But the GOP's crowing about the bad news is misplaced, because they are a very large part of the problem. And their obstuctionist policies--to stop any and everything President Obama proposes--has had a negative impact on unemployment.
The executive and the legislative branch have to work hand in hand to solve the unemployment problem. But we all know for a fact that the GOP's ONLY GOAL has been to stop the president from doing anything that would improve the job situation and see unemployment numbers go down.
Never, never, never forget that the GOP's primary focus has been to defeat President Obama and not to put Americans back to work.
I place most of the responsibility for this very disappointing jobs report on the GOP for their narrow focus on defeating Mr. Obama and for their partisan politics that have hurt the American people.
"...it was just last September when the president delivered an address to a joint session of Congress, laying out a detailed plan to boost job creation. It's easy to forget, but it was a credible, serious plan -- the AJA would have prevented thousands of layoffs for teachers, cops, and firefighters; invested heavily in infrastructure; and cut taxes intended to spur hiring.
Independent analysis concluded the plan would have a significant and positive effect. From an AP report in September:
'A tentative thumbs-up. That was the assessment Thursday night from economists who offered mainly positive reviews of President Barack Obama's $450 billion plan to stimulate job creation. [...]Macroeconomic Advisers wasn't quite as optimistic, but its analysis projected that the White House plan "would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term." The firm would expect to see the proposal create at least 1.3 million jobs.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, estimated that the president's plan would boost economic growth by 2 percentage points, add 2 million jobs and reduce unemployment by a full percentage point next year compared with existing law.'
Despite public clamoring for action on jobs, congressional Republicans reflexively killed the American Jobs Act, saying it was unnecessary. The House wouldn't bring it up for a vote, and a Republican filibuster killed it in the Senate. For GOP policymakers, this was a time when Washington should stop investing in job creation and start focusing on austerity -- lower the deficit, take capital out of the economy, and everything would work out fine.
As panic sets in after this morning's brutal jobs report, take a moment to consider a hypothetical: what would the economy look like today if Congress had followed Obama's lead, responded to public-opinion polls, and passed the American Jobs Act? In 2012, do you think the nation could use those 1.3 million jobs or not?
Are we better off now as a result of Republican obstructionism and intransigence, or would we have been better off if popular and effective job-creation measures had been approved?"
and this:
Matt Yglesias manages to make two important points about the May jobs report (and the larger economic picture) in one paragraph:
'A lot of this is already getting fed through an election year politics lens, but it’s important to remember that this is first and foremost a human tragedy for unemployed and underemployed people, and for employed workers who’ve been stripped of bargaining power due to persistent labor market weakness. If growth stays dismal and Barack Obama loses the election, he and Michelle and Jack Lew and Tim Geithner and all the rest will go on to have happy, healthy, prosperous lives. Other people’s careers are much more in the balance. And the responsibility for addressing this crisis lies first and foremost with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the one institution in the U.S. government specifically charged with focusing on macroeconomic stabilization. For months now they’ve been dawdling instead of rolling up their sleeves and thinking as hard as they can about what to do to increase demand and employment.'On the first point, I think progressives need to make it clear that the worst thing about Americans reacting to a weak economy by punishing Barack Obama isn’t that Barack Obama gets punished or the “other team” wins office, but that we have every reason to believe that the lives of the very people out of work or otherwise struggling economically today will take a large turn for the worse if Mitt Romney is president and Republicans control Congress. Even if you believe GOP policies will in the end boost growth and eventually reduce unemployment, the policies they are promising to implement immediately will be a disaster for the most vulnerable in our society."
SOURCE: Washington Monthly
Bloggingdino of The Swash Zone posted on this as well.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
29 comments:
Shaw, let's not forget that the jobs report would be infinitely better if government was not shedding jobs at such a high rate.
And we should remember to credit the GOP, who for years has called for shrinking government, for the loss of those jobs.
If we take those lost jobs out of the equation, the unemployment numbers would be much closed to 7%.
Still too high, but much better...
"But the devil is in the details, and the truth is that the numbers hide a disturbing trend of people exiting the work universe by not even trying to find a job.
"The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month's decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.
"In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years."
So if you add back all the people who have stopped looking for work you get a "real" unemployment rate of almost 15 percent.
"Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is about 14.5 percent. Adding college graduates in low-skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks, and the unemployment rate is likely closer to 18 percent," writes Peter Morici .
President Obama thinks the holy grail for his reelection is getting the unemployment rate under 8 percent. And that may just be the number come November. But if the reduced jobless number actually happens because of people giving up rather than getting into the job market, then we'll be facing four more years of sustained, high unemployment and the consequences of that damage, both domestically and internationally, ought to concern every American."
Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/the_real_unemployment_rate_Dz8PweHqsH1MVVwgkK51mI
There are now reports the country may be on the slope to recession. As if we haven' been in one all along. It certainly is going to make foe a lively presidential campaign, and a real challenge to Obama if the numbers really go south.
I'm reminded of Harry Truman and "The Buck Stops Here." I'm just beginning to wonder when this president will realize the value of recognizing those wise words.
Really though nobody in either party actually wants to find common ground. Neither party has any real ideas, other than their ideological driven agenda's which has created the problems in the first place.
I'll be enjoying the show having my wine, cheese, and crackers. Oh, and going to the polls to vote Gary Johnson and the Libertarian ticket.
" I'm just beginning to wonder when this president will realize the value of recognizing those wise words."
The president can only propose legislation, RN. He has. It's called the American Jobs Act! That was his responsibility.
The House, controlled by Bohner stopped it cold, and the Senate GOPers used the filibuster to kill it.
Rove And Hannity Suggest Senate Democrats Killed Obama Jobs Bill
Hannity: Obama "Blame[s] The Republicans, When In Reality, The Democrats Didn't Support His Bill." From Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: All right, it seems the strategy is now set. "Do Nothing Congress," blame the Republicans, when in reality, the Democrats didn't support his bill. You know, there's some fundamental truth here that is missing in what he's saying. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/13/11]
Rove Cites "The Failure Of The Democratic Senate Leader To Be Able To Get This Bill Through." From Hannity:
ROVE: Yeah. No, look, I love that the president is there blaming the Republicans when it was the failure of the Democratic Senate leader to be able to get this bill through. I mean, look, the incompetence of the administration and its failures are in several different areas. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/13/11]
46 Republicans Voted To Stop Jobs Act; Only 41 Needed
Senate.gov: 50 Senate Democrats Voted To Advance Bill; All Republicans Voted Supported Filibuster. The Senate website states that a cloture motion on S. 1660 -- the American Jobs Act of 2011 -- didn't receive the requisite three-fifths majority needed to proceed. Forty-nine senators voted against the motion, 46 of whom were Republicans. More than 40 votes against the motion would have killed it. [Senate.gov, accessed 10/13/11]
I repeat: Mitch McConnell stated the number one priority of the Congressional GOPers was to make Mr. Obama a one term president.
They are still on that mission, and every jobless American can place the blame on the GOP, not Obama. Mr. Obama proposed a partial solution to unemployment; the GOP defeated it and refused to compromise on any of it.
I'm just beginning to wonder when the GOP will be held accountable for its intransigence and obstructionism.
Mr. Obama isn't a dictator.
I remember President Bush stating that his job would be easier if he were a dictator. Now I understand what he meant by that.
"Really though nobody in either party actually wants to find common ground. Neither party has any real ideas, other than their ideological driven agenda's which has created the problems in the first place."
Les, we know that "common ground" in Teabagger speak means "democrats capitulate and go along with republicans. That's the only "bi-partisanship" and compromise that they believe in. Rove saying the jobs bill was "killed" by the senate is ridiculous when the republicans filibuster nearly every bill, meaning that you need 60 votes to do anything in the senate. I am praying for a GOP house cleaning this fall.
He's had over three years and a trillion in "stimulus." He has failed. He himself said that the "shovel-ready" jobs weren't quite shovel ready. So where did all that money go?
He's a failure, and it's time for him to go.
SF- You are spouting generalizations and distorting the facts.
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.
To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019."
Not quite 1 trillion over a 10 year (not 3) period.
And $288 billion of the stimulus was in the form of Tax Cuts, which I thought that republicans were in favor of. I guess the fact that the tax cuts went to middle class and lower wage earners is what makes them against it.
"He's a failure, and it's time for him to go."
Not quite, SF. You have conveniently ignored what I posted.
The GOP has stopped every initiative this president has proposed for getting the unemployment numbers down and getting Americans jobs.
