Robert Reich says, in yesterday’s blog, “Why Economic Advisors Are Paid to Be Economic Advisors,” that President Obama needs to hear from economists that to avoid the enormous pain and suffering of a “double-dip recession or, at best, suffer anemic growth over the next five years,” he must move quickly to take aggressive measures.

Reich would like to see:

• a $300 billion jobs bill, including zero-interest loans to states and locales to prevent them from having to raise taxes and cut services,
• public-service jobs (cleaning up the Gulf), and
• a one-year payroll tax holiday on the first $100,000 of income.

Reich says that in the face of much bad news, it would be wrong for the president to bend to Republican pressure and, “tell the American public that we now have to move toward fiscal austerity,” and that any economist who could support such a notion shouldn’t be advising the president.

Reich makes a list of reasons why aggressive action is needed:

• The economy is still in a deep hole, the deepest since the Great Depression. The jobs report for May was dismal — a mere 41,000 new private sector jobs, when the economy needs at least 100,000 to keep up with population growth.
• The Fed projects gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, to rise about 3.5 percent this year — a pace barely above that needed to keep pace with the growth in the labor force.
• Consumers don’t have the buying power to get it out of the hole because they can no longer use their homes as collateral for loans, as they could before the crash of 2008, and they also have to get out from under huge debts.
• Businesses are reluctant to create new jobs if there are few customers for their goods or services.
• Export markets are drying up because of a high dollar that’s made our exports more expensive,
• Europe has embarked on austerity measures to shrink its deficits.
• State revenues are way down because of the deep economic hole, and they’re forced to raise taxes, cut services, and lay off large numbers of state workers, including teachers.
• All the boosters keeping the economy barely going now are coming to an end. The Fed can’t keep interest rates near zero for long because it’s starting to worry about inflation. It’s already stopped buying Treasury securities and mortgage bonds, and its own deficit hawks are squawking.
• The federal stimulus is 75 percent spent, and the money will be gone in a few months.
• Census workers will also be gone by the end of the summer.

In Tuesday’s election, California voters statewide overwhelmingly Proposition 14 and so, starting in 2011, there will be a big change in California’s election system.

The NYT reports, “Under Proposition 14, a measure that easily passed, traditional party primaries will be replaced in 2011 with wide-open elections. The top two vote-getters — whatever their party, or if they have no party at all — will face off in the general election.”

Pro “Top Two” supporters, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, argued that Proposition 14 would strengthen California democracy. The idea is, this change in election law, “would empower candidates who, because they refuse to pander to the party machines, are now reluctant to throw their hats into the ring.” The idea is that more moderates will be elected.

But those opposed to Proposition 14, like Ralph Nader, emphasized the opposite and warned that Proposition 14 would harm California democracy.  According to this “Stop Two” web-site, “Groups across the political landscape – from tea parties to labor unions to independents – opposed the antidemocratic measure because it will limit their November ballot choices to only two candidates. All six qualified parties in California opposed the measure.”

Nader responding to Proposition 14’s approval by stating, “The California Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests have deceived enough voters in California to abolish the November elections for all but the two major parties. This is the latest manifestation of the business lobby’s antagonism to the core event of a democratic society – the November elections. What is next for their corporatist agenda against American democracy? ”

Longtime activist, Harry Kresky, wrote a thoughtful article in the Sacramento Bee, urging a “Yes” vote for Proposition 14. Kresky wrote, “Since Proposition 14 is an attempt to loosen the hold that the major parties have on our democracy by their iron-fisted control of the nominating process, it is no surprise that the major parties – whose tyranny Nader denounces – are doing everything they can to defeat it.”

Other excerpts from Kresky’s article:

• Proposition 14 will give the 3,466,855 independent voters in California who are not enrolled in a political party the right to participate in the primary elections that determine who will appear on the general election ballot. If Prop. 14 passes, independents will be on equal footing with other voters.
• Proposition 14 is an important step towards nonpartisan governance. Voters will be voting for candidates, not parties, and there is a real opportunity for coalitions of independents, parties (minor and major) and party members to join together to support reform-oriented candidates. Under Proposition 14, an effective coalition can propel a candidate not favored by the party establishment (major and minor) to round two, with a real chance to win.
• For those concerned with party building – major or minor – having strong spokespersons in the first round will help parties enlarge their base, arguably much more effectively than running what often amount to fringe candidacies in the general election that do not have an impact on either the election or public policy.
• Third-party advocates argue that they function as incubators for political and social change. Yet since World War II, social movements have been more effective in producing sweeping change than third parties.
• The most effective way for “outsider” movements for innovation and progressive change to transform the political mainstream is for third parties and social reform groups to come together to nurture the development of a mass movement.
• It’s particularly disturbing that at a moment when millions of independents are knocking at the door of an electoral process from which they are excluded, Ralph Nader and the third party movement would want to slam it shut.