Clearly, “it’s all Bush’s fault” isn’t working anymore, if it ever did.
Earlier today, Speaker John Boehner spoke to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2012 Fiscal Summit. Here’s a few of the highlights of his plan from the Speaker’s website, along with commentary, of course (emphasis in original):
In remarks this afternoon to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s Annual Fiscal Summit, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will renew his commitment to the principle he set forth at the Economic Club of New York one year ago – noting that the debt limit exists to force Washington to deal with its fiscal problems, and that any increase in the nation’s debt limit must be accompanied by spending cuts and reforms larger than the amount of the debt limit hike.
Strong language warning, Jon Lovitz really doesn’t care for Obama’s rhetoric about tax the rich, and he admits that he’s a Democrat and voted for Obama:
More bad news for the Obama campaign, and a good explanation of why they’re trying to talk about anything except Obama’s economic record.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of all adult consumers now believe the U.S. economy is getting better while 46% believe it is getting worse. Those results are a bit weaker than results from just before the jobs report.
I guarantee it’s going to be a close election because the economy is not where it wants to be and even though I believe all the choices we’ve made have been the right ones, we’re still going through difficult circumstances. That means people who may be sympathetic to my point of view still kind of feel like, yeah, but it still hasn’t gotten done yet. This is going to be a close election and a very important one for the American people. The thing I hope the most is that everyone is going to be paying close attention to the debate that takes place because it could determine not just what happens over the next four years, but what’ll happen over the next 20 or 30 years.
Yes, even the AP has decided that Obama isn’t always truthful:
In challenging Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday, President Barack Obama argued Republicans have supported his proposals before, demanded that they explain themselves if they oppose him, and challenged others to come up with a plan of their own. The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.
Herman Cain just demonstrated the time-honored political tradition of “open mouth, insert foot.”
“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!” Cain said. “It is not a person’s fault because they succeeded, it is a person’s fault if they failed. And so this is why I don’t understand these demonstrations and what is it that they’re looking for.”
And here I thought the Age Of Obama was supposed to be about new ideas, not old ones. The Wall Street Journal explains:
Alarmed by the rising jobless rate, Democrats are scrambling to “do something” to create jobs. You may have thought that was supposed to be the point of February’s $780 billion stimulus plan, and indeed it was. White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein estimated at the time that the spending blowout would keep the jobless rate below 8%.
This explains why political panic is beginning to set in, and various panicky ideas to create more jobs are suddenly in play. The New York Times reports that one plan would grant a $3,000 tax credit to employers for each new hire in 2010. Under another, two-year plan, employers would receive a credit in the first year equal to 15.3% of the cost of adding a new worker, an amount that would be reduced to 10.2% in the second year and then phased out entirely. Why 15.3%? Presumably because that’s roughly the cost of the payroll tax burden to hire a new worker.
The irony of this is remarkable, considering the costs that Democrats are busy imposing on job creation. Congress raised the minimum wage again in July, a direct slam at low-skilled and young workers. The black teen jobless rate has since climbed to 50.4% from 39.2% in two months. Congress is also moving ahead with a mountain of new mandates, from mandatory paid leave to the House’s health-care payroll surtax of 5.4%. All of these policy changes give pause to employers as they contemplate the cost of new hires—a reality that Democrats are tacitly admitting as they now plot to find ways to offset those higher costs.
Okay, temporary tax credit, conservatives should be overjoyed, right?
Congress doesn’t want to give up revenue for very long, so it would make the tax credits temporary. Thus anyone who is hired would have to be productive enough to justify the wage or salary after the tax-credit expires—or else the job is likely to end. An employer would be better off hiring a temp worker and saving on the benefits for the same couple of years.
In other words, in order to justify hiring full-time permanent workers, we need a full-time permanent tax cut on employment… which is probably the one thing the current crop of leftist Democrats will never do.
Anyway, back to the “new policies” meme… turns out this has been tried before.
We know all this because a new jobs tax credit has already been tried—in the Carter Administration. In 1977 as he entered the White House, Jimmy Carter proposed a jobs credit and a Democratic Congress passed it. Its unfortunate history was recounted in 1980 by then-Treasury official Emil Sunley in a chapter of “The Economics of Taxation,” a book edited by Henry Aaron and Michael Boskin for the Brookings Institution.
As Mr. Sunley summarized: “The impact of the credit on jobs was slight. In many firms those who make hiring decisions did not understand the firm’s tax status.” He added that, “Because the capital stock is fixed in the short run, to increase employment significantly, demand for output must increase. An incremental tax cut tied to employment will not by itself generate that increase in demand. Moreover, a temporary incremental credit is unlikely to affect significantly the long-run substitution of labor for capital.” Call this Job Creation 101.
In other words, in their mad scramble to save the economy from their own failed stimulus–which, remember, we were told was needed to keep unemployment from going over 8%–they are reaching back to a policy that was tried during Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation” era, and which was a dismal failure.
Of course, this shouldn’t surprise anyone who doesn’t believe that history “reset” on 20 January 2009. We saw it with the stimulus, which had been tried by various other countries, including Japan, who tried it for over 10 years. We see it with their attempt to ram socialized medicine down our throats, which failed miserably under the Clintons. We see it in the “make nice” stance to terrorists, including Iran, which held our citizens hostage for 444 days under Mr. Carter.
As the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 1 (NKJV):
9 That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which it may be said,
“ See, this is new”?
It has already been in ancient times before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.
I dunno about you, but this doesn’t exactly raise my confidence level in our new President:
Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
A British official conceded that the furore surrounding the apparent snub to Mr Brown had come as a shock to the White House. “I think it’s right to say that their focus is elsewhere, on domestic affairs. A number of our US interlocutors said they couldn’t quite understand the British concerns and didn’t get what that was all about.”
The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.
“That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they’re finding it a hard thing to do everything.”
I seem to remember, during the campaign, many people on the right were expressing concern over Obama’s lack of executive experience. The reply from the Obama supporters was usually something along the lines of “he’s running a national Presidential campaign right now.”
Turns out governing is more difficult than campaigning. Who’da thunk it?