If We Do Nothing, Take Two

Gene Spearling, director of President Obama’s National Economic Council in today’s WSJ:

For all the political posturing and handicapping by pundits over President Obama’s American Jobs Act, too little attention is being paid to the economic costs if Congress fails to act on bold measures to spark job creation and growth over the next 12 to 18 months.

Erm, I think you’ve got that not exactly correct. The problem phrases in this paragraph are “bold measures”, referring to Obama’s Job’s bill, situated way to closely to “spark job creation and growth.” The bold measures, are not bold, they are tax gimmicks that will do nothing, and payoffs to union voters.

Put simply, the economic challenges we face create an overwhelming imperative for action now.

You know, we’ve heard this already. In 2009. But, we’ve got to pass another stimulus. NOW.

First, it provides a strong and immediate boost to demand that could create up to 1.9 million jobs, increase growth by up to 2%, and lower unemployment, according to independent economists such as Moody’s Analytics. It does so by cutting payroll taxes in half for nearly all workers and small businesses, preventing teacher and first-responder layoffs, and creating jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, our schools and our blighted neighborhoods.

Well wait, I thought it was going to put people to work – what’s this about preventing lay-offs? And, many independent economists agree that the stimulus efffects of the jobs bill will be negligible. See what I did there?

Second, it is specifically designed to take on the problem of long-term unemployment. It includes a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed and veterans, and a ban on hiring discrimination against the unemployed. It also calls for major reforms to our unemployment-insurance system, including wage insurance to assist workers whose new job pays less than their old, a “Bridge to Work” program to help the unemployed reconnect with the labor force through temporary work, job-search assistance for all long-term unemployed, and support for unemployed workers looking to become entrepreneurs.

Businesses do not hire for tax credits, they hire them because THEY NEED THEM. And the wage insurance program is fubared, and I’m sure the government is only going to fuck it up even more. If you have faith that any program of government job-search assistance is going to do anything, then I’ve got a house to sell you in Detroit. It’s a GREAT DEAL. call me.

Certainly, we are disappointed that Republicans have so far blocked passage of the American Jobs Act.

Certainly, I am disappointed to note that the Obama administration continues to be the most partisan in my memory, and fails to not that the rejection of this stupid bill is BIpartisan.

It simply cannot be the case in a serious economic moment like this that good ideas are transformed into bad ideas solely because President Obama supports them.

Well, and he’s black. There’s that too.

Gene Sperling is a progressive who’s spent a very large portion of his career working for politicians or in government. In the early 90’s he worked for Mario Cuomo. Then he worked for Bill Clinton until 2000. He was also Hillary Clinton’s economic adviser during her campaign. And now he works for Barack Obama.

But I don’t want you to get the impression that Sperling NEVER worked in the private sector. In 2008, he worked for Goldman Sachs and made $887,727, with an additional $158,000 for speeches.

Our progressive, though, was a man with a conciencse. Principled. After working for the Clinton administration people advised him to cash in by working for Wall Street.

He didn’t follow this guidance. Instead, Sperling devoted most of his time to addressing the challenge of global poverty…

A friend of Sperling adds, “After having been head of the NEC for Clinton, he could have immediately gone to Wall Street and made a lot of money. That’s what most people in his situation do. But he didn’t. A lot of us who know him scratched our heads about that.” …

At some point, according to a source familiar with the episode, Goldman Sachs approached Sperling for advice on globalization… On the advice of friends, he requested that he be paid what the investment firm might pay a top lawyer or dealmaker: $70,000 a month.

What a giver. But, he was advising Goldman Sachs on their charitable giving, so I guess that’s why he worked for a mere pittance of $887,727 a year. Doesn’t that make him one of the 1%? Or even worse, a Wall Street Millionaire?.

What does this clown know about job creation?

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: