Thursday, November 29, 2012

Obama Loses 383,000 Jobs Last Week: NO Improvement Entire Year

The weekly number of new unemplyment claims (filed last week) came out Thursday, but the distortins created by Sandy make the number fairly meaningless. What is meaningful, again, is the DISHONESTY of our media, which still gives false hadlines (including not referring to the number as the mere ESTIMATE it is), and talks aoubt "improvement" when everynoe knows that Sandy has distorted the nu unpredictable ways. Note that there has been generally GOOD weather in recent weeks, which is NOT mentioned by the DISHOENST people in our media and the dishoenst Labor Dept.

The actual, unrevised number reported today was 383,0000:  at the very top of the YEARLY rannge of 351,000-392,0000 (ignoring last two FICTIONAL weeks above 4000,0000, and previus FICTIONAL 342,0000 caused by disheonst Labor Dept. leaving out all, or part, of California data, and not correcting that week's resulting fictional number).

However, for the first time in living memory, the REVISED number from last week was DOWN. Did the dishoenst Labor Dept. "arrange" this because everyone is ignoring the weekly number anyway (because of Sandy)?  Possibly,. Or it is possible that this just shows that Sandy has so confused the numbers that the dishoenst Labor Dept. can't even manage its CONSISTENT 3,0000 understatement of new unemplyment claims, which has gone into UNCORRECTED media headlines for YEARS.  Has dishoenst Labor Dept. "reformed", based on my conclusive reporting that this weeklly "error", in one directin ONLY (almost always), is indefensible?  Don't count on it.  I have confidence in the dishonesty and incompetence of our Laobr Dept. (and, of course, our media). 

Now we are being set up here for more DISHOENSTY in th eway future weeks are reported.  Note that we don't yet know when the initial, temporary distortions of Sandy wil be gone.  How much temporary distortin from Sandy is still in that HIGH 383,0000 numbe?  We don't know.  But Sandy did more than simply cause "temporary" layoffs.  As I have stated, despite Wall St. (The Stupidest People on Earth), Sandy ws a NET DETRIMENT to the economy and to jobs.  As John Stossel has pointed out, if DESTROYING things is a way to economic prosperity, then we need to get out the bulldozers and start destroying (something like what the Dems actually propose with regard to "infrastructure"). Just not so.

However, Sandy distorts the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT.  Look at what ordinarily happens.  Jobs are ADDED for the Christmas season./Black Friday.  Then, as Christmas actually approaches and many peole have done their shopping, some of the temporary employees often get LAID OFF (starting BEFORFE Christmas).  Further, the number of new unemplylment claims is a measure of LAYOFFS--not people HIRED.  Look at the effect of Sandy.  Labor Dept. reported that 451,0000 people lost their jobs in one week right after Sandy.  The next week was reported as 410,0000, revised DOWN to 406,0000. These businesses in the Northeast, which were shut down, "laid off" their employees BEFORE Black Friday.  This means that those of them that have, or will, REOPEN do not have "extra" peole to LAY OFF. They will only hire the peole that they now need.  They may end up with fewer evmployees than before Sandy, but those previus layoffs were already COUNTED.  This means that many businesses may not be laing off people jsut when the "seasonal adjustment" might suggest that some would be laying off people.  In other words Sandy may have MOVED some of the seasonal factors, in additin to causing layoffs.  Thus, say that the SEASONALLY ADJUSTED number for the first week in December is something like 340,000. The "seasonal adjustment" is always suspect around Christmas anyway, as special factors affect the TIMING of hiring and layoffs in the Christmas season (and irght afterward).  That is why I have told you that this weekly number of unemplment claims will really not have any meaning until id-January, and it NEVER has any meaning except OVE TIME.    A sudden "drop" to something like 340,0000 would have to be assumed to be FICTGION--a distortin created by Sandy fully as much as "temporary" layoffs were created by Sandy. 

This is what the DISHOENST media and Labor Dept. never seem to report.  A distgortoin in one directin, because of special events and factors, may create a balancing distortion in the other directin in following week(s). Sandy can distort the weekly number in BOTH directins (up and down), and yet the media is going to ignore that if the weekly number suddently "improves" dramatically.  As stated, the holiday season alone can distort the numbers. In fact, as this blog has reported, thaere has been a CONSISTENT pattern since the beginning of 2010, where the weekly number of new unemplyment claims APPEARS to "improve" rather substantialy toward the end of the yearm and at the beginning of the new year, only to APPEAR to DETERIORATE as we had into spring and sumemr.  This pattern has occurred in 2010, 2011 AND 2012, although the substantial seasonal "improvement" in the fall has NOT really occurred in 2012--at least not yet.  Did Sandy delay that usual apparent "improvement" in the fall? Maybe. Or maybe we are just not getting it. (bad news, really).  In all events, any APPARENT big "drop" in new unemployment claims in the weeks up to the end of the year will likely be FICTIN (unless confirmed over teh succeeding months).

The LACK of 'improvement" n the weekly number of new unemplylment claims this year has been dramatic.  It is not only that the BEST time of the year, as usual, was from mid-January to mid-March. The yearly RANGE of 351,000 to 392,0000 (ignoring obvius distorted weeks) is SMALL.  A 40,000 RANGE for the entire year really does mean that we have been STALLED: STUCK in the smae BAD place all lyear.  Remember, this weekly number can BOUNCE up and down by 40,0000 in a single WEEK, even without the major move from something as big as Sandy.  Rather ordinary WEATHER, like BLIZZARDS, can move the weekly number by BIG amounts. I am not sure, by the way, that Sandy is that much of an extgraordinary weather event.  GOOD weather definitely had an effect on the APPARENT "improvement" early this year, and weather is something of an "ordinary" variable, even if Sandy was a mroe obvius and extreme facotr than most. 

You have been warned.  Ignore media headlines suggesting "improvement' n weekly new claims for unemplyument over the next 6 weeks or so. Yes, that also may be true for BAD numbers over that period, but the Labor Dept. and media REORT that (usually).  The DISHOENSTY is in the consistent SKEWING of the way the numbers are reported, so that lyou don't report the ossible distrotng factors in major moves EITHER DIRECTIN.  As stated, a major move in one directin is often part of the SAME reason for a move in the other directin. (as faulty "seasonal adjustments" and glitches "even out") This blog tells you HOW tro properly evaluate these numbers, which the media does NOT do. 

By the way, the formula and "baseline" used to calculate the weekly ESTIMATE are CHANGED at the beginning of the year (ordinarily) which also distorts the MONTHLY empllyment numbers.  REaly, we are gong t have little idea where we are untl at least id-January, and THEN you have the effect of this new seasonal pattern where the number APPEARS to improve n February, only to slide back in the spring/summer.  We may well not get a very good picture of whre we are until April and May of 203.  Obviusly dramatic, consistent imrovement over months would be significant. But a quck "drop", and then a STALL, as happened in 201, 2011 AND 2012, would indicate we are merely rpeating the same seaonsal pattern agan (where "seaonsal adjustment" is flawed).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

Monday, November 26, 2012

Obama Loses 410,000 Jobs a Week Ago: NO Improvement This Entire Year

Catching up on what happened as I was with my faminly Thanksgiving week and away from any computer.  The weekly number of new unemployment claims was issued last week for the week ending Nobember 17, 2012, and some of the HEADLINES (MarketWatch, for example) screamed that the number was "down" ("droop") 41,0000 from the number for the week ended Nov. 10.  We are still, of course, dealing with FICTION, because of Sandy, even though the jobs are really lost.  However, the post-Sandy status of the job market will not be clear until, really, we get beyond Christmas and January 1.  Yes, the effect of Sandy is fading, as illustrated by the "drop" of 41,000, but the holiday numbers are suspect anyway.  Add Sandy, and I don't think the weeklyl number of new unempllyment claims is going to mean much until mid-January, if then.  "Drops" are certainly going to mean NOTHING.  IF the number shuld STAY elevated above 400,0000, that MIGHT mean trouble.  410,000 is a TERRILBE number:  the highest number this year, except for th eprevius week's really distorted number of 451,000 . But the "exact" numbers each week, and the "drop" (or increase) mean ven less than usual, and the "exact" numbers NEVER mean anything.  That is the main significance of the numbers announced last week:  that our media and our Labor Dept. are LIARS, and incapable of giving either correct numbers or teling the truth. 

Look at the week of Noveber 10.  The UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims was annunced as 439,0000. The REVISED number was announced late last week as 451,000, meaning an UPWARD revison of 12,0000 (meaning the Nov. 10 number actually INCREASED 90,000 from the preivus week, instead of the HEADLINE 78,0000). Notice the LIE in the HEADLINES thi last week, where the nuber supposedly went "down" 41,0000.  It is not jsut that using "drop" or "down" in the HEADLINE is ridiculous (LIARS at did this), but that the ONLY "apples-to-apples" comparison is between the UNREVISED 439,0000 and the UNREVISED 410,0000 (to be REVISED this Thursday).  Thus, IF you are gong to put this in  a headline at all, you should say that the number was "down" 29,0000--NOT 41,000 . This is NOT a "matter of opinion". It is a matter of statistical HONESTY.  But yoiu know by now that JOURNALISTS ARE NOT HONEST (essentialy al lof them, although I admit that--as Arthur C. Clarke said with regard to magic and sufficiently advanced science--it is pretty much impossilbe to tell the difference between sufficiently "advanced" dishonesty and sufficiently advanced sufficiently advanced STUPIDITY in "journalists") . Notice that the DISHOENST Labor Dept. has departed from its usual, CONSISTENT, "error" of 3,0000 or so to a substantially larger 12,000.  "But, Skip, Sandy must make it harder.'  Give me a break.  The problem is NOT the "exact" number. The problem is that the REVISIN is ALWAYS distgorting the weekly number (and weekly headlines) in ONE DIRECTOIN . This is NOT a matter of randum "errors" in data, where "more complete data' changes the nuber in a RANDOM manner.  The "orfe complete data" ALWAYS revises the previus week UPWARD, in the directin that means MORE UNEMPLYED.  Thios means that the HEADLINES every Thursday are always BETTER than they should be: usually by that 3,0000 consistent, dishoenst error, but sometimes by a much larger number like the 12,0000 revisoni for the week ended Nov. 10.  An HONEST (not to mention competent) Labor Dept. would ADJUST for the OBVIUS, CONSISTENT error in ONE DIRFECTION.  I routinely adjust--doihing the job of Labor Dept. "economists" for them--by the consistent 3,000 error.  I did not bother to do that in this article, because it is obviuos that the Labor Dept. unrevised numbers are even more unreliable than usual.  Note how my consistent caution to you that it is a LIE to consider each week's number anything more than a fallible estimate has again been PROVEN correct.  The media has LIED, week after week, in "reporting" these weekly numbers on new unemlyment claims as if they are some knd of concrete, "counting" numbers. An aboslute, indefensible, total LIE. 

These weekly numbers ONLY mean anyting OVER TIME. Sandy is merely an example of the kind of "seasonal adjustment' problems, and "special factors", that occur MOST WEEKS.  Again, Sandy has PORVEN me right on tis.  Can you doubt that there are OTHER EVENTS that distort the numbers in any individual week?  Of course you can't.  Again, you MUST "report" these weekly numbers OVER TIME, or you are a LIAR (disheonst and stupid). Each week, except in context, means NOTHING.  It is significant that, OVER TIME, this weekly number of new unemplyment claims has NOT IMPROVED over this ENTIRE YEAR.  No.  I am NOT talking abut the 451,0000 or the 410,000. You can throw those numbers out, and the equally FICTONAL 342,0000 of several weeks ago, and the weekly number this year has STUCK in the range of 351,0000-392,000. Nor has this "rangve" been distorted by "late" "improvement". The "range" was 351,0000-365,000 from mid-January to mid-March. There has been NO TREND this entire year, as we have bounced around--depending on the "season"--within this 351,000-392,000 range this entire year.  Sandy will certainy cause the loss of SOME permanent jobs (although it may atually ADD some as well).  But Sandy's TEmPORARY effects will make it hard to see what the longer term effects are, especially i the Christmas holiday season.  Thus, we will have to see what hapens after we settle down (again, OVER TIME, and not in any one week).  What yu can't do is what our DISHOENST media is waiting to do: procalim an 'improvement" as the numbers drp back below 4000,000 (assuming they do). Again, the job losses from Sandy are REAL job losses, as distinguished from the ERROR by the DISHONEST Labor Dept. when it failed to count thousands of claims in California one week (resulting in that FICTIONAL HEADLINE of a "4-year low" of 342,0000).  The job losses from Sandy are REAL.  They just MAY be mostly TEMPORARY.  But our DISHOENST media refuses to look at "special factors" unless the distortion is BOTH obvius, AND in the "wrong" direction (as with Sandy).

Progress?  Not much, but this blog MAY be having some effect with my (correct) RIDICULE of our media and our Labor Dept. One CNN article (although probably not the truly DISHOENST peole on TV) actually erferenced the number of new unemplyment claims for the week ending Nov. 17 as "about 410,000", while the headline emphasized the effect of Sandy . Even Marketwatch,.com, with the truly disgraceful headline of LIARS, used the word "estimate" in its description of the annunced weekly numbe of new unemplyment clamis. That should be IN THE HEADLINE of EVERY story on the weeky number of new unemplyment claims: that it is an ESTIMATE.  And the body of EVERY article should make clear that the weeky numbers mean NOTHING except OVER TIME.  No. If you "media peole" think peole in general are TOO STUPID to handle actual attempts to give the "fuzzy" facts, rather than "black and white" LIES, then you are DISHONEST as Hell.  What am I saying? You ARE as dishonest as Hell.

Oh. Then there are "economists"--supposedly "surveyed" by Marketwatch each week to PREDICT the weeky number. Now, the "predictions" are NEVER right, UNLESS the number hardly changes.  But do you really want to know how DUMB our "economists" really are? Those "economists" surveyed by Marketwatch actually MADE A PREDICTION for the week ended Nov. 17, 2012. Now any HONEST "economist" would have to rEFUSE to make a "predictin" for that week.  Ridiculous. Sandy obviusly is having UNPREDICTABLE (except perhaps in DIRECTION) effects on the weeky numbe of new unemplyment claims.  What kind of IDIOT would make a PREDICTION in this situatin? Right.  A DISHOENST IDIOT.  Yep.  I jsut said that Marketwatch exposed its "economists" "surveyed" as both DISHOENST and STUPID.  But they had already done that week after week .So it is not really anything new, and something I have told you YARS ago.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

Sunday, November 18, 2012

ObamaCare and Armageddon: Asteroid Aimed Right at U.S. Economy

Remember the movie, Armageddon", where Brue Willis saves us from an asteroid on a direct path to destroy life on Earth?  Well, we are facing a real life asteroid aimed right at the U.S. ecomy, and there is no Bruce Willis there to save us.  Mitt Romney proved himself to be no Bruce Willis, much less Ronald Reagan.  (I know.  Even Clint Eastwood coud not save Romney, and has Bruce Willis ever really been there when we needed him?)

Ober the past week, you had all kinds of business "leaders" suddenly saying that they were looking at ObamaCarew, now that Obama has been re-elected, and that it will FORCE hiring freezes and layoffs.  That is on top of the fact that ObamaCare is yet another "entitlement"--really the biggest of them all--that is going to cause the deficit to explode.  Then there are employers like WalMart, whihc FAVORED ObamaCare becaues WalMart hopes to save money by having the Federal Government handle health care insurance for its employees--as WalMart pyas a llesser "fine" than its rising health insurance costs.  WalMatrt, by the way, announced that it was RAISING the EMPLOYEE cost for health insurance by 13% next year.  And ObamaCare has any number of provisons as to which no one even knows the conseqauence, because no one realy rEAD the 27000 page bill--much less understood it. 

Doubt me? Enter Sylvia, a "configuaroin analyst" for ADP (Automatic Data Processing), which provides payroll and benefit processing services for employers.  Sylvia is a female friend of mine, despite the belief of most women that I could not ppossibly have a female friend (especailly platanoic, which Sylvia is).  Anyway, Sylvia mentioned to me one of the annoying little problems beng raised by ObamaCare (which Sylvia strongly supports, as she basciallyi supports Obama).  Sylvia did not raise this probleem to criticize ObamaCare, but to describe one of the issues she is facing in here work (which she regularly discusses with me, just to have something to say during these 4-mile walks we sometimes take together).

It turns out that ObamaCare requires employers to provide a REASON why any employee REJECTS health insurance coverage.  Why?  Sylvia does nto exactly know, but obviusly it has something to do with the MANDATE that every individual have health insurance.  Sylvia also does not know--yet, anyway--whether there are "unacceptable" reasons for rejecting emp;lyer health insrance.  This is just a SMALL part of the BURDENS ObamaCare is gong to place on employers.  Why is it a problem ffor Sylvia?  ADOP sets up software for employers to process their empployoee benefits.  And the idea is to have employees simply CHECK BOXES on what kind of electins they want to make on employee benefits (not just health insurance, but disability, life insurance, etc.).  Look at the PROBLEM created by ObamaCare FORCING employees to give a REASON for rejecting health insurance.  Obvisly, it confiicts iwth the idea of ADP setting up a "self-exectuing' system/computer program for emplouyees to come lup with--say--1000 different reasons to "reject" emplyer health insurance.  If ObamaCare only ALLOWS certain reasons, that may actually make it a little easier, since you can simply lIST the ACCEPTABLE reasons in the "ooptions' available to the empployee in the computer program. . But does the emplyer have to CHECK whether the reasons are "honest"?  Just how easly is it to determine what "reasons" are acceptable, and to include only those reasons in a computer program to be "responded to" by the employee?   And this is just one of the SMALL nightmares that employers are going to fgace.  As stated:  an asteroid aimed right at the U.S. economy.

Note that this is all part of possibly the worst LIE ever told by an American Preisdent: Obama's LIE that "if  you like your present insurance coverage, yhou can keep it under ObamaCare" That was always  a LIE.  What if you "present" coverage does NOT haeve "ree contraception"?  No.  You cannot "keep" yhour present helalth insurance policy because that policy is nOT GONG TO EXIST.  Government regulations, such sa the ones on what kind of electin to REJECT health insurance can be made, are going to DEFNE what kind of health insurance policy you HAVE to have. Employers cannot keept their current policy, and the imposed csts of ObamaCare are going to CRIPPLE many emplooyers (especially smaller employrs and labor intensive ones). When they CAN, emloyers are gong to OPT OUT (deludng themselves that the FINE will stay low enough).  And the RATIONAL thing for INDIVIDUALS to do IS NO HEALTH INSURANCE.  Why?  Because of that requirment that health insurance NOT exclude "pre-existing conditions". It is unclear whether the government is really going to be able to ENFORCE this "fine" if you don't have health insurance.  But, right now, the "fine" (for indivials)--which the Supreme Curt as called a "tax"--will be LESS than the cost of health insurance.  Thus, individuals can WAIT to be sick, and rely on the emergency room (as so many do now).  Then, when individuals do get sick, they can GET OBAmACARE INSUARANCE.  Waht is the downsie?  Obviusly, you hve to take some risk of some really huge coss occurring before you can get the insurance.  However, that would usually be the kind of CATASTROPHIC kind of event that emergency rooms are REQUIRED to handle. 

The whole thing is a nightmare, as individuals and employers have to try to figure out how to hndle THOUSANDS of pages of NEW REGULATINOS.  And the whole idea is to have ObamaCare FAIL, so that we end up with a NATINAL HEALTH SERVICE (single-payer, government health care system) . Problem: it is not ony that we can't afford this, but this asteroid is going to DESTROY our ecomy before we even get to the pont of "fixing' ObamaCare.

What caN we do? That is the sad thing.  You and I my doubt that Rmney and the GOP were really going to repeal ObamaCare.  However, we KNOW that Obama is not going to let that happen.  If ObamaCare FAILS, as it will, can we even get back to a private health care system?  Again, not without pretty much destorying our economy.  The boat may have sailed.  In fact, it almost certaily has.  The asteroid striking is probably now INEVITABLE.  Obama will be President 4 more eyars.  ObamaCare will have been in full effect for at lest 3 years of those 4.  What could possibly stop it? Right:  CMPLETE DISASTER. The only thing that can stop ObamaCare now is disster so obiuvs that even Democrats agree to relpeal it and start over.  But a disster that bad--almost inconceivable, in terms of being enugh to have Democrats abandon ObamaCare wituhout replacing it with a totally government system--will mean that the ASTEROID HAS ALREADY HIT.  All that will be left will be to pick up the pieces.

"Skip, you pessimist.  ou are sahying that there is no hope."  That is exclty right.  ObamaCare is an asteorid aimed directly at our economy, and there is no stopping it now. Neither Clint Eastwood nor Bruce Willis caN stop it now Even Ronal Reagan could not do it . Once the Supreme Court failed to realy kill it, and once Romney lost, the asteroid ilmpact on our economy becaMe certain.  I don't see any way out at all.  Even a GOP ssweep in 2014 will be too little, too late. 

"Skip, you can't jsut give up.  Waht would 'Armageddon' have been like, as a movie, if Bruce Willis had just given up."  Unfortunately, life is not a movvie.  I have not "given up", n the sense of firmly intending to support any FIGHT againt ObamaCare that AnYONE is making.  I jsut don't see any possible way to stop the asteroid, at this poihnt.  There is a famous science fictin story called "The Cold Equations".  The pont of the story was that a girl had to be ejected into space becauwe the "cold equations" made that the only decision that cuold be made (the girl being a stowaway on a mission to save millioins of peole).  The sotry was a little "controversial" because of its pont that SOMETIMES (as with an asteorid on a conclusion course with Earth, and no means of stopping i) there is just NOTHING to be done except face the reality of what is happening.  If a gir stowaway has to face the deatlh penalty because that is what has to be done to save millins of peole, then that is what you have to ddo.  The problem is, of course, that "The Cold Equations" sometimes tell you NOTHING caN be done: no girl stowaway to be killed to sve us.  That would be true if an asteroid turly wre going to hit the Earth, and we had no means available to stop it (as we probably don't).  I am afriad that is where we are on ObamaCare:  "The cold equations" tell us that we have an asteroid aimeded at our economy, and there is now noting we caN do to stop it.  I will be glad if somoe more optimistic person out three can show me to be wrong.  I jsut can't make myself believe it.

You can see, of coures the problem with the plot of "The Cold Equations".  Would the extra mass of one girl ever be such a problem that thre would be NOTHING you could do?  Unlikely.  But that, obviusly, is not the point. Th epoint of the story was that the UNIVERSE DOES NOT CARE.  There are some realities you have to fce, no matter how unpleasant.  ObamaCare is a reality we apparently have to face, but that most likely means that the destructin of our economy is a reality we also have to face.  Are there any leaders out there even suggesting how we are going to face "the Cold Equations" of ObamaCare?  I am afraid not.  All of the facts are three.  What is missing is a way out, or even someone with a VISION of what to do when ObamaCare fails.  Do you see ANYONE in the GOP gong out there an really pushing the idea of just HOW BAD ObamaCare is going to be?  I know.  You don't win electins with pessimism. But neither do you win electins with FANTASY, especially when your oppoents are better at fantasy than your are (as with Obama and Romney).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checing (bad eyesight) . "Bu, Skip, yu can't possibly be as pessimistic as this article suggests We have to have HOPE."  Sorry.  I can give you none.  You should hear the conversaitns between myself and my CPA brother living in Nashville (executive in trucking company).  Our conversatins are mainly abut what FORM the collapse will take when it occurs: Hitler/Stalin?  Anarchy? Third world contry? Greece?  Spain?  Start over, getting rid of veven SS and Medicare?  Some sort of slow decline, like the Roman Empire before it finally fell to the barbarians for a THOSAND YERS?  That is, "civilizaiton" did not reach the same levvel in the west for at least a thousand years after the fall of the Romna Empire.  I think we are that bad off:  not jsut because of where we are but because of where we are gonig (with no Bruce Willis to stop the asteroid).  Can't happehn here, wth Bailout Ben Bernanke (lol), theFederal Reserve, our President and our Congress.?  Read that sentence and weep.  Of course it can happen here, and I go so far as to suggest it is now inevitable.  You might remember that the Roman REPUBLIC "fell" long before the Roman Empire:  to Julius Caesar.  Is that the most likley way to "save" America:  a new Julius Caesar?  Maybe so.  But it wont' be America anymore, will it?

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Obama Loses 442,000 Jobs Last Week: Most in 18 Months and No Improvement for Entire Year

I am simply never wrong.  Look at Sunday's article on new unemployment claims, whre I told you not only that last week's number was FICTION, but that Sandy was gong to make weekly numbers VERY volatile, and virtually useless as far as analyzing where the economy is going to be once the tempoarary AND permanent effects of Sandy have been determined. I was even right in doubting whether the dishoenst Labor Dept. had done something about its consistent weekly LIE on new unemplyment claims, where the REVISION for the following week is ALWAYS is in one directioin, averaging about a 3,000 UNDERSTATEMENT of new unemplyment claims eery Thursday. Okay, my prediction of a Romney victory, based solely on the economy (rather than some sort of stupid analysis of polls) was wrong, but not nearly so wrong as Dick Moorris, Rush ALimbuagh, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and all of the rest. I, at least, recognized that Mitt Romney was a BAD candidate, even though I overestimated the practical coommon sense of the American peole (especialy women) .I thought, ultimately, that women would vote on the eCONMY , and not on irrelevant things like abortion and rape (not to mentin Romney "failing to relate") Well, I ws wrong abut that, although totally wrong about Romney and his campaign.  But Thursday's data on new unemployment claims came out today.  READ Sunday's blog article, and recognize again that I NAILED IT, IN FORESIGHT. 

First, last week's UNREVISED annunced number of 355,000 new unemplyment claims was REVISED UPWARD by 6,000 today, meanig that the two week average of that UPWARD revisoin returned to that consistent 3,,000 number.  Last Thursday had been unusual in that the previus week's number had remained UNCHANGED, for the first time in a nmber of months. I can't even remember the last time the rEVISION was DOWN (the deseriable directin, since these are new UNEMPLYMENT claims) . Thus, the Labor Dept. is back to its usual DISHOENSTY.  As I told you on Sunday, the 355,000 originally announced number last week was probably FICTION, since Sandy was already affecting the "result" (such as by closing unemployment claims offices).  Well, I was right, in spades, as I was right on Sandy likely having a massive effect on the weekly number.  Yes, last week's unrevised number was "revised" to 362,000, "down" a mere 2,000, but that was only the tip of the iceberg.

The Labor Department's UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims, released today for last week, "soared" 78,000, to 439,000--by ar the HIGHEST number this year, and the highest numbre in 18 months.  The REVISED number, to be announced next week, was likely at least 3,000 wrose, or around 442,000 (an increase of 81,000, rahter than 78,000).

Sure, this number was fiction, because Sandy distorted the number. The questin is how much Sandy is merely a temporary, short-term problem, and how much it is a longer term problem for the econmy.  "Longer-term" is correct, not "ong-term'. In the long term, we are all DEAD. New factors iwill arise, includng the WEATHER this winter.  Sandy itself was WEATHRE, and this last year was previously distinguished by extremely GOOD weather, which had a positive effect on the numbers. Sandy may be only the beginning of a stretch of bad weather, or at least a "normal" winter of relatively bad weather for things like construction. 

No.  I doh't feel any guilt at all over the hedline.  Obama took 'crfedit", and the media took credit for him, for Obama "waving a magic wand" and "solving" the problems created by Sandy with a "bear hug" with Governor Christie.  Obama had no "magic wand", and had no way of "solving" the problems of Sandy. But his ASSERTION that he had waved his wand and made everything all right may have helped get him elected again.  If he is gong to take credit tha way, then he MUST take the BLAME as well. But it is worse than that.

Last winter, new unempllymnent claims fell to a four-year low, largely because of the good weather.  Not only did Obama take credit for that, but our DISHOENST media acted like these early "better" numbers were a "turning point' fro the ecomy.  This blog told lyou different, saing that yu could not say that until more TIME showed lyou whether it was merely the good weather and a recurrence to the new SEASONAL PATTERN apparent in 2010 and 2011.  It turned out that the mid-February low of 351,000 was the LOW for this year, as there was NO IMPROVEMENT in the number of new unempllyment claims this ENTIRE YEAR--even with the good weather and lack of any real disrupting weather events.  We have been in a RANGE of 351,000 to 390,000 this entire eyar, with NO IMPROVEMENT as the year went on.  indeed, the range from mid-January to mid-March was the bEST of the eyar: 351,000-365,0000.  We deteriorated after that, although the weekly numbers bounced around and the deterioration may have been mainly the new seasonal pattern repeating from 2010 and 2011.  This blog told lyo al of this.  But it gets still worse.

As we appraoched the electin, the DISHONEST Labor Dept. and DISHONEST media were willing to accept PURE FICTION as FACT.  Thus, a few weeks before the election the media headlines screamed: "Labor Dept. reports new fur-year low in new unemployment claims.".  The Labor Department reported a sudden "drop in new unemployment claims to 335,000, even though it had been MONTHS since the number had been under 360,000.  This blog told lyou, at the time and inFORESIGHT, that this 339,000 number was FICTGION--FALSE.  That obvius factg did not stop our DISHOENST (some of the most dishoenst peole who have ever lieved, and I stand literally by that statemetn) media from screaming out the "news" of this "four-year lowe" in new unemplyment calims. This was actually at least the 4th time this year that our DSIHEST meida had screamed out the same FALSE headlines, based on "eating" the SAME previuos mid-February low of 351,000.  yes, the 339,000 was REVISED, as usual, the next week by the usual LIE of 3,000: to 342,0000 (which still, FALSELY, stands as the lwo for the year).  But that ws the least of the LIES here.  The hwole nubmer was FALSE, and the failure to CORRECT the number massively was another LIE--shoeing that we have a totally DISHOENST Labor Dept.  If anyone wants to defend the indefensible, be my guest, It will merely show you are a FOOL.  Our Labor Dept. has shown itslef to be composed of the most incompetent and dishoenst peole around, with the exceptin of our "journalists".  "Contempt" is nto a good enough word to use for our mordern "journalists'.  We need a new one.  Take the contempt they have for peole like me. Multiple it by 100.  And you may come witin shuting distance of the contempt I have for THEM.  You heard me, ou "journalists' out there.  That is what I think of you. 

Dubt me?  Look at what happened the next week, after that FICTIONAL 4-year low of 339,000.  First, of course, the number was REVISED by the usual 3,000, to that 342,000.  Taht that was a LIE.  The number should have been CORRECTAED much morfe massively, but the Labor Dept. chose to continue the LIE of the 342,0000 being a ral number, obviusly for POLITICAL reaons. Dont't believe me?  The Labor Dept. itself said taht the 342,000 number was FALSE, but did not correct it.  neither did the media RETRACT its headlines of the week before, and ATACK the falser numbers from the Labor Dept.  What had hapened was that CALIFORNIA nubmers, in whole or major part, had been LEFT OUT of the 342,000 (what the media--most dishoenst peole to ever live--called a "technical glitch").  The 342,000 was an ERROR.  But the Labor Dept. was too DISHONES T to own up to the ERROR (whether from incompetence or dishonesty).  Waht the Labor Dept. did was 'explain" the next week's match of the HIGH for the year (390,0000), after the previous week's "low" for the year, by describing thes "technical glitch".  Leaving out California is NOT a "technical glitch". It is an ERROR, which only DISHOENST peope (Labor Dept. and our media) wuld fail to CORRECT.  Waht the Labor Dpet. did was SHIFT the left out California numbers from one week to the next, knowing that our DISHEONST "journalists" would COVER for them (as they did borBenghazi, ObamaCare, and so many other things). Sure the Labor Dept. "admitted" the problem.  But looke what hey had managed, a few weeks before the electin. They had goooten FALSE HEADLINES about a 4-year low in new unemplyment claims, and then "explained" the next week hwo that week's bad number was the result of a "echnical glitch".  Meanthile, our DISHOENST media fialed to rETRACT their headlines from the preiuvs week, or un SCRAMIGN stories abut the DISHOENSTY and INCOM POETENCE of the Labor Dept.  Srue, SOME peolle (liek me) screamed.  But msot peole acted like this did not P:ROVE the disohesty of both our media and the Labor Dept. 

No.  That was not all.  This blog expalined to you how the Labor Dept. got the unemlyment rate under 8% by using a FALSE, ridiculous "increase" in MONTHLY "jobs created" in the "hsousehold survey", even though the "official" number of "jobs created" (from the employoer survey--a different survey) was only 114,000 (as distingyished from FALSE husehold survey no. of 873,0000, an impossilbe no.)  Again, it was the HEADLINES the Labor Dept. wanted, and what they got.  Again, some peole dubted, but they still "reported" the FALSE nubmer as "real".  These are DISHOENST peole (our Labor Dept. and our media) .

You see why I have no guilt at all in "reorting" the 439,0000 jobs OBAMA LOST last week as REAL.  The number is at least as "real" as the 342,0000, or th esuposed increase of 873,000jobs in the month of September, and the restuling "drop" of the unemplymetn rate to 7.8%.  It is at least as "ral" as reporting a "turn" in the econmy and labor market becaue GOOD weather had DISTORTED the numbers, already distorted by a new seasonal pattern.  This lbog has told you the correct way to "reprot" these weekly numbers week after week, for YEARS.  The wekly numbers ONLY mean anything OVER TIME.  To palce reliance on short-term variations inta he nubmers is a LIE.  No, his is not too harsh. It is the absolute truth.  You "journalists", and peole in the Labor Dept. are LIARS in th eway you report these numbers as "concreete" numbers, and THEN "explain" bad numbers by special factors.  The LIE, ofr course, is that you do NOT "explain" the GOOD numbers with "sepcial factor" even though it clearly works both ways.

Look at where we are.  We have an artificially high number of new unemllyment claims of 442,0000, although some of job losses form Sandy are REAL (and not jsut for a few weeks).  The number will obviusly "bounce around' in the next weeks.  Sandy's effects wil linger, but it is going to be hard to anticiipate the TEMORARY effets of Sandy, as distinguished from the lnoger-term effects.  We will probably, as I said on Sunday have no chance of even making a good guess as to where the econmy is until at least mid-January.  And what if we have BAD WINTER STORMS (unlike last year).  And every January, the Labor Dept. CHNGES the numbers it uses to CALCULATE the weekly and monthly numbers.  It is going to be really hard to interpet were the ecomy is.  But look how our DISHONEST MEDIA will report any "drops" in new unemplyment claims.  Unless we are in REAL TROUBALE (always possible), these weekly new unemployment claims numbers are going to drop back to at least near the top of  the range in which they have been in this entire year.  Will those "drops' be REORTED as ARTIFICIAL, merely the result of the TEMPORARY effect of Sandy?  Not a chance.  The numbers wil be reorted as some sort of "improvemetn', as if the "improvemetn" is real and shows a "turn" (gain, for about the 4th year) int he labor market.  The media will have ORGASMS over a "new" drop of the number below 400,0000.  Oh.  It is turue that IF the number does NOT get back to somewhere close to where it was in 2012, lup to this ont, that will be truly BAD news.  But merely gong back under 400,000 will NOT be "GOOD" news, no mattter what our DISHOENST "journalists" say.  That wuld merely mean we remain STALLED.  Note that when I say new unemplyment claims did NOT IMROVE in all of 2012, I ws referring to BEFORE SANDY.  Returning to this same situaion will continue this NO IMROVEMENT for another year.  I did not see the usual "lead" references to the "predictioh" of "economists" as to this "soraring" to 439,000. I guarntte you that this was because they did NOT come cloe to predictin the number.  Now is it possilbe that econmists correctly said that Sandy made it IMOSSIBLE to precit the number?  Possible, but I questi whether "economists" are that bright.  Yet, these are still the peole--never right--upn whom we are REYING to "wave that magic wand' to have central planning government "save us'. 

Bottom line, and I repeat: Obama lsot 442,000 jhobs last week, and has FAILED to improve the labor market this entire year (even before Sandy).  We will have to wait for TIME to show us longer term effect of Sandy.

Oh.  Did you notice confirmatin of my long-stated conclusion that Wll St. and financial peole are The Stupidest People on Earth.  The truly stupid peole on Wall St. CELEBRATED Sandy with a stock market RALLY.  The theory is that REBUILDING is a positive ofr the econmy.  Wrong, you STGUP:ID PEOLE.  Sandy is a NEGATIVE for the ecomy.  It is jsut a questin of how much of a negative. 

John Stossel (libertarina) has this one right.  He says that if all we need to do to get "economcic growth" is to DESTORY things, then that is what we should d"  DESTORY our cars, houses, businesses, etc., and REBUILD.  All we need to do is BULLDOZE entire communites, and start over, every year (constant 'urban renewal"), and we will have ENDLESS PROSPERITY.  Insanity.  But that is what passes for "thinking" on Wall St., and in our establishments.  I know. I am giving leftists ideas.  Am I nto ashamed of myself? These crazy peole will dO these things that Stossel and I regard as ABSURD.  I actually don't worty about givng these insane peole ideas that they have not alreayd had. "Urban renewal" is an OLD idea that FAILED>  And Obama's--really the left in generaal--constant use of the term "infrastructure" as a "magic word" comes close to this idea that all we have to do is REBUILD constantly, and prosperity will result.  How far is this from the idea of BULLDOOZING entire communites, making insurance compnies PAY for destoryed property, and then BUILDING NEW, BETTER STUFF?  Not far at all. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Denmark, Bloomberg and the Fat Police: Are Leftists Clinically Insane?

Albert Einsteing's definiton of insanity;  "Doing the same thing over and over again, with the expectatin that the result will be different".  That is actaully pretty much the shorthand definiton of  schizophrenia:  a disassociatioin from reality--the inability to tell what is real and what is not real  (plus the brain generating all kinds of things that are not real).

Segue to Denmark, and leftist thinking (typified by Mayor Bloomberg and New York City putting limits on size of "sugar drinks", attacking fat foods and fast foods, etc.).  A news item over the weekend is that the socialist "paradise" (government health care) of Denmark has admitted FAIURE on its FAT TAX.  Itt turns out that the tax hurt business, and  did not affect obesity. 

This happens to leftists all of the time, although Denmakr is sort of unusual in ADMITTING FAILURE.  This idea that "central planning" can CONTROL the way peole live their lives, not to mention the econmy, is not supported by ANY evidence.  There is much evidence to the contrary, including--now--Denmark.   This is especailly true of TAXES, where the main reactin of people is to try to avoid the taxes they don't like. My brother's favoirte example, as he is in the trucking business (although a CPA), is when Oklahoma raised TOLLS on its roads for trucks, with the idea of raising revenue (probably to 'maintain" the roads torn up by trucks, or that was the excuse). What ahppened? ; Revenue WENT DOWN.  Of course it did.  The tolls were doubled, or some outragoueous multiple.  All trucks did was AVOID OKLAHOMA. 

This whole idea of a "fat police" aimed at BUSINESS wh osell food Michael Bloomberg does not like is absurd.  That raises the question raised in the headline: Are leftists clinicaly insane?  they keep advocating doing the same things, no matter how many times they FAIL.  I think this is a form of clinical insanity, arising from the mental disease known as "leftism" (a word I insist is descriptive, even though a leftist once asserted to me that it is not a word at all).  Obama has tried every leftist trick in the book, and even had the "help" of Bailout Ben Bernanke going outside of the law to print money at the Federal Reserve.  Hasn't worked. Itg NEVER works. Al it has done is make a real recovery in the econmy IMPOSSIBLE.  Obama is STILL holding the economy "hostage" based on this "wealth redistribution" idea that "the rich" should support us all (what Ayn Rand called making the talented and "rich" SLAVES to be ordered around by the majority of peole:  "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".).

There IS, by the way a "fat tax" that would "change behavior".  No.  I am not doing any harm by telling leftists, because they wAY behavior would be changed is a REVOLT agasit the tax.  Instead of treating business as EVIL, because they do not accept the "task" of ending obesity, why not go to the source: the FAT PERSON.  Yep.  You have a HUGE "per pund overwieight" tax on EVERY overweight person in this country.  Every person would be requied to go to a government "weigh in" center (like trucks in some states) every January, and will pay a FINE for every pound "overweight".  But that is not all.  If ou are overweight, you will then be rEQUIRED to lose a certain number of pounds each month, and be weighed again each month, until you reach the 'proper" weight.  This is the HONEST way to actually attack the "problem" of fat peole.  I know. Leftists are DISHOENST, and this attack on BUSINESS over obesity is a typically DISHOENST attemkpt at social engineering on their part.  Would a rEAL "fat tax" change behaviour? Damn right.  Protests. AVOIDANCE.  MOVING.  No. It  wont't really produce thin peole, but it will affect behaviouor (as Ohlahoma did with that big raise on fees trukers paid.) ."But Skip, fat peoplle are victims--they can't help it."  If so, as Denmark found out, attempts to "limit" the food available to them will FAIL.  Anti-smoking propaganda DID ultimately have some affect (although not reallly the taxes).  That was because SMOKERS suddenly became TARGETS of other peole wh obegan to treat them as SOCIAL PARIAHS excluded from normal society.  Smokers were killing us al with second hand smoke, and FREEDM went out the window.  But look how HARD it was.  IF you do a propaganda campaign for FIFTY YEARS, and endorse DISCRIMINATION gainst those disgusting FAT PEOPLE (who are, actually, probably more "bullied" than gay people ever were), you MIGHT have some effect.  EXCEPT.  Smoking was ONE PRODUCAT.  "FAT" comes from EVERYTHING we eat. No.  Smoking is the exception that proves the rule, and MAY make a comeback some day.  King James II (I think), in the time of Jamestown and the beginning of the trade in TOBACCO from Virginia and what would become the USA, wrote a PAPER on the EVILS of tobacco that could have been written by the anti-smoking Nazis of today.  Social presssure has worked on smoking (not government actin), as it once did (doing more health good) on PREMARITAL SEX. 

No.  Leftists believe in CONTROL of  people's lives, no matter hww many times it FAILS (so long as the control is not marijuana or SEX).  Indeed, leftisets usually double down.  That is what is unusual about Denmark.  Usually, what happens when Big Government fails?  Come on, yoiu know this one.  Right.  The "answer " of leftists to the FAILURE of Big Government and central planning is MORE Big Government and central planning . ObamaCare, for example, was set up to FAiL. Even leftists can't believe that such monstrosity can succeed. And, for the most part, they don't.  But they don't care.  They, includin gObama, beleive that the FAILURE of ObamaCare can only lead to MORE GOVENMENT:  a government run national health service like in Britain or Canada.  ObamaCare was always jsut a step toward this leftist goal.  Problem for mthe INSANE left;  This country cannot SURVIVE ObamaCare to even reach the point of a disastrous natinal health service.

Q.E.D.  Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.  It is sort of likke the GOP establishment continuing to try to "succeed" with "Obama light" (or "leftist light", since this is not jsut a result of Obama).  It keeps failing, and even theoretically has no way of succeeding on a long term basis, buta the GOP establishment never quits.  It is the same with leftist economics.  It fails every time, and theoretically CANNOT SUCCEED on a long-term basis, and yet leftists never qit. Insane. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight0. 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Obama: Creating His Own Voters By Making People POOR

I am serius.  The more POOR peole there are, the more Obama-type Democrats (and GOP estalbishment politicians) assert that we need LEFTST policies to "help' the POOR peole. Thus, a RECORD number of peole get food stams under Obama, and "hunger advocates" assert that the number SHOULD be DOUBLE the 49 million or os already on food stamps.  More people are in "poverty".  Icnome continues to drop. 

