Steve, these are Democrats. They want to lose, and most of all, they want to hide from their promises and responsibilities. They'll return as lame ducks in December to raise the Social Security age. Now there's a vote-getter and job creator for you!

"Why not ask voters which they prefer -- a jobs agenda or a Billionaire Bailout?"

... because we are talking about Democratic strategists. My dead beagle is a better political strategist than the Democratic Party.

The idea of oil/coal independence forgets that it will take decades and pushing for such a big program will put everything else on the back burners. So American stop trying to do anything else while it spends years fighting in court of environmental law complaicne and whether blacks get enough of the contracts.

Maybe the present administration and its supporters should try to think of something other than throwing money at a problem.

Borrowing money from China and Japan to pay illegal aliens to build windmills and power lines if probably not doing to help many Americans.

Democrats have been playing small ball for the last two generations. In the meantime, the debate keeps getting shoved farther to the right. This isn't a coincidence. By not risking small advantages, we lose at any possibility of the big ones. Republicans may not have any coherent policy prescriptions but they don't need them in their psy-war campaigns. Democrats have tons of good policy ideas. Now, we just need a good reason to get out of bed and fight.

"They are not going to get it. The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small."

Same old story - Blame Bush, and NOT ENOUGH stimulus. It doesn't matter what "coherent policy prescriptions" the Republicans may have - it's knowing that since 2006, the Democrats have held both houses, and have damaged this country beyond repair. This was compounded by the election of a Democrat that is obviously not qualified for the job as president.

Just like your constituents, and other Democrats, start taking responsibility and stop blaming everyone else!

You should write this up as a proposal like your "Pass the Damn Bill" memo. I like it.

Maybe I'm just wishfully thinking here, but IIRC, it was Karl Rove who said you don't start a new initiative in August because no one is paying attention. Maybe, and I know it's a BIG maybe, the President does plan to announce a jobs program, but is waiting until September. I can't believe Democrats are planning on doing nothing.

Hey Walt - "Democrats have tons of good policy ideas."? Really? Name one?

Here is the best stimulus plan, and it is proposed by a conservative: http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/conservative-economist-has-idea-find-unempl

" ... why not call their bluff?"

When has this White House ever called ANYBODY'S bluff?

Dems desperately need to start picking some fights a la Alan Grayson. They need to be stark, blunt and provocative so the press will give it coverage.

Steve's suggestion is excellent, but the courage to pull the trigger appears to be lacking among Dem leadership. I hope I'm proven wrong.

I see at least 3 things holding the White House back.

1. Timing. As noted above, you don't release a new product in August. Two months is a very long time in politics. And Obama is nothing if not the master of rope-a-dope.

2. The Cult of Bipartisanship, plus Obama's essentially centrist nature. He really does want to be the leader of a united country, or even its uniter, and he doesn't want to turn the presidency into a partisan bully pulpit.

3. Fear of losing. If Obama does go out on a limb, he risks losing hugely. He is, after all, black, and the depth and virulence of raw racism in this country is easy to underestimate. He could pick the fight, lose it, and be a fringe-minority Muslim Socialist for the rest of his term.

I hope for #1, and I hope the White House finally realizes that "it takes only one foe to breed a war" and that #2 is beyond reach. And I hope they overcome #3. But I'm not betting the farm.

Robert Reich has a great idea that will probably never be picked up the by the Democrats, as it's far too sensible and might rub some rich folks the wrong way. At Huffington Post, he suggests tax jujitsu:

Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000.

This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it's likely to be spent.

(via slinkerwink at Daily Kos)

Like several people who have commented, many of my students get their information from FOX, they too have no idea what is going on.

I strongly agree with ChicagoPat - this is a very astute policy and political proposal on par with Pass the Damn Bill and deserves to be put forward in the same manner.

Unless the Obama Administration decides suspend the National Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and decide to ignore the will of Congress, the idea that the government can create a huge number of jobs quickly. That is why most of the stimulus spending had gone to keeping existing state and local employees employed.

Virginia has spend over a decade fighting over the placement of a single high-tension power line. Does anyone think that lines can be built from Pampa Texas to NYC is less than two decades?

Those of us who want more stimulus, preferably wrapped around a core conceptual framework of more infrastructure and green energy production, need to stop hoping that those who don't share that vision (i.e. Republicans, Blue Dogs, and the White House) are going to magically wake up and push for good policy. It is effectively waiting for Godot.

Instead, we need to push liberal Democrats in the House to push for such a package, without the White House's direction. Even if it fails, it will send a message that some Democrats stand for something, and will hopefully keep liberals in the House from being swept out of power in the wave of disaffection.

bleh:
You are right about number one. At least partially. That strategy worked great against Hillary(Of course Stevie Wonder could see Mark Penn's BS coming from a mile away). He needs to get over number two. First, he ain't no Paul Wellstone. Second, who is he going to bring together exactly? The rich and the poor? He needs to realize that you'll never be able to please everyone. Third, fear of losing what? The Congressional majorities? Does Obama want Darrell Issa leading impeachment proceedings? Using a football analogy. He needs a little Daryle Lamonica in him. You need more then a dink and dunk offense.

"...why not call their bluff?"

I've been wondering the same thing since last summer when the death panels took hold. I've lost all hope for the democrats and I don't mean just in the upcoming election.

All of this implies that Obama has an interest in the well-being of the people he's served.

The man hired Larry Summers. This is what happens.

This is why I love reading your work Steve. Good ideas and constructive criticism. then of course I get to the comments and its just pure negativity, attacks on his manhood, etc. etc.

I can see the TV spot now: a picture of the collapsed bridge in Minnesota with a voiceover talking about creating jobs while repairing our infrastructure.

Closing line: What kind of bridges do you want your children to inherit?

(Could use the asphalt-to-gravel road pictures as well...)

What amazes me about the reluctance to push forward on stimulus is that I think there's broad agreement on the need for infrastructure investment and to do something about jobs. By contrast a lot of us on the left were and are really iffy on the GM deal even though it looks like it was probably the right call. The GM deal was way out there. I don't see how the guys who were willing to do that balk at a jobs stimulus.

Boehner and McConell would simply denounce any jobs bill as "more of the same" and "big government Socialism" and "pork." And the for the most, the people who show up and vote most dependably -- older, more affluent whites -- will agree with them.

Benen: what part of "The Democrats' various blunders and lack of spine, imagination and leadership mean they have irredeemably lost the economic debate in the minds of the electorate for the time being, and their only hope now is the economy begins to improve of its own accord" DON'T you understand?

I'm not as cynically pessimistic as I may sound, for what it's worth, because I suspect the economy will grow much more robustly in 2011 and (especially) in 2012, and the Democrats will have a good year, including gains in Congress and retention of the White House. It's just not going to save their bacon in the mid-terms, however, so I've resigned myself to looking for the silver linings in the GOP resurgence we're going to experience in a couple of months.

Why not take the Bush tax cut for the rich, let it expire, and put it all towards an employer payroll tax holiday for NEW hires for the next year. That would cover 6 million new workers.

I think the problem is that nervous "centrist" Democrats don't feel like they have a good counterpunch to throw: if there's a big stimulus initiative of some kind, the Republicans will surely say that it's Big Spending, and then Democratic centrists don't know what to say next.

My thinking is that the Democratic leadership needs to consolidate behind the idea that we need short-term spending to improve the economy and create jobs _now_, AND ALSO a long-term plan _to pay back_ the money we would be borrowing.

Let the deficit hawks earn their wings by pushing hard on the back end, the repayment; let the liberals and greens have their way on the front end, the carefully targeted investment that stimulates the economy.

I think of it as using the credit card to buy a piece of equipment that you need to keep your business afloat. You may have to pay the minimum for a few months. But the investment makes it possible to do more business, and then you make more money, _and THEN you pay off your credit card_.

Yes, it is going to increase the deficit. make no bones about that. But it's increasing in the _short term_ so that it can be decreased in the _long term_. This is, like, everyday economic decision-making. The pro-corporate wing of the Democratic party should be totally at ease sounding like this.

Is it just me or does the Obama Administration look more and more like the Hoover Administration Aa limited response to an economic landslide all the while hoping that the market "will correct itself"?

The biggest problem is that Obama is STILL listening to total asshats like that brilliant strategist Rahm Emanuel so there's no chance of doing anything sensible like this article suggests. Rahm apparently won his little power struggle within the White House when he leaked rumors that he might resign.

And his "strategery" is to seek the middle of the road in order to appease those magic "centrists."

Only everything he's done makes Obama look pathetic, weak and helpless. It emboldens his enemies and discourages his supporters.

"Mr. Obama and his economic team had clearly hoped for an economic rebound in time for the midterm elections. They are not going to get it. The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small."

They were counting on the economy reviving by itself so they could say "See! Our policy worked!" Obama failed to come out and campaign around the country for a large enough stimulus back in 2009 when he could have forced it through. He could have said "2 Billion dollars is what's needed, and I will veto anything that doesn't do the job. If you're willing to bail out the banks, you have to be willing to bail out the American people!"

The American people could have put massive pressure on Congress to get behind the idea.

But, guided by morons like Emanuel, they wanted to work "quietly behind the scenes" in hopes of building a "bi-partisan consensus." The IDIOTS!

Well, after THAT brilliant strategy failed they have NO PLAN "B."

Now they are out of ideas. About the only good thing is that the Democratic debacle in November is likely to lead to Rahm Emanuel's being shown the door.

Obama is going to have to purge his "political staff" that have so badly bungled everything if he wants to avoid being a one-term president.

At the rate he's going he'll wind up losing to Sarah Palin! (Never thought I'd say that!)

Lots of good proposals for what the Democrats should do. The problem is that it's just too late. Anything proposed now would be filibustered, so can't actually pass. And anything proposed now would be seen by the electorate, rightly, as just another election-time gambit.

The Dems had their chance starting in January, 2009, and they have made the least of it. The country is now in a political gridlock and that will continue until at least January, 2011. The only question is whether the Republicans gain majorities in one or both houses. Even if they fall short gridlock will continue as the Democrats won't have the guts to eliminate the filibuster.

Personally, I'm hoping that the Republicans win big enough to impeach Obama and Biden on some sort of trumped up charge. The only success the Obama administration has had is to destroy the progressive brand in the eyes of much of middle America. They haven't actually done anything progressive, but their failures are being attributed to liberalism.

"Boehner and McConell would simply denounce any jobs bill as "more of the same" and "big government Socialism" and "pork." And the for the most, the people who show up and vote most dependably -- older, more affluent whites -- will agree with them."

That doesn't matter! The important thing is to mobilize those voters who might vote for you, not to worry about those who never will! Win, lose or draw, you have to stick with the one who brought you to the dance or you'll walk home alone!

Bush understood how to win an election despite having the support of a MINORITY of the country -- galvanize YOUR BASE! It worked just fine in 2004.

Obama has a larger base to draw on (Bush after all actually LOST the 2000 election by 500,000 votes). He just doesn't want to do it!

When was the last time he ever started throwing red meat to his base? NEVER! Even during an election season, he's just following that suicidal strategy of "keeping to the middle."

Even if they fall short gridlock will continue as the Democrats won't have the guts to eliminate the filibuster.

Guts?

It's not about guts. It's about selfishness. It's about their inability to put the national interest over their personal, political interest. Many Democratic Senators -- I suspect a sizable majority -- LOVE the filibuster.

Also, though I want the filibuster reformed or done away with like lots of folks, it very likely wouldn't make much a difference in the next Congress given the fact that the Democrats are likely, if they're lucly, to retain only 52 sets or so, and that's including Lieberman and Nelson and several others who might as well be Republicans.

In other words, merely getting to fifty (never mind sixty) is going to be a struggle for anything next year; for truly progressive legislation, it's going to be nigh impossible.

That doesn't matter! The important thing is to mobilize those voters who might vote for you, not to worry about those who never will!

Cugel: Fair point. I guess I was forgetting the political aspect by getting caught up in thoughts of actually getting legislation enacted. But you're absolutely correct: given the extremely challenging situation with respect to Democratic base turnout in November, a noisy political fight over jobs and a do-nothing GOP will almost certainly advantage the Democrats.

"Guts?

It's not about guts. It's about selfishness. It's about their inability to put the national interest over their personal, political interest. Many Democratic Senators -- I suspect a sizable majority -- LOVE the filibuster."

I was reading a book about the struggle to pass the Civil Rights bills in the 60's and back then the filibuster was 66 votes! And yet despite massive pressure to get rid of the filibuster and move to direct majority rule Democrats couldn't do it!

The Civil Rights bills only passed because REPUBLICAN Everett Dirksen rallied REPUBLICANS in support of them!

The filibuster was lowered to 60 votes in 1975, and it's STILL vastly too high.

Actually it WILL be eliminated but only when Republicans retake control of the Senate and Democrats try and block anything the crazed right-wingers want to do. THEY won't have the slightest hesitation.

It's only Democrats who are spineless idiots!

In today's very same issue, in the ed. section, is a depressing article about the potential for a deflationary spiral and the current trap we are in - set by the R's, in which profligate spending has set up a deficit that they now use as a means to prevent more spending, and a Krugmanesqe blame Obama sort of thing. While the obots should have pushed for more stimulus, recall the cap set by two senators from Maine ...

However, Laura Tyson has some good ideas in the same section, and I think the D's need to go long here. They need to come up with, big, bold, and clever initiatives. She suggests "Rebuild America Bonds" - since everyone is flocking to govt bonds anyway, there is a huge supply of virtually interest free money to use on real things - develop a program where some of that money is directed to infrastructure, etc. - construction workers spend their money, and not just the "new energy" stuff - attack roads, water supply, etc.

I'd go further, and develop some sort of educational bonding, directed to teaching, etc., and a big chuck for retooling vets, vet health care, vet mental health care, vet. drug addiction programs, vets. support ....

And dems should do at least 2 other things: tell inflation hawks to go F*** themselves, and use a chart at every event that shows how income for almost all people was flat 2000-2010, and the comparison for the upper 1 %.

As one of the commentators said - what are the repubs going to do? They already call you godless socialist/commie - american hating bastards; come out with a real plan, for real people, that is simple, and fast.

There is no need to abolish the filibuster. Yes, there are procedural tweaks that could be made to make it less of a pain in the ass to obtain cloture. But the reality is that a determined majority can pass whatever they want with 51 votes. All they have to do is stay on the floor (or nearby) and wait out the minority.

Anyone who still thinks that the Dems don't force real filibusters on the big ticket legislative items (i.e HCR and public option, stimulus spending, TBTF reform in FinReg) because they dont have the power to defeat a filibuster is, to be blunt, a fool.

Steve, since you're usually a bright guy, I'm going to assume you're trying to shame the Democrats into doing something politically smart by saying, "Why don't Democrats..." - because there is a very obvious reason why Democrats don't do [lots of things]: Because Republicans have taught them that there'll be an ugly fight if Democrats try to do anything.

"why not have the fight anyway?" Because Democrats don't like fighting.

Actually, I suppose I should adjust that: Democrats don't like fighting *Republicans*; Democrats will beat the shit out of other Democrats (often, the ones who are trying to get Democrats to be more Democratic, which is why Rahm Emanuel has the reputation he does).

The interests of neither party's leadership include Democrats fighting for Democratic priorities, or even trying to stand up for them, or even suggesting that Republicans are worse.

We can spend all day coming up with what "Dems should do." But in doing that we have to keep in mind that somewhere around 45% of elected Democratic politicians are not liberal and don't support liberal policy. Cugel and others to the contrary, they weren't going to back a $2T stimulus because that's not how they roll. They're scared of the word "trillion." Is it stupid? Of course. But that's what we're dealing with. When we're coming up with fantasy strategies, they have to be fantasy strategies that Conrad and Lincoln and Landrieu and Nelson and the like will also support, as well as the people who vote for them, or they're not going to happen. Just because something is smarter and better doesn't mean that it's an obvious political winner, because _even among Democrats_ the stupids run deep. For Obama to get them on board, he has to speak _their_ language too.

And, I'm sorry to say, the Democratic "base" is not "liberals," and is for damn sure isn't the kinds of liberals who (like me) kill hours a day posting on blogs.

