benefits--ideas that tend to be attacked or ignored in Washington.
Another overlooked factor in the jobs formula are critical regulations that protect the most vulnerable workers and communities. Conservative attacks on "job-crushing" regulations (e.g. rules that curb smokestacks that belch toxins into the air or help prevent coal mine explosions) have pushed Obama toward an anti-regulatory stance. He did, however, say in his speech that he "reject[s] the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety"--an invitation for progressives to hold him to his word.
Obama's greatest error of omission is actually society's error of commission--the silence surrounding the racial and gender demographics of the economic devastation. Colorlines.com's graphic depiction of the unemployment crisis displays how unevenly the jobs crisis has fallen on blacks and Latinos.
The Institute for Women's Policy Research reports that the "recovery" continues to exacerbate economic gender gaps, with women steadily trailing men's job gains:
If we count all the job losses from the prior seven months, dating back to May of 2007, when men's job losses actually began, then men have regained 27.2 percent of the total 6.2 million jobs they lost. Men are recovering at about three times the speed of women, but the jobs recovery is slow for both men and women. Since October of 2009 when men's and women's total jobs numbers were virtually equal, women have failed to gain any jobs, whereas men have gained 1.6 million. The gap between women's and men's employment in August is currently 1.6 million.
The gap may be due to structural biases--such as women's concentration in the hard-hit public sector--or outright discrimination in hiring. Either way, Obama's infrastructure investment plan, with its focus on construction related industries, seems poised to maintain this status quo and could leave women even further behind. The IWPR suggests measures to build equity into a recovery program, such as emphasizing Equal Opportunity guidelines in hiring, offering tax incentives to employers that promote more generous, family-friendly paid leave and benefit policies, and focusing on job fields that women tend to dominate (particularly in the public sector), such as education, human services and health care.
But none of those ideas are likely to factor prominently in the campaign-trail talking points as the administration tries to charm conservatives bent on wiping out social welfare. Between the hopeful lines of Obama's speech was a message of resignation: equity is a luxury in a time of austerity.