Job-Killing Obamanomics

1
1002

Jobless

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Even the New York Times is beginning to sit up and take notice. “Hiring in U.S. Tapers off as Economy Fails to Gain Speed,” said Friday’s front-page headline. Meanwhile, the financial network CNBC dashed all hope that the Obama economy “had begun to achieve the escape velocity needed for sustained growth,” adding that the nation’s unemployment rate, which dropped from 7.7% to 7.6%, was “little more than a statistical anomaly.” Worse still, the US labor-force participation rate is at a 34-year low – 63%. That means 37% of ready-to-work, able-bodied Americans are likely to stay unemployed as the nation’s economy continues to shrink.

Last October, one month before the presidential election, Obama’s Labor Department announced the U.S. economy added 171,000 jobs. An excited Adam Sorensen at Time magazine noted, “The next President will preside over an economy with a large capacity for job growth in the next four years. Mitt Romney was shrewd enough to recognize this fact early on and has focused his closing pitch around a pledge to create 12 million jobs in his first term. This is deviously brilliant – and a little dishonest – because that’s on the conservative end of what nonpartisan economic forecasters expect to happen under the current [Obama] policies.”

“It’s clear that the economy created more jobs than previously estimated,” said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, “Getting the jobless number down below 8% – down to 7.8% a month before the election – could be the upbeat news to give this president the kind of big-time bounce he needs. Since the campaign began we’ve known the power of the unemployment figure, now we know the number itself. Plus, the good news about that last two months, it’s clear the economy created more jobs than previously estimated,” said Matthews, his leg tingling. “There are some people out there who don’t like this number, don’t like it at all. And leading the band is the legendary CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch.”

The outspoken former CEO made something of a splash when he Tweeted, “Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can’t debate so change numbers.”

“We had 600,000 government jobs added in the last 2 months,” Welch told Matthews, “We had 873,000 jobs by a household survey which is a total estimate from 50,000 phone calls. Of those 600,000 were temporary workers. Chris, these numbers are all a series of assumptions. Tons of assumptions. And it just seems somewhat coincidental that the month before the election, the numbers go one tenth of a point below where they were when the president started [took office], although I don’t see anything in the economy that says these [job] surges are true.”

“It’s not funny, Jack,” said an angry Matthews, “You’re talking about the President of the United States playing with the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. This is Nixon stuff. This is what Nixon did back in the old days … Do you want to take back the charge that there was corruption here?”

“I don’t want to take back one word in that Tweet,” Welch told Matthews.

Buried in Friday’s jobs report was this tidbit, “Within government, U.S. Postal Service employment fell by 12,000 in March.” Alan Krueger, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said sequestration spending “cuts to government services will be a headwind in the months to come … and “will reduce employment by 750,000 full-time equivalent jobs by the end of the year.”

Although Krueger did not specify in what sector these job losses will occur, I believe he meant public-sector government jobs. That tends to support Jack Welch’s claim that the Obama Administration, with the aid of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, padded job-creation figures ahead of the 2012 presidential election by hiring more government workers.

New York Times columnist, Nobel-winning economist and Keynesian apologist, Paul Krugman, was not happy with Friday’s news, “Lousy jobs report. OK, you don’t want to put too much stress on one month’s numbers, yada yada, but it doesn’t look at all good. That deficit has declined from 5.6 percent of potential GDP in 2011 to 2.3 percent in 2013 – that’s 3 percent of GDP, which is a lot of austerity. Not all of that cut has even hit yet – the sequester isn’t in the macro numbers yet – but the rise in the payroll tax is very clearly driving the latest bad numbers, which show big declines in retail. This is really stupid … all discussion in Washington has turned away from job creation to deficits … and the need for an early Fed exit from stimulus (even though unemployment remains high and inflation low).”

And there you have it. By his own admission, Krugman says government spending is responsible for the lion’s share of America’s Gross Domestic Product and job creation. With sequestration cuts certain to reduce GDP and the government’s workforce, Krugman notes that President Obama and Speaker Boehner’s recent payroll tax increase will further damage our dying private-sector economy by reducing the consumer’s disposable income. And Obamacare’s individual mandate, according to the IRS, will cost the average American family $20,000 a year.

Ironically, it was the president who ended America’s phony “recovery.” At a February White House news conference, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said, “What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of [a] default possibility and the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes by the president’s team.”

In other words, the debt ceiling debate, begun by the House Tea Party contingent, forced the president and establishment Republican leaders to initiate automatic government cuts ahead of a borrowing spree. The Tea Party, then, is responsible for dismantling the lie perpetrated by Obama and the Department of Labor Statistics that America was entering a phase of robust job growth and sustainable economic expansion.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are not in a recovery (sluggish or otherwise). We are not entering a double-dip recession. We are in a second Great Depression and have been since the financial collapse of 2008. Obama’s unprecedented spending and the Fed’s quantitative easing gave the impression that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men were putting our Humpty Dumpty economy back together again. They simply masked the ugly truth that will become obvious in the months to come.

The dire economic reality facing America provides a dramatic backdrop against which the Tea Party can build support heading into the 2014-midterm elections. Establishment Republicans must be made to answer for their votes supporting Obama’s spending and their squeamishness in bringing a dangerous Federal Reserve to heel.

The charade is over. 100 years of Progressivism is coming to a close. The Democratic and Republican parties have failed the people of the United States. And the people have failed themselves and their country by electing big-government politicians who fed them pretty lies about what “government can do for you.”

The Tea Party is the only legitimate alternative to our one-party state. By taking the Republican Party from the clutches of the GOP establishment, the Tea Party can restore the Republican Party to its rightful place as a functioning opposition party.

The Great Depression of the 1930s ushered in the age of Franklin Roosevelt and put America on a Progressive path to authoritarianism. America’s second economic depression affords the nation an opportunity to reverse course by rejecting bipartisan Progressivism.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,” said Thomas Jefferson, “so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

2014 affords the Tea Party an opportunity to cast out Washington’s Progressive criminal class, constitutionally chain our out-of-control monster of a government, and give our country, as Lincoln said, a new birth of freedom.

1 COMMENT

  1. I remember sitting in an Econ 101 class at a liberation theology, Jesuit* college in Mobile, Alabama, and listening to an ignoramus they used to refer to as a "tenured professor" spout off some nonsense about Keynesian economics being this ingenious way to stimulate an economy by way of wealth redistribution from those who had earned it to those who had not.

    I was not economics guru at the time, nor am I today. However, even at age 18 I was able to see through that lie, and was failed for the course because I refused to put my name to something I knew to be false, instead submitting my term paper on the virtues of a traditional supply-and-demand economy. I knew at that point that I would probably never finish college…

    *Jesuits, while officially Catholics, are actually not even Christians. Their religion is far more in line with Satanic worship than Catholicism, although I did not know that until I attended one.

LEAVE A REPLY