The Huffington Post's Erin Mershon writes that Gary Burtless, of the Brookings Institution, says that "A lot of these things are laughable in terms of a jobs plan that would produce noticeable improvements across the country in the availability of employment in the next four or five years." According to Carl Riccadonna of Deutsche Bank:
"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority."With most of the Republican "jobs bills" focused on gutting environmental and other regulations,
Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, warned that any potential job creation from environmental deregulation could be offset by health concerns.Ah, but is it the highest level of corporate profit and CEO pay? Those are the measures the Republicans care about, after all.
"If you increase employment but you have a lot more sick people, you have to ask yourself, 'What's the trade-off?'" he said. "The highest level of GDP is not necessarily the highest level of national satisfaction or national health."
Republicans do realize that people want Congress to work on jobs, so they'll be reminding voters of this amazing jobs plan they've passed through the House, trying to pretend it's been as big a focus as repealing the Affordable Care Act or getting all up in our lady parts. Now if only their "jobs plan" would include at least a reasonable pretense of being intended to create jobs.