House Speaker John Boehner just rejected – but in a nice way! – the American Jobs Act, saying that the plan is “a poor substitute for the pro-growth policies that are needed to remove barriers to job creation in America.” Incredibly – and you’re not going to believe this – Boehner cited deregulation and lower taxes as the path to economic growth. But curiously, he rejected the tax cuts in the American Jobs Act, meaning that there will be higher taxes on all American wage earners by January.
In a speech to the Economic Club of DC, Boehner suggests that businesses need the right incentives to hire:
The reality is that employers will hire if they have the right incentives, but the incentives have to outweigh the costs. Businesses are not going to hire someone for a $4000 tax credit if government mandates impose long-term costs on them that significantly exceed the temporary credit. In recent years, such mandates have been overwhelming.
In other words, regulations will outweigh the benefit from hiring. Lack of demand plays no role in this fantasy world sketched out by Boehner. “Job creators in America are essentially on strike,” Boehner said, assuming a mass of job creating supermen gone Galt as the reason for the slow economy, not the fact that nobody has any money.
To highlight his deregulatory approach, Boehner cited Gibson guitars, which illegally shipped in endangered species of rosewood from outside the US for production (which is part of a criminal ring in Madagascar), and Boeing, which is illegally avoiding a signed union contract by attempting to transfer its factory to South Carolina from Washington in violation of established labor law. So the only way companies will have the incentive to hire, then, is if they are allowed to break the law.
The other parts of Boehner’s speech concerned taxing and spending, and here he made clear he opposes tax credits of the kind that appear in the American Jobs Act.
One is the current tax code, which is discourages investment and rewards special interests.
It strikes me as odd that at a time when it’s clear that the tax code needs to be fundamentally reformed, the first instinct out of Washington is to come up with a host of new tax credits that make the tax code more complex.
The final aspect of the threat is the spending binge in Washington. It has created a massive debt crisis that poses a direct threat to our country’s ability to create jobs and prosper.
Boehner endorsed “tax reform” at the Super Committee, but never defined what that would mean. I’m assuming something to do with cutting taxes at the top. Call me crazy. He paid lip service to “closing loopholes” in exchange for lowering tax rates, and we’ll see just how far that gets. But he said that this tax reform must not increase revenues at all, and that “When it comes to producing savings to reach its $1.5 trillion deficit reduction target, the Joint Select Committee has only one option: spending cuts and entitlement reform.” He admonished “gimmicks” in budget cuts like scoring ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as savings, when the House Republican budget did that.
So it’s more of the same, really. The speech sought to highlight GOP ideas which will dominate the fall calendar – the bill limiting the NLRB in the wake of the Boeing decision just passed the House today. It set the stage for complaining that the Senate won’t take up the deregulatory bills. And it largely ignored the American Jobs Act, which is now squarely a political document and not legislation that will come anywhere near passing.





62 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Translation from OrangeSpeak: If the Job Creators™ do it, it isn’t illegal.
I didn’t care much for the zero’s “jobs bill” in the fist place, it’s ANOTHER rediculous “trickle down economic” approach
excuse me, but giving x amount of dollars to even small business in the HOPE they spend that on hiring is REDICULOUS
how about THIS?;
use the SAME amount of money and instead of giving it to some middle man, HIRE SOMEONE INSTEAD OF FIRE SOMEONE
I GUARANTEE that will bring FAR more jobs then giving it to someone else and hoping some of it gets used for hiring
man, this guy just does not stop with these mindless reagan “trickle down economic” strategy
I am believing more and more he is simply a moron with a better vocabulary then the moron he’s replaced
transfer its factory?
Does U-Haul make a truck that big?
AJA DOA. NO surprise to me.
Boehner’s arguments are really weak, but they’ll still carry the day. That’s because Democrats are the worst debaters in the history of politics.
If preznit dipshit had allowed Shrub’s tax cuts to expire last December, as they were supposed to under laws passed by Congress when Shrub was preznit, preznit dipshit would not have any excuse to propose cuts to Medicare & Medicaid.
