Business Owners Say Job Plan Won't Cause Them to Hire More Workers

From the New York Times: Business owners say Obama's jobs plan won't cause them to hire new workers.

That sentiment was echoed across numerous industries by executives in companies big and small on Friday, underscoring the challenge for the Obama administration as it tries to encourage hiring and perk up the moribund economy.

The stock market fell big time yesterday, wiping out all gains for the week. Guess Wall St. wasn't impressed either.[More...]

Health Care industry people warned proposed cuts to Medicare could detract from hiring:

President Obama’s jobs plan would actually have a detrimental effect on other parts of the health care industry, some officials said. Hospitals warned that the proposals could end up crimping their hiring if the president’s programs were paid for with sharp reductions in the federal Medicare program.

...Lloyd H. Dean, the chief executive of Catholic Healthcare West, a large health system that employs some 55,000 people in California, Arizona and Nevada, said...“Approximately 65 percent of the people we care for are insured through Medicare or Medicaid, and any further cuts in reimbursements from those programs will severely impact our ability to hire and retain workers.”

And if you don't have the demand for what you are selling or producing, there's no point to hiring more workers.

“If I get a $4,000 benefit for hiring you and I pay you $80,000 and you’re going to sit at your desk and do nothing because there’s nothing to do,” said Marty Regalia, chief economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce, “then the businesses aren’t going to hire you.”

One other thought: Why should our Medicare be delayed so the Government can pay for tax credits to employers who aren't likely to hire new workers?

If Medicare eligibility is going to be raised from age 65 to 67, please just skip the individual $1,500. tax credits and give us two years of health insurance premiums and deductibles instead. That's around $30,000, with $1,000.00 a month premiums and a $3,000 deductible. Too much? It just shows the Government is lying if it says raising the eligibility age is not shifting the cost to seniors.

Why does Obama want to pay for his job plan for construction workers, teachers and veterans by taking it away from seniors who have already paid in their required share? Why not take it from the defense budget instead? Or the war on drugs budget? Or the foreign aid budget? Why single out a group as vulnerable as seniors to pay the price?

< Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: Flurry of Motions, Trial to Begin in October | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread: Won't Get Fooled Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The safety net program's $$$ (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    are needed to fund important stuff.

    In 2006, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee identified 32 DHS contracts "collectively worth $34.3 billion that have been plagued by waste, abuse, or mismanagement" during the first five years after 9/11. In 2008, the House Committee on Homeland Security listed $15 billion in failed contracts since the department's founding.

    Stories of smaller-scale DHS excesses have become the stuff of legend. One is the famous terror target list used to allocate DHS grant money. It listed 77,069 sites under possible threat, including the Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo in Woodville, Ala., the Amish Country Popcorn factory in Berne, Ind., and the Mule Day Parade in Columbia, Tenn.

    The Los Angeles Times reported just last week that DHS grant money is still buying such things as state-of-the-art dive gear, cattle nose leads and electric prods for rural Nebraska counties and a nine-ton BearCat armored tactical assault vehicle for suburban Glendale, Calif.

    "[T]he reality is that DHS is a colossal and inefficient boondoggle," Joan Johnson-Freese and Tom Nichols, both professors at the Naval War College, wrote this week for AOL Defense: link

    And let us not forget other 9/11 victims (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 06:57:42 PM EST
    such as the kid in a suburb of my former city, a suburb that got unbelievable amounts of DHS funds that it then spent on equipment for which its cops did not get training.  So when they caught the kid in a DUI and tossed him in the back of the cop car and put some sort of terrorist hood over his head, they misused it, he couldn't breathe, he vomited, and he aspirated that and died.  Even as they realized he was in some difficulty, they didn't have the training to figure out how to get the hood off his head.  Needed a key or something that they forgot to get.  

    That's your homeland, Amurrika.  Feel secure?


    terrorist hood???????????? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    Are you talking about those sensory deprivation hoods they use at Guantanamo?  

    Stanley Milgram & Philip Zimbardo's worst nightmare, here we come.


    It was variously described as (none / 0) (#23)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 11:49:11 PM EST
    "a vinyl biohazard hood," a "SURVIVAIR Quick2000 Escape hood respirator," etc.

    Family got $1.5 million in a settlement.

    But their then-20-year-old son is still dead.


    "[T]he reality is that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 07:02:50 PM EST
     DHS is a colossal and inefficient boondoggle,"


    Life and death authority over our citizenry.


    Inefficient unless you've got the contracts (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    - cost-plus contracts.  Hardly an incentive to save money.

    Plus a (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    half billion or so for Solyndra.  

    My one sound ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 03:50:01 PM EST


    Great mind and all that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    "Duh!" was my initial response to the headline.  

    You want (4.33 / 6) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    to know why Jeralyn? Because Obama is cold hearted and calculating. He's looking at the numbers and figuring that seniors aren't going to vote for him for whatever reason so they can just away. He really doesn't even care about the unemployment situation in this country only other than to think about his electoral chances.

    B of A to lay off 40,000 (mostly in (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    "consumer banking") in CA. LAT

    Note (none / 0) (#4)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    From the article
    "The financial-services industry as a whole is going to shrink," said Nancy Bush, a banking analyst and contributing editor at research firm SNL Financial. "We don't need as many loans, as many credit cards, as many mortgages as we did in the past two decades.""

    We created a financial services industry Frankenstein during the Clinton and Bush years which caused the giant mess that we are in.
    This is what I have been saying all along!


    i wonder why (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    B of A couldn't put all those people to work resetting existing mortgages at current rates - there's plenty to be done on that front

    oh wait - nobody really knows who is holding the paper

    of course it's also true that B of A is insolvent & has been for some time, a fact that the bogus "stress tests" of a couple of years ago were intended to cover up

    how long till Chase takes over?


    "Chase?" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 07:20:01 PM EST
    They, along with the other "investment" banks are also insolvent.

    Just imagine you, as a private citizen with an outstanding loan, are told by your provider,  "Mr./Mrs. Customer, the balance on your account is your secret, and yours alone. You may report it as an amount you wish and no one will ever verify it. Also, to assist you in repaying your loan we will lend you any amount of money you wish........with no, or virtually no, interest. We further promise to buy your new, free loans, back and pay you 3-4% interest on them.  

    We sincerely hope this is not an overly burdensome arrangement for you, and if you feel any modifications are necessary, we stand ready to change them in any way you instruct.

    Have a nice day."


    As some (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    one who has BoA for their mortgage it's not that they don't know who owns the paper so much as they just don't want to work with mortgage holders. You send in the paperwork. They claim they never received it even though they somehow managed to get ALL THE OTHER forms that you send it. So they send you another copy to sign and return and this game goes on until the time limit has expired. It's an annoying passive/aggressive game they play.

    yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    forgot my snark tag

    it's also bogus that there's no need for new loans - just ask small businesses

    but B of A is insolvent


    Ofcourse (none / 0) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    Small businesses need loans. Community banks and credit unions can always provide those loans.

    maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    w/r/t "always"

    have you been paying attention?

    in any case, my comment was calling BS on one of BoA's rationales for these layoffs


    Except that they aren't (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:45:27 PM EST
    and they say they can't because Dodd-Frank regulations require a much higher risk-ratio standard specifically for small biz loans than for large biz loans or even consumer loans and mortgages.  Don't know if that's true, but that's what I've heard some of them say.

    If that's actually the case, that needs to be fixed because there are a fair number of small business that are doing fairly well and would like to expand but can't without loans, which their local banks won't give them.

    Larger national banks don't do small biz loans much at all, apparently, and ironically, BofA used to be the biggest lender to small biz.


    Of course you have (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    You never miss an opportunity to try to link Clinton with Bush.

    It's funny.


    Not 40,000 in CA, I think. (none / 0) (#5)
    by EL seattle on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    From the article...

    Bank of America has 45,000 employees in the state, about 1 in 6 of its nearly 300,000-person workforce, and is expected to roll out the job cuts over the next several years.

    Cutting 40,000 of the 45,000 CA workforce would be extra-super grim, indeeed.  But I think that a cut 14% cut of over 40,000 nationally is still going to(or so) hurt a lot, even if it is stretched out over some time.


    Thanks. Reading comprehension! (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    Must be caused by my entering a new decade!

    Why (none / 0) (#15)
    by koshembos on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    Obama's plan isn't about doing good for the people or the country. It's about helping him be reelected and avoid unnecessary difficulties with the Republicans.

    Delaying Medicare makes the Republicans happy. Giving tax cuts that are essentially cuts in SS makes the Republicans happy. Obama is not burdened by values such as providing services to seniors or letting Americans retire with minimal dignity.

    In addition, the plan will only marginally work. When the president is not smart enough and his advisers are not very smart either, the produced plan is what we got.