Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) : (219,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (154,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (304,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (681,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                             (3,485,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      7,485,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Losses eased to (190,000) in October, the smallest number since August 2008.  September losses were revised lower with (219,000) vs previously reported losses of (263,000), and final August figures were also revised downward with (154,000) losses vs previously reported number of (201,000).

Unemployment rate as of : October 2009, 10.2%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.5%

February 2009 : 8.1%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate sharply spiked to 10.2% from 9.8% in September.  This is the highest rate since April 1983.  Many economists estimate that the rate could climb as high as 10.5% and that the rate will hover around 10% throughout 2010 as frugal consumer spending and tight credit markets are not going to provide a robust hiring environment 

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when there were job losses of (304,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased (from 9.5% to 9.4% that month), as well as the current month when you had a smaller amount of job losses, but a spike in the unemployment rate.

There has been muted reaction from the Obama administration to the actual data.  It has instead tried to focus on its claim of 650,000 jobs being “saved or created” thus far due to the stimulus.  However, based on this report from the Chicago Tribune (and others like it) they may not want to tout that figure too much, since it looks like it is rife with overcounts, double-counts, etc.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2.  The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :      (201,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (304,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (681,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :       (3,386,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  7,386,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Losses shot back up with (263,000) in September.  August losses were revised lower with (201,000) vs previously reported losses of (216,000).  However, that was more than offset by the final revision of July numbers with (304,000) losses vs the previous figure of (276,000).

Unemployment rate as of : September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.5%

February 2009 : 8.1%

Unemployment rate ticked up to 9.8% from 9.7% in August.  Most economists expect the rate to continue to climb past 10%.  This can be expected as many who had given up looking for work are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.  With some positive signs in the broader economy we can expect many to re-engage which could cause a spike.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when there were job losses of (304,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased (from 9.5% to 9.4% that month).

Reaction from the Obama administration is predictable.  Per Joe Biden, the stimulus has worked and spending efforts need to be “redoubled” in the weeks ahead.  At least he didn’t make any claims of how many jobs have been “saved”.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2.  The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :     (276,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :       (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):          (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  7,110,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Losses continue to ease down with (216,000) lost this month.  However, job losses in past months were revised higher with June revised from (443,000) to (463,000) and July revised from (247,000) to (276,000).

Unemployment rate shot up to 9.7% from July’s 9.4%.  Despite the declining jobs losses the White House has said it expects unemployment to hit 10% or higher before the end of the year.  This can be expected as many who had given up looking for work are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.  With some positive signs in the employment picture we can expect many to re-engage which could cause a spike.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when there were job losses of (276,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased (from 9.5% to 9.4% that month).

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.  Following the spike in the unemployment rate after the release of the initial May jobs report, Obama claimed he would renew efforts to ramp up stimulus spending which would lead to 600,000 jobs being “created or saved” this summer.  To that point, he was claiming that the stimulus had helped to “save” 150,000 jobs.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :      (443,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):          (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  6,845,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Relatively good news this month.  Loss of (247,000) jobs was the smallest since August 2008.  Additionally, job losses in May were revised from (322,000) to (303,000), and losses in June were also revised from (467,000) to (443,000). 

Unemployment rate ticked down to 9.4% from June’s 9.5%.  Still, the White House expects unemployment to hit 10% or higher before the end of the year.  This can be expected as many who had given up looking for work are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.  With some positive signs in the employment picture we can expect many to re-engage which could cause a spike.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when we had job losses of (247,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.  Following the spike in the unemployment rate after the release of the initial May jobs report, Obama claimed he would renew efforts to ramp up stimulus spending which would lead to 600,000 jobs being “created or saved” this summer.  To that point, he was claiming that the stimulus had helped to “save” 150,000 jobs.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (revised) :      (322,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):          (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  6,641,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

No word yet from the Obama administration of just how many jobs were “saved” this month.

After a few months of declining losses, the pace of layoffs picked up again in June.  Additionally, job losses in May were revised from (345,000) to (322,000), however this pickup was largely offset by an increase in the final count of April losses which came in at (519,000) vs the previously estimated (504,000). 

Unemployment rate in June edged up to 9.5% from May’s 9.4%, marking the highest rate in 26 years.  

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  For example, you could have a month with little to no job gain / loss activity, but the unemployment rate could still move up or down.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.  Following the spike in the unemployment rate after the release of the initial May jobs report, Obama claimed he would renew efforts to ramp up stimulus spending which would lead to 600,000 jobs being “created or saved” this summer.  To that point, he was claiming that the stimulus had helped to “save” 150,000 jobs.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (revised):          (504,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (revised):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (revised) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                            4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      6,182,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Losses have slowed and both April and March were revised with slightly fewer losses, but it’s probably a bit premature to start popping the champagne corks just yet.  Note that May figures include a one-time hiring binge of 70,000 in the Census Bureau to ramp up the preparation for the 2010 population counts.  Also these figures obviously don’t include any of the upcoming losses for the newly announced GM plant closures which are estimated to cost about 20,000 jobs through the end of 2010.

Unemployment rate in May leapt to 9.4% from 8.9% in April, prompting alarm bells by the Obama administration which said in February that without the stimulus, we could be facing an unemployment rate as high as 8.8%.  Now that we’re 0.6% higher than their dire prediction even with the stimulus, they’ve decided that’s only proof that the stimulus money isn’t being spent quickly enough.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge .  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

The protestors were noted as peaceful but “…..were told they could protest all they want in the town of South Bend, Ind., but once they stepped onto Notre Dame property, they would be arrested.”  They did not heed the warning.

This does not help the pro-life cause.  I obviously agree with their stance and their right to protest.  However, they have to be smart and cognizant of how the MSM will twist this story.  On a day when we have encouraging news with a Gallup poll showing a majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life for the first time ever, the MSM will undoubtedly try to divert attention from that surprising result by focusing on these arrests.

If these were anti-war protestors during the Bush administration, their arrests would likely be portrayed as something noble and honorable.  People patriotically exercising their First Amendment rights, but being silenced by a tyrannical administration hell bent on silencing all dissent.

However, as conservative protestors during an Obama administration (much less specifically protesting an Obama appearance) they will likely be portrayed as anti-government, ultra-religious fanatics.

Plenty of publicity has already been brought to this situation.  The opposition to Obama’s appearance has made its point loud and clear by collecting over 360,000 signatures.  A number of Catholic dignitaries and other public figures have also voiced their disagreement.  So while the protestors on graduation weekend are fighting the good fight they should not become the news.  Hold your protests and have your prayer vigils and services, but do not give the left an excuse to smear the pro-life movement.

For his part, I hope Obama is respectful enough to stay far away from the topic of abortion in his speech, although that seems unlikely from early indications.  I hope he at least gives the kids a better speech than he did at Arizona State.  Really Barack, I don’t begrudge you any of your success, but I don’t want to be lectured about my materialism from a multi-millionaire whose most precious possession is his Blackberry and whose wife wore a $540 pair of sneakers to an event last week.

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                            4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      5,919,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

I’m not sure if the above numbers include the 150,000 jobs Obama claimed to have created (or saved) during his 100th day speech, but, then again, he’s not sure either.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge .  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

I’ll start the bidding:

Cost of New York flyover/photo-op by Air Force One :   $328,835

Cost of lost productivity, disrupted business, emergency response, etc. caused by general panic due to New York flyover :  $50,000,000 (doesn’t include anticipated cost of investigation into why this happened since Obama is so furious about the incident)

The Biden effect.  Hit to transportation industry, hotels, tourism, etc. due to his comments telling us all to hunker down in bunkers due to the swine flu outbreak :  $25,000,000 and counting

In summary:

Flyover:                  $328,835

Flyover aftermath: $50,000,000

Biden:                    $25,000,000

Total tally:             $75,328,835

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor :        (663,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :               4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                          5,314,000

 Perhaps, there are not enough of those “shovel-ready” jobs that the stimulus was supposed to produce.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the Feb and March 2009 job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge .  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :             4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                             4,651,000

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 - 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the 651,000 jobs lost in Feb 2009 should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge .  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

jazzycmk : Mt. Attorney General, I want to thank you so much for taking some time out of your busy schedule to speak with us today.

Eric Holder : Thank you, jazzy.  What publication do you represent again?

jcmk : It doesn’t matter.  But let’s get to the point.  You caused quite a stir this week referring to the US as a “nation of cowards”, at least when it comes to matters of race.

EH : I suppose, but I stand by my comments.

jcmk : OK.  Well, personally I don’t like being called a coward, so let’s talk about some race-related issues.

EH : Great.  You see, this is what we need.

jcmk : Absolutely.  So, it doesn’t seem your race has held you back, nor has it for President Obama.  For that matter, President Bush had one of the most diverse cabinets in history.  When we’re children, our parents tell us that we can grow up to be whatever we want, even the President.  Now that we’ve got an African-American President, is it time to start at least talking about the proverbial “playing field” having been leveled and rolling back Affirmative Action programs?

EH : Er……. I don’t want to comment on that, except to dispute what you said about the Bush administration, because we all know they didn’t do anything right.

jcmk : Of course.  Let’s try something else.  Years ago in a case involving the University of Michigan law school, the Supreme Court left the door open for subjective use of race in admission standards.  This seems patently unfair and discriminatory to me.  Any comment?

EH : You know, this is not what I had in mind when I said people need to talk about race.

jcmk : I see.  Don’t like that one either.  OK.  What did you think about the way the media lynched the white members of the Duke lacrosse team, especially when their accuser’s story was ultimately debunked?  Do you think she should have been prosecuted?

EH : No comment

jcmk : OK, OK.  How about this?  White, straight males are the cause of all problems, and not only should they gladly get in the back of the line but they should also be forced to pay for all sorts of entitlements and compensatory programs (reparations, etc.).

EH : Now you’re talking!  This is what I mean.  If everyone could have an attitude like that, not only would we no longer be a nation of cowards, we would be a shining example for the rest of the world to see.

jcmk : I’m sure.  OK.  Looks like we’re out of time.  Thanks so much again Mr. Holder.

END INTERVIEW

And exactly who would be the coward in this case?

During the Presidential debates, the topic of spending cuts and budget priorities came up several times.

McCain, to his credit, offered a fairly specific answer.  He said,  “How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.”  We’ll never know whether he would have actually held to that, but at least he put that stake in the ground.

When put to it, Obama was predictably evasive.  He said, “I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.”  No word yet from the White House on how his “line by line” review is coming.  My guess is that they’ve scrapped such plans as it would surely be anti-stimulus.

The response that was most telling to me, particularly now in hindsight, from Obama was his reaction to McCain’s proposed spending freeze.  He said, “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.”

(In the interest of full disclosure, the above quotes are taken across the first two debates).

Let that comment sink in for just a second.  Scalpel, not a hatchet.

This coming from the man that has just pushed the mother of all bludgeons on all of us. This stimulus is not a surgical strike on the economy. It is an example of government at its worst. At best, it is a crude, blunt object that may have a limited positive impact. At its heart, however, this is Washington being Washington.

If they had wanted a surgical strike. They could have passed tax relief quickly. Cut the payroll taxes. That was low hanging fruit. It would have gotten additional money into paychecks within weeks, and that is money people would have continued to see paycheck after paycheck.

With that relief in hand, they could have then started talking about targeted spending programs, and those programs that might have benefit vs those that were pure pork would have received a much more public treatment.  But no, Washington has to do everything “comprehensively”. They stuffed this thing and now the government has grown. And once the government grows, it never contracts.  Why do major initiatives all have to be comprehensive? Change (and I’m sick of that word, by the way), rarely comes all at once.

Immigration reform? All attempts have been comprehensive. Here’s an idea, deal with the border first. Slow the flood of illegal immigrants to a trickle. Then you can deal with those that are already here.

Health care reform? Again, you don’t have to overhaul everything at once. Most can agree for those that have access to medical care, the services provided in the US are the best in the world. That has to be the starting point. We don’t want to tinker with that quality of care, we want to find way to make it more widely available and less expensive. Granted, the opinions on just how to do that are all over the map. Personally, I would first focus on medical liability reform, which I believe is a large part of the reason for runaway medical expenses. It’s not just the lawsuits and awards against doctors. The threat of such lawsuits has driven malpractice insurance through the roof. That has forced a lot of doctors in small towns to close up shop. Furthermore, the threat of medical liability causes doctors to often order batteries of tests that are irrelevant to a patient’s condition, but in case the worst happens, these physicians are not going to leave themselves open to a trial lawyer saying, “If only this doctor had ordered this test, he / she would still be with us today.” That picture is rarely painted for people as part of the medical debate. Usually, any talk of liability reform degenerates into a battle between rich doctors / insurance companies vs evil trial lawyers (and neither combatant is viewed highly in the public’s eye).

I’m not suggesting fully insulating doctors, but I am suggesting imposing liability limits. Doctors are not infallible. They may make a mis-diagnosis while having a split second to assess a life and death situation. It is unfair to hold them to such a severe standard. If I make a mistake at work, it’s rarely something that can’t be undone by fixing an Excel formula the next day (and also, in many cases, there is no mis-diagnosis on the part of the physician. The patient’s condition or other complications come into play and may result in a bad outcome) . Also, there’s a world of difference between a mis-diagnosis, and gross / criminal negligence. If a surgeon is drunk or under the influence, you should take him / her for all she’s worth, make sure he / she never practices again, and prosecute him / her to the full extent of the law.

Apologies for the medical rant. Medical reform is my own “pet project”. Unfortunately, I’m not in Congress.

But back to the stimulus. Obama has defended the stimulus saying that he can’t take critics of the spending seriously when he inherited a huge deficit. That may be true, but that doesn’t mean you have to make plans to almost double it within your first weeks in office. He also said we don’t have time to make this bill perfect. Few people expect perfect, Mr. President. What we do expect is caution and restraint, and we’re seeing little of that from you thus far.

Scalpel indeed.

On the stimulus package :  The more I read, the less I like.  Too much pork disguised as “government stimulus”.  My guess is that the Democratic majorities will overreach with their newfound power, and that will eventually lead to a Republican resurgence.  I just didn’t think it would come this early.  They are stuffing that thing with all sorts of social programs that have no ability to create jobs or improve the economy.  Studies on global warming and STDs?   Smoking prevention programs?  $6.2 billion for something called “home weatherization”?  You can argue about whether these are worthwhile programs, but I can’t see how they’re going to add any new jobs or stimulate the economy.  Fortunately the public is getting wise.  Support for the package is falling sharply.  Rove had it right the other day on O’Reilly.  Fastest way to stimulate economy is to cut payroll taxes.  People will see it in their paychecks within weeks and will see that with each and every paycheck thereafter, unlike a one-time rebate that they will likely save for a rainy day or use to pay down debt on purchases they already made.

On Al Gore testifying before Congress on global warming : The irony was too thick to ignore.  Gore testifying on global warming on a day when much of DC (and many parts of the country) were shut down due to cold and ice storms.  Al - there’s a reason they gave you the Nobel Prize for Peace and not Science.  Your science is lousy.

On Tim Geithner being named Treasury Secretary : so let’s see, in Geithner’s own words his tax mistakes were “careless, avoidable, and sloppy”.  And now you’re in one of the most economically influential positions in the government, with the IRS reporting to you to boot.  You’ve got to be kidding me.  If the guy was up for head of the EPA or the Dept of Education, I might cut him some slack, but the Treasury Secretary should know how to do his taxes (and that’s giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t purposely evading them).

On Caroline Kennedy dropping her name for consideration for NY Senate seat :  You know, I don’t care about Caroline Kennedy.  I think it’s good that she wasn’t named senator.  It smacked of too many things wrong in politics.  A political princess descends from her throne and declares that she would like this powerful position just given to her.  There was about a day of coverage speculating on why she dropped out.  Reasons were all over the place (tax issues, nanny problems, possibly an extramarital affair, etc).  After that it was all but dropped.  That’s probably how it should be, particularly if she’s going to return to her rather private life.  However, I do know this, if that was Sarah Palin, media would not have ignored the story.  That just reminds me of what a raw deal Sarah got from the media in the general election.  Imagine if the Democrats had put up a mother of five, with one of them being a Down’s syndrome child.  She would have been Mary to Obama’s Messiah.

