Today, the Sacramento Bee published a column from Cal Thomas in its electronic edition entitled "Crazy Bernie is at it again." The gist of the column is that Bernie Sanders' recent proposal that the government guarantee jobs for the unemployed is politically naive, unworkable, unaffordable, and just plain wrong. The link is to a right-wing website where the column originated, and the column itself claims several things:
1. George McGovern ran against Nixon on a "similar" platform. No, no he didn't. McGovern was the "get the heck out of Vietnam" candidate, while our last liberal president, candidate Richard Nixon, claimed he had a secret plan to end the war. His secret plan: continue and expand (illegally) the bombing that failed LBJ.
Seldom mentioned in this campaign are Nixon's dirty tricks: specifically persuading his future Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, to sabotage LBJ's peace talks with the Vietnamese. In fairness, he could certainly have learned a dirty trick or two from LBJ...but two wrongs still don't make a right, and Cal Thomas looks like he's lying just to keep in practice.
2. Says Cal: LBJ's "war on poverty" promised something like a job guarantee and failed miserably. Not really, although there were plenty of job training programs in that "war."
So was that program a failure? See for yourself:
(From Wikipedia) The program began in 1969, and has mixed results at best.
The really effective anti-poverty program appears to be the New Deal and the decades of government-sponsored programs that followed it. The New Deal did include something like a job guarantee (the WPA). Naturally, Reagan's cutbacks coincide with the return to higher poverty rates. See American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper for the full story.
3. It's unaffordable! Eeek! We're running out of money!
Gee, I wonder who makes the money, and who made $16 - $29 trillion to bail out the financial sector in 2007-8? (The figures are from the Federal Reserve's own audit.) This doesn't pass the sniff test.
On the other hand, Mr. Thomas' response has been anticipated. Polish economist Michal Kalecki wrote a paper ("The Political Aspects of Full Employment") about the job guarantee in 1943. He expected resistance because such a guarantee would mean an end to "labor discipline." That means the peons would no longer have to suffer the indignities of poverty, homelessness and even starvation if they turned down a crappy job.
Basically, though, government is willing to buy agricultural commodities, even financial instruments ("Quantitative Easing"), so why would it not buy surplus labor? No reason.
See also Warren Mosler's talk about government's role in full employment.
1. George McGovern ran against Nixon on a "similar" platform. No, no he didn't. McGovern was the "get the heck out of Vietnam" candidate, while our last liberal president, candidate Richard Nixon, claimed he had a secret plan to end the war. His secret plan: continue and expand (illegally) the bombing that failed LBJ.
Seldom mentioned in this campaign are Nixon's dirty tricks: specifically persuading his future Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, to sabotage LBJ's peace talks with the Vietnamese. In fairness, he could certainly have learned a dirty trick or two from LBJ...but two wrongs still don't make a right, and Cal Thomas looks like he's lying just to keep in practice.
2. Says Cal: LBJ's "war on poverty" promised something like a job guarantee and failed miserably. Not really, although there were plenty of job training programs in that "war."
So was that program a failure? See for yourself:
(From Wikipedia) The program began in 1969, and has mixed results at best.
The really effective anti-poverty program appears to be the New Deal and the decades of government-sponsored programs that followed it. The New Deal did include something like a job guarantee (the WPA). Naturally, Reagan's cutbacks coincide with the return to higher poverty rates. See American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper for the full story.
3. It's unaffordable! Eeek! We're running out of money!
Gee, I wonder who makes the money, and who made $16 - $29 trillion to bail out the financial sector in 2007-8? (The figures are from the Federal Reserve's own audit.) This doesn't pass the sniff test.
On the other hand, Mr. Thomas' response has been anticipated. Polish economist Michal Kalecki wrote a paper ("The Political Aspects of Full Employment") about the job guarantee in 1943. He expected resistance because such a guarantee would mean an end to "labor discipline." That means the peons would no longer have to suffer the indignities of poverty, homelessness and even starvation if they turned down a crappy job.
Basically, though, government is willing to buy agricultural commodities, even financial instruments ("Quantitative Easing"), so why would it not buy surplus labor? No reason.
See also Warren Mosler's talk about government's role in full employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.