Employment is now job one at the White House. In his State of the Union message to Congress last week, President Barack Obama focused on the economy and job creation for a full 40 minutes before moving on to what had been his primary policy and legislative focus of the past year — health care — and then to other matters.
As Americans struggle to make ends meet and millions continue their search for work, let's hope that the president's rhetorical emphasis on job creation does some good by focusing attention on the issue. But whether Congress ever passes the president's proposed program or some alternative and, if enacted, any of the legislation actually works as intended, are separate matters entirely.
Most Americans, it seems, share such skepticism — and increasing cynicism — about the ability of Washington to tackle the nation's major problems. Whether from the right, left or the vast and increasingly voiceless middle, most of us feel that our elected officials are more interested in re-election and catering to lobbyists than in dealing rationally with our nation's most pressing problems.
Chief among these is the nation's debt-burden.
To be sure, Americans on the left and right of the political spectrum differ on how much Washington involvement in the economy is optimal and, therefore, what level of spending is best. But virtually all would agree that unending deficit spending and an America beholden to foreign creditors isn't a recipe for success.
Unfortunately, unlike advisers and planners who must deal with the reality of their clients' financial condition, Washington is incapable of dealing with this core problem with honesty or clarity. Like a dysfunctional family that can't distinguish between needs and wants, and addresses its finances with fuzziness, the administration, Congress and both political parties are all guilty of resorting to verbal fog when discussing the deficit and debt.
Take a minor point. Politicians, including the president, casually substitute the word “investment” for “spending.”
By doing so, they imply that a government expenditure labeled an investment is in some way a better use of taxpayer money than something labeled an expense, and that it will help pull us out of debt rather than dig a deeper hole. But tagging every pet political project an investment doesn't negate the fact that the government is spending money it doesn't have.
The public senses the government's disingenuousness. Americans of all political stripes know that the government is spending beyond its means and that our political leaders aren't leveling with us.
The president's pledge to appoint a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission is a good step, especially after the Senate failed to muster sufficient votes last week to create such a commission.
But neither the president nor Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who gave the Republican response, went into specifics about the dangers facing the country from the unfunded
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid liabilities that loom over us. At worst, this mounting pile of obligations threatens to bankrupt the nation. At best, it could undermine our status as an international superpower.
David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general and now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, has warned that the country is underwater “to the tune of $50 trillion,” and compares us to Rome on the road to decline.
Politicians are probably worried that speaking the truth about our nation's finances can only harm their re-election efforts and add to Americans' anxiety. But honesty from Washington would be an unexpected and welcome change, as well as an anxiety reducer.
A State of the Union message that delivered a straightforward explanation of where we are as a nation financially — using a few slides or charts — and some realistic and non-partisan views about the future would help increase the government's credibility.
Some may say that the president's State of the Union message isn't the appropriate venue for the delivery of an oral economic treatise. But a relatively short, honest discussion that leveled with the American people — much like what an adviser does with a client — would go a long way toward restoring our confidence in Washington.
And that would go a long way toward encouraging the creation of real jobs.
