Write a summary based on this article:

jobs jobs jobs Obama’s Jobs Speech Prompted Some Reactions From Republicans 
  
 As you may have heard, President Obama got up in front of Congress on Thursday night and semi-nicely asked its members to pass his newly proposed American Jobs Act "right away." His opponents wasted no time in sharing their thoughts with the public: 
  
 Still high on his petty scheduling victory, John Boehner allowed that the plan "merits consideration": “It’s my hope that we can work together to end the uncertainty facing families and small businesses and create a better environment for long-term economic growth and private-sector job creation." 
  
 Michele Bachmann went a little rogue and offered an "unsanctioned" televised rebuttal in which she took issue with the president's use of the phrase "political circus": “It was interesting to me that if you look at the president’s remarks, almost out of the gate, the president began by insulting members of Congress ... He invited them to be a part of this address this evening And yet he began with an insult — for a circus tent.” 
  
 Rick Perry was somehow not convinced: “President Obama’s call for nearly a half-trillion dollars in more government stimulus when America has more than $14 trillion in debt is guided by his mistaken belief that we can spend our way to prosperity." 
  
 Mitt Romney showed off his edgy side: The usually straitlaced former Massachusetts governor used the evening as an excuse to release some cool video art. 
  
 Newt Gingrich was pedantic: "[He] had more of a procedural issue with Obama’s speech, in which the president repeatedly called on Congress to approve his American Jobs Act: “I checked with Speaker Boehner’s office. There is no bill.'" 
  
 Jon Huntsman stuck to Twitter: "@BarackObama's tired rhetoric & failed policies haven't worked. My plan will actually create jobs. Join us." 
  
 Meanwhile, Herman Cain kept his statement to a Twitter-friendly length: “We waited 30 months for this?” 
  
 And David Vitter? No miracle occurred, and he did not, in fact, make his football game. 
  
 After jobs speech, GOP candidates jump on Obama [Politico] 
  
 Despite Talk of Taming Partisanship, a Show of It for President’s Remarks [NYT] ||||| But the Fed’s hair is manifestly not on fire, nor do most politicians seem to see any urgency about the situation. These days, the best — or at any rate the alleged wise men and women who are supposed to be looking after the nation’s welfare — lack all conviction, while the worst, as represented by much of the G.O.P., are filled with a passionate intensity. So the unemployed are being abandoned. 
  
 Photo 
  
 O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending. 
  
 Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. As I said, it’s much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama ’s hair may not be on fire, but it’s definitely smoking; clearly and gratifyingly, he does grasp how desperate the jobs situation is. 
  
 But his plan isn’t likely to become law, thanks to Republican opposition. And it’s worth noting just how much that opposition has hardened over time, even as the plight of the unemployed has worsened. 
  
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
  
 In early 2009, as the new Obama administration tried to come to grips with the crisis it inherited, you heard two main lines from critics on the right. First, they argued that we should rely on monetary policy rather than fiscal policy — that is, that the job of fighting unemployment should be left to the Fed. Second, they argued that fiscal actions should take the form of tax cuts rather than temporary spending. 
  
 Now, however, leading Republicans are against tax cuts — at least if they benefit working Americans rather than rich people and corporations. 
  
 And they’re against monetary policy, too. In Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate , Mitt Romney declared that he would seek a replacement for Ben Bernanke , the Fed chairman, essentially because Mr. Bernanke has tried to do something (though not enough) about unemployment. And that makes Mr. Romney a moderate by G.O.P. standards, since Rick Perry , his main rival for the presidential nomination, has suggested that Mr. Bernanke should be treated “pretty ugly.” 
  
 So, at this point, leading Republicans are basically against anything that might help the unemployed. Yes, Mr. Romney has issued a glossy, well-produced “jobs plan,” but it might best be described as 59 bullet points with nothing there — and certainly nothing to justify his assertion, bordering on megalomania, that he would create no fewer than 11 million jobs in four years. 
  
 The good news in all this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may finally have set the stage for a political debate about job creation. For, in the end, nothing will be done until the American people demand action. ||||| First reactions to the president’s big jobs speech: 
  
 1) Qua speech, it was excellent – clear, focused, unrhetorical. 
  
 The core concept – stressing past Republican approval of the major elements of the proposal – ingeniously put Republicans into an awkward spot. And in fact, the maneuver has had some immediate effect. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor told Politico tonight that they would approve important elements of the bill. 
  
 The speech was tricked out with items cleverly intended to catch the ears of people who might not normally support the president: the promise to pay federal contractors faster, for example, and payroll tax cuts for smaller businesses worth up to $80,000. 
  
 2) Qua economics, the proposal looks a lot better than the 2009 stimulus. This new measure is not larded up with the Democratic wish lists and obsolete campaign promises that made such a mess of Stimulus 1. There are no tax rebates here, no Pell grants, only the basic material of a counter-cyclical program: investment tax credits, continuing payroll tax relief, and infrastructure spending. 
  
 3) Qua politics? Obama’s re-election proposition remains pretty bad, but it’s marginally less bad tonight than it was this morning. No, he has not restored the country to prosperity. But he does again at least look like he’s trying and like he’s defending Medicare and Social Security in the process. If Obama cannot run as the recovery and prosperity candidate, he will try to run as the stability and security candidate against opponents whom he will seek to depict as radical and reckless. Many of his opponents are enthusiastically cooperating with that strategy, including the current Republican presidential front-runner. ||||| If President Obama's economic policies have had a signature flaw, it is the conceit that by pulling this or that policy lever, by spending more on this program or cutting that tax for a year, Washington can manipulate the $15 trillion U.S. economy to grow. With his speech last night to Congress, the President is giving that strategy one more government try. 
  
 This is not to say that Mr. Obama hasn't made any intellectual progress across his 32 months in office. He now admits the damage that overregulation can do, though he can't do much to stop it without repealing his own legislative achievements. He now acts as if he believes that taxes matter to investment and hiring, at least for the next year. And he now sees the wisdom of fiscal discipline, albeit starting only in 2013. 
  
 Yet the underlying theory and practice of the familiar ideas that the President proposed last night are those of the government conjurer. More targeted, temporary tax cuts; more spending now with promises of restraint later; the fifth (or is it sixth?) plan to reduce housing foreclosures; and more public works spending, though this time we're told the projects really will be shovel-ready. 
  
 We'd like to support a plan to spur the economy, which is certainly struggling. Had Mr. Obama proposed a permanent cut in tax rates, or a major tax reform, or a moratorium on all new regulations for three years, he'd have our support. But you have to really, really believe in hope and change to think that another $300-$400 billion in new deficit spending and temporary tax cuts will do any better than the $4 trillion in debt that the Obama years have already piled up. 
  
