Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Robert Reich's Advice to Obama: Pick Fights, Connect Dots on the Economy

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Robert Reich has watched one president after another lose his voice once he's in Washington, surrounded by aides with what Reich calls "an instinct for the capillary" and little feel for the simple overarching narrative that makes perfectly clear what you are trying to accomplish.
Don't get him wrong. The Berkeley public policy professor, a veteran of the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations, said in an interview that Barack Obama is "a wonderful president" with "a superb temperament" for whom he has "enormous respect." There was a slight pause before he continued. "I would rather he be more indignant, and also frame issues in a way that most people can understand a larger picture. He needs to connect the dots."
Reich, who served as labor secretary in Clinton's cabinet, has connected those dots in a new book called "Aftershock." The gist: Most of the economic gains of the last 30 years have gone to people at the top. Over the same period, the median wage adjusted for inflation has stayed flat. People coped in three ways: women entered the paid workforce, everyone worked more hours, and they spent money borrowed against credit cards and home values. Those mechanisms are now exhausted, people aren't buying much, and there will be no real recovery until they have more money to spend -- that is, until their incomes begin to better reflect their contributions to the economy.
Obama, who successfully framed his entire presidential campaign as a reform movement for change and trust, has been waging a series of seemingly isolated and unrelated battles from the White House. But Reich said they all have aimed to restore middle class prosperity in order to revive the economy -- and that's what Obama should have been saying all these months to help people understand him and his goals.

"That's what he should have said health care really is about," Reich said. "Financial reform should not have been a technical fix to reduce the probability that the Street would mess up again. It really should have been framed more broadly as a way to prevent Wall Street from running the national economy and Wall Streeters from carrying away a major slice of the gains of economic growth." He said the theme might have helped Obama achieve, or at least define to his advantage, abandoned goals such as adding bankruptcy as a tool for homeowners facing foreclosure and breaking up financial institutions deemed too big to fail.
Reich also wondered if Obama might have been better off formally nominating consumer champion Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau instead of naming her to an advisory position to avoid a Senate confirmation battle. The bureau was her idea and she will be setting it up. "I'm delighted she's there. She's a wonderfully competent person," Reich said. "But here, too, the question has to be raised, would it not have been valuable for him to stage a fight over her appointment as director? Is there some benefit to be had in picking important fights even if ultimately you can't win them? At least by picking some critically important fights, you enable the public to understand whose side you're on and who you're against."
Obama is refusing, at least for now, to consider extending Bush-era tax cuts for household incomes above $250,000. He says the country can't afford the $700 billion that would cost, and the wealthy don't need the money anyway. Reich agreed that tax fight, in which most Democrats want to keep the cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy, "has enormous potential power as a defining issue." A day after our discussion, however, Democrats in Congress said they would delay a vote until after the Nov. 2 elections.
The politics may be murky, but the statistics are clear. Just this week, in a piece headlined "The Super-Rich Get Richer," CNN put the combined net worth of the latest Forbes 400 at $1.37 trillion -- up 8 percent from last year. In his book, Reich cites a startling study that found more than 23 percent of the nation's income (not wealth, as I said earlier) concentrated among its richest 1 percent in 2007 and, before that, in 1928. Those are, of course, years that were followed in 1929 and 2008 by the most spectacular financial crashes of the last century.

It's hardly radical to point out that when consumers have income, that's good for business. As Reich notes, it's the rationale behind arch-capitalist Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers what others considered an exorbitant $5 a day. He wanted them to be able to buy the cars they were making, and they did. We help developing nations, in part, because we hope they will turn into good markets for our products. We rebuilt Europe after World War II and now they buy things from us.

Sitll, politicians who talk about income gaps can easily court trouble. Exhibit A was Obama's chat with Joe the Plumber during the 2008 campaign. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama said at the end of a long exchange centered on tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans seized on the incident as evidence that Obama was a socialist who wanted to "redistribute the wealth."

Reich says emphatically that he is not advocating a redistribution of wealth and would not expect the rich to become less rich if the middle class made gains. "The very wealthiest people in this country would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a large share of an economy that's basically dead in the water," he said. That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, but one of his other habitual lines might: "I'm not a class warrior. I'm a class worrier."
His own prescriptions for rebalancing the economy include a reverse income tax under which the government would add income-pegged amounts of money to the paychecks of people making less than $50,000; higher marginal tax rates on the highest incomes; Medicare for all; college loans that don't break students who go into low-income professions, and more investment in public facilities such as parks, libraries and transportation.
The country could move in a different direction, Reich acknowledges, toward nationalism, isolationism, jingoism and xenophobia. But within the next three to 10 years, he said, it's more likely that CEOs and bankers will recognize their stake in middle class gains and help move the country in that direction. "Much turns on whether people at the top understand their own long-term interests," he said.
Democrats have struggled for the last 20 months to pass what Reich considers at best modest, even interim steps toward reversing the trend toward inequality. Especially in this context, his ideas sound like a Utopian liberal fantasy. Still, he would like Obama and his party to consider using his middle class fairness narrative, if not his policy proposals, as a campaign blueprint. "It's too late for this fall," he said, "but not too late for 2012."

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

13 Comments

Filter by:
ttdq

The problem is that this administration has no idea what to do for the middle class. It knows what to do for the poor and that is to redistribute income even if it comes from the middle class. It know what to do for the rich and that is to bail them out. The middle class seeems to get lost in a class warfare and wants the rich taxed. No middle class person ever got a job from a poor person. The middle class got there by being educated and taking the jobs that were complicated beyond what the poor could handle. As this group erodes, democrats are afraid to help them because their base won't like the help flowing thru the rich to the middle class. This is why the system is stagnated.

September 25 2010 at 10:07 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
bobgnib

Dear mbc18650: Please turn off your caps lock. It's poor internet etiquette to type your ideas in all caps. If you feel so strongly that America would benefit from having more money, please feel free to donate as much as you would like to the cause. There is absolutely nothing keeping anyone from sending any amount of money to the federal government. What I and many others object to, is the IRS, with it's power to fine and jail, taking money from people because "they can afford it". Then, Congress spending it as if belonged to them and they had a deadline to spend it all. Here's an idea to stimulate the economy. How's 'bout a Tax Holiday for 12 months. Take a Trillion dollar Tax Holiday,for example. There are about 140 million workers in the U.S. I've heard that half of them don't pay taxes, so now we have 70 million people eligible for our Tax Holiday. That would put about $14,000 into every tax paying American's paycheck over 12 months. Plus, No taxes on Capitol Gains and accelerated depreciation for business equipment and plant expansion. People could understand a plan like that and "Gentelmen, start your spending." The American consumer drives the economy, so let them drive it. You may ask, where will we get the money? Well, I say we get it from the same place Obama and Congress got the trillion dollars they spent this year on Pork Barrell Spending and the failed, repair the pot holes stimulus package.

September 24 2010 at 4:15 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
mbc18650

WITH AMERICA IN CRISIS.....NEEDING FUNDS TO GET US BACK ON TRACK....HOW CAN IT MAKE SENSE TO GIVE MILLIONAIRES TAX CUTS....IT DOESN'T....WE SHOULD INCREASE TAXES ON THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR NATION'S RECOVERY....SAY A 10% INCREASE ON ALL INCOME....JUST INCOME...OVER 5 MILLION DOLLARS...ANYONE WHO IS MAKING OVER 5 MILLION SHOULD BE PAYING A HIGHER RATE THAN A FAMILY EARNING 250K.

September 24 2010 at 2:59 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
mbc18650

Reich is correct....Obama must show the big picture and connect what the Republicans stand for and are doing to block help for American Families...in some cases this means showing that on scores of appointments and legislation the Republicans aren't just voting against bills, but are actually preventing WE THE PEOPLE from speaking through our elected representatives.,... if the Tea Party supports this...then they are for taxation WITHOUT representation...a complete betrayal of the original American tea party....The same with appointments...Elizabeth Warren is one, but there are scores of judges and others for key security and economic positions... Republicans are sabotaging our democratic process, and then complaining that government isn't working fast or well enough and asking voters to replace the people who are actually trying to help them.....that is disgusting....but if obama does not make the case....then there is no other voice for voters to hear speak this truth.

September 24 2010 at 2:56 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
bobgnib

I remain baffled why anyone would listen to Robert Reich, much less buy a book he wrote. Let me prove my point. Here is a quote from the above article, "As Reich notes, it's the rationale behind arch-capitalist Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers what others considered an exorbitant $5 a day. He wanted them to be able to buy the cars they were making, and they did." Does R.R. really believe that Ford only wanted to sell his cars to his employees? According to Investors Business Daily, "Despite being transparently silly, this belief continues to resurface as a justification for increasing purchasing power and employment with government policies that reduce production....The desire to increase his profits by reducing the cost of producing cars was the real reason Ford raised wages. It worked.....In 1913, Ford had an employee turnover rate of 380%, which required hiring 52,000 workers annually to maintain a work force of 13,600. In addition to the cost of replacing workers, productivity suffered from a 10% absentee rate, and the workers who showed up were inexperienced and commonly shirked as much as they worked....Higher wages remedied these problems. Anxious prospects lined up in hopes of being hired by Ford....in 1915, Ford's turnover rate fell to 16% as productivity soared. He reduced the Model T's price by 10% each year from 1914 to 1916, and his annual profit increased to $60 million from $30 million. Ford was quoted as saying that more than doubling wages "was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made"." President Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of tenured professors, people who have never met a payroll or created one single job. They are people that are as clueless as Robert Reich when it comes to understanding how capitalism works. I'm thinking that the folks over at Ford are still pretty savvy business people, since they didn't have to file for bankruptcy as GM and Chrysler.

September 24 2010 at 1:47 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Most Beautiful

Our dear Pres. Obama needs to stand up for America, and Americans. Get a little outraged over how we are treated by the Arab countries, stop bowing down , and saying Americans are sorry for offending non- Americans. We are not Sorry! If we offend you too bad. Your people chose to come here, we did not make you. You don't get to tell us how to run our country. That might get Americans to see him as "OUR' Leader, not our mistake.

September 24 2010 at 12:38 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
vobox3343

In other words, the minimum wage jobs that the Republicans would have you work and keep while the wealthy continue to get raises, isn't going to help with the recovery. Cast your votes very carefully. And when you have these folks saying our president is wonderful with a superb temperment, be thankful and grateful. Don't take misleads for political gain as fact. This president was handed a raw deal. He truly is doing his absolute best.

September 24 2010 at 11:49 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to vobox3343's comment
ginnatycpa

Reich's lost it. He wants the middle class to earn more in real terms and at WHAT COST and HOW's TO PAY IT. Based on IRS 2005 statistics 77% of all taxfilers earn less than 75,000 (AGI), a pretty good division point for middle class. That would mean what? They all get $20,000 increases? Reich's is from the school of fantasy economics.

September 24 2010 at 11:31 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
phutchp

rmassahos Whatever do you mean "no one can explain how raising taxes on the rich will increase the wages of the middle class?" Perhaps you are confused on two fronts. First, returning the taxes on the wealthy to Pre-Bush levels will yield revenue to pay down the deficit created by the unnecessary war Bush made on Iraq, as well as for other things like medicare and Social Security. Secondly, you may be thinking of the idiotic idea that CUTTING taxes for the wealthiest will trickle down and create jobs for the middle class. Again, the opposite tactic, REINSTATING taxes on the wealthiest citizens, is intended to balance the budget by helping to pay down the deficit. By the way, in my state, the GOP have openly declared they want to back down the minimum wage to help stimulate the economy. Who do you think that benefits?

September 24 2010 at 11:26 AM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
frncsgui

The fall of the middle class can be directly attributed to the idea that “greed is good” and free markets will regulate themselves. These ideas are the foundation of “trickle down economics” that the Republicans keep renaming and dragging out each time they get a chance. The theory is if you make the rich richer their actives will make your life better. Well since 1980 the rich have gotten much richer. The gap between the middle class and the rich has never been wider. So, I guess you got to ask yourself – How’s that “trickle down” working you? If you think the country and you are, as Ronald Regan asked, better off now than 30 years ago keep voting for that Republican “trickle down”. I’m sure it will start working for the middle class soon. All that’s needed is to make the rich all little richer, like keeping the tax cuts for the top 2%, then they’ll let that wealth start trickling down.

September 24 2010 at 11:17 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

FEATURED VIDEO

View All »

Discover inspiring videos on TEDWomen where people are reshaping our future with ideas.

View the Video »

Follow Politics Daily


Politics Home Page : Roll Call

News From Our Partners