Mitt Romney's promise to create 12 million jobs in four years is facing some pretty pointed attacks this week. The Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler, gave Romney's proposal four Pinocchios, saying that most of the gains that Romney promises are already expected, thanks to policies already in place. And any impact from Romney's policies would come over a decade, not a first Romney term. David Stockman, the budget director under Ronald Reagan, says at Newsweek that Romney wasn't a job creator during his years at Bain Capital, either. Romney's Bain experience lies at the heart of Romney's assertion that he's better suited than President Obama to fix the economy. Stockman, however, says that the Bain-era Romney "was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses." Will this barrage of criticism unravel one of the central components of Romney's campaign?
Romney's bogus jobs promise is scandalous: This is a huge story, says Greg Sargent at The Washington Post. Seven million of the 12 million new jobs that Romney promises are projected to come over 10 years, not four. Another 3 million were projected over eight years, from policies already in place. The other two million come from an International Trade Commission report that didn't even consider Romney's policies. In other words, Romney's main selling point for his candidacy is "a complete sham."
"Romney's jobs plan revealed to be flim-flam"
Let's not go too worked up over this: "There's nothing so terrible" about Romney's promise, says Adam Sorensen at TIME. Economists really do expect millions of jobs to be added over the next four years — it's just that "it's expected to happen under current policy." Obama could have beaten Romney to the punch, but he didn't, so now 12-million-jobs is an "exclusively Republican mantra. Obama's loss." Romney is, however, abusing the truth by saying he'd deserve the credit.
"Romney's 12 million jobs: How to lie while telling the truth"
Obama's plan is the sham: It's true that both Romney and Obama have plans to create jobs, says Brian Darling at The Heritage Foundation. The difference is that Obama's relies on "spending borrowed money on public infrastructure and even more state employees creates jobs wholly dependent on... government spending." Romney's right to reject that kind of "trickle-down government," because it runs up deficits without creating lasting jobs. Romney's plan, at least, doesn't saddle our kids with today's bills.
"Trickle-down government is all wet"