I’ve spent the past two weeks combing through President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget and analyses from various sources. A fine occupation for a snowed-in wonk. Of course, I’ve been highly selective, focusing on the relatively few issues I’ve been blogging about.
Even for these, there’s still more to learn. But this much I’m pretty sure of. It could have been a whole lot worse, especially with the President committed to a freeze on discretionary spending. But it could have been better too.
Consider what’s supposed to be his top priority–job creation.
The President proposes $100 billion for a new jobs initiative. This is much more than we understand the Senate leadership plans to invest, but $54 billion less than the jobs bill the House passed in December.
It’s hard to know just what the President has in mind since the figure is characterized as a placeholder. We do know it would include tax credits for small businesses that increase their payrolls, other small business benefits, new investments in clean energy and infrastructure, plus some extensions of provisions in the economic recovery act, e.g. expanded unemployment insurance benefits.
What we don’t see is a focus on people who were struggling to make it even before the recession began. Where are the investments to create jobs in and for disadvantaged communities? We look in vain for a budget theme that focuses on them.
Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP frames the issue well. “You cannot … rebuild the middle class without rescuing those who strive to be in the middle class. Many Americans live on Main Street, but many more live on Back Street.”
It’s all very well and good to create new, good-paying “green jobs.” But what assurance do we have that people with the highest unemployment rates will get them?
In January, the unemployment rate for adults without a high school diploma was 6.7% higher than for those with some postsecondary education and 10.3% higher than for those with at least a bachelors degree. How will the dropouts and the numerous teenagers who graduate from high school without basic skills compete for the jobs that will give them a pathway out of poverty?
And how much will $100 billion do when we need to create more than 400,000 jobs a month for the next three years to get the unemployment rate back to its pre-recession level?
I understand that the President feels pressed to control the deficit. He’s also undoubtedly gauging what can pass in the Congress and hoping to avoid another donnybrook like health care reform. But I’d like to see some leadership here–and greater concern for people whose boats won’t necessarily be lifted by the rising economic tide.