The left's answer to the FAILURE of Big Government is ALWAYS MORE BIG GOVERNMENT.  And the left is not realy worried abut more and more peoople BECOMNG POOR, because that just increases the number of peole who feel dependent on THEM.  Can this vicius cycle be broke? Sure.  But NOT by candidates like Mitt Romney, who aggressively aTTACK the "magic wand theory of government": that all we need to do to "solve" any "problem' is have the Federal Government wave a magic wand and teh problem is "solved".  No. This theory did not work with Sandy, either. 

Can people on food stamps be convinced that they should not vote for a candidate like Obama, even tough he seems more interested in makng sure they KEEP their food stamps than those nasty, cold-hearted GOP peole?  Yes, you can. But you can.  But ;you can do it ONLY if yu AGGRESSIVELY go out and CONVINCE peole getting food stamps that the policies making them dependent on Big Government are COSTING them more than they could ever afford--even if they are paying no taxes at all.  It can be done.  Reagan did it. Romney did not even try.

Look at illegal imigratinn. Do Hispanics WANT to be associated with ILLEGAL imigrants?  No. But Obama told Hsipanics--pooorer, on average, than "white people" like Romney, or even those not like Romney--Hisp;anics he would TAKE CARE OF THEM.  Romney, instead of shwong Hisanics what Obama is COSTING them, merely tried to DUCK  and WEAVE ("shuck and jive"), with the idea of minimizing the damage.  See article on Friday.  Women.  Left handes. ANYBODY.  Did Romney SHOW those peole that leftist policies were MAKING THEM POOR, an dwould continue to do so if they let themselves be BRIBED into cotninuing to sypport tkheir own destruction?

Again, I am serous. Why shouyld GPOP candidates not SAY that leftists like Obama are trying to CREATE THEIR OWN VOTERS, by increasing those dependnet on the Fedderal Gopvernnment forever, and then tring to SCARE those peole into voting for their own destruction.  Obama said he woud be held accountable. Why could Romney not tell Hispanics, women, and everygocy else--not as GROUPS but as peole with an intelligent mind--that it makes no sense to keep voting for peole wh tell you that you NEED them--trying to CREATE their own voters--BECAUSE their policies have yhou in so much trouble?  Nope. Notice that this is NOT like Roney's 47% comment.  If the media sserts otherwise, all a BELIEVING GOP candidate has to d is say--correcly--that it is Obama and the media who hold them in CONTEMPT, because they think peole can be BRIBED in this way, against their own interests.  Sure, there is a paroblem that peole can get addicted to government benefits, but you have to convince them the addictin is BAD for them, not that you  have 'written them off"/

I agree with Frank Luntz (sp.?  The Fox "focus group" person), by the way, that Romney's economic campaign based on TAXES was the WRONG approach. No, I am not talking abut Rmney endorseing INCREASED taxes--a disaster, as it will be if the GOP "caves" in these latest sham "bipartisan" talks.  But Romney's "centeriece" of a 20% "tax cut" was ABSURD.  Combine that with the adovcacy of a 2 trilliion dollar increas in defense spending, and peole correctly got the idea that Romney did not CARE about the deficit, and government spenidng more money than it has.  In addition, Romney AREGUED the "tax cut" as NOT a "tax cut", but an INCRFEASE of taxes on the "wealthy", while a "tax cut" for the middle class.  How is that different from Obama's class warfare rhetoric?  It was not. No wonder Ropmney lost.  He SHOULD have campainged on EXTENDING ALL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS, and how much Obama had HURT the eocnomy simply by extending the uncertainty year after year: the oney WORSE thing being to INCREASE TAXES on people providing jobs.  Romney had NO "message", and it kilkled him. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  "But, Skip, Romney is RICH, and could only "connect" to the "middle class" by trying to show he "cares".  Uh-huh.  Worked for him didn't it--NOT.  That is merely an argumetn for nominating someone BESIDES Romney--somone not so DEFENSIVE about being "rich".  Romney needed to be on the ATTACK, and he was only (sort of) in that mode for ONE DEBATE (one 90 minute period in teh entire electin, because Obama LET him be, for some reason). No.  I do NOT agree that Obama is some sort of campaigning "genius.  BUSH won his second term by essetnialkly the same popular vote margin.  Obama is a BAD canddiate.  Romney was jsut worse, as Kerry was worse than Bush.

Unemployment Claims: New Claims Stay in Same Range: No Improvement This Year-But Sandy May Disrupt Data

Data on new unemplylment claims for the previous week was released, as usual, on Thursday. It again stayed in the yearly range of 351,000-392,000 each week: the same range new unemplyment claims have been in all year (ignoring the week where California was LFT OUT, but the diosishonest Labor Dept. just adjusted future data rather than correctin its ERROR--see the previous articles on the subject in this blog)..

But Sandy is about to make this weekly data pretty much useless for some time, if it has not alrady done so. How many unemployment offices int the Northeast have been CLOSED? How has processing of new unemplyment claims been affected?  California really had NO excuse.  New York and New Jersey do not have a problem with excuses. Then there is teh unemployment that is CAUSED by Sandy, and its aftermath. My younger daughter, living in Manahttan, says that resturants and businesses in lower Manhattan are STILL CLOSED, although the building (right next to the "Freedom Tower" ) in which her major New York/Boston law firm has its New York offices at least got its powr back this week.  There will, of course, be csome employment CREATED by the rebuilding and clean up from Sandy However, there has been a MAJOR economic disruptiong.  This not only distorts data which may only be temporary, to some degree, but gives Wall Street peole (theStupidest People on Earth) and media people (contending for same tkitle) the cance to SPIN any unfavorable data. 

You can tell something trange was going on Thursday because the dishnoenst Labor Dept. did not even bother to repeat its consistent 3,000 person "error". As you know, if you read this blog, the Labor Dept. has been reporting, and the media liears putting in their headlines, 3,000 FEWER new unemplyment claims almost every Thursday than the REVISED number released the next Thursday.  This Thursday, hoever, for the first time in MONTHS, the REVISED number (9f the 363,0000 number released the preivous Thursday) was the SAME as the UNREVISED 363,000.  That is the first time this has happened in MONTHS. I don't even remember, and can't even estimate, the last time the REVISED number went DOWN.  It just does nto happen (proving conclusively the number is dishoenst). Oh, the UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims released this last Thursday, was 355,0000 "down" 8,0000 from that 363,000 number (unchanged from the number originaly released, which really is unusual). Will the REVISED number for this last Thursday be 358,000, or more, or is the Labor Dept. going to deviate from its prior pattern?  We will see, but it probably does not matter. 

As stated, thease weekly numbers are just not oing to mean anything until at least the new year.  In the first place, the "sasonal adjustments" are SUSPECT approaching the holiday season, aand in the November-January period,. which includes both Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Since we are strarting to "prepare" for Christmas EARLIER every year, the seasonal effect may not be properly accounted for as early as Octobe now.  When you add Sandy on top of the fact that the Labor Dept. has a paoblem with the weekly seasonal adjustment fittting the current seasonal pattern, this weeky number of new unemplylment claims simply will not have meaning until at least mid-January.  I amy comment briefly each week, but these volatile weekly numbers are just going to be too distorted for reliable analysis (beyond the analysis that they are pretty much meaningless). 

Say we get another media headline of a new "four year low", or some such thing?  YHou wil know it is FICTION.  There is just now way that the economy can IMMEDIATELY IMPROVE with Sandy (not to mentin al of the other problems loming).  Just like any HUGE increase in the weeky number of new unemplyment claims may be fictin, and suppoed huge DECREASE has to be fictin as well.  Too many things going on.  Temporary emplyment not related to Christmas, but to Sandy.  Temporary UNEemloyment related to Sandy, and business problems arising from Sandy (some not so "temporary").  The Wall Sreet LIE is to assume Sandy will be GOOD for the economy, as Wall St. seemed to assume right after Sandy (when stocks went up).  Not true. Sandy will surely be a NET NEGATIVE, but not in ways that can really be predicted (especially in the timing of the effect on data, and the magnitude).  The questin about Sandy is whether our economyh is so FRAGILE that we can slip at any time into a dOWN SPIRAL.  We had GOOD WEATHER last fall and winter.  That HELPED the economy, although not enough to keep the economyh from beng STUCK. 

So individual data points are nto going to have much meaning, or much "predictability".  However, Sdndy is just another factor that puts our econmy in DANGER. What if we have a BAD WINTER?  We really are in a fragile place, and the Obama/Bernanke policies have made it certain we will remain in that situatin for the indefinite future--EXCEPT, of curse, if the "fragility" is fully exposed by COLLAPSE.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Friday, November 9, 2012

GOP and Illegal Immigration: Absurdity That Hispanics Want Identificatin With Illegal Immigrants (Limbaugh Gets It Right)

I have been criticizing Rush Limbaugh, and especilly his idea that Mitt Romney was a GOOD CANDIDATE, who lost merely because the Aemricn peole want to be BRIBED (too many of the). Limbaug is right, of course, that too many peoe want the Federal Government to take care of them, wiuout ever realizing it will COST them more than they can ever afford (even if they pay not one dime in taxes).  But, I am right and Lmibaugh is wrong: Romney was a bad candidate; Romney would have won if he were a good canddiate. Just becaue Limbaugh "liked" Romney, and Romney was the kind of successful man Limbaugh praises, did not make Romney a good candidate. But Limbaugh was rIGHT today when he said that the GOP is deluded if they think what they need to do to "win" the Hispanic vote is agree to some form of AMNESTY (some form of incentive for more illegal immigrants to come here, by giving substantial benefits to those who make it here, and/or stay here, illegally).  As Limbaugh said today, this is FALSE.  I have correcly informed you repeatedly that Hispanics (generally) vote Democrat--especially in Presidential and Fother Federal elecotns--because they are POOR (on average, poorer than the average American, mainly because so many of them, or their families, are so recently citizens of this country).  Limbaugh put it in the ay taht fit his narrative as to Romney losing the election because conservatives are now OUTNUMBERED by eeople who "want stuff".  Thus, Limbuagh said that Democrats win more of the Hispanic vote because so many of them "want stuff".  Tha is essentially correct, although Romney was a hoopeless candidate for Hispanics., with Ryan.  40% of El Paso peole are on FOOD STAMPS  Are those peole more likely to vote for Obama--the "food stamp President", or for Romney--unless Romney gives them GOOD REASONS to vote otherwise?  That is a "no brainter."  It is absurd to suggest that the prolem is that the GOP wnats to stop illegal immigration, and not reward illegal immigrants who make it here.  That is simpply media/leftist Democrat PROPAGANDA. 

However, Rush Limbuagh did cite something today that I had not known, and PROVES this ponit (assuming the numbers are accurate, as yoiu know what I think about these "polls' as to how people voted--polls that, at best, divide us). .  Yu all probably know that Ronald Reagan 49 states in 1984 (missing ONLY Mondale's home state of Minnesota, and NOT Massachusetts, a mistake I sometimes make).  You probably also know that Reagan granted AMNESTY to some 3 MILLIION illegal immigrants in 1986, based on TWO promises that turned out to be FALSE: 

1.  It would be the LAST proposed amnesty, because we would "secure the border" and not allow illeal immigrants to "build up" in this country again.

2.  That the amnesty would ONLY go to illegal immigrants who could PROVE they had been in this country for at least 5 years (if I remember correctly, although it does not matter because of the reslt) . In practive, INS was siply unable to HANDLE the required investigation" of how long people had been in this country (an impossible task, then and now)  This turned the program into a GENERAL AMNESTY for essentially everyone who applied and made any effort at all.

This is what the GOP is now FALSELY being told it should do, once again to "solve" the problem forever (but really to avoid "losing" the Hispanic vote, as if Hispanics vote mainly on ILLEGAL immigratino) . This is where Limbaugh comes in.  Reagan got some 37% of teh Hispanic vote in 1984, because he was a GOOD candidate.  AFTER this AMNESTY program, obviusly to the "credt" of VP George H. W. Bush as weel, the 1988 electin was held  Bush ws not as good a candidate as Regan, as he proved in 1992, but Bush won in what was really the third Reagan landslide.  Bush's Hispanci vote went UP, right?  Bush had just given, in conjunctin with Reagan ,this AMNESTY.  Nope.  The Bush share of the Hispanic vote went DOWN, to 30% (not much better than Romney's share, and Bush won in a LANDSLIDE in the overall vote). Q.E.D.  I agee with Limbaugh that these facts, assuming they are true, CONCUSIVELY PROVE that the GOP cannot "win over" conseravtives by jsut agreeing to some form of amnesty.  What the GOP will really do, if it takes such a course, is LOSE more votes than it gains (likely to be not manyy) . I know Hispanics are a more 'important" part of the electorate now.  Doesn't matter.  The PRINCIPLE is still the same, and so long as most Hispanics think they are DEPENDENT on the Federal Government, and need to vote Democrat to keep their benefits, they are not going to be affected by a GOP vote for amnesty . If they CHANGE this pattern, they still are not going to be affected by a GOP vote for amnesty.

Unlikje Limbuagh, I consider facts that do NOT support my thesis.  George W. Bush--I think in both of his electinss--did better among Hsipanics than other GOP candiaates have done.  I THINK this is true, although it depnds o the mainstream media getting things right (a very weak reed).  Now George W. Bush DID favor AMNESTY (the McCain.Kennedy/Obama/Bush bill, although Obama thought it was not enough amnesty).  That bill was proposed in 2006, and could hardly have affected the 2000 and 2004 Bush victories.  I don't think this affects the aove analysis, although it does suggest I am RIGHT about Romney. Romney did not do as well as McCain OR Bush among Hispanics.  Problem:  this COULD be merely because the RECESSIONI occureeed, and Hispancis were POORER (along with everyone else) in 2012 (and foolishly did not connect a lot of that to Obama, but blamed the GOP/Bush and thought they needed to keep the benefits Obama was promising he would make sure they kept).  Am I sayhing the mainstream media is STuPID to make a big point out of Romney getting a lesser percentage of the Hispanic vote than McCain?  Sure.  What else is new?  But Bush getting more of the Hispanic vote tends to prove MY pont:  Romney was a bad candiddate, while Bush  was able to "connect" more twiht Hispanics.

Doubt me.  Bush was GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, and had a long-standing reputatin of attracting Hispanic voters.  Texas has a LOT of Hispanic voters, and yet GGOP candidates win (although not usually in the El Paso Presidential vote).  Partly, I think, this is because Hispanics in Texas DO BETTER economically, because TEXAS does better.  This proves BOTH Limbaugh and me right on how Hispanics vote.  El Paso is a poor city, by Texas standards, and is thus a Democratic city.  But Bush has a HISPANIC wife, and knows how to tal the language (literally).  This ability to RELATE to Hsipanics is what realy helped Bush, and not "amnesty".  I now.  Ann Richards once said that W was "born with a silver sppon in his omouth", but Bush was still not a WALL ST. type like Romney.  He was more a "regular guy", if with a Texas swatter, who was used to relating to peple of Hispanic heritage and culture. 

No. The GOP will make a major mistake if it buys into the idea that what it needs to "cmpete" for the Hispanic vote is a form of AMNESTY.  I can't tell you how deluded that is, although I have tried.  But you know what I think of the GOP, as an institution  Death wish.  What did peole "vote for" in this elecitn?  They voted for the STATUS QUO.  This elecoithn ended up with EXACTLY (minus 2 seasts or so in te House) the same makeup of the Presidency and Congresss that existed before the eleciotn.  That means the GOP CONSOLIDATED thir EXTREME gains n the House from the 2010 election.  Really, the logical result of this is to keep the status quo (on spending, taxes, etc.) for the next two years, even if that is TERRIBLE for the DEFICIT.  Did you observe that ANY politicans really CARED about the defict in this laast electin, or that the peole were really pushing on it?  Neither did I.  Disaster in the making, but the idea that the GOP should ABANDON PRINCIPLES jsut because they lost the Presidency again (by a MUCH smaller margin) is insane.  The GOP House was ELECTED to do the SAME tings for which it was elected in 2010.  If anything, all this shows is that this GOP habit os saying:  "wait for the next electin" is STUPID.  Maybe the GOP should actualy FIGHT on SPENDING.  The House MUST vote to spend EVERY DIME that the government spends.  Regardless, it is insane to suggest that the GOP should "cave" on TAXES, IMMIGRRATIN, SPENDING, and EVERYTHING ELSE, jsut because they barely lost a Presidential electin.  Again, what were THEY elected to do?  Deadlock and status quo, is the only logical result to this elecitn, as everything remains the SAME as it was after the 2010 electins. 

P.S. On proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Jim Cramer and CNBC, Communists: Will China's Command Economy Save Us? Jim Cramer Says Yes

I kid you not.  I couldn't believe it.  Well, the problem is I could believe it.  I heard Jim Cramer, on CNBC this morning, say approximately the following;  "Chin's leader says that China will double the average income of all of its citizens over the next eight eyars.  China is a command economy, so maybe they can do it.  If so, they will bring the ret of the world along with them." 

Did Jim Cramer really say that Communist China's COMMAND ECONMY (Communism)  is the man HOPE to "save" the "free market" (to one degree or another) economies of the world?  He did.  I have told yo ufor YEARS that CNBC, including Crame, do not believe in a frfee market system.  They do believe in a COMMAND ECONOMY.  Okay, the "command economy" they believe in is "economic fascism", rather than Communism, directed by Balout Ben Bernanke. Obama-types and leftist econoists/Wall St. people.  But how can yoiu interlpet Cramer as saing anything but that a COMMAND ECONMY has the opportunity to wave a magic wand and produce a better econmy than this "outmoded" free market idea.  "Economic fascism", by the wy, is a PARTNERSHP between Big Business/Wall St. and Big Government to CONTROL the econmy by the actins of falible men (like Bailout Ben).  It has little to do with Hitler, who merely adopted the economic concept as consistent with his totalitarian rule.  Nothing to do with Jews, or the Final Solutoin.  Economic fascism has been accurately described as :  "socialism with a capitalist veneer."The point is that it is a COMMAND economic system of exactly the kind Cramer endorsed, to NODS from other peole on CNBC. 

My 900 year old mother, more in tune with today's Twitter generatin, put it more succinctly as to describing Obama , Cramer, CNBC and other leftists:  "He (Obama) wants to give people things 'free', and he wants to tell people what to do."  That describes Cramer's/CNBC's idea of a perfect economic system perfectly so long as THEY are not told to do something they don't want to do (hence the "partnership"--the deluded fools). Yep.  Cramer, CNBC and the rest have been pushing BAILUTS ever since 2008, to the present.  Wall St. is still being BAILED OUT every single day. by Fed "pro-active" policy. (Bailout Ben). 

Exactly what can Cramer and CNBC pont to as examples of how a "command econoomy" works so well?  Cuba?  Soviet Unnion?  Slave economy of the Old South?  Feudal Europe? Hell, MODERN Europe?  There are NO exampes of command econoies workng really well. That is why free market economyies developed in the first place. Indeed, CHINA improved its economy primarily by adopting CAPITALIST principlles, with LESS restrictins on business (in many ways) than, say, Obama is trying to imose.  Joe Biden even once said that if you wanted to build a COAL PLANT, you should go to China where they don't care about all of that pollution. China does not pay attetin to the absurdity of destorying an economy because of the myths of "global waring'.  But China does remain a "command econmy" in many senses, and that will eventually lead to its DESTRUCTIN (unless it continues to evolve toward a fre market econmy with real freedom). A free market economy is intertwined with freedom, and yu reallyl can't have freedom without it.  Why does a command econmy ALWAYS fail?  It is because command economies, by definition, rely upon MEN to CONTROL and GUIDE the eocnmy based on their falible decisonis.  Then when the inevitable WRONG decisinos occur, there is no "automatic" correctin.  Eventually, mere MEN get something WRONG, and do not act quickly enough to adjust and correct the situation.  The artificial DISTORTINS in the eocnmy BUILD, iuntil the final colapse occurs.  See the demise of the Soviet Union.  The econmy becomes like that Tacoma bridge tearing itself to pieces. 

But Cramer, and CNBC, have bought fully into the idea that MEN can CONTROL the econmy such as to make it "work".  No evidence for this.  It has just beomce a RELIGON: the same old religon of the left.  That is why it does nto matter if any individual decison of this kind of economy is right or wrong: whether any individual decsion of Bernanke or an all-powerful Federal Government is right or wrong.  A frfee market econmy is SELF-CORRECTING, without IMPOSED DISTORITONS.  A command economy has NO mechanism for correcting errors, or allocating resources without major distortins--except the judgments of fallible men who CANNNT know enough.  No.  Cramer and CNBC have again illustratged why we are headed for disaster.  We are NOW operation on the idea that MEN can DIRECT the world econmy I would laugh, if I were not crying so hard.  You know my problem with Romney.  I don't think he really thought differently: just that HE could direct things better than Obama and Bernanke (probably right about that).

Memo to Cramer: and CNBC; I know who you are, and I will keep teling peole.  You are econmic fascists, who really do believe in what I call the magic wand theory of government.  That is the "theory" that all government leaders and central bankers have to do is wave a magic wnd, imposing the "solutions" leftists and Wall St. have agreed upn (that unholy "alliance"), and we will have paradise on Earth, with no pain.  Hogwash.  This concept is so divorced from reaity that it might qualify as clinical schizophrenia.  I assume you know that sxhizophrenia is not a "split personality", but disassociaton from reality.  Describes Cramer and CNBC.  Econmic fascists pushing a discredited "idea' from more than 100 years ago.

P.S. no proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).  I still think yu outght to pay me for creating these difficult word puzzles for your enjoyment and entertainment.

Mitt Romney: No Message/Themes (This Blog Proven Right and Rush Limbaugh Wrong)

My only female friend Sylvia--a Romney hater and Obama supporter--agres with me on two things.  First, and of lesser importance, wsa that the COMBINED "image" of Romney and Ryan was just oo far away from too many ordinary people, and neither one had shown the ABILITY to bridge that "gap" (even if the "gap" were not rel). Romney looked like Romney looked like what he is: a rich, Wall St. type white guy.  It was easy to portray him for whtat he may not have been:  an "out of touch" guy who had no empathy for ordinary people at all.  Ryan may have had woring class, Caholic roots, but he showed no abiity at all--even before he ws chosen VP candidate--to make up for the apparent LACK in Romney.  Obama sold a caricature, but it was a caricature with plausibility to people who saw Romney inhabiting a totally different world from themselves. That, however, is nto the most important problem Romney had; a problem this blog identified way back when Romney was runnng for the GOP nominiatino, and at all times since (even after I fianlly endorsed Romney. 

