2012 Presidential Election

If you needed more proof of liberal media bias, just look at the orgasms created by Friday's announcement that unemployment in January dropped to 8.3 percent. By contrast, these same folks were practically suicidal as the jobless rate dropped to 5.6 percent when George W. Bush was President in January 2004. Here's how the NBC Nightly News covered the January unemployment report on February 6, 2004: BRIAN WILLIAMS, co-anchor: NBC News IN DEPTH tonight, more on that unemployment report out today. As we mentioned, the rate ticked down to a two-year low. But the number of jobs created, 112,000, was well below what analysts had expected. So what does all this tell us and where are these new jobs coming from? IN DEPTH tonight, here's NBC's Anne Thompson. ANNE THOMPSON reporting: Union Pacific railroad, one of the engines of job creation in this country. It's looking to hire as many as 3500 new workers this year. There's been a surge in retirements and freight loads, its trains carrying more of everything from lumber to grain. Mr. DICK DAVIDSON (Union Pacific Corporation CEO): We absolutely wouldn't be hiring these numbers of people if–if we didn't have some confidence that the economy was coming back. THOMPSON: But that attitude remains the exception in corporate America and one reason why today's jobs report is considered disappointing. Yes, 112,000 jobs were created in January, but that's not enough, economists say, to keep pace with the recovery. Dr. MARK ZANDI (Economy.com Chief Economist): Without more jobs, we're just not going to create enough income to ensure that consumers go out and continue to spend aggressively and allow this expansion to move forward. THOMPSON: And for those who lose their jobs, finding the next one isn't easy. The average search time, according to the government, is now up to five months, the longest in 20 years. Mr. ALEX HOOVER: Just let it flow nice and easy. THOMPSON: After years of being self-employed, Alex Hoover has found a steady paycheck, training to be a Union Pacific brakeman and one day a conductor. Mr. HOOVER: I'm looking for something a little more stable. THOMPSON: CEO Dick Davidson says Hoover and others have found it. Mr. DAVIDSON: These should be long-term jobs, hopefully where somebody will come and work 40 years and then retire. THOMPSON: But they're still rare, economist Zandi says, because tax breaks entice companies to spend on equipment rather than employees. Mr. ZANDI: We have to design policies that make it cheaper for businesses to go out and invest in people. THOMPSON: That means tackling tough issues, finding creative ways to curb rising health care and pension costs… Offscreen Voice: Help bring it to a stop. THOMPSON: …to end this unprecedented cycle of tepid job growth in an otherwise strong economy. Anne Thompson, NBC News, New York. Not a very cheery report despite the unemployment rate dropping to 5.6 percent. But NBC wasn't alone in spreading the gloom. The CBS Evening News was right there with them: DAN RATHER, anchor: It is growing but the US economy isn't producing enough jobs, at least not yet. The government's official figures out today say unemployment in January was running 5.6 percent. While that is down a bit, the decline is largely the result of workers giving up on finding a job and no longer officially listed as unemployed. The economy created some new jobs in January, about 112,000, but economists say that is below predictions and expectations and not nearly enough to meet demand. CBS' Anthony Mason reports tonight on the job market. ANTHONY MASON reporting: Intranets.com in Woburn, Massachusetts, is a small company, just 40 employees, but CEO Rick Faulk has big plans because he likes this economy. Mr. RICK FAULK (CEO, Intranets.com): From our perspective, it's very strong. MASON: Faulk says Intranets, which helps businesses manage their documents through the Web, plans to add 15 employees this year. Mr. FAULK: We measure by Web site traffic, and our traffic is up dramatically. So we've got the confidence actually to go out and hire. MASON: Greg Shenk just landed a marketing job with the company but after a painful job search. Mr. GREG SHENK (Intranets.com): I was looking for work for about 15 months. So a long, long time. MASON: Yes, unemployment dropped in January and payrolls grew at their fastest pace in more than three years. The problem is they're still not growing fast enough and some economists are now wondering whether all this hiring that was supposed to happen actually will. That bears repeating: “Payrolls grew at their fastest pace in more than three years.” Yet the world according to CBS was practically coming to an end. For its part, NPR was just as dour: BOB EDWARDS, host: The government's latest unemployment report shows some improvement, but not as much as many had hoped. In January, businesses added just 112,000 new jobs. The overall size of the nation's work force held steady, and the unemployment rate fell slightly. NPR's Jack Speer is here. Good morning, Jack. JACK SPEER reporting: Good morning, Bob. EDWARDS: How should one regard the unemployment report from the government today? SPEER: Well, Bob, I guess you can sort of look at this like a glass half-full or a glass half-empty. In other words, there's reason for both optimism and pessimism when you look at the January jobs report out this morning. On the one hand, we've got the payroll employment figures. They're showing fewer jobs last month than most economists agree are needed just to provide enough positions for all the new workers entering the labor force. And then you've got the other number, the survey the government does of households, and that shows the unemployment rate down a 10th of a percent to 5.6 percent, its lowest level in three years. That bears repeating: “The unemployment rate down a 10th of a percent to 5.6 percent, its lowest level in three years.” Lowest in three years. But no orgasm like what we saw last Friday when the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level in three years which was 2.7 percent higher than in February 2004. Let's be clear here: There were 8.4 million Americans out of work in February 2004. Today that number is 12.8 million, a 52 percent increase, and our media on Friday celebrated like they had won the Super Bowl. The newspapers eight years ago were just as gloomy. The New York Times participated in spreading the misery with a piece entitled “Job Growth Picks Up But Misses Forecast”: Job creation revived in January after an abrupt year-end slowdown, with employers adding 112,000 jobs last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday. It was the job market's best performance since the economy started pulling out of recession in 2001. But the growth in employment was well under the 175,000 jobs expected by forecasters, and short of the 150,000 new jobs that economists consider necessary to absorb new entrants into the labor force. So did the Washington Post: The nation's unemployment rate fell slightly last month, and job growth picked up a bit, the Labor Department reported yesterday, indicating that the weak labor market is continuing its slow recovery. The unemployment rate slipped in January to 5.6 percent, the lowest level in more than two years, and non-farm businesses added 112,000 jobs, on a seasonally adjusted basis, boosting their payrolls for the fifth consecutive month. While the movement was in the right direction, the degree of improvement was disappointing to economists and others who keep waiting for what otherwise appears to be a strong economic expansion to fuel a takeoff in hiring. And the signals of progress appeared alongside signs of continuing stress, as the average length of unemployment grew and manufacturing businesses shed 11,000 jobs, for a 42nd consecutive month of declines. The report “displayed only minimal improvement,” said Peter E. Kretzmer, senior economist with Bank of America Corp. “While a healthier result than December's dismal report, it still demonstrated only very gradual job growth, with continued manufacturing payroll declines.” Add it all up, and a 5.6 percent unemployment rate with 8.4 million Americans out of work was disappointingly bad news in February 2004 as George W. Bush was beginning his campaign for reelection. But somehow, eight years later, as a president the media adore seeks his reelection bid, 8.3 percent unemployment with 12.8 million out of work means happy days are here again. Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.

Here is the original post:
Media Orgasmic Over 8.3% Unemployment in 2012, Suicidal With 5.6% in 2004

When I saw CNN's Candy Crowley on Sunday tease an upcoming State of the Union segment saying she'd be discussing Friday's unemployment report after a commercial break, I was hoping to see a complete analysis of the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Much to my shock and dismay, although she and her guests discussed the economy and the jobs market for eight minutes over two segments, there was not one single word said about the declining participation rate or the record 1.2 million one month increase in the number of people not in the labor force (video follows with transcript and commentary): CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Here to make sense of some big economic figures: Alice Rivlin, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economist for President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers; and our Ron Brownstein, a senior political analyst with us here at CNN. I'm completely confused by this week, because Friday it's like the best unemployment figures we've seen in three years, and the Dow Industrials go crazy, and the CBO earlier in the week said, you know, the debt outlook is horrible, the deficit is horrible, and by the way unemployment is going back up. So are we happy or are we worried? ALICE RIVLIN, FORMER OMB DIRECTOR UNDER BILL CLINTON: I think it was basically a good news week. The unemployment figures and the new jobs in the Friday report were good news. They aren't definitive. That was one month, but it was a good, strong month, an indication that the economy is taking hold. If it lasts, we'll have the best thing that anybody is able to predict is a good, slow recovery with gradual reduction in the unemployment rate from what is admittedly a very high level. CROWLEY: But the CBO said 9.3 or something next year, which is craziness. DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST, GEORGE W. BUSH COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Right. Remember, the CBO is — its job is to find the dark cloud for every silver lining, and so it did that. But the reason it did that, all kidding aside, is that the CBO has to assume that the Bush tax cuts sunset. That means it has to assume an enormous tax increase next year, and that means it has to assume that we have bad economic growth. And that gets you high unemployment. So strip that out, I think we got one month's good news in the labor market, that's great, but the truth is the debt is bad and the recovery is not very strong, and we have a long way to go. CROWLEY: And I was just going to say, I suspect politically the reason we heard the president go, well, these numbers are going to go up and these numbers are going to go down, is kind of to inoculate himself from next month or the month after. RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Because there has been more than one good month. I mean, there has been several months of good unemployment news and overall job growth, private sector job growth in 2011 was 2.1 million, which was the best since I think '05. So there's a general trajectory that is more positive. But trajectory is the key, I think, politically. You know, and I think almost all political strategists agree that kind of direction matters more than level. If it continues to improve, that's obviously good news for the president. If the CBO is right and we see a turnaround toward the end of the year, with it going back up, that would be more problematic. Although I would point out that most political scientists believe we are in the key period now that the second quarter of the election year is when voters really take that snapshot and it is positive for the president that he is seeing improvement at this moment. HOLTZ-EAKIN: I would never disagree with a political expert. But a couple of things, unemployment will go up before it comes down in a permanent way. There are a lot of discouraged workers out there, 3 million, 4 million… CROWLEY: They will come back in. HOLTZ-EAKIN: … when they come back, it will go up… CROWLEY: .. and they will drive up the unemployment numbers. HOLTZ-EAKIN: … and that will be confusing to people. Good news will be bad news. And on the ground it's not going to feel that great. Right now the numbers look better, that's fine, but until we see steady job growth that's even this rapid or more, and employment increases that are matched by wage increases, you're not going to see the incomes for people to feel good. So if we start — if there is happy talk in Washington when it's not that great on the ground, that's a bad story. CROWLEY: Well, you know, there's a huge disconnect then. RIVLIN: Nobody is doing happy talk, not even the president. But we have to … CROWLEY: Said the economy was stronger. RIVLIN: We have to recognize that the economy is stronger, that's what he said, and it has shown that it's stronger for the last several months. And the CBO was actually not making a new forecast. It was telling us what we already know. If you raise taxes drastically at the end of the year, letting the Bush tax cuts all expire, and if you cut spending drastically next year with the sequester, then it's not good news for the economy. But nobody wants that to happen. HOLTZ-EAKIN: Right, that's the… (CROSSTALK) BROWNSTEIN: Well, that is not really on the table. The debate will be about at the end of the year whether to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent. They have to assume that they sunset for the entire population, which really neither side is talking about, is a very unlikely outcome, although conceivable in stalemate. CROWLEY: Well, in fact, the CBO said, listen, it will reduce economic stability and it will increase unemployment if you let those tax cuts expire. HOLTZ-EAKIN: It's an extraordinarily bad idea. And there's — the thinking… (CROSSTALK) HOLTZ-EAKIN: But it's across the board, for rich — it's supposed to be the biggest political risk we face, which is post- election, regardless of who wins, we have a lame duck, they're never very organized, they look like a rugby scrum at best, suddenly we've got the sequester and the Bush tax cuts on the table, that's a big risky moment for the economy. CROWLEY: Let me ask you all to hold fire, because we're going to come back. But up next, more with our economic roundtable After a commercial break, the four continued to discuss the economy as well as the unemployment numbers without mentioning the dismal participation rate or the record 1.2 million one month increase in the number of people not in the labor force. Frankly, this was almost unconscionable. Yes, the headline figures – meaning the unemployment rate and the non-farm payroll data – were very strong. However, our friends at Zero Hedge did some fine reporting on Friday's report digging up the inconvenient truths that most media outlets and CNN in this instance chose to ignore. For instance : 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month ! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 workers in 31 government agencies, takes to the editorial page of the Washington Post today to argue : The federal pay system aims to find a balance between offering a fair and competitive wage, a secure retirement and a satisfying work environment for those who believe in public service. Especially for the most educated, highly skilled and highly compensated federal employees, the importance of the mission, the challenge of the work and the commitment to public service provide non-monetary incentives. Keep reading this post . . . Follow this link: Government Union Head Envies Private Sector’s On-Site Spas

Go here to see the original:
Government Union Head Envies Private Sector’s On-Site Spas

The headline New York Times (HT Clay Waters at NewsBusters ) after yesterday's job report was: “U.S. Economy Gains Steam as 200,000 Jobs Are Added.” At the Associated Press : “Nation adds 200,000 jobs in December hiring surge.” Telling millions of news consumers that it's so doesn't make it so. For total nonfarm and the private sector, the following graphic shows the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) and seasonally adjusted results for the final three months of the past 11 years: Overall (red boxes at left), raw results in December 2004 and 2005 which were equivalent to what we saw yesterday led to seasonally adjusted results 68,000 and 42,000 below yesterday's seasonally adjusted result. Yesterday's raw result, if achieved in either of these years, would have led to a seasonally adjusted result of about 140,000 — 60,000 less than reported. In the private sector (blue boxes at right), the raw result in December 2005 of 94,000 jobs lost was only 14,000 jobs worse than the -80,000 reported for December 2011, yet yesterday's seasonally adjusted result was 74,000 jobs higher (212K vs. 138K). What's more, the nearly breakeven raw result in December 2006 (only 6,000 jobs lost) led to 37,000 fewer job additions after seasonal adjustment than yesterday (175K vs. 212K). As I wrote yesterday at my home blog : “… the irregularities of the past 3-1/2 years render normal concepts of seasonality almost useless.” That's pretty obvious, based on the analysis just conducted. In her story , the Times's Shaila Dewan failed to even mention that the reported positive numbers were seasonally adjusted. At the AP , Paul Wiseman and Christopher Rugaber got to it in their 26th of 38 paragraphs, and then only cryptically: “Economists cautioned that some of the month's gains reflected temporary hiring for the holiday season. The government adjusts the figures to try to account for that seasonal factor, but doesn't always get it exactly right.” No kidding. The raw numbers show that the job market, in the context of the high unemployment rate and labor underutilization, is at best sluggishly improving. It is definitely not in a “surge,” or “gaining steam.” Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Excerpt from:
Why Yesterday’s Jobs Numbers Don’t Signify ‘Gaining Steam’ or a ‘Surge’

Reality-based. Denial — it ain’t just a river in Egypt. Appearing on Fox News this morning, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted that unemployment didn’t go up in Barack Obama’s term of office, a hilarious argument on several levels. Debbie Downer then lectures Gretchen Carlson that “your narrative doesn’t work any longer,” to which a bemused Read this post

Each year the Business & Media Institute looks back on the year's news and selects the top 10 worst economic myths. This year the media's myths were wide-ranging: from conspiracy theories about economic sabotage, to overpopulation panic and Occupy Wall Street's mantra “We are the 99 percent.” Here is our 2011 list: 10. Congress took a “machete” to the budget in August. 9. In order to win, the GOP wants to sabotage the economy. 8. Who cares about a Soros' sponsored effort to remake global economy? 7. With 7 billion on the planet, it's time to panic. 6. Apocalypse Al is a “genius,” and climate change is a real threat. 5. The jobs are right around the corner. 4. Occupy Wall Street is the new Tea Party. 3. Green jobs are the future. 2. $52 million from Soros doesn't mean we're biased. 1. “We are the 99 percent.” 10. Congress took a “machete” to the budget in August. Media Myth: Spending cuts actually cut spending. One of the most illusory things in Washington, D.C. is a spending cut. After all, once taxpayer money is being doled out it can be very difficult to stop the flow. So in August 2011, when the news media reported on the debt ceiling talks they anticipated major cuts to the federal budget, but ordinary taxpayers weren't given the whole picture. ABC's Diane Sawyer spoke of “expected” “machete” cuts and NBC's Ann Curry worried those cuts would hurt the economy . Media outlets called the cuts “sharp” and “severe,” but rarely admitted that federal spending will keep on growing. BMI looked at the transcripts for 43 stories, interviews and news briefs about the debt ceiling deal on morning and evening news programs and found that only 2 admitted the debt will rise anyway. That means 95 percent of stories ignored the fact that the federal debt would still rise by $12 trillion (from $14.29 trillion to $28.8 trillion). As Cato's Chris Edwards explained, “The 'cuts' in the deal are only cuts from the CBO 'baseline,' which is a Washington construct of ever-rising spending. And even these 'cuts' from the baseline include $165 billion of interest savings, which are imaginary because the underlying cuts are imaginary.” So next time the news media claim Washington is cutting spending, remember that real spending cuts by the government are nearly as fantastical as finding a leprechaun and his pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. 9. In order to win, the GOP wants to sabotage the economy. Media Myth: “Republicans want the cconomy to get worse” Economics editor Dan Gross of Yahoo! Finance made a bold assertion in June 2011 that every Republican running for the White House, if they were “being honest” would want the economy to be worse off in 2012. But Gross, who used to write a financial column for the left-wing Slate.com, took the accusation even further saying: “[I]t stands to reason that if you have the ability to have a role in policy that you would engineer policy to get that outcome. That's what political parties do …” He cited conservatives who were opposed to TARP and the stimulus, labeling them “a element” “that just wants to blow stuff up.” Apparently in Gross' mind, a philosophical belief that bailouts and government spending do not improve the economy was illegitimate. The insulting charge from Gross was reminiscent of the economic conspiracy theories entertained by the news media in 2006 and 2008. CNN's Jack Cafferty cynically wondered in 2006 if oil companies were lowering gas prices to help the GOP . Left-wing radio host Ed Shultz said essentially the same thing two years later, predicting that “Gasoline's gonna be a buck-47 ($1.47) when Bush gets out of office. This has just been all so pre-arranged.” If the economy remains in trouble, this myth is likely to become even more widespread during the 2012 election cycle. 8. Who cares about a Soros' sponsored efforts to remake global economy? Media Myth: Soros meeting to rearrange “the entire financial order” is unimportant. If the volume of news coverage an event earns reveals its significance, then the Bretton Woods conference on April 8 was no more important than a spelling bee. The media obviously considered it trifling since they did almost no reporting on the left-wing billionaire's conference of cronies, despite the fact that Soros said in 2009 he wanted “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.” Soros has also said that “the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.” The Bretton Woods conference made it clear he had been pursuing that goal. The global gathering got almost no press attention, despite at least four journalists on the speakers list. But at the conference, Soros set in motion a major move against the dollar. The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 1, 2011, that Soros now thinks the world financial system is “on the brink of collapse.” Soros said the system is in a “self-reinforcing process of disintegration.” The April conference was orchestrated by Soros who founded the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) (the group that hosted the conference). Many of the attendees were supporters of Soros, on the board of INET, grantees of INET or contributors to some other Soros-funded operation like Project Syndicate. 7. With 7 billion on the planet, it's time to panic. Media Myth: In 2011, Earth's population crossed the 7 billion mark and that was reason to freak out. The media have embraced overpopulation myths for years, fitting in nicely with climate alarmism and left-wing environmentalism. So it was no surprise that in 2011, when the world population neared the 7 billion milestone , the media began repeating those concerns again. The Washington Post cautioned that “ecological distortions are becoming more pronounced and widespread.” The fear-mongering of radical environmentalists like Paul Watson, James Lovelock and Paul Ehrlich has been echoed by willing partners in the mainstream media. Ehrlich famously predicted England would not exist in 2000. (As of 2011, England still exists.) But as recently as 2010, the New York Times quoted Ehrlich as a “population expert.” And the Los Angeles Times favorably interviewed Ehrlich in February 2011 . Overpopulation fears resurfaced in 2011. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman titled his July 7 column ” The Earth is Full .” The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board titled a May 15 op-ed ” Defusing the Population Bomb .” The Los Angeles Times also published a July 21 op-ed coauthored by Mary Ellen Harte and Anne Ehrlich (wife of Paul Ehrlich), which argued that “Perpetual [human population] growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.” Many predictions about overpopulation simply haven't happened, because mankind finds ways to adapt and innovate. Colin Mason, director of media for the Population Research Institute, told BMI that fears of overpopulation are unfounded because: “Historically, as human population has grown and developed technology, the manner in which we use resources has changed. For instance, as human population has grown, we have needed to produce enough food to feed our burgeoning numbers. But as our civilizations have developed, we have also developed ways of increasing crop yield, and of growing crops on previously infertile land.” As Mason explained, a declining population (as is happening in many countries) will actually result in many negative economic and social consequences. For example, entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare depend upon having enough workers to pay into the system, but if too few children are born to replace retirees, the programs collapse. 6. Apocalypse Al is a “genius,” and climate change is a real threat. Media Myth: Almost-president Al said the climate change “debate's over” so it must be true. As Al Gore's error-filled propaganda film turned 5 in May 2011, BMI looked back at broadcast news coverage of “movie star” Gore about climate change as well as mentions of “An Inconvenient Truth” throughout that time. They found that nearly 98 percent of those stories failed to challenge the supposedly scientific claims of the movie, including its dramatic predictions of sea level rise and links between climate change and extreme weather such as tornadoes, hurricanes, fires and droughts. Many of those claims have been challenged, but scientific criticism was rarely included by ABC, CBS or NBC. There was also little opposition to the “environmental evangelist” found in the reports; more than 80 percent excluded any criticism of Gore or his film. Rather than examining some of the dubious claims of the former vice president's movie, all three networks used it to push him to run for president (again) or accept some position within the Obama administration. In one CBS “Early Show” interview, Harry Smith literally tried to pin a “Gore '08″ campaign button on him. In one of Gore's morning show interviews promoting his film in 2006, NBC's Katie Couric mentioned that there were people on the other side of the debate. But once Gore replied, “There's really not a debate. The debate's over,” and blamed oil and coal companies for “pretending there is a debate,” Couric fell in line as if she'd been hypnotized. Shortly thereafter Couric declared, “Where there is disagreement among scientists is not IF, but WHEN we may see drastic environmental changes across the globe. Al Gore says the clock is ticking.” Yet, Christopher Booker, a journalist and commentator with The Telegraph (UK), quoted sea level scientist Dr. Nils-Axel M

“That government is best which governs least,” or so Henry David Thoreau believed, at least. Apparently though, Mr. Thoreau would have been at odds with today’s editorial board at the New York Times , for they managed to find a dark cloud amidst the silver lining of the improving November unemployment numbers that only true statists (and also those hopelessly afflicted by self-flagellating “white guilt” that is the hallmark of the left) could divine. The Times points out that, although 120,000  jobs were created last month bringing national unemployed down by .4% overall, some 20,000 government jobs were sacrificed at the altar of increasing state, county and city budgetary woes. It was the largest drop for any sector of the economy. To a leftist, for whom the state is ultimate arbiter of economic, moral and social policy, this represents a “troubling trend that’s been building for years.” The Times goes on to lament: “Those layoffs mean a lower quality of life when there are fewer teachers, pothole repair crews and nurses.” It’s said as though these decisions are made in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the shrinking revenue base unable to match increased spending — spending usually carried out by detached bureaucrats whose job it is to walk into their office each morning, snap open their briefcase and proceed to spend other people’s money. Yes, layoffs always hurt. I would rather have three cops walk my street than two. I’d rather have two firehouses than one within a mile of my home. As for teachers, that depends on who’s at the blackboard. The problem for statists is, as my own Governor Christie will tell you, there are a finite amount of dollars available  to one crafting a budget. States, counties, and cities cannot print their own currency to keep the money flowing, and issuing bonds merely shifts the burden to the next generation while piling on even more debt making the inevitable day of reckoning that much more severe. The federal government, now drowning in $15 trillion of its own mismanaged debt, can no longer extend the lifeline that has served as a substitute for local fiscal discipline. As with other aspects of left-wing big government/low growth models now collapsing under the uncompromising weight of mathematics, what these employment figures show is that the great reset to where 2+2=4 again is now impacting the statehouse and courthouse as well as the White House. To those who view government not as the solution to but the cause of many of today’s budgetary calamities, its shrinking payrolls represent a step in the right direction towards much-needed fiscal discipline. The -20,000 figure, especially when juxtaposed against a growing private sector and shrinking unemployment overall, is a welcome trend in what I would call a shift of hiring bias in favor of efficiency and productivity. Of course, I am also a racist for cheering on the shrinking of what is clearly a bloated and inefficient government in favor of the private sector. Why? Well, according to the elitist liberal editors of the New York Times, who with self-righteous hauteur consider themselves as the protectors of helpless black and Hispanic races unable to look after themselves, “millions of African-Americans — one in five who are employed — have entered the middle class through government employment, and they tend to make 25 percent more than other black workers.”  They go on to worry that: “The effect is severe, destabilizing black neighborhoods and making it harder for young people to replicate their parents’ climb up the economic ladder.”  They then offer up the obligatory academic support: “The reliance on these jobs has provided African-Americans a path upward,” said Robert Zieger, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Florida. “But it is also a vulnerability.” I am by no means dismissing the very real pain of job loss these statistics imply, but the professor is right. It is indeed a vulnerability. It means that, once again, thanks to their modern masters on the far left, black and now many Hispanic Americans have been placed in a position whereby much of their financial security comes not from themselves but rather the State on high, if not in the form of outright welfare, then in the form of a government paycheck. But naturally, the liberal elites do not blame themselves for this dependency that leaves their wards exposed to devastating layoffs when the inevitable austerity measures waiting for them at the end of the quasi-socialist rainbow commence. So in their world where noble intentions are all that matter, no matter how much harm they end up doing the very people they claim to want to help, who then is to blame? You guessed it. Republicans. “Many Republicans, however, don’t regard government jobs as actual jobs, and are eager to see them disappear.” Though many of these jobs are vital services, as anyone who has walked in a DMV or Post Office can attest, they are not all essential. Furthermore, they do not contribute to economic growth in the same way a private worker does simply because they do not earn their incomes from the fruits of wealth creation; rather, their incomes are derived from the extraction of taxes from wealth created by others. If I make one dollar and pay you fifty cents, it doesn’t alter the fact that only one dollar has been created. If a friend and I each make a dollar and we each give you  fifty cents, two dollars have still been created, not three, and so on — Keynesian howls from frumpy, bearded Princeton Nobel laureates to the contrary notwithstanding. So in that respect, Republicans (and I suspect many Democrats who must also own calculators) are correct. The Times editors of course do not find mathematics at the heart of the GOP’s satisfaction over the shrinking  government rolls, but rather a sinister political calculation that targets, what else, race: “Republican governors around the Midwest have aggressively tried to break the power of public unions while slashing their work forces, and Congressional Republicans have proposed paying for a payroll tax cut by reducing federal employment rolls by 10 percent through attrition. That’s 200,000 jobs, many of which would be filled by blacks and Hispanics and others who tend to vote Democratic, and thus are considered politically superfluous.” [My emphasis added] But then I must ask the Times : Does this then mean there is a flip-side by which Democrats intentionally keep bloated governments afloat (often by increasing taxes on the private sector) in order to pacify with government jobs those same minorities whose votes they consider essential to their maintaining power? Assuming even the Times was correct in its take on GOP motives, then it must be assumed that the motive of the Democrats is to keep minorities employed in large swaths of a wasteful and bloated government labor force just to keep their own political machines running, correct? Or are left-wing politicians just more noble creatures than the rest? What the Times fails to see is that their own editorial is as much a condemnation of liberalism as the conservatism that seeks to unravel it — and also has the brazenness to celebrate a shift of employment from the wealth-redistributing government to the wealth-creating private sector.  By proffering the bogus notion that the necessary shrinking of government payrolls is tantamount to a racist assault on the black and Hispanic communities, liberal elites refuse to look themselves in the mirror and ask what party and power group is most responsible for putting minorities in such a position of dependency on the government paycheck to begin with. So long as there are votes to be bought, neither the Democratic machine nor the Times editors who protect it will never question whether it is a good thing that such a large segment of blacks and Hispanics are now so “vulnerable” to the unavoidable hammer of mathematics coming down hard upon a state-centered system upon which so many depend for their very livelihoods… no matter how many votes it means for them in the next election cycle.

Here is the original post:
NY Times’ Editorial on Unemployment Unintentionally Condemns Liberalism

Apparently, Newt Gingrich wanting to employ students from poor neighborhoods and teach them job skills means that he believes they possess “no work ethic.” CNN obliged to put words in the candidate's mouth during Friday's 1 p.m. news hour as its headlines slammed Gingrich's “controversial” statements. Anchor T.J. Holmes admitted that the candidate “tends to say some pretty edgy things every now and again,” and CNN headlines blared that Gingrich's “controversial” talk “could become a campaign liability,” and that his statement “targets children in 'poor neighborhoods'.” [Video below the break. Click here for audio.] From a video CNN provided, Gingrich's actual words concerning the students from poor neighborhoods are thus: “It would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. What if they cleaned out the bathrooms and what if they mopped the floors? What if they, in that process, were actually learning to work, learning to earn money? They had money on their own. They didn't have to become a pimp or a prostitute or a drug dealer.” Apparently, this statement meant that he thinks that “poor kids have no work habits.” And the network made sure to headline Democratic consultant Ed Espinoza's spin that the candidate is “out of touch” and “Scrooge-like.” A transcript of the relevant part of the “Fair Game” segment, which aired on December 2 at 1:32 p.m. EST, is as follows: [1:32] T.J. HOLMES: We'll go to the campaign trail. And anything a candidate says is “Fair Game,” of course. And Newt Gingrich has been saying a lot – tends to say some pretty edgy things every now and again, like this comment about poor kids and developing a work ethic. [HEADLINE: "Newt's Controversial Words: Could Become a Campaign Liability"] (Video Clip) NEWT GINGRICH, former House Speaker, Republican presidential candidate: It would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. What if they cleaned out the bathrooms and what if they mopped the floors? [HEADLINE: "Gingrich: Poor Kids Have No Work Habits: Targets children in 'poor neighborhoods'"] GINGRICH: What if they, in that process, were actually learning to work, learning to earn money? They had money on their own. They didn't have to become a pimp or a prostitute or a drug dealer. (End Video Clip) HOLMES: Oof. Let me bring in Will Cain, a CNN contributor, he's in New York for us, and also Ed Espinoza, Democratic political consultant, joining from us Austin, Texas. Ed, let me start with you. Did he have a point? Did he have another big idea and he just didn't phrase it the right way? [HEADLINE: "Newt's Controversial Words: Could become a campaign liability"] ED ESPINOZA, Democratic political consultant :Well, look, it's appropriate it's December because Newt Gingrich is having his Ebenezer Scrooge and Tiny Tim moment with this right here. He needs to pick on someone his own size. If he wants to talk about jobs, that's fine. But don't pick on poor kids. The way to do it is to advocate for President Obama's jobs plan. That's something that's tangible and on the table, and let's leave the kids out of it. [HEADLINE: "Gingrich: Child Labor Laws 'Truly Stupid': Says Poor Kids Should Work as Janitors"] HOLMES: OK, Will, will you please talk some sense into Ed over here? He just said Gingrich was going to advocate for President Obama's jobs plan. (Laughter) WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, he's not going to do that. Um, and I'm afraid my friend Ed is indulging a little more – indulging being enraged over this issue much more than being logical about this issue. Look, I have many, many harsh words for Newt Gingrich and his substantive policies. [HEADLINE: "Gingrich Words Draw Critics: Espinoza: "out of touch, Scrooge-like"] CAIN: But my friend Kevin Williams, at National Review, put this best. Newt Gingrich has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth while putting his finger on the issue. [HEADLINE: "Gingrich: Put Kids to Work: Or they could become 'drug dealers'"] CAIN: Look, the bottom line is this. Unemployment is higher in poorer neighborhoods, right? That means in poor neighborhoods there are fewer people trekking off to work every day and the kids in those neighborhoods are not seeing people developing work habits or emulating – they don't have work habits to emulate on such a high degree. So I don't know why that is so offensive. It's simply a string of logical conclusions. Would it be helpful to do something in those neighborhoods? Yeah, it might be. By the way, if it offends you that he suggests we should do away with child labor laws in response to that, well then I just have to say to you, look, the higher barriers you place to work, the lower participation you're going to have in it. HOLMES: Alright, it looked like you wanted to respond there for a second, Ed. Do that for me quickly so I can move on to the next question here. But go ahead. ESPINOZA: Okay well see, the problem is it's not that he's talking about kids not having work eth – it's a problem to assume that poor kids have any worse of a work ethic than kids who come from well-off communities. But when you make comparisons saying they're automatically going into drugs or pimping or anything else like that, that's too far. He is a public leader. He shapes public opinion. He needs to be more careful with his words.

On Friday's Morning Edition, NPR's Joel Rose played up the apparently ” ominous ” finding that voting-age adults 30 and younger aren't as ” enamored of Mr. Obama as they used to be .” Rose obtained sound bites from the President's supporters, but didn't play any from opponents. He also expressed liberal hopes when he stated that ” there's still time for [them] to rediscover the excitement they felt four years ago, but the Obama campaign has some serious work to do .” Host Steve Inskeep introduced the correspondent's report by noting that “young people powered the election of President Obama in 2008. The so-called Millennial generation…voted in record numbers… [and] gave time, money, and a sense of excitement to the campaign. Now, a Pew Research Center report shows that some Millennials are questioning their support for the President. They're anxious about the economy .” Rose began by highlighting the Obama's campaign's outreach with colleges in the Philadelphia area, gushing that ” it felt like 2008 all over again in Philadelphia this week . A DJ played a song by the Black Eyed Peas to warm up a crowd of about 500 students from local colleges. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina exhorted the crowd at the University of Pennsylvania to volunteer, to apply for internships, and, of course, to vote.” After playing a clip from Messina, he continued that ” President Obama needs a lot of help from this demographic if he's going to win a second term . In 2008, Millennials voted for Obama by a ratio of two to one.” The NPR journalist then spotlighted a Pew Research Center report that found that “Millennials are more ethnically diverse than other age groups. They're more likely than older voters to hold liberal views on social issues, and to express support for an activist government . Millennials still give the President a higher job approval rating than other groups, at 49 percent. But… they're not as enamored of Mr. Obama as they used to be ….Compared to older voters, Millennials are more comfortable with immigration and interracial marriage, and more likely to say the country has gotten better since the 1960s.” Despite these generally liberal leanings, Rose later stated that “in a development that may be ominous for Democrats, Alec Tyson at Pew says fewer Millennials say they're paying close attention to politics now, than did in 2007 .” After playing a clip from Tyson, who explained that there are ” some early signs suggest that enthusiasm is not as high in this current election as it was in 2008 ,” the correspondent then played sound bites from two Obama supporters and one skeptic, but none from an opponent of the President. Towards the end of his report, Rose did acknowledge that “the economic downturn has been difficult for most Americans. But according to the Pew Research Center, the unemployment rate increased most sharply among Millennials, which may help explain their disappointment with the President .” But he concluded the segment with his expression of hope, that the Millenials would “rediscover the excitement” from the last presidential election. The full transcript of Joel Rose's report from Friday's Morning Edition: STEVE INSKEEP: Young people powered the election of President Obama in 2008. The so-called Millennial generation, between the ages of 18 and 30, voted in record numbers. And they didn't just vote- they gave time, money, and a sense of excitement to the campaign. Now, a Pew Research Center report shows that some Millennials are questioning their support for the President. They're anxious about the economy. NPR's Joel Rose continues our series on generational politics. JOEL ROSE: (clip of Black Eyed Peas song, “I Gotta Feeling”) It felt like 2008 all over again in Philadelphia this week. A DJ played a song by the Black Eyed Peas to warm up a crowd of about 500 students from local colleges. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina exhorted the crowd at the University of Pennsylvania to volunteer, to apply for internships, and, of course, to vote. JIM MESSINA: There's eight million registered voters who are 18 to 21 who weren't old enough to vote last time, who are going to cast their first vote, and they're going to do it for Barack Obama. Raise your hand if you're 18 to 21. (audience cheers) ROSE: President Obama needs a lot of help from this demographic if he's going to win a second term. In 2008, Millennials voted for Obama by a ratio of two to one. That's the largest margin of victory within any age group since 1972, according to the Pew Research Center. ALEC TYSON: My name is Alec Tyson. I'm a research associate at the Pew Research Center. I am a card-carrying Millennial. ROSE: Tyson, who was born in 1983, helped prepare a Pew report called 'Generational Politics.' He says Millennials are more ethnically diverse than other age groups. They're more likely than older voters to hold liberal views on social issues, and to express support for an activist government. Millennials still give the President a higher job approval rating than other groups, at 49 percent. But Tyson says they're not as enamored of Mr. Obama as they used to be. TYSON: Shortly after Obama took office, Millennials expressed very positive emotions towards Obama. They felt inspired or hopeful by him. Two years later- more than two years later, there's a sign that they've become, to use their own word, disappointed. ROSE: If you ask Millennials to name the best president of their lifetimes, only 14 percent say Barack Obama. By far, the most popular answer to that question, is actually this man. PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. ROSE: Bill Clinton's presidency left a lasting impression on Millennials. According to Pew, 50 percent of them profess an affiliation with the Democratic Party, compared to just 34 percent who identify with Republicans. Compared to older voters, Millennials are more comfortable with immigration and interracial marriage, and more likely to say the country has gotten better since the 1960s. But in a development that may be ominous for Democrats, Alec Tyson at Pew says fewer Millennials say they're paying close attention to politics now, than did in 2007. TYSON: That's the key question for Millennials in 2012: will they turn out at the same rates as they did in 2008? And some early signs suggest that enthusiasm is not as high in this current election as it was in 2008. ROSE: That's at least, in part, because there's no contested primary in the Democratic Party, as there was in 2007. Lily Catlin is a junior at Bryn Mawr College and an Obama campaign volunteer. LILY CATLIN: There's not as much attention, because there's no primary a going on. I mean, he still has a job to do, and he's still president. So he's not campaigning as much, and there's not as much of a frenzy about who will we choose. We already know. ROSE: Catlin thinks Millennials will turn out in big numbers next year. But Christopher Noble, a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, isn't so sure. CHRISTOPHER NOBLE: These last four years have got people jaded. I don't think that the turnout is going to be as great- I don't- unless there's some good, like, marketing going on, (laughs) because people are just dissatisfied, you know? That's the bottom line. ROSE: The economic downturn has been difficult for most Americans. But according to the Pew Research Center, the unemployment rate increased most sharply among Millennials, which may help explain their disappointment with the President. At a coffee shop in Philadelphia's trendy Northern Liberties neighborhood, Brooks Bell is working on his laptop. Four years ago, Bell volunteered his time putting up Obama posters. Now, the 30 year-old clothing designer isn't sure he'll vote at all. BROOKS BELL: I mean, it's a sad affair. I don't mean to, like, bring you down here, you know? But I honestly don't know anyone that really cares about politics right now. Most people I know are focusing on themselves, and trying figure how to get by in their day-to-day lives, you know? ROSE: With the election just over a year away, there's still time for the Millennials to rediscover the excitement they felt four years ago, but the Obama campaign has some serious work to do. Joel Rose, NPR News, Philadelphia.

View post:
NPR: ‘Ominous’ That Under-30 Adults Aren’t Excited About Obama Anymore

While the media champion the Occupy Wall Street movement as if it's the American version of the Arab Spring, they're predictably missing a crucial distinction. As the Motley Fool reported Friday, those sleeping in tents and skipping showers in cities around the country are actually part of the world's richest one percent: In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world? $34,000. That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000. NewsBusters readers might recognize Milanovic's name as well as his book given a report we did on this issue two weeks ago which presented a chart of income inequality in numerous countries: Contrary to the current media meme, when adjusted for international dollars as well as cost and standard of living, there is far greater income inequality in Brazil, China, and India. More importantly as it pertains to the Occupy Wall Street movement, people in the bottom five percent of income here are still richer than 68 percent of the world’s citizens. As Motley Fool observed: According to the U.N., “Nearly half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, earn less than $2 a day.” According to the World Bank, 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day. In short, most of those protesting in the Occupy Wall Street movement would be considered wealthy — perhaps extraordinarily wealthy — by much of the world. Many of those protesting the 1% are, ironically, the 1%. This goes hand in hand with a great picture created a few weeks ago identifying all the expensive products present at OWS rallies: Maybe America's media should keep these numbers and images in mind as they cry a river for OWS protesters. After all, according to the rest of the world, these people should be eating each other. (H/T Hot Air )

Continue reading here:
Attention Media: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Are World’s Richest One Percent