The recent passage of the Senate health care bill paves the way for an up or down vote on health care reform. The million dollar question is what effect would health care reform have on creating new jobs and reducing the alarming jobless rate.

With more than 15 million Americans still out of work, you would think health care reform would be welcomed with open arms. Why? For starters history shows us that sweeping regulation almost always leads to job growth. So then why all the health care opposition? Well, history also shows us that lack of knowledge promotes fear which in turn equals opposition. Considering the government in general is not necessary recognized for efficiency, people naturally tend to think that health care reform would equate to inefficiency and inept medical treatment. The ironic part is just how efficient is health care, as is, today? With current overpaid overpriced health care treatment by medical workers with dollar signs in their eyes, you're lucky to not have a knee scape cost you a few thousand dollars. On top of that, with more and more doctors looking to deflect incompetence with medical malpractice insurance and civil damage jury award caps, its a no-brainer that medical treatment for most non wealthy Americans is an "at your own risk" encounter.

Sure, the Feds could and should do a great deal more in ensuring that if health care reform passes that it does not become a boondoggle. Even so, leaving the current system as is and allowing the burden to grow on society, in the form of uninsured treatment hidden coverage hikes, is simply foolish. As the old saying goes, there is no free lunch. You either pay now or you pay later - but indeed you do pay. All things considered it's probably better to pay a known fixed price that to keep dealing with hidden surcharges and fees that line the pockets of health care administrators under the guise of "increasing administrative costs."

Equally as important if not more important is that jobs will undoubtedly be created through revamping the health care system. The only question is how many jobs? You can bet there will be more than a few jobs necessary to implement the new infrastructure to support the system as well as people to manage it. So with all the training and implementation required you can expect long term jobs from health care reform for years to come. In essence, health care reform will create jobs and drive down the massive jobless figure of over 15 million unemployed. Of course, health care alone won't be enough to bring the unemployment rate in line with say 5% but its a solid start. Moreover, its probably the best idea on the table yet. That is, unless, you're one of those who favors reducing taxes on wealthy, thereby increasing the need to borrow and further inflating the national deficit so that China will own more and more of United States future. Now that ought to alarm folks more than health care reform.

As the economy continues to shrug off the Billions of dollars in economic spending, it raises the question -- just what exactly is the answer? Well, that depends on who you poise that question to. A least a few patriots of the Right believe that President Obama has a grand plan to absorb the multitude of unemployed under the Federal umbrella as Federal employees.

So is there any data to support the position of the Right or simply more political rhetoric? Well, apparently the average salary of a Federal employee is $71,206 compared to $40,331 in the private sector. Additionally, purportedly, those earning the coveted six figure salary -- $100,000-- has increased from 14.4% to 19% during the recession! Moreover, there are more than 10,000 Federal employees earning $150,000 or more. Stunning stats huh. Maybe - maybe not, it's necessary to look at the entire picture before making that determination. A simple math calculation of the stated figures illustrates Federal salary spending increases amount to under $2 Billion annually. Even if you want to round it up to a nice even $5 Billion in Federal salary increases that is lunch money in comparison to the national GDP -- as well as the Federal budget for salaries. So does that advocate increased Federal salary spending during a recession? Well you would have to compare that the private sector, too, in order to make that determination. So what exactly has the private sector done in terms of reviving the economy since the recession began? ...well the votes are in and it's not looking good for the private sector. The fact of the matter is that the private sector hasn't done much. Well that's not entirely true...wages have decreased to a 30 year low, we are experiencing unprecedented long term unemployment, layoffs and job eliminations continue to rise albeit workplace production output continues to increase as well.

Making a case against the Feds stepping up for American workers during the Great Recession while the private sector reaps production output gains at the expense of job eliminations is a hard sell. Moreover, for those on the Right that have amnesia, maybe, perhaps they should be reminded of the untold Billions expended under the leadership of former President Bush. What's the difference in the scenarios? Well under the Bush era the Billions in Federal spending were directed to the elite such as former Vice President Cheney and the no bid contract awards to Halliburton. How about the Oil Bigwigs who still have their feet on the table with the back door deals under the Bush era? Conversely, the Obama administration appears to favor the average Joe Federal employee and working class individual.

The bottom line is that there is no free lunch and someone has to do something about the ailing economy. The President appears to be sending the message that if the private sector wants to exploit the economic situation than payment is going to made on the back in versus  on the front. In other word, you pay now or you pay later...and judging by the way the credit industry works the private sector is better off paying up front versus paying later. In essence that means the private sector can pick up hiring and keep taxes at status quo and maybe even get a tax cut or continue with the exploitation charade and pay higher taxes on the back end. Decisions, decision, decisions. So maybe you can complain that Federal salaries increase while the economy drags it's feet, but hey somebody has to do something. Moreover, it's a fundamental principal that the Government should do what's best for the nation as a whole versus the single sided view of the private sector. So, to make a case against Federal spending on salaries -- to the private sector, the well over 15 million unemployed say -- show me the money or better stated show me the jobs.

As you probably already know, the economy is hardly doing well, despite the recent drop in the unemployment rate to 9.7%. So the question is, if Americans are still longing for hiring then why exactly is Congress sparring and jockeying for who will get credit for a jobs bill? Perhaps that's just how politics works, but its pretty clear that job seekers across the country are looking for Congress to promote hiring versus party line bickering and positioning to take credit for any potential jobs growth bill.

So lets say Congress can pull off an actual jobs growth stimulus plan, the bigger question is -- will such a stimulus target the usual suspect jobs such as construction for example? In other words, even if a jobs creation bill were to be signed into law would it target industries across the board or simply an industry here and an industry there? Take for example, the telecommunications industry which is largely responsible for providing the Internet backbone; for years it has been known that the US lags behind most other countries in the world (including what many would could consider third world countries) in terms of broadband connectivity as a standard. Hello! Even Google went on record recently stating that the Internet is just too freaking slow. Thus, instead of blindly pumping cash into more construction jobs, here's a thought, how about throwing a bone to the T-comm industry to help upgrade the Internet backbone. Doing so, would pick up where the last Internet bubble bust left off. Undoubtedly you would be talking about hiring at least 500,000 workers for such a large long running project.

The bottom line is that everyone knows the economy has a lot of rebounding to do. What's more important is when are we going to get some positive traction going versus continuous rhetoric and sensationalizing? Moreover, do you think any of the other 15 industries could use a lift? In the grand scheme of things the construction industry is a small contributor to the GDP, yet the subject of a lot of focus when it comes to talks about job growth and stimulus projects. In any event while Congress is sparring Americans need hiring...not next quarter, not next year...now. The rhetoric is running out of steam and Americans are frustrated and tired, which means in the end both political parties will pay dearly if both party members don't stop resting on their six figure salaries and help get unemployed Americans back to work.