Eugene Robinson, quite possibly the only columnist to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize for cutting and pasting Obama Campaign press releases and calling it an opinion column, writes in the Washington Post today that Republicans’ “Pledge to America” will send us back to the 2009 recession. I’m not willing to concede that this recession has ended, but let’s look at why Robinson calls the Pledge “Hooey”.
…the GOP also promises to “stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of government.” Most economists would contend that right now, given the level of economic distress throughout the nation, those goals are mutually exclusive.
In other words, Robinson’s contention is that government jobs are the way out of the unemployment dilemma. I wonder why Robinson doesn’t have a government job then. So I guess we should expand the size of government instead of expanding the opportunities for business to create private sector jobs to feed this government beast.
The GOP also would give small-business owners a new 20 percent tax deduction on their business income. The pledge also tosses in the perennial Republican promise to curb “excessive federal regulation.”
But on the spending side, the party would take a number of actions that would immediately destroy jobs. Republicans propose a hiring freeze for federal employees — exempting the defense and security sectors. Since the private sector isn’t hiring, a public-sector job freeze would only ensure that unemployment remains higher than it otherwise would have been.
He says “20% tax deduction” for small businesses is a bad thing. He writes that “since the private sector isn’t hiring” like that’s a static factor. If you give a small business a extra tax-free chunk of money, wouldn’t that encourage a businessman to hire some-damn-body? Wouldn’t that drive down unemployment if more people were getting hired? I’m just askin’.
The pledge also proposes embargoing any funds from last year’s stimulus bill that have not already been spent — money that is meant to keep construction workers, teachers, firefighters and others on the job.
If businesses have more money to spend on expanding the private economy, why would we need the government to do it? And why is it always teachers, firefighters and police who are at risk of losing their jobs? I’m sure we can find some redundant bureaucrats to cut loose…like everyone in the Commerce and the Education Departments. And about 90% of the slugs in your local School District administrative offices. Not to mention the bozos in your city’s Asian/Pacific Affairs Office.
Over the next decade, [making the Bush tax cuts permanent] would add an estimated $4 trillion to the deficit. The Republicans’ notion that cutting the federal budget will somehow make up the difference is laughable.
Maybe laughable, but laudable…and necessary. Making the tax cuts permanent would expand the economy (like they did after 9-11) and increase tax revenues by putting taxpayers back to work (like they did after 9-11).
Sucking that much money out of discretionary programs would require draconian cuts in programs, such as education grants, that both red states and blue states have come to depend on.
Grants? Really? If America went back to work, they could pay for their own kids’ education. If grants went ONLY the deserving, I’d agree they’re necessary, but since colleges have inflated their price tags at four times the rate of inflation, there’s probably some room for them to cut their tuition and salaries to an affordable level – and if they can’t, we have too many colleges in this country anyway. Some of them can die.
I don’t remember Robinson wringing his hands over the effect on the economy of a huge healthcare bill (which slashed Medicare) or the Cap and Trade bill which will dramatically raise the price of energy, or declaring a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf which put thousands of Americans out of work. I guess he didn’t get any memos from the WHite House on what he should write.
