More

Job-Creation Idea No. 2: Rescue The States

Unemployment

First Posted: 09/22/10 09:23 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:50 PM ET

(Part of Huffington Post's America Needs Jobs series; also see the introduction and Idea No. 1.)

State and local governments are the country's largest employers. They provide essential public safety, education, health and social services -- services that are even more needed during an economic downturn. But when the economy slows down and tax receipts drop, state and local governments have to cut back. And their spending cuts don't just reduce those necessary services, they work like an anti-stimulus -- dollar for dollar.

By contrast, if you want federal money to reduce the unemployment rate, economists generally agree there's no faster or more effective way than sending it to states so they can avoid layoffs or can actually increase their hiring. States are in a position to create lots of jobs almost instantly. And state and local spending has great "bang for the buck," as economy.com's Mark Zandi describes the per-dollar effect of spending on gross domestic product.

When you spend money on stimulus, you want that money to get spent over and over again, creating more and more jobs. Zandi has calculated that aid to state and local government has more bang for the buck than anything other than extending unemployment benefits or increasing Food Stamps allocations.

The 2009 Recovery Act (AKA the stimulus) included about $144 billion in aid to state and local governments through the end of 200. But now the money is running out, and states are facing the prospect of massive layoffs.

In August, President Obama signed into law a bill sending states another $26 billion to save the jobs of thousands of teachers and other government workers -- but the original Local Jobs For America bill pushed by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) was for four times that much. And the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the states' cumulative budget shortfall will likely reach $140 billion in the coming year.

Bob Pollin, an economist at UMass-Amherst, writes about the huge revenue shortfalls in the states:

The jobs recovery will not succeed until this situation is stabilized. How could it be otherwise? State and local governments account for about $2 trillion in annual spending, or 14 percent of GDP. Either directly or indirectly through their supply purchases, they generate 30 million jobs, 20 percent of the entire American workforce.

And the money sent to the states would translate directly to jobs, he writes:

The main activities supported by state and local governments are all effective sources of job creation, in comparison for example with military spending. Thus, infrastructure projects create 40 percent more jobs per dollar than spending on the military, healthcare creates 70 percent more jobs and education creates 240 percent more jobs. So if the government just moved its 2008 budget of $188 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq into support for education and infrastructure programs at the state and local levels, this alone would produce a net increase of about 2.3 million jobs per year.

University of Texas economist James Galbraith and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich would go a step beyond simply sending money. Reich proposes "establishing a federal bank that will provide states and locales zero-interest loans, to be repaid when their unemployment rates drop to 5 percent or below."

And Galbraith writes:

There must now be fiscal assistance to end, finally, the budget crisis of states and localities. Federalizing Medicaid may be the most effective and practical way to achieve this. The alternative is open-ended general revenue sharing: on the condition that states neither raise nor lower their tax rates, the federal government should supply the funds required to close their budget gaps and to maintain public services at baseline levels, for the duration of the crisis.

Yale economics professor Robert J. Shiller explains the need this way:

The clock is ticking, and we don't have time to create new national organizations to employ people. Instead, the most efficient approach is to use existing organizations for specific ideas and projects.


State and local governments as well as nonprofit and other organizations need to be mainstays in this effort. We need to enlist their help -- without telling them exactly what to do....

Unfortunately, when faced with a need for stimulus, members of Congress seem to prefer to start their own projects, for which they are likely to get more credit from voters. Local governments, meanwhile, which are more likely to know where spending is really needed, remain in deep trouble.

It's time for the public to assert loftier expectations. We need to respect existing government bureaus and organizations for their ideas, and get down to the business of financing important jobs temporarily, and on a huge scale.

TOMORROW IN THE AMERICA NEEDS JOBS SERIES: The Joys Of Retrofitting

(Want to learn more about the series? Read the overview. Got an idea you think we may have overlooked? Email froomkin@huffingtonpost.com.)


*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
(Part of Huffington Post's America Needs Jobs series; also see the introduction and Idea No. 1.) State and local governments are the country's largest employers. They provide essential p...
(Part of Huffington Post's America Needs Jobs series; also see the introduction and Idea No. 1.) State and local governments are the country's largest employers. They provide essential p...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 860
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
mikey09 08:59 AM on 09/22/2010
bailout idea's continue....

States need to clean house and get their affairs in order, try cutting pensions and other methods the private sector has already endured....you know that shared sacrifice Obama talks abt.

But, NOPE, your unemployment will be taxed a bit higher to make sure, some pencil pusher, gets his 40-60k yr pension...or HIGHER...the crooks

There will be a division like  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gerald4
licensed mechanical and electrical engineer
02:11 PM on 10/25/2010
There are economic limits to the amount of wealth created by the wealth producers that produce the things (food, shelter, clothing) necessary for support of human life that can be skimmed off from the producers and spent on non-producing tax supported bureaucratic services.

Primitive civilizations such as early pioneers and settlers of the USA had to provide their own military defense, police, firefighters, teachers, medicine, water, sewer, roads, bridges, and other services as best as they could.

After the early pioneers and settlers could produce enough necessities of life for themselves and also to also support a rudimentary civilization, would they then combine their meager resources/or and tax themselves to hire as many soldiers, teachers, water system operators, police, firefighters, and other bureaucrats as they could afford in order for the producers to become more productive by not having to worry about providing those services for themselves (and for their own families).
04:30 PM on 09/26/2010
If permanent benefits such as health insurance and retirement to fat cats in Washington were eliminated a nice little chunk of our national debt would be gone. We could use that money for education or housing for the homeless. Who else in the country gets these kinds of benefits after a temp job? No one. Congress votes for raises & perks for themselves, we citizens have no control over our Washington employees anymore.
03:46 AM on 09/24/2010
You have got to be frikkin' joking. As if the stimulus program didn't already have this type of support in it. We used federal dollars that we do not yet have, to help state and local municpipalities keep from having to layoff workers.

This seems all well and good, and much of it is, but it also allows state and local municpialities to maintain unsustainable workforces long after an economic downturn would trigger most businesses, families and individuals to curb spending habits and become more responsible.

These bail outs ultimately prolong the agony of the down cycle, which is not in Democrats' interest. The bailouts have not set the table for recovery, they have set the table for Repub resurgency.

It would be one thing to blame it on the economist team, but the administration has so strongly resisted and opposed any talk of the stimulus not succeeding, that it is going to ultimately fall on President Obama. It is good to ditch the current econ team, he may want to lose Biden too at the end of the first term. This would be addition by subtraction, and maybe bring in a potential challenger for 2016.
01:41 AM on 09/24/2010
A metaphor:

Imagine society as made up of a group of people swimming in water that is too deep to touch. Now some of these people can’t swim (children, the disabled, the elderly) and we need to carry them. Some swimmers are better than others. In fact some swimmers (entrepreneurs, small business, most large businesses) are so strong that they can carry many other swimmers and even teach others that can’t swim (the carried) to learn how to swim (become carriers).

In this metaphor, some Government employees can swim (necessary services) while many cannot (nice-to-have services). In a downturn, the solution is not to force the dwindling number of swimmers who need to carry the temporarily unable to swim (displaced workers) to also carry an artificially supported group of Government non-swimmers, it is to teach as many non-swimmers to learn how to swim as quickly as possible…and this includes all non-swimming Government workers.

Keep too many nice-to-have services and we will all drown.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gerald4
licensed mechanical and electrical engineer
11:49 AM on 10/29/2010
I believe that military defense, police, firefighters, teachers, medicine, water, sewer, roads, bridges, and other services are "nice to have" but not necessary if the taxpayer cannot afford to pay for them.
09:42 PM on 09/23/2010
Hey Froomkin, April Fools Day is in April. Everyone with a thimble full of commons sense thinks you're fool for writing such nonsense.

Where is the grove of government money trees you imagine?
06:39 PM on 09/23/2010
This has to be one of the worst ideas ever imagined. And didn't we already try this pumping money into public sector jobs. Does Dan Froomkin not understand that every public sector job is paid for by private sector workers? So you want to increase the burden on the private sector in order to hire more government employees? And this makes sense to you Dan Froomkin? You think this is going to grow the economy? It is the equivalent of making a marathon runner wear diving weights or carry huge dumbbells. Speaking of dumbbells, anyone who this this would work...well, no wonder we are in such a financial mess.
06:12 PM on 09/23/2010
Do you realize how stupid those spending multipliers sound? "Zandi has calculated that aid to state and local government has more bang for the buck than anything other than extending unemployment benefits or increasing Food Stamps allocations"

Good lord, do you really believe that if we spent a $Trillion dollars in unemployment benefits and food stamps that no one would have to work any more? How can paying people not to work possibly help the economy?

So the next best thing after giving everyone food stamps and unlimited unemployment is to keep public worker unions pension benefits intact so that 10-20 years from now when everyone else is broke the guy who retired at age 55 will have a comfortable pension.

And finally - Federalizing Medicaid! - are you kidding??? Medicaid is the main reason poor people won't take a low paying job (after food stamps and unlimited unemployment benefits).

Your economic models are pure garbage. Use a little common sense - if you pay people not to work how can you expect them to ever take a job and learn new skills?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waldob
05:25 PM on 09/23/2010
I once read where I believe it was Milton Friedman who was visiting China and was astonished to see they were digging these massive projects with shovels. He asked the Chinese why didn't they use backholes and graders. And they replied, they needed jobs for their people. To wit, he said, then why don't you use spoons then ? This is what big centralized governments do. If the answer is to hire more people at the state level with federal money. Just hire everyone tomorrow and we will have full employment
05:13 PM on 09/23/2010
Well, this strategy obviously works. Look at Detroit, for instance.
04:52 PM on 09/23/2010
Most states ALREADY HAVE more than enough workers, we need to SHED state/local workers that are ineffective.

Having them do "make work" just to prop up unemployment for a while is simply not sustainable.

That's why we have HUGE budget deficits in most states, because people refuse to deal with the reality of our fiscal situation.

We can't afford to carry on like this people.
04:44 PM on 09/23/2010
brilliant, take tax money from people ( state level ) to give back to the states to give back to the people you just took it from,but withholding a % to administer the program and of course create jobs for that at the federal level, and at the state level to administer the state level program. how about letting us keep it and do what we want with it ? Is my thinking that radical ? I do tilt to the right on most things, (now you can call me names)
04:15 PM on 09/23/2010
I'm impressed that so many of the comments here think this is a bad idea. Government jobs aren't self supporting - they are dependent on someone working and paying taxes or a foreign gov't lending us the money.

Pumping more money into state/local gov'ts is the equivalent of giving someone a fish instead of teaching him to fish. The private sector has to succeed for there to be sustainable job creation. For that, I think we need low taxes on capital, less, or at least not increasing, regulation so businesses feel confident in investing. I wish Obama/Pelosi would stop the class warfare and anti-corporate rhetoric and realize that you can't love jobs and hate the job creators.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SiouxSayer
03:39 PM on 09/23/2010
We have to close our eyes to the system that has betrayed us and move on...together. They may have broken our hearts and our bank accounts, but they won't break our spirit. We are collectively more intelligent than they and we outnumber them by substantial numbers. We all need to coalesce, share our stories and ideas and talk to one another. Regardless of political party affiliation, (because all of us are getting the shaft) we must pool our talents, skills, work experience and abilities and begin to construct our own New World Middle Class Order within America. We have strength in numbers and together we will climb this wall....vault this moat.
What happens when there is no one left to buy the goods and services these Banksters create?
It's a circular firing squad & I can't fathom what their end-game is. What I DO know is if we Americans don't band together NOW, we'll be left out in the streets.

Most of us middle aged jobless Americans don't have a lot of time left to keep looking to the System to save us. We MUST start helping one another NOW! You are all welcome to come to my site and be part of the solution. Leave a donation, read a story, post your story.
http://theincomepoop.wordpress.com
03:28 PM on 09/23/2010
These suggestions would never work. They make too much sense and don't readily benefit the ruling class.
photo
RobM1981
I try to be amused
03:20 PM on 09/23/2010
Hmm... lessee...

Every dollar spent on a government wage requires something like $1.25 taken out of a taxpayer's pocket, since the taxes have to be collected and analyzed and routed and vetted and all of those other "value add" processes that large bureaucracies are known for.

So right there you're spending $1.25 to "create" $1.00 work of work. And you think this is a good idea?

Then there's the ugly "what about the person you took the $1.25 from?"

They're not spending what they don't have. Plus, they're not hiring people that they might hire, since hiring is a step-function and is "sticky." Sorry, those are economics terms, and this is a feel-good website. But it's true, and it's another reason why this is an absurd idea.

Plus there's this thing called the baby boom, and they're retiring, and people like FDR, LBJ, and BHO have promised them welfare programs that are absurd.

You do realize that the deficit AND the debt are all, in one way or another, due to us having too many government employees, and that those employees aren't doing much to our economy other than suck money from it. No new roads of consequence. No smart grid. No nothing.

Just promises that are never delivered. The BILL? That's delivered. Every April 15. But all we get from it is more debt for our kids.

What madness...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Newbie71
11:33 PM on 09/23/2010
Hey - that's a much better rate than the $787, nee $853 billion stimulus!
04:12 PM on 09/26/2010
Google "The History of Social Security", you will find that it was in an untouchable account until LBJ's administration made it available to the General Fund to make his budget look good during the Vietnam War, Congress sneaked it in a double talk bill during Truman's administration. Left alone, ALL future retirees would draw what they paid into all their lives. Social Security a welfare program? I think not. The money was STOLEN from the people who have paid it in. How can we get the dirty government's hands out of it now that they're in?