Mr. Uzarowicz’s recent piece entitled “Who is the real job creator?” falls flat by focusing on anecdotal evidence and relying on vague, grandiose statements. Most of these statements do not deserve a response as they are completely unsubstantiated and lie far outside the realm of intellectual discourse.
Here is a quick rundown of his most egregious misstatements. As this New York Times infographic shows, his claim that the size of government has increased under the Obama administration is false (http://goo.gl/G8JDt). But this is mostly because of strict austerity measures taken by state and local governments. Federal spending has remained fairly similar to the Bush administration (minus war spending). The blame for the slow recovery does not fall on the shoulders of the Obama administration. It falls on the Republican-controlled state and local governments that have enacted draconian spending cuts and policies of extreme fiscal consolidation.
As many eurozone countries slip into another recession, we should note the policies of fiscal consolidation that got them there. The IMF’s recent analysis on the effect of fiscal consolidation estimates that for every 1 percent reduction of GDP achieved through fiscal consolidation, income falls by 0.6 percent and unemployment rises by 0.5 percent (http://goo.gl/t9cVs). The Republican Party’s policies (specifically Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget) would both slow income growth and raise unemployment.
No one wants big government for the sake of it. But short-term spending cuts, like those proposed by the Republican Party, have been shown to be detrimental to economic recovery both in terms of falling incomes and job loss. In fact, without public sector job cuts, which were almost all instigated by Republican-controlled state and local governments), the unemployment rate would be a mere 7.1 percent (http://goo.gl/g0fDr).
I ask you, Mr. Uzarowicz: Who is really more trustworthy? The candidate that promotes policies that have been conclusively shown to reduce income and job growth? Or the candidate that promotes policies that promote both income growth and employment?