Republicans against the unemployed
Senate Republicans have blocked a bill that would have extended Unemployment Compensation Insurance to millions of desperate Americans. It will begin to phase out for more than 200,000 people a week. It would also have provided $16 billion to the states to preserve thousands of state and local government jobs.
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
June 25th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Politicians of both parties cower in fear of a public they imagine is up in arms about deficit spending. In reality, the public strongly favors extending Unemployment
CompensationInsurance benefits and is much less concerned about the deficit.74% agreed with the following statement: “With unemployment close to 10% and millions still out of work, it is too early to start cutting back benefits and health coverage for workers who lost their jobs.”
21% agreed with the following statement: “With the federal deficit over one trillion dollars, it is time for the government to start reducing spending on healthcare subsidies and unemployment benefits for the unemployed.”
There has consistently been more public concern about the economy and jobs than with the federal budget deficit.
June 25th, 2010 at 11:31 am
They voted for change in 2008. They didn’t get it?
June 25th, 2010 at 11:36 am
They didn’t get enough of it, due to the intransigence of the “party of no.”
June 25th, 2010 at 11:42 am
That’s a lie.
June 25th, 2010 at 11:44 am
What’s Obama going to say? “I couldn’t do anything because of the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate”
June 25th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
President Obama isn’t a socialist dictator (despite what some conservatives say). Getting things through Congress is hard even with majorities. Legislation has mostly sailed through the House. There is a procedure in the Senate called the filibuster (maybe you heard of it) that makes getting anything through the Senate extremely difficult because the minority party can hold any legislation hostage. Senate Republicans have delayed and thwarted President Obama at every opportunity.
Despite steadfast Republican opposition, President Obama has accomplished quite a lot of “change” so far: extending the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, expanding SCHIP children’s health insurance, expanding embryonic stem cell research, seating the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (and nominating another Justice), expanding hate crime enforcement, passing a major stimulus package, passing comprehensive health reform, ending the discriminatory “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, nearly passing major financial reform, and beginning a withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
It’s true that President Obama hasn’t gotten climate change legislation through yet, and he hasn’t been been able to fix either the recession or the deficit that he inherited from President Bush (but he has only been in office a year and a half — it took Bush eight years to screw things up this bad).
Those of us who “voted for change in 2008” are actually quite happy with the “change” that has occurred. If we are dissatisfied with anything, it has been that “change” hasn’t occurred fast enough or far enough.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I’m sure those folks without jobs are so glad he accomplished all those things that have nothing to do with finding them jobs.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
No President possesses magical powers to control the economy, end a recession, and create full employment. The public still trusts Democrats more than Republicans to guide the economy and they trust President Obama more than Congressional Democrats or Republicans.
According to the CBO, the stimulus bill resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn’t have existed in the absence of the stimulus. No thanks to Republicans! It passed without a single House Republican vote.
There were no Republican Senate votes for the current bill (that the original post is about) either. The 200,000 people per week who will be losing Unemployment
CompensationInsurance benefits and the thousands of public sector employees who will be laid off can thank Republicans for that.June 25th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Boy, was your side singing a different song in 2008.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Your stimulus bill stimulated so much that you’re now debating how to extend more unemployment benefits. Great job!
June 25th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
You said “They voted for change in 2008. They didn’t get it?” I gave lots of examples to show that Obama voters actually did get a lot of the “change” they voted for.
President Obama has actually kept most of his 2008 campaign promises on the economy, compromised on some (in a futile effort to attract Republican support), or they are in progress.
Your premise seems to be that Obama voters expected him to single-handedly achieve full employment by now. Democrats actually did create or save a lot of jobs (without any help from Republicans).
What about “your side?” Do you seriously think McCain/Palin would have achieved full employment by now?
June 25th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Create or save. Funny how “create” before the election became “or save” after it.
If we were debating unemployment benefits with a Republican in the White House and Republicans in the House and Senate majorities, you know darn well what you’d be saying.
June 25th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
A job saved is a job earned. Most economists credit the stimulus package with preventing even greater job losses. It also included one of the biggest tax cuts in history, but Republicans voted against it anyway.
By omission, you seem to be admitting that McCain wouldn’t have done any better. McCain promised to continue Bush economic policies (which weren’t working), and there wouldn’t have been any stimulus package.
The worst thing you can accuse me of is that, if the situation was reversed, I would do what you are doing now.
June 25th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
You still haven’t explained how 200,000 people a week losing Unemployment
CompensationInsurance and thousands of state and local government employees being laid off will be good for the economy. That’s the Republican position. Try to defend that!June 25th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Greetings from Louisiana.
Brian, I know what I would be saying if a Republican was serving as President, I’d be saying extend unemployment benefits.
Don’t believe me? I have publicly credited George Dubyah Bush for getting the TARP ball rolling before he left office. I believe it was due to the TARP that I was able to refinance my home for the more then $100K I needed to purchase the new truck I unexpectedly had to have. I also think I have personally benefited from the stimulus. Stimulus freight needs a truck driver behind the wheel just like other types of freight.
While freight is picking up and many trucking companies are starting to hire in order to expand again, there is a large pool of unemployed, experienced truck drivers that need to find jobs before the trucking industry can make a large dent in the numbers of unemployed from other occupations. Besides, not everyone can succeed as a truck driver. You have to be able to pass a physical and even some healthy people can not get the hang of it. You have to be dang near perfect as a driver of a challengingly large vehicle or you are soon back in the unemployment line.
I have a certain amount of compassion for those who have been laid off during the recession. I have enough empathy that I am willing to pay a temporary increase in my taxes in order to fund a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. I am fortunate and my personal financial outlook is rather rosy; I think all of us fortunate enough to still have jobs and who might be benefiting from the improving economy should be willing to help those less fortunate.
I see no justification for the filibuster by Republicans. If they are that concerned about the deficit then raise taxes so it does not add to the deficit. I realize that perhaps not everyone in favor of extending benefits will be willing to pay additional taxes to fund it; therefor I am willing to live with deficit spending if that is the only way to get it passed.
If just short of 3/4’s of Americans are in favor, just what do Republicans hope to gain from the filibuster?
Disclosure: I guess I do personally benefit from the payment of unemployment benefits to the unemployed. The families of the unemployed have to eat just like everyone else and I get paid to haul the food regardless of whether it ends up in the mouths of the wealthy or the poor. If the families of the unemployed end up out on the street and starving, there will less freight for me to haul.
I am going to note that it appears Glenn Nye voted against the final bill maybe? Glenn Nye is still going to get my vote, but perhaps I need to write him asking for an explanation?
June 25th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
David Campbell,
Perhaps instead of me writing Glenn you can do it, you can invite Glenn to write a guest article explaining his position on this issue.
I understand that Glenn is a fiscal conservative and perhaps he has a reasonable explanation for why he voted against it, or at least reasonable enough for me to accept his vote.
Perhaps you can find the words to explain to him that his supporters need an explanation. It is not just the “base” that wonders, he’s leaving moderates like me and perhaps a significant majority of his district wondering where he is going. What is the justification?
Glenn will get an opportunity to define himself and campaign money free if he were to accept your offer.
Glenn is almost certainly going to get my vote. Notice the almost. I am willing to reconsider and switch to Kenny Golden if Glenn is going to go off the deep end. A vote for Kenny might be a wasted vote, but I might be motivated to waste my vote to voice my protest.
June 26th, 2010 at 2:29 am
David C., when you write things I didn’t say and only write that it “seems” like I’m saying, you’re lying. You can’t give me a position and then attack it.
However, Obama was elected on the economy, and here we are well into his second year, and we’re debating how long to extend unemployment benefits.
June 26th, 2010 at 8:22 am
How will Virginia’s second congressional district republican candidate Scott Rigell, who is going to try to differentiate himself as better and more conservative than the independent candidate Kenny Golden, prove his credibility in the general election? A fundamental campaign issue for both right of center candidates is that the democratic candidate voted for speaker of the house, however, the democratic candidate has voted against madam Speaker Pelosi more often than not.
The republican candidate donated more $$ to Barack Obama than the democratic candidate did during the last election. Here lies a dilemma for the base of the republican party and voters who hold fast to core conservative principles.
Has the republican party of Virginia taken republicans voters for granted by putting conservative makeup on their candidate?
June 26th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Brian: You gave me a position and then attacked it. Did those of us who voted for Obama really expect him to create full employment within a year and a half after taking office? Of course not. That is your straw man.
I have responded to your attacks with facts and links to my sources.
I asked you a direct question: “Do you seriously think McCain/Palin would have achieved full employment by now?” You don’t have an answer for that. McCain promised to stay the course on Bush economic policies. I have inserted a job chart into my original post. Guess when it started to turn around.
I asked you to try to defend the Republican position that will allow 200,000 people a week to lose Unemployment
CompensationInsurance and thousands of state and local government employees to be laid off. You don’t have an answer for that either. LittleDavid is right: there is “no justification for the filibuster by Republicans.”That’s the Republican party — no answers; no solutions; just obstruction and attacks.
June 26th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Boyd Conarton: I don’t really care who wins the battle between Rigell and Golden for “most conservative.”
It isn’t true that “the democratic candidate has voted against madam Speaker Pelosi more often than not.” Rep. Nye has actually voted with Pelosi 84.2% of the time, including key votes in favor of the stimulus bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell,” and financial reform (but against climate change and health reform).
June 26th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Nice chart… how much of the “blue” represents private sector jobs and how much “blue” represents Government jobs? Government isn’t a “business” and is exempt from paying local, state or Federal taxes. Yeah, you get Government employees paying real estate and sales taxes and fees, but as businesses go away, so does the business tax revenue that can be extorted from them. Decreasing tax revenues and fees due to the malaise setting in on the private sector is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the Government. With decreasing “wealth” being generated by the private sector to support government, the government eventually won’t be able to afford itself.
June 27th, 2010 at 5:21 am
Red Faction: I’m glad you liked the chart.
The economy has now added jobs for four consecutive months, and five of the last six months. Perhaps you preferred the red trend.
Job creation in April was the strongest since the recession began in 2007. To answer your question, 231,000 of the 290,000 jobs created came from the private sector.
As the economy improves, income will rise and tax revenues along with it, reducing the deficit.
Of course, conservatives don’t think government jobs are real jobs. According to them, military personnel, police officers, and teachers don’t perform useful work.
June 27th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
David you should admit that you’re tossing out a few straw men of your own.
#11: asking (and asking again in #19) whether McCain / Palin would have achieved full employment by now. Don’t be ridiculous. No president will ever achieve full employment but, cogratulations to yourself, you made it seem like you TKO’d Kirwin on that one because he had the sense to not answer.
#22: “Conservatives…think military, police officers, and teachers don’t perform useful work.” Even the true believers who visit this blog know that’s bunk. You insult our intelligence when you write something like that.
Obama and Biden preached to us, with Congress in tow, that the stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8%. They were wrong. The administration has even admitted that there’s no way to track a “saved” job, so much so that they’ve taken the phrase out of their talking points. Looks like you didn’t get the memo.
The reason conservatives are against extending unemployment benefits yet again is that many of the unemployed are somewhat comfortable in their unemployment and have stopped trying to get a job. Most of us are sucking it up more than we ever have before, both personally and professionally, to make things work in these difficult times. Here it is 6:15 on a Sunday and I’ve been at the office since noon getting ready for a busy week. We’ve trimmed expenses and done without most luxuries for over two years. I am sure most of the unemployed have done the same and worse. But when there’s little incentive to get back to work, few will try to do so.
I had to lay off my secretary about a year ago, and we ran the numbers and figured out that for the first six months she’d make a healthy percentage of her salary in unemployment benefits. I don’t know about her, but if I could make 60% of my salary staying at home long-term, plus cut the expenses of day care and much gasoline and business clothes etc. etc. etc., it wouldn’t take long for me to settle into the semi-leisurely life of the under-employed. While I agree there needs to be some short-term bridge to get some employees out of one job and into another, the purpose of government is not to make life easy or even bearable long-term for the unemployed. It should be uncomfortable to be unemployed, so people have an incentive to get back to work.
Seriously, quit with your insipid hyperbole.
June 28th, 2010 at 7:47 am
David, yes, I can predict that even John McCain would’ve done better than Obama’s dead-in-the-water, debt-laden, double-digit unemployment, gulf-oil-bumbling, no-idea-how-to-create-jobs-outside-government, Jimmy-Carter-Approval-ratings performance.
June 28th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Open Minded: Kirwin obviously didn’t have the “sense to not answer.” If you are looking for “ridiculous” “insipid hyperbole,” see his latest comment.
I actually agree with you that “no president will ever achieve full employment.” Not even Obama, and McCain certainly would not have done so. It is not within the power of any president to completely control the economy. Even if the economy continues on its current path to full recovery, Obama will not deserve all the credit. Presidents and Congress can only do things that make things worse or better. The evidence is clear that the stimulus package helped make things better.
Obama administration predictions about unemployment rates were overly optimistic. Economic predictions are never 100% accurate. What matters is actual results, not whether they guessed correctly. The jobs metric has improved steadily ever since passage of the stimulus package and has moved into the positive column for four consecutive months now. That is a fact.
It is extremely difficult to accurately account for specific jobs created or saved, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Stimulus funds (particularly to state and local governments) have prevented layoffs. That’s “saving jobs.”
Government jobs are just as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs. Government employees pay taxes and spend money to support private sector jobs. It would not be good for the economy to for thousands of government employees to be laid off. The bill blocked by Republicans would have provided $16 billion in funding to state and local governments. (See Red Faction and Kirwin disparage “government jobs” above.)
Thank you for answering my question about why conservatives are against extending unemployment benefits. It reveals a lack of compassion for people who have lost their jobs (many through no fault of their own) and are struggling to survive.
In Virginia, the Unemployment
CompensationInsurance benefit range is $54-$378 per week. In addition to the pride of earning an income, there is plenty of economic incentive to return to work. Some have stopped looking for work because they have become discouraged by the lack of employment opportunities, not because they are “comfortable.” They will return to the labor market (temporarily increasing the unemployment rate) as more jobs become available.People receiving Unemployment
CompensationInsurance put that money right back into the economy, spending money and helping keep other people employed.Hopefully, your former secretary has found other employment in the past year. If not, I suggest that you ask her about the “comfortable” “semi-leisurely life” she is enjoying. Then ask her what she will do when her Unemployment
CompensationInsurance expires. You almost seem to envy her. Maybe you could volunteer to be laid off so you can start living on “easy” street like all the other lucky-duckies.June 28th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
A note on approval ratings: President Obama’s approval ratings of 48%-50% are not very far below his election margin of victory in a highly polarized political environment. A certain percentage of the population (you know who you are) wouldn’t approve of Obama’s job performance if he cured cancer.
The Republican brand is in even worse shape: President Bush’s approval ratings were 33% when he left office and Congressional Republicans are currently at about 32%.
Both of the current approval ratings are largely reflective of the improving, but still unsatisfactory, unemployment situation and will improve along with the economy.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
government jobs are just as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs????????’
At least you are proud about your Socialism.
June 28th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Brian Kirwin: Please clarify:
Are you saying you “don’t think government jobs are real jobs?”
Are you saying that “military personnel, police officers, and teachers don’t perform useful work?”
Are you saying that all government jobs = “Socialism”?
When I suggested that conservatives think that way, Open Minded said I was “insulting your intelligence.”
June 28th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
So, “government jobs” are paid for how?… oh yeah… by printing ‘mo money, increasing taxes and levying fines for those who can’t pay for their taxes anymore, and taking or controlling anything that makes a “profit”. “Government” jobs aren’t “real jobs” because Government isn’t a “business” that creates wealth and is motivated by “profit” and is subject to “market” conditions other than its ability to sell increasing debt.
Government has become a monstrosity that is jamming its blood funnel down the throat of every person with a “real job” or business that does pay real taxes to sustain Government. The military aside, because it is mandated under the Constitution, the obscene and destructive demands made by unions representing teachers, police officers, fire fighters for pension plans, pay increases, health care, time off from work and other “perks” are causing fiscal crisis in many local and state governments because they aren’t tied to reality and are escalating rapidly despite the ability of the economy and fiscal budgets to sustain them.
When you are making Government larger at the expense of private business, that’s Socialism. So when will the continuously expanding Government run out of money?… when private business isn’t a meaningful contributor to tax revenues and the Government’s credit rating is so trashed that it will start borrowing from itself because no one will want to buy our debt. Our dollars will be then be “recycled” into toilet paper using “Green” technology which no one can afford except the Government. Of course, there is an historical precedent for this such as the old Soviet Union, the banana Republic’s and more recently Greece… but we aren’t quite there…. yet.
June 28th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Hey, David. Let me teach you how to read.
When I question your assertion that “government jobs are just as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs,” I am questioning your assertion that “government jobs are just as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs.”
I am not writing sentences that I didn’t write. Asking me if I’m saying things I didn’t say results in a simple answer: no.
June 28th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Red Faction: Got it: “‘Government’ jobs aren’t ‘real jobs.”” The next time you see a cop, be sure and tell him to his face how overpaid he is.
I think teachers “create wealth” by educating the future work force. Since public education isn’t in the Constitution, should we get rid of it?
“Government” is not some external entity. Our democratically elected officials represent “we the people” who voted them into office. Government provides services to the citizens that they have demanded and pay for by taxes. When citizens don’t like what government is doing, they can vote them out of office. So far, a platform of eliminating all government except the military hasn’t gone over so good (but you are free to keep trying). Government employees vote and pay taxes too, and they spend their hard-earned salaries supporting private businesses.
