Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $22 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.
Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs...
The outsourcing program (is) sure to draw the most fire from critics. While Obama acknowledged that occupations such as garment making don't add much value to the U.S. economy, he argued relentlessly during his presidential run that lawmakers needed to do more to keep hi-tech jobs in IT, biological sciences, and green energy in the country.
Who is helped more by this, corporations or workers?
The Obama administration is failing to connect with many who are losing out in this economy.
For a while, conservatives will make arguments defending their policy preferences that involve some sort of theory (e.g. Laffer curve, unregulated market is superior, people can invest better with a 401K than professional pension managers) that eventually is shown to be invalid.
What then? Do they admit they are wrong and abandon those policies?
No. In fact, they roll out the argument that was, deep down, what they really believed. But it's not pretty and hence, the flim-flam noted above. This week, Limbaugh does us the favor by spelling it out: (emp add)
"I want to say something. I know this is not going to go down well among those who have knee-jerk reactions and I know this is not going to go down well among people who have this notion that fairness is the overriding objective of any society. I've made the point throughout my career, the undeniable truths of life, many monologues on this program, that life is not fair by definition. Life isn't fair. I mean, it just isn't, and there's no way that you can change certain aspects that make life unfair to make them fair. Life is not equal. Sometimes people earn more than others. Some people have children when other people can't. There's nothing unfair about that. That's just the way it is. Unspeakable tragedies happen to some families; they don't happen to others. Some people live a long time; some people don't. There's no explaining any of this. Nobody's in charge of this. There's no government that can change this, although we have plenty of busybodies trying to on this "living longer" business. (imitating busybody) "Oh yeah, some people are living longer because they don't smoke, drink, eat trans fats," and go down that ridiculous road. But the vast majority of things that occur in the process of living life are unequal and unfair."
There you have it. Interested in regulating coal mines so that workers don't get killed? Forget it, since the universe has decreed that life is unfair, and there's no point trying to counter that with mine inspections or mandatory safety procedures.
Unemployed? Since life is unfair, there's no point it trying to remedy that with unemployment insurance or a stimulus. Sick? No need to have a health plan for you. Instead, pay what you can until you lose all your money and then be destitute (and possibly die). It's the way it should be.
Saying "life is unfair" works for all situations: Under despotic rule. While slavery was practiced. For unnecessary wars. When thieves loot.
Of course, it could be used the other way. If the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire and the Fox News crowd is complaining, they could be told to shut the hell up and accept that life is unfair. But somehow this never happens.
[Obama] should say the truth, which is decent Muslims are appalled by this. This isn't helping Muslim relations in the United States. It's terribly damaging to them. He should say to his imam if you care all about [comity] and decency in the U.S., build this mosque elsewhere.
Guest poster at Yglesias, puts it well: (orig emp)
I agree with Matt that the deficit commission’s recommendations are unlikely to be actually implemented. But I just don’t understand the politics at all. This is the Democratic White House’s Deficit Commission which will be making these recommendations, which are shaping up to be highly unpopular. Republican leadership in Congress will simply wash their hands of it all, as they did when the idea of creating the commission came up for a vote. On top of that, since the recommendations are likely to be voted down, the country doesn’t even get the benefit of a reduced deficit. If the headline over the holidays in December is “Republicans Successfully Block Obama Plan to Cut Military Pay,” the White House will have no one to blame but themselves.
The Deficit Commission is a mess which, whatever it comes up with, will be used as a cudgel by Republicans to cut entitlement programs - even Social Security, which is mostly paid for - and reject any tax increases. You can argue about those issues, but the commission isn't going to do that. Its priorities are already set.
I’m starting to have a sick feeling about prospects for American workers — but not, or not entirely, for the reasons you might think.
Yes, growth is slowing, and the odds are that unemployment will rise, not fall, in the months ahead. That’s bad. But what’s worse is the growing evidence that our governing elite just doesn’t care — that a once-unthinkable level of economic distress is in the process of becoming the new normal.
And I worry that those in power, rather than taking responsibility for job creation, will soon declare that high unemployment is “structural,” a permanent part of the economic landscape — and that by condemning large numbers of Americans to long-term joblessness, they’ll turn that excuse into dismal reality.
A (pretty good) article in the Financial Times about the crisis of middle class America:
The slow economic strangulation of the Freemans and millions of other middle-class Americans started long before the Great Recession, which merely exacerbated the “personal recession” that ordinary Americans had been suffering for years. Dubbed “median wage stagnation” by economists, the annual incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973 – having risen by only 10 per cent in real terms over the past 37 years. That means most Americans have been treading water for more than a generation. Over the same period the incomes of the top 1 per cent have tripled. In 1973, chief executives were on average paid 26 times the median income. Now the multiple is above 300.
The trend has only been getting stronger. Most economists see the Great Stagnation as a structural problem – meaning it is immune to the business cycle. In the last expansion, which started in January 2002 and ended in December 2007, the median US household income dropped by $2,000 – the first ever instance where most Americans were worse off at the end of a cycle than at the start. Worse is that the long era of stagnating incomes has been accompanied by something profoundly un-American: declining income mobility.
And from last month (noted previously, 15 July) this story:
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough. (...)
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
A little protectionism (against low-wage countries) would help a lot, but protectionism increases domestic labor's strength, and that's anathema to big business. And Congress is the servant of big business, so there's no protectionism and instead, full-throttle globalization.
WALLACE: I'm curious, Governor, why are you targeting women? Are you trying to create a women's movement for this November and possibly for 2012?
PALIN: Well, it just so happens that these common sense constitutional conservative women are willing to put it all on the line, and they're going to make a lot of sacrifices in order to serve their country.
They have a lot of common sense. They just happen to be women. And I support them strongly and wholly. They have common sense. They know that we have to extend the Bush tax cuts. They have to repeal the budget- busting bills like "Obamacare" and talk of cap and tax energy taxes. They have to rein in spending in Congress. They have to adopt policies that will allow us to be energy independent to get us back on the right track.
That video was all about supporting those women, men too, with common sense, with a desire to protect our Constitution and the free market in America and turn some things around in this country.
Now, everything that I just mentioned, what we need to do, those things that have not been doing, are resulting in the congressional approval rating being in the tank, you know, 11 percent, which is a reflection, too, on what's coming out of the White House.
That video was about supporting people who want to get the country back on the right track just using some common sense, using some wisdom and not underestimating the wisdom of the people.
Hard to disagree with what he says in this New York Times op-ed. He says that the new breed of Republicans (approx post 1990) have been a big factor in the current deficit mess. Also notes that the growth in the financial sector has harmful effects, and blames globalization for the hollowing out of U.S. economy. Pace Stockman, it should be noted that he's something of a hard money guy, unhappy that Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard. But tying your money supply to gold - while it may have some advantages - can severely constrain the freedom of governments to manage their budgets.
Stockman is another person in the parade of Republican apostates who, like Bruce Bartlett, have no sympathy for today's Republican policy goals..
It's am eleven minute YouTube lecture by British social theorist David Harvey with someone drawing cartoons in sync with the narrative. Fun to watch. Doesn't offer much of a solution, though.
After World War I, our armed forces shrank from 2.9 million men in 1918 to 250,000 in 1928. The result? World War II became more likely ...
Instead,
Imagine how Hitler might have acted in 1939 had several hundred thousand American troops been stationed in France and Poland. Under such circumstances, it is doubtful he would ever have launched his blitzkrieg.
Britain guaranteed Poland and didn't have any troops there on September 1, 1939. The United States was, in the wake of World War I, staunchly isolationist and there is absolutely no way American troops would have been stationed in Poland, or France for that matter.
Boot's argument runs like this:
There was a war. U.S. bolstered its defense capabilities. The war ended and the U.S. demobilized. And there was peace.
A significant root cause of the [financial] crisis was the combined weight of government policies promoting homeownership; these are apparent in the housing GSEs, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Banks, the federal tax deduction for mortgage interest and various state programs. Homeownership was overstimulated to the point that it was unsustainable and dangerous to the broader economy. (...)
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should not be allowed to revert to their old form, crowding out private competition and putting taxpayers on the hook for failure while shareholders benefit from success.
But that's exactly what Paulson did by funneling money through AIG to Goldman Sachs - of which he was CEO.
Barry Ritholtz has a sharp take-down of Paulson's essay. It's not pretty, but worth reading.
Of interest, the op-ed's comment section is overwhelmingly hostile towards Paulson, although there is always be the occasional Hannity-listener who cheers him on. That said, I haven't seen such a negative reaction in the Post's comments section for a long time. Looks as if Paulson failed to make his case.
Jon Chait takes down a dude - J.D. Foster, Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at the Heritage Foundation - over an argument about tax levels.
Foster is ridiculous, and not just with the issue that Chait engages. Just take a look at his posts. Keep in mind that he's a Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow! (and be appropriately humble)
What's interesting is how does the Heritage Foundation get any respect from anybody if they have guys like Foster speaking for them?
Here's the entire text of the story that forms the basis for that headline:
N.J. governor greets Obama briefly By MATT NEGRIN | 07/28/10 2:14 PM
Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie planned to greet President Obama when Air Force One landed in the state on Wednesday afternoon, but he wasn’t scheduled to attend the president’s meeting with small-business owners.
“I’m not aware of any invitation to the event in Edison,” Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts told POLITICO. “We were invited to the arrival ceremony.”
“The governor’s happy to welcome the president to New Jersey,” Roberts added.
When Obama visited New Jersey in July 2009 to campaign for Gov. John Corzine, whom Christie defeated, Christie offered a mocking “warm, New Jersey welcome” to him in a YouTube video that highlighted the state’s economic troubles.
Newark Mayor Cory Booker also greeted Obama when the president arrived.
Presumably Obama "met his match" in the You Tube video, where the only substantive points made by Christie were that state taxes are high in New Jersey!
If I only write about a civil* political campaign for senator in Delaware - a state with less than a million people - then I won't have judge either national party on it's honesty or low tactics this election year.