Over here in my comment on Dday’s other thread about preznit’s deficit reduction plans, I think I proved that simply restoring income tax rates to the pre-Shrub rates would generate a total of over three Trillion dollars, more than enough to continue paying for all safety net programs, including Social Security.
No matter how much I loathe preznit, I see no purpose in wasting any air time on what OrangeMan (OrangeSpeaker?) does or says.
If passed AJA would gut SS financing and give the Catfooders another reason to dick over the program. So the AJA message is: you can have your (temporary McShit) jobs or you can have your SS, but not both.
This from the party of the New Deal.
let me explain;
to the republicans, “closing loopholes in tax law” means you will have to pay income taxes on health care provided by your employer
it means if your son is in the armed forces you have to pay for his armor
stuff like that
that’s what “close tax loopholes” means to republicans
isn’t this common knowledge?
What’s especially galling about Obama’s capitulation on the Bush tax cuts is (a) he did it while his party still controlled both houses of Congress; (b) he didn’t put the debt ceiling on the table, and that issue came back to bite him in the ass this summer; and (c) all he got in return for those concessions was 13 weeks of emergency UI benefits–and, as Senator Sanders pointed out, Congress had voted to grant those benefits in times of high unemployment for 40 years.
If I hired Obama to defend me in court on a speeding charge, I’m afraid he’d plead me guilty to murder.
they aren’t as bad as you think, they are getting done what they promised they would get done to their corporate sponsors…they make believe they are throwing defence when in fact they are part of the republican offence
think
“yankees vs yankees” in the world series and that is what we are up against
I wish that was short enough to put on a bumper sticker or t shirt
very nice, brutally accurate
Having grown a Mets fan, that analogy is especially painful–but apropos.
I am a boy, interested in girls so the fact that you are a mets fan and I am a yankee fan is fine with me
I guess if you have enough money to buy some polititions laws are only a slight inconvenance.Someone needs to ask Boehner how the last time we deregulated banks,bussiness and wallstreet turned out.Cut taxes for the rich and deregulate.we saw this movie before it sucked,didn’t work(that is it didn’t work for most americans only for the ones who own the polititions)they made out just fine.Corporations love high unemployment,they can better abuse thier workers when they are desperate for a job.
I thought Boehner said “There are some things we can support.” Did he speak before checking with his handlers?
Asswipe.
I’ve never been a Yankee fan. Or a girl.
I moved from NJ to Michigan in the 1970s, so the other team I root for is the Tigers (not the reason for my handle).
Hammer, nail. The boundaries of Rethug economic theory.
What will Oilbummer do now? The Earl of Orange has spoken.
he didn’t even have to “allow the tax cuts to expire”
he simply needed to ignore the fact, he brought it up, he deliberately used it as a “bargaining chip” even before there was anything to bargain over
really guys, he is playing for the other team, he IS the trojan wolf in benedict’s clothing
we need him out of office even if it means we get a republican elected, always remember, a republican elected as a democrat will do far more damage then a republican elected as a republican
whoever runs for the other side i will join their campaign comittee and do my best to make the zero a one term president
(tee hee “the trojan wolf in benedict’s clothing”, I just invented that}
I’m sure we can get it down to bumper sticker phrasing. For sure we can sharpen it to under 160 characters, or 140 for tweeters.
I gotta run out before the rain but will get working on this ASAP.
excellent work tammanytiger @9!
yup to all of what you wrote except the part about joining some Repub campaign committee
OT–Just watched ceremoney at the WH awarding Medal of Honor to Marine Sgt. Dakota Meyer. It was one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time. Went against higher orders and saved 36 lives. Glad Obama recognised him and his fellow Marines.
HA!!! Priceless phrase!
“The reality is that employers will hire if they have the right incentives…” And that incentive will and can only be HIGHER DEMAND. Higher demand comes from people with a little money to spend, which comes from jobs. Where jobs come from is no big secret – start making laws that limit jobs off-shoring for profit and start subsidizing green energy and paying for infrastructure and rail and wireless for all and then we might start to have some jobs.
spot on truth -
excellent comment –
indeed we will get once again the replay of the pretend – of the play we have seen so many times now – of Obama saying he was “forced” to agree to the cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, “chained” cuts in Social Security, plus with his agreeing to the end of the pending return to Clinton tax rates via a new bill that lowers the tax rates for the rich again – closing loopholes that for the rich will reopen in 18 months.
