Progressive Caucus Steps it Up on the Stimulus
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Earlier this week I lamented the conservative House Blue Dogs' ability to command the political spotlight in Washington while the larger Congressional Progressive Caucus seemed to sit on the sidelines. And now we have a sign that the left wing of the Democratic party is ready to flex its muscle.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) office just mentioned that the Progressives are requesting a meeting with President-elect Obama "to discuss greatly increasing the size" of the economic recovery package. Nadler also rapped the House stimulus bill as too small to truly lift the nation out of recession, signaling a showdown to come over despite the legislation's likely weakening in the Senate.
Nadler's full statement after the jump.
The economic recovery package outlined yesterday is an essential means of providing Americans the relief that they desperately need. But, as is currently proposed, it is too small. We are all in agreement that we need a large economic stimulus bill to halt job losses and inject enough aggregate demand into the economy to avert a depression. Every economic indicator points to the risk of a real depression if we do nothing.However, according to a report by Christina Romer (Chair-designate of President-elect Obama's Council of Economic Advisers) and Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser-designate to Vice President-elect Biden), even with this plan, we could still see unemployment rates of 7% by the end of 2010, when the recovery plan is expected to have its strongest effect, and average unemployment rates of 7.3% for three years.
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wrote: 'That's a scary number, big enough to pose a real risk that the U.S. economy will get stuck in a Japan-type deflationary trap.'
The Progressives will play an important role in Obama's administration. Bob LaFollette and his Progressive wing of the party in the 30's helped push FDR to do the bold things he accomplished. LaFollette pushed the idea of nationalizing the banks. Instead FDR went with a bank holiday, FDIC, and the SEC.
If we want Obama to go to the left rather than to the right- the Progressives, and bold, even (gasp) socialist ideas will push him towards that direction. Obama probably will not take up these liberal ideas, but we may very well end up with a more bold concept of change due to Progressive pushes.
January 16, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the key, of course, is to take a cue from the progressives in Congress. No hyperventilating, no enabling media microscandals, no self-marginalizing threats. The PE is open to a dialogue and receptive to ideas. There's no need for Greenwald-style demonization until he closes the door. Fortunately, Congressional progressives are a hell of a lot smarter than the keyboard activists.
January 17, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me." ---FDR to liberal activists shortly after his first election. I think Obama puts himself in a similar position to FDR, which is a good thing.
January 17, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we start using more accurate unemployment numbers as well? Clinton's white-wash numbers do not tell the whole story. We're already well over 13% unemployment and rising.
January 16, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A-freaking-men. This should be a big part of Obama's promised openness if he's serious about it- real economic statistics, not ones fudged to look rosier.
January 16, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double a-freaking-men. It really is bullshit all the stupid economic numbers that don't reflect reality. I do the grocery shopping and about 6 months ago or maybe 9 months ago food prices went up 30% in about a one month period. Uh, that's called inflation and the fucking bullshit numbers are that there was no inflation. We've been in recession for over a year and the bullshit numbers that have been constantly released don't indicate a recession. We've probably been in recession for years. Real us income hasn't rising since the 70's. It is all bullshit, like the bullshit clinton economic expansion. It was all on paper. It is just f*cking infuriating.
January 16, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is only inflation if your income also went up.
January 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you get that number, 13%?
January 17, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the current U6- the real unemployment rate not fudged with any "discouraged worker" BS.
January 17, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, this is an area I was ignorant in. I found a pretty good post on U3 vs. U6 reporting for those like me who didn't know the ins and outs of labor reporting:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/06/unemployment-reporting-a-modest-proposal-u3-u6/
January 17, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with Paul Krugman already! A Nobel Prize does not make him any more right than all the advisors on Obama's team or all the economists in the world. In my opinion, the substance or content matters more than the actual amount.
January 16, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's been a HELL of a lot more right than Larry Summers et al. for years now.
January 16, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Summers is not the only advisor that has Obama's ear. And I am sure that Obama gets an earful from those outside of his team. Krugman's ideas are not so unique and innovative that he should be placed on a pedestal above all others. It's very easy to talk or write about what needs to be done. Even easier when no one expects you to do anything about it. Obama stated that if Krugman has any good ideas he'll listen. So when I read Krugman's response I was not impressed. It was the same old same old. Let's stop latching on to one person otherwise we may fail to see better solutions or fail to see where your chosen one is wrong. What about Thomas Friedman? I didn't see anyone point out his op-ed in the NYTimes : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1
January 16, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Roubini, Galbraith, and Stiglitz? They all pretty much agree with Krugman.
January 16, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomas "Suck on This" Friedman? If he's so smart, how come his Wife's company lost 99% of it's value. He started out this year a Billionare and now his wife is worth $25 million. It's still a lot but he clearly had no idea what was coming (or else his wife doesn't actually listen to him -- Hah).
And just the other day he was saying how great it was that the Israelis were killing lots of Palestinians, as they needed to be "taught a lesson", just like the Iraqis I guess.
Friedman is an idiot and no one should listen to him. He just wants to inflate a green energy bubble so he can get Rich again, before bailing out right before the crash.
January 17, 2009 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Friedman is a waste of carbon.
Greenwald mentioned this story as well.
January 17, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto, I'm not a big krugman fan. So what and I'm glad that he isn't in the obama administration. BFD.
January 16, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman is acting just like Socrates who was a self described gadfly -- a first-class pain. But his stings serve a purpose to make others, such as Congress-critters think before they act. Something that has been absent in our government for the past eight years.
January 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink