A Proud New Dealer Runs for Congress

The special election to fill Rahm Emanuel’s seat in Illinois's 5th District in the House of Representatives should be getting more attention from progressive and liberal elements of The Democratic Party. The simple reason is about who is running for the Democrats. Thomas Geoghegan, labor lawyer, writer, and staunch advocate for the poor who Thomas Frank glowingly praises in a commentary written in the Wall Street Journal. Thomas Frank describes Geoghegan’s writing skills as “brilliant ... possessed of an elegant, conversational prose style and an eye for the haunting detail.” And so it was: the silent, suffering antithesis to the great choir then starting its hymn to omniscient markets and the ever-ascending Dow. For decades Mr. Geoghegan has been a brilliant defender of “organized labor" ... through times "when everyone else was coming to accept the post-industrial order. The basic point that he would make was that the decline of unions wasn't a reflection of consumer choice, in the way that hot movies and popular toys are said to be. Labor unions were hemorrhaging members because the game was rigged against them; because it was nearly impossible for workers to organize when the penalties incurred by management for firing pro-union employees were so slight.” Frank praises Geoghegan’s writing by declaring his “1991 book, "Which Side Are You On?" -- the best book on labor to appear in the past 50 years” that "continued my education about the blue-collar world. An "anti-world," Mr. Geoghegan called it, a "secret world" Mr. Geoghegan knew so much about. Frank adds his own remarks to reinforce Mr. Geoghegan's observations: "And so it was:" Frank elucidates; "the silent, suffering antithesis to the great choir then starting its hymn to omniscient markets and the ever-ascending Dow.” Frank posits that the collapse of "conservative orthodoxy" into "a heap of complex derivatives" makes this a perfect time for Mr. Geoghegan to spread his “refreshing dose of plain-spoken Midwestern reality ... to the nation as a whole.” Frank provides a number of insightful observations regarding Mr. Geoghegan’s views on government, working people and the economy: “To begin with, Mr. Geoghegan thinks big while Democrats in Washington tend to think small, proposing a stimulus package here and better oversight there." Frank adds from a conversation he recently had with Geoghegan in which Frank remembers that (t)he government's goal should not merely be in Geoghegan’s view "to pump up demand again." Frank explains that the purpose of government "should be to enact sweeping, structural change," which Geoghegan believes will force government "to get in a position where we're not bleeding jobs out of the country." And Frank continues the point, as: “For the view that working people have no business with retirement and health care in the lean, mean, inevitable future, Mr. Geoghegan has a certain contempt. He wants to increase Social Security payments to make up for the destruction of private pension plans and expand Medicare with the goal of arriving, eventually, at single-payer health care." Geoghegan believes: "The $700 billion bank bailout," he explains, "proves that such expenses can be borne. What's more, they're necessary.” Geoghegan explains that: "Economic security is not only compatible with being competitive globally," he tells Frank; "it's crucial to it." Frank concurs that: "Until we shift the burden of pensions and health care from companies to government we will continue to endure" what Geoghegan describes as "debacles like General Motors" and other entities. "It is also time," Geoghegan believes according to Frank, "to change the relationship between the financial sector and the rest of the economy. After all," Geoghegan tells Frank: "We bought into these banks, we ought to have directors on the boards. We the people, as stockholders, have different interests than some other stockholders because we have some other ideas about how we prosper in the long term." Mr. Geoghegan elaborates: "rather than go for high-roller returns on financial speculations," Frank adds in to suggest "a publicly appointed director" that Geoghegan explains "might be willing to accept lower returns in manufacturing where we can be globally competitive and create good jobs." Thomas Frank gets it: “This is supposed to be a time for bold ideas on the left, with the failures of the free-market consensus becoming more glaring and more painful by the day. And Mr. Geoghegan's ideas should be part of the debate." "Indeed,” Frank concludes of Mr.Geoghegan: “this scholarly labor lawyer may be exactly the man for the moment. He is an unrepentant New Dealer with an old-fashioned sense of civic duty and an admitted fondness for Washington. Unlike so many who have been called to service in this economic crisis, he has no period of embarrassing new economy enthusiasm to apologize for. And despite the stories we tell ourselves about corrupt Chicago, change is possible. Voters need merely to seize the opportunity.” If only our nation could produce more thinkers, writers and politicians that demonstrated, on a daily basis, Geoghegan’s highly perceptive understanding of how America does not work for the laborers who keep the nation tirelessly advancing and instead, understand how the financiers and managerial class work to maintain the lowly status of labor. If only our legislators were moved to produce laws that would provide for easy union membership and protect the rights of the unions against the rich and powerful. If such a reality existed where the insights of Mr. Geoghegan formed the underlying thought for people to understand how the system is rigged against their best interests and their ability to make a decent middle class living; America would be a much better nation. America would take its rightful place as the provider of free for all regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, beliefs or sexual preference; the defender of the powerless, the guardian against the powerful. We can create a world that operates and provides acceptable means of maintaining a healthy and robust economic system; such a reality would give people, regardless of their personal characteristics, a sense of worthiness and dignity that would assure equitable treatment for the unions and the laborers they represent. The masses of Americans who take on the drudgery of daily labor need to recognize and assimilate the teachings of Mr. Geoghegan as a means for furthering a better nation that is responsive to the needs of all Americans.

