Tracy Press

It seems both Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are taking a page from Denmark, a letter writer notes.

EDITOR,

Even with Democrats referring incessantly to a middle-class squeeze, Republican presidential-hopeful John McCain continues to insist that voting against the Bush tax cuts was the right move, partly because they were too heavily weighted toward the rich. Though, now, he’s for keeping them.

This may be more than just popular rhetoric.

McCain has hinted at something called “wage insurance.” For instance, when a middle-class worker (making $60,000) is laid off and subsequently takes a job in a lower-paying profession (as a fast-food worker making $30,000, for example), to make ends meet, the government should lend a helping hand (giving him or her $15,000 a year, for a couple of years), as long as he or she is willing to retrain for a new career.

It’s modeled after Denmark’s much-lauded “flexicurity” system, in which workers who lose their jobs have almost their entire salary replaced by the government. They’re required to aggressively look for new employment or accept training.

It’s pricey, costing Denmark 5 percent of its gross domestic product. For the U.S. to take on this model, it would run somewhere between $400 billion and $500 billion a year.

Despite a tepid reception, the Bush administration countered with another revised version of something called its “stimulus package,” a $150 billion plan that would send $117 million in taxpayer rebates of between $300 per person and $1,200 per family, with $50 billion in business tax breaks to encourage new investment.

While some critics argue that wage insurance may eventually lead to a bigger problem of mass entitlement, both Democratic presidential candidates have stated they’ll push for a version of wage insurance, plus universal health insurance.

It would seem that Republicans need to offer voters something beyond mere tax cuts and optimism.

— K.L. Vosburg, Tracy

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Mark Davis , April 19, 2008

It is the dark side of technology change and capital efficient markets that worker displacement is inevitable. The retraining aspect is one way to offset this effect, whether through college loans, tax credits, etc. And progressive taxation (that Maverick McCain supported previously in opposition to Bush in this time of war) is a way to pay for it.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , April 19, 2008

Mark; There's no question that the media shapes a good deal of public perception:
McCain (way back in Jan.) after long emphasizing his maverick ways tried to create the appearance of an establishment groundswell by announcing a long string of newspaper endorsements.
McCain knows that rebels usually loose the GOP nomination and establishment candidates usually win when there is no incumbent running.
That said, nearly 7-out-of-10 Americans tell pollsters that Washington is broken because politians are too immersed in rancor. This opens the door to candidates billing themselves as outsiders who will seek dramatic change.

...
written by amy , April 19, 2008

TRAIN people for WHAT?

Are the politicians blind?

The most trained American person will be replaced by foreign workers for lower pay. Look at Bill Gates, a fine example of what I am referring to. Patriotic? Questionable!

...
written by k.l. vosburg , April 19, 2008

Amy; Why not legalize insourcing?
Let's say you're working in a profession which pays you $50,000 per year.
Along the way you hire a very capable "foreign worker" who performs admirably for approx. $15,000 per.
Now Insourcing makes it legal to to incorporate a net profit of about $35,000 and you do what most -who have a little extra spending money.
Namely, travel to S. America and enjoy a lengthy vacation laying on a beach somewhere, with multi-colored drinks, under tiki umbrellas...
A 401 K or,
a college tuition fund,
is perhaps more your flavor?

...
written by amy , April 19, 2008

Having a job for every American would be my flavor.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , April 19, 2008

All kidding aside... I respect your fair notions of patriotism under the guise of fluidity contained within a "free trade market" society.
However, as a child, I remember waking-up Christmas morning (you may as well) to presents stamped, "Made in Japan!"
A country not too many years earlier, we were vehemntly at war with.

...
written by GI JOE , April 21, 2008

I WILL SIMPLY SETTLE FOR A STABLE AND SAFE AMERICA WITH MCCAIN. VOTE REPUBLICAN AND NOT DEMOCRAT.

...
written by B-dub , April 22, 2008

k.l. vosburg,

Let's see now, you feel poorly because presents were stamped "Made in Japan". As I see it, there are many American businesses moving their production facilities overseas or to our southern neighbors. Then, the finished product is returned to the U.S. and sold in retail stores. These products are stamped "Made in U.S.A." Somehow I don't understand your logic.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , April 22, 2008

The response were my comments re: the notion that a "free-tarde market" should be somehow analouges to patriotism.
Historically, these were not simply U.S. countries which had simply moved their business overseas, this was a country (Japan, for example) "not too many years earlier, we were vehemntly at war with."

...
written by k.l. vosburg , April 23, 2008

Basically, B-dub, sharing the vibrancy of trade agreememts with foreign countries - which may or may not have the our best interest in mind - except as a consumer is, we've become more and more depependent on foreign investment. And less and less reliable on sustaining jobs here for Americans (consistant with the U.S. standard of living).
While the differences in ideology on how to correct the problem vary -unemployment continues to raise, along with gas prices while the dollar declines and the economy tanks.
the problem therefore becomes what to do about it...?

...
written by B-dub , April 25, 2008

k.l.vosburg,

I have to agree with you that the employment rate in this country is dropping but, to some extent, you can blame U.S. companies taking their manufacturing plants overseas or to Mexico (as Hershey's has recently done.) This is just one consequence to out declining employment rate. Workers in foreign countries are grateful for relocated factories because they will now earn more than what their own country's companies pay and the U.S. business is glad to move because they will save $$. Seems to me that the U.S. worker is in a Catch-22 situation. They want to work...but they don't want to work for what companies will pay them.

...
written by k.l. vosburg , April 26, 2008

True B-dub;
America's economicmainstream continuim congigates around cooporate profit margins, CEO packages, and tax loopholes over workers salaries and shareholder dividends -"what's good for Hershey's is good for the American dream?"
"Outsourcing helps curb the tide of illegal immigration" -not!
Here's one I'd like you to think about B-dub. Why would a company so rich and powerful as Halliburton (who could relocate anywhere) move it's headquarters to the United Arab Emirate city of Dubai? When not too many years ago, this very same consortium, was doing business with the bin Laden family?
Do they really have "our" best interests in mind?

...
written by B-dub , April 26, 2008

k.l.vosburg, You make a very good point.