Log Out
Visit Robert in Ohio's column >>

ROBERT IN OHIO

Independent with strong values and political opinions
Articles Posted: 19  Links Seeded: 41
Member Since: 11/2010  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

Obama's Jobs Panel Recommendations Resemble Republican Proposals

Seeded on Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:11 PM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: Reuters
, , , , , ,
Seeded by Robert in Ohio
Advertise | AdChoices

In a surprising turn of events the proposals of Pres Obama’s “Jobs Council” (headed by J Immelt of GE) put forth recommendations that bear marked resemblance to proposals the Republicans have been touting for the past three years.

President Barack Obama's jobs council called on Tuesday for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms

Pres Obama has acted on many earlier recommendations of the council, using executive powers, but when given these proposals, the president responded.

"Obviously this year is an election year, and so getting Congress focused on some of these issues may be difficult,"

There was a quick and positive response from the Republican leadership to the council’s report.

"With this report, President Obama's own panel of experts has endorsed the approach to job creation House Republicans have been pursuing for more than a year," Republican House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

The recommendations from the president’s council are music to the ears of Republicans ---

"The Jobs Council recommends expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels - including allowing more access to oil, gas, and coal opportunities on federal lands - while ensuring safe and responsible development of those sites," the report said.

The panel called for lowering corporate tax rates to "internationally competitive levels," saying that would boost investment within U.S. borders, and broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes.

In addition, the report called for a series of reforms to further streamline government rules and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, which it said would enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Remembering the president’s praise of this council and his willingness to implement the recommendations they would come up with, it will be interesting to see how the administration moves forward with the recommendations above.

Your comments, counterpoints and remarks are welcomed and appreciated

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Robert in Ohio

In what can only be described as surprising and ironic, the report of recommendations from the President's Jobs Council, could very well be sub-titled "Republican Wish List for 2012"

Regulatory reform, lower corporate tax rates and expanded domestic drilling are among the recommendations in the report.

Speaker Boehner was quick to praise the report and President Obama voiced doubt that mcuh could be done in an election year.

It seems this report will be campaign material for the Republicans in 2012

Comments, feedback, counterpoints and remarks are welcomed and appreciated.

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:14 PM EST
Sebbydad

This is the same thing that happened with health care, he took a bunch of past GOP proposals, offered a balanced package and the GOP freaked and could not support it coming from this President.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:35 PM EST
Robert in Ohio

Seebydad

Let's see if the president proposes lower the corporate tax rate, easing regulations or expanding domestic drilling on federal lands before we say it is the same as what has happened in the past.

He has not advocated these things in his recent proposal on the economy

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:16 PM EST
Sebbydad

Net corporate taxes are already ridiculously low but how does a reduction in their taxes equate to jobs how? Let's see the oil companies use some of the hundreds of leases they are not currently using. That oil does not stay here btw it is sold on the open market for the highest price. What regulations would like to see removed that will magically result in jobs?

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:37 PM EST
Robert in Ohio

Seebydad

If you lower the rate and eliminate all the deductions and loopholes the revenue will still increase and it will attract foreign businesses to the U.S.

It is a good idea.

You disagree with the recommendations which is your choice, but many think that drilling in the ANWAR and easing some regulations are a good idea to talk about to get things going again.

The key point here is that Pres obama's advisory council is recommending these things as the right things to do now.

  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:54 PM EST
Sebbydad

RIO - if the net of making the changes is an effective rise in paid corporate taxes, how does that attract business? Is there a shortage of foreign business here?

Drilling in ANWAR does not get you oil tomorrow, or next yer or even 5 years from now, this is the real thing I don't understand, instead of investing in renewable resources that would eliminate the need, altogether to purchase foreign oil, conservatives seem to think that more drilling will somehow solve the problem. the only people that benefit from ANWAR drilling are oil companies. It is time to move on and actually LEAD the way into new energy sources. We led the oil boom it is time to move on.

  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:18 AM EST
Robert in Ohio

Sebbydad

Business that are headquartered in other countries are paying a higher corporate tax rate (in some cases significantly higher) than the 15% tax rate that would be in place under the panel's recommendation, which is the incentive for businesses to move here.

It would also be an incentive for some U.S> corporations to repatriate money be held (and taxed) abroad which would also infuse revenue into the economy.

ANWAR was only an example.

Perhaps you are right about new energy sources and when they are readily available and competitively priced (unlike the current electric cars, or solar panel arrays for your house, etc) the American people will embrace them.

Thanks for the feedback

    #2.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:23 AM EST
    Sebbydad

    Seems to mme they tried the repatriation thing before, and it didn't work. A skilled workforce is more critical than a tax rate. US companies already have plenty of liquid capital - record profits the last three years, where is the investment.

    The alternative energy sources are readily available and competitively priced, electric cars have been around for over a century, solar power for over 2000 years. Take the oil and coal subsides and invest them into renewables for 5 years, it takes a commitment.

    • 1 vote
    #2.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:47 AM EST
    Robert in Ohio

    Seebydad

    The people recommending this change in the tax code are the titans of American and global industry and IMO they have a great point.

    Repatriation was a gimmick before, now if the tax rate is lowered it will simply be good business and everyone will do it

    If electric cars are so competitively priced where aren't there more of them out there.

    In addition to price, the alternatie fuel vehicles msut appeal to the buyer and meet the needs of the user.

    Thanks for the feedback

      #2.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:59 AM EST
      Sebbydad

      Them being the people most likely to benefit by tax reduction recommending a tax reduction, strikes me as letting your teenagers set their own curfew.

      I didn't talk about pricing, I talked about viability, there was a time when there were a number of them out there, the car company took them back and crushed them instead of upping demand. Maintenance on IC vehicles is a multi-billion dollar business, it will not go down easily.
      All new technology goes from few sold at high prices to commonplace at low process, everything from the TV to the PC to the Cell phone went through its ramp up period where it was 'destined to be a failure' until it became a near necessity of life.

      Electric cars built 20 years ago could meet the needs of 90% of drivers today. Appeal is determined by marketing.

      • 1 vote
      #2.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:09 AM EST
      Robert in Ohio

      Seebydad

      I see that we are at different points of view on the two issues, you make very good points but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one

      As always thanks for the back and forth

        #2.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:29 AM EST
        Sebbydad

        I'm not against reform, there need to be changes, the sticking point to me is how do you incite businesses to open here? A trained work force, reliable infrastructure and a growing market for your goods or services, all of those things come before tax rates when you are going to open a business.

        I too like an actual conversation and debate vs bloviating and hyperbole. thanks.

        • 1 vote
        #2.10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:26 PM EST
        Robert in Ohio

        Seebydad

        I am sure you meant incentivize them to open here and offering a lower corporate rate than they are paying in other countries is certainly a key way to do that.

        These people, we are taking about, are not opening a business they are established corporations that would relocate to the US (ans still serve the markets they currently do including the US).

        Totally enjoy the debate with you

          #2.11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:43 PM EST
          Sebbydad

          Relocating a business in a new country is effectively opening a new business. TAx credits for every new job brought on board makes more sense to me. But regardless of the tax rate, why would you move your business to a country with untrained workers and crumbling infrastructure?

          • 1 vote
          #2.12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:52 PM EST
          Robert in Ohio

          Seebydad

          To take advantage of the perks offered, to get in on the bottom floor to train the work force you need, to have access to a highly educated, motivated work force that is thirsting for work

          And as the private business base expands and tax revenues rise the infrastructure will be rebuilt better and stronger than ever.

          When a business relocates into the U.S. (or to an offshore location) it is not about this year or next yer but rather about the next decade or the next two decades

          Of course we can also choose to continue to do nothing and see if the results change, IMO making proactive efforts to rebuild and expand the U.S. industrial base is a worthwhile pursuit.

          Good points

            #2.13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:57 PM EST
            Reply
            Linda Luke

            Neither the Republicans or President Obama have real concerns for those people that are not working. It is out of sight out of mind as none of them are living those lives of people that can't seem to find income, and the excessive poor nation that exists at this time. The election year seems to have priority for all of them. It also doesn't surprise me to see Obama the republican walking again in the footprints of republicans as there is no difference in the parties.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#3 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:38 PM EST
            Robert in Ohio

            Linda

            I would say that they have concern, but those concerns are secondary to the concern they have to keep their respective jobs

            • 2 votes
            #3.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:17 PM EST
            Reply
            vol fan in chatt, tn

            good seed, Robert. Thanks for pointing this out.

              Reply#4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:14 AM EST
              Robert in Ohio

              vol fan

              Thanks for stopping by

                #4.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:14 AM EST
                Reply
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.