|From:||Doug Singsen <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:57:30 AM|
|Subject:||Re: [september17discuss] American Jobs Act|
Obama plans to pay for the jobs bill by making "modest adjustments [read: cuts] to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid". And then there's this utter piece of trash:
Much of Obama's $447 billion plan comes in a form that Republicans normally embrace--tax breaks for corporations, as inducements to hire new workers.
But it's doubtful such incentives will work any better than they have already. Much of Corporate America has returned to profitability since the official end of the recession more than two years ago--and they've done so by squeezing more work out of fewer employees working for lower wages and benefits. It was hardly a good omen when, just days after Obama's speech, Bank of America--which has paid no federal corporate income taxes over the last two years--announced that it would lay off 30,000 employees.
If you want an idea of how Obama's plan to "get America back to work" would work, take a look at the Georgia Works program that served as a model for one of the White House's proposals.
Georgia Works allows businesses to hire unemployed workers temporarily--without pay. The unemployed work eight 24-hour weeks while continuing to receive jobless benefits, plus a $240 stipend from the government.
It's a great deal for business, which get temporary workers for free. But not such a great deal for workers, who have to work a part-time job and deal with related expenses like transportation and child care for only a small stipend over what they get in unemployment benefits.
Plus, there's no evidence that the programs actually provides the training that workers need to find employment. "We reviewed Georgia Works. It looks more like work than training," Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "You can't try someone out and not pay them. It's not allowed under our nation's labor laws."
I was thinking about it, and I would say that most people in the square would think of it as a step in the right direction (if only a baby step), and there are certainly a lot more things to be done. I am somewhat wary of endorsing a specific piece of legislation so specifically, though, so as not to become too tied (at least in the public consciousness) to Obama or the Democrats (even though that's utterly laughable if you're familiar with the groups who helped spark OWS like the NYCGA, Adbusters, etc.)If I could propose something to the General Assembly it might be a commendation to the President for taking this small step in the right direction by proposing it, but saying much more needs to be done (the phrase "woefully inadequate" might be handy here). In fact… I think I might. Provided I can figure out a way to do so…--glj
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Charles <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Hey guys,
A thought just occurred to me. I haven't heard much about this yet,
but do you think that OWS might do itself a service by endorsing, at
least as one of many goals, the passage of the American Jobs Act in
its entirety, or even an expansion of its policies (and perhaps a
reduction in the ratio of tax cuts composing it)? It has been accepted
as a foregone conclusion by the entire American mainstream
commentariat that Obama's jobs bill will be absolutely eviscerated or
at least highly attenuated by the corrupt legislatures in this
What if we tried to draw more attention to the legislative battle of
the AJA as a pillar of our emerging program (in addition to legal and
anti-trust action against the banks and tax reform, etc)? That way the
movement can shed light on the very obstacles to the bill's passage or
enhancement, which will serve to illuminate the architecture of
corruption in our legislative process. That way, the bought off
Democrats and Republicans can be named and shamed with the enhanced
lens of this movement. Furthermore, the limited scope of the bill
itself can serve as grounds for further criticism of the White House
I'm sure this has been suggested before, and I understand that there
are caveats to our involvement in the political process but I want to
know what the status of the current dialogue is about this course of
action or line of thinking.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|