What Obama's Job Stimulus Package Lacks

 President Obama is basically a CEO of a huge company, in this case, America. The company has staggering problems that no one person could ever solve. As a CEO, he appoints members of his Cabinet and their subordinates to follow his broad brush stroke plan that he envisions and prays its details to help the poor or unemployed actually are carried out and not buried in minute details.

The problem remains that it does. Let's take unemployment. On average in the US it is 10%, which translates into millions that are receiving unemployment money. However, it does not include those millions that no longer receive it because their entitlement is used. It does not include those unemployed for over nine months. Most unemployment benefits run out within six months of the filing date. The benefits can be extended BUT not everyone receives them because the formula used is also tied to how much money was made during the period of time the claim is based on. Thus, a person who worked for $15 hr full time very well may not get extended or even the full amount of benefits a person who earned $40 hr. The more money earned during the claim period, the more likely you will receive the maximum amount of unemployment benefit and the more likely you will get the benefits extended when the original claim runs out.

Obama should have a few plans that target specific groups of unemployed based upon the length of their unemployment. This could easily be ascertained from every state's unemployment records. The first group would be the chronically unemployed, those out of work for over a year. The next target group is those out of work from six to twelve months. Once those numbers are determined within each state, zero in where those numbers prevail within the state. Target money for those specific areas with very open guidelines about who has job priority. The intake form for those in the first group should be brief. Ascertain their skills and education, how long they have been out of work, For those in this category, asking questions or having suspicions about why they cannot find a job is futile. Simply have them start working in a position that allow thier skills to be maintained or enhanced.

The one thing Obama can't see is the suspicion upon those who have been out of work for a year or more. Employers have a mental block about this dilemma and immediately think the worse of the applicant, like, "they must be a problem worker", "they must have been fired" "what have they been doing for a year", "they are too old", 'how can they not work for a year", "maybe they are doing illegal activities". Whatever suspicions they have influence their decision when compared to another that has been out of work only a few months.It is like night and day. That is why Obama needs a job program that simply does not care about the reasons why the chronically unemployed are unemployed. Create a stimulus with real jobs and match the skills to them. Sign them up and work. The basic fact is that the longer one is unemployed the more difficult for those to get any sort of employment because of the time gap. This is in addition to the usual skills, age, location and experience issues that are involved. For them, time is against them in their skills, as their expertise in areas become wasted from non-use or need to use them. Convincing employers otherwise becomes almost insurmountable without a lucky break from understanding employer.

Obama instead is simply sending a job stimulus package to a sector for implementation which ends up being a bureaucratic mess that few unemployed persons benefit from. The subordinate agencies create too many qualifying criteria, too much red tape, which increases the time of simply getting approved.

Those unemployed for six months or more continue to be. Continue to make the national unemployment rate high. Obama needs to target this group. He isn't in most cases.

More by this Author


Comments 14 comments

Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

I think the answer lies in tax reductions, it's that simple. His plan is to spend his way out of the recession, somehow in that process creating jobs and consequently, economic growth. That's just not how it works. If he wants to get people back into the workforce he needs to incentivize companies to hire employees. He needs to reward risk, not penalize it. Granted, there still needs to be demand in the marketplace driving the need for these jobs in the private sector, tax breaks alone won't do that. One excellent place to start would be to leave the Bush tax cuts intact and in place. Geithner said recently that letting the tax cuts expire would only impact about 2% of all small businesses. When small business number around 29,000,000 companies, that's nearly 600,000 companies all affected by the expiring tax cuts. If each of those affected companies has to lay off just one worker that's 600,000 new jobs lost. My guess is that some of those 600,000 companies might actually end up out of business, meaning that little 2% has a greater impact than anyone thinks in the Obama administration or in the democratic caucus on jobs.


perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

Yes, but to me, tax cuts and incentives are high level. You need to somehow have the employers who get major breaks create jobs and focus via guidelines tied to aid etc., that those chronically unemployed be hired, otherwise, the employer at the grass root will do as they always have, pick the cream of the crop, pick those who are unemployed for less than 3 mos or simply switching gigs. Priority should be given to specific target groups with conditions to help them. Those who have just become unemployed need less help because their benefits have not been exhausted. Those who have exhausted all benefits including extensions really need the most help as my post reveals.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

The federal government has no business in the unemployment business.


perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

That is a silly notion. Society needs a safety net.


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

I'm not sure I like your proposal. It sort of sounds like affirmative action for the out of work or underemployed. At the end of the day I sympathize with anyone who is having difficulty finding a job, but it still comes down to the same qualifying factors as with any job offering—jobs should be offered to people who are capable and qualified for the job. Time out of work should never be a factor.


perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

True it does sound like it. Time out of work does, indeed, impacts how employers view an applicant. Just like "age" should not be a factor, yet, it does and is a silent factor depending on the job etc. If you know anyone out of work for a year, I am sure you'll hear a different spin on their reality.


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

I definitely agree with you when you refer to "gaps" in employment. However, I think that any reasonable interviewer, given the worst unemployment situation for some time, that "gaps" would be a much more common theme for applicants, and therefore less detrimental overall to the outcome of the interview.


perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

Agreed, yet still cast enough doubt to make one go with someone else with "less" gap. Maybe an incentive for employers would get them over this "gap", because for anyone who has not worked for year, time is playing against them until the hole is so deep their no longer a real contender.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

"That is a silly notion. Society needs a safety net."

Sorry! Your vision of society is not part of our constitution. It's a States-rights issue. Sillyness does not enter in to the equation.


perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

Silly was used as an adjective only. All societies have a safety net to some degree.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

Yes, it was used as an adjective. And grammatically correctly as well; hence the 'ly' ending.


Evan G Rogers profile image

Evan G Rogers 6 years ago from Dublin, Ohio

What does Obama's Jobs Stimulus Lack? CONSTITUTIONALITY! What else does it lack? Economic sense!

For more information on Constitutionality, please read Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution

For more information on why the government SHOULDN'T be in the business of creating jobs, check out "Evan's Easy Economics" on HubPages.


perrya profile image

perrya 6 years ago Author

well, everyone has their spin on this.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Obama should have a few plans that target specific groups of unemployed based upon the length of their unemployment. "

No. No. No. BHO is charged with representing every 'group' equitably. The constitution doesn't say "some folks must be more represented than others because of the color of their skin or where they live or what they do for a living"

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working