Romney had NO MESSAGGE.  Worse, he have every appearnce of making it up as he went along.  As I ha e said Obama LIES, and contradictgs today what he said yesterday.  And Obama had SOME problem with "message", as to whether to attack Romney as "right wing", or (correctly) a preson without any prnicples at all. But Obama DID have THREE consistent messages:

1.  I believe that Big Government can help peole AND the economy, and that is what I have tried to do with that mess I inherited from Bush,  I still find it hard to beleive that the GOP let Obama get away with this, since OBAMA was PART of that "mess" Obama inherited--not an outsider.  But it was still a consistent message:  the idea that the Federal Government CAN DO THINGS FOR YOUI.  Romney went back and forth as to whether he believes this general propositon himself. 

2. Romney is that rich Wall St. white guy out of touch with ordinary people  How was Romney to counter this?  Not, I think, by how he tried:  an atempt to portray himself as a "nice guy". Sure, he needed to come across as "optimistic" and "nice", while still having a POSITION.  Obama HAD a posiotn, and said many MEAN SPRITIED THINGS.  The mean spirited things did nto hurt him that much--lpartly becuse of tghe partisan media, but mainy because peoople thought they KNEW Obama.  They not only did not think they knew Rmney, but correctly thiought that Romney made things up as he went along, depending on what he thought would help him win th eelection  All politicians do this to a (large) degree, but Romney has taken it to a new level.  Unlike Obama, wfho had a reserve of goodwill and the excuse of taking over a bad situation, rmoney had nothing to fal back on.  He ight show he was not an ogre, but Romney could NOT et in the Wite House by constantly SAYING NOTHING i cnostantly shifting ways. Roney played PRESIDETN much better than he played CANDIDATE.  If peole had known Romney for 4 years, and he had been competent in a way that did not seem totally out of touch, his campaign might have been okay  As it was, it was a disaster.  Romney got GIFTS from Obama in the nature of that first debate, and Obama's disgraceful handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack.  Romney did not take ful advantage,becaue he was too wedded to SAYING NOTHING. This is Sylvia's main complaint against Romney: that he not only has no connectin with ordinary people, but that he obviusly will say AnYTHING to get elected.  Now I thiik Obama is the most DISHONEST politician I have ever seen, or heard about.  But people at least ThINK they know where Obama is coming from.  Don't you?  Of course you do, even if many people may not pay enough attentin to realize the many lies that Obama tells.  But most peole don't CARFE about the lies ("all poiticins lie--it's politics").  Most peole THINK they KNOW Obama, while they had no idea who Romney is (beond that rich Wall St guy).

3. That war on women.  Now this is primarily DISHOENST, but Notice this is about the most dishoenst major elecment of a campaign ever.  But Romney gave Obama this one BY DEFAULT.  To extent Romney "countered", he did so in a confussed and timid manner.  He did not, for example., ATTACK Obama as EXTREME on abortion.  He did not attack Planned Parenthood as EXTREME on abortin:  a controversial organizatin which the government has no business subsidiizing-an organizatin with enough funding from  people who agree with its extreme positoins. Romney made a half-hearted attempt to attract Catholics as to that "fre contraceptin" requirment.  But did Romney ask why women should be GUARANTEED absolutely free contraception, when CANCER patients don't get absolutely free cancer treatment?  Romney did not even attempt to make the pint that the problem with "free contraceptin, apart from Obama having no concept of a religious conscience, is that it is an attempt by GOVERNMENT to FORCE EVERYONE to pay for the things that OBAMA and PLANNED PARENTHOOD consider most important . Was "free" contraceptin the most IMPORTANT health issue out there?  Not a chance.  But Romhey was TOO TIMID to evgen try to make this argumetn.  No comments like Newt Gingrich's "war on religion".  No real attack on the Libyan terrorist attack, after Candy Crowly got him to back down in the secnd debate.  No Gingrich type attacks on the MEDIA for helpng Obama make "issues' out of things not important to the country at this time.  No Rmney comment on Obama tring to BRIBBE WOMEN.

Note that, ater initial flirtation, Obama did not really try to make a consistently strong push on MEDICARE and SOICAL SECUIRTY other than as part of the "out touch", tax the rich theme.

4.  We need to address the deficit, and push "fairness", by TAXING THE RICH.  Romney basiclaly echoed this theme, while pruproting to attack it.  Romney kept using Obama language to emphasize that all of this proposed "tax breaks" would be for the "middle class" (defined the same way Obama did). 

How did Romney win the primaries?  The worong way . No "themes"".  No ads in Ohion prsenting a Rmney MESSAGE upon whch Rmney could buikld in the general electin.  I said so at the time, and I was right.  Rmney had NO MESSAGE.  He did his best to SAY NOTHING  All he did was give relatively smooth politician answers, while his MONEY, ADS and the mainstream media TORE APART the opposion  And Rmney stil almost lost, except Santorumm was never adequately funded and Gingrich self-destructed (on the edge of maybe knocking out Romney in Florida).  Romney NEEDED to be deveoping THEMES in the GOP nominatin process.  Instead, Rmney ATTACKED Rick Perry on immigratin.  Romney ATTACKED Santorum as "too far right".  Romney overwhelmed the field with NEGATIVE ADFS, and MONEY  Romney's only real 'message" was that he ws the only candidate who could defeat Obama. He did not, did he?  Could Santourm have done so?  I think he could have, but the GOP establishment would probably have doomed him.  The pont is, however, that Rmney was a WEAK candidate who never developed a MESSAGE (wither anti-Obama or positive). I said so at the time of the GOP nominatin fight . Yep.  I told you so again.  But, unlike Rush Limbaugh (wrong again, as he usually is when he disaggrees with me), I never changed my mind . Romney actualy did get "better", but NEVER developed really consistent MESSAGES.  Romney basically won the nominatin with the OBAMA METHOD:  Present yourself as inevitable and TEAR DOWN your opponents.  JProblem, as I said at the time:  OBAMA was in the positon of ROMNEY in the general electin, and this technique could not possibly work against Obama.  It did not. 

Doubt me?  What was the END messsagge of the Obama campaign?  You now this one.  BIPARTISANSHIP: "reaching across the aisle to get things done."  Say what?  Do you see why peolle likeke Sylvia had WhIPLASH.?  Where did his OVRRIDING THEME come fro?  I know. It has always been part of the Romney campaign that he was able to "wrok with Democrats" in Masachusetts.  I understand that Romney could never have made that the main part of his nomination bid.  However, it was NEVER the main theme of his GENERAL ELECTIN bid, until the last 10 days or so.  DISASTER.  I say that even though I thought Romney did this 'message" BETTER than he did any other in the campaign  He was OPTIMISTIC about America.  he told POSITIVE stories.  He gently painted Obama as a falilure, but was not mean spirited. And Romney was again HELPED by Obama becoming MEAN SPRIRITED and PARTISAN in the extreme, at the end.  If it were not for the TIMEOUT provided by Sandy, and "friend" (enemy?) Christie providng that bear hug undermining the "bipartisan" message, mayybe Romney could have squeaked it out.  But ti was NOT a consistent THEME.  It came out of basically nowhere, after Romney sarted off the electin seeming to think he would win jsut ont the anti-Obama vote.

No.  This lack of consistent messages was FATAL to the Romney campaign.  It almsot lost him the nominatin, and it did lose himm the general elecitn.  A WEAK CANDIDATE (as I said all along).  Rush Limbagh came around to "all in" for Romney because Romney is LIMBAUGH'S KIND OF PERSON (even if Limbaugh will tell yu that Romney is not his kind of ideological conservative).  On this, Limbuagh is "out of touch" (and hyperpartisan, plus being a sore loser). I am "in touch" (even as a hermit), and was this whole electin. 

What could Rmoney have done?  Hey . I am not him, and don't agree with him politicallly. But he NEEDED some CONSISTENT MESSAGES.  He had none.  He would not even stand by the messages he had, when cahallenged.  I stil remember that Rmney BACKED OFF of his initial criticism of Obama on Libya.  I told you how bad that was, in this blog.  THAT is the consistent TJHEME of Romney:  Be CAREFUL, and back off if you get a seruous challegne.  Let me give you a picutre of what Romney COULD have done:  FREEDOM, COMPETENCE and COMMUNICATIN.  I know how to manage (quoting Tony LaRussa). President Obama does not.  I can manage the Federal Government better than he can.  But I won't USE the Federal Government to take away yur FREEDOm: to force you to have the kind of health care HE wants you to have; to have the kind of bsuness HE wanst you to have; to have the kind of regulatins HE wants you to have; to ignore th LAWS he wants to ignore; to have the kind of economy and LIVES he wants you to have.  Communicatin. This means "reaching across the aisle", the way I did in Massachusetts, but it means more than that.  It does not mean giving up your rinciples.  But it means COMMUNICATIN with the other side.  I itned, as President, to CoMMUNICATE with Congress--including with the other siide.  I intned to COMMICATE with Hispanics--about any speical conscers but also about wht is best for ALL American citizens.  I intend to COMMUICATE with African-Americans:  not about how to KEEP tthem DEPENDENT on the FederalGovernment, but how to give them the opportunity to get out of that dependency Democrats have left them in.  With the help of Ann, I intend to COMMUNICATE with women.  This does not mean abandoning my prolife principles, but it does mean trying to make sure I don't have tunnel vision as to things that are really important to womne's lives.  One thing I am sure of is that the ECNOMY is the MOST important thing for the lives of women, Hispanics, African-Americans, and everyone else.  This is not a zero-sum game.  We are all in tit together.  The poor cannot depend on an ever fewer number of very rich peole to support them  The rich can't depend on constant bailuts when they are stupid.  What I now is that I can MANGE the government in a way that gives  our economy the best chance to improve the lives of EVERyONE I have shown I can do it, and I can  President Obama has shown he has no clue, exept to blame eveyrone else (as he did with the Libyan terrorist attack).  We need effective management, communicaitn and freedom.  Our free market economy ,and values, have made us the greatet country in the world  I am confident we can be even better if we change this wrong path we are on. That is the LAST thing we need:  Real change, and not the old partisan leftist ideology packaged in misleading words.

Oh.  Did I mentin that Rmney also tired a "message" of CHANGE, but at the last minute.  Again, I thought that was a fairly effective message, but one that should have been there even in the NOMINATIN. Romney was th e"outsider" in this elecitn, but he never acted that way until the end.  Sure, he talked aobut his business experience, but nver BOURGHT IT HOME by contrasting it with Obma's life in government, INCLUDING IN WASHINGTON all of the time the conmy was collapsing.  I thought Rmney did beter on "change' toward the end. Too little, too late.

