Bush tax cuts cost $329,220 for each job created

Guest post by Publius

The Bush tax cuts cost $329,220 for each job it created. That, according to the math recently employed by The Weekly Standard in its analysis of the cost per job from Obama’s stimulus package.

The Weekly Standard argued that because the overall cost of the stimulus to date is $666 billion, and the number of jobs created since the stimulus was passed (according to the low estimate by the Council of Economic Advisors) is 2.4 million jobs, the cost per job from the stimulus equals $278,000 per job. The Weekly Standard went on to note that we could have simply written a check for $100,000 to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the stimulus and come out $427 billion ahead.

Sounds pretty bad, right?

Well, using the exact same formula, the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 were estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost about $864.2 billion from 2001-2008 (the first year of the Bush tax cuts through the last year of his presidency). During that period, according to The Wall Street Journal, 2,625,000 jobs were created. That comes out to a total cost of $329,220 per job under the Bush tax cuts. And that’s if we assume that every single job which was created during Bush’s presidency was attributable to the Bush tax cuts (pretty unlikely) AND if we exclude the costs of the 2003 tax cut (estimated to cost another $350 billion over 10 years). We could have written a check for $100,000 to each person who “allegedly” had their job created by the Bush tax cuts and saved $600 billion, but they wouldn’t have received it because the check was instead delivered to really wealthy people.

My point isn’t that the Obama stimulus was good because the Bush tax cuts were bad. Instead, my point is that the math employed by The Weekly Standard is absurd. This example highlights the absurdity.

It’s wrong to suggest that the sole purpose of the stimulus was to “buy jobs.” If that was the sole purpose, then yes- the cost would arguably have been $278,000 per job. As White House spokesperson Liz Oxhorn noted the other day, however:

[The Weekly Standard] study is based on partial information and false analysis. The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families. Thanks to the Recovery Act, 110 million working families received a tax cut through the Making Work Pay tax credit, over 110,000 small businesses received critical access to capital through $27 billion in small business loans and more than 75,000 projects were started nationwide to improve our infrastructure, jump-start emerging industries and spur local economic development.

The concept of the stimulus was grounded in Keynesian economic theory- government countercyclical spending is critical to countermand the effects of a recession. Increased government spending increases GDP, frees up capital and, consequently, creates jobs. Jobs are part of the benefits of stimulus. They aren’t the direct purchase.

By most metrics, the stimulus was a success. According to the CBO, the stimulus increased GDP by 3.1%. It added as many as 3.6 million jobs to boot. It gave us new factories, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure which we benefit from each day. Boiling all of this down to a cost per job is just silly.

The Weekly Standard would also be wise to note that about $288 billion of the projected $747 billion stimulus came in the form of tax cuts (about 38.5% of total spending), despite the fact that according to many prominent economists (such as Mark Zandi), tax cuts are far less stimulative than other types of spending, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and infrastructure spending (all of which Republicans opposed).

If The Weekly Standard wants to argue the stimulus could have been more effective, it won’t find many on the left who disagree. If it wants good ideas on how to make it more effective, step one is to stop believing tax cuts are the best solution to all economic ills.

(Cross-posted at The Fourth Branch.)

An update on Christine O'Donnell's self-aggrandizing dishonesty

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Updating my post from yesterday.)

As TPM's Christina Bellantoni is reporting, a PR firm has released a statement from O'Donnell denying that she lied in her LinkedIn bio:

There have been reports that I have released false information on a LinkedIn profile under my name. This is categorically untrue. I never established a LinkedIn profile, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf.

That may or may not be true. LinkedIn has removed O'Donnell's profile but stated that taking it down was not "an acknowledgment that the profile was fake." In other words, it may very well not have been fake. O'Donnell may still be lying.

The statement continues:

I have always been clear about my educational background. I completed undergraduate work at Fairleigh Dickenson University. After my undergraduate work, I completed a summer program run by the Phoenix Institute, at the Institute's Oxford University location. The Institute runs programs around the world at various universities, and participants study issues of human dignity. I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA. We would encourage LinkedIn to remove this profile. 

Let's take a look at this:

1) O'Donnell did in fact graduate from FDU, but she only receive her BA last year. She had claimed that she had graduated for several years prior to that.

2) O'Donnell was in fact enrolled in a summer seminar program run by the Phoenix Institute. The Institute rented space at Oxford, but it is rather misleading to suggest that it has an "Oxford University location." And her LinkedIn bio stated that she studied at the "University of Oxford." It did not mention the Phoenix Institute.

3) O'Donnell was in fact enrolled in a fellowship program at the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank. Her LinkedIn bio, however, stated that she studied at "Claremont Graduate University," a fairly prestigious graduate school with which the Claremont Institute is not affiliated.

4) She does not mention it in her statement, but in a 2005 lawsuit O'Donnell claimed that she was trying to "take master's degree classes at Princeton." In actual fact, she never took a graduate course at Princeton.

Assuming that she posted (or authorized to be posted) that LinkedIn profile, that's four strikes against her just regarding her educational background. Even if she didn't, though, she still lied about FDU and Princeton and has been misleading about Phoenix/Oxford.

As The Weekly Standard has reported -- yes, The Weekly Standard, hardly a left-wing rag -- there have been other prominent lies as well:

1) "Conservative radio host Dan Gaffney challenged O'Donnell on September 2 for claiming she had won two out of three counties in Delaware when she ran for Senate in 2008. In fact, she didn't win any."

2) "According to her financial disclosure form, O'Donnell only made $5,800 last year. 'I made more than $5,800,' O'Donnell told me [John McCormack] in the September 2 interview, but said she did not have to and would not disclose how much."

3) "As the Delaware News Journal notes, O'Donnell 'has denied that she was ever sued by her mortgage company or that a foreclosure sale date had been set.'" But in fact she was, in 2008.

4) "Even more disturbing, says Gaffney, is O'Donnell's claim in her recent WEEKLY STANDARD interview that her home and campaign office were broken into and vandalized and burglarized in 2008. O'Donnell did not report the alleged burglary and vandalism to the police, but suggested that [GOP rival Mike] Castle supporters may have been the ones who committed the alleged crime. 'If that's true and she didn't call the police, she's not only endangering herself but her neighbors,' says Gaffney. 'She also likes to say there are people hiding in her bushes. It doesn't sound stable when you add it all up.'"

No, it doesn't. Not at all. And yet, perhaps unsurprisingly, O'Donnell is playing the victim card. Citing Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin as inspirations, she has said that "whenever a strong pioneering woman comes onto the scene there's some backlash."

No, this isn't about her sex, it's about her as an individual. And even conservatives like the ones who run the Standard realize she's crazy: "O'Donnell's finances, honesty, and stability have been called into question in light of her false and strange claims." 

And yet here she is, the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware, perhaps the ideal candidate for an increasingly extremist party that has lost its mind.

Palin Infatuation Central

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Since when is it "Breaking" (news) that Sarah Palin endorses a fellow right-wing extremist? Well, she did -- coming out, hardly to anyone's surprise, in support of Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 House race -- and The Weekly Standard, Palin Infatuation Central, seems to think it's worthy of being so hyped. (It isn't.)

If I may pose a related question, since when is Sarah Palin's Facebook page a key source of such breaking news? Well, it is to her multitude of bedazzled admirers on the right, including at Krazy Kristol's neocon rag, who seem to think that whatever she says is worthy of being treated like gospel. (It isn't.)

What the world needs now is not more Sarah Palin; or, how her right-wing admirers are falling all over themselves trying to love her up

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Whether we like it or not, we're being bombarded with all things Sarah Palin, more so now pre-resignation than at any time since last year's campaign. And, honestly, it was driving me nuts over the weekend.

But the right loves her, and continues not just to apologize for her, not just to cheerlead for her, but to pump her up out of all justifiable proportion. Which is fine, when you think about it, because the simple fact is, she's not -- and is not close to being -- a credible national political figure. And that's putting it nicely. I'd say she's a joke, an appalling caricature of phony, mock-outraged populism, a caricature of herself, actually, though I'm not sure the caricature is any different than the real thing, so entwined is she with her own manufactured persona.

Whatever.

Let's take a look at what a few conservatives have said about her in recent days:

1) Ross Douthat -- One of the more thoughtful conservatives around, to be sure, with a perch at the NYT, one of the key media organizations of the coastal elite that Palin claims to loathe, and against which she directs much of her silly resentment. I was going to comment earlier on his ridiculous juxtaposition of "Palin and Her Enemies," but I don't have much to add to Mustang Bobby's terrific post from yesterday afternoon.

While Douthat is certainly right that Palin has "tarnished" her own "ideal," and that she remains popular, "beloved by millions," it is ridiculous to suggest, as Douthat does, that Palin represents "the democratic ideal" -- in contrast to Obama, who supposedly represents "the meritocratic ideal" -- simply because she has shown "that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard." I had no idea that going to an Ivy makes you somehow un-democratic, but this is the sort of populism that Palin spins, the sort that her story, and her political celebrity, has inspired on the right, including among elitist coastal newspaper columnists who are hardly Heartland material.

As Mustang Bobby puts it, Palin's problems were her own fault, not the media's, not the political commentariat's, not liberals' or Democrats'. Douthat claims that the attacks on Palin "had everything to do with Palin's gender and her social class." No, they had everything to do with Palin herself. And they weren't attacks, they were justifiable criticisms of a self-absorbed dimwit who was in way over her head but who nonetheless managed to arouse the GOP mob.

**********

2) Fred Barnes -- Kristol's pal at TWS and an unabashed partisan (and Palin booster). For Barnes, who can't seem to keep it in his pants, Palin is "the most exciting Republican figure to emerge in decades." But, alas. While she has "a super-abundance of charisma," she also has "shortcomings in experience and knowledge" -- which is just another way of saying she has a nice personality, but...

And so Barnes, after tracing the history of Republican presidential nominees since WWII, looks ahead, a long, long way ahead: "By itself, two months on the Republican ticket won't propel her to the presidential nomination. But there is a way: win Alaska's lone House seat in 2012 and oust Democratic senator Mark Begich in 2014. A term in the House and another in the Senate -- nothing would do more to groom her for the White House than this and transform her into the best Republican candidate for the presidency in, say, 2020, when she'd be 56."

Woo-hoo! Palin 2020!

Actually, it's not so unreasonable, given that Palin has a much brighter future in Alaska than nationally, and she may just be able to do what Barnes suggests. But her bright future has dimmed even in Alaska, and I wonder if her career path to 2020 is as clear as this. Obviously, we shall see. What I do think is that we haven't heard the last of Palin the politician.

But back to Barnes. Despite the fact that Palin has glaring "shortcomings" and "limitations," he still things she was a brilliant veep pick for McCain. He even claims she won the debate with Biden, which is insane. He apparently was watching a different debate than the rest of us, perhaps one firing off in the recesses of his imagination. And he claims that "she could have taken Joe Biden apart while demonstrating her own knowledge and brainpower had she known more about national issues," which is also insane. The fact is, she didn't have any knowledge or brainpower to demonstrate, and she didn't know anything about national issues beyond the facile talking points that had been fed to her. Her "personality and likeability" in that debate just came across as smarmy arrogance. And yet Barnes still wanted her to be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the presidency? How irresponsible is that?

**********

3) Jim Prevor -- Also at TWS, Prevor puts even Barnes to shame with respect to Palin-boosting, as there is apparently no end to what Palin can accomplish if she just puts her mind to it:

Will she write a thoughtful book? Become a syndicated columnist whose ideas make her a "must read" for everyone? Will she found an important new think tank? An important journal? Spearhead an effort to help the unemployed? Decide to launch a business? Or maybe she will start a new political party?

*****

Maybe Sarah Palin thinks she can change the world without becoming president. Maybe she is deeply and authentically conservative and isn't certain that aiming to change the world is such a good idea.

Maybe plumes of white smoke will herald her election from atop the Vatican.

Maybe she'll win back-to-back Nobels, if not for literature, maybe for peace and chemistry, or for whatever areas she wishes to tackle upon her return to private life.

Maybe she'll hit .400.

Who knows? Who can say?

As TNR's Chris Orr notes, it's rather curious that Prevor put quotation marks around "must read." Are we to take it that Prevor is being ironic, that there's no way Palin would ever be a legitimate "must read"? No, surely not, but I think Chris is quite right that the passage reads better if you put quotation marks around "thoughtful," "ideas," "important" (twice), "effort," and "business" as well. I'm quoting more than Chris here, so I'd also put them around "change the world" and "deeply and authentically conservative."

Seriously, though, does anyone other than her mindless admirers at TWS actually think that Palin might found a think tank or journal, or "help the unemployed"?

I've had enough of Sarah Palin, yes, but thankfully her fan club keeps me entertained with its stupidity. At a time like this, we can at least be thankful for that.

What happens when the neocons meet the theocons?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, they made peace in the Republican Party, putting aside their differences for the sake of electoral success, the neocons and the theocons and the paleocons and the neo-libs, and that worked fairly well for them, largely because, for a long time, the desire to win overcame the obvious differences, and because the neocons, led by Krazy Bill Kristol, and the business-oriented, anti-tax-crazed neo-libs put up with the moralism and nativism of the theocons and paleocons in a quid pro quo to get what they wanted on foreign and economic policy, but it's nonetheless rather interesting that The Weekly Standard, neocon HQ, is moving from Rupert Murdoch, a neo-lib, more or less, to Clarity Media Group, a Christianist theocon media organization owned by Philip Anschutz, the right-wing billionaire and media/sports mogul, the conservative behind the various Examiner tabloids, parts of the Clarity empire.

And so, what now?

Kristol long ago put personal profit and prominence, as well as Republican partisanship, ahead of principle, not just agreeing to but actively promoting the uneasy alliance between and among the right's disparate factions. That isn't about to change, even if the new owner of TWS is an American theocon as opposed to an Australian neo-lib. Krisol will still play the Christianist in public, even as a Jew, and will continue to lobby for his warmongering foreign policy priorities even as he grits his teeth, if he grits at all these days, and puts himself, his magazine, and neoconservatism generally in the service, where necessary, of theocon, and, less so, paleocon, policy, all for the greater glorification of the Republican Party.

Who knows what Kristol actually thinks when he's being honest with himself, if he ever is, or if he ever can, but, with his move from Murdoch to Anschutz, we can expect more of the same incoherent blend of policy positions that has come to characterize not just neoconservatism but American conservatism more broadly.

Amazing what one word can do

By Boatboy

Sam Shulman at The Weekly Standard has an interesting little rant about how Same Sex Marriage advocates are hijacking "romantic marriage" to advance their cause, and how marriage as an institution is really all about extended families, fertility and controlling protecting women.

As Mustang Bobby says over at Bark Bark Woof Woof, Wow. Just wow.

For me, Shulman's money quote is this:

When, in spite of current enthusiasm, gay marriage turns out to disappoint or bore the couples now so eager for its creation, its failure will be utterly irrelevant for gay people.

Given that Shulman also says this:

The entity known as “gay marriage” only aspires to replicate a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates... are replicating what we might call the “romantic marriage,” a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it. Romantic marriage is now dominant in the West and is becoming slightly more frequent in other parts of the world.

... the chief issue he seems to have is that marriage for love -- gay or straight -- is a fad, foisted on us by the Romantic movement, and destructive of civilisation in the long run. The fun I have is what happens to the first quote if "gay" is removed from the line:

"When, in spite of current enthusiasm, marriage turns out to disappoint or bore the couples now so eager for its creation, its failure will be utterly irrelevant for people."

Read like that, it's much clearer how divorce became so prevalent in our society: if "romantic marriage" has failed, and those who entered into it have become disappointed or bored, naturally terminating the disappointing or boring endeavour becomes more attractive.

Yet somehow, despite an easy progression from society's boredom with "romantic marriage" to the current divorce statistics as a measure for how transient "traditional marriage" has become, it's not "romantic marriage" that is the problem for Shulman, it's that Teh Gay is trying to own the concept - when in his reality marriage is really all about The Clan, The Sex, The Ownership and The Babies, and Love and Romance have nothing to do with it. That one word -- "Gay" -- has become so powerful to Shulman that it can rewrite all of the history of modern marriage, overwrite Shakespeare, Austen, Bronte, Shaw et al, and totally dismiss the simple fact that "romantic marriage" is far more a construct of the straight world than the gay one and that LGBT folks just want a piece of what hets have had a monopoly on for the last three hundred years at least.

Just one word. That's all it takes.

Wow. Just wow.

Another new low for anti-gay bigotry among the neocons

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Check out Isaac Chotiner's takedown of one of the worst anti-same-sex-marriage arguments ever, a piece of idiotic drivel by one Sam Schulman, a thrice-married hypocrite, bigot, and moron.

(I can't reduce Schulman's argument to a nutshell. Suffice it to say that it involves incest, licit/illicit sexuality, and "the kinship system," or relations with in-laws. Yeah, it's really, really stupid.)

And where did said drivel appear? Why, in the pages of The Weekly Standard, of course, that neocon rag, a vehicle for all sorts of Kristol-approved nonsense.

(Once upon a time, the neocons used to be a fairly smart bunch, even if you, like me, disagreed with them. But what has happened to them of late? -- and by that I mean over the past couple of decades. Well, they became partisan hacks, for one, and they gave up serious intellectual curiosity/research for ideological certainty, for two, and they morphed into yet another outpost for extremist conservative Republican groupthink, for three, and, for four, they expanded their burgeoning empire well beyond Bill's dad Irving and his former socialist buddies at the CCNY to include the Sam Schulmans of the world. What an embarrassment. Still, as Isaac notes, "[t]here is something nice -- refreshing even -- about a single article that incorporates everything you despise in a certain worldview." So thanks for that, Bill. Even with outright drivel, you've performed a valuable service.)