Home / News / Expresso /  Issue of the Week: Workers Should Benefit When Developers...
  Share
Wednesday, February 25,2009

Issue of the Week: Workers Should Benefit When Developers Benefit

Plus Heroes and Jerks of the Week

By Shepherd Express Staff
 

Many people are critical when they learn that government gives direct financial assistance to private developers. But rather than complaining, two advocacy and organizing groups—the Milwaukee Inner-City Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH) and the Good Jobs Coalition—are urging that workers see some benefits, too, above and beyond generally expanding the city’s tax base.

The groups have developed a city ordinance, which will be introduced by Alderman Ashanti Hamilton in the Milwaukee Common Council, that attaches a reasonable employment requirement to any projects that receive more than $1 million in direct financial assistance from the city. The proposed ordinance says that 40% of the worker hours on any project receiving over $1 million in direct financial assistance shall be performed by “unemployed residents or residents at a disadvantage with respect to employment and that the contractor give fair consideration to all segments of the population, including women and minorities.”These employees shall be paid the prevailing wage for southeastern Wisconsin. The proposal is an extension and modification of two very successful existing programs. MICAH has been doing a head count and believes the proposal has the necessary votes to pass it on March 3.


Hero of the Week: Spc. Kristoffer Walker

This couldn’t have been an easy decision. But Spc. Kristoffer Walker of Green Bay isn’t returning to Iraq. Walker enlisted in the Army after 9/11 and served one year in Iraq. He later joined the Army Reserve; his unit was called up in July and deployed in October. Now home on leave, Walker said he won’t return to the battlefield. “I signed up to defend the Constitution and defend the country against foreign enemies. But I’m not going to do something immoral and contrary to the contract I signed up for,” he told a reporter.


Jerk of the Week: Charlie Sykes

Our Jerk of the Week is talk-show host Charlie Sykes, who either just doesn’t get it or just doesn’t want to get it. The world is in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, and our new president has acted swiftly to address the issue with a strong stimulus package. Put simply, a stimulus package needs to get money into the economy so that goods and services are produced and people are employed. In turn, those people spend their salaries and create even more jobs. If people were paid to dig a hole and bury a newspaper, it would have the same stimulus impact because these shovelers would then spend their wages and create more jobs. If we are going to spend $787 billion, obviously we would like to get some real benefits for the money. This requires a variety of programs to quickly and effectively get the money working in the economy and addressing real needs. Economists across the political spectrum understand that direct government expenditures are far more effective than tax cuts because a portion of the tax cuts will not be spent. Actually, any college freshman taking Macroeconomics 101 understands this as well. But not Charlie Sykes, who is still arguing that this package will not stimulate the economy because it is a variety of Democratic programs. Charlie either doesn’t understand Economics 101 or he does and chooses to misinform his listeners. So, Charlie, are you dumb or just a liar?


 

POST A COMMENT
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Obviously it is you who doesn't understand Econ 101. Do you remember 1981 and what transformed the worst economy in my lifetime after the Jimmy Carter debacle? If you truly believe throwing money at anything to stimulate the economy is Econ 101 why don't we throw another couple trillion dollars in so we can all bask in prosperity? Obviously, your problem with the previous President is he just didn't spend enough money to "stimulate" the economy. To this point, nobody has come up with a successful recipe to spend our way into prosperity. As you should know there are competing economy theories that are considered valid. Obviously you are in favor of the Obama plan as it spends money on pet liberal projects that you favor. Don't insult our intelligence with this all mightly Econ 101 rationalization. This spending plan does very little for stimulating the private sector and will not have the positive impact on job growth that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 had. I just wish people such as yourself would eventually admit you are wrong when it becomes indisputable that you are. For you to imply Sykes is dumb or a liar for favoring the economic theory that has actually had a track record of success over the past 75 years is beyond dumb. It defies history. Where or when has your theory lead to more prosperity? It hasn't unless you define prosperity as shared misery otherwise know as socialism. By inference you are implying Milton Friedman was dumb or a liar. You should read one of his books and study American economic history since the Great Depression and then apologize for your ignorance.

 

Well states Jeff. /salute

 

While all of you Neo-Cons circle jerk, I'll respond to this, "the positive impact on job growth that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 had." You mean the tax cuts that resulted in the unemployment rate skyrocketing to new highs? What part of new jobs money to spend = prosperous economy don't you understand?

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Well said Jeff!

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Yeah, Jeff pretty much just owned you.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Government is not the solution, government is the problem, Gov't creates nothing.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
If the government wants to stimulate the economy, give me back my tax money! I can & will put it to good use immediately. And while I'm at it, I'll dig a hole and bury your newspaper........NO CHARGE!

 

 
 
Today in Milwaukee
SAG_Click2012.jpg
BOM_Winners_410x93.jpg
ShepDrink_092911_410x93.jpg
Cover_300x344_02_09_12.jpg

Join Us at Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Flickr


 
 
 
*/?>