Unemployment falls to 7.8% or does it?

Last week the unemployment numbers came out for September and fell from the previous month to 7.8%. The Democrats applauded the numbers as they needed good news after the pathetic showing of President Obama at the first Presidential debate a few night prior. Since those numbers have come out the validity has been raised by former CEO Jack Welch.

On October 5th, CEO Jack Welch tweeted, "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change the numbers." The tweet sent the punditry and the White House into a tizzy over the next few days. President Obama, Gibbs, and Axlerod all took turns lambasted Welch for the comments. So let's look at the hard data per the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported:

• Unemployment rate dropped to 7.8 percent in September
• Total nonfarm payroll employment rose 114,000
• Number of unemployed is at 12.1 million - decreased by 456,000 in September
• Long-term unemployed was 4.8 million or 40.1 percent of unemployed
• Total employment rose by 873,000 in September
• Employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percent to 58.7 percent
• Civilian labor force rose by 418,000 
• Labor Force participation rate was 63.6 percent
• Part-time rose to 8.6 million from 8 million

Now none of these numbers are adjusted for seasonal changes. As CEO Welch points out in his op-ed toady in the Wall Street Journal,"The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses." The BLS website confirms the process that Welch alludes to as well. Is anyone else bothered by this? 

Why are we not using payroll information that can be harvested from various payroll servicing companies? That seems to be a better and more accurate look at unemployment. That being said, when President Obama took office there were 233,788,000 people (civilian noninstitutional population) with 154.287,000 considered part of the work force or 62.2%. At the end of 2009, we had 235,801,000 people with 154,142,000 considered part of the work or 65.4%. In 2010 and thus far in 2011 the numbers are respectfully - 237,830,000 people 153,889,000 workforce or 64.7% and 239,618,000 people 153,617,000 workforce or 64.1%. The unemployment rates for 2008, 2009, 2010 and thus far for 2011 are 5.8%, 9.3%, 9.6% and 8.9%. (All data in this paragraph can be found on the BLS website under the table Household Date Annual Averages).

One may ask, "Chris, why are you focusing on this information and not the most recent months data?" That is a great question. I will let Alan Krueger, President Obama's Economic Advisor, who is reported as say back in March of this year, "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, as the administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one month report" (On jobs, former Obama aid Goolsbee warns against irrational exuberance, March 9, 2012, yahoo news). The monthly reported unemployment numbers for January, February and March of 2012 were 8.3%, 8.3% and 8.2%.

Mr. Goolsbee, President Obama's Economic Advisor prior to Krueger, said in an op-ed in the New York times back in 2003 in response to unemployment numbers reported under President Bush didn't add up by claiming, "the government has cooked the books." The month to month gyrations of the unemployment numbers can be an indicator but looking at data over a period of time gives us a better trend. 

In 2008 we had 79,501,000 people out of the work force and as of today we have 86,001,000. At the same time we have seen the participation rate go from 66% to 64.1%. These are not good trend lines for someone seeking re-election at any level of government let alone the President.

Perhaps Larry Elder and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, are posing the right questions. Mr. Elder penned, "What if President Obama were white?" in his article from October 4, 2012 on www.onenewsnow.com. Or when Rep. Cleaver stated, "As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14 percent (black) unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House." The irony is that in April of 2003, Sen. Obama railed against President Bush over high black unemployment and it was only 10.3 percent at that time. President Bush did get black unemployment as low as 7.9 percent during his term in office.

No matter how you slice it, the employment situation in the United States is not better under President Obama. How can we be pleased or how can anyone make 7.8% unemployment rate, not adjusted for seasonal change, a good thing? Especially when we have less people looking for work then we did four years ago. Personally, I say throw out the numbers that are done via a survey of calling people and let's start looking at number based on more concrete data. 

I think Ron Florance, managing director for investments strategy for Wells Fargo Private Bank, sums it up best, "It's a little confusing, to be honest with you. The number of jobs created wasn't that high but the unemployment rate came down and the participation rate went up a little bit, so it's confusing. All in all, it doesn't change the trajectory of what the jobs environment has been really for the last year" (Unemployment rate falls to 7.8% as economy creates 114,000 jobs, October 10, 2012, economywatch.nbcnews.com). 

