Rep Schakowsky Goes Directly to the Corps of the Jobs Problem

September 15th, 2011 at 11:38 pm

All day long I heard one lousy argument after another about how stimulus doesn’t work, the President’s jobs plan won’t work, no taxes on the table, cut budgets, cut spending, cut corporate taxes.

And then, like a ray of sun through very dark clouds, I learn that Rep Jan Schakowsky (D-Il) introduced her jobs bill.  It’s a great plan, built around two simple ideas.  First, the most direct forms of job creation are likely to be the most effective.   Second, while it is by now well understood that we have deep infrastructure deficiencies across the land, there is also untapped demand for human services, from teachers to child and health care workers.

Rep Schakowsky’s plan is thus heavy on infrastructure and human service and light on tax cuts (i.e., there are none).  Here are the components…more details here.

  • “The School Improvement Corps would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs by funding positions created by public school districts to do needed school rehabilitation improvements.
  • The Park Improvement Corps would create 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 16 and 25 through new funding to the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service’s Public Lands Corps Act.  Young people would work on conservation projects on public lands include restoration and rehabilitation of natural, cultural, and historic resources.
  • The Student Jobs Corps would create 250,000 more part-time, work study jobs for eligible college students through new funding for the Federal Work Study Program.
  • The Neighborhood Heroes Corps would hire 300,000 teachers, 40,000 new police officers, and 12,000 firefighters.
  • The Health Corps would hire at least 40,000 health care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and health care workers to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas.
  • The Child Care Corps would create 100,000 jobs in early childhood care and education through additional funding for Early Head Start.
  • The Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in our communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.”

As readers here know, I’m a strong supporter of the President’s jobs plan and view it as smart on both the economics and the politics.  And with the pushback it’s getting, it makes a lot of sense for D’s to get behind that plan and fight for it with solidarity (note that school repair, teachers/police/etc., and neighborhood rehab are in both the President’s and Rep S’s plans).

But there will be horse trading, and the more that Rep Schakowsky’s ideas end up in the final product, the more jobs we’re likely to create or save.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 comments in reply to "Rep Schakowsky Goes Directly to the Corps of the Jobs Problem"

  1. general c. san desist says:

    …seems the welfare state is good when it is a conservative welfare state, bad when it is not; fiscal risk is good when Republicans take it for conservative purposes, bad when Democrats take it for purposes of change.

    So, as it is at Rick’s Cafe, a kiss is just a kiss & a lie is just a…little white one when the treasury extortion anarchist party utter such nonsense. I’m thinking that Lush bin Limbaugh, et al., will rue the day they fed their fuzzy logic creature after midnight.

  2. Fred Donaldson says:

    Correct word is “Core” in your headline, though GOP moderation is corpse, basis is not corps, except in the Marines.

  3. Candlbox says:

    I love it. More of this, please!

  4. pjr says:

    Thank you for giving this congresswoman some credit–she has been working for over one year to develop GOOD ideas. Earlier she offered an alternative to what Simpson-Bowles proposed, which their committee (including Schakowsky) did not adopt. Perhaps if the press gave some deserved attention to her serious proposals, Obama wouldn’t be compromising only with the GOP.

  5. John T says:

    Jared, maybe we are approaching the jobs problem from the wrong angle. Seems to me that the underlying problem is a phasing out of ”jobs” as we know them to mean. With increasing technology and scientific advancement we are getting better productivity. Corporations invest in technology to reduce their workforce so that production has increased while unemployment rose. What we need is a way to decrease the work week as we know it and lower the retirement age. The only way to solve the jobs problem is to better spread the productivity gains to all citizens, not just the top 1%.

  6. John Campbell says:

    Jared – These proposals like Obama’s prove the assertion [by Einstein?] that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We did the stimulus already and it failed. I’ve personally interviewed several people that benefited from “green” stimulus jobs. They worked at some company that was able to tap into the funds to produce a product that did not have a market. When the Gov’t money ran out they were laid off. I’m not talking about Solyndra. There were/are many similar adventures within other companies.

    I say cut the bureaucracy & spend the money elsewhere. For example, why do we have a Dept. of Education? Since it has existed its greatest accomplishment has been the continual deterioration of the quality of education in the U.S. We are no longer the leader and are rapidly falling behind. When one of my employees, a high school graduate, does not understand that .91″ is less than 1″, it becomes clear to me that the we are in serious trouble. Yes, there is a great pool of unemployed workers out there but try to find one that has the basic skills to function in a modern factory is a challenge. See comments from the CEO of Caterpillar that re-enforce this dilemma.


  7. Ben Leet says:

    Unemployment dropped from 25% to 9.6% between 1933 – 1937. See Marshall Auerback’s article at New Deal 2.0, August 30, 2010 —
    And from 1939 unemployment dropped from 13% to below 2% for three years, 1942, 1943, 1944, while the workforce increased by 40% from 45 million to 65 million, and savings rate increased from 5% to 25%, according to Samuel Rosenberg in American Economic Development Since 1945, page 20. Pulbic job creation yields impressive results, look at China. The public jobs plan by Rutger’s University professor Philip Harvey proposes creation of 8 million jobs for the cost of rescinding the Bush era tax cuts. Which would you rather have, the top-earning 5% of households with higher incomes or 8 million unemployed with new productive work? I think the word “dumb” belongs in my next sentence, but I’m not sure how I can use it without offending most readers. Thanks Jared.