THE BURNED OVER DISTRICT

The title of this post should be taken as a daily mantra by the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. It will be the driving force in the elections ahead. While their efforts so far have ameliorated a dangerous down turn, it is time to divert funding and guarantees from Wall St to Main St. Alec MacGillis takes a look at what has been done and wonders why it hasn't been more directed.

"History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth, which is why we have to continue to pursue measures that will create new jobs," he said. "And I can promise you that I won't let up until the Americans who want to find work can find work."

It was a strong vow, but it raises a question: Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job?

Since taking office, the Obama administration has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing workers' private-sector employment or by creating new government-paid jobs. There are programs in a handful of states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies -- an approach that costs relatively little, since it results in lower payouts of unemployment benefits, and that has helped Germany keep unemployment under 8 percent despite the deep slowdown there. But the Obama administration has so far opted not to expand this initiative. And aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

Instead Obama's team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced. If you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, why not do it with conviction? Engaging in more forthright job creation could invite some political pitfalls (such as those constant accusations of socialism), but is double-digit unemployment any less a political risk?

All this would horrify the GOP. The idea of money going to people who don't belong to the country club is totally anathema to the Party of No. And their propaganda machine would surely stir up a swarm of teabaggies, but even the Beckerhead can't overcome the reality of people feeding their families because they are working.