Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts

Friday, May 6, 2011

The Long Road Back

The April jobs report came out today and again the news was good.  The economy gained 244,000 jobs last month, with the private sector gaining 268,000 jobs and the public sector shedding 24,000.  This has been the trend for some time now, with private sector job growth outpacing the overall jobs number because the public sector is shrinking.  Although the March and April numbers are still preliminary, we've added 768,000 jobs in the first four months of 2011 and, leaving off January, we've gained 700,000 jobs in the last three months.

Although the unemployment rate rose to 9.0% from last month's rate of 8.8%, this is less important than job growth for reasons that I won't get into here since this is already going to be wonkish enough as it is. I will say, however, that the makeup of the unemployed has shifted, with far more people unemployed for less than five weeks and far fewer unemployed for more that twenty-seven weeks. This too is welcome news.

If the good news is that we're on the road to recovery, the bad news is that it's an extremely long road. Primarily because our population grows, we need to add more jobs to the workforce just to maintain the status quo. Specifically, we need to add at least 125,000 new jobs every month or 1.5 million every year, and that's a conservative estimate. Many economists use 150,000 a month or 1.8 million new jobs a year and, frankly, this higher number is historically sound. In the 1960s when the population was smaller, we added over 17 million jobs, and in the decades of the '70s, 80s and '90s we added over 18 million jobs in each. Over the forty years from 1960 through 1999, we added an average of about 160,000 jobs a month. Nevertheless, I'll use the 125,000 number. Now, let's look at the facts and do the math.

In the Great Recession we lost millions of jobs, but the periods before it and after it were also marked by anemic job growth, and we mustn't forget the 1.5 million jobs we need to add annually just to keep up. In the last 11 years, from May 2000 through April 2011, we should have added 16.5 million jobs, but over that period we actually lost 632,000 jobs, leaving us with a shortfall of more than 17.1 million jobs that we need to make up, over and above the 1.5 million per year we need to add going forward if we want to get back to where we were 11 years ago when Clinton was president.

If we add 225,000 jobs every month, that would mean 2.7 million a year. The only president to exceed that over his entire presidency was Bill Clinton, although, believe it or not, Jimmy Carter was closest with a rate of over 2.6 million for his whole presidency. I know Sean Hannity likes to say that we lost 10 million jobs under Carter, but once again he's wrong and we gained over 10 million jobs under Carter. LBJ also added well over 2 million jobs a year and Ronald Reagan, although falling short of 2 million a year for his entire tenure, did manage to do so for one of his two terms.

In any event, even if we can add jobs at a rate of 2.7 million a year over a sustained period of time, when you consider that 1.5 million of that is just to tread water, it won't be until September 2025 that we can get back to where things were in May 2000. That's a 25+ year long national nightmare. We need to focus on job creation or we'll condemn an entire generation of Americans to the eroded peace of mind that attends our woeful employment picture. I'm begging everyone to keep their eyes on the ball and ignore those who would use wedge issues to divide us and render us unable to solve our real problems.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength

The title of this post is taken from George Orwell's novel, 1984. Specifically, these were the slogans that were displayed on the Ministry of Truth building. I'm not suggesting that Orwell was prescient or that our society resembles the dystopian nightmare laid out in that book, but I can't resist commenting on how these words are important to the book 1984, the year 1984 is so important to conservative Republicans, and how these words from the book express the right wing philosophy.

The movement conservatives who currently dominate Republican politics look upon the "Reagan Revolution" with unparalleled reverence. 1984 is perhaps the most celebrated year in terms of Reagan's presidency. In that year he was reelected President with a 49 state landslide. Although purely coincidental, it's still amusing that these slogans from the book 1984 would capture the essence of political thought for right wing Republicans who cherish Reagan and 1984.

War is peace is the most obvious. At one time, conservative Republicans were opposed to foreign entanglements and simply wanted to be left alone to make money, but now Neo-conservatives love war, despise diplomacy, and can scarcely fathom the concept of peace without a body count. Whether it's war abroad or more guns at home, actual or threatened bloodshed is their only path to tranquility.

Ignorance is strength has also become a doctrine for the far right. They routinely spurn science, nuanced thought, and anything that challenges their preferred orthodoxy, in favor of a mindless adherence to a party line teeming with misinformation, unchallenged erroneous assumptions, and wishful thinking. This willful ignorance is the reason such a disturbing number of Republicans believe that President Obama is a Muslim or was born overseas or that Glenn Beck is worth listening to as he weaves his tapestry of nutty conspiracy theories. The right has built a great deal of its strength because the ignorant masses in their ranks mindlessly repeat what they hear rather than doing 45 seconds of research, and I'm not even counting the religious right.

The third contradiction, freedom is slavery is perhaps the most troubling. The right wing's confusion between freedom and slavery is central to their agenda, and it will harm society for generations if we don't push back now. When the almighty overlords completely subjugate the masses, most people would call this slavery. The political right calls it their freedom agenda. Whenever there's a conflict between powerful forces and average citizens, the answer for conservatives is to strip whatever power the little guy has in order to make an already uphill fight unwinnable. If a battalion of machine gunners fought some poor schmuck armed with a rock, conservatives would correct this imbalance by taking away the guy's rock.

If workers have some leverage against powerful corporations or governments, eliminate their bargaining power, as they're trying to do in Wisconsin. If we pass laws that protect consumers against abusive and corrupt practices in the financial world, gut the enforcement mechanism, as they're now trying to do in Congress. For years, the only suggestion Republicans made to combat skyrocketing health care costs was to limit an injured person's right to seek redress through the courts. A little guy going up against a giant hospital corporation and an insurance company wasn't unfair enough for them; they had to give the mighty an artificial advantage to supplement the natural dominance they already had. After all, a court case involves lawyers against lawyers and an impartial judge and jury. Such a fair system is intolerable because justice is anathema to the right.

By freedom, conservatives mean the freedom of the few to enslave the many, and we need to stop them. Being rich and powerful has always had its advantages and we don't need to sweeten the deal for those at the top. Moreover, most Republicans will be hurt by their own agenda. Yes, A few will score big and be thankful that we discarded our former national greatness in order to further tip the scales in their favor, but most conservatives are, metaphorically speaking, Titanic passengers who have been too blinded by greed and ignorance to see their self-destructive stupidity in supporting the iceberg. The rest of us mustn't be so foolish.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Mourning in America

In his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He was referring specifically to the rising debt through deficit spending, but in a general sense he was also expressing his desire to reduce the government even if we had sufficient tax revenues to balance the budget. Although he spent a number of years as the head of government at both the state and federal level, Reagan openly expressed his contempt for government. He's also famous for saying, "The nine most terrifying word in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Remarkably, Reagan was somehow able to preach the Gospel of anti-governmentalism while simultaneously convincing people that happy days were here again. His sunny optimism was infectious even as he conveyed the disturbing message that our freely and fairly elected government, of which he was the leader, was plaguing us like a disease. It takes someone with Reagan's skills to convince people that a central institution of our society was destroying us but we could still rejoice because, as his reelection campaign trumpeted, "It's morning in America." Alas, the conservative Republicans who have followed in his footsteps have mastered the hatred of government but they lack Reagan's jovial nature that allowed him to work with people of all stripes. This has become a serious problem.

Even with all of his charm, Reagan failed miserably in his effort to reduce government and rein in the debt. On the contrary, the national debt skyrocketed under his administration and we went from being the largest creditor nation on earth to the largest debtor nation. He presided over huge tax code changes, steadily increasing government spending and, despite all of his bluster about reducing government, no peacetime president before him was anywhere near as reckless with the ballooning debt as he was. His conservative Republican successors, both named George Bush also did their damage, although George H.W. Bush did far less harm than his son. Democrat Bill Clinton did a much better job as illustrated here and here.  You may also find this interesting.

We shouldn't be surprised that Reagan proved to be a complete hypocrite when it came to controlling the debt. Running this country is hard and I can't imagine anyone with such disdain for government being particularly good at governing. Likewise, I wouldn't expect Pope Benedict XVI to be an effective head of Planned Parenthood, and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wouldn't be the go-to person to run a meat packing plant. Reagan is also to blame for much greater problems than just runaway debt. Ronald Reagan is the father of modern governmental irresponsibility. He and his ideological followers did damage that will likely be measured in decades because they not only left us with severe problems, they largely gutted our ability to create solutions. They conditioned the public to believe that we shouldn't have to sacrifice; we should have all the bloated military spending and other pet projects we want, and if any responsible grownup comes along suggesting that we need to raise revenue to pay for the shiny new toys we buy ourselves, he or she must be ferociously condemned as a communist hell-bent on America's destruction.

Like it or not, we need a strong public sector. While Reagan harmed the institution of government, those who claim to be his disciples are far worse. The GOP should change its logo from the elephant to the Trojan horse because conservatives now seek entry into elected office in order to wreak havoc, not as the people's representatives they purport to be, but as saboteurs. They campaign their way into government's inner sanctum in order to smother government with a pillow.

For the past 30 years, the very rich have done extremely well while the rest of the country has struggled. As Warren Buffett said, the richest Americans have seen their wealth take off like a rocket ship while lower income workers have been on a treadmill. This is the sad legacy of Reaganomics, which is clearly not the trickle down system it was alleged to be, but instead a siphon up system where the broadly shared prosperity that once typified American society has been replaced by increased struggle for the many so that the few can live like sultans. Somehow the character flaw of outsized greed became a virtue consonant with Reagan's philosophy that the poor had too much and the rich had too little.

Today, on the centennial of Reagan's birth, we should resolve to put the American dream back within the grasp of most Americans and stop sacrificing it on the altar of wretched excess.