Globalization

On my way back to DC after three days in New York (including some time at this year's excellent Personal Democracy Forum which NDN helped sponsor) and I can't stop thinking about the conversations about the American economy I had while there.   David Leonhardt has a piece in today's Times which captured a lot of the sentiment I heard.  It begins:

In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.

To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate — then 7.2 percent — rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

We now know that this forecast was terribly optimistic. The jobless rate has already reached 9.4 percent. On Thursday, the Labor Department will announce the latest number, for June, and forecasters are expecting it to rise further. In concrete terms, the difference between the situation that the Obama advisers predicted and the one that has come to pass is about 2.5 million jobs. It’s as if every worker in the city of Los Angeles received an unexpected layoff notice.

There are two possible explanations that the administration was so wrong. And sorting through them matters a great deal, because they point in opposite policy directions.

The first explanation is that the economy has deteriorated because the stimulus package failed. Some critics say that stimulus just doesn’t work, while others argue that this particular package was too small or too badly constructed to make a difference.

The second answer is that the economy has deteriorated in spite of the stimulus. In other words, the patient is not as sick as he would have been without the medicine he received. But he is a lot sicker than doctors realized when they prescribed it.

To me, the evidence is fairly compelling that the second answer is the right one. The stimulus package does seem to have helped. But its impact has been minor — so far — compared with the harshness of the Great Recession.

Unfortunately, the administration’s rose-colored forecast has muddied this picture. So if at some point this year or next the White House decides that the economy needs more stimulus, skeptics will surely brandish that old forecast.

Worst of all, the economy really may need more help.

Three quick thoughts:

1) It is time for the Obama Administration to abandon the "recovery" rhetorical frame.  Going back to the economy under Bush is neither possible given what has happened in recent months, nor is it desirable - that economy produced growth but declining incomes for a typical family.  The more recent formulation of "new foundation" is clearly a better frame.   What America needs is a more modern and better economy - the very opposite of recovering what we had.

2) It is remarkable how suprised mainstream economists - including the Obama team - have been by the virulence of the Great Recession.  We will be debating this point for years but certainly one major factor is that the American middle class was already in a terribly weakened state prior to the financial crisis.  Incomes had been declining, and wages flat for most of the current decade, long before the Recession began.  So when it kicked in, and a weakened middle class then lost wealth, jobs, homes, income while retaining high levels of debt, things have gotten much much worse with the end hard to see today. 

My own view is that we really don't understand how robust growth is going to happen again in the Untied States, and certainly we don't know how we can get incomes up again given that they fell during the last period of sustained growth.  What are we doing differently now that will ensure that we don't "recover" the Bush economy - one that saw growth and income decline?

Given the state of the American consumer it is easy to see how over the next 3-5-7 years the savings rate stays very high as people replenish their lost savings and pay down high-interest debt.  This leaves little left over for consumption.  If the American people spend the next half a decade getting their own personal balance sheets in order, and buying very little to do so, we could see very slow growth here and aboard, and may be headed, incredibly, to an entire decade or more of no income growth for the typical American family. 

3) In meeting after meeting I heard that the coming commercial real estate crisis could dwarf the home mortgage crisis.  Are we really ready for this? Do our policy makers understand what is coming here? Will another round of defaults then once again cause bank failures and usher in a new round of financial crisis?  Predictions are we will begin to feell the effects of this impending new crisis this fall, while the nation may also start having to manage the prospect of several states, including California, going bankrupt or shutting down this summer.

As recent polls have shown the American people believe there is one dominant issue in American politics today - the economy.  While I am proud of the President for bravely taking on health care and climate change this summer, he also cannot lose sight of our weakened economy, weakened financial sector and weakened middle class, and to be very very sure he is keeping his eye on this very important ball.  It seems like the nation is ready for, and requires, a big conversation about our economic future, and how this new economy of the 21st century will be very different from the one just past.  I am not convinced we are adequately preparing our people for what is to come, and certainly the nostalgia tied into the concept of "recovery" is not helping us let go of an old economic and financial paradigm, and forthrightly begin the process of welcoming in the next.

Simon's series of essays on Iran have continued to be picked up in the blogshphere, starting with his June 16 column, "Obama: No Realist He," in the Huffington Post, where it has been retained a high profile since it was posted on the site. 

Another essay by Simon on Iran, "The Impact of the Iranian Uprising on Other Repressive Governments," was picked up by The Moderate Voice and Politics for the Common Good blogs.

Sam, Dan and Jake also have been writing about Iran, and NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais weighed in on the Huffinton Post with "Will Young people Unite to Save the World?"

Check the NDN on Iran often to see new essays and newsroundups from Simon and the rest of the team as this uprising continues into its third week.

NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais published a major op-ed ed on Millennials prospects for jobs during these tough economic times. The op-ed, "Are the Millennials the New GI Generation?" has been picked up by several newspapers across the country and beyond, including the Albany Times Union, the Glen Falls Post Star, the Concord Monitor, the Miami Herald, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Austin American-Statesman and the Guelph (Ontario, Canada) Mercury.

Morley and Mike also were quoted in a new FORBES column, "The Economics of Quarterlife."

Lastly, Simon, Morley and Dan are at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City today. Simon and Morley have just wrapped up their compelling presentation -- moderated by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning Jose Antonio Vargas -- on "America 2.0 - How Our Changing Demography Is Helping Create a New Politics." Dan Twittered throughout the panel. Check out what his Tweets here.

Please join us Today, June 25, at 12:15pm for a presentation of "Dawn of a New Politics" by Simon Rosenberg.

This engaging presentation makes a big argument on how politics is changing in America today, and offers ideas and strategies for how progressives can replicate our 20th century success in this new and dynamic century.

Simon has recently updated the presentation with new arguments and slides, including an analysis of the bottom-up democratic uprising we're seeing today in Iran. Even if you've seen the presentation before, this new version will be fresh and engaging!

Simon has delivered his presentation "Dawn of a New Politics" all across the country over the past several years: At the DNC in Denver, twice for the House Democratic Caucus, on the Google campus, and recently before members and staff of the DSCC and DAGA, among many other gatherings.

We cordially invite you to join us-- either here in our event space, or via Web cast-- to watch and engage with this revamped presentation.

If you plan on coming to the presentation, please RSVP here.

Follow this link to watch the Web cast.

In this morning's Washington Post, Michael A. Fletcher writes about the probability of a jobless recovery, a meme that has been growing in the zeitgeist around Washington lately.

Despite signs that the recession gripping the nation's economy may be easing, the unemployment rate is projected to continue rising for another year before topping out in double digits, a prospect that threatens to slow growth, increase poverty and further complicate the Obama administration's message of optimism about the economic outlook.

The likelihood of severe unemployment extending into the 2010 midterm elections and beyond poses a significant political hurdle to President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are already under fire for what critics label profligate spending. Continuing high unemployment rates would undercut the fundamental argument behind much of that spending: the promise that it will create new jobs and improve the prospects of working Americans, which Obama has called the ultimate measure of a healthy economy.
...

Since the recession took hold in December 2007, the U.S. economy has lost 5.7 million jobs, a rapid decline that caught administration and other economists off guard. In recent months, the velocity of job losses has slowed substantially, which, combined with a rising stock market and increases in consumer spending, has offered hope that a recovery is beginning to take hold.

But employers still cut 345,000 jobs last month, while the nation's growing working-age population requires the job market to expand by 125,000 to 150,000 a month just to keep the unemployment rate stable.

The dynamics of the modern economy further dim the employment picture. Job growth was weak for years after the past two recessions, in 1991 and 2001. Employers have grown increasingly slow to rehire workers, and steady advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with fewer workers.

It's really only a matter of time until that double-digit unemployment number comes out, and there are strong arguments to be made that we are, for most intents and purposes, already there. This means it's very much worth thinking about the jobs meme that has basically taken over the economic dialogue. If a jobless recovery is a strong possibility, crafting an agenda around that meme has become far more politically dangerous. It also means that it's now worth devoting almost every waking minute to figuring out how to avoid such a scenario - or an even share of time fixing it and blaming it on the last guy, which is what FDR was able to do, and what the American people overwhelmingly believe right now.

This morning on the NDN Blog and the Huffington Post, Simon laid out an argument, to which he urged me to respond, concluding that, due to the rapidly changing nature of the global landscape, the “rise of the rest,” and the ability of America’s very unique new president to speak directly to the world’s peoples, Barack Obama will not be able to be a realist, and will instead have to base his foreign policy on the politics of global aspiration.

Simon’s argument is powerful, and the points he makes about the changing global landscape are on the mark. Obama does indeed have a unique ability to communicate to the world’s peoples, both from a personal and technological standpoint, that is unparalleled. But if Obama is not a realist, what is he?

I would argue that he is certainly not a foreign policy liberal and certainly not a neo-liberal (indisputably the ideological predecessor to neo-conservatism). We will not see an emphasis on democracy promotion as a panacea, and I doubt very much that Obama advisers will be heard calling America “the indispensible nation.”

Rather, much like his domestic policy, Obama’s foreign policy defies labels.

In his almost six months in office, Obama has crafted a middle road, one that has America’s interests at heart, but defines American interests more broadly. It rejects the easily caricatured cynical realism of Kissinger and the narrow realism of Scowcroft/Baker. As Simon argues, he embraces the so called “rise of the rest,” which is not necessarily contrary to American interests – more markets for our goods, greater stability, and fewer failed states all work in our favor.

While Obama often speaks about ideals, we have not seen him subordinate them to interests. In this, Obama has already been the consummate realist – avoiding Carter-esque handwringing about human rights in China, rebuffing Israel – our democratic ally – on settlements, and, most recently, offering very cautious comments on Iran that have sought to avoid pro-democracy pontificating, while still noting that self-determination is a universal value.

The moment that Obama faces and the challenges that come with it, from terrorism, to global poverty, to the rise of new powers, demand this middle road that Obama is walking. America will use diplomacy, alleviate poverty, disease, and strife, and build international institutions all because these serve the American interests that Obama will redefine. He can talk about values, but it will come with the historical knowledge that some of our most disastrous foreign policy moments have come out of liberalism, and that blindly insisting on liberal ideals will, in many cases, backfire.

I’d imagine that, over the next few years, we will find that Obama’s foreign policy will be something that looks like a realism of a more liberal variety, just as Obama’s brand of pragmatism is progressive. And just as a term like pragmatic progressive barely serves as a good descriptor of the Obama domestic policy, nor will whatever term emerges like “liberal realist” be a good descriptor of Obama’s foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the great challenge for this man, in this moment, is to bring America closer to the rest of the world, and the world closer to America, than either has been in a long time – in a manner that serves America’s interests. And he might just be able to do it.

NDN, a leading Washington, DC-based think tank, is adding major capacity to its key policy areas with the appointment of three new Fellows and a much-expanded role for one of its current Fellows. With the addition of James Crabtree of London, Nelson Cunningham of Washington, DC, and Joe Garcia of Miami as Fellows and a bigger role for current Fellow Mike Hais of Los Angeles, NDN will significantly increase the range and depth of its commentary.

James Crabtree, NDN Fellow: Based in London, Crabtree, an editor at Prospect, the UK’s leading monthly political magazine, has spent the last decade working in politics and journalism on both sides of the Atlantic. In Britain, he was a policy advisor in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, wrote for the Economist and served in senior roles at the Insitute for Public Policy Research and various other UK think tanks. In the United States, Crabtree attended Harvard’s Kennedy School as a Fulbright Scholar and also worked as senior policy advisor to NDN's Globalization Initiative.

Crabtree will write about progressive politics from the UK and Europe, focusing broadly on what people "across the pond" think about U.S. issues. He also will provide perspectives on globalization, contributing commentary on current events and from his own travels such as his recent trip to Pakistan to look into the revolution in Pakistani media. Crabtree also will write about new technologies and media tools, analyzing the broad area of government transparency, openess and new techniques for political campaigning.

Nelson W. Cunningham, Chair, NDN’s Latin America Policy Initiative: Widely recognized as one of the nation’s foremost experts on U.S.-Latin America relations, Cunningham was special advisor to President Bill Clinton for Western Hemisphere affairs and advised the Obama campaign and transition team on Latin American policy issues. He is managing partner of McLarty Associates, an international consulting firm based in Washington, DC.
Cunningham will promote NDN’s long-standing commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, as well as to a progressive vision of globalization that looks to link the interests of Latin American and other developing nations more deeply with the United States. The Latin America Policy Initiative will focus on raising awareness of these issues in Washington, using NDN’s excellent relationships on Capitol Hill, the Administration and the NGO community. The initiative will also build concrete ties between the United States and our neighbors by sponsoring leadership training programs for promising young Americans in key Latin American countries.

Joe Garcia, NDN Fellow: Garcia, who previously served for more than three years as head of NDN’s Hispanic Strategy Center, has a long history of involvement in Cuban and Latin American issues and the fields of energy, foreign policy and human rights. In 1994, the late Governor Lawton Chiles appointed him to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), where he advocated for lower monthly utility bills on behalf of Florida's families. In 1998, during Gov. Jeb Bush’s Administration, Garcia was elected Chairman of the PSC.

In 2000, the Cuban Amercian National Foundation named Garcia Executive Director. At CANF, he helped reshape U.S. Cuba policy and was a force for moderation in the Cuban American community. In 2004, NDN named Garcia head of its Hispanic Strategy Center for NDN. Garcia, based in Miami, serves on the Board of Directors of CANF and is one of the leading voices on U.S.-Cuba policy.

Garcia will write about U.S.-Cuban relations and other hemispheric issues.

Michael D. Hais, NDN Fellow: Hais, currently a Fellow at NDN and the New Policy Institute since November 2008 and affiliated with NDN since 2006, served for a decade as Vice President, Entertainment Research and for more than 22 years overall at Frank N. Magid Associates where he conducted audience research for hundreds of television stations, cable channels, and program producers in nearly all 50 states and more than a dozen foreign countries. Prior to joining Magid in 1983, Hais was a political pollster for Michigan Democrats and an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Detroit. He received a B.A. from the University of Iowa, an M.A. from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, all in political science. He is the co-author of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press, 2008), which New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani named as one of her 10 favorite books of 2008.

Hais, with Millennial Makeover co-author Morley Winograd, is one of the nation’s leading voices on the Millennial Generation, which has been the focus of much of his work for NDN. In his newly expanded role, Hais will examine important and interesting data from available public surveys and surveys commissioned by NDN and its affiliates. Themes and analysis will include attitudes toward race and ethnicity, the economy, foreign affairs, the Millennial Generation, but will not be limited to those topics. Hais is based in Los Angeles.

David Brooks has a very good column in the NYTimes today about how we got to where we are today, and the daunting economic challenges ahead.   His sober analysis of our economic situation is part of a growing tide of recent analysis looking beyond the momentary crisises, and which are beginning to move the economic debate beyond the stale, brain-dead bromides of the terribly disapointing age of Bush.  

Here’s one way to look at the politics of our era: We’ve moved from The Age of Leverage to The Great Unwinding.

For about a generation, the U.S. surfed on a growing wave of debt. The ratio of debt-to-personal-disposable income was 55 percent in 1960. Since then, it has more than doubled, reaching 133 percent in 2007. Total credit market debt — throwing in corporate, financial and other borrowing — has risen apace, surging from 143 percent of G.D.P. in 1951 to 350 percent of G.D.P. last year.

Charts that mark these trends are truly horrifying. There is a steady level of debt through most of the 20th century, until the mid-1980s. Then there is a steep accelerating rise to today’s epic levels.

This rise in debt fueled a consumption binge. Consumption as a share of G.D.P. stood at around 62 percent in the mid-1960s, and rose to about 73 percent by 2008. The baby boomers enjoyed an incredible spending binge. Meanwhile the Chinese, Japanese and European economies became reliant on the overextended U.S. consumer. It couldn’t last.

The leverage wave crashed last fall. Facing the possibility of systemic collapse, the government stepped in and replaced private borrowing with public borrowing. The Federal Reserve printed money at incredible rates, and federal spending ballooned. In 2007, the federal deficit was 1.2 percent of G.D.P. Two years later, it’s at 13 percent.

The crisis response more or less worked. Historians will argue about the Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke reaction, but the economy seems to be stabilizing. And now attention turns to the task of the next decade: slowly unwinding the debt that has built up over the past generation.

Americans aren’t borrowing the way they used to, but the accumulated debt is still there. Over the next many years, Americans will have to save more and borrow less. The American economy will have to transition from an economy based on consumption and imports to an economy with a greater balance of business investment and production. A country that has become accustomed to reasonably fast growth and frothy affluence will probably have to adjust to slower growth and less retail fizz.

The economic challenges will be hard. Reuven Glick and Kevin J. Lansing of the San Francisco Fed estimate that Americans will have to increase their household savings rate from 4 percent to 10 percent by 2018 to restore balance. That, they write, will produce “a near-term drag on overall economic activity.” Meanwhile, capital and labor will have to flow from sectors that depend on discretionary consumption to sectors based on research and investment.

But it’s the political challenges that will be most hellacious. Basically, everything that a politician might do to make voters happier in the near term will have horrible long-term consequences. Stimulate the economy too much now and you wind up with ruinous inflation down the road. Preserve failing companies and you wind up with Japanese stagnation. Cushion the decline in living standards with easy money now and you just move from a housing bubble to a commodities bubble.

The members of the political class face a set of monumental tasks...

Read on to see his recommendations, all of which are a little less compelling than his narrative on how we got here.  What is most interesting to me, however, is how Brooks' analysis is itself a complete condemnation of the cultural and economic impact of the recent conservative ascendency.  His story rightly points out that this "Age of Leverage," or as Paul Krugman has called it, "The Great Unraveling," was a manifestation of the Reagan Revolution.  Rather than being conservative in the classic sense, Brooks has correctly and helpfully begun the labeling of this era of our history as it will be known to future generations - a terribly reckless, irresponsible time where our leaders, in the grip of impractical ideologies, failed to do what was required to ensure American greatness and success in the 21st century.  

Digging America out from the hole that been dug by years of reckless, ideological and impractical conservative government remains the greatest governing challenge of this early part of the 21st century, a job that increasingly looks like - given its depth - will last long past the Obama Presidency. 

Finally, for all these reasons, I think it is time for us to move beyond the concept of "recovery" as a goal of our economic strategy.  Who wants to go back to what we had? A time of bubbles and declining wages, of a policy designed for the few at the expense of the many? Obama has begun to move beyond this frame with his recent attempts to use the term "new foundation."  But there is an urgency to this mission - for I think very few Americans are interested in recovering - or going back to - that old economy of the late 20th century and this terribly destructive conservative ascendency.

I wanted to highlight for you some research that Robert Shapiro, the Chair of NDN’s Globalization Initiative, recently conducted on international tax policy. The study examines the economic impacts of limiting the deferral rules that protect U.S. businesses from bearing significantly higher tax burdens on their earnings abroad than their foreign competitors. The paper is entitled: The Economic Benefits of Provisions Allowing U.S. Multinational Companies to Defer U.S. Corporate Tax on their Foreign Earnings And the Costs to the U.S. Economy of Repealing Deferral.

Stockholm -- The best way to clear your head of the political chatter that passes for policy debate in Washington is to get out of town. I’m writing today from Stockholm, a grand old city on a picturesque harbor and archipelago, where it’s harder to care much about Larry Summers’ squabbles with White House colleagues, the cynical fulminations from Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh, or even the heated discussions inside Obamaland over its legislative strategy for health care reform. With a little distance, it’s easier to focus on developments which may actually matter for the rest of us, such as the prospects of Iran electing a democratic reformer as president this week or how the unfolding, deep slump in global trade may imperil economic recovery by China, Japan and Germany.

 It’s also easier to concentrate on our own economic conundrums. Let’s start with the crying need for new financial regulation that can prevent a system whose dysfunctions have just wiped out 20 percent of America’s wealth from doing it all over again sometime soon. The current TARP program, now officially a tangled mess, isn’t much of a model. This week the Treasury announced that 10 large institutions will be permitted to repay their TARP loans, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan, while nine others, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citicorp, have to stay in the system. It sounds reasonable, since the lucky 10 can afford to repay while most of the rest cannot. But the TARP system ties regulation to outstanding loans, so now we’re left with a two-caste financial market where the weaker ones operate at a market disadvantage and others who used the taxpayers to fund their comebacks are no longer constrained to operate in the interests of a public which rescued them less than nine months ago.

We also learned this week that the Treasury’s clever plan to use taxpayer guarantees to create a private market for the toxic assets of all these institutions is a flop: Even with all that largesse, nobody wants to buy much of the toxic paper. So if the economy dips again, the 10 institutions now exiting the TARP regulations will be back for more, and there won’t be enough money in the Treasury or the Fed to save Citicorp and Bank of America again.

Then there’s the matter of how to regulate the derivatives that knocked the pins out from under the vaunted U.S. financial markets last year. The Administration’s current economic mandarins, along with the most elevated mandarin of all, Alan Greenspan, all have confessed publicly to their errors in dismissing the need for such regulation in the late-1990s. With the catastrophic collapse of the multi-trillion dollar markets for mortgage-backed securities and their credit default swap derivatives, strict regulation of these transactions to protect the rest of us -- which basically means transparency and reasonable limits on the leverage used to create or buy these instruments -- should be a no-brainer.

So what’s the logic behind the Administration's decision to keep trading in large, “private” deals in derivatives outside regulated markets? Those are precisely the deals that pose a danger for the rest of us, since they’re the large ones and inevitably the deals carried out by the institutions now acknowledged to be too large to fail. That’s Washington-speak for companies important enough to demand help from the taxpayers whenever they need it. The justification is the same as in the 1990s -- it will reduce their profits. That’s correct, in order to protect the rest of us from the now well-known consequences of a mindless drive for higher and higher profits regardless of the risks.

The next time you feel yourself drawn to the insider accounts of the greasy pole inside the White House or the breakup of the Republican coalition, take a deep breath and remind yourself that these are the players actually responsible for serious matters that ultimately may determine whether you ever have the income and assets required to send your kids to college or retire before you’re 80 years old.

As readers of this blog know, House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson recently offered a bill - H.R. 2060, The Community College Technology Access Act of 2009 - based on a proposal from our own Dr. Robert Shapiro that would offer free computer training to all Americans through the nation's community colleges. Since I last updated on this proposal, six more members of the House of Representatives have signed on to cosponsor H.R. 2060, bringing the total number of cosponsors to 31. The cosponsors are:

Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] - 4/23/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 4/27/2009
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 4/27/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 4/23/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 4/27/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 6/2/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 4/23/2009
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/23/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 4/28/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 4/23/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 6/2/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 4/23/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/23/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 6/8/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/23/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 4/23/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 4/23/2009
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] - 6/2/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 5/6/2009
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 5/4/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 5/18/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] - 4/23/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 6/4/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 4/23/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 6/3/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/23/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/23/2009

If your member of Congress (or boss) is not already on that list, encourage them to support H.R. 2060, which is part of NDN's work to create a 21st century economic strategy for America by investing in worker skills and technology. If you have further questions on the bill or original proposal, please email me.