President Obama’s Spend and Tax “Jobs” Bill
UPDATE:
From: The 9.12 Project Network
“Help us Restore America!
A message to all members of The 9.12 Project Network
Fellow Principled Patriots
Over at CNN.com, there is a ‘quick poll,’ asking whether CNN'’s public supports the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Marxist movement, or the Tea Party movement.”
Of course, this is first of all NOT a scientific poll and second the poll is stacked against the Tea Party movement from the beginning. What conservative in his right mind wastes his valuable time watching the left, propagandizing CNN network?
Nevertheless, I went to
http://www.cnn.com/
and voted. At about 7PM, the poll was about half way down at the far right hand corner. I did not check this morning before posting this blog. The results of the poll at that time were:
“Quick Poll
(At about 6:55PM 10/14/11—my addition)
Which protest movement do you favor more, Occupy Wall Street or the tea party?
This is not a scientific poll
Occupy
69%
143876
Tea party
31%
64500
Total votes: 208376
This is not a scientific poll”
Watch this Video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation?feature=mhee#p/u/0/pyHkXaLrz0I
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110924/a73f5105-3125-4fef-b63c-17b9725591b7
Obama plan would make small dent in jobless rate
TOM RAUM
From Associated Press
September 24, 2011 4:38 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—Even if Congress heeds President Barack Obama’s demands to ‘pass this bill right away’ and enacts his jobs and tax plan in its entirety, the unemployment rate probably still would hover in nosebleed territory for at least three more years.
Why? Because the 1.9 million new jobs the White House says the bill would produce in 2012 falls short of what it’s needed to put the economy back on track to return to pre-recession jobless levels of under 6 percent, from today’s rate of 9.1 percent.
That’s how deep the jobs hole is. The persistent weakness of the U.S. economy has left 14 million people unemployed and more than 25 million unable to find full-time work.
Economists of all stripes pretty much agree that it will be a long, hard road no matter what Congress does. Right now, the Republicans who run the House and the Democrats who lead the Senate aren’t finding much common ground.
Obama estimates his American Jobs Act would lower unemployment by just a single percentage point by next year, to just over 8 percent, heading into the 2012 presidential election.
Burned before by making overly optimistic job-creation predictions, the White House turned to prominent outside economists to crunch the numbers.
The projection of 1.9 million new jobs, a 1 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate and a 2 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product under Obama’s plan came from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.
But Zandi said in an interview his forecast also is based on an assumption that ‘the president’s entire package is passed by the end of the year,’ a slim prospect given the current divided leadership in Congress, and that there are no other budgetary policy changes.
‘I assumed that it would be paid for,’ Zandi said. ‘I didn’t know when I did that simulation how the president proposed to pay for it.’ (Wouldn’t that be a KEY component of any future analysis of economic activity?—my addition)
Since then, Obama has said he would pay for his $447 billion package with permanent income tax increases of about $150 billion a year, mostly on wealthy individuals and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That’s drawn criticism from Republicans, who say any tax increases could further stall the fragile recovery.
Zandi, who has advised both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said he’s still sticking with his forecast, mainly because the stimulus in the plan, including a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and employers and infrastructure spending, would come in 2012 and be paid for later. (Paid for later? Really! How well does that work out? Check Illinois’s history of paying back bills owed later!—my addition)
But there is one feature Obama doesn’t emphasize.
Zandi said his job-creation figure only applies to 2012.
‘Beginning in 2013, and certainly into 2014, the plan is a drag on the economy because the stimulus starts fading away," he said. "So by 2015, the economy is in the same place as now, as if there were no jobs package.’ (Another short term “solution” to stimulate President Obama’s reelection campaign rather than really aiding the economy! DUH!!!—my addition)
Also, Zandi said, his forecast does not leave any room for a new recession. If that happens, all bets are off.
‘So it's very important to get as many people working as fast as possible,’ he said. ‘If we go back into recession, it is going to be very difficult to get out. And it’s going to cost taxpayers tremendously.’
Job creation has ground to a virtual standstill. The economy produced a scant 20,000 net new jobs in June, 85,000 in July and none in August. Economic output, as measured by the GDP, has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate below 1 percent.
The global economy is showing no signs of strengthening. A divided Federal Reserve is nearly out of ammunition for additional stimulus. And the U.S. is once again facing the possibility of a government shutdown at the end of next week.
The Obama-Zandi target of 1.9 million new jobs next year, or 158,000 a month, is somewhat higher than private analyses that suggest the plan would create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month.
Heidi Shierholz, economist for the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calculates it would take job growth of 400,000 every month for three years in a row to get back to the 5 percent jobless rate last seen in December 2007, at the recession’s outset.