Obama will be “forced” to sign to say the economy in these dreadful times, with the Dems in Congress “forced” to help pass the law lest they be called racist and accused of trying to make Obama an unsuccessful President.
bingo
man that is SO well written
the owner of my establishment will NOT start hiring if he gets tax cuts, he will NOT start hiring if those tax cuts amounted to double is profit for the year
he WILL start hiring when people start buying
people WILL start buying if there is a decent paying job for those out of work or when they know there is a job waiting for them if they have a job
THAT’S the only thing that will get businesses “hiring’
I wrote a diary on this a long long time ago, it was titled something like;
“all this economy needs are some help wanted signs”
true then, true now
this economy does NOT need money given to business, it needs help wanted signs, you create JOBS and you do it without middle men
you put people to work and the economy will handle itself, you do it with government living wage jobs if you have to, you do it by not allowing off shoring jobs from the private sector
House Speaker John Boehner let slip a bit of truth when he complained about how it was crazy over-regulation when Companies that fund the GOP can send jobs overseas with impunity, and indeed with NAFTA like, free trade agreements, while the nice American company that just wants to break a union gets into regulatory trouble for moving jobs to a non-union state (Boeing) in defiance of a union contract.
Indeed today the House is debating a bill to end enforcement, to pull the regulatory teeth, of FDR’s Federal Labor Board union protections – the FLRB would become the same as the EEOC when now Justice Thomas ran it under Reagan – the burial ground of any complaint with no action possible.
The pres has a problem for sure as someone else said: there’s been one betrayal too many.
As for boner and the thugs, it is truly hard to understand the fetish about taxes. Those fucks have all they could want. They have multiple homes, vacations around the world, no worry about health care, etc, etc. Yet they are STILL after more cuts and more environmental disasters. It is fucking nuts. They could pay lots more money in taxes and it would not hurt at all. I guess the rich figure they got it and fuck everyone else.
Sorta on/off topic:
As a friend says: “We can print money, but we can’t print optimism.”
And to the republicans (and maybe, to Obama…who knows? he’s worked so hard to sell us out…) optimism is like kryptonite to superman.
At this point in proceedings, with the dems tanking and Obama having donated a political gonad transplant to the GOP, I don’t think they’ve got anything to worry about.
Boehner on TV now. He wants the pudding, but he won’t eat his meat.
Maybe someone already said this but over at HP they are reporting that the pres has taken SS cuts off the table, including chained CPI. No word on the proposed increase in medicare age to 67. I say fuck those guys. give them nothing and get nothing and let the american people figure it out or not.
Good post bluedot…but what they don’t quite yet have, is an utterly collapsed and destitute middle class…but they (and Obama) are sho’ nuff working on it.
“Fuck these guys…”
That’s it. Only, Obama should have been saying it when he walked into the Oval Office, when he had the clout to stick it to them. But I agree, he should still say it to them; “nothing” will be a better compensation than the sellout he’s participating in.
I can’t hardly bear this shit anymore. I have taken to screaming at the TV and my wife walks away thinking I am fucking nuts. I think I am.
“I am believing more and more he is simply a moron with a better vocabulary then the moron he’s replaced”
Indeed. Or in other words an erudite idiot is still an idiot.
So much for FDL functioning as a dating site.
Tee hee.
bluedot, it’s not about how much money they have or how much they can buy, it’s about how much more they have then the little people
it’s not about having more it’s about making as many people as possible have less.
it’s about getting the poorest among us paying the bills for the wealthiest
it’s class war, it’s rober baron economics, it’s the have vs the have nots, it’s make sure the ladder from the bottom has not rung or foot hold
I like to think I read enough to know what is going on but I was clueless about this. Horrors! WTF is wrong with these greedy bastards?! I can only hope it doesn’t pass the senate….
Obama’s only hope is to declare all Republicans, teabaggers, and rich celebrity corporate media spokesmodels as enemy combatants and send them to Guantanamo. Anti-American traitors the lot of them.
