The LuLac Edition #2118, July 8th, 2012

Jobs under scrutiny. 

JOBS A FACTOR 

One thing about a Presidential election in the dog days of summer is that there is no lack of speculation on the race. Every nuance is watched and commented upon. A prime example was the jobs report that came out on Friday. More than 80,000 new jobs were created but that has been looked at as a failure because it is not keeping pace with what economists were forecasting. Okay, I get that but contrast that with the fact that in President Obama’s first month in office, 800,000 jobs were lost. Plus in the latter months of the Bush administration, no new jobs were created. So that really puts some things in perspective. Is the economic recovery as robust as it should be? No. But consider this. How much better would this economy have been if this President went bigger with the stimulus? How much better would this economy have been if the “job creators” actually invested in the economy instead of using the health care bill as an excuse for not knowing what the future held? See, that argument falls short because business people live to make a profit. It’s what they do. And that’s a good thing. It gets people to work. But would these intrepid investors be so scared of adding jobs just because of a health care bill that doesn’t take effect until 2014? See, if they were so serious about helping America and by extension the economy, they would have already done it. But Democratic administrations pass regulations. Regulations like fair credit card reform and making sure that business owners treat their workers fairly. Mitt Romney says he is going to get America back to work. But so far there are no specifics except that he is going to let the 1% keep their Bush era tax cuts and will help create jobs like he did with Bane. What type of jobs is open to conjecture. One of the big Romney success stories of Bane was Staples. One of the big Obama success stories was the auto industry. Compare the salary of a Staples employee with that of an auto industry worker whose job was saved because there was a bailout. (The money by the way was paid back). Every election has a defining moment when an intelligent voter hears or sees something that pushes them in one way or another. For voters this year that moment will come. In 2008, I was a Hillary backer and was lukewarm about handing over the Presidency to an individual that was in the U.S. Senate as long as it took him to find the keys to the men’s room. Despite the ludicrous pick of Sarah Palin, I was thinking about McCain. But in a debate, both men were asked about the housing crisis and how it impacted the average American. Obama spoke of the average guy who was trying to hold onto his home by a thread and said that someone like that should be looked after. McCain talked about someone he knew that had five rental properties and how the housing crisis would affect them and their future opportunities to acquire more. One candidate looked to the needs of a struggling individual trying to hold on to what they have, the other worried about the person who had more than others and how they might be impeded from getting more. In this election, there will be a defining moment like that for voters. The efficacy any job number will be trumped by the most basic question a voter will have to answer about any Presidential candidate: can he relate to my problems and what I am struggling to hold on to?