April 6, 2011

‘Con-Temporary Economy’ Graph of the Day

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:07 pm

The “must have charts” crowd will love this — well, the fact that it’s a chart, not what’s in it:

JobsSinceJune2009TempNonTemp0311

For the first eight months the recession ended in June 2009, employers continually and consistently added to their rosters of employees obtained through temporary help services, even as they on the whole continued to let their own workers go. In the past 21 months, 508,000 temps have been added to the workforce; the rest of the private sector has gained 128,000 jobs (that number was negative until March); total non-temp employment in the economy is STILL down by 263,000.

This is how employers have responded to the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy’s pervasive uncertainty.

Thus, even now, no meaningful dent in terms of permanent, full-time employment has been made in:
- the 6.75 million jobs that were lost during the POR Economy’s recession as normal people define it.
- the 6.93 million jobs that were lost starting when the POR Economy began (roughly June 1, 2008) to the end of its recession.
- the 7.41 million jobs that were lost during the December 2007 – June 2009 recession as the National Bureau of Economic Research (erroneously) defined it.

But it’s not Obama’s fault (/sarc).

Latest Pajamas Media Column (‘Don’t Call It the Obama Economy: It’s Not His Fault’) Is Up

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Friday (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

_____________________________________

Related: On March 30, Liz Sidoti at the Associated Press celebrated the results of an AP-sanctioned poll (bold is mine) –

For all the talk of recovery, Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about the economy as soaring gas costs strain already-tight budgets. But so far, people aren’t taking it out on President Barack Obama, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows.

Well Liz, maybe not yet. If that’s really true, it’s because in the press, the economic news never-ever-ever has anything to do with what this administration has or hasn’t done.

To name just one example, Marty Crutsinger at the AP continually tells readers that the trillion-dollar plus deficits this administration has racked up were inevitable at first and necessary after that because of stimulus spending and higher transfer payments brought about by the recession (read: George W. Bush really caused them). Poor Barack Obama had no choice but to run those deficits.

But “somehow,” Ronald Reagan, who was president during the last serious U.S. recession, didn’t have to run up massive deficits (there were deficits, but nothing like Obama’s, even after adjusting for inflation). Reagan also didn’t have to intervene in key industries like housing, autos, and energy to bring about an economic recovery; Team Obama’s interventions in those three industries have clearly hurt them all.

The economy under Reagan generated over 5 million jobs in the first seven quarters after its recession ended. As shown in the Pajamas Media column and in more detail here yesterday, during Obama’s first seven quarters of “recovery,” after excluding an unprecedented 500,000-plus spike in employment at temporary help services, the economy has still lost jobs on top of those lost during the recession.

Under Reagan, we had a booming post-recession economy. Under Obama, we have a “Con-Temporary Economy.”

__________________________________________________

UPDATE: Things look really bad for Team Obama when one takes Reagan out of the graphic at yesterday’s post (his performance was so off-the-charts that it makes everyone else look tiny by comparison), and excludes temps from the total jobs and private-sector numbers –

JobsAdded21mosPostRecNonTemps0311

Now it’s the Bush 43 post tax-cut performance that puts Obama’s to shame. Even Bush 41′s “Worst economic record in the last 50 years” (remember that crap?) looks much better.

Positivity: ‘Miracle nun’ to star in John Paul beatification

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 5:58 am

From Vatican City:

Apr 5, 10:11 AM EDT

A French nun whose inexplicable cure from Parkinson’s disease was the miracle needed to beatify Pope John Paul II will have a starring role in the Vatican’s three-day, around-the-clock beatification extravaganza, officials said Tuesday.

Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, as well as John Paul’s closest aide, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, and longtime spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, will all speak about their experiences with the beloved pope at a prayer vigil at Rome’s Circus Maximus on the eve of the May 1 beatification.

The Vatican on Tuesday released details about the ceremonies, which are expected to draw some 300,000 people to the Eternal City on charter trains, planes and boats. Tent cities are being planned at two locations outside the city in case hotel rooms become scarce.

Eight churches in Rome’s historic center will remain open all night from April 30 to May 1 for a “white night” of prayer reminiscent of the all-night cultural events that Rome and many other cities organize, said Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the pope’s vicar for the diocese of Rome which is organizing many of the events.

St. Peter’s Basilica itself is expected to keep its doors open well into the night of May 1 to accommodate the faithful who want to pray before John Paul’s tomb, which will be moved upstairs from the grottoes underneath the basilica for the occasion.

The tomb will find a new permanent resting place in a chapel tucked just inside the entrance of St. Peter’s, for better access by the faithful, displacing the remains of Pope Innocent XI, who is being moved farther away, said the Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

New DNC Chair Schultz Has Had Several ‘I Know Nothing’ Moments

schultz

In the 1965-1971 comedy series “Hogan’s Heroes,” prison guard Sergeant Schultz is a “bumbling, highly unmilitary 325-pound Sergeant of the Guard. Schultz is a basically good-hearted man who, when confronted by evidence of the prisoners’ covert activities, will simply look the other way, repeating ‘I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!’”

Reviewing past NewsBusters posts featuring or concerning newly selected chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz, we’ve already seen on several occasions that the Florida Congresswoman knows nothing concerning things with which she ought to be quite familiar. Schultz edged out the buffoon I would have preferred, the bumbling former governor of Ohio, “Turnaround Ted” Strickland, who was defeated by Republican John Kasich in November. Strickland thus became the first incumbent Buckeye State governor to be defeated in 36 years.

The most prominent example of Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s ignorance came in a town hall meeting on April 5, 2010 which was noted  by Matt Cover at CNS News and in an EyeBlast TV post at NewsBusters — and of course ignored by the establishment press. Get a load of what the Congresswoman and her staff repeatedly claimed with a straight face:

Rep. Wasserman Schultz Insists Health Care Law Doesn’t Require Individuals to Buy Insurance

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.

At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.

In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.

“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.

“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”

Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting that instead of an individual federal mandate, the law merely created new tax categories that would reflect who carries insurance and who does not.

… Contrary to Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s claim, this section of the law requires that every individual certify to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they have a government-approved level of health insurance coverage.

“REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month,” the law reads.

Individuals who fail to compy with this “requirement” are assessed a “shared responsibility payment”–a fine collected by the IRS.

So I guess all this back and forth over the individual mandate in the courts during the past year has been a waste of time. (/sarc)

Other lowlights in past posts about Ms. Wasserman Schultz:

  • In November 2009, she fretted over the inclusion of the Stupak Amendment supposedly prohibiting abortion in Obamacare. According to the New York Times’s Sheryl Gay Stolberg, she blamed “the complacency of her own generation for the political climate that allowed Mr. Stupak to prevail.” I would suggest that Ms. Wasserman Schultz knows nothing about the fact that more American are prolife than prochoice/proabort, and that for decades a majority has believed that abortion should either be legal only in certain circumstances or should be illegal in all circumstances.
  • In August of last year, she ignorantly agreed with Hardball host Chris Matthews that George W. Bush’s Social Security reform plan would have affected current benefit recipients. As Noel Sheppard noted, Wasserman apparently knew nothing about the plain language of the 2005 proposals, which stated that no one older than age 55 would be affected in any way.
  • In January, in reaction to a Chris Matthews rant in which the Hardball host called Michele Bachmann “pretty close to a nut case,” Wasserman Schultz replied, in part: “I think she clearly did not get the message of the last week and a half, which is that the American people want us to dial it back. They want us to make an effort to reach across the aisle and reset the tone of civility, engage in some civil discourse.” If Ms. Wasserman Schultz has expressed any outrage over the invective hurled at Scott Walker and Wisconsin state senators, the death threats issued against them, or public-sector unions’ attempts to strongarm businesses into supporting their agenda, I haven’t seen or heard of it — and I’ve looked. Perhaps she knows nothing because the press out side of Wisconsin, as shown here, here, and here, isn’t reporting on it.

Oh, as to the last item, I’m sorry, just tonight, in her first speech after being named DNC Chair, Wasserman Schultz did say something about Wisconsin, and played the ethnic card to boot:

Wasserman-Schultz hits Walker, ‘ultra-wealthy’ in first appearance

The newly-selected Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, said in her first appearance since the announcement that the reaction to Republican governors, along with Hispanic voters and Republicans’ preference for the “ultra-wealthy,” would carry Democrats to victory in 2012.

In an address to George Washington University college Democrats, Wasserman-Schultz said that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker deserved the “organizer of the year award” for spurring labor to organize and act against GOP policies.

… Asked about the strategic challenges her party faces in facing a redistricting of the country largely controlled by Republican statehouses and an electoral map more hostile to her party’s fortunes, Wasserman-Shultz emphasized the crucial misteps she believed Republicans had made with Hispanic voters and the so-called browning of the American electorate.

Whether or not she used the term herself (hopefully someone can produce a video), the “browning of America” is a leftist term which has grown in popularity in recent weeks, as capitalizing on it is perceived to be the Democrat Party’s supposed pathway to victory in 2012. Gosh, who is dividing America by race and ethnicity now?

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

________________________________________________

BizzyBlog Update, April 7: Via Allah at Hot Air (“Audio: Hey, remember when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz decided she was going to play civility cop?”; direct YouTube), as heard on Laura Ingraham’s show, with Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan flashbacks and current oh-so-typical remark by Nancy Pelosi —