According to the New York Times, 37.8 million viewers watched the President’s speech.  That’s down from 42.8 million in 2011, 48 million in 2010, and 52.3 million for the President’s 2009 speech to Congress.  In short, 15 million people who watched the President’s initial speech to Congress have just stopped watching.  And it’s not as if they lacked the opportunity to do so — the speech was carried on 14 different networks.

I’m sure those 15 million people have stopped watching for lots of different reasons.  I stopped because I think the State of the Union speech is stunningly boring and I hate the stylized standing ovations given with robotic predictability by the Members of Congress of the President’s party.  I’m sure others have stopped watching because they thought this year’s speech would be repetitive of last year’s speech, and some probably didn’t watch because they have just tuned President Obama out.  For those formerly hopeful people, perhaps, the bloom is off the presidential rose after three years of a bad economy and widespread joblessness, despite massive federal spending and huge budget deficits.

The falling viewership for the State of the Union speeches must be of concern to the President and his reelection staff.  In America, we vote as much with our channel changers as we do with the lever in our voting booths.  And, if I were the President, it’s the last group of non-viewers that would concern me most.  If Americans have given up and tuned out on President Obama, how can he turn around their negative perception of him?

That’s right:  a big, fat zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  A goose egg.  Naught.  Zippo.  What could be a more apt and powerful description for the moribund state of our economy?  Neither up nor down.  Dead in the water and becalmed.  Not really doing anything.  It’s the first time since 1945, 66 years ago, that the government reported a net job change of zero.

This result comes as no surprise to those outside the Washington Beltway who are looking desperately for jobs that don’t exist or are trying to find their way during this time of economic standstill. We’ve seen the listlessness, the lack of growth, and the lack of confidence firsthand and all around us.

Next week, President Obama will give a speech to a joint session of Congress to spell out his latest plan to jump start the economy.  If another speech could help, shouldn’t it have been given long ago?  If the Administration had new ideas on what to do, shouldn’t they have been proposed already?  The zero reported today seems to reflect a lack of ideas and a lack of urgency as much as a lack of economic growth.

My grandmother told me, however, that I should always look on the bright side.  I’ve tried to do that about the current sad state of the American economy, and have come up with the following possible silver linings:

*  We’re kicking Greece’s ass!

*  “Quantative easing” would be a good phrase to use in a laxative commercial.

*  When you think about it, owning your own home really is kind of a hassle, anyway.

*  Look, a squirrel!

If those don’t do the trick, how about the classic song of unbridled optimism from Monty Python’s Life of Brian:

With times being tough, it would be dumb to pay a professional to do something I should be able to do.  So, I decided to re-anchor the button myself, using one of those tiny sewing kits you get at some hotels.  Although I had never used a needle and thread before, I was acquainted with the basics.  You thread the needle, tie a knot in one end of the thread, and then insert the needle in and through the fabric, pulling the thread through and working through each of the the four holes in the button until it is snug against the garment.  Fortunately, the needle was already threaded, and I didn’t stab myself in the thumb more than once or twice.  Admittedly, it’s not  a professional looking job, but the button is back on and functional.  And when my sewing exercise was done, I felt a pleasant sense of accomplishment.

As I was moving the needle back and forth, I idly wondered what I had missed by not taking home economics during high school.  In my school, that really wasn’t an option.  Boys took shop, girls took home ec.  These days, though, being able to cook and create and repair clothing seems a heck of a lot more useful that being able to create a candlestick on any lathe that might be nearby.

Of course, it is impossible to fully ignore the news, which is discouraging.  The latest report on unemployment, which came out yesterday, is a good example.  Every month, millions of Americans remain out of work, as the economy continues to be mired in a recession.  And when the bad economic news is combined with the reports on the lack of progress toward a political agreement that would meaningfully address our national budget and deficit issues, it becomes hard to put on a happy face.

As a lifelong Cleveland sports fan, I am used to pessimism and disappointment.  As a country, however, we sure could use some good economic news for a change.

The wealth in Congress knows no party-line boundaries; Republicans and Democrats alike are doing well.  According to the reports, the Minority Leader and Majority Leader in the Senate are both multimillionaires who saw their wealth rise in 2010.  So did the the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader.  Other Members of Congress reported on gifts they received and, in one case, a member of Congress paid herself some hefty interest on a loan she made to her own campaign committee.

There are exceptions, of course, and I am not suggesting that only paupers should be elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives.  But when Americans wonder why Members of Congress, at times, seem out of touch with bread-and-butter issues like jobs and housing prices, they might do well to reflect on the vast personal wealth in Congress and the deferential and preferential treatment our elected representatives receive as a matter of course.  It’s easy to downplay the effect of high gasoline prices or unsold homes in middle-class neighborhoods if you have millions of dollars in personal investments to reflect upon as a fellow Senator gives you a ride on her private jet.

The only thing surprising about this news item is that some economists are still expressing surprise that American consumers aren’t more bullish about things.  Seriously, what world do these guys live in?  Leaving apart the weird notion that you can gauge something intangible like “confidence” with anything approaching scientific accuracy, what has happened recently that would encourage anyone to feel more upbeat about the economy?

For those who live in ivory towers or in the canyons of Wall Street, here is what those of us out in the country are seeing.  We know people who are out of work and have been out of work for a very long time.  We know college graduates who have gotten their degrees from fine institutions and can’t find even an entry-level job.  We know that gas and food prices have gone up since last year.  We’ve watched businesses close.  We’ve seen houses in the area sold at foreclosure and other houses in the neighborhood that seem to have been on the market forever.

So don’t tell us that some arcane leading economic indicator should cause us all to be doing handsprings.  We’ll believe the economy is getting better when our nephew can find a job and the house down the block gets sold.  Until then, understand that we are going to be cautious, and careful — and don’t be “surprised” that we are staying that way.

I don’t sense that gas prices are really on the radar screen in Washington, D.C., and I find myself wondering whether that seeming lack of interest has a geographic basis.  Most East Coast cities have established, easily accessible, and often subsidized mass transit systems; they also have other qualities that discourage car use — like limited, hyper-expensive parking and constant gridlock.  As a result, Eastern city-dwellers don’t drive much.  When Kish and I lived in D.C. in the ’80s, we never drove anywhere.  It was too easy to take the Metro, or walk.  We could go weeks without filling up our one car.  As a result, gas prices didn’t make much of an impression on us.

In the Midwest, it’s different.  Outside of Chicago, few cities have any kind of meaningful mass transit.  A few green, economy-minded folks — like my friend The Conservative — take the bus, but most people don’t see that as a viable alternative.  (And I doubt that even the most green D.C. policymakers would take a city bus, either, if the Metro weren’t around.)  In the Midwest, the car is the primary mode of transportation, and because the cities are spread out, people tend to drive farther and need to fill up more frequently.  If you are someone who lives in one of the outer suburbs, or commutes from a neighboring town like Springfield, the impact of steadily increasing fuel prices is even more profound.

I think there is a reasonable chance that many bureaucrats and politicians simply don’t comprehend the true effect of $4 a gallon gas on those of us who live in the heartland.  They see gas prices as a kind of manipulable commodity that can be hiked up to encourage stubborn people to use mass transit or buy a new, more fuel-efficient car.  But in the depressed Midwest, often those aren’t realistic options.  We have to drive our current cars to get to work, and higher gas prices inflict real economic pain.  And, incidentally, when gas prices increase we need to cut our spending somewhere else — so if gas prices stay high, or get even higher, don’t look to us to engage in the kind of consumer spending that some are hoping will pull the economy out of the lingering recession.

Gas prices are notoriously volatile.  Nevertheless, experts expect the prices to continue to rise, and rapidly.  The fact that prices are going through the roof during the dead of winter, traditionally a slow time for driving, is not a good sign.  The predictions are for $4 a gallon prices by spring, and even higher prices by the summer driving season.

The last thing our battered economy needs right now is a gasoline price spike.  People don’t budget for it, and if you are a commuter, as many Americans are, it is a cost you can’t avoid.  The money that consumers use to pay for most costly gasoline will not be spent on other goods and services and therefore won’t be used to create new jobs.  And the rising fuel costs will necessarily result in higher costs for goods delivered by truck — a category that includes everything from food to electronics — which means we may see an inflationary ripple effect in prices for a broad range of products.  This is not good news for an economy still trying to recover from a recession, or for a worker who took a faraway job because he needed to do so to feed his family.

These statistics aren’t a surprise to anyone in middle America.  The ongoing recession — only economists believe it ended months ago — has truly shaken the confidence of the American consumer.  In the past, spending by optimistic Americans pulled the country out of recession.  In this instance, that is not happening because there is too much uncertainty.  No one knows whether their taxes will be increased, or whether another round of layoffs may hit their workplace, or whether a desperate family member will come to them asking for help.  In such circumstances, the only prudent course is to cut back on non-essentials and try to make do.

This may be why the current recession is baffling economists whose models predicted a rebound in consumer spending.  Most Americans may be optimists, but they aren’t crazy.  They will adopt a careful wait-and-see attitude about whether there is real economic recovery before the purse strings are loosened again.

I’m sure this theme, like everything else in politics, has been focus group-tested — but doesn’t “guard the change” seems like an odd motto to use during an economic recession when so many people are scrimping and saving?  It conjures up images of Scrooge McDuck or some other miserly figure, rubbing his hands together, zealously standing watch over a jar of nickels, dimes and quarters and hoping to keep the Beagle Boys from getting their mitts on the coins.  “Guard the change” seems paranoid, defensive, and woefully out of step with the President’s typical efforts to inspire.

What does it all mean?  Different observers are reaching fundamentally different conclusions.  This writer thinks our economic problems are attributable to the fact that American workers are not as unionized as their European counterparts and are powerless to stop capitalist employers from taking advantage of a bad job market.  This writer thinks we need to cut taxes and cut regulations that may be hindering small business growth and job creation.  Others say we need to cut government spending before the American economy becomes permanently crippled by unsustainable levels of government debt.  In direct contrast, still others, like this columnist, urge the government to engage in even more stimulus spending.

It seems that the only thing everyone can agree on this Labor Day 2010 is that there is no consensus on how to proceed.  This may be a good thing, however.  We have an election coming up, and Americans will be presented with political choices that reflect different economic philosophies.  With no “expert” consensus to bludgeon them, I think the average American will fall back on their common sense and be guided by their own experiences in deciding how to vote.  The collective decision-making of average Americans, acting on their own common sense and practical experience, have tended to serve America well in the past.

I’m not sure how many inferences you can draw from a rise in hardship withdrawals, but the increase clearly is not good news.  Anyone who takes a hardship withdrawal is not simply raiding their retirement fund and thereby decreasing their retirement security.  Hardship withdrawals also come an an enormous price — by some accounts, up to  40 percent of the amount withdrawn — because federal and state taxes are levied on the amount and a 10 percent penalty is imposed as well.  If you assume that people tend to behave rationally when it comes to their finances, then you have to conclude that anyone who would take a hardship withdrawal from their 401(k) plan must be desperate and have no other options.

One of the individuals quoted in the article linked above noted that 2.2% is a relatively small percentage and that the vast majority of 401(k) participants therefore are not taking hardship withdrawals.  That is of course true, but it also is likely true that people who have 401(k) plans with sufficient funds to be the subject of hardship withdrawals are the most prudent, careful savers.  (Although it is not clear how many people have saved for retirement, recent surveys indicate that 27 percent of Americans have saved less than $1,000 and less than half of Americans have more than $25,000 saved to fund their retirement years.  If you have less than $1,000, you probably aren’t going to take a hardship withdrawal because, even if you withdrew your entire fund, the amount left for you to use after taxes and penalties would be negligible.)

If even the most careful savers are so desperate that they need to take hardship withdrawals, rather than reducing their annual contributions or taking a loan from their saved amount, it indicates that times are tough, indeed.

My real point in bringing up the mosque issue, however, is to urge people to move on, already! Our country is wrestling with high unemployment and a persistent economic recession that has thrown many Americans out of work and out of their homes.  Our soldiers are in harm’s way in two faraway foreign lands.  We are facing a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran that is governed by a madman.  We have a government that has racked up crushing budget deficits and is doing nothing about them.

With all due respect to the memory of 9/11 and the victims of terrorism who perished on that horrible day, I think that whether Muslims establish a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero is not the most significant matter confronting our troubled nation at this time.  We would be better off if we put the distracting and divisive “Ground Zero Mosque” issue behind us and focused on the truly important issues that are having a huge impact on the lives of millions of Americans.

If the federal government wants small businesses to hire more people, why not just cut the minimum wage?  And wouldn’t it be better if the federal government cut taxes (or refrained from raising them come January 1, 2011) so that small business owners could use their own money to expand their businesses, or families could use their own incomes to pay for their children’s college?  If people kept more of their own money they wouldn’t need to borrow (or at least not as much), and therefore could avoid adding a liability to their personal balance sheets, avoid having to make interest payments, and avoid having a debt hanging over their heads for years into the future.

What the President doesn’t seem to get is that many people are very leery about taking out loans — indeed, the would-be borrowers appear to be at least as skittish as the would-be lenders.  Many people have friends and acquaintances who have gotten overextended and had the roof fall in when times got tough.  They don’t believe the “credit relief” ads that seem to dominate the airwaves are a realistic solution to crushing debt problems, either.  As a result, they conclude that it would be foolhardy to borrow a lot of money when the economy is in the dumper and no one knows what Congress might do next.

Can anyone really blame them for being conservative about their personal finances in these difficult times, and for not lining up to incur more debt?