Macroeconomic Advisers judge the GOP jobs plan
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (C) and other Senate Republicans hold a news conference on Capitol Hill on October 13 to introduce the Jobs through Growth Act, a Republican jobs proposal to compete with the proposal put forward by President Obama. The legislation targets the tax code, spending, and regulation in an attempt to grow the private sector. (Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)
October 24th, 2011
05:28 PM ET

Macroeconomic Advisers judge the GOP jobs plan

When President Obama rolled out his American Jobs Act last month, the administration chose not to include with it specific projections of the bill’s possible economic effects. Instead, it left the prognosticating up to third-party analysts who quickly filed various projections of the plans potential benefits. Since then, the president has been traveling around the country touting these independent analyses and challenging Republicans to submit their jobs plan to similar scrutiny.

At a press conference on October 6, Obama took this tack when he gave the members of the White House press corps a “homework assignment.”

“Go ask the Republicans what their jobs plan is if they’re opposed to the American Jobs Act, and have it scored, have it assessed by the same independent economists that have assessed our jobs plan,” Obama said. “These independent economists say that we could grow the economy as much as 2 percent, and as many as 1.9 million workers would be back on the job. …Have those economists evaluate what, over the next two years, the Republican jobs plan would do. I’ll be interested in the answer.”

Well, last week a group of Republican senators released the Jobs through Growth Act and today Macroeconomic Advisers – one of the firms who helped provide Obama with his numbers – posted its analysis of the plan on its blog. Among other proposals, the GOP plan calls for the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, an idea that MA took issue with. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney wasted little time highlighting the firm's analysis as proof that the president’s plan does more for job creation, even reading from the blog post before taking questions from members of the media traveling with the president aboard Air Force One today.

Here’s the portion of MA’s blog post that Carney read:

– Without more detail on the Republican plan, we cannot offer a firm estimate of its economic impact in either the short or long run. However, if what we do know of JTGA [Jobs through Growth Act] were enacted now, we would not materially change our forecasts for either economic growth or employment through 2013.

– If actually enforced in fiscal year (FY) 2012, a BBA [Balanced Budget Amendment] would quickly destroy millions of jobs while creating enormous economic and social upheaval. However, we believe no responsible policymaker would push the implementation of a BBA when the projected federal deficit is $1 trillion and the Fed is unable to offset much fiscal drag.

– A BBA would amplify cyclical swings in the economy. Furthermore, it likely would be abandoned or circumvented with the first recession after ratification, creating confusion and uncertainty over fiscal policy.

Carney followed this up with his own summary of what the firm was saying about the Republican’s job creation proposals.

“By the observation of independent outside economists, those proposals at best would have no positive impact on economic growth or job creation in the near term, as I just read you,” he said. “By near term, I mean the next two years, and at worst, would actually cost millions of jobs.”

But further along in MA’s analysis is a much clear explanation of exactly what they consider the challenges to be in comparing the two parties' approaches to spurring job creation:

This is asking us to compare apples to oranges. AJA would boost aggregate demand and hence employment in the near term, pushing the economy towards full employment while also adopting programs to reduce “structural” unemployment. JTGA embodies policies more likely to work slowly through the supply side of the economy, not so much reducing current labor market slack as boosting labor productivity in the long run. So, while the enactment of JTGA might not compel us to change our near-term forecasts for growth and employment, it could encourage us to revise up modestly our projections of potential GDP, particularly if eventual details on tax reform imply strong incentives for labor supply and capital investment. In that sense, we view AJA and JTGA as potentially complementary in nature, not competitive.

MA goes on to analyze each portion of the Jobs through Growth Act individually – finding the most fault with the proposed balanced budget amendment due to the amount of uncertainty in how it would be implemented. As for the plan's other proposals – for tax reform, regulatory reform, and export promotion among other things – MA writes that "the long-run objectives of the plan are not without merit, but it is a reach to argue that quick enactment of JTGA would significantly reduce the unemployment rate over the next year or two because, in our view, the plan does not address the root cause of today’s unemployment—namely, insufficient aggregate demand. In contrast, AJA would boost aggregate demand, but stakes little claim on long-run, supply-side effects."

So while the White House is correct in saying that at least one independent analyst has studied the GOP's job-creation plan and found it lacking in short-term benefits, such a description doesn't tell the whole story. In closing out their analysis, MA succinctly describes the Republican proposal as being "motivated by a belief that the plan is simply the right thing to do, irrespective of short-run effects and distributional consequences—some of which could be negative—and independent of any hard empirical estimates of the long-run benefits."

The firm's parting thought is in a sense a call for bipartisanship in Washington: "we view the two plans as more complementary in nature than competitive. If only Democrats and Republicans could see it that way, too!"

Topics: Jay Carney • jobs • President Obama

soundoff (65 Responses)
  1. RON FOX

    ...The firm's parting thought is in a sense a call for bipartisanship in Washington: "we view the two plans as more complementary in nature than competitive. If only Democrats and Republicans could see it that way, too!"...

    No worries, the informed American voter will work to make sure a new, more professional, and coorperative congress will be put in place in 2012.

    Vetting a candidate for office these days is as easy as conducting two to three google searches on their record, credibility, and integrity.

    October 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • John

      I agree with you, but this string of comments is the type typical garbage we will have to deal with until BO is out of office in 2012. The Dems have been in charge of the inner cities of this country for decades and there is no better real life example of how their policies fail. This guy in the WH is trying to do it to the entire country.
      The first bit of analysys of the person who wrote this article is "without more detail on the Republican Plan we cannot offer a firm estimate of its impact". But, in typical Dem/Lib form the writer goes on to make everything up he thinks the Dems/Libs want to see written of the plan so they can then go off and make more bad assumptions when they are speaking to people "like them". Keep spewing your stuff BO supporters – you are now a small minority getting smaller. This administration has been a disaster.

      October 25, 2011 at 11:38 am |
      • jean2009

        Actually John, I live near a big city which is growing leaps and bounds, the services are very good, it was ranked one of the top 10 big cities to live for 2010, and it has had a Democratic mayor since 2000.

        October 25, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
  2. Howard

    obama's failed, idiotic economic policies are sustaining record high
    unemployment, and inflation ... while
    dramatically increasing our debt, and lowering our credit rating,
    that's what I call terrible leadership. SAVE AMERICA ... DUMP obama as
    soon as possible !!!

    October 24, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • Cyrus

      You are not very bright, are you?

      October 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
    • S.Positive

      President Obama will win in Nov 2012

      October 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Trace


      You are a space case, seriously looney toons...perfect symetry with the Re-Dumblican party. Time for you to go back to your mom's basement and lay down.

      October 25, 2011 at 8:31 am |
    • MTATL67

      Saving the Banking and Auto Industries not enough for you. What have the Republican obstructionists done to improve the country?

      October 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm |
      • jean2009


        October 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Adults often have to tell the kids NO.

        October 25, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
      • jean2009

        @ Jay the Rethugliklans are not adults they are whining babies who lost the election.

        October 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  3. Clephas

    So, in other words, it is basically an ideological bill rather than one with a realistic possibility of helping the economy in the short term. Not that surprising, considering the fact that Republicans have developed a poisonous tendency to value ideology over the American people in recent years.

    October 24, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  4. Patrick Murphy

    This is something that I always knew. Republicans DO NOT CARE about the Middle-Class.

    October 24, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  5. vet in tx

    Ok, you want to cut government by a trillion dollars, you have to lay off thousands or millions in order to do it, so think about this:

    A postal worker who was more than likely a veteran, makes say $50k a year, his wife, a teacher makes $46K, combined, they make $96K a year, they own a home and have a pool.

    Each week a small business owner comes by and services the pool
    each 2 weeks a small business owner comes by and mows their lawn
    each week they take their clothes to a small business for dry cleaning
    each week they go for a family dinner at a small business near their home
    each 2 months they go buy things for the home at Lowe's or Home depot
    each 6 months a small business comes by and does repairs on that home
    each week they rent movies from a small business or go the the movies (another small business)
    each day they pick up their kids from day care (you guessed it....small business)

    I'm pretty sure anyone from any party can see this pattern, now tell me how many small businesses they use when they are on unemployment, looking for the private sector to absorb them................exactly. Anytime you hear the word "smaller government" that means less EPA regulations so that the biggest political donor to the pary who uses it can make money hand over foot without worrying about your drinking water they are polluting or the air your children breathe

    Smaller government means no dept of education so that the charter schools they now run (see Carly Fiona, Meg Whitman, and Clarence Thomas' wife) can take the federal money and do with it whatever they like without the governments standards of education.

    Beware of anyone who wants to privatize without telling you who will actually privatize it, when they tell you, I'll bet they've gotten thousands or more from a certain "PAC". Nothing wrong with PACS some say, but I wonder where all the money that went to SarahPAC is now going!

    Without regulation, we have seen in the past 3 years what WILL happen, Corporations will take all of your money (wall Street), give your kids cancer (chinese lead paint on toys from McDonalds, Georgia-Pacific wastewater), and poison your water (BP).

    Anything else that they tell you is all to allow huge corporations to save a few million in safety requirements. The BP preventive equipment that they didn't have to use through Cheney's deregulation was only $10million, their cost when the spill happened, over $20 Billion.

    You won't hear any of this from highly paid entertainers who sell gold, computer software and emergency food

    October 24, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Pookie


      October 25, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • C-Lo

      False delemmas Vet. Mail will still need to be circulated, kids still need taught. Your scenario suggests that if gov't doesn't provide services, they will not be provided. In some cases this is true (national defense, courts, fire/police, certain roads, protection of national lands, etc.)

      A charter school/voucher...system creates an environment where parents are the critics of the school and allows them to choose schools who are best equipped to educate their kids. The whole system has become more and more reliant on a Fed gov't that fails it at every turn because of the pressures they receive from outside influences. If you are a parent "stuck" in a poorer neighborhood/city/school district, your kid is stuck in that system. Charter/voucher schools still need (good) teachers so in your scenario, that teacher is not loosing her job (nice sexism, by the way assuming the teacher is a female and the postal worker/vet is a male). She is just being employed by a school instead of a district, and has the incentive to perform rather than being sheltered by the unions for sub-par performance.

      The "federal dollars" you talk about would not be there at all, the money coming (as it should) from the localities and charter schools would not run rampant, as you insinuate, because they would be "out of business" if they are not performing to the expectations of PARENTS. Kid's not getting educated, I'm pulling him and my money (through, say a voucher/charter system) and sending him to a school that cares. Then again, parents taking responsibility went out the door when it was declared it takes a village to raise a child. Kid's a screw up–it's societies falt, not the parent's, right?

      Over regulation has hurt the American public and enriched the corporations. Many of the laws put in place have provided loopholes and exceptions for the large corps, effectively legislating out the ability of startups/small companies who have to abide by stiff regulations–mostly red tape–that bankrupts them before they can get off the ground. Yes, reduce the size/scope of the fed gov't and empower courts through responsible tort reform that allows for effective court cases when a company's actions directly and negatively impact an individual or company. Eliminate corp umbrella protection for individuals who are grossly negligent in their company.

      I've laid this out before, and there is too much to get into extra detail here, but take a look at the libertarian model, with an open mind, and see how eliminating excessive power in DC is beneficial to us all (at least those of us who want to be free and responsible for ourselves).

      October 25, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
      • jean2009

        Vet is right.
        No to charter schools they don't work, they discriminate.
        I would suggest reading "10 Things Charter Schools Won't Tell You" at www Smart Money

        October 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
      • steveo


        Vet is right.
        No to charter schools they don't work, they discriminate.
        Let's take this a step further! No to Havard, Yale, and such. They discriminate too! The President sends his kids to a private school. They discriminate as well. Shall we shut them down too? How about we just allow local communities to decide whether they want charter and magnet schools for their kids. That woild be my suggestion!

