Jobs and the U.S. Economy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-11-01/jobs-and-us-economy
For a majority of voters heading to the polls tomorrow, the economy remains the number one concern. Bush administration bank bailouts followed by President Obama’s targeted tax cuts, stimulus spending, and a life line for the U.S. auto industry have yet to lead to a meaningful dent in the nation’s unemployment rate. Democrats argue that the situation would be far bleaker without the dramatic steps from Washington. Republicans,including a number of Tea Party candidates, promise federal spending cuts, but offer very few specifics: the U.S. jobs picture and how to promote growth.
Guests
Bruce Bartlett
columnist for The Fiscal Times, former Reagan economic policy aide, and Treasury Department appointee under George H.W. Bush.Latest book: "The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward."
James Galbraith
economist; Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. chair in government/business relations and professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs; author of "The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too."
Rea Hederman
senior policy analyst, The Heritage Foundation.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Why not encourage a low cost "social capital stimulus" plan? Some people need help from a partner to start their business dream or connect with a new job opportunity. It won’t cost a lot of money for more churches and other non-profits to collaborate and open empty social halls for networking. Universities could bring students and alumni from complementary fields together to help form new start-ups.
Thank you,
Barry from Arizona
All that anyone who cares anything about their country need to do if they are even slightly curious which party's policies are more likely to improve economy, is take a few seconds to examine recent history.
If job creation IS the most important issue I wonder why more jobs were created during Clinton era (8 years) than 20 years of Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr. combined?? Or to put it another way; on average 250% more jobs were created in each of Clinton years than each year of Reagan, Bush SR, or W??
During Republican administrations "all boats" were not lifted.
Average American worker's wages have remained stagnant since the late 70's, while executive compensations increased 10, 20, 100, 400X . The economy didn't grow for everyone- just the wealthy. And during this time the average worker became more "expendable" in the eyes of upper management.
The richest couple percent of Americans and corporations presently have UNPRECEDENTED cash reserves, yet the product Republicans are selling is that if we extend tax cuts to the wealthy it will suddenly prompt hiring??? Right.
Republicans believe that there should be tax cuts for the wealthy when economic times are good (as when cuts were enacted by W following Clinton) and when economy is bad (now). What has happened to our economy since they were enacted SHOULD OFFER SOME KIND OF CLUE as to which course is more beneficial.
Republicans should be highly congratulated for their continued masterful ability to sell untruths.
DR, you and your guests refuse to talk about corporate responsibility to put patriotism ahead of profits in these hard times. Joblessness shows are always only about what individuals are doing or what the government is doing NEVER what corporations are doing. What you are missing is that people like me are refusing to buy from companies that put greed ahead of all else. We should support companies that help, and refuse to buy from those who don't. We should support media that reports the entire problem, and not those that refuse to talk about corporate responsibility.
Would your guests please discuss what is the role of corporations in times like these?
Do the captains of industry, who like to position themselves as tough guys who handle tough situations well -- sitting on all that cash -- have any role other than sitting on the sidelines, being oh-so-delicate in their actions? Not to mention carping as if they had a clue?
Me, angry? You bet. This country creates laws and policies based on what's good for corporations, even if individual citizens are stiffed in the process.
And yet, those big, burly corporations refuse to pay any positive role.
We, citizens, are serfs to them.
How can the United States pay the cost of two wars and at the same time lower the tax rate? All those congressmen and senators that voted for the war, should have increased taxes to pay for their decision.
self-deleted
Didn't the NYT report a couple weeks ago that corporations are effectively sitting on trillions of dollars with nowhere to put it? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/04borrow.html?_r=1&hp
Why would giving millionaires and billionaires more money through continued tax cuts make things better? Pay raises for everyone making under 100k will make things better.
Our country needs a reality check. It's my understanding that during WWII, the tax rate was around 90% for the wealthiest. Conservatives, who whine about tax hikes, need to take some responsibility for a war that most of them supported (save for Ron Paul).
Why not stop Congress' folly: Earmarks. Do any of you have any idea how outrageous earmark spending is with absolutely no requirement for measurement of success or failure? It's an out of control spigot for constant abuse year after year.
Raise withholding taxes? Scare tactics for the little guy. Tax increase would only be for people making more than $250,000 a year. Why did noone stop and explain this? The people making less than $20,000 a year are the ones who will not be affected, but they are the ones who don't understand that this will not affect them. Another case of the very rich and corporate manipulators fooling the poor and less-educated people to vote for the very people and laws that hurt THEMSELVES the most!
On "60 Minutes" last night, David Stockman advocates discontinuing
the Bush tax cuts for -- not just the rich -- but everyone. He also 15% surtax on the wealthiest Americans to help pay down the deficit. (I guess David is not afraid of the woodshed any longer!)
I think we've given the "trickle-down" theory enough of a test. It does NOT create jobs. What did we experience during Reagan and both Bush's years? An employers' market where wages are stagnant and employees are so afraid of being laid off they put up with just about anything.
What "Reaganomics" does for certain is make the rich richer and the middle class poorer. Just take a look at Chile's free market experiment and you will see U.S. if this nonsense of tax cuts/no regulation continues.
Does the panel believe that the banks are doing well by borrowing zero interest money and lending it back to the government? How do we end that and get them back to funding business?
The problem with our Monopoly economy is that a few players have all the chips, and everyone else is broke.
No business is going to hire new workers if consumers can't buy their products. Consumers can't buy products if their wages have lagged their productivity for thirty years, and they've had to borrow to the hilt to stay even. (Worker's productivity gains went to the top few percent.)
The economy crashed when banks discovered they'd made so many bad loans that they were broke, and therefore wouldn't extend more credit to consumers. But the failure of banks to lend is not the problem, because going further into debt makes no sense to most people. Furthermore, a stimulus package paid for by taxpayers that gives money to bankrupt and corrupt banks (quantitative easing) is not the solution.
The solution is to return the productivity gains to the workers. When workers have more money from wages (and not from borrowing), they will start spending again. They will start investing in education, infrastructure, and America in general.
I think the Bush tax cuts will need to be eliminated at some point. But let's not kid ourselves. Three quarters of the cuts, or$2.1 trillion, were for those taxpayers earnings less than $250K, while only one quarter of the cuts, or $700 billion were for those earning greater than $250k. I just don't think reversing them all at once during the worst economy since the great depression will do anything except reduce GDP and increase unemployment.
I think Peter Orzag's approach or something like it might make sense.
Please bring back exactly this same panel to continue today's discussion, not to talk about the past, not to talk about the present, especially not to talk about what might politically be possible for the future, but only to talk about what they themselves would ideally recommend doing for the future. Nothing should be off the table in their discussion. What do they recommend the country do going forward? Let's kick start a future looking set of ideas. thanks
George in Dallas
After listening to this mornings show it is evident that those in power who define the economy, seem to be more interested in holding the vision that a better economy is economic improvement of Wall Street and not Main Street. Remember those phrases during the presidential elections? At that time, Main Street was who's votes they were going for, and who is our country made of? Main Street, not the few in Wall Street. Who in the end if they do not spend money is in power of the bottom line of how our economy is doing? Main Street not Wall Street. If Wall Street was to disappear completely who would be left to grow the food, build the houses, teach at schools, fix the pipes and the cars, preach to the masses and fix your boo boos? You got it. Main Street. So who needs tax cuts, and low interest, and social security, health benefits and jobs...? If our government was to do their job and focus on the People who need them to govern them with integrity and interest in the People's welfare, they would turn around, penalize and reign in the huge monopolistic business' that continue to squeeze Main Street to the brink of ruin, and put our country back on track with balanced governing approaches to the needs of the People not Big money. Big money got us all into this mess, Big money need to be accountable for it's actions. Period.
Free Market Hemp can restore the economy and replace foriegn oil as a source of fuel. Why do you continue to have on one prognosticator after another who know about the problem in great detail but have no solutions? We need to produce something in this country, in enough quantity to make a difference, industrial hemp. Our country was established by hemp growers and we can grow our way out of this current economic mess created by the politicians listening to the empty bags the media spot lights. Free Market Hemp Diane, try it on, and you will see that it can make the difference.
The repeated comment toward the end of the segment, by both you and your guests, that "there is no inflation" is absolutely ridiculous. The government's definition of inflation may not indicate any in the very recent period, but all you have to do is go out of the house and engage in any activity that is necessary to sustain life and inflation is present, and has been for two years.
Food and energy, two things that we all probably buy on a daily basis, are much more expensive than they were last year, or even earlier this year. Any type of insurance, be it health related or be it auto or home insurance, is going up substantially at each renewal period.
For a show of such stature as yours to make and support comments that "there is no inflation" is disheartening and completely out of touch with reality.
Other than that, I enjoyed the segment.
From 2006 through 2010, the US federal government spent over five trillion dollars more than we have taken in. Of course, most of this was not officially labeled as “stimulus”. However, it is a difference in name only as it is all excess government spending designed to stimulate the economy. Much of the initial deficit spending is certainly the fault of Republicans but Democrats have continued with a new multi billion dollar spending program just about every other week.
How is borrowing and spending more $$$$ on top of this five trillion dollars of deficit spending going to inspire confidence by consumers and business and thereby improve the economy ?
Think about this. If you worked for a company that took in a million dollars every year but spent that million dollars plus another half million dollars of borrowed money EVERY SINGLE YEAR, how secure would you feel about your job?
Rea Hederman -- "businessmen," you say? Hello?
I was disappointed and frustrated by the stodgy thinking of these three panelists. The questions posed by email and callers were far more intelligent than the responses received. One of the panelists dismissed the deficit as irrelevant and another felt it was unfair to blame a shortage of jobs on corporations for sending jobs overseas. They offered nothing but tired commentary on maintaining the status quo - a stance that fails to address any of the problems of our current economy - problems that, if left unsolved, will destroy the middle class. I believe the primary goal of any economic policy should be to fully restore the middle class. The upper classes did not bail out the banks, taxpayers did.