ShareThis Page

Another 'jobs' pitch: Blind on business

| Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009

The Obama administration insists that the government can still spend its way to better times with a new jobs package for which the House this week approved $154 billion.

But the more government spends, the more it crowds out private investment, business growth and job creation, as documented in a new Heritage Foundation analysis.

Despite Mr. Obama's $787 billion stimulus to "create or save jobs," unemployment has grown worse. The jobless rate has doubled since the onset of the recession two years ago. And private businesses remain skittish over what the president's plans are going to cost them.

"As long as entrepreneurs and investors have reduced opportunities to create wealth, unemployment will remain high," writes James Sherk, a Heritage fellow in labor policy.

Private businesses are not investing and expanding. They're retrenching .

As Mr. Sherk notes, business borrowing, for expansion and start-ups, has dropped off dramatically in recent quarters. Expansion becomes even less likely if big-ticket bills, such as government-run health care and cap-and-trade regulations, make adding new jobs more expensive.

What's needed is not more government tinkering but less spending and interference. That and the reassurance to businesses and entrepreneurs that they won't be penalized for growing their enterprises.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.