SYNDICATED COLUMN: Barack Hussein Hoover

It's 1933 Again. But FDR Lost.

NEW YORK—When the economic collapse began a year ago, many Americans took comfort in the historical parallels with the Great Depression. As it had in 1929, the current crisis began under the clueless reign of a Republican, George W. Bush. Universally reviled since his non-response to hurricane Katrina had exposed him and the men around him as both uncaring and incompetent—either one was forgivable, not both—Bush had reacted in the classic cold-blooded Republican form embodied by the president who gave his name to the Hoovervilles.

But all was not lost. The Democrats were coming in! Barack "Yes We Can" Obama was running well ahead in the polls. Soon our new FDR would clean up Bush's mess.

In the late fall of 2008 Bush looted the stripped-bare U.S. Treasury one final time. Hundreds of billions of dollars in "bailouts," this time for the benefit of the banks, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers whose profligate ways had contributed to the crisis, were doled out without pre-conditions. Millions of homeowners who faced foreclosure got no help whatsoever.

The way to stimulate a consumer-based economy is to put money directly into consumers' pockets. Instead, Bush deployed the standard GOP trickle-down approach. Boosting the banks would encourage them to restore liquidity, allowing individuals and businesses to resume borrowing. But the banks weren't stupid. They no longer wanted to lend to people who couldn't repay them. They held on to the cash. Credit markets seized up.

Like his father in 1992, Bush finished his reign as he had begun it: tone-deaf, cheerful, obliviously floating above the mayhem, utterly unconcerned with the fate of the average American staring at a stack of bills (and, in the case of a half a million Americans each month, a pink slip).

We were a nation without leadership. We knew there was no point looking to Bush and his GOP gangsters for help. But we weren't too worried. Obama was coming. He would be the neo-FDR. He would get things rolling again.

During the 1932 campaign Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised that help was on the way. In radio addresses and in speeches across the country, FDR argued against Hoover's trickle-down approach. He spoke on behalf of the "forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid."

In his lucid biography of FDR, "Traitor to His Class," the historian H.W. Brands described FDR's sales pitch: "For too long, he said, government had operated for the benefit of the wealthy, consigning the poor to the margins of public life. The Hoover administration had responded to the crisis by furnishing aid to big banks and corporations. This approach was characteristic of the Republicans, Roosevelt said, and characteristically wrong. It treated ordinary men and women as secondary to the powerful firms that had long dominated American life. And it certainly hadn't done anything to alleviate the Depression, which grew worse with each passing month. Roosevelt advocated "building from the bottom up," as he put it; supplying aid to those who most needed it."

Attacking the 2008-09 Great Recession wasn't rocket science. The causes of the economic collapse were strikingly similar: a real estate bubble feeding a stock market bubble, excessive borrowing and lending. So were the results: by the time Obama became president in January, the real unemployment rate—calculated the way it was calculated in 1933—was the same 20 percent it was when FDR took the oath of office.

Keynesian-influenced economists such as Paul Krugman pushed the incoming Obama Administration to repeat FDR's successful approach. Putting job creation first, FDR's New Deal programs directly put millions of people to work on government projects. The WPA, which employed eight million Americans during its existence, built bridges and highways. The TVA put up dams and the CCC improved national parks. The federal government even hired artists and authors to paint murals in public buildings and write travel guides to the 48 states.

Long after World War II ended the Depression once and for all, Americans made use of New Deal-era labor: "The WPA built or improved 651,000 miles of roads, 19,700 miles of water mains and 500 water treatment plants. Workers built 24,000 miles of sidewalks; 12,800 playgrounds; 24,000 miles of storm and sewer lines; 1,200 airport buildings; 226 hospitals; more than 5,900 schools, and more than two million privies," according to a PBS special about the New Deal. There's plenty of work to do now: the U.S. needs a national high-speed rail system to compete with European and Asian countries, not to mention new mass transit systems and school buildings. Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and hire Americans to start building!

Nine months into his presidency, however, it is clear that Obama is more Hoover than FDR. There has been virtually no investment in public infrastructure. There will be no public jobs programs. According to The New York Times, "Obama's economic advisers are sifting options for a new package of tax cuts and other job creation measures to be unveiled in next year's State of the Union address."

No one in Congress has proposed a single jobs-creation bill. Instead, they're working to extend unemployment benefits to 79 weeks. "As Democrats have found, aiding those who have lost their jobs," comments the Times, "is simpler than preventing more layoffs and creating more jobs."

Is Obama stupid? Or is he crazy? More than one out of five Americans is jobless. Many more are underemployed. There are six jobseekers for every job. Inflation is out of control. Yet he thinks we can wait until January 2010? Does he really believe that tax cuts create jobs?

Other ideas include "a tax credit for homebuyers and accelerated depreciation for businesses." There's also "a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire" and "allowing more businesses to deduct their net operating loans going back five years instead of the usual two."

When Bush flew home to Texas, we thought we were getting an FDR to replace a Hoover. Instead, we got another Hoover.

Even if we had a president willing and able to offer the bold and decisive leadership that FDR offered in the 1930s, the challenge posed by the fiscal crisis would be daunting. But we're not as lucky as our grandparents. We're stuck with a small-minded schmuck with the vision of a small-time Chicago alderman. Think about it: this is a guy who thinks tinkering with the tax code is going to save American capitalism!

It's 1933. This time, however, Hoover got reelected. Can we hold out until 1937 for a president who understands that we need 10 million new jobs, and that we need them yesterday?

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the upcoming graphic memoir "The Year of Loving Dangerously.")

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Cartoon for August 17, 2009

Still waiting for Obama to help? Keep waiting.

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Heckuva Job, Barry

Obama, Losing Jobs, Soon to Be Shovel-Ready

Pro-Obama political cartoonists have drawn variations of the same cartoon: the president, in the role of badgered parent on a family trip, is driving a car labeled "The Economy." The American public, depicted as Uncle Sam or Joe Average, whines: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"

With official unemployment approaching 10 percent and underemployment at 16.5 percent, Americans are running out of money—and patience. Obama's approval ratings are down between 15 and 20 points, meaning that he has lost one in six Americans. His biggest weakness: the economy.

"I think the public knows three things: We inherited a total mess; we're working hard on it; and we're not going to get out of it overnight," says Chief White House propagandist Rahm Emanuel. That part is true.

The trouble for Obama is that people don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. "The key to what this year is about is rescuing the economy from falling off the cliff and trying to put in place the building blocks of recovery"—i.e., bailing out the banks, insurers and automakers, says Emanuel. That's what 2009 has been about for Obama. But for ordinary Americans, 2009 is about keeping or finding a job.

Creating jobs, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be an Obama Administration priority.

Were the bailouts necessary? Economists won't know for years. What we do know is that the Administration's approach won't give the American people what they want and need more than anything else: jobs.

What's the point of being patient? Even Obama admits help isn't on the way.

Obama's plan is Reaganomics redux. Give trillions of dollars to big corporations, he argues, and they'll use it to capitalize new ventures, hire workers, and unclog the credit markets. Eventually. "We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity," he says.

But even Obama admits it won't unfold "the way it's supposed to."

Obama says his plan "was not designed to work in four months. It was designed to work over two years." But if current trends continue, if everything goes the way he hopes, it will never work. We will have lost 14 million jobs by 2010. That would leave us up 4 million at most—a net loss of 10 million. That's a disaster.

And that's why Joe Public is so antsy. "Are we there yet?" isn't the right question. People think: "We can see how this is going to end: we'll be upside down in a ditch, plucking safety glass from our scalps."

Obama's approach won't work economically, and it won't work politically. Setting bailouts aside, what the United States needs right now—what it needed over a year ago—was a ginormous federal jobs program.

What happened to the infrastructure construction projects, like high-speed rail, that attracted so much enthusiasm during the campaign? Right-wing economic czar Lawrence Summers and a bunch of wimpy Democrats trashed them. "Transportation spending was gutted by Republicans who insisted on more tax cuts—none of whom voted for the measure anyway—and by Obama advisers who shifted priorities to advance policy goals," reported the AP.

Earlier this year the American Society of Civil Engineers said the nation's long-neglected highways, bridges and tunnels require $2,200 billion in repairs just to get them up to basic safety code—not including high-speed rail. Obama's stimulus plan included a mere $42 billion (less than two percent). Rail got $2 billion out of a needed $25 billion. Unless Obama does something soon, nothing is going to get built and unemployment will continue to soar.

Now that Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs are reporting record profits, it's time to "claw back" the bailouts, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and direct federal dollars where we need them most: jobs. Give tax breaks to employers who add new workers, direct federal agencies to grow in size, and create zero-interest lending programs to laid-off would-be entrepreneurs. And let's build some friggin' infrastructure. Every $1 spent on infrastructure generates a $1.59 payback in the form of increased tax revenues—and creates a lasting legacy.

Speaking of cartoons, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt recently came under fire for trying to hire a cartoonist to "discuss the power of humor in the workplace [and] the close relationship between humor and stress." A Democratic Senator nixed the idea.

Too bad: at least Obama could have taken credit for creating one job.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Cartoon for June 20, 2009

News reporters are having trouble finding anyone--anyone!--who got help from the government in saving their home from foreclosure.

Cartoon for April 20, 2009

When everyone's losing everything, those who manage to hold on to what they have look lucky.

NEW ANIMATION: The Fiendish Skies

Sitting in airports waiting for flights operated by carriers that might not still be in business by boarding time gave me the idea for this animation, wherein an airine goes out of business WHILE the flight is in progress. Hope you like it.

Cartoon for March 30, 2009

It's true: financial markets are reacting favorably when bad news is less bad than previously forecast. If there's a better indication of a country in despair, I don't know what it is. We're pathetic.

Cartoon for March 21, 2009

Americans aren't cut out for austerity. And there, ladies and gentlemen, lies our greatest hope for economic recovery.

Cartoon for March 19, 2009

Bankers that received federal bailouts are complaining that the government is changing the terms and conditions of their loans after the fact. Sounds familiar.

Cartoon for March 8, 2009

The collapse of the New Economy leads to a reversal of the old conservative report to the downtrodden.

Cartoon for March 4, 2009

Obama's economic stimulus plan calls for higher taxes on people who earn over $250K after 2011. Will anyone earn that much by then?

Cartoon for February 26, 2009

Even as the economy drags the United States into oblivion, many Americans keep up appearances of normalcy.

THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: CEO-Bashing for Fun and Profit

Obama, Media Grandstand on Executive Pay

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS--On July 14, 1789 an angry mob invaded Paris' Bastille prison, igniting a chain of events that became the French Revolution. The insurgents may have been provoked by a prisoner, the notorious Marquis de Sade. "They are killing the prisoners here!" he shouted to the crowd two weeks earlier, on July 2nd. The authorities moved him to another prison before the 14th.

The storming of the Bastille was pretty much a BS event. There were only seven prisoners for the revolutionaries to liberate, several of whom were living lives of considerable ease in fully furnished cells with servants. Yet the Bastille remains a symbol of monarchist oppression smashed by righteous people seeking freedom and equality. Sometimes empty symbolism means a lot.

Not so much here or now. Revolution doesn't seem imminent in Obamaland, where polls show people pro-Bama despite losing their jobs, and a government bailout for everyone and everything except the people and institutions who actually need help. But revolution's second cousin--symbolic scapegoating--is all around, like love in the Mary Tyler Moore Show theme song minus the beret toss.

"In 1980, according to a Forbes magazine study, executive compensation was 40 times the average worker's pay; by 2007, that had soared to more than 400 times," CBS News reported on February 25th. Now that the companies those ridiculously compensated executives were charged with running are tanking, CEO pay is coming under attack by pundits and politicians.

President Obama won headlines and plaudits for a $500,000 income cap on top corporate executives--an idea that I and other progressives have been promoting for ages (and that was derisively dismissed as socialism before the U.S. began sliding into oblivion in September). As with the Bastille, however, there's a lot more symbolism than substance here.

First, the $500,000 cap doesn't cover 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies--only those receiving federal bailout cash. Firms like Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and AIG, which got the first round of TARP moolah, won't be affected. Only a handful of companies would be covered, and even they'll escape the restriction. First, most CEOs receive relatively low salaries anyway. Most CEO compensation comes in the form of bonuses and stock options, which aren't subject to Obama's cap. And even the income cap cab can easily be evaded; CEOs simply have to notify company shareholders.
That's not all. "[Obama's income cap] excludes the midlevel execs who also received some of those Wall Street bonuses and who in many cases made the risky bets that sparked the crisis," reports The Politico.com. There are more loopholes, so many you could drive a gold-plated Hummer through it if you could afford the gas, but you get the idea.

"America needs to understand that this is cosmetic, that this is to appease taxpayer ire," says "Naked Capitalism" blogger Yves Smith, who has worked on Wall Street for 25 years. But that would be true even if Obama's cap were real and applied to every CEO in America.

Universally blamed for the fiscal meltdown, Wall Street investment bankers are under fire for taking in billions in bonuses in 2008, a.k.a. The Year America Died. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, grandstanded thusly, vowing to use "every possible legal means to recoup the $18.4 billion in Wall Street bonuses." Vice President Joe Biden said: "I'd like to throw these guys in the brig."

Of course, nothing of the sort will happen. The bankers will keep their bonuses; they won't be checking into the Greybar Hotel any time soon.

What's gotten lost in the populist uprising is why seven-digit CEO salaries were worth talking about in the first place. They're a symbol and litmus test of a bigger problem, skyrocketing income inequality, that has gotten worse and worse since the late 1960s. As the rich have grown richer--not just rich CEOs, but everyone in the top one to five percent of income earners--the poor, and especially the middle class, have become poorer and poorer.

The overall social problem of rising income inequality is at the root of our current economic ills. If corporations had paid the vast majority of workers the raises they deserved over the past 40 years, raises commensurate with increases in efficiency and productivity, people would have saved more and borrowed less. The real estate and credit bubbles wouldn't have grown as big. When they burst, people would have had resources to fall back upon. We are broke, unemployed, and maxed out--not because we bought too much stuff, but because our bosses paid themselves instead of us.

CEO and executive compensation in general aren't the problem, or even the cause of the problem. They are symptoms of a malady inherent in the capitalist system: the tendency of those who gain an early advantage to monopolize assets and aggregate wealth and influence at the expense of everyone else. You can see it when you play the board game "Monopoly." More times than not, whoever gets an early lead wins.

It isn't just CEOs. It's millions of Americans at the top of the income scale, many of whom consider themselves middle class. Because they earned too much, others earned too little.

Insulting CEOs (while letting them keep their perquisites) may be fun. But it doesn't begin to address what's killing the U.S. economy: the rancid notion that one person's hard day's work deserves more pay than another's.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: It Couldn't Happen Here

Could It?

PARIS--Most Americans don't care what happens in France. But the oldest country in "Old Europe" remains the Western world's intellectual capital and one of its primary originators of political trends. (Google "May+1968+Sorbonne.")

The French are reacting to a situation almost identical to ours--economic collapse, government impotence, corporate corruption--by turning hard left. National strikes and massive demonstrations are occurring every few weeks. How far left? This far: the late president François Mitterand's Socialist Party, the rough equivalent of America's Greens, is considered too conservative to solve the economic crisis.

A new poll by the Parisian daily Libération finds 53 percent of French voters (68 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds) favoring "radical social change." Fifty-seven percent want France to insulate itself from the global economic system. Does this mean revolution? It's certainly possible. Or maybe counter-revolution: Jean-Marie Le Pen's nativist (some would say neofascist) National Front is also picking up points.

One thing is certain: French politics are even more volatile than the financial markets these days. In yet another indication of How Far Left?, the Communist-aligned CGT labor union is on the defensive for not being militant enough. "We're not going to put out the blazing fires [of the economic crisis]," the CGT's secretary general said, trying to seize the initiative by calling for another strike on February 18th. "We're going to fan them."

Two new entities, a Left Party (PG) umbrella organization trying to unify opposition to the conservative government of President Nicolas Sarkozy (who'd be to the left of Obama in the U.S.) and the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), have seized the popular imagination. The NPA claims to have registered more than 9000 "militants" willing to use violent force to overthrow the government if given the word.

"Only combat pays," read a banner at the NPA's first convention.

Communism is dead, most pundits--the mainstream, stupid ones anyway--have been telling us since the USSR shut down in 1991. As it turns out, the libertarians were wrong. Half-right, anyway: Human nature may be inherently individualistic, as free market capitalists claim, but it's also inherently social. When economies boom, most people are sufficiently satisfied to leave well enough alone. Who cares if my boss gets paid 100 times more than I do? I'm doing OK. As resources become scarce, however, we huddle together for protection. The sight of a small rich elite hoarding all the goodies violates our primal sense of fairness.

"In Soviet times," a man in present-day Tajikistan told me, "we lived worse than we do today. But we were all the same. Now we live a bit better, but we have to watch rich assholes pass us in their Benzes." Which would he choose? No hesitation: "Soviet times."

In America, a French cliché goes, people are afraid of the government. In France, the government is afraid of the people. With good reason, too: the French have overthrown their governments dozens of times since the Revolution of 1789. The French are hard wired with class consciousness. Strikes, demonstrations and general hell-raising are festive occasions. Only when things spin totally out of control--as when Muslim youths rioted in the suburbs of Paris and other cities--are conservatives like Sarkozy able to make headway.

Riots over police brutality by disenfranchised minorities make the French nervous. But contempt for American-style "harsh capitalism," where citizens pay $800 a month for healthcare and write nary a letter to their local newspaper to complain, is 100 percent mainstream. The French don't think they should have to suffer just because some greedy bankers went on a looting spree.

Even Sarkozy is getting the message. "We don't want a European May '68 in the middle of Christmas," he warned his ministers in December. He shelved proposals to loosen regulation of business. Arnaud Lagardère, CEO of the Lagardère Group, told the financial daily Les Echos: "We're seeing, in renewed form, the most debatable aspects of Anglo-Saxon capitalism called into question."

The French and Americans face similar problems. But their temperamental differences lead them to different conclusions. An average working-class Frenchman possesses a deeper understanding of economics, politics, history and economics than most college professors in the U.S. Go to a bar or café, and sports will be on the television--but not on people's lips. They're talking politics and how to force their leaders to protect their quality of life.

Americans, on the other hand, don't expect direct help from their government. They're giving Barack Obama time to see whether his economic recovery program will work. It won't, of course; economists say so. But indolent hopefulness is less work than chucking Molotov cocktails.

Back in France, the NPA sets off rhetorical bombs Americans wouldn't dream of. "We're not a boutique party out to get votes, or an institutional mainstream party, but a party of militants," says the NPA's leader to the Le Monde newspaper. "We're real leftists, not official leftists." The NPA is currently negotiating a temporary alliance of convenience with the Communists.

A communist revolution in western Europe would be greeted by curiosity and derision in the U.S. state-controlled media. But if such a social upheaval were to protect French living standards from a global Depression spinning out of control, it might also prove inspiring to increasingly desperate Americans.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Vive la Crise

In France, the Left Returns

PARIS--Two improbable new political parties have been born in France. One claims to already have the support of 15 percent of the population --not merely of the French republic but of the entire European Union. In a multi-party parliamentary democracy, that's big. And mainstream pundits expect that number to double within a year.

