In the News

Well, a few days ago when the Republicans were asked to participate in the jobs bill,there were articles flying that it was a trap.  Republicans were worried that they would get sucked in and the rugged pulled out from under them.  I thought it was paranoia speaking.

Then it happened just as predicted.  Read the article here.

President Obama made many comments during his election that he wanted to rebuild Washington.  He wanted to break down the walls, and bring the Democrats and Republicans together.  In fact he spoke about that when he selected Joe Biden to be his running mate, saying he has worked with the Republicans and can help bridge that gap.

Now since he has been in office, every major bill going through the House and the Senate blatantly excludes the Republicans.  Not only do they all unanimously vote against it, but their words are not heard.  Their versions of the bill never make it to the floor.  No concessions.  No unity.

Obama blames the Republicans, saying they are stone walling his agenda.

This jobs bill was a crowning opportunity to show that the Washington political scene had changed, something the country really needs.  Thanks to the Democrats it is now a political football, being used to embarrass the Republicans and not give them a chance to have their voice heard.

In Virginia Senate, where the democrats have control, well 5 Democrats jumped the fence and voted in favor of a bill that prevents federal and state governments, and even employers from requiring residents to obtain coverage.

Is this why everyone wanted to rush the health bill through congress last August?  Knowing the longer it is out there, the more people would realize this is not what they want.

Read the article here.

Hmmmm……read it here.

Not really sure what is really mean by this headline, because it is the truth in some ways, and in some ways it is not.

In 2007 the unemployment rate started at 4.6% and ended at 4.9% in December.  So far for 2009 we started at 7.6% and are at 10.0% in November.  As far as yearly rate changes in one year, if I use November’s number as the end of year number then 2009 ranked as the highest change since 1948.

Between 1948 and 2009 the highest change from December to January was an increase of 2.3 percent in the unemployment rate, once in 1948, the other in 2008.  In 2009 we saw a 2.4 percent change.  So in that regard it is the best news since 2007, since 2008 was at 2.3 percent.

Bad news is there has not been one occurrence since 1948 of the unemployment rate increase by this much two years running. 

From October 2009 to November 2009 our unemployment rate dropped by .2%.  Now if we compare numbers from October to November since 1948 here is what we come up with.

• 45% of the time the Unemployment Rate dropped from October to November
• 39% of the time the Unemployment Rate increased from October to November
• 16% of the time there was no change.
• On the years that the Unemployment rate dropped it dropped on average of .23%.
• On the years that the Unemployment rate increased it increased by .25%

So really, the reduction in job loss from October to November is less of an achievement, but more of a statistical thing.  In essence there was a 45% chance that the unemployment rate would drop by .23% between October and November.

In the defense of the numbers, this is only the second month this year that the unemployment rate decreased, so that is good news.

So though there is some decrease in unemployment, the jury is still out on if the policies in place had a play in it or not.  We do still have a long hard road ahead of us, that is for sure.

So in conclusion, this was the best report since 2007, however it is not a sign that we have entered a turning point.  The months to come will be proof if this is good or not.

So now we need to put people back to work, but we do not have the money to do that.  So they are after the bail out money that is left.  This article on The Huffington Post describes what is being attempted now.

This is plan on the surface has merit, at least it is not an additional cost and the attempt is to use existing monies that I assume are not going to be used to help fund this.  Or will we see another initiative in four to six months needed more cash for the bailout fund because they ran out of money?  Even Obama stated, “It is not going to be possible for us to have a huge second stimulus, because frankly, we just don’t have the money."  So do we have the money for health care reform?  I bet we do, I bet the Obama Administration is making sure we can still secure funds for that.

Many critics have accused the Economic Stimulus Package of being weak on job growth, which I agree with, though the Obama administration was just a month ago claiming it was a great success and they are on track to stimulate more jobs.  So why this sudden change of focus?  Could it be because the unemployment numbers are about ready to come out.

Obama spoke a day before the Labor Department was to report unemployment figures for November. The October jobless level soared into double digits to 10.2 percent, and forecasters don’t expect the November figures to be any better – and they could even be worse.

Maybe if President Obama had not spent the last few months consuming so much energy on Health Care we would be in a better position.  He went from economic stimulus, to health care, to Afghanistan, and the whole time claiming the Economic Stimulus was working.  Now that it is apparent it is not, or at least at a pace to stave off the fears of the American public, now we go back to fixing the economy.

President Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression of the 1930’s kept his focus on bringing our country back together.  His plan was simple, get people back to work.  He stayed focused on that plan.  He did not wonder off spending more money some where else, he was not that fiscally irresponsible.  Even with all his efforts the Great Depression held its grip until the start of World War II.   That was over 10 years.  World War II created more jobs than Roosevelt or Obama could ever create.

So my question is, if we needed World War II to bring us out of the Great Depression with FOCUS on jobs growth, then how do we expect to get out this problem easily when it took close to a year from the point we recognized the problem to focusing on job growth.  In the meantime we spent more and more money, so much so, that we really don’t have the cash to fix the problem any more.  We have to rob Peter to pay Paul, kind of like a Ponzi scheme.

Crusing the web today, I saw an article about a White House summit on ideas to aid in job growth.  The first thought that entered my head was, “Wasn’t that what the economic stimulus was about?”  After all, there were article after article a few weeks back about the number of jobs it created.

One of first lines in the article spoke about the health care bill, and then it struck me.

Between bail outs, the Economic Stimulus, and the proposed health care, how much money are we potentially spending here?

Then I found this article located here, with the graph below.

If this graph is even partially right, we are in some serious trouble.  The record deficit that happened during President Bush’s office in 2008 will be nothing compared to the future.

It is unclear if this includes health care or not, the article does not specifically mention it, so likely not.  And of course things have likely changed some since this article was posted, but something tells me it is not much better.

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

So hackers got into the  Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England and downloaded documents and emails pertaining to climate change.  These documents do not paint a pretty picture for those that believe in Global Warming.

An excerpt from this article stated:

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn’t always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

There was no smoking gun saying it is all bunk (which is what I believe), however it does show that this “science” is subject to hype.  So what is hype, and what is real?

I think the most damaging was not the documents that show that their evidence is not as conclusive as we were lead to believe, but the emails.  Read the excerpt below:

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

So what happened to science being objective, taking in all views, and letting the science prevail instead of our emotional opinions?

Stimulus saved, created 650,000 jobs

Sounds GREAT!!!!

Here are the numbers, for seasonally adjuted data (in other words these numbers look better because we know during certain seasons unemployment is higher).  These numbers are direct from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the document can be found here.

As of September 2009.

Civilian Labor Force:                                                        154,006,000
Unemployed:                                                                    15,142,000
Unemployment Rate:                                                    9.8%

Jobs Created:                                                                    650,000
Unemployment Rate Would Have Been:                               10.3%

A difference of 0.5%, a half of a percent (actually 0.42% but due to rounding it looks higher).

So far to date, the Economic Stimulus package has cost $207.3 Billion.

So each job cost about $318,923.

Does this even make sense?

I am happy for each of the people that got a job, but is this fiscally responsible?

Festival says director Polanski in Swiss custody

It seems everyone is upset, at least in the film industry over the arrest of Mr. Polanski.

Do they realize he is a sex offender?  The film industry that loves to degrade peoples lives with documentaries that expose supposed crimes done.  Some may say he was not guilty, but he is guilty of one crime.  Being a fugitive.  He fled the US before being sentenced on the crime he was found guilty of.  Claiming it was unjust, he should have stayed, and faced the music.  This is what appeals courts are for.

If I was the film festival, I would not praise him.  Is this any different than catholic priests accused of molestation of children?  Should we not punish just because they do a good job filming movies?

As I cruise the web the last week or so, the topic that comes up over and over is Health Care Reform.    I dug deep into this confusing subject, trying to understand exactly what is proposed to be done fix it.  Either I am stupid, nut there seems to be some glaring issues with the proposed plan to resolve our health care issue.

I do not deny that the current system needs some work, and that the populace at large many care little about health care until they need it.

First let us talk about numbers. 

The cost for health benefits went up in 2009 by 6% from 2008.  The numbers vary on my Google searches, but they are all in that ballpark.  Even one article that boasts 10% increase, still also claims it could be as low as 5.7%.

That does mean that it costs the employer and the employee $9,552 per year, with the employee contribution varying from $2,040 to $2,364 per year.  At $2,400 dollars per year that is $200 a month.  Not a small chunk of change.

Statistics from the National Coalition on Healthcare claims that from 2007 to 2008 the price of health insurance rose about 5-6% that year also.

More Google searches revealed the average price of a loaf of bread in July 2008 was $1.59 to $1.65 in the United States.  In July of 2009 the average price is $1.79, an increase of 8 to 10 percent.

The cost of living adjustment on www.ssa.gov indicated a 5.8% increase from 2007 to 2008.

So is 6% more for health care understandable?  I would think it is.  So if the increase is reasonable, why is it all of a sudden spiraling out of control?  I guess the question is, is it worth $200 a month?  How much a month do you spend on Auto Insurance?  How expensive is your car compared to your own personal health?

So those that throw out the numbers to make a 6% increase to be highway robbery, are slightly mistaken.  I do not disagree that cost of health care is a lot, but is it really going to double in the next 10 years as President Obama stated.

Every year, the cost of living goes up, and no multi billion dollar plan from the US Government is going to fix that.

Next let’s talk about President Obama’s Health Care reform cost.

$1,000,000,000,000.00 over the next 10 years.  That is $100,000,000,000.00 per year.  Remember at the beginning of the year he spent 700 to 800 Billion to jump start our economy, now he is tagging some more money on it.

So where is the money coming from?  President Obama says, taxing the rich.  Well that is all well and good, and it sounds like a very noble thing to do, however, who owns and operates most of the businesses?  The rich people do.  So if you tax them more, what might the trickledown effect be?  Higher prices as they cover the difference in their business, very similar to how a middle class man may grab an extra part time job to earn extra money.

So in the end, who pays for it?  Where does the money come from?

In Conclusion

I am not judging if we need reform or not,  I think we do need to review the structure to fix problems that are there, but I am not sure if the US Government needs to be making this drastic of a change.  This is a huge bill that costs a lot of money, and it is being pushed through so fast I am not sure if any of us really understand what it can do.  Maybe it is the fix all, but somehow I doubt it.

Impatience builds over slow-moving stimulus

The $787 Billion dollar package sold to us at the start of this year, somehow is not having the impact we all hoped.  Likely it is just that, impatience, but here is another theory.

Obama says it is a two year plan, which we have not given it enough time.  Why a two year plan?  Is that so on the second year of his presidency the economy gets better, followed by even a better year the third, then it is reelection time.  Wonder if it could have been done quicker?