On Jobs And Bailout Pressure
Will the dire national job news released today -- 11M Americans are unemployed, the unemployment rate is at 7.2% -- put pressure on Republicans to back Pres.-elect Barack Obama's eventual stimulus package? The news certainly validates Obama's use of the word "crisis" during his economic address yesterday at George Mason University.
Can the GOP, bailout weary at this point, afford to quibble over the size and scope of the plan and the impact it might have on the deficit when Americans are losing jobs at such a rapid rate? The country is experiencing the highest unemployment rate since 1993.
Here's House Republican Leader John Boehner yesterday:
“The president-elect today in his remarks made clear that, while help for our economy is necessary at this point, that we have to be concerned about the deficit. You know, actions speak louder than words. And I do think that, as we develop this and we look through the balance of this year, we begin to lay out, how are we going to restore fiscal health to our budget? Because if you start to think about $800 to $1 trillion package on top of the deficit that we already have, you’re adding an awful lot of weight to the debt. And at the end of the day, those that are here aren’t going to pay that debt. It’s going to be our kids and their kids.”
Readers, thoughts?
Pressure? Sure. Your question is an example of pressure.
Crisis? Unemployment is at 7.2%, high, and very painful for those affected, but by historic standards, not the same as in prior crises of similar magnitude. Wondering why unemployment isn't HIGHER if the credit crunch, car sales plummet, and other factors were as bad as predicted? Something must be going on that accounts for that, and until that is understood, maybe we shouldn't be rushing in to try TRILLION-dollar deficits for "years to come."
Is Boehner wrong in his comments? Boehner is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but what I read was natural caution about using "solutions" that have a very long payback for a problem that we still don't seem to understand. Doyou think anyone -- anyone at all -- has sufficiently explained what's going on in the American and global economies, much less offered a workable solution? Or are we just going to throw money at the problem de jour?
By the way, the latest request for bail-out funds? http://www.tmz.com/2009/01/07/porn-kings-help-us-through-hard-times/
So, Jen, what you appear to be asking is the fundamental question after this election: has America gone the government-spending route, whole-hog, without reservations? Or are reservations and concerns still acceptable? Short-term gain (possibly) vs long-term costs (certain)? And is the tipping point in that question whether the media believes that people are "hurting?"