OBAMACARE & CALIFORNIA GROW THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

PAUL KRUGMAN, NY TIMES

Two impossible things happened to the U.S. economy over the course of the past year — or at least they were supposed to be impossible, according to the ideology that dominates half our political spectrum. First, remember how Obamacare was supposed to be a gigantic job killer? Well, in the first year of the Affordable Care Act’s full implementation, the U.S. economy as a whole added 3.3 million jobs — the biggest gain since the 1990s. Second, half a million of those jobs were added in California, which has taken the lead in job creation away from Texas.

Were President Obama’s policies the cause of national job growth? Did Jerry Brown — the tax-raising, Obamacare-embracing governor of California — engineer his state’s boom? No, and few liberals would claim otherwise. What we’ve been seeing at both the national and the state level is mainly a natural process of recovery as the economy finally starts to heal from the housing and debt bubbles of the Bush years.

But recent job growth, nonetheless, has big political implications — implications so disturbing to many on the right that they are in frantic denial, claiming that the recovery is somehow bogus. Why can’t they handle the good news? The answer actually comes on three levels: Obama Derangement Syndrome, or O.D.S.; Reaganolatry; and the confidence con.




Not much need be said about O.D.S. It is, by now, a fixed idea on the right that this president is both evil and incompetent, that everything touched by the atheist Islamic Marxist Kenyan Democrat — mostly that last item — must go terribly wrong. When good news arrives about the budget, or the economy, or Obamacare — which is, by the way, rapidly reducing the number of uninsured while costing much less than expected — it must be denied.

At a deeper level, modern conservative ideology utterly depends on the proposition that conservatives, and only they, possess the secret key to prosperity. As a result, you often have politicians on the right making claims like this one, from Senator Rand Paul: “When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan.”

Actually, if creating “millions of jobs” means adding two million or more jobs in a given year, we’ve done that 13 times since Reagan left office: eight times under Bill Clinton, twice under George W. Bush, and three times, so far, under Barack Obama. But who’s counting?

Still, don’t liberals have similar delusions? Not really. The economy added 23 million jobs under Clinton, compared with 16 million under Reagan, but there’s nothing on the left comparable to the cult of the Blessed Ronald. That’s because liberals don’t need to claim that their policies will produce spectacular growth. All they need to claim is feasibility: that we can do things like, say, guaranteeing health insurance to everyone without killing the economy. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to block such things and, instead, to cut taxes on the rich and slash aid to the less fortunate. So they must claim both that liberal policies are job killers and that being nice to the rich is a magic elixir.

Which brings us to the last point: the confidence con.

As a number of observers have pointed out, however, for big businesses to admit that government policies can create jobs would be to devalue one of their favorite political arguments — the claim that to achieve prosperity politicians must preserve business confidence, among other things, by refraining from any criticism of what businesspeople do.

In the case of the Obama economy, this kind of thinking led to what I like to call the “Ma! He’s looking at me funny!” theory of sluggish recovery. By this I mean the insistence that recovery wasn’t being held back by objective factors like spending cuts and debt overhang, but rather by the corporate elite’s hurt feelings after Mr. Obama suggested that some bankers behaved badly and some executives might be overpaid. Who knew that moguls and tycoons were such sensitive souls? In any case, however, that theory is unsustainable in the face of a recovery that has finally started to deliver big job gains, even if it should have happened sooner.

So, as I said at the beginning, the fact that we’re now seeing mornings in blue America — solid job growth both at the national level and in states that have defied the right’s tax-cutting, deregulatory orthodoxy — is a big problem for conservatives. Although they would never admit it, events have proved their most cherished beliefs wrong.

THE RESURRECTION OF JERRY BROWN AND CALIFORNIA

Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press                  Jerry Brown has had successes few would have imagined when he became governor of California in 2010, and his re-election, should he run, seems almost assured.

N.Y. TIMES ADAM NAGOURNEY

When Jerry Brown became governor of California again, three years ago, this state was on a steep decline, crushed by budget deficits, deep spending cuts, governmental paralysis, high unemployment and a collapsing housing market. California, a place that once symbolized promise and opportunity, seemed caught in an intractable reversal of fortune.

But these days, Mr. Brown — who at 75 is the oldest governor in the nation and about to become the longest-serving governor in the history of California — is enjoying a degree of success and authority he and his opponents could scarcely have imagined when he returned to Sacramento to begin a second tour as governor in 2010.

The state’s budget problems are largely resolved, at least for the short term. Mr. Brown is the dominant figure in Sacramento, strengthened by overwhelming Democratic control of the Legislature and the decline of the Republican Party. He has pushed through major initiatives on education financing and prison reorganization. Even Republicans say his re-election next year seems considerably more than likely.

 

 

Max Whittaker for The New York Times

Gov. Jerry Brown, center, working with aides at the California State Capitol in Sacramento.

 

 

“Some people were ridiculing California, and some were calling it a failed state,” Mr. Brown, a Democrat, said in an interview. “The unemployment came down from 12.2 to 8.5. Real estate is rebounding. There’s a lot of confidence out there. That’s what happened.”

Mr. Brown has his share of problems. He unsuccessfully resisted a federal court order to move inmates out of overcrowded prisons. Changes in the state employee pension system approved last year do not, in the view of most analysts, come close to addressing the long-term pension liabilities over the horizon.

His latest proposal to overhaul California’s water distribution system is smacking up against the same entrenched geographical and business factions that defeated him when he tried to address the problem as governor from 1975 to 1983. Mr. Brown’s signature plan to build a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco remains a target of skepticism and ridicule. In a setback Friday night, a superior judge in Sacramento ruled that the agency overseeing the project failed to comply with the cost and environmental requirements in a ballot measure authorizing the project. And the governor has so far shown little inclination to use his considerable political capital to take on some of the most divisive problems that have long plagued this state, among them a dysfunctional governmental structure and tax system.

 

 

Yet by almost every measure, Mr. Brown, the son of another California governor, has accomplished a turnaround in a state where his family has been a dynasty for more than 50 years. He has defied critics who questioned how someone who last served as governor in a wholly different era could thrive today, much less rescue a state that had gone from being a model for American aspiration to a case study in governmental dysfunction.

“He’s proven better at the job than perhaps his critics anticipated,” said Bill Whalen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “In 2010, his critics wanted to criticize him as a flaky moonbeam,” he said. “Instead we have a governor who is very serious and sober about his choices. You can’t find a governor in recent history who has a smoother road to re-election.”