by Jill E. Stein
Jill Stein is a member of the NPA Steering Committee. She wrote this op-ed in anticipation of President Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress, September 8.
President Obama’s new job proposals are intended to send a political message that the President cares about the dismal state of the economy. But America needs a decisive and immediate solution, not a limited gesture for the unemployment emergency facing 25 million workers in need of full time jobs that aren’t there.
We need a Green New Deal that will establish government’s responsibility to guarantee the right to a job for every American willing and able to work. The roots of this lie in the Employment Assurance concept that the Roosevelt administration used to tackle the great American depression in 1935. Let’s turn the unemployment office into the employment office: if the private sector fails to provide you a job, you go down to the employment office to get work that keeps you afloat until things turn around.
The “green” in the Green New Deal means that we can solve our jobs problem as we build the economy of the future – a sustainable, green economy that protects the environment as the core foundation for economic prosperity. The Green New Deal would tackle multiple environmental threats to our economy – not only climate change, but also the converging water, soil, fisheries, forest, and fossil fuel crises that imperil our fundamental needs for food, water and energy. Other countries are already making major investments for a secure, carbon-free future. America needs to catch up.
The Green New Deal would enable us to build sustainable energy, transportation and production infrastructure: clean renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, intra-city mass transit and inter-city railroads, “complete streets” that safely encourage bike and pedestrian traffic, regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing of the goods needed to support this sustainable economy.
The Green New Deal would also address the enormous, urgent need for social infrastructure – for public education, health care, child care, elder care, youth programs, and arts and culture.
Since a Green New Deal would go where the unemployment is, severe pockets of joblessness – where the poor and people of color are suffering rates as high as 30% – would not be bypassed.
It is time for the White House and Congress to admit that Obama/Bush approach of showering money on Wall Street has failed. Decades of hard-won experience – plus basic economic theory – show that government spending is essential in a recession to stimulate demand and put people back to work. Both major parties, as well as Obama, instead have used the recession caused by Wall Street abuse, costly wars, and bogus trickle-down economics as an excuse to slash funding for vital programs. As a result, seniors, working families and the poor are footing the bill for tax giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations. This is not only wrong it’s also guaranteed to destroy jobs and weaken the economy.
We have put America to work through public works programs many times since the 1930s. We did it with the WPA (Works Progress Administration) in the 1930s and CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) of the 1970s. These programs employed millions of workers to provide socially needed public infrastructure and public services like education, health, child care, elder care, youth programs and arts and cultural programs.
How much would such a full employment policy cost? Surprisingly, the final cost is almost nothing. It pays for itself over the course of the business cycle according to Philip Harvey, a professor of law and economics at Rutgers in his paper, Learning from the New Deal.
Assuming that for every two public jobs created, an additional job would be stimulated in the private sector, we would need about 17.5 million public jobs. Harvey notes that all these jobs increase tax revenues that defray the cost of the program. Government saves money on unemployment insurance and other safety net programs. As working people spend their earnings, business booms and stimulus programs can be curtailed. The bottom line is simply this: Full employment through a Green New Deal is cheaper than rampant unemployment.
An initial investment is required, of course. The first year net cost for 17.5 million living-wage public jobs, $666 billion, would be less than Obama’s ineffective $825 billion stimulus of 2009. The net cost per job would be only $28,600 compared to $228,055 per job cost of Obama’s indirect stimulus.
The cost could readily be covered through a combination of needed tax reforms – such as taxing Wall Street speculation, off shore tax havens, millionaires and multimillion dollar estates – in addition to a 30% reduction in the trillion dollar bloated military-industrial-security complex budget.
A Green New Deal that decisively ends unemployment and the escalating Bush/Obama recession is within our reach – technically and financially. All that’s needed is the political will to stop throwing money at Wall Street and start building the sustainable prosperity American workers deserve. In spite of Washington’s slavish addiction to serving Wall Street, that political will may finally be catching fire in the American electorate.
Jill Stein is a medical doctor, an environmental health advocate, and former candidate for Governor of Massachusetts for the Green-Rainbow Party. She can reached at thegreennewdeal_at_gmail_dot_com



11 Comments

Dr. Harvey’s paper should have been a link? Here it is:
http://www.philipharvey.info/newdeal.pdf
The plan is at $14 per hour, and somehow the good professor estimates that anyone who isn’t looking for a high school graduate’s job is a managerial worker who must accept that they cannot get full market value for their labor. I guess lawyers and Ph.D. economists have a dim view of the training level of all the other people in the country, or at least those who are unemployed.
How exactly the “two-fer” principle, which works when an unemployed person is matched with a community need for day care by employing that person to operate day care, is going to work for the vast majority of unemployed is not drawn into the final numbers. All-in-all, there is a lot good in proposing a New Deal style government plan of employment, and even more good in proposing that it have a Green (anti-climate change) basis. But this plan is not the plan that will need to be adopted, IMHO.
Suggestion: There are a lot of out of work people with technical skills who could run components of a New Deal plan, one that wasn’t so completely denigrating as to try to fit us all into a mold from the 1930s when the country was struggling to high-school educate its population. Perhaps the good professor should seek some collegial brainstorming support, and offer to use public funds to pay for it, as a pre-New Deal New Deal.
Recommended on general principles.
i thought obama intended to do this when i voted for him
highly recommended
Thanks for that, ondelette, link added.
Recommended. I, too, thought that this was what I was voting for when I voted for Obama. What a MAJOR disappointment. All my children, including myself are MAJOR asthmatics and the ‘big zero’s’ latest shenanigans with the EPA really was a slap in the face. America does NOT need tax cuts for businesses to create jobs (in China) and America does NOT need Free Trade agreements with the Asian Pacific. We all know what Free Trade does to America’s manufacturing industry. It’s time to “Get Real, and Get Green”.
Very much recommend. Let the dialogue begin. And let us get to know such worthy participants in it as former candidate Jill Stein. I am heartened already simply to know her name.
A Green New Deal has so much going for it – when did the words ‘New Deal’ disappear from the Democratic lexicon? Instead what has been promoted is the idea that perpetual war will lift all boats and we the electorate never, never signed on for that. That’s not a WWII idea – it takes us right back to WW1!
And that horrible, drawn out destruction of everything worthwhile so resembles what we are entering now that one can only conclude we are going backwards, when the only thing we should be going backwards on is world climate stability, letting nature take her course. Perhaps indeed this is the way to get there, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get there going forward? Learning from our past mistakes instead of repeating them.
Technology is only a limited way forward; technology has its limits. Things stop working after a while. What then? We had a robust technology which has lasted us while we tinkered and played, but now it is fragile; it needs to be rebuilt. And when we do so, we should be aware that we won’t be building as ‘permanently’ as we did in the past. As we are all aware, these amazing new tekkie things don’t have a long lifespan. That’s good, because there will be jobs now more needed to replace the jazzy new techological innovations for the Green Revolution on a more frequent basis. Recycle, rebuild, change change change. One block or neighborhood at a time. Forward!
Thank you, original New Dealers; you built well. How honored we should be to tread in your footsteps! Let’s tear down that King caricature and build a monument to all of them, the workers of the New Deal – out of our own granite, our own flesh.
I don’t know where you get $14 per hour. The cost of employment is not just the wage times 2000 hours a year. There are payroll taxes, health insurance, a seat to sit in (if inside job), a building, paper, pens, and on and on. The wage is closer to $10 per hour. Another question, is how can one private citizen pay the wages of two public employees? I agree that the government should create jobs and I agree with you that this is not the plan.
Besides running for Governor in MA last year, Stein ran in 2006, as the lone opponent of a three-term Democratic Party incumbent, for Secretary of the Commonwealth. She received over 350,000 votes, 18 percent of those cast.
The NPA has benefited tremendously Jill’s from dedicated, hands-on involvement on our steering committee. As she mulls a presidential run in 2012, we realize that, should she opt to run, we’ll have to cut our ties with her to preserve the integrity of our mission: Objective assessment of every candidate’s stand on, and dedication to fighting for, the issues which matter to true Progressives.
From the Unified Progressive Platform:
- Anthony Noel, NPA Facilitator
Well this is a good thing.
So Jill, a quick question. Since Obama is so obviously bad, who do the Green party plan to run against him in a serious and credible threat to his re-election?
Serious question.
“The NPA has benefited tremendously Jill’s from dedicated, hands-on involvement on our steering committee. As she mulls a presidential run in 2012, we realize that, should she opt to run, we’ll have to cut our ties with her to preserve the integrity of our mission: Objective assessment of every candidate’s stand on, and dedication to fighting for, the issues which matter to true Progressives.”
Interesting, Anthony. In this, do you follow the course of the original Progressive Party or are you on new ground here? To me it seems somewhat difficult to assume objectivity with respect to someone so intimately involved with your very being as a politically minded organization. (But then I know very little about how these things work.)
Again to my mind, involvement with the NPA is one of Ms. Stein’s very positive assets, something which accords her a plus in my book. Of course, that’s just me, and in no way am I attempting to tweak the baby blanket. Whatever works!
Tweak away, juliania; questions like yours open valuable discussions.
I met with Jill a couple of weeks ago and we agreed that ending her involvement on the Steering Committee, should she decide to run, is the without question the right thing to do.
I think the key word is “party.” While the NPA has (and will continue) to reserve the right to become a party unto itself, our first objective is to build an organization that can help wake the electorate by distinguishing false progressives from the real McCoy. If we do that well enough, we think, one or more of the existing (and new) “third” parties will attract sufficient support to topple the corporate parties while now (badly) run things, and thereby remake our electoral reality.
So, to be taken seriously, we cannot have candidates working with us while we are considering whether they are worthy of our endorsement. I view it as being analogous to a judge recusing themselves from a case in which they have a personal interest.
Tony