Government Jobs' Programs Should Hire Directly

[liberalmike27]

There seems to be this model where we allocate monies, they give big chunks to companies, then the boss of said-company takes the lion's share (maybe boss should be crony), he hires employees, then they do the work. If you really want to get the maximum punch, you'd actually require the government hire the engineers, buy some equipment, and hire the workers to do the road work, and cut out the middle-man, the boss. There would be immensely more jobs created, at least double, maybe triple, or four times as many, the jobs could have benefits, holidays, the work would get done just the same, we could hire American engineers, and one guy would not get most of the money.

Is that crazy, or just good sense? Republicans are the ones always whining "This or that jobs program pays 300,000 per job." Well, this would be a way to keep that from happening. And we'd knock unemployment way, way down.

[elleng]

1. Its not crazy, and it makes sense except

it takes a very long time for government to implement stuff. I understand and share the concern about companies not doing what's intended when gov. provides 'stimulus,' so they should be required/forced to do it properly. I think there are ways to do it.

States can do things more efficiently/effectively than the Feds as they're closer to the 'ground,' and they do, in many cases.

[liberalmike27]

2. Well, they Could

Give the states money, and tell them to do it that way, advance salaries for various positions, acquire equipment at fire-sale prices en-masse. So much per engineer, so much for design, so much for workers, etc....

It makes no sense for a jobs' program, to give one guy 5 million, and have that one guy end up with 2.5 million of it.

[liberalmike27]

16. I was thinking

If you didn't want to do it that way, why not just limit the percentage of profit, like 2, or 5, or 10 percent. In this economy, a company would likely grab that up, and if not, move on to someone who would. I'd imagine there are industrious folks that would scrap up a company for 2 percent of a few million dollars.

[blindpig]

6. FDR implemented the WPA in record time.

And we got 'puters these days.

If a WPA type program is not implemented it is for one reason, the business community opposes it. Such a program would at least stall the decline in wages if not reverse it and every dollar in a worker's pocket is one less in the capitalist's pocket.

It is clear whose side the administration is on. If by astronomical odds I am wrong I'll gladly eat crow, a small price for some relief.

[Claudia Jones]

9. not necessarily

Things can move very quickly, and often do.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

3. The WPA

is needed.

Getting it through Congress is another matter.

[Llewlladdwr]

4. What happens to all these new Government workers when they're no longer needed? NT

[Lasher]

5. The same thing that happens to workers in the private sector when they're no longer needed.

[liberalmike27]

12. If You Want Me to Say

The jobs end eventually, sure I agree, they do. But while they have them, they'll not be unemployed, drawing unemployment, food stamps, so it's a bargain, and we get public works' projects in the mix.

I might add, if the jobs' producers, haven't yet awakened, we'll just fix another of our many problems as a country with work from Americans. Hell I'd much rather spend it here, than killing foreigners.

It's really a choice. We could have full-employment all the time, couldn't we? Some folks might not get to live in quite as large a mansion, might have to buy fifteen or twenty less cars for their collections, get a yacht ten or twelve feet shorter, but we'll all be working, happy, and non-violent.

[hfojvt]

7. it's worse than that though

Obama's program is a tax cut, mostly for the richest 20%, and that's supposed to trickle down to job creation. Whereas if that money was used to hire directly, that would be 3-4 million jobs, plus the stimulus from those people spending their paychecks.

[liberalmike27]

14. Well

Most of Obama's tax cuts, at least the ones he proposes, are tax cuts for people who will spend the money. Tax cuts for the rich, the kind republicans favor, are of course, non-stimulative, and clearly after 30 years of them, do not create jobs at all. They just give the rich so much extra money they can use it to buy up all the media, all politicians, and solidify their death-grip on America's gonads.

[hfojvt]

17. 46% of the tax cut he is proposing goes to the top 20%

including 14% for the top 5%.

The making work pay credit gave 12.8% to the bottom 20%. This new proposal gives only 3.8%. The Republicans proposed to give 7.4% to the bottom 40% and Obama is not much better at 12.1%. The Bush tax cuts, after all, did give an average cut of $1,443 to those in the middle quintile.

[Claudia Jones]

8. of course

You are absolutely right.

[Broderick]

10. TRICKLE DOWN STIMULUS

doesn't work, like trickle down economics fails. WHEN WILL THEY LEARN???? If I hear one iota of stimulus talk not going directly to REAL shovel ready jobs I will scream. 200K per job created in the last stimulus and that's using their inflated numbers created out of whole cloth! We are guaranteeing another 300M to another solar company right as the justice department is looking into the last 500M taxpayer funded solar company goes bankrupt not even two damn years after getting the money!

[liberalmike27]

13. Broderick

I'd much rather have laws with tariffs, and only spend money on what we need to do, and by the way, we need this work. It isn't just make-work, we actually have a rotting highway and bridge system. We need to forage ahead, and take the first steps into renewables.

At the same time, we also need to bring jobs back. You are right. If we keep exporting jobs, trying to make Americans who need a few thousand a month to actually exist in our economy to pay the bills, compete with foreigners who live in cardboard boxes, and connect to the electric grid with jumper cables, then it isn't going to work.

But even Rubio, a super-conservative said he didn't mind paying for programs we need. We need teachers too, educators, cops, firefighters (Texass), all sorts of workers that are suffering because our politicians CHOSE to export all of the best jobs in society, and put us all into some kind of warped, world-competition for employment. We could have lifted everyone up, made sure they had good environmental, safety, wage, and benefits laws, or chose to not trade with them. Instead, we chose to destroy the American economy, and in the process create debt from lack of taxes paid by those jobs they exported. Got to do one or the other, or we'll be melting down into a morass of violence and despair, where no person, or their kids, their family will be safe. It isn't a society I want to live in.

[Broderick]

15. I hear ya

I want direct federal jobs, not something dished out to state committees who in turn fund their relatives ventures, friends and campaign donors while they siphon off billions. 200K per job at best? Come on. Direct Federal government work programs and cut the 50 middle men out. We are headed towards serfdom and they are picking and choosing the ruling elite class one stimulus dollar at a time.

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. Couldn't agree more. Only people on the right start screaming communism and its all over