Economic Plans

8/2/2019 Economic Plans

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/economic-plans 1/20

THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT WILL CREATE JOBS?

February 26th, 2011

No President since World War II has been re-elected with an unemployment

rate over 7.2% - a piece of conventional wisdom that has been floating

around almost since the day that Barack H. Obama was inaugurated in

January 2009, a month that ultimately closed out with an ominous

unemployment rate of 7.8% - albeit was reported at the time to be 7.6%.

This dismal employment statistic was just “one” factor throwing firewood into

the burning economic future of the Obama Administration, getting it into a

bucket-load of trouble.

In a December 2008 memo economic adviser Christina D. Romer originally

pushed for a $1.8 trillion stimulus, at the time it was considered politically

impossible, and when Obama officially asked for less than 50% of that

amount, he was still greeted with intense GOP opposition, although 40% of

his request was in the shape of tax cuts. Projections released on January 10th,

2009 anticipated peak unemployment of 8% with the scaled-down stimulus,

and 9% without it. History demonstrates that the 8% figure was passed the

following month, whereas Feb ended with 8.3% unemployment – the stimulus

plan was signed into law on February 18th, 2009.

Most Republicans if not all argue that the stimulus was a failure, since

unemployment peaked at 10% in October 2009, but Christina Romer’s

original calculations had been “proved and vindicated”, the recession was far

more severe than originally anticipated, and a much larger stimulus had been

called for. Although the unemployment rate could have been over 11% or

more without the stimulus, is of little or no solace, but in some cases it is



believed that in the political arena the continued high-rates today may make

little or no difference in the rhetoric being shouted in the on-going political

platforms.

One banner being waved about is the present administrations not approving

the tar sands oil pipeline running south from Alberta, Canada – and riding

behind this is the fact about the millions of barrels in Alaska, which the

opposition maintains is still un-tapped.

ANWR is a piece of the State of Alaska with over 29,687 square miles, an

area that has been an on-going political controversy in the US since 1977,

both parties using it as a front-hanging political device, along with being a

violent subject of public debate in the National Media. As the largest

protected wilderness in the United States under the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act of 1980, it is even more-so debated as the on-going

world demand for oil increases on a daily basis, 91 million barrels per day is

being consumed.

Much of the debate centers around the 1002 Area, in and around Kaktovik,

which bounces around how much of ANWR oil is actually recoverable oil, as it

relates to the world oil markets. A 1998 USGS report estimates that between

5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of “technically” recoverable oil and natural gas



liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a “mean” estimate of 10.4

billion barrels, or which 7.7 billion barrels lie within the Federal portion of

ANWRs 1002 Area. In comparison it is said (another estimate) the volume of

undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the rest of the United States is

about 120 billion barrels – keep in mind that the ANWR and undiscovered

estimates are categorized as “prospective resources” and thereby NOT

proved. The proven US reserves (DOE) is around 29 billion barrels of crude

and natural gas liquids, of which 21 billion barrels are crude – world wide

information puts the world wide proven oil and gas condensate reserves at

1.1 to 1.3 trillion barrels.

So be it, but it is a fact that oil is a huge factor in our unemployment,

although the rate is slowly creeping down, where today at 8.3% in now

matches that of February 2009 and still a bit away from the 7.6% when

Obama took office.

Consider Ronald Reagan was re-elected with a 7.2% unemployment rate by

an overwhelming 18 points – which strongly suggests he could have been re-

elected with a much higher rate, and in our not-to-distant past FDR before

WWII was re-elected by even bigger landslides in 1936 and 1940 when

unemployment was in the double digits! All-in-all figures sometimes are not

accurately correlated whereas historically the correlation between the

unemployment rate and a President’s electoral performance has been

essentially zero. Albeit Obama’s performance according to the charts today

have been pretty weak when it comes to unemployment, some would counter

with the fact (as presented by the opposition) that government should not be

involved in private enterprise in the first place, yet they point to the

information that says there are too many government regulations, which has

stymied employment.

