From the Weekly Standard:

Under Obama: 30 Worst Months of Employment in the Past 25 Years

Jeffrey H. Anderson
May 23, 2012

The federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes monthly tallies for the employment-population ratio. That stat shows something rather straightforward: Among those who are living in America and are free to pursue employment, what percentage are employed?

(The bureau excludes those who are under 16 years old, are active-duty military, or are — in the bureau’s own words — “inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged),” from its tallies.)

Over the past quarter of a century (a total of 300 months), dating back to May 1987 and the Reagan administration, here are the 30 worst months (that is, the bottom 10 percent) for the employment-population ratio, along with the president who happened to be in office at that particular time (scroll down to the see the list):

1. (tie) July 2011, 58.2 percent, President Barack Obama
1. (tie) June 2011, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) November 2010, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) December 2009, 58.2 percent, Obama
5. (tie) August 2011, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) December 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) October 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2012, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) October 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) September 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) May 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) February 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) January 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) December 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) September 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) August 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) July 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) June 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) February 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) October 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
29. February 2012, 58.6 percent, Obama
30. (tie) May 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) April 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) September 2009, 58.7 percent, Obama

Interestingly, the 30 (or 32, including ties) worst months for employment in the past 25 years have all come after the most recent recession ended, in June 2009. In other words, they’ve all come during the Obama “recovery.”

What’s more, under every other president during the past 25 years (spanning from the later stages of the Reagan presidency through the entire George W. Bush presidency), the employment-population ratio was always over 60 percent — every single month, for 260 consecutive months.

In vivid contrast, with the exception of the month in which he took office (January 2009) and his first full month in office (February 2009), the employment-population ratio under Obama has always been under 60 percent — every single month, for 38 consecutive months. (For 32 consecutive months — from September 2009 to the present day — it’s been under 59 percent.)

In fact, the worst non-Obama month in the past 25 years was December 2008, when the employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent under George W. Bush. Comparatively, Obama’s best month to date (not counting January 2009, when he entered midstream) was his first, February 2009, when the employment-population ratio was 60.3 percent.

In other words, over the past 25 years, the worst month under any other president has beaten the best month under Obama.

Lest we forget, there have been three official recessions in the US since 1987. But somehow the employment to population ratio even during those recessions was still better in every month than during Obama’s ‘recovery.’

How is that even possible?

From an ‘inciteful’ Reuters:

Insight: Morgan Stanley cut Facebook estimates just before IPO

By Alistair Barr
May 22, 2012

(Reuters) – In the run-up to Facebook’s $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter on the deal, unexpectedly delivered some negative news to major clients: The bank’s consumer Internet analyst, Scott Devitt, was reducing his revenue forecasts for the company.

The sudden caution very close to Facebook’s initial public offering – while an investor road show was under way – was a big shock to some, said two investors who were advised of the revised forecast.

"Investor road show" appears to be the new hip way of describing an IPO offering.

They said it might have contributed to the weak performance of Facebook shares, which sank on Monday and Tuesday – their second and third days of trading – to end more than 18 percent below the IPO price. The $38-per-share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion…

It looks like a scapegoat is being found by the news media.

The change in Morgan Stanley’s estimates came on the heels of a May 9 Facebook filing of an amended prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the company expressed caution about revenue growth due to a rapid shift by users to mobile devices. Mobile advertising to date has been less lucrative than advertising on desktops.

So it sounds like Morgan Stanley was just doing their job for its investors.

JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which were also major underwriters on the IPO but had lesser roles than Morgan Stanley, also revised their estimates in response to Facebook’s SEC filing, according to sources familiar with the situation.

Morgan Stanley isn’t as closely tied to the Obama administration and the Democrat Party as Chase and Goldman Sachs are. So they are to blame.

Morgan Stanley said in a statement that a "significant number" of analysts in the IPO syndicate reduced estimates after Facebook’s May 9 disclosure. The investment bank said its procedures complied with all "applicable regulations." …

Even those not yet written down by Barney Frank and his pals?

