Bogus Unemployment Numbers are Nothing New

--posted by Ilyse Kazar

David Leonhart reminds us that

The national unemployment rate has risen to 9.5 percent, the highest level in more than a quarter-century. Yet it still excludes all those who have given up looking for a job and those part-time workers who want to be working full time.

And let's not forget that the unemployment figures also do not include small business owners whose businesses either are not supporting them with adequate income or who have had to close up shop.

Mind you, this has always been the case. Only those eligible for unemployment benefits are counted as "unemployed". This leaves out ...

- the underemployed
- starving small-biz owners
- the homeless
- the long-term unemployed whose benefits have expired

During good times, perhaps these four groups of people are a very small proportion of the working (or wish-I-were-working) public. But during hard times like these I would think the percentage is signifcant since far more people might, for example, need to fold their business, or not be able to secure new employment before their benefits run out.

The Obama administration has begun creating "real" budgets by throwing out the bag of tricks that has been used in the past to make overly optimistic projections. This was a good and important change. Now it's time to start providing us with "real" unemployment figures. I'd wager it's around 15 percent now and climbing.

News Analysis: Sarah's Lapse of Facts

Ah, Sarah. We knew you were cooking something up. [I believe a free account on washingtonpost.com is necessary to view this].

Palin's editorial attacking President Obama's cap-and-trade plan is terribly misinformed and/or purposefully misleading. Unfortunately, in today's infopropegainment (one of my favorite Jon Stewart words) news style, Sarah Palin gets a lot of air time, and as much cannot be said of her opponents.

 First, some general points.

We must remember that this is a woman who does not believe that humans are causing global warming. Her arguments for further use of dirty energy sources is tainted by her inaccurate concepts.

It's also significant that Sarah Palin is building a base founded on controversial issues in what I consider to be her early campaigning for the 2012 Presidential Race. It is classic Republican campaign strategy to be against taxes (although their actual track record tends to suggest otherwise).

Let's break down her arguments, shall we?

"The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet... So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year."

The Cap-and-Trade (TRADE, not TAX) plan generates $650 billion in federal funds over the course of seven years, $80 billion of which will be contributed towards middle-class tax cuts. [1]

"Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs."

The proposal would create jobs in a new rapidly growing clean energy sector. The proposal promises that new jobs created will not be outsourced [2- pg 100]. Pew reports that between 1998 and 2007 job growth in the clean energy sector has progressed at nearly three times that of the economy in general -- even though the government has favored making financial contributions to fossil fuel energy over green alternatives [3- pg 3]. The report goes on to say that by giving clean energy a boost through President Obama's plan, new lasting jobs (this is significant because we know that fossil fuel is non-renewable) will be generated. This projection is supported by Pew's research on state energy programs. [3- pg 40-41].

"In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America."

Projected cost of the Alaskan Highway Pipeline project is over $20 billion and will not begin producing revenue until 2016 [4]. Obama's plan begins producing revenue in 2010. The pipeline plan will only further entrench our economy in an extremely harmful energy culture whose days are numbered. While natural gas is preferable to coal in emission levels, it still is not clean. Environmental impacts of actually building a 2,140 mile long pipeline to Canada and then distribution pipelines from there is yet to be determined.

"We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats."

The 2000-acres only refers to the land on which the rig supports actually touch the ground. The actual area affected would be much greater due to multi-directional drilling technology - "horizontal production wells" [5]. Plus, drilling crews need to build roads through the nature reserve to bring them to drilling sites, and then carry very heavy equipment along these roads which harms the ice shelf.

The Energy Information Administration reports that there is a 95% probability that ANWR contains 5.7 billion gallons of recoverable oil [6]; that would fuel the USA for less than a year at current rates.

Bottom line, Palin's arguments are simply inaccurate.

---

Citations:

1. Samuelsohn, Darren and Bravender, Robin. "Obama's draft budget projects cap-and-trade revenue." Scientific American. 02/26/2009. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cap-and-trade-obama-budget>.

2. EPA FY 2010 Budget Overview -- <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=757> [PDF]

3. The Pew Charitable Trusts. "The Clean Energy Economy." June 2009. <http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Clean_Economy_Report_Web.pdf> [PDF]

4. "Alaska Highway Pipeline". 2009. <http://www.jobmonkey.com/oilindustry/html/alaska_highway_pipeline.html>

5. "ANWR Arctic Technology". <http://www.anwr.org/techno/drilling.htm>

6. Energy Information Administration. "Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge". <http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html>

---

Further Reading:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cap-and-divident-not-trade

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

http://environmental-economics.blogspot.com/2007/09/carbon-tax-cafe-standards-and-cap-and.html

Heros: Judge White and Jose PadillaMaybe Hall of Shame: Obama Administration

A judge appointed by W himself seems disinclined to dismiss charges against Bush's White House counsel John C. Woo, for his determination that the rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be overriden by the executive branch.

In yesterday's New York Times:

Lawyers for the Obama administration struggled on Friday to persuade a federal judge here to throw out an unusual civil lawsuit against John C. Yoo, the former government lawyer whose memorandums on torture were used by the Bush administration to justify sweeping policies on detention and interrogation.

Despite their efforts, the judge did not seem inclined to dismiss the lawsuit, which was brought by Jose Padilla, an American citizen who spent more than three years in isolation in a military brig as an enemy combatant.

The judge, Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court, explored the arguments of Mr. Padilla’s lawyers thoroughly, but he appeared to be skeptical of elements of the government’s argument.

In fact, Judge White, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, even told the government’s lawyers that Mr. Yoo’s 2001 memorandum stating that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures can be overridden was “a pretty scary position.”

Jose Padilla spent three years of his life locked up. Why is he a hero? This:

Mr. Padilla seeks monetary damages of just $1. His real goal, in this case and a number of others against other current and former United States officials, is a declaration from the government that his incarceration and harsh treatment were wrong.

“Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights,” the complaint stated, “and ensure that neither Mr. Padilla nor any other person is treated this way in the future.”

And a tentative Hall of Shame position for the Obama administration for trying to have this suit dismissed. "Tentative" only because the Times makes no note of any effort to get an explanation either from papers filed requesting dismissal, nor to contact White House spokespeople directly. All the article gives us on this point is:

President Obama has shown little interest in prosecuting officials of the previous administration, and it is not clear whether there will be a government-sponsored investigation of Bush administration polices.