 We've had the biggest Keynesian stimulus in decades. The new argument that the 2009 stimulus wasn't big enough isn't what we heard then. Americans were told it would create 3.5 million new jobs and unemployment would stay below 8% and be falling by 2011. It is now 9.1%. But this stimulus we are told will make all the difference. 
  
 Mr. Obama spoke last night as if he is a converted tax-cutter, asking Republicans to expand and extend the payroll tax cut that expires in December for one more year. Along with tax credits for certain businesses that hire new employees, he says this will cut unemployment, and no doubt it will lead to some more hiring. 
  
 But what happens in 2013 when those tax rates expire and Mr. Obama pledges to hit thousands of those same small businesses with higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends? He seems to think businesses operate only in the present and will ignore the tax burdens coming at them down the road. This is the same reasoning that assumed that postponing ObamaCare's tax and regulatory burdens until 2014 would have no effect on business hiring in the meantime. 
  
 The same logic applies to Mr. Obama's claim that everything in his new proposal is "paid for." Yes, but only according to the usual 10-year Washington budget window that pushes all of the hard choices into the future, in this case after the election. So Mr. Obama gets to spend more now while promising to save later. This is also how the Administration claimed that a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement would reduce the deficit. It also means he can put more money in the pockets of dues-paying teachers unions and government workers. 
  
 The larger political subtext of Mr. Obama's speech is that if Congress doesn't pass his plan, he'll then campaign against Republicans as obstructionist. Thus his speech mantra that Congress should "pass it right away." This ignores that Mr. Obama has been the least obstructed President since LBJ in 1965 or FDR in 1933, which is how we got here. 
  
 He passed $830 billion in stimulus, $3 billion for cash for clunkers, $30 billion in small business loans, $30 billion for mortgage modification, the GM-Chrysler bailouts, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, credit card price controls, Build America Bonds, jobless benefits for a record 99 weeks, and more. 
  
 The only priorities that a Democratic Congress blocked were cap-and-tax and union card check, and both of those would have further damaged growth and jobs. Even last December, after Republicans had retaken the House, Mr. Obama won his one-year payroll tax cut, more jobless benefits and most of what he wanted. 
  
 The unfortunate reality is that even if Republicans gave Mr. Obama everything he wanted, the impact on growth would be modest at best. Washington can most help the economy with serious spending restraint, permanent tax-rate cuts, regulatory relief and repeal of ObamaCare. What won't help growth is more temporary, targeted political conjuring. ||||| 7.57 pm. This was also a speech aimed directly at his own party - rallying the troops, creating a framework for the campaign ahead, betting that things are bad enough that the infrastructure spending and the tax cuts will not alienate debt-concerned independents. In style, the last thing it was was professorial. This was a blunt, potent, confident attempt to win back the hearts of a disillusioned base, while appealing to the center in ways Republicans may feel a little leery of rejecting, given their already deep reputation for obstructionism. 
  
 Game on, in other words. Except this isn't a game. And any politician who acts like it is in the next year or so will pay a price. 
  
 7.49 pm. This was indeed a speech directed at independents and also at those who fear that America is in terminal decline. It was rooted in patriotism; it was framed to portray Obama as the pragmatic centrist he actually is. And it was not dishonest - these are the choices, short-term and long-term, that we have to make. And we should not be required to wait for another year and a half for action. 
  
 One key will be how it's paid for. It seems that Obama is simply insisting that the super-committee should add $450 billion to its remit for long-term spending reductions, including Medicare. I cannot imagine the House GOP agreeing to that. Another key is exactly what infrastructure projects are indeed "shovel-ready" enough to help in the next year or two. But the general idea of building permanent infrastructure as a way to use currently idle labor seems appealingly simple to me - and a classic Depression era maneuver. 
  
 7.46 pm. Wow. A threat to take this vision across the country if the GOP doesn't cooperate now. That's Truman-speak. After months of mild attempts to get Republicans to agree, he hasn't caved, and he hasn't demonized them. But he has now upped the ante, and has new fire in his belly. If he can succeed in getting a bulk of the jobs bill through and if the super-committee doesn't fail, we have a chance to turn this economy around. 
  
 7.42 pm. Now we get the full-throated defense of government action as part of American history, Republican and Democrat. I think this speech could well turn his own party base around - and frame the coming year on terms more favorable to him than the Republicans. 
  
 7.39 pm. The impassioned line to be used against Perry if he's the candidate: 
  
 We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win. 
  
 7.34 pm. This is the moment when Obama, rather than the GOP, ups the ante. This is what you might call aggressive conciliation. And here's what I'm also hearing: a very stirring appeal to patriotism, to the idea that America can be far better than we have become today. The repetitive comparison between America and China - the appeal to global competitiveness - is one of the best ripostes to the Big Lie that this president isn't somehow in love with this country. 
  
 7.29 pm. My own view is that this blend of short term stimulus balanced by serious long term entitlement reform is so obviously the sanest, smartest way forward it will sink in with most Americans. And complementing it with tax reform to give taxpayers a fair shake is the icing on the cake. What's now clear is that he is betting big in the nest year. This is more aggressive than I have seen him since he got elected. There is a steely impatience here that is obviously designed either to get something done now, or, if not, to run a Truman-style anti-Congress presidential campaign. 
  
 7.24 pm. After small businesses, a proposal for veterans. This is a cooptation of Republican erogenous zones with strong government action. It is the message he was elected on. He's bringing red ideas and blue ideas for jobs. And now he's touting more tax cuts - daring the GOP to oppose tax cuts for the middle classes. Brilliant line: 
  
 I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away. 
  
 He's rocking it. 
  
 7.23 pm. A simple message: these are proposals previously backed by Democrats and Republicans. How many times has he now quite sternly said "Pass This Bill"? 
  
 7.20 pm. A direct challenge for infrastructure investment - a patriotic challenge. Remember what I said about him staying on the ropes before he comes out swinging? This is not a milque-toast speech or a milque-toast proposal. It's a big bet on the country's desire for action, not debate. And so far, it sounds like something a sane Republican would be happy to support. 
  
 7.17 pm. An appeal to pragmatic bipartisanism in the current crisis - effective, and in the details, much more radical than I expected. And the message is even blunter: "You should pass this bill right away." And first off, it's all about tax cuts. Tax cuts. But we haven't quite gotten to the "all of it is paid for" have we? 
  
 7.13 pm. A late start. A warm reception. And a poignant admonition to the political and media class about their pettiness and narcissism. An immediate attempt to break through the usual political blah. 
  
 He's on tonight. 
  
 7.07 pm. A new nugget from the debate last night: Rick Perry physically grabbing Ron Paul and jabbing a pointed finger in his face in a commercial break. A nasty little image for a nasty little man. 
  
 6.54 pm. A treat beforehand: Biden and Boehner talking about recent golf games. Yep, they talk about that kind of thing. Biden's expressions were classic, though. There is something about the way he interacts with people that makes me feel at home. I think it's his Catholic Irish character - even when he screws up, even when he can't shut up, even when he's pretty much unbearable. While I'm on this Catholic kick, I should note that culturally speaking, I think Rick Perry is just not going to wear well with white Catholics. The death penalty insouciance and the healthcare callousness will hurt him with that demographic. 
  
 I can't say I dislike Boehner either. So far, the Speaker with that wonderful tanned, drinking, smoking face has emerged as personally far more likable than Pelosi. 
  
 (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.) |||||
– Pundits handed out good grades aplenty for President Obama's new jobs proposal last night, with generally positive feedback from liberals like Paul Krugman—but also from conservatives like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan. Krugman writes in the New York Times that he was "favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected." Still, "it's not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment." Of course, Krugman holds out little hope that the GOP will let it pass. It was a "cunning speech," muses David Frum on FrumForum. Economically, it's better than the 2009 stimulus, and, politically, it helps Obama's re-election chances, he adds. But the strongest aspect was using proposals Republicans had previously advocated, which "ingeniously put Republicans into an awkward spot," Frum writes. "This was a blunt, potent, confident attempt to win back the hearts of a disillusioned base, while appealing to the center in ways Republicans may feel a little leery of rejecting," writes Andrew Sullivan. "Game on, in other words." No love, though, from the Wall Street Journal. "Had Mr. Obama proposed a permanent cut in tax rates, or a major tax reform, or a moratorium on all new regulations for three years, he'd have our support," the paper notes. "But you have to really, really believe in hope and change to think that another $300 to $400 billion in new deficit spending and temporary tax cuts will do any better than the $4 trillion in debt that the Obama years have already piled up." Click for reactions to the speech from the 2012 GOP candidate crew and more. (Herman Cain: "We waited 30 months for this?")
Skriv en sammanfattning baserad på den här artikeln: jobb jobb Obamas jobb Tal Frågade Några reaktioner från republikaner Som du kanske har hört, president Obama fick upp inför kongressen på torsdag kväll och halv-snällt bad sina medlemmar att passera sin ny föreslagna amerikanska jobb lag "genast". Hans motståndare slösade ingen tid på att dela sina tankar med allmänheten: Fortfarande högt upp på sin småplane seger, John Boehner tillät att planen "merits reconsideration": "Det är min förhoppning att vi kan arbeta tillsammans för att få slut på den osäkerhet som familjer och småföretag står inför och skapa en bättre miljö för långsiktig ekonomisk tillväxt och skapande av arbetstillfällen inom den privata sektorn." Michele Bachmann gick en smula skurkaktig och erbjöd en "osanktionerad" TV-sänd genmäle där hon tog avstånd från presidentens användning av frasen "politisk cirkus": "Det var intressant för mig att om man tittar på presidentens kommentarer, nästan utanför grinden, började presidenten med att förolämpa kongressledamöter ... Han bjöd in dem att vara en del av denna adress i kväll Och ändå började han med en förolämpning — för ett cirkustält." Rick Perry var på något sätt inte övertygad: "President Obamas uppmaning om nästan en halv miljard dollar i mer statliga stimulans när USA har mer än $ 14 biljoner i skuld styrs av hans felaktiga tro att vi kan spendera vår väg till välstånd." Mitt Romney visade upp sin kantiga sida: Den oftast trångsynte före detta Massachusetts guvernör använde kvällen som en ursäkt för att släppa lite cool videokonst. Newt Gingrich var pedantisk: "[Han] hade mer av en procedurfråga med Obamas tal, där presidenten upprepade gånger uppmanade kongressen att godkänna hans amerikanska Jobs Act: "Jag kontrollerade med talman Boehners kontor. Det finns ingen räkning.'" Jon Huntsman höll sig till Twitter: "@BarackObamas trötta retorik & misslyckade politik har inte fungerat. Min plan kommer faktiskt att skapa arbetstillfällen. Följ med oss." Under tiden höll Herman Cain sitt uttalande till en Twitter-vänlig längd: “Vi väntade 30 månader på detta?” Och David Vitter? Inget mirakel inträffade, och han gjorde i själva verket inte sin fotbollsmatch. Efter jobb tal, GOP kandidater hoppa på Obama [Politico] Trots Talk of Taming Partisanship, en Show of It for President’s Notions [NYT] "Men Fed: s hår är uppenbarligen inte brinner, inte heller de flesta politiker verkar se någon brådska om situationen. Nu för tiden saknar de bästa — eller i varje fall de påstådda vise männen och kvinnorna, som antas se efter nationens välfärd — all övertygelse, medan de värsta, såsom representerade av stora delar av G.O.P., är fyllda av en lidelsefull intensitet. Så de arbetslösa överges. Foto O.K., om Obama-planen: Det kräver omkring 200 miljarder dollar i nya utgifter – mycket av det på saker som vi behöver i alla fall, som skolreparationer, transportnät och att undvika permitteringar av lärare – och 240 miljarder dollar i skattesänkningar. Det kanske låter som en hel del, men det är det faktiskt inte. De kvardröjande effekterna av bostadsbysten och det överskjutande av hushållens skulder från bubblan åren skapar en ungefär $ 1 biljoner per år hål i den amerikanska ekonomin, och denna plan — som inte skulle leverera alla sina fördelar under det första året — skulle bara fylla en del av det hålet. Och det är oklart, i synnerhet, hur effektiva skattesänkningar skulle vara för att öka utgifterna. Men planen skulle ändå vara mycket bättre än ingenting, och vissa av dess åtgärder, som särskilt syftar till att ge incitament till anställning, skulle kunna ge en relativt stor sysselsättningsbang för bocken. Som sagt, det är mycket djärvare och bättre än jag förväntat. President Obamas hår kanske inte brinner, men det är definitivt rökning; klart och tillfredsställande, han förstår hur desperat situationen med arbetstillfällen är. Men hans plan är inte sannolikt att bli lag, tack vare republikansk opposition. Och det är värt att notera hur mycket detta motstånd har hårdnat med tiden, till och med när de arbetslösas situation har förvärrats. Nyhetsbrev Registrera dig Fortsätt läsa huvudberättelsen Kontrollera att du inte är en robot genom att klicka på rutan. Ogiltig e- postadress. Var snäll och gå in igen. Välj ett nyhetsbrev att prenumerera på. Registrera dig Du kommer att få e-postmeddelanden som innehåller nyhetsinnehåll, uppdateringar och kampanjer från The New York Times. Du kan när som helst välja att inte göra det. Du samtycker till att få enstaka uppdateringar och specialerbjudanden för The New York Times produkter och tjänster. Tack för att du prenumererade. Ett fel har uppstått. Försök igen senare. Visa alla New York Times nyhetsbrev. I början av 2009 när den nya Obama-administrationen försökte komma till rätta med den kris den ärvt hörde man två huvudlinjer från kritiker till höger. För det första hävdade de att