Recovery Summer IV Results

Economy: After his embarrassing failure on the foreign policy front, President Obama decided to tout his success managing the U.S. economy — just as the historically weak recovery shows fresh signs of weakening further.

In a speech marking the fifth anniversary of the Lehman Bros. collapse, Obama ticked off a laundry list of alleged accomplishments since taking office: I stopped another Great Depression, saved the auto industry, put people to work, etc.

“We cleared away the rubble from the financial crisis,” he said, “and we’ve begun to lay a new foundation for economic growth and prosperity.”

Unfortunately, it’s a foundation built on quicksand.

Just last week we learned that retail sales have softened, consumer sentiment hit a five-month low, job growth in August was still tepid and the number of job losers posted its biggest jump since 2010.

All are signs the economy isn’t going to live up to expectations in the final months of the year.

This comes after 50 months of sluggish growth that has left 4.3 million out of work long-term, helped drive 10 million out of the job market, pushed the labor participation rate to 35-year lows, boosted food stamp rolls by 14 million and pushed nearly 3 million into poverty.

Just 13 states have employment rates above their pre-recession peaks (all but four of them, by the way, voted against Obama in 2008).

Thanks to Obama’s sluggish growth, real median household income remains 4.4% below where it was when his “recovery” started.

The day Obama gave his remarks, the AP reported that the unemployment rate among low-income families is at Great Depression levels of 21%, but among upper-income households it’s 3.2%. That, AP’s analysis found, is the widest gap on record.

AP also found that middle-income workers are increasingly ending up with lower-wage jobs, forcing lower-skilled workers out of the job market.

Meanwhile, a survey out of the University of Chicago finds that a record 8.4% of Americans consider themselves “lower class.”

Here’s another way to look at it: Had Obama’s recovery merely been average, there would be 7.4 million more people gainfully employed today, and the economy would be $1.3 trillion bigger.

Even the left is noticing that, despite Obama’s endless blather about building prosperity from the ground up, his recovery has had the opposite effect — concentrating whatever gains there have been at the top.

The Huffington Post called it “the most uneven recovery in at least several decades” — which would include the Reagan, Clinton and Bush recoveries.

Among the evidence presented: Workers in the bottom 20% have seen their real average hourly wages decline steadily under Obama, compared with gains at the very top. And while 60% of the jobs lost in the recession paid mid-wages, only 22% of the jobs gained in Obama’s recovery did so.

Incredibly, amid all this, Obama claims to see “progress across the board.”  Then again, Obama thinks his foreign policy adventures have been a success, too. (IBD)

“Are some of these folks really so beholden to one extreme wing of their party that they’re willing to tank the entire economy just because they can’t get their way on this issue?” Obama said in a speech at the White House. “Are they really willing to hurt people just to score political points?” (Townhall)

WELL, we know HE IS. He’s been doing it for 5 years now! 🙂

Obama conceded the problems. “As any middle class family will tell you or anybody who’s striving to get in the middle class, we are not yet where we need to be,” he said.

And never will be, with Progressives in charge because they depend on making people poor and dependent on them and making rich people less rich and demonic to keep them them there.

“After all the progress that we’ve made over these last four and a half years, the idea of reversing that progress because of an unwillingness to compromise or because of some ideological agenda is the height of irresponsibility,” Obama said.

Which is why he won’t compromise on anything that has been done or will be done. But he’s not ideologically rigid… 🙂

After all, it’s “Congress” (Read: Republicans) Fault!

He’s not partisan. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

 

Food For the Sowell XI: The Narcissis

sowell- liberal care

The fundamental problem of the political left seems to be that the real world does not fit its preconceptions. Therefore it sees the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently its preconceptions cannot be wrong.

A never-ending source of grievances for the left is the fact that some groups are “over-represented” in desirable occupations, institutions and income brackets, while other groups are “under-represented.”

From all the indignation and outrage about this expressed on the left, you might think that it was impossible that different groups are simply better at different things.

Yet runners from Kenya continue to win a disproportionate share of marathons in the United States, and children whose parents or grandparents came from India have won most of the American spelling bees in the past 15 years.

And has anyone failed to notice that the leading professional basketball players have for years been black, in a country where most of the population is white?

Most of the leading photographic lenses in the world have — for generations — been designed by people who were either Japanese or German. Most of the leading diamond-cutters in the world have been either India’s Jains or Jews from Israel or elsewhere.

Not only people but things have been grossly unequal. More than two-thirds of all the tornadoes in the entire world occur in the middle of the United States. Asia has more than 70 mountain peaks that are higher than 20,000 feet and Africa has none.

And is it news that a disproportionate share of all the oil in the world is in the Middle East?

Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.

All this moral melodrama has served as a background for the political agenda of the left, which has claimed to be able to lift the poor out of poverty and in general make the world a better place. This claim has been made for centuries, and in countries around the world. And it has failed for centuries in countries around the world.

Some of the most sweeping and spectacular rhetoric of the left occurred in 18th century France, where the very concept of the left originated in the fact that people with certain views sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the left — communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.

Milder versions of socialism, with central planning of national economies, took root in India and in various European democracies.

If the preconceptions of the left were correct, central planning by educated elites with vast amounts of statistical data at their fingertips, expertise readily available, and backed by the power of government, should have been more successful than market economies where millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests willy-nilly.

But, by the end of the 20th century, even socialist and communist governments began abandoning central planning and allowing more market competition.

Yet this quiet capitulation to inescapable realities did not end the noisy claims of the left.

In the United States, those claims and policies reached new heights, epitomized by government takeovers of whole sectors of the economy and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, of which ObamaCare has been only the most obvious example.

The political left has long claimed the role of protector of “the poor.” It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?

Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty.But that raises a fundamental question:

Just who are “the poor”?

If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about “the poor” that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?

“Poverty” once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example.

Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean.

And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare-state spending.

Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers’ money.

This kind of “poverty” can easily become a way of life, not only for today’s “poor,” but for their children and grandchildren.

Keep Them Down

Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit “tax” on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.

If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it?

In short, the political left’s welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty. Unless we believe that some people are predestined to be poor, the left’s agenda is a disservice to them, as well as to society. The vast amounts of money wasted are by no means the worst of it.

If our goal is for people to get out of poverty, there are plenty of heartening examples of individuals and groups who have done that, in countries around the world.

Millions of “overseas Chinese” emigrated from China destitute and often illiterate in centuries past. Whether they settled in Southeast Asian countries or in the United States, they began at the bottom, taking hard, dirty and sometimes dangerous jobs.Four-Letter Word

Even though the overseas Chinese were usually paid little, they saved out of that little, and many eventually opened tiny businesses. By working long hours and living frugally, they were able to turn tiny businesses into larger and more prosperous businesses. Then they saw to it that their children got the education that they themselves often lacked.

By 1994, the 57 million overseas Chinese created as much wealth as the one billion people living in China.

Variations on this social pattern can be found in the histories of Jewish, Armenian, Lebanese and other emigrants who settled in many countries around the world — initially poor, but rising over the generations to prosperity. Seldom did they rely on government, and they usually avoided politics on their way up.

Such groups concentrated on developing what economists call “human capital” — their skills, talents, knowledge and self-discipline. Their success has usually been based on that one four-letter word that the left seldom uses in polite society: “work.”

There are individuals in virtually every group who follow similar patterns to rise from poverty to prosperity.

But how many such individuals there are in different groups makes a big difference for the prosperity or poverty of the groups as a whole.

The agenda of the left — promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for “rights” to what other people have produced — is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.

This agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty. But it has lifted the left to positions of power and self-aggrandizement, while they promote policies with socially counterproductive results.


When teenage thugs are called “troubled youth” by people on the political left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young hoodlums.

Seldom is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create trouble and dangers for others.

Why then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called “troubled youth” and mass murderers are just assumed to be “insane”?

At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.

All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slave owners.

Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?

Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. Why? Self preservation.

If the things that the left wants to control — institutions and government policy — are not the most important factors in the world’s problems, then what role is there for the left?

What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government “solutions” that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking “the root causes of crime” is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals?

The hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s — after which crime and violence skyrocketed .

What happened when old-fashioned ideas about sex were replaced in the 1960s by the bright new ideas of the left that were introduced into the schools as “sex education” that was supposed to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases had been going down for years. But that trend suddenly reversed in the 1960s and hit new highs.

One of the oldest and most dogmatic of the crusades of the left has been disarmament, both of individuals and of nations. Again, the focus of the left has been on the externals — the weapons in this case.

If weapons were the problem, then gun control laws at home and international disarmament agreements abroad might be the answer.

But if evil people who care no more for laws or treaties than they do for other people’s lives are the problem, then disarmament means making decent, law-abiding people more vulnerable to evil people.

Since belief in disarmament has been a major feature of the left since the 18th century, in countries around the world, you might think that by now there would be lots of evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

But evidence on whether gun control laws actually reduce crime rates in general, or murder rates in particular, is seldom mentioned by gun-control advocates. It is just assumed in passing that of course tighter gun-control laws will reduce murders.

But the hard facts do not back up that assumption. That is why it is the critics of gun control who rely heavily on empirical evidence, as in books like “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott and “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

National disarmament has an even worse record. Both Britain and America neglected their military forces between the two World Wars, while Germany and Japan armed to the teeth. Many British and American soldiers paid with their lives for their countries’ initially inadequate military equipment in World War II.

But what are mere facts compared to the heady vision of the left?

After all, they can’t possible be wrong. There’s is the superior intelligence. The superior compassion. And just plain old superior to everyone and everything.
There’s a word for that: Narcissism.

At the heart of the left’s vision of the world is the implicit assumption that high-minded third parties like themselves can make better decisions for other people than those people can make for themselves.

That arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption underlies a wide spectrum of laws and policies over the years, ranging from urban renewal to ObamaCare.

One of the many international crusades by busybodies on the left is the drive to limit the hours of work by people in other countries — especially poorer countries — in businesses operated by multinational corporations. One international monitoring group has taken on the task of making sure that people in China do not work more than the legally prescribed 49 hours per week.

Why international monitoring groups, led by affluent Americans or Europeans, would imagine that they know what is best for people who are far poorer than they are, and with far fewer options, is one of the many mysteries of the busybody elite.

As someone who left home at the age of 17, with no high school diploma, no job experience and no skills, I spent several years learning the hard way what poverty is like. One of the happier times during those years was a brief period when I worked 60 hours a week — 40 hours delivering telegrams during the day and 20 hours working part-time in a machine shop at night.

Why was I happy? Because, before finding these jobs, I had spent weeks desperately looking for any job, while my meager savings dwindled down to literally my last dollar, before finally finding the part-time job at night in a machine shop.

I had to walk several miles from the rooming house where I lived in Harlem to the machine shop located just below the Brooklyn Bridge, in order to save that last dollar to buy bread until I got a payday.

When I then found a full-time job delivering telegrams during the day, the money from the two jobs combined was more than I had ever made before. I could pay the back rent I owed on my room and both eat and ride the subways back and forth to work.

I could even put aside some money for a rainy day. It was the closest thing to nirvana for me.

Thank heaven there were no busybodies to prevent me from working more hours than they thought I should.

There was a minimum wage law, but this was 1949 and the wages set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been rendered meaningless by years of inflation. In the absence of an effective minimum wage law, unemployment among black teenagers in the recession year of 1949 was a fraction of what it would be in even the most prosperous years of the 1960s and beyond.

As the morally anointed busybodies raised the minimum wage rate, beginning in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment skyrocketed. We have now become so used to tragically high rates of unemployment among this group that many people have no idea that things were not always like that, much less that policies of the busybody left had such catastrophic consequences.

I don’t know what I would have done if such busybody policies had been in effect back in 1949, and prevented me from finding a job before my last dollar ran out.

My personal experience is just one small example of what it is like when your options are very limited. The prosperous busybodies of the left are constantly promoting policies which reduce the existing options of poor people even more.

It would never occur to the busybodies that multinational corporations are expanding the options of the poor in third world countries, while busybody policies are contracting their options.

Wages paid by multinational corporations in poor countries are typically much higher than wages paid by local employers. Moreover, the experience that employees get working in modern companies make them more valuable workers and have led in China, for example, to wages rising by double-digit percentages annually.

Nothing is easier for people with degrees to imagine that they know better than the poor and uneducated. But, as someone once said, “A fool can put on his coat better than a wise man can put it on for him.”

But feels they can not only make the coat superior but they can wear it to. And that’s all down to their own sense of their own vast Superiority.

Homo Superior Liberalis. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson


Gloom, Despair & Agony on Me

Lincoln Comp 590 cdn

The number of Americans not in the labor force grew by 169,000 in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report.

BLS labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work. There were 89 million of them last month.

The number of people not in the labor force had declined in December to 88.8 million from 88.9 million in November.

The nation’s unemployment rate increased a tenth of a point in January, rising to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent, a level the Labor Department described as “essentially unchanged.”

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.3 million, was little changed in January and has been at this level since Sept. 2012.

So disband the Jobs Council. “Mission Accomplished”, The New “normal” has been achieved.

**************************

Sixty-one percent of U.S. small business owners said they were “worried about the potential cost of healthcare” and 56 percent said they were “worried about new government regulations,” according to the Wells Fargo/Gallup small business index released on Jan. 31, which also showed that 30 percent of small business owners are not hiring and fear going out of business within a year.

“At the bottom of the list, but still at a surprisingly high level, 30% of owners say they are not hiring because they are worried they may no longer be in business in 12 months,” according to Gallup’s index summary. “This is up from 24% who had the same worry in January 2012.”

Well, they are just too greedy and want too much profit (might say the left). Psah, you’re overstating the problems. Besides, if we can just get rid of the Republicans Utopia would reign. 🙂

***************

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is leaving office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press that critics of the administration’s handling of the attack don’t live in an “evidence-based world” and their refusal to “accept the facts” is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system.

Translation: F*ck you! F*ck you at the Drive-Thru!

The facts are what I say they are and if you won’t accept them then that’s your problem now go f* yourself!

Now that’s leadership, integrity and “transparency” 🙂

Yet another “vast right wing conspiracy”

Oh, and a Film lie cover story  that no one wants to even acknowledge was a bold faced lie or massive incompetence OR BOTH .

Mistakes were made, get over it.

Now Just imagine anyone but a Liberal (and Liberal Media) in charge?

“What difference does it make”? 🙂

8 Embassies attacked in 4 years. 1 Ambassador Dead.

Now that’s record to be proud of!

So, Now it’s John “f-ing” Kerry’s turn. The man who voted for the 87 Million before he voted against it!

We’ve all been Swift Boated…

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

 

 

 

Shrinking is Good For You

Jobs: Normally, a drop in the unemployment rate would be a welcome sign of an economy on the mend. But in the upside-down world of Obamanomics, the jobless figure is increasingly useless, hiding more than it reveals.

Which is perfect for Liberals. Because fakery and falsehoods is what they live for. After all, you’re too stupid to be responsible for yourself so the truth isn’t something you or they can handle so self-lying statistics is a great boon to “transparency”.

In April, the unemployment rate officially declined to 8.1% from the previous month’s 8.2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But you don’t have to look very hard to see that the jobs picture actually deteriorated last month.

In fact, the only reason the jobless rate didn’t climb in April is because so many people have simply quit looking for jobs and didn’t get counted as unemployed.

So when the liberal trots out like a puffed up peacock that more private sector jobs were created, mention that more people where destroyed than created.

They will be offended and call you a partisan hack and have no heart, but they were going to do that anyways.

Last month, 342,000 people disappeared from the labor force. Had that not happened, the unemployment rate would have been 8.3%, not 8.1%.

115,000 New Jobs. 342,000 give up. Now that’s a rosy picture! 🙂

But don’t expect the Ministry of Truth or the Liberal Talking Heads to mention anything but that first half. The second half doesn’t exist and you’re just a partisan hack who just wants to destroy Obama if you mention the second half.

It will just be “unexpectantly low” but still “showing signs of progress” and my favorite “the lowest unemployment in 3 years”.

WHAT A CROCK!

8+% Unemployment for more than 3 years and countless millions of people who have given up and this is GOOD NEWS?

Only in Liberal Orwell Land.

As a language, Newspeak applies different meanings to things and actions by referring only to the end to be achieved, not the means of achieving it;

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong. (1984 By George Orwell).

