Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:29 PM ET, 02/28/2011

How is the GOP planning to create jobs, again?

By Ezra Klein

How much does the GOP care about jobs?

A lot, if you listen to what they say. "House Republicans' top priority is helping to create jobs," declares Michael Steel, John Boehner's spokesman. Or watch the video atop this post, which records one Republican legislator after the next demands to know "where are the jobs." Case closed, right?

But look at what they're trying to do. Goldman Sachs says that if the GOP's spending cuts pass, "the drag on GDP growth from federal fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3." That is to say, GDP growth would fall by 1.5 to 2 percentage points on an annual basis. That's horrifying.

And Goldman Sachs isn't alone. Macroeconomic forecaster Mark Zandi estimates that the GOP's spending cuts would "destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012." That's a lot of jobs. And it's not by making people richer or making it easier to retire early, as is true when the GOP talks about the "job-destroying health-care bill." It's by firing public employees and sucking demand out of the economy.

You could say, perhaps, that the GOP is taking a longer-range view: they're willing to lose jobs now to prevent a debt crisis later. But their efforts to repeal the health-care law will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, add more than $200 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, while their spending cuts would remove merely $64 billion. And they want to extend all the Bush tax cuts -- without offsets -- at a cost of $4 trillion or so to the deficit over 10 years. So it's hard to take their stated concern for the deficit seriously, either.

I'm not going to ask "where are the jobs?" The House Republicans have only been in office for a few months, and they don't control the whole of the government. What I do want to know is where is the policy that would create jobs?

By Ezra Klein  | February 28, 2011; 5:29 PM ET
Categories:  Budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forget smaller classes, part II
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

What I want to know is why aren't the democrats calling out the republicans on being utter frauds on jobs and defecits.

Posted by: phillycomment | February 28, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

With the passage of time, it is becoming more difficult to consider a multitude of reasons for GOP rhetoric and behavior. I am now down to just a couple: that the party is truly in the pockets of a small group of homogenous, powerful people with strong self-interest above all other priorities, or; that lawmakers are so consumed by ideology that they simply refuse to consider any information that might contradict their reality (what Dr. Robert Altemeyer calls the authoritarian follower personality type.)

I'm happy to entertain other scenarios, but the more I witness the fewer now seem plausible.

Posted by: miles120 | February 28, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The GOP message to Americans really seems to be, "Don't be poor, suckers!"

Posted by: will12 | February 28, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I think Klein is blaming this year's Republicans for the hangover that's but the result of both political parties excesses over the years. People warned that it would come to this, and chuckleheads like Klein paid no attention.

And the last two years or so is just the start of it. The government has been partying out of control for decades.

Posted by: msoja | February 28, 2011 6:40 PM | Report abuse

That's funny, wasn't Goldman Sachs more than happy to contribute to the GOP's campaign coffers in the midterms?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/goldman-sachs-republican-campaign-money-gop-democrats/story?id=11626575

File that one under be careful what you wish for, I guess.

But, seriously, while one might think the GOP's takeover in one house of Congress might shift some of the responsibility of actually governance to them, did anyone really think they would take that responsibility seriously? Seriously? Are people really that surprised? If so, why? Political obstruction works wonders for them.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, what do you tell a person who was repeatedly warned about putting all his eggs in one basket, does it anyway, and then trips coming up the steps, breaking almost all of them. I told you so? I told you so, you stupid moron? Or just shrug?

Posted by: msoja | February 28, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

msoja, you're missing the point when you say, "I think Klein is blaming this year's Republicans for the hangover that's but the result of both political parties excesses over the years."

That's not what Ezra is doing in this post at all. He's asking the GOP put its collective money where its mouth is on their election (and apparently House floor) rhetoric. The GOP is back in power in the House on the premise that they could do a better job fixing the economy. Well, now's their chance. And so far, they're pitching policies that are likely to make it worse. Ezra isn't blaming anyone for the past. He's offering a valid critique of the present.

Then you say, "People warned that it would come to this, and chuckleheads like Klein paid no attention." If anything, Ezra has been chronicling the financial crisis, the deficit, and the budget mess ever since he got to the Post. And before that, at the American Prospect. You might not like him, but you have no basis for saying he "paid no attention."

The politics of "blame" is tiresome, whether of parties pointing the finger at each other. I'm much more interested in hearing ideas for how we get out of this mess.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Okay, msoja, and I have no idea what this means: "Seriously, what do you tell a person who was repeatedly warned about putting all his eggs in one basket, does it anyway, and then trips coming up the steps, breaking almost all of them. I told you so? I told you so, you stupid moron? Or just shrug?"

What on earth are you referring to?

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Where is the policy that would create jobs you ask?
Ill tell you.
It disappeared completely when voters voted in anti-reality republicans in 2010.

Posted by: mynameisblehbleh | February 28, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Umm, isn't it in the Republicans best interests to NOT create jobs until after the 2012 elections? Cutting 700K federal jobs excites their base and prevents any meaningful recovery that Obama could take credit for.

Posted by: SeattleMark | February 28, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Umm, isn't it in the Republicans best interests to NOT create jobs until after the 2012 elections? Cutting 700K federal jobs excites their base and prevents any meaningful recovery that Obama could take credit for.

Posted by: SeattleMark | February 28, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

msoja I wonder who started this partying out of control? Was it Reagan who started with a budget outlook that saw lower debt and ended with exploding debt? Was it Clinton whose tarted with a big deficit and ended with a decent sized surplus? Was it Bush who started with a Surplus and ended with the huge deficits and the worst economy since the great depression?
Or was it conservatives who deregulated the financial industry causing the recent recession and the recent plummet in government revenue which is the main cause of the huge deficits now?

Posted by: mynameisblehbleh | February 28, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The more folks out of work, the lower wages can be. The lower the wages, the more the unemployed resent those that have jobs, especially jobs secured by collective bargaining.

Ask newt Gingrich what his 20 billionaire backers want. High unemployment, low wages and no Government telling them they can't pollute.

Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction, and Division is all Republicans have to offer America. Jobs?? No Way!

Posted by: thebobbob | February 28, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"How is the GOP planning to create jobs, again?"

There doesn't need to be a "plan".

Posted by: justin84 | February 28, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

--*msoja I wonder who started this partying out of control?*--

You can follow it back to 19th century intellectuals. The rot took root in U.S. politics in the early 20th, and its been a slow slide ever since, picking up speed at FDR, then LBJ and onward.

The Social Security Ponzi scheme has been grinding, what, eighty years now? The Medicare disaster has been building for forty five, right along with all the nickel and dime meddlings with private insurance companies over the decades. The unions, likewise, have been growing in their insidiousness in the government sector for decades, growing increasingly bold the last couple. The failures Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are but two more examples of putting eggs in baskets that they shouldn't be in. All those and more were completely misguided *from their inceptions*, but people paid no heed and went about grubbing all the free stuff out of their neighbor's pockets that they could. A great many people made out like bandits. But it can't go on forever. It never could. There never was a free lunch. In stock market terms, there's going to be a correction, and it's going to be a nasty one. All those free lunches still have to be paid for.

Posted by: msoja | February 28, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

--*The GOP is back in power in the House on the premise that they could do a better job fixing the economy. Well, now's their chance. And so far, they're pitching policies that are likely to make it worse.*--

As Klein sez, "the GOP is taking a longer-range view," and that view is that it isn't the government's job to create jobs. And really, the government can't create jobs. Every new position at the FDA, for instance, is financed with money stolen from someone who would have spent it elsewhere in the economy, contributing to a private sector job where someone actually *produced* something, or provided a service to someone who produced something. The FDA job financed with stolen money is more like that of a leech on the economy. In fact, many government jobs cost the economy more than the sum total of the salaries of the people in them, as the FDA, for instance again, stifles innovation, inhibits research, and is a general drag on the industries it regulates.

And, so, it's too bad, but a great deal of the country's wealth has been inadvisedly stuffed into one government coffin or another, and the country being on the verge of bankruptcy over it, is going to suffer the repercussions.

You can't keep pretending that a government job is equal to a private sector job. It isn't. Without the latter, there is no former. The golden goose that laid so much government gold is just about dead, and if we don't start throwing the government bums out on their jaws, there will be no jobs for anyone, period.

Also, you can't keep pretending that unions are capable of innovation and the ol' entrepreneurial what for. They're not. Unions are leeches like bureaucrats are leeches. They suck from the productive. If unions were productive, they'd be their own businesses, instead of attaching themselves to businesses and crooked politicians.

