Reich: Why the President Doesn’t Present a Bold Plan to Create Jobs and Jumpstart the Economy

[highplainsdem]

http://robertreich.org/post/8704286098

-snip-

Which gets me to the President. Even though the President’s two former top economic advisors (Larry Summers and Christy Roemer) have called for a major fiscal boost to the economy, the President has remained mum. Why?

I’m told White House political operatives are against a bold jobs plan. They believe the only jobs plan that could get through Congress would be so watered down as to have almost no impact by Election Day. They also worry the public wouldn’t understand how more government spending in the near term can be consistent with long-term deficit reduction. And they fear Republicans would use any such initiative to further bash Obama as a big spender.

So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

When I first heard this I didn’t want to believe it. But then I listened to the President’s statement yesterday in the midst of yesterday’s 634-point drop in the Dow.

-snip-

I have no idea whether it's smart politics for Obama to do this -- personally, I doubt it. (I don't believe it will help his re-election chances that much, and it will certainly hurt Democrats overall and leave him dealing with a more hostile Congress even if he manages to win next year.)

But I have no doubt at all that it's governmental malpractice and a failure of leadership for Obama to continue "to wallow in the quagmire of long-term debt reduction" (Reich's wording)and hope that the budget deficit melodrama "will offer enough distraction over coming months to let the White House avoid coming up with a bold jobs plan."

[vi5]

1. "as to have no impact by election day"

That says it all right there. He's got his priorities in line. Just like I'm sure we'll see he'll play hardball with whoever his opponent is, after 3 years of velvet glove tactics with every other Republican.

[tk2kewl]

11. that statement is also designed to make liberals think that if we just stick by him...

and get him re-elected he will somehow transform into the guy we were sold in 2008. :thumbsdown:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Absolutely crushing

I had in mind a long dissertation about why this was foolish and the political and electoral implications of pursuing it.

But why bother even trying?

Or so the presumed head of my political party seems to be saying.

[oldlib]

35. Exactly! Obama's major concern is re-election.

He is a politician by profession and winning elections is his goal. His actions as president are only what will further his chances.

[vi5]

36. And I don't have any issue with that on it's own merits...

Obviously that's part of his job and if he wants to keep that job he needs to do the things that come with the territory that we all find distasteful.

But to be so blatant about it, and to consider things not worth pursuing simply because they won't help your re-election (which in and of itself is bullshit, since even if these things didn't pass, just pushing for it could help his re-election by showing people what he stands for) is just the height of craven political cynicism.

[BR_Parkway]

47. The real shame of that is that the actions he would benefit from doing

- standing up for the working class like FDR would go the furthest to ensuring his re-election.... Now there was a man who inspired some loyalty, my grandparents voted Dem to the end of the their lives because of what that man did for them 45 years ago.

Even asking for it and getting shot down by the Tea Party congress would benefit him, over and over again. But to be seen as not doing anything? Sure isn't going to motivate anyone

[DrDan]

2. seems to me "smart politics" should not be the issue - but whether

"we" can produce any jobs.

We need a leader, not another politician in the WH.

[Liberalynn]

3. K&R

[Ilsa]

4. And just screw everyone that could be helped

by even a modest jobs program? Well, that sucks.

[pintobean]

5. Putting the election ahead of the economy

and the lives of millions of Americans doesn't seem like a good political strategy. It pisses people off.

[global1]

13. What Happened To All That Talk About - If I'm Only A One Term President........

so be it?

[EFerrari]

29. It's in the black hole with your odd socks and all that other talk. n/t

[highplainsdem]

25. That's what it sounds like.

[FLAprogressive]

41. Except if he wanted to win the election he'd put the economy first. It's mind boggling.

[rurallib]

6. My guess is that there is more concern about the campaign money

than anything else. Let's face it corporations buy each side.
But to believe it may fail as an excuse to not even try is about as totally wimpy as it gets.

[Bake]

7. Obama was an idiot to do health care "reform"

Healthcare "reform" didn't reform anything. He should have been fighting for jobs, jobs, jobs from Day One of his presidency.

Twelve dimensional chess? I don't think so. I think he's not nearly as smart as we gave him credit for being, and his advisers are clueless. He came into office with a jobs crisis, and he chose to focus on healthcare.

We are in serious danger of losing the WH, even to a Repub clown like Batshit Bachmann. Ted Rall was right.

Bake

[hollowdweller]

16. Agree on healthcare reform

I think it will do some good things, but the amount of people that it's helping in the short run is not enough to overcome the fact that if the admin has spent the time on something with a more immediate positive effect it would have given them more time and possibly we would have kept enough dem seats to make a more positive long run impact.

Here's what health reform should have been absent being able to get the public option:

Law banning insurance companies from denying people for preexsisting conditions.

Banning lifetime limits on coverage.

Easting restrictions on reimportation of drugs and allowing medicare to bargain for lower drug prices.

Free gov't screening and free medication to control diabetes and hypertension and 100% gov subsidized smoking cessation treatment.

Public health initiatives starting in the schools doubling gym class time and screening and educating kids about health issues.

[Lorien]

34. Healthcare is part of the economic crisis; most bankruptcies are due to health

care costs (not to mention hundreds of thousands of needless DEATHS and millions who are suffering). Unfortunately his insurance profit act does zip to end the health care crisis. There are so many urgent needs right now; health care, jobs, climate change, ending the wars...yet Obama refuses to even propose any viable solutions.

[vi5]

37. It wouldn't have been stupid if he did it correctly...

If he did it the right way it would have affected and helped the economy and helped and affected the job market. But instead his goal was simply getting any bill passed so that he could check it off as healthcare reform, and that it was palatable to the corporate interests.

So he got the worst of both worlds. He squandered time by waiting around for the reform to be "bipartisan" or whatever the hell he was looking for, and it didn't end up going far enough to actually help the underlying root of the problem.

[patrice]

8. I'm not sure what people expect he CAN do with Congress as it is. We NEED to deliver a Democratic

congress in 2012.

[vi5]

14. In order to deliver a Democratic anything...

They need to draw clear lines between what THE REPUBLICANS want and what THE DEMOCRATS want.

I'm sorry "We're not as crazy or as bad as the other guy" is not good enough.

The #1 issue right now is joblessness and the economy. It will be so until well into election day next year.

What is the Republican plan? It's tax cuts and it's less regulation.

Horse shit? Of course it is. But it is what they stand for and people know it.

What do the Democrats stand for? Reducing the deficit....but not like the other guy, only sort of different?
What else do the Democrats stand for? Tax cuts? Yes, but only for the wealthy. Sort of. Maybe.
What else do the Democrats stand for? More federal regulation so we don't keep having these economic collapses? If they're for that then they sure have a funny way of showing it. Especially when the Democratic president gets up there and talks about the need to remove restrictions and regulations from businesses?
Do they stand for a jobs program? Really? If they do they sure as hell aren't fighting for one or even putting it out there. Who gives a shit if it fails. At least it will be out there and at least people will know where they stand.
Do they stand clear cut against cutting entitlements? Um...sort of but not really...you know we'd like some reform...but not cuts...or just not too much.....

Bottom line is we can't help Democrats if they won't help us help them.
That means giving us quick, easy, and understandable reasons to vote for them over the Republicans that they will back us up on when push comes to shove.

In the absence of that I don't see how we hold on to any branches of government, let alone IMPROVE on any of our current numbers.

[Ghost Dog]

28. The #1 issue right now is joblessness and the economy.

The joblessness problem can be tackled by directing economic stimulus not towards but towards repairing and modernising existing infrastructure and building less energy-intensive, more environment-friendly new infrastructure and social patterns fit to face the forthcoming future.

Also, a standard 3½-day (~25-hour) working week would allow businesses etc. to operate 7 days a week on two shifts, employing twice as many people; associated minimum wage and possibly some price controls would ensure that households could live well on the income from one of these jobs; and in the 'recreational' free time off work people could be encouraged to study, for example, as well as indulging in 'recreational spending', and as well as having many more opportunities for healing quality downtime.

[Jim Lane]

38. Absolutely right. The Obama advisers are too afraid of losing a vote in Congress.

Let him propose an adequate stimulus package and see it get voted down. Then he'd have a case to take to the electorate in 2012.

I expect Obama will be re-elected anyway, because of the weakness of the opposition. I also expect, though, that the Republicans will keep control of the House (maybe lose a few seats but not enough to matter) and will gain a majority in the Senate. This result will be due in great part to Obama's unwillingness to fight for progressive goals, but the result will be taken as an excuse for even more timidity and as a justification for even more terrible "compromises" with Republican extremists.

[DrDan]

19. so you are saying the WH is impotent?

[Dad Infinitum]

24. Obama is touting and buying into their ideology on cutting spending

It is the opposite of what the experts say needs to be done. The act of compromise if more important to Obama than the end result ('we got 98% of what we wanted').

[Lorien]

31. Um, he can propose a bold jobs plan and then DARE the GOP and baggers to vote against it

that would guarantee him a Dem congress come 2012. Doing nothing other than adopting their talking points makes him weak and pathetic.

[Vincardog]

48. Do you think BO's caving and pandering to the RW nutz helps us is that endeavor?

[msongs]

9. submit a jobs bill every month and let repubs OWN the rejection.might make em mad tho cant have that

[Marrah_G]

10. "as to have almost no impact by Election Day."

THIS is what is so WRONG with our political system.

How about just ONCE they do something because it is right and good for the people?

I am done supporting people who worry more about elections then they do about making life better for the citizens of this country.

[bullwinkle428]

12. TWEETY (for fucks sake) of all people was pushing a great idea last night -

focus on infrastructure spending on a number of very specific projects, and then force the Repukes to vote against the bill, thus putting it on paper that they're completely opposed to new jobs and and anything that will stimulate the economy.

[gkhouston]

17. +1. The Dems will lose in 2012 if no serious attempts are made to create jobs.

This nibbling-around-the-edges let's-rely-on-trickle-down bullshit isn't getting it done. The Dems need to advocate a bold plan, and then go district-by-district to let voters know what they're missing out on because the Republicans aren't interested in job creation.

[kenny blankenship]

21. You got it. Dems won't be able to run on record. Double dip will wipe them out

Unless -maybe- they run as radical reformers. And just forget Obama. He represents what must be reformed. The day after the Fed announces Zero Interest Rate Percentage essentially FOREVER and certainly through the elections, the Dow is puking up 400+ points intraday. IOW: The economy is screwed, and Obama will receive primary blame for that. RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN AWAY FROM HIM. That is, unless you just want to share in the brimstone falling on Wall St. Dems.

[DrDan]

18. I heard it also - thought it was a great idea - dare Bachmann to vote against it

wish we had some leaders in DC that thought so.

[Romulox]

23. LULz. Would these jobs be "shovel ready"????

:hi:

[kenny blankenship]

20. Time for Democrats to start thinking about Plan B.

Plan O is crashing out.

[Lorien]

33. Yep. nt

[Romulox]

22. Translation: It's too late to do anything about jobs--Obama's going to have to "stay the course"

and hope the economy gets better on its own. :rofl:

[Danascot]

26. The #1 issue in 2012 will be jobs

with #2 so far down it won't matter. The GOP ran on jobs in 2010 and won. Then as soon as they got in they switched to deficit reduction and opposition to taxes. The GOP can argue that "reducing the deficit will bring back jobs", that opposing taxes lets people "keep more of their own money" and that "we tried stimulus and it didn't work". All of which are a crock but the average uninformed voter doesn't know that, especially since Dems don't have a unified front calling BS. Instead the official Dem line seems to agree with them. And how hard have the elected Dems fought for jobs? Well we can't do that because we can't get it passed. The GOP will claim they've fought for jobs and that the reason more jobs haven't materialized is that the Dems have kept them from reducing spending and taxes far enough. More crock but many voters, deeply angry at the status quo, will buy it. So the GOP is leading the jobs fight. Leading in the wrong direction but still leading. What have the Dems done to fight for jobs other than go along with with the GOP? What clear alternative to republican ideas have the Dems offered? I'm so discouraged. This strategy is a guarantee that we lose the presidency, the house and the senate in 2012.

IT'S THE JOBS, STUPID.

[FLAprogressive]

27. I am a proud "Reich-winger" :)

[Lorien]

30. I truly wish that the President's advisors

were smarter than a bucket of night crawlers. :-(

[B Calm]

32. So basically Obama is a fucking coward!

[neverforget]

39. If you are afraid about what the other side might say or do, then you've

already lost.

This is an opportunity for the President to get out there and campaign on a jobs program and to show that he is for something other than austerity. But politics rules the roost much to our detriment.
:argh: :banghead:

[highplainsdem]

40. +1

[woo me with science]

42. Kind of hard to distract people from THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A JOB.

That tends to interfere with things like paying for a place to live, and feeding your children...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

43. All lthe more reason for the WH to pitch jobs and stimulus as TAX CUTS, Rs' 'Achilles heel'

Republicans' 'Achilles heel' is TAX CUTS, any kind of tax cuts, including tax cuts that help the poor and stimulate demand in the economy. Tax cuts are like crack for Republicans, especially when Bush income tax cuts are expiring and could be rplaced with much more sensible, job-focused tax cuts.

In 2009, poor families received up to $5,657 apiece from the IRS as income tax "refunds", and even more in 23 states and DC with their own supplemental EITCs. (See http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505 ).

On Bill Mahr's show this weekend, Salon editor Joan Walsh talked about how in the mid-90s Bill Clinton largely replaced federal welfare benefits for working families with a refundable tax credit that "phases out" steeply with income, the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). This was a BRILLIANT move by Clinton. "Welfare" was the focus of intense Republican RAGE in the '90s. But Bill Clinton managed to REPLACE and even INCREASE welfare with an "under-the-radar" refundable tax credit that has survived and thrived for many years. On the Senate floor recently, Orrin Hatch said the CBO scores the EITC as spending.

Any attempt by Republicans to get rid of the EITC would be attacked vehemently as a TAX INCREASE on the most vulnerable Americans. Most people have no idea the EITC has been in the tax code and has been expanded for almose a decade and a half. Of course, it's no use to UNEMPLOYED poor families, but it still is available to 70 or 80 percent of the poor.

The EITC thus is a model for economic stimulus spending cloaked in a Superman's cape of "tax cuts" that Republicans have no kryptonite against.

For example, a refundable per-child tax credit with a steep phase-out schedule would like the EITC help working families, but also help unemployed families. Small-business tax cuts could be targeted to ACTUAL job-creators, not the FICTIONAL "job creators" about which Rs prevaricate. And hefty non-refundable tax credits for buying "Infrastructure Bank" bonds could put millions of construction workers back on the job.

For more on my ideas about how the WH could propose replacing expiring Bush tax cuts with MORE progressive, job-creating, demand-stimulating tax cuts, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1636415 .

[ProgressiveEconomist]

45. I turned this reply into its own GD thread. See LINK at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1715609

[amborin]

44. if true, attests to O's self-serving narcissism; re-election trumps Americans' lives & US's fate

[mmonk]

46. As I have said, I'm against Republican ideology. If this is true:

"So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it."

he is promoting the ideology to the American people. That I cannot abide by in these times of distress, especially the suffering of the people for no good reason. I also see no use for him to continue at the job, because things won't get better. Maybe step down and let someone else have a go that wants to track us differently and will fight? The only thing I do know is, having the current makeup of the House guarantees no solution. But at this point, no compromise and no super committee would be in the best of the country while it is being held hostage. No mas.