Jobs Report and GOP Culpability
The new monthly jobs numbers are out and the United States added a paltry 80,000 jobs in June. That’s nowhere near the 100,000 to 125,000 per month we need to create to keep pace with economic need. So it’s not good for any side.
But pay attention in the news and you’ll see Republicans bragging, happy to have one more arrow in their quiver to fire at President Obama.
According to a recent poll, a plurality of Americans — and a majority of independent and moderate voters — believe that Republicans are actively sabotaging the United States economy in order to hurt President Obama’s re-election prospects in the fall. So don’t chock my sentiments up to liberal talking points. The American people believe that Republicans want our economy and working families to suffer so that their party can succeed.
Though President Obama poorly chose his words and timing when he said last month that the private sector is “doing fine”, the fact is that private sector job growth remains steady — not robust by any stretch of the imagination, but consistent with what we might hope in an economic recovery coming out of the hole we’ve been in. As of June, America created 4.3 million private sector jobs in 27 straight months. That’s nothing to sneeze at. BUT the fact is that public sector jobs have been slashed at record levels. In this chart, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein looks at the rates of public sector employment during the last four major recessions in America. Note how much lower is is now:
Klein computed that if you restored the 600,000 public sector jobs cut by Republicans in the last four years, the unemployment rate today would be 7.8% instead of 8.2% it actually is. And if the country had added public sector jobs in the last four years at the same rate as when George W. Bush was president, the unemployment rate would fall to 7.3%.
Notably, June jobs numbers were just adjusted to clarify that while only 100,000 net jobs were created, 176,000 private sector jobs were generated. The lesser net jobs growth is mainly the result of public sector layoffs.
Republicans like to pretend that firefighters, police and teachers aren’t hardworking, middle class Americans who contribute to our communities and our economy but rather blood-sucking leeches taking advantage of the public teet. But even the Wall Street Journal agrees the biggest impediment to businesses hiring in America today is a lack of customer demand. And public sector workers don’t just put out wildfires, keep our streets safe and educate our children for the economy of the future. They also buy stuff and spur demand. Killing 600,000 public sector jobs hurts the economy.
Of course, it’s distinctly possible that Republicans believe that trickle-down economic policies that give more and more money and power to big business and the super-rich while starving public sector jobs and small businesses actually will rescue our economy, despite the overwhelming evidence that those policies got us into this mess in the first place. More likely, it seems to me, is that Republicans realize full well their attacks on public sector jobs and their stonewalling on every jobs proposal the President puts forward (including tax cuts!) are very deliberate and self-aware actions to tank the economy with the hopes that President Obama will suffer politically. The fact that our economy not to mention hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans and the small businesses that rely on them are also suffering doesn’t seem to trouble Republicans in Washington one bit.
If you like it, share it!
6 Responses to Jobs Report and GOP Culpability
Leave a Reply
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE
SOCIALIZE WITH ME!
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLS
Make a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy Project
Well said, Sally. I absolutely believe that right-wing corporate America is deliberately holding back on hiring. It’s already a proven fact that Republican governors have fired and frozen public sector jobs. The plutocrats want their .01% puppet to win the presidency.
Stop lying Sally the rep isn’t the problem it is your president.the fact is Obama want even try to negotiate.he want it all his socialit way or no way at all.this government takeover of healthcare will bankrupt this country.I don’t have healthcare now and I want buy it and no ba$ tard will make me.Your president is a worthless piece of socialist trash.his supporter or lazy or jealous and they want to distribute the wealth.the fact is the so call 1 percentage just don’t want to work.they ask a few of them if they would like a job.a few of them said no they wasn’t going to work for capitalist pigs.another guy said no because it’s not fair he said that the workers should be able to split the profits equal with the owner instead of just so much a week.the fact is the richest people pay over half of all the taxes in the united states but Obama and his supporters said they are not paying their share.the people that is saying this are not even paying a dime the fact is they are getting more then they pay in with their tax returns.the fact is they are not paying their share.
I only make 20 thousand a year I want let a communist tell me what to do.I don’t have and I want buy health insurance.I want even get a medical card because unlike some people I have respect.
