Give Peas a Chance

---

"[I]f we think it's hard now, imagine how these guys are going to be thinking six months from now in the middle of election season where they're all up. It's not going to get easier. It's going to get harder. So we might as well do it now — pull off the Band–Aid; eat our peas."

Barack Obama
July 11, 2011

---

I'll be the first one to admit that the headline on this post is not original. I heard that Rush Limbaugh used it on his radio program (sneeringly, I'm sure), and the Washington Post used it as the headline on its editorial supporting Obama.

And it wouldn't surprise me if some form(s) of it wound up in print elsewhere.

It just seems so right for this topic, no matter which side of the fence you're on — and Limbaugh and the Post are about as far apart as you can get.

I've never been able to resist a really clever play on words. Neither could John Lennon, the guy who wrote "Give Peace a Chance" back during the Vietnam era.

And I think he would have appreciated this one.

I've always respected Obama's gift for public speaking. It's a gift he used far more effectively on the campaign trail than he has in the White House, and I think that is because he still hasn't learned the truth in Mario Cuomo's observation so many years ago about campaigning in poetry and governing in prose.

Obama simply hasn't proven to be nimble enough to manage that tricky transition. He wants to be the eternal outsider cheered on by his adoring supporters. He refuses to accept the fact that he has a record and that he is responsible for the economy now.

Obama rightfully admires past presidents who had a similar gift for the poetry of the campaign trail — guys like Lincoln and the Roosevelts and JFK — but he forgets the crucial role that leadership played in the success of their presidencies — even if that success was not recognized during that president's lifetime.

I think Obama sees himself as being like them in many ways — as he imagines himself to be, he sees them as being smarter than most of the Americans of their time and having used their superior language skills to sway the naysayers.

But he is often bewildered because, while he thinks is doing exactly what they did, he doesn't get the same response from lawmakers and voters — and that can be frustrating as well as bewildering.

---

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

The Animals

---

There is a reason for that response, and I have been writing about it here since Obama took office.

It is not racism — the all–purpose excuse onto which the president's supporters latch when the results of his policies are disappointing.

This president has some admirable virtues. When he came to office, he was aware of a lot of problems, and his instinct was to deal with all of them.

To me, that suggests someone who deeply loves his country, someone who wants only the best for his country. He wants no flaws — even though such a state of perfection is impossible to achieve. It does not suggest someone who wants to turn the country upside down and inside out, as his political opponents have strongly implied.

But with unemployment as high as it was when Obama took office (and, of course, it is much higher still today, 2½ years down the road), it was obvious to me that, before anything else could be done, it was urgent to put America back to work. It would take money and lots of it to repair schools and highways and power grids, to develop alternative energy sources, to achieve all the things Obama said he wanted to achieve.

That meant that a much larger tax base would be necessary. To achieve that, it was necessary to put people back to work — so they could contribute to the tax revenue again.

For me, it was obvious what needed to be done. The question was how to do it.

In 2008, the poetry of his campaign speeches spoke to people — but too often "yes we can" has become "they won't let us" since Obama took office. The rhetoric rings hollow today. It sure doesn't sound like leadership.

It's easy enough at this point to say that, if the stimulus package had worked as advertised, things would be different. America was told a lot of things about what the stimulus would achieve — and little about what it would not.

If the stimulus had worked the way Obama told the country it would, I think it is likely that there would be no debt ceiling debate today. Oh, perhaps there would be, but the dynamics would certainly be different.

But it did not work as advertised.

For many Americans, especially unemployed Americans, it came as a shock when unemployment continued to post six–digit monthly losses long after the stimulus was passed — and they watched many of the outfits that caused the economic collapse in the first place regain lost ground and post hefty profits while the jobless slid deeper into economic quicksand.

Meanwhile, Obama said little publicly about job creation (frankly, I was shocked when he said not a single word about unemployment on the first Labor Day of his presidency). He spoke instead about his Supreme Court nominations (neither of which ever were in jeopardy), and he spoke a lot about his health care reform package. And he made a controversial speech to the schoolchildren of America.

As far as millions of unemployed Americans are concerned, Obama has been negligent. I've heard some suggest he should be impeached.

It was no secret that Republicans didn't like many of the things the Democrats did in the first couple of years of the Obama presidency, and it is certainly not a novel experience for the minority party to dislike and resist the majority's initiatives, but they were essentially powerless to do anything about them, especially after Al Franken was declared the winner in Minnesota, giving the Democrats a filibuster–proof majority in the Senate.

That was a golden opportunity, but the Democrats squandered it. Since the elections last fall, we've been hearing more from Obama on job creation — it's a welcome change but seems a little late and far too politically motivated. Besides, it comes across as insincere, considering the window he had.

I think most presidents have to learn that their opportunity is limited and they have to take advantage of their chances — and most do learn that by the midterm elections, if not before. Obama is still learning that, even after his party lost its huge majority in the House — and in spectacular fashion.

I suspect he will still be learning it when the debt ceiling crisis is past.

Eat your own damn peas, Mr. President.

State of Obama

The 2012 presidential campaign will begin tomorrow during the State of the Union speech.

It isn't being advertised that way, of course, perhaps because the politicos think most Americans, regardless of their leanings, are just burned out on politics right now. But Barack Obama will be laying out his blueprint for the next couple of years when he speaks tomorrow night — and the voters are likely to judge him on how it works out.

It's a little late to be offering Obama advice on what he should say. Besides, no one ever really knows how these things will work out. If someone comes up with a foolproof method for looking into the future, at the very least we will know if a presidential address is going to be a make–or–break moment for that president.

As I recall, that was a problem with George H.W. Bush in the last year or so of his presidency. Every time he was about to make a speech during that period, the public was told that it was the most important address of his presidency.

But the speeches never seemed to match the expectations. In fact, they often fell far short of them.

By the end of his single term, Bush had become the president who cried wolf.

Now, the State of the Union speech is a little different than most presidential speeches. It is an annual event. It is not inspired by special circumstances, and only rarely does it coincide with something else of equal or greater importance (25 years ago, it was scheduled to coincide with the first space shuttle to carry a civilian teacher — but that mission was terminated by an explosion shortly after takeoff).

And I will admit that Obama has certain oratorical skills that neither of the Bushes possessed. Consequently, the emphasis on the performance may not be as great for him as it was for the Bushes — although that could change if he is not up to his usual standards.

I think the pundits' emphasis, in this case, will be on the specifics of his recommendations — and, frankly, focusing on substance would be a nice change.

One of the problems with a substantive discussion is that it can't be argued and resolved in a few hours. It will require some time before the success or failure of Obama's policies can be determined, so those who are inclined to grade the speech the day it is given should be afforded no credibility.

But the window of opportunity for every president in my lifetime, not just this one, has been brief. As technology advances, the window gets smaller and it starts to slam faster. I think people are as patient as they have ever been, but the speed of their gadgets accelerates everything else.

Two years ago, Obama's inaugural address was hailed by friend and foe alike, but, within a few months, it was clear that his stratospheric approval ratings were crashing to earth. Those who cried "racism" may have been right in some isolated instances, but, by and large, they did their president and themselves a disservice by ignoring the underlying problems.

Was the problem that, as some of his critics have suggested, he tried to do too much, or was it, as others have said, that he didn't do enough? I don't know, but there is little to be gained from looking back — unless it is to look for ways to improve. A little self–analysis is a good thing, but it can be over done.

Personally, I have never been as impressed with Obama's delivery as the folks who elected him, but it usually seems to impress most of his listeners, even those who disagree with him — so I don't think there is much to be learned from watching tapes of his past speeches.

And, with the speech coming up in a couple of days, it's really too late to be thinking about substantive changes in speaking style — for this address, anyway.

But there may be some things to learn about following up.

I have heard that the speech will emphasize job creation, and that is a good thing — if it is earnest.

We heard lots of lip service about this a year ago, after the Republicans captured Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, but it disappeared, aided by the ongoing BP spill and the general unwillingness of Democrats to tackle the problem.

When it re–emerged last fall, it was a campaign issue, a cynical ploy to win votes that failed miserably.

Now, there are no votes to win. Or are there?

Alex Kowalski of Bloomberg.com reports that the outlook for jobs is improving. Unemployed Americans — both those who are counted using the government's arbitrary methodology and those who are not — would like to believe that is true.

The fact that there is no election looming in the near future leads one to believe such talk might be serious this time. But there is no time to waste, and neither party controls enough seats in Congress to impose its will on the other. For anything to be accomplished in the next two years, it will be essential for Democrats and Republicans to work together

Bipartisanship wasn't really necessary to accomplish anything in the first year of the Obama presidency, but it will be in the last two years of this term. What will be different about this president's appeal for bipartisanship this time, now that his party no longer controls the House?

Now, most people seem to realize, even if they don't openly acknowledge it, that the crisis is spiraling out of control and what remains of the middle class is likely to be demolished.

If Obama really does focus on job creation in his State of the Union address, his listeners — both those on Capitol Hill and the millions watching on television — seem certain to agree with him. The disagreements will come on how it is to be achieved.

There has been some talk of the conciliatory, centrist tone Obama sought in his speech at the Tucson memorial service. And polls have shown that Obama's standing with the voters improved slightly in the aftermath.

But the polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans likes Obama. They also think he is taking the country in the wrong direction.

When they go to the polls in November 2012, that may be the decision they have to make — whether to re–elect a president most folks like personally but about whose policies they have serious doubts or to elect someone else.

Tomorrow night is when he can start to make his case.

Obama's One-Track Mind

For a smart, well–educated guy, Barack Obama has a one–track mind.

Even after insisting that his administration was going to emphasize jobs, he simply couldn't resist the temptation to keep talking about the same thing he's been talking about since he took office — health care reform.

"By the time March arrived, President Obama was supposed to be entering his third month of the year talking about three things: jobs, jobs, jobs," writes Jeff Zeleny in the New York Times.

Zeleny goes on to ponder why Obama's "shift from health care to the economy" was so short–lived. After all, the problem hasn't been solved. Unemployment is still in double digits — and may be even worse when the monthly jobs report comes out on Friday.

I'm glad that Jim Bunning backed down last night and allowed unemployment benefits to be extended. They aren't the answer — they're enough to help some people, not enough to help others — but depriving the unemployed of what is, for many of them, their only lifeline isn't the answer, either.

It's fine that job cuts seem to be less than they have been in two years. But how does that help the Americans who have been out of work for months, even a year or more?

This should be making Democrats nervous because many of them will pay the price for this inattention in November. I know there are a lot of Obama defenders who will talk about whose fault this is, and they'll get no argument from me on that point. But that isn't the issue. The issue is action. In the absence of action, the issue — at the very least — is whether it appears that Democrats are even attempting to address the problem.

Because that is what they were elected to do. But it ain't what they've been doing.

Zeleny quotes at least one congressional Democrat, Rep. Sanford Bishop of Georgia, who expresses what other Democrats are certainly thinking: "Health care is important. But it's jobs, period. We need to talk about jobs."

Even if he is only giving it lip service, Obama needs to be talking about jobs every day — with the same fervor he has given to health care reform. More, in fact. Because the unemployed do care about health care — but they need an income so they can pay for the other necessities, like food, clothing and shelter, first.

Until he does that, the unemployed (and there are millions of us, in case he and the Democrats need reminding) can't really participate in the health care reform discussion.

And they will not feel reassured that anyone in Washington cares about their plight. Can they be blamed for looking for someone else who will pay attention to their concerns?

The Hourglass Presidency

You know how movies and TV shows like to use an hourglass to illustrate how quickly the sands of time run out?

As a matter of fact, I was just thinking the other day that the first time I can remember seeing that particular visual aid used in a movie or TV show was when I was a child and I saw "The Wizard of Oz" on TV for the first time. I must have been about 5 or 6, and the winged monkeys scared the crap out of me. Yes, I was young and gullible, but I got the concept of the hourglass.

It seems to me the analogy applies to presidencies, this presidency in particular.

Last year, it was a big deal for Democrats to get their 60th seat in the Senate because that meant that the Democrats could prevent a Republican filibuster. Procedurally, it meant the Democrats could call the tune and the Republicans would have no choice in the matter.

Having that 60th vote was so important that Ted Kennedy, in his final days, arranged for the law to be changed so the Democratic governor could appoint the senator who would take his place until a special election could be held. Kennedy wanted to make sure, it was said, that there would be no obstacles to health care reform because that was the cause of his life. And, as the Democrats took Kennedy to his grave last August, one after another pledged they would pass health care reform in his memory.

Well, the voters in Kennedy's home state chose a Republican to replace him. That means that the Republicans can filibuster if they want to, and the Democrats won't be able to stop them.

And, currently, political observers like Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball and The Rothenberg Political Report are suggesting that enough Senate seats that are currently held by Democrats are potential takeover targets to make the Democrats nervous about the midterm elections.

Everyone has an opinion on the matter.

Some would encourage Barack Obama to continue a bipartisan approach. The Christian Science Monitor calls this Obama's "Bill Clinton moment," referring to the welfare reform plan he oversaw after the 1994 midterms put both the House and Senate in Republican control.

Ruben Navarette writes, for CNN, that Democrats should not attempt to push anything through without the support of some Republicans.

But I'm inclined to agree with Harold Pollack of The New Republic, who says the time to act is now.

I agree that health care reform is important, but, as I have been saying for many months now, I think jobs are more important. There was a time there, for maybe a week, right after Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts when Obama and the Democrats did a fine job of giving lip service to job creation.

But they're back to promoting health care reform.

So if nothing else is going to get done until we've seen health care reform as far as we can, let's finish it off and then turn our attention to promoting job creation.

Because that is what public opinion polls indicate that the voters are most concerned about.

I know, polls are only snapshots of opinion at a particular moment. But the polls have been remarkably consistent.

Any politician who ignores what they're saying does so at his own risk. And, at the moment, those polls are screaming J–O–B–S!

The Democrats had better come up with a strategy soon. The grains of sand are running through the hourglass.

The Bait and Switch

"So much for the pivot to jobs," write James Capretta and Yuval Levin in The Weekly Standard, and I have to agree.

Whether it was for appearances, in the wake of the loss of Ted Kennedy's seat, or whatever, the Obama administration's attention has been diverted from job creation back to its obsession with health care.

In spite of plummeting job approval numbers. In spite of increasing indications that the Democrats are constantly and irreversibly alienating those who helped them gain power.

So, for those millions of Americans who have been hoping the government would do something, anything, to encourage job creation — better luck with the next president.

'Cause this one sure doesn't feel your pain.

And despite the grand talk from Obama and the Democrats about a desire for bipartisanship, as Capretta and Levin observe, "It is now clear that the 'summit' the president has called for February 25 is not intended to consider different approaches to health care financing, but rather to create an illusion of momentum that might just lull disoriented congressional Democrats into ramming the health care bill through the budget reconciliation process."

Maybe he will feel the pain of the unemployed in November — when they march to the polls to vote incumbents out of office. Sure, that will mean Republicans as well as Democrats. But the Democrats will learn that, while some things have changed, other things — like the tendency to punish the party in power in midterm elections — have not changed.

And it ought to send a chill down the spines of everyone in Congress — assuming they get the message and figure out who they're supposed to be working for.

But that won't help those whose names will be on the ballot this year. It might help those who will face the voters in 2012 and 2014 — but only if they're paying attention.

