First, as Cantor acknowledged later in the Fox interview, the CBO analysis referenced by Cantor only looked at so-called discretionary spending, not the entire $825 billion stimulus package proposed by House leaders. Among the spending not analyzed is a proposed $275 billion in tax cuts and nearly $200 billion for jobless benefits – both of which are expected by some to jumpstart the economy more quickly than infrastructure projects.
Okay, I’ll ask the obvious question. Cantor alluded to the job creation question but Politifact completely ignored the question. I thought that job creation was the primary reason Congress was trying to pass this bill quickly. We already know how successful the tax rebate was last year. I am sure I heard more than one media pundit talk about the need to get people back to work quickly. When the guy on the street hears the words “economic stimulus”, he thinks it means more jobs will be available. My guess is that there are a lot of people in US who think the primary aim of the stimulus package is to create jobs in 2009 and 2010 to offset planned job losses. A real solution for a very real problem.
However when you eliminate the parts of the bill that are not related to job creation in 2009, you find the only part of the bill that has a chance of improving employment in 2009 is the tax cuts. Only 25% of the stimulus bill will help job creation in 2009. That is pitiful on so many different levels!
If the need for legislative speed is not driven by the need to create new jobs in 2009, why are we rushing to pass this bill? Why can’t we take a few more weeks and get a bill that gets more people back to work in 2009?