The Obama administration should never have turned to these guys for economic advice, and their record since January has only proven this. The president should listen to Peter DeFazio and replace them.
There are plenty of options, of course, including progressive economists like James K. Galbraith, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, who could refocus not only the Obama administration away from Wall Street but help create a new path for the economy as a whole.
Another bit of bad news that demonstrates that the economy may be in recovery, but it is not getting better.
WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who lived in households that lacked consistent access to adequate food soared last year, to 49 million, the highest since the government began tracking what it calls “food insecurity” 14 years ago, the Department of Agriculture reported Monday.
The increase, of 13 million Americans, was much larger than even the most pessimistic observers of hunger trends had expected and cast an alarming light on the daily hardships caused by the recession’s punishing effect on jobs and wages.
About a third of these struggling households had what the researchers called “very low food security,” meaning lack of money forced members to skip meals, cut portions or otherwise forgo food at some point in the year.
The other two-thirds typically had enough to eat, but only by eating cheaper or less varied foods, relying on government aid like food stamps, or visiting food pantries and soup kitchens.
“These numbers are a wake-up call for the country,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
I wish it was a wakeup call, but with so many facing economic uncertainty the methods we’ve relied on for far too long (private and faith-based food pantries and soup kitchens) just won’t cut it now (they do not have the means).
A federal response is necessary, but unlikely — very much to our shame as a nation. In the meantime, maybe we should take Swift’s sarcastic advice and just eat the poor.
Kudos, of course, to the Times for even reporting on the unfathomably large costs of intensifying militarism and adventurism. But as you’ll see in the story, there’s no attempt to put the costs into any context – specifically, there’s no mention that an escalation in Afghanistan would mean outlays for the one-year Pentagon budget is approaching the total outlays of the entire 10-year health care bill.
When the House considered a health care expansion proposal that the CBO says will reduce the deficit by $11 billion a year, tea-party protesters and Congress’ self-described “fiscal conservatives” opposed it on cost grounds. At the same time, almost none of them objected when Congress passed a White House-backed bill to spend $636 billion on defense in 2010.
The hypocrisy is stunning — lots of “budget hawk” complaints about health legislation reducing the deficit and few “budget hawk” complaints about defense initiatives that, according to Government Executive magazine, “puts the president on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II.” And that estimate doesn’t even count additional spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Grassroots — on the undemocratic nature of the U.S. Senate — is on The Progressive Populist Web site.
Rosie is sound asleep — it's amazing how she can go from being a ball of craziness to “Sleeping Beauty” in seconds.
This message has been sent using the picture and Video service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required.
