Let’s Model ObamaJobs After ObamaCare!
President Obama is currently huddled with his advisors putting the finishing touches on his upcoming major “jobs” speech. Undoubtedly he feels some pressure to come up with a blockbuster program, especially given that this speech could make or break his chances in the 2012 election. But he need not worry, because he already has a perfectly good model for fixing our unemployment problem — his own ObamaCare health plan!
Simply by varying a few features of ObamaCare, the president could guarantee nearly “universal” employment just as ObamaCare has guaranteed nearly “universal” health coverage. He could implement an “ObamaJobs” program as follows:
1) Impose a “job mandate” requiring all companies with greater than 50 employees to add 10% new employees to their payrolls. So if a company currently has 50 employees, they would need to hire 5 new workers. If a company has 100 employees, they must hire 10 new workers, etc.
2) If a company failed to hire enough workers, they would have to pay a penalty to the government. That pool of money would be used to pay for government-subsidized jobs and to fund a government-run jobs “exchange” to match up prospective employers and unemployed workers.
3) Of course, the government would have to closely specify what sorts of salaries, benefits, and job responsibilities must be included in any of these new government-created jobs, both within and outside the exchanges. We can’t have those “millionaire and billionaire” employers exploiting their new employees. If a company needs, say, a Linux programmer, but the new worker has a “pre-existing condition” of not actually knowing Linux, the company should deal with it the best they can — either by training him in Linux or finding him another job that he can do.
4) The president recognizes that some companies have special requirements and shouldn’t be subject to a one-size-fits-all “hiring mandate.” Any employer wishing to be exempted from these new requirements can thus request a “waiver” from the secretary of Labor. Because it will be an impartial government official deciding who gets a waiver and who doesn’t, the process is sure to be fair and objective.
5) Of course, this idea of a “jobs mandate” is constitutional. Some old-fashioned pundits might mistakenly think that employers — not the government — should be free to decide whether and when to hire new workers, based on their own individual circumstances and requirements. But more enlightened scholars realize that “not hiring someone” is a form of “economic activity” that could affect commerce and economics across the country, especially when such individual “not hiring” decisions are considered in aggregate. Hence, by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to limit or outlaw this widespread practice of “not hiring someone.”
6) Nor is this socialism. So those cranky Tea Party types shouldn’t be upset. The government is merely helping employers to be “responsible” and “do the right thing” in their hiring. This isn’t a government takeover of private business, but rather a “public-private partnership”! (Speaking of which, we need to start renaming muggings as “mugger-victim partnerships.”)
7) Finally, if this program fails to turn the economy around, we’ll all know whom to blame — the free market. If this ObamaJobs “employment reform” fails, then it means that the private sector blew their chance to fix things. We’ll then have the political capital to outlaw the private job sector altogether and implement a “single employer” system, where the government assumes full control over all jobs, salaries, benefits, and workplace duties. That way, we can finally guarantee that all Americans’ wealth (and sacrifices) are “shared” properly.
President Obama should once again heed the advice of his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to “never let a good crisis go to waste.” If he does, he could make this ObamaJobs program every bit as popular and successful as his ObamaCare health program!
I suppose this means more postal workers, since that is such a fine example of government enterprise.
Shhh! Many liberals will actually believe this would work. Don’t give them any ideas.
“Nor is this socialism. So those cranky Tea Party types shouldn’t be upset. The government is merely helping employers to be “responsible” and “do the right thing” in their hiring. This isn’t a government takeover of private business, but rather a “public-private partnership”!”
There is a word for the above business model. It’s called FRANCE. Almost everything listed above is required by French corporations (the few that are left). Which is why productivity in France is terrible. So is job growth, as well as it’s sky-high taxes, high unemployment, and a military that is almost a joke. So Obama’s primary objective is for us to look like France, or any other Western-European welfare state. So when it comes to “jobs creation” for Obama, “Vive le France!”
Just assign to a “rubber room” please!
obamacare looks a lot like what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts….praise the lord and pass the ammunition cause neither one of them can help us now.
You forgot the most important provision. None of the actual wording of the provisions you listed would be known until after the measure becomes law.
The wording of the provision would be simple. It would say….”as shall be determined by the (in this case) Labor Secretary”. We just wouldn’t have the faintest idea what said Secretary would determine until after it was passed.
One thought on the proposal though. The mandate that new employers add 10% to their workforce may be overly specific to pass muster with the progressive’s reading of the Constitution. Simply requiring each employer to add every applicant, who shows up on their doorstep, to the payroll, regardless of need or qualification should eliminate this question of Constitutionality.
I think it is time to form another “Super 12″ commission to come up with the wording of these provisions, and to saddle them with creating up to 10,000 jobs a week for 10 years. This would give us a net job creation of 5,200,000 jobs. Hurray. The CBO says this is a perfect plan.
USA back on track.
Is this satire, or did you bug the White House and simply give us a transcript of what Obozo and Valerie Jarrett were saying?
They don’t consider unemployment to be a “bug” – they consider it to be a feature. It helps them to destroy the eeeeevil capitalist system and our republican form of government, as well as the hated white middle class.
Same with outsourcing. The h-1b and other visa programs bring in foreign workers to displace loyal, highly-skilled, and hard-working Americans – BOTH parties are using immigration and visa programs to try to put you and me out of work.
6) Nor is this socialism. So those cranky Tea Party types shouldn’t be upset. The government is merely helping employers to be “responsible” and “do the right thing” in their hiring. This isn’t a government takeover of private business, but rather a “public-private partnership”!
Of course it is a socialism, from Fascism’s Corporatism.
Both Wilson and FDR were enamoured of it.
The sad part of your comment… There are so many people who believe this type of dribble! They still support this administrations actions and will never admit their plan is flawed. That is if we ever actually get to see a plan, or a budget. Obama knows how to talk the talk… to bad he never learned to walk the walk. Did he ever find who’s ass he needed to kick? Hey wait a minute, he could do a pay per view to save the economy, now that’s some hope and change I’d pay to see. R U Ready 2 Rumble…
Mr. Hsieh, if you offer a tounge-in-cheek suggestion that is so moronic that no rational person would consider it a serious proposal in order to illustrate the idiocy of this administration, it would be funny. Your attempt at humor here is lost.
I would be shocked if some or all of the things you lay out here have not been considered or discussed in the white house.
Positively Swiftean.
Bravo, Paul.
Unfortunately this scenario would be viewed as a good thing by some people!
“(Speaking of which, we need to start renaming muggings as “mugger-victim partnerships.”)”
This is demeaning to muggers.
Thanks Paul. This really helps to clarify the health care bill. In this light it is even more outrageous.
I just read the “ObamaCare” description on Wikipedia and I don’t get it. You actually *did not* have universal healthcare with mandatory insurance until 2010? I mean… I might live in Czech Republic, which is right in the middle of Europe, a bit more civilized part of the planet, but are you like… for real?
What’s wrong with that? I recently had my tonsils removed because of loooong series of anginas. Last week I’ve had plastic surgery of my toes because of ingrown nails. This was all paid from my insurance, which is automatically paid by every employer. Hell, my close friend got cancer and he’s not going to pay anything extra. Here you just go to see a doctor if you have a health problem, say that at work, so that people know where you are (unpaid leave, no questions) and that’s it.
Paul, one key aspect that you overlooked is the issue of waivers. You can’t expect to apply this wonderful plan to Hollywood types, trial lawyers, union fat cats, the family members of democrat politicians (Pelosi, Reid, Biden, etc.) or major Obama contributors so there must be a mechanisms where these brave Americans can apply for a waiver, undergo a doctrinal test (which may involve the payment of one or more modest fees), and then, if worthy, be granted a waiver. Because of the integrity issues involved, I’d actually attach the waiver unit to the DoJ rather than the DoL.
