Commonwealth Times

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and 200,000 residents of Ohio don't like the North American Free Trade Agreement. Which of the two presidential candidates dislikes NAFTA more is still up for debate (and there already have been more than 200 of those).

Regardless of one's political leanings, two things are certain: NAFTA creates jobs, and NAFTA causes job losses. The jobs that are lost are the kind of blue-collar jobs that "aren't coming back," as Sen. John McCain stated in a recent trip to Michigan. McCain is right.

Since its establishment in 1962, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program was thought to be our "deus ex machina," dutifully answering the random riddles of global capitalism. The program was tasked with "(providing) aid to workers who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of increased imports," according to the Web site of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Frankly, that the candidates have not mentioned TAA speaks greatly to its impotency. As the manufacturing industry hemorrhages jobs, Americans continue to rely on a nearly 50-year-old policy to staunch the bleeding, and tourniquets disguised as policies are not long-term solutions.

NAFTA has increased trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, but - in the process - also has displaced jobs. Those 200,000 Ohioans I mentioned earlier used to have manufacturing jobs, but since 2000, have lost their jobs. On a broader scale, the U.S. has lost 3 million such jobs since the 1990s, according to BusinessWeek magazine.

The TAA program must institute the following three reforms in order to achieve its original purpose, regain credibility and become relevant when it is most needed:

¬ Communicate performance aims, their expected deadlines and repercussions for failure to the states

¬ End cash assistance by allowing former workers to file for general-unemployment insurance

¬ Focus retraining on critical-need occupations such as teachers and healthcare workers by implementing what I call, "America's Back to Work" loan program.

In 2005, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office audited the TAA program and noted the nearly $1 billion allocated to participants, 75 percent went to cash assistance and the remainder went to job training. Training was vocational and remedial.

Though participants' performance after training was measured by the Department of Labor, specific aims were not expected of the states and repercussions for ineffectiveness were not doled out.

In sum, the program is overly focused on the short term (hence the high level of cash payments), and there lacks competition among the states to see which is more effective at returning their residents to work.

In looking toward the horizon, it would be duplicitous of me, at best, to think the retirement age will not increase substantially, jobs will not become even more transient and whole industries will be redefined during my working career. With or without NAFTA, globalization is here to stay.

As a junior at VCU, I have an intimate understanding of student loans, their benefits and their caveats. Current undergraduate- student-loan programs, both privately run and federally subsidized, do not feasibly take into consideration an older student who has multiple obligations: a mortgage or two, car loans and a looming retirement.

The America's Back to Work student loan program, however, could do the trick.

The program would be for former manufacturing employees, financed by private companies and guaranteed by the federal government, which would subsidize interest costs till graduation. ABWs would have higher loan limits and offer loan forgiveness based upon public service or critical-need employment for a predetermined number of years.

If a student does not choose to go into a critical-need profession, he or she still could qualify for partial-loan forgiveness by accelerating his or her level of study, which would then decrease the interest cost being subsidized by the government.

When globalization and capitalism heighten the efficiency of markets and eliminate jobs that are no longer profitgenerating, the ABW loan program would spur the needed transition into the jobs of the future. Both Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corps. have implemented tuition subsidies as a part of their buyout strategies and have seen remarkable effects.

Workers have benefited from the free education and have transitioned into critical-need professions such as licensed practical nurses, certified nurse assistants and registered nurses, all of which will be in high demand for years to come as the U.S. work force ages and baby boomers retire.

A more educated and higher-skilled work force benefits every stakeholder in our economy: the taxpayers, the government and businesses. When the TAA program was created 46 years ago, we wouldn't have had to tell our government that. Unfortunately, these days, we do.

Article Tools

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and 200,000 residents of Ohio don't like the North American Free Trade Agreement. Which of the two presidential candidates dislikes NAFTA more is still up for debate (and there already have been more than 200 of those).

Regardless of one's political leanings, two things are certain: NAFTA creates jobs, and NAFTA causes job losses. The jobs that are lost are the kind of blue-collar jobs that "aren't coming back," as Sen. John McCain stated in a recent trip to Michigan. McCain is right.

Since its establishment in 1962, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program was thought to be our "deus ex machina," dutifully answering the random riddles of global capitalism. The program was tasked with "(providing) aid to workers who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of increased imports," according to the Web site of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Frankly, that the candidates have not mentioned TAA speaks greatly to its impotency. As the manufacturing industry hemorrhages jobs, Americans continue to rely on a nearly 50-year-old policy to staunch the bleeding, and tourniquets disguised as policies are not long-term solutions.

NAFTA has increased trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, but - in the process - also has displaced jobs. Those 200,000 Ohioans I mentioned earlier used to have manufacturing jobs, but since 2000, have lost their jobs. On a broader scale, the U.S. has lost 3 million such jobs since the 1990s, according to BusinessWeek magazine.

The TAA program must institute the following three reforms in order to achieve its original purpose, regain credibility and become relevant when it is most needed:

¬ Communicate performance aims, their expected deadlines and repercussions for failure to the states

¬ End cash assistance by allowing former workers to file for general-unemployment insurance

¬ Focus retraining on critical-need occupations such as teachers and healthcare workers by implementing what I call, "America's Back to Work" loan program.

In 2005, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office audited the TAA program and noted the nearly $1 billion allocated to participants, 75 percent went to cash assistance and the remainder went to job training. Training was vocational and remedial.

Though participants' performance after training was measured by the Department of Labor, specific aims were not expected of the states and repercussions for ineffectiveness were not doled out.

In sum, the program is overly focused on the short term (hence the high level of cash payments), and there lacks competition among the states to see which is more effective at returning their residents to work.

In looking toward the horizon, it would be duplicitous of me, at best, to think the retirement age will not increase substantially, jobs will not become even more transient and whole industries will be redefined during my working career. With or without NAFTA, globalization is here to stay.

As a junior at VCU, I have an intimate understanding of student loans, their benefits and their caveats. Current undergraduate- student-loan programs, both privately run and federally subsidized, do not feasibly take into consideration an older student who has multiple obligations: a mortgage or two, car loans and a looming retirement.

The America's Back to Work student loan program, however, could do the trick.

The program would be for former manufacturing employees, financed by private companies and guaranteed by the federal government, which would subsidize interest costs till graduation. ABWs would have higher loan limits and offer loan forgiveness based upon public service or critical-need employment for a predetermined number of years.

If a student does not choose to go into a critical-need profession, he or she still could qualify for partial-loan forgiveness by accelerating his or her level of study, which would then decrease the interest cost being subsidized by the government.

When globalization and capitalism heighten the efficiency of markets and eliminate jobs that are no longer profitgenerating, the ABW loan program would spur the needed transition into the jobs of the future. Both Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corps. have implemented tuition subsidies as a part of their buyout strategies and have seen remarkable effects.

Workers have benefited from the free education and have transitioned into critical-need professions such as licensed practical nurses, certified nurse assistants and registered nurses, all of which will be in high demand for years to come as the U.S. work force ages and baby boomers retire.

A more educated and higher-skilled work force benefits every stakeholder in our economy: the taxpayers, the government and businesses. When the TAA program was created 46 years ago, we wouldn't have had to tell our government that. Unfortunately, these days, we do.

Article Tools