The next big fight: a $200 billion jobs bill paid for with TARP money

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:30


In the next one to three months, Congress will go forward with a $100-$200 billion "jobs bill."  In short order, it will become the biggest political story in the country, as well as an enormous political opportunity for progressives.

The reason it is such a big opportunity is because the plan is completely unformed.  In a conversation last night with a source on Capitol Hill, I learned the following:

  1. Right along with Harry Reid in the Senate, the Democratic leadership in the House is also pursuing this idea.  So, its going to happen.

  2. The Democratic leadership does not currently know what we will be in the bill, and are actively soliciting suggestions of almost any sort from the caucus membership.  So really, start making suggestions.

  3. It could range in size from $100 to $200 billion, which is a wide range.  Again, we can play a role in determining how big it becomes.

  4. Some members of Congress, including the leadership, are open to using TARP bailout money (still $317 billion of it left) as the primary funding mechanism.  This would make the bill a huge political winner, as the bailout is directed away from Wall Street and toward Second Street (which is actually the most common street name in the United States).

  5. It will happen quickly.  In the House, it might even happen before the month long, December-January holiday break, as members look to tell their constituents they have passed a jobs bill as quickly as possible.
More in the extended entry)
Chris Bowers :: The next big fight: a $200 billion jobs bill paid for with TARP money

No groups are really mobilized to fight on this bill, so the playing field is wide open.  If we move quickly, we can play a role in what will effectively become a smallish, though still very needed, second stimulus.

There is certainly a possibility for a whip action here--calling up members of Congress and asking them if they would want the bill to be funded with the leftover TARP money.  And there is also a possibility of whipping on some smart, smaller uses for the money that bubble up from online conversations.

Lastly, there is a real element of desperation to this fight.  This jobs bill will be pretty much the last chance Congress has to turn the economy around before the 2010 midterms.  If Democrats don't pass a sizable bill with an immediate impact on the economy, whatever small role that progressives currently have in the governing might be entirely wiped away in less than a year.

There will be opposition, of course.  Many New Dems, along with elements in the Obama administration, won't want to take any money away from Wall Street.  Republicans will just demand tax cuts.  Blue Dogs will be hard to predict, given that they have become very anti-bailout, but some might demand the money be used to pay down the debt.

Whatever the opposition, this is a fight that Open Left is going to engage, even as we continue our ongoing campaigns for the public option, reproductive rights, and marriage equality.  Any thoughts you have on how to be effective in this fight are more than welcome--this really is brainstorming time.  And, since our fundraiser is still ongoing, any contribution you make to Open Left will help start up this fight, too..


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Do more than short term. Focus on long term job growth (4.00 / 5)
Here's one suggestion by Jerome A Paris that focuses on more than just money and short term:

The stimulus and green jobs

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

"One of the reasons why the early federal grants have gone to European companies is that they are amongst the main investors in the sector in the US (and globally) - because they are familiar with the sector, because they know how it works, because they have better access to the (artificially scarce) turbines, and are willing to invest in the US whenever it makes sense to do so. The sector is now a strategic activity for most big utilities in Europe, initiially because they were forced by public authorities to invest, and now because they like the returns they get, and they have massive investment programmes at home and elsewhere. And the European suppliers are following them. Protectionism might choke that source of investment.

Additionally, a large part of the money being invested in the US wind sector actually comes from European banks. The industry has largely been financed by project finance (which is my job), and that is a lending activity and not a capital markets activity - thus it did not interest US investment banks. So European bank balance sheet money has poured into the US wind sector to the tune of many billion dollars per year over the last several years. The financial crisis disrupted this for a while, but the European banks are now back at it. Again, protectionism might be a double-edged sword.

Furthermore, a lot of the US-based solar manufacturing industry has come to life thanks to the generous tariffs provided in Germany and Spain for solar power: this help built the local industry, but significant amounts also went to manufacturers from around the world, including some large US players.

While the worriers note that 50% of the jobs in wind come from manufacturing, it is also true that the other 50% are local (installation and long term maintenance and by nature not offshoreable - these will stay for the long run (that's more jobs than when you buy oil or coal-fired electricity, in any case); separately, building wind power generation is a good thing per se, avoiding carbon emissions, reducing dependency on fossil fuels (while natural gas is plentiful this year, there are still plenty of long term worries) and offering a stable-priced long term generation capacity."

He goes on to mention a Natasha Chart article:

"U.S. Stimulus Helping Chinese, Spanish Wind Energy Industries"

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-...

The point is to do more with the dollars, and to think about value added regulations attached to the bill.