Obama Stakes Social Security and Medicare Overhaul to Stem Federal Spending

JEFF ZELENY and JOHN HARWOOD report for the New York Times that: "President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs." Mr Obama made his remarks at a Washington news conference and "he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month." The Congressional Budget Office has "projected a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year even before the costs of the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep the government’s finances from deteriorating further." Making changes that would attempt to decrease the increasing expenditures for Social Security and Medicare would surely be a politically unappealing undertaking that would find few elected representatives willing to take on. The Times reporters suggest: "The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run." From Obama's perspective, he has promised to “scour this budget, line by line, eliminating what we don’t need, or what doesn’t work, and improving the things that do.” And with that pledge in mind he has developed a special White House post, calling it the chief performance officer, and named Nancy Killefer to fill it with the intended purpose to engage in "a more intensive effort to weed inefficient and bloated programs out of the federal budget in the short run,.." Reflecting on his decision, Mr Obama remarked: "If we do nothing,.. then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see.” The task of taking on Social Security and Medicare demonstrate Obama's willingness to consider that no federal program is sacrosanct. But at a time when Mr Obama is attempting to keep the nation's focus squarely on his economic recovery plan he has to be careful not to over reach and create battles that he neither needs nor is prepared to engage in. His presidency depends on a levelheaded and systematic approach to placing the nation on a sustainable glide path to recovery that holds the peoples' trust in his efforts. He must be very judicious and even-tempered in deciding how quickly he can spend the good will he now possesses; any deviations from that plan could prove disastrous to the achievement of his over all goal of repairing the economy. Social Security and Medicare reform; although both vitally necessary, might be tasks that come at a later time for the Obama Administration to have a greater chance at popular success.

Obama to Disperse $300 Billion in Tax Cuts

Peter baker and Carl Hulse report in the New York Times that: "President-elect Barack Obama plans to include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses in his economic recovery program, advisers said Sunday, as his team seeks to win over Congressional skeptics worried that he was too focused on government spending. The legislation Mr. Obama is developing with Congressional Democrats will devote about 40 percent of the cost to tax cuts, including his centerpiece campaign promise to provide credits up to $500 for most workers, costing roughly $150 billion. The package will also include more than $100 billion in tax incentives for businesses to create jobs and invest in equipment or factories." It has been estimated that: "The overall economic package, of $675 billion to $775 billion." Democrats believe "that the economic package would not be ready for Mr. Obama’s signature immediately after his inauguration on Jan. 20, as they once hoped." Republicans are anxious to slow down the legislative process with intense scrutiny of the plan and will also make efforts to include their own ideas in the legislative package. "The economic package under consideration by the president-elect and his Congressional allies would commit $675 billion to $775 billion over two years. If the tax cuts represent 40 percent of that, as Mr. Obama’s advisers said Sunday, that would mean about $270 billion to $310 billion. About half of that would go to workers under what Mr. Obama during his campaign called the Making Work Pay credit, worth up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families. The Obama campaign estimated that about 150 million Americans making less than $200,000 would qualify, including those who make too little to pay federal income taxes but would receive a check that would offset Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes." The next several weeks will witness a flurry of activity in both the Congress and the White House with numerous possible pitfalls looming that could delay and change the Obama plan before it becomes law. The future of the Obama Presidency and of the Congressional Democrats hinges on their being successful in delivering on their campaign promises made to the American people.

Obama and Congressional Democrats Contemplate Expanding Help to Jobless Americans

JACKIE CALMES and CARL HULSE report in the New York Times that: “President-elect Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are considering major expansions of government-assisted health care insurance and unemployment compensation as they begin intensive work this week on a two-year economic recovery package. One proposal, as described by Democratic advisers, would extend unemployment compensation to part-time workers, an idea that Congressional Republicans have blocked in the past. Other policy changes would subsidize employers’ expenses for temporarily continuing health insurance coverage to laid-off and retired workers and their dependents, as mandated under a 22-year-old federal law known as Cobra, and allow workers who lose jobs that did not come with insurance benefits to be eligible, for the first time, to apply for Medicaid coverage.” In his weekly YouTube and radio address on Saturday Obama explained the need for swift action. “Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” Mr. Obama said, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach.” In describing his economic plan, Obama said he intends to use government spending and tax incentives to increase renewable energy production; prioritize energy efficient government buildings; make infrastructure repairs and improvements; and bring modernized methods to health care and he pledged to “put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow.” Obama also intends to “reshape the economy, especially for the good of low-wage and middle-class workers.” One of Obama’s goals is “that he would seek money to develop a national energy grid to harness and distribute power from wind, water and other local alternative energy sources.” Congressional Democrats plan to be very aggressive in keeping “...the emerging legislation free of the pork-barrel projects that could invite criticism from Republicans and foster public skepticism.” House leadership has pledged that: “Every dollar will have to be justified as to whether it is targeted to our economy,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said last week. “This is not a bill that will be an excuse to put things in that otherwise might not be justified.” Democrats are under extreme pressure to produce meaningful results without overspending. “...officials said the size of the proposed two-year stimulus, equivalent to nearly a year of federal discretionary spending, had tested imaginations both in Congress and the Obama camp. Aides and advisers are struggling to identify enough projects that would meet Mr. Obama’s criteria that they be truly stimulative, create jobs and not be open to being branded as pork. This has really forced people to think outside the box,” one aide on the House Appropriations Committee said, “because this is more money than anybody expected to be spending.” There have also been: “Tensions on the opposite side involve demands from fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House and from some Senate Democrats — notably the Senate Budget Committee chairman, Kent Conrad of North Dakota — for provisions imposing budgetary controls on future spending and tax cuts for the long-term health of the economy. According to both sides, Obama officials have assured the fiscal conservatives that Mr. Obama would propose long-term controls in his first five-year budget, which is due by late February.” Conservative democrats “support deficit spending to jump-start the economy” but they also make the case that proper planning must be in place to retire the creation of increased debt. An idea that is making its way among Democrats is the creation of “a bipartisan commission to propose limits on future benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the entitlement programs whose projected future costs would squeeze out all other spending; a nonpartisan entity to designate infrastructure projects, like roads and public buildings, based on merit, and federal pay-as-you-go rules requiring offsetting savings for spending increases and new tax cuts.”

Bush's Failed Health Care Legacy

A New York Times editorial praises President Bush for some worthy achievements in health care: " As we have argued in the past, Mr. Bush deserves high praise for significantly increasing American support for the global effort to control AIDS... there is little doubt that the president has played a key role in providing drug treatments or supportive care to millions of patients who would otherwise have gone untended." The Times editorial points out that: "It is a remarkable record for the leader of a party that had been reluctant in the Reagan era to deal with a disease whose victims at the time in this country were primarily gay men and injection drug users. Equally remarkable was Mr. Bush’s decision to push through a costly new prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program for older Americans despite stout opposition in his party to government-run health care. It was the largest expansion of Medicare in decades and it dragged the program, at long last, into the modern medical era, in which drugs are a cornerstone of treatment." The Times points out their objections "to many features of the program — the refusal to allow the government to negotiate with manufacturers for lower prices, shortfalls in providing subsidies to low-income Americans, a failure to protect many patients from high out-of-pocket costs. Still, it has achieved its main goal by reducing the percentage of older Americans who lack drug coverage, from 33 percent before the program started to only 8 percent in 2006.Less heralded was the Bush administration’s willingness to grant Massachusetts a Medicaid waiver to redeploy federal funds to help start a universal health insurance program... Another substantial health achievement came in the form of bricks and mortar, through the president’s vigorous support of community health clinics." These achievements, the Times notes do not absolve the Bush Administration for it's most glaring failures in health care, including: " its failure to address the problem of millions of uninsured Americans or stem the rising costs of health care, its refusal to expand eligibility for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, its devious maneuvers to cut Medicaid spending, its support of unjustified subsidies for private health plans, to name a few." Regardless of the Times' list of Bush achievements, I believe that there is no doubt that President Bush deserves a low grade for his overall performance in matters of health care; his most glaring omission has been his failure to provide health care insurance to the millions of American's who must face each day of their lives without adequate and affordable heath care protection - a trip to the emergency room is not the way to solve our national health care shortfall. President-elect Obama has been left with many tasks that President Bush failed to accomplish. I hope that Obama's efforts will prove to be more productive than Bush's failures to act on issues of major significance regarding health care.