On Obama’s order to close Gitmo within a year :  Don’t know what to do with the terrorists?  This job is not quite as easy as you made it sound on the campaign trail is it Barack?

On the Obama coronation inauguration coverage :  I can appreciate it was an historic event, but by that Tuesday I was in such sugar shock that I couldn’t watch any of the event itself.  Yeeeesh.

Unlike others, I don’t think he should publicly address it. That just lends credence to the story. I think he should just do a private conference call with all the campaign insiders and offer them a one-time get out of jail free card.

Something along the lines of : “This stops now. You’re making me look bad. You’re making my choice of VP look bad. You are already damaging our prospects in the next election. I’m warning you, if I hear one more story I will find who spread it and you won’t be able to get a job on the campaign staff of a candidate running for City Council in Wasilla.”

In other news, Sarah is getting deluged with requests for interviews (Barbara Walters, Larry King, Oprah, etc). I think she should tell them all to go play in traffic.

However, the 2010 mid-terms begin today. The 2012 Presidential race begins today. One of the retrospective mistakes the GOP made after the 2004 victory was that they took a deep breath and relaxed a bit. The Dems, however, dug in their heels and were determined not to allow any legislative victories to GWB. It began with their fight against Social Security reform. When that went down in flames, Bush’s approval rating began its descent and he never recovered.

Looking at this 2008 election there are certainly lessons to be learned, and that can start with debunking certain falsehoods.

1. Obama won in a landslide

You are going to see that passed around liberally (pun intended). I don’t know if there is a formal definition for a landslide, but this is not one. He won the national vote by less than 6%. Yes, he won all of the close states, but those were all states with close votes in 2004, and the statewide polling followed the shift in national polling.

1. Obama ran the most brilliant campaign ever

Please. I will give credit where credit is due. Obama ran a very smart campaign. They were well-organized. They were excellent fund raisers. Obama himself stayed on his simple message (Bush = McCain, McCain = Bush). He made very few mistakes. He was an effective debater in the sense that he was always good at making his answers conform to his short list of talking points. However, to say he ran the most brilliant campaign ever is a stretch. He entered the general election season with a modest lead. He exits the general election season with a modest win (nationally). He basically ran out the clock and took few risks. He also had the built in advantage of having a very unpopular incumbent President from the opposing party. He also had a media that was (charitably speaking), ahem, a bit favorable to him. Add into that equation a great deal of fortuitous timing. If Lehman Brothers and the other financial institution don’t melt down in mid-September, this thing goes down to the wire, neck-and-neck. The external events could not have played out any better for him. Once that happened, undecided voters didn’t care any longer about his lack of experience, his associations, his far-left liberal views, etc. They just decided to boot out the party currently holding the Presidency just to see if the other guy could do any better.

1. Sarah Palin was a drag on the ticket

Sarah is probably the biggest reason McCain did as well as he did. Without Sarah, the GOP convention is an absolute bust and McCain gets no bounce. Without Palin, there was no consolidation of the conservative base. Without Palin, there would have been few attacks on Obama because McCain seemed reluctant to do so. Palin being portrayed as a drag on the ticket is the next phase of the MSM to diminish her. They seem to be done with “stupid, ignorant bumpkin” phase. In the last month of the campaign, she was the most accessible of the 4 candidates, doing constant interviews. She gave the MSM nothing to ridicule (certainly no whoppers like Biden had which were largely ignored by the MSM). So now they are going to try to say that the GOP itself has rejected her and that she has caused division within the ranks, etc. Yet wherever she went, huge crowds attended.