Bottom line, it's not the Republicans job to create jobs. Anything they can do to lessen the government bloat piled on the backs of working Americans is good. Anything. The problem for a long time has been the government. It won't get better with more of the problem.

The stupid emptiness of Obama's "Hope and Change" is that all of it is more of the same, and then some.

Posted by: msoja | February 28, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Are these the same models that predicted 8% unemployment if we passed the stimulus?

By your half-baked Keynesian logic Ezra, repealing Obamacare will create jobs because repeal will raise the deficit if the CBO is to be believed.

Posted by: cdosquared5 | February 28, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Hi justin84: Yes, no one says there "has to be" a plan. But these people campaigned on job creation (except Sharon Angle, I guess) and they think it's cool to call health care reform "the job killing health care act." So, a naive person might expect policy proposals to match rhetoric, yet the two are dramatically different. I think it's fair to point out to the electorate.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

cdosquare5, I have no idea what you're saying except trying to insult Maynard Keynes.

At the risk of reopening this old debate, as Ezra and many others have reported, the stimulus as crafted did not do justice to Keynesian theory because it was based on "politically palpable" numbers instead of trying to fill the complete output gap. As such, it didn't fulfill it's full promise.

"the 8% unemployment" was a flawed assumption by the administration --- not a product of "Keynesian models." Keynesian models, correctly applied, required more (not less) stimulus.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Wow, msoja, you live in a very different world from me. There's just too much to comment on.

"The Social Security Ponzi scheme"??? First, Social Security is neither fraudulent nor an investment. It's more akin to a savings account. Second, it's currently solvent until 2037 though it requires some tweaks to keep it that way beyond 2037. Like it or hate it, it is funded. It's not paid for through general taxpayer revenue or deficit spending.

"The Medicare disaster"??? The problem isn't with Medicare. The problem is with out of control "health care costs." Is there a problem? Yes, but --- whether you choose to believe it or not --- Medicare did not cause the problem. And -- whether you like it or hate it -- the health care reform law takes a bona fide crack at trying to rein in health care spending.

"The growing insidiousness of unions"??? What? In this reality, the labor movement has been ailing for the last three decades. The percentage of unionized workers has decreased dramatically since its height in the '50s and '60s. To be sure, the public sector unions have fared better than the private sector, but they're not exactly "insidiously growing."

"People paid no heed and went about grubbing all the free stuff out of their neighbor's pockets that they could." What? My parents and grandparents paid into Social Security and Medicare through their working lives. They did not take "free stuff out of their neighbor's pockets." They worked hard for their pensions and benefits to case the vast majority of the population as a bunch of freeloaders is frankly offensive and grossly selfish.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

msoja, I'd ask you to back this up with a source(s). Give your readers some data:

"In fact, many government jobs cost the economy more than the sum total of the salaries of the people in them, as the FDA, for instance again, stifles innovation, inhibits research, and is a general drag on the industries it regulates."

AND, who is pretending "a government job is equal to a private sector job. It isn't."???

What you're saying is wrong and/or overly simplistic on so many levels. The government's function isn't to create "government jobs," but people through their elected officials have demanded that government employee people (to fulfill services the private either doesn't, can't, or shouldn't. More fundamentally, are you saying a police officer's job is not "equal" to a private sector job? A judge doesn't have a real job? What about construction workers who compete for government contracts? Not real jobs?

Posted by: pbasso_khan | February 28, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Ezra,

Are the stupid or lying? (about jobs, in this instance.)

They *are* lying but who said it was either/or question?

Posted by: grooft | February 28, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

"Wow, msoja, you live in a very different world from me."

And everyone except msoja, forever partying like it's 1799.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | February 28, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, wake up and smell the coffee! Republicans' agenda isn't jobs or deficit reduction. It's getting control of gvnmt. So they can drown it in a bathtub, of debt. & directing most of economic riches to richest rich.

Posted by: joelgingery1 | February 28, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I think the problem is that conservatives really believe that simply by cutting taxes it will result in the creation of jobs. And that they really believe that the CBO is wrong about the effects of tax cuts on revenue and on its analysis that has anything to do with taxes.

I've had conservatives tell me this. One said that he doesn't believe the CBO's analysis because of some technical matter with their projections, something having to do with not including behavior studies in relation to how people react to tax cuts and increases.

