Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Power/Influence, the Role of Media “Darlings” in Coopting Community Voice, and a Challenge to Model D for 2011

Comment on last week’s Model D "debate" between Phil Cooley and Vince Keenan on the Power of “Influence” in the City's Revitalization [revised from comments originally posted last week as Twitter feed @ Detroitpolicy]

At last week's Model D event I learned that Detroit’s Phil Cooley, who is now being labeled a "media darling," has also apparently become a darling of the Knight Foundation. We heard at this event that the Knight Foundation hosted Phil's recent trip to Miami, & is apparently seeking his advice on how to invest millions of $ in the D.

This raises questions on several levels, but the question I'd like to raise here relates to the way the media and other sources of power can end up coopting community voice (intentionally or unintentionally). We need to ask what it means that Phil Cooley has become a darling of the media and now (apparently) at least one philanthropic foundation.

And even more we need to ask what Phil is going to do with his new appointment to the ranks of darling-hood, esp. by the Knight Foundation? Will he accept this position of influence, with the forms of cooptation of community voice it may entail, or will he use his influence with the Knight Foundation to direct its attention back to the ideas and voices of the diverse community members the Foundation should be seeking answers from?

Will Phil accept the seductive role of “darling” for the Knight Foundation--as a role that puts him in the position of speaking for the community--or will he refuse this beguiling offer, and use his new influence to direct attention to other community voices?

If Phil refuses to speak for the community, and thereby refuses to play the role of darling, he may do Detroit communities a singular service by communicating to Knight Foundation leaders, and any other foundations that approach him, that the proper locus from which to seek good advice is from community members themselves.

Too often the media and foundations seem to select as their darlings those who will give them the answers they want, in the guise of SPEAKING FOR the community. And this is precisely how cooptation works.

So how can Phil or any of us refuse to be the instrument of such cooptation, as media or foundation darlings? At minimum, by insisting that any legitimate answers to questions about how investments should be made to rebuild Detroit should come from no single person appointed (by some authority beyond the community) to represent the community.

Nor should such questions be directed to some existing group of local business, govt, media, or nonprofit leaders who already dominate discussion of these issues whenever they are covered by the mass media. If a foundation like Knight wants an authentic community response & good community-generated ideas to the questions it has to ask, there are ways to seek such answers by engaging community vision & voice. (And such forms of engagement do NOT look anything like the recent forms of so-called "engagement" staged by the Detroit Works project!)

So after last night's faux "debate," to which Vince Keenan contributed a useful skeptical note, let's hope Phil asks one essential question: What does his adoption as darling by the media and the Knight foundation mean?

And let's hope real friends of Phil help him to see that acceptance of that darling status, and the "influence" that comes with it, may also entail forms of cooptation (and ensuing corruption, as cooptation is the sweet liqueur that corruption drinks) that will harm, rather than help, the community he says he wishes to benefit.

Phil has already usefully admitted that he is probably not the best person to write policy for Detroiters. Let's hope he brings that same wisdom to any other seductive opportunities offered to him by media or philanthropy influence-brokers.

And regardless of whether Phil accepts or rejects the seductions of darlinghood, let the rest of us get about the work of creating the forums of real community debate and dialogue that are so desperately needed, if Detroiters are ever to gain the power to speak boldly, smartly, and soulfully for ourselves, instead of watching brokers in media, govt, or philanthropy select our spokesmen for us!

And on this essential point, the kinds of events Model D has so far hosted (including last week's event) have been severely impoverished. If Model D wants to model more creative forms of community dialogue, there are many different ways it could begin to organize future events to allow more diverse interchange of community ideas beyond the relatively small group of folks from which it seems to be choosing its featured speakers.

At last week’s Model D event, many wanted to respond to some of the things said (both witty and not-so-witty), but the format of allowing 5 minutes at the end for a good crowd of more than 100 to shout out some questions (without mike) doesn't quite cut it.

So I'd like to extend this CHALLENGE to MODEL D for the New Year: Take a step beyond your usual select group of speakers to think about new ways of organizing your speaker series to allow for more diverse voices/perspectives of community & for some real DEBATE!

If Model D takes up this challenge, it will not only contribute to building a real forum for the development of D community voice, but it will move beyond being part of the problem by playing the usual media role of selecting a few darlings who are put in the false position of speaking for us--the members of Detroit communities--rather than WITH us.

If Model D can help create a forum that allows Detroiters from diverse perspectives to speak with each other & thereby help to foster the development of a deeper and more representative community voice that is not "owned" by any single group or person… If Model D is willing to take on THAT KIND of Challenge in 2011, it may become part of the process that will move the D forward in ways that will ensure we are not still caught in this same kind of low-level discussion 10. 20, or 30 years from now...

The most important point Vince made is that if we want to move Detroit forward, we can't rely on the same folks and structures of power that have so often failed us in the past. And since our local govt should be serving community members, rather than vice versa, its up to us to show we can provide new direction, & model new forms/structures of decision-making & COMMUNITY-driven leadership.

There is much to do & the time is NOW to Do It!

So let's get to it, & work to do less speaking about or for others in our community, and instead work together to create forums that encourage us to speak WITH each other in our communities in ways that BUILD the D, rather than continue to self-divide and disempower it (which of course is what those who profit from the status quo of a weak and divided community like to see us continuing to do, since such community self-division allows those in power--by default--to remain “in charge”).

If we want something different from the structures we currently have (incl. those organizing the DetroitWorks Project), we need to get about the work of creating real alternative community-driven structures--in media, in local politics, in decision-making, in policymaking.

Absent that creative/constructive work, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for having no alternative to the same old structures ten or twenty years from now. Don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of patience for continuing and unnecessary powerlessness and frustration…

--DetroitPolicy
http://twitter.com/DetroitPolicy

Saturday, March 27, 2010

From Chicago to Detroit?: The Possible Future for Detroit's Schools, courtesy Robert Bobb


Is what happened in Chicago the future of Detroit's public school system, after Bobb and the foundations get done with "saving" our schools through privatization?

Think about this question over the next several weeks, as you watch the faux "town-hall" meetings called by Bobb, at which representatives of the 45 schools slated for closing BY JUNE are being allowed 15 minutes each to provide their "comment" on decisions that have apparently already been made without any true community participation....


A Look at Arne Duncan’s VIP List of Requests at Chicago Schools and the Effects of his Expansion of Charter Schools in Chicago

Arne-duncan

When President Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, was the head of Chicago’s Public Schools, his office kept a list of powerful, well-connected people who asked for help getting certain children into the city’s best public schools. The list—long kept confidential—was disclosed this week by the Chicago Tribune. We speak with the Chicago Tribune reporter who broke the story and with two Chicago organizers about Duncan and his aggressive plan to expand charter schools.

Guests:

Azam Ahmed, reporter for the Chicago Tribune. His latest story is How VIPs Lobbied Schools

Pauline Lipman, professor of education and policy studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. She is also the director of the Collaborative for Equity and Justice in Education at the university and is on the coordinating committee for Teachers for Social Justice.

Jitu Brown, community and educational organizer with the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization. He teaches at St. Leonard Adult High School for the formerly incarcerated.

Rush Transcript

JUAN GONZALEZ: When President Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, was the head of Chicago’s Public Schools, his office kept a list of powerful, well-connected people who asked for help getting certain children into the city’s best public schools. The list—long held confidential—was disclosed this week by the Chicago Tribune.

The paper reports that the nearly forty pages of logs show admissions requests from twenty-five aldermen, Mayor Daley’s office, the state House Speaker, the state attorney general, the former White House social secretary, and a former United States senator. The log noted “AD”—initials for Arne Duncan—as the person requesting help for ten students and a co-requestor about forty times.

A spokesman for Duncan denied any wrongdoing and said Duncan used the list, not to dole out rewards to insiders, but to shield principals from political interference.

