Obama Opts for Politics Over Jobs, The Times Joins In
J.D. Foster /
Today’s New York Times editorial on President Obama’s Cleveland political diatribe-cum-economic speech got one point right — Obama “took too long to engage this debate.” The rest of the editorial was little more than an epilogue to Obama’s political speech.
One can see why the Times would avoid talking about the economic substance of the speech, the debate to which the president is so tardy: because there was precious little in the speech to talk about, despite an economy showing “widespread signs of a deceleration,” according to the Federal Reserve’s authoritative Beige Book. As the Washington Post noted in its coverage of the speech, “Even some vulnerable Democrats…quickly condemned the president’s latest proposal, suggesting it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to last year’s unpopular stimulus package.”
A quick look at the package quickly reveals its yawn factor. One “new” proposal is to spend another $50 billion on infrastructure. Fifty billion spread over six years in a $15 trillion economy. Not that a larger package would do any better, but as economic stimulus it leaves little wonder his proposal was only taken seriously by the construction unions. (more…)