PLANK JUNE 8, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

The conservative reactions showed up in my twitter feed within a few seconds, the first missive from the Republican National Committee came through e-mail not long after that. Somewhere in between, Mitt Romney worked it into a speech and now, I see, congressional Republicans are talking about it too.
I’m referring, of course, to President Obama’s already infamous comment at today’s White House press conference: “The private sector is doing fine.” Following three months of disappointing job reports and with unemployment still above 8 percent nationally, critics are likening Obama’s statement to Romney’s statement in January of “I like being able to fire people” and, perhaps more ominously, to John McCain’s statement in the fall of 2008 that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.”
Politics is frequently a game, and a stupid game at that. Politicians are human; sometimes they choose poor phrasing. When they do, opponents can be counted upon to exploit them and the media can be counted upon to dwell on them. But good politicians understand this fact and act accordingly. The best politicians figure out a way to avoid making those statements, even as they speak candidly and in a mature way to the American public.
Obama is usually among the most adept at doing that. Today he was not.
Still, an intelligent political environment would magnify such statements only when they seem indicative of what a politician actually thinks. McCain’s statement arguably reflected a real problem: His failure to grasp the magnitude or nature of the financial crisis. Romney’s statement about firing people, by contrast, wasn't even about employment. He was simply making a clumsy metaphor about health care.
So let's look at what Obama actually said, in full context:
The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
Broadly speaking, the analysis is correct. The private sector has been creating jobs at a steady pace, but the public sector has been shedding them, slowing growth. And there is no reason why that has to happen. Stabilizing the public sector workforce or, better still, increasing it would be among the very easiest things for the federal government to do: It can simply write checks to state and local government, as it did with the Recovery Act and has traditionally done during times of economic distress.
Republicans disagree. Downsizing the public sector is very much their goal and Romney said as much in his quick response:
[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
The economic theory behind this seems rather questionable: I’ve yet to see the study suggesting that the recent decline in government workers has been good for growth or jobs. Keep in mind, too, that a downsized public sector is one with fewer teachers and firefighters, not to mention civil servants who may go by the ugly name “bureaucrats” but provide more essential government services than most people seem to realize. Sometimes we need fewer of these workers, but sometimes we actually need more of them.
One might even argue, as Steve Benen and Greg Sargent have, that Romney's quote is far more meaningful—and alarming—than Obama's.
Another criticism of Obama would be that he doesn’t fully grasp how weak the private sector remains. It’s been creating jobs, yes, and is posting plenty of profit. But it should be creating jobs a lot faster. That's not "fine." But if that is the argument Romney and the Republicans want to make, they really should explain why they have no serious plan of their own to boost job growth in the short term—and why they won’t seriously consider any of Obama’s proposals, such as public works spending or targeted tax credits, most of which have widespread support among mainstream economists.
You’ll notice that Obama made specific mention of putting construction workers back on the job, through the kind of infrastructure investments he has proposed and his administration was touting even during the winter and spring, when the economy seemed stronger.
Or maybe you won’t notice Obama said this at the press conference, given the media coverage. That’s too bad, because this debate over how to create jobs is precisely the one we should be having.
For more, see Ezra Klein and David Weigel.
Update: I reworded the passage on public sector jobs, adding the Romney quote along with the links to Benen and Sargent. I also noted, per a reader suggestion, that private sector profits are high.
Follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
19 comments
The private sector is doing fine because it is experiencing record profits. And that's probably what Obama had in mind, but he couldn't say it because record private sector profits may not appeal to his base. Honesty. That's the best policy.
- rayward
June 8, 2012 at 3:12pm
I don't think Obama is, "broadly speaking", accurate. His statement is pretty much dead accurate. The private sector has been getting along fabulously! The sluggishness we are experiencing at the moment is almost entirely attributable to the loss of public sector jobs which are balancing out the excellent performance of the private sector these days. I see yet another instance in a long list of instances where Republicans take statements out of context in order to alter the meaning, and then clobber the democrats with them; and the Lame Stream Media is once again complacent in the deception by reporting on the drama and politics, not the facts. And there's nothing you can do to preempt this kind of activity, and so I see no reason to tut at Obama. That's the point of taking things out of context, to free words of their original meaning and intent, allowing the deceiver to change reality for their own personal benefit. The only possibly fool-proof way to prevent this sort of thing is to say nothing, but that too can be misconstrued even more easily, like through conjecture: "He must be hiding something. It must be terrible or he wouldn't want to hide it. What could be so terrible?".
- GSpinks
June 8, 2012 at 3:22pm
I'm sure that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying, "See?!? When it comes to having reasons for picking a President, your method is no better than ours!"
- Nusholtz
June 8, 2012 at 4:03pm
GSpinks, you're wrong, and so is Obama. From April to May, for example, the private sector created 82,000 jobs. The public sector lost 13,000 jobs. The sluggishness is not attributable to just public sector job loss.
- polcereal
June 8, 2012 at 4:23pm
I'm surprised everyone is focused on the 'private sector is doing fine' part. I was more alarmed when he said, "[Governors and mayors] don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government", which is clearly a reference to how he feels free to ignore the Constitution in his quest to turn this country into a socialist collective.
- Fishpeddler
June 8, 2012 at 4:33pm
Another bad day for Obama. The release of the emails between the administration and health insurers during the HCR deliberations is disheartening at best. See today's NYT story. I'm afraid it's becoming clear that the advisors Obama assembled were not prepared.
- rayward
June 8, 2012 at 4:48pm
Big gaffe by Obama and all ... but if there's anything that we learned during the Republican primaries, it is that Mitt Romney can be expected to make an equally big gaffe at any moment. I give him about two weeks tops to say something even more clueless than what Obama said. The good news, such as it is, is that no gaffes by candidates (especially incumbents) make much of a difference to voters unless they occur during a televised debate.
- wildboy
June 8, 2012 at 5:16pm
You don't have to be a Repub to strongly disagree with "The private sector is doing fine." Trying to explain it by putting it into "context" makes the comment yet worse. Private sector job growth would need to be about 250,000/month just to employ new entrants into the work-force--- much less decrease the growing number of unemployed. I bet voters do "get it"-- even if Cohn and some tnr commentors don't get it. It's not only a major gaffe-- but also brings into question for the nth time whether BHO understands what is needed as calculated by anyone who understands Keynesian economics. BHO is the blithe naif whose non-re-election is a disaster? Yeh-right.
- drofnats1
June 8, 2012 at 7:33pm
Wildboy. Kerry didn't say "I was for it before I was against it in a debate". And yes, "Mush-mouth-Mitt is more clueless that Blithe-Barack". But "..." hardly makes for a great campaign slogan or a reason to bust buns to elect either candidate.
- drofnats1
June 8, 2012 at 7:40pm
The elephant in the room is that for centuries we have believed that an economics based on never-ending growth eventually solves all problems of human economic life. We are in a time of peak oil, global warming, overpopulation, and if humans are to survive, we will have to adapt to a post ever expanding consumer-entertainment/post endless growth economic situation. It's not just the Second Great Depression; it's the Permanent Great Depression. Welcome to the permanent Great Bad Times.
- skahn
June 9, 2012 at 1:01am
The private sector is doing the best it's ever done--all-time record profits with 2.2 trillion dollars in savings. It just isn't spending any of its savings on new hires in America. Obama is completely accurate, and, of course, Romney is completely wrong. That's why the Republican idiot will crash our economy like his GOP predecessor did. He doesn't even know anything about economic facts, let alone policies for creating jobs. Unemployment is high in America because Romney's corporate buds are too cowardly to invest any of the 2.2 trillion dollars they have lying around in America and Americans. I remember in the Eighties, while Reagan was in the White House, there was a public campaign, led by Donald Trump, to portray corporate leaders as heroes. First they crash our economy, and then they refuse to help us fix it. Some heroes.
- magboy47.
June 9, 2012 at 3:17am
Meanwhile, everybody is trashing educators, and education, threatening to shred the safety nets - and look what we're spending money on - huge amounts of it - http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-hopes-stealth-ship-answers-rising-china-065329046.html Why are we spending all this money on defense if we're already attacking Americans right here at home? We're undermining health, safety, women's rights - even the weather service; Republicans want to make life even harder for the poor - teach creationism - get rid of food stamps in a deep recession - impoverish the sick and the elderly - because we are afraid of the Chinese? I think we should be afraid of us.
- Sophia
June 9, 2012 at 3:07pm
"Has the president's 'private sector' gaffe obscured the real jobs debate?" Is the Pope Catholic? Does a fireman wear red suspenders?
- mlottman
June 9, 2012 at 4:08pm
Two things: One, @drofnats, if the shortfall in govt spending/hiring vanished, private sector jobs growth would increase accordingly. You, of course, know this since it is key to the Keynsianism of which you are such a partisan; you're just such an Obama-hater that you can't stand to give him his due even when he substantially agrees with you. Two, if I were the Obama campaign I'd be going hard on "Romney thinks we don't need police or teachers." Find some white, exurban school districts where class sizes have ballooned to 40+ and others where property crime has sored. Make a speach. "Bill Clinton put 300K extra police on the street and crime plummeted. Mitt Romney thinks that public safety for you and your children is something we can't afford."
- AaronW
June 9, 2012 at 7:18pm
Aaron.. One.. What the ?? You speak economic nonsense re gov't vs private spending tradeoffs, except in Hooverian ideology. Two-- you want BHO to be Trumanesque. Goood luck witrh that. I don't hate BHO any more than I hate Neville Chamberlain or Herbert Hoover. All were/are nice, bright ineffectual politicians with the wrong personalities and policies for their times. The sooner each went/goes, the better off the world was/is/. And those that said/say that reality were/are not well-received in their political party. The same goes for critiques of Mittens in the Repub party today.
- drofnats1
June 9, 2012 at 10:02pm
magboy.. Sorry, but record profits in a larger economic base are not the best of all times for trhe private sector. Even ignoring job creation.. Spouting nonsense to try to cover BHO's well-exposed tush in this gaffe really doesn't help much.
- drofnats1
June 9, 2012 at 10:08pm
Nonsense? Hooverian? Admittedly my point may have been unclear given that I was jotting off a quick response on my phone, so, to clarify, what I meant was that if the government spent money to hire cops, firemen, teachers, highway construction workers, park rangers, tax collectors, fisheries managers, meat inspectors, civil engineers, and hole digger/filler-uppers there would be a private-sector multiplier as businesses responded to increased demand for donuts on the part of cops and for apple martinis and HPV screening on the part of kindergarten teachers. Such a multiplier effect would likely push private-sector job growth a lot closer to the 250K/month that you demand before you say that the private sector is doing fine. In other words, you and I agree--and so does Obama.
- AaronW
June 9, 2012 at 10:43pm
drofnats1, If corporate America had the courage to spend a small portion of the 2.2 trillion dollars it has in the bank on new hires, our unemployment problem would be over, and the economy would be so much more healthy that inflation might eventually become a problem. A healthy economy is one where top profits are being made. The fact that the economy's leaders refuse to distribute some of those profits in the form of jobs shows only that corporate leaders are unhealthy. The Republican formula for jobs falling out of trees is solidly in place. Record profits, Bush tax cuts in place for 10 years (Obama lowered tax rates for small businesses even further), and Obama is in the process of "streamlining" regulations. If business is the engine that drives our economy, our economy couldn't be much healthier. And you're calling out Obama? I wish Team Obama would obsess in ads on the fact that corporate America has over 2 trillion dollars in the bank, while refusing to hire Americans. But Democrats are too wimpy to do that--and too tied into Wall Street themselves. That's one point I'm sure you would agree with me on.
- magboy47.
June 10, 2012 at 12:51am
drofnats, read this piece by Gary Wills. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jun/09/why-2012-matters/ He makes the identical point to what I've been saying here for some time: no matter how big a failure you consider Obama to be, he's the only reasonable choice because the Republicans' number one goal in gaining the White House is to consolidate their hold on the Supreme Court and thereby consolidate capture of our government by the oligarchy and the most pressing concern for any progressive-minded democrat (little 'd') has to be thwarting the right by any legal means.
- AaronW
June 10, 2012 at 12:03pm