        October 25, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Jean, I would also suggest taking a look at the Denver Public school system which has had a dramatic turnaround, Obama himself even lauded one of the schools, it is going through somewhat of a pseudo-charter where certain schools "specialize" in different areas, math, science, arts/music, etc.

        So if you have a child who is highly talented or interested in an area, he/she is enrolled in that particular school. They still receive a "rounded" education in all diciplines, but can concentrate on their areas of focus. This allows certain, otherwise extracurricular, diciplines/interests to be available to students (how many school districts are completely cutting the arts?) A poor family who wouldn't otherwise be able to provide their "child prodigy" piano lessons can now send them to a school within the district that offers music, while another may be cultivating the next Einstein or Picasso.

        A charter school specializing in music will allocate more resources to instruments and choosing to forgo expesive science labs. Field trips to the Symphony rather than the zoo. As an admittedly absurd stretch, why teach music at a school for the deaf or art at a school for the blind? While a child may not be deaf, s/he may be "deaf" to learning music or "blind" to chemistry.

        In this way a specific school doesn't have to choose between violins and Bunson burners, painting supplys vs. wood shop materials.

        October 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Additionally, Jean, public schools discriminate as well. You have to live within the "boundries" to be allowed to enroll. Remember the lady somewhere in the midwest (I don't remember exactly where) who was arrested for sending her kids to another school district using a false address because she couldn't afford to live in that district and the one she was in was terrible?

        The "10 things" highlighted some problems with charter school systems, many of which can be avoided by parents educating themselves on where they are sending their kids. Generally under the current system, the only way a parent can choose is by choosing their zip code, again, hurting the poor. Yes charter schools can discriminate, and where a void forms, another charter will be there to fill it in.

        If a child is "kicked out" of a charter school for performance, they would "relocate" to a school that caters to their abilities.

        Yes there are problems, but just because there are growing pains when it comes to changes like these, doesn't mean that the eventual result will be better than status quo.

        October 25, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • jean2009

        And it is assumed that neither Steveo or you read the article.

        Steveo, Harvard and Yale are not paid for through property tax income. Charter schools, in many states, are funded through property tax which means they can discriminate while taking funds from sources to fund public schools which cannot discriminate. This is a tremendous disadvantage in areas with lower property values, and especially for special needs, minority, and at risk students who are the most often discriminated against.

        October 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
      • steveo


        And it is assumed that neither Steveo or you read the article.

        Steveo, Harvard and Yale are not paid for through property tax income. Charter schools, in many states, are funded through property tax which means they can discriminate while taking funds from sources to fund public schools which cannot discriminate. This is a tremendous disadvantage in areas with lower property values, and especially for special needs, minority, and at risk students who are the most often discriminated against.
        Fox did a story on Charter schools in New Orleans. (Yes I watch Fox AND CNN for a balanced view), test scores were higher, teacher-student ratios were lower, students were learning in charter schools and local families were begging and pleading to get in! Discrimination rears its head when minority and at risk students have NO options. Charter schools give them options.

        October 25, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • steveo


        The fact is teachers' unions that are combating charter schools and NOT the communities in which they serve! Ask the families in DC who were defunded by this administrion if charter schools matter!

        October 25, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • C-Lo

        And it's assumed that you did not read my post (as you have shown to do with others in the past, shooting down people who actually agree with your position if you would have read to the end). I cited a few pieces of information, i.e. parents becoming educated on the schools (response to teacher qualifications parts 2 and 3) discrimination, kicking out for performance.

        So either you didn't read my post or YOU didn't read the article (in full at least).

        October 25, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
      • jean2009

        I would suggest reading: abanow. org "Special Needs, Minorities, Hurt Most by DC Charter School Discipline Policies" I know there is are problems in many schools, and disruptive children can be a problem in any school, but I doubt if putting all those with behavior problems in one school, and all those with disabilities in another will solve the problem. In fact, it probably will create even more.

        The District of Columbia is the system the article mentioned above is about, that is a large heavily populated area. Smaller less populated areas have fewer tax dollars to be distributed out to any school, much less a charter schools that is allowed to discriminate.

        October 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
      • steveo

        Thanks for the book advice. I will try to look it up! Why are families supporting charter schools and why are kids learning and why are test score higher if charter schools are such a drain on society? I can tell you I KNOW (for the most part) teachers unions religiously oppose them but why? What do you know that I don't?

        October 25, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • C-Lo

        The other problem with analysis of a "charter school system" is that, unlike "traditional' education, it is not "standardized" (and how well is that working?). So different charter systems are running into different issues. If we can look at the positives and negatives of each, and take what does work, rather than dismissing wholesale–isn't that what you accuse Republicans of doing?–there is a lot of good that can come from it.

        Re: Jean's comment about at-risk, problemed, or special needs kids, the claim is that segregating them will cause more problems. I don't think that would be the case because:
        1. The time that is taken out of the day to deal with diciplinary issues of one or two degrades the learning experience of 25
        2. Kids who learn at different levels or in different ways, force teachers to adapt to mulitplle "disciplines." i.e. they have to teach to the lowest common denominator, and teach in three or four different styles...for simplicity lets say you have 3 "categories" in one class, math wizzes, English aces, and musical prodigies. You have to hold each group back to the level of the lowest group or risk frustration which leads to indifference and boredom for those not challenged in their diciplines of strength.
        3. As "hearless" as it may seem, pulling special needs kids out of the general classrooms will enhance the experience for all. How frustrating is it for a devel. disabled person to be in a regular classroom, trying to learn at that level. And how heartless is it to hold back other kids to the level of that individual (see 1 and 2 above).

        We have to be strong enough to admit that being created equal in God's eye, does not equate to being created equally able. The current public school system, in general, tries to force all kids into a box, teaching them the same things at the same rate. And, based on all types of research over the last 25 years, is apperently not working.

        October 25, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
      • jean2009

        All well and good, but how do you propose finding tax money for already disadvantaged school districts that have a problem passing any school tax levy?

        October 25, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Again Jean, I would point you to the Denver pseudo-charter school system. Relatively low tax base for education compared to surrounding areas, so concentrating the money available into individual programs enhances the program at that specific school, truly more bang for your buck.

        Secondly, longer term, smart planning by school districts will have a draw on parents regionally, driving up property prices because of demand to live in the district, which in turn enhances those mils.

        Jean, I know your opinion of me, and it's mis-informed. I don't believe in a drop it all tomorrow and re-invent immediately. But the fact is, NOTHING in this country is working and we need to begin to phase in new ideas. Isn't that what Obama was supposed to do? Yet we continue to see the same crap, whether it's gov't bailouts/industry funding, subsidies, over/under regulation, name it. Whenever Gov't tries to meddle in it, conservatively or liberally, it creates more issues than it solves then asks us to vote for more gov't to fix the very problems too much gov't created.

        If a school system is showing strong results/turning the corner from a failing school district, people WILL vote to better fund it. But we see more and more $$ thrown at a failing system. Most Republicans are NOT against taxes, they are against throwing more money at programs that don't work, while forgoing the debt issue.

        Sorry, a little off topic, but what I see as endemic to the "system" in general.

        October 25, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • jean2009

      Thank you.
      If you are retired and live in a condo (as I do)...your monthly maintenance fees pays for many small business owners to do a wide range of things: keep books, accept bid contracts, collect monthly fees and file condo association taxes; mow and maintain the lawn/ trim shrubs/ plant trees, remove snow, collect trash, replace exterior lighting, repair and resurface streets inside the complex, provide utilities, maintain the roofs and exterior of buildings, structures, street lights, drainage systems, and provide the exterior insurance for buildings and grounds.

      Add to that the unit owner's individual property tax pays for teachers, schools, water-treatment/sewer, city streets, and fire & police services.

      Plus unit owners are responsible for maintaining the interior with repairs, updates and insurance which includes the use of the services you list.

      The GOP cares not a hoot about small business people their only interest is in keeping them attached, at the hip, as a shield against higher taxes and regulations on large corporations. The only group they are truly interested in providing deregulation and tax breaks for are those huge they can keep on despoiling the they will not have to go green...and so they do not pay higher taxes.

      October 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
  6. MarineVet

    Here's the plant "Howard" again; spouting his usual crap, which sounds suspiciously the same every time.

    October 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
  7. scott

    Look its simple term limits on all of congress if a person wants to know why the economy is the way it is right now its because of congress,do they not right the laws,do they not vote or not to pass these laws,this is the single most biggest problem in america right now not one branch or the other of our goverment its all three of them just like the laws the supreme court passed about corperations really twohundred year old law that worked fine untill then and now let money flow into washington from the corperate side freely reallyand whose side are they on? The potus and admin playing politics with politics really whose side are you on? Term limit congress so we dont have career politics in washington and get corperate money out of politics for once and for all and for good.

    October 24, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
    • Trace


      You can't be serious! To say all three branches of our government is failing is a putrid analysis of the situation. I contend that problem solving starts with identifying the impediment to success. LOOK AT THE PICTURE ABOVE – DUH!

      There is one party in Washington that wants the entire country to fail so that one person loses his job. You get one guess a which party that is.....(..pictured above).

      To ignore the idiocy that is the GOP Tea Pee in your Pants Party and all that's happened since their rise to political prominence, is further evidence the electorate, people like you, are willing to vote for these idiots by SIMPLE default.

      This country is doomed if that is the case.

      October 25, 2011 at 8:45 am |
  8. If I had a penny for every stupid Republican

    Let's see what kind of analysis we can get out their that doesn't offend either side. Why don't these economists just level with us? They really have no idea what any of this means because no one knows from one Congress to the next what they will do.

    October 25, 2011 at 1:49 am |
  9. Victoria avgam54

    The Republican's jobs bill is not something I needed an economist to tell me is not good. However having this information proves the President's point and I love that.

    Obama 2012

    October 25, 2011 at 7:41 am |
    • Really?

      Did you read the article. It states that the President's plan is ONLY focused on short term (when the money runs out so do the jobs) and the Republican plan is long term focused on sustainable job creation, but will have NO to minimal short term impact. Hence the complimentary in nature comment. It's okay to state that we need jobs now as a critic of the Republicans plan or even use the article to attack the balance budget, which it clearly is against, but your conclusions indicate you didn't even read the article.

      October 25, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
  10. swolfson929

    How much more information do we need to see that the GOP is looking out for the rich and not the American people. Everything they have done so far is more money for the rich...the only other thing they seem to be putting effort into is making sure women no longer have the right to an abortion if they choose one. Take rights away from women and give hugh tax breaks to the rich. Oh...I make sure Obama is not elected in 2012 by destroying all his efforts to get America working again. The worse part of all their planning is that fact that they have the tea party believeing all thier non sense!!! We can thank Fox News for destroying this country.

    October 25, 2011 at 8:10 am |
  11. Pat

    Cyrus love your response to Howard, and yes he is not very bright. The analyst said it right last night. If Obama ran into a burning building and saved any Republican's mother, they still would find something wrong with the rescue.

    October 25, 2011 at 9:16 am |
  12. KatR

    Before this evaluation came out I emailed my Senator saying basically the same thing this evaluation concluded. The GOP plan does nothing to create jobs now. I asked my Senator to explain how it would and have yet to hear back from him. Typical. I emailed my other senator during the debt debacle and asked him to support the president's balanced approach. My senator replied with a lengthy email trying to convince me that the president's plan was bad. I guess it's not necessary to state that both of my senators are Republicans.

    October 25, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Katie

      Ha! Good for you for taking action. People need to take example from you and speak out against their representatives. And let them know, if we don't do our job we don't get paid/keep our job, the same goes for them.