Egypt uprising: Opportunity for change in America’s Middle East policy?

For the past several days we have watched an escalating situation in Egypt to the point of violence. Many point to pro-Mubarak "thugs" for inciting the violence. Press Secretary Gibbs said yesterday that we need change "now". When Obama took office he toured the Middle East and gave speech after speech trying to reach out to the Muslim world while apologizing for the heavy hand of America. Ironically, now, the same man that railed against prior Middle East policy is trying to influence the situation in Egypt. The protesting in Egypt raises bigger questions as it appears the wind of change is blowing throughout the Middle East. A week back Tunisia saw similar change, earlier this week Jordan dismissed part of their government due to protestors and now Yemen is heating up.

In reading the foreign papers and American papers this week the bogey man has ranged from the CIA to the Muslim Brotherhood. We all understand why President Obama is pushing Mubarak to step aside and why America continues to meddle in the Middle East; oil. Just because a Democrat or a Progressive is in the White House does not change the root reason for America's Middle East foreign policy. If Obama wants a switch to more Western style Democracy in Egypt then allow Mubarak and/or his "party" to run in the September election. What role should the United States take in Egypt and the Middle East?

Use of “Czars” Constitutional?

Czars has become the common term associated with advisors a president surrounds themselves with. While previous presidents have relied on "Czars" for advice on various topics but President Obama has taken it to new heights. To a point that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a hearing to examine the legality of executive branch advisors (Czars) who are not confirmed by the Senate. Sen. Feingold said, "I think the public wants to know why there are people called czars" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27987.html). The fear among Senators is that the "Czars" are making administration policy without being vetted by Congress and may be in violation of the Constitution (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/07/feingold-hits-obamas-use-of-czars/). A move by the Obama administration to trample upon the Constitution is not a surprise. The move to nationalize the banking and automobile industry put the foot forward of ownership of private companies by the Federal Government.

During the opening moments of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, Sen. Feingold, who is the chairman, said, "While there is a long history of the use of White House advisers and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate." Now, many believe that Fox News commentators, i.e. Glenn Beck, are behind the push to attack the Obama administration on the use of "Czars". Let's take a step back from that bias for a second. While previous administration have used "Czars", as I stated above, and concur with Sen. Feingold when raising the question if the use of "czars" violates the Constitution.

The White House did not send anyone to Sen. Feingold's subcommittee to discuss the role or defend the appointment of 30 something "Czars" within the Obama administration. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped in response to why the White House declined to provide a witness was, "I don't know if Sen. Feingold's calling Franklin Roosevelt to be a witness. I would assume that Congress and Sen. Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this." Mr. Gibbs, if these "Czars" are in fact a violation of the Constitution I do not know any more weightier topic for the Congress to "grapple". President Obama touts transparency within his administration. That being said, why did the White House not take the time to send representation to the subcommittee hearing?

Does President Obama believe his administration and the Executive branch is more important than the Legislative branch or the Balance of Powers the U.S. Constitution has established? The Appointments Clause of the Constitution gives the president the authority to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate but says that, "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone" (Feingold hits Obama's use of 'czars', The Washington Times). Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Al) has voiced his disapproval of Obama's high number of "Czars" by saying, "They are unelected, un-vetted, and unaccountable. They include individuals with extremist views and records – such as Van Jones, John Holdren, and Kevin Jennings – all of whom were installed in high government offices without having to face scrutiny before Congress or the American people" (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/07/feingold-hits-obamas-use-of-czars/).

The question remains no whether it's right because it was done by previous presidents; rather the issue is if it should ever been allowed to be done. Many feel the attacks on the Obama administration are motivated by race instead of the real reason; the growth of big Government.

ACORN federal support is drying up.

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis announced last Wednesday that "As a result of the indefensible action of a handful or our employees, I am, in consultation with ACORN's Executive Committee 1, immediately ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN's service programs until completion of an independent review. I have also communicated with ACORN's independent Advisory Council, and they will assist ACORN in naming an independent auditor and investigator to conduct a thorough review of all the organizations relevant systems and processes" (www.acorn.org). The announcement came after the release of four videos by an independent filmmaker that posed as a pimp and included a female actress that posed as a prostitute.

The four videos were recorded at offices in California, Baltimore, Washington, and Brooklyn. James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles set up was of setting up a house of prostitution and wanted advice on how to skirt the IRS and government eye. When the first video broke, ACORN stated that is was an isolated incident. It was not until the fourth video that ACORN and others were concerned by the actions. The videos have created more back lash against ACORN.

Earlier this week the Senate voted 83-7 to block HUD from giving further grants to ACORN. The U.S. Census Bureau has cut ties with ACORN as well. Gov. Pawlenty sent a letter the commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget to stop funding, not legally obligated, to ACORN. The move by Gov. Pawlenty has been seen locally as grandstanding since it ACORN is reporting they have not received any funds from the state of Minnesota since 2008 (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2009/09/pawlenty_halts.shtml).

Along with ACORN's own interim investigation, Bertha Lewis (ACORN Chief Organizer) is claiming that "It is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist 'filmmaker' O'Keefe and his partner in crime." Lewis even went onto blame FOX News and asserted that the media outlet is a co-conspirator. Fox News did break the story and have long been an advocate of the "seedy" actions taken by ACORN; voter fraud. View the videos for yourself to determine your own thoughts as well.

Brooklyn video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN0ypLA_pcQ

Baltimore video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U&feature=PlayList&p=354262CC2622D7A2&index=0&playnext=1 & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjiL6uGT--8

California video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2apUK9g3Zo & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtPIeolDKY & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVwN9NRvDuM

Washington D.C. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1_SFXmlfNg & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJrkupmtJI

Why is mass media only discussing the videos in a knee-jerk reaction and not doing investigative journalism themselves? Robert Gibbs said, "Obviously, the conduct that you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable. I think everyone would agree to that" (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58G4CB20090917). Yesterday the House of Representatives voted 345 to 75 on a bill that would remove the middle man from the federal student-loan programs. A rider on the bill will cut federal funding of ACORN. Robert Gibbs alluded, during his press conference, that "FEMA grants that were let in previous administrations – that we constantly evaluate to ensure that any grantee is living up to what has to happen in order to fulfill that grant application" (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/acorns_federal_funding_further.html).

This is not the first time that ACORN has come under fire. During the 2008 presidential election allegations were levied on ACORN of committing voter registration fraud. ACORN has always maintained their innocence since not one of their employees or volunteers had been arrested. That innocence ended when Miami-Dade State Attorney's office issued warrants for 11 suspects, of which five were in custody as of Wednesday the 9^th of September, that are believed to have falsified hundreds of voter registration cards (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1224631.html). Perhaps the shell will be removed from ACORN and the real nut will be discovered.

Is real Journalism dead?

What happened to journalism in America? I understand that with our 24/7 news cycle more pressure is on the various news sources to retain viewership. As I sit here looking for a job, I have the television on in the background. A typical day starts with Morning Joe on MSNBC then a switch to CNN around 11 am. After lunch, I turn the channel back to MSNBC to watch Press Secretary Robert Gibbs daily briefings. All the while I am reading about 10 websites – newspaper, blogs, and other – in my attempt to gain a greater understanding of the issues of the day.

These so-called news programs need to be called out. Newspapers need to be called out. They are all yellow journalists. No longer does the Woodward/Bernstein investigative reporting exist in America. Journalists, mainly those on television, are more in the business to expand their own ego. Why cannot the 24/7 news cycle (MSNBC, CNN, and Fox) report the news without the side commentary or slant of those reporting the news.

The late concept in the electronic media is the aligning with political ideologies. We have MSNBC in with liberals while Fox is aligned with conservatives. The news has always had a bias and rarely do they have a columnist or a host that runs the middle ground. This was obvious during the historic Presidential election of 2008.

In some backroom agreement the major hitters in the industry agreed to put in depth reporting of Sen. Obama on the back burner. The Fox channel was one of a few outlets that tried to vet all candidates properly. The trouble is they were vilified as a right-wing extreme channel due to their intense scrutiny of Sen. Obama. I wonder though if the perception of intense scrutiny was a result of other major news outlets were ignoring virtually everything questionable about Sen. Obama’s past.

