Dancing With The Stars finale
Missing in America Memorial
Madison Commencement
Book Nook provides readers with insights into the world of books. Vick Mickunas takes you into the center of the publishing world with the latest book buzz, book reviews, and exclusive chats with authors..Home > Blogs > Book Nook > Archives > 2009 > July > 21 > Entry
Former Daytonian takes Obama to task…
The author and political cartoonist Ted Rall wrote a hard hitting opinion piece today for his syndicated column. Rall went to high school in Kettering. Here it is:
Obama, Losing Jobs, Soon to Be Shovel-Ready
Pro-Obama political cartoonists have drawn variations of the same cartoon: the president, in the role of badgered parent on a family trip, is driving a car labeled “The Economy.” The American public, depicted as Uncle Sam or Joe Average, whines: “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”
With official unemployment approaching 10 percent and underemployment at 16.5 percent, Americans are running out of money—and patience. Obama’s approval ratings are down between 15 and 20 points, meaning that he has lost one in six Americans. His biggest weakness: the economy.
“I think the public knows three things: We inherited a total mess; we’re working hard on it; and we’re not going to get out of it overnight,” says Chief White House propagandist Rahm Emanuel. That part is true.
The trouble for Obama is that people don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel. “The key to what this year is about is rescuing the economy from falling off the cliff and trying to put in place the building blocks of recovery”—i.e., bailing out the banks, insurers and automakers, says Emanuel. That’s what 2009 has been about for Obama. But for ordinary Americans, 2009 is about keeping or finding a job.
Creating jobs, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be an Obama Administration priority.
Were the bailouts necessary? Economists won’t know for years. What we do know is that the Administration’s approach won’t give the American people what they want and need more than anything else: jobs.
What’s the point of being patient? Even Obama admits help isn’t on the way.
Obama’s plan is Reaganomics redux. Give trillions of dollars to big corporations, he argues, and they’ll use it to capitalize new ventures, hire workers, and unclog the credit markets. Eventually. “We must let it work the way it’s supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity,” he says.
But even Obama admits it won’t unfold “the way it’s supposed to.”
Obama says his plan “was not designed to work in four months. It was designed to work over two years.” But if current trends continue, if everything goes the way he hopes, it will never work. We will have lost 14 million jobs by 2010. That would leave us up 4 million at most—a net loss of 10 million. That’s a disaster.
And that’s why Joe Public is so antsy. “Are we there yet?” isn’t the right question. People think: “We can see how this is going to end: we’ll be upside down in a ditch, plucking safety glass from our scalps.”
Obama’s approach won’t work economically, and it won’t work politically. Setting bailouts aside, what the United States needs right now—what it needed over a year ago—was a ginormous federal jobs program.
What happened to the infrastructure construction projects, like high-speed rail, that attracted so much enthusiasm during the campaign? Right-wing economic czar Lawrence Summers and a bunch of wimpy Democrats trashed them. “Transportation spending was gutted by Republicans who insisted on more tax cuts—none of whom voted for the measure anyway—and by Obama advisers who shifted priorities to advance policy goals,” reported the AP.
Earlier this year the American Society of Civil Engineers said the nation’s long-neglected highways, bridges and tunnels require $2,200 billion in repairs just to get them up to basic safety code—not including high-speed rail. Obama’s stimulus plan included a mere $42 billion (less than two percent). Rail got $2 billion out of a needed $25 billion. Unless Obama does something soon, nothing is going to get built and unemployment will continue to soar.
Now that Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs are reporting record profits, it’s time to “claw back” the bailouts, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and direct federal dollars where we need them most: jobs. Give tax breaks to employers who add new workers, direct federal agencies to grow in size, and create zero-interest lending programs to laid-off would-be entrepreneurs. And let’s build some friggin’ infrastructure. Every $1 spent on infrastructure generates a $1.59 payback in the form of increased tax revenues—and creates a lasting legacy.
Speaking of cartoons, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Public Debt recently came under fire for trying to hire a cartoonist to “discuss the power of humor in the workplace [and] the close relationship between humor and stress.” A Democratic Senator nixed the idea.
Too bad: at least Obama could have taken credit for creating one job.
(Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is author of the books “To Afghanistan and Back” and “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?”)
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment | Categories: booms and busts
Comments
By Raoul
July 27, 2009 7:52 AM | Link to this
Mark - you cite Paul Krugman, and tell me I’m reading the wrong stuff? If George W. Bush had invented a tree that grows money, Krugman would say it was a right wing plot to take over the financial markets. Krugman is incapable of providing sound ideas; he is too wrapped up in marxist left wing jibberish to add any clarity to economic issues. He will spend the next 6 years defending economic Democrat sponsored failure, and blame conservatives for everything. FDR most certainly failed at trying to use big government run projects to spark the economy. The Depression lasted 10 years under his Administration. Is that what you call putting the country back on it’s feet? ‘Serious historians’ exist on all sides of the political spectrum, not just the ones’s you prefer to read. Massive government spending of the type Krugman wants will be a huge payoff to the unions who back Democrats. It’s already happening, but I don’t have to tell you, because you only read from’serious’ sources like Paul Krugman.By Mark from St Paul
July 24, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this
Raoul, you’ve been reading the wrong people again (or listening to the wrong radio stations). FDR’s massive infrastructure spending put this country back on its feet, and defense spending for WWII did the rest. All this talk about FDR’s “fail” is from one poorly sourced rightwing book that has been eviscerated by every serious historian with expertise in the Great Depression. Obama’s problem - according to Paul Krugman - is that he’s not spending enough!By TRS
July 22, 2009 9:49 PM | Link to this
DS - the more I think about it the more I’m with you on this one. There are concerns, ie staff to powerful and lobbyists and advocacy groups could be even more influential (heaven forbid) but hopefully the office holders could cycle in and out of their seats before they became overly corrupt. Our state offices are term limited and other than those affected whining about it, I haven’t heard much negative one way or the other. Maybe some of the other Buckeyes have input on that. Another big issue is gerrymandering. I think Ohio was looking into a bi partisan commission to form Congressional Districts which didn’t sound like a bad idea to me. In truth, I haven’t put much thought into these, but perhaps a starting point is if the political class doesn’t like it, then that may be the first hint that it has merit.By Raoul
July 22, 2009 9:36 PM | Link to this
Interesting article until Obama’s plan was compared to Reagan’s policies…they could hardly be more different. And what absurdity to say that massive spending should be done on infrastructure to create jobs! Did FDR not try this and fail? I agree that term limits might bring back the real representation envisioned by the Founders. It takes a junior Rep. 2 years just to learn his way around the rotunda and figure out where he is supposed to sit. This Administration is failing because it has absolutely no focus, and seemingly no interest, in job creation via the small business world, where capital is turned into profit, jobs, and growth.By downsized
July 22, 2009 5:31 PM | Link to this
For many years I’ve struggled with the idea of term limits. My opinion now is that it’s time has come. When a Congressperson is elected for a two year term they typically spend the majority of their time raising money for re-election. I also have a real problem with a person who “serves” two years and qulaifies for a pension and lifetime health benefits. Extend those perks to common folks and what would be the reaction? Screams of socialism? The idea of this elite class of elected officials sickens me. This is not the government our founders envisioned. In fact, both Hamilton & Jefferson were opposed to political parties for most of the reasons we are now complaining about. Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and a host of others has convinced me we’d be better off without permanent representatives. The advantages of incumbancy have become too great. Your thoughts?By TRS
July 22, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
You may want to read David Brooks piece in the DDN today. There has developed a political class consisting of both parties and they have no shame. Many seem to enter public service with good intentions (and there are good public servants), but DC seems to be such a corrupting place. The seniority system breeds “professional politicians” whose main concern is reelection. Term limits has its drawbacks as it generally just cycles existing candidates into different jobs and gives staffers more power; but, it may be better than what we have.By irishguy
July 21, 2009 11:30 PM | Link to this
DS, a pox on both their houses indeed! Once most of these guys get a taste of power it’s all over. I’m still amazed anyone would call Larry Summers “right wing” Guess you have to as far left as Rall to say that.By downsized
July 21, 2009 6:50 PM | Link to this
That’s right, Vick. The self-proclaimed common man, psuedo-farmer himself. $2.5 million from insurance companies alone. As for Sen. Tom Harkin (D), he went to Washington a man of modest means. He’s now a multi-millionaire with a second “home” in the Caribbean with a re-election war chest that virtually leaves him unapposed. Just like Grassley. Two parties, with no courage, just greed.By vick
July 21, 2009 6:01 PM | Link to this
Was that spoken by Senator Chuck Grassley?By downsized
July 21, 2009 5:48 PM | Link to this
Washington politicians are simply out of touch with the severity of our economic crisis. In my state, a six term Republican Senator was asked by a citizen at a town hall meeting; “how do we get health benefits like you get?” He answered smugly, “get a job at John Deere.” “They aren’t hiring, they’re laying workers off,” was the citizen’s response. “Then get a job with the federal government,” the Senator said. He promptly left the meeting. Again, it’s “socialism” for the elected, and a free market screwing for main street. The Senator in question’s biggest contributors are financial services, insurance companies and other big corporate entities, of course. The Democrats aren’t much different either. Both parties are guilty of indifference, malfeasance and outright corruption. There doesn’t appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel. Except for another train headed right at us. Tax breaks and bail outs for corporations and the rich haven’t done squat for common folks. Some things never change. A pox on both their houses. Have they no shame?By TRS
July 21, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this
Guess the DDN needs to rid itself of Mike Peters as his work certainly parallels one party.By Mark from St Paul
July 21, 2009 3:58 PM | Link to this
I don’t have to agree with Ted Rall 100% of the time to respect him because Ted is consistent. He doesn’t care if you’re a Democrat or Republican, he believes what he believes. Ditto most good “liberal” cartoonists. Otoh, check out Cox & Forkum or Chris Muir and try to find a cartoon that criticizes Republicans. You won’t find any. Ideologues aren’t a problem. Phony ideologues whose work parallels one party exclusively, now there’s a problem.