Monday, February 01, 2010

Plans Republicans Make - regarding jobs.

In their complaint letter to the President of the United States of America, the Republicans state they want a bipartisan discussion on jobs because the issue is neglected by policymakers in Washington, DC.

Now, are those policymakers also the Republicans, because, the Democrats passed a large stimulus bill at the beginning of 2009. So, I guess it is the RNC that feels guilty that their own members have talked about jobs much. Right? I mean it was the Republicans that sank the country into The Great Recession which caused large reductions in jobs in the USA economy, hence, the stimulus package. So, is it the Republicans feeling guilty here? They want to apologize to the country or something?

Let's see, the superlatives used by the RNC in their letter are, jobs are being shed at an unacceptable rate, there have been job losses since the stimulus.

I want to discuss the job losses since the stimulus. See, if one looks at the states with SUSTAINED job losses they are primarily where Republican administrations are in control of the state governments.


Just yesterday a good friend stopped in after the snow started to melt.

And that is another thing, the snow is melting so there is going to be flooding where all the snow had fallen.

But, this friend stopped in. He is in construction. Last year the firm he works for earned a whopping $400,000.00 at the end of the year in profit. I should qualify that by saying $400 hundred thousand is a small fraction of the work this firm usually does annually. They do mostly commercial work. This year they are looking at government contracts. The government work is receiving bids that only achieve about a 5% profit margin and that is if there are no delays or supply costs that increase. Needless to say the Stimulus monies could not be better spent at a better time, because the government is receiving high quality work for dirt cheap prices.

At any rate, the monies that are now being distributed are ONLY NOW coming into the market place. The projects this firm is looking at are all new and they are since THE STATE legislature has returned to their annual planning sessions. Follow? So, before the RNC starts running its mouth about the SLOW return of jobs to the country, they need to realize they are half the problem in the states where majority Republican legislators and/or governors administer the business of the government.

Now, understanding that reality is an interesting aspect to this. The State governments could have and SHOULD HAVE called in emergency sessions since they would not be meeting again to legislate until 2010. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. It is more than obvious to me that Republicans DELIBERATELY stayed out and let people suffer and/or collect unemployment extentions rather than taking up the cause and putting people back to work immediately. It is completely obvious to me, especially with the news yesterday, that Republicans intended to complain about the slow return of jobs and 'MADE' it happen. So, I don't really want to hear it. I want to hear how the entire country is pulling together to put people back to work and cut unemployment costs. That is what I want to hear from Republicans and I am not hearing it. I am only hearing complaints.

So, back to the letter, hopefully it is chocked full of new and exciting ideas.

No ideas yet. That is sort of status quo for the GOP. But, there are more complaints about long term unemployment. I already addressed that above. Oh, the famous rhetoric for Republicans, a "Jobless Recovery." We heard those words through the entire Bush years. Nothing new there. After all the Republican cronies on Wall Street still have their jobs when they shouldn't. That might explain why the early Obama years look so much like the entire Bush years.

Well, the letter goes on to say the same thing, complaints in different words, but, basically (who signed this anyway?). Well this explains a few things, the signators are John Baehner, 8th district of Ohio, it is difficult to read that handwriting, it looks like Mike Pence, 6th congressional district of Indiana, Eric Cantor, the 7th congressional district of Virginia, and David Camp (not to be confused with Camp David), the 4th congressional district of Michigan. No women signed the letter. I don't blame them. But, they formed this group called, The Better Solutions Group. Right. Better solutions that offer no clear workable ideas so far, nothing but complaints and demands for tax incentives to the wealthy, but, oh yeah they have the answers all right.

Here is another Republican standby, "moneys borrowed from future generations of Americans." Why does that matter now, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Pence, Mr. Cantor and Mr. David? Why now? It has never carried any brevity before President Obama came into office. It certainly didn't matter a hoot and a holler when the Banks came begging, so why all of a sudden do long term Republicans have complaints about borrowing monies from future generations. Answer that first and THEN it might actually be a legitimate question.

So, like the four of you asked President Obama, "Where are the jobs?" I don't see one constructive proposal yet.

