U.S. Labor Group Unveils Plan to Tackle Joblessness

The head of the largest U.S. labor federation urged President Barack Obama on Tuesday to use the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund to help cash-starved small businesses as a way to stem rising joblessness.

In a preview of labor's contribution to Obama's December jobs summit, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program could be lent directly to small- and medium-sized businesses at commercial rates.

The AFL-CIO jobs plan also calls for extended unemployment benefits, food assistance and healthcare for the unemployed, more money for infrastructure projects and state and local governments, and job creation aimed at distressed communities.

Rising unemployment poses a political danger to Obama as his fellow Democrats in Congress approach the 2010 election with voters increasingly dissatisfied with incumbents.

"If small businesses can get credit, they will create jobs. And we need jobs now," Trumka said in a speech to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

Two columns in the Los Angeles Times caught my eye. The second one is on a "student loan bailout". In this first one, though, Tim Rutten bandwagons with his bemoaning of California's voter initiative process. He cites Chief Justice Ronald M. George's statements before continuing...

Serious political historians also agree...

So you are a moron if you disagree, you see.

that, as currently utilized, the California initiative process is a perversion of what the Progressives intended when they inserted these direct-democracy provisions into the state Constitution.

Let us, for the sake of argument, grant that as true. So freakin' what? We all have to play by the same rules. Maybe the "Progressives" were hoping that only their pet initiatives would pass a direct vote, but that's not the way law works. Ain't equality great?

Just because it isn't being used the way those folks wanted way back then is not a good reason to scrap it now.

Moreover, Californians are not particularly unhappy with the initiative process.

Ah, but we’d better find a way to chuck it anyway, right (but only after using it to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, of course)? I'm open to refining the initiative process, but only if California is broken up.

David Lazarus has a column entitled, "How About a Bailout for Student Debtors?"He cites rising fees/tuition costs for higher education. Doesn't he realize that more government involvement, especially in the form of bailouts, will raise those costs? The institutions note that people "have more money to spend" and so they will charge them more. It is called supply and demand.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221) passed the House last month pretty much along party lines. It's now working its way through the Senate.

The bill would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program, thus making student loans much riskier (and hence unattractive) for banks. The Education Department would continue offering direct loans and would presumably dominate the market.

Democrats say the legislation would free up more funds for Pell Grants and other financial aid. Republicans say the federal government would be playing too large a role in higher education.

The Republican’s are wrong. The federal government already is playing too large a role in higher education.

I have no problem with the government, rather than banks, deciding who gets a college education and who doesn't, just as it's the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone gets at least a high school education.

Gotta love incrementalism. Maybe it is time for government to get out of high school education? Banks don't decide. Students and admissions staff decide.

I'm sympathetic, but only because the government has already shown itself to be a soft touch for banks, insurers, carmakers and especially for homeowners, who in many cases had no business taking out loans they couldn't repay.

In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable for college students and recent grads to seek a little bailout of their own.

Of course! It's a version of the domino theory at work. Government intrusion into one area justifies having it intrude into others. "They got paid!" means everyone else should get "paid", too.

So what about recent grads who did what I did and purposely choose an institution they can afford? Are they just suckers? They sure are, if they could have gone to a more expensive (and thus, more prestigious) university, and had taxpayers pay the entire bill. Boy, I went to school at the wrong time. I bought my house at the wrong time. I bought my car the wrong time. In each case, I missed handouts from other taxpayers. I guess I’m a sucker.

Mr. McClelland’s credit card company was calling yet again, wondering when it could expect the next installment on his delinquent account.

He proposed paying half of his $5,486 balance and calling the matter even.

It’s a deal, the account representative immediately said, not even bothering to check with a supervisor.

As they confront unprecedented numbers of troubled customers, credit card companies are increasingly doing something they have historically scorned: settling delinquent accounts for substantially less than the amount owed.

Only a few creditors are willing to confirm the practice. Bank of America and American Express say they decide on a case-by-case basis whether to accept less than the full balance. Other card companies refuse to discuss the subject, but their trade group, the American Bankers Association, acknowledges that settlements are becoming more common.

After a balance has been delinquent for six months, regulations require the card company to reduce the value of the debt on its books to zero. If a borrower has not paid by this point, chances are he never will.

Traditionally, the creditors could play tough with any accounts that became delinquent because the cardholders had assets. The creditors could sue or place a lien on a cardholder’s house.

As the recession grinds on, though, many cardholders have less to lose. Mr. McClelland, 42, is a renter. Since he is self-employed, he has no wages to garnish.

HSBC said it did not comment on individual cardholders and would not discuss its policy toward settlements. “Every customer situation is unique,” said a spokeswoman, Cindy Savio.

The creditors also point out that a delinquency, like a foreclosure, destroys a credit record.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." -- Alexander Tyler

"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." -- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

• Get informed.
• Inform those in your sphere of influence.
• Practice fiscal morality.
• Help to elect those who understand these things and have the strength of character to limit their own power for the sake of limited government.