Extending unemployment benefits logically could make sense for people who are out of work due to no responsibility of their own. That appears to be true for a great many people.
The suggestion that nobody should be paid for not being employed makes sense. Benefits should only be paid to those who follow strict rules, with special requirements to attend education classes that improve their skills, run by private enterprise - which would, of course, create jobs but also create a more capable and employable workforce.
Pulling money into the present to pay for building a better infrastructure absolutely makes sense, as it will facilitate commerce and growth and also get rid of waste caused by delays in transportation. There is no definite answer to the question of whether the funds should be taken from other places.
Although it could make sense as a source of funds, raising taxes on the rich has, at the present time, a zero chance of being passed. The Republicans appear to be taking a stand on spending and do not want to encourage more spending or facilitate it. There are pros and cons on that, but there is no valid point in evilizing the Republicans for their sincere stand.
Whether we add a bit more to the deficit to pay for pulling in more moneys for infrastructure or we pay for it by other cuts in the future, we should do the infrastructure spending - we can't afford not to. And we should do the extension of unemployment benefits, carefully screening out laggards but also requiring that they do something to improve their skills and to learn with vigor.
That isn't the entire plan, but those are pieces that are definitely justified.
The President should give up demonizing the Republicans for their refusing to allow more taxes. It diminishes him as a leader, because the only purpose logically can be politics - which are divisive and damaging.
That part is sad.
The Republicans, in my opinion, based on simple economics, should approve the two items above - and if the financing has to come from reductions in the future (added to the Super Committees required total), so be it.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
Showing posts with label Unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unemployment. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Financial Integrity Versus Jobs
An interesting dilemma - the Republicans are trying to cut the budget but, unremarkably enough, the media reports that would cause a reduction in jobs - 400,000 jobs if there is a cut of $100 billion.
When asked about this, Boehner says "so be it" - and he sounds uncaring, but I think he met that was a reality that had to be incurred.
Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, turned down $2.4 billion for a high speed train - reporting that the current rail system only gets fares that cover 1/6 of the costs! Plus he expects that Florida would be responsible for all overruns on the construction. He is not willing to do that to his state even though obviously the state will not get the benefit of the jobs for building the train.
So, should we "buy" more jobs by spending more and have it not be economical or should we be fiscally responsible? The latter, of course, works out best for the long term, where financial losses are avoided..
How far should we go to buy jobs - we could spend a trillion more dollars to try to solve our unemployment problem, which could produce 2 million to 4 million jobs (per old estimates) - but we'll have to pay for it later with more taxes. 2,000,000 jobs at an average of, say, $40,000 each equals $80 billion dollars - if average taxes were at 20%, we would have $16 billion back toward the deficit. That doesn't quite work, even if you add back potential savings in unemployment payments or using an economic "multiplier".
Of course, there is human welfare at stake in avoiding people being unemployed, but where is the limit?
A tough decision - but it would appear that long term integrity will work out the best - and, as always, decisions have costs to them.
What do you think? (Include specifics and numbers where possible)
The Non-Politician .
See also Is The Wisconsin Governor Justified In Busting The Union? (under Unions).
When asked about this, Boehner says "so be it" - and he sounds uncaring, but I think he met that was a reality that had to be incurred.
Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, turned down $2.4 billion for a high speed train - reporting that the current rail system only gets fares that cover 1/6 of the costs! Plus he expects that Florida would be responsible for all overruns on the construction. He is not willing to do that to his state even though obviously the state will not get the benefit of the jobs for building the train.
So, should we "buy" more jobs by spending more and have it not be economical or should we be fiscally responsible? The latter, of course, works out best for the long term, where financial losses are avoided..
How far should we go to buy jobs - we could spend a trillion more dollars to try to solve our unemployment problem, which could produce 2 million to 4 million jobs (per old estimates) - but we'll have to pay for it later with more taxes. 2,000,000 jobs at an average of, say, $40,000 each equals $80 billion dollars - if average taxes were at 20%, we would have $16 billion back toward the deficit. That doesn't quite work, even if you add back potential savings in unemployment payments or using an economic "multiplier".
Of course, there is human welfare at stake in avoiding people being unemployed, but where is the limit?
A tough decision - but it would appear that long term integrity will work out the best - and, as always, decisions have costs to them.
What do you think? (Include specifics and numbers where possible)
The Non-Politician .
See also Is The Wisconsin Governor Justified In Busting The Union? (under Unions).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)