Last month had President Barack Obama’s sixth State of the
Union address, with only one from him to come.
It drew comments ranging from “meaningless” (Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post), to “combative” (the New York Times Editorial Board) and “replete
with a certain swagger” (Eugene Robinson, also from the Post, on to his “best yet” for its relative lack of citizen vignettes
(Alexandra Petri, likewise).
I was glad to see the emphasis Obama put not only on the
American economy, but on jobs in particular.
While some of his claims were narrowly selective, such as that “over the
past five years, our businesses
(emphasis mine) have created more than 11 million new jobs” when either
including other positions lost or changing the time to four or six years would
make it much less favorable-looking, politicians will be politicians, and of
more concern was what he said about the future.
The president’s stated wishes were a mixture of ideas, some good
for employment and some bad. On the down
side, we heard yet again, though thankfully not in a belabored way, about the
need for a higher minimum wage, defended by the difficulty to “support a family
on less than $15,000 a year.” To name
just one objection, when we have a permanent jobs crisis, we do not have the
luxury of legally mandating that all positions pay enough to fully provide for
multiple people.
Other of Obama’s proposals would also, as Rubin wrote, “put
more burdens on employers.” Two were federally
required paid sick leave and paid maternity leave. He also called for a “law that makes sure a
woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work,” presumably stronger
or more results-based than the one designed to serve that exact purpose that
has already been on the books for some 51 years. While it is true, as he said, that “nothing
helps families make ends meet like higher wages,” nothing gives families a more
sudden and severe financial setback than being put out of work, possibly due to
one’s employer being simply unable to pay higher mandated costs.
The other points in the speech, though, were favorable to jobs. I counted six, which were four or five more
than he had a year before.
First, he said we have emerged from the recession. Though self-serving, that statement still has
a no-excuses flavor which might stifle contrary, action-inhibiting words from
other Democrats. Second, he mentioned
the need to pay people properly for overtime.
Abuse of statuses such as “manager” and “contractor” have too often facilitated
employers circumventing such laws, which, even in a job-scarce environment,
should not be allowed to deteriorate.
Third, his requested strong connections between community colleges and
the companies most suitable for hiring their graduates are not only critically
necessary but in need of ongoing, proactive maintenance. Fourth, although vaguely presented, his idea
of rewarding companies investing in the United States should affect tax laws
much more than it does. Fifth, his call
at the end of the speech, “if you disagree with parts of it, I hope you’ll at
least work with me where you do agree,” makes it clear that responsibility for
refusals to discuss or negotiate falls, barring the absurd idea that none of
his proposals could under any circumstances be acceptable, squarely on
Republicans.
Obama’s sixth pro-jobs view was perhaps the first one to
take substantive form thereafter. He
mentioned the need for a large infrastructure initiative, which became a $478
billion item in the budget he sent to Congress earlier this month. He said on February 1 that he thought
Republicans were in favor of extensive infrastructure work, and that he and
they should negotiate not the general idea, but how it should be financed. He was right, as people of both parties can
see that American bridges, ports, highways, airports, sewer systems and so on
need repair, upgrading, and replacement, which must happen somehow. If congressional Republicans refused to even
debate how these things could be done, that would mean that they were going
beyond their beliefs and would be, for some other reason, simply acting in bad faith.
One more thing became distinct last month. Obama being a Democrat, and in many ways a
liberal, does not mean he consistently wants a larger government. One reason why the 11 million new business
jobs he cited was not as good as it sounds was that, during that time of his
presidency, government positions had decreased
500,000. Not increased less than
expected, not increased less than the pattern of the past few years, not “cut”
in the old Washington sense of asking for two million but only getting
1,500,000 – but actually down overall. He
said in the speech that his proposed tax increases on the wealthiest Americans
would not go for more workers in Washington, but would ease burdens on the
middle class. So, taking those two
things together, it was completely unfitting for House Speaker John Boehner to
rally Republicans by saying, as he did, that “making government bigger isn't
going to help the middle class.”
Overall, the 2015 State of the Union Address was true to
type. It was self-congratulatory, filled
with wishful thinking, and too vague in spots for even its general
purpose. I stay with what I wrote a year
ago, that there will be no fundamental American employment progress under this administration. However, as our president’s views on jobs
have improved, the reason for that is shifting.
Barring tragedy, Barack Obama will be President of the United States for
almost two more years, with almost no chance that he will be replaced by a
Republican before January 20, 2017 – at the soonest. It is now up to people of that party to
decide whether to negotiate and implement what they as well as Democrats, know
we need, or to throw out babies such as the infrastructure initiative with the
bathwater of further burdens on employers in the name of unconnected
ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment