Tweet
“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to Oglethorpe University, May, 1932
A blog post published last week on Naked Capitalism raises an interesting question – what exactly is the Roosevelt legacy? For us at the Roosevelt Institute, we believe it is based in engaging in dialogue and promoting progressive people and ideas. It is also about encouraging young people to get involved in public service and public policy debates.
When deficit hawks seized control of the budget debate in 2009, students from our Campus Network expressed serious interest in proving that their progressive vision for America’s future — originally captured in the Blueprint for the Millennial America — was not only innovative, but also achievable from a fiscal perspective.
With that in mind, our organization, in consultation with our board of directors, agreed that our Campus Network should participate in a program sponsored by the Peterson Foundation to develop a budget plan. Other participating organizations included the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), Center for American Progress (CAP), Bipartisan Policy Center, American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation.
By way of background, our Campus Network is a student created and run think tank that formed as the Roosevelt Institution in 2005 and merged with the Roosevelt Institute in 2007. It is currently made up of some 10,000 students and young professionals at more than 80 campus chapters across the country. It was the only student-based organization asked to participate.
The Campus Network employed its Think 2040 engagement model — which asks students to outline their shared vision for the future before figuring out which policies to push — to drive the creation of the plan. A number of our fellows, including Bo Cutter, Jeff Madrick, and Mark Schmitt served as advisors. Some 3,000 students participated in the rigorous development process. While some of the ideas fit clearly into the wheelhouse of what many consider acceptable progressive thought, we recognize that other ideas might not correspond as neatly with that space. By design, the students who developed the plan represented a wide swath of the ideological spectrum. We were heartened, though not surprised, to find that the next generation of leaders has a decidedly progressive inclination.
But regardless of what you might think of any particular policy in this document, we encourage anyone — progressive, moderate or conservative — to read this impressive and rigorous piece of work. It not only represents the unfiltered and untainted voice of the Millennial generation, it is also a powerful contribution to the current budget debate that can stand up in any forum.
As for the source of the funding, our hope is that more full-throated progressive funders would support similar efforts. We, of course, would gladly participate in such programs, although the outcomes, no matter who sponsored it, will not change. The Roosevelt Institute supports an open exchange of ideas, and it has and always will maintain its support from individuals and organizations that understand and are respectful of our core values and intellectual independence. That’s why Franklin Roosevelt had his Brains Trust and Kitchen Cabinet. It’s what was intended when the Institute was founded. And it is the legacy we are committed to carrying forward.
This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.
100 Comments
This piece was originally posted at ND20, where there’s already been a vigorous discussion: http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/06/03/speaking-truth-to-power-46928/ comprising 79 comments, a very big number for ND20. Most of the comments are very critical of the Roosevelt institute for taking $200,000 from Peterson for its Millenials Budget Project. The core objection is that in accepting this money RI also accepted the framing assumption of the deficit terrorists: namely that the US has a long-term deficit problem that can bankrupt the country is we don’t adopt a plan to stem deficits and the national debt and stabilize the pubic debt-to-GDP ratio. Accepting this underlying assumption is very damaging because it pretty much excludes any possibility of working to achieve FDR second New Deal legacy. That is, the assumption and its acceptance run counter to some of the basic values of RI.
To kick off the discussion here I’ll reproduce below the comments I originally made on the ND20 site.
Tim Price @ http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/06/03/speaking-truth-to-power-46928/#comment-14722 I’m afraid I agree with selise on this one. Reese provided a definition of fiscal sustainability. But he never explained why that definition makes sense, i.e. why that should be what we mean by fiscal sustainability. A dialogue isn’t constituted when one party says what they mean by X and another party does the same. That’s just two people talking past each other. Dialogue occurs when people communicate their conceptual frameworks, assumptions, and beliefs in reply to questioning by others. Dialogue is aa process in which people truly try to understand each other’s point of view. What I see is Reese stating assumptions he thinks are pretty self-evident and then drawing conclusions with the aid of these assumptions without even considering the possibility that they might be wrong.
That’s not dialogue, I’m afraid.
This is one is directed at Andrew Rich, the author of this post. Parenthetically, I notice that most of the critical comments thus far are being replied to by Tim Price. I appreciate Tim’s comments, but I’d like to see Andrew carry his own water here. Is he too prominent to engage?
Andrew says:
“. . . The Roosevelt Institute supports an open exchange of ideas, and it has and always will maintain its support from individuals and organizations that understand and are respectful of our core values and intellectual independence. That’s why Franklin Roosevelt had his Brains Trust and Kitchen Cabinet. It’s what was intended when the Institute was founded. And it is the legacy we are committed to carrying forward.”
I’m glad to hear of RI’s commitment to an open exchange of ideas. I’m sure all of us champion that very important value of liberal democracy; which, however, is a legacy that much precedes the New Deal and that fails to distinguish it from many other political traditions in American history, and virtually every one of America’s universities.
To say that RI supports an open exchange of ideas is fine. But it is pap, and doesn’t answer the questions of why RI allowed its campus network to accept a Grant from an organization committed to the basic assumption that there is a long-term deficit/debt/debt-to-GDP ratio problem, and to adopt that assumption itself for its fiscal report without even considering the alternative that there is no such problem. That is not openness! It is restriction of the frame of debate to the basic assumption that the Peterson Foundation supports. If the inquiry were truly open as you claim it was, then the counter-narrative that there is no deficit/debt problem would have been considered by the campus network and a more objective survey and analysis of the view of people would have been done.
If the New Deal isn’t distinguished from many other traditions by its commitment to open discussion of ideas, then what does distinguish it? I think its primary legacy is its commitment to economic and social democracy and its recognition of human rights that go far beyond the political. In fact, I think that the spirit, the tradition, and the legacy of the New Deal were well-expressed by FDR in his second Bill of Rights speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI
To quote some of it:
“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
FDR died, the War was won, and a slow counter-revolution to the New Deal, accelerating since 1976, set in. The second bill of rights was never achieved for the American people, and remains the unfinished business of the New Deal. How can the Institute and ND20 adopt any guiding purpose other than finishing this business and achieving the second bill of rights? How can it do anything else and still remain true to the New Deal?
I know that when I first became a reader at this site, I came here because I thought it was keeping alive the New Deal legacy of achieving economic and social democracy. And so, I think the important question to ask about the Campus Network study relative to the tradition of RI is whether it reflected the perspective of achieving economic and social democracy and moving us closer to the second bill of rights? I think the answer is pretty plain.
In recognizing the existence of the deficit problem and subordinating the second bill of rights to Peterson’s notion of fiscal sustainability, the study clearly takes the same side as the Hooverians in Roosevelt’s time who opposed visions like the second bill of rights and tried constantly to push balanced budgets on him.
Yes, I know that the Millennial fiscal report is much kinder to people than some of the other reports produced by Peterson’s engaged think tanks. But there’s no getting around the fact that the RI/ND20 fiscal plan produced by the campus network prioritizes a non-existent budget problem (http://bit.ly/iiKVoW http://bit.ly/dMPSPd http://bit.ly/fIgywy http://bit.ly/l8sgZH ) above all else, while Roosevelt was preparing to prioritize the second bill of rights above all else. In short, the very idea of a long-term deficit reduction plan is anti-New Deal and anti-Rooseveltian, and to commit to developing such a plan without even considering whether doing so is a valid idea in the first place, is about as anti-new Deal as it gets.
As Randy Wray says above:
“The notion that students who rely on Peterson’s billions will come up with a reasoned position on the deficit, while all anti-Peterson discussion is sidelined from New Deal 2.0 is–shall we say–”quaint”. It is not even a well kept secret that Bo and some others at New Deal carefully edit out alternative views that would oppose Peterson.
New Deal 2.0 is not Rooseveltian. The dream is over. Time to move on.”
The dream may be over at ND20; but it is not over. It will never be over. As somebody once said, long after the New Deal passed:
“. . . the work goes on. The cause endures. The hope still lives. And the Dream shall never die.”
Many great comments here, including Randy’s latest model of clarity, and Tom’s statement of the central issue.
