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?")