vi borde förlita oss på penningpolitiken i stället för på skattepolitiken — det vill säga att kampen mot arbetslösheten borde överlåtas åt Fed. För det andra hävdade de att skatteåtgärder bör ske i form av skattesänkningar snarare än tillfälliga utgifter. Nu är emellertid ledande republikaner emot skattesänkningar — åtminstone om de gynnar arbetande amerikaner snarare än rika människor och företag. Och de är också emot penningpolitiken. I onsdagskvällens republikanska presidentdebatt förklarade Mitt Romney att han skulle söka en ersättare för Ben Bernanke , Fed ordförande, i huvudsak för att Bernanke har försökt göra något (om än inte tillräckligt) åt arbetslösheten. Och det gör mr Romney till en moderat av G.O.P. standarder, eftersom Rick Perry , hans främsta rival för president nomineringen, har föreslagit att Mr Bernanke bör behandlas “ganska ful.” Så, vid denna punkt, ledande republikaner är i princip emot allt som kan hjälpa arbetslösa. Ja, Mr Romney har utfärdat en glansig, välproducerad "jobb plan", men det kan bäst beskrivas som 59 punkter med ingenting där - och definitivt inget som rättfärdigar hans påstående, gränsande till megalomani, att han skulle skapa inte mindre än 11 miljoner jobb på fyra år. De goda nyheterna i allt detta är att genom att gå större och djärvare än väntat, Mr Obama kan äntligen ha satt scenen för en politisk debatt om skapande av arbetstillfällen. För i slutändan kommer ingenting att göras förrän det amerikanska folket kräver åtgärder. De första reaktionerna på ordförandens tal om stora arbetstillfällen: 1) Kva tal, det var utmärkt – tydligt, fokuserat, oretoriskt. Kärnkonceptet – som betonar tidigare republikanskt godkännande av de viktigaste delarna i förslaget – försätter republikanerna på ett genialt sätt i en besvärlig situation. Och i själva verket har manövern haft någon omedelbar effekt. Talare Boehner och ledare Cantor sa till Politico ikväll att de skulle godkänna viktiga delar av lagförslaget. Talet lurades ut med objekt smart tänkt att fånga öronen på människor som kanske inte normalt stödja presidenten: löftet att betala federala entreprenörer snabbare, till exempel, och löneskattesänkningar för mindre företag värt upp till $ 80.000. 2) Qua economics ser förslaget mycket bättre ut än 2009 års stimulans. Denna nya åtgärd är inte uppfylld av demokraternas önskelistor och föråldrade kampanjlöften som gjorde en sådan röra av Stimulus 1. Det finns inga skatterabatter här, inga Pell-bidrag, bara det grundläggande materialet i ett konjunkturutjämnande program: skattekrediter för investeringar, fortsatta skattelättnader för löneutbetalningar och infrastrukturutgifter. 3) Qua-politik? Obamas omval förslag är fortfarande ganska dåligt, men det är marginellt mindre dåligt i kväll än det var i morse. Nej, han har inte återställt landet till välstånd. Men han gör igen åtminstone ser ut som han försöker och som om han försvarar Medicare och social trygghet i processen. Om Obama inte kan ställa upp som kandidat till återhämtning och välstånd kommer han att försöka ställa upp som kandidat till stabilitet och säkerhet mot motståndare som han kommer att försöka framställa som radikala och vårdslösa. Många av hans motståndare samarbetar entusiastiskt med denna strategi, inklusive den nuvarande republikanska president-front-runner. Om president Barack Obamas ekonomiska politik har haft en signaturbrist, är det inbilskheten att genom att dra i den ena eller den andra politiska spaken, genom att lägga mer pengar på detta program eller skära ner skatten i ett år, kan Washington manipulera den amerikanska ekonomin för att växa. Med sitt tal i går kväll till kongressen ger presidenten den strategin ett försök till. Det betyder inte att Mr Obama inte har gjort några intellektuella framsteg under sina 32 månader i ämbetet. Han erkänner nu den skada som överreglering kan göra, även om han inte kan göra mycket för att stoppa det utan att upphäva sina egna lagframgångar. Han beter sig nu som om han tror att skatter spelar roll för investeringar och anställning, åtminstone för nästa år. Och han ser nu visheten i budgetdisciplin, om än med början först 2013. Ändå är den underliggande teorin och praktiken i de välkända idéer som presidenten föreslog i går kväll regeringens besvärjare. Mer målinriktade, tillfälliga skattesänkningar; fler utgifter nu med löften om återhållsamhet senare; den femte (eller är den sjätte?) planerar att minska utmätningar av bostäder; och fler offentliga arbeten spendera, även om vi den här gången får höra att projekten verkligen kommer att vara redo. Vi vill stödja en plan för att stimulera ekonomin, som verkligen kämpar. Om Mr Obama hade föreslagit en permanent sänkning av skattesatserna, eller en stor skattereform, eller ett moratorium för alla nya regler i tre år, skulle han ha vårt stöd. Men du måste verkligen, verkligen tro på hopp och förändring för att tro att ytterligare $ 300-$ 400 miljarder i nya underskott utgifter och tillfälliga skattesänkningar kommer att göra bättre än de $ 4 biljoner i skuld som Obama åren redan har staplat upp. Vi har haft den största keynesianska stimulansen på årtionden. Det nya argumentet att 2009 års stimulans inte var tillräckligt stor är inte vad vi hörde då. Amerikanerna fick veta att det skulle skapa 3,5 miljoner nya arbetstillfällen och arbetslösheten skulle ligga kvar under 8 % och sjunka till 2011. Klockan är nu 9,1 procent. Men denna stimulans som vi får höra kommer att göra all skillnad. Mr Obama talade i går kväll som om han är en konverterad skatte-huggare, ber republikaner att utöka och förlänga löneskatten som löper ut i december i ytterligare ett år. Tillsammans med skattelättnader för vissa företag som anställer nya anställda säger han att detta kommer att minska arbetslösheten, och utan tvekan kommer det att leda till ytterligare anställning. Men vad händer 2013 när dessa skattesatser löper ut och Mr Obama lovar att slå tusentals av dessa samma småföretag med högre skattesatser på inkomst, kapitalvinster och utdelning? Han verkar tro att företagen bara verkar i nuet och kommer att ignorera de skattebördor som kommer på dem på vägen. Detta är samma resonemang som utgår från att senareläggning av ObamaCares skatte- och regleringsbördor fram till 2014 inte skulle ha någon effekt på företagsuthyrningen under tiden. Samma logik gäller för Mr Obamas påstående att allt i hans nya förslag är "betalat för". Ja, men bara enligt det vanliga 10-åriga budgetfönstret i Washington som driver alla svåra val in i framtiden, i detta fall efter valet. Så Mr Obama får spendera mer nu medan han lovar att spara senare. Detta är också hur administrationen hävdade att en ny $ 1 biljoner vårdrättigheter skulle minska underskottet. Det innebär också att han kan lägga mer pengar i fickorna på avgiftsbetalande lärarfack och statliga arbetare. Den större politiska undertexten i Obamas tal är att om kongressen inte godkänner hans plan, kommer han sedan att kampanja mot republikaner som obstruktionist. Således hans tal mantra att kongressen skulle "passera det direkt". Detta bortser från att Mr Obama har varit den minst hindrade presidenten sedan LBJ 1965 eller FDR 1933, vilket är hur vi kom hit. Han passerade $ 830 miljarder i stimulans, $ 3 miljarder för kontanter för klunker, $ 30 miljarder i småföretagslån, $ 30 miljarder för bolån modifiering, GM-Chrysler räddningsaktioner, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, kreditkort priskontroller, Bygg Amerika Bonds, jobblösa förmåner för rekord 99 veckor, och mer. De enda prioriteringar som en demokratisk kongress blockerade var kontroll av skatte- och fackkort, och båda dessa skulle ytterligare ha skadat tillväxt och sysselsättning. Redan i december förra året, efter att republikanerna hade återtagit kammaren, vann Mr Obama sin ettåriga löneskattsänkning, fler jobblösa förmåner och det mesta av vad han ville. Den olyckliga verkligheten är att även om republikanerna gav Mr Obama allt han ville, skulle effekten på tillväxten vara blygsam i bästa fall. Washington kan mest hjälpa ekonomin med allvarliga utgiftsrestriktioner, permanenta skattesänkningar, regellättnader och upphävande av ObamaCare. Det som inte hjälper tillväxten är mer tillfällig, målinriktad politisk trolldom. Â° 7.57 e.m. Detta var också ett tal som riktade sig direkt till hans eget parti - att samla trupperna, skapa en ram för den kommande kampanjen, satsa på att saker och ting är illa nog för att infrastrukturutgifterna och skattesänkningarna inte kommer att stöta bort skuldtyngda oberoende. Stilmässigt var det sista professorsexamen. Detta var ett trubbigt, kraftfullt, tillitsfullt försök att vinna tillbaka hjärtat hos en desillusionerad bas, samtidigt som man vädjar till centrum på sätt republikanerna kan känna sig lite ovilliga att förkasta, med tanke på deras redan djupa rykte om obstruktionism. Spelet är igång, med andra ord. Men det här är ingen lek. Och varje politiker som beter sig som det är under nästa år eller så kommer att betala ett pris. 19.49. Detta var verkligen ett tal riktat till oberoende och även till dem som fruktar att Amerika är på ändtlig tillbakagång. Den hade sin grund i patriotism; den utformades för att framställa Obama som den pragmatiska centrist han faktiskt är. Och det var inte oärligt - det är dessa val, kortsiktiga och långsiktiga, som vi måste göra. Och vi bör inte behöva vänta ytterligare ett och ett halvt år på åtgärder. En nyckel blir hur det ska betalas. Det verkar som om Obama helt enkelt insisterar på att superkommittén ska lägga till 450 miljarder dollar till sitt ansvarsområde för långsiktiga utgiftsminskningar, inklusive Medicare. Jag kan inte föreställa mig att kammarens GOP går med på det. En annan nyckel är exakt vad infrastrukturprojekt verkligen är tillräckligt "shovelklara" för att hjälpa till under det kommande året eller två. Men den allmänna idén om att bygga permanent infrastruktur som ett sätt att använda för närvarande sysslolös arbetskraft verkar tilltalande enkelt för mig - och en klassisk depression era manöver. 19.46. Wow. Ett hot att föra denna vision över hela landet om GOP inte samarbetar nu. Det är Truman-tal. Efter månader av milda försök att få republikanerna att gå med på det har han inte gett efter, och han har inte demoniserat dem. Men han har nu höjt ante, och har ny eld i magen. Om han lyckas få igenom en stor del av jobbräkningen och om superkommittén inte misslyckas har vi en chans att vända på ekonomin. 19.42. Nu får vi det fulla försvaret av regeringens agerande som en del av amerikansk historia, republikan och demokrat. Jag tror att detta tal mycket väl skulle kunna vända sin egen partibas - och rama in det kommande året på villkor som är mer gynnsamma för honom än republikanerna. 19.39. Den passionerade linjen att användas mot Perry om han är kandidaten: Vi bör inte vara i en kapplöpning till botten, där vi försöker erbjuda det billigaste arbetet och de värsta föroreningsstandarder. Amerika borde vara med i en tävling till toppen. Och jag tror att det är ett lopp vi kan vinna. 19.34. Detta är ögonblicket då Obama, snarare än GOP, höjer insatsen. Det här är vad man kan kalla aggressiv förlikning. Och här är vad jag också hör: en mycket gripande vädjan till patriotism, till tanken att Amerika kan vara mycket bättre än vi har blivit idag. Den upprepade jämförelsen mellan Amerika och Kina - lockelsen till global konkurrenskraft - är en av de bästa ribostes till den stora lögnen att denna president inte på något sätt är kär i detta land. 19.29. Min egen uppfattning är att denna blandning av kortsiktiga stimulansåtgärder som balanseras av en seriös långsiktig reform av rättigheterna är så uppenbart den förnuftigaste, smartaste vägen framåt att den kommer att sjunka ihop med de flesta amerikaner. Och att komplettera det med skattereformer för att ge skattebetalarna en rättvis omskakning är att isa på tårtan. Det som nu är klart är att han satsar stort i boet året. Det här är mer aggressivt än jag har sett honom sen han blev vald. Det finns en hård otålighet här som uppenbarligen är utformad antingen för att få något gjort nu, eller, om inte, för att driva en Truman-liknande anti-kongress presidentkampanj. 7.24 e.m. Efter småföretag, ett förslag till veteraner. Detta är ett samarbete mellan republikanska erogena zoner med starka regeringsåtgärder. Det är budskapet han valdes på. Han tar med röda idéer och blåa idéer till jobb. Och nu drar han in fler skattesänkningar - och utmanar GOP att motsätta sig skattesänkningar för medelklassen. Lysande linje: Jag vet att några av er har svurit på att aldrig höja några skatter på någon så länge ni lever. Det är inte rätt tid att skära ut ett undantag och höja medelklassskatterna, vilket är anledningen till att du bör skicka detta lagförslag omedelbart. Han gungar. 7.23 e.m. Ett enkelt budskap: det är förslag som tidigare stöddes av demokrater och republikaner. Hur många gånger har han nu bestämt sagt "passera den här räkningen"? 19.20. En direkt utmaning för infrastrukturinvesteringar - en patriotisk utmaning. Kommer du ihåg vad jag sa om att han skulle stanna på repen innan han kom ut och svängde? Detta är inte ett milk-toast tal eller ett milk-toast förslag. Det är en stor satsning på landets vilja till handling, inte debatt. Och än så länge låter det som något en förnuftig republikan gärna skulle stödja. - 19.17. En vädjan till pragmatisk bipartisanism i den nuvarande krisen - effektiv, och i detaljerna, mycket mer radikal än jag förväntade mig. Och budskapet är ännu trubbigare: "Du borde skicka den här räkningen direkt." Först och främst handlar det om skattesänkningar. Skattesänkningar. Men vi har inte riktigt kommit till "allt är betalt för" eller hur? 7.13 e.m. En sen start. En varm mottagning. Och en gripande förmaning till den politiska och mediala klassen om deras småaktighet och narcissism. Ett omedelbart försök att bryta igenom den vanliga politiska bla. Han är med i kväll. 7.07 e.m. Rick Perry tog tag i Ron Paul och högg ett finger i ansiktet i en reklampaus. En otäck liten bild för en otäck liten man. Klockan 18.54. En godbit i förväg: Biden och Boehner pratar om golfspel nyligen. Ja, de pratar om sånt. Bidens uttryck var dock klassiska. Det är något med hur han interagerar med människor som får mig att känna mig hemma. Jag tror att det är hans katolska irländska karaktär - även när han klantar sig, även när han inte kan hålla käften, även när han är ganska outhärdlig. Medan jag är på den här katolska kicken, bör jag notera att kulturellt sett tror jag att Rick Perry inte kommer att ha bra kläder med vita katoliker. Dödsstraffets överdrift och sjukvårdskallheten kommer att skada honom med den demografiska utvecklingen. Jag ogillar inte heller Boehner. Än så länge har talaren med detta underbara solbrända, drickande, rykande ansikte framstått som mycket mer sympatisk än Pelosi personligen. (Foto: Alex Wong/Getty.) Â°°