By the way, when people in polls say they support "government investment to create jobs," what exactly do they envision happening? I can picture a lot of things, but I'm more curious about the mechanism. Because my sense is that they mean private sector jobs, not The Government; so what's the way to create them? Direct loans to small business? Tax incentives for hiring new employees? There's something all jacked up about how "the government" is supposed to "create jobs" by threading a particular ideological needle that produces only the right kinds of jobs in the right kinds of ways.

@FlipYrWhig -- we currently have over $1 trillion in straight up maintenance on basic infrastructure in backlog. There's a trivial solution here.

I can't believe Democrats are planning on doing nothing.

Funny, I can't believe the Democrats are planning on doing anything. America, the home of the two party system where one party is afraid of it's own shadow and the other party only stops from punching itself in the face long enough to shoot itself immune foot.nv

The terminally weak vs the termmally stupid and dangerous.

Why not ask Summers and Geithner which they prefer -- a jobs agenda or a Billionaire Bailout?

Some questions answer themselves.

withay on August 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Ha, I had roughly the same idea yesterday. I was reading despondent posts on here about how, even if the govt decided to do something about unemployment now, it's too late to help for November. And my thinking was, no, the country can hire the unemployed to do.... whatever. Hopefully not the legendary example (was it Keynes?) of digging ditches and filling them back in. But maybe applying some of this out-of-work professional talent to help analyze the problem and develop new job descriptions.

"Mr. Obama...needs to inspire Americans who have been ground down by the economic crises..."

Yeah yeah but first he needs to learn to keep that club face closed to correct his slice.
Come on people, how often do you get to play golf everyday with the secret service as your caddie.

Why are you people so impatient?

Would some journalists please start looking at the whole economic story:
If Americans are now saving 6% or 8% (versus negative savings before the financial meltdown), isn't that a good thing ... a return to more of our Yankee thrift values that would see people have the money to pay for emergencies and the like?
And wouldn't those $$$$ IF being spent right now, be enough to put the country back in if not the black then in growth mode?
Which means there is another discussion we need to have: you can't get Bush growth without the corruption (it was like a bad pyramid scheme) so would the media please start reminding people that it will be a slow slog but we're on the right track?
I'd far rather see my 20-something kids saving money than spending like drunken sailors.

June 16th 2009

The way back machine...
Over a year ago I wrote:

We should be terraforming Arizona right now a la the Grand Solar Plan. A massive public works project coupled with private enterprise. Where is McCain on this? Kyl? Any of our Congressional Do-nothings and Know-nothings? Where is Obama? Where is Presidential will-power when and where you need it most?

Instead we are busy twittering little naughties, filibustering every attempt at a step forward, and trying to find humor in a Palin-Letterman tiff.

Nothing has changed in a year...
The lameness continues:

Small bore...
Small ball...
Small empire...

To quote Oscar Wilde: The coward does it with a kiss, the brave man with a sword.
Isn't this suppose to be the home of the brave?
Put the Grand Solar Plan out there...
Make the next election about that...
Enough with debating Beck's latest Rodeo act. Lame!
Let's debate terra-forming AZ for energy independence...

I liked Laura Tyson's OpEd in NYT calling for a 2nd stimulus in the form of a National Infrastructure bank in which there was $1 trillion over 5 years for rebuilding America.

I agree with you. I would rather go out FIGHTING than having NO big idea.

The week after Labor Day is the last window of opportunity to do anything. But I'm not counting on Obama to do anything. And sure, you can blame Summers, Emmanuel, etc., but in the end, ain't it Obama who's at fault? At least Clinton triangulated and did something; all Obama does is, well, nothing.

The only stimulus is one that is not accessible by the IRS.

A huge, under-the-table economy is thriving.

Maybe it's time to ....

oops. No, let me try again. We need to have more Americans scrutinized by the IRS, for it is the IRS that will save our god blessed American ass.

Work for free, pay no taxes. Bliss.

HUD Secretary Donovan said today that the administration would roll out some new efforts to help weak housing - a refinance plan for those underwater and loans for unemployed homeowners. Another round of tax incentives for new purchases was hinted at. Since housing is a big part of the problem, maybe these things will help. I hope there's some other ideas - a single one would be more that what the other side has.

