Congress defeats jobs bill for second time in two weeks

Congress defeated a bill for the second time in two weeks that could have potentially allowed California to support 37,300 education jobs.

The Senate voted down a $35 million piece of President Obama’s $447 billion American Jobs Act on Thursday. The bill was 60 votes. The bill was voted 51-49 on Oct. 11, also falling short of the required votes.

After the first defeat, Obama said he would break up the bill into pieces to get it passed.

“For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again,” Obama said in a statement this week. “That’s unacceptable. We must do what’s right for the country and pass the common-sense proposals in the American Jobs Act.”

The $447 billion bill was created in response to an over 9 percent national unemployment rate. The bill includes extensions of a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits as well as spending on public works projects, including $175 billion to be spent on repairing roads and schools.

The other objective of the plan is to pour money into states to help prevent firefighters, police and teachers from being laid off.
The bill would invest about $36 billion to prevent 280,000 teachers from being laid off nationwide, according to the White House, and it could save or create up to 400,000 jobs in education by giving states money.

Congressional Republicans said they are against the bill because of how much the government would spend and have called it a temporary solution, according to the website republican.senate.gov, an organization of Senate Republicans.

The “Democrats’ sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn’t worked — along with a massive tax hike that we know won’t create jobs,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said in a statement last Tuesday.

California and Texas would receive the most money, because of their large teacher populations.

If the bill is passed, California will receive $3.62 billion, which would support 37,300 jobs, said Micheal Spagna,  dean of Northridge’s education department.

“This is long past due that the nation as whole recognizes that we have basically eviscerated public education by allowing for layoffs to happen throughout the whole United States,” he said. “How devastating is that as a professional when every year you’re getting a notice that you may not have a job next year?”

Early childhood and elementary school teachers would benefit most from the bill, which is crucial, Spagna said.

“They’re some of the best people in the profession,” he added.

But Nancy Virts, CSUN’s economic department chair, was more skeptical of the plan.

“I think it’s probably more directed by political pressure than economic pressure and it probably won’t have much effect in the long run one way or the other,” she said. “It’s not an issue for government.  It’s an issue for taxpayers. How much are you willing to pay for education?”

Spagna said the bill is a necessity for teachers, adding that students in the education department have been worried about graduating and finding jobs.

“The job market is really staggered,” he said.  “A lot of teachers before would have been guaranteed getting jobs, particularly in the Los Angeles Unified School District, but that’s not an option.”

Spagna cited the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Emergency Grants, which he said currently helps teachers. The grant allows teachers that have been laid off to come back to Cal State schools and sharpen their teaching skills.

They would not earn another credential, but it would still benefit them, he said.

“It’s an incentive to get them back to a university to deepen their knowledge,” Spagna said.

Just like those that voted down the bill, Virts remained unconvinced at this point of how effective it could be.

“It may have political effects, but whether it will have economic effects, I’m not too sure,” she said.

top

Disclaimer: The Daily Sundial is not responsible for comments posted on dailysundial.com. In accordance with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 the Sundial is not liable for the content of comments. By commenting, all persons posting on dailysundial.com have agreed to our comment policy. If a comment does not abide by the comment policy the Sundial reserves the right to delete comments without warning. The Daily Sundial advises persons commenting not to abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid comments of hate speech or encouraging violence.

  • Vlad

    Naming something a “Jobs Bill” doesn’t mean that jobs are a result of its passage.

    There are 2 distinct ideologies pertaining to the creation of jobs.

    1)Republican / Supply Side / Private Enterprise.  Republicans generally believe that economic growth occurs with an expanded “Private Sector.”  That we increase GDP by taking “our boot” off of employers, by; Limiting Taxes, Limiting Regulations, and Limiting resistence to hiring. Reagan (as Kennedy) implemented this ideology and presided over Quarterly Average GDP growth between 5-7%.   

    2)Democratic / Demand Side / Government Expansion.  Democrats, and Obama believe that growth comes at the “hand” of government expansion.  That “jobs” and “resources” are a plum that they can extend as an example of their benevolence. Every dollar that government issues, it has first taken from someone in the private marketplace. The larger that government is allowed to grow, is an expansion of “perennial” revenue that it must conitnue to take out of the marketplace.

