According to independent analyses, President Obama's job plan would create up to 1.9 [million] jobs and grow the economy by 2% (see here). It is endorsed by a broad majority of economists (see here) and many business leaders (see here). It would help rebuild our crumbling roads and other infrastructure. It is really, really important. It is also a moderate, bipartisan, centrist bill, with mostly old Republican ideas (see here). Every major provision is overwhelmingly popular, even among staunch Republican voters (see here). According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Obama's bill would increase revenue and actually cut the deficit by $3 billion over ten years (source). In sum, it cuts the deficit while at the same time giving the economy a real boost.
So, what is happening with the bill? The good news is that it has majority support in the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill was just filibustered by a unified Republican minority and their conservative allies, seemingly bent on either destroying Obama or preserving slightly lower tax rates for millionaires. They blocked it procedurally, in other words, and won't even let it come up for discussion. Unbelievable.
Democracy simply cannot survive if every bill can be stopped by 40 senators who are so intent on ensuring that a president doesn't see any success that they undercut their own ideas. Nowhere in the Constitution does it demand, or allow for, a super-majority requirement to pass legislation. But this is what things have come to. This is not good news for our country. Not good at all.
5 comments:
I COMPLETELY agree with you about the filibustering that goes on in the Senate. It shouldn't happen, and it seems something serious needs to be done to change the rules in the Senate. Does it bother you as much when the Democratic minority filibuster the Republicans?
Here is my issue with the bill, and I am guessing an issue that the Senate Reupbulicans have as well. We have spent a lot of money these past few years. By many standards, this spending did little to get unemployment down and stimulate the economy. Obama even admitted at one point that the shovel-ready jobs he touted, weren't as shovel-ready as he anticipated. So it is hard for us to look at Moody's analysis and believe it. It seems there is some disconnect with federal spending and job creation.
It is interesting how popular the individual provisions are. Why didn't the poll ask individuals if they support Obama's jobs bill? It would have been interesting to see if the jobs bill as a whole is as popular as the individual provisions. My guess is that the jobs bill in its entirety would not be as popular as each individual provision. It's one thing to get people to say they think teacher's and first responders should get some federal assistance, it's another to say they think we should spend $447 billion dollars and raise taxes on the job creators, I mean wealthy.
All that aside, the Dems should be able to pass it with 51 votes.
Kyle
We seem to be agreeing a lot these days, Kyle, so it was great that you throw in some disagreement as well.
I know there are doubts about the efficacy of the stimulus. It did not "save" the economy. For the record, the CBO estimates that the stimulus "raised employment by 1.4-3.6 million" and lowered the unemployment rate "by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points." Private forecasters estimate that, as of the third quarter of 2010, the stimulus "increased employment by between 2.1 and 2.5 million." I think Obama's big mistake was in giving the impression that the stimulus would be all that was needed when, really, even as the bill was passing in 2009, it became clear the crisis was much worse than originally anticipated. He should have sold it as the first step to stabilize the economy, which it did, with the proviso that recovery would require much more.
Pollsters have, in fact, asked the question about the "Obama jobs plan." Support is lower when phrased in this way. Like with Obamacare, however, it seems clear that people have very little knowledge of what is actually in the bill. The polling on the exact provisions therefore seems much more enlightening with respect to public opinion, since it gives people a chance to evaluate the contents of the bill rather than the partisan label. Also, I should also say that pollsters do ask about taxing the so-called "job creators." This provision is also very popular, even among Republicans. So the population overwhelmingly agrees with the provisions of the plan and agrees with how to pay for the plan. There is more agreement over this than almost anything else that I have seen.
When polling people about the individual provisions, one component that is neglected is the price tag. Sure I'd like to increase federal spending for x, y, and z. Those are all noble causes that deserve money, but how much money? And can we afford it? Issues not addressed. So some of the discrepancy between how popular some of the provisions are and the popularity (or lack thereof) of the entire bill could be contributed to this.
I consider myself somewhat up-to date on current events, and I don't know how well I would be able to respond to a pollster about what the specifics are in a given bill. But one thing I am clued in on is the price tag of the bill, and the huge deficits we are currently running. So I wouldn't discount the polling results related to how popular a bill is so quickly.
I am okay with raising taxes on the rich as well. What bugs me is how they are villainized and talked about as if they are a curse to our country. The rich are employers. They are the lifeblood of the middle class. We should reward them for creating American jobs and provide incentives to keep the jobs here (or bring them back). It seems the left would prefer it if there were no rich. As long as we have freedom, we will have people that get rich. It's not a bad thing, it's liberty.
On a related note, what is your opinion of Occupy Wall Street?
Kyle
Pretty sure there's something missing in that post. If the plan would create "up to 1.9 jobs", then it just isn't worth the cost.
Hah! I'm sure it would be worth it to the 1.9 people.
Corrected.
Bryan
Post a Comment