Kudos to Maureen of the Huffington Post for her thoughtful solutions!!!
To read the entire exchange go here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/tsihcrana/house-dems-rip-obama-tax-cut-deal_n_793540_70030180.html
***********************************************************************
Here is what I would do:
First, I would have capitalized on John Boehner's statement from October, when he said, on a television news interview, that if the only choice he had was to vote for the cuts to remain only for those making $250k or less, then he would vote for that. I would have held him to that statement, using it like a whip any time he tried to go for more.
Second, I would NEVER have signaled a willingness to let the cuts remain in effect for even 1 year (unlike Obama, who told the GOP he'd give them everything they wanted before negotiations even began).
It's like the old song - you have to know when to hold your cards. Obama obviously does NOT know that, which is why he keeps losing his shirt to the GOP "sharks".
See next post for what kind of provisions I'd want in the deal (due to size limits on these posts).
First, I would have capitalized on John Boehner's statement from October, when he said, on a television news interview, that if the only choice he had was to vote for the cuts to remain only for those making $250k or less, then he would vote for that. I would have held him to that statement, using it like a whip any time he tried to go for more.
Second, I would NEVER have signaled a willingness to let the cuts remain in effect for even 1 year (unlike Obama, who told the GOP he'd give them everything they wanted before negotiations even began).
It's like the old song - you have to know when to hold your cards. Obama obviously does NOT know that, which is why he keeps losing his shirt to the GOP "sharks".
See next post for what kind of provisions I'd want in the deal (due to size limits on these posts).
As for what kind of deal I'd want:
1 - a 26 week, Tier 5 extension of unemployment benefits for current and future 99ers. Also, the funding extension (currently 13 months) should last as long as the tax cut extension, unless the unemployment rate drops below 7% before the tax cut extension ends.
2 - a financial incentive plan for employers who hire directly from the unemployment rolls, and scaled so that the longer the worker was out of a job, the more the employer that hires them gets (ie: say $2500 for hiring a 99er, but only $500 for hiring someone who lost their job in October 2010). This would help get the 99ers back into the workforce before the Tier 5 extension runs out.
3 - subsidies for employers who not only hire from the unemployment rolls, but are willing to invest in training workers whose former skills are no longer in demand (like auto workers). The subsidy could cover 25% of the payroll for that worker during their training, and also give the worker Medicaid coverage for themselves and any family members during the training period - saving the employer the cost of providing health insurance until they have a fully trained and productive worker on their team.
4 - a ban on any American company, of any size, discriminating against hiring the unemployed (a problem that is becoming more common lately). Also, ban companies from using an applicant's credit rating as an excuse for not hiring them unless the job in question deals directly with handling cash or having authority over client or company financial accounts. Everyone's credit has suffered during the recession or due to being unemployed - that doesn't make them thieves, nor does it disqualify them from being able to answer a phone, mop a floor, or pack a box in a warehouse.
5 - the creation of a temporary agency that will help match the long-term unemployed with employers willing to hire and train them (could work in conjunction with the subsidy program in item 4), and provide assistance in facilitating the deal, including helping with relocation if the job is more than 50 miles from the worker's current residence, or transportation if the worker can't access public transit and needs a means to get to the job.
Those are the things I would fight for, because they will go much further toward real job creation and lowering the unemployment rate than subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich, who have already enjoyed 10 years of these tax cuts, and have NOT created any jobs with them (in fact, we've lost jobs every year since the cuts were enacted).
1 - a 26 week, Tier 5 extension of unemployment benefits for current and future 99ers. Also, the funding extension (currently 13 months) should last as long as the tax cut extension, unless the unemployment rate drops below 7% before the tax cut extension ends.
2 - a financial incentive plan for employers who hire directly from the unemployment rolls, and scaled so that the longer the worker was out of a job, the more the employer that hires them gets (ie: say $2500 for hiring a 99er, but only $500 for hiring someone who lost their job in October 2010). This would help get the 99ers back into the workforce before the Tier 5 extension runs out.
3 - subsidies for employers who not only hire from the unemployment rolls, but are willing to invest in training workers whose former skills are no longer in demand (like auto workers). The subsidy could cover 25% of the payroll for that worker during their training, and also give the worker Medicaid coverage for themselves and any family members during the training period - saving the employer the cost of providing health insurance until they have a fully trained and productive worker on their team.
4 - a ban on any American company, of any size, discriminating against hiring the unemployed (a problem that is becoming more common lately). Also, ban companies from using an applicant's credit rating as an excuse for not hiring them unless the job in question deals directly with handling cash or having authority over client or company financial accounts. Everyone's credit has suffered during the recession or due to being unemployed - that doesn't make them thieves, nor does it disqualify them from being able to answer a phone, mop a floor, or pack a box in a warehouse.
5 - the creation of a temporary agency that will help match the long-term unemployed with employers willing to hire and train them (could work in conjunction with the subsidy program in item 4), and provide assistance in facilitating the deal, including helping with relocation if the job is more than 50 miles from the worker's current residence, or transportation if the worker can't access public transit and needs a means to get to the job.
Those are the things I would fight for, because they will go much further toward real job creation and lowering the unemployment rate than subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich, who have already enjoyed 10 years of these tax cuts, and have NOT created any jobs with them (in fact, we've lost jobs every year since the cuts were enacted).
correction - the parenthetical comment in item 5 above should have said "in conjunction with the subsidy program in item 3 (not "item 4) above".
Finally, I would allow the tax cuts to continue ONLY for those making less than $500k annually (I might consider Chuck Schumer's $1 million threshold, but only if I absolute had to), and I would have had the estate tax apply to any inheritance worth more than $3 million, and at a minimum 50% rate. If the estate you inherit is worth more than that, you can afford the tax - after all, YOU didn't earn that money, they did.
That would provide at least some of the revenue to cover the cost of the programs I outlined above. More importantly, even if the total package added to the deficit, it would be a package that the majority of Americans could approve of, because it would directly address job creation and unemployment and not just be a handout to the ultra-rich.
Finally, I would allow the tax cuts to continue ONLY for those making less than $500k annually (I might consider Chuck Schumer's $1 million threshold, but only if I absolute had to), and I would have had the estate tax apply to any inheritance worth more than $3 million, and at a minimum 50% rate. If the estate you inherit is worth more than that, you can afford the tax - after all, YOU didn't earn that money, they did.
That would provide at least some of the revenue to cover the cost of the programs I outlined above. More importantly, even if the total package added to the deficit, it would be a package that the majority of Americans could approve of, because it would directly address job creation and unemployment and not just be a handout to the ultra-rich.
Ahh, I should have done some editing first to get rid of the typos, lol. Anyway, let me introduce myself - I am the author of the ideas listed in this post, and I thank Tsihcrana for thinking it was worthy of a reprint.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone has any questions about these ideas, or wants to discuss them more fully, I'll be around, and I'd love to know what you think.
I agree with all this in looking at these comments it all centers around one central theme jobs creation.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how a group of hard working people like the 99 ers can now be forgotten?
It is very hard to find a job I have been unemployed for almost 2 years my benefits have ran out after over 490 applications and resumes I am not getting any calls or offers just excuses as to why I am not being considered for any position and I believe that is because I have been out of work for too long.
I've fleshed out the proposal into something a bit more formal, including a rationale for each item. I then posted it in a new blog so that I can easily send the link to media personalities and members of Congress via Twitter, Facebook and email.
ReplyDeleteThe new blog address is:
http://hiretrainretainact.blogspot.com/
I did leave out the section on imposing a payroll tax on companies that outsource our jobs. While this is a worthwhile issue that I think must be done in order for us to remain competitive and regain more jobs, I am afraid it would kill the proposal completely if I included it with the job creation incentives. So that will have to be a separate issue to be battled out after the current matter is settled.