How Unemployment Will Swing the Elections

October 8, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

When President Obama took office in January 2009, the economy was spiraling into a black hole and something needed to be done. Obama's economic team predicted that if Congress passed a huge stimulus plan, the unemployment rate, then 7.7 percent, would drift up to about 8 percent, then start to decline. By the time of the midterm elections in November 2010, it would be at a manageable 7 percent or so.

[See 12 ways to stop America's decline.]

Obama got his stimulus plan, of course, but on Election Day in November, the unemployment rate will be 9.6 percent—nearly 3 points higher than what Obama said it would be. By most accounts, it will keep going up for a while and probably peak above 10 percent in 2011. Obama will be extremely lucky if it's back to 7 percent by the time he runs for reelection in 2012.

Virtually everything about the job market has turned out to be worse than the Obama White House predicted. The private sector, which drives the economy, is barely creating jobs, even though the recession officially ended 16 months ago. The government sector, once thought recession-proof, is bleeding jobs as states and municipalities struggle with plunging tax revenue. As the midterms approach, the overall economy is losing jobs, not gaining them, which means we're far away from the 250,000 jobs or so that need to be created every month to drive unemployment down. Of the 8 million jobs lost since the recession began at the end of 2007, nearly half have come since Obama took office. Little wonder that Republicans are poised for huge gains in November, with a good chance to take control of the House of Representatives and an outside chance to seize the Senate.

Obama wasn't alone in his bogus predictions, of course. Most mainstream economists underestimated the severity of the recession and the weakness of the recovery. And the stimulus has done some good, creating well over a million jobs and keeping unemployment at least a couple of points lower than it would have been otherwise. But "it could have been worse" is a pitiful campaign slogan, and no doubt the Democrats are now kicking themselves for their overeager promises. Democratic pollster Bernard Whitman says Obama could have sold the stimulus quite differently, telling the public that unemployment could hit 12 percent without it. He probably would have been right.

[See 3 myths about disappearing prosperity.]

Whoever wins in November is going to face the same thorny problem. For one thing, there's a good chance that unemployment will spike in the next jobs report, which comes three days after the elections. Gallup, which closely tracks employment trends, says that its surveys showed a surge in unemployment in late September, which would not have been captured in the government's latest numbers. If so, that spike could push the official unemployment rate to 10 percent or higher in the next report. State and local governments seem likely to keep cutting jobs, with several states seeking bailouts from Washington to help fix their finances.

A lame-duck Congress might offer some help, but the elections are likely to reinforce voters' disgust with deficit spending by the feds. And as the big stimulus package winds down, those jobs could start to disappear as well. The original idea was that two or three years of stimulus spending would prop up the economy up while the private sector nursed its wounds, and begin to phase out just as private hiring began to ramp up again. But the private sector is still in rehab. Layoffs have eased, but hardly anybody is hiring.

The Federal Reserve is riding to the rescue again, with another round of asset purchases meant to flood money into the system, stimulate investors, boost stocks, and inject some life into the economy. It worked last time, for a while, but when the Fed stopped it became clear that the economy wasn't ready to stand on its own without crutches. So within a month or two, the Fed is likely to give it another try.

[See 5 economic flubs that will cost Democrats most.]

If it works, and there are no more unhappy surprises, two seemingly contradictory things will happen in 2011: private-sector hiring will pick up and the unemployment rate will rise. That will happen because more hiring will draw labor-force dropouts off the sidelines and encourage them to look for work again. So instead of not being counted at all, they'll be counted as unemployed for a while, and then, hopefully, start to find jobs. But progress will be painfully slow, at best, with a good chance the unemployment rate will be higher a year from now, not lower. In the Democrats's best-case scenario, the real gains will come in 2012, as the unemployment rate finally starts to drop consistently. But if they've learned their lessons, they won't promise that.

Tags:
temporary employment,
employment,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Speaking of realpolitics, present predictions are that high levels of unemployment will be with us for at least the next two years, perhaps longer. That's at least 14 million voters, many long ago unceremoniously thrown off of unemployment after 99 weeks. By 2012, that number will be astronomical, and could easily form the basis for a counter waive of libral Democrats sweeping back into office, not to mention another four years of Barack Obama at the presidency.

For the record: Republicans have never been hesitant about supporting unemployment benefits to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. What they have been saying is they want to first identify the means by which continued unemployment benefits can be paid for without raising the deficit. If Congressional Democrats can now see their way through to reducing government spending over 100 billion a year, Republicans should be able to find a good reason to fund Extended Unemployment claims at least until 2012.

Congress could even find a good reason to create a new WPA (Works Project Administration) type program (complete with drug testing) that would include a new "must work" provision for those wishing to extend their unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks. I dare say, the quicker this is accomplished the better it will be for the common good of all.

ex animo

davidfarrar

davidfarrar of GA 3:53PM October 28, 2010

one and a half trillion dollars combining the bank bail out and the stimulus.

if all this had been spent on real work as in road and bridges and upgrading

the whole infrastructure of our country the economy would have healed

itself. the banks should have been allowed to fail, that would have been no

worse than all the foreclosures that would not have happened if one and

a half trillion dollars had been spent on real jobs.

ivan tyree of OH 7:41PM October 25, 2010

If we are very generous with our job estimates, the 814 billion dolllar stimulus plan added around 2 million in (temporary) jobs. If it indeed managed to add that many, it cost $407,000.00 per job. Maybe, it would have been better to send every man, woman and child the US $2652.00, the cost of these jobs. Who will pay off this huge amount? Since I am an old grandpa I should be happy since I will not have to pay much of it, it will be paid by our kids and grandkids. If we multiply that cost by 3.2, the average family size in the US, it will cost about $8500.00 per family. With Obama's healthcare costing another trillion dollars or so, that adds an additional cost of about $10,000.00 per family. We are then up to $18,500.00 per family and, guess what, the illegals and wellfare receipiants will not be paying this. Watch in this election and find out who votes around 99% for the liberals. It will not be those who have to pay these bills, it will be those who get a free ride. Unfortunately, even voting for conservatives will not remedy this anytime soon. It will take forever to eliminate the massive government spending that has been created by both political parties. We have to get back to our democracy and away from the socialistic programs that have been created. The government was never intended to be a giant insurance policy.

The federal government took in 2.162 trillion dollars during the just ended fiscal year and spent 3.456 trillion. Last fiscal year's deficit was even worse. How long could you sustain corresponding losses in your budget until you went bottoms up? Let's get rid of the big spenders and those supporting the 14 to 20 million illegals-who cost us big time (medical, welfare, crime, etc.) and many of whom do not pay any taxes. We cannot afford not to do so. Our country and freedom are at stake.

Leon of ID 4:56PM October 25, 2010

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Read Rick's latest blog entries here.

advertisement

advertisement