Equal opportunity is one of our nation's most valuable national assets.
On September 27, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General reinvigorated our nation's commitment to opportunity for all people by releasing a memorandum adopting The Opportunity Agenda's ongoing policy recommendations for the economic recovery.
To comply with civil rights requirements prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, and gender in federally funded programs, the Attorney General stated that federal agencies should consider:
A coalition of over 150 social justice and public interest groups has come together to call for job creation and investment in opportunity, including for the country's hardest hit communities. They'll launch their call in a march on Washington October 2, 2010. It's the right call at the right time.
The Washington Postreported this week that a coalition of over 150 social justice and public interest groups has come together to call for job creation and investment in opportunity, including for the country's hardest hit communities. They'll launch their call in a march on Washington October 2, 2010. It's the right call at the right time.
Last year, during the stimulus fight, I posted a number of diaries about the importance of avoiding massive state budget deficits that could cripple the positive effects of a federal stimulus. Now it's quite apparent that that's exactly what has come to pass.
To be effective a stimulus requires four things: (1) that it be quick, (2) that it be effective, (3) that it avoid counterproductive measures, (4) that it be sustained long enough for the economy to fully recovery before being phased out. So far, the Blue Dogs have focused on making sure the stimulus will fail because of #4 (insisting on immediate reimplementation of PayGo). Now Collins-Nelson are going to war against #s 1-3.
(1) State spending is quick: So quick that if Congress doesn't give them this money by President's Day, they'll start cutting it from the budgets they are working on now.
(2) State spending is effective: As shown in my diary, "Stimulus Reality: Spending Creates VASTLY More Jobs Than Tax Cuts", "General Aid to State Governments" produces 920,000 jobs per $100 billion in spending, compared to 200,000 jobs created by cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion.
(3) Allowing state government spending to plummet is directly counter-productive to the intent of the stimulus package. "Cuts in state and local government outlays are sure to be a substantial drag on the economy in 2009 and 2010," Moodys.com Chief Economist Mark Zandy wrote in his analysis, "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Mark Zandi - January 21, 2009" [PDF]. During the Great Depression, state public works spending plummeted so severely that it completely offset the increases in federal spending for the first three years of the New Deal (1933-35). This was a major impediment to recovery.
On the flip, I've reproduced my expanded version of point #3. But first, there's this, from the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative blog:
The only reason the economy isn't in a double-dip recession already is because of three temporary boosts: the federal stimulus (of which 75 percent has been spent), near-zero interest rates (which can't continue much longer without igniting speculative bubbles), and replacements (consumers have had to replace worn-out cars and appliances, and businesses had to replace worn-down inventories).
Emphasis added.
There has been much talk of the size of the US federal stimulus, and much debate about whether or not it has been an effective counter-cyclical policy instrument.
But it's important to remember that the proper measure for fiscal stimulus is not spending by the federal government; it is spending by all levels of government. And when you look at the contributions to US GDP growth (Table 1.1.2 at the BEA site), total government spending has been a drag on growth over the past two quarters. The increases at the federal level have not been enough to compensate for the spending cuts at the local and state levels.
I suppose that this could be interpreted as good news: despite a contractionary fiscal stance, the US economy is in recovery. But it raises the question of how much better it could be doing if it had an expansionary fiscal policy.
Indeed, here's what that table looks like:
See Line 21, in bold? See how it's gone negative the last two quarters? That's your "stimulus" for you, thanks in large part to the failure to include full state bailouts in the federal stimulus last year.
What We Can All Learn from Truckers & Poker Players
For many of us, reading the latest economic indicators has become the new masochistic pleasure in our mornings – surely other people have a tickler reminding them of the latest BLS Employment Situation Summary and the Gallup mid-month underemployment statistics? The problem with those indicators is that even when they show improvement, they still reflect a dispiriting reality. This is why a recent article about a new economic indicator holds such appeal. First, it reveals facts about our economy that are divorced from the personal impact reflected in other statistics. Second, it actually has a cautiously optimistic tale to tell.
The Ceridian-UCLA Pulse of Commerce Index, essentially, tracks the diesel fuel purchases of professional truckers, providing a graphic description of the movement of goods across the country. While the system has its drawbacks, it does provide some data regarding industrial production. In fact, if economists had been paying attention, it would have provided a warning about the recent downturn.
Over the past week, Sarah Palin encouraged Tea-Party candidates to make energy issues a central part of their campaigns. "There's nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old national election can't fix," she said.
A new report by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was released last week that provides an updated analysis of the impact that AB32 will have on the economic growth of California. This report comes about a year and a half after the last one released by the CARB staff that received some criticism from outside economists due to the report making some questionable assumptions. In response to this, ARB appointed a board of 16 experts called the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC) to help CARB staff during the analysis, as well as contribute its own peer review of the analysis.
The result confirms that AB32 will have a positive impact on growth, although that impact was slightly less than in the original report. It is estimated that despite the economic downturn, two million jobs will be created by 2020, the economy will grow at 2.4% per year, and that $3.8 billion will be saved in reduced consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel.
The first part of this report outlines the economic benefits to California that AB32 would bring, and answers one of skeptics' prime questions: will AB32 take jobs away from Californians? The answer, quite simply is No.
In fact, the report states that this shift toward a clean economy will create a sustained growth of about .9 percent each year. The key, according to the report is "shift the driver of economic growth from cheap but polluting energy sources to clean energy and efficient technologies." In addition, this new report explains that although some industries like fossil fuel burning utilities and mining will take a hit under the new climate laws, overall, businesses can be expected to flourish.
It is anticipated that "small businesses may expect to see an increase in employment and output as consumers invest in more efficient appliances and improve energy efficiency of their homes." The reality is that not only will most industries, including small businesses prosper under this law, but that without AB32 will incur higher costs.
The second part of this report released by ARB analyzes the future possibilities if California fails to go through with AB32. Diverging from this plan would actually increase costs and individual Californians as well as small businesses would carry the majority of this burden. The report makes a point to weigh both the environmental as well as the economic repercussions of diverging from AB32. It states that "By transitioning to clean energy, we will shift our economy towards the future, and avoid the serious mistake states like Michigan made in using government to try to prop up outdated jobs in dirty industries."
Unlike other reports from different sources and with contrary findings, this one makes a point to include the opinions of impartial experts. These facts make it clear that not only will AB32 help our economy, but is necessary to get back on track.
All too often, discussions about so-called green job creation are placed in the future tense -- something we predict or hope will happen, but is still considered to be in the realm of the hypothetical. Many people don't know anyone who has a green job, are unable to imagine what one would look like, or who would be creating them. This keeps the concept of green jobs fuzzy and abstract for too many -- not the kind of thing you'd base an economic recovery on. The opponents of clean energy have seized on this, claiming that the whole concept of green jobs is a fantasy that could cost jobs in the established fossil fuel industry that we see all around us.
But for many lucky Americans, green jobs are not wishful thinking -- they are a welcome reality RIGHT NOW, giving laid-off workers well-paying jobs so they can keep their homes, revitalize their struggling communities, and do something positive for the entire country by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. NRDC's new videos, "Clean Energy Jobs For A Strong USA" and "Clean Energy Patriots", introduce you to these green collar workers and let them tell their stories in their own words. At the same time, they lay out a roadmap for how America, with its traditions of innovation and tackling the biggest challenges, can put generations of Americans to work by creating and maintaining a clean, efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure -- a project as needed, ambitious and economy-stimulating as the construction of America's interstate highway system that began over 50 years ago.
"Clean Energy Jobs For A Strong USA" does an excellent job of demystifying the concept of a green collar worker. They aren't farmers digging in organic compost or scientists in spacesuits -- they're welders, steelworkers, electricians and autoworkers, many of whom saw once-reliable Midwest factory jobs evaporate as the Great Recession ravaged the country. Despite no previous experience in clean tech, these workers found that their skills were easily transferable to clean tech industries. After all, windmills and solar panels are simply generators that need to be manufactured, installed, maintained and connected to the energy grid by skilled workers, and a factory that makes energy-efficient windows is still a window factory.
One thing that's notable about the workers interviewed in "Clean Energy Jobs For A Strong USA" is their pragmatism and noted lack of idealism. This is not to say that they aren't optimistic -- they want the rest of the nation to have the same kind of second chance that the clean tech industry has brought to their families and communities. But they don't want that because they are true believers in something unseen -- they want it because they've experienced it firsthand and live it every day as they work at their clean tech job and return to a home they can now afford to own. One could say that wanting to leave a better planet for your children than the one you were given is idealistic, but if so, it's an idealism that every person on the planet should have.
At the same time, the executives and spokespeople for the clean tech companies hiring these workers are simply looking at the reality of where the market is heading, where a once-exotic CFL is now simply a lightbulb and "alternative" energy will soon be the norm. Blake Jones, the CEO of Namaste Solar, reveals that he used to work for Halliburton until he understood the consequences of being dependant on oil from unfriendly or unstable nations. Chuck Swoboda, CEO of LED manufacturer CREE Inc., used to work for Ford until he realized that so much energy was being spent protecting the SUV business Ford had that they were failing to make the cars that would drive profits in the future. The two things corporations prize the most are profits and predictability -- if you don't know what the future of your industry holds, it's risky to try to profit from it. Clean tech companies know that clean energy makes profits, but without clean energy legislation that allows them to be competitive with markets in other countries that enjoy government support, future profits, venture capital, entrepreneurs and the innovation they breed, those profits will be made by companies overseas.
