The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Column misleads on Obama; GOP plan clear
Rick Miller (“Comparing Obama to Bush,” May 27 column) is free to assume the worst motives of presidents but he is not entitled to his own facts. His claim that public sector jobs have grown as a result of Obama’s 2009 stimulus policy is wrong: Overall government employment has decreased by 2.6 percent, a loss of 607,000 jobs in government service.
The greatest loss of jobs has been in local government, especially the termination of public school teachers. The federal stimulus money that went to localities two years ago helped to stem this local job loss but this money ran out when Republicans refused to renew it. Overall government employment has gone down in Obama’s years by more than it did in Reagan’s first term as president. It’s a matter of public record.
Miller is also flat-out wrong when he says “private sector jobs plummeted” under Obama’s watch. When Obama became president, the economy was plunging toward depression, with 4.2 million private sector jobs destroyed in 2009 by the recession under way. Since then, again helped by the stimulus spending Republicans opposed, those jobs and a bit more have been recovered. Remember, our population constantly grows and millions more are looking for jobs.
So why are many still jobless, public and private? The Republican leaders said that their primary mission was to defeat Obama and figured he would get the credit for any recovery in the economy. This cynical strategy is unprecedented and stunning in the hurt it has inflicted.
Don Cell
Cedar Rapids
-u20042.png?1366232523)
In fact, the private sector actually IS doing fine. See this, including the graphs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6
Bill, the article you linked to talks about private sector profits being at an all-time high. It also says: Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades, and that: Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low.
So Wall Street has done very well under Obama. Why isn’t the Occupy Wall Street crowd beating down the doors of the White House, or Robert Rubin or Jon Corzine?
Mr Hubler,
You can’t have it both ways. The standard argument coming from conservatives is that workers do well when business does well. That’s the idea behind what’s called “Supply Side” or “Trickle Down” economics.
Well, business is doing gang busters, as you are willing to admit, but they are not hiring.
What do you want the government to do? Put a gun to business’s collective head and force them to hire? I don’t think you’d like that.
Nor do I think you’d like it if Wall Street were doing poorly.
If you are going to be complaining out of both sides of your mouth, I don’t think think I want to listen
Roberta, I’m not claiming anything except that Robert Rubin and Jon Corzine have done very well. I merely pointed out what Bill’s link says. But, if fewer Americans were working than at any time in the past three decades and wages as a percent of the economy were at an all-time low under Bush, you would be among the first to be blaming Bush.
Mr Hubler,
I am unwilling to take your comment seriously because
1) you presume to tell me what I think without asking me first
2) you can’t read a graph
The graph with regard to corporate profits is pretty straightforward. Profits did a straight drop at the start of the recession and an equally straight rise when it ended. Profits are now at their highest level than at any time since 1945
The graph with regard to employment refers to Civilian Employment Population Ratio not numbers. The ratio now is is higher than it was 1945–1980 (55%-60%) and the same as it was 1980–2000 (57%-64%) except inverse. 2000–2010 (58%-63%).
The percentage increase tracked with drops in wages 1975–2010 until this recession when both dropped in tandem.
The graphs show trends over a 60 year period an cannot be pinned to any one president. Except both higher profits and lower wages track with Supply Side economic policies
If private sector employment is doing so well, why do we have an 8.2% unemployment rate when baby boomers are retiring in droves? In fact, two of the few bright spots in the private sector job market are in the Bakken oil field and the Marcellus shale gas field which happened in spite of President Obama’s policies, not because of them. Remember his energy secretary said we should be paying $8 – $10 per gallon of gas.
If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-incredible-shrinking-labor-force/2012/05/04/gIQANXAy1T_blog.html
Mr Hubler,
As you are no doubt fully aware, the 8.2% unemployment rate also includes unemployed public sector workers as well as unemployed private sector workers. The public sector has lost over 600,000 people since the Recession began, most of them in education and public safety, most of them in jobs for which there is no easy equivalent in the private sector. These are people with bachelor’s degrees, certification, and post graduate training. They are expensive to train and hard to replace.. They are overworked, underpaid, and, considering what gets posted in these on-line forums, certainly undervalued.
The standard unemployment figure given if public sector unemployed were excluded is about 7.5%
As for that 11% unemployment figure, I don’t know where you are getting those numbers. The Civilian Employment Population Ratio, as illustrated in the graph Bill Russell linked, is higher now than when Obama took office, not lower
And as for gas prices, Mr Hubler, I filled my tank this morning and it was $3.27 a gallon, about $.60 down from when it peaked back in March.
I have no recollection whatsoever of the energy secretary saying that gas should be $10 a gallon and no I’m not going to check on it because everytime I fact check what you say, it turns out to be wrong
And as for Obama’s policies, there’s been an increase in drilling permits granted, not a decrease. The only significant decrease has been in deep water drilling. Except after the Gulf oil spill, I don’t know why any rational person would be demanding more drilling in that area. It just doesn’t make any sense
And that cross country pipeline–somebody give me the name, I’ve forgotten it— that’s been delayed, that was the State of Nebraska that did that. The federal government simply held off on over-ridng the delay. I thought conservatives liked states rights
Besides, it’s Canadian oil going into a global commodities pool and it will have no effect on anybody’s supply for at least 10 years
As for the jobs created by that pipeline, we’ve got road and bridges badly in need of repair and upgrade, water systems that in most of our cities are at least 80 years old. We’ve got schools and police and fire stations that are short staffed, libraries shut down because of lack of funding. The Nation just ran an article on what’s in store for the New York City Public Library, the finest public library in the world. Why can’t we spend our money on these things? These fulfill urgent local needs and create long term employment for local people. Why is it that projects that benefit primarily oil companies are always a higher priority that roads and bridges and schools and water mains and and and? I just don’t get it
It would be true to say that Mit Rommney layed off and fired more American citizens than any other man in America history. It would be true that Mit Rommney created more jobs in foreign countries, that hire non Americans than any other American. I have one question? Why did president Bush give Kellogg,Brown and Root a sister company to Haliburton. 385,000,000 dollars to build internment camps through out America in 2006? A true fiscal conservative!
Here’s a link from AEI that refutes your post about Romney and jobs. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/06/sorry-washington-post-romney-didnt-get-rich-moving-u-s-jobs-overseas/
I would like to see a post that is not quite so bias next time. They say figures don’t lie, but on the other hand liars don’t figure.
Francis, please provide a source for your claims.
Remember all the green jobs that the stimulas was going to provide? How many jobs were lost at Solyndra alone?
That was taxpayer funded, money some of us worked hard for.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/solyndra-to-file-for-bankruptcy-1100-lose-jobs
You might want to read up on venture capitol business. Private investors “willingly” invest. Big, big difference.
The Washington Post article, cited by Fred Hubler, does not differentiate between private and public sector jobs. The article does reference that the data come from the Economic Policy Institute. Another article, from the same Economic Policy Institute does discuss this
http://www.epi.org/publication/june-2012-state-jobs-picture/
“The continued erosion of public-sector employment highlights the extent to which policymakers at both the national and state levels have undermined economic recovery through shortsighted austerity measures. While teachers, police and firefighters have been bearing the brunt of these cuts, we all have suffered from the resulting drag on the economy.”
Perhaps the private sector IS doing fine.
Perhaps NOT, from the LTE “Overall government employment has decreased by 2.6 percent, a loss of 607,000 jobs in government service.” What would total public employment have to be for a public employment decrease of 2.6 percent to raise the overall unemployment rate to 8.2 percent while the private sector was adding all those jobs? If public employment is high enough to accomplish a feat like, the public sector tail truly is waging the private sector dog!
With the temporary fix of the stimulas gone, imagine that, and cities coming up short on their promises, they have laid off some teachers. The good thing that has come out of that is we’ve had to examine their contracts and the promises made from dems. for there union vote and money. Chicago, for instance, teachers want 30% more pay over 2 yrs. and a shorter work day. Shorter than what? They already have the shortest work day, 5 1/2 hours And who among us only works 9 months out of the yr. and gets paid less?
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/12/chicago-teachers-union-demands-30-percent-pay-raise/
This is the stuff taxpayers are so mad about. Look at student performance in the link-it’s disgraceful.
One key point you seem to forget, or perhaps may not know, is that teachers spend time working both in *and out of* the classroom. The 5 1/2 hour day you claim may be from bell-to-bell, but it certainly doesn’t cover being there before the bell for various duties, being there after the bell for various duties, and time spent outside the classroom but both on- and off-campus preparing and following up. Lesson plans don’t create themselves. Tests, homework, and other assignments don’t grade themselves.
You really need to go back to school to learn about school and how it works in the real world, Sue.
Sue,
Teachers pay taxes. And given that it’s the Chicago school district that you are complaining about, it’s not your hard earned money
Chicago schools had to shorten their school year and day because of teacher layoffs forced by drops in revenue caused by the Recession. If Obama had been able to get Stimulus Part two past the Republican blockade that has been jamming everything up Chicago schools would be running short staffed on short days.
Chicago shortened their school days so both teachers and parents could home before dark without getting shot.
Any chance you can cite a reliable source on that, David?
Any chance you can cite a reliable source on that, David?
http://WWW.how mitt romney made his huge fortune- Boston globe expose.
http://www. how mitt romney made his huge fortune-boston globe expose.
Certainly you aren’t, though, right David? What with all of your talk about bribes and such? Who is spouting the talking head verbiage again?