Skip to main content

Making it up? Caterpillar contradicts Obama on new hiring claim UPDATE: MSM now says Owens "hedged"

Like an urban legend, the story that Caterpillar will begin rehiring 20,000 laid-off workers upon passage of the stimulus, turns out not to be true, much to the consternation (I suspect) of our progressive friends who had cited the report as support for the efficacy of the stimulus package.

From IPR:

If I were wearing a hat, I’d tip it to Don Irvine at Accuracy In Media for pointing me to this interesting development from ABC News. For weeks President Obama has claimed his "stimulus" plan allows manufacturers like Caterpillar to stop layoffs and immediately re-hire laid off workers. Obama even traveled to the company’s factory in Peoria, Ill. today to pitch his $1.1 trillion welfare-and-spending plan.

One problem for the White House, however. Cat CEO Jim Owens never said such a thing. While Owens supports the plan because it includes hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars for highway construction and more government buildings, he never claimed he could re-hire recently laid off workers, despite what Obama claimed. Owens even warned Cat will have to lay off even more workers to stay afloat, despite the incoming tidal wave of expensive deficit spending.

Jake Tapper reports:


"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off," Obama said today in Peoria.

But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, "I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is we’re probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."…

…Owens also cautioned that even if a stimulus is passed within the next month, the effects will not be immediate and are more likely to impact construction activity at the end of 2009 or spring 2010.


So the question would be: will President Obama get a pass on this one?

UPDATE: Just saw Today touch this issue in passing, saying that "After the President left, Owens hedged a bit," which is a truly wonderful way to get around the fact that he apparently never made the statement in the first place....

Comments

Heh. I saw this yesterday. Also note that Owens is a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Delaware Watch said…
""Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"

"It is going to take some time before that stimulus bill" means re-hiring, he said."

It will take time before the stimulus results in rehiring. I don't know anyone who doubts that. But that it will result in rehiring seems to be indicated by the CEO's own words.

So, Steve, I think you are grasping at straws on this one.
Bowly said…
No, you're definitely identifying the wrong grasper. How can you just skim over "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"?

And even if you're correct (which you aren't), cherry-picking one company that stands to benefit directly from road building doesn't prove the case for the stimulus. A bill that planted apple trees and corn would result in increased agricultural employment, but that doesn't say anything about the overall economy.

It also doesn't explain how Obama either lied, or at the very least omitted pertinent information. He didn't say, "Caterpillar will hire again, but only after they have more layoffs." Let's see him go sell that plan to the public.

Weak, weak stuff.
Bowly said…
By the way, it's the broken window fallacy, again. Even if Caterpillar benefits from the stimulus and hires people back, it doesn't mean it's the most efficient use of the money. It's great for the downsized Cat employees. It's not so great for future generations that are being born into debt.
Tyler Nixon said…
Let's face it, this is Clinton administration II underway in full force.

Hype, bullshit, half-truths, lies, finger-wagging, PR blitzing, partisan chicanery, fatass government, and of course Hillary, Rahm, Leon, and Holder.

Blech.
Bowly said…
Tyler, I think you left out an administration. Bush was Clinton II. "Hype, bullshit, half-truths, lies, finger-wagging, PR blitzing, partisan chicanery, fatass government" certainly seems applicable.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...