‘To get down to 5 percent in five years, we need around 280,000 jobs every month,’ she added. ‘Right now, we’re more than two years into the official recovery, and we’re still bumping along at extremely low levels.’”
“As long as the GDP grows at an annual rate beneath 2.5 percent, it cannot create enough jobs for new entrants into the workforce, let alone to re-employ those laid off during the downturn, said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business lobby.
The chamber estimates it will take 20 million jobs over the next decade to get the economy back to pre-recession levels. It has its own jobs plan, which includes increased trade, greater oil drilling, quicker road and bridge construction and temporary corporate tax breaks.
‘If you want to go from 9.1 percent down to 5.5 or 6 percent unemployment, you’re going to have to grow roughly at 4.5 percent (GDP) for three years,’ Regalia said. ‘I don’t see that in the forecast.’
In the first six months of this year, the GDP grew at a scant 0.7 percent rate. Private forecasters see it growing about 2 percent in the final six months of 2011, about 2.5 percent throughout 2012, and increasing to about 3.2 percent in 2013.” (Really! If the government cooks the numbers?—my addition)
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111007/cb00c254-3261-457f-a89c-2974fafaf714
“FACT CHECK: Obama claims miss some evidence
JIM KUHNHENN
From Associated Press
October 07, 2011 4:20 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—Are President Barack Obama’s ideas for job creation really bipartisan as he claims? Not when the means for paying for them are put in the equation.
The president dodged various facts and left some evidence in the dust in his latest challenge to Republicans to get behind his jobs program or offer a real alternative. A look at some of the claims in his fast-paced news conference and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: ‘If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they’re opposed, and what would they do.’
THE FACTS: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama’s plan, they’ve hardly kept their objections a secret.
In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOP leadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.
They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama’s payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government’s general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.
OBAMA: ‘Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.’
THE FACTS: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama’s approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they’re eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.
In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it’s paid for, but that’s a crucial distinction he doesn’t make. (This bill WILL NOT do what he claims it will do!!! It is basically, taking money from citizens, giving it to government bureaucrats, and letting the government decide where the money should be spent instead of letting the earners of the money deciding where they want to spend their own money—my addition)
Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White House includes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators—Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was his proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers—it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.
OBAMA: ‘The answer we’re getting right now is: Well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations ... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?’
THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses.
It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: ‘Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion.’
OBAMA: ‘We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.’
THE FACTS: True, ‘in some cases’ wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.
In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes—paid only on the first $106,800 of wages—are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires. (Is any of this the “fault” of millionaires? Congress makes the tax laws not millionaires. High income tax payers pay the vast majority of income tax collected in this nation! 47% of tax returns filed did not have to pay income tax in the last reported period! 40% received money back without paying ANY federal income tax at all!!!—my addition)
OBAMA: ‘China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the United States. .... And currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. And that makes their exports cheaper and that makes our exports to them more expensive.’
THE FACTS: While Obama complained about China’s efforts to keeps its currency undervalued to gain trade advantages, his administration has repeatedly refused to brand China as a currency manipulator in a report that the Treasury Department is required to send to Congress twice a year.
Such a designation would trigger negotiations between the two countries and could ultimately lead to U.S. trade sanctions against China.
The administration has been reluctant to brand China a currency manipulator, as have past administrations, because the United States depends on China to buy U.S. Treasury securities to help finance America’s budget deficits (EXACTLY!—my addition). China owns $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities (Out of an almost $15 trillion debt!—my addition), making it the largest foreign holder of Treasury debt.
Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Martin Crutsinger and Calvin Woodward contributed to this report.”
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111010/9dda50fc-9597-49cf-8203-6b633c1e45a4
“SPIN METER: Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality
ERICA WERNER
From Associated Press
October 10, 2011 4:14 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—In President Barack Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.
When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.
When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail. (And have passed their own jobs bill which is actually based upon valid economic principles and not the tax and spend bill that Barack Hussein Obama is promoting!—my addition)
When he calls on Congress to ‘pass this bill now,’ he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities.
Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.
To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.
The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans. (Won’t work! We aren’t ignorant and we have witnessed his failures over the last two and one half years!—my addition)
He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case. (There is NO case to be made!—my addition)
For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.
Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama’s proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president’s proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.
The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president’s powers of persuading the public (Does it exist? Is he still a Pied Piper?—my addition) heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans’ ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.
