Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Why did the President include so many tax cuts, and why didn't he make his proposal sufficiently large to make a real impact on jobs and growth? Because he crafted it in order to appeal to Republicans. To get it enacted, he needs their votes. I'm having a dizzying sense of deja vu."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



Jobs: Two Cheers, One Jeer

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

09 September 11

 

wo cheers for the President and his America's Jobs Act. Cheer Number One: In presenting it to a joint session of Congress, he sounded as passionate and determined as he's ever sounded.

Second cheer: He laid out the problem correctly and effectively. He explained why jobs and growth must be the nation's first priority now - not the federal deficit. The economy is in crisis. People are hurting. So government must act, and act quickly. It's irresponsible at a time like this to suggest that government should simply close down.

But a jeer because the jobs plan he presented isn't nearly large enough or bold enough to make a major dent in unemployment, or to restart the economy.

$450 billion sounds like a lot - and is more than I expected - but some of this merely extends current spending (unemployment benefits) and tax cuts (in Social Security taxes), so it doesn't add to aggregate demand.

The net new boost to the economy is closer to $300 billion. That doesn't approach even half the gap between what the economy is now producing and what it could produce at or near full employment.

And much that $300 billion is in the form of temporary tax cuts to individuals and companies. Some of these make sense - enlarging the Social Security tax cut, extending it to employers, and giving small businesses a tax holiday for new hires.

But temporary tax cuts haven't proven to be particularly effective in stimulating new spending in times of economic stress. People tend to use them to pay off debts or increase savings. Companies use them to reduce costs, but they won't make additional hires unless they expect additional sales - which won't occur unless consumers increase their spending.

That leaves some $140 billion for infrastructure - improving outworn school buildings, roads, bridges, ports, and so on. And $35 billion to help cash-starved states avoid more layoffs teachers. Both good and important but still small relative to the overall need.

Why did the President include so many tax cuts, and why didn't he make his proposal sufficiently large to make a real impact on jobs and growth? Because he crafted it in order to appeal to Republicans. To get it enacted, he needs their votes.

I'm having a dizzying sense of déjà vu. The first $800 billion stimulus (spread over two years) wasn't nearly large enough given the drop in aggregate demand. And half of it was in the form of tax cuts. The reason it wasn't bigger and contained so many tax cuts was to get Republican votes. But its apparent ineffectiveness - it saved around 3 million jobs, but that didn't save it from appearing to fail - made it harder for the White House to do anything more to stimulate the economy, and ward off what's likely to be a double dip.

That's been the heart of Obama's dilemma. Big and bold enough to make a difference, and Republicans are certain to reject it. Small and focused on tax cuts, and maybe Republicans will bite. But even if they sign on, what's the point of the exercise if it won't have a measurable effect on jobs and growth?

And why would they sign on this time, anyway?

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell scoffs "This isn't a job plan. It's a reelection plan." That's precisely the problem. McConnell and company have stated publicly that their number-one objective is to unseat Obama and regain the presidency in 2012. They don't want to give the President anything he could possibly claim as a victory. And they're not terribly worried if the economy stays awful through Election Day because that's the best way to fulfill their number-one objective.

The President would have done better with a plan that was big enough to make a real difference. And then, when Republicans rejected it, campaign on it.

So two cheers - for both the President's style and his words. And one jeer: He failed on substance and strategy.


Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+11 # Rick Levy 2011-09-09 21:18
We need structural changes, not half-assed band-aid solutions.
 
 
+9 # brux 2011-09-09 21:56
I feel that Reich is pulling his punches here and being much too kind ... 2 cheers .... for this. I feel mostly like jeering ... this plan of Obama's is so calculated to look good and not do anything and to one up the Republicans, but no vision is expressed, no real change is possible,
 
 
+5 # tomo 2011-09-09 22:08
I can't imagine why Reich is taking any of this seriously. Obama spoke of jobs in 2008 and now he is speaking of them again now. It has nothing to do with his intentions, and everything to do with his desire to be re-elected.
 
 
+9 # tovangar2 2011-09-10 03:11
"So two cheers - for both the President's style and his words. And one jeer: He failed on substance and strategy."

That's the problem with Obama. All style, no substance.

I give him three jeers.
 
