Politico advanced GOP claim about stimulus plan's effect on job growth
SUMMARY: The Politico reported the GOP claim that "it may take years before the stimulus plan spurs real job growth" and highlighted a video showing "a Joint Committee on Taxation staffer tell[ing] Michigan Rep. Dave Camp that he can't promise that the $275 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus will create any new jobs." In fact, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf has stated of the bill: "According to CBO's estimates, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011."
In a January 29 Politico article, staff writer Patrick O'Connor reported that "Republicans complain that it may take years before the stimulus plan spurs real job growth," later adding that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) "showed his rank and file a video that saturated the Internet last week -- including prominent placement on The Drudge Report -- in which a Joint Committee on Taxation staffer tells Michigan Rep. Dave Camp that he can't promise that the $275 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus will create any new jobs." However, O'Connor did not note that during his January 27 testimony before the House Committee on the Budget, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Douglas W. Elmendorf stated of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: "According to CBO's estimates, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011."
From Elmendorf's January 27 congressional testimony:
In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation. With the legislation, CBO estimates, output would be between 1.3 percent and 3.6 percent higher at the end of this year, higher by a similar amount at the end of next year, and 0.5 percent to 1.4 percent higher at the end of 2011. That additional production would raise the demand for workers, turning some part-time jobs into full-time jobs and boosting the number of people employed. According to CBO's estimates, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011.
From O'Connor's January 29 Politico article:
Republicans complain that it may take years before the stimulus plan spurs real job growth, but the debate has already given one political figure job security: House Minority Leader John A. Boehner.
Until the president's $820 billion plan landed in Congress, Boehner was on shaky footing inside his own caucus. But now, as he heads into the House Republicans' annual retreat this weekend in Hot Springs, Va., the Ohio Republican can use the stimulus as a unifying rallying cry for his decimated troops.
[...]
Boehner had a very rough fall; he stood with [former President] Bush on the bailout, only to watch his rank and file desert him en masse.
But he's struck a more militant pose this year -- while trying to play nice with President Barack Obama.
"I don't think the bill we're considering today meets President Obama's test," Boehner told reporters Tuesday.
At the retreat, Boehner will urge his fellow Republicans to launch an "entrepreneurial insurgency," according to an aide, while ignoring "inside baseball."
In a speech to his rank and file down at the Homestead resort this weekend, Boehner will encourage them to use Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, blogs and any other electronic tool to communicate with constituents.
Boehner showed his rank and file a video that saturated the Internet last week -- including prominent placement on The Drudge Report -- in which a Joint Committee on Taxation staffer tells Michigan Rep. Dave Camp that he can't promise that the $275 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus will create any new jobs.
I wonder; have any of the Trickle-Downers actually examined the causes of this recession to discover which cause is a direct result of taxes being too high? It seems logical to look at the cause first and work backward toward a cure.
Are corporations laying off thousands of workers because their taxes are too high? Are millions of people defaulting on mortgages because their taxes are too high? Are banks refusing to lend money because their taxes are too high?
Did the Wall Street Leeches divide up toxic mortgages into little slivers and poison the world financial market with bad investment vehicles because their taxes were too high?
Just asking.
And exactly what is the Republican alternative plan...other than TAX CUTS?
And what exactly is bad about tax cuts?
They have been proven effective, tax cuts and a reduction in spending. The government like or not cannot simply create 3 million jobs overnight. BO's proposed plan is extremely similar to the New Deal that was brought about by FDR, which pro-longed the depression 7 years until WWII began bringing us out of because of the demand of jobs.
Government nonintervention is the best way to help the economy, not intervention. Tax cuts and then let the free market work itself out, not all this government bail out and buying up shares BS.
In other words, I am correct...the only alternative solution offered by the Republicans is tax cuts. Seems like a familiar refrain to me...like a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. There is nothing inherently wrong with tax cuts but I believe its trickle down effect is greatly exaggerated.
I am simply pointing out that tax cuts work, and to question them and the trickle down effect may not be the best course of action for a dampening economy.
As proven countless times before, we cannot spend our way out of a bad economy, nor can we raise taxes. It just doesn't work.
And actually, there are 2 other alternative solutions offered by Republicans.
One was the tax-free holiday for 3 months (the government hangs on to the remaining bail-out money and thusly doesnt collect any income taxes for 3 months)
The other is, give 46% of the bail-out money to Republicans to do their plan (tax cuts) and give 53% to Democrats to try their bail-out and in 4 years we can see which plan was most effective.
I'll repeat my question: Which part of this recession was caused by taxes being too high?
It wasnt caused by taxes being too high, we know that.
However, tax cuts are a better solution to fixing the economy as opposed to raising taxes or the government buying up shares and taking over the business and/or economy.
If a business is failing, it deserves to fail. Sucks but it was failing for a reason and doesn't/shouldn't be bailed out.
If possible the Democrats should go back to their original plan. Screw the Republicans and the tax cuts. They've shown the president that they're not interested in bipartisanship.
They control the presidency, the House and the Senate. Let the Republicans go back to their constituents and preach against the jobs and the infrastructure and for more tax cuts.
We can't give tax cuts to people who aren't making salaries because they're out of work.
President BO hasnt shown any desire for bipartisanship either. His hope was to get as many moderate Republicans to favor his decisions so that when they completely fail, he won't be entirely to blame. Unfortunetly, no House Republicans voted for his stimulus plan yesterday.
"We can't give tax cuts to people who aren't making salaries because they're out of work." Same reason why we shouldn't give them a tax credit since they're not paying taxes either. Same reason why I shouldn't be responsible for paying for their healthcare, or college funds, or any other Obama hope he wants to implemant.
That's bizarre. So he forwarded a plan that he expects to fail, knowing that the right-wing echo chamber will blame him for it no matter what? And what difference does it make if Republicans voted for it or not? As if they wouldn't dare blame Obama for anything if some of their own did so?
you honor that with a response? wow.
He wanted Republicans to vote for his plan so that in the situation that if it does fail, Republicans can be attributed to the cause of the problem.
And to be honest, he's proposing this plan because he thinks it may generally work. Obama thinks FDR's New Deal failed because he didn't spend enough money, so to Obama, this new spending stimulus plan may work.
If that's the only reason he wanted bipartisan support, then House Republicans aren't very bright. They should have just left the bill alone instead of demanding concessions, because those concessions can cause them to be "attributed to the cause of the problem".
What, exactly, should you pay for?
Well, as the name implies, I believe people are best off with the least amount of government in their life.
So what should my taxes pay for? A very libertarian view which includes defence spending (military) and outside of that a very minimal amount of anything.
Education, healthcare, anything not guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, should be left to the private sector. So,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
So the government can guarantee all 3 of those by defending us from foreign invaders and then by steering clear so that I can pursue whatever happiness and life that I would like.
President BO hasnt shown any desire for bipartisanship either.
You couldn't be more wrong!
The president met privately with House Republicans at the Capitol, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had a private White House dinner for House GOP moderates, and the president had members of both parties and both chambers over for cocktails last night.
THAT'S in less than 2 weeks in office, while Bush only meet with House Democrats, 3 times in 8 YEARS!
Wasn't it the Republicans who objected the the "family planning" portion of the stimulus bill? And wasn't it Obama, who asked Democrats to remove that from the stimulus bill?
Republicans appear to STILL be confused about the meaning of "bipartisanship".
The Republicans are just trying to score points with their Troglodyte base. Period. They don't give a rat's butt about bipartisanship.... they proved it when they were in control of everything.
"GOP Moderates"
The majority of the GOP lies more "slightly conservative to more conservative" rather than "moderate", my point being he's meeting with people that are more liberal than conservative and don't represent what the majority of the party believes in.
His stimulus plan is hardly bipartisan, seeing that not a single Republican and 11 Democrats voted no on it in the House.
His cabinet appointments have been mostly ex-Clintonites. So his mantra of "change" and "bipartisanship" is overshadowed by appointing alot of the old, not the new.
Im willing to give him a chance, but Im just tired of the media always playing up his bipartisanship when we havent seen a true bill of bipartisanship.
This act that "change" meant that Obama was going to appoint unknowns or neophytes to cabinet-level positions is just ludicrous. The "change" was from the ways of Bush, since the vast majority of the country felt he was leading us down the wrong track. And a Democrat can have Democrats in his cabinet and still be bipartisan, because that's about compromise. It doesn't mean the administration is going to be half-Democrat, half-Republican or something.
Most obviously, if Republicans want to march in lockstep, then that doesn't say anything about any bill they oppose. Obama made an effort to compromise and make concessions to the Republicans, that doesn't disappear just because they want to play games instead of participating in governance.
Yes -- and thank you for saying it. It is time for the Repubitards to be shown the door in the decision making process unless they have something valid to bring to the table.
Wait. I almost made myself do a spit take.
Can you believe those Republicans not being Bipartisan like the Democrats were the past 8 yrs?
I seem to recall Democrats cooperating with the President in time of economic crisis, such as the passage of Bush's banking industry bailouts.
And we all remember how gracious the Republican majority was, don't we?
YEESSSS ... Just like all Dems voted against the Iraq war, is that right?
Good point. If this stimulus package does work those Reps who voted against it are going to have a lot of explaining to do come the 2010 midterms.
Wait a minute. Are the Reps arguing against the tax cuts? Just the other day they said that was th only part of the bill they agreed with. Oh well. I guess the sensible thing to do would be to drop the $275 billion in tax cuts.
As FDR poured money into infrastructure projects how long before 'jobs' were created? When Japan went into significant deficit spending how long before jobs were created (during their 1990's recession)? I believe in the case of teh NEw Deal about 4 years before real job growth, in Japan 7 years.
Maybe the experts on here can tell us why this time with this package it will happen sooner? What analog is there for this?
Would the W.P.A. have been considered a 'job'? or are you not counting that program?
Maybe you can give us an example of massive tax cuts creating jobs in a worldwide recession like this one....
BACK TO BASICS needs a history lesson concerning the NEW DEAL. He's been drinking the RIGHTWING koolaid for too long.
Same reason why I shouldn't be responsible for paying for their healthcare, or college funds, or any other Obama hope he wants to implemant.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe scienceguy has returned to the boards!
Oboy more posts of how studly his personal and professional life is...joy.
Just one more douchebag preaching Social Darwinism and calling it "compassionate conservatism."
Evidently someone doesn't quite understand the New Deal either.
It was not the New Deal that did skadush to help the economy. FDR had control for 7 years watching the economy continue to struggle under his new plan of mega spending and supposed "job creation" that Obama wants to introduce.
It was the war in 1939 that began to pull us out of the Depression, not this "New Deal"
BACK TO BASICS You still dont understand history,In the 4 years between 1929 and 1932, the REPUBLICAN response to the criscs was like today, DO NOTHING , THE MARKET WILL CORRECT ITSELF, PROSPERITY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER. Well their ideas didn't work, things got worse. if you dont believe me ask someone who lived during the GREAT DEPRESSION. When ROOSEVELT took over the GOVERNME started spending and slowly between 1932 and 1937 unemployment went DOWN. For the first time there was HOPE instead of DISPAIR. That was the NEW DEAL'S greatest legacy, HOPE,where there had been none at all. Then when the war came in 1939 how do you think that pulled us out of the DEPRESSION? I'll tell you, by GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. The GOVERNMENT SPENT 10 TIMES THE MONEY DURING THE WAR YEARS THAN DURING THE NEW DEAL. Go pick up a god ,accurate. history book of the era