Category Archives: Unemployment

George Will on Sunday gave a much-needed economics lesson to New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger that greatly demonstrated the difference between how conservatives and liberals view unemployment benefits.

As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" shifted to the G20 summit in Toronto, Sanger said, "Just the day before [Barack Obama] left, Congress could not come to an agreement on a very small extension of unemployment benefits, you know, the most basic stimulus effort that the President tried to push."

Host Jake Tapper asked, "George, why can't they pass this extension?"

With the ball sitting up nicely on the tee, Will smacked it out of the park (video follows with transcript and commentary, relevant section at 4:10):  

DAVID SANGER, NEW YORK TIMES: The President's also in the position in Canada of saying, "Don't do as I do, do as I say." I mean, just the day before he left, Congress could not come to an agreement on a very small extension of unemployment benefits, you know, the most basic stimulus effort that the President tried to push.

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: 1.2 Million Americans are going to lose their unemployment extensions, or unemployment benefits this week.

SANGER: That's right. So there's a fundamental stimulus action and the President had to go up and tell the Europeans they were not doing enough for stimulus.

TAPPER: George, why can't they pass this extension? I don't understand. The Republicans say, "Let spending cuts should pay for this." The Democrats say, "No, it's emergency spending." It seems that this is something where there could be a compromise.

GEORGE WILL: Well, partly because they believe that when you subsidize something, you get more of it, and we're subsidizing unemployment. That is the long-term unemployment, those unemployed more than six months is at an all-time high. And they want, they do not think that it is stimulative because what stimulates is the consumer and the saver's sense of permanent income. And everyone knows that unemployment benefits are not permanent income.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, much of America's media have the same misconception that extending unemployment benefits helps the economy. 

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth for those receiving such benefits aren't going to increase their spending because they don't know how long they'll be unemployed. Beyond this, they feel little need to get back into the workforce until their benefits expire.

This means that despite what folks like Sanger believe and write about, extending unemployment benefits has no economically stimulative impact. 

As such, calling this extension an economic stimulus is like calling an ox a bull: he's thankful for the compliment, but would much rather have back what is rightfully his.

Nice job, George. 

On Thursday, a new unemployment bill died in Congress as Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined Republicans on the grounds that government spending can't go on forever.

Instead of reporting both sides, the media couldn't seem to hide their anger.

The bill was called a "jobless aid" package that "governors were counting on" to help "the poor" across the nation. Almost all news reports began from the Democrat perspective and waited several paragraphs before weakly defending Republicans.

Worse yet, a consensus with far more damaging impact began to grow: the loss will cause the nation's economy to fall into a double dip recession, and it will be entirely the Republicans' fault.

Never mind last year's stimulus bill worth $700 billion, or the bank bailout of 2008, both of which have failed to live up to promises of recovery. No, our economy is suffering because fiscal conservatives won't spend even more.

The Seattle Times was quick on the draw Thursday night with a clearly disappointed report headlined "Republicans Continue Blockade of Federal Aid Bill." What followed was an obviously biased effort to paint Republicans in a bad light:

Senate Republicans on Thursday once again blocked legislation to reinstate long-term unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their aid.

With the Senate apparently paralyzed by partisan gridlock, the fate of the aid, as well as tax breaks for businesses and $16 billion in aid for cash-strapped states, remains unclear. Dozens of states, including Washington, are hoping for federal aid to help balance their budgets.

Republican lawmakers - joined by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska - maintained a unified front to sustain a filibuster of the $110 billion bill. The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and bring the bill to a final vote.

Democrats said they would give no further ground and put the onus on Republicans to make concessions.

Those who have "exhausted their aid" are the long-term unemployed who received financial assistance for up to 99 weeks already. Republicans seem to have this crazy notion that receiving government assistance that long might be long enough, and perhaps it's time to start asking if Keynesian economics is working.

But according to the Seattle Times, that kind of talk is just "partisan gridlock." The article quoted one Republican against three Democrats and never got any deeper than vague concerns about the national debt.

Toward the end, the Times went to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to imply that Republicans were sabotaging the economy:

In a statement, the White House vowed to keep pushing for the bill. "The president has been clear: Americans should not fall victim to Republican obstruction at a time of great economic challenge for our nation's families," spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

By Friday morning, this became the battle cry for reporters around the country. Reuters published an article that advanced the point in plainer terms:

The bill, which also would have provided more aid to cash-strapped states for the Medicaid health program for the poor, fell a few votes short of the 60 needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. One Democrat, Ben Nelson, joined 40 Republicans to block the measure.

Democrats argued that the bill would have helped shore up the fragile U.S. economic recovery, a priority for President Barack Obama's administration.

Yes, saving the economy has been one of President Obama's priorities for some time now, mostly because nothing he does seems to save it. But Reuters didn't have time to mention an inconvenient thing like that. Readers were expected to believe the premise that one more spending bill would have shored up the economy if not for those meddling Republicans.

A few hours later, the Associated Press got involved with an even sharper accusation aimed directly at Republicans:

The rejected bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to states, preserving the jobs of thousands of state and local government workers and providing what White House officials called an insurance policy against a double-dip recession. It also included dozens of tax breaks sought by business lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on investment fund managers.

"This is a bill that would remedy serious challenges that American families face as a result of this Great Recession," said Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chief author of the bill. "This is a bill that works to build a stronger economy. This is a bill to put Americans back to work."

How strange that quote didn't show up in the early dispatches Thursday night. It's almost as if the media spent Friday collectively drifting toward a good narrative.

By 4:00 Friday, the economy-sabotage angle was official. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent used the Plum Line blog for the announcement:

A number of bloggers today have been up in arms about the apparent failure of the jobs bill in the Senate, now that it looks like no Republicans will help Dems break the GOP filibuster.

This could have terrible consequences, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, in particular, is furious. Today she argued that Republicans want the economy to tank in order to help themselves in the midterms

Thus in less than 24 hours, it went from Republicans worrying about the national debt to Republicans purposely tanking the economy just to embarrass Democrats.

Not to be left out, Bloomberg's Shobhana Chandra also cut right to the bone in an article on Friday:

The Senate's failure to pass legislation extending unemployment benefits will slow the pace of the U.S. recovery, said economist David Resler.

The bill's demise will trim economic growth by 0.2 percentage point this quarter and by 0.4 point in the period from July through September, estimated Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York.

So you see, economic growth apparently comes only by way of government spending, and this time there's a real expert to say so!

But all is not lost. While working hard to opine on the terrible news, Chandra inadvertently let something slip:

Resler estimated that the unemployment rate, 9.7 percent in May, may decline by as much as one percentage point as some workers drop out of the labor force and others accept jobs they might have rejected earlier.

Wait...when people finally realize they can't live on government assistance forever, they might buckle down and accept a tough job? This nugget appeared exactly 11 paragraphs down from the headline and was quickly glossed over.

So maybe, just maybe, Republicans are trying to enact market-based principles by urging people to go back to work. Maybe it has nothing to do with sabotaging the economy after all.

Don't count on that particular narrative to grow any legs, though. An hour after the Washington Post hit piece, the Associated Press was back for more:

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said Friday that Senate Republicans could be prolonging the recession by opposing a spending bill that would have extended unemployment benefits.

Solis, talking to a group of Latino government officials in Denver, said Republicans were wrong to oppose to a broader jobs bill that would have extended jobless benefits for about 200,000 people a week. She warned of dire consequences if benefits are shut off.

"This will be devastating and could take us back to a deeper recession," Solis said

Oh yeah, urging healthy workers to accept less glamorous jobs is really the "devastating" consequence of a diabolical Republican strategy.

Good to know we have professional, independent, unbiased journalists hard on the trail of Republican masterminds. 

*****Updated by Noel Sheppard: Did media get this talking point from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (h/t Twitter's @ndgc12dx)?

The morning after the Senate failed to advance a bill that responded to the recession, Sen. Harry Reid laid into Republicans who blocked it en masse.

Clearly sore after falling three votes short Thursday night of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, the Senate majority leader from Nevada charged in a Senate speech that GOP senators "are betting on our country to fail."

Rather than help Americans, he said, Republicans are more interested in bringing down President Barack Obama.

"The Republicans in the Senate have made the decision to do everything they can to turn the country upside down, to do everything they can to stop economic recovery because they think it may help some of their people running for the Senate around the country.

"They figure as bad as they can make the economy, the better off they will be," Reid said. "That is a pretty difficult view for people who are United States senators."

"As we learned from the health care debate, (Republicans) want everything that Obama wants to be his Waterloo."

It's union thuggery, but at a higher echelon.

Imagine you're representing the AFL-CIO, going on Fox News and trying to make a case that the $787-billion stimulus last year wasn't nearly enough and that more is needed, despite the prevailing argument being that Keynesian economics doesn't work based on this example.

Well, Ron Blackwell - the chief economist for the AFL-CIO faced that on the June 25 broadcast of Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto." Cavuto, asking some honest questions, pressed Blackwell, who was attempting to make the case for more stimulus, as to why the idea of more government spending to help the ailing economy was a legitimate one.

"You're not creating the jobs, with all this money you're wanting us to spend - then why should we keep digging?" Cavuto asked. "What's wrong with saying let's put the shovel down - that's not working?"

Cavuto continued to press Blackwell on his premise that it would take more of the Keynesian medicine - an idea Blackwell wasn't willing to concede was an incorrect one.

"I'm answering you right now - these programs did create jobs but not net creation," Blackwell said. "We lost more jobs because of the recession than were created by these programs. Net, gross - is that a complex idea for you?"

"Ron, you're the chief economist there," Cavuto replied. "Where did you get your degree, a baking school? Where are you cooking up these numbers? The fact is we spent a trillion dollars..."

That comment drew an upset response from Blackwell.

"Oh, that's an insult," Blackwell said. "Forget about it. You're a joker - you're an asshole."

The two followed up with another series of exchanges, but Blackwell was unwilling to concede the failure of last year's stimulus to live up to its billing.

"[A]nd we've not seen results from that money," Cavuto said. "And now you're saying it could have been worse had we not."

"I just told you that we have seen results," Blackwell said.

"So your answer to just answering a simple question is to curse at me, or to frame it differently, or to obfuscate the facts, or to ignore the facts with a trillion dollars spent and we haven't seen any net new jobs and you're answer is, ‘Well, we have to spend more?'" Cavuto said.

"We lost more jobs because of the recession than we created by these programs," Blackwell said. "Gross and net - it's not a complex idea. You should have learned that in high school, Neil."

In a June 14th editorial entitled “Politicizing the Fed,” the Wall Street Journal sheds light on one of the dubious regulations of the upcoming financial reform bill.  The Journal states:

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled “Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce.” Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to “establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.”

So what else is new, you say? Don’t the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit.

[...]

The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate.The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”  The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”

The law says this diversity czar will “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with “increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conducting “an assessment” of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for “affordable housing,” Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender.

In an article I wrote on February 28th entitled “Fiscal Death by Welfare,” I argued: “I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks…”  I truly wish I had been wrong in my assessment.

Note that this is not to say that minorities or women are bad credit risks, but that based upon prior social engineering experiments in which government has intervened to force lending, we have seen that the worst credit risks are the ones who most benefited at the outset, to the detriment of themselves and all taxpayers at the day of reckoning.

Too, any government forcing of credit necessarily reflects a bad credit risk, because in lieu of government intervention, market actors would already properly allocate credit to anyone, regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity, at an interest rate reflective of their risk profile.  If lenders were to discriminate on the basis of non-economic reasons, than other competitors would see this void and fill it.  This principle is reflected for example in the old days when in response to the so-called WASP investment banks, Jews built their own ones to fill the vacuum of talent being ignored by white-shoe firms.  Private self-interest works in the face of discrimination.  Public self-interest creates discrimination.

Why is forced allocation of credit to certain sectors of society harmful?  Forced allocation of credit means mispricing of credit which leads to market distortions that manifest into bubbles and crashes.

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the risk profile of the borrower.  Lenders assess the ability of a borrower to pay back a loan and determine a proper compensatory rate based upon the opportunity cost and risk involved with leaving the cash with such a borrower over a period of time.  The government by forcing the allocation of credit will not only distort the market mechanism which best coordinates lending and borrowing activity in all sectors of the economy, largely to the detriment of the most creditworthy debtors, but also artificially cheapen the cost of credit for the least creditworthy of debtors by increasing the supply of available credit to them.

In effect, the government will seek to deny the truth reflected in higher interest rates for more risky borrowers by dropping their rates by fiat.  Since better credit risks will have to pay higher interest rates due to such diversion of capital, this will have a doubly negative effect on the worse credit risks who would benefit from the likely more successful economic activity of the more creditworthy borrowers.

The notion that interest rates must be kept low — that we should lie by suppressing the price of credit because it reflects truths we do not want to acknowledge is not limited to the central planning writers of the financial reform bill.

In Ben Bernanke, the chief financial central planner’s most recent performance in front of the House Budget Committee, he echoed this argument, noting that we must keep interest rates low — that we must stop the price of interest from reflecting reality or we will risk facing the consequences of reality.  This of course is how he arrives at the supposed panacea of an interest rate of 0-.25%.

We have government at every level that is bankrupt, hundreds of under-capitalized banks with toxic assets on their books and an economy that is being hyper-regulated to death and facing increasing onerous taxes direct and indirect, and yet the benchmark cost of borrowing money, to which all other interest rates are connected is 0%.  Utter insanity.  Almost as insane as giving a body like the Fed the ability to fix such a price, as if a single human being or board of human beings could pick the price of anything, be it credit or bananas.  Obama, Bernanke & Co. would rather wage a war on truth and centrally plan than go home and let prices reflect reality.

Another aspect to the denial of truth in the economy deals with the abandonment of “mark-to-market” pricing.  If banks were to have to price assets on their books based upon what they could reasonably expect to obtain in the market for those assets, many of them would be in serious trouble.  Yet instead, because we have suspended mark-to-market pricing, and forced taxpayers to pump capital into our banks, their balance sheets appear to be healthy.  Hence the new normal in our economy of “extend and pretend,” where we throw lifelines at banks and failing enterprises by providing them with cheap capital, and pray that their now hidden underlying problems will go away, knowing that they will not only not go away but grow larger until some unknown dark point in the future when the cancer kills the host.

When it comes to unemployment too, we see an administration not only denying truth but flat out lying, laughably arguing that we are creating jobs.  Leave aside the fact that the more honest measure of unemployment, U6 shows unemployment at much closer to Depression levels.  The bottom line is that a government job, the only kind we are creating, is not an economically beneficial job, the caveat being the jobs of those who defend us and keep us safe who are necessary to maintain the peace that allows our economy to function.  Even there, I doubt anyone would argue that in a world without foreign enemies, maintaining a military would be anything more than a diversion of funds.

In any event, the private sector creates jobs in response to the demand of consumers.  Sovereign individuals dictate what sectors should grow and what sectors should contract based upon their needs.  Government does not meet any such demand.  It can only take resources away from the private sector and allocate land, labor and capital based upon political, not economic factors that in a capitalist economy, individuals would make to drive economic activity.  The government in depriving individuals and enterprises of such economic resources will only stifle recovery, immorally attempting to play the role of the omnipotent master of consumers and producers.  The government will destroy jobs by “creating jobs.”

Note too that the underlying argument that people are not consuming enough, and that thus we need such boondoggles as cash-for-clunkers and HAMP further denies truth.  How is a government to know what is the proper amount of consumption?  Why is the government to stop individuals from choosing to consume less?  Why is government to take resources from people and consume more if individuals choose to consume less?

We overconsumed (as reflected in the unjustified rise and subsequent crash in asset prices) precisely because we were misled by gobs of artificially cheap credit, so now we need to force people to consume even more and make credit even cheaper?  NO!  Now we need to contract — consume less and save and invest more.  Saving and investment means foregoing consumption today to consume more tomorrow.  But if interest rates are artificially suppressed, disincentivizing saving, all we will do is perpetuate existing stagnancy.

Most recently, with regard to BP, President Obama is trying to use the disaster to argue that drilling for oil is bad, and that thus we need to use public money to push all sorts of green initiatives like windmills and solar energy.  Forget that BP was forced to drill so deep underwater because of all of the environmental regulations we have in place that prevent us from tapping much more easily usable sources of oil.  Forget that the baby-killers at BP are losing billions of dollars, again as a result of this policy, while you demonize them as if they intentionally caused this disaster.  Forget that alternative sources of energy are nowhere near being perfected, nor are they yet economical, which is why the private sector is not pushing all of its resources toward such development.

When you are the central-planner-in-chief you know better than your serfs.  You can deny all truth and continue to push your intentionally destructive policies, claiming that existing notions of individual liberty, property rights and true equality before the law are antiquated and immoral.

But in reality, President Obama’s economic policy of denying truth merely divides and favors certain classes of people over others and compounds and prolongs our problems.  Obama seeks to supplant with the decisions of divine bureaucrats the decisions of millions of individuals partaking in mutually beneficial actions to the good of the whole world.

This administration completely perverts truth, justice and morality in their grab for greater control over you and I.  Most importantly, this administration forgets the fundamental truth that man is flawed and thus cannot be G-d.  What could be more dangerous and immoral than a policy which stems from such a hubristic and fallacious principle?

In a June 14th editorial entitled “Politicizing the Fed,” the Wall Street Journal sheds light on one of the dubious regulations of the upcoming financial reform bill.  The Journal states:

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled “Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce.” Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to “establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.”

So what else is new, you say? Don’t the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit.

[...]

The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate.The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”  The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”

The law says this diversity czar will “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with “increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conducting “an assessment” of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for “affordable housing,” Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender.

In an article I wrote on February 28th entitled “Fiscal Death by Welfare,” I argued: “I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks…”  I truly wish I had been wrong in my assessment.

Note that this is not to say that minorities or women are bad credit risks, but that based upon prior social engineering experiments in which government has intervened to force lending, we have seen that the worst credit risks are the ones who most benefited at the outset, to the detriment of themselves and all taxpayers at the day of reckoning.

Too, any government forcing of credit necessarily reflects a bad credit risk, because in lieu of government intervention, market actors would already properly allocate credit to anyone, regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity, at an interest rate reflective of their risk profile.  If lenders were to discriminate on the basis of non-economic reasons, than other competitors would see this void and fill it.  This principle is reflected for example in the old days when in response to the so-called WASP investment banks, Jews built their own ones to fill the vacuum of talent being ignored by white-shoe firms.  Private self-interest works in the face of discrimination.  Public self-interest creates discrimination.

Why is forced allocation of credit to certain sectors of society harmful?  Forced allocation of credit means mispricing of credit which leads to market distortions that manifest into bubbles and crashes.

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the risk profile of the borrower.  Lenders assess the ability of a borrower to pay back a loan and determine a proper compensatory rate based upon the opportunity cost and risk involved with leaving the cash with such a borrower over a period of time.  The government by forcing the allocation of credit will not only distort the market mechanism which best coordinates lending and borrowing activity in all sectors of the economy, largely to the detriment of the most creditworthy debtors, but also artificially cheapen the cost of credit for the least creditworthy of debtors by increasing the supply of available credit to them.

In effect, the government will seek to deny the truth reflected in higher interest rates for more risky borrowers by dropping their rates by fiat.  Since better credit risks will have to pay higher interest rates due to such diversion of capital, this will have a doubly negative effect on the worse credit risks who would benefit from the likely more successful economic activity of the more creditworthy borrowers.

The notion that interest rates must be kept low — that we should lie by suppressing the price of credit because it reflects truths we do not want to acknowledge is not limited to the central planning writers of the financial reform bill.

In Ben Bernanke, the chief financial central planner’s most recent performance in front of the House Budget Committee, he echoed this argument, noting that we must keep interest rates low — that we must stop the price of interest from reflecting reality or we will risk facing the consequences of reality.  This of course is how he arrives at the supposed panacea of an interest rate of 0-.25%.

We have government at every level that is bankrupt, hundreds of under-capitalized banks with toxic assets on their books and an economy that is being hyper-regulated to death and facing increasing onerous taxes direct and indirect, and yet the benchmark cost of borrowing money, to which all other interest rates are connected is 0%.  Utter insanity.  Almost as insane as giving a body like the Fed the ability to fix such a price, as if a single human being or board of human beings could pick the price of anything, be it credit or bananas.  Obama, Bernanke & Co. would rather wage a war on truth and centrally plan than go home and let prices reflect reality.

Another aspect to the denial of truth in the economy deals with the abandonment of “mark-to-market” pricing.  If banks were to have to price assets on their books based upon what they could reasonably expect to obtain in the market for those assets, many of them would be in serious trouble.  Yet instead, because we have suspended mark-to-market pricing, and forced taxpayers to pump capital into our banks, their balance sheets appear to be healthy.  Hence the new normal in our economy of “extend and pretend,” where we throw lifelines at banks and failing enterprises by providing them with cheap capital, and pray that their now hidden underlying problems will go away, knowing that they will not only not go away but grow larger until some unknown dark point in the future when the cancer kills the host.

When it comes to unemployment too, we see an administration not only denying truth but flat out lying, laughably arguing that we are creating jobs.  Leave aside the fact that the more honest measure of unemployment, U6 shows unemployment at much closer to Depression levels.  The bottom line is that a government job, the only kind we are creating, is not an economically beneficial job, the caveat being the jobs of those who defend us and keep us safe who are necessary to maintain the peace that allows our economy to function.  Even there, I doubt anyone would argue that in a world without foreign enemies, maintaining a military would be anything more than a diversion of funds.

In any event, the private sector creates jobs in response to the demand of consumers.  Sovereign individuals dictate what sectors should grow and what sectors should contract based upon their needs.  Government does not meet any such demand.  It can only take resources away from the private sector and allocate land, labor and capital based upon political, not economic factors that in a capitalist economy, individuals would make to drive economic activity.  The government in depriving individuals and enterprises of such economic resources will only stifle recovery, immorally attempting to play the role of the omnipotent master of consumers and producers.  The government will destroy jobs by “creating jobs.”

Note too that the underlying argument that people are not consuming enough, and that thus we need such boondoggles as cash-for-clunkers and HAMP further denies truth.  How is a government to know what is the proper amount of consumption?  Why is the government to stop individuals from choosing to consume less?  Why is government to take resources from people and consume more if individuals choose to consume less?

We overconsumed (as reflected in the unjustified rise and subsequent crash in asset prices) precisely because we were misled by gobs of artificially cheap credit, so now we need to force people to consume even more and make credit even cheaper?  NO!  Now we need to contract — consume less and save and invest more.  Saving and investment means foregoing consumption today to consume more tomorrow.  But if interest rates are artificially suppressed, disincentivizing saving, all we will do is perpetuate existing stagnancy.

Most recently, with regard to BP, President Obama is trying to use the disaster to argue that drilling for oil is bad, and that thus we need to use public money to push all sorts of green initiatives like windmills and solar energy.  Forget that BP was forced to drill so deep underwater because of all of the environmental regulations we have in place that prevent us from tapping much more easily usable sources of oil.  Forget that the baby-killers at BP are losing billions of dollars, again as a result of this policy, while you demonize them as if they intentionally caused this disaster.  Forget that alternative sources of energy are nowhere near being perfected, nor are they yet economical, which is why the private sector is not pushing all of its resources toward such development.

When you are the central-planner-in-chief you know better than your serfs.  You can deny all truth and continue to push your intentionally destructive policies, claiming that existing notions of individual liberty, property rights and true equality before the law are antiquated and immoral.

But in reality, President Obama’s economic policy of denying truth merely divides and favors certain classes of people over others and compounds and prolongs our problems.  Obama seeks to supplant with the decisions of divine bureaucrats the decisions of millions of individuals partaking in mutually beneficial actions to the good of the whole world.

This administration completely perverts truth, justice and morality in their grab for greater control over you and I.  Most importantly, this administration forgets the fundamental truth that man is flawed and thus cannot be G-d.  What could be more dangerous and immoral than a policy which stems from such a hubristic and fallacious principle?

On Friday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty tossed cold water on the Obama administration's "recovery summer" claims, stating that the "current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever." Cafferty also criticized the dangerous growth in the national debt, underlining that there "appears to be a rather serious disconnect," as the President requested billions in additional spending.

The CNN commentator began his 5 pm Eastern hour commentary with a contrast between Obama's "massive P.R. campaign" touting the apparent effectiveness of the $860 billion "economic stimulus bill" and the continuing high unemployment figure: "President Obama and Vice President Biden have kicked off a massive P.R. campaign, celebrating what they're calling 'recovery summer'....But the celebration may be premature. Just yesterday,  the Labor Department reported new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 12,000 last week- much sharper increase than was expected."

Cafferty touted a recent editorial in the Washington Times which "suggests the administration's 'make-work' jobs program has failed, and that those infrastructure jobs, which are being funded by the taxpayers, will disappear when the stimulus money runs out- soon." He bluntly continued, "Fact is the current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever."

Near the end of the segment, the commentator highlighted Alan Greenspan's "dire warning that the U.S. may soon reach its borrowing limit if we don't make some drastic changes and reduce our $13 trillion national debt. But President Obama wants billions more for stimulus spending. Somewhere, there appears to be a rather serious disconnect."

Earlier in June, Cafferty ripped the Democratic-controlled Congress for their inaction to pass a budget, and lamented the "skyrocketing federal deficits and a national debt that just passed $13 trillion."

The full transcript of Jack Cafferty's commentary, which aired 11 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of Friday's Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: Wolf, it turns out that recovery is in the eye of the beholder. President Obama and Vice President Biden have kicked off a massive P.R. campaign, celebrating what they're calling 'recovery summer.' They say the $860 billion economic stimulus bill is working. The White House says two and a half million jobs have been created, and that the number should reach three and a half million by the end of this year. They're highlighting new jobs at thousands of infrastructure projects across the country.

But the celebration may be premature. Just yesterday,  the Labor Department reported new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 12,000 last week- much sharper increase than was expected, and it shows that the pace of layoffs has not slowed appreciably. Plus, we still have a national unemployment hovering just below 10 percent. An editorial in the Washington Times, called 'Obama's Endless Summer of Spending,' suggests the administration's 'make-work' jobs program has failed, and that those infrastructure jobs, which are being funded by the taxpayers, will disappear when the stimulus money runs out- soon. Fact is the current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever.

Meanwhile, the picture in many of the 50 states is terrible and getting worse. State and local governments are cutting wherever they can, in order to meet their budgets, reducing or eliminating public services, underfunding state pension plans, and cutting 230,000 state and local government jobs in just the last couple of years.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is out with a dire warning that the U.S. may soon reach its borrowing limit if we don't make some drastic changes and reduce our $13 trillion national debt. But President Obama wants billions more for stimulus spending. Somewhere, there appears to be a rather serious disconnect.

Here’s the question: does it feel like a 'recovery summer' to you? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog.

On Friday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty tossed cold water on the Obama administration's "recovery summer" claims, stating that the "current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever." Cafferty also criticized the dangerous growth in the national debt, underlining that there "appears to be a rather serious disconnect," as the President requested billions in additional spending.

The CNN commentator began his 5 pm Eastern hour commentary with a contrast between Obama's "massive P.R. campaign" touting the apparent effectiveness of the $860 billion "economic stimulus bill" and the continuing high unemployment figure: "President Obama and Vice President Biden have kicked off a massive P.R. campaign, celebrating what they're calling 'recovery summer'....But the celebration may be premature. Just yesterday,  the Labor Department reported new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 12,000 last week- much sharper increase than was expected."

Cafferty touted a recent editorial in the Washington Times which "suggests the administration's 'make-work' jobs program has failed, and that those infrastructure jobs, which are being funded by the taxpayers, will disappear when the stimulus money runs out- soon." He bluntly continued, "Fact is the current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever."

Near the end of the segment, the commentator highlighted Alan Greenspan's "dire warning that the U.S. may soon reach its borrowing limit if we don't make some drastic changes and reduce our $13 trillion national debt. But President Obama wants billions more for stimulus spending. Somewhere, there appears to be a rather serious disconnect."

Earlier in June, Cafferty ripped the Democratic-controlled Congress for their inaction to pass a budget, and lamented the "skyrocketing federal deficits and a national debt that just passed $13 trillion."

The full transcript of Jack Cafferty's commentary, which aired 11 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of Friday's Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: Wolf, it turns out that recovery is in the eye of the beholder. President Obama and Vice President Biden have kicked off a massive P.R. campaign, celebrating what they're calling 'recovery summer.' They say the $860 billion economic stimulus bill is working. The White House says two and a half million jobs have been created, and that the number should reach three and a half million by the end of this year. They're highlighting new jobs at thousands of infrastructure projects across the country.

But the celebration may be premature. Just yesterday,  the Labor Department reported new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 12,000 last week- much sharper increase than was expected, and it shows that the pace of layoffs has not slowed appreciably. Plus, we still have a national unemployment hovering just below 10 percent. An editorial in the Washington Times, called 'Obama's Endless Summer of Spending,' suggests the administration's 'make-work' jobs program has failed, and that those infrastructure jobs, which are being funded by the taxpayers, will disappear when the stimulus money runs out- soon. Fact is the current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever.

Meanwhile, the picture in many of the 50 states is terrible and getting worse. State and local governments are cutting wherever they can, in order to meet their budgets, reducing or eliminating public services, underfunding state pension plans, and cutting 230,000 state and local government jobs in just the last couple of years.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is out with a dire warning that the U.S. may soon reach its borrowing limit if we don't make some drastic changes and reduce our $13 trillion national debt. But President Obama wants billions more for stimulus spending. Somewhere, there appears to be a rather serious disconnect.

Here’s the question: does it feel like a 'recovery summer' to you? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog.

It seems that when they saw today's today's disappointing unemployment claims report from Uncle Sam, the Associated Press's Alan Zibel, perhaps with the help of contributors Jeannine Aversa, Martin Crutsinger, and Tali Arbel, decided to start playing the expectations game with June's Employment Situation Report, which isn't due to arrive from the Bureau of Labor Statistics until July 2.

If so, from a propagandist's perspective, it's a pretty slick strategy, given that the BLS's report will probably be the last significant piece of economic news before the July 4 weekend, making it a larger than usual topic of conversation among the American people in the days that follow.

Private sector job growth shrank to a seasonally adjusted 20,000 in May. Maybe if the AP and others make us think that June will go negative and the actual result comes in barely positive, it won't seem so bad. The worse possibility is that they're aware of more information than the rest of us have, and that things really are heading south in this "Rebound? What Rebound?" recovery.

Here are key paragraphs of Zibel's report (link is probably dynamic and subject to revision; bolds are mine):

The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped last week after three straight declines, another sign that the pace of layoffs has not slowed.

Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the highest level in a month and overshadowed a report that showed consumer prices remain essentially flat.

The rise in jobless claims highlighted concerns about the economic rebound -- especially after a report earlier this week said home construction plunged in May after government tax credits expired.

If layoffs persist, there's a concern that the June employment numbers may show a decline in private-sector jobs after five straight months of gains, said Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets.

"We've definitely seen the economic recovery hit a wall," Lee said.

... Kevin Logan, an economist with HSBC Securities, said many economists have been expecting claims to fall below 450,000 for several weeks now.

"The wait is getting longer and longer," said Logan. "As each week goes by, doubts about the underlying strength of the economic expansion grow."

It seems suspiciously early for the press to be putting out a jobs-will-be-lost vibe fifteen days out from the actual news.

If things really are getting as potentially rough as indicated, the administration's plan to celebrate a summer of recovery, as detailed today by Politico's Mike Allen, could turn in to an object of abject ridicule:

Vice President Biden today will kick off “Recovery Summer,” a six-week-long push designed to highlight the jobs accompanying a surge in stimulus-funded projects to improve highways, parks, drinking water and other public works. Biden will present President Obama with a report laying out a spike in stimulus activity this summer, and how it will contribute to a steady climb to a total of 3.5 million Recovery Act jobs by the end of the year. Biden, Obama and other administration officials will travel to more than two dozen Recovery Act project sites in coming weeks. Tomorrow, the president will travel to Columbus, Ohio, to mark the groundbreaking of the 10,000th Recovery Act road project, around Nationwide Children’s Hospital. On Monday, Biden will travel to Midland, Mich., for the groundbreaking of the new Dow Kokam advanced battery manufacturing facility.

--David Axelrod said: “This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly-visible road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a first-hand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing. … In the face of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, Republicans in Congress chose to play politics with economic recovery and declared the Recovery Act a failure before it even began. They made a cynical bet that if the President fails, they win. Democrats chose to act by tackling the crisis head-on. Just over a year later, the Recovery Act is putting millions of Americans to work and helping the economy grow again. But our work is far from over.”

In her perceptive column last week ("The Alien in the White House"), the Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote the following about Barack Obama and his apparatchiks:

The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy ...

The drivel Politico's Allen relays proves that Rabinowitz was clearly not exaggerating.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

This week the NY Times expressed outrage at Congress’ reluctance to extend federal unemployment benefits.  

 “Desperately needed unemployment benefits have been held hostage …The right thing to do is obvious. The House and Senate should immediately extend unemployment benefits and aid to states...”  

 The vote is scheduled for later this week.  Congress had previously extended payments to 99 weeks, but May 30 was the deadline to file for this extension and its renewal is now up for debate. I play volleyball with young people who milk the system.  They work for awhile, get fired, play volleyball fulltime, and then go back to work when their benefits expire. 

 At what point do we say enough is enough? The Times kindly provided us with an estimated additional cost to support extended benefits through November: $40 billion.

 I’d like to think that the majority of the unemployed are needy people who need those checks to support them during the daily job hunt.  But I suspect otherwise.

In Spain, the jobless can receive compensation for up to two years. Unemployment in Spain is also now approaching 20 percent. Coincidence? I think not. Of course, I’ll never convince The Times.

 “Unemployment benefits are correctly considered emergency spending — they are a vital safety net, and the money is crucial to supporting consumer demand in a weak economy”

I thought that a “safety net” is something used to catch someone when he is falling. Not half a year after he fell. By that point he has been slowly and safely lowered to the ground. It’s his turn to stand up.

The network morning and evening news shows have all but ignored President Obama's Saturday letter to congressional leaders asking for $50 billion in additional spending to prevent the "massive layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters." Only Sunday's Good Morning America on ABC has covered the President's request so far.

The chief executive's June 12 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner urged "swift action" on the multi-billion dollar proposal to prevent the public sector layoffs and "give our nation's businesses added impetus to hire and grow."

ABC anchor Bill Weir brought up the President's letter with White House correspondent Jake Tapper 13 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of Sunday's Good Morning America:

WEIR: And then, I guess, slightly more difficult than stopping the leak is keeping open the flow of federal stimulus money- I understand the President [is] asking for another $50 billion?

JAKE TAPPER: Another $50 billion, and this has been a tough sell for Democrats on Capitol Hill, not to mention, of course, Republicans. President Obama made the request in a letter yesterday. I will be sitting down today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner to see if they have any willingness to pass an additional $50 billion. The President says this is needed as emergency aid to state and local governments, to make sure there aren't massive layoffs of teachers and policemen and firemen. But, so far, Congress has shown no inclination to pass any more spending bills.

Neither Sunday's Today show on NBC nor CBS's Sunday Morning program mentioned the spending request. This omission continued on all three networks Sunday evening news programs.

The networks' morning shows on Monday also failed to mention the push for further spending by the President. By contrast, CNN's Christine Romans devoted an entire segment to it on American Morning:

JOHN ROBERTS: Twenty minutes now after the [7 am Eastern] hour- Christine Romans here 'Minding Your Business' this morning. And we heard mantras of 'drill baby drill'- now, I guess this one is 'spend baby spend,' right?

CHRISTINE ROMANS: Right, the President-

KIRAN CHETRY: But don't call it 'stimulus.'

ROMANS: Don't call it- whatever you do, do not call new spending in the economy 'stimulus' because we have mid-term elections coming up and Republicans and- you know, frankly, a lot of Democrats are not real keen on spending a lot more money. But the President this weekend sending a letter to congressional leadership, saying this is not the time to pull back on some important emergency spending measures because the economy is really at a critical juncture, he says, in the path to recovery.

The President, in this three-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, saying basically, we cannot afford to slide backward, that we must take emergency measures. All told, maybe up to $50 billion in new spending for things like keeping teachers on the job, for helping people pay their premiums for health care insurance, for making sure that first responders have money so that they are out there actually being able to answer 911 calls and the like.

Here's the issue that the President points out in his letter. We have an economy that is in a recovery, but that recovery seems to be pretty fragile. You look at the number of people unemployed- it's still 9.7 percent. You look at the most recent retail sales number- retail sales fell 1.2 percent in the most recent month. That was a surprise to people. And you have you a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of an unbelievable 4.81 percent. Folks, that is so low for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. But you still have a lot of concerns with the housing market. It's just not going to recover until you see the job situation recover. So the President is asking for some- you know, solidarity behind some new spending. The letter went over like a lead balloon with Republicans-

ROBERTS: I'm sure.

ROMANS: And even some Democrats are concerned. Look, they can't support anything in the next few months that's going to turn up in a campaign ad against them as some kind of a new stimulus or spending money we don't have. So it's a tough fight the President has here.

CHETRY: All right. Christine Romans, thanks so much.

ROMANS: Sure.

CHETRY: Oh, what's your numeral? Sorry about that.

ROMANS: Oh, the numeral is 300,000. And this is one of the reasons why the President really makes it personal about this spending- 300,000.

CHETRY: This is how many people sign up for unemployment benefits each month?

ROMANS: This is- according to David Axelrod, if you don't spend more money, you're going to have 300,000 teachers out of work- 300,000. That means if you don't find the money to spend-

ROBERTS: That's true, yeah.

ROMANS: You're going to notice this in your school, in your classroom. This is something-

ROBERTS: State and local budgets.

ROMANS: It affects you, and the President noted that in his letter, that state and local people are really in big trouble here.

ROBERTS: Okay. And now it's time to say goodbye to all our company.

ROMANS: Or walk.

CHETRY: All right, Christine.

Real Clear Politics currently has a video highlighting statements by Democratic Congressman James Clyburn Jr. of South Carolina. It teases the video with a question asked by Candy Crowley of CNN.

Once one sees the entire sequence, it's clear that Clyburn really answered Crowley's question before she even asked it.

Here's the full transcript of the vid, which begins after Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence had apparently made some points about how steps taken by the Obama administration to revive the economy to the point where it generates meaningful job growth aren't working. Clyburn's answer to when his party will stop blaming Bush is in bold:

Clyburn: Uh, Congressman Spence, uh, Pence keeps talkin' about, uh, the fact that, uh, we are, uh, failing in our approach. We all know exactly what this president inherited, and we will stop talkin' about that inheritance, uh, when uh Congressman uh Pence and others stop talkin' about takin' us back uh to those failed policies.

We're trying to correct some things that we had absolutely nothin' to do with, and the American people know that. And I would wish that all of us would get on board this in bipartisan approaches to tryin' and get our economy stabilized, tryin' to get our children educated, tryin' to get workin' men and women back to, uh, on their jobs, and look for the future, look to the future with --

Crowley: Congressman?

Clyburn: -- a little more, uh compassion and bipartisanship.

Crowley: Congressman, I think nobody disagrees with you on the goals. I think that one of the questions that's cropping up now is, when does the statute of limitations run out on blaming the Bush administration and when is it on you all as the governing -- really in the House and the Senate and the White House. When does the economy, uh, become your baby, so to speak?

Clyburn: The economy is our baby. But let's stop talkin' about cuttin' taxes, cuttin' taxes, cuttin' taxes. That simplistic approach to tryin' to get this economy movin' again, it's what got us in this, uh-uh, position in the first place. We just had an across the board cut on 95% of workin' men and women, they got an across the board tax cut. You all know that.

Pence attempted to get in a word or two edgewise during Clyburn's final two sentences and got nowhere, though Crowley got to him immediately after that. One can also hear Pence chuckling in the background as Crowley asks here "statute of limitations" question.

"Congressman Pence and others" clearly have no plans to "stop talkin' about takin' us back to those failed policies" -- policies that worked reasonably well from 2003 to 2007, by the way, despite the sand-in-the-wheels impact of the Sarbanes Oxley law. Therefore, the short version of Clyburn's answer to the question of when the Bush blame game will stop is, "When you guys shut up." The one-word version is really, "Never."

As to Clyburn's contention that "We're trying to correct some things that we had absolutely nothin' to do with," it's time to remind him and everyone else of the true origins of the housing and mortgage lending bubble. They have everything to do with government-sponsored, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and nothing to do with George Bush, who tried -- perhaps not hard enough, but genuinely tried -- to stop the madness emanating from those two entities.

The full scope of what these Democrat crony-controlled perpetrated on the nation didn't become fully known until late last year. It wasn't "only" lax credit standards, which would have been bad enough. Beyond that, as I noted on December 31 (last item at link; a column with a more complete treatment of the topic is here), there was pervasively fraudulent loan packaging:

... it's hard to overstate the relevance of this paragraph from Peter J. Wallison in the Wall Street Journal, because it should end the debate over who is primarily responsible for the housing and mortgage-lending messes:

"There is more to this ugly situation. New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A."

The two Democrat-crony government-sponsored enterprises created an artificial market for subprime mortgages by bilking investors for 15 years. If they hadn't done this, subprimes would never have been able to expand to their mortally dangerous levels. Further, the victims of the misrepresentations logically would appear to include the rating agencies that some state attorneys general are going after as the supposed culprits.

Sorry, Mr. Clyburn, your party and its cronies had everything to do with it. The only reason much of the American public doesn't know this is because reporters like Candy Crowley haven't educated themselves about what Fan and Fred really did, and therefore won't challenge your full-of-baloney assertions. Or worse, they know and let it slide.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In an article published yesterday afternoon, CNBC news associate Joseph Pisani took note of something the rest of the media mostly hasn't, or at least hasn't highlighted: the terrible job market for teenagers. The headline and text indicate that this is the worst such market in 41 years. That's true, based on the stat Pisani presented. But barring a near miracle in the next three months, in terms of the stat that matters most, the unemployment rate, it's the worst ever.

Give the CNBC reporter props for doing something almost no other journalist has done, which is to use the not seasonally adjusted (NSA) employment numbers as his factual source. As I have discussed several times, including here, the reported NSA numbers represent the government's best estimate of what really happened in a given month, while the seasonally adjusted (SA) numbers published (and appropriately labeled) by the government and reported (but usually not labeled) by the press represent the result after smoothing out seasonal fluctuations.

Pisani's prose proceeds as follows:

Teens Face Worst Summer Job Market in 41 Years

The kickoff to the summer job season is not looking so hot for teens.

Employment among 16-to 19-year olds in May grew by just 6,000, the smallest increase since 1969, when teen jobs fell by 14,000, according to government data analyzed by employment firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. In May 2008 and 2009, teen employment grew by over 110,000.

“It’s certainly a preliminary strong indication that it’s going to be a tough job market for teens,” said John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Jobs traditionally given to teens are apparently going to older workers who are willing to take low paying job to make ends meet. Employment among 20- to 24-year-olds grew by 270,000 in May, an unusual spike, considering that employment in the same age group fell by 261,000 in May 2009.

"Also impacting the job market for young adults are the large number of older adults who are willing to accept even a temporary, seasonal position simply to generate some income," said Steven Rothberg, chief executive officer of CollegeRecruiter.com, an online entry-level job-posting site.

"We're seeing experienced candidates taking jobs normally reserved for college grads and college grads taking jobs normally reserved for college students," said Rothberg.

As noted above, the -6,000 stat and the other monthly figures Pisani cited are from published NSA data (and ultimately from the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics and not Challenger, Gray & Christmas, but I'm quibbling). That is the correct measurement framework to use.

Look at the seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment rate in this graphic, however (using SA numbers is appropriate because the review is over a full-year period), one finds that the average teen unemployment rate in the past 12 months has been 25.95%. The linked graphic goes back to 1948, the earliest available year at the BLS for teen unemployment stats. No other 12-month period going back over 60 years has an average teen unemployment rate of more than 24%.

Perhaps it's too ambitious an endeavor for his assignment, but the CNBC journalist did not consider the possible impact of the crowding out of teens and other less-skilled workers by illegal immigrants. Another blind spot is his failure to deal with the effects of the artificially high federal minimum wage, as well minimum wages in several states that are even higher than Uncle Sam's rate.

But at least Pisani noticed the unprecedentedly awful situation, the kind of thing that I daresay would be causing a much bigger stir if a Republican or conservative were currently occupying the White House. A search at the Associated Press's main site on "teen unemployment" (not in quotes) came back with one relevant result, a short item by the wire service's Martin Crutsinger that is primarily a just-the-facts listing of key figures from the BLS's Friday report. A Google News search on "teen unemployment (using quote) sorted by date returns only 53 items, and very few of them are from national outlets. Some of them tout government-sponsored teen "jobs programs" -- sad indeed, given that government policy is primarily what has created the current situation.

Cross-posted at .

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, George Mason University economics professor Daniel Klein today notes that "self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics."

It therefore shouldn't be terribly surprising that so many journalists do a poor job of economic and business reporting, because, as the Media Research Center has frequently and consistently documented for over a quarter-century, a significant majority of journalists are, well, self-identified liberals and Democrats.

Sometimes what passes for business reporting in the establishment press isn't the result of conscious bias. Ignorance, as just cited, and a failure to look behind numbers, often because they fit a predetermined outlook, are also factors.

Failure to dig is definitely behind a late-afternoon rendition of an Associated Press report last week on the government's Employment Situation Report. In it, the Associated Press's Jeannine Aversa told readers the following:

With auto sales rising, Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. announced plans last month to hire. But others are still laying off workers. Hewlett-Packard Co. said this week it is cutting 9,000 jobs in its technology services division, and chocolate-maker Hershey Co. may cut 600 jobs.

Since Aversa's report was all about the employment situation in the U.S., one would think that the AP reporter believed she was referring to U.S.-only layoffs at H-P. More important, readers really have no other choice in context but to assume that only U.S. positions are involved.

Silly me, I took Jeannine's word for it when I spoke to someone who works for an H-P vendor this weekend. I was concerned that the job cuts might affect the vendor's situation and that person's job security. In response, I was told that most of the 9,000 positions involved are overseas, and that H-P is bringing back much of its overseas call center and support operations to the U.S.

That shreds the relevance of what Aversa wrote.

But perhaps I just stumbled on to information that hasn't been communicated to the general public. Should the AP reporter have known better? I think so -- at least enough to decide not to use H-P's layoff as her example. Based on only a brief bit of research, Aversa missed the admittedly undefined foreign component of the layoffs that are to occure, but more importantly, missed a huge and largely offsetting announced employment gain at the company.

The Wall Street Journal's June 2 report about the cuts had both elements I just mentioned:

Hewlett-Packard Co. said it plans to shed about 9,000 workers from its technology-services division while investing $1 billion to modernize the unit, as it moves to jumpstart growth in an industry that's lagged the economic recovery.

... The company is still in hiring mode and said it plans to bring on about 6,000 additional employees, largely in sales roles. H-P didn't say how many employees it has in the services unit or how many of the jobs being eliminated are in the U.S.

ComputerWorld reports that " It's uncertain what regions (of the world) will see jobs cuts and hiring in the HP plan."

It should be abundantly clear that Aversa should have found another example of U.S.-based layoffs, because H-P isn't it.

But she really didn't even need to find a specific company. Instead, the AP reporter could have gone to the government's April Mass Layoffs Report released just two weeks earlier for legitimate, grim-looking numbers (bold is mine):

Employers took 1,856 mass layoff actions in April that resulted in the separation of 200,870 workers, seasonally adjusted, as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single employer. The number of mass layoff events in April increased by 228 from the prior month, and the number of associated initial claims increased by 50,006.

Perhaps too grim, eh?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Since the early twentieth century, periods of real or perceived national emergency have been “critical episodes” in the growth of government’s size, scope, and power in the United States and in many other countries. Hence, the concise conceptualization: Crisis and Leviathan (the main title of my 1987 book on the growth of government in the United States from the late nineteenth century to the late twentieth century).

In the past century, the first five such critical episodes in the United States were: World War I; the Great Depression; World War II; a multi-faceted set of crises associated with the civil-rights revolution and the Vietnam War, roughly coincident with the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon; and the post 9/11 events associated with the so-called War on Terror and the U.S. attacks on and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now amid another such critical episode, which springs from the housing bust that began in 2006, the economic recession that began late in 2007, and the financial debacle that reached its climax in September 2008.

The current troubles are complex and raise a multitude of questions. Many books and articles no doubt will be written to analyze these various issues in scholarly depth and detail, and certainly anything we might say today must be regarded as preliminary, at best. I focus here on a few aspects of the present episode that relate closely to my own research on the growth of government, a field of study to which I have returned again and again over the past thirty years.

I

The current recession has elicited many comparisons with earlier business downturns, especially with the Great Depression. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is often described as an expert on the Great Depression who takes its lessons, as he understands them, deeply into account as he formulates and implements Fed policies. Likewise, many other economists have revisited the Great Depression recently in search of lessons applicable to current policy-making. In all of these reflections, the mainstream economics profession in general has distinguished itself by an astonishing superficiality of historical knowledge and lack of theoretical prowess.

The swiftness with which a great many mainstream economists have reverted to the simplistic “vulgar Keynesianism” that had its heyday from the late 1940s to the late 1960s has been nothing short of shocking, given that by the end of the 1970s such old-fashioned Keynesianism seemed to have been completely discredited and superseded in the leading echelons of the mainstream economics profession. Now it has come roaring back.

Of course, the general public, whose understanding of such matters is always primitive, and the politicians, who are always looking for plausible intellectual rationales to excuse their insatiable spending, borrowing, and power-grabbing, had never abandoned vulgar Keynesianism, so they were elated to find that the economic “experts” were again confirming their own self-interested inclinations.

From such vulgar Keynesian thinking flowed the succession of “stimulus” spending measures, beginning with the Bush administration’s, carried out in the spring of 2008. Other governments have gone down the same foolish path. Of course, as any competent economist could have testified even fifty years ago, such temporary government-spending surges give people money that, for the most part, they save or use to pay off debts, rather than spending it along the lines envisioned by Keynesian “multiplier” analysis to set in motion an upward spiral of income, expenditure, real output, and employment. Much of the so-called stimulus spending in the United States has served only to bulk up the pay and benefits of government employees (federal, state, and local), effectively transferring income from the private sector to the government sector, and to reward other groups, such as the United Auto Workers and low-income home buyers, for their support of the Obama administration—past, present, or future.

Bernanke and his colleagues in other central banks are taking credit for saving the financial system and even for saving the world from a repetition of the Great Depression—claims that must be treated with extreme skepticism. In any event, however, they have certainly created the potential for rapidly accelerating consumer-price inflation, should the banks become less apprehensive about their balance sheets and employ their vast excess-reserve balances to resume their lending and investing on a more normal basis.

Bernanke expresses confidence that he has the “tools” to rein in such potentially inflationary bank action, mainly by raising the interest rate the Fed pays banks on their deposits at the Fed, but one may well doubt whether he will be able to use those tools effectively. When interest rates begin to rise substantially, as they must sooner or later, great political pressure will be brought against tighter-money actions by the Fed and other central banks; the politicians will protest increases in interest rates at a time when unemployment remains at an elevated rate and other aspects of the recession linger, as well. So, even if Bernanke has the effective tools he claims to have, the question remains as to whether he will have the personal courage and the political support required to use those tools effectively.

II

One aspect of the current crisis that has come as anything but a surprise is that the politicians and their supporting coalition of crony capitalists and other backers have certainly not (in the immortal words of Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) allowed “a crisis to go to waste.” The past two years have witnessed one power-grab or institutional takeover after another, most notably of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, General Motors, and Chrysler. Under the TARP scheme, the Treasury has taken ownership positions in hundreds of large banks by acquiring preferred shares and warrants. Virtually all residential mortgage lending now ultimately springs from the secondary market and guarantees provided by Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae, FHA, and VA. This aspect of the government’s power-grab has been especially important because by continuing to pump funds into dodgy mortgages, the government is preventing the necessary restructuring of the housing-construction industry and the mortgage-credit sector, propping up unqualified and underwater borrowers and ill-managed and even insolvent lenders, and thereby creating great potential for a second round of the housing/housing-finance bust in the near-term future.

As the huge recent expansion of the government’s size and scope has proceeded, the Treasury’s fiscal condition has deteriorated badly. The federal deficit jumped from an amount equal to about 3 percent of GDP in fiscal 2008 to an amount equal to about 10 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009, and even the government’s forecasts now project deficits in the neighborhood of $1 trillion per year for the next decade. Thus, the U.S. government’s debt has exploded, and will continue to rise relentlessly—or, it will do so as long as willing buyers can be found for bonds promising only modest nominal yields, a market that Uncle Sam can no longer assume will persist indefinitely. (The Chinese and other major buyers are already grousing and insisting that the U.S. Treasury act more prudently.)

While the government proper was expanding its size, scope, and power, the Fed was greatly expanding the magnitude and scope of its own balance sheet and, in effect, engaging in “industrial policy” by singling out particular firms and industries for assistance, while steering clear of others in equally dire condition. If the Fed is not “picking winners,” it is certainly deciding who will be spared a market-determined fate as a loser. Fed officials insist that they intend to withdraw from many of the new areas they have recently entered, once the crisis has passed, but it will be surprising if the recent “emergency” policies do not remain in the Fed’s arsenal, bulking up its power, and equally surprising if it sloughs off all of the unusual types of “securities” it has acquired in the past two years.

At the moment, the Fed is seeking—and it, the FDIC, or another government regulatory entity may well be given—wide-ranging statutory authority to reorganize preemptively any seemingly failing firm (not only banks) whose failure would pose, in the Fed’s estimation, a “systemic risk.” Such authority would greatly expand the Fed’s current power as a monetary central planner by adding a role as risk-management central planner. Regardless of whether the Fed, the FDIC, or another government regulatory entity ends up the winner of the current power scramble, the possible repercussions of this expanded power on the operation of the capital markets is frightful to contemplate.

III

As the current troubles have led many economists and others to revisit the government’s policies during the 1930s, some have concluded that even though the New Deal’s hodgepodge of policies never brought about full recovery, the action that most economists believe did effect a full recovery—in Paul Krugman’s words, “the large public works program, otherwise known as World War II, that ended the Great Depression”—suggests a remedy for today’s recession along similar lines. In retrospect, it is clear that this belief in the creation of “wartime prosperity” by massive government spending and deficit financing did more than anything else to bring about acceptance of the Keynesian paradigm in the 1940s and 1950s. Even today, not only the general public but most professional economists remain firmly convinced that, as the familiar saying maintains, “the war got the economy out of the Great Depression,” and hence a serious recession such as the present one naturally causes them to recall this supposed “lesson” of economic history. Among many lesser lights, Martin Feldstein, one of the country’s most eminent and influential economists, has recently proposed what amounts to an exercise in military Keynesianism as a stimulus measure.

The fly in this ointment, however, is that the lesson almost everyone has drawn from the events of the 1940s is false; the common belief is a myth. When we take apart the simplistic Keynesian analysis of the war’s effect on the economy and look carefully at what actually happened to the various components of the labor force, the capital stock, and the gross domestic product, we see that the economic events of the war years represent a classic case of a command economy’s sacrificing butter—not to mention life, liberty, and property—for the sake of producing and deploying more guns.

A single graph suffices to give us a more accurate portrayal of the economy’s performance in the 1930s and 1940s (for a complete analysis, see the first five chapters of my 2006 book Depression, War, and Cold War).

As the graph shows, real GDP dropped sharply in the early 1930s, then recovered rapidly after 1933, but it did not reach its high-employment growth trend until 1941, when the nature of the economy’s output (shifting rapidly into war production) was beginning to obscure the meaning of data that purport to measure “real output.” If we accept the standard data, a huge war boom appears to have occurred during the war years, followed by a sharp downturn, concentrated in 1946, after which the economy moved closely along its high-employment growth trend (shown in the figure by the straight line connecting the [logarithms of the] values for 1929 and 1948).

Looking at the private part of GDP—the part with a much clearer meaning, owing to its derivation from freely-made consumer and investor choices about the use of privately owned funds—we see a similar pattern during the 1930s, but a completely different pattern during the 1940s. After 1941, private output of both consumer and investor goods fell to much lower levels and remained submerged far below the high-employment growth trend throughout the war years. Private real output did not exceed its 1941 rate until 1946, when it shot up by about 30 percent in a single year. Afterward, the private economy moved closely along its high-employment growth trend. Real prosperity had been achieved at last, for the first time since 1929.

But wait, the critics protest: didn’t the war wipe out mass unemployment? Of course, it did. However, this elimination of mass unemployment had nothing to do with Keynesian fiscal policy (or, for that matter, with the concurrent, highly expansive monetary policy) and everything to do with the military draft, which pulled the equivalent of 22 percent of the prewar labor force into the armed forces. If the economy has 5–7 million persons unemployed, then drafting 10 million prime-age workers (and thereby inducing millions of others to enlist “voluntarily”) will “solve” the unemployment problem every time. To use the same policy today, the U.S. authorities need only to conscript about 30 million men—not, I daresay, a political idea whose time has come.

Indeed, the idea is preposterous, and so, more generally, is looking to the government’s alleged “large public works program, otherwise known as World War II” as a model of how to deal with today’s economic crisis. Rather than allow ourselves to be mesmerized by a statistically spurious bulge of real GDP during World War II, we are better advised to recall the wartime rationing of many ordinary consumer goods, the shortages or complete production closures of many consumer goods (e.g., automobiles, most consumer durables), the preemption of public transport by the military authorities, and the wage, price, and rent controls that caused, among many other undesirable consequences, drastic deterioration in the quality of many goods and services. Whatever else the war might have accomplished, it certainly did not produce conditions that we may properly describe as genuine prosperity.

IV

Even if policy makers decline to adopt World War II-type policies as remedies for the current recession, the immense magnitude of the present-day military-industrial complex certainly complicates all efforts to effect a recovery, by draining more than $1 trillion a year from the economy’s potential to produce private consumer and producer goods. The current long-running wars and military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will probably never end, although eventually they may be scaled back somewhat, only add to the economic drain on U.S. resources. So far, more than $1 trillion has been expended for these ill-fated adventures, and their total cost may eventually cumulate to several times this amount, not simply because they, like the U.S. military presence in Japan, Korea, and various European countries, will continue indefinitely, but also because of the need to care for a multitude of physically and psychologically disabled veterans over a span of several decades.

Even if the wars in the Middle East were concluded overnight, however, a huge distortion would continue to affect the U.S. economy, owing to the normal operation of the military-industrial complex and the maintenance of the current armed forces and their far-flung empire of more than 800 large overseas bases. This military hypertrophy reflects not an attempt to pump up the macroeconomy, as military Keynesians would have it, but rather the devotion of U.S. ruling elites to the maintenance of global military hegemony, ultimately capped by the attainment of “full-spectrum dominance”—“control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources” over the entire world.

Why do U.S. policy makers seek such god-like control of the planet? To the extent that the military leadership itself contributes to shaping national-security policies, this o’erleaping ambition merely expresses the latest phase of the military’s longstanding maniacal quest for total power—the undoubted ability to win any and all conceivable wars. Among the civilian leadership, the motives range more widely. An important impulse, though it is never mentioned frankly in polite company, is to maintain a foreign military presence configured so as to make the state of Israel as secure as possible. Another abiding interest is to control the worldwide distribution of petroleum, if necessary by bribing, intimidating, or taking military action against the governments of important oil-producing countries, especially in the Persian Gulf region.

Related to this wholly unnecessary quest to control the world’s oil-distribution channels—after all, it does not serve the interests of the oil producers to withhold their product from the world market—is the ambition to play the Great Game by throwing up barriers to the expanding influence of China and India and the residual potential of Russia in southwest Asia, especially in the Caspian Sea region, where vast stores of oil and gas remain to be tapped and brought to market. For more than half a century, U.S. leaders have been obsessed with projecting their country’s power into petro-military adventures of all sorts. However senseless this fixation might seem in a purely economic perspective, we can scarcely deny that the coziest crony capitalists in the oil and related industries have reaped a great deal of income along the way, and owing to their extraordinary political clout, they have every expectation of continuing to reap such income in the future, with the vital assistance of U.S. diplomats and armed forces to grease the skids.

Although the military-industrial-congressional complex is one of the most powerful interest groups in U.S. politics, and we may certainly expect it to struggle forcefully to retain or even to increase the flow of wealth placed at its disposal, the U.S. government’s increasingly precarious financial condition may compel even this powerful coalition to settle for a smaller space at the trough, especially if stagflation sets in as the U.S. economy’s normal condition during the next decade (as I suspect it will). If America’s economic future turns out to be even worse than I now foresee—for example, with rapid inflation, price and capital controls, and a flight from the dollar—then even greater retrenchment of the U.S. military presence abroad will be unavoidable. Such economic ruin would be a heavy price to pay for reining in America’s global hegemony, but, nevertheless, the military retrenchment itself would be a consequence that most of the world’s people would celebrate.

The United States’ economic troubles are mounting and already prodigious.  While it’s true that Obama inherited a mess – created by government – he has made our economic problems progressively (pun intended) worse.  Amidst that failure, however, Obama has accomplished something that is simply hard to believe.

Before I get to that stunning achievement, it worthy to consider just how bad the employment picture really is.  Since the Great Depression, unemployment has reached this neighborhood of 10%, i.e. nearly double the historic average, only one other time.  That was during the early 1980’s.  That unemployment was brought on by the combined bad economic (read: “political”) decisions of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.  All combined, they produced high unemployment and high inflation in addition to new terminology – stagflation.  In order to wring inflation out of the system, President Reagan’s economic remedy eventually produced a record 92 months of growth but started with unemployment above 10%.  In fact, unemployment was above 9% for 18 months before steadily dropping to 5.3% at the end of Reagan’s two terms.

When Obama got his so-called stimulus package (read: record pork-barrel bill) passed, he promised that unemployment would not rise above 8%.  It has now been above 8% for 15 months – it has been above 9% for 12 months.  Obama openly admits that unemployment will be a problem for a long time to come.  He could not be more right considering that he is proposing a series of huge tax hikes, i.e. the expiration of the Bush tax cuts along with his cap and trade energy plan which is more rightly named “cap and tax.” Beyond that, Obama’s health care legislation has imposed huge regulatory costs on American business – costs which come at the expense of American jobs.  Those are some of the reasons there is so much talk of the possibility of a double-dip recession. Quite frankly, an unemployment rate above 8%, if not 9%, for another 24 months is a real possibility.

Unemployment that is nearly double the national average, and at a 30 year high with no end in sight, is incredibly bad and of deep concern to many Americans.

As bad as that is, however, Obama has accomplished something literally stunning.

According to Gallup polling released the first week of June – unemployment ranks only 4^th among Americans biggest concerns.  Indeed, Americans top 4 concerns are:

4) Unemployment

3) Healthcare costs (according to Rasmussen 60% want the healthcare bill repealed).

And a tie at the top between:

1) Federal Debt (Obama has added $6.5 trillion beyond what he can possibly claim her inherited – that’s $163,000 for every taxpaying family), and

1) Terrorism (attacks on American soil are way up courtesy of his weak foreign policy).

It is simply unbelievable that Obama has made Americans so worried about healthcare, terrorism and the federal debt that they would rank historically high unemployment 4^th.    That tells a very sorry tale about the State of the Union, and just think, only 2 ½ years left for him to “achieve” even more.

In this week’s edition of of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, we’re talking about the latest unemployment numbers, the coming political conflict across class and generation, and why the iPad won’t save old media. We’re brought to you as always by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and LibertyPundits.com.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Yousefzadeh: A Disconnect on Unemployment Numbers
Tracinski: The European Welfare State
Chris Christie: Best Governor in America?
London Times: Generational Warfare
Paul Krugman: About That Conventional Wisdom
TNL: Why the iPad Won’t Save Newspapers

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly jobs report on June 4, showing only 41,000 new private-sector jobs. But those jobs were overshadowed by the enormous number of temporary census jobs in the May data.

According to the report, "employment grew by 431,000 in May, reflecting the hiring of 411,000 temporary employees to work on Census 2010." Those Census jobs made up 95 percent of the total payroll employment growth.

Even then, the hiring fell short of expectations. Associated Press said that economists forecasted 513,000 jobs for the month and called it a "disappointing" report. "Hiring by private employers was particularly weak, which is raising concerns that the economy recovery remains slow," AP said.

Other news outlets hyped the report including CNN. On its website, CNN emphasized that the "flood of temporary Census workers in May led to the biggest jump in jobs in ten years."  A similar headline appeared on the crawler at the bottom of CNN the morning the jobs report was released.

New York Daily News, ABC News.com and others also emphasized the "fastest pace" of job creation in 10 years in their reports.

On June 3, investing website Motley Fool advised people to ignore the jobs report that was supposed to show "the largest jump in more than 10 years."

"Ignore it. The overwhelming majority of these job gains are temporary hires from the Census Bureau's decennial census report and almost all of them will reverse within the next three months," Motley Fool wrote. They explained that the numbers would not be normalized and therefore "irrelevant when judging where the economy is truly heading."

On June 2, President Obama claimed the U.S. economy was "moving in the right direction," and that "we expect to see strong job growth in Friday's report." Vice President Biden predicted 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per month through 2010, during an interview with Charlie Rose June 2. Even if that happens, the president would fall 5.2 million short of fulfilling his jobs pledge about economic stimulus.

Stock market futures dropped in response to the jobs report.

"Given these disappointing numbers, it does look like we're headed for a re-test of the lows from last week," when the Dow posted its first close below 10,000 since February, Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners, told the Wall Street Journal. "The trend in private-sector jobs is still moving in the right direction here, but the pace is really anemic. Of course, that means people have to take another look at their profit forecasts and everything else."

By adding just 20,000 total permanent jobs, the economy actually lost ground since most economists say it takes at least 100,000 jobs each month to keep up with population growth.

Like this article? Sign up for "The Balance Sheet," BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly jobs report on June 4, showing only 41,000 new private-sector jobs. But those jobs were overshadowed by the enormous number of temporary census jobs in the May data.

According to the report, "employment grew by 431,000 in May, reflecting the hiring of 411,000 temporary employees to work on Census 2010." Those Census jobs made up 95 percent of the total payroll employment growth.

Even then, the hiring fell short of expectations. Associated Press said that economists forecasted 513,000 jobs for the month and called it a "disappointing" report. "Hiring by private employers was particularly weak, which is raising concerns that the economy recovery remains slow," AP said.

Other news outlets hyped the report including CNN. On its website, CNN emphasized that the "flood of temporary Census workers in May led to the biggest jump in jobs in ten years."  A similar headline appeared on the crawler at the bottom of CNN the morning the jobs report was released.

New York Daily News, ABC News.com and others also emphasized the "fastest pace" of job creation in 10 years in their reports.

On June 3, investing website Motley Fool advised people to ignore the jobs report that was supposed to show "the largest jump in more than 10 years."

"Ignore it. The overwhelming majority of these job gains are temporary hires from the Census Bureau's decennial census report and almost all of them will reverse within the next three months," Motley Fool wrote. They explained that the numbers would not be normalized and therefore "irrelevant when judging where the economy is truly heading."

On June 2, President Obama claimed the U.S. economy was "moving in the right direction," and that "we expect to see strong job growth in Friday's report." Vice President Biden predicted 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per month through 2010, during an interview with Charlie Rose June 2. Even if that happens, the president would fall 5.2 million short of fulfilling his jobs pledge about economic stimulus.

Stock market futures dropped in response to the jobs report.

"Given these disappointing numbers, it does look like we're headed for a re-test of the lows from last week," when the Dow posted its first close below 10,000 since February, Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners, told the Wall Street Journal. "The trend in private-sector jobs is still moving in the right direction here, but the pace is really anemic. Of course, that means people have to take another look at their profit forecasts and everything else."

By adding just 20,000 total permanent jobs, the economy actually lost ground since most economists say it takes at least 100,000 jobs each month to keep up with population growth.

Like this article? Sign up for "The Balance Sheet," BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter.

In a PBS interview June 2, Vice President Joseph Biden predicted 700,000 to 1.4 million jobs would be created by the end of 2010. But at most, that would still be more than 5.2 million jobs shy of matching President Obama's claims about economic stimulus.

Biden forecast job creation "between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs on average all the way through this year" in an interview with Charlie Rose. He also predicted "trouble in paradise" for the GOP.

Left-wing website The Huffington Post reported the prediction calling it "fairly safe" by "recent trends." Sam Stein wrote that, "Biden would not, however, mark a date when he thought the unemployment rate would dip to, say, six percent."

Stein didn't remind readers that Obama said the stimulus package would create more than 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Once you take out temporary jobs and the 100,000 minimum needed every month to keep up with population growth, the economy would need to create 932,000 new permanent jobs each and every month through the end of 2010.

The Obama administration actually needs to create a grand total of 6,662,000 jobs by the end of the year to fulfill his pledge because over 2.6 million jobs have been lost under his presidency.

The May 7 jobs report of 290,000 new jobs (66,000 temporary) was praised by the mainstream news media. The Associated Press emphasized the good news in its subhead and lead sentence: "Jobs grow by most in 4 years," and described people streaming "back in to the market looking for work."

AP waited until the eighth paragraph to mention that "all told, 15.3 million people were out of work in April."

Under previous administrations (Bush, Reagan) good jobs news was spun negatively. But since Obama took office, many news stories have given him a pass on the employment issue despite his grandiose promises to create millions of jobs.

The Business & Media Institute found that network news reports were extremely negative during President Reagan's administration, when unemployment was often at the same rate as it was in 2009 during Obama's first year. The networks found "good" news for Obama; however, focusing stories on as few as 25 jobs "saved" by the stimulus package.

Like this article? Then sign up for BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter, The Balance Sheet.

The federal government saw its tax collections fall by almost 20% in fiscal 2009 compared to fiscal 2008. Through the first seven months of the current fiscal year, year-over-year collections were down by another 4.5%.

New York Senator Charles Schumer (pictured at right; obtained from wbng.com) is desperately searching for another way to fleece taxpayers (because cutting spending is of course out of the question), and has come up with a "brilliant" idea. An unbylined Associated Press story gives Schumer's idea, a foreign call center tax, undeserved cover by going back to seven year-old information about industry job losses that doesn't reflect current conditions.

Here are the first five paragraphs from the AP story, followed by a later paragraph containing the outdated information:

Schumer wants to slow exodus of US call centers

In an effort to slow the exodus of U.S. telephone work to overseas services, Sen. Charles Schumer is introducing legislation that would impose an excise tax on companies that transfer calls with American area codes to foreign call centers.

The measure would also require telling U.S. customers that the call is being transferred and to which country.

Companies use call centers to give customers technical product support, answer billing questions or provide other information. They often use several operators.

The fee would be 25 cents for calls transferred to foreign countries. There would be no fee for a domestic call center. Companies would have to report quarterly their total customer service calls received and the number relayed overseas.

"If we want to put a stop to the outsourcing of American jobs, then we need to provide incentives for American companies to keep American jobs here," Schumer said last week. The New York Democrat said the excise tax would "also provide a reason for companies that have already outsourced jobs to bring them back."

... From 2001 to 2003, the United States lost 250,000 call center jobs to India and the Philippines, according to Technology Marketing Corp., a Norwalk, Conn.-based company specializing in call centers and telemarketing.

If AP's alleged journalists had done research that took yours truly all of about 10 minutes, it could have informed readers that the "exodus" to which Schumer refers hasn't been happening for at least five years.

Three executive summaries available at the National Association of Call Centers (NACC) inform us that U.S. call center employment has generally grown, even through the severe nationwide recession.

First, here's a bit of the Fourth Quarter 2008 Executive Summary (bolds are mine throughout; links are to small PDF files):

In the fourth quarter of 2008 more call center jobs were lost in the United States than were gained for the first time since the data was collected going back to 2005. This loss of jobs in the call center industry was tied directly to the recession within the United States economy.

In case the AP needs to buy a clue, the excerpted paragraph tells us that the industry gained jobs for three or more years until its job growth finally succumbed to the recession.

Next, there's the following from the Second Quarter of 2009:

In the second quarter of 2009 more call center jobs were added in the United States than were lost suggesting a continued recovery from the recession low of fourth (4th) quarter 2008.

So despite the fact that the economy as a whole lost hundreds of thousands of jobs a month during the first six months of 2009, call centers showed net employment gains.

Finally, this is from the Fourth Quarter 2009 Executive Summary:

In the fourth quarter of 2009 more call center jobs were gained in the United States than were lost creating a three quarter long job recovery from the recession low of fourth (4th) quarter 2008.

The NAAC only makes its Executive Summaries available to the public, generally providing specific employment numbers only to members. But I suspect the organization would have been glad to give AP reporters some details if only someone had called them. Maybe the wire service should set up an outbound call center that will do the follow-up work its reporters seem incapable of doing.

The bottom line is this: Exodus, schmexodus. Senator Schumer's interest in a foreign call center tax has almost nothing to do with jobs. His primary interest is to create yet another ongoing money pot for a government that will not control itself.

Shame on the insufferably lazy AP for giving the New York senator argumentative cover.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The federal government saw its tax collections fall by almost 20% in fiscal 2009 compared to fiscal 2008. Through the first seven months of the current fiscal year, year-over-year collections were down by another 4.5%.

New York Senator Charles Schumer (pictured at right; obtained from wbng.com) is desperately searching for another way to fleece taxpayers (because cutting spending is of course out of the question), and has come up with a "brilliant" idea. An unbylined Associated Press story gives Schumer's idea undeserved cover by going back to seven year-old information about industry job losses that doesn't reflect current conditions.

Here are the first five paragraphs from the AP story, followed by a later paragraph containing the outdated information:

Schumer wants to slow exodus of US call centers

In an effort to slow the exodus of U.S. telephone work to overseas services, Sen. Charles Schumer is introducing legislation that would impose an excise tax on companies that transfer calls with American area codes to foreign call centers.

The measure would also require telling U.S. customers that the call is being transferred and to which country.

Companies use call centers to give customers technical product support, answer billing questions or provide other information. They often use several operators.

The fee would be 25 cents for calls transferred to foreign countries. There would be no fee for a domestic call center. Companies would have to report quarterly their total customer service calls received and the number relayed overseas.

"If we want to put a stop to the outsourcing of American jobs, then we need to provide incentives for American companies to keep American jobs here," Schumer said last week. The New York Democrat said the excise tax would "also provide a reason for companies that have already outsourced jobs to bring them back."

... From 2001 to 2003, the United States lost 250,000 call center jobs to India and the Philippines, according to Technology Marketing Corp., a Norwalk, Conn.-based company specializing in call centers and telemarketing.

If AP's alleged journalists had done research that took yours truly all of about 10 minutes, it could have informed readers that the "exodus" to which Schumer refers hasn't been happening for at least five years.

Three executive summaries available at the National Association of Call Centers (NACC) inform us that U.S. call center employment has generally grown, even through the severe nationwide recession.

First, here's a bit of the Fourth Quarter 2008 Executive Summary (bolds are mine throughout; links are to small PDF files):

In the fourth quarter of 2008 more call center jobs were lost in the United States than were gained for the first time since the data was collected going back to 2005. This loss of jobs in the call center industry was tied directly to the recession within the United States economy.

In case the AP needs to buy a clue, the excerpted paragraph tells us that the industry gained jobs for three or more years until its job growth finally succumbed to the recession.

Next, there's the following from the Second Quarter of 2009:

In the second quarter of 2009 more call center jobs were added in the United States than were lost suggesting a continued recovery from the recession low of fourth (4th) quarter 2008.

So despite the fact that the economy as a whole lost hundreds of thousands of jobs a month during the first six months of 2009, call centers showed net employment gains.

Finally, this is from the Fourth Quarter 2009 Executive Summary:

In the fourth quarter of 2009 more call center jobs were gained in the United States than were lost creating a three quarter long job recovery from the recession low of fourth (4th) quarter 2008.

The NAAC only makes its Executive Summaries available to the public, generally providing specific employment numbers only to members. But I suspect the organization would have been glad to give AP reporters some details if only someone had called them. Maybe the wire service should set up an outbound call center that will do the follow-up work its reporters seem incapable of doing.

The bottom line is this: Exodus, schmexodus. Senator Schumer's interest in a foreign call center tax has almost nothing to do with jobs. His primary interest is to create yet another ongoing money pot for a government that will not control itself.

Shame on the insufferably lazy AP for giving the New York senator argumentative cover.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The current recession and, especially, the related financial panic in the fall of 2008 have given rise to an extraordinary surge in the U.S. government’s size, scope, and power. As I write, the financial panic has subsided, but the recession, already the longest since the 1930s, seems likely to continue for a long time. Even when it has passed, however, the government will certainly retain much of the augmentation it has gained recently. Hence, this crisis will prove to be the occasion for another episode of the ratchet effect in the growth of government.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began early in 2008, but the decline became severe only in the latter part of the year. The financial panic that came to a head in late September 2008 proved to be the catalyst for an accelerated decline in real GDP and rise in the rate of unemployment. The so-called credit crunch in the fall of 2008 prompted the Fed, the Treasury, and the Congress to take a series of extraordinary actions in quick succession.

In September 2008, the Federal Reserve System (“the Fed”) took control of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), and the Federal Housing Finance Authority took over the huge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, secondary lending institutions that held or insured more than half of the total value of U.S. residential mortgages. On October 3, the president signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which, among other things, created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), authorizing as much as $700 billion for the purchase of so-called troubled assets, primarily mortgage-related securities, held by banks and other financial institutions. Instead of making the authorized purchases, however, the Treasury used the TARP to inject funds into the banks by purchasing their preferred shares. In this way, the government acquired an ownership interest in nearly 600 commercial banks.

Meanwhile, the Fed made a series of unprecedented types of asset purchases and loans, loan guarantees, and asset swaps, and provided other forms of assistance to securities dealers, money-market mutual funds, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, Citigroup, fourteen foreign central banks, and buyers of certain asset-backed securities based on consumer and small-business loans. As a result, the monetary base of the United States increased by more than 100 percent between August 2008 and January 2009.

After Barack Obama became president, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, authorizing a variety of federal spending increases and some tax reductions over the period from 2009 to 2019. According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the combined amount of these spending increases and tax cuts comes to $787 billion over the ten-year period.

These actions, among others, caused federal outlays to jump by 24 percent in fiscal year 2009, raising the U.S. government’s spending from 21 percent of GDP to 26 percent. They also increased the budget deficit by 246 percent, to approximately $1.6 trillion. Public debt held by the public rose from $5.8 trillion to $7.6 trillion during the course of fiscal year 2009, a 31 percent increase. These spending and borrowing surges will certainly have very long-lasting consequences.

Although these consequences are now in large part unavoidable, amelioration of their harm, as well as the prevention of similar government actions in a later crisis, requires a renewed commitment to liberty and a heightened understanding of its attainment and preservation. Toward these ends, the Independent Institute continues to work relentlessly.

Update - 5/27, 3:08 PM | Lachlan Markay: A new Harvard study finds that increased government spending actually reduces economic activity, contradicting the basic premise behind CBO's assumptions. Details below.

Good economic news is so rare for the current administration, that when some does emerge, many in the media parrot it as fact without really examining the claims that undergird it. New CBO numbers on the stimulus, for instance, have been trumpeted as proof the legislation at least helped, despite the fact that the numbers have little to no basis in reality.

Congressional Budget Office models are based on the assumption that stimulus spending will create jobs. They assume the conclusion they purport to demonstrate, and then claim they've demonstrated it. But if the model is inaccurate or simply based on false premises, it simply goes on tallying jobs "created or saved" without regard to the actual employment rate.

In March, a reporter asked CBO director Doug Elmendorf: "If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?" His response: "That's right. That's right." Yet despite those numbers' disconnect from reality, the media continue to report them as fact, and proof that the stimulus is working.

"[T]oday’s CBO report confirms that things could have been much worse without the stimulus," claimed ABC's Z. Byron Wolf yesterday. "The effects of the stimulus, according to the report, will continue to increase through part of 2010, before subsiding."

Wolf neglected to mention that the reported GDP increase of between 1.7 and 4.2 percent and decline in unemployment of between 0.7 and 1.5 percent were based on equations, not, you know, reality. As one ABC commenter put it, "You do realize that the CBO didn't actually use any real world data to prove this, right?" Either Wolf did not realize that fact, or he simply didn't think it worth a mention.

Reuters's Andy Sullivan also reported on the data without mentioning its disconnect from reality. The stimulus, Sullivan stated without challenge, "put up to 2.8 million people to work and boosted GDP by up to 4.2 percent in the first three months of 2010." Notice the use of "up to" -- Sullivan made sure to repeat the most optimistic claims in the lede.

Ironically, Sullivan noted that "CBO's latest estimate does not differ significantly from its previous assessments," but apparently failed to consider that the use of equations tends to produce similar results. The similarities underscore the danger of relying on such equations: if the CBO got something wrong, how would it know? New data continues to confirm projections. Meanwhile, in flyover country, Americans are still out of work.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution took it one step further. Not only do the CBO numbers confirm that the stimulus is working, but they demonstrate that the bill "has had an even bigger economic impact than expected." Never mind that CBO's numbers don't tell us anything about its actual economic impact.

Bookman added, "the stimulus that according to some hasn’t created one single job has been and continues to be an important success." Got it, naysayers? The stimulus worked. The equations told me so. Pay no attention to the 9.9 percent unemployment rate. It worked, dang it.

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and Ben Frumin at Talking Points Memo also regurgitated CBO's numbers without examining the methadology.

It's not as if that methodology is a secret. Some news outlets managed to report on it factually. "CBO's analysis was based on economic modeling derived from past spending and tax-cut programs," reported Stephen Dinan for the Washington Times, "which means its calculations are an estimate of what is going on, not an actual count of specific jobs created."

That, of course, explains the consistency of CBO's numbers, despite the extreme volatility and unpredictability of the American economy. National Review's Stephen Spuriell makes "a bold prediction":

The CBO's next quarterly report on the stimulus will come to roughly the same conclusions, regardless of what we actually observe with regard to GDP, the unemployment rate, or the number of people employed. Let me be even bolder: All of the CBO's quarterly reports from now until the law's expiration will reach the same conclusions, because the CBO's models beg the question: They assume that certain inputs in the form of government  spending have certain predictable effects on GDP and employment that are in line with the Keynesian view that fiscal stimulus creates jobs. Every quarter, the CBO just re-runs its models, regardless of what we are observing in the real world. The agency is repeating itself...

Critics of the Keynesian view of things have disputed the CBO's multipliers from the beginning, and our arguments have not changed (e.g. if every dollar of government spending ultimately raises the GDP by the amount CBO says it does, then we should just let the government spend all the money). Commentators who are treating the latest CBO report as new empirical evidence that the stimulus did great things for the economy either don't know what they're talking about or else they are being very hackish.

*****UPDATE:

Via Ed Morrissey, a new study conducted by Harvard professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy has found that "as a state's congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C.,"

companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses. Indeed, in the years that followed a congressman's ascendancy to the chairmanship of a powerful committee, the average firm in his state cut back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent, according to their working paper, "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?"

"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," Coval reports.

The comparison between congressional pork and large-scale stimulus spending is not exact, but this study does lend weight to critics of the Keyensian model, which backstops the CBO's employment and economic activity estimates.

Update - 5/27, 3:08 PM | Lachlan Markay: A new Harvard study finds that increased government spending actually reduces economic activity, contradicting the basic premise behind CBO's assumptions. Details below.

Good economic news is so rare for the current administration, that when some does emerge, many in the media parrot it as fact without really examining the claims that undergird it. New CBO numbers on the stimulus, for instance, have been trumpeted as proof the legislation at least helped, despite the fact that the numbers have little to no basis in reality.

Congressional Budget Office models are based on the assumption that stimulus spending will create jobs. They assume the conclusion they purport to demonstrate, and then claim they've demonstrated it. But if the model is inaccurate or simply based on false premises, it simply goes on tallying jobs "created or saved" without regard to the actual employment rate.

In March, a reporter asked CBO director Doug Elmendorf: "If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?" His response: "That's right. That's right." Yet despite those numbers' disconnect from reality, the media continue to report them as fact, and proof that the stimulus is working.

"[T]oday’s CBO report confirms that things could have been much worse without the stimulus," claimed ABC's Z. Byron Wolf yesterday. "The effects of the stimulus, according to the report, will continue to increase through part of 2010, before subsiding."

Wolf neglected to mention that the reported GDP increase of between 1.7 and 4.2 percent and decline in unemployment of between 0.7 and 1.5 percent were based on equations, not, you know, reality. As one ABC commenter put it, "You do realize that the CBO didn't actually use any real world data to prove this, right?" Either Wolf did not realize that fact, or he simply didn't think it worth a mention.

Reuters's Andy Sullivan also reported on the data without mentioning its disconnect from reality. The stimulus, Sullivan stated without challenge, "put up to 2.8 million people to work and boosted GDP by up to 4.2 percent in the first three months of 2010." Notice the use of "up to" -- Sullivan made sure to repeat the most optimistic claims in the lede.

Ironically, Sullivan noted that "CBO's latest estimate does not differ significantly from its previous assessments," but apparently failed to consider that the use of equations tends to produce similar results. The similarities underscore the danger of relying on such equations: if the CBO got something wrong, how would it know? New data continues to confirm projections. Meanwhile, in flyover country, Americans are still out of work.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution took it one step further. Not only do the CBO numbers confirm that the stimulus is working, but they demonstrate that the bill "has had an even bigger economic impact than expected." Never mind that CBO's numbers don't tell us anything about its actual economic impact.

Bookman added, "the stimulus that according to some hasn’t created one single job has been and continues to be an important success." Got it, naysayers? The stimulus worked. The equations told me so. Pay no attention to the 9.9 percent unemployment rate. It worked, dang it.

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and Ben Frumin at Talking Points Memo also regurgitated CBO's numbers without examining the methadology.

It's not as if that methodology is a secret. Some news outlets managed to report on it factually. "CBO's analysis was based on economic modeling derived from past spending and tax-cut programs," reported Stephen Dinan for the Washington Times, "which means its calculations are an estimate of what is going on, not an actual count of specific jobs created."

That, of course, explains the consistency of CBO's numbers, despite the extreme volatility and unpredictability of the American economy. National Review's Stephen Spuriell makes "a bold prediction":

The CBO's next quarterly report on the stimulus will come to roughly the same conclusions, regardless of what we actually observe with regard to GDP, the unemployment rate, or the number of people employed. Let me be even bolder: All of the CBO's quarterly reports from now until the law's expiration will reach the same conclusions, because the CBO's models beg the question: They assume that certain inputs in the form of government  spending have certain predictable effects on GDP and employment that are in line with the Keynesian view that fiscal stimulus creates jobs. Every quarter, the CBO just re-runs its models, regardless of what we are observing in the real world. The agency is repeating itself...

Critics of the Keynesian view of things have disputed the CBO's multipliers from the beginning, and our arguments have not changed (e.g. if every dollar of government spending ultimately raises the GDP by the amount CBO says it does, then we should just let the government spend all the money). Commentators who are treating the latest CBO report as new empirical evidence that the stimulus did great things for the economy either don't know what they're talking about or else they are being very hackish.

*****UPDATE:

Via Ed Morrissey, a new study conducted by Harvard professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy has found that "as a state's congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C.,"

companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses. Indeed, in the years that followed a congressman's ascendancy to the chairmanship of a powerful committee, the average firm in his state cut back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent, according to their working paper, "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?"

"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," Coval reports.

The comparison between congressional pork and large-scale stimulus spending is not exact, but this study does lend weight to critics of the Keyensian model, which backstops the CBO's employment and economic activity estimates.

Update - 5/27, 3:08 PM | Lachlan Markay: A new Harvard study finds that increased government spending actually reduces economic activity, contradicting the basic premise behind CBO's assumptions. Details below.

Good economic news is so rare for the current administration, that when some does emerge, many in the media parrot it as fact without really examining the claims that undergird it. New CBO numbers on the stimulus, for instance, have been trumpeted as proof the legislation at least helped, despite the fact that the numbers have little to no basis in reality.

Congressional Budget Office models are based on the assumption that stimulus spending will create jobs. They assume the conclusion they purport to demonstrate, and then claim they've demonstrated it. But if the model is inaccurate or simply based on false premises, it simply goes on tallying jobs "created or saved" without regard to the actual employment rate.

In March, a reporter asked CBO director Doug Elmendorf: "If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?" His response: "That's right. That's right." Yet despite those numbers' disconnect from reality, the media continue to report them as fact, and proof that the stimulus is working.

"[T]oday’s CBO report confirms that things could have been much worse without the stimulus," claimed ABC's Z. Byron Wolf yesterday. "The effects of the stimulus, according to the report, will continue to increase through part of 2010, before subsiding."

Wolf neglected to mention that the reported GDP increase of between 1.7 and 4.2 percent and decline in unemployment of between 0.7 and 1.5 percent were based on equations, not, you know, reality. As one ABC commenter put it, "You do realize that the CBO didn't actually use any real world data to prove this, right?" Either Wolf did not realize that fact, or he simply didn't think it worth a mention.

Reuters's Andy Sullivan also reported on the data without mentioning its disconnect from reality. The stimulus, Sullivan stated without challenge, "put up to 2.8 million people to work and boosted GDP by up to 4.2 percent in the first three months of 2010." Notice the use of "up to" -- Sullivan made sure to repeat the most optimistic claims in the lede.

Ironically, Sullivan noted that "CBO's latest estimate does not differ significantly from its previous assessments," but apparently failed to consider that the use of equations tends to produce similar results. The similarities underscore the danger of relying on such equations: if the CBO got something wrong, how would it know? New data continues to confirm projections. Meanwhile, in flyover country, Americans are still out of work.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution took it one step further. Not only do the CBO numbers confirm that the stimulus is working, but they demonstrate that the bill "has had an even bigger economic impact than expected." Never mind that CBO's numbers don't tell us anything about its actual economic impact.

Bookman added, "the stimulus that according to some hasn’t created one single job has been and continues to be an important success." Got it, naysayers? The stimulus worked. The equations told me so. Pay no attention to the 9.9 percent unemployment rate. It worked, dang it.

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and Ben Frumin at Talking Points Memo also regurgitated CBO's numbers without examining the methadology.

It's not as if that methodology is a secret. Some news outlets managed to report on it factually. "CBO's analysis was based on economic modeling derived from past spending and tax-cut programs," reported Stephen Dinan for the Washington Times, "which means its calculations are an estimate of what is going on, not an actual count of specific jobs created."

That, of course, explains the consistency of CBO's numbers, despite the extreme volatility and unpredictability of the American economy. National Review's Stephen Spuriell makes "a bold prediction":

The CBO's next quarterly report on the stimulus will come to roughly the same conclusions, regardless of what we actually observe with regard to GDP, the unemployment rate, or the number of people employed. Let me be even bolder: All of the CBO's quarterly reports from now until the law's expiration will reach the same conclusions, because the CBO's models beg the question: They assume that certain inputs in the form of government  spending have certain predictable effects on GDP and employment that are in line with the Keynesian view that fiscal stimulus creates jobs. Every quarter, the CBO just re-runs its models, regardless of what we are observing in the real world. The agency is repeating itself...

Critics of the Keynesian view of things have disputed the CBO's multipliers from the beginning, and our arguments have not changed (e.g. if every dollar of government spending ultimately raises the GDP by the amount CBO says it does, then we should just let the government spend all the money). Commentators who are treating the latest CBO report as new empirical evidence that the stimulus did great things for the economy either don't know what they're talking about or else they are being very hackish.

*****UPDATE:

Via Ed Morrissey, a new study conducted by Harvard professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy has found that "as a state's congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C.,"

companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses. Indeed, in the years that followed a congressman's ascendancy to the chairmanship of a powerful committee, the average firm in his state cut back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent, according to their working paper, "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?"

"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," Coval reports.

The comparison between congressional pork and large-scale stimulus spending is not exact, but this study does lend weight to critics of the Keyensian model, which backstops the CBO's employment and economic activity estimates.

Why is Oklahoma's economy more than OK these days?

The latest piece of evidence supporting that truth arrived on Friday, when Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics released April's Regional and State Unemployment Summary.

The report tells us that Oklahoma had a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 6.6% last month. That's far lower than the 9.9% reported for the entire USA two weeks ago. No state with a larger population has a lower unemployment rate than the Sooner State (states with lower April unemployment rates were KS - 6.5%; NE at 5.0%; ND - 3.8%; SD - 4.7%; and VT - 6.4%).

As seen in the chart below, Oklahoma's unemployment rate has been significantly lower than the national rate for well over two years, and on average in 2009 was that way across all major ethnic groups (source data for 2006 to 2009 can be accessed here; scroll down to "Annual Average Statewide Data"):

Especially note that:

• The average unemployment rate for Hispanics in Oklahoma, which had been higher than the national average, went down significantly in 2009, coming in 4.7 points lower than the national average.
• The black unemployment rate in Oklahoma went from higher than its national average to significantly lower between 2007 and 2009.

Unemployment isn't the only good-looking economic indicator. The state's gross domestic product grew by 2.7% in 2008, the most recent year available, while national GDP that year grew by only 0.4%. "Traditional" welfare enrollment (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is about 0.6% of the population, well below the national average. Per-capita personal income is higher than it was two years ago (+2.8%); nationwide, it's lower (-0.7%).

So why has this happened?

The first of two too-easy explanations posited by commenters at my Pajamas Media column last week was that the Sooner State, as an economy dominated by the oil industry, has disproportionately benefitted from high prices. The trouble is, contrary to the stereotype, the state is not dominated by oil, as this industry-specific itemization of the state's workforce several years ago shows. The second explanation attempt, to pin the state's good fortune on agriculture, was even worse than the first; that same link shows that only 2% of the state's workers are in that sector.

Oklahoma did one thing in 2007 that broke with the rest of the nation. In May of that year, it passed a significant immigration law-enforcement measure that took effect six months later. House Bill 1804 was designed to do four things: deal with identity theft; terminate public assistance benefits to illegals; empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws; and punish employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

The establishment press barely covered Oklahoma's law when it was passed. As the manufactured controversy over Arizona' immigration-law enforcement measure has gained currency, that avoidance has continued, accompanied by occasional doses of disinformation. The worst example I have seen of the latter came in late April from Sally Kohn at the Christian Science Monitor. Kohn cited an unnamed "study" claiming that "the bill led to an estimated 50,000 people fleeing Oklahoma and a 1.3 percent drop in economic output statewide." As shown earlier, the economy grew in 2008 (and probably will do so again in 2009). Additionally, Census Bureau data shows that the state's population is rising in tandem with the rest of the nation.

Kohn, a "Chief Agitation Officer of the Movement Vision Lab, a grassroots think tank," also compounded error with insult, asserting that the state is "littered with crumbling farms and factories and aging populations who feel that any prospect of prosperity is passing them by." A few states, including California (unemployment rate - 12.6%), Florida (12.0%), Michigan (14.0%), and my native Ohio (10.9%), would dearly love to endure the so-called "crumbling" Oklahoma is experiencing.

None of the above constitutes courtroom-level proof that "1804" has caused the Sooner State to weather the economic storm so much better than the rest of the nation. But what other explanation remains?

I did find one interesting reference to Oklahoma in a May 18 Associated Press story ("Immigrant crossings into Arizona on the rise"):

Gonzalo Altamirano, a 19-year-old mechanic from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, jumped over a fence into Arizona from Agua Prieta. He surrendered to authorities after waiting two days for a van that never arrived.

It was Altamirano's second time crossing illegally into the United States - he lived and worked in Oklahoma for nine months in 2007 before getting so homesick he returned to Mexico. He intends to try again.

Does anyone besides me question whether Mr. Altamirano was really "homesick"? Further, does anyone think he'll be heading back to Oklahoma if he is successful in getting past ICE next time?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

On Saturday’s Huckabee show on FNC, as the show was broadcast from Las Vegas, singer Wayne Newton appeared as a guest to discuss the economic situation in the city, and, when asked by host Mike Huckabee his reaction to President Obama’s remarks from last year attacking businesses for indulging in trips to Las Vegas, Newton did not mince words: "I think that it was the most irresponsible, arrogant thing I have ever heard a President of the United States say."

Fellow guest and Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons related that hundreds of conventions were canceled after the President’s words, costing the city a fortune in lost business: "There's no doubt that the people of Las Vegas, the city of Las Vegas were severely hurt by the President's remarks. About 400 conventions, business meetings, and that were canceled because of his remarks; $100 million was lost by the community at that remark. People lost their jobs. This city took a real blow when the President made that remark. He was wrong then, and then he said it again, and I don't understand why he keeps picking on Las Vegas."

Newton jumped in again and suggested that the President has been hypocritical in holding political fundraisers in Las Vegas: "He was not so incensed with Las Vegas, that he then decided to come here and do two fundraisers."

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, May 22, Huckabee on FNC:

MIKE HUCKABEE: Wayne, when people think of Las Vegas, they think of Wayne Newton. You have been entertaining in this city for many, many years. When the President made the comments about "Don’t go to Vegas," did you take that a little personally?

WAYNE NEWTON: Of course I took it personal. I think that it was the most irresponsible, arrogant thing I have ever heard a President of the United States say.

(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE)

HUCKABEE: And, Governor, let me address this. Did you see-

FRANK CALIENDO, COMEDIAN: Let me, can I, can I ask a quick question?

HUCKABEE: Yeah, go ahead.

CALIENDO: How do you really feel about it? (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) Whoa! Newton!

NEWTON: Down, big boy, down.

(AUDIENCE LAUGHTER)

HUCKABEE: Governor, you saw the revenues of the state. Did it have an impact, and, if so, to what level?

GOVERNOR JIM GIBBONS (R-NV): Mike, there’s no doubt that the people of Las Vegas, the city of Las Vegas were severely hurt by the President’s remarks. About 400 conventions, business meetings, and that were canceled because of his remarks; $100 million was lost by the community at that remark. People lost their jobs. This city took a real blow when the President made that remark. He was wrong then, and then he said it again, and I don’t understand why he keeps picking on Las Vegas.

NEWTON: May I jump in there also?

HUCKABEE: Certainly.

NEWTON: He was not so incensed with Las Vegas, that he then decided to come here and do two fundraisers.

(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE)

GIBBONS: I guess he can come here to take our money, but he can’t come here and let people spend their money.

In this week’s edition of of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, we’re talking about the fall of the Euro, the unemployment situation, and how Wall Street gamed financial reform on Capitol Hill. We’re brought to you as always by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and LibertyPundits.com.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

TNL: The Trichet Put and EuroTarp
TNL: Republicans and the Volcker Rule
Pethokoukis: Wall Street Scores a Win on Finreg
Paul Ryan: Wall Street Reform Just More Crony Capitalism
TNL: Politics of False Promise: New Labour and Barack Obama

"Unexpectedly." It recent overuse by the Associated Press almost makes me nostalgic for the "green shoots" that the mainstream media kept seeing last year in the midst of rising unemployment and other bad economic news. When you see the AP use that adverb nowadays, you almost always know it involves depressing news on the economic front and this time they did not dissapoint with their story about a sharp increase in jobless claims:

WASHINGTON-- The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week.

Yes, it was all so "unexpected." And here is a compendium of the AP's favorite adverb in describing bad economic news in recent months starting with a double use in headline and subtitle of another lousy jobless claims report in early April:

Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly

New claims for jobless benefits increase unexpectedly, while total benefit rolls drop 

From February, a certain adverb "unexpectedly" rears its ugly economic head:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.

Although the frequency of "unexpectedly" has unexpectedly risen in the past few months, it was already the AP adverb of choice a year ago as you can see in this May 2009 story:

Deterred by immigration laws and the lackluster economy, the population growth of Hispanics and Asians in the United States has slowed unexpectedly, causing the government to push back estimates on when minorities will become the majority by as much as a decade.

