Trillion Dollar Stimulus--GOP Economists Join In, But How To Pull It Off?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 17:49


Note: I began writing this before Matt posted his diary.  Below, I look at the short-term problem of how to START spending the money quickly and effectively.  Obviously, the long-term challenge is just as great.  We have to do both.

Conservative hacks may still be attacking the New Deal, but GOP economists, not so much.  Support for a massive stimulus is bipartisan now amongst economists, Bloomberg reports:

Calls for $1 Trillion Stimulus Package Grow as Economy Tumbles

By Rich Miller and Matt Benjamin

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The one thing that isn't shrinking in the U.S. economy these days is the size of the stimulus package that financial experts say is needed to turn it around.

With automobile sales dropping, payrolls plunging and manufacturing contracting, economists from across the political spectrum are raising the ante on how much the government should lay out. Some are now calling for at least a $1 trillion boost.

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University professor who was an adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner who served in President Bill Clinton's White House, are among those who say President- elect Barack Obama should push for a package of that size.

"They need a stimulus of $500-to-$600 billion a year for at least two years to counter what is going to be a collapse in consumption," said Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.

That number may grow.

Paul Rosenberg :: Trillion Dollar Stimulus--GOP Economists Join In, But How To Pull It Off?
Once again, we find, reality really does have a left-wing bias.

I wonder what !Joe The !Plumber thinks?

Krugman's worried that we won't be able to spend it fast enough, and he's got a point.  But one thing we can do is bail out state governments, so that their spending cuts don't further exacerbate the problem, and slash social services that are all the more necessary during a recession. (Now back-dated 12 months!)

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports today:

New National Survey Reveals Escalating Budget Crisis for States
NCSL report provides comprehensive look at two-year budget period identifying nearly $137 billion in budget gaps.

DENVER - States, which already have closed $40 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2009 budget gaps, face at least an additional $97 billion they must close over the next 18 to 24 months, according to a national report issued today by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

NCSL said the news will pose difficult decisions for state legislators across the nation as they prepare for the 2009 legislative sessions.

"These budget gaps are approaching those seen in the last recession, which were the worst since World War II, and show every sign of growing larger," says William T. Pound, NCSL's executive director.

State Budget Update: November 2008, a survey of the nation's state legislative fiscal officers, reports that states face a $32 billion budget gap after already closing a $40 billion gap since the current fiscal year began. Their projections for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1 for most states, reveal another $65 billion gap.

Fifteen states are forecasting double-digit gaps in FY 2010. The largest are in Arizona (24.2 percent), New York (20 percent), California (18 percent), Wisconsin (17.2 percent), Minnesota (14.7) and Kansas (14.5 percent).

"While the data we collected from state legislative fiscal officers are pretty sobering, our discussions with legislative leaders tell us that they expect the problem to only get worse," Pound says.

Massive federal aid to state and local governments would seem to be a no-brainer, given the circumstances.  

To repeat: reality really does have a left-wing bias.

In fact, as Robert in Monterey noted at Calitics, SEIU is already advancing a solid proposal along these lines in the GOP-terrorized state of California:

SEIU's Realistic Budget
by: Robert in Monterey

Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 17:25:02 PM PST

The best way to fight a bad idea is to propose a better alternative, and the SEIU California State Council has delivered. Today they proposed their own budget solution which would raise $14 billion in new revenue and seek $15 billion in federal assistance. Some details:

    SEIU's budget proposal includes a limited expansion of the state's Vehicle License Fee (VLF), which would protect middle-class families by exempting the first $20,000 in vehicle value; restoration of the upper income tax brackets enacted by Governors Reagan and Wilson, adoption of Governor Schwarzenegger's oil severance and alcohol tax proposals and the Governor's proposal to broaden the sales tax to include discretionary services such as entertainment.

    SEIU's proposed federal stimulus package would get our people back to work now and invest in long-term economic success for California families by:

    • Increasing the federal match for California healthcare dollars
    • Kick-starting hospital retrofits and local government infrastructure projects
    • Funding federal special education obligations
    • Investing in workforce development and a competitive resurgence by restoring worker training and opening more seats in our public colleges and universities.

This is exactly the kind of budget solution that a state facing a severe recession needs. Republicans are hell-bent on implementing Herbert Hoover's reckless policies of austerity and deflation, wanting to destroy government services and throw tens of thousands of people out of work.

SEIU's more progressive plan recognizes that California can't do it alone - that as in the 1930s, federal assistance is necessary to help the states stabilize and grow the economy. Health care and education in particular are vital to preserve during these hard times.

Not only are the contents of SEIU's budget proposal sound and progressive, the fact that SEIU has stepped up and made this proposal is a hopeful sign that progressive forces outside of government are indeed starting to mobilize and speak out in the sorts of ways that will be increasingly necessary in the year ahead.

"More, please!" as they say in the trade.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Progressive versus conservative right now is irrelevant (0.00 / 0)
 Monetary policies have failed. Unless one is a completely clueless idealogue, that leaves Keyensian economic policies. As I wrote yesterday, everything I am reading seems to indicate we can either have a bad recession that last into late 2009 or possibly 2010 or we can have a 1930s style depression.

There is not a lot of time to waste because we are headed over a very real cliff. Obama will have to hit the ground running. This is why he's pushing for the stimulus package to signed right after the inaugural. I am also glad to hear that progressives are focused on what that package is . Here in NY State, I expect us to be one of the hardest hit states. The fact is despite the position about Wall Street there are  a lot of little people tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs that may be lost locally due to this recession.

My primary concern with Obama's numbers of job growth is that considering how many jobs are b eing lost it may still mean that we will come out from the other end of this with a net lose of a lot of jobs. I agree with and appreciate his focus on creating green collar jobs, focusing on infrastructure and energy economy issues, but I also wonder how he can increase the jobs that will come out of these new stimulus packages even more?


Your Subject Line And Content Contradict One Another (4.00 / 1)
But if you're going to be half ideologue and half realist, I'd much rather that the realist half got the lion's share of the words.

"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

[ Parent ]
Huh? I have no idea how you managed to turn a positive post into conflict (0.00 / 0)
You and others seem to get off on conflict. Is this your goal? Because re-reading what I wrote- it was not a negative post or contradictory.

Monetary policy failed. Thus, right leaning idealogy is now irrelevant because it failed. In a world where there is only one idealogy that's left, idealogy is irrelevant.

In the real world  when things fail, you do the alternative rather than arguing from the same position as before. I was describing the right wing economists. That's all I wrote. How is that contradictory?

Or is your point you want the branding for having the correct idealogy of the moment? I am just guessing  here since you claimed my post was contractory  without explaining why.

Well, if this is your point, my comments were not about you. They were about the right.  Why the right is now irrelevant in terms of idealogical perspective. And, thus idealogy is irrelevant if there is no rightwing perpective at play. I would argue that you could see this during the general election. It's why the attacks against Obama did not gain traction on economic issues. No one rational was arguing monetary policies.

The only way you could read that as negative is if you are somehow adding something more than what I wrote. Or are you trying to argue there is a still a right wing perspective here? I have to admit I am grasping at straws as to your meaning. Are you trying to re-define right and left? Is that the point?

Are you responding to your differences with me with regarding prior diaries? Because that has nothing to do with this post


[ Parent ]
Paul, here is my challenge to you (0.00 / 0)
what would an economy that has to tighten its belt look like?


1932-1933 (4.00 / 1)
That's what it would look like.

"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

[ Parent ]
1937. (4.00 / 2)
Roosevelt tried to balance the budget, cut spending and created a mini-depression.

The Roosevelt Administration was under assault during FDR's second term,which presided over a new dip in the Great Depression in the fall of 1937 that continued through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

The idea that tight fiscal policy when the economy is depressed actually reduces private investment isn't just a hypothetical argument: it's exactly what happened in two important episodes in history.

The first took place in 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt mistakenly heeded the advice of his own era's deficit worriers. He sharply reduced government spending, among other things cutting the Works Progress Administration in half, and also raised taxes. The result was a severe recession, and a steep fall in private investment.

The second episode took place 60 years later, in Japan. In 1996-97 the Japanese government tried to balance its budget, cutting spending and raising taxes. And again the recession that followed led to a steep fall in private investment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12...



[ Parent ]
Yeah, (4.00 / 2)
that, too.

I've blogged about that before, too.  Always good to remind folks, though.

"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


[ Parent ]
Raising taxes (0.00 / 0)
Paul, can you comment on the effect of raising taxes as seen in both 1937 here and 1996/97 in Japan. I wonder if this is why Obama might not look to repeal the Bush tax cuts in the next two years and let them lapse instead in 2011. Obviously, we would like to see tax rates on the rich go up marginally but would that have a detrimental effect when combined with a large stimulus package.

[ Parent ]
Taxes On The Wealthy Are A Non-Issue In The Real World (4.00 / 1)
but in Versailles, well, the sky is falling!

In 1937, Social Security taxes kicked in, at the same time that FDR cut back spending on the now-discredited theory that balanced budgets are inherently good in and of themselves.  What he should have done, at the very least, was increase spending to at least off-set the increased Social Security tax.

But that was a bottom-heavy tax, hitting hardest on those who were most likely to spend every cent they got.  So the tax took a big bite out of aggregate demand.  Taxes on those over $250K, OTOH, will only have the most negligable impact on aggregate demand.

"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


[ Parent ]
And Tom as I mentioned yesterday I wish you would stop with the personality (4.00 / 1)
stuff too. Giving Paul a 4 for missing reading my post is being even handed out?

[ Parent ]
Please. You really are (4.00 / 3)
acting strange.  Now you're worried about my ratings.  Yesterday you jumped all over me about a comment joking with David Mizner.

Too weird.

Who died and made you Barack Obama?

Plainly put, I really don't care about you.  Quit sniffing up my ass to see if it stinks.  My ratings are my own.  


[ Parent ]
Tom, I don't know you, and you don't know me (4.00 / 1)
But you are acting passive aggressive.  

Yes, your ratings are your own. But they also tell me what you think. If youa re giving a 4 to someone misrepresenting my statements, it's not weird for me to wonder why that is the case. I suppose it is weird if you think you are above criticism.


[ Parent ]
offshore outsourcing problem on stimulus (4.00 / 1)
Paul, I have something for you and others to ponder.  

I just wrote this post a couple of days ago, Obama Promises to Create 2.5 Million Jobs, but in what Countries?

Contained within are import statistics as well as trade statistics on how stimulus packages can pour out of the United States and literally fund other nations.  There are a few policy recommendations listed that they really need to tie these stimulus packages to US manufacturing jobs and also to US citizens, perm residents and US domestic goods.  Lobbyists put a shot gun to the Buy American provisions when using Federal dollars.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


I Gotta Go, But... (4.00 / 2)
As I say below, I'm out the door ASAP, but two quick comments:

(1) I agree with your basic point. of course.

(2) But this diary is primarily about the short term, and for that I'm arguing that we need to pour money into preserving state and local government functions--including social services, such as medicare/medicaid, unemployment insurance, education, etc.--which are heavily weighted toward the must-be-domestic side.

"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


[ Parent ]
social services offshore outsourced (4.00 / 1)
dunno if you are aware of this but many state governments use Indian call centers for food stamps and other telephone services, support and backend.

Makes a hell of a lot of sense, use offshore to give people not enough to survive on instead of using those very people, giving them the damn job, keeping taxpayer money in the US so less people need social services.

Have fun.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


[ Parent ]
Which Is Why I Wrote "Heavily Weighted" (4.00 / 1)
We have a lot of work to do, rolling back all sorts of neo-liberal/privatization BS.  But the goods and services being delivered are still reaching folks here in the US who desperately need them, which is what the short-term response is all about.  I think that rebuilding the public sector properly belongs in the long-term time frame.

"Long-term" meaning that it starts taking effect later in 2009, as opposed to Jan 21st at the latest.

"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


[ Parent ]
glad you're doing that (0.00 / 0)
Getting a practical realization that stimulus should primarily first go to the economy they are trying to stimulate, discussion, stats, economic realities are almost non-existent on the hill.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


[ Parent ]
Gotta Go! (2.67 / 3)
I've got an editorial meeting to go to, but should be back in about 90-120 minutes or so--so why not load up with words of wisdom to dazzle me on my return?

Or just ignore me, and solve all the world's problems, so I can devote all my time to blogging about Buffy, Life On Mars and Desperate Housewives.

"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


What I wonder (4.00 / 1)
is whether the Chinese, the UAE and the Saudis have the stomach to take on another trillion or two's worth of U.S. treasuries. Asking what other choice the managers of export-based economies really have, at least in the short term, seems to me to beg the question.

I suppose that in a fit of desperation we could inflate the currency, but then we might wind up living in a country which looks less like the U.S. in 1932 than Germany in 1928.

On the plus side, I do already have a wheelbarrow to carry my greenbacks to the Safeway with me -- and a red one at that. Should the need arise....


I don't think the foreign countries involved in our country (0.00 / 0)
can afford to see us fail. If we fail, they fail. Do you see another way they can grow if we aren't buying their products?

[ Parent ]
Well.... (0.00 / 0)
We do keep encouraging the Chinese to stimulate domestic demand, just as we did the Japanese in the Eighties. I suppose -- worse come to worst -- they could pick this moment to do exactly that. It seems unlikely, I admit, at least on the scale which would be required. Who could blame the Chinese Communist Party for fearing the political consequences of an enormous domestic middle class more than they fear holding our potentially worthless paper?

Stalemate, I suppose, and yet another reprieve for our robber barons, may they rot in hell.  


[ Parent ]
One of the things that I hope that will start becoming part of the conversation (4.00 / 2)
is a renewed focus on the place of size of organization in our national conversation.

That we need a renewed era of rethinking antitrust laws, media consolidation laws, laws regarding the size of banks, etc to address the reality that we really should not have a situation where any private entity is "to big to fail."

I would love if progressives were pushing this, but I don't see anyone doing this push. I do know Obama is leery of media consolidation, but whether he will go big on this I don't know. I would love for him to repeal the Telecommunitications act at leas tin part, and break up the media companies, and in the re regulation have strict control on the size of the economy any one financial institution can represent. It may seem harsh and counter to business, but the reality is that we lose more value by ignoring these harms that being too big can cause. One of which as you say is that the robber barrons always make out.


[ Parent ]
Economies of Scale (4.00 / 1)
is always the argument arrayed against decentralization. Whether we're talking manufacturing or the service sector, the plutocrat's defense is always the same -- the bigger we are, the cheaper we can do it. This may once have been the case, but one suspects that in a post-industrial economy, with the information and communication resources of the Internet, this is, to a greater or lesser degree, sheer bullshit. Imagine the long-term effect, for example, of a requirement that any new dwelling be equipped to generate its own electricity. This can be done for a relatively small percentage of the total cost of construction, even after the bursting of the housing bubble -- in the neighborhood of 10-15% of the total cost.

What really chaps their ass about the devolution you address here is the loss of command and control. They hate democracy, because it muddies their privilege, and decentralization of the economy implies democracy. It's the same principle that Paul presented in his diary a while back about the local food movement. We get rid of lakes of pig manure only at the cost of driving ADM's stock price to zero. The leftist in me fears that the only way to accomplish that would be to drown the management of ADM in their own lakes; the Buddhist in me hopes that our present dilemma will convince them that we have something to say worth listening to, and will act accordingly without the added encouragement of pitchforks and torches.


[ Parent ]
Yes, the double edge sword of scale (4.00 / 1)
This is complicated and a bit beyond my pay grade, but I will try to add.

They do not discuss  what happens like here where that size can do more harm to the overall economy because they are so huge AND critical. It is not just that they are huge. It is their critical nature to our economy which should have been on people's radar screen.

No one is discussing which industries are critical, and therefor, strategic. If they are strategic, why were we not monitoring for the overall health of the economy issues?

If they are strategic, how are they strategic beyond just what value they serve to private sector ownership interests. Really this is partly due to laws that were designed for the world that existed in the early 20th century being deregulated.

My concern is as they reregulate is whether they will make laws that reflect right now? Is it enough to ask as they do with anti trust law whether a company's size affect price? Or are there more questions that should be asked regarding a company's size?

I don't have answers. Just barely getting the questions.


[ Parent ]
one of the things when lookinag at these companies is (4.00 / 1)
that like with Enron- they are so huge that it is easy get lost in all the manipulation of numbers. A smaller company, or smalelr companies as a share of a market, would mean better results for the americna people as a whole because a) they are easier to regulate as smaller companies and b) we would not be so easily impacted from the smaller companies mistakes as we are now.

[ Parent ]
Ideas (4.00 / 1)
In addition to what Paul has, here are some ideas to get money in the system fast.

Upgrade the entire Federal car pool (except some military) to puggable hybrids.  Make an order with GM, Ford and Chrysler.  Pay in advance.  (Also, nationalize the penchant plans from these companies.)

Have local governments create a list of parks, bicycle paths and general improvements they already have planned but lack funding.  Fund them.

Commit to high speed rail connecting our major cities.  Most of the ground work can't begin right away, but some can.  The rest can start next year.


These Are All Great Ideas (0.00 / 0)
but I want to add, they are more of the transition from the short-term that I'm focused on to the long-term.

They are, essentially, about ways of accelerating what the long-term solutions should be.  I'm totally in favor of them, but they address a slightly different issue.

To illustrate: If we let state governments crash, slashing tens of billions from their budgets, there won't be anyone left to "create a list of parks, bicycle paths and general improvements they already have planned but lack funding."

So, we need to do both.

"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


[ Parent ]
Ready to go, now (4.00 / 1)
Clearly rail is long term.  

But my thought is many local governments already have projects they could put someone on right away.  The trick is to find those projects and weed out the ones that actually have longer startup times.

Same with the cars.  If you pay for them up front, you are keeping people employed in their production, without needed a "bailout" which is really just a loan.  (I must admit, I don't know if any of the big three already have a car model that would cut it or not, though.)


[ Parent ]
How will that change buyer habits regarding cars? (0.00 / 0)
I just mentioned this in the quick hits. Robert Reich points out that part of the problem is that consumers- even now- will not buy fuel effiecient cars or hybrids, but instead go for the gas guzzlers.  

[ Parent ]
Size, expense (4.00 / 1)
Well, if you need a larger car (or at least think you do) then it will guzzle more gas.  And hybrid technology is still expensive, for some reason.  But if the government starts buying hybrids then the cost should go down due to economies of scale.

The biggest problem, though, isn't the lack of very efficient cars, it is the abundance of very inefficient cars.  Upgrading from 20 to 30 mpg is nice, but compared to the poorly maintained, older car with single digit millage, it doesn't help that much.  (To make the numbers linear, don't look at miles per gallon, compute gallons per mile.)


[ Parent ]
I am wondering if a subsidy program would push demande in the right (0.00 / 0)
direction? Subsidize the purchase of a fuel effiencient car , and leave the fuel ineffiiient car to feign for itself under normal market forces.

To me, the buying the cars by the government does not solve the issue of demand, but changing consumer habits or influencing them will. Especially if you start with younger consumers where their buying habits are not  so pre determined.

It's something that was tried unsucessfully in AZ, but failed due to the lack of thought bout cost, but the idea does not per se seem like a bad one. Just a matter of execution. Perhaps , in the begining that's the solution to drive consumer habit. Get them used to the idea (like Miramax did with the indie industry and Japan and other economic miracles did with domestic programs).  


[ Parent ]
I know this is the theory with a mixed healthcare system (0.00 / 0)
provide a public and private program,a nd it will if done right, create its own incentive for a move to public plan as a trojan horse. Wonder if demand can be driven this way as well?

[ Parent ]
They need to do something (4.00 / 1)
about making sure that people who want to go to college can get the loans they need to do so.  This would be both a long term and short term solution.  Working for a university, I am very well aware that when states start slashing budgets, state universities are always involved.  If this is followed by a reduction in admissions to those universities, jobs will have to be cut or at the very least there will be hiring and salary freezes.  Making sure potential students have access to the loans they need would help to keep bad budget situations from becoming really bad budget situations.    

Education Cuts Are Suicidal (0.00 / 0)
From pre-school to college, they are such a major government expense that education cuts are always on the table when things turn bad, but this is utterly and completely backwards.  Not only is education vital for long-term growth and prosperity, it makes short-term sense as well for folks to turn to education when the job market stinks.

"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

[ Parent ]
If it's less than $1 trillion then they aren't serious about the problem (4.00 / 1)
Several weeks ago, I did some back of the napkin rendering about the scope of the problem.  

Bush has literally pushed trillions and trillions of dollars from the demand side to the supply side of the economy in the last 8 years.  There was the rush on the treasury, there were the wars, there were the subsidies to energy companies along with record profits, there were the tax cuts four years straight. There were no bid war contracts, and things like the TARP program are just funneling more money into the supply-sides hands.  And that's just stuff off the top of my head.  

Just how much is a trillion dollars?  

I live in Korea. Korea has 50million people and produces more cars and more steel than any nation in Western Europe, save Germany.  Korea also is number one or two in a variety of other areas like semiconductors, cell phones, flat panel displays and ship building. Yet, all tallied together, Korea's GNP is at, or only just under $1 trillion (by most ranking methodologies).  Korea provides a mostly middle class existence to most of it's 50 million citizens, with enough left over for their own super rich.

So that should give you an idea of just how much a trillion dollars is.

The fact is, Bush may have pushed as much as $10 trillion over onto the supply side.  

But there's more.  He implemented these policies when the nation already was demonstrating too much 'supply' back in 2001, when we had our first 'deflationary' recession since the 1930s.  

This was because in 2001, the nation had already had 21 years of supply side policies.  Even now, the median wage has only increased, less than 50 cents from its 1980 level.  In that time the GNP has more than doubled.

The fact is, a gargantuan amount of money has been pushed over to the supply side.  More than anything in history.  

Bush has done to our economy what termites do to a house.  On the surface it looks like it's still there, but it has been hollowed out.  

For a society, concentrated wealth is like standing up in a canoe - its prone to sudden, epic disaster.  This is historically proven. To wit, the collapse of Rome, midieval Japan, Ancient Egypt's Middle Kingdom, Byzantium, Hapsburg Spain, Bourbon France, Romanov Russia, Coolidge/Hoover America (paving the way for the rise of Hitler, WWII and the holocaust), and yes George W. Bush's Subprime mess. Yes the Republican party gets credit for the last two.  

Given the scale of Bush's malfeasance, if you aren't thinking in the trillions and trillions of dollars, you simply aren't addressing the problem.  Anything less than a trillion is a drop in the bucket and won't address the problem.  

Long term, somehow, those trillions have to be pushed back over to the other side of the ledger and structural arrangements need to be put in place to keep it there.  How to do that, is the next debate.  


How to Pull It Off (0.00 / 0)
The $10K Solution.

Helping out 138 Million Americans who pay taxes cannot fail. The plan addresses short-term liquidity and "jumpstart" issues while also funding long-term infrastructure and sustainable social system development.

Best of all, it is a bottom-up solution that will touch every aspect of society and business and government.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search