"It’s very rare to cut forecasts in the middle of the IPO process," said an official with a hedge fund firm who received a call from Morgan Stanley about the revision.

Even if if it rare, it isn’t illegal. Besides, shouldn’t Morgan Stanley advise their investors of their best thinking no matter what is going on?

Why should they wait for Facebook to overhype their stock? Especially when they know that they told the SEC a different story.

It sounds to us like Morgan Stanley should be commended. But no, they are going to be ‘crucified’ as a warning to other banks not to hurt Obama’s friend.

Here is an update, from a cheering Associated Press:

Regulators probe bank’s role in Facebook IPO

By MARCY GORDON
May 23, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Regulators are examining whether Morgan Stanley, the investment bank that shepherded Facebook through its highly publicized stock offering last week, selectively informed clients of an analyst’s negative report about the company before the stock started trading.

Rick Ketchum, the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the self-policing body for the securities industry, said Tuesday that the question is "a matter of regulatory concern" for his organization and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The top securities regulator for Massachusetts, William Galvin, said he had subpoenaed Morgan Stanley. Galvin said his office is investigating whether Morgan Stanley divulged to only some clients that one of its analysts had cut his revenue estimates for Facebook before the stock hit the market on Friday.

The bank said late Tuesday that it "followed the same procedures for the Facebook offering that it follows for all IPOs," referring to initial public offerings of stock. It said that its procedures complied with regulations…

Well, that didn’t take long. The SEC has taken a break from their porn viewing long enough to probe Morgan Stanley. They are probably going to ‘crucify’ Morgan Stanley as a warning to other investment banks that it isn’t wise to hurt Obama’s pals.

By the way, Morgan Stanley is currently Goldman Sachs biggest competitor. And being a competitor to Goldman Sachs does not seem to be good for a company’s health. Just ask Lehman Brothers.

From the New York Daily News:

Feds offer amnesty to hundreds of LIRR pension disability scammers

Fraudster retirees wouldn’t have to pay back their ill-gotten gains

By Robert Gearty
Tuesday, May 22, 2012

HUNDREDS OF LIRR retirees who scammed lucrative disability pensions in a massive $1 billion ripoff can avoid prosecution — and paying back their ill-gotten gains — if they admit guilt under an innovative amnesty program, the feds said Tuesday.

And, of course, promise to vote Democrat.

The amnesty offer was mailed out to more than 1,500 LIRR workers who were able to double-dip on their pensions after retiring early and submitting a bogus disability claim that was rubber-stamped by the federal Railroad Retirement Board.

As with all railroad pensions, the Long Island Railroad’s pension fund is run by federal Railroad Retirement Board. In fact, it is the only pension fund that is administered by the federal government.

The offer came as federal prosecutors in Manhattan unsealed a new indictment charging 10 more LIRR retirees with boosting their regular pensions with fraudulent disability benefits…

He said those who come clean and forfeit future disability payments won’t be prosecuted…

Who says crime doesn’t pay?

LIRR workers can retire as early as 50 but can’t collect a supplementary pension from the railroad board until age 65 — unless they are disabled. Then they can start collecting right away…

Those busted Tuesday pleaded not guilty in Manhattan Federal Court and were released on $100,000 bond, except for Frank Plaia, 55, of Long Island, who was released on his own recognizance. Prosecutors said Plaia’s disability claim said he was so crippled he could not dress, bathe, do chores or write without difficulty. Yet, they said, he still shoveled snow and operated a snow blower.

One of those arrested last year was spotted riding in a 400-mile bike race even though he retired from the LIRR with a spinal disability.

All of which is amusing, unless you bear in mind that the number of people claiming Social Security disability has skyrocketed by more than 53% in the last ten years.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported just last week:

Ex-postal worker convicted of fraud after running marathon while off mail carrying duty

May 16, 2012

TALLAHASSEE — Prosecutors say a former Florida postal worker ran in the Boston Marathon and participated in other athletic events while claiming her back was too badly hurt to deliver the mail.

