White House Outreach to Business Leaders
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-08/white-house-outreach-business-leaders
President Barack Obama talks with former President Bill Clinton and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, July 14, 2010. The President was meeting with business leaders to discuss new ways to create jobs and strengthen the partnership between the public and private sectors to make new investments in the clean energy industry.
Official White House photo by Pete Souza via Flickr
President Obama has appealed to the nation's business leaders for help in revitalizing the U.S. economy. In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday, he drew from John F. Kennedy's famous call to action. President Obama said, "Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy and to invest in this nation." The president pledged to simplify the tax code and invest in infrastructure and technology. Some critics say the president was too conciliatory to business. Others argue that overly burdensome regulations must be lifted first. The White House and the U.S. business community.
Guests
Jared Bernstein
chief economist and economic policy adviser for Vice President Biden and executive director of the vice president's Middle Class Task Force.
Bill George
professor of management practice at Harvard Business School and former CEO of Medtronic Inc.
Dean Baker
co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of "Plunder & Blunder the Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy."
Elizabeth Williamson
reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
James Gattuso
senior research fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Bruce Josten
executive vice president for government affairs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Much of the cash sitting on corporations balance sheets is at banks who are still contending with billions of dollars worth of worthless loans sitting on their books at the original value. Reserve and capital requirements do not allow them to do anything but sit on this cash.
A large portion of the balance of corporate cash is in foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Repatriating that cash will require a large tax to be paid, making it considerably less attractive. Instead their only option is to invest that cash abroad which is of no value to US workers.
You are right on the mark Zinnia... I work for a major healthcare company & they are at record profits while laying off several thousand workers (many who have been there for decades) to make their stock prices go higher and please Wall Street. These folks running the show don't truly have the talent and creativity to prosper other than trimming the employee pool and whining on and on. And THAT is what Capitalism is at it's best. I recall when President Kennedy was elected, his father warned him.."Beware the businessman, they are the most dangerous ba&tard&". And how true that is. Capitalism & conservatism eat it's children all while complaining that there are actually rules to abide by. This good president has been reaching out to corporate America and across the aisle from day 1 in office, to no avail. And the result? Their "make him fail" propaganda and to stifle (Party of NO) the many productive ideas that would get us out of the mess that the Republican rust and cancer of conservatism have delivered to us. I'm sorry Mr. American businessman...you should hang your head in shame and cower to the very public which you are destroying while you scoop up your dollar bills.
Dianne :
Thx for covering the US economy gone haywire.
How about going a bit further and compare the economy of Germany to that of the US in your program. There is a lesson there that needs discussion and even emulation in the US.
How is it that the Germans are able to sustain a trade surplus in spite of higher % of workers unionized, higher manufacturing wages, higher social expenses ( welfare benefits ), tougher environment regulations, ... compared to the US ?
And all this while still footing the bill to upgrade E. Germany !
Its not just their comparatively "tiny" Defense Budget.
Zane
I am puzzled by the montone selection of emails read on air. They would appear to always come from one side of the debate, one I suspect the host is sympathetic to. Just an observation...
Regarding the email that asked about hiring workers, Diane and the other guests were allowed to be led into a discussion about exports instead of addressing the question. Here is a correct answer: If people are working at a job in their neighborhoods, they are buying more goods IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, not in other countries. Unemployed people tend to spend much less on goods in their own neighborhoods. Exports are an interesting discussion, but not connected to this one.
Since the 70's, while average American income stagnated, the wealthy and executive compensations income expanded 10, 20, 100, 400X. Richest couple percent of Americans and corporations presently have unprecedented cash reserves.
Clinton raised taxes on wealthy, and lowered them for working and middle classes. What followed was longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Budget surpluses allowed government to begin paying down debt and at end of Clinton's last year, ten year surplus of $5.6 trillion was forecasted. As far as jobs,on average 2.5 times more jobs were created during Clinton years than each of Reagan, Bush SR, or W.
W. immediately reversed course, ladling $630 billion in tax cuts to top 1%. After first year of "conservative" administration", debt shot to 6.2 trillion dollars. In 2002, while country was embroiled in 2 wars, Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Niel raised objections to a 2nd round of tax cuts and was informed by Cheney, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” The president also balked at his aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after string of accounting scandals. A month later O’Neil was out of a job.
During housing bubble years, we were told that the most promising young college grads were lured to work at Wall Street and financial institutions. Americans were expected to believe after financial collapse that for all their intelligence, these institutions while making their megabillions through clever manipulations and of securitizing mortgages, etc. didn't understand they were putting entire financial system at risk.
I repeat these facts just to hopefully help inform the debate and more clearly define how we got here o as promote positive ideas to help steer our way out of our dilemma.
I believe democracy is supposed to be about “for and by the people”. A government “for and by the fabulously wealthy” does not represent the “American Dream”,
in my opinion.
What about the administration's goals (stated in the State of the Union) of linking jobs and Clean Energy? One example of these is the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee program. President Obama also mentioned another in his speech when he mentioned the California Institute of Technology. What about the DOE's Sun Shot announcement? Can these programs create jobs?
Greg P. Smestad, Ph.D.
Associate Editor
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
www.solideas.com
"Captain of Industry" was a term originally used in the United Kingdom during the Industrial Revolution describing a business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, PROVIDING MORE JOBS, or acts of philanthropy. This contrasts with robber baron, a term used to describe a business leader using political means to achieve their ends."
(Source: Wikipedia)
Perhaps President Obama was calling on the leaders to
act as a "Captains of Industry" and to think beyond the
short term maximizing of profits and to think about
promoting the long term health of the domestic
and international economy.
A strong economy with high employment and stable
prices with bring on vigorous demand and INCREASED
profits!
NO jobs, no income, no demand, NO PROFITS!!!
Bo Jones on February 8, 2011 @ 8:24 am wrote: "uh-huh, I'm sure Obama would be reaching out to business without the "shellacking" he took in November. NOT!"
Yeah, after all what has Obama done for business anyway? Provided additional tax cuts in his economic recovery program (I mean the ones granted back in 2009, not the budget busting repeal of the Bush tax raise in 2010); provided subsidies for small businesses in the new healthcare law, so they could afford to buy group insurance for their employees and stay competitive; enact policies that not only prevented our Great Recession (legacy of the "pro-business" philosophy of the previous years) from turning into a second Great Depression, but which (apparently) enabled those poor suffering businesses to rack up record profits and award record bonuses to their poor starving CEO's (etc.).
Please remember that just because he's been accused of being "anti-business" doesn't make it true. After all, from the standpoint of the Spanish Inquisition the present Pope is a raging heretic!
Also remember that, from the way they talk, the Chamber of Commerce wouldn't be happy unless its members could make fortunes without paying any salaries, were taxed at 0% for all the government services they benefit from (military protection, interstate commerce, access to courts to enforce their contracts, etc.), and were given government subsidies and sweet-heart contracts to boot. And they accuse liberals of not living in the real world!
hainc on February 8, 2011 @ 9:48 am wrote: "General Motors and Chrysler: ask their stock- and bond-holders who got wiped out and non-unionized employees who were laid off by the thousands"
Gee, hainc, people make bad investment decisions, "gamble" their money on a failing company, and you want the government to save them from the consequences of their bad choices? What are you, a commie?
The alternative to the "bail-out" was Bankruptcy. Guess what happens in Bankruptcy? The stock and bond-holders get wiped out! So you're weeping tears for people who'd have been "screwed" even if the government hadn't acted.
But thanks to the "bailout", GM remains a viable company. It's employees still have jobs (as opposed to being unemployed and "on the dole" - something I guess you'd prefer), and are still taxpayers to boot. On top of that, the money loaned to GM is being paid back with interest, resulting in a nice tidy profit for "we the people". (Of course, as with any loan, we have to wait till it's entirely paid off to see if that remains true, but so far it is.)
Oh, and I'm not so sure as many people were "wiped out" as you seem to believe. Certainly the corporate executives who ran GM into the ground were, but gee, I thought you Republi-Cons were all about "individual responsibility"!
Mike Sergeant on February 8, 2011 @ 10:28 am wrote: "After 25 years of Reagan's supply side economic failures, we need to declare the experiment a failure. . . ."
Actually, it should have been declared a failure long before now. The only honest statement ever made about Reaganomics was when Bush the First called it "voodoo economics".
Study the actual record of the Reagan and Bush years: increased Federal spending, decreased revenues, and growing deficits. (Just for comparison, under "bad old" Carter the deficit grew by 137%, under "wonderful" Reagan it grew by 196%! You can find much of the evidence on page 63 of The World Almanac for 2010.)
Someone please explain to me why Republi-Cons worship at Reagan's shrine? If a liberal Democrat "busted the budget" like that, grew the size of government the way he did, broke the law and the Constitution (Iran-Contra), made secret and illegal arms deals with our enemies (ditto), oh and "cut and ran" from Lebanon after his security lapses caused our brave soldiers there to be murdered in their barracks not once but twice, Republi-Cons wouldn't bother with impeachment - they'd storm the White House and lynch him in the Rose Garden! Yet Reagan is responsible for all that and he's regarded as a saint!
I shall retire to Bedlam.
lrrubin on February 8, 2011 @ 10:37 am wrote: "Companies wanting to expand are looking to government loan guarantees to reduce risk associated with borrowing. . . . "
Oh, I get it. Government programs to help people the "free market" won't help afford healthcare (and other things necessary for the silly purpose of staying alive) is "socialism", and an example of "evil big government". But programs designed to help businesses the "free market" won't help make a buck is just good capitalism.
To use a tired old Republi-Con piece of rhetoric: could someone show me where it's "in the Constitution" that government exists to help the rich get richer?
SusanO on February 8, 2011 @ 10:45 am wrote: " . . . am I wrong in understanding that our form of capitalism really does require regulations to make certain it doesn’t get out of hand and destroy the good it has brought?"
No, you are absolutely correct. Today's Republi-Con party is composed of mindless ideologues who insist that any government interference with the "pure, perfect, sacred, and holy free market" is sacrilege. They are the people who regard FDR (one of our greatest Presidents) and Teddy Roosevelt (ditto) as communist subversives. They refuse to see that the reforms those Administrations created, and the philosophy behind them, not only prevented a socialist or communist revolution (and saved capitalism), but also helped bring about America's rise to greatness.
If these "disciples of Herbert Hoover" had their way, we'd still be stuck in the Great Depression, and they may get their wish by causing a new one!
bernie mihm on February 8, 2011 @ 10:48 am wrote: “Here are a couple ideas to increase American employment: . . . .”
PART ONE
One of the problems with what passes for debate on the new healthcare law is that so many of its critics (I mean ordinary folks, not the “experts”) haven’t bothered to read the thing, and don’t know what they’re talking about! They appear content to get their information from such “infallible, fair and balanced” sources as Faux News, and Squawk Radio.
Much of what you suggest, sir, actually is in the new law:
· There are subsidies to help small businesses afford insurance. (That’s the real small businesses, not the multi-million dollar companies that falsely claim the title.)
· In 2014 the law will require the creation of Insurance Exchanges, whose very purpose is “assisting individuals in joining large health insurance pools like the one that includes federal employees”. (Oh, and by the way, Congress and its staff must get their insurance under those Exchanges, and get policies approved by the new law. Thus refuting another Republ-Con lie that Congress is exempt.)
I believe that contributions to unemployment insurance constitute a deduction from a Federal payroll tax (that’s the way it originally operated, at least). Therefore, your proposal already exists. Either pay the unemployment insurance, or pay the increased payroll tax.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“A simple, transparent national sales tax and /or a simple transparent national carbon tax.” - Have you ever considered a career in standup comedy? There is nothing either simple or transparent about a sales tax. It should more properly be called a “sneaky tax”. Have you any idea how much you pay in sales taxes? No, unless you itemize every purchase you make (including dining at restaurants). Plus, of course, it has no connection to your ability to pay. The truth is the income tax (properly applied) is the fairest of all taxes. The trouble is we’ve made it so complicated, and allowed “gaming the system”.
As for a carbon tax - please, the attempt to properly make businesses (and the rest of us) pay for the environmental damage caused by carbon emissions was killed when attacked as a “tax”. If you believe it can pass when officially called that, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I’m dying to sell you - cheap!
Bo Jones on February 8, 2011 @ 10:49 am wrote: “Oh for heaven's sake, . . . , opposing the excesses of today's modern unions, does not mean one thinks we should go back to child labor etc.!”
Yes, but if you listen to the rhetoric of the Republi-Cons, that’s exactly what they want. In their world government meddling in the economy is always bad (except when it benefits corporations, of course), unions are always evil, and any attempt to do away with them are always good (such as so-called “right to work” laws).
There are people who oppose child labor laws, and raise instances of children not being allowed (at age 10) to work in their family restaurant not merely as an example of such laws going too far (debatable, at least), but as a reason to repeal all those laws.
Ditto, much of the rhetoric of “State’s Rights”, and “small government”. Forgetting for the moment (as if we ever should) that those cries were used first to justify slavery and then segregation, just remember the spectacle of (now) Senator Rand Paul condemning Federal mine safety laws - right after the most recent mine collapse!
To HVAC Man, writing on February 8, 2011 @ 10:55 am:
Of course, we only have your word for what happened. I note, however, that one fact you can't disguise is that you broke the law. Licensing fees are a legitimate part of doing business. Would you also protest if you lost your business for failing to pay real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.
I'm sorry for your (alleged) troubles, but if you couldn't even afford to pay the mortgage on your home, I'd guess a late fee was the least of your problems!
Funny, isn't it, how "conservatives" can look down their noses at those who are less well off, until they join those ranks. Then they scream as loudly as any "socialist".
To reverse a trite cliche': a liberal is a conservative whose lost his job.
ajkovacs on February 8, 2011 @ 10:58 am wrote: "The American public needs to recognize how we support jobs going overseas (China) by always demanding or choosing the cheaper products. The cheaper product (usually made in China) are the products that sell."
True. My problem is it's almost impossible to find anything not "Made in China"!
Listen to this Chamber drone Bruce Jostens tap dance around every time the job-outsourcing argument comes up (repeatedly). NAFTA ("free" trade) is only free to the Chamber of Commerce and its corporate friends who want to hire people at 10 cents an hour. Jostens tries all the strategies, like changing the subject (to the housing boom--nothing to do with outsourcing).
That tax cut for the rich was a giveaway of as much of a trillion dollars (little less than our deficit). Now government is being cut--education, medicare, social security, environment, after school programs, post office hours--and working America is suffering. Cutting these programs also cut jobs for people who work for these programs. So who gets hurt? We all do, and the minority of the Rich benefits.
Franklin Roosevelt understood that to beat the Depression you needed to create jobs, knowing the only one who can do this is government (that which is vilified by corporations). There is really no "trickle down" as Reagan and Bush's economists first thought. Warren Buffett and BIll Gates said they didn't believe in the tax cuts and trickle down does not work.
Saying our economy is growing because the stock market is healthy has nothing to do with managing the Recession because no one can take advantage of the stock market gains except for the wealthy (who own stocks). The vast majority of the country does not make its living through the stock market. They need jobs. Which are no longer here.
What we have witnessed is the total dismantling of government, the impoverishing of its people, and the devastation of the planet, through class warfare waged by corporate elite.
hainc on February 8, 2011 @ 12:15 pm wrote: “Much of the cash sitting on corporations balance sheets is at banks who are still contending with billions of dollars worth of worthless loans sitting on their books at the original value. Reserve and capital requirements do not allow them to do anything but sit on this cash. A large portion of the balance of corporate cash is in foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Repatriating that cash will require a large tax to be paid, making it considerably less attractive. Instead their only option is to invest that cash abroad which is of no value to US workers.”
I’d be curious to see some evidence to back up those statements, but here are two reasons they are irrelevant:
1) Reserve and capital requirements do not explain why the corporations (whose money it is) aren’t investing their money in new production and employment. Are you suggesting the banks are refusing to turn over those funds so as to make up for their “worthless loans”? I believe that’s called embezzlement! (And if not, then why bother mentioning the bank's "worthless loans"?)
2) Gee, why is all that money in the foreign subsidiaries? Could it be due to transferring jobs off-shore, or other corporate dodges? And just how is transferring money back to the U.S. a taxable event?
P.S. - These are not rhetorical questions. I’d really like an answer.
The Democrats are weak because they are drawing money from many of the same corporations as the Republicans. They have no lions to champion the common man. They've been assimilated. The Republicans are nothing more than puppets for the corporation. The Republicans said their priority was to give tax cuts to the rich, the second priority was to lower the deficit by cutting out government. It's nothing more than words from the corporation that has purchased its think tanks, its media, and its politicians.
And the Supreme Court, disgracefully, is now within the corporation's circle of influence. This institution that has traditionally been our most respected just acceded to the power of money by voting to allow unlimited corporate money to enter elections. Checkmate.
The Chamber of Commerce. It's just a dignified sounding phrase which otherwise means 'club for the rich.'
A solid plan for Obama would be to end NAFTA and bring the jobs back home. Then perhaps he could pull the military out of these oil safaris and create some of the home industry to hire these vets many of whom otherwise have been filing for unemployment, suffering home foreclosure, and ending their own lives.
President Franklin Roosevelt was a heroic champion of the people. Barak Obama by comparison is either too frightened of going up against the money, or is too much in bed with it. It's not enough that he is a black man in office--that's all very pc, and superficial, especially at a time when one in nine black men are spending time in prison--when President Obama are you going to cast your lot for the working man!?!
Finally, Diane, the discussion today would probably have been more meaningful if you had on board this commenter Etaoin Shrdlu. Some of these guests are just talking-point monkeys from Camp Propaganda.
A market-based bankruptcy would have been considerably more equitable than the heavy-handed gov bailout that protected unionized workers above all. In market-based bankruptcies, oldco bondholders typically become the newco stockholders. The gov gave a handout to the unions on these two; quid pro quo all over it.
How ignorant of the global economy can you be: 60% of economic activity takes place outside the US. It takes a hugely slanted myopic view to ignore the fact that there are billions of consumers outside the US. US companies sell to these consumers and generate profits from these consumers. Outsourcing expenses does nothing for relocating of profits if the sales are still generated in the US.
All of your comments betray a lack of comprehension of simple economic facts, at best, but, at worst, perhaps you implicitly understand that these facts are inconvenient for your slanted narrative.
To John Doe, writing on
February 9, 2011 @ 12:08 am:
Thanks for the compliment. But don't assume I know what I'm talking about!
;-)
hainc on February 9, 2011 @ 8:37 am wrote: “your slanted narrative”
PART ONE
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! When it comes to a “slanted narrative”, sir you are the expert.
In case you’ve forgotten, your original complaint about the GM “bailout” (February 8, 2011 @ 9:48 am) was that it wiped out the stockholders and bond-holders (along with a little superfluous “union bashing”). I pointed out that the alternative (Bankruptcy) would do exactly the same thing (February 8, 2011 @ 10:07 pm), which sort of undercuts (some would say “demolishes”) your argument.
Your response: better everyone lose their jobs! Yeah, I can see how throwing millions of people out of work would really benefit the economy. And let’s not forget the “domino effect” of all GM suppliers and dealers who would also be out of business. That would certainly have improved things. You are repeating the cry of President Hoover’s Treasury Secretary: “liquidate capital, liquidate labor, liquidate everything”. I’m sure you remember how well that worked out.
“In market-based bankruptcies, oldco bondholders typically become the newco stockholders.”
Only in Chapter 11 reorganization Bankruptcy (not always even then), and they usually end up minority shareholders (which is what actually happened). But it looked like GM was headed for Chapter 7 - liquidation, until the government intervened. So your argument doesn’t work. And, again, it ignores all the other adverse economic factors such Bankruptcy would produce.
By the way, there's nothing "market based" about Bankruptcy. It's a government run legal proceeding, where the judge has the power to "cram down" a reorganization plan.
As I said, you are so busy “union bashing” that you ignore reality.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“. . . there are billions of consumers outside the US. US companies sell to these consumers and generate profits from these consumers.”
I am well aware of the economic realities of the world, such as the fact that the U.S. has been running a trade deficit for decades. I only wish we were selling more overseas. But what, pray tell, does that have to do with your claim (on February 8, 2011 @ 12:15 pm) that “A large portion of the balance of corporate cash is in foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Repatriating that cash will require a large tax to be paid, making it considerably less attractive.”? The cash is overseas because the jobs were sent overseas. How does bringing the cash (and the jobs) “home” create a taxable event, thus requiring “a large tax to be paid”?
If your statement this time is that “Outsourcing expenses does nothing for relocating of profits if the sales are still generated in the US”, then you are making absolutely no sense. If the sales are “still generated in the US”, then the cash would be in the U.S. - my point exactly. But, by having the work done overseas, the sales are generated overseas, which is why the cash (and the jobs) are overseas.
And let’s not forget U.S. tax policy encourages such outsourcing by providing tax incentives for doing so. Now, there’s an example of government economic meddling I can agree to eliminate. But, of course, the Republi-Cons would scream I’m trying to raise taxes.
Sorry, sir, but your own words fit you far better than me: “All of your comments betray a lack of comprehension of simple economic facts, at best, but, at worst, perhaps you implicitly understand that these facts are inconvenient for your slanted narrative.”
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
P.S. - I note you still haven’t really answered my two previous questions (February 8, 2011 @ 11:33 pm), especially the first one.
P.P.S. - Just to be clear, I’m not crazy about the “bailout” either. For one thing, I’m of the view that any company “too big to fail” is therefore too big to exist. One of the prices I would have exacted for this is strict enforcement of the Anti-Trust laws, and the breakup of GM and Chrysler (and all those banks that got money too).