Yup, I jumped the shark and got political. Don’t worry, I’ll balance it out with another post about how to create jobs the stereotypical republican way.
I need to clarify something, though. I think the average American who is very passionate about their political party really doesn’t know what it means to “be democrat,” or “be republican.” If they knew and understood all the issues of both parties they might find they thought they were democrat when they were actually republican, or they thought they were republican but they favor democrat ideals.
Americans are just “funny” that way.
Another clarification: I am not very political, and not smart enough to be an economist, and I’ve never been in a think tank. I did manage to get an A in Calculus, but I know I don’t know A LOT. So this post might not make sense.
Here we go…
Mr Obama,
Want to fix the economy and create jobs? I think this is the easiest solution, considering you are Democrat and you favor a big government.
I know you’ve dumped a lot of money into stimulus programs, which I don’t think is a good idea. Some of that has gone into bonuses of people who got them because they have the right title, not because they have performed (that’s the way I understand it, anyway).
How about, instead of dishing out money that the U.S. doesn’t really have, you impose more government programs and regulation?
Let me give an old example. Tax season is drawing near. Imagine how cool and easy it would be if we had a flat tax (or, some other very simple tax system). People could do their own taxes with a sheet of paper and a pencil – it would be uber-simple to understand.
In the U.S., however, we have an extremely sophisticated tax system. I have an accountant do my personal and small business taxes because I don’t want to overpay, I don’t want to underpay, and I don’t want to get into any trouble by the feds (that would be you).
The problem, if we switch to a simple flat tax, is that many hundreds of thousands of accounting professionals would be out of work. The system and simplified regulation would make their roles obsolete.
We can’t have the government make something simplified to the point where it essentially lays off that many people. Imagine the millions of people impacted (kids, dependent parents, etc.).
Let’s reverse engineer that example and figure out how to “create jobs.”
I have an idea that will really have an impact: Get your fingers into healthcare. It’s already a mess. I think it’s a mess because of the health insurance industry (not necessarily because of the medical services provided).
Remember, the goal here is not to clean up the mess, it is to create jobs. So what I propose is that you nationalize healthcare, and impose all of the regulatory oversight that you can think of in this space. Imagine how many tens of thousands of new jobs you’ll create!
I’m not talking about changing any of the medical service providers, rather adding all the employees we’ll need to make this a national solution.
Adding more government control in this area will provide new industries, probably, and increase the viability of regulatory professionals. Just like the accountants who make a lot of money because of the IRS codes, you can create massive need for these other types of professionals.
Don’t forget the oversight arm, like the IRS for accounting and OSHA for safety, that will be responsible for taking care of violators. This oversight arm could be really powerful and grow large (like the Border Patrol) and provide a lot more jobs.
That, I think, is the best way for the government to create more jobs – create more government programs that will require more governement employees (more jobs!) and create cottage industries to support it!
I’m sure your staff can come up with other areas where you can add more government intervention to create a ton of jobs.
What do you think? I’ll write a republican perspective later today.
Jason, I assume you’re being deliberately stereotypical, but I’m going to respond to a few points anyway. Contrary to the stereotype, the public sector can contribute to a healthy economy in real ways, not just make-work bureaucracy. To name the field I’m most familiar with, numerous studies have shown public libraries to deliver a very healthy return on investment to their communities:
https://www.urban.org/publications/1001075.html
https://dpi.wi.gov/pld/econimpact.html
just to link to a couple of sites. Good public education–which, again contrary to the stereotype, is not normally an oxymoron–from the preschool to the graduate-school level, has contributed hugely to the human capital that has historically been among our society’s greatest resources. Public goods like roads and transit systems make all the far-flung network of commerce possible, and I suspect that few entrepreneurs would care to have to recruit private contractors to protect their enterprises against crime, save the warehouse if it catches fire, or hear and adjudicate a disputed contract.
To address one more stereotype, the great majority of us hated parasites in the public sector recognize that we are just part of a healthy economy and a healthy society, work as hard and as creatively as most people in private business, and (when we take the time to step back for a wider perspective, which probably most of us in any area of endeavor don’t do often enough) see our work as supporting the equally-vital sectors of private business, nonprofit institutions, and family.
One more peeve, a friendly one as I feel I know you well enough not to suspect malice: The noun is Democrat. The adjective is Democratic. As someone who makes a living partly through the written word, you know the power and importance of language, and to those of us who happen to belong to the party in question, it’s a matter of courtesy. (For the record, Bill Buckley hated the Democrat-as-adjective construction too.)
Well, there ya go, rant over and time for that second cup of coffee. Hope I’m not coming off too harsh–I have to admit you did push a couple of buttons, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
–Rich