Follow up: Industrial Policy (4.00 / 5)
If I did not make it clear, the focus should not only be on a jobs program, but how to use that program as the starting point for pursuing an industrial policy, which America badly needs. This will pay dividends not only in the short term, but also long term. I realized my last post may have not been clear as it was focused on the green economy. The point is wider than the green economy. How can that 100 to 200 billion focus on building America's industrial policy?

[ Parent ]
I'm glad you said that (4.00 / 1)
because I was about to reply with exactly the same point.

We need to rebuild a sustainable economy focused on providing good-paying jobs for developing, manufacturing, and improving on green technologies.

How's that for a soundbite?

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
That's great (4.00 / 1)
Charles Lemos over at Mydd.com discussing how the Danish "miracle" has happened in that area for economic growth:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009...

"The Danish Miracle"

"In just over 30 years, Denmark has gone from being a net importer of energy to net exporter...

The Danish government provided the initial subsidies to the industry and then as the sector grew, it pulled back support. Today, Denmark is the world leader in wind energy technology. It should be noted that the Danish economy has grown 78 percent while maintaing its energy use level constant and cutting their carbon emissions in half. That's the sort of miracle we need to replicate."

We can see that happening slowly in other countries like Brazil.



[ Parent ]
My 2 cents... (4.00 / 5)
First, plug the job drain.  You can dump all the water into the bucket you want, but if it gushes out the bottom and overseas, it is useless.    People are already pissed at job loss and bank bailouts.  

No more training, please.   We have trained and trained for jobs that don't exist, and we need to stop until there are jobs.  No more low wage jobs, either.  All this country has left are 9 and 10 hour jobs.  We have tons of unemployed engineers and degreed people in Michigan that are in foreclosure and bankruptcy.  

Carter did PSE, and it was a big help.  It allowed people to contribute in their skill areas instead of giving everyone a shovel.  If we have one more road under construction, there will be no roads open to drive on.    

I wish I had something more constructive to add.  I'll think about it.  I have an ARRA NEG meeting today.  I'll solicit ideas.  I also like Bernie's idea about stopping the states from buying and stealing jobs from one another.  Michigan is shoveling money it doesn't even have to corporations while it slashes money to schools.  Schools are laying off and privatizing, losing even more "good" jobs.    I am sure we are not alone.

Lord knows there are a ton of people in Michigan who would be delighted to hear it.      


Very Popular--Even In The South (4.00 / 3)
As pointed out by The Big Hurt, in quick hits:

This is from the 11 Confederate states.

Favored 53-40 by Southern REPUBLICANS.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


South is hemorrhaging jobs (0.00 / 0)
The reason a jobs program is popular in the South is that the area has been hemorrhaging Textile, Furniture, Rubber, and Tobacco jobs for over a decade. It did not show at first, because the area still had the allure of a growth area, but even before the crash last fall the effects of all those manufacturing jobs being lost was beginning to be felt.

Now, the need to create manufacturing jobs, and the impact of those jobs, is obvious to almost everyone.

I know this is not news to anybody in the Northeast or Midwest but it has come as something of a shock to a Southern population that tends toward a conservative, do it yourself, we don't need no stinking government, political mentality.


[ Parent ]
We need to get out ahead of this politically, too. (4.00 / 5)
We need language in the bill that guts the entire idea of free trade.  Remember the story a week or two ago about the town that decided to build a wind farm, so the whole community got all excited and prepared to get involved...and then the jobs for actually building the turbines went to China.  (Sorry, I don't remember enough of the details to search for it, but I know it made the rounds on the blogs, including here.)  This kind of practice has to stop if we're serious about investing in jobs here in the US.

Jobs here stay here.

One of the best ways to get jobs back here is to make it too expensive for corporations to offshore them.  At the very least, we can stem the loss of jobs to other countries.

Do I expect this to actually make it into the bill?  Probably not the final version.  But it should be there initially so we can use it as a bargaining chip if nothing else.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


Let's break out the 11-dimensional chess set (4.00 / 4)
To come up with a more progressive bill, the goal is to form an alliance that involves progressives, New Dems, and either some Blue Dogs or some Republicans (or both) while trying to prevent the formation of a coalition of New Dems, Blue Dogs, and some Republicans that excludes progressives.

So, to start, progressives must identify wedge issues that prevent Blue Dogs and Republicans from being part of the same coalition and work to insert those into the bill while trying to anticipate wedge issues which Republicans will use to keep progressives and Blue Dogs from coming together.  At the same time, progressives must identify areas of compromise with Blue Dogs (unless you think breaking off a piece of the GOP is a more likely way to find dance partners to pass a bill).

The proper strategy for compromise, I've always held, is to avoid the Broder-esque method of trying to meet in the middle but instead stand your ground and negotiate quid pro pro agreements in which we get everything on some point that we care about and the Blue Dogs get everything on some other point that they care about.  How much progressives can negotiate for depends on their ability to threaten walking away and letting everything go to hell, something that the left has been pretty bad at doing.

Progressives need to go into this with a certain level of detachment, seeing things as pieces to be moved around the board.  The more that progressives appear desperate to pass something, the less bargaining power they have.  The more that progressives can be perceived as willing to walk away and have nothing pass, the more leverage they have.

One trade-off that progressives can push for is to maximize the size of the stimulus at the cost of letting it be less efficient than we would like.

One idea is to insert things in the bill which are only there to be used as bargaining chips in order to protect core concepts.  Stick in something related to birth control with every intention of using it as a lightning rod to draw attention away from more important items.  Then you bargain away something that others care about more than you.

One idea is to pick one sector of the economy and focus on doing a lot of good for a narrow segment that will act as a bit of an economic linchpin rather than trying to give a little bit to everyone.  People say we need a "new" "New Deal".  Well, one way is to come up with a "new" TVA, something that is regional rather than national, allowing money to be spent more efficiently.  Come up with some regional infrastructure program that throws money into the districts of a lot of Blue Dogs at the expense of less money per capita being thrown at other parts of the country.  Now, it may just be that I live in the Midwest, but I wonder if there is room to create something like a Midwestern Rail Authority separate from Amtrak for building infrastructure around a Chicago hub.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


Talking to conservatives I think part of the (4.00 / 1)
solution actually is not so much wedge issues.  It is crossing the ideological  line that can be found in populist rhetoric.  Capture the emotions of the populist, and you can define the solution as you like.  

[ Parent ]
What is more important? (0.00 / 0)
To genuinely capture the hearts of voters who are vulnerable to populist appeals or to create the perception that progressives are on the sides of populists, whether accurate or not?

If the latter is more important and there is a need to control media perception because that is what sways votes in the middle the most, then creating a Tea Party-like atmosphere and fitting the stereotype of the angry firebrand populist may be the best avenue.  Sure, in an ideal world, public support correlates perfectly to what legislation gets passed, but that's not how the real world works.

So, to whip up angry populism, we need a symbol that can be used as a target of hate.  Who is the proxy for faceless corporations that we want people to scream and throw things at?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
I think that part of the job of progressives is that (4.00 / 2)
they must start to win the emotional war rather than being blind sided by it. Part of that would be to elect leaders who know how to talk in populist terms,  but I do not forsee that happening due to the party infrastructure. However, on this specific issue, the issue is to anticipate how the powers that be will attack any attempt to use money and policy for domestic job growth. They thrive in a destabilized American job market. Not one that is growing and stabilizing. The big banker getting rich while others are getting poor would work. It would require a sustained effort, and it would require not caring when the media balks at it. It would require simply repeating it over and over again until the media accepts the narrative. Here's what I notice happens. At first they will resist a narrative, but then if you say it enough (like with the Tea Party types) they will accept it as a part of the politics and the calculus. This is a type of anger that you want associated with the Democratic Party going into 2010's election cycle. Not the dispassionate calm of Obama. That may work for him, but not for a party trying to drive up passion in its base to come out to vote. More importantly, for progressives if they use that energy they win on the front of pushing forward short and long term job policy like industrial policy.  

[ Parent ]
Follow up (4.00 / 1)
I note that many people are dismissive of a Glenn Beck, who truly is racist and is an idiot. but it is overly simplified to think everyone who listens to him is listening to him due to those factors. The emotions of populism are what they are responding to. These are the emotions that you want to ignite in the Democratic base and Democratic leaning independents.  

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
The first camp to populism in politics always wins the prize..

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

[ Parent ]
Just build affordable housing everywhere - and they will come (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing like a building going up that occupies idle hands of all experience levels.

Building the furniture, doing the landscaping and finishing the interior too benefits both sexes and all ages.
Under a co-op system like Jimmy Carter runs we can push a massive housing effort.
And what better Progressive to lead it than Carter himself?
With Gore's green ideas installed I think that would pump everyone up.

Every state sure as hell needs the housing - there isn't a city or county this wouldn't reach, and we should offer big benefits and tax deductions to landowners or states who donate the land.

??

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
Gary Null's "Progressive Stimulus Package" (4.00 / 3)
From here.

1. It is estimated that 80,000 businesses will go bankrupt during the next year. A stimulus package should be launched that would provide two percent interest loans to small businesses if qualifying businesses agree to hire five new em

2. Institute a low income micro-credit loan program in our inner city neighborhoods. Such loans, however, would be co-sponsored by corporations that would receive a 2 to 1 tax write off for each business they sponsor. A similar tax incentive would apply to corporations sponsoring basic skills and technological training to impoverished inner city neighborhoods.

3. Obama's forecasts of generating over 3 million jobs during the early years of his administration are now out of sight. While investing in employment to rebuild the nation's infrastructure are essential, the construction sector is only a partial segment of job lost. With more retail businesses going bankrupt and a decline in other low-paying service jobs, a job stimulus package needs to also assist in those without a high-level skills and education. The government urgently needs to become more responsive towards the long term investment gained by supporting vocational education at state and city colleges. This includes reforming some of the older models of education from several decades back that were not based upon standardized testing. The entire basis of standardized testing is fraudulent and skewed towards favoring those who have the ability and wherewithal to pass the exams.

4. States and individual cities should donate free abandoned buildings for rehabilitation under the auspices of a new inner city conservation corps, with the proviso that the individuals employed are required to live in that city for three years. Such a program, at a national level, could generate upwards to 3 million new jobs. The greater metropolitan New York City area, for example, has approximately 60,000 abandoned buildings. These can also be corporate sponsored for the sole purpose of being developed into schools, residences, community centers, etc. They would be registered as Trusts in order to prevent sole personal ownership. In the case of buildings converted into low income housing, residents would be charged no more than 15 percent of their disposal income thereby providing low income families with good housing.

5. A corporate sponsorship project to employ men and women to transform inner city areas into parks for sustainable habitat would not only add jobs but also improve the quality of life for many city residents. These neighborhoods would be regulated to prevent outside gentrification, which has historically been shown to contribute to the decay of neighborhoods.

6. A coalition of the states' governors estimates that between $1.6 and $2.3 trillion over the next five years will be necessary to rebuild physical infrastructures throughout the nation: bridge and highway improvement, upgraded water and gas lines, etc. Such a project would be a long term investment to improve Americans' health and safety, in addition to sav

7. Employ an environmental clean up work force to tackle the ecological and health problems of designated superfund sites and other high risk toxic areas. For example, such an environmental work force could clean up the pollution of coal mine scalping now devastating many parts of West Virginia and Kentucky.

8. Launch an aggressive reforestation system with the goal to plant 1 billion trees over a 5 year period. In addition, funds should be put into land and water conservation in order to reclaim the land from further development.



435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


Wait, there's more! (4.00 / 2)
9. Turn land back to state governments as a farm land trust. Citizens who qualify would be given an opportunity to organically farm on land starting at 100 acres. Farmers in the program would not be permitted to sell the land since it remains in a trust. However, they would keep 80% of the

income earned from the land and would be entitled to 2% loans for further land and farming development. The other remaining 20% of farm produce would be sent to state agencies for redistribution to local food banks. The advantage of this model is that it is self-sustaining and would help to resupply diminishing food stocks. Other advantages include:

* It provides every community in the US with food to fulfill their needs

* An organic farming program would greatly reduce healthcare costs by providing non-toxic produce and would be environmentally friendly to sustain the soil over the long-term.

* It would break up mono-crop agriculture which is devastating America's farmland

* It promotes individual profiteering because the land cannot be sold.

* It renews the role of American farmers and protects them from losing their occupation

* By focusing on local distribution of food, the carbon footprint is reduced.

10. Creation of a National Farmers Bank which would promote loans for sustainable agriculture and protect American farmers' assets. Farmers would be permitted to take 2% loans for further agricultural development. Other financial incentive programs would include a forgiveness of all interest on farmers' existing mortgages. By supporting the small farmer, the government can save $300 billion in pork given to the large agro-industry.

11. Generate incentives for the growth of small communities around farming regions for people who wish to live away from the cities. Adopting a model similar to Israel's kibbutzim would increase land sustainability and help move farms towards sustainable organic models.



435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Great List (0.00 / 0)
I particularly like #s 10, 8 and 2. 10 helps local, mom and pop farms which are exponentially more preferable over the giants in the food industry these days as well as giving much needed help to financially struggling farmers. 8 help begin the inevitable by righting all the harm done to the environment due to urban sprawl and directs more development investment to the nucleus of the city where it is best suited. 2 Helps with the myriad of problems those in the poor inner-city areas including mortgage/rent payments, transportation to get to jobs, and budget shortfalls for small business owners.

I would add on to #2 by creating a 'one-stop-shop' for areas of concentrated poverty, and sky rocketing unemployment and foreclosures. These centers could provide job counseling, some basic medical services, college counseling to help inner-city high school seniors, financial counseling, and any other service to provide some stability for those out there on their own. This would also be a fairly strong job creation method for a variety of professions. There could even be something similar to the idea from #4 that would require those working at these centers to live within the city.

Finally, green jobs have really great potential. I think there must be a concentration on establishing the well-paying manufacturing jobs, but also on some serious R&D at some of our universities and other scientific institutions to catch up with nation's like Denmark as far as innovation goes.


[ Parent ]
Paying off the debt... (4.00 / 2)
Will do absolutely nothing for Democrats politically. People (aka, teabaggers and Blue Dogs) like to talk a big game about reducing debt, but using this money to pay off part of it won't really quell this.  Not to say that paying off the debt isn't important at some point, but this would really be a waste of money right now.

Comment not directed at leshrac55 (0.00 / 0)
The TARP money was borrowed money. How do you borrow money to pay off your debt. If Obama is actually thinking this is a way forward, it is just another sign that we get more like a banana republic every day.

[ Parent ]
317 billion left in TARP? (4.00 / 6)
Hmmm. Seems like one thing to do would be to push for using all of that instead of only 100-200 billion.  

I second this (4.00 / 2)
Whatever amount we push for will almost certainly end up getting watered down and reduced.  So let's push for a higher amount. If there is $300+ billion left in TARP then push for all of it.

[ Parent ]
college and trains (0.00 / 0)
It should be simple, forward looking (an investment in the future rather than a temporary fix), and immediate: half for college/job training for people out of work, and the other half for starting a national high-speed rail system immediately in three corridors - the caliornia, texas, and midwest.

the college part is to recapture the idle human manpower and focus it on preparation for the economy's recovery. it woudl  be used to fund seeking a degree or other training program. The degree would preferably be one from a technical college or 2-year college, and be available to anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months. They would no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, but would receive a stipend, and would have tuition at qualifying institutions either heavily discounted or waived (depending on means). Im thinkinng we basically modify teh FAFSA and recycle the Pell Grant infrastructure to get this rolling fast, with stipends on teh same order a what graduate students receive.

the rail part is a big ticket item that will require thousands of people working for five years - thte sheer amount ofmoney on teh table makes it the kind of sustained stimulus that will get the working class through the tunnel and keep them with bread on their table - but also a hightech industry enough to provide them skills beyond wen its done. And the economic benefit from having high speed rail in these core corridors would be enormous.  


There are plans in the pipeline (0.00 / 0)
I agree with this entirely. I've posted before about the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association. Unfortunately, while improvements have been made in ridership by means of doubling the number of scheduled trains, the speed has not been increased to true high-speed. The necessary rails are not yet in place, and the cars are being built overseas. When Wisconsin placed the first order for two high-speed trains with a Spanish manufacturer, the bid came with the promise of an assembly plant in the state.

The city of Chicago has many upgrades ready to go that could be funded and put people to work. But the proposed new routes for high-speed are designed to eventually be melded into cross-country coverage.  


[ Parent ]
Throw money at the National Science Foundation (4.00 / 2)
Among other things, there are a ton of newly minted IT PhDs out there who cannot get a research job to save their lives, and frankly employers don't want them, they'd rather be cheap bastards and hire H1Bs.  These guys are going to develop the next wave of IT companies to keep US in the lead technologically.  Give them postdocs so they can thread water and hone their skills.  Once they're out of research, they're gone for good.

It doesn't take much in the grand scheme of things to make a huge investment in the future brain trust of the country.


On that note.... (4.00 / 3)
Fund more than the current 11.6% of NIH grant proposals.  My understanding is that this percentage has fallen every year for the past three decades.  My father served 30 years in the Public Health Service, most of it at the National Institute on Aging, where he was head of the Endocrine Section and acting Clinical Director prior to his retirement.  In that time, and afterward (he's now the director of a private organization, the Kronos Longevity Research Institute, in Phoenix, AZ), he served on several grant review committees and examined hundreds of proposals.  He tells me that approximately 30-40% of proposals received in any given year are worthy of funding: well-designed and realistically budgeted to answer questions of real importance to human health.  That only about a third of these proposals are actually funded is a national scandal.  Just like the NSF, most NIH grants are principally used to pay the salaries of post-docs, research assistants, technicians, data-entry clerks, etc. -- they create jobs at several levels of income and education.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
My ex-husband kept our family together on NIH and EMBO grants for eleven years. When he took a faculty position, he applied continually for assistance in his particular specialty, the myelin nerve sheath. His proposals were modest in comparison to many, and he was often denied.

