White House Forum on Jobs Set for December 3

The White House has set Dec. 3 as the date for President Obama’s “Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth.” Press statement, via Fox because it’s not yet posted at WhiteHouse.gov.

White House Announces December Date for Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth

After Forum, President Obama to Kick-off White House to Main Street Tour with Stop in Allentown, Pennsylvania

WASHINGTON, DC- The Obama Administration announced plans today to hold the Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth on Thursday, December 3rd at the White House. The forum will be an opportunity for the President and the economic team to hear from some of the best and brightest CEOs, small business owners, and financial experts about ideas for continuing to grow the economy and put Americans back to work.

“During these difficult economic times, we have a responsibility to consider all good ideas to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country. At the forum next month, I am looking forward to hearing from the private sector, from CEOs and small business owners and from Americans struggling to make ends meet on how we can work together to create jobs and get this economy moving again,” said President Barack Obama.

The President will follow the forum with a visit to Allentown, Pennsylvania the following day where he will kick off a White House to Main Street Tour that will take him to cities and towns across the country over the course of the next few months. In an effort to spend some time out of Washington and take the temperature on what Americans are experiencing during these challenging economic times, the President will visit communities across the country over the next several months where he will speak with workers and share ideas for continued recovery.

We’ll be curious to see how this is any different than the Middle Class Task Force headed by Vice President Joe Biden, which also makes jobs its raison d’etre and traveled the country as well.

Two suggestions for improving the value of the forum (and kudos to the White House for using the term “forum” instead of the hyperbole of “summit”):

  • Eschew the usual political rhetoric about “green jobs” and the “green economy.” The rhetoric is too easy a way to slip past frank economic discussions.
  • Acknowledge that some policies pursued by the Obama Administration and Congress damage jobs creation. Billions of dollars of additional taxes on employers to fund the health care legislation raise the marginal costs of hiring. The incredible flood of regulations coming from the Environmental Protection Agency imposes compliance costs that discourage more productive capital investment. Raising the cost of energy under cap-and-trade will slow the economy. Be honest about it.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • Carter Wood says:

    Thank you for the comments, Michael. Sometimes you can’t recap all the arguments in one blog post. Please look at the categories for more extensive coverage, e.g., http://www.shopfloor.org/category/global-warming/

  • Michael says:

    I run a website, http://www.ProudlyMadeInAmerica.com, devoted to raising the awareness of having a strong manufacturing base in the U.S. Although I think I agree with the points made in the article, I am not quite sure.
    In your first point, you refer to “rhetoric about ‘green jobs’ and the ‘green economy'”, but I am not sure what you mean. I do agree that when the government talks about green jobs, only a fraction are manufacturing. In addition, many jobs that they call green are already in the economy, they are just now be called green. On the other hand, if we can switch to renewable energy sources, such as wind, and actually produce the turbines in the U.S. the economy wins on many fronts. The rhetoric comment seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
    As for your second point(s), I am pretty much on board with your points, but the statements are superficial. I agree that healthcare reform without a public option is potentially bad for some manufacturers, but depending on who funded the study the results are mixed. I would think that NAM would be for anything that would reduce that disadvantage U.S. manufacturers have due to health insurance alone. As for the flood of EPA regulations, can you provide examples? I am sure that not all the regulations are bad, but I am also sure that they are not all good. As for cap and trade, you should be more specific here also. This is an area where I strongly agree and good information needs to be clearly presented. To just say it is bad, and hurts manufacturers by increasing the cost of energy is just rhetoric unless backed up by facts. The good thing is the facts are there and they tell a good story that a majority of people would clearly support.
    Overall, my problem with your article is that it comes off more like a lightweight republican blogger then it does a legitimate organization. Next time, please take the time to support your statements with the facts that are at your disposal. That way you can educate your readers to your point of view and not just play to a group that is already in support of your opinion.

Leave a Reply