August 25-28, 2011
Aug 25 10:55 Confirmed: Romney Ceding South Carolina Aug 27 22:44 Tina Liebling's fight for higher ed status quo Aug 25 01:34 Tax Committee chair sets record straight on Dayton tax increase Aug 25 05:04 Setting the legislative pay record straight Aug 25 13:45 Mitt outlines flawed campaign strategy Aug 26 02:02 Bakk's Spin Aug 27 03:41 President Obama's GDP, unemployment troubles Aug 28 07:44 Dane Smith Channels Alan Grayson
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Confirmed: Romney Ceding South Carolina
CNN is reporting that Mitt Romney has turned down an invitation to the Jim DeMint debate on Labor Day:
Mitt Romney will not attend a Labor Day forum in South Carolina organized by conservative kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint, who endorsed Romney's run for president four years ago.
Romney spokesperson Ryan Williams, citing scheduling conflicts, said the candidate will instead spend the day in New Hampshire, sending another signal that the former Massachusetts governor is not focusing on the early Southern primary state like he did in 2008. He was not previously listed as attending the event by the organizers.
Mitt Romney is in deep trouble already. He won't win Iowa. In fact, he's acting like he has the luxury of not engaging there. That's a major mistake but an understandable one. With Gov. Perry shooting into the lead in Iowa, Mitt doesn't have a margin for error. A convincing victory in New Hampshire is a must. If he doesn't do well in South Carolina, the whispers will start that Mitt can't win in the South, that he can only win in the Northeast.
If Gov. Perry does well in New Hampshire, it'll only add to the image that Gov. Perry can do well nationwide. That won't help Romney either.
South Carolina isn't a good state for Mitt. He isn't a conservative so he's relying on Lindsey Graham's voters. It's understatement to say that they're only a portion of South Carolina voters. They certainly aren't the dominant portion of South Carolina voters.
If Mitt continues with his ignore key early states strategy, it's possible that he'll be finished for all intents and purposes before Super Tuesday. It's too early to predict that but I can't rule it out either.
UPDATE: Ed has some interesting theories on why Mitt's skipping the DeMint debate :
If he's skipping it to campaign in New Hampshire, that suggests two possibilities, neither mutually exclusive. Romney might figure that he has no chance in South Carolina with a southern Governor in the race, which is probably true. He may also be concerned about his ability to hold New Hampshire, which would be very interesting indeed. New Hampshire is his back yard, and while Romney is expected to campaign heavily there, having to stay put while passing on a chance to make his case in another important early primary state makes it seem as though Romney may be worried about Perry's draw in the Granite State.
I think it's quite possible Gov. Perry's libertarian message will play well in Live Free or Die New Hampshire .
Posted Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:55 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Aug-11 02:49 PM
Gary:
Dick Morris has talked about this a few times when I saw him on the Fox shows. He has thought the Repubican nomination was a group of semifinals. Romney it looks like is waiting for the other Republicans to beat each other one up like Bachmann and Pawlenty did before battling them.
I think him and his advisors didn't understand that his support was very shallow especially in the light of Romneycare so when an attractive candidate steps into the field he can easily take over the role of front runner.
Maybe since he's not the front runner anymore he might change tatics.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Tina Liebling's fight for higher ed status quo
Rep. Tina Liebling's op-ed on Minnesota's higher education system is in desperate need of correcting. If this were a term paper, Rep. Liebling wouldn't get a very good grade. Here's one thing she said that's objectionable:
Many in my father's generation were able to attend college only because of the GI Bill, where the federal government paid for the education or job training of returning World War II veterans. Under the GI Bill the sons and daughters of immigrant waiters and miners and farmers greatly expanded the middle class as they became business people, professionals and academics.
It isn't that the things Rep. Liebling said are incorrect. It's that Rep. Liebling isn't painting a complete picture. The difference between the higher education system of the post-WWII era and now is that the programs of 50+ years ago were dedicated to giving students, many of whom were returning veterans, the skills they needed to do a great job for the company that would hire them.
When today's students graduate with a degree in Ecotourism or Social Responsibility , it's difficult to picture employers beating a path to their door to hire graduates with those degrees.
What's needed isn't 'investment' in higher education. What's needed is beefing up programs that add value to the economy. Resources are finite. They must be spent wisely. Right now, that isn't happening.
This ill-informed cheapshot statement won't go unchallenged:
A generation later, when I finished high school, my family could not afford to pay for college. Even so, I was able to attend the University of Minnesota and get a great education. This great academic institution was available to me and many others of my generation because Minnesota invested in our future. Without public investments, the GI bill, subsidized student loans, Pell Grants, and the public support that kept tuition low at public colleges and universities, our state and nation would be just a shadow of its present self. That's where the Republican and Tea Party policies of today are taking us.
Rep. Liebling's ill-informed cheapshot at the TEA Party is proof of her ignorance and her willingness to engage in demagoguery. Rep. Liebling's statement isn't based on reality.
Apparently, Rep. Liebling's education didn't include communication training. Paragraphs shouldn't be 104 words long. A new paragraph should've started with this sentence:
Without public investments, the GI bill, subsidized student loans, Pell Grants, and the public support that kept tuition low at public colleges and universities, our state and nation would be just a shadow of its present self.
Paragraph breaks should be placed where the subject changes. Rep. Liebling's op-ed on 'investing' in higher education would be more credible if her grammar wasn't this tortured.
This statement must be challenged:
People with college educations are less likely to be unemployed and make $900,000 more in their lifetimes than those with high school diplomas.
This type of generalized statement shouldn't be allowed to stand without scrutiny. It isn't difficult to believe that graduates with degrees in engineering, biology, health care-related disciplines and other hard degrees will make more money than someone with a high school diploma.
Students with a degree in Social Responsibility might make a little more than a high school graduate but it's hardly guaranteed.
The tuition hikes this year continue a troubling trend. It now costs about twice as much to go to college than it did just 10 years ago. This forces many students to borrow thousands of dollars and go deeply in debt.
In 2007, Gov. Pawlenty signed a Higher Education Omnibus Bill that increased spending by $296,000,000. That represents an 11.3% increase. Still, tuition increased.
That's because the money wasn't spent wisely. It wasn't used to solidify degree programs that added value to Minnesota's economy.
We can't continue spending money without knowing what we're getting for the money that's getting spent.
Let's hope that Rep. Liebling learns that before she writes another ill-informed op-ed.
Posted Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment 1 by Alan at 28-Aug-11 12:14 AM
What a GREAT article! I think it is past time for taxpayers to demand accountability and results from today's "progressive" university.
Comment 2 by Janet at 28-Aug-11 02:09 PM
Gary,
Check with King but if my recollection is correct, since the feds got into the "college assistance business," college tuition has increased 3X the rate of inflation.
You are 1000% (yes, 3 zeroes) correct that useless degrees guarantee nothing but debt for students who take content free courses. In fact, they're being robbed in a sense if they borrow to take those "feel good" courses for which no one will hire them.
Tax Committee chair sets record straight on Dayton tax increase
Based on this op-ed's information , it's safe to say that Chairman Greg Davids was more than a little annoyed with Ken Tschumper's comments about the tax bill:
In former Rep. Ken Tschumper's latest letter to the editor, he throws out one accusation after another, which of course upon further examination are simply not true.
Tschumper and his liberal friends like to portray this myth about "protecting millionaires" from Mark Dayton's tax increase. Well, let me tell you the truth about that.
As chair of the Tax Committee, I held hearings on those tax increases and what Governor Dayton's own people revealed might surprise you. These tax increases on the so-called "rich millionaires" would have hit every income level. Do you live in Minnesota? Congratulations, you would be a "rich millionaire" under the Tschumper-Dayton tax increase because it included higher sales taxes and taxes that would have fallen on employers, such as manufacturers and many others.
Gov. Dayton talked alot about "a more progressive tax system" on the campaign trail. In real life, though, Gov. Dayton proposed regressive tax increases.
