Rosy Scenario

Question: Did the military budget torpedo any chance that Obama's dubious "stimulus package" might have had in aiding an economic recovery?

Is Rosy Scenario really back in town after the nation was promised open and honest government by Barack Obama?


Economists question budget's economic assumptions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_economy

AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger,

In unveiling his budget, President Barack Obama pledged to bring "honesty and fairness" back to the budget process by getting rid of the gimmicks past administrations had used to hide the real costs of government programs and proposed tax cuts.

But many economists who examined the economic assumptions that undergird the spending plan believe that Obama may have resorted to one of the oldest gimmicks around — relying on overly optimistic economic assumptions to make it look like you are dealing with soaring budget deficits when in reality you are only closing the gap on paper.

"They used to joke during the Reagan years that the highest-ranking woman in the administration was Rosy Scenario," said Nariman Behravesh, the chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a major private forecasting firm.

Rosy may be back in town, said Behravesh, who called the Obama administration's forecasts "way too optimistic."

For its part, the administration insisted that it hadn't cooked the books to show greater growth, and thus more tax revenues, in coming years. But the administration forecast is far higher than the projections for growth in the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, of many private analysts.

On Friday the government said the economy shrunk by a staggering 6.2 percent in the final quarter of last year, much faster than its earlier GDP estimates. And with layoffs piling up and spending drying up, economists expect rough months ahead.

GDP plays the biggest role in determining the accuracy of deficit forecasts because weaker-than-expected growth swells government payments for such things as unemployment benefits and food stamps and reduces tax receipts.

In its budget, the administration predicted that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will shrink by 1.2 percent this year but will grow by a solid 3.2 percent in 2010. That growth would be followed by even stronger increases of 4 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.

By contrast, the consensus of forecasters surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators in February predicted that the GDP will fall by a larger 1.9 percent this year and then increase at weaker rates of 2.1 percent in 2010, 2.9 percent in 2011 and 2012 and 2.8 percent in 2013.

Many private analysts believe that the current recession and rebound will be more U-shaped than V-shaped.

"When a country is griped by a financial crisis, the ensuing downturn often lasts much longer than normal," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at the Martin Smith School of Business at California State University. "I think this downturn is gong to last longer and the rebound will be fairly anemic."

Christina Romer, the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, defended the administration's stronger GDP forecast, contending that in previous severe recessions, the pattern often showed a stronger rebound once the downturn was over. She cited the Great Depression as one such episode when the economy rebounded by strong rates after years of sizable declines.

Romer also suggested that many private forecasters may not be adequately taking account of the size of the government support that has been put forward, including the recently passed $787 billion economic stimulus bill.

"If there is ever a time when we think policy is going to contribute ... now is the time," she told reporters at a budget briefing on Thursday.

But Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said he believed the extent of the downturn will be more severe than the administration's forecast for this year and that this will prompt even larger policy responses on the part of the government, including increased help for homeowners facing foreclosure and another stimulus from Congress a year from now.

The administration's budget projects that the downturn will result in a 13.4 percent drop in government receipts this year, one of the contributing factors to the administration's forecast that the deficit will hit an all-time high of $1.75 trillion.

For 2010, when the administration is forecasting the deficit will decline to $1.17 trillion, the administration is forecasting that the rebounding economy will boost revenues by 8.9 percent. Based on the stronger growth, the administration is forecasting steadily declining deficits in coming years with the deficit dropping to $912 billion in 2011, $581 billion in 2012 and $533 billion in 2013.

Soros sees no bottom for world financial "collapse"

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51K0A920090221


Soros sees no bottom for world financial "collapse"

Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:19pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.

Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.

He said the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September marked a turning point in the functioning of the market system.

"We witnessed the collapse of the financial system," Soros said at a Columbia University dinner. "It was placed on life support, and it's still on life support. There's no sign that we are anywhere near a bottom."

His comments echoed those made earlier at the same conference by Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who is now a top adviser to President Barack Obama.

Volcker said industrial production around the world was declining even more rapidly than in the United States, which is itself under severe strain.

"I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world," Volcker said.

(Reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa and Juan Lagorio; Editing by Gary Hill)

Economy Strains Under Weight of Unsold Items

If I am not mistaken, the Washington Post used to call this kind of thinking "Marxism" before they proclaimed Marxism dead... a couple times dead over the years.

I searched hard, to no avail, for the use of the word d-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n in this article but couldn't find it... but, the description of what Karl Marx and Frederick Engels called a capitalist economic depression is classic and unmistakable.

Of course, like all the other articles we are reading; there is no mention of what happens under these circumstances when a president brings forward an economic policy of guns and butter which on the one hand contains an "economic stimulus package" loaded with pork in the form of corporate profits while on the other hand pumping the same amount of tax-payer money into militarization and wars while having previously turned over, again, the same amount of money to bail out Wall Street Banks.

Two-trillion two-hundred fifty billion dollars ($2,250,000,000,000.00)forked over to the military-financial-industrial complex without any accountability or oversight and still counting, and no one wants to venture a guess of where this country is headed?

Capitalism is obviously on the skids to oblivion putting the entire planet on the road to perdition.

Some people are hard at work trying to find solutions to this economic mess and looking everyplace except towards socialism as the solution.

The capitalist sooth-Sayers are hard at work trying to give this all the best face they can as the Wall Street coupon clippers stuff their pockets.

If we aren't all socialists now as Newsweek boldly proclaimed... we better study up on Marxism and the socialist alternative to capitalism because the road to perdition as this baby goes down might not be all that long, and where the road to perdition ends just might not be where we want to go.

No doubt this UAW trustee/committeeman pictured in the Washington Post article was busy making phone calls to turn out votes for Barack Obama a few months ago... we should all take note of the way Barack Obama has rewarded his most loyal supporters in the UAW.

United Auto Workers union Local 2999 Trustee/Committeeman Richie Franklin, pictured below in this Washington post story, might want to start thinking about how he is going to lead a discussion on Marx' "Capital."

I notice he doesn't seem to be as happy in the Washington Post photograph as he was in this picture with Walter Reuther and Henry Ford:



Think about this:

Two-trillion two-hundred fifty billion dollars ($2,250,000,000,000.00) and "the pump still hasn't been primed."

Lots of pumping going on... but the pump won't hold the prime... too many leaky gaskets.

Barack Obama would be well advised not to even think about a second term... he should probably start thinking about not being too quick to unpack his bags and getting settled into the White House... I hear Bernie Madoff is looking for a partner to run his new office in the Cayman Islands... maybe Ron Gettelfinger and the UAW will be their first investment partners.

Alan L. Maki







Economy Strains Under Weight of Unsold Items

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601391.html

By Annys Shin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, February 17, 2009; A01

The unsold cars and trucks piling up at dealerships and assembly lines as consumers cut back and auto companies scramble for federal aid are just one sign of a major problem hurting the economy and only likely to get worse.

Richie Franklin of the United Auto Workers Local 2999 in Strasburg, Va. The local's plant lost 200 workers as demand for auto parts sags. (By Kevin Clark -- The Washington Post)

The world is suddenly awash in almost everything: flat-panel televisions, bulldozers, Barbie dolls, strip malls, Burberry stores. Japan yesterday said its economy shrank at an 12.7 percent annual pace in the last three months of 2008 as global demand evaporated for Japanese cars and electronics. Business everywhere are scrambling to bring supply in line with demand.

Downsizing can be tricky, though. No one knows how much worse the economy will get, and while everyone waits for the recession to peter out, businesses are grappling with how to cut costs and survive without sabotaging their ability to grow when the economy picks up.

And there is a lot to cut.

"There is over-capacity in everything," from "retail to manufacturing to housing," said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research. "If capacity is too large, you don't need that many people employed, which is another reason we're seeing such high job losses."

As long as capacity far outstrips demand, businesses have little reason to expand, buy new equipment or hire workers. Even if the government funds bridge repairs and banks step up lending, many industries still have to go through massive restructuring before growth can resume. But executives say they have to tread carefully. If they put off critical investments in technology or research for too long, they could hobble their recovery and even the economy's.

Few industries have been as stung as severely by excess capacity as the U.S. auto industry, which produces millions more vehicles than it can sell. In 2008, there were enough automotive assembly plants in North America to churn out 18.3 million vehicles a year, according to the Center for Automotive Research. Analysts estimate that consumers this year will buy about 11 million. At current sales levels, it would take 116 days to sell all the cars and trucks clogging lots.

Automakers are scheduled to submit plans today outlining how they hope to restructure their operations to deal with a smaller marketplace, while still developing the new fuel-efficient cars that may be key to their future.

Auto suppliers are also trying to figure out how to survive in the face of massive excess capacity globally.

At its plant in Strasburg, Va., International Automotive Components, a Michigan-based supplier, secured wage and benefit concessions from workers in 2007 in hopes of staying competitive. But when Ford closed a factory in Norfolk, IAC had to lay off more than 200 workers, a third of the workforce in Strasburg. Since then, IAC has been able to line up more work for the plant.

"The unfortunate thing is we know . . . it comes at the cost of other workers whose plants were unable to survive," said Karen Foster, president of United Auto Workers Local 2999, which represents the IAC employees at the affected plant.

There are echoes of the automakers' plight throughout the economy. Sandra Berg, chief executive of Ellis Paint in Los Angeles, an industrial paint and coating manufacturer, recently found herself confronting over-capacity head on. Her company had been growing steadily since 2000 and was able to hand out bonuses for 2008. The downturn started to affect business toward the end of last year. Then came January, and "we just slammed into a brick wall," Berg said.

Since the new year, as sales have plummeted, Ellis Paint has announced two rounds of layoffs, imposed a hiring freeze and cut pay for management by 5 percent. The company has cut everywhere but sales, marketing, and research and development. "Our goal is to keep our expenses at the level of sales. I don't need to make a lot of money. I just need to break even . . . and look for the opportunities," Berg said.

Non-manufacturing sectors are trying to get rid of excess capacity as well. Retail chains such as Ann Taylor and Gap are closing stores after years of expansion, and others, such as Mervyns, are closing for good. "We've tremendously expanded the square feet of stores but not the number of yuppies occupying them," said Standard & Poor's economist David Wyss.

Some analysts say over-capacity is so rampant that it will stymie government efforts to unfreeze credit markets. Banks have little reason to lend not only because they still have bad debt on their books but also because businesses don't have a pressing need to expand, said Mike Shedlock, an investment analyst with Seattle-based Sitka Pacific who writes the popular blog Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis.

"What is it that we need more of?" Shedlock said. "Do we need more Wal-Marts, more Pizza Huts, more nail salons?"

Strip malls and stores proliferated alongside housing developments, but many of those houses are empty; there were never enough people to fill them in the first place, and there won't be anytime soon.

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser estimates that from 2002 to 2007, the country's housing stock increased by 8.65 million units, outpacing the number of new households, which increased only by 6.7 million over the same period. Taking into account a rise in the number of vacation homes, Glaeser estimates an overhang of about 1.3 million vacant units. Absorbing that excess, he said, could take an additional two years.

Over-capacity in the housing industry has spilled over into countless other peripheral industries -- forcing cuts at chemical companies, home improvement stores and furniture manufacturers. The slump has prompted layoffs at PPG Industries, a leading paint company; Owens Corning, which makes roof shingles; and Therma-Tru, a door-manufacturing company. Therma-Tru recently moved up plans to close its plant in Fredericksburg later this year, citing "weaker-than-expected business forecasts."

Some businesses that were careful to manage inventories during the boom are facing a hard adjustment.

Ben Anderson-Ray, who runs Hubbardton Forge, a small maker of high-end lighting fixtures in Vermont, said he's had to lay off 26 employees after initially cutting hours, even though he expanded the business steadily and his customers aren't stuck with massive quantities of unsold goods.

For now, Anderson-Ray said, he has not scaled back work on new products; he simply cannot afford to do so. As one of the last lighting companies that manufactures its goods in the United States, Hubbardton Forge has survived in part because of its original designs and constant innovation. It cannot compete with overseas producers on price.

"If our order rates improve, we have the capacity in place to come back," Anderson-Ray said. But if order levels fall further over the next few months, he may have to consider further cuts. "We are watching our orders every day," he said.

Some analysts see ending the credit crunch as soon as possible as critical to preventing lasting damage. Harvard economist Diego A. Comin, in his research on Japan's decade-long bout of economic stagnation in the 1990s, found that demand stayed low long enough that businesses didn't make necessary investments. Computer adoption rates, for example, slowed, as did productivity growth. Businesses lost ground to competitors in countries such as South Korea, which made it harder for Japan to emerge from its slump.

Investing in new products and processes matters even more in highly competitive global industries plagued by over-capacity.

"In China, during the boom, there was huge over-capacity in various lines of activity ranging from shoes and clothing, light manufacturing -- all of that stuff. So that is why from the perspective of U.S. companies, we have found it so important to be on the innovative edge," said Harvard business professor Joseph L. Bower. "The only way to create value is to be on the innovative, high-tech, fashion-forward side."

If the credit crunch in the United States persists, "companies will find it difficult to invest in technology for a while, and then once the financial markets are back on track and demand recovers, companies will find themselves in a difficult position," Comin said. "Productivity growth will be declining for a while. They will have a hard time catching up."

Emanuel Wallerstein: The Politics of Economic Disaster

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:50 AM
To: 'immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu'
Cc: 'sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn'; 'artnorth@cpinternet.com'; 'ddepass@startribune.com'; 'Randy Furst'; 'carl.pope@sierraclub.org'; 'carld717@aol.com'; 'peter.makowski@mail.house.gov'; 'rgettel@uaw.net'; 'mzweig@notes.cc.sunysb.edu'
Subject: Re: Wallerstein commentary 251--- The Politics of Eonomic Disaster

Mr. Wallerstein,

I found your commentary #251 here very interesting.

“Economic Disaster;” boy, you sure got that right.

I agree with you that capitalism is in for a long, deep depression which has just barely begun.

However, I disagree with your conclusion that the real struggle to reshape society begins after the storm has blown over… I think the real struggle begins right now in fighting for a way to help working people survive as we struggle to get rid of this entire rotten system.

Hopefully you will give consideration to what it will take to win a “People’s Bailout” which will help people get some kind of work, keep them in their homes and keep families fed.

You seem to tend towards the view of talking about economics in one commentary and the need for peace in other commentaries… perhaps you might want to think about how military spending and aid to Israel could be halted as a means to put this capital to work solving the problems of the working people created by capitalism.

Here in Minnesota, a small group of public officials led by State Senator David Tomassoni have put together a legislative package they call “The People’s Bailout.”

Perhaps you might want to contact Senator Tomassoni to see how you could help win support for his endeavors and convince “Progressives for Obama” of which I see you are a member to mobilize liberal, progressive, left support behind this “People’s Bailout” with the idea of winning over Barack Obama to put forward such a program at the national level.

I am “Cc’ing” this to Senator Tomassoni and below is his contact information… I am sure he would be most interested in hearing from you. Senator Tomassoni represents the area which includes the community college in Virginia, Minnesota located in the heart of the Mesaba Iron Range… it was from Don Johnson, an anthropology instructor at this college, where I was first introduced to your ideas. Maybe some kind of forum or panel discussion (maybe a day-long seminar or something) could be arranged with yours and Senator Tomassoni’s participation at the Mesaba Range Community College in Virginia where the public could come and explore alternatives to the mess we are in:

Senator David Tomassoni
Home: 412 N.W. 2nd St., Chisholm, Minnesota 55719, (218) 254-3430
Minnesota Capitol: 321 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (651) 296-8017
E-mail: sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn

Anyways, I appreciate your commentaries even if I disagree with your support for Barack Obama who appears to me to be more of an Elmer Gantry and flim-flam man than a carrying and considerate person as he is made out to be… it isn’t surprising to me that Bernie Madoff was one of his biggest supporters.

I am also enclosing below a letter I sent to Senator Tomassoni supporting his “People’s Bailout.”

Together with the “Politics of Economics Disaster” comes the “Politics and Economics of Livelihood--- working class politics,” which I believe we need to begin to focus on… the entails “The People’s Bailout.”

Alan L. Maki


-----Original Message-----
From: Commentary Subscribers [mailto:COMMENT@LISTSERV.BINGHAMTON.EDU] On Behalf Of Donna DeVoist
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:09 AM
To: COMMENT@LISTSERV.BINGHAMTON.EDU
Subject: Wallersein commentary 251


Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write . To correspond with us about your e-mail address on the listserv, write . Thank you.

Commentary No. 251, Feb. 15, 2009

"The Politics of Economic Disaster"


Every day, I read another economist, journalist, or government official opining on how best to achieve economic recovery in this country or that. Needless to say, the remedies all contradict each other. But almost all of these pundits seem to me to live in fantasyland. They actually seem to believe their remedies will work in some relatively short period of time.

The fact is that the world is only at the beginning of a depression that will last for quite a while and will get far worse than it is now. The immediate issue for governments is not how to recover but how to survive the growing popular anger they are all, without exception, facing.

Let us start with the economic realities of the present. Just about everybody throughout the world - governments, enterprises, individuals - has been living above their income for the last 10-30 years, and doing it by borrowing. The world went giddy with inflated earnings and inflated consumption. Bubbles have to burst. This one has now burst (or actually several bubbles have burst). The impossibility of continuing on this path has sunk into consciousness, and suddenly everyone has gotten scared that they are running out of real money - governments, enterprises, individuals.

When that fear takes over, people stop spending, or lending. And when spending and lending declines significantly, enterprises stop producing or slow down. They may close down entirely, or at least fire workers. This is a vicious cycle, since closing down or firing workers leads to lower real demand and causes further reluctance to spend or to lend. It's called depression, and deflation.

For the moment, the United States government, which is still in a position to borrow money and print money, intends to throw some new money into circulation. This might work if the government threw an awful lot, and threw it wisely. But quite probably, it won't do it wisely. And quite probably throwing the amount that might work amounts to little more than creating another bubble. And the dollar might then really fall much faster than other currencies, pulling down the last important prop to the world-economy.

In the meantime, there is less and less money for daily consumption of all kinds for the bottom 90% of the world's population (and it's not so good for the top 10%). People are getting restless. Just in the last month, we have seen people in the streets protesting economic difficulties in a growing number of countries - Greece, Russia, Latvia, Great Britain, France, Iceland, China, South Korea, Guadeloupe, Reunion, Madagascar, Mexico - and probably a lot more that haven't been noticed by the world press. In fact, it's been relatively mild up to now, but the governments are all on edge.

What do governments do when their primary concern is dealing with internal unrest? They really have two choices - shoot the protestors, or appease them. Shooting works only up to a point. For one thing, the agents of force must themselves be well-enough paid to be willing to do it. And when there is a serious economic downturn, arranging this is not all that easy for the regimes.

So the regimes begin to appease their populations. How? First of all, by protectionism. Everyone has begun to complain about the protectionism of other countries. But the complainers are all practicing it themselves. And they will do a lot more of it. The free market economists all tell us that protectionism makes the overall economic situation still worse. That's probably true, but politically quite irrelevant, when there are people in the streets wanting jobs - now!

The second way governments appease when there is unrest is by social-democratic welfare measures. But to do that, governments need money. And governments get money from taxes. The free market economists all tell us that raising taxes (of any kind) during an economic downturn makes the overall economic situation still worse. That may be true, but in the short run that's also irrelevant. As it is, in a downturn, tax receipts fall. Governments can't keep up even with current expenditures, not to speak of paying for increased expenditures. So they will tax in one way or another. Or they will print money.

Finally, the third way they appease is by a healthy dose of populism. The real income gap between the top 1% and the bottom 20% both within countries and worldwide has grown enormously in the last thirty years. The gap will now be reduced to the more "normal" gap that existed in 1970, which is still very large, but somewhat less scandalously large. Hence, you have governments talking now of "income caps" for bankers, as in the United States and France. Or you can prosecute people for corruption, as in China.

It's a bit like being in the path of a tornado. The worst can come upon governments suddenly. When that happens, they have only minutes to take shelter in their cellars. The tornado then passes, and if one is still alive, one comes out to survey the damage. The damage will turn out to be very extensive. Yes, one can rebuild. But then the real argument begins - about how one rebuilds, and how fairly one shares the benefits of rebuilding.

How long will this gloomy picture prevail? No one knows or can be sure, but it will probably be a good number of years. In the meantime, governments will face elections, and voters will not be kind to the incumbents. Protectionism and social-democratic welfare serve governments the way the cellar does during a tornado. The quasi-nationalization of banks is another way of taking shelter in the cellars.

What we the people have to think about and prepare for is what we do when we emerge from the cellar, whenever that is. The fundamental question is how are we going to rebuild. That will be the real political battle. The landscape will be unfamiliar. And all our past rhetorics will be suspect. The key thing to realize is that rebuilding can take us into a far better world - but it can also take us into a far worse one. In either case, it will be a far different one.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.



These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]


http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/original-message-from-alan-maki.html

Thursday, February 12, 2009
Support S.F. 542 "The People's Bailout" by Minnesota DFL State Senator David Tomassoni
Support and follow this legislation:

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0542&ssn=0&y=2009

-----Original Message-----

From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:53 PM

To: sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn; rep.al.juhnke@house.mn; rep.bill.hilty@house.mn; rep.dave.olin@house.mn; rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn; rep.tom.Rukavina@house.mn; rep.tony.sertich@house.mn; peter.makowski@mail.house.gov; teresa_detrempe@klobuchar.senate.gov; amy_berglund@levin.senate.gov; elizabeth_reed@levin.senate.gov; 'Peter Rachleff'; mzweig@notes.cc.sunysb.edu; info@jamesmayer.org; rgettel@uaw.net; DLONG@uaw.net; debssoc@sbcglobal.net; 'Ley and Lea Soltis'; 'Joshua Frank'; carl.pope@sierraclub.org; carld717@aol.com

Cc: 'jan.alswager@educationminnesota.org'; 'dickanfang@mtn.org'; 'julie.bleyhl@afscmemn.org'; 'simbix@excite.com'; 'carlmnpipetrades@aol.com'; 'sdaniels@steelworkers-usw.org'; 'mderosa0144@yahoo.com'; 'bjderoy@msn.com'; 'aduininck@local49.org'; 'tdwyertcu@aol.com'; 'angelol@teamstersjc32.org'; 'tgrot@comcast.net'; 'billheaney@billheaney.com'; 'bhesse@att.net'; 'shunter@mnaflcio.org'; 'rjkuaw879@yahoo.com'; 'kkillian@mape.org'; 'evdebs_lives@yahoo.com'; 'rkolodziejski@mape.org'; 'rene.lara@educationminnesota.org'; 'rleighton@nmtlaw.com'; 'blehto@mnaflcio.org'; 'tim@cwamncouncil.org'; 'clund@mnaflcio.org'; 'wluneburg@here17.org'; 'starkmad@frontiernet.net'; 'kmakarios@mncarpenter.org'; 'doug.manley@charter.net'; 'harstpbt@mtn.org'; 'cwa7200@msn.com'; 'dobrien@mnaflcio.org'; 'charlieolson91@msn.com'; 'pparris@smw10.org'; 'tpufahl@mnldc.org'; 'utumnlegbd@visi.com'; 'Brandon.rettke@educationminnesota.org'; 'revs0001@umn.edu'; 'ateamster@msn.com'; 'ida.rukavina@afscmecouncil65.org'; 'jschaubach@mnaflcio.org'; 'Lisa.Stager@iamdl143.org'; 'mstrub@visi.com'; 'rvarco@seiu113.com'; 'gpss@comcast.net'; 'dybarra@scc.net'; WCS-A@yahoogroups.com; 'Dee DePass'; shove001@tc.umn.edu; 'Charley Underwood'; brian.melendez@usa.net; mnaflcio@mnaflcio.org; azeve001@umn.edu; benne001@umn.edu; jbono@umn.edu; jbudd@umn.edu; duffy111@umn.edu; jfossum@umn.edu; mzweig@notes.cc.sunysb.edu; glomb001@umn.edu; lmleslie@umn.edu; cmanch@umn.edu; remin003@umn.edu; scovi001@umn.edu; shawx218@umn.edu; wanbe001@umn.edu; wangx010@umn.edu; mzaidi@umn.edu; rarvey@umn.edu; bogna001@umn.edu; benra001@umn.edu; wels0078@umn.edu; carol@carolbergotoole.com; davi1228@umn.edu; tubre001@umn.edu; info@fightbacknews.org; shove001@tc.umn.edu; eliot.seide@afscmemn.org; jo.pels@afscmemn.org; john.westmoreland@afscmemn.org; bob.hilliker@afscmemn.org; jerry.serfling@afscmemn.org; diane.johnston@afscmemn.org; jim.niland@afscmemn.org; eric.lehto@afscmemn.org; michelle.stein@afscmemn.org; lois.mcewen@afscmemn.org; bart.andersen@afscmemn.org; bob.buckingham@afscmemn.org; tom.burke@afscmemn.org; joyce.carlson@afscmemn.org; chris.cowen@afscmemn.org; sandra.curtis@afscmemn.org; jeff.dains@afscmemn.org; kurt.errickson@afscmemn.org; diane.firkus@afscmemn.org; Jeff.Fowler@afscmemn.org; carole.gerst@afscmemn.org; scott.grefe@afscmemn.org; sid.helseth@afscmemn.org; bruce.iverson@afscmemn.org; linda.jackson@afscmemn.org; laurie.johnson@afscmemn.org; jill.kielblock@afscmemn.org; al.lehrke@afscmemn.org; ken.loefflerkemp@afscmemn.org; nola.lynch@afscmemn.org; steve.marincel@afscmemn.org; chas.martin@afscmemn.org; gladys.mckenzie@afscmemn.org; loretta.meinke@afscmemn.org; christi.nelson@afscmemn.org; cindy.nelson@afscmemn.org; matt.nelson@afscmemn.org; lorita.powell@afscmemn.org; amanda.prince@afscmemn.org; barb.sasik@afscmemn.org; marshall.stenersen@afscmemn.org; ryan.welles@afscmemn.org; jim.niland@afscmemn.org; laura.askelin@afscmemn.org; julie.bleyhl@afscmemn.org; jon.grebner@afscmemn.org; pam.lofquist@afscmemn.org; mark.mcafee@afscmemn.org; john.thorson@afscmemn.org; mark.baker@afscmemn.org; ryan.hanson@afscmemn.org; marybeth.juetten@afscmemn.org; adrienne.kern@afscmemn.org; beth.neubert@afscmemn.org; kevin.piatt@afscmemn.org; Jeff.Sabin@afscmemn.org; jessica.hayssen@afscmemn.org; jennifer.munt@afscmemn.org; judy.carlson@afscmemn.org; rita.during@afscmemn.org; leslie.evans@afscmemn.org; amy.williams@afscmemn.org; claudia.schufman@afscmemn.org; cindy.pince@afscmemn.org; jodi.ochocki@afscmemn.org; kathy.mcginnis@afscmemn.org; laureen.karnick@afscmemn.org; laureen.karnick@afscmemn.org; maya.hendricks@afscmemn.org; amy.heitman@afscmemn.org; mary.hamilton@afscmemn.org; dixie.englund@afscmemn.org; Christina.Domeier@afscmemn.org; deb.cassidy@afscmemn.org; maurine.barcus@afscmemn.org; lisa.altendorfer@afscmemn.org; 'Baker, Mary'; 'Maldonado, Alejandro'; teamstersjc32@teamstersjc32.org; baldes@teamsterslocal320.org; javery@teamsterslocal320.org; gburnes@teamsterslocal320.org; mcarey@teamsterslocal320.org; gcejka@teamsterslocal320.org; jderby@teamsterslocal320.org; sgabriel@teamsterslocal320.org; mgolen@teamsterslocal320.org; ljohnson@teamsterslocal320.org; mking@teamsterslocal320.org; modonnell@teamsterslocal320.org; tperkins@teamsterslocal320.org; kseime@teamsterslocal320.org; cswenson@teamsterslocal320.org; eskoog@teamsterslocal320.org; sbastian@teamsterslocal320.org; joni@teamsterslocal320.org; marcia@teamsterslocal320.org; kziembo@teamsterslocal320.org; suzanne@teamsterslocal320.org; rphillips@teamsterslocal320.org; kziegler@teamsterslocal320.org; local320@teamsterslocal320.org; sdaniels@usw.org; kgrover@usw.org; plindgren@usw.org; gparzino@usw.org; jperpich@usw.org; creed@usw.org; twidner@usw.org; jrebrovich@usw.org; cwarner@usw.org; dfichter@usw.org; mgriffin@usw.org; jmiller@usw.org; msusic@usw.org; rwilkey@usw.org; jwiseman@usw.org; rboulton@usw.org; pbitterman@usw.org; gbowen@usw.org; sgentry@usw.org; jkearns@usw.org; tmaki@usw.org; drizzuto@usw.org; nduchene@usw.org


Subject: Re: People's Bailout (SF 542)

Re: SF 542; The People’s Bailout

Senator David Tomassoni;

First, let me commend you for having the courage to bring this legislation forward; I am sure the opposition will be enormous even from your DFL colleagues, not to mention from Republicans and Governor Pawlenty.

I hope you intend to call for roll call votes at each step of the process on (SF 542) The People’s Bailout so there is more accountability than we had on S.F. 607 to save the Ford Plant; legislation you so courageously brought forward in the Senate Committee on Business, Industry and Labor where your fellow DFL'ers so shamefully let you, and more importantly, Ford Workers and Minnesotans, down. We need to keep in mind in the struggle ahead over The People's Bailout--- S.F. 542, that it was in this same Senate Committee where you failed to get help from your DFL colleagues in moving S.F. 607 forward--- out of Committee and through the Minnesota State Legislature and onto the Governor's desk.

We need to keep in mind that Senator Jim Metzen, while being a DFL'er, is also a banker--- an officer with Key Community Bank known for its very dirty deeds against working people. It is up to you and the rest of us to push Senator Metzen to do his job as Chair of the all-important, heavily DFL dominated Committee on Business, Industry and Labor and twist the arms needing twisting to get The People's Bailout through the Committee... again, I stress the need for a roll call vote to assure Minnesotans have complete accountability--- unlike with S.F. 607 where you received no support from your DFL colleagues yet none of the other Democrats or Republicans would acknowledge their very dirty and shameful role in sending S.F. 607 down to defeat.

Why haven’t you included something along the lines of SF 607 to automatically apply to any business closing which has received any kind of local, state or federal subsidies, tax abatement or public assistance of any kind in your People’s Bailout? This would be particularly important in trying, again, to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant.

I am very leery that this is one more gimmick the DFL is using to make it appear the DFL is trying to do something when the intent is all show since the DFL did nothing to push SF 607 through the legislature; hopefully I am wrong about this since many, many Minnesotans will need such assistance.

Might I also suggest that you include rescinding “at-will hiring, at-will firing” legislation as part of The People’s Bailout since this would place Minnesota workers in line to benefit from the Employee Free Choice Act.

Also, might I suggest that you include a provision in this legislation that would establish the minimum wage in Minnesota to be in accordance with the calculations of the United States Department of Labor and its Bureau of Labor Statistics based upon the scientific facts pertaining to real cost of living factors and the minimum wage should be recalculated every time these cost of living factors are recalculated.

I agree with you that we can not spend our way out of this economic crisis and instead we need to work our way out of this mess which obviously requires all working people to be paid real living wages as a way to completely and thoroughly redistribute wealth in this country.
At the heart of this economic mess is the fact that wealth created by the working class has in fact been stolen in the form of huge profits by corporations not paying workers real living wages in accordance with cost of living factors; common sense tells us that depressions occur when working people cannot purchase back the goods they have produced which are required for human survival.


Common sense also dictates that we cannot allow the Ford Motor Company to start bringing Ford Rangers produced in Thailand into the United States instead of continuing production at the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant.

Hopefully you will include something in this legislation protecting the rights of Minnesota’s 30,000 workers employed in the Indian Gaming Industry who are forced and compelled to work in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws… I am sure you understand with so many workers employed under these deplorable conditions these workers serve to drive down the standard of living of all workers in Minnesota. I am sure you are aware that casino workers, such as the thousands of workers employed at casinos like Mystic Lake Casino are forced to sign their names to statements that they know they will be terminated should they engage in union organizing. I think you should include something in this People’s Bailout directing the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development that casino workers fired for union organizing cannot be denied unemployment benefits as they presently are.

In order to protect the rights of all workers in Minnesota to unemployment compensation which you want to extend (and your proposal for such extension is not long enough in my opinion given the fact that this economic mess is going to be with us for many years--- perhaps you should include unemployment coverage from time of layoff/firing to time of re-employment); but, getting back to the rights of workers to receive unemployment benefits in the first place, you need to eliminate the right of employers to challenge a worker’s right to unemployment benefits without having to provide a reason for the challenge.

Combined with “at-will hiring, at-will firing” this places workers in a real bind… fired without reason and then subjecting workers to the further injustice of being denied unemployment compensation due to an employer’s challenge without that employer having to provide a reason… this process can drag on for many months leaving workers without any income or public assistance--- meager as public assistance is in Minnesota… not to mention leaving workers and their families without health care. But, it does little good to extend unemployment compensation if employers are allowed to challenge a worker’s right to compensation without reason or just cause.

Without massive mobilization of members from the unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO and Change To Win this legislation has no chance of passing as you fully know and understand.

Have you heard from labor’s registered lobbyists concerning this legislation?

What have you heard from the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations representing employers and the business community regarding this legislation?

When will the first reading of this People’s Bailout take place? I can’t find anything on the legislature’s on-line calendar.

Please keep me informed of any hearings on this legislation as I would like to testify in support of this legislation.

Don’t forget; request there be recorded roll call vote at each step in the process so Minnesotans have full accountability; this not only assures accountability, but will cause those business oriented DFL’ers in the Summit Hill Club to think twice should they decide they want to join with their Republican colleagues in opposing this legislation.

Might I suggest you develop a newsletter--- printed in hard copy and e-mail format--- pertaining solely to SF 542 (The People’s Bailout) to keep its supporters in and out of the legislature fully and completely informed; a newsletter which requests supporters to do specific tasks in bringing the full weight of Minnesota’s working class--- organized and unorganized--- into support for this important piece of legislation… we certainly don’t want a repeat of only a handful of proponents showing up like what happened with SF 607. We should do everything possible to make sure that Minnesota’s working class “owns” this legislation and that we work together to mobilizes huge turn outs of working people supporting this legislation at each and every stage in the legislative process.

In my opinion, we should be looking at organizing Minnesota’s workers to mobilize fully in support of this important piece of legislation, S.F. 542 The People's Bailout, you are bringing forward.

You are most certainly aware that your legislation can serve as a model in winning new needed reforms comprising an extension of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal; just as the struggles for Roosevelt’s New Deal received powerful, decisive support from Minnesota’s socialist Governors Floyd Olson, Elmer Benson and John Bernard and other Farmer-Labor Party elected officials along with Minnesota’s working class--- especially the “red” Finns of the Iron Range. Let “The People’s Bailout” become a rallying point for the working class movement, and become a model for Barack Obama and the United States Congress along with other states to emulate and follow through on.

I assume you have spoken with Congressman Jim Oberstar and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar about developing similar legislation in Congress.

Might I suggest you request an appearance on Amy Goodman’s television program--- “Democracy Now!” to promote national working class unity in support of The People's Bailout.

I hope you will suggest to the Minnesota AFL-CIO and Change To Win they bring all their affiliated unions into support for this legislation and these unions in turn fully mobilize their memberships to every extent possible.

Your final item regarding state employees is very weak given the intent of leading Republicans to push for things like using the powers of state government to abrogate union contracts. As you know, Barack Obama and Congress are already doing the same thing with autoworkers; whereas, in France the government is prohibiting the abrogation of union contracts and requiring those businesses receiving government bailouts not to cut employment. You might want to take a look at what the French government is doing to protect the rights and jobs of working people.

I would encourage you to look at what action can be taken to make the Minnesota government the employer of choice for road building, bridge repair and maintenance so more jobs are created rather than contractors and engineering firms reaping huge profits, keeping in mind the reason for New Deal make work projects being so successful was that the government was the employer--- not private industry and corporations… again, common sense dictates that when you cut out profits more can be paid out in wages for more workers thus, as you say, and I agree, we work our way out of this mess rather than trying to spend our way out of this most severe crisis.

In conclusion, I would encourage you to consider some type of resolution calling on President Obama to discontinue his wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as cutting all funding for Israel since it makes little sense to pump three-quarters of a trillion dollars into economic “stimulus” while continuing to squander the exact same amount on wars and militarization, which is like taking our human and natural resources and tossing them into one of those polluted, water-filled, abandoned mining pits on the Iron Range or into U.S. Steel’s “Clear Water Reservoir” in Mountain Iron.

Also, as much as I am for road-building and repair to create jobs… I can’t see spending millions of dollars building a road from Minnesota Highway 71 out into the Big Bog for a Canadian peat mining operation to truck away the profits… you might want to mention to Congressman Oberstar that Franklin Roosevelt spent hundreds of thousands of dollars putting the Civilian Conservation Corps to work trying to protect this very sensitive ecosystem; it just destroys our credibility advocating for public works programs when Oberstar has spent millions destroying the good work the CCC did in trying to protect and save the Big Bog. I find it rather ironic this peat mining boon-doggle is taking place right at the site of the Civilian Conservation Corps camp site in the Pine Island State Forest in the Big Bog.

S.F. No. 542, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Feb 06, 2009
1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to economic development; extending MFIP assistance; modifying
1.3unemployment compensation; augmenting foreclosure provisions; establishing a
1.4jobs creation program; limiting certain layoffs; appropriating money;amending
1.5Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 256J.42, by adding a subdivision; 268.035,
1.6subdivisions 4, 21a; 268.07, subdivision 1; 268.085, subdivision 15; 504B.151;
1.7proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 582.
1.8BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.9 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 256J.42, is amended by adding a
1.10subdivision to read:
1.11 Subd. 1a. Temporary 60-month time limit extension. For assistance units that
1.12have reached the 60-month time limit under subdivision 1 or assistance units that will
1.13reach the 60-month time limit under subdivision 1 before the sunset of this subdivision,
1.14MFIP benefits are extended to eligible assistance units until the sunset of this subdivision.
1.15This subdivision sunsets July 1, 2011.

1.16 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 268.035, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
1.17 Subd. 4. Base period. (a) "Base period," unless otherwise provided in this
1.18subdivision, means the last four completed calendar quarters before the effective date of
1.19an applicant's application for unemployment benefits if the application has an effective
1.20date occurring after the month following the last completed calendar quarter. The base
1.21period under this paragraph is as follows:
1.22
1.23
1.24 If the application for unemployment
benefits is effective on or between these
dates: The base period is the prior:
1.25 February 1 - March 31 January 1 - December 31
2.1 May 1 - June 30 April 1 - March 31
2.2 August 1 - September 30 July 1 - June 30
2.3 November 1 - December 31 October 1 - September 30
2.4 (1) (b) If an application for unemployment benefits has an effective date that is
2.5during the month following the last completed calendar quarter, then the base period is
2.6the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters before the effective date of an
2.7applicant's application for unemployment benefits. The base period under this paragraph
2.8is as set forth below follows:
2.9
2.10
2.11 If the application for unemployment
benefits is effective on or between these
dates: The base period is the prior:
2.12 January 1 - March January 31 October 1 - September 30
2.13 April 1 - June April 30 January 1 - December 31
2.14 July 1 - September 30 July 31 April 1 - March 31
2.15 October 1 - December October 31 July 1 - June 30
2.16 (2) (c) If the applicant has insufficient wage credits to establish a benefit account
2.17under clauses (1) and (3), and paragraph (a) or (b), but during the base period under
2.18clause (1) paragraph (a) or (b) an applicant received workers' compensation for temporary
2.19disability under chapter 176 or a similar federal law or similar law of another state, or
2.20if an applicant whose own serious illness caused a loss of work for which the applicant
2.21received compensation for loss of wages from some other source, the applicant may
2.22request an extended base period as follows:
2.23 (i) (1) if an applicant was compensated for a loss of work of seven to 13 weeks, the
2.24base period is the first four of the last six completed calendar quarters before the effective
2.25date of the application for unemployment benefits;
2.26 (ii) (2) if an applicant was compensated for a loss of work of 14 to 26 weeks, the
2.27base period is the first four of the last seven completed calendar quarters before the
2.28effective date of the application for unemployment benefits;
2.29 (iii) (3) if an applicant was compensated for a loss of work of 27 to 39 weeks,
2.30the base period is the first four of the last eight completed calendar quarters before the
2.31effective date of the application for unemployment benefits; and
2.32 (iv) (4) if an applicant was compensated for a loss of work of 40 to 52 weeks, the
2.33base period is the first four of the last nine completed calendar quarters before the effective
2.34date of the application for unemployment benefits;.
2.35 (3) if the applicant has insufficient wage credits to establish a benefit account under
2.36clause (1), an alternate base period of the last four completed calendar quarters before the
2.37date the applicant's application for unemployment benefits is effective will be used. This
3.1base period can be used only 30 calendar days or more after the end of the last completed
3.2quarter, when a wage detail report has been, or should have been, filed for that quarter
3.3under section 268.044; and
3.4 (4) (d) No base period under clause (1), (2), or (3) paragraph (a), (b), or (c) may
3.5include wage credits upon which a prior benefit account was established.
3.6(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the base period calculated under paragraph (b)
3.7using the first four of the last five complete calendar quarters before the effective date of
3.8the applicant's application for unemployment benefits must be used for an applicant if the
3.9applicant has more wage credits under that base period than under the base period in
3.10paragraph (a).
3.11EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for applications for unemployment
3.12benefits filed effective on or after July 1, 2009.

3.13 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 268.035, subdivision 21a, is amended to read:
3.14 Subd. 21a. Reemployment assistance training. (a) An applicant is in
3.15"reemployment assistance training" when:
3.16 (1) a reasonable and opportunity for suitable employment for the applicant does not
3.17exist in the labor market area and it is necessary that the applicant receive additional
3.18training in order to obtain will assist the applicant in obtaining suitable employment;
3.19 (2) the curriculum, facilities, staff, and other essentials are adequate to achieve the
3.20training objective;
3.21 (3) the training is vocational in nature or short term academic training vocationally
3.22directed to an occupation or skill for which there are reasonable that will substantially
3.23enhance the employment opportunities available to the applicant in the applicant's labor
3.24market area;
3.25 (4) the training course is considered full time by the training provider; and
3.26 (5) the applicant is making satisfactory progress in the training.
3.27 (b) Full-time training provided through the dislocated worker program, the Trade
3.28Act of 1974, as amended, or the North American Free Trade Agreement is considered
3.29"reemployment assistance training," if that training course is in accordance with the
3.30requirements of that program.
3.31 (c) Apprenticeship training provided in order to meet the requirements of an
3.32apprenticeship program under chapter 178 is considered "reemployment assistance
3.33training."
3.34(d) An applicant is considered in reemployment assistance training only if the
3.35training course has actually started or is scheduled to start within 30 calendar days.
4.1EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for determinations and appeal
4.2decisions issued on or after the day following final enactment.

4.3 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 268.07, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
4.4 Subdivision 1. Application for unemployment benefits; determination of benefit
4.5account. (a) An application for unemployment benefits may be filed in person, by mail,
4.6or by electronic transmission as the commissioner may require. The applicant must be
4.7unemployed at the time the application is filed and must provide all requested information
4.8in the manner required. The commissioner shall accept a valid individual taxpayer
4.9identification number from an applicant who is applying for benefits. If the applicant is
4.10not unemployed at the time of the application or fails to provide all requested information,
4.11the communication is not considered an application for unemployment benefits.
4.12 (b) The commissioner shall examine each application for unemployment benefits to
4.13determine the base period and the benefit year, and based upon all the covered employment
4.14in the base period the commissioner shall determine the weekly unemployment benefit
4.15amount available, if any, and the maximum amount of unemployment benefits available, if
4.16any. The determination is known as the determination of benefit account. A determination
4.17of benefit account must be sent to the applicant and all base period employers, by mail or
4.18electronic transmission.
4.19 (c) If a base period employer did not provide wage information for the applicant as
4.20provided for in section 268.044, or provided erroneous information, the commissioner
4.21may accept an applicant certification as to wage credits, based upon the applicant's records,
4.22and issue a determination of benefit account.
4.23 (d) The commissioner may, at any time within 24 months from the establishment of
4.24a benefit account, reconsider any determination of benefit account and make an amended
4.25determination if the commissioner finds that the determination was incorrect for any
4.26reason. An amended determination must be promptly sent to the applicant and all base
4.27period employers, by mail or electronic transmission.
4.28 (e) If an amended determination of benefit account reduces the weekly
4.29unemployment benefit amount or maximum amount of unemployment benefits available,
4.30any unemployment benefits that have been paid greater than the applicant was entitled
4.31is considered an overpayment of unemployment benefits. A determination or amended
4.32determination issued under this section that results in an overpayment of unemployment
4.33benefits must set out the amount of the overpayment and the requirement under section
4.34268.18, subdivision 1 , that the overpaid unemployment benefits must be repaid.

