Gene Sperling – one of the Obama’s economic hacks – has an editorial in today’s WSJ trying to defend the “pass it now” Jobs Bill.
First, he argues that
“It provides a strong and immediate boost to demand that could create up to 1.9 million jobs, increase growth by up to 2%, and lower unemployment, according to independent economists such as Moody’s Analytics.
First, note that the administration has at least learned a lesson re: setting benchmarks. The squirrely “up to” is a maximum, not a minimum. So, the result can be anything less than those benchmarks and they can declare success. Huh? I wish my pay-for-performance targets had been “up to a 2 point share gain”. I would have gotten rich.
Second, I like the phrase “such as Moody’s Analytics”. Obama has been saying “all economists agree”. Based on SAT training, we all know that “all” is usually not the answer. The only economist I’ve seen on record is Mark Zandi at Moody’s. He’s the guy who said the first stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%. And, oh yeah, one of Moody’s biggest shareholder’s is Warren Buffett. Coincidence?
Sperling also argues that the provisions of the Jobs Bill are “specifically designed to take on the problem of long-term unemployment.” It includes:
- A tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed and veterans
- A ban on hiring discrimination against the unemployed
- Major reforms to our unemployment-insurance system, including wage insurance to assist workers whose new job pays less than their old
- A “Bridge to Work” program to help the unemployed reconnect with the labor force through temporary work
- Job-search assistance for all long-term unemployed
- Support for unemployed workers looking to become entrepreneurs.
Some on these provisions are laudable – at least on the surface. I don’t think anybody is against helping veterans, or providing job search assistance.
Bot others are questionable. For example, take the provision that would give those claiming discrimination a right to sue, and violators would face fines of up to $1,000 per day, plus attorney fees and costs.
Why do we need that?
Sperling says “the National Employment Legal Program recently found, in a span of four weeks, over 150 Internet job postings that include “do not apply” notices discriminating against those who are currently unemployed.”
Oh my God — 150 evil posting in a month … out of the gazillion web postings each month Statistically insignificant – and certainly not worth another slew of frivolous law suits. Cue the trial lawyers.
And, if your new job pays less, taxpayers will make up the difference?
Who thinks this stuff up?
The Homa Files 