Obama Administration won't lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct federal jobs programs!

[Better Believe It]

- Excerpts from two articles by Alec MacGillis -

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009 and
Monday, November 9, 2009

Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job? .... aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

Instead Obama's team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced. If you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, why not do it with conviction? Engaging in more forthright job creation could invite some political pitfalls (such as those constant accusations of socialism), but is double-digit unemployment any less a political risk?

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

As for direct job creation: there's a real nervousness about setting up anything that looks like a WPA-style jobs program. It's that reluctance that my piece is calling into question -- after all, is it really more politically damaging to be seen as doing a jobs program than to be facing double-digit unemployment?

.... there is just a real allergic feeling in the White House and Congress toward this approach, a worry that it smacks of socialism. Keynesianism has experienced a rebirth, but there's still enough Reaganism in the air that this as seen as a step too far.

.... we had direct job creation programs in place throughout the '70s, as my article recounts. It was called CETA, and it ramped up under Nixon in '73-'74 recession. Reagan ended the program, and implemented a new federal restriction against federal jobs programs, with exception for summer youth programs and national emergencies.

The Labor Department does have various job training programs in place, such as Job Corps. But the federal government is prohibited against doing direct jobs-program style hiring a ban that Reagan put in place and that the Democrats so far have balked at trying to lift.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601900.html?sid=ST2009110604712

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/06/DI2009110603214.html

[Better Believe It]

1. I think it's time for a Presidential executive order ending that ban on federal jobs programs!

[Captain Hilts]

3. Get conservatives on board by marketing it as an anti-union measure!

[valleywine]

40. LOL. but that would work.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Lift that finger!!!!

FDR: Good God, man, DO something!
ER: Oh dear, I DO hope something is done...

[msongs]

4. now serving our corporate masters at window one nt

[dugaresa]

5. Reagan is still screwing us over from the grave.

[dionysus]

6. Another Fake Headline From a Transparent Propagandist!

keep trying...

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

7. What a bunch of erroneous horseshit. I had a CETA job in 1978, my Mom did earlier

and neither of them were direct federal jobs. I worked for a university professor who had a CETA grant to collect oral history. My mother worked for a local school. CETA funneled federal money through state and local governments -- just like the current stimulus programs.

I love the way this article twists the banal observation that the current stimulus funds state and local governments to spend the money into the preposterous conclusion that Obama refuses to "lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct federal jobs programs".

[Better Believe It]

8. CETA was a federal gov't jobs program. I remember it. Your memory and "facts" are faulty.

Perhaps you should read some factual material on how CETA operated and was funded before you go off half cocked.

Hope this information helps you:

The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (or CETA, Pub.L. 93-203) is a United States federal law enacted in 1973 to train workers and provide them with jobs in the public service.

The program offered work to those with low incomes and the long term unemployed as well as summer jobs to low income high school students. Full time jobs were provided for a period of 12 to 24 months in public agencies or private not for profit organizations. The intent was to impart a marketable skill that would allow participants to move to an unsubsidized job. It was an extension of the Works Progress Administration program from the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act

Rather than study the topic, I suppose you could now respond with a bit of sophistry and semantical gymnastics in an effort to confuse everyone.

[HamdenRice]

9. Dude, my mother and I worked CETA jobs. My memory isn't faulty

Most CETA money was funneled through state and local government. Wiki disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act

The Act was intended to decentralize control of federally controlled job training programs, giving more power to the individual state governments. Nine years later, it was replaced by the Job Training Partnership Act.

<end quote>

Sorry, bub, you "information" is erroneous horseshit.

[Better Believe It]

11. It was a federal jobs creation program. Period. Reagan banned any future federal jobs programs

So you're claiming that President Reagan never instituted such a prohibition and therefore there is nothing to "lift". Well, you must provide evidence to back up your assertion. Do you have any?

I'm listening!

[HamdenRice]

13. Talk about sophistry!

CETA is a federal jobs program. So is Obama's stimulus. Your OP is about Reagan's refusal to hire people DIRECTLY rather than have states and localities administer the jobs.

BUSTED!!!

:rofl:

[dionysus]

14. you better believe it!!

:spray:

[HamdenRice]

10. Wow, I don't think anyone has ever been this blatantly dishonest on DU -- You're busted, dude!

You copied that summary from the same source I did -- Wiki.

But you left out the sentence that explains that CETA was decentralized and administered through the states.

You don't have a shred of credibility left at this point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act

The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (or CETA, Pub.L. 93-203) is a United States federal law enacted in 1973 to train workers and provide them with jobs in the public service.

