Census: Households With Children with an Unemployed Parent Increased 33 Percent from 2005 to 2011

    A Census Bureau report released on Tuesday says that the number of households with children under 18 with at least one unemployed parent increased by 33 percent between 2005 and 2011 from 2.4 million to 3.2 million.  In addition, home ownership among households with children under 18 declined by 15 percent to 20.8 million during that same time period.
    The report is entitled America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2012 and touches on all aspects of the living arrangements of Americans.  Jamie Lewis a demographer for the Census Bureau and co-author of the report says that while the recession had an impact, the effects have not dissipated since the recession ended:

Home ownership among families declined, while food stamp receipt and parental unemployment increased. Even after the recession officially ended in 2009, these measures remained worse than before it began.

    Other parts of the report show some dramatic changes in American households in the last several decades.  For instance:

The share of households that consisted of married couples with children shrunk by half between 1970 and 2012, from 40 percent to 20 percent. At the same time, the percentage of households consisting of a person living alone climbed from 17 percent to 27 percent.

    Some other notable report findings:

• A higher percentage of young adults age 25 to 34 lived in their parents' home in 2012 than in the early 2000s. For men of this age, the share living in their parents' home increased from 13 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2012. The increase for women age 25 to 34 went from 8 percent in 2000 to 10 percent in 2012.
• According to the 2011 American Community Survey, there were 605,000 same-sex couple households, including both married and unmarried couples, of whom 284,000 were male and 321,000 were female couples.
• Most family groups with children (63 percent) were maintained by married couples.
• A higher percentage of black (55 percent) and Hispanic (31 percent) children lived with one parent than white non-Hispanic (21 percent) or Asian children (13 percent).
• Between 1970 and 2012, the average number of people per household declined from 3.1 to 2.6. 

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Labor Dept.: $64M in Grants For 'Personalized, Re-employment Plans' For Unemployed

    The Labor Department announced Monday the awarding of $64 million in grants to help unemployment insurance recipients find work more quickly.  The funds will be divided up between thirty-eight states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.  Acting Labor Secretary Seth Harris announced the awards:

"The grants announced today will help individuals and families facing unemployment get back to work quickly," said acting Secretary of Labor Seth D. Harris. "This is a win-win-win for those looking for work, employers who want to pay less taxes and states struggling to control their budgets."

    The grants fund programs that focus directly on matching individuals and their career interests with job availability in the local job market:

The funds will be used to provide UI beneficiaries with personalized, re-employment plans based on the claimant's career interests and local labor market information. These assessments are done in-person and participants will receive referrals to re-employment services and/or training provided by the American Job Center. The program will also allow for a complete review of the claimants eligibility for UI benefits, to help reduce incidences of improper payments...
A recent report by Impaq International found strong evidence showing that re-employment and eligibility assessments expedite the return of the unemployed to the workforce.

   The five states receiving the most funds are: New York, $11,037,401; Florida, $7,146,196; Massachusetts, $4,280,176; Oregon, $3,693,193; and Ohio, $3,449,135.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Joining Forces: 125,000 Veterans Hired, but Fewer Working [Updated]

    The official White House blog has been posting highlights from 2012 under the heading Year in Review.  A post on Sunday featured Joining Forces, the program jointly chaired by Michelle Obama and Joe Biden to promote employment among veterans.  But actual government employment statistics suggest that the program may not be as successful as it appears on the surface.

In August of 2011, President Obama challenged the private sector to hire or train 100,000 veterans and military spouses by the end of 2013. In August of this year, First Lady Michelle Obama visited Mayport Naval Station in Florida to announce that 2,000 American companies had stepped up to the challenge, and had already exceeded that goal, hiring 125,000 veterans and military spouses more than a year ahead of schedule. 

In addition, those companies doubled down on their commitment to our troops and military families and made a new promise, a pledge to hire or train an additional 250,000 of our nation's heroes, including 50,000 military spouses.

    The 125,000 figure cited in this Year in Review post is the same used in contemporaneous news accounts in August, as well as in this Defense Department news article from August 22, 2012, which also included these statistics:

Unemployment still is too high for veterans and military spouses, but Joining Forces has helped to push the national veteran unemployment rate down nearly 20 percent from a year ago, Obama said. The veteran unemployment rate in July was 6.9 percent, compared to 8.6 percent in July 2011, Joining Forces officials said during a call with reporters yesterday.

    Acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank did not provide any update on the veterans-hired figures on December 12 when she announced an expansion of the initiative:

[B]ack in August 2011, the president challenged American businesses to hire or train 100,000 unemployed veterans and military spouses by the end of 2013. 

