On September 8, 2011 -- exactly one year ago tomorrow -- President Obama delivered an important speech to a joint session of Congress. In it, the president unveiled a proposal he called the American Jobs Act.
You may recall the economic circumstances at the time, and how similar they are to 2012 -- though job growth looked strong in the early months of the year, the summer proved disappointing. Obama sought to shift the national conversation away from austerity and towards job creation, and presented a sensible plan, filled with ideas that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support.
Independent analysis projected the American Jobs Act, which was fully paid for, could create as many as 2 million jobs in 2012.
I mention this now because what happened a year ago is incredibly relevant to what's happening now. This morning's jobs report was disappointing, and we know exactly how the political world will digest the news -- if the job market is underperforming, it's Obama who'll get the blame.
There's not much I can do to change the course of that conversation, but if we're going to play the blame game, we should at least try to keep some semblance of reality in mind.
The American electorate was clamoring for action on jobs; the Obama White House crafted a credible plan that would be helping enormously right now; and congressional Republicans reflexively killed the Americans Jobs Act for partisan and ideological reasons.
With this recent history in mind, how are we to assign responsibility for high unemployment? Should we condemn the person who threw the job market a life preserver, or those who pushed it away? Or put another way, are we better off now as a result of Republican obstructionism and intransigence, or would we have been better off if the popular and effective job-creation measures had been approved?
By any reasonable measure, the GOP argument, which will be trumpeted loudly today, is completely incoherent -- they were wrong a year ago and now we're paying the price.
As we talked about in June, for Republicans, when there's discouraging economic news, Obama deserves all the blame. When there's good economic news, Obama deserves none of the credit. Job losses in 2009 were Obama's fault; job gains in 2010 and 2011 have nothing do to with Obama; and tepid growth in the spring and summer of 2012 are back to being Obama's fault again.
Remember learning the "heads I win, tails you lose" game as a kid? It's the GOP's argument in a nutshell -- whether the president deserves credit or blame for a monthly jobs report is due entirely to whether the report is encouraging or not.
But even this doesn't go far enough in explaining the absurdity on display. If we're going to assign blame to Washington policymakers for the state of the nation's job market, how is it, exactly, that Congress bears no responsibility at all? This is, after all, a Republican-led Congress that has plenty of time to fight a culture war -- I've lost count of the anti-abortion bills that have reached the House floor -- but has shown passive disinterest to the jobs crisis.
Follow this pattern of events:
1. With the job market struggling, Obama unveils the American Jobs Act, a State of the Union agenda filled with economic measures, and an economic "to-do list."
2. Republican lawmakers ignore the proposals, and the job market deteriorates.
3. The GOP then blames Obama for the failure his policies, which Congress didn't pass.
The accepted truth this morning is that weak job numbers are absolute, concrete, incontrovertible proof that the president's jobs agenda isn't working. News flash: we aren't trying Obama's jobs agenda.
Leave a Comment:
The American Jobs Act was "fully paid for"? With what? The phony money the Federal Reserve prints? More taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" or whatever new slogan Obama cooks up for high earners and job creators?
The AJA was a bone to be thrown to the teacher's union? We've had enough of these phantom initiatives masquerading as solutions while he cannot even approve something as simple as a pipeline bringing in much needed oil.
And you bet Obama's taking the blame since he never hesitates to claim credit for the slightest good news while always passing bad results onto someone else, former President Bush, the Congress, but never himself.
Wow! A new troll with ONE post to its record!!!!
LOL!!!
oh a "troll" is someone that doesn't agree with you, huh? so "tolerant" of dissent, aren't we? must be nice to say one thing, with a straight face, and behave in totally opposite fashion...
Obama is a serial narcissist, an arrogant impostor, and his "jobs bill" would have the same effect as all govt "plans." Nothing, or perhaps negative effect. How bout this, genius (you and he)? Leave more money in the hands of those that actually understand business, and let them grow their businesses and the economy. Obama (and i'm certain you as well) never ran anything, never created anything other than the fabrication of his own prowess.
How's that for "troll", lizard?
This thread is -filled- with trolls. To the brim. All saying EXACTLY the same thing. How odd..
The Democrats' excuse for the Colossal Failure of their Policies in 2009-2010 was that the Republicans didn't repeat their mistakes in 2011-12.
Pathetic, lame, and unacceptable. You get 1 shot to turn around an economy, you had 2 years, you failed. Game over. The positive changes you make when hit by a recession are suppose to let the economy take over from there.
There is no endless "stimulating" in a real, healthy economy, to keep it moving. Your stupid big government plans never work, and they didn't this time either. The only success Dems have is with free market presidents like Clinton--see his Capital Gains tax cut on people like Mitt Romney.
I told agree, but Obama, Benen, and the extreme left are masters at propaganda. Obama knew he could never even get the democrats to vote for Stimulous II after the total failure of Stimulous I. He just put it out there so he would have something to point to intead of his own failure. Lies and Propaganda are now the order of the day to obscure Obama's Failed Presidency long enough to get him reelected. "Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us"! The scary thing is it may well work?
Anyone can project the number of jobs that would have been created. The projection is unprovable. Even if the law had been passed, there would be no benchmark - the only real benchmark would be the result of not passing the law, which would be unknown.
The only argument for that jobs bill is the number of jobs "saved or created" by the previous stimulus - which, for the same reason, can not be benchmarked against the job market results without the stimulus.
The closest economics can come to proving the value of stimulus or job creation programs is to study many attempts and see what the results were (or weren't). I'd like to see such a study.
Even then, there's a caveat - it's always possible to create more government jobs. Just put the money out there and hire people.
That leaves the question of whether those new government employees are doing anything productive or just acting as conduits to turn borrowed money into consumer demand. If the money is from taxes, all that's happened is removing consumer demand money (or investment money) from some people and giving it to other people.
What can anyone say in honest criticism of Obama and not be called a racist? Unless, of course, you are a lib or a medianut like Chris Mathews.
When you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger. Which is why Matthews is stuck on Birther's with everybody.
What total garbage! What if Obama had been given another 1/2 trillion borrowed dollars to waste on more Solyndra's and hiring more Government workers? Well we know how well Obama did with the trillion dollar Stimulous I bill. He, and those independent economist, told us with absolute certainty that UNEMPLOYMENT would never go over 8%, that by now UNEMPLOYMENT would be around 6%, and our economy would just be humming along and the debt would be coming down, and Obama would be sailing to reelection like Ronald Reagan did when he faced an even worse recession caused by Jimmy Carter. What did Obama actually deliver? UNEMPLOYMENT that soared over 10%, UNEMPLOYMENT that is now the worst, for the longest period of time, since the GREAT Depression! More DEBT than in the history of the world, the highest level of POVERTY since 1965, more people on foodstamps than in all of history, more people on disability and welfare than in all U.S history, and the lowest percentage of Americans working since Reagan first took office. As for all that wonderful Green investment and cheap green renewable energy? Well Solyndra is all you need to know. $100 billion flushed down Obama's toilet. And all those shovel ready jobs, and all those jobs from repaired bridges and roads? Even Obama laughs at how stupid we were for believing that. Obama has borrowed $5.4 TRILLION and wasted it all! And Mr Benen thinks we should have given Obama another 1/2 Trillion....just for fun! Because of course, if we had just let Obama borrow another 1/2 trillion and hire 2 million more Government workers we'd all be what? Better off? Folks that's what they did in GREECE and SPAIN for gosh sakes. We know what happens when you borrow endlessly and spend the money buying votes! You don't have to wonder where Obama is taking us you just have to look at GREECE! Obama and Mr Benen are lying to you and playing you folks. And Obama's fake jobs plan was always nothing but a farce, but what does it say about about his Presidency and his Leadership? Ronald Reagan didn't whine and blame he took responsiblity, led the nation, and got things done! Bill Clinton didn't whine and blame, except about being caught red handed with Lewinsky, he worked worked with Republican Compromised and led the nation. What has Obama done? His own White House says he "Leads from Behind"! Most of the time he ducks answering any hard questions, does nothing, and whines and blames incessantly, except when his playing golf or fundraising. Even if Mr Benen were right, what he's telling you is that Obama is a FAILURE as a LEADER, and can't get the job done. Why would we want 4 more years of Failed Leadership and Disaster?
