Clipping blog |
- Clearing the Browser Tabs – Media on the Job Tuesday Edition
- More Math for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. This Time, It’s Jobs.
- The Post Where I Break Out Some Math on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
| Clearing the Browser Tabs – Media on the Job Tuesday Edition Posted: 14 Jun 2011 07:38 AM PDT I’m heartened to know that the MSM has chosen to analyze the news of the day with its usual senses of professionalism and objectivity. Headline #1: “Wingnut debt ceiling demands” (CNN) Headline #2: “Bachmann assumes the position” (WaPo) I’m sure glad they’re around, otherwise we’d have to rely on those beastly partisan and irresponsible bloggers for our news. Wouldn’t that be horrible? I have a bunch of stuff in store for The Delivery’s live taping tonight and I’m not anywhere close to sure I”ll be able to get it all in. I might have to severely bend the “no politics in the second half” rule to make sure most of it will fit into the show. There is also the distinct possibly that, thanks to John King’s woeful performance last night, a special yet familiar guess will make an appearance. So be there at 9:30 PM Eastern. And now, links!
 |
| More Math for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. This Time, It’s Jobs. Posted: 13 Jun 2011 07:30 PM PDT
Well, let’s look. Let me start with a caveat here. I am not an economist. I’m not even much of a fan of math. What I will do is take a few reasonable assumptions and apply them to the plausible (thank you, Ace!) accounting method I used this morning. I am sure that the green eyeshade types could do better, but none of them are writing on my blog. So you’re stuck with me. Remember our starting number: $2,796,600,000,000. Now, let’s divide that by ten. I know at least two of the programs, Obamacare and the Tax Hike Prevention Act, extend to ten years. Others have multi-year projections as well, but I couldn’t nail down all the details. But, since none of them work out to more than ten years, that’s a good yardstick. It will also make the math easier and knocks down any accusation that I’m exaggerating to make the Democrats look worse than they already do. In fact, it fairly guarantees the number will be low.Once we divide that my ten, to get the per-year cost, we’ll multiply by 2.5, to match Wasserman-Schultz’ time frame. That gives us a whopping huge number: 699,150,000,000 or just a shade over 699 billion dollars in government spending on jobs over the last 2.5 years. What we need now is a good idea of what a private sector job costs these days. Fortunately, Chris Hayes of the Cato Institute did those calculations for us already, with the aid of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the BLS, the average compensation paid to a private sector worker in 2009 (the most recent year for which I could find solid numbers) was $61,051. Divide that into our per-year government expenditure number and we get… …Holy Crapweasel that’s a big number. If the Democrats has just left well enough alone, Americans business owners could have created at least 11,451,901 jobs in the same time Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi created 2.1 million. Think about how much better off we’d be right now if the Democrats hadn’t taken or mortgaged the money that would have created those jobs and spent it on discredited left-wing economic policies. Think about how hot our economy would be right now if we had hundreds of thousands of employers hanging out “help wanted” signs all over the country. Tim Pawlenty wants 5 percent economic growth each year? Ha. He’s aiming low. But wait. We’re not done. See, if the Democrats are to be believed, this money came from “the rich” who would doubtless spend a good chunk of it on stuff like money bins or butlers named Cadbury. So let’s assume “the rich” spent half of that money on Spruce Gooses (Geese?) and swimming pools full of caviar. That still leaves us over 5.7 million jobs to the good, well over twice the number that has Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ready to go to the mattresses. Booming economy? You bet! But wait again! These rich people the President keeps excoriating are truly C. Montgomery Burns-level evil, aren’t they? Let’s assume that they have hardly any interest in growing their businesses (which would make them even more money, but don’t tell the Democrats’ that, because it’ll make their heads ache a bit) and spend only a quarter out of every dollar they extract from the flesh of their employees on creating more employees to lash. That leaves us with about 2.9 million jobs, still more than the Democrats’ have created thus far. The upshot here is that we would be measurably better off if the Democrats had gone off for 2 1/2 years and played Parcheesi. The private sector would have created more jobs. We would have grown the economy far better than the occasional 3 percent a year we’ve gotten from Obamanomics. We would have invested, and spent, and saved and done all the things that have made our country a powerhouse. We can still do all of that, by the way. All we need is for the busybody Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to drag her party out of our way.  |
| The Post Where I Break Out Some Math on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Posted: 13 Jun 2011 12:32 PM PDT
What’s that? You think I’m wildly exaggerating? You don’t believe that she of the ego large enough to choke Galactus would ever suggest that the Democrats and Barack Obama have the economy going in the right direction. You don’t think a savvy operator would have the gumption to double down on a set of economic policies that wouldn’t work in a game of Sim City? Read on, friends. Read on.
There is so much cherry-picking, misdirection, and flat out fibbery in what Ms. Wasserman-Schultz said that I couldn’t possibly get it all into one blog post. I’m sure I’ll have ample opportunities to refute nearly every word, including the articles, over the next year since it’s become abundantly clear this is the Democrats’ plan to win the election in 2012. I’m glad, in a way. The talking points regurgitated by the DNC Chair are the same talking points used by the now-former Speaker of the House in the summer before she got beaten worse than any Speaker since the 1920s. They’ll be easy to knock down because they’ve been knocked down once before and our economic situation hasn’t gotten any better. In fact, unemployment has gotten a bit worse and our deficit has continued to rise like my blood pressure during a Washington Capitals playoff run. However, let me provide one little stat here, just for fun. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claims that Democrats have created 2.1 million private-sector jobs in 2 1/2 years and I’m willing to take her at her word for the next paragraph or so. But let’s look at how much of our money she and her comrades have spend to get that job increase. I understand, by the way, that I will likely leave out a few dozen billion dollars somewhere along that way. I’m not including the pre-Obama bailouts for Bear Stearns and Citigroup, the billions the Fed ponied up (since they are, at least on paper, not subject to the whims of either political party), or TARP I. I’ll just go with the big, basic programs I can remember since the Age of Obama began in January, 2009.
All those bills come to a grand total of 2,796,600,000,000, or almost 3 trillion dollars (and remember, I know I haven’t included everything). That’s how much of our money the Democrats have obligated to job-creation. Now, understand that much of that money has not been spent. Obamacare and parts of the So how much did Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her Merry Band of spend-happy Democrats pay for each one of those 2.1 million jobs she says they’ve created? A little division gives us the answer: $1,331,714.29 per job. Let me say that again. This administration has spent over one and one-quarter million dollars per job created in the past 2 1/2 years. And they’re proud of that? They want to hang their hat on that? Let me put this another way. There are, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13.9 million unemployed people looking for work in the United States. With the almost $3 trillion the Democrats have spent thus to create jobs thus far, they could have given each one of them $200,000 dollars with over $16 billion to spare. They could have given each of the 153.7 million people in the labor market right now $18,000 and would have saved us taxpayers $30 billion. But, hey. Far be it from me to suggest that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz find another strategy for 2012. I’m sure she’s very proud of the way she’s burning through out money to “turn this economy around”. Let her sing the praises of the Democrats’ left-wing economic plan to the highest heavens for the next 18 months. I’ll welcome the complete ruin it brings her and her party. Meanwhile, Republicans, I can’t help but notice I’ve provided you with a few useful numbers. You all think you could work them into a few speeches or campaign ads over the next few months? UPDATE: Thanks to James Pethokoukis, I added the December tax bill and adjusted the numbers accordingly. Ken Gardiner brought the Home Star “Cash for Caulkers” program to my attention. Though it hasn’t passed Congress, the Senate is likely to take it up this year. If passed, it’ll likely add $6 billion to the total. One note. A couple of the bills I included weren’t spending bills, but tax cut bills. Now, we conservatives believe that a tax cut isn’t actually a government expenditure — it costs taxpayers nothing to keep their own money. However, Democrats are adamant that any tax cut is a “tax expenditure” (or as the President called them this past April, “spending in the tax code”). Given that, I think it’s accurate to include them here.  |
In my last post, 
I’m sure Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, thinks she’s super-clever, but I don’t think the “Be thankful we got that foul Bush economy turned around” strategy is going to be a big winner in 2012.| You are subscribed to email updates from The Sundries Shack To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar