Associated Press
I have a radical idea. It'll never happen, and the American system of politics would never be able to accommodate such a thing, but I'll put it on the table anyway, and invite the mockery.
Here's the idea: since jobs are the nation's most pressing issue, and there's an incredibly important presidential campaign coming up, President Obama and Mitt Romney can each present detailed jobs plans. Then, those plans can be subjected to independent scrutiny, and voters can support the candidate with the superior agenda. Like I said, it's radical stuff.
Of course, all kidding aside, we're not completely flying blind. Romney declared today, "The president doesn't have a plan, hasn't proposed any new ideas to get the economy going," but that's ridiculously untrue -- the Americans Jobs Act exists, it included specific, bipartisan proposals, it was subjected to outside scrutiny, and it would have worked very well.
And what about Romney's alternative? Today, the Republican pointed to a series of job-creation ideas: increased oil production, trade with Latin America, cracking down on China, and cutting the corporate tax rate. Ezra Klein noticed one of the main problems with this jobs agenda: it's slow.
[W]orking out trade agreements takes a long time. Getting the Keystone oil pipeline up and running takes a long time. Rewriting and implementing a new corporate tax code takes a long time. Changing China's policies takes a long time. It's difficult to see how any of these ideas creates a substantial number of jobs quickly.
Obama also tends to emphasize four parts of his plan: increasing infrastructure investment, hiring more state and local workers, doubling the size of the payroll tax cut and adding a new set of tax cuts for small businesses and companies that hire new employees. Two of those policies imply directly hiring hundreds of thousands of workers. The other two move money into the economy immediately. It's easier to see how these policies lead to more jobs and demand in the short term.
In terms of the deficit, the Obama administration has put forward a specific set of ideas -- mostly by eliminating itemized deductions for wealthier Americans -- to pay for its plan. The Romney campaign has not yet said how it will cut corporate and individual tax rates without increasing the deficit.
So, to review, Obama's agenda would create jobs right away, would be fully paid for, and would reduce the deficit over time. Romney's agenda wouldn't create jobs right away, isn't fully paid for, and would apparently increase the deficit over time. Or as Jeffrey Liebman recently put it, "What would Gov. Romney do to create jobs now? In a word, nothing."
This doesn't appear to be much of a contest.
But in an electoral context, Greg Sargent makes the case today that my fantastical notion of competing jobs plans is probably less likely to actually happen given this morning's figures.
If the recovery stalls out, it becomes far easier for Romney to make the election all about Obama, and paradoxically, it encourages Romney to be more vague about what he'd do to solve this. The political conversation focuses more on this election as a referendum on Obama — because history teaches us that this is how swing voters will see things in a tanking economy — and less on the choice voters face between two prescriptions for fixing it. It's a self-reinforcing dynamic.
Indeed, to respond to bad jobs numbers by asking whose plan would actually fix things has an almost quaint or naive quality.... Look at it this way. Yesterday, two major voices within the GOP -- the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Bill Kristol -- both called on Romney to be more specific about his plans and vision for the economy. If the bad jobs numbers continue, and it looks more likely that Romney can win by keeping the focus only on Obama, do you really imagine that such voices will continue demanding that Romney offer more detail about his agenda?
At least as far as the discourse is concerned, it's tough to feel optimistic about the nature of the debate.
Leave a Comment:
'Romney declared today, "The president doesn't have a plan, hasn't proposed any new ideas to get the economy going," but that's ridiculously untrue...'
Ridiculously untrue? That reminds me... it's Friday.
Agreed. And I think Obama is missing out on a great opportunity to put this in its appropriate light.
It isn't that Obama's plan isn't working, it is that Congressional obstruction isn't working. After all, if Congress is filibustering all of the Obama and Democrat legislation in good faith, it *must* be because they think the economy would grow more without them, right? (GBG) Otherwise they would indeed be saboteurs.
Obama needs to start telling people to tell their Congressmen to stop obstructing, because it makes the economy worse. Obstruction doesn't work!
That's true--President Obama doesn't have "A" jobs plan--he's had numerous jobs' plans, all killed by the Republicans in Congress. But, when the "medium is the message," just try convincing Right-wingers of that fact. I just LOVE that conservatives still tout the "fact" that there is "liberal bias" in the media. What a joke.
One of the most subtle signals of just what Romney has in mind to create jobs is also deserving of further investigation of his promise to create trade agreements with Mexico and latin america.... TPP. The Trans Pacific Partnership. Highly secretive negotiations going on there. I understand it is being negotiated with 600 global corporations and will not allow penetration by the senator nor his staff. He's only the guy that is supposed to oversee the agreements. It is truly scary stuff and seems the US is practically being given away... this is why ALEC is pumping so much money in the election process. Romney seems poised to sign this document. I understand it is not revocable. Norquist has stated they only want Romney to sign off on their policies. Sure would appreciate it if it could be verified.... http://www.citizen.org/tradewatch
OK, Let's say there is a plan out there that will work (I have my reservations because I've "leaned forward" and been told for so long that any President can do very little to create jobs). The real problem is this President cannot get anything passed unless his party has full control of all of Congress.
It appears the current President doesn't possess the same skills of previous Presidents that have dealt with Congress of a different persuasion. Do we really want another 4 years of gridlock?
I would without a doubt take four more years of gridlock than elect Romney. After studying what Romney is proposing, I have no doubt that my standard of living or quality of live will fall with Romney. Romney scares me.
I second that, I'll take PBO over R-money any day of the week... If you worry about congress then, vote them out!!! The choice is yours.... Make your vote count, talk to your neighbors, friends, and family.... Obama/Biden 2012
FDH, I have heard that said by someone before and my immediate response was "we need a new Congress", but everyone thinks it's the president. Why is it 14% approval of Congress and 47% approval of the president, but there is blindness to Congress and focus on President?
We have Congress doing nothing, THAT is CONGRESS. You know, separation of powers. We voted in Obama and Biden and CONGRESS tries to stop it, so Congress is ANTI democracy and promoting corporatocracy or plutocracy, however you want to call it, it's not democratic republic.
They use their supposedly rarely used rules to favor minority obstruction of the will of the people. They also pretend everyone is f-in up in arms about contraception and abortion. They finally saw the political up-side to student loans and jobs bill, but only after they dragged feet and bellowing about some trumped up thing about guns.
Third it, Rmoney would be a disaster and we'd be bombing Iran. Change the Congress, get rid of extremists that call for debt ceiling stand offs and whine about wounded veterans and call the president a liar on the floor of Congress.
Yeah, who hasn't thought of that, and who hasn't wondered why such a straightforward, common sensical thing can't happen? But we know why it won't happen, of course.
And so many American sheep keep believing this is the best system that man can ever produce.
just wanted to say:
1. really enjoyed you last night on MSNBC.
2. thank you for being on of the few in the media to call out the GOP on their ECONOMIC TREASON of this country
I, too, have an idea.
How 'bout "a chicken in every pot?"
-that worked for Herbert Hoover, in 1928 , as did, "Vote for Prosperity," and "Lest We Forget"
("I forget what I said, but whatever I said, I stand by it.")
Why the heck isn't Obama beating the republicans over the head with this?
Come on, in 30 seconds or a minute, you can't show Obama proposing the AJA, list some of the job-creating ideas in it, show some headlines from economists saying it would create 2 million jobs in 2012, the vote totals with every R Senator voting against it and House Rs not even allowing a vote? How hard is that?
Yes, just what we need, more spending and borrowing. Nice things to have, but until we get spending under control, we'll be looking like Europe. Put a plan in place to gain fiscal control = Simpsim/Bowles comes to mind - prioritize spending. Cut out things like NPR, Planned Parenthood, Arts, farm subsidies etc. Then spend on the future
What is the Obama Plan for Jobs? Let's ask the Republicans!
Is it just me, or are the GOP talker hosts giddy over the jobs numbers?
They are trying very hard to make us believe they can implement the deregulating and tax cutting and people will hire.
This has been proven ineffective, due to outsourcing. Gee, that was Rmoney's specialty, so by all means, do that????? NOT
WTF do the corps want? Oh yeah, a government taxpayer guarantee…
Geez.
I do think it is time for the Obama camp to go on offense. Lay it out in facts, but not snooze fest.
The talk show hosts are joyfully celebrating their efforts to make sure people are "uncertain".
Gad. Democrats are willing to shell out billions upon billions on payroll tax cuts, infrastructure, and bureaucrats. Why? In order to stimulate the business sector. Just letting business do it's thing though, is frowned upon.
Does anyone else see the essential conflict here?
Shooter242, "just let business do its thing", I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Let's throw out all the rules for business's and that will make it better? I think it's the same as a competition between two teams in a soccer match. Let's get rid of the rules and see how the game goes.
Shooter, you need to study.
Actually I seem to be the only person here that has actually practiced capitalism. There are currently rules galore. there are rules for making rules, there are rules for following rules.
Business is being stifled by bad new rules, and arbitrary enforcement of current rules. Perhaps you've seen the story of 13,000 pages of rules from Obamacare alone, and that's only the ones so far.
Everything flows from business, and diminishing it, disparaging it, and discouraging it, is killing the proverbial Goose and the Golden Eggs. Business is the only institution that creates wealth, jobs and tax revenue. Does it seem like a good idea to suffocate that process?
This country has from the beginning stated Congress regulates commerce and makes trade agreements. This is not simply a profit making country and the new world order has no borders or self interests.
Business is business and government is government, but regulating commerce is FOR OUR INTERESTS. If not, corps will stampede and trample over us. I can see it now, just pour that toxic waste into the river, it's good for business.
Or, conversely, it hurts business to follow safety laws, so the chickens are plumper when you feed them hormones, nobody needs to know and oversprayed herbicides allowed to market. Not to mention exploding gas tanks, etc..
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/10/us/4.9-billion-jury-verdict-in-gm-fuel-tank-case.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Then we have those that say frivolous lawsuits are those designed to guide businesses to be accountable for their neglecting to protect consumers.
But no, no, we can't regulate business either, let them do their thing. Oddly enough, business will not do things that cost money if they don't have to. Even when they might lose all their customers and their business.
Hello, Jamie Dimon got his, so screw JP Morgan Chase.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-04/jpmorgan-awards-ceo-jamie-dimon-23-million-pay-package.html
The U.S. practices regulated capitalism and non regulated would doom itself and us.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/10-5
shooter, now it seems you are for some rules. I would agree that there are a lot of laws and regulations for business's to adhere to. I would be willing to bet that the laws exist because of the poor performance of companies. Without these laws it would be a race to the bottom as far as quality, worker safety, and environmental protection is concerned.
To level the playing field we should expect foreign companies to have the same rules that our companies have.
I must disagree with that statement, Shooter242. In actuality, everything flows from demand, and without demand, there is no business. If you truly have experience with capitalism, you should know, and understand this fundamental truth.
Even Adam Smith understood that without demand, there would be no business, with all of the profits in the hands of a few, business would not have enough demand to continue, and that businessmen are the worst people to write regulations that affect business. He understood that the interests of business were not always the same as the interests of the public, and that, ofttimes, business interests were harmful to the public, in general, and that regulations must exist to ensure that business does not harm the public.
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” - Adam Smith, father of capitalism. But of course, this means he's a dirty communist, right, Shooter? He also said, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.” Guess he wouldn't think much of modern America.
I'm sorry I didn't check back to this thread over the weekend.
Yes, capitalism needs rules. However, the law of diminishing returns applies. If you care more about the environment than employment, it's not a problem in prosperous times. Currently though, employment is more important than the environmental cost. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Worse, the incremental increase in rules is micro managing. Are we better off with thousands of pages of banking capital controls, or separating investment banks from the commercial, as it was in Glass-Steagal? Quantity has reduced quality.
As for demand, it is ever-present. People always want stuff. The problem today is that people don't have the money or the credit to pay for it. And where do people get money? A job. No job, no demand. Where do jobs come from? Business.
Think the Keystone pipeline is bad? Then you prefer unemployment. Your choice.
Your attempt at absolutism fails. We don't have to sacrifice the environment to have jobs, and that's the price of the pipeline that is only in the interests of the oil companies and not in Americans' interest. Yes, it would create jobs... short-term jobs, and way less than claimed, and the price would be too high environmentally. The end result: small amount of short-term jobs, environmental destruction, potential contamination of a massive aquifer, and oil shipped overseas. This is not the model of American employment, and you know it, Shooter.
There would be jobs if companies stopped hoarding the profits they're making and do what business has traditionally done, grow in size and employment rather than the balance book. Corporations are enjoying record profits, but they still can't create jobs? That's horsecrap and you know it. Business has proven that it isn't interested in being the solution, no matter how many incentives and helping-hands they're given. It's a lie that corporate America is being strangled; corporate America is flourishing, at the price of America itself's health.
Without consumers, business is out of business, so the cycle is broken.
It's possible to do business environmentally. Business needs to do an honest internal investigation. An honest one. People protest environmental abuse. Scientists tell us if we do not make bold efforts to clean up our act, there are unhealthy and dangerous consequences.
Businesses that say screw all those people that demand clean energy, we will keep doing what we want with no regard for consumer demand will find themselves out of business. First, they ignore popular opinion. That is bad for business. Trying to whittle down choices in order to foist a product is not honorable. Greedy CEO's are ruining businesses with their continued bad decisions, then they pay no consequence. But continue to take golden parachutes after creating a huge mess, which is left for the remaining employees and consumers to clean up their crap.
Soon, there will be nothing left, as employees can't buy anything, so no profit, no hiring, no demand.
Business isn't the sole provider. When business shared the wealth, the economy flowed. Now, we have a bottleneck because the business people built a dam that keeps the money to themselves.
The dammed up money seems to be in private and secret bank accounts like Camen Islands, Switzerland with barbed wire fences to leave it sitting there.
That money avoiding capital gains tax is not working for anyone, but the greedy. We have a stifled economy, but people want to blame regulation for simple greed.
There are ways to use the capital that is taxed less, because it is supposedly to "create jobs", to keep economy flowing. The dam needs to release it's stagnate water (money needs to be invested is jobs) so life will move again.
The illusions of bubbles and bust economic speculation needs to change into real products with real growth and real supply and demand. That means we should make something from clean sustainable resources and buy it here and export it. If I had all that capital, I would invest in solar production equipment and sell it, perhaps that would mean a substantial outlay and building some electric car charging stations along with the gas and diesel. But that would create jobs AND promote the electric car as a viable alternative. We might even figure out how to put PV onto a vehicle surface to recharge itself.
What's going on right now is shameful, people just want to avoid taxes and spend billions to do it. Hoarding is correct. Willing to spend thousands and millions and billions for screwing up the environment, for selecting certain politicians to continue dirty, finite energy.
This myth of price goes down for oil produced here is a joke. It will be exported at whatever the best price may be. Alaska likes drilling because they get a kickback for allowing drilling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
of course S.P. chanted drill, baby drill.
And then there's other issues
http://www.alaskagasprices.com/News_Page.aspx?msg_pg=1&id=34158&master=1&category=1357&topic=432720&page_no=1&ign=1
and OPEC http://www.futurecars.com/articles/opec4.html
A prediction . . .
While it got very little attention, President Obama signed the infrastructure bill. Because of this single bill, it is my opinion that we will see some very good job numbers for September, and October when the hiring for the projects funded under this bill really gets going.
Just saying . . .