Obama versus Romney on Jobs, by Laura Tyson, Commentary, Project Syndicate: The United States has just completed its third year of economic recovery, but the unemployment rate remains above 8%, and there are worrisome signs of a slowdown. So it is no surprise that jobs have become a major focus in the presidential campaign – or that the candidates have very different ideas about how to boost employment.
Last autumn, President Barack Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, a $450 billion package of fiscal measures aimed at job creation. The AJA amounted to about 3% of GDP and was designed to take effect in 2012... Most of its measures had enjoyed bipartisan support in the past; tax cuts comprised about 56% of the total cost; and the package was paid for in Obama’s long-term deficit reduction plan.
Several independent economists concluded that Obama’s plan would provide a significant lift to the job market in 2012-2013...
The AJA was filibustered by Senate Republicans, and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives likewise prevented the bill from coming to a vote. ...
Altogether, Congress left at least one million jobs on the negotiating table, holding unemployed workers hostage to the outcome of November’s election.
Meanwhile, in response to persistent media pressure, Romney has unveiled his policies to boost short-term job creation. ...Obama’s proposals to boost job creation are convincing, whereas Romney’s proposals would have little or no effect – and some could even make matters worse. Voters need to know the difference.
There are more details on the two proposals in the article.
[Also, I probably should have done more to highlight her Economix piece on the European crisis. It appeared on Friday afternoon and was one of the first pieces that talked about the recent Summit, along with a roadmap of what else needs to be done to solve the European crisis.]