An alternative plan to the potential Republican plan for solving the crisis, as discussed in my Diary Entry "SOLVING THE CRISES OF THE UNINSURED," is of course to repeal the trillion dollar tax break and work out some kind of subsidized insurance for these poor people.

Last night I attended a showing of the Motherhood Manifesto documentary. This documentary highlights the work of MomsRising.org, a growing movement with over 50,000 members - and particularly their effort to end employment discrimination against mothers.

I'm all for ending that discrimination - my own mother was denied a job because she was asked a question to determine whether she had daughters or sons (one of the benefits the employer offered would have been considerably more expensive for daughters). Yet I was left with a subtle feeling of increased anomie after the show. 24 hours of thinky thoughts later, I think I know the source of my discomfort, and I also have a new outlook on business and labor law.

John Edwards and Bernie Sanders are about the only politicians discussing it, but what could be the hottest issue in this election is the death of the middle class caused by the "flat-earthers."  So-called "conservatives" and "flat world" globalists have bankrupted our nation's middle class for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America. Through a combination of the "Fast Track" authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving "most favored nation status" for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we've abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years.

Over the past century, total world production has increased an incredible twenty-fold, placing increased pressure on the ecology of our planet. Everywhere we look -- in the atmosphere, oceans, watersheds, forests, and the soil -- it is now clear that rapid ecological decline is setting in and threatens to extinguish all economic activity if something is not done soon.

This fact, however, seems to be completely lost on Wall Street analyses and the federal government who assure us that continual economic growth will lead to prosperity for all and a cleaner environment.

A curious thing happened in July. The New York Times reported, "The trade improvement in July was driven by a $2.4 billion increase in exports, to $120.7 billion, because of rising exports of computer parts, airplane parts and other types of capital equipment and industrial supplies."

An increase in the minimum wage is once again hovering around the Congressional docket, as Democrats try to wedge it into various bills while Republicans try to sink it.

And once again, as reliable as clockwork, defenders and opponents are snapping into action, dusting off briefs and arguments, updating the analysis for inflation and generally doing the same dance we always do (I'm a defender).

There's got to be a better way.

Facts matter, so I'm not for a second saying that progressives should ignore the superior research, summarized below, that supports an increase. But I think we should also fight this one on basic fairness. It's simply shameful, in an era of sharply increasing economic inequality, for Congress to incessantly cut rich people's taxes yet refuse to help low-wage workers.

This past week, much to everyone's surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.

This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don't want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it's ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people's taxes but deny the working poor a boost.

Well, I say: "Not so fast, guys.  Let's chat about this for a few minutes."

Not let me get this straight.  Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains.  When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire's tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20.  Sorry, that's not a typo.  It's what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.

Wait a second, where you going?  I'm not done.  Set a spell...

The recent failure in the Senate to repeal the estate tax stands as a rare victory for sane fiscal policy.  The NYT editorialized about the event under the heading "What Passes for Good News."

In fact, the Senate vote came alarming close to ending a tax on inheritances of the richest half-a-percent of households, with a majority of Senators (57--but they needed 60 for a repeal) supporting a measure which would have cost the treasury $800 billion over 10 years at a time of ballooning budget deficits and war.

Of course, the politics of the repeal were the focus of most analyses--would the White House be adhered to or get rebuffed on an issue dear to them--but the economics of the tax cut are deeply revealing of the fundamental flaw of economic policy today.

And that flaw is this: we have, over the past three decades, shifted from we're-in-this-together (WITT) economics to you're-on-your-own (YOYO) economics.

With their focus solidly on the gay marriage amendment and estate tax repeal, the conservative movement is busy rearranging deck chairs on...well, not quite the Titanic, but on a rotting ship of state.

Here's a test: name one economic policy, other than tax cuts, associated with outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow.

Give up?

Now think about this: what is the economic policy of the Bush administration? What about the Congress? What about the Democrats?

The diary below was originally posted earlier today in the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

The conservative shift in American politics undermined the economic security of working people. Increasingly, individuals are absorbing more risks, working longer hours and earning less. Meanwhile, corporations and government benefit from less accountability to tax payers, consumers and employees. Renowned economist Jared Bernstein proposes in his new book, All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy, (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.) that we're ensnared in a "YOYO economy". The acronym YOYO means, "You're On Your Own." Bernstein's book illustrates how the "YOYOists" have schemed to transfer the burden of economic risk onto individuals and their families.

As with most economic issues of national and global significance, their percussive consequences are rarely felt in most people's pockets until months or even years after an event has unfolded. Often, the possibility of such negative personal effects are denied or rationalized until all is lost and past inaction is regretted.

Such is the case with the hotly debated U.S. real estate 'bubble'. Does it exist or does it not?

Should we care?

Those who care will be determined by each person's respective positions in the market as well as his or her associated [in]tolerance level for market volatility.

That said, there would be some elements of the housing boom and bust that clearly affect us all. For example, about 25% of all jobs created since 2001 have been either the direct or indirect result of the housing boom. These include jobs in construction, real estate and mortgage finance.

What happens to these jobs if the boom goes bust?

Also affecting everybody is the potential for an overwhelming loss of national wealth. Though for many, the rather ambiguous concept of 'home equity' sits only peripherally on their household balance sheet, it generally accounts for the majority of a family's total wealth.

A significant reduction in this asset would inevitably inhibit a family's propensity to spend their disposable income as freely as they had in the past. This is true regardless of whether or not the homeowner had considered 'cashing in' on their property's inflated value. This negative effect would likely be augmented for those hoping to realize their home's equity either through a home equity loan or through selling the property.

Raybin's FPed MLW post says: In a nutshell, the Bush economy has created 4.5 million jobs.

What that figure it doesn't take into account is the increase in the population and hence the increase in employment-ready population. When we do that, there was an effective job loss during the 5+ years under the current administration.

I distinctly recall the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign claiming that a "reelected" Bush Administration was the only thing standing between America and another 9/11. Only the Bush Crew could protect America and keep the country secure.

Unfortunately, the Bushites have been so preoccupied with the War on Iraq and the highly-selective War on Terror that they've turned a collectively-blind eye to keeping economic versions of 747-style missiles from ramming into the U.S. economy.

Business Week is not known for being particularly liberal.  Their polls usually aren't freeped; they fly below the radar most of the time.  So the responses to several of Business Week's recent polls, while not scientific, are instructive.

1.47.4% say they will spend less this Christmas.  Another way to look at it 48.2% say they will spend about the same or more.
2.61.75 think Bush's economic policies are on the wrong track.
3.57.5% do not intend to buy the Xbox 360, yet Ars Technica says there are shortages.

In other polls:
4.A plurality think the US will pull out most Troops from Iraq within two years.
5.69.4% think Congress should pressure Bush for for concrete steps toward U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.