The first ten years of the 21st Century will be remembered as the Decade of the Deep Hole.
After closing out the Clinton era with surpluses, huge job gains and solid consumer confidence, we hit some big bumps. Besides two long wars and an unbridaled, irrational spending spree for domestic security, there were policy decisions made to neglect the cities, deregulate business and force the poor to find jobs with limited preparation. Promises from corporate leaders to create jobs at home never happened.
Many of the offshore jobs they provided collapsed when Americans stopped spending and a worldwide recession took hold. TARP was suggested and passed as a "Hail Mary" play by leaders who noticed the problems much too late.
The remnants of the 20th Century economy were dashed against the rocks. Sears, Kmart, Pontiac, Merrill Lynch and dozens of other familiar brands either shrank dramatically or disappeared.
My conservative friends often tell me that government cannot create private sector jobs. But when you think about it, government contracts in the last decade creates and sustained a whole lot of private sector companies.
It would be simplistic and perhaps unfair to blame the world's problems on Bush 43. Presidents have power, but they are often at the mercy of world events. President Obama took charge of a sick economy in a troubled world, but I can say "I am better off now than I was four years ago." That's one question we won't likely hear asked by the opposition this election cycle.
The big issue during Campaign 2012 will be jobs: Getting them and keeping them.
Anyone who openly campaigns by saying they "like to fire people" makes me a little more than nervous. It says to me that they believe in a world where investors have money and power, and workers and families don't matter.
I am all for change, but I think positive change should create opportunities. We are now in decade two of the 21st Century. Most of the TARP money has been paid back, more jobs are being created, and Congress is now in full blown campaign mode.
the one hand, we have a president who inherited the playbook mandated by TARP and made the best of it. He is working against a recalcitrant Congress to offer leadership during a period of unproductive gridlock.
On the other hand you have six guys who have yet to outline any really better ideas. Besides the guy who sees value in job elimination, there's the primary architect of 1990s welfare reform that never seemed to accomplish his stated goals.
There's another guy who wants to talk about welfare as those it is a "black thing," there's a guy from Utah who appears to be running because he looks presidential. And then there are my friends from Texas.
One has always been a little quirky but when he starts appealing to more than the fringe it stops being a laughing matter. The other is a governor who doesn't seem to know the difference between a good job in the oil patch and spatula flipping at Whataburger. I think the difference is probably about 35 grand a year.
Let the campaign continue. America is watching, and some Americans are waiting for jobs.
After closing out the Clinton era with surpluses, huge job gains and solid consumer confidence, we hit some big bumps. Besides two long wars and an unbridaled, irrational spending spree for domestic security, there were policy decisions made to neglect the cities, deregulate business and force the poor to find jobs with limited preparation. Promises from corporate leaders to create jobs at home never happened.
Many of the offshore jobs they provided collapsed when Americans stopped spending and a worldwide recession took hold. TARP was suggested and passed as a "Hail Mary" play by leaders who noticed the problems much too late.
The remnants of the 20th Century economy were dashed against the rocks. Sears, Kmart, Pontiac, Merrill Lynch and dozens of other familiar brands either shrank dramatically or disappeared.
It would be simplistic and perhaps unfair to blame the world's problems on Bush 43. Presidents have power, but they are often at the mercy of world events. President Obama took charge of a sick economy in a troubled world, but I can say "I am better off now than I was four years ago." That's one question we won't likely hear asked by the opposition this election cycle.
The big issue during Campaign 2012 will be jobs: Getting them and keeping them.
Anyone who openly campaigns by saying they "like to fire people" makes me a little more than nervous. It says to me that they believe in a world where investors have money and power, and workers and families don't matter.
I am all for change, but I think positive change should create opportunities. We are now in decade two of the 21st Century. Most of the TARP money has been paid back, more jobs are being created, and Congress is now in full blown campaign mode.
the one hand, we have a president who inherited the playbook mandated by TARP and made the best of it. He is working against a recalcitrant Congress to offer leadership during a period of unproductive gridlock.
On the other hand you have six guys who have yet to outline any really better ideas. Besides the guy who sees value in job elimination, there's the primary architect of 1990s welfare reform that never seemed to accomplish his stated goals.
There's another guy who wants to talk about welfare as those it is a "black thing," there's a guy from Utah who appears to be running because he looks presidential. And then there are my friends from Texas.
One has always been a little quirky but when he starts appealing to more than the fringe it stops being a laughing matter. The other is a governor who doesn't seem to know the difference between a good job in the oil patch and spatula flipping at Whataburger. I think the difference is probably about 35 grand a year.
Let the campaign continue. America is watching, and some Americans are waiting for jobs.
No comments:
Post a Comment