Job creation not up to president
November 07, 2012 12:42 AM | 1140 views | 2 2 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print

I have always enjoyed reading Judy Elliott’s column in the MDJ. She is diplomatic, inserts humor, and doesn’t belittle anyone.

In her most recent column, “Betrayal of American Dream continues” (Oct. 28), she mentions that the book, by the same name, states that many companies have outsourced their jobs to other countries since 1999 (although, I’m pretty sure it’s been longer than that.) Many people mistakenly believe that, somehow, it is President Obama’s fault that so many people have lost jobs. But how about the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries? Why is almost everything we buy made in Asia or Latin America? Why can’t we manufacture more in our country? Are the corporations greedy? Are the unions to blame? Are there not enough American workers to do the job, or are American workers too demanding?

The point of all this, is that no matter who the president is, they can’t create new jobs. The president may help to establish government jobs, help to enact tax incentives, work with banks to ease lending, but truly, most jobs are through the private sector.

It’s time that ordinary citizens and our legislators ask those hard-hitting questions to the CEOs of the corporations so that one day, in the near future, we can all go to buy something in a store and 75 percent is American-made and 25 percent is foreign-made. That would be nice.

Maria Acevedo
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Business Grad
November 11, 2012
Ms Acevedo, you technically are correct that the president doesn't create private sector jobs. But, he does manipulate many factors in gov't policy that impact those who do. This president has done many things to negatively influence private sector job creation. The mos egregious is his relentless demonization of those corporations who would employ people. When I say "corporations", I'm talking about those small businesses (NOT GE) that frequently are the target of his ridicule.

If you had a president who told everyone else that he was going to raise your cost of operations and would try to tax you to death in the name of "fairness", would you want to stockpile some cash to be able to survive? If your brain receives any blood, the answer would be YES!

No business owner wants to employ someone only to have to let them go a couple of months later.

This president's fiscal and monetary policies are killing our country. But the voting electorate is either too indifferent, too lazy or too ignorant to know. I fear for our survival as a country in the next four years.
November 11, 2012
Good letter, Maria, and I could not agree with you more. The President, and the government, are not job creators. However, the government creates the environment in which jobs must function; and that is the rub.

Energy. The production of goods and services requires energy, but as you well know, the cost has doubled during in the past 4 years. Yes, more oil and natural gas is being produced now, but the increased production is occurring on private and state owned land. The production on FEDERAL land is stagnant; and it doesn't have to be that way.

Taxes. The U.S. tax code is draconian. Clean up the tax code and lower rates for corporations. Folks want to tax corporations to death because they have "deep pockets." The fact is that whatever taxes corporations pay, is passed on to their customers. Higher taxes means higher cost of goods and/or services produced, and WE - you and I - suffer when corporations pay higher taxes. Make sense?

Regulation. A simple example from the Dodd-Frank overhaul will illustrate this factor. Money is tight because this new bill requires loans made by banks to be "qualified", yet, the regulators have yet to define what "qualified" means. Until banks have a clear definition, they don't dare make loans.

Another regulatory example. Administrators and service providers to employer-sponsored benefits plans (for example, 401k plans) are now required to provide detailed disclosure of the fees charged and the fees must be "reasonable." The disclosure of fees is fine; employers are entitled to have an accounting of the charges they are incurring when they provide benefit plans to their employees. The problem is the regulators have not defined, nor are they able to define, what "reasonable" means. Going forward, I fear this may discourage employers from offering benefit plans to their employees.

Provide access to less expensive energy, implement regulations based on common sense, logic and reason, and reform the tax code, and you'll see industry returning to the U.S.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides