Harry’s Right Jab

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was one of the lead off hitters in the Democratic Party line up last evening at the national convention in Charlotte, NC.   He sized up the gridlock in Washington, D.C. succinctly:

“In the depth of the Great Recession, as millions of Americans were struggling to find work, the Republican leader of the senate, Mitch McConnell, said Republicans’ number one goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. They wouldn’t cooperate to create jobs. They wouldn’t try to turn around the economy. They wouldn’t do anything but stand in President Obama’s way.

I’ve had a front-row seat to watch the Tea Party take over the Republican Party. For three and a half years, they wouldn’t govern. They couldn’t lead. And we shouldn’t let them take over the Senate and the White House.”  [HuffPo]

Wouldn’t, couldn’t, and shouldn’t sum things up nicely.   Unfortunately, fact checking isn’t necessary.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) famously told the National Journal back in October 2010, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” [Examiner]  October 2010 also happened to be the first month in the previous five months in which the employment numbers move upward.

“Payrolls climbed 151,000, exceeding all estimates in a Bloomberg News survey of economists and following a revised 41,000 drop the prior month that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Private payrolls expanded the most since April, while the jobless rate held at 9.6 percent.” [Bloomberg]

So, in October 2010 was the Republican leadership focused on moving the unemployment number off the 9.6% mark?  No, merely on making President Obama a one-term president.  Taking “Just Say No” into new realms, the Senate Republicans under McConnell’s leadership exercised the filibuster like small children who’ve just discovered the joys of mud puddles:

To date in the 112th Congress, 104 cloture motions have been filed (motions to stop filibusters), there have been 64 cloture votes, and filibusters have been broken only 33 times.  During the 111th Congress (2009-2010) there were 137 filibusters, 91 cloture votes, and the filibusters were broken 63 times.  [Senate]  The filibusters indicate how unwilling the Republicans were to govern, and how even less willing they were to offer leadership.

Inevitably, when the numbers are on the table for all to see, the Republicans whine that “the President wouldn’t work with us…,” “HE wouldn’t lead,” or “HE didn’t compromise.  First, it was perfectly evident during the time prior to the passage of the ARRA, altogether too much of which was comprised of tax cuts of minimal utility and not enough of which was comprised of infrastructure investments, and automatic stabilizer enhancements of maximum utility.   Having draped all manner of tax cuts on the stimulus bill the GOP had the temerity to announce that it was a “failure” before it even got started.

“…it’s easy to take a lie like “the stimulus failed” and turn it into a right-wing “fact.” Start by calling it “the failed stimulus” even before the bill goes into effect. Then keep repeating that same phrase, even as we go from losing 800,000 jobs a month to creating private sector jobs for 29 months.”  [NatMemo]

The same process was used during the development of the health reform bill (ACA) … the Republicans couldn’t take “yes” for an answer, then they created their very own “Debt Crisis” and again wouldn’t accept any long term deficit reduction suggestions from the White House.   This isn’t governance, it’s 100% pure obstructionism.

The elections in 2010 made a bad situation worse.   The deterioration began with a dinner in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2009:

“According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama’s legislative platform.”  [HuffPo] (emphasis added)

If the date sounds vaguely familiar — January 20, 2009 was the date on which President Barack Obama was inaugurated.  The President was attending Inaugural festivities and the congressional Republicans were having a four hour dinner planning how to obstruct the new Administration.  The gear jamming  game began as soon as the whistle blew.

The gridlock only grew worse as the Tea Party Republicans took over the Republican Party in Congress and rendered any attempts at compromise, even intra-party compromise,  futile.  For purist ideologues the very basis for governance, compromise between sincerely invested views, was unconscionable.  Thus the spectacle of a House of Representatives voting over and over and over again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to legislate anti-abortion bills going nowhere, refusing to pass the American Jobs Act, and yielding little more than a 13.8% approval rating for the 112th Congress as of August 23,  2012. [RCP]

When Congress, stymied by GOP intransigence, can’t lead and won’t govern it can expect to be less popular than banks, Pakistani President Zardari, and the Long Island Power Company. [ABC]

IF the Republicans hadn’t been engaged in obstructionism from Inauguration Day onward, and IF they had entered into sincere discussions of issues surrounding the content of the Affordable Care Act, or IF they had given the American Jobs Act even some cursory attention inside the Capitol, THEN their charges of “failed” leadership might not ring so hollow.

As things stand, Senator Reid is right: “For three and a half years, they wouldn’t govern. They couldn’t lead. And we shouldn’t let them take over the Senate and the White House.”

Sunrises and Tax Cuts: One Sure, the Other Not So Much

<Snark> I do hope you appreciate my efforts this morning. I got up nice and early — more a function of a miniature dachshund who had tangled himself in a sheet than an intention — and took my coffee to the deck and Bid The Sun To Rise! <snark>  OK, it wasn’t this sunrise, which is a stock graphic, and much better than this morning’s cloudy rendition.  Now to the point.   The Rolls-Royce Ticket (Romney/Ryan) has Promised an increase of 12,000,000 jobs!

Right there in the acceptance speech: “And unlike the president, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs.” [Politicususa]  This would be lovely, except that it is roughly analogous to my claim of bidding the sun to rise; it’s probably going to happen anyway:

‘In its semi-annual long-term economic forecast released in April, Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the economy would add 11.8 million jobs from 2012 to 2016. That means Mr. Romney believes his newly announced policies would add an extra 200,000 jobs on top of what people already expected, or a jobs bonus of about 2 percent. The more jobs the better, of course, but that’s not really much to write home about.” [NYT]

And, actually the President HAS a plan to create jobs — the American Jobs Act. S. 1549 was introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) on September 13, 2011.  That it has not moved since isn’t a function of “Presidential Leadership,” but of good old fashioned Republican intransigence.

The legislation includes tax cuts and regulatory reforms for small businesses and entrepreneurs.  But, the GOP doesn’t want to move on it.

The legislation includes provisions for preventing teacher layoffs, hiring more veterans, investments in infrastructure projects, public-private projects for rehabilitating local communities.  But the GOP doesn’t want to vote in favor of these elements.

The legislation promotes work based reforms to create innovative ways to retrain, rehire, and re-employ American workers.  But the GOP doesn’t want this to come to the Senate floor.

The legislation also encourages more re-financing of homes for stressed home-owners. But the GOP doesn’t want to talk about this either.  [AJAfactsheet]

The level of Republican intransigence can be measured by the number of tax cuts they passed up in order to block this legislation:

#1. The Republicans rejected a provision which would cut the payroll tax in half to 3.1% for employers on the first $5 million in wages, providing broad tax relief to all businesses but targeting it to the 98 percent of firms with wages below this level.

#2. The Republicans rejected a full holiday on the 6.2% payroll tax firms pay for any growth in their payroll up to $50 million above the prior year, whether driven by new hires, increased wages or both. This is the kind of job creation measure that CBO has called the most effective of all tax cuts in supporting employment.

#3. The Republicans rejected a proposal for 100 percent expensing, the largest temporary investment incentive in history, allowing all firms – large and small – to take an immediate deduction on investments in new plants and equipment.

#4. The Republicans rejected the Returning Heroes Tax Credit of up to $5,600 for hiring unemployed veterans who have been looking for a job for more than six months, and a Wounded Warriors Tax Credit of up to $9,600 for hiring unemployed workers with service-connected disabilities who have been looking for a job for more than six months, while creating a new task force to maximize career readiness of service members.

#5. The Republicans rejected the AJA including the plan to expand the payroll tax cut passed last December by cutting workers payroll taxes in half next year. This provision will provide a tax cut of $1,500 to the typical family earning $50,000 a year. As with the payroll tax cut passed in December 2010, the American Jobs Act will specify that Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise, through a transfer from the General Fund into the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Mornings After

Gee, and here we thought that the sun will rise in the east every morning, and Republicans will always favor tax cuts.  Yes, the President had, and still has, a specific plan to increase employment in the good old United States of America — but as of October 14, 2011 the plan ground to a halt in the face of Republican opposition in the Senate:

President Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan foundered in the Senate on Tuesday night, as a unified Republican caucus and a pair of Democrats joined to deny the proposal the 60 votes needed to allow it to proceed to full consideration.  [WashMonthly]

Any claims of “bipartisan rejection” of the bill can be waived because the two “no votes,” from Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Tester of Montana, wouldn’t have broken the GOP filibuster of the American Jobs Act.  The cloture motion failed on a 50-49-1 vote. [roll call 160] It takes 60 to break a filibuster and the best the Democrats in the Senate could have mustered was 53.  *Senator Reid voted ‘no’ to be on the prevailing side so he could later offer a motion to reconsider under the rules.