I just want to further underline the idea that the basic framing of the issues is fundamental to the budget plan outcome and also conservative, in this case.
What if you’d started out this study by giving the millennials a choice of assumptions about spending while carefully explaining the mechanics and contextual aspects of implementing each alternative assumption:
1) Keep on deficit spending and issuing debt to the bond markets while preventing the Fed from buying Treasury’s debt;
2) Keep on deficit spending without issuing debt to the bond markets; (See: http://www.correntewire.com/once_again_national_debt_congresss_fault )
3) Use jumbo coin seigniorage to close the deficit gap between Government spending and revenues collected from taxation and miscellaneous sources. (See: http://www.correntewire.com/president_obama_should_use_coin_seigniorage_now )
Clearly, the millennials budget plan was based on the first assumption and also on the further assumption that Federal debt is like private debt and imposes a burden on the debtor (But see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/27/960786/-Is-the-Debt-Held-By-the-Public-Really-Debt?via=history ) But what if it had been based upon one of the other two assumptions?
Does anybody really think that the result would have been the same and would have been viewed by Peterson as a “responsible” alternative?
One more thing, Andrew has the gall to entitle this piece “speaking truth to power.” Well, I don’t think one speaks truth to power by accepting the framing that power uses in one’s activity. Instead, I think one speaks truth to power by confronting it with an alternative set of assumptions that give the lie to what power is saying.
A really irritating thing about establishment progressives, along with most of today’s politicians is that they are continually claiming courage, heroism, and the underdog, defender of the people role, in the very process of selling out. That’s exactly what Andrew Rich is doing here, while cheerfully accepting Peterson’s $200,000 and his framing.
Come on, don’t hold back. What do you really think.
Why did you leave the most effective progressive health care ideas out. Does the Roosevelt institute really not support single payer? Does it really think a public option shouldn’t be available until private insurance companies are given another 10 years to try to “make it work?”
Dan, this:
was beautifully done. It’s the framing of the sandbox and the setting of its boundaries that counts. Peterson’s MO is to stack the deck by defining the problem and setting the boundaries of the answers. Then he funds a spectrum of views that will be within those boundaries. He did that last summer with AmericaSpeaks. Too much progressivism leaked through in that exercise, but there was no option for people to overturn the frame and really get progressive. I did a blog series on that: http://www.correntewire.com/how_cat_food_commission_was_rigged.
The sin of the millennials study is that it bought into the Peterson basic framing and its budgets are inconsistent with anything but economic contractions in the out years. As long as the US is continuing to enjoy net imports of 3-5% of GDP and our private sector wants to run 5-7% of GDP in savings, there will need to be Government deficits in the neighborhood of 10% to fund those desires. If we want to run smaller deficits such as the 2% cited in the millennials report, then the private sector will have to run up private debt, we’ll have to import less, or both.
“It is also about encouraging young people to get involved in public service and public policy debates.”
Young people were involved and just getting really into the process. They followed and cheered, they knocked on doors, tweeted, texted, and went to Washington. Did you see them all along the route at the inaguration? They were thrilled, and looking forward to seeing a great change. Bleep
Obama fixed it for them and now they have no interest left in supporting liars and cheats.
“. . . the work goes on. The cause endures. The hope still lives. And the Dream shall never die.”
And those who oppose us are devious, underhanded and will never rest, which is why it’s bad judgement to accept offers to engage with them.
Very bad judgement.
Jon,
RI hired Richard Kirsch. See: http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2010/08/10/the-happy-dance-of-richard-kirsch/
Not much has appeared there about Medicare for All. In fact, not much is discussed there except the PO trick sparkle pony.
I am a man of few words, in this case- one.
Sellouts.
GOSH DARNIT!
You want some truth to power? Go to FDL. They’ll give it you alright. Truth x 2 = TWOOPH!
I can verify PP’s observation from personal experience: I am the parent of two recent college graduates [2008 & 2010]. Both registered to vote for the first time in 2008. Both voted enthusiastically for Obama. One worked hard for him and was moved to tears upon his inauguration.
