http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../gop-strategy-block-obama-then-blame-him.html GOP strategy: Block Obama, then blame him The Republicans’ 2012 election strategy is perversely brilliant: Sabotage President Barack Obama’s job-creation efforts, then blame him for the wreckage. This strategy was in action the other day, when Mitt Romney assailed Obama on the stump. Romney said that “with America in crisis, with 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work, he hasn’t put forth a plan to get us working again.” Romney conveniently omitted the fact that Obama put forth such a plan last autumn. The American Jobs Act would have put as many as 2 million construction workers, cops, teachers, and firefighters back to work — so said economic forecasters — if only congressional Republicans hadn’t dynamited it. Yes, sabotage indeed was required. Republicans knew their prospects for beating Obama would be damaged if they signed on to a plan that got more Americans working again. They’re far too invested in economic misery to let that happen. Working with Obama on job creation is not their top priority; as Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell candidly remarked in 2010, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Fortunately for the GOP, voters typically pay scant attention to the parliamentary play-by-play in Washington. What happened last autumn, when Senate Republicans successfully blocked debate on the jobs plan, is ancient history. That episode, yet another example of obstruction by filibuster, has vanished down the Orwellian memory hole — which allows Romney to pretend the bill never existed. The 2012 election may be a cliff-hanger, much like 2000 and 2004, and the sabotage strategy just may be clever enough to work. The GOP saboteurs deserve a share of the blame for our stalled economy, but politics is a shorthand business — and the shorthand is that presidents take the hit when times are tough. When the latest jobs report tallied only 69,000 new jobs during May and put the jobless rate at 8.2 percent, Obama got the brunt of the blame. People tend to believe the maxim that sat on Harry S. Truman’s desk — “The buck stops here” — even though power is widely dispersed in a system that cannot function without at least a modicum of bipartisan comity. Instead, we have black comedy. A new book by the well-sourced writer Robert Draper reveals that Republican congressional insiders met for a private dinner on the night of Obama’s inauguration and mapped a strategy to “show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies” from Day One. On the way out the door, Newt Gingrich, an invited guest, reportedly told his former brethren, “You will remember this day. You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.” Newt has a flair for the dramatic, but in this case he was right. What’s fascinating about Obama’s sabotaged jobs bill is that he tried to attract Republican support by packing it with Republican provisions. For instance, some GOP senators had come up with the idea of creating jobs repairing America’s decaying infrastructure through an independent, privately bankrolled fund. A good idea, but once Obama embraced it, the Republicans naturally deemed it a bad one. Last November, ABC News-Washington Post pollsters asked Americans whether (1) “President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country’s economic problems, but the Republicans in Congress are playing politics blocking his proposals and programs,” or (2) “President Obama has not provided leadership on the economy, and he is just blaming the Republicans in Congress as an excuse for not doing his job.” Independents chose the first by a margin of 14 percentage points. However disappointed they may be with Obama, they’re even more turned off by congressional Republicans. Still, there was a hitch for Obama: Even though 54 percent of independents pinned considerable blame on the GOP for the economy, 53 percent said Obama was not a strong leader. Apparently, they fault him for failing to bend the Republicans to his will. Again, it’s the shorthand: Presidents are expected to get things done. But presidents also get the credit when things improve, which is why Obama might prevail in November: He may be positioned to win swing states such as Ohio, where the economy is on the mend. So even though GOP sabotage is real, Obama will be judged as if the economy is his responsibility alone. And, hey, he asked for it. Back in 2009, he told a crowd, “I love these folks who suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy.’ That’s fine. Give it to me.” Fairly or not, he has it.
I think it's kind of sad that the GOP is actually putting people out of work for political gain. It's one of the darkest and most ignoble acts by a political party in history. Anyone who calls themselves a republican should apologize right now. Basso and Bigtexx - you should be ashamed of this. Why are you killing jobs? Why do you hate America so much? Why is the GOP trying to stop growth in America?
It is sad and horrible that this is happening. I wish it would get more publicity and voters would hold them accountable. That's the only way to stop it.
The government should just employ everyone. Problem solved. Obama's Job Fetish Beware any politician who promises to create new jobs Jacob Sullum | October 22, 2008 Despite all the facile comparisons between the current economic situation and the conditions that preceded the Great Depression, the most recent figures show GDP continuing to grow, with unemployment at a historically modest 6.1 percent. But if, as widely expected, Barack Obama faces a recession when he takes office in January, many Americans will expect him to deliver on his promise to "create jobs." They probably will be disappointed, because Obama seems to view job creation not only as something the government does with taxpayers' money but as an end in itself. That's a recipe for wasteful spending that will divert resources from more productive uses and ultimately result in lower employment than would otherwise occur. Obama says he will "transform the challenge of global climate change into an opportunity to create 5 million new green jobs," which he likens to the economic activity triggered by the personal computer. This way of looking at climate change is a variation on the broken window fallacy, according to which the loss caused by a smashed window is offset by the employment it gives the glazier. By the same logic, Obama should view war, crime, and hurricanes as opportunities to create jobs. All three generate economic activity, but we'd be better off if the resources spent on bombs, burglar alarms, and reconstruction were available for other purposes, instead of being used to inflict, prevent, or recover from losses. Likewise, overhauling manufacturing, transportation, and power production to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide may or may not be justified, but it is properly viewed as a drag on the economy. We'd be better off if we didn't have to worry about, and use resources to minimize, climate change. Obama wants to spend $150 billion on "developing and deploying advanced energy technologies, including solar, wind and clean coal." He says this plan "will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs that can't be outsourced." Leaving aside the desirability of "energy independence" and the merits of Obama's approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions (which has the government, rather than businesses, picking the most efficient methods), the fact that he lists "jobs that can't be outsourced" as a distinct goal is troubling. Paying people to dig holes and fill them in again also creates "jobs that can't be outsourced," but that doesn't mean it's a smart investment or an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. Speaking of digging holes, Obama also wants to spend $60 billion to "provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation." He says "these projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity." Fixing a bridge, widening a highway, or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile. If creating jobs and stimulating "new economic activity" can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with empty airports and bridges to nowhere? Obama also sees regulation as an engine of economic growth. He says requiring that "25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025...has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs." Even if true, that projection tells us nothing about the advisability of such a mandate. If the government required that 25 percent of cars be replaced by horse-drawn carriages, that also would create certain jobs, while destroying or forestalling others. Obama's job fetish is apparent even when he talks about spontaneous economic activity. "Businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs," he declared in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. In a free market, businesses exist because they provide goods or services that people value. A business that makes job creation its overriding goal will not be employing anyone for long. http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/22/obamas-job-fetish
Regarding Hightops post above. The point is we were heading into a Great Depression. It was global and the U.S. has been the country that has stablized the world. Private job growth is on par with the recovery with the last recession. But it's the fact that the gov't isn't hiring that has resulted in a net loss. This is the first recession where spending to ease the impact of the recession has been blocked by your beloved party - just to get a president out of office. It's rather disturbing. Not sure why you don't choose to see it or just not admit to it.
Here we go again. This is purely an opinion piece -- not news. Dick Polman is a political columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer and a writer for the Maury Povich show. We all know which way he leans. Nobody, not even Obama, is trying to deep six the American economy. What is tanking the American economy is the administration's policies and penchant for spending money the government doesn't have. Obama would love to have voters believe the Republicans are blocking a recovery, but, in truth, they are only blocking his spendthrift policies. Perhaps what the government should do is cut the salaries of federal employees, both exempt and non-exempt -- say 5% for those making less than $40,000; 10% for those making from $40,000 to $70,000; 15% for those making from $70,000 to $90,000; 20% from those making between $90,000 to $130,000; and 25% from all federal employees and consultants making more than $130,000. In addition, federal civil service should be put under Social Security rather than have a different plan. Also, no company or organization should be forced to collect union dues for the unions. The unions should be responsible for making their own collections, and individual members should be able to designate the amount of political contributions and to whom those contributions go. At the same time, corporate contributions should be limited to 1% (or some fair curb) of taxable income. PACS should be outlawed altogether and individual contributions should be limited as well. On the other hand, corporate subsidies and shelters should be eliminated with only employee payroll and direct benefits being a tax deduction. Of course, this would be a graduated flat tax based on income would have to be passed in two parts, income for corporations (up to 30%) and income for individuals (up to 30% and deductions for up to three children). Until federal budget is balanced and in the black, we should all be willing to share the pain.
Yes, we should, and it shouldn't be ONLY government employees feeling the pain. The very wealthy, who have seen their taxes reduced over and over again over the last 30 years, should "share the pain" as well.
I agree. The tax system is so complicated that only the very wealthy have the money to pay tax attorneys and accounting firms to find all the little treasure loopholes placed into the tax laws. That's why I am such a champion of a graduated flat tax without shelters and subsidies. My only question in your observation is where is the separation point in "wealthy" and "not wealthy."
I disagree about income tax, I think we should scrap it altogether. When the income tax was created, it was initially exactly what you say you champion, a graduated flat tax. I believe that taxing income rewards people who consume and doesn't give enough incentive to save, which is part of the reason Social Security is such a necessary safety net in our society. I would use a consumption tax instead.
Good idea. Now on to the next problem. What's going to happen to all those CPAs and tax attorneys when the tax code is simplified who currently hold wealth right now because the system is so complicated?
70% of our economy is spending. The vast majority of it by the middle class. If you put in a consumption tax you hit the middle class harder. And right now part of the problem is that people are not spending. Middle class needs more money period. They are getting crunched hard. There has to be a fundamental shift. Our economy grew strongest when the middle class had a strong proportion of wealth, because there was an incentive for companies to invest in products and services to tap into that wealth. Now that wealth is gone. So companies aren't really incentivized to invest. They just keep milking the cow that they have until it will go dry. That's why taxing the wealthy and corporations is key. It's the only way to reinject wealth into the middle class and keep the cycle sustaining. Country has to make choices, and I think ending subsidies and cutting military spending has to happen. We just can't afford that stuff. Medicare and SS has to be reformed. And the tax code has to be fixed. But until then, the middle class needs help. And they need it now. Republicans are blocking any help to them, knowing that it will be to their political benefit. That's not an opinion, that's a fact borne out by their own comments.
They will still spend and will have more to spend since there would be no income tax. I would exempt food and medicine altogether and give equal deductions to every citizen. In addition, I would exempt used goods so the middle class could reduce their tax burden almost as much as they want. People who consume more would pay more, as it should be. My proposal would immediately put more money into most Americans' pockets by eliminating withholding. The consumption tax does just this. The people who consume the most by purchasing new goods would be the ones taxed, the people who can afford to spend would bear the tax burden, as it should be. Agreed. Yep!
I'd appreciate it if you could give a macro-level explanation of why you think getting in the black is important at this juncture. The government needs to remove financial assets from the private sector in order to "get in the black." How would removing assets from a deleveraging private sector help? We can see firsthand from Ireland, Greece, and Spain what happens when you try to eliminate public "debt" in the midst of a demand-shock balance sheet recession.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...wait wait wait wait. So the topic of this thread is how the economy is tanking (perpetrated by the evil Right of course) and there's no good news, and ole Lou Dunbar also has another thread for how to fix said tanking economy. Meanwhile, also on the first page of this message board, we have a thread chalk full of stats and pretty line graphs and bar graphs about how "good news continues to pour in" (thanks to our brilliant young president of course). Can any of you schizophrenics make up your mind?
Definitely. I can't think of a better way to KICK-start economic growth than to reduce people's income... ...why don't you unpack this for me brah?
Where would you replace the lost tax revenue. If you reduce taxes on the middle class, who will make up the difference? Are you suggesting the wealthy and corps pick it up? Because that effectively is just a tax cut on the middle class and a tax hike on the rich. So you would put more tax burden on the working class. Because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income just to survive. And the rich, who spend less (only 50% of what they earn) would end up with a huge tax break. Effectively the middle class would pay double the tax rate of the rich. You'd have to have a consumption tax of around 25% to make it work, and I think it would tank the economy further.
