A new special interest group: The Working Poor

Of all the dumb comments I've heard from politicians, State Sen. Nancy Cassis wins the prize. Cassis wants to delay the onset of a promised earned income tax credit meant to give relief to Michigan's lowest-paid workers until the state's rainy day fund is restored to $250 billion, which last happened in 2001.

Why did Cassis zero in on the working poor? From the Flint Journal:

[...] Cassis cynically refers to these working poor as just one more "special interest" among many seeking relief.

Special interest? Cassis must be confusing the working poor with Dick DeVos and his All Children Matter PAC. They're throwing around some serious money in Utah trying to win their voucher referendum.

In a post titled, Why Is Michigan Money Coming Here?, Accountability points to the DeVos family who, "has spent a good chunk of their fortune on the PAC. Along with them, Wal-Mart heirs Jim and John Walton are frequent donors, giving more than $3 million to the PAC in 2004."

Utah isn't the sole beneficiary of their influence, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin and Michigan have all received funds too.

Why is DeVos' PAC spending money in Utah? Accountability sees it this way:

[...] it makes it clearer to me why Utah was picked for this voucher plan: It's considered a "small state" by the people who fund All Children Matter, so it would be cheaper here to run a voucher plan through the legislature and past Utah voters, and then use that victory to build momentum for campaigns in bigger states. It means this a national campaign, not just an idea that grew from Utah voters or lawmakers.

And what does this say about our legislature, that this organization targeted us -- a small, cheap state -- to pour money into some legislative campaigns in order to protect or win enough votes to get a voucher plan through the assembly? What does it say that for a few million dollars, these people from Michigan got exactly the bill they wanted, House Bill 148, by a one-vote margin in the House this winter?

Nancy Cassis knows the answer to those questions. She's a Republican. Cassis knows that money talks and money buys influence.

The special interest working poor? They don't have a chance as long as people like Cassis remain in government.

Gov't Closes in on Private Sector Job Creation

State Sen. Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) recently said, "Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does."

That's not true under the Bush administration. The government is responsible for 40% of the new jobs created last month according to latest figures which show 39,000 of the total 97,000 jobs gains in February came from federal, state and local governments. Private companies added only 58,000 jobs last month, which is the fewest since November 2004.

What kinds of private sector jobs grew the fastest?

Lower-paying professions were some of the fastest growing last month. Pay grew the most in February for workers in the leisure and hospitality industries, which have been adding workers rapidly in recent months. Restaurants and bars, in particular, have been growing, and last month they added 21,000 jobs.

Businesses also rushed to fill building services jobs, adding 11,300 positions for custodians, landscapers, exterminators and similar professions.

Some economists see the weak private sector job growth as troubling.

“In the short term, it doesn’t matter who’s writing the check, as long as checks are being written,” Mr. Matus said. “If we see government jobs making up the bulk of the employment growth in March and in April, then I would start to worry.”

In the short-term, these jobs are putting people to work, but taxpayers should worry too since tax dollars pay for these jobs. Meanwhile, although the private sector managed to add jobs in professions that couldn't be outsourced or off-shored, they also pay less than government jobs, which probably helps to explain this statistic from the BLS:

About 1.5 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in February--essentially unchanged from a year ago. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, there were 375,000 discouraged workers in February, little different from a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them.

The government should count these people in their figures. It's not their fault good paying jobs have been outsourced and private sector jobs are growing the fastest in lower-paying professions. I'd be discouraged too. The private sector has done a bang-up job of increasing living standards for CEO's and top executives. When are they going to do something for the rest of us?

Reaction to Granholm's Plan

Gov. Granholm delivered a powerful State of the State address last night. There wasn't anything I heard I didn't like. Her plan to turn Michigan around has lots of vision and innovation, but most of all it was fair and balanced. If you missed the speech, I recommend you click the link and read it. If you want reactions, the Conservative Media has some thoughts, as well as the bloggers at Michigan Liberal, and I'm sure as the day progresses other Michigan bloggers will be posting their thoughts as well (check out the sidebar).

I couldn't let one reaction pass by without commenting on it though. This is from the Freep:

State Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, called Granholm's agenda ambitious but lacking in specifics.

"Where we can agree, we'll work hard and we'll work together," Cassis said. "I want to know. Show us the money. It seems like a big price tag. Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does." [emphasis added]

That's not what this recent report from the Economic Policy Institute indicates:

Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001. [emphasis added]

Cassis might want to check her facts before she makes statements to the media or risk being perceived as a naysayer.

UPDATE: Here's a little related reading from Media Mouse: $6.2 Million Awarded to Companies in West Michigan for Military Work in January.