The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), an excellent DC-based, pro-middle and working-class advocacy group, has developed an American Jobs Plan proposal it estimates would create or preserve at least 4.6 million jobs in its first year.  The cost would be about $400 billion. 

Under their proposal, the plan would pay for itself, through the levying of a small (compared to that of other countries which do this, including Great Britain) tax on the sale of stocks and other financial products, to take effect 3 years after the beginning of implementation of the plan, which is itself thought to be a good idea in its own right by many economists.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation Congress is now considering would create roughly 2.1 million jobs. 

I say more is better, with the sheer number of people in this country who are under-employed and not even officially counted as unemployed because they've stopped looking, as well as those officially unemployed.

On a personal level I'm sure I'm not the only denizen distressed at the certainty of large looming cuts in local services absent further federal help of the sort the EPI proposal would provide.  Our county's school budget is about to suffer severe cuts that will hurt our kids, who are in 8th and 6th grades.  One of the plan's five component parts would be additional aid to state and local governments, which are facing a $469 billion shortfall over the next two-and-a-half years.  This would create or preserve roughly 1 million jobs by itself and help reduce the harm done by service cuts. 

Larry Mishel of EPI testified before Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee yesterday on the jobs issue.  The proposal had not, as of yesterday, been introduced as a bill in the House and Senate.  The staff person I spoke to said it had not been determined whether Rep. Frank or another member would do so, let alone whether it would receive high-priority attention.

I have contacted the White House, Speaker Pelosi, and my two Senators, Webb and Warner, to ask them to support this proposal, introduce it in Congress, and do whatever they can to move it through Congress.

If something like the current, scaled down legislation does pass, there is no reason that more could not be done, and soon. 

If the Republicans in the Senate choose to block something like the EPI proposal, I think this would illustrate a clear and useful contrast between what the two parties are trying to do on jobs in the runup to November.  This might help rechannel some of the anti-federal government populist anger presently fueling Tea Party supporters and mindless government-bashers in support of practical, much-needed proposals such as this one--and those supporting it.     

If Democrats adopt an insufficiently bold approach in providing real help on Main Street concerns for the remainder of this year, the political body language this sends out is defensive.  It says the party is resigned to getting blasted in November and only hoping or praying it does not get spanked too hard.  It says the party lacks confidence in its agenda, in its relevance and responsiveness to key problems voters are concerned about.  If Democratic party elected officials are not passionate in support of a bold, forward-thinking agenda which addresses key public concerns, what reason would it have for thinking voters are likely to feel that way in November?

The presupposition that November has to be bad for Democrats, which seems widespread, I find defeatist and unadmirable in any political party that seeks public endorsement of its agenda.

I would far prefer going more aggressively on the offensive on this, among other issues of enormous concern to ordinary Americans and importance for our country's fortunes.  I am less optimistic about the prospects of either the health care or the financial reform issues working out in such a way this year.  

Jobs is a huge issue, a huge concern.  Everyone understands this.  Is it too much to expect that at least one of our political parties will move to respond to the distress far more aggressively than the current thinking reflects? 

I'd be interested in any responses any of you who decide to contact your elected officials receive on this.