A Simple Test

by: Mike Lux

Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 13:30


I have always had a simple test for any public policy: who does it benefit the most, and who does it benefit first? If the main or biggest beneficiary is the big majority of poor and middle income people, I rate it a success. If the first and biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy and powerful, then I rate it a failure- after all, they generally do just fine without special benefits from the government. And the who-it-benefits-first thing is a critical part of the equation, because as John Maynard Keynes famously said, in the long run we are all dead. The reality is that policy, politics, other unexpected circumstances change too rapidly in this country that if poor and middle income folks are not benefiting early from some policy change, they probably aren't going to benefit at all (See trickle down economics in general as an example of what I mean.)

By this simple test, even though it is now clear that the stimulus package passed earlier this year was clearly too small, I still rate it a success in some important ways. It has saved the jobs of a lot of teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, and others doing important work, and it has created new jobs in the environment, health care, science, technology, the arts, construction, and road building.

Mike Lux :: A Simple Test
By this simple test, Obama's health care plan as proposed will be a success if it's passed- it helps the uninsured and hard pressed middle class families, and makes it tougher for rich and powerful insurance and drug companies to screw people.

By this simple test, Obama's first budget will be a big success, as it invests in things that help poor and middle class folks.

I congratulate the President on all of this.

But I have to be blunt here, too: also by this simple test, Obama's policies related to overall banking and economic policies are currently failing. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase are becoming bigger, richer, and more powerful, while unemployment, home foreclosures, small business bankruptcies are going up. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase are not only too big to fail, they are so big that everyone else is failing. As Paul Krugman pointed out, the things they do actually are harmful to the rest of the economy.

This whole Too Big To Fail thing (especially with Goldman and Morgan getting ever bigger and more powerful) is the elephant in the room, the issue on the table central to most of the most serious problems in our economy, but it's the issue almost everyone is too scared to take on. Reporters tell me stories of (relatively progressive) Democratic Congresspeople too frightened to attack Goldman Sachs by name on the record. The White House completely avoids the Too Big To Fail issue in their banking regulatory reform policies (many of which are actually quite good, by the way) because, as folks on the WH staff have told me, they know they would get beaten by the Wall St lobby on the hill. Even the progressive groups working on banking issues, the ones doing very admirable work on other aspects of the financial issues such as Elizabeth Warren's great idea of a new consumer protection agency on financial products, are mostly taking a pass on Too Big To Fail related issues because, as one consumer lobbyist told me, "we don't want to lose our credibility on the Hill."

FDR did some very good things in his first hundred days, but the New Deal as we think of it today didn't really pick up momentum until FDR started to move left. I hope when we look back at this era, historians will be saying the same thing, because unless Obama takes on Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase very directly, breaks them up, and then puts into place policies that will really start to create good jobs, unless that happens, the economics and political fortunes of the President will crash into the shoals created by Goldman and Morgan.

When President Obama starts focusing on policies with that simple test- does it benefit poor and middle class people, or does it benefit Goldman and Morgan?- he will start getting this right, and moving the country's economy forward. Until then, everything we care about as progressives and Americans will be in a world of hurt.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

A Simple Test | 5 comments
But why? .. (0.00 / 0)
Even the progressive groups working on banking issues, the ones doing very admirable work on other aspects of the financial issues such as Elizabeth Warren's great idea of a new consumer protection agency on financial products, are mostly taking a pass on Too Big To Fail related issues because, as one consumer lobbyist told me, "we don't want to lose our credibility on the Hill."

Are they afraid of getting beaten up on TV by Wolf Blitzer and David Gregory?  Why are Republicans even on the Sunday talking head shows?  The TV gives the Republicans more power than they really have .. Is Obama holding town halls and speeches going to lose its effect at some point?  Otherwise .. he should bring it to the masses more .. is that hard .. yes .. but he said it's not going to be easy .. and he can blunt the attacks before it happens .. because people are fed up with Wall Street


"... threw the bums a dime..." (0.00 / 0)
Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't you?
People'd call, say, "Beware doll, you're bound to fall"
You thought they were all kiddin' you...



But Goldman Sachs got their payoff immediately! (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the dime and a promise, Obama, but why did Goldman Sachs get paid off immediately but laid-off workers and foreclosed homeowners have to wait for pie in the sky?

And by the time our snowball recession/depression rolls down the hill for another year, Obama's "stimulus" may look like less than a dime...


[ Parent ]
Lost Opportunities (0.00 / 0)
The White House completely avoids the Too Big To Fail issue in their banking regulatory reform policies (many of which are actually quite good, by the way) because, as folks on the WH staff have told me, they know they would get beaten by the Wall St lobby on the hill.

I'm afraid I will not be so generous in scoring Obama's actions to date.  He was not elected in after three years of failing policies by Hoover.  He is going to own the economy, unemployment, health care reform, the stimulus, the Federal debt by the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.  All the Repubs have to do is try and block any action at all (good or bad), and say "told ya so" to the voters in 2010 and 2012.

It's obvious that we will further Wall St problems until the problems are actually fixed rather than propped up with trillions of US taxpayer dollars.  This means we will have a very late jobless recovery with the lower and middle class taking it very hard.  It's obvious that health care reform is in real danger of being gutted almost to the point of being worse that Bush's Medicare reform. It's obvious the stimulus is too small and too late for many people.

Voters have short memories and will be desperate for change if the economic situation is worse than it is now. The Dems are making it very easy for the Repubs to make huge advances in 2010 and 2012.

The Repubs have the odds going for them.  All the have to do is prevent any action, and with the Blue Dogs flying as their wingman, make sure than any action that is taken is not real reform. Given how difficult it is to get real reform out of Congress in the best of times, this is a very good bet.  The irony is that the very Blue Dogs that are sinking Obama's boat (and the country's boat) will be the first targeted by the Repubs.

Obama is running out of time for bold action.  If he and the Dem controlled Congress cannot start taking on the Wall St lobby and the Health Care Insurance lobby, then the Repubs will see gains in 2010 and 2012, and the current DC MSM media bias for the Right will look like a hand puppet show compared to Superbowl halftime show.  At that point, game over Dems.


Obama's "Medicare Advisory Council" (4.00 / 2)
It's not clear to me how establishing a Medicare Advisory Council in the executive branch, which would take the power to set Medicare rates away from Congress, and vest it a board a lot like the base closing board, would benefit poor and middle class people.

It's quite clear to me how it could benefit Goldman Sachs, by gutting Medicare and forcing people into the so-called health exchanges, where they will then encounter a gutted public option...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


A Simple Test | 5 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox