More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Agin

Dan Agin

Posted: November 4, 2010 01:02 PM

The facts are grim. With or without John Boehner's phony suntan or Barack Obama's phony empathy, the reality is that each year four million young people become 21 years of age, with only about three million seniors moving out of the workforce. At least 10 million people are already unemployed or underemployed, and about one million people a year are added to that number just by population growth. Job growth? We are currently losing jobs at the rate of about four million a year. Conclusion: Either some drastic action needs to be taken or we will soon go down the tubes.

The White House and Congress and the federal bankers, under the wings of the private bankers, industrialists, and big money families, apparently believe the only solution is pump-priming the financial sector with the hope that money will flow more freely to bring back good times. It may work and it may not work, and if it doesn't work you can kiss the happiness of your children and grandchildren goodbye.

But is pump-priming the financial sector really the only solution? Is there a better way to use a trillion dollars to get the economy moving again? There is indeed another solution, hardly discussed publicly, almost prohibited because it's politically explosive: Expand government.

Horrors! A bigger government? Well, the reality is that no one has yet demonstrated by example or rhetoric that it's possible to run a country of 320 million people with a small government, and you can guess that anyone who says it's possible is either dreaming or flying a right-wing propaganda kite. There is no inherent evil in big government -- and sometimes, like now, it may be necessary.

It was certainly necessary in the 1930s, and it reduced the misery of millions of people. Oklahoma is now a conservative state, but in the 1930s, when the Okies streamed out of Oklahama to find survival in California, Oklahomans wanted as much big government as possible.

The most reasonable way to get people back to work fast in this country today is to immediately (and temporarily) expand the federal government:

* Retake control of the Post Office and immediately begin mail deliveries twice a day and seven days a week. Result: Approximately one million new jobs.

* Begin a Federal Teachers Agency that hires school teachers, puts them on a federal payroll and distributes them as needed wherever they are requested by local school boards. Result: Approximately one million new jobs.

* Begin a Federal Craftsmen Agency that hires machinists, carpenters, and other skilled workers, puts them on a federal payroll and distributes them to small businesses that request them. Result: Approximately one million new jobs.

* Begin a Federal Information and Communications Specialists Agency that hires information and communications people, puts them on a federal payroll and distributes them to the information and communications industry (especially new startups) on request. Result: Approximately one million new jobs.

* Begin a Federal Construction Workers Agency that hires unskilled construction workers, road builders, bridge builders, tunnel builders, dam builders, puts them on a federal payroll and distributes them to the fifty states as requested. Result: Approximately three million new jobs.

* Begin a Federal Arts Agency that hires actors, artists, and writers, puts them on a federal payroll and distributes them to small-business commercial media on request. Result: Approximately one million new jobs.

* Begin a Federal Managers Agency that hires experienced office managers, puts them on a federal payroll and distributes them to medium and small businesses on request. Result: Approximately two million new jobs.

With a few more such federal agencies, we can reemploy the unemployed and underemployed and get the country moving again.

Can we afford it? Well, the reality is that providing 10 million new jobs at an average salary of $50,000 a year will cost the federal government only $500 billion a year -- much less than what Ben Bernanke thinks he needs to give the banks in a gamble that may not work. Instead of giving the money to banks, why not use the money to employ people?

Creating real jobs immediately will work. Once serious growth begins again, the Federal agencies can always be closed down.

Expanding government seems like a wild "socialist" scheme, but don't let the screaming on the right fool you. It worked in the 1930s, did not kill America, and it will work again.

Is this really "socialism"? Our current workforce is approximately 160 million people. If only 10 percent of our workforce is on the federal payroll, so what? Will Jehovah point his finger at us and lightening strike? Is it better for millions of people to stand in line at soup kitchens or better for them to have real jobs and real money to support themselves and their families?

Of course, if you're wearing $500 shoes you don't give a damn as long as your taxes are low. Feel safe, buddy. You will certainly benefit both materially and spiritually if other people have jobs.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:57 PM on 11/16/2010
This is a whole new role for the GOP, creating jobs. Aside from the traditional cut taxes formula, the GOP has no real plan to deal with the economy or to create jobs.

If the wealthiest 2% continue to grow their wealth, and middle class wages continue to stagnate, the GOP is in big trouble in 2012.

Obama and the democrats were only allowed 22 months to fix the mess left by the Bush administration and a congress controlled for 12 years by the GOP. Cutting programs and benefits for the middle class and poor is a plan that will see 2012 as a reversal of 2010.
11:26 AM on 11/08/2010
Great idea!
This massive takeover of private enterprise will "ONLY" cost a mere $500 billion a year!
Which will come from us, the tax payers.
The cheaper idea is no more bailouts for anyone and certainly NO MORE GOVERNMENT JOBS!

By the way, FDRs big ideas in the 1930's did not "work" as you and people who think like you believe.
In 1938 there was a massive takeover by Republicans who started dismantling the New Deal AND WWII put MILLIONS of young, unemployed men and women to work...
Which saved our country from being destroyed but left us flat broke at the end of the war... And 400 thousand of our best and brightest dead.
Those plans didn't work then and they won't work now.
FaceReality2
Democracy in the U.S. is an illusion
04:09 PM on 11/10/2010
A lot of conservatives credit WWII with ending the depression while at the same time decrying FDR's civil Keynesian programs. What was WWII other than massive government spending for war material? In other words, military Keynesianism.
10:39 AM on 11/11/2010
Wrong.
FDR made the depression worse.

We were broke after WWII. BROKE.
No bank in the world would loan us another cent.
400 thousand of our best dead.
We got out by the skin of our teeth and barely saved ourselves. Case in point, the Battle of Midway.
I think we had to be involved in WWII but it was by no means "good" for us.
And it most certainly did not end the depression.
Ending the policies of FDR did.
And that started in 1938... With the Republican take over of the government.
Plain and simple...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eileenla
Author, "Sacred Economics"
11:17 AM on 11/06/2010
This makes a lot of sense. We currently have so much work that needs doing as a nation, yet business can't or won't hire people to get it done because profit is their prime motive - not the well being of people or the smooth operation of a civil society. Sooner or later the American people will wake up and realize that when we measure our "success" based on how much we consume, produce and profit financially instead of on how happy we are, how well we're getting along in the world, how well adapted we are to our environment, how equally we create opportunities for all people to maximize their creative passions and potentials or how regenerative we are for future generations we're attached to the wrong metric for life.

To change our motivation from for-financial profit to a for-LIFE approach is the solution to our problems. The question is, do we have the will it takes to promote such a change? It's still an open question.
02:27 AM on 11/06/2010
I think with some fleshing out it makes some sense. I'd like to see some mandatory ceilings on the outlay of federal funds on an annual basis and the expidited removal of illegal immigrants as well as exclusion of illegal immigrants from the measure to maximize the effect of funds domestically. (Don't get all weird on me, its to make sure the tax dollars stay here in our economy having the greatest impact.) Throw in some real life honest to goodness re-educating the work force while they're out there plugging holes and you'll create even more jobs for those educators AND obtain an ongoing ROI from the newly employed as they become more engaged in the economy and move into higher tax brackets. If you can think of a way to prevent this proposed program from taking on some of the negitive aspects of existing social welfare programs where they trap the participants that'd be an awesome thing. (tried to be real clear there, don't get weird, if you've never been there you probably don't know what I'm talking about)
FaceReality2
Democracy in the U.S. is an illusion
08:24 PM on 11/05/2010
It will never happen.

"What has taken place over the last generation is a highly complicated merger of crime and policy, of stealing and government. Far from taking care of the rest of us, the financial leaders of America and their political servants have seemingly reached the cynical conclusion that our society is not worth saving and have taken on a new mission that involves not creating wealth for us all, but simply absconding with whatever wealth remains in our hollowed out economy."

From "Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America" by Matt Taibbi.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
07:37 PM on 11/05/2010
Our system woefully underfunds all kinds of highly desirable Public Goods.

No nation can afford to waste so much human capital. (people)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
07:33 PM on 11/05/2010
Well said.

Too bad it took a Brain Surgeon to figure out the obvious!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
12:46 PM on 11/05/2010
Instead of spending $500 billion per year for the next five years or so hiring bureaucrats, why not spend $500 billion once to assist in the necessary middle-class deleveraging so citizens have money to start consuming again without going into debt.

1. Any borrower whose home is underwater should be able to modify their loan to a 30 year, competitive interest rate based on current appraised value. If they sell within the next ten years, borrower and lender share any appreciation 50/50 up to the amount of the old loan's principal balance.

2. HAMP should be made mandatory and given a deadline of no more than 30 days for borrower approval.

3. Judges in individual bankruptcy cases based on unemployment, death of a spouse or health care issues should be able to cram down the mortgage principal of a primary residence. Such bankruptcies should not stay on the individuals' credit reports longer than three years after dismissal.

4. Credit card or unsecured debtors should be able to cancel any card with the interest on the balance reduced to the lowest competitive interest rate.

5. Emphasis should be placed on re-patriating jobs which have been sent overseas. Obama should immediately appoint a non-partisan commission made up of representatives of businesses which have offshored jobs, those which haven't, and government. This commission should issue a report within 6 months with concrete proposals for bringing jobs home.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dan Agin
Author
06:14 PM on 11/05/2010
A schoolteacher teaching in Kansas but receiving a Federal salary is not a "bureaucrat"--she's merely a schoolteacher hired by the local school board and paid for by the Federal government. The idea is to get out of work people jobs as soon as possible--never mind any worry about "bureaucrats".
DrSnuggles
You label me and I'll label you
09:32 AM on 11/05/2010
I completely agree with you in principle, but I'm not sure about your implementation. If a business needs a blank, why wouldn't they just hire a blank? It would seem that the only real jobs this would create would be the bureaucrats needed to handle the system you are proposing. Granted, I'm pretty sure your point is not the system but the waste of time it is to give money to banks as opposed to building employment and physical infrastructure.

Regarding the bank bailouts - I'm confused as to why we pander to them. Banking is a direct service industry, properly regulated they couldn''t take their business overseas anymore than Starbucks could serve americans coffee from India.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dan Agin
Author
10:22 AM on 11/05/2010
The idea is that medium and small business would hire people on Federal payroll because it would cost them next to nothing in salaries. Not "blanks" but skilled unemployed workers. The relevant agency could limit such employment to 10 percent or so of the total work force in that business. The idea is that any business reluctant to expand by hiring workers because of cost would have the cost essentially eliminated. Thanks for your comment.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dan Agin
Author
10:30 AM on 11/05/2010
I should add that the Federal government is already involved in a related arrangement in the biological and physical sciences through the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, both of which supply "postdoctoral fellowships"--which are essentially schemes for PhDs to be on Federal payroll in early years but working in universities, costing universities next to nothing to employ them. The unemployment rate for young PhD biologists and chemists is thus extremely low compared to other occupations now in crisis.
12:40 AM on 11/05/2010
I am sure in a utopic world this might work but in the real world there has to be a need for it. Why do we need more actors and more mail?? Maybe building infrastructure might be helpful. And this did not work in the 1930s. FDR tried government expansion this and the depression went on and on and on. Here is my solution- Create incentives for corporations to stauyin the US. Do you realize that not only to the make products overseas but many sell their products overseas also. We as a consumer only see the final product. Corporations are offered tremendous tax breaks by foreign countries. If we want corporations to come back we have to stop taxing them to the hilt. #2) Impose tarrifs on imports that people may want but not need to survive. Example: toys, tvs, furniture. Make it expensive enought that it is more cost effective to make and sell the product here. #3 Get control over the unions, and the special interest. These groups are unrealistic in many demands, create too much red tape and are in bed with the polititian #4 Create major incentives for entrepenures. #5 You can not impose the cost of healthcare on businesses. It is just another tax to corporations #6 Invest in things like infrastructure and ingenuity. #7 Force China to level the playing field not only with their currency but also with making it easier for Americans to do business within their up an coming market
11:36 AM on 11/07/2010
The Great Depression went on and on and on? That's an interesting conclusion and a different debate, but most important it's a flawed premise. Tax incentives to Corporations represent a massive increase in the deficit and provide no guarantee that jobs wouldn't continue to be outsourced. The policy seems to be based on the idea that America should rely more on tax revenues from wages than from profits placing an even greater burden on "middle America". I'd be interested in seeing some examples of a Corporation that is "taxed to the hilt" based on effective tax rates, not a simplistic reference to official rates in their highest margin. The "hilt" is obviously a relative term. In my view, if America is going to impose tariffs, they should be applied to items of the highest demand in order to be effective. Luxury items would only suppress demand for those items. "Get control over...special interest", whether it's the Unions or the Corporations, this requires growth in regulatory agencies. I agree with "major incentives" to entrepreneurs, however, I struggle with how to balance the significant increase to the deficit. Health care costs are "imposed" on all Americans every day, how would you propose Corporations be exempt? Whether "premiums" are paid or not, the costs are still there. We agree with "investing" in infrastructure, but again there's the deficit issue. Lastly, "forcing" China? But we do agree on a couple of points and that's a start. Thanks for sharing your ideas.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:53 PM on 11/04/2010
I want what you want...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
09:58 PM on 11/04/2010
The new leaders are already screaming for permanent tax cuts for the rich, the only constituency they give a damn about. You can forget any kind of help from the government because of the election. These voters think they exist in a vacuum and do not realize the interconnectedness of all of us. We will all go down together and those that feel secure right now are not. The city of Phoenix announced hundreds of layoffs today and all state governments will be doing the same. I fear for my children and grandchildren. I don't think I'll be around much longer but the future they will inherit is very bleak.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Majestry
02:21 PM on 11/04/2010
I'm afraid this will probably fall on deaf ears. With that said, I agree 100% and the republicans when they take the house are going to have to find a way to make this happen because the quantitative easing didn't work the last time and it won't work now.