Comments on: The House’s Local Jobs Bill – Actually a Jobs Bill!

By: lbjdem

lbjdem — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:25:38 +0000

While I support this proposal:

Miller claims he could create or save a million jobs with that money

A job ‘saved’ is not a job created. In total, states are facing a budgetary shortfall of something like 200-300 billion dollars over the next 3 years. This, of course, doesn’t include municipalities.

$100B for state and local government jobs will certainly help stem the bleeding, but it’s a finger in the dike.

By: anarchisttendencies

anarchisttendencies — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:14:37 +0000

I don’t think this is the right way to go. States and municipalities are already in serious long term trouble with entitlement costs to workers. And those jobs are not generally economically productive (law enforcement, administration, etc). Maintenance jobs are, but that really should be put out to competitive bid by private industry. Teaching jobs also are, although I don’t know of anyone in Congress who has done the prepwork to address that properly.
Shockingly to me, I think we’ve really run into a problem of marketing by this administration (shockingly because this is what they seemed to be best at). They let the economic stimulus be co-branded with the bailouts. To me, the stimulus was (or supposed to be) an example of government catching up on infrastructure responsibilities that lapsed under the previous administration. It was job creating and did not expand government beyond it’s current scope. A properly framed and targeted equivalent of the stimulus bill is what should be the “jobs bill”. I actually think this should be earmarked out the wazoo. The Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy should each be supplying concrete lists of projects with projected employment and benefit information, as well as timelines for completion.

By: seaglass

seaglass — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:43:38 +0000

Is it really a jobs bill? Sounds like its just more of the same saving people with Public jobs and not creating anything at all in the Private sector.

By: Scarecrow

Scarecrow — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:32:46 +0000

Thanks. That helps.

By: David Dayen

David Dayen — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:58:51 +0000

I’m really only counting three bills in that:

1) Job creation tax credit bill, which really = $35 billion because it adds $20 billion for the highway trust fund but cancels out the spending through an accounting maneuver (passed House and Senate, waiting on concurrence)

2) “Extenders” bill = $140 billion (passed House and Senate in far different versions)

3) This local jobs bill = $100 billion (hasn’t passed anything)

That’s $275 billion. Then you add the Rural Energy Electric program and/or the Homestar energy efficiency program, and it’s close to another $10 billion. You’re getting there.

By: canadianbeaver

canadianbeaver — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:44:30 +0000

Is it true, that Unemployment gives 99 weeks of cheques? Wowzers! In Canada, the maximum is 50 weeks, and rarely given. Average is 36 weeks.

By: demi

demi — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:23:55 +0000

Where’d everyone go? All looking for jobs?

By: Raven

Raven — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:01:57 +0000

Oh god, now they’ll start on the “save or create” bullshit!

By: Scarecrow

Scarecrow — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:56:50 +0000

David — thanks much for this update. There seem to be several pieces in play, so it might help to have a table of all the jobs-related bills passed, passed only in the House, or pending — because it’s easy to get these confused. It wasn’t clear to me until you said this, plus previous bills add up to over $300 billion. That’s an important story.