5.1 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 268.085, subdivision 15, is amended to read:
5.2 Subd. 15. Available for suitable employment defined. (a) "Available for suitable
5.3employment" means an applicant is ready and willing to accept suitable employment in
5.4the labor market area. The attachment to the work force must be genuine. An applicant
5.5may restrict availability to suitable employment, but there must be no other restrictions,
5.6either self-imposed or created by circumstances, temporary or permanent, that prevent
5.7accepting suitable employment.
5.8(b) Unless the applicant is in reemployment assistance training, to be considered
5.9"available for suitable employment," a student who has regularly scheduled classes must
5.10be willing to quit school discontinue classes to accept suitable employment when:
5.11(1) class attendance restricts the applicant from accepting suitable employment; and
5.12(2) the applicant is unable to change the scheduled class or make other arrangements
5.13that excuse the applicant from attending class.
5.14(c) An applicant who is absent from the labor market area for personal reasons, other
5.15than to search for work, is not "available for suitable employment."
5.16(d) An applicant who has restrictions on the hours of the day or days of the week
5.17that the applicant can or will work, that are not normal for the applicant's usual occupation
5.18or other suitable employment, is not "available for suitable employment." An applicant
5.19must be available for daytime employment, if suitable employment is performed during
5.20the daytime, even though the applicant previously worked the night shift.
5.21(e) An applicant must have transportation throughout the labor market area to be
5.22considered "available for suitable employment."
5.23EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for determinations and appeal
5.24decisions issued on or after the day following final enactment.

5.25 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 504B.151, is amended to read:
5.26504B.151 RESTRICTION ON RESIDENTIAL LEASE TERMS FOR
5.27BUILDINGS IN FINANCIAL DISTRESS; REQUIRED NOTICE OF PENDING
5.28FORECLOSURE; RIGHTS OF TENANTS OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY.
5.29 Subdivision 1. Limitation on lease and notice to tenant. (a) Once a landlord
5.30has received notice of a contract for deed cancellation under section 559.21 or notice of
5.31a mortgage foreclosure sale under chapter 580 or 582, the landlord may only enter into
5.32(i) a periodic residential lease agreement with a term of not more than two months or
5.33the time remaining in the contract cancellation period or the mortgagor's redemption
6.1period, whichever is less or (ii) a fixed term residential tenancy not extending beyond the
6.2cancellation period or the landlord's period of redemption until:
6.3(1) the contract for deed has been reinstated or paid in full;
6.4(2) the mortgage default has been cured and the mortgage reinstated;
6.5(3) the mortgage has been satisfied;
6.6(4) the property has been redeemed from a foreclosure sale; or
6.7(5) a receiver has been appointed.
6.8(b) Before entering into a lease under this section and accepting any rent or security
6.9deposit from a tenant, the landlord must notify the prospective tenant in writing that the
6.10landlord has received notice of a contract for deed cancellation or notice of a mortgage
6.11foreclosure sale as appropriate, and the date on which the contract cancellation period or
6.12the mortgagor's redemption period ends. The landlord must also inform the prospective
6.13tenant of the tenant's right to continued utility services if the landlord defaults on utility
6.14payments during the foreclosure process.
6.15(c) This section does not apply to a manufactured home park as defined in section
6.16327C.01, subdivision 5 .
6.17 Subd. 2. Exception allowing a longer term lease. This section Subdivision 1
6.18does not apply if:
6.19(1) the holder or the mortgagee agrees not to terminate the tenant's lease other than
6.20for lease violations for at least one year from the commencement of the tenancy; and
6.21(2) the lease does not require the tenant to prepay rent for any month commencing
6.22after the end of the cancellation or redemption period, so that the rent payment would be
6.23due prior to the end of the cancellation or redemption period.
6.24For the purposes of this section, a holder means a contract for deed vendor or a
6.25holder of the sheriff's certificate of sale or any assignee of the contract for deed vendor or
6.26of the holder of the sheriff's certificate of sale.
6.27 Subd. 3. Transfer of tenancy by operation of law. (a) A tenant who enters into a
6.28lease under subdivision 2 is:
6.29(1) deemed by operation of law to become the tenant of the holder immediately upon
6.30the holder succeeding to the interest of the landlord under the lease; and
6.31(2) bound to the holder under all the provisions of the lease for either the balance of
6.32the lease term or for one year after the start of the tenancy, whichever occurs first.
6.33(b) A tenant who becomes the tenant of the holder under this subdivision is not
6.34obligated to pay rent to the holder until the holder mails, by first class mail to the tenant at
6.35the property address, written notice that the holder has succeeded to the interest of the
7.1landlord. A letter from the holder to the tenant to that effect is prima facie evidence that
7.2the holder has succeeded to the interest of the landlord.
7.3 Subd. 4. Holder not bound by certain acts. A holder succeeding to an interest in
7.4a lease lawfully entered into under subdivision 2 is not:
7.5(1) liable for any act or omission of any prior landlord;
7.6(2) subject to any offset or defense which the tenant had against any prior landlord; or
7.7(3) bound by any modification of the lease entered into under subdivision 2, unless
7.8the modification is made with the holder's consent.
7.9 Subd. 5. Rights of tenant of foreclosed property. (a) When a holder takes over a
7.10rental property as the result of a foreclosure:
7.11(1) a tenant is deemed by operation of law to become the tenant of the holder; and
7.12(2) all leases, verbal or written, and all terms and conditions of those agreements
7.13shall be transferred to the holder.
7.14(b) A holder shall:
7.15(1) maintain as rental property, property that was used as rental property by the
7.16landlord;
7.17(2) offer renewal leases to tenants of the foreclosed property; and
7.18(3) keep affordable rent levels in place.
7.19 Subd. 6. Eviction. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a holder must not
7.20begin an eviction action against a tenant without cause.
7.21 Subd. 7. Termination of tenancy. Except for lease violations, a holder must not
7.22terminate the tenancy of a tenant of foreclosed property without cause.
7.23 Subd. 8. Periodic leases. A holder must offer a fixed-term lease option to a tenant
7.24with a periodic lease in place at the time the tenant becomes a tenant of the holder.
7.25 Subd. 9. Applicability. The provisions of subdivisions 5 to 8 apply to all tenants
7.26regardless of when a tenant entered into a rental agreement with the property owner or at
7.27what stage the foreclosure process was in when the rental agreement was entered.

7.28 Sec. 7. [582.33] FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM.
7.29 Subdivision 1. Emergency declared to exist. The legislature of the state of
7.30Minnesota declares that a public economic emergency exists in the state of Minnesota
7.31due to the increase in foreclosure rates. The legislature declares that these conditions
7.32have created a housing emergency that justifies legislation creating a moratorium on
7.33mortgage foreclosures.
7.34 Subd. 2. Court stay. In an action to foreclose a mortgage upon residential property
7.35under chapter 580 or 581, in which a judgment of foreclosure has not been entered by the
8.1effective date of this section, the district court having jurisdiction over the matter, upon
8.2motion of a defendant, shall order the action stayed for two years after the entry of the
8.3stay. The court may order that certain conditions relating to the property are met during
8.4the stay, including, but not limited to, possession of the property, payments by the person
8.5in possession, and preservation of the property.
8.6 Subd. 3. Application. This section applies only to mortgages executed before
8.7the effective date of this section.
8.8EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

8.9 Sec. 8. SPECIAL STATE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
8.10PROGRAM.
8.11 Subdivision 1. Purpose. Federal law currently provides for a federally funded
8.12extension of unemployment insurance benefits for applicants who have exhausted
8.13entitlement to regular Minnesota unemployment insurance benefits. But, because federal
8.14law contains a special requirement that an applicant has earned a certain amount of base
8.15period insured wages, a significant group of applicants who exhausted their regular
8.16Minnesota unemployment insurance benefits do not qualify for the federally funded
8.17extension. The purpose of this section is to provide a state-funded extension to that group.
8.18 Subd. 2. Eligibility. (a) Special state emergency unemployment insurance benefits
8.19are payable to an applicant who does not qualify for a federally funded extension
8.20of unemployment insurance benefits solely because the applicant does not meet the
8.21requirement under section 4001(d)(2)(a) of the federal Supplemental Appropriations
8.22Act of 2008 that an applicant have wage credits of not less than 40 times the applicant's
8.23weekly benefit amount.
8.24(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), all requirements for federally funded
8.25extended unemployment benefits and all requirements of Minnesota Statutes, chapter
8.26268, must be met in order for the applicant to be eligible for special state emergency
8.27unemployment insurance benefits.
8.28(c) Special state emergency unemployment insurance benefits are payable in the
8.29same amounts, the same duration, and for the same time period as provided for under the
8.30federal Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, and any later amendments, but shall
8.31be no less than 13 times the applicant's weekly special state emergency unemployment
8.32insurance benefit amount.
8.33 Subd. 3. Payment from trust fund. Special state emergency unemployment
8.34insurance benefits are payable from the Minnesota unemployment insurance trust fund.
8.35Special state emergency unemployment insurance benefits will not be used in computing
9.1the future unemployment insurance tax rate of a taxpaying employer nor will they be
9.2charged to the reimbursing account of government or nonprofit employers.
9.3 Subd. 4. Expiration. This section expires on June 30, 2010, and no benefits shall be
9.4paid under this section for a week beginning after that date.
9.5EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the Sunday following final enactment
9.6and applies only to weeks of unemployment after that date.

