SchizOnomics – Job Creation In The Time Of Obama
The first lesson every President learns is that in trying to please all his constituents he pleases no one, including himself.
President Obama sold the $800 billion Stimulus Plan to the American people as a strategy to create untold infrastructure jobs. If fact, President Obama said the stimulus plan would save or create 3.5 million jobs in the next two years and that he hoped to limit the unemployment rate to a peak of 8% this summer. In typical political bait and switch fashion his democratic Congress allocated 8% of the stimulus money to infrastructure projects. Instead of infrasturture jobs Congress gave us cornucopia of social programs that have been on their wish list for decades, leaving the President with egg on his face.
The unemployment rate has already reached 9.4% and will undoubtedly exceed 10% by the summer. The administration has been forced to drop its job creation rhetoric altogether and has been reduced to having Joe Biden make unsubstantiated claims that the stimulus package has saved 200,000 jobs in its first 100 days. Joe says this with a straight face knowing full well that there is no possible way to calculate jobs saved. Even if you could devise a method, the number is so small compared to the 154 million strong American labor force that it would amount to no more than a rounding error.
President Obama may have pleased innumerable factions in his left wing base by signing the stimulus plan with all it grandiose social programs but he will be left to stand alone and explain month after month through most of 2010 why we have double digit unemployment after Congress spent $800 billion on “his” stimulus plan. In private I am sure he regrets not having insisted that the heavily democratic Congress spend more than a paltry 8% on infrastructure projects. As an astute politician he also knows that his ability to blame all ills on his predecessor is coming to an end. The question he is undoubtedly asking himself is how long do you have to be President before have to take responsibility for being President?
President Obama will soon have to choose between signing the “Waxman-Markey global warming bill” and creating new jobs. A study by Charles River Associates concluded that if Obama signs off on the Congressional proposal to reduce CO2 emissions, it will have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy. “By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs.” Obama can choose to placate his base and hope that the creation of “Green Jobs” will at least partially offset this loss or he can choose to use his influence to eliminate the more draconian aspects of the legislation and offend the left.
I am sure that President Obama is aware that Energy use is the direct correlate of a vibrant economy - in the United States for example; we consume 24% of the world’s oil and are responsible for approximately 28% of global GDP. We cannot just reduce our energy consumption, we have to replace it with new cleaner sources or the economy will suffer. It should also be clear that when the economy is weak it is the poor and the less educated that bear the brunt of the burden. For example, the current 9.4% unemployment rate is not equally distributed: the unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.8%, for those who have not graduated high school 15.5%, African American men 16.8% and for African American men and women under 20 it is a whopping 39.4%. As the old song says you always hurt the one you love -especially if you cater to your elite base.
We often appear to ignore the intrinsic reality that all life is carbon based and that at the moment all accessible large-scale sources of energy save nuclear and hydroelectric, are correspondingly carbon based. As a World Street Journal Editorial on August 5, 2008 pointed out, “The U.S. has a great deal invested in fossil fuels not because of a political conspiracy or because anyone worships carbon but because other sources of energy are, right now, inferior”.
In time-honored political tradition Obama has taken advantage of the economic crisis and selected an unpopular target: Greedy Wall Street bankers! Hedge fund moneylenders! Speculators! Shameful profiteers! It is so ever so tempting to fall back on classic stereotyping. Appealing to innate prejudice is like taking candy from a baby for an articulate politician who wants his way. Ultimately, Obama has to placate these “devils” because they are the ones that create 85% of America’s jobs. If they have no confidence in the future and believe that the current administration is anti-business they will be very slow to expand and create new jobs.
The reality… For the unemployment rate to fall, we must not only increase the number of jobs, but that increase must exceed the expected increase in the size of the labor force. In other words, merely increasing the number of Americans working will not necessarily decrease the unemployment rate. Today there are 154 million Americans in the labor force and just to maintain the status quo, 2.0 million new jobs must be created annually (a 1.3% increase). Just to stand still, we need 167,000 new jobs every single month.
Obama will have to make amends for his bombastic rhetoric if he hopes to gain the support of American business and create the jobs that America needs to reduce the unemployment rate.
“The question he is undoubtedly asking himself is how long do you have to be President before have to take responsibility for being President?”
i agree with Paul Begala here, based on that logic, Ronald Reagan didn’t take responsibility for being president until 1985.. or how about the old Republican Chestnut of blaming everything wrong with the world on the Clintons?
how much contortion has been done to absolve the Bush Admin of 9/11 by trying to blame it on the Clintons.. be honest?
Oh yes and Reagan is a good place to start a discussion about “exploiting an economic crisis”
but that is a discussion for another day =)
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
In fact, this is laughable. Obama and his people are trying to save capitalism from the capitalists, and what do they get?
a big FU
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Interesting story!
If your readers are looking for high level / high paying sustainable jobs, we recently launched Zoosa (www.zoosa.org) as a single destination for all social enterprise resources: news, blogs, actions/ideas, tweets, and jobs / professionals skills-based volunteer opportunities in the clean-tech, education, government, health care, and nonprofit sectors. Thanks to our partners, we already have several thousand jobs & social enterprise resources posted!
I’d love to hear your feedback if you get a chance to visit our site!
Mike
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Again we see an emotive response to facts from the left. Ronald Reagan inherited a FAR worse economy than did Barry Hussein Obama. He nearly doubled the GDP in 8 years, brought an end to the USSR and unappologetically brought up American pride level along with the standard of living by LOWERING TAXES. Fact is that Bush had a lower average unemployent rate than did Clinton. Let’s see how Barry Hussein O’ does. So far I’m not impressed. Bush also has faced some of the worst economic and foreign policy distasters in American history. He built a new democracy in the Middle East , and extraordinary acheivement giving Iraq the opportunity to stand on their own. Try thinking for yourself instead. Go ahead flail out some more vitriol, doesn’t change facts.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:22 am
problem with reagan, we’re paying for it now, it was all a fantasy based on borrowed money… clinton isn’t
and when you say bush “faced” some of the worst disasters.. i think you have the word “faced” confused with the word “caused”
HAHA
and i’m getting the lecture on facts..
why don’t we invade every other country we don’t like.. give them a chance to “stand” on their own..
man.. you point out the complete farce that modern conservatism sometimes appears to be, complete denial of facts and I GET called “emotive”
speaking of “emotive,” why do you insist on using obama’s middle name? perhaps to generate a paranoid “emotive”?
ROFL!
you guys crack me up.. keep on keeping on.. as a dem, i enjoy winning elections !
June 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
oh, and by all measurable economic indicators, the economy obama inherited is far worse than the one reagan did..
industrial production, lending, capital reserve level, household and national debt..
but hey, just keep saying it enough times and it’ll become true.. like reagan’s fictional welfare queen
June 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
oh yes, and GDP did not “double” under reagan, not even close
and of course, by the standards you’re applying to obama, regan would be considered an absolute disaster.. the depths of the 1980’s recession were between 1982 and 1983
so yeah.. like 2 years from now
but hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
June 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Measured in current dollars(this means adjusted for inflation for those of you who went to public school.)
The GDP in 1980 was 2789.5 (Billions) This is what Reagan inherited from JC and the stagflation boys. I remember waiting in line for gas under the Carter admin, I remember 14% interest rates, price fixing and double digit unemployment. Do you?
The GDP in 1989 the one given by Regan to Bush 1 was 5484.4. Hmmmmm…that is a 97% increase. That is if you do the math. ….. In other words nearly DOUBLED.
Kris try looking at the actual numbers and thinking for yourself instead of listening to the ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT “can we have some more bailout money please” crowd.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Government Agency
1981 GDP (maybe you’re not aware reagan didn’t take office until 1981 pick up a government book) 3.2 trillion
1988 GDP (reagan left office 20 days into 1989)
5.1 trillion
i think you’re about a trillion dollars or you know, 33 percent away from doubling
=)
when adjustd for inflation it wasn’t that much..
so, i might not get my news from rush, but hey, at least i know when the president takes office =)
also, how does disagreement somehow equate to not thinking for oneself?
esp when you simply appear to rampantly plagiarize rushlimbaugh.com
June 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
also i fail to see why reagan fans don’t like obama
obama is DOING THE EXACT SAME THING
does tax cuts coupled with deficit spending sound familiar?
he’s DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!
oh well
June 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Try reading, what was actually said. Try reading anything other than whatever Hezboallah Bolshevist blog you crawled out from under. The GDP as quoted above are what Reagan inherited from JC and what he left for GHWB a 97% increase, sorry that truth has a conservative bias. In 1984 the GDP increased by a staggering 7.2%. No other president even comes close to what Reagan did.
This data can be found on the CBO , the National Bureau for Economic Research, the Bureau of Labor Statisics among many other places.
And again the economy inherited from Carter was far worse, unemployment, interest rates , inflation were all much higher. You don’t want me to start on the misery index. The difference is Reagan actually IMPROVED the economic outlook by lowering the top marginal tax rate by 70%. Obama is destroying the economy by raising taxes. This section is about job creation. Obama is failing miserably in every area of the economy. Sorry, Bolshivism just doesn’t work. You don’t help the wage earner by demonizing and attacking and burdening the wage payer.
Game over!
uh….NEXT…….
July 1st, 2009 at 4:43 am
so this is what its come to?
i disagree with you, your numbers are still not quite right
but i’m a communist..
raising top income tax rates from 37.9 to 39.1 percent makes you a BOLSHEVIC?
like that noted communist eisenhower?
this what you really are interested in talking about?
accusing everyone that disagree with you of being a communist?
all of you reading blog, this guy has got nothing except doctored numbers an and 1950’s style mccarthy name calling
it’s REALLY SAD that the once proud conservative intellectual tradition in this country has come to this..
REALLY SAD..
maybe i’ll just resort to calling everyone a NAZI then
July 1st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
game over
HAHAH!!
THAT GUY IS A COMMIE! GAME OVER!
HAHA
didn’t the economy roar in the 90’s AFTER they raised the top tax rate?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
oh, and how do you explain the 40’s? or the 50’s?
where the top tax rate was like 90%
July 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
when the country was apparently run by nuclear bomber harry truman and WWII hero Dwight Eisenhower?
were they Bolsheviks too?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
see mark the problem with saying stuff like you do, is that you can be made to look rediculus later..
“uh, next!”
wait, by my definition every president between 1900 and 2008 except reagan and bush 2 were communists..
that doesn’t sound right
July 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Wow struck a nerve huh? Quite emotional huh? Look up the definition of Bolshivism if its not clear for you. Look up the synoyms of the word. Apparently it bothers you to be called that. That means there is hope for you.
Communism, Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, state ownerhsip
By definition this is what Obama is doing, state ownership of the auto industry, the banks, the healthcare system, the media and on and on and on….
As the unemployment rate climbs he will find it more and more difficult to justify his spending on socialist programs, that is the point of this section.
Look at the policies of the presidents and congress to which you refer. Did you know that Kennedy LOWERED taxes and so did Johnson. Nixon actually raised taxes. Ike raised taxes in a strong post war economic climate and actually used the money to build infrastructure, ie..the interstate system.
History is on the side of conservatism my friend. You cannot find ANY example in history of ANY modern industrialized country that has been able to spend its way out of an economic crisis. It just doesn’t exist. Even Roosevelt realized that it wasn’t working about half way through his term and then he reverted to even more class warfare. A good book on the depression by Amity Schlaes called “The Forgotten Man.” , it is not overtly bias and is recommended.
Don’t try and box me into some sycophantic republican box. If you want to find similarities Look at the socialistic policies of GWB and compare them to BHO. Very similar. Government is clearly out of control. You can no longer blame the hurricanes and tsunamis on Bush, he was no conservative. Its both parties that have to be reigned in by the people. Remember though it was the republicans in the house that stood against the bailouts.
Kris if you think, actually stop breathe and think , you might find there is more for us to agree about than argue about.
I’m gonna call it like I see it though, Obama is a Bolshevik by the definition of the word. Your rant re: the previous presidents really isn’t relevant. None of them seized big chunks of the private sector like Obama is doing. State ownership = Bolshevik (look it up) And for the record I believe GWB was a mediocre president at best but he was still better than his father who caved in and raised taxes.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. Vladmir Lenin
July 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Umm
WWII?
didn’t that end the depression?
yeah.. i believe that was a large government, deficit financed spending program
and i know obama has taken over a HUGE CHUNK of industry..
all 0.21 %
we must be getting close now!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:06 pm
also, i agree that we agree on more than we disagree on
but i DOUBT that you’ll give obama unitl 2011 for the unemployment to turn around.. a courtesy you seem to do cartwheels to extend to reagan. =)
July 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
also, the more i think about it, reagan, the man you lionize, did exactly the opposite of what you say will work..
he dramatically increased spending and cut taxes.. like JFK and Johnson..
like obama..
i just don’t get it
July 1st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Check your facts Kris Obama has not cut taxes he has raised the marginal tax rate and will allow tax cuts to expire, that is for everyone. Cap and trade is a tax hike, every time you flip on a light switch …cha ching…
Also especially with the health care plan the government will be at about 45% or more of our GDP. That is FAR and above what ANY administration has done before. In fact by the CBO’s own predictions Obama is prposing more spending than ALL previous presidents COMBINED.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 am
funny, my paycheck is larger since the stimulus went through.
and letting tax cuts expire is not a tax hike. you should know better than that.. they put those end dates in to make them look not as expensive..
we’ll see about health care.. in my opinion the only way to solve the health-care crisis is to force everyone to buy insurance.. like we do car insurance.. or house insurance..
everyone’s going to have to pay though.. like social security.. that’s the only way to make it work.. we’ll see how it works out..
we’ll see about the long term spending..
July 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I cannot believe the american people elected this naive idiot to be our commander in chief. his sole purpose in life seems to be enpowering himself. does he want to be a dictator or a king? 28 czars? give me a break. we are paying the salaries of these people
July 5th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Kris,
The top marginal tax was at 35% when the Bush tax cuts expire it goes back up to 39%. Is that an increase or a decrease in taxes? Answer the question instead of wallowing in your fantasy land. By the way Clinton raised the top marginal rate 3% and got a 6% increase in governent receipts, Bush lowered the top marginal rate 3% and got a 10% increase in government receipts. Which one was more expensive to the US tax payer? Its not a trick question.
Mary Ann its a cult of personality with Obama, yes it is pretty clear that his only agenda is to increase the size of government and the dependency of the people on it. Kris said it himself, the government is going to force you to pay….over and over and over in every aspect of our lives.
That is what people like Kris want, government control over every aspect of our life and to pay higher taxes and higher prices for it. Never mind that you don’t have a job, Nanny Uncle Sam will take care of you from the cradle to the grave. Enjoy your koolaid at the re-education camps.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Yawn
i’d love to be in the 39% bracket..
i love the lengths of data manipulation bushies go to to explain away the fact that under clinton we had balanced budgets and under bush after the apparent revenue raising tax cuts we doubled the national debt..
Yawn
i guess the best solution for healthcare is for everyone to just pay fee for service.. but i suspect you have insurance.. which is a form of “socialized medicine”
Yawn..
keep up the rhetoric.. i enjoy winning elections
July 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am
oh yes..
how would you solve our healthcare crisis?
the only apparent answer other than making everyone buy insurance (a solution proposed by that known Bolshevik Mitt Romney)
just turn people away and provide no service at all if they can’t pay .. that appears to be the only solution
by the way, based on your definitions of who the Bolsheviks are.. the list is beginning to include both former president’s Bush, Mitt Romney and even Ronald Reagan if you consider that a VAST majority of tax payers paid MORE in taxes under Reagan ..oh yes.. and all Democrats obviously.. so all of the Democrats, and like 2/3 of the Republicans..and i’m sure like 90% of independents don’t meet muster
so everyone in America but those of you in your 5% of the population on the ultra-right are apparently in favor of Soviet style communism..
keep talking.. say something else!
July 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Again only emotive vitriol and inability to deal with FACTS. FACT = we had almost 50 years of democrat party rule until the early 90’s and then magically the budget was balanced when the GOP took over. That is iindisputable
Why is it that an average 3 TO 4 % economic growth underfs Clinton is called peace and prosperity but 3 to 4% economic growth under Bush is the worst economy in history. Strange don’t you think?
If you believe that we can actually spend ourselves to prosperity , that government needs to control every aspect or your life that is OK.
You should review the polling of the good citizens on Massachusetts regarding the quality of state mandated health care system. Do you think they found health care qualtiy to be better or worse. Do you think costs have risen or declined?
Shhhhh….i have a secret…shhhh…keep this to yourself. There is no healthcare crisis! But we are about to create one.
But then again this section is about job creation and you stil have not answered the question of how you help the wage earner by attacking the wage payer. Try and stay on topic please or again at least change your flavor of koolaid.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Kris, Your paycheck is larger because they reduced the withholding requirements not your tax rate. You are in for a big surprise when you file in 2010 for 2009.More Obamanomics.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Back to the topic…
Where did people in the USA get the idea that the federal government has any responsibility for “job creation”? Where did this notion that politicians even remotely have anything to do with “employment” come from? Step back from the baloney you’ve been fed all your lives and think about it. Jobs? Jobs come from employers. Employers are companies or individuals who produce goods. Employees are people who produce goods or services for pay. The free market sets the price for both the goods and the cost of labor. If one’s labor is no longer in demand, or is overpriced for the demand that does exist, then that person’s labor will be replaced by someone else’s labor at a lower cost, or the need for the labor will be eliminated. If the demand for certain labor (e.g. seven foot tall basketball player with all basketball skills at or above those of other players) far exceeds the supply, then that labor (e.g. Kevin Garnett) will command a much higher price than other labor of lesser skill and/or demand.
The only time a national/federal government should even enter this discussion is for government jobs. And since our government was created to defend the nation, debate, enact, and judge its laws, and nothing else, there ought not be too many government employees.
Outside of employees of the government, our government is granted no powers or responsibilities for “creating jobs”. The systems of government that do create jobs are known as socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Until 2009, the United States was none of these. Now we are.
It has all got so far out of hand that even the writer and readers of this pretty intelligent blog didn’t even think to question the very foundation of the topic! Government? Create jobs? Not their responsibility, and the American people would do far better to figure out how to make their value to employers greater in order to be in demand as an employee than to worry about government handouts.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty…..
These are the responsibilities of government. They echo your conservative or even libertarian view.
Personally I interpolate that to mean that the government is to provide an environment where liberty can flourish and the people can enjoy the fruits of their own labor. In other words government needs to butt out. If they do then there will be plenty of jobs as this is the natural course of business.
Obviously government has stepped far out of its bounds and is oppressing liberty rather than allowing its growth.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:08 pm