My question is this: other than brief references to "this will create millions of jobs" and the name of the proposal, itself, what is the primary subject of the most recent Obama rhetorical surge, jobs or tax increases?
Nearly all that I am hearing, today, is talk of punishing the rich via tax increases that "trickle down" to include the middle class (scroll down for our opinions on this issue) and nothing about the specifics of jobs creation.
Look, any 12 year old can drive around the country and find work that needs to be done. But who is arguing that we have nothing to repair (roads, bridges, building foundations, 100 year old storm drain, water and sewage reconstruction)? Understand that all of the work Obama mentions has to go through an extensive permit and environmental review process - taking years to complete. Finding work that can be done, now (as he suggests), is simply not there. But there is much that needs to be done.
Nor is there a problem with finding workers willing to get these jobs completed. Understand that Obama is talking about "union workers" and no one else. The nation's work force is 93% non-union. Because of the numbers, the larger "jobs crisis" is in this community of workers, yet, the non-union labor force is not center stage in the Obama Administration.
So why has it taken Obama three years to figure out that we are in a jobs crises and why, pray tell, is he not offering solutions to the unemployment problem? The workers are there. The jobs are there, albeit three or four years out . . . . . so what is the problem?
We conservatives are telling the world that the problem is neither. Rather, the problem lies somewhere in the heart and mind of the business community. It is afraid of the current leadership and unwilling to invest in a future that might come back to haunt it.
What choices do we have?
Some argue that the business community has no confidence in the future, believing that Obama might make things worse for them should a demonstrable recovery manifest itself. "You all are, now, making money because of me. Consequently, you owe the American people for your success." Anyone like the sound of that nonsense? As a problem, this is only solved with the advent of new leadership.
Others believe that uncertainty with regards to future tax increases, i.e., the unknowns as relates to ObamaCare and the problematic financial regulations embedded in Frank/Dodd is to blame. These bills need to be sharply curtailed or taken down, altogether. Ask yourself this question: why was ObamaCare not about healthcare and healthcare, alone? And, why is leadership not considering the inbred inequities that are becoming evident and highly problematic with regard to this monstrosity? Let's not forget that a trillion dollar Stimulus/Jobs bill was passed into law before ObamaCare was introduced, adding to the credibility of our question, "why was ObamaCare not about ObamaCare ??"
Still, others detail fears with regard to an out of control EPA regulatory push (ordered by Obama) , increasing the costs to farming, the coal industry, the oil industry, housing construction and the auto industry, to name a few of this nation's sources for jobs creation. Again, the solution, here, is the replacement of those who would cause mayhem because of stupid "save the planet" concerns that put the financial health of us all at risk.
Understand that temporary tax "fixes" cannot help to create a positive jobs-creation climate.
Giving $1,500 to each middle class family will not create jobs. The responsible folks will use the money to pay down past bills or save the money; the poorer demographic will use the monies to
buy "stuff" they could not otherwise afford. In time, the money will be gone (within weeks) and the jobs crisis will continue just as it has in the most recent past.
Taxing the "rich" per Obama's plan, will bring in just 1/13th of the money needed to "balance the budget" and does not provide a single job. He is not serious about balancing the budget for this reason AND, for the fact that he and his Democrat buds have refused to pass a budget for the past 3 fiscal years - a first in American history. Why does the Man continue to talk about a "budget" when we have not had a stinking budget for three years?
Say what you will, but it is a fact that pressures stemming from Democrat socialist policies are contributing (if not causing) the problems we are having today. Why not resolve those issues, if not permanently, at least for three or four or five years?
I believe that a "turn around" will take close to two years to manifest itself, should policies change today. The momentum of jobs creation is gone and it takes time to recreate momentum. Look to the Reagan years. Unemployment continued to increase, after his election. But, two years into his first term, the economy was clearly on the increase.
I suspect that we are facing a "time delay," should there be the first fruit of economic policy change. With that in mind, "now" is the time for change because pain is on schedule to last another 18 to 24 months, even after effective changes are made.
No comments:
Post a Comment