A letter on Wednesday called on President Obama to take immediate decisive action. Then readers offered their ideas.
The Letter
To the Editor:
Re “Past Time for a New Agenda” (editorial, Aug. 9): In the face of Standard & Poor’s downgrade of America’s credit rating, a volatile stock market and a jittery public, President Obama needs to display real leadership and take decisive action on the economy.
Mr. Obama must offer a plan with specific ideas for creating jobs by investing in infrastructure, and for reducing the deficit by increasing the age for Medicare beneficiaries, using means-testing for Social Security recipients, reforming the tax code to close loopholes and make it fairer, ending subsidies for giant corporations, bringing all of our troops home from Afghanistan by Christmas and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich.
This plan should be given to Congressional leaders with the proviso that it must be passed before the end of this year. Mr. Obama should take a 50-state tour to present this plan to the American people, who should put pressure on their representatives to vote for it.
If Congress, notably the Republicans, fails to enact his plan, it will bear the responsibility for the consequences.
HENRY A. LOWENSTEIN
New York, Aug. 9, 2011
The writer is senior director of a recruitment firm for financial executives.
Readers React
Mr. Lowenstein crystallizes the position in which American progressives find themselves: Most of what he suggests is eminently reasonable, and almost none of it is doable.
Republicans, who have control of the House and the ability to throttle the Senate, will not tax the rich, will not end corporate subsidies, will not means-test entitlements and, most of all, will not spend the nation’s money on government programs that work. The only one of Mr. Lowenstein’s proposals within the president’s power is bringing the troops home, and that will have little economic impact except in the very long run; we will still have a $700 billion military budget.
So what is really being proposed here—as by The Times’s editorial, as by most progressive commentators—is that the president ratchet up the rhetoric and escalate the very polarization that has already paralyzed us, and given the rest of the world reason to doubt our trustworthiness, our competence, if not our sanity. While it would be emotionally gratifying to hear the president trash-talk the right, it’s hard to imagine what real good might come of it.
As for the proposed 50-state tour to present his plan, Mr. Obama already has that on his schedule. It’s called the electoral campaign of 2012, and it will, for better or worse, put the fate of the American people exactly where it belongs—in their own hands.
DAVID BERMAN
New York, Aug. 10, 2011
With all the daunting problems we face, the questions being asked are: What can President Obama do? What can the Fed do? What can Congress do? We’re so focused on government, we forget the private sector, as Mr. Lowenstein did in his letter.
The private sector seems to be waiting for some far-off day when government gets out of the way. It’s time for the private sector to stop sitting on the piles of cash we hear about and use it to create new demand, to create growth. Stop overworking your existing employees. Hire new employees.
I keep hearing that “government’s the problem.” Well, if you run a company and you’ve got the ability to hire but you’re not hiring, you’re the problem.
We need to talk about what you can do for your country.
REBECCA ZICARELLI
Bethel, Me., Aug. 10, 2011
What I find sad about Mr. Lowenstein’s plan is that if it could be enacted by a popular vote in a special election, it could be law right away.
However, given the trench warfare mentality in Congress, notably among the Republicans, such a plan is unlikely to be considered until a far more draconian plan is required.
ROBERT OKSNER
Winter Park, Fla., Aug. 10, 2011
Fear-inspired hyperbole about the so-called “debt crisis” and “explosion of government spending” has twisted the public discourse about fiscal policy. The upshot is a feeling that our long-range fiscal problems must be solved today, lest we descend into “ruin” (as Jeffrey Manns warned in an Aug. 10 Op-Ed article).
So Mr. Lowenstein stresses the need to make decisions by “the end of this year” about major changes in entitlements such as increasing the age for Medicare beneficiaries (which will increase the number of uninsured and up the ante for any national health care program) and means-testing Social Security. It’s too bad that we’re in the midst of a “crisis” and cannot address these problems in a more thoughtful way.
DAVID SALKEVER
Baltimore, Aug. 11, 2011
The writer is a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
I agree that President Obama must take immediate and decisive steps to improve the economy. But I disagree with some of Mr. Lowenstein’s recommendations.
Using means-testing to limit benefits turns Social Security into a welfare program; this would quickly erode its base of support. Social Security is a program that we all pay into, is a crucial lifeline for many seniors and must remain a program that we all derive benefit from. Eliminating the yearly cap on the payroll tax would be fairer and go further toward strengthening the program.
Raising the age for Medicare beneficiaries would disproportionately hurt poor people. People who work in physically demanding occupations are less likely to be able to work longer as they wait to reach eligibility for Medicare. Injuries and illness that they are unable to treat will tend to become worse by the time they are covered by Medicare, and so the cost of eventually treating them may be higher than it otherwise would have been.
In addition to these ideas being poor choices on their own merits, how would they improve the economy?
KEN UTTING
Neptune Beach, Fla., Aug. 10, 2011
I agree with every one of Mr. Lowenstein’s suggestions and would add one more. Because there is such a deep malaise among the people I know in the face of the dysfunction around us, why not create a Rebuilding America plan that would give those of us who don’t have a lot of money a chance to participate directly?