How to Stimulate the Economy

---

---

I had dinner with my father tonight, and, among other things, we talked about stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

I don't wish to devote this space to complaining, as I frequently do, that Barack Obama is not making job creation the priority. I think that point has been made.

Instead, I would like to direct Obama's attention to something that might inspire him. (Personally, I liked the idea of offering tax credits to businesses that hired Americans in 2009 and 2010. I thought it had merit. But it wasn't included in the stimulus package. Whose idea was that? Obama's? Biden's? A member of Congress'? Your guess is as good as theirs.)

What Obama needs to do is find ways to create short–term jobs, much like what Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930s. With all the unemployed people out there, it can't be a bunch of small crews working on small projects, although some of those could be included.

The idea is to get those people working again and spending. Everyone agrees that consumer spending lubricates the economic machine. Get millions of people working on jobs that last, say, six months or a year, and those people will buy a lot of things they aren't inclined to buy when they have to count their pennies.

Obama needs a project the size of the pyramids. And Lewis Black might just have the answer. Watch and enjoy.

Jobs Stimulus? Hello? McFly?

Kevin O'Leary suggests, in TIME, that America should "resurrect something like the Works Progress Administration" — the Depression–era program that "put millions of unemployed Americans to work building schools, roads, parks, libraries and other needed infrastructure projects."

That's a good idea. Why didn't I think of that?

Wait a minute. I did suggest that. Well, perhaps not in those words. But I've been saying that job creation needed to be a priority since before George W. Bush started packing up to move back to Texas.

When the Democrats pushed through their pork–laden economic stimulus package, I was saying that we needed to focus on job creation. Well, job creation got a lot of lip service but not much else.

And now, all of a sudden, O'Leary reports that "the current situation is stark." Gee. Ya think?

---

"When people say there are no jobs out there, it's true. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the start of the recession in December 2007, the ratio of job seekers to job openings was 1.5 to 1. Now six unemployed workers chase every available job. It's a brutal game of musical chairs in which a great many people lose and spiral downward economically with disastrous consequences, not only for themselves and their families, but also for communities that were once productive and prosperous."

---

Actually, I am glad to see someone treating this as the dire situation it is.

That's why I'm somewhat baffled by the emphasis on health care reform. I know it is important. I really do. But I've seen reports of people killing themselves and their families because they don't have jobs. I haven't seen any reports like that connected with health care.

Doesn't that suggest that job creation is more pressing right now?

Economists now are saying that employment won't even start to get better until well into next year. Unless the affected families have a medical crisis to deal with, health care occupies a rather low spot on the totem pole. Food, clothing and shelter are more immediate concerns.

I heard a lot of encouraging talk about job creation during last fall's campaign. Notably, Barack Obama pledged a tax credit for businesses for each American they hired in 2009 or 2010, but no such tax credit was included in the stimulus package.

Here's a thought for all those politicians who have fretted about how we're going to pay for that $1 trillion stimulus package — put Americans back to work and start collecting taxes from them again.

Here's another revenue idea that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Legalize and regulate the sales of marijuana. State and federal governments could collect taxes on the sales, virtually eliminating the black market (and the violent crime that goes along with it) and freeing law enforcement to devote its time and resources to violent criminals. It has been estimated that marijuana sales could generate $1 billion annually in tax revenue in California alone.

Could your state use $1 billion a year? Well, revenue would be somewhat lower in the other states because California's population is, far and away, greater than any of the others. But we're still talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in most states.

It could also create jobs, just as the end of Prohibition created jobs. But Obama refuses to discuss it.

I hate to sound like a broken record (which I'm sure is an alien concept to many young people today), but job creation is the key. Put people back to work and you'll have a more receptive audience for talk of health care reform. Even make–work that only lasts a little while will help.

But whatever you're going to do, you're going to have to do it quickly. Time is running out for millions of Americans. Obama has been president for seven months, and job losses have been in six figures in each of those months.

Blame it on Bush if you want. But he isn't sitting in the Oval Office anymore.