Sandhusker
Well-known member
Here's what he said previous;
"I’d suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships — which must be fully available to women and minorities."
We have two problems here. First, Reich did indeed talk about excluding white males from access by advising Congress to create “criteria” for their exclusion in favor of … well, everyone else. It’s rather absurd to argue otherwise, when Reich explicitly called for action to limit their access to these jobs. Reich takes the rather cowardly way out by not explaining the meaning of his televised remarks to Congress, instead airily referring to “context” when Reich has made clear that he wants government to treat infrastructure spending as a welfare program rather than a construction project. In fact, Reich was the one who specified “white male construction workers” as one group to avoid hiring. What is that, if not exclusion?
The second problem is the actual advice to treat the stimulus as a welfare program. When we build bridges and roads, we need to ensure that we do work of the highest quality. Many of the jobs created in these areas won’t have skill requirements, but many of them will — and we should hire the best people available to ensure the highest quality work. When we travel over these bridges and roads, we want to assume they’re safe and well built. If one of them collapses from substandard work, the families of the dead won’t be comforted to know that politically correct hiring prevailed over skill and experience.
"I’d suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships — which must be fully available to women and minorities."
We have two problems here. First, Reich did indeed talk about excluding white males from access by advising Congress to create “criteria” for their exclusion in favor of … well, everyone else. It’s rather absurd to argue otherwise, when Reich explicitly called for action to limit their access to these jobs. Reich takes the rather cowardly way out by not explaining the meaning of his televised remarks to Congress, instead airily referring to “context” when Reich has made clear that he wants government to treat infrastructure spending as a welfare program rather than a construction project. In fact, Reich was the one who specified “white male construction workers” as one group to avoid hiring. What is that, if not exclusion?
The second problem is the actual advice to treat the stimulus as a welfare program. When we build bridges and roads, we need to ensure that we do work of the highest quality. Many of the jobs created in these areas won’t have skill requirements, but many of them will — and we should hire the best people available to ensure the highest quality work. When we travel over these bridges and roads, we want to assume they’re safe and well built. If one of them collapses from substandard work, the families of the dead won’t be comforted to know that politically correct hiring prevailed over skill and experience.