Do you like my verson of an effective Romney campaign (which maybe I should have provided Romney earlier)?  No?  Well, it does not matter  Romney NEEDED some consistent MESSAGES that seemed part of a real strategy, and not just made up as he went along to see if he gained votes.  I am right abut this, and Rush Limbaugh is WRONG (listening to what he wanted to hear, and not the lack of real message in what Romney awas saying). 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking. (bad eyesight).  This will be basicaly my las comment on why Romney lOST, cept for criticizing media and other absurdities as they rear their ugly head.  Contrary to Limbaugh, Coulter and others, I am certain Rmoney COULD have WON this electin by a large margin  He was just a bad candidate. Whehter the GOP had any better candidate is intresting specualitin, and I don't think it is obvius the GOP did.  However, that the othe potential candiates were no great shakes does not change the relevant fact;  Romney was a BAD candidate, no matter how many others were worse.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Romney and Ryan Choice: Wrong Man at Wrong Time

Foresight again, and not hindsight.  I told you so. If lyu think I am above that sort of petty taunting, you are wrong.  I love it.  I told lyu that Paul Rayn was the WRONG chocie for President, and not just because I had condemned Ryan long ago as someone who had betrayed conservative princiiples.

First there was the Medicare problem. Sure, Ryan--wrongly, in my view--was known as a "budget hero" and "expertt" to consrvatives.  But this was part of the overall problem of the Rmney campaign. Did Romney REALLY come across as a guy WORRIED ABOUT THE DEFICIT, with his proposed across-the-board tax cut and big INCREASE in defense spending?  I am not talking abut the merits here. What GOOD was Ryan to Rmney?  He had that Medicare "baggage", and Romney was just never going to make a real ISSUE out of the BUDGET. Did Romney know this?  He should have.  I, for one, basically said Rmney wsa ot credible as a "Te Party", "balance the budget" guy.  Palin--much MORE conservative than Ryan, did not help McCain.  Okay, Ryan wsa Caholic, but NOT an ETHNIC Catholic.  See "white bread" "criticism" below.

Second, Ryan came out of the House of Representatives, where he did NOT have a real national preence, eXCEPT as the subject of those Democrat attacks for trying to "destroy" Medicare.  Ann Coulter lurched into the truth tonight when she said that members of the House of Representatives should stop tryng to be Presdient, and cluttering up the field.  It ain't going to happen.  They are just too localized, and unused to races on a larger canvas.  I go further.  I don't think ANY Presidential candidate shuld pick a member of the House of Representatives for VP.  Eve with Ryan, who had ths budget reputation, it wsa jsut too "light weight" a choice, no matter HOW "heavywithgt" Ryan may be intellectually.  No additoin to Romney.  Romney had to sell HIMSELF with conservatives, as he mopstly did (not with me). Ran was jsut no real help, and he definitely did not help when Romney is running a "moderate" campaign, and seemingly chose Ryan as a DESPERATE "token" chooice for conservatives. In that sense, Ryan ws mnuch like the choice of Paline, although Palin had both advantages and disadvantages compared with Ryan.

This brings us to the main problem, confirmed by my Hispanic female friend Sylvia this evening on our evening walk:  Ryan is just too WHITE BREAD, plain vanilla (in presentatino), when joined with the even more "white bread" Romney.  Yes, Ryan is sort of "workning class Catholic", but he does not come across that way . And, again, Ryan and Rmney really never made a cONSISTENT pich for CAHOLICS (Hispanci Catholics, especially). Off and on, it was in the campaign, but Romney--especially at the convention--appeared more worried about being a MORMON than about "reaching out' to Hispanic and other Catholics (not to mentin evangelicals, etc.).  What never CHANGED was the IMAGE of Romney as a very "white" Wall St. guy, with a running mate with the SAME IMAGE.  Even the families looked the same . No. I am not talking about RACE.  I am talking aobut IMAGE, and CONNECTING.  Neither Romney nor Ryan really showed any ability to connect to peole not exactly like them.  Ryan LOOKED like a WASP, even though he is a working class Cathoic.  And his MANNER is not like, say, ChrisChristie.

That is why I said that Romney really had ONLY two choices for VP:  Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. I always preferred Rubio, even though I have been disapppointed in his performance, as getting away from the "white bread" image. Yes, Rubio is Hispanic, but that is not the main point.  He presented a DIFFERENT image than Romney.  Now it appears to me, and did so at the time, that Chris Christie was too dangerous.  I like his bluntness, but he was a truly risky choice.  And I believe Romney was proven right not to choose Chrisite, after hearing his convention speech and seeing how he handled the Obama photo op "meeting' after Sandy. Nevertheless, you should get my point.  Christie was DIFFERENT from Obama: a different image.  How couuld ethnic peole "identify" with Romney/Ryan?  Only if they were BOLD in appealing to such people.  Romney did NOT run a BOLD campaign.  He and Ryan appelaed to peole like themselves, and it was not enough.  Ryan was a bad choice. I say thaqt even though Ryan did a good job as the VP choice.  But he ADDED NOTHING, and the combined image actualy DETRACTED from making Romney "approachable' to people different from him (and not only in being 'rich').

Now were both Rubio and Christie ToO DANGEROUS.  I asked this questin at the time, and said that is why I could not really say Romney made a bad mistake not choosing one of them.  Christie alkways did appear dangerous, and later events have provent that assesssment to be accurate.  TOO "different". That left Rubio.  But Rubio is NEW--although as "experienced" as Obama was.  Are there any "skeletons" in Rubio's closet, and would he have really been able to handle such a quick rise into a natinal campaign?  Maybe not.  I can't say Romney should have chosen Rubio  Again, maybe it was goo dangerous.  Romney wa not, after all, as bad off as McCain.  However, I think I was proven RIGHT (yet again) that Romney NEEEDED soebody who looked DIFFERENT from him, and had a different, more approachable manner. WHO?  Ah, that was my problem at the time.  Rudy Guliani, wih all of that baggage? John Bolton, with no real political esxperience?  Condi Rice, who always struck me as WRONG (much as I like her). ?  Romney could not pick any of his OPPONENTS in the primaries..  An Then There Were None quoting Agatha Christie again.  Bobby Jindal?  Maybe, but NO electoral help at all.  Maybe a turn off in the Middle West.  Rubioo still seems to bme to be the choice, IF he was at all up to it.  But if Rmney wanted to be SAFE, should he have chosen a fellow "moderate" like Rob Portman?  Might make ME foam at the mouth, but it would have been better than Rayn . Ryan could not even deliber Wisconsin.  If Romney was gong to go "white bread", and safe, he should have chosen someone like Portman. No.  NOT Pawlenty--"white bread" and HOPLESS. 

Okay.  It was a tough choice.  There really were few plausible alternatives.  It is possible Ryan was the best choice available, even though he was obviusly a BAD choice (as, agan, I said at the time).  Why bring it up, if I can't even be sure Ryan was really a "mistake?  Because it shows how Romney just lacked BOLDNESS.  He and Ryan jsut never made real inroads into ethnic areas:  whether "REagan Democrats" or Hispanics.  I don't think Hispanics WANT to be associated with ILLEGAL immigrants, as Democrats and the media keep insisting.  But Sylvia confirmed that Hispanics jsut did not look kindly on the Romney/Ryan combination.  I think Romney had a CHANCE, with women, after the first debate.  But, again, a lack of BOLDNESS and MMESSAGE kept him from taking advantage. Was there any WOMAN out there he could have chosen, who was SAFE?  I could not think of one.  Martinez, in new Mexico, was just too NEW.  Maybe Rob Portman was "afest", even if I would have sputtered Still "white bread", but a guy obviusly "seasoned" and cloe to Romney.  GOP estalbishment guy.  I don't know.  What I do now is that this LACK OF BOLDNESS and CONSISTGENT STRATEGY is what defeated Romney .

Choose a VP that ADDS something, and fits your overall strategy.  Romney did not do that, partly because he had NO real strategy or "pont of view'  for this election.  This was obvius at the disastours GOP convention.  Ryan speech fine, but no real MESSAGE, or sense of overall stratgy.  Romney speech NOT FINE, because it really accomplished nothing at all.  And Ryan never seemed to have a real role in the camaign,.

Nope.  The more I think about it, the more I know that Rmney HAD to choose SOMEBODY besides Ryan, even though Ryan did nothing bad as the VP candidate.  The IMAGE was just WRONG, and the overall strategy was not there.  "Attack dog" Ryan? never materialized.  A "white bread" ticket putting forth a "vanilla" campaign:  enough to come close, but no cigar.  Rush Limbaugh, who seems to have been overwhelmed by Romney as a "Limbuahg kind of guy", was all depressed today because he thought Romney ran a GOOD campaign, and sill lost.  I beg to differ.  Limbaugh is too partisan, and hates to "lose". Romney ran a BAD campaign, with the wrong VP choice, that appealed TOO MUCH to peole like Limbaugh (writing off the "47%).  Yet. Rmoney COULD have won anyway We will never know if he WOULD have won without Sandy, and the Chris Christie bear hug (another time when Romney HAD to be somehow BOLD--like suddenly giving INTERVIEWS during "down time', or joining forces with Franklni Graham in giving his own money for IMMEDIATE RELIEF, or SOMETHING. Then Romney rsumed with a 'bipartisan" message:  realy not good enough.  Nope again.  Contrary to what Limbaugh said today ,this electin did NOT indicate" we" (conservatives" are "outnumbered".  It merely indicated we LACK LEADERSHIP that could have BUILT on 2010 and carried the momentum into 2012.  Our "leaders" have been outnumbered and outgunned, and that was true of Romney. 

See previous article.  Unfortunately, I still see no real leader out there.  There are POSSIBILITIES, but no ne hads really stepped forward, as someone SHOULD have in this electin (not to mentin the past 2 years).  Where is the WOW of a conventin speech (like Ronald Reagan or BarackObama)? Where are the peole out there WKNNING races for GOOP candidates?  i don't see it.  Some such person needs to STEP FORWARD by the 2014 mid-term, or conservatives may be faced with another leadership gvacuum in 2016.  No. You can't TART the 206 race now.  But you CAn lay the groundwork, and I don't see that any conservative leader has even begun to do that yet. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  I have complained for years of this lack of leadershi for conservatives, and it is not getting any better.  Romney, despite Limbaugh's approval of his campaign, is jsut another example of a failure of leadership.  I am right on this, and Limbaugh is wrong again.  Notice how I was RIGHT not to attempt to "analyze" polls--as so many "conservatives" did--to show how Romney was going to "win' based on a correct view of the plls.  This obsessin with polls is ridiculous  I predicted a Romney win based on the ECONMY.  I was wrong.  I still think he SHOULD have won on this basis, and that he did not HAVE to be 'outnumered".  But at least I did not make myself look ridiculous going though polls as if I know exactly how to interpret them. I am right on all of this, and Limbaugh was wrong (on polls, and Romney as a "good" candidate). Oh. If the pols had been predicting a ten pont Obama win, I would not have stuck by my prediction of a Romney win (although I HOPE polls will be off tghat much some day).  But plls should be pretty much ignored.  Will Dick Morris, Karl Rove and all of these other "conservative" "experts" now Go AWAY, after they have been PROVEN so WRONG?  We can only hope.