The response was overwhelming. Two thousand companies stepped up–including some of yours, I’m sure. And as the First Lady announced in August, we surpassed the goal a full year ahead of schedule. 

So now it’s time to do what any good military officer or CEO with an overperforming team would do–It’s time to raise the bar. The companies involved in Joining Forces have a new goal of hiring or training an additional 250,000 veterans and military spouses by the end of 2014.

    I have not been able to find the raw statistics to back up the 125,000 figure cited by Mrs. Obama and other Joining Forces spokespersons.  It is not clear how the White House is tracking how many veterans have been hired as a result of Joining Forces.  The Military Times reported in October 2012 that while the White House declined to provide details to confirm the 125,000, the Military Times had confirmed the figure by other means (via IFA Smart Brief):

The White House has declined to confirm 125,000 veterans and military spouses have been hired as part of its Joining Forces initiative, but Military Times was "able to verify the numbers from a variety of government and industry sources." IFA reported that by mid-August, 4,200 veterans and military spouses had become new franchise owners, while 3,000 became franchise employees. 

    The White House did include a listing of some of the companies involved in a document released on the first anniversary of the program's launch.  However, that document contains the word commit (committed/commitment) 138 times; this was primarily a list of intentions, not actual results.

    In any case, Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers confirm the 8.6% to 6.9% drop mentioned in the article above.  During that same time, national unemployment as a whole dropped from 9.1% to 8.3% from July 2011 to July 2012, a decrease of 9% versus the more impressive 20% decrease for the rate among veterans.

    However, a closer look at the numbers paints a somewhat less rosy picture.  As has been the complaint in the broader unemployment rate figures as of late, the participation rate may be the key.  Here's Table A-5 from BLS's July 2012 unemployment report, with the December 2012 column tacked on:

    While the number of unemployed dropped from 975,000 to 752,000 during the year, look at the number employed.  July 2011: 10,412,000.  July 2012: 10,173,000.  So during the 12-month period in which Joining Forces spurred the hiring of 125,000 veterans, the total number of employed veterans dropped 239,000.  Note the participation rate in July 2011: 52.7%.  In July 2012: 51.6%.  The rate has dropped again as of the latest report for December 2012 to 51.3%, with total employed veterans reported as 10,050,000.  The unemployment rate among veterans risen to 7%, and the actual number of employed veterans is now 362,000 below the July 2011 benchmark.  Although the number of unemployed veterans has dropped 218,000 from July 2011 to December 2012, the decrease in the participation rate (presumably due to a combination of retirements, deaths, disability, and discouraged job-seekers, among other factors) is more responsible for the drop in the unemployment rate since July 2011 rather than an increase in number of veterans working.

    I am not suggesting there have not been veterans who have benefited from this initiative.  Criticism of a government program, especially one aimed at helping the unquestionably deserving, is often deflected by anecdotal evidence of families or individuals who have received needed assistance.  Critics are made to look selfish and heartless.  However, the overall effectiveness of the government's timeand use of tax dollars must still be evaluated.  Would those who have been hired through this program been hired anyway?  Are the veterans just replacing non-veterans who were let go to make room?  Are some companies just seeking a short-term tax credit available for hiring veterans?

    A more detailed report from the White House on the results from Joining Forces could answer these questions, but there does not appear to even be a mechanism in place for the results to be audited.  Good intentions cannot replace accountability, and if any group in our country can appreciate accountability, our veterans can.  They deserve to know if Joining Forces is truly helping them integrate into the civilian workforce, or if it is just helping to mask the larger issue of weak employment that has been impacting the country as a whole for the last four years.

Note: This post was originally published on January 1, 2013, but was updated for December unemployment figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on January 4, 2013.

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans: Part 5 - Final

    When the September state unemployment figures were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, October 19th, media reports focused on how nine all-important "swing states" fared.  As it turns out, unemployment dropped in seven of the nine, and held steady in the remaining two.  Politico's take was a rather tepid nod at a possible benefit to President Obama from the positive economic signs.  However, applying a metric I have used in the context of the state unemployment numbers several times since April (here, here, here, and here), the September swing state results take on new meaning.

    In this series (of which this is the final installment since the election is just three weeks away), I have analyzed jobs data on the basis of what I call Republican-controlled states versus Democratic-controlled states.  As I have documented, those states I have defined as Republican-controlled have far outpaced Democratic-controlled states in improving their rates of unemployment since 2009.  (I define "control" as the party that holds at least two out of three of the following: the governorship and the two legislative houses.  So, for instance, even though New Jersey has a Republican governor, Chris Christie, both legislative houses are held by Democrat majorities, so New Jersey is considered Democratic-controlled.)

    Based on the figures released by the BLS on Friday, October 19, when the states under control of the respective parties are combined and considered as one, the rates of unemployment are as follows:

Republican-controlled states    7.6%
Democratic-control states        9.0%

    Although this gap has narrowed since August (1.4% vs. 1.5% in August,) the difference is still substantial.  And those nine swing states?  Seven of them are Republican-controlled and only two Democratic-controlled (and one of those two is Nevada which, despite the improvement, still has the highest rate in the nation at 11.8%.  The other is Colorado at 8%.)

    The doomsday scenario for the Obama campaign is that voters in these swing states will credit the local Republicans (all politics is local? is that still true?) rather than the president and his party for whatever gains are being made on the economic front.  If that happens, then the defeat of President Obama will be even more overwhelming than I have been predicting since January.  Landslide, anyone?

Under-employment: Then and Now

    As long as I am picking on CNN this week, here's a story on underemployment, the lesser known cousin of the more popular unemployment rate.  Here are some excerpts from "Under-employed and under the radar":

The economic crisis has taken a severe toll on the nation's workforce. But while much of the discussion centers around layoffs and unemployment, a growing number of Americans are becoming under-employed - struggling to pay their bills on a smaller salary, or completely giving up on finding any work. 

Unemployment claims have climbed to 7-year highs, but the number of people who have settled for part-time work or given up on finding a job altogether is the worst it's been in over 14 years, but isn't included in the official unemployment rate... 

The under-employment rate, which counts those without jobs who have become discouraged and stopped looking for work, as well as part-time workers who want full-time jobs, rose to 11% from 10.7%, the highest rate since April 1994, according to the Labor Department's monthly jobs report.

    Those paying careful attention to the numbers and dates in the preceding paragraphs will have figured out by now that this was not a recent article.  Rather, this tale of gloom and doom (justifiably so) was published on October 3, 2008, about five weeks before the 2008 Presidential election.  Fast-forward exactly four years to October 3, 2012, and CNN published another story on underemployment just five weeks before another Presidential election.  This time, it's titled "September jobs report probably won't sway election":

Only two monthly jobs reports remain before the presidential election, but don't expect either of them to swing undecided voters. 

That's because, in all likelihood, both reports will show more sluggish job growth... 

"If the report is close to my expectations then it should not have a meaningful impact on the election," [Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics] said.  

Following Friday's jobs report, President Obama will probably continue to say the private sector has been adding jobs for two-and-a-half years. Mitt Romney is likely to point out that more than 20 million Americans remain either unemployed or underemployed.

Both will be right.

The article never actually gets around to mentioning the underemployment rate which stood at 11% in September 2008.  Currently, that rate is 14.7%.  What a difference four years makes.  And who's challenging the incumbent.

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans: Part 4

    This past Friday, September 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released state-by-state unemployment data for August.  Several times since April (here, here, and here) I have written about "President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans" in relation to the jobs data via an analysis of what I call Republican-controlled states versus Democratic-controlled states.  Those states I have defined as Republican-controlled have far outpaced Democratic-controlled states in improving their rates of unemployment since 2009.  For instance, in my July post, I noted, among other things:

• When looking at the 50 states plus D.C., out of the top 26 with the best performance on unemployment [since 2009], 21 are Republican-controlled and only 5 are Democrat-controlled. 
• Of the bottom 25, 15 are Democrat-controlled and 10 are Republican-controlled.  

    As I have explained in the past, I have defined "control" as the party that holds at least two out of three of the following: the governorship and the two legislative houses.  So, for instance, even though New Jersey has a Republican governor, Chris Christie, both legislative houses are held by Democrat majorities, so New Jersey is considered Democratic-controlled.

     Using this metric, I'd like to highlight just a single contrast from the recently released August BLS figures that I analyzed.  When the states under control of the respective parties are combined and considered as one, the rates of unemployment are as follows:

• Republican-controlled states    7.7%
• Democratic-control states        9.2%

    The rate in Republican-controlled states is a full one-and-a-half points better.  If the 7.7% rate had been reached in the Democratic-controlled states, almost one million more people would have jobs.

    For a campaign that has been criticized for lacking specifics, this real-world example of what Republican policies versus Democratic policies can produce would be a real boon.  Mitt Romney should make the case that his economic plan will tackle (as Joe Biden would say) that "three-letter" issue "jobs" with three letters of his own: G-O-P.

Does Obama Deserve a Second Term? Ask the White House

    Wow.  Read this from the White House website's autobiography of Bill Clinton [emphasis mine]:

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.

    Bill Clinton managed to do what no Democratic president had done in half a century.  Using the same criteria, what do Barack Obama's reelection chances look like?

• Unemployment - The unemployment rate has been above 8% for 42 consecutive months, the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression. (Forbes)  The median length of unemployment is now 19.4 weeks — also nearly double from what it was in January 2009. (IBD)
• Inflation - Real inflation rate above 8%; gas prices up 83%. (NY Post)
• Home Ownership - Census reports the national home ownership rate at 65.4% is the lowest in 15 years.  African American home-ownership under Obama has fallen 30 percentage points below white home ownership, the biggest difference in 20 years, and one of the biggest on record. (Forbes)
• Crime – Bright spot!  Despite hard economic times, crime continues to decline. (WSJ)
• Welfare Rolls - An all time record of 47% of Americans are now government dependents receiving some form of government benefits. (Forbes)    Food Stamp rolls increased 46% from January 2009 to June 2012.  Total individuals receiving food stamps as of June 2012 is 46,670,373, largest number ever. (USDA)
• Budget - "For the fourth year in a row, Washington faces a $1 trillion-plus deficit[.]" (Politico)

    I've been arguing since January that President Obama's chances of reelection are virtually nil.  But now I've got the White House backing me up!

Republican-controlled States Dominate Job Growth [Updated]

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the June state-by-state jobs numbers on Friday, July 20th.  As I have reported twice before on this blog in April and May, states that are under Republican control ("control" defined as holding at least two out of three of the governorship and the legislative houses) have dominated whatever good news has come on the jobs front since 2009.  The following contrast sums up the results well:

• When looking at the 50 states plus D.C., out of the top 26 with the best performance on unemployment, 21 are Republican-controlled and only 5 are Democrat-controlled.  
• Of the bottom 25, 15 are Democrat-controlled and 10 are Republican-controlled.  

Other telling statistics are:

• The unemployment rate in Democrat-controlled states taken as a group is 9%.
• The unemployment rate in Republican-controlled states taken as a group is 7.5%.
• Of the states with the lowest unemployment rates as of June 2012, 9 out of 10 are Republican.
• The four states with the worst unemployment are under Democrat control.

The raw data I used to compile these statistics is found here.  I would welcome further analysis and/or critiques of my analysis if I have misrepresented any of the data.  But the contrast is stark and clear.  Any improvement in the job situation in this country over Barack Obama's presidency has far more to do with the help he's received from the opposing party at the state level than with any stimulus or policies implemented by the president and his party on a federal level.
    If this election is about the economy as elections usually are, Mitt Romney and the Republicans need to continue to tell this story if the GOP is to recapture the presidency and hold onto the House and, in a best case scenario, win the Senate.  Barack Obama often talks about the government building "roads and bridges" to stimulate job growth and get the economy moving.  But Mark Styen has it right when he said the president has more often built roadblocks than roads.
    It is often said (usually by the party in power when the economy is faltering), "There's really not much the president can do about the economy."  In some ways, that's true.  To go with the road-analogy, if the economy is a runner, there's not much anyone can do to help him run faster.  It's not as if someone can double his speed.  But someone (think Barack Obama) can sure put obstacles in his way and even slow him down or even stop him.  The way to help then becomes removing the obstacles and protecting the runner from interference.
    If we were starting with optimal conditions, the president could not do much to improve the economy - but we're no where near optimal.  Romney should not campaign on "I will create jobs," but rather, "I will remove obstacles keeping the private sector from creating jobs."  Republicans in the states have already shown this can be done.  Now Republicans need to present the case to the American people that putting the Republicans in charge nationally also will accelerate the return to a prosperous economy.  As the analysis above shows, the numbers are on their side.


UPDATE:  As the "right-wing hack" author of this "right-wing rag" referenced in the comments on this article on the Ventura County Star website, I want to stipulate that I am making no claims about the job gains in the month of June 2012, but rather the changes from 2009 to the present.  As noted above, I linked to my raw data so hopefully that gives me some "cred."  Monthly changes are often insignificant or anomalies, but the changes over several years can, and in this case, do tell a significant story.

At These Prices, There Had Better Be a Lot on His Plate!

    Today it was reported that the president's Jobs Council has not met publicly for six months, calling into question the laser-like focus on jobs that the president has often professed as his obsession.  Jay Carney, the president's press secretary was asked about this (via RealClearPolitics):

REPORTER: So there's no reason they haven't met publicly?
CARNEY: No, there's no specific reason except that the president's obviously got a lot on his plate. 

Interesting choice of words... in the last six months:

June 28, 2012 - Marc Anthony's $40,000-a-Plate Obama Fundraiser

June 13, 2012 - Obama Fundraiser Nets $40,000 A Ticket In Washington D.C. 

May 10, 2012 - George Clooney Throws Obama A $40,000-A-Plate Party

May 3, 2012 -  Obama attended two private, $40,000-a-plate fundraisers

April 9, 2012 - Lunch: $10,000 a plate. Good seats to hear John Legend sing: $5,000. Dinner: $30,000 per couple.

March 9, 2012 - Barack Obama ... $10,000-per-plate fundraiser in ... Atlanta, Ga. at the Tyler Perry Studios.  

March 1, 2012 - Obama ... at Jean-Georges Vongerichten’s ABC Kitchen... dinner cost $35,800 a plate. 

February 23, 2012 - Obama's Florida trip includes All-Star NBA [$30,000-a-plate] fundraiser 

February 15, 2012 - Actor George Clooney... joined the president for a $35,800-a-plate dinner.

This list is by no means comprehensive, but you get the idea.  However, the president is not the only one with a busy schedule, and I am out of time.  I've got a lot on my plate, too.  Or at least I will as soon as I make dinner.  I'm still working out the per-plate price.

Who Will Bet on Whom?

Illustration source: Ehow.com

    Yesterday, I poked fun at the Obama 2012 campaign's new slogan, "Betting on America."  At an Ohio stop on his new bus tour, the president said:

I was betting on the American worker and I was betting on American industry. 

And then this morning, the June jobs numbers were released.  The New York Times reports:

The economy added 80,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, after a revised increase of 77,000 in May. The unemployment rate remained at 8.2 percent.  Economists are expecting similarly tepid job growth for the rest of the year.

    Considering that the United States has now had forty-one consecutive months of eight-percent-plus unemployment, more important than Barack Obama "betting on the American worker" is will the American worker be willing to bet on Barack Obama again in November?

Insourcing Outsourcing

    For those of you who like your irony sliced thick, this is a real treat.  Thursday, President Obama gave a much-maligned 54 minute speech on the economy in which he mentioned the word "job" or "jobs" 38 times, including several times in the following excerpts:

This is the vision behind the jobs plan I sent Congress back in September -- a bill filled with bipartisan ideas that, according to independent economists, would create up to 1 million additional jobs if passed today...

My plan to reform the tax code recognizes that government can’t bring back every job that’s been outsourced or every factory that’s closed its doors.  But we sure can stop giving tax breaks to businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America -- in Ohio, in Cleveland, in Pennsylvania...

It’s hard not to get cynical when times are tough.  And I’m reminded every day of just how tough things are for too many Americans.  Every day I hear from folks who are out of work or have lost their home.  

When the president speaks of his "plan to reform the tax code" in the 2nd paragraph above, he's referencing his Congress To-Do List which includes the president's top five priorities for Congress (if you don't count his Don't-double-my-rate proposal for student loans about which he tweeted on June 7th:  “The No. 1 thing Congress should do right now is to stop student loan interest rates from doubling at the end of the month.") The very first item on the To-Do list is "Reward American Jobs, Not Outsourcing":

Pass legislation to attract and keep good jobs in the United States by rewarding companies who bring jobs back to America with lower taxes and pay for it by eliminating tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.

Now for the irony.  The day after giving the "I know there aren't enough jobs being created" speech, the President immediately skipped over the five items on his Congress To-Do list and announced a policy change on the treatment of certain illegal immigrants:

In an election-year policy change, the Obama administration said Friday it will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements... 

Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

It also will allow those meeting the requirements to apply for work permits, Napolitano said, adding that participants must be in the United States now and be able to prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years...

Friday's policy change is expected to potentially affect 800,000 people, an administration official told CNN on background. 

While calling on Congress to reward employers for not outsourcing American jobs, the president effectively outsourced up to 800,000 jobs to non-citizens.  While an argument can be made that immigration, even this action, in the long run will be good for the economy, that is not what the president had in mind with this policy that directly contradicts a position he took in March 2011.   As even CNN had to acknowledge in the opening sentence of their story, this was political election year pandering and nothing more.

President Obama Calls for 75,000 Teachers To Be Fired

    In the spirit of the characterization (not "hiring more" = "firing") by the Obama 2012 campaign of Mitt Romney's remarks on teachers, firemen and police (which I commented on in the second half of this post,) President Obama today called for the firing of 75,000 teachers.  Around 5 PM on Monday, @BarackObama tweeted this:

A mere 45 minutes later, this tweet came out:

No explanation was given for slashing 20% off the previous total of 400,000 educators.  For some reason, the White House feels those 75,000 teachers' jobs no longer need support.  Hey, maybe the public sector is "doing fine" now, too!

Clarifying "Clarify"

    In a press conference this morning, President Obama had the misfortune of having his remarks reported quickly and accurately.  According to Real Clear Politics and most news organizations on the planet, the president said:

The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.

Within hours, the president was forced to "clarify"these remarks, or at least that's what those same news organizations are reporting that he did, in this case, ABCNews:

“It’s absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine,” the president said while sitting alongside Philippines President Benigno Aquino in the Oval Office. “That’s the reason I had a press conference. That’s why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger. The economy is not doing fine. There are too many people out of work. The housing market is still weak, too many homes underwater and that’s precisely why I asked Congress to start taking some steps that can make a difference.”

Personally I believe that rather than "clarify," the word reporters were searching for was "repudiate."  In the same day, we heard the president say, "The private sector is doing fine" and "It’s absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine."  The equivalent would be saying that Bernie Madoff "clarified" his original denial of the $50 billion fraud scheme by confessing.

    In Obama's "clarification," there are a few other points he might need to "clarify."  He said, "That’s why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger."  A look at the White House website of the president's "Speeches and Remarks," however, reveal a different priority:

Speeches and Remarks

June 07, 2012
Remarks by the President on College Affordability
June 07, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
June 07, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
June 07, 2012
Remarks by the First Lady at a Campaign Event
June 06, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
June 06, 2012
Remarks by the First Lady at a Campaign Event
June 06, 2012
Remarks by the First Lady at a Campaign Event
June 05, 2012
Remarks by the First Lady at Disney Press Conference
June 05, 2012
Remarks by President Obama and President Clinton at a Campaign Event
June 04, 2012
Remarks by President Obama and President Clinton at a Campaign Event
June 04, 2012
Remarks by President Obama and President Clinton at a Campaign Event
June 04, 2012
Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden at the Cypress Bay High School Graduation Ceremony
June 04, 2012
Remarks by the President on Equal Pay for Equal Work via Conference Call
June 01, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Private Residence, Chicago, IL
June 01, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Private Residence, Chicago, IL
June 01, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
June 01, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Bachelor Farmer Restaurant, Minneapolis, MN

Thirteen of the last seventeen "speeches and remarks" (through June 7th) were at campaign events.  Given that Obama promised to "focus like a laser beam" on the economy, it is reasonable to assume that he must think the economy is doing OK if he can afford to refocus the laser elsewhere.

    The day was not over for clarifying moments, however.  Late in the afternoon, the @BarackObama campaign Twitter account retweeted this from Ben LaBolt, the press secretary for Obama for America in Chicago:

Vice-President Joe Biden, apparently worried that someone else would get all the credit for a gaffe, decided he wanted in on the action, and he tweeted that Romney would "cut jobs for teachers and first responders." The problem, of course, as you might have guessed, was that Mitt Romney didn't say it.  Even the title of the Youtube video contradicts the claims, "Mitt Romney Criticizes President Obama For Wanting To Hire More Police, Firemen and Teachers." Romney mentions nothing about firing, only that the lesson of Wisconsin's recall-that-wasn't being government can't continue to spend money it doesn't have, even to hire more teachers, police and firemen.  Once again, the Obama campaign found itself walking back a misstatement, a practice becoming so routine as to wear a rut in the path to the podium.  Sure enough, an hour later, the campaign tweeted this:

"Fire", "not hire"... six of one, half-dozen of the other, right?  Perhaps this works in government where an increase in spending that is less than the planned increase is called a "cut," but that does not cut it in the humdrum world of the citizenry.

    So where does this leave the Obama campaign?  I think that one result that is sure to come from this difficult week of gaffes, misstatements and misrepresentations is that the Obama campaign will be much more careful, straightforward and honest for the remainder of the campaign.  Wait, let me clarify that.  No, I don't.

Green Jobs: The REAL Solution to Unemployment

    On his show Thursday, Rush Limbaugh called attention to a story that by all rights should have been shouted from the top of every windmill and solar panel in the country, and perhaps would have been were it not for the recall-that-wasn't in Wisconsin which filled the news on Wednesday.  On that day, Fox News reported that Bureau of Labor Statistics Acting Commissioner John Galvin testified at a hearing before Rep. Darrell Issa's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a wide-ranging definition of  “green jobs” that includes bus driver, bicycle-shop clerk and other unexpected lines of employment[.] 

“Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels -- is that a green job?” Issa asked.

“Yes,” replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver and “the guy who puts gas in a school bus” are all defined as green jobs.

But this is the coup de grâce:

He also acknowledged that an oil lobbyist, if his work is related to environmental issues, would also have a green job.

With such an expansive definition, perhaps the administration should look into reclassifying the unemployed as members of Passive Environmental Agents Conserving Energy, a reboot of the PEACE Corps.  The president could claim to have created millions upon millions of new jobs (and "green" jobs, at that,) reduced unemployment to zero, and found a justification for unlimited extension of unemployment benefits as compensation to the new PEACE Corps recruits.  If you think I am stretching the bounds of parody, just play this back a few times (via the Daily Caller):



The new PEACE Corps is sounding pretty reasonable, isn't it?

Truth in Government

    Finally, some refreshing honesty from a federal government cabinet department:

    Quite frankly, the entire Obama administration has been a work-in-progress for three and a half years now, and perhaps there's no better example than the Department of Labor, given the dismal employment situation.  In his Friday column, James Taranto cited a piece by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute that included the following chart showing the Obama team's projected unemployment figures versus reality.

Work in Progress indeed.  Or, given May's unemployment increase from 8.1% to 8.2%, a name change to Work in Regress might be appropriate.   But in the meantime, given the fact that the Senate has now gone nearly three years without voting a budget, perhaps the Senate Budget Committee could take a cue from the transparency of the Department of Labor and rename their blog “(This page intentionally left blank.)”

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republican Controlled States

    Last month, I wrote about the clear and demonstrably superior performance of Republican-controlled* states in reducing unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April state numbers on Friday, May 18, and if anything, the difference is even more stark.  Just as the national rate dropped from 8.2% to 8.1% from March to April, many individual states (both Republican and Democrat) showed some degree of improvement.  I have updated my raw data spreadsheet, and the bullet points from my April posting are updated here:

• 9 of the 10 states with the lowest current unemployment rates are under Republican control, including six under complete Republican control, one of which is North Dakota with the lowest rate of 3%
• 6 of the 10 states with highest current unemployment rates are under Democratic control, and the four worst are all under Democratic control, one of which is Nevada with the highest rate of 11.7%
• 9 of the 10 states with the greatest improvement from 2009 to 2012 are under Republican control (and 8 of those are under complete Republican control)
• 7 of the 10 states with the worst performance from 2009 to 2012 are under Democratic control
• 9 of 16 states with current unemployment rates greater than the national average are under Democratic control
• The state with the greatest improvement from 2009 to 2012 (38%) is Michigan, under Republican control
• The two states with the worst performances from 2009 to 2012, Louisiana and Idaho (the rates actually went up,) are under Republican control, but their current rates are still less than the national rate of 8.1%
• States under Democratic control saw an average decrease of 9% in the rate of unemployment
• States under Republican control saw an average decrease of 16.8% in the rate of unemployment, close to double the improvement of states under Democratic control

As I said last month, if the decrease in the national unemployment rate had matched that of Republican controlled states, it would already be around 7.8%.  Conversely, if it had followed the Democratic controlled states, it would still be at 8.5%.  There are some anomalies: Vermont is under complete Democratic control and yet has performed very well; and four states under complete Republican control are included in the states with the highest 2012 rates.  There are obviously other factors at work in the states economic and employment situations, but the big picture is clear.  States under Republican control scored nearly double the improvement of states under Democratic control - the correlation is unmistakable.  And the Republicans could easily make the argument that if they had control at the national level as well as the state level, that progress could be accelerated.
    Since the economy seems destined to be the main focus of voters as November approaches, Mitt Romney and Republicans need to do more than just (rightly) point to the failings of the Obama administration and the Democrats on jobs, despite three and a half years of "focusing like a laser" on the economy.  The facts presented here tell the positive message in the unemployment situation:  Republicans are already doing what they can in the face of a national employment malaise, to borrow Jimmy Carter's 1970s terminology.
    Speaking of President Carter... As I noted back in March, during his 2008 campaign, President Obama asked voters to ponder the Reagan-inspired question, "Will our country be better off four years from now?"  The president may well come to regret asking the question.  Republicans need to confront voters with the question and the answer: "Is our country better off after four years under Democratic President Obama?  Not so much.  But look what Republicans have done in the states.  Put us in charge and we can do the same for the whole country.  Not with mandates and taxes and regulations, but by getting government out of the way of the nation's economic engine, the American people."  Not only does this claim have the benefit of being true and easily illustrated with the facts, the positive message will provide a sharp contrast to the campaign of fear and divisiveness the Democrats and the president are waging in an attempt to eke out a second term.


*"Control" is based on holding at least 2 of the 3 of the following: governor, upper legislative house, and lower house.  “Complete control” means holding all three.   

