red states rule
06-12-2011, 06:43 AM
It is clear the newsroom at the Washington Post is getting worried about how the economy will impact Obama's reelection chances
It does not look like the Washington Post cares about those who have lost their jobs, their homes, and thosde who are struggling to make ends meet
No, they are wooried about how theconomy helps/harms Obama and the Dem party
and this is what the left calls "journalism"
The two men met when Obama was still an unknown state senator seeking to assemble a 2004 Senate campaign in Illinois. Obama called economists at Harvard, but they didn’t return his calls. Goolsbee, then a University of Chicago wunderkind, was happy to call him back. When Obama first met the lanky 34-year-old, his first words were, “You can’t be Professor Goolsbee! Professor Goolsbee smokes a pipe.”
Obama has heeded Goolsbee’s counsel ever since — forgiving him when he caused a kerfuffle during the 2008 campaign over Obama’s position on NAFTA — and reportedly was not thrilled with Goolsbee’s decision to return to Chicago. That’s understandable: Obama’s middle-of-the-road economic policy may be the right one, but it is difficult to defend against pressure to do more to reduce stubborn unemployment. Goolsbee has been better than the rest at defending Obama’s package of relatively small items, such as worker training and R&D incentives alternately (and unsuccessfully) labeled the “New Foundation” agenda and “Winning the Future.”
Goolsbee endorsed many of the extreme measures Obama took two years ago, because the private sector was in free-fall and massive government spending was the only option. But now the data tell a different story: The private sector has stabilized, profits have returned, productivity is high, American competitiveness has improved, and large sums of money have accumulated on corporate balance sheets.
The most efficient way to produce jobs, then, is to give the private sector incentives to spend its big pile of cash on new hires. That’s why Obama, on Wednesday, was at a community college in Northern Virginia touting little-known policies such as “Skills for America” and the Workforce Investment Act.
But as a political argument, this isn’t as clean as the opposition’s simple prescription — huge tax and spending cuts — or the calls from economists on the left for another massive stimulus. Goolsbee doesn’t object to either idea as a matter of ideology; he looks at the data and finds that neither would boost employment as much as what Obama is doing.
With the disaster in Japan, the debt crisis in Europe, the spike in gas prices and a disappointing unemployment report, it isn’t getting any easier to counter the demand for action. With Goolsbee returning to Chicago, it will be that much more difficult for Obama to resist the political pressure to be rash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-goolsbees-departure-obama-losing-a-voice-of-reason/2011/06/10/AGo9GkOH_story.html
It does not look like the Washington Post cares about those who have lost their jobs, their homes, and thosde who are struggling to make ends meet
No, they are wooried about how theconomy helps/harms Obama and the Dem party
and this is what the left calls "journalism"
The two men met when Obama was still an unknown state senator seeking to assemble a 2004 Senate campaign in Illinois. Obama called economists at Harvard, but they didn’t return his calls. Goolsbee, then a University of Chicago wunderkind, was happy to call him back. When Obama first met the lanky 34-year-old, his first words were, “You can’t be Professor Goolsbee! Professor Goolsbee smokes a pipe.”
Obama has heeded Goolsbee’s counsel ever since — forgiving him when he caused a kerfuffle during the 2008 campaign over Obama’s position on NAFTA — and reportedly was not thrilled with Goolsbee’s decision to return to Chicago. That’s understandable: Obama’s middle-of-the-road economic policy may be the right one, but it is difficult to defend against pressure to do more to reduce stubborn unemployment. Goolsbee has been better than the rest at defending Obama’s package of relatively small items, such as worker training and R&D incentives alternately (and unsuccessfully) labeled the “New Foundation” agenda and “Winning the Future.”
Goolsbee endorsed many of the extreme measures Obama took two years ago, because the private sector was in free-fall and massive government spending was the only option. But now the data tell a different story: The private sector has stabilized, profits have returned, productivity is high, American competitiveness has improved, and large sums of money have accumulated on corporate balance sheets.
The most efficient way to produce jobs, then, is to give the private sector incentives to spend its big pile of cash on new hires. That’s why Obama, on Wednesday, was at a community college in Northern Virginia touting little-known policies such as “Skills for America” and the Workforce Investment Act.
But as a political argument, this isn’t as clean as the opposition’s simple prescription — huge tax and spending cuts — or the calls from economists on the left for another massive stimulus. Goolsbee doesn’t object to either idea as a matter of ideology; he looks at the data and finds that neither would boost employment as much as what Obama is doing.
With the disaster in Japan, the debt crisis in Europe, the spike in gas prices and a disappointing unemployment report, it isn’t getting any easier to counter the demand for action. With Goolsbee returning to Chicago, it will be that much more difficult for Obama to resist the political pressure to be rash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-goolsbees-departure-obama-losing-a-voice-of-reason/2011/06/10/AGo9GkOH_story.html