Since its in the conservative elites' best interest to believe those things and they have media outlets and pundits that will reinforce their beliefs there is not much hope that facts or data that doesn't come from those sources will change their mind.

So I think you should change the question. It should be "How does the GOP plan to make the data reflect reality better or how do they plan to ignore reality?".

Posted by: dplunk13 | February 28, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Create jobs? Surely, you jest? Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Walker believe that the problem with the American economy is that most U.S. citizens make too much money.

Posted by: harold3 | February 28, 2011 10:09 PM | Report abuse

"Macroeconomic forecaster Mark Zandi estimates that the GOP's spending cuts would 'destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012.' That's a lot of jobs."

Especially if one of them is yours...

Please join GOPHypocrisy (of which this article illustrates a perfect example) on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/GOPHypocrisy/118526228159115

Posted by: gophypocrisy | February 28, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

It is becoming evident that most Republican Members of Congress would fail a Freshman Macroeconomics course. They seem not to grasp that it absolutely stupid and logic-defying to cut government spending during a weak economy. You cut the budget when the economy is rocking, humming on all cylinders, not when you are trying to recover from the worst economic crisis in nearly 80 years.

I almost forgot: Nobody ever accused Republicans of being intelligent. Their lack of intelligence is why they are Republicans in the first place.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | March 1, 2011 12:49 AM | Report abuse


I have a thirteen year old girl, and honest to god every day I wake up I am thankful that I have an incredible insurance policy that pays for my medical insurance. I found insurance from Wise Health Insurance website and it doesn’t pay 100% on everything, but when I receive the bill and find out just how much I would have had to pay had I not been insured I realize that there is no way in the world that I could have afforded kind of care without it.

Posted by: Roxieschmitz | March 1, 2011 4:59 AM | Report abuse

The GOP is planning to create jobs somewhere other than the United States.

Those who are the real shot callers in the GOP—Corporate CEOs like 3M's George Buckley—are doing all they can to weaken the United States and our elected leader just as they do in developing nations.

Here is Buckley's take on our President in today's Financial Times, "“I judge people by their feet, not their mouth,” he told the Financial Times. “We know what his instincts are – they are Robin Hood-esque. He is anti-business.”

Maybe 3M's PR department can get with their top guy and explain that where Robin Hood is recognized he is a heroic figure bringing justice to people exploited by an evil tyranical usurper of a national government.

So 3M's CEO accurate depiction of President Obama as "Robin Hoodesque" makes 3M's CEO "evil Prince John-esque" and his marionettes in Congress Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell the despicable Sheriff of Nottingham-esque.

What does 3M's CEO want to buy his silence? “Politicians forget that business has choice. We’re not indentured servants and we will do business where it’s good and friendly. If it’s hostile, incrementally, things will slip away. We’ve got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada and Mexico – which tend to be pro-business – or America.”

Time to abrogate the law that gives corporations standing as US citizens.

Posted by: toconn2 | March 1, 2011 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Face it folks, we will never be out of debt. $14 TRILLION.

Okay, let's just say that we get a balanced budget. That still means we owe $14 TRILLION, plus interest. Can anyone sanely tell me how we will ever pay that debt?

Okay, let's say we don't pay off the debt, and live out our lives in debt. What then? I subscribe that nothing will change. We still will have politicians from both parties trying to trump each other with less taxes vs. more taxes. Less spending vs. more spending.

I see it as just rhetoric to try to get elected. Nothing more or less.

I see no solution, only musical chairs on a floating deck. Now if other countries call in their bonds, we only have to print more money. Problem solved.

Thus, I'm not worried or am excited. I'm retired, and know full well that the politicians won't or can't attack the 800 lbs. gorilla of the $14 TRILLION debt. I just observe with interest all the energy expended. Who said it "all this sound and fury signifying nothing"?

Posted by: sdansker2002 | March 1, 2011 6:17 AM | Report abuse

"What I do want to know is where is the policy that would create jobs?"

Well, did you not hear the policy explained in detail before you voted the Republicans into office? No? Sorry about that.
"So be it."

Posted by: denim39 | March 1, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Americans were recently eager to elect young conservative budget cutters to send to Congress. Only, the budget cutters are now faced with the impossible task of "cut someone else's services but not mine." If we do exactly what Michelle Bachmann preaches there will be a majority of unhappy and unemployed Americans.

Yes, we can scale back government in a prudent manner, but not by immediately axing 700,000 jobs during a time of 9% unemployment. It doesn't take a PhD in econ to figure that out.

On the other hand, we could give "the people" some of the "don't tread on me" attitude they prize. Privatize K-12 education like college. Pay for it. No free education ride. This will also improve the quality of teachers. Make all roads toll roads. Add user fees to all services. Then, we can eliminate taxes altogether and everyone should be blissful.

Posted by: gfoster56 | March 1, 2011 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Just like the Democrats, the GOP will not waste this opportunity of the no-jobs crisis to fulfill their decades-old wish list of cutting everything from Public Broadcasting to Pell grants. It's so much about ideology, and so little about governing.

Posted by: ixam | March 1, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The article indicates that "the GOP is willing to sacrifice jobs to prevent a debt crisis later" [note they are not sacrificing their own jobs]. This will not work. If more people are out of work, the already too small tax base will be smaller with less collected, unemployment payouts will be greater, out-of-work people normally don't buy much so demand will be lower, and following that, production will be lower. Demand for more hiring will be reduced, and it's pretty clear that there's a downward spiral starting from their idea. In short, the Republican plan won't work.

Posted by: sober1 | March 1, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse

1) Both parties caused the debt we have today. There is no question that the debt has been dramatically increased by the current administration.
2) Unemployment is near 10% and has been for a while even with record spending from the government.
3) Both parties are unwilling to make the changes needed for fear of looking bad prior to an election.
4) Most importantly, GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS!
While people may not like the renewed conservative movement and people like Ezra refuse to admit that liberals are to blame for many of our current problems, what would he suggest we do? Continue spending and hope that the policies that have failed will magically work somewhere down the road? I believe they call that insanity!

Posted by: kmg321 | March 1, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I need 20+ additional employees as I type this. However, I am not hirng a single one of those until I find out what my costs will be under socialized medicine. As I read it, I will be better off simply scaling down my business rather than assuming costs for both they and their family's medical and preexisting conditions.

Posted by: IQ168 | March 1, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

IQ168, with the SOLE EXCEPTION of the Veterans Affairs admin., we do not have "socialized medicine" in this country. Health care reform is not socialized medicine. The whole controversy is that it requires people to purchase private insurance.

So. You can rant and rave about "socialized medicine" all you want to, but it doesn't make it true.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | March 1, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Klein seems to misunderstand how jobs are created. Only government jobs are created by dictate.
Private sector jobs are created by investment and risk, and people take those risks only in an atmosphere of stability and/or predictability, with some expectation of gain. For the past two years, we've had great uncertainty.

Posted by: Trucker49 | March 1, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

kmg321, in answer to your points:

1) You say, "There is no question that the debt has been dramatically increased by the current administration." Insofar as Congress has not had a balanced budget since the late '90s, true. Insofar as the Bush tax cuts were extended (thus depleting otherwise scheduled revenue), true. And, the stimulus, true. TARP was almost entirely repaid. Everything else this administration has done has a funding source. They even included proper accounting for the Iraq/Afghan wars, which were originally siphoned off into a separate budget.

2) You say, "Unemployment is near 10% and has been for a while even with record spending from the government." The stimulus was inadequate to bring the unemployment rate down, yet it seems to be the consensus that unemployment would have been even worse without the stimulus.

3) You say, "Both parties are unwilling to make the changes needed for fear of looking bad prior to an election." Agreed, and one of the most effective things the parties could agree to do -- in the short term, at least -- is raise taxes. We have high unemployment, and have spent our ways through two wars, not to mention Katrina, and the BP oil spill, and financial crisis. Yet, we have the lowest tax rates across the board in decades.

4) You say, "Most importantly, GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS!" Government's role is not to create "government jobs," except where there's a public need or demand for a particular service. Government's role is to enact policies that stimulate job creation. We can debate how that's done -- e.g. keeping taxes low, keeping certain taxes high, keeping interest rates low, etc. But, let's not pretend the Government has no part in job creation. It's overly simplistic and short-sighted.

