E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“Liberal House Democrats are pressuring President Obama to ignore his conservative critics and take ‘bold action’ to tackle the lingering jobs crisis,” The Hill reports. “Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) — the co-chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — want the president to champion sweeping investments in the nation's crumbling infrastructure as a way to create jobs and jolt the sluggish economy.”
“Two Democratic senators are warning that 1.8 million jobs could be lost if Congress fails to approve a new transportation bill by Sept. 30,” The Hill reports.
“Democrats are trying to use the issue of disaster relief spending to drive a wedge between House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Republicans from states stricken by last week’s earthquake and hurricane, an effort that the Virginia Republican’s office denounced Thursday,” Roll Call reports, adding, “The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has seized on Cantor’s stance on offsets, accusing him of holding aid hostage, and it sent letters to news organizations in the districts of East Coast Republicans on Thursday to pressure them into weighing in. Will the district’s Representative ‘stand against his Republican Leader Eric Cantor’s outrageous position that Hurricane Irene disaster relief cannot be funded until after House Republicans make draconian spending cuts to things like Medicare and education?’ the letters asked.”
Leave a Comment:
I have a feeling that there are a lot of anxious workers out there dusting off their picks and shovels!
Go BIG, Mr. President!!!
Oh, and Cantor is a numbchuck - And that's a compliment.
REBUILD AMERICAREBUILD AMERICAREBUILD AMERICAREBUILD AMERICAREBUILD AMERICAREBUILD AMERICAREBUILD AMERICA
Let us get back to work rebuilding the crumbling roads, bridges, schools and airports of America. 1 in 5 of folks out of work in the US are construction workers hit by the housing bubble. Interest rates are low & we can finance rebuilding of infrastructure across America while creating millions of jobs.
Infrastructure traditionally a bipartisan issue. While China spends 9% of GDP on infrasture, we spend only 2% of GDP. China understands how important it is to put people to work doing what needs to be done for the 21st century.
No more distractions and time-wasting in Congress. The Surface Transportation Bill is ready to go, for starters. Rebuild our country!
Yea, thats right Richard, go big! THis will finish off the rest of the liberal dumbasses that went for this clown in 08.
Cantor is a numbpecker.
And that's a fact.
Cantor would probably take it as a compliment, me myself would use a few other words, but the FR text editor keeps changing it to a bunch of misc. symbols on me.
At least if he starts big we might wind up with something after his give-aways to the right.
Democratic translation of "Go Big" Spend Spend Spend money we do not have to prop up the unions like we did in the stimulis! How about don't spend money we do not have and free up the business environment to begin to grow again and create new jobs. Or maybe we need to coninue to grant money to "green" companies so they can take the money and then go broke ( errr. recaptialize!)... NOT! I still ahve not heard any liberal explain how increasing taxes increases job growth!
I still have not heard how cutting taxes increases job growth.
Here you go Fed up senior
Those costs (taxes) have been shifted to the consumers and they are not really discretionary. This leaves consumers with far less discretionary income so their is less demand for business to provide goods and services. Shifting those costs back to the profit makers will put more money in the pockets of consumers and they will buy goods and services which will create demand for business to expand and continue to make a lesser profit margin but increased profits overall do to expanded volume. As volume expands business will hire more people, now more people will have money to spend and now you are on an upward spiral. The only problem is how to get started because business will not expand until the demand is there first, so how do you get some money into the hands of consumers to get this ball rolling. We bailed out everybody else maybe we should have a massive consumer bailout something like wall street got. We need some outside stimulus at this point. I would say we need to first start shifting those costs back to corporations and we need a massive jobs bill, the government needs to invest a lot of money in nation building right here in the States, this would start the income cycle and those monies will be recouped later from the expanded economy. Just think if we started spending 2 Billion a week right here in the US instead of Iraq and Afghanistan, how could that hurt. Lets take a 4 billion dollar subsidy from the oil companies this year and spend it in fixing up one American city and see what happens to their local economy, I am betting it will improve, and more jobs will be created than just those hired for the projects. You can cut taxes for corporations, but tax cuts for them does not create customers for them it just creates more profit on less sales. I think we have proven that, or they would be hiring like crazy by now because their taxes have never been lower, and they have been this low for a good long while, if that was going to work it should have kicked in by now. Besides many pay no taxes at all so if low taxes creates jobs then no taxes at all should create even more jobs faster. But the truth is we keep cutting their taxes and picking up their tab and they keep laying off because no customers walk in their doors.
Its time to grow a set and put the s,hit on the the Republicans enough is enough take it to them Mr President
It's not an issue of "going big". The plan has to be bold and creative to address the root causes of the downturn - quick fix stimulus plans won't address the long term systemic employment problems. Tax cuts certainly won't work either. Too many people are ignoring the trade deficit.
Here's a five point plan:
1 - Add a VAT tax of 10% (minimum) on all imported goods - most of our trading partners add a lot higher VAT on our goods coming into their countries.
2 - Cut corporate tax rate to 10% on multi-nationals that have production facilities in the U.S. The caveat is that 75% of those facilities and revenues have to be in the U.S.
3 - Increase taxes to 25% on all multi-national companies with production facilities that have less than 75% of their production and revenue.
4 - Drop dead pull out date for all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, year end 2014. Military hardware budget must be cut by 25% - excluding troop related upgrades. Automatic freeze on all big budget toys until CBO review of necessity.
5 - A small $500B stimulus for infra-structure repair, no pork belly projects or tax cuts built in, pure transporation and school repair funds. All projects must be pre-approved. Paid for by the ending of the GWB tax cuts on folks making $250k and above.
Play it like they do, first tell them if you do not get the jobs bill that you will veto any extension of the bush tax cuts when they expire. Make it real clear to them that their sacred cow is headed to the slaughterhouse if you don't get a huge jobs bill. Make sure the bill does not hand any monies to the states, it stays in the hands of the federal goverernment so it does not get used by state governors for other purposes. The projects should all be federal projects. Then go big, real big, (no sense in putting a band aid on a severed artery) if you can't get the bill through the house, then hang it around their necks and make them explain to the American people why we can afford a 15% tax rate for the extremely wealthy but can not afford to invest in American infrastructure.
It doesn't matter what the President says; even if it's the Republican plan, the Republicans will go against it. Why will Boehner wait a week to reply to the President's address? We do not need to wait for him to say 'The president's plan is not a plan we can agree on', we already know you do not agree with anything that will move this country forward. Does anyone here think that if Governors of these states would have accepted the stimilus that was intended for infrastructure would have decreased the amount of damage done by recent storms? Instead some state declined stimilus while others accepted it and used it for other means and not what it was intended.
I have said it before and I will say it again. This is W, Bush's mess that the President is trying to clean up.
Bush and Cheney remind us how we got into this mess
By Eugene Robinson, Published: September 1
"Thank you, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, for emerging from your secure, undisclosed locations to remind us how we got into this mess: It didn't happen by accident.
The important thing isn't what Bush says in his interview with National Geographic or what scores Cheney tries to settle in his memoir. What matters is that as they return to the public eye, they highlight their record of wrongheaded policy choices that helped bring the nation to a sour, penurious state.
Questions about whether President Obama has been combative enough in dealing with the Republican opposition — or sufficiently ambitious in framing his progressive agenda — seem trivial when viewed in this larger context. Obama is tackling enormous problems that took many years to create. His presidential style is important insofar as it boosts or lessens his effectiveness, but its importance pales beside the generally righteous substance of what he's trying to accomplish.
It was the Bush administration, you will recall, that sent the national debt into the stratosphere and choked off federal revenue to the point of asphyxiation. Bush and Cheney decided to fight two wars without even accounting — let alone paying — for them. Rather than raise taxes to cover the cost of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush opted to maintain unreasonable and unnecessary tax cuts.
So far, the wars and the tax cuts have cost the Treasury between $4 trillion and $5 trillion. If Bush had just left income tax rates alone, nobody except Ron Paul would be talking about the debt.
My aim isn't to attack Bush but to attack his philosophy. When he was campaigning for the White House in 2000, the government was anticipating a projected surplus of roughly $6 trillion over the following decade. Bush said repeatedly that he thought this was too much and wanted to bring the surplus down — hence, in 2001, the first of his two big tax cuts.
Bush was hewing to what had already become Republican dogma and by now has become something akin to scripture: Taxes must always be cut because government must always be starved.
The party ascribes this golden rule to Ronald Reagan — conveniently forgetting that Reagan, in his eight years as president, raised taxes 11 times. Reagan may have believed in small government, but he did believe in government itself. Today's Republicans have perverted Reagan's philosophy into a kind of anti-government nihilism — an irresponsible, almost childish insistence that the basic laws of arithmetic can be suspended at their will.
The Bush administration also pushed forward Reagan's policy of deregulation — ignoring, for example, critics who said the ballooning market in mortgage-backed securities needed more oversight. When the 2008 financial crisis hit, Bush did regain his faith in government long enough to throw together the $800 billion TARP bailout for the banks. But he failed to use the leverage of an aid package to exact reforms that would ensure that the financial system served the economy, rather than the other way around.
Faced with similar circumstances, would today's Republican leadership react at all? Or is it the party's view that the proper role of government would be to stand aside and watch the world's financial system crash and burn?
This is a serious question. Just a few weeks ago, the Republican majority in the House threatened to force the United States government to default on its debt obligations — a previously unthinkable act of brinkmanship. Everything is thinkable now.