June 28th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Brian Kirwin: I know how to read — do you? I didn’t say you said those things, I was just asking clarifying questions (which you never bother to directly answer, but that’s OK — Red Faction did a great job answering for you. Do you agree?)
Let me try again, and I will quote you directly: By “questioning [my] assertion that ‘government jobs are just as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs,” are you implying that government jobs are not as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs? Just a question, Brian. (You may not have recognized it since I don’t use as many question marks in a row as you did. Soon you will be resorting to random capitalization. That will really show me!)
June 28th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Government unions, which cops and teachers are fiscally killing states and localities. Teachers create “future wealth” by robbing “current wealth” which is being borrowed from the future? And the old “brick and mortar” model of higher education isn’t keeping up either. Government provides core services but all the “extras” are not for “citizens” but pander to special interests and voting blocs to get them re-elected.
Again… you obviously don’t get it… Government doesn’t pay squat in taxes to anyone, anywhere for any reason. They take what they want from who they want, and then redistribute to buy votes. No sales tax, no property tax, no business license tax, no business property tax, no real estate tax, no business vehicle taxes and licensing as well as insurance, health care, and the list goes on and on. So as Government crowds out private business, there is less tax revenue to provide “services”, so money is printed or borrowed. Your view of “trickle down” consumption by Government employees means that when we all become Government employees we can go to spend our hard earned salaries standing in lines at car dealerships, gas stations, or buying food or a TV from Wal-Mart. That is if they exist in a few years after Obama’s executive order 13496, which now provides “employees” to unionize in businesses to destroy them. If this happens, gets your weenies ready as there will be lots of former “private businesses” burning and car fires over which you can roast them.
By the way, I wouldn’t even think of answering for Kirwin… I’m afraid of him and I heard that he cheats at poker.
June 28th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
David, I’m not implying anything more than what I said. Your attempt to put words in my mouth fails again.
June 29th, 2010 at 3:58 am
Brian Kirwin: I haven’t put words into your mouth, I have asked questions which you have avoided answering. In reading through your comments, you have actually said very little other than sarcasm and insults.
June 29th, 2010 at 4:26 am
Did you miss the “no” answer to your repetitive “are you saying” questions. or do you like lying and saying I haven’t answered.
June 29th, 2010 at 4:31 am
Red Faction: “Government unions” are not nearly as powerful as you say they are. Public sector unions aren’t even legal in Virginia and they can’t go on strike to make demands. Their retirement benefits are currently being cut and layoffs are imminent.
You say “Government provides core services but all the ‘extras’ are not for ‘citizens’ but pander to special interests and voting blocs to get them re-elected.” Which of the people receiving those services are not citizens? (In my opinion, government “panders” to corporate “special interests” which certainly have a lot more resources to influence government.)
Government isn’t “crowding out private business,” government provides services that the private sector can’t or won’t do.
It seems to me that you have a basic problem with democracy. You say: “They take what they want from who they want, and then redistribute to buy votes.” In a democracy “they” is “us.” We are the government. We elect representatives that tax us and provide funding for the services we demand. A majority of the public is basically satisfied with the services government provides. If most Americans felt as you do that “government has become a monstrosity that is jamming its blood funnel down the throat of every person with a ‘real job’ or business that does pay real taxes to sustain Government,” they would change the government. So far, your view is a minority one.
June 29th, 2010 at 4:43 am
Here are two more questions for our panel of experts:
Assuming (despite clear evidence to the contrary) that the economy isn’t improving and that President Obama has “no idea how to create jobs outside government,” how could he (or any president) create hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs in a year and a half after taking office?
Assuming that government jobs are not “real jobs” and provide no real value to the economy, how would laying off hundreds of thousands of government employees help the economy? I’m no economist, but it seems to me that might increase unemployment.
June 29th, 2010 at 7:21 am
David, you’re changing your statement. I never said government jobs provide no value. You said they are “just as valuable” as private sector jobs. That’s insane! If all jobs were government jobs, where would the money come from to pay those salaries? Do you realize how many private sector jobs it takes to pay the salary of one government job?
June 29th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Brian Kirwin: I am not changing my statement. I said “Government jobs are just as valuable to the economy as private sector jobs.” I stand by that statement.
You “questioned that assertion” (with eight question marks) and now call it “insane!” It is true that you “never said government jobs provide no value,” but you have not said what value you think they do have, if any. How do you determine value to the economy? What is the economic value of a teacher compared to a McDonald’s worker? What is the economic value of a police officer campared to a Wal Mart clerk?
I will simplify my questions:
1) How could any president create hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs within a year and a half after taking office?
2) How would laying off hundreds of thousands of government employees help the economy?
June 29th, 2010 at 9:16 am
David, I agree with Kirwin in that you are trying to channel my arguments by trying to weasel the focus of my points and their application. I said nothing about “Virginia” and unions because any employer knows this is a “right to work” state, so far. As far as Obama who created “hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs in a year and a half after taking office”, your argument is based on statistics that aren’t supported by the increasing unemployment rate which is still bouncing around double digits and Obama’s approval rating which is moving down dramatically due to him losing control of the economy and mismanagement of national priorities.
“Laying off hundreds of thousands of government employees” and the corollary of taking a meat axe to unneeded Government agencies and departments will dramatically reduce the cost of Government and the destruction of the private business sector. As Government and it cost is reduced, so are the burdens on private business. Those “hundreds of thousands government employees” would be absorbed back into private sector businesses (real jobs) which would support a government we can afford.
June 29th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Red Faction: Apparently your rant about “government unions” doesn’t really apply here in Virginia where we live. (Incidentally, the Virginia ban on collective bargaining in the public sector doesn’t have anything to do with being a “right to work” state.)
I have not claimed that “Obama created hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs in a year and a half after taking office.” What I have said is that it is a completely unrealistic expectation that Obama could have done so by now. Since you guys are blaming Obama for that, I was just asking how you think it could possibly be done. If Obama has “lost control of the economy,” how should he regain control? Brian Kirwin said Obama has “no idea how to create jobs outside government.” I don’t either. Please tell me how a president does create jobs outside government? What should Obama do about the economy that he hasn’t done? I haven’t received an answer yet.
Laying off hundreds of thousands of government employees would obviously increase the unemployment rate, which would be bad for the economy. The private sector doesn’t have the capacity yet to absorb all the current unemployed people without adding a lot more more to their numbers.
June 29th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Obama can’t “create jobs outside government”, but he and Congress can control the conditions i.e. cutting taxes, investment incentives, credit, etc. under which private business can “create jobs”. Reagan did it, Clinton did it, and Bush did it until he went spend-crazy at the end of his presidency. That’s why the massive “Stimulus Bill” has been a dismal failure because it provided some short term pops such as the Mortgage Credit, Cash for Clunkers, a “Tax Credit” for hiring Full Time Employees, however business didn’t bite on that one because it wouldn’t pay for a month’s salary or benefits and some adjustments to COBRA and other so-called “incentives”. None of those “Stimulus” programs have proven sustainable and have added to the deficit and debt with negative returns on employment numbers. The economy is worse off than ever to the point of some are predicting a “Second Depression”.
Proverbs 26: 11 describes how Democrats, liberals and their friends in the media are interpreting numbers and generating administration and liberal propaganda which they feed to their audience, which apparently includes you:
King James Version “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”
Or in the GODS WORD Translation “As a dog goes back to its vomit, [so] a fool repeats his stupidity”.
June 29th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts exploded the federal budget deficit.
The Bush tax cuts in 2001, 2004, and 2005 didn’t prevent the 2007 recession.
The Obama stimulus bill actually included one of the biggest tax cuts in history, benefiting 95% of working Americans. Republicans voted against it anyway.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill increased the number of people employed by 1.2 million-2.8 million and increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million-4.1 million.
A picture (the chart at the top of this page) is worth a thousand words. According to the nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment has steadily improved ever since Obama was inaugurated and passed his stimulus bill. The economy has now moved into positive territory, adding jobs for four consecutive months.
In April, there were 3.1 million new job openings overall, with the most coming out of service-oriented industries such as education, health, and professional business services. Government jobs fell the most, by 36,000 openings.
Even as new jobs continue to be created, unemployment rates may actually rise as more of the discouraged long-term unemployed return to the labor market and are counted as job-seekers again. It took a few years for the economy to decline, and it will take a few years for full recovery.
The CBO and BLS are the gold standard for economic statistics and analysis. The facts are undeniable – you just don’t believe them.
June 29th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
After Obama took the head of the CBO to the “wood shed” during the health care debacle and in the next press conference the CBO numbers supported the plan, I don’t believe CBO numbers any more than your numbers. The world markets are tanking, Obama is being lectured by European Socialists about spending, Consumer confidence is declining rapidly and based on the labor report today, the labor market added the fewest number of workers in 4 months. The jobless rate is 9.7% and is climbing again towards the 10.1% reached in October.
“Increasing uncertainty and apprehension about the future state of the economy and labor market, no doubt a result of the recent slowdown in job growth, are the primary reasons for the sharp reversal in confidence,” Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. “Until the pace of job growth picks up, consumer confidence is not likely to pick up.”
In the words of Rick Santelli today when arguing with a Stimulus spending advocate… ““STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING”
June 30th, 2010 at 5:14 am
The myth about the CBO “being taken to the woodshed” by President Obama was a false allegation made by partisan hack Peter Johnson Jr. (on Fox News Fox & Friends 09/18/2009) and then repeated by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (coincidentally, also on Fox News 12/21/2009). “Steele admitted he had no proof to substantiate the accusation.” It was quickly and easily refuted, but has since attained immortality in the conservative echo chamber.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the source of the job chart at the top of the page. What is your source of the unemployment rate? The Bureau of Labor Statistics. If they are so biased, why are they reporting such high unemployment rates? (Maybe Obama should take them to the woodshed.) Or are they only biased when their numbers don’t support you preconceived opinions?
Regarding the short-term drop in consumer confidence: “Analysts at RDQ Economics said such worries may be misplaced.
Meanwhile, analysts at Barclays Capital Research said the confidence report contains volatility, and they expect a positive overall trend in confidence as the job market expands in the new few months.”
It almost sounds like you are hoping for a bad economy so that you can use it for political gain. No, nobody could be that cynical.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:53 am
We can play point – counter point until we are all eating beans and rice and riding bicycles. The facts are that the CBO was the “objective” voice of Congress responsible for scoring the health care bill pragmatically until Obama made the unprecedented move of bringing in the director. Following that meeting, the numbers and methodology changed to exclude the annual “Doctor Fix” and other collateral costs which would drive cost estimates much larger than what was presented. The CBO became part of political scam to “sell” us on legislation, not tell us the truth.
Statistics these days aren’t objective, they have been politicized like everything else that has been touched by this administration… the Gulf Oil Spill, Economy, Afghanistan, Immigration which are real problems where the real truth is in the horrible consequences that are playing out every day. If Obama could control all of the news media, we wouldn’t hear or see any of these problems and everyone would be fed political pabulum like in Cuba, Venezuela and Iran which we all would be expected to accept. Being that you are a “leftie”, you seek out sources which filter these numbers for a political agenda, and then you provide “spin” to establish a baseline “truth” in an attempt to manipulate those who are standing in unemployment lines, losing their houses, have been on unemployment for over a year and a half, and whose families are being torn apart by this nonsense. Your’s and their agenda is to give them false hope and make them “feel good” about their plight and their dismal future so they vote for more of the same.
Your statement “It almost sounds like you are hoping for a bad economy so that you can use it for political gain.” is idiotic and bordering on the edge of stupidity. As far as your comment on my being “cynical”, George Bernard Shaw once said: “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
June 30th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Faction, understand that David will use evidence which opposes his point to support his argument. Whether or not Obama took the CBO director to the woodshed (which I think it is easy to infer that he did), David repeated countless times here during the health care debacle that “the CBO can only score the statistics of the plan which are provided by Congress”. Most people could see this as an opportunity for the leadership in Congress to cook the books, as they clearly have done in the case of the “doc fix” and double-counting the Medicare “savings”. But David’s blinders allow him to see this as a wholly open and objective analysis, because who would ever imagine that Congress might try to make a trillion dollar spending package look more palatable than it really is?? Putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak, but then the CBO is required not to wash off the lipstick.
As for David’s somewhat relevant but mostly rhetorical questions in #40 above:
1. Any president could create hundreds of thousands of private-sector jobs by relieving the barriers which currently exist and – this is important – PERMANENTLY making it less of a burden for a private employer to hire workers. As has been stated above, most employers don’t make a long-term decision, to hire or expand or otherwise, based on a short-term employment bonus from the government or a temporary hiatus in the tax schedule. It may be hard to believe, but most private-sector companies look beyond December 31 to figure out how the decision they make today is going to affect them 2, 5, and 10 years from now. The uncertainty in the marketplace is causing chaos for private business, because we don’t know what kind of health care obligations we’re going to be hiring onwith a new employee, whether we’ll be able to keep our profits in two years, whether our workers will unionize against their own wishes, etc. etc. etc. Lots of private companies are going to look very profitable through the end of 2010 (which will probably be very good for the stock market, thus falsely buttressing the “summer recovery” nonsense) because they’re pulling profits into this calendar year and pushing expenses to next year because the tax rates will be so much higher in 2011. Short-term thinking induced by government policy but which makes no sense to the core business. I know that may be a difficult idea for the federal government to grasp, where it seems they have to use up all their budget money by the end of their fiscal year so they can ask for more next year.
2. Laying off hundreds of thousands of government employees would help the economy only if the departments wherefrom the employees were forced to slash their operating budgets proportionally. Then tax rates would have to be reduced since we (private industry) would be funding a smaller government. That’s a difficult two-step. Unfortunately there’s the reasonable chance that laying off that many government workers will have no effect on the cost of government because those budgets are close to locked in for the next couple years, plus we’d then have to pay the unemployment benefits and retirement bonuses which were negotiated by the unions in many cases. But a couple hundred thousand workers would be a great start. I know you’re going to try to paint me that I want for teachers to be fired and classrooms to be overstuffed, and that police officers should be let go and killers roam free. You’re wrong, but go ahead.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Oh, and question #3, from #31: “Since public education isn’t in the Constitution, should we get rid of it?”
Read the Constitution. If something’s not in there, it is a State issue versus a federal one. The federal govenrment should get out of the public education business. Get rid of NCLB and other federal mandates. That’s what should be beautiful about our republic, that citizens can vote with their feet and move to a state where they like the system. Maybe one state does want to end public education. If that passes the State government, then I expect they would see the results very quiclky. Some people moving in and many, I expect, moving out. That’s why abortion is such a contentious issue and the death penalty is not. If I don’t like the abortion rule, there’s no state I can go to that more suits my tastes. But if I don’t like my state’s stance on the death penalty, I can either lobby the state government to change or I can move. That’s the way our republic was designed.
Nice straw man, nice hyperbole, nice inflammatory question, but, seriously. Just read the Constitution.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Open: I concur, and my comment about using eliminating Government positions while at the same time using a “meat axe” to cut Government departments which are propagating like roaches in a dirty kitchen is being exacerbated today by the dismal economic and job numbers being released by the Government.
With the exception of constitutionally mandated core Government functions, the rest of the Government should be shifted to “Zero-Based Budgeting” where each and every department must justify the need for their operating budgets every year. Pay-Go was a pathetic public smoke screen to give the appearance of fiscal responsibility, but the spending bills keep on coming with no corresponding cuts.
Your right, the end of Fiscal year scramble by Government Departments to dump money so their budgets won’t be decremented the next year for money not obligated or spent has been the culture of the current government bureaucracy. However, if a “Zero-Based” approach was ever proposed by some courageous but stupid Congressman, there would be no end to the Hell-Fire and Damnation they would receive from both their liberal colleagues in Congress as well as the “leftie” blogs and press.
June 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
UPDATE: The national unemployment rate decreased from 9.5% to 9.3% in May.
“Unemployment rates in roughly two-thirds of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas dipped in May as the gradual economic recovery spurred some hiring.”
Hampton Roads had a net increase in jobs created during May (although some of them were allegedly not “real jobs”). The local unemployment rate edged up from 7.1% to 7.3% as more people re-entered the labor market. Hampton Roads has been partially shielded from the worst effects of the recession by government spending (military, military contracting, and local government).
Of course, what is most important is not short-term monthly fluctuations, but the overall long-term trend (see the chart at the top of the page).
“Dennis Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said he believes the economy will keep growing at a modest pace and unemployment will gradually come down.”
In other news: conservative commenters infer that any positive economic news is liberally biased, while any negative economic news (from the same sources) confirms their worst fears. Film at eleven.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:05 am
UPDATE: For the 3rd time, Republicans have blocked a bill to extend unemployment benefits and provide $50 billion to help states pay for Medicaid programs and to avoid teacher layoffs. More than 1.3 million people have already lost unemployment benefits and an additional 200,000 people will lose their benefits each week.
July 1st, 2010 at 7:11 am
From the article you linked to:
“The unemployment bill would have provided up to a total of 99 weekly unemployment checks averaging $335 to people whose 26 weeks of state-paid benefits have run out. The benefits would be available through the end of November, at a cost of $33.9 billion.”
and
“Republicans offered to support the unemployment bill if it was paid for with unspent money from last year’s massive economic recovery package. Democrats rejected the offer, saying the money was needed for jobs programs.”
Two-and-a-half YEARS of unemployment benefits ($17.4K per person per year) at a cost of almost $34 BILLION. Plus, the Democrats won’t entertain pulling the money from the stimulus bill because that money is too critical to ensuring “saved” jobs. How do any of these yahoos get re-elected?
By the way, David, nice rebuttal to comments 48, 49, and 50. Oh, wait…you didn’t rebut…you just quoted some more recent, less detrimental statistics (should we throw a party for 9.3% unemployment?) and threw a couple barbs at some reasonable commenters. How predictable.
July 1st, 2010 at 10:00 am
Open Minded: It is hard to keep up with all the comments, and I am not obligated to rebut or even respond to them (particularly those that include personal attacks and insults), but here goes:
Congressional Republicans supposedly proposed cutting stimulus funding (which has already resulted in up to 1.6 million jobs) to fund unemployment compensation (which, according to your comment #23, only encourages the “semi-leisurely life of the under-employed”). That doesn’t seem to fit the conservative philosophy. They never had any intention of voting in favor of extending Unemployment
CompensationInsurance benefits under any circumstances. They knew their fake “proposal” had no chance of passing, so it was really just an opportunity for another partisan attack.#48: Partisan health reform opponents made false accusations about President Obama “taking the CBO to the woodshed” without any substantiating evidence. The CBO did not adjust their analysis following their meeting with President Obama. It is a myth.
The CBO can only conduct a cost-benefit analysis of a bill based on what is actually in the bill. Health reform opponents count only the costs (including costs that were not even in the bill), while ignoring the savings. According to the CBO, the heath reform bill that passed will reduce the federal budget deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years and by another $1 trillion during the 10 years after that. My source is the nonpartisan and independent CBO. What is your source?
1. Thank you for attempting to answer my question with your assertion that “any president could create hundreds of thousands of private-sector jobs by relieving the barriers which currently exist and – this is important – PERMANENTLY making it less of a burden for a private employer to hire workers.” However, it is rather vague. Please provide specific examples of the “barriers” that could be removed and how this would create jobs.
2. “Laying off hundreds of thousands of government employees” would increase the unemployment rate and foreclosure rate, and have negative ripple effects throughout the economy (government employees spend their paychecks in the private sector too). How would that “help the economy?”
#49: My taken-out-of-context rhetorical question about public education not being in the Constitution was a retort to Red Faction (#29), who exempted “the military” from his definition of government jobs that aren’t “real jobs,” “because it is mandated under the Constitution.” A great deal of government spending is for the military and defense contracting. That might be good place to look for cutting government spending too. Of course, questioning anything about military spending isn’t as fashionable as attacking “teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.”
I actually wouldn’t have any problem with scrapping Republican President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program, its high-stakes testing, and imposition of a federal curriculum. I’m no big fan of SOL high-stakes testing and imposition of a state curriculum either. The federal government has an interest and role to play in supporting public education, but it should be primarily funded by the state and local government with decisions decentralized to the local school board as much as possible. I agree that “if one state does want to end public education…then I expect they would see the results very quickly.” People who could afford to move would “vote with their feet” by leaving in droves.
#50 There is not much factual substance to rebut there. (Should I object to Red Faction’s comparison of government departments to “propagating roaches in a dirty kitchen?”)
Maybe you can get “some courageous but stupid Congressman” to propose zero-based budgeting (there are plenty of Republican Congressmen who fit that description).
Interestingly, zero-based budgeting was actually tried by Democratic President Carter, but it was later abandoned by Republican President Reagan. Now it is mostly just a meaningless anti-government buzzword (like “death panels”).
Most politicians find that eliminating popular government programs and services results in a political backlash from their constituents, and not just from “liberal colleagues in Congress as well as the ‘leftie’ blogs and press.”
Finally: in my prior comments (#51 and #52), I was merely reporting economic updates from the news, which provide further concrete evidence that the economy is slowly but steadily improving. I know how disappointing that is to you.
July 1st, 2010 at 2:25 pm
UPDATE: “The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation’s economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II” – USA Today 6/30/10
UPDATE: “Fears that the economic recovery is fizzling grew Thursday after the government and private sector issued weak reports on a number of fronts.” – AP 7/1/10
UPDATE: “New claims for U.S. jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, while growth in the manufacturing sector slowed in June, heightening fears the country’s economic recovery was stalling.” – Reuters 7/1/10
UPDATE: “Contracts for pending sales of previously owned homes plunged a record 30 percent in May, far more than expected, after a popular tax credit expired at the end of the prior month” – Reuters 7/1/10
UPDATE: “Investors—already worried about a new slowdown in the US economy—just got more evidence Thursday that the recovery is, in fact, stalling.” – CNBC 7/1/10
UPDATE: “Federal Reserve policy makers expressed caution about the outlook for the U.S. recovery and bank lending without backing any new steps by the central bank to stimulate growth.” – Bloomberg 7/1/10
Sweet! My 401(k) balance is half of what is has been, my home is worth about 20% less today than it was two years ago, and my credit card balances are rising because I haven’t gotten a raise in over three years. But at least this idiot administration’s fraudulent policies will be seen for the disaster that they are. LIFE IS GREAT!
July 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Greetings from Illinois.
1st: About David’s thoughts that some people are almost hoping the economy does not improve – I remember back a few years ago when conservative radio talk show hosts often and loudly made the same statement about Democrats. Is it only an idiotic statement when it is made by a progressive against a Republican but wisdom when it is made by a conservative against a Democrat? It’s hell when the other foot drops isn’t it?
2nd: On the CBO cooking the books about an improving economy. One thing that can not be cooked is the experiences of the trucking industry. In every recent economic recovery amongst the first to experience the benefits of the recovery has been trucking. What is the trucking industry seeing? An improving freight market.
Let me give a personal example. In the depths of the recession it was normal for me to have to wait long periods, sometimes more then a day, before I got another load to pull. Yesterday I delivered in Nebraska. I was immediately offered two loads I could not legally deliver on-time and had to turn both of them down. One of the loads they might still have been able to find a driver to deliver on-time, but I was the last hope for the other, that one is going to be late.
I ended up with a load that is still challenging but I can legally deliver on-time. The only reason I have time to play on the internet right now is because I only picked up 5 hours this morning and I am limited in how much distance I can legally cover today (there are plenty of hours left in the day, but by law I am limited in how many of them I can use). While the Congressional Budget Office might cook the books, you can not hide the truth from the trucking industry and freight is hot.
Thank both George Dubyah Bush and Barack Obama for TARP which allowed me to obtain the financing for my new truck and thank you President Obama for the stimulus that jolted our moribund economy into life. It is my fervent hope that the economy continues to improve and that other citizens who face challenges can follow the trucking industry into a return to the good times.
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 am
Open Minded: But you didn’t rebut my rebuttals, you just quoted some detrimental statistics from sources you previously claimed were biased Obama-controlled government agencies and the liberal press. You also forgot the punchline: AND ITS ALL OBAMA’S FAULT!
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 am
I barely saw a question in your previous rebut, but now at second glance I do see you’ve asked at least one question that I already answered.
You wrote I was vague in my mention of the barriers to private-sector employment. I disagree.
Not only did I describe two tactics which don’t work – hiring bonuses and a temporary hiatus in tax rates – but I also mentioned three barriers pretty specifically, at least specifically enough so that a learned participant like you could recognize them: (1) health care obligations – there’s no telling definitively how the health care plan will affect small businesses like mine. (2) Keeping profits – the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which I don’t think is a foregone conclusion yet, will affect my business and my personal situation in ways I can’t or don’t have time to calculate. (3) Unionization – the EFCA will not have much effect on me, as a small-business owner with two employees, but I’m sure it has an unknown but intimidating effect on other employers.
More than any specific or individual barrier or policy, there’s an overwhelming and general UNCERTAINTY in the arena of private-sector employment and I can tell you from personal experience that it’s having a serious impact on my decision-making ability as an employer.
You asked for specifics which I’ve provided, but the specifics aren’t the whole story.
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:27 am
Thanks for clarifying.
1. Health reform actually has many benefits for small businesses. For example, you may qualify for a tax credit.
2. President Obama and Congressional Democrats plan to extend middle class tax cuts while allowing tax cuts to revert to pre-Bush levels for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000 in taxable income.
3. EFCA is dead in the water for now. As you say, it wouldn’t affect you anyway. Don’t waste time worrying about it. We can debate that one if it ever comes up for a vote.
The latest job report wasn’t great news. The private sector had a net gain of 83,000 jobs in June (not much, but at least it is still in a mildly positive direction, with private sector job growth for 6 consecutive months). Most of the job losses were government jobs (which, according to you, aren’t “real jobs” and don’t count).
Look at the big picture: The stimulus bill stopped the bleeding, but it wasn’t big enough to restore full health of the economy. Even so, this incremental improvement is better that the diminishing returns that we experienced under the Republican policies of President Bush. Under Bush, federal government employment actually rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector. I’m not blaming Bush for all the problems with the economy (like you blame Obama), but you are advocating that we return to the same Bush economic policies that proved to be unsuccessful before.
The problem: high unemployment. The Republican solution: layoff thousands of more people. Yeah, that will help.
As a stop-gap measure, extending Unemployment
CompensationInsurance and providing federal aid to state and local governments to prevent layoffs would stem bankruptcies, foreclosures, and other negative ripple effects that would further damage the economy.Unemployment
CompensationInsurance benefits are quickly spent throughout the economy. According to Moodys chief economist (and former economic advisor to McCain’s presidential campaign) Mark Zandi, for every $1.00 spent on UnemploymentCompensationInsurance, it generates $1.61 of economic stimulus. That’s a pretty good ROI. Unfortunately, it has been blocked by Senate Republicans, who then blame President Obama for not doing anything.July 9th, 2010 at 7:17 am
UPDATE: A Virginian-Pilot editorial:
July 9th, 2010 at 11:14 am
From the same editorial:
“Last year’s stimulus package failed to boost the nation safely out of recession.” Well now I’m really confused, because all I keep hearing from Biden and Obama and everybody is how successful the stimulus has been. “Recovery Summer”, anybody? And, while we’re considering another stimulus package, why does nobody want to mention that almost half of the previous stimulus hasn’t hit the streets yet?
Also from the editorial:
“Those who oppose the bill have failed to propose a way of protecting the most vulnerable from financial disaster.” I have a proposal: GET A JOB. I didn’t say it was a politically-correct proposal.
July 9th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
The last few economic recessions have been painfully slow “jobless recoveries.” The Fed has already brought interest down about as far as they can go, and they don’t have many other tools in their kit.
The stimulus bill had limited success in turning the economy around, preventing a deeper recession, and creating or saving millions of jobs, but it was not enough to restore full employment (which is why we may need to consider another stimulus package). It is probably a good thing that half of the stimulus spending hasn’t hit the street yet, because it will continue to prop up the economy throughout this year.
“Get a job?” Jobs aren’t plentiful enough (yet) for everybody to get a job. Your proposal is not only politically-incorrect, it is cruel.
July 10th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Wow – I just read Fareed Zakaria from Monday’s Washington Post. Seems like that dude was channeling my posts #48 and #58, or maybe I was channeling the business leaders he interviewed. The article mentions 500 American corporations having $1.8 TRILLION IN CASH on the balance sheets but being unwilling to spend it to expand or create jobs. That kind of money injected into the economy would create an almost immediate boost, and it wouldn’t add a dime to the federal deficit (in fact, spending that kind of cash would generate huge taxes). From the article:
“The key to a sustainable recovery and robust economic growth is to get companies investing in America. So why are they reluctant, despite having mounds of cash? … Economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their caution.”
and
“One CEO told me, “Almost every agency we deal with has announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally makes me concerned about what’s in store for us for the future.” Another pointed out that between the health-care bill, financial reform and possibly cap-and-trade, his company had lawyers working day and night to figure out the implications of all these new regulations.”
and
“Most of the business leaders I spoke to had voted for Barack Obama. They still admire him. Those who had met him thought he was unusually smart. But all think he is, at his core, anti-business. When I asked for specifics, they pointed to the fact that Obama has no business executives in his Cabinet, that he rarely consults with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he has almost no private-sector experience, that he’s made clear he thinks government and nonprofit work are superior to the private sector. It all added up to a profound sense of distrust.”
July 11th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Open Minded,
I am a small business man too, although I guess I am smaller then you since I have only one employee, myself (I do engage in business with other independent contractors for various services they provide however).
I am going to tell you what I am seeing on the shipping docks out here in America. Let me give you an example. I pulled into a paper mill and talked to some of the employees in shipping. I asked how is business? The reply. Good. Too damn good. They’re having trouble keeping up with demand. They appreciate the opportunity for some overtime but the amount of overtime they are expected to provide is getting beyond the point of being reasonable.
So is the economy recovering? Yes – you can not hide the truth from the trucking industry and even the most conservative truck drivers who have reason to try and hide the truth must admit that freight is hot. So why no improving employment? Because instead of hiring new employees employers are just forcing increased overtime on current workers. As one forklift operator told me, while he likes the extra money, he dislikes the lack of free time. He is just afraid to say no when his supervisor asks him to work additional hours. As he said, while the expectations on how many hours he will work are too high, too many hours is better then no job and no hours. If he says no he has seen the lines of those willing to replace him.
But trucking is one industry that is hiring. Due to safety concerns, truckers are limited in the number of hours per week they can operate. If they are going to run legal, the only way to take advantage of the improving economy is to put more drivers behind the wheel so that is what they are doing. The company I am contracted to is even offering me a $1,000 bonus for every trucker I can convince to sign on with them. Currently my company is still looking for experienced truckers only for the most part, but some trucking companies are once again opening the doors up for rookies.
By the way, freight is so hot that some truckers are returning to their evil ways. I ran into a guy recently that told me he was running 6,000 miles a week and there is no way he is doing that legally. I am not going to be a snitch and report him or anything, but I did grin real big while I shook my head. I told him he needed to sign on with an outfit like the one I do business where he could run strictly legal, get a good nights sleep almost each and every night and still make good money. Why run 6,000 miles per week when you can run half that and make just as much money?
July 12th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Open Minded: I don’t disagree with Fareed Zakaria’s analysis, but I noticed that you left out some parts, and I come to a different conclusion.
Many CEOs supported the government stimulus plan, but you are opposed to it, right?
and…
The economy itself is the CEO’s main concern. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy – the bad economy prevents companies and consumers from spending money, which keeps the economy down. Right now, the federal government is the only entity that is willing and able to spend money to “keep the economy afloat.” Eventually, as employers become more confident that the economy is on the rebound, they will begin to create jobs and start a positive cycle of growth.
and…
The bailouts begun by President Bush and continued by President Obama, helped prevent a total collapse of the economy.
Bank deregulation created the conditions that caused the recession. The financial reform bill will help restore financial stability and prevent future occurrences.
Uncontrolled health spending is a huge disadvantage for U.S. companies competing with countries with government-provided universal health care at half the cost. Health reform began to address that issue (as well as reduce the deficit).
Many corporations favor federal climate change legislation because it will be easier for them to comply with than either a patchwork of state laws or regulation by the EPA. It will also stimulate the creation of “green jobs” (General Electric, for example, is poised to take advantage of the opportunity). Establishing a cap-and-trade system will create a predictable market for carbon (as well as reduce the deficit).
Corporate uncertainty about government arises from pending legislation. Passing financial reform and climate change laws will eliminate uncertainty and give business a clearer map of the future.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Little David, your real-life example of the dock workers is exactly my point. Employers are uncertain about the future of the economy, taxes, health care, etc. etc. etc., so they’d rather work in the realm of the known – getting their existing employees to work more hours won’t increase health care costs, won’t waste time and money getting a new employee up to speed, and like you say the employees are willing, albeit grudgingly, because there are others just outside the door waiting to take their spot. Compare that to the risk of hiring on a bunch of new employees to do the same work, and it’s a no-brainer for the employer.
These things will usually shake out pretty quickly, the good workers will find a better situation somewhere else, leave, and then the former employer is left with no alternatives but hiring new staff and getting them up to speed.That’s the back-and-forth equilibrium known as capitalism.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
David, now I know why you and I disagree. We can both read the same sentence and, while I come to a logical conclusion, you see something that’s not there and buttress your argument. My evidence:
You quote the Zakaria article where he says “Economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their caution”. Your very next sentence after the quote was “The economy itself is the CEO’s main concern”. Non. Sequitur.
He says “economic uncertainty” and you say “the economy”. Two very different things. I’m not saying you have to agree with everything this WP columnist scribes, but don’t use his words to defend your stance when he does nothing close.
In a bad economy like we’re in right now, I know businessmen who are traditionally flush with cash making the best deals of their lives and setting their businesses up for the next 5, 10, and 20 years. Construction prices are way down (almost every contractor is hungry for work), so if you want to put an addition on your house and you don’t have to borrow the money from the bank, you’re going to score a great deal. I know some businesses who are in full-on hiring mode, for one thing because they can afford it and for another thing because they want employees who know their company helped them through the tough times so they’ll stay loyal when otherwise they may not. I bet the one local company I’m thinking of will be the strongest in our industry for the next 20 years because of what they’re doing right now. A bad economy can be great for you if you’re ready for it and willing to take some risks.
But, as I’ve said before and as you’re apparently unwilling to grasp, even after reading it in the Washington Post, it’s the UNCERTAINTY that’s killing the economy right now.
You say that passing legislation will eliminate uncertainty, but how’s that working out for the health care bill? I’d say the exact opposite. As folks are finding out what’s actually in this bill, I’d say that the fear and loathing will only increase in the coming months. Isn’t it a traditionally liberal source (I know I just told you I don’t typically characterize sources like that) that reported that over 50% of the current company health care plans don’t meet the regulations of the HCB? There goes all that blather about “If you like your plan, you can keep it!” And isn’t the O administration missing key dates and deadlines already in terms of enacting the legislation? And how about Obama’s Medicare czar recess appointment – who says that “good health care is, by definition, redistributive of wealth” and that “it’s not a question of whether we ration or not, it’s whether we ration with our eyes open”.
Yeah. Go out again and find something that you can try to convince me supports your claim.
July 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am
You’re right. We disagree because we read the same article and arrive at completely different conclusions.
I actually think “economic uncertainty” and uncertainty about “the economy” are the same thing. One of the points made by Zakaria (and me) was that “economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their caution” and that concerns about government are secondary. You left that part out of your initial comment about the article, focusing exclusively on government.
Another point made by Zakaria (and me) which you ignored was that “right now, government spending is keeping the economy afloat.” You, along with nearly every Congressional Republican, opposed the government stimulus that “is keeping the economy afloat.”
“Most of the business leaders [Zakaria] spoke to had voted for Barack Obama.” I provided evidence that many CEOs support the economic stimulus program, health reform, financial reform, and climate change legislation. It is true that big banks oppose government regulation that may help prevent another financial disaster and oil companies oppose government regulation that may help prevent another disasterous oil spill. Some people, of course, are philosophically opposed to any government regulation.
Most of the uncertainty about the legal environment right now is because businesses don’t know whether or not financial reform and climate change legislation will pass and exactly what it will include. Republican filibusters and delaying tactics have only increased that uncertainty. It is hard to make a game plan if you don’t know what the rules are. Once those laws pass, everyone will know what the rules are and businesses can begin to make long-range plans.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Open Minded,
I have heard a number of reports on NPR that what is going on is that employers are waiting to see if the recovery is sustained before they start hiring large numbers of employees. Also employers saw a surge in productivity from remaining employees during the recession. The first employees to be laid off were the least productive and those that remained became motivated to become more productive to keep their jobs.
But I’ll tell you what is happening in the trucking industry. The trucking industry is not just hiring new employees they are making large outlays of capital investing in new equipment to put the additional drivers in. Class 8 truck sales are up massively when compared year over year.
Personally I benefited in at least one way due to the recession. My old truck had 1.4 million miles on her when I was forced to retire her. I was trying to get 2 million miles out of the old lady, but she had a cracked frame rail and they wanted to much to replace it (you have to replace it, you can not just weld it). While I was trying to get 2 million miles out of the gal, I knew all along that I was going to need to buy one more truck before I retired, I just wasn’t intending to do so when I did. Since I was forced to do it, I ended up looking like a genius. When is the best time to buy stocks? You buy when everyone else is buying and sell when everyone else is buying, correct? Well that works a lot like that with trucks too. I bought when few wanted to buy and when even fewer of those who wanted to buy could come up with the financing. Dealers were desperate and willing to dicker. I go my truck for about half price and while only an idiot pays full price ever, half price is almost unbelievable. Recently I heard that dealers are getting about 40% more for similarly equipped same model truck as I bought this year then what I paid last year. I am fairly confident that if I wanted to sell my now used truck with about 90,000 miles on it I could sell it for a profit. Not only did I get a great deal on it, but all trucks manufactured after Jan 1st of this year have to meet 2010 emissions standards. Normally their would have been a prebuy surge as everybody rushed to buy trucks before the new standards took effect, but due to the economy, that did not happen last year because of the economy. Like I said, I’m looking like a genius for buying when I did. I’ll tell you something, it was not my intelligence, I was forced into it. Some might say it was dumb luck but I say no that was not it either. While I will give credit to Barack Obama and even George Dubyah Bush (Dubyah got the TARP ball rolling, and it is because of TARP that I could get the financing I needed) but I know who to praise for my personal good fortune. I praise God. To God alone belongs the glory. How else can I explain that I was forced to make such a large investment at a time I would not have otherwise? Ever heard about timing the market? I was forced in to the dealership at just the exact point the dealerships were the most desperate. Praise God. Perfect timing. I got 1.4 million out of the old girl and if I can get the same out of the new one, that will put me right at retirement.
July 15th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Ezra Klein at the Washington Post compares the fiscal impact of extending unemployment insurance vs. cutting the estate tax.
Extending Unemployment
CompensationInsurance would be a one-time cost of $33 billion, benefiting 3.2 million people and providing an immediate economic stimulus.Permanent repeal of the estate tax would benefit less than 1% of wealthy heirs and add $700 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years, with no end in sight.
“Supporting estate tax cuts but not unemployment benefits indicates something about a politician, but it’s hardly proof of a deep, serious interest in cutting the deficit.”
July 16th, 2010 at 9:17 am
David, you’re just changing your reality. Now, I’ve been guilty of thinking one thing and typing another here, and that may be what’s happened to you, but it looks like you’re just trying to re-author what you wrote to make what I wrote look inaccurate. At least that’s better than deleting a post, I guess.
I mentioned your post #65 where you quote Zakaria and the “economic uncertainty” and then follow it with a non-sequitur where you decry “the economy itself”. Then you follow up that very sentence with a remark about a self-fulfilling prophecy – the bad economy prevents spending which extends the bad economy. It’s hard to relate your analysis to “uncertainty about “the economy”", as you’ve tried to do in #68. What Zakaria and I agree on is that this administration, or I’ll even be so generous to say the politicians in general (because, quite frankly, I’m no fan of the Republicans in Congress right now), are injecting uncertainty into the employment and economic marketplaces and that’s what’s causing employers to keep their powder dry. That’s a very different analysis than what you wrote. It’s not just “the bad economy” as I presented numerous examples against your premise.
And, who cares about a comparison of the $33 billion for unemployment benefits versus the cost of a repeal of the estate tax? Why don’t you compare the $33 billion against the $787 billion of the improperly-names stimulus package? That would really make it look almost meaningless in size. How about the $20 million spent for roadway signs touting the stimulus work zones on the highways? Sure that pales in comparison to the entire stimulus package, only 3 cents of every $100 according to Robert Gibbs, but IT IS $20 MILLION DOLLARS, for crying out loud.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:09 am
What I said and what I meant has been consistent. Either I failed to make myself clear, or you misunderstood, or you have misinterpreted what I said. Let me try again.
You cited the Zakaria piece, but selectively quoted the parts you agreed with while ignoring the parts you didn’t agree with.
Zakaria wrote about CEO perceptions that “economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their caution” and, “in addition to economics, they kept talking about politics, about the uncertainty surrounding regulations and taxes.” Uncertainty about the economy is CEO’s primary concern and uncertainty about government regulation and taxes is secondary. Government may contribute to economic uncertainty, but government is not the sole (or even main) cause of economic uncertainty.
Meanwhile, passing financial reform today has reduced uncertainty about how financial markets will be regulated in the future.
The stimulus bill (including a tax cut benefiting 95% of working Americans) and extension of Unemployment
CompensationInsurance (both opposed by Congressional Republicans) are one-time expenditures to address an immediate short-term need to “keep the economy afloat.”Eliminating the estate tax and making the Bush tax cuts permanent (as advocated by Congressional Republicans who claim to be gravely concerned about the deficit) would mostly benefit a wealthy minority and cause severe long-term damage to the deficit.
In other news, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (who supported the Bush tax cuts) now says they should all expire on schedule at the end of this year: “They should follow the law and let them lapse.”
July 19th, 2010 at 9:50 am
From Yahoo! News, July 17:
“Over the past several weeks, more than two million of them have seen their unemployment insurance expire,” the president said.
Crafty. Our very own president, who hearkens back to the integrity of Honest Abe, casts this debate in terms of “INSURANCE” instead of what it really is, BENEFITS.
More than just a slip of the tongue, this is a carefully-thought-out tactic to frame this debate in terms that don’t apply. Make it sound like something that everybody has earned and deserves, instead of what it really is, a GIFT from the taxpayers.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Open Minded: Blame FDR, not Obama. The Social Security Act created the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program in 1935. It has been routinely referred to as “insurance” ever since, including here in Virginia. (I have been incorrectly referring to it as “Unemployment Compensation.” Thanks to you for bringing this to my attention, I have now corrected it to the official term “Unemployment Insurance” in my original post and all previous comments.)
Unemployment Insurance is funded by a tax on employers, based on their claims history. People earn coverage by 1) having been employed and earned sufficient wages during the first four out of the last five completed calendar quarters prior to the date the claim was filed, 2) becoming unemployed through no fault of their own, and 3) continuing to actively seek employment.
The millions of Americans who are currently depending on Unemployment Insurance to pay their mortgages and put food on the table probably aren’t as concerned about the semantics as you are.
Unemployment Insurance is also cost-effective economic stimulus: For every $1.00 spent on Unemployment Insurance, it generates $1.61 of economic stimulus.
Its politically popular, too: 62% of the public favors extending Unemployment Insurance benefits, including 80% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and even 43% of Republicans.
Historically, Congress has always acted in a bipartisan effort to extend Unemployment Insurance benefits during the last eight recessions (until now).
July 20th, 2010 at 11:59 am
According to OMB Watch:
They argue in favor of a second stimulus.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
UPDATE: Senate Democrats have broken the Republican filibuster and are poised to extend Unemployment Insurance benefits that have already lapsed for 2.5 million Americans (or, at least they will 30 hours later).
Virginia Senators Warner and Webb voted in favor of extending Unemployment Insurance benefits.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I should totally switch my allegiances. It has become obvious to me that it would be far easier to be a liberal.
In the face of the glaring failure that is the stimulus package, Democrats can argue that “It could have been much worse”. Pay no attention to the assurances that unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%, because “things were actually much worse than those evil conservatives ever let on”.
Not to mention both the health care bill and the financial reform bill, because “we won’t know what’s in it until we pass it.” Actually, the financial reform bill will be a bigger jobs creator than the stimulus. Unfortunately all the jobs created will be for lobbyists and lawyers hired by the huge banks to navigate the new regulations.
Oh, and we have to pass the unemployment extension, because that’s the fastest way to create jobs, according to Pelosi.
And as for climate change, if the trends show more warming, then Al Gore was right, we must act more quickly. But if the trends show cooling, then Al Gore was right (also), and all of our concerted efforts at his direction were successful in turning global warming around. He saved the planet, for crying out loud.
But don’t forget Skip Gates. Without any information, you can be assured that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.”
Yeah. It would be much easier to be a liberal. I wouldn’t even have to use my brain. I just can’t believe these people don’t get laughed out of town.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
David Campbell,
Actually I think compensation is a more accurate description then insurance. In Virginia it is not the employee that pays in, it is the employer; this is true in the vast majority of states as it is only in a couple where employees make payments into the system with another couple states where it is optional. I think some choose to describe it as insurance to make it more palatable.
Amongst the definitions for “compensation” on Merriam-Webster:
“:payment to unemployed or injured workers or their dependents”
July 27th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Regardless of Merriam-Webster or your personal preference, it has officially been known as Unemployment Insurance ever since the law created it in 1935. It is not just how “some choose to describe it” and it certainly isn’t a “crafty” dishonest “tactic to frame this debate” by President Obama. It is simply what it has been called all along, for 75 years.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Nice revision, David.
I never said it was “dishonest”. It’s interesting that you felt the need to modify my very own quotes to make it seem like I said something I didn’t. But that’s happened before, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
I know that it has always been called insurance; I can check the VA Employment Commission poster hanging in my office (which I have to renew every year) if I wasn’t sure. I said it was a crafty tactic to refer to it as “insurance” instead of “benefits” or “compensation” (all of which are accurate).
You chose to describe it as “compensation” up until comment #70. Guess you didn’t get the memo.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Check that. You missed revising a “compensation” in comment #72.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Open Minded: Everyone can read what you wrote.
It is literally true that you “never said it was ‘dishonest,’”and I didn’t quote as having said it was “dishonest.” Perhaps I misunderstood you. What did you intend to imply by your description of President Obama as one “who hearkens back to the integrity of Honest Abe” but then cast the debate in terms other than what it really is?
You “said it was a crafty tactic to refer to it as ‘insurance’” even though you “know that it has always been called insurance.” Calling it something “it has always been called” is a “crafty tactic?”
I previously explained that “I have been incorrectly referring to it” and “have now corrected it to the official term ‘Unemployment Insurance’ in my original post and all previous comments.” (I must have confused it with Workers Compensation.) I have corrected my error. I have revised comment #72 too (thanks for catching that one).
From now on I will refer to it correctly by its official name: Unemployment Insurance. Pretty “crafty” of me, huh?
July 27th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I agree everyone can read what I wrote, unfortunately not everyone can understand it.
It is crafty to refer to the “employee free choice act” instead of “card check” or “union intimidation”.
It is crafty to refer to “climate change” instead of “global warming”.
It is crafty to refer to the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” instead of the “stimulus plan” or the “787 billion dollar slush fund”.
It is crafty to refer to a “restroom” instead of a “public urinal”.
It is crafty to say “if you like your health insurance plan, you’ll be able to keep it”. Oh, wait. That’s just a lie.
It is crafty to say “saved or created 3 million jobs” when nobody can count a “saved” job and the sound byte only includes “created 3 million jobs”.
The current administration are experts at choosing their words very particularly and specifically to convey an attitude or a feeling, regardless of the actual circumstances. Better than any other administration has ever been. But then there are the times when the big O goes off the teleprompter. Or when Biden opens his mouth. Heaven help the messaging department.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:35 am
I think I’ve got it. Calling Unemployment Insurance “Unemployment Insurance” is “crafty.”
President Obama is an effective communicator (for comparison, recall how articulate and fluent his predecessor was).
Every president (except Truman) has used a teleprompter ever since they were invented 50 years ago, although it is true that President Obama uses it more than most. Others rely on more low-tech aids.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Now that we are done with nitpicking about semantics (I hope), let’s get back to the topic of the economy:
A new economic study says that the prompt, effective actions by President Bush and President Obama may have prevented a major depression:
July 31st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Hey, as I visit American industry around the nation, I can’t help myself but to ask how business is for them. I keep hearing complaints about all the over time workers are expected to work and how even though they’re running 24/7 they can’t keep up with demand.
So I got to thinking… my job allows for extended periods of time on lonely stretches of highway for thinking…
The trucking industry is hiring to keep up with demand. Why? Because there is a legal limit on how many hours of productivity you can get out of each truck driver. Once you absorb the legal limit for all your truck drivers the only way to increase production is to hire more of them.
But in other areas there are no such limits. They can keep demanding overtime and point to the lines of those willing to take your place if you refuse the overtime.
Why are employers willing to work their existing workers into the dirt instead of hiring new employees to meet demand even if they must pay time and a half for overtime? Well, the currently employed worker already knows how to do the job. It will take the new guy time to get up to speed. Why take on the cost of the new employee and give him time to cut his teeth if the demand is not going to be sustained?
Everybody is scared. The economy is improving but look at the unemployment rate which is unchanged. I dare not hire new employees until the unemployment rate goes down. Once the unemployment rate goes down, that will prove to me I need to hire additional employees.
Good gosh, talk about self fulfilling prophecy. When did I buy my truck? I bought when no one else was willing to do so and as a result I got a fantastic deal. When is the best time to hire? When you have a fantastic pool of well qualified and honest workers seeking employment.
But expecting employers to take advantage of the obvious opportunity dangling in front of them isn’t enough. We as a nation also have a problem with continuing to fund the huge numbers of currently unemployed who can not find a job because the jobs are not out there?
How to kill two birds with one stone? Tax overtime. The employee already pays increased income tax on the overtime, but the employer writes it off. Reasonable amounts of overtime would be allowed but someone who expects to operate perpetually in this manner pays the tax. If you have work for the unemployed but refuse to hire them then you should pay the cost for them sitting on their butts at home.
My personal experience in the trucking industry is that the economy is indeed coming around. Our economy is on the rebound but it is a jobless recovery. Well those making money on the recovery should put the unemployed to work. If you are going to explain to me how you can’t do it I’ll explain to you how you’re going to pay your taxes so the government can try to do it instead. Private industry does a better job of providing jobs in the economy then the government can do, but if the majority of voters are unemployed we’re going to end up with a revolution at the voting booths that would make Karl Marx proud.
August 6th, 2010 at 8:38 am
David, how about updating your Labor Department graph?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575412990024153682.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
August 6th, 2010 at 8:50 am
OK, the chart at the top of this post has been updated through July 2010 and I will try to update it every month. It’s not good news.
Most of the recent job losses have been in the public sector (which, according to you, aren’t “real jobs” anyway), including the expected loss of temporary census workers. Democrats are on track to pass a bill to aid state and local government, which will help prevent further job losses in the public sector.
There have now been 7 consecutive months of net job growth in the private sector: 51,000 in May, 31,000 in June, and 71,000 in July (but still not nearly enough to make much difference). Democrats successfully extended Unemployment Insurance benefits, but Republicans have blocked loans and tax cuts for small businesses.
Presidents (of either party) never deserve all the credit or blame for the economy, but I still prefer the blue trend to the red trend overall.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:21 am
UPDATE: President Obama’s economic stimulus package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of this year, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
A prominent economist agrees:
With Zandi advising him, maybe President McCain would have proposed an economic stimulus package similar to what President Obama passed (except people probably wouldn’t call McCain a socialist).