Steele Complains That Stimulus Bill Creating Work, Not Jobs

By Nicole Belle

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Dave)

In the "Can't See The Forest For The Trees" department, new RNC chairman (and clearly an MENSA-level economic specialist) Michael Steele bemoans the Stimulus Bill as it stands now. Why? Because it cuts out aid to those who need it the most (really, how will extending COBRA benefits to those poor saps who have lost their jobs recently help--that's just pork!)? Surely, you jest.

No, Steele objects to the Stimulus Bill because it doesn't offer jobs, it offers....wait for it...work. Say it with me now: WTF??

STEELE: But you've got to look at the entire package. You've got to look at what's going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's a job.
STEELE: No, it's not a job. A job is something that -- that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term. What he's creating...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn't count if it's a government job? [..]
STEELE: ... That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. These road projects that we're talking about have an end point.

Okay, let me see if I follow this: we have historic unemployment levels not seen in decades and Steele thinks we should create jobs if they don't last forever...like in the private sector? Because those 600,000 layoffs last month alone and massive outsourcing in the private sector indicate such security for people...Steele continues this marvelous example of Republicanlogicspeak:

STEELE: As a small-business owner, I'm looking to grow my business, expand my business. I want to reach further. I want to be international. I want to be national. It's a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work. And I'm -- either way, the bottom line is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess I don't really understand that distinction.
STEELE: Well, the difference -- the distinction is this. If a government -- if you've got a government contract that is a fixed period of time, it goes away. The work may go away. That's -- there's no guarantee that that -- that there's going to be more work when you're done in that job.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but we've seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the private sector just in the last year.
STEELE: But they come -- yes, they -- and they come back, though, George. That's the point.

They come back? Really?

So, the answer for Steele is to not put money in people's pockets right now (money that generally goes right back into the economy for needs--unlike those tax cuts for the wealthy) and not employ them now, because the jobs may be gone in a few years?

Not to mention the implicit idea that we are unable to walk and chew gum and that by providing "work" in the stimulus bill will keep us from helping small business owners at the same time.

An Open Letter To My Friend Michael Steele

By Russell Simmons

Just wanted to send a note congratulating you on your election as the new Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I also wanted to thank you for writing a blog for Global Grind. The hip-hop community remains eager to hear the views of national leaders like you who understand the importance of diversity, inclusion and striving to end poverty in our nation and the world.
I have known you to be a strong advocate for the advancement of the poor and also as a supporter of small businesses.
This is your chance to make history and real change. I have heard the rhetoric from the mean left and from the angry right. Don't let those who are angry in your base guide your choices or let the people to the left of President Obama push your buttons. If you work directly with the White House, from your informed perspective, you can help to build an effective bridge for the sake of the improvement of the quality of life of millions of Americans. This is America's great chance for change.

We all should be working together for the common good beyond the lines of partisanship. Let's keep this constructive dialogue going and give the American people a comprehensive stimulus package that EVERYONE can support.
Your friend Russell Simmons

The Meaning of Michael Steele

By Michael Fauntroy

Professor, Author, Columnist, and Commentator at MichaelFauntroy.com

Michael Steele's ascension to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is a tremendous step forward for a party seeking to avoid slipping into the political abyss of its own creation. The symbolism of Steele's win is undeniable -- a party whose late 20th century rise to dominance was largely fueled by demonization of African Americans is now led by a Black man. It's difficult to underestimate the symbolism of Steele's election as chairman. It's also difficult to see what difference it will make in the fortunes of the party. For all the talk about this election, and it's hard to remember the last time a party chairman's race has been so closely followed, the reality is that Steele's win really doesn't mean much.

Yes, his win has great meaning. It demonstrates that at least some party leaders understand that the wheel of racial politics is turning away from the Grand Old Party. Recent Census Bureau projections make clear that the Party can no longer be competitive in much of the country by ignoring minority voters: in a little more than thirty years, the U.S. will no longer be a majority white nation. Steele's election and, indeed the attention given to the chairman's race, sends a message that the Party knows the status quo must change.

Steele's election may actually be more important to white moderates than it is to minorities. Suburban white moderates, in particular, don't want to be associated with a party that continues to play race cards. Things could have been much worse. Had the Republicans elected Chip Saltsman, distributor of the "Barack the Magic Negro" discs, as chairman, the message to those voters would have been: In times of change, we give you the "same old, same old."

But recognizing the need for change and making it happen require two distinctly different skill sets and it's an open question if Steele is up to the task. While Steele is the official head of the party, he may prove to be a titular leader because there will be many 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls that want to guide the party in their own interests. Moreover, Steele stated since his election that the problems engulfing the GOP are as much about marketing their ideas than the ideas themselves. That is not the kind of vision that will lead to better days for the party. The data are clear: most Americans think the GOP is too conservative. It doesn't appear that the Party is getting the message.

Steele's win doesn't mean that the Republican Party is any closer to serious competition with the Democrats for the votes of African Americans. The single digit performances of the GOP in two of the last three presidential elections is emblematic of a party that has more than just marketing problems. The Republican Party, overtaken by narrowly focused special interest groups, is now officially out of the business of mainstream thinking and Steele's ascension, while historic, is unlikely to bring about the change needed to make the GOP relevant going forward.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote.