The Media Consortium's Open Salon Blog

Weekly Audit: Unemployment Fueling Political Storm

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:11:37 -0500

By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger

Unemployment figures in the U.S. are staggering: The official rate stands at 10.2%, the highest in 26 years. A broader measure that includes people who are involuntarily working part-time or who have given up looking for work is at 17.5%. That’s a full-blown economic emergency.

But, as Joshua Holland explains for AlterNet, President Barack Obama’s response to the unemployment crisis has not matched the urgency of his response to the crisis on Wall Street. This isn’t just unfair, it’s bad economics.

“It’s important to understand that the economic crisis in which we find ourselves is not just a function of a shaky financial system but of a crash in consumption that’s come along with the evaporation of $14 trillion worth of the wealth of American families,” Holland writes.

Widespread joblessness can be every bit as damaging to the economic structure as a financial crisis. When people are out of work, they buckle down on household expenses. When several million people cut back at the same time, the economic machine grinds to a halt. If people are not buying and selling stuff, the economy isn’t working.

As Mary Kane explains for The Washington Independent, about 40% of families don’t have enough money to cover expenses through a three-month stretch of unemployment—even if one member of the household is receiving unemployment benefits. Kane highlights a Brandeis University study that reveals the haggard state of the American household and the unfair distribution of wealth along racial lines. A full 66% of African-American and Latino families can’t afford three months without work. At a time when 5.6 million workers have been jobless for at least six months, the study highlights just how dire finances have become for many households.

GRITtv’s Laura Flanders discusses potential labor market remedies with economist Dean Baker and The Nation’s John Nichols. Baker suggests a work-share arrangement, in which employers cut back on their workers’ hours to allow more people to work. To prevent losses for households, the government would step in and pay for the shortfall in hours. Employers would have more part-time jobs available, but the government would make sure everyone was paid as if they were working full-time. Baker also endorses a public jobs program, which he says could be especially useful in cities like Detroit and Cleveland that have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn.

Nichols highlights the political consequences of failing to fix the unemployment mess. Unemployment directly affects the lives of voters. If widespread joblessness persists through November 2010, Democrats will net huge Congressional losses. If Obama thinks it’s hard to garner bipartisan support for his legislative priorities now, imagine a few dozen more Republican obstructionists.

It’s not that Obama failed to respond to the unemployment crisis. He did. That’s what the stimulus package was all about. Today’s 10.2% unemployment is a catastrophe, but it would be more like 12% without the stimulus package. But, given the seriousness of the issue, Obama is not giving unemployment enough attention.

In fact, Obama’s economic priorities are a mirror-image of his campaign promises, as Robert Scheer argues in both a column for TruthDig and an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! After talking tough about reining in recklessness on Wall Street and making the financial system more accountable, Obama has hired many of the very policy makers who pushed through the deregulatory agenda back in the 1990s. Top Obama administration officials like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Gary Gensler and Neal Wolin helped make this mess in the first place.

“This is not a minor criticism,” Scheer says. “I think the guy is betraying his own presidency.”

Obama’s timid efforts to rein in Wall Street and heal the ailing job market are setting the stage for a political disaster. If Obama and Congressional Democrats can’t take strong action to fix the economy, they will find themselves with much narrower majorities next November. The economy, and the public institutions that support it, are supposed to work for everyone, not just the financial elite.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Weekly Mulch: No Treaty in Copenhagen?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:11:54 -0500

By Raquel Brown, Media Consortium Blogger

Last weekend in Singapore, President Barack Obama acknowledged that a comprehensive international climate deal will not be reached during the climate change summit in Copenhagen. While many might view this as a letdown, lowering expectations might actually be a good thing, as Matthew Yglesias notes for the American Prospect. According to Yglesias, the conference can now be framed as a relative success whatever happens, and that will keep the momentum for climate action going after Copenhagen.

Now that the conference is no longer a shoe-in failure, it’s more important than ever that the president is on hand. Obama’s attendance will signify that the his administration is committed to passing climate legislation through the Senate.

In the video below, The Real News notes that Obama is simply trying to buy more time. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, is hopeful that a legally binding treaty that focuses on the clear, main points, like how much to reduce emissions and finance the bill, are still attainable. Even though the Senate has not passed a climate bill, the United States can still play a constructive role in Copenhagen.

But will the international climate summit put any pressure on the Senate to actually pass a climate bill? Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly remains skeptical. “Republican [lawmakers] seem entirely unfazed when told, ‘There’s a health care crisis, and the entire country is waiting for you to be responsible and do your duty,’” writes Benen. “These same lawmakers will soon be told, ‘There’s a climate crisis, and the entire world is waiting for you to take your obligations seriously.’ Will they find this compelling? I suppose time will tell.”