Here is a reminder. Small businesses are the work engine of new jobs. AHhhhh, yes, small businesses. Where are they, Pence, Boehner, Cantor and David? Where are the loans that small businesses need to facilitate their ability to expand and hire new people? You know, HIRE, new jobs? Because the Banks that came begging, that you borrowed monies from future generations of Americans, have never (THAT WAS NEVER) provided the loans the nation's small businesses needed. We, the little people, thought it would be coming when those monies were borrowed from future generations. But, it hasn't. Now President Obama has to supply even more monies which will increase the deficit to provide loans to small businesses IN HOPES that jobs will be forthcoming.

I really don't think there is anything worthwhile in this letter regarding Republican proposals to increase job growth. There isn't one proposal here. Not one. Not yet.

The four congressmen that composed this letter have lied. They stated the government is not the place where jobs take place. That is a lie. It may not be the place where Republicans WANT the jobs to come from, but, to state the government is NOT the place where jobs occur is a lie.

The stimulus saved jobs in government across the board where it could be applied immediately to federal spending. That is the truth. It not only saved jobs, but, much needed repair due to past neglect (as an example) to National Parks have actually filled jobs and/or created same.

In addition, I can go to the site for the Department of Labor and find a lot of unfilled jobs. Jobs that, when filled, will help the US Labor Department function better to assist the nation in its need. Those jobs at the USA Labor Department are good paying jobs, too. They require many high level skills. I am sorry to see there are so many, actually, but the jobs are there and Americans should look for them and apply.

Maybe Americans have gotten use to the idea that government doesn't hire from the Bush years and vacancies go unfilled. But, these federal departments are hiring now.

So to say government is NOT the place where jobs occur is completely a lie. As a matter of fact, when we spend monies on government we KNOW ABSOLUTELY there are going to be jobs, that is not necessarily the case with small businesses although we hope it is.

As a matter of fact, and forgive me for rambling on, jobs from small businesses won't happen immediately as they FIRST have to recover from losses during the economic downturn.


Sometimes it is now hard to find small businesses to expand because they were forced into default after the Great Recession of 2008.

So, I'll take the government jobs for now and know the demands of those employees to the government will bring demands for start up small businesses and cause (THAT WAS CAUSE) their return to our economy.

Wow, that was a lot of writing. Yep.

Oh, now the four congressmen are gong to bash President Obama. They are ridiculing his agenda. You know, health care, global warming and an energy tax.

Well, that is status quo. No ideas about creating jobs and plenty of Obama Bashing along with sincere and out right lies. Because the four congressmen state, the monies that went to government froze out small businesses. No. That is not the case. The people believed once the bank bailout was enacted the LOAN departments used by small businesses would open their doors again. THAT is the real issue here, isn't it? But, because it doesn't serve the political agenda of the Republicans a NEW REALITY has to be proposed.

The four congressimen go on to criticize President Obama for not listening to the Congressional Budget Office Director, Mr. Douglas Holtz Eakin. Okay? Look at this:

Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget Office Director As Inappropriate (click here)

July 22, 2009 12:13 PM

Basically, President Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he meets with the CBO director it is bashed, if he doesn't do as the COB director (as stated here) states he should do he is bashed anyway,


Cute stuff they pull. When is President Obama and the Congressional Democrats going to learn that working with Republicans is like Daniel in the lions den? When? Another year from now? Two? When, are Democrats going to learn that their agenda is completely meaningless to these men and women. Americans already know we don't mean anything to them, we are just waiting for Democratic lawmakers to catch on. Like what happens when they go to Washington anyway? They really don't 'get it.'

The letter goes on to make no proposals. It only discusses the supposed legislation that was given to President Obama. More comments about that in a minute.

The bottom line to this mess from the Republicans is something called the House GOP Economic Recovery Solutions Group. They have more websites than they have content. When I went to the website for it, this is what I found. I'll look again as I may have missed something. At THIS website I am not getting a link behind the text. I click on the phrase "read more" and then I get a page that states, "The system cannot find the file specified." Second thoughts? Simply a bad idea?

House Republican Economic Recovery Plan (click here)

The one PDF I did find is something called "Better Solutions, a compilation of GOP alternatives."

What I am going to do is read through it, take notes and finish this entry. However, I have something else to say about the way these Republicans approach the President.

The President isn't the place to propose legislation. He is the Executive Branch. You folks are suppose to write bills and submit them for consideration to the House of Representatives. What do the Republicans expect to happen? For the President to sign the 'Better Solutions' book? An autograph? Is that what these folks are looking for? No? Simply grandstanding.

I'll be back.

The PDF I read says nearly the same thing as the document to the link at the title to this entry, except, it is not as hostile in its verbiage. Another thing about verbs. The GOP tends to use a lot of 'reflexive verbs' and that creates a 'no opposition' bottom line to their perspective. It is more or less a tactic. Reflexive verbs are from romance languages.

That said as a bit of trivia and to note how one says things actually 'constructs' a format for debate-less politics and having Republicans always appear authoritative and singly directed.

But, that said, there are a few proposals within this effort by Republicans, none of which were necessary to take to the President's desk. They did so to grandstand for their cronies and constituents. This is another 'Contract with America' effort, but, in a different package. The Republicans both in verbiage and actions want to appear to have the upper hand, better ideas and control of government. It is a hostile stance.

But, to take these proposals one by one:

Here are some of the verbiage that really does not translate into real proposals, "Self Imposed Obstacles such as increased taxes, new government regulations and government mandates and Restore Confidence by a freeze on discretionary spending.

If any Democrat was thinking this 'freeze' was outside the 'character' of the President, it is.

It is a Republican idea.

So when people like BECK want to ridicule President Obama for freezing discretionary spending at inflated rates, they should realize this was a bipartisan effort by the President. The responsibility for this one belongs to the Republicans. Glenn Beck and all the other naysayers don't read for a living evidently.

The verbiage which states, "Self Imposed Obstacles and Restore Confidence" is rhetoric. It is unkind and simply "W"rong. So, I am going to set all that aside because in discussing the economy it has no meaning. Those are insulting political constructs.

The freeze is stated to save $53 billion. Okay. Done. Now, the Republicans have to return to the House and see their legislation stays in the President's proposal.

Bipartisanship. Obama. I don't want to hear it anymore.

The Republicans want to change depreciation schedules on commercial real estate.

Not homes, but, commercial real estate.

Currently the depreciation schedule is 37 years, I believe. The Republicans want to change it to 20 years or less. That would mean commercial real estate, such as the Goldman Sachs towers in NYC would be able to have less taxes to pay if their real estate were depreciated more quickly. Along with that fact it would increase the deductions on those buildings where commercial income is conducted.

The government loses on this all the way around.

The depreciation rate on homes is 27.5 years.

I don't think it is a bad proposal, but, it increases wealth to businesses and does not necessarily generate jobs. I don't see a depreciation schedule of 20 years either so much as the same as homes receive of 27.5 years. The 20 year schedule is too drastic and destructive to any local tax base as well because it will be argued in court that if the federal government sees depreciation that way then local municipalities have to see it that way as well. It will hurt local governments and schools almost immediately.
I don't like the depreciation schedule reduced to that extent.

27.5 and no more. At this time it would mean the federal government would also have to protect communities if their tax base was reduced by this new schedule. The Republicans did not propose this with 'Pay Go' in mind either. So, they need to work on it. I also believe there should be a sun-downing provision as well.

They want to restructure unemployment to include "Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment." That is being done in some states and the Republicans noted that in their statement, however, what sometimes happens with such issues are relocation issues and it isn't as successful as one might think. If a spouse is gainfully employed and a person is assessed to take a job elsewhere that creates issues. I think it can be a good measure, but, one has to realize most state governments are stressed to the max in regard to administering unemployment and adding more administrative costs to their responsibility again means finding ways to pay for it. Pay-Go again.

The like a program called "Georgia Works." It is where recipients of unemployment are placed to work with existing employers. It is similar to the "Work Fare" dynamic with welfare. It can be helpful, I suppose. It is a 'try it and like it' six week program. Employers hire an unemployed person for six weeks and then decide if they want to keep them on the payroll.

I see a few issues.

To begin it removes the unemployed from the job market. It doesn't allow for time to look for work. It doesn't necessarily match candidate with their abilities either. Add to that employers could treat this as a 'revolving door' kind of thing. If employees are subsidized by the State in their salary it gives a fiscal break to employers. Why not just continue to disapprove of candidates and have the State supply temporary employees all the time.

Georgia Work$ (GW$) (click here)

In order for this to really be successful as a training program, the employers have to agree to hire a certain number of the people that come to work for them and I would think these employers would also have health insurance benefits.

Suspend Federal Unemployment Tax. NO, with a capital N. It increases the deficit. And you have to love this part, they want to fund it by using the "Improper government payment dollars."

White House: $98 billion in bad payments (click here)

The federal government made $98 billion in improper government payments in 2009, budget director Orszag says.

It isn't enough that the federal government has made $98 billion in bad payments, the Republicans want to treat it as part of the budget and fund the federal unemployment tax with it. Those monies are suppose to go to reduce the national debt. Spend it? No and to even consider that as a potential 'Pay-Go' deal is outrageous. It is unethical and immoral. That is like stealing money from the people of the USA.

The Republicans want to remove unnecessary barriers to domestic energy production. In other words, all the regulations that protect consumers and citizens (not necessarily the same thing) from exploitive and dangerous practices are suppose to be sacrificed even further in HOPES there will be more jobs created.

NO! And I don't care if they 'window dressed' it with alternative energies either. Regulations are important and they need to stay the way they are. Republicans always assume that regulations cost companies money. In the long run, they save money because they prevent disasters and the monies the federal government has to spend to pick up after them. Regulations also save lives and I am not willing to risk citizen's lives for the 'idea' there MIGHT be an increased job base. Absolutely not. If one death occurred from such an action it would be horrible and preventable and there is no way I see this as a moral directive by any government, federal or otherwise. Absolutely not.

The Republicans want to AGAIN repatriate earnings into the USA from companies with foreign income/operations. That is reducing corporate tax burden and it increases the national debt. Bush did this and it is noted in the letter, however, there is nothing to say anywhere that I read that it would happen the same way. There are no jobs created by that either, that income is from overseas and actually in my opinion undermines the American worker. It might bring a few billion US to the treasury, but, it does nothing to prevent companies from moving jobs out of the country and COSTING jobs in the USA. I don't believe it is a good idea. It will encourage outsourcing. I don't see it as a job incentive at all. It is not worth the few billion it may or may not generate.

This proposal to increase exports probably has some merit. The Republicans state there are three free trade agreements pending that would generate 1% increase in exports and that translates directly into jobs.

December 12, 2008

I have not researched this a great deal, but, it sounds like something the President alluded to and the Republicans should take this forward to the House legislation to include in the budget if there are enough members of the House that see this as benevolent to the country.

Some of the negative rhetoric in the letter is simply that. Small businesses were left out of the recovery picture by the banks. That is a fact. The Republicans have to stop blaming the Stimulus package as unsuccessful because it didn't close this gap. One has to first realize there is a gap before it can be closed. The President and his financial team lived up to their word in not dominating the decision making at corporate headquarters. The USA was stiffed by the banks that received the monies from the bailout and we all know it. We have had to reorient ourselves to that reality and act in support of small businesses.

I believe all the negative rhetoric is a form of hatred and it needs to stop. That is the long and short of it for jobs by the Republicans and I am deeply grateful the American people were not left in their hands after the global economic collapse of 2008. Deeply grateful. We have a great President. He helped us a great deal.


Boycott the Super Bowl. No TV, No attendance, No radio, No souvenir, No nothing.

Scott Roeder (click here)


Matthew Shepard Foundation (click here)

Not because it is ProLife, but, it violates Civil Rights in the USA. The organizers of the Super Bowl that will take place this Sunday have refused to carry ads from other 'civic minded' groups. They are also NOT carrying the life histories of other players.

There is no equity in how the organizers are conducting their merchandising. I don't believe 'first come, first served' is appropriate when the content is intended to sawy political issues. On every venue of journalism there are demands for equal time. The 'faux' ad on Sunday will bring a 'paid for TV political ad' to the screen without equal time allowed for those that feel differently.

The organizers of the Super Bowl are breaking laws in the USA and allowing 'favored' status to a particular political issue.

The groups most effected by these hostile actions should be filing for injunctions at the very least. Besides the obvious hostility toward women, the religious preference is nothing but dangerous. I oppose the political use of any sports event where there are Americans from every cultural and religious background being exposed to such bigotry.

While the player mentioned as more important to the game by the fact that he simply breaths and lives might have an interesting story, the only reality that comes across to me is that he beat the odds. Fine, other don't.

Gloria Allred Says Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl Ad ‘Misleading Advertising’ (click here)

...He is also a devout evangelical Christian who has spent his college years endlessly bible-thumping and proselytizing about God. And he is famous for his Jesus eye patches, which he inscribes with biblical verse numbers, before every game. Now, Tebow and his missionary mother Pam, are at the center of a Super Bowl advertising controversy, which has raised the sensitive issues of mixing religion and sports and the appropriateness of airing divisive advocacy ads, during the Super Bowl....