A mandate to help the middle class

By John Podesta
November 26, 2012

The focus in Washington has now shifted to the fiscal cliff, with the White House and Congress, particularly the House Republicans, staking out negotiating positions on the expiring Bush tax cuts and the looming budget sequester.

The White House’s firm opening salvo—and House Speaker John Boehner’s grudging admission that he is “open” to a budget deal that contains new revenue—have been much discussed. With six in 10 Americans expressing support for higher taxes in exit polls on Nov. 6, President Barack Obama’s position is a strong one.

It’s important to remember, however, that the public came out on Election Day in support of more than Obama’s tax stance. Exit polls and public-opinion surveys show that the president’s mandate goes far beyond taxes and the fiscal cliff.

The president pointed this out at his first post-election press conference. “I’ve got a mandate,” Obama said, “to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class.”

Obama didn’t win just because of demographics: He won on the economy. He won because the electorate understood that a vote for Obama was a vote for policies that would help the middle class and the working poor. Three-quarters of voters said the president’s policies favored these groups, while 53 percent said GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s policies favored the rich.

Voters knew they could trust the president to preserve and strengthen the social safety net — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They knew they could count on the president to make critical investments in education, infrastructure and scientific research that can expand the economy for everyone instead of just lining the coffers of the wealthiest few.

These protections and investments aren’t “gifts” to particular voting blocs. They are the foundation of our international economic competitiveness and the tangible representation of our government’s moral obligation to serve the needs of all Americans.

But the president also won because, after almost three decades of experimentation with trickle-down economics, the public has joined the majority of leading economists in recognizing that a strong middle class, not ever more generous benefits for the wealthy, as the true engine of economic growth.

To be sure, changing demographics mattered. But demographics alone don’t tell the whole story.

We must recognize that Obama’s message of “middle-out, not top-down” growth was more than clever rhetoric. A “middle-out” economy more accurately describes the desires and beliefs of the American people – who want their children to benefit from the same access to high-quality education and public services they had. They know the economy will be stronger as a result.

Consider, “middle-out” economic policies recognize that our most innovative and successful entrepreneurs and inventers, our Steve Jobses and Sergey Brins, are most likely to come from the ranks of an educated and robust middle class.

This also reflects the experience of today’s middle-class workers – who have seen their take-home pay stagnate even as income inequality reaches record highs. They have seen their purchasing power decline as costs for services like health care and higher education skyrocket, and their political power diminish everywhere but the ballot box, as Washington is overtaken by moneyed special interests.

Yes, the GOP still controls the House of Representatives. It holds the House even though Democratic House candidates won more votes than their Republican counterparts, 56 million to 55 million nationally, according to Associated Press estimates.  But maintaining control because of population shifts and aggressive gerrymandering by Republican friendly state legislatures does not a mandate make.

This isn’t to say that the public will unflinchingly support every Obama administration initiative in the second term, or that congressional Republicans won’t have their priorities reflected in an ultimate “grand bargain” on the deficit.

Obama and the Democratic leaders come to the negotiating table understanding that “compromise” means something different from “acquiescence,” and will no doubt negotiate in good faith.

But the programs that help and expand the middle class – policies that all politicians pay at least lip service to, like building a strong, sustainable physical infrastructure and ensuring that all children, regardless of where or when or to whom they are born, have equal access to a good education—should not require compromise. They should not entail painful trade-offs.

The president should pursue this middle-class agenda with conviction – with all the political strength granted to him by the American people on Nov. 6. And the GOP must recognize that an economy that invests in its middle class and grows from the middle out is good for all Americans, even the wealthiest.

After all, it’s what the public voted for.

PHOTO: President Barack Obama during his first post-election news conference at the White House in Washington November 14, 2012. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

 

7 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Hmmm, I wonder at the thickness of the bubble you live in, Mr. Podesta. “Voters knew they could trust the president to preserve and strengthen the social safety net — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security” — nope, we don’t trust him to do this any further than we can throw him. He CAMPAIGNED on the need to cut Social Security. No, we trudged to the polls and held our noses and voted for the guy who is less likely to completely decimate the social safety net. Unlike his opponent, he’s the guy who I believe at least understands the importance of a strong middle class, but alas he operates in a system that can no longer serve that goal. Obama does not have to run for re-election, but other Dems do, and they will need the campaign contributions of the contemptuous rich just as much as he did.

Posted by Sanity-Monger | Report as abusive

How correct you are my friend ‘Sanity-Monger’.

Alas, the middle class (the basic fabric of any society) has been replaced by mega-multinational corporations and with the blessings of our crony Supreme Court (corporations are now individual citizens).

And you are also right, no matter who gets elected, they have all been bought out, it is like selling their own mother.

It is high time for a revolution.

Posted by EthicsIntl | Report as abusive

This ‘sorry shape’ of the middle class rhetoric gets repeated so much, it’s accepted as common knowledge.

Based on a 40+ year study of household income data from the US Census, the losses in numbers of middle class households has been offset by an increase in the number of upper income households (the number of lower income households has held constant).

Middle class households are becoming upper income households. This is a problem?

http://unrepentantcapitalist.blogspot.co m/2010/08/act-one.html

Posted by jambrytay | Report as abusive

jambrytay — from your link (which is broken BTW): “The truth is that a family today can live on one income just as they did back then, but that family would have to be willing to live the way folks did in 1960.” Firstly, we should not confuse income with standard of living. Secondly, why 1960? Standard of living skyrocketed through the 60′s, peaking in ~1973. 1960 completely bypasses the gains made through the Great Society programs (Medicare for instance). I remember, I was there. What income would it take to obtain the same access to health care and old age income security that a family had in 1973 (when it would have been unimaginable to discuss privatizing the Social Security system)? What income would it take to obtain the same quality of education, and the same opportunities such education would afford, as in 1973 (the GI bill was still solidly in place in 1973)?

The reality is that the “middle class” (admittedly a mushy term) has traded security and opportunity for cheap crap for about 30 years now. That is why we feel that we are losing ground even though we have more cars in the garage and more devices than we can keep track of.

Posted by Sanity-Monger | Report as abusive

Read further down below the section you cited. I’ve got an income study based on US Census household income data. Data shows more upper income households and fewer middle and lower income households over time. Looks like a positive development to me.

Posted by jambrytay | Report as abusive

“fewer middle and lower income households over time” — middle is the middle and lower is the lower, so this statement makes no sense. But let’s just say that I get what you’re saying.

Median household income in 1973 was $10500 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p6 0-096.pdf). I recall that when I went to state university in 1975 tuition was $300/semester (yes, that’s right $300). At $600/year, it took about 5% of a median family’s income to send their child to a state university. If we say $10,000 for tuition today (and I think that’s probably low), a family would need an income of $200,000 to be able to send their child to university with the same budgetary pinch. Not to mention that the value of the degree received from a state university was considerably more back then.

This is just one example of how things have changed for the middle class. Looking only at household income is just plain silly.

Posted by Sanity-Monger | Report as abusive

Looking at household income is silly? Is it silly because the data shows fewer households are in the lower and middle income groups and more households are in the upper income group vs. 40 years ago?

Posted by jambrytay | Report as abusive