Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who's likely to be considered for his party's vice presidential slot this year, raised an interesting argument yesterday while trying to spin the latest economic news.
Associated Press
"I'm glad the economy is starting to recover, but I think it's because of what Republican governors are doing in their states, not because of the president."
Just at the surface, once prominent Republican leaders tell national television audiences that the economy is recovering under President Obama, the GOP is effectively giving away the store, or at least most of it.
But the more one scrutinizes McDonnell's new talking points, the less persuasive they appear. To hear the Virginia governor tell it, the economy is improving because of Republican governors, but whether McDonnell likes it or not, the current evidence points to a national recovery. There are 20 Democratic governors, including Democratic chief executives in two of nation's three largest states, and their economies are improving, too.
For that matter, there's ample reason to believe McDonnell has it backwards. One of the factors holding back the economy over the last year is the shrinking public sector, and the deliberate layoffs of thousands of government employees. Governors from both parties have contributed to this -- since states can't run deficits, they generally haven't had much of a choice -- but it's the GOP governors who've put austerity measures at the top of their respective to-do lists.
That doesn't boost the economy; it does the opposite.
Indeed, there's a degree of irony hearing McDonnell make the argument in the first place: thanks to money his state receives from Washington, Virginia has seen its government payrolls grow, even while most states slash public-sector jobs.
As McDonnell auditions for national office, he'll have to do better than this.
Leave a Comment:
So what have the republican governors implemented over the last couple of years? Austerity programs.
So what did Newt recently say does NOT work? Austerity programs.
Do republicans even listen to each other?
I pray that Romney chooses McDonnell as his running mate. This man is so backasswards, with such far right extreme ideas that he's publicly voiced, it will be a pleasure to see him bring the ticket down even further than it would anyway.
McDonnell is another telegenic Republican lightweight. It's too bad for him that his opinion of himself is so much higher than anyone else's opinion of him.
Romney may be forced to take a hard right VP in order to generate support within the Republican party. But if Romney chooses a hard right VP, they will lose the election because it will be a rerun of Palin who was unacceptable for a lot of reasons. McDonnell may be popular with the hard right and Christian right, but he is not acceptable to most voters who are moderates and independents.
As McDonnell auditions for national office, he'll have to do better than this.
Well, no. He's auditioning for a spot on the Republican ticket. He's doing just fine.
As a Virginian my position is that McDonnell has been running for VP at least since 2009. He'll take the Republican position on anything, until someone points out to him that it will be detrimental to the Commonwealth. See: his initial support for NOT raising the debt limit. His administration has been ignoring the citizens of Northern Virginia since he took the oath of office.
I see McDonnell got his weekly talking points memo from Carl Rove.
McDonnell is the governor of my state. Believe me, he can't help himself.
he's a clown, and another amateur thinking he's ready for the big stage.
I am a bit confused on this subject also. For the first 2 1/2 years of this administration President Obama blamed President Bush for just about everything. Now President Obama is taking credit for job creation for the last 28 months.
Is it their fault or not? Does this blame game only apply to that they don't want to take responsibility?
Hypocrisy alert!
I know you think you've made a point. You haven't. There have been jobs created in the past 2 years, just not enough to counteract the decline in jobs over the past 4-5 years. As jobs are created, not only are all the currently unemployed trying to get those jobs but new people are entering the workforce all the time, be they graduates or dropouts. The usual estimate is that the economy needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month just to stay even with population growth. While we've been adding jobs, and that's partially a result of efforts from this Administration, it hasn't been enough until recently to keep up with population growth.
You can argue that things could be better under a Republican president. The fact that all the badness began under a Republican president notwithstanding. I, on the other hand, can argue that things would be better if we didn't have a Republican minority in the Senate that not only filibustered damn near every vote, but filibustered DEBATE on votes that might improve the economy. Think about that. Republicans won't even allow the Senate to talk about things that might help the economy. Why do you think that is?
Aaaaand with that, I've given you more attention than you've probably received your whole life. So...congratu...lations?
I'm with you, slappy
slappy magoo, newsblog903
I love it when you left wingers assume someone is Republican (the other side, boogieman). It shows the narrow mindset of the general public and is really quite sad. In my opinion the "us" = Average American Citizen and the "them" = the cronie establishment has-been's that have been telling us and imposing their will on "what is good for us" while at the same time self-exemptimg in lieu of a better system for themselves, and they are all the same.
