That’s what an analysis from Macroeconomic Advisers — the economic consulting firm founded by former (Clinton-nominated) Federal Reserve governor Larry Meyer — has to say about the jobs plan President Obama is expected to unveil in a speech next week. The analysis examines the potential impact of the various policies that, according to unofficial reports, the president is likely to recommend. These include:
-
An extension of federal funding for emergency unemployment benefits
-
An extension of the payroll tax holiday, possibly expanded to include the employers’ portion of Social Security taxes
-
An extension of temporary business “expensing” of capital investments
-
A new tax credit for businesses that increase the size of their workforce
-
Infrastructure spending, perhaps including renovation of public schools
-
A job-training program targeting the long-term unemployed, possibly modeled after a program in Georgia
The report essentially concludes that while all of these measures might have be of some, albeit minimal, economic benefit in the short term, they will do practically nothing to fundamentally address the unemployment problem. That hardly comes as a surprise, given that these “new ideas” are simply a rehash of the same policies Obama has pushed since taking office.
A look at how the analysis breaks down, by individual policy proposal, after the jump.
Extension of payroll tax holiday, unemployment benefits, and business expensing:
We estimate that extending through 2012 the employee payroll tax holiday, emergency unemployment benefits, and business expensing provisions would boost employment roughly 600,000* by the end of next year, with the effect quickly dissipating over the following two years.
*If so, this would amount to just enough to keep pace with natural workforce growth.
Employer payroll tax cut:
A temporary reduction in the employer payroll tax in 2012 may pull some employment forward from later years, as might a temporary tax credit for hiring, but we expect these effects to be negligible in such a weak economy.
Infrastructure spending:
Infrastructure spending can make good economic sense in both the short-run and long-term, particularly at today’s low interests rates, but takes time to ramp up and will be limited in scope by current political realities.
Training programs:
Training programs could results in the faster re-employment of some workers, reducing structural unemployment. However, because none of these ideas address the main impediment to hiring — persistently insufficient final demand — our expectations for the success of a jobs bill are, well, not so great. [emphasis added]
This is the kind of thing we've come to expect from President Check the Box. President to advisors: "I need a plan, any plan, GIVE ME A PLAN!" I wonder if anyone has scored the effects of the policies that we really need: a two or three year moratorium on new regulations, repeal of Obamacare and Dobbs-Frank, and a President who's dedicated to cheerleading for private sector profit-making, not scorning it and threatening to grind it to dust with new taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's that definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Maddness, sheer maddness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe effect on jobs may be negligible, but the effect on the budget won't be. For example, the current payroll tax holiday is over $100 billion per year. Compare that to the annual spending cuts in the debt limit deal - and now they want to throw another $100 billion plus at the employer side? It's just digging the hole we're in deeper. (Probably polls well though.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"An extension of temporary business “expensing” of capital investments."
Followed by demagoguing said 'expensing' as another giveaway to "millionaires and billionaires."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow.
He's a genius.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Giggler, is your comment sarcastic? It's hard to tell since we cannot hear your voice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"A new tax credit for businesses that increase the size of their workforce"
ummm, if a tax credit for businesses was a permanent cut, wouldn't THAT encourage businesses to expand? The government's deal is "stick your neck out first" and "we promise".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe there is a factual error in the first sentence. It says up there that Obama will present a jobs "plan".
As OMB (sic?) already reminded us, "a speech is not a plan."
Obama is just giving another speech. Let me be perfectly clear: straw men will be set afire, and the stock market will fall hundreds of points. Meanwhile long term unemployment will continue. The only jobs "plan" here is Obama's plan to keep his job for four more years by blame-casting all his problems on to Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh good, more spending and debt! What a great plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, so did anyone actually read the full article? Because y'all seem to be cheering the conclusions without remotely understanding the premise.
Because what it says is basic macroeconomics: which is that the measures likely to be proposed won't work because THEY ARE INSUFFICIENTLY STIMULATIVE.
In other words, in order to make a real dent in unemployment, we need to have a substantial SHORT TERM INCREASE in federal government spending in order to boost aggregate demand.
Now, this is blindingly obvious to anyone with a grasp of real world economics, but in the bizarro world of NRO economics, it pays to type slowly and in capitals in order for the point not to be missed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn Keynesian bizzaro land, doing the same ineffective wasteful act in greater measure makes sense and debt "doesn't matter" (to quote idiot Cheney). You need to lay off the Krugman, dog - that stuff will mess up your mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe other name for what you call "Keynesian bizarro land" is "Macroeconomics 101".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's bizarre is your continued beleif that govt spending is stimulative. Hasn't 100 years of failure been enough?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, hang on a sec ... are you going to tell me that the level of government spending has NO impact on the level of overall economic activity?
I mean, argue about the mulitplier, argue about the efficiency, and so on, but posting a dumb statement like that just shows that you're trying to repeat things that you heard somewhere that you hope are true but don't even faintly understand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy friends, you're right that stimulus doesn't work. But gbh is also right: if you RTFA, you'll see right away that *Macroeconomic Advisers* thinks stimulus work. Their critique of the plan is pure Keynesianism. They even lay the final blame for the ongoing recession at the feet of "persistently insufficient final demand". For that reason, it was extremely weird to read it on NRO as if it was some kind of triumph for conservatives. Quite the opposite: it's a liberal policy report by a liberal institution demanding Obama become more liberal to save the economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI may be a bit naive here but I wanted to address/ask about one of the points of this warmed-over dog vomit that President Joint-session-Pants is going to put forth:
This so-called employee payroll tax holiday is not a holiday at all. It is more like a "payroll tax afternoon off". Insofar as I can determine, it's only a 2% reduction of the Social Security portion of our 7.62% FICA tax. So we get -- what -- $20 (or less) from every $1,000 of income?
Please let me know if I am wrong, but to me that's gonna create a lot of jobs or spending. It's kinda like Social Security for those of who are over 65 and *still* have to work: we pay taxes on 85% of what we get, we *still* have to pay into it, and -- except for infrequent COLA raises -- our benefits are the same as when we started collecting despite having to pay into it.
Typical freaking government crooked Ponzii scheme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse