subscribe to the RSS Feed

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Main Street Massachusetts Says it’s about Jobs, Homes, and 401(K)’s

Posted by Michael A. Kamperman on January 20, 2010

Main Street Massachusetts just sent Washington a loud and clear message; they’re worried about their jobs, they’re worried about their homes, and they’re worried about their 401(K)’s.  This election came down to kitchen table issues.  Every poll shows the number one issue Americans are concerned about is jobs, not healthcare.   The Whitehouse has been tone-deaf and has had tunnel vision in trying to pass a healthcare bill, any healthcare bill almost no matter what is in it.  Scott Brown did not surge in the polls because the people of Massachusetts don’t want the country to have some form of universal healthcare.  The state already has its own version of state funded universal healthcare and it is popular in Massachusetts.  Scott Brown surged in the polls because the people of Massachusetts, along with the rest of the country, believe the Whitehouse is more interested in the jobs of bankers on Wall Street rather than their jobs on Main Street.  Unemployment is still rising.  Foreclosures are still rising.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average is where it was a decade ago.  Yet instead of hearing the President say he will put America back to work, they hear him say we know unemployment will rise further before it starts to come down.  Amazingly, President Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and he has squandered his opportunity to be the next FDR by failing to focus on the people’s concerns.  The question is does he get the message?

 

The Democrats were already playing the blame game before the polls closed.  It’s true Martha Coakley was neither a dynamic candidate nor a good campaigner.  But there was no scandal or significant local issue in the race and there is no doubt Scott Brown’s 25 point surge in 25 days was about Washington, not Coakley.  Hopefully President Obama will hear the real message and not believe his own supporters spin.  Last night I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC say “the unemployment rate in Massachusetts is only 8.8% and while that sucks it is a lot better than the rest of the country and it shouldn’t be a big factor in the outcome of the election.”  In the past an unemployment rate of 8.8% was certainly high enough to get an incumbent booted from office and Martha Coakley represented the ruling Democrats.  Plus, the 8.8% unemployment rate in Massachusetts is based on throwing thousands of people out of the workforce.  The real rate is probably in 10’s.  Rachel Maddow doesn’t get it, the President’s advisers don’t get it, but hopefully the President will see the wheels have come off the tracks and he will alter the trajectory of his Presidency.

 

If I were advising the President I would tell him to pivot to jobs now, right now, today.  He should come forward and say the number one job, the number two job, and the number three job of his Administration is to get America back to work.  I would advise him to ignore concerns about the deficit and to come forward with a one trillion dollar major jobs bill that includes an emphasis on investments in infrastructure, education, and research and development.  He should say America has the number one economy in the world and these investments are designed to keep America number one for the rest of the 21st Century.  I would advise him to state unequivocally that we will not only bring aid to Haiti, we will rebuild Haiti creating American and Haitian jobs.  If we can rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, then we can rebuild Haiti.  In short, the President should come forward and talk about our possibilities, not about our limitations.  Massachusetts is sending a message the people have lost confidence with the direction of the country.  The President needs to signal he gets the message loud and clear.

 

  • Badtux said,

    I mostly agree, with one exception: Haiti. Americans like to feel generous. But they don’t like the federal government being generous with their tax money. There’s a *reason* why the U.S. is a notoriously stingy donor nation, donating a smaller percentage of its GDP to international aid than any other 1st world nation. And that reason is that Americans would rather put their money to work for America and Americans, not for some “funny-talkin’ furriners” (to paraphrase Mark Twain’s caricature of the typical American’s attitude towards foreign language speakers in his novel _Huckleberry Finn_).

    In short, rebuild New Orleans, not Haiti. Haiti is a net zero in the political benefit column, Americans will support aid to Haiti as long as it appears to be aid that is using already-existing regional military resources, but the moment it looks like we’ve embarked on some expensive taxpayer-funded rebuilding of Haiti, Haiti becomes a net negative in the political landscape. There’s certainly enough places in the United States that need rebuilding without haring off to Haiti!

home | top