The DFL's rhetoric about Republicans protecting "millionaires and billionaires" is their mindless chanting point. It doesn't have anything to do with reality.
Republicans won the battle and the war because they sided with voters, not with progressive think tanks. In a hypothetical setting, Dayton's "balanced approach sounds acceptable. The minute people are told that it'll cost them more, though, the polling dramatically changes.
Raising taxes isn't the cure for Minnesota's deficits. It's the spending. When the retired MnSCU chancellor gets paid a $50,000 bonus for doing what he should've been doing in the first place, spending is out of control. Each time a soft degree program is kept open, it costs taxpayers money that doesn't need to be spent. When students pay outrageous prices for new books, every parent and taxpayer should be furious.
We haven't scratched the surface on the many places in the state budget that should be eliminated. Hopefully, that'll happen during the 2012 session. That can't happen soon enough.
Posted Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:34 AM
No comments.
Setting the legislative pay record straight
Alot of newspaper editorials have complained about legislators accepting pay for the special session. The St. Cloud Times is no exception :
To run for and hold public office is to be a public servant. In that context, there are two important principles to follow regarding compensation:
1. The job is not about your paychecks.
2. Don't make news by tripping over Rule No. 1.
Of course, Minnesota learned this week that 18 House members shattered both principles by seeking payment for income they initially deferred during July's state shutdown.
What the Times and other newspapers haven't told their readers is that the legislators earned 2 extra days of per diem for the special session.
It's disappointing that the Times didn't explain that legislators are paid a salary of $31,140 . It's disappointing that the Times didn't explain that the paychecks legislators get in June-December are payments for salary earned from January-May.
I'd find it alot more useful to find out who accepted their per diems, lodging and mileage fees. I'd find it useful to find out which legislators said they wouldn't take their salary during a special session or government shutdown but then got their salary as backpaid salary.
It's time that the newspapers gave people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Omitting information is just destructive as telling a lie. People are relying on the media to tell them the whole truth because they need pertinent information to make the best decisions possible.
This is a pathetic argument:
This board's expectation, and what we believe most Minnesotans think, is that all legislators and Gov. Mark Dayton should not have received any financial compensation during the state government shutdown.
There's an easy way to comply with that. The legislature can vote to pay themselves that $31,140 in bi-monthly or bi-weekly checks while they're in session. The salary remains the same. It's just paid in a shorter time period.
For obvious reasons, it's different for the governor. The governor's job isn't a part-time job. Finally, this paragraph is infuriating:
Their requests put yet another fresh coat of disappointment on a legislative session (and special session) already thoroughly lacquered with it.
That's an emotional reaction to the session, though it isn't a particularly fact-based reaction. During this session, a plethora of important reforms were passed and signed into law.
Education reforms signed into law this session include alternative teacher licensure, permanently eliminating what I call the Gun-to-the-Head provision that required school districts to have signed contracts in place by Jan. 15 with teachers. If they didn't have a signed contract, school districts were essentially fined.
Eliminating that provision levels the negotiating playing field. Another key reform was establishing a scholarship fund for pre-school kids so less fortunate parents have the same choices as upper middle class have with educating their children.
In health care, they passed Rep. Steve Gottwalt's reform. That bill is the key reason why HHS spending for the biennium won't increase by 22% this year, instead increasing by a manageable 6%.
Finally, Gov. Dayton signed into law King Banaian's Sunset Commission legislation. As a result of that legislation, commissions, panels and even Met Councils have to prove their worth or be eliminated.
The Times omitted the fact that legislators didn't get extra pay and the fact that they didn't cite the major reforms signed into law this session, things that shouldn't have been omitted.
Posted Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:04 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 25-Aug-11 07:18 AM
This is the classic "much ado about nothing" argument. It isn't even an argument, at best just a talking point. In fact, any thought of codifying "no pay during shutdowns or special sessions" is foolishness.
We repealed that Jan 15 contract deadline for school districts lest it force any more hasty decisions long before necessary. Do we think the thought of having to return later will steer legislators into a good compromise?
Finally, is it fair to stiff the legislators solely at the whim of an independently wealthy (and disengaged) Governor?
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 25-Aug-11 09:05 AM
First to Rex - the legislature is not supposed to be a full time job for these people. They are SUPPOSED to have "real" jobs that they take a break from during the session.
Gary - all that said, I have to take issue with the "It's disappointing that the Times didn't explain that the paychecks legislators get in June-December are payments for salary earned from January-May." comment. Yes the vast majority of the legislatures time is racked up from January to May, these legislators are legislators year round. There are meetings with constituents and with other legislators. There are committee meetings that take place year round AND there are times when visiting dignitaries come into the state and legislators need to meet with them and that does not meet the January thru May schedule....
LL
Comment 3 by Chad Quigley at 25-Aug-11 01:54 PM
"The governor's job isn't a part-time job."
Would someone like to explain that to Gov. Goofy? The only time he worked is when he went on his "listening tour" only to find people were more mad at him. Oh I guess he is working now as he tries to figure out how to create jobs. What a joke this guy is.
I think they should get paid while they are in session and that's it. If you don't have a real job, you better figure out how to live on what you get paid in 4 months as opposed to all year long. No per diem either or prove with receipts you need $90 a day to eat, park, etc. Why do legislators have health care and retirement too? It is supposed to be a part time job, not something you can live off of and make a living out of.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 25-Aug-11 06:06 PM
I've been putting off a post on this topic for months, maybe Sept., but I'd argue being a Legislator is defacto full time, like it or not. The question is how best to acknowledge that reality.
Mitt outlines flawed campaign strategy
Yesterday, Mitt took time to outline a fatally flawed campaign strategy :
'Look, I follow the strategy I've had, that we've laid out from the very beginning,' Mr. Romney explained. 'Maybe once the field narrows down to two or three, we'll spend more time looking at each other. But my campaign approach remains exactly the same, because I'm going to be focused on my message, communicating how it is that someone who spent his life in the private sector has a better chance creating jobs than a president who happens to have never worked in the private sector.'
Conservatives understand why they don't like the Obama administration. Conservatives understand that President Obama has run out of solutions. They understand that his policies have failed. They understand why President Obama's policies have failed.
Mitt's been on autopilot. He's criticized President Obama's leadership and President Obama's policies. He hasn't said what he's for, at least not at length.
It's annoying that a GOP presidential candidate is acting like he's the only candidate in the race, that he's the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.
It's more likely that he isn't engaging with Gov. Perry because the minute he does, the side-by-side comparisons will start. That's the last thing Mitt wants, especially this early in the campaign.
Mitt isn't making friends in South Carolina. That's a mistake. He won't do well in Iowa. Perry likely will challenge him in New Hampshire. Now Mitt's snubbing South Carolina, the state that almost always picks the eventual GOP presidential nominee.
What's possibly the worst thing for Mitt is he's sending signals that he doesn't care about Iowa and South Carolina. Rudy Giuliani thought that he'd wait until Florida to start fighting for the nomination. That didn't work out well for him.
The bottom line is that Mitt's strategy has the potential of blowing up on him.
Posted Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:45 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Aug-11 02:44 PM
Gary:
In a little defense of Rudy who I didn't support in 2008 Florida was a winner take all primary which if he had won would've given him the most delegates at the time. He thought he had lined up the endorsement of Florida's so called Repubican governor which backed out.
Not to mention he was forced into it. Romney was competiting in all states and McCain had reason to believe he will do well in New Hampshire and South Carolina he was forced to pick where he could make a fight he could win. Florida was the best spot since he wasn't making traction in Iowa in part because of social issues positions.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Aug-11 10:23 AM
There is a private-sector physician running, but going unmentioned. He seems to me a man who'd want freedom to ring.
Beyond that, comparing Romney to Perry is improper because while he is a super-rich mainstream Republican, Romney is not batshit crazy.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Aug-11 12:27 PM
"He seems to me a man who'd want freedom to ring."
Ron Paul does love liberty except when it comes to protecting America from terrorists. He's said in a debate that he's ok with Ahmedinejad getting nuclear weapons. Rick Santorum took him to school on that, teaching him that Iran getting nuclear weapons likely meant Chavez getting nuclear weapons in Venezuela.
As for Romney, he's a liberal running in a conservative primary. He's heavily invested through Bain Capital in carbon credit exchanges in addition to being 'the father' of Obamacare. He isn't a limited government conservative.
Comment 3 by DavidC at 27-Aug-11 12:13 PM
I think Mitt has the right strategy. Voters can't take high intensity for prolonged periods. He learned that in Iowa the last time around. If Mitt sticks to his plan, he will win NH and Florida. By that point, Bachmann will already be gone as will most of the rest of the field. Perry will have lost his shiny new penny look and the race will be on.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Aug-11 12:39 PM
Strategy is overrated, though it isn't totally inconsequential. First, Rick Perry's approach isn't high intensity. He's just willing to lay things out in a straightforward manner.
Second, Perry's message that he'll try to "make Washington as inconsequential as possible" will resonate in New Hampshire. If he finishes in second in NH, that'll be a boost for him.
Third, Mitt isn't earning bonus points by essentially ignoring Iowa & South Carolina. His strategy might remind people of Giuliani's strategy. That didn't work that well, did it?
Finally, Mitt's got trouble in Michigan. Saying that GM & Chrysler shouldn't have gotten bailouts won't play well in a primary where independents are allowed to vote. It's the right policy, in my opinion. It just isn't great politicking in Michigan.
Bakk's Spin
Minnesota's special session is a distant memory for most people. The regular session seems like it should be relegated to history books, right alongside the chapter on the Great Depression. Despite those facts, Tom Bakk's op-ed is proof that he isn't willing to let go of the DFL's chanting points. I'll give. Sen. Bakk credit, though. He didn't miss a single DFL chanting point in a brief op-ed:
This past session, we witnessed a severe failure of leadership from the Republican majorities in the Minnesota Legislature. Republican leaders shut down state government fighting for a devastating all-cuts budget that slashed funding for everything Minnesotans value most: our schools, our colleges, our hospitals, our public safety and even support for Minnesota veterans. They passed a budget that steals money from our schools and borrows billions from our future, leaving our children a massive debt to repay.
Republicans fought tooth and nail to protect the richest 2 percent of Minnesotans even as they passed huge property tax hikes on middle-class homeowners and renters. They lined up behind an extreme social agenda that would have stripped workers of their collective-bargaining rights, criminalized stem-cell research and even repealed laws that guarantee fair and equal pay for women.
Sen. Bakk couldn't write this op-ed if he were on truth serum. Not all of Sen. Bakk's statements inaccurate, just most of them.
First, Republicans didn't shut government down. Gov. Dayton did. Sen. Sean Nienow submitted a lights-on bill that would've kept state government open while the final negotiations took place. In the end, Gov. Dayton accepted the offer that Republicans had made on June 30.
Next, it's insulting that Sen. Bakk would call the biggest budget in state history an all-cuts budget. Sen. Bakk can't claim he doesn't know this. Sen. Cohen criticized Republicans for the size of their budget:
SEN. COHEN: We're going to be passing a budget that is billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars and at a level that we've never done before in the history of the state. The 12-13 budget will be $34.33 billions of dollars in general fund dollars taxed to the citizens of Minnesota. The 10-11 budget two years ago was $30.171 billion, I believe.
So the difference is over $4 billion, I believe. The largest state general fund budget ever, ever, ever, in the history of the state of Minnesota.
I'd love hearing Sen. Bakk's explanation on how Republicans "slashed funding for everything Minnesotans value most" if they passed the biggest budget in state history.
Sen. Bakk is either lying through his teeth or he's incapable of thinking at a level required for this job. Since he's been coherent from time to time prior to this, it's relatively safe to say that he's lying through his teeth.
As for cutting higher education, the people who run the system have been ripping Minnesota's taxpayers off, offering dozens of soft degrees (like Ecotourism and Social Responsibility) that don't prepare students for a productive career after graduating. In addition to ripping Minnesota's taxpayers off, they're shortchanging the students, too.
That's unacceptable. It's got to end ASAP.
Sen. Bakk's op-ed is disturbing. Saying that it isn't a portrait in truth-telling is understatement. If he's going to make statements like these, I'll be there to swat them down and ridicule him.
Posted Friday, August 26, 2011 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Aug-11 02:37 PM
Gary:
Should we expect a guy who doesn't understand who shut down the state let alone that $34 billion is great than $30 billion to know the truth?
Walter Hanson
Minneapois, MN
Comment 2 by Chad Quigley at 26-Aug-11 06:37 PM
Unless the GOP gets better at getting their message out, it doesn't matter what lies the DFL tells because it will be the only thing most people hear and they will believe it as though it was the truth.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 26-Aug-11 09:17 PM
Chad, I questioned whether blogs were getting through to people. They undoubtedly are, thanks to things I'm hearing about my writings about SCSU.
Just because the Strib have more readers doesn't mean they're all-powerful. They aren't. Blogs like LFR, True North & Shot in the Dark are having plenty of impact, as are writers like Erin Haust at Examiner.com.
If we aren't having an impact, how did the Minnesota legislature flip in such dramatic fashion?
Comment 4 by Alan at 27-Aug-11 11:50 AM
Undoubtedly, blogs are making a difference as Gary said. The SCSU administration and MnSCU has been put on notice. How do you defend spending a ton of taxpayer money on Ecotourism and Social Responsibility programs that do not prepare students for jobs? How do you defend paying the recently retired MnSCU Chancellor a "bonus" of $50,000 for things he is expected to normally do as Chancellor which exceeds the annual salary of most Minnesotans? Does Sen. Baak have a rational explation for this regarding higher education? I think higher education reform is desparately needed along with greater accountability. According to this CNN article 85% of college graduates move back home. If critics attempt to argue that the number is lower like 50%, this is still an epidemic.
Comment 5 by Alan at 27-Aug-11 11:56 AM
Here's the CNN article about collge graduates moving back home.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm
President Obama's GDP, unemployment troubles
President Obama has tried to paint the rosiest economic picture he can without triggering uncontrollable laughter from voters. That's getting increasingly difficult after seeing the Q2 GDP get revised downward :
Real gross domestic product, the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States, increased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the second quarter of 2011 , (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent .
The GDP estimates released today are based on more complete source data than were available for the "advance" estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 1.3 percent.
Upon initial inspection, GDP nosedived the first half of this year, with the initial estimates for Q1 and Q2 coming in at 1.9% and 1.3% respectively. Both numbers have been revised downward since, with Q1 getting revised downward to .4% and Q2 getting revised downward to 1% since.
That's only part of the problem. The other half of the bad news is that unemployment is much worse than the 'headline statistics' indicate. The official unemployment rate is 9.1%. The only reason why it isn't worse is because people keep dropping out of the workforce.
If the unemployment rate was based on the labor force participation rate of 2008, the unemployment rate would be 12%, not 9.1%.
With GDP growth that anemic and with real unemployment being that high, it isn't surprising that President Obama's job approval ratings on the economy are tanking.
People aren't buying the BLS's official unemployment rate, not because they read the unemployment reports on the government's website. They aren't buying it because President Obama's economic policies have failed.
Put differently, people don't trust President Obama's policies.
People, pundits especially, like to say that there's several political lifetimes between Labor Day this year and Election Day, 2012. If the economy keeps trending like this, people might tune President Obama out before this Thanksgiving.
If that happens, it's because the economy isn't growing, unemployment is too high and because the people don't think there's much chance for the economy to improve under President Obama's leadership.
In short, President Obama's economic failures might turn this election into an 'anybody but Obama' election.
Posted Saturday, August 27, 2011 3:41 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Aug-11 12:09 PM
Gary:
When you talk about real unemployment (a number that is put in the monthly unemployment report that number defined as unemployed including those who aren't seeking work + part time employees who want full time) that number is something like 18% I heard.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Aug-11 12:44 PM
The 18% number is unemployed + underemployed. You arrive at the 12% figure by taking the total number of people unemployed (including those who've quit looking), then dividing that number by the labor force participation rate of 2008. The 9.1% figure is arrived at by determining the total amount of people working, then dividing that total by the number of people still looking for work + those employed.