AMY GOODMAN: Duncan was chief executive of the Chicago schools, the nation’s third-largest school system, from 2001 to 2009. During that time, he oversaw implementation of a program known as Renaissance 2010. The program’s aim was to close sixty schools and replace them with more than 100 charter schools. Now as President Obama’s Education Secretary, Duncan is overseeing a push by the administration to aggressively expand charter schools across the country.

For more, we go to Chicago. We’re joined by Azam Ahmed, the reporter for the Chicago Tribune who broke this latest story about the so-called VIP list of requests, and Pauline Lipman, professor of education and policy studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. She’s also director of the Collaborative for Equity and Justice in Education at the university, is on the coordinating committee for Teachers for Social Justice.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! I want to go first to Azam Ahmed. Congratulations on this exposé. I’m calling it the A-plus list, I guess, the “A” list, what you’re saying is the VIP list. Explain exactly how it worked.

AZAM AHMED: Well, Secretary Duncan had asked one of his staff members to keep a list of people who called his office on behalf of a student. So, in addition to VIPs, there were parents, siblings, folks who just happened to call Arne Duncan’s office to request that their child be considered or their sibling be considered for a selective school. But it’s noted very—it’s a very specifically spreadsheet: the date that there was a request, the name of the student, the name of the parent, their top three choices of schools, who exactly was requesting. And then there was a field for notes, a field to determine what exactly happened with the candidate, and the more explanatory dates.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what happened to that list after it was compiled?

AZAM AHMED: It was maintained, and each individual case—and in this case, every case, whether it was a VIP or a parent, every case was followed up on, and some sort of resolution was reached. From the logs that we obtained, some of that is—it’s very clear in some cases—in other cases, it’s unclear—what the final status ended up being of the individual student.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about—

AZAM AHMED: And it was kept up until this year.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you get a hold of this list, Azam?

AZAM AHMED: There had long been rumors about such a list existing or there being some kind of a way to maybe lobby to get your kid into a school. It was never clear there was a list. But I began casting out to different sources, asking them, and, you know, it was—it was a little bit of luck, I think.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But other than them collecting the list, was there any indication that then there was actual efforts made with the various principals who were in charge of these schools to get these kids admitted?

AZAM AHMED: The central office would call the principals and ask. They’ve been unequivocal about saying they never pressured anybody to accept a student. And a few principals I’ve talked to have also said they never—they were never pressured. It was a “Hey, we have this kid. We’ve checked out his background, pretty good scores”—or whatever the case may be—“Do you a space for them?” Oftentimes on the list you’ll see they—a student might have applied to the top one or two schools in the district and their testing scores just simply weren’t high enough, and often those kids would be put in a still desirable, but not as competitive, school. So, oftentimes kids would get placed maybe not in their first one or two choices, but they would find somewhere better than perhaps their neighborhood school.

AMY GOODMAN: You talk about the case of former Senator Carol Moseley Braun weighing in for a student to get in. Explain that story and who actually kept this list.

AZAM AHMED: One of Duncan’s top aides, David Pickens, was asked by Duncan to keep the list. And in this case, our understanding of it is Carol Moseley Braun was trying to get a certain student into Whitney Young, which is a very high-performing school in the city. She was getting no response from the principal. She called David Pickens, who then asked the principal to call her back. And then, whatever happened there was between the principal and Carol Moseley Braun. But ultimately, one of the two students Carol Moseley Braun was interested in having placed at Whitney Young did indeed get placed at Whitney Young.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We’re also joined by Pauline Lipman, professor of education and policy studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Could you talk about the significance of this list and also the battle of parents in Chicago to get into these elite schools in the city?

PAULINE LIPMAN: Yes, good morning. I’m really glad that Azam has done this story, because it provides some evidence for what we’ve pretty much known on the ground all along. And as you said, I think that what it reveals is a bigger scandal.

