because of how deep the hole we inherited was. again, in light of the nature of this recession and nature of the type of recovery. but just a couple of points. if you actually looked at last year, the amount of private sector jobs created in 2011 was actually 2.1 million. 2.1 million private sector jobs is a fairly solid year historically. why did it not feel so good? it didn't feel so good because the hole is so deep. because people are still hurting. because our country is facing a significant amount of long-term unemployment which is more difficult on the economy, more difficult for our labor force in the future, and most importantly, most difficult for families to be unemployed for a year, year and a half, two years or longer. all those things make it more difficult. together with still trying to get the housing market coming

back. so -- but when you look at that 2.1 million, then you realize that in the last two months of this year, we've actually seen over 500,000 private sector jobs created in the first two months of 2012. so i think when you look at private sector jobs, you do see progress. again, it doesn't feel as good as it should. not because it's not progress. not because we haven't come a decent way. just simply because the hole we inherited was so deep. >> let's take the particular date of the election out of this question. you are in this extremely important position, leadership position, trying to give us some sense for what lies ahead for the country. how long do you think it's going to be before we see 6% unemployment again in the united states? >> you keep going back at that. i'm going to -- maybe i should start with the -- see, you know what he told me, i might also

ask you to compare president clinton and president obama -- >> we'll get to that. >> yeah. then ask me, do i love mom or dad more? those are other good questions to ask. >> yeah. it's going to be hillary clinton and barack obama. >> let me make a very serious point. which is that we talk about certain of the events in the economy. there are certain things of which -- there's certain headwinds you have to deal with that you've either inherited, like the fact that you were coming off a deep financial recession and you're delempling. you can't get away from that reality. you can't control things like the arab spring that increased gas prices. some of the mideast tensions that are increasing gas prices now. the tsunami's impact on the global supply chain that helped slow the recovery last year. but right now, there are things we could be doing or could have done that could clearly and

directly have had a greater impact on job creation, reducing unemployment. let me mention too, there haven't been a lot of things wrong with the last two job numbers. in january you saw 9,600 teachers lost their jobs. that got better in february. now, that's not an act of god. that's an act of public policy. and president obama is part of the american jobs act called for a $35 billion fund for teachers and first responders. there's no reason that we should not have passed that. there's no reason that we want to have larger class sizes or be laying off teachers at this point. so instead of losing 9,600 jobs, you could have been gaining. that would have helped the unemployment numbers significantly. and helped our schools. secondly, construction jobs was one of the few weak numbers in february. that's another self-inflicted wound. this president has proposed as

part of the american jobs act accelerating $50 billion additional beyond the current transportation baseline for infrastructure. he called for $30 billion in modernizing our schools, one-third of all of our schools, and a project rebuild proposal. now, these are all important proposals. most of them are dealing with deferred maintenance. you know, you don't get points for not doing deferred i always say, if i like eliminate my, you know, directv nfl description, we save $230 of consumption in my family. fy tell my wife i don't want to fix the broken pipe in the basement, i don't get any points for that. you don't get true galty points or fiscal discipline points. it's something you're going to have to pay for and it costs more later. there will never be a better time for us to be dealingthrred schools, of our roads and

bridges, than right now. there will never be lower interest rates. there will never be more construction workers out of work, looking for jobs, eager to get back in. it would never do -- have a stronger benefit for the macro economy. 17.1% is the unemployment rate for construction workers. so i think that had you passed the american jobs act in its full form, i believe most people would be projecting we would soon be heading into under 8%, into the 7% unemployment rate. i think if you just did the two thing is spoke of, which are have the $30 billion fund to prevent teacher layoffth and the acceleration of $50 billion of infrastructure, $10 billion of infrastructu infrastructure, the school construction, unquestionably, unquestionably we'd be seeing strong projected construction job growth which would have -- give this economy more momentum. i think it's very sad. because the last time i was

here, there was nothing more bipartisan than infrastructure. and the fact that the republicans in congress have chosen at this opportune time not to work with this president on doing so i think is very unfortunate for those workers, but for our economy at large. >> given that, you made fun of me before we came out for asking you this question so i may as well give you the opportunity to do it in front of all these nice people too. why didn't you propose the american jobs act three years a, go two years ago, given everything you just said? >> three years ago, my recollection was the president was -- had just been inaugurated. and on february 17th, he passed the largest recovery act that our country's probably ever seen. $800 billion. so three years ago, he passed something twice as large as the american jobs act. he passed by one vote, on

february 17th, less than a month after he'd come into office, the president signed the american recovery act. $800 billion. it was a two-year plan. and he did it, again, with -- by a one-vote margin in the senate. having gotten two republican senators from maine to support it. though they insisted on bringing down some of the spending. so this was the most that was possible to get, boldest proposal you could get in a swift and quick period of time. and i just want to remind people how important the speed was. i see endless articles and carping which will be the new definition of, always make perfect the enemy of the very, very, very, very good. about, could it have been a slight but larger amount? let's just remember what we know now. in the fourth quarter of 2008,

our economy was losing growth at 8.9%. i know you hear a lot of numbers. just take that in for a second. our economy was contracting at an annualized pace of nearly 9%. in the first quarter, it was contracting at 6.7%. so over that six months our economy was contracting at nearly 8% pace. that is the worst six-month period other than the demobilization after world war ii since the great depression. we were losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month. our economy lost 3 million private sector jobs in the first four months of 2009. as low as 6,500 in march, and people were betting, many were betting it would go below 5,000. there was very little demand seen anywhere else in the world. so the president comes in and

actually passes into law the american recovery act on the 17th, less than one month after he's inaugurated. the idea that one should have waited months and months to haggle over whether you could get a little more here or there would have been tragically irresponsible. we absolutely faced a potential spiral-down that could have led to another great depression. instead, we returned to growth in the second half of 2009 and returned to job growth one year after we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. so that's $800 billion. that goes for those first two years. yes, in 2010, some people were hesitant in the congress to do more while such a significant amount, particularly infrastructure, was still being put into place in 2010. in 2011 -- in december of 2010, at a time when most people were saying congress would come and

check their mail and go home during the lake duck, this president fought for $232 billion which was a payroll tax cut, which was 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, and was -- included 100% expensing for businesses, and then the extension of virtually every low-income tax cut. that $230 billion he did then ended up being absolutely vital insurance for 2011. we did not know at the time the gas prices were going up $1. had the president not put an extra $1,000 in every family's pocket with the payroll tax cut i think we would have faced a much more significant chance of a double-dip recession in 2011. the things he did then, and his insistence on extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment, i think provided a very significant cushion to this recovery to absorb the external shocks that our economy took and

helped keep our economy resilient enough that we now are in the position where we see the potential for more momentum in our economy. ck -- you raised gas prices. i'd like to come back to that in a second. first, saying with the question of jobs, moving to looking ahead again into a subject that you have thought a lot about, which is not just quality of jobs. and david altuer, made the argument in this recession what we particularly have lost, middle skill jobs, could be good jobs that could be held by people with high school educations, and what we've seen is a lot of lower-wage, lower-skill jobs being added in food preparation and other areas, challenge that if you'd like. i'd also love to hear you look ahead -- i don't mean to make you defensive -- >> no, no, that's idea. >> look ahead and talk a little bit about where you see the

growth areas of particularly middle-class jobs in the united states in coming years. >> laura tyson and others out there can correct me but i think the largest job growth has been in professional and business services by far. if you look at the 3.9 million that have been added over the last 24 months. and on manufacturing we've had well over 400,000 in the last two years. which is the strongest increase in manufacturing jobs that we've seen since the late '90s. so i think -- but part of the reason that we supported the -- this particular timing for dealing with our deferred maintenance in our roads and bridges and highways and airports and schools was that there is 17.1% unemployment in construction workers and those are a lot of the middle class jobs that are important to people. and so, again, we accept and embrace the idea that we should

be doing much more and the president spent the entire fall fighting for that. now, what i want to say that i think comes right from the president's state of the union and i think is particularly interesting and i think is a reason for greater optimism about the next few years for us, could really be seen when the president did his insourcing before the state of the union. we had about 40 companies there. they weren't our supporters, no reason for any of those people to be there other than they were companies that had decided to bring jobs back to the united states. or when they'd had jobs in mexico, china, et cetera. if you listen to why they were bringing jobs back, you heard both business leaders and labor leaders saying that they think the united states is more competitive for location now than it has been in a couple decades.

and it was interesting some of the things that they talked about that would be helpful. one i think, you heard this a lot from the president's job council and it's something we believe in, which is that the united states should be caring about how strong its manufacturing and particularly its advanced manufacturing base is. beyond the 11 million jobs, it is pretty clear that manufacturing punches above its weight economically. it's absolutely essential for an innovation economy. 90% of the patents, 70% of private sector research, 60% of exports come from manufacturing. there's an excellent article in the "harvard business review" i think in 2009 that talks about when you let manufacturing decline because of recession or because of particular trade imbalances, that the problem is that you lose your innovative and skilled workforce necessary to take leadership in the next

new thing in manufacturing. so i think one of the things we're doing is making a strong push to strengthen manufacturing, to make it more competitive for people to locate here. again, i don't think that we're -- before i think when you made this push you felt like you had the wind in your face. i think now you have the wind at your back. and you have the top consultants at many places, boston consulting group and others, telling companies that if you look at a more deeper view of your costs, and if you look at the next ten years as opposed to the previous ten years, you will find that the united states workers, per productivity and salary, are now going to be more competitive for them, just from a cost basis, productivity, efficiency basis, than location in china. and what many of them said were important was, one, the degree that you were encouraging manufacturing. the degree the united states was doing things like doing select

usa or making it easier for people to figure out how to invest, locate here, encourage foreign direct investment. there was a big push on the community college side. several companies said that when they look, they're looking for where they have a skilled workforce. so college completion, high school completion, the particular skills were important. but several said that in the absence of that, the commitment of a community college to gear up and to help ensure that they can fill that workforce was essential in their location decisions. so i think that we as a country could have a major commitment to infrastructure which would be good for our long-term productivity and growth, but would be very helpful for getting some of those middle classworkers back into the economy back on the job. i think the commitment on manufacturing, on r&d extension, on not just the general skill increases but more specific where communities have the

ability to figure out where their skill and job needs are with their major employers and orient, not ten years from now but right now, how to fill those jobs, was really at the heart of the president's state of the union speech. it really was giving a blueprint, not just for the next 20 years, not just to get out of crisis, but what we can do in the next few years to start bringing the good jobs back and making sure that our workers have the skills to fill them. >> so what are you going to do about gas prices? what can you do? >> we would prefer that they went lower. >> you would? >> than higher. >> because you weren't clear. >> it was a fairly direct answer, no hedging. obviously, you know, for families who are still struggling, having to pay that extra amount at the gas pump is, for them at a personal level, a

headwind they would prefer to be without. but i will say that you saw this president fight, refuse to go on vacation or let anybody else go on vacation, until he extended the payroll tax cut. at that moment, gas prices were at $3.29. now they're at $3.80. futures market would suggest they'll go a bit higher. the $1,000, the $80 a month that people get, is probably about double what most people are paying in extra gas prices. and so i think it is important that the things that senator carper, who's just leaving, voted for, and others, to pass the payroll tax cut, is a cushion and a buffer for families who are dealing with higher gas prices and provides some cushion and buffer for the economy. we also had a situation now

where, while that's discouraging for families, you also have more positive things happening at the same time. the strengthening of the job market. some families starting to see their pensions value going back to where it was prior to the crisis. so it is a headwind that we face but it's a headwind we face in the mix with other things that seem to be clearly in the right direction. in terms what was we're going to do, as the president says, all of the above. one, you have to seize moments like this to make people realize how just economically insane it is for our economy to be so dependent on the global -- on global crude oil prices. when those global crude oil prices are themselves so dependent on so many different security issues in some of the most fragile parts of the world. so this is a moment for people

to seize things, like what the president's called for with his car rule which seeks to get to s car rule, 55.45% gmiles per gallon by 2025. something that would reduce our oil by 2 million barrels a day. that's a reason to do more whether it's on the drilling side but not just for renewable energy. for the advanced car vehicle proposal that the president did. and obviously, it is a moment when you have such high prices to make sure that you're not weakening your cops on the beat who watch whether there is any manipulation or price gauging anywhere in our economy. that's why the president has had a very strong funding for things like the cftc. it's why in dodd-frank, some of

the tools were to limit the position, the amount any one trading can control in the future market or deal with margin requirements under extreme circumstance. those are all things the president has proposed and passed that give us more tools to at least, ensure against illegal manipulation of oil and energy prices everywhere and those are things we're fighting every day to keep them from being defunded and lobbyists from weakening it or lobbyists from challenging the measures in court. >> steve has us on a tight leash so i'll just ask one more question. the question is -- we were joking about obama/clinton comparisons but listening to you talk, marley about how you think about jobs and job creation, i'm it struck me, you were a hillary clinton guy when you joined this administration. you've been portrayed in a

