Tag Archives: economy

California Welfare Debit Cards Being Used At Casinos, Media Mostly Mum

The Los Angeles Times on Thursday published a blockbuster report concerning California welfare recipients using state-issued debit cards at casino ATMs to be able to instantly gamble with taxpayer dollars. “The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.” Despite this shocking revelation, America’s media largely ignored the findings. But before we get there, KTLA-TV logged a fabulous report on this subject Thursday evening (video follows with more highlights from the Times piece and commentary): “In a time when we have a $19-billion deficit, and we’re taking a serious look at the future of many safety-net programs, it’s appalling to think that welfare beneficiaries can use their cards in a casino,” said Seth Unger, spokesman for the Assembly Republican Caucus. Democratic leaders, who have vowed to protect the state’s fraying social safety net, also began calling for reform Wednesday. “In these tough times, when so many children and vulnerable families depend on the safety net, we have to make sure food stamps and other services are being used the way the people of California intended them to be,” said Shannon Murphy, spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D- Los Angeles). “Other states have closed this loophole, and the Assembly will work with the Schwarzenegger administration to make that happen.” The casinos are listed on a Department of Social Services website that allows welfare recipients to search for addresses of ATMs where they can withdraw cash provided under the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program. The monthly grant ranges up to $694; most of the ATMs impose a withdrawal limit of about $300 per day. To be sure, there IS a national interest here: The cash portion of California’s welfare benefits comes from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Each year, California gets $3.7 billion from the federal government for the program, while state and local governments kick in an additional $2.9 billion. Furthermore, as many states also issue these cards for their welfare recipients, who knows how many Americans are gambling with taxpayer dollars across the fruited plain? Yet outside of California, the media weren’t very interested in this story. According to LexisNexis, no newspapers outside of the Golden State reported the Times’ findings. Neither did ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or NBC. This boycott seems especially odd as the Associated Press and UPI covered this matter over their respective wires with the former logging reports on Thursday AND Friday. Also bucking the trend were Fox News’s Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren who both discussed this on Thursday as did NPR. The well-read Drudge Report featured this as a “developing” story at 6:47 PM Thursday.  With this in mind, why did the rest of our national media completely ignore it?  Those interested can read more about California’s Electronic Benefit Transfer program here . 

Follow this link:
California Welfare Debit Cards Being Used At Casinos, Media Mostly Mum

Media: GOP Blocks Unemployment Bill to Hurt Economy Before Midterm Elections

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. 

See the article here:
Media: GOP Blocks Unemployment Bill to Hurt Economy Before Midterm Elections

NYT Reporter Desperately Searches for Signs of Economic Progress to Prevent Republican Victories

Please don’t let it be Big Bob! Please don’t let it be Big Bob! That fervent prayer by Harold of “Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” as he desperately hopes that sound of the approaching footsteps don’t belong to a sadistic guard named Big Bob comes to mind when reading a New York Times article by Michael Luo . In Luo’s case he is hoping that the Republicans won’t gain significant victories in this November’s elections. He bases his glimmers of hope on what he perceives to be signs of economic progress. It isn’t a very strong peg upon which he hangs these hopes but it is pretty much all he has: The economy is slowly recovering but remains on its sickbed, and most signs still point to a rough cycle for the party. Political analysts expect Republicans to make gains — possibly significant ones — in Congress in November, threatening to retake the House and maybe even the Senate. But digging deeper, beyond the national numbers, reveals at least a few glimmers of hope for Democrats — still fairly distant and faint, but bright enough to get campaign strategists scanning the horizon and weighing the odds. Please don’t let it be Big Bob! Please don’t let it be Big Bob! That is because different parts of the country are recovering at different rates — and, in a bit of electoral good luck for the Democrats, some of the areas that are beginning to edge upward more quickly, like parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, happen to be in important battlegrounds for the House and the Senate.  Whew! So that means that Big Bob, uh, I mean electoral disaster won’t be arriving in November?  And here Luo sounds a bit too anxious in his ardent desire to find economic upticks to counter the big bad Republicans: A detailed examination of House and Senate seats in play, alongside state and local economic data compiled by Moody’s Analytics for The New York Times, yields some surprising bits of encouragement for Democrats but also adds color to the overall daunting picture confronting the party. At the very least, any such signs of hope are certain to affect the strategies being worked out now in campaigns.  As for the unemployment rate, eh, it should have no effect on the election results. Or so Luo hopes so don’t mention the year 1930 midterm elections results to him: While much attention has been paid to the nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate, political scientists have found little correlation between that measure and midterm elections results. Instead, they have found more broad-based indicators, particularly real personal disposable per capita income, which measures the amount of money a household has after taxes and inflation, to be better gauges.  Another hope is that voters have short memories: Historically, political scientists have found that voters’ memories tend to be short. Larry M. Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton, has studied the impact of economic conditions on presidential elections and found that it is the second and third quarters of the election year that matter most.  And if the economy is still in the tank come November? Not to worry. Reality doesn’t really count. Only imaginary perceptions: In the end, however, the ultimate deciding factor will be voters’ perceptions — not how well the economy is actually doing, but how well voters believe it is doing.  In the end, Michael Luo still doesn’t sound all that confident about keeping the Republicans from big gains in November. Despite his brave front, one can still picture him with eyes squeezed shut as he hears the ominous economic reports approaching and fervently reciting the political equivalent of: Please don’t let it be Big Bob! Please don’t let it be Big Bob!

Go here to read the rest:
NYT Reporter Desperately Searches for Signs of Economic Progress to Prevent Republican Victories

Vintage Santelli – Rips Obama’s Keynesian-ish Policies: Why Does My Share Have to Pay for California’s Teachers?

This is one of those “I told you so” moments conservatives should really be out publicizing: The $787-billion stimulus passed early 2009 – it’s not working. And on CNBC’s June 25 broadcast of “The Call,” CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli explained that all government spending is not created equal, and President Obama’s so-called stimulus spending was for government payrolls and not the infrastructure improvement is was sold to be . “Well, you know, it’s all about, in my opinion, definition and choice,” Santelli said. “Definition, I don’t disagree with our guest, Richard [DeKaser, president of Woodley Park Research ], about stimulus, but I haven’t seen any stimulus. I’ve seen a lot of spending. And in terms of choice, austerity isn’t something people are going to volunteer for. The creditors are going to force it on them. I think these issues are much different than we’re selling them. You know, we don’t have a new Hoover Dam. We don’t have a new electric grid. We paid a bunch of salaries and benefits and extension benefits, unemployment with a lot of that money that you save jobs because you paid teachers because states couldn’t afford it I don’t think any of that really falls under a definition of stimulus.” “The Call” co-host Larry Kudlow offered a more technical analysis of this Keynesian economic policy implemented by the Obama administration. He explained an International Monetary Fund study, analyzed by the Hoover Institute’s John Taylor , shows Keynesian policy doesn’t translate into the most efficient way to jumpstart a lagging economy. “The IMF has done a study that for every dollar of government spending, you only get 70 cents more in GDP, and after year two it goes to zero,” Kudlow said. “Now, I think we’re going to zero. No wonder our borrowing ratios are so high. When are we going to learn that this kind of stimulus isn’t even what Keynes argued for many years ago?” DeKaser, one of the segment’s panelists, argued that 70 cents of GDP growth was better than nothing, which Kudlow questioned. “You borrow a dollar to get 70 cents, and you lose 30 cents?” Kudlow said. “Boy, that sounds like a bad deal, my friend. I wouldn’t want you trading my account. I mean, the whole thing could go deeper into debt.” Santelli argued that even if one subscribes to the 70 cents per dollar economic growth figure theory as a positive, this government didn’t get it right in its approach. “I mean, the notion of stimulus is you want capital in the system, but when you have artificial stimulus, you give capital to the people that aren’t really creating an expansive employment scenario or creating something that’s actually positive for a society,” Santelli said. “What you end up doing is putting capital to businesses that on their own couldn’t get capital and that’s for a reason. The market didn’t allocate it because they didn’t deserve it.” CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman questioned Santelli’s wisdom – that a bailout for certain government employees was good policy. “Rick, why is it artificial to keep teachers in the classroom and cops on the beat and firemen in the firehouses?” Liesman said. “To me that’s not artificial stimulus. That’s just good policy.” But that led to a vintage Santelli rant – why should taxpayers all over the country be held responsible for the woes of a local government brought on by its own irresponsibility. “Because that’s what people pay property taxes for, and if the state of California when the bubble was going on raised boatloads of property taxes, why should the value of somebody’s house make collecting garbage more expensive, running transportation more expensive? It doesn’t. They spent all the money. So, why does my share have to pay for their teachers?”

Read more:
Vintage Santelli – Rips Obama’s Keynesian-ish Policies: Why Does My Share Have to Pay for California’s Teachers?

Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?

While defending the Obama administration as a champion for small business owners, MSNBC host Ed Schultz revealed that his construction company more than doubled its number of employees in the past year – thanks to the stimulus bill. “We’ve gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package,” he said of his construction company. “We’ve put some people back to work. There is some growth.” Schultz made that revelation as a guest on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” Wednesday morning. In a segment of the show where he was discussing corporations shipping jobs overseas and skimping on benefits to regular workers and labor union members, Schultz stepped up and defended President Obama. “This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years,” he claimed. “There’s more tax incentives on the table right now, there’s more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President.” Schultz whined that tax incentives for big corporations hurt the American middle class by providing opportunities for them to send jobs overseas. He credited President Obama with providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive in the United States. However, Schultz also lamented that certain Obama administration policies, such as increasing taxes on foreign earnings, ending secret ballots in union elections, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses and restrictions on oil are “pro-corporate and anti-worker.” With corporations attacking labor, cutting wages, and going after pensions, Schultz claimed that age discrimination is taking place in the business world, and that “we’ve now developed this culture that it’s not good to pay anybody.”         The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 23 at 9:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows: ED SCHULTZ: Now we’re at a crossroads in this country. We have to make a determination if we believe that having 10 percent unemployment for a long period of time is the direction that we want to go. Do we understand that the social pressure and the economic pressure that that’s going to put on the country? I don’t think that’s where Americans want to go. And I think that we’re going to see a real surge of buy American, a loyalty to American products, because I think the middle class folks in this country have seen exactly what has happened, this attack on labor that has taken place, that all of a sudden it’s okay to reduce wages, or attack people’s pensions. And we’re also seeing in this country right now age discrimination. Because there’s a race to the bottom line. We’ve now developed this culture that it’s not good to pay anybody. And we have to have somewhat of a push for economic patriotism, in reinvestment in people. We have to understand that people make the difference. And if we don’t value that at every level, we’re not going to be the country that we can be. We’re not going to be the country that we were at one time. We still can achieve greatness, but we gotta get the big money out of politics, we’ve gotta get what is destroying the middle class in this country, and reinvigorate this country with breaks for the middle class, and a real focus on job creation. And I think the President’s trying to do that, but — of course the way the Congress is right now, all the bickering that’s going on, and there’s really no bipartisanship to speak of that addresses any of this — I think we’re in for a long struggle here, a real long struggle. (…) HOST: Mr. Schultz, the Wall Street Journal echoes that caller’s sentiment. They have a headline that echoes the caller’s sentiment that business groups say the Obama administration is hostile toward jobs. And they have a list of grievances: Increased taxes on foreign earnings, stalled free trade agreements, shareholder rights to nominate directors, end to secret ballots in union elections, expanded damages for pay discrimination, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses, and restrictions on oil. ED SCHULTZ: Those were all pro-corporate, and anti-worker. This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years. There’s more tax incentives on the table right now, there’s more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President. He’s doing anything he possibly can. But the money is tight. The money is very tight. And until we loosen up the lending practices in this country, we’re not going to have – and until small businesses have access to capital, we’re not going to see this turn around. The President is doing everything he possibly can. In fact, the Republicans aren’t even matching him on any of this stuff. They think it’s all about the corporations and all about the top two percent. In the book, I document – and I want this lady to read this book, and come back and tell me if I’m wrong. The number of foreign countries that are operating in this country that don’t pay tax – does she think that’s a good thing? Is it a good thing for corporations not to pay their fair share? Now I’m not here to say that all corporations are bad. They do hire people. But they’ve also shipped a lot of jobs overseas, because we have set the table for them to do that with tax incentives that have come back to hurt the great American middle class which built this country. So when does the little guy get a break? Now I’m a small businessman. I have my own broadcast company, and I also have a construction company. I can tell you about all the things that you have to put together to make a construction company work. We’ve gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package. We’ve put some people back to work. There is some growth. There’s incentives on the table for my employees. And so, you know, I don’t have to do this. I could just go fishing at the lake. But we’ve got to have some type of leadership at every level of the economy, and those who have lived the good life, and those who have had the fortune of making a few dollars to put it back into the kids, to put it back into the youth of the country, to care about the infrastructure again. And I don’t see corporations doing that. I see them caring about the foreign countries and getting cheap labor. Well you know what cheap labor’s going to do? Cheap labor’s going to take this country down. And the disposable income is starting to rot away for Americans.   

Read the original here:
Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?

CBS’s Katie Couric Fawns Over Left-wing Feminist and Her Outrageous Claims

“[Carly Fiorina’s] position on taxation would deprive women of childcare.” The Hyde Amendment “penalizes poor women terribly.” “You can’t be a feminist who says other women can’t” have an abortion. These are just some of the outrageous statements left-wing feminist Gloria Steinem made during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric on the latest installment of “@katiecouric,” which was posted to the CBSNews.com Web site on June 23. Couric’s responses to the “godmother of the modern women’s movement’s” absurd claims ranged from silent agreement to reflexive endorsement.              Although the former Playboy Bunny railed against the legislation that banned federal funding of abortion, Couric responded approvingly – “right!” – and changed the subject to the hockey mom every liberal feminist loves to hate: Since we’re on the subject of reproductive rights, can you be a conservative feminist? Sarah Palin recently, I think, rankled some traditional feminists by calling herself a feminist, despite the fact she doesn’t espouse many traditional feminist, uh, points of view. Instead of challenging Steinem’s feminist litmus test, Couric, turning to liberal activist Jehmu Greene, asked, “Do you agree with that?” “I would say that Sarah Palin does not represent many of those same sentiments,” Greene responded. The most vigorous defense Couric could muster on Palin’s behalf was, “In what way? I mean, why?” On Steinem’s bizarre correlation between low taxes and less access to childcare, the “Evening News” anchor uttered not a decibel of skepticism. Eschewing her journalistic duty to hold interviewees accountable for their pronouncements – particularly the outlandish and unsubstantiated ones – Couric once again undermined her credibility as a professional newswoman. Click here to view Katie Couric’s June 23 interview with Steinem and Greene in its entirety. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
CBS’s Katie Couric Fawns Over Left-wing Feminist and Her Outrageous Claims

ABC Touts Entrepreneur Seeking Backing of Government ‘Lawyers and Lobbyists’

The day after President Obama’s oil spill speech — in which the President pivoted from the ongoing mess in the Gulf of Mexico to his call for ending our “addiction” to fossil fuels — ABC’s World News obliged the White House’s agenda with a profile of solar cell manufacturer Natcore , whose president, Chuck Provini, says he can cut the costs of solar cells (which are right now too expensive to be economically viable without government subsidies). But the problem, as ABC correspondent Dan Harris helped frame it, is that this entrepreneur was getting nothing but “blank stares” from the “congressional staffers, lawyers and lobbyists” he met with in Washington, D.C. — as if a venture capitalists and other private investors wouldn’t be tripping over themselves to get in on the ground floor of a process that could actually make solar power viable. And the hero of the story, as ABC told it, is China’s dictatorship, which has made a deal with the company and will now gain the “hundreds of jobs” that U.S. officials have supposedly squandered by not bankrolling Provini: DAN HARRIS: There was, however, one place offering help: China. The government flew him over there and made him a very generous offer. (to Provini) Would you say that the Chinese officials made your life easy in this process? CHUCK PROVINI, via Skype: It’s been a pleasure. They’ve been gracious. They’ve cut through red tape. HARRIS: He is about to cut a deal to open a factory that will create hundreds of jobs – jobs that could have been created here….Critics say the federal government needs a big, bold plan to dramatically ramp up our use of clean energy. Until then, they say, we’re going to see a lot more American companies like Natcore exporting their promising ideas to places like China. Does ABC really think that good business ideas require the support of lobbyists, lawyers and congressional staffers? That the free market cannot innovate and economize with at “big, bold” government “plan?” MRC’s Brad Wilmouth caught the story from the June 16 World News with Diane Sawyer: DIANE SAWYER: And, in his speech last night, President Obama used the moment to call for less dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels and making sure that China doesn’t get all the new jobs in wind and solar power. But Dan Harris heard a story today of one company, one big idea, but in America, no one to say give it a try. DAN HARRIS: Natcore is a small company based in New Jersey that says it’s come up with an innovative new approach to make solar technology better and cheaper, one that its scientists are very excited about. The president of the company – this guy, Chuck Provini – says he was determined to set up shop here in America. CHUCK PROVINI, NATCORE SOLAR: I live here in New Jersey. I’m a former Marine. I consider myself a good American and a patriot. We wanted to do business in the States. HARRIS: He went to Washington, D.C., and met with congressional staffers, lawyers and lobbyists, but says he couldn’t get the help raising the money that he needed. [to Provini] Were you met with blank stares? PROVINI: They were very polite. We got polite letters, polite conversations, but it was obvious that there was a major disconnect. HARRIS: There was, however, one place offering help: China. The government flew him over there and made him a very generous offer. Would you say that the Chinese officials made your life easy in this process? PROVINI: It’s been a pleasure. They’ve been gracious. They’ve cut through red tape. HARRIS: He is about to cut a deal to open a factory that will create hundreds of jobs – jobs that could have been created here. (to Provini, via Skype) You’re now in China, as we speak, in the middle of the night, and you’re not far away from inking a final deal.                                  PROVINI: Well, I’m really curious as to how you found me at 2:00 in the morning in Jujo City. HARRIS: To be fair, it is hard for the U.S. to compete with China’s dictatorial government, which essentially runs the entire economy. But still, critics say the federal government needs a big, bold plan to dramatically ramp up our use of clean energy. Until then, they say, we’re going to see a lot more American companies like Natcore exporting their promising ideas to places like China. Diane? SAWYER: A real cautionary tale about the need for a fast track here in America. Dan Harris reporting.

Excerpt from:
ABC Touts Entrepreneur Seeking Backing of Government ‘Lawyers and Lobbyists’

AP: June Private-Sector Employment May Contract

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 .

See original here:
AP: June Private-Sector Employment May Contract

Brazil’s Deforestation Again Increasing As Economy Improves

photo: Leo Freitas via flickr Last summer you probably saw a number of encouraging reports showing that deforestation in Brazil was declining. However as Mongabay points out, new satellite data shows that deforestation is again increasing and may be even higher than current imagery indicates…. Read the full story on TreeHugger

Originally posted here:
Brazil’s Deforestation Again Increasing As Economy Improves

Clyburn, Boiled Down: We’ll Never Stop Blaming Bush

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 .

Read the rest here:
Clyburn, Boiled Down: We’ll Never Stop Blaming Bush