Rachel I love you but… and I hate saying what I’m about to:
Fair or unfair, the President has poisoned the well. Congress resents him for many reasons including the healthcare law, stimulus, etc. so they won’t work with him. Businesses are holding back hiring because they see the president as anti-business and because of the uncertainty created by the dysfunctional congress.
I am an African American female and Obama voter, who has
been unemployed or under-employed for the entire Obama administration. I am ready to say we can’t win this... I can’t survive another four years of stagnation. I like Obama but he needs to bow out gracefully. Those that supported him are the ones hurting most.
New blood (even that of Mitt Romney) is what is needed to break
the stalemate so the country can get moving again.
Didn't Obama start his administration with his party running Congress? Why not pass it then?
It looks as if he waited until the Democrats got beat up in the midterms, only to try and pass it after the fact. That makes no sense.
Put it this way. Can you imagine what Bush would have done with a supermajority in the Senate and majority in the House?
LOL . . . why would anyone come here, to the Maddow Blog, except to partake in a leftist circle jerk . . . and reading the comments here, that's exactly what's going on . . .
If the act had passed it would have established a new Government Corporation called the American Infrastructure Finance Authority. It would have a board of directors appointed by the president and paid for by the tax payers(SEC 245) This board could authorize loans up to 20 billion dollars without input from the congress or senate(SEC 253)
It establishes another government corporation called Public Safety Broadband Corporation(SEC 285). Again the board is paid by the taxpayers and is appointed by the president. Initial funding is 50 million, then they can set dues that must be paid by municipal public safety agencies.
It would alot 4 billion dollars for high speed rail. 4 billion dollars for existing rail. 2 billion to Airports,550 Million to indian reservations roads(SEC 241). It would grant new federal authority to the FCC to auction off bandwidth and satellite authority. It would give a bunch of money to public schools, however it doesn't continue to pay the teachers, the communities still have to do that.
Extends unemployment benefits for those who were already on extended unemployment for another full year(SEC 312). It also extends the Railroad unemployment benefits for another year.
Under this act, if you hire people and they work for you for 24 months and you don't offer them long term employment, you aren't eligable for the program anymore.
The secretary of labor is in charge of handing out billions of dollars with no congressional oversite. He is required to file a report 4 years after it is done.
In SEC 376, if a state accepts funds it waives the 11th amendment.
A large part of the 199 pages is dedicated to modifying the tax code and eliminating tax deductions for the oil and gas industry which will drive up the cost of natural gas and gasoline.
this is just a very bad bill.
Don't try to blame this on the GOP. The senate also stated they would not vote on this. The reason being, this is basically Stimulus part 2 and that is political suicide. And please explain how this would have been "fully paid for?" I assume you mean because funds had been set aside for some sort of bizare plan as this (from the original stimulus) but 4/10th of that was borrowed from China...so it isn't really fully paid for.
Can I respond to someone who told me to keep my nose out I would if only that due to globalisation we are truly a global institution, unlike America we allow everyone to vote and I cannot remember a court deciding who should be in charge. Besides which I was trying to help as Rachel has noted re the long term unemployed surely a solution has to be investing whether by the Bank outside government to train those on long term unemployment skills of returning to work I would not recommend some of the experiments we have attempted in the UK as the majority seem to attempt to punish people for being unemployed, but to compete with the outsourcing that Romney loves you have to begin to think outside the box. An alternative may be invest in qualitative skills of employment rather than just labour. You will never beat countries like China or India because of their higher population however you may be able to produce employees who provide a higher quality of input I am thinking of somewhere like the original Silicon Valley which stole a massive advance initially in the Computer world. One area to counter China would be providing services to Africa who are welcoming the infrastructure in Africa but much of the education to advance their countries to compete has not been provided as China would probably not want African competition . I apologise if anyone believes I am interfering in America but I believe it is all to our mutual benefit
A modest rewrite of your (first) contribution:
Thanks for your contribution, a couple of points about the status of the current finance system here, and what is being done. Then transliterating your suggestion to see why this not done with existing powers. My personal painful explanations of risk free banking; a non-sequitur, for which a make a counter argument). And a reference to another 'new' version of the same http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/03/michel-woodford-may-have-written-the-years-most-important-academic-paper-heres-why/ Michael Woodford.
Reconciling three versions into one highly emphatic ironic and destined to be misunderstood. The conclusion I am trying to get you to come to using your own powers of reasoning is that RISK free banking, is not a theoretical sensible concept, but has been made an artificial reality. The point is that Risk free banking, or investment, or appreciation, or income or whatever is unnatural. If Risk free banking happens it is the definition of a problem since it implies that the system has been seriously distracted from seeing reality. The same reality that should have been visible from the known causes, by the very people who were charged with monitoring the system, is invisible. Consider the cause as trading empty bags of mortgage papers to bundlers who erased risk to the mystical La, La land of swaps and derivatives.
The working day consisted is shoveling mortgages risk and all on to the unsuspecting pension funds, that risk spilled over to the financial institute of last resort the full fail and credit department of the United States. The biggest risk bubble created by the mortgage fiasco was erased by the Federal Reserve, in one broad swoop; gathering up the debt held outstanding in mortgages, transferring future liability to the National Debt. (Over time, bank losses and individual mortgage losses are transfer to the Nation Debt (tax losses), or removed from personal savings that would have otherwise been invested produced returns.) Those subtitles are lost in the political dialogue, ignored by the communications media, but are real for the next generation. The banks did not fail, after taking irrational risk; they survived, but only by passing miss-begotten risk to the government. This was a big risk transfer but fully represents the current and ongoing policies. The "correction" worked for the big banks, so why it would not also work for "correcting" the economy?
The credit crisis has continued as banks internalize the effects of the debacle, and apparently difficult process of retraining themselves to recognize "risk" the essential but abandon skill from before deregulation, and to "proforma" re-separate regular banking from speculative finance. The Federal Reserve is using quantitative easing to lower interest rate to what is thought to be attractive new investments. In effect the loan rate is zero, but some are mystified as why this capital is not being invested in normal investments, normal in the sense that that have an assessable risk. At the same time The Treasury is selling securities to cover the rising debt, resulting from low tax policies, this rate is higher than zero. Now there is chance to make money if I ever saw one. Banks and financial houses get monies from the Fed at a zero interest rate and as the investment winds its way through the labyrinth it is sold to the Treasury at above zero interest. This is my definition of zero risk, risk free banking, and risk free investment. Clear enough money from the system is using used to provide returns from the system, in an endless paper chase, money being paper. To belabor the point those moneys are not used as capital to finance enterprise, business expansion, development of products, corporate improvements. Indeed given the risk free money aspect of the Federal Reserve policies, every corporation capable of making money would logically be cutting cost, reducing outlays, killing incomplete investment projects. The corporate cash accumulation would be invested in Treasuries or on finding unnecessary acquisitions to garner losses against future profits (again another tax reduction strategy).
The sum total effect is always to minimize risk, profits, taxes are just simple arithmetic but when the minimum risk is in treasuries, real risk outside the mother milk of government are not an acceptable business risk. Again free money from government, the write off on any loss to the government, and the endless ways to reduce taxes of and still make a profit is good business. But would it really be good business to have the only way to make profit and to have a one person corporation to do so, since no one needs to be doing anything at all, we could clear out Wall Street, having mister big live in single floor of high rise with good view.
If you can see what I am getting at, then risk is needed to be injected into the system. If the banks were again separated from the financial house responsible for speculative risk and put back into the business assessing risks making loans, the local nature of this work can again become the standard, with limits and expediencies for state or regional banks dedicated back up local banks all to gain investment that again make one by being productive. Those would be needed regulations from a responsible government. The use of tax policy opposite to the deduction, write off, exclusion and stick the government with the debt, is to tax money made from non-productive investment high enough to drive excess capital out of those investments and back onto investment for productive purposes. The third leg to boost the economy is to put pressure on assets, specifically idle assets. The cost of holding assets or to remove or to keep them out production or for speculation needs also to be taxed. A local tax on idle assets, abandon or empty unused property that puts a huge negative effect on the viability of the community. The local government would be compensated for idle assets, or the owner would force to either put it into some production or to force it sole to a business that will put it to productive use.
Theses measure are needed to break the cycle of government handout to businesses, by using the proper role of government, to regulate, to tax and to license. It would replace the proper role of risk back to where is can be measured, assessed and uses to test competing ideas of the marketplace.
The current role of government and politicians in blocking these reforms bears little resemblance to capitalism or free enterprise.
(Most of the time, composing is assisted using Word single spaced, followed by select copy/paste to Notepad, then select copy again /past to Newsvine blogs etc.)
(Banks as used here include banks, finance and venture capital and any blend of finance oriented instructions and the unfortunate conglomeration of banks and financial houses.
(Government, Federal Reserve, Treasury are included in a reference to other institution.)
My apologies Andrew Bonner and to myself, as I have to live in a nation of anonymous idiots.
Too funny --- Obummers "jobs plan" would have failed like everything this bozo does. His goal is a majority on welfare and communism as a last resort. After all, someone has to support blacks and illegal alien debris!
What if Obama's Jobs Act had passed? The only thing for certain is that we'd be another half trillion in debt.
Using Obama's own numbers, 2 million jobs at a cost of $447 Billion is a little over $223K per job. So we're supposed to borrow an additional quarter million from China so some poor soul can collect a $30K paycheck for a year? And there are people who think this is a good idea?
You could send out 2 million checks for $30K each, cut out the middleman, and save 86% of the cost. But because he was stopped once out of all the times he's pissed away trillions over the last four years, that's why the economy sucks. Yeah right.
Obama’s jobs act was the equivalent of covering skin cancer with a Band-Aid. Sure, for a while it is hidden and you don’t notice but underneath the cancer grows and eventually it kills you.
Throwing stimulus at this to create temp jobs is not a solution and thank goodness the democrat controlled senate rejected the bill. Bottom line is we can’t as a country spend our way out of this problem. We need to get people back to work and productive in real jobs, not made up government temp jobs that add no value. To do this we need businesses to hire people. Businesses can’t hire people if they are burdened with increased taxes.
Nearly half of the population does not pay federal taxes. Currently, the wealthy of this nation pay nearly all of the federal taxes and we somehow think they should pay more? Obama’s definition of “fair share” means only a few people pay the way for the rest of us.
Although I’m all for free stuff, that doesn’t sound fair to me. Obama has no clue how to deal with this problem. He just wants another 4 years so he can keep cruising around on Air Force 1, golfing every weekend, and taking his family on more vacations to Europe, all on the tax payer’s dime.
Ok, so a $450,000,000 stimulus, that AT BEST would result in 2,000,000 jobs. Other estimates come in at 1,300,000 jobs.
That comes to $225,000 to $346,154 per job. Does that make any sense to anyone?
delete
And obama's stimulus plan that was passed was supposed to cut the unemployment rate to less than 6% and we all know who that turned out. Why would anyone think his jobs bill would be anything but a complete failure as well.
Sorry to intervene again, but some jerk on here actually said that the dems had control of Congress for 7 weeks, and thats a fact. I hope I misunderstood, because if he meant that then it proves my point that the most ill informed of the facts are the ones most boisterous about their comments.....If you said something, my apologies, if you said that, you are a complete idiot
It has always seemed to me that both Democrats and Republicans blame the other party when it is in power for everything that goes wrong, and that neither party credits the other party when it is in power and things are going well. I don't remember Democrats praising Eisenhower, or Republicans praising Clinton. Has anything changed?
Wasn't Obama's alleged "jobs bill" after the stimulus Rach? Seeing as the stimulus was a failure, exactly why would copying a failure become a success?
Rach, it would be like a new News network copying MSNBC instead of Fox. No matter how reviled you, and anyone else, may find Fox, it would be economically stupid to copy the loser instead of the winner.
And since New Bridges, Teachers, Cops, would not create wealth, as they're not wealth creators, they're necessary expesnse, it doesn't even follow keynesian economics which retires a return on investment.
Awe I know, you ilk boo's God three times but has faith in Obama. But this is what happens when you put the mantel of God on a failed man. Your delusions increase as your diety falls.
The two largest components of the AJA passed...$49 Billion in Extended unemployment insurance and $245 Billion in Payroll Tax Cuts. So the Infrastructure Bank ($10B) Aid to States for teachers and Firemen and cops ($35B) updating and refurbishing schools (30B) Refurbishing foreclosed homes (15B) New and Existing Infrastructure Projects ($50B) would have created (or saved) 2.2 million jobs? Seems as outlandish as the Presidents claim of creating 4 million Green Jobs. How many jobs are available in the Energy Industry if we let sensible rules and regulations and safety prevail? Keystone? None of that would cost the Taxpayers a dime and would actually raise revenues for the States and the Fed. How about investing $35 Billion to build a Natural Gas Pipeline from the North Slope in Alaska to get the vast amounts of untapped Gas to Market. Add a surtax and recoup the money over time, it will pay off faster than our "Investment" in the UAW and GM we will never get all of our money back and GM may require another Bailout before 2016.
Just because a stack of paper is called a "jobs bill" doesn't mean it will create jobs, anymore than the stack of paper called a "stimulus bill" will stimulate economic or job growth. I don't know whether they create a stack of paper because they think it will really do something good, or whether it is just a way to denigrate the opposition for not passing it. Too much gamesmanship, expensive gamesmanship, unhealthy gamesmanship.
If only....... (insert Obama pipe dream program here) it would be all rainbows and Unicorns!
Peace, love and harmony would be universal.
You guys are going to get smoked in November.
6 out of 7 jobs are private sector jobs. How many government jobs do people think we can realistically create at the government level?
It just goes to show that we're not getting the quality trolls anymore!
Hate to be the one to inform you, but there has never been a "stimulus" bill passed during the administration of President Obama. You have Google available, look up the title of the 2009 legislation and find the word "stimulus" in it. You won't. That legislation was designed to stop the loss of the 750-800,00 jobs per month that had begun in 2008. In case you're interested, it worked.
Then Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011. Federal aid usually given to states during recessions, was blocked. Teachers and members of fire and police departments all across the country were let go to the tune of more than 600,000 jobs because states had to balance their budgets and Republicans in the House wouldn't agree to pass legislation to provide the funds to rehire those employees.
Of course, everyone knows that government-paid teachers and police and fire department members aren't real jobs, but, and you have to follow closely here, a dollar spent by the people in those jobs has just the same purchasing power as the dollar spent by someone who works for GE or Ford or Home Depot! Shocking, but there it is. Sorry, there's no difference between a job that's paid for by tax monies and one that's paid for by any other means. Or are you really going to be so stupid as to try and say that the government taxes used to build a bridge or airport are wasted? Or the monies spent on educating your children (now there's a scary thought!), or for fire or police protection are wasted? That something of use isn't provided in return for those tax monies?
To quote a speaker at the recent RNC "Go ahead, make my day!"