Everyone is looking for a plan to create jobs in America. But what if we set our sights on helping people to work, rather than getting them hired to traditional positions with traditional salaries and benefit packages?

There's a big difference between work and jobs. The U.S. economy is actually primed to create millions of positions for people who are ready and able to work on a contract, part-time or project basis. Already the size of what I call the self-employed "free agent" workforce has exploded, encompassing about 44 percent of the workforce or nearly 80 million people, according to Kelly Services Inc. research.

Meanwhile, jobs in the classic sense peaked in early 2008 at about 139 million and recently have languished at about 130 million.

A new approach is needed, one that acknowledges the sea change in what employment means. The time is ripe to overhaul rules, regulations, obstacles and policies that hinder individuals from working on a contract basis and that block businesses from hiring the talent they need.

by Charles Kolb for The Huffington Post

America's future can be seen clearly in today's European crisis over sovereign debt. What is not clear is the path our country will take to resolve our own economic crisis.

First, some facts. American companies are reportedly sitting on more than $2 trillion of cash that they could invest, but haven't yet. Businesses are not investing because they are awaiting consumers to start buying again. Consumers aren't buying because their homes today are worth some $7 trillion less than their 2006 value -- and home prices keep dropping. The Wall Street Journal's David Wessel reports that according to the International Monetary Fund, "holders of U.S. mortgage and other debt lost $2.7 trillion in the U.S. phase of the global crisis." These facts explain why the U.S. economy is effectively blocked -- with stagnant economic growth and 9 percent unemployment. "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" seems to sum up where we are.

By Charles Kolb for the Huffington Post

Let's hope that the president elected in 2012 -- whether it is Mr. Obama again or a Republican -- is a conviction leader capable of providing not just bold words but also bold actions. Our country still needs bold structural reforms: in fiscal policy, tax policy, health care policy, infrastructure investments, and education.
Barack Obama ran a promising and bold 2008 election campaign, but sadly his governing reality has been timid and tepid -- a surprise to millions of his supporters and even to his opponents.

By Charles Kolb for Huffington Post

The Obama administration is now out of ammunition: neither monetary nor fiscal policy options are available to stimulate economic growth, reduce unemployment, and encourage consumer spending.

Since December 2008, the Federal Reserve's overnight federal funds rate (the interest rate the Fed charges banks for short-term loans) has been at 0.25 percent. With modest inflation, that interest rate becomes negative. The Fed is paying banks to borrow, and yet borrowing is minimal. Banks are still not lending, and consumer spending has not rebounded to anywhere near pre-Great Recession levels.

By William W. Lewis, Director Emeritus, McKinsey Global Institute

The concerns about a jobless recovery are fully understandable but do not get to the heart of the problem. Of course we should help the part of the workforce that is unnecessarily unemployed because of the shameful mistakes of our financial sector. This piece is not about how we do that. This piece is about why in our current situation, the jobless recovery is better than the alternative, which is a recovery without productivity growth. It is also about the fundamental forces that are preventing us from returning to full employment.

By Joe Minarik for Bloomberg Government

By the end of World War II, the federal government had accumulated a public debt equal to 108.7 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the largest public debt in the nation's recorded fiscal history. In retrospect, that debt burden appears daunting, well above last year's worrisome 62.2 percent.
Yet thanks to robust economic growth, the debt as a percentage of GDP fell like a stone: to 96.2 percent in 1947; to 84.3 percent in 1948; to 66.9 percent in 1951; to 58.6 percent in 1953, eventually reaching its post-World War II low of 23.9 percent in 1974.
Some have cited this postwar progress as a model for our future. So what if our debt hits 100 percent of GDP this decade, as projected? That's lower than it was in 1946, and we simply grew out of that problem, so we can do it again, no?

By Kevin A. Hassett and Glenn Hubbard for the Wall Street Journal

Earlier this week President Obama proposed tax cuts for business, including 100% expensing through 2011. In other words, firms that purchase new machines and other capital goods would be able to write them off immediately, instead of over many years.

Such a move offers a sound departure from the Keynesian thrust of the administration's earlier initiatives. Mr. Obama and his team now appear to accept that growth-oriented tax cuts provide a more reliable stimulus than government spending. The investment incentive the administration proposes is meaningful—though not without some potential pitfalls—and it offers a road map for future policy change to emphasize economic growth.

By Charles Kolb for the Huffington Post

Recent economic news has been unsettling. With stimulus funds mostly spent, we still lack sufficient economic growth (2.4 percent) to reduce a stubbornly high unemployment figure (9.5 percent). With economic uncertainty, companies aren't investing, and consumers aren't spending. The personal savings rate has gone from almost zero to over six percent, effectively establishing "the paradox of thrift": saving is generally good -- except when it constrains economic growth.

The congressional midterm elections are less than 100 days away, and our political elites are debating whether we need more government intervention in the economy (another stimulus, tax increases or decreases) or less government and less regulated market activity. One side trusts the private sector to do what it normally does -- with appropriate incentives. The other side trusts the government to do what the private sector is unwilling or unable to do. Read more...

By Joe Minarik for the Huffington Post

You probably have seen the same puzzler that I recall from years ago. Someone hands you a note paper on which are written the words, "The statement on the other side of this paper is true." You turn the paper over and find the words, "The statement on the other side of this paper is false."

I suspect that logicians have found some way around this mind-bender. On that, I must beg off. But there is an analog in the current economic policy debate. One side argues firmly that "We can't afford to stimulate the economy." The other counters with equal vigor that "We can't afford not to." Read more...

By Joe Minarik for the Huffington Post

Recently, I suggested a legislative deal in which repair of Social Security's finances would motivate Congress to enact economic stimulus. Surprisingly to me, given the fragile state of the economy, there was little reaction to the need for stimulus -- and part of what reaction there was, was skeptical. Most of the reaction was negative toward repairing Social Security.

The number of arguments raised would fill a book, and many will be worth discussing later. But one kept recurring: The Social Security trust fund was built up by the 1983 law to finance the retirement of the baby-boom generation. That trust fund can be redeemed to pay benefits through 2037.