Yes, the bill includes tax cuts, and YES it’s paid for, and yes, the Republicans, in a “unified Republican caucus” blocked it.  Now, we get the vague sound of whining as the sun rises.

The Republicans whine, “but the President hasn’t shown leadership on jobs creation,” an interesting wail since the President presented a piece of legislation all packaged nicely with tax cuts and infrastructure investments.   It really doesn’t do for me to park my pickup across your driveway and then criticize you for not driving your children to school.

The Republicans whine, “the bills are too big and complicated,” but when parts of the legislation are offered in the Senate those are filibustered as well.  This comes perilously close to refusing to eat at the restaurant because the menu’s too long, but when offered items a la carte refusing each one.

According to GOP candidate Governor Mitt Romney:  “The President doesn’t have a plan, hasn’t proposed any new ideas to get the economy going—just the same old ideas of the past that have failed.”  [Prospect]

The Republican complaint would have far more authenticity had they worked with the Democrats in the Senate to pass the infrastructure and rehabilitation portions of the American Jobs Act; indeed, the ONLY specific  jobs proposal on the table at the moment  is the aforementioned American Jobs Act.  Governor Romney’s complaint would have far more resonance if he would offer something besides the trickle down economics of Republicans Past.  Speaking of no new ideas… in the words of the Rev. Al Sharpton, “We got the trickle, but nothing came down.”

The sun will rise tomorrow morning whether I take my coffee on the deck or not, the economy will probably create about 11.8 million jobs even if we do nothing, and the Republicans will filibuster anything from the White House whether it has a package of tax cuts in it  or not — just because it came from the Democratic side of the spectrum.

Perhaps candidates in Nevada’s Senatorial race, and in the Nevada Congressional District races should be asked whether or not they support the American Jobs Act, or even portions of it?  Perhaps it’s time we got some answers that aren’t merely more predictable-as-the-sunrise rhetoric?

What Matters? The Long Climb Back From A Very Deep Pit

Often it’s easy to have the attention span of a gnat, a problem exacerbated by the 24 hour news cycle in which topics are headlined for a time, and then hit the public equivalent of the Lost and Found barrel.  Nevada’s economic situation in 2008 and early 2009, and how we got to our current position, are illustrative of the issue.  The Las Vegas Sun has a summation, a kernel of which says:

“Even though the government stepped in to stabilize the system, the economy still seized up. Only last year did we learn that the American economy saw an annualized decline of an astounding 8.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, far worse than original estimates. By the time Obama took office, the private sector was losing 700,000 jobs per month, with state and local governments soon to follow with their own layoffs.”

The point made by Sun writer J. Patrick Coolican deserves repetition:  When something crashes this hard it takes more time to recover.

#1.  Recapitalize the investment institutions.  Done. Although the term “bank bailout” is as popular in some quarters as fire ants at a ‘clothing optional  beach’ picnic, the lending institutions had become so baffled in 2008 that they couldn’t properly determine the price of their own financial products, nor could they assess the price of their risks — hence the seizure.

#2. Enact legislation to prevent the repetition of the banking issues. Done. The Dodd-Frank Act (pdf) is far from perfect, however it does (a) require more regulatory oversight of the derivatives markets, a major component of the initial problem, (b) revise regulations involving the ratings agencies, another important issue, (c) create a Financial Stability Oversight Council to act as an Early Warning System to evaluate the financial viability of our banking institutions, (d) require banks to draft a type of Living Will, in the form of a plan for orderly liquidation, (e) seek to prevent “regulator shopping” in which institutions sought to slide under the jurisdiction of the least restrictive regulator, (f) include the Volcker Rule, and (g) create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This item on the check-list is a work in progress. While, the legislation has been enacted, the drafting of regulations associated with the new law is still a work in progress.  The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has an updated time line of the drafts, and is a good resource for those wanting to see what has been done and what remains.

