>>> today, republicans in the house tries the process to splash spending or dlf$60 billion to the budget. but what happened to one of the central planks of their campaign?
>> this election is about work. it’s about getting people back to work.
>> why isn’t the president focused on creating jobs that the american people are asking for?
>> we are determined to fight for the future of the american people, to create jobs.
>> the number one question in america continues to be where are the jobs?
>> where are the jobs? where are the jobs? where are the jobs? where are the jobs? americans are still asking the question, where are the jobs?
>> you just saw it right there. 2010, that is what they pounded home. that’s what they ran on, where are the jobs? well, now that john boehner is the speaker of the house, he’s singing a little different tune.
>> over the last two years since president obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it.
>> if some of the jobs are lost, so be it? from the guy who ran the campaign on where are the jobs? of course he’s wrong on the numbers. and the number of jobs created, the net increase was 58,000, if since obama has come in. so boehner was only off by about 142,000. you know why he was off by that? because he picked the number out of his back pocket. they just make it up! it’s amazing. the office of management and budget found that, in fact, in 2010, there were 8.4 federal employees for every 1,000 americans. under bush, there were 9.1 federal workers per 1,000 citizens. do you know what that means? that means that president bush had more federal employees per capita. in fact, under president obama, we’re seeing the lowest level of federal employees per capita since before 1962. so less federal employees per capita, and they call him a socialist anyway. oh, he’s adding federal employees. it’s time to cut the jobs. from the guys who ran on jobs. now, according to the center for american progress, the extreme cuts the house republicans want to make will have dire consequences. it’s not just the federal job, it’s — first, you’ve got the direct loss of 650,000 government jobs if their plans go into effect. the republican plans. but there’s also the indirect loss of an additional 325,000 jobs for a grand total of 975,000 jobs lost. no one does more math than this problem. and we’re proud of it. well, now we know the speaker boehner’s response to nearly 1 million jobs lost with his party’s spending cuts. it’s this —
>> so be it. so be it. so be it. so be it. so be it.
>> it’s very, very clear. now with all the republican talk of cutting the deficit, they completely write off one simple solution. let me give it to you now — repealing the bush tax cuts. did you know that getting rid of all the bush tax cuts would have saved $5 trillion over the next ten years, according to the congressional research service? so let me put that into perspective for you. president obama, deep spending cut, heating assistance for the poor, you’ve got the, uh you know, the education cuts and it goes on and on and on. community cuts. they total $1.1 trillion over ten years. that’s a lot of cuts, right? when you go to the deficit commission, the big cuts to social security, medicare, et cetera, et cetera, that was $4 trillion over basically ten years. 2020, it would be $4 trillion. we don’t need any of those draconian cuts. all we got to do is go back to the clinton tax rate. do you know how many jobs were created under clinton during his administration? 22 million. it totally worked. save the $4 trillion without cutting social security and medicare at all and with that extra $1 trillion, do whatever you like. heating assistance, the republicans do you want to do another war? that’s probably what you would want to spend it on. i wouldn’t recommend it. but it’s such an easy solution. why don’t we do that instead? well, let’s ask congressman anthony weiner. he’s joining us now. congressman, am i missing something? isn’t that a million times more obvious solution? and a much easier solution?
>> well, the short answer is no, you’re not missing anything. the problem that we have here is we have a combination of things going on at once. we extended the bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaire billionaires. that dug us a deep hole. now in order to dig out of that hole and others, they’re doing basically the republican budget cutters are saying let’s make air traffic controllers take a 20% cut. let’s reduce the amount of cops on the beat and these types of efforts. but you know what is important to keep in mind here, the single greatest thing to do to reduce our deficit, our long-term debt is to get people back to work. when fewer people are working, fewer people are paying income taxes. more people are getting services for the government 37 we have to be careful we don’t go in the direction that ireland and england went into where they slashed budgets during their session and axccelerated the downward spiral. which side are you on? if you think it’s smart to cut air traffic controllers, when you probably want to vote republican in the next congress.
>> look, the tax rates, if it went back to the clinton levels, the rich would get about 3% or 4% of money over $250,000. or we could cut the other. pras like food safety. who wants to cut food safety? it’s crazy. let me focus on the jobs, though. the center for american progress numbers just now, about a million jobs lost if the spending cuts go into effect. i know they’re a progressive think tank. do you think those numbers are accurate? if they are, you guys should be screaming that from the roof tops, shouldn’t you?
>> yeah, i think they are accurate. and let me explain to your viewers why it is. when you cut the services, there’s a knock-on effect. sure when you cut cops you’re going to lose police officers in just about every district of the country, but when you cut back on investment programs, when you cut back even on the one i gave you, air traffic controller, which means fewer flights can fly, which means the airline industry has to take a hit. this is the impact that winds up happening when you swing at the budget with an ax rather than going at wit a scalpel. so not only that, let’s remember something that i think john boehner leaves out. there have been more private sector jobs created in two years of president obama than in eight years of president bush. he’s already created more private sector jobs than the last president did in two full terms.
>> here’s what i’m worried about, though. whether it’s president obama or now the fight in the house, it seems like people are accepting the republican framing. hey, we already gave the tax cuts for the rich and we cannot discuss that. that’s off the table. so now let’s concentrate on hitting the poor and the middle class. so go, give me your spending cuts. isn’t it wrong to accept that framing all together? no, i don’t accept the only answer is spending cuts to things like food safety and safety of our planes as they’re landing.
>> i agree 100%. democratswhofight.com is having this conversation. and homingly, the rank and file are saying we have to look at this frame much broader. we have to see if things are basically fair. is it basically fair for billionaires, literally billionaires to get tax cuts, and then say to senior citizens that we’re going to provide only half of you help with energy. or we’re going to say to middle class families trying to get pell grants to put their kids through college that we’re going to slash those back to afford these billionaire tax cuts. i agree with you, we have to broaden our scope to talk about general philosophies in our country. democrats generally believe in the idea that we have to help the middle class and those struggling to make it. republicans agree with lower tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. which side are people on is the fundamental question.
>> you know where i like to leave interviews? where i have 100% agreement.
>> i only come on your show because i agree with you 100% of the time.
>> thank you for your time tonight.
>> thank you, sir.
>> all right, now for more, let me bring in dana millback. first of all, let me ask you this, how many jobs fw s bills have the republicans proposed since they came into power?
>> let me cut on my fingers. none.
>> really? none? how many amendments on abortion.
>> there have been a couple. one prominently called hr-3. part of the problem is the whole notion of creating jobs from the republican point of view is just get the government out of it and the private sector will create the jobs on their own. they say by cutting government, we are creating jobs. that may be true in the very long term as the budget comes into balance over many years. but in the short term that’s one huge whopper of an economic shock that could — as you’re discussing, nearly a million jobs could be lost and that could be the kind of shock that sends the economy right back into recession.
>> you made an interesting point in your article today, though. when you talk about the politics of this, that may not be such a bad thing for the republicans. why is it? explain that?
>> i don’t want to say that republicans are wishing for the economy to go back in the tank. let’s take them at their — remarks at their face value and they they want to grow the economy and grow jobs b, but it is a political fact that it is in their interest if the economy is not growing very quickly, and if the unemployment rate does not budge by 2012. that’s how a republican president will get elected and a rj laer majority in the house and conceivably taking over the senate. so certainly, if it does have the unintended effect, shall we say, of throwing the economy back into recession, there is a political dividend, even if that’s not what the motive was in the first place.
>> and that’s exactly what the motive is. okay. so now on the other hand, the politics that they played with that clip from john boehner, not so smart. for him to say so be it, that’s got to be terrible politics, doesn’t it?
>> i was at that session yesterday morning. as soon as i heard that, i said i think there’s going to be a problem with that. and sure enough, the afternoon, it exploded. there were a couple of problems. one is the 200,000 figure, as you pointed out is wrong. and otherwise, it just sounds so callous. and even if we can understand what he’s trying to say, and that is, yes, some jobs may be lost in the path to a long term larger number of jobs created, you don’t say it by saying so be it. as i pointed out in the article, john boehner is not taking a so be it attitude towards workers in his own district. he was fighting for this thing that looked very much like an earmark to make sure this engine at the pentagon said it does not want for the new joint strike fighter, makes sure that continues to be built. he actually lost that battle today.
>> dana, one more quick question. i want to talk about the-35 at the end of the show. i thought that was really interesting. but is there a price to be paid here? are the republican voters waking up today and going when are they ever going to do anything about jobs? or have they not gotten that message yet?
>> you know, i think it’s going to be measured by results, and, you know, they’ll get some credit, of course, obama and the democrats will get more credit for it, because they’re mostly in charge, if jobs grow in advance of the 2012 elections. so look, and the reverse is true. if people feel that the republicans are doing great damage with these cuts. but, you know, it will take disht’s not something in the abstract that people can grasp right now. they’re going to have to wait and see their kid’s headstart program canceled or they’re not going to be able to take that flight they were going to take. that’s how it will begin to be felt over time.
>> thanks for your time tonight.