Living in a swing state means I get bombarded with TV ads. In this recent one by the Romney campaign, it goes over his plan to make 12 million jobs in his first term A lofty goal, one could easily think. And because it is lofty, we should not be afraid of the possibility we could fail simply because if we do not try, we will not get there. So lets all dream big (like landing on the Moon, and helping the environment).
Okay, if you picked up a bit of snark there, then you are very right. I already know the answer to the question .. ''What is wrong with Romney's words (this time)'' and maybe you do as well. If you do not know, it is time to learn. If you do, chances are someone you know does not know it and you should be helpful in informing them.
I can (almost) understand why journalists do not just come out and say Romney is lying when he says that he will make 12 million jobs while Obama could not (notice the switching of tenses .. future for Romney, but past for Obama .. just like in that Romney ad). First, Romney's number is about right, so long as he does nothing after winning (or losing) election. Second, I know why Obama could not do this in the last 4 years .. that is because we were bleeding jobs out the wazoo months before and after Jan. 20, 2009, the day Pres. Obama took office. So first he had to stop the bleeding and that took about a year to stop. It was then the job growth per month was a net gain and we started to fill in all those lost jobs. Despite having job growth that seems to be in a bit of a stunned phase, and GOP members of congress that hates anything the president suggests, last month we passed that milestone of having a net number of jobs since Pres. Obama took office. There have now been an estimated 5.2 million private sector jobs added since we hit rock bottom. 5.2 million jobs, however, is not enough to make people real happy. Finally, and most importantly, Obama's policies have given us the momentum to add 10-12 million jobs by 2017, and a President Romney could potentially capitalize on it (if he does nothing) or hurt growth (if he does what he plans to do).
Below the squiggly-wiggly, timey-wimey thing, I'll deliver some hard hitting numbers from independent, non-partisan, research groups
.
First up, let us have some fun with numbers. Given the goal of 12 million jobs in 4 years, that would average about .... 12 million jobs/(4 years x 12 months/year) = 250,000 jobs/month. So that means we have to average a quarter million jobs every month to be on pace to reach 12 million. But that is only an average and we would likely start slow say near the present day number of 100k-150k/month (I give a range because that average depends on what exact range of months you choose to average over). So job growth would have to be greater toward 2017 than 2013. On May 4, 2012, right after the April jobs number showed 115k new jobs were added and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1%, Romney said to his friends as Fox & Friends:
We should be seeing numbers in the 500,000 jobs created per month. This is way, way, way off from what should happen in a normal recovery.
But how normal is 500k jobs/month? You might recall
this by the Washington post, something similar by other papers or even here on Daily Kos. Bottom line ... making 500k jobs is something that happens about 2% of the time given the most relaxed way of counting, but really something that happens <1% of the time. So indeed, it is rare, but not impossible. But even more rare is having consecutive months of 500k growth back to back .. there is only 1 case listed by that article in March and April, 1978. So to beat a dead horse, it is very unlikely to happen. From this, is seems clear to me that the Romney gaffe machine learned and toned down the number to the more reasonable 250k jobs/month, which we can do.
So, according to the CBO in January 2012 and again in August 2012, we will add between 9.5-11 million more jobs over the next 4 years according to their reports. The range in numbers here depends on whether or not congress is going to deal with the expected "fiscal cliff" (tax increases and deep spending cuts) before the start of 2013 and by law, the CBO must base its projections on our current laws, not what laws might come to be.
Knowing this, it would appear that Romney will really add 1 to 2.5 million jobs in 4 years. But would he? What is his plan exactly?
It is no surprise to me that his jobs plan includes the repeal of Obamacare. The Romney plan says:
Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform.
Because as we all know Obamacare is a jobs-killing law. Right? So far the evidence says "no" according to a study by the Urban Institute which could be read through
this Forbes article. The Urban Institute looked at Romneycare in MA and found it did not cause the loss of jobs. Since Obamacare is modeled after Romneycare, there is no reason to believe Obamacare would really cost jobs. So if Romney were to repeal Obamacare, it would neither cost, nor create jobs. Certainly it would have impacts on people's health, but that is not the focus here.
Romney's plan also calls for
Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit job creation.
This sounds to me, and probably anyone who reads it, as if he is going to "drill-baby-drill" our way into job growth, and specifically his TV ad says 3 million jobs (he said 4 million during the
first debate). Pres. Obama has said, and shown, he is open to all avenues of making us a more energy independent nation. So much so that we are drilling for more barrels of oil in this country today, than during the second term of G. W. Bush according to this
CNN fact check article.
Getting back to making 3 million jobs .. this number seems to come from a study by Citigroup which can be found as a pdf in this article. On page 10 of the Citigroup document, it reads:
We estimate that the cumulative impact of new production, reduced consumption, and associated activity could increase real GDP by an additional 2% to 3%, creating from 2.7 million to as high as 3.6 million net new jobs by 2020.
Currently we are not at that growth rate. Additionally, Romney's ad and words from the debate imply he will add 3 million energy jobs in 4 years, but the Citigroup study is over 8 years. So shouldn't Romney say he'd make about 1.8 million jobs? The quote from the study also says we have to keep reducing consumption .. which would be maintaining the fuel efficiency standards that Obama signed into law, and which Romney wants to repeal! Despite all of this, studies other than Citigroup have estimated between 1.1 million jobs by 2020 and 1.4 million jobs by 2030. I guess Romney can just ad another 1.2 million energy jobs from the green sector .. one he is more likely to cut back on than expand. So .. 3 million new jobs from energy .. looks dubious to me.
Another point Romney makes in his job plan that is worth looking is
Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.
This is the same tax plan that is going to cut $5 trillion from taxes over the next 10 years. I don't think I have to say much here because it is here, perhaps, where the media have done their most work. His tax plan is light on details and heavy on his optimism. It just does what the Bush tax cuts does .. gives to the rich ... er, um, job creators .. and in turn they will make all the jobs people need. In the TV ad he says this will make 7 million more jobs. All I have to say is if what he thinks could happen with his tax plan would really happen, if that was really the way the world worked ..well then Bush would have made a bazillion jobs. Reality having the liberal bias it has, this is not how things work and we are still recovering from the Bush economy. So instead of making 7 million new jobs, you could argue that this sort of plan might cost about 8 million jobs, because that is what we lost in the Great Recession before we started to turn around.
It really sounds like Romney has the potential to be a "job neutral" President. To which I have to say to Romney ... thanks, but no thanks.
I recommend for further reading (or listening) an NPR article on the Romney tax plan. For contrast, they also examined Obama's tax plan.