Then, you say "People like like Ezra refuse to admit that liberals are to blame for many of our current problems." When did Ezra ever refuse to admit this? If you've actually read this blog, Ezra has been pretty even-handed in criticizing anyone for enacting bad policy and running up the deficit. Don't malign him just because you disagree with his politics.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | March 1, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Trucker49, as I said in response to kmg321, "Government's role is not to create 'government jobs,' except where there's a public need or demand for a particular service. Government's role is to enact policies that stimulate job creation. We can debate how that's done -- e.g. keeping taxes low, keeping certain taxes high, keeping interest rates low, etc. But, let's not pretend the Government has no part in job creation. It's overly simplistic and short-sighted."

It's not unfair to ask the party controlling the House right now what policies they would enact to stimulate job growth. No one expects --- or wants --- them to start their own hiring spree for their own staff. But, what conditions will they create to boost job creation?

Posted by: pbasso_khan | March 1, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

pbasso_khan, I do read Ezra even though I am conservative. I try to look at other points of view but I can't agree with you about his column. He leans heavily to the left on everything. That's ok though, everyone is entitled to their point of view. The real point I was trying to make is that all the spending has not worked. I didn't say the government doesn't play a role in job creation because they do but they have been going about it the wrong way. Why is it that we continue to repeat the same policies over and over with the idea that they will eventually work? You can pedal the idea that things would have been worse but the truth is you have no proof. We can talk about the concept of jobs created or "saved" till the cows come home but it will be nothing but guess work. Even if those made up statistics were true can you really justify the cost? Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on we can tell certain things from looking at historical patterns. While we do need to change the tax code (another problem that both parties admit but refuse to do anything about), raising taxes on the top producers will not solve things especially if we are unwilling to curb the gross spending and waste going on in our government on a daily basis. The approach for everything in this administration seems to follow the pattern in education. Even though the results are pitiful let's spend more and that will make things better. Sorry but I'm just not "that" crazy.

Posted by: kmg321 | March 1, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Beggers are liars. Their only goal with the last election was to put more money in their benefactors hans, US economy and jobs be damned.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 1, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

And after those 700K workers are fired, the Governments (Fed, State/Local) are stuck with the extra costs of UI, public assistance, food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, increased medical morbidities due to the inability to maintain full preventive medical screening treatment, especially dental, vision & vaccinations.

Then the companies that aren't hiring now start to fire more workers due to the lack of demand for goods & services by those fired & the stores, companies where they used to spend their paycheck. Fire the first 700K workers/consumers and another 1M 400K will soon follow.

Oops that gets us back into full Recession/Depression mode.

And we get to thank the GOP for destroying our economy! And we get to do it for at least the next 2 elections.

Posted by: nyer11 | March 1, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Ezra babbled: "How is the GOP planning to create jobs, again?"
--------------------------------------
Umm, they aren't. All but the most ignorant know that the gov doesn't create private sector employment. It can only destroy or impede it.

Posted by: illogicbuster | March 1, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Best thing government can do is to relax any needless regulations and taxes on business. Give businesses a reason to stay here.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | March 1, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"How is the GOP planning to create jobs?"
They plan on creating lots of jobs. The catch is that the won't be in this country.
Outsourcing helps the rich and who cares about the poor?

Posted by: alterego3 | March 1, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I am continuously astonished at the inability of those who still believe in the GOP to connect the dots. When are these people going to get it through their thick skulls that the Republican Party simply DOES NOT CARE? The Republican leadership, for all their rhetoric about "responding to the will of the American people" are not in the least concerned about whether or not you or I have a job. Their constituency is NOT made up of people who work for a living--it is located in corporate boardrooms and penthouse suites. Boehner and McConnell are looking out for the interests of large multinational corporations (Koch Industries, Halliburton, BP, etc.), banks (B of A, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase), defense contractors, and the top 1% of wealthy Americans. This is not rocket science. And if you look at their ACTIONS rather than their rhetoric, it becomes pretty obvious. Just one example: When this president was elected in 2008, our economy was collapsing because of years of deregulation of the financial services industry. The rules put in place after the Great Depression to prevent greedy speculators from doing us in, most notably the Glass-Steagall Act which put a firewall between commercial banks and investment banks, have been eroded, dismantled, or repealed by Republicans. Wall Street investors, operating in a wild west, free-for-all, no-holds-barred environment, created a financial bubble based on mortgage-backed securities that they KNEW were not going to be worth anything after the inevitable day of reckoning, and when the bubble burst it brought our economy to its knees. Pension funds, one of the prime consumers of their worthless paper, were wiped out. Now, rather than trying to recover any of the swag from these white-collar thieves, the GOP, with the help of FOX News, would pit worker against worker in an effort to break the unions whose money they stole.

One piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama, the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, seeks to address some of the worst abuses by the Wall-Street cowboys by, among other things, creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans fought tooth-and-nail to prevent passage of the bill, and were successful in pulling some of its teeth. But it passed in spite of them, and the president appointed Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, a tireless and outspoken champion for the middle class, to set it up. Since then, Republicans have done everything they can to discredit Ms. Warren, and their current budget proposal slashes the agency's funding in half. This an agency whose sole purpose is to PROTECT consumers of financial products.

This is but one of many examples. It's time American voters read the writing on the wall. If you work for a living, and don't contribute huge sums to GOP candidates, the Republican Party does NOT represent you. Period.

Posted by: sailorashore | March 1, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Relaxing regulations, lowering taxes...blah blah blah. None of that stuff is going to create jobs in this country. Free trade killed more American jobs than anything else. I can pay someone in Mexico 2 dollars a day to do the work that an American NEEDS 20 dollars an hour to do, and not through any fault of the American. He has to feed his family and provide a roof over their heads. Unless the cost of everything else goes down, we'll just have a country of the working (or unemployed) poor.

All of this blame the governmet crap is tired and old. You wanted tax cuts, you got tax cuts. No one is going to allow you to dump toxic waste in their backyards in exchange for a job. You wouldn't do it, why do you expect someone else to do it?

Posted by: nsu1203 | March 1, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Okay, where are all the jobs Obama and the dem's created? Oh...wait..they do not exist!! We wasted time on windmills (health care) while people were loosing jobs. Green energy? Ask Greece how they love their green energy economy.

Employing the people with government jobs is not going to get America financially solvent.

The USA is still has a large manufacturing base especially in those states who do not kill production with high taxes. Do you idiots realize that your precisious Iphone would cost 1800 if assembled in the USA. Yes, I said assembled as non of the actual parts are made in China (USA and two other countries)but the phone is put together in China. So let me hear all of your who would pay $1800 for your 100% american made and assembled I-Phone? I didn't think so.

Posted by: scotch4ever | March 1, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

This is really quite simple. The repubs only care about the rich. Before last election dems said repubs have no plans to create jobs. Elections have consequences and I hope the repubs learned something from this. I doubt it though, because they should have learned this from the Bush/Cheney/Rummy regime. Repubs apparently can't learn, and their party is counting on that.

Posted by: jimbobkalina1 | March 2, 2011 1:50 AM | Report abuse

lowering spending helps lower the deficit...
means no increase in taxes...
as far as jobs go...
no matter what the house proposes...
without a president on board, it means nothing...
and nothing will happen...
when was the last time obama did something about jobs...
more than just talk...
as far as the whitehouse goes,
bring in more foreign workers...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 2, 2011 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Come on, Mr. Klein. I cannot believe that you do not know that Republicans campaign on whatever they think will get them elected. Then, when they are in office they do what they REALLY want to do. Is the American voter ever going to wake up to this reality? I am beginning to suspect that will not happeh in my lifetime. Seems to me that all I have heard since they were elected is remove the deficit (the same deficit that they and Bush caused) and outlaw abortions (they pull that one out at every opportunity.) The only jobs they care about are their own and those of their wealthy benefactors. The Dems are too much like that on jobs as well but not on almost everything else. Where I fault them is on caving to Bush repeatedly, just like Obama caves to Repubs, and letting the wars (notably Iraq) happen and go on and on and on and on. The American voter, not all but the average one, refuses to see that they keep voting for those who have us well on the road to a third world country. I wonder if they will even see the folly of their ways and votes when it all accomplished.

Posted by: nana1ellen | March 2, 2011 7:46 AM | Report abuse

How sweet of the republicans to ask themselves "where are the jobs?" I've been asking that since 2001 when they implemented tax cuts for the rich with the promise of jobs...Now they want us all to have amnesia about about 2001 and "them only being in office since Jan"... And we idiot Americans will probably fall for it instead of putting fire under their rear ends for the failed policy of the last 10 years.

