Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts

Friday, January 31, 2014

How Is Your State Of The Union?

Last Tuesday evening, the President delivered the annual State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress. To many, it seemed a fairly easy to take list of modest goals with few sharp edges and nothing too inflammatory to offend the loyal opposition. Yes, I know, I know, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) was so mortified at the President's willful and brazen shredding of the Constitution that he was compelled to walk out during the address. Stockman is a professional boob who has mounted one of the most ridiculous and certain to fail campaigns we've seen in a long time. Stockman is an outlier, in more than one way. Soon, Stockman will be out of a job, too.

I've been thinking about my State of the Union. It compares in many ways to President Obama's remarks earlier this week. Generally speaking, my family and I seem to be heading in the right direction, although not as fast as we'd like. There are things we've accomplished, like seeing our kids move into their college years with a desire to further their education. We've paid down our debt, to the lowest amount its been in years. We've addressed some infrastructure issues on our property. For the most part, everything works as its supposed to here at the Corfield household. Sure, there's a list of things we'd still like to do. My wife wants me to replace a ceiling fan in one of the kids rooms, I'd like to install an exhaust fan on the roof, and replace the rear entrance completely. We'll need a few tons of gravel by Springtime and there's some plumbing issues we need to address after the weather breaks related to our well. Emotionally, I think I continue to grow and absorb all sorts of things around me I failed to notice when I was younger. Relationship wise, my marriage seems to be as strong as ever, our bonds have deepened over time and we genuinely enjoy each other's company, even after 23 years.

Financially, we're considered slightly better off than the typical middle-class family is. Both my wife and I have two college degrees and have put them to good use. She works in largest hospital in our area and has put her Masters degree in nursing to good use. I've parlayed my degree in Marketing and 15+ years of retail management experience into my own small business, which is very healthy as I head into my 18th year of providing and performing music for Seniors in Southwest Ohio. We enjoy a fairly high level of satisfaction professional speaking. We're pretty darn happy.

The dictionary definition of the word union, as it applies to this blogpost, says the following:

Union (noun)

a) An act or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one.
b) A unified condition.

Like our politics, families all too often fall into the trap of distorted viewpoints or perspective. Its very easy to dwell or focus on the things that aren't working, the things we want to change rather than find a happy balance by recognizing the things that are going well. Life isn't just the bad stuff and its not just the good stuff. Its all that stuff. Every day, every week every year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Republicans and especially Speaker of the House John Boehner love to say "The American people want to know where are the jobs, Mister President?" Would we like more jobs to be created? Of course we would. In the first few months of 2009, after Barack Obama took office, the economy was losing jobs by numbers that can only be described as staggering and terrifying. Eight-hundred thousand jobs lost a month as Obama brought his Administration on the job. The economy contracting (getting smaller) by 8.9% in the 4th quarter of 2008.

Where are we now? 46 straight months of job growth, an impressive streak for sure. The unemployment rate, clearly an imperfect metric but the standard nonetheless, which peaked at slightly above 10% in late 2009, sat at 6.7% in December 2013. Clearly better? Yes, What we want? No. Keep in mind, the average unemployment rate from 1948 through 2013 was 5.83%. The average. For every hundred people looking for work, roughly 94 were working through that time period of over 60 years. Right now, roughly 1 more person of those hundred people I just mentioned is still looking for work. 93 people are employed.

This as we continue to recover, albeit slowly, from the second worst economic collapse in the United States of the two hundred years. Only the Great Depression outranks it.

My point? Its the job, I suppose of the loyal opposition to find fault with the sitting president and his party on any number of things, including unemployment. But keep in mind, we're pretty close to what the average has been for the last 60+ years, so when you hear the suggestion that the economy is dying, unemployment is at crushing levels, well, its just talk. Its just politics. Its up to you how you choose to look at things.

Fortunately, we don't usually face the same obstruction in our personal lives. If we do, its much easier to address the issue directly and find a way to resolve it. Perspective is critical in our personal lives. If we become too transfixed on making money, we tend to do so at the expense of other valuable things. Sure, not a single reader of this column has too much money, I'll bet. We all would like more. I would.

I've found thinking of the word "union" over the past few days, its a little easier to think in broader way. Money and financial worth is only a part of our lives and I'd caution everyone to not lose your minds over it. Things happen damn fast in this life. A tender moment with your spouse, a teaching moment with a child, a moment of true friendship with a friend, are special things that, as the old saying goes, money can't buy.

I'm not saying don't attack your goals aggressively. Go after what you want and work as hard and as smart as you can. Just leave time to tune into the other frequencies broadcast around you. Its not impossible to work it all in. A balance in life or a successful "union of your state" will have a pretty neat benefit on your pursuit of a more impressive balance sheet over time.


Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address/2014/01/28/e0c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/01/29/steve-stockman-sotu

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/09/03/america-is-definitely-better-off-under-obama

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Minimum Wage: How the Danes Do It...

Reihan Salam, columnist for the conservative National Review, writes today about how the Danish handle their minimum wage, and how it compares to how its handled in America.

Go read it...

The Minimum Wage Debate, Danish Edition...




Source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/357746/minimum-wage-debate-danish-edition-reihan-salam

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Still Unsure on Why Health Care is So Expensive in the US, Watch This...

New York bestselling author John Green has put out a short but well done video on why we pay so much more than other countries do for health care. Nothing really new here, but the material is put together in a very easy to swallow and entertaining fashion. (H/T to A. Carroll, TIE for this treat...)



Learn more about John Green here...

Source: http://johngreenbooks.com/

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Hillary, Equal Rights, Constitutional Hypocrisy, Guns, Race, Obama paycheck stunt...

A mixed bag today:

1) Hillary Clinton is very likely to run for President in 2016. The Democratic field she'd have to conquer isn't a very impressive or deep one at this time and I suspect it would be a short primary season for her. Her biggest obstacle is Joe Biden, and unless some controversy arises with Mrs. Clinton, (Bhengazi?) that can't be managed, I don't see him getting in her way.

2) I get the problem for congressmen and women when it comes to equal rights. In many places, their constituents don't really want equal rights. Yes, often these are the same people yammering about the destruction of the Constitution under this President and his Administration, but too often when the rubber hits the road, people don't really want equal rights for everyone. Many strong religion voices in our country get upset at the (mostly imagined) idea of the war on Christians. Ask these folks how they feel about Islam being taught in our schools and you'll see what I mean.

3) Several politicians have stepped up and proudly announced, like President Obama did before the election, that after much personal reflection they now feel all Americans deserve a fully recognized and equal right to marry the person of their choice. I didn't get too misty-eyed when Obama finally got around to it and I'm not getting too excited now. The list of those whose "evolution" had come out in favor of same sex marriage grows by the day. Almost always its a matter of political expediency. The 14th Amendment doesn't leave out certain groups, it says no person shall be denied equal protection under the law. Period.

4) Who can miss the irony that so many pro-gun folks who can recite the 2nd Amendment by memory but poo-poo any attempt to "interpret" its meaning consider those who want to apply the same standard to the 14th as some clear cut sign of lunacy? Hypocrites.

5) I wish the pro gun-reform folks who like to post pictures referring to the Newtown, CT shooting would stop. While it does play on our emotions when you do that, its not going to help the reform effort at all. Realize this. Massacres like that are almost impossible to prevent. Crazy people do crazy things. Hopefully, we get better as a society at stopping them. Any serious gun policy won't aim (sorry) at the random, insane acts that happen infrequently. Rather, it would attempt to get a better grip on controlling the manufacturing (smaller clips/magazines), better regulating all sales and creating an improved background check system. We should control all the guns in the country at least as well as we control our cars and trucks.

6) We all should be asking ourselves why it took a string of senseless shootings of mostly white people to get (hopefully meaningful) gun reform on the table again. While the murder of 20 small kids turns anyone's stomach, the overall numbers are striking:

Recent gun related shootings and # of deaths: 

April 1999: Columbine shooting - 13 dead
April 2007: Virginia Tech shooting - 32 dead
April 2009: Binghamton, NY office shooting - 13 dead

November 2009: Ft. Hood shooting - 13 dead
January 2011: Tuscon shopping ctr. shooting - 6 dead
April 2012: Oikos University - 7 dead
July 2012: Aurora Theater - 12 dead
August 2012: Wisconsin Sikh shooting - 6 dead

December 2012: Newtown school shooting - 26 dead

...Nine gun related attacks resulting in 128 deaths and even more injuries. While there was some increase in the general discussion on the need to improve gun laws in this country, it wasn't until our President wept openly before cameras the afternoon of the Newtown shootings that we collectively sat up and took notice.

...Looking at one city - Chicago, over a two year period, we see: 

2011 Chicago gun related deaths: 433
2012 Chicago gun related deaths: 535
TWO YEAR TOTAL: 968 deaths...

I'm not suggesting this is apples and apples, but my point stands. We mostly stand by quietly on the urban area shootings day after day while the body count increases well into the hundreds, but finally dub it a call to action when 20 children are wiped out in under ten minutes in the suburbs. Maybe its the sheer number we saw in Newtown or Tuscon, Ft. Hood, etc. but numbers equal to those or higher occur on average every week in Chicago.

We as a country don't seem to especially care if a group of us get gunned down from time to time. If its a group of small school children, then yes, we'll emote for a while and perhaps pass some mild changes into law. If its 6-10 blacks or latino folks losing their lives to a bullet every week in our cities, we really, as proved by our collective actions, don't give a shit...

7) President Obama continues to have a tin ear when it comes to avoiding unnecessary wrong notes. While the Country is coping with the effects of the sequestration, a by product of the inability of both Congress and the White House to avoid its across the board spending cuts, the first family is taking flak for its vacations. Never mind that Mr. Obama has taken less time off than his predecessor did, never mind that the Obama's pay for everything out of their own pocket except for security above and beyond the allocated $50,000 given to them for "expenses" and the $100,000 provided for travel. While we can dismiss the asshats like Sean Hannity for his role in this, I again wonder why this administration continues to throw these softballs right down the middle for his opponents to smack out of the park? This is not a first family that spends lavishly or excessively as some would suggest, but the appearance is damning just the same. The President's announcement this week that he will give back 5% of his salary to stand with those who have been hurt by the sequestration is a cheap stunt. Mr. Obama has a net worth of over 11 Million dollars and a fortune beyond anything I can imagine waiting for him once he steps away from public service. He's not going to miss  the 20K he'll give back. Its this sort of "out of touch-ness" that pisses people off.

I have supported this President and usually defend his actions. Perhaps he has decided he has no more elections to worry about, that no matter what he does or doesn't do he will be criticized by his detractors, etc. so damn the torpedoes, the Obama's will do what they want without regard to public perception. For all the offensive crap they've had to absorb as a family, perhaps he's entitled. But it comes at a cost.


Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/02/tennessee-gops-plan-to-shove-jesus-down-our-throat-goes-
hilariously-wrong/

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/02/05/have-your-schools-been-indoctrinated-with-whitewashed-islamic-propaganda-yet/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/thousands_of_young_black_men_die_in_gun_crimes_every_year.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/health/trauma-centers-guns

http://raniakhalek.com/2012/12/17/do-white-children-have-to-die-for-lawmakers-to-give-a-shit/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/us/politics/to-highlight-pain-of-budget-cuts-obama-to-return-of-part-of-pay.html?_r=0

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/barack-obama-net-worth/

Friday, March 8, 2013

New Poll Shows Clinton/Christie at Front of 2016 Presidential Pack...

According to a new poll from Quinnipiac University, Democrat and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would defeat both Vice President Joe Biden or New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic Nomination if the election was held today. For Republicans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie leads fellow Republicans Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin.


Remember, polls are a snapshot of current opinions. Keep in mind that Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll last election cycle and we know how that turned out, don't we?


The poll also found that Hispanic voters prefer Clinton to Marco Rubio by a significant margin, (60-24%). A stat that likely sends chills down the backs of GOP party leaders.

The poll also reveals that President Obama is trusted more than Congress is when it comes to the economy (44-40), health care(46-41) and immigration (45-40).

Also from the poll this info on gun reform:

By an 88 - 10 percent margin, including 85 - 13 percent among voters in households with guns, American voters support background checks for all gun buyers. Voters also support 54 - 41 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons and back 54 - 42 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds. 

The poll was conducted between February 27th to March 4th, surveying over 1900 registered voters.

Sources:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1861

Unemployment Drops to 7.7%, lowest since Dec. '08...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the the unemployment rate in the US dropped to 7.7% for February. The unemployment rate had ticked up slightly to 7.9% in January. This is the lowest  rate the country has seen since December of 2008, the last full month of  George W. Bush administration and the month following the election of Barack Obama into office for his first term.

The improvement came across several job sectors including retail, healthcare, construction and information services.

Here's several stories on the new numbers. Make of the numbers and these opinions, what you will. Keep in mind, there's still roughly twelve million people unemployed in the US, many for a substantial period of time, during which skills erode, technology advances, prospects look grim for the long term unemployed (27 weeks or more). The long term unemployed make up over 40% of the total unemployed in the country.

You can read the actual Bureau Summary here.

You can read the actual labor report here.

What the White House is saying here.

Wall Street Journal coverage here.

NBC News coverage here.

Fox News coverage here.

Newsmax coverage here.

Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2013/03/08/live-from-new-york-its-jobs-friday-23/?mod=e2tw

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/unemployment-rate-drops-lowest-four-years-1C8767810

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/08/unemployment-rate-falls-to-77-percent-in-february/?test=latestnews

http://www.newsmax.com/Economy/Jobs-Unemployment-rate-payrolls/2013/03/08/id/493792

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The Latest from Bruce Bartlett: "The worst possible way to cut spending"

Bartlett's columns are always a good read.

A preview of his newest work, from Tuesday's New York Times...


The Worst Possible Way to Cut Spending


One big problem in the sequestration debate is that both sides have been talking past each other, with unstated assumptions underlying their statements and positions. There is also a great deal of posturing going on that disguises more agreement than the public knows.
Contrary to popular belief, Democrats don’t disagree that many programs could be cut substantially without harming government’s core mission. The problem is twofold. First, they disagree with Republicans on which programs are wasteful. Second, Republicans tend to believe that any program they disagree with, philosophically, is, per se, money wasted.The guiding Republican premise is that there is a vast amount of fat and waste in the federal government. Just as when individuals are overweight, a diet will improve their health.

Source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/the-worst-possible-way-to-cut-spending/


Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea...

The conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute's Ramesh Ponnuru says the popular right wing goal of a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea and a waste of time.

" All the Republicans and 22 of the Democrats in the Senate, plus all the Republicans and 56 of the Democrats in the House, would have to vote for the idea to send it to the states. Then three-quarters of the states, which have grown increasingly dependent on federal deficit spending to keep their own budgets in balance, would have to ratify it. The amendment isn’t going anywhere.
Voters already know that Republicans are concerned about the deficit. Exit polls during the 2012 presidential election showed that voters favored the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, over President Barack Obama by two percentage points as a deficit-cutter. The 15 percent of voters who said the deficit was their top issue backed Romney 2 to 1.
The Republican Party has a lot of problems. A fight over the Balanced Budget Amendment would, at best, solve one it doesn’t have."
Is he right?

Read the whole thing here...

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-18/balanced-budget-amendment-still-a-terrible-idea-ramesh-ponnuru.html

Thursday, January 31, 2013

4th Quarter GDP Growth Declines...Government's Fault? Yes, but...

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein writes this morning in his Wonkblog about the decline in the economy in the 4th quarter of 2012:

"...the government is hurting the recovery, and badly. But it’s not because it’s spending too much, or because of concerns over future policy. It’s because government, at all levels, is spending and investing too little. Despite the stimulus and various other policies we’ve passed to help the recovery, and despite the large deficits the government has been running, government spending and investment have, at all levels, been contractionary since 2010."

That's right. Government spending is too little right now, which hurts, well, businesses that do business with the Government. The biggest decline in Federal spending in the 4th Quarter was by the Pentagon, which cut their purchases by a beefy 22.2%. If the Pentagon hadn't cut spending so severely, the economy would've seen a small but steady growth of about 1.27%. 

Some economists feel this is no indication that the economy is in danger of falling back into a recession. "Frankly, this is the best looking contraction in GDP you'll ever see," Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist of Capital Economics wrote in a research note. Consumption growth rose by 2.2 percent, up from 1.6 percent in the third quarter, and business investment also climbed by 8.4 percent. "There is nothing in these figures to change our view that US GDP growth will accelerate as this year goes on."

