Almost since the day President Obama was sworn in, liberals have waited for him to strongly defend progressive taxation and a robust social safety net.
For the longest time, he did neither. He let many core supporters down with his lukewarm support for a public option during the healthcare debate. Back in December he signed into law an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest, effectively breaking a central campaign promise.
But Wednesday, April 13th marked a turning point in the Obama Presidency, with his stirring defense of the social contract and his vow to never again extend the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year. More importantly, the President delivered a scathing critique of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal (which has since passed the GOP-led House of Representatives); the President called Ryan’s vision “deeply pessimistic,” and said it was neither “serious” nor “courageous”.
Since making this speech, Obama has been on a national tour consisting of town hall-style meetings in which he continues to hammer the Republican plan and offer his vision of how to reduce our long-term deficits while at the same time protecting key entitlement programs. The public supports his positions by wide margins. Approximately three-quarters of the electorate support raising taxes on the rich and protecting Medicare; virtually all the particulars of Ryan’s budget are deeply unpopular.
So if the election of 2012 comes down to competing visions of how to get the long-term U.S. budget in balance, Obama will clearly win. But that’s not necessarily what the election will be about. Unfortunately, most Americans vote based on much more immediate concerns, and the state of the economy is usually more important than any other factor. With high gas prices eating into consumer spending, people’s attitudes are becoming much more negative—despite many months of positive economic growth and recent signs of decent growth in new jobs.
The reality is that the economic recovery is extremely fragile; if gas prices remain high, which is likely, this could lead to anemic growth and more unemployment. And despite Obama’s stirring defense of liberal priorities, he is arguing on turf that the Republicans have defined.
In the run-up to the 2010 midterms, all Republicans could talk about was jobs, jobs, jobs. Since taking office they have done nothing to promote job growth, but instead have used deficit reduction as a cover for slashing spending on social programs. Instead of relentlessly attacking Republicans for betraying their campaign promise, the President allowed them to frame the debate. Instead of focusing on the need for immediate job creation, Obama conceded that deficit reduction should be the nation’s first priority. If the economy simply putters along for the next 18 months, he may pay a huge price for that concession.
Let’s say it was politically impossible to get a second stimulus bill through the newly elected Congress. Even so, if Obama had tried and failed he would’ve demonstrated his priorities to the American people. He would’ve forced Republicans to go on record opposing job creation. Instead, we have differing visions of how to overcome long-term deficits—visions that may ultimately have little bearing on the public’s mood come November, 2012.
At this point, the Obama team has to hope that the economy picks up and provides enough momentum to get the President over the finish line. If it doesn’t, there will be lots of second-guessing about whether he did enough to make the case for job creation instead of joining the GOP in putting deficit reduction first.
Jason Scorse