It's still 'the economy, stupid'
Directing campaign workers in Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential bid to keep their eyes on the ball, campaign manager James Carville coined the phrase “It's the economy, stupid.”
Carville was right. As is precisely the case today, the centrality of economic issues was paramount in 1992.
Under incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. unemployment rate had increased from 5.6 percent in 1990 to 6.8 percent in 1991 and 7.5 percent in 1992.
Today, it's still “the economy, stupid” with the federal debt at $17 trillion, up from $4 trillion in 1992, and the economy stuck in a record-breaking slow recovery with an official unemployment rate of 7.6 percent in May, up from 7.5 percent in April.
Moreover, the jobless rate doesn't include the roughly 800,000 unemployed people officially labeled as “discouraged workers,” or the million-plus jobless workers classified as “marginally attached” to the labor force, or the 8 million partially jobless workers who are working only part-time but looking for full-time jobs.
Add these “discouraged workers,” the involuntary part-timers and the “marginally attached” to the official unemployment rate, and the true jobless rate in the U.S. is between 14 percent and 15 percent of the labor force — one in seven workers.
Not surprisingly, “huge majorities” of the public ranked “jobs and the economy” as their highest policy priorities in a Pew Research survey in January as President Obama was beginning his second term, reports New York Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat.
“Down at the bottom of the list” of the public's policy priorities in January were “gun control, immigration and climate change,” and yet just six months later, writes Douthat, “the public's non-priorities look like the entirety of the White House's second-term agenda.”
Outside liberal-elite circles, contends Douthat, Obama's second-term agenda “looks at best peculiar, at worst perverse”: Gun control became a priority “with firearm homicides at a 30 year low,” while major new carbon regulations are being drawn up “when actual existing global warming has been well below projections for 15 years and counting.”
Significantly, on “the issues that Americans actually prioritize — jobs, wages and the economy,” advises Douthat, Obama's agenda on immigration and greenhouse gases “will make the picture somewhat worse.”
This fundamental “disconnect” between the public's priorities and Obama's agenda, Douthat contends, “is the most serious threat to current liberal ascendance.”
Douthat doesn't comment on the negative impact of ObamaCare on economic growth and jobs. In a new Gallup poll, 41 percent of small-business owners say ObamaCare has caused them to freeze hiring, 19 percent say they've cut their number of employees, and 18 percent have reduced their employees' hours to part-time.
There are also more than 4,000 new regulations in the federal pipeline, including the EPA's new ozone rule, which will hit American manufacturers with an estimated $100 billion per year in new costs.
Bottom line, asserts Douthat, “we're left with the peculiar spectacle of a political class responding to a period of destructive long-term unemployment with an agenda that threatens to help extend the crisis toward 2020 and beyond.”
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (email@example.com).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Vermont’s Sanders considers run for president
- AHL overtime rules create some confusion for Penguins prospects
- Steelers not receiving big returns on their offseason investments
- NFL notebook: Jamaal Charles injures ankle vs. Broncos
- Rossi: Given start, it’s time for Pitt to finish
- Rare triple play sparks Pirates’ comeback victory over Cubs
- Crash closes part of Route 30 in Unity
- Pitt notebook: Expanded game plan likely awaits Iowa
- Man shot in North Point Breeze
- Long wait is over for Apollo-Ridge girls soccer team
- Mt. Washington landslide stable — for now