It's rare that a news story makes me say "WTF!" But this year ahs been full of them. We've just finished a brutal debate over debt ceilings, austerity, and the need to trim the federal budget. So, when MSNBC ran it's top story today, I was glad to see Obama proposing a JOBS plan, but taken aback by the ideas.
If you haven't seen it, and it's mirrored elsewhere, here you go:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
The president's plan is
likely to contain tax cuts, jobs-boosting infrastructure ideas and steps that would specifically help the long-term unemployed
. The official emphasized that all of Obama's proposals would be fresh ones, not a rehash of plans he has pitched for many weeks and still supports, including his "infrastructure bank" idea to finance construction jobs.
But it's this part that is baffling:
Obama's plan will be bigger. By how much isn't clear, but he has already envisioned $4 trillion in cuts over a slightly longer period of time.
He was in serious talks with House Speaker John Boehner during the recent, wrenching talks over a similar big package, between $3 trillion and $4 trillion. And those talks had included the potential for economic help like the payroll tax cut extension; Obama's new plan is likely to follow similar form.
So now we're planning tax cuts and to help that out, $4T in cuts... up from the $1.5T in cuts.
I will withhold judgement until I see the plan, but I have to wonder how is this not complete capitulation to the Republican ideas?
In a down economy, shedding government spending means shedding government jobs. Shedding government jobs tends to not work out so well for the average joe. It's easy to say "let's cut the government" until the government starts handing out pink slips and then you've just got more unemployed. And strangely, tax cuts don't seem to help the unemployed so much.
I welcome all commentators to walk me through the logic of this brand, bold plan. $4T in additional cuts and tax cuts.. well, it sings "I'm in re-election mode"
UPDATE: Some have criticized the comment on my bagging tax cuts, when this could be about payroll taxes.
They are expected to be separate from the extension of the payroll tax cut for employees that Obama has lobbied for by the day. Obama also has promoted a familiar list of other ideas, including patent reform and three major trade deals. And he has pushed for longer benefits for the chronically unemployed.
As for debt reduction, Obama is trying to have some say over the highly influential committee charged with recommending major changes fast.
http://hosted.ap.org/...
And let me explain my problem: Whether or not you agree with the policy or not, it's called losing the narrative. No tax cuts, of any sort, whether it's middle class or low end earning create enough influence to spawn job creation. Feeding that narrative only enforces Republican talking points. By making the spotlights of his plan any arrangement of tax cuts and debt reduction, the narrative is played on the wrong playground.
I recognize the general complaint in the comments of "STFU". First, thankfully, I don't have to ;) , and second, there is nothing wrong with discussing the leaked details as we know them.
I'm not adamantly opposed to it as a philosophy, but I think it's moving in a direction of capitulation in ideas more then anything else.
The more I've thought about this, though, the more I think we got hemmed in after the debt ceiling debate. There isn't a lot of ground for Obama to go for real honest stimulus. A proposal that would create real jobs has significant costs, which is contrary to the position of major budget cuts. How do you do both?
The concern is becoming that we'll have a Republican run as an outsider and they will say "you have to spend to get returns; if we have to go into debt to create jobs.." because we're putting up a brick wall between the position of the administration and getting to that point now.