It was during the 2008 Presidential election process that journalism fell off the cliff. The climb back to reporting the news without bias may never come. It is truly sad that our country has succumbed to the journalist hacks in the blogosphere that pass themselves off as news reporters. When will America demand better unbiased reporting?

Liberals wants blood; America wants Jobs

“I acted primarily because of the exceptional circumstances that surrounded these memos, particularly the fact that so much of the information was public,” President Obama said to CIA on Monday April 20th. President Obama went on to assure CIA operatives that, “You need to know you’ve got my full support.” Robert Gibbs, during his press conference on Monday, responded to the prospect of legal action against Bush administration officials that approved “torture” methods by saying that President Obama was looking forward and not going to hold those involved in the new “torture” methods will not be prosecuted. Rohm Emanuel said on Sunday when asked about retribution and accountability of the Bush Administration officials; Mr. Emanuel defended the position of the Obama administration of looking forward and not going after those that approved the “torture” techniques.

All of this rhetoric upset the liberal base of the Democrat party that had elected Sen. Obama to end the use of water boarding and other “torture” techniques while prosecuting those responsible for their approval. Less than 24 hours after Robert Gibbs saying President Obama is not looking backwards or establishing a review board on “torture” techniques used on Al-Qaeda operatives, President Obama has come out saying he is approving a “blue-ribbon” panel to investigate those involved.

When President Clinton was in office, I told many of my peers that if one wanted to do well in politics they need to study Clinton for success. Now that President Obama waffles on the investigating Bush administration approval of the CIA “torture” methods has President Obama read the Clinton playbook? President Obama is leaving the legal aspect of prosecuting Bush administration officials to the Attorney General and did not want to pre-judge and leave it to the legal experts. Didn’t President Obama go to Harvard Law School?

If President Obama did read the Clinton playbook in handling tough situations, along with mass media in his back pocket, the damage done will be minimal to Barak Obama but how will this investigation assist the image of the United States? Liberals want blood even if it weakens the country. President Obama took the proper steps by stopping further use of the technique of water boarding, which, according to proponents, assisted in discovering a plan to attack Los Angeles in the same manner done in New York.

The releasing of the CIA memos was done under the guise of verifying common knowledge; fine. To take the issue further will not be good for America nor will it assist in our improving image around the world. Other Intelligence Agencies around the world will not want to participate in sharing of information with the United States out of fear their techniques or methods may be exposed. The CIA operatives are put in a dangerous way since their abilities will be handcuffed.

It is time to move forward and not look to the past. President Obama needs to learn from Gerald Ford and his handling of President Nixon during the mid-1970’s. The CIA memos were released and the techniques have been ended. The money and time spent into further investigation will not benefit Americans nor will it help our Economy.

Perfect Storm for Cuba/American relations

The announcement by President Obama, delivered by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday, to loosen travel and financial restrictions toward Cuba is a positive shift in policy for Cuban-American relations. To expand on the policy shift, it was announced that United States will work with telecom companies to offer cell phone and television service to Cubans. Opening up communication with the island is a welcomed approach to dealing with the aging Communist Regime.

Why now?

With Fidel Castro in the twilight of his life and Raul Castro not far behind him, the opening of relations to the populous of Cuba is a perfect storm. By requiring relatives in the United States to pay for the cell phone and television access is a brilliant move by President Obama. The requirement will give the United States greater access to intelligence gathering via provisions in the Patriot Act signed by President Bush in 2006.

Finally the Patriot Act, which stripped away a level of civil liberty in the United States, will bear fruit as with the loosening of Cuba restrictions. While the United States is searching telephone and financial records of Cuban-Americans, a grassroots campaign can be launched via ads broadcasted into Cuba. The missing element to all this is how Castro’s feel about the shift. Since Fidel Castro has looked for an end to the Embargo for years, one can assume the shift is welcomed and encouraging.

The shift in policy also allows Raul Castro to tout a relationship change with the United States that his brother Fidel was unable to achieve. Raul Castro will be tempered by the potential ground swell of Democratic rhetoric that runs counter to the Communist doctrine. The perfect storm of the decline of Russian power, Patriot Act, Raul Castro, and the election of a Community Organizer to President of the United States may finally open up Cuba to America.