GOP Announces It Will Oppose Obama's Latest $300 Billion "Jobs Plan"

Tyler Durden's picture

In a move that will surprise exactly nobody, the Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions has signaled that "Republicans would oppose the jobs plan President Obama is expected to announce Thursday, saying it would only put the United States further in debt at a time when the debt is already weighing on the economy." So while nobody even knows yet just what the full presidential proposal to create "millions of jobs" looks like in its entirety, we do already know it will almost certainly not happen courtesy of a republican controlled congress. As a reminder, the US is currently supposed to be laboring under a regime of austerity (more in its latest, and vastly watered down Italian iteration than real cost cutting but still) and thus it will be rather complicated for the GOP to explain why the party is cutting with one hand and spending more with the other. As such, any hopes for a quick and decisive passage of laws to build more bridges to nowhere are about to be dashed. From The Hill: "There’s no doubt in my mind that the debt that we’ve now incurred is already weakening our economy,” Sessions said on the Senate floor. “It comes to a point that you can’t keep borrowing in a futile attempt to stimulate the economy when the increased debt itself is weakening the economy.” Cue Keynesians of all shapes and sizes kicking and screaming how more stimulus this time will be different and how one last Heroin injection is really all it takes.

From The Hill:

Sessions read one press report on the Senate floor that said Obama could propose as much as $300 billion in new spending in his Thursday night address to a joint session of Congress. According to that report, Obama is expected to propose extending payroll tax cuts for another year, and extending expiring jobless benefits. Those two measures combined will cost $170 billion.

He may also propose a tax credit for companies to hire unemployed workers, costing $30 billion, and a public works program that is expected to cost at least $50 billion for such items as school construction.

Other reports say Obama's total proposals could total less than $300 billion, with some putting the number at $200 billion.

There is still, however, some hope: cut and spend.

Regardless, Sessions indicated Republicans will oppose any new spending plan that is not offset by spending cuts. The senator noted that while Obama has talked about the need to reduce federal spending, Obama is not expected to describe how to pay for these new programs in his Thursday speech.

If the debt ceiling debate highlighted, it is that the US population is no longer that stupid to realize that $2.4 trillion in deficit spending now, offset by $100 billion in cuts in the next 9 years and about $2.3 trillion in the final year, makes absolutely no sense.

Yet unfortunately this is what will likely end up happening. The final outcome will be that between this, and the next 10 or so fiscal stimulus programs, all of which will fail, will be to back-end load about $100 trillion in spending cuts in 2020, a year when the government will probably collect one 50th of this in revenue.

At some point someone will ask how this makes any logical sense.

But not yet.

For now, look for much more posturing both tomorrow, and in two weeks, when the "transitory" $14.69 trillion debt ceiling is breached about half a month ahead of schedule.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PolishHammer's picture

Obama is such a convenient excuse for Republicans if you really think about it.  Anyone looks good compared to him.

DormRoom's picture

Republicans still the No party.  Half the stimulus was intended to be tax cuts.  If Raegan were alive he would have supported it.  But heck, bad economy may mean Republican majority in '12.  But it's short sighted thinking because, if they slash social security to the bone to reduce debt, once in power,  it will lead the US into the Great Depression.

ratso's picture

You might be right.  What does seem farily clear is that the Republicans would rather sabotage any plan by Obama that might help the economy and the working men and women of America than allow Obama to appear to be successful.

spiral_eyes's picture

If Warren Buffett loves job creation so much WHY DOESN'T HE USE HIS OWN FUCKEN MONEY TO DO SOME OF IT? 

TruthInSunshine's picture

*Speaking of Warren 'Thanks For the Bailouts, Sucker Taxpayers!' Buffett, here's how his latest brilliant investment, BYD Automotive of China is doing:

BYD Cuts Jobs But Denies It's Shuttering Business

Back to Japan -

Japan has poured more concrete, asphalt and other road and bridge materials, and has spent more on any other nation in terms of public works projects, over the last 20 years, and still their economy is mired in funk, and the Nikkei has lost 82% of its value in nominal terms, and about 98% in real terms over the same period of time.

Keynesians, Keynesians, my eye teeth for Keynesians.

spiral_eyes's picture

No amount of government stimulus can create creativity.

tekhneek's picture

Whatever bro.

$300,000,000,000.00 will give us at least 3,000 jobs. You do the math. I think the GOP should really reconsider. I think we need to spend at least 1 trilion (That's: $1,000,000,000,000.00) to get a few (10,000) good jobs here.

The last thing we need right now is the government to get the fuck out of the way and balance it's budget. God forbid they get the hell out of the way.

Smiddywesson's picture

Yes, but if they were just a tad bit more sincere with that stimulus, the Great Pumpkin would have appeared in their pumpkin patch and delivered a great economy.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Yep, they should give him the money. Give him the whole trillion.

That way his failure will be so epic he will live in the history books forever.

Smiddywesson's picture

Like FDR?  He got his way, destroyed the economy, trampeled on the Constitution, and was written into the history books as a hero.  His actions sowed the seeds of what we see today, but his myth lives on.

boiltherich's picture

Hoover was SO much better!  </sarc>

Hugh_Jorgan's picture

Don't kid yourself that a "Jobs Plan" is anything but campaign funding (the majority of which will benefit Dems) paid for by you and I. The boobs in DC don't give one CRAP about the jobless, except to the extent that it threatens their political future. It is time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and acknowledge that our Government is too big and we lost control of it while we were busy buying McMansions, gigantic TVs and cars we couldn't afford. It is time to take the medicine that we should have taken 60 years ago as we cleaned up after FDR.

The failed $864B stimulus package that "had to pass yesterday or a wormhole will open up and suck the United States into the core of Betelgeuse" isn't even fully spent yet and here they are back at the counter asking to pad their political slush fund again! That's right, the 2009 Recovery Act (gag) funds are only ~65% to 70% spent. The remaining stimulus funds are slated to be spent during FY 2012... That's odd, isn't that about the time time that everyone is on the campaign trail?

Look at the approval ratings for the POTUS and Congress, they are out of political capital and haven't had an idea since they were in grade school. They are gambling that $300B will not look too greedy, but WILL allow them to buy congressional seats so that the Tea Party doesn't fully take over the Federal Government. This is a political stunt nothing more on the part of the Globalist element in the Democrat and Republican parties, they are taking us to hell on purpose. They cannot control Americans until we are flat on our backs economically, so that is what they intend to do...

NWO Bitches!!

DocinPA's picture

Horseshit.  The only path to prosperity is cutting the living crap out of regulations and getting the bureaucrats out of our lives and our wallets.  More stupid stimulus will result in the same thing we've already gotten over the past two years-more debt and no permanent jobs.

orangedrinkandchips's picture



LAZY-FAIR (For those who dont speak French and are dumb enough to not understand what it means so I spell it out phonetically).






It IS as simple as that.....

Flakmeister's picture

You actually believe the shit you just wrote?

The only path to prosperity is cutting the living crap out of regulations and getting the bureaucrats out of our lives and our wallets.

What regulations are stifling the economy? Can you name two?

Ricky Bobby's picture

The state nothing but the state, flaky licks the boots of his masters. I will lay odds you never had a job or income that did not originate from the state or your parents.

 "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Bastiat


Flakmeister's picture

And I'd wager that you are an idiot.... I'll take straight up odds.

There is a lot to bitch about, but I get tired of empty headed rhetoric that sounds like the latest soundbite from some right wing talking head.

And with regards to other people, you really should be careful, you have nary a fucking clue about what I have done in the private and public sector....

Can you name two (2) regulations that are job killers?

Shell Game's picture

Can you name two (2) regulations that are job killers?

You actually believe that implied shit you just wrote?  It's funny you ask for merely two regulations that are job killers, when there are hundreds that are.  Have you spent time studying the U.S. food industry and FDA regulations? --> small farm killer.  Not to mention the small farm death sentence if some obscure gopher, owl or wetland plant shows up.

Have you studied the regulations that create endless headwinds for U.S. small businesses and, at the same time, provide tailwinds to parasite corporations?  Hundreds of them.  So, this 'show me 2' bullshit is incredibly naive.

Flakmeister's picture

Sounds like your gripe is with corporate influence in the government.... Now that is something different.

You're loosing the forest for the trees buddy.

It's called Regulatory Capture and it is merely another manifestation of how the US is becoming Fascist.

Shell Game's picture

It's called Regulatory Capture and it is merely another manifestation of how the US is becoming Fascist.

For crap's sake have you and I found common ground??

edit:  in your other posts you seem to think the .gov and Corp. are separate entities.  They are not and cannot be surgically parted at this juncture.

Flakmeister's picture

You would be surprised at the common ground that I share with people here. I have never fit into the partisan divisions of American politics, I am very capable of taking on the left as well as the right.  What makes me different is that I am a pragmatic realist.

Shell Game's picture

Generally speaking, pragmatic realism is shared quality among many here. Not all, for sure.  But every site I've ever visited has their idealogues who part from reality a fair measure.

From my observations, and correct me if I'm wrong, what really makes you different from most here is that you do not believe in individual liberty, and is probably why you catch so much flak, Meister.

Flakmeister's picture

I certainly do believe in individual liberty, but I am very aware of what people do in the name of that liberty.   

I am willing to forego some liberty to insure other liberties. All things in balance.

Put it another way, we are not at "liberty" to do whatever we want to this planet.  You might see things differently if the guy upriver decided dumping PCB and Dioxins into your water supply. After all, that is merely an expression of *his* liberty. 

And I do own a gun and am not afraid to use it.

Shell Game's picture

'in the name of Liberty..'  Isn't that the rub?  Or, 'in the name of God.'  Humans are constantly perverting ideologies to get what's theirs.  I think that one who truly respects liberty, equally respects another man's liberty. Else, it's false..

Agreed, it's about a healthy balance.

boiltherich's picture

Go long e-coli and welfare for mega Ag firms that REALLY kill family farms.

Capitalist10's picture

Too easy.

1.  The EPA's ozone regulations (which even Obama just abandoned)

2.  The NLRB's regulatory attempts to prevent Boeing from expanding in right-to-work South Carolina

I'll take cash or a check, but I prefer gold.

Flakmeister's picture

Re: Boeng And I suppose the jobs lost elsewhere don't count

How does the Ozone rules kill jobs? Please explain....

Capitalist10's picture

1.  Boeing has to expand somewhere to build the Dreamliner.  They chose South Carolina.  The NLRB has prevented them from doing so, so for the moment those jobs are in limbo.  The NLRB admits they would have no say in the matter if Boeing decided to expand outside the US (which they may do if the NLRB doesn't back down).

2.  "If the first step is admitting you have a problem, then President Obama may have begun rehabilitating his presidency last Friday when he announced that his administration was rescinding proposed ozone regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency estimated would cost the U.S. economy $90 billion a year"

The EPA may have done some useful things in the few years after it was created.  For most of the recent past, however, they have been nothing but a bunch of true-believing zealots with not the slightest concern for anything resembling a cost/benefit analysis.  They would cheerfully regulate the US back to stone age hunter-gatherer days if they though they could get away with it.
Flakmeister's picture

Did the $90 billion cost benefit analysis include the effects of ozone on the public health? Lost work days? Or was it simply the bottom line for polluters?

The Dreamliner move is to bust the union, simple as that. Basically, replace ~500 jobs in Tacoma for ~500 jobs at 2/3 the net labor cost... sounds like the same old screw the middle class game plan....

Dollars to donuts, the "increaesed productivity" is cooly pocketed by the Boeing execs....

Capitalist10's picture

Yes, the $90 billion cost/benefit analysis did include the public health benefits.  It was the EPA's analysis, so if anything the public health benefits were overstated, perhaps wildly so.  When even Obama slaps you down, you know you have gone way off the reservation.

Why should Boeing be micromanaged by the NLRB on where they can expand?  Their South Carolina workers would have the same rights to unionize as their Washington workers, they just can't be forced to join the union if they don't want to.  The increased productivity isn't simply pocketed by Boeing, it makes Boeing more competitive in a very competititive global market where they have to go head to head with Airbus and others all the time.

Flakmeister's picture

Not being pocketed by the Boeing board.... yeah, keep believing that fairytale. We only have ~40 years of history of corporate execs pocketing those productivity gains.  Just look at CEO to FTE worker pay ratios in Fortune 500 companies as a function of time....


connda's picture

...and how about the repeal of regulation that keeps the predators at bay such as Glass-Steagall.

NidStyles's picture

NAFTA and GATT. Would you like me to name more for you? I'm sure i could fill an entire page with just Federal ones that hamper the economy.

Flakmeister's picture

For the record, the number of jobs rose after NAFTA.  Check your history.  (Note that I didn't say they or imply they were good jobs)...

As for GATT, why don't you look into how often the US uses it to protect local industry against dumping...

BTW, in case you didn't notice the same group of asshats and thinktanks pushing for less regulation are for the most part  the same that pushed for NAFTA and the like....

Take the issue up with the right wingers like the Kochs and the Cato Institute....

DaBernank's picture

You mean, "Jobs rose during the tech bubble, which happened to come after NAFTA".

Flakmeister's picture

  Here is a chart of manufacturing jobs...

Looks to me that the inflection point was when the deregulators took over.....

tarsubil's picture

Look at output vs jobs. You seem to be sad over the much higher productivity as businesses switch from illegal line workers to automated machines. Oh, those illegals were fired because deregulation corresponded with the change! Does correlation prove causation?

tarsubil's picture

These are just two minor regulations.

The DHS regulations related to airport security. How have they helped the airline industry? More expense, flyers have to risk being molested (literally!), failure after failure in terms of security. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this hasn't helped the airline industry.

Little known regulation called CLIA. CLIA was in response to pap smear controversy. Helped increase the cost of the test while making it more difficult to provide it to women. Government collected fees for years before their QA program started. QA at CMS has been a total joke. Women died of cancer because of it. Pap smear is largely obsolete today but the office that collects fees for it at one agency still exists and does nothing. That one is close to my heart.

Government doesn't just hurt business, it hurts itself too. Check out the Paperwork Reduction Act regulations. All it does is create paperwork for no reason but to report to OMB. 

You've been misled and lied to Flak. Put your faith in the Santa Claus before the Federal Government.

Flakmeister's picture

Why the fuck does everyone assume I have faith in the gubbmint???

What I do not have any faith in whatsoever is corporate interests. The gubbmint may fuck things up, but I usually dont have to worry about being poisoned or cheated by them.

Sure they may provide services and goods that may be of use, but most of those can be provided by much smaller accountable entities.

FWIW, as much as I despise the DHS, it has not been a jobs killer.

Can't comment on CLIA....

tarsubil's picture

You don't think the government which publishes a stack of regulations every month in the Federal Register has two regulations that impede business? That seems like faith to me.

The idea that DHS hasn't hurt the airline industry is just silly. It seems your faith doesn't allow you to look at it objectively.

By the way, corporations love the government. You don't think DuPont loves the government? How else would they have sold rehydrogenated veggie oil to help give countless people heart attacks? Do you think GE or GM hates the government? The list goes on and on.

Flakmeister's picture

The gubbmint is hostage to the corporate interests.... you have to align your rifle sights.

Provide concrete examples where regulations have killed jobs...

One reason we have TSA and the like is that the airlines convinced the gubbmint that we could have half assed security at airports... Compare flying in Europe and the US pre and post 9/11. 

Yes, there is a lot of bullshit regulations. I'm all for cleaning out a lot of deadwood but I sure as hell don't want the Koch Brothers and those of similar ilk deciding what goes and what stays....

tarsubil's picture

Concrete examples? I just did. You don't want to hear it. It isn't the blessed Federal government's fault, it's corporations. Target corporations and for some reason the problem doesn't go away. I wonder why?

Flakmeister's picture

You provided no evidence that your examples killed jobs. None. That is the thesis being debated, not whether the regulations are good or bad.

tarsubil's picture

CLIA charged fees which served no purpose up to today. Where did the money come from? The fees created productive jobs in labs by increasing costs needlessly? I have to produce a paper proving simple logic? You are being silly.

People drive instead of fly because they don't want to be molested including myself. Does reduced business correspond with reduced jobs? Do I have to provide a paper for that too? Give me a break.

Flakmeister's picture

This is evidence? Can you provide data and a statistical analysis proving this or is merely a matter of opinion.

FWIW, I go back and forth between NY and Chicago ~15 times a year, right now, it is far cheaper to fly than to drive and I am now flying (despite my distaste for the police state methods at the airport).

tarsubil's picture

Oh yeah, hey, the public health schools at Johns Hopkins and Emory haven't produced any papers documenting my point so it has no merit. I mean, obviously if they could do the research that says their number one funder of research and employer of MPH graduates is worthless they would, right? 

Oh, and I guess you travel more now so the opportunity for molestation has increased business for airlines? Seriously, no physicist would make these ridiculous arguments honestly.

WTF is this? Ben Bernanke could produce a million papers that prove everything he's done is great and saved us from something much worse. The common sense argument that Ben is full of shit then doesn't matter?

Flakmeister's picture

Quit with the strawmen....

The TSA is simply the Police State....

I went rooting around for evidence of the TSA being responsible for the loss of jobs.... I can't find any good statistics on Airline employment spanning enough time. Post 9/11 the industry went into the shitter but that was not due to TSA...

As much as you and I despise the TSA and their methods, there ain't a shred of evidence that it cost jobs. 

EDIT: came across this FWIW

I cannot verify anything at BTS, but it looks like the airlines have been loosing jobs for a long time....

Wait one sec...

umm slight increase in FTE jobs..... Damn, if it wasn't for TSA it could have been a lot more...

SilverRhino's picture

how about two full agencies .... OSHA, EPA

Flakmeister's picture

How old are you? Do you remember the air quality in '60s and early '70s? Do you recall Love Canal and the state of Lake Erie?

The only jobs the EPA has killed is undertakers and respitory therapists....

How does the OSHA kill jobs? Can you quantify it?

tarsubil's picture

The government relies on market innovations to pave over its worthlessness. The drag of government has been overcome by innovations in technology. Sooner or later the golden goose won't be able to take any more.