Let me be perfectly clear: there is a chasm of difference between creating new jobs and filling existing jobs with people who may be unemployed, thus lowering the unemployment rate. Attrition means that people are fired, people retire, people quit existing jobs to accept another position, and, sometimes, people simply quit working for personal reasons. Filling these vacancies is NOT creating new jobs, but merely restaffing existing positions.
Obama’s claim is that "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect." But he argues that the country is turning around under his policies, pointing to 3 million new jobs created in the last 22 months. President Obama brags about all the new jobs his policies and practices have created – but does not provide documentation of where, when and how, referring instead to the decline in unemployment rates to support his claims.
For instance, an existing business in the desert that was in financial jeopardy announced it was closing its doors, putting 300 current employees out of work. About 4 months later, government incentives were provided to help the business keep its doors open, as well as the 300 employees working. For publicity purposes, this becomes “creating new jobs” to enhance the President’s image – but isn't it redistributing government funding to stop the hemorrhaging across the nation caused by businesses closing their doors and adding to the unemployment rosters?
Ditto with all the local road construction clogging Interstate 10 and the 3 major cross-overs that allow residents to get to work each day. Did the government provide funding that keeps current employees working, as well as hiring back those who lost their jobs when the funds ran out a few years ago, or is this another example of “creating new jobs that put Americans to work"? These over-pass projects have been on the books literally for more than a decade, but no money was available either to begin or finish them, so the plans gathered dust while workers were let go. Hiring unemployed employees is not the same as creating new jobs; it is filling pre-existing jobs with unemployed workers, but that isn’t a sound bite the media will chew.
The Keystone XL oil pipeline is a proposed new project that could create tens of thousands new jobs and revenue for the people/states involved in the planning and execution of that project, but Obama refuses to sign approval for that new project. Keystone XL would originate in Alberta, Canada and travel across many US states to its destination in the Gulf Coast, but a string of objections to the project creates a stalling tactic that will be addressed only after the 2012 election. President Obama does not want to risk potential environmental issues damaging his re-election hopes, and, if he's not sitting in the White House at the end of the year, he dodges a bullet if anything negative comes of the project in the future.
Creating NEW jobs is what this nation needs, as well as keeping the doors open for existing businesses, but when there is an opportunity to create new jobs, the President balks or makes massive mistakes, such as backing the solar business in the desert that went belly up after throwing away $500 million in government funding. Yes, $500 million. The flawed business plan was questioned and then rejected by the outgoing Bush administration, but President Obama bum-rushed the project through to enhance his plan to create new businesses, especially those that are eco-friendly, while ignoring the advice of advisors who said "Don't do this." The advisors were correct, but the mistake was made, and the media, rather than putting this blunder onto the front page, swept it into the back pages as ... insignificant? Not only were jobs lost when the doors closed on this new jobs project, but the people's federal monies were also gone.
The rhetoric may make a great sound bite and stir up supporters, but the reality is that politicians need to say what they mean, and then mean what they say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While I respect most of what you wrote, a few bones of contention:
Obama only postponed the Keystone XL project, he didn't actually cancel it. And that was at the request of the State Dept, which didn't have enough time to do a full work up of the proposed route due to the Republicans putting riders on another bill. Blaming the President for that seems a bit spurious. Canada plans to look at the plan, revise, and resubmit it, btw.
Obama mentioned a number of projects and ways that he would like Congress to put people back to work, create new jobs (he talked for over 10 minutes on new industries as well as bringing back jobs that had left the country), outside of the couple you mentioned, but he cannot do it alone and with the Republicans vowing to block anything the President puts forth (believing by doing so they will win the election and go back to business as usual-- which was at least partly to blame for the straights the country has been in since 2004 and even before), the blame resides mostly with the Republicans for refusing the challenges the President sets for Congress.
There have been plenty of reports released that show job creation. I haven't bothered to keep track to see if it equals 3 million, but this admin HAS created new jobs, which is categorically better than losing jobs... which is what happened prior to and right at the start of his admin, regardless of party you blame for that. Even if you quibble with the number he stated (8 million lost, 3 million created) the fact is we lost a lot of jobs prior to his admin and we have created a lot of jobs since. Job creation is better than job loss. Period. If Congress can create a works bill that will fix the infrastructure the way Obama challenged them to do, and the Repubs don't block it (as they have vowed to do), it will create literally hundreds of thousands of NEW jobs that currently don't exist or that are done by too small a group to be effective. America needs about 80% of its bridges retrofitted or torn down and rebuilt, or more accidents/tragedies like Minnesota will happen across the nation. The average age of most sewer and water systems in American cities are 80+ years old and need to be completely rebuilt. Many of the road systems need to be repaired, especially overpasses and on/offramps. All of these are needs for which there are no current jobs or workers.
Once again, as he has in every speech he's given, he asked for bipartisan, coordinated efforts by Congress to create these bills so he can sign them into law. Yet again, the Repubs basically shit all over that request. Yet, when the Demos go on and try to do it on their own, the Repubs block that, too. I'm still waiting for the Repubs to actually create their own bills, try to work with Demos, and prove to the American people that they can get something done.
The world, America, and politics in general would be a much better place if both parties (but in particular the Repubs right now) would try to work FOR their representatives instead of against each other. The only people getting hurt by this impasse, as the President so aptly said, are the people for whom they all work.
*hylosent
As always, your insight fleshes out my commentary; however, my thesis is to have the president clarify what is reality, rather than create it. If he were to tell the American people that he has put X number of workers back on the job by funding specific projects, I'd support his efforts. It may well be that his efforts are slowly but surely lowering the unemployment rates, but he's not creating NEW jobs as much as he's funding businesses and projects that need doing. And that's good and an accomplishment that's worthy of touting.
For instance, he funded the pending construction jobs on I-10 locally, which put a whole boatload of workers back to work. Unfortunately, few of them are local workers, so "creating the job" in this instance didn't impact the local unemployment rates, but guess we can't have it all.
I agree that the Keystone XL has not been canceled, but Obama made it very clear that he is not going to risk his political future, which is, at best, tenuous, by approving it at this time. He cloaked that admission in over-blown rhetoric about potential environmental impact, but those studies cannot be completed unless the project is conditionally approved, so it's a merry-go-round of finger-pointing that goes nowhere UNTIL AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION.
When Obama ran for office, he vowed to be transparent; once he sat behind the desk, he elevated the art of obfuscation and pulled the blinds on any kind of transparency that does not enhance his own image.
I would accept his presidency, as well as his decision-making more fully if he truly were more transparent and less ... shifty ... in the presentation of his many many public appearance messages.
And, I kinda like the photo of Governor Jan Brewer shaking a finger at him and revealing that HE badgered her with HIS message when they met in the WH, rather than listening to HER message, which was the point of the meeting. From what I've read, that's his management style and it isn't working for him or the country.
Post a Comment