Congratulations China!

China has soft-landed a probe on the moon, named the Chang’e 3 lander, and it has successfully deployed a rover named Yutu. This is a big deal. Congratulations.

This is the first moon landing since 1976.

The moon has no atmosphere, so a lander has to use rockets. This is a big technical achievement. China hopes to have a base on the moon in the 2020s.

The Budget Deal

The House passed a budget deal that lets extended unemployment benefits expire, keeps that “Hunger Cliff” cut in Food Stamps that has overwhelmed food banks, and has a lower spending level than the original “Ryan Budget” that everyone thought was so terrible. It increases military spending, so DC contractors can ride the gravy train.

Lots of Democrats voted for this.

Did The Stimulus Work? See For Yourself

Did the “stimulus” work? Republicans claim it was a failure, a waste of money, and was the reason the deficit soared. So let’s see what happened. And I do mean “see.”

(Actually, the deficit soared in Bush’s last budget year — all the way to $1.4 trillion! The stimulus kicked in after that. And now the deficit is down by more than half from where Bush left it. But hey, apparently repetition of lies is better than knowledge of facts…)

Anyway … did the stimulus work? See for yourself:

The very left side of this chart shows the last few months of the Bush administration. Those lines going down and down and down show job losses. By the time Bush left we were losing over 800,000 jobs per month.

Then the stimulus kicked in. See how the lines start going up and up and up? After a year the country was gaining jobs again, and has been ever since.

The stimulus worked, but it was not enough.

—–

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

Budget Deal Is More “Awesomely Destructive,” Economy-Killing Austerity

Austerity is holding back our economy — and that’s the plan. There is simply no other way to explain it. Republicans know voters blame (or credit) the party of the President for the economy, and they are doing everything they can to make things as bad as can be. This new “budget deal,” for example, holds the country in full austerity, with spending lower than even the original “Ryan budget” that shocked everyone.

Austerity kills economies and jobs, and they know it. We know it, they know it, everyone knows it. It is obvious in front of our faces, and Republicans continue to force cuts — with many Democrats going along.

Spending

Since the financial collapse government spending has been cut and the results have been terrible for the economy. Under every previous President government spending and hiring propped up the economy until recovery was underway. Republicans as well as Democrats understood this is how it has to be done. Until now.

In Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? Ezra Klein explains, “It’s simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama’s first four years.” Klein compares government spending to Reagan and ‘W’ Bush:

Under Reagan and ‘W’ spending went up. This helped the economy get out of recessions. Under Obama, with a much worse recession, Republicans forced spending to go down.

What was the effect of these cuts? This next chart shows how this is a drag on GDP:

So yes, the spending cuts are obviously hurting the economy.

Paul Krugman’s blog post, Unprecedented Austerity comments on this. He starts with a chart showing what has happened to government spending since Obama took office, writing, “Look at total government spending — federal, state, and local — and correct it for inflation …”

Krugman writes, “You can see that there was a brief, modest spurt in spending associated with the Obama stimulus — but it has long since been outweighed and swamped by a collapse in spending without precedent in the past half century.” He calls this, combined with private-sector deleveraging, “awesomely destructive.”

“Awesomely destructive.” And you can see it.

That “modest spurt in spending associated with the Obama stimulus”? This is the effect the stimulus spending had on jobs:

The stimulus took us from losing more than 800,000 jobs each month to gaining jobs every month since. It completely turned the situation around. But then it stopped and Republicans were able to force austerity and kill off the recovery.

This Budget Deal

So that’s the story of what has happened to government spending as Republicans impose austerity. Down down down. Now we have a “budget deal” (that even leaves out help for the long-term unemployed and doesn’t replace the “Hunger Cliff” $5 billion Thanksgiving Food Stamp cut, etc…) This next chart shows where this budget deal fits with earlier budgets proposals.

This is what is missing from the explanations of this budget “deal:” spending will still go way down. This is not a spending increase, it is less of a destructive, devastating cut than the full “sequester” would be next year. But it is still a cut, and it will still cost us jobs and economic growth. It will still be “awesomely destructive.”

And that is their plan. It will still let them campaign on “Obama’s terrible economy.”

Jobs

This chart from Calculated Risk shows how government hiring pulled us out of previous recessions, which government firing is holding us in this one.

Key point, Presidents Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and ‘W’ all increased public hiring to help get us out of recessions. But under Obama and austerity the public sector has lost 703,000 jobs.

The public sector grew during Mr. Reagan’s terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush’s term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton’s terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush’s terms (up 1,748,000 jobs).

However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 703,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level. This has been a significant drag on overall employment.

The 2014 Election

So let’s take bets: do you disagree that Republicans are planning to campaign in 2014 by saying that the terrible economy is Obama’s fault?

PS: Some of these charts are from Three Charts That Show That Republicans Have Won The Budget War by Danny Vinik, who writes that “the fact of the matter is that the GOP has won the budget wars.” Let’s see if they take credit for the economy and terrible human pain they are causing.

—–

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

On TPP Call USW’s Leo Gerard Nails A Key Point

I joined a conference call yesterday that talked about the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and the “Fast Track” process that the big corporations are trying to push on Congress to smooth the way for them to push this “trade’ deal through.

The call was hosted by Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Also on the call were:
U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Leo Gerard, President, United Steelworkers (USW)
Larry Cohen, President, Communication Workers of America (CWA)
James Hoffa, President, Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters
Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club

This was an involved, comprehensive discussion with a lot of information, and I will write more about the issues covered in future posts. But there was one statement that I think just nails the key point about the results of previous agreements that our country has managed to get itself into. It was made by USW’s Leo Gerard and I’ll let his words make the point:

In all the trade deals we’ve done since 1994, for those of you on the call from the press and friends in the political process, I think these are important numbers you should take a very close look at: in the period of time from 1994 to October 2013, America has accumulated an overall trade deficit of $8.3 trillion. And, if you subtract goods and services where we’ve been able to export certain services like accounting and stuff like that – that we have a slight surplus in – if you subtract that, the deficit in manufactured goods is over $10 trillion.

This should be the deficit that we’re looking at, rather than the one that keeps getting thrown up by some Democrats and rightwing Republicans.

And then if you go through this deal, before you look at this deal you have to look at all of the previous deals and ask “which one of these that we’ve done has resulted in net job gains and net trade surplus for America?” And you know what the answer is? None.

So in this deal, they’re looking at what are we going to do about state-owned enterprises that we’re supposed to compete with? We’ve got workers that can compete with any company, but they can’t compete with countries. What are they going to do about rules of origin? Put things in perspective: for example in NAFTA, to be country of origin you need 62.5% domestic content. The U.S.-Australia deal went 50%. The U.S.-South Korea deal went to 35%. Where will this one take us? We’re supposed to compete with countries that are getting their parts from China, Vietnam, Brunei, and exporting materials to here, when if they have 35% of material from their country they’re called ‘a domestic product’? That’s crazy.”

Later in the call Leo said, “The politicians keep telling us the same song and dance that turns out not to be the truth. We’ve lost five million manufacturing jobs. The public gets it, and the politicians don’t.”

What This Says

Leo nailed the key point about the trade deals we have gotten ourselves into. We have not yet found ourselves in a good, balanced trade deal that helps the country instead of just a few billionaires. In all of the trade deals we have made, the country has lost money and has lost jobs.

And why is this? Because these deals are not being negotiated to help the country, they are being negotiated to help a few giant corporations and the billionaires these corporations represent. The process leads to deals that dramatically enrich the 1% while they kill off the economic participation of the rest of us in our economy.

The trade deals we have entered into allow companies to move jobs and factories to countries with low democracy and therefore low wages and little if any environmental protection. So things made there cost less than things made here. This undermines our country and our democracy — but it enriches the few who own and/or run these giant corporations. Because it opens them up to move jobs wherever they want our unions are broken, unemployment is kept high (on purpose) and employers can threaten the remaining workers with moving their jobs, too, if they don’t accept cuts.

You can listen to the audio recording of this call: http://www.conferenceplayback.com/stream/98120468/48264901.mp3

And now for your entertainment: All our trade deal are belong to them.

—–

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

6 Reasons There’s No Such Thing As Compassionate Conservatism

Conservatives worship Ayn Rand, who said it was morally wrong to help people. How’s that for compassionate?

I wrote this for AlterNet — go read 6 Reasons There’s No Such Thing As Compassionate Conservatism.

Question To Ask All Republican Candidates

Ask Republicans running for office to answer this question: “Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that the Pope is preaching pure Marxism?”

Limbaugh also said it is said he thinks it’s “sad how wrong” Pope Francis is. Ask Repuboican politicians if they agree.

Sleight Of Hand On Retirement vs Military

In a Washington Post piece complaining that democracy is “pandering” to voters, Charles Lane writes it is wrong to talk about increasing Social Security because of the country’s “limited resources.” (Note, the country was running a huge budget surplus before Bush’s tax cuts for the rich and doubling the military budget.) He writes,

The issue, however, is how to spend the federal government’s limited resources. After national defense, the next two largest items in the fiscal 2013 federal budget were Social Security and Medicare, programs mostly for retirees.

Lane writes that “the rich can be tapped only so many times” so there is no point trying to increases taxes on the wealthy. Huh? The top tax rate was 90%, and then 70% before Reagan, and the corporate tax rate was 50%. We would at least return to this and see what happens.

But look at what is missing in the discussion. We spend more on military than all other countries combined. But cutting that down to a reasonable size isn’t even part of this discussion. Why not?