I will say this, there have been some rumors (Laura Ingram and others) saying that Sarah is going to be made out to be the fall guy (or gal as the case may be) by the GOP in the aftermath of the election. We’ve already heard stories about Romney supporters disparaging her. I don’t know the validity of all that. But the GOP would be making a grave mistake if they throw Sarah under the bus. They would risk losing the support of many, myself included. This lady went from being little known to becoming one of the most recognized people on the planet almost overnight. She went from being the most highly approved governor in the US to being served to the wolves. She was the victim of the most vicious and coordinated set of attacks (many of them highly personal) that I’ve ever witnessed. Yet she weathered the blows and always came back fighting in her own spunky way. After a tough loss, there is always going to be some finger-pointing but it shouldn’t be directed at Sarah. Last thing GOP needs right now is a fracturing of the base, and heaping blame on Sarah would do that.

Keep the faith.

State employee says checks on the newly famous are new to her

This one keeps getting deeper and deeper. At least the Inspector General in Ohio is now investigating.

Here’s the page to send OH governor Ted Stickland a note letting him know what you think of this situation. He’s been very dismissive to this point.

Contact Ted Strickland

However, facts are facts and polls are polls, and John & Sarah face a steep uphill climb on Tuesday. But I’m keeping the faith. Stranger things have happened.

Assuming that the polls are correct and Obama does win the election (shudder), what can we expect for four years?

I’ve got it boiled down to two simple steps:

1. First two years - complain about the mess you inherited from George W. Bush.

2. Next two years - start running for re-election with your mantra being that we can’t afford to return to the same failed policies of George W. Bush.

I mean, it’s been working for him up until now, why “change”?

Last night on Letterman he gave a great defense of Sarah Palin, while at the same time not specifically endorsing the McCain / Palin ticket. It was a point of simple fairness (considering their endorsement of the Obama tax plan, I would think liberals could appreciate this).

Before O’Reilly even came out, Letterman had already been teeing off on Palin. His “top 10″ list related to excuses she is using for her wardrobe. He then suggested to Sarah that she could shop at Target. Yeah Dave, I’m sure that’s where you get those double-breasted suits you wear.

This has been a recurring theme for Letterman. Weeks earlier, he had Dr. Phil on and was criticizing Sarah as a mother because she apparently hadn’t taken “5 minutes” to discuss birth control with her now-pregnant teenage daughter. Yeah Dave, I’m sure you know everything about parenting. Even Dr. Phil chided him saying, “When your kid is a teenager, Dave, you may be shocked to find out that they don’t always listen to you.”

So O’Reilly comes out, he and Letterman do some non-sensical chit chat, but eventually Dave has to return to Palin-bashing. So he immediately brings up the Couric interview saying that most people just watched that and said “Wow”. O’Reilly said that he actually admired Palin, and Letterman incredulously asked “Explain that” (as if it is ludicrous to even suggest such a thing).

O’Reilly explains how she is a self-made woman. She had no “rich uncle” who helped her break into politics. She’s reformed Alaska and gone after corrupt officials (even those in her own party). And she’s given back some of the oil company profits to Alaska’s citizens. He then says that the media has unjustly been relentlessly beating on her.

Letterman then tries to defend the media. He actually tries suggesting that Palin has gotten it no worse than the others in the race (what race has he been watching?). And then he implies that O’Reilly would not be so generous in an assessment of Joe Biden.

O’Reilly said he’s been fair to Biden, but asks Letterman why he admires Joe Biden. Letterman refers to the great personal burden that Biden had to bear when his wife died and he had to raise his two sons. That is admirable and it’s a fair enough point (although I wonder if Letterman feels the same way about the 5 years McCain spent in a POW camp).

Personally, I would have loved to have been in O’Reilly’s place. When Letterman started up about the Palin / Couric interview I would have asked, “Have you ever had a bad monologue Dave? A night when all the jokes fell flat and there were nothing but crickets?. She was new to the national spotlight, and she had a bad day and that is all.”

At any rate, kudos to Bill. Thanks for telling it like it is.

“Senator Obama, your election would be an historic landmark in racial progress. I can’t imagine a clearer signal that the proverbial playing field has been leveled than an African American being elected as President of the United States. With that in mind, do you have plans to roll back affirmative action programs?”

As much as I would like to ask it, it’s a far too easy question to evade. He would just say, “Certainly we’ve made progress, but there’s so much more to make.”

sigh