There are two essential points included in the Dodd Frank Act which are extremely important, and speak directly to avoiding another crash based on the lack of adult supervision associated with the 2008 Debacle.  First, is the oversight of the derivatives markets — an activity loudly criticized by some on Wall Street, but nevertheless necessary for insuring that the next amalgam of Quants, Wizards, and Masters of the Universe, doesn’t repeat their performance of 2008.  The second is the inclusion of an independent panel to warn banks of impending problems combined with the Orderly Liquidation Authority provisions.   The bankers are still squawking about being subject to the Financial Stability Oversight Council because they believe in “self regulation;” however, they were “self regulating” prior to 2008 and they drove the system into the ditch.

#3.  Stabilize the housing market.  Getting there.  This is crucial for Nevada, and for middle income Americans in all 50 states.   The Crash of 2008 was a cruel blow to everyone, but middle class Americans whose wealth was in large part a function of home-ownership were particularly hard hit.  Between 2007 and 2010 the average American middle class family lost about 40% of their total wealth as property values plummeted. [CNN]  However, we need to be realistic and remember that part of that wealth was illusory:

“For the vast majority of families, “wealth” essentially means, “home equity”. And the relatively high wealth levels of the mid-2000s reflected the inflation of the housing bubble. The bursting of the bubble exposed the wealth gains as having been unreal and produced the sizable declines in net worth revealed in the government data.”  [RCM]

As mentioned previously, American families are de-leveraging, i.e. paying down debt and restructuring their family finances.  At this juncture it appears that stagnating wages and job losses are more pressing concerns than loss of home equity for most families.*  The inflated equity is already gone, the problems associated with wages and job losses remain.

The housing sector is adjusting to reality, home construction may be declining but if we compare year-over-year numbers building permit requests are up 21.5% over last year. [LAT]

#4. Halt the suppressed demand cycle.  Stalled.  Deleveraging is good.  American consumers had piled on the debt during the Housing Bubble. They needed to deleverage.  Financial institutions which grabbed up the mortgages and repackaged them in altogether too many creative ways needed to deleverage.  However, the down side to deleveraging is that when people stop spending  our economic growth slows down.

The necessity of looking at the demand side of the economic equation has been covered here, here, here, and here.  I believe at one point I’ve even threatened to rename this blog something like the Aggregate Demand Review.

At the risk of even more redundancy, let’s review — the formula for aggregate demand is AG = C + I + G + (X-M).  That would be consumer spending + business spending + government spending – (exports – imports).  Demand drives orders, orders drive hiring.  Economic policies which depress orders will depress economic growth.  The current case of Republican obsessive-compulsive discussion of reducing government spending threatens to further diminish the “G” part of the equation AND the layoff of public sector employees tends to decrease the “C” part of the equation.  As if we needed any more reduction in aggregate demand, the Republicans would very much like to reduce government support for SNAP and other social safety net programs which act as our old friend, the economic automatic stabilizer — the shock absorbers on our economic vehicle.

Then there’s the American Jobs Act which is stalled in the 112th Congress.  Obviously, when people have jobs they have money to spend.  When they spend money that creates — you guessed it — demand.  Demand drives orders, orders drive hiring.  The economic concepts involved really aren’t very complicated.

One of the more interesting features of the Republican argument is the “government doesn’t create jobs” line,  but eventually every subsequent argument about cutting defense spending includes a recitation of the number of jobs which will be lost by those employed by defense contractors.   If it’s true in the defense sector, then it ought to be true in the education business — cuts to defense spending mean job losses in defense industries, and cuts to education funding lead to job losses in the education sector — the public safety sector, etc.   Job losses depress demand, depressed demand reduces economic growth.  Now, how hard was that?

The Bottom Line

All it takes to comprehend the terrain on the long hard slog we have ahead of us, is to focus on what really matters.   Reducing the likelihood of another Wall Street Debacle matters.  Stabilizing the housing market matters.   Enacting and implementing measures to increase demand for goods and services matter.  Everything else falls into two general categories: (1) Self serving promotion of policies designed to protect the 1% of the American population already doing well; and (2) Ideological assertions which describe neither the current American economic system, nor present solutions to contemporary American economic problems.   There is a choice.

We can either follow the Voodoo economics of the Supply Side Hoax and dig ourselves more deeply into the pit, or we can pay attention to both sides of the economic equation and start digging some ‘stairs’ in the side and climb up.

* At least one source is counseling against being too optimistic about the current decline in foreclosures, because there is still an inventory of properties in the pipeline, and although foreclosures have hit a five year low, realistically there is more to come.

The 112th Congressional Agenda

Via UTAustinLiberal:

Feel free to share.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

As promised, here’s a closer look at the jobs report released today by the Department of Labor.  If we take the 69,000 total apart and look at the separate categories of private sector employment there’s an interesting picture:

We can see more clearly now which jobs ARE being created, and which are not.  Healthcare added 33,000 jobs, transportation and warehousing added another 36,000.  Manufacturing was up 12,000. Temporary professional services gained 9,200.  Full time professional services dropped about 1,000.  The financial sector added 3,000 jobs, retail added 2,300, and wholesale jobs increased by 15,900.

The drag? We lost 13,000 government jobs, 9,000 leisure and hospitality jobs, and 28,000 construction jobs. [BLS Table B]

Here’s where the ideological wheels meet the real world road.

If the ultra-conservative ideology is correct, then the reduction of government jobs should boost the overall economy?  That’s the theory, and one espoused by Republican candidate Mitt Romney:

“Romney, by contrast, would make immediate, drastic moves toward austerity. His deficit plan would slash federal spending to 20 percent of GDP by 2016, and as low as 18 percent of GDP in later years—well below historic averages. In addition, Romney’s plan bets that lower tax rates will spur economic growth, boost the economy, and return the country to an era of budget surpluses and prosperity.” [NatlJournal]

That’s the plan, cut government programs (reducing the federal payroll), privatize Medicare (vouchers), and send everything that can be packaged into block grants back to the states.   So, we’d have to ask: If we have shed about 1,000,000 public sector jobs in the last few years — then why haven’t we seen more robust gains in private sector employment? [FTimes]  If during the Obama Administration some 600,000 public sector jobs have been eliminated,  where is the vaunted economic growth that was supposed to happen?

Reuters offered an analysis of the drag on the economy created by the loss of public sector employment last April:

The result? The last three years of job losses at the state and local government level has been the most dramatic since Labor Department records began in 1955, according to a Reuters analysis.

Public-sector employees tended to have more job security, which in some ways helps during weak economic climates, as their steady demand for goods and services spread through the economy. The recent trend, conversely, can make things worse.

“If public-sector employment had grown since June 2009 by the average amount it grew in the three previous recoveries (2.8 percent) instead of shrinking by 2.5 percent, there would be 1.2 million more public-sector jobs in the U.S. economy today,” said the Economic Policy Institute in a recent report, which included federal employees in the calculation.

Yes, we’ve come right back to the demand side of the classic market equation.  The lost demand for goods and services created when public sector jobs were eliminated is a drag on the economy especially during a recessionary period.  There is an argument to be made that the job security and spending capacity of public sector employees, health inspectors, teachers, firefighters, police officers, public health nurses, highway department employees, etc. acts as one of those automatic stabilizers cushioning the shocks to a retracting economy.

The illogical extrapolation of this notion is that “Gee, then all we need are public employees…” No.  What we need are infrastructure construction and maintenance, and public services, which not only meet the needs of the community but also serve to sustain demand for goods and services in local economies during tougher times.   The magic word is Balance.

The question we now need to ponder is what will get the economy moving forward at a more rapid pace?  Tax Cuts for wealthy Americans?  Infrastructure spending and small business incentives to boost employment in the construction  and other sectors?