France's resurgent left has been born of a movement borne of a level of mass rage and popular resentment the likes of which no one has seen here since the 1930s. Like Americans, French voters are terrified as securities markets falter and companies lay off tens of thousands of workers. They're furious about bank bailouts that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of euros, with little to no accountability as the beneficiaries spent the money on everything except helping the ordinary people and small businesses who need it most. But unlike the United States, the incendiary rhetoric of France's left has seized the popular imagination and is redefining the acceptable range of political debate.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon quit France's Socialist Party a few months ago, decrying his former comrades as out of touch. Now he's the co-founder of France's Left Party (PG), a coalition of left-of-center parties. A week earlier, Olivier Besancenot formed the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA), which he says has 9000 "militants" dedicated to the overthrow of the liberal economic system that has dominated Europe since the end of World War II. Anti-capitalist!

Even in left-leaning France, there wouldn't have been enough wine in all of France to convince a politician that he could successfully market the NPA's battle cry--they want nothing less than "a total break with capitalism"--to the voting public. "The right to happiness," a PG deputy said flatly, "is still a new idea." And that's what they're selling.

The Left Party seeks to unite France's left-of-center factional parties--communists, socialists, greens and members of the New Anti-Capitalist Party--under an umbrella alliance that would preserve their ideological differences while focusing their attention on dismantling the free market system that many agree has brought France to the brink of economic ruin.

To this American's eyes, revolution is in their air. One week ago, labor unions and leftist political parties declared a national strike, forcing schools, banks, transportation links and government offices to close. More than a million Parisians marched in the streets, calling for the ouster of [conservative French president Nicolas] Sarkozy. (Adjusting for France's population, that's the equivalent of five million demonstrators in Washington demanding that Obama step down.)

"There is room for everyone with legitimate political opinions, a PG official said in a radio interview. "This does not include the right." What should French conservatives do, he was asked? "They should leave the country." "Down with Sarkozy," a sign hanging from a city hall in the Auvergne region read, "Death to the capitalists." The Auvergne is one of the country's most conservative regions.

What does "anti-capitalism" mean? Besancenot, head of the New Anti-Capitalist Party, foresees a society where "the majority controls and expropriates wealth. Nowadays, the fruits of one's labor is stolen by a minority; we will ensure that everyone gets his or her fair share."

Communists have always been around, especially in France. But the mainstream Socialist Party (PS) has expressed a willingness to unite with its erstwhile rivals. The PS, PG and NPA all say they're setting aside factionalism. The last time France's Left was this unified was 1936, when a similar anti-capitalist coalition formed the Popular Front government.

Of course, there are cynics...on the left. "I'm not going to close down my shop and waste the afternoon marching in the streets unless it's for real revolution, for a real popular movement," a store manager told me. These demonstrations are just to prop up the official left, which supports the status quo," he continued.

Capitalism is in crisis, both here and in the United States. Is it doomed? No one knows, but the future of minimally regulated free markets is anything but certain.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Cartoon for January 17, 2009

No one fears for the future of our once-great, now collapsing, country more than me. But if everything falls apart, Americans certainly won't be able to claim it came out of nowhere.

Cartoon for January 15, 2009

Bush—er, Obama—can't come up with $1 trillion to fill what Paul Krugman describes as a nearly $3 trillion hole. Yet he, and no one else, ever questions the wisdom of escalating our other doomed war, the one against the people of Afghanistan.

Cartoon for January 12, 2009

I'd like to be wrong about this. I really do. Just like I wanted to be wrong about Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Obama. But I doubt it.

Cartoon for January 8, 2009

What would get people to go back into stores? Indeed, shoplifting is up nationwide.

Chronicling the end of the empire is fun.

Cartoon for December 8, 2008: 99 Cent Store

Until recently, 99 cent stores were having trouble finding stuff to sell at such a low price. Fortunately, deflation will come to their rescue.

Cartoon for December 6, 2008: Blame the Victims

Corporations and their media apologists are blaming us for falling for their consumerist tricks.

Cartoon for December 1, 2008

So much hope, dashed so soon.