A U.S. District Court jury agreed on Tuesday. Jurors convicted 55-year-old Jacquelyn V. Myers of Tallahassee of health care fraud and making false statements to collect workers’ compensation. She could face up to 15 years in prison when sentenced July 25.

Myers reported a lower back injury in May 2009 during the annual letter carriers’ food drive. She was relieved of mail carrying and put on “light duty.” Evidence, including photos and videos, showed she participated in more than 80 long-distance races and triathlons over the next several months. Her race times also improved after the claimed injury.

Hopefully, the prosecutors will relent, and offer to let Ms. Myers skate if she will just agree to stop stealing from the government.

From the Associated Press:

CBO says US likely to fall off ‘fiscal cliff’ if Bush-era tax cuts allowed to expire

By ANDREW TAYLOR
May 22, 2012

WASHINGTON – A new government study released Tuesday says that allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire and a scheduled round of automatic spending cuts to take effect would probably throw the economy into a recession.

The Congressional Budget Office report says that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of next year if the government is allowed to fall off this so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1 — and that the higher tax rates and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies are kept in place…

CBO projected that the economy would contract by 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013, which would meet the traditional definition of a recession, which is when the economy shrinks for two consecutive quarters…

Unless there is a Republican in the White House, and then it only takes on quarter of negative growth. (Cf. George Bush and 2007.)

At issue is the full expiration of two rounds of major tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and automatic spending cuts on the Pentagon and domestic programs that are scheduled to take effect as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to produce a deficit-cutting agreement last year.

Last summer’s debt and budget agreement imposed almost $1 trillion in cuts to agency budgets over the coming decade and required automatic cuts — dubbed a sequester in Washington-speak — of another $1 trillion or so over the coming decade.

The "cuts" to "domestic programs" are really the only thing that the CBO and the AP are concerned about. Even though they are only cuts to the baseline projected growth, and are thereby only minuscule in reality. And even though the only real cuts come in Defense.

But what the CBO and AP are really trying to to do here is warn Republicans that they can’t even think of cutting any more spending in the upcoming ‘debt ceiling’ negotiations. And, as we have noted before, when there is no Congressional budget, these ‘debt limit’ negotiations are the only way the Republicans can even try to cut spending.

But now the Democrats and the CBO and the media want to take even that minor tool away from them.

The CBO study came as Capitol Hill is hopelessly gridlocked over spending and taxes in advance of the fall elections. The White House and top Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada say they will refuse to act on the expiring tax cuts and automatic spending cuts unless Republicans show greater flexibility on raising taxes…

Republicans are pressing to deal with the problem now. But they’re not showing any more flexibility on tax increases…

"CBO observes that simply extending all of our current tax and spending policies will produce unsustainable deficits and debt, which will also send the economy into decline," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. "We need to act and we must do so in a balanced way."

CBO is the respected nonpartisan agency of Congress that produces economic analysis and estimates of the cost of legislation.

In truth, the CBO is neither "respected" nor "nonpartisan." They are just another organ of the Democrat Party.

From the Agence France-Presse:

Pakistan acid women fear backlash over Oscar film

By Jennie Matthew
May 23, 2012

Survivors of acid attacks whose plight became the focus of an Oscar-winning documentary now fear ostracism and reprisals if the film is broadcast in Pakistan.

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy made history earlier this year when she won Pakistan’s first Oscar, feted across the country for exposing the horrors endured by women whose faces are obliterated in devastating acid attacks.

Her 40-minute film focuses on Zakia and Rukhsana as they fight to rebuild their lives after being attacked by their husbands, and British Pakistani plastic surgeon Mohammad Jawad who tries to help repair their shattered looks.

When "Saving Face" scooped a coveted gold statuette in the documentary category in Hollywood in February, campaigners were initially jubilant.

The Acid Survivors Foundation Pakistan (ASF) had cooperated on the film but some survivors now fear a backlash in a deeply conservative society — and are taking legal action against the producers.

