Note to U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Bush cut taxes but didn’t create jobs

You have to give business executives credit for their gall. They held a “jobs summit” yesterday demanding that President Obama cut taxes and pare back government regulations. If he does those things, they’ll create more jobs. Led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they accuse the Obama administration of creating an anti-business climate that has dampened job creation.
What sheer and utter nonsense!
The eight years of George W. Bush gave us a perfect study of the consequences of a government policy that cut taxes and pared back regulations. Bush cut taxes sharply, mostly benefitting the rich. And he put people in charge of government regulations who didn’t believe in government regulations. As a result, we have had mines to collapse; an oil rig to explode, sink and spew oil; toys with lead paint; cribs that kill babies, and on and on.
But what about jobs? Cutting taxes and loosening regulations led to more jobs, right? Absolutely not.

The Washington Post

The Washington Post

From the WaPo, Jan. 2010:

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation’s growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism — there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 — and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households — the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts — has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

“This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone’s well-being,” said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Obama’s policies haven’t yet managed to do enough to bring the unemployment rate down. But between his actions, Congressional moves such as the stimulus package and aggressive intervention by the Federal Reserve, the economy has stopped its dangerous slide toward the abyss.As Matt Miller put in yesterday’s WaPo:

The Dow closed at 7,949 the day Obama was sworn in. This week it’s above 10,300. The economy shed 779,000 jobs in January 2009. Eighteen months later we’re fretting because the private sector “only” added 83,000 jobs in June. Back then, the banking system was on the verge of collapse. Now banks are set to report solid earnings.

Are we fully out of the woods? No. Does Obama deserve all the credit for the progress we’ve made? No again. But he deserves his share. And business leaders can’t deny that compared to where we were, today’s problems are great problems to have.

Carping CEOs may mean well. But too many confuse Obama’s necessary “crisis management” with “creeping socialism.”

Businesses aren’t creating jobs because of “excess capacity.” In other words, they don’t have any customers for their goods and services. That’s because customers are broke — either out of work or trying to pay off their debts from the spending binge of the last decade.
Here’s the truth of the matter, no matter what the Chamber of Commerce says:

Some analysts said it may be hard to create policy that compels companies to use some of their cash to hire workers. “CEOs don’t like taking risks. They kind of move in packs,” said Zachary Karabell, president of River Twice Research.

“There’s not a whole lot that you could do to entice companies to hire,” he added. “You could cut taxes on them, but they’re not going to hire just because they have the extra cash, because they already have the extra cash.”

391 comments Add your comment

Peadawg

July 15th, 2010
8:02 am

“Bush cut taxes but didn’t create jobs”

And neither has Obama(unless you count all the census hires/re-hires).

some guy

July 15th, 2010
8:13 am

Note to U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Obama Dislikes Small Business

Small business the engine of the American economy is not feeling the love with the extra regulation, taxes, and general uncertainty of what the Obama administration will do next.

The Chamber also wrote an open letter to the White House that stated that “Uncertainty is the enemy of growth, investment, and job creation. Through their legislative and regulatory proposals — some passed, some pending, and others simply talked about — the congressional majority and the administration have injected tremendous uncertainty into economic decision making and business planning. This is why banks are reluctant to lend and why American corporations are sitting on well over a trillion dollars. It is why America’s small businesses and entrepreneurs, the engines of innovation and job creation, are starving for capital and are either struggling to survive or unable to expand.”

The letter urges Democrats to create a “Growth and Jobs Tax Policy”; restore fiscal health; expand trade and exports; rebuild and expand US infrastructure; and ease the regulatory burden.

Sick of Dems

July 15th, 2010
8:21 am

If Bush’s Tax Cuts didn’t create jobs then why was unemployment 4.4% under Bush and over 10% well 17% if you count people who quit looking under Obama

RJ

July 15th, 2010
8:25 am

Some guy,

“Small business the engine of the American economy is not feeling the love with the extra regulation, taxes, and general uncertainty of what the Obama administration will do next.”

First of all, small businesses dont pay taxes. Not the ones run by intelligent people anyways. Know that christmas bonus? The point of it is to bring the taxable income of the business down to zero.

Regulation (hate to break it to you) creates a ton of jobs. Just look at the crazy tax code which spawns the entire accounting industry, and the building codes which create the need for tons of engineering jobs and maintain public safety. Most of these jobs are in the private sector.

If there’s one thing small businesses are not feeling the love from, it’s not worrying about the President. If a business is hinging on what any President does, they deserve to go broke. It’s the decrease in demand resulting from people losing all their money in the stock market as a result of the government not doing their regulating job.

I’m not saying that Obama is doing anything to improve matters. He could go the Clinton/Kennedy/Reagan route and try to calm the consumers instead of spending into oblivion. But he doesn’t deserve the blame for a terrible economy.

Sam (The Cool 1 )

July 15th, 2010
8:27 am

Bottomline we got to keep some of our money. Raise taxes, cutting taxes may not create jobs. But raising taxes takes money out of our pockets. Cutting taxes puts money in our pockets. Even the Cisco Kid can figure that out. What a guy!

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 15th, 2010
8:33 am

Thanks for the red herring, CT, but our President Bush has been out of office for quite some time now.

At this point in his presidency, our President Reagan had done all the right things to get Carter’s failed economy turned around and we went on a nearly uninterrupted 20 year run of economic prosperity. At this point in the Idiot Messiah’s administration, he’s doing all the wrong things and we’re headed for the toilet.

Heckuva job, Barry!

Martin

July 15th, 2010
8:35 am

Cynthia, I have to disagree with your premise but I want to agree with one point of yours, I’m not anti-regulation. I think we need some regulations to ensure businesses, large or small play by the rules and keep the consumer and worker safe. But I disagree on your opinion on the tax cuts. You say that the “Bush” tax cuts mostly benefited the rich because it lowered the highest tax rate from 39 to 34 percent. But I want to add something having experience in small businesses by owning one and working for one. All the small businesses I’ve ever worked for file their taxes on their social security number. So stating that, say a small business owner has 2 million in sales. He files all sales as income on his taxes, has to. Does that make him rich? That owner doesn’t keep all two million, out of it he has to pay his employees, all inventory, all equipment he uses, all fees, and the property he uses to run his business. He is also responsible for all payroll taxes he pays his employees. So if you take more income away from him via the income tax, that is less money for him to pay employees and all other obligations. What do you think the small business owner will do, he has to cut something, Most are good people and they’ll try to cut other expenses but he may in the long run have to cut an employee, this largest expense to ensure he is able to support his own family. So lower taxes are good for small business owners. The highest tax bracket doesn’t just hit the millionaires of America, It hits the small business guy as well.

Honestly, we need to look at scraping the IRS anyway or reforming it tremendously. I’m no communist but I really believe that the IRS tax code benefits only those who have the ability to influence tax policies. And I think that the beneficiaries of that are those who are truly very wealthy. Plus smart, crooked people have figured out how to hide their assets, and that list would include liberals who feel that they are entitled to their wealth and will hide it at all cost.

Granny Godzilla

July 15th, 2010
8:37 am

Well let’s see…..Tax cuts don’t increase revenues and don’t create jobs and it’s okee dokee to increase the deficit with them.

Sounds kinda’ republicanish to me.

pat

July 15th, 2010
8:39 am

Leftist media tactic, present so much bad info, one simply doesn’t have the time to refute line by line. This was so bad I don’t even know where to begin….Wait for it..Bush Tax cuts caused the oil disaster!!! LOL!!! OMG!!! LOL!!!!

That was truly funny…

Kamchak

July 15th, 2010
8:42 am

If Bush’s Tax Cuts didn’t create jobs then why was unemployment 4.4% under Bush and over 10% well 17% if you count people who quit looking under Obama

Well seeing that unemployment was at or below 4% when Bushiepoo took office, and 9.7% when he left office, I’d say that 4.4% that you are crowing about doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Fix

July 15th, 2010
8:45 am

Hmmm….let’s see. According to the Labor Department’s own website they say Bush created millions of jobs. But the Communist Post, I mean “Washington” Post and CT say he didn’t. Which one to believe….

Shawny

July 15th, 2010
8:46 am

“As a result, we have had mines to collapse; an oil rig to explode, sink and spew oil; toys with lead paint; cribs that kill babies, and on and on.”

I love it. Bush caused China to put lead paint in their toys. Bush caused manufacturers of cribs to kill babies.

OMG

Shawny

July 15th, 2010
8:47 am

Quit looking backward and look forward. Regardless of what has transpired, always consider what needs to be done now.

just pathetic

July 15th, 2010
8:49 am

Bush’s unemployment never got above about 6%. Not only has Obama altered how unemployment is calculated (now not including the long-term unemployed) but he has still managed to get unemployment up to 10%. The actual number is more like 15% had they not changed the calculations to benefit the big eared Messiah.

Scout

July 15th, 2010
8:50 am

Note to Cynthia:

Hummmmm …………………… let the games begin !

Headline: “9 more states wade into immigration fight.”

“A coalition backing Arizona’s tough new law files a legal brief and calls Obama’s actions “appalling.”

Big Mac

July 15th, 2010
8:52 am

Actually from the end of the dot comm/ 9-11 recession (2002) to the beginning of the current recession (2008), plenty of jobs were created in conjunction with the Bush tax cuts. And you can count on the fact that more jobs will be lost when the current administration and congress lets them expire soon.

The bigger issue though is that technology advances and globalization has made it much easier to put private sector jobs where comparative advantages are best. That means that many jobs, much of them blue collar labor jobs have been permanently lost to other areas of the world where labor is cheaper, regulations are fewer, unions don’t dictate productivity, taxes rates are lower, and health care and other benefits are not company burdens. These jobs may never return. Unfortunately, the current policies and trends of our government are all private sector job killers (see the previous sentence and judge those factors for yourself).

Public sector (government) job growth, of course, has none of these factors. But while private sector job growth is key to a healthy economy, public sector job growth is a burden. Yet, for political reasons, we get fed stats lumping these two together and continue to push policies that kill private jobs and add public jobs. There’s nothing on the table now to reverse that.

Paul Whiteley Sr.

July 15th, 2010
8:58 am

What about all the American jobs sent overseas by greedy, corporate CEOs? The CEOs willingly accept and expect to receive corporate welfare, but bitterly oppose welfare for the poor and an extension of jobless benefits for the unemployed. The poor and jobless get blamed for their plight, but they are not at fault for the jobs sent abroad and for current high unemployment figures. The only thing Republicans have to offer is tax cuts for the rich. George W. Bush’s eight years as president proved tax cuts don’t work for those most in need of a good job. When the CEOs say they will create more jobs when they get their tax cuts, that is an example of holding the government hostage. The bottom line cause of most of America’s economic problems is EVIL GREED!

Gator Joe

July 15th, 2010
9:01 am

Cynthia,
I believe President Obama, his administration, and the Democratically controlled congress deserve more credit than criticism with regard to the economy. Economic conditions and unemployment, as bad as it is, would have been far worse, had the Republicans taken over the White House or Congress, as recent history demonstrates. Under the recent Republican administration and congress, as you correctly point out, economic policies, lax (or no) regulation, deficit spending (declared and undeclared) created this recession. The Republicans, instead of offering new constructive ideas, have offered nothing but obstruction and propaganda.

Worse yet, they [Republicans] refuse to take responsibility for creating the economic mess our country is in. It is ok for the Republicans to be critical, it is their right, but without contrition and a genuine willingness to be a part of the solution for the problems facing our country, their rhetoric is truly hollow.

PS
Granny, well stated!

I'm here from the government and I'm here to help

July 15th, 2010
9:04 am

Next time let’s hire a President who has had a JOB. Or at least ran a lemon-aide stand. Wake up Americans!
BTW, how many jobs have you created?

Shawny

July 15th, 2010
9:05 am

OMG. Corporations send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper. When we push for a minimum wage of over $7 an hour for a non-skilled job, it becomes too expensive. If the corporations do not do what is cheaper, then they can’t compete in a global marketplace. Foreign companies that make products cheaper can sell them cheaper and if we keep the non-skilled jobs here, for instance, then companies that do so go out of business.
It isn’t about greed. It is about survival.

Regarding tax cuts… let the 15% tax rate on stock sale profits go back up and many many shares will be sold prior to the end of the year, driving down the DOW and businesses ability to invest, innovate, and create. Watch it happen.

Bob

July 15th, 2010
9:05 am

Cynthia Tucker is an idiot. Please write about something that is actually relevant. Also, I saw another comment that corporations are “greedy” and that they send jobs overseas. Well, it wouldn’t be that way if the atmosphere here in this country was completely anti-business.

more craziness

July 15th, 2010
9:05 am

While in reality millions of jobs were created when Bush had a Republican Congress. Magically though job growth, and the economy, started to decline in 2007 when the Dems took over. Imagine that.

Granny Godzilla

July 15th, 2010
9:06 am

Gator Joe

Aw, shucks.

RJ

July 15th, 2010
9:08 am

“But raising taxes takes money out of our pockets. Cutting taxes puts money in our pockets.”

Sam,

I’m not buying that. Tell that to anyone that was paying a college tuition or buying perscription medication when the fist Bush tax cuts went through. You saw prices skyrocket all over the place. The tax cuts put $300 in one pocket, but you got an additional $3000 taken out of another. Depending on how tax money is spent, your overall expenses can go way down.

The problem our government has is their inability to tax and spend in an optimal fashion.

Big Mac

July 15th, 2010
9:11 am

Large corporations are global not American. Coke and GE for example get more revenue and profit from their overseas operations. They have an obligation to shareholders to put jobs where they are most productive. They are not “American” jobs. The best way to create local jobs is to support small business which doesn’t seem to be the focus of obama and congress. The best way to keep large corporate jobs in the U.S. is to to cut corporate tax rates and mandatory labor burdens.

__________________________

What about all the American jobs sent overseas by greedy, corporate CEOs?

jerry

July 15th, 2010
9:12 am

It’s quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don’t even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine.

If a party claims they have the moral high ground, they can get most all the hillbilly vote.

The umemployment rate in October 2009 was over 10% according to U.S. Labor Statistics, regardless of what these hillbillies post on this blog.

Hootinanny Yum Yum

July 15th, 2010
9:16 am

CT writes, “Bush cut taxes sharply, mostly benefitting the rich.”

Define “rich”.

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:16 am

Shawny, The reason for looking back is to consider what worked and what didn’t. Cutting taxes obviously didn’t work.

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:17 am

Bush regulators didn’t crack down on those matters, Shawny.

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:18 am

Fix, Please point me to the Labor Department Web item that says “Bush created millions of jobs.” Everyone else says those jobs had disappeared by the time Bush left office.

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:19 am

Martin, It’s not my “opinion” that the tax cuts didn’t create jobs. It’s a fact that job creation netted out between 2000 and 2008 was zero. Many people want to believe tax cuts create jobs. But it didn’t happen.

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:20 am

Sick of Dems, When Obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate was nearing 8 percent.

Hootinanny Yum Yum

July 15th, 2010
9:21 am

CT writes (regarding Bush), “And he put people in charge of government regulations who didn’t believe in government regulations. As a result, we have had mines to collapse; an oil rig to explode, sink and spew oil; toys with lead paint; cribs that kill babies, and on and on.”

Are you implying that prior to Bush we didn’t have mines collapse; oil rigs to explode, sink and spew oil; toys with lead paint; cribs that kill babies, and on and on?

I expect we can find instances of these type situations prior to Bush; involving administrations lead by both parties.

But, seeing as Bush is the Anti-Christ. I fully understand your post.

Illegal?

July 15th, 2010
9:24 am

Yes and Obama will raise taxes and creat more government jobs. The nation contines to slide down into the pit.

I'm here from the government and I'm here to help

July 15th, 2010
9:29 am

ctucker, you lose credibility instantly when you play the blame game. Can the past be changed? So stop trying! Try to deal with the cards in your hand today. Then we can hope to change the greatest country in the world. Will you join me?

Hootinanny Yum Yum

July 15th, 2010
9:29 am

Jerry is using the term Hillbilly in some of his posts. According to the Urban dictionary, Hillbilly is a racial slur against whites.

Why is it okay to hurl racial slurs against whites on CT blogs?

Hillbilly defined by the urban dictionary -

Often used as an insult and racial slur against White folks who live in the country. A hillbilly is a person who lives in a remote, rural area in the South, often in the Appalachian (Or sometimes Ozark) Mountains and therefore is isolated and somewhat out of touch with modern culture. The stereotype of a hillbilly is a person who: Is a White Southerner who owns a shotgun, goes barefoot, wears a worn out floppy hat, drinks moonshine and whiskey which he makes himself, plays the banjo or fiddle, drives old beat up pick up trucks, has bad teeth, is poorly educated, has long a beard, wears worn out clothes and hand me downs, and is happy and content with what they have. Just because someone is a hillbilly doesn’t mean that they fit the hillbilly stereotype listed above. Contrary to some of the other entries, hillbillies don’t live in trailer parks; they can’t otherwise they wouldn’t be isolated from modern culture and therefore would not be a hillbilly. They don’t eat road kill; many are actually farmers and hunt for their food, they don’t pick it off the side of the road. Also, hillbillies don’t go around sodomizing people, that is a fictional movie Deliverance which has contributed too many of the negative stereotypes.

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:29 am

Shawny, People are in love with the idea that tax cuts will create jobs. If that’s so, what happened in the fall of 2008?

andygrd

July 15th, 2010
9:31 am

President Obama is no friend to Small Businesses, Minority , and Woman owned business. President Obama repealed an Executive Order issued by President Bush, that allowed greater accesses to Federal Project Work. President Obama repealed the Executive Order because it placed Small Businesses on an equal footing with the “Unions”. When President Bush issued the Executive Order, the Democrats and Unions fought against, because it broke a Union stronghold on Federal Projects. I know, you don’t believe me, but see below:
In today’s Federal Register is the final rule, “Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2009-005, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects.” The rule directs federal agencies to favor PLAs on federal building projects, agreements that will increase the costs of taxpayer-funded construction while extending the reach and resources of organized labor. Sure, just what’s needed for a construction industry where one out of four workers is unemployed.
The final rule fleshes out one of President Obama’s first executive orders, Executive Order 13502, issued Feb. 6, 2009, which revoked President Bush’s 2001 executive order which required neutrality toward PLAs. Thus, no longer will PLAs be judged on their merits; the presumption in federal contracting policy is that they are a good thing.
Tell that to the taxpayer. As the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University reported last September:
By their nature, PLAs are anti-competitive since they discourage open shop firms (Small Businesses) from bidding in the first place. Previous research from the Institute has shown that PLAs add 12-18% to construction costs. Over the course of the Bush Administration, the federal government spent $147.1 billion on federal construction projects. Of that $147.1 billion, approximately $60 billion would have been subjected to President Obama’s Executive Order encouraging the use of PLAs.
Moreover, had President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 been in effect in 2008, and all federal construction projects worth $25 million or more been subject to PLAs, the cost to federal taxpayers would have increased by $1.6 to $2.6 billion.
ABC strongly opposes government-mandated project labor agreements (PLAs) on public construction projects.

Anti-competitive project labor agreements (PLAs) are special interest schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on public works projects. PLAs drive up the cost of construction by reducing competition and effectively excluding merit shop contractors and their skilled employees from building projects paid for by their own tax dollars.

Typical PLAs are pre-hire contracts that require projects be awarded only to contractors and subcontractors that agree to:
• recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job
• use the union hiring hall to obtain workers
• obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs
• pay into underfunded and mismanaged union benefit plans
• obey costly, restrictive and inefficient union work rules

In the end, government-mandated PLAs prevent taxpayers from getting the best possible product at the best possible price.
The Philadelphia Inquirer published an Op-Ed by ABC member Richard Lombardo, president and CEO of Harkins Builders, a general contractor with offices in Pennsylvania and Maryland, about the the April 13 final rule implementing President Obama’s pro-project labor agreement (PLA) Executive Order 13502 that encourages federal agencies to steer lucrative federal construction contracts to union-signatory construction companies (“Ruling will hurt construction,” 5/11/10).
Mr. Lombardo explains what PLAs (anti-competitive schemes that benefit Big Labor at the expense of taxpayers) mean to nonunion employees and their employers:
The Great Recession has taken its toll on the U.S. economy, and the construction industry has been hit the hardest. Almost one-quarter of all construction workers are unemployed, and despite the infusion of infrastructure spending by the 2009 stimulus package, construction businesses and their employees are still struggling.
Rather than helping, a final rule released April 13 by the Obama administration encourages the government to put its foot on the throat of nonunion federal contractors and their employees.
The rule implementing President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 will deny qualified contractors and their skilled employees a fair shot at federal projects.
In addition, the rules, which take effect May 12, end accountability for taxpayers by eliminating competitive bidding on public projects. Contracts no longer will be awarded based on quality and price; rather, they will be awarded based on whether a contractor signs a collective bargaining agreement with unions through a project labor agreement (PLA).
Executive Order 13502 pushes federal agencies to mandate the use of anticompetitive PLAs on federal contracts costing more than $25 million. With PLAs, labor for construction projects must be supplied by union hiring halls, nonunion employees must pay union dues, and contractors must adhere to inefficient union work rules and contribute to union benefit and pension plans on behalf of employees.
This order discourages competition from nonunion contractors by shackling them with added costs and requirements that harm their nonunion employees.
For example, PLAs typically force employers to pay benefits into union-managed plans, but employees will never see the benefits unless they join a union and become vested in these plans. Under a PLA, employers that offer their own benefits, including health and pension plans, often continue to pay for existing programs while also paying into union plans.
An October 2009 report by Dr. John R. McGowan of St. Louis University found that had Order 13502 applied to federal contracts in 2008, additional costs incurred by employers related to wasteful PLA pension requirements likely would have ranged from $230 million to $767 million. Lost wages for nonunion construction workers would have ranged from $184 million to more than $613 million. In total, McGowan estimates that the Obama order encouraging PLAs would have cost nonunion workers and their employers $414 million to more than $1.38 billion in 2008. These calculations would be similar in 2010 and beyond.
Unions represent only 14.5 percent of the industry, with the remaining 85.5 percent of the workforce choosing not to belong to a union. Penalizing so many to reward so few is bad public policy.
Instead of choosing favorites, the administration should create fair and open competition for all members of an industry already struggling with nearly 25 percent unemployment. Doing so will stimulate competition, which means taxpayers get the best product at the best price.
Contractors who perform public construction projects – like Mr. Lombardo – have a lot at stake in the PLA controversy at all levels of government, especially considering the fact that Pennsylvania government is doing all that it can to push state construction contracts to Big Labor via PLAs, as we have documented numerous times here.
Pennsylvania taxpayers and stakeholders interested in limiting PLAs and ensuring fairness in contracting are encouraged to urge their elected officials to support House Bill 2010, the Open Contracting Act, introduced by Reps. Stan Saylor (R-York) and John Bear (R-Lancaster). This bill would prohibit government-mandated PLAs on PA and PA-funded construction projects. You can learn more about this legislation and the campaign to support this legislation here.
If you are concerned about federal PLAs, call or write your senators and representative and ask them to co-sponsor the Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (S. 90/H.R. 983).

ctucker

July 15th, 2010
9:32 am

Big Mac, That’s the point: All those jobs disappeared during the current recession, when taxes were still low.

Big Mac

July 15th, 2010
9:32 am

CT, The tax cuts weren’t in effect for all eight years. How do you get a direct coorelation?

Recessions happen and it’s fair to incorporate the good with the bad. But from the end of the last recession in 2002 and the beginning of the current recession in Q1 or Q2 2008, a period where the tax cuts were in effect the whole time, were jobs up or down?

_____________________________________

Martin, It’s not my “opinion” that the tax cuts didn’t create jobs. It’s a fact that job creation netted out between 2000 and 2008 was zero. Many people want to believe tax cuts create jobs. But it didn’t happen.

Peadawg

July 15th, 2010
9:35 am

“Cutting taxes obviously didn’t work.”

And how’s the spending-like-a-mad-man plan working out for Obama now?

Hootinanny Yum Yum

July 15th, 2010
9:39 am

I’ve asked three simple questions of C T. She or her moderator has addressed others, but not these.

1. Define “rich”?

2. Are you implying that prior to Bush we didn’t have mines collapse; oil rigs to explode, sink and spew oil; toys with lead paint; cribs that kill babies, and on and on?

3. Why is it okay to hurl racial slurs against whites on CT blogs?

Avenger

July 15th, 2010
9:44 am

Scout. What about Cynthia’s data. If Obama is not working for you and the GOP in charge for the last decade of cutting taxes and lack regulation (which your crowd seems to love) didn’t create jobs – what difference would it make if the GOP gains power again.

Kamchak

July 15th, 2010
9:49 am

Correction to my 8:42

Unemployment was 7.6% in January 2009.

:oops:

Avenger

July 15th, 2010
9:49 am

Hoot. “Why is it okay to hurl racial slurs against whites on CT blogs” Are you one of these double talkers that see only what you want to see. Just about every day Ms Tucker is call a racist by double talkers on this blog.

Some People are stupid

July 15th, 2010
9:51 am

RJ

July 15th, 2010
8:25 am
Some guy,

“Small business the engine of the American economy is not feeling the love with the extra regulation, taxes, and general uncertainty of what the Obama administration will do next.”

First of all, small businesses dont pay taxes. Not the ones run by intelligent people anyways. Know that christmas bonus? The point of it is to bring the taxable income of the business down to zero.

Regulation (hate to break it to you) creates a ton of jobs. Just look at the crazy tax code which spawns the entire accounting industry, and the building codes which create the need for tons of engineering jobs and maintain public safety. Most of these jobs are in the private sector.

Post of the day

I'm here from the government and I'm here to help

July 15th, 2010
9:51 am

ctucker, if you “really” believe in paying more taxes, you can change your W-4 today to donate all your income to the feds. I’ll lay 1000 to 1 that you don’t. If you choose not to change your W-4, then you’re all talk and no action.

Any takers?

Some People are stupid

July 15th, 2010
9:55 am

Martin-
There is a difference between sales and income…sales(revenue)does not translate to your tax return, income does(revenue minus expenses) So the example with 2 million in sales, if they had 1.8 million in expenses,then only 200k goes on the tax return

Mr Charlie

July 15th, 2010
9:55 am

Your right CT, business leaders do now know ANYTHING about how to run businesses and Create jobs. But, Obama knows how do to it, cause Obama knows everything.

Pandora

July 15th, 2010
9:57 am

Nonsense! Only the partisan and the dumb believe that raising taxes creates jobs. thucker’S liberalism is bankrupt and has been for a generation.