America’s Real Job Creators

America's Job Creators

Republicans are at it again.  Claiming they are going to save America by protecting America’s job creators.  If by now you don’t experience a sudden gag reflex whenever you hear a conservative say “job creator,” you need to understand who creates jobs in the United States.

The job creators are not the wealthy elite who fear uncertainty and risk.  No.  The real job creators are the people who actually work the jobs we need to create.  This argument might seem circular because…well…because it is.  Without jobs for America’s middle and working classes, our economy hasn’t the demand for goods and services it needs to spur job growth in an economy like ours.

There is no rational reason — none whatsoever — for the so-called “job creators” that the Republicans protect to create jobs unless and until average Americans have resources to spur economic growth.  Without demand, our economy remains flat.  Even a sophisticated supply-sider understands this; Milton Friedman himself understood this.  But you don’t need an economic degree and a fancy theory to understand this.  Look around.  As we have allowed America’s wealth to trickle upward, detrimental economic results have followed.  The numbers are what they are and those numbers are not good.

Conservatives perpetuate misleading job creator myths because they need to hijack the economy they wrecked in order to impose their regressive social agenda.  The starve the beast strategy is working.  By underfunding government and leaving the economy in ruin, conservatives can argue that poor economic times equal poor prospects for economic growth.

Republicans either don’t understand what is stunting economic growth or they prefer to lie about it in order to trick people into voting against their best interest.  I believe more in the latter than the former.  Regardless, Republicans in Washington should know better…and they do.

An economy that depends on middle class spending is one that needs to respect the middle class more than our current political efforts allow.  Unfortunately, politics today have gone dangerously awry.  It is a disgrace.  Once respected professions in the public sector, like teachers, are dismissed as lazy beggars.  Unions have become a slur on par with communism, socialism, and fascism…never mind the accurate definition of any of these terms…when telling lies they’re all equally bad and equally to blame for ruining America.  Ask Scott Walker.

More Job Creators

What people don’t seem to notice is how gutting the middle class and disparaging the working class has coincided with America’s decline.  The problem is simple.   Our economy does not work because it has less and less to work with.

Meanwhile, as our wealth and treasury flows overseas — into markets in which we haven’t a competitive advantage — those who have the good fortune to invest in those markets thrive while the rest find it more difficult to survive.  The quality of life most people once took for granted is in decline and in danger of being lost for years to come.  And yet we continue to pursue policies that perpetuate this damage, not policies that offer real alternatives to the damage caused since politicians turned against America’s real job creators.

It is time we support America’s real job creators.  After all, what has been the advantage of doing otherwise?  Can we really say we are better off today than we might have been 20 or 30 years ago?  How about just a short ten years ago?

It is hard to see what more anti-tax, anti-government policy will do to make us whole again when that approach is precisely what hasn’t worked for our nation’s advantage.  A key to fixing what isn’t right is a better understanding of what really creates a dynamic economy and economic growth.  Wealthy investors enriching themselves overseas at taxpayers’ expense isn’t the way to get that done.

Save your future.  Don’t vote Republican.

Related articles

• Is it Taxes or Demand?  (alittletourinyellow.com)
• 7 Ways to Support the Real Job Creator: Main Street (alternet.org)
• Paul Krugman: All the G.O.P.’s Gekkos (economistsview.typepad.com)
• Harry Reid: Millionaire Job Creators are Like Unicorns (michellemalkin.com)
• Don’t Tax the Rich.  Tax Inequality Itself.  (nytimes.com)

Shame (2011)

Plato, I think, is quoted for saying a wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something.  I have unburdened you, my valued readers, of my foolishness long enough.  It is time to get back in the game.

And as long as I am going to blather on pointlessly, I might as well write about something else that blathers on without a point.  And so to that point, let’s review Shame (2011).

Shame — directed by Steve McQueen and featuring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan — centers around the destructive sex addiction of a Manhattan businessman.  In truth, the subject of the movie should be rich material for a very engaging film, but Shame entirely left me feeling flat.

Reviews tout it as a “masterpiece” and “stunning.”  It even garners a fair amount of Oscar talk.  I’m not so sure why.  In more ways than one, this film is about the emperor and no clothes.

The film earned a NC-17 rating, not so much for nudity and sex, I don’t think, but more for the details of film’s subject, which I won’t divulge to you here in detail.  In essence the film is eye candy for the twisted and not necessarily as beautifully filmed as many reviewers claim it to be.  Consistent with the complicated and overloaded narrative — which wanders aimlessly without a real plot — the film is frequently framed in tiresome shots that distract from the story.  Perhaps this is intentional, however; like the sex-addicted protagonist, the film is off balance.

I would have preferred a more classical narrative.  A true tragedy.  Shame does a poor job setting this up.  We don’t really know much about the lead character and his qualities.  We simply know he enjoys porn, prostitutes, and (I won’t tell) to a destructive degree.  The film doesn’t create a hero we should have empathy for when he makes his fall.  Instead Shame presents a pastiche of deviant behavior which comes at the expense of his career…or does it?  Hard to tell.  No one seems to really care, not really, and so neither did I.  You just get a sense that someone is going to cry in the end, but without a proper denouement, that is not going to be me.

There are some positive things about this film.  You might pay attention to your date, for example, and the theater isn’t likely to be crowded.  People might also talk about sex addiction, but for that I have my doubts.

Related articles

• Carey Mulligan Tells W About Facing Her Nude Scene Fears in Shame (popsugar.com)
• VIDEO: Fassbender on role as a sex addict (bbc.co.uk)
• Shame, Albert Nobbs, Jodie Foster Nominated for Golden Globes (queerty.com)
• Filmmakers felt no shame about making ‘Shame’ (pbpulse.com)

A Better Stillwater Bridge Solution

St. Croix River Watershd

The race to build a $700 million bridge across the St. Croix River south of Stillwater, MN, not only requires an exception to federal law, it also requires an exception to common sense.

The current Stillwater Lift Bridge existed when the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in 1968.  The law is intended to protect designated rivers from activity that would substantially degrade any further.  We can respect the tenor of that law and replace the Stillwater Lift Bridge.  The current plan, however, ignores the better solution and offers a much larger, much more costly bridge instead.  If we are going to circumvent federal law and its intent, isn’t it more reasonable to do so with at least some respect to the intent of the law…or do we choose not to care because doing so conflicts with today’s economic and political interests, regardless of how misguided and hypocritical those interests are?

The proposed super highway bridge is not cheap.  At nearly $700 million it will cost almost three times the cost to replace the collapsed 35W bridge in Minneapolis.  Meanwhile, it should be pointed out, plenty of deteriorating infrastructure exists, serving millions more people in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, would benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars of government investment.   (Representative Michele Bachmann, self-proclaimed Tea Party caucus leader, supports this investment in her district, but opposes what she calls pork barrel otherwise.)

 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed specifically to protect limited natural resources from economic and political interests.  Legislation like the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act anticipates the sort of proposal that is now promoted to replace the existing Stillwater bridge.  If we start overriding the law whenever it becomes an inconvenience to current political or economic priorities, what is the point of the law?

The proposed bridge is a large, multi-lane bluff-to-bluff interstate style bridge.  The existing Stillwater bridge is a simple two lane bridge.  The potential environmental impact of the larger bridge dramatically exceeds the impact of the current bridge.  Keep in mind that protecting a river involves more than protecting the main channel of the river.  A river is a watershed, and what happens many miles from the river has impact.

A river is water resource with value far beyond its scenic and recreational value, and it is very important to remember it is a limited resource.  As such, rivers require special attention and protection.

A Better Compromise Plan

The very nature of a river shed requires management over a very large geographical region.  A bridge that enables more sprawling development only multiples the threats a river will face.  Opening yet another major river crossing — we already have a large multi-lane bridge crossing the St. Croix River at Hudson, WI, just south of Stillwater  – only adds another layer of threat.

The better solution for replacing the aging Stillwater Lift Bridge is one that respects the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act while maintaining the necessary service a bridge in the Stillwater area provides.  Options have been proposed that serve that need and cost significantly less that the current plan.

A bridge that uses the current route on Wisconsin 64 into Stillwater, but traverses the river south of the existing bridge to merge with the Minnesota Highway 36, is a smart choice.  It can replace the aging and inefficient lift bridge and be designed for better and increased traffic flow without the expense and size of the proposed bluff-to-bluff design.  Justifying a larger bridge when this more appropriate option exists makes no sense.

Currently supporters of the larger, more costly proposal are in a rush to push their plan through Congress.  Slowing down and reviewing the motivation behind this rush is the responsible first step.  Especially in an era when austerity is the rage, ensuring that we pursue the right priorities with the best plans should be respected.

We can meet the needs for a replacement bridge in Stillwater and do it at a much lower cost than what is proposed.  It is ironic that budget cutters like Bachmann and Scott Walker would blindly advocate such an unbalanced and costly proposal.  (Eye brow-raising, too, perhaps.)

Slowing down and doing the right thing is in the best interest of everyone.

Related articles

• Wrong Idea on Proposed Stillwater Bridge (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Bachmann likes government spending in her own district (capitolhillblue.com)
• Is This Bridge Worth It? (nytimes.com)

Understanding GOP Tax Cut Hypocrisy

There is a simple way to understand the idiotic rhetoric conservatives use to defend their failing and unbalanced tax policies.

We know the history.  Supply side, trickle-down economic policy hasn’t delivered the promised results.  Rather than support a stronger and growing middle class, more people are slipping into poverty and middle classes wages, in real dollars, are mostly flat or falling.  In step with this decline, the public goods that support a high standard of living and strong economic growth remain shamefully underfunded and in disrepair.  In short, our history follows our standards, and right now those standards are rather shallow and weak indeed.

