Two reasons Obamanomics isn’t creating jobs 2


By Tom Quiner

This is how ObamaCare works.

As many of you know, jobs are hard to come by.  The unemployment rate continues to hover near ten percent despite stimulus spending by the Federal Government which will surpass the cost of the Iraq War (see previous post).

Nothing the Democrats have done is working.  In fact, the case can be made that it has made things worse.

Why?

It boils down to two big concerns with business owners:  cost and uncertainty.  They go hand-in-hand.  Obamanomics is increasing the cost of hiring new employees, but business owners aren’t sure by how much.

Consider ObamaCare.  It has created 159 new government bureaucracies in 2700 pages of legislation which wasn’t read by the people voting for it.  Unelected bureaucrats will figure out how the whole thing works.  Just look at the chart above which takes a stab at diagraming the intricacies of this mammoth piece of legislation.

ObamaCare will hike taxes by $569 billion dollars.

ObamaCare creates 17 new insurance mandates.

ObamaCare adds 16 million people to tax payer-funded Medicaid.

President Obama has never run a business.  He doesn’t understand the impact that uncertainly has on hiring decisions.

Now let us turn to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act.  The Wall Street Journal reports there will be “no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different agencies.

What will these new rules be?

How much will they cost?

Business owners have other concerns.  Will Congress allow the Bush tax cuts to expire? (Why don’t tax increases ever expire!?)  Will Congress increase the payroll tax?

The only thing that is certain is that it is going to cost businesses more to hire new employees, and that is bad for unemployment in this country.  Democrats have written 5000 pages of new legislation in these two bills alone and America is paying the price.

What would be the best stimulus for our economy?  Elect a Republican Congress this November.

2 comments

  1. Congress and regulators could have written a simple rule: “Banks are not permitted to engage in proprietary trading.” Period. Then, regulators, prosecutors, and the courts could have set about defining what proprietary trading meant. They could have established reasonable and limited exceptions in individual cases. Meanwhile, bankers considering engaging in practices that might be labeled proprietary trading would have been forced to consider the law in the sense Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. advocated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s