This wonderful current administration you refer has the President calling for raising the taxes on the rich to feed the ineffective, redundant, over regulated, wasteful "blob" (federal government) in the name of feeding the poor. The fact is he personally has not contributed one untaxed penny to the fund and less than 5% of his personal gross income to church or charity (which most believe is a much more efficient means to get a higher percentage of help to those that need it). Is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" As with all leaders, Rep. and Dem. again? I guess you don't contribute without the proverbial Fed Tax "gun to the head". Well I'm sick of it and pay PLENTY of taxes for them to waste.
Today President Obama has proclaimed SuperPacs, while being bad, are not sooo bad not to utilize them for his re-election. I'm sure you will spin the obvious hypocrisy in blind support of your endorsed candidate.
Take off the blinders and see the light!
McDonnell along with the rest of the GOP suffers from schizophrenia! They're all liars, and cannot tell the difference between "reality" and "the alternate universe" where denial isn't that river in Egypt! They should be removed from office solely on "mental incompetence"!!
So, Zora, you think the 6.2% unemployment rate is due to 400 additional government workers in Virgina, a .05% increase? That's why Virginia is doing so good?
Actually, this is in regards to "national" numbers, and if Virginia is doing better, than I say good for them! But it does mean that those 400 additional government workers are spending money, which spurs demand, which in turn leads to "hiring" - so I'll say it's probably a side benefit! :>)
I don't see that. You play the hand you're dealt, as we saw yesterday on Meet the Press when the GOP voices were insisting that unemployment was down because 1.2 million people left the workforce (never mind that employment was up.)
The story may be impossible to swallow, but most of the people who know it's BS are either:
When jobs are created in Texas, credit goes to the Republican governor's policies. When unemployment is high in Nevada and Florida...its Obama.
What a cheesy argument! According to the article linked, the government job roll in Virginia grew by .05% - that's not half a percent but 5/100ths of a percentage point. And that growth INCLUDES Federal workers.
The current unemployment rate in Virginia is 6.2% and you are trying to make the point that this rate is due to a .05% increase in government jobs? Wow!
How exactly is that cheesy? Most states are shedding thousands upon thousands of government jobs (be they at local or state or federal levels). Virginia, on the other hand, is not shedding government jobs, in fact they are gaining jobs. The increase might be minimal, but because they are not losing jobs, it helps their unemployment rate remain lower than most of the rest of the country. By using federal dollars to keep people employed, their economy remains somewhat stronger than most of the rest of the nation where austerity is now the rule.
5/100ths of a percentage point of a jobs increase is still more than negative any amount of percentage points jobs increase, no? a ZERO POINT ZERO percent jobs increase is better than jobs lost, no?
Slappy, you do make an argument that I had not considered. A 5/100th percentage growth is at least not a drain or pull down on the unemployment. It still is minimal on the whole but does have a stronger impact than I originally estimated.
It is, however, private sector jobs of which we need more. Growth in private sector jobs should lead to small editions in government jobs, not the other way around.
But, valid point. Thanks!
That last exchange demonstrates something that is almost completely lacking in modern political discourse. A valid point; a valid counterpoint; and a response which considered the merits of the counterpoint, found parts of them acceptable, and admitted so.
If the country as a whole could listen to opposing viewpoints with the attitude that value can be found in the opinions of others then we'd all be better off.
Now for some perspective via the facts:
Peak Private Sector Employment - Jan 2008 - 111,647,000
At Feb 2009 (first Obama Month) - 110,260,000
At Jan 2012 (current month) - 110,436,000
Hmmm, so we've up 176k private sector jobs but still down 3,662,000 lost during the Bush administration.
Now it's about cleaning up after the past administration.
Additional perspective:
Feb 2001 - 111,623,000
Jan 2004 - 108,883,000
Bush lost 2.74 million jobs in the first 36 months of his first termas well.
And we're now 1.187 million down from when Clinton left the White House.
Since all the jobs now added back came in this administration and since the Republicans had years of tax cuts and less regulation from 2001, where is the explanation for why we have over 1 million less private sector jobs today than we had when Bill Clinton was in office 12 years ago.
Spin that one Republicans!
I think that certain states' adoptions of corporate-written legislation, via ALEC, significantly contributes to the loss of local government jobs. Witness New Hampshire:
http://www.granitestateprogress.org/news/nh-state-house-introduces-a-shocking-7-alec-corporate-written-pieces-of-legislation-in-one-week-alon.html