Sound Like NBC, CBS, ABC, et al?

Worse, the labor force participation rate has been on a downward slide throughout Obama’s presidency, as millions of workers have given up their fruitless job searches (see chart). That also masks the size of the unemployment problem.

Had the participation rate stayed where it was in June 2009 — the month the recession officially ended — the unemployment rate would be more like 11% today.

And when you add in all those who can’t get full-time work because of the lousy job market, the jobless rate reaches Depression-era levels of 14.5% — unchanged, by the way, from the month before.

Nor does the unemployment number adequately capture the many other ways the job market has deteriorated on Obama’s watch.

There are, for example, 5.1 million people who’ve been out of work for 27 weeks or more — nearly double the number when Obama took office.

The median length of unemployment is now 19.4 weeks — also nearly double from what it was in January 2009.

Even using the misleading unemployment number, there are half a million more people who can’t find jobs today than there were when Obama got his keys to the White House.

And the economy isn’t producing nearly enough new jobs to make a meaningful dent in any of this.

The 115,000 jobs created in April won’t even cover population growth, much less bring back any of the 7.7 million who’ve dropped out of the labor force over the past three years.

The percentage of Americans working or looking for work has fallen to its lowest level in more than 30 years, according to gloomy economic figures that are a major blow to President Barack Obama’s hopes of re-election. This stark ‘participation’ figure of the proportion of Americans in work will underline the sense of continued crisis and we know already, “Never let a Crisis Go to Waste”.

Obama has, in other words, managed to give a whole new meaning to the term “jobless recovery,” one that the traditional unemployment measure simply isn’t able to capture.

And until someone comes up with a better measure, the public would do well to ignore whatever the unemployment rate appears to be telling them.(IBD)

Unless you work for the Ministry of Truth, that is. 🙂

The Unemployment rate Dropped again, so He must be doing a good job and the economy is improving! Re-Elect Him and he will save you from those evil Republicans and their fat cat, greedy,racist, corporate capitalist exploiters!

“The last three months we’ve created an average of 212,000 jobs a month, which is pretty darn good, and the overall rate of unemployment has come down to about 8.2 — some people have said, ‘well, that’s because people have stopped looking for jobs’ — but look, I think we’re on a very solid trend now. As you said, 4 million new jobs in four years, that’s something to be pretty proud of,” Author William Cohan said on MSNBC. (MRC)

CBS “Evening News” anchor Scott Pelley shared “a little bit of good news on jobs” on Sept. 7, 2011. He led into a report about Obama’s proposed jobs plan by optimistically reporting that in July there were 3.2 million job openings posted by employers. “That’s the most in nearly three years,” Pelley said without noting the huge shortfall between available jobs and the roughly 14 million who were unemployed in August.

Now doesn’t that sound like the Ministry….ignoring the nearly 8 million jobs lost and up to 8 million who have given up because they don’t suit the meme of how great they are.

Last year, 86 million Americans were not counted in the labor force because they didn't keep up a regular job search. Most of them were either under age 25 or over age 65.

Last year, 86 million Americans were not counted in the labor force because they didn’t keep up a regular job search. Most of them were either under age 25 or over age 65.

A person is counted as part of the labor force if they have a job or have looked for one in the last four weeks. As of April, only 63.6% of Americans over the age of 16 fell into that category, according to the Labor Department. That’s the lowest labor force participation rate since 1981.

As these trends continue, the Chicago Fed expects the labor force participation rate will keep falling, hitting 62.4% by 2020.

That poses a problem for a variety of reasons.

It hits tax revenue and makes it harder to fund social safety nets like Social Security. Not to mention, it’s likely to increase income inequality.

Most importantly though, it makes the U.S. economy less productive and weighs on growth. (CNN Money)

So we have to squeeze the “the rich” even more and we can play the class warfare card even harder. Hurray! 🙂

So what if the policies are creating this, it works for me politically so gives a damn!

America, Whatta Country in 2012.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Mom, Can I Grow up to be Bureaucrat?

The following chart makes that case. Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one.  And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.

image002

Plus, as you know, according to the latest numbers from Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average federal civilian worker now earns double what private-sector workers earn when factoring in wages and benefits ($119,982 vs. $59,909). And the gap is increasing.  According to Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, in 2000, the average federal worker earned 66 percent more in total compensation than the average private-sector worker. By 2008, that ratio had risen to 100 percent. That’s serious money.