In "Clean Energy Patriots", we learn the multiple ways that clean tech strengthens the nation and its security. To start, service in America's highly mechanized, technologically advanced military turns out to be excellent training for jobs in the clean tech industry, providing great jobs for returning veterans eager to start working and put down roots. Soldiers building bases in Iraq can build solar farms in Nevada, and a technician who worked on submarine electronics can troubleshoot the electronics of a smart power grid. Many of the men and women in the video served in Iraq, where they experienced the consequences of our dependence on foreign oil firsthand and how American oil dollars fund those fighting against us. By working in clean tech, these former soldiers are able to continue serving their country by making America energy independent -- no bullets or overseas deployments required.
"Clean Energy Jobs For A Strong USA" and "Clean Energy Patriots" are videos you should dare elected officials and green job skeptics to watch. Even if you ignore the reality of climate change, the benefits of clean energy to America's economy and national security are overwhelming, and the honesty and excitement of the videos' participants hits you in a way that actors or the most polished PR firms couldn't match. For those who can't imagine a thriving economy based on clean energy, efficiency and energy independence, these videos provide a glimpse into a safer, more sustainable future for America. Or, more accurately, they let you spend time with the men and women who are already living there and want the rest of the nation to join them.
The coldest, most bitter part of winter is upon us. Even those of us with a warm home and a proper coat have good reason to fear that truly awful type of wind, the kind that cuts through the skin and chills to the bone. And, for those among us without, this is the time of year when life becomes a struggle for very survival.
With the holidays past, it can be tempting to indulge in a little selfishness, putting all that thankfulness and goodwill towards others on the backburner. When some unsold clothes that Walmart and H&M put in garbage bags outside their stores were found to have been slashed over the last few weeks, rendering them unwearable, it was probably not an act of malice against people who have been left out in the cold, but it certainly betrayed a lack of compassion. No one should be forced to rely on digging through the trash for clothing, but, until we create a sufficient social safety net, it would be nice to think that we would all try at a minimum—a very minimal minimum—not to make life even more difficult for people trying to scrape by.
The economic collapse is forcing us to confront the degree to which our fates are inextricably linked. And, while there is good reason to believe that many Americans have been reminded that we’re all in it together, all it takes is one story like this to see that, if we intend to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, we have an awfully long way to go.
The economic stimulus package has tackled some of the most pressing job-related issues facing our communities. However, with national unemployment at over 10% for the first time since the early 1980s, we have to make sure recovery monies are spent in communities who need help the most. We have a better chance of achieving success in these areas if we come together to ensure that our most vulnerable communities, including communities of color, immigrants, and the poor, can participate in and contribute to our economic growth.
Over the next few months, The Opportunity Agenda will be highlighting the progress that a number of community groups have had in dealing with the economic recovery. Specifically, we will be highlighting the successes and challenges that these groups have had in accessing stimulus funds, how those funds have been used to increase job opportunities and ensure economic security, and what the economic recovery package has meant for poor communities and communities of color.
As an organization working to ensure equal opportunity in the economic recovery, we have begun interviewing local and state-level groups to gain a better understanding of how our country is faring during this critical period. Today’s post centers on the our interview with Sondra Youdelman and Henry Serrano, focusing on their work with Community Voices Heard (CVH), a membership organization working to build power for low-income families in the state of New York. Sondra is the Executive Director of CVH, and Henry is their Senior Organizer/Voter Engagement Project Coordinator.
During these trying economic times, CVH has been lucky enough to achieve success by taking advantage of stimulus funding opportunities and grassroots activism. Recently, CVH won $25 million in new resources for subsidized employment, partly through regular Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) contingency money. In addition, CVH has been extremely proactive in assuring proper oversight and monitoring of public housing capital funds, specifically in the enforcement of Section 3 provisions of the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act. The Opportunity Agenda interviewed Sondra and Henry together on October 21, 2009. Here are some portions of that interview:
You'd think some super-smart Dems might notice the difference here. You'd be wrong.
The GDP/unemployment vision gap perfectly captures the outlines of a world where Dems happily vote to cut off ACORN, and let Wall Street keep wallowing in public cash
On Tuesday, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said the recession was "most likely over." The Wall Street Journal reported:
Mr. Bernanke, who had become cautiously more upbeat in recent weeks amid signs of third-quarter growth, said for the first time that forecasters agree "at this point that we are in a recovery."
The rebound, he added, would likely be so moderate it wouldn't produce many jobs.
"Even though from a technical perspective the recession is very likely over at this point, it is still going to feel like a very weak economy for some time as many people still find their job security and their employment status is not what they wish it was," he said.
His remarks, made after a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington to mark the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, came just after the Commerce Department reported retail sales climbed 2.7% in August after falling 0.2% in July.
And they added this optimistic chart, showing the biggest spike in autos, helped out by the now-terminated "cash for clunkers" program:
But on Thursday, Nobel Prize-Winner Joseph Stiglitz said 'not so much':
Just after returning to New York from Japan, Britain, and economically devastated Iceland, Stiglitz paints a picture of a U.S. economy that has stanched the most serious bleeding but remains deeply wounded. "I think we would be lucky to be out of the recession by 2012," Stiglitz says. "2010 may be a year of positive growth, though far weaker than would be necessary to get unemployment down significantly." Central to the grim diagnosis, Stiglitz says, is the lack of new jobs -- an argument echoed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which this week said high unemployment in the world's wealthiest countries could last years.
The difference here lies in what the two economists are looking at. Bernanke appears to going with the technical, GDP-based definition: if GDP is no longer going down, the recession is over. By that measure, the Great Depression ended sometime in 1933, if you can believe it-though, of course, there was another Recession when Roosevelt let up on recovery efforts and tried to balance the budget. Stiglitz, OTOH, is looking at jobs. And jobs didn't fully recover until WWII brought us the fullest employment economy we had ever known.
This seems like Framing and Political Strategy 101 to me, but since few other people are talking in this way, let me just lay out a basic idea: all this talk about doing a stimulus package versus not doing a stimulus package is fundamentally besides the point. What we need is a comprehensive policy package that is very simply focused on one thing and one thing only: jobs.
I know the policy wonks on Capitol Hill may be confused by that paragraph because, they would say, well, a stimulus program would create jobs. Well, yeah, that is the idea of stimulus. But my point is this: the politics of a second stimulus package are a dead end. The politics of having a debate about a policy package that will create jobs is a helpful thing. Announcing a second stimulus package gets Democrats into a defensive crouch about why the first one failed, and gets us into that same "can we get to 60" dance with Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins that caused the first stimulus bill to be pared back and rendered less effective.
Voters don't know what it means to say you are going to stimulate the economy, but they do know what a job is. And right now, what we need is jobs sooner rather than later. My point here is not to just rename the stimulus bill the jobs bill. In fact, there are quite a few things the White House and Congress can do to focus on jobs that don't involve just spending more, although more money will certainly need to be spent. Here is what I would include in a comprehensive package:
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
It's official: The U.S. economy has been in a recession for a year and a half and many of the economic troubles worrying progressives in 2007 have yet to be addressed. While the Obama administration has taken steps to relieve some problems, a series of counterproductive bailouts, woefully inadequate labor laws and rampant inequality are still in urgent need of attention.
Building a new foundation requires a lot of heavy machinery. Bulldozers to clear the land, extractors to dig the foundation, concrete-mixers to pour the cement and trucks to haul the raw materials. So perhaps it's appropriate that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar will be at the White House tomorrow for the first meeting of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB). The group includes some of America’s leading thinkers, business executives, and academics, including the CEOs of GE, UBS, and Google. (full list here)
The Board was created by President Obama in February to provide an outside-the-Beltway perspective on how we can recover from the financial crisis and build a new foundation for the American economy. "New Foundation" is emerging as the catch-all phrase to describe Obama's domestic policy agenda, similar to FDR's "New Deal" or Johnson's "Great Society" as a recent New York Times article points out. It's a good term, capturing both the shaky and unsustainable foundation of our past economic growth and framing out the kind of economy we need to build for the long-term. We are well past the time for patchwork solutions. We must rebuild and we must rebuild the right way.
The dialogue on immigration has, historically, been contentious and cyclical. There are times when hysteria peaks, and rational thought struggles to enter the national dialogue. There are also moments of truth. This week, independent media debunked many myths about the undocumented and made the case for the positive impact of immigrants in the US, including the positive effect of legalizing the undocumented on the economy and how citizens are holding elected representatives accountable for votes against pro-immigrant measures.
The selection of Adolfo Carrion, Bronx Borough President, to lead The White House Office of Urban Policy (WHOUP) is particularly important as the federal government unleashes the $787 billion economic stimulus package President Obama signed into law on Tuesday. The effectiveness of the stimulus package depends on the ability of federal officials to select among a range of public works projects identified by mayors and other metro officials according to these criteria: the speed with which they can be undertaken; the type, availability, and location of the workers they require; and their short-term and long-term economic effects. WHOUP must coordinate the federal government’s communication with officials at the city and metro level where most of these stimulus projects will be executed in the coming months.
Obama’s cities chief will have the opportunity to show the country that urban policy is uniquely about smart investment, careful planning, and effective policy design rather than wasteful spending on unnecessary projects—that it’s about harnessing the resources concentrated in metro areas, where a vast majority of Americans live, by maximizing present value and extracting future potential.