‘He knows it’s not going to pass. He’s betting that voters won’t pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the ‘do-nothing Congress,’’ said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development. (The problem is the House of Representatives has been doing things. It is the Democratic Senate which is NOT!!! Where is the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget from the Senate? The House passed a budget last spring!!!—my addition)
John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama’s approach on the jobs bill is ‘more about campaigning than governing.’
‘He’s mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed,’ Sides said. ‘That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans.’”
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20111012/b505897f-1172-4d0a-94fe-8e271258149d
Lawmakers, White House regroup on jobs
ANDREW TAYLOR
From Associated Press
October 12, 2011 5:18 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—Congress and the White House face the choice of continued fighting or a shift toward bipartisan bargaining after the Senate voted to kill President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan.
They’re likely to do both as they seek to produce results sought by a discontented public while also drawing bright political lines for voters as the 2012 campaign heats up.
Obama’s plan died at the hands of Senate Republicans on Tuesday, even though the president had been campaigning for it across the country for weeks. The $447 billion plan died on a 50-49 tally in the 100-member Senate, falling well short of the 60 votes needed to crack a filibuster by Republicans opposed to its stimulus-style spending and tax surcharge for the very wealthy.
The tally had been 51-48 but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, switched his vote to ‘nay’ to reserve the right to force a re-vote. Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is recovering from surgery and did not vote.”
“‘Democrats’ sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn’t worked— along with a massive tax hike that we know won’t create jobs,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday, adding that there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. ‘Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won’t work?’ McConnell said.”
The Senate vote on the Democratic proposed “jobs” bill:
S.1660
From: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01660:@@@L&summ2=m&#
“S.1660
Latest Title: American Jobs Act of 2011
Sponsor: Senator Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 10/5/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.12, H.R.2421, H.R.2482, H.R.2948, S.652, S.1333, S.1549, S.1597
Latest Major Action: 10/11/2011 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion by Senator Reid to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to the bill made in Senate.
From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1660 )
Vote Number: 160
Vote Date: October 11, 2011, 06:34PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1660 (American Jobs Act of 2011
Measure Title: A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs. (What a misnomer of a title for a tax and spend bill!!!—my addition)
Vote Counts:
Yeas: 50
Nays: 49
Not Voting: 1
Grouped By Vote Position
Yeas:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Nays: 49
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (Democrat—Nebraska)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Reid (Democrat—Nevada)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (Democrat—Montana)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting: 1
Coburn (R-OK)
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence of the Declaration of Independence)
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
UPDATE:
From: The 9.12 Project Network
“Help us Restore America!
A message to all members of The 9.12 Project Network
Fellow Principled Patriots
Over at CNN.com, there is a ‘quick poll,’ asking whether CNN'’s public supports the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Marxist movement, or the Tea Party movement.”
Of course, this is first of all NOT a scientific poll and second the poll is stacked against the Tea Party movement from the beginning. What conservative in his right mind wastes his valuable time watching the left, propagandizing CNN network?
Nevertheless, I went to
http://www.cnn.com/
and voted. At about 7PM, the poll was about half way down at the far right hand corner. I did not check this morning before posting this blog. The results of the poll at that time were:
“Quick Poll
(At about 6:55PM 10/14/11—my addition)
Which protest movement do you favor more, Occupy Wall Street or the tea party?
This is not a scientific poll
Occupy
69%
143876
Tea party
31%
64500
Total votes: 208376
This is not a scientific poll”
Watch this Video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation?feature=mhee#p/u/0/pyHkXaLrz0I
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110924/a73f5105-3125-4fef-b63c-17b9725591b7
Obama plan would make small dent in jobless rate
TOM RAUM
From Associated Press
September 24, 2011 4:38 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—Even if Congress heeds President Barack Obama’s demands to ‘pass this bill right away’ and enacts his jobs and tax plan in its entirety, the unemployment rate probably still would hover in nosebleed territory for at least three more years.
Why? Because the 1.9 million new jobs the White House says the bill would produce in 2012 falls short of what it’s needed to put the economy back on track to return to pre-recession jobless levels of under 6 percent, from today’s rate of 9.1 percent.
That’s how deep the jobs hole is. The persistent weakness of the U.S. economy has left 14 million people unemployed and more than 25 million unable to find full-time work.
Economists of all stripes pretty much agree that it will be a long, hard road no matter what Congress does. Right now, the Republicans who run the House and the Democrats who lead the Senate aren’t finding much common ground.
Obama estimates his American Jobs Act would lower unemployment by just a single percentage point by next year, to just over 8 percent, heading into the 2012 presidential election.
Burned before by making overly optimistic job-creation predictions, the White House turned to prominent outside economists to crunch the numbers.
The projection of 1.9 million new jobs, a 1 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate and a 2 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product under Obama’s plan came from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.
But Zandi said in an interview his forecast also is based on an assumption that ‘the president’s entire package is passed by the end of the year,’ a slim prospect given the current divided leadership in Congress, and that there are no other budgetary policy changes.
‘I assumed that it would be paid for,’ Zandi said. ‘I didn’t know when I did that simulation how the president proposed to pay for it.’ (Wouldn’t that be a KEY component of any future analysis of economic activity?—my addition)
Since then, Obama has said he would pay for his $447 billion package with permanent income tax increases of about $150 billion a year, mostly on wealthy individuals and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That’s drawn criticism from Republicans, who say any tax increases could further stall the fragile recovery.
Zandi, who has advised both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said he’s still sticking with his forecast, mainly because the stimulus in the plan, including a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and employers and infrastructure spending, would come in 2012 and be paid for later. (Paid for later? Really! How well does that work out? Check Illinois’s history of paying back bills owed later!—my addition)
But there is one feature Obama doesn’t emphasize.
Zandi said his job-creation figure only applies to 2012.
‘Beginning in 2013, and certainly into 2014, the plan is a drag on the economy because the stimulus starts fading away," he said. "So by 2015, the economy is in the same place as now, as if there were no jobs package.’ (Another short term “solution” to stimulate President Obama’s reelection campaign rather than really aiding the economy! DUH!!!—my addition)
Also, Zandi said, his forecast does not leave any room for a new recession. If that happens, all bets are off.
‘So it's very important to get as many people working as fast as possible,’ he said. ‘If we go back into recession, it is going to be very difficult to get out. And it’s going to cost taxpayers tremendously.’
Job creation has ground to a virtual standstill. The economy produced a scant 20,000 net new jobs in June, 85,000 in July and none in August. Economic output, as measured by the GDP, has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate below 1 percent.
The global economy is showing no signs of strengthening. A divided Federal Reserve is nearly out of ammunition for additional stimulus. And the U.S. is once again facing the possibility of a government shutdown at the end of next week.
The Obama-Zandi target of 1.9 million new jobs next year, or 158,000 a month, is somewhat higher than private analyses that suggest the plan would create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month.
Heidi Shierholz, economist for the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calculates it would take job growth of 400,000 every month for three years in a row to get back to the 5 percent jobless rate last seen in December 2007, at the recession’s outset.
‘To get down to 5 percent in five years, we need around 280,000 jobs every month,’ she added. ‘Right now, we’re more than two years into the official recovery, and we’re still bumping along at extremely low levels.’”
“As long as the GDP grows at an annual rate beneath 2.5 percent, it cannot create enough jobs for new entrants into the workforce, let alone to re-employ those laid off during the downturn, said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business lobby.
The chamber estimates it will take 20 million jobs over the next decade to get the economy back to pre-recession levels. It has its own jobs plan, which includes increased trade, greater oil drilling, quicker road and bridge construction and temporary corporate tax breaks.
‘If you want to go from 9.1 percent down to 5.5 or 6 percent unemployment, you’re going to have to grow roughly at 4.5 percent (GDP) for three years,’ Regalia said. ‘I don’t see that in the forecast.’
In the first six months of this year, the GDP grew at a scant 0.7 percent rate. Private forecasters see it growing about 2 percent in the final six months of 2011, about 2.5 percent throughout 2012, and increasing to about 3.2 percent in 2013.” (Really! If the government cooks the numbers?—my addition)
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111007/cb00c254-3261-457f-a89c-2974fafaf714
“FACT CHECK: Obama claims miss some evidence
JIM KUHNHENN
From Associated Press
October 07, 2011 4:20 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—Are President Barack Obama’s ideas for job creation really bipartisan as he claims? Not when the means for paying for them are put in the equation.
The president dodged various facts and left some evidence in the dust in his latest challenge to Republicans to get behind his jobs program or offer a real alternative. A look at some of the claims in his fast-paced news conference and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: ‘If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they’re opposed, and what would they do.’
THE FACTS: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama’s plan, they’ve hardly kept their objections a secret.
In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOP leadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.
They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama’s payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government’s general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.
OBAMA: ‘Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.’
THE FACTS: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama’s approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they’re eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.
In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it’s paid for, but that’s a crucial distinction he doesn’t make. (This bill WILL NOT do what he claims it will do!!! It is basically, taking money from citizens, giving it to government bureaucrats, and letting the government decide where the money should be spent instead of letting the earners of the money deciding where they want to spend their own money—my addition)
Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White House includes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators—Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was his proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers—it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.
OBAMA: ‘The answer we’re getting right now is: Well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations ... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?’
THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses.
It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: ‘Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion.’
OBAMA: ‘We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.’
THE FACTS: True, ‘in some cases’ wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.
In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes—paid only on the first $106,800 of wages—are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires. (Is any of this the “fault” of millionaires? Congress makes the tax laws not millionaires. High income tax payers pay the vast majority of income tax collected in this nation! 47% of tax returns filed did not have to pay income tax in the last reported period! 40% received money back without paying ANY federal income tax at all!!!—my addition)
OBAMA: ‘China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the United States. .... And currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. And that makes their exports cheaper and that makes our exports to them more expensive.’
THE FACTS: While Obama complained about China’s efforts to keeps its currency undervalued to gain trade advantages, his administration has repeatedly refused to brand China as a currency manipulator in a report that the Treasury Department is required to send to Congress twice a year.
Such a designation would trigger negotiations between the two countries and could ultimately lead to U.S. trade sanctions against China.
The administration has been reluctant to brand China a currency manipulator, as have past administrations, because the United States depends on China to buy U.S. Treasury securities to help finance America’s budget deficits (EXACTLY!—my addition). China owns $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities (Out of an almost $15 trillion debt!—my addition), making it the largest foreign holder of Treasury debt.
Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Martin Crutsinger and Calvin Woodward contributed to this report.”
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111010/9dda50fc-9597-49cf-8203-6b633c1e45a4
“SPIN METER: Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality
ERICA WERNER
From Associated Press
October 10, 2011 4:14 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—In President Barack Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.
When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.
When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail. (And have passed their own jobs bill which is actually based upon valid economic principles and not the tax and spend bill that Barack Hussein Obama is promoting!—my addition)
When he calls on Congress to ‘pass this bill now,’ he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities.
Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.
To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.
The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans. (Won’t work! We aren’t ignorant and we have witnessed his failures over the last two and one half years!—my addition)
He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case. (There is NO case to be made!—my addition)
For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.
Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama’s proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president’s proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.
The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president’s powers of persuading the public (Does it exist? Is he still a Pied Piper?—my addition) heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans’ ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.
‘He knows it’s not going to pass. He’s betting that voters won’t pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the ‘do-nothing Congress,’’ said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development. (The problem is the House of Representatives has been doing things. It is the Democratic Senate which is NOT!!! Where is the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget from the Senate? The House passed a budget last spring!!!—my addition)
John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama’s approach on the jobs bill is ‘more about campaigning than governing.’
‘He’s mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed,’ Sides said. ‘That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans.’”
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20111012/b505897f-1172-4d0a-94fe-8e271258149d
Lawmakers, White House regroup on jobs
ANDREW TAYLOR
From Associated Press
October 12, 2011 5:18 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP)—Congress and the White House face the choice of continued fighting or a shift toward bipartisan bargaining after the Senate voted to kill President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan.
They’re likely to do both as they seek to produce results sought by a discontented public while also drawing bright political lines for voters as the 2012 campaign heats up.
Obama’s plan died at the hands of Senate Republicans on Tuesday, even though the president had been campaigning for it across the country for weeks. The $447 billion plan died on a 50-49 tally in the 100-member Senate, falling well short of the 60 votes needed to crack a filibuster by Republicans opposed to its stimulus-style spending and tax surcharge for the very wealthy.
The tally had been 51-48 but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, switched his vote to ‘nay’ to reserve the right to force a re-vote. Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is recovering from surgery and did not vote.”
“‘Democrats’ sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn’t worked— along with a massive tax hike that we know won’t create jobs,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday, adding that there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. ‘Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won’t work?’ McConnell said.”
The Senate vote on the Democratic proposed “jobs” bill:
S.1660
From: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01660:@@@L&summ2=m&#
“S.1660
Latest Title: American Jobs Act of 2011
Sponsor: Senator Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 10/5/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.12, H.R.2421, H.R.2482, H.R.2948, S.652, S.1333, S.1549, S.1597
Latest Major Action: 10/11/2011 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion by Senator Reid to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to the bill made in Senate.
From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1660 )
Vote Number: 160
Vote Date: October 11, 2011, 06:34PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1660 (American Jobs Act of 2011
Measure Title: A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs. (What a misnomer of a title for a tax and spend bill!!!—my addition)
Vote Counts:
Yeas: 50
Nays: 49
Not Voting: 1
Grouped By Vote Position
Yeas:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Nays: 49
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (Democrat—Nebraska)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Reid (Democrat—Nevada)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (Democrat—Montana)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting: 1
Coburn (R-OK)
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence of the Declaration of Independence)
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 3:14 AM
<< Home