But of course that’s not what he means. Either he’s (a) honestly surprised that the stimulus and bailout bills didn’t lead to job creation, or (b) he knows that the new jobs scam that is a feature of everything he tries to shove down our throats, and which is intended to keep us distracted while he avails himself of a shrinking window of opportunity to turn himself into Big Bro, is rapidly losing credibility. If (a), then he’s an idiot, if (b), he’s a deceptive power-monger whose poor timing may yet prove fatal to his grandiose plans.
And let’s go back 26 years, and see what was going on. In 1983, Reagan was president, and the country had only three years before awakened from its Carter-induced coma. But instead of intervening heavily in the economy, Reagan began the series of moves that led to one of the all-time great economic expansions of American history: he cut taxes and he reduced the overall scope of government action (including the elimination of that stupid grab-bag of price-controls and oil entitlements that led to block-long gas lines). In other words, he shoved the ruinous bulk of government out of the way so that the productive forces of our country could do what they do best: create wealth and jobs.
Nobody – but nobody - should be surprised by the unemployment statistic. If you owned a small business – or a large one, for that matter – would you be expanding your company, investing in new plant and equipment and taking on new personnel in an environment (cap-and-trade, ObamaCare, higher taxes of all kinds), where you can’t accurately calculate many of your costs over the next few years – let alone long-term - and where all these new government mandates may shrink or even destroy your sources of revenue? Businesses are digging in, forming a shield-ring around their core functions, and no increase in the number of government jobs (most of which are eminently dispensable) is going to retard the worrisome growth in joblessness.
Update: Looks like Barrie made a slight rounding error...
If I owned a business right now, I'd be looking at moving to Canada, for their tax if naught else.
ReplyDeleteThe business owners I know are reducing in size and/or going into the underground economy. Many can't afford to extend health benefits to all workers. They can't afford to pay extra people to make sure that they are complying with all the burdensome regulations that are coming down the pike. The jacking up of the minimum wage for people with no skills isn't helping, either.
ReplyDeleteIf you google "deeply concerned" you will find all the other occasions he has used that expression. Frankly, ma'am, I think it means "I don't give a damn".
ReplyDeleteDepending on when in 1983, it would have been two years after Jimmy Carter, not three (since Reagan was sworn in in January 1981). I think Congress delayed the effective date of the tax cut by a year to 1982, so employment didn't really start going up until the end of 1982 or the beginning of 1983 (after the midterm elections). Of course, once they took effect, the rest is history, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteToo bad Reagan couldn't get that Community Reinvestment act repealed. See the mess it caused?
Unfortunately for us, there's no Reagan waiting in the wings.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, who would have thought a has-been Hollywood actor would turn out to be Reagan? So I guess there's always hope (the real kind, not the Obama unicorns-and-pixie-dust kind).
"Either he’s (a) honestly surprised ...": he will be, but not because he recognises the Plan will not work, but because this time it would be done properly, unlike those previous failures. They join with those who believe Communism was not a failure, it just wasn't implemented properly. The Obama Guild is convinced they will do 'it' better.
ReplyDeleteCheers
I'm sure Paul Krugman would disagree with me - and I certainly hope he would - but when the economy goes sour we must allow a restructuring to happen. Not one by the government, which would be illusory, but an actual one where certain businesses are closed and jobs are lost. This allows for a proper reallocation of resources to more productve parts of the economy.
ReplyDeleteWhat the government should do is combat inflation, balance the budget, keep taxes fairly reasonable, and generally make sure that the overall template is sound. This is actually what happened in the 1990's when the Republican Congress checked the spendthrift tendencies of Bill Clinton.
But with both the Presidency and Congress in the hands of the Democrats, we're farked.
wronwright