Write a summary based on this article: jobs Obama's job Speech Asked Some reactions from Republicans As you may have heard, President Obama got up before Congress on Thursday night and half-nicely asked his members to pass their new proposed U.S. job law "at once". His opponents wasted no time sharing their thoughts with the public: Still high up on their small-plane victory, John Boehner allowed the plan to "merits reconsideration": "It is my hope that we can work together to end the uncertainty facing families and small businesses and create a better environment for long-term economic growth and job creation in the private sector." Michele Bachmann went a bit villainous and offered an "unsanctioned" televised rebuttal in which she distanced herself from the President's use of the phrase "political circus": "It was interesting to me that if you look at the President's comments, almost outside the gate, the President began by insulting members of Congress ... He invited them to be part of this address tonight And yet he started with an insult — for a circus tent." Rick Perry was somehow not convinced: "President Obama's call for nearly half a billion dollars in more government stimulus when the United States has more than $14 trillion in debt is governed by his mistaken belief that we can spend our way to prosperity." Mitt Romney showed off his angular side: The usually narrow-minded former Massachusetts governor used the evening as an excuse to release some cool video art. Newt Gingrich was pedantic: "[He] had more of a procedural issue with Obama's speech, where the President repeatedly urged Congress to approve his American Jobs Act: "I checked with Speaker Boehner's office. There's no bill.'" Jon Huntsman stuck to Twitter: "@BarackObama's tired rhetoric & failed politics have not worked. My plan will actually create jobs. Come with us." Meanwhile, Herman Cain kept his statement to a Twitter friendly length: “We waited 30 months for this?” And David Vitter? No miracle occurred, and he did not actually make his football game. After job speech, GOP candidates jump on Obama [Politico] Despite Talk of Taming Partisanship, a Show of It for President’s Notions [NYT] "But Fed’s hair is obviously not on fire, nor do most politicians seem to see any urgency about the situation. Nowadays, the best — or at least the alleged wise men and women who are supposed to look after the welfare of the nation — lack all conviction, while the worst, as represented by much of the G.O.P., are filled with a passionate intensity. So the unemployed are abandoned. Photo O.K., on the Obama Plan: It requires about $200 billion in new spending – much of it on things that we need anyway, such as school repairs, transport networks and avoiding layoffs of teachers – and $240 billion in tax cuts. It may sound like a lot, but it really isn't. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the excess of household debt from the bubble years create a roughly $1 trillion a year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which would not deliver all its benefits in the first year — would only fill part of that hole. And it is unclear, in particular, how effective tax cuts would be to increase expenditure. However, the plan would still be much better than nothing, and some of its measures, specifically aimed at providing incentives for employment, could provide a relatively large employment bang for the goat. As I said, it's much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama's hair may not be burning, but it is definitely smoking; clear and satisfying, he understands how desperate the situation with jobs is. But his plan is not likely to become law, thanks to Republican opposition. And it is worth noting how much this resistance has hardened over time, even when the situation of the unemployed has worsened. Newsletter Sign up Continue reading the main story Check that you are not a robot by clicking on the box. Invalid email address. Please go back inside. Select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign up You will receive emails containing news content, updates and promotions from The New York Times. You can choose not to do it at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times products and services. Thank you for subscribing. There's been an error. Try again later. Show all New York Times newsletters. In early 2009, when the new Obama administration was trying to overcome the crisis it inherited, two main lines were heard from critics to the right. Firstly, they argued that we should rely on monetary policy instead of fiscal policy — that is, that the fight against unemployment should be left to the Fed. Second, they argued that tax measures should take the form of tax reductions rather than temporary expenditure. Now, however, leading Republicans are against tax cuts — at least if they favor working Americans rather than rich people and businesses. And they are also against monetary policy. In Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney declared that he would seek a replacement for Ben Bernanke , Fed chairman, essentially because Bernanke has tried to do something (though not enough) about unemployment. And that makes Mr. Romney a moderate of the G.O.P. standards, because Rick Perry, his main rival for the presidential nomination, has suggested that Mr Bernanke should be treated “quite ugly.” So, at this point, leading Republicans are basically against anything that can help the unemployed. Yes, Mr. Romney has issued a glossy, well-produced "job plan", but it can best be described as 59 points with nothing there - and definitely nothing justifying his claim, bordering on megalomania, that he would create no less than 11 million jobs in four years. The good news in all of this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may have finally set the stage for a political debate on job creation. For ultimately nothing will be done until the American people demand action. The first reactions to the President's speech on large jobs: 1) Qualified speech, that was excellent – clear, focused, unretorious. The core concept – emphasizing earlier Republican approval of the main elements of the proposal – puts Republicans in an ingenious way in a difficult situation. And in fact, the maneuver has had some immediate effect. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor told Politico tonight that they would approve important parts of the bill. The speech was tricked out with items smartly meant to catch the ears of people who may not normally support the president: the promise to pay federal contractors faster, for example, and wage tax cuts for smaller businesses worth up to $80,000. 2) Qua economics the proposal looks much better than the 2009 stimulus. This new measure is not fulfilled by the Democratic wish lists and outdated campaign promises that made such a mess of Stimulus 1. There are no tax rebates here, no Pell grants, only the basic material of a countercyclical program: tax credits for investment, continued tax relief for wage payments and infrastructure expenditure. 3) Qua-politics? Obama's re-election proposal is still rather bad, but it is marginally less bad tonight than it was this morning. No, he has not restored the land to prosperity. But he does again at least looks like he's trying and as if he's defending Medicare and social security in the process. If Obama cannot stand as a candidate for recovery and prosperity, he will try to stand as a candidate for stability and security against opponents whom he will attempt to portray as radical and careless. Many of his opponents enthusiastically collaborate with this strategy, including the current Republican presidential-frontrunner. If President Obama's economic policy has had a signature flaw, it is the conceit that by pulling one political lever or the other, by spending more money on this program or cutting the tax for a year, Washington can manipulate the American economy to grow. With his speech last night to Congress, the President is giving that strategy another attempt. That does not mean that Mr. Obama has made no intellectual progress during his 32 months in office. He now admits the damage that overregulation can do, although he cannot do much to stop it without undoing his own team success. He now acts as if he believes taxes matter for investment and employment, at least for next year. And he now sees the wisdom of budgetary discipline, albeit starting only in 2013. Yet the underlying theory and practice of the well-known ideas proposed by the President last night are government conjurers. More targeted, temporary tax cuts; more spending now with promises of restraint later; the fifth (or is the sixth?) plans to reduce foreclosures of housing; and more public works spend, although this time we are told that the projects will really be ready. We want to support a plan to stimulate the economy, which is really struggling. If Mr. Obama had proposed a permanent reduction in tax rates, or a major tax reform, or a moratorium on all new rules for three years, he would have our support. But you really have to, really believe in hope and change to believe that another $300-$400 billion in new deficit spending and temporary tax cuts will do better than the $4 trillion in debt that Obama years have already piled up. We've had the biggest Keynesian stimulus in decades. The new argument that the 2009 stimulus was not large enough is not what we heard at the time. The Americans were told that it would create 3.5 million new jobs and unemployment would remain below 8% and fall by 2011. It is now 9.1%. But this stimulus that we are told will make all the difference. Mr. Obama spoke last night as if he is a converted tax-cutter, asking Republicans to extend and extend the payroll tax that expires in December for another year. Together with tax incentives for some companies employing new employees, he says that this will reduce unemployment, and no doubt it will lead to further employment. But what happens in 2013 when these rates expire and Mr Obama promises to beat thousands of these same small businesses with higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends? He seems to think that companies only operate in the present and will ignore the tax burdens that come upon them on the way. This is the same reasoning that assumes that postponing ObamaCare's tax and regulatory burdens until 2014 would have no effect on corporate rental in the meantime. The same logic applies to Mr Obama's claim that everything in his new proposal is "paid for". Yes, but only according to the usual 10-year budget window in Washington that drives all the difficult elections into the future, in this case after the election. So Mr. Obama gets to spend more now while he promises to save later. This is also how the administration claimed that a new $1 trillion health care rights would reduce the deficit. It also means that he can put more money in his pockets on fee-paying teachers' unions and government workers. The major political subtitle of Obama's speech is that if Congress does not approve of his plan, he will then campaign against Republicans as an obstructionist. Thus his speech mantra that Congress would "pass it directly". This ignores Mr. Obama having been the least obstructed president since LBJ in 1965 or FDR in 1933, which is how we got here. He passed $830 billion in stimulus, $3 billion for cash for sips, $30 billion in small business loans, $30 billion for mortgage modification, GM-Chrysler bailouts, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, credit card price controls, Build America Bonds, jobless benefits for record 99 weeks, and more. The only priorities blocked by a Democratic Congress were control of tax and union cards, both of which would have further damaged growth and employment. Already last December, after the Republicans had reclaimed the House, Mr. Obama won his one-year payroll tax cut, more jobless benefits and most of what he wanted. The unfortunate reality is that although the Republicans gave Mr. Obama everything he wanted, the effect on growth would be modest at best. Washington can most help the economy with severe spending restrictions, permanent tax cuts, rule relief and repeal of ObamaCare. What does not help growth is more temporary, targeted political sorcery. <unk> 7.57 p.m. This was also a speech addressed directly to his own party - to rally the troops, create a framework for the upcoming campaign, bet things are bad enough that infrastructure spending and tax cuts will not repell debt-ridden independence. In style, the last professorial degree was. This was a blunt, powerful, confident attempt to win back the heart of a disillusioned base, while appealing to the center in ways the Republicans may feel a little unwilling to reject, given their already deep reputation for obstructionism. The game is on, in other words. But this isn't a game. And any politician who acts as it is in next year or so will pay a price. 19.49. This was indeed a speech addressed to independence and also to those who fear that America is in finite decline. It had its basis in patriotism; it was designed to portray Obama as the pragmatic centrist he actually is. And it was not dishonest - it is these choices, short-term and long-term, that we have to make. And we should not have to wait another year and a half for action. A key will be how to pay it. It appears that Obama simply insists that the Super Committee add $450 billion to its remit for long-term spending reductions, including Medicare. I cannot imagine that the GOP of this House agrees. Another key is exactly what infrastructure projects really are "shovel-ready" enough to help in the coming year or two. But the general idea of building permanent infrastructure as a means of using currently idle labor seems appealingly simple to me - and a classic depression your maneuver. 19.46. Wow. A threat to carry this vision across the country if the GOP does not cooperate now. It's Truman speech. After months of mild attempts to get the Republicans to agree, he has not yielded, and he has not demonized them. But he has now raised ante, and has new fire in his stomach. If he manages to get through a large part of the job bill and if the Super Committee doesn't fail, we have a chance to turn the economy around. 19.42. Now we get the full defence of government action as part of American history, Republican and Democrat. I think this speech could well turn its own party base - and frame the coming year on terms more favorable to him than the Republicans. 