Summing it all up, over at today’s New York Times’ “Campaign Stops” blog and on the op-ed page of Friday’s edition of the paper, Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, respectively, remind us that while the Obama administration’s economic policies and stated plans for our nation’s future leave much to be desired (and, yes, I’m being very kind here), they sure as hell beat a sharp stick in the eye (which would quickly fester into a mortal wound) for those of us that comprise the 99%. And, that would be the highly optimistic result, as far as our nation’s economy is concerned, if Mitt Romney were to win all the marbles on November 6th.
Stiglitz…
Some Are More Unequal Than Others
JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
New York Times’ “Campaign Stops” Blog
October 26, 2012, 12:20 am
This election has rightly been characterized as one that will deeply affect the future direction of the country: Americans are being given a choice with potentially large consequences. One arena in which there are profound differences that has not been adequately debated is the future course of inequality.
Mitt Romney has been explicit: inequality should be talked about only in quiet voices behind closed doors. But with the normally conservative magazine The Economist publishing a special series showing the extremes to which American inequality has grown — joining a growing chorus (of which my book “The Price of Inequality” is an example) arguing that the extremes of American inequality, its nature and origins, are adversely affecting our economy — it is an issue that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice.
This perhaps provides part of the explanation for why inequality and poverty should suddenly appear as part of the Romney-Ryan makeover, as they attempt to portray themselves (to use a phrase of some 12 years ago) as compassionate conservatives. In Cleveland on Wednesday, Paul Ryan gave a speech that might lead one to conclude that the two Republican candidates were really concerned about poverty. But more revealing than oratory are budget numbers — like those actually contained in the Ryan budget. His budget proposal guts programs that serve those at the bottom, and little could have done more to enrich those at the top than his original tax proposals (like the elimination of capital gains taxes, a position from which he understandably has tried to distance himself). Every other advanced country has recognized the right of everyone to access to health care, and extending access was central to President Obama’s health care reform. Romney and Ryan have criticized that reform, but have said nothing about how or whether they would ensure universal access. Most important, the macroeconomic consequences of the Romney-Ryan economic program would be devastating: growth would slow, unemployment would increase, and just as Americans would need the social protection of government more, the safety net would be weakened.
We’d all do well to pay a bit closer attention. That American inequality is at historic highs is undisputed. It’s not just that the top 1 percent takes in about a fifth of the income, and controls more than a third of the wealth. America also has become the country (among the advanced industrial countries) with the least equality of opportunity. Meanwhile, those in the middle are faring badly, in every dimension, in security, in income, and in wealth — the wealth of the typical household is back to where it was in the 1990s. While the recession has made all of this worse, even before the recession they weren’t faring well: in 2007, the income of the typical family was lower than it was at the end of the last century. While Obama may not have done as much as he should to counteract the steep downturn he inherited from George W. Bush upon taking office — and he underestimated the depth of the problems that had been passed along to him — he did far more than his predecessor. And he could have done far more, as the dimensions of the problem became clearer to everyone, had he not faced such strong opposition in Congress...
Krugman...
Pointing Toward Prosperity?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times Op=Ed
October 26, 2012
Mitt Romney has been barnstorming the country, telling voters that he has a five-point plan to restore prosperity. And some voters, alas, seem to believe what he’s saying. So President Obama has now responded with his own plan, a little blue booklet containing 27 policy proposals. How do these two plans stack up?
Well, as I’ve said before, Mr. Romney’s “plan” is a sham…
…
...So Mr. Romney is faking it. His real plan seems to be to foster economic recovery through magic, inspiring business confidence through his personal awesomeness. But what about the man he wants to kick out of the White House?
Well, Mr. Obama’s booklet comes a lot closer to being an actual plan…
…
…So, is Mr. Obama offering an inspiring vision for economic recovery? No, he isn’t. His economic agenda is relatively small-bore — a bunch of modest if sensible proposals rather than a big push. More important, it’s aimed at the medium term, the economy of 2020, rather than at the clear and pressing problems of the present.
Put it this way: If you didn’t know what was actually going on in the U.S. economy, you’d think from reading the Obama plan that America was a place where workers with the right skills were in high demand, so that our big problem was that not enough people have those skills. And five or 10 years from now, America might actually look like that. Right now, however, we’re still living in a depressed economy offering poor prospects for almost everyone, including the highly educated…
…
…In a better world, the president would be proposing bold short-term moves to move us rapidly back to full employment. But he isn’t…
…
…So all that the administration feels able to offer are measures that would, one hopes, modestly accelerate the recovery already under way.
It’s disappointing, to be sure. But a slow job is better than a snow job. Mr. Obama may not be as bold as we’d like, but he isn’t actively misleading voters the way Mr. Romney is…
(
Bold type is diarist’s emphasis.)
Krugman closes out his column by stating that President Obama “…may not have an exciting economic plan, but, if he is re-elected, he will get to implement a health reform that is the biggest improvement in America’s safety net since Medicare…”
Yes, on November 6th, when it comes to all things relating to our economy, we can opt for a slow job or a snow job. Meanwhile, to the many millions who have dealt with foreclosure or still with no job, come 2013, the one thing that is virtually certain is that almost everyone in D.C. will still be on their knees giving Wall Street a...
...well, I think you catch my drift.