youth

An interesting blog post at Newsweek's "The Gaggle":

The other issue, I think, is the way health insurance has been sold and positioned. In general, we talk about the outcome of health care reform in two ways: the micro impact on individual citizens and the macro impact on health care costs. Neither has struck a cord with Millenials [sic]. Like I said, the individual impact strikes us as unimpressive. The large-scale economic outcomes take a lot of effort to understand. They seem distant, probably to Millenials [sic] and the rest of the population, and easy to lose sight of in a Twitter-size news cycle.

Instead, the more attractive part of health insurance for Millennials, these poll numbers indicate, is the moral underpinnings of the bill: that all Americans ought to have access to insurance, that this is our responsibility as a nation. While 47 percent of Millennials generally support health care reform, 70 percent support the idea that all Americans should have access to affordable health insurance, the highest number for any demographic. Maybe we’re just young and idealistic, maybe we have genuinely different viewpoints than our parents; either way, that provision really strikes a cord with younger Americans. But the bill has not been sold that way--if it had, perhaps more Millennials would strongly support health care reform instead of the kind of, sort of support we see now.

Yes, the expertise gap is tough for us to navigate. But I think what's worse for youth engagement is the heavy presence of traditional Washington behavior. Untelevised hearings. Deals behind closed doors. Inaccessible jargon. A lack of political courage. All of these elements and more preclude young people from focusing on the moral principle at stake.

We live in the United States -- all of us should should have access to affordable health insurance. But when the discussion is misrepresented, shrouded in Washington-speak and timidity, we lose that right to health care and we (young people) understandably lose patience with the process.

This week Chris Bowers over at Open Left predicts that the voters upon which Barack Obama depended in 2008, a large bloc being young voters, will fail to turn out this November. Bowers grounds his argument in what he calls "long-term civic trends" that show "drop-off voters" participating in presidential elections and failing to go to the polls just two years later. Bowers contends that the importance of young voters to Obama's coalition will exacerbate this situation come Election Day, as youth consistently form a smaller share of the vote in midterm elections compared to presidential elections (for information on "share" versus "turnout," please read the first bullet point here). Thus, Bowers calls for a strategy of persuasion as opposed to mobilization.

I disagree with Bowers. In covering youth political participation, one quickly identifies the chicken-egg nature of the topic. Politicians and parties believe youth cannot and will not be politically engaged, so many of the ads, phone calls, and messages are tailored to older voters, alienating the youth demographic. When youth do not turn out after politicians largely ignore them, the media, pundits, parties, and candidates express disappointment in young voters for failing to engage. Thus, youth naturally view electoral politics with cynicism.

In unquestionably consuming the line that youth won't turn out without unearthing why this might be, we perpetuate the cycle. In a tough political environment thus far, with 435 House races this November and over 30 Senate campaigns, it's going to be easy this cycle for timid and weak Democratic incumbents and their consultants to stick their fingers in their mouths, hold them out in front of them, and avoid making tough decisions. And with the GOP disgusting young voters, Republicans have little incentive to target youth. Accepting this as inevitability is what gets us to this situation in the first place, because it doesn't shine the light on the ineffectiveness of this stale strategy. The result is an electorate that's older, more moralistic, and polarized. Boomer-like ideological strength is at the heart of midterms, not Millennial problem solving. Thus, I heartily disagree with Bowers' resigned argument because it reflects the hegemony that silences youth and leads to more of the same in our political dialogue, which we can no longer afford.

Perhaps if candidates were to truly engage youth in medium (use up-to-date technological communication) and message (a strong, progressive discussion of the economy, higher education, climate crisis, and national service framed in a problem-solving approach) and possess a strong record of consistent conviction, they might respond. Furthermore, youth suffer from a lack of access, not apathy. When young people are registered to vote, they turn out. For example, according to the US Census, 81.6% of all registered young voters actually cast a ballot in 2004. That is on par with other portions of electorate.

It's not going to be easy. It's harder to register/inspire a younger group of people to vote when they are collectively facing over 500 decisions without a headlining candidate/campaign at the top. But it won't be as hard if we're willing to challenge our candidates' conventional campaign strategies.

Bowers is right on one thing -- young voters do form the heart of Obama's base. Unlike Bowers, though, I argue that 2010 is so important, our issues are so pressing, and our demographic is so critical to Democratic success that there's no choice but to view this as a mobilization struggle. Political interest is at an all-time high among youth; to capitalize, we must recalibrate our campaigns to attract the support of young people.

After electing the President to office young people haven't exactly been the bastions of recipients of bills passed this past year, nor has there been a whole heck of a lot of outreach from the White House. But tonight the President outlined a few things we have reason to be excited about.

First was a little shout out to clean energy and creating jobs for those who are being good stewards of our land.

"We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America."

The Energy Bill is coming up in the next few weeks, and this is the end all be all bill for our generation. It will be because of this bill that we curb hazardous waste, stop despicable practices in creating electricity, and forever mandate that our country lead the way in clean technology to save our planet for Millennials and our children. If, at the same time, we create a ton of jobs for Generation Unemployed, then I say bring it on and lets pass this Energy Bill NOW.

Second, is a little help with the cost of college tuition, better schools, better education, and maybe... just maybe some hope for employment.

" The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform - reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years - and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs - because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem."

Associate Rich Williams from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Higher Education issued a statement on the higher education issues addressed in President Obama’s State of the Union address, saying

"We are thrilled that the President renewed his commitment to a greater investment in higher education, even as he proposed a three-year freeze on many other funding areas.

Time and again, America has seen the college educated strengthen the nation’s social and economic fabric. Investment in education is proven to strengthen the economy. We applaud the President for reaffirming that investment in the education of our young adults is essential to the country’s recovery and long-term strength.”

I will say, however, one of the best comments I saw came from Natasha Chart who said on twitter in response to the "best anti-poverty program was education" that perhaps a better one would be "supporting living wages for high school graduates." I couldn't agree more.

While the President championed higher education from four year to community college level, there must be an increased focus on helping youth who do not go to any institutions of higher learning and instead rely on their public high school education to prepare them with basic skills necessary in today's entry level jobs. Further, lets help these young people who want to work full time but still seek training at trade schools and technology institutes without being overburdened by out of touch FAFSA requirements like parental tax records for youth that are on their own (just to name one).

The comment from the president recognizing the plight of rural youth and their often sub-par education was also notable. So many children in rural areas lack adequate education, because school districts can't compete with good salaries, sexy locations, or other things to entice new teachers. If "the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential" then its time for our government, specifically the Secretary of Education to understand the differences between rural youth and inner city Chicago youth.

Pay-Go made an appearance:

"So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."

This has recently been stalled in the Senate so the President called them out. Here's the thing about pay as you go... when you have distribution of federal dollars that only goes to those with the biggest and best lobbyist or the elected official who has the most power - it rarely makes it down to the little projects.

While the President mentions specifically entitlement programs and the "Fiscal Commission" modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad I can promise you that not a dime of Social Security will be touched. If other entitlement programs like Pell Grants and the GI Bill have to be slashed completely on the "pay-go" model they will be to accommodate for things like Social Security and Medicare... simply because young people don't have the lobbying power to ensure otherwise. Pardon my cynicism, but its true, the lobbying force of seniors is just too strong.

In a response in the Federal Times Gregg Carlstorm says of the spending freeze

"Experts say the spending freeze is unlikely to have a significant impact on resources at most agencies. But John Palguta, vice president for policy at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said it could lead to some cuts in staffing and training.

"There's a psychological impact," he said. "As soon as you tell federal agencies their budgets are frozen, they go into worst-case planning mode. They stop paying for training. They say, ‘Let's see how many jobs we can get away with not filling.' ''

Palguta said federal managers should also be concerned about one big unknown: pay increases. Agencies with frozen budgets might still have to accommodate federal pay raises over the next three years — which means they'll have to find cuts in other areas."

If the purpose is to create jobs in the upcoming year, cutting federal jobs with agency funding freezes and forcing people into the private sector might not be the best strategy. That said, I'm not an economist, so what do I know. I personally believe in curbing spending, considerably, but I think there are better places to do that while preserving people's existing jobs.

Perhaps we could sell that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska, or export some of our Reality TV, maybe the President could call on Conan to start a new national TV channel and the advertising dollars go to pay for agency budgets, heck reducing the number of troops in Iraq alone could seriously curb spending...

Another thing that our generation should be happy about is a renewed sense of inclusion from Washington that finally ... FINALLY ... we value all people equally ... or, at least, we're going to try to, or... maybe just ask people to try to.

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else. . .

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws - so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work."

One key way that we can help create more jobs in this country - or preserve the living wage - is by guaranteeing that all Americans that want to can serve in the US Military and that all women will earn equal pay for equal work. Both of these issues are ones that Millennials support overwhelmingly and it is high time that we set an example of civil rights to the rest of the world.

So, on the whole, a little good, a little iffy, nothing too shocking from the cheap seats. I want to be hopeful, I want to remain steadfast in my excitment for policies that impact our generation, but I'm also still crushed that I don't have a public option for my health care, so take with that what you will

State of the Union for Youth - By the words:
Youth (0)
Young (2)
Students (5)
Generation (3)
Children (or child) (5)

NAFSA announced this week that it has named a winner in its Student Diplomat Video Contest. Here's the release:

Winner Named in Student Diplomat Video Contest

Study Abroad Experience Inspires a Recent Graduate to Help Local Youth Think Globally

WASHINGTON, January 20, 2010 – NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the Abroad View Foundation are pleased to announce Nicole Barrasse, a recent graduate of Keystone College in Pennsylvania, as the winner of the 2009 Student Diplomat Video Contest. During the fall semester, NAFSA and Abroad View watched as students from across the country showed us how their educational experiences abroad shaped them as global citizens, served as bridges to cross-cultural understanding, promoted peace, or positively impacted the local communities in which they studied. After reviewing dozens of entries and narrowing those down to five finalists, we asked the public to vote. More than 1,300 votes were cast and combined with the votes from an expert panel of judges to select the 2009 Student Diplomat.

Nicole’s video tells an inspiring story of cultural understanding and global connections as she gives us a glimpse into her study abroad experience in the small agricultural village of Ladakh, India. Nicole stayed with a host family in the village and spent her days farming and learning the local language and culture. The cultural understanding that Nicole developed through this experience not only allowed her to learn about the Ladakhi people, but also to communicate to them how much she appreciated their culture and way of life.

Nicole came away from this experience not only knowing much more about sustainable farming and the Ladakhi culture, but also understanding what it means to be a citizen of the world. “Ladakh has not only taught me life lessons, but also what it truly means to be connected to the world around you,” she says in her video.

Nicole is now home in Pennsylvania and plans to start a local effort to inspire youth in her community to think more globally.

The Student Diplomat Video Contest was open to undergraduate students who studied abroad during the fall semester or had recently returned from a study abroad experience. Entrants were asked to focus their short videos on how their study abroad experience helped to advance global understanding. In addition to being named the 2009 Student Diplomat, Nicole will be awarded a cash prize of $300.

To read more about the 2009 Student Diplomat, or to watch her video, visit www.nafsa.org/studentdiplomat.

Here is Nicole's video:

Peter Daou's piece on the Huffington Post today argues that Democrats have hurt themselves by creating the convergence of the extreme right wing and progressive activists and bloggers. Governing from a lack of grounded principles, writes Daou, makes the president, and thus Democrats, look weak regardless of the legislation passed.

The half of Peter's argument positing that Democrats whiffed on the decision to legitimize Rush Limbaugh by repeatedly taking him on from the Press Room of the White House is on point. Robert Gibbs ridiculed any little comment Limbaugh (or Beck or Michael Savage or other conservative hacks) made. Daou actually wrote the following back in March.

There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents. There was a moment, a brief moment, after Barack Obama was elected president, a moment long gone, where the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity could have become marginalized, bit players rather than media movers and shakers, the detritus of a sorry era. But instead, they have been granted more power -- out of some contrived political calculus. This, at a time when we don't need political calculus, we need single-minded determination to get us out of this economic calamity and to restore sanity to our government.

I agree with Daou, with some additional perspective offered. The Obama campaign came into DC following one of the best campaigns ever run. They were disciplined, they knew their message, and nearly every risk they took played well in the end. Part of their "change" message entailed changing Washington, refusing to get into the trenches against the "vast right wing conspiracy." Reviewing where we were then and where we are now, something obviously pushed the Obama administration off track.

I think Daou makes a strong argument that part of it lies within the Obama administration's decision to attempt to use Limbaugh et al. as their punching bags. But I think we have to zoom out one more level and ask: if Obama and Co. wanted to change the way elections are run, why would they violate their principles on right wing crazies? Attacking a group with such little credibility does little for the change message. The message of unconventional, but actual change transformed into the slimy politics of old.

Furthermore, the Obama administration looks even weaker when we juxtapose their toughness against the extreme right-wing commentators with their mealy-mouthed approach to health care, the agenda item forming the heart of Obama's domestic policy.

There's quite a bit of advice entering the public forum today, so I'll offer my two cents as well. The Democrats need to get back to what works, and that's offering a politics that solves America's problems from a coherent, ideological set of principles. In addition, they need to communicate with their base, especially those young voters who put him over the top in 2008 (and the millions more who will be voting in 2012), to keep them posted on exactly what is going on and how they can help support the Obama agenda moving forward.

The reality is that the Democrats still have 59 seats in the Senate. As Jon Stewart explained the other night, the Democrats still have more seats in the Senate than Republicans had when Bush was able to do whatever the hell he wanted.

A fantastic paragraph written by Alejandro Ribó from Personal Democracy Forum:

Young Europeans do not want political parties in their lives. Only 4% of young people (15-29 year olds) participate in a political party or trade union (on Euronews (2:02 mark) from Eurostat statistics). This is a clear figure of what young people want or do no want. Political party politicians and their acolytes would quickly blame the education system, capitalism, the television or even the Playstation for the lack of interest in politics of young people. They are blinded by their group thinking and narrow perspective of what politics is. Politics is not only, and not even mainly, about what political parties and their representatives (the so-called "politicians") do. This fact, many people, including young people, know very well. I recommend the party people to go one night around bars in any city or town in Europe, to listen to what people are talking about. They talk about politics beyond political parties and their captive public institutions. They will be surprised to hear that there is political life outside the party. For politics is mainly about people and what they do, and not about organisations of any kind. That is why we need to reform the system to give chances to those who want to talk and participate in politics, but do not want to be captive of an organisation that has its own interests, often different than the interests of the rest of us.

Yes, it's Europe, but it's applicable. This is a reminder Washington needs. Because our political arena is so intensely focused on parties, we lose focus on myriad facets of politics: the people, their needs, the dialogue itself.

We saw the ramifications of this approach in New Jersey and Virginia, as both Democratic gubernatorial campaigns forgot that each political campaign is different with different candidates and different constituencies. Obama didn't win because he made young voters think Democrats were cool; he won because he engaged young voters through his campaign's bridge-building. Youth issues were identified, specific elements of the youth culture - like texting - were embraced, and he informed them he expected them to work not for him, but for their country. When a sitting governor and a gubernatorial candidate fail to do most of this yet expect results because they are Democrats too, they might as well retire. It won't (and it didn't) work.

Underneath all the pithy statements to the press regarding inconsequential events or subjects, the American people converse. Some can't afford health insurance. Some youth, led into college thinking it would lead to success, have graduated and discovered employment is little more than a pipe dream. Many have lost their retirement thanks to the greed of those on Wall Street and their enablers in Washington. Yet who among those "important" people in our system hears this? Judging by their actions, I'd suppose no one.

This restoration of "politics" is one of the main tasks our generation will need to complete. As the excerpt above suggests, the emphasis of politics is people, not organizations. Once we begin associating politics with everyday conversations among everyday people, we'll have a chance to actually improve America.

Beware of reports that unemployment is getting better. Because for our nation's future, it isn't.

The LA Times reports:

For 20- to 24-year-olds, the jobless rate rose four-tenths of a percent to 16% in November, even as unemployment nationally slipped to 10% from 10.2%.

And data from the Labor Department show that the unemployment figure for college graduates in that age group was 10.6% in the third quarter -- the highest since early 1983 and more than double the rate for older college-educated workers.

What's scary is how long this could linger with our generation, even after this recession passes and unemployment begins recovery.

Eventually, things will probably get better for Daley and for classmates he said were having similar problems. After all, job and pay prospects for college graduates are generally stronger than for workers with less education. But studies also suggest that graduates entering the workforce in a recession see negative effects not only in the short term but for years into the future in terms of pay and career mobility.

Entry-level salaries are usually lower in tough times, and for most workers, where they start is one of the biggest factors in how much they're earning a decade later. The slower start can also influence family formation and consumer spending on such things as cars and houses.

Those effects are likely to be even more pronounced this time given the severity of the latest recession.

"At this point, it's almost like I can't even start on building a career or a life if I can't get my foot in the door," Daley said.

Some of the numbers are starting to come in for institutional job placement, and they're not pretty (surprise, surprise):

Last year, an average of 67% of students had full-time jobs within six months of graduation, according to reports from 557 four-year colleges. That was a decline from a placement rate of 75% for the class of 2007 and 77% the year before.

Edwin Koc, the association's research director, said he'd had discussions with several dozen colleges in recent weeks, and some of them are seeing employment rates as low as 30% for those who graduated six or seven months ago.

The lasting effects of this recession on young people MUST lead to quick, targeted relief for youth. It's not just college youth. It's not just youth who feel pinched because they might be forced to save something instead of blowing through their paycheck. Everyone needs relief here, and while the numbers might be rebounding in particular places and among particular segments of society, youth risk being forgotten. Story of our lives, right?

An interesting possibility came out of the Great American Hackathon, a gathering of computer software developers "to develop open source applications for open government."

In order to vote in United States elections from their residence abroad, military members face a complex and frustrating process. In order to have their vote counted, they count on bureaucracy to properly deliver their ballot and do so promptly. Meanwhile, the soldier must stay informed of changes in local election law that could threaten their vote.

In a fabulous use of the Voting Information Project, developers are planning the release of a widget that would fuse date from the project with the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, creating a customized ballot for the soldier's home location.

This would be a shot in the arm to youth organizing, given the youth's heavy presence in combat forces staged overseas. This is a great example of using technology to extend democracy. Kudos to these developers.

It's been a fair amount of time since I have written a truly meaningful blog post that is more than just me covering a story or talking about an issue. Well today I plan to make up for that with this post, this post wont be about any story, just my thoughts on what I think can move Kansas forward.

I am like many other Democrats in this state and haven't been the most thrilled with the recent happenings, out of professional courtesy I wont discuss which happenings these are, but I'm sure you can guess. One thing that is particularly dear to my heart is The Kansas Young Democrats. I took over as KYD President about 4 months ago now. I am very happy to say that we have honestly done a lot statewide. We have increased our number of chapters, took part in the planning of Healthcare Reform rallies held in Kansas City and Wichita, brought the first Young Democrats of America meeting to ever be held in Kansas (planned for Feb of 2011), done multiple community service projects and shown that young people have, want and deserve a voice in our state.

Here's the catch. I often get the question "What young dems would you say are best for working on campaigns?" or "Can your young dems organize an event?" which I don't mind being asked at all, but there seems to be an underlying assumption that KYD is simply a pool of labor for campaigns. I say false. The Kansas Young Democrats are a very motivated force of young people who want to invest in their state and help shape it for the future. We are more than the mules of the party, we are the future of the party.

I have a little over a year left of being President and here is what I would like to see be done. KYD could become a more powerful and better organized grassroots and netroots movement. Allowing for young people statewide to band together to support the candidates we want to help lead our state, working for the issues that matter to us, and having a strong voice in our communities. Build an organization not for the sake of having one but for the purpose of creating a better future. We can always work on campaigns, we can always organize events, but let's make this about us. Our candidates, our issues, or generation.

We are already naturally moving in that direction. Youth candidates are standing up and running, young people that have felt alienated over the previous eight years took a stand and voted for Obama and the promise of progressive change that he gave us. We voted for real healthcare reform to happen, we voted to end the war, we voted for clean alternative energy sources, we voted to change our country for the better. I may be preaching to the choir here but as young people we do have a voice, and we need to not only start using it but following up with it. We have to start doing more than just showing up on election day and counting on all the other young people to do the ground work for us. We have a great group of activist here in Kansas. Out of that great group a lot of them are young, but all of us activist can't do it alone all of the time.

We have to work for the change we want, we have to work together, we have to work for our generation, we have to work for our beliefs, and most importantly we have to work for Kansas. It has been far to long that we have taken second place in the battle over our beliefs, only we can bring the changes we want and need to Kansas. I guess we could view this post as a call of arms to democrats young and old, progressives, and activist. Let's work together to make it the Kansas we want. KYD can be that organization we build in order to create a better future, we are already working in that direction.

Like I said just my thoughts after some recent frustration both State and National, but I hope they hit home with some of you and if they do, I look forward to working with you soon.

Liz Shuler, Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, has got a great post up on HuffPo. As a national AFL-CIO officer, she's traveled across the country talking to workers and advocating on their behalf. One thing she has found - young people (she specifically mentions those between 18 and 34) are being hit the hardest by the economic downturn. She has some really interesting statistics:

• One in three young workers is worried about being able to find a job--let alone a full-time job with benefits.
• Only 31 percent make enough money to cover their bills and put some aside--that is 22 percentage points worse than it was 10 years ago.
• Nearly half worry about having more debt than they can handle.
• One in three still lives at home with parents.

To me, those are some pretty insane stats. ONE in every THREE young workers still lives at home? Only 31 percent make enough to cover their bills and still save? Wow...The report these statistics are taken from is called Young Workers: A Lost Decade and it's really a good read.

Liz thinks the workers this study covers could very well be the first in recent history to end up worse off than their parents. She says the way things are done now (our health care system, the low-wage workforce, attacks on unions, etc.) is simply not working for young people. She listed five steps she believes need to be taken immediately to improve the situation.

Young people don't trust their employers and believe their job situations could be improved, according to the study. The top three issues they would like Congress and the President to focus on? Creating jobs, ensuring the availability of affordable health care for all, and enhancing public education.

Even though they've been hit hard by the recession, young people are still informed, involved, and for the most part (see the map? on the right? yeah...) progressive. Example: 50% of workers OVER 35 expressed confidence in President Obama's agenda. For those under 35 the number expressing confidence was 62%.

We know the turnout among younger voters was amazing in 2008. We know that they have been more engaged and excited than they have been in years. I think we can carry this momentum forward and I agree wholeheartedly with Liz - "Young people are being hit hard in this jobs crisis. But I believe they provide much of the fuel we need to get out of it."