      October 25, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  13. SiriusVH

    The assessment provided by MA is in line with what most serious and ideology-free macro economists would tend to think. The point they made that the GOP plan would do little to spur job growth in the short term (which is what matters right now) is right on the money. In my opinion, MA has been somewhat charitable to the GOP in trying to agree that the GOP plan might improve the job creation process in the long term. In 2003, Bush 2 cut taxes. It was then predicted by the Heritage Foundation that so many jobs would be created that the Federal debt would be eliminated by 2010! It turned out (you can verify my claim by going to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) that the period 2003-2007 was the period of slowest growth creation in the US since the end of WWII. Tax cuts don't create jobs.

    On a different note, FINALLY, President Obama seems to want to tackle the housing crisis. THIS is what is holding the economy. As long as people are saving because they need to pay underwater mortgages, the economy will be anemic.

    October 25, 2011 at 11:36 am |
  14. C-Lo

    Are these the same analysts and economists who gave a resounding thumbs up to the all of the other failed bail-out and stimulus plans?

    It's pretty apparent that they are, at least, non-partisan Keynsian econcomists, or at most, Liberally educated Dem hacks. It's probably the former.

    The proof is in the pudding, as they say, that the excerpts shown were chosen by non other than Jay the Carnie and reported here at Commie news network. Even though the article bashes the plan, the summary says the plan is complemetary to, not competitive with, the AJA.

    Just more (expected) one sided reporting.

    October 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm |
  15. MTATL67

    President Obama has already saved the Auto industry and prevented the collapse of our banks. He put me and thousands of others into our first homes. He has brought to justice numerous terrorist that threaten our safety. I ask myself what have the Republicans done to improve the country. The GOP have engaged in a "NO to everything" policy that has help no one. The speak of over spending and waste. They then give $260,000.00 to squirrels in Kentucky purchased a $200,000.00 simulator for Tennessee. We here in Georgia received and obscene amount of money $310M for the Chattahoochee Recreation Area and $7M to repair a church in Savannah. The republicans have now become extremist and obstructions to the recovery of this country.

    October 25, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
    • Jay in NC

      You are complaining that Republicans spent $310M stimulus money on Chattahoochee Recreation Area and $7M in a jobs program to rebuild local landmark. If Barry has spent the same amount on the same projects you would have praised his actions. Liberal = Hypocrite.

      October 25, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
  16. C-Lo

    I swear, CNN, I'm just going to start cussing and insulting everyone, as it seems this is the only way to bypass your "moderating." Libs are scumbags, Republicans are brain dead. the previous 4 posts are from idiots. Will this get through quickly?

    Thanks for your time.

    October 25, 2011 at 1:22 pm |
    • jean2009

      Usual Rethug...we all deal with moderation.....patience!

      BTW have you noticed one of your posts is among the previous last 4?

      October 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Funny about the "4 posts" thing, huh, it was a chance I took. I know we all "have to deal with moderation," it's just annoying when trying to have "conversations" that last days instead of minutes. Just peeved about it today more than usual.

        I was about to complement you on the convesation earlier in the post–keeping it civil without the name calling, oh well, hopefully I can find some civility out there.

        October 25, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • jean2009

        Not to be the one to point out flaws of it a pot-kettle call for keeping it civil when you refer to Dems as scumbags, Republicans as brain dead, and everyone else in the previous 4 posts as idiots?

        October 25, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
      • C-Lo

        By the way, not a Republican, prefer Libertarian, for reasons I've cited ad nausium.

        October 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Jean that "comment" was sarcastically aimed at CNN about "moderating" civil posts while it seems if you jump in here and insult and name call, the comments get right through. Sorry the sarcasm doesn't reveal itself in such "prose" (sarcasm again).

        October 26, 2011 at 9:34 am |
      • C-Lo

        ...and by "you" not you specifically, but anyone.

        October 26, 2011 at 9:37 am |
  17. jean2009

    Sorry about the double post....thank the moderator for that..

    October 25, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • C-Lo


      Usual Rethug...we all deal with moderation.....patience!


      October 25, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • C-Lo

      BTW, haven't seen Liz around, I've been busy–do you know if everything w/her is ok?

      October 25, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • jean2009

        Her 94 year old mother, who had Alzheimer's, passed away last week.

        October 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Oh, thanks, I knew about her mom's condition, didn't know she'd passed. I was afraid that might be the case. Was a rough year for her, sounds like. So sad.

        October 25, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  18. Liz Carter in Georgia

    Hello everybody! Especially to my friends Jean and C-LO. Thank you C-lo for asking and my beautiful Jean for answering. My beautiful mother died on Oct 15, and now she is with the LORD, my father, who died in JUNE of 2005, and my oldest brother, who died of a massive heart attack while driving in July this year. She was funeralized and buried yesterday here in Atlanta. REST IN PEACE MOTHER! I'm trying to REST a little bit now; but 'I'LL BE BACK'!

    October 25, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • Steveo

      You don't know me from Adam but you are in my prayers! May God bless and comfort you

      October 25, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
      • Auth

        While I'm sure that Shantell is an great young man and I'm delighted to hear of his usccess in a very challenging situation, there are dozens of such heroic youngsters every year. Nobody has come to my school, Gage Park, to write the story of Magaly, an exceptional young woman, our salutatorian, who has been to Mali to help build schools for even poorer children and who is going to Macalester College in St. Paul on a scholarship this fall. Are her teachers less dedicated? Does she not have their cell phones? Did one of her teachers not drive her to St. Paul, Minnesota? Are she or the many other wonderful graduates who persevered against tough odds less exceptional or do they merely attend schools, real public ones, that it is less fashionable to praise?

        March 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • C-Lo

      God bless you and your family Liz. Like others, my prayers are with you too.

      October 26, 2011 at 9:35 am |
  19. Liz Carter in Georgia

    Thank you for your kind thoughts and prayers Steveo.

    October 26, 2011 at 1:32 am |
  20. Liz Carter in Georgia

    Thanks...I accept your condolences C-Lo; even specifically.

    October 30, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
    • Ayako

      all the right words, theocud your arm at the right times, got you halfway home (the bar near his place, at closing) and then to his place. He got you to leave (ostensibly after sex wrestling ? C'mon, Kate, just tell us you did him), and got you to go away for good after insisting you see his FB page.This is step by step from one of those How to Get Women websites, right? And the most important step, for those kind of guys, is getting you to leave, after the boinking.Maybe its penance for being so mean to those other loser guys .Cheers!

      March 2, 2012 at 4:42 am |
  21. Anthony

    they represented other petrnas they talked to. That would still represent very few school districts. The professional testimony supported a well functioning process for students to transfer districts and indicated full review of each student was given. The disturbing part is that it was disclosed that other states that are trying this started with a similar bill and through experience they have made several amendments. So, why can't Oregon learn from their experience and not use our students as a test case that has been proven to not function successfully. This bill isn't a fix, it has just created another problem, which may or may not be worse than where we started. But, didn't we owe it to the citizens of Oregon to find out before jumping?What about balance? What about the education bills that passed because the bills listed here bought votes for them too? Like the governor is now dictator over our educational system. Smaller schools are now subsidizing larger schools through a new formula. ESD funds were cut so our special needs kids will get less help. Federal funding for special ed was reduced by $15 million last year and may be more with these additional cuts we sure won't get that funding back with more cuts to special ed. And I guess our schools have all the funds they need and Oregon's economy must be booming since we added the expense of another large board, all day kindergarten, and a new program for 0-5 kids.I expect news from Cascade to be balanced, truthful and upfront so I can rely on it and use it as a source when contacting legislators. I will say that I have been impressed with a lot of their work, so please don't let us down.

    March 4, 2012 at 1:44 am |
  22. tom luptowski

    "not so much reducing current labor market slack as boosting labor productivity in the long run", in other words getting more work done with less labor resources, that may help GDP but that is also the root cause of a jobless recovery. We already have a recovering economy we need FRIGGIN JOBS NUMB NUTS!

    July 7, 2012 at 9:32 pm |