President Obama Prefers Platitudes Over Employment

The first couple of months of 2014 have been tough sledding for the Obama administration. There has been very little in the way of good news the past few weeks and the PR experts have been busy churning out the “clarifications”. Poor consumer figures were due to “uncooperative Republicans in the House.” ACA enrollments falling well short of projections turned into “growing numbers.” The low figures of new jobs? Well, we all know about that Polar Vortex keeping people at home. Everything has an explanation, so long as you are not the curious type who checks thing out for yourself.

Of course the biggest challenge for the spin merchants on K-Street was the jarring details of the Obamacare mandates leading to significant numbers of people added to the unemployed totals. The numerous positive interpretations attempted show just how bad this became. Saying these newly terminated souls had become “free agents” was a big miss. Sports generally have two free agent designations.

The newly fired are not comparable to the prime-of-his-career star shopping for the monumental paycheck; it is closer to the athlete released in the twilight of his career, hoping some team may sign him to fill a roster hole. The administration also tried telling us people now had time to spend with their families, and one last desperate attempt was lauding how people were no longer victimized by “job lock”.

Think back to the debates between Obama and Mitt Romney, when both promised to free Americans from the curse of employment!

All of the bad economic data takes a look back, delivering existing information. The lack of surprise is due to the dysfunctional economic policies proposed by President Obama. In the wake of these reports he risked a meniscus tear by once again “pivoting” towards the economy. Looking at some of his new proposals many things become clear, foremost of them:

Obama does not apply any practical forward thinking to his concepts.

His flashiest idea centers on increasing the minimum wage. His proposal was to mandate companies working through government contracts must pay their employees his new salary minimum of $10.10 hourly. Moving past the usual arguments with minimum wage hikes, take a look at what else is in play. Contractors get these government projects by submitting lowest-bid proposals, and now they have to either raise the estimates when submitting to compensate the wage spike, or hire fewer employees to keep their bid lower. This reality also means that Obama’s magnanimous decision would ultimately be underwritten by taxpayer dollars, in a system ostensibly designed to save the government money.

His next initiative involved the effect of his healthcare on businesses. The coverage for employees is dictated by the sizes of a workforce, with requirements placed at fifty and one hundred workers. The administration announced that any companies which are positioned just under those thresholds would need to provide evidence upon request that payroll had not been culled to lower their exposure. In other words, legally prove a negative. Another adverse side effect is a company electing to remain under these limits; in other words, once again, not hiring new employees is a better option.

And that pattern of stifling employment continues with another brainchild from the President. Obama suggested a new hiring method where employers look at applicants from the standpoint of length of their unemployment. The incentive is to offer work to those out of work the longest. Not only does this suggest that details like skill sets and experience become bypassed, but it sounds awfully close to a quota requirement. This poses a new challenge for the HR department. They may become in a bind when the “longest unemployed” would mean bypassing a female applicant (exposing the company to gender discrimination) or a minority candidate (violating affirmative action standards). Is the exposure to potential fines worth the benefits, or is simply avoiding trouble by not hiring the better choice?

These are the type of proposals we get from a leader with a paucity of private sector experience on his resume. These are feel-good theoretical plans that are designed to generate a positive reaction rather than stimulate results. And in President Obama’s terms these qualify as talking points but in a different, forward-thinking interpretation.

When the next batch of economic failures is sure to arrive Obama will have the ability to point to when he talked about “solutions”. This will give him the luxury of deflecting blame on any other entity that failed, or blocked, his intentions.

The one thing it will not give him is a success he can point to and say he created.