number of books about economic policy making including this new book by nome schieber, losing fights for being tougher on the banks during the bailout. seeking more stimulus early. successfully pursuing the social security tax cut and now you're at the very center of economic policy making. of this administration, so without asking you to comment on those books, i'm wondering have you changed or has the president change changed? >> the president's focus was on the trends in our economy and other insecurities in the middle class and great inequality. when i met him and started to

talk to then-senator obama in 2005 and he asked me to look at a chep chapter of his book at that time. he was at thoughtful as any political figure i've ever seen about the larger structural challenges our country faces but one thing that president clinton and president obama will say, when you're president you have to deal with the hand you're dealt. and he was dealt with worst financial crisis since the great depression and i think this president has come on from the beginning with a comprehensive strategy. we inherited the worst job market, the worst financial situation. the worst deficit that you've probably ever seen. and it is the challenge he inherited to improve all of them. at times you have to focus like a laser beam on one thing and that's the nature of our system so the president focused on getting the recovery act and the

stabilization. i refuse even for one second to in any way, accept or tolerate the notion that this president has not been bold and aggressive and courageous on job growth or on deficit reduction. i think, you know, i read on my vacation, fun reading, "the lords of finance" i look at what happens in europe right now. what leader has done more to immediately upon taking office, do the most difficult things, most politically unpopular things which accounts for everything in the financial stabilization, as quick and with such force and speed as president obama did? we just take for granted that he passed the $800 billion stimulus. didn't just propose it. didn't just propose it, passed

it into law and signed it less than one month after taking office. the financial rescue was essentially in place within three months of taking office. you take those things for granted. this president -- so when the president -- when we come out in 2011 and we face a debt limit crisis, and we're engaged in a fiscal -- an effort to get a fair and balanced grand compromise on fiscal discipline, people say, well for the wo or three months you were doing this you were not focused on jobs. it is true when youlo negotiation, you have to finish the thing you're doing. it doesn't mean that the plan or our strategy for '09, '10 and '11, was not to both bring back this economy, care about jobs, and to create the confidence in long-term investment that comes from insures that nobody thinks this united states is headed for a debt crisis. those are not contradictory goals. they are as complimentary as

good hitting and pitching is to a baseball team. that's exactly the right recipe. boldness on jobs at the same time giving confidence that your long-term fiscal situation will be improving. so i think this president has been -- had a consistent vision and what's been difficult is the circumstances he inherited. >> to the microphone? >> lloyd, with the american manufacturing trade, and we represent a significant percentage of the u.s. textile industry producing everything else you can use. two short questions. >> can you keep it to one and make it short, i'd like to come over here, too. >> why isn't the obama administration supported the bipartisan china currency legislation and why include kmurn nis nonmarket vietnam in the tpp if you're for free trade? >> i think if you look at our record, this president has been

very aggressive in taking action to insure we have a level playing field with china. this president was the only president to use the 4 421 escape authority and he's taken more trade and more actions against china than his predecessor. you've just seen us file, very important case, on china rare earth. you've seen the success of the tire case. you've seen the president just put forward a new interagency trade enforcement task force to make sure we have the capacity, the language skills, the expertise, to bring more significant cases against our competitors who are not playing by the rules. predent has taken a very aggressive approach, a much more so than his predecessor in leveling the

playingfield with china and i think you've seen that consistently and you've seen i . we agree that their currency should be market-based. it has under president obama's watch and urging but not enough. but i think if you look at our overall policy toward china, it has been one that's been very tough. it's been one that is essentially saying to them, as you are playing a big role in the global economy you have to play by the rules and that we're willing to use the rule-base structure, the wto, to enforce that. >> let's go over here, please. >> is this on? >> yeah. >> i'm missy worth and i have to

tell you i think you've done a brilliant story of telling what i call "the obama story." but occasionally obama does it. but i would say most of us have no idea what an extraordinary job he's done because somehow you're not getting the story out. i've felt this from the very beginning and i'm so puzzled. >> can you please move to a question? >> i want to ask why they haven't been more aggressive about getting the story ought because it's been so good? >> we're going to put you on the road -- >> you know, i'm going to give a serious answer which is -- i think that you know, any white house lays out and tries to show the country your focusing on a specific thing, one at a time. getting that done. making sure everybody understands the pros and cons. when you inherit a crisis, when