Analyze Opposing Sides Writing Assignment 3
As I earlier stated regarding the September 9th article regarding president Obama’s $450 job plan, it is a worthwhile venture for the nation as a whole. I totally agree with the president on his call to the congress to avoid the political circus at such a pressing time for the country. I agree that the proposal will go a long way in cutting on payroll taxes and feting any company that endeavors to hire new employees. At the same time, the proposal will see to it that the expenditure on public works such as roads will be boosted by up to $105 billion dollars.
Much as some of the arguments raised above are true, this paper seeks to open the floor for further discussion on the topic. Clearly, the proposal also has its own drawbacks. Anybody will agree that the job plan leaves people in a dilemma on whether it will deliver or be another flaw that will cost the American economy. In this paper, which involves the democrat (for the proposal) and the republican (against the proposal) viewpoints of the proposed job plan, the Rogerian approach is to be used. This is because of the mere fact that both sides have a sensible opinion on the same hence the need for conversion through mutual acceptance and understanding of such a critical issue to the economy.
First, on the implementation of the job proposal, employment can be boosted by up to 4.2 million jobs, of which 1.5 million may emanate from the ongoing temporary policies that are in use today while the new opening moves are capable of churning the remaining 2.6 million jobs. The job plan will thus assist in the stabilization of confidence while at the same time preventing the country from getting back to the economic recession.
The job proposal will boost of an additional two percentage points to the Gross Domestic Product in the next one year and the jobs created. This will see a reduction in unemployment rates by at least one percent. This will contribute significantly to back the struggling economy while at the same time jump-starting a self-sustaining economic expansion. Through the proposal, the state and local government will be in a position to pay teacher and first-responder salaries, and promote backing for un-employment insurance. It will consequently bring reforms in the UI systems and allow the institution of a number of infrastructure strategies.
It is worth noting, however, that there may be many with contrary opinions of the same. Of significant note are the republican lawmakers that may wish to vent their opposition to his job plan, which they term as a reprise of his failed economic policies. One of these is the recent stagnation of the economy of the country evidenced in the federal figures, which indicate no job creation in the month of August. It has also been evident that close to 14 million people are jobless while several others just work in part-time establishments, which they regard as being way below skill levels.
The lawmakers have predicted the possibility of increasing severities in places like Las Vegas and with conviction that it might fail like other of the President’s proposals. The current Arizona senator, John Kyl for instance, refers to it as a “tired agenda of old ideas wrapped up in freshly partisan rhetoric. According to them, the proposed tax structure will significantly hinder entrepreneurs and the creation of jobs, more so to small-scale businesses. In addition, taking the case of Nevada, it could be the opinion of many that the president’s recommendations cannot be suitable for it given that its economy is not only collapsing because of its job market but also with regard to the housing sector and the education system that is equally wanting.
The payroll tax cut may still seem effective to others. This is given the fact that it is a fifty percent step-down of the allotment of the employer for the Social Security payroll tax that could go up to $5M for a given employer. Though a good number of employers pay their workers less than that amount, large scale companies may have payrolls that are much bigger than the proposed amount. In that case, these employers end up not having incentives to employ more. As a result, wastage of money is incurred. Therefore, the reduction in payroll tax could thus be beneficial in the case of small companies, but this could only be for those with tax liability.
The job proposals are also not a cheap one given the fact that if implemented it will end up costing the taxpayers a whopping $450 billion, of which about $250B is the tax cut while $250 billion will emanate from increases in spending. Inasmuch as the president suggested the use of reduction of additional deficit starting in the 2014 financial year, he mentioned nothing on how that was going to be achieved.
With the implementation of the plan, also, the country might experience a weaker growth in the year 2013 given the fact that most of the tax cuts and increases in spending are just temporary and are expected to pass off even as the year advances. The proposal assumes the economy will be robust enough to handle it, which is not the actual reality on the ground. In addition, the plan does not clearly consider the current foreclosure crisis as well as the housing slump, which, in essence are key obstacles to recovery.