It's the Jobs, Stupid

The presidential election is just over a year away, and two things are becoming clear. First, Republicans have a lackluster field of candidates. Second, the issue that will be driving the campaign is high unemployment. The question is, which one of these factors will be more impactful in 2012? To me the answer is obvious: jobs.

Let me explain.

While every Democrat I know is giddy that the Tea Party favorites -- who are completely outside the mainstream -- are currently leading the Republican field for president, our plan for victory cannot be to count on the GOP to nominate a right-wing hardliner to challenge Barack Obama. Voters are desperate for jobs. And when the American people are desperate for employment, we all have to be concerned that a Tea Party Republican could win.

So what can President Obama do to help lower unemployment? While there will be no magic bullet, the president does have some good options to preserve existing jobs and creating new ones.

First, he can stop his administration from implementing and promoting regulations that stifle the job market. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering creating a whole new class of "chemicals of concern," including the (much maligned) plastic chemicals phthalates and bishphenol-A (known as BPA).

Since there is no definitive science that these chemicals pose any danger to people, the EPA cannot ban them. Yet, by creating these "chemicals of concern," the agency is bending to the will of special interests that have no regard for other people's jobs.

Keep in mind, BPA and phthalates are used in everything from wind turbine parts, computers, medical equipment and DVDs. It's inevitable that this sort of action by EPA has the potential to decimate entire industries. In many rural economies, jobs at chemical plants support entire families. Eliminating those jobs may please a few special interests, but they will not help President Obama's reelection chances. If these chemicals are dangerous, then the EPA should ban them. If they are safe, thousands of good jobs should be protected.

The EPA is also causing consternation with labor unions, concerned that new government regulations on coal mining will devastate industries in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democratic stalwarts like those in the United Mine Workers union are predicting up to a quarter million lost jobs if the EPA follows through on its proposed regulations. President Obama needs to protect those jobs, especially in such critical states to the 2012 election.

Second, President Obama needs to work with Congress to find ways to incentivize businesses (both big and small) to hire more workers. We know that many of America's largest employers are enjoying record profits, but they are not hiring laid off workers or making large investments into research and development which would also create jobs. To address this, the Obama administration and Capitol Hill need to find ways to promote tax incentives that encourage companies to think long-term and hire more employees -- and eliminate tax breaks that companies just translate into record profits and dividends.

I know, with the current Republican leadership this won't be easy to do. Especially because the Tea Partiers and the GOP presidential hopefuls seem willing to sandbag any deal that is good for the nation just because it is also good for the president's reelection prospects. But the White House and Congressional Democrats must continue to put forward a pro-growth agenda and hope the American voters catch on what the Republicans are up to.

I think that President Obama has a very good chance of being reelected. After all, he did kill Osama bin Laden, is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and pulled this nation back from the brink of a complete and total economic meltdown (mostly caused by his predecessor). But the thing that keeps me up at night -- and I am sure keeps the president's campaign team up at night as well -- is the prospect of high unemployment. If voters think Democrats cannot create jobs, they could support a Republican no matter what. And that is a scary prospect, especially when you look at who may be the Republican candidate in 2012.

Ronnie Shows is a former Blue Dog Democratic Congressman from Mississippi

 

Comments

[coyle01]

02:12 PM on 07/29/2011

He has to further extend unemployment benefits! These people didn't ask for this financial crisis. Bush started a useless war at the working man's expense!!! The media has to stop publishing our Countries financial crisis for the entire World to see!!! We have to pull our troops from this unnecessary war that has exhausted this Country and it's people. It's caused a severe depression, raised gas prices, raised the unemployment rate to astronomical highs, I could keep going....need I say more?

[MonaGiridhar]

02:08 PM on 07/28/2011

It seems that Mr. Shows is overlooking the overwhelming “definitive science” behind the EPA’s decision to manage BPA-products. According to Scientific American, BPA mimics chemicals that bind to the same receptors as female hormones, leading to breast cancer cell growth. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found BPA in nearly all urine samples in 2004, showing how dangerous these so-called “job making” computer parts are to the general public. Is your idea of creating jobs to leave chemicals that harm the health of our children and grandchildren unchecked? This law and other pieces of legislation designed to protect our health like the Clean Air Act is the only line of defense we have against big corporate polluters who are not held accountable for the massive amounts of pollution they create. What’s more, EPA’s laws will create $1.5 million jobs over the next five years, helping boost our economy in these tough times. To learn more, follow me on twitter@MonaGiri

[rbot2]

09:12 AM on 07/28/2011

How about changing the game as well as the players?

http://www.americanselect.org/about

Make your voice heard in 2012!!

[sanedembabe]

12:39 AM on 07/30/2011

I was just reading about Americans elect. Its a 501c4 that doesn't have to disclose their donors. And they don't. But, looking at their Board of Directors list, it's loaded with hedge fund people. Big names. I wonder if they're just wanting to peel votes from Obama in 2012....

[rbot2]

08:31 AM on 07/30/2011

That is an interesting theory, and certainly a possibility. I remember how Ross Perot put Clinton in the WH....thanks for the critical thinking on this...

[jdevans]

12:39 AM on 07/27/2011

People voted for Republicans in November 2010 because they campaigned on "Jobs, jobs, jobs". Now that the Republicans have gotten into office, you don't hear a word about jobs.

[galvinhome]

08:07 PM on 07/26/2011

While I don't agree with everything that you say, I sure have been saying the same thing as you said in your 1st and 2nd to the last paragraphs. You recognize the fact that if business has to hire employees to recieve tax incentives they are much more likely to do so. Also if other businesses see that they can't get tax breaks without hiring they might just follow suit. While business must make a profit to stay in business, they shouldn't be asking for help from the government if they aren't gonna hire more people.

[Less Taxes is better]

08:05 PM on 07/26/2011

You are correct. If umemployment is over 9%, it will be hard to defend his policies on energy, foreign wars and still having GITMO open, Obamacare and raising insurance cost and medical costs, any of the stimulus ideas (clunkers,etc:).....

too much to overcome in the fourth period