Quantcast
Opinion

Robert Bennett: Which candidate best understands how governmental activity impacts the way jobs are created?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2012 6:58 a.m.

    @ UtahBlueDevil,

    Are we living on the same planet?

    Your statements are not verifiable if the news media is used as sources. In Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, which has one of the largest oil fields in the world, Obama's administration stopped drilling on public lands. In North Dakota, where there is an oil boom, the drilling is taking place on private lands, not on public lands, where Obama could shut it down.

    The EPA just published new "rules" that will virtually stop oil and gas extraction by the "fracking" process.

    It's obvious to any student of history that today's increase in oil production is DIRECTLY related to actions of the Bush administration, just as the increase in production during the Carter administration was directly related to the Alaskan pipeline that Nixon fought for.

    Obama lobbied the Senate to STOP the Keystone pipeline. Do a Goggle search and you'll find that Obama has fought, tooth and nail, to stop that pipeline, regardless of what you wrote and regardless of the slant that you put on things.

    Your twisting and misrepresenting of facts that are easily verifiable makes one wonder why you wrote what you wrote.

  • Ex-Pat of Zion Lititz, PA
    June 26, 2012 9:42 p.m.

    1. Substantially progressive tax rates (that includes dividends)
    2. Deductions for investment domestically (that includes dividends)
    3. Develop domestic energy resources (Why should be pollute the environments of other nations - both natural and political - to satisfy our energy gluttony?)
    4. Tariffs on any goods that hit our shores, regardless of whether or not they were produced by American companies.
    5. Interest rates and inflation moderately high enough to encourage banks to do what they were created to do - loan money to individuals and small businesses. Banks loaning to the government with interest and borrowing from the government at zero interest doesn't stimulate the economy.
    6. Healthy lifestyle incentives (club memberships, personal trainers) as covered expenses - in conjunction with IT intensive routine, triage and/or ambulatory care. Too expensive to go to a practitioner when you're not that sick. Easy to verify many treatable ailments with an algorithm and a medical Hx.

    7. Repeat steps 1-6 until "full employment" (~6% unemployment) is reached, federal budgets are manageable (i.e. naturally balanced), trade is balanced and there is enough extra capacity to care for the truly needy using both private and public resources.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    Now wait just a minute here Bob , are you suggesting that Barack is clueless, inexperienced and a five alarm disaster when it comes to job creation? So... so ... what about all the "shovel ready jobs" this man promised and then delivered? What about the sharp drop in unemployment that occurred the very day this man took office? What about all the thousands of openings in Career Builder and Monster? What about the incredible environment Barack has created for hiring and business expansion including new business taxes and loads of new regulations soon to come with Obamacare? For heaven sake what about the Key Stone Pipe line and the thousands of projected jobs that would have occurred had those darn Republicans not shot it down? Geez, ask any college graduate about all the post graduation day interviews they are getting - hiring has never been better thanks to the brilliance of Barack Obama. Yes sir Mitt Romney doesn't stand a chance against the great jobs destroyer... I mean creator ... Barack Hussin Obama!!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 26, 2012 3:21 p.m.

    Ok.... more "misinformation" once again. Mr. Richards claims the President has stifled job creation.... despite evidence to the contrary - using the example of oil drilling.

    Lets start with some facts, rather than silly partisan rhetoric. During the oil friendly Bush administration the total number of active oil drilling projects in any given month never exceeded 1,600, and averaged under 1,000 a month for his presidency. During the last two years during the Obama administration, that average monthly wells under development has JUMPED from below 1000 a month, to over 2,600 a month. How you consider that stifling oil drilling even under the most politically bent mindset do you consider a 160% increase "stifling".

    Secondly, the lower half of the pipeline was approved. The upper half through the state of Nebraska was not approved by the state. Even had Obama approved the plan (which would be irresponsible since there wasn't an approved path for it), ti would not have generated one job. It is like having the city approve a development plan before the zoning had been done. No sane person would expect that to happen, and yet when politics gets involved, evidently it makes sense.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 26, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    Congress spends the money.

    The President executes the laws passed by Congress.

    For a President to have an impact, he must surround himself with people who know how to solve problems and then he must convince Congress to pass the kind of legislation that will solve those problems.

    Why don't we have more jobs in America? It's because Congress has passed laws that have convinced the people who have the money to create jobs that America is not a business friendly place. On top of that, the Administration encourages non-Congressional departments to stifle job creation (oil pipeline, oil drilling, EPA restrictions on everything).

    Mr. Obama has stopped all job growth. He has ignored his duty to enforce the laws; instead, he has openly mocked our laws and directed his people to NOT enforce the laws (Arizona, illegal aliens, marriage). Add to that the sword hanging over our heads with his Health Care Act, and you have an environment where "John Galt" simply walks away from opportunity rather than dealing with government and government regulations.

    Mr. Romney knows how to run a business. Mr. Obama couldn't run a lemonade stand.

    The choice is clear.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 26, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    "Mr.Obama was a community organizer"

    That line is just getting plain old worn out. Obama's full time job was no more a Community Organizer any more thanMit Romney's full time job was Bishop. Trying to label Obama as much should then equate to Romney being labelled an Cult Preacher.

    Neither represent what these people did full time - as their job. Obama was a law professor. How hard is that to understand. When silly political rhetoric is used, the only people it influences are people who are like wise political predisposed. It convinces no one else of anything other than casting doubt on what the person who is making the silly statement is saying.

    Perhaps we should start referring to Romney as Preacher.

    Lets debate ideas and policies, not resort to playing silly name games.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:45 p.m.

    I just wanted to weigh in and say that this was the best, most well written column that I've read from (I'm dropping "Senator" since we're all citizens) Bob Bennett since he began contributing to the DN (but I'm sure I haven't read all of his columns).
    Not that I would ever even consider voting for the "amateur" that currently occupies the White House but if Romney is the big shot executive/ leader we are encouraged to believe then all I can say is "what's the plan man"? Lay it out for us in detail. How do we get to where we need to be? Like Mr Bennett said- we don't want sound bites anymore- we don't want "hope and change"- we want clear plans- we know there are simple if not easy solutions to our problems (hint: it ain't windmills, light rail or Snap cards)

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 8:26 p.m.

    Romney will not create jobs because that is against his policy. He will turn it over to the too big to fail people like Bush did recently.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 25, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    "Let someone with a Harvard Business School education, not a community organizer, have a chance to stimulate the economy."

    George Bush earned an MBA from the Harvard Business School. Just sayin'.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    Mr. Obama knows what doesn't work. Saying "shovel ready jobs" does not make it so. He has given lip service to creating jobs and his green jobs have cost us $2-5 million/job. That is not success by any measure. Obama has no experience except that learned by osmosis from Harvard economists (Larry Summers, et al) and crony capitalists. Let someone with a Harvard Business School education, not a community organizer, have a chance to stimulate the economy.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 25, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    "...In 2008, the winning cry was "Change!" In 2010, it was "Throw them all out!" In 2012, it should be, "Stop the sound bites, and tell us in detail where you want to go and how you plan to get there."...".

    Mitt has said he is afraid to offer specifics.

    Offering specifics did not work well for him in his loss to Kennedy.

    Offering specifics did not work well for him in his loss to McCain.

    This time Mitt will not take any chances offering any specifics.

    Fool Mitt once...you know the rest of the story...

    So, voters are left to guess...

    Therefore, based upon his soundbites, he has at various times, promised to reduce unemployment to 4.7%...say, within 90 days of his coronation.

    Piece of cake for an expert job creator.

    Remember...

    Voters are hiring an expert in job creation.

    Romney will receive an economy that is not losing 900,000 jobs per month.

    Republicans gave President Obama 90 days, at best, to fix everything.

    Why should expectations be dumbed-down for Romney?

    Exactly.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    June 25, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    >SEY
    All of them.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 25, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    What is Romney's record say?

    Mass hardly grew while he was governor. Bain Capital didn't create jobs.

    So what experience does Romney have in creating jobs?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    "Then — China first, India next — both nations abandoned central planning and adopted policies that encouraged private initiative and rewarded individual economic success."
    I seriously doubt China would reward private initiative that created jobs in another country. Yet recently American companies have been rewarded for moving jobs off shore. That needs to stop.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    @ Eric Samuelsen: which definition of "meretricious" were you going for?

    Definition of MERETRICIOUS
    1: of or relating to a prostitute : having the nature of prostitution
    2a : tawdrily and falsely attractive b : superficially significant : pretentious

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    June 25, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    Which candidate? Ron Paul of course. He understands the need to radically cut corporate tax - to 15 %, making it us competitive with mainland China (25%) and our own current, highest on the planet, rate of about 30%.

    He understands that the eventual elimination of income tax for all, paid for by radical reductions in the size of government and a peaceful foreign policy, will create vast private wealth, by allowing us ALL to keep more of our earnings, spending it on what we choose in a free economic system, not one controlled so much by typical successive republican and democrat administrations and congresses. He understands that we need sound money and not play tokens controlled by the leaders in private banking.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    I do agree with Senator Bennett--the real question isn't about the past, it's about the future, and it's about philosophy. Where I disagree is over the specifics of proposals. The Republicans have commmitted to a plan, and a philosophy. Paul Ryan authored it, and it's meretricious nonsense.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    Mr.Obama was a community organizer, a senator who did not seem to do much of anything and has maintained an over $1 trillion deficit, had a 10%+ increase in Federal workers. His record is anything but good. I suggest given a chance Mr. Romney could turn things around. He has a record. In Massachusetts his goals were modified by an 8% Democratic legislature.

  • SLC gal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    Government throws down rules and regulations that discourage job growth. It is fact. I know business owners who have frozen their hiring practices in light of what effects "Obamacare", and other so called entitlement programs would have, if they had to let someone go.

  • David King Layton, UT
    June 25, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    So, the proper question is not a statistical one — "Which candidate has the best record of job creation?" It's a conceptual one — "Which candidate best understands how governmental activity impacts the way jobs are created?"-Mr. Bennett

    The correct answer to your second question is neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama. Which Republican candidate was talking about the collapse of the housing bubble years before it happened due to risky loaning practices mandated by the government? Ron Paul. I challenge anyone to research what Paul, Romney, and Obama were saying circa 2005 or so about the economy and then tell me who best understands the economy.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    June 25, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    Amen to Bob Bennett.

    Neither candidate has a clear plan.

    Pres Obama was such a drastic contrast compared to a secretive George Bush who shunned the press.

    This time I wish there was such an apparent contrast but that is not the case. This election will be won by super pac money funds and sound bites.

    We are bound to get the sizzle not the steak.

    Instead of saying my record of creating jobs as govenor was abysmal we have a candidate who says "trust me" I can create jobs.

    Instead of saying the government does not have a lot of impact and the 1/4 million jobs are a rebound effect rather than government policies we have a president who says" it is working".

    Where is the candidate the people can trust?

    If the country gets caught up in putting one sound bite specialist in office to replace the other then as a country we are being snowed as the economy will continue to struggle.

    No answers from either candidate means they have no plan and the weak attempts put forth by both men and their associated parties show the shallowness of their understanding and our pathetic outlook.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2012 10:08 a.m.

    I get a kick out of the Republicans trying to blame Obama for not creating jobs and then turning around to claim that "government doesn't create jobs."

    Which is it?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 25, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    I do want to give Mr. Bennett some kudos for calling out his own party for not putting forward a economic plan of their own. It is ever so easy to just shoot shots at the opposition rather than holding your own parties feet to the fire. So, well done Mr. Bennett.

    And likewise, the Democrats should hold thier own to a high standard. One of the most encouraging headlines I read this weekend was that President Obama has disappointed some groups within his own party. That is as it should be. There should be dissent in both parties. There should be a vigerous and active debate of ideas within each. The parties should be able to equally recognized when the other party has a good idea or policy, and support it.

    But what we have now is a complete and total lack of ideas, and just more blah-blah-blah "we're better than you" with no justifications for such enthusiasic chest pounding. Let's get both parties to put thier ideas forward, and then judge if they have the capability to actually move these ideas forward.

    Right now, I don't see it from either side.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 25, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    The point that disturbs me when Republicans talk about job creation is the either or of " job vs. no job". Fact is there are jobs and then there are jobs (computer programer and lawn mower). Fact is certain industries and certain jobs have consequences to society far beyond the pay check but none of this ever enters their conversation. Democrats need to be more explicit about this conversation because this all matters greatly. It matters to the kind of society we have.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 25, 2012 5:52 a.m.

    So let’s see. The Deseret News and Bob Bennett print an op-ed piece titled "Which candidate best understands how governmental activity impacts the way jobs are created?" accompanied by a picture of smiling Mitt Romney glad handing some rabid supporters. So I’m wondering which candidate they want us to think will be the answer to the question?

    In January of 2009 our economy lost 900,000 jobs, in one month. And while that trend immediately started to improve, it was several months later before we started a net gain of jobs. The stimulus plan propped up jobs for a while and the 2010 census employed more than 145,000 government workers that eventually joined the unemployment ranks when the census was complete. So after 2010 the numbers are interesting. From January 2011 until May 2012 the numbers look like these:

    Total private sector jobs created/lost 2,952,000
    Total government jobs created/ lost - 287,000
    Net jobs created2,665,000

    It’s not enough to meet the demands of those joining the workforce but it sure seems like things have turned around.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 25, 2012 5:12 a.m.

    The problem is so big, so complex, I really have little hope that either candidate will come forward with anything more than a bunch of political rhetoric that amounts to nothing more than "my team is better than your team". And really who can blame them. Neither man if elected President will be able to impact much. Our unemployment problem really comes down to a Wall Street problem.

    Banks are afraid to lend money. Why? Partially because of the 2008 banking collapse. Partially because of the uncertain Euro market. Partially because no one knows who long the booms in India and China will last. Partially because middle east uncertainty. And partially because like JP Morgan, Banks are trying to earn money without lending to consumers or businesses.

    Most of these are factors neither man as President will be able to impact. We can't deregulate the banks back into bad behavior again. We don't control India nor China's economies. And we don't want a role in fixing Spain, Italy nor Greece's debt problems, because we have our own.

    So I wouldn't loose too much sleep waiting for details that aren't coming from either man.