These headlines are political poison for Democrats. Voters are going to keep asking, What exactly did we get for a $1 trillion stimulus-spending package that puts us deeper in hock?Ludlow throws around the "$1 trillion" price tag to try to resonate with his audience but he misrepresents the data - the Congresssional Budget Office had just dropped the total cost of the stimulus by $50 billion, putting the grand total at $814 billion over a 10 year period. News regarding the TARP was even better. The Treasury estimates that the total cost of TARP will be $50 billion - not the original $700 billion as legislated.
Overall, nonfarm payrolls fell 95,000 for September, largely from a drop in census workers and state and local government employees. Private payrolls increased 64,000, only a third of what’s necessary to sustainably reduce unemployment.
Also notice how Ludlow only posts the private payrolls for September, ignoring the loss in public-sector jobs? This wouldn't fit with his narrative against federal spending and limiting government's size, after all, this is the same guy who wrote an article for Big Government titeld "Business, Not Government, Create Jobs."
I had written about the right's hypocrisy over the latest job numbers earlier today, pointing out how conservative critics ignore the drop in public sector jobs because mentioning such information would only hurt their argument about job growth - they've spent months hoping public sector jobs would diminish over time.
In addition to his previous comments about the stimulus and employment, Ludlow had the following to say:
Precisely because of the obvious failure of the Obama stimulus-spending program to adequately create jobs, the Federal Reserve is moving toward re-priming the pump. It’s the addition of yet another bad policy of dollar destruction to the first mistake of massive spending.You see, the failure of Bush's tax cuts were not because they really only helped the rich and increased the deficit, but because the Fed made new money canceling out the affects of the tax cuts. That is why we should extend them indefinitely - Ludlow would probably argue that it is the fiscally responsible thing to do, too.
Think of it this way: The Fed is probably going to add another $1 trillion of new cash to the financial system. But as all those new dollars are created, the dollar excess sinks the greenback exchange rate. And that means investors will take the new money the Fed creates and drain it out of the U.S. financial system into more reliable currencies. Go figure Ben Bernanke’s logic.
The same thing happened between 2002 and 2006. The Fed was too loose for too long, the dollar fell too far, and all that cash fled the country, thereby undermining the Bush tax cuts.
Meanwhile, with today’s rapid rise in gold and commodity prices, a new inflation tax will be imposed on consumers and businesses. Bad for growth. Oil has jumped to $83 a barrel and gas at the retail pump is heading toward $3 a gallon.
If you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic - it seems Ludlow wants to place all the blame on the Fed and "Obamanomics," making Republicans look like the heros. Notice how Ludlow also mentions the price of gas reaching $3 a gallon? He seems to be accusing the Obama administration for the rise in gas prices, so it is safe to assume that Ludlow longs for a return to cheap gas.
The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security states the following on their website:
The federal government subsidizes the oil industry with numerous tax breaks and government protection programs worth billions of dollars annually. These benefits are designed to ensure that domestic oil companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.Sounds like Ludlow is advocating government intevention for the promise of inexpensive gasoline. That sounds highly hypocritical coming from the man who complains about government interference with the free market.
Ludlow isn't finished:
Federal spending is now 25 percent of GDP, way past the historical norm of 20 percent. And the budget gap is $1.3 trillion. So how can you blame investors or businesses for asking this simple question: How high are my taxes going to go to finance all this?He attacks the Obama administration for their perceived tax hikes and regulations, as well as spending and deficits, yet he ignores the problems a conservative agenda presents. He fails to address the impact the Bush tax cuts would have on the deficit and he attacks "Obamacare" while completely ignoring the right's refusal to cut defense spending, which has seen its spending increase over the years. I find it very hypocritical to attack one but not address the other - especially when the other is an integral part to author's narrative...
Until this question is answered to their satisfaction, the job-creating engines will remain dormant. Obamacare is a massive tax and regulatory threat. And so is the spending and deficit problem. The Fed can pour all the new money it wants into the economy, but it cannot change any of this.
I also want to point out that Ludlow anchors a couple CNBC programs - isn't CNBC part of the mainstream media? What is he doing on a right-wing propaganda website and liberally-biased media? Are the regular folks over at Big Government aware that Ludlow is batting for the other team or are they fine with it (I know their MSM comments only apply to people and stories they don't like).