Possible Jobs Initiatives

[TahoeHorn]

The Link

Which of the fourteen proposals would you support?

 

[TahoeHorn]

1. Creating an “infrastructure bank.” -NO
2. Renewing payroll-tax cuts. - NO
3. Implementing a new-hire tax credit. - NO
4. Extending jobless benefits. - NO
5. Creating a tax credit for hiring returning veterans. - NO
6. Ratifying pending trade deals. - YES
7. Reforming the patent process. - YES
8. Providing aid for teachers. - NO
9. Improving rural broadband connections. - YES
10. Providing job training for long-term unemployed. - NO
11. Providing incentives for private-sector engagement. - NO
12. Boosting energy-related jobs. - NO
13. Funding “Cash for Caulkers” and similar programs. - NO
14. Implementing a mortgage relief program. - NO

 

[Larry T. Spider]

The problem that I have with all of this proposed spending is that the ultimate goal is hiring, not the merits of the project that the money would be spent on. While maybe a couple of the projects seem worthy, it's hard for me to support any new spending at the federal level.

One thing that was mentioned in the link but not the op was school renovations as well as money for more teachers. While I would consider these "worthy" state expenditures, they are not the job of the federal govt.

If I could change the infrastructure bank to be more involved in repairing our crumbling infrastructure instead of creating new things that we won't take care of, I would go for it.

 

[HornCyclist]

Wouldn't the infrastructure bank do some of both as necessary?

 

[Gone To Texas]

I could get on board with the infrastructure bank because it takes decision-making about what major projects to pursue out of the hands of politicians. Politicians (and often the engineers at departments of transportation among other bureaucracies) erroneously measure "jobs" from infrastructure spending (i.e., construction jobs) as a benefit when, in fact, they should be counted as a cost. Hence much of our infrastructure spending is badly misdirected, especially during times of "stimulus" at projects that provide little or no long-term value to the private economy. Politically-driven infrastructure spending also indirectly tends to promote consumption rather than production (example courtesy of the Atlantic: think resurfacing streets to the shopping mall rather than investing in port capacity).

An infrastructure bank would correct that by putting money into a semi-private entity that makes project decisions based on the financial merits of the projects with some allowance for social/environmental impacts.

It's worse than giving the money to the states and promoting more private sector participation in infrastructure. But it's better than the status quo where political considerations drive even the non-earmarked infrastructure spending.