|
Yesterday I moderated a call where dozens of progressive Jews took the opportunity to hear the details of the American Jobs Act directly from members of the Obama Administration. On a call with David Kamin, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, we asked whether spending for the proposed jobs bill might negatively affect safety net programs, how it would help create quality jobs for Americans with lower levels of education and job skills and whether it would really promote growth. While Jewish organizations have come out in support of many aspects of the president’s proposal to spur job creation, we have also heard deep concern within our community about whether the tradeoff will be harmful cuts to programs that millions of Americans depend upon to keep them one step ahead of hunger and homelessness. So imagine my surprise when David Kamin explained, in clear, unambiguous terms, that the bill the President sent to Congress includes the measures to pay for it without taking a dime from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other programs that support the common good. The $447 billion, he explained, would come from a combination of limiting certain tax deductions for high income Americans, closing tax loopholes that benefit gas and oil companies, and eliminating a provision that taxes the earnings of hedge fund and private equity mangers at 15 percent, rather than at the regular individual income tax rate. What I came away with was a striking sense of a powerful disconnect between public perception and what the President has proposed. Given that most Americans and, most significantly, the majority of registered Republicans, support the idea of raising taxes on high income earners, it bears asking just who party leaders are speaking for when they declare dead on arrival any plan that asks the most well-off Americans to pay more – and asking what their real agenda is. One of the most dissembled responses to the Jobs Act came from Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, who said, “I sure hope that the president is not suggesting that we pay for his proposal with a massive tax increase at the end of 2012 on job creators.” What makes this so disingenuous is that, as Cantor surely knows, small businesses, which create fully two-thirds of all American jobs, are actually among the biggest beneficiaries of the American Jobs Act, which would continue current payroll tax reductions, eliminate payroll taxes for new jobs and employee raises, allow businesses to write off 100 percent of investments in new equipment, and provide hefty tax credits for hiring the unemployed. So, how have we come to a place where, with a balanced, deficit neutral plan on the table that would easily win the support of most Americans –– we retain the ominous sense that our most successful anti-poverty programs remain at risk? How has the country arrived at a place where some people can say with a straight face that the Act will kill jobs, rather than create them, and other folks can’t get past their complaints that it’s not a resurrection of the WPA? The Act, as proposed, will do so much more than either side seems willing to admit. In a public sphere dominated by self-serving stonewalling on the one hand and self-righteous grousing on the other – where the side that is best at putting up obstacles “wins,” while failing to produce any results for the nation – the Administration has put forth a serious, thoughtful plan that will put more money in people’s pockets immediately, will quickly create jobs rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, keep essential public servants – teachers, police officers and firefighters – at work, and actively reward the businesses that are our nation’s primary engine of economic opportunity. Further, it is a plan focused on those Americans most in need – young people who have few first-job opportunities and the long-term unemployed who have lost all hope. At the end of the call I asked David Kamin what part of the Act he is most excited about. “We are putting in the best that we know is out there, and including rigorous evaluation,” he said. “Some is experimentation because there have been successful pilot programs and we’re bringing them up in scale. The major part of this bill is making sure we have enough jobs. It’s about making sure we don’t have a significant population in our country that is the long-term permanent unemployed.” What I heard was a plan built around thoughtful analysis, by an Administration willing to take risks, to experiment and evaluate to get the best results, to try something bold at a critical time using the best tools we have available. It’s hard to argue with this approach, particularly with so many Americans in such great need. It’s a challenge to those on both sides of the aisle – and to all of us on every side of the issues – to be about more than just putting up obstacles. To unite and be for getting our economy – and the millions out of work – back on their feet.
|
