Jobs, Jobs, Jobs?
Remember the White House Jobs Summit? It was in December, 2009:
White House Jobs Summit: Real Progress or PR Stunt?, ABC News: President Obama said today that he is not interested in "taking a wait-and-see approach" when it comes to job creation, as his administration faces unemployment numbers at their worst levels since 1983.
"What I'm interested in is taking action right now to help businesses create jobs right now, in the near term," the president said at the opening session of the White House jobs summit.
The summit, announced a week after the Bureau of Labor Statistics said unemployment reached 10.2 percent, is the administration's latest effort to do just that.
However, some critics dismiss it as little more than a publicity stunt.
Obama acknowledged the skepticism that the summit would produce tangible results, but said he was confident there would be some progress...Obama was not interested in "taking a wait-and-see approach"? Here we are almost two years later and I would be hard-pressed to make a case that the summit marked the beginning of a serious attempt to create jobs. Apparently, being serious about job creation means that when poll numbers are down and a reelection can be seen in the distance, then it's time to pretend like you are doing something.
Robert Reich wonders how bold the plan will be:
Obama's Jobs Plan: Will He Offer Policy Miniatures or Give 'em Hell?, by Robert Reich: Next Wednesday President Obama will unveil his jobs plan. He'll choose either Plan A or Plan B.I appreciate what he is saying, but the framing is about what's best for Obama rather than what's best for the unemployed. I'm sure the administration justifies its actions based upon the idea that getting reelected is the best thing for the unemployed. I'm sure they tell themselves that if Republicans take over in the next election, then it would be much worse for those in need of jobs. I'm guessing that underlies Reich's 'give em hell' advice as well. But at some point -- and it should have happened already -- the unemployed rather than Obama have to come first. And I think providing jobs and reducing the unemployment rate is the best strategy for reelection in any case.Plan A would be big enough to restart the economy (now barely growing) and reduce unemployment (which continues to grow). That means spending another trillion dollars over the next two years â€" rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, creating a new WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, and lending money to cash-starved states and cities.
Republicans will oppose it, of course. ... That means the President would have to fight for it. He'd have to barnstorm the country, demanding Republican votes. He'd build his 2012 campaign around it, attacking the Republican "do nothing" Congress. He'd give 'em hell.
Plan B would be a bunch of policy miniatures that would have almost no effect on the economy or employment but would nonetheless be good things to do (extending the Social Security tax cut, extending unemployment benefits, reauthorizing the highway building trust fund, giving employers a tax incentive to hire the long-term unemployed, ratifying trade agreements). ...
The President would present each of his policy miniatures as a separate piece of legislation hoping to attract enough Republican votes to get something â€" anything â€" enacted and declare a victory. He'd then campaign as a leader who can "get things done," even though the economy is still a basket case.
Which will it be -- Plan A or B? Early indications suggest Plan B. ...
Bad choice. ... The winner of the 2012 presidential election will be the person who comes off as the toughest fighter for average Americans. Earth to Obama: Remember Harry (Give 'em Hell) Truman. ... Give em hell, Barack.
Yes, there would have been political difficulties. But we don't know how things might have differed had Obama used the December, 2009 summit to mark the beginning of a focus on jobs, jobs, jobs and nothing else. If every speech, and every bit of effort had been devoted to job creation proposals instead of stupidly falling into the deficit reduction trap set by Republicans, we don't know how things would have differed. At the very least, workers would know without any doubt which side the administration was on. Right now, that isn't clear.