Tag Archives: unemployment

ABC’s Diane Sawyer Promotes ‘Change Agent’ Arianna Huffington and Her ‘Innovative Solutions’

ABC’s Diane Sawyer gave Arianna Huffington a rare gift on Tuesday night: An entire World News segment devoted to promoting the left-winger’s new book, Third World America: How Our Politicians Are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream , and her Huffington Post site. Though a matching ABCNews.com posting described Huffington as a “liberal commentator,” no iteration of liberal passed Sawyer’s lips. As if Huffington’s book does any such thing, Sawyer wondered: “What if we pulled together in one place all the innovative ideas for creating jobs?” The generous on-screen heading beneath Huffington’s picture: “Change Agent.” After highlighting Huffington’s wish to absolve troubled mortgage-holders of much of their responsibility, Sawyer trumpeted: Arianna Huffington’s new book is called Third World America, and on her Web site, she’s been gathering innovative solutions to keep that Third World from happening. The articles posted on the Huffington Post page with “innovative solutions ,” a page the ABC segment displayed, sound more like the usual liberal carping: “Work Until You’re Dead? That May Be the Only Option for Many Americans,” “Thousands Crowd Atlanta Area Housing Authority for Section 8 WAITING LIST, Fights Break Out,” “The 10 Highest-Paid CEOs Who Laid Off the Most Workers: Institute for Policy Studies” and “Income Inequality: ‘The Most Profound Change In American Society In Your Lifetime.’” Huffington hailed: “It’s one person’s idea, like, that’s what I love. It’s like, somebody imagined that, and is making it happen.” Sawyer then showcased an idea that’s failed: “One solution we heard about, Gene Epstein, a self-made millionaire who’s going door to door in Philadelphia, asking every small business to hire one more employee, just for six months. He says if ten percent of businesses do that, one half million people will be employed.” She had to acknowledge, however, he’s “got only one signature.” Not raised by Sawyer in her friendly session with Huffington – the title’s racial overtones. Imagine if a conservative had written a book warning President Obaam’s policies could turn the U.S. into a “Third World” nation? From the Tuesday, September 7 ABC World News: DIANE SAWYER: And finally tonight, what if we pulled together in one place all the innovative ideas for creating jobs? Arianna Huffington has just written a book which begins with some tough statistics about Americans faltering in this economy. SAWYER TO HUFFINGTON, IN MOCK DISBELIEF: Every 30 seconds, someone goes bankrupt in America. Every 30 seconds? ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Every 30 seconds. And almost three million homes were lost in the last year and about three million or more are expected to be foreclosed in 2010. SAWYER: Foreclosures on mortgages. You think it should be required that every one be negotiated? HUFFINGTON: We need to help people in the middle class who are losing their homes. SAWYER: You don’t think there will be a wave of people shouting, “it’s just not fair, I scraped and saved to make my mortgage payment”? HUFFINGTON: There’s an awful lot that’s happening that’s not fair. But I feel that’s something that, in the end, is going to have a positive impact on every community in the whole country. SAWYER: Arianna Huffington’s new book is called Third World America, and on her Web site, she’s been gathering innovative solutions to keep that Third World from happening. HUFFINGTON: It’s one person’s idea, like, that’s what I love. It’s like, somebody imagined that, and is making it happen. SAWYER: One solution we heard about, Gene Epstein, a self-made millionaire who’s going door to door in Philadelphia, asking every small business to hire one more employee, just for six months. He says if ten percent of businesses do that, one half million people will be employed. GENE EPSTEIN, BUSINESSMAN: People will be buying, stocks will be moving, people will start spending the cash that they’ve had in hand, waiting to spend. SAWYER: So far, he’s undaunted, though he’s got only one signature, a carpet company. EPSTEIN: Businesses have created what we are in the United States. Why can’t they be the salvation for what we are in the United States? SAWYER: Just one person, six months. You think you can pay it forward that way? HUFFINGTON: Yes, I totally believe you can pay it forward. Truth is that democracy’s not a spectator sport. When people take action, it’s the greatest antidote to despair. SAWYER: The rest of the interview’s on ABCNews.com, and give us your innovative ideas.

Go here to see the original:
ABC’s Diane Sawyer Promotes ‘Change Agent’ Arianna Huffington and Her ‘Innovative Solutions’

AP’s Sidoti Laments Dems’ Prospects in Ohio, Is Convincing as HuffPo Zealot

In a post at National Review Online’s Battle ’10 blog last night , Mytheos Holt commented on a report seen at the Huffington Post: HuffPo Panics about GOP Sweep of Ohio Looks like the Huffington Post is buying into the “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation” meme this election cycle, based on a story out today. The HuffPo item is by Liz Sidoti. But Sidoti is a national politics writer for the Associated Press, and what Holt really read was what AP would like us to believe is a supposedly “objective” analysis of the electoral situation in Ohio right off the wire. Word for word, the item at HuffPo is the same dispatch as found  at the AP’s main site . The only clue as to its origin, which Holt missed (and it’s easy to see how), is the teeny-tiny AP logo where Sidoti’s byline appears. In other words, Sidoti’s stridency and Democrat-sympathetic viewpoint are so obvious that she passes the HuffPo zealotry test. Here are some examples of how Sidoti “successfully” came off as a  budding HuffPo pundit: Dems’ prospects threatened by economic woes Frustrated, discouraged and just plain mad , a lot of people who have lost jobs – or know someone who has – now want to see the names of Democrats on pink slips. And that’s jeopardizing the party’s chances in Ohio and all across the country in November’s elections. In this big swing-voting state alone, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland is in a dogfight for re-election. Senate candidate Lee Fisher may be even worse off. As many as six House Democrats could lose their jobs this fall. Recession-fueled animosity is dominating every race, giving Republicans hope of huge victories. … In Ohio, like almost everywhere else, voters don’t much care for Washington, Wall Street or anything resembling the establishment. They grouse about every politician, including President Barack Obama, whom Ohioans played a critical role in electing. They fume over the nation’s teetering finances. … Republicans are hoping to capitalize on voters’ economic disillusionment, frustration with Obama and tea party-generated enthusiasm. Democrats are relying on a financial advantage, a robust get-out-the-vote operation and, mostly, the ghost of George W. Bush to curb an expected Nov. 2 shellacking. … at Suzzie’s Beechwold Diner, Steve Reither epitomizes the Democrats’ other big challenge: a fired-up electorate tilting toward the GOP. A Republican-turned-independent, Reither is sick of both parties and says: “They all talk about change and nothing changes.” But he saves his harshest words for Obama, whom he calls a socialist and a liar. This year, he says he’ll probably vote largely with the GOP in November – “I’ll hold my nose” – simply to fire Democrats. “This administration and his cronies are running this country into the ground,” Reither, 55, says as he finishes his breakfast. The owner of a small auto restoration business, he says he’s been struggling for the past two years, and he blames Obama’s policies that “hurt the little guy.” Democrats at all levels are sounding a populist tone, casting their races as helping voters on Main Street vs. Republican policies intended to help Wall Street. Republicans, in turn, argue that Democrats – led by Obama – are making a tough economic situation worse with a free-spending, big-government agenda. Of course Sidoti’s work looks like HuffPo punditry, as it’s all from the Democrats’ “woe is us, these terrible things are happening” perspective. Republicans are seen as the unworthies upsetting the apple cart. And voters? Well, they’re just “mad” and full of “animosity.” It’s quite instructive to see how an AP report is correctly interpreted as left-leaning output. And sad to say, Liz Sidoti isn’t anywhere near the wire service’s worst offender. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Here is the original post:
AP’s Sidoti Laments Dems’ Prospects in Ohio, Is Convincing as HuffPo Zealot

CBS’s Harry Smith on Face the Nation: No Time to ‘Continue Cutting Taxes,’ So ‘What About, Say, Something Like a New WPA?’

Filling in for Bob Schieffer as host of Face the Nation , Early Show co-host Harry Smith brought his liberal sensibilities to the Sunday show, pressing his economic panel to agree the Bush tax cuts should not be extended, the stimulus was too small and so another would be wise – even suggesting a return to an FDR-era government make-work jobs program: “What about, say, something like a new WPA?”   Presuming the pre-2003 levels are the real rates, Smith questioned Gretchen Morganson of the New York Times: “Is now the time to continue cutting taxes if there is this overwhelming deficit out there?” He soon cued up White House economic adviser Laura Tyson to agree with his premise: “Should the Bush tax cuts stay in place for the middle class but be rescinded for the top wage earners?” Turning back to Morganson, Smith showed exasperation with public opposition to government spending programs as he wondered if the stimulus wasn’t big enough: I want to go back to the stimulus because as so many of these Congress folks are going back out of their districts and people complain about the size of government, they’re complaining about the deficit, they’re complaining about TARP and who knows what all else. As we’re standing here looking at it right now, just if you can step away, was the stimulus big enough? Morganson afirmed “the stimulus was not big enough” and Smith next pushed Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Analytics: “There are plenty of economists out there, Mark Zandi, who say what’s needed is is a second stimulus. Could those words cross your lips?” After Zandi’s reply, Smith arrived at his Works Progress Administration idea: All right. Laura Tyson, what about a more significant stimulus, beyond the things, these, you know, a block here, a block here, a block here, but another say couple hundred billion dollars, what about say something like a new WPA? Tyson used that as a cue to advocate more “infrastructure” spending. The CBSNews.com posting summarizing the program reflected Smith’s agenda, “ Economists: Second Economic Stimulus Needed .” From the Sunday, September 5 Face the Nation on CBS, picking up a few minutes into the segment: HARRY SMITH: Gretchen, let me ask you this. This whole idea of the President talking about moving in the right direction, wanting to pick up the pace. Is there a pre-dominant idea of what it is that is hindering the economy from catching fire? GRETCHEN MORGANSON, NEW YORK TIMES: Definitely. It is debt. We had a debt binge the likes that we have hardly ever seen before. Frankly, Harry, it just takes a long, long time to get that out of the system. We’re still really working down the debt that homeowners took on. And it’s a difficult and really excruciating process. You can’t do it overnight. SMITH: Which brings up the whole idea, Gretchen, of this debate: Is now the time to continue cutting taxes if there is this overwhelming deficit out there? MORGANSON: Well, I think what you have to worry about immediately is job creation and let’s just forget about the deficit for the moment because when you have the unemployment rate where it is now and you have incomes really being stretched, I think that that is the key to any kind of activity and economic activity by consumers is an enormous part of our economy. That is really why we are in such dire straits. SMITH: Which is maybe one of the ideas that has to be in play is do we have the wrong model to begin with? I want to get back to that in a second. First, though, I want to talk about the Bush tax cuts which are due to expire in January. Laura Tyson, should the Bush tax cuts stay in place for the middle class but be rescinded for the top wage earners? LAURA TYSON: I think that is the right thing to do… …. SMITH, TO MARK ZANDI: Because you hear small business owners say if those tax cuts come back, I’m not going to hire a single person. I mean, that’s anecdotal, but is that really the predominant feeling among small businessmen? …. SMITH: Gretchen Morganson, I want to go back to the stimulus because as so many of these Congress folks are going back out of their districts and people complain about the size of government, they’re complaining about the deficit, they’re complaining about TARP and who knows what all else. As we’re standing here looking at it right now, just if you can step away, was the stimulus big enough? MORGANSON: The stimulus was not big enough… SMITH: One of the things you write so much about for the Times is the housing market. One of the other ideas that’s out this this week is this notion of giving people whose homes are underwater, mortgage holders whose homes are underwater, the opportunity to get out. People who are paying their mortgages, but to get out from underwater and basically handing the federal government the bill. In the short term, or even in the long term, Gretchen, does that seem like a viable option? And oh, by the way, we should say the government’s efforts on some of these levels have not been particularly good in the last two years. MORGANSON: That’s right. I mean, I think that the devil is in the details. The HAMP program has been a big disappointment. That was the helping homeowners, the initial program that treasury put out there. It’s been very disappointing. I think these matters are so complicated with so many different people and debt, second loans, first loans, it’s really very complex. And I just don’t see how it’s going to provide immediate help, the kind that we really need. SMITH: So is it time — it’s crazy to even talk about — but there are plenty of economists out there, Mark Zandi, who say what’s needed is is a second stimulus. Could those words cross your lips? MARK ZANDI: Well, we are talking about other stimulus, right? I mean, An r&d tax credit, payroll tax holiday. Job tax credit. All these things are different forms of stimulus. In fact, the federal government has provided a couple hundred billions dollars in additional stimulus beyond the recovery act stimulus that we put in place a year-and-a-half ago. We are doing that. In my view the recovery needs more help. It would be prudent, I think, to provide some additional help through some of the things that we’re talking about. SMITH: All right. Laura Tyson, what about a more significant stimulus, beyond the things,  these, you know, a block here, a block here, a block here, but another say couple hundred billion dollars, what about, say, something like a new WPA? LAURA TYSON: Well I believe that we should look at infrastructure because we know before the recession, before the great recession, we know that we were vastly underspending on the nation’s infrastructure. You can sort of, therefore, start with the notion that infrastructure spending is terrific in two ways. It creates demand right away when you go out and get the project start and get the worker started. It also creates the ability to grow and be productive in the future. SMITH: Although Japan tried that and they don’t have a lot to show for it.

See the original post here:
CBS’s Harry Smith on Face the Nation: No Time to ‘Continue Cutting Taxes,’ So ‘What About, Say, Something Like a New WPA?’

TIME: Rising Unemployment Rate Is Good News

The following headline appeared at Time.com shortly after the release of Friday’s jobs report: What’s Good About Rising Unemployment What should jump out at the eagle-eyed reader is that headline didn’t end with a question mark. Time senior writer Stephen Gandel was actually making the case that the rising unemployment rate was good news. Watch just how far a liberal media member is willing to go today to make economic data look favorable for the Party currently in power, and imagine the unlikelihood of such a thing happening if a Republican was in the White House (h/t Rusty Weiss ): The unemployment rate, probably the most famous of economic gauges, may actually be a very bad indicator of how healthy the economy is. The unemployment rate peaked in late 2009 at just above 10% and has been mostly falling ever since. But the hiring numbers, or less firing numbers, have only been improving recently. So what was going on? The unemployment rate tracks not just how many people have jobs, but how many people are looking for jobs. And, up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly. Really? And just how did Gandel reach that conclusion? Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ table of folks 16 and over currently out of the labor force but wanting a job now: As is plainly visible, the number of folks out of the labor force but wanting work has been fluctuating between 5.61 million and 6.31 million since last August. It did experience a large drop in May, but has pretty much been rising since and is now basically where it was in April and January. As such, claiming that “up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly” is utter nonsense not supported by the data. In fact, this number is basically right back to where it was last September. With that in mind, let’s continue: When people give up looking for work, essentially giving up on the economy, that indicates a really bad drop in confidence, something a recovery feeds on. So the reason the unemployment rate was rising has less to do with more people getting jobs, and more to do with fewer people looking. Is this really a senior writer?  Let’s walk through that last sentence again: “So the reason the unemployment rate was rising has less to do with more people getting jobs…” Huh? The unemployment rate is a simple arithmetic equation whereby the number of people unemployed is divided by the number of people considered part of the labor force.  Using data just released Friday, there are currently 14.86 million people considered unemployed. The labor force is 154.11 million. This produces an unemployment rate of 9.64 percent. Now, when people get jobs, the number considered unemployed declines reducing the numerator and therefore decreasing the unemployment rate. As such, to claim rising unemployment has less to do with more people getting jobs makes absolutely no sense. On the other hand, the final part of that sentence “and more to do with fewer people looking” needs to be addressed. “Discouraged workers” – those out of the labor force but wanting a job – can have a huge impact on the unemployment rate. The way these numbers are calculated, you are only considered unemployed and part of the labor force if you’re actively looking for work. As such, when folks give up their search, it reduces the number of unemployed and the labor force by an equal amount. Once again going back to simple arithmetic, a decrease in the numerator and denominator by an equal amount results in a lower ratio. 2 divided by 3 equals .67; 1 divided by 2 equals .5. With this in mind, the unemployment rate can decline simply by discouraged job seekers ending their search. This has happened a number of times in the past few years. Conversely, discouraged workers re-entering the labor force can cause the unemployment rate to rise. An increase in the numerator and denominator by equal amounts produces a higher result. Gandel claimed this is what happened last month: According to today’s report, 550,000 people entered the workforce in August. That’s a huge jump of new people looking for work, either because they haven’t worked before or because they decided that this was the month to get back off the couch and start looking. With that many people entering the workforce, the fact that the unemployment number only rose 0.1% is quite a good thing. In fact, more than half of those people who began looking for work in August, or 290,000, landed a job in August.  I agree that this this could be good news, but not necessarily for the same reason. To make the case that the big jump in the labor force in August was even partially due to discouraged workers starting to look for work again goes against the data as the number of people out of the labor force and wanting work now increased by 86,000. It goes without saying that if this huge increase in the labor force was caused by discouraged workers re-entering it, the number of discouraged workers wanting work should have declined. But that’s not what happened. Instead, it appears the August data might have been confounded by seasonalities and the associated adjustments. As employment watchers are painfully aware, there are seasonal changes in the jobs market that make for wild shifts in the numbers depending on the month. The summer is a particularly volatile period with teachers out of work, students taking part-time jobs, and graduates getting full-time positions. To smooth out the data, the Labor Department makes adjustments to the raw figures each month; the headline numbers are always “seasonally adjusted.” However, these manipulations at times present a peculiar picture of the labor market. As Gandel correctly pointed out: It is possible that coming at the end of the summer an uptick in people looking for work is not as positive as it appears. This is the time of year, after two hot months, when recent graduates start to actually think about their future and send out resumes. And you can image many other out of work people deciding to take off looking for a job in the summer. In August, with the summer ending, some of those people started looking again in earnest. Exactly. As such, the uptick in the labor force might have had little to do with discouraged workers beginning a new search as he suggested earlier.  In fact, the unadjusted data actually showed a 600,000 decline in the labor force as well as an almost 400,000 decrease in the number of people unemployed. This means the August data could easily be confounded by seasonalities and their related adjustments thereby offering a fuzzy picture about what any of this means going forward. This is not to say Friday’s report wasn’t better than expected. Over the past couple of weeks, signs had been pointing to a much worse economic conditions leading analysts to ratchet down their estimates for these numbers. As a result, what the BLS released Friday was certainly better than the gloomiest predictions out there. But, calling this clearly mixed bag “good news” should be left to the administration and the Party currently controlling Congress and not so depicted by a so-called journalist.   This seems especially true given that these exact same numbers would certainly not have been reported with such optimism when George W. Bush was in the White House. Or have you forgotten the media’s favorite economic term during his presidency “jobless recovery?”

Read more:
TIME: Rising Unemployment Rate Is Good News

Nets See ‘Mixed Picture,’ ‘Mixed Bag’ and ‘Silver Lining’ in Rising Unemployment Rate

The Labor Department announced the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a point, to 9.6 percent in August so, as the AP noted , it “has exceeded 9 percent for 16 straight months,” while the economy lost 54,000 jobs. Yet, without avoiding the dire numbers, ABC, CBS and NBC managed to find a “mixed picture,” “mixed bag” or even a “silver lining” for President Obama and Democrats two months before election day. “It’s a mixed picture here, but it’s giving some encouragement to those who are out there looking, some who are hanging onto their jobs and their businesses by a thread,” Brian Williams insisted on Friday’s NBC Nightly News. On the CBS Evening News, fill-on anchor Erica Hill saw “a bit of a mixed bag” before Anthony Mason asserted that “weak as the job numbers were, they were better than Wall Street expected” and he touted: “With American businesses creating 67,000 jobs in August, the private sector has now added jobs for eight straight months.” Over on ABC, fill-in anchor David Muir elevated Obama’s spin, teasing World News: “More jobs lost and the President, just today, taking the Republicans on. Are they standing in the way?” He introduced the subsequent story: “This country lost another 54,000 jobs in August, and the President today took on the Republicans, saying they’re the ones blocking help for small business.” In a lengthy set up leading into a report from Jake Tapper, Muir trumpeted: But some economists say there is still a silver lining in these new numbers, because if you take away the 115,000 temporary government jobs – those Census jobs we knew were going away — a slightly different picture emerges. The crucial private sector actually adding 67,000 workers in August, health care and construction leading the way. And that comes after the private sector added 107,000 in July, 61,000 in June… Nice that Muir realizes the private sector is “crucial”!   Earlier today, from Julia Seymour of the MRC’s Business & Media Institute : “ CNN’s ‘Glass One-Quarter Full’ Spin: Emphasize Private Job Gains ” David Muir, on the Friday, September 3 ABC World News: We do turn now to the political storm brewing in Washington over the new jobs numbers out today. This country lost another 54,000 jobs in August, and the President today took on the Republicans, saying they’re the ones blocking help for small business. That, in a moment, but first, the numbers. Word that the nation’s employers cut another 54,000 jobs in August, marks the third month in a row that this country has seen a net loss of jobs. But some economists say there is still a silver lining in these new numbers, because if you take away the 115,000 temporary government jobs – those Census jobs we knew were going away — a slightly different picture emerges. The crucial private sector actually adding 67,000 workers in August, health care and construction leading the way. And that comes after the private sector added 107,000 in July, 61,000 in June. It’s growth, but still not the number of private sector jobs needed to keep one the nearly 15 million Americans still looking for work. And as I mentioned, the President was quick today to frame the numbers his way and so lets turn right now to Jake Tapper. CBS Evening News: ERICA HILL: Back home, a new sign the economic recovery will be a long, slow journey. Today the Labor Department reported private businesses added 67,000 jobs in August, but overall the economy lost jobs as the Census Bureau laid off more temporary workers. And the unemployment rate inched up to a tenth of a point, a tenth of a point, rather, to 9.6 percent. Wall Street was encouraged by the news that businesses are hiring, though. The Dow jumped 128 points today for its first positive close week in a month. Anthony Mason is our senior business correspondent. So overall, Anthony, it’s a bit of a mixed bag? ANTHONY MASON: Yeah Erica, weak as the job numbers were, they were better than Wall Street expected and seemed to give investors confidence the economy can avoid a double-dip recession. With American businesses creating 67,000 jobs in August, the private sector has now added jobs for eight straight months… Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News: Turning to the U.S. economy and the latest reading on the job market for August. Employers cut 54,000 workers from their payrolls, less than what analysts had predicted. The unemployment rate ticked up a notch: 9.6 percent now as discouraged workers restarted their job search. It’s a mixed picture here, but it’s giving some encouragement to those who are out there looking, some who are hanging onto their jobs and their businesses by a thread…

Read more:
Nets See ‘Mixed Picture,’ ‘Mixed Bag’ and ‘Silver Lining’ in Rising Unemployment Rate

Robert Reich: Stimulate Economy With 90% Tax On Top Earners

Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if top wage earners were taxed at 70 to 90 percent? Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich can, and he thinks it’s a great idea. To be sure, many Americans were concerned that giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of our government during an economic crisis could usher back in socialist tendencies first seen in this nation during the Depression. Fears of such a leftward shift sparked a new powerful movement called the Tea Party. With this in mind, Reich’s op-ed “How to End the Great Recession” published in Friday’s New York Times validates these concerns:  The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs. What’s more, the rich don’t necessarily invest their earnings and savings in the American economy; they send them anywhere around the globe where they’ll summon the highest returns – sometimes that’s here, but often it’s the Cayman Islands, China or elsewhere. The rich also put their money into assets most likely to attract other big investors (commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate), which can become wildly inflated as a result. Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the vast majority in the middle naturally want to live better. Their consequent spending fuels continued growth and creates enough jobs for almost everyone, at least for a time. But because this situation can’t be sustained, at some point – 1929 and 2008 offer ready examples – the bill comes due. And how does Reich see “us” paying that bill? If you said “higher and higher taxes,” give yourself a cigar: THE Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures – Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage – leveled the playing field. In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America’s middle class shared more of the economy’s gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs. 70 to 90 percent! He said it, didn’t he? 70 to 90 percent! But there’s more: What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000. Yep. Let’s tax carbon and give the proceeds to lower and middle-income wage earners. There it is, folks. If you doubted the whole global warming scam was specifically designed to redistribute wealth, one of the left’s most-respected economic strategists just admitted it! But there’s still more: In the longer term, Americans must be better prepared to succeed in the global, high-tech economy. Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income. A 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions! Does that mean if one buy’s stock or a house, the government gets a half of a percent? And another half when you sell? Does that include mutual funds, treasury bills, and money market accounts? And certificates of deposit? See where this could lead? Now just imagine if these socialists also get their way and a new valued added tax is implemented? At that point, any time you want to actually use your money, the government gets a slice kind of like a mafia kingpin or a union leader. And this is supposed to help the economy? But there’s still more: Another step: workers who lose their jobs and have to settle for positions that pay less could qualify for “earnings insurance” that would pay half the salary difference for two years; such a program would probably prove less expensive than extended unemployment benefits. Earnings insurance! Earnings insurance! As I hinted at the onset, this op-ed by Reich is a picture of the future if the Party in power and their media minions get their way.   Be afraid, America! Be very afraid!

See original here:
Robert Reich: Stimulate Economy With 90% Tax On Top Earners

9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn’t understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush. Without naming this week’s PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of “Hardball” asked his guests, “Why would you want that back?” When Time’s Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn’t having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls — now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say — independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back — MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right. MATTHEWS: — after Iraq and taking this economy — doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back? SCHERER: Take — MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you? SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for — these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for. And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, “Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get.” Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote “D”. Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds: DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and — and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House. MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November? SCHERER: When I was in Indiana — I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent — MATTHEWS: Yes. SCHERER: — of the vote — MATTHEWS: I liked that part. SCHERER: — a couple years ago — he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other — MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right. SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people — you know, they`re not high-information voters — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell. Once again, it’s tough to determine whether Matthews’ memory is suffering or he’s just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 – the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day: SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise — MATTHEWS: Right. SCHERER: — to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer. MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in. SCHERER: It was rising — (CROSSTALK) CORN: — probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t — (CROSSTALK) CORN: And you know, this is — this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case – – MATTHEWS: There`s so much — CORN: — making the case that you just made! MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table. Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today’s labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office. But that’s only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over. Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we’re on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007’s shortfall. But Matthews doesn’t want to share those numbers with his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana. SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting — they`re voting because they`re — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Their memory of what? SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have. Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress. But don’t expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

Read more here:
9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

NYT’s Brooks Bashes Obamanomics, Praises Germany’s Far More Successful Fiscal Restraint

On the same day the Commerce Department dramatically revised down second quarter Gross Domestic Product estimates, New York Times columnist David Brooks published a stinging rebuke of Obama economic policies. “The American stimulus package was supposed to create a ‘summer of recovery,’ according to Obama administration officials,” wrote Brooks. “Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month,” he continued. “Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.” Scuffling is putting it mildly, for it was announced Friday that the GDP only grew by a pathetic 1.6 percent last quarter which was down from previous estimates of 2.4 percent. With this in mind, Brooks’ column was not only spot on, but a surprising indictment of everything the Obama administration has done since Inauguration Day: During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence. The debate got pointed. American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.” The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus. This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right? The early returns suggest the Germans were. After sharing our dismal data, Brooks presented a stark comparison: The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels. But the results do underline one essential truth: Stimulus size is not the key factor in determining how quickly a country emerges from recession. The U.S. tried big, but is emerging slowly. The Germans tried small, and are recovering nicely. Indeed. As the Wall Street Journal noted last week: In the second quarter, the German economy grew 2.2% compared to the previous three months, or more than 8% annualized-the best quarterly performance in decades. And while the American economy shed 130,000 jobs in July, resulting in an unemployment rate of 9.5%, German unemployment has fallen for 13 months straight and is now down to 7.6%, where it was at the start of the financial crisis. Imagine that: German unemployment is now down to where it was before the financial crisis began ! Not only is ours not even close to that, most economists expect U.S. unemployment to rise in the coming months. What might be the key according to the Journal? [O]ne thing that can be said for Chancellor Angela Merkel is that she has resisted the borrow-and-spend policy temptation. Earlier this year, she announced an €80 billion ($103 billion) deficit-reduction plan. Mrs. Merkel has followed a basic rule of economic policy: First do no harm. Her center-right government has failed to fulfill its pro-growth, tax-cutting campaign promises. But it has also largely refrained from worsening the country’s business conditions. While the U.S. debates whether, by how much and on whom to raise taxes in January, Berlin’s budget cuts have taken some of the uncertainty out of Germany’s fiscal future. In America, U.S. corporations are holding back on investments despite soaring profits. At the end of the first quarter, nonfinancial companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 had a record $837 billion in cash, apparently preferring to make almost no interest on the money instead of investing it in the face of uncertainty about taxes and regulation going forward. In other words, by the simple expedient of not frightening business, Berlin has made it easier for the country’s export-oriented industries to take advantage of the global recovery. German engineering is successful in emerging markets such as India and particularly China, where BMW, Audi and Daimler, posted record sales these past few months. Meanwhile, as American corporations sit on the sidelines waiting for the next shoe to drop from the Obama administration, our trade deficit continues to explode. Of course, regardless of the comparisons being made by Brooks and the Journal, folks on the Left are sure to blame the slowing economy on not enough federal spending. Almost on cue, Brooks’ colleague Paul Krugman wrote Friday: In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small. True, it was enough to limit the depth of the slump – a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment would probably be well into double digits now without the stimulus – but it wasn’t big enough to bring unemployment down significantly.   Amazing! Despite historical evidence during the Depression that governments can’t spend their way out of economic calamities, and the same being true when Japan couldn’t do it in the ’90s, Krugman and his ilk just want to continue with this failed policy. Maybe Brooks ought to take Obama and Krugman on a trip to Berlin so that Merkel can teach them a thing or two about the benefits of fiscal restraint and getting out of the way of the jobs creating private sector.   Alas, they probably still wouldn’t get it. Sigh.

See the original post here:
NYT’s Brooks Bashes Obamanomics, Praises Germany’s Far More Successful Fiscal Restraint

Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

In late July, a Government Accountability Office report circulated which analyzed stimulus funding being spent by the Department of Energy.  The main gist of that report involved the cost of each job being generated by the stimulus bill – a staggering $194,000.  Tucked away in that report was a phrase that was new to most of us, a way to calculate jobs through a term called ‘lives touched’. Last week it was confirmed that some departments being funded by the stimulus are indeed using the metric ‘lives touched’ – a regression from the absurd ‘jobs saved or created’, which was already a step down from the incalculable ‘jobs created’. A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains: “Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act. Essentially, the Obama administration had figured out another way to inflate job numbers to better fit their claims of success.  And yet, the media has remained largely silent on this matter.  Even as Vice-President Biden released a report on the Recovery Act yesterday, with a specific focus on the Department of Energy and job creation. Below is an outline of how the administration and the DOE are collaborating to inflate their numbers by measuring the number of ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus bill. In their remarks , Vice-President Biden and DOE Secretary Chu reference job creation several times (emphasis mine throughout). Biden:   “… the Recovery Act’s $100 billion investment in innovation is not only transforming the economy and creating new jobs … Chu:  “…these breakthroughs are helping create tens of thousands of new jobs …” Biden:  “We’re planting the seeds of innovation, but private companies and the nation’s top researchers are helping them grow, launching entire new industries, transforming our economy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process.” The Biden report being cited, The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation , references several companies that have generated jobs through the Recovery Act.  Each footnote in the report explains that the job estimates are from a company’s own reports, which is the norm for reporting job results through the recovery website. Referring back to the CH2M company, we know that their reports include a directive to use numbers which estimate ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus.  We not only know this from the spokesperson’s explanation of the metric above, but by the reporting instructions provided to subcontractors which defines the phrase as “(the) total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a … contract.” One hour of work and your life has been touched.  Additionally, the instructions state that, “The lives touched headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts.  The total headcount will never decrease.” In other words, a temporary, part-time, or seasonal worker can come into a project, work no more than one hour on said project, and that person will continue to appear in the headcount with each report.  They will not be removed upon their departure from the project. The DOE themselves have also confirmed this metric.  Spokesman Cameron Hardy explains: “Lives touched” represents the cumulative number of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers that have been employed with EM Recovery Act funds at some point since the start of the program in April 2009.  As of June 30, 2010, the lives touched number is more than 24,000 and we have 10,500 full-time Recovery Act workers, working across the DOE Complex. The metric, according to the DOE, was developed by the Office of Environmental Management “to capture all workers that have been employed under the Recovery Act.”  But why the need to capture all workers, when some may have only worked a mere hour on a project, or who have only supported a project in some manner?  Simply put, to inflate the numbers. The GAO report claims that calculations from the DOE “ranged from about 5,700 jobs to 20,200, depending on the methodology used.”   What is the harm in providing an overall headcount, as long as it remains separate from official job reports?  Well, it turns out that they can’t seem to keep things separate. When these numbers are presented publicly and then parroted through the mainstream media who have clearly not done their homework, as was the case with yesterday’s Biden report, the result is deceit.  The administration provided job estimates while failing to provide any context or explanation as to how the numbers were derived. An example of this can be seen in an April News Flash provided by the Office of Environmental Management.  The chart on the right tallies up the total headcount or ‘lives touched’ as 20,249.  A statement on the left claims that “EM Recovery Act funding has employed over 20,000 workers on stimulus projects in 12 states.”  Which is it, employed or touched? A contract award summary for the National Opinion Research Center speaks volumes of the disparity.  In their ‘description of jobs created’ section, they explain how the numbers are derived: “…the total headcount, (the number of ‘lives touched’ or, the number of people who have labor hours funded by stimulus funds, not distinguishing between part-time and full-time, or the length of the job, as of June 30th is a combined total of 480 staff members hired/retained as of the end of the quarter.” The summary then goes on to explain that only 2 of the 480 jobs being discussed were newly created positions.  Two jobs, but a grand total of 480 are being reported.  That’s a markup up of 24,000%. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. It’s all part of the overall deception, however.  The White House continues to throw out random numbers in their quest to convince the public that their behemoth stimulus bill is saving jobs at a massive rate.  Whether it is created, saved, funded, or touched, the Obama administration’s smoke and mirrors tactics continue.  Perhaps that will change.  Perhaps the American people will see right through these lies. Perhaps the polls in November will clearly demonstrate how many lives are being touched by the stimulus bill – in a negative way. Crossposted at The Mental Recession

Read the original:
Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

Rained Out: DC CBS Affiliate Preempts Evening News With Storm Coverage

On Thursday, instead of showing the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, the network’s Washington DC affiliate, WUSA-TV, decided to continue with live storm coverage. The last time the CBS broadcast was preempted by local coverage occurred during the massive winter blizzards, which buried the region in a few feet of snow. The Evening News has consistently ranked third among the network evening newscasts during Couric’s tenure. During the week of August 2 , the Evening News was around 2 million viewers behind competitors ABC Worlds News with Diane Sawyer and NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Couric is about to mark her 4th anniversary in the anchor chair. —Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Link:
Rained Out: DC CBS Affiliate Preempts Evening News With Storm Coverage