"However much we might like to see Senator Obama openly embrace a progressive economic agenda, that is not going to happen because of the current political realities".

Reality is what it is. Thus, Senator Obama has to endorse the traditional line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict last week and now we find that politics prevent him from embracing a progressive economic agenda this week.

As a former Hillary supporter I am beginning to feel more and more vindicated; she was not the only politician in the race at the end. And, of course, as I've consistently stated around these here parts, I won't hold Senator Obama's status as a garden-variety politician against him. Like any Democrat who ran this year, Obama is still better than John McCain. It is no contest. But so far that's where I draw the line and there isn't anything special or new about that.

Actually, it seems like the title of this piece should have been, "Why Obama was Right Not To Pick Me, Even Though I'm a Better Economist".

Dean Baker, you never said if you have decided to join.

I would not bemoan Rubin's leadership yet. Jared Bernstein and Jamie Galbraith are no cheese cakes and perhaps Rubin's influence can be ameliorated by the presence of such progressives. Perhaps the progressives will play at being Achilles and Ajax to Rubin's Odysseus (or vice versa) as they ride this Trojan horse (Trojan bunny?) into the White House and Wall Street.

Have hope.

As a former Hillary supporter I am beginning to feel more and more vindicated

Made me lol. Seriously, i understand and take the meat of this article very seriously and i think it's a good, if not succinct explanation in regards that we still have a tough road ahead as American's to implement newer, more progressive economic standards irrespective of how liberal the next president may be. But to hear a Clinton supporter trumpet the fact that she would make the economy more progressive... you're fucking high.

It was the Social Security issue that worried me about Obama from the beginning. And odd comments about Democrats needing to show their faith. That said, he'll get my vote in the fall because we can't have McCain but I'm glad to finally read a calm voice about Obama on this site. The hysteria was frankly a little scary. I keep hoping that Edwards, who truly has my heart, will be able to influence him. I don't know. It's also why I'm hoping a lot of true progressives get elected to the House and Senate who don't cower and yield to whoever gets into the White House.

I am sorry, but Clinton has a track record on economic issues and it's certainly not progressive. Oh sure, she appealed to working class voters, but the fact that they voted for her does not mean (and nor do I believe) that she has totally reinvented herself and what she believes in in the last 8 years. It certainly was not evidenced by anything she did in the Senate.

In standard economic theory, big budget deficits lead to a high value for the currency. I'm sorry, that's true no matter how much you might like Bill Clinton.

Posted by Dean Baker
April 11, 2008 7:39 PM
link

Dean still needs to explain why 'standard economic theory' doesn't seem to apply to either the high dollar of the Clinton years, or the high deficit/low dollar of the Bush years. When are the deficits going to cause a strong dollar Dean?

Mr. Baker has also to my knowledge not blamed the Bush administration for any responsibility for the current economic downturn-this is 'progressive' economics?

The Recession: It's the Housing Bubble, Not the War

It's been well known all along that Obama is a Wall Street guy, so Baker's disappointment is the result of self delusion. But then, he hasn't wised up a lick since he was a grad student at Michigan some 20 years ago.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the program can pay all scheduled benefits for nearly 40 years with no changes whatsoever.

Well, no changes in a limited context.

What will change well before then is this:  There will no longer be a Social Security surplus for Congress to borrow (read: steal) for general revenue.  In fact, the money already borrowed from the SS surplus will have to be paid back.

Cynics (realists?) shake their heads and think, "This will never happen."

Will it?  There certainly is reason for skepticism.

The main complaints here seem to be about two issues: Social Security and free trade.

On Social Security, it's strange to criticize Jason Furman: he was an indispensable defender of the program against Bush's privatization scheme, and he is firmly on record supporting large improvements to our social welfare system. Admittedly, he's not a slavish defender of the pure, unmodified status quo, but some level of open-mindedness hardly qualifies as an anti-progressive weakness.

I'm even more skeptical of the critique on free trade. Why, exactly, does supporting free trade agreements indicate a lack of progressivism? You offer some discussion about "selective protectionism," but that isn't a reason to oppose existing agreements. I agree that a more open immigration policy, which would leave highly-paid professionals more vulnerable than they currently are and reduce inequality, is probably a good idea. The existence of a superior and more comprehensive alternative, however, says nothing about whether we should support a lesser proposal, assuming that the superior alternative isn't currently on the table.

To make a real, progressive case against free trade, you have to present convincing evidence that it is hurting lower-income Americans. And frankly, I haven't seen you, Jared Bernstein, or any of the self-declared "more progressive than thou" policy entrepreneurs muster a rigorous analytical case. (If you think you have, please tell me where!) It's possible that trade's influence has been regressive; it's equally possible that trade has hurt a specific set of middle-class manufacturing workers while helping almost everybody else, especially low-income Americans who benefit from cheaper prices.

Jason Furman has made data-driven arguments to support counterintuitive, but still progressive, conclusions: for instance, that Wal-Mart has been a boon to millions of lower-income Americans. You're free to criticize his argument on the merits, but unless you can come up with a convincing analytic rejoinder, it doesn't make him in any sense less "progressive" than you are. It merely means that you have different opinions about what policies best serve progressive goals. And I think he's mostly right...

I don't know. I expect *this* selection to backfire on Obama due to Furman's intimate connection with Robert Rubin. Maybe this news hasn't reached the upper echelons of Street hubris yet, but Rubin's name is mud with the hoi polloi in the voting public. Who in the middle class isn't unfortunate enough to own a little piece of a much depleted Citibank?

Hell, even CNBC's Joe Kernan always has some crack about Robert Rubin every single time his name comes up. Maybe Obama thinks he needs to throw off neo-liberal smoke signals, but it seems to me he's going to have a hard time finding anyone whose credibility hasn't tanked as much as Citibank is going to.

We're entering another leg down, people. I don't know about ya'll, but I'm getting pretty tired of seeing my 401K plan get thug-whacked by the likes of Robert Rubin, et al.

I know it will be no fun for Obama once he fully realizes that his entire campaign is going to involve endless rounds of taking out the garbage, but it needs to get done.

Frankly, nothing less than our international reputation in finance depends on it. Certainly, the European banks have just signalled that they are not going to start lowering rates to keep markets inflated just because the Street decided it had carte blanche to screw up on everyone else's dime.

I think it's and open and shut case. Too bad Obama is still out to lunch.

Because Obama was largely a blank slate, many progressives projected their own views onto him, assumed that "because he's the insurgent, he must also share all my progressive views." This despite ample evidence from his statements during the primaries that on many issues he was no different from, or less liberal than, Clinton. He's certainly liberal enough, but he's no revolutionary. He's insurgent because his personal ambition was unwilling to wait in line for his turn (like many other successful politicians).

Astute political observers know that who a candidate picks to advise him is the most telling thing about the policies he will embrace. It's the GE now, so watch Obama run hard to the center, where his heart and mind actually reside. He's got my vote all the way; my concern is that his disillusioned worshipers will actually be the ones who stay home on election day—if not this time, then in '12 after he is elected and fails to produce.

Rubin wasn't responsible for Sandy Weill. Maybe he should have objected to Chuck Prince, but on what grounds ?

These CEO's all play the same apres moi le deluge game ( or in Prince's case, the stay-at-the- dance game). The ones actually in charge when the rains come or the music stops are scorned but they're no different from the ones lucky enough to leave early.

Certainly Rubin is emblematic of capitalism but I'm not sure he's emblematic of the particular Milton-Friedmanite unregulated capitalism that ( I think) produced the sub prime fiasco, and the last 11 preceding ones.

I do agree he was over praised before so it's fair enough for him to be over criticized now.