Less Spending = Less Jobs

As the argument goes, when businesses and consumers both stop spending, the government must spend to keep the wheels turning.

Economist Krugman always has some no-nonsense guidance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/opinion/the-fatal-distraction.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

WSJ (part of the Fox clan) is known for their agenda driven reporting:
"...in May 2009 The Wall Street Journal declared that the “bond vigilantes” were “returning with a vengeance,” telling readers that the Obama administration’s “epic spending spree” would send interest rates soaring. The interest rate when that editorial was published was 3.7 percent. As of Friday, as I’ve already mentioned, it was only 2 percent."

"State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers."

"O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture."

"...we should have a lot of job-creating spending on the part of the federal government, largely in the form of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and we need more aid to state and local governments, so that they can stop laying off schoolteachers."

Regulation: Not Such a Big Job Killer

Ways regulation improves industry:
"...companies develop cheaper ways to clean up pollutants..."

"...regulation is often blamed for job losses that occur for different reasons...
As companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created.
previous regulations, like the various amendments to the Clean Air Act, have resulted in far lower costs and job losses than industrial executives initially feared."

"...when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant emissions, the electric utility industry warned that they would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs. But the cost of the program has been closer to $1 billion
research showing that clean air regulations have reduced infant mortality and increased housing prices, and indeed many economists argue that job losses should not be considered in isolation. They say the costs of regulations are dwarfed by the gains in lengthened lives, reduced hospitalizations and other health benefits, and by economic gains like the improvement to the real estate market."

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/economy/a-debate-arises-on-job-creation-vs-environmental-regulation.html

The problem is:
“The environmental regulations are a moving target,”
Industries would be best served if the EPA delivered regulations in a more timely manner.
“...we agree that we need to protect the environment and we need regulations in place to make sure that we all do it right. That’s not the argument that we’re coming up with. We do need regulations that are achievable and that make sense.”