How Many Jobs Has Obama Really Lost!

UPDATE:
According to the 22 Sep 2011 Washington Post Fact Checker: "....the number of overall jobs has declined by 1.9 million since Obama’s stimulus bill was passed into law more than two years ago. Moreover, Obama is on track to have the worst job record of any U.S. president since World War II. He may even become the first president in the modern era with no net jobs created during his first term — which, by any stretch of the imagination, is a stunning statistic.

When the Washington Post awards a Liberal like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, a Pinocchio award – she must have told a World Class lie! You can't make this stuff up! Here unedited is what the Washington Post had to say (Published: 18 June 2011):
The Fact CheckerBy by glenn kessler

“When President Obama took office, the month before he was inaugurated, the economy was bleeding 750,000 jobs a month, David. . . . You fast-forward 2 1 / 2 years later now, and the economy has created 2.1 million private-sector jobs.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” June 12, 2011

“The Chairwoman is living in Fantasyland. . . . We have lost 2.5 million jobs since Barack Obama has been president.”
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, moments later on the same program

A reader who watched NBC’s “Meet The Press” one week ago found his head spinning as the DNC and RNC chiefs battled with dueling factoids about the employment record under President Obama. He was particularly amused that Wasserman Schultz said there were 2 million more jobs and Priebus asserted there were 2.5 million fewer jobs.

Whew, that’s a swing of nearly 5 million jobs in just a few seconds! They can’t both be right, can they?

Amazingly, they are. Priebus is on more solid ground, rhetorically, but both are cherry-picking the statistics to make the best possible case for their side.

The Facts
The recession that greeted Obama when he took office was one of the worst recessions since the end of World War II. It started in December 2007, but the bottom fell out in late 2008, after the investment firm Lehman Brothers collapsed.

The common source of statistics for U.S. employment is the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics current employment survey, which is where Wasserman Schultz and Priebus derived their statistics.

Priebus crafts his figure by starting with employment when Obama took office, which he signals with the phrase “since Barack Obama has been president.” There were 133.56 million people with non-farm (private sector and government) jobs in January 2009; there are 131.04 million people with jobs today. Subtract one from the other and that shows 2.5 million fewer jobs.

So, yes, it is accurate, but is that fair? After all, it took weeks for many of Obama’s polices to be passed by Congress — and months to take effect, while about 2.5 million jobs were lost in the first four months of Obama’s presidency.

Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, starts from a different point — when employment hit rock bottom in February 2010. That was 13 months after Obama became president. It is also eight months after the recession officially ended in June 2009, as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

That would yield an increase of 1.8 million jobs, but then Wasserman Schultz greases the skids by slipping in the phrase “private-sector jobs.” When government jobs are removed from the statistic, suddenly the job growth is 2.1 million since February 2010.

Wasserman Schultz is taking a page from the other team’s playbook. Republicans have used this kind of job accounting in the past, such as President George W. Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address.

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse said that looking at the growth of jobs in the past 15 months is the best reflection of the impact of the stimulus package, which he said took months to work its way through the economy. He added that private-sector jobs are the “most accurate reflection of where the economy is going,” especially because government employment was artificially boosted in 2010 because of census hiring.

RNC spokesman Joe Pounder, not surprisingly, disagrees and defends starting the job count from the beginning of the president’s term. “The president’s major economic policy — the stimulus — was signed into law on February 17, 2009,” Pounder said. “The president and his administration were cited far and wide saying it would have an immediate impact. If the stimulus had worked as the administration intended, I’m sure they would have no problem counting jobs over the course of his entire term.”

We actually think a more logical place to measure job growth would be from the end of the recession — June 2009. That would give the new president time to take ownership of the economic situation, and yet remove some of the job losses that clearly did not happen as a result of his policies.

Counting from June 2009, job growth over two years is 600,000, which is still fairly grim. No wonder the DNC does not use it as a talking point.

Priebus is on more solid ground rhetorically because, like it or not, presidents often are measured by job growth during their entire term. For instance, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), when he was running for president in 2004, frequently charged that Bush was the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs in his term.

The Pinocchio Test
Both figures are technically accurate, but they don’t tell the whole story. We will give Priebus a pass because he used a relatively common measure of job growth during a presidency. Wasserman Schultz, by contrast, picked the data set that gave the most positive picture possible, thus distorting the record. It may be a snapshot in time, but it is not a full picture of the economy during Obama’s presidency since the recession ended.

Obama's Crony Capitalism – Solyndra, LightSquared, Who’s Next?

A “flattering pix” of Obama Bundler Philip Falcone, the majority owner of LightSquared (Kevin Wolf/AP)

First it was Solyndra and now it’s LightSquared, is there no end to the Obama Administration’s “Crony Capitalism” where Friends-of-Barack (FOB) Donors get favors at the expense of the rest of us. At least with Solyndra, it was only money – although it was $535 Million of our hard earned Taxpayer dollars – but with LightSquared the White House is gambling with our National Security.

According to a 15 Sep 2011 Daily Beast Article “White House Pressure for a Donor?”
General William Shelton, the Air Force Space Command Commander, gave classified testimony last week before the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces subcommittee that the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to Philip Falcone, a large Democrat donor. Seems Harbinger Capital, the hedge fund belonging to Falcone, is the principal owner of LightSquared. This seems to confirm that the Obama White House routinely politically intervenes in government matters affecting donors or fundraisers.

At issue is a conditional Federal Communications Commission waiver granted in January to LightSquared to build terrestrial wireless capacity in a section of the wireless spectrum close to the GPS bandwidth. The FCC license has come under scrutiny because technical experts have warned that LightSquared’s proposal would disrupt GPS signals thus threaten aviation safety, disrupt military and rescue operations, interfere with high-tech farming equipment and even render useless the everyday navigation devices used by millions. Obviously this would seriously affect National Security.

Not only was General Shelton’s prepared testimony leaked in advance to LightSquare but he was asked to revise it to suggest he supported the White House policy towards commercial broadband at any cost and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared in just 90 days. Obviously this administration doesn’t understand Military ethics and integrity – something they should have taken away from the General Eric Shinseki episode during the Bush Administration. Needless to say, it didn’t work this time either and Shelton gave his testimony on 8 Sep making the Pentagon concerns clear that the LightSquared project would cause significant disruptions to GPS with National Security implications.

According to Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the subcommittee chairman, “There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias (Shelton’s) testimony …. people who were involved in the process in preparation for the hearing included the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Office Management and Budget.” Even the White House had to admit that its OMB “suggested changes to the general’s testimony” but tried to downplay the interference as routine and that “OMB reviews and clears all agency communications with Congress …” (as an aside, I prepared Army HASC and SASC testimony for 3 years on the Pentagon ARSTAF and I NEVER had to staff testimony outside the Pentagon.)

Even LightSquared acknowledged it met with White House officials to push their project and according to White House emails dubbed “Lightsquared interference meeting,” the meetings took place at a conference center near the White House so that the Obama administration would not have to disclose names—especially lobbyists—in the White House visitors’ logs. On the very day the LightSquared CEO made a $30,400 contribution to the Democratic Party, two of his deputies appealed to the White House for the meetings with Obama’s top technology advisers.

Melanie Sloan, who runs the nonpartisan ethics groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said the White House LightSquared involvement seems to mirror the Solyndra case and it “sounds like a pattern of the White House improperly pressuring people at agencies involving decisions that affect companies tied to donors and fundraisers …. It’s always a problem when the White House is pressuring anyone’s testimony. I don’t care if you are a four-star [general] or a GS-15 [career employee], you should be giving your true opinion and not an opinion the White House is seeking for political expediency."

Although the White House maintains it has not tried to influence the FCC licensing process for LightSquared, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) stated “The FCC’s fast-tracking of LightSquared raises questions about whether the government is rushing this project at the expense of all kinds of other things, including national security and everyone who uses GPS, from agriculture to emergency medical technicians …. there’s no way to know whether the agency is trying to help friends in need or really looking out for the public’s interest.” In April, Grassley asked FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (a major Obama campaign “bundler”) to hand over all records of communications, including emails between Falcone and the FCC, and LightSquared and the FCC but Genachowski refused.

