Skip to main content

A Bruised President

Irwin M. Stelzer

President Obama surely deserves to relax this weekend and enjoy the Super Bowl after an arduous week in which he prepared and delivered his fifth State of the Union message, one the White House admits set forth a rather limited agenda, and then took to the hustings for stops in four states on the campaign trail that has become his natural home. The president might have been spared the chore had Woodrow Wilson, in 1913, not overturned Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 decision to deliver only a written message, a move explicitly designed to avoid mimicking the pomp of Britain’s King’s Speech. Thanks to the Wilson and the forward march of communications technology we now are treated to the spectacle of congressmen vying for seats on the aisle so that they might touch the flesh of the president as he enters the chamber.

Obama did have to make a last-minute change in his message when a new study revealed that one of his major themes, that economic mobility is “declining” in the United States, is not true. The president knows that inequalities of income and wealth have never troubled Americans quite as much as electorates in other countries because of the belief that anyone can rise above his or her birth-station by dint of hard work, with the current occupants of the White House prime examples of that upward mobility. So he hoped to attack inequality of opportunity. When the president was into the nth draft of his speech, Raj Chetty and Emmanuel Saez, professors at Harvard and the University of California, respectively, reported that their study of tens of millions of tax records proved that economic mobility has not, as the president was saying, “declined.” Instead, it has remained essentially unchanged for the past twenty years, reducing support for the idea that a crisis demanding government action is upon us. It would, of course, be good if mobility had increased, but stability beats decline by a long shot.

Still, the president seems to have hit upon a related theme that resonates with many, and perhaps a majority of Americans: rising income inequality unrelated to job performance. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMogan Chase, after presiding over management miscues that resulted in fines of some $20 billion and still counting, is deemed by the bank’s board (which he chairs) to be worthy of a reward of a 74 percent pay rise while real wages of middle class workers remain virtually unchanged for decades. Anecdotes such as this trump demonstrations that rising income inequality is ameliorated by the progressive tax system and transfer payments, that it has its roots in the malign effect of globalization on unskilled workers, and that it is a consequence of the Federal Reserve Board’s decision to fight the recession by driving up the value of assets such as shares and houses, a decision that in the long run might benefit middle class workers, but then again might not.

This voter unease has focused the minds of the politicians who hope to remain in or join the House of Representatives and the senate after the November elections. Some want to “give America a raise” by increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10, as Obama urged them to do during his State of the Union message. “It’s easy to remember 10.10. It will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend,” said the president. It would do that, concede the president’s critics, but only be reducing the pay of many workers from $7.25 per hour to zero, as they are laid off, for example, by fast-food franchises that further automate the food preparation process. At this writing it seems unlikely that congress will go along with the increase in the minimum wage, adding to the embarrassment caused for the president by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who has just said “no” to Obama’s request for the fast-track authority he needs if he is to conclude trade deals with Pacific rim and European trading partners.

Others want to help the unemployed by passing legislation proposed by the president to extend the usual 26-weeks of unemployment benefits by perhaps three months, the previous 99-week extension having expired at year end. That, say Obama’s critics, would only discourage many of those who have dropped out of the work force to remain on their couches rather than renew their efforts to find work, or seek training that would suit them for what the president calls “21st century jobs,” many of which are now unfilled. All seem to agree that whether the problem is too few jobs, too few good-paying jobs of the sort that built the American middle class, or too much being siphoned off by “the 1 percent,” more rapid economic growth would be part of any solution. That, say such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, just might be beyond our reach. He worries that we might have entered a period he tags with the long-forgotten label “secular stagnation”-growth too slow to produce full employment, or of a nature that relies more and more on robots and other substitutes for human labor.

Meanwhile, the president is urging Congress to pass a new stimulus package to fund another try at creating jobs by rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure. Never mind that perhaps 2,000 (Obama) to 20,000 (Keystone advocates) jobs are there for the taking if the president would end three years of stalling and approve the Keystone Pipeline that would bring more Canadian oil to the U.S. To Obama, there are good jobs, such as installing solar panels on rooftops, erecting wind farms, and growing marijuana, and bad jobs, such as mining coal or building an oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S.

A bruised president, hemmed in by a Constitution that places power of the purse in the hands of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and by an electorate that disapproves of his job performance, nevertheless proclaims this a “Year of Action” in which he will deploy two weapons. The first is the power of the presidential pen (and a photo of said implement released to the press), to be used to bypass Congress and rule by executive order, notably in the energy sector by having his regulators write rules affecting carbon emissions.

The second is by seeking cooperation from the private sector and ordinary citizens. He has extracted pledges from several leading businesses not to discriminate against the long-term unemployed when filling job vacancies; is asking moms to persuade their healthy youngsters to sign up for Obamacare to offset the large number of sick and elderly who might drive insurance premiums to unaffordable levels; and is asking those children to guide their moms through the computer maze they confront when seeking to enroll in his health care program-“Your mom will appreciate hearing from you,” he joked.

The general consensus among Democrats is that the president has set a usable stage for the coming elections, and among Republicans is that his speech was a confession of a lack of power to implement even a modest agenda. Independents will be heard from on Election Day.

Related Articles

Economic Perspectives on an Open Internet

Harold Furchtgott-Roth

During my career, I have had occasion to think about the network neutrality issues before the Commission, and about the Commission itself. From 1995-1...

Continue Reading

Two Hundred Years Of U.S. Presidents And Pop Culture

Tevi Troy

Presidents have been forced to calculate whether they want to be men of the people...or men of somewhat higher understanding. On this edition of Up t...

Watch Now

India and the Global Economy

Husain Haqqani & Aparna Pande

A collection of essays presented at the Hudson Institute-Observer Research Foundation Roundtable on “India’s Economic Engagements with the World,...

View PDF