Skip to comments.Romney: How does six percent unemployment by the end of my first term sound? (Promises, promises)
Posted on 05/24/2012 6:59:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Normally I hate self-imposed benchmarks since there’s plenty of downside to them and little upside. But in this case, what does he have to lose?
Halperin: Would you like to be more specific about what the unemployment rate would be like at the end of your first year?
Romney: I cant possibly predict precisely what the unemployment rate will be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that wed put in place, wed get the unemployment rate down to 6%, and perhaps a little lower. It depends in part upon the rate of growth of the globe, as well as what were seeing here in the United States, but wed get the rate down quite substantially, and frankly, the key is were going to show such job growth that there will be competition for employees again. And wages well see the end of this decline were having. The median income in America is down 10% in just the last four years. Thats got to stop. Weve got to start seeing rising wages and job growth.
What are the odds that the U.S. economy won’t be able to shave two percentage points off the unemployment rate over four years with a much more pro-business regulatory regime to encourage it? There are various “black swan” events that could intervene to make that difficult/impossible, starting with a eurozone meltdown or soaring oil prices during a standoff with Iran, but in that case Romney will simply blame the failure of his prediction on the black swan. As it is, CBO already estimates that unemployment will reach seven percent by the end of 2015 and five and a half percent by the end of 2017, putting his six-percent figure by 2016 right in the ballpark.
Plus, look at it this way: If he’s able to knock only a percentage point or so off of unemployment during his first term, from roughly eight percent to seven, then come 2016 the fact that he broke a campaign promise will be a very minor footnote to the more important fact that he, er, was only able to knock a percentage point or so off of unemployment. The Unicorn Prince has already broken his own promise from early 2009 that he’d have the economy back on track within three years lest his presidency be a one-term proposition. (He’s broken a lot of other promises too, including/especially the implied promise to the left that he’d be dramatically different from Bush on the war on terror.) Most swing voters don’t care, though, I think; all they’ll want to know is how unemployment and GDP are trending come, say, September. If anything, I think Romney’s vulnerable to criticism here that, a la the CBO numbers, he’s not expecting as much economic improvement under his administration as some of his supporters are.
Nice to see someone in the media pressing him on an important subject, though. As a counterpoint to that, via Guy Benson, here’s how the public’s greeting WaPo’s atomic bombshell about Romney forcing a haircut on a classmate 50 years ago:
Exit question: Didn’t Romney suggest a few weeks ago that four percent unemployment should be the target? Click the image to watch.
Romney said he plans to give a waiver to all 50 states discontinuing the president's plan known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- and returning healthcare responsibilities to the states. He wants to take Medicaid money administered by the federal government and give it to states as block grants. His plan also includes giving individuals the same tax break that companies get when they buy insurance for their employees, allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and encouraging consumers to shop around for the least expensive medical services, creating competition among healthcare providers.
What are the specific plans you have to ensure that happens besides playing on the pass line of roulette and hedging your bets on number that is already being supported.
BTW, is that real unemployment? That is “Of the percentage of available workers in the US how many of those will be employed?
Do you plan to:
Cut back on government size and laying off a bunch of dopes we don’t actually need?
Will you change the baseline budgeting from a phony $700 million by scraping it all together with the result being a reduction in Gubmint Inc. by a requisite closing of departments and a Federal RIF?
Will you reduce the Capital Gains Tax to 10%, 5%, or 2% for your 1st term?
Will you extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts for 4 years?
Will you expand the taxpayer base to include anyone making more than “X” of $Dollars?
Will you make America the IPO Capital of the World, once again, by scraping SOX, Frank-Dodd and other well intentioned BS legislation in order to propel growth in capital markets?
You sound great, like a chocolate cake but, you I ain’t hearing how you get there.
” Romney has actually ran a business and generated both jobs, and a profit.”
I would argue that working on a venture capital board is not the same thing as running a company. While I don’t question his MBA perspective on business I doubt Romney has and real “feet in the factory” understanding of anything. He got the money and others made the decisions on the ground. Even his touted Olympics rescue was and exercise in lobbying the government for other peoples money to fund the exercise.
Romney record at the hand of government is no demonstration of Reagan principals in fact Romney denied Reagan thrice and ran his state like a progressive.
Replacing reality with our desires creates an illusion that will ultimately bring great disappointment and is dangerous.
Romney is no Reagan.. quite the opposite in fact
On the jobs front you may be right there is some pent up expansion but I believe less than you think. Lots of things have to happen to enable growth in jobs. Tax policy, regulations, capital availability and demand for product to name a few. People don’t conduct business to hire they hire to conduct business and job growth is usually a lagging trend. Romney has no to track record in government that would indicate he would do what needs doing.
Just rip out the blue pages of the phone book, and go down the list, eliminating government agencies and departments that are un-Constitutional.
This would put two million government workers on permanent welfare or unemployment, and put twenty million or thirty million productive Americans back to work. If any of these functions really need to be performed, the states can pick up the slack.
But everyone should have a dream...
I probably will go for Romney, because of the following.
1. I always enjoy seeing liberals cry hysterically.
2. If not sure of who to vote for, a simple rule of thumb is, always vote out the incumbent.
3. I want that smug expression wiped off of the Kenyan’s face.
If it takes Romney to make those things happen, so be it.
So who is running that has such a business track record? I’d really like to know.
LOL! You are speaking about a KNOWN LIAR! Did you even take that into consideration? He's POS! Romney spent millions on advertising LIES about Newt who has the proven know how to take our country to greatness. Cult leader Romney lies with every breath he takes.
Doesn't really take bold action to get to a six percent unemployment rate. It's kind of like promising you will get on base once during the first ten baseball games you play. The pledge of six percent unemployment is minimal -- even if you account for a larger workforce due to discouraged workers returning to look for work.
You have to be a true economic incompetent to have an unemployment rate in excess of eight percent two years after a recession ends. You have to *work* to keep the economy this bad. All you have to do is yank the choke-chains on the Federal regulators. If we could open up drilling on Federal lands that alone would generate enough economic activity to get to six percent. Remember when “W” was being derided for a FIVE percent unemployment rate because that was too high to be considered a recovery.
Anyone that thinks that six percent unemployment is unachievable is the definition of someone who has been down so long it's beginning to look like up.
Thanks for saving me a post.
Should Romney prevail nov 6th, on Nov 7 that will in fact be the headline. No question.
As Govenor of Mass, he ran as a "Progressive", but here is the part where one must be realistic in his analysis. If you are Govenor of a DEM leaning state (it's more than slightly leaning in the DEM direction, right?); you have to govern as a representative of the people. Obviously, that is what Mitt did;
In the cons we have this
Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses. He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue. (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.) Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term. Romney did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases
and in the Pro's we have this:
The state legislature, with Romney's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years. Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all were overridden by the heavily Democratic legislature. The cuts in state spending put added pressure on localities to reduce services or raise property taxes, and the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent. The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship but remained below the national average.
Like all of us, we each have our strengths and weaknesses - but unlike the current resident in the White House; no one can deny that Mitt has no experience in running either a govermental body, or a business.
“So who is running that has such a business track record? Id really like to know?
Really good question. We got used car salesmen, lifer politicians, couple of ranchers, lots and lots of lawyers, couple of doctors, investment bankers, and a whole passel of fast talkers. I think we mostly have lawyers and fast talkers.
This from the guy that turned Massachusetts into Taxachusetts and FeeAchusetts.
Just by going after our own natural resources (coal, uranium, oil, shale oil, etc.), we can take a huge step forward in lowering our unemployment, boosting our exports, realigning our balance of trade, becoming more energy independent, and creating viable businesses that will generate revenue to pay down our national debt. Obama is choking America to death with his Green jobs-killing policies. He’s debasing our culture and demoralizing poor and unemployed Americans. His hope and change has led to despair and regression. His administration failed.
Produce enough gas in the US that the price falls below a dollar a gallon and see how the economy turns around. We are not permanently stuck with a bad economy unless we accept that big government is the answer and only foreign countries can meet our energy needs. Some people need to snap out of the idea that America is in decline; it’s only in decline if we let Obama and his type win.
Romney want's to open more world markets, and doesn't understand that what most world markets have to offer us is labor at rates a fraction of ours.
He wants to come down on China for currency manipulation, which is all fine and good. But correcting for currency manipulation alone isn't going to reverse the damage done to the U.S. by China's abundant cheap labor and the fact that the communist gov't takes most of the chinese profits and doesn't buy U.S. goods with those profits. But instead buys U.S. companies, the source of our production, and buys our debt.
Until they understand that, and start raising import tarriffs to protect our remaining industries, and rebuild lost ones, our economy will be lucky if it manages to tread water for the next 4 to 8 years.
RE: You know, some people really need to decide who they are forObama or Romney. Its one or the other, cause if you dont vote for one you WILL GET the other. You may not like that outcome.
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election .
..if Mitt wins the GOP nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, Id just ask you to keep four things in mind:
1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.
We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you dont think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think youre smokin something funky .
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didnt get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win... Imagine this: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER.
RE: This from the guy that turned Massachusetts into Taxachusetts and FeeAchusetts.
Since we’re talking about unemployment in this thread... what was the unemployment rate of MA when Romney was governor? Higher than national average, lower, or the same?