BEFORE You Pass the Unemployment Extension!
Unemployment is the new-old hot button issue that is all over the news again since we finally corked the oil spill in the Gulf for the time being. This is also a topic that affects far more Americans directly, so naturally, it is back on the front burner before Congress takes their August recess. Today it is looking like we are going to get the extension passed without any consideration for how it will be paid for, or what it will even accomplish.
There is one talking point I would like clarified by our friends on the left: has the stimulus been successful, or are we in a dire situation? We cannot have it both ways, and yet, President Obama and his cabinet would like you to believe that the stimulus was successful while at the same time lecturing the Republicans on the reasonableness of passing the unemployment extension because we are in a crisis (and God knows, this Administration won’t let any crisis go to waste!). You can’t have your cake and eat it too, although, we are supposed to eat ours.
So which is it? Those of us with a more Conservative (or rugged individualism) proclivity are likely to say, “a year for unemployment benefits is ample time! Suck it up and get a job!” Those of us who may be more mindful of taking care of our fellow man (or, at least forcing others to do so through government so we don’t have to do the dirty work ourselves) might argue, “there are no jobs, what are they supposed to do?”
Taking only one side of this issue leaves one without a complete understanding of our present crisis’ gestalt. There are certainly a number of situations where people have been using unemployment benefits to subsidize their sloth; while one cannot take away from the fact that some areas of a state simply have no infrastructure for job growth. You cannot deny that the job situation has gotten worse, the New York Times has an interactive map that shows the growing unemployment rates state by state and how they climbed over time. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not show a particularly peachy picture of jobs to come, considering at the present moment there are five Americans competing for every one job.
I know it won’t happen, but there are two things I would like to see done if Congress and the President are to pass the Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension:
First, I cannot imagine why we can’t find a way to pay for it. Emergency unemployment benefits are not paid by the employer during the worker’s tenure, it comes straight out of thin air thanks to the Federal government’s Nietzschean ability to posit something from nothing; in this case, create money and with it, value. The Federal government sets aside a block grant to the state, whose Department of Labor hands out the benefits accordingly. Our Federal deficit stands at a paltry $1.6 Trillion dollars this year, as projected by the administration. The Unemployment bill that is set to pass today will add yet another $36 Billion to our gluttonous budget, and all the Republicans and a few Blue-Dogs ask for is a means to pay for it… part of it? Half of it? Any of it? Somebody please go to YouCut and find one of those programs that Representative Cantor’s office has bulls-eyed and we could have this extension paid for.
Secondly, I’ve already hinted to it earlier in the piece, but the Wall Street Journal has an article about stimulating unemployment where a crazy correlation was made: “A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, ‘It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.’” Imagine that: incentivizing people to not get jobs, and then telling them “well instead of getting a job call your Congressman and ask him or her to extend unemployment benefits” would lead people to strive for nothing. That’s as stupid as setting time-tables in a war. Nevertheless, if we are going to do this last emergency extension, why the hell would we not get something out of it in return? Why not ask of people (and I say ask now, but rather, I’d be much more willing to demand it as part of the prerequisite for receiving such benefits) to help out their community? I would make it mandatory for people to volunteer at least 20 hours of their week towards their community, state or nation in exchange for their free benefits (because we must remember, that they did not pay into this unemployment pool). This would allow people to create at least some value from their benefits outside of paying for the bare necessities that had to be paid for already. Giving money away doesn’t add value; but giving money to people in exchange for something does.
When I mentioned this on my Twitter account (follow me, rcaster – we are not afraid of shameless self promotion here) I was accosted by some #P2 fellow, which means he is a “Progressive” in Twitter lexicon. He claimed my idea was unfair because “the unemployed are not criminals!” I would have re-posted the conversation for you, but BlackJedi”somethingorother” was embarrassed enough to just erase his entire end of the conversation, and my tweets went as well (I guess that means I was blocked).
Imagine that, doing something for your community is an activity that should be relegated to those people who are being punished. Perhaps this is the truth about the soul of our communities, and why liberal areas tend to lack it. Doing community service is a punishment? Well I would rather bestow benefits upon people willing to contribute to their community, than give it to those who do not. And besides, who can take away the fact that people will feel better once they get into a productive groove; perhaps they will put their rear-into-gear afterward and go look for that next job with some new skills; perhaps they won’t sit around and feel sorry for themselves, but feel a sense of accomplishment for having achieved something, and that may just be the push they need to go out the door and apply. I used to get into arguments with my high school history teacher, Mr. Lubenetski, about FDR’s New Deal and whether or not it ended the Great Depression. He would say to me, looking exactly like Teddy Roosevelt (he did, red hair, mustache, glasses and all) and explode with his booming voice, “it may not have brought people all the way up to their feet, but it kept them off their knees!” If we are going to pay people who lost work, I say we put them back to work, because you may not be able to measure the benefit of doing so, but a man’s pride can carry him further than his pouting ever will.
-rj
Not Your Father?s Economic Theory
My friend Austin Russell wrote the below piece and, not having a blog to write on, asked me to put it up for him:
Yesterday morning, The Wall Street Journal published a recent interview with Raghuram Rajan, former Chief Economist of The International Monetary Fund. Rajan, like so many of his contemporaries, asserts what has become the most prominent of modern economic truisms: ?Some people” says Mr. Rajan, “are concluding that Capitalism doesn?t work.” Rajan’s words could be permanently included as a sub-title to the bible of modern economic theory.
Rejoicing in victory, advocates of a socialized economy continue to parade the collapse and subsequent recession of 2008 and 2009 as undeniable proof that Capitalism has failed its human masters and must now be replaced by regulation under the firm but benevolent rule of modern philosopher kings. Private individuals and corporations have demonstrated their incompetence and inability to manage their own affairs and must now bow to the rule of the better educated aristocracy. Apparently, “Yes We Can” applies only to the publicly anointed, whom, after ascending political office, must turn to their constituents, and continue “But you my friends, cannot.”
Capitalism is nothing more than a name for the political philosophy expressed in our very own Declaration of Independence. The truths that we hold self-evident, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” are the very foundation of Capitalism which allows individuals to dictate their own destiny without the intervention and regulation of a monarch or aristocracy. To reject Capitalism is to reject freedom-the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. While it is true that individuals will make mistakes, the alternative–stiff government regulation and control–only frustrates and discourages innovation in the name of protecting individuals from themselves. And so, just as the loving and protective parent must eventually learn to let her child grow into adulthood and independence, so too, governments must allow citizens to make their own decisions, to govern their own lives, and define their own destinies.
The Wall Street Journal Has Buyer’s Remorse
The Wall Street Journal came out against the extension of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) on Tuesday in its editorial. According to WSJ, “…today there is little evidence that the government needs or can prudently manage what has evolved into a $700 billion all-purpose political bailout fund.” To their credit, the Journal admits its decision to support TARP during its inception last year, showing a strong sense of character, humbleness and responsibility to its readership: “We supported TARP to deal with toxic bank assets and resolve failing banks as a resolution agency of the kind that worked with savings and loans in the 1980s. Some taxpayer money was needed beyond what the FDIC’s shrinking insurance fund had available.”
We can disagree with the newspaper’s editors on their decision to support initially- however, I think it is a good thing that this newspaper (recently surpassing USA Today?with the country’s largest newspaper circulation for a daily newspaper) is willing to state very publicly its policy reversal. More politicians and media should do the same.
The editorial makes a number of great points- you can read it in the first?link above. For those who might agree with renewing the TARP program and don’t have time to read the whole editorial, please note the following snippet: “TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky agrees that the mortgage modifications “will yield no direct return” and notes charitably that “full recovery is far from certain” on the money sent to AIG and Detroit. Mr. Barofsky also notes that since Washington runs huge deficits, and interest rates are almost sure to rise in coming years, TARP will be increasingly expensive as the government pays more to borrow.”
As is typical with government programs, once begun TARP went screaming out of control. Not just a little out of control, but far out of control. I support The Wall Street Journal’s decision to recommend a non-renewal of TARP, and hope our?elected officials do as well. It would be a great start on the long road back to fiscal discipline and deficit-reduction.
Argentine President Follows In Chavez’s Footprints
The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed yesterday talking about the lack of free press in Argentina. Apparently the country’s president, not liking the copious amounts of (well-deserved) criticism she has received from the press in the time since her election, has decided to pull a Chavez and exert state control over much of the nation’s media. Chavez- who recently told citizens to limit their showers to three minutes- is the epitome of a “Dear Leader” dictator, and it appears he’s not the only one with such humble aspirations in South America.