For a good unbiased report on the E-Mail exchanges showing meetings between White House technology advisers and LightSquared officials, go to The Center for Public Integrity (a nonprofit investigative journalism organization) article at: http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/09/14/6458/emails-show-wireless-firms-communications-white-house-campaign-donations-were-made

Washington Post Awards President Obama Coveted Four Pinnocchios for 5 Sep Tax Cut Whopper

When a liberal rag like the Washington Post (WaPo) gives a presidential speech FOUR PINOCCHIOS, you know it must have been a World Class lie. Such was the case with the president’s Detroit Labor Day speech where he made several fallacious assertions, most notably his claim he passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history.” The word the WaPo used to describe this claim: “ridiculous!” Click on the actual article below to enlarge it for easy reading if you want the full text.

The only thing “historic” about Obama’s claim was the audacity it took to make it. As the WaPo put it, “anytime a politician claims he or she has done something historic… that’s usually a dubious claim.” And what exactly was the source for Obama making such an outlandish claim (that incidentally the WaPo proved was untrue), a report based on a White House fact sheet. Furthermore, The WaPo states they “found evidence that Obama knew he was saying a whopper” when he made the untrue claim.

One final thought, how could Obama have given 95% of Americans a Tax Cut when over 50% of Americans DO NOT Pay any Federal Income Tax!

Unfortunately, the WaPo scale only goes to Four Pinocchios because this one really deserves SIX, even on a one to four scale.

Politico (29 Aug 11) Asked: "Is Rick Perry Dumb" - Here Are the Facts, You Decide!

Politico hack Jonathan Martin posited the question: ”Is Rick Perry Dumb?” in his 29 Aug 11 column, and then went on to describe a complex highly successful politician that has been constantly underestimated by opponents – all at their own peril.

Perry is the ONLY candidate of either party that can boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas while, according to the 19 Aug 11 Washington Post Fact Checker: “…. nearly 2.4 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, the worst record of the modern presidency.” Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?

According to a 21 Jun 11 USA Today: “Texas Wins in US Economy Shift” - with Gov Perry in charge “Texas became the USA's second-largest economy during the past decade— displacing New York and perhaps heading one day toward challenging California — in one of the biggest economic shifts in the past half-century.” Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?

According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, “over the past decade Texas experienced the biggest economic increases in 50 years surpassing $1 Trillion in annual economic output. The state’s share of the US economy during the past decade gained nearly a full percentage reaching 8.3% in 2010 – a feat matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s. By contrast, California’s share of the national economy peaked in 1990 but shrank faster than all but three states from 2000 to 2010.” California is experiencing the death spiral of Higher Taxes to pay for Govt Unions and generous but unaffordable social program which attract more socially needy people looking for handouts -- driving businesses out of the State – requiring Higher Taxes to pay for Govt Unions and generous ….. “ The Death Spiral that Gov Perry has not allowed to happen in Texas. Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?

As this country’s longest serving Governor (since Dec 2000) and the chief executive of our second largest state by both size and population, he presided over this entire decade of growth and is by far the best qualified and most experienced executive in all of US Government. Compare this to our present Commander-in-Chief who had never held an executive position in his life prior to becoming President. Also, Perry is the ONLY credible candidate with Military service. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1972, he completed pilot training and flew C-130s in the States, Middle East and Europe before leaving service as a Captain in 1977. I’ve heard a lot of adjectives used in connection with Air Force pilots but “dumb” has never been one of them. Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?

Now “Dumb” is a relative term and I would suggest that any discussion of dumb politicians should compare them with the quintessential political idiot -- Good Old VP Joe “5 Draft Deferment” Biden – the “Consummate Gaff-mister.” Every time Joe speaks, I listen with anxious anticipation confident he will commit some “world-class” gaffs to provide comic relief. He is the reason every American should pray every evening for Obama's good health as he will surely go down in history as the dumbest and most inept vice president of all times; by comparison he makes Bachmann appear cerebral, Palin smart, Dan Quayle intellectual and Rick Perry absolutely brilliant. As for President Obama’s intellect, compare his record of achievements with those above for Gov Perry and draw your own conclusions. Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?

Writing about political gaffs without mentioning Joe “the Gaff-mister” is like writing about politicians with illegitimate kids and failing to mention Edwards or Schwarzenegger. And remember, President Obama was the person that selected “the Gaff-mister” to be his Vice President and the person he thought was capable of running this country if something were to happen to the president. Now “is that Dumb?” Here are my two favorite “Biden-isms” that demonstrate how dumb he really is although there are so many of them they could fill a bookshelf.

- During the VP Debate with Palin, Biden said that "all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution.” – Well Sorry Joe, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch. Article II are where the Executive Powers are found. Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive. Maybe he should be taking instead of teaching Constitutional Law?
In a 22 Sep 08, CBS News interview with Katie Couric, Senator Biden said "Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people .... When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'" Two problems with Biden’s “history,” when the market crashed in 1929 Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president. Roosevelt wasn’t president until 20 April 1933 and Television hadn’t been invented yet…. Other than that Biden got it right.

In defense of Biden, he doesn't commit these gaffs on purpose; he just isn't bright enough to avoid them. Although Obama may have originally selected him as a running mate to fill that all important role of designated "butt of jokes" for the late night comedians -- a role for which he has proven ideally suited and eminently well qualified – his shtick is beginning to wear a little thin which is why Obama doesn’t let him out in public much any more and replacing him on the 2012 ticket isn’t all that much of a stretch. The Obama challenge is "Hidin Biden" until 2012! With his history of gaffs, plagiarism, explaining his draft dodging and other dumb stunts, I can't imagine what a Biden presidency would be like. Possibly more pronouncements like the ones on his recent China trip endorsing forced sterilizations and ninth month abortions.

If you really want a fuller picture of how dumb Old Joe “5 Deferment” really is, I have posted a compendium of "Dumb Biden-isms” on a 9 Oct 2010 Blog entry (below) entitled: Joe Biden - The Consummate Gaff-mister and Some of My Favorite “Biden-isms”

Wikipedia - A Bastion of Liberal Misinformation & Distortions

A Call to Arms for All Fair Minded People to Become Contributors to Correct Liberal Tilting Wikipedia Entries with “Fair and Balanced” Factual Information

Wikipedia should come with a warning label much the same as cigarettes because relying on anything published in it “could be hazardous to your (intellectual) health.”

Most of the entries contain either factually inaccurate information or at least information culled from published sources that have greatly distorted or revised history. It appears most Wikipedia entries have a very liberal bent which is obvious to anyone that objectively reviews articles. Bios of Democrat politicians are normally much more laudatory in tone and either exclude or minimize derogatory information while Republican bios are routinely much harsher. Even subtle methods are often used to advance a liberal viewpoint. For example, in the entry on “Draft Dodger,” reference is made to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton as examples – three Republicans and one Democrat. Balance might have suggested using Republicans Bush and Cheney, and Clinton and Vice President Biden.” (although for the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!)

Another even better example of subtle liberal bias is this passage in the John F. Kennedy Bio describing the Bay of Pigs Invasion: “Prior to Kennedy's election to the presidency, the Eisenhower Administration created a plan to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba” thus implying that Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan. “Documentation” for this fallacious accusation was the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen; when, in fact, both men were writing to defend their boss from criticism by unjustly deflecting blame on Eisenhower. In fact, reputable scholars now acknowledge that Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and he even said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.'' Unfortunately, “inconvenient facts” are not welcome in Wikipedia.

To perpetuate their liberal agenda, Wikipedia has appointed a cadre of “like minded progressive” volunteer “Administrators” who are editors trusted with access to restricted policing tools so they can “protect,” “delete,” and even “block” contributions by others who make edits that don’t conform to their liberal biases.

Bottom line: If you like getting your news from Newsweek, you’ll love getting your “facts” from Wikipedia! I wouldn't believe a Wikipedia Editor under oath!

So what’s the FIX! I’m calling on ALL Fair Minded people that believe Wikipedia ought to be providing “Fair and Balanced” treatment of all subjects to become contributors. Scour all entries, especially those prone for liberal distortions such as political Bios, and correct inaccuracies. Be diligent because the liberal Administrator/editors will throw in every conceivable roadblock to thwart your efforts. At times it will be frustrating but if enough fair minded people make the effort, it will eventually overwhelm their capacity to filter out the truth.

Who Exactly Are the “Better Off Among Us” Not Paying Their Fair Share of the Taxes?

The Progressive mantra as articulated by our President is: all we need do to sustain all the Federal give-away programs is to ask the best off among us to pay "a little more." According to the non-partisan Tax Payers Union, the top 1% already pay ~40% of the Federal Income Taxes and the Top 5% pay ~60% while over half the population pay NONE at all, so who exactly isn’t paying their “fair-share?”

When you have more people “in the wagon” than “pulling the wagon,” the incentive is to stop pulling and get in to allow the other dwindling minority to carry an even bigger load of dead weight. Is this what our Progressive President is advocating?

Some argue that those that don’t pay Income Taxes do pay other taxes, e.g. gas tax and payroll tax. That’s true but those are specific taxes for specific services; gas taxes fund roads, and payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. Here low income contributors actually receive a disproportionally larger benefit than their contributions cover. Those that don’t pay income tax contribute nothing to the common functions of Government for which they also derive great benefit. These include National Defense, law enforcement and criminal justice, environmental protection, and hundreds of other common services. Those who don’t contribute but derive great benefits from these common services enjoy an equal vote about how they are delivered yet have no incentive to constrain costs or encourage efficiency. At a time of unsustainable deficits and debt does anyone really expect the people “in the wagon” to be in a position to weigh the benefits of “give-away programs” against their costs?

I believe the bottom line to this is we cannot go on forever borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend before the rest of the World that is “helping to pull our wagon” quits helping to pull or at least want a lot more money to help us. The inevitable result is the “wagon stops” and everyone, riders and pullers, are in trouble. This is a catastrophe that doesn’t have to happen if we get our house in order now but it will call for shared sacrifice. All Americans need to have some “skin in the game.” We should let all the Bush era tax cuts expire in 2013 (except for the inheritance tax which makes it impossible to continue to operate a small business S-Corporation or a family farm when an owner dies) and find a way to include that half paying nothing so they have a stake in the County’s future and an incentive to constrain costs. Americans have always been great at pulling together in emergencies so let’s lay out the facts and involve everyone in the “shared sacrifice.”

Is Newsweek Magazine Trying to Go Out of Business on Purpose?

I noticed that Newsweek has switched format from News to Fiction. What’s next, replacing Editor Tina Brown with Oliver Stone? Here’s a bit of unsolicited business advice for Newsweek about why it is a dying weekly that probably wasn’t even worth the $1 it recently sold for and why it will probably go under within the next two years. Not only do they fabricate their “facts” but they routinely miss the big story of the Week that WILL SELL copies. Either Newsweek is tone deaf or just trying to go out of business on purpose (a la the movie “Major League”).

Case in point, the week the S&P Downgraded the US Credit Rating along with the Stock Market tanking, that story was on the front pages of every credible newspaper or weekly. What was the best Newsweek could do? Put a demeaning Photo of Michele Bachmann and a snarky caption on the cover! Given Newsweek already had covers with a Photoshopped Mitt Romney head on some kid’s body jumping and the Sarah Palin Runners World cover, one would almost believe they were trying to belittle Republicans and hence ensure they couldn’t sell to that market!

When I was retiring from the Army, Newsweek offered me a multi-year subscription that came out to be about a buck and a half ($1.50) a year and it doesn’t run out until April 2013. My wife will not let it in the house so I only flip through it as it moves directly from the mailbox to the trash. I’d cancel my subscription but I feel I’m performing a patriotic service as I’m confident it cost them more to print and mail my copy than I paid for it. Hence, Newsweek losing money on my subscription hastens their demise – and that’s truly a Public Service.