White House Archives - Page 9 of 19

Virginia Couple Crashes Obama’s First State Dinner

Posted on November 26, 2009 by TL

Somebody needs to answer for this. A couple from Virginia crashed a White House state dinner. Yes, that’s the couple above with Vice President Joe Biden. The Secret Service first learned of the security breach when the couple posted pictures from the event on their Facebook page.

Apparently they just walked into the White House.

From the New York Times:

This much is known: About 7:15 Tuesday night, a glittering blonde, decked out in a red and gold sari, holding the hand of her black-tuxedoed escort, swept past the camera crews and reporters camped out to catch the red-carpet arrivals for the first state dinner given by President Obama.

“Hey, that’s a Desperate Housewife!” one reporter yelled out, alluding to the TV series named for a collection of them.

In fact, the couple — Michaele Salahi and her husband, Tareq — are Virginians who have been auditioning for a possible role in a different housewives TV franchise: “The Real Housewives of Washington.”

They swept past the camera crews and followed the trail of other bigwigs attending the dinner.

But neither Mr. nor Mrs. Salahi, best known in the Washington area for promoting wine and polo in Virginia, were on the guest list for the event, a fact first reported Wednesday morning on the Washington Post Web site.

A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the Salahis had not been invited nor seated for dinner.

The couple “went through magnetometers and other levels of security,” according to a Secret Service spokesman. The fact remains, however, that these two enjoyed unprecedented access to the President of the United States, even if they did not meet him directly.

What an incredible and apparently unprecedented security lapse.

The investigation continues.

Obama Digs In Heels on Afghanistan

Posted on November 24, 2009 by TL

From the New York Times:

President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux.

The White House said Mr. Obama had completed his consultations with his war council on Monday night and would formally announce his decision in a national address in the next week, probably on Tuesday.

At a news conference in the East Room with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, Mr. Obama suggested that his approach would break from the policies he had inherited from the Bush administration and said that the goals would be to keep Al Qaeda from using the region to launch more attacks against the United States and to bring more stability to Afghanistan.

“After eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job,” he said.

He said that he would outline his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving, adding, “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive.”

Mr. Obama was silent on what "finish the job" entailed, nor did he offer any details on what benchmarks he and his advisers had drawn up. He also did not provide a target date for finishing the war.

According to the Washington Post, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Democrats face "serious unrest" over possible expansion of the war in Afghanistan:

Pelosi, in a conference call with economists, said House Democrats were concerned about the "opportunity costs" of steering billions of dollars toward the troop increase as compared to "our ability to invest domestically with an eye to fiscal soundness." The issue of financing new troops in the region has come to a head in advance of Obama’s decision, to be announced next week, as a handful of senior Democrats have proposed a "war tax" on the nation’s wealthiest wage earners and some corporations to finance the war.

Pelosi deflected questions about her support for such a tax-hike proposal but noted that an expensive new war plan faces very high hurdles in her 258-member Democratic caucus, about two-thirds of whom were largely opposed to the Bush administration’s 2007 "surge" of troops into Iraq and have voiced doubts about increased troop levels in Afghanistan.

"Let me say that there is serious unrest in our caucus about, can we afford this war?" Pelosi said in a Tuesday morning call, just hours before she met Obama in a closed-door meeting at the White House.

With an economy struggling to recover, the bottom line is crucial here. Are Americans ready to sacrifice more than they already have? Would Americans support a "war tax," even if it was only on the "wealthiest wage earners," while Congress works to stitch together a health care reform bill?

Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Review of Events Leading to Tragedy at Fort Hood

Posted on November 14, 2009 by TL

Washington, D.C.–November 14, 2009.

This was a week for honoring the extraordinary service and profound sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

Every fall, we set aside a special day to pay tribute to our veterans. But this year, Veteran’s Day took on even greater poignancy and meaning because of the tragic events at Fort Hood.

On Tuesday, I traveled there to join with the Fort Hood community, the Army, and the friends and families of the victims to honor thirteen of our fellow Americans who died – and the dozens more who were wounded – not on some distant shore, but on a military base at home.

Every man and woman who signs up for military service does so with full knowledge of the dangers that could come – that is part of what makes the service of our troops and veterans so extraordinary. But it’s unthinkable that so many would die in a hail of gunfire on a US Army base in the heart of Texas, and that a fellow service-member could have pulled trigger.

There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy. That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts. As I said in Fort Hood, I am confident that justice will be done, and I will insist that the full story be told. That is paramount, and I won’t compromise that investigation today by discussing the details of this case. But given the potential warning signs that may have been known prior these shootings, we must uncover what steps – if any – could have been taken to avert this tragedy.

On the Thursday evening that this tragedy took place, I met in the Oval Office with Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Admiral Mullen, and FBI Director Mueller to review the immediate steps that were necessary to support the families and secure Fort Hood. The next morning, I met with the leadership of our military and the intelligence community, and ordered them to undertake a full review of the sequence of events that led up to the shootings.

The purpose of this review is clear: We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability. Beyond that – and most importantly – we must quickly and thoroughly evaluate and address any flaws in the system, so that we can prevent a similar breach from happening again. Our government must be able to act swiftly and surely when it has threatening information. And our troops must have the security that they deserve.

I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should. But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.

Of all the responsibilities of the presidency, the one that I weigh most heavily is my duty as Commander-in-Chief to our splendid service-men and women. Their character and bravery were on full display in that processing center at Fort Hood, when so many scrambled under fire to help their wounded comrades. And their great dignity and decency has been on display in the days since, as the Fort Hood community has rallied together.

We owe our troops prayerful, considered decisions about when and where we commit them to battle to protect our security and freedom, and we must fully support them when they are deployed. We also owe them the absolute assurance that they’ll be safe here at home as they prepare for whatever mission may come. As Commander-in-Chief, I won’t settle for anything less.

This nation will never forget the service of those we lost at Fort Hood, just as we will always honor the service of all who wear the uniform of the United States of America. Their legacy will be an America that is safer and stronger – an America that reflects the extraordinary character of the men and women who serve it.

Thank you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal

Posted on November 14, 2009 by TL

Turns out, Bush’s tax cuts hurt the economy. Wha…?

From the Citizens for Tax Justice:

And yet, many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is “too costly” are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts. Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.

It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.

Details on the Bush Tax Cuts

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

This figure also includes the cost of adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to prevent millions of additional taxpayers from being affected by it, as would otherwise have happened as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Reason for Revisions

The projected cost of the Bush tax cuts is slightly less than we projected previously.5 This is mainly because of the economic downturn, which has reduced incomes. The projected distribution of the tax cuts has also changed slightly. Also, we no longer project the effects of the Bush tax cuts without AMT adjustments, since it is clear that Congress will continue to adjust the AMT to limit the number of people it affects.

Stark Contrast Between Congress’s Approach to Health Care Reform and Approach to Bush Tax Cuts

Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)

The chairmen of the three House committees have explicitly stated that their goal is a final bill that is deficit-neutral in the decade following enactment. It’s unclear if they have accomplished this yet, since the Congressional Budget Office has not yet issued final cost estimates of the bills, and the legislation is likely to change before the full House votes on a final bill. But President Obama and Democratic leaders have also committed to ensuring that health care reform will not increase the budget deficit.

Under the House bills, roughly half of the costs would be offset with savings in our existing health care programs, while the other half would be offset with a surcharge on the incomes of wealthy taxpayers. A previous analysis by CTJ has shown that this surcharge is a reasonable approach to financing health care reform and would only affect 1.3 percent of taxpayers. Another CTJ analysis concludes that the surcharge will likely have no significant impact on small businesses, despite some of the misinformation that has surrounded this topic.

In contrast, President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained.

Health Care Reform: A Matter of Priorities, Not Costs

These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it doesn’t demonstrate much concern about costs.

Tip of the hat to Crooks and Liars for this post.

Over 2,200 Veterans Died in 2008 Due to Lack of Health Insurance

Posted on November 12, 2009 by TL

From ENEWSPF:

A research team at Harvard Medical School estimates 2,266 U.S. military veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they lacked health insurance and thus had reduced access to care. That figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001.

The researchers, who released their analysis today [Tuesday], pointedly say the health reform legislation pending in the House and Senate will not significantly affect this grim picture.

The Harvard group analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, which surveyed Americans about their insurance coverage and veteran status, and found that 1,461,615 veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 were uninsured in 2008. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals or clinics.

Here’s the Catch-22 faced by uninsured veterans:

“Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people – too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School who testified before Congress about uninsured veterans in 2007 and carried out the analysis released today [Tuesday]. “As a result, veterans go without the care they need every day in the U.S., and thousands die each year. It’s a disgrace.”

Tell Congress to support our troops and pass comprehensive health insurance reform.

HRC Launches National Action Alert on Workplace Discrimination

Posted on November 12, 2009 by TL

The Human Rights Campaign is turning up the heat on Congress to pass the federal Employement Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) launching a new Web site: www.PassENDANow.org.

With Congressional Action looming, HRC’s No Excuses Campaign Engaged

Washington, D.C.–(ENEWSPF)– The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, announced today that as Congressional action looms on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), it is extending the grassroots "No Excuses" campaign to increase constituent contact with Congress and awareness of the comprehensive website: www.PassENDANow.org.

ENDA, which has been introduced in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, would address discrimination in the workplace by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. HRC also launched a national action alert this week to grassroots members and supporters urging them to contact Congress and express their support for a fully-inclusive ENDA.

“We need to step up the important work of telling Congress our personal stories and explaining the additional hardship we face in protecting our families, our loved ones and our jobs,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Congress is moving forward to protect Americans from arbitrary discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Like our neighbors and coworkers, LGBT people simply want a fair chance to succeed and support our families.”

HRC plans to release details next week on its participation of a national call-in day organized by a coalition of groups urging members and supporters to call the Congressional switchboard in support of ENDA. Meanwhile, HRC members and supporters have been overwhelmingly responsive this week to the organization’s national call to action on ENDA by sending off more than 62,000 emails or letters to members of Congress and newspapers urging for swift passage.

Earlier this summer, HRC launched a national, grassroots campaign called “No Excuses” to demand action from Congress on key issues of equality, including a fully inclusive ENDA. Designed to take advantage of the congressional summer recess, when members are in their local offices and meeting with constituents, “No Excuses” helped mobilize HRC’s members and their allies to meet directly with lawmakers and push for federal legislative change.

On November 5, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held the Senate’s first-ever hearing on a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity. The lead sponsors of the measure include Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate on August 5 of this year; a House version was introduced on June 24 and the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on the measure on September 23.

An estimated 87% of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their equal employment policies, and more than one-third also include gender identity. More than 80 companies have joined the Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness, a group of leading U.S. employers that support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. To view a list of the companies, visit:www.hrc.org/bcwf.

ENDA is supported by a broad range of civil rights, religious, civic and professional organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, AFSCME, National Education Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, Anti-Defamation League, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, American Civil Liberties Union, and many others.

Currently, federal law provides legal protection against employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, age and disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. In 29 states across America, it is still legal to fire someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and in 38 states, it is still legal to fire someone for being transgender.

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

President Obama on Passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Posted on November 8, 2009 by TL

President Obama issued the following statement on passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Source: whitehouse.gov

I go back and forth on Obama. Honestly, I’m incredibly proud of the job he’s doing, although I know he’s governing from the center-to-slightly-left. My consertative friends would never admit to that, but it’s true. The man is not a liberal. But he is our President, and I’m proud of that.

And tonight, there is reason for joy.

Now if someone would wake up Harry Reid and point him in the direction of the U.S. Capitol building. It’s time for Harry to grow a pair, motivate the United States Senate (Yes, Harry, it’s okay if you do that.), and pass health care reform for the President to sign.

Wake Up the Senate: Health Care Passes the House

Posted on November 8, 2009 by TL

The Affordable Health Care for America Act passed the house tonight with two votes to spare. One Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, crossed the aisle for America tonight and voted in favor of the measure. One lone Republican who gets it. Be sure to thank him: 202-225-6636.

Here are some news links. Even thought WTAE is identical to the Chicago Tribune story, I’m giving them the nod because their email is always the first to arrive in my inbox.

From the Chicago Tribune:

In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

“It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,” said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

More here from the Tribune.

From the New York Times:

After President Obama urged lawmakers to “answer the call of history” and approve a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system, House Democrats edged closer to a vote on Saturday night as the House adopted an amendment that would tighten restrictions on coverage for abortions under any insurance plan that receives federal dollars.

The concession eased a threat by some anti-abortion Democrats to oppose the bill but it infuriated supporters of abortion rights, who said they would support the larger bill and continue to fight for changes in the final legislation.

After months of internal party wrangling, angry town-hall-style meetings and extended committee deliberations, the House was debating into the night on the legislation to transform the nation’s health insurance system.

Democrats were increasingly confident they had locked up the necessary support for the measure, an optimism bolstered when the bill easily survived a preliminary vote, despite Republican opposition.

But the difficult issue of how much to restrict new federal spending on abortion continued to complicate the outcome by creating a split between Democratic supporters and opponents of abortion rights and loomed as one last obstacle.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided late Friday night to allow anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the so-called “Stupak amendment,” named for Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan. The measure, long expected to pass, would tighten restrictions on abortions by prohibiting federal money from being used to pay for the procedure, either through a new federal health insurance plan or under private plans that enroll people relying on federal subsidies.

“From Day 1, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions,” said Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana and one of the authors of the abortion provision.

Ms. Pelosi’s concession eased a threat by some Democrats to abandon the bill but also left abortion-rights Democrats facing a choice between backing a provision they bitterly opposed or scuttling the bill.

More here from the NYTimes.

From the Washington Post:

Removing a key final hurdle for House passage of historic legislation to expand the nation’s health-care system, lawmakers late Saturday approved a measure to ban almost all abortion coverage under health-care plans run or subsidized by the government.

The controversial amendment prohibits a government-run insurance plan the bill would create from offering to cover abortion services. It also would block people who receive federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offer coverage for abortions.

Should a health-care package pass the Senate, it’s unclear whether the anti-abortion amendment would survive negotiations between the two chambers over the shape of final legislation.

Anti-abortion Democrats had said they could not support the health-care package without assurances that tax dollars would not end up paying for abortions. Pro-life and religious groups had also sought the amendment.

Both parties continued to closely guard their private whip counts in advance of the late-night vote on the entire package, but the public pronouncements by lawmakers during the day suggested an extremely tight vote. Democrats remained publicly optimistic they would come out just above the minimum 218 votes they need for victory. Freshman Reps. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) and Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), joined by second-term Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.), announced their support for the bill, giving a boost among the critical bloc of votes coming from the roughly 75 Democrats who were elected within the last three years. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a veteran who is considered a health-care expert among conservative southerners, is also expected to vote for the legislation.

“We know the status quo is unacceptable and bankrupting individuals, businesses and all levels of government. While this bill is not perfect, it is necessary that we pass it so we can begin to fundamentally reform health care,” Maffei said in a statement as debate inched along.

Politico Says Dems Have 218 Votes for Affordable Health Care for America Act

Posted on November 7, 2009 by TL

From our friends at Politico:

Hours before an expected vote on a sweeping health care bill, House Democrats believe they’ve secured the 218 votes they need to approve the bill, several party insiders said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor about 6:30 p.m. to say, “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act.. . .We will make history. We will also make progress for America’s working families."

In response to a question about whether the bill would pass when she brought it up, Pelosi told reporters Saturday night, "That is our expectation."

Thirty-two Democrats have publicly declared their opposition to the bill, giving party leaders the narrowest possible margin to push the bill across the finish line. But numerous sources said Democrats believe they do have the votes after a day of intense lobbying of wavering Democrats.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act reportedly includes a Public Option.

A vote is expected tonight.

Click here to Tweet your Representative now!

We Need More Government Stimulus, Says Krugman. Does Congress Have the Courage?

Posted on November 2, 2009 by TL

I am a student of Paul Krugman. I believe his The Conscience of a Liberal

should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States. In my humble opinion.

We need the New Deal back, and we need it bad.

President Obama realizes that we are living in a sound-bite world, and Congress does not have the courage to do what needs to be done.

Or they might not get re-elected.

But Congress needs to step up.

Krugman, courtesy the New York Times:

The good news is that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, is working just about the way textbook macroeconomics said it would. But that’s also the bad news — because the same textbook analysis says that the stimulus was far too small given the scale of our economic problems. Unless something changes drastically, we’re looking at many years of high unemployment.

And the really bad news is that “centrists” in Congress aren’t able or willing to draw the obvious conclusion, which is that we need a lot more federal spending on job creation.

About that good news: not that long ago the U.S. economy was in free fall. Without the recovery act, the free fall would probably have continued, as unemployed workers slashed their spending, cash-strapped state and local governments engaged in mass layoffs, and more.

The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline. Aid to the unemployed and help for state and local governments were probably the most important factors. If you want to see the recovery act in action, visit a classroom: your local school probably would have had to fire a lot of teachers if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted.

And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery.”

But it’s not doing enough.

We need legislators with the courage to do what must be done. We need our "super-wealthy" to realize that they MUST be part of the solution, that the only way America can survive as a nation is if they agree that it is GOOD if they are taxed more.

We need Republicans on board with this, and that means seeking the impossible. Republicans must admit that President Ronald Reagan was wrong: Government is not the problem. Government is the solution.

If Congress doesn’t get it, we will most certainly return to a Gilded Age. Even more than we are right now. Right now, we need more stimulus money, "But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to," Krugman says.

Again, from Paul Krugman:

Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

O.K., I know I’m being impractical: major economic programs can’t pass Congress without the support of relatively conservative Democrats, and these Democrats have been telling reporters that they have lost their appetite for stimulus.

But I hope their stomachs start rumbling soon. We now know that stimulus works, but we aren’t doing nearly enough of it. For the sake of today’s unemployed, and for the sake of the nation’s future, we need to do much more.

We need to do more now. Congress needs to find the courage to do it, and Republicans and Blue Dog Dems need to get it. Our nation’s economy will continue to regress and fall until they all get it.