8

This graphic is doing the rounds on the Internet (found on Facebook):

House GOP claim

The claim is:

House GOP: 46 abortion bills, 113 religion bills, 73 family relationship bills, 36 marriage bills, 72 gun bills, 0 jobs bills

Unfortunately, the Progressive Defenders of America do not cite any sources, nor do they define exactly what they mean by bills (supported? proposed? something else?).

Nevertheless, is this a claim made up of thin air, or is it (partly) true for a reasonable interpretation of what they might mean?

Community
  • 1
gerrit
  • 17,636
  • 17
  • 84
  • 137
  • 10
    They also don't define what a "job" bill is. The claim - even if it were true (which it isn't as per supplied answer) is totally irrelevant. The job creation function of House Republicans is to prevent even more taxes to be levied which would hurt job growth, not to pass bills to create jobs. Job creation is not a government's proper job. – user5341 Feb 24 '13 at 01:53
  • 1
    @DVK, I strongly disagree with you. I think job creation is one of the most important jobs of the government. – gerrit Feb 24 '13 at 11:06
  • 7
    Nobody in the government is smart enough to know which jobs should be created. Didn't work out too well for USSR's economy, for some reason. The job of the government is to allow people who create jobs to do so. – user5341 Feb 24 '13 at 15:53
  • 2
    @DVK, works very well in northern and western Europe, though. – gerrit Feb 24 '13 at 18:16
  • Why the downvote? – gerrit Feb 25 '13 at 20:13
  • 1
    see DJClayworth's answer: 'this question isn't answerable without a strict definition of what constitutes a "jobs bill"' . And it's a lose lose situation for you, since any definition of a job creation bill you give will be purely political and thus subjective based on our discussion above. From free market perspective, almost any bill spending more money by the government is a job destruction bill in the larger picture, aside from defense/police. – user5341 Feb 25 '13 at 20:33
  • 1
    You can ask "Did the republican party propose any bills which agree with Democrats' ideas of how to create jobs", to be more objective. But that question is, hopefully obviously, not worth asking. – user5341 Feb 25 '13 at 20:34
  • BTW, I'm downvoting as well, now that DJClayworth provided a constructive exlpanation of why this question is not good. – user5341 Feb 25 '13 at 20:37
  • 2
    @DVK Why is that more objective? I don't care about the Democrats, this question is about Republicans. Your claim about job creation is ludicrous, there are many ways in which government regulations can create jobs both directly and indirectly. As an obvious example, creating infrastructure first creates jobs by employing people building infrastructure, and then by increasing the attractiveness. How many companies want to invest in a country with neither roads nor railways? In addition, tax benefits can enhance employability for targeted groups of people. – gerrit Feb 25 '13 at 20:38
  • 3
    On a slightly unrelated note, child rearing within marriage is strongly correlated to less crime and better economic outcome, so again in a large scheme of things, "marriage" bills are more of job creation bills than "let's pay 10 union members to dig holes in a highway and fill them in for a year" bill. – user5341 Feb 25 '13 at 20:39
  • Because the money spent by government to pay for their job creation bill destroy MORE jobs than they create, long term. Good Daddy and Mommy in government tend not to have a first clue which jobs need to be created to be sustainable. As far as investments - shall we count how many companies wish to invest in USA vs some random high-speed-rail European country like France? – user5341 Feb 25 '13 at 20:43
  • 1
    let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7671/discussion-between-dvk-and-gerrit) – user5341 Feb 25 '13 at 20:43
  • Tomorrow (26 February) I will post more sources (I need to sleep now; for the impatient, see the references in [this Facebook comment](http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=221566477981728&set=a.202430603228649.48389.198121630326213&type=1&comment_id=448915&offset=0&total_comments=7)). – gerrit Feb 25 '13 at 23:21

2 Answers2

18

As is usual with political claims, it really depends on your viewpoint and your definitions. As Max says in his answer, there are three House Republican sponsored bills that claim to be related to jobs. On closer inspection what they actually mandate is:

  1. a change in the allocation of Federal training funds to focus on employability. Somewhat related to jobs.
  2. a change to the way unemployment statistics are calculated. Almost certainly not a job-creating bill
  3. control of the deduction of labour union dues. Again, almost certainly not a bill that will directly create any jobs

We can of course also check the other statements, and here govtrack lets us check the number of House Republican Family resolutions: it appears to be one (1). Religion doesn't even appear as a topic.

But to be honest, this question isn't answerable without a strict definition of what constitutes a "jobs bill".

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 12
    And the definitions are likely skewed toward a progressive understanding of the function of government. Conservatives tend to think that limiting the size and burden of government is the best way to create jobs. However, it is unlikely that any action they took in that direction would be considered a "jobs bill" by Progressive Defenders of America. This is an attempt to turn ideological disagreements (what is the proper role of government, and what actions help the economy) into a moral/character issue (Republicans don't care about helping people). –  Feb 26 '13 at 08:56
11

House Republicans sponsored 3 Labor and Employment bills up to now (February 23) in 2013, and 55 such bills since 2011. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/labor_and_employment/6235#sponsor_party=Republican&bill_type=3

Max
  • 1,144
  • 1
  • 8
  • 12