News Flash: Economists Say this Tax Cut Compromise will NOT create Jobs

[jtown1123]

HUFFINGTON POST

Tax Cut Deal Not Most Effective Way Of Creating Jobs, Say Leading Economists
First Posted: 12- 8-10 07:34 PM | Updated: 12- 8-10 07:45 PM



The new tax cut deal in Washington would curb unemployment at a far higher cost than if the government were to create jobs directly, according to an analysis of its potential effects.

What's more, predictions about the program's benefit to the economy differ little from predictions made before the deal was struck. In other words, the tax cut measure might not contribute much to growth. And if it does, it might not be the most efficient strategy the government could have used.

The proposed program--which would include extensions of tax cuts for the wealthy, a payroll tax cut and a reauthorization of unemployment insurance--would save or create about 2.2 million jobs over the next two years, according to analysis by the Center for American Progress. As the government would forgo revenue it otherwise would have collected, the program's cost would be about $594 billion.

That means each job would cost the government about $137,000. The salaries and benefits delivered to workers would likely be less.

As experts have argued, a more efficient strategy might be for the government to create jobs directly, through public works projects. Princeton economist Alan Blinder proposed such a program last year, pointing out that at $30,000 a job, a million jobs would cost the government $30 billion. At that rate, 2.2 million jobs over two years would cost the government just $132 billion.

David Rosenberg, Gluskin Sheff chief economist, has said a government jobs program would help put unemployed people to work. As jobs do not exist for roughly four out of every five unemployed Americans, government job-creation could be a boon.

"At least FDR paid people to work," Rosenberg wrote in August. "Almost half of the ranks of the unemployed have been looking for a job fruitlessly for at least six months. Let's get these people re-engaged in the labour market, get them re-tooled and retrained for the skill set that businesses need now and in the future."

"It's time to get creative and aggressive with minimal cost to the taxpayer," he added.

Gus Faucher, an economist at Moody's Analytics, acknowledged the tax cut deal wouldn't be the most effective remedy for the economy.

"Are there more effective ways of creating jobs than this program? Yes," Faucher said. "Are those enactable? I don't know."

the rest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/tax-cut-deal-not-effective-job-creation_n_793978.html

[Autumn]

1. Oh no, what will be do? Like the last

10 years, continue to flush money down the toilet I guess.

[Gothmog]

2. Article does not match title

The compromise is clearly not the most efficient way to create jobs but it is clear from CAP and Zandi that this program will create jobs. There are clearly better ways to create jobs but the GOP will block those methods. This compromise is not the most efficient way to create jobs and stimulate the economy but jobs will be created and this is the best stimulus package that is currently available.

[kath]

3. Yet Obama contiunues to lie about this, saying that the GOP-Obama deal will create jobs, according

to economists. :banghead: :banghead:

[Gothmog]

4. Read the article

President Obama is not lying. This program will create jobs. There are methods and policies that are more effective and efficient at creating jobs but this fact does not mean that the compromise being pushed by President Obama will not create jobs.