It’s not just the economy, stupid

The start of a new school year always brings high hopes and plans for the future. But for me, the start of this school year means that along with thousands of other IU seniors, this May brings graduation.

Graduation means getting a job, a huge concern for us and for millions of other Americans. It is also a significant part of what will determine presidential votes this November.

A recent Pew survey asked nearly 2,400 voters what they valued as the most important issue in the 2012 election. The economy and jobs ranked as the top issues by a fairly large margin. And with the Economic Policy Institute citing recent college graduate unemployment at 9.4 percent, it makes sense that these concerns would translate to the college crowd.

But media coverage of economic policies often mimics the problems it attempts to explain. Economic matters can be confusing, multi-faceted and, for many, boring.
The economy isn’t an obviously marketable issue, and it’s hard to make it one, especially when it has to compete with more consumable news pieces like Chick-fil-A (bad pun intended).

Yet this has to be reconciled with voters responding that the economy is the most important issue. In order to do that, below is a starter look at both candidates’ economic positions.

President Obama, as the incumbent, comes in with a disadvantage. Incumbents, like Jimmy Carter in 1980 or George H.W. Bush in 1992, know the disadvantage of having an established economic track record. Non-incumbents can benefit from the mystery that surrounds what they might do.

So, what’s in Obama’s closet? Job losses peaked in 2009 and then declined steadily. In 2010, job creation started, but employers pulled back a bit during the summer. Similar patterns emerged in 2011 and 2012, with strong early growth followed by a bit of stumbling back.

Unemployment has fallen since reaching 10 percent in Obama’s first year. The most recent July jobs report was seemingly a wash in terms of its impact on the election. Republicans will likely see a slight increase in the unemployment rate — inching up from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent — while Democrats will focus on the 163,000 payroll jobs created in July.

In general, the recovery is slow, but we are recovering and we are not near a double-dip recession. If this continues in this manner, Obama shouldn’t face the difficulties Carter or Bush did. Something more catastrophic would need to happen to the economy to really make those comparisons valid, such as an economic crash in Europe.

With Romney, it is harder to ascertain how he will impact the economy and jobs because of his non-incumbency. He has released an 80-page plan for jobs and economic growth on his website, and, perhaps sensing that after page 80 his audience might get a bit weary, also released a much shorter summary of his plan.

It declares that on his inauguration day, he will submit a jobs package with at least five main proposals.

The five bills for day one will reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent, reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority to help negotiate new trade agreements, initiate a survey of American energy reserves in areas approved for exploration, consolidate the sprawl of federal retraining programs while returning responsibility to the states and cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent.

Does, for example, a 5 percent cut in discretionary spending increase unemployment by laying off thousands of public sector workers, or do the lower defects drive down the cost of capital and increase investments? It’s hard to tell in what manner and how quickly these plans will affect job growth.

So while Romney has 59 bullet points to Obama’s 41, Obama has an actual piece of legislation. We are playing a countrywide game of “Let’s Make A Deal.” Should we trade the slow growth of the past few years for what might be behind door number three? While this makes it harder to determine how Romney’s plans will specifically translate into job growth, the mystery will likely only help Romney in the general election.

I report this to you but feel some measure of uncertainty as to how many of you found that enjoyable to read.

Despite 86 percent of those surveyed saying the economy is the number one most important issue to their vote, and despite the two candidates’ different economic stands, the Pew survey showed neither candidate had a distinct advantage among those who most valued the economy and jobs.

Respondents who reported back in this manner had a near even split for support between the two candidates. Other typically more prominent and digestible issues, such as health care and education for Obama, or the federal deficit or concerns about Iran for Romney, demonstrated more of a partisan split.

So clearly, even if we say it is, it’s not just the economy, stupid. Economic issues are confusing, and we have much to distract us. The survey seems to confirm some of my doubts about the effectiveness of economic information swaying the rare, true independent — the voter who is typically among the least informed.

But as long as people are saying the economy is the number one issue, there is an obligation to provide that information in a hopefully more accessible format that invites the opportunity for comparison.

In the meantime, I’ll have to hope whoever is elected this November can help me, and many other IU students, get a job come spring.

­— gwinslow@umail.iu.edu