Those don't look like alternatives, they look like refinements. I'm heartily in favor of attaching strings (or anchor cables) to any stimulus package to make sure the money won't be wasted. The steps described in the article all make sense. But it's still basically the same beast.
I'd like to see people considering other possibilities that don't require cash. Volunteer labor, for instance, is a good way to keep people busy, gain experience that might be useful in a paying job later, and get stuff done. But there's not much organization for that. Another option is to provide tax incentives, rather than outright cuts, for encouraging things like energy-efficient building materials or appliances. Reorganization of bad arrangements would also help, like straightening out the mess of upside-down mortgages to keep people housed and making payments.
At least Obama's plan has one big advantage over the earlier monstrosity: it places substantial emphasis on creating jobs. We're not going to get out of this recession without replacing the lost jobs so people can make a living.
Obama's plan emphasizes jobs by asking the government to create them. Where does the government get the money to pay those persons? From taxpayers. So, the people who have jobs and are struggling to get by have yet another burden placed on them.
The best way to create jobs is to remove barriers that restrict job growth. A high minimum wage bars teenagers and young adults from entering the workforce in the first place. High corporate taxes keep corporations from spending money to hire more workers. Too much regulation keeps companies from starting new projects while they wait on lawyers and bureaucracy. Excessive demands from unions keep companies from investing in those portions of the market that are dominated by them.
The worst part about the idea of creating jobs funded by the government is that nobody is careful with the government's money. Government contractors waste money because the government will pay them anyway. It's not like they're going to get fired.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Hmm...
Date: 2009-01-08 05:15 am (UTC)I'd like to see people considering other possibilities that don't require cash. Volunteer labor, for instance, is a good way to keep people busy, gain experience that might be useful in a paying job later, and get stuff done. But there's not much organization for that. Another option is to provide tax incentives, rather than outright cuts, for encouraging things like energy-efficient building materials or appliances. Reorganization of bad arrangements would also help, like straightening out the mess of upside-down mortgages to keep people housed and making payments.
At least Obama's plan has one big advantage over the earlier monstrosity: it places substantial emphasis on creating jobs. We're not going to get out of this recession without replacing the lost jobs so people can make a living.
Re: Hmm...
Date: 2009-01-08 12:18 pm (UTC)The best way to create jobs is to remove barriers that restrict job growth. A high minimum wage bars teenagers and young adults from entering the workforce in the first place. High corporate taxes keep corporations from spending money to hire more workers. Too much regulation keeps companies from starting new projects while they wait on lawyers and bureaucracy. Excessive demands from unions keep companies from investing in those portions of the market that are dominated by them.
The worst part about the idea of creating jobs funded by the government is that nobody is careful with the government's money. Government contractors waste money because the government will pay them anyway. It's not like they're going to get fired.