[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Why Do Politicians Want To Cut Jobs? Budget Cuts Equal Job Cuts.

by: Robert Greenwald

Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 09:00:58 AM PDT


We are in a painful recession.  Too often it seems like DC hears more about the concern of billionaires who don't want to lose their tax cuts, and too little about the parent of two who works long hours and barely is getting by.  And yet Congress votes on whether the billionaire will have more, and whether the working class parent will lose his or her job.  These are the votes presently occurring, and which are being treated like a drawn out political game.

The proposed Federal budget cuts are turning into another political sideshow. The process of the budget is being treated as a chess game, a battle over politics and procedure, and one that may go on for a long time still, narrated by talking heads throughout.

If you are an American in need of a job, or one afraid that your job will be cut in the budget proposals, it isn't just a DC soap opera.  The reverberations of the proposed cuts are drastic and personal.  States and cities throughout the country feel the impact of the cuts through the stories of those waiting with every news cycle to hear whether their job, or hope of a job, will be slashed.

The City of Los Angeles is a perfect example of this harm.  Los Angeles is already affected by the recession with a whopping 14.5% unemployment.

The proposed federal budget cuts are not abstract to Los Angeles.  They would eliminate funding for job creation projects, projects needed to help Vets find work, and they could wipe out training services for youth hoping to find skills, or the homeless, hoping to break the cycle of poverty.

In Los Angeles, the community is not sitting back and letting these proposed cuts happen without a fight.  Next Wednesday, March 23rd, Angelinos will rally at the Federal Building in Downtown Los Angeles to say no to such cuts.  Cutting jobs is not the answer to recession budgeting.  It's time that our government prioritized working people over billionaires.  

If democracy is to work, we have to hope that Wisconsin and Los Angeles, and the other communities that have had enough, send messages strong enough to penetrate the walls of Capitol Hill.  It's time our government support those struggling to get by, and not just those with the money to access power in private backrooms.  It's time we make it know:  budget cuts equal job cuts.  And America simply can't afford to cut anymore jobs.

Robert Greenwald :: Why Do Politicians Want To Cut Jobs? Budget Cuts Equal Job Cuts.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

There is another side to this... (0.00 / 0)
One could argue that tax increases on those that spend the vast majority of their income cost jobs even more so.  People in the six figure range aren't hording their income in savings or necessarily investing it all in the top end of the economy.  They are buying the day to day products and services that small businesses provide.

Given that most in these income brackets are fairly financially disciplined they will cut back optional expenditures before they cut investments in their businesses or savings.  IE: Tax them at a higher rate and the 24 trips they take to the local Italian restaurant in 2010 may drop to 12 or less in 2011.  Multiply that by a few customers and that restaurant may lay off a few employees.

It's not perfectly analogous but the correlation dopes exist.  I've seen it at businesses in my neighborhood during the down turn.  Should not Gov workers share in the pain with some real cuts to benefits and salaries?

Also isn't it far past time to stop lumping the low six figure folks in with the high seven figures?  Though I am COMPLETELY against progressive taxation rates, for the sake of a rational argument the $150,000 a year 1099/DBA guy should not be lumped in with the $1,000,000 a year Incorporated/Asset Rich guy.  They live in different economic realities.  Yet the "tax the rich" crowd sees them as twins.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


actually (0.00 / 0)
some in Congress wanted to establish the cutoff at 1Million and the Republicans wouldn't accept that.  The all taxes are bad crowd tends to claim that it makes no difference where you set the levels.

And this mantra that public employees haven't suffered despite layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts etc really has to stop.  The only people who haven't suffered are those at the top of the food chain.  


[ Parent ]
Public Employees (0.00 / 0)
Well my opinion would be is that some have suffered, some have not.  Not everyone was furloughed and not everyone took a cut.  In the absence of a free market for the services they provide I think the public employees should simply face across the board pay/benefit cuts.  If there's an equitable -10% for everyone in the public sector I think that would be fair.  Revenue is down, their pay should be down.

I can't demand my customer's continue to purchase X amount of my services when their resources to do so are declining...

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


[ Parent ]
Why should public employees bear the brunt? (0.00 / 0)
On average, they make less than private employees with equivalent education. So why should they get across the board pay cuts? Why should ones who do an excellent job get their pay cut? Why should ones who are barely getting by as it is get their pay cut? How would you like it if your employer did that?

Furthermore, to the point of your first reply, study after study shows that the people who spend the highest percentage of their income are the poor. The people who are just getting by spend 100% of the money they get. Money that flows into this income bracket creates about $1.75 in economic activity for every $1.00 they get because of that. This is not true of the wealthy. They have a lot of stuff already. So they spend proportionately less of their income on buying goods and services. For every dollar they get, they generate about 80ยข of economic activity--for a net loss to the economy. The rest goes into investments and savings, or out of the country.

So, while I agree with your point that we have to put the money where it will generate the most economic activity, where you propose to put it is exactly backwards. You really have to stop believing Faux Noise. They're shills for the rich and either liars or just plain stupid.


[ Parent ]
Prime the pump (0.00 / 0)
John Maynard Keynes showed that you have to prime the pump in a recession to get the economy going
It's common knowledge
Even Richard Nixon said: 'We're ALL Keynesians, now'

Blame 'Fearless Leader' in the White House for not speaking out on this
It's Conservatives who control the national dialog
We need spending to stimulate the economy

But the coward in thw White House is too busy plotting his re-election and polishing his Nobel Peace Prize to speak out

Barack Obama is a DEAD END


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox