The economy added 244,000 jobs in April. That should be good news for President Obama and the Democrats. But according to the Economic Policy Institute, at this rate of job growth it would take until the fall of 2016 for unemployment to come back down to where it was before the recession. The next election, unfortunately, is in 2012.
Among the not-so-great items in the Labor Department's report:
President Obama had a good couple of weeks. He deftly surfaced his long-form birth certificate, a move whose timing baffled pundits until the other shoe dropped -- and the public appreciated that he was grappling with very consequential matters while his opponents were mired in trivia. The mission to capture or kill Osama bin Laden displayed presidential nerve and leadership that has often seemed missing in this administration.
But despite the president's enhanced stature on national security issues and his success in showing up his critics, the 2012 election will be mainly about the economy. With so many Americans still out of work, a large number of voters have a co-worker, friend, or family member suffering from joblessness.
It is easy to construct a national scenario in which Obama is plainly a more formidable candidate than any likely Republican nominee. The trouble is that we elect presidents state by state. And it will be hard for an incumbent to win if the economy in the key swing states of the Midwest remains deeply depressed.
It might be easier if the president were pushing hard for a robust recovery program while the Republicans were promoting slash-and-burn austerity. Obama could then point to the sluggish recovery and clearly lay it at the Republicans' door.
But Obama himself, though he has admirably defended Social Security and Medicare, forcing Republicans to distance themselves from Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed plan to turn Medicare into a voucher, is nonetheless giving more attention to deficit reduction than to job creation.
Long after the skirmishes over this year's budget cease dominating the news, when the government stays open and the United States does not default on our national debt, the major issue before the voters in 2012 will still be the condition of the economy, not the deficit. Though Obama's version of fiscal austerity is kinder and gentler than that of the Republicans, cutting the deficit while the recovery is still fragile could well slow growth and blur political responsibility.
The ambiguous April jobs numbers are a signal not of green shoots but of the perils of premature belt-tightening.
There are now three parties of austerity dominating the economic debate, while the party of jobs and growth is scarcely heard from.
We have the Republicans demanding draconian cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility, even though their proposed tax reductions would leave the deficit almost where it was. Then there is the Wall Street austerity party, willing to entertain tax increases (on others) as well as program cuts. And finally, the White House, with a more moderate forced march to fiscal discipline, but still a misplaced emphasis on deficit reduction.
In November 2012, if unemployment is still high, Obama will get scant credit for a better fiscal picture. He owes it to his supporters, to America's millions of idled workers, and to his own re-election prospects to pay more attention to jobs.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril.
Drew Westen: The Three Wings of the Republican Party
Dan Rather: Looking for Jobs in All the Wrong Places
David A. Love: This Jobs Crisis Is Obama's Kryptonite
Add this to the crushing boots of govt stepping on the throats of our business community, with giant EPA regulations, crazy new paperwork mandates, threats of higher taxes, when our corp tax rates are already the highest in the world, and the jobs killing Obamacare bill, and all of decent and sensible America is rapidly coming to realize that our jobs, or economy will continue to flounder as long as he and his regime are in power, which we absolutely MUST correct in Nov 2012, and get America back on track if our sweet country is to have a chance.
The republicans have shown their idea for deficit reduction to be tax cuts for the rich and big business, slash and burn for social programs.
Republicans can't or won't realize that shrinking government income through tax cuts plus cutting social programs does not equal deficit reduction. We tried that under Bush and it was an epic fail.
Robert - it seems that you have yet to grasp what happened in November 2010 --- The majority of Americans put Republicans in charge of the House Of Representatives, and gave them more seats in the Senate - BECAUSE the Republicans promised NO MORE STIMULUS, NO MORE government help for the economy!
So there is NO Republicans who are going to approve any Stimulus spending - that type of action to help the economy is DONE!
The Republicans believe in one thing only - cutting taxes -- PERIOD! Republicans DO NOT care about the economy, and they are NOT going to help improve it through the government!
For God sakes the Republcans are even talking about NOT raising the debt ceiling - even though they have been told over, and over, and over that Not raising the debt ceiling would send the world back into a MAJOR RECESSION! The Republicans in the Congress are irrational, and uneducated, and reckless -- The Republicans DO NOT care about the economy! The Republicans just DO NOT care about the jobless! Get it Robert !!
40% of his so called recovery was Squandered on Meaningless Tax Cuts which in reality were little more than a pass-threw to Goldman Sachs who could then increase Oil and Food Prices..!
The fact that liberal politicians believe government spending produces economic expansion is fueling inflation as well as exacerbating stagnation.
The stagflation we are living with has historical precedent, it was predicted when Obamanomics took shape, and we will look back and conclude it contributed more to the decimation of the middle and lower class standard of living than any other cause.
Hope and Change alright. Behold the wonder of liberal Keynesiology!