The larger scandal is that Chicago has basically a two-tiered education system, with a handful of these selective enrollment magnet schools, or boutique schools, that have been set up under Renaissance 2010 in gentrifying and affluent neighborhoods, and then many disinvested neighborhood schools. So parents across the city are scrambling to try to get their kids into a few of these schools. So instead of creating quality schools in every neighborhood, what CPS has done is created this two-tier system and actually is closing down, as you said, neighborhood schools under Renaissance 2010 and replacing them with charter schools and a privatized education system, firing or laying off, I should say, certified teachers, dismantling locally elected school councils, and creating a market of public education in Chicago, turning schools over to private turnaround operators. And this is, in the bigger, bigger scandal, this is now the national agenda under the Obama administration for education.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And amazingly, Arne Duncan doesn’t have that much of a—he’s not an educator by trade, to speak of. Could you talk a little bit about his background?

PAULINE LIPMAN: Yeah, not only is he not an educator by trade, I mean, he was a functionary in the Daley administration. But because Chicago is under mayoral control of schools, which is another part of Obama’s and Duncan’s national agenda under the federal stimulus Race to the Top funds, because of that, what we have is exactly a school system that is led at the top by virtually no educators. There is only one educator in a high position. The board are all appointed by Daley. They are all bankers or corporate heads. The CEO of schools before Duncan, Paul Vallas, was in Daley’s budget office. The new CEO, Ron Huberman, ran the Chicago Transit Authority. So we have a school system that, as a whole, is led by corporate managers, not by educators.

And in fact, that’s revealed in the fact that there’s basically no research that supports any of the interventions that they’ve made under Renaissance 2010. And there’s a good deal of research that demonstrates that it has been damaging to students and to communities and has not improved their education.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Professor Pauline Lipman. She teaches education and policy studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Arne Duncan said Katrina, you know, the hurricane, may have been the best thing to happen to New Orleans when it comes to education. How do you see what’s going on right now in Chicago playing out on the national scape with Arne Duncan, head of education in Chicago, now become the Education Secretary?

PAULINE LIPMAN: Well, I think that that’s a really good question, because I think probably the best phrase to describe what is happening nationally is what Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism.” So we have a situation in which there’s a fiscal crisis in the cities and in the states. We have a situation in which we have a long history disinvested public schools in communities of color. And in that context, there is now a move to privatize public education, just as happened in New Orleans, which was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and then that was seen as an opportunity to actually move in and privatize public schools.

So the federal stimulus money that’s being offered now to the states is being offered on the condition that they raise charter school caps, that they tie teacher evaluations to students’ test scores, that they close what they call failing schools, that they turn them over to private turnaround operators. So we have a neoliberal project nationally, which was tested out in Chicago and then is now being pushed out nationally.

And one of the ways that this was dramatized so clearly to me was that almost immediately after Arne Duncan was selected to be Secretary of Education, he flew to Detroit, which is one of the most disinvested, economically devastated cities in the country. And it was—their school system has been decimated because of the economic crisis in Detroit. And he offered millions of dollars, but on the condition that they would do the Chicago plan.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to say that we also will be broadcasting from Detroit next week, April 2nd, and for a week in June for the US Social Forum that’s taking place there. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, we’re also joined by Jitu Brown, who’s a community and educational organizer with the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization. He teaches at St. Leonard Adult High School for the formerly incarcerated. Jitu Brown, I’d like to ask you, because here in New York City, there are huge battles now developing between public school parents, as the city closes more public schools and opens more charter schools or co-locates charter schools inside existing neighborhood public schools. In many neighborhoods, there are huge battles. I’d like to ask you, what happened in Chicago as Arne Duncan rolled out his Renaissance 2010? And what was the impact at the community level of this educational reform?

JITU BROWN: Yes, sir. Well, I would like to say the first thing, first thing off, that our community, which is the Mid-South area, the South Side of Chicago, from the lake—close to the lakefront, maybe ten minutes from downtown, has really experienced school closings since maybe 1997, very quietly, and because of the CHA Plan for Transformation. So as public housing units were torn down, schools were closed, and young people were moved from place to place.

In 2004, we received a phone call from a parent by the name of Brenda Norwood from Doolittle West Elementary School on the last day of school, complaining that she just found out that her child’s school was going to close. And we began to get several phone calls like that. So, consequently, we organized an initial town hall meeting, where maybe 300 people came out. And we decided to put pressure on our local alderman to find out what was the plan. We had heard inklings of a Mid-South plan, but we hadn’t seen it.

So, after a couple of actions where we took maybe forty or fifty local school council members to a meeting sponsored by the alderman, she gave us the plan, which was the Mid-South plan, where we saw there was a plan to close twenty out of the twenty-two schools in our neighborhood over a three-year period and transform them into either charter, contract, or what they were calling at that time small schools, which are really CPS performance schools. That’s around the time that me and Pauline first met each other. And we began to work together and really look to build coalition around resisting these school closings.

So, the impact was disastrous. It was students going to as many as three schools over a five-year period. There were—even in the early stages of this, there were violence spiking in several schools in our neighborhood. So, for example, Fuller Elementary School, which had become a CPS Rising Star school, being a receiving school when Raymond School closed, and then the violence at Fuller spiking and just destroying the school atmosphere. So I think that the impact really harmed education in our neighborhoods. And then you saw it throughout the entire city, because as this rolled out, schools were being closed on the West Side in North Lawndale. Schools were being closed on the Far South Side.

But due to the work of, again, our community-based organizations, powerful groups like Teachers for Social Justice, and also labor, working with SEIU Local 1, and, to some extent, the CTU, Chicago Teachers Union, we were able to push to get the school closing policy changed, where they could no longer focus on one geographic area, and they had to provide some notice to parents, and so—along with having the Mid-South plan become shelved, where they had to, you know, find another way to do it. But they knew that they couldn’t just directly come in our neighborhood and shut down schools. So, it had a horrible effect.

AMY GOODMAN: Jitu, I wanted to ask you about the militarization of the schools in Chicago. Perhaps in Chicago they’re the most militarized in the country. Five public schools have been turned into military academies. I think there are 10,000 students in uniform, over three dozen junior ROTC programs in Chicago’s high schools. Duncan said, in 2007, “I love the sense of leadership. I love the sense of discipline.”

JITU BROWN: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Well, to us, it’s an indictment, because, one, many of our young people, after being underserved by the public school system, end up going to the military because they feel they have no other choice, because the quality of their education hasn’t really prepared them to go on to college, or they don’t have the resources. So they look to the military as a last resort. I experience this every day, try to talk young people out of it.

But one of the major issues is that they are throwing millions of dollars of resources into militarizing our schools and not putting those same resources into making public schools better, because there are examples of regular public schools in Chicago that serve low-income African American and Latino youth that are good schools. Beethoven is a good example on the South Side. This is a school that’s right now at about 80 percent of students reading at or above reading level. And we don’t want to just go on test scores, but if that’s the indicator, they have strong community involvement. So we feel like the priority is not to make sure that our young people have the opportunity to do better than their parents, but that the intent is to prepare young people for the armed services. And so, that’s an issue for us.

AMY GOODMAN: And your school, can you explain—it’s highly unusual. A school for the formerly incarcerated, a high school?

JITU BROWN: OK, yes, ma’am. It’s called St. Leonard’s Adult High School. It was actually started by some—I will call them revolutionary nuns at St. Leonard’s House, in partnership with faculty from Northeastern Illinois University and DePaul University. And it is an accredited high school that provides adults who have been formerly incarcerated with the opportunity to get their high school diploma, also with job—excellent job placement services. And we have a relationship right now with the City Colleges of Chicago, where several of our graduates go on to college. And then, of course, they have the counseling services to aid those men and women in their transition. It’s a fifteen-week program, very rigorous. And proud I’ve been a part of it for maybe eight years. I teach African American history there.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask Pauline Lipman about the overall effort in Renaissance 2010 and now in Arne Duncan’s attempts to take it nationwide, the impact on the neighborhood public school, well, a public school that is not just a building with a bunch of students, but is an institution in the community where the parents know each other, where they all come from the same neighborhood. What is happening to that tradition of the neighborhood public school as an institution?

PAULINE LIPMAN: Yeah, thank you for asking that question, Juan, because I think that’s a very key part of what has happened. As Jitu was saying, we’ve seen a really devastating impact in many of the neighborhoods where the schools have been closed. The school is one of the central institutions in a neighborhood, a neighborhood that’s suffering—has been suffering from unemployment, economic devastation, the transformation of public housing. And so, we see that these schools become sort of the core of the neighborhood.

And we have examples; I can describe one. Anderson Elementary School in the West Town area of Chicago, with a primarily Latino and African American population, one of the schools that you could say was really a good neighborhood school. And that area has become extremely gentrified. As it was gentrified, many people had to move out. The people who were still remaining and even people who moved out continued to send their children to that school, because it did in fact represent and anchor the neighborhood. And there was a huge battle over that a year ago, in 2008, when under Renaissance 2010, despite massive protests on the part of the parents—pickets, demonstrations, research that they did, busing of people down to the school board to protest—despite that, Chicago Public Schools closed it down, and they turned the school over to a school called LaSalle Language Academy, which is one of the most coveted, elite boutique schools in the city, for precisely the new, gentrifying, middle-class folks who had moved into that neighborhood.

So we’ve seen this happening again and again around the city. There is one ward on the West Side of the city where they no longer have a single public high school. Every high school is a charter high school. So what that means is that parents and students are looking not just in their neighborhood, but all around the city, to try to find a school to get their children into. It’s a market. They’re shopping for schools. And so, all the roles that those schools have historically played to provide support and continuity have been totally disrupted.

AMY GOODMAN: Pauline Lipman, we want to thank you very much for being with us, University of Illinois-Chicago. Jitu Brown, educational organizer with the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, and Azam Ahmed of the Chicago Tribune. We’ll link to your article at democracynow.org.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

A Five-Point Jobs Plan for the Economic Recovery of the People, and not just the Corporations & Stock Market

In order to keep the U.S. from following the path of Herbert Hoover into another depression, the Economic Policy Institute and the AFL-CIO have offered a clear path to a real jobs and national recovery, rather than just a corporate recovery.

We hope President Obama will follow this clear path to recovery, since anything less robust than this will be repeating either the mistakes of Herbert Hoover during the early 1930s, or of the Japanese during their "lost decade" of the 1990s.

A lukewarm response to the jobs crisis will fail to restore the more than 10,000,000 jobs lost during the last two years. A piecemeal, dribbled response will condemn the U.S. to a perpetually high unemployment rate, and will be a disaster not only for the millions of people condemned to joblessness, but for the entire national economy and the political prospects of the Democratic party.


From the AFL-CIO:

America Needs Jobs Now

No one needs to tell America’s families that unemployment and underemployment are at crisis levels. We need jobs—and we need them now.

Wall Street has gotten its bailouts. Now it’s time for Main Street to get some immediate help.

The AFL-CIO is calling on Congress and the Obama administration to take five steps now to care for the jobless and put America back to work.

1. Extend the lifeline for jobless workers. Unless Congress acts now, supplemental unemployment benefits, additional food assistance and expansion of COBRA health care benefits will expire at the end of the year. They must be extended for another 12 months to prevent working families from bankruptcy, home foreclosure and loss of health care. Extending benefits also will boost personal spending and create jobs throughout the economy.

2. Rebuild America’s schools, roads and energy systems. America still has at least $2.2 trillion in unmet infrastructure needs. We should put people to work to fix our nation’s broken-down school buildings and invest in transportation, green technology, energy efficiency and more.

3. Increase aid to state and local governments to maintain vital services. State and local governments and school districts have a $178 billion budget shortfall this year alone—while the recession creates greater need for their services. States and communities must get help to maintain critical frontline services, prevent massive job cuts and avoid deep damage to education just when our children need it most.

4. Put people to work doing work that needs to be done. If the private sector can't or won't provide the needed jobs, the government should step up to the plate, putting people who need jobs together with work that needs to be done. These should never be replacements for existing public jobs. They must pay competitive wages and should target distressed communities.

5. Put TARP funds to work for Main Street.The bank bailout helped Wall Street, not Main Street. We should put some of the billions of dollars in leftover Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to work creating jobs by enabling community banks to lend money to small- and medium-size businesses. If small businesses can get credit, they will create jobs.

America’s jobs situation would be even more dire without the economic stimulus program President Obama and Congress enacted, which has saved or created 1 million jobs. But the depth of this crisis demands that we do more—and that we do it now, before more people lose their jobs, their homes, their health care and their hope.

See chart: The Gap In The Labor Market


***************

Five-Point Plan for U.S. Recovery: American Jobs Plan

In addition to the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute has a similar Five-Point Plan, backed up by research to support each of its key points for moving the U.S. Economy into a Path to real recovery--

The United States is experiencing its worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression. Nearly 16 million Americans—our family, friends, and neighbors—are out of work. This national crisis demands a bold plan to put people back to work. The Economic Policy Institute proposes the American Jobs Plan, a plan that would create at least 4.6 million jobs in one year.

Here you will find EPI's comprehensive research and analysis of the jobs crisis—how severe it has grown and why—and the details of EPI's American Jobs Plan.

In order to put Detroiters and Michigan residents back to work, we need a robust national American Jobs and Recovery Plan, not the wimpy excuse for a plan just passed by Congress....

Beyond Reactionary Spending Freezes that follow the Path of Herbert Hoover rather than Roosevelt

Will President Obama follow the path of Herbert Hoover or Franklin D. Roosevelt in his attempt to lead the nation to economic recovery? That is the question that still remains to be answered, after his State of the Union Address.

Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, had the following to say about the Obama administration’s proposal to ‘freeze’ overall non-defense discretionary spending for three years starting with fiscal year 2011:

In all likelihood the unemployment rate will be higher in October than it is now, yet somehow the White House thinks it’s appropriate to begin reducing domestic discretionary spending at that time. Reducing overall spending when tens of millions of Americans remain out of work would be a disaster. It will condemn millions of families to years of avoidable economic hardships.

President Obama's . . . proposed ‘freeze’ is bad economic policy. It ignores the basic facts that deficit reduction must begin with job creation and economic recovery, offers little more than window-dressing on long-term deficit reduction, and inappropriately vilifies domestic spending.

Shifting federal spending from less effective to more effective programs is certainly welcome, but it doesn’t justify an overall spending reduction — especially not at a time when we need the federal government to inject demand into a severely weakened economy in order to create jobs. What President Obama should offer . . . is a bold plan to put millions of Americans back to work. To do anything less is to turn a cold shoulder to the needless suffering of millions of Americans and make any focus on ‘jobs’ simply rhetorical.

For more of Lawrence Mishel's statement, click here.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

One BIG Reason Pres. Obama's Approach may be TOO LITTLE TOO LATE for the MI Economy

Michigan Indefinitely Delays Over 200 Road & Bridge Projects

Lansing Associated Press writer KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN today posted a report, which NPR picked up, that underlines the reasons we may still be on the path to a second great depression.

And unless President Obama and Congress develop a quick and aggressive response to this economic reality in Michigan and many other states, he will be following the path of Herbert Hoover rather than F.D. Roosevelt.

According to Hoffman's report:
Michigan transportation officials have voted to delay more than 200 road and bridge projects previously planned for the next five years because the state is running low on money.
And, according to Hoffman, "Michigan could go from spending roughly $1.4 billion on roads this year with the help of federal stimulus money to less than $600 million three out of the next four years."

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the additional economic decline and job loss in store for many states like Michigan in the coming years, unless something is done immediately to prevent states from heading down this path toward delaying and canceling major infrastructure projects, which must be the base of any economic recovery.

Unless President Obama and Congress support a major new economic stimulus package directed at helping the States to avoid massive additional job loss across Michigan and many other states as the result of cancellation of infrastructure projects like these in Michigan, the success Obama had in slowing job losses in 2009 (although we're still losing jobs each month) will quickly reverse, and we'll be sliding backwards again. And this time the Democrats won't simply be able to blame the Republicans, since when this downward spiral begins, it will be as much a result of insufficient and weak Democratic policy response, as due to Republican obstructionism.

The fact that even last night in his State of the Union speech President Obama continued to appeal to a hope that the Republican party would come around to support a "common sense" bipartisan strategy to help the country rise out of its crisis, would seem to indicate that he and his advisors have barely begun to reckon with the banality of evil that has been driving the Republican strategy for more than eight years now.

And if Obama and his advisors think they can confront and reverse this nihilistic and destructive Republican political force by appeals to common sense, they have apparently not even begun to think seriously about the lessons the struggles of the civil rights movement and the work of Dr. Martin Luther King have to teach us.

President Obama said in his speech that he was not naive. Unfortunately, based on the lack of a clear strategy and focus for supporting a strong economic/jobs recovery in his speech, I'm not convinced he is right about himself or his administration.

Based on the speech last night, the Obama administration continues to pursue an extremely naive political strategy, which sacrifices the power of popular progressive mobilization that could carry it forward, to a weak political strategy that keeps him hostage to the Republicans.

The continuing insistence on appealing to a Republican Party that has shown it is primarily invested in the destruction of the Obama Presidency at all costs, and that it has little concern for common sense or the good of the country, is bizarre and tragic from a President who should know better. After all, if the Republican Party had any concern for the country's welfare and the welfare of people, it would never have landed us in this economic mess in the first place!


The great slide into the first great Depression of the 1930s occurred largely because under President Hoover the Federal Government failed to help states avoid exactly the kinds of severe cut-backs states are now facing, and instead tried to focus on traditional business incentives to stimulate the economy.

Unless President Obama's administration and Congress wake up to the hard lessons of the previous great depression, and quickly, we will find ourselves repeating the mistakes of the past, and of President Hoover, who like Obama was a good man with good intentions who wanted to help his country, and even had a great resume of past experience for doing so.

But when it comes to the hard reality of capitalist economic cycles, good intentions that are not backed up with necessary and informed policy action, are utterly meaningless. And if we end up in another great depression, history will not remember Obama's good intentions. It will record and remember his failure to listen to the lessons of history, and to act on the advice of historically-informed economists like Paul Krugman, who should be put in charge of running Obama's economic team (though I suspect he may not want such a thankless job)....

See Krugman's recent blog post on the stupidity of the approach suggested by Obama's speech last night, which according to Krugman (and I agree) completely failed to change the narrative that has put the Republicans in charge of the rhetorical battle over both policy and politics in 2010.

I love Krugman because he pulls no punches, while his critiques also go to the core of what is wrong with the entire framework of both the Republican and Democratic approaches to policy in this crisis.

And unless politicians in charge of policy strategy begin to listen to Krugman and other economists like him, the consequences of all the premature 2009 talk of having avoided another great depression, which merely continues the delusional detachment from reality of the Bush era, will soon be coming home to roost.

The illusion-creating stock market "recovery" will be forced to meet the reality of continuing job loss, as our whole economy turns around for its "second dip." And this time, since we're starting at 10% unemployment (which hides a much larger unemployment rate that is structural and not even being counted--in cities like Detroit, for example, the real unemployment rate is around 30%, even higher than national rate in depths of the 1930s depression), we'll be entering depression era territory pretty quickly--thanks to the feckless policies of both political parties.

*****
Update: From the Detroit News--
Metro Detroit projects placed on hold include reconstruction of I-96 from Middle Belt to Telegraph and Newburgh to Middle Belt; reconstruction of Fort from Sibley to Goddard; widening of Telegraph from Vreeland to West Road; and resurfacing of major portions of I-94 in Macomb County. It would also mean not replacing 27 bridges.