In Mother Jones, Bill McKibben criticizes Obama’s weak leadership on climate change. Rather than applying the necessary political pressure to reach a climate deal, Obama has made climate change a second priority to health care reform. Even worse, the Obama administration conceded a sturdy treaty because it was unrealistic that Senate would pass it. McKibben notes that the “White House is starting to use the Senate in the same way that the Bush administration used China – as a scapegoat for doing too little. You don’t get to blame the Senate if you haven’t pushed the Senate as hard as you possibly can.”

Grist’s David Roberts argues that the real culprit is not Obama, but the recalcitrant Senate. Calling Obama’s leadership a failure is premature because he still has a chance to push reform and make a difference. Roberts also contends that McKibben’s analogy of Obama using the Senate like Bush used China is unsound:

“The analogy is apt insofar as China was out of Bush’s control and the Senate is out of Obama’s. But it’s inapt in that there’s plenty Bush could have done without China and he didn’t; there’s plenty Obama can do outside the Senate and he’s doing it. When it comes to matters under executive branch control, the progress over the last 10 months have been amazing – new fuel-economy rules, new enforcement of efficiency standards, EPA moving forward on CO2 regulations, energy standards and goals for all federal departments, tons of green stimulus money, national retrofit programs, delay of mining and drilling permits, sustained bi- and multi- lateral international climate diplomacy… the list goes on. Obama is doing what a president can do – more than any president has ever done.”

Where do the American people stand on climate action? According to a recent poll featured on Yes! Magazine, 75% of Americans “favor government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, cars, and factories” and 59% of Americans “favor the U.S. taking action on global warming, even if other countries like China and India do less.”

To channel this national consensus for urgent climate action, Peter Rothberg of The Nation compiled a guide that outlines how activists can get involved before Copenhagen. The guide recommends tactics that average citizens can use to pressure the key actors at Copenhagen.

Progress at Copenhagen is still possible, but there’s no guaranteed outcome. If the U.S. wants to play a valuable role at Copenhagen, it should rise above the fray in Congress and focus on producing a viable pact with international support in the upcoming year. Copenhagen needs to serve as a wake up call that climate change is a collective global problem that needs a collective global solution.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Weekly Diaspora: Fort Hood, Pundits and Immigration Reform

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:11:57 -0500

By Nezua, Media Consortium Blogger

First it was immigrants from Mexico, now Muslims in the armed services. After the tragic shootings at Fort Hood, conservative pundits are verbally attacking Muslims and Arab-Americans, much like they have vilified the immigrant community. The complexities of Islamic faith are being glossed over and “Muslim Terrorist” is stamped upon any act of violence involving their community. As a result, nuanced voices are buried in favor of suspicion and violence.

Dr. Riad Z Abdelkarim loves and serves this country, but is lumped in with alleged and actual enemies of the state due to his faith. In an article for The Progressive, Abdelkarim writes about his sense of anger and betrayal over the Fort Hood massacre. He is angry that the perpetrator of such harm is an American and as a doctor. He feels betrayed because the killer practices Islam, which is a beautiful and inspiring faith to Dr. Abdelkarim. “The Fort Hood murders are a huge setback” to the progress that Arab-Americans and American Muslims have made to clear the “guilt by association” that has affected their communities since 9/11, writes Abdelkarim.

The Real News Network also thoughtfully examines the aftermath of Fort Hood. Host Riz Khan gives background on shooter Nidal Malik Hasan and explores the effects of the Fort Hood shooting. Kahn asks “If a Muslim commits a serious crime in America, is that crime seen as that much more deadly?”

The violent culture that many U.S. citizens attribute to Islam and Arab-Americans criminalizes everyday people. For example, a bit of Arabic script led to a frenzied media reaction when Texas border guards found “ski jacket with three unusual patches” in Hebbronville, Texas in 2005. The patches were irresponsibly described as “terrorist garb” by “right wing media,” according to the Texas Observer. “One [patch] featured a lion’s head, a parachute and Arabic script, another an airplane flying toward a tower and the words ‘Midnight Mission.’ The third patch read ‘Daiwa.’”

It all made for a “fine story,” as Melissa Del Bosque writes. But the results were not so dramatic. “Daiwa” is an ad for a “popular fishing company,” the Arabic is the symbol of a “defunct air brigade in Syria” that was in fact “anti-Islamist,” and the jacket more than likely bought at one of the “pulgas” (flea markets) located closer to the border. It is fortunate that the voices trying to connect Al Qaeda and Mexicans were not successful.

In RaceWire, Debiyani Kar reports on the Obama administration’s latest announcements that immigration reform would come in 2010. Kar cuts to the heart of the issue, reminding us that “it is time to pause and make the connection again between (im)migration and globalization.” If our nation is truly interested in addressing the roots of the problem, rather than passing sweeping reform every decade, we have to address this issue. Meanwhile, Kar also reminds us that migrants “are not waiting for legal reforms to take control of their economic futures,” and wield their own economic power.

A liberal activist who goes by the handle of “Robert Erickson” subverted an anti-immigration rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, as the Minnesota Independent reports. Erickson called for sealing up the borders and sending “these people back where they came from” while the crowd of 50-60 people cheered along. Then Erickson revealed that he was actually calling for the removal of European immigrants, who are “responsible for the most violent and heinous crimes in the history of the world!”

The fallout from Lou Dobbs’ severance with CNN continues. Dobbs was an integral part of the CNN news team since 1980. Roberto Lovato, reporting for The Nation, called Dobb’s abrupt departure the “fast and fiery demise of a media titan.” Lovato discusses Dobbs’ career arc and departure from CNN. He also underlines the scope of the immigrant movement and “the centrality of spirituality to social change.”

These are reminders we need when engaging struggle! Spirituality, love and laughter keep us refreshed and strong for those times we must engage injustice or oppression. And we can’t show a dinosaur like Dobbs the door without commentary from two of the most celebrated pundits on the circuit today, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Both comedians’ segments on Dobbs are featured at Talking Points Memo in an article by Ben Craw.

For some more humor, let’s return to The Nation. Alana Levinson comments on Saturday Night Live’s rendition of Lou Dobbs’ last live speech, in which a parodied Dobbs said he wouldn’t rest until all people have the opportunity to sell fruit on the roadside, “not just the Latinos.” When compared to rants about disease and criminal Mexicans, comedic responses to Dobbs’ departure are a positive contribution.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Weekly Pulse: Bachmann Fan Threatens to Shoot Up Newspaper

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:11:08 -0500

By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

A Michigan woman threatened a Minnesota newspaper with mass murder for criticizing Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)’s anti-health reform rally, reports Paul Schmelzer in the Minnesota Independent:

…A woman in Michigan, angered over a newspaper editorial criticizing Bachmann’s event, threatened to take a gun to the paper and “do what they did at Fort Hood” in response.

How pro-life.

David Corn of Mother Jones reports that Bachmann (R-MN) may also face an ethics investigation for using her taxpayer-funded website to promote the Tea Pary-Superbowl of Freedom, a partisan political rally to defeat health care reform. The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-profit political watchdog, alleges that Bachmann violated a House rule against using official websites for “grassroots lobbying or [to] solicit support for a Member’s position.” She literally told her supporters to come to Washington on Nov 5 and tell their representatives to vote against health reform. That’s textbook grassroots lobbying and a clear no-no for a taxpayer-funded website.

Speaking of pesky rules and regulations, Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) C Street residence is no-longer tax exempt. Stupak, who became famous for inserting a radical and far-reaching abortion funding ban into the House health reform bill, lives with several other lawmakers at a house on C Street. The house is owned by a secretive fundamentalist sect known as The Family. For years, C Street avoided paying property taxes by claiming to be a church. All that’s over now. Ed Brayton of the Michigan Messenger reports that the IRS has finally figured out that C Street is a dorm.

Alex Koppelman reports in Salon that Stupak is reiterating his threat to kill health care reform if his language is stripped from the final bill:

“They’re not going to take it out,” Stupak said of Senate Democrats during an appearance on “Fox and Friends” Tuesday morning. “If they do, healthcare will not move forward … At least 10 to 15 to 20 of us will not vote for it.”

At Feministing, Jos Truit discusses the Hyde Amendment, a piece of 1976 legislation that bans the use of federal funds for abortions. The Hyde Amendment is back in the news because Stupak is falsely claiming that his amendment merely applies Hyde principles to health insurance.
Does he know that 45,000 born people die every year because they don’t have health insurance?

The fight over abortion coverage in a reformed health care system is far from over. It’s unlikely that Reid wrote Stupak language into his version of the bill, and it’s equally unlikely that anti-choicers have the 60 votes to add it back in as an amendment. (Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is much more pro-choice than the House.) Anti-choice Dems Sens. Ben Nelson and Bob Casey seem to be walking back from their earlier threats to vote against a bill without Stupak language.

Harry Reid announced that Democrats would meet today to preview the Senate’s version of the health care bill. The first procedural vote on the Senate bill could come before Thanksgiving.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Weekly Audit: Saying 'No' to Corporate America

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:11:16 -0500

By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger

By proposing financial reforms that won’t curb Wall Street excess, U.S. policymakers have offered an unacceptably weak response to our enormous financial crisis. If voters don’t demand that their elected representatives help workers and consumers instead of simply boosting corporate profits, the economic downturn will last for several more years and leave the economy vulnerable to another bank-induced meltdown.

The banks have unbelievable lobbying clout. In an interview with Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks, Heather Booth, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, describes how one-sided the Wall Street reform fight has been. Despite broad public support for a fundamental financial overhaul, going up against the bank lobby is, as Booth describes, “a David and Goliath fight.” It’s basically Americans for Financial Reform against every major corporation in the U.S.

Booth notes that the Chamber of Commerce has vowed to spend $100 million on a campaign to defend the “so-called free enterprise system”—you know, the “free market”—in which corporate lobbyists spend millions of dollars to write the rules of the economic game. Just seven financial lobby groups have spent a massive $147 million peddling influence over the past two years.

In fact, as Janine Wedel observes for Salon, the U.S. economic system is starting to look an awful lot like the clannish systems of government that looted Eastern European countries in the early 1990s. Today, the public good takes a backseat to the narrow interests of powerful corporations.

With the Obama administration working with advisers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, we’re not just watching Wall Street write its own regulations. We’re watching the financial sector re-write the official role of the government in the economy. In this new role, the government’s top priority is securing profits for corporate America.

“The intertwined coterie of financial and policy deciders in the United States is creating not only the financial architecture of the future, backed by the power and billions of the state, but, more generally, new relationships between the bureaucracy and the market,” Wedel writes.

GRITtv’s Laura Flanders echoes this theme in an interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and journalist Russ Baker. Lobbyists have so thoroughly hijacked the U.S. economy, Perkins argues, that the nation’s government now resembles those of Latin American nations he worked with in the 1980s and 1990s.

“I don’t think the U.S. president has much power these days, to be honest with you. . . . It’s the big corporate executives who call the shots today, and let’s face it, they financed Obama’s campaign,” Perkins says.

The very efforts the government deployed to save the financial system are being perverted to create another disaster. In a five-part interview with Paul Jay of The Real News, Jane D’Arista, an influential economist and author of The Evolution of U.S. Finance, explains how Wall Street destroyed itself over the past decade. By borrowing massive amounts of money, Wall Street was able to place bigger bets in the capital markets casino, resulting in huge profits when those bets paid off. But when the bets backfired, the losses were just as massive. Companies couldn’t pay them off, so the government stepped in to support them.

One of those support mechanisms came from the Federal Reserve, which began making incredibly cheap loans to firms that engaged predominantly in speculative trading. The Fed used to lend exclusively to commercial banks, which used the money to make loans that helped grow the real economy. But now those loans are being used to support risky securities trading, so we’re seeing big profits in the financial sector, without much help for workers and consumers. This is a major long-term problem—if the economy can’t keep pace with the Wall Street casino, those speculative trades are going to backfire and we’ll be right back to the chaos of September 2008, only with an even weaker economy.

All hope is not lost. As Perkins and Baker emphasize in their interview with Flanders, citizens have to demand corporate accountability and a government that actually serves the public good. For much of the past decade in Latin America, governments have been elected that stood up to major corporations and demanded that they stop pillaging their nation’s resources at the people’s expense.

In addition to demanding much stronger reforms for the financial sector, we have to demand that the government respond seriously to problems facing workers. With the unemployment rate at 10.2% and expected to go still higher, we need jobs. As Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, Obama’s economic stimulus package helped stave off total economic devastation. What we need now is another stimulus to get people back to work, not just slow the pace of job losses.

“A bold, ambitious jobs bill can make a huge difference—the stimulus got us out of the ditch, a new effort can get us going in the right direction again,” Benen writes.

And the only argument against this plan is that we “can’t afford it.” That is—the government’s fiscal deficit is too high, and we just can’t spend money to help people in real economic trouble.

But as Christopher Hayes writes for The Nation, the deficit excuse is pretty pathetic. Economic stimulus bolsters economic growth, thus improving tax returns for the government in the future. And any spending on any project can be taken out of the budget from other measures. Hayes notes that our massive military spending is almost never included in discussions about “fiscal responsibility.” If we were really worried about how much it would cost to fix the economy, we could stop spending so much money killing people.

“Fiscal conservatism and deficit concern is nearly always code speak in Washington for something else,” Hayes writes. “Most often, when someone in Washington says they’re concerned about the deficit, what they’re really saying is, ‘I would like to make sure we have a government that focuses maximally on blowing people up.’”

The government has to start saying ‘no’ to corporate America. Corporate profits are not the same thing as a strong economy. We need to demand an economic policy that answers to workers, not just bank balance sheets.