19.39. The passionate line to be used against Perry if he is the candidate: we should not be in a race to the bottom, where we are trying to offer the cheapest work and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a contest to the top. And I think it's a race we can win. 19.34. This is the moment when Obama, rather than the GOP, raises the stake. This is what you might call aggressive settlement. And here's what I also hear: a very poignant appeal to patriotism, to the idea that America can be much better than we have become today. The repeated comparison between America and China - the appeal to global competitiveness - is one of the best ribostes to the great lie that this President is in no way in love with this country. 19.29. My own view is that this mix of short-term incentives balanced by a serious long-term reform of rights is so obviously the most sensible, smartest way forward that it will sink to most Americans. And to supplement it with tax reforms to give taxpayers a fair shake is to ice on the cake. What is now clear is that he is investing heavily in the nest year. This is more aggressive than I've seen him since he was elected. There is a severe impatience here that is obviously designed either to get something done now, or, if not, to run a Truman-like anti-congress presidential campaign. 7.24 p.m. After small businesses, a proposal for veterans. This is a cooperation between Republican erogenous zones with strong government measures. That's the message he was chosen on. He brings red ideas and blue ideas to work. And now he pulls in more tax cuts - and challenges the GOP to oppose tax cuts for the middle class. Brilliant line: I know some of you have sworn never to raise any taxes on anyone as long as you live. It is not the right time to cut out an exception and raise middle class taxes, which is why you should send this bill immediately. He's rocking. 7.23 p.m. A simple message: these are proposals that were previously supported by Democrats and Republicans. How many times has he said "pass this bill"? 19.20. A direct challenge for infrastructure investment - a patriotic challenge. Remember what I said about him staying on the ropes before he came out and turned? This is not a milk-toast speech or a milk-toast proposal. It is a major investment in the country's willingness to act, not debate. And so far it sounds like something a reasonable Republican would like to support. - 1917. An appeal to pragmatic bipartisanism in the current crisis - effective, and in the details, much more radical than I expected. And the message is even blunter: "You should send this bill right away." First of all, it is a question of tax cuts. Tax cuts. But we haven't really come to "all is paid for," have we? 7.13 p.m. Late start. A warm reception. And a poignant admonition to the political and medial class about their pettyness and narcissism. An immediate attempt to break through the usual political blah. He's in tonight. 7.07 p.m. Rick Perry grabbed Ron Paul and stabbed a finger in the face of a commercial break. A nasty little picture for a nasty little man. At 6:54 p.m. A treat in advance: Biden and Boehner talk about golf games recently. Yeah, they talk about that kind of thing. Biden's expression, however, was classic. There's something about how he interacts with people that make me feel at home. I think it's his Catholic Irish character - even when he screw up, even when he can't shut up, even when he's pretty unbearable. While I'm at this Catholic kick, I should note that culturally speaking, I think Rick Perry won't be wearing good clothes with white Catholics. The exaggeration of the death penalty and the health-care craziness will harm him with demographic developments. I don't dislike Boehner either. So far, the speaker with this wonderful sunburned, drinking, smoking face has appeared much more sympathetic than Pelosi personally. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.) <unk>
– Pundits delade ut bra betyg i överflöd för president Obamas nya jobbförslag igår kväll, med generellt positiv feedback från liberaler som Paul Krugman – men också från konservativa som David Frum och Andrew Sullivan. Krugman skriver i New York Times att han blev "fördelaktigt överraskad av den nya jobbplanen för Obama, som är betydligt djärvare och bättre än jag förväntat mig." Ändå, "Det är inte alls så djärv som planen jag skulle vilja i en ideal värld. Men om det verkligen blev lag, skulle det förmodligen göra en betydande buckla i arbetslöshet." Krugman hyser naturligtvis föga hopp om att GOP skall låta det passera. Det var ett "kulande tal", musas David Frum på FrumForum. Ekonomiskt är det bättre än 2009 års stimulans, och politiskt hjälper det Obamas omvalschanser, tillägger han. Men den starkaste aspekten var att använda förslag som republikanerna tidigare hade förespråkat, vilket "försatte republikanerna i en pinsam plats", skriver Frum. "Detta var ett trubbigt, potent, självsäkert försök att vinna tillbaka hjärtat på en desillusionerad bas, samtidigt som man vädjar till centrum på sätt republikaner kan känna sig lite snåla av att avvisa", skriver Andrew Sullivan. "Spela på, med andra ord." Men ingen kärlek från Wall Street Journal. "Hade Mr Obama föreslagit en permanent sänkning av skattesatserna, eller en stor skattereform, eller ett moratorium på alla nya förordningar i tre år, skulle han ha vårt stöd," papper anteckningar. "Men du måste verkligen, verkligen tro på hopp och ändra för att tro att ytterligare $ 300 till $ 400 miljarder i nya underskott utgifter och tillfälliga skattesänkningar kommer att göra bättre än $ 4 biljoner i skuld som Obama åren redan har staplat upp." Klicka för reaktioner på talet från 2012 års GOP-kandidatbesättning med mera. (Herman Cain: "Vi väntade i 30 månader på detta?")
“Pundits handed out good ratings in abundance for President Obama’s new job proposal last night, with generally positive feedback from Liberals such as Paul Krugman – but also from conservatives such as David Frum and Andrew Sullivan. Krugman writes in the New York Times that he was "favorably surprised by the new job plan for Obama, which is far bolder and better than I expected." Yet, "It's not at all as bold as the plan I'd like in an ideal world. But if it really became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment." Krugman, of course, has little hope that the GOP will let it pass. It was a "balling speech", muse David Frum of FrumForum. Economically, it's better than the 2009 stimulus, and politically it helps Obama's re-election chances," he adds. But the strongest aspect was to use proposals that the Republicans had previously advocated, which "put Republicans in an embarrassing place," writes Frum. "This was a blunt, potent, confident attempt to win back the heart of a disillusioned base, while appealing to the center in ways Republicans may feel a little stingy to reject," writes Andrew Sullivan. "Play on, in other words." But no love from the Wall Street Journal. "Had Mr. Obama proposed a permanent reduction in tax rates, or a major tax reform, or a moratorium on all new regulations for three years, he would have our support," paper notes. "But you really have to, really believe in hope and change to believe that another $300 to $400 billion in new deficit spending and temporary tax cuts will do better than $4 trillion in debt that Obama years have already piled up." Click for reactions to the 2012 GOP candidate crew speech and more. (Herman Cain: "We waited 30 months for this?")