.

Schakowsky's Jobs Bill Faces Uphill Battle

The 9th District lawmaker's call for a $227 billion plan is sure to draw GOP fire.

With the economy struggling, the markets extremely volatile and the debt limit debate still stinging, U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) was aiming to put a focus back on job creation last Wednesday. But her $227 billion proposal will face stiff opposition even her most ardent of supporters concede.

At a North Side school in Chicago, Schakowsky said she will be introducing a plan when Congress returns from its recess in September that she estimates will create as many 2.2 million jobs in this era of above 9 percent unemployment rates.

“Because the American people, 2 to 1 [ratio], believe the real issue is jobs, I am relying on the voice of the American people to make the difference and to make this legislation a reality,” Schakowsky said to a cheering throng of supporters.

Specifically, her legislation calls the creation of “emergency” jobs by putting people to work in schools, parks, a student job corps, health care as well as new teachers, policemen and firefighters.

Schakowsky does not have a funding component for the proposal, but said the $227 billion legislation could be fully paid for over two years by creating higher tax brackets for millionaire and billionaires and eliminating certain tax loopholes and subsidies.

“The job creators are not the big companies sitting on $2 trillion and not creating any jobs right now because there is no demand,” Schakowsky said. “What this bill does--and it is not the total answer-- is to put 2 million people to work.”

Ina Allen, a music teacher at the Chute School in Evanston, represented the Illinois Education Association at the rally. “This legislation will help steer our economy back to fiscal strength and restore the American Dream for struggling working families,” she said.

“The United States needs vision and a pathway to assure us that we will reach full employment and prosperity,” said Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen. “This bill helps us accomplish that goal.”

Not surprisingly, the GOP did not take well to the proposal.

“It shows to me how complete tone deaf Jan Schakowsky is,” said Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady. “It also makes me think she does not know about basic economics. Government does not create jobs.

"This is just one of her many redistribution schemes," he added. "It didn’t work when they spent $862 billion on the stimulus. It is amazing to me with what everything that has occurred in the past year, she would come out with something like this. It makes no sense on a variety of different levels.”

No one doubts Schakowsky is going to have a very difficult time getting such a proposal through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, especially after the passionate and partisan weekslong debate over increasing of the debt ceiling pass its $14 trillion level.

But Schakowsky, who has served the 9th District since 1999, remained hopeful.

“I believe some [of my colleagues] would like to do the right thing and are being held hostage by a minority of people called the Tea Partyers in the Congress,” she said.

Van Dusen, who served as a top aide to Schakowsky’s predecessor Sidney Yates, realized that passage of the jobs legislation will be difficult in today’s political climate.

“It’s going to be a tough road,” he said. “But we have to make sure that jobs are part of the conversation.”

The lack of specifics regarding funding concerned Skokie resident Roy Chavadiyil, the chief steward of Local 73 of the Service Employees International Union.

“Where is the funding going to come from?  She didn’t give a definitive answer,” Chavadiyil said. “That might be a problem if we don’t show the right funding source.

"We have to create jobs, there is no question. If we don’t create jobs, we are going to fall into debt even more," the union leader said. "Where the funding is going to come from is going to be a problem for passing it in Congress.”

Richard Schulte August 23, 2011 at 04:09 PM
"There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007 [Republican Congress], the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion. That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that's how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit." "But today's deficit crisis is not one of entitlements. It was created by out-of-control spending [by Democrats] on everything other than entitlements." Byron York http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-spending-not-entitlements-created-deficits
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 01:31 AM
"Last week, the Obama administration found itself in a legal battle with Exxon over the largest find in the company's history, a field of over 1 billion barrels off the coast of Louisiana. This represents 5% of total U.S. oil reserves and there's supposed to be a lot more out there. The Marcellus Shale field in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland contains between 160 and 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Out in North Dakota, Montana, and Saskatchewan, the Bakken deposit is estimated to contain from 10-40 billion barrels of oil equivalent according to industry experts. This doesn't include large deposits in Colorado, Wyoming, and elsewhere. Even if Bakken comes in at the low end it, represents another 40-50% increase in onshore American oil reserves. In the meantime, the oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are still reporting incredible delays in re-opening even the inshore oil rigs. Offshore fields have become almost impossible to develop despite the incredible size of some of these discoveries. The government shut down even the inshore oil fields in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year. The Department of the Interior just announced the first auction of oil leases since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in April of last year, to be held in December." Another example of the anti-jobs attitude of the Obama Administration. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obamas_real_energy_policy.html
Frank August 24, 2011 at 02:51 AM
"Thanks, Frank, but it would be nice to hear from others also. Mr. Schulte and I seem to be monopolizing the conversation." Ava, you're right. I wish more people would chime in. I think they learned what I learned months ago. Mr. Schulte ALWAYS has to have the last words(s)! He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to research websites and quote articles ALL day long. I have a family and a job that I love and both take up the majority of my time, therefore I choose not to argue with someone that is NEVER going to be open-minded that always HAS TO HAVE the last word. I choose not to waste my time arguing with know-it-alls. I prefer to stay away from the political threads on the Evanston Patch so I don't have to be annoyed by the aforementioned individual.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 07:49 AM
Thanks, Frank: I understand.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:13 AM
In Response to mij regarding "why play Robin Hood?" Why not play Robin Hood? What will it hurt you if it isn't taking food out of the mouth of your family, or the roof from over you head? Since Robin Hood took from the Rich to give to the poor, I must assume that you are referring to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Famiies) Food Stamps, SSI, and Medi-Cal, since all of the other programs such as Social Security, Unemployment, State Disability and Medicare are paid for by payroll taxes from employees and employers.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:14 AM
cont to mij; Keep in mind that you have to be very poor to qualify for these programs: TANF-This program provides cash (about the same amount that it paid in 1987) to families when they have either no other source of income or their income is not sufficient to meet basic needs. Average family size is 3 (mom and 2 kids) and average length of time on aid is 2 years. About 50% of these folks are working at least part time. The monthly grant amount does not even cover rent and most families are either homeless, or they have to live with someone else to share rent/utilities. A lucky few are able to receive housing subsidies. Food Stamps-Puts food on the table for low income people, but also serves as a subsidy to farmers and businesses in the food business and stimulates the economy. Without it, we would all pay higher prices for food. This way we employ farmers, feed the hungry, and keep food prices as reasonable as possible. 3) SSI-for those who are disabled. Hopefully you don't expect someone who is unable to work to go totally without shelter and food, do you? 4) Medicaid-To allow low income people to see a doctor and receive medication and medical treatment.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:15 AM
cont to mij; From a humanitarian perspective, It's the right thing to do. If you believe in the bible, let me remind you of these teachings: “To whomever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.” – Luke 12:35-48, World English Bible ________________________________________ Proverbs 14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 19:17 He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done. Mathew 25:40 Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And from nature: In a beehive you have the Queen and the Worker Bees. Without worker bees, the Queen cannot survive. Think about it.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:29 AM
To Mr. Schulte; What you describe is Reagonomics. Didn't work then, won't work now. Even Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics because it doesn't work. Too bad we didn't listen to him. Private industry has done more damage to our economy and environment,than any government program. For example, Enron, Exxon, BP, and many other companies that bankrupt everyday. Private companies are not perfect and neither should you expect the government to be. We just don't want private companies making decisions for us about life or death matters, like our health care. You said: "Ms. Williams, you didn't explain how borrowing (or printing) money to pay for our government benefits provides for the welfare of our posterity (our children). What you advocate is shifting the cost of maintaining our standard of living to the future (our children) by borrowing (or printing) money." Nope. you raise taxes (revenue) so that you don't have to have the fed print money. You said, "Even if tax rates on the wealthy were increased to 100 percent, there still isn't enough tax revenue generated to cover the budget deficit. In other words, the deficit cannot be addressed by raising taxes. That's a fact. The only conclusion which can be reached from this bit of information is that we have a spending problem." Not true if we raise revenue to 24% of GDP.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:37 AM
Cont. response to Mr. Schulte: "The problem with socialism advocted by Ms. Williams is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. That's where we are at right now-the United States is close bankruptcy." Remember the 14th amendment, Section 4? The US can't go bankrupt. Besides, we have the fed to buy our bonds, if needed. You said, "And you wonder why we suspect that the Obama Administration is actually try to destroy the US economy? Here is just one example of the Administration's destructive policies." What possible motivation would Obama (or any President, for that matter) have to destroy our economy? If he wants to be re-elected the economy is going to need to improve. Republicans don't want the economy to improve because they want Obama to be a one term President, and they've said as much. They have not made it a secret, and I find that line of thinking despicable; to put politics above the well being of the country.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:42 AM
Cont response to Mr. Schulte You said, "By 2018, it will install a cap on federal spending, limiting it to just 18% of GDP. By 2019, the federal government will have a balanced budget and a spending cap. We will have cut up Washington’s credit card and forced them to live within their means!" This sounds like a reasonable solution to the deficit spending problem to me." You must not be paying attention, if you bring in 15% of GDP as revenue and you place an 18% of GDP spending cap, you still have a deficit. You'd still need to increase revenue by 3% of GDP. I do actually believe in balancing the budget like Clinton did.
Ava Williams August 24, 2011 at 08:58 AM
cont. to Mr. Schulte You attached an article about how green jobs aren't doing as well as expected. Well, that's a no brainer. 1) Our economies in the toilet and folks don't have a bunch of money sitting around 2) Many of the tax credits went away and folks can't afford the investment up front. If you don't have cash you have to take an equity loan out against your home. How many people do you think have equity in their homes these days? 3) These solar and wind power companies don't receive big government subsidies (corporate welfare) like the oil companies do so they are at a disadvantage. If they had an even playing field they could compete better. I don't even understand why the Tea Party started. Taxes did not go up when Obama took office, so what are they complaining about. The only thing I can figure is that they must have feared that money was going to have to come from somewhere, and out of fear, said to themselves, "OMG, the economy is going in the crapper, what if they want those of us who've had a free ride for so long to actually pay more? We better form an organization as a defense against losing our wealth. We'll call it the Tea Party since that sounds like a patriotic name and that way we can try to brainwash some everyday folks (who aren't that wealthy) into joining us, even if it is against their best interests. Who cares about everybody else, as long as we keep up our standard of living."
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 10:58 AM
"llinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate. Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline. Data released today by the bureau confirms this downward trajectory. When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls." http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4362 Thank you Governor Quinn.
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 11:16 AM
The Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party movement started in reaction to the Stimulus Program in February 2009. The Stimulus Program was just a slush fund to be showered on Democrat interests. It was sold as infrastructure improvements (roads, bridges, etc.)-"shovel ready" projects, but that's not how the money was actually used. The "Stimulus" was a complete waste and, as can be seen now, a failure. The introduction of Obamacare was further impetus for this movement. Obamacare was "shoved down our throats" against the will of the majority of Americans. The last poll that I've seen on the issue is that 57 percent of Americans favor repeal of the Obamacare law. The teachers' riot in Madison, Wisconsin added further impetus to the movement. The TEA party movement will continue because President Obama is incompetent and is governing against the will of the people. We want our country back.
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Frank, it is a citizen's responsibility to keep up on things. With the internet, it's not that difficult. I don't spend all day on this. The websites which provide lots of infomation are: The Drudge Report, American Thinker, Townhall, Michelle Malkin and the Heritage Foundation. WLS radio (890 AM) is also an excellent source. Some people, like Frank, don't like facts.
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Ms. Williams, Robin Hood took from the government and gave to the poor. It is government policies (the Great Society) that are keeping the poor down.
mij August 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Giving people everything free doesn't help them. Look beyound the current economic situation in this country. Go back years and find that you don't encourage people to better themselves by handouts. Many would rather be earning a living then handouts. But its to easy to stay on the unemployment rolls since you don't have to do much to get the check.
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM
"Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline." http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4362 Illinois is a lesson on what happens when you raise taxes as proposed by Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams, if you believe that you don't pay enough taxes, you can always send the US Teasury more to help the country out. Nothing prohibits a citizen from paying more taxes than are owed.
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 04:33 PM
It's rather interesting that President Kennedy (D) utilized cuts to increase economic activity in the early 1960's. President Reagan (R) was just following in the foot steps of President Kennedy with the Reagan tax cuts 20 years later. When Ms. Williams criticizes the Reagan tax cuts, she is criticizing President Kennedy's economic policies. The experience with increases tax rates in Illinois in the last 7 months should be a warning to all who think that increasing taxes is a good idea. "Hope and Change" just isn't working out too good. Time for real change-conservative economics. Tax cuts work every time they are tried.
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 06:17 PM
In the 2010 election, Wisconsin voters elected a Republican governor and voted for a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. In other words, the voters replaced Democrats with Republican. In February, we were treated to the teachers' riot in Madison and the shut down of the legislature for 3 weeks. After an electoral battle over the Wisconsin Supreme Court and recall elections, Republicans still maintain majorities on the Court and in both houses of the legislature. Governor Walker's reforms are working and the State of Wisconsin is doing much better. The State of Indiana is also doing much better economically than its neighbor, the State of Illinois. Illinois chose to go the other route. The Illinois governor is a Democrat and the legislature is still controlled by Democrats. Guess what-the number of unemployed workers in Illinois is now increasing. The examples of Wisconsin and Indiana shows us what works and the example of Illinois shows us what doesn't work. Conservative economics works every time its tried. Liberal economics fails every time its tried. Hmmm. . . .what lesson can be learned from the above?
Richard Schulte August 24, 2011 at 06:24 PM
Budget cuts-the Obama vacations: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html
Richard Schulte August 25, 2011 at 12:40 AM
"Center for Policy Innovation Senior Fellow and Why Obamacare is Wrong for America co-author Bob Moffit details just some of the Obamacare claims that have been exposed as fictions: •“Obamacare will bend the cost curve downward.” Not according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), whose April 22, 2010, report shows Obamacare adding more than $310 billion more in health care spending; •“People who like their health plan can keep it.” Not according to CMS, which estimates that 14 million Americans will lose their current coverage if Obamacare is not repealed; •“The middle class will not see tax increases.” Yes, they will. In fact, most of Obamacare’s tax increases hit the middle class." http://www.askheritage.org/one-year-later-is-obamacare-any-more-popular/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-03-25&utm_campaign=2011_Brand
Richard Schulte August 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM
"And our nation’s taxpayer’s can’t afford Obamacare either. Last year, our nation’s oldest entitlement program, Social Security, paid out $37 billion more in benefits than it collected in taxes. This year, it will pay out $45 billion more than it collected. Over the next 10 years, Social Security will run a $600 billion operating deficit. Instead of making our existing entitlement programs solvent, President Obama created a brand new trillion-dollar entitlement in Obamacare. This trillion dollars in new spending is paid for by half-a-trillion in higher taxes and another half-a-trillion in stolen funds from the existing Medicare program. And the CBO just upped Obamacare’s final price tag by 8.6 percent to $1.44 trillion. This is simply unsustainable." http://www.askheritage.org/one-year-later-is-obamacare-any-more-popular/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-03-25&utm_campaign=2011_Brand
Ava Williams August 25, 2011 at 08:31 AM
Reagan-supply side economics. Kennedy was talking about demand side economics. Tax rates for the wealthy were 90%, so I can see why Kennedy wanted to cut them to 70% as it probably induced more investment as well as greater demand. We could back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthy. That would be fine with me and it would probably help our economy so that we don't have to have the feds print money. I don't know which survey results you were citing with regard to the percentage of folks who want to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act as you didn't say. I hear so much about what the American people want and results from various biased surveys. I'm going to find out for myself what they want by conducting my own survey. As far as Illinois is concerned with jobs. Don't confuse microeconomics with macroeconomics. A governor can do any policy they want for their state, but if the feds cut funding to that state you can still end up losing jobs overall. Find out how many of those jobs were private sector and how many were public sector. Walker is facing a recall in January, and last month the state of Wisconsin lost jobs. They are in big trouble and two other Republicans were recalled this month and replaced with Democrats. This is related to stripping workers of their bargaining rights. You're not sharing the whole story and your sources are iffy. Also, we were both wrong about when the Tea Party started and why. The bottom line is the rich are getting richer.
Ava Williams August 25, 2011 at 08:40 AM
Mr. Schulte: You continue to label my as a socialist, but I am not. I believe in capitalism, as well as a government that protects citizens from being harmed by some of those unscrupulous capitalists, and that also provides for the welfare (including health) of its citizens. This is the function of our government. It is not socialism. Please read the definition below to help you clarify in your mind what a true socialist is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Richard Schulte August 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Ms. Williams, I have been a member of the "TEA" party since October 1994, but its origins pre-date that. The "TEA" party has been around a long, long time. The "TEA" party folks are constitutional conservatives-that is small government conservatives. No need to explain to me what the TEA party is about.
Richard Schulte August 25, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Ms. Williams, you would like to deny that you are a socialist, however, your support for Obamacare, higher taxes (70 percent) on the "wealthy" and the take over of GM by the government would indicate otherwise. Socialized medicine is pure socialism. In order for capitalism to work, capital formation is necessary. If the government confiscates private sector capital with high taxes, capitalism can't function properly. Democrats know that the American people would never support their goal of socialism, so they cover it up with claims that they believe in capitalism. President Obama's campaign is the perfect example. President Obama would never have been elected if he had ran on his actual agenda. Instead he covered up his agenda up with slogans, "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can". President Obama says one thing and then does another-the classic socialist. President Obama's economic programs have failed to revive the economy. Of course, that was a given. Government interference in the private sector doesn't work. The government can't create real jobs-the government can only create "make work" jobs. Government interference in the private sector has prolonged this recession. Unfortunately, it appears that the recession will continue until at least election day in 2012. If President Obama is re-elected, it will be the end of America as we know it.
Richard Schulte August 25, 2011 at 12:34 PM
“The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion,” wrote Knoller in a recent CBS News Political Hotsheet report. “The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.” http://www.personalliberty.com/news/obama-oversees-the-most-rapid-increase-of-debt-under-any-u-s-president-39766/?eiid=&rmid=2011_08_25_PLA_[P11882444]&rrid=395116425
Richard Schulte August 25, 2011 at 03:53 PM
"At the start of the Great Society, in 1965, revenues and expenditures were nearly equal, with expenditures only slightly higher, leaving a manageable deficit of $1.4 billion. By 2009, however, annual expenditures ($3.5 trillion) had far outpaced annual revenues ($2.1 trillion), leaving a record deficit of $1.4 trillion." "At the OMB link is Table 1.1, titled, “Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-2016.” That is an official scorecard of spending by the federal government since the founding of the republic. Looking closely at the chart is an eye-opening experience. As the first two columns show, receipts (i.e., revenues) and outlays (i.e., expenditures) moved up and down throughout our history. In 1965, however, something historically unusual, something literally deviant, began: Spending increased every single year, non-stop, consistently, without exception, into the Obama presidency, from 1965-2009." http://townhall.com/columnists/paulkengor/2011/08/24/its_the_spending,_stupid_a_crucial_historical_look_at_federal-government_spending
Ava Williams August 26, 2011 at 07:58 AM
Mr. Schulte: I see that if you base your opinions on your own contrived definitions rather than reality. This makes it difficult to take you seriously and impacts your credibility.
Richard Schulte August 26, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Socialists never admit to what they are actually doing. They can't, because if they did, the American people would reject it. So they proceed stealthfully step by step. Despite the misery, President Obama is a blessing in at least one way. The President has exposed what is going on with the socialist agenda for all to see. Single-handedly, the President has invigorated the American people, the silent majority. He has woken up a sleeping giant.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something