We have a piece in the Inky today that makes a terrible stink about how bad the budget deficit is. Has President Obama tried to fix the budget deficit? Actually, he tried much too hard for much too long to do so. In early 2010, Obama “pivoted” away from trying to solve the economic problems caused by the collapse of the housing bubble and tried instead to address the budget deficit by creating what progressives dubbed the “Cat Food Commission.” Actually, it was known as the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission, it was known as it was because we felt the obvious purpose of it was to reduce people to eating just cat food. Obama’s pivot was hugely premature and should have waited until unemployment was down to a reasonable level. As of the intended “grand bargain” to trade major cuts in return for big revenue boosts, Obama very sensibly saw that the intended deal over the debt limit in August was a political loser. Fortunately, he’s been pursuing better policies since then.

What exactly is the nature of the economic problem that America faces? Well, the collapse of the housing bubble caused the economy to lose several trillion dollars worth of consumer demand owing to houses all over the country losing their value. How to fix that? The main way that was suggested by liberal Keynesian economists (Who, unlike Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Bush’s Budget Director (And current Governor of Indiana) Mitch Daniels and Bush’s head of the Government Accounting Office David Walker, saw the housing bubble back in 2002 and talked loudly and frequently about it) was and has been to spend lots of money on economically helpful projects. Do tax breaks help? Yes, but not as much and only if they’re targeted to encouraging very specific behaviors. General tax breaks of the kind Bush passed in 2001 and 2003 do little or nothing to help create consumer demand. Two liberal Keynesians who have repeatedly explained all this are Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

The point is not that budget deficits are irrelevant in all circumstances, just that they’re actually a useful tool to have when employment is low and there are lots of people out of work. When the economy is doing well and consumer demand is robust, that’s a good time to reduce budget deficits. Yes, we should reduce budget deficits, eventually. There’s no hurry to do so and it can wait until employment is better.

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman admits that “It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office.” However, whenever presidents initiate new economic policies, it always takes awhile to write and pass bills, it always takes awhile for even good policies to take effect. When did most of our jobs disappear during the Obama Administration? 3.1 million jobs were lost before Obama’s first six months were up. Since then? The economy has gained 1.2 million.

Note that we are in a much deeper and longer recession than any other since 1948. Yes, jobs were still being lost at a rapid clip at the 12-month point (January 2009) after the recession began and they didn’t start levelling off until about 16 months into the recession. They finally hit bottom at the 25-month mark. Since then, we’ve seen pretty steady gains.

The employment to population chart tells a similar story. The unemployment rate shot up at the beginning of 2008 and didn’t peak until the beginning of 2010 and has declined ever since. The percentage of the population that’s employed dropped dramatically and then levelled off in the same set of months. Why aren’t the two lines moving in tandem? Why is the second line more or less flat while the first line is steadily dropping? Because in order for the second line to go up, the employment gains have to outpace the gain in population growth. G.W. Bush didn’t manage this very well, it wasn’t until the beginning of 2004 that he started getting some traction in really improving the population-employed picture. We’re still nowhere near where we were in January 2007, but the situation is clearly improving.

I’ll be happy to put together more talking points. What issues are on people’s minds?

These are two PDFs I composed in order to explain two specific issues. Neither one has received any editing from anyone else, so I am completely open to advice/suggestions.

Austerity

Housing Crisis

If you need to obtain a PDF reader, you can get the official Adobe Acrobat Reader here and here’s a no-cost reader supplied via CNet (An excellent software site).

And upon further consideration, I guess I really saw these as being used on a literature table. If we have a party, we can place a few piles of these on the table near the entrance and people who are interested in the specific issues can pick up their copy for free, meaning we’d only need a few hundred of each. As I said, I found out that FedEx/Kinko’s can do the Austerity flyer (Four sides, black & white) for $0.51 each. There are many local printers that are most likely able to do it for less per copy, though I used one recently that insisted on a minimum print run of one ream (500).

In “Obama moving toward the center” (Dec 11), the Inquirer makes the case that overriding its own scientific advisers on the “Plan B” issue may have cost the Obama Administration the votes and/or enthusiasm of “base” voters, but that the Administration stands to gain anyway as now centrist voters will be more likely to support President Obama’s re-election.