Why not sell “rebuilding bonds” (like World War II’s war bonds) so that ordinary people like me could contribute to the rebuilding of our aging infrastructure? Use our investments only for jobs and materials needed for rebuilding bridges, schools, water and sewer systems, transportation systems and the like.
Let me and many people like me participate in putting people back to work and investing in our country.
MARGARET HANEY
Dayton, Ohio, Aug. 10, 2011
It is clear that the government can’t hire us out of these dismal times because it has no money to pay for its current programs, much less for “creating jobs by investing in infrastructure.” But it is also clear that raiding Medicare and Social Security to preserve more than favorable tax treatment for the wealthy is an obscenity that cannot be allowed.
The only fair and sustainable way to eliminate the national debt is to put the unemployed back to work, not in make-work jobs paid for with borrowed money, but in self-sustaining jobs creating wealth in the private sector. And to do that we need to find a way to increase the demand for things grown, mined and made in the United States.
The suggestion that we protect our economy with tariffs, as we did throughout the Industrial Revolution, is treated as heresy these days. But the continuing weakening of the dollar due to our permanent trade imbalances will eventually have the same effect on imports as high tariffs. We have allowed our financial, commercial and political elites to make “protect” a dirty word. But a failure to protect is neglect. And is that really our best course?
DAVID RAINES
Lunenburg, Mass., Aug. 10, 2011
Mr. Lowenstein proposes to raise federal taxes and spend money building infrastructure.
I oppose higher taxes in principle because I think the federal government gets more than enough to do what is needed of it, and the only way to rein in Washington’s corrupt politics is to keep the federal government deeply in debt.
I oppose his spending scheme because infrastructure projects usually don’t involve small businesses, which are the engine of the American economy, but instead huge, unionized and often corrupt construction corporations.
JAY BUTE
El Lago, Tex., Aug. 10, 2011
Mr. Lowenstein is exactly correct in his assessment of what President Obama should do, with two small changes:
First, Mr. Obama should scrap the 50-state tour, which will look like a campaign effort, reducing the efficacy of his pitch. Instead, he should work hard to sell the plan to the American people via television every day and use the Internet to get people’s responses.
Second, President Obama should really shame any opponents—not just Republicans but also Democrats. He needs to attack in a way that he has never done before. Thus far President Obama has shown a staggering inability to use the bully pulpit in a way that demonstrates real courage and conviction. If he did this, if he risked his second term, regardless of success or failure, he would earn my respect and probably that of many other Americans.
It’s time to show us what you’ve got, Mr. President, or go home.
KURT SCHMIDT
Zagreb, Croatia, Aug. 10, 2011
The writer is an American who owns a small business in Savannah, Ga.
The Writer Responds
I am moved by the determination, creativity and sense of responsibility reflected in these responses. Our leaders need to understand that the American people are willing to sacrifice for the good of our nation.
I suggest, Mr. Berman, that all those “will not’s” could easily become “can do’s” if President Obama has the courage to put them before Congress and we the people support him. As to bringing home the troops by Christmas, the savings in money, not to mention lives and limbs, will be immediate; we are currently spending about $10 billion a month in Afghanistan.
The private sector that Ms. Zicarelli refers to is “sitting on the piles of cash” because of the uncertainty created by the incredibly perverse actions taken by radical members of Congress. Unless and until Congress accepts the fact that shared sacrifice (revenue increases and spending cuts) is the only way to rebuild the economy, the private sector will keep its cash where it is.
Mr. Oksner could be, sadly, very right that the Republicans, especially the Tea Party fanatics, would make it very difficult to pass this plan.
We are descending into “ruin,” Mr. Salkever, because almost 20 percent of the work force is unemployed or underemployed, and we have spent well beyond our means for more than two decades now. I believe that the only way to get the fanatical right wing to increase revenues is to take on entitlement programs in the same sweeping manner.
To Mr. Utting, means-testing would not turn Social Security into a welfare program. Recipients like me, who can afford to receive less than our current stipend, would do so, and those who could not afford a cut would not be affected.
Thank you, Ms. Haney, for agreeing with all my suggestions! And I agree with yours about rebuilding bonds.
It is true, Mr. Raines, that government cannot “hire us out of these dismal times.” But a return to sanity in government would spur investment and hiring, and the American people might just start to consume products and services again. Alas, protectionism in our global economy would make us even greater pariahs than having our credit rating reduced.
Mr. Bute responds that I propose to raise federal taxes. Tax reform and ending loopholes could actually lower rates for most taxpayers.
To Mr. Schmidt, if a 50-state tour looks like a “campaign effort,” I say all the better. President Obama will be re-elected, or not, on the basis of what the American people believe he has accomplished with regard to rebuilding the economy. I believe he should take the “bully pulpit” directly to the American people.
HENRY A. LOWENSTEIN
Newport, R.I., Aug. 11, 2011
