Salon | Newsreal: The Reich stuff?

T H E
C L I N T O N
C R I S I S

T A B L E+T A L K
Nicole Bobek, Ekaterina Gordeeva, Rocky Marvel: Who's the sexiest skater? All nominations welcome in Salon's Olympic Village

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Anywhere but Ealing, even Baghdad!

R E C E N T L Y
The horny dilemma
By Fred Branfman
Former Gary Hart aide speaks up for sexually satisfied presidents
(02/10/98)
Germ war games
By Jeff Stein
If the U.S, finds itself back in the desert against Iraq, get out your gas masks
(02/09/98)
The lady is not a tramp
By Jenn Shreve
The lurid coverage of Monica Lewinsky's sex life tells us more about aging geezers in the press corps than it does about a young white house intern
(02/06/98)
The roots of the Clinton smear
By Gene Lyons
How Gennifer Flowers and other fast buck artists spawned the Clinton smear
(02/05/98)
Men in black (robes)
By Bruce Shapiro
Looking for an anti-Clinton arch-conspirator? Try the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
(02/04/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

THE REICH STUFF? | PAGE 2 OF 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You have said that four years in the cabinet was enough and that you're quite happy to be out of the politics business. But don't you have some regrets at not being in the government at a time when there appears, at long last, to be some money to spend?
No. The necessity -- or the assumed necessity -- of balancing the budget still has public policy in a straitjacket. President Clinton's programs might look like a lot of new spending, but $100 billion, out of a $1.7 trillion budget, is rather small relative to the challenges facing the country right now: Over 41 million people without health insurance, far more than were without it in 1992; over 20 percent of our children in poverty; the median wage, adjusted for inflation, below where it was in 1989; a growing gap between rich and poor; and so on.
What would you do, if you were the president?
I would have gone considerably further than the president did in expanding health care and child care, also expanding the earned income tax credit. There is no reason that a full-time worker, in this country, should be in poverty today. That is inexcusable.
We have almost full employment and a higher minimum wage. So how can this be happening?
Job change, and the fact that most people who leave a job today, involuntarily, have to take a new job that pays less.
How could the situation be alleviated?
I would come up with a different kind of unemployment insurance system than we have now. Call it re-employment insurance, which would pay the difference between the higher wage in the old job and the newer, lower wage -- maybe half the difference -- for perhaps six months or a year. It would ease some of the transition pains that people endure.
There are other possibilities. Take, for example, the notion of a grubstake. Perhaps a young person from a family below the median income ought to get a $25,000 grubstake, as an incentive to finish high school, to encourage that person to go into higher education or to put the money into stocks and bonds, creating a new class of capitalist. Society in fact spends about $25,000 per child who goes on to college. But we spend virtually nothing on a child who does not go on to college. We ought to rectify that imbalance.
How do you pay for this grubstake?
Let me get way out on a limb -- I am already out on a limb, so why not go out further -- what about a wealth tax? Wealth is becoming extraordinarily concentrated in this country. Federal Reserve data for 1995 shows much greater concentration of wealth than in 1993, or in 1989. A wealth tax is certainly something that ought to be on the table.
But how realistic is it?
