For Whom is Obama's Economic Plan? (originally posted Jan. 10, 2009)

"We know that 'Power corrupts.' Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same..."

Dear friends,

Will President Obama's “make-work”/economic plan effort be much better than the ineffective welfare-to-work schemes that have popped up all over the country, during the past two decades? Why do we need a federal, centralized bureaucracy to manage our economic affairs anyway? And who is going to be building roads and bridges, Mr. Obama? That is hard and dangerous work. How will responsibilities be distributed? In securing work, what opportunities will African American males, much less other males who also look like you, as well as all female workers, have? Moreover, will not all of those laborers involved need to be fairly young?

In order to attract a large amount of young people, Mr. Obama will have to convince them that the work itself, not the paycheck, is the reward. Yet, in our possession-oriented, market-driven culture, most young people have no interest in doing hard labor. Besides, these days, the paycheck means more to them than having done the job well.

To be sure, the idea of appreciating our own ability to work has been one that has often escaped youth throughout human history. After all, it is hard as a young person to hear that the satisfaction of a job well done is its own reward, when s/he sees the inequities of the distribution of the harvesting of the "fruits" of labor all around us - from bankers to businesspeople to politicians and many others. “Work is the reward!” is one of those notions that would be fine if everyone believed it, but hard to swallow when you know others are getting away with doing so little. Hence, it is the unfairness that eats away at our resolve to do our best in society.

Still, President Obama must push forward in getting our youth to appreciate work. That will require leadership. Unfortunately, about this notion of work being the reward, as mentioned above, I have not heard one peep from the mouth of either our incoming president or the one going out, or the guy before that one. There is no leadership.

Rather, the only sense of urgency that President Obama seems to have is how quickly he can get some money into the hands of the big banks and companies. After all, who but big banks and companies will really be benefiting from this make-work venture that Mr. Obama is passing off as his "Economic Plan"? Heck, Halliburton will leave Iraq. Their contractors will make the money here, with less chance of losing their lives. Also, with Obama’s “make-work” enterprise, people will be able to buy DVDs and other electronic goods from the big national chain stores. They will be able to buy designer clothes from the national clothing chains, and so forth. The economy will be doing great! Right?

Thus far, we have only been considering blue collar workers. But what will become of the millions of laid-off office and white collar workers? How many will want to build bridges and roads? How many have the physical strength or emotional will to do so? How will a person who has been an account executive for the past fifteen years experience economic progress by doing “make-work” jobs to feed the family? Is that not a huge loss in his or her standard of living, by itself?

In another area of economic concern, instead of “Bail-outs” for incompetent executives and their gullible investors, how about the United Auto Workers themselves taking over the Big Three, in a similar context as the Avis workers did back in the 90s. To be sure, the former employees-now employers will not mind pay or other benefit cuts, because they will be developing an enterprise that belongs to them. As well, that particular union, UAW, with its, historically, suspect leadership, will, in effect, dissolve itself, since with the workers as the owners, they will not need anyone to represent them other than themselves. Currently, of course, like all workers, they need a union, because the employer and employees do not have the same interests. In other words, it is not in the interests of employers to represent the interests of the workers. If they did, then there would never be disputes or strikes, much less lay-offs and benefit cuts. Most importantly, if the workers take over the companies, it will be Americans making better cars for themselves/us and we will buy their products from them, because it will actually benefit all of us.

Ultimately, all capable people will have to discover the divine powers within themselves that will make them both creative and productive. As a matter of fact, at least to me, the best results of strong economic development are revealed by humans being able to spend their leisure time engaging in both personal and group interactions where one’s relatedness to himself or herself - and others – as opposed to the trinkets and baubles that one possesses – allows each citizen to cooperatively co-exist with his or her fellows in peace. It will require a leader who has wisdom, experience, and courage to guide the citizenry in that direction. Re-doing Bill Clinton’s administration will, predictably, "lead" us right back to where we are. Considering the make-up of Obama’s Cabinet as it now stands (of mostly Clinton people), and for all of the present hoopla about the “inauguration”, this is all sad – if not pathetic.

We know that “Power corrupts.” Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same. Consequently, Americans need to scrap the kleptomaniacs who make up our federal government officials and Obama needs to “change” his current course, by becoming a leader who guides the American people in a way that helps us create our own industries, and build our own self-sufficient, loving, and, therefore, prosperous communities.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus