Thom,
I know this is long, but I hope you have time to read my argument in favor of HB587.
I love all of these jobs bills that have been floating around the House lately. A few energy jobs here, a couple dozen infrastructure jobs there, and maybe even several hundred jobs with some technology bill.
We weren’t elected to come to Raleigh and create 300 jobs, or even 3,000 jobs.
I don’t know about you, but I was elected to find at minimum, a hundred thousand jobs in the state. Anything less would be a failure. Maybe it takes 4 years to make that hundred thousand, but we plan for it and then we make it happen, because that’s what we were sent here to do.
Allow me to put some perspective on the problem.
Today in North Carolina, there are currently half a million more workers than there are actual jobs, and there are over a million people looking for work. In North Carolina alone. So even a quarter of a million a million jobs will only ease the pain by one-third.
Now, if we take every other bill in this House that has the word ‘Jobs’ contained in the title, even the most optimistic predictions say what, 5,000, maybe 10,000 jobs if we are very, very lucky? I submit to you that the whole approach being taken is wrong, and that it does not fulfill the mandate that we were elected to accomplish. The people of North Carolina won’t even notice 10,000 jobs, and will just barely feel 100,000 jobs.
If we want to solve the jobs problem, and I mean with jobs that are felt locally all across the State, then we have to take an entirely different approach.
Jobs do not come from money, jobs come from value. If you pour a lot of money into a sector, the output is almost always inflation and not jobs, because without the increased production of value, there is no actual job to be accomplished at whatever the price. All you can do is add to middle management and that is the source of the problem. Increasing the necessary labor like the Solar bill does is a little bit of a better approach, but you are still paying 1:1 on your jobs without actually creating value, so there is no further fundamental need for more jobs to exist.
Innovation, is the key to creating value at the local level. When you create value locally, then you create jobs. Therefore innovation is the origin of job growth. Innovation leads to expanding markets which leads to an increased need for labor, which is jobs. And not just any jobs, but LOCAL jobs.
The primary goal of this job growth package, is to release the creative power of innovation through the accomplishment of very specific and structured regulatory reforms.
At the granular level, this reform package prioritizes the prevention of regulating anything too new to understand without the General Assembly’s direction, prevents rules from passing where a simpler or less expensive solution would meet agency goals, and stops rules that will not accomplish their purpose. It prioritizes the repeal of regulations that cannot be justified because they are obsolete, draconian, can not be understood by the people being regulated, duplicative, or technology has bypassed the rule.
On the organizing level, it directs the Office of State Budget and Management to periodically review every rule in the State, recommend the repeal of those that do not pass the review process, analyze means and methods of flexibility for regulatory compliance among small businesses. It directs OSBM to report to the Rules Review Commission all remaining rules annually who will review those rules according to the same process and recommend the maintenance and repeal of rules according to their findings. And finally it creates a commission to review State licensure, specifically tasked with reviewing barriers to market entry and recommending action to the State Legislature towards removing those barriers.
Innovation at the most local levels. This Job Growth Act starts with freeing up innovation at the most local levels, particularly among the poor and the middle class, and then removes the burdens of irrelevant compliances from the companies that hire, and then
This is every ounce a jobs bill from it’s conception, and it is the only kind of jobs bill that can possibly answer the demands of our electorates for real job growth — not 3,000 jobs, but 300,000 jobs.
The objection I heard from the Chairman was that “it’s too big,” and that “it does too much,” and that “I’m not comfortable with it.” That’s what the committee is there to decide, not the Chairman. He may be comfortable with our walking away from here in 2012 having created 3,000 jobs amongst the million jobs we actually need, but I am not, and I hope the rest of our caucus is not. I want Republicans to return to the House in 2013, and we will not do so with our policies having led to a mere 3,000 jobs for the state.
We acted like we were here on a mandate to change so many things IN A BIG WAY! But the one thing we were elected to change the most, was jobs. Snap your Jobs band. Stalling this jobs bill because it is too big, is fundamentally irrational, self defeating, and could possibly lead to a Democratic majority in 2013. I may be a thorn in the side, but I have done everything in my power to cooperate and work with the House Republican Caucus towards the accomplishment of our common goals. Several times I have voted with the caucus against my better judgement (in issues unrelated to my fundamental principles), because I believed in the process that you had laid out for us, that I should cooperate to the best of my ability and my bills would get a fair hearing. Clearly, they have not.
Even so, I am more than happy to settle for just this one bill amongst the two that I was actually sent here to get passed. The other eight were intended to engage in a debate on restoring the Constitutional Order – which debate finally never took place. I truly hope we can proceed peacefully with House Bill 587 and actually accomplish the one single most important thing that we were actually sent here to do.
All I have ever asked is a fair hearing. You know that. I will withdraw the discharge petition in a heartbeat for a fair hearing.
Thank you Thom,
Glen Bradley
We need more Glen Bradley. Thank you Glen!
Thank you Rep. Bradley. You make us proud.