Why no WPA style national jobs program?

[agent46]

By all indications, current legislative dogma in Washington has become entirely oriented toward the supremacy of corporate, for-profit solutions. Direct government social programs are now out of favor and the new orthodoxy shunts as many government functions as possible to the private sector to be placed in the hands of for-profit enterprises. This is a philosophical trend that demonizes the ideas for government sponsored New Deal style jobs programs as ”socialist:” and anti-business.

Even Obama, who is for the most part a corporatist, has implied the government ”can’t do any more than it’s doing” to create new jobs. What this actually means is that for-profit privatization of services and tax incentives to businesses have become the only acceptable legitimate avenues to job creation. It’s political dogma, not fact.

At the recent jobs summit Obama was basically reduced to asking the business sector nicely to hurry up and hire more people. All he could recommend was more tax incentives. As we now know – reducing taxes is a good way to eventually starve funding for government based programs in favor of a switch to privatized for-profit solutions. That's the logical end-result, anyway. I think this is basically why we’re not seeing the nationwide WPA style jobs program that is needed to restore infrastructure, education, productivity and the conservation of resources in America.

What I find interesting about FDRs New Deal WPA program is that it employed skills from the entire spectrum of unemployed workers, from engineers, laborers, scientists, teachers and so on to musicians, artists, photographers, film makers, writers – the list goes on.

In today’s climate, if there’s no profit for the business sector involved, an idea doesn’t get much traction. The jobless are up against a conservative political philosophy that has failed the working people of America and remains entrenched. A friend of mine, in a recent email, called the situation "obscene." It is - and the country needs a radical switch to a WPA style jobs bill to put the entire country back to work.

[Love Bug]

1. Not enough true liberals in congress?

It's no secret the Democratic party has been drifting right for decades. They can't even get UI benefits extended in a timely manner. Most of what has come out of congress for years has been either stuff to make them look good for the next election or givaways for big business. At the same time the middle-class has had very little true representation.

Most of them don't have the 'nads to handle the current economic crisis. It's still "business as usual" for most of them.

[agent46]

4. It's not going to be

It can't be business as usual for very much longer. Things are pretty bad out there right now but when UI benefits start running out across the board and the casualties of the so-called jobless recovery start getting desperate - it won't be pretty for the politicians who've sold out the country. They must see it coming - or are they really in some kind of perception bubble and ignorant of the gathering social forces in play now?

[Captain Hilts]

13. In WASHINGTON. At either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Because unemployment isn't at the levels it was during the depression

[Captain Hilts]

14. But it IS very high in some areas. nt

[amborin]

17. 19% in parts of California; 20-25% in many places when those who've given up looking are included

[agent46]

15. That may be true

That may be true but the country's predicament is very different from conditions back then. Many new factors to consider. One hundred and twenty million unemployed - and growing. OK.

Here's my list of conditions to consider: We have a decaying infrastructure now. Bridges going down. Roads going unmaintained. An antiquated rail system. An electric grid that's a hundred years old in most places. A vastly diminished manufacturing capacity. An education system that's producing a near 30% functionally illiterate population. A debilitating dependence on costly foreign energy sources. Collapsing sewage systems built in the 19th century. A rapidly degrading ecology and diminishing natural resources. The list goes on and it's not going to get better by itself. There's no public money to address these concerns and who will pay the free market entrepreneurs to do it? We the consumers?

The answer seems obvious - you put the surplus work force to the task of restoring and upgrading all public works and you pay for it with the same emergency funds the banks got. You bail out real people and communities across the country instead of merely throwing billions at criminal capitalists who arguably produce little or no real wealth.

Can't do it though because it's socialism and socialism is a bad word - and isn't fair to profiteers.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. My point is that the political will doesn't exist to do it

And the reason is that the populist outrage doesn't exist like it did during the depression. People aren't standing in bread lines like they were back then.

Your idea is certainly a good one although not a novel one. But Congress responds to big money in every instance unless there is populist outrage that is more powerful than big money and at this moment, that doesn't exist. If you have some kind of plan to get such a program through congress then I'm all ears. Otherwise your idea is just an idea.

[agent46]

39. I agree completely

It's not my idea at all,obviously, just a good one. And yeah, I see no way to implement it either. My post is more of a rant than anything. I just got back from a four hour meeting with a very large group of unemployed Silicon Valley professionals. I don't see things improving significantly if the response to the jobs problem is going to be as tepid, constrained and unimaginative as this whole health insurance thing has been.

[FLyellowdog]

3. First thought...cost. nt

[agent46]

5. Cost?

You mean no possible budget increase for direct programs but all the money you can print for the casino financial industry. Yeah, I guess that's the one word answer.

:shrug:

[twitomy]

6. The 700 billion stimulus would have been FAR better for

a WPA like program than for the nonsense it has been spent on. A lot of blue collar people could be working. The unemployment rate for middle-lower class is far higher than for others.

[agent46]

8. That's the obscene part

That seven hundred billion dollars has produced nothing tangible except the assurance that enabling the continued reckless marketing of bad paper and fat personal bonuses in the banking industry has saved us all from disaster.

A fraction of those hundreds of billions would be enough to harness the work force nationally, upgrade the grid, transportation infrastructure and education system in every state and bring America into the 21st century. Just no profit in that I guess. :sarcasm:

[twitomy]

22. You got it...

You know I really had issues with piling on more debt. Didnt like it at all. But I wouldve hoped there wouldve at least been some tangible benefits in return. Like the stuff your saying. But nope, cant have that!

[deaniac21]

7. Not enough stones and logs left to do it with.

[librechik]

9. lack of imagination--or historical memory

I wish some of these once-successful programs could be given a second life. I don't know why they aren't. Except that the culture of volunteerism is pretty dead.

[agent46]

16. Last week I attended

Last week I attended a panel discussion of representitives from various Bay Area social and public services organizations. The word is that volunteerism is actually up all around. But the kind of programs I'm talking about would use federal grants for a whole spectrum of local, state and federal projects. I can easily see how both the profit and not-for-profit sectors would benefit enormously.

[notesdev]

10. What's in it for Goldman Sachs?

[agent46]

20. Well, to be perfectly cynical

Goldman Sachs would have a revitalized consumer base to scam.

[notesdev]

28. Why bother?

They are stealing directly, without the overhead involved in having middlemen and people making independent decisions they can't control.

[agent46]

34. yeah, and the logical conclusion

The logical conclusion is that the corporatist bankers will control all the money in a perfectly closed system and then they'll have to start stealing from themselves. Oh wait...

[howaboutme]

38. It's called lose - lose

One Party is in bed with the US Chamber of Commerce and the other in bed with Wall Street bankers.

You know where that leaves you. Follow the money and you will see it leaving average Americans behind. Most politicians (there are some exceptions such as Sanders and Kucinich) are in it for their own interests and what is left of your money. I've said before that free unfair trade policies and most favored nation status for China is the core issue behind an America that has lost trillions of dollars for average US workers.

[agent46]

40. I would add

I would add another culprit is the economic ideology that originally envisioned the current trade policies and China's status. The true believers in global free trade give no thought to the damage they do.

[DailyGrind51]

11. You can't expect political courage from THIS crop of Dems!

Though a WPA 2010 along with the repeal of both NAFTA and GAT would be the most effective "Jobs Bill".

[Edweird]

12. Because Obama said so. Forget about jobs, it's all about tax cuts.

[yowzayowzayowza]

18. Good pinch play for rite before the election.

Force Rs to vote it down and then punish 'em with it relentlessly.

[agent46]

19. I agree

The idea could be used as a political weapon but I'll be surprised if it even comes up. If you don't acknowledge the power of an idea you can be sure most Americans will never even know it exists and you can keep playing the status quo game.

[readmoreoften]

43. Oh yeah. It's more Obama Chess. No wait! He's waiting until his 2nd term!

This term is where he plays Reagan Democrat! Next time he'll show his "true liberal colors".

:crazy:

[Jim Sagle]

21. That would be partisan, and we're not going to have any partisanship

[agent46]

23. Can't have that now can we?

:rofl:

[Mister Ed]

24. Because - because - (sputter) That'd be SOCIALISM!!!

:wow:

[agent46]

29. How did

How did conscienceless unregulated Darwinian Capitalist profiteering come to be the very definition of a free Democratic Republic? Corporatist right-wing propaganda has hijacked our language for perception management of the consumer population. Socialism isn't a bad word nor is managed socialism a bad idea.

[Mister Ed]

72. And, by the way: anyone who quotes Leonard Cohen in his sig line has my admiration.

A tip o'the hat to you.

:hi:

[agent46]

76. Back atcha Mister Ed

:toast:

[Lorien]

81. They no longer teach civics. The RW thinks that Socialism is exactly like Communism

and that's exactly the same as Marxism and Fascism.I asked a repug I know why he was so fearful of "socialism" and he said "because when that starts then no one has an incentive to work. Everyone will just sit at home, waiting for a handout." I asked him (as if his theory had any merit at all)"so human beings have no desire to excel at anything? to socialize with their coworkers, to own a company of their own, to buy a flat screen TV or take a vacation? We all just want the bare minimum of a tiny State apartment and a bowl of oatmeal?" He sputtered and said "but, but...I've been to Germany! It's not like it is here-they don't have the kinda houses and cars we do!" "Yes, because they work to live, they don't live to work. Their work weeks are shorter, their vacations are longer, their rich aren't as rich and their poor aren't as poor. What wrong with that?' He just stammered and stomped and kept saying that he didn't want to live in that kind of Country. Bottom line; they hate the idea of one cent of their taxes going to help a dark skinned person in any way, and when you say "poor" they think "black". Our system of government has always been a combination of Capitalism and Socialism, though since Reagan's time the Friedman fanatics have been trying to push the Socialist elements out.

[Overseas]

25. Because that was a very effective popular Democratic program.

And might convince the public that government can do good things.

And golly gee, Republicans don't want that.

[agent46]

26. And...

We're ALL Republicans now!

:woohoo:

[leftstreet]

30. hehe

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[salguine]

27. Because practically nobody in the government gives a shit whether people have jobs or not.

[agent46]

32. They don't see it anywhere

They don't see the reality of unemployment anywhere in their well appointed cushy little world of state dinners, prayer breakfasts and back room deals.

It's not on their radar and I agree, they probably don't give a shit anyway.

[salguine]

47. Personally I'd like to see a mob of a few hundred thousand people

crash their state dinners, prayer breakfasts and back room deals and put the torch to everything in sight. That's what I'd like to see.

[agent46]

48. For me

It's a lot more like an inevitable allergy.

[leftstreet]

31. Didn't you get the memo? It's a Jobless Recovery!

K&R

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. Because you can't be the new FDR with a Clinton/DLC cabinet?

Obama is taking advice from the wrong people. Especially the economic team.

[agent46]

36. I know it's not a popular idea

I know it's not a popular idea but I just don't see how anyone can still think Obama is secretly really a progressive guy besieged on all sides by hostile conservative forces - doing his best for the little guy.

He trusts their advice because he's in alignment with it. Seems obvious to me.

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. If it seems obvious to you

then why did you ask the question in the OP? :shrug:

Not that I disagree with you. He's certainly not living up to the guy he campaigned as, despite the fact that his electoral landslide should have sent the obvious message that the voting population wanted THAT GUY as President, not Bill Clinton with a "tan".

[agent46]

45. The question in the title of the OP

When i wrote the OP I wasn't thinking about Obama come to think of it. It's a rhetorical question really. The rest of the post is just some thoughts about why a New Deal type bill would be a good solution, with some ideas about why there isn't one. It was more abstract than being about any one politician.

As far as Obama, I've observed the same conflict between his two personas and just figure it's because he's actually comfortable with his administration as it is. Actually I think he's an excellent president. I just don't agree with the politics he practices.

[anonymous171]

35. Yep. It's all about stimulating the private sector so THEY can create the jobs

This usually means more corporate welfare, or as they called it back in FDR's day, "dole for millionaires."

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. The only "private sector" that seems to be "stimulated" is Wall $treet banking, and Big Insurance.

And I really don't want to work for Gold Mansacks or Stephen Hemsley. Not that they're creating any jobs in my town anyway.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

65. +1 n/t

[QC]

44. The Republicans would never allow something like that! n/t

[begin_within]

46. Because it would put money in the hands of workers instead of bankers?

[ChaoticSilly]

49. We can't have that

We can't reduce the competition for jobs. Do you know how hard our corporate masters have worked to get the economy in a state where people will put up with massive amounts of crap just to keep their jobs? If we reduce unemployment, people will actually start demanding things like lunch breaks and vacations and *gasp* even raises. Do you want CEO's to get ONLY a $95 million bonus this year or something? :sarcasm:

[agent46]

50. lowering our expections n/t

[nemo137]

51. Fine. How would you do it?

Just a rough sketch. Where would you get the money from, and how would you deal with the consequences of pulling that money? What desperately needs to be done that can be done with your jobs bill? What sectors are hit hardest by unemployment, and how would you get workers in those sectors back to work?

[leftstreet]

52. Where's the Dept of Offense getting its money?

We could pay every American 50k a year to do NOTHING and still be ahead!

[nemo137]

54. Not that I'm a huge fan of the defense budget

but this is a simplistic answer. Every action has consequences. Simply saying "derp, he's a corporatist" or "let's cut the defense budget" is simplistic. Everything is linked. Saying "we should have a WPA-style jobs program" is nice, and it'd probably be helpful, but it will not happen any time soon, and lack of political will is not the only, or even the primary, reason why.

[leftstreet]

56. No, it IS that simple. People First!

We put people first - it happens from there

[nemo137]

58. That's a great slogan, but no.

Everything is connected. You pull something from here, something over there fucks up. The country is vastly more complicated than it was in the 1930s, things are bigger and even more interconnected. So there are actual problems in getting the money. Then there's the composition of the courts and the increasingly dim view taken towards government interference since the 1980s, which means that any New New Deal would face an even more hostile environment, plus the right-wing legal groups that sprouted like fucking mushrooms that would be just salivating for a chance to take down a New New Deal program. It may in fact be that at this point the most efficient use of money to get people back to work is hiring incentives and extending unemployment, if every dollar spent on a WPA project costs 3 dollars defending that program.

[anonymous171]

59. How would they "take down" a federal jobs program?

[nemo137]

64. Court challenges to its legality.

I'm assuming you remember the court-packing debacle during FDR's administration? That happened because SCOTUS was ruling recovery programs unconstitutional left and right. Now, given that the court is wildly partisan in a degree unthinkable in FDR's day, exactly how many large-scale New Deal-type programs do you think would survive?

[anonymous171]

67. The only things that got overturned were the AAA and the NRA

And they were able to save the AAA in the end anyways. One thing you always have to remember about the reactionary RW is that they will always challenge us. ALWAYS. We need democrats who understand that the only way to save the nation is to ignore the GOP. If they insist on getting in the American peoples' way then they should simply be crushed by whatever means available. Huey Long certainly understood this. He was so good that they had to literally kill him to break his monopoly on power.

[leftstreet]

68. American voters ignored the GOP the last two election cycles

It's the Democrats that keep acting is if they're viable.

[nemo137]

69. The only things that got overturned *with a much more equitable court*

Not to mention the fact that they don't even have to win, but just have to fight a war of attrition where defending a given programs becomes too costly in financial and political terms - something they've been practicing for at least 30 years now.

I don't share your affection for Long, by the way. His way of running things, and his choice of allies, were deeply worrying, and I'd be cautious about using him as an example for how we should be reacting to the current crisis.

[agent46]

61. totally plausible scenario n/t

[maryf]

88. and what a stimulus that would be!!nt

[agent46]

53. It would take

Good questions. I suppose it would take the best minds available from industry and academia to form a panel and develop each part of a cohesive plan. They would be the first to benefit. As far as the money - just use some of the largess that's marked for disappearance into the black hole of the banking industry.

[nemo137]

57. What happens to the banking industry, then?

You can't simply argue that it'll work itself out. While lack of political will is a problem, it's not the only thing keeping a new WPA from happening.

[agent46]

60. Maybe I'm an idealist but

I was brought up to believe that Capitalism is based on risk. It's not anymore so probably the financiers wouldn't willingly go along anyway.

[nemo137]

62. I agree that too big to fail should mean too big to exist

but that isnt how the system is set up now. We need to keep things stable, and then make it so they don't get fucked again. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to juggle that with fixing unemployment. Like I said before, though, I think it's much more complicated than a simple lack of political will.

[agent46]

66. Yes, I think you're right

about how incredibly complicated it is. Your point is very clear now.

[leftstreet]

63. The banking industry shouldn't be private to begin with n/t

[DisgustedInMN]

75. What "happens" ..

.. to the bloodsucking scumbags, you ask? A much better question would, why the fuck should anyone give a shit what "happens to the banksters"? Hopefully it drives a fucking wooden stake through what ever it is they substitute for hearts. They just like the scumbags at the insurance scammer corporations HAVE to go. Period. They produce nothing but untold misery. Fuck 'em.

Does that answer your question?

[kenny blankenship]

55. Because so far unemployment is hitting the poor hard, but the rich not at all

For the bottom percentile of income earners unemployment has reached Depression levels - a crushing 30%. But in the top percentile of income there's been no measurable impact on employment.

[agent46]

82. The subtle message

Corporate media talking heads assure us "the economy" is picking up. That's actually true if you redefine the word "economy" to mean an artificially stimulated rise in new profits for a certain segment of the owner class. It's a lie for the millions on the ground with no work.

Personally, I'm about to dump the entire constrained set of language re-frames we're being forced to use when discussing issues like this.

[Festivito]

70. If banks hold FOUR times world wealth in derivitives...

..then paying people would only turn more money over to banks when we must later re-adjust the world money supplies.

[agent46]

80. It's on it's way

The money system is well on its way to a "recalibration" anyway.

[Dulcinea]

71. "In today’s climate, if there’s no profit for the business sector involved..."

"... an idea doesn’t get much traction." That says it all. There's no money in it for the fat cats. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

[hack89]

73. We have no idea if the WPA was a valid solution to economic problems

the Great Depression ended due to World War II. There is no reason to believe that absent the war, the WPA would have been a long term solution.

[anonymous171]

77. The WPA lifted peoples' spirits and gave them a reason to continue living.

Without it, we would probably be living in the Soviet States of America right now.

[agent46]

79. I'd be willing

I'd be willing to see the experiment tried again. What's happening now - whatever it is - isn't working at all. WWII was good because it got the factories going in high gear for one thing. These days, war doesn't do anything except force open markets for arms dealers and developers.

[Lorien]

85. Factories could be going in high gear to build schools, bridges, green energy projects

non-profit hospitals, and clinics.Bottom line; you don't need a war to justify domestic spending.

[Lorien]

83. That's the RW talking point anyway. You could say that the Depression ended because of SPENDING

and we have a choice; we can spend money killing people overseas, or we can spend money building and cleaning up here at home. Either way; it takes money to make money.

[anonymous171]

84. It used to be, at least until RW realized that WWII was a government controlled program.

And so by arguing that WWII got us out of the depression, they were proving their free market ideology wrong.

[DisgustedInMN]

87. Hogwash...

.. we've got two fucking wars going on right now and we're circling the drain. WW2 didn't "end" jackshit other than millions of people's lives.

[DisgustedInMN]

74. Well said, through WPA style job policies...

... FDR created a million AMERICAN jobs for AMERICAN workers within 30 days of taking office. Barck Obama has had over a year and hasn't even stopped the bleeding. In fact, we had almost 1/2 million NEW unemployment claims last month. This is totally unacceptable and will likely be the cause of possible civil unrest. The workers of America are fighting mad and we aren't going to stand for the same old business as usual BULL SHIT much longer.

[LearnedHand]

78. THANK YOU for saying this!

I've been saying it since the beginning of the downturn, even though there was NO WAY the *monster was going to do anything like it. I'm very sad that it hasn't seen the light in Obama's administration.

[maryf]

86. K&R

and welcome to DU!! we need more like you here!