High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part I

To contact us Click HERE

Truth is not easily hidden.

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

Conventional retail gasoline averaged $3.65 a gallon in the most recent week ended October 22, 2012, yet when Barack Obama was sworn into office the price averaged $1.88. When questioned about the 94.2% increase which occurred on his watch, Mr. Obama remarked that the reason gasoline prices were so low when he entered office was because the U.S.was “in the middle of an economic depression.” However, the question wasn’t why prices were so low when he entered office, but rather why they ballooned by 94.2% on his watch. We’re still awaiting his answer.

In the second presidential debate, Barack Obama stated that, “oil imports are at the lowest levels in 16 years.” But as I pointed out in Debate 2 | Obama’s Oil & Gas Rhetoric, the gasoline I need to fill my tank only cost an average of $1.23 a gallon in 1996, the equivalent of $1.81 today. And later in the same debate, Obama proclaimed that, “oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years.” Well, which is it Mr. President? I pointed out in the same post, that the 1992 price of regular unleaded averaged $1.13 per gallon, the equivalent of $1.86 today. Is the price of gasoline $1.81 to $1.86 today? No. So then what was Obama’s point?

Are we supposed to believe that it took an economic depression to bring gasoline prices down to $1.88 in the week ended January 19, 2009, when that would actually have been higher than the average inflation adjusted price of $1.73 at that time? I don’t know what that tells you, but it tells me that gas prices were in a bubble before the Great Recession, a bubble which finally burst during month 8 of the 19-month downturn. High gasoline prices were actually one of the factors leading to the Great Recession, the subsequent decline merely brought prices in-line with the historic norm.

If this is true, then hasn’t the price of gasoline been in the midst of another bubble since 2011 (see chart below)? And if a bubble currently exists, does that mean the U.S. is either in or near recession? To know the answers, we must venture back in time and analyze what actually took place prior to the Great Recession. The following analysis focuses on all grades of conventional retail gasoline.

Gasoline Prices and the 2001 Recession

Gasoline prices generally rise during the first six months of the year, and fall during the remainder. The 2001 recession began in March and ended in November, as indicated by the first shaded area in the chart above. Going back to January 1, 2001, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we find that conventional grades were selling for an average of $1.42 per gallon. Once the recession commenced prices peaked at $1.70 in May, before the normal seasonal decline. But due to the recession, followed by a post-911 reduction in demand, prices continued to fall reaching a low of $1.08 by the week ending December 18, 2001. This represented a decline from the peak of roughly 36%, over 32 weeks.

Based on the 1992 price per gallon of $1.13, the 2001 equivalent price should have been $1.43 (as represented by the solid blue line). Due to the recession, gasoline prices temporarily declined below the inflation adjusted level, but would eventually regain equilibrium, reaching $1.46 towards the end of 2002. All in all, gasoline prices remained at or near equilibrium between 2001 and 2003. It was in 2004 when prices began to spin hopelessly out of control. The reason for the subsequent price hike was initially blamed on a significant number of refineries being offline, and later by rising crude oil prices.

Prior to the Great Recession, a record high of $3.25 per gallon was set in the week ended May 21, 2007. The chart above contains a green dashed-horizontal line at the breaking point, the pre-Great Recession record of $3.25 a gallon. The solid blue line represents the annual inflation adjusted price of 1992 gasoline. Although gas prices may currently be on the decline, until they dip below $3.25 a recession threat remains. At the same time, any price above $1.86 is not optimal. So where are we today?

Gasoline Prices and the Great Recession

The Great Recession commenced in December of 2007. At the time, gasoline was averaging $3.03 per gallon, but within the first eight months the price would set a new record of $4.10 per gallon in the weeks ending July 7 and July 14, 2008 (see chart above). But then something phenomenal happened. From the peak, prices declined to $3.17, or to below the $3.25 breaking point within just 14 weeks. And prices continued to fall all the way to a low of $1.64 by the week ending December 29, 2008, within another 11 weeks. So from peak to trough, gasoline prices declined by 60% in just 25 weeks, a notable difference from the 36% decline over 32 weeks at the end of the 2001 recession.

After the 2001 recession prices remained relatively stable for two years, but that wasn’t the case with the Great Recession. This time, when prices hit bottom the recession wasn’t over. It probably should have been over at that point, and perhaps it would, had it not been for artificial demand, induced by an unprecedented amount of deficit-financed government intervention. By the time the Great Recession ended, the price of conventional gasoline had risen from a bottom of $1.64 to $2.64. So from an early Great Recession surge to $4.10, prices finally flushed out at $2.64.

To summarize, during the Great Recession, gasoline prices rose by 35% before declining by 36%. By comparison, during the 2001 recession, prices rose by 20% before declining by 36%. That seems fairly harmless on its own, but what’s missing is the fact that gasoline prices doubled, from $1.50 to $3.08, during the previous recovery, between January 2004 and December 2007. That’s the key. There’s the bubble. So what was the cause?

According to information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there was a notable rise in U.S. petroleum demand, and a corresponding decline in U.S. supply from 2004 to 2007, as indicated by the shaded area in the chart below. In fact, the phenomenon of rising demand and declining supply actually commenced in 1986.

A quick study of the chart leads to two questions. Is the U.S. currently producing more oil than it did in 1985? The answer is no. Is the U.S. consuming more petroleum than it did in 1985? The answer is yes. Yet in 2009 there was a noticeable decline in demand and a corresponding uptick in supply, the combination of which contributed to lower prices at the pump. And, it appears that U.S. oil supply is continuing to trend upward, while demand has leveled off. So since demand is stable and supply is increasing, gasoline prices should be dropping like a rock, but instead we have witnessed a 94.2% price increase since January 20, 2009.

So was Obama right to blame the 94.2% price hike, on what he refers to as the extraordinarily low prices he inherited as a result of an economic depression? No, because by inauguration day the price of gasoline had settled right about where it should have, on an inflation adjusted basis. Recall that in 1992 the price of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.13 per gallon, which would have been equivalent to $1.73 in 2009; and the national average was $1.64 on December 29, 2008, and $1.88 on January 19, 2009. Thus, at that time, the price of gasoline was barely above its inflation adjusted value (see the first chart).

Going back to the original question, the reason prices have risen on Obama’s watch has nothing to do with supply and demand. The root cause is unprecedented government intervention vis-à-vis his $832 billion stimulus plan (see Part II). The stimulus program merely re-inflated a price bubble that existed prior to the recession, the first caused by lack of supply, and the second by devaluation of the dollar. It was this artificial deficit-financed demand that caused gasoline prices to rise from the $1.88 he inherited to $2.64 by the end of the recession, so that by June of 2009, gasoline was only 19% below its pre-recession record of $3.25.

Gasoline would remain below $3.00 from June 2009, until the week ending December 27, 2010. It was during this period that the economy showed its most promising signs of recovery. But ever since then, the price of gasoline has never fallen below $3.00. Instead, in the week ended February 28, 2011 the price once again accelerated past the $3.25 breaking point, where it has remained for the last 86 consecutive weeks.

With regard to 2010 being the end of the Obama recovery, the proof is that Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contracted by -3.1% in the year 2009, as gasoline prices surged from $1.64 to $2.62. Then in 2010, GDP grew by 2.4% as prices stabilized and remained below $3.00. But economic growth again slowed to a rate of 1.8% in 2011, as prices climbed above $3.25. GDP further slowed to a growth rate of just 1.3% through the second-quarter 2012, as gas prices remained above $3.25.

Note: The third-quarter 2012 advance estimate that GDP grew by 2.0% is just that, an estimate. In fact, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, “the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency. The "second" estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29, 2012.”

Continued: High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part II

Reference:

Weekly U.S. All Grades Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices | U.S. Energy Information Administration

The 2012 Recession: Are We There Yet? | Economic Cycle Research Institute

The Malaise of 2012 | Part IV

Related:

Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate

Photo Via: Midwest Energy News

High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part II

To contact us Click HERE

Artificial Demand ::

“Real demand is not artificial. We should resist as much as possible the notion of providing things that are not actually demanded by anyone.” ~ American Consensus

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

The price of any product or service is normally determined by two variables, supply and demand. In economics, prices rise as demand increases, as supply decreases, or a combination of the two. It’s only when supply keeps pace with demand that the price of gasoline stabilizes or declines.

Since we know that the world’s population is increasing, not decreasing, more gasoline production is constantly required, not less. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Thus, the only way to reduce gasoline prices, in the face of rising global demand, is through greater production. Yet, U.S. oil production has been on the rise since 2009, while demand has declined. So, why is gasoline stuck above $3.25 a gallon?

Was there suddenly a great demand for solar panels, biofuels, windmills and electric cars in 2009? The answer is no. Do cars and trucks run on solar panels and wind turbines? The answer is no. Yet, the 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion in deficit financing to subsidize politically preferred green energy projects, which had little or no demand at the time. In fact, there is little demand for such products today. What the world demanded in 2009 is the same thing it demands today, more gasoline. So why is the federal government involved in providing things that are not actually demanded by anyone?

According to the Energy Information Administration, global oil consumption declined slightly in 2008, 2009 and 2010, while global supply has kept pace with demand (see chart above). In 2010, global supply actually exceeded demand, but as of 2011, the latest statistics available, world demand set a new record of 87,421,000 barrels per day, up from 83,412,000 in 2010. Yet global supply has kept pace with demand. So why have U.S. gasoline prices climbed by more than 90% since January 2009? The answer doesn't involve oil supply and demand, it has to do with the decline of the U.S. dollar.

The purchasing power of the consumer dollar has declined by 24.3% since 2001 (see chart below). The dollar actually strengthened for a brief 5-month period, from September 2008 to January 2009, but then resumed its decline, having fallen by 8.9% since January 2011. What happened to the price of gasoline during the five-month’s that the dollar strengthened? It declined dramatically, from $3.72 a gallon to $1.64 (see Part I). And what happened to the price of gasoline after January 2011? It shot past the $3.25 per gallon breaking point, where it remains today.

What caused the dollar to decline? The U.S. monetary base, the total amount of a currency that is either circulated in the hands of the public or in the commercial bank deposits held in the central bank's reserves, has increased by 324.2% since 2001. The money base grew from $616.7 billion in 2001, to $2.6 trillion as of September 2012. You can see in the chart below, that $256 billion of this increase occurred between January 2001 and September 2008. But from September 2008 to January 2009 the monetary base increased by $858 billion. However, this initial increase actually strengthened the dollar, and was, evidentially, the precise temporary stimulus needed at the time. The only problem with this brilliant strategy was that it wasn’t temporary.

Instead of winding down at the end of January 2009, what had been a well timed temporary stimulus was unfortunately doubled. Since then, the monetary base has been jacked up by another $886 billion. Instead of a temporary stimulus, what we wound up with was a permanent doubling-down of the original amount. Is this what the economy needed? What was the result? This time instead of strengthening, the purchasing power of the dollar plummeted.

Thus, by the time Barack Obama was inaugurated, the economy had already received the temporary stimulus it required. How do we know? The proof is the decline in the price of gasoline, to near its historic inflation adjusted norm of $1.73 a gallon (see Part I). But ever since then, the price of gas has risen from $1.88 to $3.65. That’s the proof. What we have witnessed during the Obama Administration has been reckless and unnecessary deficit-financed spending, which not only added six-months to the Great Recession, but has lead to a prolonged period of stagnation.

The Federal Reserve should have started reducing the monetary base in February 2009, but was unable to, due to the Barack Obama’s unprecedented $832 billion stimulus plan. In addition, as a result of Mr. Obama’s $1 trillion-plus annual budget deficits for the past four consecutive years, instead of being able to control the money base, the Fed has been forced into the unlimited printing of dollars, vis-à-vis QE3.

Based on the current trajectory, what we can expect with another four years of Barack Obama is a continued decline in the purchasing power of the dollar, and higher gasoline prices, in spite of improved U.S. supply and falling demand. The problem with high gasoline prices is they lead to recessions, while lower prices foster economic expansion. The target price for gasoline is the 1992 inflation adjusted price, $1.86 a gallon. The current price is $3.65.

In the midst of the Great Recession, the average price of gasoline only exceeded the breaking point ($3.25 a gallon) for a total of 31 weeks. In contrast, the current price has remained above the breaking point for a total of 86 consecutive weeks, from February 28, 2011 to present. What does that tell you? It leads me to believe that the U.S. is currently in recession. The cause: Inflation due to excessive money printing, necessitated as the result of an $832 billion stimulus, and unprecedented trillion dollar budget deficits due to Barack Obama’s inability to govern. Is there a witness?

One month ago, the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI), the same organization which successfully predicted the last recession, and which over the last 15 years has gotten all of its recession calls right while issuing no false alarms, declared that the U.S. is in recession. In an article entitled, The 2012 Recession: Are We There Yet?, ECRI stated, “Back in December, we went on to specify the time frame for it [the recession] to begin: if not by the first quarter of the year, then by mid-2012. But we also said at the time that the recession would not be evident before the end of the year. In other words, nine months ago we knew that, sitting here today, most people probably would not realize that we are in recession – and we do believe we are in recession.”

The policies of Barack Obama didn’t deliver us from the Great Recession, they prolonged it. The $832 billion stimulus plan merely created an artificial demand for U.S. dollars, and is directly responsible for re-inflating the same imbalances that existed prior to the recession. How can we tell whether or not we’re better off than we were four years ago? Well, here’s what’s different today. We are more than $16 trillion in debt, 25 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed, instead of reducing the money base the Federal Reserve is printing more money to purchase mortgage-backed debt on an unlimited basis, our tax and regulatory structure is mired in uncertainty, we are suffering from a foreign policy meltdown, and the price of gasoline has remained over $3.25 for a record 86 consecutive weeks.

The Obama Administration has done everything in its power to hide the truth from us, but we’re just not going to take it anymore. Americans can take a lot, but one thing we won’t tolerate is government officials who try to deceive us. The federal government can easily manipulate unemployment statistics, since the numbers are basically made-up anyway, but it cannot so easily engineer the price of gasoline. To do so would entail releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is in place to mitigate national emergencies, not sway elections.

Four years of Barack Obama's policies solved nothing. We are currently teetering somewhere between back where we started from, to worse off than we have ever been. And with a looming fiscal cliff, another four years of Obama will only make things worse. America can’t take another four years of trifling rhetoric, high gasoline prices, or another government-prolonged recession. It’s time to wash our hands of the Obama Administration, and time to turn toward mature, experienced, and responsible leadership. You know what time it is!

“A lie hides the truth. A story tries to find it.” ~ Paula Fox

Reference:

Weekly U.S. All Grades Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices | U.S. Energy Information Administration

The 2012 Recession: Are We There Yet? | Economic Cycle Research Institute

The Malaise of 2012 | Part IV

Related:

High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part I

Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate

Has Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush Yet?

To contact us Click HERE

:: Card Stacking ::

MythBuster III: Rational or Ridiculous?

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.

Back in October of 2010, the left-wing media and White House tried to spin the myth that, "Obama created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in eight years.” However, this delusion was busted in the first MythBuster series (here), simply by proving that at the time, not one single solitary job had been created during the Obama Administration. In fact at the time Mr. Obama was proudly presiding over a 2,991,000 loss in private sector jobs. So where are we today, 2 years later and 44 months into Mr. Obama’s agenda? Has Obama created more jobs than Bush?

Current Employment Statistics: No Shot

Let’s turn to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, focusing first on the Current Employment Statistics (CES). The CES is a monthly survey of about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls, also known as Table B.

When we add up the total number of nonfarm jobs created during Mr. Obama's 44-month tenure (February 1, 2009 to September 30, 2012), we find that a total of 61,000 jobs have been lost (133,561,000 – 133,500,000). Thus, Mr. Obama’s job loss average is 1,386 jobs per month. Oops!

And when we add up the total number of nonfarm jobs created during Mr. Bush’s 96-month tenure (February 1, 2001 to January 31, 2009), we find that a total of 1,095,000 jobs were created (133,561,000 – 132,466,000). So Mr. Bush’s job creation average was 11,406 jobs per month.

Therefore, in terms of the CES, Mr. Bush’s job creation record was 922.9% greater than Mr. Obama’s [(11,406 + 1,386) / 1,386]. Oops!

Current Population Survey: Fair Shot

Just to be fair, we’ll return to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this time focusing on the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of households conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, also known as Table A. The CPS is a broader survey, which includes those who are self-employed or who work for smaller companies. It’s also the data set used to calculate the official unemployment rate.

When we add up the total increase in the employment level during Mr. Obama's 44-month tenure (February 1, 2009 to September 30, 2012), we find that a total of 787,000 jobs have been created (142,974,000 – 142,187,000). That’s an average of 17,886 jobs per month, which is at least positive, although far short of the four or five million he esteems.

Yet, when we add up the total increase in the employment level during Mr. Bush’s 96-month tenure (February 1, 2001 to January 31, 2009), we find that a total of 4,409,000 jobs were created (142,187,000 – 137,778,000). That’s an average of 45,927 jobs per month.

Thus, in terms of the CPS, Mr. Bush’s job creation record was 256.7% greater than Mr. Obama’s (45,927 / 17,886). Oops!

Officially Busted!

The claim, "Obama created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in eight years,” is officially busted. Although I could cherry-pick and find a period where nonfarm jobs growth was up by 7 or 8 million during Mr. Bush’s term, for example from 2003 through 2007, and use that to pummel Mr. Obama’s record into the ground, I choose to remain among the rational. I don't want to hear another word about Obama having created four of five million jobs over some arbitrary period.

Most of us would agree that Mr. Bush’s job creation record was pretty dismal, but compared to Mr. Obama’s record, we were far better off during the Bush years. The truth is that the number of nonfarm jobs (CES) grew 922.9% greater during Bush's 96-month term, in spite of the massive losses incurred during two recessions, than during Mr. Obama’s 44-month term. And likewise, the employment level (CPS) grew 256.7% greater during Bush’s term, than during Mr. Obama’s.

We are currently around 4 or 5 million jobs short of where we were before the Great Recession. Frankly, Mr. Obama’s job creation record is ridiculous, pathetic, and unacceptable. He should be ashamed, as should anyone attempting to spin such trifle. It’s time to throw the bums out.

References:

Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

Bureau of Labor Statistics: CES Data

Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPS Data

Related:

MythBuster: Has Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush?

MythBuster II: Has Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush?

U.S. Jobs Deficit Sticks at 11.6 Million in October

To contact us Click HERE

32 Years from Full-Employment

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

In the fairest sense, the U.S. Jobs Deficit has improved by an average of 30,000 jobs per month since January 1, 2011. And although this may be good enough for indifferent Obama loyalists, what it really means is that based on Barack Obama’s very best job creation averages to date, full employment is still another 32 years away. Based on yesterday’s Employment Situation Report, 171,000 nonfarm jobs were added in the month of October. However, since the U.S. needs to add a minimum of 320,850 jobs each and every month for the next 60 months in order to return to full-employment, October’s result fell short of the mark by 149,850.

When the entire Obama record is analyzed, it turns out that U.S. employers have only added a total of 194,000 nonfarm jobs since February 1, 2009 (133,755,000 – 133,561,000). The jobs deficit has increased by 5,521,000 during Barack Obama’s 45-month term, from 6,110,000 on January 31, 2009 to 11,631,000 on October 31, 2012. The average number of nonfarm jobs created on a monthly basis in 2012 is 157,000, which is ironically the same as in 2011. In contrast, the average number of jobs created in 2010 was 86,000, compared to an average loss of (422,000) per month in 2009.

So an average of 157,000 jobs a month, over the past 22 months, is the best that Barack Obama’s policies have been able to accomplish. This may sound great to some folks, but since 127,000 new jobs are required each and every month just to keep pace with population growth, what it really means is that we are clearly locked on a trajectory that chips away at the present 11,631,000 jobs deficit by a mere 30,000 jobs per month. So what does this mean in plain English? In other words, how many jobs must the U.S. create each and every month going forward in order to reach full-employment, and how long will it take?

Updated Jobs Benchmark

Updating Paul Krugman’s original benchmark with the latest figures, we discover that to be meaningful, the number of jobs needed to return to more or less full employment by December of 2014 (the original target date), or within the next 26 months, is now 574,346 jobs a month, as follows:

In order to keep up with population growth, we would need to create 127,000 jobs times 26 months, or 3,302,000. Add in the need to make up for the jobs deficit and we’re at around 14,933,000 (3,302,000 + 11,631,000) over the next 26 months — or 574,346 jobs a month.

But since that’s never going to happen under the countermanding policies of Barack Obama, we are forced to extend the time frame. However, even when we extend the target date to 5 years from today, which will be more than 8 years from the time the recession ended, the number of jobs needed to return to more or less full employment by October of 2017, or within the next 60 months, is now 320,850 jobs a month, as follows:

In order to keep up with population growth, we would need to create 127,000 jobs times 60 months, or 7,620,000. Add in the need to make up for the jobs deficit and we’re at around 19,251,000 (7,620,000 + 11,631,000) over the next 60 months — or 320,850 jobs a month.

Did the U.S. add 574,346 jobs last month? No. Did we add 320,850? No. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. has only added 194,000 nonfarm jobs since Obama took office (i.e. February 1, 2009) (see related table). So what does that tell you? It tells me that Barack Obama’s economic policies have failed miserably. He’s the one who said, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” So don’t blame conservatives and independents when the earth slides from under his feet on Tuesday.

Fair Enough?

In the fairest sense, when we average the number of jobs created over the last 10 months, we arrive at 157,000 a month. And when we average the number created in 2011 we ironically get 157,000 as well. Do the math. So in other words, there has not been any improvement this year over last year. So we’re not moving forward after all, we’re stuck in neutral. And since we know that it takes a minimum of 127,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, we are only chipping away at the 11,631,000 jobs deficit by 30,000 jobs a month (157,000 – 127,000). Thus, on the current trajectory, full-employment is roughly 388 months — or 32 years away.

[For the mathematically challenged, take the jobs deficit of 11,631,000 and divide it by the twenty-two month average improvement of 30,000, and you get 388 months. Now divide 388 months by 12 and you get 32 years.]

So four more years of Obama’s trickle-down-government approach places us on the track to reach full-employment by around the year 2044. And that’s giving him the benefit of the highest job creation averages achieved during his entire presidency. I’ll be 84 years old by then, and my one year old twin granddaughters will be 33. I’m sorry, but no matter how you spin the numbers, Barack Obama isn’t worthy of a second term.

Until the number of Nonfarm jobs is expanding by a minimum of 320,850 a month for a sustained period of at least five years, anything short is bad news. The Romney-Ryan Team is the only one on the ballot with a plan targeted to come anywhere close to what’s needed. Aside from that, with the national debt already beginning its ascent towards $20 trillion, with 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, with the Federal Reserve devaluing our currency by printing money to purchase mortgage-backed debt on an unlimited basis, with our tax and regulatory structure mired in uncertainty, with a foreign policy meltdown, and with the price of gasoline hovering above $3.25 for a record 86 consecutive weeks, there is absolutely, positively, no reason to consider a second Obama term. None!

[Note: Paul Krugman and other left-wing cronies are now trying to push the idea that, since July 2011 only 90,000 jobs have been required to keep up with population growth. “The number used to be higher, but baby boomers are getting old — the same thing that affects the household survey.” However, even if such a radical 30% shift had occurred within the last four years, it would only alter the current jobs deficit by a diminimus amount — 592,000 jobs, from 11,631,000 to 11,039,000, so phooey! There’s no turning back now, we're sticking with the original benchmark which Mr. Krugman laid out in December of 2009.]

Data:

Worksheet on Google Drive

Related:

U.S. Jobs Deficit Improves by 1,000 in September

U.S. Jobs Deficit Increases by 72,000 in August

U.S. Jobs Deficit Holds at 11,760,000 in July

U.S. Jobs Deficit Grows by 47,000 in June

The Real Jobs Deficit | Moving in the wrong direction.

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 3 | The American Dream

Black Unemployment Jumps 10.9% on Obama

To contact us Click HERE

Are you better off today than four years ago?

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

According to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate for all Americans rose by 1.3% since Barack Obama took office. But over the same period, the unemployment rate for Black Americans jumped by 10.9%, and the number of unemployed Black Americans climbed by 19.1%. So are we better off than we were four years ago? You might be, but the Black Community as a whole definitely is not. So will 90% of Blacks vote to re-elect Obama anyway? You betcha, because it’s not about tangible results, or even the content of one’s character; shamefully for many it’s about the candidate’s skin color.

Per the first chart above, the Official Unemployment Rate has increased slightly from 7.8% on January 31, 2009, to 7.9% by October 31, 2012, an increase of 1.3% (0.1 / 7.8). So the official unemployment rate isn’t any better than it was when Barack Obama took office, it’s about the same, or slightly worse. What about that?

And according the second chart above, the Unemployment Rate for Black Americans jumped from 12.7% on January 31, 2009, to 14.3% by October 31, 2012, for an increase of 10.9% (1.6 / 12.7). So the unemployment rate for Black Americans has continued to rise at a recessionary pace, in spite of Hope and Change. So what about that?

And according to last chart, the number of unemployed Black Americans has continued to surge at a recessionary pace, climbing from 2,254,000 on January 31, 2009, to 2,684,000 by October 31, 2012, for an increase of 19.1% (430,000 / 2,254,000). So the number of unemployed Black Americans, those who refuse to go on welfare or disability and remain in the labor force, has risen due to the countermanding policies of Barack Obama. What countermanding policies you say?

To name a few:

1. Threatening to hike tax rates on the people who might have given someone a job instead.

2. Forcing employers to provide health insurance to current employees, leaving no room for expansion or new hires.

3. Spending borrowed money to subsidize solar panels, wind turbines, and battery operated vehicles, while the U.S. electrical grid remains vulnerable.

4. Allowing strict EPA regulations to stifle jobs in the oil and gas, and mining industries.

5. Increasing deficit-financed expenditures on Welfare, Food Stamps, and Disability as if that’s what Americans are demanding.

6. Running up $5.3 trillion of debt in 4 years, the largest increase in our history, resulting in the first sovereign credit downgrade in American history.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. You don’t achieve job creation through raising taxes, forcing employer mandates, social engineering, killing current jobs, offering free rides, or destroying the nation’s credibility. So admit it, Obama’s policies didn’t work. They didn’t work for Franklin D. Roosevelt, they have never worked, and they aren’t working today. So what now? More of the same, or will you dare to be different? Common sense dictates that if you want a different result, you must try something different. See you on Tuesday. Be there!

If the unemployment rate don’t fit, vote for Mitt!

Data:

Worksheets on Google Drive

References:

Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPS Data Table A-2

Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPS Data Table A-1

Related:

Black Employment | Back to the 1970s

Has Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush Yet?

Bush's agenda faces opposition from election-wary Republicans

To contact us Click HERE
April 4th 2005 - The tightly disciplined, Republican-controlled Congress that gave President George W. Bush key pro- business victories in the first few months of his second term may now put political survival ahead of party unity.

Bush has outlined an aggressive agenda -- including restructuring Social Security, cutting a record budget deficit and easing immigration policies -- that he hopes will secure his legacy for posterity. His party's lawmakers have a simpler goal: winning re-election and maintaining or enlarging their House and Senate majorities in 2006.

``Bush sees himself as a consequential president in history who accomplished big things,'' says Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. ``Most members of Congress can be very happy just strolling along saying, 'Here is all the money I delivered to my district.'''

Congressional Republicans are pushing for legislation to allow drug imports from Canada, a measure opposed by Bush and drug makers such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. Bush also faces resistance on his plan to ease immigration laws, which food- service companies such as Outback Steakhouse Inc. and Wendy's International Inc. support. And Wall Street analysts and economists hoping for measures to restrain the budget deficit are concerned that lawmakers facing re-election won't be inclined to cut spending.

``There are some great challenges,'' White House spokesman Trent Duffy says. ``This president is a big-game hunter. The process is just beginning.''

The Republicans, who gained expanded majorities in both chambers of Congress in the November elections, gave Bush some early successes this year with measures that curbed class-action lawsuits, rewrote bankruptcy laws and paved the way for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Easy Wins

These ``were easy wins that were left over from the last Congress,'' says Ethan Siegal, president of the Washington Exchange, which tracks policy for institutional investors. ``Everything else Bush has on the table is very difficult, and the discipline in his party is breaking apart.''

The first stirrings of dissent were heard when lawmakers took up Bush's 2006 budget, which calls for trimming federal benefits and other domestic programs while extending portions of his first-term tax cuts.

Last month, Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, led six other Republicans in blocking Bush's plan to cut $14 billion from the Medicaid health program over five years. And when a Senate committee approved Bush's $284 billion highway bill, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma assured his fellow Republicans that the funding may be increased later.

Drug Imports

Republicans are also at odds with Bush's position on allowing Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the powerful chairman of the Finance Committee, is pushing for legislation that would allow the imports, which Bush and drug makers oppose.

Representative Jo Ann Emerson, a Missouri Republican, says she is confident the bill allowing imports can clear the House. Lawmakers' ``constituents are saying, find any means possible to bring down the cost of drugs,'' she says.

Drug makers such as New York-based Pfizer, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck and Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth say the measure won't adequately address these concerns. ``We don't believe that re-importation is a solution to the problems of access and affordability of medications,'' Wyeth spokeswoman Natalie De Vane says. ``And it does pose a safety risk.''

Bush's call for a guest-worker visa program aimed at allowing migrants to fill low-skilled jobs may be the toughest to pass, because so many Republicans are opposed to it, says Bruce Josten, the head lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

Opening Floodgates

Representative John Hostettler, an Indiana Republican who heads the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, said he wouldn't allow any bill easing immigration to be brought before his panel for a vote. ``It is my concern and others' concerns that if you legalize those who have illegally obtained residency here, you will open the floodgates,'' he said in an interview March 31.

The National Restaurant Association, which represents companies such as Tampa, Florida-based Outback Steakhouse and Dublin, Ohio-based Wendy's International, backs Bush's plan. The food-service industry is the largest U.S. employer of undocumented workers -- about 1.4 million of the nation's 8 million immigrants.

Second-Term Blues

These kinds of defections are common in a president's second term, particularly when his party is in power in Congress, says Stephen Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. In four of five second-term mid-term elections since World War II, the party that controlled the White House has lost seats in both chambers, says Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, which tracks political races.

Most lawmakers are aware of this phenomenon, called the ``sixth-year itch,'' Duffy says, and Republicans will cast their votes on Bush's agenda items with this precedent in mind. ``It's a self-preservation issue,'' she says.

There are 15 Republican-held Senate seats on the ballot next year. In the House, where all members are up for re-election, 24 Republicans won their 2004 elections with 55 percent of the vote or less.

This dynamic is already evident in the voting behavior of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Senate Republican leader, who is expected to face a tough re-election contest in 2006 from Democrat Robert Casey Jr., the state treasurer.

Good for Pennsylvania

Santorum has parted ways with the president at least twice in the last month. He proposed a $1.10-an-hour increase to the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage, and voted in favor of an amendment to a 2006 budget plan that rejected Bush's call to cut nearly $2 billion from the Community Development Block Grant program and other economic development programs that are popular in his state.

``You're going to see him deviate on things that make sense for Pennsylvania,'' Duffy says.

Perhaps most significant for Bush's legacy, his plan to establish private Social Security accounts has failed to generate a critical mass of support. The proposal has proved unpopular in the polls, and Republican lawmakers including Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa and Representative John Mica of Florida have not made commitments to support it.

Wall Street Worries

Some Republicans share Wall Street's concern over the effect of the proposal on the budget deficit, which reached a record $412 billion last year. Any plan to create the accounts would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

``The longer we continue to allow the public debt to rise, the more painful the ultimate cuts will be,'' says Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLP, a research firm in Jersey City, New Jersey, that analyzes the effects of federal economic policies.

For many Republicans, though, concern about the deficit is mitigated by the desire to avoid the political pain that spending cuts or moderating Bush's tax cuts would entail.

During last month's Senate debate on Bush's request to extend his $1.85 trillion in tax cuts, only five Republican senators joined the chamber's 44 Democrats and one independent to demand that further reductions be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. While the Senate rejected, 50-50, an amendment to the fiscal blueprint requiring offsets, some Republicans plan to fight again this summer when party leaders advance the legislation.

Deficit cracking GOP's solidarity

To contact us Click HERE
November 27th 2005 - More than a decade after the Republican Revolution, when Newt Gingrich became House speaker on the promise to downsize government, Republicans are facing another revolution.

This one is from within.

When Congress returns next month from its Thanksgiving recess, Republican leaders who have never failed to marshal their forces on big party-line votes face the prospect of defeat on tax cuts and spending restraint -- the core issues that have united the party since President Ronald Reagan and gave them their House majority in 1994.

They have lost some tax and spending votes already, and postponed others because of the specter of losing. After a five-year spending spree on everything from the Iraq war to Medicare, deficits are now jeopardizing the tax cuts that were the centerpiece of President Bush's first term.

A move to preserve tax cuts on capital gains and dividends -- the gemstone of the Bush tax cuts for conservatives -- is in trouble in both the House and the Senate. For the first time since George W. Bush took office, House Democrats are united against tax cuts, and Republican moderates are bucking their party leadership.

GOP leaders are pushing a measure to control entitlement spending by shaving Medicaid and food stamps for the poor. But the combination of investor tax cuts and reductions in poverty programs has already led to a series of embarrassing defeats in committee and on the House floor. Republicans are headed for a pre-Christmas showdown that could turn into a political disaster.

Hurricane topples plans

Hurricane Katrina last summer was a tipping point. The storm forced Republicans to ditch the estate tax repeal because it was deemed unseemly to end a wealth tax after poor people had lost their homes. Sensing a public relations disaster, Republican leaders also postponed extending the investor tax cuts until the end of the year.

Congress quickly passed $62 billion in emergency disaster relief. But Bush's promise to "do whatever it takes" to rebuild the Gulf Coast set off a rebellion among conservatives, who demanded spending cuts to pay the bill.

"I think they blinked after Hurricane Katrina," said Brad Woodhouse, a liberal activist who helped defeat Bush's Social Security overhaul and has turned his fire on the Republican budget, heading a liberal alliance called the Emergency Campaign for American Priorities.