Comment 2 by Terry Stone at 27-Aug-11 12:24 PM
These unacceptable unemployment rates are a logical consequence of pilfering trillions of dollars from the private sector and siphoning them into a bloated federal government.
The President's socialist fantasy of wealth redistribution only diminishes GDP, reduces the pool of investment capital and exacerbates the shortage of jobs.
What's left of our diminished investment pool is gravely spooked by the Obama Administration's erratic and ill-informed interaction with the private sector. Specifically, the investment world has no idea which winners and losers will be picked or when.
The profusion of endless new regulatory agencies further raises the anxiety of both domestic and foreign investment pools.
The private sector of our nation sees that our government has breached its contract with free civil society, violated the norms of free-market competition and injected itself intrusively into civil contracts. It seems likely that trust will not be restored without a change in the White House.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 28-Aug-11 11:51 PM
Gary:
The point I was trying to make that 18% as defined by the Department Labor I find it hard to believe that they will support Obama. They will either not vote for him or vote Republican. It's kind of hard to win an election when almost one of five voters have a reason not to vote for you. Especially since a large number of those 18% are the 18-29 year old voters who helped carry Obama to his victory who are seeing the light that his policies don't work.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dane Smith Channels Alan Grayson
Dane Smith has long been an advocate for progressive policies. Until now, he's been a sane voice, relatively, for those policies. This editorial raises serious questions on whether he's finally gone off the deep end.
This section in particular suggests Smith isn't thinking straight:
Many international models present themselves. T.R. Reid, author of the best-selling book 'The Healing of America,'outlines the four basic systems:
• The Bismarck model, found in Germany and Japan, featuring private, competing nonprofit providers and payers;
• The Beveridge model, found in the U.K. and Scandinavian countries, and featuring more classically socialist public ownership of hospitals and clinics;
• A National Health Insurance model, like those in Canada and Korea and Taiwan, combining features of the previous two models, private-sector providers with government as a single-payer;
• And finally, an 'out-of-pocket' model, a no-government nonsystem found only in the world's poor and undemocratic nations, in which the affluent get care and the poor get sick and die.
Smith was doing fine until that last, ill-advised chapter. It appears as though Smith finally snapped. It appears as though he's now channeling his inner Alan Grayson.
Grayson, defeated after a single term in the U.S. House, is famous for his description of the GOP health care plan :
The Republican health care plan for America: "Don't get sick. That's right, don't get sick. If you have insurance, don't get sick. If you don't have insurance, don't get sick. If you're sick, don't get sick."
The Republicans have a backup plan in case you do get sick. If you do get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you do get sick.
Smith's model isn't exactly the same as Rep. Grayson's. It isn't significantly different, either. Smith's model is intellectually dishonest. It's filled with hyperbole. Based on this article , it's pure BS:
Emergency room waiting times at some Ontario hospitals are prompting seriously ill people to walk away, sometimes with fatal results, health officials say.
Dr. Sean Gartner says 11 per cent of the people who came to the emergency room at his hospital in Guelph last month ended up leaving without receiving treatment.
A few months earlier, Gartner said an elderly man who left after he became tired of waiting was later found dead.
In February, Patricia Vepari, a 21-year-old engineering student, arrived at a Kitchener hospital emergency room with a fever, sore throat and nausea.
Facing an eight-hour wait, she decided to go home, where she died of an infection.
It's understatement to say that the Canadian model that Smith is advocating for isn't all that he's suggested it is. In fact, it isn't a stretch to say the Canadian system is a good system until you get seriously ill. Then it's downright dangerous.
These Canadian ER stories are horrific. They're the types of stories you'd expect from Third World countries, not from an industrial nation.
Smith would do well to do more research into health care before writing such dangerous, ideology-driven opinions as this.
Posted Sunday, August 28, 2011 7:44 AM
No comments.