CB: "...it's knowing that since 2006, the Democrats have held both houses, and have damaged this country beyond repair. This was compounded by the election of a Democrat that is obviously not qualified for the job as president.

Just like your constituents, and other Democrats, start taking responsibility and stop blaming everyone else!"

Damaged the country beyond repair? In what way? It was already damaged by conservatives beyond repair before the inauguration! And since when have conservatives ever cared about the qualifications of the politicians--and political-wanna-be's--they support? Ha! That's pretty damn funny. Obama has accomplished more in less than one term than Bush did in two. It may not have pleased the extremes of the political spectrum, but will is it realistic to think the extremes can ever be satisfied?

@ PunditusMaximus: we currently have over $1 trillion in straight up maintenance on basic infrastructure in backlog. There's a trivial solution here.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know there's tons of stuff that needs doing. But for reasons I can't quite understand, the idea of just hiring people to build and fix bridges and tunnels and such is anathema, because that's "government jobs" or something. So to do a big infrastructure initiative you have to come up with all these pass-throughs, so federal money goes to state agencies or local offices, who then solicit bids from private contractors and then pick one, who then will hire laborers, who then do the work. (I have relatives who are contractors who picked up that kind of work after a natural disaster.) Program design is complicated because just directly hiring people, Depression style, is a no-no to pretty much all Republicans and a huge swath of Democrats too.

Too much corporate and maybe even Kochtopus money has bought off too many Democrats. As Dean Baker recently wrote, they don't work for us.

We need a new party to replace the damaged and dangerously off course current Dem Party. We need the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, we need a party which believes the New Deal and Great Society programs are good and worth protecting.... How do we get it and how to we make it viable?

All the Big Money seems to be corporate money --what do we do?

Too much corporate and maybe even Kochtopus money has bought off too many Democrats. As Dean Baker recently wrote, they don't work for us.

We need a new party to replace the damaged and dangerously off course current Dem Party. We need the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, we need a party which believes the New Deal and Great Society programs are good and worth protecting.... How do we get it and how to we make it viable?

All the Big Money seems to be corporate money --what do we do?

ooops-sorry abt dble post.

"Ground down" by the economic crisis? It's only been a little over a year!! Bear in mind that the economic crisis was preceded by at least five years of crazy consumer spending and running up debt like it had become a desirable quality! Did Americans feel "ground down" by frantic buying on credit?

It's funny that the same people who now feel it's the government's job to fix the economy - after running over the cliff while sensible people said "slow down!!" - will be the first to shout, "get your gummint hands off my (insert benefit here) as soon as the climate improves.

I would like to know how one man is going to inspire the nation when every blogger, news story, news network, and newspaper seems to go out of their way to microscopically examine every sentence this president speaks, every piece of legislatiopn this congress passes to find anything that resembles failure even though most of the time they have been successful in what they were trying to do. Almost all the elements of the media in the united states today are obsessed with pointing out perceived failure. They are a joke and a big part of why there is such a negative attitude in this country today. I am disgusted with the progressive bloggers, the whiners and complainers who will soon have their Col. Nicholson moment when they realize what idiots they have been when the consequnces of their idiocy shows itself in november.

A few weeks ago Rachel Maddow lambasted the president for not eliminating DADT. She did not say that they were not working on it or that it did not look like it was ever going to be eliminated. She was just pissed that it wasn't happening fast enough, that this huge issue that affects an infinitesimal fraction of the population of the united states wasn't being taken care of to her satisfaction, so she crucifies him on national television. Thank you Huffpost, Crooks & Liars, Rachel, Steve, Susie Madrak, Jean Hampsher etc, etc, etc. for doing the work of the right wing.

