The New York Times reports that in order to increase jobs, your administration is considering creating a “Department of Jobs” by, among other things, merging parts of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Commerce Department, and economic divisions of the State Department.
Speaking of creating cabinet-level departments, the Energy Department was created in 1977 when the U.S. imported 35 percent of its oil. The department’s purpose was to make the U.S. energy-independent. Since its creation, the department has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and has 109,000 employees and contractors. We now import 65 percent of our oil and no new nuclear power plants have been built in over 30 years.
The Department of Education was created in 1980 for the purpose of improving U.S. education. Since then, overall per pupil K-12 spending has increased (in constant dollars) from approximately $6,000 per year to $12,500 per year. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by the department since 1980, yet scores for 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — often referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card” — have remained unchanged.
Why should Americans expect a Department of Jobs to improve our jobs picture when the Energy Department didn’t improve our energy independence and the Education Department didn’t improve our test scores?
What will a Department of Jobs do that other agencies don’t already do?
Will the Department of Jobs render the Department of Labor obsolete?
How many non-government jobs do you expect the Department of Jobs to create annually and in what occupations? What will be the average cost of creating each job? What will be the Department’s initial budget?
The New York Times also reports that White House press secretary Jay Carney, commenting on job-creation proposals, said, “If you’re talking about a stunt, I don’t think a stunt is what the American people are looking for.”
How is rearranging bureaucracies, ostensibly to create jobs, not a stunt?
Why isn’t this proposal evidence that you’ve run out of substantive ideas to increase the number of jobs in the U.S.?
What is the evidence, Mr. President, that you aren't a child abuser?
Do you actually believe social workers serve a purpose in stopping child abuse? If so, how many less children do you think would be beaten if you weren't president?
Since the establishment of a cyber security arm in the Armed Forces, cyber attacks have increased exponentially. How do we know you are not behind these attacks? Assuming you are not, how can the American people be sure someone of your background does not indirectly support these attacks?
Turning to health policy, why do you support letting medicine such as chemotherapy interfere with the natural workings of the body? Do you believe some person can actually understand the complexities of the self-correcting human body and intervene without screwing it up further? If not, are you prepared to cut out funding to the NIH and NSF Biological sciences program?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there really anyone in this country who does not recognize how hilariously inept--Gilbert & Sullivan-esque--a "Department of Jobs" is? The very model of a modern major bureaucracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLove it!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually the Department of Education was create as a payoff to the teacher's unions, for their support.
And has HUD ever met its mission goals, since it was created back in 1965?
BATF has a good lab on arson and explosives, that should be move elsewhere in the DoJ, the rest of BATF should just be fired.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow, now, be fair to Barry. This isn't his only idea, he's also forming a committee to look at the problem. And he's working on an economic plan that he will release sometime in the future. I also hear he's going on a bus tour to hear from the folks. Yes, I know it sounds like an episode of 'Fairy Tale Theater', what one would expect from a fairy tale president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA must-read for everyone about the jobs situation:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNext up: The Department of Redundancy Department.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAssuming the next President is a Republican, I think the two departments -- Energy and Education -- are a litmus test. If the President does not get rid of these two departments, then he or she is not serious about getting away from Big Government or cutting spending. And the country is toast. Note: I have just started reading Mark Steyn's book and am a little pessimistic right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe the "Department of Jobs" refers to the Old Testament character.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust go ahead and call it the Ministry of Plenty so we can be done with this failed experiment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Since its creation, the department [of Energy] has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and has 109,000 employees and contractors. We now import 65 percent of our oil and no new nuclear power plants have been built in over 30 years."
You have got to be flipping kidding me. And we are continuing this insanity why?
A "department" such as this would never, ever survive in corporate America (hell, a corporation anywhere) with a performance record like this.
This. Must. Stop.
Captcha: good job (I think the Department of Irony comes up with these...)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis has to be just a "we're really serious and leaving no stone unturned" sort of leak from the White House. Not serious at all. Even your typical lefty will have a hard time suppressing a giggle at such a goofy idea. We'll never see it seriously proposed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReminds me of the line from 'Yes, Prime Minister'
"Government departments are tombstones. The Department of Industry marks the grave of industry. The Department of Employment marks the grave of employment. The Department of Environment marks the grave of the environment. And the Department of Education marks where the corpse of British education is BURIED!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI kind of hope they do try this (understanding, of course, that the House is inevitably going to prevent it.) I mean whoever the Republican (and Libertarian for that matter) candidate ends up being, the campaign talking point writes itself: "After three years, the President FINALLY decided to 'focus on jobs' like he said he'd do from day one, and what did he come up with? Yet another government agency!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse