With the 2012 presidential election looming over us, the hot topic for our candidates has been unemployment and economic growth. After all, no president since World War II has met re-election with an unemployment rate more than 8 percent.
For many voters, this highly debated topic has solidified their vote for or against a candidate. However, it can be difficult to sort through all of the political analysis and mudslinging we are inundated with daily.
So, how do our presidential candidates say they are planning to tackle unemployment if they win the election? Mitt Romney claims that, if elected, by the end of his first term he would lower the unemployment rate to 6 percent. Barack Obama outlined a blueprint for the economy in his State of the Union address in January, highlighting American manufacturing, tax codes, and trade enforcement. But what does all of this mean exactly for the American people?
1. Adjust policies on retraining workers and reevaluating the unemployment resources (Obama and Romney). Romney plans to consolidate current federal retraining programs and give these programs to the states under a block grant. Obama similarly plans to consolidate current federal programs in the hopes of providing a single program for individuals to seek out. Unlike Romney's proposal, Obama wants to create partnerships directly between businesses and community colleges to provide community career centers.
2. Create Personal Reemployment Accounts and linked programs for unemployed individuals (Romney). According to Romney's campaign, these accounts would contain funds to be put toward retraining for eligible individuals. These accounts, which were piloted during George W. Bush's administration, would also place individuals directly into companies that provide on-the-job training. Romney's thought is to put a more individualized twist on retraining via government funds as opposed to giving limited options to individuals seeking to better their job placement opportunities.
3. Reevaluate tax codes for businesses outsourcing jobs (Obama). Obama's proposed tax reform would create a basic minimum tax for multinational businesses that outsource jobs and profits, while giving local businesses a tax cut. In the end, this would ideally free more funding and resources for local businesses to take on more employees. In contrast, Romney plans to cut the corporate income tax rate and transition to a territorial corporate tax system, which would encourage multinational companies to bring their profit back to the U.S. by putting their taxes on foreign products at zero.
4. Adjust regulations and create tax cuts for startups and entrepreneurs (Obama). Obama plans to create a bill that would adjust current regulations and extend tax relief to new businesses that are raising wages and creating jobs. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), business owners in the U.S. spend approximately $1.1 trillion annually to comply with current federal regulations including zoning regulations, complex tax code systems, and countless industry-specific regulations. In fact, SBA's top official, Karen Mills, acknowledged Obama's efforts to keep small businesses in mind while implementing policy in a Wednesday speech. According to the Washington Post, the SBA -- via the Obama administration -- has distributed a record number of government-backed loans.
5. Adjust immigration and citizenship policy in favor of individuals with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering (Romney). This policy change would allow current visa holders to obtain citizenship if they have a current job offer from U.S. companies. It would also make it easier for exchange students seeking a similar degree at U.S. universities to obtain a green card after graduation. According to Romney, this would "fill high-skill job openings for which there is currently an acute shortage of labor."
6. Revise immigration policies to increase border control but provide more opportunities for workers and students to obtain citizenship (Obama). Similar to Romney's plan, Obama proposes a policy change that would allow students and workers to obtain citizenship instead of being deported. Although both Romney and Obama have a focus on foreign students in the U.S., Obama's policies extend to students with no criminal history who came to the U.S. illegally as children.
7. Reduce the federal workforce (Romney). As part of Romney's fiscal policy, he plans to cut the overall size of the federal workforce by 10 percent. Romney posits that, although the private sector has been steadily losing jobs, the federal workforce has grown by 6.9 percent. The thought is to put federal resources where they should be most effectively used. Does this mean widespread federal layoffs? Romney's plan does not highlight the details. To contrast, Obama plans to add nearly 15,000 jobs to the federal workforce if elected.
Although our candidates are proposing other policies and bills that may impact the employment landscape, it's not certain what will be the golden ticket to change. The results of any of these changes aren't set in stone. And all of them will require time, and therefore, our continued patience.
But one thing is true for both candidates: Americans need more jobs and stability. I think we can all agree on that.
Follow Heather Huhman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/heatherhuhman
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
To solve our current economic challenges by creating jobs we need to focus on demand - aggregate demand and unmet demand. Aggregate demand is simply the sum of purchasing power (income) of those employed. With some 20 million people unemployed or underemployed, aggregate demand is at an all time low.
There are several major instances of unmet demand in the US including clean AFFORDABLE energy, affordable urban living, reliable agriculture production, new affordable schools and affordable healthcare. These areas have unmet demand that can create more than 5 million jobs in the short term.
Our only way out of the current situation is to define the unmet demand and create ways to meet that demand - not with subsidies or tax cuts, but with innovation/invention. There is no political fix on the horizon (from either party) but perhaps there is a return to American invention. I suggest solving some of our greatest challenges can create plenty of jobs.
My work is here: http://www.solutioneur.com
A short Intro is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj3Zc-SF0YE
We'd be looking at an entirely different economy if as much effort had been put forward to resolve the employment crisis as was in insuring that Obama be a single term President.
I think the voters will remember that for a couple of elections beyond 2012.
Productivity is up, wages are down, benefits are non existent, and if you dare complain about it, you're out on the street, because there are 5 people willing to do your job, for less than you're getting paid now.
Managers have gone from making 50 times employees earnings to 800 times.
Maybe some people WANT things this way.
Every cloud has a silver lining.................for some, this situation is VERY profitable.
Follow the money, see where it leads.
And Romney wishes to reduce unemployment by firing 10% of the Federal workforce? And again, no comment from the writer that firing people INCREASES not REDUCES unemployment.
The fun thing about catching someone in a math error is that you can pretend to be generous, give them the opportunity to correct their math error, and then give them grief all over against when they try to spin the same BS again. :)
I'm trying to be as fair as possible to him. It's not an easy job.
I do have a big concern regarding what he said and how it relates to our economy. He mentioned using "experiments" to get things moving in our economy. In my 40 years of work experience, "experimenting" is only done when people don't know how to solve a problem. It is a result of not knowing what to do and a lack of practical experience upon which to rely.
This explains a lot about why our economy isn't improving. Obama simply doesn't have the experience of KNOWING how to solve our economic problems. I don't think I'm willing to allow someone to use trial and error to fix our economy.
This is where real world economic experience matters. There is no doubt in my mind that Romney has far more economic experience than Obama and won't be using our economy as a learning experience.
What he wanted to do, and hoped to do, and tried to do was spend the stimulus money on repairing or national infrastructure. That would have meant millions of new construction jobs on day one. They would have shopped at Target and ate at Burger King and propped up the housing market.
We would have got new sources of cheap energy through dams and thermal bores, lower water bill once we stopped our leaky pipes from losing 25% of our potable water, and new roads that wouldn't buckle under extreme heatwaves like they are right now.
The congress he was given to work with rejected this idea... it was a job they felt was too big for America. They decided to give the money to the states who decided to use it to run business as usual.