Pro: Massive jobs program only hope for prosperity
WASHINGTON — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writers are addressing the question, Is a new federal jobs program the best way to reduce the nation’s unemployment rate?
Even the Scarecrow from the “Wizard of Oz” would know that this is a no-brainer. Of course we need a federal jobs program to get us out of the Great Recession. It’s not just heartless conservative Republicans who can’t acknowledge it; it is also cowardly Democrats who just can’t face facts.
Fact One—the unemployment rate isn’t only 10.2 percent. Counting those working part time for economic reasons and “discouraged workers” in addition to the unemployed, it was 17.5 percent in October, nearly one in five workers.
Fact Two—it’s not just how many people are unemployed, it’s for how long. The average duration of unemployment last month was a record 26.9 weeks, up more than seven weeks since last year. A measure combining the number of jobless and the length of unemployment is also at a record level. This is why there are a record number of foreclosures, why bankruptcies are rising and why this holiday season may be anything but jolly.
Fact Three—while it’s a federal problem, it’s a bigger problem depending on where you live and where you are in the labor market. The “official” jobless rate in Michigan in October was 15.1 percent, nearly four times the rate in North Dakota. Workers in high unemployment states also generally have been out of work much longer than those in states with lower jobless rates. It’s why the unemployment rate for folks ages 16-19 is almost 28 percent and why young workers starting out find it so hard to find that first job.
There are very real policy proposals out there to deal with the realities of America’s unemployed. The AFL-CIO has a very specific five-point program; (1) extend the lifeline of supplemental unemployment benefits, food assistance and COBRA health care benefits, (2) infrastructure repair of schools, roads and energy systems, (3) aid to state and local governments to ensure delivery of vital services; (4) direct investment in hiring people in distressed communities in child care, tutoring, rehabbing or removing abandoned homes and necessary services; and (5) putting Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to work in local communities by funding small and medium-sized community banks so they can offer financing to small and medium-sized local businesses. This is a comprehensive program that merits serious consideration.
ADA has championed what we call the “Corps” budget. By increasing funding—by a significant amount—to Job Corps, AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, we can offer hope and opportunity to recent high school and college graduates, providing training, work opportunities and a stable first step into the job market. In addition to relieving some of the pressure—and competition—in the labor market, this proposal has the advantage of funding existing programs with built-in infrastructure and programs that are more than shovel-ready.
No matter how you slice it, only the government can act in recessionary times like these. And while the budget deficit is an issue—as is its Big Brother, the federal debt—they are minuscule in comparison to the current jobless rate.
If we can help America get back to work, then payroll taxes and income taxes will help solve the issue of the deficit. If it is a jobless recovery, then there is no real way of dealing with the debt in the foreseeable future. Jobs are the answer.
The fiction that we can somehow wait for consumers or the private sector to bail us out of this jobless recovery is as much a fantasy as the “Wizard of Oz.” The man behind the curtain is us. Millions of Americans want our country to succeed and our elected leaders to lead. All they need are the brains, the heart and the nerve.
Michael J. Wilson is national director at Americans for Democratic Action (www.adaaction.org) and Paul B. Manchester is an economist who formerly worked for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. Readers may write to them at ADA, 1625 K Street NW, Suite 210, Washington, D.C. 20006.
Dec 4, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I was behind a lady at the grocery store last week. Her basket had two cases of beer and two bottles of whiskey. Apparently the cashier knew this lady because she looked at all the booze and asked her if she had finally found a job.
The lady replied that her and her boyfriend had just found out that their unemployment benefits had been extended for 99 weeks! Then she told the cashier "IT WILL BE TWO YEARS BEFORE WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR A JOB NOW!!!!!"
That's a democrat for you!
Is this change you can believe in?"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...
Dec 4, 2009 at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I have a word for you and it isn't nice enough to print here"
Show me don't tell me boy/girl.
Dec 4, 2009 at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spending more fed money only reorganizes money and assets. It does not sustain anything. It keeps jobs temporarily not long term. That's why you reduce taxes significantly because more people have money in their pockets instead of supporting the fed. Why part of this don't you comprhend?
Dec 4, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
"to keep UB you need to show you are actively looking for work"
I did not know that janesvalien.
Dec 4, 2009 at 2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
vatoloco, to keep UB you need to show you are actively looking for work. There simply aren't enough jobs. I have a word for you and it isn't nice enough to print here.
.
Spending is necessary because aggregate demand has fallen. Spending by the government replaces spending by businesses and consumers, and keeps jobs that would be lost. This is pretty basic economics. The worst thing to do during a recession is revert to deficit hawk mode and restrict spending. It lengthens the recession and prevents jobs from returning.
.
Of course, there are those who like the current unemployment situation -- anyone who has to hire loves being able to lowball employees. The current employers' market is attractive to many. Thus there is political support for preventing a jobs program. Remember that. There is self-interest at work here.
Dec 4, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
1.extend the lifeline of supplemental unemployment benefits, food assistance and COBRA health care benefits-
What it really means-Continue to promote laziness and free benefits; after all why would I look for work when the fed will continue to support me.
3) aid to state and local governments to ensure delivery of vital services
What it really means-Continue to help teacher unions keep their jobs while our children fail in school. And, all these spend happy polticians are resonsible for many of these budget shortfalls becasue they keep legislating social programs-start by firing these people
4) direct investment in hiring people in distressed communities in child care, tutoring, rehabbing or removing abandoned homes and necessary services-How is this sustainable? Spend, spend, and spend but how is this action going to sustain these jobs? Government does not create jobs.
5) putting Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to work in local communities by funding small and medium-sized community banks so they can offer financing to small and medium-sized local businesses. This is a comprehensive program that merits serious consideration.
Again, spend, and spend. These small and medium sized businesses cannot thrive when you plan to tax the living bejesus out of them to fund federal healthcare and other social programs.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.