If u and other Obama supporters want a socialist country then move out and leave me the fu&k along bit$h.I don’t bother u so leave me and the united states alone with your socialist policies.the best thing that could happen to the united states is if your communist president die today.
Yes, corporate America (“right-wing” and otherwise) ARE deliberately holding back on hiring because they have obsolutely no idea what to expect from this president except chaos. Are corporate taxes going up? What impact will Obama care have? 2% growth in the economy with massive unreported inflation (noticed the price of beef up 100% in the past 5 years for example) means people don’t have as much money to spend. There needs to be actual need for jobs to be created. The need is being met with current hiring…
What is a proven fact about public sector jobs is local governments are being bankrupted by public employee pensions. It is common for public employees to earn more than 100% of base pay in retirement. That is insane. And it is unsustainable.
Next problem. In states like my state of Oregon the majority of land is owned by the federal government. With the elimination of most logging from public lands there is no tax revenue. The land is locked up with no chance of development.
So yes public sector jobs are down because many states are broke. How is it possible that a state like California overspent during the boom times? Social programs and competitive public employee benefits are nice but now it is time to pay the piper.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the public sector jobs are being cut? It is not the federal government but the local governments cutting their payrolls. Ever thought to consider why?
Becasue they don’t have enough money to pay the employees. Why don’t they have enough money to pay the employees? Because their revenues are down. Why are their revenues down? Because the people who live in the towns cities, etc are unemployed or more often underemployed. Wages are down so revenue is down.
Those bloated employment numbers you use are a farce. Its odd that over 4 million jobs have been created in 27 months, yet there are far less people working than there were 3 years ago. How does that work? Yes there have been jobs created but there have been more jobs lost for a net negative gain. Thats not a recovering or growing economy.
Remember one very simple principle. Government NEVER and CANNOT create wealth – only citizens can. Government can only redistribute wealth. The source of wealth is the citizenry, not the government. Government just moves it around.
Logic, I believe you missed one link in that chain of why are revenues down, and here it is …..
One of the main reasons that local governments do not have the revenue to maintain pre-2008 funding/taxing levels is due to the housing bubble burst, which was (in most part) caused by disingenuous corporations in conjunction with poorly thought out lending policies and clueless legislation. Since 1 in 5 homes in most areas are in foreclosure, local governments have lost at least 20% of their revenue, not to mention the loss of taxes made from locally produced/purchased goods as people lose their jobs in that downward spiral caused by the housing burst. I blame both sides of the aisle for causing the housing bubble, but I mostly think it was due to corporations unfettered by rational oversight without a 5- or 10- year plan of what would happen in their mad cash grab when it was obvious that it was unsustainable. So if we allow more corporate friendly government to get elected, what will the future look like with those two groups even cozier than they are now?
I agree the housing crash is a significant contributor to the decline in revenue in municipalities. I also agree that government entities along with some greedy players in the banking sector are one of the two main responsible parties (I prefer to refer to them as bankers rather than corporations becasue the terme corporations is way too large; Procter & Gamble, Papa John’s, Staples, etc had nothing to do with the housing and mortgage crisis), the other responsible party being the home owners. Far too many home owners purchased homes that were more than they could afford. Some will argue that is the bank’s fault for giving them the loans. No, the purchasers need to own up to personal responsibility. No on forced them to take the loans and buy the house they couldn’t afford. Greed is greed whether we are talking about a $300K home of hundreds of millions in sold mortgages.
Where I would disagree with your comment is the statement, “So if we allow more corporate friendly government to get elected, what will the future look like with those two groups even cozier than they are now?” I realize it was a aquestion, but believe it was a rhetorical question and am responding as such. First, as I mentioned, the problem with the housing crisis was not all or even a majority of corporations. It was a small fraction in a specific sector. Second, there is an enormous difference between being corporate friendly (which I view as a positive) and being in bed with certain business people. And there are not too many people who are more in bed with business people than some of the progressives such as Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – MAJOR players in the housing crisis) and even President Obama himself. Its not Mitt Romney who is golfing with Jeffrey Immelt, the king of outsourcing, or hanging out with Warren Buffett, the puyrveyor of favors to buy and sell distressed businesses, or supported by George Soros, the killer of national economies.