(Washington, DC) –According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report released this morning, the U.S. unemployment rate edged down to 7.7% from 7.9% in January, while the economy added 236,000 nonfarm jobs. Congressman Larry Bucshon released the following statement regarding today’s report.
Congressman Bucshon (IN-08) states:
“The unemployment rate may have slightly decreased from last month, yet this number is virtually unchanged since September of last year. While I am encouraged that more Americans were able to find work last month, I know that we can do better.
“There are still 12 million Americans that have not found work, some have even given up the search for a job altogether. Many jobs are going unfilled and we need to do everything we can to better connect workers with the education and training they need to compete for available jobs. This week I voted to approve the SKILLS Act in the House Education and the Workforce committee to fix our nation’s broken job training system so that we can help provide those looking for work the skills and resources they need to find good paying jobs.â€
BACKGROUND:
For the U.S. House Republicans Jobs Tracker, please click here.
Real unemployment, a measure that includes discouraged workers and those employed part-time who would rather work full-time, was 14.3 percent and the labor force participation rate was 63.5%.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in February but has shown little movement, on net, since September 2012.†The total number of unemployed Americans is 12 million. The number of long term unemployed (individuals unemployed for 27 weeks or longer) was at 4.8 million, which represents 40.5% of unemployed individuals.
So, why did Bucshon refuse to support a balanced approach to deficit reduction? Most private economists say that the sequester will cause us to lose 700,000 jobs.
Please define your term “balanced approach to deficit reduction”. To reduce the huge deficit to an acceptable level, you must significantly reduce spending–not a little but a lot. If you want to see huge job losses–raise taxes the same amount that the spending must be reduced.
It is past time for the Democrat controlled Senate to come out with a Budget reduced to writing with specific proposals. It is embarrassing that they have not done so.
Balanced approach – closing tax loopholes without reducing marginal rate and spending cuts. Closing tax loopholes would mean cutting subsidies to big oil companies and stop giving tax beaks to corporations which move their operations overseas, neither if which would cause job loss. If anything, not moving operations oversea would probably increase jobs.
If cutting spending creates jobs, we should see a lot of growth here. The proof should be in the pudding.
I think it is the way that they are forced to cut spending that will cause job loss; it is across the board cuts where you have to cut a certain percentage instead of being able to decide what is wasteful and not needed.
They have announced furloughs of border patrol agents in the Southwest, security personnel at the airports will be forced to take a day off a week.
This escalates if airport security personnel are not making as much money then they spend less and you combine that with everybody else that is getting laid off, it causes a ripple effect through the economy.
I agree, I just hate that we’ll have to see those types of losses for the idiots on the right to see that.
What is your definition of “on the right”–all Republicans? The Republicans offered to allow the President to select where the cuts were to be made. The President refused to be a real leader by taking that responsibility whereby the cuts could be made where it hurt less. Spending cuts must be made. It could have been less painful had the President done his job as a leader
No, Congress refused to consider increases in revenue as well as cuts. Obama was willing to consider closing tax loopholes as revenue increases.
The cuts would affect the poor and middle class whereas the revenue increases would affect the wealthy.
The vast majority of deficit reduction over the last 2 years has been through spending cuts, very little has been done through revenue increases.
Guess what? Bullcrap jobs that are lost are just part of making our government efficient enough to deserve our tax dollars. The guy who has a job making the $700 hammers and the $650 toilet seats need to be doing something other than earning a living off of government idiocy.
There are thousand more suckling from the moronic government teet as well that need to get a job that adds value instead of sucking us all dry. Democrats and Republicans alike need a dose of realilty and a smack upside the head when they okay waste.
There hasn’t been any $700 hammers or $650 toilet seats since the Reagan years.
Indiscriminate, percentage wise cuts don’t make government efficient. Cutting programs that are wasteful and redundant and are not needed does make government more efficient but that’s not what is happening; it is the indiscriminate, percentage wise cuts.
The biggest suckler of government teet includes large, “too big to fail” corporations and defense contractors. These are the largest recipients of government welfare.
Larry Bucshon will do NOTHING to cut from the “defense” budget, which I have taken a shine to calling the “offense” budget to more accurately reflect what it is.
He got donations, as did his 2010 opponent, from one such defense contractor operating right here in Vanderburgh County. Buschon is a statist, plain and simple. He was already corrupted before he even got there.
I agree Brad. The sad thing is the only welfare you hear about on Faux News is help for the poor, not handouts to the filthy rich.
John Doe, I’m glad we found something we agree on. I am not a fan of Fox News, or any mainstream media for that matter. These issues are too often demagogued and not debated rationally.
The people I admire in politics attack both the Democratic and Republican machines for their ever-loftier heights of unnecessary spending and bailout schemes. The real sufferers from high taxes, “quantitative easing, and other forms of centralized economic and social planning are the poor and middle classes.
Agree as well. Most Republicans at the federal level support corporate welfare. Most Democrats support social welfare at the federal level. Both parties support defense/offense spending. We have very limited choices.
Comments are closed.