Consumer spending and business investment both showed strong performances, which aligns with the widespread expectation of a more robust economy through most of 2013. 


Sources: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/government-is-hurting-the-economy-by-spending-too-little/?wprss=rss_business&wpisrc=nl_wonk

http://www.nationaljournal.com//economy/early-data-says-the-economy-contracted-at-the-end-of-last-year-don-t-panic-yet-20130130

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578273611039517142.html





Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Fact Checking the 2nd Presidential Debate/Ten Websites to Review...

After every Presidential debate, various fact-checkers get to work immediately to separate fact from fiction from both participants. Reasonable Conversation has compiled a list of ten different factchecks from around the internet to provide a convenient "one-stop" place for your perusal.

The good folks at Politfact.com were hot on the trail of truth after last night's second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. They've posted updated evaluations of claims made by both men on several different topics: Jobs, Energy, Taxes/Spending, Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy and Education. Its a mixed bag of results showing that both men took liberties with the truth as they saw fit.

Not to be outdone, Factcheck.org has also posted their version of fact checking last evening's debate, covering many of the same issues. Here's the overview from their piece posted earlier this morning:

The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.
  • Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
  • Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
  • Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
  • Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
  • Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
  • Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
  • Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
  • Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.
Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.
Other publications providing factchecking of the debate include The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, Fox News offers a factcheck on President Obama's claim he called the events in Libya "terrorism" in the days following the death of four Americans. The Chicago Tribune, CBS News, Bloomberg and Politico also weigh in.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Why doesn't the media call politicians on their bs?


Economist Dean Baker, co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote a terrific column last Spring that came to mind over the last few days. It discusses the lack of follow-through from most mainstream media sources when it comes to calling politicians on their hyperbole, their exaggerations and at times their plain old misinformation they resort to when answering questions. In this column, Baker discusses two different subjects. The meme that if we drilled, baby drilled, we could solve our problem at the pumps when it comes to the cost of a gallon of gasoline here in the USA. The second topic he comments is the state of our Social Security program.

Even though the column is almost a year old, I thinks its especially timely when it comes to our fuel prices. What Mr. Baker said back in March of 2011, holds true still today...

Its titled, "The Imaginary World in Which Washington Lives"


Dean Baker
Truthout, March 23, 2011



It is a beautiful spring day in Washington. This is a nice respite from the horrors taking place in Japan and the ever-growing nuttiness of D.C. politics. Enjoying the weather provides a nice alternative to listening to the news or reading the newspaper.

The flood of nonsense in the traditional news outlets just continues to grow. At the top of the list is the steady stream of senators or members of Congress whose response to higher gas prices is to insist on drilling in every square inch of environmentally sensitive territory in the country. This is supposed to reduce our dependence on imported oil and lower the price of gas. Both sides of this assertion are absurd.

According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States has proven reserves of 22.3 billion barrels of oil. Given our current rate of consumption of 6.9 billion barrels a year, U.S. reserves could meet our demand for oil for less than 3.5 years. That means if we could somehow drill here, now, and everywhere, we could be energy independent until the middle of 2014 and then we would be 100 percent dependent on imported oil.
Of course, we cannot suddenly suck all the oil out of the ground at once, it takes time to explore and drill wells and then the oil must be drilled out over time. If we decided that we want to destroy every last national park and coastal region, we may be able to increase production by 1.0-1.5 million barrels a day in 5-10 years. At the high end, this would be a bit less than 2 percent of world supply.


Click here to continue reading...


Source:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-imaginary-world-in-which-washington-lives

Thursday, February 23, 2012

A look at the 4 GOP hopeful's Deficit Reduction plans...


 I found this explanation of a new analysis by the bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) fascinating. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein does a nice job summarizing it.

From this morning's Wonkbook by Ezra Klein:


...According to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, none of Ron Paul's opponents are even running fiscally conservative campaigns. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 The report takes every tax and spending policy the Republican candidates have offered and tallies them up. It does so against what the CRFB calls "a realistic baseline." That's a baseline where all the Bush tax cuts are extended, and many of the scheduled spending cuts are ignored, and debt is piling up. It's a baseline, in other words, in which Congress has made the deficit much worse. A baseline where debt is 86 percent of GDP in 2021. A baseline in which the debt is on a completely unsustainable path. And so, in theory, a baseline so bad that it should be easy for the candidates to appear responsible by comparison. But, with the exception of Paul, they don't.

 Take Santorum. He has not shied away from naming large spending cuts. He would implement Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare reform on an accelerate schedule. He would convert "Medicaid, housing, education, job training, and food stamps” to capped block grants. He would cut Social Security benefits. All in all, CRFB estimates he would reduce spending by over $2 trillion between 2013 and 2021. Unfortunately, his tax cuts would increase debt by more than $6 trillion over the same period. Net impact: $4.5 trillion in new debt, for a debt-to-GDP ratio of 105 percent.

 Newt Gingrich's plan is, remarkably, even worse for our finances. Like Santorum, he would block grant and cap almost everything in sight. In fact, he's promised to block grant and cap more than 100 programs. In total, CRFB estimates his spending cuts would shave $2.7 trillion off of the debt. But Gingrich would also spend $1.6 trillion dollars financing new private accounts for Social Security. And his tax cuts would cost more than $7 trillion. Net impact: $7 trillion in new debt, for a debt-to-GDP ratio of, wait for it, 114 percent.

 Mitt Romney's plan is more difficult to score. He saves $1.2 trillion by block granting Medicaid and cutting the federal workforce. But his new tax plan doesn't have enough detail to say how much it costs. The campaign says it will be revenue neutral, but in part because they assume it will lead to faster economic growth, and thus higher revenues. That's an assumption that would get thrown out if he sent it to Congress. He also hasn't specified which tax breaks he'll eliminate. But if he's sufficiently aggressive in that area, much of his tax plan could ultimately be offset. For now, however, CRFB estimates that if the plan isn't paid for at all, it will add $2.6 trillion to the deficit, leaving Romney's debt-to-GDP at 96 percent. The more deductions and loopholes he closes, the lower that number will be.

 Ron Paul is the only candidate whose plan puts him in the black. His cuts to federal spending are incredibly severe, saving $7.5 trillion. Comparatively, his tax cuts cost $5.2 trillion. And though his plan to end the Federal Reserve would rack up $400 billion in transition cost (and, if we're being real about this, untold trillions in market terror and future financial panics), put it all together and he cuts the deficit by $2.2 trillion, and brings debt-to-GDP down to 76 percent.

 And remember that al these tax cut plans are coming on top of making the Bush tax cuts -- with their $4+ trillion price tag -- permanent. All of this, in some sense, gives the GOP candidates too much credit. Their tax plans, with the possible exception of Romney's, are fantastical. Their proposed spending cuts are far beyond what's plausible. The point is that even unfettered by political reality or operational responsibility, three out of the remaining four candidate have proposed plans that take an unsustainable deficit path and make it significantly worse. And if they can't cut the deficit when they don't have to worry about Congress or the federal bureaucracy or the consequences of actually implementing their proposals, how will they do it when they are burdened by those constraints and concerns?

 You might wonder, of course, where Obama's proposals fit into all this. His budget estimates that debt will be 76.5 percent of GDP in 2021. That's lower than any of the Republican candidates save Paul. Though, CRFB is quick to note that 76.5 percent of GDP is "roughly double historical debt levels" and is not sufficient "to reduce the debt relative to the economy."



Sources:

http://crfb.org/document/primary-numbers-gop-candidates-and-national-debt?wpisrc=nl_wonk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-what-the-gop-candidates-would-really-do-to-deficits/2012/02/23/gIQANQN9UR_blog.html

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

New AP-GfK Poll shows Obama benefiting from improved economy...

The newest poll from AP-GfK on the impact of the improving economy on President Barack Obama...




By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is reaping political benefits from the country’s brighter economic mood. A new poll shows that Republicans and Democrats alike are increasingly saying the nation is heading in the right direction and most independents now approve the way he’s addressing the nation’s post-recession period.
     But trouble could be ahead: Still-struggling Americans are fretting over rising gasoline prices. Just weeks before the summer travel season begins, the Associated Press-GfK survey finds pump prices rising in importance and most people unhappy with how Democratic president has handled the issue.
     It’s seemingly no coincidence that Obama this week is promoting the expansion of domestic oil and gas exploration and the development of new forms of energy.
     It’s his latest attempt to show that he, more than any of the Republican presidential contenders, knows that voters’ pocketbooks remain pinched even as the economy improves overall. And on that question of empathy, solid majorities continue to view him as someone who “understands the problems of ordinary Americans” and “cares about people like you,” the AP-GfK survey found.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Obama For America releases interactive job growth chart...

