Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
So said Hillary Clinton, last week at a fundraiser with her supporters from the LGBT community in New York City.
Where do I begin? When someone begins with a word like “generalistic” you know it’s going to be a disaster, especially if the person is referring to her opponent’s followers and using words that end in “ist” and “ic.”
Sometimes a column writes itself.
So I was going to write a signature piece on this deplorable quote when I came upon an article by David P. Goldman called “Deplorably, Trump Is Going To Win”which appeared in Asia Times on September 11. I had that sinking writer feeling that I wished I’d written it first. And to be fair, you should read it (after mine) – he’s really on point.
Goldman believes it’s possible that Trump’s Deplorables may, in fact, have all kinds of bad traits that could be described with words ending in “ic” or “ist.” Also, he points out that they may be the majority of voters in this election. And whether they are ics or ists is irrelevant because what’s driving them is not those forces, but an economy that has stalled under President Obama and which has disenfranchised millions of Americans.
Specifically, Goldman says that what he calls the “economic elite” has ignored the average American’s plight. It used to be that there was a lot more upward mobility for people in this country. People “made it” by starting a small business and finding the “American Dream.” Other people were hired and trained and the cycle repeated itself. And then after 2007 when the Great Recession began, small business formation began to decline to pre 2001 levels.
He then provides statistics from the Labor Department. And you know what? He’s right. I followed the link to the graphs that are supported by the table he provided.
Chart 1 from the Department of Labor Statistics shows the cohort of businesses born in a given year. What you see is that business formation has fallen since just about the last two years of the Bush Administration and then rapidly declined after the beginning of the Obama Administration. Then business formation picks up after 2011, quite rapidly, but still not reaching previous highs during the Bush years.
Chart 2 shows the jobs created by those businesses. And while jobs created have not kept pace with new business for many years, the recovery of actual jobs following the plunge after the “Great Recession” has a much slower increase than actual business formation.
Chart 7 goes right to a major point Goldman is making. It is a chart showing the percentage of private sector employment in big companies (those over 250 employees) and small companies (those below 250). Small businesses are shown to have declined generally since 2007 and have not recovered, while large businesses have begun some recovery.
And that’s just it. Traditionally, small business has created the mobility to riches in America. It really has. Small businesses employ 53% of the private labor forceand big business just 38%. In fact, 95% of small businesses have fewer than ten employees!
Apparently, the economic elite of the big companies who can play the game with the elite of the political parties haven’t suffered nearly as much as small businesses that actually employees more people. Got it?
So now you know why so many people feel shafted by the power elites of big corporations and their evil twins in big government. And, perhaps now, you get why the Bernie phenomenon happened and why the Trump Deplorables are so unsatisfied and just how big that group is. And they’re not going away.
Listen, 94 million people who were in the workforce in 2007 still haven’t come back.
Statistics suggest that’s because the policies of the Obama White House, Pelosi and Reid and, yes, the Republican Establishment, too, have not supported the real creators of jobs, who employ the most people, and, while so small, make a huge difference in the American economy and always have – small business.
What am I referring to? The burdening of small businesses with extra coasts and red tape so that certain social policy goals are met. And it stifles business growth and hiring. Here are just three examples:
The first that comes to mind is very specific and I wrote a column about it not too long ago. It was about how a presidential directive – the new mandate on overtime rules – can directly harm businesses and, inadvertently, the people it is intended to help. By mandating overtime pay for a broader number of employee categories, lower-level employees and young managers will face cutbacks in hours and fewer people will be hired in the future. It simply costs business too much and adds to the red tape for small business.
The second example is “Obamacare.” Again, good intentions by the president, but, rammed through Congress without a full reading, it contains some flaws. The most obvious is the mandate that health coverage must be offered to all employees who average 30 hours per week. In an unsteady employment environment, workers saw their hours cut back below 30 hours per week and many people who might have been hired on the margin, were not.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Project is a third example of choosing ideology over employment. This massive construction project has been held up since 2010 by the Obama Administration. Talk about shovel-ready jobs for small businesses! What happens when Canada makes a deal with China instead and they ship oil directly from their west coast to Asia?
Each of these policies has been a drag on U.S. employment because small business cannot afford to keep up with the mounting regulations and additional cost like big business. This is behind the employment drag on the economy.
Government policy is not cost-free. It requires a balance of economic and social good. It seems to me that the Obama Administration has always chosen social policy over small entrepreneurial business and employment.
So, yeah, a lot of those people who are supporting Trump may be ists or ics, whoknows? But they apparently have good and valid points, supported by Labor Department statistics, for why they won’t support a third Obama term that Clinton would provide.
Calling your opponents names is never a good idea – most definitely. But having the wrong economic policy- one that stifles small business growth by tangling it up with mandates and choking regulation loses elections – period.
The Wall Street Journal published a news flash that the median income of most Americans just increased for the first time in 8 years – and the article’s tone was jubilant. Why? The last sentence mentions that the growth was felt everywhere but not outside of metropolitan areas. So not everywhere, right?
The elites in both parties in Washington still don’t get it and they will be shaking their heads come November 9.