Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Grooving on the Virginia Job Numbers

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

It’s been a long time since the unemployment situation looked this good. From the Virginia Employment Commission, here are the latest unemployment and job growth numbers for Virginia’s metropolitan areas:

You’d think that Virginia’s mainstream media might bring attention to this good news. But I don’t recall seeing a single front-page article touting the Old Dominion’s job growth and low unemployment numbers. The statistics are routinely buried in short, boilerplate articles on the business page.

Perhaps Virginia editors and reporters don’t think that the best unemployment picture in almost 50 years is news worth noting. Perhaps they think that highlighting these numbers might give undue credit to the moronic President Trump, who stupidly insisted that sustained 3%+ economic growth was possible even while his better-informed detractors did not. Perhaps they fret that good news distracts from their preferred narrative of racism, inequality, suffering, and oppression. Whatever their reasoning, I think the news is worth celebrating.

(With a little creativity, the media could give Gov. Ralph Northam all the credit for Virginia’s numbers. … But the media is not very happy with him either.)

The economy might go all to hell in 2020 — massive global credit creation makes me very nervous — but right now it feels really good. You can count on Bacon’s Rebellion to continue exploring the themes of job creation, wealth creation and opportunity for all Virginians.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “Grooving on the Virginia Job Numbers”

  1. V N Avatar
    V N

    For some strange reason, I thought that a businessman might know something about economics, jobs and running “a big company”.

    I follow facts, data, research, not parties and personalities. While I agree to disagree at times, I do think this is one area that the Dems simply don’t have the acumen for economics and it shows in the proposals they tout.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The problem is that we’re fueling the economy from deficit spending – something the Conservatives used to get apoplectic about – to the point where they would not agree to deficit spending (stimulus) even when there was a recession.

    Used to be, we spent in deficit during recessions and we paid it back when the economy recovered.

    I’m shocked – shocked – that Mr. Bombergeddon Bacon is ignoring this!

    https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/The-growing-debt-is-caused-by-a-structural-mismatch.jpg

    this is going to end badly… count on it.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      I agree that a portion of the added economic growth comes from additional deficit spending, but not as much as commonly portrayed. Bigger deficits and national debt are a big concern, and I don’t see Trump doing anything to address the long-term structural deficit. Indeed, his talk of spending $2 trillion on infrastructure is terrifying. (Of course, the Dems are all on board that one.)

      But most of the added impetus for growth comes from the stimulative effect of corporate tax cuts and from deregulation — and it comes even after Fed backed off Quantitative Easing. The Dems predicted an economic disaster from the tax cuts. They were wrong.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The Dems did not predict economic disaster – they predicted that tax cuts for the rich would be a disaster for the middle class…. can you provide something to substantiate your claim?

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    here’s another :

    https://www.thebalance.com/thmb/9WMaWXyW8SQsqIePXhQWS6wLha4=/950×0/filters:format(webp)/current-u-s-federal-budget-deficit-3305783-FINAL-22f49f211ad44649826d41b65bcf8f75.png

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Before Trump was elected, Obama’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both were forecasting a big increase in the budget deficit due to the wave of retiring Baby Boomers. I documented those concerns on this blog. Trump’s tax cuts have added to the deficit increase, but only a portion. He has made the deficit picture worse, but only modestly worse than it was destined to be in any case.

      Any fair-minded critique of Trump’s economic policy will acknowledge this reality.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Modestly? are you looking at the numbers? They were giving Obama HELL over 500 billion and now we’re over a trillion per year.

    You say: ” I agree that a portion of the added economic growth comes from additional deficit spending, but not as much as commonly portrayed. ”

    is that your opinion? This is totally different than what you’ve been saying …….for years……. you’ve been predicting armageddon!

    ” 325
    The Treasury Department released figures on Monday showing the federal budget deficit widened by 17 percent in the 2018 fiscal year, to $779 billion. That’s an unusual jump for a year in which unemployment hit a five-decade low and the economy experienced a significant economic expansion. But the increase demonstrates that the tax cuts President Trump signed into law late last year have reduced federal revenues considerably, even against the backdrop of a booming economy.

    Some conservatives don’t see the rising deficit numbers that way. They note that the Treasury reported that federal revenues rose by 0.4 percent from the 2017 fiscal year to the 2018 fiscal year, and view that as a sign that the tax cuts are “paying for themselves,” as Republicans and Mr. Trump promised.

    That’s not the case.

    There are several ways to ask the question, “Are tax cuts paying for themselves?” Based on the data we have right now, they all arrive at the same answer: “No.”

    The issue here is not whether the government spends too much money, or whether tax cuts have buttressed economic growth, or even whether it’s advisable to run such high deficits in flush economic times.

    The issue instead is: Have the corporate and individual tax cuts that went into effect in January generated so much additional growth that tax revenues are as high, or higher, today than they would have been if the tax cuts never passed? That’s how all scorekeepers — be they independent congressional staff members or researchers from think tanks that lean liberal or conservative — assess the “pay for themselves” question.”

    take a look at revenues: they are DOWN – not up

    https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Corporate-tax-revenues-dropped-by-31-percent-in-2018.jpg

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    tax cuts do not pay for themselves – even Conservative economists acknowledge that.

    where are the deficits coming from if not from the tax cuts?

    are we spending more?

    But the big question is – are you now saying that what you were saying before is wrong and you now believe in supply side economics?

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Deficits come from spending. Both parties spend without regard to the impact on the deficit or taxpayers. Remember Mitt Romney and the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes. Free stuff.

      We need to end the tax exempt status of nonprofits that are involved in influencing governments or public opinion. The Peter P Peterson Foundation would be taxed.

      We need to limit the amount of money a person/entity can give to a private foundation tax-free by including the amount given in the amount not taxed. Give to a foundation, give it to an heir, no differences for taxation.

      Just like Social Security is taxed, so should we tax any other benefits received from the federal government. Increase the standard deduction or create a new personal exemption to reduce the sting but make people understand that government benefits are taxable.

      Pass a constitutional amendment that requires a 60% majority of both houses of Congress to pass a tax bill (cuts, increases or restructure) or an appropriations bill. A failure to pass a bill by the due date prohibits a sitting House member from running for reelection and ends a senator’s term at the end of the year, with no ability to run for reelection.

      I’d also require any person, as either principal or agent, talking to a member of Congress or aide to record and post the conversation. If the appropriation is related to national security, it can be sealed subject to judicial review. If a sealed document is opened, the person requesting confidential treatment serves 30 days in jail.

      1. James A. Bacon Avatar
        James A. Bacon

        I can’t think of a major category of nonprofits — hospitals, universities, “educational” foundations — that warrant their special tax status. Tax ’em all. It might not close the federal budget deficit, but it would narrow it.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Make no mistake – deficits come from spending more than the revenues generated – period.

    And I don’t think taxing non-profits will fix it – that’s more of an ideological argument but I actually tend to agree. Remember the IRS “scandal” in which they WERE seeking to take away tax-exempt status from groups engaged in political activities?

    But the bigger problem is the idea that if we cut taxes it will generate MORE tax revenue than if we did not cut taxes – i.e. supply side economics and the use of so-called “dynamic scoring” which is akin to voodoo economics because unlike dynamic scoring – it cannot be actually measured – it’s just what someone asserts to be true and becomes a justification for tax cuts – even as the deficit balloons.

    Used to be, folks who called themselves Fiscal Conservatives insisted that the tax and revenue numbers actually “worked” and we took responsibility for spending more than we collected in revenues.

    Now – we just cut taxes and claim that “spending” is the problem and essentially that the deficits are okay because the economy is good?

    Remember the good old days when Conservatives kept track of the debt and folks like Jim Bacon would talk about what would happen when the every increasing interest on the debt squeezed out basic necessary spending and the buyers of the debt would flee when they lost faith in irresponsible govt?

    https://www.thebalance.com/thmb/96UNDXrNq7YxA0siESMqTIHb12M=/2122×1415/filters:fill(auto,1)/91277665-56a9a6fb5f9b58b7d0fdb19a.jpg

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      If the Constitution required a 60% majority to pass spending and tax bills, it would be harder to spend more or change the tax rate. If advocating nonprofits were taxed, they’d be much fewer in number and much less able to influence public policy. With fewer people advocating for spending, we’d spend less. NGOs have a huge effect on spending.

      And, as I suggested, make all government benefits taxable. If people realized there were no tax-free goodies, there would be fewer spending programs. And with a increase in the standard deduction or some other offset, the truly poor would not be harmed. The more people paying federal income tax, the more resentment would be created against continuous increases in spending.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    yeah, but allowing non-profit tax status for these groups OR NOT – won’t affect Federal funding much at all.. so that idea is basically one with a partisan intent – of which I’m fine with if we do it to all of them – not just our own partisan views.

    In terms of govt benefits being taxed – many are – Social Security and Medicare (Part A) is , so is unemployment benefits… but I don’t know what would be gained by taxing MedicAid or TANF or Food Stamps…. all that does is essentially reduce the benefits and adds extra layers of administrative overhead – really for no good reason – just reduce the benefits if that is the intent.

    The reason we have deficits is because we simply lack the discipline to balance the budget – both sides – Conservatives want to reduce benefits and increase military spending and Liberals want to reduce military spending and increase benefits.

    Then we have these folks who claim that if you cut taxes – you’ll generate more tax revenues – that’s TRUE but the amount of taxes cut is always more than increased revenues so you end up with deficit there also – but hey when you borrow money to goose the economy (stimulus) – it works! Trouble is – we normally do that when we have a recession to get the economy going again and the theory is when the economy is going great guns – we buy down the debt.

    Not true now… we got a great economy AND the deficit and debt are INCREASING but hey…. we have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years so what could go wrong?

    Like I said – used to be Conservatives were HOT about the deficit – they blamed liberals for the deficit – even when they had control of both houses of Congress – it was the liberals fault that we were spending more than we took in – in revenues because those liberals would not support cuts to benefits at the same time we increased military spending… what a bunch of scofflaws!

  8. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The claim has been made here that “most of the added impetus for growth comes from the stimulative effect of corporate tax cuts and from deregulation.”
    First, I want to point out that the economic growth and decrease in unemployment did not start in 2017 with the new administration or 2018 with the tax cuts. We are now in the midst of a 10-year economic expansion that did not need massive tax cuts to stimulate it. In December 2016, Virginia had an employment rate of 4.1%.

    Second, where is the data showing any stimulative effect resulting from deregulation?

Leave a Reply

Read More