The Obama Campaign has released a pretty cool interactive job growth graph, which shows in some detail the last four years of job growth (or loss) with accompanying legislation...

Click on the chart for interactivity...

Monday, January 16, 2012

Obama vs. Bush on Job Creation...

I came across this graph today being touted by David Axlerod as proof positive that President Obama has produced a steady, consistent track record of job creation over the last twenty-two months. It also seems to compare favorably to Obama's predecessor, George Bush.

Let's take a look...

In this first graph, the one being spread around by the Obama camp, we see a graph that runs from December 2007 through December 2011...(Click on the chart to enlarge it...)


Clearly we can see how the graph begins to show a reduction in job losses within a few months of Obama taking office in January, 2009. Gross Job creation (I don't know if these are new jobs created or old jobs re-created. For my purposes here, I won't differentiate) kicks in around early Spring in 2010, which began the current streak of 22 months of job creation.

This chart provides us with only a year of the Bush Administration's performance. I wanted to see further back, prior to the dates in the above graph. Let's look at this chart which shows the bulk of the Bush tenure in the White House. The title of the chart is different from the previous chart but they're measuring the same thing...(Again, please click on the chart to enlarge it...)


Hmmm...

A little more complete picture emerges, eh?

Yes, the Obama administration is growing jobs consistently, but the Bush administration had done so for roughly four years, from January 02 (reduction in jobs lost) to actual job growth through January 06. It's a little unfair to Mr. Bush to snag the worst of his numbers and compare to the rosiest of the Obama numbers.

Unemployment and job creation are pretty fluid metrics if we look at the bigger picture. Bush had two significant downturns during his eight years, and his period of growth didn't seem to gain back the losses fully. Obama walked into a terrible situation and while it looks better than it has for along time, we're still topping out at around two hundred thousand jobs per month. Which is less than the high end numbers Bush was able to realize between '04 and '06.

There's plenty to cherry pick to make either president look better or worse than they really deserve. I do think its a bit self-serving for the Obama camp to clip off most of Bush's healthier years. I know why they did it, but its still a bit weak.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Unemployment rate falls to 8.6 percent in November, raising hopes for growth - The Washington Post

Unemployment rate falls to 8.6 percent in November, raising hopes for growth - The Washington Post:

Yes, the 8.6% number is a nice number on its surface, there are still many reasons to not break out the bubbly.

1) Some 350,000 people left the labor workforce, meaning people who have looked so long in vain, they've stopped looking. Those people just aren't being counted anymore. Hardly a victory...

2) Of the new jobs, 50,000 of them are retail sector jobs, many of which may be seasonal hires for the Holidays. These jobs may not exists come January...

3) As many signs point toward a slow, steady recovery with the economy, if people who have left the workforce decide to resume looking for work again, they'll be added back into the computations, which will likely increase the overall unemployment rate.

Bottom line, yes, it's a nice number that President Obama can gently refer to over the next few weeks as some good news. I'll need to see a pattern of sustained improvement over a period of a few months before I get too excited. I think the chances are higher that the unemployment rates increases in the first quarter of 2012 than it decreases.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Palin says to "...eliminate all energy subsidies."

Real Clear Politics has this...which I agree with:


Palin: Eliminate All Energy Subsidies

By Scott Conroy

DILLSBURG, Pa. -- Asked Tuesday whether she supports the federal subsidy of ethanol, an always critical issue in the presidential nominating cycle, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went one step further and called for the elimination of all energy subsidies.
"I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated," Palin told RCP during a quick stop at a coffee shop in this picturesque town tucked into the south-central Pennsylvania countryside. "And we need to make sure that we're investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren't going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can't afford it."
Continue reading here..

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Fortune 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues

Fortune 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues

There's been a good bit of talk about Corporate Subsidies and Profit Margins this week. Here's the data on where most major industries fall in terms of corporate profit margins. Oil manufacturers are in the top ten, but show a margin half of what the highest earners show.