"It was such an acknowledgment of how inappropriate these spending cuts to finance tax cuts are," Woodhouse said. "It was like blood dripping in the water for us."

The budget outlook -- and the problems facing the GOP -- promise to get much worse. Medicare's costly new prescription drug benefit, an $18 trillion unfunded liability sponsored by the White House and Republican leadership, starts in January. Just two years from now, in 2008, the enormous Baby Boom generation will begin retiring, ceasing income tax payments and starting to collect benefits, leading to a budget squeeze unprecedented in U.S. history.

"We're seeing the future," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official in the George H.W. Bush administration and tax-cut advocate. "The decisions that have been made over the last five years have resulted in the chickens coming home to roost."

Total spending increases under the current President Bush closely rival those of President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat famous for conducting the Vietnam War while simultaneously increasing domestic spending.

Discretionary spending rose 48.5 percent in Bush's first term, according to an analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute, twice as much as in two terms under President Bill Clinton, when spending rose 21.6 percent. Adjusted for inflation, Bush has increased total spending at an annualized rate of 5.6 percent, compared with 1.5 percent under Clinton.

"It's only a matter of time before we stop talking about cutting taxes for a very long period of time and talk basically about increasing taxes," Bartlett predicted. "The end of the era of tax cutting is going to put tremendous strain on the Republican coalition, just as the end of the era of big spending put tremendous strain on the Democratic coalition" in the 1980s. "You're hearing more and more people on the Republican side talking about major losses in the congressional elections next year and about 2008 being a really, really bad year for Republicans."

In the two months since Republicans pulled their tax cut bills, the atmosphere has only gotten worse. Republicans lost two important off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Bush's popularity has hit new lows, with the public now decidedly opposing the Iraq war. Leading GOP candidates, including Sen. Rick Santorum, a conservative member of the Senate leadership who faces a tough re-election fight in Pennsylvania, have refused to appear with Bush at campaign events.

"Republican members of Congress recognize that the president can't help them very much any more," said Cato Institute Chairman Bill Niskanen, a former Reagan administration economist. In addition, the indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay seriously weakened party discipline in the House and exposed deep divisions between fiscal conservatives and moderates.

"There is a substantial ideological split, particularly among House Republicans, on fiscal responsibility," Niskanen said. "A lot of them have gone along with a high rate of growth of spending but have done so without any enthusiasm."

As the post-Katrina conservative revolt gelled, the Republican leadership turned to Medicaid, food stamps and student loans for spending restraint. The Senate is proposing $35 billion in reductions and the House $50 billion; both chambers are also seeking between $56 billion and $59 billion in tax cuts.

Large gap to cross

There are enormous differences between the House and Senate on both measures. Reconciling them will be very difficult in the two weeks Congress has left before adjourning for Christmas.

Combined, the measures increase the deficit. The spending restraint appeased conservatives but provoked an outcry from Democrats and GOP moderates. Efforts to console moderates by dropping a measure for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and adding subsidies for home heating costs and dairy farmers have done little but stoke more controversy.

The Medicaid and food stamp cuts have attracted the most fire, and barely passed the House 217-215 before Thanksgiving, with no Democratic support. Republicans recessed before attempting to pass the tax cuts.

Much of the roughly $11 billion in cuts over five years proposed by the Senate for Medicaid, a health care program for the poor that many elderly use to pay nursing home costs, were recommended by state governors. They contend the program is becoming burdensome for the states, which must come up with money to match federal funding. Democrats have portrayed the reduction in the growth of Medicaid spending as dire, but even liberal analysts concede they are not severe. One provision would increase co-payments from $3 to $5, and another would allow elderly nursing home residents to shield $750,000 in home equity, raised from $500,000 after Republican moderates objected.

The cuts are "not awful," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry now at the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

"It's less about the magnitude and more about why should you be asking poor people to pay anything more for health care at the same time that you're giving brand-new tax cuts to the most fortunate," Furman said. "That is what is just completely wrong with this picture.

"A go-it-alone Republican strategy works when you're trying to cut taxes or increase spending, but when you're trying to make tougher choices, the only way to do it is to work together with the other party for shared sacrifice," Furman said. "Budget reality is starting to catch up with the Republican Party."

Heavy U.S. borrowing with much more on the horizon is stoking concern about a potential financial crisis. Any one of several big economic imbalances -- including looming pressures on the federal budget, the zero U.S. savings rate, the historically high trade deficit, a real estate boom that has supported consumer spending -- could provoke a sudden financial shift, economists say.

"It's not unrealistic to think that if we continue to delay -- and the Baby Boomers do start to retire as early as 2008 -- that sooner or later the lenders to this country may decide it's not the best place to park all their savings," said Maya MacGuineas, director of fiscal policy for centrist New American Foundation.

Bartlett warns of a "financial Katrina."

"It's just a matter of time before we have some kind of economic event that I think is just going to change the political situation 180 degrees and make deficit reduction the order of the day," he said. "I don't know what it will be. I just know that when you've got gasoline spilling onto the floor of your house, it doesn't really matter where the spark comes from."