Why Won't Obama Give You a Job?

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2009.

Wall Street's raking in massive profits and paying its execs and traders record bonuses, thanks in part to government cash. What about ordinary Americans?

Working Americans continue to suffer from the worst financial crash since the Great Depression, and Washington has so far offered up only band-aids to help them out -- extended unemployment benefits, small stimulus checks and deeply flawed mortgage relief programs that have done little to stem the tide of foreclosures.

<snip>

But while caution’s prevailed in Washington when it comes to bailing out “Main Street,” Wall Street’s enjoyed a degree of socialism that would make Hugo Chavez blush. The Obama administration has essentially continued Bush’s policy of loading up dump trucks with tax dollars at the Treasury and dropping them on the banks with little oversight and next to no strings attached.

<snip>

There are competing explanations for Democrats’ habitual timidity when they have an opportunity to govern. Take your pick: internal party politics -- skewed Rightwards by the influence of the Blue Dogs -- the Dems’ reliance on fat campaign contributions from Wall Street; an institutional fear of “those constant accusations of socialism”; the organizing skills of their conservative opponents or the fact that the White House policy apparatus is packed with Clinton administration vets, former Wall Streeters and other adherents to classical economic orthodoxy.

Whatever the case, the moves they’ve made to offer relief to ordinary working families haven’t been as bold as their interventions in the financial sector. Not only did many economists view the stimulus package as too small relative to the depth of our economic malaise, but a good chunk of the funds went for tax cuts, and for long-term investments, like “green energy” subsidies, which have limited bang for the buck in terms of generating jobs over the short haul.

<snip>

But will the kind of bold and direct approaches progressive economists are calling for be “on the table”? If the history of the first 11 months of the Obama administration is a guide, they won’t; expect something built largely around business-friendly tax-credits for employers who add jobs (which, to be clear, can be quite beneficial as part of a broader recovery strategy but has limited bang as a stand-alone approach).

If that proves to be the case, Americans will face more protracted economic pain and the Democrats’ cautious approach will come with a price next Fall, and perhaps in the Fall of 2012. Propping up the banks alone isn’t enough; people vote on the economy they and their neighbors live in, not on abstractions like how many dollars banks are lending or the share price of Goldman Sachs.

It’s a kind of tragic irony: believing that they always have to hew to an artificially manufactured “center” to get elected, Democratic leaders risk electoral disaster by taking aggressive and direct interventions to boost the “Main Street” economy “off the table” --the very moves that would have a tangible impact on communities devastated by the down-turn over the short-term.

More at: http://www.alternet.org/politics/143952/why_won%27t_obama_give_you_a_job

Anyone who wants a job applies to the unemployment office and gets a certificate that says he is eligible for the new Put America back to Work Program. He then goes to a small business that needs his skills (non-profit or government agencies identified by the program on the certificate) and applies for a job. If the small business hires him, they only have to pay $5/hour while the government picks up the other $5/hour and provides insurance, as if he were an OPM employee. The initial screening at the unemployment office could keep out illegals. Then with the handy dandy certificate the person goes out and finds jobs from qualified employers (usually small businesses and NO Wal-Marts).

To staff up the unemployment offices (they closed several here in TN at the start of the 2nd Republicon Great Depression because they had no funding) the first program participants could be hired by the unemployment offices.

You could keep businesses from firing all their employees and hiring them back at $5/hour by ensuring the eligible businesses have not laid-off or reduced hours of employees in the last 3 months or more. Businesses wanting to participate would have to prove they are hiring for new or discontinued (due to the Depression) jobs.

This would do 2 things

1. It would raise the price of wages. By paying people a total of $10 (instead of minimum wage) and health insurance it would set a floor for all workers and industries. Because if you know you can get a $10 and hour job, why would you take a minimum wage job?

2. IT WOULD PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK (oops, sorry for screaming), doing something so that their skills will not get old and provide valuable experience for future job prospects and be a step toward universal health care.

This would cost the government no more than what they are paying in unemployment benefits right now (if it applied only to the unemployed on benefits) It would cost the government for health insurance but too bad.

And I'll bet you President Obama could do this right now, without congress. OPM (Office of Personnel Management) has the authority to hire federal civilian temps, full-time workers, single person contractors and summer hires. They have a million little hiring programs that are only limited by funding. If funding becomes an issue for Mr. President, because he is not a power grabbing idiot like the bushes, he can get funding through the reconciliation process requiring only an amendment to a funding bill and a vote of 51 in the senate.

I've sent this program to the White House and asked for a response back. Maybe they'll do it.

economy and with real jobs. I do wish the current administration would get a little more creative in their approaches. I'm glad you sent this program to the White House and asked for a response back. Hopefully "Maybe they'll do it" or similar. I'm afraid if the status quo continues the democrats are going to see really downhill results in 2010... not because republicans have any ideas, but out of voter frustration with the current status quo. I think your idea is excellent!

" Wall Street’s enjoyed a degree of socialism that would make Hugo Chavez blush. " I think he meant to write
Wall Street’s enjoyed a degree of Fascism that would make Mussolini blush.

and artificially manufactured work to make someone look busy and pay with tax payers dollars isn't all that attractive either.