Katrina vanden Heuvel: Missing Issue: The Economy

from The Nation:




MISSING ISSUE: THE ECONOMY...On the verge of a recession, with the unemployment rate rising and job growth screeching to a near-halt, you'd think the economy would have been centerstage in Saturday's marathon debates. But there wasn't enough attention paid.

Where were the sharp questions about what the candidates would do to deal with an economy teetering on the edge of a precipice? The credit crunch? The foreclosure crisis? What about job growth? Clinton was smart to propose using energy policy to jumpstart the economy, create jobs and ease pressures on the squeezed middle class. Bill Richardson got it right when he said forcefully, "you can't have change until you end this war" and preached investment in education and jobs. But he lost me when he argued for the imperative of balancing the budget.

It's the legacy of Rubinomic/ Clintonism's grip on the Democratic party. At a time when our deficit is some 1.4 percent of our GDP, a historically small percentage, it's just bad policy and politics to obsess about deficit reduction. It's the investment deficit--not the budget deficit--we need to fix on. (Edwards is the only one of leading candidates who's supported a public investment agenda of real scale.)

It was left to Edwards to speak personally and passionately about the desperate need for a new tax and trade policy. His was a more hopeful message Saturday night-with empathy for a struggling middle class, with talk about uniting and galvanizing the American people to take on entrenched interests and end "the stranglehold on our democracy." He modulated his full-throated attacks on corporations--tonight targeting "irresponsible" corporations and applauding those like Costco which do better by their workers. But he remained true to his fighting for change spirit. When challenged by the others about the limits of "fighting" as a way to get things done, Edwards shot back," you cannot nice these people to death; I am not in a fight *with* the American people but *for* the people." If Edwards does exit the field,and it's hard to see how there's room for two "change agents" coming out of NH, the economic facts on the ground -- housing crisis, job losses-- should move Obama and Clinton to adopt key elements, if not the style, of Edwards' populist message and program. They'd be smart to do so. There was one revealing moment which helps explain why fair, simple and sane progressive economic proposals get such a raw deal in our corporate- owned media. It also explains why pundits label Edwards' agenda "angry." When the majority-supported reform of rolling back tax cuts for the rich drew support from the Democrats, ABC moderator & Nightly News anchor Charles Gibson seemed clueless about middle class reality. Wouldn't such a reform, he demanded, hurt a couple made up of two professors at St. Anselm's who make $200,000 a year. $200,000!? The titter in St Anselm's hall spread quickly. Maybe Gibson could use a crash Econ 101 course: "The Strapped American Middle Class."


Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 01/06/2008 @ 12:20am

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=266680

Thousand Dollars a year. The Rest are riff raff over which they
have no concern.

Had a bad time after Iowa. I will not stand for my first choice picking on my second choice. Just won't.

But I went with him because he supported labor. I like "you cannot nice these people to death."

.. become apparent to more and more Americans, Edwards' message will resonate louder and louder.

None of the rest of the candidates are making any serious effort to address the issue that comes second to me (after the war) and first to most Americans.

It's the economy, stupid, and stupidity is what has gotten us here.