It's hard to put a good face on the June jobs report. Unfortunately, 80,000 new jobs a month isn't even enough to keep up with population growth and new people coming into the labor market. Even if we were gaining jobs at three times that rate, we wouldn't replace the 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession for more than six years, according to the jobs calculator developed by the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project.
Everyone expects the next president to do something about this. But so far the candidates aren't inspiring a lot of confidence. So we're introducing "The Question Project," a series of posts dedicated to the proposition that if we as voters don't start asking both presidential candidates some tougher, more probing questions about their plans for the economy and the country, we're not going to get the solutions we need.
We were inspired in this effort by a group we just discovered, The Right Question Institute in Cambridge, Mass. Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana are exploring the role question-asking plays in helping students develop powerful critical thinking skills. Their argument is that "a question can become a sophisticated and potent tool to expand minds, inspire new ideas, and give us surprising power at moments when we might not believe we have any." Right now, their work focuses on teaching, but they believe questions are crucial in politics too. "It's essential to democracy," Rothstein points out. "You want citizens to be able to ask good questions."
You can select a candidate in a dozen different ways: by their party, looks, commercials, endorsements or just as an expression of naked self-interest. But only questions allow us to sort out what candidates think about the things that matter most to us as voters and individuals. Only questions force the candidates to justify themselves to us as custodians of the American dream.
So let's stipulate that in this fall's election, jobs will be issue number one. What questions should voters ask the candidates? We have a few modest suggestions, but be forewarned. We're leaving all questions on Bain Capital and Solyndra to the candidates and their various hangers-on -- just go at it, guys, and get it out of your system. And we'll also be steering clear of questions about the candidates' wives, ministers, churches, childhoods, vacations, and birth certificates. Sad to say, others seem to have those amply covered. We're proposing questions that we believe really matter to most voters and where the answers will likely determine the country's future. You'll surely have your own ideas, and we encourage you to post them in the comments section.
So here goes:
So, Governor Romney and President Obama, we'd like to hear your answers -- with no slogans allowed. In our view, American voters deserve at least this much. And it might be a good idea to put some questions like these to candidates for Congress and the governorships and mayoralties around the nation.
Our point is that Americans are fearful about the country's economic trajectory and deeply worried about whether there will be enough good jobs to sustain their families and their futures. Unfortunately, the electioneering we've seen so far is probably more frustrating and confusing to most voters than it is enlightening.
There's still time, though, to have a good debate about the substance. And if you have some more good questions in mind, let us know. It's time to get a honorable discussion started.
Follow Scott Bittle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sbittle
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Here is something that President Obama CAN do right now, so I propose to you that you should provide Answers for the incumbent President who can take action, rather than Questions, and induce him to act by being the voice of America's silent majority.
First, let's combine the information from the two links below:
Apple Not Bringing Overseas Cash Back Home, Blames U.S. Tax Policy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/apple-us-tax-law_n_1362934.html
Job Growth in U.S. Driven Entirely by Startups, According to Kauffman Foundation Study
http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/u-s-job-growth-driven-entirely-by-startups.aspx
The proposal is simple. Have the incumbent President, with the taxing power of the U.S. Government allow corporations to repatriate the $1 TRILLION dollars overseas without significant tax penalty - except that they must all contribute to a fund representing a mere 25% of taxes they would have otherwise been levied - for investment into STARTUP companies. Not 'small business', but brand new companies who source, manufacture and assemble their innovative products in the USA for distribution and sale around the world.
This will provide millions of long-term well-paying jobs here in the USA, and will solve this jobs debacle permanently.
For the sake of the millions of suffering unemployed Americans, PLEASE raise the unemployment issue above and beyond the coming elections!
Once again, your premise is flawed. The proper measure of income is how many hours you have to work to buy the goods and services you need and want. Over the past generation, Americans have become amazingly wealthy by this measure. Our problem over the past decade are recessions, not the level of income when the economy is growing.
Your premise is mistaken. Without the kudzu of government mandates and regulations, the American worker is the most productive in the world. Our history has shown that we need not fear foreign competition. "The longer someone is out of work, the harder it is for them to get back into the workforce. And statistics show we've got the highest proportion of long-term unemployed people since the 1930s. A robust recovery would help, but we can't assume it will provide jobs for these people, many of whom have outdated skills. How, specifically, would you help the long-term unemployed?"
Again, I reject your premise. When businesses need workers, they will train them. Government job training programs have been singular failures.
Flatter and lower income tax codes have always led to more growth and jobs. (Harding 1921, Kennedy/Johnson 64, Reagan 82-84, 87, and Bush 03). Most recently, we returned to full employment after the 2003 Bush tax reforms. The job loss over the past decade was from 9/11 and the mass default of the government directed and subsidized subprime home mortgage market and had nothing to do with tax policy.
"Presidents are expected to develop extensive contingency plans to protect the country from national security threats from abroad. But what are your contingency plans to protect the U.S. economy if there's a major economic upheaval in Europe or elsewhere? If the world economy begins sliding into another recession, how will you respond?"
Neither candidate can say this, but all a US president can do concerning the U.S. economy is to keep the government from making things worse and all he can do about foreign economies is recommend that foreign governments do the same. The insolvent EU welfare and regulatory states would do well to listen.