When ScienceDebate2008 called for suggestions, I added mine about funding the smaller requests from junior faculty. That group tried and tried to get the presidential candidates to debate, but never succeeded. They did receive thoughtful responses from Obama, however.


[ Parent ]
This is very good... (4.00 / 2)
It needs to be framed right away as taking money from wall st and directing it towards main st. With a sound byte like that it will be incredibly popular with the public. I know that I saw a headline on HuffPost today about Obama wanting to use the TARP funds to reduce the deficit which means we need to get this going right away. We need some people in the house and Senate to introduce this ASAP!

Since the idea is to get some sort of immediate effect on the economy before 2010, I would say that this should be used to create green jobs in efficiency, renewables and smart grid tech. This will not only tackle the politics of the recession but also provide a positive push for the climate talks in Copenhagen.  

Agitate.Liberate.Create.


I vote to do things the right way (0.00 / 0)
I do not subscribe to the idea that crisis means that you cast aside rules, cast aside oversight, cast aside procedural safeguards, and cast aside good policy.

I don't know what people mean by "using TARP money". If it means that $317B has been repaid by banks to the treasury Dept, then I have no problem reclaiming that money, defunding TARP, and passing an independent jobs bill.

But if it means that -- God knows how -- the same people in Treasury who are administering TARP are going to be in charge of administering a jobs bill...that would be the most insane thing ever.  So, I'd like a little clarification here.

TARP is not a slush fund that Congress should access for pork-barrel spending.  We funded it for a very specific purpose: to provide capital to illiquid banks.  It was not "spending," per se.  Ideally, when the crisis passes, we should get the entire $700B returned, plus interest.  If we don't, Obama and Geithner should be expected to answer tough questions about where the money went.

And while I always knew that much of the money would be lost forever when Treasury bought, or took as collateral, vastly-overvalued mortgage or asset backed securites, there is no reason not to grill Geithner on this.

When Congress comes to ask about the missing money, I don't want any finger pointing at wind farms and solar panels.



Funneling money to Wall St. isn't my idea of good policy. (4.00 / 1)
If and when this bill is debated, we can make whatever procedural adjustments to TARP that need to be made in order to get these funds into the paychecks of new green jobs. Building a clean energy economy is not pork.

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

[ Parent ]
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions (0.00 / 0)
This "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" attitude is exactly what the Bush-Cheney administration displayed when they invaded Iraq without a plan for post-invasion occupation and it is a recipe for disaster.

To answer your question, funneling money to Wall Street is my attitude of TERRIBLE policy.  Which is exactly why I don't want it to get wrapped up with good policy.  How do you expect to reign in abuses that stem from TARP when half the liberal caucus starts complaining that defunding the program will cost green jobs?

It would be like if we funded health insurance with funds allocated for Iraq and Afghanistan and then made it impossible to defund those wars without destroying the health insurance system.

To be clear, using money that would otherwise go to Wall Street mega-banks is good policy.  Repurposing TARP as a jobs program is terrible policy.


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what your getting at here... (0.00 / 0)
If a bill were designed to relocate the TARP funds to a jobs creation program I would hope that it wouldn't still be tied to the previous TARP rules. I think just the act of removing the remaining TARP funds is a clear repudiation of the "prop up risky financial institutions in hopes of a trickle down effect" plan. I don't see why we couldn't address the abuses of TARP perpetrated by its recipients as a separate audit.

And regarding your Iraq example.  The decision to defund the Iraq wars would logically preclude the decision to move those funds to healthcare...

Agitate.Liberate.Create.


[ Parent ]
Purpose (4.00 / 1)
TARP was sold as saving jobs.  Using the money to really save jobs instead of saving Wall Street bonusses is one of those accidental breaks of good fortune.

[ Parent ]
You may think you're being clever, but you aren't (0.00 / 0)
I'm certainly not arguing that we shouldn't spend money on job creation.  It is a false dichotomy to suggest that we either have no spending on jobs...or we hand the money over to Tim Geithner with no questions asked.  We can do both.  We can hold the Treasury Department accountable for TARP and we can spend on job creation.  All I am asking is that we actually do both.

Why do you think this idea is being floated?  TARP is extremely unpopular.  Congress doesn't want to provide oversight, but they don't want to be blamed for the mess either.  How nice it will be for them to rebrand a policy of stealing from the middle class to save the ultra-rich into a feel-good liberal job-creation bill.  Whoopee!  Everybody wins!


[ Parent ]
$317B is left because Paulson took the number $700B "out of the air" n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Not exactly (0.00 / 0)
I agree that strictly speaking, TARP was meant to keep otherwise insolvent banks "solvent", and that returned and remaining TARP funds can't be used for other purposes, and I'm guessing that TARP is legally mandated and restricted thusly.

However, the ultimate purpose of TARP was not keep these banks "solvent" for their own sake, but so that they could continue to lend money to businesses and governments that needed. That has not happened.

So I don't see why TARP can't be restructured, via a revision bill if required, to make sure that this ultimate purpose is finally met, either by forcing banks that receive TARP funds to lend them to deserving businesses and governments, or by setting up a private-public bank to do this.

The financial system should not be propped up with public funds except as it demonstrably benefits (or plausibly stands to benefit) the broader economy. This seems self-evident to me. If a bank is looking to engage in speculative transactions, it should do it with its own damn money (and under stricter regulation and oversight).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Messaging (4.00 / 4)
I'd say this is an opportunity on messaging as well as policy.

Focus on "reallocating the Bush TARP bailout of Wall Street to Main Street" or something similar.  It makes it harder to oppose and brings up the point that the Wall Street bailout was started by Bush.


In theory, at least, TARP was set up to save the financial system (0.00 / 0)
upon which our economy, like ANY modern economy, relies upon for its very existance, in ORDER to save our economy (and thus the jobs that it creates). It was NOT set up to save the financial system for its own sake, let alone failed and/or self-interested banks, except in direct and demonstrable furtherance of this primary objective, by assuring that affordable capital would remain readily available to viable companies and government entities that needed it.

This has NOT happened. So to take remaining TARP funds and use it to keep such companies and entities up and running, and fund new ones, thus maintaining existing and creating new jobs, would not just be in full compliance with the letter and spirit of TARP, but do what so far has NOT happened under TARP. And it needs to happen.

Of course, since TARP was a financial bill, for legal reasons money dispensed through it would probably have to be funneled and managed through a bank-like organization. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean existing private banks that would like abuse and misuse such funds for their own profit and at unacceptable risk (as has happened with TARP funds to date). A private-public "bank" could be set up (the way that pre-Federal Reserve versions of the federal national bank were set up) to do this, with strict oversight and regulation, a lean beaurocracy, and a clear mandate, to make sure that funds were used for such purposes.

Think of it as a "Public Option" for the economy.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


First things first: (4.00 / 2)
If we want it to be $200B, we need to start floating $400B. Of course, we should want it to be more than $200B. Push the envelope.

Second, I think an early fight -- that is if anyone cares to make a fight of it, otherwise it will just be decided by default without us -- will be over what the focus of the bill should be. For the stimulus, the focus ended up being increasing GDP, rather than creating jobs directly. We're likely to have a similar debate for this bill, and I'm sure there's good arguments for going the other direction this time. There's also the question of how big a priority we put on using the money for actual useful things ("green jobs", infrastructure, and so on), versus simply generating as many jobs as possible even if it's just planting trees.

Third, contrary to what some people are saying, I think we need to absolutely maximize the short term impact here, not go for anything longer term. The recession is happening now, people are suffering now. It's a much better idea to help them now rather than when the recession is already going to be going away. (If you wait too long, the Fed will even start raising rates to compensate, and you will achieve nothing). Also, the 2010 elections are, relatively speaking, now. This bill in all likelihood will be the biggest single impact on those elections which we still have any control over. Let's maximize it. The better (less bad) we do in 2010, the better the bills we can pass after 2010. Those bills, in turn, will have a much bigger long term impact than anything we could do in this jobs bill itself.


We need to bring jobs here... (0.00 / 0)
First, we need to end the tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I know they don't do it for the tax benefit, but its a fairness issue..We also need to put a tax on jobs sent overseas..

Second, we need to offer tax credits for energy saving products that are made mostly in America. For example, have a tax credit for newly purchased energy efficient windows/heating&ac that is made mostly in the U.S..

Third, offer a 200% of wages deduction for businesses that hire American workers, up to a maximuim amount so we arent subsidizing six figure wages..

Anything else that adds jobs to the U.S...


Only so much you can do with Tax Policy (0.00 / 0)
I agree with your sentiment. But, I think tax cuts are two slow to stimulate the economy. What we need are grants which pay for the renovations you talk about in item #2.

One problem with the first stimulus was that too much of the cost was related to tax cuts, almost half of the total bill I believe, and not enough on direct spending. Republicans and Blue Dogs would jump all over any suggestion of tax incentives and run with that, hell they would probably want the whole 200 billion in tax cuts. So I would highly discourage any talk of tax cuts or tax incentives being part of this package.    


