A nation-wide public works program would be good for everyone! Which is exactly why it will never happen.

(WPA workers building a dam in Maryland, 1936. Photo courtesy of the University of Maryland College Park Archives.)

Republican political strategist Matthew Dowd recently offered up the following idea to address our ever-growing economic inequality: "...we need to have a well-paying jobs program tied to infrastructure improvements administered locally by cities, counties and states where people still trust government to get the job done. And this should be funded by tax policies at the federal level which put a much bigger burden on the wealthy in this country." Dowd is essentially calling for a new WPA, a New Deal public works program that was funded mostly by the federal government, but administered more at the local level.

Though definitely not the norm among conservatives, Dowd's proposal is not completely unique either. Indeed, the icon of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, praised the WPA in his autobiography: "The WPA was one of the most productive elements of FDR's alphabet soup of agencies because it put people to work building roads, bridges, and other projects...it gave men and women a chance to make some money along with the satisfaction of knowing they earned it."

And Dowd's proposal seems rational, given that America's infrastructure received a letter grade of D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2013. Indeed, our infrastructure is literally falling apart. For example, America experiences about 240,000 water line breaks every year -- or about 657 per day.

Jared Bernstein, a progressive-minded economist and former adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, recently suggested a compromise between the political left and the political right: "...the left agrees to work requirements for the able-bodied poor and the right agrees to direct, public sector job creation to ensure ample opportunity." Again, this is a WPA-type (and common sense) idea.

So, considering that (a) youth unemployment is still in the double-digits, (b) 23 million American wish they had a full-time job but can't find one, (c) the August jobs report showed 3 million long-term jobless workers, (d) the labor force participation rate is now at a 36-year-low, and (e) our infrastructure is falling apart, what in the world is our problem? Why can't we connect the dots? Well, there are three major reasons: Weak democrats, right-wing extremism, and the policy preferences of super-wealthy Americans. Put these three forces together and you've got a toxic stew of plutocracy, gridlock, and irrational public policy.

Weak Democrats--Example:

When the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation to create a new WPA, he received little or no support from his fellow democrats (including Obama). So, Lautenberg's bill died in committee.

Right-Wing Extremism--Example:

When Democrats introduced legislation to create a public jobs program for unemployed veterans, Senate Republicans blocked it. It seems that, in the minds of many Republican politicians, service is a one-way street. On the one hand they say, "Go risk your life for us," and then, on the other hand, they say, "Sorry, we can't afford to help you." That's an extremist (and sociopathic) position to take. And it's interesting that Democrats had the courage to introduce such legislation. I suppose they felt it was "safe" legislation, since it would only apply to unemployed veterans, a group that usually garners a great deal of concern from the general public.

Preferences of Super-Wealthy Americans--Example:

Researchers from Northwestern and Vanderbilt universities conducted a study of the policy preferences of wealthy vs. non-wealthy Americans. Their findings indicate that most wealthy Americans would probably not support a new WPA. When presented with the proposition, "The federal government should provide jobs for everyone able and willing to work who cannot find a job in private employment," only 8% of wealthy respondents agreed, while 53% of non-wealthy respondents agreed (see "Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans," p. 57, table 5). Earlier research showed that wealthy Americans "tend to emphasize relying on free markets or private philanthropy to produce good outcomes. More than other citizens, they tend to think in terms of 'getting government out of the way' to solve public problems" (see here). And we know that our current policymakers listen closely to wealthy Americans when crafting public policy, and largely ignore non-wealthy Americans (see, e.g., "The Governments Listens to Lobbyists and the Wealthy, Not You and Me").

So, what does all this mean? Well, it means there is little or no hope for unemployed Americans, under-employed Americans, and other low-income Americans. Sure, people will still find jobs here and there, but those jobs will increasingly offer little pay, few benefits, and no future. It also means that our infrastructure will continue to deteriorate faster than it is upgraded. Private enterprise is not a good solution to infrastructure problems, unless you want to stop at a toll both every few miles to pay the corporation or billionaire that is maintaining the road you're on.

So, a combination of weak Democrats, right-wing extremism, and the anti-government policy preferences of most super-wealthy Americans will prevent a nation-wide public works program from ever happening. Sorry Mr. Dowd and Mr. Bernstein--though your ideas make sense, the very fact that a public works program would be good for everyone ensures that it will never happen.

Kansas could use another New Deal

(The Kansas state flag. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Republican Governor Sam Brownback said he was going to run an experiment on Kansas citizens. A trickle-down experiment, to be precise. So, he lowered taxes on the wealthy and raised taxes on the poor. The results haven't been too good. Job growth has been meager, the state lost a healthy budget surplus, a state-funded homeless shelter had to close, education funding was cut, and the state's credit rating was downgraded. But, as is the case with most trickle-down devotees, Brownback and his legislative allies aren't too concerned. Indeed, they plan to grant even more tax cuts to the wealthy (see, e.g,  "Kansas Governor Wants To Double Down On Massive Tax Cut That Tanked State Finances").

Back in 1932 and 1936, Kansas sided with Franklin Roosevelt. It turned out to be a good choice, because the New Deal was good for the Sunflower State. For example, WPA workers created 20,000 miles of new or improved roads, 1,500 new or improved bridges and viaducts, 100 new or improved schools, 525 miles of new water lines, and much, much more. Also, 38,000 young unemployed Kansan men found jobs in the CCC and planted 6 million trees. There was PWA funding for infrastructure improvements, new Post Office buildings, and the creation of public art that is admired today. For a small sampling of New Deal creations that Kansas still enjoys & utilizes, see the Living New Deal's Kansas web page. 

In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave infrastructure in Kansas a letter grade of "C-" and noted the following: "Bridges were awarded a D+, in part due to Kansas’s nearly 3,000 structurally deficient bridges. Only five states have more structurally deficient bridges than Kansas"; "Schools earned a C+. There was a huge expansion in the 1950s where the amount of schools in Kansas more than doubled. These buildings are now 60 years old and many are in need of major repair or replacement"; "Dams earned the lowest grade of a D-. With 6,087 dams, Kansas has the second most dams in the United States next only to Texas. Of the state’s dams, 230 are classified as high hazard, meaning failure would likely lead to loss of life and significant property damage."

It seems that Kansas could use another New Deal, instead of another round of tax cuts for its wealthiest citizens.

(WPA statistics from the Final Report on the WPA Program, 1935-43, by the Federal Works Agency, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946. CCC statistics from Roosevelt's Forest Army: A History of the Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942, by Perry H. Merrill, Montpelier, VT, 1981).

An Old Water Main Broke on Sunset Boulevard: A WPA could have prevented that!

(WPA workers on a water & sewer project in Prince George's County, Maryland, 1939. Photo courtesy of the University of Maryland College Park Archives.)

This past Friday, September 26, 2014, a 100-year-old water main broke and flooded Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood, California, causing many disruptions. The break was just one of hundreds of water line breaks that occur every single day across the nation. One would think that such infrastructure problems would be a matter of urgent attention for our Congress--but they're not. For example, Republicans have made a habit of blocking legislation designed to improve America's crumbling infrastructure (see, e.g., here) and Democrats provided little or no support when one of the their colleagues introduced legislation to create a new WPA.

During the 1930s and 40s, New Deal policymakers offered job opportunities to the unemployed, in programs like the CCC and WPA. One of the main goals of the WPA was to repair and modernize America's water line and sewage infrastructure. For example, WPA laborers installed over 16,000 miles of new water lines. 

Isn't it a shame that we don't have a WPA today?

WPA Poster: Before there was American Idol, there was Amateur Contest!

(WPA poster by artist Arlington Gregg, created in Illinois circa 1936-39. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.)

A New Deal is needed to restore the American Dream

Above: WPA workers putting a new roof on a building in Baltimore. New Deal policymakers were interested in putting America back to work and improving the nation's infrastructure. Most of our policymakers today are concerned with pleasing corporate executives & billionaires who, in turn, are concerned with outsourcing jobs, downsizing workforces, and sending debt collectors after the workers they lay off. Maybe this is why most people think that the American Dream is dead. Photo courtesy of the University of Maryland College Park Archives. 

According to a recent survey, "just 4 in 10 Americans say that the American Dream—the idea that if you work hard, you’ll get ahead—still holds true today." And, "A majority of survey respondents supported raising the minimum wage, increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year; requiring companies to provide all full-time employees with paid sick days; and doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and poor." (See "Broken Dreams: Amidst Economic Insecurity, Americans Can't Get Ahead")

It's easy to understand why the majority of Americans think working hard is not the key to improving one's quality of life. For example, wages have been stagnant even as worker productivity has increased (the wealthy have been pocketing all the economic gains). The reality of today's America is that many workers are working harder and harder for stagnant or lower wages, and for reduced or non-existent benefits. Their corporate overlords, however, are drinking wine by the pool and watching their investment income rise higher and higher--and then unleashing debt collectors and corporate attorneys to prey upon those who were destroyed by the recession and/or cannot find a decent-paying job in today's pathetic labor market.

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said, "The American dream has become a myth...The belief in the American dream is not supported by the data." It would seem that the majority of Americans know this, perhaps more through experience than data. But until more Americans begin voting for politicians who support New Deal policies and principles, the destruction of the American Dream is likely to continue.

Inequality, class warfare, and the need to "rigorously fight back" to regain our democracy

Above: Listen to President Roosevelt talk about the danger of government control by the super-wealthy few. 

The following quote is from Dr. Jon Wisman, American University, and Dr. Aaron Pacitti, Siena College, (Exploding Inequality Is Threatening Our Democracy): 

"Throughout history until quite recently, a small elite controlled governments to protect their wealth and insure that they could capture any income beyond what the rest of the population required for survival...The birth and expansion of democracy was vehemently opposed by the rich elites who had always held and benefited from their monopoly control of government...The extraordinary hardship of the Great Depression significantly delegitimized the rich's contention that unbridled free-market capitalism was in everyone's interest. The consequence was that, between the 1930s and 1970s, workers were able to use the right to vote to create government measures that would tame the excesses of free markets, reduce inequality, and significantly improve the lives of most Americans."

"If democracy is to endure, it's time for the non-elites to recognize that class warfare is being waged against them and rigorously fight back. It isn't just their material well-being that's at stake, it is also their freedom and our democracy."

(Also, see "Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans" and "U.S. Policies Favor The Wealthy, Interest Groups, Study Shows")  

Trickle-Down Outcome: Rising wealth for the few, low-paying jobs for the many

(New Deal policymakers like Harry Hopkins (left) understood that government action was needed to address problems associated with extreme income inequality. During the 1930s, these problems included unemployment, low wages, poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and white collar crime. These same problems have revisited us today but, unfortunately, we have few New Deal-type policymakers to address them. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.)

 

For the past 30+ years the American public has been sold on the idea that rising wealth for the few is good for the many. This is the core philosophy behind trickle-down economics. So, we've handed out colossal tax breaks to the super-wealthy, demonized unions, and kept the minimum wage low. Unfortunately, as the rich have become richer, the rest of us have been running in place or falling behind. As journalist Dave Gilson points out, "Since 1980, the average real income of the 1 percent has shot up more than 175 percent while the bottom 90 percent's real income didn't budge."

The latest evidence that we've been duped by the Great Trickle-Down Deception comes from a research note by two economists from Morgan Stanley. The economists report that America produces a higher percentage of low-paying jobs than any  country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Indeed, it's not even close.

Journalist Kevin Short reports that "The OECD recommends that all its members have a 'sensible' minimum wage, increase progressive taxation and 'scale up' in-work benefits to address income inequality." Of course, we know that an increase in the minimum wage and a more progressive tax code isn't going to happen anywhere Republicans or Tea Partiers are calling the shots, e.g., the U.S. House of Representatives (and probably soon, the U.S. Senate). And we also know that, by and large, Corporate America isn't going to increase any benefits for its workers. Largely because that sort of thing gets in the way of executive bonuses and shareholder profits.

After 30+ years of the Great Trickle-Down Deception, America desperately needs a new and even stronger New Deal. Unfortunately, if millions of people keep voting for bank-approved politicians, we will continue to work at low-paying jobs while private jets fly overhead with passengers who benefit from the proliferation of poverty. As billionaire investor Warren Buffet has noted, "Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won. It's been a rout."