Spitzer wants to return to the "Good 'Ole Days".

By D.C.

  Eliot Spitzer writes today in Slate,"Young,Poor and Desperate:The poverty crisis is devastating young Americans. Here's what the president can do about it." (Spitzer's job application to the Obama administration.) He discusses the terrible jobs situation with the nation's young people.He spells out the numbers and I do not disagree with his analysis.I disagree with his solution.Here is his big idea to fix the problem;

"It is time for the president to channel Franklin Roosevelt, to create modern versions of the CCC and WPA for those under 25—not an entitlement program, a work program. The economy, our social fabric, and the president's political viability depend upon it."

 The original CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) were created to provide work for young unskilled and unemployed people.I am not going to travel back in time to argue whether or not these programs were successful.There are many achievements these programs can point to,such as Hoover Dam.(I think if it would be a wise investment to build a Hoover Dam now,private business would be doing it.You would never get approval for such a project now anyway,given the "green" mold growing on liberal's brains.)

 However,I remind Mr.Spitzer,it is not the 1930's anymore.I doubt very seriously any sizable number of modern American young folks are going to hand cut brush deep in some national forest or hand dig roadside ditches.It would be hard enough to get them to pick up trash on the roadside in the hot sun.

 Let's imagine that president Obama could get some type of WPA (with the massive budget that would come with it) program passed through Congress.

 Who would be the first people that would stick their noses into it? The labor unions.These would all be unionized jobs with the bloated labor costs they bring with them.Government regulations would never allow the dangerous work conditions that were allowed (and accepted) in the 1930's.

 Let us now imagine one of these jobs was to clear brush in a national forest.First,you would have to have a project supervisor(AKA government bureaucrat) and a job boss (AKA union steward).Next,you'd have to have some type of safety officer (AKA another government bureaucrat).You would have to hire experienced equipment operaters to operate the heavy machinery like bulldozers.The government would also have to buy the bulldozers.

 Then,all sorts of support staff,such as truck drivers,etc.We know from union regulations no one could drive the truck or the bulldozer then do some secondary type of job."Da' union says I drive the dozer and that's it!"

 Lastly,we trickle down to the person the job is actually supposed to help,the unskilled young person with a bush axe in their hand,no idea as what to do with it or much if any willingness to do manual labor.

 Let's not even add in the other costs,such as limiting production by the union rules like not working beyond 8 hours a day or working in the rain.Of course,these jobs would have yet another government bureaucrat to inspect the work. That is all for clearing brush in the woods.

 Imagine trying to build a bridge or some other (perhaps meaningful) government project.These WPA jobs are supposed to be for unskilled workers.Most of the labor on government projects such as bridges are jobs done by highly skilled tradesmen.I question as to how many of these unskilled jobs are even waiting to be done.Remember the "shovel ready" jobs?

 If these WPA/CCC projects are just waiting on the books,and you really want to go further into debt to pay for it,wouldn't it make much more sense to hire private contractors to do the job? Contractors who are dying for work anyway.The private contractor could do the job in a much more efficient and cost effective manner.They would also hire unskilled labor as needed,not as told by the government or the union.

 Of course that makes much more sense if your goal is to do a "needed" job,in a way to save the tax payers the most money.But that is not what these proposals are.These are massive government slush funds for the labor unions,who will only launder this tax payer money into the democrat party.

 I know that liberals will argue that these would not be old time manual labor jobs.I would ask if not a manual labor job,then what? A government desk job? An entry level government job in the mail room? We already have too many of those now.

 I guess if the first lady will allow you,I'm sure it would take many menu changes,but the government could use tax payer money and buy out Burger King.Then demand 10 workers for every one who is actually needed.These restaurants could also sell Chevy Volts.All in the name of liberal job creation.

 That is about as serious as anything else in these liberal proposals.I just came up with that idea.That is better than anything a liberal has come up in 50 years and it is still a model for failure.

 Government jobs do not create wealth in the private sector.We are the people who pay the taxes for your liberal jobs works programs.Liberals can not keep beating us over the head for money.We are broke,we don't have the money you want.How dare you lay the debt of your fantasy on our children.

 If these programs even really created any jobs,they would be make work jobs like picking up roadside trash or polishing stop signs.Things that can be (or should be) and are already done by thousands of people doing petty jail time or court ordered community service.

 I could make a strong argument that just cutting these young folks a welfare check would be much cheaper for the tax payers than these make work projects.(I by no means endorse this idea.)

 All this talk of re-inventing these old programs is just that,old.I thought you liberals were supposed to be progressive,can't you come up with something new? Something that doesn't cost a trillion dollars a pop either.