President Obama's Jobs Bill
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-13/president-obamas-jobs-bill
Yesterday President Obama urged Congress to pass his $447 billion jobs proposal with ‘no games, no politics, no delays”. It’s a plan that includes tax cuts for working Americans and small businesses. It also includes spending on teachers, schools, and infrastructure. President Obama says his plan will put people back to work and incorporates ideas from both the left and the right, but some Congressional Republicans raised immediate objections to plans to pay for the bill which include higher taxes on wealthier families. Join us to discuss the ongoing political struggle to find ways to spur job growth
Guests
Jared Bernstein
senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; former chief economist and economic policy adviser for Vice President Biden.
Jonathan Weisman
White House reporter for "The Wall Street Journal."
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.
Gotta say, I'll be tuning in with low expectations. The fact that two thirds of the guests are a WSJ reporter and a Heritage foundation analyst doesn't bode well for reality-based discussion.
I hope the host keeps the program locked-down very tightly against distortion and conjecture.
That jobs bill that obama is proposing is the SOS as the previous Recovery Act. Remember we were sold that the Recovery Act was going to be for building bridges,etc and putting all these unemployed people back to work. Just a pack of lies. Wonder how many jobs it created and cost per job created.
This is going to be more the same but fuller and deeper.
This latest "jobs bill" is nothing more than a reckless self serving political attempt to stage a debate between republicans and Obama. My worry is that there will be a wasteful compromise that will do nothing to help and everything to increase the national debt for no reason. You really have to wonder about a guy who is willing to do anything for a second term.
It seems like this new "jobs" bill is more of the same but packaged a little different. Why do all of these jobs bills seem to focus more on retaining more public sector jobs than really going after those who aren't protected by public unions ? It seems we tried this route before and it failed, but then again those in need are not supported by public unions and elected officials on the public dime.
American corporations are sitting on tons of capital, yet not hiring and investing, claiming "uncertainty". I think they're actually holding jobs for a ransom from the republican congress, which after all they fund, of favorable de-regulation. Just look at what's been said already by republicans about jobs, and watch what develops. In such a pivotal election year, the power of now unregulated corporate political money is enormous.
Topics ignored will be, deliberate deception that allowed entry into war, total costs of war in funds and lives, the ongoing costs of the war, deliberate killing of citizens by "them" at WTC that justifies our "shock and awe" bombing of cities and their citizens, drone guided killing of innocent people in various states, and finally the silence of faiths and religions defending human rights.
Marvin Wagner (good and correct) Also ignored are the absence of a comprehensive energy policy at a time past peak oil when the USA has less than 2% of world crude oil reserves. Drill, drill, drill will make Swiss cheese of our ecology. Even the "natural gas bridge" to sustainables is not being built as we bully for oil on every continent. At some point the gas of our militarism exceeds the net fuel gained. Where is the research and implementation needed for conversion to sustainables without CO2? The answer may be blowing in the next hurricane.
The price of crude quadrupled under the 8 years of Bush ($22 up to $91 a barrel) and has climbed and solidified under Obama. It was a major pressure inducing defaults in 2008, and it hobbles retail demand now, while wages and benefits shrink.
Another suppressed issue are the Asian free trade agreements Boehner is demanding. If passed Obama would be crating another 5 million living waged "jabs" for export. Will he negotiate away another official point on unemployment just to extend unemployment benefits? Maybe so.
Interesting. Nothing on the Diane Rehm show today about Erdogans visit to Cairo. The upcoming vote at the UN for Palestinian statehood. Looks like the DR show is avoiding these issues. HMMMM
Here you go folks
Erdogan in Cairo
Erdoğan in Cairo, coinciding with detoriation in Egyptian-Israeli relations
link to nl-aid.org
Brotherhood welcomes Turkish PM Erdogan at Cairo airport
link to english.youm7.com
Turkey influence rises as PM starts Arab tour
link to english.aljazeera.net
link to cihanmedya.com
Professor Juan Cole has a good one up about Erdogan’s visit to Cairo
link to juancole.com
“Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Cairo on Tuesday morning, being greeted at the airport by thousands of cheering Egyptians.
Even though two dramatic moments envisaged by Erdogan’s staff– a side trip to Gaza and a speech in Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo– have been cancelled, the visit is nevertheless an important one. Erdogan will explore trade deals and military cooperation with Egypt.”
Dear Diane,
Hopefully this comment makes it on the air today.
I imagine that any politician who stands up for the American family, worker and future and says "no" to corporations and businesses that do not do the same. The American people would rally around such a POLITICAL LEADER. Markets do not operate by themselves. Corporate actors make decisions to send work, etc out of the country. We Americans are looking for strong politicians that will stand up for us - Republican, Democrat or otherwise. We know when we see a political leader that will stand up for us. Americans are not as ignorant as often assumed.
Paul from Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Listening to NPR this morning I heard someone from the administration (it might have been in the "economy" segment) talking about the President's bill and how it was needed to create jobs, how it was paid for, etc. When I have moments of extreme clarity, they always seem to be in the morning, and this morning was a doozy. I thought, where in the Constitution is the government mandated to create jobs? It isn't. It's mandated to regulate commerce, not participate in it. Why do we think it is a good thing for government to take 1/2 B of our hard-earned money to "create jobs". It's supposed to be "paid for" (based on whose estimates?!) by closing "loopholes" in the tax law. But what if, instead of being an intermediary "creating jobs", the government just cut the tax rate on business, particularly manufacturing to zero. It would certainly remove the incentive to cheat - there would be no reason to. And do you think that would spur businesses to invest? I've been calling for this for a YEAR - it sounded in the debate last night like Rick Santorum has finally picked up the drum beat. Get government out of the way. Keynesian, top down, economics has failed.
Because it is two years late coming, the Republican House will never let it pass. This is probably just political maneuvering by the White House to paint the Republicans as the party of 'No'. If it's not, why wasn't this proposed out of the gate in 2008?
Grady Lee Coward wrote:
"Also ignored ..."
Not ignored is the gall you have to show up here without addressing the fact that you called me a racist, with aboslutely NO basis. Have you found that post yet? You know, the one you were referring to when you called me a racist. What did it say? Share it with the class?
Perhaps you were just shooting your mouth off. Perhaps the rest of your posts also have NO CREDIBILITY.
Now, let's watch as you scurry off like the coward you are instead of facing up to your scurulous charge and admitting you were wrong.
Put up or shut up. You called me a racist. It's a serious charge. Prove it.
More jobs would be great if wages were decent to cover the costs of basic needs. According to a recently published report ("Household Food Security in the US in 2010") by the USDA based on the US 2010 Census survey of 45,000 households, 49 million Americans (1 in 6) experienced food insecurity due to unemployment and an increase in rent. Twenty percent of the households had children. And 10% of these could not count on any meal. The highest percent of these households were in the south, with Mississippi topping the list at 19.4% followed by Texas at 18.8%, compared to New Hampshire and Virginia at 6.9%.
So we hear how terrible it would be if hedge fund managers had to pay the same tax rate the rest of us do. So if their rates were raised, we're left to believe that they would all quit their jobs and do something else. Where else would they find a job that pays so well?
I believe a lot of you are either deblierate obtuse or as I see lately, pick and choose what they want to see, hear, listen to, like the three monkeys. No way do I believe George Bush gave these people over 10+ of tax breaks and they still created no jobs. WHY? Before this presidencey. Well, why? THEY caused the crash. Not Bush and definitely not Obama(he was not there). The same village idiots deliberately not hiring. As a black person, I know the right will deny all. They will not agree with a black president. Spare me. You have the village idiots asking their picks to sign a document which reads my grandchildren would be better off in 1860. They were told by the a radio personality not to let anything he tries, succeed. You do not hold the feet ot the fire the bigots running, Mitch Romney, for one, belongs to a church that has taught and practiced black people were meant to be the white man's slave, even after death. Nothing said. Reverand Wright could not preach a sermon in his church. It's all about who is the president. He's too nice to them. Needs to go for the gonads more often.
Dear Diane,
I posted a comment earlier this morning regarding a strong political leader that might stand up for the American family, the American worker and American environmental health.
I do not tune into the Diane Rhem show to listen to argumentation with Ray. We all understand Ray's positions and to spend 30 minutes on these arguments is not what your American listeners want to hear. Please listen to us and air our views.
Dr. Paul Hanson
Dear Diane,
I posted a comment earlier this morning regarding a strong political leader that might stand up for the American family, the American worker and American environmental health.
I do not tune into the Diane Rhem show to listen to argumentation with Ray. We all understand Ray's positions and to spend 30 minutes on these arguments is not what your American listeners want to hear. Please listen to us and air our views.
Dr. Paul Hanson
"As a black person, I know the right will deny all. They will not agree with a black president. Spare me. "
So pisces. You believe all Republicans and/or conservatives are either racist or stupid or both? Does that about sum up your views?
You are a black man. I am not.
I would like to take both you and Grady Lee Coward, have the three of us line up and see who gives more money to causes that benefit black people (on a percentage basis, of course). I tithe my income - not to my church, but to charities that help, in large part blacks, because most of the poor where I live are black.
How about you?
Now, am I stupid or racist?
I don't say this to boast and actually, I loathe posting it. I post this to make a point that the charge of racism is a serious one. Those who make it with no basis, like you and Grady Lee Coward do far more to HURT the cause of blacks than to help it. It makes people numb to the charge. It will no longer have meaning. You can't make the charge when you have no evidence, no factual basis to make it - not just cause you don't like the other side and feel like, if they oppose the President, it MUST be because he's black.
Shame on both of you.
Perpetuating failed policies that are paid for by unfair tax increases and debt increases is not a compromise worth making.
Nobody is talking about no rules and no regulation, stop creating this straw-man offense.
Regulation forces higher costs of capital because it necessitates expenses and higher reserves. Even somebody who worked for Biden should get that.
Most of the last stimulus went to the states to pay their normal day-to-day bills, offsetting lower sales, transfer and property tax revenues. With the end of stimulus, home values still falling and consumers saving; states now have to right-size their bureaucracies, painful but necessary. If only the Federal government had to balance its budget.
In some ways it is quite simple from my viewpoint, but I have seen no politician espouse this viewpoint. Business and corporations get their contract to exist from their usefulness to society and to their shareholders both (who are part of society) so now we need to tie tax breaks and a lower corporate tax code to job creation. If indeed small businesses are the engine of job growth then most of the benefits will then flow to small businesses. Keep the tax rate at 35% but eliminate most loop holes and then lower the rate a percentage point for every percentage point of jobs added down to say 10% or 15% as a base below which no profitable business can go. Also, we should find a way to eliminate accounting tricks by taxing gross income at some small rate. Finally, we should find some way to give credit for keeping long term jobs and high wage jobs intact. I realize that there needs to be some accommodation for businesses that have to lay off employees because of temporary downturns in their markets, but this can all be accommodated in the bill. This will achieve some of what we have lacked with our "free markets" and that is making businesses have some social responsibility and not just a responsibility to make profits for their shareholders at any lengths their management are willing to go to and take.
I briefly tuned this morning, and heard one of the guests comment that one of the major impediments to job growth is regulation (environmental, working conditions, etc.) and that simply easing these will stimulate economic activity. Instead of that solution, why not just impose the same standards of safety and cleanliness that we have for ourselves on our trading partners? How can we expect to create jobs when the playing field is so uneven? Sure, lowering taxes can generate consumption, but how will that create jobs when the products being consumed are coming from China which doesn't have to adhere to the same environmental and safety standards and manipulates its currency to ensure that they win. Doesn't a part of the solution lie in our improving our "competitiveness", which is very low now not due to any problem in our productivity, but rather to unfairness in the rules of the game?
Most economists and policy makers fail to realize that in the world 'free' market that we currently participate, jobs and growth are 'zero-sum'. China's (and all the others) gain is America's/Europe's loss. Forget incenting NEW business investment, travel to Martinsville Va or Detroit MI or all across America and you will see thousands of factories that are idle. What we need is a 'most favored nation' for America business and retailers dedicated to favoring American products.
Raising taxes on the rich is NOT the answer. Higher taxes on the rich only lead to higher prices, since business owners/professionals/high skill workers tend to demand the wages they desire and only add their tax bill onto the prices they charge for their services. The only thing that changes is that the government has wasted the tax income and prices has gone up for low and middle income consumers.
John Rothgeb wrote:
"This will achieve some of what we have lacked with our "free markets" "
Sorry, John, markets have not been "free" in a long, long time.
The FG manipulates every market that exists with subsidies and tax breaks. They are the ones that try to pick (read: manufacture) winners and losers. Don't pretend that it is "free" markets that are the problem.
Thank you Diane for a great show today! It's been a while since there has been one quite so balanced. Very interesting and informative.
ericwino wrote:
"Higher taxes on the rich only lead to higher prices"
You've grasped the simple concept that so many miss. I have posted on this here before. "Businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers do". It's a simple principle, but an absolute truism. When you raise taxes, consumers pay more. It's as simple as that.
Great program, separating the hackery from the facts. Case in point: we do have one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates, and refusing any measure to close loopholes (as Canter does) shows where those "leaders'" interests lie.
By most accounts the Recovery Act was in the right direction, but not enough - do people really need to be reminded who took the teeth out of that?
Hey kitty, nice to see you're still around. I'm still waiting for your answer on this one from a couple of weeks ago on NAR "influencing" the policies that Rick Perry implemented in Texas. If it "very much affected his governing" you should not have a problem demonstrating that.
kitty wrote:
"Well - for starters, since you seem incapable or unwilling (more like) to find it yourself"
Find what? You referenced a link that talks about New Apostolic Reformation and the rallys at which Perry appeared. So what. After I counted up all the instances in there where his beliefs influenced policies he implemented, I had exactly ... (drum roll please) ... zero.
My challenge to you still stands. You say, "it has very much affected his governing". You have shown NO EVIDENCE for that at all. Show us the policies he's implemented in TX driven by NAR. So far, you've shown us exactly ... (drum roll please) ... zero. I'll keep checking back.
Why do we focus solely on government to solve our nations unemployment problem? I hear over and over about wage depression on one hand and corporate coffers growing on the other. Shouldn't corporations step up, take the initiative and start raising wages/salaries? I'd spend more, and then demand would pick up etc etc ...??
JSawyer wrote:
"By most accounts (who's?!) the Recovery Act was in the right direction, but not enough "
I have just three words for you J ... "shovel ready jobs".
"Higher taxes on the rich only lead to higher prices"
Merely raising taxes wouldn't magically close loopholes, end government manipulation, and bring us a functioning progressive tax system. Witness Germany, Canada, much of Europe - they have much more progressive tax systems - and boast much stronger employment and currencies (and housing).