HOW NOT TO STIMULATE NEW HIRING: GIVE A MEASLEY $5,000 TAX CREDIT FOR A NEW EMPLOYEE! WILL THEY EVER GET IT IN WASHINGTON?

The administration boldly said that their priority now, will be stimulating employment growth and to that end they announced a $5,000 tax credit for employers who add new hires (many conditions of course).

WOW, as an employer I was underwhelmed and turned my TV back to the Tivo with a Simpsons episode that was much more interesting than that the speech.

This "bold" announcement clearly shows the lack of business acumen among the administration's financial advisers who would believe that such a stupid remark would carry any weight with employers.

Why would I take a one time payment that provides less than the the cost of any of the employees health insurance costs, and then be potentially stuck with the new employee with costs such as FICA, UNEMPLOYMENT, SEVERANCE, RETIREMENT, 401K PLANS, and be exposed to the myriad of other costs such as local fees, and charges related to employer costs?

This is NOT an incentive to hire new employees! It is a LOL....big time.

The administration fails to understand that a simple incentive to simply hire someone, makes no sense to an employer. An employer will hire someone without ANY INCENTIVE NECESSARY when he has a NEED for a new or additional employee! There is no incentive to just hire someone to get a puny tax credit...why can they not understand that? Oh, I know, nobody in the top echelon of power in the new administation even had a real job, had real employees or had to make management decisions about when to hire someone, and the true costs of an employee after hiring are far greater than they appear.

NOBODY BUT NOBODY WILL JUST HIRE A NEW EMPLOYEE TO GET A TAX CREDIT...HELLO ANYBODY LISTENING OUT THERE???????

To stimulate employment, the employer needs a reason to hire a new employee such as increasing sales, increasing needs to add personnel to help with growth and new orders or to process an ever growing revenue stream. This only happens when the economic forces, or customer orders provide the need to add people to handle the increase in orders....is that reasonable to understand?

We normal humans seem to understand this simple concept, yet in Washington this falls on deaf ears....make the entire economy stronger and businesses grow and add employees, they do not need any incentives to add employees, it becomes a natural process and market forces even provide for attractive competitive wages when there is competition for new employees!

In a growing economy, everyone wins!

Businesses, especially small businesses, which generate the majority of jobs in America need the stimulation but the right kind of stimulation...lower tax rates, the elimination of capital gains taxes on sale of businesses, and perhaps the elimination of other employer only taxes that prevent or discourage the hiring of new people.

Worst of all, there is NO WAY that an employer who is currently burdened by a unionized work force would consider even remotely hiring new employees due to the onerous burdens imposed on him by the union contracts, work rules, inability to fire incompetent or lazy employees potential exposure to more unfunded pension liabilities from underfunded union pension plans, etc.

So, to summarize, there is no reason that a union shop ( and generally higher paying positions) would add employees until business conditions absolutely necessitate adding employees, and smaller businesses overall need the same.

So where is the growth of jobs going to come from....you guessed it, a higher and growing Federal and local government bureaucracy! Government is the only growing employer...and with average wage and benefit costs of approximately $100,000 annually, why get a job anyplace else, and then finally with better health care and pensions than anyplace, there is only one place to wok...for the government!

Just like Forrest Gump put so eloquently..." Stupid is as stupid does."