Republican members of the House of Representatives are fond of asserting they’ve passed some 30 “jobs” bills.  However, in their enthusiasm to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to repeal Dodd-Frank, to reform Medicare out of existence, to preserve taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuel corporations, to cut taxes for the top 0.5% of American income earners, and to slash funding for infrastructure programs (all of which they have characterized as “Job Creating” measures) –  their proposals would cost a potential 700,000 jobs in H.R. 1; approximately 300,000 jobs lost in regard to H.R. 2; and, perhaps a total of 1.7 million jobs lost by 2014 per H.Con.Res. 34. [Gavel]

There is an alternative available, S. 1549.   It is stalled in the United States Senate, tagged with the all too familiar Republican filibuster.  There are some component which could have a positive impact on the economy much sooner than waiting for the tax breaks for billionaires to trickle down to the local county road department. *(See American Jobs Act)

One component is the Buy American provision, requiring that items procured for the maintenance or construction of public works be made in America.  There could be some “wiggle room” for negotiation to allow for the acquisition of items which are no longer manufactured here, but this topic should be a started for further discussions.

Another component would give business owners some tax breaks: “amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) reduce employment and self-employment tax rates in 2012 to 3.1%; (2) allow employers a tax credit for payroll increases in the last quarter of 2011 and in 2012; (3) extend the 100% bonus depreciation allowance through 2012; (4) delay until 2014 the 3% withholding requirement on payments due to vendors who provide services to federal, state, and local governmental entities; and (5) increase the work opportunity tax credit for hiring unemployed veterans. ”   If tax breaks are the bread of conservative life, why would this be controversial?

There’s an infrastructure component which has drawn more fire: “Makes specified funds available to the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) for: (1) grants-in-aid for airport planning and development and noise compatibility planning projects under the airport improvement program (AIP); (2) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Next Generation air traffic control system advancements; (3) highway and bridge restoration, repair, and construction projects and for passenger and freight rail transportation and port infrastructure projects; (4) grants for high-speed rail projects, capital investment grants for intercity passenger rail service, and grants to reduce congestion on intercity rail passenger transportation; (5) capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); (6) transit capital assistance grants; (7) capital projects for existing fixed guideway system modernization, replacement and repair of buses and bus-related equipment, and construction of bus-related facilities; and (8) discretionary capital investment grants for surface transportation infrastructure.“

This is where the cat-calls about “nostrums of statism” begin from the right.  However, we are indeed a nation with antiquated air transportation systems, and love Amtrack, or not, it is invaluable in the NE corridor transportation grid.  We’ll probably not find too many members of the Republican caucus taking the bus — but thousands of their constituents take the bus daily to get to their jobs.

The cri de coeur from the right hand side of the political aisle really increases in volume when it’s suggested that the federal government could step in to help school districts, cities, and counties retain or rehire teachers, police officers, and firefighters laid off because of local and state budget cuts.  Speaking of “nostrums,” there’s little more vague or exaggerated than claims that if tax rates for the upper upper upper income earners are further reduced, then POOF! the economy will improve and state and local revenues will rise with the Yachting Tide.   The Speaker of the House of Representatives announced that the first stimulus bill was a failure before the money even got out the door, however the Republicans piously intone their mantra that we should at least wait another four years for the “benefits” of the Bush Tax Cuts to kick in.

The magic formula “Tax Cuts + Deregulation” was in effect for eight years of the George W. Bush Administration….. and we’re still waiting. In fact we’ve had nearly thirty years of tax cuts and deregulation. 

We can narrow it down and look at the last decade, and the economic picture of the efficacy of the Magic Formula simply isn’t there.

What is readily apparent is that some sectors of the economy are doing better than others.  Federal spending for infrastructure would more immediately benefit business owners in the construction sector and the employees who would be hired.  Arguing that these aren’t “permanent” jobs is silly.  There are precious few “permanent” jobs in a sector dependent on winning bids and hiring sub-contractors.

It’s also clearly visible that we cannot continue to decimate our public sector.  “Stack’em deep and teach’em cheap” is not a productive educational maxim.   Nor can we encourage business growth in our retail sector by seeking to minimize or privatize our public safety sector.   Commercial and industrial activity is curtailed if workers can’t find affordable and reliable transportation to and from the workplace.

Once again: Austerity never begat Prosperity.