Obama's claims that most economists support his jobs bill is just not true.
The president claims economists heartily endorse his jobs bill, predicting it will boost growth by 2% and add 1.9 million jobs. That would be news to most economists.Of course, one of the reasons economists are thrilled about his bill is that it could cost from $200,000 to $1.6 million for each job "kept or added."
How does he "know" this? Well, he said at Friday's news conference, that's based on a review of his plan by "independent economists." He even challenged Republicans to have their own plan assessed by the same experts to see how theirs would perform.
"I see some smirks in the audience because you know that it's not going to be real robust," he said, commenting on the reaction from reporters.
Rather than smirking, those reporters should take the time to look at what economists have actually said about Obama's plan. Bloomberg surveyed 34 economists last week about Obama's jobs bill and found that the median GDP growth they projected was just 0.6%.
In fact, just two of the 34 claimed the plan would grow the economy by the 2% Obama cited. In contrast, five said it would produce zero growth. Another three predicted that much of the modest gains in 2012 would be canceled out by slower growth it caused in 2013.
Likewise, only three economists predicted job gains anywhere near what Obama claimed. And the median forecast was a piddling 288,000 new jobs. Given the $447 billion price tag, that comes to $1.6 million per job.
The most optimistic appraisal is that Obama's plan could prevent another downturn. But other economists, such as Stephen Stanley of Pierpont Securities, told Bloomberg that "it's not really going to have anything more than a marginal impact."
Keep in mind, too, that this is largely the same crowd that told us Obama's original $830 billion stimulus would spark serious economic growth, only to be endlessly surprised by the "unexpectedly" torpid recovery we've had the past two years. So their tepid predictions about Obama's new stimulus are even more striking.
Of course, Obama pushed for the Republicans to pass his bill. What he ignored is that it is his own party is not enthusiastic about his bill. In fact, last night, Harry Reid up-ended the rules of the Senate to keep Mitch McConnell from forcing Democratic Senators from voting on the President's bill. Reid's move was so shocking that analysts termed his move to use a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate the "nuclear option." This sets the stage to use a simple majority to end the rules on filibuster. Even Democrats are wary of this sort of power play because they fear that they may soon be the minority party in the Senate and lose those prerogatives of the minority. But Reid was willing to take that risk all to prevent Democrats from having to take a vote on the bill that Obama is running around the country asking Congress to pass.
The Associated Press, not a bastion of conservative advocacy, fact checks a few of the President's whoppers. He pretended that the Republicans oppose his jobs bill, but won't say why and won't work with him on any ideas where they overlap on support for proposals. Actually, the Republicans have been quite clear on what they support and have explained why they oppose the other ideas. Maybe Obama, like Holder, just doesn't read background memos that have information that he doesn't want to know about.
He is also misleading people to say that the Republicans have traditionally supported the proposals that he has put forward. That's a stretch.
And then he pretends that rolling back Obama regulations wouldn't help employment.
OBAMA: "The answer we're getting right now is: Well, we're going to roll back all these Obama regulations... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?"Since the Democrats' ideas on creating jobs have been such a clear failure, isn't it about time to try a different approach?
THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses. It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: "Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion."
Obama's claims that there are all these millionaires and billionaires who are using tax loopholes to get lower rates than "plumbers and teachers" is just wrong.
One of his worst lies was that Solyndra 'pre-dates me." Guy Benson takes this apart.
n other words, Blame Bush. Except...Bush-era Energy officials unanimously rejected the failed company's loan application, and many Obama-era bookkeepers recommended doing the same. Obama again expressed "confidence" that the vetting process for Solyndra was sound, and that taxpayer money was doled out "on the merits." In this case, the government's "bet" (his word) simply "didn't work out." Funny, I don't remember all the warnings of bets and risk when the Stimulus 1.0 was being peddled by this administration. Now, apparently, we're supposed to accept that huge losses and bad federal gambles are necessary facts of life. This all may sound convincing to someone who isn't familiar with this scandal, but to those of us who are paying attention, it sounds vexingly and intentionally misleading. Red flags were deliberately ignored on at least three separate occasions for political reasons, failures were covered up and papered-over, and the bad bet was restructured to help protect a prominent Obama donor. None of this came up in the press corps' questions, nor (obviously) in the president's answers. Instead, he quickly pivoted to defending the overall federal "green energy" subsidy program, which he claimed is working well. There's much evidence to the contrary. The president's main point seemed to be that we can't let China out-subsidize us on exploring and developing future clean technologies, so we must borrow more money from them to outspend them. Wonderful. (See the original for links.Almost everything, except for "the" and "a" was a lie or just misleading demagoguery. He just tried to blame others for the problems that have occurred on his watch and then repeat his demands to pass his bill, a bill that everyone paying attention has nothing to do with creating jobs and everything to do with giving his audience the impression that he's doing something about the terrible economic conditions that have prevailed during his presidency.