National Review's Jim Geraghty joins host Greg Corombos to discuss the day's political news. Today: Dems run away from Obama and Harry Reid, the White House makes up its Ebola policy as it goes along, and a South Dakota Dem nominee for Senate accuses national Democrats of trying to sink his campaign.
Landrieu: Come to think of it, I can't quite say whether I'd support Harry Reid again
I realize we just checked in on the Louisiana Senate race yesterday, but this video juxtaposition is too fun to pass up. Mary Landrieu, on Harry Reid, last night:
"Harry Reid presents some problems…I'm going to make my decision based on what is before me and who is running…I am going to wait to see what the leadership looks like…"
Mary Landrieu, on Harry Reid, in May:
Reporter: "You won't say one way or the other whether you'll back Harry Reid?"
Landrieu: "Well if he runs, I will."
And thus Mary Landrieu unconvincingly joins the swollen ranks of frightened Democrats who are seeking shelter behind awkward equivocations over their own party's leadership, many of whom are trying to deflect attention from long voting records of marching in lockstep when it counts. A vote for Landrieu is a vote for Barack Obama and Harry Reid; the president said so himself. Crossroads GPS is up with a new ad using Obama's infamous interview with Al Sharpton to deny Landrieu the opportunity to open up daylight between herself and the unpopular president she supports 97 percent of the time...
Also read:
Senate Ethics Committee Conveniently 'Misplaces' Ethics Complaint Against Harry Reid
Toxic: Obama Visits Maryland; Democrat Drops 9 Points?
British comedian Russell Brand believes in 9/11 conspiracies, Ebola arrives in New York City thanks to an infected doctor, and why a teen is calling for a boycott of Forever 21.
Jim Geraghty and Greg Corombos discuss [listen here]: Hillary Clinton joining the "businesses don't create jobs" bandwagon, a devastating profile of the "bumbling" Obama national security team, and some odd noise about Jeb 2016.
Hillarynomics: Businesses don't create jobs
It's actually a total non-sequitur. "Trickle-down economics" has to do with expanding investment, which actually worked spectacularly in the 1980s, but it's not a theory on which the entire concept of job creation relies. One can criticize "trickle-down economics" without offering the entirely vapid argument that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. They don't get created by book tours, after all. The tens of millions that Hillary Clinton collects from publishers and speeches pay for a handful of staff jobs at the Clinton Foundation, perhaps, but that same cash turned into investment would create jobs that actually produce goods and services in a market, which then create secondary jobs, and so on.
Besides, Hillary's argument here is entirely divorced from reality and actual data. The miminum-wage bill for which Hillary Clinton voted passed in 2007 and took effect in stages, beginning that summer. In June 2007, the Household Survey of the BLS showed that the US economy had 146.063 million jobs in June 2007, just before the increase took place. Last month's data showed that the US economy had 146.6 million jobs — an increase of less than 500,000 in over 7 years, not "millions of jobs" as Hillary claims here. In fact, the 146.6 million is the highest it's ever gotten since the passage of that law. In the same period, the civilian workforce participation rate has gone from 66% to 62.7%. On a population basis, there are a lot fewer people working after the last minimum wage hike, not more, and wages are actually down, not up.
Compare this to the "trickle-down" era of the Reagan presidency. When Reagan took office in January 1981, the US economy had 99.995 million jobs and the participation rate was 63.9%. By the end of his presidency in January 1989, the US economy had grown more than 16 million jobs (116.708 million total) and the participation rate had leaped to 66.5%. That covers nearly the same length of time since the last minimum wage hike (96 months vs 89 months), but both include about five years of technical economic recovery.
Obviously there were other factors in play here, so lets focus on something more directly affected by minimum-wage hikes — teen unemployment, which is where minimum-wage hikes have the most impact. When Reagan took office, teen unemployment was 19.1%, but it dropped to 16.4% by the end of his presidency. In June 2007, it was at a similar level, 16.3%. Today it's 20%, and has been bouncing in 2014 between 19% and 21%. Don't forget that these figures are more than five years into a supposed recovery...
Also read:
Hillary Clinton would kinda-sorta like to amend her comments about businesses and jobs
'Too late, Grandma': Hillary Clinton flip-flops, now says that entrepreneurs create jobs