The Bush administration took Reagan's tax-cutting, government-starving philosophy much too far. Today's Republican Party takes it well beyond, into a rigid absolutism that would be comical if it were not so consequential.
We face devastating unemployment. Many conservative economists have joined the chorus calling for more short-term spending by the federal government as a way to boost growth. But the radical Republicans don't pay attention to conservative economists anymore. The Republicans' idea of a cure for cancer would be to cut spending and cut taxes.
Perhaps they're just cynically trying to keep the economy in the doldrums through next year to hurt Obama's chances of reelection. I worry that their fanaticism is sincere — that one of our major parties has gone completely off the rails. If so, things will get worse before they get better.
Having Bush and Cheney reappear is a reminder to step back and look at what Obama is up against. You might want to cut him a little slack."
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
Yeah, right! Go Big. November 2012 can't come soon enough.
In order for Obama to do anything meaningful on the jobs front he will have to adopt policies that are private sector business friendly. If he proposes another big government public sector deficit spending temporary jobs creating plan it will go over like a lead balloon. His problem is that he is boxed in by the far left extremist "progressives' that believe that bigger government, more entitlements and more anti-private sector laws and regulations are the way to go. That is not a view that is shared by most Americans.
Obama already tried creating jobs via the infrastructure rebuilding route. Lots of highways were repaved and bridges rebuilt under the Recovery and Reinvestment In America Act. Remember all those signs Obama had put up on the highways touting that program (some of them are still out there)? But it did little or nothing to make any significant dent in unemployment and unemployment went right back up, even higher, once it ended. Virtually no sustainable private sector jobs were created under that Act. But it did add significantly to the deficit spending (record pace under Obama) and debt that is chocking this country to death. And today's job numbers illustrate that in an all too painful way.
But that is probably what he is going to bank on. A plan that tries to quickly create temporary public sector jobs to make the unemployment numbers look good between now and Nov 2012, so as to enhance his chances at getting reelected. That, plus more handouts in the form of an expanded food stamps program and extended unemployment benefits, will not lead to sustainable jobs growth, no matter what Nancy Pelosi would have anybody believe.
Of course, one of the primary problems we have, China's unfair trade, will not be addressed and will be left to fester. If Mr. Obama really wants to put legislation and other measures in place, that will lead to sustainable private sector jobs, he will have to address the China problem through tariffs and tax laws that give protections and incentive to businesses here in the US, not China or Brazil. Businesses, like those green jobs solar panel manufacturers that are going under because they can't compete with China, need incentives to open shop here and protection be able to compete with China on a level playing field. Until that happens we will continue to see China's predatory stealing of our economy, manufacturing base and jobs continue. What company wants to open shop here only to have the Chinese drive them into bankruptcy or steal their business from them? It didn't work for Solyndra and a bunch of other green jobs companies Obama told US represent the wave of the future!!!
Mr. Obama will have to alienate his base if he is going to do anything meaningful to create sustainable jobs growth here in the US. But in doing so he will run the risk that they will abandon him come election time. But, if Mr. Obama doesn't want his term in office to be a total waste/failure, he needs to step away from the "progressives" and do what is right for the country, not what is right for them and their agenda.
A speech before a joint session of Congress should be for something that is very important and meaningful. Not another rehashing and repackaging of the same old same old that has not worked and will not work. With the Senate and House Dems sitting in the audience, Mr Obama needs to lead them in a new direction and tell them that if they don't come along, for the good of the country, they need to get out of the way, because he will forge new alliances with the Repubs to get the job done.
He can start by backing a balanced budget amendment and/or setting a course to achieve a balanced budget over the next 5 to 7 years. If he does that and drags the Dems along with him, he will gain very significant leverage to be used to get the Repubs to agree to some tax reforms/increases with the revenue generated therefrom targeted exclusively towards paying down the debt.
Those things will create an environment where the private sector can have a positive outlook for our future and begin to invest in our economy again and start putting people back to work. More big government and more deficit spending on temporary public sector projects leading to more debt creation simply will not do.
Ok Mr. Boehner. I suppose you are advocating another round of corporate tax cuts as well. GWB did that and deregulation - neither worked. I agree with you on some points but where does cutting the military budget and ending the wars fall under? We have spent more than a trillion dollars on these wars and over the last ten years the figure is closer to $3T. A lot of the huge growth in the public sector came under GWB and his creation of Homeland Security.
Those things will create an environment where the private sector can have a positive outlook for our future and begin to invest in our economy again and start putting people back to work.
A positive outlook does not generate customers, they will never invest or hire unless they can't satisfy the demand, and a positive outlook does not create any more demand, only people with money to spend can do that.
Mav
No I am not advocating more tax cuts. In my view what should happen is Obama comes out backing a balanced budget/balanced budget amendment in exchange for the Repubs agreeing to some tax reforms/increases, with the revenue therefrom used exclusively to pay down the debt. That, with spending cuts and lack of fear mongering to score political points, will get US headed in the right direction. And yes, by all means, cut the military budget wherever possible without compromising national security and bring out troops and/or resources home from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Stop illegals from entering and remaining in this country and get tough with our unfair trade partners, mostly China.
Forest
Consumers can not spend until they have a job from which to get the money to spend. Unemployment benefits and food stamps and temporary make work public jobs will not spur businesses to hire. Getting government off the backs of businesses and creating an environment where we can compete on a level playing field with countries like China will.
You can not compete with China because the Chinese are paid $200 a month to build Apple I-pads, unless you want some government regulations that would outlaw Apple and many others from doing that, or Americans are going to work for $200 a month. It has little to do with government regulations and much to do about US companies using cheap labor in foreign countries, and the extra benefit of skirting US taxes by doing so. You think they will stop doing that out of national pride or patriotism, or do you think they would have to be forced through some type of regulation. So business needs customers to expand and hire, but customers need jobs so they can earn money to spend and give business a reason to expand and hire, it is a catch 22, do you know anybody other than the US government that can spur some demand, by purchasing what they need anyway, but on a massive and accelerated scale to break the catch 22? Where is this outside stimulus going to come from? Tax cuts are not working there was not a single job created in August, it seems tax cuts are making things worse, now you see that scaling back government employees and their incomes at all levels of government, because of budget cuts, instead of collecting taxes to right the budgets are having a devastating effect. When will the wealthy job creators start hiring, and the answer is after you get a job and have some money to spend with them. As far as your level playing field, don't forget that in addition to what I already said, virtually every other country puts all manner of taxes and tariffs and regulations on foreign products coming into their country. Are you up for that, lots of new taxes and regulations, because we will never level the playing field if we don't, no other country even pretends they want a level playing field they make our products more expensive by law.
Forest Grump - Finally someone who actually understands simple economics and why the direction that the right wants us to go is torward futher deteriorization of our economic system. I am a past republican and now independent. I do not believe anyone who knows me would consider me to be a liberal in any shape form or fashion. However, I do believe in the need for government and its role in the moderation of a nation that utilizes the free enterprise system. A free enterprise system is unable to control (moderate) itself by its very nature. Without moderation this type of system always makes the rich segment of the population smaller and richer and the poor segment larger and poorer drawing from the middle class. At some point the in this progression the population reacts and class warfare takes place, usually presented as violence (i.e. riots, civil war, facism, communism). This has taken place many times in world history, is currently taking place in our country, and if not rejected by a majority of the population will almost certainly happen here. This is not to say that the left's agenda of bigger government, more services and more taxes to paid for them is any better. The answer is somewhere in the middle. If anyone just takes the time to examine the political trends of the last 50 years and correlate them with the economic ones they would find 1. Our nations econmic well being is not controlled directly by the government, but some government actions can have a very strong influence. 2. The subsidization of large multi-nation corporations far from improving the US economic situation does the exact opposite by driving jobs overseas. 3. The subsidization of US or Primarily US (>75%) corporations and businesses does help our econonmy by increasing jobs. 4. If a substancial portion of our population is unable to purchase anything more than that needed to survive then there will not be any growth in business and the jobs that go with it.
It is said (and supported by the official statistics) that people that do not pay federal taxes has increased from 40% to 45% in the US.
The right's take on this (and mine at one time) is that everybody should have to pay and that we need to reduce the size of government (i.e. welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security), cut taxes on everybody else especially business and that things would be much better for all and much more fair.
The left's take on this is that with more social programs for those out of work and otherwise affected by the recession along with tax increases that things will get better.
The middle (moderates) take (which now include's me) is that the reason that the 45% is not being taxed now have nothing to tax. The vast majority we are talking about are seniors living on social security, extremely low wage earners and unemployed. What good does it do to tax them? Hoever, pouring more money into more social programs to put a bandaid on the problem also does very little except a shortterm stimulus with little or no lasting affect. Some things that we could do is; 1. Since we are have been and will continue the military operations underway we need to return our tax base back to the 2000 rules until the wars are over (i.e. if we are going to go to war then we need to raise the tax base to support that action). 2. Cut all tax subsidies to any business that does not have at least 75% of it's production capabilities located in the US. 3. Increase or add a VAT tax on high volume import items that are not made in the US primarly due to cheap foriegn labor. This would cut our unemployment by half the 1st year
I hear you loud and clear Dave, I wish you would throw your hat in the republican primary ring, we could use a sensible man like yourself.