We have been told for four years now that the recession is over, unemployment is falling, and "happy days are here again". Nevertheless, there are millions upon millions of people who have no jobs and who have given up looking for work. Indeed, the number of people with jobs remains lower than it was at the start of 2008 when the recession began. Not since the Great Depression of the 1930s has the number of people with jobs failed to reach pre-recession figures only two years after the start of the downturn, so we have now gone twice as long as the previous worst case and still not recovered. The result is that huge numbers of people are now receiving government benefits so that they can live in near poverty without hope of gaining employment.
It is time to change this system. Obviously, the best change would be to alter our national policies so that economic growth would be encouraged and aided. Instead, we have Obamanomics which operates against growth for the most part. While this topic has been much discussed, one which has gotten less attention is the effect on all the unemployed. Many of the folks who receive assistance from the government are fully capable of working and would like to have a job if they could get one. Others, while able to work, have just given up hope. America cannot afford to give up on these people. We need to find them work. Having a job is an essential part of the self-worth of most individuals. It provides a purpose and the ability to accomplish something. It also provides hope of bettering one's own condition.
For those able to work, performing a job should be made a condition of receiving government support. This was the reform in the welfare reform bill passed during the Clinton years. It worked well, but it was removed by executive order once president Obama took office; he is no longer enforcing that requirement. The move was clearly illegal, but let's forget that side of it for the moment.
So how can we have get work for these people? One alternative would be for state and local governments to establish work programs performing tasks that need doing. Jobs as menial as cleaning the parks or sweeping the streets are, nevertheless, jobs. People who need assistance and who are able to work could be given this sort of task to do and then paid for their work. No one would make a career of this employment, but it would serve to keep people engaged and active in the workforce despite hard times.
Government provided employment would seem to be a likely favorite for Democrats, but they run from the idea because the public employee unions who are one of their main supporters oppose it. After all, allowing the program would reduce the need for some of the high paid "civil servants" in the union.
From a conservative standpoint, a program like this presents a difficult choice. Is it better to keep the government out of the system or is it better to get jobs for these individuals. For me, the needs of these individuals and the benefits of work overcome the downside of the government involvement. After all, the new workers will be doing tasks that are normally performed by the government.
It is time to change this system. Obviously, the best change would be to alter our national policies so that economic growth would be encouraged and aided. Instead, we have Obamanomics which operates against growth for the most part. While this topic has been much discussed, one which has gotten less attention is the effect on all the unemployed. Many of the folks who receive assistance from the government are fully capable of working and would like to have a job if they could get one. Others, while able to work, have just given up hope. America cannot afford to give up on these people. We need to find them work. Having a job is an essential part of the self-worth of most individuals. It provides a purpose and the ability to accomplish something. It also provides hope of bettering one's own condition.
For those able to work, performing a job should be made a condition of receiving government support. This was the reform in the welfare reform bill passed during the Clinton years. It worked well, but it was removed by executive order once president Obama took office; he is no longer enforcing that requirement. The move was clearly illegal, but let's forget that side of it for the moment.
So how can we have get work for these people? One alternative would be for state and local governments to establish work programs performing tasks that need doing. Jobs as menial as cleaning the parks or sweeping the streets are, nevertheless, jobs. People who need assistance and who are able to work could be given this sort of task to do and then paid for their work. No one would make a career of this employment, but it would serve to keep people engaged and active in the workforce despite hard times.
Government provided employment would seem to be a likely favorite for Democrats, but they run from the idea because the public employee unions who are one of their main supporters oppose it. After all, allowing the program would reduce the need for some of the high paid "civil servants" in the union.
From a conservative standpoint, a program like this presents a difficult choice. Is it better to keep the government out of the system or is it better to get jobs for these individuals. For me, the needs of these individuals and the benefits of work overcome the downside of the government involvement. After all, the new workers will be doing tasks that are normally performed by the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment