$100 billion proposal to save city workers jobs

cawacko

Well-known member
I'm no economist but it seems a lot of the original stimulus was spent on saving public sector jobs and here's another proposal to do the same so how is this suppose to grow the economy in the long run?

I get the argument of deficit spending to boost the economy when it is down but how is saving public sector jobs going to create new growth and new jobs? Does one need to believe that the government creates the jobs to follow this?


$100 billion proposal to save city worker jobs


With unemployment still stubbornly high despite last year's $800 billion fiscal stimulus, a top House Democrat and Bay Area lawmaker on Wednesday proposed sending cities $100 billion over the next two years to forestall predicted layoffs of hundreds of thousands of city workers, teachers and other local public employees.

The bill by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, is part of a welter of legislation, including a major extension of unemployment benefits in a jobs bill that passed the Senate on Wednesday, that Democrats are trying to enact to boost employment. About 8 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007, and while the economy has been growing smartly and job losses have slowed sharply, job growth has not yet rebounded.

About 17,000 of 26,000 San Francisco city workers received pink slips on Friday, but Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to hire most of them back with a shortened workweek that would amount to a 6.25 percent pay cut. Spokesman Tony Winnicker said the move will avoid the kind of mass layoffs taking place in cities across the country, such as Los Angeles, which has announced that it will terminate 4,000 city employees with more likely to follow.

Miller predicted his bill would immediately create 1 million jobs, counting spillover effects on private businesses that sell goods and services to public sector employees. He did not propose offsetting spending cuts or tax increases despite Democrats' vow to institute pay-as-you-go budget rules, arguing that deficit spending is necessary to boost job growth.

"I think it should be considered part of the Recovery Act, funded out of the deficit," Miller said. "You cannot cure the deficit when you're running with 15 million unemployed, and you can't cure it at the local level by laying people off and raising taxes."

Senate action

Miller said the stimulus has done "a pretty fair job" but "clearly is not going to be sufficient" to reduce the current 9.7 percent national unemployment rate.

The Senate's $138 billion legislation would extend stimulus-funded unemployment insurance, tax cuts and health care for unemployed workers through the end of 2010, and provide $25 billion more in aid to states. It would borrow $97 billion, with the rest offset by giving the Internal Revenue Service new tools to go after tax shelters.

The Senate bill also included $150 million in disaster relief for California produce farmers hit by water cutbacks. California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, inserted the aid into a broader $1.5 billion farm disaster relief provision that was added to the Senate jobs bill by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat whose seat is considered one of the most endangered in the Senate. Feinstein said three years of drought in California has led to $600 million in crop losses last year.

Another $18 billion Senate plan would give companies a tax break for hiring people who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. The House is also working on another bill to give small businesses $13 billion in tax breaks, including lifting capital gains taxes on certain small business stock.

Input from mayors


Miller's "Local Jobs for America Act" was written with input from mayors across the country who said they are confronting a meltdown in property tax revenue from the real estate crash and cutbacks in aid from similarly strapped state governments. Miller said local budgets have been cut to the bone, receding to their level of 1980, and that many cities are facing layoffs of firefighters, police and teachers.

He said the money would go directly to city hall officials, who would best know what their local needs are and be able to hire people immediately.

The effort won rave reviews from liberal interest groups, including the labor-friendly Employment Policy Institute, which called it "exactly the kind of bold response we need," but there are no Republican co-sponsors. Miller and other Democrats acknowledged an uphill battle and said it would be up to the House leadership to decide how and when to take up the bill. They said they hoped a big push by mayors visiting Washington next week would build momentum.

San Francisco deficit

San Francisco faces a $522 million budget deficit. "Many of the cuts we're facing as a city are result of trying to grapple with state cuts," said Newsom spokesman Winnicker. He said last year's federal stimulus "helped us enormously."

Newsom has been pushing hard for an extension of the "Jobs Now" program that was part of the stimulus and created 2,100 jobs in San Francisco, two-thirds of those in the private sector, according to the mayor's office.

The program provides hiring subsidies directly to private businesses, nonprofits and government agencies through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It was killed by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., on a procedural vote but Newsom is pushing to add it to the Miller bill and more upcoming Senate jobs legislation.

"Everybody is talking another jobs bill for sure," Winnicker said. "None of this is done yet by any stretch from what we're hearing."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/10/MNM21CDP5U.DTL
 
I'm no economist but it seems a lot of the original stimulus was spent on saving public sector jobs and here's another proposal to do the same so how is this suppose to grow the economy in the long run?

