Skip to comments.Communist Economist John Case Praises Obama's Osawatomie Speech
Posted on 12/13/2011 1:18:47 PM PST by IbJensen
"the President Took a Great Step Forward for the Whole Country in Kansas"
One of the Communist Party USAs leading economic commentators John Case, has come out in support of President Barack Obamas recent agenda setting speech at Osawatomie High School in Kansas.
Case sees the speech for what it was a signal to Obamas progressive base that the president will fight next years election from the left, on a program of government jobs schemes, guided investment, increased union power , and amped up state direction of the economy in the interests of reducing inequality. » If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter
Comrade Case writes in todays Peoples World;
President Obamas speech last week in Osawatomie, Kansas was the true pivot towards jobs and away from the austerity debates of last summer for which workers, occupy protesters and tens of millions more have been waiting. As (Communist Party vice chair) Jarvis Tyner commented, we can criticize Obama and when it is done in a united front way he has shown that he can be moved. We can also note that no amount of unemployment, suffering, wage-cuts, or desperation appears to move any Republican candidate for president in the slightest degree.
The Osawatomie speech was an important and revealing look at Obamas domestic policy agenda as the election year begins in earnest. He clearly judges the possibility of serious compromise with the Republicans before the voters cast a judgment next November as minimal. He took a big step toward a serious jobs program while embracing the principle of bipartisanship by invoking the progressive side of Republican Teddy Roosevelts campaign against the rising inequality of his time. Obama anchored all his arguments with an assault on the growing inequality in the US today, clearly showing the impact of the Occupy movement, and the labor-led victories in Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Arizona and Maine.
Case thoroughly approves of Obamas tactics invoking the program of Republican president Teddy Roosevelt in order to calm Middle America, and even appeal to moderate Republicans, and hopefully split his opposition. Never mind that Roosevelt was a progressive Republican, a man of the left, a position common in the GOP of that era;
Without negating any of the downside of TR (his racism, for example) Obamas association with the progressive side of TRs reforms was an artful tactic. A tactic that appeals to the moderate Republican constituencies whose support he hopes to-in fact must-split away from the Republican agenda. Dividing the enemy is an art most trade unions excel in, but some on the left seem to have an allergy to it. Fear of somehow being seduced by the dark side is involved I think. But one need not be concerned that associating TR with a modern assault on reducing inequality will weaken the movement-when reducing inequality is beginning to look like a revolutionary demand to the right-wing monopolies.
Case goes on to quote Jared Bernstein, former Biden economic adviser, and a progressive with a background in the Democratic Socialists of America led Economic Policy Institute;
As Jared Bernstein, Vice President Bidens chief economic advisor, observes: The contrast between YOYO (youre on your own) economics and the trickle-down, starve-the-beast agenda it implies, and the Presidents were-in-this-together agenda has the potential to be deeply resonant with the vast majority of Americans for whom YOYO has been a terrible bust.
But we need to add some meat on the bones, some structure to the debate. In the first place, REAL, IMMEDIATE progress on unemployment needs to be made. Especially among youth the government must become an employer of last resort The heart of the presidents speech was new, real economic opportunities for working people. It was NOT a call for fumbling around the edges or scoring points with interest groups.
Next comrade Case lays out Obamas simple (and socialist) four point economic agenda;
The President targeted four areas in the speech: higher education, infrastructure, progressive taxation, and financial regulation.
1. Higher Ed: Improving college access is vitally important. However, we must be mindful that education policy is supply-side. Its critical in the medium and long term, but its a lesser part of the solution to our biggest short-term challenge: the quantity of jobs. There are many educated people out there that are over 99 weeks without a job.
2. Infrastructure: This is the number one place to invest a lot of energy in setting a jobs agenda. But, as Jared Bernstein writes: The key here is to not get hung up on shovel ready-like-it-or-not, well need the work for much longer than that. We need to think about large-scale ideas that go beyond roads and bridges. Projects like FAST! (Fix Americas Schools Today) proposed by Senator Sherrod Brown are things that people can relate to in their daily lives. A national project to burying electricity and phone lines would be hugely popular in the aging Bos-Wash corridor, where you can easily lose power for weeks when hit by monster storms which used to happen ever 30 years but now come every 6 months. There is no shortage of work that needs to be done.
3. Tax Reform: As the President stressed in his speech, public infrastructure investment costs money, so fiscal policy must account for it. But, as Bernsteain argues, I agree -keep it very simple: Stop favoring one type of income over another. The distortions in the tax code around investment income, like capital gains and dividends, lose mountains of revenue, feed inequality, and are at the heart of the Buffett problem- the fact that many of the wealthiest households face lower rates than average folks.
4. Transaction Tax: If nothing else is done (separating investment and commercial banking, etc) making the financial industry INSURE THEMSELVES against their own recklessness is a MUST.
Case makes it clear that Obama and the Democrats will exploit the economic uncertainty, that they have largely created, to campaign on government guaranteed jobs and welfare state socialism, versus the scarier Republican vision of market solutions and fiscal discipline and responsibility. America will become more like Germany and China, if the Democrats have their way.
Other items that should be considered start with a manufacturing policy that HAS to be added to the agenda. Without an industrial policy like China and Germany the green revolution will pass us by! In addition steps to immediately improve the incomes and protections of low-wage, low value-added non-tradable, service work (think home-health aides, cashiers, security guards, etc), including easier unionization, living wage laws, national health care, and free college educations for workers and their children are essential to fight the corrosive effects of inequality.
Whoever wins the Republican nomination, the competing vision will be between the YOYOs on one side, and ideas like those above on the other. In essence, the conservative vision will be looking back toward Bush, arguing that everythings basically fine in the economy except Obama needs to go, the wealthy need to keep more of their pretax income, and the EPA and Departments of Education and commerce need to be shut down.
That will not resonate beyond the corporate base. And neither will it win the election when there ARE alternatives: In that regard, the President took a great step forward for the whole country in Kansas.
President Obama drew some clear battle lines in Osawatomie. The left now knows where he stands, and on what issues he will campaign. Obama has articulated a socialist vision hard enough to energize his leftist base, soft and Roosevelt cloaked enough to appeal to at least some of Middle America.
The GOP needs to counter Obamas vision with a better one of their own. Now! Forewarned is forearmed.
Obama voters don’t have a clue.
Do we REALLY need to know anything more?
Akin to listening to a guy standing on an iceberg scream ‘come ashore’.
In elections past, the CPUSA would work to put a candidate on the presidential ballots.
In 2008 the CPUSA didn’t because they were satisfied with baraq and his beliefs.
They like baraq. He is one of them.
Those lining up as Obozo voters for 2012 haven’t any excuse for the claim that they are empty-headed morons.
Perhaps Zombies is a more fitting term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.