The Political Left Speaks: Re-Imagining the New Deal, Neoliberal Style
The Wolstein Center at Cleveland State University was home to the 2008 Democratic Presidential debate last Tuesday, February 28. Issues ranging from economy, war and health care as well as other issues of national significance we covered during the debate. With my press pass in hand, amid LO photographers capturing presidential images at a rapid pace, I sought to bring LO readers clarity on our foggy economic situation. We strolled into the “spin room”, searching for potential interview opportunities. Of course, being a small independent media outlet did not help in this regard, when compared to the titans of the corporate media. Much was debated on stage between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama; but the issue of the coming U.S. financial crisis, or recession, did not surface. As the debate ensued, and the talking heads fired one question after another, I decided to create my own frenzy by talking to the political elites myself. The topic was the $150 billion tax refund.
With the economy stalling and heading into a recession, President Bush and Congress have passed legislation that offers minimal rebates to taxpayers. With the war economy being financed by foreign debt holders, and consumer debt and housing foreclosures on the rise, the House of Representatives felt obligated to give American families a tax break. But were they really tax “rebates”? In a series of exclusive LO interviews with the political elite of American society, I inquired with a sense of conviction to get the most practical answers.
Jesse Jackson, former Presidential candidate and one of the founders of the Rainbow Coalition remarked in a brief interview that “the rebate is irrelevant”. Jackson exclaimed, “If you're three months behind on your house note and facing foreclosure all that the rebate can do is get you a product at Wal-Mart which was most likely made in China.” He added, “ We need a stimulus that reinvests in building roads, bridges, sewers and schools. We need to put America back to work so people can generate revenue, be productive, send their kids to college and pay taxes.”
Indeed, the once prosperous United States has devolved into a manufacturing wasteland where jobs are scarce and often pay lower wages. Cleveland, for example, used the Steelyard Commons to ameliorate joblessness and poverty. Thus far, the effects of economic growth have been minimal. The patchwork of service sector jobs often provides unstable income with little or no benefits. Take a look around the Cleveland area, everywhere one drives the strip malls and shopping centers that mimic Crocker Park permeate the Northern Ohio landscape. When and where does it stop? Economic development in a region with no capital is the issue at hand. What will a $600-$1200 check do for under or unemployed individuals in a region that is sinking under the competitive pressure of the global economy? Maybe you can buy a flat screen TV at Wal-Mart, Target, and even pay off some Credit Card Bills.
The level-headed know that the situation is critical. With the infrastructure of the urban core decimated and poverty in the region growing, what is the solution? Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or even John McCain? Anyone? When will the depths of these issues be explored and articulated by courageous politicians?
The perennial issue in American society is corporate power. Rarely discussed in the middle class milieu, and more rarely evoked by the mainstream media, corporate power in America is growing and has had a debilitating effect on the American political process over the last fifty years. In a recent New York Times article, journalist Paul Krugman notes that “ In the current election cycle every one of the top ten industries making political donations is giving more money to the Democrats. Even industries that have in the past been overwhelmingly Republican, like insurance and pharmaceuticals, are now splitting their donations more or less evenly. Oil and Gas is the only major industry that the GOP can still call its own.”
Even more shocking to consciousness is that leading Democratic candidates are receiving more funds from defense contractors than Republicans for only the third time in the last 15 election cycles. Of course the democrats were elected on an anti-war platform, that is, to get us out of Iraq, right? Consequently, the Neo-Conservative doctrine has infected the rhetoric of the leading Democratic presidential candidates. In line with the ideals of the Military Industrial Complex and their cronies, neither Obama nor Clinton have taken a strike on Iran off the table. Why not? Do they foresee a future, additional war that this country cannot afford to finance? It was Martin Luther King Jr., a beacon of the civil rights movement who argued during the Vietnam war “We are spending all of this money for death and destruction, and not nearly enough money for life and constructive development….when the guns of war become a national obsession, social needs inevitably suffer.” Of course maintaining threats, whether real or imagined, is a great way to maintain defense funding.
After the debate I caught up with some prominent local political figures to discuss the stimulus package. Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, 11th district Congressional Representative, argued that she would have liked for the money to be invested into American Infrastructure. “I’m disappointed in the package, we should have had something in there for unemployment, we should have had something in there for senior citizens.” Tubbs Jones added, “But you see Republicans have convinced people that the money is better in their pocket than collectively operating the government. We need to put America back to work and repairing infrastructure is one of the best ways to do it.” Moreover, Tubbs Jones argued in regards to the rebate that “the people who can least afford to spend money are going to be spending the money, and the people who do not need to spend the money are going to invest and it will pay off down the line.” She added, “One of the things we need to do is incentivize companies to do business in the United States, we need to incentivize them (companies) to put people back to work and we need to help people understand financial literacy as well.” Furthermore, she continues, “The dilemma is that people are trying to survive, they are not living anymore, they’re just surviving, a $3.00 gallon of gas, milk, and a $3.00 loaf of bread. We have to help out states, like Governor Straddling is focusing on bringing Ohio back.”
First term U.S Senator Sherrod Brown echoed the sentiments of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, arguing that he “would have loved to have seen the money invested in infrastructure and alternative energy, and into green jobs. The President would have vetoed any bill like that. That is another reason why we need a new President.” Senator Brown argued that Presidential hopeful, and Arizona Senator John McCain would continue the Bush administration's economic policies. Senator Brown argued, “ Jon McCain is really running for a third Bush term; the same tax cuts for the rich; the same job killing trade agreements; $3 billion dollars a week in the War in Iraq, instead we are going to get something very different.” In the end, Senator Brown felt confident in the presidential contenders. “Barack or Hillary would have written an economic stimulus package that would have made a difference.”