 
+6 # McKennaMother 2011-09-10 04:57
Well said. Polite society demands that we offer a few kudos before we eviscerate the Prez. This is dmirable. However, among friends, we can agree that three jeers would be suitable. Does he really believe we will be taken in after his track recorder of appeasement? Wouldn't you have despised having him for a college debate partner? He would never be able to make a case and stick to it.
 
 
+11 # Sandy G 2011-09-10 05:41
I do not understand why giving the nation's employers more huge tax-breaks will encourage them to hire more workers. They already have tons of extra cash on hand, can't sell all the stuff their workers can produce. They will be paid to hire more workers to produce more stuff they can't sell. Seems like that could only lead to a glutted market, leading to lower prices and eventual economic collapse. Everyone seems to have forgotten the Demand side of the equation,.
 
 
+5 # tomo 2011-09-10 09:28
Sandy: I think your comment is very insightful--and, as you say, it is strangely ignored. The tendency of entrepreneurs and CEO's is to minimize the cost of labor to the point that those who make and those who distribute the product take as little away from the profit on the product as possible. In America now, we see that Americans take almost nothing from the product as makers--we have transported the manufacturing process overseas. And by union-busting, the CEO's (those Godfathers of the American system as we know it today) have done what they could to hold down the income of truck-drivers and retail clerks (Wal-Mart retail clerks, for instance). The result is that Effective Demand (purchasing power) is diminished. Whenever America's Richly Demented succeed in shifting more of the tax burden to the Middle Class and the genuinely poor, they further reduce the Effective Demand in the marketplace. As such demand moves toward virtual extinction, we get, as you say, Surplus Product ("a glutted market")--which can bring on recession, depression, or terminal collapse.
 
 
+1 # JCM 2011-09-10 06:32
I understand everyone’s frustration with the President. We want him to do what we want and he doesn't and he can't, so we get angry and frustrated. But the political reality is simple. We either support him or let the Republicans have what they want and they have done everything (or nothing), regardless of the effect on our country, to get it.
 
 
+2 # rtrues54 2011-09-10 13:24
Quoting
I understand everyone’s frustration with the President. We want him to do what we want and he doesn't and he can't, so we get angry and frustrated. But the political reality is simple. We either support him or let the Republicans have what they want and they have done everything (or nothing), regardless of the effect on our country, to get it.



WRONG. OBAMA WILL NOT LEAD!!! OBAMA WILL NOT FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE!!! WE MUST REPLACE HIM IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES WITH BERNIE SANDERS.
 
 
+2 # JCM 2011-09-11 12:25
Unfortunately, that is not an option. Personally I like Bernie Sanders but he would not run against the President because he knows how damaging that would be. Your choice, like it or not, is Obama and every Dem you can vote for or the Republicans take complete control and continue to destroy our country. We need a filibuster proof Congress. I'll guarantee you will like Obama if we give him one!
 
 
+8 # Abigail 2011-09-10 07:33
What we need is a plan similar to FDR's plan in the '30s. An organization such as the WPA, which built many of the roads and bridges we use today. Now most of those roads and bridges are obsolete or decaying and this would have been the opportunity to rebuild. I know that FRD is an anathema for the Republicans, but it would have meant putting a meaningful objective on the table.
 
 
+4 # tomo 2011-09-10 09:46
Right on, Abigail! Unfortunately, a spell has been cast on the minds of ordinary Americans. Republicans believe in "big government" when it comes to invading other countries (liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein by smashing Iraq to smithereens; bringing democracy to Afghanistan even if we have to blow up wedding parties and funerals in the process); but when it comes to ministering to the needs of ordinary Americans, Republicans can be counted on to shout: "That's socialism!" (Even the postal service seems about to fall under the knife.)

This altogether brainless mantra is not only promoted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (a part of whose claim to fame seems to be that he never studies anything), but it seems to infect the thinking too of Americans who don't endorse the Republican brand.

Obama is by now altogether disqualified to lead us out of this morass. If the energies and time of liberals and progressives are going to be detoured
into a very counter-intuitive effort to keep him in the White House for another four years, I do not see any solution emerging. The ancients said: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Unless ordinary Americans can think their way out of the spell they are under, I think "America as we've known it" is over.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2011-09-10 07:57
1934 West Coast waterfront strike - and 8 September 2011 - Seattle strike - very significant - but CENSORED
"They overwhelmed guards, smashed windows in the guard shack and dumped grain. Six guards were trapped for a couple of hours, Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha said. He initially referred to the guards as "hostages," but later retracted that after the guards clarified no one had threatened them.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/nlrb-investigates-longshoremen-union-for-strike-gone-wrong/#ixzz1XZ5r4vYE"
"In Seattle, Tacoma, Everett and Anacortes, hundreds of Longshore workers failed to show up or walked off the job Thursday in apparent solidarity with the Longview activists, halting work at those ports. Union leaders said they had NOT called for any such actions."
Power of powerless - this would crash economy/crap from China immediately. Mr. Reich - ex-labor secretary - please comment.
 
 
+2 # jwb110 2011-09-10 09:10
I know that there is always nostalgia for the FDR plans but he met with enormous opposition, much like the sitting President, and it was a giant fight. The GOP/TP have dedicated their lives to undoing the New Deal. They have been harping on something that happened over 70 years ago. They will not allow any back sliding.
I would suggest that at this time of rising fuel costs that the President and his Sec. of State operate outside the State Dept. and go to the countries that sell us cheap goods and offer them incentives too save the cost of cartage and make the goods here in the US. Even if the, lets say the Chinese, were to bring their workers here to make the goods, insuring cheap wages, those people would certainly spend money into the US economy. Demand for certain goods would rise. Housing would have to provided for these same workers. Housing starts might very well improve.
This is not the best case scenario for the American worker but it might fire a shot across the bow of the monied Americans to start investing in jobs/manufacturing and get in on some of the profit. We will have to appeal to the avarice of the rich inorder to get them to move. Tax breaks make them richer. It doesn't make them return America to its greatness.
 
 
+5 # sfrider 2011-09-10 09:30
"The President would have done better with a plan that was big enough to make a real difference. And then, when Republicans rejected it, campaign on it."

Perhaps, but in reality it probably doesn't make much difference because Republicans are going to reject the plan he offered, and then he can campaign on it. Ultimately, the only hope is for Americans to wake up and vote for candidates who have some real understanding of macroeconomics -- not this current Republican voodoo crowd.
 
 
+2 # Holyone 2011-09-10 14:08
Sfrider, you are so right. We voted republican Or didn'vote at all and now have more of the same. Are we going to be fooolish enough to AGAIN vote For Republicans (or not vote at all) who sold us down the drain.

It is not about Obama they were doing this stuff before Obama ever came on the scene.They us this line to rally the bias in people.

Remember when the story line was, Obama is doing too much too fast?

How can Obama campaing on doing something right now when we don't give him credit for the right he has already done Like Health Reform, A consumer protection Agency, Student loans and the list goes on.

Even if Obama had asked for more stimulus , we now know it would not have been enough because things were worse than economist stated.
 
 
+2 # Holyone 2011-09-10 15:06
I must give it to the "Party from Hell", No matter what their candidate or president does, they stick together, even though they may privately diaagree.

But progressives not only dig for areas to diaagree they go to lenghts to ignore what good has been done.

Robert Reich is a Hillary and Bill Clinton man and he did not become Labor Sec. The Clintons have proven that they do not take kindly to being beaten

After all, most of Obama's advisors are Clinton people??? What would would be different?

Warren is more valuable in the Senate where the power is . A solid democratic congress can over-ride any President.
 
 
+2 # BVA 2011-09-12 10:28
I fully intend to vote for Obama next year. He gave a great speech. But there's not enough substance in the total proposal. He should have gone much bigger, and then campaigned against the Republican congress. There's lots more he could have proposed to 'jolt' the economy, such as a combat (50%), hazardous-duty (25%), and regular (10%) military pay increase retroactive to 9/11/2001. How could Republicans vote against that? And it would all be spent by current and past members and their families, and the surviving families of war dead and disabled. Nobody can say they don't deserve it.

Maybe this country has 'jumped the shark'. I don't know. The concept of American Exceptionalism is touted mostly by pseudo-patriots, but America's Exceptionalism is real; and it is based on Americans' pragmatism, doing the best good thing that will work. It is noteworthy that the only school of philosophy ever created by Americans is 'Pragmatism'.

I like Obama's pragmatism, but he keeps playing the useful "bipartisan fool". I think maybe President Obama has 'jumped the shark'. I hope not! One recent 2 sentence blog comment summed up his unfortunate situation: "There are many different leadership styles. The President has embraced none of them!"
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.