    Debt is a very real thing. We cannot continue to spend beyond our means. As young people, it is YOU that will be on the hook for its repayment.

    Obama’s Jobs Bill is a sham.

    Peace, out!

    Vlad

  • David the small-L libertarian

    I just love how the Democrats use threats of layoffs of police officers, firefighters and teachers when there are so many other non-critical areas of government that could and should be cut first.  VP Joe Biden gets up and threatens that there will be more rapes and murders if the “Jobs Bill” isn’t passed, then threatens a reporter who questions him about it.  You’re a class act there, Joe!

    • Old Glory

      He didn’t threaten a reporter. And in New Jersey the murder rate increased as they layed off 176 cops.

      http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/newark_homicides_up_64_percent.html

      But it’s not just Newark…

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/violent-crime-spikes-camden-halves-police-force-20110307-101146-844.html

      • Anonymous

        Schools everywhere have clearly
        taken a blow and are in need of immediate assistance. But can the Jobs act help
        the schools who would receive the aid from the $36Billion over a long term
        period?  While the act itself has an aim
        to create 280,000 Jobs nationwide in  education recent suggest that the estimated number of
        Jobs created overall (1.9M) is also likely to drop significantly
         by 2013 of people still
        employed(http://eng.am/qM1myt). In the case of California teachers, where it is estimated to create 37,000 jobs, how many will stay around? The short term strategy embedded within the
        plan may yield hope, but the long term strategy is lacking both in terms
        of keeping employment numbers up in terms of education that could mean some
        difficulty for those who are trying to keep their positions for more than a
        number of years in districts where they live. Is there perhaps a better long term solution? What do you think?

      • David the small-L libertarian

        Look at the video and the tone of Biden towards the reporter as he nearly pokes the him in the chest, then at the fact that Biden filed a complaint about the reporter with the Senate press gallery.  Never mind: That’s just good ol’ Joe!

        As for Newark and Camden, there may or may not be a correlation between rising murder rates and few cops.  See this Washington Post (a left-leaning paper) piece, Biden’s Absurd Claims about Rising Rape and Murder Rates

        Interestingly, Flint Police Chief Lock has repeatedly asserted that cuts in staffing had little effect on the crime rate.

        As the Flint Journal reported in May: “Officials said the fact that 46 police officers were laid off last year had little to do with the escalating crime. Most of the crimes were between people that knew each other. ‘No matter how many officers we have, we can’t stop disputes between two people in their own homes,’ Lock said.”

        Lock made a similar assertion in September, 2010, when FBI statistics were released showing violent crime in Flint had decreased in 2009. The Flint Journal reported: “A smaller police force doesn’t automatically mean more crime, said Flint police chief Alven Lock. ‘There’s been years when we had 300 officers and we still had more homicides,’ he said, referring to 1986, when he was in the homicide division and homicides hit an all-time high of 61.”

        And…

        University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt, who examined ten possible factors for why crime fell in the 1990s, made a noteworthy effort in 2004 to assess the importance of additional cops. He included the increase in police as one factor that could explain the decline in crime. But he also said that other key factors included a rising prison population, the receding crack epidemic and even the legalization of abortion (which resulted in fewer unwanted births).

        In other words, even if you could make a link, it is likely one of many factors that affects the crime rate, not the single one, as Biden suggests. The FBI itself lists more than a dozen variables in what causes crime to increase in a community.

        Others believe the connection is tenuous, at best. “There is limited or no correlation between the number of officers and the homicide rate,” said David Carter, a Michigan State University criminal justice professor who works with the Justice Department to track homicides.  “To draw any kind of conclusion on simply the number of officers and the number of homicides is virtually meaningless.  There are too many other variables that will influence the commission of homicides as well as clearances.  In essence, the reporting of this simple data, whether using Biden’s data or city data, does not describe changes in the incidents of homicides in Flint or any city.”

        Andrew Kramer of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice also has closely studied the reasons for the decline of crime in New York City. “The NYPD has decreased in size by about 4,000 officers to 36,000 since 2000 and yet crime has continued to go down,” he said.