Showing posts with label Center for American Progress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Center for American Progress. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Moving on, a president hits the campaign trail -- again -- Dec. 5, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

As I listened the other day to a politician talk about ways to strengthen the economy, a thought flitted across my mind: “This guy has ideas. Maybe he should run for president.”

Ha! OK, I knew the speaker was President Barack Obama. But after nearly five years in the Oval Office, he still manages to sound like an outsider who could do great things if only he had the chance.

And that’s why -- with a job approval rating of only about 40 percent, his signature legislative achievement still under fire and his agenda in jeopardy -- the president hit the campaign trail. He launched a three-week push ostensibly to persuade people to sign up for health care online but also to remind voters why they re-elected him just a year ago. 

Naturally, like many another political outsider, Obama has discovered that middle class frustrations “are at an all-time high.”

The botched rollout of the online health insurance exchanges didn’t instill confidence in him or the federal government, he concedes, but he insists that the law will stand and eventually will work just fine. Even so, that alone won’t cure the middle class malaise that started decades ago, he says. Malaise, by the way, is my word, not his.
   
“Their frustration is rooted in their own daily battles – to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement. It’s rooted in the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them. And it’s rooted in the fear that their kids won’t be better off than they were,” he said.
Candidates of both parties cozy up to the middle class, of course, but the question is how. Republicans want government to stand aside. Obama and Democrats believe government has a role in ensuring equal opportunity.
   
“A dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility…has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain -- that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead,” Obama said Wednesday at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank that has provided several Obama administration insiders.
He revived a host of ideas: increase the federal minimum wage, now $7.25 an hour; strengthen collective bargaining; end the wage disparity between men and women; tighten the tax code and use the additional revenue to rebuild roads and bridges, extend preschool to every child, and repeal the across-the-board spending cuts called the sequester. 
“I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: Making sure our economy works for every working American…And I know I’ve raised this issue before, and some will ask why I raise the issue again right now,” he said.
His critics say it’s no mystery, that he’s trying to change the subject from the health care mess and trying to give Democrats ground to stand on in next year’s midterm congressional elections. So what? 

Obama and everyone around him have apologized, and the marketplace system finally is running more smoothly. The elections in 11 months could make or break his last two years as president. He acknowledged he’s putting out his ideas as a marker.

“I realize we are not going to resolve all of our political debates over the best ways to reduce inequality and increase upward mobility this year, or next year, or in the next five years,” he says.

What’s important is “that we have a serious debate about these issues. For the longer that current trends are allowed to continue, the more it will feed the cynicism and fear that many Americans are feeling right now.”

Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans. “If Republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor, let’s hear them…” And so on. “You owe it to the American people to tell us what you are for, not just what you’re against.”

But can the battle-scarred Democratic president find common ground with battle-scarred Republican lawmakers?

House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, complains that the House has passed nearly 150 bills that he claims would help the economy, but all have died in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. They include multiple attempts at repealing the health law.

“When will they start listening to the American people?” Boehner asks.

It’s hard to listen when both sides have turned a deaf ear to the other.

 © 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30  

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Behind those jobless numbers -- Oct. 11, 2012 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Back in 2003, an up-and-coming economics professor cried foul when the government reported a surprisingly low annual unemployment rate. It was 6 percent.

“The unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as ‘not in the labor force,’” Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business wrote in The New York Times.

“The government has cooked the books,” he declared.

Nine years later, Jack Welch and other critics of President Barack Obama jumped on Goolsbee’s “cooked the books” comment to bolster their attack on what the former CEO of General Electric called “unbelievable” September jobless numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate declined three-tenths of a point to 7.8 percent and non-farm employment increased by 114,000.

Goolsbee, who chaired Obama’s White House Council of Economic Advisers in 2010 and 2011, denies he was being partisan in 2003. His words were taken out of context, he says. He’s right.

His op-ed said government policy loosening eligibility for disability payments had created “invisible unemployment” that benefits both parties. He did not accuse the Bush administration of phonying the numbers the way Obama’s foes have accused him.

“The point is not whether every person on disability deserves payments,” Goolsbee wrote then. “The point is that in previous recessions these people would have been called unemployed. They would have filed for unemployment insurance. They would have shown up in the statistics. They would have helped create a more accurate picture of national unemployment, a crucial barometer we use to measure the performance of the economy, the likelihood of inflation and the state of the job market.”

Goolsbee’s point is even more relevant today than it was nine years ago. The Social Security disability program has grown by leaps and bounds and now consumes nearly 20 percent of the Social Security budget. It’s on track to become the first safety net program to exhaust its trust fund – in 2016.

Getting stuck on one month’s unemployment numbers is pure political theater. BLS stresses that one month can be a fluke and revises numbers all the time.

Does anyone think a 7.8 percent unemployment rate is something to cheer about? Not when 12.1 million people are officially unemployed and unemployment would be so much worse without the disability safety net.

The disability rolls have doubled over the last decade. There were 10.6 million disability beneficiaries at the end of last year, 8.6 million of whom were disabled workers. The rest were dependents. The average monthly disability payment was $960, and disability recipients qualify for Medicare after two years. The average age of a disability recipient is 53.

As the economy soured and workers lost jobs and couldn’t find new ones, applications for disability soared. Over the years, eligibility for disability has been expanded to include mental conditions and back pain.

Congress started the disability program in 1956 to provide payments to disabled workers – that is, those unable to engage in “a substantial gainful activity in the U.S. economy.”

At that time, employment and disability were seen as mutually exclusive states, David H. Autor and Mark G. Duggan wrote in a 2010 paper on disability reform for The Center for American Progress and The Hamilton Project. The definition still stands, even though the nature of work has changed dramatically.

The disability program provides “strong incentives to applicants and beneficiaries to remain permanently out of the labor force, and it provides no incentive to employers to implement cost-effective accommodations that enable employees with work limitations to remain on the job,” Autor and Duggan wrote.

To fix disability’s financial crisis, Congress is considering a range of unpalatable options: raise the payroll tax, tighten eligibility and lower benefits.

Many who receive disability payments would rather be earning a paycheck and feeling like productive members of society. With some help from employers, many could work.

Instead of arguing about the unemployment rate, our leaders need to find ways to encourage work in the 21st century for all Americans, including those with disabilities.

© 2012 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30