It was in October 2011 that Obama announced a four-part, $447 billion jobs

plan (with a 5th part dedicated to making sure it would be deficit-neutral)

which the Republicans in Congress blocked, although it remains a good guide

to the kinds of things he would like to do in a 2nd term. Keep-in-mind that

“parts” of his job plan are about to be passed, as shifting political fortunes

have made Republicans more willing to work with his plan….in other words it



is an election year and the opposition really doesn’t want to be against

reducing the unemployment rate.

The 1st part of his plan “cuts to help America’s small businesses hire and

grow”, had as its centerpiece – cutting the payroll tax by 50% thereby

creating a predicted 98% increase in business. It also included a “complete”

payroll tax holiday for added workers or increasing existing workers wages.

The 2nd part, “Putting workers back on the job while rebuilding and

modernizing America”, included a ‘Returning Heroes’ tax credit for veterans,

proving anywhere from $5,600 to $9,600, another part had support for state

and local governments to prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while

keeping cops and firefighters on the job, a package that also include the

modernization for at least 35,000 public schools, supporting new science

labs, internet classrooms and other renovations, with another item being

immediate investments in infrastructure and a National Infrastructure Bank to

modernize roads, rails, airports and waterways and put hundreds of

thousands of workers back to work, and finally a “Project Rebuild” which will

put people back to work re-habilitating homes, businesses and communities,

via various different public-private collaborations.

The 3rd part, “Pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs”,

included an extension of unemployment insurance for 6 million Americans

with three “innovative reforms” such as supporting state-level programs, one

to support work-sharing alternatives to layoffs, and another for displaced

workers to take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job-training and

a third to provide wage insurance to help re-employ older workers or help

them start their own business. It also included a $4,000 employer tax credit

for hiring the long-term unemployed, and a prohibition on discriminating

against unemployed workers.

The 4th part, “Tax relief for every American worker and family” had cutting

payroll taxes by 50% for 160 million workers in 2012, providing a $1,500 tax

cut to the typical American family, along with allowing more Americans to

refinance their mortgages at then-current interest rates, which were around

4%.

This plan overall represented a good “jobs plan” in a traditional sense,

having a detailed focus on specific aspects of the problem and specific



policies to address the problems facing most Americans today. Whereas the

relationship between problems and their solutions was transparent and

straight-forward giving the problems and their ideas proposed, as well as

possible alternatives. It shot to the heart of the matter, leaving the less

articulated plans of a broader economic plan and the political rhetoric it

generates – in other words, the plan carried multiple explicit short-term and

long-term goals, as well as cultural, social and a strong political agendas as

well. It is a front-runner in any ideas today coming from his opposition this

November.

In September 2011 Romney released his “job plans”, getting a brief jump

on Obama’s employment speech to Congress – despite its title, Romney’s

plan stumbles all over the place while including 95 separate proposals,

nevertheless he claims his plan will produce 11.5 million jobs in his 1st term,

with an average GDP growth of 4% per year, and a reduction in the

unemployment rate from the then current 9.1% to 5.9%.

Because his plans are so smoky it is hard to wrap your arms around them,

and if history is any proof, there has been no Republican president since the

Great Depression that has presided over a four-year term with a 4% GDP

growth, only Democrats have done this well or better, facts and figures show

that except for the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, have managed this level of

growth for at least one-term. Ronald Reagan’s 2nd term showed a 3.7%

growth which is the best Republican record in this era, although Bill Clinton’s

4.4% 2nd term growth tops his, and trailing far behind we see GWBs 2.2%

growth value. Even pick-up-the-dog by the ears Johnson managed a 5% GDP,

and Truman barely missed the mark while FR topped 7.8% his first term and

just missed 15% during WWII. Again there is an old saying from the New

Deal era, “If you want to live like a Republican, you must vote like a

Democrat”, three generations later the historical record still bears this out.

Albeit Romney’s plan is shouted as being a “bold, sweeping and detailed

proposal” loudly promising a “fundamental turnaround of the American

economy”, experts on then sidelines such a members of then Wall Street

Journal (which is pro-GOP) remarked that his plan “shrinks from some of the

biggest issues” and “strikes” us as surprisingly timid and tactical considering

our economic predicament, another group said, “Many of Romney’s proposed



policies are standard GOP fare such as cutting corporate taxes, reducing

government spending, eliminating burdensome regulations, expanding US

energy production and restricting the power of the Labor Unions”, which in

reality apply zero, zip, nada in having a strong relationship with true job

creation…the dust has somewhat settled from the latest GOP tax breaks for

the corporations and our unemployment is far above the norm – what say

you?

In simple words, “standard GOP fare” really means actions that favor GOP

aligned groups, regardless of economic impact – in that they help redistribute

power and money upward – evidence of this is in his plan of the seven anti-

labor provisions, none of which has any obvious job-creation roles.

• (40) Appoint to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) experiencedindividuals with respect for the rule of law.

• (41) Amend NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) to explicitly protectthe right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit.

• (42) Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every unioncertification election.

• (43) Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last atleast one month.

• (44) Support states in pursuing right-to-work laws.• (45) Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically

deducted from worker paychecks.• (46) Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the

playing field toward organized labor.

Although they also mimic Obama’s jobs panel in some area’s, like including

provisions to expand support for the fossil fuel industry while concentrating

support for “green alternatives” on basic research at a time when China,

Europe and others are pouring production investments into these

fundamental building blocks of the 21st Centuries Global Economy, it should

be pointed out that favoring a dinosaur industry over a future-oriented one,

whereas fossil fuel production has become capital-intensive, precisely the

type of spending that produces far fewer jobs per dollar than other uses of

taxpayer money – besides the oil companies are awash in capital, and to both

I say how this fits in with a true “job creation” program is a mystery to me.

In truth, not being part of the 1% or ever have been close in my career of

labor it makes it sort of difficult to write objectively about the present ticket



of GOP candidates, but I try….bear that in mind when you ramble through my

scribbles. As for being a conservative I am and always will be, but being a

knucklehead and being a conservative are two different things.

On with it! There are only two sensible avenues to take when examining

Romney’s economic approach: 1st you have to look at the actions that he

chose to highlight, and 2nd to look at his tax policies and spending policies, in

particular the big three, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which in his

case mimics the present state of affairs of the Republican party…a stance he

must take to get himself through the primaries…which he has to soft pedal in

order not to get knocked around in the General Election if he makes it that

far.

It has been reported, ABC I believe, “Romney says that, on the first day in

office he would take ten actions to turn around the economy, including

sending a package of five-bills to Congress and asking for action within 30-

days.” I believe he labeled them the “Day One, Job One Initiative”, in order

to highlight their importance.

1) Reducing the corporate income tax from 35% to 25%, which he claimed

would induce short-term job growth through incentive hiring, we’ve

heard that before!

2) Passing the “stalled” Columbia, Panama and South Korea Free Trade

agreements. Note: Shortly after he presented his overall plan these

were passed by the Congress and endorsed by Obama almost

immediately. Although as a batch conservative Republicans and neo-

liberal Democrats (as Obama) are both on-board with the agreements,

the evidence behind them is decidedly mixed – at best. Whereas the

economic theory of comparative, which supports them, is a static

theory, rather than a dynamic, developmental one, which in effect

makes the package ineffective.

3) Calling for a survey of US energy reserves that “could” in turn promote

domestic production of energy and create jobs

4) Making states responsible for retraining programs, and

5) Submitting a bill to cut non-security discretionary spending by 5%

Romney also promised to issue five executive orders to:



1) Repeal “Obamacare”

2) Eliminate or repeal any Obama-era regulations that “have a negative

effect on job creation and economic growth”

3) Develop a streamlined process to create new oil and gas drilling

4) Sanction China for currency manipulation

5) Reverse pro-union orders issued by the Obama administration

Even I as a non-student of law know that Obamacare is a Federal Law,

whereas Romney can’t do away with it with an “Executive Order”, I believe I

learned this in High School civics class. Whereby Romney’s claim runs along

side what one would label as a sloppy political stunt to pander to the

Republican base – in reality his plan only mumbles about Social Security and

Medicare, and in fact does not appear on his summary list of his 59 points.