I get the argument of deficit spending to boost the economy when it is down but how is saving public sector jobs going to create new growth and new jobs? Does one need to believe that the government creates the jobs to follow this?


proposed sending cities $100 billion over the next two years to forestall predicted layoffs of hundreds of thousands of city workers, teachers and other local public employees.

I personally consider teachers, firefighters, cops, public utility workers, and garbage collection men/women to be valuable and essential jobs in any modern community.

I've heard a lot of guesses and speculations that the overwhelming majority of stimulus job creation money went to the public sector, but I've never actually seen any credible, non-partisan link that breaks down the data.

We sent one trillion dollars to wall street to save banks. And we sent, what, a hundred billion to bail out car companies? In principle, I don't have a problem with paying to keep teachers, firefighters, and cops on the job given that we narrowly averted another great Republican depression by increasing spending and investment in infrastructure.


Now, if you're down with spending more money on private sector jobs to build infrastructure, electrical grids, schools, and highways, I can party with that.
 
I personally consider teachers, firefighters, cops, public utility workers, and garbage collection men/women to be valuable and essential jobs in any modern community.

I've heard a lot of guesses and speculations that the overwhelming majority of stimulus job creation money went to the public sector, but I've never actually seen any credible, non-partisan link that breaks down the data.

We sent one trillion dollars to wall street to save banks. And we sent, what, a hundred billion to bail out car companies? In principle, I don't have a problem with paying to keep teachers, firefighters, and cops on the job given that we narrowly averted another great Republican depression by increasing spending and investment in infrastructure.


Now, if you're down with spending more money on private sector jobs to build infrastructure, electrical grids, schools, and highways, I can party with that
.

THIS is what needs to be done with the stimulus money. Couple it with tax credits to small businesses for increasing employment ranks. Both are a part of the 'stimulus' but neither are what they need to be. These should be the top two areas of spending. Enough of the stop gaps. Stop gaps are necessary at the beginning, but you can't keep focusing on them.
 
Basically the brilliant idea the left in congress have is that they are going to boost spending on government jobs (which are the hardest of all jobs to cut) and then they will cut them back in the "good times". We all know how that will play out - when the fuck have Liberal Democrats cut any government jobs? AND in good times?

Also infrastructure spending has never exactly been short on money to begin with, the transportation bill prior to the recession was considered one of the porkiest things that ever came out of congress (we even had money for bridges to nowhere). Big surprise as that is one of the very few areas of government that neither of the 2 parties really have an appetite to cut spending on.
 
"The effort won rave reviews from liberal interest groups, including the labor-friendly Employment Policy Institute, which called it "exactly the kind of bold response we need," but there are no Republican co-sponsors. Miller and other Democrats acknowledged an uphill battle..."

Typical.

The only way to bring this country back is to put Americans to work. Not communists in China. Beats the shit outta me why Republicons are against this. Unless they represent the communists and not us.
 
Basically the brilliant idea the left in congress have is that they are going to boost spending on government jobs (which are the hardest of all jobs to cut) and then they will cut them back in the "good times". We all know how that will play out - when the fuck have Liberal Democrats cut any government jobs? AND in good times?

The goal is not to boost spending on government jobs and then to cut them back in the "good times." The goal is to prevent current jobs from being cut.

I suppose I could understand an argument that the jobs should be cut if there is no money for them on the grounds that the government is too bloated to begin with (although I disagree), but the above argument just isn't at all reflective of reality.

Also infrastructure spending has never exactly been short on money to begin with, the transportation bill prior to the recession was considered one of the porkiest things that ever came out of congress (we even had money for bridges to nowhere). Big surprise as that is one of the very few areas of government that neither of the 2 parties really have an appetite to cut spending on.

I doubt you could find any credible analysis that the nation's aging infrastructure, from highways to public buildings to water and sewer systems to airport and railways and ectera are in good shape. The fact of the matter is that they are a mess. Again, while I understand the argument that the federal government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have, your argument that infrastructure spending is already fantastic doesn't reflect reality.
 
THIS is what needs to be done with the stimulus money. Couple it with tax credits to small businesses for increasing employment ranks. Both are a part of the 'stimulus' but neither are what they need to be. These should be the top two areas of spending. Enough of the stop gaps. Stop gaps are necessary at the beginning, but you can't keep focusing on them.


Both should be done. Basically, without aid to state and local governments, the fifty states are working against the federal stimulus efforts. While the feds spend money to prop up the economy, fifty little Hoovers are cutting spending making government efforts a wash.


Edit: In the end we'll get none of the above.
 
boost spending on teachers and firefighters and meter maids, while attacking for profit's. = Barack Carter.
 
The goal is not to boost spending on government jobs and then to cut them back in the "good times." The goal is to prevent current jobs from being cut.

I suppose I could understand an argument that the jobs should be cut if there is no money for them on the grounds that the government is too bloated to begin with (although I disagree), but the above argument just isn't at all reflective of reality.
Well then your "goal" failed didn't it
The amount of government jobs DID increase
"State and local governments added 12,000 workers, a 0.1% increase, in the quarter, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The private sector cut 1.3 million jobs, a 1.2% reduction"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-02-stimulus_N.htm

Your real goal is to grow government, that is all Liberal Democrats do.


I doubt you could find any credible analysis that the nation's aging infrastructure, from highways to public buildings to water and sewer systems to airport and railways and ectera are in good shape. The fact of the matter is that they are a mess. Again, while I understand the argument that the federal government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have, your argument that infrastructure spending is already fantastic doesn't reflect reality.
How about the leftwing Post? Even they ran an article talking about how much of the last massive transportation bill was unneeded:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000223.html

I suppose you could argue that the infrastructure funding was needed and the pork was there not because the real infrastructure funding was already taken care of but because politicians abuse it. But if you do use that argument, realize that it is going to be that much more wasteful with all the urgency and less oversight we have seen with all the rush to spending.
 
Both should be done. Basically, without aid to state and local governments, the fifty states are working against the federal stimulus efforts. While the feds spend money to prop up the economy, fifty little Hoovers are cutting spending making government efforts a wash.


Edit: In the end we'll get none of the above.

They are cutting spending because they are running MASSIVE deficits. They HAVE to cut spending.

Take a look at CA public pensions and tell me they are not insane.
 
They are cutting spending because they are running MASSIVE deficits. They HAVE to cut spending.

Take a look at CA public pensions and tell me they are not insane.


I understand that they are cutting spending because of massive deficits. That's the whole point in the federal government giving them money -- to plug holes in the budget and prevent them from making cuts in employment.
 
Both should be done. Basically, without aid to state and local governments, the fifty states are working against the federal stimulus efforts. While the feds spend money to prop up the economy, fifty little Hoovers are cutting spending making government efforts a wash.
Edit: In the end we'll get none of the above.
This is a dirty lie, Hoover almost doubled federal outlays from 3.6 billion to 6.5 billion
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php
He cut next to shit and increased spending massively, he was the original New Dealer.

In fact, Hoover’s incessant meddling with the economy made the situation worse. He managed to turn the recession in 1929 into the Great Depression. While the economic picture was poor in 1929 and 1930, it was only in 1931, after a year of government intervention, that the situation seriously deteriorated.

Hoover also vastly increased spending on public works projects. More money was spent on such projects in four years than in the previous thirty.... Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) supplied failing businesses, mainly railroads and banks, with emergency low-interest loans. By the latter half of 1932 the RFC was no longer simply bailing out businesses in trouble but was also lending money to the states for unemployment relief to fund public works projects.

The president’s attempts to prop up failing businesses were of dubious effect. “The businesses he hoped to save,” writes one historian, “either went bankrupt in the end, after fearful agonies, or were burdened throughout the 1930s by a crushing load of debt.”

Looking back upon his tenure, Hoover congratulated himself for his bold action. “We might have done nothing,” the president said in 1932. “That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic.”


We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” - Rexford Tugwell, New Deal Architect



You know Dungheap, that underlined part sounds awful familiar don't it?
 
I understand that they are cutting spending because of massive deficits. That's the whole point in the federal government giving them money -- to plug holes in the budget and prevent them from making cuts in employment.

Which essentially does what? Oh yeah... NOTHING.

The government is not requiring the states to pay back the money as the banks did. It is instead allowing the States to fall in line with their other union buddies over at GM. Just give them the money to keep going with the same wasteful spending habits they have had in the past.

We should let CA, MI etc... go under just as the EU should allow Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain go under. Let it happen. Take the pain now vs. pushing it on to the future.

Otherwise you simply reward bad behavior.

IF... note the word... IF they forced the states to pay back 'loans' from the Fed, then that strategy might make more sense.
 
Well then your "goal" failed didn't it
The amount of government jobs DID increase
"State and local governments added 12,000 workers, a 0.1% increase, in the quarter, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The private sector cut 1.3 million jobs, a 1.2% reduction"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-02-stimulus_N.htm

Your real goal is to grow government, that is all Liberal Democrats do.


Increased compared to what? If public employment increased as a result of people being re-hired after being laid off due to budget cutbacks then the goal was achieved.


How about the leftwing Post? Even they ran an article talking about how much of the last massive transportation bill was unneeded:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000223.html

I suppose you could argue that the infrastructure funding was needed and the pork was there not because the real infrastructure funding was already taken care of but because politicians abuse it. But if you do use that argument, realize that it is going to be that much more wasteful with all the urgency and less oversight we have seen with all the rush to spending.


That article is from 2005. Yes, the Republicans pissed away money on pork projects instead of responding to critical infrastructure needs of the country.

Can you present any credible evidence that infrastructure is in good shape? Any at all? Or is a 2005 article about Republicans passing pork-laden bills the best you can do?
 
Which essentially does what? Oh yeah... NOTHING.

The government is not requiring the states to pay back the money as the banks did. It is instead allowing the States to fall in line with their other union buddies over at GM. Just give them the money to keep going with the same wasteful spending habits they have had in the past.

We should let CA, MI etc... go under just as the EU should allow Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain go under. Let it happen. Take the pain now vs. pushing it on to the future.

Otherwise you simply reward bad behavior.

IF... note the word... IF they forced the states to pay back 'loans' from the Fed, then that strategy might make more sense.


It prevents people from being unemployed, keeps people spending money and keep the economy from a more severe crash. Now, maybe you want to trade a depression in exchange for "teaching states a lesson" but I don't think that is necessarily a good idea.
 
I'm no economist but it seems a lot of the original stimulus was spent on saving public sector jobs and here's another proposal to do the same so how is this suppose to grow the economy in the long run?

I get the argument of deficit spending to boost the economy when it is down but how is saving public sector jobs going to create new growth and new jobs? Does one need to believe that the government creates the jobs to follow this?


$100 billion proposal to save city worker jobs


With unemployment still stubbornly high despite last year's $800 billion fiscal stimulus, a top House Democrat and Bay Area lawmaker on Wednesday proposed sending cities $100 billion over the next two years to forestall predicted layoffs of hundreds of thousands of city workers, teachers and other local public employees.

The bill by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, is part of a welter of legislation, including a major extension of unemployment benefits in a jobs bill that passed the Senate on Wednesday, that Democrats are trying to enact to boost employment. About 8 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007, and while the economy has been growing smartly and job losses have slowed sharply, job growth has not yet rebounded.

About 17,000 of 26,000 San Francisco city workers received pink slips on Friday, but Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to hire most of them back with a shortened workweek that would amount to a 6.25 percent pay cut. Spokesman Tony Winnicker said the move will avoid the kind of mass layoffs taking place in cities across the country, such as Los Angeles, which has announced that it will terminate 4,000 city employees with more likely to follow.

Miller predicted his bill would immediately create 1 million jobs, counting spillover effects on private businesses that sell goods and services to public sector employees. He did not propose offsetting spending cuts or tax increases despite Democrats' vow to institute pay-as-you-go budget rules, arguing that deficit spending is necessary to boost job growth.

"I think it should be considered part of the Recovery Act, funded out of the deficit," Miller said. "You cannot cure the deficit when you're running with 15 million unemployed, and you can't cure it at the local level by laying people off and raising taxes."

Senate action

Miller said the stimulus has done "a pretty fair job" but "clearly is not going to be sufficient" to reduce the current 9.7 percent national unemployment rate.

The Senate's $138 billion legislation would extend stimulus-funded unemployment insurance, tax cuts and health care for unemployed workers through the end of 2010, and provide $25 billion more in aid to states. It would borrow $97 billion, with the rest offset by giving the Internal Revenue Service new tools to go after tax shelters.

The Senate bill also included $150 million in disaster relief for California produce farmers hit by water cutbacks. California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, inserted the aid into a broader $1.5 billion farm disaster relief provision that was added to the Senate jobs bill by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat whose seat is considered one of the most endangered in the Senate. Feinstein said three years of drought in California has led to $600 million in crop losses last year.

Another $18 billion Senate plan would give companies a tax break for hiring people who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. The House is also working on another bill to give small businesses $13 billion in tax breaks, including lifting capital gains taxes on certain small business stock.

Input from mayors


Miller's "Local Jobs for America Act" was written with input from mayors across the country who said they are confronting a meltdown in property tax revenue from the real estate crash and cutbacks in aid from similarly strapped state governments. Miller said local budgets have been cut to the bone, receding to their level of 1980, and that many cities are facing layoffs of firefighters, police and teachers.

He said the money would go directly to city hall officials, who would best know what their local needs are and be able to hire people immediately.

The effort won rave reviews from liberal interest groups, including the labor-friendly Employment Policy Institute, which called it "exactly the kind of bold response we need," but there are no Republican co-sponsors. Miller and other Democrats acknowledged an uphill battle and said it would be up to the House leadership to decide how and when to take up the bill. They said they hoped a big push by mayors visiting Washington next week would build momentum.

San Francisco deficit

San Francisco faces a $522 million budget deficit. "Many of the cuts we're facing as a city are result of trying to grapple with state cuts," said Newsom spokesman Winnicker. He said last year's federal stimulus "helped us enormously."

Newsom has been pushing hard for an extension of the "Jobs Now" program that was part of the stimulus and created 2,100 jobs in San Francisco, two-thirds of those in the private sector, according to the mayor's office.

The program provides hiring subsidies directly to private businesses, nonprofits and government agencies through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It was killed by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., on a procedural vote but Newsom is pushing to add it to the Miller bill and more upcoming Senate jobs legislation.

"Everybody is talking another jobs bill for sure," Winnicker said. "None of this is done yet by any stretch from what we're hearing."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/10/MNM21CDP5U.DTL

It's just a proposed bill. If anything actually gets passed it would probably be a twentieth the size and utterly useless.

In a recession, any spending, even wasteful spending, would be good to for the economy. But non-wasteful spending would have more positive longer-term effects. I disagree that public sector workers are necessarily "wasteful", though.
 
This is a dirty lie, Hoover almost doubled federal outlays from 3.6 billion to 6.5 billion
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php
He cut next to shit and increased spending massively, he was the original New Dealer.

In fact, Hoover’s incessant meddling with the economy made the situation worse. He managed to turn the recession in 1929 into the Great Depression. While the economic picture was poor in 1929 and 1930, it was only in 1931, after a year of government intervention, that the situation seriously deteriorated.

Hoover also vastly increased spending on public works projects. More money was spent on such projects in four years than in the previous thirty.... Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) supplied failing businesses, mainly railroads and banks, with emergency low-interest loans. By the latter half of 1932 the RFC was no longer simply bailing out businesses in trouble but was also lending money to the states for unemployment relief to fund public works projects.

The president’s attempts to prop up failing businesses were of dubious effect. “The businesses he hoped to save,” writes one historian, “either went bankrupt in the end, after fearful agonies, or were burdened throughout the 1930s by a crushing load of debt.”

Looking back upon his tenure, Hoover congratulated himself for his bold action. “We might have done nothing,” the president said in 1932. “That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic.”


We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” - Rexford Tugwell, New Deal Architect

You know Dungheap, that underlined part sounds awful familiar don't it?

The budget deficit total, ending February, 2010 is now already $651,602 billion. The interest on Treasury Debt Securities is $16.9 billion which is 5% of total current month outlays.
 
Basically the brilliant idea the left in congress have is that they are going to boost spending on government jobs (which are the hardest of all jobs to cut) and then they will cut them back in the "good times". We all know how that will play out - when the fuck have Liberal Democrats cut any government jobs? AND in good times?

The stimulus is just set to fade out. If Obama passed another stimulus to keep spending at the same level, it would make sense, but that's POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and you as well as I know that.
 
It prevents people from being unemployed, keeps people spending money and keep the economy from a more severe crash. Now, maybe you want to trade a depression in exchange for "teaching states a lesson" but I don't think that is necessarily a good idea.

READ WHAT I WROTE MORON.

As I stated, you accomplish NOTHING other than yet ANOTHER stop gap. It does NOTHING to stop the states from needing more money yet again in six months or a year etc.... IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.

IF you use a STOP gap... like TARP for example... you HAVE to make sure the Fed is not going to have to continue shelling out more and more money.

Also... you could take the money and prop up PRIVATE sector jobs the same way... with the SAME results. So why do it for the states and not the private sector? Oh yeah, because there are more union lemmings jobs at stake on the public side and corporations are da evilllz.

Force the States to pay back the money if the Fed loans them some to 'save jobs'... JUST as we did with TARP (well with the exception of GM/Fannie/Freddie)
 
Both should be done. Basically, without aid to state and local governments, the fifty states are working against the federal stimulus efforts. While the feds spend money to prop up the economy, fifty little Hoovers are cutting spending making government efforts a wash.


Edit: In the end we'll get none of the above.

Cuts in state spending on infrastructure have effectively balanced increases in federal spending. Basically the only real effect of the stimulus was tax cuts.

This is why the stimulus should have been 1.2 trillion, at least 1 trillion, dollars, with the extra money all going into infrastructure spending (and tax breaks for hiring new employees coupled with tax penalties for firing).
 
Back
Top