There has been NO COMPROMISE on the GOP's part. That's not governing, that's partisan obstructionism. The leaders of the GOP--Cantor, for example, are proud to be uncompromising:
"Aug. 2011: In a memo to his House Republican caucus released after Obama spoke on Monday afternoon, Majority Leader Eric Cantor doubled down on his insistence that there be no tax increases included in the next round of deficit negotiations. Though this position ignores the fact that taxes are set to go up automatically in 2013 if Congress does not cut a deal with President Obama..."
Cantor also gets it wrong when he said in an interview [or rather his press secy. shouted out during the interview with Leslie Stahl] that Ronald Reagan never compromised. Of course he did. Cantor and his lackey were wrong; Leslie Stahl is right.
They seem not to know basic recent history and insist their wrong-headedness and ignorant intractable positions are correct.
This is no way to govern.
The GOP has used threats of completely shutting down the government and other disasterous moves to get its way.
To blame Mr. Obama and call him a failure because of the GOP's uncompromising positions is hubris of the highest order and wrong.
What the GOP is doing is a fundamental abrogation of their fiduciary responsibility to legislate and a violation of their oath of office--to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the laws of the US.
The GOP seems to be willing to create harm to America and Americans in order to realize a political goal--to make Pres. Obama a one-term president.
This is antithetical to their legislative role in governing this country.
By constantly demonizing President Obama and letting their leading lights [Donald Trump] continue nonsensical talk about his place of birth continue, they keep us divided and suspicious of one another rather than encouraging us to work together to solve our man-made problems.
President Obama, despite what the GOP writes about him HAS COMPROMISED AND TRIED TO WORK WITH THE GOP.
Why won't they do the same with our president?
BTW, SF, it is interesting that the opposition now uses the meme that President Obama is a "failure," something the left labeled President Bush.
Does anyne else see the crazy in this? I do.
We'll remain a doomed country on the skids if we continue this way.
I find it quite interesting (Tim and Shaw and Silver) how so many pick out isolated snippets (me included) that they feel they can use to win the broader point in dialogue or debate by using to their advantage the snippet. I know it has always been so, and I'm not being critical, I just find it interesting. As well as limiting.
Shaw, SIlver along with the great majority of other conservatives chooses to continue to say that Obama and the Dems had full control of Congress for two years.
The refuse to even respond to questions asking how the Dems were supposed to propose and pass legislation when the GOP adopted their strategy of near total obstruction.
Silver, can you tell me a reasonable path to passing legislation that President Obama could have used to pass his agenda in his first two years, given the Senate filibuster?
Les, you can try that too.
By moderating his agenda and giving conservatives more ground? Oh, that's right, he needed to maintain his base for reelection.
Obama, a shrewd politician with shrewd handlers (and sometimes in not the most ethical sense) simply made a calculated guess as to how far to go in compromising. 2012 will ultimately determine whether his calculations were correct.
Given the economic news and unemployment, which we all know is under reported it is not trending in Obama's favor.
As Harry Truman accurately said, "the buck stops here." After nearly four years in office (3.5) the President is learning this reality. He could use a little "Clinton Savvy."
It’s helpful to remember there was basically one-party rule in Washington in 2009. Democratic leaders could push healthcare legislation through Congress without the normal conference committee work involving both party's members from both houses.
They decided to spend their political capital on an ill-conceived bill (albeit containing some fine points of reform). The way it was done really bothered the majority of Americans. The poorly constructed bill, the way it was passed and the Gavel Walk, gave the already stubborn Republican Party the momentum (excuse) to act the way they have.
In hindsight, the entire bill and the energy to pass it looks politically misplaced. Obama might have spent his political capital/power on job creation. By the time the AJA come up he had already buried himself. He made the choice, health care reform over anything else. That was an ideological choice (right or wrong) that had consequences. It added uncertainty to business and job creation, cost most of us a 10% increase in health care premiums and has hindered hiring.
When the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed without a single Republican vote Americans believed the new plans would hurt healthcare quality, According to Rasmussen 59% figured it would actually increase healthcare costs, 57% opposed the bills' intent to cut Medicare benefits by hundreds of billions of dollars and, for some reason, 78% of Americans suspected the Obama administration cost estimates are way under the actual expenses. No wonder the 2010 elections played out the way they did.
We can say it was the Republican opposition that kept Obama from enacting his agenda those first two years, but the Pelosi, Reid, Obama team decisions should accept some responsibility as well. It was Obama who said “That’s Democracy in action". Things could have gone very differently. It is a two edged sword.
"Friday’s dismal jobs report and some unexpected words from Bill Clinton delivered a bracing reminder to President Obama and his advisers that the election remains primarily a referendum on his record and that their path to victory may lie less in trying to discredit Republican Mitt Romney and more in winning a battle of ideas with their Republican rival.
The latest report — just 69,000 jobs were added last month — was far worse than forecasters had predicted and undermined the administration’s contention that the economy is truly on a path to recovery. Administration officials pointed out that the economy added jobs for the 27th consecutive month. The weakness of that response underscored the challenge facing the president as he seeks to convince voters that he has the tools and the political wherewithal to fix what still ails the economy."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jobs-numbers-remind-obama-that-he-must-do-more-than-just-attack/2012/06/01/gJQABahx7U_story.html
KP - Excellent points well stated.
Kp, no doubt Obama spent a lot of political capital on the health care legislation...
But, and this is a big but, what was the first stuff he was pushing way before that took center stage?
It was the stimulus.
Now he got 800 billion. But he, and every economist knew at the time that the difference between what the economy needed to stay on track and where it was amounted to over 1.2 trillion.
Many economists said we would have needed even more stimulus, arguing for over 1.5 trillion.
But the Dems knew the GOP would never go for much over 800 billion, or about 75% of what was needed to save the economy and right the ship.
So what the Pelosi, Reid, Obama cabal do? They did the deal with 800 billion. They compromised with the GOP, against the advice of their economic brainiacs because they knew that was all they could get.
And that took a bunch of BS deals to get passed.
So while I agree that Obama maybe should have waited on health care, the facts, as reported, argue for a larger stimulus, which the GOP obstructed.
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200903060025
http://blog.american.com/2012/02/secret-obama-memo-wanted-the-800-billion-stimulus-to-be-gasp-1-8-trillion/
KP... hope you like the book when it comes in...
Hey Dave, I think we agree. It is more complicated than the tug of war we are experiencing in the blogosphere. That is why I am not trying to asign blame but feel obligated to consider the other side.
Got muy Rob Bell today! Looking forward to it. Amazon is quick.
@ Dave: Silver, can you tell me a reasonable path to passing legislation that President Obama could have used to pass his agenda in his first two years, given the Senate filibuster?
Yeah. The same way they rammed Obamacare through.
You can spin it all day long, but the dismal results speak for themselves.
SF: "Yeah. The same way they rammed Obamacare through."
First of all, Obama negotiated for SEVEN MONTHS with the GOP, and the GOP leadership would NOT compromise on ANYTHING.
And President Obama didn't get the KEY aspect of the ACA, which was the public option. Remember?
The GOP howled about the individual mandate and that will probably be struck down by the conservatives on the SCOTUS.
"..the individual health care mandate is a Republican idea. It was always a Republican idea, ever since it started gaining traction in GOP circles in the 1970s.
Indeed, this isn't an idea Republicans were willing to tolerate in years past as part of negotiations with Democrats, but rather, this was an idea Republicans came up with.
The roster is pretty long of prominent Republicans who've either endorsed the individual mandate, voted for a plan with an individual mandate, co-sponsored legislation with an individual mandate, or all of the above.
It includes George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Judd Gregg, among others.
All of them have supported an individual mandate -- a provision that Republicans now believe to be an unconstitutional freedom-killer that must be eliminated for the sake of American liberty."
There is something desperately wrong with a political party that acts in such a way that its own ideas become poison to them when a Democrat supports them.
Two and half months after President Obama was elected by a sizable majority of the American people the Tea Party was marching in the streets screaming that they wanted their country back.
What kind of madness was that?
If you don't believe we have a problem with the opposition party stalling and obstructing, you are not paying attention and you're guilty of wearing political blinders.
I do not accept your labeling Mr. Obama a failure; it's purely partisan claptrap, and I believe you are too smart not to recognize this.
Having the majority vote to pass legislation, is not cramming it down someone's throat. That's the way our system works. He should have used his majority more effectively, to get more legislation passed. To make a bigger change, as promised.
Obama told the American people he was going to pass health care reform. The American people voted for him to be their president.
The Repubs still dont seem to understand that.
Their obstructionism amounts to voter nullification.
Shaw: Of course you and millions of Obama worshipers cannot accept that your hero is a failure.
Look around you. Unemployment going back up, revenue down, economy in the tank and people are pissed off, yet you Obama voters insist he's doing a good job. The cognitive dissonance must be creating a great strain.
And about him ramming Obamacare through. I was answering Dave's question. They had it all. They had their chance, and they blew it.
SF: "Look around you. Unemployment going back up, revenue down, economy in the tank and people are pissed off, yet you Obama voters insist he's doing a good job. The cognitive dissonance must be creating a great strain."
You still ignore the fact that the Congress that President Obama has had to deal with is THE MOST OBSTRUCTIVE in modern history.
Even George W. Bush, whom the Dems did not like at all, did not face a obstructionist opposition when he got his Medicare Part D unfunded program passed. Democrats voted with Bush's party on it--I believe a dozen voted yea.
The president isn't a dictator and can't pass legislation. That's Congress's job. And the GOP has failed its Constitutional responsibilities.
All it does is say NO!
The American people will be reminded of this during the campaign.
"Today’s Republicans in Congress behave like a parliamentary party in a British-style parliament, a winner-take-all system. But a parliamentary party — “ideologically polarized, internally unified, vehemently oppositional” — doesn’t work in a “separation-of-powers system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to work their will.”
These Republicans “have become more loyal to party than to country,” the authors write, so “the political system has become grievously hobbled at a time when the country faces unusually serious problems and grave threats. . . . The country is squandering its economic future and putting itself at risk because of an inability to govern effectively.”
Today’s Republican Party has little in common even with Ronald Reagan’s GOP, or with earlier versions that believed in government. Instead it has become “an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition . . . all but declaring war on the government.”
Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks, How The American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism"
GOP extremism is ruining America.
KP- Great points on how Obama missed the opportunity to focus on jobs at the expense of health care. Although I am sympathetic to the goal of universal health care I agree that the issue should have waited until the economy and jobs were taken care of first. And although there were many good things to come out of Obamacare's passage, I am dissatisfied on a whole with the law, which I am afraid will be nullified this month by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision split along party lines.
SF- give it a rest. No one is hero worshiping Obama here, we just realize that your party has only the interests of the very rich at heart and could give a tinker's dam for the middle class. The debt ceiling crisis last year which could have caused the US to default and resulted in the lowering of our S&P credit rating can be laid squarely at the feet of the GOP. This alone proves that the GOP will go to any exetreme, including the bankruptcy of our government, to win.
Silver, why does it seem progressives choose to ignore the fact that you have been critical of the statist republican agenda (as I have)consistently? Yet progressives seem hyper critical because you (we) we don't embrace Obama, who really is just a statist with a different mascot.
As Harry Truman readily and accurately recognized the buck stops with the siting President. I really believe Obama recognizes it as well. Even if he won't acknowledge it.
RN: "Yet progressives seem hyper critical because you (we) we don't embrace Obama, who really is just a statist with a different mascot."
RN, no liberal here expects you or SF to "embrace" Obama. I've published whatever I could find to back up my claim that the GOP is a force of negativity and divisiveness that has impeded any progress this country hoped to make under President Obama. No one expects the opposition party to agree to everything the executive branch proposes, but it is also true that no one expects the opposition to be so partisanly blind as to keep America in financial turmoil. This is just my opinion; it is the opinion, backed up by facts, of people who have studied this subject for decades.
RN: "As Harry Truman readily and accurately recognized the buck stops with the siting President. I really believe Obama recognizes it as well. Even if he won't acknowledge it."
Wrong. Mr. Obama has repeated often that there's more to be done, we're not out of the woods, we need to work harder, etc., etc.
He's acknowledged that things could be better.
Now the question for voters is would Willard do better?
If we go by his experience as the chief executive of Mass. for 4 years, the answer is no.
He was terrible at creating jobs, and just the other day, the Boston Herald--no friend of any Democrat, reported on how a "green" company that received funding and support while Willard was governor just filed for bankruptcy.
This was reported while Willard was criticizing the Obama administration for Solyandra.
Mitt Romney’s big green flop
Lowell solar panel company he backed goes under
Tes Shaw, he keeps saying things could be better. Has he accepted any responsibility for the reality they are not?
And, as I have repeatedly said I am no friend of Mittens record in MA., and that I won't be voting for him.
RN,
Maybe because a visit to either of your blogs, show you support the same crap they do. Example:Voter ID laws, and much more
great photos!!!! really country side influence, love your current ensemble consequently fashionable and lovely!!!
Post a Comment