Peter Orszag, the soon to be leaving OMB director, has  explained the differences in pay by saying that public employees have more diplomas (probably implying that they are smarter) than private employees:

But the truth is that a comparison of federal and private-sector pay, even by occupation, is misleading because the employees hired by the federal government often have higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector — even within the same occupations.  When you factor in the education and experience of the federal workforce, there is no statistically significant difference in average pay levels.

Translation: We are better than you.

Edwards, however, shows this is nonsense. He writes:

Some people argue that the federal government has a unique high-end workforce, which deserves to be paid handsomely. But let’s consider some ordinary and mundane offices in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2010, the USDA’s Office of Communications employed 77 people and paid $9 million in wages and benefits. That works out to $117,000 each for these public relations workers, which is close to the overall federal compensation average. Or consider that the 62 employees of the USDA’s Office of Chief Economist earned an average $177,000 each in wages and benefits in 2010. It isn’t just rocket scientists that are earning high federal compensation, it is also workers in many run-of-the-mill bureaucratic jobs.

More importantly, the federal workforce has always had a heavy contingent of skilled professionals such as lawyers. So that is not new, and thus it cannot explain the dramatically faster growth in federal compensation compared to private compensation […].

Besides, if these diplomas are what gave is the health care reform, the financial bill making its way to Congress and the stimulus, then I would argue that we would be better off if  high-school dropouts to run Congress.

That being said, if bureaucrats have job security, their workforce grows during recession, and they make increasingly more money, being a proud public sector employee should become your little ones’ dream. In this context, wanting to be a fireman or a princess is so yesterday. (Big Government)

So, government apparatchiks (“agent of the apparatus”) are prospering.

Unions get bail outs, exemptions from taxes you’ll be paying, and special deals. Because they are part of the base of the party.

Union Pensions are bankrupting companies and states everywhere. So what. Big Deal.

The Hispanics are being pandered because they are also the base of the party. So Obama’s campaign speech last week on Illegal Immigration was for them, not you.

So if you’re a party appartchik or a wanna-be apparatchik, you’re In like Flint.

But government gets it’s money from taxes.

Only 50% of people even pay taxes.

But hey, if you’re unemployed, the government will pay you to be unemployed and dependent on them.

Persistent unemployment nationwide is threatening to inhibit consumer spending. The latest figures from the government on Friday underscored the depth of the problem, with the economy adding only 83,000 private sector jobs.

There was no relief in sight from Washington, either. Congress left on recess Friday having failed to pass legislation that would have extended unemployment benefits for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

On the small-business side, credit concerns are keeping some companies from spending. And on the consumer side, while spending and confidence numbers continue to be weak, personal income has risen for three months straight and savings rates are relatively high. That suggests people now have cash but are just sitting on it.

So they’ll just print more money. Who cares.

It’s not like they want the private sector to create jobs, not really.

Obama has been “focused on jobs” for 18 months now. And you can smell the rotting corpse of neglect and contempt from here.

But “he cares”… 🙂

When Obama could have passed comprehensive immigration reform – when he still had 60 Senate Democrats – he didn’t lift a finger to push it. Now that he can’t pass it – it is too late in the year, he doesn’t have 60 votes, and many Democrats will defect – he aggressively pushes it in a national speech.

The opportunism and hypocrisy of his attempt to manipulate America’s Latinos into forgetting his previous inaction is transparent and obvious. Polls show him losing Hispanics due to high and continuing unemployment and losing Congressional seats in the bargain, so Obama has dug up the immigration proposals of former President George W. Bush, dusted them off, and made them his own. He knows it won’t pass. But he hopes that it will reignite Latino enthusiasm for his failing presidency and anger at Republicans for frustrating immigration reform.(Dick Morris)

It was just the latest in cynical political ploys.

Pure Politics. No actual conviction.

So the bottom line is, guess what is likely to be one of  the next great “bubble” to burst.

You got it, Government Apparatchiks and their dependents.

And guess who’s going to bail them out! 🙂

Now that’s “Hope and Change” for ya…