Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter made another appearance on MNSBC Wednesday morning, promoting some mighty interesting ideas about job creation and the economy.
…Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there’s obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that’s the president…
“There’s only one candidate today who cares for that unemployed worker and has plans on the table to help him get back to work”? …No. Stay with me here, people.
We’ve had almost four years of President Obama’s ‘plans to put unemployed workers back to work,’ and it is more than evident that they haven’t worked. Public-sector “investments” for things like “job-training programs” or “education plans to ensure that young people have every opportunity… for the jobs of the future” are some of the lamest, most paltry excuses for action-items out there. And as for helping small businesses out with tax cuts? President Obama is touring the country harping about how Mitt Romney wants to cut [insert pet Democratic cause here] in exchange for ‘tax cuts for the wealthy,’ but President Obama’s master plan is nothing more than a tax hike that will harm small businesses and cut America’s job creators off at the knees.
Ryan and Romney want to foster an economy from the “top down,” while Obama wants to grow the economy from the “middle out”? What does that mean? Team Obama’s distortions of economic terminology are enough to make your head spin! Yes, top-down economics were a huge problem in initiating our financial crisis — but what that really means is that the federal government was getting way too meddlesome and butting its fat nose into everything and distorting market signals while encouraging rent-seeking (Example: Hey, we think it’d be a great idea and really help us win more votes if every American owned a home! End result: Housing bubble. Pop.) We do not need more government, we need less — that’s the only route for encouraging the entrepreneurship, ingenuity, innovation, and freedom that nurtures robust economic growth.
President Obama has created “more private-sector jobs” than the ‘Reagan and Bush recoveries’? Okay, first of all — the government does not create jobs. The government can either hinder job creators, or set them free. Secondly, let’s talk a little real talk about net job creation during Obama’s tenure, which isn’t nearly so rosy. And if you don’t want to get into an argument about when exactly President Obama became accountable for jobs gained and lost and for our overall economic activity (although, according to him, we still haven’t hit that point), that’s just fine. Let’s look at some more reliable indicators about our economy’s health after almost four years of Obamanomics: The labor force participation rate is at three-decade low, and economic growth is piddling along at a 1.5 percent annual rate as of the second quarter (and multiple sources are predicting that it’s only about to get worse!).
Sorry, Ms. Cutter — I remain unconvinced that President Obama’s policies are doing anything to move this country “forward,” and you may put that in your pipe and smoke it.