What a silly person this John Larson is, thinking that Congress would create a jobs supercommittee. Why, what would that have to do with the deficit?
Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus, wants to amend the recently passed debt-limit package to establish a joint select committee on job creation to operate alongside the already mandated Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to House members earlier in the week, Larson argued that the nation’s jobs crisis is only exacerbating its long-term fiscal problems and therefore demands Congress’s immediate attention.
“This high unemployment poses a very real short-term fiscal crisis, because it drains the federal coffers through increased government spending and reduced tax revenues,” Larson wrote in the Aug. 8 letter.
“Families are being forced out of their homes, children are being forced to forgo higher education, the elderly are being forced to retire early without nearly enough saved to cover their long-term costs,” he said. “If not addressed, I believe the social costs of unemployment will dramatically damage the United States’ status in the world and prevent us from emerging from this recession.”
Wha-what?!? Where does this politician get off explaining that automatic stabilizers and decreased tax revenue from high unemployment actually increases the deficit, even if you cut spending?
Twenty-three Senators led by Jeff Merkley followed on with a letter to Mitch McConnell, calling on him to support job creation efforts in whatever comes from the SuperCongress:
“For families across the country, the biggest economic problem is high unemployment,” wrote the senators. “As you know, the lack of jobs and anemic growth rate of the economy are not only enormous problems in their own right, causing great pain for millions of Americans, they are a major component of our deficit. Indeed, the loss of revenue resulting from the recession accounts for nearly $4 trillion of the projected deficits over the next 10 years.”
“It is therefore appropriate and important that the JSC explicitly embrace job creation as a part of its mission,” they continued. “Targeted investments in economic growth and job creation can complement and even enhance long-term deficit reduction efforts and should be a priority that the JSC embraces.
“Let us be very clear: our fiscal challenge is directly linked to the jobs crisis and we cannot solve the former without tackling the latter.”
Yes, only 23 Senators signed this, but this just provides a template for activists to pester their Democratic representatives and ask them to sign on as well. There’s even a legislative vehicle: Jan Schakowsky introduced legislation based on the Contract for the American Dream, a $227 billion, two-year bill, financed by a surtax on millionaires (I’d rather see it unpaid for, actually, but if you’re going to pay for it, that would be the least disruptive way). Schakowsky thinks it can create 2.2 million jobs and lower the unemployment rate by 1.3%. That’s certainly something to organize around.
There’s also elite support for this – from the bond market, no less.
The debt crisis as it crests ultimately gives way to these growth-inhibiting, spending-contractionary secular forces. Having run up our credit card to keep on spending, we have reached market-enforced limits that force deleveraging. It is not the debt, however, but the lack of global aggregate demand that is at the heart of the crisis. As the entire world strives to put its own people to work before other nations do, policymakers constructively lower interest rates and delay sovereign, corporate and household defaults to provide breathing room. Fiscally, however, an anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking. Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balanced budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.
The president and Congress must recognize that an AA-plus country, to remain AA-plus, must focus on growth, not debt reduction, in the short term. We have a debt problem — but primarily a crisis of aggregate demand. A 21st-century Keynes would have recognized this and sounded the alarm, pointing out that policymakers from a fiscal perspective are pointing us toward recession and the destructive 1930s instead of a low-growth but still breathing U.S. economy of the 21st century.
Similarly, Ed Rendell and Scott Smith get specific on this front by focusing on transportation infrastructure. We’re literally at a moment when the government can make more money by borrowing than most of us can make by saving. They can borrow at a negative rate over a 7-year time horizon. The failure to take advantage of this opportunity borders on criminal.






49 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The failure to take advantage of this opportunity borders on criminal.
It makes perfect sense when you’re fighting a class war. It’s perfectly rational behavior by rich people. And the government serves rich people.
Expecting any other outcome absent a movement viewed by elites to be sufficiently threatening is illogical.
Duh.
The Super Committee notion is unConstitutional. Whether they focus on the deficit, jobs, civil rights, or the freaking Obama Water Dogs, it’s illegal and shouldn’t be happening.
Just because they’re calling for a new committee to focus on an issue that matters to us as activists, doesn’t mean it’s right.
Problem is; if we cut unemployment, the deficit problem goes away and then there is no excuse to cut entitlements.
Hmm, interesting that the bond market is behind this. Big bond holders are also pushing for deficit cutting and austerity measures. How are both supposed to happen at the same time?
Noticed that Harry Reid did not sign the letter. Wonder if Obama had a gun to his head?
In essence a democratic society should be all about the community living together in harmony with one another with respect for the habitat and natural law. Democracy cannot be about the leaders who live in gated communities of ivory towers believing wealth in and of itself denote moral superiority. They’ve yet to touch ground with reality thinking the universe revolves around themselves, D.C. and Wall Street. Tunnel vision to the max, uh–no, tunnel vision to their small world view. None but a few willing to admit or even see how their futile efforts to ward off chaos have brought it on.
You think you’re scared? Not so much as they! Play it by ear and expect the unexpected. That’s life!
Maybe there’s not one “bond market.” Bill Gross has been talking about the demand deficit for quite some time.
But getting a jobs bill through Congress would be difficult and would necessitate a fight, which wouldn’t help Obama’s reelection effort. I’m sure you understand.
AMAZING!!! This is EXACTLY what we need. Now, let’s watch our legislaturds DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Harry Reid SHOULD be “out front” on this. He is a useless piece os shit.
I think that you’ve hit upon the nub of the matter. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste and they need to keep this one going to keep fleecing the rubes.
I didn’t read the letter but was curious if it was “strongly worded?”
The Super Committee notion is unConstitutional and fucked up.
Went ahead and fixed it for ya…
I’m not sure ANYTHING is gonna help Obama’s re-election effort at this point. I will NOT vote for Perry because I’m a TExan and, I have a brain, but, Romney, how much worse can he be?
rube here. I agree 100%. Gotta keep the working down, DOWN, D-O-W-N.
I don’t think that Bill Gross speaks for the bond market, but he is the most well-known bond investor.
Yes Congress absolutely should focus on jobs, boosting demand, stimulus, deficit spending etc.
But lets face it. It won’t.
So let’s get real. Efforts to petition Congress are at best a waste of time and actually are a cruel joke causing people to vest hope where none exists.
The point is that the unemployed are out there, are not going to go away, and we are simply going to have to start taking matters into our own hands.
What do you suggest?
This is foolish talk.Romney can be a hell of a lot worse, especially with a GOP House and Senate. Despite all the frustration about Obama being the second coming of Reagan, you have the SCOTUS to think about. The odds are that Kennedy and Ginsburg , and even Breyer, may retire in the next 4-5 years.
Romney would nominate corporatists where the Citizen’s United decision would never have a chance of being overturned.
I said yesterday that at least with Obama we will circle the drain slower than with Romney. Perhaps you want an acceleration of this economic disaster, so we will have a “real” people’s republic formed with blood in the streets? We are not yet a Banana Republic.
First Congress abnegated their responsibility to the super congress for the unnecessary deficit reduction because they are too chicken shit to take the hard votes they were elected to make. Now they want to do the same with a jobs package? We need 100 senators and 435 representatives, why? If it only takes 12, why are there all the others? And, heck, if 12 will do instead of 535, why not, oh, say, 1? All hail the dictator.
I’m very disturbed and upset by this developing tendency to govern by super congress.
Ya’ know you’re right. Hate to admit it. I’m just down in the dumps like everybody esle. I am a “dyed-in-the-wool” anti-republican. My granpa would turn over in his grave if I voted for a repubtilian for president.
Plus, I don’t like bananas. So I will work very hard against that end.
The 1%ers have optimally converted every aspect of active income generation into the preferred portfolio income with massive multiples from fraud and counterfeiting that is the true purpose of the International Casino (hat tip Barry Ritholtz, Aug. 11, 2011). The USG is just another line item in the 1%ers’ portfolio.
I share your frustration. Maybe that’s why I’m here. Misery loves company.
If the Tea Party really goes off the rails, perhaps there would be a schism in the GOP. A Third Party that is of the loony Right would be marginalized and perhaps some progress can be made with those that are left who are rational. Although, I wouldn’t bet on it.
I’m not interested in Lesser Evilism. I won’t vote for either Democrats or Republicans otherwise it just perpetuates everything that is wrong.
“Big bond holders are also pushing for deficit cutting and austerity measures.”
There are many camps in the big bondholder world. We have pension funds, we have central banks around the world, we have hedge funds, we have bond funds. The hedge funds make money with today’s turmoil – “high volatility”, the pension funds look 15 to 30 years ahead, and the bond funds just want to beat their “sector average return”. Central Banks take the lead of their director – as in a Ayn Rand believing Greenspan, or an inflation hawk at the ECB.
I suspect it is both the hedge funds that are also pushing for deficit cutting and austerity measures – as that will produce the most turmoil and profit – and the EU’s ECB head Jean-Claude Trichet, as he is nuts and sees a moral need to punish those that can’t pay their debts.
No, Harry has been selling us down the river long before Obama moved intot he White House
“I’m not interested in Lesser Evilism”
It’s this kind of mis-guided idealistic reasoning that gave Nader tens of thousands of votes out of Florida in 2000, and threw the election to the Ten Gallon numbskull. You saw what happened for 8 years. How did that work out for ya?
“Romney can be a hell of a lot worse” -
Romney was my Gov in Mass – he does nothing except enjoy his American Motors inherited fortune and the increases he made in it via Bain Capital. He has no strong political view – is just an opportunist.
Replacements for Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer would be no different than under Obama, with anyone with too strong an opinion out of consideration and the one chosen a don’t rock the boat type. I’d expect a further right leaning than Obama’s first term nominees, but then I expect the same from a second Obama term.
And with Obama out we “circle the drain slower” because any destroy SSMM attempt with Romney would be met by a filibuster rather than the current Dem Senate approach of circle the wagons to protect our first black president from being a “failure”. After I first heard that last line from the Hill I was grinding my teeth for days in frustration (and no, it was not Barney Frank who is my Rep that said it).
Nothing Obama says can be trusted – a situation that for me is untenable.
In 2000 Gore was great – no point in going Nader – IMO.
in 2000 the fellow given the nod tried to kill SSMM and the Dems in the Senate stopped him.
In 2011 those Dems now talk of how they are for Obama’s Grand Bargain of killing SSMM
Sort of proves my point – no Obama, and SSMM are saved!
“You saw what happened for 8 years. How did that work out for ya?”
Why do you leave off at 8 years instead of what’s been going on for the past 11 years? It’s precisely because the Patriot Act was extended multiple times, Indefinite Dentention continues, Bush Tax Cuts were extended, Romenycare has been nationalized, war in Libya (without Congressional authoriization to only make matters worse), the safety net is being proposed to be cut, etc all by Democrats post-Bush that I’ve come to reject Lesser Evilism.
Do you really think if the GOP retakes the Senate, which is a very real possibility, that McConnell and the boys are going to let the spinless Senate Dems that are left filibuster? They will run roughshod through them.
Two major wars were started in those first 8 years which had a devastating effect upon the economy. That over shadows everything in the last 3 years. It’s not going to be cleaned up in 2-3 or even 4 years. Bush left Obama with a giant crap sandwich. Frankly, I’m more concerned about the systematic destruction of the middle class than I am on whether Obama closes Gitmo or whether he tries to take out Kaddafi. The Bush tax cuts were extended because the new GOP House held a trigger to Obama’s head. If you continue to exist in the Lesser of Two Evils Land then you become irrelevant to the process.
Never say rich people. They are always Job Creators ™
This is what I’ve been saying. If/when one of the right wingers on SCOTUS steps down or croaks, BO will replace them with another right winger. You know, to keep the “balance.” Guaranteed.
“I’m more concerned about the systematic destruction of the middle class than I am on whether Obama closes Gitmo or whether he tries to take out Kaddafi.”
You sound very unconcerned about that as you want to re-elect politicians who are doing just that.
“The Bush tax cuts were extended because the new GOP House held a trigger to Obama’s head”
Your entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts – the Bush Tax Cuts were extended by the Democratic House, which Obama and the Democrats could have just let them expire.
“If you continue to exist in the Lesser of Two Evils Land then you become irrelevant to the process”
If you vote for the perpetuation of things you claim to oppose, you become irrelevant. If you’re as opposed to the systemic destruction of the middle class as you claim, you shouldn’t be voting for those who are destroying the middle class.
I just can’t buy this reasoning anymore.
Obama may have been handed a crap sandwich–it’s true. But he topped it with mayo and tried to feed it to us. He continued the wars and HE suggested the social security cuts–the rejection of single payer and so on. He is what he is and should be held accountable for that. Obama is a corprotist like Romney. And he doesn’t give a shit about jobs. When did that become–”okay” because at least he’s a lesser corprotist.
I won’t buy that.
No–I won’t vote for Romney—but I sure as hell won’t vote for Obama.
If the Dems have morphed into the Republican Lite party, I’m not interested.
I’d vote for Nader tomorrow.
Gore did not deserve to be Nadered in 00 because he didn’t have a record of failure to run on. BO does. What Nader/Greens/Progressives should have done was built a MOVEMENT instead of being a spoiler every four years. It hasn’t been done. Sigh. I’ve been making this argument for so long. Tired of it.
“you shouldn’t be voting for those who are destroying the middle class.”
And the alternative? The Green Party? What, please help me out here? It seems we are in an existential bind without any solution. Just keep rolling the boulder up the hill.
I stand corrected.
“I’d vote for Nader tomorrow.”
Ralph was great 40 years ago. Now he is just an aged gadfly. I hope you weren’t one of the dopes in FLA that voted for him in 2000.
Why vote at all? At least you won’t be throwing it away, oh wait, I know, you’ll feel better.
“If/when one of the right wingers on SCOTUS steps down or croaks, BO will replace them with another right winger”
Do you have inside knowledge or is it just built up anger and frustration?
I don’t think the two picks he has made are right wingers in any reasonable sense of the term. We know that Obama is against the Citizens United decision. The only way the electoral playing field can ever be leveled is if money was taken out of the election process and that decision gets overturned. If not, then we continue to have a situation where a no mind like Alberta Darling gets $8 mil for keeping her state senate seat.
Nice judgmental comment !
Back at you, is someone an idiot who doesn’t vote for R or D nominee ?
Who was a idiot in 2000, those that cast a meaningless vote in a rigged election or those that stayed home and refused to participate in a charade ?
Bullshit, they voted to allow police to break in on suspicion alone,both of those compromisers.
Sorry, your story line loses bigtime.
“Who was a idiot in 2000, those that cast a meaningless vote in a rigged election or those that stayed home and refused to participate in a charade ?”
So, if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot and the majority who voted for him would have gone to Gore (fairly safe assumption) that would have been a rigged election?
Whether one voted in a so-called “rigged” election, or stayed home and sat on their hands, we’ve all still been fucked from that day on. I fully understand that Nov 2000 was essentially a third world coup, and Ralphie was complicit in it going down the way it did.
You are in an existential bind because you refuse the solution of not voting for evil. I am in no such bind.
The one “continuing theme” I see here at FDL and other places is that everyone, BOTH right and left seem to be disenfranchised. Except for the health care reform, the right has gotten everything they wanted EXCEPT for not raising the debt ceiling, which was stupid to expecft, and their “balanced budget amendment” which is also not gonna happen. The dastardly despicable blackhearted bastards that are the republican party are not against spending or overspending. They are only against democratic spending.
But there is such a HIGE divide between THEM and US that the only way that will change is enough of THEM wake up and realize THEY are working/middle class and THEY are being exploited by the rich and the filty rich and the corporations. These people are getting the shaft and they don;t evenb recognize that.
That’s too bad. It sounds like you’ve just given up, and I thought I was alienated!!
The Right has no reason to be disenfranchised. They are getting everything they want. Look at all the GOP state legislatures that are gerrymandering districts to their advantage and passing voter suppression bills. They know the US has a radically changing demographic that isn’t GOP friendly. Consequently, they are fighting a rear guard action, which so far has been hugely successful, but ultimately will fail. It’s all a matter of what scraps of any value will be left to fight over.