Political Potpouri

(1.) The Obama administration has practiced no self-restraint when it comes to commandeering the auto industry, trying to control and limit our exercise of second amendment rights, trampling boldly and broadly on our first amendment rights, and hijacking health care.  This administration has no trouble at all extending its reach into broad areas of human life that the Constitution sequesters from it.  But it simply cannot find the will to do the things the Constitution requires, like securing the borders.  Indeed, it will sue the states that, desperate for the border control the federal government refuses to provide, try to provide it for themselves.

(2.) The number of those no longer in the work force has grown by 8.5 million under Obama.  Those millions hoped for change, but the change they got wasn't the change they hoped for.  Oh yeah, those 8.5 million aren't counted in the unemployment percentage, so even if their number grew to 18.5 million, government unemployment numbers might still actually improve, at which time the gov't would declare it all a rousing success, and the benighted American voters would reward the economic wrecking crew by sending them back into office.

(3.) At this moment in time, because of the staggering ignorance of the American voter, America is becoming Detroit.  Our electorate seems incapable of continued self-government.  I say this so that you will know what your public schools produce.  Save your country.  Home school.  If you are a Democrat, you don’t need to home school.  All you need to do is send Suzy and Johnny off each morning to the local socialist indoctrination facility where the teachers, the principal, and the NEA will produce millions of mind-numbed little lefties for you.

      

(4.) Tax rates and other anti-business government policies stifle investment and, therefore, job production.  So, when Obama changes his policies, businesses will gladly invest the (literally) trillions of dollars they now prudently are holding in reserve. But BHO won't do that. He's too busy trying to put the coal industry out of business and investing in green energy offerings that keep dying.  He is anti-business, and he's getting what he wants -- less and less big business.  And if, despite the current bad investment environment, some courageous, insightful, and hard-working entrepreneurs still succeed building up a thriving business against all odds, he'll tell them that they didn't build that.  He's bad for America in more ways than anyone can count.  Period.

Doubling Down on Ignorance and Failure

         You can no more break the laws of economics than you can break the law of gravity.  Try if you must, but the outcome is certain:  Rather than break such laws, you break yourself against them.  And if, against all sense, you try it again, the result will be the same.  Doubling down on ignorance and failure means more ignorance and more failure, not success.

         By re-electing Barack Obama, the American voters have doubled down on ignorance and failure.  They obviously think the boneheaded policies that led to:

(1) higher unemployment,

(2) lower household income,

(3) more jobs going overseas,

(4) the greatest one-term growth in national debt in history,

(5) expanded intergenerational dependency on the state,

(6) trillions of dollars of fiat money flooding the market place, and

(7) millions more persons living in poverty and on food stamps

will magically lead to something completely different in the future.

         It’s not going to happen.

         If you still think that the most partisan president is really the post-partisan president, then don’t be surprised if partisanship flourishes even more in the next term than it did in the last, when the Republicans were literally locked out of health care reform discussions and debates, and when every budget passed by the Republican-led House was killed in the Democrat-led Senate – every one.  If that’s what you think about partisanship, you are not thinking at all.  You are not even paying attention. 

         If you think that the Democrats, who failed to pass even one budget in four years will suddenly start passing them now, much less governing according to those budgets, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

         If you think that the politically motivated failure to protect our own land and personnel overseas against terrorist attacks on the anniversary of 9/11, despite repeated and desperate pleas for help coming from the victims themselves, and that the Obama administration’s craven lies and misdirection that for weeks followed the slaughter will make for a safer America or a safer world, you are the Jihadist’s dream come true.

         If you think that a culture that slaughters its babies for convenience or for money won’t slaughter its elderly for the same reasons, then please don’t be surprised when you, your friends, or your family are eventually disposed of by the very bureaucracy charged, ironically, with national health care.  Your capital offense, the thing that lowers the death sentence upon you:  Getting older and getting expensive.  When the choice is between you and money, and when the government has no money, you die.  Please notice:  the government has no money.    

         If you think that Barack Obama failed so miserably in his first term because he inherited a mess, then how can you expect anything but proportionally greater failure from him when he tries to fix the even greater mess he inherited from himself?

         Or, if you want it in an epigram:  “If you fail to learn the easy way, then you are doomed to learn the hard way, if you learn at all.”

Why I Don't Believe the Goverment's Unemployment Numbers

         In order to estimate current national unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does two surveys, the household survey and the establishment survey (explained below).  Of the two, the household survey is traditionally the more volatile and unpredictable.  Because of the many ways its questions can be asked and the selection of those to whom those questions are directed, this survey is more susceptible to manipulation.  Right now, BLS asks those questions, by telephone, of 60,000 households.  From those telephone answers, it begins to extrapolate an unemployment percentage for the entire nation of more than 300 million persons.  As but a moment’s reflection makes clear, the data thus gleaned, extrapolated, and estimated are highly susceptible to manipulation before, during, and after their acquisition.  Not surprisingly, the great change in joblessness numbers comes from this survey, not the other

         This time through, without any precursors of an impending enormous change over the previous months, even years, we hear from that survey that 800,000 folks somehow suddenly found new jobs in September.  How September produced a roughly 600% rise in new jobs virtually overnight compared to previous months and years is not explained.  What specific policy change prompted this towering improvement?   Or if no new or even recent policy change was enacted, then why and how did old policies produce such a tremendous effect now and not at some other time?

         If the current establishment survey, which focuses on businesses rather than households, showed the same kind of unexpected growth, then I might be far less suspicious.  But it does not.  In the establishment survey, we find that only about 114,000 jobs were created, which, not surprisingly, is on par with previous months.  We also see that the manufacturing sector actually lost 16,000 jobs last month, also not surprising.

         Because of the wide discrepancies in these two reports, Steve Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, said, "This is the weirdest report I've seen in 20 years."  Charles Payne, of wstreet.com, said this is "extraordinarily fishy."

         Indeed.

         Normally to see unemployment numbers like the ones just released would require an economic growth rate of around 4% per year, maybe more.  But last month our growth rate was just a shade above 1%.  That's another way of saying that I'm not buying it.

         Apparently others folks are having the same difficulty.  Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journalpolled 25 leading economists.  Their aggregate estimate for the upcoming report was 113,000 new jobs, which prediction was almost spot on.  On that basis, they also estimated 8.14% joblessness.  But instead, this report says joblessness fell to 7.8%, even though new unemployment claims actually rose to more than 340,000 for the week.  The difference between those two percentages is enormous.  What real-world explanation makes sense of it all?

         Here’s my guess:

         In the last two months, government hiring has increased by a little more than 600,000 jobs.  That massive increase happened not because the government just inherited lots of extra money and has lots of new shovel ready jobs to fill.  No; not even close.   To me, the recent enormous government hiring increase over the two months just before the election was meant to alter the outcome.   Its timing, just before the election and just after a crushing debate defeat, seems to me more than a little suspicious.  That suspicion gives rise to another:  Did the BLS change the way it asked its questions or changed the way it selected the folks of whom they asked them?  Did it alter the way it makes its estimates?  If so, BLS needs to tell us.  That second suspicion raises a third:  Is it no more than a mere coincidence that two of the most prominent BLS economic tabulators are Obama supporters and donors?

         I don’t know.  These are theories, just theories.

         But I do know this:  If you counted all those who are unemployed in America but don't want to be, the actual number is almost 15%.