Earth To Paul Krugman: A Speech is Just A Speech

[Smarmie Doofus]

>>>>So, Obama actually uttered the words "labor bargaining power" after 5 years of turning his back on unions and especially after 5 years of engaging in drone attacks on teachers and blaming union rules for the problems in education while signing on to the "no excuses based on poverty" argument? After giving the highest praise to the likes of Michelle Rhee?

There is such an inherent contradiction between Obama's words and actions he firmly belongs in the Randi Weingarten "speaking out of 12 sides of the mouth while doing something else" hall of fame.

How Krugman refuses to address the gap between Obama rhetoric and action, especially when it comes to ed policy, is beyond me. Obama/Duncan and the rest of the pack of ed deformers have spent 5 years pushed the neo-liberal market-based idea that getting higher quality teachers and removing so-called weaker teachers is the answer to the poverty/inequality question.

Let's see Obama offer to bail out Detroit and his old town Chicago where public employee pension theft is taking place and will lead many more people into poverty and grow the inequality gap. Let him renege on the policies of his boy Rahm. Then Krugman can start talking about Obama returning to his progressive roots -- if he ever really had progressive roots.>>>>>>>>

the rest at: http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2013/12/todays-paul-krugman-column-obama-gets.html

[Jackpine Radical]

1. No link.

[tridim]

2. Unrec because the author doesn't know Obama at all. Pathetic. nt

[frazzled]

3. Unless it's a speech by someone you like

Then it's all, wow, look what Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders said. And it's posted 67 times (even though half the time it's just from a fundraising email that has a "DONATE" button at the end of it; I know, because I get these emails, too. And I laugh every time they get posted and reposted as if the sender has just shaken the earth.)

And please, if you're going to write a screed at least get your facts straight. The "pension theft" is not taking place in Chicago. It's the state of Illinois--a law passed by the Illinois legislature and signed by the Governor. Indeed, the Chicago teachers' union is not even a part of the state pension system, so it was not even affected by the new state law. Though it is in severe debt, too. But "Obama's boy Rahm" hasn't touched it yet, and he was not the cause of its underfunding or overpromising, either, because he's only been in office a couple of years. You can pin it all the 24 years of Richie Daley, who had his ways of staying in power. Combine that with his father

God, sometimes I hate this place.

[Demo_Chris]

5. That said, the overall point still stands...

We, and I include Krugman in this, are seemingly so desperate for anything that even hints at liberal or even non-conservative policy that we start turning cartwheels the minute Obama even suggests he might not be completely comfortable in bed with the Heritage Foundation and friends.

[frazzled]

6. You're putting a nice spin on the OP's point

Because to me, the point just seemed to be spewing a lot of invective aimed at particular people (Weingarten, Emanuel) who had nothing to do with the president or his speech.

And this is not the first time Obama has shown support for unions. Take, for example, this article from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers from when he first took office:

ONE OF THE president’s first initiatives to address economic recovery was to establish a middle class task force chaired by Vice President Joe Biden. The task force includes four cabinet members (secretaries of Labor, Education, Commerce, and Health and Human Services) as well as presidential advisers. Among other things, the task force will seek to restore labor standards and protect pensions and middle class incomes.

In announcing the task force at a White House ceremony January 30, Obama openly acknowledged the vital role that unions play in building and sustaining the middle class. He told the gathering: “We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests, because we know that you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement.”

It is heartening to see a sitting president take such a public stand on behalf of unions.
A few days later, he underscored this message by appointing two labor leaders to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Modeled on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, this board will provide advice directly to the president. Members include CEOs of some of the nation’s most prominent corporations, along with Richard Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, and Anna Burger, Chair of Change to Win.

It is heartening to see a sitting president take such a public stand on behalf of unions. President Obama has sent the country a strong message that labor will be included in economic policy considerations, something we seldom saw under the previous administration.

Obama executive orders reverse Bush policies

DURING HIS FIRST few weeks in office, President Obama also made his support for workers clear when he began issuing executive orders to overturn the terrible labor policies established by his predecessor.

He stated: “I…believe that we have to reverse many of the policies towards organized labor that we’ve seen these last eight years, policies with which I’ve sharply disagreed. I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem; to me it’s part of the solution. We know that strong, vibrant, growing unions can exist side by side with strong, vibrant, and growing businesses.”

Obama went on to sign four executive orders that will:

Encourage federal agencies to use project labor agreements on large-scale construction jobs. (President Obama’s order reinstates this policy. Established by President Clinton, the policy was later revoked by President Bush.)
Require federal contractors to offer jobs to their current employees when they receive new contracts;
Repeal a Bush administration order that required federal contractors to post notices concerning workers’ rights to object to dues and agency fee payments. [The Bush rule did not require posting notices about fundamental labor rights to organize or join unions.]
Prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for money spent in efforts to defeat their employees’ organizing efforts.

http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentary/V48N1

We can cartoon our leaders as much as we like, but that's not to say that these caricatures are true. Read this interesting article from today's NYT which discusses the internal disaffection that anti-apartheid groups had with Mandela (even comparing him to authoritarian tyrants like Mugabe). Nobody's perfect, and nobody can achieve everything:

/www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/world/africa/mandela-politics.html?_r=0

[Demo_Chris]

16. Point taken. nt

[NuclearDem]

9. Except Warren and Sanders back up their words with actions.

Specifically ones that don't contradict their speeches.

Warren talks about taking on the banks, and she lights a fire under them during a hearing. Sanders talks about strengthening the middle class, and does so.

Obama makes a speech about income inequality, but works to further stack the odds in favor of the 1% through TPP.

[frazzled]

15. What actions?

Please cite. (And not the CFPB, which the Senate, Dodd-Frank, and Obama also get equal credit for).

Senator Sanders has actually had 3 bills that he sponsored signed into law during his tenure, only two of which are substantive (the other one is post-office matters):

S. 893: Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 08, 2013
Signed by the President: Nov 21, 2013

S. 821 (111th): A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 02, 2009
Introduced: Apr 02, 2009

H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 27, 2006
Signed by the President: Aug 02, 2006

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#current_status=1&current_status=28&sort=-current_status_date

Senator Warren has not yet sponsored a bill that has been enacted. (It is too early in her tenure, so I'm not being critical, just pointing out that there has not yet been any action. Remember "speeches" don't count in the context of this discussion, only outcomes):

http://beta.congress.gov/member/elizabeth-warren/2182?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22Sponsored+Legislation%22%7D

So there you go. Neither has backed up their speech any more than President Obama. We can't use two different standards.

[pampango]

4. If Obama does not use the 'bully pulpit', people wonder why not. When he does, they wonder

why not more. They are legitimate questions, but a president speaking out on issues is not nothing.

Reagan talked often about 'free trade' but tariffs rose during his administration and the only 'free trade' deal was one with Canada - not exactly controversial. However, his 'just talk' led to a lasting change in republicans' approach to trade.

[Marr]

7. No, they just question his sincerity. Saying a few more pretty words while pursuing the TPP

makes it pretty clear to me that he's just doing what he's done a thousand times before; talking 99%, legislating 1%.

I'm sure his administration has seen the division that's becoming more apparent between his former Third Way colleagues and the liberal wing of the party. Elections are coming up, as ever, and words are cheap.

When he publicly rejects the TPP and starts actually pursuing real pro-labor *policies*, I'll believe he's no longer with the DLC/Third Way crowd. But you'd have to be a real sucker to buy it based on nothing but another nice speech.

[Nay]

10. I agree with you, Marr. It's nice to hear pretty words, but if they are not backed

up with actual deeds, it is insincere and actually cringeworthy. Because we know that things are going to continue to go downhill (I won't bother anyone with the long list here) until something, anything, destroys the base upon which all this inhuman crap is built.

Some pretty words Mr Obama might try would be: "I repudiate the whole notion upon which TPP/Third Way/privatized education is based upon, and in the last 3 years of my administration, I will direct the members of my party to begin the legal process to dismantle it."

Now, THAT's throwing down the gauntlet.

[pampango]

13. Early on, his professed goal was to include labor rights and environmental standards in the TPP.

IF they are in the final document that is a real pro-labor (and pro-environment) policy, though how he will get that through the republican House I don't know.

The TPP is his strategy for dealing with China's advantages in cheap labor (weak unions) and weak environmental laws rather than romney's tactic of declaring China a currency manipulator and leaving their other advantages alone. I think it unlikely that he will publicly reject it in favor of what? A romney policy.

From the Chinese:

Obama would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of China?

Overall: Favorable - 41%; Unfavorable - 40%
Republicans: Favorable - 35%; Unfavorable - 51% (By a net 16% - a very unfavorable view of China)
Democrats: Favorable - 47%; Unfavorable - 37% (By a net 10% - a favorable view of China)

http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/interactive/how-do-americans-view/

[JHB]

8. I think that Krugman 'gets' that when someone takes a step in the right direction...

...it's important to highlight how it's the right direction. Slapping them for failing to pole vault rarely encourages more.

[Marr]

11. Actually, I don't think it's all that helpful.

Giving a politician praise for just *talking* like a liberal, when they've repeatedly used the same gambit of liberal talk/corporate legislation to gain political traction isn't helpful at all. The Obama Administration is still pursuing the TPP, which runs absolutely counter to all of the things he talked about in the referenced speech.

It would be more useful, imho, to point out that we've seen this act before, and it's time to put up or shut-up.

[JHB]

14. Sure. "Yay! Something in a speech! Well, that's that"-syndrome has been...

...a persistent problem for Democrats for decades.

I just don't find myself able to get up in arms that in an 800-word column Paul Krugman saw what he thought was some significant recognition and repeating of progressive arguments in the presidents' speech. The hope expressed was mostly about how it nudged the window of "allowable debate" in a leftward direction, instead of its usual rightward march, and Krugman didn't use the space to engage in scolding the president in the way the blogger would have preferred.

Yes, he's still pursuing TPP -- and corporately-driven education "reform" -- and he will continue right up until it's clear to him that doing so will cost Democrats. If it's "put up or shut up", he'll just shut up.

What I don't see is how that would be more useful toward moving in a more progressive direction.

[cthulu2016]

12. WTF is this clown carrying on about?

Krugman has been exceedingly cynical about Obama right down the line. Writing a fucking column about what the president *said* that says that what he *said* is good and is a change is an idea about the right size for an individual column.

This is such a joke... it's like some bozo taking a Richard Dawkins column where Dawkins says it is refreshing that some creationist he was debating last week wasn't married to the Earth being exactly 6,000 years old and screeching that Dawkins didn't say that creationism is utter bullshit... in that sentence. Like every sentence is supposed to include a denunciation of creationism.

Krugman has very little history of taking Obama's rhetoric as indicative of Obama actually being a rock-ribbed commie.

Really.