This shift in Obama’s language isn’t a new development, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed. At least as far back as July 2011 left-leaning economics writers were noting the president’s abandonment of Keynesian arguments. And some strong recent reporting, like this New York Times article by David Leonhardt, explores the roots of the Obama administration’s too-timid response to the jobs crisis.
But there’s no reason for mainstream reporters to leave this as a topic for the partisan or ideological press, and no reason to look only to the past. And, whatever Obama may wish to declare as the central question of this campaign, high unemployment—which depletes household savings, weighs down economy-wide demand, wreaks havoc on personal and family life, stunts the career paths of young people, and exacerbates long-term budget problems—remains the most pressing economic issue we face right now.
And so there’s an important role for reporters—from the moderators of future debates to the traveling campaign press to local journalists along the trail—to play here. The next time you have an opportunity, ask something like this:
Mr. President, I know that Republican opposition in Congress has blocked most of your agenda for the last two years. But I can’t find much in your proposals that would start putting Americans back to work right away, even if they were passed. Where’s your short-term jobs plan?
Paired with appropriate follow-ups and smart writing, this might just serve to highlight the fact that Obama doesn’t have a short-term jobs plan, which would be a useful journalistic service. Or, asked often enough, it might prompt Obama to come up with a plan and start talking about it, which would be even better.
Over the next few days Obama is scheduled to have public events in a pair of key swing states, Virginia and Ohio. Reporters will no doubt be on hand. Who will be the first to ask?
Another funny article posted on the CJR website. What's Obama short term plan? Well, perhaps to continue many of the immediate things he's done which have prevented the "Great Recession" from getting worse and possibly pulling us out of it earlier than expected. As opposed to the Romney philosophy of letting GM close, and letting many major financial institution's close. No governor, that won't increase the food stamp rolls. LOL!
Why don't you ask both canidates that question? Your article implies that Romney has some kind of short term plan. You can't seriously consider that amorphous collection of wishes that Romney articulated to be a short term jobs plan, can you? "I'll slash practically all taxes, especially on my wealthy friends and campaign contributors, cut all spending, and it will all magically work itself out." He might as well have said, "I'll wave my magic wand on the first day in office and 'poof' it will all go away and the world will be a paradise."
The funniest thing about your article is that it brings up stimulus in a way to suggest that you're surprised Obama doesn't propose another round of it. I'm not surprised, but then I'm only an unemployed former part-time journalist, not a "journalist" prestigious enough to blog on CJR. You know as well as I do that stimulus has become a dirty word and it's time for you in main stream journalism to admit it's partly your fault. Both sides spin, but one side has been telling out right lies for many years now, and it's YOUR job to refute them. You also know as well as I do that the first round of stimulus came from Bush, not Obama. Yet the majority of you have conveniently failed to repeatedly refute such accusations as the one blaming Obama for over 700 billion in TARP spending. You also know as well as I do that the first 300 billion was spent by Bush AND that an Inspector General reported that almost the entire sum went out without any system to monitor the spending of or to recover any of that money. That's very likely where the infamous Wall Street bonuses came from. That would have made a good story, but you largely missed it.
Yet your naive to imply that Obama say the word stimulus. Fine, he says it, gets defeated, and Romney takes office without a short term job plan and probably without any real long-term plans either. He'll "consult" about it. Of course Obama won't say stimulus.
Most importantly, what makes you think there IS a short term job solution? Roosevelt didn't have one. How do you persuade the banks to stop sitting on their hands and lend to America's small entrepeneurs? Maybe you should refrain from dabbling in economics.
#1 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Fri 5 Oct 2012 at 09:04 AM
Obama's short-term jobs plan: get some govt agency to announce that unemployment has fallen to below 8%; get some "experts" from Goldman Sachs and elsewhere to vouch for the numbers; get the AP and MSM to flood the Internet with laudatory stories on the topic; and do it all in time to head off a drop in the polls that would've resulted from his ostensibly awful debate performance. Bam!
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 5 Oct 2012 at 03:14 PM
Romney's short term jobs plan: turn his back on the financial industry so they can bring about the next "Great Recession". Only this time, it will be the 2nd "Great Depression".
That's why they didn't invite Bush to the convention. Because the voters couldn't tell them apart. Heck, put Bush in the same room with Paul Ryan and you'd never figure out which one is which. Must we continute to suffer at Wall Street's mercy. What'd I say? Wall Street's mercy?!? Ohhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, it's so sad!
#3 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Sun 7 Oct 2012 at 10:05 AM
both, obama's and romney's job plans can't succeed in isolation of the world economic downturn. obama's proposals sound more practical and could help grapple with joblessness in the u s immediately. but, let's not forget all nations' economies are intimately entwined and relief will be seen almost everywhere almost simultaneously. so, let's give more time. things will take off for the better if only obama returns. romney's plans will have to start afresh, if obama loses. and this will mean living with unemployment for another three years.
so it'll only be prudent to enable return obama and make him resolve the tedious the joblessness in the u s. m.r.dua
#4 Posted by Professor M. R. Dua, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 06:47 PM
Thank you for adding something intelligent to this discussion,, sir, whether or not I actually agree with all your conclusions.
I'm a bit surprised at your choice to post without the use of capital letters. It could cause suspicion that you are, say, the M. R. Dua of the World Center for Academic Excellence and Research in India. Of course, using caps wouldn' t prove that either, but a certain percentage of the readers here are of the conspicacy theory variety and you may be compromising the effect of your post somewhat by posting informally. Assuming of course, that you are who you say you are. In our supercharged climate of political lies, few well meaning efforts at communication are viewed without suspicion.
#5 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 07:32 PM