But we seem less and less interested in facts.  So I will try a little common sense instead.

Let’s say you own a restaurant.  It is doing ok, not great, but you’re still business.  Many months have passed, maybe years, since you had a full house; in fact, most nights empty tables out number the customers.  You even mothballed part of your dining room.  It just isn’t needed.  You wonder about your staff, too.  At peak times they’re busy, but too often you’re sending someone home because business is light.

Now let’s say you just won the lottery.  The big one.  Congratulations!  You’re now one of those Job Creators, as Republicans define them.  You are now rich, after all, and everyone knows that the wealthy have nothing to do with their money but create jobs.  The more money they have, the more jobs the rest of us get.  And now you are one of them…a Job Creator.  So let’s get back to the restaurant.  Let’s create some jobs!

What would you do?

You have millions of dollars you didn’t have yesterday.  You’re a business owner.  People need work.  So what would you do?  What should you do?

Everyone, even Republicans, can agree that you shouldn’t hire more workers and open that closed part of your restaurant just because you won a lottery.  Doing so would make no sense for your business.  You’re under capacity.  You’re already sending people home early.  Things are slow.  Sure, you can afford to hire dozens more people for your restaurant, but what would they do?  How would they help the bottom line at your restaurant?

An influx of cash isn’t going to help the business be more profitable and grow.

The real bottom line in this debate about taxes and jobs is all about ignorance.  Conservative macroeconomic fantasies don’t mix well with their microeconomic fallacies.

Republicans, because they have fallen into the habit of fetishizing wealth, don’t seem to be all that smart about practical business matters, at least not in matters of policy.  If their supply side arguments worked, we wouldn’t be quite as bad off as we are today.  Would we?

I am not naive to the point where I think all the blame for the current economic malaise falls on the mistakes of supply-siders.  I don’t think the economic troubles are simply a matter of class struggle.  I’m not even sure you can blame the fortunate who have made the most of opportunity or position.  But I do think the argument that less is more — especially when less is shared mostly by those who already have less — is a flawed argument.

Take another example.  Suppose an average working class family wins a lottery; let’s say it is a more modest winning, $100,000.  What will happen to that money?

Likely there are bills to be paid, maybe a payment on a car or even a house, clothes, educuation…the money will get spent.  It will be spent out of necessity.  And that money then goes back into the economy where it will helps others and in the process builds demand.  It has a multiplying effect.  If a car is purchased, the car dealership is better off, correct?

The winner of the million dollar lottery, on the other hand, might retire or travel the world and who could blame him?  His business is just doing ok.  Adding workers isn’t going to change that.  He needs customers — not money — to make more money.  As long as he is a business owner, he is only a job creator if there is a need to create jobs.  In other words, the benefit of a new worker must exceed the cost.

In my lottery analogy, winnings represent tax cuts.  In the real economic world, tax cuts for the “job creators” is no different than the restaurant owner who just won the lottery.  Although it can be argued that economic windfalls to American business and investors does spur investment, but overseas where economic opportunity is stronger.  Lower costs for business (especially labor), emerging middle class (and therefore rising demand), etc.

What the restaurant needs — and what the American economy needs — is demand, not money.  If you manufacture widgets and no one is buying widgets, you would be foolish to make more widgets just because you had the money to do so.  Likewise you would be foolish to be incentivized by tax policy to build unneeded widgets even if it covered your cost.  Why prolong a bad market by overproducing your product?

But over and over again, Republicans have been dismantling public goods and services by underfunding them, arguing that we need to less government and less taxes so the free market can create jobs.  It hasn’t work, especially in a global economy stimulated by free trade arrangements.

Lower taxes might have helped stimulate growth, but we allocated the cuts in unbalanced ways, giving those who had more a better bargain than those who had less.  Without a vibrant domestic economy, the job creators created jobs elsewhere.  Increasingly our wealth is going overseas and most likely it will continue to do so for decades.  We have huge debts to pay now because as a matter of policy we underfunded government for political gain.  This is bad policy, bad economics.

But Republicans expect the less is more argument to prevail.  So far they have been right.  But cuts are cuts and so far it hard to see the silver lining.  Now we are in a monetary trap, there isn’t a hell of a lot to do (unless you’re a Keynesian), but does it make sense to make matters worse?

Finally, let’s look at the hypocrisy.  Currently the GOP is fighting an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class because it will be offset in part by an increase on taxes on people earning more than $1 million annually.  Who thinks they will fight against an extension of tax cuts for the so-called job creators?  As a policy position, Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent.  For the middle class they want to extend them at the expense of programs like Medicare.  For the middle class the argument is you have to live within your means.  That same standard does not apply to the subsidized rich.  One is a dirty welfare mom, the other a job creator. That’s a disgrace.