I think Mark and Tiredofgreed hit a couple good points. Our 24/7 media environment and instant gratification culture have made governing so much more difficult. Of course, if you're out of work and finding a new job is next to impossible, what excesses happened two years ago seems like another lifetime. I hope Obama can cut through the noise and make people aware what's at stake this fall.

i like the idea of putting the choice in front of voters - 'jobs agenda vs. a Billionaire Bailout.'

however, GOP politicians are selling the idea that jobs bills don't work or are at best a temporary band-aid while it's 'proven' that tax cuts for the rich trickle down and get everybody jobs [sic]. and they also know the voters they're trying to attract believe the same thing. and perhaps there are more voters right now who think like they do than voters who believe in the efficacy of a jobs agenda.

if anything, an appeal by dems for the jobs agenda needs to attack the very basis of the gop economic mythology. supply-side didn't work - dynamic scoring is a lie, tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

but all that's not possible until we hear an honest appraisal from the president of how the stimulus fell short and why we're possibly facing a double-dip. namely that it was inadequately sized from the very beginning and what was left off would have been what would kick in right about now to head off that second dip.

people don't believe upbeat assessments about how many jobs the stimulus has saved. they only know the stimulus was passed yet job losses continue. i know it's difficult for an administration to admit failure, but that's where the discussion to turn things around has to start.

this is the time for fireside chats - not to compare our approach with their approach - because that's a no-winner - but to calmly explain why their approach has never worked - contrary to what they've heard all these years - and that a return to that approach right now will have catastrophic effects for the next decade and beyond.

after the assessment of the current economic situation, the president needs to make the case for growth policies because we are not going to balance the budget with the economy we have right now...

When you have everyone who has a soap box ripping you a new one no matter what decision you make and get no credit for anything I can see why it would be next to impossible to get anything done expecailly since the republicans have admitted they will do everything they can to make this president fail. Obama has accomplished a lot in under two years with support from almost no one. A jobless recovery was predicted. A double dip was predicted. This is a global recession with huge complications... two wars, housing crisis, global economic slowdown and a opposition that wants to ruin Obama's presidency. This will take some time no matter how many dollrs we throw at it.

May I suggest that we begin a "Manhattan Project" to use existing Proven solar thermal to electrical generation on approximately 1% of the continental U.S. The advantages are as follows:

1. No greenhouse gases. No Global Warming.
2. No pollutants. No acid rain.
3. Many new jobs. Many new businesses.
4. Exportable technology without fear of misuse.
5. Reduce world poverty and conflict by making this technology available to all.
6. Stimulate electric car and interurban train development. No auto pollution.
7. No need to worry about nuclear proliferation.
8. Since the technology is proven, no long research cycle. Existing generating plants are in operation. See Solar One Nevada.
9. 100% energy independence, for thousands of years. What a legacy!

See Solar One Nevada for a field of solar collectors now generating enough electricity for 15,000 homes near Las Vegas, Nevada. See Solar One Barstow California for working power tower that has generated enough electricity for 5000 homes.

I suggest a $495 billion dollar, 5 year program. The Office of Energy Assessment (OEA) of our own Department of Energy shows that world oil supplies will run out in around 40 years at current usage rates. Proven reserves are around 1300 billion barrels. We are burning around 1000 barrels a second. The supply will be gone in 42 years. We must use this oil to build the new solar system. New off-shore oil finds are estimated in the 5 to 15 billion barrel range and located in increasingly difficult or sensitive areas. Think BP. This will not add much to the world's proven reserves. Solar is the only long term proven answer. Solar thermal underground storage of surplus heat will carry overnight and cloudy day electrical generation needs to anticipate varying loads.

Act now or we will not have the fossil energy resources to implement such a program.

"Why not let the public see exactly what both sides want to do to give the economy a boost, and determine which is preferable?"

Hey, guess what, the public has had almost two years to see what both sides want to do on a whole range of issues.

We will see what their decision is this November.

varecia: Obama has accomplished more in less than one term than Bush did in two. It may not have pleased the extremes of the political spectrum, but will is it realistic to think the extremes can ever be satisfied?

walt re teabaggers: Extremists ultimately want a world without compromise and partial successes. That's why these people are children. They don't want a functional polity so much as a magical kingdom.

Seems to apply to all extremities.

Infrastructure traditionally used to be an easy non-controversial idea.

But these days, Republicans are basically running with a "No trains for America!" bumper sticker for November... I couldn't have guessed it even 5 years ago, but now I'm not surprised...

http://www.grist.org/article/can-conservatives-ride-no-train-to-victory/

I think a chance was missed in not making the health care bill an extension of Medicare, at least in a modest way. That's a program that would have made a positive difference in the lives of many people.