President Barack Obama’s Jobs Council hasn’t met p

[teflep]

President Barack Obama’s Jobs Council hasn’t met publicly for six months, even as the issue of job creation dominates the 2012 election.

At this point, the hiatus — which reached the half-year mark Tuesday — might be less awkward than an official meeting, given the hornet’s nest of issues that could sting Obama and the council members if the private-sector panel gets together.



For starters, there’s the discomfort many business leaders may feel in appearing to embrace the president with his reelection bid in full swing.

(Also on POLITICO: White House: Obama's plate too full for Jobs Council)

Then, there’s the fact that some members of the commission have conspicuously declined to endorse him. And that Obama has conspicuously declined to endorse some of their recommendations. And that some of what Obama won’t endorse has been warmly embraced by Republicans, including likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

To cap it all off, several of the companies whose CEOs serve on the panel are involved to some extent in outsourcing — a fact that could undercut the ferocious attack Obama and his campaign are mounting on Romney over his alleged ties to the practice.

One former administration official said the current political atmosphere could be prompting the CEOs and other business leaders to lie low.

“The thing is supposed to be bipartisan, so a lot of times they don’t want to get into things that could be used by either side in the election,” said the former aide, who asked not to be named. “The businesspeople, for the most part, don’t want to get into the middle of political fighting.”

(Also on POLITICO: Pelosi: Democrats should skip the convention)

The last official meeting of the 26-member President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness took place Jan. 17 in the White House complex. Obama and a slew of other administration officials attended, including his then chief of staff, Bill Daley.

Obama named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the panel in January of last year as the president tried to mend his frayed relationship with the business community and highlight his commitment to job creation. Part of the council’s political value was to show Obama working closely with top business leaders on behalf of the American people. But the White House insisted that the council’s recommendations would lead to real action.

The panel held three “quarterly” sessions last year with Obama: in February, June and October.

“This has not been a show council. This has been a work council,” Obama declared during the January 2012 session, where the panel presented a report containing more than 60 recommendations aimed at stimulating job creation.

“I have been tracking implementation of your recommendations. And we’ve seen substantial progress across the board,” Obama added. “Hopefully, we’ve at least met your expectations in follow-through and implementation; what we haven’t seen is a bunch of white paper sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.”

But the January meeting also exposed tensions.

Moments before Obama arrived, one of the board’s two labor leaders, Joseph Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, publicly abstained from the tax recommendations in the report. The other labor representative, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, skipped the meeting and issued a scathing three-page dissent.

(PHOTOS: Obama over the years)

“I disagree that reforming our regulatory system and reducing the statutory corporate tax rate are crucial elements of ‘competitiveness’ for the United States going forward, nor does empirical evidence support the claim that significant net new job creation would result from such ‘reforms,’” Trumka wrote.

In what could be viewed as criticism of the White House, Trumka suggested the makeup of the panel was too skewed in favor of business to make balanced suggestions on regulatory, tax and energy policy.

more...




Read more: www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78637.html#ixzz211e3uAb9

[druidp]

So does his website basically say, "Nothing to see here... but check out that other guy who's really rich and sent jobs overseas?"

[teflep]

I am disappointed this has 1 response. No one is annoyed with this besides me?

[IIOY]

From this morning's WSJ article on this matter:

...A recent update from the jobs council said the administration has implemented or made significant progress on 54 of the 60 recommendations for executive action. It holds monthly calls to track such progress. Executives at a recent meeting of the President's Export Council praised the administration's effectiveness in implementing its recommendations.

Still, important differences remain. The latest example came this week when a new set of recommendations emerged from Mr. Obama's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, which includes business executives, educators and others. In its report, the group said a U.S. tax overhaul "must consider the tax treatment of overseas earnings of U.S.-based corporations," including moving to a domestic-only or territorial taxation system.

Republicans say the White House also has been slow to initiate new free-trade agreements, which have been recommended by the export council and Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. Republicans also point to cost-benefit analysis for independent regulatory commissions, a Jobs Council recommendation.

"This White House has been in re-election mode for more than a year now," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) "You're seeing that repeatedly, whether it's ignoring his own Simpson-Bowles commission or ignoring the recommendation of the Jobs Council." The Republican National Committee on Wednesday dubbed it the "Missing Jobs Council."

The White House said Mr. Obama's outside advisory groups weren't designed to be in agreement all the time. A senior administration official noted Mr. Obama successfully pushed trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia and has made headway on trans-Pacific Partnership agreements. The official also said the administration considers cost-benefit analysis one of its successes.

Mr. Obama has met with his jobs council four times since 2011, and the White House said the group plans to hold six smaller meetings in the next few months. White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama hasn't met with the group since January because he has "a lot on his plate." Mr. Obama doesn't "support every idea that everybody has put on the table because he has to balance the various interests that are at stake when he looks at what's best for the American economy," Mr. Carney said.

Labor leaders on the jobs panel, including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, have publicly disagreed with some of the council's recommendations. Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff at AFL-CIO, said the group believes it is "perfectly reasonable" for Mr. Obama to choose which recommendations to accept or reject.

The Jobs Council members themselves appear to be backing the president, even if he isn't always backing them. At least eight of the 26-strong group have given the maximum amount allowed under federal law to Mr. Obama's re-election campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. None appear to have given to Mr. Romney this year, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission filings from the Center.

[teflep]

Thanks for posting iioy.

[IIOY]

I realize it's not a zero-sum game, but I'd gladly pass on this jobs council in exchange for getting back to a discussion of Simpson-Bowles.

I read a piece a while back saying that Obama backed away from S-B because he decided that if he endorsed it, Republicans would automatically reject it. While I appreciate his concern and don't think it's entirely without merit, I also think this speaks once again to a leadership vacuum. I also think at this point enough folks across the political spectrum have offered support of S-B to make it politically "safe" to start pursuing it.

[teflep]

Hmm, good point on Simpson-Bowles. Those recommendations would have more advances than this council's, I'd bet.

[teflep]

And ditto on the r thoughts. If that were to happen, I would start donating to the other side because of their stupidity and I don't usually donate to national candidates

[MrsDL]

Jul 19, 2012 5:45:45 GMT -5 teflep said:

I am disappointed this has 1 response. No one is annoyed with this besides me?

Frankly, I think not meeting is strategic considering who he has on this board - leaders of some of the biggest outsourcers in the country - co-chaired by Immalt (37,000 jobs lost, 25,000 outsourced under his watch) and McNerney - 14,000 lost at Boeing and outsourced to China). One of them is under SEC investigation for ILLEGAL outsourcing to China. So do we really want these cats getting together to try and "fix" the economy. Obama is smart to distance himself from his own appointments because he really can't actively meet with these people and effectively go after Romney and Bain without looking like an enormous hypocrite. That said, based on the posts regarding Romney and outsourcing on this board alone, I'm sure many are not aware of who is on the council and what those "leaders" have done in terms of outsourcing and job loss.

[julief]

This is an interesting issue. Romney should delve into it and talk about it A LOT. It is certainly more relevant to people than the Bain crap about when Romney left the company.

[druidp]

This, in addition to a glaring absence of an economic plan on his site, should cause great consternation in any voters who place any weight on the economy or jobs as priorities for this year's election.

[wawa]

I'm not sure I'm reading these two things right.

So they met several times last year, and then this year they haven't really met at all. But they do have regular conference calls? and staffers are running around creating reports for these calls showing progress or lack thereof on their recommendations?

Is that accurate?

[mominatrix]

Jul 19, 2012 11:40:56 GMT -5 julief said:

This is an interesting issue. Romney should delve into it and talk about it A LOT. It is certainly more relevant to people than the Bain crap about when Romney left the company.

yeah, conference calls vs. meetings is far more important than whether a presidential candidate lied to regulators.

[teflep]

Jul 19, 2012 13:04:49 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 19, 2012 11:40:56 GMT -5 julief said:

This is an interesting issue. Romney should delve into it and talk about it A LOT. It is certainly more relevant to people than the Bain crap about when Romney left the company.

yeah, conference calls vs. meetings is far more important than whether a presidential candidate lied to regulators.

Didnt Factcheck already discredit this? I know OpEdNews says otherwise, but I thought this was the case?

[julief]

factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/

They also found that there was no truth to the outsourcing claims about Romney.