海角大神

It was the centerpiece of the President鈥檚 reelection campaign. Every time聽Republicans complained about trillion-dollar deficits, he and other Democrats would talk jobs.

That鈥檚 what Americans care about 鈥� jobs with good wages.

And that鈥檚 part of why Obama and the Democrats were victorious on Election Day.听听

It seems forever ago, but it鈥檚 worth recalling that President Obama won reelection by more than 4 million votes, a million more than George W. Bush when he was reelected 鈥� and an electoral college majority of 332 to Romney鈥檚 206, again larger than Bush鈥檚 electoral majority over Kerry in 2004 (286 to 251).The聽Democratic caucus in the Senate now has 55 members (up from 53 before Election Day), and Republicans have 8 fewer seats in the House than before.

So why, exactly, is Washington back to obsessing about budget deficits? Why is almost all the news coming out of our nation鈥檚 capital about whether the Democrats or Republicans have the best plan to reduce the budget deficit? Why are we back to showdowns over the deficit?聽

It makes no sense economically. Cutting the budget deficit 鈥� either by reducing public spending or raising taxes on the middle class, or both 鈥� will slow the economy and increase unemployment. That鈥檚 why the so-called 鈥渇iscal cliff鈥� is so dangerous.

In the foreseeable future our government has to spend more rather than less. Businesses won鈥檛 hire because they still don鈥檛 have enough consumers to justify additional hires.听听So to get jobs back at the rate and scale needed, government has to be the spender of last resort.

The job situation is still horrendous. Twenty-three million Americans can鈥檛 find full-time work.聽Less than聽聽of the working-age population of the nation is employed, almost the lowest percent in three decades.聽聽Americans have been out of work for more than six months.聽The 40-week average spell of joblessness is almost three times the post-1948 average.

And even those who have jobs are finding it harder to make ends meet. Jobs created since the trough of the recession pay less than jobs that were lost. The median wage is 8 percent below what it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation. And wages are still heading downward: Average hourly聽聽in October were 3.1 percent below what they were in October, 2010.

This isn鈥檛 just an ongoing tragedy for 23 million Americans and their families. It also robs all of us of what these people would produce if they were fully employed 鈥� roughly $2 trillion worth of goods and services that won鈥檛 be created this year.

These folks would also be paying taxes 鈥� and they鈥檇 require less unemployment insurance, fewer food stamps, and less public assistance than they do now. According to estimates byBloomberg News, the total cost of those lost tax revenues and the extra social spending is more than twice what taxpayers will shell out this year to pay interest on the federal debt.

In other words, unemployment is hugely expensive. Debt, by contrast, is relatively cheap. The yield on the 10-year Treasury is only about 1.7 percent. Creditors worldwide are willing to lend America money that won鈥檛 be repaid for a decade at the lowest rate in living memory.听听

So why are we debating how to cut the deficit when we should be debating how best to use the cheap money we can borrow from the rest of the world to put more Americans to work?

Because too many Democrats inside and outside the Beltway have ingested the deficit cool-aide that the 鈥渟erious people鈥� on Wall Street have serving for two decades.

And the President has been all too willing to legitimize their deficit obsession by freezing federal salaries, appointing a deficit commission, and, now that the election is over, going back to deficit-speak.

A month聽after the election Obama was on Bloomberg Television saying business leaders need 鈥渁 deal on long-term deficit reduction鈥� before they鈥檒l increase hiring.

That鈥檚 just not true. Before they鈥檒l increase hiring they need customers.