Thank you! Usually my posts suck becuase I have to dredge through a bunch of emotional reactionary stuff before I get to anything that smacks of logic! I remember reading your diary. It was a good ‘un.
The rich don’t want to pay anymore taxes and they sign pledges not to raise taxes. We learned recently that some 15.1% of the population or 46.2 million of us live in poverty, like back in 1993. I guess those fucks should pay more. They are part of the group the thugs like to say “pay no taxes at all”. And we also learned that the median income is now back to 1996 levels. Those people need to pay more taxes too. Who would believe it? Going backwars in time. Aw fuck, Obama just go ahead and increase the medicare age to 67. When was the last democratic president? LBJ?
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary ….
I’ll never forget hearing Neal Boortz in the ’90s telling about the large family gatherings he’d have at Easter when he was growing up and how he’d be very upset if he did not find every single one of the hidden eggs in the Easter Egg Hunt. Has always served as my personal shorthand for understanding the mentality of these people.
Ain’t just you dude. LOts of people feel the same way.
Some people say this is “not class warfare”. BUT IT IS! And we inthe middle class don’t have an advocate oir a dog in the fight anymore.
You have put it VERY SUCCINCTLY!!!!!!!!!
Can’t imagine what it is if not class warfare. Sure looks that way to me.
My husband and I are now doing the same – my oldest keeps telling us to turn the channel…
Actually, it was Kennedy.
Why can’t Democrats just say, “John Boehner wants to raise your taxes by $1,000″? I know, messaging-challenged. :-(
NLRB, papau, not “F” LRB. The National Labor Relations Board. A nit worth picking because there is, in fact, an FLRA, so your acronym could be confused with FLRA (Federal Labor Relations Authority), which was supposed to protect collective bargaining and union organizing rights in the federal executive branch.
If Barack Obama was America’s doctor, every time we went to see him with a cold we’d come home with pneumonia.
If Barack Obama was America’s policeman, the crooks would be on the street and we would all be in debtors’ prisons.
If Barack Obama was America’s defense lawyer, he would pay the judge to give us a longer sentence.
If Barack Obama defended the Democratic Party on a speeding ticket, he’d talk them into pleading guilty to a murder.
How many has he murdered in the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.
I don’t think a just God thinks he’s somekind of hero.
Shame on him and his country, the Naizis had their heros too
Thanks for the correction
I actually knew the difference – long ago – now it is one of the many things I forget from time to time! :-)
In any case – today’s bill did indeed deal with the NRLB.
I don’t think this is accurate.
What it’s more like is if you hired Obama to defend you on the speeding charge, it would go like this:
You say you were doing 50 in a 55.
The law says you were doing 70 in a 55.
The compromise would be that you plead guilty to going 67 in a 55. Additionally, you would do community service and agree to meet the cop for a beer, that you would pay for.
not quite right there hoofin, you are assuming actions contrary to factual evidence
obama doesn’t “compromise” at all, he starts his negotiation at a higher point for the other camp then they could have even asked, then he gives them everything they want when they raise the bar higher then the obama position
if the charge was 70 obama would negotiate to 100 not 67
even though that sounds like snark I am not exagerating;
health care the starting point should have been single payer with the public option as the lowest place to wind up
obama not only made believe he was starting with the public option, he actually gave the low bar away even before negotiations began
so i am not exagerating when I say if the charge was 70 he would negotiate it up not down
And Boehner’ golfing buddy, the Great Capitulator has probably already told his staff to find more regulations to gut.
OK I see your point, but no one would ever do that in municipal court.
LOL! Yea he’s a lousy lawyer and an even worse Preznit. Or is it he’s just carrying out policies he wants and we didn’t understand we were electing a Reagan Democrat?
the latter, there is no doubt
well, obama isn’t in municiple court, if he were you would see it
let’s look at the bush redistribution of middle class assets marketed as “tax cuts for the wealthy”
obama just needed to ignore those and they go away, he did not eveb beed ti negotiate anything, he not only re upped those, he threw in some inheritance tax on top of it!
he negotiates away from his client’s interest and into the pockets of his clients competitors
i call it prepitulation