This morning the president gave a press briefing, where he did not take any questions afterward (I wonder why...) where he talked about today's release of the job and economic report.
The funniest thing he said was:
"If necessary, I will enforce spending restraint through the exercise of the veto."
Which is extraordinary since he's never vetoed anything. Ever. If you don't take it out and use it, it does rust shut and I think any oppurtunity for him to veto anything in the name of spending restraint is long gone.
What is really interesting, though, is the job report itself. It says 211,000 new jobs in March. That doesn't tell you the whole story: Not every sector recorded job growth in March
Manufacturing employment declined 5,000 after shrinking 10,000 in February and transportation industries shed 7,600 jobs last month. But overall hiring in service businesses grew 202,000 last month after increasing 194,000 in February. Goods-producing industries increased payrolls overall by 9,000 in March, fewer than the 31,000 new hires in February.
I'm still looking for a think tank or research center that explains exactly what jobs were created and what jobs were lost. If we're moving to a Wal Mart-based economy, then this isn't exactly good news. And I would really like to see real wage growth instead of what we have been seeing.
And stock prices haven't exactly boomed over this news. There is still worry that the Fed will keep hiking interest rates to help keep inflation contained. A rapidly expanding economy with a huge mountain of debt and a housing bubble aren't exactly what makes an economy stable.
During the 2001 recession and its aftermath, many of the president's supporters claimed that he had little effect on the economy. They especially said that when it looked like all his tax cuts did was go to rich people and expand the debt and job growth was slumping. Now he's taking credit fo rhis tax cuts saying they led directly to job growth.
Even that is a bone of contention, since the after-tax income of anyone, including millionaires that got the bulk of the cut has little to do with their business-hiring practices. It probably has little to do with expanded consumption, as well.
No, I think our recovery is simply from the fact that we have an overall great economy because of who is in our workforce. And as we get farther away from the recession, it is going to seem less causal to our continued economic strength. I think it also helps that the Fed cut rates down to a historic low before the recession (1%) and has continued raising them 15-times (another record!) over the course of this presidency to keep inflation and other economic dangers at bay.
While writing this, I have continued the search and foud Job Watch analysis of the 2003 tax cut plan and the documents related.
This whole post might seem disjointed, and that's because I keep interrupting myself to look for some new piece of information. But what you should take away is that job growth is good in the short-term. But what kind of jobs and who is getting them are better indicators. And the long-term health of our economy is more dependent on sound fiscal policy that does not include continued tax cuts. Those tax cuts are still irresponsible and only serve to keep our national debt high and continue the risks of inflation and stagnant wages.