Neither will vote for him in 2012, nor will either contribute or work. [Might have something to do with their cynical and loud-mouthed mother.]
Although not “turned off” by the political process [yet], each has a deep appreciation of the callow opportunism and lying of Obama, and they “won’t get fooled again.” So hey, DNC, DSCC, DCCC, OFA et al.: quit writing and telephoning. You aint’ getting nothing from this family.
Some people seem to need more rights than others.
Yes, Corporate Heads, Politicians, and Lobby Pimps.
The rest of America gets their rights removed under secret laws.
Since The Peterson Framing has become de rigueur (All the tv clowns are talking about Deficits and Entitlements), it only make sense for College Students to write their essays within the confines of the Peterson Framework especially since Peterson is paying them.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. So-called Liberal and Progressive Orgs understand this. There are no principals than cannot be compromised.
I’m just loving the beatdown! It’s as if the folks running the RI have no clue how badly their arguments are getting shredded, both here and at their own blog.
I am amazed. The RI poo-bahs actually sent their interns back over here for a second helping of beatdown?
Then again, it’s not as if they ever stick around to attempt to argue their points.
My 24 year old son is so disappointed he may never work to help a candidate again.
This simple bit of basic finance is the accounting identity:
Y = C + I + G + (E – I)
Y = Gross National Product
C = consumption
I = investment
G = government expenditures
E = exports
I = imports
This isn’t even theory. It is a direct consequence of double-entry bookkeeping.
shhh! we are supposed to be too dumb to know who is really on our side and who isn’t. (LOL)
I find this “discussion” to be quite “hilarious” and to the point of laughing out loud. Yup, Nonsense deserves no RESPECT!
Of course, I have yet to find anyone in this multiplicy of ‘conversations’ castigating America’s “racial and ethnics” for accepting any of Petersen’s monies for espousing Petersen’s well exposed views for turning America into a Nation of Serfdom.
As for me, I have jokingly stated that I will accept monies from whatever source, that advocates eliminating the Patriot Act and replacing this public policy regiment with the Domestic Worker’s Surveillance Act, in which the domestic worker has his or her salary supplemented with taxpayer dollars,thusly saving hundreds of billions, and of course done on the premise that I will find for myself that Petersen does NOT change his skivvies on a daily basis, since Petersen has “locked down” the windows and his stinkiness continues to assault everyone.
Jaango
You are correct on that one.
Besides, we might as well retire the term GDP, because it really does not measure the true gross domestic product. In fact, we have such a pitiful actual product it shouldn’t be used as a measurment. Our consumer consumption of imports is all we have.
i call BULLSHIT.
any “budget debate” that does not include a challenge the underlying premise that to be Fiscally Responsible means addressing the “problem” of the long term budget deficit, that measures success of a budget based on a projected deficit reduction or uses bogus projections (see esp. interest rates) only serves to legitimize the right wing “fiscal crisis” narrative further.
it is false and it is anti-progressive.
The greed of it all is just astonishing. Pete Peterson is a billionaire, he’s got his fucking money. Why must he spend millions and fight to crush those who have so little? What has become of this country?
ding! ding! ding!
thank you masaccio!!!!!
“that Petersen does NOT change his skivvies on a daily basis, since Petersen has “locked down” the windows and his stinkiness continues to assault everyone.”
Pppp-YEW! That is some global sized stank there.
Just when we thought the only polecats to watch out for were the repugs and Obama/The Great Pretender, you propose to shut the windows on one of the biggest gasbags evah!
letsget,
Man, that’s a good a butt-kicking as I’ve seen at FDL.
Congratulations.
Wow!!!!
if anyone would like a simple explanation of what masaccio wrote above, please see stephanie kelton’s What Happens When the Government Tightens its Belt?
…. x-posted here at myfdl today.
Well, it is nice that they had students involved but when you start with a peice of crap it is still made out of crap when you are done.
Why has the RI not deigned to respond to any of the comments here?
What selise said.
Selise,
I find it very showing how the repugs going off on Deficit speechifying how little they know. In fact, all that comparison of the US budget being compared to a family budget crap was just that.
If in fact they can understand that we have a budget deficit in our refrigerator and the contents are down to half a bottle of juice and three eggs, the most logical remedy would be to SPEND, to increase the goods going into that Frig.
The crazy is so crazy it burns itself out.
I assume that Jane just offered front page space to Roosevelt or EPI to defend themselves as best they can from their own actions. I say that because that is the only reason I can think of for a piece of writing this bad to be on the FDL front page.
Others can and will go on about how this retarded piece frames Yves Smith’s question as “what is the legacy of Roosevelt?” in a complete whitewashing of what Smith actually wrote about. Or about how the principals at Roosevelt are hiding behind a bunch of college students to avoid taking responsibility for jumping in bed with Pete fucking Peterson. Or about how you hope to find more full throated progressive funding but, golly gee, you just have to take the funding that you’re offered and allow it to corrupt your mission (which, as an org that lionizes the dickhead that saved capitalism and cockblocked socialism, is an already dubious and infamous legacy to anyone who actually understands what being on the left means). And more and more.
But the content isn’t really my concern. The writing is.
Seriously, vacuous and misleading “content” aside, was this written by a sophomore intern? Who’s daddy knows someone? I ask because clearly it wasn’t skills that got them the gig. These are serious, non-rhetorical questions.
If a paid staff member wrote this, they should be fired for incompetence unless the objective was to pound out 7 paragraphs that say nothing, do nothing to address the issues brought up by Yves Smith, and leave us all more pissed off at RI than before.
Not to mention – you casually mention yourself in the same sentence Heritage, AEI and the Center for American Progress as if that adds some credibility to your institutional standing. It does not, I assure you. Not everyone slavishly fellates power like the folks at RI apparently do. You know what that sentence tells me, mentioning all those right wingers in the same breath as yourselves to add gravitas to your own bullshit? That you see yourself as in the club, not with the people. No org that actually cared about the workaday American would have anything to do with such organizations, or take money from Pete fucking Petersen, or show up here to put bullshit on our front page about how great all your college students are without addressing Smith’s concerns.
If this is the state of the mainstream liberal movement, DDay is right and we’re completely fucked. It’s new language and passport time, people. Look at what colossal failures the Roosevelt people are.
This is pathetic.
Nor this family.
The underlying assumption being pushed by the deficit jihadists is that we must “cut” our way out of the financial predicament that we’re in. They conveniently overlook the fact that the deficit issue could also be addressed by revenue enhancement. Raising taxes on the rich and corporations would quickly generate more revenue than could be saved by slashing government programs. And discontinuing a couple of multi-trillion dollar wars would be helpful as well.
Don’t forget Mark Schmitt, straight from the Prospect:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/05/schmitt
Glenn’s post on Schmitt is a must-read.
While some of the ideas fit clearly into the wheelhouse of what many consider acceptable progressive thought, we recognize that other ideas might not correspond as neatly with that space.
“Other ideas” aka “Wingnut Ideas” will be the ones that get showcased. It is how the right wing operates. Thanks to the right wing juggernaut, we all agree that man-made global warming is a hoax and the earth is 2000 years old. These accepted mainstream ideas were once on the fringe and crazy.
By design, the students who developed the plan represented a wide swath of the ideological spectrum. We were heartened, though not surprised, to find that the next generation of leaders has a decidedly progressive inclination.
2 percent is within the “margin of error”. Sorry Proggies, you lose. So long as their essays conform to a right wing narrative, their progressive inclination won’t matter.
Peterson will be sure that any progressive ideas shall be filtered out or perceived negatively.
We have seen this repeated many times throughout the course of history.
RI is a sellout veal pen org. Too bad.
Yes, but how are thousands of returning vets to handle sitting around day after day with no hope for a job?
It has gotten the best of most of us. After war zone footing, I just don’t think most men and women could handle the truth of what America is now.
They conveniently overlook the fact that they have the deficit issue all wrong…
please see my diary, USG deficits: The Economics, the Politics, the Banksters and You.
Called the RI (New York office) and the Receptionist, Sarah, knew exactly what I was talking about, the post at FDL. Sara, who represented the RI very well, transferred me to the author/person in charge, a woman named Bryce Covert.
I left a voicemail for Ms. Covert, who I doubt calls the shots, based on the fact that I was so quickly and efficiently funneled to her. One of the points I made in my voicemail was my great respect for Jane Hamsher and that I hope the RI would going forward find a way to work with her.
Irony Alert: This is the Ministry of Truth speaking, we have Mr. Peterson on the line, can you take the call?
One_Outer, it appears to me that RI initially posted it at My FDL. All they needed to do that was a valid email address. My guess is someone at FDL figured correctly that comments from letsgetitdone and others warranted the front-page.
He’s on the line? Ah, let him hang there for a little longer. MmmKay?
Sounds about right if you consider your budget what you already own, and spending is how you improve your budget.
Given those facts, who could argue?
this post was nonsense when it was first published on the nd2.0 site and it’s nonsense now.
i do want to point out, and i hope FDL readers will note, that many of the comments at nd2.0 which challenged the deficit errorist anti-progressive basis for RI’s contribution to the peterson summit were made by RI authors themselves!
not everyone associated with RI agrees with what was done or is taking this quietly… as the comments thread there shows!
In the last decade, no one has done more to elevate the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower, than the Roosevelt Institute. How fitting that the RI would post this on the anniversary of D-Day.
selise at 12:53, thank you. I had no idea.
How long before “the next generation of leaders has a decidedly progressive inclination” becomes “a revolutionary inclination?”
Thank you, letsgetitdone, masaccio, and selise!!!
I echo SD’s question … Why has the Roosevelt Institute not seen fit to answer the most serious questions of the day and, in the “process”, betray the philosophy, understanding, and humanity which the institute supposedly upholds?
DW
Or me. I’ve been sending back all Democratic solicitations with uncomfortable questions all over the materials I was sent.
Why do I continue to do this?
Because I make them pay for the return envelope. And I like telling them off in writing.
Nor this one either.
Some people are in deep, Veal Pen denial. Barack stabbed us all in the back over Health Care. Barack stabbed us in the back over Torture and the Police State. Barack stabbed us in the back over the Forever Wars. Barack stabbed us in the back to steal Social Security for the Investment Bankers, Goldman Sachs, AIG and Mr. Catfood, Peterson.
I think EPI is in an abusive relationship, and may need an intervention.
I read items at New Deal 2.0 everyday and have found it a reliable source for real liberal critique. This campus project
and the adoption of any relationship with Peterson came as a
complete surprise and I still cannot find any justification for it.
The line that you do this to get a seat at the table just sounds
too much like Hoover, not FDR. Better to be an independent body
offering alternative views to the homoginized process of the beltway. This post and the previous two are all linked to the same problem, neoliberalism has no relation to the Roosevelt Legacy save one, hostility.
They will most likely be drowned by the rage fest brewing over thin lips or longer second toes. Something like that will always do in a Progressive movement if you get every nooze channel to cover the uglies.
That makes sense.
And you found out who wrote it! Another hack getting a paycheck while genuinely talented people have their human potential wasted because RI wants to protect it’s precious fascist funding rather than say anything about how we need some jobs up in this bitch.
I can think of a job opening there should be at RI.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget bluetoes. That would be another cause for alarm. Not for the health issues, but because it can be used as a campaign issue. (grin)
i think it’s great that FDL is giving EPI and RI front page space to respond to Yves’ x-posts here.
next step is to give front page space to the economists (galbraith, mosler, wray, mitchell, et al.) who challenge the both the deficit terrorists and the deficit errorists… because they are the only ones who get modern monetary theory (MMT) and i don’t think it’s possible right now to have a progressive policy agenda with out that understanding!
I was contacted by the Roosevelt Institute and asked if they could post in response. I told them anyone could post here, all they had to was register for an account. After they posted it I put it on the front page.
Upon further reflection on how bad this piece is, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn’t make sense for organizations like the Roosevelt Institute to hire competent staffers or writers…
because then they might accidentally make a difference to the good for working people, and the funders can’t have that. No wonder the person that wrote this is on staff.
Joan Didion called it Vichy Washington some years ago.
Yeah, she probably thinks Planned Parenthood is a Nazi organization too.
We have given front page space to anyone involved in this issue who asked for it. CBPP put up a diary at MyFDL, I asked them if they wanted me to front page it and they said no. Since they were only passingly referred to in Yves original post, I thought it muddied the waters to focus on them so I didn’t. But if any of the above want to post about the issue, I’d be thrilled to have it and would of course front page immediately.
I believe the author is Andrew Rich on the New Deal 2.0 version. Why they did not include his name here, I don’t know.
that’s not a beatdown. it’s slaughter.
letsgetitdone is eviscerating them, and mostly with their own words.
my G, I’m starting to feel embarrassed for the RI.
Just to be clear, that call wasn’t for FDL members — It’s a conference call between Peterson and Governors Kasich, Christie, Walker, Snyder & Scott.
niceeeeeeeeeee
“truth to power”???? Exactly what power is the “truth” being spoken to?
thank you jane! (*actually thank you x1000!*).
… i’ve seen at least one draft (that was last week, but on point) that i’d love to see posted here as a response to the peterson summit. but, i expect there will very likely be more than one who will to take you up on your very generous offer…. i’ll ask.
As stated up thread, The Roosevelt Institute has been prostrating itself before the likes of Peterson for a long time. Their acquiescence to the right and their silence on key progressive issues of the day has been deafening.
Their giant cave-in on Health Care Reform dealt a huge blow to the the Progressivism they pretend to support.
Wow! Are these people this clueless they come for a second or third helping of a spanking?
letsgetitdone. Don’t know who you are, but you got my respect and admiration. Frankly what you wrote is not a beatdown. It’s a slaughter. You worked them over with such nonchalance and lack of exertion, I bet you weren’t even using 5% of your brain power to do it. Your words nailed it. And them to the wall. And so easily. Usually with their own words. Genius!
Frankly watching that kind of slaughter, the compassionate side in me started to feel sorry for them. I mean they didn’t even have a chance. You just wasted their “ideas”, that are so obviously bought and paid for. If they had any decency and/or a conscience they would go lick their wounds. But they won’t. They’re paid not to.
Selise, thank you for the comment that not all RI people are like this. Thank you for pointing out that many comments at RI opposing this excrement are from RI people. Sadly, their leadership, like the Dim leadership, has been bought out. Sad and pathetic. Why chop the head off when you can buy it?
To RI, WTF? DO you even know what FDR stood for? Every word in this piece is an insult to him and his memory. An insult to everything he stood for. Have you no shame? No, of course you don’t. I imagine all that filthy lucre allows you to forget your actions, and focus on the … yup, the filthy lucre.
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html
“We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.
For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.”
one outer, my apologies for not being more clear.
I was not told Bryce was the author.
When the receptionist heard “Firedoglake,” she obviously already had instructions to send those calls to Bryce’s voicemail. I don’t know who wrote it. The fact that they were sending me to Bryce suggested to me that it was written up higher on the RI food chain.
tambershall, well done:
“Don’t know who you are, but you got my respect and admiration. Frankly what you wrote is not a beatdown. It’s a slaughter.”
Yup. They asked for it.
That would be great, selise, I’d be thrilled to have a response from any of them. Much appreciated. If you need me to do anything to make it happen, let me know.
Ah, well then if I can get some mod help to fix me calling her out as the author, that would be tits.
Great question!
FDR must be spinning in his grave.
They don’t believe interaction over there for the most part. Other than the MMT people and readers most comments come from Lynn Parramore, Bryce Covert, and Tom Price. Most others don’t have the stomach to engage.
That’s right. The basic accounting identity is at the heart of all this. Today selise cross-posted two very important posts of Stephanie Kelton, bring the sectoral financial balances model down to a very concrete level. I can’t recommend this more highly: http://my.firedoglake.com/selise/2011/06/06/stephanie-kelton-what-happens-when-the-government-tightens-its-belt/#comment-183880
Sadly – spot on
Never has the progressive position on health care reform been more ignored by the think tanks of the left. Indeed, real progressive debate and actions for real change seems to have ended with Obama’s nomination – and back then he had told us about all the ways he was on the progressive side – all of which turned out to be – by his own actions – lies.
For RI to go down this road is sad.
Here’s a very good one on the household analogy: http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/02/10/the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-heres-why-8230/
From ND20 no less!
Thanks Boo. I did my best.
Seriously fine “call-out” of RI, tambershall …
And excellent “show me some backbone …” quote from FDR.
Good on ya!
DW
Boo, Andrew Rich wrote this piece, not Bryce Covert. See: http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/06/03/speaking-truth-to-power-46928/
Andrew is President and CEO of RI. Bryce is Assistant Editor at the New Deal 2.0 web site, a special project of RI.
As I said above, Bryce Covert did not author this piece. Also, I recommend posts by Bryce at the link provided by one_outer just above. I think Bryce is real New Deal all the way.
Good on ya, seconded, tambershall, and thanks for the kind words. I’m not alone in replying in this vein to RI. You really should read the original thread. Selise did a great job there, and there were also great replies by Randy Wray, Scott Fullwiler, Marshall Auerback, lambert strether, Tom Hickey, and Dan Kervick. See: http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/06/03/speaking-truth-to-power-46928/
Oh, sorry. To answer your implied identity question, I’m Joe Firestone and my MyFDL profile is here: http://my.firedoglake.com/members/letsgetitdone/profile/
previous blogs are here: http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/
Many are spinning……….
I’m 100% certain that had FDR read what the RI claims is an “impressive and rigorous piece of work”, he would have referred to it as a “piece of shit”. And then asked for his name back.
Well, this thread has been up all afternoon and into the evening and not one spokesperson for the RI has shown up to defend this piece of shit.
I guess they’re like every other Regressive, afraid of their own fuckin’ shadow.
Yuppers. Me too.
If I could be assured they’d be charged the postage, I’d tape their “postage paid return envelope” to a brick.
Kinda like the “lesser of two evils still = evil” situation.
Done.
I can’t help but think of the fate of Vidkun Quisling.
“. . . A really irritating thing about establishment progressives,.
You, and everyone, really need to stop calling these fucks progressives.
They are not, in any way, shape, form or policy or action progressive.
So let’s start calling these fucks for what they are.
Please.
O_O, Mine get shredded n trashed, I now must seriously rethink my strategy.
Thanks!
*G*
Despite my criticism of Let’s and others for continuing to refer to entrenched status quo entities like the RI, EPI, etc., using false memes such as liberal, progressive, and such . . .
Lets, this was one great smack up side the head to the assholes abusing OUR white space in this forum.
*G*
Thank you, and all other Pups who replied with such incredible evidence . . . this diary alone is akin to a lifetime of reading and analysis . . . much more than I can handle but the parts I did or will read sure make their points!
I love this town.
Vampires don’t cast shadows.
I’m still a Democrat – there just ain’t any in leadership who I’ll give a dime or second or time or a vote to – and it is THEIR fault.
I do enjoy sending back the paid return postage envelopes with snotty comments written on their horse shit.
In 2006 I wrote in my own name instead of Cant-do-shit cantwell. It felt weird, and I’ve never regretted it.
Last year I wrote in “Medicare ForAll” on my mail in ballot for EVERY candidate above dog catcher, and it felt weird for a week or so … and I have NEVER regretted it. At least I know why what I care about has lost.
there are the party leaders who know what doublethink is and who are on the cutting edge of creating doublethink – then there is the next level of dregs who honestly think we’ve always been at war with eastasia and amplify the leadership’s lies and police heresy against the leadership’s lies –
is the author of this and the EPI diary a doublethink leader, or, just a fucking dreg liar? yawn.
these diaries are actually doing me a service – just like that sell out piece of shit clinton repeating right wing lies about medicare –
I’m really busy with my day job, and I’d hate to forget whose side these fuckers are on.
rmm.