9.7 Sec. 9. JOBS CREATION GRANT PROGRAM.
9.8 Subdivision 1. Establishment. The commissioner of employment and economic
9.9development shall develop and implement a jobs creation grant program to make grants
9.10available to cities and towns for public and private projects that will generate new jobs
9.11and produce a stronger state economy.
9.12 Subd. 2. Fund distribution. In distributing funds, the commissioner shall give
9.13priority consideration to projects that are available to begin immediately and to projects
9.14that promote environmental sustainability and a green economy.
9.15 Subd. 3. Funding. To the extent that the commissioner receives funds for this
9.16purpose in fiscal year 2009, funding for the jobs creation grant program shall be done
9.17through federal stimulus dollars. If federal stimulus dollars are not available, funds shall
9.18come from state sources.
9.19 Subd. 4. Appropriation. $....... is appropriated from the general fund to the
9.20commissioner of employment and economic development to develop and implement
9.21a jobs creation grant program. This appropriation is only available if federal stimulus
9.22dollars are not available. This appropriation is available until expended.
9.23EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

9.24 Sec. 10. STATE EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS.
9.25For the 2010 and 2011 biennium, in order to prevent increased unemployment and to
9.26protect jobs, the legislature shall not mandate layoffs of state employees, including, but
9.27not limited to, employees of the University of Minnesota.
9.28EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation
to your House Member or State Senator.
For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page.
General questions or comments.
last updated: 01/30/2009


Again, thanking you for having the moral and political courage in standing up and fighting for the rights and livelihoods of Minnesota's working class, and for having the common sense and intelligence to know that we cannot spend our way out of this economic crisis; rather, understanding and explaining that for working people and the working class the way out of this crisis, and the way to a better future, will be found in working our way out of this crisis.

In full support of your leadership in bringing forward The People's Bailout--- Senate File 542...

For a living wage job, justice and equality along with a voice at work for each and every worker in Minnesota...

On behalf of Minnesota's 30,000 workers in the Indian Gaming Industry organizing and struggling to survive while employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages, without any rights under state or federal labor laws...

Sincerely,

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

The recovery plan: shock & awe for a shaken nation

Barack Obama's and the Democrat's priorities are as screwed up as are the Republicans.

There is no evidence--- credible or otherwise from anyone--- that any of this will lead to "economic recovery." Even Obama acknowledges this.

Obama and the Democrats are tinkering, at best, with a problem they obviously know nothing about, other than, they want to make sure their corporate buddies who put up the big bucks for his campaign get their "pay-back."

If these people had even a modicum of concern for the plight of those being hurt the most by this economic depression--- or "downturn in the economy," "recession" or whatever one chooses to call what is happening--- the first priority would have been to put in place programs to help working people... the most hurt and hardest hit working people. Instead, Obama and the Democrats continue talking about helping "the middle class purchase new cars and homes with tax write-offs."

There are tens of thousands of unsold cars right now and no matter how big nor how many tax write-offs are given to the middle class car sales will only be a fraction of unsold vehicles.

As for first-time home purchases... what is this, some kind of sick joke? People making sixty-thousand dollars a year are losing their homes and tens of thousands of white-collar jobs have been lost in the auto industry. There are so many vacant homes the result of foreclosures and evictions with the middle class lucky to be able to afford to pay the heating bills for these homes if they were distributed free like quarter candy at Halloween.

What this article--- and Democrats and Republicans--- fail to mention, is that every single dollar spent on bombs and bullets steals away a dollar from this program--- a program that will exacerbate an already bad situation because it creates more debt. Debt equals greater poverty and all the misery associated with poverty.

Is the objective here to make life better for people or trying to save a system which can't be fixed simply because there is nothing wrong with the system. Capitalism is working just as is expected... we are at the bust part of the cycle of the boom-bust cycle from which capitalism cannot escape... there is no "fix" to a depression... as capitalism was growing and expanding through wars of thievery there was some wiggle room for the system to "rebound." That "wiggle room" is now gone. We are living in the most decadent, barbaric and cannibalistic stage of capitalism, its final imperialist stage... for working people there is no place to go but down; with capitalism on the skids to oblivion we are on the road to perdition... of course, if you can be dazzled by big bombs and bigger debts... Obama's "shock and awe" relating to the economy might be just as impressive as Bush's "shock and awe" in Iraq... in fact, Obama has indulged in the two greatest sins of all... expanded wars financed on borrowed money and increasing debt to bolster Wall Street profits... there are no two other ingredients as sure to destroy a nation and wreak havoc with working people's lives... there is no way for our grandchildren to pay for Obama's three wars and no way for them to repay the Wall Street bankers, either; so they will be far worse off than we are right now. This is "progress?"

This article talks about those dollars which will go right into wallets and right out again... what this article doesn't say is that in paying for Obama's three wars you might just as well take your wallet and its contents and toss it all into Lake Superior.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows--- and understands--- there is no return to society for a bullet coming from the barrel of a gun or in bombs dropped.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows--- and understands--- that you cannot spend 800 billion dollars on wars and turn around and spend another 800 billion dollars claiming to be "stimulating" the economy... because, at best, financially, you end up even; even, that is, until you figure out the price paid for borrowing money for each "endeavor"... once you factor the cost of financing these boon-doggles on borrowed money you find out very quickly what millions of home-owners have found out... you simply can't make it and the bank is going to take your home... well, in the same way these Wall Street banksters--- new kinds of gangsters--- are stealing our nation right out from under us with the help of Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Oh gees, what happens if we figure in what we could have done for people with this money being wasted on war? WoW! We wouldn't be talking about a "stimulus package" at all! We would be smiling with kids going to college and health care for all with everyone working.

We aren't supposed to be thinking about 800-billion dollars being squandered on wars while Obama is shoving an 800-billion dollar "stimulus package" down our throats... no doubt, this is why all of this had to be done so quickly before we put two and two together.

Capitalism can't be fixed; it can't be saved... what can you salvage from an apple rotten to the core? Nothing. You chuck it. If ever there was a system thoroughly rotten from greed, exploitation, unemployment, racism, poverty, pollution and wars it is American capitalism--- chuck it.

Not ready to chuck this rotten system? Well check out what Barack Obama and the Democrats are giving you for a life-time of hard work under the guise of "economic stimulus:"

"The stimulus plan will mean thousands of dollars in tax breaks for first-time home buyers and people buying new cars. Lower- and middle-income taxpayers will get an extra $13 a week in their paychecks this year, and about $8 a week next year. Unemployment checks will go up $25 a week, and keep coming longer. Food stamp benefits for 30 million Americans will rise. Short-term health insurance will become more affordable for many losing their jobs."

These people must think we are completely stupid or something. They don't even have the common decency to mention that over 60 million people in this country are already so poor they don't have to file tax returns... what do they get from Obama's "stimulus" package? Shit.

And then we get this crap...

"The success of the stimulus package may be measured less by visible achievements than by what does not happen — the home that is not foreclosed, the family that doesn't slip into poverty, the disease that does not go undiagnosed."

So, now we measure "success" in terms of that which is unknown and unmeasurable with the same kind of accountability we get from these same dirty politicians who use voice votes to escape accountability.

We are supposed to ignore the rising numbers of people living in poverty and be satisfied as long as there are more people living in homes than are homeless; we are supposed to be happy there are more people employed than unemployed. What kind of convoluted logic is this? The same kind of convoluted logic that allowed Barack Obama to remain silent as Israel carried out a bestial killing spree and 22-day pogrom against the Palestinian people financed with billions our tax-dollars which should have been spent on a public health care system.

The convoluted logic being used to defend Israel's carnage is the same convoluted logic we are now told we must use to measure the success of this so-called "stimulus plan."

