Obama's Jobs Speech: What Local Politicians Are Saying

Take a look at what Gov. Dannel Malloy and Congressman Jim Himes, D-5th District, had to say about the jobs speech.

Immediately following President Barrack Obama's much anticipated jobs speech, (click here to see a video of the speech from the Washington Post) local politicians chimed in with their own comments. The comments that Oxford Patch received in the forms of news releases from Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-5th District, are posted below. Both Democrats, they applauded Obama's efforts to create more jobs in America. 

Himes said, "President Obama  tonight proposed many of the policies I have long supported – streamlining our tax code, investing in the restoration of our crumbling infrastructure, and addressing our long-term deficit.  The president laid out a plan to restore economic vitality and address the suffering of too many Americans. As he noted, in addition to being fully paid for, the elements of this plan have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. It is a plan that both Democrats and Republicans can and must get behind to restore faith in the American economy. 

"Tonight’s speech highlighted the urgent need to focus on jobs – something this Congress has failed to take seriously until now.  It rejected the false choice between jobs today and fiscal stability in the future, and the false choice between economic growth and the regulations that keep us safe.  It challenged us to move beyond political bickering to real solutions.

As the supercommittee begins to meet, and our collective attention turns to the challenges of unemployment and our deficits, we must keep in mind that job creation and fiscal responsibility are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they go hand in hand.  If we address our debt, employers and investors will be more confident in the national economy. Likewise, widespread unemployment has had a profound effect on our deficit, and creating jobs will help get our fiscal house in order.  Moving forward, it is vital that we consider both job creation and deficit reduction.”

And Malloy responded with the following statement: "Tonight, the President made clear that the time for politics is over, and the time for action is now.  President Obama proposed a plan to put Americans back to work, cut their taxes and step up the pace of our economic recovery.

"The President’s proposals will be a direct benefit to Connecticut residents and businesses.  For example, by investing in infrastructure, his proposal would put people to work; by funding education he will avoid layoffs of teachers and increased class sizes; and by extending unemployment insurance, he will keep out of poverty the approximately 78,000 Connecticut workers who will have exhausted their unemployment benefits by the end of this year.

"Importantly, this plan will not increase our national debt. Indeed, if enacted it will accelerate economic growth and reduce the nation’s long-term deficit.  I applaud the President for acting boldly in the face of recent data suggesting that our economic recovery has slowed. Congress should act quickly to pass this plan."

Connecticut Yankee September 09, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Anyone who believes any of these politicians is delusional. The big spending/big government model has not worked and never will work for the majority of U.S. citizens. The idea that government "creates" or "saves" PRODUCTIVE jobs is, at best, misguided. Smaller government and low taxes were two elements that were present when this country was at its pinnacle. Since "The Great Society" idea of government involvement in combatting every societal ill was put forth and implemented in the days of Kennedy and Johnson, we have been going downhill. Government and politicians have roles in protecting citizens. In the U.S., those responsibilities have been shirked in favor of politicians lining their pockets as well as their families' and friends' pockets and attempting to preserve and expand a government which is miserably failing its citizens. Less government involvement in every aspect of life, smaller government work force, and lower taxes will return our country to greatness. I'll have Dijon mustard on the baloney sandwich that Obama is serving up.
Janis Hardy September 09, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Responsible comment from Himes. Can't say the same for Malloy's. As the Governor of South Carolina said last night, providing one-time funding (again) for teachers and other government workers only transfers the tax burdens to maintain these positions to local municipalities in the future. This stresses both the state and municipal taxpayers (again!) Porculus didn't work the first time, and it is being proposed again? Oxford's taxpayers certainly learned the hard way that the effects of taking stimulus funds didn't solve anything, just created long-term problems or angst when stimulus-funded positions had to be eliminated.
xxxoxox September 09, 2011 at 12:02 PM
There's a lot of delusional thinking going around. Some of us get delusional about how great the past was. Remember when our parents used to die at 60 and families had to take in older family members because they couldn't work and were destitute. Let's not forget how great it was when gigantic monopolies ran the country while their workers were paid barely subsistence wages and were thrown away when they got hurt on the job. Can't forget what things were like before civil rights and sufferage for women. Hardly the good old days unless one has stopped thinking since then.
JD September 09, 2011 at 12:28 PM
I'll echo Connecticut Yankee's comments...couldn't have said it better myself....
Connecticut Yankee September 09, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Excellent points, Janis.
Connecticut Yankee September 09, 2011 at 02:46 PM
Do you believe that government is primarily responsible for the extended life span of U.S. citizens? How much curative medical research does government as opposed to private firms in this country do? The only difference between pre-anti-trust times and the present is that now government officials decide which monopolies/oligopolies and which companies are allowed to hold a monopoly or participate in an oligopoly. Hint: Large campaign contributions. Both civil rights and women's suffrage were grass roots movements of the citizens of this country. Those movements were not the fodder of politicians or government entities. Governmental entities in the U.S. made attempts to thwart both movements. Only after up-risings of citizens did governments react by revising statutes. Is government the principal driver of positive progress in this country? Or is it/should it be a partnership of citizens, government, and private enterprise? Would you believe the statement, "I'm with the government and I'm here to help you?" Governments and government officials frequently create problems, then rail against those created problems, only to "fix" those ills with additional problematic "solutions." Unfortunate, at best, for the citizens of this country, who have become little more than pawns. With today's technology, a direct democracy is possible and would serve this country far better than the (un)representative and ineffective democracy currently in place.
Janis Hardy September 09, 2011 at 03:24 PM
Me, too, except the part about the direct democracy... I have recently been studying the original works of the founders and the activities of the constitutional convention. I find it amazing that such a significant number of great thinkers were able to assemble at this critical juncture in history to create one of the greatest documents ever written. In spite of the vast differences of opinion, these men were able to effectuate the compromises necessary to get the task done, then work to get our Constitution adopted. More of us ought to go back and learn why they chose to make the decisions they did, because even today, nearly 225 years later, those original decisions are still the right ones. These men understood what it was going to take to keep the government subservient to the people: not what we have now, a people subservient to the government!
kathy johnson September 09, 2011 at 06:42 PM
Steven I agree with your comment on the good old days. The only reason they sometimes seem better than they were is because we were all young then. To answer your question Janis its because the founding fathers were willing to find common ground instead of focusing mainly on the next election which was not on the horizon at the time. Who is to say that if they were here now they wouldn't be acting like the politician of today. There is a book that came out 2 years ago called Everything Unfit To Print. It goes back to the founding of this country and explains how our founding fathers up to the present and our newsmen put their own spin on things and the Machiavellian tactics that were used. Same shenanigans different. day. As far as the economy is concerned you have to spend money to make money. This country was able to invest in some pretty big projects during/ around the time of the Great Depression. These projects made money and made us strong. The Empire State Building, Highways, Hoover Dam. Washington stop the politics and get-er-done. Stop worrying about votes and do the right thing. Thanks. I got that off my chest. Kathy
don September 10, 2011 at 04:10 PM
This country needs to return to the Free Enterprise System under a democratic government. We are heading a very fast pace to a socialitic government. We'll be like France and Spain very soon. Very sad affair. Washington needs to be cleaned out with all the "fat cats" in Congress fighting to keep their lucrative retirement retirement benefits. Keep the government Democratic (and I don't mean party!)with a Free Enterprise System free of the government regulations which "choke" small business.
xxxoxox September 12, 2011 at 03:45 PM
My point was simply to counter a sweeping statement that somehow the Great Society efforts have caused us to go downhill. Sort of depends on how you view the role of government. Social Sec. fundamentally changed the fortunes of older Americans who at the time of passage were among the poorest segment of our society. Now, older Americans have be come one of the more affluent groups. Good thing or bad thing? Many don't like GS because its focus was directed in some ways on the unpopular poor, urban issues and the effects of institutionalized inequality. Are there still problems and unintended consequences, yes. Are they the cause of perceived decline, no. Too simplistic. I will quote Billy Joel- "because the good ol days weren't always good and tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems."
xxxoxox September 12, 2011 at 03:51 PM
If you want to see free enterprise in action, look at how the banks acted before the recent meltdown. A purely free enterprise system (sans regulation) would be a nightmare for America. Its the same reason why we don't have a pure democracy but rather a democratic republic. Theory seems great but less so in practice.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something