Let’s give a quick recap of President Obama’s State of the Union speech. He advocated for government “investments” in education, research, IT and infrastructure to meet the challenges of globalized competition. He emphasized the importance of cutting the deficit, even going as far as to promising to veto earmarks (and they say he’s a Democrat!). He promising a (long overdue) overhaul of the tax code. Finally, he opined on the importance of a bipartisan effort to achieve these goals.

Well, all that spending isn’t going to produce results anytime soon. Neither is cutting the deficit- in fact, it would likely lead to short term pain among those who depend on the social safety net. The IRS and TurboTax would rather the tax code stay the way it is for their jobs’ sake. And we’d more likely to see Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate than any hint of bipartisan spirit soon. Clearly, the President’s focus is on the long-term.

Why? The cynic would point to his inability to tackle the short-term elephant in the room- no, not Republicans, but jobs. Unemployment is stubbornly clinging around the 9% range, and Obama’s options are limited given the lack of appetite for another large round of stimulus spending. Nor can he address the other short-term concerns that the public has: the health care reform bill still smacks of “government takeover”, he can’t control the situation in Afghanistan, and the government doesn’t prescribe or manufacture Prozac.

Given his inability to solve the nation’s short-term problems, the cynics say, he needs to tell a tale of a future utopia in order to appease the voters. Promise them that things will be magically better in the long run, and be vague and avoid definite goals. If he can’t put food on the table for families, maybe convincing them that the government’s actions will help put food on their kids’ tables will help. They say that it smacks of desperation and a lack of resolve to tackle the big problems facing us right now.

However, I belong in the optimist camp- despite concerns over his often anti-business approach to solving problems, I still think that Obama is a smart, capable President who is aware of America’s needs and capabilities. Therefore, I believe the purpose of his speech was to lay out challenges for America to overcome and direct its future by pointing out where we should invest in jobs that the public needs now.

Let’s take three examples that Obama cites: clean tech, education, and infrastructure. All are key to America’s competitive future: clean tech is often cited as the “next technological revolution”, education trains future generations how not to be a poor, unemployed couch potato, and infrastructure- well, let’s just say that collapsing bridges will put a damper on just-in-time supply chains. However, there is also immediacy in these industries. All three are sorely needed in the economy right now. The former two are rapidly growing industries that will soon experience great demand for jobs; the latter can easily create jobs with government funding. Rather than just an abstract benefit for the future, these investments can start producing returns right away in the right place- J-O-B-S.

This is where Obama failed in his otherwise solid State of the Union address. He tied his proposals to a context too abstract and massive for most people to grasp- globalization, future generations, “Sputnik moments.” Rather, he should have spent more time and words convincing us that these government investments in energy, education, infrastructure, etc, have immediate and tangible benefits in the form of jobs. Jobs is a concept that is concrete and, although on a smaller scale than globalization, has a much larger cachet in Americans’ minds. Sure, it’s nice to ponder a context of future benefits and global competitiveness, but the only context people want to see themselves in right now is in that of an wage-earner.


(Photo: Memory_Freak)