Government Does Create Jobs

My husband's letter to the local paper ran Saturday. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters16-5l5phb0-159253585.html (Scroll down to his letter--three or four letters down.) It rebutted an earlier letter that contended that only the private sector can create jobs. I would add to his remarks that were it not for the federal government, Boeing and Haliburton would be so small they would qualify for Small Business loans -- except that those loans are provided by the federal government. My own brother and his wife who consistently vote Republican, which is all for eliminating government jobs, held only government-provided jobs their entire adult lives. Go figure. Here's my hubby's letter:

Government does create jobs

Letter writer Don Gableman is wrong on many counts in asserting that government can't create jobs ("Only private sector can really create jobs," Your Views, June 9.)

One is, "the recession will last a long time." The recession ended more than two years ago, and the economy has been growing since, albeit slowly thanks to adversarial political impediments.

Second, government spending not only creates jobs (think military, police and fire protection, defense contracting, infrastructure building, environmental protection), but many successful businesses benefit directly and indirectly from government aid in the form of subsidies, grants, tax breaks and laws the private sector lobbies for.

Economically strong countries have strong government involvement. Germany, for instance, has the most robust major economy. It also has strong unions.

Former President George W. Bush's eight years in office defy Gableman's contention that lowering taxes makes the economy stronger. Bush's massive tax cuts, along with other budget-busting actions, facilitated an economic disaster, which President Barack Obama has being trying to salvage ever since, with no help from an obstructionist Congress.

Finally, rather than wanting to raise taxes, Obama has cut taxes, and spending during his administration has grown at a far slower rate than it did under Bush and other Republican presidents.

Hilbert H. Hayslett Jr. 
South Milwaukee

The Public vs. The Private

Oh, how I wish progressives/liberals/Democrats would heed George Lakoff!

In his piece, "The Wisconsin Blues," he says, "The Wisconsin recall vote should be put in a larger context. What happened in Wisconsin started well before Scott Walker became governor and will continue as long as progressives let it continue."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11880-focus-the-wisconsin-blues

In brief, Lakoff's premise is that the issue boils down to The Public vs. The Private and who's willing to put up the most dough to prevail.

Progressives believe that The Public is the mechanism "through which the government provides resources that make private life and private enterprise possible: roads, bridges and sewers, public education, a justice system, clean water and air, pure food, systems for information, energy and transportation, and protection both for and from the corporate world. No one makes it on his or her own. Private life and private enterprise are not possible without The Public. Freedom does not exist without The Public."

Regressives believe the role of democracy is to provide "maximal liberty to seek one’s self-interest without being responsible for the interests of others. The best people are those who are disciplined enough to be successful. Lack of success implies lack of discipline and character, which means you deserve your poverty. From this perspective, The Public is immoral, taking away incentives for greater discipline and personal success, and even standing in the way of maximizing private success. The truth that The Private depends upon The Public is hidden from this perspective. The Public is to be minimized or eliminated."

So, why does the regressive point of view prevail?

According to Lakoff (and I've read/heard this many times before) decades ago, wealthy regressives and corporate interests developed and financed "an extensive communication system of think tanks, framing specialists, training institutes, booking agencies and media, funded by wealthy conservatives."

Progressive counterparts, according to Lakoff, "have not funded progressive communication in the same way to bring progressive moral values into everyday public discourse." (Evoking the name of George Soros does not equate.)

"The result is that conservatives have managed to get their moral frames to dominate public discourse on virtually every issue."

According to another article I just read, "Jesus, the Radical Economist," 

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/11/jesus-the-radical-economist/

 in today's regressive/TPer/conservative world, Jesus, who was financially poor, would not be one of "the best people" but would "lack discipline and character" and deserve his poverty.

That is not conservatism. It's a Teflon, self-comforting rationalization of non-Christian me-ism posturing as conservatism, which to me is regressive rather than conservative principles.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Opponents of legislation that would allow a technology called microstamping (speeds up identification of guns used in crimes Method to Track Firearm Use Is Stalled by Foes) are generally the same folks who present themselves to be "tough on crime."

Aren't these also the same folks who advocate reducing teen pregnancies and pregnancy termination by making contraception illegal and inaccessible?


Added to that is the subject I wrote about in a previous post that the same kind of absurdity prevails in hiring and retaining good public school teachers. The non-thinkers in this country say they want only the best and the brightest teachers in our children's classrooms and that bad teachers must be weeded out. Yet, they act like the way to attract the best and the brightest is to cut teacher pay, degrade their benefits and demonize them as greedy, selfish thugs. 

What a crazy, distorted "Alice in Wonderland" world the U.S. has become. Crazier still because so many people so liberally believe such claptrap. 

I'm way to conservative for that.

They Should Go First

I have some relatives and friends whose spent their entire adult lives working in government jobs -- U.S. military, public schools, criminal justice system -- and collect government pensions, yet consistently vote Republican, advocate reducing the size of government and demonize public employees. They remind me of a woman I met recently who had a hip replacement and spent two weeks in convalescent rehab -- all paid for by Medicare, yet decried the Affordable Healthcare Act as 'socialized medicine.'

Republic politicians/elected officials do the same thing. Don't they know that they are government workers? Isn't that the same as calling for yourself to be fired?