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans

    In his de facto Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech this past week, Mitt Romney took the Democrat's favorite playground-taunt cum campaign slogan and threw it back at them.

[B]ecause [President Obama] has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy” — here he paused for effect — “and we’re not stupid.”

James Carville, who coined that hippest campaign slogan of them all "It's the economy, stupid!" for Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential race, oddly yet somehow appropriately accused Romney of "stealing" his line.  (For a man who is a walking caricature of a campaign strategist, one would think he would appreciate a good send up rather then reacting with foot-stamping petulance.)  But Romney was simply acknowledging the undisputed role that the economy plays in most elections, particularly presidential ones.  This year is no different, and the depths of the country's economic woes may have already sealed the fate of the Obama administration.
    For this reason, the weekly unemployment figures and monthly unemployment reports are two of the most closely watched economic bellweathers. The jobs numbers are the public's most accessible proxies for the nation's overall economic health.  President Obama is well aware of the fact that as the New York Times reported in 2011, "No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent."  As of this March, the rate stood at 8.2%, and few would make the case that the rate will drop more than a percentage point by election day.  Even the President himself in December was less than confident that the rate would even break 8% by then.
    What then is President Obama's economic silver lining?  A look at the state-by-state unemployment numbers over the past three years suggests ironically enough that the silver lining may be Republicans.  My analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment reports for 2009 and 2012 and the current political party makeup of state governments plus the District of Columbia (raw data here) yields rather lopsided results.  (For purposes of my analysis, "control" is based on a party holding at least two out of three of the following: governorship, upper legislative house, and lower legislative house.  "Complete control" means holding all three.)

• 9 of the 10 states with the lowest current unemployment rates are under Republican control, including six under complete Republican control, one of which is North Dakota with the lowest rate of 3%
• 5 of the 10 states with highest current unemployment rates are under Democratic control, and the four worst are all under Democratic control, one of which is Nevada with the highest rate of 12%
• 8 of the 10 states with the greatest improvement from 2009 to 2012 are under Republican control (and 7 of those are under complete Republican control)
• 7 of the 10 states with the worst performance from 2009 to 2012 are under Democratic control
• 10 of 17 states with current unemployment rates greater than the national average are under Democratic control
• The state with the greatest improvement from 2009 to 2012 (36%) is Michigan, under Republican control
• The two states with the worst performances from 2009 to 2012, Louisiana and Idaho (the rates actually went up,) are under Republican control, but their current rates are still less than the national rate of 8.2%
• States under Democratic control saw an average decrease of 7.7% in the rate of unemployment
• States under Republican control saw an average decrease of 15.3% in the rate of unemployment, virtually double the improvement of states under Democratic control

If the decrease in the national unemployment rate had matched that of Republican controlled states, it would already be under 8%.  Conversely, if it had followed the Democratic controlled states, it would still be at 8.6%.  There are some anomalies: Vermont is under complete Democratic control and yet has performed very well; and four states under complete Republican control are included in the states with the highest 2012 rates.  There are obviously other factors at work in the states economic and employment situations, but the big picture is clear.  States under Republican control scored nearly double the improvement of states under Democratic control - the correlation is unmistakable.
    Republicans find themselves in the position of helping the President nationally by virtue of economic and fiscal policies implemented at the state level, but what may seem a political handicap on the surface can be turned to the Republicans advantage.  The challenge will be making the case to the American people that a Mitt Romney administration will work in tandem with Republicans at the state level rather than erecting obstacles in their path as the Obama administration has done for the past three years.  Given the Obama team's dismal record and discredited economic theories, it should not be a hard sell.

Pelosinomics

   Tina Korbe at Hot Air is reporting that at a recent banquet Nancy Pelosi declared, "Nothing brings more money to the Treasury of the United States than the education of the American people."  Coupled with her novel insight in 2010 that "...unemployment insurance… is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy," the former House Speaker has developed an economic theory that could potentially relegate Adam Smith's and Frederick Hayek's quaint ideas to the intellectual dustbin of history.  Given that high school students are flocking to college in record numbers only to find upon graduation that the jobs are rather scarce, the only missing element is a way to deliver unemployment benefits to college grads who have never had a job.  If the Democrats can retake the House, hold onto the Senate, and reelect the President on their coattails, I'm sure they could push through some quick legislation to fix this gaping hole in our country's economic engine.  Then we could just sit back and watch the Pelosi Economic Perpetual Motion Machine propel us out of the ditch (that Bush drove us into) and down the Hope and Change highway to the future.  Just thinking about it gives me the chills.