Celinda Lake is one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent pollsters and her take on the Obama Administration’s Plan B decision: “alienates the base, causes conflict with women in the base, [is] bad for key groups of women like younger women and unmarried women, and,” very importantly, “doesn’t win the swing independent women.” Lake takes issue with the idea that kicking the liberal base voter automatically results in centrist voters flocking to support Democrats.

Obama made a very energetic play for centrist votes in the mid-2011 debt ceiling compromise. New Jersey Newsroom found on August 18^th that independents weren’t at all happy about the compromise and blamed participants a great more than they credited anybody, but Republicans got 20% of the blame as compared to the Obama Administration getting only 15% of the blame. Only 22% of all voters thought the Republican strategy of cutting spending only (As opposed to raising taxes or a mix of the two) was a sensible one. It gained the Obama Administration absolutely nothing to play the centrist game. On the contrary, they would have done far better to have taken a strong position and to have then held onto it.

Is there a better way available to get votes? Actually, there is. According to extensive polling by CNN and Public Policy Polling, Obama’s problem in 2010 was not voters turning against him or switching parties for any reason, it was pro-Obama voters not showing up at the polls to re-affirm the choice they made in 2008. Specifically, younger women rewarded the Democrats in 2008 with very strong majorities because Democrats took a very strong pro-choice position on the abortion issue. Those same women stayed home in large numbers in 2010 because they felt abandoned by Democrats.

No, the answer for Democrats is not to play the centrist game, it’s to be better Democrats and to more strongly support Democratic values and their own base.

Well, our fearless leader of the Horsham Democrats, Paul Gallagher, and your loyal blogger, Richmond L. Gardner, both tried hard to make it onto the Horsham Township Council, but as the Hatboro-Horsham Patch reports, the Republican incumbents Gregory Nesbitt and Mark McCouch prevailed by a combined total of 5458 votes to 3580.

Congratulations go to the team of Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, who are now the incoming Montgomery County Commissioners.

Nationally, the election provided very good news for progressives as Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 went crashing down to defeat and Mississippi’s “Personhood” amendment failed.

6:14 PM PT: Herman Cain is really frustrated because he doesn’t understand what the OWS movement wants. “Do they want the bankers to come downstairs with checks in their hands?” he asks. He’s totally bewildered and obviously pissed about it. He wants to know what to do to make them go away. And he can’t figure it out. And, of course, that’s exactly the point. That’s the question the OWS movement wants him to be asking. And eventually the Herman Cains of the world will be forced to figure it out.

Daily Kos covers Republican debate of 18Oct2011

A Huffington Post writer explores just why the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement has been so successful. BTW, percentage of those who approve of the Tea Party: 27%, percentage of those who approve of OWS: 54%. Heck, New Yorkers like them by a margin of 67%.

Dissenter at FireDogLake.com contributes another, very typical story about what motivates the OWS movement. My own story on visitng OWS in New York. Our allying of Occupy Philly with Philly Against War. Treasury Secretary’ Timothy Geithner’s vow to do “more” to help the 99% rings a bit hollow as no one remembers him doing much of anything to begin with. And last Saturday’s protests? Wow!!!

Is the Democratic Party close and all buddy-buddy with OWS? Not exactly. Both sides have good reason to keep their distance. The National Review website is convinced that the two are in cahoots anyway. Good round-up of views on Democrats and OWS.

   We have to hand it to Republicans. When it comes to catchy slogans and neat bumper stickers, they are at the top of the game.  Head of the class. The problem is that behind those catchy, roll-right-off-your-tongue slogans lies the real agenda.

    Let’s be fair……. for once. It’s not the Cut, Cap, & Balance amendment. It’s the Cut, Cap, & Slash Social Security, Medicare and lots- of -other -programs- that -help ordinary- Americans-get-through-these-difficult-times amendment OR in the interests of brevity, we can just call it the Cut, Cap, & Slash Social Security & Medicare, etc.,  amendment OR the Cut, Cap, & Balance-the-Budget-On-Your-Back amendment.   That’s a bumper sticker that would be the real deal. Perhaps we can even get it to the point where we can drown those two socialist programs–Medicare & Social Security– in a bathtub while keeping taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil.

P.S. Check your back and see if John Boehner put a bullseye on it under his latest debt ceiling plan.

The Inquirer tells us:

Whatever may fill the nearly 900 acres vacated by the shuttered Willow Grove Naval Air Station, Horsham Township officials and residents can tell you one thing that won’t: an airport.

The Horsham Land Reuse Authority resoundingly voted down two proposals Wednesday night (July 27th)  to preserve the closed base’s 8,000-foot runway for future commercial air traffic.

Two commenters (As of 9:00 Friday morning) and several persons quoted in the piece are very disappointed in Horsham’s decision (There was only one member of the relevant nine-member board that dissented), but personally, although I’ve never been bothered by the noise of takes-offs and landings, I’ve been a witness to the traffic tie-ups around the vicinity, I don’t have a problem with it.

In response to an inquiry from one of our members, Senator Bob Casey Jr sent the following clear and focused response, demonstrating an understanding of our concerns and an interest in the issue.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts on U.S. trade policy.  I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

For the last twenty years, U.S. trade policy has steadily chipped away at Pennsylvania’s manufacturing sector.  Instead of creating opportunities, trade policies have done little more than off-shore good-paying jobs while giving our trading partners unlimited access to our market.

That is why I am concerned by the Obama Administration’s announcement that three new free trade agreements will soon come before Congress for consideration.  The largest of these trade agreements, with South Korea, is modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  I am concerned that like NAFTA, it will not promote job growth but will instead lead to further job losses.  When NAFTA was signed, it promised to deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs across the Nation.  Instead, since 1994, 682,900 job losses can be directly attributable to NAFTA.

These agreements will also allow competitors like China to have unfair access to our market.  The South Korean agreement, for example, requires only 35 percent of a product to be made in South Korea; the other 65 percent can come from outside countries and flow freely into our market.  Recent work by economists from MIT and the University of California, San Diego found that a $1,000 increase in Chinese imports leads to a $471 decrease in annual household income.  We cannot make it easier for these products to enter our markets, especially through the back door.

Instead of moving ahead with a broken model for our trade policy, we need to focus on the bigger picture—a trade policy that leads to job creation and a stronger middle class.  These agreements are reflections of a failed approach. We must pursue policies that rejuvenate Pennsylvania’s manufacturing base.  As these trade agreements, and other legislation that affect U.S. trade policy come before the Senate, you can be assured that my priority will be protecting and creating American jobs.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov.  I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

The Horsham Land Reuse Authority (LRA), with the assistance of consultant RKG, will be holding public meetings Friday, June 10 and Saturday, June 11 at the Horsham Township Community Center behind the Township Building. It is essential that the all-Republican LRA and the all-Republican Township Council, which represent 45% of Horsham voters, hear from the other 55% who are not represented. Please do your best to attend at least part of these meetings.

Here’s the meeting announcement from the LRA website:

Community Invited to Design Charrette June 10-11, 2011

Posted: 5/25/2011 9:25 AM

Friday and Saturday, June 10-11, 2011
Location: Horsham Township Community Center
Friday Session: 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Saturday Session: Open Public Viewing from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.

The community planning charrette will consist of two identical public sessions on Friday afternoon and evening, where residents will be introduced to the charrette planning process, and will be invited to participate in a workshop to help define some of the reuse plan’s major elements. Each breakout group will be engaged in an identical planning exercise. The ideas and suggestions captured in the two-day charrette will be used by the RKG Team to prepare three base reuse alternatives for presentation to the HLRA in mid to late August.

On Saturday morning, the public will be allowed to view the planning team at work as it starts to pull together the results from the Friday sessions. There will be no formal public input planned during the morning, but feel free to observe and ask questions if you’d like. In order to give the team adequate time to prepare its refined sketches and findings for presentation to the public, the afternoon session will be closed to the general public. However, the community is invited at 4:00 p.m. to view the community’s planning ideas and ask questions.

The meeting flyer, including an explanation of the term “charrette” and a detailed schedule, can be viewed here (PDF format).