The New York Times wrote an interesting story today about how Obama’s jobs speech/plan will do little to impact the economy. Yea, it’s modest and isn’t meant to bring about any significant change. CBS Senior Business Correspondent Anthony Mason says that Obama’s plan is really a plan to keep us from falling into a double-dip recession. He also noted that businesses don’t hire when they receive tax cuts even though they would still like to see tax cuts happen. However, what does give businesses the incentive to hire is if they have more business. In other words, when the consumers of this country become employed, get their own tax cuts, are stimulated and coddled like the rich few, the economy will bounce back, somewhat. Business is struggling because they don’t have customers not because the business environment is too risky.
So what is really going on here? We are in the middle of a potential double-dip recession and Congress and the administration continue to cut programs, fight any investment unless it is offset with cuts, remove EPA funding and regulation, remove public programs in times of need (like Perry cutting TX’s fire department by 75% while the state suffers from wildfires) and give more tax-breaks to those who are well-off through the removal of Wall Street regulations. So under this logic, we can give the “job creators” more cuts while they enjoy record profits, but refuse to give the consumers and workers who fuel these industries any breaks? If we just keep cutting programs & services the majority of the country relies on and let them deal with rising inflation on top of stagnant wages, will the consumers eventually tap into some well of wealth and start stimulating businesses?
People who are upset with Obama and the economy keep asking him to stop doing what he’s been doing. Well since November 2010, Obama’s been held hostage by the party out of power and the Tea-Party. He’s also been infected with the Washington virus. I mean, his biggest contributor is Goldman Sachs. Congress is pushing to remove EPA regulations on air pollution, planning to cut over $1 trillion in programs and services at home and of course, extending the Bush tax cuts. That sounds kind of Republicany to me (yea, I just made-up a word, do something about it). So maybe we should stop what we’ve been doing for the last 10 years. Stopping these stagnant, job-killing ideas might be the change we’ve been desperately seeking.
Eventually we’re going to need revenue. We have a spending problem, possibly, but we definitely have revenue problems. If we covered the costs of entitlement programs today, that amount wouldn’t even be enough to pay the interest we would owe in 2046 (take a look at the graphic). I think we’re at the point where the words “revenue increase” have moved from a practical and necessary decision made by the U.S. government to a code word for fascism. You have to give it to the Republicans on Capitol Hill though, they are great at assassinating the character of the ideas and persons that oppose them. “Liberal,” “stimulus,” “revenue increase,” “environmental conservation,” “green jobs,” “community organizing” and “compromise” have all become dirty words. Maybe it’s better if the president and his allies just keep their mouths shut. You can’t make “nothing” a bad word, can you?