One Upset Progressive’s Letter to the AFL-CIO:

[clear eye]

THE AFL-CIO NEEDS TO DEMAND A PLACE AMONG OBAMA'S ADVISORS FOR AN INDEPENDENT PROGRESSIVE ECONOMIST (see recommendation below)

Couldn't you even have demanded that Obama add one progressive economist to his current advisors as a pre-condition to endorsing him? I mean, is it too much to ask that he actually hear the reasons people (and some PhD economists) feel the current trade agreements are destructive to the empowerment of the citizens of the U.S. and the world, as well as destructive to our economy, before he drips with contempt about how we're just against trade? Why, oh why, did you promise our shoe leather, scarce time and even scarcer dollars without getting proof from him that he would at least listen to some details of our point of view?

I hunted all over the Internet for a respected economist who understands that we want good jobs, not British-style dole, and who is independent from both corporations and unions. The best person I could find to explain our position without being accused of being bought is EPI's L. Josh Bivens.

Early in Obama's campaign I believed his rhetoric so I spent most of my free time for a few weeks making campaign phone calls. I put aside my worry about his remark about cynical working Pennsylvanians "clinging" to "trade" to explain economic troubles as though that is a delusion. But then the Chicago Tribune published the list of his advisors, and I saw that the man only listens to people who lie about the effects of the trade agreements on our country and preach that whatever is good for the mega-corporations' bottom line in the short run must be good for the U.S.. I decided then that though I might be forced to vote for him because of how bad McCain is, I'll be damned if I'll be fooled into lying again for his campaign. Or put myself out to get folks registered.

It would have made a difference if you'd gotten him to show us the decency of listening to the economics behind our point of view. But you didn't, and he hasn't, and you just lose our respect and look weak for going out for him while he stuffs his fingers in his ears.

Sincerely,

[anonymous171]

1. lol go to bed Ralph.

[jgraz]

2. K&R & Welcome to DU

Don't let the 'bots get you down. :hi:

[thewiseguy]

4. Time to send another angry letter to Obama!

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

9. Sure. Why sully such a beautiful moment? n/t

[democrattotheend]

3. Obama has a 98% voting record from the AFL-CIO

And 90% from the Illinois AFL-CIO for his votes as a state senator. He has a record that they can trust, regardless of who is on his team.

[clear eye]

6. He's Been Listening to the Other Side

Especially the head of his team, Wal-Mart apologist Furman. He's been quoted lately as saying he may delay restoring taxation on mega-corporations and the ultra-wealthy, I have to presume because he's been convinced to believe the supply-siders. He's too young to remember Reagan's trickle-downers falling on their faces, and I don't know if our economy can stand more years of that proven failure of a policy.

[mrs_p]

7. can you post the link to that?

[clear eye]

11. He's Already Reversed Himself on the Estate Tax

<http://www.inclusionist.org/node/1502>

I tried to find where I had read discussions about him not restoring the corporate taxation right away, but I can't. However, reading about it was unsettling enough that I'm sure I didn't imagine it.

[democrattotheend]

8. One of the things I love about him is his willingness to listen to all sides

And I do agree with you that he should add someone from the labor movement to his team, but I don't have a problem with his willingness to listen to the other side as well.

When did he say he won't restore taxation on the wealthy?

[PM7nj]

10. Hmm... it's almost as if he is running for President!

Imagine that.

[clear eye]

13. I meant listening to corporatist economics exclusively.

He's not listening to both sides. His economics advisors are headed by an apologist for Wal-Mart/booster of the current trade agreements, and peopled wholey by a corporatist business professor (his closest campaign confidante), a Citibank exec specializing in int'l trade, the lawyer who was Pres. Clinton's architect for GATT and NAFTA, another economist from the Clinton administration who advised him on healthcare and opposed single-payer, and a Bill Clinton economist from Harvard who focused on the earned income tax credit as a solution for unemployment as though people avoided jobs because they didn't want to be taxed. Even this late in the campaign, there is not a single expert on economic development, environmentally sustainable economics, labor economics, or anyone who questions the benefits of the current trade agreements. The link to my source follows:

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story?page=3>

[depakid]

12. "He's too young to remember Reagan's trickle-downers falling on their faces." err, no he's not

He graduated college the same year I did- 1983 (though I don't know whether he took any econ classes).

On an interesting note Paul Krugman (who some vocal Obama supporters threw under the bus during the primaries) had this to say:

Jason and the Obamanauts

OK, this furor over Jason Furman’s appointment is silly, on two levels.

1. Furman is a very good guy, with a solid track record as a progressive. You can disagree with him about Walmart — and I do — but his heart is clearly with those who want more social justice and a stronger safety net.

2. He’s not, despite what the story says, Obama’s chief economic policy advisor — he’s the economic policy director, which is a process job: basically, he organizes other people to provide advice. Obviously there could be a real problem if the policy director steered the candidate away from progressive advice, but Furman is, as I said, a solid progressive, and well suited to the job of honest broker.

Maybe I’m wrong, but my sense is that Jason Furman has become a proxy target for some Obama supporters who, now that the Great Satanness has been defeated, are suddenly starting to have the queasy feeling that their hero might be a bit of a …. centrist. I’m tempted to say I told you so; in fact, I guess I just did. But that’s all in the past now.

Anyway, lay off Jason Furman, a good guy who will do his best to defeat a candidate who gets his economic advice from Phil Gramm.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/jason-and-the-obamanauts/

[clear eye]

14. Not what most would call "progressive"

unless you see progressive as smearing those who oppose the corporate sovereignty encoded into the current trade agreements and who are honest about the effects on wages with the labels "trade bashers" and "protectionists", or think it's progressive to advocate substituting British-style dole for policies productive of living wage jobs.

"I hope the lesson that Democratic candidates take from this is not to bash trade and call for protectionism, but instead to call for a robust safety net," Furman told an NPR interviewer last year <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-furman11-2008jun11,0,2364094.story>

I admit I was off on how old Obama was when Reagan was President.