Still No Jobs: Am I Just Imagining This?

There is a very small debate going on in this country about a very large issue, to which I do not know the absolutely correct answer, but I have my suspicions. Are business leaders hoarding their cash and not hiring, just to make the Obama administration look bad? While it is true that all businesses do not march in lockstep, I believe, to a very great extent, that is true.

The Washington Post recently reported that non-financial companies (mind you, that's leaving out the banks and other similar entities) are sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars. That is up about 25% from the start of the present recession. Yet job growth remains pitifully low.

I have seen arguments against this theory to the effect that "the Republicans" cannot possibly be behind this imagined conspiracy, because there are very much in the minority in Congress. Those who would make that argument are deliberately confusing the Republican congressional delegation with the private-sector leaders of our corporations, most of whom tend to favor the Republican party. And, among business leaders, they are most assuredly not in the minority.

High among the reasons that business leaders cite for their lack of hiring, despite their on-hand wads of cash is "political uncertainty." That's a kind of sugar-coating similar to the real estate expression that the three most important things in determining property value are "location, location and location," when it really means, "no black people, no black people and no black people." The same principal applies here: "political uncertainty" is code for "more Republicans in power."

With approximately 60 days until the 2010 elections, it is almost certainly too late for the President and the Democratic Party to do much in the way of remediation. They are probably going to have to take their whuppin', just as Mr. Bush did (and deservedly so) in 2006.

But this is not an essay about saving the Democratic Party, even though it is my party of choice. I make no bones about that, okay? This is about putting people back on payrolls, regardless of which politicians get helped or harmed.

I may seem to be straying, here, but I really am not. Presently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu are engaged in peace talks under the auspices of the United States. They claim they want to arrive at a substantial agreement and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. Are they? For the negotiations to work, the Palestinians must finally and irrevocably surrender the "right of return" (to Israel). If they are given the opportunity to return and flood the nation with their population, then it ceases to be the Jewish state, which was founded as a haven for the heretofore landless Jewish people. On the other hand, the Israeli government simply has to stop expanding into Arab territory, period. And for the same reason, pretty much. If there is to be a concomitant Palestinian state, with its own sovereign powers, then it must be dominated by Palestinians, not Jews. What could be simpler?

The reason I brought this matter up is that, if the administration and the Democratic Party want to break this jobless logjam and truly help the people who need it (What any political party actually help the people? What turnip truck did you just fall off of?), they will need to set some very important priorities.

The Obama administration, nationally, and a number of local Democratic administrations, need to take a good, hard squint at their economic policies, particularly in the regulatory arena. They need to make an honest determination as to what is truly necessary and useful, and what is the result of useless, vote-mongering populism that really does no good and actually does harm.

And, if the business community wants to benefit from that hard self-examination by the politicians, it must do one of its own. The leaders need to stop attacking those policies, either overtly or covertly, that have been put into effect to thwart the scoundrels and the mindlessly greedy among them and focus on areas of regulation where they, the ethical majority, can legitimately seek relief.

For example, cutting the salary of California's government workers to minimum-wage level is no long-term solution to that state's economic woes. Reducing its business regulatory policies to the sufficiently-stringent standards of the federal government, from the far more rigorous standards of the state, could provide a lasting solution to the lack of growth in the area of business creation, retention and expansion.

For another example, the leaders of our financial institutions need to realize that it is far too risky for the nation's well-being to allow them to engage wildly in credit default swaps and unregulated derivative speculation. Along that line, they need to adjust their top-level compensation policies so they do not encourage such wild speculation, even to the extent it is permitted.

The thing is, it will do the business community at large little good if they continue to freeze out the American worker, either by outsourcing, hiring abroad or simply not hiring at all. When people have jobs, money and, most of all, a feeling of security, prosperity breaks out all over. As I pointed out in an earlier essay, Henry Ford latched onto this idea a century ago, and it made him, for a time, the richest man in the world.

So, let me get back to the original question, are business leaders holding out on those jobs, just to drive the regulation-happy Democrats from office? Maybe not; perhaps so. Again, I so not claim to know the truth of the matter. I would go so far as to say that anyone who hotly denies this concept is at least equally ignorant of the truth.

Finally, whether the jobs recovery comes about sooner or later, I note that everyone among us expresses admiration for the patriotism of our troops who have been killed or maimed in the war against terror, as well we should. But those brave individuals are not the only people in our society who are allowed to be patriots. Patriotism does not just mean getting into the path of a bomb or a bullet, it can also mean putting Americans to work in decent, permanent jobs when you good-and-well have the cash to do so, and, I dare say, it is a lot less drastic than getting your legs blown off by a roadside bomb.

Sources

speaktopower.org

Reason.tv

Face the Nation, CBS TV