Tax cuts = Jobs?

Democrats criticise Bush for tax cuts and for lost jobs, but what is their proposal to remedy the situation?

The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education. —JohnKerry.com—

Whoa! That's great news! So, if Kerry wins the Presidency he would create 3 million jobs in the first 500 days of his administration. All through tax credits to corporate special interest, and handing out money to a 'new energy industry' corporate special interest. (But it would be the right corporate special interest, not the evil corporate interest which now holds sway over the Bush administration.) I'm not sure what restoring technology means, but if it means putting people to work restoring old 486 and 386 IMB compatible computers I'm all for it. As long as it's a high paying job of course because the quality of these jobs counts more than the actual number of jobs created. On the layoffs, I'm not clear on how the President has firing and hiring power over the education sector, but let's let that one slide. Maybe he's referring to those 'federal school district' jobs.

But isn't Kerry making a mistake here by laying out this plan for Bush to steal? I mean Bush still has 9 months in which to 'job create'. Shouldn't Kerry be worried that Bush will start cutting [more] taxes, investing in new energy industries, and restoring technology in an effort to create more jobs?

"Manufacturing jobs are the heart and soul of cities and towns across the country, yet these communities are struggling because America has lost two million manufacturing jobs in the last two years," Senator Edwards said in a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and Ranking Member Max Baucus. "We must make saving manufacturing jobs our priority in this tax overhaul." --Edwards.senate.gov--

Well, I think Edwards is a little behind the curve on this one. It's possible that a million jobs were lost between the time Edwards made his statement and the time Kerry put his plan up on his web site but at this rate we'll all be out of work before the election. Well, unless Kerry put up his claim of 2 million jobs lost before Edwards made his claim of 3 million jobs lost, in which case Bush must be creating jobs at an astonishing rate.

What is Edwards plan to create 2 million jobs? Hint: his reference to 'tax overhaul'. Anybody? You guessed it, more tax cuts!

Congress is in the process of complying with the WTO's demands, which will result in a tax increase of over $50 billion on our nation's manufacturing base over the next ten years. North Carolina companies, especially textile and furniture manufacturers, would face a major blow without offsetting tax cuts. Since 2001, North Carolina has lost 57 textile plants. The state has lost 122,000 textile jobs since 1997. --Edwards.senate.gov--

I don't understand. **A $50 billion tax increase causing job loss?** How could that be? If that were the case wouldn't repealing the Bush tax cut cause more job loss? No. Of course not. After all it is the government who creates jobs, right?

Seems like there's a lot of middlemen in this equation who must be dragging down this whole job creation process. Maybe we should just eliminate the middleman so that the politicians can create jobs without all the interference from that corporate special interest.

With all of these claims about how many jobs have been lost, who lost these jobs, and who can create jobs, it's a shame that we never have a discussion in detail about how jobs are actually created or lost.

Posted by Eric Simonson at February 19, 2004 5:18 PM