* Obama planning big pivot to jobs?

[kpete]

* Obama planning big pivot to jobs? There’s an important nugget buried in this weekend’s New York Times opus about the gearing up of the Obama reelection campaign:

*****While Mr. Obama will not fully engage in campaign activity until next year, aides said, he is embarking on weekly economic-focused trips throughout the summer. Doing so will allow him to use his bully pulpit to show that he is focused on addressing joblessness, the issue that more than any other could shape his electoral prospects and that Republicans are using to assert that his policies have failed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/us/politics/05obama.html?ref=politics#

The question is what sort of policy initiatives, if any, will accompany this effort to show that Obama is “focused on addressing joblessness.” The notion of more stimulus spending, of course, has completely vanished from the conversation, and it appears the White House and Dems are merely banking on an economic turnaround.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum/2011/03/03/AGBoXCKH_blog.html

[BernieSandersIsGod]

1. It's useless when you have GOP governors and a GOP house whose mission in life is to see u fail. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. There were very robust jobs bills that were put forward during in the last congress

that were blocked by the Republicans. Why the Democrats refuse to correct the record is beyond me. Even many liberal pundits keep asking why it is that Obama didn't focus on jobs first. HE DID!!!!! *banging head on wall*

The stimulus was first but wasn't big enough, thanks to Blue Dog/Corporatist Democrats.

Then, the House passed a series of jobs bills that were held up in the Senate. Reid countered with his own jobs package, which, of course was rejected by Republicans in the Senate.

Again, why the M$M won't correct the record is beyond me. And why Democrats refuse to clarify this issue and what really happened is causing me to have a heart attack!!!!

[BernieSandersIsGod]

18. small stimulus had more to do with those GOP Senators from Maine. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Yes, but the Blue Dogs/Corporatists convinced the party to inject 1/3 tax cuts

in the detail. Granted, there was a lot of caving to the Republicans in terms of inserting the big tax cuts--most of which the majority of Americans don't even know they got. And yes, I think it should have been bigger. If it were bigger, we would be well on our way to a significant recovery.

So, it wasn't just about Republican obstruction; we have to be honest in that we have Blue Dogs and Corporatists in the party who believed that they'd lose election. And yes, Obama himself needs to take ownerhsip of this particular failure. In the end, we got an ineffetive stimulus because it wasn't big enough.

[JoePhilly]

34. Obama needs to take responsibility for the Blue Dogs?

Lieberman endorsed McCain. Exactly how would Obama pressure the Senator from Aetna to do anything.

Same with Ben Nelson.

There are about 5 specific blue dogs in the Senate who have been voting with the GOP on critical votes going back to the mid to late 90s.

That's not something Obama can fix.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. Not for the Blue Dogs, but for not pushing for a broader, more robust stimulus.

Sadly, there's nothing he could do to "LBJ" the Blue Dogs, and yes, I hate it when I hear people assert that he should be more "FDR" and "LBJ". That assumes that he's working under the same or similar conditions.

[JoePhilly]

37. And that is the point ...

He was not going to get a more robust stimuls past these clowns.

And recall that at the time, the GOP was contesting the seating of Al Franken, one more vote he did not have.

And then Kennedy dies 6 months later.

[AngryAmish]

2. What took him so long?

[leveymg]

3. Don't bank on it. The bank is busted, unless it's in Dubai.

[dkf]

5. Looks like the Chinese bank has closed up shop.

[leveymg]

6. The T-bill buying department, anyway.

They own so much US real estate, public debt and other junk, they don't know what to do with it.

[dkf]

4. Focusing on joblessness could simply mean unemployment benefits or govt programs.

I wonder if they have a clue how to create jobs. I'm kind of stymied on that myself. I don't think a public works program will fly with all the concerns on the deficit. Maybe if the shovel ready projects had shown more results we could have sold it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. The money for shovel ready projects was squandered by Republican governors

who misused those funds to balance the budget and give away to their friends in the form of contracts. Had the stimulus been larger, and the money properly tracked, it would have been an even greater success.

But there is a reason why Republicans are rejected infrastructure projects, deeming them as "pork." They know that those kinds of projects create jobs; hence, the effort to take down the "stimulus" road signs across the country that described how taxpayer funds were being used.

http://www.recovery.gov/pages/default.aspx

Again, I agree that had the stimulus been larger, it would have been something akin to the public works program. But, as you know, it would have been stymied in the Senate because any successful job creation program would guarantee a win for Democrats, and they can't have that.

I wish more people, especially here at DU, could understand this and what really happened with regard to jobs and the stimulus.

[dkf]

25. Well if they meant to sabotage it they did a good job.

But I have to say with our permitting process I really don't see instant jobs created in time for the election. Our rail has been in the works for years and it still hasn't started construction. Heck we've been paying taxes for several years and our government tried to raid the funds since it is just sitting there.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Yes, what is happening in your community is the example of how stimulus

funds were being misused or not used at all. Those shovel ready projects should have led to millions of jobs created, but what did that state do with all that money? Either the federal government has been negligent in tracking the funds, or something else is going on here...

[dkf]

29. The problem is objections from the community.

The EIS, the bidding process, the path, the native Hawaiian sites, and on and on and on.

[alc]

7. does pivot mean no more "laser-like focus on jobs"?

[ProSense]

8. Only two ways to create jobs:

1) Incentives to private sector (hasn't worked, wonder why, especially since corporations are hoarding cash?)

2) Stimulus programs focused on infrastructure investment (would have been good if Congress had passed an energy bill too).

Since No. 1 hasn't worked, and the private sector appears unwilling to step up, that leaves option No. 2 as the only viable solution.

[frazzled]

9. No. 2 not really viable solution either

Given the Republican status in the House, and its unyielding resolve to block any legislation that would actually have a positive effect on the economy.

[dkf]

12. Is that going to fly with the rating agencies?

[Enrique]

13. you realize you disagree with the President

what you posted is 180 degrees from Obama's thinking.

[ProSense]

14. Please explain

"Obama's thinking" to me.

Stimulus Jobs Program's End 'Totally Unbelievable'

President Obama Announces Proposals to Accelerate Job Growth and Lay the Foundation for Robust Economic Growth

NAACP applauds Obama's call for jobs bill

In Sept 2010, Obama offered an infrastructure jobs plan. In March, Kerry proposed the BUILD Act.

[Enrique]

15. oh, I see what you're doing

you want us to believe that Obama shares the views you wrote in your first post.

You want us to believe that Obama realizes, like you say you do, that incentives to business have failed, and that we should turn to government spending to create jobs.

I'm going to go back and check that I've characterized your post fairly, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you claimed to believe.

[ProSense]

17. Hmmm?

"oh, I see what you're doing you want us to believe that Obama shares the views you wrote in your first post."

Who is "us"? What you believe is up to you. I doubt anything I say is going to change your mind. I expressed my opinion.

You made a claim about "Obama's thinking" in relation to my comment, and I asked if you'd please explain his thinking.

"You want us to believe that Obama realizes, like you say you do, that incentives to business have failed, and that we should turn to government spending to create jobs."

You may not be aware of this, but I don't speak or think for Obama. I have no idea if he thinks incentives to businesses have failed. He has offered them and will likely do more in that area, but I have no idea what he's thinking.

[Enrique]

19. did you see Goolsbee on TV yesterday?

you're a big fan of the White House, did you see what their top economic adviser had to say yesterday on national TV, at least two programs, or did you miss it.

I haven't seen any DU discussion on it, when I get a chance I'll post a thread.

[ProSense]

22. Here,

transcript:

<...>

GOOLSBEE: Well, I would say two or three thing. The first is, the president has never stopped talking about jobs. For him, the growth strategy is the number-one issue.

Now, we must live within our means. We have a moment that we can talk about long-run deficit reduction. And the vice president's leading an effort to do that, that the president has asked him to. But the president is getting up every day -- on Friday, he's going out to Ohio to talk about jobs in manufacturing, which manufacturing is having its best employment year in almost 15 years.

<...>

GOOLSBEE: OK. So the -- we have shifted in the economy from a rescue phase, which is government-directed, to a phase in which government policies have got -- we've got to rely on government policies that are trying to leverage the private sector and give incentives to the private sector to be doing the growth.

And that -- so the president has started these tax cuts that will continue over the rest of this year, has put in place this regulatory review in which all of the major agencies are going to go through, find any outmoded regulations, ones that are excessively costly for their benefits, find ways to streamline.

<...>

GOOLSBEE: Well, we still -- there will be more payroll tax cut over the entire course of this year. It's more than $1,000 a worker for 150 million workers.

The free-trade agreements, trying to increase exports, which are rising at 15 percent annual rates. The infrastructure bank that the president has called for, which, again, is trying to leverage, using government incentives to get private capital to enter and help grow the economy. That -- that -- those are the things that we've got to be doing.

<...>

[Enrique]

26. let's cut that down a little

we have shifted in the economy from a rescue phase, which is government-directed, to a phase in which government policies have got -- we've got to rely on government policies that are trying to leverage the private sector and give incentives to the private sector to be doing the growth.


This is exactly the opposite of what you said above that you believe. Exactly the opposite. You coudn't get any more opposite if you tried.

[ProSense]

30. Um

we have shifted in the economy from a rescue phase, which is government-directed, to a phase in which government policies have got -- we've got to rely on government policies that are trying to leverage the private sector and give incentives to the private sector to be doing the growth.


This is exactly the opposite of what you said above that you believe. Exactly the opposite. You coudn't get any more opposite if you tried.

...what the hell are you talking about? What does what I believe have to do with what Goolsbee said? Do you think I'm Goolsbee?

Also, here is what I said...

Only two ways to create jobs:

1) Incentives to private sector (hasn't worked, wonder why, especially since corporations are hoarding cash?)

2) Stimulus programs focused on infrastructure investment (would have been good if Congress had passed an energy bill too).

Since No. 1 hasn't worked, and the private sector appears unwilling to step up, that leaves option No. 2 as the only viable solution.

Note: That's my opinion if it wasn't clear.

[Enrique]

32. you and Goolsbee were both very clear

you were very clear, to you credit. Less business incetives, more direct spending.

So was Goolsbee very clear. More business incentives, less direct spending.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. What? There were several small business incentives bills that were passed

though the House. Even the Affordable Health Care Act that Republicans like to call "Obamacare" contained incentives for small businesses that create jobs.

I don't get your points at all. Do you just not know the facts?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. Cap and Trade was passed by the House, as well as a green jobs

bill that would have created tons of jobs in the industry. The Senate blocked progress and now even liberal pundits and commentators are getting the facts wrong: the Democrats in the House DID do these things which were blocked in the Senate by the Republicans.

[dkf]

27. Cap and trade where emissions allowances are traded on wall street?

Do you really think that is a good idea?

[ProSense]

31. Why did environmentalists pursue cap-and-trade and was it a doomed strategy?

Why did environmentalists pursue cap-and-trade and was it a doomed strategy?

We're starting to see pieces of counterfactual history on the climate bill in The New Republic and elsewhere based in part on a widely debunked "false narrative." Since cap-and-trade has been so vilified by the entire right wing and even some on the left, I thought I would try to set the record straight on some key points.

I'm not here to say cap-and-trade was the "correct" strategy. And it may be that any strategy was extrinsically "doomed to fail" -- that the Senate's anti-democratic, super-majority 60-vote "requirement" meant that a dedicated minority could have killed any approach -- once the Republican Party decided to become the only major political party in the world dedicated to denying science and blocking any action.

I mainly want to show that cap-and-trade was not intrinsically doomed to fail, that it was not obviously or inherently a flawed idea in, say, 2008 -- or even 2009. Quite the reverse. Only someone who doesn't know history -- or who chooses to ignore it -- could believe that.

Environmentalists and progressives and others pursued cap-and-trade for several reasons, most of which have been utterly ignored by the counterfactual revisionists:

<...>

[dkf]

33. It was a market based strategy which seemed like it would fly in a capitalist system.

It was Amy Klobuchar or one of the female senators who pointed out the problems with it though. Once she made this comment the light bulb went off in my head. Bad bad idea.

[tblue]

10. You mean he wasn't there before?

Oy.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Next year will not improve if the tax payroll holiday and unemployment compensation are not renewed.

And, we know the House Republicans will block both of these--making it a non-started. The president needs to education the American people why further stimulus is necessary to avoid further a double dip recession.

[ItNerd4life]

35. So, his plans failed and now he's punting?

That's what it sounds like to me.

[Sherman A1]

38. The proof is in the pudding.

I am from Missouri, "Show Me"....

[high density]

39. Republicans force through GOP policies, blame Democrats for policy failures

Playing chicken over the debt ceiling is not creating a single job.

[Dawgs]

40. Why the fuck did he ever stop?

:shrug: