Almost One Year Ago Today

[Gaspar]

Last year at this time. . .President Barack Obama, in an Aug. 29, 2010 interview with NBC's Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation.

Will he truly be a "green president" and recycle last year's ideas?

"Next week, I will be laying out a series of steps that Congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families and middle-class families, to make it easier for small businesses to hire people, to put construction crews to work rebuilding our nation's roads and railways and airports, and all the other measures that can help to grow this economy."

I am hopeful that he can propose some real ideas this time.  Last year after VA-CA he had a tub of fluff, with two good ideas.  He proposed the elimination of capital gains taxes on small business, this did not pass, because it already existed as part of the Bush Tax Cuts that were extended.  The second idea was easier access to credit, which did pass, but because the Fed was still paying banks NOT to loan, it did nothing (and businesses were browning their trousers over Obamacare). 

Last years "Jobs Speech" did nothing because, again, it avoided the real issue of economic confidence swirling around this administration, and did nothing to quell concerns over the looming fuzzy-math that makes up Obamacare and the host of new regulations to be set as a yolk on business in 2012 and 2013.

So, unless he strikes at the heart of the issues this time (I prey he will), we will receive another "No Magic Bullet" speech, even though the gun is in his hand and pointed squarely at small businesses.

[we vs us]

He can't do much of anything at this point.  He'll have no money to advance new proposals (the deficit supercommittee will see to that) and the GOP doesn't like his version of tax cuts.

At this point in his Presidency he seems to prefer small-bore solutions anyway, but there're additional constraints on him were he to be inclined to go big or go long. 

Shorter wevus:  welcome to your new lost decade.

[Conan71]

He can't do hasn't done much of anything at this point.  He's ll have no money to advance new presented no proposals (the deficit supercommittee will see to that) and the GOP doesn't like his version of tax cuts. that will get Americans back to work because in his utopian world, he doesn't understand how jobs are created.

At this point in his Presidency he's seems to prefer small-bore solutions anyway, but there're additional constraints on him were he to be inclined to go big or go long.  still reaching for any excuse he can to keep up the illusion that his presidency has been anything other than a complete bust.

Shorter Conan:  Let's hope he fires his advisory staff and brings in some people who understand how jobs are created.

[we vs us]

He can't do hasn't done much of anything at this point.  He's ll have no money to advance new presented no proposals (the deficit supercommittee will see to that) and the GOP doesn't like his version of tax cuts. that will get Americans back to work because in his utopian world, he doesn't understand how jobs are created.

At this point in his Presidency he's seems to prefer small-bore solutions anyway, but there're additional constraints on him were he to be inclined to go big or go long.  still reaching for any excuse he can to keep up the illusion that his presidency has been anything other than a complete bust.

Shorter Conan:  Let's hope he fires his advisory staff and brings in some people who understand how jobs are created.

You've really got to listen to some different radio stations.

[Gaspar]

Sure he could.  He could again propose to extend the current tax structure, that would flush billions of future dollars back into the economy.  He could propose a suspension of the Obamacare program.  That would temporarily quell some of the discomfort businesses are facing.  If he wanted to permanently cure it he would call for the repeal of Obamacare and then legislation granting insurance companies the right to compete over state lines. He could also eliminate all incentives for banks to sit on extra funds (the 0.25% guaranteed rate).

If he really wanted the economy to boom, he could propose a 6 month income tax holiday.  This would cost about $700-$800Billion (the cost of the stimulus), and cause every business to jump into high gear.  It would also give consumers 15% to 20% more income to kick start the engine.  GDP would jump as businesses rush to hire and make as much money as possible before the window closes.

Of course none of these will have lasting effect unless government goes on a diet.

[RecycleMichael]

Sorry gaspar. Those tax cuts for the wealthy have proved to no longer work.

But keep shouting it over and over. Many republicans will agree with you.

[Breadburner]

He's not back from vacation yet...Give the dude a break....!!!

[Conan71]

Sorry gaspar. Those tax cuts for the wealthy have proved to no longer work.

But keep shouting it over and over. Many republicans will agree with you.

People try to point to the late 1990's as an example of economic growth due to higher tax rates.  That's a completely inaccurate assessment.  That period presented a major growth opportunity which would have happened in just about any taxing environment as there was an explosion in the internet, communications, biotechnology, and massive retail and construction growth all coupled with easy access to cheap money all at once.  There's a good probability that lowering taxes as well as an overall business-friendly environment along with easy access to money helped ward off the recession we were facing in 2001.

You are right, tax cuts by themselves do not create jobs.  Tax cuts are part of a number of things which create a commerce-friendly environment.  A chief executive who spouts off phrases like: "They make enough already", and "Spread the wealth around" is doing nothing more than creating resentment amongst those he intends to raise taxes on.  If it were communicated in a far different manner like: "What we are doing is unsustainable, we need everyone to contribute a little more" small business as well as people in a position to create jobs in small business wouldn't feel like they were under attack.

The tax cuts won't work so long as payroll costs go up.  More and more, I'm hearing from people in a position to make hiring decisions that the unknown costs of Obamacare are curbing hiring plans in HR departments in larger businesses and with business owners in smaller businesses.  If costs were known and fixed, we might see unemployment drop by as much as a percent or two.  Most businesses were not in favor of Obamacare to start with.  You can't pass a mandate which will affect many businesses which is unpopular with those businesses and expect them to respond with more jobs.

There is an immutable fact that businesses will favor a lower tax environment.  Think about situations where Tulsa has been in competition with other cities around the country for an opportunity to land a new employer.  What is one of the major incentives thrown out there?  Tax breaks.  Whether it's a break on corporate taxes to the state or city or some sort of credit for creating quality jobs.  The companies almost always go to a lower taxing environment.

And finally, probably the biggest road block to entrepreneurship and it's attendant job creation is lack of access to money.  Gaspar makes a great point: banks can sit there and earn .25% with zero risk.  Why loan money if the risk is deemed too high and there is an incentive to hoard it?

[we vs us]

Sure he could.  He could again propose to extend the current tax structure, that would flush billions of future dollars back into the economy.  He could propose a suspension of the Obamacare program.  That would temporarily quell some of the discomfort businesses are facing.  If he wanted to permanently cure it he would call for the repeal of Obamacare and then legislation granting insurance companies the right to compete over state lines. He could also eliminate all incentives for banks to sit on extra funds (the 0.25% guaranteed rate).

If he really wanted the economy to boom, he could propose a 6 month income tax holiday.  This would cost about $700-$800Billion (the cost of the stimulus), and cause every business to jump into high gear.  It would also give consumers 15% to 20% more income to kick start the engine.  GDP would jump as businesses rush to hire and make as much money as possible before the window closes.

Of course none of these will have lasting effect unless government goes on a diet.

He's not going to repeal or delay his signature accomplishment.  It's just not going to happen.  It's also not the reason people aren't hiring, so while it may be on the top of your list, you might as well wish for everyone to get a pretty pony for Christmas.  

Aside from that, though, I can definitely see him agreeing to delaying or killing more regulations (since he just announced $10B in savings from his first round of reg cuts, he's already down that road); and I see him trying to match or top the GOP's "stimulative" tax cut demands.  So you'll get a payroll tax holiday of some sort, maybe an income tax give-back or reduction, something like that. I also think he might very well be open to continuing the Bush tax cuts through 2013 or 14.  As we've discussed here, that would be -- from a deficit standpoint -- one of the worst things he could do, but I don't know if it will matter. It's one of the few tools he has left.

The question will be to what degree Cantor's Crue can allow themselves to be seen compromising or agreeing with the President.  The debt ceiling debate, I think, solidified the only political path forward for the Tea Partiers, which is to say that can come to an agreement with the Admin but only after a protracted and public negotiating session, where it becomes obvious how badly they're taking him to the woodshed.  They can only agree to compromise if it includes a level of public humiliation for the President (and specifically the President -- the Dems in Congress don't really matter to them).  

If you want to talk about economic uncertainty, consider every budgetary debate from here to eternity yolked to the Tea Party's need to publicly humiliate the president.  Good times.

[Gaspar]

I love how people automatically respond with their party mantras without reading, analyzing or considering their response.

Wevsus's point was that "there is nothing President Obama can do" so he should just throw up his hands.  

My response was a series of points that would generate economic stimulus.  I know they would never happen or be popular with most of you.

I think it would be nice to hear some good liberal alternatives.  Surely there are some thoughts out there on appropriate measures that can be taken by government to positively affect the growth of the private sector.

Anyone?

EDIT:  Thanks Wevus for responding logically above ^^

[Conan71]

If you want to talk about economic uncertainty, consider every budgetary debate from here to eternity yolked to the Tea Party's need to publicly humiliate the president.  Good times.

Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Interesting.. we have Republican's on here mentioning an income tax holiday while the Republican's in washington want to raise their payroll taxes.  So raise your taxes by the same amount as you lower them?

[Red Arrow]

Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

You keep forgetting that Bush deserved that humiliation.

[Townsend]

Please contrast that to the eight years of humiliation the Democrats subjected President Bush to.

Much of that was self-inflicted.  Chew your pretzels completely, look at the enormous banners behind you on the aircraft carriers before allowing pictures to be taken, practice pronunciation an hour a day before giving speeches, etc.

Kudos for quick shoe duck reflexes though.

[Gaspar]

He's not going to repeal or delay his signature accomplishment.  It's just not going to happen.  It's also not the reason people aren't hiring, so while it may be on the top of your list, you might as well wish for everyone to get a pretty pony for Christmas.  

Aside from that, though, I can definitely see him agreeing to delaying or killing more regulations (since he just announced $10B in savings from his first round of reg cuts, he's already down that road); and I see him trying to match or top the GOP's "stimulative" tax cut demands.  So you'll get a payroll tax holiday of some sort, maybe an income tax give-back or reduction, something like that. I also think he might very well be open to continuing the Bush tax cuts through 2013 or 14.  As we've discussed here, that would be -- from a deficit standpoint -- one of the worst things he could do, but I don't know if it will matter. It's one of the few tools he has left.

The question will be to what degree Cantor's Crue can allow themselves to be seen compromising or agreeing with the President.  The debt ceiling debate, I think, solidified the only political path forward for the Tea Partiers, which is to say that can come to an agreement with the Admin but only after a protracted and public negotiating session, where it becomes obvious how badly they're taking him to the woodshed.  They can only agree to compromise if it includes a level of public humiliation for the President (and specifically the President -- the Dems in Congress don't really matter to them).  

If you want to talk about economic uncertainty, consider every budgetary debate from here to eternity yolked to the Tea Party's need to publicly humiliate the president.  Good times.

I agree. Obamacare is here to stay, but that does not take it off the table as an option (just one he would never choose).  I disagree on the impact on the economy but that's my opinion based only on what every business I have talked too or read about says.

As for the other points, you are correct, I am sure he is going to expand the time on the Bush tax cuts, I am also sure he may propose to ease some regulation, but all indications point to (from the language used by his mouthpieces during vacation) that these regulations will only affect unionized industries related to RRs and heavy construction.  So basically he is going to propose some happy vote-buying pacifiers to his donation base.

I would anticipate the proposal of another extension of the payroll tax break, and then the rest of the speech will be a shift of blame speech.  He needs to use this opportunity not to address jobs as much as lay blame on a new set of hobgoblins.  The Tea Party is obviously going to be the new BUSH, and that's a good idea for him because they really have no way of defending themselves.  Tea Party ideas are not new, they are fundamental constitutional ideas, and this gives him the advantage, because he can position their philosophy as antiquated and uncompromising.