But once the company with 50 employees had hired 5 more, wouldn’t it then be required to hire 5.5 additional employees? And then 6.05 more, and so on?
Then there’s this:
What percentage mandate would apply to a sole proprietorship with no other employees? I mean, small businesses are the backbone of the economy. You can’t leave them out!
(Come to think of it, what about individuals? Should Joe Blow be exempt from the mandate just because he’s never hired anyone in his life?)
This deserves to be popularized.
The GOP should hire an expert on the French system in order to expose Obama’s copy-cat policies and then give concrete examples of how they DON’T work in very bankrupt nation of France. I think I’ve mentioned it before but France is 64th on the Heritage Foundation’s “Economic Freedom Index”. Everything in France (and I mean everything) is a crony capitalist scam; regulatory burdens (especially penalizing tax brackets) ensure that ordinary citizens, no matter how well educated or brilliant; cannot succeed without government crony intervention and profiteering. It’s a good ‘ol boy system gone rogue. Yet, our illustrious dear leader is hell bent on stuffing this down our throats too.
C’mon GOP and Tea Party!!! Expose Obama; call it like it is!!
Dr. Hsieh, excellent work. You’ve simultaneously clarified the insidious provisions of ObamaCare and taken the concept of inactivity as economic activity to its next logical-but-absurd level.
I’ve actually used the same “must hire or else” analogy to illustrate how dangerous ObamaCare is to America and Americans. Some get it, others shake their heads in disbelief.
In Obama’s brave new Opposite World, doesn’t disbelief actually constitute belief through inaction? And, shouldn’t this act of inaction be fined?
Great article! If one can admit that such polices would be wrong (and disasterous) for business and trying to “fix” unemployment, then they have no basis to claim that it is in any way right for health care.
Spot on! And if the “ObamaJobs” monker is deemed too pejorative, then we can just call it the Philip Rearden Jobs Plan.
I know that this was tongue-in-cheek (at least I hope so) but there is a 50/50 chance that all or most of assessment could wind up in the administration’s proposal.
We can be certain that, whatever the proposals are they will include massive new spending which won’t be called “stimulus” because that word no longer does well in focus groups. I am betting on “investment” as the moniker of choice. There will also be a “temporary” new government bureaucracy to co-ordinate the stimu….er…investment and insure it reaches the “hardest-hit” elments of the economy (such as those businesses with unionized work forces.) There will be a few token “business tax cuts” for fig-leaf effect and a dirigible full of hot air on how “We all need to work together and put partisan political bickering behind us in th name of the common good and the hard-working men and women of this (suddenly) great nation.”
It will be like the 200th incarnation of the eponymous sitcom about an idealistic young girl who comes to the Big City to work for a magazine and has all kinds of wacky co-workers. Zzzzzzzz!
Not “ObamaJobs” but ObamaPositions Bill. Sort of like Michelle’s created position at the Chicago hospital before she left for D.C. and the “job” was not back-filled. Also like having Health Care “coverage” (Medicare & Medicaid) but not getting actual “care” (because Doctor’s can’t get a fair reimbursement).
“If a company failed to hire enough workers, they would have to pay a penalty to the government. That pool of money would be used to pay for government-subsidized jobs and to fund a government-run jobs “exchange” to match up prospective employers and unemployed workers.”
Don’t laugh.
I’ve heard left-wingers actually proposing something like that: They are demanding that any company that refuses to hire more workers should be taxed into the dirt, as they put it.
And the left is also demanding that big corporations be taxed in order for the government to directly hire unemployed workers into a new version of FDR’s WPA. IOW, a company that refuses to hire workers will be heavily taxed so the government can hire those workers instead.
So while you thought you were being satirical, some of your “proposals” are being seriously considered by the Left.
That’s funny, Paul. It’s the same concept. Scary how it could be twisted to be deemed constitutional. Too bad your average judge can’t distinguish the difference between a “jobs mandate” and a “individual health insurance mandate”.
You’re onto something Mr. Hsieh.
Your 7 point program is exactly what the federal government has done since Obama was annointed, and look at the boom times there!!
As an acreditted AGW modeller, I’ve applied the federal government jobs program to the entire country, and you are exactly correct…full employment!! and with much better benefits and work rules as well. We may even have to import even more illegal democrats to fill the open slots.
Brilliant.
I love my country, even if Republicans and Democrats alike hate her and her people.
Paul,
Your analogy is not quite right. The government should impose an individual mandate: every person is required to have a job, or, if unemployed, pay a special tax.
Oh, my sides!
Mr. President, do you really want to help the MAJORITY of people and increase employment numbers each month? Use the $300 billion as INCENTIVES to USA processing and manufacturing export companies to expand only with sales at $1 billion or less. (An export company manufactures or processes something and ships it out of the area they are in. Could be another state even. Law firms don’t count.) The majors need not bother either because they are masters at taking the money and with smoke and mirrors building a new factory in Brazil. Also give INCENTIVES to each small manufacturing concern for each person hired. Do audits and pay the INCENTIVES yearly. Stand back and watch the 1090 forms roll in with checks attached. But there are too many special interests like unions and big multi-national corporations looking forward to the handout. But a big campaign contribution is in the mail.
Brilliant, Dr. Hsieh.
ObamaJobs should be enacted as soon as possible because everyone has the right to a living wage just as everyone has a right to health care.
Hilarious, if it weren’t so horrifying.
Another outstanding piece by Dr. Hsieh. Its kind of like an episode of Seinfeld. The truth is always funnier than fiction. I hope no one in the white house reads this, otherwise you may hear parts of this in Obama’s ungradeable speech Thursday night (that nobody is going to listen to).
Please keep up the great writing, Dr. H.
At first I thought this article would be weak. However, it was spot on. Actually was not bizarre and showed exactly how ridiculous Obamacare really is…for someone with common sense who is not an ideologue.
I thikn it would just be easier to determine what level of income we want people to have, and pass a law mandating that everyone have a job that pays at least that. People who fail to make that amount of money pay a fine.
For example, if we want everyone to make at least $50K a year, and someone makes only $35K, they are fined 10% of the difference, or $1500. This will encourage them to get a better job, and since the failure to earn enough money is economic activity (or inactivity, for the unemployed), it can be regulated.
Waivers will of course be made available upon request for Obama donors.
Witty, refreshing and the mirror image of Obamacare in the job market. Perhaps this illustration in a scenario that Americans can appreciate will enable them to see how outrageous, impractical and misguided the Obama HC Law is. This “tongue and cheek” satire of Obamacare got me chuckling, then I bounced back to reality and realized how much of a predicament this nation is in.
Not only will the libs. believe this will work they think it would be great for business. After all they have all that college, and professional student atmosphere thing In which to foster these fine theories of the Master Business Person, and how best to run a business. They want to experiment with our money, not theirs. Funny how when its theirs they bellyache and let the world know that this program is only for the rich. (then they take their money off shore to the Cayman’s Etc.) LMAO
Dr. Hsieh hits another home run! LOL!
Excellent article Paul. As many have noted, what is truly scary is that this could actually happen.
Very on-point, Dr. Hsieh!
Unfortunately the craziness of any such proposal is “justified” by the needs of the unemployed, even if it will destroy the markets upon which they depend, just like ObamaCare-like medical programs will bleed and destroy the health care industry.
Bottom line: coercion cannot create prosperity and quality of life.
Oooh, yummy sarcasm!
Hello very cool website!! Man .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally?I’m glad to seek out a lot of helpful info right here within the post, we want work out extra techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .
Hi there, just become aware of your blog through Google, and located that it’s really informative. I am gonna be careful for brussels. I?ll appreciate in the event you proceed this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Simply want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness to your publish is just great and that i can suppose you are an expert in this subject. Fine with your permission let me to clutch your feed to stay updated with forthcoming post. Thank you 1,000,000 and please continue the gratifying work.