Romney's Job's Plan: Where's the Beef?

     A cynical person might wonder if Romney hopes to benefit from an economy that's sure to be better the next 4 years regardless of who's in the White House-thanks in large part to the President's own policies. One of the most important numbers that came out of yesterday's ABC/Washington Post poll that showed the President up by 3 is that Americans now trust Obama more on the economy.

     One of the many impressive pieces for Romney's spin in the first debate was his claim that he has a jobs plan that will create 12 million jobs. As suggested many believes that this will happen anyway.Then again Romney's plan is simply recycled George W. Bush policies-'Drill, drill, drill!" deeply regressive tax cuts; this time he's thrown in the idea that cracking down on China-'currency manipulator on day one!" will help get us there.

     Turns out that Glenn Kessler went out and fact checked Romney's plan and saw that it's even more empty of content that initially appears, as Greg Sargent shows:

      "Romney’s 12 million jobs promise is based on the idea that achieving energy independence will create three million jobs; tax reform will create seven million more; and that expanding trade and cracking down on China takes us to 12 million. But, in­cred­ibly, when Kessler asked the Romney campaign to back up these claims, this is what he got back:

We asked the Romney campaign and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies … with completely different timelines.

For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney tax plan is a ten-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.

This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy.

For instance, the 3-million-job claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.

     "There you have it. Ten million of those jobs in Romney’s plan represent an entirely bogus promise. As for the remaining two million jobs that would be supposedly created by Romney’s trade policies, the report supplied by the Romney camp bills itself as “highly conditional” — and also doesn’t evaluate any of Romney’s policies. Kessler dubs Romney’s plan “bait and switch.”

      "Let’s recap what Kessler has discovered here. The plan that is central to Romney’s candidacy on the most important issue of this election — jobs — is a complete sham. This is every bit as bad — or worse — than Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, or his vow to cut spending by eliminating whole agencies without saying which ones, or his refusal to say how he’ll pay for his tax cuts."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line

     A narrative you are hearing is that only Romney put out a jobs plan in that first debate. In reality, as Sargent argues, the opposite is the case, Romney's plan is all smoke and mirrors, as some in Romney's campaign has suggested regarding Mitt the man himself, 'there's no there, there.'

    "This could not have come at a better time for Obama. Here is the evidence he needs to spell out as clearly as possible that Romney is peddling economic hokum to the American people. Any fair reading of the backup the Romney campaign itself supplied for his plan reveals that it is nothing but a bill of goods. Obama needs to seize on this in a big way. This should be a big story."

     "Oh, and by the way: Economists have evaluated Obama’s jobs plan. And they concluded it would create one to two million jobs. The bottom line is simple: One candidate has a jobs plan, and the other doesn’t."

       So again we have some real great points to make for the President tonight. If he doesn't get it done tonight it won't be because he lacks a strong case. It's if he-and his campaign in prepping him-fails to do the job.

       P.S. Has anyone in the White House made the point of Christopher Stevens' father's rebuff of Romney's politicizing Libya? It needs to be made. Forget about blaming Hillary Clinton, this is what really matters. Between Jan Stevens' rebuke and that of the slain navy seal in Benghazi, Peter Doherty's mother-Jan Doherty-the President can totally take the legs out from under Romney on Libya if he only points this out.