Oh, those "conservatives."

"We had no idea it would be a hit and win an Oscar. It’s completely wrong. We never allowed them to show this film in Pakistan," said Naila Farhat, 22, who features fleetingly in the documentary.

She was 13 when the man she refused to marry threw acid in her face as she walked home from Independence Day celebrations. She lost an eye and her attacker was jailed for 12 years…

"This is disrespect to my family, to my relatives and they’ll make an issue of it. You know what it’s like in Pakistan. They gossip all the time if they see a woman in a film," said Farhat, taut skin where her left eye dissolved.

Maybe this should be an issue.

Where is the outrage? Where is NOW?

"We may be in more danger and we’re scared that, God forbid, we could face the same type of incident again. We do not want to show our faces to the world."

Lawyer Naveed Muzaffar Khan, whom ASF hired to represent the victims, said legal notices were sent to Obaid-Chinoy and fellow producer Daniel Junge on Friday…

"They (survivors) were absolutely clear in their mind in not allowing any public screening as that would jeopardise their life in Pakistan and make it difficult for them to continue to live in their villages," he told AFP…

Many of the women are routinely threatened by their husbands or relatives and it is a television broadcast that they particularly fear.

"The accessibility is so wide scale, the chances are their lives are going to be threatened," said the lawyer, Khan…

[Some critics] believe the film was too sensational and question whether it really will make a difference to the survivors struggling to live in Pakistan, where there are scores of such attacks each year.

After all, what’s wrong with using acid to punish women or to keep them in line? And so what if it happens twenty or so times every year in Pakistan?

Why ‘sensationalize’ it?

From a fact free Associated Press:

Egyptians vote to rid nation of autocratic rule

By MAGGIE MICHAEL and SARAH EL DEEB
May 23, 2012

CAIRO (AP) — Determined to end decades of authoritarian rule, millions of Egyptians waited patiently in long lines outside polling stations across the nation on Wednesday to freely choose their first president since last year’s ouster of longtime ruler and close U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.

What a hilarious headline. The Egyptians cannot wait to impose an Islamist ruler who will give them strict Sharia Law, which is more autocratic that Mr. Mubarak ever was.

But, of course, this new leader will hate the US, which is the important part here.

"I can die in a matter of months, so I came for my children, so they can live," a tearful Medhat Ibrahim, 58, who suffers from cancer, said as he waited to vote in a poor district south of Cairo. "We want to live better, like human beings." …

Like they do in Iran.

"It’s a miracle," said Selwa Abdel-Malik, a 60-year-old Christian from the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria as she was about to vote. "And it’s a beautiful feeling too." …

They quote a Christian? What a laugh. Ms. Abdel-Malik will probably be driven out of the country in a few short years. Or killed.

Many of the candidates in the race have called for amendments in Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel, which most Egyptians continue to view as their nation’s number one enemy. Though none will likely to dump the pact…

This is simply untrue. They are very likely to dump their treaty with Israel. And they have all promised to do so.

The [Egyptian] military are widely thought to be favoring Ahmed Shafiq, a former air force commander and Mubarak’s last prime minister…

Other front-runners are Mubarak’s foreign minister of 10 years Amr Moussa, Mohammed Morsi of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, a moderate Islamist whose inclusive platform has won him the support of some liberals, leftists and minority Christians…

Oh, yes, that Mr. Abolfotoh is a "moderate" and so "inclusive."

From the Washington Times:

9/11 ‘truther’ leading Egyptian presidential race

By Ben Birnbaum
Monday, May 21, 2012

An Islamist who believes that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States were an American conspiracy is the front-runner in Egypt’s presidential race, a new poll shows.

Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, formerly a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, led the field of 13 candidates with 32 percent of the vote in a survey released Monday by the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Mr. Abolfotoh expressed his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an interview last year with Egypt scholar Eric Trager:

"It was too big an operation …. They [the United States] didn’t bring this crime before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it’s part of a conspiracy."

The 61-year-old Mr. Abolfotoh, who left the Brotherhood last year, has been dubbed a "liberal Islamist" by some reporters partly because he said he believes that a Christian should be able to run for president – a view that put him at odds with the Brotherhood’s leadership.

In a recent Egyptian television interview, Mr. Abolfotoh qualified that position. He said that, while parties are free to nominate whomever they want, Egypt "cannot have a president who does not have an Islamist orientation."

The Washington Institute’s Mr. Trager said that "the notion that Abolfotoh is some kind of progressive is farcical."

"He is a longtime Muslim Brother, a founder of the Islamist student movements of the 1970s, and somebody who still calls for implementing the Shariah," he said. "His falling out with the Brotherhood was over differences regarding strategy and internal administration, not ideology."

Mr. Abolfotoh has been endorsed by al-Gama’a al-Islamiya, a jihadist group the State Department designated as a terrorist organization.

"Given that he was endorsed by a terrorist organization and has called the peace treaty with Israel a national-security threat, it is highly unlikely that Egypt’s foreign-policy will remain friendly to U.S. interests if he’s elected," Mr. Trager added…

Which is probably why the Associated Press loves him so.

From the instant revisionists at the New York Times:

Surrogate for Obama Denounces Anti-Romney Ad

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
May 20, 2012

Mayor Cory A. Booker of Newark, a prominent Democrat enlisted as a surrogate for President Obama’s campaign, sharply criticized it on Sunday for attacking Mitt Romney’s work at the private equity firm Bain Capital.

Mr. Booker, speaking on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” made his comments in response to a television advertisement the president’s campaign unveiled last week. It portrays Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, as someone who eliminated jobs for the sake of profits during his years running Bain Capital.

Note how gently The Times describes this Obama ad, which is entitled "Vampire" and which calls Romney a blood sucker.

“I have to just say, from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity,” Mr. Booker said. “To me, it’s just we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. And this to me, I’m very uncomfortable with.”

In other words, Mr. Booker was actually defending private equity since it is helping Newark and New Jersey. (In fact, private capital built every city and state in America.)

“The last point I’ll make is this kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides,” Mr. Booker continued. “It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.” …

Apparently, Mr. Booker quickly realized that he had spoken too much truth, and had gone too far off the reservation. So he tried to quickly dial things back by making the absurd comparison of this aired campaign ad’s attack on capitalism to an unmade and un-aired ad, which had it been made, would have simply quoted Reverend Wright.

Mr. Booker’s comments immediately provoked widespread interest among political types on social media, in large part because he seemed to be equating the Obama campaign with Mr. Ricketts, who announced that he was rejecting the ad campaign after The Times published its report.

This is laughable, even for the New York Times. Booker’s comments garnered interest because he was attacking Obama’s attack on capitalism. Not because he was comparing this ad to Mr. Ricketts’ non-ad.

The Obama campaign declined to comment, directing reporters instead to Mr. Booker’s Twitter account, where he later wrote: “Yes, Obama must be re-elected. But we as a nation owe it to him and ourselves to reject politics as usual.”

The Obama campaign clearly took Mr. Booker to the woodshed, and told him to recant. Which he promptly did, in what even Mike Allen at the Politico is mocking as a "hostage video." on YouTube:

Later, Mr. Booker responded to his critics in a YouTube video. “Let me be clear: Mitt Romney has made his business record a centerpiece of his campaign,” he said. “Therefore, it is reasonable, and in fact I encourage it, for the Obama campaign to examine that record and to discuss it. I have no problem with that.”

Notice how carefully Booker toes the Obama line there. Just like a person with Stockholm Syndrome.

Which just goes to show you how much diversity of thought is allowed in the Obama campaign and the rest of the radical Left.

From the New York Times:

NYT caption: People gathered outside Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s house to protest clinic closings and support mental health care for veterans.

3 in Chicago Face Charges of Terrorism in Protests

By IDALMY CARRERA and STEVEN YACCINO
May 19, 2012

CHICAGO — Tensions were increasing here on Saturday, the eve of a NATO summit meeting, after three men were accused of planning attacks on President Obama’s re-election campaign headquarters, the house of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, police stations and financial institutions in downtown Chicago, according to prosecutors.

The men, who were among thousands of people from out of town who traveled to Chicago for a weekend of NATO-related protests, were charged with criminal acts relating to terrorism, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and possession of explosives. Bond for the three men — Jared Chase, 27, of Keene, N.H.; Brent Betterly, 24, of Oakland Park, Fla.; and Brian Jacob Church, 22, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. — was set at $1.5 million each. The state’s attorney, Anita Alvarez, said that this was the first time she knew of that defendants had been charged under the state’s antiterrorism statute. She declined to comment on possible federal charges.

During a news conference on Saturday, officials said that there was no imminent threat to the city, describing the defendants as self-identifying anarchists.

Nowhere does The Times bother to note that all three of these individuals are member of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement. Just like they do not bother to note that the "people" in their photograph above are three policemen and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink.

Jared Chase is a member of Occupy Boston, and his Facebook page outlines his involvement with Occupy movements in Washington, D.C., Miami and Chicago, as well. Brent Betterly is a member of Occupy Ft. Lauderdale. And Brian Jacob Church is also a member of Occupy Ft. Lauderdale.

This information is readily available, and it is being reported by other news outlets. But the New York Times did not think it was ‘news that was fit to print’ for some reason.

“The individuals we charged are not peaceful protesters, they are domestic terrorists,” Ms. Alvarez said. “The charges we bring today are not indicative of a protest movement that has been targeted.” …

Why aren’t they?

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, declined to comment and referred questions to the Chicago Police Department…

Notice that The Times realizes who is behind these people. Even though they won’t ever admit it.

The three defendants, prosecutors said, had already assembled four Molotov cocktails from empty beer bottles, with cut bandannas as fuses. The Molotov cocktails were to be used in attacks against police stations, which would divert attention from other attacks around the city, they said.

The defendants also had plans to buy several assault rifles and build a pipe bomb at the time of their arrests, prosecutors said. Throwing stars, swords with brass-knuckle handles, a hunting bow, a shield with protruding nails, gas masks and a map with details of escape routes from the city were also said to have been found in the apartment.

But lawyers for the defendants said that it was a case of entrapment, and that a man and a woman who were either informants or undercover law enforcement officials had come up with the plans and provided the materials for explosives…

Isn’t that what they always say?

From the Los Angeles Times:

New college graduates earning less than a decade ago

Marla Dickerson
May 18, 2012

Newly minted college graduates lucky enough to find a job after leaving school are in for a shock: They’ll likely be earning less money than they would have a decade ago.

Since 2000, these young workers have seen inflation-adjusted wages deteriorate, according to research by the Economic Policy Institute.

Here’s the math: In 2011, fresh college grads earned an average of $16.81 an hour, or about $35,000 a year. That’s down 5.4% from 2000. Women fared worse than men. Their wages declined 8.5% to $15.74 an hour over the same period while those of men dipped 1.6% to $18.29 an hour.

The decline means real money: roughly a $2,000 drop in annual earnings, according to EPI.

Remember the good old days when each succeeding generation of Americans were more wealthy, and not less? Thankfully, Obama and the Democrats have transformed our country and done way with all that.

So why are real wages declining for new college grads? Economists point to a variety of factors, including two recessions in the last decade, the continued loss of jobs offshore and automation that has affected even white-collar fields such as law and technology. Some contend that colleges are churning out too many liberal arts majors and not enough scientists…

How can that be? You can’t have too many liberal arts majors. They are the ones who go to into law school and journalism.

For the record, here is some more academic news from earlier this month via the Chronicle Of Higher Education:

The Ph.D. Now Comes With Food Stamps

By Stacey Patton
May 5, 2012

… Of the 22 million Americans with master’s degrees or higher in 2010, about 360,000 were receiving some kind of public assistance, according to the latest Current Population Survey released by the U.S. Census Bureau in March 2011…

[T]he percentage of graduate-degree holders who receive food stamps or some other aid more than doubled between 2007 and 2010.

During that three-year period, the number of people with master’s degrees who received food stamps and other aid climbed from 101,682 to 293,029, and the number of people with Ph.D.’s who received assistance rose from 9,776 to 33,655, according to tabulations of microdata done by Austin Nichols, a senior researcher with the Urban Institute…

Leaders of organizations that represent adjunct faculty members think that the number of people counted by the government does not represent the full picture of academics on welfare because many do not report their reliance on federal aid…

And this unbelievably long article goes on to cite one heartbreaking example:

Elliott Stegall, a white, 51-year-old married father of two, teaches two courses each semester in the English department at Northwest Florida State College, in Niceville, Fla. He and his wife, Amanda, live in a modest home about 40 miles away in DeFuniak Springs, a conservative bulwark in northwest Florida…

Mr. Stegall is a graduate student at Florida State University, where he is finishing his dissertation in film studies. At night, after his 3-year-old and 3-month-old children have been put to bed, he grades a stack of composition papers or plugs away at his dissertation. (He’s writing about how Hollywood films portray Vietnam soldiers as psychotic men who return home destroyed by the war.) His wife is starting a two-year, online master’s degree program in criminology offered by Florida State. They receive food stamps, Medicaid, and aid from the Women, Infants, and Children program (known as WIC)…

"I tend to look at my experience as a humanist, as someone who is fascinated by human culture," he says. "Maybe it was a way of hiding from the reality in which I found myself. I never thought I’d be among the poor." …

How could an expert on "film studies" to suffer in poverty? Is there no social justice in this world?

From CNN:

GOP problem: ‘Their voters are white, aging and dying off’

CNN’s Halimah Abdullah [sic]
Mon May 21, 2012

Washington (CNN) – When presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney appears before Latino small-business owners in Washington on Tuesday, he’ll address a group whose explosive birth rates foreshadow a seismic political shift in GOP strongholds in the Deep South and Southwest.

"The Republicans’ problem is their voters are white, aging and dying off," said David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, who studies minority political engagement.

"There will come a time when they suffer catastrophic losses with the realization of the population changes."

You hear the glee in Mr. Bositis’ voice.

Over the next several generations, the wave of minority voters — who, according to U.S. Census figures released this week, now represent more than half of the nation’s population born in the past year — will become more of a power base in places like Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. That hold will extend across the Southwest all the way to California, experts say.

The coming political revolution could result in a massive changing of the guard on nearly every level of government, potential cultural clashes, and the type of political alliances that are now considered rare…

Sort of like the "massive changing of the guard on nearly level of government" that we got with the 2010 midterms, when more than 700 Democrat offices became Republican offices?

In Georgia, those rumblings are already being felt.

It is a state that depends heavily on immigrant labor to pick peaches and peanuts and work in poultry plants. So when Georgia — like its Southern sister states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina — passed a tough anti-immigration bill that also penalizes businesses, Hispanic groups and farmers alike pushed back.

"This election cycle Latinos in Georgia are upset about (the law)," said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of GALEO, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group geared toward Georgia’s growing Latino population. "That’s going to spur more galvanization than we’ve ever seen before." …

Though Georgia’s Latino population has mushroomed over the past ten years, according to Pew, roughly 23% of that group is eligible to vote, compared to roughly 76.2% of whites and just over 69% of African-Americans.

The fact that so many of that population are illegal aliens might have a bearing on that. Of course, we can’t have that.

Still, activists like Gonzalez are hopeful that lawmakers will see the trends and recognize "Latinos merit a seat at the table as well."

Meaning ‘amnesty.’

Still, even if these reports are true, reality has a funny way of making people more conservative as they grow older and wiser. And not just white people.

From the Associated Press:

Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Sat, May 19, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth.

"Some top Democrats" being Chuck Schumer, who has been pushing this propaganda for a couple of years now.

And, naturally, our one party news media has reported Mr. Schumer’s absurd charge a number of times now? Despite the fact there is no evidence for his claims whatsoever.

Meanwhile, when the our news media and the rest of the Democrat Party actually were trying sabotage the economy by talking us into a recession, starting before the midterms in 2006 and continuing on until the 2008 elections, we never heard one word about it.

The latest Democratic complaint came after House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that when Congress raises the nation’s borrowing cap in early 2013, he will again insist on big spending cuts to offset the increase. Boehner, R-Ohio, continues to reject higher tax rates, which Democrats demand from the wealthy.

That led Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to say Boehner is virtually assuring another debt-ceiling crisis as bad or worse than the one that shook financial markets nine months ago.

"The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer’s debacle that nearly brought down our economy," Schumer said in a statement. In an interview, Schumer added: "I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn’t want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets." …

These crucial decisions will occur after the presidential election. But investors, planners and business owners make decisions about hiring, expansion and investments months in advance. The more they worry about a serious economic downturn in nine months or so, the more reluctant they are to expand operations and hire workers now.

"All that uncertainty has us cautious, and we’re scaling back our hiring expectations," said Eric Remington, vice president of Kaman Corp., which recently canceled plans to hire 200 new workers at a defense aerospace plant in Jacksonville, Fla…

And defense cuts have nothing to do with it. It is the "uncertainty."

Schumer and other top Democrats have said for months that GOP lawmakers may be trying to strangle the economic recovery for political reasons.

"Their strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory," Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, wrote in an email to supporters last October, when Congress was debating a jobs bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his Republican counterpart was not cooperating on that legislation "in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps."

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, told The Associated Press last year that some GOP lawmakers, "through their intransigence, cleverly set up a situation for America’s economy to fail, either by needlessly driving us to default, or needlessly driving us into massive public-sector layoffs." …

Republicans say it’s absurd to make such an accusation. They point to bipartisan efforts to pass jobs-creation bills, trade pacts and, after some arguments, an extension of the payroll tax cut that Obama originally had proposed for only one year…

As for the debt limit, "allowing America to default would be irresponsible," Boehner said Tuesday at an economic forum. "But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process."

Democrats say that’s precisely the type of economic saber-rattling that can frighten investors and employers, and damage Obama’s re-election hopes. Boehner disagrees…

The Democrats and their news media pull out this charge of "sabotage" to try to get everything they want. They used it when Republicans were fighting tax increases, and when they fought the payroll tax holiday extension. And now they are using it to try to stop the Republicans from opposing the upcoming ‘debt ceiling’ increase.

So this might be a good place to discuss the ‘debt limit.’ At the moment, the debt limit negotiations are the only place where Republicans have any input at all on government spending. Since the Democrats have refused to allow a budget to be created for three years. Which they are doing to lock in the sky high spending they put into the budget when they has super majorities in both houses in 2007 and in the first years of the Obama administration. Spending they said they had to do to overcome the Bush recession. Well, that recession has supposedly been over for almost three years now.

But without a real budget no cuts in government spending can be made. As long as the government is funded through ‘continuing resolutions,’ spending rates have to be kept at the same levels. The Republicans have no other options. The only way they can cut spending is in these negotiations over the ‘debt limit.’ They are the only place they can wring any concessions at all out of the Democrats.

And that is why it is so important for the news media and the rest of the Democrat Party to try take even this minor power away from the Republicans. That is why they both constantly tell us, "let’s just raise the debt limit, we can’t keep having this battle every year, it’s preposterous." They want to put an end to the only way the Republicans can affect the budgeting process at all. — It’s really that simple and that obvious.

But just imagine the howls of outrage from our news media and the rest of the Democrat Party if the Republicans were refusing to pass a budget for years in order to lock in their spending cuts. Just imagine the outrage if they were doing everything they could to keep Democrats from having any say at all in how the government is funded.