Snark ‘o the Day
Still slammed with work and study, but came across this excellent bit of snark at Reason:
Here we are nine or ten months into the Obama economic boom, and still the president whovowed to focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs” (or actually, the most recent president to vow to focus on “job, jobs, jobs”) is unable to show any growth in employment.
What does President Obama have to do? Hespends hundreds of billions of dollars on makework projects. He orders companies to pay their interns. He begs banks to start lending again. He turns everything from government contracting to student loans into a jobs-creation battleground. And still the jobs just won’t come falling out of the sky.
It must be a conspiracy. But who are the villains? Insurance companies? Unscrupulous lenders? Republicans?
Maybe it’s small businesses. Last year Obama praised small business owners as the engine of job creation. But according to Constant Contact’s 2010 Small Business Attitudes & Outlook Survey, the ingrates have responded by not hiring anybody.
Although 70 percent of the 6,800 small businesses surveyed expect to grow over the next year, 61 percent say they do not plan to hire any new employees in that period.
What could cause such an unpatriotic attitude? Sure, 65 percent of small business owners say their costs of doing business have increased, and 45 percent say taxes have been the most significant portion of that increase. And cross-referencing Constant Contact’s figures with this month’s Index of Small Business Optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business, we find that small business owners are feeling unprecedented pessimism about their future prospects.
That kind of crappy attitude has no place in America. The solution is clear: The Department of Labor needs to order small businesses to start hiring people, at higher wages, with coverage for pre-existing conditions. And we should probably raise their taxes to make sure they get the message.
> What could cause such an unpatriotic attitude? Sure, 65 percent of small business owners say their costs of doing business have increased, and 45 percent say taxes have been the most significant portion of that increase.
This is one of the least useful bits of data-phlegm I’ve seen ejected by Reason lately. Firstly, what’s the time frame? Since Obama got elected? Since he took office? Since the article is beating on Obama, that’s at least the insinuation, so I’ll go with the assumption that it’s in the Obama era.
Next, the bit above is phrased a bit weirdly. Does that mean 45% of those reporting increases (65%) say tax has been the biggest culprit? That would be about 30%. Or does it mean that 45% of all respondents report that their costs have gone up AND that tax was the most significant portion of that?
Either way, I’m suspicious of those numbers, even if that’s what the respondents reported. Costs have fallen in many sectors (e.g. construction). Not a single respondent has paid a cent more due to any Obama-related federal taxes – it’s too early to have paid such taxes even if they exist.
I declare this article to be unfit to be reported upon
Well, that settles it then! Hear Ye, Reason foundation, you have been post-warned. Your condemnation of the Obama administration’s fervent belief that central planning produces sustained job growth is unfit to be reported on, because you sarcastically shifted the blame for economic stagnation upon small businesses who have failed to provide sufficient, articulable, Obama-specific tax justifications as to why their costs of business have purportedly risen. In defense of small businesses, they’ve probably mistaken “tax” with fee, for example regulatory “fees” and burdens that need not go through Congress, or they spoke with an eye towards the health care bill, which levies at least seven distinct taxes on businesses and individuals (including four on those making less than the “rich” standard of $200,000).
@divnryan:
1. You speak of “regulatory “fees”‘ and burdens”, presumably imposed by the Obama administration on the respondents to the poll. Citation please?
2. “or they spoke with an eye towards the health care bill” – the snippet from the article states nothing of the sort. It says “their costs of doing business **have** increased.
My issue is with the article – it is deliberately misleading. It’s “journalism” like this (and much worse than this) that leads to so many barstool pundits living in an alternate universe of “facts”.
This article implies a correlation where none can exist. That’s why it’s unfit to be reported upon.
Given that the article didn’t specify what types of “small businesses” it surveyed it would be impossible to cite exactly what fee increases a particular type of business will incur. Here’s a few for you though: 2009 federal minimum wage increase (http://www.laborlawcenter.com/t-federal-minimum-wage.aspx); HAZMAT transportation fee increases (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-2174.htm); 2009’s Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 outlines how to phase in a host of fee “adjustments” and increases in a number of sectors (http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/flex/09regflx.html); unemployment fees rising in 35 states (ten fold in Hawaii) here http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/economy/unemployment_taxes/index.htm; some NY state fee increases here (http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/budgetFP/0910enactedInitiatives/0910enacted_revenueActions.html); some CA fee increases here http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache%3AuFl6JtarPDoJ%3Awww.arb.ca.gov%2Fboard%2Fbooks%2F2009%2F092409%2F09-6-5pres.pdf+2009-2010+regulatory+fee+increases+small+businesses+restaurants&hl=en&gl=us; Oregon fee/tax increases here (http://pdxcpa.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/oregon_tax_increase/); USDA increasing fees here (http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2010-03-11-2010-5255); real estate fee increases in CA (http://www.dre.ca.gov/lic_fee_increase.html);
Above cited facts aside, it isn’t an alternate universe of facts when citing small business owners stated reasons for being unable to grow and hire. Even if each individual respondent was totally wrong, and an audit of his business revealed his labor, inputs, taxes, fees, and utility costs diminished, what matters is how the small business perceives the economy – and especially his/her future prospects – that determines whether it grows and hires. The opinions of bureaucrats, bloggers, and economists matters for little. The economic outlook of small businesses are of paramount importance to job creation. As such, their opinion is fit for reporting, and should be given great weight. The above citations show the costs of business have increased in 2009 to present, as they do every year regardless of president or party in power.
Nor is the article misleading in its subtle painting of the Obama / Democrat’s administration’s interventionist policies (e.g. Dodd’s proposal to regulate angel investment in tech industry) as presenting particularly daunting economic challenges for small businesses. The health care bill passed, taxes for it start this year, and businesses must plan accordingly.
>> Nor is the article misleading in its subtle painting of the Obama / Democrat’s administration’s interventionist policies [...] as presenting particularly daunting economic challenges for small businesses.
The article led the reader to believe that the Obama administration (not the Democratic congress, Obama himself) HAD ALREADY BROUGHT INTO EFFECT *increased* taxes/fees/levies on 45% (45% of 65%??) of small businesses, that is, they’re already suffering under the burden of these fees, not that it may happen in the future. This is not chronologically possible.
That is my claim; I challenge you to refute it (45%/65% are already paying higher taxes). If my claim stands, the article is misleading, and I don’t think you should report on it.