Comments on: Garamendi touts Obama’s American Jobs Act

By: RR, Senile Columnist

RR, Senile Columnist — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:00:28 +0000

You’re right, Jean. With improved roads it will be easier to reach the welfare office.

By: Jean Womack

Jean Womack — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:39:39 +0000

Garamendi is very responsive to voters concerns AND the concerns of pundits, more so than any other Bay Area legislator has been on a long time. You are going to wish he was still in the 10TH CD when they go to their new districts. As for tax cuts, Chevron’s guy on economics, Chris Thornberg, says a tax cut will increase consumer spending but people r just going to buy things like cameras which r made in China so we would be better off investing in ifrastructure.

By: Oakland Mayor Jean Quan touts Obama’s jobs plan - Political Blotter - Politics in the Bay Area and beyond

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:41:35 +0000

[...] Garamendi touts Obama’s American Jobs Act [...]

By: Publius

Publius — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:18:27 +0000

I agree with Elwood this bill is DOA. After the complete failure of Stimulus I, how can they expect the American people to buy into Stimulus II. When our local lefties “tout” the plan they are mere actors on a political stage playing a role, appeasing their base, all the while knowing in their bleeding hearts, that this bill does not have a chance of passing. What a waste of time!

By: Rick K.

Rick K. — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:35:02 +0000

Garamendi is a Democratic party stooge who knows nothing about job creation and the private sector. He was head of California’s Economic Development Commission as Lt. Gov. but even current Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Garamendi for failing to create any real economic development plan during his three years in that office. Garamendi supposedly worked in the private sector in the late ’90s but it was a do-nothing, well-paid position created by Democratic multi-millionaire Ron Burkle. Garamendi basically got paid handsomely for doing little or no work until he figured out the next step of his political career. And while thousands of his own constituents are unemployed, Garamendi boasts in speeches that he is so glad that he left the Lt. Gov. job and ran for Congress (in a district where he doesn’t live) because congressman is “the best job” he’s ever had. How smug and out-of-touch with reality. Plus he’s a chameleon. He hated nuclear power back in the early ’80s when he ran for governor, then wholeheartedly has embraced the nuclear power industry in Congress (even as he criticized the oil industry for the Deep Horizon oil spill, as if nuclear power was the safest thing ever). Only the 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan has halted his pro-nuke love fest. I doubt that the people of Garamendi’s new district will tolerate this tired, disproven career politician. A moderate Republican (maybe Colusa County Supervisor Vann) can take him out in 2012. Good riddance.

By: John W

John W — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 04:11:50 +0000

Frankly, I think the Republicans have a reasonable point when they argue against permanent tax increases to fund a basket of various temporary tax breaks. Don’t get me wrong. I’m for either going back to the Clinton rates for everybody (including the middle class) or phasing out all tax expenditures (deductions, exemptions etc.) in exchange for eventually recalibrating tax rates downward (once we get a grip on our fiscal imbalance). I think Obama should have kept it simple by making his entire proposal about hard core infrastructure projects (no Solyndras or economically unfeasible high speed rail), with no “pay fors” and no tax gimmicks. Whatever the size of the package, I would have allocated it among the states based on each state’s share of unemployed.

By: lars54

lars54 — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:54:24 +0000

I really like the proposals to end special tax breaks for this growing cohort of billionaires, hedge fund managers, CEO’s, Oil Company executives and so forth – those guys that think paying taxes is for the little people. Ending these giveaway to the rich and well heeled will be funding most of this 500 billion, as I understand it. We need to target the private jet crowd, the people that have 16 homes, and 22 cars. As a blue collar worker I’ve growing weary of subsidizing these people, let’s make them pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:15:23 +0000

@John W

Agreed, but the O’bummer plan doesn’t really “starve the beast”. It just creates another government financed entitlement program (of which the dimmiecrats are so fond).

As for Garamendi, he would endorse the murder of six-year-olds if O’bummer and Nancy did.

By: John W

John W — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:57:13 +0000

Extending the “temporary” payroll tax cut on the worker share and doubling down by cutting the employer share in half strikes me as an incredibly stupid move. Why? A. Many economists have expressed doubts that this will stimulate economic growth, compared with more spending stimulus on infrastructure. B. As we’ve learned, the longer a “temporary” tax break remains in effect, the harder and more damaging it is to restore it to normal. C. It plays right into the hands of those who call Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and “inter-generational theft.” Supposedly, this doesn’t affect Social Security finances, because the plan is to make the SS accounts whole by transferring money from the general fund (the debt-financed general fund) to SS. Problem is, that turns SS from a program that is entirely financed from its own dedicated source of revenue and, therefore, does not add a penny to the nation’s long-term indebtedness, into just another government spending program paid for with money borrowed from China. Grover Norquist and the GOP should love this as a bold move on behalf of their “starve the beast” strategy.