Luring the Best and the Brightest

A Facebook Friend who lives in New Mexico asked the day after Tuesday's recall election in Wisconsin, "Why do so many people hate unions, teachers and public servants in general?" 

That was in response to this cartoon: 

My answer was,  "Because they're easy targets and the Repubs have been working on this for decades. They way to defund the Democrats (noun) is to get rid of or defang their funders. Unions have long been big donors to the Democratic (adjective) Party. It's all about money, control and power."


Another Facebook Friend said,  "...all three have done a miserable job in selling themselves and their roles to the public. They need to study the GOP playbook on the utility of lying, cheating and deception. Only way to succeed in these partisan days. A sad commentary on America.


Yet another Facebook Friend commented:  "They hate Unions because unions make corporations follow the laws and uphold the rights of workers. They hate teachers because they help to inform individuals, spread the information about all sides of the issue (good, bad and ugly), because we force people to express themselves and make the THINK instead of being drones. They hate public servants in general because they think of them as leaches of their tax dollars. What they fail to remember is ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS are PUBLIC SERVANTS TOO! And Elected Officials and Administrative position salaries, benefits, and retirement packages far exceed those of your average union trade worker, average teachers ( whole salary with a Masters degree and 5 yrs of experience is about $40,000 yr.), and your police, fire, and other emergency services. The outcome only indicates how uninformed society really is -- These groups want drones and to turn America into a for-profit society."


This brings to mind a conundrum that has long vexed me. 

Corporations and their Boards of Directors -- which are generally composed of other corporations' CEOs -- justify CEOs' obscenely bloated compensation packages by saying it's necessary to pay them that much so they can attract the brightest and the best.

I've heard the same about university chancellors and top administrators, most recently in Wisconsin where the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents rationalized a 10 percent raise for that system's chancellors, while faculty has gone for three years with no raises.

I also keep reading and hearing that state and local elected officials and parents say schools want only the best and the brightest teachers for their children and that schools need to weed out bad and mediocre teachers. Yet their idea -- which a growing majority of the public is embracing -- is to cut teachers' already modest pay (I have yet to see any public school teacher living in a McMansion, driving a Mercedez or owning a yacht), their healthcare and pension benefits.

So the incentive to hire the best and the brightest corporation CEO and university chancellor is money, money and more money, plus expensive perks (which we consumers and taxpayers pay for), but the incentive to attract the best and the brightest teachers is to pay them mediocre salaries, provide a swiss-cheese type of benefits package, make the pay out of pocket for many classroom necessities because school budgets have been slashed, and demonize them.

What kind of thinking is that? And yet voters fall for it.

Best and Brightest

A Facebook friend asked the day after Tuesday's recall election, 
"Why do so many people hate unions, teachers and public servants in general?" 

That was in response to this cartoon: 

My answer was,  "Because they're easy targets and the Repubs have been working on this for decades. They way to defund the Democrats (noun) is to get rid of or defang their funders. Unions have long been big donors to the Democratic (adjective) Party. It's all about money, control and power."


Another Facebook Friend said,  "...all three have done a miserable job in selling themselves and their roles to the public. They need to study the GOP playbook on the utility of lying, cheating and deception. Only way to succeed in these partisan days. A sad commentary on America.


Yet another Facebook Friend commented:  "They had Unions because unions make corporations follow the laws and uphold the rights of workers. They had teachers because they help to inform individuals, spread the information about all sides of the issue (good, bad and ugly), because we force people to express themselves and make the THINK instead of being drones. They hate public servants in general because they think of them as leaches of their tax dollars. What they fail to remember is ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS are PUBLIC SERVANTS TOO! And Elected Officials and Administrative position salaries, benefits, and retirement packages far exceed those of your average union trade worker, average teachers ( whole salary with a Masters degree and 5 yrs of experience is about $40,000 yr.), and your police, fire, and other emergency services. The outcome only indicates how uninformed society really is -- These groups want drones and to turn America into a for-profit society."


This brings to mind a conundrum that has long vexed me. 

Corporations and their Boards of Directors -- which are generally composed of other corporations' CEOs -- justify CEOs' obscenely bloated compensation packages by saying it's necessary to pay them a lot so they can attract the brightest and the best.

I've heard the same about university chancellors and top administrators, most recently in Wisconsin where the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents rationalized a 10 percent raise for that system's chancellors, while faculty has gone for three years with no raises.

I also keep reading and hearing that state and local elected officials and parents say schools want only the best and the brightest teachers for their children and that schools need to weed out bad and mediocre teachers. Yet their idea -- which a growing majority of the public is embracing -- is to cut teachers' already modest pay (I have yet to see any public school teacher living in a McMansion, driving a Mercedez or owning a yacht),  their healthcare and pension benefits.

So the incentive to hire the best and the brightest corporation CEO and university chancellor is money, money and more money, plus expensive perks (which we consumers and taxpayers pay for), but the incentive to attract the best and the brightest teachers is to pay them mediocre salaries, provide a swiss-cheese type of benefits package, make the pay out of pocket for many classroom necessities because school budgets have been slashed, and demonize them.

What kind of thinking is that? And yet voters fall for it.