Sincere apologies.  I just realized I just sent you the wrong email.  Here's
the real deal
Ed 
 
 From: John Jones [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:14 PM

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/
 
 <http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/> Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
September 11, 2011, 8:41 AM 

The Years of Shame


Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this,
whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have
been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like
Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on
the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the
neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits —
people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the
easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their
support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion
for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

  _____  

http://www.laprogressive.com/economic-equality/american-jobs-act/?utm_source
=LAProgressiveNewsletter
<http://www.laprogressive.com/economic-equality/american-jobs-act/?utm_sourc
e=LAProgressiveNewsletter&utm_campaign=ede42c1e67-LAP_News_19_July_2011_Live
7_18_2011&utm_medium=email>
&utm_campaign=ede42c1e67-LAP_News_19_July_2011_Live7_18_2011&utm_medium=emai
l

Two Cheers and One Jeer for the American Jobs Act

September 9, 2011 By Robert
<http://www.laprogressive.com/author/robert-reich/> Reich 

Two cheers for the President and his America’s Jobs Act. Cheer Number One:
In presenting it to a joint session of Congress, he sounded as passionate
and determined as he’s ever sounded.

Second cheer: He laid out the problem correctly and effectively. He
explained why jobs and growth must be the nation’s first priority now — not
the federal deficit. The economy is in crisis. People are hurting. So
government must act, and act quickly. It’s irresponsible at a time like this
to suggest that government should simply close down.

But a jeer because the jobs plan he presented isn’t nearly large enough or
bold enough to make a major dent in unemployment, or to restart the economy.

$450 billion sounds like a lot – and is more than I expected — but some of
this merely extends current spending (unemployment benefits) and tax cuts
(in Social Security taxes), so it doesn’t add to aggregate demand.

The net new boost to the economy is closer to $300 billion. That doesn’t
approach even half the gap between what the economy is now producing and
what it could produce at or near full employment.

And much that $300 billion is in the form of temporary tax cuts to
individuals and companies. Some of these make sense — enlarging the Social
Security tax cut, extending it to employers, and giving small businesses a
tax holiday for new hires.

But temporary tax cuts haven’t proven to be particularly effective in
stimulating new spending in times of economic stress. People tend to use
them to pay off debts or increase savings. Companies use them to reduce
costs, but they won’t make additional hires unless they expect additional
sales – which won’t occur unless consumers increase their spending.

That leaves some $140 billion for infrastructure – improving outworn school
buildings, roads, bridges, ports, and so on. And $35 billion to help
cash-starved states avoid more layoffs teachers. Both good and important but
still small relative to the overall need.

Why did the President include so many tax cuts, and why didn’t he make his
proposal sufficiently large to make a real impact on jobs and growth?
Because he crafted it in order to appeal to Republicans. To get it enacted,
he needs their votes.

I’m having a dizzying sense of déjà vu. The first $800 billion stimulus
(spread over two years) wasn’t nearly large enough given the drop in
aggregate demand. And half of it was in the form of tax cuts. The reason it
wasn’t bigger and contained so many tax cuts was to get Republican votes.
But its apparent ineffectiveness — it saved around 3 million jobs, but that
didn’t save it from appearing to fail — made it harder for the White House
to do anything more to stimulate the economy, and ward off what’s likely to
be a double dip.

That’s been the heart of Obama’s dilemma. Big and bold enough to make a
difference, and Republicans are certain to reject it. Small and focused on
tax cuts, and maybe Republicans will bite. But even if they sign on, what’s
the point of the exercise if it won’t have a measurable effect on jobs and
growth?

And why would they sign on this time, anyway?

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell scoffs “This isn’t a job plan. It’s
a reelection plan.” That’s precisely the problem. McConnell and company have
stated publicly that their number-one objective is to unseat Obama and
regain the presidency in 2012. They don’t want to give the President
anything he could possibly claim as a victory. And they’re not terribly
worried if the economy stays awful through Election Day because that’s the
best way to fulfill their number-one objective.

The President would have done better with a plan that was big enough to make
a real difference. And then, when Republicans rejected it, campaign on it.

So two cheers — for both the President’s style and his words. And one jeer:
He failed on substance and strategy.

Robert Reich
 <http://robertreich.org/> Robert Reich’s Blog



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to