Real unemployed rate rises to 11.01 percent, underemployed to 17.6 percent
Feb. 3, 2012, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today issued the following statement on the continued decline of the civilian labor force participation rate that dramatically alters the unemployment outlook by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“Once again, the civilian labor force participation rate has declined, from 64 percent to 63.7 percent in a single month. Since January 2009, it has declined from 65.7 percent, resulting in approximately 4.7 million people no longer being counted towards the unemployment rate. If they were included, the real rate of unemployed working age adults would be 11.01 percent, and the underemployed would be 17.6 percent.
“Overall, that includes the 12.7 million people that BLS says are actually unemployed, and then 4.7 million who have given up looking for work, plus another 10.5 million who can’t find full-time work. All together, there’s 28 million working age adults who simply cannot find work in the Obama economy.
“It is hard to separate the continued obfuscation of this harsh reality by the government from the fact that we are now in an election year.”
Permalink here.
Time to End Emergency Unemployment Benefits
Feb. 3, 2012, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today issued the following statement on the latest unemployment report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“Today’s announcement by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that approximately 240,000 jobs were created by the engine of the U.S. economy, America’s private sector businesses and entrepreneurs. These job creators are moving forward because they trust that the Republican led House of Representatives will stop Obama’s threatened tax increases that would suck the very money that they are using to create jobs out of the economy and into Washington, D.C.
“The private sector job creation also vindicates Republicans who are seeking to end the emergency extensions of unemployment benefits from the normal 27 weeks to the current 99 weeks. With jobs being created, there is no longer any excuse to further extend these cuts that are estimated to cost $44 billion for the rest of the federal 2012 fiscal year. It is time for the American taxpayer to get a jobs dividend by ending these extended jobless benefits.
“The downside of the unemployment report is that the percentage of working age eligible people who participate in the job market has continued a free fall down to 63.7 percent. Since Obama took office fully 2 percent of Americans who are eligible to work have dropped out of the economy – a stunning 4.7 million people. That loss of hope is Obama’s true jobs legacy.”
Permalink here.
Is Mitt Romney out of touch?
By Bill Wilson
Within hours of his big win in Florida, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney again raised questions about whether he is in touch with the American people, telling reporters, “I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.”
Really?
The nation has 13 million unemployed, another 4 million who have given up on looking for work, and another 10 million who can’t find full time work. As a matter of fact, millions of Americans are becoming poor, but Romney’s not concerned because there’s a “safety net”?
The welfare state will not even pay for a basic mortgage, as evidenced by the millions of Americans still facing foreclosure. But even if it could somehow ever be adequate or repaired, is that really what helps people get ahead? Which is better: welfare or the dignity of a real job?
At this stage in American history, of course, Americans need jobs, not welfare.
But let’s leave that aside. Giving Romney the benefit of the doubt, presidential candidates meet with thousands of reporters, and are bound to make some gaffes. It’s to be expected. Just ask Barack Obama, who was visiting 57 states on the 2008 campaign trail.
What is perhaps more important is how Romney dealt with his gaffe.
Did he talk about what it would take to create millions of jobs here? No. At the first sign of trouble on sensitive economic issues, Romney renewed his support for automatic hikes in the minimum wage indexed to inflation, something that has never been attempted before at the federal level.
Get full story here.
Obama/Biden Fundraising...Show Them The Money!
Video by Frank McCaffrey
Get permalink here.
The horrors of campaign finance
By Adam Bitely
You can set your watch by the media stories that always come out in each election bemoaning the amount of money that is spent by campaigns. It’s always the same, no matter the changes in laws that seem to happen rather routinely. There is always too much money being spent and serious reforms to limit that money would make elections more palatable, the media elites claim.
But is this so? Is there really too much money being spent to win elected office?
Consider the election for the presidency. If one becomes President, they immediately are perceived to be the most powerful man in the world. The winner becomes the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces and can deploy the military wherever they please — whether or not that is spelled out in the Constitution is another debate — but nonetheless, the winner controls the world’s most powerful military force. The winner also gets to veto any legislation they want from Congress and has the potential to change the landscape of the Supreme Court. And you also get to live in the White House.
All of the above and many more powers and perks can be yours for a price of about $1 billion and enough support from the electorate. And the $1 billion comes from donors, not all of it is from your own bank account!
If you ask me, that seems like a remarkable deal!
Consider what companies spend to run a successful marketing campaign. When McDonald’s launches a new product, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get people in the store to purchase the latest McSandwich. When Microsoft rolls out their latest products, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure you upgrade your computer. And who even knows the price tag for running a successful marketing campaign for Coca-Cola.
But when it comes to becoming the most powerful man in the world, we are supposed to believe that money should not be a factor in attaining the power of the presidency?
Get full story here.
.png)
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured commentary from Zerohedge.com, the Congressional Budget Office’s analyses may be influenced by special interests pushing their own agenda:
.png)
Is The CBO Merely Another Manipulated Front For Wall Street To Dictate Washington Policy?
In the past, when discussing the goalseeking C-grade excel jockeys at the Congressional Budget Office (or CBO), we have not been technically full of reverence. After all when one uses a phrase such as this one: "What do the NAR, Consumer Confidence and CBO forecasts have in common?” If you said, "they are all completely worthless" you are absolutely correct", it may be too late to worry about burned bridges. We do have our reasons: as we pointed out last year, following the whole US downgrade fiasco when the Treasury highlighted the CBO's sterling work in presenting a US future so bright, Timmy "TurboTax" G had to wear shades, we said "according to the same CBO back in 2001, net US indebtedness in 2011 would be negative $2.436 trillion, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP would be 4.8%, total budget surplus would be $889 billion, and GDP would be $16.9 trillion." As we know now they were off only by a modest $17.5 trillion on that debt forecast. Yet we never attributed to malice and bias and outright corruption, what simple stupidity and gross incompetence could easily explain. Until today that is, when following a WSJ article, we are left wondering just how deep does the CBO stench truly go and whether its employees are far more corrupt than merely stupid?
As a reminder, the CBO is "a nonpartisan arm of Congress—employs analysts and economists who are charged with trying to estimate the potential financial impact of proposed policies and legislation." So far so good - they also happen to be beyond worthless at their job, and if they were in the private sector they would be fired with extreme prejudice. Of course, they are government workers, so anything goes. Which is where the problem arises: because while as the WSJ says, the CBO should be impartial, it turns out it is anything but:
“Republican staffers on three Senate committees are pressing a congressional office that scrutinizes federal budget issues and proposed legislation over how its assessments are compiled. The inquiries of the Congressional Budget Office, which haven't been made public, concern the CBO's analyses of some of Washington's most complex and controversial measures, including bills on financial regulation, health care, small-business lending and efforts to aid the housing market, said people familiar with the matter.
“As part of the inquiries, some Republican committee staffers are examining whether CBO officials adequately monitored and disclosed the role of Wall Street banks, academic researchers with government ties and other outside advisers, the people said. They are pushing for greater transparency in the CBO's dealings with advisers, to shed light on the role of outside interests in shaping the office's views, the people said.”
Get full story here.
