February 19, 2011

The Real Republican Strategy - Robert Reich


  • The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.
    By splitting working America along these lines, Republicans want Americans to believe that we can no longer afford to do what we need to do as a nation. They hope to deflect attention from the increasing share of total income and wealth going to the richest 1 percent while the jobs and wages of everyone else languish.
    Republicans would rather no one notice their campaign to shrink the pie even further with additional tax cuts for the rich – making the Bush tax cuts permanent, further reducing the estate tax, and allowing the wealthy to shift ever more of their income into capital gains taxed at 15 percent.
    The strategy has three parts.
     The battle over the federal budget.
    The first is being played out in the budget battle in Washington. As they raise the alarm over deficit spending and simultaneously squeeze popular middle-class programs, Republicans want the majority of the American public to view it all as a giant zero-sum game among average Americans that some will have to lose.
    The President has already fallen into the trap by calling for budget cuts in programs the poor and working class depend on – assistance with home heating, community services, college loans, and the like.
    In the coming showdown over Medicare and Social Security, House budget chair Paul Ryan will push a voucher system for Medicare and a partly-privatized plan for Social Security – both designed to attract younger middle-class voters.
     The assault on public employees
    The second part of the Republican strategy is being played out on the state level where public employees are being blamed for state budget crises. Unions didn’t cause these budget crises — state revenues dropped because of the Great Recession — but Republicans view them as opportunities to gut public employee unions, starting with teachers.
    Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker and his GOP legislature are seeking to end almost all union rights for teachers. Ohio’s Republican governor John Kasich is pushing a similar plan in Ohio through a Republican-dominated legislature. New Jersey’s Republican governor Chris Christie is attempting the same, telling a conservative conference Wednesday, “I’m attacking the leadership of the union because they’re greedy, and they’re selfish and they’re self-interested.”
    The demonizing of public employees is not only based on the lie that they’ve caused these budget crises, but it’s also premised on a second lie: that public employees earn more than private-sector workers. They don’t, when you take account of their education. In fact over the last fifteen years the pay of public-sector workers, including teachers, has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education – even including health and retirement benefits. Moreover, most public employees don’t have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year.

    Bargaining rights for public employees haven’t caused state deficits to explode. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights, such as Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, are running big deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many states that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.
    Republicans would rather go after teachers and other public employees than have us look at the pay of Wall Street traders, private-equity managers, and heads of hedge funds – many of whom wouldn’t have their jobs today were it not for the giant taxpayer-supported bailout, and most of whose lending and investing practices were the proximate cause of the Great Depression to begin with.
    Last year, America’s top thirteen hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each. One of them took home $5 billion. Much of their income is taxed as capital gains – at 15 percent – due to a tax loophole that Republican members of Congress have steadfastly guarded.
    If the earnings of those thirteen hedge-fund managers were taxed as ordinary income, the revenues generated would pay the salaries and benefits of 300,000 teachers. Who is more valuable to our society – thirteen hedge-fund managers or 300,000 teachers? Let’s make the question even simpler. Who is more valuable: One hedge fund manager or one teacher?

    The Distortion of the Constitution
    The third part of the Republican strategy is being played out in the Supreme Court. It has politicized the Court more than at any time in recent memory.
    Last year a majority of the justices determined that corporations have a right under the First Amendment to provide unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission is among the most patently political and legally grotesque decisions of our highest court – ranking right up there with Bush vs. Gore and Dred Scott.
    Among those who voted in the affirmative were Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Both have become active strategists in the Republican party.
    A month ago, for example, Antonin Scalia met in a closed-door session with Michele Bachman’s Tea Party caucus – something no justice concerned about maintaining the appearance of impartiality would ever have done.
    Both Thomas and Scalia have participated in political retreats organized and hosted by multi-billionaire financier Charles Koch, a major contributor to the Tea Party and other conservative organizations, and a crusader for ending all limits on money in politics. (Not incidentally, Thomas’s wife is the founder of Liberty Central, a Tea Party organization that has been receiving unlimited corporate contributions due to theCitizens United decision. On his obligatory financial disclosure filings, Thomas has repeatedly failed to list her sources of income over the last twenty years, nor even to include his own four-day retreats courtesy of Charles Koch.)
    Some time this year or next, the Supreme Court will be asked to consider whether the nation’s new healthcare law is constitutional. Watch your wallets.

    The strategy as a whole
    These three aspects of the Republican strategy – a federal budget battle to shrink government, focused on programs the vast middle class depends on; state efforts to undermine public employees, whom the middle class depends on; and a Supreme Court dedicated to bending the Constitution to enlarge and entrench the political power of the wealthy – fit perfectly together.
    They pit average working Americans against one another, distract attention from the almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the top, and conceal Republican plans to further enlarge and entrench that wealth and power.
    What is the Democratic strategy to counter this and reclaim America for the rest of us?

  • Labels: , ,

    January 15, 2010

    Why Obama must take on Wall Street : R. Reich

    A larger explanation, I am afraid, is the grip Wall Street has over the American political process. The Street is where the money is and money buys campaign commercials on television. Wall Street firms and executives have been uniquely generous to both parties, emerging as one of the largest benefactors of the Democrats. Between November 2008 and November 2009, Wall Street doled out $42m to lawmakers, mostly to members of the House and Senate banking committees and House and Senate leaders. In the first three quarters of 2009, the industry spent $344m on lobbying - making the Street one of the major powerhouses in the nation's capital…


    But the widening gulf between Wall Street and Main Street - a big bail-out for the former, unemployment checks for the latter; high profits and giant bonuses for the former, job and wage losses for the latter; buoyant expectations of the former, deep anxiety and cynicism by the latter; ever fancier estates for denizens of the former, mortgage foreclosures for the rest - is dangerous. Americans went ballistic early last summer when AIG executives got big bonuses after taxpayers had bailed them out. They will not be happy when Wall Street hands out billions in bonuses very soon. Angry populism lurks just beneath the surface of two-party politics in America. Just listen to Sarah Palin or her counterparts on American talk radio and yell television. Over the long term, the political stakes in reforming Wall Street are as high as the economic.


    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/14/why_obama_must_take_on_wall_street/?ref
    And Krugman

    Krugman, Paul

    Consider what has happened so far: The U.S. economy is still grappling with the consequences of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression; trillions of dollars of potential income have been lost; the lives of millions have been damaged, in some cases irreparably, by mass unemployment; millions more have seen their savings wiped out; hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, will lose essential health care because of the combination of job losses and draconian cutbacks by cash-strapped state governments.
    And this disaster was entirely self-inflicted. This isn’t like the stagflation of the 1970s, which had a lot to do with soaring oil prices, which were, in turn, the result of political instability in the Middle East. This time we’re in trouble entirely thanks to the dysfunctional nature of our own financial system. Everyone understands this — everyone, it seems, except the financiers themselves.


    Labels: , ,

    July 14, 2009

    Goldman Sachs and the economic crisis

    Goldman's Back, and Why We Should Be Worried
    July 14, 2009, 10:39AM

    Should we breath a sigh of relief that Goldman Sachs has posted record earnings as revenue from trading and stock underwriting reached all-time highs (second quarter net income was $3.44 billion) -- less than a year after the firm took $10 billion directly from taxpayers and $13 billion indirectly through AIG?

    In some ways, yes. That Goldman is back signals that the worst of Wall Street's recent meltdown is over. And at least New York City's economy will again benefit from the trickle-down effects of the multi-million dollar bonuses of Goldman's executives and traders.
    But in another respect, Goldman's resurgence should send shivers down the backs of every hardworking American who has lost a large chunk of retirement savings in this economic debacle, as well as the millions who have lost their jobs. Why? Because Goldman's high-risk business model hasn't changed one bit from what it was before the implosion of Wall Street. Goldman is still wagering its capital and fueling giant bets with lots of borrowed money. While its rivals have pared back risks, Goldman has increased them. And its renewed success at this old game will only encourage other big banks to go back into it.

    “Our model really never changed, we’ve said very consistently that our business model remained the same,” Goldman's chief financial officer tells Bloomberg News. Value-at-risk -- a statistical measure of how much the firm’s trading operations could lose in a day -- rose to an average of $245 million in the second quarter from $240 million in the first quarter. In the second quarter of 2008, VaR averaged $184 million.

    Meanwhile, Goldman is still depending on $28 billion in outstanding debt issued cheaply with the backing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Which means you and I are still indirectly funding Goldman's high-risk operations.

    Goldman is skillful at playing the market. Now that most of its major competitors are out of the action or still under the strict control of the Treasury and the Fed, it has the market mostly to itself. Expect the others to jump back in to high-risk deals as soon as they can. But Goldman is also skillful at playing politics -- something its rivals aren't nearly as good at. Recall that last fall, at a closed meeting between Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (formerly Goldman's CEO), Tim Geithner (then at the New York Fed), and a handful of others to decide on the fate of giant insurer AIG, Goldman's cheif executive, Lloyd Blankfein, was at the table. The decision to bail out AIG resulted in a $13 billion giveaway to Goldman because Goldman was an AIG counterparty. Indeed, Goldman executives and alumni have played crucial roles in guiding the Wall Street bailout from the start.

    So the fact that Goldman has reverted to its old ways in the market suggests it has every reason to believe it can revert to its old ways in politics, should its market strategies backfire once again -- leaving the rest of us once again to pick up the pieces.
    Robert Reich

    Labels: , , ,

    April 5, 2009

    Robert Reich: Its a Depression

    It's a Depression
    April 3, 2009, 9:51AM

    The March employment numbers, out this morning, are bleak: 8.5 percent of Americans officially unemployed, 663,000 more jobs lost. But if you include people who are out of work and have given up trying to find a job, the real unemployment rate is 9 percent. And if you include people working part time who'd rather be working full time, it's now up to 15.6 percent. One in every six workers in America is now either unemployed or underemployed.

    Every lost job has a multiplier effect throughout the economy. For every person who no longer has a job and can't find another, or is trying to enter the job market and can't find one, there are at least three job holders who become more anxious that they may lose their job. Almost every American right now is within two degrees of separation of someone who is out of work. This broader anxiety expresses itself as less willingness to spend money on anything other than necessities. And this reluctance to spend further contracts the economy, leading to more job losses.

    Capital markets may or may not unfreeze under the combined heat of the Treasury and the Fed, but what happens to Wall Street is becoming less and less relevant to Main Street. Anxious Americans will not borrow even if credit is available to them. And ever fewer Americans are good credit risks anyway.

    All this means that the real economy will need a larger stimulus than the $787 billion already enacted. To be sure, only a small fraction of the $787 billion has been turned into new jobs so far. The money is still moving out the door. But today's bleak jobs report shows that the economy is so far below its productive capacity that much more money will be needed.

    This is still not the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it is a Depression. And the only way out is government spending on a very large scale. We should stop worrying about Wall Street. Worry about American workers. Use money to build up Main Street, and the future capacities of our workforce.

    Energy independence and a non-carbon economy should be the equivalent of a war mobilization. Hire Americans to weatherize and insulate homes across the land. Don't encourage General Motors or any other auto company to shrink. Use the auto makers' spare capacity to make busses, new wind turbines, and electric cars (why let the Chinese best us on this?). Enlarge public transit systems.

    Meanwhile, extend our educational infrastructure. So many young people are out of work that they should be using this time to improve their skills and capacities. Expand community colleges. Enlarge Pell Grants. Extend job-training opportunities to the unemployed, so they can learn new skills while they're collecting unemployment benefits.

    Finally, accelerate universal health care.

    Labels: , , ,

    April 15, 2008

    Bitterness: What bitterness?

    Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics

    By Robert Reich

    April 15, 2008

    http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-bitterness-meet-press-and-old.html

    I was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, 61 years ago. My
    father sold $1.98 cotton blouses to blue-collar women
    and women whose husbands worked in factories. Years
    later, I was secretary of labor of the United States,
    and I tried the best I could - which wasn't nearly good
    enough - to help reverse one of the most troublesome
    trends America has faced: The stagnation of middle-
    class wages and the expansion of poverty. Male hourly
    wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for
    inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less
    than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is
    far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.

    Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of
    course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes,
    sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -
    by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by
    radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical
    fruitcakes - to blame immigrants and foreign traders,
    to blame blacks and the poor, to blame 'liberal
    elites,' to blame anyone and anything.

    Rather than counter all this, the American media have
    wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio,
    have given the haters and blamers their very own
    megaphones. The rest have merely 'reported on' it.
    Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs
    again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are
    failing and our kids are falling behind their
    contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China;
    instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax
    system to finance better schools and access to health
    care, and green technologies that might create new
    manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been
    mired in the old politics.

    Listen to this morning's 'Meet the Press' if you want
    an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on
    television, interviewed four political consultants -
    Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy.
    Political consultants are paid huge sums to help
    politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They're
    part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four
    consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack
    Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania
    are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about
    HRC's spin on Obama's words (he's an 'elitist,' she
    said); and John McCain's similarly puerile attack.

    Does Russert really believe he's doing the nation a
    service for this parade of spin doctors talking about
    potential spins and the spin-offs from the words Obama
    used to state what everyone knows is true? Or is
    Russert merely in the business of selling TV airtime
    for a network that doesn't give a hoot about its
    supposed commitment to the public interest but wants to
    up its ratings by pandering to the nation's ongoing
    desire for gladiator entertainment instead of real talk
    about real problems.

    We're heading into the worst economic crisis in a half
    century or more. Many of the Americans who have been
    getting nowhere for decades are in even deeper trouble.
    Large numbers of people in Pennsylvania and across the
    nation are losing their homes and losing their jobs,
    and the situation is likely to grow worse. Consumers
    are at the end of their ropes, fuel and food costs are
    skyrocketing, they can't go deeper into debt, they
    can't pay their bills. They aren't buying, which means
    every business from the auto industry to housing to
    even giant GE is hurting. Which means they'll begin
    laying off more people, and as they do, we will
    experience an even more dangerous downward spiral.

    Bitter? You ain't seen nothing yet. And as much as
    people like Russert, Carville, Matalin, Schrum, and
    Murphy want to divert our attention from what's really
    happening; as much as HRC and McCain seek to make
    political hay out of choices of words that can be spun
    cynically by the mindless spinners of the old politics;
    as much as demagogues on the right and left continue to
    try to channel the cumulative frustrations of Americans
    into a politics of resentment - all these attempts
    will, I hope, prove futile. Eighty percent of Americans
    know the nation is on the wrong track. The old
    politics, and the old media that feeds it, are
    irrelevant now.

    [Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the
    Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of
    California at Berkeley. He has served in three national
    administrations, most recently as secretary of labor
    under President Bill Clinton. He has written ten books,
    including The Work of Nations, which has been
    translated into 22 languages; the best-sellers The
    Future of Success and Locked in the Cabinet, and his
    most recent book, Reason. His articles have appeared in
    the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times,
    Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Mr. Reich is
    co-founding editor of The American Prospect magazine.]

    Labels: , ,