Obama's Save-My-Job Speech

[sirs]

President Obama's address to Congress was exactly what we thought it would be: a shallow, callow campaign rally masquerading as something serious and important.  As Charles Krauthammer framed it on Fox, tonight's address represented the first presidential campaign speech delivered in the House of Representatives in US history.  Obama tried to strike an urgent tone, repeatedly instructing Congress to pass his plan "right away."  These appeals for immediate action started before he even described a single idea.   When those descriptions finally arrived, they were more of the same.  
- Targeted tax credits for businesses and individuals (not all of which are bad ideas, but that economists agree won't make much of a dent). 
- Infrastructure spending on highways, bridges, and schools. 
- Bailouts to states to help save government jobs. 
- Mortgage bailouts. 
- Job training programs. 
- And unspecific regulatory reform. 

Not all of these proposal are necessarily bad, but not one of them is new.

It was the 2009 Recovery Act all over again, except with a smaller (but still gargantuan) price tag -- and without any acknowledgement of the previous stimulus or its abject failures.  As Body Snatcher Obama tends to do, the president spoke tonight as if this was his very first jobs plan.  Relevant, inconvenient context (think "shovel ready jobs") was nowhere to be found.  Indeed, if this were such an obvious, "not controversial" set of ideas, why didn't Democrats pass them easily when they controlled every elected lever of power in Washington for two full years?

The tone and tenor of the address, which was sprinkled with superficial appeals to bipartisanship, was highly political and practically unhelpful.  Strawmen were introduced and torched at record pace.  Lost in the shuffle, the cost of this grand scheme somehow jumped from $300 Billion on Tuesday to nearly $450 Billion today.  Those are estimates, of course, because no tangible legislation exists yet.  Which means it can't be passed "right away," nor can it be scored by the CBO.  As we've learned repeatedly in recent months, the CBO cannot score a speech.  But not to worry, America.  Everything is paid for!  How?  I'll let the president explain the nitty-gritty specifics:

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years.  It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas.  Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act.  And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan – a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.  This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months.

That's right, Obama punted the heavy lifting to the super-committee, and pledged to introduce another general deficit plan in twelve days.  How, or if, this will differ from his unanimously-defeated February budget, or his dreadful April deficit speech, is anybody's guess.  He does give us a big clue, though: It's "basically the [same ideas] I've been advocating for months."  This likely means very modest changes to unsustainable entitlement programs and big tax hikes on "the rich."  Absolutely nothing new.  In short, Obama insisted on a nationally-televised joint session address to describe an old plan which will be funded by a plan he'll explain later.  What a joke.  Even the AP is sounding dubious.

Two quick examples that illustrate why this entire spectacle was a sham:
 
(1) Obama lamented teacher layoffs: "While they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves.  It’s unfair to our kids.  It undermines their future and ours.  And it has to stop.  Pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong." But later in the speech, he went out of his way to condemn budget fixes like Wisconsin's, which limited collective bargaining "rights" for government employees, but has saved thousands of teachers' jobs.

(2) The president demanded swift action on three pending trade agreements, heavily implying that Congress has been dragging its feet on these items: "Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea..."  But the reason these agreements have stalled is because he refuses to send them to Congress unless Republicans agree to lard them up with special goodies for labor unions.

Liberals on MSNBC and Twitter seem to be energized by Obama's aggressive performance.  They think this was just what the doctor ordered, and that Republicans have been put on notice, or something.  This is unremarkable in every sense of the word.  Liberals?  Excited by a passionate, but ultimately unserious, Obama campaign speech?  Color me stunned.  Republicans should help pass the acceptable and benign features of this plan, insist that it's all really paid for (without raising taxes in a recession), and resist its worst elements. 

If President Obama plans to convince Americans that the economy sucks because the GOP wouldn't go along with every last piece of his re-run stimulus, let him try.  "You should pass it.  And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country."  Go for it, champ.

Parting thought: Should we "pass this jobs bill"?

Summary:  Spend $450 billion dollars now, it will create jobs, and I’ll tell you how I’m going to pay for it a week from Monday. If you disagree, you want to expose kids to mercury.

[sirs]

In Barack Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress, the President emphasized that his new jobs plan had four specific qualities that made it easy to pass this bill immediately, as Obama chanted repeatedly during his speech.  His plan would be
- fully funded,
- it would not add to the deficit,
- it would create jobs immediately,
and
- it was chock-full of bipartisan ideas. 

The Associated Press fact-checked these claims, and found them all false.

Paid for?  No:
Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future – the “out years,” in legislative jargon – but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.
Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due.

Bipartisan? Uh-uh:
Obama’s proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax does seem likely to garner significant GOP support. But Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated stiff Republican opposition.

For instance, Obama makes a pitch anew to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which he has defined as couples earning over $250,000 a year or individuals over $200,000 a year. Republicans have adamantly blocked what they view as new taxes. As recently as last month, House Republicans refused to go along with any deal to raise the government’s borrowing authority that included new revenues, or taxes.

Deficit-neutral? Negative:
It’s hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery.

And immediately effective?  Not even close:
One is to set up a national infrastructure bank to raise private capital for roads, rail, bridges, airports and waterways. Even supporters of such a bank doubt it could have much impact on jobs in the next two years because it takes time to set up.

The AP doesn’t address Obama’s insistence that this package will work at all, and rightly so, since that is more of a political analysis than a fact check.  However, the same elements Obama insisted last night would stimulate job growth were the same elements that comprised the 2009 stimulus bill. 
- We have the same speeded-up infrastructure spending (this time masquerading as an “infrastructure bank”),
- the same money for state bailouts dressed up as rescue packages for teachers and first responders,
- the same Making Work Pay-type temporary tax cut for workers,
- and a “hiring tax credit” that flopped when Jimmy Carter first tried it.

Obama didn’t offer one single new idea last night.  He didn’t even offer an idea on how to pay for the bill, whose price tag Obama never mentioned once in his speech but has now bloated from an initial estimate of $300 billion to $450 billion.  Instead, he told Congress to figure out how to carve the cost out of future spending while it battles over meeting its $1.5 trillion commitment from last month’s debt-ceiling increase.

Over and over again last night, Obama lectured Congress to “pass this bill.”  It seems more like Obama passed the buck — and now wants to wash his hands of the failures of Obamanomics.

[sirs]

"Pass it now".....before anyone can see how transparently bad & purely political it is

While all eyes were riveted on Barack Obama’s jobs speech, there were two other speeches this week that had just as much significance. 

The first was delivered by John-Claude Trichet.  In his usual monthly update, he surprised some of his listeners by finally admitting what most people already knew. 

Trichet said the growth rate of the European Union was slowing dramatically, to the point that inflation was no longer a concern. (Some even felt he was hinting at future interest rate reductions.) 

That admission marked the crucial turning point in the so-called battle against inflation.  From Greece to Spain, Italy to Germany, all are reporting significant slowdowns.  Trichet gave assurances that everything was under control, and that he would inform everyone at a later time regarding the actions he would take.  

We have to wait, how disappointing. 

Next, we heard from Ben Bernanke, who also stated that inflation was not in the forefront of his concern. 

He promised the Fed has the tools to help reverse the same lack of growth currently enveloping Europe. 

However, Ben still appeared dismayed due to his failing strategies.  I guess the moment wasn’t right for more information because similar to his most recent Jackson Hole speech, and much like Trichet’s lecture, Bernanke promised to enlighten us at the next Fed meeting on September 21st. 

A second disappointment. 

Finally, the time for the One came. 

The vacation was over, and Barack Hussein Obama took center stage. 

I won’t bore you with the details, they’ve been hashed enough. 

I will say the speech writers must have taken Oratory 101.  To say something over and over usually engrains the thought as a positive in the listeners mind. 

However, in this instance, saying “pass it now” over and over again became an irritant.  It kept me yelling at the television, “pass what, there are no details!”

Once again, I guess the details will come later. 

Incidentally, I did learn one thing. 

As a business owner, I could conceivably fire an employee, hire someone else (who has been looking a job for at least six months) and receive a $4,000 credit. 

So, let me get this straight. I go one-for-one (no increase in the number of people employed), and the government will subsidize the salary.  Sweet! 

That was really well thought out!

Maybe it’s good we don’t have more details.  Three major speeches in one week all culminating in one conclusion. 

The three leaders have absolutely no clue, and will continue doing what they’ve always done, expecting a different result.  I believe that’s called insanity.