schakowsky-img_1973-110422

With poll: Evanston U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s plan, announced last week, to create two million government-funded jobs, got an endorsement today from the editorial page of the New York Times.

With poll: Evanston U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s plan, announced last week, to create two million government-funded jobs, got an endorsement today from the editorial page of the New York Times.

The editorial focuses on the part of the Schakowsky plan that would create 500,000 construction jobs for renovation projects at the nation’s schools, but supports other aspects of it as well.

“Republicans are sure to howl,” the paper says, “that new programs will undo the debt ceiling deal, but it is surely possible over a 10-year period to tackle near-term action on jobs and long-term action on deficit reduction. The alternative is even slower growth and higher unemployment.”

What do you think?

What’s your view of Rep. Schakowsky’s $227B jobs bill?

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation

4 Comments

  1. Wrong type of jobs

    It's not that job creation is a terrible idea- it's just that she has the wrong type of jobs here.  I would actually think about supporting a job creation bill that put $ into updating our energy grid (com-ed blackouts anyone?), or put $ into natural gas.  

      These types of jobs might actually be called investment, because they would increase the productivity of the private work force.  

    Jan's type of jobs here will only help those who are lucky enough to receive the contract/job.

    1. An increase in jobs

      An increase in the number of people who are employed and who have disposable income will benefit all industries.  All of those out of work people will be able to buy stuff again, which will make more jobs at the places they buy stuff from, and so on and so forth.

      While I would also like to see more programs in construction and infrastructure improvement I think Jan's program will get many people to work that wouldn't necessarily qualify for the skilled jobs needed to update an electrical grid or work in natural gas. 

  2. Types of new jobs–likely governmental–not real jobs

    I'd not be surprised, if the bill would pass, that 50% + would be government employees to regulate [read busy work and inspectors like OSHA] new and existing jobs, additional aids to Congress [would be in fact for each congressman self-publicitiy] and jobs that will only serve the government—not really society.

    Maybe if Congressmen had held some real jobs [not their law practice which can hardly be considered real work and esp. not representative of the work their constituent do] they would understand what it really takes to create jobs.  Instead of month long vacations, maybe if they had to work on a farm, in a factory or in construction, they would understand the real world.  Instead they spend most of their lives sitting in Washington passing laws for everyone else [but exempt themselves] completely cut off from reality.

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published.