The program offered work to those with low incomes and the long term unemployed as well as summer jobs to low income high school students. Full time jobs were provided for a period of 12 to 24 months in public agencies or private not for profit organizations. The intent was to impart a marketable skill that would allow participants to move to an unsubsidized job. It was an extension of the Works Progress Administration program from the 1930s. The Act was intended to decentralize control of federally controlled job training programs, giving more power to the individual state governments. Nine years later, it was replaced by the Job Training Partnership Act.

<end FULL quote>

Now the only interesting question is whether you're going to edit your dishonest post or let the world see what you tried to pull off!

:rofl:

[dionysus]

12. the question is, has he ever really fooled anyone?

[Better Believe It]

15. I'm still waiting for you to present some evidence to back your claim. You have none?

Changing the subject is an old debating tactic usually used by political novices. That's not very slick and it won't work here.

So, back to the subject matter.

You're claiming that President Reagan never instituted such a prohibition against direct federal jobs programs and therefore there is nothing for President Obama to "lift".

Well, you must provide evidence to back up your assertion. Do you have any?

Or, do you expect everyone to just take your word for it?

I'm listening!

:)

[HamdenRice]

17. Talk about changing the subject ! Your argument is deteriorating

I never claimed Reagan did not institute a ban. Who gives a fuck whether Reagan instituted a hiring ban.

The issue is you are holding CETA up as superior to the stimulus because it was a direct federal jobs program -- and implicitly Nixon.

It wasn't. CETA was much like the current stimulus program -- giving money to the states and local governments to hire.

Do you always accuse people of what you yourself are trying to do?

BUSTED!

The "evidence" is in the Wiki article that you selectively edited to make your point.

Btw -- WHY DID YOU LEAVE THAT SENTENCE ABOUT DECENTRALIZATION OUT OF YOUR CUT AND PASTE OF THE WIKI ENTRY ON CETA???

[Better Believe It]

18. Why do you refuse to answer the central question raised in the articles?

It's what the opening post was all about in case you hadn't noticed .... or chose to ignore.

:)

Do you think President Obama should issue an executive order lifting President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct federal jobs programs?

Yes or No?

It's not a difficult question, even if some might think so, given all your evasive maneuvers and semantical gymnastics.

Now if any of the words in the question confuse you, just let me know. I'll explain there meaning to you.

[HamdenRice]

19. Change the subject, misrepresent Wiki, what's next?

No the central claim of the OP is that there is something wrong with the current stimulus system COMPARED TO CETA.

CETA did indeed work well BUT IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT STIMULUS PROGRAM. That IS THE POINT, not whether Reagan did or didn't ban direct federal employment, which is a trivial issue.

Dude, you've been BUSTED!

[Better Believe It]

20. I'll give you another chance to answer the simple question. No more evasions. OK?

Do you think President Obama should issue an executive order lifting President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct federal jobs programs?

Yes or No?

[HamdenRice]

21. I'll give you a simple question

Was CETA a jobs program that enabled state and local governments to create jobs or was it not?

And if you are holding up CETA as a model, how is that different from the stimulus program?

You're asking a dumb question because an executive order is easily countermanded by a subsequent executive order if it's needed.

But BECAUSE CETA WAS A SUCCESS AS YOU CLAIM, there IS NO NEED TO ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BECAUSE THE STIMULUS PROGRAM IS WORKING LIKE CETA.

M'Kay? Clear enough for you?

[Better Believe It]

22. So you won't answer a simple question. Discussion with you is futile.

I have to conclude that you support Reagan's ban on direct government job creation programs or at a minimum are opposed to President Obama ending that prohibition.

Since it's become obvious that you have no intention of engaging in a civil debate and discussion and are primarily engaged in an effort to disrupt and avoid any discussion of the central issue in the opening post, this matter is closed.

I really don't appreciate your constant personal attacks against DU'ers you disagree with.

So I have to put you on ignore until you clean up your act.

You've been busted DUDE!

Is that clear enough for you .... DUDE?

Bye, bye. :)

[HamdenRice]

23. ROFL! Why do you support the slaughter of baby arctic seals for their fur???

So I support Reagan because I've pointed out that the stimulus is like CETA and that therefore no executive order is needed at this time?

By that logic, I can say, if you think CETA was direct federal employment, YOU SUPPORT THE BRUTAL KILLING OF BABY ARCTIC SEALS FOR THEIR FUR!!!!!!!11!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

As Cali says, Dag I hate stupid.

[dionysus]

26. how does it feel talking to a dining room table?

he doesnt even realize you thoroughly pwned his ass.

[HamdenRice]

27. Rofl!

I forgot the DU lore about the dining room table though!

[Fire1]

30. That's what happens with obsession. n/t

[ieoeja]

58. I will rewrite this post a third time (hopefully nobody responds before).

First, I got confused and thought you were arguing the opposite of what you were.

Second, I said you were 100% correct in that CETA *did* funnel the jobs creation through the state.

Third, I think it comes down to how you are are defining "direct". In the case of CETA, the feds gave money to the states for hiring people. Sometimes they gave money to the state to hire someone to do something the feds specifically wanted done. In both cases the feds are not giving the money directly to the employee. But the money is specifically allocated for payroll and nothing else.

Today, the states could hire people with that stimulus money. But for the most part, they are not. They are far more likely to use it to hire a COMPANY to do something which means a lot of the stimulus money goes to profits for the middle men.

[pokercat999]

16. I'm beginning to understand!

President Obama is absolutely clueless. Oh he's smart, he's a good man with his heart in the right place, but I think he's absolutely clueless. I think he has to depend on his staff(as I imagine every President must do) to fill him on so much and they are failing him and us. Failing by design or incompetence, I don't know and can't hazard a guess but failing us and the President is exactly what they are doing. That or President Obama is no Democrat, at least not what I consider a Democrat to be.

[Dr Robert]

24. don't flatter yourself. you haven't got a clue.

[Jennicut]

25. I think HamdenRice pretty much debunked the premise of the OP.

[Better Believe It]

36. You don't think that President Reagan prohibited federal funding for federal jobs programs?

The writer made up the whole story?

Provide some evidence that Reagan didn't make any changes in federal jobs programs.

A credible link would help.

Thanks.

[HamdenRice]

37. You don't seem to understand what an executive order is. Your point is meaningless.

An executive order is a directive by the president about what the executive branch will do. It doesn't bind Congress, and a subsequent president can issue a conflicting executive order.

So Reagan's EO is pretty meaningless. It simply said that his administration would not use federal funds to hire people directly.

If Congress passes a jobs bill that hired people directly into the federal payroll, Reagan's EO becomes meaningless. If Obama decides to hire people directly into the federal payroll, the EO is meaningless.

THERE IS THEREFORE NO EFFECTIVE "BAN" ON FEDERAL JOBS PROGRAMS HIRING DIRECTLY THAT CONGRESS CAN'T OVERRIDE.

The only way that Reagan's EO could have an effect is if there were a federal jobs program that gave some executive agency a choice of either hiring people directly or giving grants to states to hire; in that case the EO would require (until a new EO was issued) that agency not to hire directly.

The entire OP is a red herring and straw man. Its argument makes absolutely no sense.

[Starry Messenger]

52. Geez, calm down.

You'll burst your brisket.

[Romulox]

45. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Jennicut]

48. LOL

"Something taken to be true without proof: assumption, postulate, postulation, presupposition, supposition, theory, thesis. See reason/unreason."

http://www.answers.com/topic/premise

Its my favorite, word, don't make fun of me! :P

[pokercat999]

28. So then, you think Obama has intentionally left this ban

in place?

[dionysus]

35. clearly he is an evil man who wants to destroy the working class.

:eyes:

[pokercat999]

38. I wouldn't go that far, but you are entitled to your opinion.

:shrug:

[Fire1]

31. Ditto. n/t

[SweetieD]

29. I notice you post a negative Obama story every single day.

[dionysus]

34. or two, or three...

[Romulox]

I notice certain posters almost always attempt to thwart discussion. It appears organized to me. nt

[dionysus]

33. your idea of "discussion" is "obama sucks and if you don't agree you're a censoring DLC cheerleader"

and ridiculing said posts obviously does nothing to silence them, looking at the frequency they are posted.
:rofl:

[Romulox]

43. Link or it didn't happen. nt

[dionysus]

49. ROFL

:rofl:

coming from the guy who has to construct an alternate reality where DLC agents are paid to post on DU, to justify being outnumbered.

[Romulox]

57. You need to pay closer attention to user names. I've never posted anything like that.

Or are you just making things up, like your pal Ham n' Rice? :shrug: :silly:

[Better Believe It]

39. Of course it's organized. I believe that low-level WH staffers and wannabe's

are responsible for some efforts to curtail free speech and democratic discussion on DU by using the unrecommend feature and personal attacks as their favorite methods.

But, they aren't successful. Most now understand what they are doing and why.

The best thing to do is ignore them and not let them sidetrack, disrupt or derail debates and discussions.

[HamdenRice]

41. Yeah, because your post are just SO IMPORTANT that the White House has to counter them

because if they didn't counter your "brilliant" posts, the entire Democratic Party would come crashing down!!11!!

Do you realize how grandiose, paranoid and nutty you sound writing that?

Btw, notice I've been around here since 2004 -- much, much longer than you. Do you think the Obama people planted me here 5 years ago, long before anyone thought he would be elected, in the middle of the Bush administration on the sure knowledge that Obama would be elected, and then a man would ride into DU on his white horse -- a man named Better Believe It -- whose posts would have to be refuted? You sound like the whackos to think they have to prevent the nefarious Kenyan Muslim terrorist socialist plot to end America.

Is that what you think, really?

[SweetieD]

42. Lol Don't flatter yourself. I doubt White House staffers are signing up to ridicule you.

[Better Believe It]

46. You're off subject. So care to get back on topic and answer a simple question?

Do you think the Obama administration should support or lift President Reagan's ban that prohibits direct federal jobs programs?

Do you even care?

Well, back to a subject which is of much greater concern to you .... far more important than joblessness.

WH staffers aren't just on DU to attack me. And I haven't suggested that.

Like I said, I believe that some low level WH staffers and wannabe's are engaged in an organized campaign against progressive DU'ers using personal attacks and ridicule to disrupt the free flow of democratic discussion and debate.

I'm not the main nor hardly the only recepient of those attacks. This has become a very widespread standard operating procedure directed against many DU'ers who are too far progressive and liberal for Democratic conservatives ( or centrists/moderates as they prefer to describe themselves).

While they are usually uninformed on just about any subject (outside of repeating talking points) and rarely have an independent thought to offer, they can be a bit annoying. So one must treat them just like a fly buzzing around .... swat them down!

That's what the ignore feature does!

[Teaser]

53. "I doubt White House staffers are signing up to ridicule you."

I'll do it for free.

[Romulox]

44. LOL. They just can't resist responding! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. I'm going to K&R just for this post.

Hopefully the admins, who once made you a moderator, get a chance to see it.

[dionysus]

51. go cash your paycheck from the DLC, you rabble rouser, you

:rofl:

[dionysus]

50. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Peacetrain]

54. Good Lord.. When you find yourself in a deep hole.. do NOT keep digging

And trying to rework the argument in a rovian fashion is just digging deeper.

[freddie mertz]

56. Since they post this stuff so regularly at great expense of time...

I find myself wondering if they are being paid to do this as their JOB...

[freddie mertz]

55. I am pretty sure it is not only organized

But quite possibly paid for,

By whom is the question?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

59. I have notice people posting anti-Obama post with regularity

and they are the same 4 or 5 people. But I have also noticed people defending Obama no matter what the issue and maligning those that question a policy decision and they are the same 4 or 5 people, some of them are on this thread. It makes me wonder if that is organized as well.

[FrenchieCat]

60. 4 or 5 people defending the Democratic President on a Democratic Forum

is not "organized", its fucking common sense.

That's like "wondering" about 4 to 5 people consistently
defending George Bush over at FreeperRepublic during his term.
I'm sure at Freeperville, there were hundreds doing that....

We are Democrats, so I'm not surprised that here we don't march in lockstep....
but 4 or 5? God damn....that is less than a few!

The fact that you would even ponder why this should happen,
that some would consistently support this president,
and that you would attach some nefarious motive to them,
makes me wonder about you.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

61. Well

When there is a policy decision that liberals on this board disagree with, they are painted as false Democrats, as bad as Freepers, and Obama haters by the same 4 or 5 people. Those are the people I am referring to. Championing a policy that isn't liberal (more troops, indefinite detention, LGBT, no torture prosecutions, FISA, Don Siegelman, appointing the Wall Street guys that helped to get us in this mess to your cabinet, etc.) but because he is a Democratic president we need to get behind our President is not something I will do. But it is quite possible you will, that is your decision. You may want to paint me as someone that doesn't support our President, that is just par for the course for the people I described above. I love many things he has done (Lilly Ledbetter, America as a diplomatic leader in the world, stimulus, HCR, a thoughtful intellect in the WH).

There are people on DU that will hate everything the President does and post things that support their position and there are people that will love everything the President does and post things that support their position. My point was that those people on both sides are in the minority, I have seen the same 4 or 5 posters whose agenda is clear on both sides of the issue.

If you would like to turn my observation into a question about my motives on DU, says more about you than it does about me.

[Better Believe It]

62. Supporting President Obama is not the same thing as engaging in personal attacks and trash talk ....

against progressive DU'ers rather than engage in civil democratic debates and discussions.

Do you not understand the difference?

So FrenchieCat, back to the original subject matter.

I'd like to know your opinion on it.

Do you think the Obama Administration should lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct federal jobs programs?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!