Very little that I have said may be considered "politically realistic," if by that you mean could we get it enacted this year or next year. But is it politically realistic in a different sense? Is it worth putting down some markers for the future, for a progressive movement over the next five or 10 years? It is possible, were there to be such a progressive movement, that these things could actually be achieved? Yes.
What would it take for such a movement to emerge?
Very good question. I am afraid that the first prerequisite -- and I am certainly not recommending this, nor am I in favor of it -- would be an economic slow-down. A slow-down which revealed to everyone the hardships that lie just below the surface of this otherwise seemingly tranquil and wonderful economy. Consumer confidence is very high right now, in part because everyone has been told how wonderful the economy is. But interestingly, in the December survey of consumer confidence, only about 28 percent of the respondents felt that they were likely to get a raise. Most people understand that they will be lucky enough to keep their job. Consumer debt is now 90 percent of disposable income, a record high. Bankruptcy is also at a record high. In other words, underneath the surface of this wonderful economy lies a lot of insecurity. I am not desirous of more insecurity. I don't want people to have to grapple with even more economic pains than they are already grappling with. But I do expect that a progressive movement would at least require more direct recognition on the part of most people.
And will make them fonder again of "big government"?
The fact that Americans don't like -- never have -- government is not the real issue here. We will inevitably face hard choices as a society -- particularly as the gap widens between the have-mores and the have-lesses -- about whether to try to stop globalization and technological change, and put restrictions on capital, or to become a more open society. The fact that the president lost the "fast track" debate suggests to me that we may be in the early stages of choosing the wrong road, toward a closed system. That's because so many people feel insecure. If fast track went down to defeat when the economy is as buoyant as it is today, what will happen when the economy slows?
Aren't people naturally afraid of change, particularly when you talk in terms of "information economy," which many people -- including me -- don't really understand?
I think the insecurity comes less from nomenclature than from the practical experience that people have had in losing a job, then getting a new one that pays less. And that's particularly true for people who lack college degrees. This downward mobility is a continuous fear. Many economists are scratching their heads, wondering why we could have such a low rate of unemployment and yet not have much in the way of wage inflation. The answer, put simply, is that so many Americans are afraid of losing their jobs. They know how easily they can be replaced by technology, or by low-wage labor elsewhere around the world. They are willing to forgo health benefits, pension benefits, or even settle for lower wages, in return for maintaining their job.
And they are not saving. The latest savings figures are the lowest in decades. Yet all you read about in the business pages is that Americans are pouring billions into mutual funds -- and the stock market keeps going up.
Again, we have the emergence of two separate economies. If you are in the top 20 percent, you are crazy about mutual funds, you are deep into the stock market, you talk about little else with your friends. But most people are not there. Most Americans have no net assets at all, apart from their automobile.
SALON | Feb. 11, 1998

T H E C L I N T O N C R I S I S T A B L E+T A L K Nicole Bobek, Ekaterina Gordeeva, Rocky Marvel: Who's the sexiest skater? All nominations welcome in Salon's Olympic Village D A I L Y+Q U O T E Anywhere but Ealing, even Baghdad! R E C E N T L Y The horny dilemma By Fred Branfman Former Gary Hart aide speaks up for sexually satisfied presidents (02/10/98) Germ war games By Jeff Stein If the U.S, finds itself back in the desert against Iraq, get out your gas masks (02/09/98) The lady is not a tramp By Jenn Shreve The lurid coverage of Monica Lewinsky's sex life tells us more about aging geezers in the press corps than it does about a young white house intern (02/06/98) The roots of the Clinton smear By Gene Lyons How Gennifer Flowers and other fast buck artists spawned the Clinton smear (02/05/98) Men in black (robes) By Bruce Shapiro Looking for an anti-Clinton arch-conspirator? Try the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (02/04/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		THE REICH STUFF? \| PAGE 2 OF 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You have said that four years in the cabinet was enough and that you're quite happy to be out of the politics business. But don't you have some regrets at not being in the government at a time when there appears, at long last, to be some money to spend? No. The necessity -- or the assumed necessity -- of balancing the budget still has public policy in a straitjacket. President Clinton's programs might look like a lot of new spending, but $100 billion, out of a $1.7 trillion budget, is rather small relative to the challenges facing the country right now: Over 41 million people without health insurance, far more than were without it in 1992; over 20 percent of our children in poverty; the median wage, adjusted for inflation, below where it was in 1989; a growing gap between rich and poor; and so on. What would you do, if you were the president? I would have gone considerably further than the president did in expanding health care and child care, also expanding the earned income tax credit. There is no reason that a full-time worker, in this country, should be in poverty today. That is inexcusable. We have almost full employment and a higher minimum wage. So how can this be happening? Job change, and the fact that most people who leave a job today, involuntarily, have to take a new job that pays less. How could the situation be alleviated? I would come up with a different kind of unemployment insurance system than we have now. Call it re-employment insurance, which would pay the difference between the higher wage in the old job and the newer, lower wage -- maybe half the difference -- for perhaps six months or a year. It would ease some of the transition pains that people endure. There are other possibilities. Take, for example, the notion of a grubstake. Perhaps a young person from a family below the median income ought to get a $25,000 grubstake, as an incentive to finish high school, to encourage that person to go into higher education or to put the money into stocks and bonds, creating a new class of capitalist. Society in fact spends about $25,000 per child who goes on to college. But we spend virtually nothing on a child who does not go on to college. We ought to rectify that imbalance. How do you pay for this grubstake? Let me get way out on a limb -- I am already out on a limb, so why not go out further -- what about a wealth tax? Wealth is becoming extraordinarily concentrated in this country. Federal Reserve data for 1995 shows much greater concentration of wealth than in 1993, or in 1989. A wealth tax is certainly something that ought to be on the table. But how realistic is it? Very little that I have said may be considered "politically realistic," if by that you mean could we get it enacted this year or next year. But is it politically realistic in a different sense? Is it worth putting down some markers for the future, for a progressive movement over the next five or 10 years? It is possible, were there to be such a progressive movement, that these things could actually be achieved? Yes. What would it take for such a movement to emerge? Very good question. I am afraid that the first prerequisite -- and I am certainly not recommending this, nor am I in favor of it -- would be an economic slow-down. A slow-down which revealed to everyone the hardships that lie just below the surface of this otherwise seemingly tranquil and wonderful economy. Consumer confidence is very high right now, in part because everyone has been told how wonderful the economy is. But interestingly, in the December survey of consumer confidence, only about 28 percent of the respondents felt that they were likely to get a raise. Most people understand that they will be lucky enough to keep their job. Consumer debt is now 90 percent of disposable income, a record high. Bankruptcy is also at a record high. In other words, underneath the surface of this wonderful economy lies a lot of insecurity. I am not desirous of more insecurity. I don't want people to have to grapple with even more economic pains than they are already grappling with. But I do expect that a progressive movement would at least require more direct recognition on the part of most people. And will make them fonder again of "big government"? The fact that Americans don't like -- never have -- government is not the real issue here. We will inevitably face hard choices as a society -- particularly as the gap widens between the have-mores and the have-lesses -- about whether to try to stop globalization and technological change, and put restrictions on capital, or to become a more open society. The fact that the president lost the "fast track" debate suggests to me that we may be in the early stages of choosing the wrong road, toward a closed system. That's because so many people feel insecure. If fast track went down to defeat when the economy is as buoyant as it is today, what will happen when the economy slows? Aren't people naturally afraid of change, particularly when you talk in terms of "information economy," which many people -- including me -- don't really understand? I think the insecurity comes less from nomenclature than from the practical experience that people have had in losing a job, then getting a new one that pays less. And that's particularly true for people who lack college degrees. This downward mobility is a continuous fear. Many economists are scratching their heads, wondering why we could have such a low rate of unemployment and yet not have much in the way of wage inflation. The answer, put simply, is that so many Americans are afraid of losing their jobs. They know how easily they can be replaced by technology, or by low-wage labor elsewhere around the world. They are willing to forgo health benefits, pension benefits, or even settle for lower wages, in return for maintaining their job. And they are not saving. The latest savings figures are the lowest in decades. Yet all you read about in the business pages is that Americans are pouring billions into mutual funds -- and the stock market keeps going up. Again, we have the emergence of two separate economies. If you are in the top 20 percent, you are crazy about mutual funds, you are deep into the stock market, you talk about little else with your friends. But most people are not there. Most Americans have no net assets at all, apart from their automobile. SALON \| Feb. 11, 1998