Indeed, they've done nothing but obstruct any progress while Romney tries to claim that he rooted for the President in 2009. Mitch McConnell made it clear in his candid admission that what matters to him and Ryan, et. al are not jobs but defeating the President personally.
Mitch McConnell could care less if you ever find a job, all he wants to do is take away the President's job in order to give himself a promotion to Senate Majority Leader.
If the price of that promotion is more pain for the American people, he sees this as a small price to pay.
Paul Ryan has had the same priority as McConnell-political gain rather than creating jobs. So here Lying Ryan is, happy as a clam because the BLS nonfarm payroll numbers came in less than expected:
"Obama had promised that his more than $800 billion stimulus program would pull unemployment down closer to 6 percent, but it has remained above 8 percent throughout his term in office, Ryan pointed out."
"This is not even close to what recovery looks like," he said. "This is not what President Obama promised. I would argue this is the result of failed leadership in Washington.
Does anyone ever notice the incoherence of the Romney-Ryan position about jobs? Today for instance, the BLS report showed an increase of 103,000 jobs. What brought it down was 7,000 in government jobs.
Yet, Romney always criticizes this cumulative nonfarm payroll number. Why do they factor in government job losses as the claim that government jobs "crowd out" the private sector. Ryan claims that Obama's poor fiscal management is responsible for the "tepid" recovery.
If borrowing and spending and regulating and taxing was the secret to economic success, we would be entering a golden age along with Greece," Ryan said in a live interview from Los Angeles. "It's not, it doesn't work. We need sound money, low tax rates, fiscal discipline, regulatory certainty and we need to stop this notion of a government-driven economy."
How is it a government driven economy while government jobs are being shed? Romney-Ryan-or Republicans generally-never just look at private sector jobs but factor in the government sector jobs like the BLS report does.
But as they think that government sector jobs aren't real jobs and don't lead to real growth why do they count them? If government jobs really "crowd out" private sector jobs, then, why not add them back to the total? As the breakdown of private to public sector jobs is assumed to be a zero sum game-each government sector job "crowds out" each private sector job.
The incoherence of Ryan's position here is only underscored by his criticizing Obama's stimulus while at the same time applying for them back in Wisconsin.
If we added back lost government sector jobs-as they reduce the crowding out effect wouldn't we already see 200,000 job gains per month?
Now obviously no one does this not even Repugs, as it would be ridiculous. Yet this is what their crowding out rhetoric implies.
However, as Ryan-Romney admit that public sector jobs contribute to growth-otherwise why factor them in? Indeed why not see losses in government jobs as avoiding private sector losses?-then the question remains if this is so why does Ryan critizie the President's stimulus?
An interesting follow up is why did he at the same time use them in Wisconsin?
No comments:
Post a Comment