I have been working with Boeing and my friends at the Machinists (my old union) on this tanker contract issue, and a couple of recent items on this are worth noting, especially in combination. The first is that Boeing has paid for a new study that says they would generate 70,000 new American jobs if they get the tanker contract. You have to take any study paid for by a company with a grain of salt, so maybe it’s not 70,000 jobs, maybe it’s less than that, but even if it’s 20% or 30% less, that’s a good chunk of new jobs that would go to American workers, practically immediately, as opposed to all the non-American jobs that would be created if Airbus got the contract.
What caught my eye in combination with this news, though, is this item: Patty Murray recently had a meeting with Boeing CEO Jim McNerney where she asked point blank where the new Air Force tanker will be built if Boeing gets the contract. The answer was straightforward: the Everett, WA facilities. Everett is a fully unionized plant by the Machinists. Those are good jobs, with good wages and good benefits. Most of the jobs created by an Airbus contract, even though they are affiliated on it with Northrop, will be outside of this country, while the few that would be directly created at an non-union American plant yet to be built in Alabama.
Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. Good American jobs – 70,000 if Boeing is right – that have union wages and benefits versus mostly non-American jobs with only a smattering of non-union American jobs at a plant yet to be even built. This should be an easy call – politically and policy-wise.
Two weeks ago, in this space, I wrote about hiring inequalities at Silicon Valley technology firms—mostly focusing on disparities in employment for African Americans and Latinos.
However, the lack of women in technology jobs is similarly striking. The San Jose Mercury News has been forceful in highlighting the issue. The newspaper conducted an analysis of ten of the Valley's largest companies. Their numbers are from 2005 but they still highlight a disturbing trend. In their analysis of these ten companies (including Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco, eBay, and more), women made up just 33 percent of the workforce. This is even down from 1999, when women made up only 37 percent of all employees at these organizations.
Turning specifically to managers, the Mercury News found that "women slipped to 26 percent of managers in 2005, from 28 percent in 2000."
Yesterday, President Obama spoke in Savannah, GA, on his desire to see the US be a leader in the global economy to the benefit of ordinary workers in this country. He went on to highlight specific programs that would have both job creation and energy savings benefits. Emphasis mine:
... Because I'm convinced that the country that leads in clean energy is also going to be the country that leads in the global economy. And I want America to be that nation. I don't want us to be second place or third place or fourth place when it comes to the new energy technologies; I want us to be in first.
... Here's how it would work. We'd identify the kinds of building supplies and systems that would save folks energy over time. And here's one of the best things about energy efficiency -- it turns out that energy-efficient windows or insulation, those things are products that are almost exclusively manufactured right here in the United States of America. It's very hard to ship windows from China. So a lot of these materials are made right here in America. ...
That sounds good. (Okay, maybe not the other bit in the speech about money-wasting nuclear energy development, but no one's perfect.) Obama wants the US to lead the world in the emerging clean energy sector, and he's looking at a very broad spectrum of possible benefits to the public. Great! Let's win this race! Let this be the case where DC Beltway rhetoric isn't just another cover for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! Let's ... oh, hell.
The economic collapse and ensuing high unemployment rates have reminded us that no one is immune to the vagaries of the 21st century economy. While there has been significant disagreement about how to jumpstart the economy, motivated as often as not by partisanship, most people in Congress understand that, at least in the short-term, basic human decency demands that our social safety net remain accessible to the millions enduring hardship because of the extended recession. For one Senator, though, it is simply too expensive to provide even modest support to those among us who are have been hit hardest.
Through inaction and timid legislative negotiations, Congress just keeps letting the U.S. sink deeper and deeper into the economic abyss. Last week, Congress denied relief to the jobless and is currently poised to undercut a proposal that would rein in predatory lending. With unemployment out of control and banks pillaging citizens' pocketbooks at every turn, the economy is in dire need of serious financial reform and a major jobs package.
More than one million have lost unemployment benefits
As James Ridgeway emphasizes for Mother Jones, over a million people receiving unemployment benefits ran out of financial rope on March 1 thanks to Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) self-righteousness. As a result of bizarre Senate procedural rules, Bunning's sole "no" vote was enough to stop a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits for those who are out of work. Of course, Bunning had plenty of moral support from his fellow Republicans. Ridgeway highlights a Think Progress post on Rep. Dean Heller's (R-NV) preposterous argument that it is time for the government to cut off unemployment benefits, since there are so many bums.
"What makes Heller's statement really stupid, of course, is that people could become hobos if Congress doesn't extend unemployment benefits, rather than if they do," Ridgeway writes. "Modest as they are, these weekly benefits are what's keeping thousands-and perhaps millions-of families out of poverty."
As Brian Beutler notes for Talking Points Memo, Bunning's economic insanity also triggered a 21% cut in the fees doctors receive for treating Medicare patients. That's a big "Screw you!" to seniors.
What happens when unemployment benefits dry up?
The degree of personal crisis attached to unemployment is also important. We're talking about access to basic necessities. As Roger Bybee notes for Working In These Times, when a family runs out of unemployment benefits, the result is an absolute personal catastrophe in which there is simply no money left to buy food, pay rent, or meet electricity bills.
Yet when a major financial institution finds itself on the verge of collapse, the government is quick to come to the rescue. In addition to the one million people ran out of benefits on March 1, four million more are slated to run out by June-that's roughly the combined populations of Los Angeles and Dallas. This is a tremendous national crisis. Here's Bybee:
"There is plenty of bipartisan compassion in Congress when it comes to bailing out the wealthy and their banks. But when it comes to spending federal money to bail out folks ... with unemployment compensation and a major jobs program, a bi-partisan consensus forms among conservatives in both parties eager to show 'fiscal discipline.'"
As Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz emphasizes in an interview at AlterNet, the jobs crisis is so severe that the government needs to go much further than simply extending existing unemployment benefits. At minimum, it also needs to send a major package of fiscal aid to states on the order of $200 billion to allow states to hire teachers and cops, as well as prevent further layoffs.
Making the jobs bill accessible to all
While a new jobs bill is critical, it's important to make sure everyone has access to its efforts, as Aaron Glantz explains for The Progressive. The economic stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed into law last year has helped keep the economy from falling off a cliff, but it's overwhelmingly neglected communities of color. The unemployment rate for blacks is 16.5%, nearly the double the 8.7% rate for whites, while Latinos face an unemployment rate 50% higher than whites. Not all of that disparity can be blamed on the stimulus, but the federal contracts awarded for new jobs projects overwhelmingly went to white-owned firms. We have to make sure that the funds Congress dedicates to unemployment relief are distributed fairly.
Save the Consumer Financial Protection Agency
After watching the government hurl trillions of dollars at faltering banks, it's obvious that major financial reform is urgently needed. And one of the most important aspects of that reform is a new regulatory agency that defends consumers, not just bank balance sheets. As Tim Fernholz argues for The American Prospect:
"Shoring up our financial system to avoid new disasters remains popular with the public but only if it represents real reform. ...That means closing loopholes and making clear that this bill has what it takes to protect average citizens as well as restricting banks' bad behavior."
And yet astoundingly, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the current Democratic leader of financial reform negotiations in the Senate, appears ready to drop Obama's proposal to create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).
Instead, Dodd would house the regulator under the Treasury Department, and give the existing, failed bank regulators effective veto power over the CFPA's moves. It's a head-fake: We create a new regulator, but are instead giving that power to the same failed agencies who allowed the banks to pillage our pocketbooks, our retirement savings and our home values.
Failed negotiations with the GOP
This is supposedly all part of a set of negotiations with Republicans, but they aren't really negotiating in any clear sense. Negotiating means going through some process of give-and-take. Right now, Republicans are just seeing how far Democrats will bend, and so far, there has been no limit. Ferhnolz is right. Voting for the banks and against taxpayers and consumers will be a very bitter pill for Republicans to swallow. Dodd and the Democrats need to make them do it instead of caving to pressure and allowing Republicans to vote for a weak bill that doesn't protect the public from banker excess. Make the Republicans vote for real reform, or face the consequences at the polls for voting against it.
The public shame that is currently being heaped upon Bunning should prove that point. The American public wants jobs and financial reform. They want to go back to work and make sure that the bankers who tanked the economy can't keep getting rich by hijacking their savings. Woe unto the politician who opposes that.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
While it is a deeply-held American belief that we’re all in this together, there has long been a truism that when the economy gets a cold, the poor get pneumonia. It’s a glib way of noting that any downturn in the economy has a disparate impact on those least prepared to handle it.
On February 20, 2010, the New York Times published an article on the “new poor,” millions of Americans struggling with long-term unemployment. As the Times notes, changes in the economy have stripped away some of the jobs that traditionally offered a path to the middle class for those with less education. “Some labor experts say the basic functioning of the American economy has changed in ways that make jobs scarce.” … “Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.”
Unemployment in the United States is a heart-wrenching problem, with 14.8 million Americans seeking work. [1]
Yet the same U.S. senators who gave trillions to bail out Wall Street are now offering a paltry $15 billion for a jobs bill that won’t create many jobs.
What an insult. In effect, senators are telling unemployed Americans that they matter little compared to Wall Street.
With unemployment so high, it’s time for a Green New Deal to tackle economic and ecological problems at the same time.
We should put Americans back to work with living-wage green jobs: retrofitting homes for energy efficiency, building modern mass transit systems, installing renewable energy technology, and conserving our irreplaceable ecosystems.
Instead, the Senate’s current bill fails to offer even a short-term solution to joblessness.
After bailing out Wall Street at a cost of trillions, all that the Senate Democratic majority will offer 14.8 million unemployed Americans is a jobs bill that union leaders have called “puny” and “like sticking a band-aid on an amputated arm”. [2]
Where’s the helping hand for the millions of jobless Americans who are struggling because Wall Street’s recklessness and greed caused an economic meltdown?
One year ago our nation, and much of this world, was in a state of panic and turmoil. Companies and industries were shedding jobs faster than we could count. The stock market was tanking in front of our eyes. Waking up every morning to look at the headlines of the newspaper was a daunting task in fear of what a new day could bring to the American people. We needed a lifeline.
And so President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009. Critics have been very vocal at pointing out the persistently high unemployment rate as well as flagrant examples of waste and inefficiency. At the same time, supporters have ample evidence to defend the act—a couple million jobs saved or created, a depression averted, and billions of dollars supporting and aiding colleges and universities to invest in the future of our country. Both sides have valid arguments and substantial verification. Undoubtedly, there have been great benefits from the act, but inevitably there is also vast room for improvement in the second year of the two year plan. With a year behind us, we must look ahead and focus our attention and energy in avoiding past mistakes by demanding greater transparency, and demanding higher quality outcomes. As the White House begins to craft the new jobs bill, we must make sure the bill creates good jobs—jobs that offer living wages, provide benefits, and have the potential for long-term growth and advancement.
As seen in the chart below, that's been making the rounds, the stimulus is working. The Obama Administration, using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is touting that the number of jobs lost is lessening.
This is great news, of course, but we must ensure that new jobs are equitably distributed. That's why it's discouraging to hear that five Silicon Valley companies successfully fought a Freedom of Information request for gender and race information on their employees.
Apple, Applied Materials, Google, Oracle, and Yahoo succeeded in rebuking the request from the San Jose Mercury News with the argument that "commercial harm" would be done and business strategy would be revealed to competitors.
If you were to look out to the horizon of the clean energy field right now, you would see the hazy outlines of nuclear reactors. President Barack Obama announced this week that two new nuclear plants will go up in Georgia, built on the promise that the federal government will guarantee $8.3 billion in loans-nearly the entire estimated cost of the project.
"It is a slap in the face to environmentalists," says Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive. "Though these will be the first nuclear reactors constructed in more than three decades, Obama still labeled them, somehow, as part of the "technologies of tomorrow.""
The president's announcement wasn't the only environmental downer this week. Expectations for the next international climate negotiations, to be held in Mexico at the end of 2010, are already low, and yesterday Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' top climate negotiator, said he would step down this summer and join the private sector. To top it all off, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now faces sixteen lawsuits that would block its ability to decrease carbon emissions, including one backed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).
A nuclear error
Although the Georgia reactors would be the first new nuclear construction in the country in decades, they mark the beginning of what the Obama administration hopes will be a shift towards nuclear energy. In the 2011 budget, President Obama proposed an expansion of the loan guarantee program that funds projects like these from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion.
These nuclear projects deserve close scrutiny. At AlterNet, Harvey Wasserman details the problems with the Georgia reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) already rejected the initial designs for the plant. That means the estimated cost could well exceed the projected $8.5 billion, which Wasserman says, was low at the start.
"Over the past several years the estimated price tag for proposed new reactors has jumped from $2-3 billion each, in some cases to more than $12 billion today," he explains.
Risky business
In the past, energy firms like The Southern Company, the Atlanta-based group that is building the plants, could only imagine securing funding for new nuclear projects. These projects have a high risk of failure, and private investors do not dream of touching them.
Inter Press Service's Julio Godoy reviewed several European studies on the feasibility of financing nuclear plants. One study from Citibank concluded that "the risks faced by developers ... are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially," Godoy reports. These risks include uncontrollable construction costs, long delays, and the possibility of low power prices that would not support that plants' operation.
That's one reason that green advocates disapprove of nuclear energy: The money could be better spent elsewhere. "People tend to think that environmentalists have some sort of allergic reaction to nuclear because they're scared of radioactive waste and unsecured nuclear materials," writes Aaron Wiener at The Washington Independent. "But when it comes down to it...It's simply a bad investment to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into a nuclear sinkhole when proven technologies such as wind and solar would provide guaranteed benefits."
Wind to fly on
While the administration lavishes attention on nuclear, other clean energy industries are trying to move forward. In Wisconsin, a Spanish company is opening up a plant to build wind turbine components, which will bring much-needed jobs to the Milwaukee area, as Kari Lydersen reports for Working In These Times.
There's always the threat, however, that gains like this will be rolled back by competition from China. Clean energy jobs can still be sent overseas, Lydersen points out. She argues that the United State could be providing a boost to the solar and wind industry in order to keep jobs here.
"Manufacturing in the United States could be driven both with incentives to the actual producers - like the tax break to Ingeteam [the Spanish company building the Wisconsin plant] and support for renewable energy through renewable energy portfolio (RPS) standards and other incentives," she writes.
China as competition
From a purely environmental perspective, China's headway into green technology is not a problem. Mother Jones' Kevin Drum reminds us that the whole world can benefit from advances in clean energy, wherever they happen. Climate change is, after all, a global crisis. But Drum concedes that fear of Chinese competition does serve some purpose:
"I've lately become more receptive to the idea that, for better or worse, the only way to get Americans to take this stuff seriously is to kick it old school and start hauling out that old time Cold War evangelism," he says. "Frame green tech as a matter of vital economic and national security superiority over the Reds and quit worrying overmuch about whether that's really technically accurate. Just figure that it's close enough, it's language everyone understands, and it'll do a better job of motivating development than a couple hundred more PowerPoints about receding glaciers."
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
We as a nation are at a critical juncture-we are working to re-shape America's role in the 21st century global economy, and to create the jobs and the infrastructure that will help us create equal opportunities for success for all Americans. At the same time, we are living in a moment where our traditional notions of race and how we talk about it are changing. One question keeps coming up: with an African-American President leading our country, do we still need to think about and create solutions for historic barriers to opportunity? The answer? Absolutely.
As we reflect on our first year under Team Obama, and on the one-year anniversary of the historic American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus, our goals must be clear: we need to ensure that all Americans have access to the education, training, and jobs they need to succeed; and we must make every effort to bring opportunity to communities that were already hurting before the economic crisis. Historically, the groups who've been hurting the most are communities of color and women. Unfortunately, we've seen time and time again that access to full and equal opportunity is very much a mixed reality, and these groups are being left behind in ways that hard work and personal achievement alone cannot address.
Americans perception of today's affairs and recent important events, such as the failed terrorist attack on Christmas Day, the President’s State of the Union Address, and the persistent effects of the recession form their agenda for 2010. Although the public's top priorities for the Administration and Congress laid out by recent surveys show that priorities remain similar to last year (jobs and the economy), there have been some notable shifts. These shifts will have an impact on what will gain enough public pressure to get legislation passed in an election year. Let's take a more careful look at how Americans think about the economy, terrorism, health care, and immigration.
Reflecting on Americans' concerns, Obama promised that jobs will be the number one priority in 2010, and demanded a job-creating bill from Congress. According to a poll conducted during the State of the Union Address, mention of the ‘job’s bill’ was one of the president’s highest scoring lines across all political factions. When asked which bills of those mentioned in the SOUT should be prioritized, 70% of respondents chose a job-creating bill, and 49% were in favor of a deficit reduction plan (NPR Survey). At the same time, slightly more voters think that Obama and the Democrats are more concerned with bailing out Wall Street (49%) rather than creating jobs for ordinary Americans (41%), according to a Democracy Corps survey.
On Feb. 1, President Barack Obama unveiled his 2011 budget proposal. While conservative pundits reacted with predictable, yet preposterous, wailing about the federal budget deficit, the short-term U.S. budget outlook is just fine. If anything, Obama's budget doesn't dedicate nearly enough funding to create jobs.
As John Nichols notes for The Nation, Obama budgets just $100 billion for jobs in fiscal 2011. The amount is nowhere near enough to make a significant dent in the epic unemployment rate. The government's fiscal 2011 calendar begins in October of this year, and by that time, the stimulus package Obama pushed through in February of 2009 will have been exhausted, leaving the labor market without serious support from the federal government.
The free market isn't going to take care of the jobs shortage on its own. While the unemployment rate fell from 10.0% to 9.7% during January, the "improvement" is really just a statistical mirage-the economy actually lost 20,000 jobs during the month.
If we had pushed through a bigger, or as Nichols notes, a better stimulus package in the first place, we might not be facing the same situation today. Part of the problem is that Obama redirected about $326 billion of the $787 billion bill away from direct job-creation efforts toward a set of tax cuts intended to appease Republican senators.
Tax cuts do not equal job growth
But as Art Levine emphasizes for Working In These Times, the $100 billion that Obama sets aside for job creation in 2011 appears once again to take the form of relatively inefficient tax cuts. Giving money to businesses, even small businesses, isn't really going to make them start hiring unless there's a real demand for what those businesses produce. When everybody is broke and out of work, that demand doesn't exist, since people don't have money to spend.
If the government wants to create jobs, it has to do it directly by hiring people to help rebuild the nation's infrastructure through institutions such as schools, transportation and green energy. Just as important, the federal government can provide funding to state and local governments to make sure that jobs that serve our communities-teachers, cops, etc.-don't disappear.
Sure, these things cost money. But the short-term budget deficit is nowhere near the current deficits of many European nations, or the deficits the U.S. ran during World War II. The budget deficit only matters to economics insofar as it raises concerns that the government will not be able to pay back its debt. But despite caterwauling from the right, investors just aren't worried about a U.S. debt default. If they were, they would demand very high interest rates on Treasury bonds, and Treasury rates are at their lowest levels in decades.
If policymakers want to keep the jobs bill from running the deficit higher, they could always raise taxes on somebody. Financial speculation on Wall Street seems like a good place to start, but just about any tax on the wealthy would work fine. Rich people don't get hammered by recessions. After all, they're rich.
Overzealous tax cuts hurt communities
In a piece for AlterNet, David Sirota details the budgetary disaster that has already befallen the city of Colorado Springs, CO., a conservative enclave where anti-tax extremists have managed to slash just about every basic government service imaginable. Rather than impose some modest taxes on the wealthy, Colorado Springs is going to lay off cops and firefighters, let its parks go to waste, shut-down rec centers and museums and even allow its streetlights to go out. This is the Republican plan for fiscal responsibility.
But several state governments recognize that shredding the social fabric just isn't a good idea. In Oregon, Sirota notes, voters just approved two ballot initiatives to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals rather than allow their state to slide into social decay.
How to deal with a deficit
There are two ways to increase a budget deficit: You can either increase spending, or cut taxes. If you want to decrease the budget deficit, you can either cut spending, or raise taxes. As Kevin Drum notes for Mother Jones, Republicans both increased spending and cut taxes during the George W. Bush presidency. Now those same so-called fiscal conservatives are feigning outrage over the prospect of the government actually spending some money to put people back to work. These are not serious economic arguments-conservative politicians are just hoping to gut progressive policy priorities.
But while the attacks don't hold any water, conservative media outlets are latching on to them, and Obama isn't pushing back.
What caused the current crisis
Writing for The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner notes Obama's recent support for a proposal from right-wing deficit hawks to create a commission to evaluate the causes of our so-called fiscal crisis. But we already know what put us in the current fiscal situation: Rising health care costs, a brutal recession, and the Bush era. The commission is being pushed by radical conservatives for a reason-it's part of an effort to gut Social Security. It's bad economics, bad public policy and it badly misreads the real source of public discontent. Kuttner explains:
"Public concern about deficits is really a proxy for broader unease that government is not delivering enough practical help . . . . The president should be helping citizens sort this out, not caving in to the fear-mongers."
Fortunately, as Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, Senate leaders appear committed to passing at least some kind of legislation to help put people back to work.
Whatever right-wing pundits say, the U.S. fiscal crisis remains a totally theoretical problem. Someday, if the U.S. budget does not come down, it is conceivable that investors would be reluctant to purchase U.S. debt. For now, that is simply not the case. But the crisis in the job market is very real and requires direct action. Put simply, the deficit is no excuse for inaction.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
At this moment in our nation’s history, it is important that we close America's gaps in opportunity by ensuring speedy job growth and marshalling the resources of all groups and communities in our efforts to rebuild the national economy.
Three steps we can take to expand opportunity for all people in the United States include: (1) investing in community health centers in neighborhoods with few health providers; (2) supporting formally incarcerated people in their efforts to obtain employment; and (3) assisting skilled immigrants in obtaining jobs commensurate with their qualifications.
I. Invest in Community Health Centers in Neighborhoods with Few Health Providers
Health is central to both opportunity and economic security. In our efforts to rebuild America’s economy, we need to do everything possible to support the health of all people here.
Community health centers are categorically open to everyone—irrespective of income, insurance, ethnicity, or gender, and provide comprehensive primary and preventive health services including physician, dental, nurse, laboratory, X-ray, pharmacy, obstetrics, child and adult medicine, specialty and in-patient referral, and follow-up on a sliding fee scale based on income. For patients covered by private or public insurance plans, community health centers will bill the insurance providers. However, federal, state, and local governments generally will support the health centers by providing subsidies to cover the cost of services provided to the uninsured.
In his first State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touched on climate issues only briefly. He called on the Senate to pass a climate bill, but did not give Congress a deadline or promise to veto weak legislation. Nor did he mention the Copenhagen climate conference, where international negotiators struggled to produce an agreement on limiting global carbon emissions.
The Obama administration's attitude towards climate change still represents a remarkable shift from the Bush years, when global warming was treated as little more than a fairy tale. But in the past year, Congressional squabbling has stalled climate legislation, and international negotiators nearly gridlocked in talks over carbon admissions at the multinational Copenhagen conference. Without strong leadership from the president, work to prevent this looming environmental crisis will stall.
Obama did address global warming skeptics, saying that they should support investment in clean energy, "because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy."
Despite his combative language, the president did not challenge Congress to push for real solutions to ballooning carbon emissions and energy consumption. As Forrest Wilder of The Texas Observer notes, Obama "uttered the phrase 'climate change' precisely once."
The Senate has already wait-listed the climate bill: Health care came first. With health care reform now in line behind work on jobs and bank regulation, climate legislation has little chance of passing the Senate in the coming months, let alone making it to the president's desk.
If Congress lets this work wait until after the midterm elections, the United States will show up at international negotiations in December 2010 as a leader in carbon emissions yet again, but with little in hand to show a way forward.
Clean energy, not renewable energy
When the president did bring up climate issues, he focused on their connection between climate reform and potential job creation. Obama highlighted areas for growth, not in renewable energy fields like wind or solar power, but in nuclear power, natural gas, and clean coal.
Yes, these fuel sources could decrease the country's carbon emissions. But they are not solutions that will revolutionize energy production. Grist's David Roberts was floored that the speech omitted renewable energy entirely and kowtowed to a more conservative litany of energy projects. "I suppose it was done to flatter conservative Senators that will have to vote for the bill Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are working on," he writes. (The three Senators are working on a version of the climate bill designed to appeal to Republicans.)
"But the SOTU is not a policy negotiation," Roberts says. "It's a bully pulpit, a chance to shape rather than respond to existing narratives."
Roberts argues that progressive supporters would benefit from a stronger message. If activists knew that the White House stands behind a real shift in America's energy policy, they could use that prompt to drive action on climate change.
What was missing
While touting the virtues of off-shore drilling, Obama overlooked other policies that could broker real change. Although he admonished Congress to pass a climate bill, he did not pressure the legislature on what he'd like that bill to include. He did not mention cap-and-trade, the mechanism the House bill relies on to tamp down emissions and dirty energy use.
President Obama did touch on transportation reforms that could decrease the country's use of fossil fuels.
"There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains," Obama said. He cited a high-speed rail project that broke ground on Tuesday in Tampa, FL, as evidence that America could best the rest of the world in creating new energy-efficient technology.
But one or two high-profile projects won't be enough to challenge Europe's network of high-speed trains or China's investments in solar power. The White House could put the country at the forefront of sustainable technologies, but it'll take more money than the president has committed. In AlterNet's ideal state of the union, projects like the railway would merit sustained attention and funding. Funding for the high-speed train came from this year's stimulus bill, and there's no guarantee that similar projects will find federal funding in the future.
"Continued support is still needed" for green jobs and clean energy, Alternet's editorial staff argues. "It's unclear yet how Obama's new proposal for a three-year spending freeze will apply to this sector, but a boost is what is needed, not cuts."
Green jobs
Michelle Chen argues for In These Times that the president is right to subordinate climate issues to economic policy. "The jobs angle is more than sugar-coating," she says. A recent Pew Research Center poll put climate change at the end of Americans' long list of cares, and a Brookings Institution study found that they're no longer willing to pay as much for greener products.
Jobless workers need green in their pockets most of all, and so far politicians' promises haven't made up for the slack economy.
"No matter how slick the marketing, confidence in green jobs may wilt even further absent real investments in the beleaguered blue-collar workforce," Chen writes.
Copenhagen accord losing momentum
The small role that climate change played in the state of the union address only emphasized the downward momentum of the issue since the United Nations conference on global warming in Copenhagen. Grist's Jonathan Hiskes talked to six leaders in climate change activism, and none of them offered a different strategy than they had last year.
That same stasis is showing up in Europe, as well. Spain, which currently leads the European Union, proposed that the European Union's negotiating position should remain the same as its position before the Copenhagen conference, according to Inter Press Service.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who's working on climate change legislation in the Senate, offered advice to climate activists at a clean energy forum in Washington, DC on Wednesday. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reports that Sen. Kerry encouraged his audience to get angrier, louder, and more active, in the mode of the conservative Tea Partiers, who have earned plenty of attention. After his speech, he also recalled the tactics that pushed landmark legislation like the Clean Air Act through Congress.
If climate change is going to play a larger role in the next state of the union, the citizens and groups concerned about this issue need to do something to put it on the agenda. Otherwise, next year, the president may find it just as easy to skim over it again.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Although official unemployment in New York City is 10.1 percent, a closer looks reveals an underlying complexity to the story. Rates of unemployment vary greatly across the city. Last month, the Fiscal Policy Institute released a report, New York City in the Great Recession: Divergent Fates by Neighborhood and Race and Ethnicity (PDF), investigating further.
Here are some numbers, first by neighborhood. Unemployment in Manhattan's Upper East and West Sides is 5.1 percent. Brooklyn's East New York stands at 19.2 percent. The South and Central Bronx have unemployment levels at 15.7 percent.
Now turning to unemployment rates by ethnicity, white non-Hispanics are experiencing an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent. 15.7 percent for black, non-Hispanic, and 11.8 percent for Hispanics. The Fiscal Policy Institute reports that unemployment is 6.1 percent for their Asian and other category.
The end of a year – and especially the end of a decade – warrants both retrospective reflection and predictions of what is to come. Currently there seems to be much consensus, especially around the 2000s as a decade of struggle and decline for the US. There is a silver lining, however, in the cautious optimism around the issue of race relations. As the decade comes to a close, it is still clear that the US is entering the 2010s with much work to do, particularly with the economy and unemployment. Below is recent public opinion on the past decade, the current climate, and what may be in the next ten years.
In Tuesday's live Web chat, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka talked about what we need to do to fix our economy in both the short term and the long term-and touched on a vital, too-infrequently discussed issue: the need to end the stranglehold neoliberal economic thinking has on our politics.
Spurred by Milton Friedman and other economists, the neoliberal agenda is based on the radical principle that it's markets, not people, that matter most. By nature, the neoliberal principle is hostile to collective bargaining, public regulation and all manner of ways to leverage community power to balance out the power of wealth. Trumka sums up Friedman's poisonous political philosophy:
He believed that anything that got in the way of the free market was something that was bad and should be eliminated. Any regulation on business is bad, so get rid of it; any tax on business is bad and distorts the marketplace, get rid of it. A union is bad and distorts the marketplace, so you have to get rid of it.
For the last 30 years, that's the system that we've had here. It brought us to this crisis.
The House passed jobs legislation yesterday, which more people might have noticed without health insurance reform taking all the oxygen out of the air. It is not large enough to address the full scope of the problem we face, is largely band-aids to keep jobs and to keep people who are unemployed from becoming destitute, but it is still a decent piece of legislation:
Shortly after increasing the debt ceiling, the House also narrowly passed a $150 billion jobs package, 217 to 212. The bill includes $48.3 billion in infrastructure projects, $26.7 billion for public sector jobs (teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc), and $79 billion for social safety net programs such as unemployment insurance, COBRA, and Medicaid. Although it isn't in the legislation, Congress intends to pay for the jobs package using unspent TARP authorization funds, although it's unclear if the savings would cover the entire package.
The $76 billion for infrastructure and much needed state aid (the public sector jobs) came from TARP money. More will come from TARP money once the Treasury department and Senator Mark Warner finally work out the details of a small business lending program. We are at nine weeks and counting on those negotiations.
President Obama is seriously considering an executive order to create a bipartisan commission that could weigh sweeping tax increases and spending cuts to try to slash the soaring federal deficit, CNN has learned.(...)
If Obama signed an executive order to create the commission, however, it would not have the full force of law and thus the outside commission could not mandate that Congress vote up-or-down on the recommendations. This would also give the president more wiggle room to ignore the recommendations if the commission suggests, for example, raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year, which would break an Obama campaign promise.
I am still highly dubious of any commission whatsoever. If Kent Conrad and others want to change Medicare and Social Security, then they should write and introduce that legislation themselves. Don't pass off the responsibility of your cat-food commission to someone else.
On Dec. 15, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka will host a live online conversation on the nation's jobs crisis--and you can take part.
Starting today, you can submit questions and vote on other ones submitted to the AFL-CIO's "Open for Questions About the Jobs Crisis." Trumka will answer the top-rated questions in the live online video discussion at 4 p.m. EST on Tues., Dec. 15.
• Sign in here to participate if you have a Google account.
• If you don't have a Google account, create one here.
Trumka will engage with union members and working family activists around the country and share solutions for restoring good jobs and revitalizing the nation's economy.
Tune in here at 4 p.m. EST on Dec. 15 and get involved by submitting or voting on questions.
