ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

House Republican Plan For 2008 Spending Levels Could Cost Almost 600,000 Jobs

By Pat Garofalo on Jan 25, 2011 at 6:30 pm

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Today, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution granting House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) the ability to unilaterally set non-defense discretionary spending, at least in the eyes of the House, at the 2008 level (while conveniently punting any specific spending cuts until later in the process). Every Republican (along with 17 Democrats) voted in favor of the resolution.

This vote, of course, comes on the heels of a campaign which the Republicans made “where are the jobs?” their mantra. As I noted earlier, they followed up that campaign by bringing multiple pieces of legislation to the floor that had nothing to do with job creation, while proposing to cut job training programs. But the discretionary spending cut they voted for today would be even worse for job creation.

In fact, as the Economic Policy Institute calculated, “making these cuts to the discretionary budget would reduce the number of jobs available significantly,” to the tune of almost 600,000:

Okun’s rule of thumb states that when gross domestic product (GDP) declines, there is a correlating increase in unemployment. A $60 billion cut, when assigned a fiscal multiplier of 1.5, would impact GDP by roughly $90 billion for the rest of this fiscal year alone. This would result in a decline in output by a little more than one-half of a percentage point of GDP, resulting in a loss of around 590,000 jobs.

“While the GOP leadership has been busy labeling many of the opposing party’s initiatives as ‘job-killing,’ their very own proposal to cut discretionary spending for the rest of this fiscal year would have a very clear negative impact not only on important social programs, but also on our jobs picture,” wrote EPI’s Rebecca Thiess. The Republican Study Committee, in which 175 House Republicans claim membership, has released an even more destructive plan, which would cut discretionary spending back to the 2006 level and hold it there until 2021 (the RSC’s plan also, conveniently, leaves most of the specific cuts to be identified at a later date).

In addition to the lost jobs, these cuts would hack into important and popular programs that are important to long-term economic development, like Pell Grants. As the Center for American Progress’ Adam Hersh wrote, “budget policy requires careful attention to the country’s immediate economic needs — securing the economic recovery and creating jobs for the nearly 15 million people unemployed and looking for work — while ensuring we make the investments necessary for America’s long-run competitiveness and economic prosperity.” With today’s vote, the House Republicans accomplished neither.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Jan 25, 2011 at 6:15 pm

You can say what you like:

— Health insurance saves lives.

— Time for the Palin apologists to let go.

— Michael Lind hates Star Wars, is history’s greatest monster.

— Ross Douthat stands up for Barack Obama’s trite platitudes and I agree.

— Presidential speeches matter less than they used to thanks to cable.

I’m feeling fake patriotic thanks to the State of the Union, so here’s New Model Army’s “51st State”.

Yglesias

Hydrocodone: A Dissent

By Matthew Yglesias on Jan 25, 2011 at 5:31 pm

Reader AC has more on turning your vicodin into pure hydrocodone:

Just wanted to tell you that the reader commenting on the ease of abusing hydrocodone-acetaminophen medication is incorrect. What he says about the dissolution in water of both chemicals is correct, but whether or not the acetaminophen is dissolved or not in water you drink is irrelevant – it’ll get into yr system either way. To extract the hydrocodone and remove the one must perform what’s called a cold water extraction – dissolving the pills in water, then cooling down the water so the acetaminophen crystallises. After filtration the resulting liquid will contain very little acetaminophen but retain the hydrocodone. As this takes less than an hour, it doesn’t really change the point yr reader was making, but I thought it was worth pointing out nonetheless.

So be careful.