Even early in the Obama administration, April 2009, "unexpectedly" was making its appearance, in stark contrast to when economic news during the Bush era was frequently described as grim even when it was "unexpectedly" good:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of people filing new jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week, while those continuing to receive benefits hit a record for he 10th consecutive week.

So will all this "unexpectedly" bad economic news cause Rick Newman of the U.S. News & World Report to revised his opinion that all this unemployment is really great news? Not unless something makes Rick unexpectedly change his fantasy forecasts.

So have any green shoots been spotted lately? The good news is yes. The bad news is that it is, well, bad news as you can see in this May 7 story title:

CHART OF THE DAY: No Green Shoots At All For The Long-Term Unemployed

This mornings unemployment report was mixed. Jobs were created at a clip faster than economists expected, but unemployment rose as more workers started looking for jobs again.

But here's one slice that wasn't mixed. The number of long-term unemployed is shooting straight up with nary a green shoot in sight.

Say goodbye to "green shoots" and bid hello to "unexpectedly."

President Obama is coming to Youngstown today to tout his administration’s recovery efforts, but its policies are only making matters worse in the Mahoning Valley.

While it’s encouraging that the factory in Youngstown that the president will visit on Tuesday has recently expanded, the city’s painfully high 15.1 percent unemployment rate is a harsh reminder that the “stimulus” has not created jobs “immediately,” or held our national unemployment rate (9.9 percent) below eight percent as the president promised.

Worse yet, the policies of the Obama Administration could quickly put jobs at the factory, which manufactures steel pipes for oil and gas drilling, on the chopping block as it continues to push a “cap-and-trade” national energy tax that will raise energy prices, drive thousands of American jobs overseas to countries with less-stringent environmental regulations, and devastate our domestic oil and gas industries.

Last December the administration unilaterally acted to pave the way for this bureaucratic nightmare, and it’s not looking back. In fact, last week the EPA finalized new rules for manufacturers and power plants scheduled to go into effect in January of next year, regulations that American Iron and Steel Institute President and CEO Thomas Gibson warns “will impose significant new costs on manufacturing industries at the worst possible time… [and] arbitrarily picks winners and losers.”

This disturbing trend of harmful government overreach is only increasing as the administration uses taxpayer bailouts and a bevy of new powers to aid special-interest allies and inject politics into every corner of America.

Just look at the government role in the unequal treatment of thousands of Ohio retirees of the now bankrupt auto parts manufacturer Delphi Corporation.  More than 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees, many of whom live in the Youngstown and Dayton areas, face the loss of health care coverage and up to 70 percent of their monthly pension checks, while obligations to the former company’s union retirees are being covered in full by government-owned General Motors.

Americans across the country are watching this, and they’re saying ‘enough is enough.’

They’re tired of the payoffs, kickbacks and sweetheart deals for Washington’s special-interests.

They are scared as they watch government spend like there is no tomorrow, piling more and more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

And they don’t want the president’s new health care law, which will punish small businesses and states with new mandates, cut Medicare benefits for seniors, and actually increase health care costs, according to a recent report from analysts at the administration’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Already, 20 states have filed suit in court to block the law’s costly mandates.  On Friday, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which represent the nation’s small businesses, announced it will join these efforts to overturn the president’s health care overhaul due to concern it will hurt our economy and prevent the creation of American jobs.

Republicans are listening to these concerns, and we’re offering better solutions to help middle-class families and small businesses tackle the challenges they are facing every day.

We want to repeal the president’s jobs-killing health care law, and replace it with real reform to lower costs.  We want to put an end to taxpayer bailouts, and get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the private sector.

And we are offering an “all of the above” energy strategy to create jobs, lower energy costs, and establish a cleaner more reliable energy future, solutions to curb government spending, and a jobs plan to help small businesses create jobs.

President Obama has billed his ‘Main Street’ tour as a ‘listening tour.’  As Ohioans continue to ask “Where are the jobs?” it’s time for the president to scrap his job-killing agenda, and work with Republicans on these types of better solutions to help create new jobs and get our economy moving again.

Believe it or not, there are some who still fail to grasp the notion that the legacy media are overwhelmingly liberal. They act shocked when the media do what they usually do -- toe the liberal line -- and search in vain for some way to explain the apparent bias.

"Does the Media Care About Unemployment?" asked Kevin Drum, a writer for the liberal Mother Jones. Drum postulated that that "the media focused way more on economic hard luck stories in the early 80s than they do now."

While a liberal noting the double standard is refreshing, Drum went on to attribute it to a litany of possible reasons, all the while ignoring the obvious, and painfully simple answer right before his eyes: as B. Daniel Blatt writes, "Because a Republican’s Not in the White House."

Drum wrote,

...it's true — or at least, it's my impression that it's true — that the media focused way more on economic hard luck stories in the early 80s than they do now. I have a strong memory of being practically bombarded with this stuff back then. Today, though, not so much. It's not that coverage of unemployment is absent, just that it strikes me as much less urgent than it was in the early 80s.

I don't know why. Maybe Brad [DeLong]'s reasons are the right ones. Maybe it's just been crowded out by other financial news like bank bailouts and subprime ghost towns. Maybe the social safety net is more effective now than it was 30 years ago. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that today's stubbornly high numbers are concentrated among the long-term unemployed, as shown in the chart on the right. Maybe the rise of two-earner families has reduced the pain of unemployment somewhat. Maybe nobody really believes any longer that the government can do anything about this, so it's not worth reporting on. I don't know. But like Brad, it strikes me as quite odd.

Drum comes so close, but just when you think he's about to hit the media bias nail on the head, he trails off and ends the post.

The extent of the double standard goes beyond the volume of coverage to its tone. Last year, NewsBusters reported that the networks called identical unemployment numbers good news for Obama but "all" bad for President Reagan. A Business and Media Institute study issued the following findings:

Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.

Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).

Charles Gibson: 9.4% Unemployment ‘Good News' (Obama) and also ‘All' Bad (Reagan): The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and Obama. But ABC's Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 than in 2009. Gibson told viewers May 7, 1982, "[T]here really isn't any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad." But by 2009, Gibson had turned into an optimist citing "good news" June 5 and "hope the economy may be finally turning the corner" Aug. 7.

Of course one needn't go all the way back to the 1980s to see evidence of this double standard. The discrepancies in coverage between economic news during Obama's presidency and such news during the previous administration is glaring.

CBS's Katie Couric, for instance, last July touted four straight quarters of GDP decline, as "the latest evidence the recession is easing" and said that the "glimmer of hope just got a whole lot brighter." ABC's Elizabeth Vargas, meanwhile, touted a "new optimism about an economic recovery."

A year before, Couric had labeled a 1.9 percent economic expansion "disappointing." ABC and NBC were silent on that economic news.

Tom Maguire is astounded at the left's -- or at least Drum's -- inability to see the simplicity of this double standard:

Wow. There is not a righty in the world that can't suggest a reason for the media's posture.  In fact, even before the election it was a truism that the tone of the press coverage of the economy would change to smiley faces the day Obama was sworn in.

Kevin is puzzled as to why the media back in 1983 (pre-Fox, pre-Rush) felt comfortable bashing Reagan, that stupid heartless conservative cowboy.  Yet today, the media is giving a pass to Obama, determined not to give aid and comfort to the racist tea-baggers who question his economic policies.  Gosh, I wonder what's going on.  Couldn't be media bias, since in LibWorld that doesn't exist - they are owned by evil corporations, some supported the invasion of Iraq, and anyway, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, neener, neener, neener.

While it is often an unpopular viewpoint, many economists realize unemployment insurance can actually promote unemployment.

Business & Media Institute adviser Prof. Gary Wolfram explained this in an op-ed on March 17, 2010, as the media attacked Sen. Jim Bunning for filibustering a bill including an extension of the ability to file for federal unemployment benefits.

Wolfram wrote, "It ought to be clear that if we reduce the cost of becoming or remaining unemployed, then we will have greater unemployment. This is not rocket science by any means. Suppose that unemployment benefits were $6,000 per week and lasted indefinitely. Is there little doubt that most of us would choose unemployment?"

Unemployment benefits are far from $6,000 per week, yet the Detroit News found workers refusing job offers in order to stay on the dole. In its May 10 article, Detroit News reported:

"In a state with the nation's highest jobless rate, landscaping companies are finding some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits."

The newspaper asked whether "extended unemployment benefits give the jobless an incentive to avoid work." Chris Pompeo, VP of operations for one Michigan landscape company, told the Detroit News "he has had about a dozen offers declined."

"One applicant, who had eight weeks to go until his state unemployment benefits ran out, asked for a deferred start date," the newspaper said.

It is illegal to turn down "suitable" work in order to stay on unemployment, but according to the Detroit News that is exactly what is happening in the landscaping industry in Michigan. Under current federal law (thanks to an extension) an out-of-work person can collect unemployment for up to 99 weeks.

In his op-ed Wolfram cited incentives for unemployment as part of the reason for the "jobless recovery."

Another BMI adviser, Dan Mitchell of the CATO Institute, credited the Detroit News for its "great story." He also commented that "none of this should be surprising to people who understand that if you subsidize something, you get more of it."

It seems that the U.S. News & World Report is in some serious competition with the Associated Press over who can put the most positive spin on April's increase in unemployment. So the unemployment figure rose last month from 9.7% to 9.9%? Great news according to Rick Newman in his U.S. News blog titled, "Why a Rising Unemployment Rate is Good News." And why is it good news? Newman explains...sort of:

It sounds dreadful. After drifting down consistently since last fall, the unemployment rate has suddenly shot up again, from 9.7 percent in March to 9.9 percent in April. But don't despair: A rising unemployment rate is actually one of the best signs yet that the economy is bouncing back.

The unemployment rate rose for the right reason. Instead of shedding jobs, employers added 290,000 jobs in April, the strongest showing since 2007. The reason the unemployment rate went up is that a lot more people are suddenly looking for work. The government said that the labor force swelled by 805,000 people in April. That's more than three times the number of new jobs, so the proportion of people looking for a job but unable to find one went up. Still, that big increase in the labor force marks an important shift in sentiment among people on the fringes of the economy.

Huh? So does that mean that a fall in the unemployment rate would have been a bad thing? And if the unemployment rate continues to rise?  Also a good thing according to Newman:

Another 610,000 people entered the labor force without being technically unemployed, a sign that first-time workers and other job seekers have decided to get off the couch and start hustling. There are a lot more where they came from, which means the unemployment rate might still rise in future months, before it turns around and starts declining for good. For once, it will be something to cheer.

As could be expected, commenters posting to this U.S. News blog were a bit more than stunned at Newman's reasoning:

This is the worst doublespeak I've ever seen. I think it would be good news if you became an unemployed journalist! You deserve to get fired for this crap.

When 120,000 temporary census jobs are part of the 290,000 jobs created in the economy this reporting cycle, and the U6 broader unemployment rate ticks up .2% to 17.1% total there is no good news. There is no "jobless recovery", that is the biggest oxymoron on the planet. 

Should you think this attitude was because it was just  a U.S. News blog, you would be wrong. The same attitude is echoed in a regular U.S. News & Report article by Liz Wolgemuth:

On the day following the U.S. stock market's nearly 1,000 point intraday plunge, the Labor Department reported that employers added 290,000 jobs in April, the biggest monthly gain since March 2006. While it remains to be seen what effect it will have on investors who are focused on the sovereign-debt crisis in Europe,  this is good news for recession-weary job seekers. The unemployment rate jumped to 9.9 percent last month, from 9.7 percent in March, as hopeful workers flooded back into the job market to search for jobs.

And now Wolgemuth's bizarre reasoning as to why workers are "hopeful" again despite the rise in unemployment:

Economists expected that the economy would add 180,000 jobs in April and the unemployment rate would remain at 9.7 percent. The higher unemployment rate may suggest that workers jumped back into the labor market faster than economists were expecting. It turns out that March hiring was much better than originally reported.

Huh? Wake me up when we finally leave the Bizarro World of U.S. News & World Report. Of course, the commenters posting to this article were somewhat less than impressed by the reasoning in which rising unemployment is a positive sign:

Who really authored this article? Rahm Emanuel?

Two years ago these same numbers would have had the writers claiming the end of the world. Gee- The last few days of stock performance sure show that investors think all is good! What a load! 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly jobs report early May 7 announcing a rise in unemployment to 9.9 percent and an increase of 290,000 jobs.

Any positive job growth is good news to be sure. But in order for Obama to meet his pledge of 4 million jobs created by the end of 2010, the U.S. economy would have to add 932,000 jobs each and every month between now and the end of the year, taking into account both temporary jobs and the number of new positions needed to keep even with population growth. According to the BLS, 2,662,000 jobs have been lost since February 2009.

The Associated Press reacted immediately to the May 7 jobs announcement by emphasizing the good news in its subhead and lead sentence: "Jobs grow by most in 4 years." They described people streaming "back into the market looking for work."

AP waited until the eighth paragraph to mention that "all told, 15.3 million people were out of work in April."

The New York Times also highlighted the "unexpected strong" job growth, but admitted "the job market still has a long way to go before it can be counted on to provide a base for a sustained economic recovery." Both stories did mention that 66,000 jobs out of the total were temporary jobs related to the U.S. Census.

CNN's Kyra Phillips attempted to explain the unemployment numbers May 7 saying more Americans are "optimistic" and began looking for work.

Neither AP, nor the Times mentioned Obama in its stories. Phillips only mentioned that Obama would be making a statement later in the day. None of them reminded their audience that the Obama administration promised to create 4.1 million jobs by the end of 2010, according to a Jan. 2009 AP story on MSNBC.com.

Economists often say that the U.S. needs to create 150,000 jobs per month just to break even. One study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta put the actual minimum slightly lower than 100,000 jobs per month. Using that calculation, and subtracting the temporary census workers hired in April, the rate of job creation falls considerably.

290,000 jobs added in April

-66,000 temporary Census workers

-100,000 minimum needed every month

________

124,000 additional jobs created in April

At that rate it would take just over 21 months just to gain back the 2,662,000 jobs lost under President Obama (Feb. 2009 through April 2010). To fulfill his promise of 4 million jobs created by the end of 2010, the U.S. economy would need to gain 932,750 jobs per month between now and the end of the year.

The Times quoted Peter Cardillo, who predicted "jobs growth in the vicinity of 150,000 to 175,000 per month going forward." Cardillo, chief market economist for Avalon Partners said, "That means the unemployment rate is going to stay on high level ground for a while." If Cardillo was correct, that sort of growth would barely keep up with rising population.

Under the Bush administration even good news about jobs was spun negatively by the mainstream media. But since Obama took office, many news stories have given him a pass on the employment issue despite his grandiose promises to create millions of jobs.

The Business & Media Institute found that network news reports were extremely negative during President Reagan's administration, when unemployment was often at the same rate as it was in 2009 during Obama's first year. The networks found "good" news for Obama; however, focusing stories on as few as 25 jobs "saved" by the stimulus package.

Image via risingunemployment.com.

The man who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble as well as 2008's economic collapse says that what happened in the markets around the world today is just the next stage in the financial crisis.

"The first stage was this massive re-leveraging of the private sector that led to the financial crisis and which has responded now with a massive re-leveraging of public sectors with budget deficits of the order of 10 percent," Nouriel Roubini aka Dr. Doom told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo.

"So I think that the markets are realizing that we have socialized a lot of the private losses with unsustainable fiscal deficits."

He believes the bond markets in parts of Europe seriously began realizing the depth of the problem today cautioning, "And soon enough they're going to wake up in the United States" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  

MARIA BARTIROMO, CNBC: Let me bring in Nouriel Roubini, he is on the telephone right now. He had a report out earlier about the implication of Greece, and really looking at the United States in terms of the debt load there and, and comparing the two. Nouriel, thank you for joining us. Give us your sense of what's behind this 3 ½ percent sell-off in the markets today.

NOURIEL ROUBINI: Well, my interpretation is that now there is a rise of sovereign risk in a number of advanced economies. There's Greece, there's Portugal, and Spain. And this is just the next stage of this financial crisis of the last few years. The first stage was this massive re-leveraging of the private sector that led to the financial crisis and which has responded now with a massive re-leveraging of public sectors with budget deficits of the order of 10 percent, and I imagine OCD expecting that public debt is going to double as a share of GDP in all advanced economies. So I think that the markets are realizing that we have socialized a lot of the private losses with unsustainable fiscal deficits. Today the bond market which (?) have woken up in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, in U.K., in Ireland in Iceland. And soon enough they're going to wake up in the United States.

For those unfamiliar with Roubini, he has gotten the name "Dr. Doom" for his fabulous call in the middle part of the last decade when he said that housing prices were exploding in a speculative frenzy that would eventually sink the entire economy.  

As the New York Times wrote in August 2008:

On Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

The man who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble as well as 2008's economic collapse says that what happened in the markets around the world today is just the next stage in the financial crisis.

"The first stage was this massive re-leveraging of the private sector that led to the financial crisis and which has responded now with a massive re-leveraging of public sectors with budget deficits of the order of 10 percent," Nouriel Roubini aka Dr. Doom told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo.

"So I think that the markets are realizing that we have socialized a lot of the private losses with unsustainable fiscal deficits."

He believes the bond markets in parts of Europe seriously began realizing the depth of the problem today cautioning, "And soon enough they're going to wake up in the United States" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  

MARIA BARTIROMO, CNBC: Let me bring in Nouriel Roubini, he is on the telephone right now. He had a report out earlier about the implication of Greece, and really looking at the United States in terms of the debt load there and, and comparing the two. Nouriel, thank you for joining us. Give us your sense of what's behind this 3 ½ percent sell-off in the markets today.

NOURIEL ROUBINI: Well, my interpretation is that now there is a rise of sovereign risk in a number of advanced economies. There's Greece, there's Portugal, and Spain. And this is just the next stage of this financial crisis of the last few years. The first stage was this massive re-leveraging of the private sector that led to the financial crisis and which has responded now with a massive re-leveraging of public sectors with budget deficits of the order of 10 percent, and I imagine OCD expecting that public debt is going to double as a share of GDP in all advanced economies. So I think that the markets are realizing that we have socialized a lot of the private losses with unsustainable fiscal deficits. Today the bond market which (?) have woken up in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, in U.K., in Ireland in Iceland. And soon enough they're going to wake up in the United States.

For those unfamiliar with Roubini, he has gotten the name "Dr. Doom" for his fabulous call in the middle part of the last decade when he said that housing prices were exploding in a speculative frenzy that would eventually sink the entire economy.  

As the New York Times wrote in August 2008:

On Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

The passage of the Arizona border illegal immigration law is causing virtually unprecedented reactions around the Country.  The top California Senate Democrat (he of the state with huge deficits and serious unemployment) wants to ignite a trade war with Arizona.  San Francisco’s Mayor has cut “official” travel to Arizona.  Staged protests on the Left have turned violent (in contrast to the peaceful tea parties) and the White House is considering court actions in lieu of an immigration bill, i.e. they would rather sue than legislate.

Much Ado? It is worthy to note that the law passed by Arizona “merely echoes federal immigration statutes” – at least according George Will and PoliticalFact.com.  Existing federal law requires:

“Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

According to Arizona’s Governor : “”Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.”

So why are some on the Left going so far overboard?  It may well be it is because they have no issues to run on this Fall.

Nationally, the Democrats are facing a hostile center-right electorate over cap and trade and health care.  Beyond that, unemployment remains very high and there is no clear sign of a turnaround on the horizon – in other words, many job seekers are without hope, if you will.  Economists by-in-large agree the stimulus plan didn’t help.  But it did drive up the deficit – another source of voter anger.  On the Left, the Democrats face voter apathy if not anger over the continuing wars and the failure of Obama to deliver nationalized health care, card check and more.

Lacking any issue clearly in their favor, and knowing that center-right voters are motivated, Democrats think they found an issue, in the Arizona law, that might motivate their side.

Lacking clear facts in their favor, however, the Left is resorting to the demonization of people on the center-right.  Quite frankly, it has become perhaps their favorite tactic in this last two years of political troubles if not outright failure.

It is worthy to note that today’s demonization tactics are an outgrowth of the political correctness wars of the past.   Political Correctness was a means by which the Left sought to plant guilt in the minds of Americans over issues of race and poverty – all in an effort to neutralize opposition to liberal legislation.  As that tactic began to lose its effectiveness, the Left upped the ante and began labeling people “extreme” for their views – views which often a majority of Americans held and continue to hold.  The treatment of the tea partiers is that case in point.

Still dealing with fact that a majority of Americans are against run away deficits, government cram downs, and the abandonment of the Constitution (otherwise known as what the Left believes are the extreme views of tea partiers), the Arizona law is a prime example of how far the Left has come since fighting their PC wars.  Now they are outright demonizing people through claims of racism and beyond – even if 60% of American voters believe authorities should have the authority to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant (even though that is not what the Arizona law will actually do).

In sum, faced with intellectual and factual failures, we have seen come on the Left go from charging average people with insensitivity through the PC wars, to claims of extremism, to outright demonization. Lacking a record to tout for this Fall’s elections, and a Supreme Court nomination fight still to go, we may have seen nothin’ yet.

A $787-billion stimulus. Liabilities of $356 billion for the TARP bailout on the federal government's balance sheet. And that's in addition to other unfunded liabilities from federal entitlements like ObamaCare, Medicare, and Social Security.

But that doesn't mean the U.S. is heading down the path toward socialism because they were one-time expenditures, according to CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman.

On CNBC's "Squawk Box" April 29, as jobless claims for the week was being released on the floor of the CME Group in Chicago, co-host Joe Kernen asked for Liesman's opinion.

Specifically, Kernen wanted to know if the U.S. could learn anything from Europe about economic policy and how it relates to unemployment. That prompted Liesman to defend current economic policies under Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress:

KERNEN: You can't glean anything from what happens in Europe?
LIESMAN: You know, I would say Joe, for the people that suggest this country is socialist, they should look at -
KERNEN: No, no - I didn't say that, Steve. Don't put up a straw man. I'm saying you look at Europe and you look at how, what employment benefits are over there and you look at the consistently high unemployment rate -
LIESMAN: I don't think our benefits are anywhere close to those benefits.
KERNEN: I didn't say they were. I'm just saying that if it's true to some extent, that if you have 80 percent or 90 percent of what would you make as a worker - that maybe you don't look quite as hard.

According to Liesman, the nation's spending is not on par with nations that are identifiably socialist. He explained government spending as a portion of gross domestic product is nowhere near what it is in some European countries.

"I just don't think we're on that curve," Liesman said. "I think when you look at nations that spend - 50 percent of all the spending is government spending and here in the United States we're having a huge debate. People think we're going socialist because we're going from 21 to 25 percent or whatever."

That fired up CME Group reporter Rick Santelli who explained, it's not so much the current economic data as it relates to socialist nations or European nations, but the growth of government that leads people to worry about socialism.

"Hold on, guys. You know what? When we talk about the economy, gentlemen, we always talk about the second derivative - always," Santelli said. "Whether you are talking about inflation, about how the economy is making a comeback even though GDP levels aren't back to where they were - second derivative. So the second derivative is much closer in an expedient way we're getting toward all of these European numbers, let's talk the common ground there and keep it consistent."

He continued to explain it wasn't that where we are now as it relates to European nations, but we're much closer than we were in the past.

"We may not be up to European levels on unemployment or taxation or how many people the government indirectly pays like in Britain," Santelli said. "It was in the Journal today, but the rate of change of where we were 10 years ago and where we're going has got Europe written all over it."

But according to Liesman, it wasn't fair to suggest that recent policies like stimulus and TARP would be the norm in the future, so deficits and spending would not necessarily rise to rates of European nations:

LIESMAN: The question is whether it is right to extrapolate the recent growth in government spending into the future -
SANTELLI: Of course it is. If your wife goes and spent 10 grand today you don't count that in your budget for next year?
LIESMAN: No, but if my wife went out and got a new kitchen for us and spent $30,000 on the new kitchen, should I extrapolate that in spending for the next 10 years? That's my point.
SANTELLI: No, but you need to extrapolate a way to pay for it don't you?
LIESMAN: You're absolutely right and that's the deficit.
SANTELLI: But that's the key.

However, Santelli argued that current entitlement obligations (including the recent passage of Obamacare) had been left out of the equation:

LIESMAN: That goes to the total debt but the deficit, Rick, the year-to-year change is the question I think that markets really focus on and what will be the total demand of government debt out there and I don't think that's $780 billion stimulus is going to be repeated. I don't think the TARP costs are going to be repeated.
SANTELLI: I don't think so either.
LIESMAN: Are you being sarcastic? You think we're going to continue using that kind of money on stimulus? I don't think so.
SANTELLI: No. But do you have to forget the stimulus but you have new programs that are going to add a boat load of dough into the equation.
LIESMAN: That's a legitimate question and concern. I don't know that you can extrapolate the recent growth -
SANTELLI: We're on the same page, we're on the same page.

According to Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., ObamaCare legislation "has $2 trillion in higher taxes, doubles the debt in five years, triples the debt in 10 years." He also predicted on CNBC that the U.S. would have a top marginal tax rate of 88 percent in 30 years, based on Congressional Budget Office data - suggesting that it may not be socialism now, but certainly could be someday.

PAT BUCHANAN: Why would 70% of Arizonans--do you think they're bad people?--why would 70% support this law?

CHRIS HAYES: No. Of course not. Look, I don't think anything.

BUCHANAN: What's your answer to solving it?

HAYES: My answer to solving it is comprehensive immigration reform.  There are three planks to it that everybody talks about --

BUCHANAN: Make 'em all citizens?

HAYES: Yeah. Yes!

BUCHANAN: You're going to get 20 million more.

HAYES: No. I actually think this is true: I think there is an equilibrium level of inflow to the country, and I think that has to do with our labor markets.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I want to respond to a point that you made, that if we wave a wand and grant amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, that that's going to create equilibrium.  That's what Ronald Reagan thought in the mid-1980s and all it did after Reagan granted amnesty to, what?, five million --

BUCHANAN: Three million.

SCARBOROUGH: Three million illegal immigrants.  All it did was send a message to a lot of people in Mexico: come on up. There's not going to be any problem with it.

The Associated Press has a story this morning called “Unemployment challenges Obama’s economic narrative.” No kidding.

I never get tired reminding stimulus advocates that before the stimulus bill was passed, the president scared the bejesus out of many people by claiming that if the Stimulus bill wasn’t passed, unemployment would reach 8.8 percent. Also, his team promoted the idea that the stimulus would create 3.3 million jobs (not just saved). They even had numbers and a model to prove it.

So the president got his cash, $789 billion which grew to $862 billion, and unemployment kept going up. It even passed 10 percent at one point and is now stagnating at 9.7 percent–where it’s scheduled to stay for a while.

And it’s not the only “job bill” that was passed. There was one in March 2020 ($18 billion) and another one in April 2010.

By the president’s own logic, the stimulus failed. That’s why he  has shifted his argument. Sure, the economy lost jobs, he now says, but without the stimulus it would have lost nearly 2 million more jobs. How you go about proving that this is not true is impossible and this is why it’s not powerful. It doesn’t make it right.

More interestingly, shocking, and sickening is the role that the Congressional Budget Office plays in this drama. How many times have you read that ” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that as of the end of 2009, last year’s $787 billion stimulus package had created 1.4 million to 3 million full-time-equivalent jobs that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.”

Never mind, by the way, that, as Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl noted a few weeks ago, CBO never even bothered to check how many jobs were “created or saved” in the post-stimulus economy. They just assumed that what they had predicted would happen, did actually happened.

“This is like a weather forecaster saying that the high yesterday was 65 degrees, because that is what had been predicted — even though it actually never topped 50 degrees.

Now, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they never actual examined this stimulus bills’ affect on the economy. Responding to a questioner following a recent speech, he admitted that the CBO’s jobs count was “essentially repeating the same exercise” as their initial projections. When asked if this means their jobs projections would have ignored any failures of stimulus spending to perform as CBO predicted, Mr. Elmendorf responded “that’s right.” (Exchange begins at 38:20.)””

Watch it and send it around. It’s unbelievable.

If you want a true picture of the failures of the Obama stimulus bill think about the following. Not only is unemployment high and will stay this way for a while, but the people who are unemployed stay unemployed way longer than they used to. The chart below shows that no job bill or stimulus is changing that trend. In fact, it might be creating the trend.

The Associated Press has a story this morning called “Unemployment challenges Obama’s economic narrative.” No kidding.

I never get tired reminding stimulus advocates that before the stimulus bill was passed, the president scared the bejesus out of many people by claiming that if the Stimulus bill wasn’t passed, unemployment would reach 8.8 percent. Also, his team promoted the idea that the stimulus would create 3.3 million jobs (not just saved). They even had numbers and a model to prove it.

So the president got his cash, $789 billion which grew to $862 billion, and unemployment kept going up. It even passed 10 percent at one point and is now stagnating at 9.7 percent–where it’s scheduled to stay for a while.

And it’s not the only “job bill” that was passed. There was one in March 2020 ($18 billion) and another one in April 2010.

By the president’s own logic, the stimulus failed. That’s why he  has shifted his argument. Sure, the economy lost jobs, he now says, but without the stimulus it would have lost nearly 2 million more jobs. How you go about proving that this is not true is impossible and this is why it’s not powerful. It doesn’t make it right.

More interestingly, shocking, and sickening is the role that the Congressional Budget Office plays in this drama. How many times have you read that ” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that as of the end of 2009, last year’s $787 billion stimulus package had created 1.4 million to 3 million full-time-equivalent jobs that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.”

Never mind, by the way, that, as Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl noted a few weeks ago, CBO never even bothered to check how many jobs were “created or saved” in the post-stimulus economy. They just assumed that what they had predicted would happen, did actually happened.

“This is like a weather forecaster saying that the high yesterday was 65 degrees, because that is what had been predicted — even though it actually never topped 50 degrees.

Now, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they never actual examined this stimulus bills’ affect on the economy. Responding to a questioner following a recent speech, he admitted that the CBO’s jobs count was “essentially repeating the same exercise” as their initial projections. When asked if this means their jobs projections would have ignored any failures of stimulus spending to perform as CBO predicted, Mr. Elmendorf responded “that’s right.” (Exchange begins at 38:20.)””

Watch it and send it around. It’s unbelievable.

If you want a true picture of the failures of the Obama stimulus bill think about the following. Not only is unemployment high and will stay this way for a while, but the people who are unemployed stay unemployed way longer than they used to. The chart below shows that no job bill or stimulus is changing that trend. In fact, it might be creating the trend.

In his weekly address today (video only at link; transcript was not present when this post was prepared), President Obama opened with these three sentences:

It was a little more than one year ago that our country faced a potentially devastating crisis in our auto industry.

Over the course of 2008, the industry shed 400,000 jobs. In the midst of a financial crisis and deep recession, both General Motors and Chrysler, two companies that for generations were a symbol of America's manufacturing might, were on the brink of collapse.

Look at what Associated Press reporter Darlene Superville did to those first three sentences in the third paragraph of her report on Obama's presentation:

The only possible interpretation of what Superville wrote is that she believes, or simply mis-wrote, that Government/General Motors and Chrysler alone -- the only two "bailed-out auto makers" -- shed 400,000 jobs in 2008.

For the record, total U.S. employment at General Motors at the end of 2007 was about 110,000, according to this early February 2008 item. This November 2007 link indicates that Chrysler at that point had 71,000 employees worldwide (59,000 expected to remain plus 12,000 jobs expected to be eliminated). The two entities combined obviously did not have 400,000 U.S. jobs to shed at the beginning of 2008. Whether they are even legitimately "rebounding" is also more than a little questionable, but will be left alone for now.

Superville's stunner makes it clear that, in journalism and so many other endeavors, the problem isn't only that basic math skills have fallen so steeply (which they have). It's that people who one would expect to be able to detect self-evidently out of line or misplaced numbers like the one above, i.e., journalists like the AP's Superville reviewing her own work, as well as the layers of alleged editors at the self-described "Essential Global News Network," clearly can't or won't do it.

At the risk of sounding like a nagging father, I would humbly suggest that Ms. Superville spend a little less time on Facebook, expend just a bit less energy on the National Association of Black Journalists (or find better mentors there, or elsewhere), and instead devote a bit more time to her craft. From here, ma'am, your evaluation is clearly a "needs improvement."

The President's claim that the auto industry as a whole shed 400,000 jobs "over the course of 2008" does stand up. The tables at the Bureau of Labor Statistics for "The Automotive Industry" for that period show the following changes from December 2007 through December 2008 (SA - Seasonally Adjusted; NSA - Not Seasonally Adjusted):

• Manufacturing -- SA, -175,800; NSA, -174,400
• Retail -- SA, -189,900; NSA, -190,700
• Wholesale -- SA, not available; NSA, -24,100
• Other Services -- SA, not available; NSA, -55,600

Assuming that the unavailable SA numbers were the same as the NSAs, total industry job losses were over 440,000 on both measurements.

What the president didn't tell his audience is that well over 75% of those job losses occurred during the final six months of 2008, after the prospect of his election, full Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, and promised tax hikes, energy starvation, and statist heath care became all too real.

As to the last excerpted paragraph from Superville, see previous posts (here and here at NewsBusters; here, here, and here at BizzyBlog) about the press's failure to cover, or perhaps even to understand, the deceptive nature of GM's claim to have repaid its bailout loans. For the purposes of this post, I'll just note that the assertion at the president's weekly address web page that "the government’s emergency interventions (in Chrysler and GM) are now winding down" is patently false, and will remain patently false until the government unloads its $40 billion-plus stock investment in GM and its smaller investment in Chrysler.

Good luck getting Darlene Superville or anyone else at the Associated Press to report that.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million.  So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.  That’s exactly what they do, displayed as the “baseline projection” level in the graphic below from an April 14, 2010 report:

An inconvenient truth, at least for the Obama Administration, is that once upon a time, in their January 2009 Romer/Bernstein Report they told America that without their stimulus there would be 133.9 million jobs.  That’s right, in order to make it look like their stimulus has “created or saved” 2.8 million jobs, the Obama Administration first had to whack 7 million jobs from their previous estimates.

Here’s the math:

Step 1: How many jobs does the Administration currently claim there would be, without stimulus?

129.7 million Current number of U.S. jobs

-  2.8 million Jobs currently claimed to be “created or saved”

126.9 million Jobs the Administration currently claims there would be without stimulus

Step 2: How does that compare with the number of jobs the Administration used to say there would be without stimulus?

133.9 million January 2009 projection of jobs without stimulus

- 126.9 million Current claim of jobs without stimulus

= 7 million Jobs removed from the Administration “baseline” to justify their latest stimulus job creation claims

Here’s the story problem:

This year 11-year old Jane’s class is studying money and budgets.  In September every student wrote down their savings, and what they wanted in savings by the end of school in June.  Jane started with $134, but wants to do better and have $137 ($3 more) saved by year’s end.  She figures that will be easy, since she will get birthday money in a few months.  But now it’s late May, and Jane has only $130, because she spent her birthday money, and then some.  What should Jane do in her final report on the savings project?

1. Be honest and admit she didn’t reach her goals of $3 more in savings, totaling $137, due to her spending habits; or
2. Say at the start of the year she only “really” thought she would have $127 saved by year’s end, and claim “success” for ending up with $3 more than that and see if her teacher notices.

On the surface, it's one of the Associated Press's better dispatches from the real world on the state of the economy as people are experiencing it.

Datelined in Twinsburg, Ohio, Megan Barr's Monday morning report, "Recession is ending? Some Americans don't buy it," does a good job of mixing macro and micro elements, painting a picture of a struggling town, a non-improving state economy (now eighth-worst, according to AP's "economic stress" measurement tool), a somewhat-improving national picture, and a pervasive belief on the part of most Americans that things aren't really getting better. I couldn't help but notice the irony that AP reporter Jeannine Aversa, who wrote that the top economic story of last year was the economy's "fall - and rebound," contributed to Barr's report.

But something was done to Twinsburg a year ago that goes a long way towards explaining why many people there are likely responding as one quoted resident did -- "Who are they trying to kid?" -- when asked for a reaction as to whether the economy is getting better. The AP didn't cover that story last year -- and should have -- so it didn't know that it should have referred it this year.

Shortly after noon on Thursday, April 30, 2009, the President of the United States told the nation that a Chrysler Corporation bankruptcy "will not disrupt the lives of the people who work at Chrysler or the communities that depend on it." Shortly before that, senior Obama administration officials had made statements mirroring what the President said to Northeastern Ohio union leaders, politicians, and even a United States senator.

Late the next day (i.e., Friday), Detroit reporters digging through voluminous Chrysler bankruptcy documents learned that the company would close plants in four states. One of the plant's closed was Twinsburg's stamping facility, which employed 1,250. Nice timing: Tell a fib on a Thursday, make people look for it and not find it until late on a Friday, by which time few are paying attention.

As I noted at the time (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), this monumental deception (not just the closures, but the accompanying deception) received the type of coverage it deserved in only one major newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ("Chrysler, Obama take the truth about plant closings for a spin").

The AP was among the establishment news organizations that ignored the deception when it was uncovered. With no record of what actually transpired in any of its prior reports, no one at the wire service would have even thought to go back to a year-ago event to get background for the Monday recession story.

I trust that readers are beginning to see how media malfeasance builds on itself.

The bottom line is that Obama lied, and jobs died. The people of Twinsburg know that. The rest of the nation should. The self-described "Essential Global News Network" deserves a major share of the blame for why it doesn't.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

On the surface, it's one of the Associated Press's better dispatches from the real world on the state of the economy as people are experiencing it.

Datelined in Twinsburg, Ohio, Megan Barr's Monday morning report, "Recession is ending? Some Americans don't buy it," does a good job of mixing macro and micro elements, painting a picture of a struggling town, a non-improving state economy (now eighth-worst, according to AP's "economic stress" measurement tool), a somewhat-improving national picture, and a pervasive belief on the part of most Americans that things aren't really getting better. I couldn't help but notice the irony that AP reporter Jeannine Aversa, who wrote that the top economic story of last year was the economy's "fall - and rebound," contributed to Barr's report.

But something was done to Twinsburg a year ago that goes a long way towards explaining why many people there are likely responding as one quoted resident did -- "Who are they trying to kid?" -- when asked for a reaction as to whether the economy is getting better. The AP didn't cover that story last year -- and should have -- so it didn't know that it should have referred it this year.

Shortly after noon on Thursday, April 30, 2009, the President of the United States told the nation that a Chrysler Corporation bankruptcy "will not disrupt the lives of the people who work at Chrysler or the communities that depend on it." Shortly before that, senior Obama administration officials had made statements mirroring what the President said to Northeastern Ohio union leaders, politicians, and even a United States senator.

Late the next day (i.e., Friday), Detroit reporters digging through voluminous Chrysler bankruptcy documents learned that the company would close plants in four states. One of the plant's closed was Twinsburg's stamping facility, which employed 1,250. Nice timing: Tell a fib on a Thursday, make people look for it and not find it until late on a Friday, by which time few are paying attention.

As I noted at the time (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), this monumental deception (not just the closures, but the accompanying deception) received the type of coverage it deserved in only one major newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ("Chrysler, Obama take the truth about plant closings for a spin").

The AP was among the establishment news organizations that ignored the deception when it was uncovered. With no record of what actually transpired in any of its prior reports, no one at the wire service would have even thought to go back to a year-ago event to get background for the Monday recession story.

I trust that readers are beginning to see how media malfeasance builds on itself.

The bottom line is that Obama lied, and jobs died. The people of Twinsburg know that. The rest of the nation should. The self-described "Essential Global News Network" deserves a major share of the blame for why it doesn't.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The Obama Administration wants Americans to believe the economy is beginning to turn around and that President Barack Obama’s efforts are starting to result in more and more “saved and created jobs.” Ask Rick Misch for his assessment of the economy, however, and you’ll find the economic picture he sees daily isn’t as pretty as the one painted by politicians.

“I know there simply isn’t any real ‘job creation’ taking place,” said Misch, president of Ohio-based Phoenix Research Inc., during a recent phone interview. And he should know.

Phoenix Research is a courthouse research company Misch and business partner Bill Brown launched in November 1997. The company provides on-site criminal records checks for some 750 employment screening companies across the United States by way of a network of approximately 1,500 subcontractors working in almost every county in the nation.

A look at his company’s growth is revealing:

• By April-May 1998, Misch said, the company had hit its stride;

• By 2000, the partners had paid off all of the company’s start-up costs and relocated from Cincinnati to Mt. Orab, 60 miles due east in Brown County; and

• By 2001, Phoenix Research employed nine people, including Misch and Brown, and was handling approximately 3,000 individual criminal history searches per day — including 250 to 350 in Los Angeles County alone.

In addition to providing a decent living for its owners and employees, the enterprise provides Misch a great deal of insight about the state of the economy.

“One thing that was consistent from basically 1998 to 2008 (was that) I could accurately predict within one-tenth of a percentage point what the unemployment rate was going to be the following month,” he said. “I knew it before anybody in the media did.”

In May 2009, however, Misch said his numbers and those coming out of Washington, D.C., began, inexplicably, to diverge, though he had not changed the way he calculated his predictions.

Misch alluded to having suspicions about reasons behind the government’s variance, but opted not to pursue them. Instead, he simply explained how his numbers paint a terrible economic picture of actual unemployment “north of 20 percent.”

“We were a multi-million-dollar-a-year business just 36 months ago,” said Misch. Now, Phoenix Research employs only five people and is now only a few months from bankruptcy, largely due to the fact that the company is handling only 150 criminal history searches — or five percent of normal — on a daily basis.

“We made money under Clinton,” he said. “We made money under Bush. We are being KILLED under Obama!

“As a small business owner and as veteran, I’ve never looked to the government to do anything for me; I’ve never asked the government to do anything for me,” he said, “but I can tell you this, this Congress and this administration hasn’t done a thing that can help me.

Even with the so-called “hiring incentives” in place?

Misch explained why business owners are not taking advantage of the tax credits being offered by the Obama Administration.

“They want to give me a $3,000 tax credit if I go out and buy all new computers. But why would I go out and buy all new computers when my computers work fine and I own all my own file servers, but I don’t have the business to support the expenditures in the first place.”

The same thing goes for job creation, he explained, citing the government’s offer of tax credits for companies that hire individuals who’ve been unemployed for some lengthy period of time.

“Why on earth would I fill a job that’s going to cost me $25,000 a year minimum to get a $6,000 tax credit and have a person sitting around with nothing to do because we don’t have the business? It doesn’t make any sense!

“It they want to help people like me, they need to cut taxes across the board and get the venture capital back in the game,” he said. “There’s no incentive for small businesses to hire.”

Of course, the Obama Administration would accuse Misch and Brown of being greedy. But nothing could be further from reality.

“My business partner and I have cut our salaries six times during the last 18 months,” Misch said.

On the issues that matter most, the president is always somewhere else.

Exhibit A)  For most Americans, the economy is the most pressing issue.  We just got last week’s jobs report, and it wasn’t good.  For the second week in a row, first-time jobless claims spiked.  The unemployment situation is getting worse, not better.  Home foreclosures have also just reached record highs.  And where has Obama been?  Focused on health care.

Exhibit B)  While Iran is working at breakneck speed on a nuclear weapon and is defiantly telling the U.S. where to go, Obama has been dusting off old Cold War treaties with Russia and holding meaningless nuclear summits to secure Canadian and Chilean nuclear material.  To recap:  Iran is over here, developing a nuke.  And Obama is over there, clinking glasses with the
Canadian prime minister.

Exhibit C)  Today is April 15th, the most dreaded day of the year.  Tax Day. If you are two seconds late with your tax return, the IRS begins compiling interest on what you may owe.  (Of course, many states are broke and handing out IOUs instead of tax refunds.  Try giving the IOU to the barista at Starbucks for that latte.)  Of course, nearly 50% of the American people pay
no federal income tax at all, so for them today is just another Thursday.

But for the rest of us, today is a plague.  According to a Rasmussen poll released this week, 66% of Americans believe they are overtaxed.  The widespread Tea Party movement is essentially a tax revolt.  And where is Obama today?  In Florida, discussing space policy.

His seemingly screwed-up priorities are, of course, all by design.  He distracts with one hand while undoing America with the other.  Don’t think he doesn’t know what he’s doing.  He knows exactly what he’s doing.

And that’s even scarier than Tax Day.

Each month we at NewsBusters wonder how the recession will be spun anew, and each month news outlets act with increasing hilarity.

First up for April was an earnest little piece by USA Today writer Matt Krantz published Thursday. Krantz insisted on reporting "optimism" and "confidence" in the economy thanks to a phantom supply of "new jobs."

Just one little problem, though: Thursday happened to be the same day the Department of Labor announced a surge in unemployment claims that hampered the stock market.

But no matter to Krantz. You see, Krantz wasn't talking about new jobs that actually existed - he was celebrating an announcement from two companies that they would be strong enough to hire a few people sometime in the future.

Krantz began with the headline "New Jobs Fan Rising Economic Optimism" and then waited five paragraphs to explain where those jobs were (emphasis mine, h/t NB reader Kara Kittle):

A hint of good news on one of the biggest question marks hanging over the economy - jobs - added to Wall Street's growing confidence Wednesday that the recovery is firmly on track.

The Dow Jones industrial average notched its third consecutive close above 11,000, rising 104 points to 11,123 as stocks climbed further into territory last seen before the financial crisis.

Wednesday's rally came despite Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying the recovery remains moderate. Economic reports were mixed.

The initial spark for the advance came as JPMorgan Chase and Intel reported earnings that topped expectations as Wall Street heads into the thick of the first-quarter earnings season.

The earnings themselves were enough to fan optimism. JPMorgan's profit rose 57% to $3.3 billion and Intel's rose 288% to $2.4 billion. The two industry bellwethers said they were going to add jobs - 9,000 for bank JPMorgan and 1,000 for chipmaker Intel. Granted, those numbers are small in the context of the millions of Americans out of work. Nonetheless, even a whiff of rare good employment news was enough to bolster Wall Street's increasingly optimistic mood. "The one thing that's been missing are the jobs," says Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management.

A promise of 10,000 jobs is indeed good news. But how serious of a promise is it, and when will it come to fruition? This NBer had to use a bit of elbow grease to find the answer, but eventually this dispatch from CNN Money provided a clue:

The company also reiterated that it planned on adding 9,000 jobs in the U.S. across a number of different areas, including its private and retail banking businesses, hinting that it is priming itself for growth. The firm however, did not provide a time frame as to when those workers would be hired.

JPMorgan's latest results extend the good fortune the firm has enjoyed throughout the crisis. Unlike many of its peers, the bank has managed to stay profitable over the past two years.

So basically, a company that's been turning a profit all along made a vague promise to hire people on some unknown future date - and USA Today was already pouring champagne.

While USA Today was busy talking about "Wall Street's increasingly optimistic mood," some outlets were more sober. The Christian Science Monitor warned that "the real economy" did not seem to reflect the stubbornly upbeat forecasts coming from experts. The Associated Press also admitted that "jobs are still hard to come by" no matter how many pundits say otherwise.

For those of you asking yourself the obvious question..no, USA Today did not celebrate such mediocrity under President Bush.

Back in the dark days of 2006 when unemployment was horrifically hovering at 5%, USA Today told its readers not to be fooled by silly things like profit:

"The public mood is very apprehensive," says Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar, noting that though spending is healthy, people are carrying high debt and are worried about oil prices, international strife and other factors.

"Business executives are looking at some pretty strong profits, strong global (economic) growth," says Owens, whose company posted robust earnings in the second quarter. "We're in a world today of relatively low inflation, relatively low interest rates for this stage of the business cycle" and pent-up demand for capital investment, which yields a strong outlook.

Why the wide range of views? One reason is the inherent difficulty in forecasting at turning points in the economy. More narrowly, the differences hinge on how economists, executives and consumers gauge key economic factors: the depth and breadth of the housing decline, the outlook for oil prices, the pace of economic growth abroad and whether inflation has spread beyond energy prices.

How strange none of that stuff made it into the paper's coverage in 2010. Do people somehow not have as much debt now? Is expensive oil somehow not a threat anymore? Are global affairs somehow less worrisome? And what about "the inherent difficulty" of reading economic tea leaves - did all of those conflicting factors somehow disappear?

In less than four years, the media's treatment of hard news has changed that much. In 2006, "strong profits" and "robust earnings" were not enough to overcome fear of international politics. In 2010, two profitable companies promise to hire a few thousand people, and that's more important than an unexpected rise in unemployment.

Perhaps part of the reason for such cheerful reporting is how the Obama administration spins the news when talking to journalists. Instead of just accepting bad news as being what it is, government officials fed some very strange excuses to the media this week.

The Wall Street Journal passed on a sample of this Thursday:

In the U.S., investors were disappointed Thursday morning after the Labor Department said in its weekly report that initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 24,000 to 484,000 in the week ended April 10, marking the second-straight week of increases in initial claims. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a drop of 15,000.

However, a Labor Department economist said this latest rise can be pegged to lag effects from the spring holidays, including Easter and Cesar Chavez Day, which is celebrated in worker-heavy California.

You read that correctly: the state of California observed March 31 as a holiday to honor union activist Cesar Chavez, and the federal government blamed it for a nationwide slump two weeks later.

Oh, and Easter caused a lag effect too - except for the fact that, just a few days ago, the media were hyping good retail sales during Easter weekend.

So one of the busiest shopping days of spring helped several stores beat estimates, and then this mysteriously caused people to be unemployed a week later.

Back in March when the Obama administration blamed job losses on a snow storm, many of us thought they'd scraped the bottom of the barrel. But now we see that barrel goes a lot further down.

Up next: blaming the recession on a miserly tooth fairy that won't leave enough money under the pillow.

Go ahead and laugh about it now: you'll likely cry when you see USA Today actually fall for it.

NBC host Norah O'Donnell is taking it from all angles for pulling the race card on Newt Gingrich last Friday.

Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Gingrich said "shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work,” referring to President Obama's basketball skills. Norah O'Donnell embarrassed herself Friday by claiming the comment had racial undertones.

Since then, commentators on the left and right have criticized O'Donnell's race-baiting. Bill O'Reilly and Juan Williams have both condemned her remark, and Gingrich himself has repudiated the accusation.

"The left is becoming a parody of itself," Gingrich said Tuesday morning. He added that "it's relatively hard to go from 'we need someone who is a good president more than we need three point shots' to" racism.

(h/t to Mediaite for the video.)

O'Reilly blasted O'Donnell on his Monday evening "Talking Points Memo" segment. He said that the racism charge "is destructive to the country. There are enough legitimate issues to debate without degenerating into personal attacks, especially where racism is invoked."

During the same episode of the "Factor," O'Reilly asked Juan Williams, an African American contributor to NPR and the Washington Post, about O'Donnell's comment. Williams let loose:

Here is the serious point, Bill. This is an example by Norah O'Donnell of crying wolf. And when do you that with regard to race, then people who come along with serious racial concerns about racial inequities in this society that still exist, they can't have a conversation. Suddenly you say "no you are always talking about race. We are sick of race. We don't want to hear about race." That's what happens when you use it cheaply.

And the second thing to say is, guess what? There are lots of people in the black community who think President Obama should be doing more about the high rate of unemployment in the black community. That's -- so for him, for them to say "oh, he is shooting baskets, instead of paying attention to the economy," you might get the same criticism from several people out of several people the black community today who want him to do more to address high rates of unemployment.

In a serious vein -- and we talked about this with the infamous Sylvia’s deal a few years ago -- I, and many other white journalists, now don’t do nearly as many reports on African Americans or their problems because we don’t want to be put in a situation where our opinion is taken out of contest, rammed down our throat as Media Matters and all these other sleazeoids do. If it’s a big thing or optional thing, I’m not doing it anymore.

O'Donnell's accusations cheapen the political discourse not only by distilling meaningful objections down to base bigotry, but by discouraging discourse in the first place.

After the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) cracked the 11,000 mark on April 12, some are asking if the economy is back. And while some want to credit President Barack Obama for this so-called recovery, is this financial market rally a true indicator of returning economic prosperity? 

The anchor of "NBC Nightly News" asked just that question, pointing out the cover of the April 19 issue of Newsweek magazine that pronounced "America's Back!" On his April 12 broadcast, Brian Williams asked CNBC's David Faber if it was a little premature to make that declaration.

"I'm looking at the copy of Newsweek magazine out today," Williams said. "It says America's back and we have this classic disconnect. We hear numbers out of Wall Street. We see covers of magazines like that. People watching at home, millions of people in the grips of unemployment and poor financial times wondering when they're going to start feeling some of this."

The story the Newsweek cover is advertising is by Daniel Gross. To be fair, the article doesn't really claim that we've recovered from the current economic malaise. However, it points out that the U.S. economy throughout history has been cyclical and, despite the naysayers, has always come back. But as for a short-term prognosis, Faber doesn't see America quite "back" just yet, as unemployment remains high.

"And that's the key question for this economy," Faber replied. "Far be it for me to seem unpatriotic, but one has to wonder in some ways. Economic growth from here is going to be dependent in part on the U.S. consumer. Seventy percent of our economy is consumer spending. Unemployment still remains very, very high."

Faber explained that disconnect with the stock market and the general economy is that these corporations have discovered how to become more productive and that has led to a reduction of operating cost, which has translated to a higher stock price.

"We're going to hear a lot from corporate America in the next few weeks about how much money corporations made, because they have done well," Faber continued. "That's why the stock market has been up. But they've done well in part because of productivity gains. They fired a lot of people in 2008 and 2009. They found they can do more with less. The question will be when those corporations actually get back to hiring."

A little over a year ago, President Obama signed into law the $787-billion stimulus legislation that was supposed to prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. And although the unemployment has receded some from its high, it's still well North of 9 percent. So if that stimulus is given more time, will unemployment improve?

Last week's jobless claims numbers, showing a stagnant unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, didn't provide any reason for optimism. And on CNBC's April 12 "Squawk Box," host Joe Kernen asked CNBC CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli if this economic indicator is going to be stubborn number, which would confirm a failure of Obamanomics.

"Rick, I wasn't here last week when that claims number came out. But if I could really just dig deep down into your view, do you think a year from now we're still going to be talking about a stubborn unemployment rate, Rick?" Kernen asked.

Santelli cited an op-ed in the April 12 Wall Street Journal by liberal economist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who wrote "many outsourced jobs will never return, and median income will likely continue to fall as it during the last so-called recovery." Santelli explained modest economic growth will now be seen as a very positive sign.

"Years from now, way more than just one year in my opinion," Santelli said. "I think that The Wall Street Journal article today kind of touches what I and many believe and that is a lot of the jobs lost aren't coming back and a lot of the unemployment has to do with things like education and skills that aren't fixed overnight. And when you talk about interest rates, listen, I'm going to keep it simple. You asked me where I thought it would be. I think it's a two-tier issue. I'm assuming the economy is going to be mediocre for many years, three to five, meaning 2 percent to 3 percent growth is going to be good. If it gets better than that, I think interest rates will rush up much more aggressively in 2011."

According to Santelli, another problem confronting the stagnant economy is the threat of inflation and thus higher interest rates, which is traditionally seen as an impediment to economic growth.

"Which the supply will put rates up," Santelli replied. "If you want to throw in things like money supply actually coming off the banks' balance sheets where you really can get true textbook type inflation or you want to talk about the type of economic activity traditionally associated with higher rates, those are all ups and extras."

Pop quiz: how do you cut taxes on low and middle-income wage earners and end up with a greater percentage of people paying taxes?

Such is a question the folks at the Associated Press should be asking themselves concerning a piece the wire service published Wednesday entitled "Nearly Half of US Households Escape Fed Income Tax: Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax."

In the same paragraph, author Stephen Ohlemacher predictably bashed former President George W. Bush's tax cuts that were "generous to wealthy taxpayers" while he applauded "tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year."

There's only one problem with this premise - the net result was that a higher percentage of people paid federal income taxes in Obama's first year in office than in Bush's last:

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. 

That was paragraph two. Here are paragraphs fourteen and fifteen:

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center. 

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families. 

So, after Obama's marvelous "tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year," 53 percent of Americans paid federal income taxes.

But in Bush's last year in office, having enacted tax cuts "in the past decade" that 'have been generous to wealthy taxpayers," 51 percent of people paid federal income taxes.

That means, Mr. Ohlemacher, that more people paid federal income taxes AFTER Obama expanded "tax cuts for low- and middle-income families."

For some reason, Ohlemacher didn't specifically address this fact OR explain to readers how more people could have ended up paying taxes after "Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others" that mostly "targeted low- and middle-income families." 

I guess tax cuts that are supposedly "generous to wealthy taxpayers" are bad even if they result in few people paying taxes, and tax cuts for low- and middle-income families are good even if they result in more people paying taxes.

Any questions? 

A recent blog post from Earl Devaney seeks to dispel several so-called myths involving the Recovery Board, but does little to dispel the notion that those operating the Recovery.gov Web site are woefully inept.

In fact, Devaney's defense for the ‘phantom' congressional districts (clerical errors), the claims that he reports to the Obama administration (they simply listen and adjust their thinking), and the complaint that Recovery.gov itself cost $18 million to overhaul (it might cost up to $18 million), make the operation look amateurish at best.

Couple all of this with stories of overly complicated systems involved in the stimulus application process, and inaccuracies in the reporting of supposed ‘two-time losers' - an error that prompted a statement of apology from the board -, and one can only envision those CareerBuilder monkey commercials from years past.

More troubling is Recovery.gov's insistence on using the phrase ‘jobs created' when tracking stimulus funds - as can be seen here on a report designed to show the viewer the ‘Most Jobs Created by State'.  This comes nearly three months after Ed Pound, Spokesman for the Recovery Board, told ABC News that, "...since OMB is not going to use ‘jobs created or jobs saved' anymore, we're not going to use it either."

The reason the Office of Management and Budget was distancing itself from the phrase?

Because it is impossible to track. 

The AP reported how the administration had to respond to its previous - um, embellishments - on the number of jobs affected by the stimulus package.  They also point out how the new method would actually inflate previous erroneous numbers, and subsequently explains why said method would make accuracy an impossibility.

In January, CNN ran a piece about the nation's first stimulus project.  The article points out that federal officials had estimated that the project would create 220 indirect jobs.  This, despite a statement from agricultural economist, Michael Sykuta, who surmises "that a single construction job normally spins off two or perhaps three indirect jobs at most."

An expert claims that 3 jobs are created indirectly at most, and the feds somehow estimate 220 - a mere increase of over 7,000%. 

Thus, reporting the addition of indirect jobs created or saved is equally as futile an effort as calculating those directly created or saved. 

Case in point, the numbers being touted by that first stimulus project.  In it, the administration provides an educated guess of 30 jobs created.  Then, the Recovery.gov site utilizes a mathematical formula to determine that the project may have created or saved 24.69 jobs.  But the contractor involved in the project estimates that the number of jobs saved was 10.

Review that last paragraph for a moment.  Not only are the numbers trending downward, but the terminology involved is designed to drive the numbers upward.  Here is the transformation simplified:  30 created → 24.69 created or saved → 10 saved.

Created, saved, funded.  Double-counting directly or indirectly created jobs. 

And still, the Recovery.gov Web site continues the dishonest theme by continuing to list these fuzzy numbers as jobs 'created'.

- Please feel free to visit my Facebook page.

Wondering how much faith the left has in your ability to run your own life? Chris Matthews was brutally honest today when he criticized that "idealistic notion" of self-reliance that ignorant conservatives insist on pushing.

Matthews apparently believes that without massive social welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security, there would be "poor people all over the place, old people lying in the streets," and the nation would look like "Calcutta."

He made these absurd claims -- and they are absurd -- on yesterday's Hardball, and went on to call for a more robust "social state," complaining that lefty bloggers had not done enough to make it seem more desirable to the American people (h/t Gateway Pundit).

Steve, that's part of the propaganda problem here. The problem is we don't think of what the country would be like if we didn't have medicare for our parents as they get very old, in their 80s for example, and they're still alive. They need health care, a lot of it, and have don't have any source of income. They're not working every morning. They're not making a paycheck.

We don't think -- What would it be like in this country, Calcutta? Poor people all over the place, old people lying in the streets. I mean we don't think about what it would be if we didn't have health care, if we didn't have Social Security for people at the age of 65. If we didn't have unemployment compensation. If we didn't have a progressive income tax.

There's a lot of things we don't think about and the right wing just pounds and pounds away at this idealistic notion of a cowboy country, where everybody's self-reliant. Well, part of self reliance is -- …

I think progressives for all their power in the blogosphere have not done a positive case for the advantages of some kind of social state.

Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader, has moved on from the health care debate and found a new oppressed, downtrodden minority: student loan recipients. And naturally, the Huffington Post was happy to afford "the Reverend" a platform for his activism.  

"A plan to earn debt forgiveness retroactively must be instituted at once as an acknowledgment that an entire generation is mired in tens of thousands of dollars in student debt," Jackson wrote. "Not every one of them will be able to write a blockbuster memoir to pay off student loans."

Although the federal government's latest takeover in student loans by "cutting out the middleman" pleased Jackson, he called on the Obama administration to take more drastic steps in today's "Second Great Depression."

"Students need more than good intentions," Jackson said. "They need a guarantee that the savings realized by cutting out the banks and Sallie Mae go mostly to them. There are lots of hands out for the income that direct student lending will generate. Some of it will go to subsidize universal access to health care. But most of it should go to students themselves," Jackson opined.

"This is the Second Great Depression. Students should not have to worry about loan repayment while they are unemployed and looking for work. Nor should compound interest mount during periods of unemployment."

Jackson specifically called for: a pledge to lower interest rates for student loans to zero and one percent; "retroactive provisions" for students who have already graduated; legislation and regulations to implement bankruptcy safeguards; extended grace payments and defered compounding interest rates for unemployed graduates.  

In demanding that the "rules should reflect reality," Jackson again betrayed a lack of understanding for basic economics and disregard for the idea that abiding by contractual obligations is a necessary component of a functioning society.   

Photo via ConservativeOutpost.com

The Obama Administration is putting the best face on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) recent March 2010 jobless numbers report, touting the steady nationwide jobless number of 9.7%.  But for minorities, the news is bad and getting worse.

The really bad news is buried in the middle of the 38 page report.  The BLS data reveals an alarming and growing divergence between the number of white and the number of minorities that are unemployed.  Worse yet, it is clear that minorities, especially African Americans, are falling further behind.  If unchecked, the long term implications of that imbalance are nightmarish for the nation.

Larry Summers and others in the Administration have not yet shown much interest in the appalling unemployment rates for minorities and, instead, exude childlike enthusiasm at the nation’s overall jobless rate that held steady for the 2^nd consecutive month.

While the unemployment for white Americans averaged 9.3%, African Americans averaged 16.6%, just a little less than double the rate of white unemployment.   Hispanic Americans reported 13.3% unemployment, while recent, young veterans are averaging 14.7%.  Black men, over 20 years old, are showing 20.2% unemployment and teenaged, African Americans, ages 16-19, of both sexes, show a mind-boggling 39.3% unemployed.  Hispanic teens also report a staggering 30.3% unemployment.  The long-term repercussions of these unemployment numbers are troubling, yet the Administration is curiously silent.

Team Obama has spent trillions of dollars and enormous political capital advancing stimulus plans and other empty calorie policies that have failed to spark employment, especially among minorities.  Instead, Obama’s policies have only further eroded American competitiveness, hindered job creation.  African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities, are finding themselves out of work, for longer and longer periods of time.

Soon, Congress and the President are going to have to face the growing realization that unemployment rates have been so elevated for so long among minorities that minorities in the U.S. are now on the precipice of permanent unemployment.

We need to start asking ourselves: when do the temporary wards of the state, the unemployed, become permanent wards?  Is the presence in the United States of a permanent, non-working class, comprised predominantly of minorities, the change that Obama promised?   What does this shift mean to us as a nation, where there is a strong likelihood that a growing majority of white citizens will be working and a growing majority of minority citizens, such as African Americans, will not?

It seems rather clear that without a job, and with little hope of finding one, the end result is that those minorities may become increasingly dependent on government entitlements.

What is especially troubling about Team Obama, is that they do not yet seem to be thinking about solutions to these problems.  Instead, they exhibit a keen desire to maintain the fantasy that recovery is just around the corner, and the nation will soon return to a period of full employment.   But, most likely, those days are gone.

What Congress and Obama have yet to fully grasp is that they have expanded the social safety net and further extended entitlements but at a cost of diminished entrepreneurial energies, less job creation, and potentially, permanently higher unemployment rates.

Young men and women with no job, and little hope of finding a job, represent a strain on the social fabric of the nation as they become angry and resentful over the lack of employment opportunities.  They will need, and demand, additional aid and support from the government, so social spending is likely to only grow.

These new social costs will require even higher taxes to pay for all of the new programs, so our nation can probably expect rising social tensions from the mostly white Americans that will be asked to pay higher taxes to support the many new forms of government spending and more expansive entitlements and social spending.

The consequences of a growing and prolonged unemployment within the minority community, combined with preferential legislation, create a dangerous racial cocktail of time, idleness and increased expectation of entitlements.  As a result, the things that divide us as a nation will likely grow.

How sad that a likely result of Obama administration policies may be that the steady improvement of race issues over the past 60 years could come to an end.

There is a growing likelihood that, with significantly more white Americans having jobs and paying taxes than African Americans or Hispanic Americans, anger over bearing an unduly heavy tax burden may be perceived as racism when it’s nothing of the sort.

Racial tensions may grow and resentments may fester, as a large group of young minorities become permanently underemployed.  George W. Bush, several years ago, kicked off a heated debate with his notion of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”  Who could have foreseen that the unintended consequences of President Obama’s “audacity of change” would be a different sort of bigotry that could increase national racial tensions based upon no expectations and a permanent dependency upon the federal government?

Good Morning America's Bill Weir and Reuters editor Chrystia Freeland on Saturday gushed over Obama administration talking points on the new unemployment numbers. After Weir talked about a White House-created graphic showing job losses slowing, Freeland unselfconsciously rhapsodized, "Well, I was going to say, what I think that first tells you is that [presidential adviser David] Axelrod is a really smart guy, because that is a beautiful graphic."

Continuing to tout how useful the show was being to the Obama administration, she added, "And I'm sure he's really, really happy to see it on TV." Perhaps wanting to spread the credit around, Weir complimented, "Might be [Obama adviser] David Plouffe who came up with that one, too."

Freeland couldn't get over the cleverness of this graphic, which featured the Obama logo, enthusing, "Okay! Okay. Both of you guys, well done." Now, it's one thing to repeat Democratic talking points, but to tout the brilliance of said talking points is quite another.

Earlier in the segment, Freeland flat-out asserted that the addition of 160,000 jobs last month meant the recession is over. When asked that question by Weir, she proclaimed, "Yes. Absolutely. I mean, this is really good news."

Later in the segment, the Reuters editor did try and make some attempt at tempering her praise: "Having said that, I think, actually, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration deserves a real credit for steering the country through the financial crisis." Too often, however, she seemed to be focused on hyping the President.

NewsBusters readers will remember that Weir famously said of Obama's innaugeration: "...From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity."

A transcript of the April 3 segment, which aired at 7:05am EDT, follows:

BILL WEIR: And to get a little more perspective now, let us turn to the Reuters global editor at large, Chrystia Freeland. Good to see you this morning. Thanks for coming in.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND (Global editor-at-large, Reuters): Nice to be here.

WEIR: So, does this mean that recession is officially over?

FREELAND: Yes. Absolutely. I mean, this is really good news. We have to be cheerful about it. This, as you said in the really good report, this is the strongest jobs numbers we've had in three years and that is a really good and important sign. Having said that, it's not going to feel good for a long time. We had a huge loss of jobs. Eight- More than eight million. And it's going to take more than 162,000 jobs a month to get people out of that.

WEIR: Right. What's so interesting, wall street is doing gangbusters. Corporate America seems to be healthier. Does that mean it's- they're running leaner and meaner? And they're more resistant to hang out the help wanted sign? What has to happen for that to translate into jobs?

FREELAND: Yeah. I think that's a really good point. And I think we'll feel like a two-speed America. We've seen a really strong rebound in the corporate sector that's been reflected in the stock market. Wall Street is getting happy. But, it's not going to feel like that on main street for a while. And one the interesting things that came out of these jobs reports is, even though people are working longer hours and being more productive, wages fell a little bit. So, employers still have the upper hand right now.

WEIR: If you're one of those 15 million out there looking for a job, all of these numbers and charts are cold comfort for you. But we do live in a very politically charged era these days. And the Obama administration is quite proud of this particular graphic. It's all over their website. [Onscreen: Obama graphic. Has the Obama logo. Says: "Road to Recovery." Shows job losses from the Bush administration and the Obama administration, with job losses getting less under Obama.] On- These are job losses going back to November of '07. Now, on the red side, on the left, steady job losses under the Bush administration. They bottom out right before Obama takes office. And then the increase begins. What does that tell you about policy? And the stimulus? And all of the efforts made on both administrations?

FREELAND: Well, I was going to say, what I think that first tells you is that Axelrod is a really smart guy, because that is a beautiful graphic. And I'm sure he's really, really happy to see it on TV.

WEIR: Might be David Plouffe who came up with that one, too.

FREELAND: Okay! Okay. Both of you guys, well done. I think, in general, we tend to both blame and credit the White House too much for what we see in the economy. The economy is not like a car that you can just turn the steering wheel and turn jobs up, they would do that.

WEIR: Right.

FREELAND: Having said that, I think, actually, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration deserves a real credit for steering the country through the financial crisis. Two years ago, we were talking about the possibility there would be a second Great Depression. That hasn't happened. The other political thing that I think is really important about these jobs numbers is it's not going to be enough for people to be cheering and feeling really comfortable in November. So, cold comfort for people who don't have a job. Not a lot of comfort for the White House, for Democrats, looking at the midterms.

WEIR: Yeah, might be too little, too late for them. But, a little bipartisan kudos, which is a rare thing on any program these days.

FREELAND: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Democratic congressional efforts to steer the economy not working as advertised. The $787-billion stimulus passed back in early 2009 failed to curb unemployment as promised, and there are other risks of putting a blind trust in government to solve the nation's economic woes.

And to give credit where credit is due, CNN's Christine Romans is pointing these risks out. On the April 5 broadcast of "CNN Newsroom" hosted by Ali Velshi, Romans was asked about the politics of extending unemployment benefits, which were held up through the Easter recess by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. According to Romans, there is a tug-of-war going on in the Senate.

"The Senate Democrats say they are going to plug ahead and plow forward," Romans said. "The issue here is the same issue as last month basically. You have some Republicans - one in particular, Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma - saying, ‘Look, we've got to be able to pay for this. Let's pay for it. Let's do it. It's the right thing to do to help people. Let's find a way to pay for it.' And you have Democrats who are saying, ‘No, this is emergency spending. This is an emergency. The jobless situation is an emergency. Let's just do it right now quickly without finding another way to pay for it.'"

Romans also explained that recently released data showing improvements in the jobless benefits claims numbers leave out some important details. It isn't counting certain individuals that could be looking for work that haven't been eligible for these benefits.

"It's increased and it's a record high," Romans said. "I mean on Friday, we had the jobs report and the economists said it's off the charts - 44 percent of people who are out of work have been out of work for six months or longer. These unemployment benefits can be extended up to 99 weeks, you know. I mean it just shows you how chronic and prolonged this is for so many people - 15 million people officially out of work. There are millions more who aren't counted in the workforce because they dropped out. And you know, something that I think is interesting, if you're a stay-at-home mom, if you left the workforce four or five years ago and said you wanted to come home after you know, ‘Junior' was finally in kindergarten, you've been looking for a job, too, you're not counted in the unemployment rate. You're not counted because you've been out of the workforce."

However, as Romans pointed out - extending jobless benefits isn't necessarily a cure-all for economic woes, as it doesn't accomplish a sustainable end goal, but instead creates a dependency by the unemployed.

"So the situation, and you don't get unemployment benefits, frankly - there are a lot of people out of work for a very long time," Romans continued. "I'm curious, though, Ali, to see what's going to happen with the political debate. If you have more jobs being created, does that take away some of the impetus for extending unemployment benefits? Some people say you're creating a jobless welfare state. I mean, 99 weeks - how long is this going to go on?"

And how long will the trend of reporters suddenly understanding the employment and the economy go on? Just two weeks ago, Time Magazine realized that private enterprise, not government, was the only reliable creator of well-paid, long-term jobs.

"Somebody about your age - mouthpiece of Franken - is trying to dissuade you from continuing that," host Don Imus noted upon viewing his guest's recent confrontation with Sen. Al Franken.

"Yea, he had his hands all over me like Eric Massa," Mattera joked.

And - in usual politically-correct fashion - he went on to address the devastating consequences that journalists and media bias has on the young generation.

"I just think that we know that members of the lame-stream media aren't gonna grill politicians," Mattera said. "Al Franken, Senator Smalley had no idea what was in the bill - and I'm not gonna sit down and play patty cake with the dude...So I mean I gotta go and confront the dude because we know members in the media treat leftist politicians as though they are at a Jonas Brothers concert. They're just fawning licking the heels of their favorite teen idol."

"I think many young people forgot they were voting for a president, and instead thought they were voting for the 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,'" Mattera stated. "They got caught up in the uber-swag cool campaign - the 'Yes We Can' - and now the sizzle has fizzled for many Obama zombies."

The young and rising journalist noted however, that the realities of life under the Obama administration has provided a humbling and sobering experience for young voters - and something Republicans must capitalize on and recapture an entire generation of "zombies."

"I think many Obama zombies are having buyer's remorse because they're living in an Obama economy, but they just can't find any jobs," Mattera continued. "There was such euphoria surrounding Barack during the 2008 election especially with young people - as though the election of this politician would somehow cause iPods to drop from the skies and their student loans would just melt away forever! Like a government unicorn would fly above their apartment and hand out welfare checks on recycled envelopes!"

"Hopefully they're zapped back to reality, because it's not just about elections being lost - it's about losing an entire generation of young people who are not versed in the idea of limited government and free markets."

"So they all got inspired and were enthusiastic...and now have been enormously disappointed, so what do they do the next time around?" Imus asked.

"I wanted to offer an investigative look on how Team Obama really Obamanized the generation," Mattera said in reference to his book. "I think there's a lot of tactics that they did use and employ that could be adopted by the GOP. Unfortunately I-Man...they're just a bunch of idiots - they're spoiled brats, it's that simple...Barack Obama would organize these free Dave Matthews concerts around the country...and they're like 'Sweet bro! Barack hooked me up with Dave Matthews, I'm gonna vote for him! I'm gonna vote for the brotha.' I mean that's all it took - and yet they cancel educated votes from me and you!"

Image via entertainmentwallpaper.com

Is it possible to be so wrapped up in a media culture that one could minimize a sacred religious holiday in a shoddy attempt to write a clever headline? Mediaite's Tommy Christopher and his editors seemed to have pulled this feat off.

Christopher, who has had a much-publicized run-in with Andrew Breitbart, has a new hero, former American Enterprise Institute scholar David Frum. Christopher elevated Frum to messianic status in a Good Friday April 2 post headlined "Did David Frum ‘Die' For GOP's Sins?" specifically praising the former AEI scholar for his appearance on Comedy Central's April 1 "The Colbert Report."

According to Christopher, Frum still wants to be a conservative and hasn't converted to the liberal ideology, like others have before him. He argued that lends credence to Frum, who is more known for levying criticisms about conservatives and Republicans, and not his conservative world view. (As if being popular with the liberal blogosphere was a badge of honor.)

"See, he still wants to be a conservative," Christopher wrote. "That really cuts down on his job prospects. If he was a true apostate, he'd be the toast of the liberal blogosphere, telling appreciative millions how he's seen the light."

Christopher took it a step further and opined that "Colbert Report" host Stephen Colbert was right when he said the Republican Party was like a "cult" for opposing ObamaCare so fervently.

"Colbert hits the nail on the head when he compares the GOP to a cult," Christopher added. "The 2008 election, and the health care debate after, saw the Republicans increasingly whipping up and harnessing the energy of that fringe that Frum spoke of. The big difference now, though, is that it is the cult's followers who are offering the Kool Aid, and the cult's leaders who must now drink."

Christopher, who has determined to take the role of economist (and didn't get what unemployment numbers released April 2 really could mean), hedged his bet that unemployment numbers will improve and the GOP could possibly be forced to eat their words and embrace the likes of Frum.

"Still, these are unique times," Christopher wrote. "With the GOP pursuing its promise to run on repealing health care reform, and with today's encouraging job numbers, Frum and I could look like geniuses come November. That'll be good for me, but what it does for Frum is anyone's guess. If November goes badly enough, maybe the Republicans wake up and start listening to voices like Frum's."

Christopher's employer, Mediaite, which has a home page that at first glance appears to be a sounding board for media critics against all things conservative, was founded by Dan Abrams, a former MSNBC host and the Chief Legal analyst for NBC News. According to Mediaite, the Web site had a record-breaking month of March, as it attempts to establish a foothold in the blogosphere.

Green jobs to save the American economy?  If you have listened to the various politicos on the left end of the spectrum, especially before and after the passage of the $787-billion stimulus package earlier, you would think that is the cure-all.

But so far it isn't working and there are other fundamental problems that lie ahead according to some energy market analysts, like much higher oil prices - despite the pledge by President Barack Obama to open up 160 million acres for future oil exploration and drilling. To avoid the price of $100-plus oil, CNBC's CME Group floor reporter suggested expediting the process, as was the case with ObamaCare and TARP.

"I think what you're hitting on is so important because the President of course talking about some of these jobs, but also talking about drilling," Santelli said on CNBC's April 1 broadcast of "Closing Bell." "You know, if the government was able to put forth health care and the government was able to do bailouts and TARP and stretch the rules, if they wanted to get jobs now and avoid the $100-plus oil you know that's coming they could drill quickly if they wanted to. And this is something that needs to be discussed, don't you think?"

And to back this up, Sharon Epperson, CNBC's New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) reporter told viewers Santelli's suggestion should be taken serious. She explained it wasn't necessarily a supply and demand issue driven by consumption that would affect the price, but instead investors seeking profits in commodities that would push the price higher.
"Yeah, it certainly does," Epperson said. "They don't seem to be addressing that issue and in terms of Maria's point about where is all this coming from? This interest in commodities really is just chasing returns. You know, a lot of hedge managers I talk to say it's not about trying to find the next big area right now. They're just trying to chase what's been going on and what some of the investment firms are calling for, for this $85-95 [a barrel] oil and in chasing returns, they're driving the price right back up."

CNBC's New York Stock Exchange floor reporter Bob Pisani was skeptical of Santelli's suggestion, saying the environmental lobby wouldn't allow and as they have demonstrated, they're not going along with the President's proposal as well.
"We could drill quickly, Rick, if we get rid of the environmental permits, but I think there will be a lobby against that at this point," Pisani said.

In the meantime, the inevitable reality of higher oil looms, long before a so-called green economy can evolve Santelli said.
"Well, there would be a lobby," Santelli replied. "But the point is you need somebody to do what's right for the country and $120 or $150 oil is going to happen, before the green jobs take over. I think we all know that in this panel."

I received many emails on Friday and this weekend about the data published here showing that on average Democratic districts are getting almost twice the amount of stimulus money than Republican districts. Republican districts also received smaller awards on average. The average dollars awarded per Republican district is $260,675,663, while the average dollars awarded per Democratic district is $471,533,539.

Several readers asked if the difference could be explained by the fact that Democratic districts have many more people than Republican districts have. So I looked at the numbers and here is the result. It’s not.

Republican districts get $362 per capita on average

Democratic districts get $692 per capita on average

Also, on average, Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as Republican ones. Democratic districts also received two-and-a-half times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts ($122 million vs. $46 million). Of course, there are more Democratic districts than Republican districts in the Congress.

Is the politics part of the allocation decision?

Well I checked for the correlation between political indicators and stimulus funding. I found that there are no effect of political variables (leadership, tenure in office …) on stimulus funds allocation with one exception: the district’s party affiliation (whether the district’s representation was Republican or Democratic) does matter.

So how much does party affiliation mattered? While the effect is significant, because of the specifications of the model, more confidence should be placed on the relationship between the two variables then on the quantification of that relationship. In other words, while I am confident that whether the district is represented by R or D matters for funding, I just can’t tell you how much this factor matters compared to the other factors that went into the allocation decision.

On the other hand, I can tell you what factor was not a part of the allocation decision: the level of unemployment in each district or the deterioration of unemployment in each district. In other words, unemployment levels didn’t matter. That’s not what the money was supposed to address. Or was it?

Here is a chart to illustrate this point. As you can see the districts where unemployment increased the most during the recession aren’t receiving more money that the ones that were hit more lightly.

All the data is available for download here. (Ignore the picture)

The White House has now tapped $14 billion in TARP funds to expand the administration's existing mortgage assistance program. 

Matt Lauer introduced the "Today" show March 29 discussion of the program saying: "New help for millions of homeowners who are facing foreclosure. The Obama administration is rolling out new incentives to the federal mortgage relief program - so what's different this time?"

"If you're unemployed, this is going to give you an ability to have your monthly payments lowered for three months, maybe even six months," CNBC's Sharon Epperson told Lauer, before noting the requirements and assistance for those "underwater." 

Lauer asked if interest or principal reductions were in the mix for homeowners. 

"This is the principal - this is what's different about this program. We're talking about principal reduction - that's significant and a number of lenders have already come out with their own programs from this beyond what the federal government has done," Epperson replied. 

"What is the incentive to the lender though?" Lauer asked. 

"They're going to get a subsidy, this time they get a financial incentive," Epperson answered. "This time they're going to get a subsidy on the dollar that they're able to reduce your principal by. So that is one reason why they might want to do it now." 

Epperson said that the government's goal was to prevent three million to four million foreclosures. But Lauer and Epperson only briefly alluded to the failure of the initial program. Lauer stopped short of criticizing the Obama administration saying only that it was their "second attempt at this."

Ronald D. Orol of MarketWatch pointed out some of the problems with the first program on March 26. That program, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), "has converted fewer than 200,000 temporarily modified home loans into permanent modifications - well below the goal of helping 3 million to 4 million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by the end of 2012." (Emphasis added)

According to the Wall Street Journal, HARP has been criticized for lengthy delays, high fees, and reluctant banks. Ultimately, WSJ's Nick Timiraos reported that only "around 2,000 borrowers who owed more than 105% of their home's value had refinanced under that program last year."

Epperson expressed some doubt about the plan on the basis that lenders do not have to participate, but did not suggest any free-market solutions to home foreclosures.

With March unemployment data to be released April 2, some are anticipating what potentially lower jobless numbers will all mean for the financial markets and the economy as a whole. However, that data will come with the caveat that it will be misleading because it will include temporary jobs driven by hiring for the 2010 census.

On CNBC's March 29 "Squawk Box," CME floor reporter Rick Santelli was asked how to interpret the expected improvement. He warned it isn't the kind of job creation that is good for a sustained economic recovery.

"You know, I think it's fascinating," Santelli said. "Most experts would agree, the kind of job creation we're going to see is welcome but it isn't the kind we need in the big picture. But having said that, yes, I think that the markets will act in a way that will show a robustness if the number comes in a couple of hundred thousand and I think it's kind of silly."

As Santelli explained, once the news is released it'll likely get a lot of attention from a pro-administration media, but will eventually adjust back down.

"I think traditional media is going to overplay this," Santelli said. "I think markets like interest rates will overcompensate, but they will adjust back because I don't think anybody believes that the 200,000-300,000 pace we could see this month is going to maintain itself for many months in a row."

"Squawk Box" co-host Becky Quick asked Santelli how to interpret a higher number, of potentially up to 300,000 jobs, if it is inflated from census hiring. According to Santelli, it'll send waves through the markets, even through the market will be observing Good Friday when the data is released.
"Well, you know I think the market, many want to believe, many want to believe in the green shoots," Santelli said. "They want to believe that optimism is part of the medicine. You know, I'm not sure if I'm in that camp but I think there's going to be a couple of three months in a row here, where whether it's GDP or whether it's job data, that's going to have the possibility to look better. I think those that understand that this type of job creation isn't going to last and it isn't going to ultimately make up the 200,000 we need just to remain neutral, but it will move markets, yes. And I think interest rates on this holiday Friday, should we get a 250,000 or higher number, is going to be wild. And it shouldn't be, but it will."

Joe Kernen, co-host of "Squawk Box," predicted Obama administration officials will be reluctant to acknowledge the census hiring and its impact on the upcoming unemployment data.

"You won't hear anyone mention census, either. I guarantee it," Kernen said. "Not in the administration. Not when they're taking the victory laps for 250,000."

The US economy remains in a tepid stage at best – subject to a multiple dip recession at worst.  Unemployment is high and private sector jobs are taking longer than usual to rebound.  Even the Obama Administration is forced to admit unemployment will be high for a long time to come.   Starting two years ago this July, I said if Obama was elected President, we would have a difficult economy, at best, for at least six years.  Unless our governments, federal and state, make a concerted effort to change the economic psychology facing Americans today, that prediction can’t help but come true.

There is no question that the American economy is in bad shape.  Unemployment has only been this high one other time since World War II, i.e. in the 1980’s.  Recessions similar or deeper than this recession occurred in 1918, the Great Depression, the 3 recessions of the 1950’s, and the stagflation of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

Recessions of this magnitude take on a life of their own because both businesses and consumers are plagued with doubts – doubts about future government policy, doubts about consumer spending, doubts about the prospects for future investments.  Those doubts literally diminish future economic activity as investors and consumers favor caution over investing and spending.  The psychology of larger recessions exaggerates downturns as fears mount.  That Psychology of Doubt delays recoveries in ways that cannot be measured by statistics alone.

In order to break that Psychology of Doubt, it takes bold action on the part of governments – not half measures or technical adjustments.  Indeed, each of those recessions did not end until there was a dramatic change in the government policy – usually a change to the very policies that drove our economy into the ditch in the first place – excepting only World War II’s effect on the Great Depression.

In the 1920’s, facing unemployment nearly as high as today, Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, noted that “The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.”  Seeking to reverse that gun-shy mindset, Mellon was influential in crafting a bold break from the tax policies of President Wilson which featured a 77% marginal tax rate.  The top marginal tax rate was slashed to 25% – a move that dramatically changed the psychology at the time.  In doing so, investors were convinced the prospects for risking capital were bullish, they moved money out of tax-free, low-risk municipal bonds, among other things, and the Roaring ‘20s ensued.

After the 3 recessions of the 1950s under Eisenhower, which featured a top marginal tax rate of 91%, the economy did not make a significant move until the top rate was cut to 70%.   The proponent of that big rate cut, President Kennedy, argued that:  “Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve–and I believe this can be done–a budget surplus.”

Similarly, the mounting stagflation of the 70’s and early 80’s, which convinced President Carter and others that there was a crisis of confidence, was not reversed until a bold and dramatic change in government policy was enacted by President Reagan, i.e. a cut in marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% among other deregulations.

Long before that, our Founding Fathers recognized that the high tax, and debt burdened, post revolutionary economy needed a bold measure to reverse the psychology of doubt plaguing investors and traders.  In addition to high taxes and debt, the economy was at risk because states were passing a dizzying array of laws that harmed creditors and investors.  In order to break the prevailing Psychology of Doubt, and to bring certainty to our economy, they literally made a push for a new Constitution with a central feature – the “Contract Clause.”  That clause prohibited states from retroactively impairing contract rights – a serious problem which fed the Psychology of Doubt.  That dramatic move paved the way out from one of the deepest recessions in our nation’s history.

Perhaps it may be helpful to think of the economy as a huge boulder.  The faster it moves in one direction, in case of a deep recession downhill, the greater force which must be applied to it to reverse its course – a force greater than if it was on level ground.  Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan – and our Founders – well understood that to break the negative psychology of a bad recession, bold action was necessary.

By contrast, fiddling on the margins with targeted tax breaks, swelling the ranks of bureaucrats, increasing spending and therefore exacerbating our already serious debt crisis, will do nothing to cure our current  “chronic deficit of inertia.”  Bold action is needed to convince investors that tomorrow will certainly – not maybe – but certainly will be better than today.

It is no secret that US debt, regulatory and tax burdens (combining, state, local and federal taxes) are at or near all time highs and rising.  That is the very source of our current problems.  Now, as before, the bold break we need is away from government responses and in favor of private enterprise, freedom and the lower tax and regulatory rates that foster sustainable recoveries.

Conventional wisdom on the right and left has been that President Obama and the Democrats will pay a heavy price in the November mid-term elections for passing the deeply unpopular health care reform bill. But Fox Business Network's Charlie Gasparino isn't so sure.   

Gasparino appeared on  the network's "Imus in the Morning" on March 25. "They can all get even in November then," Imus said of conservatives and Republicans. But Gasparino pointed out the indispensable weapon liberals have their side: the "cheerleading" news media.

Furthermore, Gasparino said even if the numbers were true? In no way, shape, or form did $13 billion in annual savings justify "blowing up" the entire economy:

"It is a drop in the bucket. When you have the media on your side ... listen, I don't know if they're going to lose seats," Gasparino stated. "He does have a ... he has a cheerleading section in the mainstream media. It's really a shame - especially when you're doing what he's doing with the economy."

Gasparino believed that in helping Obama sell health care reform and ignoring his disastrous economic policies, the media have helped to mask the president's true ideology.

"I know a lot of liberals. I don't think he's a liberal - I think he is a leftist," Gasparino argued. "Most liberals would have told him, ‘Settle for some reform. Don't go all the way.' I really think that when you look to change - radically change 16 percent of the economy - and you do it with very slim majorities, you're dealing with someone who's an ideologue."

"The real sort of sin here Don, is we have 9.7 percent unemployment - let's just say it goes down to nine, it has to go down at some point - we were wasting a year on this debate. That's the folly of the Obama administration. And that is why he's a leftist. Think about it - if he wasn't an ideologue? He'd be working on jobs, he wouldn't be working on this."   

An unlikely power figure has emerged in the Obama Administration. He’s not a great orator, nor trendy, nor well-known.  But, if the ability to influence national leaders, shape a national agenda and influence public opinion are indicators, then, Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is, arguably, the most powerful and,  potentially, most dangerous, man in Washington, DC.

As Director of OMB, Peter Orszag is the arbiter of all financial information shared with Congress.  A series of little-known, OMB “circulars”, such as A-11, have established the rules, and repercussions if violated, by which Executive branch agencies communicate with Congress, especially regarding budgets, funding and agency priorities.

OMB, the President’s gatekeeper for budget matters, executes a complicated juggling act, balancing Obama Administration priorities and budgetary spin, against agency needs.   Frequently, to secure a critical vote, an elected member may be rewarded with a pork project for the folks back home, and, often, it’s the OMB director that has to figure out how to avoid the appearance of a bald-faced bribe, while manipulating CBO scoring on infrastructure projects.  Orszag, as the former head of CBO, understands exactly how this game is played.  Thus, most of the project and budget information that Congress reviews have been shaped by OMB’s preferences.

Peter Orszag controls much of the content and quantity of the data flow to Congress, to the President and to American citizens.  Orszag has oversight over most of the federal government’s critical data reporting structures.  Apart from the ineffective and error-prone Stimulus reporting sites (data.gov, recovery.gov),, OMB oversees federal contract opportunities and federal grants.

Perhaps even less well known, OMB reviews and edits most of the testimony submitted to Congress, and edits most of the responses that Cabinet members and federal agencies submit in response to Congressional queries.   Hence, Mr. Orszag is able to not only manipulate the numbers, but is simultaneously able to insure that there is discipline throughout the Administration regarding talking points.

The great concern is that Mr. Orszag, by all accounts a bright fellow, seems to demonstrate an ability to misrepresent facts and figures to further the confusion.  Put bluntly, Mr. Orszag does not seem to be a truthful man.  Moreover, he seems unusually good at deception.   From the deceptions and messiness of his personal life, where salacious stories, recently publicized about his personal life, of two girlfriends and an illegitimate child, generated a media frenzy, we learn that Peter Orszag  seems especially adept at  deceiving those closest to him, people that know him best.   In his official capacity, Mr. Orszag seems to have been especially deceptive, able and willing to misrepresent facts.

This past year, to advance the myth of “jobs created/jobs saved”, Orszag seems to have used his power to fudge the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment numbers (dropping millions of unemployed Americans off the reports, thereby enhancing the monthly unemployment statistics) and he has enhanced the “jobs created” numbers, by issuing a memo, directing Agency heads to claim that all existing federal government jobs, where work is performed administering Stimulus funds, should count as “jobs saved”.

Nowhere will this willingness to deceive be more keenly felt than in the follow-up to the recent Healthcare Reform legislation signed into law by President Obama.  Congress has trusted a CBO scoring that requires over $500Billion in cuts to various government programs and entitlements.  OMB is the office that will ultimately have the responsibility for identifying, tracking and reporting on these cuts, since expenditures for Health and Human Services (HHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) report to OMB.  What OMB decides to show Congress is what Congress is going to see.

The Administration will, understandably, be eager to claim that cuts were made, but if the past year’s accounting by OMB is any indication, the cuts are unlikely to occur, though the data may be manipulated to imply that the cuts occurred.  This kind of obfuscation is bad for Congress, which will be trying to measure whether the Healthcare Reform program is working as advertised, and bad for American taxpayers, who are getting stuck with the bill.

Americans might expect that others , wise to these sorts of shenanigans, might blow the whistle, but that’s not likely to happen since for the OMB Deputy Director chairs the (President’s) Committee for Integrity  and Efficiency (PCIE) which oversees  the federal government’s Inspectors General.  Indeed, when one IG at OPM recently tried to go around OMB, an OMB staffer bluntly asserted that “we will make your life miserable”.

Peter Orszag is responsible for implementing   President Obama’s  campaign promise of a line-by-line review of the federal budget to eliminate any non-performing federal programs , exposing federal programs that are non-performing and wasting taxpayer money.

Mr. Orszag’s most publicized, cost-cutting effort was the SAVE competition, designed to encourage federal employees to identify waste and propose solutions to trim the ever-growing $1,300,000,000,000 deficit.  The winning idea recommended that patients at Veteran Hospitals take home unused eye drops and other over-the-counter medication when discharged.   Not a bad idea, but it is becoming clear that the SAVE program, like so many of Mr. Orszag’s other efforts, was primarily a PR gimmick that helped deflect criticism about the Administration’s out-of-control spending.

When all the man hours, and effort, that was poured into implementing the SAVE program at OMB are considered, Americans will likely find that the costs of running the SAVE program far exceeds any gains or savings that the program may achieve.

Mr. Orszag has been especially active in government contracting, (the head of federal procurement – the Office of Federal Procurement Policy [OFPP] is part of OMB) and Orszag has boasted of improvements.  But, the results flowing from his decisions are making existing procurement problems worse, crushing small business opportunities and exacerbating the very problem he hopes to solve.   Indeed, the health of the once-vibrant, small business, government contracting community has  probably never been so dire, and is likely to get much worse as a result of Mr. Orszag’s ham-handed efforts to improve the federal acquisition system.

What makes Peter Orszag so dangerous is his access to more information, at a granular level, than any federal employee.  Information is power, and the ability to sculpt information with impunity makes Orszag dangerous.  Information withheld can cause as many problems as information that has been doctored, and whether intentional, or not, inaccurate information, disseminated by OMB, presented as fact to Congress and the American people, is what has often occurred.

So, at a time when our nation needs to confront our budgetary problems with honesty and determination, Americans should be asking themselves: are Orszag’s skills at deception what we really want to see in our OMB director?

Yesterday, Jim Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's indispensable Best of the Web took note of a report by the Washington Post's V. Dion Hayes about the state of the employment market in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, and summarized its findings thusly:

So what looks to the Post like good news that looks like bad news is actually bad news that looks like good news.

Even that assessment turns out to have been overly charitable. Hayes, like most of the press, betrayed that he doesn't understand the crucial difference between raw and seasonally adjusted data by mixing the concepts (perhaps without even realizing it), failed to look at data from previous years, and ended up producing an incoherent report with no supportable conclusions.

The following table identifies all relevant changes in the three employment markets between December and January (sources -- Bureau of Labor Statistics state and selected areas tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 for January):

With the above data in mind, a detailed breakdown of Hayes's broken-down report follows:

Rise in Washington area unemployment seen as good sign for economy's recovery

The District's jobless rate increased to 12 percent in January from 11.9 percent the previous month, according to data released Wednesday by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Maryland's rate climbed to 7.5 percent from 7.4 percent, while in Virginia, the jobless rate rose to 6.9 percent from 6.8 percent. That same month, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 9.7 percent from 10 percent in December. (1)

... "You do have people coming back thinking things are loosening up and they might get something," said Ann D. Lang, senior economist at the Virginia Employment Commission. She said the state's labor force grew by 30,000 in January, even though the number of unemployed people rose and the number of employed declined. (2)

... The District experienced the nation's largest monthly increase -- 1 percent -- in the number of jobs, according to the federal data. That represents the addition of 6,700 jobs, mainly in the federal government, according to the city's Department of Employment Services. (3)

Officials at the agency say the city's labor force grew by 3,300 from January 2009 to January 2010, and they are seeing more job postings and job fairs held by large employers, including Safeway and Pepco. (4)

... Maryland's labor force grew by 1,400 in January, the first increase since May 2008, state officials said. The number of unemployed people rose by 5,100, but the number of people who lost their jobs totaled 3,700. State officials speculate that the balance of 1,400 were workers reentering the labor force. (5)

Here are the footnote explanations:

(1) -- Though Hayes never identified them as such, all percentages presented in this paragraph are seasonally adjusted. The presentation clearly indicates that what Hayes reported is what he believes happened in reality. It's not; MD's and VA's unemployment rates went up significantly. To be clear, such January jumps are not unusual. January is typically a month of steep job losses and unemployment rate increases because those who were hired for Christmas and other seasonal employment are usually released.

(2) -- As you can see from the table, Virginia's Lang is clearly referring to the NOT seasonally adjusted 29,700 above. Hayes seems to have no clue.

(3) -- That 6,700-job increase is after seasonal adjustment. The government's best estimate of the reality on the ground is that 5,700 fewer people were working. I defy Mr. Hayes or anyone in DC's Department of Employment Services to find those 6,700 net new employees -- in the federal government or anywhere else.

(4) -- Hayes inexplicably uses a seasonally adjusted 12-month change after reporting on single-month changes all along. That the change is the same as the NSA number above is pure coincidence.

(5) -- Again, Hayes gives readers the impression that this is what really happened, when it isn't. The reported "speculation" by the state in relation to seasonally adjusted figures makes no sense.

The fact is that Hayes did not look at how January's real, not seasonally adjusted changes compare to previous years, especially those earlier than 2009, when the entire economy was in a virtual free-fall. That's a problem, even moreso than usual, as I noted last week (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), when I wrote that:

2009 was so bad, that it’s distorting the SA calculation — to the point where it’s really not as reliable an indicator of what is going on as it normally would be in a more predictable situation."

That concern could be even more relevant when looking at state and local data.

Because of that, at least the following contentions by Hayes and those he consulted for quotes have no demonstrated support:

• Via Hayes -- "(the report) suggests that discouraged job-seekers are feeling more optimistic about their prospects and have resumed looking for work."
• Via Anirban Basu, chairman and chief executive of Sage Policy Group -- "Maryland, Virginia and the District are where the labor market is advanced in terms of recovery ..."
• Via Hayes -- "The increase suggests that long-term unemployed people in the D.C. area who had given up looking for work have restarted their job hunt, perhaps because they see evidence that the region's economy is improving and that employers are beginning to hire again." The absolute best that might be said is that fewer employers might be letting fewer people go than occurs in a typical January -- but we don't even know that.
• Via Ann D. Lang, senior economist at the Virginia Employment Commission -- "You do have people coming back thinking things are loosening up and they might get something."
• Via Tim Bibo Jr., research analyst at the Maryland Governor's Workforce Investment Board -- "If we have any optimism we've got to keep it tempered, because it is a modest increase -- but it's a step in the right direction."

I would modify Jim Taranto's conclusion noted at the beginning of this post as follows:

So what looks to the Post like good news that looks like bad news may actually bad news that looks like good news -- but based on errors in V. Dion Hayes's presentation and work that the reporter left undone, how can we possibly know?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed another Democratic multi-billion dollar legislative handout designed to temporarily alleviate the continuous financial burden hanging over the nation’s unemployed and fiscally irresponsible states.

Democrats—with six Republicans tagging along for the spending spree—swiped the nation’s Centurion Card to the tune of $140 billion, and went home with bags overflowing with goodies: subsides for health insurance, funds to prevent states from laying off public service employees, extensions of unemployment benefits, etc.

Senator Chuck Schumer—apparently now worried about the chattering class—patted himself on the back for a day’s work and proclaimed, “While our Republican colleagues on healthcare have been stonewall[ing], on jobs they know that they block us at their own political peril … and substantive peril as well.”

New York’s senior senator is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This initiative can’t possibly be touted as a jobs bill when nearly 90% of the funds appropriated are unrelated to job-creation. Moreover, the Republicans who did cross party lines to support this measure, supported—what amounted to—another spending bill, and they might be doing that at their own political peril.

A Fox News poll from late February revealed nearly 80% of Americans believe government spending is out of control, and, earlier this month, Conservatives rallied behind Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning for exposing PAYGO as a fraud while Liberals plotted to borrow more money to extend unemployment benefits as opposed to using already available funds.

Granted, despite the public sentiment, many politicians don’t want to be associated with keeping food off their constituents’ tables, but, the unemployment benefit—along with home ownership and college education—has made its way onto the list of American entitlements.

While most people would prefer to have jobs instead of an allowance from Big Brother, they have become dependent upon the handout. Jerome Boyd, a 48 year-old father of four from Arlington, Virginia, recently stated, “I depend on this money. I’m wondering every other week if it is going to keep coming in or not. It’s stressful, and especially when you’re trying to look for a job, too.”

Rather than concentrating solely on job-creation, legislators have debated a manufactured-crisis and ignored the nation’s employment and economic problems for over the past year. Their only accomplishment on the jobs front has been the conversion of a once temporary benefit into charity that can be relied on for nearly two years.

How long can this last?

Neither the receivers of the benefits nor the legislators who continue to provide them seem to be aware of the states’ inability to fund this charity.

The Treasury Department’s 2009 Financial Report discloses the use of the Unemployment Benefit Black Card. The report not only shows that the ratio of unemployment fund cash outflow to cash inflow is 2:1, but also reveals that a number of states fail to meet the department’s standard of a minimum solvency ratio of 1—which determines each state’s ability to fund unemployment benefits. According to Chart 15 in the report (shown below), 21 states possessed insolvent unemployment funds, and 16 states had less than a year’s worth of benefits remaining in its coffers as of September 30^th, 2009.

This picture told a story that is now nearly seven months old, and we have no idea how much worse that story reads now.

Apparently, with the continued expectations of the unemployed and Tuesday’s vote, nobody cares.

Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed another Democratic multi-billion dollar legislative handout designed to temporarily alleviate the continuous financial burden hanging over the nation’s unemployed and fiscally irresponsible states.

Democrats—with six Republicans tagging along for the spending spree—swiped the nation’s Centurion Card to the tune of $140 billion, and went home with bags overflowing with goodies: subsides for health insurance, funds to prevent states from laying off public service employees, extensions of unemployment benefits, etc.

Senator Chuck Schumer—apparently now worried about the chattering class—patted himself on the back for a day’s work and proclaimed, “While our Republican colleagues on healthcare have been stonewall[ing], on jobs they know that they block us at their own political peril … and substantive peril as well.”

New York’s senior senator is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This initiative can’t possibly be touted as a jobs bill when nearly 90% of the funds appropriated are unrelated to job-creation. Moreover, the Republicans who did cross party lines to support this measure, supported—what amounted to—another spending bill, and they might be doing that at their own political peril.

A Fox News poll from late February revealed nearly 80% of Americans believe government spending is out of control, and, earlier this month, Conservatives rallied behind Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning for exposing PAYGO as a fraud while Liberals plotted to borrow more money to extend unemployment benefits as opposed to using already available funds.

Granted, despite the public sentiment, many politicians don’t want to be associated with keeping food off their constituents’ tables, but, the unemployment benefit—along with home ownership and college education—has made its way onto the list of American entitlements.

While most people would prefer to have jobs instead of an allowance from Big Brother, they have become dependent upon the handout. Jerome Boyd, a 48 year-old father of four from Arlington, Virginia, recently stated, “I depend on this money. I’m wondering every other week if it is going to keep coming in or not. It’s stressful, and especially when you’re trying to look for a job, too.”

Rather than concentrating solely on job-creation, legislators have debated a manufactured-crisis and ignored the nation’s employment and economic problems for over the past year. Their only accomplishment on the jobs front has been the conversion of a once temporary benefit into charity that can be relied on for nearly two years.

How long can this last?

Neither the receivers of the benefits nor the legislators who continue to provide them seem to be aware of the states’ inability to fund this charity.

The Treasury Department’s 2009 Financial Report discloses the use of the Unemployment Benefit Black Card. The report not only shows that the ratio of unemployment fund cash outflow to cash inflow is 2:1, but also reveals that a number of states fail to meet the department’s standard of a minimum solvency ratio of 1—which determines each state’s ability to fund unemployment benefits. According to Chart 15 in the report (shown below), 21 states possessed insolvent unemployment funds, and 16 states had less than a year’s worth of benefits remaining in its coffers as of September 30^th, 2009.

This picture told a story that is now nearly seven months old, and we have no idea how much worse that story reads now.

Apparently, with the continued expectations of the unemployed and Tuesday’s vote, nobody cares.

On Tuesday's Newsroom, CNN's Tony Harris applied liberal thinking on race to the unemployment rate, speculating if the debate over jobs would change if whites were out of work like minorities were: "I wonder what the discussion about jobs in this country would be like if the rate of white unemployment in this country was, say 15, 16 percent, as it is for African-Americans."

Harris brought up the race issue during a segment with Don Peck of The Atlantic 42 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour. Peck recently wrote an article for the publication on "how a new jobless era will transform America." Besides bringing up the unemployment rate of blacks, the CNN anchor also cited the 12-13 percent unemployment rate of Hispanics, and then quoted from Peck's article: "Make the point here- expand on the comment, 'It will leave an indelible comment on many blue-collar white men and on white culture.' What do you mean by that?"

The deputy managing editor for The Atlantic first expressed his agreement with Harris: "Well, first of all, I think you're right to say if the unemployment rate were higher for all white people, I think the conversation would be different, and that’s what’s so important to recognize." He continued by highlighting the impact of unemployment on marriage and family life.

PECK: There are certain groups within the U.S. that have really dramatically-elevated unemployment rates- young people, minorities, and, as you mentioned, blue-collar white men as well. You know, this has been called the 'man-cession,' and that's accurate. Three-quarters of all job losses have been to men, in part, because construction, finance, and manufacturing have all really imploded, and- you know, when men are out of work for a long time, they are particularly badly affected, and that affects many things beyond them personally. Marriages tend to sour when men are unemployed for long periods of time. Men often don't pick up their share of the housework on average when they lose their jobs, and- you know, the happiness of husbands and wives are closely related, so the misery spreads throughout the home.

Two-thirds of all divorces are legally initiated by women, so I talked to a lot of family experts who really believe that there are likely to be a wave of divorces in the coming years, especially if this period of blue-collar male unemployment persists.

[H/t: MRC Intern Alex Fitzsimmons]

A report released Monday says that California's new global warming law will increase unemployment in the Golden State.

The announcement was in stark contrast to continual claims by the Left and their media minions that proposed cap and trade legislation at the federal level will result in an explosion in green jobs.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times Wednesday, the nation's most populated state, which is the first to impose laws concerning carbon dioxide emissions, might see a net reduction in employment as a result:

The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst's office examined 2008 economic modeling by the California Air Resources Board and concluded that it "may overstate the number of jobs" attributable to future implementation of the 2006 climate law.

While acknowledging the uncertainty of such projections, the report said, "On balance, however, we believe that the aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the . . . programs phase in over time."

The report comes at a politically charged moment, when polls show employment to be Americans' top concern. Signature gathering began last week on a November ballot initiative that would delay the law, known as AB 32, until unemployment drops to 5.5% for at least a year. California joblessness is over 12% today.

With U.S. unemployment near ten percent, and the economy consistently viewed as the nation's top priority in poll after poll, one would think this report would be quite newsworthy.

After all, with belief in Nobel Laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making myth plummeting, and Congress beginning to work on compromise cap and trade packages, the public should be informed that California's Legislative Analyst's Office believes its state's climate change legislation will result in job cuts.

Unfortunately, Google news and LexisNexis searches found that outside of California, American media have not shown much interest Monday's announcement.

The Associated Press ran a story about this Tuesday, but only on its State and Local Wire. 

Reuters also did a piece on the matter Tuesday which ran in the U.K.

From what I can tell, outside of California, the only major media outlet to find this issue newsworthy was Investor's Business Daily.

I wonder why.

Rush mentioned this on the air as his show opened.

It comes from the Associated Press, in a later paragraph of an Obama cheerleading item ("Obama pitches health plan in spirited appearance"; AP picture at right is from that story) by Julie Pace and David Espo.

The paragraph in question opens by giving readers the impression that either Pace, Espo, or another AP person has actually seen language in whatever iteration of ObamaCare happens to be floating around House chambers these days. But then it backs down and says it's only "described by a Democratic aide," meaning that the wire service is willingly serving as a trial-balloon enabler:

In a new change sought by House Democrats, the fix-it bill would require businesses to count part-time workers when calculating penalties for failing to provide health coverage for employees. Smaller businesses would be exempt. The Senate bill would count only full-time workers in applying the penalties, but under the change, described by a Democratic aide, two part-time workers would count as one full-time worker. Businesses say that's unduly burdensome, but Democrats contend it would prevent businesses from avoiding penalties by hiring more workers part-time.

A graphic of the paragraph in question, in case it's revised, is here.

This would serve to penalize business that rely almost entirely on part-time or seasonal help. Just a few examples: amusement parks, fast-food operations, much of retail, and call centers. These businesses would have to pay a tax for not offering health care coverage to employees who are not and never have been eligible for full-blown company-provided benefits.

This is beyond bizarre. It's as if there's something wrong with having employees who have of their own free will committed to not working 40 hours a week.

As to the expected business reaction of going to more part-timers in the absence of such a provision -- My gut reaction is that this idea would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and and thousands of businesses and more than a few industries in one fell swoop, meaning that there would be few businesses of any kind to worry about, period. It's almost as if they want to accomplish just that.

I'm sure commenters will have other insights based on their understanding of the circumstances of other businesses.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The economics of personality? The concept defies logic not to mention the laws of finance and accounting, but according to Newsweek's Eleanor Clift it wasn't the combination of President Ronald Reagan's attack on inflation and his low tax rates on individuals and businesses - but his personality that rescued the economy from the malaise of the early 1980s.

On the "The McLaughlin Group" March 7, Clift declared that Reaganomics was a failure, at least initially.

"There's some revisionist thinking going here," Clift said. "Reaganomics did not work, certainly not the first two years. When the midterm elections were held during Reagan's tenure, unemployment was at 10.8 percent."

So what did turn the economy around? According to Clift, it was Reagan's personality that led the economy out of the doldrums. And that's what Obama has lacked she said, despite his hope and change mantra.

"Now, I will grant that with the force of his personality and his - the conviction and the confidence that he projected, he kept Americans believing in him," Clift said. "That's where, I think, President Obama has failed."

However, she advised that we should rest assured - all the policy initiatives Obama has put into play will save the United States.

"This president inherited an economic situation far worse than what Reagan had because this was a meltdown of the financial system and he has brought the economy back from the brink," Clift said. "The stimulus bill and the other programs, health care, ushering a new green economy - they've been interpreted by his critics as all these individual government takeovers. He has failed in projecting a narrative of what - how he's trying to rebuild this country."

It's bad enough that the Obama administration ("Obama administration encouraged by steady unemployment rate") and Harry Reid (see video snippet at link) both tried to pretend that February's Employment Situation Report issued by Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics, which showed that the official unemployment rate was the same as January's 9.7% and that 36,000 seasonally adjusted jobs had been lost, was somehow a reason to be upbeat.

As many have pointed out for months, the expanded version of the unemployment rate has been well above 15% for quite a long time, and it at least occasionally gets referenced in media reports and political pronouncements.

But on the jobs added/lost front, what the press, pundits, and even opposition politicians are continuing to ignore is the key information that leads to the "seasonally adjusted" figure on which everyone seems to fixate -- to the point where it's not unreasonable to believe that almost everyone in America believes that 36,000 jobs lost is what really occurred during the month.

It isn't. Acknowledging that, and seeing what really did happen, is key to understanding what February's result really reflected a significant deterioration in the employment situation, not an improvement.

Here are the charts for 2004 through February 2010, first for not seasonally adjusted (NSA) jobs, followed by seasonally adjusted jobs:

The NSA table tells us that the government's best estimate of what really happened in February is that the economy added 473,000 jobs. Absent any other data, that would seem to be acceptable. But when you look at data for previous years, you can quickly tell that it's not.

Excluding February 2009, when the economy was in free-fall, February 2010's +473,000 is the worst performance listed above. The average for 2004-2008 is +714,000, or 241,000 jobs better. In February 2008, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the country was supposedly in the third month of a recession (even though economic growth overall was positive). Why should we be impressed that February 2010's economy couldn't even match that?

Beyond that, February's performance represented a decay from January's. January is a month when many Christmas seasonal employees get let go. The average job loss for January 2004-2008 of 2,770,000 was only 72,000 better than January revised 2010 number of -2,842,000. Thus, February 2010 was 169,000 jobs worse than January (241,000 vs. 72,000).

This is something to get excited about?

That leaves one mystery, which is this: Why was February 2010's SA loss of 36,000 an improvement over 2008's SA loss of 50,000? One would think that February 2010 should have come in worse. The answer is that 2009 was so bad, that it's distorting the SA calculation -- to the point where it's really not as reliable an indicator of what is going on as it normally would be in a more predictable situation. Additionally, BLS tells me that while it takes the previous five years into account, the more recent years carry more weight in the calculation of the final SA number than the least recent years.

These are things that establishment media business reporters should know. If they don't, they should either get a quick catch-up course or find another line of work. Media outlets, especially the wire services, should be adjusting their routine jobs reports to tell us the kinds of things this post has revealed.

It's not that tough. Why won't they?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

It's bad enough that the Obama administration ("Obama administration encouraged by steady unemployment rate") and Harry Reid (see video snippet at link) both tried to pretend that February's Employment Situation Report issued by Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics, which showed that the official unemployment rate was the same as January's 9.7% and that 36,000 seasonally adjusted jobs had been lost, was somehow a reason to be upbeat.

As many have pointed out for months, the expanded version of the unemployment rate has been well above 15% for quite a long time, and it at least occasionally gets referenced in media reports and political pronouncements.

But on the jobs added/lost front, what the press, pundits, and even opposition politicians are continuing to ignore is the key information that leads to the "seasonally adjusted" figure on which everyone seems to fixate -- to the point where it's not unreasonable to believe that almost everyone in America believes that 36,000 jobs lost is what really occurred during the month.

It isn't. Acknowledging that, and seeing what really did happen, is key to understanding what February's result really reflected a significant deterioration in the employment situation, not an improvement.

Here are the charts for 2004 through February 2010, first for not seasonally adjusted (NSA) jobs, followed by seasonally adjusted jobs:

The NSA table tells us that the government's best estimate of what really happened in February is that the economy added 473,000 jobs. Absent any other data, that would seem to be acceptable. But when you look at data for previous years, you can quickly tell that it's not.

Excluding February 2009, when the economy was in free-fall, February 2010's +473,000 is the worst performance, listed above. The average for 2004-2008 is +714,000, or 241,000 jobs better. In February 2008, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the country was supposedly in the third month of a recession (even though economic growth overall was positive). Why should we be impressed that February 2010's economy couldn't even match that?

Beyond that, February's performance represented a decay from January's. January is a month when many Christmas seasonal employees get let go. The average job loss for January 2004-2008 of 2,770,000 was only 72,000 better than January revised 2010 number of -2,842,000. Thus, February 2010 was 169,000 jobs worse than January (241,000 vs. 72,000).

This is something to get excited about?

That leaves one mystery, which is this: Why was February 2010's SA loss of 36,000 an improvement over 2008's SA loss of 50,000? One would think that February 2010 should have come in worse. The answer is that 2009 was so bad, that it's distorting the SA calculation -- to the point where it's really not as reliable an indicator of what is going on as it normally would be in a more predictable situation. Additionally, BLS tells me that while it takes the previous five years into account, the more recent years carry more weight in the calculation of the final SA number than the least recent years.

These are things that establishment media business reporters should know. If they don't, they should either get a quick catch-up course or find another line of work. Media outlets, especially the wire services, should be adjusting their routine jobs reports to tell us the kinds of things this post has revealed.

It's not that tough. Why won't they?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Perhaps President Barack Obama might have preferred New York Times columnist Tom Friedman to reserve these comments for their golf outings together, but has Friedman recognized this path toward a larger government is unsustainable?

On MSNBC's March 5 "Morning Joe," host Joe Scarborough recounted his childhood in the early 1970s and the poor economy. He explained there was a different focus - that his family was hoping for the economy to turn around and could have cared less about the other issues of the day - Vietnam, Watergate, etc. It was all about the economy.

"You know Tom Friedman, I remember in the early '70s, my dad worked for Lockheed, got laid off and he was without a job for 18 months," Scarborough said. "This is in the middle of Watergate was blowing up on TV and in the middle of Vietnam, as it was grinding to a very bloody, messy ending. And my family, we just cared about one thing. When we watched Walter Cronkite at night, we wanted to know if the economy was turning around. And we didn't understand what was going on in the college campuses."

Scarborough juxtaposed his scenario with what was going on now - that the debate about health care has distracted the so-called laser-like focus on improving unemployment in the United States and asked Friedman if the president and the rest of Washington just aren't getting it.

"My dad just wanted a job so he could take care of his family," Scarborough said. "I wonder if as Mike said, Washington and this administration still don't get that?"

And Friedman admitted the administration isn't getting it - well at least something. Friedman said should health care pass, Obama has to tell the American people this is it for entitlements for a long time and the new focus would have to be put on the United States building its stature back up in the world.

"Well, I think they don't get something here, Joe," Friedman said. "If this health care thing passes and I were the president the one thing I would say to the American people is, ‘Folks this is the last slice of pie you're going to get in a long time because the future is going to be about building a bigger pan. If we don't building a bigger pan with a more innovative America and more competitive America, this is the last slice you're ever going to get for a long time."

It’s time for your weekly dose of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, a podcast brought to you by the fine folks at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and LibertyPundits.com, your home for conservative podcasts. In this week’s edition, we’ll talk about the unemployment numbers released this morning and the debate about America’s jobs problem in the context of declines in education.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

American Spectator: 36,000 Jobs Lost in February
Tom Friedman on Intel and Jobs
Abe Greenwald on LAX
TNL: The End of Easy Fixes

Over the last three days, ABC's World News devoted almost six times as much coverage to Senator Jim Bunning and his temporary hold-up of an unemployment bill as the program did for the ongoing revelations that Democratic Charlie Rangel violated House ethics with his trips to the Caribbean.

World News investigated and followed the Republican for four minutes and 38 seconds over two days. In comparison, the program could only manage a scant 48 seconds of coverage for Rangel. (Anchor Diane Sawyer on Wednesday finally asked George Stephanopoulos about the news that Rangel was stepping down from his powerful Ways and Means committee.)

The difference here is that Rangel's story was an actual scandal and ABC only treated Bunning's actions, which amounted to not giving unanimous consent to a $10 billion spending bill, as a scandal.

As the MRC's Brent Baker observed on March 2, ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl hyperbolically reported how Bunning was "denying" people unemployment. Karl confronted the politician and tried to force his way onto a Senator's only elevator.

The reporter breathlessly asserted, "We wanted to ask the Senator why he is blocking a vote that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 340,000 Americas, including Brenda Wood, a teacher in Austin, Texas who has been out of work for two years."

On Wednesday, anchor Diane Sawyer explained in a matter-of-fact tone: "Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York, powerful, immensely powerful, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is stepping down as chairman." Guest Stephanopoulos did describe the resignation as a "real blow" to Democrats. But the brief coverage lacked the dramatic tone of ABC's stakeout for Senator Bunning.

World News featured Bunning for two minutes and 16 seconds on Monday and two minutes and 22 seconds on Tuesday. The program devoted 48 seconds to Rangel on Wednesday.

ABC on Wednesday continued to berate Senator Jim Bunning for daring to hold up a $10 billion spending bill, despite the fact that the Kentucky Republican has since allowed the unemployment legislation to pass. Reporter Jonathan Karl piled on, "Even after the deal was struck, Democrats lashed out at Bunning for causing such a mess."

Karl replayed video of him harassing Bunning on Capitol Hill and forcing his way into a Senators-only elevator. Yet, Karl spun, "...Unemployment benefits can now be extended, but only after Senator Jim Bunning tied the Senate up in knots for a week, snapping at reporters." As the video shows, Karl seemed be doing much of the "snapping."

The correspondent derided Bunning as being "forced to relent" by his Senate colleagues. On Tuesday's World News, Karl condescendingly updated the situation by chiding, "Jim Bunning was at it again today." Just two days after the legislation was temporarily stopped, Karl found an "unemployed microbiologist in Texas" who asserted that "no unemployment check will mean she will have to move out of her house."

Finally, in a follow-up news brief in the 8am hour of Wednesday's GMA, Juju Chang incorrectly asserted that Bunning had "has ended his filibuster." Actually, the Senator had simply objected to a unanimous consent request that the legislation be moved along.

Considering that the 60 votes needed to shut off debate were available, Democrats could have done so. Bunning's actions were not a filibuster.

A transcript of the March 3 segment, which aired at 7:01am EST, follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, we begin with the latest out of Washington this morning. The President will lay out his final health care plan today, hoping he can hold on to enough Democrats to pass it before the end of the month. And overnight, the single Senator holding up unemployment benefits across the country finally stood down. Jake Tapper and Jon Karl are on point at the White House and Capitol Hill this morning. And, John, let's begin with you.

JONATHAN KARL: Well, George, it is chaotic times here on Capitol Hill. Over in the House, a powerful Democratic chairman is facing pressure to resign this morning. And here in the Senate, that lone Senator who held up unemployment benefits was finally forced to relent.

UNIDENTIFIED: The bill is passed.

KARL: And with that, unemployment benefits can now be extended, but only after Senator Jim Bunning tied the Senate up in knots for a week, snapping at reporters.

SENATOR JIM BUNNING: Excuse me. This is a senator-only elevator.KARL: Can I come on the elevator?

BUNNING: No.

KARL: And causing thousands of jobless Americans to see their unemployment benefits expire and construction projects across the country to halt. Late last night, in the face of intense pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning finally caved in, giving only a promise that the Senate would vote on a measure to pay for the bill with cuts to other programs. That failed. And he wasn't happy about it.

SEN. JIM BUNNING: If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything?

KARL: Even after the deal was struck, Democrats lashed out at Bunning for causing such a mess.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: This could have been done last week. He was offered this chance last week. He wouldn't take it last week. And as a result, a lot of people have suffered.

KARL: Republicans were privately furious with Bunning for making the party look bad. Talking to us before the vote, Bunning made it clear he has no apologies. How long will this last? When will these people expect to see their benefits? And are you concerned about how this has played out?

BUNNING: No, no. I'm not concerned, except for the people.

KARL: Over in the House, it is a Democrat that is digging in. Ways and Means Chairman, Charlie Rangel faces multiple ethics investigations over his personal finances and his fund-raising. And he is facing a growing chorus of Democrats who say he should step down. But, George, for now, he is not going to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, John. There were real tense meetings last night. Rangel, we first heard he was going to step down. He was called into a meeting with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Came out defiant. Yet, the Democrats are just not backing him now.

KARL: And here's the problem, George. Today, the Republicans are going to offer a resolution, saying that he should step down as chairman. And with so many Democrats now bailing on him, it is expected that that resolution will pass.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right. Hard to see how he can survive, at least for now.

ABC on Wednesday continued to berate Senator Jim Bunning for daring to hold up a $10 billion spending bill, despite the fact that the Kentucky Republican has since allowed the unemployment legislation to pass. Reporter Jonathan Karl piled on, "Even after the deal was struck, Democrats lashed out at Bunning for causing such a mess."

Karl replayed video of him harassing Bunning on Capitol Hill and forcing his way into a Senators-only elevator. Yet, Karl spun, "...Unemployment benefits can now be extended, but only after Senator Jim Bunning tied the Senate up in knots for a week, snapping at reporters." As the video shows, Karl seemed be doing much of the "snapping."

The correspondent derided Bunning as being "forced to relent" by his Senate colleagues. On Tuesday's World News, Karl condescendingly updated the situation by chiding, "Jim Bunning was at it again today." Just two days after the legislation was temporarily stopped, Karl found an "unemployed microbiologist in Texas" who asserted that "no unemployment check will mean she will have to move out of her house."

Finally, in a follow-up news brief in the 8am hour of Wednesday's GMA, Juju Chang incorrectly asserted that Bunning had "has ended his filibuster." Actually, the Senator had simply objected to a unanimous consent request that the legislation be moved along.

Considering that the 60 votes needed to shut off debate were available, Democrats could have done so. Bunning's actions were not a filibuster.

A transcript of the March 3 segment, which aired at 7:01am EST, follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, we begin with the latest out of Washington this morning. The President will lay out his final health care plan today, hoping he can hold on to enough Democrats to pass it before the end of the month. And overnight, the single Senator holding up unemployment benefits across the country finally stood down. Jake Tapper and Jon Karl are on point at the White House and Capitol Hill this morning. And, John, let's begin with you.

JONATHAN KARL: Well, George, it is chaotic times here on Capitol Hill. Over in the House, a powerful Democratic chairman is facing pressure to resign this morning. And here in the Senate, that lone Senator who held up unemployment benefits was finally forced to relent.

UNIDENTIFIED: The bill is passed.

KARL: And with that, unemployment benefits can now be extended, but only after Senator Jim Bunning tied the Senate up in knots for a week, snapping at reporters.

SENATOR JIM BUNNING: Excuse me. This is a senator-only elevator.KARL: Can I come on the elevator?

BUNNING: No.

KARL: And causing thousands of jobless Americans to see their unemployment benefits expire and construction projects across the country to halt. Late last night, in the face of intense pressure from fellow Republicans, Bunning finally caved in, giving only a promise that the Senate would vote on a measure to pay for the bill with cuts to other programs. That failed. And he wasn't happy about it.

SEN. JIM BUNNING: If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything?

KARL: Even after the deal was struck, Democrats lashed out at Bunning for causing such a mess.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: This could have been done last week. He was offered this chance last week. He wouldn't take it last week. And as a result, a lot of people have suffered.

KARL: Republicans were privately furious with Bunning for making the party look bad. Talking to us before the vote, Bunning made it clear he has no apologies. How long will this last? When will these people expect to see their benefits? And are you concerned about how this has played out?

BUNNING: No, no. I'm not concerned, except for the people.

KARL: Over in the House, it is a Democrat that is digging in. Ways and Means Chairman, Charlie Rangel faces multiple ethics investigations over his personal finances and his fund-raising. And he is facing a growing chorus of Democrats who say he should step down. But, George, for now, he is not going to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, John. There were real tense meetings last night. Rangel, we first heard he was going to step down. He was called into a meeting with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Came out defiant. Yet, the Democrats are just not backing him now.

KARL: And here's the problem, George. Today, the Republicans are going to offer a resolution, saying that he should step down as chairman. And with so many Democrats now bailing on him, it is expected that that resolution will pass.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right. Hard to see how he can survive, at least for now.

Some faulty memes get repeated so often they get burned in the media's collective memory as fact, even though they are myth. Perhaps the most notable example of that in 2009 was the myth that the New York 23rd congressional district had been solidly Republican since the Civil War until Doug Hoffman's third-party challenge of the liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava ensured a Democrat's victory in a special election. We've a lot of 2010 left to go, but perhaps history will record the greatest political myth of this year as Jim Bunning's "filibuster" that was anything but.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey took on the media's Bunning filibuster meme yesterday, noting that even inside-the-Beltway publications like Roll Call tagged Bunning's objection to unanimous consent a filibuster even though it "should know better" (emphasis mine):

This is not a filibuster, which is a specific procedure in which Senators force debate to continue indefinitely as a means to block a final vote, denying “cloture” to the majority party.  Alternatively, and now somewhat archaically, it also describes an effort by one Senator to just continue talking to stall action.  Bunning is using another mechanism altogether, one that won’t block a final vote, although it will delay it:

As I noted in a previous post, and as is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension, Senator Jim Bunning – for the simple reason he wishes it to be paid for – is objecting to a repeated unanimous consent request by Senate Democrats to call up and pass a bill that would temporarily extend unemployment benefits, transportation funding, medicare reimbursement, COBRA subsidies and other expenditures to the tune of another $10 billion or so. Again, Democrats are requesting that each U.S. Senator agree – that is, effectively vote “yes” – to said extension without full consideration or debate on the Senate floor.

Yet, news account after news account of his continued objection to this unanimous consent request report his actions as a filibuster. Politico, Roll Call, Fox News, CNN, and the list goes on and on. And the accusation of filibustering is even worse among Senators and Congressmen, as exemplified by the DCCC Chair, Chris Van Hollen and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. But it simply is not the case that what Mr. Bunning is doing is a filibuster under the rules, as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Senate fully comprehends. …

A filibuster is one of two things. One, an actual filibuster where a Senator gets control of the Senate floor and will yield only for a question while continuing to speak, thereby delaying consideration of a measure. Picture Mr. Smith goes to Washington (if you haven’t seen it, do). Two, a “filibuster” under Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate whereby debate is continuous unless “cloture” is filed to shut off debate on a measure under consideration and the vote is 3/5ths or more of the Senate. Senate Democrats did not call this bill up to give it floor time. If they had thought it important enough, they could have. Instead, they simply asked for a “UC,” or unanimous consent to pass it. Senator Bunning simply does not wish to give his consent – i.e. he does not want to vote for it.

No one is required to give unanimous consent to any request for it.  Senators normally give it, though, in order to keep business moving.  Withholding unanimous consent simply means that the Senate will have to hold procedural votes that it would otherwise waive in order to finish its work.  That’s not a filibuster.

Bottom line: Bunning simply wanted debate and a vote rather than hurrying along and adopting without any consideration some $10 billion of the taxpayers' money. Apparently that little bit of dissent is too much for the liberal media to tolerate.

Some faulty memes get repeated so often they get burned in the media's collective memory as fact, even though they are myth. Perhaps the most notable example of that in 2009 was the myth that the New York 23rd congressional district had been solidly Republican since the Civil War until Doug Hoffman's third-party challenge of the liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava ensured a Democrat's victory in a special election. We've a lot of 2010 left to go, but perhaps history will record the greatest political myth of this year as Jim Bunning's "filibuster" that was anything but.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey took on the media's Bunning filibuster meme yesterday, noting that even inside-the-Beltway publications like Roll Call tagged Bunning's objection to unanimous consent a filibuster even though it "should know better" (emphasis mine):

This is not a filibuster, which is a specific procedure in which Senators force debate to continue indefinitely as a means to block a final vote, denying “cloture” to the majority party.  Alternatively, and now somewhat archaically, it also describes an effort by one Senator to just continue talking to stall action.  Bunning is using another mechanism altogether, one that won’t block a final vote, although it will delay it:

As I noted in a previous post, and as is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension, Senator Jim Bunning – for the simple reason he wishes it to be paid for – is objecting to a repeated unanimous consent request by Senate Democrats to call up and pass a bill that would temporarily extend unemployment benefits, transportation funding, medicare reimbursement, COBRA subsidies and other expenditures to the tune of another $10 billion or so. Again, Democrats are requesting that each U.S. Senator agree – that is, effectively vote “yes” – to said extension without full consideration or debate on the Senate floor.

Yet, news account after news account of his continued objection to this unanimous consent request report his actions as a filibuster. Politico, Roll Call, Fox News, CNN, and the list goes on and on. And the accusation of filibustering is even worse among Senators and Congressmen, as exemplified by the DCCC Chair, Chris Van Hollen and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. But it simply is not the case that what Mr. Bunning is doing is a filibuster under the rules, as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Senate fully comprehends. …

A filibuster is one of two things. One, an actual filibuster where a Senator gets control of the Senate floor and will yield only for a question while continuing to speak, thereby delaying consideration of a measure. Picture Mr. Smith goes to Washington (if you haven’t seen it, do). Two, a “filibuster” under Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate whereby debate is continuous unless “cloture” is filed to shut off debate on a measure under consideration and the vote is 3/5ths or more of the Senate. Senate Democrats did not call this bill up to give it floor time. If they had thought it important enough, they could have. Instead, they simply asked for a “UC,” or unanimous consent to pass it. Senator Bunning simply does not wish to give his consent – i.e. he does not want to vote for it.

No one is required to give unanimous consent to any request for it.  Senators normally give it, though, in order to keep business moving.  Withholding unanimous consent simply means that the Senate will have to hold procedural votes that it would otherwise waive in order to finish its work.  That’s not a filibuster.

Bottom line: Bunning simply wanted debate and a vote rather than hurrying along and adopting without any consideration some $10 billion of the taxpayers' money. Apparently that little bit of dissent is too much for the liberal media to tolerate.

"Campbell Brown  . . . the only non-partisan cable news anchor at 8 pm." -- CNN description of Campbell Brown

For the second straight night, ABC's World News scolded Senator Jim Bunning for daring to block a $10 billion spending bill until it is offset by cuts elsewhere, parading out victims as Diane Sawyer and Jonathan Karl painted him as a nuisance “even fellow Republicans” – that would be a liberal one – oppose. (After the EST broadcast, news broke that Bunning has agreed to some sort of deal.)

Sawyer thundered in teasing her top story: “Tonight on World News, the 'Politics of No.' For the second straight day, one Senator stymies Congress, unemployed Americans struggle and we track that Senator down again.” Sawyer led:

Good evening. Even his fellow Republicans have asked him to stop, but Republican Senator Jim Bunning still has Congress under blockade. For another day, he's kept thousands of unemployed workers from getting their benefits and forced some highway construction projects to stop.

Karl treated the Senator as a child (“Jim Bunning was at it again today”) before he showcased an “unemployed microbiologist in Texas” who, Karl ludicrously relayed -- just two weekdays after unemployment benefits were stopped -- “says no unemployment check will mean she will have to move out of her house” while “Bret Ingersoll of Denver is an unemployed forklift operator, who has already lost his apartment.” So, “today even fellow Republicans were asking Senator Bunning to relent.” That would be Maine's Susan Collins.

After showing video of himself chasing the elderly Bunning while demanding to know “when will those people begin to see help?”, Karl concluded by asserting that “even as Democrats complain about Bunning's behavior, they are thrilled with the political fallout here, happy to be fighting an unpopular Senator over a bill that's got a lot of popular support.”

And Karl and ABC are happy to advance that storyline favorable to the Democrats.

My Monday night NB posting, “Bunning’s Spending Hold Makes Him a Cad to TV Nets, Focus on His Supposed Victims,” recounted ABC's spin (see linked article for CBS and NBC):

....Teasing World News, ABC anchor Diane Sawyer stressed how he’s “denying” people unemployment benefits so ABC decided to “confront” him: “One man's stand. A single Senator stops the whole Congress, denying thousands of people unemployment benefits. We confront him to ask why.” Sawyer framed the story around how Bunning is blocking “life support for the unemployed.”

Reporter Jon Karl concentrated on victims as he played video of himself confronting Bunning by an elevator: “We wanted to ask the Senator why he is blocking a vote that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 340,000 Americas, including Brenda Wood, a teacher in Austin, Texas who has been out of work for two years.” That’s not all: “Bunning is also blocking money for highway construction. So across the country today, 41 construction projects ground to a halt, thousands of workers furloughed without pay.”...

From the top of the Tuesday, March 2 World News on ABC:

DIANE SAWYER: Good evening. Even his fellow Republicans have asked him to stop, but Republican Senator Jim Bunning still has Congress under blockade. For another day, he's kept thousands of unemployed workers from getting their benefits and forced some highway construction projects to stop. Yesterday, you may remember the Senator snapped at our Jon Karl who tracked him down. So Jon got his camera and went back again today.

JON KARL: Jim Bunning was at it again today-

SENATOR JIM BUNNING, ON SENATE FLOOR: It's not a filibuster when you object, and that ought to be brought out clearly.

KARL: -still refusing to extend benefits for hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans unless Congress comes up with a way to pay for it first. Joung Moon, an unemployed microbiologist in Texas, says no unemployment check will mean she will have to move out of her house.

JOUNG MOON: I don't know what the next step is. So-

KARL: Bret Ingersoll of Denver is an unemployed forklift operator, who has already lost his apartment and is living with friends.

BRET INGERSOLL: Little scared, to tell you the truth. Have you have ever been on the streets? Yeah, it's rough out there. You know what I mean?

KARL: Today, even fellow Republicans were asking Senator Bunning to relent.

SENATOR SUSAN COLLIN, (RINO-ME): I hope that we can act together for the American people.

KARL: Bunning's answer -- still no, unless it's paid for.

BUNNING, ON SENATE FLOOR: I object and let me-

KARL: Yesterday, an angry Senator Bunning refused to answer our questions.

BUNNING TO KARL: Excuse me, this is a Senator-only elevator.

KARL TO BUNNING: Can I come on the elevator?

BUNNING: No.

KARL: Today, we tracked him down again.

KARL, CHASING AFTER BUNNING: How long will this last? When will people expect to see their benefits? How long are you willing to keep this going on?

KARL: Bunning told us he is trying to work out a deal with Democratic leader Harry Reid.

KARL TO BUNNING: Do you think it will be settled today?

BUNNING: Hopefully.

KARL: And are you concerned about how this has played out?

BUNNING: No. No, I'm not concerned, except for the people.

KARL: And when will those people begin to see help?

BUNNING: As soon as possible.

KARL: They're still working on that deal. I am told a deal might be struck by late tonight, but Diane, even as Democrats complain about Bunning's behavior, they are thrilled with the political fallout here, happy to be fighting an unpopular Senator over a bill that's got a lot of popular support.

President Obama continuously tries to portray himself as a friend to the little-man, middle class and small business. Hence his attacks on "fat cats" who "just don't get it," while labeling the extravagant bonuses as "obscene," and "the height of irresponsibility."

Meanwhile, members of his administration, in defending a sweeping small-business aid program Obama announced in his State of the Union, give reason to wonder if they really understand how to help small business. 

Among the administration's proposals for small businesses are a $5,000 tax credit to hire new workers, elimination of capital gains taxes, and new incentives to invest in plants and equipment. At the same time, however, the administration plans to raise taxes on "the wealthiest Americans."

Obama's chief economic adviser Larry Summers appeared Feb. 9 on the Fox Business Channel to discuss the administration's economic agenda and defended proposed rate-hikes for those making over $250,000. "Almost all economists who studied these things have that kind of view," he told Fox's Liz Claman.

Perplexed, Fox News contributor Gary B. Smith replied: "it's the biggest bunch of B.S. I ever heard ... this is such a political game. , Larry Summers thinks everyone is Rockefeller living in their Newport, Rhode Island mansion. These are guys that are starting businesses, investing. You can't give people business money to hire people, they have to have a reason for hiring these people and that's because they see sales increasing or costs decreasing. You can't just say ‘go hire these five people' because the businesses will go ‘What for? I don't have the demand!'"

Contributor Mike Norman also disagreed with Obama's economic plan, saying, "If you want to get money into the hands of most people, the fastest, you do something that has been proposed now since this whole crisis began - and that is a suspension or significant reduction in the payroll tax. That's where people get the most taken out; that's something like a trillion-dollars every year that goes to the federal government - that just goes nowhere," Norman said. "That would bring our economy back, but he's not for that."

Recently, the chief economic adviser of the White House also sat down for an interview on CNBC's Monday edition of "Fast Money." And in anticipation of a new jobs report, Larry Summer was ready to blame bad weather for current economic troubles.

During the interview with Karen Finerman, Larry Summers stressed that recent winter blizzards may very likely distort the February jobless figures that are coming out Friday:

"Who knows what the numbers are going to be," Summers told Finerman. "The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics and in past blizzards those statistics have been distorted by a hundred to two-hundred thousand jobs."

[Summers chuckle]

"So it's going to be very important to know, very important to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends."

Just days after Rick Sanchez and his producer asked for "hardship stories" online, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 program on Tuesday looked for people who have lost their unemployment benefits due to Republican Senator Jim Bunning's opposition to a $10 billion emergency measure which would have extended benefits.

The unsigned entry on the AC360 blog, which was posted on Tuesday afternoon, first recapped how Democrats attacked Bunning for blocking the unanimous consent of the measure. In the last sentence of the entry, the unnamed author asked readers of CNN.com to reply for their sob stories:

The unemployed will now stop getting checks once they run out of their state benefits or current tier of federal benefits.

Top Democrats tore into one of their Republican counterparts yesterday for blocking an extension of unemployment benefits that would provide assistance to millions of jobless Americans.

The Senate adjourned last week without approving extensions of cash and health insurance benefits for the unemployed after Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, blocked the measure by insisting that Congress first pay for the $10 billion package. The emergency measure needed unanimous consent to pass.

Bunning, who is retiring at the end of this year, said he doesn't oppose extending the programs, he just doesn't want to add to the deficit. Democrats claim the bill is an emergency measure that should not be subject to new rules requiring that legislation not expand the deficit.

Have you lost your unemployment benefits as a result? We want to hear from you! Let us know.

On February 26, Sanchez's producer solicited for a broader set of "hardship stories" on Twitter: "Today Rick's looking 4 hardship stories: financial, med., trouble w/ (BROKEN?) govt., family, etc Keep short, maybe will read on air." The CNN anchor ended up reading a few Tweets of such stories at the beginning of his program.

A retiring Senator not facing re-election stood up last week for principle, insisting new federal spending be covered by a matching reduction elsewhere, but instead of hailing Senator Jim Bunning as a “maverick” making sure the ruling party adheres to its promise new spending will be “paid for,” television network journalists on Monday night painted him as an ogre, focusing on the presumed victims of delayed spending.

Teasing World News, ABC anchor Diane Sawyer stressed how he’s “denying” people unemployment benefits so ABC decided to “confront” him: “One man's stand. A single Senator stops the whole Congress, denying thousands of people unemployment benefits. We confront him to ask why.” Sawyer framed the story around how Bunning is blocking “life support for the unemployed.”

Reporter Jon Karl concentrated on victims as he played video of himself confronting Bunning by an elevator: “We wanted to ask the Senator why he is blocking a vote that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 340,000 Americas, including Brenda Wood, a teacher in Austin, Texas who has been out of work for two years.” That’s not all: “Bunning is also blocking money for highway construction. So across the country today, 41 construction projects ground to a halt, thousands of workers furloughed without pay.”

On CBS, Katie Couric characterized Bunning’s hold on the $10 billion measure as “one of the stranger episodes on Capitol Hill” before Nancy Cordes lamented: “Because the bill didn't pass by today, 2,000 federal transportation workers had to be furloughed without pay, 400,000 Americans risk losing their unemployment benefits over the next seven to ten days...” NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell echoed: “Tonight, 2,000 Department of Transportation workers are furloughed without pay, highway projects and unemployment benefits for 400,000 are put on hold.”

In contrast, FNC’s Bret Baier offered a friendlier take on Bunning’s stand:

The idea of buying only the things you can actually pay for hasn't been a big seller in Washington for decades. Right now, one Republican Senator is catching all kinds of grief for taking a position that millions of American families have to live by.

Coverage from Monday night, March 1:

ABC’s World News:

DIANE SAWYER: Now, to Washington and a single Senator who has a whole Congress at a standstill. He says the government should stop extra spending now even if it's life support for the unemployed. Jon Karl trailed him. Jon.

JON KARL: Diane, that one Senator is Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning. He is taking a stand that Congress must pay it's bill and he's not backing down. Jim Bunning is a Hall of Fame pitcher known for throwing brush-back pitches and a Senator who isn't afraid to ruffle feathers.

KARL, CHASING BUNNING INTO ELEVATOR: Sir, we just wanted to ask you-

SENATOR BUNNING: Excuse me, this is a Senator-only elevator.

KARL: Can I come on the elevator?

BUNNING: No, you may not.

KARL: We wanted to ask the Senator why he is blocking a vote that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 340,000 Americas, including Brenda Wood, a teacher in Austin, Texas who has been out of work for two years.

BRENDA WOOD: I've done a lot without and drained my savings, so pretty much my daughter's been helping out, so -- I don't know what I'll do.

KARL: Senator Bunning is also blocking money for highway construction. So across the country today, 41 construction projects ground to a halt, thousands of workers furloughed without pay.

KARL TO BUNNING: Can you tell us why you're blocking this vote?

BUNNING, IN ELEVATOR AS DOORS CLOSE: I already did [edit jump] Excuse me!

KARL: Are you concerned about those that are going to lose their benefits?

KARL: Later, Senator Bunning went to the Senate floor to explain he favors the bill but wants to see it paid for with cuts to other programs.

SENATOR JIM BUNNING, ON SENATE FLOOR: If we can't find $10 billion to pay for something that we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of this U.S. Senate.

KARL: Bunning suggested using $10 billion in unspent stimulus funds. Democrats said no.

SENATOR HARRY REID: Mr. President, I object.

KARL: Many of Bunning's Republican colleague agree with that him Congress needs to explain how it going to pay for all its spending, but on this one few are as public as Bunning who, by the way, is not running for re-election..

Virtually everyone in Congress supports extending those benefits, including Senator Bunning, and a deal expected to be worked out by next week. But in the meantime, Diane, those who have seen their benefits run out are simply going to have to wait.

CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: In other news, if you're scoring, give Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning a shutout in the U.S. Senate. He blocked an extension of jobless benefits that expire today and stopped renewal of highway programs that kept thousands working. Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes now on one of the stranger episodes on Capitol Hill.

NANCY CORDES: Workers on the Humpback Bridge in Northern Virginia were told to pack up and head home today. The bridge is among 41 infrastructure projects around the country that ground to a halt due to the wishes of one Senator.

SENATOR BUNNING ON SENATE FLOOR, FEBRUARY 25: And I'm going to object every time because you won't pay for this.

CORDES: Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky stunned both parties by single-handedly blocking a routine piece of legislation meant to extend certain benefits and subsidies. Because the bill didn't pass by today, 2,000 federal transportation workers had to be furloughed without pay, 400,000 Americans risk losing their unemployment benefits over the next seven to ten days and Medicare fees for doctors were suddenly slashed by 21 percent. Bunning held up the bill because Democrats hadn't come up with a way to pay the $10 billion price tag.

BUNNING: We cannot keep adding to the debt.

SENATOR HARRY REID (D): Where was my friend from Kentucky when we had two wars that were unpaid for during the Bush administration?

CORDES: Under Senate rules, any member can object to moving forward on legislation. Just last month, another Republican, Richard Shelby, employed a similar tactic, but that only held up a few dozen presidential appointments.

SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D): When the victims in the middle of the debate are unemployed people, I don't think that's fair.

CORDES: Republicans contend Democrats are to blame for waiting until the last minute to bring this bill to the floor. Now both parties are trying to work around Senator Bunning to restore all these benefits within the next couple of weeks. Katie?

NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning, the former pro baseball star who is not running for re-election, today had angry words and an obscene gesture for a reporter on Capitol Hill. A sign, perhaps, that public pressure on him is building over his controversial decision to block a short-term spending bill in the U.S. Senate. The latest on that tonight from Capitol Hill. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell standing by. Kelly, good evening.

KELLY O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. Well Senator Bunning has a reputation for being prickly. And the stands he is taking over the federal deficit means that tonight 2,000 Department of Transportation workers are furloughed without pay, highway projects and unemployment benefits for 400,000 are put on hold. The Kentucky Republican really is a one-man blockade, and he says the Senate has to figure out how to pay for this $10 billion package first, then he'd support it. Now ironically, Bunning had opposed that very requirement.

Democrats, as you can imagine, are outraged, they did not see this coming, so now they're scrambling to try to figure out some way to fix this, perhaps by the end of the week. Brian?

At last there appears to be a president worse than Jimmy Carter - at least according to conservative talk show host Mark Levin. 

That was the question host Don Imus asked Levin on the Fox Business Network's "Imus in the Morning."  "So the President Obama, worse than Jimmy Carter?"

"Worse than Jimmy Carter? I mean they're not mutually exclusive, they're both disasters," Levin replied, citing many of the parallels of the two administrations. 

But on the home front, Levin said Obama was beyond comparison: "I think on domestic policy, nobody comes close to Barack Obama. I think he's the biggest disaster in modern American history."

That led the duo to discuss the $787 billion stimulus bill, that turned 1-year-old Feb. 17. "Regarding the stimulus package, the president says that that kept us from sliding into Depression," Imus noted.

Levin claimed concerns about a Depression were false, and that Obama was harming America's economy with government intrusion - choking out the private sector. "You know, this is what you do when you're desperate, and you're a radical propagandist," Mark Levin said.

"This is a very vicious recession and we would have been out of by now if he wasn't smothering the private sector, threatening to tax them, nationalizing major industries, government doesn't spread wealth, it destroys wealth and it spreads misery. Now we've had trillions of dollars spent in the last 13-14 months...trillions...following this failed ideology.  We still have almost 10 percent unemployment, still foreclosures, soon the fed is going to back off  pumping money into the housing market, interest rates are going to go up..." Levin continued, not buying the merits of the stimulus.  

Then came the harshest remarks from the politically incorrect commentator about the perceived socialist ideology of the president:

"This philosophy that Obama embraces has failed whenever it's tried, wherever it's tried. And you notice they always try to say the same thing - ‘we haven't gone far enough,' ‘we need more money,' ‘we need more government,' and then they pick enemies - this industry, that industry - it's because they're failures. And this is how they continue to push their propaganda.  We weren't sliding into a great Depression, so now he's rewriting history."   

Imus then switched topics, asking his guest about his thoughts on national security and the events surrounding the Guantanamo Bay and terror trials. 

Levin said he simply doesn't know what is going to happen as a result of Obama's "illogical" stance on terror:

"There is utter chaos in this administration on how to treat terrorists who are captured on the battlefield and there shouldn't be utter chaos.  We should know exactly what we're doing and our enemies should fear us exactly what we're going to do to them - and they used to."

One thing Levin was sure about was  that America's credibility has been shot and consequences inevitable:

"Now they laugh at us.  They'll laugh in our faces and behind our backs," he continued. "And this doesn't just resonate with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, it resonates with the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese have no respect for Obama at all. The Russians could care less about what he has to say, and what happens under those circumstances - they create enormous danger - because our enemies are going to press and push and test us. And I'm not sure this president is up to it."

Quite a contrast in how ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, taking her turn hosting This Week, approached House Speaker Nancy Pelosi versus Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, all before agreeing with Sam Donaldson when he urged President Obama to become “ruthless” to pass his health care reform bill since that’s what FDR and Truman “would have done.” She affirmed: “That's a good point.”

With Pelosi, she forwarded process questions about whether the Speaker has the votes to pass the health bill and whether it would have been “more helpful for you” if Obama had put up his proposal earlier, pressed the Speaker from the left on the size of the “jobs” bill and empathized with her struggles: “Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?” Not to mention cuing her up: “How would you rate yourself in the past year?”

But with Alexander, the 20/20 anchor did not wonder if he’s “frustrated” by Obama’s intransigence as she challenged him to help pass the Democratic health bill, raised presumed Republican hypocrisy and rued the inability of Congress to pass “sweeping” legislation to provide “the changes we need in the country.” She demanded to know if Republicans will “play ball,” pressing: “Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?” Raising GOP opposition to passing the health bill via “reconciliation” in the Senate, Vargas asked: “Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?”

When Alexander argued Congress cannot pass such a huge bill all at once, a distressed Vargas countered: “But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?” Alexander said yes, prompting Vargas to bemoan: “That's not good,” before she fretted: “How are we going to...empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country?”

She wrapped up with Alexander by lamenting the conservative reaction to Senator Scott Brown’s actions:

When somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

Vargas, who anchored World News for several months after Peter Jennings died, at least did bring up with Pelosi the ethics issues swirling around Charles Rangel.

During the February 28 roundtable, the retired ABC News veteran Donaldson declared history is on the side of Obama, Pelosi and Reid: “This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.”

(Flashback to This Week in December: “ABC's Roberts: People Will Be Thrilled by Health Bill Once They 'Understand' It, Hails Reid.”)

All of the questions aired from Vargas to Pelosi in the interview conducted on Friday in the Speaker’s Capitol building office:

- Madame Speaker, welcome back, again, to This Week. Let's talk health care. The President said, after the summit, “we cannot have another year of debate on this issue. We need decisions now.” You said on Friday, we are determined to pass health care. Do you have the 217 votes necessary to pass it in the House?

- So what are the fixes that the Senate needs to make in your opinion? Through reconciliation presumably before the House can vote on it?

- You know that the polls show that the American people are deeply divided on health care. Many of them are opposed to it, even though they are supporting certain specific pieces of it. What do you say to your members when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

- Do you wish, though, that the President had posted his bill before this week? That six months ago it might have been more helpful for you, that maybe six months ago you knew that the public option was something he was willing to drop before you fought so hard for it?

- But would we still be debating this if the President had put his plan out six months ago?

- How long are you willing to wait for the ideas [from Republicans]? The President seemed to make it clear that time's up.

- But, the point is, when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you're certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need? Even with the differences over abortion language? There have been members of the House who voted in favor of it before, who are now saying we can't vote for this bill because of the Senate language on abortion.

- You mentioned jobs. Members of the House have already weighed in on the Senate jobs bill saying it's too small and does too little. The Congressional Black Caucus says it shouldn’t even be called a jobs bill. Should you agree to the smaller, incremental approach given that unemployment is the single biggest issue in this country right now?

- Is it okay to do it in that smaller, incremental way, not the big dramatic way the House proposed?

- The ethics committee, on Charles Rangel, said that he has violated the House gift rule. How can he remain in such a powerful position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee when, in fact, there are further pending investigations and this public admonishment has taken place?

- If there are further admonishments, though, should he remain in this position?

- But you understand this is why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.

- Let's talk a bit about the coming elections in November. You had recently -- and the Tea Party movement -- do you think it will be a force to reckon with? You had said last summer that it was a faux grass roots movement. You called it the “astroturf movement.” Is the Tea Party movement a force?

- So, common ground with Nancy Pelosi and the Tea Party movement?

- Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in office, gave himself a B-plus. How would you rate yourself in the past year?

- Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?

- Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

- Madame Speaker, thank you for joining us.

Vargas, live to Alexander:

- We are joined now by the Republican point man at the health care summit, Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator, welcome to This Week. You just heard Speaker Pelosi and President Obama say, time is up, we’re not scrapping the plan, we’re not starting from scratch, this is it. Are you going to, are the Republicans going to, offer some amendments and play ball?

- But he has said he's not going to scrap the bill. He's moving forward, with or without you, so why not be part of the process? Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?

- You had said, in your opening remarks at the health care summit, you quoted Senator Byrd when you called on the President to renounce using reconciliation to push the bill through the Senate with the simple majority vote, saying quote, “it would be an outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight train with this process.” Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?

- Why political kamikaze [for the Democrats, as Alexander charged]? We know that Americans don’t support health care in general. But when you start drilling to the specifics, a lot of people do support some of those specifics.

- When you say political kamikaze, are you saying that if the Democrats push this through, they will lose all their seats in November? I mean, what are we talking about here?

- You also said in your remarks at the summit that Republicans have come to the conclusion that Congress quote “doesn't do comprehensive well. That our country is too big and too complicated for Washington.” But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?
[Alexander: Well the answer is yes, in that sense.]
That's not good.

- So the country has changed or Congress has changed?

- Your colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, recently announced his resignation, basically throwing his hands up in disgust saying Congress is broken and I don't want to be a part of it anymore. He cited you as one of the few Republican Senators that he felt he that could find common ground with, work with, agree with. How are we going to fix Congress and empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country with people like Evan Bayh just take their, go home, in essence, give up and go home?

- But very, very quickly, when somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

- Senator Lamar Alexander, thank you so much more joining us this morning on This Week.

From the roundtable:

SAM DONALDSON: What the Democrats have to do now is pass the bill. Put back the public option, since it’s their bill, and pass it...The President has to drop his George B. McClellan mask and become Ulysses Grant. Be ruthless. That’s what a Franklin Roosevelt would have done, that’s what Harry Truman would have done.

VARGAS: And Sam that's a good point, because Paul [Krugman] you've been arguing that the President should be more ruthless....

DONALDSON: This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.

Quite a contrast in how ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, taking her turn hosting This Week, approached House Speaker Nancy Pelosi versus Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, all before agreeing with Sam Donaldson when he urged President Obama to become “ruthless” to pass his health care reform bill since that’s what FDR and Truman “would have done.” She affirmed: “That's a good point.”

With Pelosi, she forwarded process questions about whether the Speaker has the votes to pass the health bill and whether it would have been “more helpful for you” if Obama had put up his proposal earlier, pressed the Speaker from the left on the size of the “jobs” bill and empathized with her struggles: “Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?” Not to mention cuing her up: “How would you rate yourself in the past year?”

But with Alexander, the 20/20 anchor did not wonder if he’s “frustrated” by Obama’s intransigence as she challenged him to help pass the Democratic health bill, raised presumed Republican hypocrisy and rued the inability of Congress to pass “sweeping” legislation to provide “the changes we need in the country.” She demanded to know if Republicans will “play ball,” pressing: “Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?” Raising GOP opposition to passing the health bill via “reconciliation” in the Senate, Vargas asked: “Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?”

When Alexander argued Congress cannot pass such a huge bill all at once, a distressed Vargas countered: “But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?” Alexander said yes, prompting Vargas to bemoan: “That's not good,” before she fretted: “How are we going to...empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country?”

She wrapped up with Alexander by lamenting the conservative reaction to Senator Scott Brown’s actions:

When somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

Vargas, who anchored World News for several months after Peter Jennings died, at least did bring up with Pelosi the ethics issues swirling around Charles Rangel.

During the February 28 roundtable, the retired ABC News veteran Donaldson declared history is on the side of Obama, Pelosi and Reid: “This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.”

(Flashback to This Week in December: “ABC's Roberts: People Will Be Thrilled by Health Bill Once They 'Understand' It, Hails Reid.”)

All of the questions aired from Vargas to Pelosi in the interview conducted on Friday in the Speaker’s Capitol building office:

- Madame Speaker, welcome back, again, to This Week. Let's talk health care. The President said, after the summit, “we cannot have another year of debate on this issue. We need decisions now.” You said on Friday, we are determined to pass health care. Do you have the 217 votes necessary to pass it in the House?

- So what are the fixes that the Senate needs to make in your opinion? Through reconciliation presumably before the House can vote on it?

- You know that the polls show that the American people are deeply divided on health care. Many of them are opposed to it, even though they are supporting certain specific pieces of it. What do you say to your members when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

- Do you wish, though, that the President had posted his bill before this week? That six months ago it might have been more helpful for you, that maybe six months ago you knew that the public option was something he was willing to drop before you fought so hard for it?

- But would we still be debating this if the President had put his plan out six months ago?

- How long are you willing to wait for the ideas [from Republicans]? The President seemed to make it clear that time's up.

- But, the point is, when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you're certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need? Even with the differences over abortion language? There have been members of the House who voted in favor of it before, who are now saying we can't vote for this bill because of the Senate language on abortion.

- You mentioned jobs. Members of the House have already weighed in on the Senate jobs bill saying it's too small and does too little. The Congressional Black Caucus says it shouldn’t even be called a jobs bill. Should you agree to the smaller, incremental approach given that unemployment is the single biggest issue in this country right now?

- Is it okay to do it in that smaller, incremental way, not the big dramatic way the House proposed?

- The ethics committee, on Charles Rangel, said that he has violated the House gift rule. How can he remain in such a powerful position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee when, in fact, there are further pending investigations and this public admonishment has taken place?

- If there are further admonishments, though, should he remain in this position?

- But you understand this is why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.

- Let's talk a bit about the coming elections in November. You had recently -- and the Tea Party movement -- do you think it will be a force to reckon with? You had said last summer that it was a faux grass roots movement. You called it the “astroturf movement.” Is the Tea Party movement a force?

- So, common ground with Nancy Pelosi and the Tea Party movement?

- Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in office, gave himself a B-plus. How would you rate yourself in the past year?

- Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?

- Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

- Madame Speaker, thank you for joining us.

Vargas, live to Alexander:

- We are joined now by the Republican point man at the health care summit, Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator, welcome to This Week. You just heard Speaker Pelosi and President Obama say, time is up, we’re not scrapping the plan, we’re not starting from scratch, this is it. Are you going to, are the Republicans going to, offer some amendments and play ball?

- But he has said he's not going to scrap the bill. He's moving forward, with or without you, so why not be part of the process? Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?

- You had said, in your opening remarks at the health care summit, you quoted Senator Byrd when you called on the President to renounce using reconciliation to push the bill through the Senate with the simple majority vote, saying quote, “it would be an outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight train with this process.” Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?

- Why political kamikaze [for the Democrats, as Alexander charged]? We know that Americans don’t support health care in general. But when you start drilling to the specifics, a lot of people do support some of those specifics.

- When you say political kamikaze, are you saying that if the Democrats push this through, they will lose all their seats in November? I mean, what are we talking about here?

- You also said in your remarks at the summit that Republicans have come to the conclusion that Congress quote “doesn't do comprehensive well. That our country is too big and too complicated for Washington.” But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?
[Alexander: Well the answer is yes, in that sense.]
That's not good.

- So the country has changed or Congress has changed?

- Your colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, recently announced his resignation, basically throwing his hands up in disgust saying Congress is broken and I don't want to be a part of it anymore. He cited you as one of the few Republican Senators that he felt he that could find common ground with, work with, agree with. How are we going to fix Congress and empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country with people like Evan Bayh just take their, go home, in essence, give up and go home?

- But very, very quickly, when somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

- Senator Lamar Alexander, thank you so much more joining us this morning on This Week.

From the roundtable:

SAM DONALDSON: What the Democrats have to do now is pass the bill. Put back the public option, since it’s their bill, and pass it...The President has to drop his George B. McClellan mask and become Ulysses Grant. Be ruthless. That’s what a Franklin Roosevelt would have done, that’s what Harry Truman would have done.

VARGAS: And Sam that's a good point, because Paul [Krugman] you've been arguing that the President should be more ruthless....

DONALDSON: This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.

Earlier this afternoon, NB's Tim Graham noted how NPR's Robert Siegel and Pew Research pollster Andrew Kohut were congratulating "Millennials" on being "less 'militaristic' and less religious."

At end of his post, Graham noted that Siegel and Kohut "somehow" forgot to discuss the key political finding in the poll, namely that the demographic's 32-point favoritism towards Democrats (62% to 30%) has declined by more than half (to 54% to 40%) in just one year of living in Obamaland. Shoot, if that trend continues for another nine months, it will be almost all even by Election Day in November.

Why is the meltdown occurring? Get a load of the answers the Associated Press's Hope Yen identified in an early Wednesday dispatch (HT to Mark Levin, who mentioned this on his Wednesday evening show):

Dem youth support waning amid gov't gridlock

Whither the youth vote? A year after backing Barack Obama by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are quickly cooling toward Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.

A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18-to-29 year olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was touted by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.

The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 - including high numbers of first-timers, minorities and youths - are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.

While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18-to-29 year olds has substantially narrowed - from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the GOP in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.

Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.

So it's all about gridlock and the war in Afghanistan? Give. Me. A. Break. To invoke James Carville from 1992, "It's the economy, stupid."

Pew's own report (a very big PDF) fails to support Yen's yearnings, particularly this paragraph from Page 39 (page 46 of the PDF; bold is mine):

A Pew Research Center survey in 2006 found that half of all 18- to 29-year-olds were employed in full-time jobs. Then came the Great Recession. In our 2010 survey, as a battered economy struggles to rebound, about four-in-ten (41%) people in the same age group say they are working full time—a decline of 9 percentage points. In contrast, about the same proportion of older adults reported working full time in both the 2006 and 2010 surveys.

That statement would almost seem to indicate that Millennials have borne a very disproportionate share of the pain associated with the economy's decline.

It's interesting how Pew failed to reveal data more recent than four years ago that might have told us how much of the decrease in full-time employment has come more recently. What it looked like a year ago would tell us how much of the might be pegged to the overall economy, while a two- or three-year lookback would provide a clue as to how much of the decline is tied to federal and state increases in the minimum wage. Given that 2006 and 2007 were pretty decent years for the economy, it wouldn't surprise me if almost all, all, or even more than all of that nine-point drop occurred in the past couple of years.

Yen waited until her 19th and final substantive paragraph to note the following:

About 37 percent of young adults are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in more than three decades. A record share - 39.6 percent - was enrolled in college, and one in 8 millennials ages 22 and older say they had "boomeranged" back into their parents' home because of the recession.

Regardless of initial political inclinations, that's not a formula favoring whoever happens to be in power.

That certainly didn't come through in the NPR interview Tim Graham cited, nor in Ms. Chen's AP report. I'll bet the folks at the DNC and RNC have figured it out anyway.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

It's been almost three weeks since Sarah Palin addressed the Tea Party convention.  More than two weeks since Andrea Mitchell did her taunting little imitation of Palin's hand notes.  But there was Norah O'Donnell today, still milking the moment to mock Palin.

O'Donnell worked her hand-note reference into a discussion on today's Morning Joe of Scott Brown's vote for the "jobs bill."  

Later, on a different subject, after criticizing socialism, Norah wryly observed "I sound like I'm on another network." See Bonus Coverage, below.

After extolling the virtues of the bill, an animated O'Donnell exclaimed:

"These are things Republicans champion.  These are things Sarah Palin writes on her hand!"

Bonus Coverage: Criticizing Socialism Makes Norah Feel She's On Wrong Network

The panel later discussed the record bonuses being handed out on Wall Street.  O'Donnell opined that there was nothing necessarily wrong with that so long as the banks had repaid their government loans.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Do you think that's where most Americans are?  That if you paid us back--OK, you made a lot more this past year than we're comfortable with, but give the bonuses out because we don't owe --

NORAH O'DONNELL: Oh, sure. We shouldn't live in a socialist country--I sound like I'm on another network--where the government dictates [executive pay].

Joe jokingly interpreted O'Donnell's "another network" as a reference to Jake Tapper's ABC.  But we all know network what Norah had in mind!