It’s an article of faith amongst Republicans that government can’t create jobs, and that cutting government spending will lead to job growth. Republicans even pushed the nation to the brink of a debt default in order to secure cuts in federal spending in 2010.

But with the consequences of that debt ceiling deal due to hit in January — at which point the so-called “sequester” will cut into both military and non-defense discretionary spending — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is seemingly having a change of heart. On Thursday he tweeted that the sequester would hurt federal spending in key areas, and thus kill jobs:

Earlier this week, Cantor was unable to name a single deal Republicans would be willing to make to prevent the slew of cuts — cuts that Cantor himself voted for. Plus, as the Bipartisan Policy Center reports, the House Republican budget that Cantor supported cuts “more than double the amount” of the sequester. This budget would sink domestic spending to its lowest level in 50 years. Meanwhile it prevents cuts to military spending already endorsed by military leaders.

This chart shows that the House Republican’s budget cuts non-defense spending dramatically. The “BCA+sequester” line is the path of non-defense discretionary spending under both the debt ceiling deal (the Budget Control Act and its sequester), while the light blue line is the Republican budget:

The Federal Reserve today announced another round of so called quantitative easing — QE3 — aimed at boosting the sluggish economy. Republicans have been warning the central bank against launching new measures, arguing that to do so would ignite inflation. However, inflation has been nearly nonexistent, Republicans concede that the Fed’s actions could help economic growth.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been saying that the Fed should stay away from any new measures. In a statement following the Fed’s announcement, the Romney campaign called the central bank’s move “artificial and ineffective“:

The Federal Reserve’s announcement of a third round of quantitative easing is further confirmation that President Obama’s policies have not worked. After four years of stagnant growth, falling incomes, rising costs, and persistently high unemployment, the American economy doesn’t need more artificial and ineffective measures. We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars. As president, Mitt Romney will enact bold, pro-growth policies that lead to robust job creation, higher take-home pay, and a true economic recovery.

The Fed estimates that the first two rounds of quantitative easing created about two million jobs. Romney’s economic plan, meanwhile, would kill 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone.

The U.S. is still struggling to claw out of the hole created by the Great Recession, the Wall Street-caused crisis that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs. According to a new report from Better Markets, a pro-financial reform organization, the crisis cost Americans about $12.8 trillion in lost economic output:

– Estimated actual gross domestic product (“GDP”) loss from 2008 to 2018, of $7.6 trillion. This is the cumulative difference between potential GDP — what GDP would have been but for the financial and economic crises– and actual and forecast GDP during the period.

– Estimated avoided GDP loss from 2008 to 2012 of $5.2 trillion. This figure is the estimated additional amount of GDP loss that was prevented only by extraordinary fiscal and monetary policy actions. It is derived from the model-based estimate of Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi of $6.9 trillion, less $1.7 trillion in adjustments. (Because the Blinder/Zandi simulation ends in 2012, it does not include any avoided losses for the 2013-2018 period. For example, the effects of any ongoing or additional crisis-related monetary policy—such as Federal Reserve purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities—will continue past 2012.)

The shaded area in this chart represents the gap between what GDP would have been were it not for the financial crisis and the path that growth actually took.

As Better Markets added, “There are millions of Americans and perhaps tens of millions of Americans who will never regain their earnings, educations, skills, and trainings that they lost during and as a result of the crises. This is, obviously, terrible for those individuals, but it also damages the entire country as our potential GDP is far lower than it otherwise would be if this human capital had not been destroyed.”

Despite this huge loss of output, Republicans are still intent on preventing the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, instead preferring that banks be allowed to go right back to the behavior that led directly to the Great Recession.

In a congressional hearing Thursday, Continental Resources CEO and Mitt Romney’s chief energy adviser Harold Hamm asked to preserve the oil industry’s billions in tax breaks, although his company pays little in federal taxes. The oil firm has earned more than $1.8 billion profit over five years by dominating the oil shale boom in North Dakota.

In his prepared testimony, Hamm defends tax breaks by pointing to his own company, saying, “Continental’s effective tax rate is 38%!” But according to Citizens for Tax Justice, Continental paid an average 2.2 percent tax rate, or $40 million, over five years.

Hamm claims a higher tax rate by including deferred taxes the company hasn’t paid. It’s a popular tactic, used by oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute. CTJ shows that Continental Resources has paid federal income taxes as low as 0.1 percent in the last five years:

While oil executives complain that they are “the highest taxed industry,” in reality, the two most profitable oil corporations pay less taxes than the average American. Hamm stands to financially benefit from Romney’s policies, which preserves tax breaks for oil companies and may even allow drilling in national parks.

The tax cut package recently passed by Kansas Republicans and signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback (R) will lower taxes for the rich while creating a budget shortfall that will harm poor Kansans and children, according to a local advocacy group’s latest report.

Kansas Action For Children said the $2.5 billion shortfall caused by Brownback’s tax cut plan, which was too radical even for some members of his own party, will cause cuts to “core services” that help the poor and children, even as Brownback insists it won’t, the Lawrence Journal World reports:

Kansas Action for Children stated the cuts will reduce revenues for necessary state services, increase taxes on the lowest-income Kansans, and incent businesses to reorganize to avoid paying state income taxes.

“Ultimately, the package of tax changes enacted by lawmakers will negatively impact Kansas children and families in a number of ways,” the group said in its report. [...]

The group notes that legislative staff have said the state budget will face a cumulative $2.5 billion shortfall of revenue, equal to 37.4 percent of the state general fund budget. Brownback has said “core services” will be protected but Kansas Action for Children said “it is difficult to envision a scenario where core services are not negatively impacted.”

Brownback’s plan eliminated a food tax break for low-income Kansans and other tax credits that benefit children and the poor, all to give the wealthiest Kansans more than $20,000 per year in tax breaks. Taxes on the poorest residents will go up nearly $150 a year, according to the Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The plan is likely to cause cuts to education and other social services that help the poor, even though Brownback and the Republicans who voted for it insist it will actually stimulate the economy and drive job growth. That is unlikely though, as another study published this week found that high-income tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy.

The Federal Reserve Board will wrap up its latest meeting today and may announce a new round of efforts to boost sluggish job growth. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke estimates that the first two rounds of so-called quantitative easing increased employment by about two millions jobs.

Republicans have consistently criticized the Fed’s QE programs, claiming that the central bank would spark inflation (even though inflation has been near-nonexistent). Many GOP’ers, in fact, have said that the Fed should ignore its mandate to produce full employment entirely, and only monitor inflation. According to The Hill, some Republicans believe that the Fed should do nothing more to help create jobs, even as they admit that such steps would be effective:

Congressional Republicans, wary of the Fed’s recent efforts to stimulate the recovery, said Wednesday that the its political independence could be jeopardized if officials embark on another round of stimulus so close to Election Day.

“It really is interesting that it is happening right now before an election,” said Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho). “It is going to sow some growth in the economy, and the Obama administration is going to claim credit.” [...]

While many Republicans have criticized the Fed on economic grounds, an announcement about new stimulus — which could send financial markets soaring in the run-up to the election — is likely to bring charges that the bank has partisan aims.

“They are the ones who always say they want to remain independent. So they should consider, just how independent are they when they come out, only 50 days before the election, with this?” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.).

The upshot of these comments is that Republicans believe the Fed can do more to help Americans suffering under still-high unemployment, but that it shouldn’t because to do so might help the Obama administration.

For several years now, the Fed has hit its inflation target while utterly failing in its mandate to reduce unemployment, even as some members of the central bank have argued for the Fed to do more. “If there’s a slowdown and you have an independent central bank, the appropriate response is to act. I think that’s exactly what we should do,” said Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren. But Republicans, for political purposes, want the Fed to stand pat, so they can continue to blast the administration’s jobs record (and block the president’s jobs bill).