Security

Sponsor Of AZ Copycat Legislation Says It’s ‘Naive’ To Think It Will Hurt GOP’s Standing With Latinos

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Jan 25, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Last week, Colorado state Sen. Kent Lambert (R) introduced an Arizona copycat immigration bill. Last night, in an interview with CNN’s John King, Lambert defended his proposed legislation and denied that the GOP will face any substantial political implications for being the party behind the vicious anti-immigrant legislation that is being proposed throughout the nation:

KING: Senator, do you worry at all about the long-term prospects for the Republican Party? The political implications of this? I understand you stand by your law on principle. You believe it’s the right thing to do, but your state now has a 21 percent, 20.3 percent of Colorado’s population is Latino. You know the demographic growth. Not just in your state, but across the United States. Do you have any concerns, it’s essentially the Karl Rove question on immigration, that you will do generational damage to the Republican Party by pushing these proposals?

LAMBERT: Well, again, I think that’s really naive. We’ve seen the polling in Arizona, where Arizona 1070 was passed. It was passed on a wide bipartisan basis. The people, the Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Hispanic, more than 50 percent of them all support Arizona bill 1070. Also, Jan Brewer, the governor, won by a landslide after signing that legislation. So the people of the United States want this law.

Certainly, I think the man on the street in Colorado wants to see, first of all, enforcement of our borders. Second, we want to enforce the current laws that we have on the books. Right now the federal government’s not doing that, and it’s time for the states, as many states are doing right now, take on the responsibility that they have for enforcing the law.

Watch it:

Lambert may think it’s naive, but not all of his Republican colleagues agree. It is naive to assume that the 2011 Inaugural Conference of the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network wasn’t in part an attempt by some Republicans to improve their party’s image amongst Latinos after the highly charged debate that Arizona’s immigration law sparked last year. Alfonso Aguilar, a conference participant and the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, told NPR: “Latinos are inherently conservative: They’re socially conservative; they are entrepreneurial; they’re pro-business. Immigration…is that one issue that prevents us from winning the support of Latino voters.” Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) proclaimed, “it would be incredibly stupid over the long haul to ignore the burgeoning Hispanic vote.”

Lambert seems to be ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of Latinos oppose laws like SB-1070, and, as the years pass by, it’s increasingly likely that the “man on the street in Colorado” is going to be Latino. Half of the U.S.’ population growth has been driven by the Latino population. 15.5 million Latinos are U.S. citizens who are currently too young to vote and many Latinos are legal immigrants who may one day become naturalized citizens.

The likelihood of Lambert’s law passing is still unclear. Unlike Arizona’s law it allows (rather than requires) local law enforcement officers to arrest someone if they have probable cause the person is an undocumented immigrant. Don Christensen, director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, has said that Colorado sheriffs don’t want to enforce federal immigration law and cherish discretion when deciding whether to make an arrest.

Meanwhile, back in November, prominent Colorado Republican Steve Schuck slammed Lambert’s plan to introduce an Arizona-style immigration bill in his state. “Making headlines by coming out of the chute with an immigration bill as our initial, signature effort appears to evidence some serious tone deafness,” wrote Schucklan. “[E]verything, absolutely everything, should be subordinated to rebuilding the economy and we repubs should own the issue.”

Politics

Sen. Paul Naively Claims We Need To Raise Retirement Age Because ‘We’re All Living Longer’

By Zaid Jilani on Jan 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm

There is a growing consensus among much of the conservative political elite that there should be major regressive changes to Social Security, like cutting back on benefits and/or raising the retirement age. Endorsing this approach, Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will soon release legislation that would involve raising the retirement age to 69. A number of high-profile Republicans have endorsed this call to raise the retirement age. Here is a list of just some of these major right-wing figures who are calling for these regressive cuts:

– House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “We’re all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected,” Boehner told “the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,” justifying his call to eventually raise the retirement age to 70. [6/28/10]

– Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): In an address to the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce, Isakson advocated for raising the retirement age, saying that it would “painlessly” change the program. [1/24/11]

– Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): The Alabaman senator said it would be a “positive thing” if the retirement age was raised because it would prolong the solvency of the Social Security program. [1/13/11]

– Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN): Daniels ridiculously said that we should raise the retirement age because technology is going to enable us all to “live to be more than 100.” [1/5/11]

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Graham is so supportive of “adjusting the age” where people can get Social Security benefits that he publicly threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling and risk a government shutdown in order to enact the change. [1/3/11]

– House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): Cantor sensationally claimed that if “we do not do something to extend [the] retirement age,” the Social Security program will cease to exist. [11/22/10]

– Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): Coburn said on Morning Joe this morning that the “easy solution” to future funding difficulties in the Social Security program is to raise the retirement age. [1/25/11]

This morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on CNN’s American Morning and echoed Boehner’s comments about how we should raise the retirement age because life expectancy is increasing. Paul explained that he could fix any future shortfalls in Social Security with a “one page long” bill that would raise the Social Security age by three years over 36 years. He justified this by explaining that “we’re all living longer lives” and that we as a “society can handle that”:

PAUL: We do have seperate plans for reforming specifically Social Security. You can fix the Social Security shortfall by raising the age by one month every year. So it will take 36 years to raise the Social Security age three years. I think we as a society can handle that. It fixes most of the problem. The bill can be one page long. We raise the age by one month every year. That’s what we did in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan passed Social Security reform. If you do that, you fix the majority of the problem. We’re all living longer lives, and I think the American people now, more than any other time, are ready to face this problem. With the Baby Boomers retiring we can fix the problem while raising the age gradually.

Watch it:

The problem with Paul’s and Boehner’s justification for raising the retirement age — that we are all living longer, thus we can easily retire later — is that it simply isn’t true. While it’s correct that life expectancy has improved over the years, most of these life expectancy gains have gone exclusively to upper-income Americans who work white-collar jobs that are not physically strenuous. As the Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) puts it, “there has been a sharp rise in inequality in life expectancy by income over the last three decades that mirrors the growth in inequality in income.” CEPR demonstrates this inequality in gains in life expectancy with the following graph:

So raising the retirement age would simply not cost us all equally. The “nearly half of workers over the age of 58 work at jobs that are either physically demanding or involve difficult work conditions” would be forced to work longer and get less years of retirement before they passed away. The American people realize this, and that is why poll after poll shows that the vast majority of them are opposed to raising the retirement age.

Update

Over 100 House Democrats have signed a letter in opposition to regressive cuts to Social Security. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is inviting citizens to join them in opposition to these cuts. Sign here.


Update

,Boehner now says he erred when he called for raising the retirement age to 70.

Alyssa

You Get What You Need

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jan 25, 2011 at 4:41 pm

I realize the Anne Hathaway-is-Catwoman news is old at this point, but one thought struck me when I heard. I’ve always felt like Hathaway never quite got the credit that she deserved for Brokeback Mountain. Obviously, the movie belonged to Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams, with Jake Gyllenhaal chasing close behind. And Hathaway has the least to do of the four principles—she’s in the dark longer, she’s a colder person, she doesn’t confront her husband. But she does a lot with what she’s given, whether she’s taking her top off to seduce Gyllenhaal, or being deliberately nasty and closed off to everyone:


I’ll be interested in how Nolan chooses to frame Selina Kyle. Will she be bad because she can be? Bad because society doesn’t provide her justice through conventional means? I think how that badness gets framed will depend on the extent to which Hathaway can pull it off. If she’s cool and sophisticated and sharp, I think there’s a better chance for success than if she’s supposed to be all cat-scratch fever and heat.

Health

In Forming Priorities For Committee, House Republicans Reject Patients Bill Of Rights

By Igor Volsky on Jan 25, 2011 at 4:32 pm

The House Education and Workforce Committee (one of the committees responsible for designing bipartisan alternatives to the Affordable Care Act) held its first organizational meeting today to approve committee rules and procedures. The 17 Democrats on the panel also offered a preview into how they plan to combat GOP efforts to undermine the gains of the reform act, offering two amendments aimed at preserving health reform’s most popular provisions and the increased government investment in Pell Grant scholarships. Below is the text of the health amendment offered by Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ):

(1) the right of young adults under 26 to stay on their parents’ health plan; (2) the prohibition on health insurance issuers and group health plans against imposing annual and lifetime limits; (3) the prohibition on health insurance issuers and group health plans against rescinding an individual’s health coverage due to illness; (4) the prohibition on health insurance issuers or group health plans against denying coverage to or otherwise discriminating against individuals due to a pre-existing condition; or (5) the deficit savings of $230,000,000,000 during the 10-year period beginning after fiscal year 2011 that was achieved through the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2011

All the Republicans voted down both amendments without discussing their contents or explaining why they disagreed with these priorities, striking a new tone in the post-repeal Congress.

Throughout last week’s repeal debate on the House floor, many Republicans hinted that they supported the aforementioned provisions but sought to repeal the entire law so they could start over in a more bipartisan fashion. They touted the Republican 2009 health care proposal (which includes the first three proposals and even offers a variation of the fourth) and hinted that they would include patient protections in a package of alternatives. Of course, failing to incorporate protections in the rules doesn’t prohibit Republicans from adding them into the alternative legislation, but today’s party-line rejection of two Democratic proposals certainly doesn’t bode well for the promised bipartisanship of the process or the priorities of the final replacement bill (should the committee ever produce one).

Politics

Newt Gingrich: Abolish the EPA

By Brad Johnson on Jan 25, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Appearing in the key presidential campaign state of Iowa, potential Republican candidate Newt Gingrich called for the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Gingrich, the former House of Representatives speaker who now heads the right-wing front group American Solutions for Winning the Future, was the keynote speaker on biofuel policy at the 5th annual Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit in Des Moines on Tuesday. Claiming to be the friend of American biofuels, Gingrich failed to mention that his organization is funded by top oil and coal interests. Because of its “attempts to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and thereby the entire American economy,” Gingrich said on his website, the EPA needs to be abolished. Calling for the EPA to be replaced by an “Environmental Solutions Agency” designed to support polluters, Gingrich argued that standards to keep the air healthy are motivated by disdain for people outside of Washington DC:

They are really in many ways hostile to all new technology, hostile to local communities, hostile to the marketplace.

Listen here:

Gingrich’s previous “solutions,” of course, include the “Drill Here Drill Now” plan to recklessly expand of offshore drilling. “God has blessed you with extraordinarily fertile soil, with exactly the right levels of rain and temperature,” Gingrich also told the audience, while promoting policies to destroy that climate.

Yglesias

Revisiting the Safety Net

By Matthew Yglesias on Jan 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm

Lane Kenworthy’s post arguing that there’s lots more stuff the social safety net should be covering is a useful corrective to what I wrote here.

So in response to Kenworthy and to several people who emailed, let me rephrase my point. Let’s assume we don’t undertake any major new programmatic commitments. We don’t expand early childhood education, we don’t send a higher proportion of kids to college, we don’t do comprehensive wage insurance, we don’t increase redistribution to the poor, we don’t offer paid family leave, etc. Instead we simply try to avoid reductions in service levels for our existing commitments. Well what happens is that to avoid cuts we need need increases. That’s because the share of the population that’s elderly is rising and the cost of health care and education is rising as a share of GDP. Paying too much attention to political debates can tend to obscure this. The reality, however, is that Barack Obama’s tax proposals don’t raise enough revenue to pay for George W Bush’s spending proposals over the long run. Evolving over time to Danish levels of taxation will be difficult, and yet it’ll be necessary just to maintain our current programmatic commitments. I think the CBO sometimes obscures this by not publishing state/local versions of its famous “Medicare costs will bankrupt us” chart.

That’s all to say, in other words, that while there are new things I would like to see the government undertake realistically a large portion of the revenue would have to be taken out of existing commitments. Our health care cost structure is famously higher than anyone’s else, so it’s not like this is impossible. But saying “let’s cut Medicare to pay for universal preschool” is, I think, a different sentiment from “let’s expand the welfare state by creating a universal preschool program.”

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up