> From: Robert Cherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:8387] Re: BalBudget Ad > 1. Is it polyanish to believe that a real full employment statement that says > it is reasonable to accept some modest inflationary increase if it means jobs > and raises for working people could be adopted by the AFL-CIO leadership and > similar resolutions by many local unions and chapters of other organization? No. The question is why anybody else would pay attention. There are plans at the AFl-CIO for economics education for trade union members where such ideas will be fully motivated. The problem is one of politics: how to push such a view beyond the faithful, although the problem of first gathering the faithful should not be glossed over. We've often heard union leaders saying, in all sincerety, 'well we do have to balance the budget.' There is a major educational problem among the most likely progressive forces, which is logically where we would start. > 2. Is the political period over where grassroot organizations and union > chapters try to mobilize around some mass issue? I don't think so. Now should be the best time, when the BBA and its threats to employment and economic security are most great. The question is how prepared grassroots groups are to take up this issue. As mentioned, the process within the labor movement is already underway. We have a long way to go on many fronts. > 3. If Sweeney is worth anything, why wouldn't he want to have a mass > mobilization around Real Full Employment? Is it foolish to think that having > a real Labor Day next September when in every city the unions have a > mobilization with other groups around real full employment is impossible? I wouldn't be surprized if something like this did come off at some point. Now isn't the best time. We are reduced to saying let's mobilize because unemployment could be a percent (or two) less. Not very blood-curdling. The time to ring that bell is when UE is over seven and the govt is visibly reluctant to do anything. Then the exposure available makes it possible to press for a policy of 'probing' to push UE down below five percent and beyond. > Isn't it possible for EPI to be a catalyst for some of this? I think so. Right now all the buckets are being filled to douse the BBA fire. If BBA passes the House and Senate, this whole thing will be replayed in state legislatures. I just did a radio debate with Jim Miller (Reagan OMB chief) and was reminded of the power of the simple premise 'neither a borrower nor lender be.' (That was about the limit of the economic wisdom he had to impart.) My proposal to fight this popular delusion is to emphasize three things the govt must do, for which budgets and their deficits are merely a tool: full employment, public investment, and economic security, all of which are impossible under balanced budgets. The public supports these missions more than mere budget balance. It just doesn't understand their connection. I'm in the minority in this view on the left; the dominant tactic is to oppose the amendment and pay lip service to the priority of budget balance, not to mention those others on the left who propose to balance the budget "progressively." People outside the beltway can probably have more impact here than EPI, since we deal with people who deal with members of congress whose views depend on public opinion. So the people we deal with don't want to try to sell something to a Member that the Member is not interested in. In contrast, for those that deal with real constituency organizations, there is the opportunity to raise these issues before those who are less constrained by the need to ape public opinion and conventional wisdom. The big exception is the labor movement, where I am confident at this point a well-founded view of this issue will be energetically propagated in planned educational activities. Another important pole of activity is what should be called the 'teach-in movement,' namely efforts by various people and groups to revive mass campus gatherings where dangerous minds can hold forth. I just hope the organizers of the latter affairs do not prove reluctant to involve economists of the EPI stripe, as well as the PEN-L. MBS
