If $900 billion in fiscal stimulus did not deliver us from high unemployment, perhaps another $450 billion will do the trick: That was the theory underlying President Obama’s speech. The same as before, but less impressive — which, come to think of it, isn’t a bad summary of this stage of his presidency.
Obama’s familiar hectoring tone, condescension, and pose of post-partisanship should not be allowed to obscure the fact that every so often he mentioned a good idea. A simultaneous reduction in corporate tax rates and corporate tax breaks was one. Extending the payroll-tax cut enacted last year was another. Enacting trade agreements would count as a third if the main obstacle to their enactment were not Obama himself and his congressional allies.
Advertisement
If President Obama were not so inflexibly liberal, there is much more he could have done to promote job growth. He claimed, for example, that his existing regulatory policy already balances economic goals with safety and environmental protection. On this point he was quite strident, pretending for example that Republicans had proposed to eliminate most regulations on the books. The fact is that the number of regulations, their cost, and the size of the work force at regulatory agencies have all increased substantially under this president, and that regulatory activism shows no signs of abating. A moratorium on new regulation until unemployment returns to a tolerable level would have cost the president no permanent ideological ground, but he was unwilling to propose it.
The rest of the speech was dismal. Obama wants a larger tax credit for companies that hire people who have been unemployed for six months or longer, which seems like an incentive for companies to fire some of their employees, replace them with eligibles, and pocket the credit. (It’s also an incentive for people not to take job offers if they are close to the six-month mark.) In the deficit-reduction portion of the speech, the president returned to his familiar theme that the rich need to pay their fair share. We have no objection to asking those with high incomes to give up subsidies — but where was the president’s call for changing entitlement programs to achieve that goal? Instead he seeks to raise taxes on capital income, which can hardly help the country’s long-term growth.
“This isn’t political grandstanding. . . . This is simple math,” said Obama, a few sentences after denouncing “tax loopholes for oil companies.” Actually, what simple math tells us is that these loopholes are an infinitesimal part of the deficit, and that their elimination has nothing to do with creating jobs. The attentive reader can determine what this reference was doing in the president’s speech.
Obama concluded with a college-freshman stab at political philosophy: We need to do things together that we cannot do on our own, and therefore we need big government. This discussion grew especially senseless whenever it touched on education. Assuming that government must construct and maintain schools, for example, why should it be a federal responsibility? “While they’re adding teachers in South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves.” What relevance the first datum had to the second was left unsaid. Are we to conclude that more teachers is always better? Or that unemployment among teachers — which is lower than the national average — is a particular tragedy? If so, why? Because the teachers’ unions are reliable foot soldiers of the Democratic party?
In one of the more ringing passages of the speech, Obama said, “The next election is 14 months away. And the people who sent us here — the people who hired us to work for them — they don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months.” No, they don’t. But we suppose they are going to have to.
I saw Hillary's picture on Drudge just now, and I have to say she's starting to look like George Washington as she ages. And from another perspective she'd look like George Washington compared to Barack Obama.
What I just wrote disturbed me greatly. Need to go wash my typing fingers.
BO is running the famous Martyball offensive scheme:
"The term "Marty Ball" is generally considered a pejorative because, at times, Schottenheimer will steadfastly continue to emphasize this form of offensive attack while attempting to hold on to a thin lead or when playing from behind - often with negative results."
It is interesting to note that coverage on last night's speech is already being regulated to the back pages of the news. The points of interest were not within President Obama's speech, but the events leading up to the speech. The first juicy tidbit being Obama’s arrogant presumption that he would summon Congress as a King summons his court. The second is that Obama attempted to gin up excitement about a so-called jobs plan, then attempted to diminish expectations. It also affected me that a President of the United States, calling together a joint session of Congress rolling out his administration's latest and greatest fix to our great economic and employment challenges, ultimately plays second fiddle to the 1st game of the NFL season.
This President is fundamentally unserious, fundamentally lost and fundamentally un-presidential. This is the (bad) joke presidency, no one is laughing.
What the House should do is pick as many possible parts on the obama bromide they can live with and pay for them by repealing obamacare. Pass that bill and send it to the Senate.
End of obamanation's campaign blame game strategy. Let him and the dems, especially Senate dems, support obamacare at the expense of obama's breathless, frantic, "Pass Now!" jobs bill.
Everyone of good sense continues to beat the drum of repealing Obamacare. And while that end result is surely a desired objective. I'd suggest that politically, the best tact would be to pass a law preventing any and all exemptions from it - including Congress, all Federal workers - Except for the military (they deserve their own, better system, they don't deserve the nonsense everyone will get). Let EVERYONE share in this godsend, let us all share the "sacrifice". Let the major supporters - the unions, et al, govt. workers - all share. Everyone.
I guarantee you. Pass that law, then watch the pressure from the left mount. Come on Congress, THINK! Hoist the left and their dogamtic dogs by their own petard. Make them eat what they have cooked up for everyone else!
This campaign speech is nothing more than cover for STIMULUS part 3/4/5/6...
The first trash-talking president, and an embarrassing sub-prime example of the "leader of the free world", has just proposed another TAX and SPEND program. Obama is using the familiar modus operandi of telling us to "pass the bill" before it's read and reasonable analysis of it's contents is made. Further, the Trash Talker and Chief doesn't provide details of how he will tax the "rich" and just says, "pass the bill" and we can worry about the little details later. How many times can America be sucker punched? Obama is the epitome of the school bully using intimidation tactics and his usual scam filled persuasion techniques. Will America learn next November or is it too late?
"...every so often he mentioned a good idea. A simultaneous reduction in corporate tax rates and corporate tax breaks was one. Extending the payroll-tax cut enacted last year was another."
Pardon me, but could someone please explain that last one to me?
The "payroll tax" is otherwise known as FICA contribution, AKA the Social Security tax. Even the dumber of my two cats* knows that Social Security is rapidly going broke. How does slashing the amount of money that the system takes in, without a concurrent slash in the benefits payable, do anything but hasten the day when the system goes belly-up?
* That's Bluto, who's 19+ years old and shows many of the signs of senility, such as starting to come into the house when he's called for dinner, then apparently forgetting where he was going halfway to the door, using the dining room rug for a toilet...)
Amen, Bernie. If a Republican was proposing this he'd be accused of gutting SS. We have a debt problem and an entitlement problem and the payroll-tax cut exacerbates both.
Social Security is already broke. It pays out more than it receives in FICA taxes. The reduction in revenues for this tax break is paid by the current deficit.
No, Anton, Social Security is NOT already broke. Yes, its outgo is greater than its income, but that is a relatively recent development; for decades, the system took in more than it paid out, and the excess was invested in U.S. government bonds. Social Security still holds those bonds, and can - at least theoretically - cash them in to meet the revenue shortfall.
The problem is, the revenue shortfall gets bigger when you cut the FICA tax. That means you have to cash in the bonds faster, to make up the difference. And when the last bond is cashed in, THEN the system is broke.
Doesn't the Treasury have to borrow more money when Social Security cashes in those bonds? In that case isn't the entire system broke when Treasury canno longer redeem those bonds?
Regardless SS is a Ponzi scheme. Under the original conditions of about 2% tax and benefit receipt about 2 years before end of expected life, and a huge payee/recipient ratio; it might have worked. Now, with 15% tax and a 2 to 1 payee/recipient ratio... no way.
It amazes me that politicians go after Social Security which goes, for the most part, to the elderly who have worked most of their lives while they leave Welfare alone which goes to thousands, or tens of thousand of healthy men and women who can work but who don't want to and who live well off their welfare checks and food stamps. We could save billions if this issue was looked into. Those who truly need welfare, let them receive it - those who don't, put them to work.
I read the speech and heard the first 5 minutes, my apolitical wife was doing her hair when Obama said this plan will not cost anything...my wife just started laughing...We had to go as we were celebrating 10 years since I asked her to marry me.
I was taken back by the tone of the speech - its sounded like a used car salesman/or Carnival hustler - Every time I heard "Pass this Plan" I thought..."Step Right up, step right up..."
Having watched Obama's speeches wane in effectiveness, from a political standpoint I thought he might have had a good one in him. I thought maybe he triangulates to survive, put forth some corporate tax cuts, regulations moratorium,and heaven forbid open up domestic production of oil. Sure he would be reversing course...but such items would be hard to vote against, would improve the economy, and help him get re-elected so that he could then screw things up again. Instead he just double down on his policy. Insanity is trying the same thing twice and expecting different results. Politically speaking Obama doesn't have much time left for things to turn around. A growing population cannot afford to grow at less than 1%, Employment since the Recession ended, is averaging somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 per month at a time when you need 125,000 to keep up with population growth. Bottom line is small business has no confidence in Obama and large corporations are looking overseas. Until that changes there will not be any job growth until after Obama is gone. Companies will continue to run lean until they believe conditions warrant expansion.
My (also) apolitical wife heard him and said, "He sounds like an infomercial salesman. Why does he keep dropping his voice and sounding whiney when he wants to make a point?" If he has lost the apolitical wives, he has lost America.
Building a strong structure frequently requires the "creative destruction" of the inferior structure -- or plan for one -- that stands in the way. That is what this editorial accomplishes.