Think about it, would he want to eliminate the grey crowd before he even

made the Republican ticket?

Under his heading of “Enact Entitlement Reform”, which by-the-way did not

make his list of 59 items, he said, “First, we must keep the promises made to

our current retirees: their Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be

affected. But, second, we should ensure that the promises that we make to

younger generations are promises we can keep”. In silence, since his plan

doesn’t include raising more revenue for each plan, it translates into cutting

benefits, in addition regarding Medicare he remarked, “The plan put forward

by Congressman Paul Ryan makes important strides, but as President” his

plan will differ, but will “share” those objectives. Remember Congressman

Ryan’s plan would “privatize” Medicare through a “voucher system” that at-

the-end of your visit would pay “only” a fraction of private medical insurance,

an unmovable fraction that will continually “decrease” over time as the

actual medical costs increase. In backtracking Romney said later that his

plan would preserve the existing Medicare program as an “option”, making it

less punitive than Ryan’s plan, but also making it less economically coherent

– at the end of the day one can only read that in short – Romney plans deep

cuts to government, but is very reluctant to spell out the most painful details,

much less consider how this will affect the economy and jobs. In other words,

he is being a true politician joining the ranks of many that have stepped into

the office before Obama, including Obama.



Citizens for Tax Justice noted in Romney’s plan that cutting revenues by

$6.6 trillion, “would give the richest 1% an average tax cut of $126,450,

while giving the middle 5th of Americans an average tax cut of $1,220, over

100X of that of the 1%. Keep-in-mind that is only lightly referred to, since

Romney has “only” made a “few” sweeping statements, without releasing

“any” details. It is also important to know he has made some “contradictory

statements” indicating he would “cut” top tax rates below what he previously

stated. All-in-all his plan was actually the least “expensive” of all the GOP

candidate plans the Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed – nevertheless, by

continuing the GWB tax cuts for the well-off, and in addition adding more tax

cuts on top of them, he is clearly “doubling down” on the GOPs “trickle-down”

approach that has been grossly misrepresented by the GOP, failing to

generate the broad prosperity or even sustained levels of growth, in

comparison to other initiatives flown by the Middle Class by previous

administration, most Democrats.

In November, Rick Santorum released his “Made in America” plan to

“revitalize the American economy”, one fact in his favor is he didn’t call it a

“jobs plan” – albeit the “jobs theme” runs wild within it. Like his competitor

Mitt Romney, its primary focus is “broadly” political, favoring one group over

another “rather than” focusing on actions beneficial to the country and

economy as a whole – but it’s presented somewhat “less” starkly in “Us-vs-

Them” terms, although it highlights the “Us” rather than the “Them”.

It adds 1.5X dimensions more than Romney’s plan lacks:

1) It has a number of proposals favoring large families

2) It rhetorically targets rebuilding domestic manufacturing, that include

additional provisions that favor US overseas companies

All-in-all, he does a superior job of melding economic and social

conservatism, although his treatment relating to this union to economic

outcomes leaves a lot to be desired, and as most GOP conservatives he is

noted as a anti-government Republican, he says he doesn’t believe the US

government should pick the economy’s “winners and losers”, except for

manufactures, small businesses and families – a political push in his attempt

to merge social and economic conservatives…or a culmination of a decade-



long process…that is intended to increase political power at the cost of basic,

logical, real-world sight.

When he announced his plan he said, “Our nation’s first economy is the

family, and we must create an environment where families can thrive and

succeed in America again. Government must get out of the way, and

encourage an economic environment where the American entrepreneurial

spirit can again take our nation to the heights of success. My plan does just

that – it fosters families, gets government out of the way, and rebuilds the

great Middle of America that has been lost over the past 50-years. It’s time

that we focus on getting Americans back to work”.

It is a wonderful narrative to the post-GWB conservatives, who would really

like to be not reminded of the massive deficits created under GWBs

Presidency, that came along before our present economic meltdown, deficits

that Santorum as a senator until 2006, was along for the ride in creating

them…in further examination of his narrative, we see more political rhetoric

in the twisting of facts. The United States experienced early post-WWII

manufacturing dominance, which was dominated by “big government”

liberalism – whereas it was during the Reagan and post-Reagan period (Billy

Boy), from 1980 onward, when manufacturing began its march out of the US,

and the Middle-Class incomes stagnated – and the 1% rolled in the big

pastures of wealth. History is showing us that “economic de-regulation”, not

big-government, has dominated the period of our manufacturing decline.

In his attempt to attract the Middle-Class his plan says: “Cut and simplify

personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two, 10%

and 28% - mimicking the Regan era pro-growth top tax rate.”

In bowing to the GOP line he also proposes cutting the “capital gains” and

“dividend” tax rates to 12%, and slashing the “corporate” income tax rate to

17.5%, and eliminating it “entirely” for manufactures, along with eliminating

the “inheritance tax” and the “Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”), albeit he

“triples” the personal deduction for each child, and increases the “research

and development” tax credit from 14% to 20% - all aimed to promote a

manufacturing spurt in the United States, yet he also rewards those

companies who moved manufacturing oversea “when manufactures invest in

plant and equipment”, where he would eliminate the 35% tax on



“repatriated” oversea profits to 5.25%, so outside of manufacturing, US firms

would be taxed at 17.5% within our borders and 5.25% when they shifted a

majority of their production oversea – makes sense don’t it, and this is

supposed to create jobs here in the United States.

In noted steps the Citizens for Tax Justice analysis, it shows where his plan

totals $9.4 trillion in cuts and that it would give the 1% an average tax cut of

$217,500 and the middle 5th an average tax cut of $2,160 – or 100X less than

the 1%.

And like Romney he says he will “repeal” Obamacare, and replace it “with

market-based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America’s

healthcare and create jobs”, forgetting I guess that our market-based

healthcare system previously left tens-of-millions without medical care and

that it created our per capita cost roughly twice those of the rest-of-the-

developed world – how his plan would eliminate this is not too clear.

His funding cuts include:

1) Eliminate “all” agriculture and energy subsidies with four-years, letting

the markets do their stuff – I like this part too much, as most of the

subsidies do not reach the small family farms paying large mega-

corporations extremely huge amounts NOT to plant, and most smaller

operators in the energy field are left in the dust when it comes to the

mega-oil companies.

2) Eliminate resources for job killing radical regulatory approaches at the

EPA and refocus its mission on safe and clean water, air and

commonsense conservation

3) Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and support adoption – in

other words let childbirth for the young go unchecked, and then adopt

the un-wanted children – makes sense to me?

4) Reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board for extreme

positions undermining economic freedom –this is a natural to our

present group of conservatives ??

5) Eliminate funding for implementation of Obamacare – boy what a fuss

that is going to make – but it makes more sense than Romney’s

Executive Order



6) Eliminate funding for United Nations organizations that undermine

America’s interests – I really like this, at the same time pull our funding

for Israel

Like Romney’s plan it is pro-GOP, and is not anywhere near a plan to create

jobs in the United States, well it might be when it comes to item #1.

He also mentioned that he would “pass” a Balanced Budget Amendment to

the Constitution, another Presidential Power he will not have – where he

might endorse one if it is passed by the approval of Congress, the Senate and

all 50-states – he’s directly out of bounds when it comes to Amendments,

albeit he might push hard for it. But then again, his mouth is campaigning

and in this case his brain is focused on getting elected, so he’ll say just about

anything just as any other politician from either side of the aisle. Along with

“passing” a balanced budget amendment he would cap government

spending at 18%, which there again it is Congress who controls our budget –

so they tell me.

Santorum repeated many times his desire to “reform Social Security and

Medicare for sustainable retirements” – more standard GOP boilerplate, his

mimicking Mitt Romney’s lips, with the difference being that Mitt has shied

away from embracing Ryan’s plan to destroy/eliminate Medicare, starting in

2022 – whereas Santorum projects open hostility that strongly suggests he’d

like to begin “dismantling” Medicare immediately, remarking on one occasion

that “The Medicare system is simply like Romneycare in Massachusetts, it is

incredibly inefficient” – another shot of misleading rhetoric as economist

across the board have demonstrated that the Medicare administrative costs

are 2% are below private plans, while Medicare Advantage plans average

11% costs, in addition when “profit-taking is thrown in”, the 11% rises to 16%

representing the amount not being applied to medical care. On another

occasion Santorum said, “We should NOT have a government-run health care

system on Medicare or anything else,” further stating that “Medicare was

crushing the entire health care system in this country”, I guess his idea when

it comes to Medicare in creating more jobs will be in the advertising,

administration and claim agents who consistently deny people their

coverage. Once again the favorite flavor is not actually creating jobs in the



health care system as it is in the support industry that rips care away from

the people who need it. Other points in his plan include:

1) Eliminate all other Obama era regulations with an economic impact of

more than $100 million

2) Negotiate “five” Free Trade Agreements and submit to Congress in the

first year of his presidency

3) Tap into and develop the US domestic energy resources to power our

21st Century economy without picking winners and losers, so all

American families and businesses can have lower energy costs

4) Unleash innovation in telecommunications and Internet consumer

options by getting government out of the way, which will expand

productivity and lower costs

5) Block grant Medicaid, housing, job training and other social services to

the States

6) Freeze current non-defense related federal worker pay levels for a year,

and reduce the federal workforce by at least 10%, with no

compensatory increase in the contract workforce

7) Reclaim the role of parents as the decision makers in their children’s

education and be the cheerleader to the States to promote choice and

quality educational options – because the family is the foundation of the

economy.

As an educated individual (barely) I fail to see any dramatic increases in

jobs in either one of the candidates proposals, as a matter of fact both of

their proposals pander to the 1% and skip around the 99% - which is to be

expected as they are the knuckleheads the GOP has chosen to run with –

albeit I am a conservative as mentioned, I put the majority of the population

in the United States first – and will push any agenda that advances the

prosperity of the people, the slash and burn tactics demonstrated so-far by

the GOP rattles me, in more ways than one.

Now I would like to steal a little more of your time and perform my analysis

of all three plans as an Electrical Engineer who works on a daily basis with

finite numbers and not a political agenda – after all there are a great many of

my kind pounding on doors seeking gainful employment and almost on an



hourly basis whip out their pencils and push numbers around in their

checkbooks and household budgets trying their best to make the numbers

make sense or pay for the light.

My first action is to re-inform you on the contents of the “American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act” of 2009, is of the $745.8 billion, $299.8

billion shot off to Tax Benefits, $225.8 billion went to Contracts, Grants and

Loans, and $220.2 billion slipped over into Entitlements., which were only

69.7% of the total of $745.8 billion. By-the-way all of the $845.8 billion has

hit the streets, whereas as of Feb 17th,2011 - $57.3 billion is still lying about

along the Banks of the Potomac, of the amount drawn from the Tax Benefits

and Contract, Grants and Loan categories.

The top five States in receiving part of the Tax Benefits and Contracts,

Grants and loans, last reported on February 17, 2012 are

For those of you not familiar with “per capita” it means for each person in

the State. As of the 17th of February, the Acts funds dealing with this section

had remaining funds – 11.384% of $503,320,155,327 or a remaining balance

of over $57 billion.

The five lowest States, having smaller populations, drawing from the fund

are

The five States having the highest per capita value are



The biggest draw on the fund was the Federal Government Agencies, at

12.08% for a total value of $53,868,808,952, remember these values are

based on what was passed on from the Tax Benefits, Contracts, Grants and

Loans, which are only 69.7% of the total of $745.8 billion, which translates

into the rest moving into Entitlements ($225 billion or so). In taking the total

population, excluding the United States Territories, every Tom, Dick and

Henrietta living in the US received $1,238.76, again excluding the amount

that went to the Federal Agencies and Entitlements. But, of that amount

$714.19 was a paperwork shuffle for Tax Benefits, leaving the named three

around $524.57 walking around change.

Now I’ll walk through the $447 billion Jobs Bill Obama presented…which if

you apply the same methodology as the Stimulus Act, will give each

American approximately $1,412.01 – keep in mind that there is included in

his proposal another Paperwork shuffle, this time an amount that is hard to

determine…I would like to see their worksheets – ha!

The 1st part of the bill sits beyond my ability to estimate, as it will give a

50% payroll tax break to “those” small businesses that increase their payroll,

along with a “Tax Holiday” for added workers or increasing existing workers

salaries, and I’m not sure if the 50% is for “all” personnel of their payroll or

for just new hires or re-hires, and since its purpose is for creating opportunity

for “small” business it is difficult to establish a firm value. Over-all estimated

cost $65 billion.

The 2nd section includes another shadow area in which it gives “Returning

Heroes” tax breaks which could drift between $5,600 to $9,600, and there is

another part where the States will receive some payments that will help them

retain 280,000 teachers, along with money to retain policeman and

firefighters ($35 billion) – again I would like to see their spreadsheets or

dreamsheets.



Returning Heroes being a varied shadow area, the 280,000 teacher part, I’ll

use for example the State of Washington where in 2011-May there were

59,681 classroom teachers, 1,035,537 students at an average teacher salary

per student at $6,676 – translation the average salary of a classroom teacher

in the State is $115,836.61 per year. Using the methodology (percentages)

used in the Stimulus Package (averages) the State of Washington “could”

have received $8.69 billion in total of the $447 billion Jobs Bill – how much of

that would be slotted towards teachers is a shot-in-the-dark at best, just as it

is for cops and firefighters.

Included in the failed proposal were to be funds for the modernization of

35,000 public schools (for such things as science labs, internet classrooms

and other renovations. ($30 billion)

And then we saw a portion for investments in infrastructure, along with the

creation of a National Infrastructure Bank ($10 billion) (“NIB”) where money

could be had to modernize roads, railways, airports and waterways, and put

hundreds of thousands back to work ($50 billion). Then included in the 2nd

part was to be monies to re-habilitate homes, businesses and communities, in

corporation with different public-private enterprises. ($15 billion)

The 3rd part included an extension of unemployment insurance for 6-million

Americans ($49 billion), supported by three (“3”) innovative reforms, such as

supporting state-level programs, one aspect being workers sharing their job

(cutting their hours) this in lieu of layoffs, and another for “displaced”

workers to take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job-training ($5

billion) and a third to provide “wage insurance” to help re-employ older

workers or assist them in starting their own businesses. Here again we find

another paperwork shuffle with a proposed $4,000 tax credit for hiring long-

term unemployed and mixed in the shuffle a law that prohibited anyone from

discriminating against unemployed workers. ($8 billion.) – Please keep-in-

mind that “parts” of his Job Bill are making their way through Congress – such

as a revised Transportation Bill ($260 billion) being fought over today in the

House.

The two GOP candidates plan I’ve already slotted in my two-cents – and

besides I get shouted down by one of my brothers about the bills sitting on

the desks of the Senators that seem to be decaying (left to rot by the



Democratic Senators). Lately all 242 House Republicans have been

prompted by their leaders to flash cards that show the titles of these “job

creating bills out of the House”, as a detriment and the cause of our stagnant

economy.

Yet on both sides of the aisle and in the alleyways around the Potomac

there is huge amount of skepticism about how many jobs their proposals

would actually create – and at what cost? All the Republican proposals focus

largely NOT on creating new positions, but on protecting existing jobs by

doing-away-with Federal Regulation or trimming down the staff, tools and

funding that is necessary to enforce the regulations, such as food inspection –

in reality they run the gamut from Internet firms and oil drillers to cement

factories and industrial boilers.

The word on the street is many have yet to see a single proposal that was

actually a “jobs bill”, whereas they basically contain the same-old, same-old

Republican passed down rules that cut taxes for corporations and businesses

and cut the regulations for doing business.

The thrust against the Senate is seen as a political ploy that they feel if they

did make it to the Presidents desk he’d have but no choice to veto, whereby

they basically contain items that at the end-of-the-day will make our

population subject to material/food that will create sick people, make our air

dirtier and our food overall less safe. As for Obama vetoing them, it will only

give the opposition more ammunition on how Obama is stifling the economy.

It is no news that the GOP maintains their position that the Stimulus Bill

created not a single job, despite its $787 billion price tag –I remind you again

there is still $57.3 billion sitting around just waiting for someone to claim.

But then again the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) slaps a job creation

minimum value at 1.6 million jobs – albeit expensive it doesn’t began to tap

the real value of the Taxpayer bailing out our too-big-to-fail financial sector.

We’ve read and watched on our boob tubes, the wall that Obama ran into

when he proposed Jobs Package, if they had this stout of a wall in earthquake

country nary a building would collapse in a M-9.1 shaker. The reason for the

Republican slap in the face was their same-old mantra – excessive

government regulations.



How fast everyone forgets, it was between 2007-2010 that 5.8 million

people lost they jobs in “mass layoffs, where companies laid off 50 at a time

with some coming back after 50-days. Here is an important number, only

15,967 or 0.003% lost jobs because of “government

regulations/intervention”.

It is no big deal in understanding that the GOP chases and gains support

from some major business groups that have long argued that government

regulations impedes business growth, although the US Chamber of

Commerce and the National Association of Manufactures have NOT estimated

how many jobs the Republican proposals would create, but they “think” that

easing the regulations “could” foster more hiring.

Marty Regalia, the US Chambers chief economist said, “There have been all

kinds of estimates about how much does the regulatory burden impose on

the economy. It’s a debatable question. It doesn’t help if it is a regulation

that doesn’t need to be there or if it is a regulation that is overly

burdensome.” I can only add, leave it up to the business owner and we’d

have sweat shops in short order and stinky beef on your barbeque.

What I find burdensome is the bills that make it out of the House, whereas

the Senate is expected to paw through them and find “something” in some of

these bills that are worth the time and consideration of the U.S. Senate,

talking about stinky beef these bills are so loaded with Pork they are causing

problems in Muslim and Jewish circles.

And if its not Pork, it drastic changing in some laws – such as the one that

will STOP the EPA from clamping down on toxic mercury and arsenic

pollutants, whereas Republicans flap about screaming that doing-away with

the enforcement will help “retain” jobs at domestic cement factories, that are

already being beat to death by the sluggish construction industry brought

about by the lax rules and regulations in our financial industry that caused

the huge housing bubble and crash that started this entire mess.

As for this proposal eliminating jobs, what about the industry that assists

these cement factories (and others) in meeting and obtaining the regulations

put in-place to protect you and I – yep they will go by the wayside, while the

companies “retain” their workers and see their bottom line increase as they



no longer have to “retain” the companies help them stay within the

guidelines of safe and environmental guidelines.

So at best it appears that those bills stagnating in the Senate would not

create jobs but re-shuffle jobs, and sitting on the sidelines is one bill (still in

the House) where they hope to list on their flash cards, the $260 billion

transportation bill that “could” generate 7.8 million jobs, it was yanked off

the House floor last week – Ray LaHood, a former Republican House Member

and now Obama’s transportation secretary remarked “it’s a lousy bill.”

At their best, it's difficult to estimate any sort of job-creation impact for any of thesemeasures. In part, this reflects the general GOP ideology that government can't create

jobs, it can only "create the climate" in which private businesses create jobs.

As can be seen by comparing this with Obama's job plan, things look very different when



you believe that government can play a direct, positive, measurable role. For one thing,

the proposals get quite focused and specific. This facilitates analytical assessments, pro or

con. For whatever combination of reasons, the so-called hard-headed "Daddy Party" nolonger seems interested in that sort of thing.

Documents

Economic Plans