Posted by: Sherry91 | March 2, 2011 9:58 AM | Report abuse

How sweet of the republicans to ask themselves "where are the jobs?" I've been asking that since 2001 when they implemented tax cuts for the rich with the promise of jobs...Now they want us all to have amnesia about 2001 and their ready excuse of "we've only been in office since Jan"... And we idiot Americans will probably fall for it(again and again) instead of putting fire under their rear ends for the failed policy of the last 10 years.

Posted by: Sherry91 | March 2, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

IQ168,
please please please be in my business. If you need 20 workers and are not hiring because you are scared of the "socialized" healthcare law, then it only a matter of time before we eat your lunch. If I need 20 workers to handle increased business, I'm going to hire them and worry about the healthcare later. If necessary, I can lay a couple off to make up the difference.

As for the rest of you claiming the government doesn't create jobs?? Don't any of you own a GPS? All the jobs making them, shipping them, repairing and selling them are all a direct result of the Government putting up satellites for its own purposes. People who sleep on the memory foam mattresses bought a product that is a result of the government space program. Anyone making money or working because of the internet can thank the government for their job.

Posted by: Repub | March 2, 2011 11:54 AM | Report abuse

For those who may be perlplexed let me make it easy. I employ over 3,000 people & do not plan on hiring anyone, nor replacing if I can not count on not having excessive costs associated with each employee, the tax laws consistant & the anti-business environment limited. If the GOP only reign's thiese matters in I will hire again. Otherwise offshore looks more & more attractive.

Posted by: A_R_Med | March 4, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Klein is mistaken in his absurd assertion that Government, whether Democrat or Republican majority, can or even has a constitutional capability to create jobs. What government can do and what smaller, less confiscatory taxation and regulatory policy can do is to create an environment where both business and workers can devise jobs. Our Government regulatory, taxation, even our educational systems have assayed to create financial and societal pressures such that a create deal of the productive jobs that might be created or more specifically recreated, are outsourced, off-shored, or see American workers downsized and retrained into other 'cubical jobs' that are themselves ultimately downsized, off-shored or outsourced. Not unexpected as a result of America focusing on the 'service jobs', the 'office', telecommuter sort of jobs that government insists is the 'wave of the future' is several generations of dependent, couch potatoes counting on a 'desk jobs, a flat screen and mouse' to put food on the table and a roof over their head. Like it or not folks, any nation that does not produce the energy to fuel it's commerce, that does not build the products it's citizens consume, and that cannot feed it's population from the bounty within it's own borders, will remain subservient to foreign events and interests. Stabilize the egregious, unsustainable population growth we're experiencing through immigration, implement policies that reward, or at least that don't punish employers who hire American workers, and punish those who don't, enact legislation that makes it more difficult and costly to outsource American jobs, and implement real 'balanced trade' policies by establishing practices that constrain our trading partners to purchase American products and material equal to the value of the goods they export into our nation. Balanced trade should never be the simple transfer of money to a few fat cats, nor huge outflows of American dollars for the cheap DVD players and gizmo's built by slave labor wage paying corporations in a third world backwater, but rather a fair exchange of products and resources whereby all 'workers', and not just government and management benefit. Government at best can't and shouldn't be in the business of creating jobs, it should recognize it's duty however to prevent corporations and trading partners from gaming the system to deny American workers opportunities. Our commerce cannot (and I assure you will not) continue to be a one way street for American dollars to purchase goods that aren't built in America, nor can we long survive on only a service oriented industry, regardless of how often our workers ask 'do you want fries with that', or 'I'm calling on behalf of Citibank about your past due credit card'!

Posted by: edweirdness | March 4, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

All of you contending that Democrats created jobs do realize that we're now seeing the layoff's as the stimulus dollars that funded these jobs are running out? You can't take from one productive entity to give to an unproductive entity to establish that entity as productive. Putting tax dollars, or creating new funny money into the economy may at times be a necessity short term, but make no mistake, this is simply the act of taking money out of your hip pocket and putting it in your front pocket, and insisting that you've created wealth where none existed, or your helping the economy grow. The problem with spending other peoples money for programs and policies is that eventually these other people run out of money as well.

Posted by: edweirdness | March 4, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company