Better Job Training Will Equal Higher Employment

This past week, the House approved the “SKILLS Act.” Our current workforce development system is failing, despite over 50 federal job training programs that cost taxpayers almost $20 billion a year. Tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed, yet the Bureau of Labor reports over 3.5 million jobs remain unfilled.

One of the reasons so many jobs are vacant is that our current system is failing to properly train individuals for the ever evolving work environment. We need to cut through the bureaucracy and help the unemployed and underemployed receive the skills necessary to obtain gainful employment.

The bipartisan SKILLS Act makes much needed reforms to our nation’s broken job training system by increasing state control and removing barriers that prevent unemployed workers from accessing important training. It would strengthen the role of job creators by giving employers greater influence in how the programs train individuals.

The bill streamlines 35 ineffective and duplicative programs which will make it easier for job seekers and employers to identify and participate in programs. It also creates more collaboration between these job training programs and local community colleges. 

As a former small business owner, I know how different the needs of employers can be across a state or even a country. This bill will help local business communities, community colleges, and economic development agencies work together to provide training that reflects the employment needs of each region. I believe it will result in job growth and lower federal spending, both of which have been and remain two of my main goals since being elected to serve in the House.

A new study out last week indicates that the President’s health care law is actually increasing prescription drug costs for many Americans. As that legislation was being rammed through Congress, President Obama and supporters of his health care overhaul specifically said his proposals would lower prescription costs. Now that it is the law of the land, the National Center for Policy Analysis argues that increased regulation in the health care law is actually heading to decreased competition among drug manufacturers.

At the end of the day, competition – not increased government regulation – lowers costs. Look at surgeries like LASIK. The more doctors who offer it, the more options consumers have and the more providers lower prices to try compete.

By contrast, more regulation means those manufacturers are limited in how they can sell and distribute medications. Regulationsbarring drug plans from offering lower copayments for mail-order service may help community pharmacies – which is good for them – but they drive up costs for consumers. The President’s health care law has not brought down costs because it has only introduced more government control, not more competition.