October 2nd
CBS News: “September employment report one big disappointment.”
CNBC: “Job creation misses big in September.”
Reuters: “US job growth stumbles, raising doubts on economy.”
CNN Money: “Ugly jobs report casts doubt over 2015 Fed rate hike.”
Fox Business: “U.S. Adds 142,000 Jobs in September, Badly Missing Expectations.”
New York Times: “Grim Jobs Report Is Likely to Delay a Move by the Fed on Rates.”
Bloomberg Business: “Economists Can’t Find the Silver Lining in Today’s Jobs Report.”
October 3rd
President Obama in his weekly address to America: “Yesterday, we learned that our businesses created another 118,000 new jobs in September. That makes 67 straight months of job creation, and 13.2 million new jobs in all.”
We can cut Obama some slack since he’s no economist. He finds out about these things in the news reports like the rest of us–although he must have skipped his reading for a day since he blames Congressional Republicans for the not-so-stellar jobs report.
But we would be doing even better if we didn’t have to keep dealing with crises in Congress every few months. And especially at a time when the global economy is softening, our own growth could slow if Congress doesn’t do away with harmful austerity measures.
Few economists appear to be considering Capitol Hill as a main factor in their job report assessments.
The president then took some liberties with the truth in his usual partisan way. He says that “more than half of Republicans in Congress voted to shut down the government for the second time in two years” when they voted against the resolution to keep the government operational through December 11th. That’s a heck of a deceptive way to describe what the Republicans did by voting “nay.” Voting against the continuing resolution doesn’t mean voting for a shutdown. It means that those who voted against the CR didn’t like what was in it. I’m sure if one could look inside the heads of those who voted against the CR, none of them wanted a government shutdown.
While some legislators might have voted against the resolution because of their opposition to keep Planned Parenthood funded, many were like Obama in that they didn’t want to keep voting in favor of bills that only provided short-term spending solutions, which has become the status quo in Congress.
So even though they acted in a way that protests the same thing Obama protests, and the resolution passed, avoiding a shutdown for a couple of months, he still had to complain about them.
Before the passage of the CR, Obama vowed to veto a budget if it contained pretty much any spending cuts. Now he vows to not sign another continuing resolution. Okie doke. I guess that means he would be using his veto to shut down the government, right? It’s the same argument he’s making against Congress.
Obama refers to the continuing resolution as a “gimmick,” which would be another progressive abuse of the dictionary. A gimmick is a device or scheme used to attract attention or gain popular appeal. That isn’t why the CR was passed, dummy. The CR was passed to avoid attention that a shutdown would have attracted, and it definitely isn’t popular with those who voted against it. I doubt it was popular among those who voted for it, but in their minds, it had to be done since no one could agree on a proper appropriations bill. So stop using that word incorrectly.
The president complained that the “shortsighted” temporary resolution “kicks the can down the road without solving any problems or doing any long-term planning for the future.” Indeed it does kick the can. Democrats want to spend and tax, Republicans supposedly don’t–as much. So until they figure out how to put something together that the president will sign, this is where we are.
I agree with Obama. No more continuing resolutions. This December, Republicans should present Obama with appropriations that they were sent to Washington to pass–funding with less “investment” (spending) and lower taxes. They should make Obama and the squishy establishment types in their own party and all of the money-grubbing Democrats explain to a struggling America why they won’t accept a smaller budget.
We know that Obama won’t accept such a bill. He’s already made clear in his other weekly addresses as of late that he does not want any cuts to appropriations. He only wants the size of government to grow. Politicians will complain about “show votes” that might be able to pass through both houses of Congress but may never have a chance of being signed by the president. But it gets everyone on record as showing where they stand on taxes and spending. It shows that the Republicans can come together to try to do what the voters wanted them to do.
We voted for these Republican “tidal waves” in 2010 and 2014 to fight against Washington’s reckless spending. So far, the collective party members haven’t impressed with their level of effort to accomplish that. They’ve shown that they can be intimidated by the minority party. They should be aware that just as easily as we voted them in, we could just as easily let their terms expire in their next elections.
Back to Obama’s address, this is why he says spending cuts are no good:
A few years ago, both parties agreed to put in place harmful, automatic cuts that make no distinction between spending we don’t need and spending we do. Those cuts have actually kept our economy from growing faster. Even worse, they’re actually undermining the middle class.
I assume that when he said “a few years ago,” Obama was referring to the budget deal that was reached on April 8th, 2011, which prevented a shutdown with a couple of hours to spare.
At the time, Obama praised both parties for coming to an agreement:
This agreement between Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of all Americans, is on a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history. Like any worthwhile compromise, both sides had to make tough decisions and give ground on issues that were important to them. And I certainly did that.
Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programs people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances.
But beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs — investments in our kids’ education and student loans; in clean energy and life-saving medical research. We protected the investments we need to win the future. …
I want to thank Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid for their leadership and their dedication during this process. A few months ago, I was able to sign a tax cut for American families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. Now the same cooperation will make possible the biggest annual spending cut in history, and it’s my sincere hope that we can continue to come together as we face the many difficult challenges that lie ahead, from creating jobs and growing our economy to educating our children and reducing our deficit. That’s what the American people expect us to do. That’s why they sent us here.
Obama seemed pretty proud back then of that $38.5 billion in cuts. Biggest spending cut in history. It was so great that he said it twice. Historical, like everything else of which Obama’s been involved. He called it a “worthwhile compromise,” one that would be “painful” but necessary–the “only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs.”
Now he’s saying “those cuts have actually kept our economy from growing faster.”
What a difference a few years make.
Obama then provided an example of what these “mindless” appropriation cuts, which he once thought were worthwhile, could do if we don’t undo them:
If we don’t undo these mindless cuts, then next year, we’ll be funding our kids’ education at the same levels per pupil we did in the year 2000. Compared to my budget, that would be like cutting federal funding for 4,500 schools, 17,500 teachers and aides, 1.9 million students.
Well, it looks like he got these numbers from a “fact sheet” the White House released back in March, which claims that Title I education funding would get $1.2 billion less with the House budget than with Obama’s budget.
1.9 million students, 1.2 billion dollars. Does this mean that the cost to teach a child in our public schools is less than $650? That still doesn’t include the amount it takes to pay the teachers and operate the schools. Wow, I didn’t know that getting a public education was so cheap these days.
Our legislators and president should be trying to reduce spending amounts, not making them go up. People working within those discretionary programs will have less money to waste, and they will have to adjust. Having to adjust to changing conditions makes people have to be wiser and more responsible with their resources. Government could use a lot more of that mindset. The president wants everyone to think it’s just awful that those workers would have to change with rotten economic conditions like the rest of us. Excuse me while I use a magnifying glass to locate my violin.
That’s not good for our kids or our economy. It’s a prescription for American decline. And it shouldn’t happen. We should invest in things like education today, or we’re gonna pay the price tomorrow.
Invest, invest, invest. Spend more of other people’s money. If he specialized in recommending the best stocks, he’d have been out of a job a long time ago.
It’d be much better if he just put a sock in it.
In his mouth. So we don’t have to hear him talk.
Consider it a worthwhile investment in our future.