We are supposed to look at each and every aspect of how things are done, and at life in America as unrelated to one another... because, to look at the big picture one sees nothing but a system rotten to the core and the last thing the capitalist sooth-Sayers want us to think about doing is chucking a thoroughly rotten system.

"Poof — you just lost $15,000 that legislators had considered providing."

"Poof?"

Poof; some Palestinian child just lost their mother. Poof; some Palestinian mother just lost her children. Poof; someone just lost their home. Poof; some worker just lost her/his job. Poof; someone just died because they couldn't afford health care. Poof; someone just lost their pension fund. Poof; a bridge collapsed. Poof; someone just died from contaminated peanut butter. Poof; some homeless person just froze to death. Poof; some kid couldn't afford to continue in college. Poof; twenty-two poor suckers living in caves in Pakistan because they were too poor to live in a real home were killed by an un-manned drone in Pakistan because only terrorists live in caves.

What the hell... are we supposed to look at what Israel just did in Gaza with our tax-dollars and chalk that up to "shock and awe," too?

Poof; Barack Obama has destroyed an entire nation in less than a month giving us bullets to bite on!

Alan L. Maki


By NANCY BENAC and CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writers Nancy Benac And Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writers – Sat Feb 14, 9:44 am ET

WASHINGTON – America is bringing shock and awe to the home front, using dollars instead of bombs.

It's the military doctrine of lightning force — fast and brute, or as brute as the shaken country can manage — applied to the campaign for economic recovery.

With a record-busting stimulus plan, the U.S. is marshaling resources against economic catastrophe in ways not seen since Franklin Roosevelt put the New Deal in motion.

President Barack Obama is going with the best deal he could get. The stimulus bill is a landmark legislative achievement for a new president who inherited economic spoilage along with the spoils of power. Now the nation anxiously waits to see if it works.

Undermining federal balance sheets that were already deeply in the red, Obama and Congress settled on a nearly $800 billion plan that aims to spend more on the crisis at hand than the government has spent waging the Iraq war for six years.

The idea: fast cash, and lots of it, but with a strategic view to the future.

Some dollars will flow quickly into wallets — and right out again.

The stimulus plan will mean thousands of dollars in tax breaks for first-time home buyers and people buying new cars. Lower- and middle-income taxpayers will get an extra $13 a week in their paychecks this year, and about $8 a week next year. Unemployment checks will go up $25 a week, and keep coming longer. Food stamp benefits for 30 million Americans will rise. Short-term health insurance will become more affordable for many losing their jobs.

The success of the stimulus package may be measured less by visible achievements than by what does not happen — the home that is not foreclosed, the family that doesn't slip into poverty, the disease that does not go undiagnosed.

"The one thing we'll never know is what would have happened if we didn't do it," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight.

It's not FDR's deal and these aren't his times.

No federally subsidized artists will paint murals glorifying the muscle of American workers or the progress belching from smokestacks, as they did in Roosevelt's day.

No grand compact is to be formed between generations like the one that promised everyone a federal pension. No institutions will rise to try something brand new.

"We're not reinventing government," said historian Kenneth C. Davis, author of the best-selling "Don't Know Much About" series. "We're modifying things that exist."

Yet as the share of the economy taken up by federal spending rises to an anticipated 30 percent, the nation is grappling again with big questions about Washington's place in people's lives.

"The stakes are so high now, this is such a big bill, average Americans are following it," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "It's become a bill that is an argument about what government can or can't do.

"If there is no effect and in six months we are talking about the same economy or a worse economy, I think it would be a devastating blow to the president, Democrats, and to liberal claims about what government can do."

To critics such as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the package is the "Europeanization of America." Others call it "Rooseveltian" or "generational theft" in reference to the debt passed on to the future.

They might envision murals glorifying little more than filled potholes, insulated windows, depreciated computers.

Obama said it's about more than that, and drew parallels with FDR in speaking Friday to the Business Council, formed by corporate leaders in the 1930s to advise Roosevelt's administration.

"We adapted, we changed," he said about those days — and these. "President Roosevelt understood the new role of government in this new world, that while extraordinary actions on its part might be the source of recovery, no action on the part of government, no matter how extraordinary, would alone be the source of our prosperity."

In his radio address Saturday, Obama said he believed the country "will turn this crisis into opportunity and emerge from our painful present into a brighter future."

Democrats and just enough Republicans in Congress — three — saw the package as the best chance to tamp down the economic wildfires breaking out across the landscape.

Obama came into office saying he wished to be judged on his first 1,000 days instead of the usual benchmark of 100. In some ways he will be judged on his first 10 or 20.

Not even Roosevelt, fast off the mark to deal with a bank crisis, was as fast as this in achieving something so sweeping, so early.

The enormity of the package left politicians grasping for concrete ways to convey its size.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spoke of a stack of hundred-dollar bills 689 miles high, and of bills wrapped side-by-side that would encircle the Earth nearly 39 times. House Republicans predicted that the package's costs — with interest on the necessary borrowing — could total more than a trillion dollars, enough money to buy about 1,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies for every American.

It was enough to prompt comic Jon Stewart to riff that if you sewed the $100 bills together, "you would make a blanket for Jupiter."

The stimulus wasn't just about throwing cash at the economy, though.

The package is filled with billions for some of the same goals that Obama preached about on the presidential campaign trail — renewable energy and green jobs, computerized medical records, broadband Internet service for underserved areas.

"There are seeds in this bill for long-term change," says Zelizer. "There are things that can develop out of the research that can change our lives."

Obama sounded a drumbeat of warnings about the consequences of failing to act. But Americans didn't need their president to tell them how grim the economic situation was — and could become.

Forty percent of Americans already have been affected by some sort of job problem in the past year, be it unemployment, underemployment, layoffs, reductions in pay or hours, or job losses by members of their households, according to a poll released Friday by the Pew Research Center. Fifty-six percent expect things to be worse or about the same a year from now — and they've got solid grounds for their pessimism.

The country could well suffer a net loss of 2 million to 3 million or more jobs this year, economists believe. And the unemployment rate, now 7.6 percent, could top 9 percent by spring of 2010.

The stimulus pull-together was a colossal game of winners and losers shaped and reshaped by the latest set of hands on the package. The fortunes of people, schools, towns and other varied interests rose and fell in blinks of time.

Ready to buy another home?

Poof — you just lost $15,000 that legislators had considered providing.

Buying a first home? You're still in luck — the government plans to give you an $8,000 credit if you buy by the end of November.

A new car? You'll be able to deduct the thousands in sales taxes from your income tax but not — as was initially proposed — your loan interest as well.

One day, the government proposed to pay 65 percent of the cost of health coverage for a year for jobless people who lose their workplace insurance. Days later, it was down to half. Ultimately, the subsidy zigzagged back up to 65 percent, but it expires before the end of the year.

Obama declared an end to pork-barrel politics, but legislators still managed to look out for favorite projects.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was quick to point out that a big chunk of the $8 billion set aside to construct high-speed rail lines could go to a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas route. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., helped make sure $10 billion was set aside for the National Institutes of Health, a priority of his.

Long after the dust has settled from the horse trading, the government will be seen to have moved with unaccustomed speed on policies normally subjected to years of deliberation and gridlock.

Deficit hawks found their wings clipped as both parties reached for the treasury. Democrats mainly wished to spend; Republicans, mainly to cut taxes.

After last November, guess who got their way?

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said flatly: "We won the election; we wrote the bill."

The debate was both large and small. Negotiators considered the proper role of government — and how fast a business can depreciate its equipment.

Entering the 1930s, Americans mainly saw the national government as the entity that fought wars, ran post offices and enforced a ban on liquor. Federal spending was only 3.4 percent of the economy.

That more than tripled during the New Deal, topping 10 percent, because of the explosion of public works and other labor programs, rural modernization, bank support, and farm and industrial aid.

"It was a transformation of society in a way that hadn't been done since the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery," Davis said.

The government became the entity that guaranteed a minimum wage, controlled farm production, supported artists, set workplace standards, insured deposits in regulated banks and cast the first national safety net for the elderly and handicapped under Social Security.

"The whole scope of what Roosevelt was trying to do is different but the intent is clearly the same: relief and recovery during a time of economic stress," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

The package won by Obama offers "very important but more subterranean changes in the way the economy works," he said.

Federal spending as a share of the economy shot above 40 percent during World War II and has hovered around 20 percent most of the years since. That share was already projected to approach 25 percent before Obama's stimulus plan.

To be sure, there's still considerable disagreement about how much the New Deal helped to end a depression finally crushed by the humming factories of World War II.

Even FDR's transformation of the federal government was not universally recognized at the time for what it was. It may be years before the full measure of Obama's efforts are taken, too.

In 1936, The Economist magazine pronounced the New Deal a "striking success" in improving conditions that existed when FDR took office three years earlier.

But what of the legacy?

What legacy?

"If the criterion be Utopian, the achievements of the New Deal appear to be small," the editors sniffed. "The great problems of the country are hardly touched."

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.