"Jobs Bill" Subsidies Won't Work Longterm

The President's "Jobs Bill" (which, as a reminder, I will continue to refer to in quotation marks because it's not a Jobs Bill, it's a Stimulus Bill) died in the Senate a couple weeks ago, thanks to Senate Democrats (not Republicans, as Obama would like you to believe.) (1) Now the President wants the Bill passed in pieces. First and foremost, I can tell you that pretty much the only part that has a snowball's chance in July of passing is the Payroll Tax Holiday extension, because it's the only part of the bill that can't hurt the economy. (It won't help, by the way, but it can't hurt...temporary cuts won't cause hiring.)

Now there's the other parts of the "Jobs Bill" (the ones that don't have a snowball's chance in July of passing), the tax credits and hiring subsidies. These policies won't create jobs, and here's why: Businesses don't hire employees for one year. It's that simple, friends. Unless you're hiring a part time fast food employee for the night shift, at which point if that employee lasts one year then you're tickled pink, employers are looking to hire and train an employee who ends up working for them for five years or more.

Now that goal is not always achieved. However, an employee who works for a company for five years is going to bring at least 3 years of highly productive work where they require minimal additional training (although you'll always be training in a good company) and they reach a point where, even on their "bad days" they're still performing at a high level. I can say that from my current personal experience. I'm coming up on my two year anniversary with my current company in my current position. About a year ago, I hit my stride. Everything clicked. I got really good at my job and, even when I'm not at 100%, I still can put up respectable work on a daily basis. In my experience, this is pretty typical for most people. If you're qualified and a good match for your job, in 1-2 years you get to a point where the job clicks and you're good at it.

Now hiring for one year, on the other hand, is setting the economy up for disaster. Let's assume for a second that business owners really do hire an employee based on the subsidies. They perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and learn that, with the tax credits and other subsidies, there is a positive CBA for one year, and that the subsidies and tax credits eat up the new expenses created by the Obama Administration like Obamacare and other unnecessary regulations and push the CBA for the hire into the positive, at least from a purely fiscal perspective. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's "decide that hiring will make money based on the money we have and how much money we can make.")

What does that business do the next year? The subsidies and credits have now expired, and the Cost Benefit Analysis for the next year is back to negative. So fast forward one year and all those employees who were hired are now back out of work, because it's no longer a profitable investment to retain that employee. And consider that it takes at least a year for an employee to become really, truly good at most jobs and require minimal supervision and additional training. So guess what? The Cost Benefit Analysis is once again is negative based on a long term outlook.

This is the problem with liberal quick-stimulus ideas. They simply do not work. Unfortunately, President Obama has never run a business nor made a payroll. He's never had to perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis. He's enacting ideas he and the other college professors came up with in a faculty lounge. I've said it before, I'll say it again: The "Jobs Bill" won't create jobs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dear AP: Senate Republicans Didn't Block the Jobs Bill...Democrats Did

Joe Biden Breaks Out the Usual Baseless Attacks on Jobs Bill

Don't look now, friends, but the Obama Administration has gone and let Joe Biden talk again, with typical results. This time, the Vice President wants you to believe that, if the President's Jobs Bill isn't passed, rapes and murders will increase.  You read that right:  the Jobs Bill will prevent rape and murder.  Said the Vice President:


“In 2008, when Flint (MI) had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city,” Biden said, standing alongside city officials. “In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it.” (1)

There are just so very many holes in the Vice President's logic.  For example, how many murders and rapists stop so their victim can call the police?  How many rape and murder victims have warning so they CAN call the police?  Seriously, simple logic tells you that "call the police" is really not something that practically can be done to prevent a rape or murder in progress.  If and only if a police officer is nearby can that officer do pretty much anything.  Aside from that, it's pretty much up to the victim to either avoid such situations and/or be prepared for self defense by carrying mace or exercising your constitutional right to bear arms and carrying a gun.  For the record, I'm not blaming victims at all, I'm just saying that calling the police and waiting for them to arrive is just not a wise contingency plan.  What the police do in such situations is pretty much in the area of prosecuting justice after the crime.

Yet Vice President Biden wants you to think; think about this for a second; that Obama's Jobs Bill will prevent rape and murder.  (I for one can only believe Biden would be so brazen because I'm used to it.)  Of course the inherent assumption of the claim is "Republicans don't want to pass this bill, ergo Republicans don't want to prevent rape and murder."  It's a preposterous claim, of course.  It's preposterous to assume that more police officers would mean that a calling the police in the process of being raped is going to get an officer on the scene immediately, or that it's even reasonable to consider calling the police a defense when being attacked, and then expect the police to arrive in a minute or two before the actual crime is perpetrated.

But hey, maybe Biden was just being foolish (it is Joe Biden after all) and speaking rashly.  Surely he's retracted his statement by now, right?  Nope, he's doubling down on his ridiculous claim!  When he was pressed by a reporter, who, out of the blue, decided to actually be a journalist, to clarify his claim, Biden said,

"Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise." (2)

So not only is the Vice President making ridiculous claims, he's doubling down it it?  Wow, just wow.  If Biden genuinely believes this, he's even less intelligent than I thought.  Having never been a rapist or a murder, I can't say with certainty, but I do not think the simple presence of additional police offers adds to the deterrent value against crime, because ultimately where police serve as a deterrent it is in the realm of expected punishment, not in actually stopping such crimes as they are happening, and certainly not by being called to the scene of the crime WHILE THE CRIME IS IN PROGRESS to stop it. 

Biden's claim is preposterous.  It's also exactly what I've learned to expect from liberals.  Fortunately, I think the American public have smartened up on this baloney, and I believe these ad homonym attacks will simply end up hurting the Democratic Party cause.  Good thing, too, because America can't take any more of Obama's "fix it some more, it's not broken enough" mentality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Daily Caller:  Biden: Pass this bill, prevent murders and rapes

(2) Joe Biden Warns Again: Rape, Murder Will Rise Without Jobs Bill

Dear AP: Senate Republicans Didn't Block the Jobs Bill...Democrats Did

"GOP senators block Obama's jobs bill."  That is the Associated Press' headline today. (1) Republicans blocked the bill.  Unfortunately for the Associated Press, this is a flat out lie. 

The proceedural vote that took place on Tuesday to set a time limit on the debate on the Jobs Bill failed by a vote of 50 to 49.  For those of you not familiar with the inner workings of the United States Senate, the Senate rules require 60 votes to bring cluture (a close to any debate or set a time limit to the debate).  Without a cloture vote, an official vote on the bill will not occur.

Now here's the real reason why this failure doesn't belong to the GOP:  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't even get HIS caucus to vote unanimously to bring this bill to a vote. The current Senate breakdown is 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats.  The Democrat caucus has 53 votes. Harry Reid couldn't even get unanimity from his own caucus.

Meanwhile, when Mitch McConnell called for a vote on the bill last week, Harry Reid and the Democrats refused. (2)  Now we know why:  Not even all the Democrats were willing to pass this bill.  And that was just for the procedural vote to bring cloture.  I suspect that at least two more Democrats would have refused to vote for a tax increase in an election season and that the bill wouldn't have passed anyway.

This bill is bad for America.  It won't create jobs, because, as I've said so many times, because business owners don't hire people based on a one or two year tax credit.  They hire people expecting them to be an employee for at least five years or they don't hire.  That's the way business works.  Now the Senate won't let it through.  Good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) GOP senators block Obama's jobs bill (Source: AP Affiliate St. Petersburg Times)

(2) Actually, President Obama, it's the Democrats Blocking the Jobs Bill

Actually, President Obama, it's the Democrats Blocking the Jobs Bill

President Obama has spent the last couple weeks lambasting the Republican Party for not taking up his Jobs Bill. Once again, Obama wants to paint the GOP as "obstructionists" for not letting him do more damage to the economy.  More importantly, however, it's not the GOP who is blocking Obama's bill from coming to a vote!  It's the President's own party.

Now that's not what Obama is saying, of course...he's saying:

Eric Cantor said that right now, he won't even let this jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives. That's what he said. Won't even let it be debated. (1)

See there's one big problem with this claim by Obama:  The Jobs Bill CAN'T be debated on the floor of the House...it doesn't have a sponsor! (2)  You see, Mr. President, in both houses of Congress, a bill needs a sponsor who is a member of that house to allow it to even come to a debate.  No Democrat in the House of Representatives wants to sponsor your bill.  It couldn't be voted on if Eric Cantor wanted it to be voted on!

What about the Senate?  The Democrats control the Senate...so there MUST be debate and a vote scheduled for the bill there, right?  Actually, no...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to let the bill come to a vote when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for a vote.  (3)  Of course, the President called this a "parlor trick."  So apparently this means anything except for voting for Obama's bill is a parlor trick in the President's eyes?

Bottom line, Mr. President, is that YOUR PARTY won't take your bill up for a vote.  Not even your party wants this bill...that's how bad this bill really is...it's unpassable!  Sorry Mr. President, nobody wants your bill.  Not even Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Obama knocks GOP leader, says GOP blocks jobs vote

(2) Hoyer Says He Backs Obama’s Jobs Bill, But It Has No House Co-Sponsors – Not Even Hoyer

(3) Reid resists McConnell’s move to take up the president’s jobs bill

Republicans Should Block This Jobs Bill! Block it Immediately!

The President's same old regurgitated Jobs Bill has officially been sent to Congress. I'm happy to tell you that the bill is likely dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. It ought to be too, because it's a bad bill that will cost billions and do nothing to help create jobs. The Republicans are going to block this bill, and they should block it. To paraphrase the President, the Republican Party should block this bill immediately.

Reason #1 why the Republican Party needs to block the Jobs Bill: It's not really paid for, like the President claims. There's an IOU in the bill that instructs the Congressional Super Committee to find another $400 billion and change in cuts. That's not paying for the bill. That's like me buying a vehicle that I can't afford and then telling the dealer that it's ok, I'll ask my boss for a raise in the morning. For this bill to be paid for it would have required specific cuts included in the bill. This does not do that. It just promises imaginary cuts someday in the future. It's a lie. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason # 2 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: It calls for raising taxes. The President calls it "asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share," and of course, he defines "fair share" as "whatever liberals demand." It of course ignores that the wealthiest 10% already pay 50% of the taxes (that's five times their share, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). It also ignores the fact that $250,000 per year in salary is not a "millionaire." If you flunked math, $250,000 is ¼ of a million dollars. It takes four of those people put together to make Obama's millionaire. Finally, it ignores the fact that raising taxes on these people involves raising taxes on small business owners who file as sole proprietorships, thus taking investment capital out of the pockets of business owners. That will likely cost jobs. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #3 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: The tax credits contained for hiring and giving raises to employees aren't going to do anything to encourage hiring. The President has shown, once again, how little he understands the decision of businesses. You see, business owners don't hire employees to get a tax credit and they don't hire because they have spare money. They also don't hire to be nice or to give a person medical benefits. See, what the President does not understand is that hiring an employee is an investment. A business owner performs a Cost-Benefit Analysis to decide if hiring that new employee will yield a sufficient profit. This may be because they believe that if they have more product to sell they can lower prices and undercut their competition and steal market share. However, the most likely reason for a business owner to hire is because they have so many orders that they can't keep up, and they need more employees to fill those orders. In short, businesses don't need tax credits to hire…they need customers.

There are instances, however, when government is intruding upon a business financially, say with tax rates that are too high (see Reason # 2) and businesses end up making due with less employees than they need. This usually means the business owner works more hours to not fall behind. However, tax credits don't make up for these government intrusions. Set tax rates will make a difference. Yet Obama failed to make the current tax rates permanent, which would have eliminated this barrier. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #4 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: It squanders more taxpayer money on liberal pie in the sky "green energy" that is not sufficient to meet our needs. It's also not financially sound. Don't believe me? Solyndra, an American solar energy company, filed last week for bankruptcy. This company was given government money from the last Stimulus package. Even with government funding it's bankrupt. "Green Energy" is not sufficient to make a difference in our lives. The only type "green energy" that works sufficiently is hydroelectric, and we're already using every available source to its potential. If Obama was offering subsidies to promote further oil exploration that would be a solution, but continuing to peddle green energy subsidies is a joke and a waste. It's flushing money down the toilet, and it will not create jobs. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #5 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: It won't create jobs. I believe I've outlined this above pretty well, but I'll give you one more reason; in 2009, Obama successfully passed into law over $1 Trillion in Stimulus spending. Do you know how many jobs we got? Answer: -1.9 Million Jobs. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means we lost 1.9 million jobs after Obama passed the Stimulus.) Unemployment went up by as much as 3% above pre-Stimulus levels. Remember, we were told that if we passed the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. It went above 10%.

Liberal have told us that the Stimulus failed because it wasn't big enough. Now let's set aside the erroneous logic of that statement for a moment, and ask our friends on the left to explain that if they needed more to succeed, how is half as much going to work? Answer: It won't work. If we're lucky, it'll only lose half as many jobs. Its predecessor, the Stimulus bill, cost $1 Trillion and lost jobs. Obama proved that this sort of Keyensian Stimulus could not create jobs. (I'm not just saying that as a devoted member of the Supply-Side Economics School.) History proved this doesn't work, and it's not going to work this time. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #6 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: We've already proposed many bills that will help the economy. Cut, Cap and Balance, for example, which 66% of Americans wanted to see passed into law. We have passed the repeal of Obamacare, which would remove the huge barrier of its requirements of that law that cost so much that it cuts into the profitability expectations of a business owner's Cost-Benefit Analysis for hiring. The Democrats in the Senate have stopped the Republicans from passing these helpful bills. I am not saying don't pass the bill out of spite. I'm saying don't pass this bill because there are better plans to be put into practice than this lousy bill. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Ultimately, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Obama tried this once and it failed so miserably it belongs in a museum next to the Titanic, the Hindenberg, and the 2007 New York Mets in the huge embarrassing failure display. The Republican Party owes it to America to not let this bad policy see the light of day. We put the GOP back in power to stop Obama from doing further damage. Now they need to make it happen. The Republicans need to block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

GOP are Stopping Obama from "Getting Things Done" is a Good Thing!

It's President Obama's latest talking point, and he used it in last week's big "Jobs Speech": The Republicans won't put politics aside for the American people. The translation is: The GOP won't let Obama destroy the country further...but it's just in the name of politics. It's one of the most ridiculous statements on the planet. It's like saying that a guy is putting aside friendship over a woman if he punches his best friend in the face...because that friend was physically attacking his sister.

Right now, the politically expedient thing for the GOP to do is also the right thing to do for America: Stop Obama. Yes, the GOP is politically inclined to go the opposite way of Obama anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that stopping Obama also the best thing for the country.

The narrative repeated by those whom I call "moderate by default" (aka "I look at every issue and make my mind up on each one" and yet somehow finding a way to land in the center EVERY TIME) and encouraged by the Left is: the American people want government to "get things done." Sure sounds great, right? Getting things done is always good, isn't it?

Maybe not. Let me give you an example. I set out to accomplish five tasks in a day...and let's say I accomplish all five. Great, right? I got five things done! What an accomplishment. Five things were got done! There's just one problem; the five things I did were this: Kick the neighbors dog, break a store window with a rock, beat up an old lady, rob a bank, and steal a car.

Come on...I got things done! It took a lot of work, and I got things done...right? Wrong, you say...I got BAD things done. As a matter of fact, if I had simply done absolutely nothing I would have done the neighbor's dog, the store, the old lady, the bank and the owner of that car all a favor. If someone had stopped me before I got out the door, they would've obstructed me from "getting things done" right...but it sure would've been better if they had stopped me.

The Republican Party is doing the right thing for America by blocking Obama. The President proved it by his "plan." It was the same plan. More stimulus spending (although this time he didn't call it that), more "green jobs," and more spending on "green energy, more government, more spending on infrastructure. More of the same failed and/or damaging solutions. Oh, and don't forget more demonizing the Republicans for daring to stop Obama from, to extend the metaphor, kicking dogs, breaking store windows, and robbing banks. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, kicking dogs, breaking windows and robbing banks = raising taxes, accruing more debt, spending more on stimulus packages that failed.)

This "get things done" rhetoric is problematic because it assumes two things:  One, both sides are offering positive solutions and two, that the solution is automatically in the center of the two sides.  To answer the first, both sides are not offering positive solutions.  Despite the liberal belief that money grows on trees if the item to be spent on is really super-duper important, we don't have the money for more spending.  We spend too much now.  (And while Obama is going to claim that the cost is "paid for" I'll bet you that it'll be paid for with cuts in ten years.  I for one am tired of "I will gladly pay you in 2021 for a stimulus today," from Obama.)  Obama is asking the GOP to compromise good ideas with bad ones.

Two, the solution is not always in the middle.  When one side offers a bad idea and the other good, the good idea should not compromise.  I know I'm committing a rhetorical no-no here, but should German Jews have compromised with Hitler?  Of course not.  It's an exaggerated comparision, Democrats aren't trying to kill anyone here, but they are offering damaging solutions which failed.

In short, the GOP SHOULD block Obama from "getting things done" because he wants to get bad things done.