skip to main |
skip to sidebar
WashingtonExaminer.com:
People in the media
and academia are mostly leftists hellbent on growing government and
controlling our lives. Black people, their politicians and civil rights
organizations have become unwitting accomplices. The leftist pretense of
concern for the well-being of black people confers upon them an aura of
moral superiority and, as such, gives more credibility to their calls
for increasing government control over our lives.
Ordinary black people have been sold on the importance of electing
blacks to high public office. After centuries of black people having
been barred from high elected office, no decent American can have
anything against their wider participation in our political system. For
several decades, blacks have held significant political power, in the
form of being mayors and dominant forces on city councils in major
cities such as Washington; Philadelphia; Detroit; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tenn.; Atlanta; Baltimore; New Orleans; Oakland, Calif.; Newark, N.J.; and Cincinnati.
In these cities, blacks have held administrative offices such as school
superintendent, school principal and chief of police. Plus, there's the
precedent-setting fact of there being 44 black members of Congress and a
black president.
What has this political power meant for
the significant socio-economic problems faced by a large segment of the
black community? Clearly, it has done little or nothing for academic
achievement; the number of black students scoring proficient is far
below the national average. It is a disgrace -- and ought to be a source
of shame -- to know that the average white seventh- or eighth-grader
can run circles around the average black 12th-grader in most academic
subjects. The political and education establishment tells us that the solution lies in higher budgets,
but the fact of business is that some of the worst public school
districts have the highest spending per student. Washington, D.C., for
example, spends more than $29,000 per student and scores at nearly the
bottom in academic achievement.
Each year, roughly 7,000 -- and as high as 9,000 -- blacks are
murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black
person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and
2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Contrast this with the
fact that black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War
(7,243) and wars since 1980 (about 8,200) total about
18,500. Young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on
the battlefields than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit,
Oakland, Newark and other cities. Black political power and massive
city budgets have done absolutely nothing to ameliorate this problem of
black insecurity.
Most of the problems faced by the black community have their roots in
a black culture that differs significantly from the black culture of
yesteryear. Today only 33 percent
of black children are raised in two-parent households, but as far back
as 1880, in Philadelphia, 75 percent of black children were raised in
two-parent households -- and it was as high as 85 percent in other
places. Even during slavery, in which marriage was forbidden, most black
children were raised with two biological parents. The black family
managed to survive several centuries of slavery and generations of the
harshest racism and Jim Crow, to ultimately become destroyed by the welfare
state. The black family has fallen victim to the vision fostered by
some intellectuals that, in the words of a sociology professor in the
1960s, "it has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly
responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes." The
real issue to these intellectuals "is not the lack of male presence but
the lack of male income." That suggests that fathers can be replaced by a
welfare check. The weakened black family gives rise to problems such as
high crime, predation and other forms of anti-social behavior.
The cultural problems that affect many black people are challenging
and not pleasant to talk about, but incorrectly attributing those
problems to racism and racial discrimination, a need for more political
power, and a need for greater public spending condemns millions of
blacks to the degradation and despair of the welfare state.
RELATED: Black Unemployment Rose in January to 12.1 Percent
Townhall.com:
For two months in a row, and quite frankly for the past five
years, the unemployment report from the Department of Labor has been
nothing short of pathetic. Although the unemployment rate is falling,
giving the false perception that less people are out of work, millions
have stopped looking for work and have dropped out of the labor force.
But there's one subsection of the unemployment picture that doesn't get
discussed enough: the young unemployed can't find jobs and haven't been
able to for years.
The teenage unemployment rate sits at 21 percent, which is more
than three times the national unemployment rate of 6.6 percent.
CNSNews breaks down the numbers:
The teen unemployment rate went up in January to 20.7% -- from
20.2% in December-- and is now more than three times the national
unemployment rate of 6.6%, according to the latest data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Then of course there's the millennial generation. According to Generation Opportunity, the unemployment rate for 19-31-year-olds is 15.8 percent.
The declining labor force participation rate has created an
additional 1.922 million young adults that are not counted as
“unemployed” by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the
labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for
work due to the lack of jobs.
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds, which
adjusts for labor force participation by including those who have given
up looking for work, is 15.8 percent (NSA). The (U-3) unemployment rate
for 18-29 year olds is 11.3 percent (NSA).
In addition, a new report shows nearly one in four 26-year-olds are living at home with mom and dad.
A ten-year survey of millennials reveals that almost one in four
(22.6%) 26-year-olds are still living with their parents.
The U.S. Department of Education report confirmed that, if you
are tired of living with Mom and Dad, then do your homework and stay in
school.
According to the survey titled “Where Are They Now," education
makes a difference: generally those with more schooling were less likely
to be living at home. The study shed some light on how older
millennials have been faring during the Great Recession.
According to a Pew Research analysis of the 2012 data, lower
levels of employment, an increase in college enrollment, and a decrease
in young people getting married are major factors in the increase of
millennials living at home.
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, millennials will have spent
nearly a decade and prime working years, jobless. Considering 2/3 of
lifetime wage growth occurs in a person's 20s, the young unemployment trend is alarming.
Dr. Meg Jay, author of a new book called The Defining Decade, says
that a significant portion of your lifetime earning potential happens in
your 20s, making it critical to get out there and get working. She
estimates that as much as two-thirds of lifetime wage growth happens
during just the first 10 years of a career. Once you hit your 40s,
salaries will peak or plateau, making it hard or impossible to catch up
if you only start getting serious about your career in your 30s.
RELATED: January jobs report: 113,000 jobs added, 6.6% unemployment rate
What Mitt Romney
warned us about:
Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of
the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours
or drop out of the job market altogether, according to estimates
released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office.
The analysis set off a furious debate in Washington. The White House
argued that the reduction is positive because it means Americans will
forgo jobs or extra work to stay home with their children or strike out
on their own as entrepreneurs. Republicans, however, said the report
amounted to an “I told you so” moment and that subtracting the
equivalent of 2 million workers can’t be good for the economy.
The CBO said the number of workers dropping out of the labor force will grow from 2 million in 2017 to 2.5 million by 2024.
Although
part of those numbers are attributed to job cuts, the vast majority
represent workers who decide it makes more sense to stay home or work
fewer hours, weighing the higher taxes they pay in the workforce versus
their qualifications for benefits if they drop out.
“CBO
estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on
net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024,
almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given
the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial
benefits some will receive,” the nonpartisan tax agency said in its
economic outlook.
RELATED: Romney: Dishonesty in selling Obamacare is ‘rotting’ base of president’s 2nd term
Mediaite.com:
After watching President Barack Obama’s State of the
Union Address on Tuesday night, a group of African-Americans were asked
for their thoughts on the speech. Their reactions were not favorable
toward the president. Most said they believed that their conditions had
not greatly improved over the course of his presidency with one of the
interviewees even saying that Obama should resign.
According to J.R. Flemming, a member of Chicago’s
anti-eviction campaign, the speech was the “same old, same old” and “a
bunch of talk and rhetoric to give favor to a dying economy in America.”
“And the reason why our economy is dying is the president’s approach
is always to place blame,” he continued. “It’s not the 1 percent
problem, it’s not the 99 percent problem, it’s an American problem. And
the problem is patronage, nepotism and cronyism.”
Obama has been “more hurtful to the black race than he has been helpful,” added Voices of Ex-Offenders (V.O.T.E.) founder Joe Watkins. “But those of us at the bottom of the ladder don’t accept that.”
“Just quit,” Mark Carter added, “because if this is what you call helping us, then just stop helping us.”
RELATED: Race Gap: Blacks Fall Further Behind Under Obama
But hey, there's a way more important Chris Christie "Bridgegate" scandal to talk about:
Although the number of people who had jobs in the United States increased by 143,000 from November to December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that still left 1,687,000 fewer Americans holding jobs than held jobs six years ago in December 2007—the month the last recession began.
In November, 144,443,000 Americans were employed, said BLS. In December, 144,586,000 held jobs—representing a one-month increase of 143,000.
However, the 144,586,000 Americans who had jobs in December 2013 was still 1,687,000 less than the 146,273,000 who held jobs six years ago in December 2007.
In fact, the 144,586,000 Americans who had jobs this December was still 1,384,000 less than the 145,970,000 who held jobs seven years ago in December 2006.
As far back as August 2006, more Americans had jobs (144,625,000) than this December.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the last recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. By June 2009, the number Americans employed had dropped to 140,009,000 Americans who held jobs. That was 6,369,000 below the peak employment of 146,378,000 the nation hit in January 2008.
RELATED: That Bernstein-Romer jobs chart: A final appraisal
HotAir.com:
I think we can call this one unexpected. While the precursor
reports suggested further weakening in the workforce participation
rate, they also indicated a moderately decent number of jobs added. That’s not the case from the BLS, where the U-3 jobless rate dropped to 6.7% but only 74,000 jobs were added in December:
The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent to 6.7
percent in December, while total nonfarm payroll employment edged up
(+74,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment rose in retail trade and wholesale trade but was down in
information.
The number of unemployed persons declined by 490,000 to 10.4 million
in December, and the unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point
to 6.7 percent. Over the year, the number of unemployed persons and the unemployment rate were down by 1.9 million and 1.2 percentage points, respectively. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(6.3 percent) and whites (5.9 percent) declined in December. The rates
for adult women (6.0 percent), teenagers (20.2 percent), blacks (11.9
percent), and Hispanics (8.3 percent) showed little change. The jobless
rate for Asians was 4.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 2.5
percentage points over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who
completed temporary jobs decreased by 365,000 in December to 5.4
million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks
or more), at 3.9 million, showed little change; these individuals
accounted for 37.7 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term
unemployed has declined by 894,000 over the year. (See tables A-11 and
A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2
percentage point to 62.8 percent in December, offsetting a change of the
same magnitude in November. In December, the employment-population
ratio was unchanged at 58.6 percent. The labor force participation rate
declined by 0.8 percentage point over the year, while the
employment-population ratio was unchanged. (See table A-1.)
The worst news comes in the workforce numbers. Those not in the
workforce increased by 525,000 in December (91.808 million), after a
one-time drop in the figure for November (91.283M from 91.756M in
October). That’s a big exodus of people from the workforce, dwarfing
the meager number of jobs added in the economy. Part-time work remained
essentially constant at 7.8 million, so the exodus points to an ugly,
ugly trend.
Not surprisingly, that lead to a decline in the workforce
participation rate, back down to 62.8%. That matches the 36-year low hit
in October, which is one reason why the unhinged U-3 continues to
drop. The workforce number acts as the denominator for U-3, which means
that the result will “improve” as the workforce declines. The U-6
metric, which considers more of those who are only marginally attached
to the workforce, remains at 13.1%.
Reuters tries to pass this off on the weather:
U.S. employers hired the fewest workers in almost three
years in December, but the setback was likely to be temporary amid signs
that cold weather conditions might have had an impact.
Nonfarm payrolls rose only 74,000 last month, the smallest increase
since January 2011, and the unemployment rate fell 0.3 percentage point
to 6.7 percent, the Labor Department said on Friday. The unemployment
rate was the lowest since October 2008 and in part reflected people
leaving the labor force.
The step back in hiring is at odds with other employment indicators
that have painted an upbeat picture of the jobs market. The data showed
that 38,000 more jobs were added in November than previously reported.
Construction employment fell for the first time since May and leisure
and hospitality payrolls rose marginally, suggesting that cold weather
in some parts of the country had held back hiring. There were also
declines in government employment.
Nonsense. This data is seasonally adjusted, and December wasn’t spectacularly
cold. The polar vortex hit well after the new year (and may make a dent
in January’s numbers). This looks like an excuse for being blindsided
by a bad report, because Reuters’ own economists predicted gains of
196,000 for December.
RELATED: ABC’s Karl: What does the White House have to say for itself over a jobs report that is “barely treading water”?
Mediaite.com:
During his big speech on unemployment Tuesday, President Obama took a veiled shot at Rand Paul for arguing that extended unemployment benefits would not help fix unemployment. Paul responded on The Steve Malzberg Show Tuesday, firing back at Obama’s “big-hearted, small-brained policy statements.”
Paul charged that Democrats “don’t truly care about the unemployed”
and all they have is emotional arguments because “their policies haven’t
worked.” Malzberg added that the Democrats are “demagoguing this
issue,” and found it odd they’re treating millions of unemployed people
as a travesty but brushed aside the millions whose insurance plans were
trashed as a result of new health care standards.
Paul also addressed Republican congressman Peter King accusing him of not caring if Americans die as the result of a terrorist attack
because of his class-action lawsuit against the NSA. Paul said, “I
think there’ll always be people who succumb to fear and are ready and
willing to trade their liberty for security.”
He also said that politicians like King simply “don’t seem to be concerned about your liberty.”
RELATED: Veterans feel sting of Ramadi and Fallujah losses
Newsbusters.org:
In an earlier post today (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog),
I noted that reporters at Politico and CNNMoney.com seemed mystified at
a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showing that 68 percent of
Americans believe the economy is in poor shape, and that over half
believe it will still be that way a year from now.
One reason for their incredulity is that, perhaps deliberately, they
haven't been paying attention to household income data compiled monthly
by ex-Census Bureau workers at Sentier Research.
Sentier's latest report covering November came out today. It shows that
annualized inflation-adjusted median household income is still more
than 7 percent below where it was when Barack Obama took office in
Janaury 2009, and that it's gone nowhere in the 23 months since December
2011. At an index value of 92.7, November's figure is virtually the
same as it was in December 2011 (92.8).
To its credit, the Washington Post's Wonkblog
found Sheila Bair, who "served as Chair of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation from June 2006 through June 2011." Ms. Bair calls
the following her favorite graph of the year:
This is why Ms. Bair chose the above graph (bolds are mine):
... for a large number of American households, there has been no economic recovery.
Caught in a vice of chronic unemployment and falling wages, real median
household income (excluding capital gains and losses but including cash
government benefits) has declined 4.4% since the “recovery” began in
2009. For many households, the drop has been more severe. For
African-American households, it is 10.9%. For those under 25 years old,
it is 9.6%. For single females with children, it is 7.5%. Indeed, the
only households to experience an increase in real income are those 65 to
74 years old.
So as the investor class celebrates the stock market’s bubbly
25% gain in 2013 courtesy of quantitative easing, let’s not forget the
plight of those Americans who work for a living. And in 2014, let’s face
up to the ineffectiveness of monetary policy to help them and the
desperate need for fiscal leadership to generate real, sustainable
growth.
Bair was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006. From the title of one of her her blog posts
(e.g., "Time to abolish Fannie and Freddie who now account for 75% of
the mortgage market, virtually all taxpayer backed" and ), it appears
that she isn't a slavish adherent to Keynesianism. On the other hand,
she doesn't fully appreciate the gravity of our financial situation. In
January, she tried to explain "Why Republicans need to help Obama."
Obama is not interested in their help at all, Sheila.
Unfortunately, Bair's guest post is only one of three items returned in a Google News search on Sentier Research's firm name for the past week. The other two refer to older data.
It's remarkable that the press, to the extent that it has noticed
stagnant incomes at all, has rarely if ever assigned the blame to Obama
administration economic and regulatory policies. That certainly was not
the case during the George W. Bush administration, when median income
was generally only flat and not stuck at the bottom of a crater.
Instead, the press has allowed itself to be co-opted by Obama's
speechifying about "income inequality," which happens to have deepened
on his watch, and arguably because of his administration's policies.
RELATED: Obamacare Website Official Retires, Sebelius Stays
Newsbusters.org:
Have you ever wondered what MSNBC president Phil Griffin uses as
qualifications to hire on-air personalities for his so-called "news
network?"
Consider the case of perpetually race-baiting contributor Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson who on Monday’s Ed Show actually said that Christian men claiming to love Jesus more than they love women “sounds interestingly homoerotic”
I’d say the idiocy on display here was astonishing, but as readers
know, it’s quite commonplace on MSNBC with all the idiotic contributors
and hosts that have been hired in recent years.
As for this Georgetown professor/MSNBC "political analyst," his understanding of Christianity is abysmal.
"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all
your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." - Mark
12:30.
Evangelist Greg Laurie observed last month:
This statement reveals that God is not simply looking for some
emotional, gooey kind of love. He is looking for a complete, true love.
You see, some people only love the Lord with all of their soul or with
all of their emotion, but they don't love Him with all of their minds.
Other people love God with all of their minds, but they neglect the
emotional side of loving the Lord.
Jesus is saying, "I want a love that possesses an emotional,
intellectual, and physical backbone." Jesus desires a love that draws
from every fiber of your being-inside and out. Any other kind of love is
no love at all.
This is in keeping with what truly religious Christians have told me:
you are supposed to love Jesus more than anyone else - including your
spouse and your children.
However, what Dyson was also missing is that this love isn't sexual.
Maybe he wasn't aware that humans can love without sexual intimacy. We
love our parents, siblings, and children without having sex with them or
desiring to do so.
That a Georgetown professor and MSNBC "political analyst" doesn't
understand that should be very concerning to the heads of this so-called
"news network."
That it's apparently not says a lot about this farce.
Breitbart.com:
Throughout our history, America has been a place where if you work
hard and play by the rules, you can go as far as your God-given talents
will take you. Those sacrifices help pave the way for your children and
grandchildren to go even further.
This is the American Dream as we know it. It’s not an abstract goal,
but an achievable way of life that is ours to protect and pass on to
future generations.
Many Americans today are deeply worried that all this is changing for
good – but not in a good way. This concern stems from the belief that
the American Dream is slipping away and, with it, the chance to give our
children and grandchildren a shot at an even better life.
Especially over the last five years, we have been told that a bigger
and more powerful federal government is the way to fix this. But it has
not. Instead, it has left us with a $17 trillion national debt and 20
million people out of work. It has left us with taxes that are too high
and regulations that are too complicated. And it has left us with a
government too broken to function and families that are falling apart
because our government undermines the values of hard work, discipline,
honesty and self-control.
We should never accept this as the new normal. We can reverse the
insecurity, the lack of opportunity and the anxiety about the future. We
can restore the American Dream.
Of course, these worries won't disappear overnight, with one speech
or with one budget. But every day is filled with new opportunities to
take some steps in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the House-Senate budget deal announced this week fails
to take any meaningful steps to achieve a government with less debt and
an economy with more good paying jobs. Not achieving these goals means
it will continue to be harder for more Americans to achieve the American
Dream.
This budget continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions
by spending more money than the government takes in and placing
additional financial burdens on everyday Americans. These burdens
primarily come in the form of higher taxes disguised as fee increases,
particularly on air travelers. Although user fees must sometimes be
reevaluated to help pay for the rising costs of providing a government
service, this budget deal's fee increases are simply designed to
generate more revenues for government and to pay for unrelated increased
spending on government programs.
In the short run, this budget also cancels earlier spending
reductions that came about through the so-called sequester of 2011 in
exchange for future promises of other spending reductions many years
from now. In other words, we have a government that’s $17 trillion in
debt, which had to borrow an additional $680 billion this year to fund
its annual deficit, yet this budget deal actually increases spending by
$63 billion over the next two years, supposedly for spending cuts to be
named later.
In 2011, I voted against the deal that included sequestration because
it involved raising the debt ceiling without any meaningful spending
reforms. But I have also been concerned about the deal's impact on key
defense programs – cuts that imperil our security simply because
Washington politicians refuse to set priorities and cut out wasteful
spending. The American people should not be asked to choose between a
strong military and responsible budgets that encourage job creation and
reduce debt.
Instead of setting priorities based on the limited role government
should be playing in our lives, this budget deal calls for higher
spending and more revenue to feed a larger government. This is not a
solution; it's an exacerbation of Washington's spending problem.
RELATED: Boehner: These conservative groups who are objecting to the budget deal are “ridiculous”
Townhall.com:
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes has ruled that Detroit, Mich., may
seek to protect itself from its creditors under Chapter 9 municipal
bankruptcy protection, thus making this once proud city the largest
municipality in American history to go bust.
The city is $18 billion in the hole thanks to its debt and long-term
liabilities, such as pensions it could not afford and people abandoning
the city in droves, which led to an erosion of the tax base.
It didn't have to be like this. There were signs of Detroit's decline
that began as early as the 1950s, but politicians don't like telling
voters "no" when it comes to government freebies and benefits. They want
the votes.
Last September, the Detroit Free Press printed an extensive analysis of
the city's financial history over the past 60 years. It found that
instead of making difficult economic and political decisions, which
might have strengthened Detroit's financial foundation, "...amid a huge
exodus of residents, plummeting tax revenues and skyrocketing home
abandonment, Detroit's leaders engaged in a billion-dollar borrowing
binge, created new taxes and failed to cut expenses when they needed to.
"Simultaneously," reported the newspaper, these leaders "gifted workers
and retirees with generous bonuses. And under pressure from unions and,
sometimes, arbitrators, they failed to cut health care benefits --
saddling the city with staggering costs that today threaten the safety
and quality of life of people who live here."
Most of the recent mayors of Detroit have been Democrats. Some have gone
to jail on corruption charges, but they don't get the same level of
attention from the national media as they might have had they been
Republicans. Stirring the political pot to avoid perpetual one-party
rule would have been a good way to reduce corruption and the problems
Detroit has experienced under Democrats.
Washington, D.C., which has had only Democratic mayors and a majority
Democratic city council since the 1960s when Congress gave residents the
right to vote for their local leaders, is another city with several
corrupt politicians. As in Detroit, Washington, D.C.'s policies appear
to have ensured a permanent underclass Democrats can count on for votes,
as long as government handouts keep coming.
While there have been periods of economic growth in Detroit over the
past 50 years, politicians did not use the money wisely and many
opportunities to alter the city's downward trajectory toward more
benefits, higher debt and the discredited notion that constantly raising
taxes would stop the bleeding were missed.
The one flaw in the Free Press analysis is this line: "Although no one
could see it at the time, Detroit's insolvency was guaranteed." It isn't
that no one could see insolvency coming; it is that they refused to do
so. Their attitude was "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."
And so Detroit has succumbed to financial ruin.
There is a grand lesson here not only for other urban cities faced with
similar problems, but for states and especially the federal government
that don't want to deny anyone anything, especially in an election year.
The lesson is an obvious one, buried deep in our Puritan ethos: You
can't spend more than you take in, as though tomorrow will never come.
If you do, your tomorrow might just look a lot like Detroit's.
Last summer, Beyonce visited Detroit where she performed a live concert
and recorded a video reminding the city of its illustrious past. The
song she sang in the video was Sam Cooke's "A Change Is Gonna Come"
while behind her a huge neon sign read "Nothing Stops Detroit."
RELATED: Federal judge lets Detroit move forward with largest bankruptcy in US history
Posts
