Dear White House advisors,

There is a crazy assumption in recent comments from both Mr. Biden and the president that seem to indicate they think progressives want the Democrats to lose. I’d say that’s a pretty insignificant number in the online community.

Mostly, we get mad because we think the administration is blowing it.

The biggest problem with the base isn’t what they read on blogs. It’s that they’re out of work (and out of unemployment checks), they STILL can’t afford to see a doctor and that won’t change for another four years, and they don’t see anyone addressing their present circumstances — right here, right now.

The other day, I found a lump on my neck. I’m unemployed, no insurance, I live off donations from my readers. I’m not eligible for Medicaid or food stamps — because I have just enough donations in my bank account to cover next month’s rent and bills, making me ineligible. So I’m supposed to show up at the city clinic at 7 a.m. and wait in line with the junkies, hoping I’m one of the people without appointments who will get in that day. (I did get an appointment, but not until November.)

Does no one there get this? People are asking for help and instead they’re being told to shut up, sit down and be grateful. For what? For the person who has two degrees and is on food stamps for the first time in his 50s? For realizing we’ll probably never have real jobs, with real benefits, again?

And even worse, for knowing you can’t in good conscience urge your kids to go to college, since there’s a reasonable chance they won’t ever get a good enough job to cover the loan payments.

Why does no one in the administration seem to understand the despair of ordinary people? If you want them to have hope, give them something to hope for. Announce that the Democrats will add another retroactive tier of unemployment benefits. Figure out some sort of bridge program where people will be able to get medical care — let the 55s and older buy into Medicare until the new law kicks in. Something tangible, something that will offer them some immediate relief.

This “buck up” stuff? It’s just plain stupid. Who is it aimed at, and what do they think it will accomplish?

Sincerely,
Just Another DFH

UPDATE: Or maybe, as Jane says, this is really about protecting Obama from the blame for massive mid-term losses.

Bookmark It

What? You don’t read Driftglass?

Bookmark It

Looks like even Axelrod agrees with us.

Bookmark It

Peter Daou blames bloggers, Jerome Armstrong points out that Obama’s not doing a very good job of motivating, Melissa McEwan says young voters aren’t indifferent, they feel betrayed, Athenae tells us that when Obama finds himself in a hole, he keeps digging, Duncan points out that mass unemployment isn’t the way to motivate people, Project Vote writes about the real forgotten base (and no, it’s not white Tea Partiers), and wouldn’t you know it, Philadelphia’s under a tornado watch today.

Bookmark It

Henry Waxman sticks in the knife.

Bookmark It

It’s time for their fund drive. Help keep the lights on and feed the hamsters!

Bookmark It

You can tell Krugman’s pissed as hell, but trying to be polite:

What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there are no quick or easy answers. There is work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it — they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural,” and will take many years to solve.

But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand — full stop. Saying that there are no easy answers sounds wise, but it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act.

In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.

Who are these wise heads I’m talking about? The most widely quoted figure is Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has attracted a lot of attention by insisting that dealing with high unemployment isn’t a Fed responsibility: “Firms have jobs, but can’t find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can’t find appropriate jobs,” he asserts, concluding that “It is hard to see how the Fed can do much to cure this problem.”

Now, the Minneapolis Fed is known for its conservative outlook, and claims that unemployment is mainly structural do tend to come from the right of the political spectrum. But some people on the other side of the aisle say similar things. For example, former President Bill Clinton recently told an interviewer that unemployment remained high because “people don’t have the job skills for the jobs that are open.”

Well, I’d respectfully suggest that Mr. Clinton talk to researchers at the Roosevelt Institute and the Economic Policy Institute, both of which have recently released important reports completely debunking claims of a surge in structural unemployment.

After all, what should we be seeing if statements like those of Mr. Kocherlakota or Mr. Clinton were true? The answer is, there should be significant labor shortages somewhere in America — major industries that are trying to expand but are having trouble hiring, major classes of workers who find their skills in great demand, major parts of the country with low unemployment even as the rest of the nation suffers.

I don’t think Bill Clinton’s dumb enough to get this wrong, so that means he’s pitching in to help excuse the abysmal performance of the Obama administration — and justify the corporate indifference to our plight.

UPDATE: Brad DeLong points out we do have some degree of structural unemployment — but it’s still not the problem.

Bookmark It

Shelby Lynne:

Bookmark It

The Phils just made National League history by winning their fourth consecutive NL East title, beating the Washington Nationals, 8-0.

Bookmark It

If you want to listen, here it is.

Bookmark It