There is only one Republican primary left to be contested, in Utah, and Mitt Romney, with 79.5% of the vote in California, passed 50% of the overall Republican primary vote for the first time, essentially two months after his opposition quit. His vote total in California, however, was a minimal 1.2 million, meaning that with 9.4 million votes overall, he still trails John McCain's 2008 9.8 million votes with Utah the only state left with a primary. They will need a huge "get out the vote" effort just to pass McCain, even with the Mormons solidly behind Romney. Romney also got substantially less than the unopposed Barack Obama, who received 1.7 million votes in California.
Both sides are concerned about California's new "non-partisan" primary, designed by Republicans to blunt the effects of a sharp left hand movement in the state's politics and also to blunt the tea party. They claimed success of course, but actual results were far from clear. In the US Senate primary, for example, the leading Republican received less than 13% of the vote, less than half a million, although she did secure a place on the ballot for the fall election. Only one really anomalous result was found in the 53 Congressional races: in District 31, two Republican candidates split 52% of the vote and four Democratic candidates split 48% of the vote. However, the Republicans were the two top vote getters so that even though the Democrats were withing striking distance of picking up the seat in November, they will not have a chance because two Republicans will compete in the runoff. That was the only district with such an outcome. There will be more Dem v. Dem Congressional races in the fall than Rep v. Rep, but since those were safe seats, there is no real contest. Similarly, more than half a dozen candidates got into the runoff with no party preference indicated, but only in safe seat elections, so they will not seriously challenge to win.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Bishop Romney makes private profit a moral crusade, outed as a Creepy Uniform Fetishist
Mitt Romney reached back to his Mormon roots, accusing Obama of a "moral failure" in not leading a fabulous economic recovery, never mind that the private economy stagnated for eight years under conservative George W. Bush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-obamas-economic-stewardship-moral-failure-of-tragic-proportions/2012/06/07/gJQAwD6hLV_blog.html
The attempt to frame economic issues as a moral crusade - but in defiance of where one might normally see it, such as caring for the poor - is standard Mormon pap. Mormon theology holds that Greed is Good because of God's mystical intervention, not because fairness, social risk spreading, and non-discrimination in a money economy lead to a higher value on work. The Mormons believe, as one of America's largest sources of private capital, that there is no intrinsic value in work and they prefer a gambling society where people pay for a chance of getting rich, rather than working for steady rewards as demonstrated in Las Vegas, much of it financed by Mormon banker Parry Thomas. Now America is getting a full view of this particular crazy lie, and from a truly creepy man.
It turns out that Mitt Romney illegally impersonated police officers both as a teen in Michigan, where his dad supplied the uniforms, and at Stanford University in California. Was he caught? Was that why he never returned to Stanford after his mission?
The public rightly associates this type of behavior with rapists and serial killers, since it shows a compulsive need for power over and control of others.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up that Bain Capital were never any kind of business geniuses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122472657432961253.html
True, Bill Clinton referred to Romney's "sterling" business record, but as previously noted in the blog about Jimmy Carter, the old line Democratic politicians are trying to minimize the obvious threat a psychopath like Romney represents by making him into "normal" businessman within the existing parameters of acceptable American politics. Given the record of the nation's previous businessman presidents - Bush II and Hoover - that seems like a bad idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-obamas-economic-stewardship-moral-failure-of-tragic-proportions/2012/06/07/gJQAwD6hLV_blog.html
The attempt to frame economic issues as a moral crusade - but in defiance of where one might normally see it, such as caring for the poor - is standard Mormon pap. Mormon theology holds that Greed is Good because of God's mystical intervention, not because fairness, social risk spreading, and non-discrimination in a money economy lead to a higher value on work. The Mormons believe, as one of America's largest sources of private capital, that there is no intrinsic value in work and they prefer a gambling society where people pay for a chance of getting rich, rather than working for steady rewards as demonstrated in Las Vegas, much of it financed by Mormon banker Parry Thomas. Now America is getting a full view of this particular crazy lie, and from a truly creepy man.
It turns out that Mitt Romney illegally impersonated police officers both as a teen in Michigan, where his dad supplied the uniforms, and at Stanford University in California. Was he caught? Was that why he never returned to Stanford after his mission?
http://www.nationalmemo.com/did-young-mitt-romney-impersonate-a-police-officer-another-witness-says-yes/
The public rightly associates this type of behavior with rapists and serial killers, since it shows a compulsive need for power over and control of others.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up that Bain Capital were never any kind of business geniuses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122472657432961253.html
True, Bill Clinton referred to Romney's "sterling" business record, but as previously noted in the blog about Jimmy Carter, the old line Democratic politicians are trying to minimize the obvious threat a psychopath like Romney represents by making him into "normal" businessman within the existing parameters of acceptable American politics. Given the record of the nation's previous businessman presidents - Bush II and Hoover - that seems like a bad idea.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Romney gives false impression of economic literacy
Mitt Romney tried to reassure Michigan voters he doesn't intend to cut spending by saying cutting spending is recessionary.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10469786-romney-spending-cuts-slow-economic-growth?lite
Was this an endorsement of Keynesian economic theory? Of course not. It's just another attempt to deceive. In fact, Romney's fiscal goals call for cutting the entire government by close to 60%, other than the military and social security, including things such as Medicare, despite his claims that he wouldn't touch it for ten years.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
Romney has called for $8 trillion in spending cuts to go with his $2 trillion military expansion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/romney-peddling-the-indef_b_1310251.html
Despite his lies, we know a number of things about Romney's core beliefs. One is that he is a rigid ideologue. In Massachusetts, he vetoed adding any more liquor licenses. As a businessman and SLOC chair he engaged in "symbolic" cost cutting, fining people monetarily if they were late for staff meetings, and choosing what hotels they were allowed to stay at. He didn't save much money by all this, but it demonstrated his power and his ideology. His ideology is simple. He is better than you and so you must sacrifice and give more to him.
To pretend that he harbors some Keynesian ideas similar to Obama's is to misread him entirely. He managed to get through decades with Bain Capital without learning the difference between capitalism and white collar fraud. He is not a man who deserves a chance to run our economy.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10469786-romney-spending-cuts-slow-economic-growth?lite
Was this an endorsement of Keynesian economic theory? Of course not. It's just another attempt to deceive. In fact, Romney's fiscal goals call for cutting the entire government by close to 60%, other than the military and social security, including things such as Medicare, despite his claims that he wouldn't touch it for ten years.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
Romney has called for $8 trillion in spending cuts to go with his $2 trillion military expansion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/romney-peddling-the-indef_b_1310251.html
Despite his lies, we know a number of things about Romney's core beliefs. One is that he is a rigid ideologue. In Massachusetts, he vetoed adding any more liquor licenses. As a businessman and SLOC chair he engaged in "symbolic" cost cutting, fining people monetarily if they were late for staff meetings, and choosing what hotels they were allowed to stay at. He didn't save much money by all this, but it demonstrated his power and his ideology. His ideology is simple. He is better than you and so you must sacrifice and give more to him.
To pretend that he harbors some Keynesian ideas similar to Obama's is to misread him entirely. He managed to get through decades with Bain Capital without learning the difference between capitalism and white collar fraud. He is not a man who deserves a chance to run our economy.
Romney says he has clinched nomination
Romney today is claiming final victory in the Republican primary.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/29/politics/romney-delegates/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Other sources put him still 100-200 delegates off. Once again he received less than 70% of the popular vote, unopposed, in Texas. Granted there were more Republican votes than Democratic votes in the Texas primary, but Texas has long been the most politically uninvolved state in the nation. It's part of how the rich maintain control. In 2004, for example, only 33% of Texans voted for president, when a Texan was running, compared to 50% of Michiganders. Another possible cause may be inflated census numbers for Texas, since Florida with 7 million fewer residents always has a higher total vote than Texas, but that's an issue for another blog.
Romney's total votes for all primaries to date are hovering just under 8 million. There are just five states left with primaries. In 2008, John McCain reached 9,840,746 votes compared to Romney's 4.5 million. Will Romney be able to beat the McCain number? He may, but it will be close. California and New Jersey had about 2.6 million Republican votes in 2008, and if Romney wins two-thirds of them plus a big show in Utah, the final state, he might beat the McCain totals.
Meanwhile, Obama won 88% of the admittedly miserable Texan Democrat primary vote. You won't see any stories about this, although you did see them last week when 40% of Democratic voters did not vote for him.
Texas is as Southern as any of the previous "protesting" states, but Texas did not protest Obama yesterday.
As for how many total votes Obama received, you won't see that on Wikipedia, where they don't count any state where he received 100% of the votes in coming up with a 4.5 million total. In practice, he has received more votes than Romney despite no effort and no real race.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/29/politics/romney-delegates/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Other sources put him still 100-200 delegates off. Once again he received less than 70% of the popular vote, unopposed, in Texas. Granted there were more Republican votes than Democratic votes in the Texas primary, but Texas has long been the most politically uninvolved state in the nation. It's part of how the rich maintain control. In 2004, for example, only 33% of Texans voted for president, when a Texan was running, compared to 50% of Michiganders. Another possible cause may be inflated census numbers for Texas, since Florida with 7 million fewer residents always has a higher total vote than Texas, but that's an issue for another blog.
Romney's total votes for all primaries to date are hovering just under 8 million. There are just five states left with primaries. In 2008, John McCain reached 9,840,746 votes compared to Romney's 4.5 million. Will Romney be able to beat the McCain number? He may, but it will be close. California and New Jersey had about 2.6 million Republican votes in 2008, and if Romney wins two-thirds of them plus a big show in Utah, the final state, he might beat the McCain totals.
Meanwhile, Obama won 88% of the admittedly miserable Texan Democrat primary vote. You won't see any stories about this, although you did see them last week when 40% of Democratic voters did not vote for him.
Texas is as Southern as any of the previous "protesting" states, but Texas did not protest Obama yesterday.
As for how many total votes Obama received, you won't see that on Wikipedia, where they don't count any state where he received 100% of the votes in coming up with a 4.5 million total. In practice, he has received more votes than Romney despite no effort and no real race.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Romney can't close his enthusiasm gap, but Obama's widens. A Curious case of backstabbers appears
The Romney steamroller rolled on...and got worse results in Kentucky and Arkansas than he received last week, in both cases less than 70% of the Republican vote even though he is technically unopposed.
That wasn't the story the (biased Republican) Kentucky media wanted to sell, which was that Obama didn't get 40% of Democratic votes in Kentucky (and Arkansas; and also in West Virginia, which voted before the whole gay marriage flap). Before that his previous protest votes had rarely ranged as high as 20%. But these three states were the most violently pro-Hillary Clinton in 2008 and it is likely they retain some animus from that period. Why Romney has been unable to rally the Southern Conservatives is a more interesting question. It is difficult to believe they won't vote for him in the fall, but it is also difficult to believe there is any enthusiasm.
http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/Romney_wins_GOP_primary_Obama_gets_luke_warm_Democratic_nod_152775445.html?ref=445
The Obama campaign dealt with several very curious incidents this weekend, both where supposed allies tried to undermine his re-election candidacy. The first was a revival of the notorious and ridiculous birther controversy. The second was an attack by the African-American mayor of Newark on an Obama campaign ad.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566
http://newsone.com/2016560/cory-booker-meet-the-press/
Both these incidents are very curious because they highlight the differential treatment of Republicans and Democrats in the press.
In the first case conservative blog Breitbart uncovered a pamphlet from a no longer existing company that supposedly represented Obama as a literary agent when he was an unpublished author, and claimed he was born in Kenya, the son of a finance minister. Since I met Obama in 1983 and he told me he was born in Hawai'i, I know for a fact he was not claiming to be a Kenyan national at that time. The alleged author said it was a fact-checking mistake, but I'd be very surprised indeed if the whole incident isn't a forgery, both the pamphlet which somehow missed the light of day in 2004 when Obama was a keynote speaker, or when he ran for Senate in Illinois, or when he ran for president in 2008 against very capable opposition in his own party. If so, that would mean the woman who said she made the "error" would be lying.
The second was Cory Booker's defense of "private equity." The Newark mayor pretended to be "nauseated" by Obama's attacks on Bain Capital. It was not reported why, but the Obama campaign discovered the reason, namely that Bain had given big money to Booker in his mayor's race.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/21/488002/bain-financial-industy-gave-over-565000-to-newark-mayor-cory-booker-for-2002-campaign/
However, while the Obama campaign found that interesting tidbit, the "media" did not cover that story, nor did they find out what Bain expected to get for such a lot of money in such a small place with such inexpensive elections. In fact, to the extent they did cover the story, it was to imply that the White House "slapped down" Booker on the issue, as opposed to revealing the pertinent fact that Bain funded Booker.
The news companies handled these stories a little gingerly but with a raging bias. ABC merely noted that the publishing error "might have been the source" of the birther story, falsely implying the birthers were rational not crazy, when not a single birther ever brought it up before now. All the networks covered Booker's attempt to point a finger at Obama for "dirty campaigning" when Obama has not yet even scratched the surface of the Romney perfidy as we've seen on this blog. None of them questioned Booker's expertise in the matter of "private equity," which is something a New Jersey mayor would not normally be expected to know a lot about. I hope the Obama people fully understand now the extent of uphill battle they have with the media in such relentlessly hostile hands.
That wasn't the story the (biased Republican) Kentucky media wanted to sell, which was that Obama didn't get 40% of Democratic votes in Kentucky (and Arkansas; and also in West Virginia, which voted before the whole gay marriage flap). Before that his previous protest votes had rarely ranged as high as 20%. But these three states were the most violently pro-Hillary Clinton in 2008 and it is likely they retain some animus from that period. Why Romney has been unable to rally the Southern Conservatives is a more interesting question. It is difficult to believe they won't vote for him in the fall, but it is also difficult to believe there is any enthusiasm.
http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/Romney_wins_GOP_primary_Obama_gets_luke_warm_Democratic_nod_152775445.html?ref=445
The Obama campaign dealt with several very curious incidents this weekend, both where supposed allies tried to undermine his re-election candidacy. The first was a revival of the notorious and ridiculous birther controversy. The second was an attack by the African-American mayor of Newark on an Obama campaign ad.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566
http://newsone.com/2016560/cory-booker-meet-the-press/
Both these incidents are very curious because they highlight the differential treatment of Republicans and Democrats in the press.
In the first case conservative blog Breitbart uncovered a pamphlet from a no longer existing company that supposedly represented Obama as a literary agent when he was an unpublished author, and claimed he was born in Kenya, the son of a finance minister. Since I met Obama in 1983 and he told me he was born in Hawai'i, I know for a fact he was not claiming to be a Kenyan national at that time. The alleged author said it was a fact-checking mistake, but I'd be very surprised indeed if the whole incident isn't a forgery, both the pamphlet which somehow missed the light of day in 2004 when Obama was a keynote speaker, or when he ran for Senate in Illinois, or when he ran for president in 2008 against very capable opposition in his own party. If so, that would mean the woman who said she made the "error" would be lying.
The second was Cory Booker's defense of "private equity." The Newark mayor pretended to be "nauseated" by Obama's attacks on Bain Capital. It was not reported why, but the Obama campaign discovered the reason, namely that Bain had given big money to Booker in his mayor's race.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/21/488002/bain-financial-industy-gave-over-565000-to-newark-mayor-cory-booker-for-2002-campaign/
However, while the Obama campaign found that interesting tidbit, the "media" did not cover that story, nor did they find out what Bain expected to get for such a lot of money in such a small place with such inexpensive elections. In fact, to the extent they did cover the story, it was to imply that the White House "slapped down" Booker on the issue, as opposed to revealing the pertinent fact that Bain funded Booker.
The news companies handled these stories a little gingerly but with a raging bias. ABC merely noted that the publishing error "might have been the source" of the birther story, falsely implying the birthers were rational not crazy, when not a single birther ever brought it up before now. All the networks covered Booker's attempt to point a finger at Obama for "dirty campaigning" when Obama has not yet even scratched the surface of the Romney perfidy as we've seen on this blog. None of them questioned Booker's expertise in the matter of "private equity," which is something a New Jersey mayor would not normally be expected to know a lot about. I hope the Obama people fully understand now the extent of uphill battle they have with the media in such relentlessly hostile hands.
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Election will be about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
It's no secret what this election will turn on: Jobs, jobs, job, jobs, jobs. The hardest hit group of people in the job market are the young, a third of whom are underemployed, and the older people who have lost jobs and not regained them. The former were big supporters of Obama in 2008 and he cannot win the election without them this year. This is pretty much the only opening Romney has to win the election, since he is a man without character and personality.
But what is the truth about jobs in America? How did it get to be a crisis, and why hasn't Obama done more?
As background, it is necessary to understand some of the history of US employment, separated from the noise of Republican propaganda. For instance, a Republican talking point is now taught in high schools, namely that when social security was started there were 7 people paying in for everyone withdrawing, whereas today the ratio is 3 to 1 and falling, and that can only be sustained because so many older people have such pitiful benefit levels. The implication is clear: we have become a nation of loafers. But the reality is different. In 1944 67 million people paid into social security out of a population of 132 million. In 2010 160 million paid into social security out of a population of 308 million. That is the ratio of "worker bees" to total population has actually slightly increased from 51% to 52%, as the elderly, students, and prisoners replaced children, orphans, mental patients, housewives, and sanitarium residents in the dependent column. It's just that more of today's dependents rely on social security and less on family support and charity. Remember when you hear someone complaining about social security tax, how they would have likely had family dependents to support in a previous generation.
Ultimately, the question of jobs is a question of facts and statistics. The public "feels" unemployment more in 2012 than it did in 2008 or 2009 because it optimistically thought the challenges of those years were temporary blips. Progressives said no, there was a structural problem of too much wealth concentration and a predatory and false global trade regime, and while Obama remained committed to the latter, he at least understood the problems posed by the former. Republicans do not. Mitt Romney sees no problem with concentrated wealth and his business partner Edward Conard thinks that the successful are underpaid! Moreover, Republicans made Obama's stimulus too small and refuse to consider a supplement. Republican governors dragged their feet about spending any of what was available (see high speed rail). Republican senators have filibustered the president an unprecedented 300 times, and then blame him for inaction! But they've done worse. A tea party group last fall asked employers not to hire anyone before the presidential election, so that economic sabotage would bring down the president, a scenario - a strike of sorts by employers - out of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/348168/tea-party-group-businesses-hurt-obama/
America's large industrials have boasted they are holding more than $1 trillion overseas, money they say they MIGHT return to America if their taxes were cut.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/tax-policy-change-would-bring-cash-piles-abroad-back-home/
That second article is particularly amusing for saying that cash held overseas nonetheless "helps" the economy when it brings no dividends or interest home, so much so that the US has fallen into current account deficit, not just trade deficit and we are not benefiting from our overseas investments.
It is interesting that they were able to make such a treasonous boast without fear of retribution from the public, and it is certain that the latter claim is largely bombast. They keep a lot of money in China because China makes them, and has capital controls that the USA doesn't have. Yet these companies are eager to invest in Communism while blaming American workers for being too greedy, as did their (Chinese) labor secretary under George W. Bush.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Republicans advocate economic sabotage to achieve political ends, and that they have no love for the U.S. economy apart from it enriching them personally. Their continued existence in Washington makes the nation unable to fix employment problems.
For years, the only employment "statistic" that counted was the Unemployment Rate. This rate has always been misleading as an international comparison. We were told in the 1980s that unemployment was worse in Europe because the socialistic economies there are "sclerotic" and make it hard to fire people and have unions on the board of directors (Germany). Today Germany employs 5% more of its people than we do.
However, their "unemployment rate" is as high as ours because it is counted differently. Similarly, Canada employs 5% more of its people than we do but does not usually have lower unemployment. The unemployment rate, then, has been massaged in the USA to the point of being unbelievable. In the early Bush II years, for instance, they cut the labor force 2% in order to hold the unemployment rate down. Needless to say, they have not done this for Obama.
But the partisan "professionals" at the Bureau of Labor Statistics have done even worse in their reporting of the employment rate. Here, for example, is their snapshot of nonfarm jobs in America.
The top table, their "official" results are shocking. They show a flat employment trend from 2002 to 2011, with very slight swings, yet we know the population increased 27 million during that time. That's 27 million people who had to be fed, clothed, and supported (22 million of them under Bush) with not a single extra body working. It was not done with productivity increases as much as it was not done at all, and has been reflected in the rapid increase of poverty. According to the chart, Obama actually has a net decline in jobs from his 2009 inaugural to the end of 2011, whereas Bush is showing a slight increase from 2002 to 2009 (because 2001, a year of heavy job losses, has been hidden). This is what Romney is running on. Add back the last year, however, and you see Obama looks like a giant of economic stimulation compared to Bush, whose Keynsian "stimulus" was in tax cuts and $300 checks to families and government employment, and bubbles in health care, banking, and real estate.
The BLS, it turns out though, is faking to support the Republican story too. Some of it is obvious. The top chart is their new number and right under it is a table of previous reports. You can see that the Obama employment totals have been consistently revised upwards after their initial reporting. But this doesn't seem to have happened under Bush....That means that news reports about employment are always not as positive as the final results apparently are.
Then you look into the methodology and realize that BLS has rather unprofessional data practices.
Thus we see that they send out employment surveys, which are indifferently processed by companies, but even though they recognize the data is garbage, the assume the month to month fluctuations in the garbage have some "real" validity. Someone evidently pointed out to them that states collect unemployment insurance data that is comparatively comprehensive and well-policed and better than a survey which is only returned occasionally and which can't follow the turnover in companies declining and starting that states are able to track. Therefore they take "primarily" state unemployment data and use it to "recenter" their survey results once a year (for unseasonally adjusted numbers) but a full five years for seasonally adjusted numbers. This makes no sense. If the states have better data, then junk the surveys and get monthly reports from the states!
Anyone who has taken a statistics class knows that you can't "recenter" bad data and treat it as though it gives an accurate time series. Bad data is bad data. Moreover, restating five years instead of leaving the individual benchmarks compounds the error trends in their survey data.
In short, the Republicans are using these numbers because they control them and have distorted them at the source. Even if you ignore their apparent sabotage, their record on jobs has been poor and their "story" on this issue has no substance.
Until late in George W. Bush's term, few people looked at the employment numbers.
But what is the truth about jobs in America? How did it get to be a crisis, and why hasn't Obama done more?
As background, it is necessary to understand some of the history of US employment, separated from the noise of Republican propaganda. For instance, a Republican talking point is now taught in high schools, namely that when social security was started there were 7 people paying in for everyone withdrawing, whereas today the ratio is 3 to 1 and falling, and that can only be sustained because so many older people have such pitiful benefit levels. The implication is clear: we have become a nation of loafers. But the reality is different. In 1944 67 million people paid into social security out of a population of 132 million. In 2010 160 million paid into social security out of a population of 308 million. That is the ratio of "worker bees" to total population has actually slightly increased from 51% to 52%, as the elderly, students, and prisoners replaced children, orphans, mental patients, housewives, and sanitarium residents in the dependent column. It's just that more of today's dependents rely on social security and less on family support and charity. Remember when you hear someone complaining about social security tax, how they would have likely had family dependents to support in a previous generation.
Ultimately, the question of jobs is a question of facts and statistics. The public "feels" unemployment more in 2012 than it did in 2008 or 2009 because it optimistically thought the challenges of those years were temporary blips. Progressives said no, there was a structural problem of too much wealth concentration and a predatory and false global trade regime, and while Obama remained committed to the latter, he at least understood the problems posed by the former. Republicans do not. Mitt Romney sees no problem with concentrated wealth and his business partner Edward Conard thinks that the successful are underpaid! Moreover, Republicans made Obama's stimulus too small and refuse to consider a supplement. Republican governors dragged their feet about spending any of what was available (see high speed rail). Republican senators have filibustered the president an unprecedented 300 times, and then blame him for inaction! But they've done worse. A tea party group last fall asked employers not to hire anyone before the presidential election, so that economic sabotage would bring down the president, a scenario - a strike of sorts by employers - out of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/348168/tea-party-group-businesses-hurt-obama/
America's large industrials have boasted they are holding more than $1 trillion overseas, money they say they MIGHT return to America if their taxes were cut.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/tax-policy-change-would-bring-cash-piles-abroad-back-home/
That second article is particularly amusing for saying that cash held overseas nonetheless "helps" the economy when it brings no dividends or interest home, so much so that the US has fallen into current account deficit, not just trade deficit and we are not benefiting from our overseas investments.
It is interesting that they were able to make such a treasonous boast without fear of retribution from the public, and it is certain that the latter claim is largely bombast. They keep a lot of money in China because China makes them, and has capital controls that the USA doesn't have. Yet these companies are eager to invest in Communism while blaming American workers for being too greedy, as did their (Chinese) labor secretary under George W. Bush.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Republicans advocate economic sabotage to achieve political ends, and that they have no love for the U.S. economy apart from it enriching them personally. Their continued existence in Washington makes the nation unable to fix employment problems.
For years, the only employment "statistic" that counted was the Unemployment Rate. This rate has always been misleading as an international comparison. We were told in the 1980s that unemployment was worse in Europe because the socialistic economies there are "sclerotic" and make it hard to fire people and have unions on the board of directors (Germany). Today Germany employs 5% more of its people than we do.
However, their "unemployment rate" is as high as ours because it is counted differently. Similarly, Canada employs 5% more of its people than we do but does not usually have lower unemployment. The unemployment rate, then, has been massaged in the USA to the point of being unbelievable. In the early Bush II years, for instance, they cut the labor force 2% in order to hold the unemployment rate down. Needless to say, they have not done this for Obama.
But the partisan "professionals" at the Bureau of Labor Statistics have done even worse in their reporting of the employment rate. Here, for example, is their snapshot of nonfarm jobs in America.
The top table, their "official" results are shocking. They show a flat employment trend from 2002 to 2011, with very slight swings, yet we know the population increased 27 million during that time. That's 27 million people who had to be fed, clothed, and supported (22 million of them under Bush) with not a single extra body working. It was not done with productivity increases as much as it was not done at all, and has been reflected in the rapid increase of poverty. According to the chart, Obama actually has a net decline in jobs from his 2009 inaugural to the end of 2011, whereas Bush is showing a slight increase from 2002 to 2009 (because 2001, a year of heavy job losses, has been hidden). This is what Romney is running on. Add back the last year, however, and you see Obama looks like a giant of economic stimulation compared to Bush, whose Keynsian "stimulus" was in tax cuts and $300 checks to families and government employment, and bubbles in health care, banking, and real estate.
The BLS, it turns out though, is faking to support the Republican story too. Some of it is obvious. The top chart is their new number and right under it is a table of previous reports. You can see that the Obama employment totals have been consistently revised upwards after their initial reporting. But this doesn't seem to have happened under Bush....That means that news reports about employment are always not as positive as the final results apparently are.
Then you look into the methodology and realize that BLS has rather unprofessional data practices.
Thus we see that they send out employment surveys, which are indifferently processed by companies, but even though they recognize the data is garbage, the assume the month to month fluctuations in the garbage have some "real" validity. Someone evidently pointed out to them that states collect unemployment insurance data that is comparatively comprehensive and well-policed and better than a survey which is only returned occasionally and which can't follow the turnover in companies declining and starting that states are able to track. Therefore they take "primarily" state unemployment data and use it to "recenter" their survey results once a year (for unseasonally adjusted numbers) but a full five years for seasonally adjusted numbers. This makes no sense. If the states have better data, then junk the surveys and get monthly reports from the states!
Anyone who has taken a statistics class knows that you can't "recenter" bad data and treat it as though it gives an accurate time series. Bad data is bad data. Moreover, restating five years instead of leaving the individual benchmarks compounds the error trends in their survey data.
In short, the Republicans are using these numbers because they control them and have distorted them at the source. Even if you ignore their apparent sabotage, their record on jobs has been poor and their "story" on this issue has no substance.
Until late in George W. Bush's term, few people looked at the employment numbers.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Polls differ on Mitt the Hall Monitor
Nebraska and Oregon had primaries last week, but all you have heard is Romney won. Since Ron Paul has suspended his campaign and Romney was officially unopposed, they felt justified not letting you know that Romney received only 71% unopposed in these two Republican states. 29% of Republicans could not bring themselves to vote for their party's nominee. Meanwhile, Obama's foray into gay rights appears to have ended any protest vote against his candidacy on the left.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&off=0&elect=2&fips=41&f=0
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&off=0&elect=2&fips=31&f=0
Still, Republican pollsters have not decided how to handle the situation. Fox News released a poll taken May 13-15 showing Obama with an eight point national lead.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-obama-pulls-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/?test=latestnews
Gallup had Romney even or even ahead, with improved likeability.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
These differences are too large to be reconciled. They cannot both be correct. Most likely, neither is correct. As a former employee in the market research industry, I know how far distant the effort and results are from the "statistical and scientific" basis they are claimed to have. Exit polls are the only polls which are truly accurate, and in modern America, they never match the reported election results. Survey results follow the needs of the buyer, suggesting a split in Republican strategy.
Some believe that showing a gain will improve Romney's shaky standing with the GOP faithful and get independent and undecideds to view a personally unpopular man as well within the "normal parameters" of electoral politics. This would be the Gallup crowd, probably tight with the campaign and receiving a belated tepid endorsement from George W. Bush this week. The Fox crowd, perhaps the only big conservative media player not in some way tethered to Bain Capital, see that as stupid. The theme that works best for them is Romney the underdog and victim of monumental Wall St. connected elitist intellectual Democrats.
Not for them the idea that Romney is pandering to gays because Wall St. is supporting Romney. Indeed, they are scrutinizing Obama's financial statements for evidence of Wall Street ties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57434282/wall-street-execs-back-obama-with-more-than-$2m/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BuzzGames_Gamecore+%28TheShowbuzz%3A+Games+GameCore%29
In 2006, Romney's disclosure indicated ties to state run oil and gas companies in Russia and China that did business with Iran. If a conservative opponent hadn't highlighted these investments, the public would never have known.
http://www.politicolnews.com/mitt-romneys-iran-oil-investments/
What's really interesting is the blackout of news on Romney's 2010 investments.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/mitt-romney-enjoys-rare-exemptions-in/
Certainly what he hasn't hidden doesn't show him as "independent" of Wall Street, including large holdings of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bonds.
http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2012/01/wire/response/on-fox-news-mitt-romney-lies-about-his-investments-in-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/
His Goldman Sachs funds are heavily invested in foreign markets in 2010 as in 2007.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/mitt-romney-goldman-sachs-investments
Republicans found that Romney continued to have investments in Chinese oil companies and companies doing business with Iran until he got rid of some of these in 2010.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Romney-invested-in-Chinese-and-Iranian-companies.html
The whole range and scope of Romney's investments will not be covered anywhere unless the Obama campaign does so. Indeed, the media campaign is already set. Anything negative Obama says about Romney will get free rebuttals to the issue from CBS, NBC, and ABC. Anything negative Romney says about Obama, Obama will have to pay for an ad for a response.
In the meantime, despite attempts by the media to squelch the bully story, evidence continues to roll in that Romney gets physical when opposed, and being opposed can be as little as refusing to put a seat upright on a plane. Romney views himself as a kind of National Hall Monitor, just as in high school, and he is not about to give up the Enforcer role. George W. Bush is also correct to be wary of a man who could easily seek his prosecution.
2012 hand on shoulder to stop Perry from talking. Romney's contractor hired the illegal, so his claim was disingenuous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anZlKAVPCnA
2010 altercation
http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2010/02/rapper-sky-blu-and-romneys-plane-altercation/
2002 altercation
http://www.socialvibes.net/socialvi/2012/05/14/romney-roughouse/
.
1981 altercation
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555346/The-story-behind-Mitt-Romneys-1981-arrest-for-disorderly-conduct.html
By threatening legal action, he managed to avoid trouble for all of this. But it all points to the Romney as bully theme being an accurate representation of his character.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&off=0&elect=2&fips=41&f=0
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&off=0&elect=2&fips=31&f=0
Still, Republican pollsters have not decided how to handle the situation. Fox News released a poll taken May 13-15 showing Obama with an eight point national lead.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-obama-pulls-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/?test=latestnews
Gallup had Romney even or even ahead, with improved likeability.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
These differences are too large to be reconciled. They cannot both be correct. Most likely, neither is correct. As a former employee in the market research industry, I know how far distant the effort and results are from the "statistical and scientific" basis they are claimed to have. Exit polls are the only polls which are truly accurate, and in modern America, they never match the reported election results. Survey results follow the needs of the buyer, suggesting a split in Republican strategy.
Some believe that showing a gain will improve Romney's shaky standing with the GOP faithful and get independent and undecideds to view a personally unpopular man as well within the "normal parameters" of electoral politics. This would be the Gallup crowd, probably tight with the campaign and receiving a belated tepid endorsement from George W. Bush this week. The Fox crowd, perhaps the only big conservative media player not in some way tethered to Bain Capital, see that as stupid. The theme that works best for them is Romney the underdog and victim of monumental Wall St. connected elitist intellectual Democrats.
Not for them the idea that Romney is pandering to gays because Wall St. is supporting Romney. Indeed, they are scrutinizing Obama's financial statements for evidence of Wall Street ties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57434282/wall-street-execs-back-obama-with-more-than-$2m/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BuzzGames_Gamecore+%28TheShowbuzz%3A+Games+GameCore%29
In 2006, Romney's disclosure indicated ties to state run oil and gas companies in Russia and China that did business with Iran. If a conservative opponent hadn't highlighted these investments, the public would never have known.
http://www.politicolnews.com/mitt-romneys-iran-oil-investments/
What's really interesting is the blackout of news on Romney's 2010 investments.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/mitt-romney-enjoys-rare-exemptions-in/
Certainly what he hasn't hidden doesn't show him as "independent" of Wall Street, including large holdings of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bonds.
http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2012/01/wire/response/on-fox-news-mitt-romney-lies-about-his-investments-in-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/
His Goldman Sachs funds are heavily invested in foreign markets in 2010 as in 2007.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/mitt-romney-goldman-sachs-investments
Republicans found that Romney continued to have investments in Chinese oil companies and companies doing business with Iran until he got rid of some of these in 2010.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Romney-invested-in-Chinese-and-Iranian-companies.html
The whole range and scope of Romney's investments will not be covered anywhere unless the Obama campaign does so. Indeed, the media campaign is already set. Anything negative Obama says about Romney will get free rebuttals to the issue from CBS, NBC, and ABC. Anything negative Romney says about Obama, Obama will have to pay for an ad for a response.
In the meantime, despite attempts by the media to squelch the bully story, evidence continues to roll in that Romney gets physical when opposed, and being opposed can be as little as refusing to put a seat upright on a plane. Romney views himself as a kind of National Hall Monitor, just as in high school, and he is not about to give up the Enforcer role. George W. Bush is also correct to be wary of a man who could easily seek his prosecution.
2012 hand on shoulder to stop Perry from talking. Romney's contractor hired the illegal, so his claim was disingenuous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anZlKAVPCnA
2010 altercation
http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2010/02/rapper-sky-blu-and-romneys-plane-altercation/
2002 altercation
http://www.socialvibes.net/socialvi/2012/05/14/romney-roughouse/
.
1981 altercation
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555346/The-story-behind-Mitt-Romneys-1981-arrest-for-disorderly-conduct.html
By threatening legal action, he managed to avoid trouble for all of this. But it all points to the Romney as bully theme being an accurate representation of his character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)