Your simplistic view of our situation ignores the financial panic of 2008, the hollowing out of the American economy due to "free trade".
What we (Keynsians) believe is something like this::
Aggregate Demand = Government Spending + Business Investment + Consumer Demand.
When Business and Consumer demand drop, the Gov't can step in with spending to bring aggregate demand back up. When aggregate demand rises, the economy moves toward full employment. Once the economy picks up, Gov't spending can be reduced so that the Gov't isn't competing with Business and Consumers for the underlying economic goods, which would lead to inflation.
Try this:
You can't borrow your way out of debt.
You can't spend your way out of a recession.
You can't tax your way to prosperity.
"Once the economy picks up, Gov't spending can be reduced "? Like when has that ever happened?
Government, like any enterprise, always wants more. Give them more of what they want, your money and your freedom, and you will have less of each.
It's the government's job to create a climate conducive to business growth. Taxes hinder business growth.
The economic realignment resulting from reduction of manufacturing jobs has produced a corresponding (I will grant, incomplete) rise in service jobs as the country's standard of living has increased. The dislocation stinks when it hits you or those you love, but it is the same that has transpired since agriculture waned and manufacturing increased. And it should be addressed by the educational system, such as it is.
But woe betide us when we believe Government Spending produces economic activity. It does not. It moves resources from efficient mechanisms to overhead rich politically targeted boondoggles. The theory that it multiplies is what is real rubbish. There is nothing sustainable about taking from some, charging the gross bureaucratic overhead that the government represents, and spending the withered balance on favored projects.
What happens next year? Oh that's right, take some more! Sigh!
Lets import some THREE MILLION indians with fake degress and fake resumes
Then, lets take all our SMARTEST ENGINEERS and throw them in the streets. If they ask what they should do for work… just laugh and tell them to f-in die
Its called the H-1B visa. Learn about it.
They imported HOW MANY indians with fake degrees in 2008 and 2009, oh FOUR HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND
DO NOT become an engineer. People who are stupid and cant make anything are much more highly paid - marketeers, sales bunnies, especially big pharma drug bunnies
The economy is global and there are less jobs for people to do "here." Mostly because the value of the labor is far below what a US citizen will accept for the labor (Americans were chosen by Jesus to be paid high wages; it's in the bible). And the areas that are making up ever larger parts of the economy need less people. Technology has played a major role. Finance and other areas are a huge component of the economy, yet the number of people required is minimal compared to economic output.
I find it sad that people credit the government for "creating" jobs or whatever. And rather pathetic that people attack the government for not doing enough or causing job loss. If you want to credit or knock the president, do it about something he is actually controlling.
Growth in the modern US economy has little to do with jobs. That is the problem that is occurring now. The economy can grow a lot with out producing many new jobs. Nothing is really going to change that. That is why America needs to adapt. The economy is global. Areas of economic importance do not require as much labor as historic areas of importance did (compare real estate with manufacturing; real estate can create much more economic growth with fewer people).
The government can create jobs, but there is likely no net benefit. The government already has a largely redundant workforce. Inefficient spending is not going to be sustainable, especially when the government is already in rough shape. But rely on the government to save you. Because it can, right? I just hope you will be there to save your government when the economy falls apart in the near future.
The government, at this time in history, has a lot to do with jobs.
Our government allowed the de-regulation of big business that made it so too many American dollars whet into too few pockets and much went overseas. Unless this is corrected by re-regulating American big business so it can't take so much of our money out of America we will not rebound. Big business here is under regulated while the small businesses that can help right now are over regulated. Some of our own wealthy citizens have bankrupted us and we need to redistribute our wealth and keep more of it in America to survive and thrive. Balance will have the only true rewards and I don't see it happening.
Well, the answer is very simple - American products cost too much so no one is buying them. America has the highest corporate tax rate on earth now - why should folks in other countries pay our taxes?
Obama and the Libs had their chance - they just made things worse. So the GOP will have a go at it and they won't make it any better either.
Sad thing is America has become just another socialists utopia where your kids' standard of living will be less than yours. Read it and weep.......
The "Libs" want to bring jobs and American money back home with re-regulation, subsidy cuts and more. You need to put the subsidy money to work with infrastructure spending using 100% American workers and product. That will begin to keep some of our money circulating here while we repair our neglected roads, bridges, etc. Then with re-regulating business so it can't take too much American money out of the country... then business will have to grow here. How about getting the money back from the banksters that they took rather underhandidly from their customers? The GOP want to take all the American money out of our country and spend it on their Multi-national Corporations overseas. I go for the "Libs" in the long run.
Well, really I don't wonder, because, unlike the president, I actually know a bit about economics. Maybe there is a connection between the budget deficit and the jobs deficit such that we can't just spend our way out of it.
I know you hate to think about this since it is not as expedient as the simple fix of a stimulous or quantitative easing, but if it were not true our problems would already be solved and tere would be no debate.