[ Parent ]
Two things (0.00 / 0)
First, help States with budget shortfalls. The Stimulus Bill is having an effect except it's effect is being diluted because for every job created by a stimulus related project two are being lost as a result of State level budget cuts. So many of Government supplied services were transferred to the State level in the 80's that creating government service jobs will be created at the State level not the Federal level.

Second, green jobs need market more than innovation. By this I mean many innovative green products are available that could significantly reduce our carbon footprint if put into use, but they are not economically feasible. On a case by case basis they do not pay back the initial investment. If government could create program that would provide grants to pay for installation of energy savings products it would help in two ways. Less energy would be consumed immediately and market for these products could grow to the point where scale of production would reduce manufacturing costs. This would create jobs in the short term, and if successful in getting green products over the start up hump, it would also create jobs long term.

Or course, a federal Industrial Policy would be needed to insure that the manufacturing jobs created by these new green products were created in, and remained in, the US.  


Restore (4.00 / 1)
The last minute cuts insisted on by Susan Collins and Ben Nelson were really, really stupid.  That is a good start on where to spend this money.

A lot of it IIRC was in aid to states, etc.  That and cash for clunkers are the big successes.

Make the Republican Governors turn down the money.  It just emphasizes how they care for bankers and not for people.  Chris Christie, a one term fraud.  I'm loving it.


Ok, we met. (0.00 / 0)
There was six one-stops and the Grantor Agency.   It was unanamous.  Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) Public Service Employment (PSE) targeted to states with unemployment rates over X percent.   States with 4.9 percent unemployment rate like North Dakota don't need a dime of this money.  Population needs to be a part of the distribution formula as well as U6 rates and long term unemployed (LTU).

Unemployment Rates for States
Monthly Rankings
Seasonally Adjusted
Sept. 2009p

Rank State Rate  
1 NORTH DAKOTA 4.2
2 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.8
3 NEBRASKA 4.9
4 UTAH 6.2
5 IOWA 6.7
5 MONTANA 6.7
5 OKLAHOMA 6.7
5 VERMONT 6.7
5 VIRGINIA 6.7
10 WYOMING 6.8
11 KANSAS 6.9
12 COLORADO 7.0
13 ARKANSAS 7.1
14 HAWAII 7.2
14 MARYLAND 7.2
14 NEW HAMPSHIRE 7.2
17 MINNESOTA 7.3
18 LOUISIANA 7.4
19 NEW MEXICO 7.7
20 TEXAS 8.2
21 DELAWARE 8.3
21 WISCONSIN 8.3
23 ALASKA 8.4
23 CONNECTICUT 8.4
25 MAINE 8.5
26 IDAHO 8.8
26 PENNSYLVANIA 8.8
28 NEW YORK 8.9
28 WEST VIRGINIA 8.9
30 ARIZONA 9.1
31 MISSISSIPPI 9.2
32 MASSACHUSETTS 9.3
32 WASHINGTON 9.3
34 MISSOURI 9.5
35 INDIANA 9.6
36 NEW JERSEY 9.8
37 GEORGIA 10.1
37 OHIO 10.1
39 ILLINOIS 10.5
39 TENNESSEE 10.5
41 ALABAMA 10.7
42 NORTH CAROLINA 10.8
43 KENTUCKY 10.9
44 FLORIDA 11.0
45 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11.4
46 OREGON 11.5
47 SOUTH CAROLINA 11.6
48 CALIFORNIA 12.2
49 RHODE ISLAND 13.0
50 NEVADA 13.3
51 MICHIGAN 15.3

The legislation and regulations are already written.  All they have to do is go get them.  We don't need the prime sponsor part of it for urban low income areas because white collar workers have been the primary target of most of the recent layoffs and job destruction.   We have engineers that are having a hard time getting jobs.   Low income will qualify with them if we don't get nuts on eligibility.

Thanks for asking Chris.


Two ideas: (0.00 / 0)
1) Provide operating funds for urban mass transit (Atrios talks a lot about this; it would put people back to work who have been laid off, and the increased transit service would have economic and environmental benefits)

2) Build a better, smarter national electrical grid, laying the groundwork for later clean energy projects (this requires both blue-collar and white-collar work, and language should be including that mandates hardware be domestically sourced)


Make this happen IMMEDIATELY - if not sooner!!! (0.00 / 0)
This idea is such a HUGE winner - we need to get started now! What's the first step Chris (et al)??

top story on Dkos: Sen Reid & a job bill (0.00 / 0)
Here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Ideas about how we move on this, to influence the discussion?


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox