Even in the hippie era there was Robert Redford, who could do romantic comedy then convincingly portray legendary Indian fighter Jeremiah Johnson. Now we have Zach Galifianakis, Jeremiah Johnson’s ugly brother, playing the type of guy who couldn’t fight his way up to the bar at happy hour…
Did you know the U.S. government has a legal duty to work toward full employment? Neither did I.
How did we get into this mess and how do we get out? Those are big questions for a man who is only partially caffeinated. But here are some thoughts:
–Politics and politicians matter: If you elect people who believe the government does not work, that government is always the problem, never part of the solution, they will work tirelessly to make their beliefs come true. A 45% decline in confidence in gov’t is a badge of honor to them, corroborating their ideology.
–The “America in Decline” theme doesn’t resonate with me, but we’re going through as wrenching a period as I can remember. Much of the recent damage is self-inflicted but over the longer term, as negative trends—income stagnation, inequality, weak job growth–took hold, policy makers have mostly watched from the sidelines mumbling about self-correcting markets and market forces and market blah-blah-blah.
–Dealing with the structural, i.e., longer term, problems like inequality, globalization, the quality of jobs, retirement security, and sustainable health care is truly challenging. There are often no known or obvious answers. You have to try different ideas, like research on cost effectiveness in health care, pro-manufacturing policy re globalization, better labor standards (e.g., higher minimum wages) and education policy to push back on income inequality and wealth immobility.
But solutions for the cyclical downturn in which we’re currently and intractably enmeshed in are known, obvious, and becoming more so every day. Paul Krugman not only writes about them tirelessly, but he and a few others, myself included, have pretty much been describing how things are going to unfold if we keep getting this wrong (economy stuck in neutral, high joblessness, little job growth, low interest rates, weak core inflation, too little investment). That should be a very convincing sign that we are right.
Obviously, there’s a lot of noise pushing the other way, but it’s no wonder that “confidence in government is crushed” when policy makers fail to pursue known solutions at best and aggressively push the other way, toward recession-prolonging austerity, at worst.
Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish.
In fact, he says, the philosophical battle over economics, taxes, debt ceilings and defaults that are now roiling the stock market is partly rooted in an upper class “ideology of self-interest.”
“We have now done 12 separate studies measuring empathy in every way imaginable, social behavior in every way, and some work on compassion and it’s the same story,” he said. “Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”
Imagine, something that might actually work!
I know what tender feelings our elected officials have, but there’s no friendly way to point out that someone is a coward — and yes, that’s what Sen. Claire McCaskill is. Rather than make the case for the many, many unemployed people of her district, rather than rub the Republicans’ noses in the fact that they have all the money in the world for tax cuts but none for the single most useful stimulus available, Claire simply throws up her hands and says, “But the Republicans won’t let us!”
What kind of Democrat isn’t even going to try to help her constituents unless the Republicans first give her permission? Is this a game of Mother May I? And is this what passes for leadership in the political class?
I have one thing to say to Sen. McCaskill: Shame on you.
During a Tuesday visit to a factory in St. Charles, Mo., Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill said she opposed extending federal unemployment benefits.”I’m not for extending the unemployment benefits any further,” McCaskill said in response to a question from local TV station KMOV before saying she would support a continued payroll tax cut.It’s not clear from McCaskill’s statement whether she is opposed to giving the unemployed additional weeks of benefits or if she opposes renewing the existing extra weeks of aid.
Members of Congress have frequently been confused on unemployment legislation. McCaskill’s office did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.[
UPDATE: McCaskill’s office says additional context omitted from KMOV’s report would show that she was responding to a question about giving the unemployed extra weeks of benefits. Her office said she supports preserving the existing extended benefits.
“Claire continues to fully support unemployment benefits for people who have lost their jobs by no fault of their own as a result of the struggling economy. This includes up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, expanding benefits beyond 99 weeks — as some suggest — is unaffordable and unrealistic because of staunch opposition in the House.”]
Oh well! There you go! Wouldn’t want to upset anybody…
Further extensions of unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless will need all the congressional support they can get. The federal benefits, which can last up to 73 weeks for workers who exhaust the standard 26 weeks of state benefits, are scheduled to expire at the beginning of 2012. Republicans oppose keeping the benefits because of their significant cost to the government — as much as $60 billion a year.
I mean, you wouldn’t want anyone to do anything like add up the costs of the war and Republican tax cuts and compare it to the actual human suffering of your constituents. Because that would be rude, and we wouldn’t want to upset the comity of the Senate. Brave Lady Claire!