Monthly Archives: February 2012

Thoughts on Charity

Posted on by
Reply

As President Obama pretends to channel his inner Christian and, in doing so, distorts Jesus’ message, a friend reminds me of another passage from the Bible.  Ruth 2:1-17 has many lessons, but one of them concerns the charity of Boaz toward Ruth.  Within this lesson is another.  Boaz had productive fields, else he could not have let Ruth glean from them—there would have been nothing to glean.

This new and old lesson is understood by many in our own time.  Isabel Paterson has also written about the relationship between charity and production.  In her The God of the Machine, she wrote

The great religions, which are also great intellectual systems, have always recognized the conditions of the natural order.  They enjoin charity, benevolence, as a moral obligation, to be met out of the producer’s surplus.  That is, they make it secondary to production, for the inescapable reason that without production there could be nothing to give.

Charity is a moral duty, and so of necessity a personal one.  Government cannot command our morality.  Yet President Obama’s policies add to the difficulty we have in satisfying our moral duty by taking our wealth away from us, by dictating to us our production and our exchanges among each other—and thereby reducing our ability to produce enough for our families and to have a surplus from which to offer charity to others.  Obama would have us glean our fields threadbare and give the surplus to his government so that he can engage in the wealth redistribution which he pretends is our collective charity.

Thus, Paterson also says this about that Obama-style “charity,”

If the primary objective of the philanthropist, his justification for living, is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery.  If he wishes to help “humanity,” the whole of humanity must be in need.  The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others.  He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves.  The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

Some Thoughts on the January Unemployment Number

Posted on by
Reply

Last week some jobs data were published for January, and the headline number was an unemployment rate of 8.3%, a 0.2 per centage point drop over December’s 8.5% rate.  This seems highly encouraging, but it’s useful to look at some of the data underlying this number: those data give a clearer picture of the true employment picture for our economy.

If we look, for instance, the BLS’ participation rate—the per centage of Americans actually looking for work—some other aspects of our jobs numbers appear.  The Dec 2011 participation rate was 64% of a civilian labor force (those aged 16-65) of some 153,887,000.  Yet the participation rate of January’s civilian labor force of 154,395,000 had dropped to 63.7%—or 138,000 fewer Americans actually were working despite a larger labor force and 243,000 net jobs “created.”

Adding those missing 138 thousand Americans back into the numbers yields an unemployment rate of 9.1%%.  The participation rate in Jan 2011 was even higher: 64.2% (notice that: under the Obama policies, the participation rate keeps falling, as more and more Americans despair of getting jobs).  The civilian labor force that year ago January was 153,250,000 compared to Jan 2012’s 154,395,000.  Projecting 2011-2012 population growth rate onto 2011’s participating population gives an expected 2012 participating population of 155,539,000, or  1,144,000 more than the BLS says was participating in Jan 2012.  Adding those missing million Americans back into the unemployment equation of unemployed/(Civilian labor force) gives an unemployment rate of 9.0%.

Indeed, if the participation rate were at the level it was at the start of President Obama’s administration, as James Pethokoukis, of The Enterprise Blog, points out, the unemployment rate today would be 11.0%.  But under Obama’s policies, the jobs really aren’t there (the 243 thousand additional jobs appearing between December and January notwithstanding, coming as they do with 5 million fewer Americans actually working today than at the start of the Obama administration), and Americans, millions of whom have been out of work this entire administration, are giving up.  Moreover, a “measure of unemployment which includes both the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work” yields an unemployment rate that’s “a sky-high 15.1 percent.”

These are just some ways of looking at the true unemployment rate.  Tyler Durden, at Zero Hedge, writes of yet another way.

Using BLS data, the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269[,000] in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month: apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number…and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be.  The BLS reported one?  154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.  Then add these people…to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.  What does this mean?  That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

After such a long trough, the economy’s natural recuperative powers are taking hold.

Washington has also stilled some of its damaging impulses, at least temporarily, thanks to the gridlock that arrived a year ago with the Republican House.

Progressives and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about the Progressives’ attitude to the law last fall.  Here’s another demonstration of their view.

By now it’s well known that, in direct contravention of the law, the Democratic Party-controlled Senate has declined to produce a budget for over 1,000 days.  Now the Senate Majority Leader, harry Reid (D, UT) has openly stated that he will refuse to allow the Senate to produce anything related for FY2013.  Budget?  We ain’t got no budgets.  We don’t need no budgets!  I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ budgets!  What Reid actually said was just as fictitious.  Referring to last summer’s debt-limit deal, he claimed:

We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it[.]

And his other pet, Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) chimed in:

We have a budget. … It is a total falsity to say we haven’t passed a budget.

Despite this Progressive disdain, though, a budget resolution in the Senate is both legally necessary and highly useful.  Such a resolution serves as a blueprint for spending, and it provides a broad outline for the Senate Appropriations Committee’s spending choices.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) pointed out that the Senate Democrats

fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems.

and those Democrats

confirm they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) said, as well (his complete statement is here),

Budget Control Act spending caps [that debt-limit deal], crafted behind closed doors and rushed to passage at the 11th hour under threat of panic, do not even approach the definition of the budget process that the law requires. They are not in any way or any sense a Senate Democrat budget plan.

Stand by for another year of Progressive disdain.  Remember it in November.

How Does the Reverse Play?

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats are once again complaining of Republican obstructionism.  Let’s see how their arguments play from the other side of the question.

Here’s the Democrats’ plaint:

Reid blasted Republicans for bogging down the payroll tax conversation Thursday morning with a debate about Boiler MACT rules, regulations designed to rein in toxic emissions from boilers that the GOP and some Democrats say are overly-burdensome on small businesses and could kill thousands of American jobs as currently written.

Here’s another view of that:

Republicans objected to Democrats bogging down the payroll tax conversation Thursday by spending time arguing against Boiler MACT rules, regulations designed to rein in toxic emissions from boilers that the GOP and some Democrats say are overly-burdensome on small businesses and could kill thousands of American jobs as currently written.

Reid again:

I want everyone put on notice – we’re not going to walk away without some tough votes. If they can’t do something, we’ll do it[.]

Another view, putting words into Mitch McConnell’s (R, KY) mouth:

I want everyone put on notice – we’re not going to walk away without some tough votes. If they can’t do something, we’ll do it[.]

Oh, wait—the House already is, as they’ve done for over a year, only to have Harry Reid (D, NV) actively block those bills from even getting a debate in Senate committees, much less public discussion on the Senate floor.

Sander Levin (D, MI) said

Families cannot afford a repeat trip toward the brink that House Republicans took them to in December and over and over again last year.

Another view:

Families cannot afford a repeat trip toward the brink that Senate Democrats took them to in December and over and over again last year.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) weighed in.  She still thinks, in all seriousness, that the payroll tax holiday extension that’s the proximate subject of the present discussion even needs to be paid for.  Uncle Sugar can just borrow more.  (As an aside, I have to wonder whether this profligate borrowing is really just the Dems’ saying they have no intention of paying for anything—our grandchildren, who are being stuck with this exploding bar tab, can just borrow in their time.)

Hmm….

The Coming Economic Situation

Posted on by
Reply

Doug Elmendorf, the CBO Director, was talking to the House of Representatives’ Budget Committee the other day.  What he presented was a demonstration of the level of understanding of economics possessed by the present administration.

Congressman Tom McClintock (R, CA) asked Elmendorf whether more or fewer people were working today than at the start of 2009.    Elmendorf’s answer was unequivocal:

I believe the answer to that is there are fewer people, Congressman.

That was just one item.  The CBO director had lots more to say:

The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago.  And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.

Elmendorf went on:

[E]conomic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and 1.1 percent next year. … [T]hat will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent….  [I]n 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

And

“…the fundamental fiscal challenge during this decade and beyond remains the aging of the population and rising costs for health care.  The number of people aged 65 or older will increase by one-third in the coming decade, substantially raising the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

In addition, he said, the new federal health care overhaul will significantly increase the number of non-elderly people receiving assistance through federal health care programs, such as Medicaid.

All of that is likely to balloon current levels of debt.

Despite this, though, Progressives refuse to allow Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to be fixed, or altered in any way.  President Obama, for instance, has said through his Press Secretary Jay Carney, the Republican effort to reform Medicare contained in the House-passed budget would “end Medicare as we know it,” as if that’s a bad thing.

The CBO did forecast a shrinking budget deficit over the coming years “under existing law.”  But existing law has the Bush tax cuts ending next year—for everyone, including those of us and small businesses with incomes under $250 thousand per year.  Existing law also has the that required 30% reduction in doctor reimbursement under Medicare reimbursement schedules.

And the Progressives are attempting to spin this coming disaster with distortion.  Congressman Bill Pascrell (D, NJ) insists

…there are people here that want to destroy the government, that it has no responsibility and it can’t live up to the obligations….

Of course, this elides the destructiveness toward our individual liberties from an ever expanding, ever intruding government.  This elides the destructiveness of government’s arrogating to itself responsibilities that ought to be ours, decisions that ought to be ours.  And it ignores the fact that among those obligations that government “can’t live up to” are those Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs that the Progressives won’t allow to be altered.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D, MD) has his distortion, also.  He insists that absent Progressive policies and President Obama’s “stimulus” plan, things would have been much worse.

The Recovery Act did serve its purpose.  It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly.  If you take no action you will go down very fast[.]

This would be amusing under other circumstances.  It ignores the fact that our economy now would be much better off had it not been for Big Government’s interference with it.  Indeed, in Van Hollen’s terms, if you’re walking up the down escalator, it might actually be better to get off that one and get on the up escalator.

No wonder the Progressives are running away from their records, away from our country’s future.