Saturday, December 03, 2016
U.S. Unemployment Rate Drops To 4.6% In November
The Labor Department has released its unemployment statistics for the month of November, and it shows the biggest drop in the unemployment rate in over a year -- about 0.3% to 4.6% official unemployment.
The economy produced 178,000 new jobs in November, a reasonable number, but that wasn't the main reason for the rather substantial drop in the unemployment rate. The biggest element was that 226,000 people dropped out of the civilian workforce, and are no longer counted as being unemployed (since they haven't looked for work in the last four weeks). It's no cause for celebration when the rate drops because thousands of people have given up hope of finding a job, and aren't counted anymore.
I expect the rate to remain in the high 4% level for the remainder of President Obama's term. The real question is what will be the rate a year from now -- after nearly a year of the Trump administration. I'm guessing that it will be above 5% again, because none of the things Trump says he will do to produce jobs will actually do that. He's counting on massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations to spur large-scale hiring. Unfortunately, the tax rate has absolutely nothing to do with job creation. Jobs are only created when demand for goods/services rises. But taking more money out of the economy (and out of the hands of the masses), so the tax cuts for the rich can be paid for, will not cause demand to rise. It will cause it to fall. But we shall see.
Here are the relevant labor statistics for the month of November.
SIZE OF THE CIVILIAN WORKFORCE:
159,486,000
OFFICIAL NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS:
7,400,000
OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE:
4.6%
OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP:
Adult men...............4.3%
Adult women...............4.2%
Teens (16-19)...............15.2%
Whites...............4.2%
Blacks...............8.1%
Hispanics...............5.7%
Asians...............3.0%
Less than HS grad...............7.9%
HS grad...............4.9%
Some college...............3.9%
Bachelor's degree or more...............2.3%
NUMBER OF MARGINALLY-ATTACHED WORKERS (no longer counted):
1,932,000
MORE REALISTIC UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER (official + marginally-attached):
9,332,000
MORE REALISTIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE:
5.85%
Trump's Claim Of Massive Illegal Voting Did Not Happen
Donald Trump showed his thin skin again recently by claiming he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes -- especially in Virginia, New Hampshire, and California. He was upset because people were questioning the validity of his presidency, since he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than 2.5 million votes (which makes a joke of his claims of a landslide win and a mandate).
The nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize-winning organization PolitiFact checked on the accuracy of Trump's claims -- as they do with other politicians across the political spectrum. And they labeled his claims as "Pants on Fire" (meaning the statements are not accurate and make ridiculous claims).
That will come as no surprise to anyone except the trumpistas. Illegal voting (i.e., voter fraud) is not a problem in the United States (regardless of what the Republicans would like for you to believe). It is very difficult to vote illegally in this country, and the likelihood is that anyone who tries it will be caught (and punished).
But while there was no massive or widespread illegal voting, there were a very few people who tried to do it in this election. The Washington Post scoured the country to find all cases of illegal voting. They found only four documented cases of it (and a very few more that could have happened). Here is what they found:
Cases of voter fraud
A woman in Iowa who voted twice. Terri Lynn Rote had the enormous misfortune of bad timing. Right as the candidate she supported, Trump, was drawing attention to fraud cases, Rote decided to try to vote twice in Des Moines, and got caught. The case made national headlines simply by virtue of the fact that it happened when it did, and that she voted for Trump.
For what it's worth, she suggested that the fault lay with Trump. “The polls are rigged,” she said to a local radio station by way of explaining her multiple votes, echoing another of Trump's complaints.
A man in Texas who voted twice. Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump's campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn't an employee of the campaign — and the polling location's security worked perfectly well, it seems.
A woman who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband. Audrey Cook is a Republican election judge in Illinois. She and her husband applied for absentee ballots because he was ill. He died before completing his, so she filled it out for him and sent it in. The ballot will not be counted.
A woman in Florida who marked absentee ballots. Gladys Coego was hired to open absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County. One of her co-workers noticed that she was going a step further, filling in the bubble for a mayoral candidate with a pen she had in her purse. She was caught in the act and arrested. There's no evidence that she changed any presidential votes.
Possible cases of voter fraud
Two possible cases of fraud in Washington state. Investigators are looking at two possible cases of fraud near the Idaho border. In the first, a man may have signed his deceased wife's name on an absentee ballot; in the second, someone may have voted in both states. Charges have not been filed in either case.
A possible case in South Carolina. A man in the Palmetto State is being investigated on suspicion of voting both by absentee ballot and in person.
Ballots are being challenged in North Carolina. Because of the close gubernatorial race in North Carolina, several dozen ballots were challenged by Republicans as having been cast by convicted felons in the state. An independent group found that at least 18 of the 43 alleged cases of fraud were not fraud at all, instead confusing valid voters with people who were ineligible given their status. There's not yet any verification that the other ballots were from ineligible voters, either.
To be blunt, Trump (and his GOP cohorts) are lying when they claim massive or widespread illegal voting or voting fraud. They are just using this giant lie to suppress the votes of groups they don't think will vote for them -- and we must continue to fight those suppression efforts.
Trump's Businesses Present An Ethical Quagmire (And Make Good Targets For Terrorists)
I have stated before that I think Trump's refusal to disvest himself of his business interests (instead of just letting his children operate them) poses a great danger -- and would result in the Trump administration being the most corrupt presidential administration in this nation's history. I firmly believe that, and I'm not the only one. Pundits from both sides of the political spectrum are troubled by the ethical quagmire Trump's business interests pose.
The following post was written by Republican Richard W. Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush administration from 2005 to 2007, for the New York Times:
President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he would separate himself from his businesses before he enters the White House. More details about the arrangement will be announced in mid-December, but it sounds as if he plans to step away from only the management of his business, which presumably will be turned over to his children, while retaining ownership.
This is not enough. There has been much discussion of Mr. Trump’s business dealings’ putting him in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits government officials from accepting gifts and payments from foreign governments or corporations controlled by foreign governments. But there are other conflict-of-interest issues that have gotten less attention and could cause Mr. Trump — and America — much trouble as well. To prevent this, he must sell or give away his ownership interest in his global business empire as soon as possible.
One of Mr. Trump’s most lucrative initiatives has been the licensing of the Trump brand — and name. There are Trump-branded properties like towers and hotels in some 20 countries. .
This first presents an ethical problem: No president should allow his name to be put on commercial properties in return for payment. The presidency is not a branding opportunity. President Trump can’t do this unless he wants to create the impression that he is being paid off.
But it also presents a global security risk. A building branded with the name of an American president — any president, but perhaps especially Mr. Trump — would be a tempting target for terrorists and other enemies of the United States. Who is going to protect the buildings? Will the Trump organization hire a security firm to do the job, or will the American taxpayer be on the line for the bill? Will foreign governments offer to pay to secure the properties — a subsidy of the Trump organization that would probably violate the Emoluments Clause? If a terrorist attack, a botched security operation or some other tragedy happens on a Trump property, the United States could easily get drawn into a conflict abroad. And our adversaries know this. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of Mr. Trump’s conflict-of-interest problem.
Then there is the litigation risk. In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that the president can be sued in his personal capacity and required to testify in depositions and at trial. Sexual misconduct is a litigation magnet; extensive business operations are another. If Mr. Trump owns his businesses while he is president, it will be a lot easier for plaintiffs’ lawyers to sue him on behalf of customers, counterparties, investors and others, and to require his testimony under oath.
The Trump University case settled for $25 million shortly after the election, and lawyers will be looking for other quick and profitable settlements from a president who does not want to be embarrassed by litigation. As plaintiffs’ lawyers pile on, they will be egged on, and perhaps subsidized by, the president’s political opponents, as happened in the Paula Jones case against Bill Clinton. How can Mr. Trump focus on defending the country if he has to waste time defending himself in court?
The fundamental problem, of course, is one the founders envisioned: They did not want our government officials being paid off by foreign sovereigns. This is why the Constitution has the Emoluments Clause. We also have criminal statutes barring any quid pro quo involving public officials (bribery, solicitation of a bribe or offering of a bribe).
The possibility of quid pro quo will emerge every time somebody working for either the government or the Trump organization talks about government business and Trump business in the same conversation or with the same people. Nobody in the American government, including the president, should ask a foreign diplomat about any aspect of Trump business, including such matters as, for example, unsightly windmills that are too close to Mr. Trump’s golf courses. Such conversations will inevitably suggest a link between official government action and benefits for the Trump businesses. In other words, a bribe.
Even absent a quid pro quo, the Emoluments Clause bans payments to an American public official from foreign governments. Yet they will arise whenever foreign diplomats stay in Trump hotels at their governments’ expense; whenever parties are organized by foreign governments in Trump hotels (Bahrain just announced such a party in a Trump hotel this week); whenever loans are made to the company by the Bank of China or any other foreign-government-owned bank; whenever rent is paid by companies controlled by foreign governments with offices in Trump buildings; and whenever there is any other arrangement whereby foreign government money goes into the president’s businesses.
This problem does not go away because someone else is managing the business. It is still his money, and if he is president, he can’t take it. The only remedy for a serious violation of the Emoluments Clause is impeachment.
Finally, there are the broader policy issues. How can we expect a Trump administration to rein in loose lending practices, particularly in the real estate sector, when the president himself owes hundreds of millions of dollars to banks? What will he do when a foreign dictator acts up in a country where there is a Trump hotel? The American people should not have to worry about those conflicts of interest — and neither should President Trump.
For the good of the country, he should divest from his business empire as soon as possible, put the cash proceeds into United States treasury securities, broadly diversified mutual funds or a blind trust managed by an independent trustee, and then focus on being a good president.
Friday, December 02, 2016
GOP Is Preparing A January Bill To Destroy Obamacare
The Hill is reporting that congressional Republicans are already preparing a bill to do away with Obamacare. They want to have the bill, which will be passed in early January, ready for Trump's signature on Inauguration Day.
They know they can't outright repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The Senate Democrats would filibuster that to death. So, their plan is to defund Obamacare through a Budget Reconciliation Act (which cannot be filibustered, and can be passed in the Senate on a simple majority vote). Without any money, Obamacare would be effectively dead.
Republicans are scared though. They know that doing away with Obamacare will take health insurance away from more than 20 million people, and that could be catastrophic at the next election. To take care of that, their bill will delay the defunding for 18 to 36 months -- in the vain hope that in that time someone on the GOP side will come up with a plan that will help that 20 million keep insurance.
There's no much real hope of that happening though. They have floated various ideas, and none of them would save insurance for those who got coverage under Obamacare (and none would cut the cost of insurance or medical care). They seem to be living in a fantasy world. You can't take health insurance away and save it at the same time -- not without coming up with either a plan very similar to Obamacare or creating a single-payer plan (both of which they say they will not do).
The Republicans seem to think that most Americans hate Obamacare, and want to see it go away. But while a plurality say they view Obamacare unfavorable -- about 45% compared to 43% who view it favorably (see top chart) -- that does not mean they want Obamacare to die.
When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked what should be done with Obamacare, they got the following results -- 19% said to move forward with the law as it is, 30% wanted to expand it, and 17% wanted to keep it and scale it back. Only a tiny 26% wanted it repealed (see the top chart below).
What is it that people don't like about Obamacare. That is answered in the bottom chart below. It seems that the general public, Democrats, and Independents like everything about Obamacare except the individual mandate (the requirement that everyone have insurance or pay a penalty). Republicans liked everything except the individual mandate and the employer mandate.
That's right, all four groups liked everything else about Obamacare -- including providing subsidies to help people buy health insurance and giving states the right to expand Medicaid. It is just the individual mandate that is disliked. Obviously the public has been misinformed. They don't understand that the mandate applies to only a tiny minority, and without everyone having insurance the premiums for insurance would go sky-high (because insurers cannot just insure sick people).
While Obamacare is a big improvement over what we had before it was passed, it is far from perfect. It needs to be amended to cover all citizens and to control health care and health insurance costs. But killing Obamacare off will not solve those problems, especially since the GOP has no plan to address those issues.
It now looks like the Republicans will quickly kill Obamacare now that they control the government, but I think they are making a huge mistake -- and that mistake is going to rebound and bite them on the ass.
The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll was done between November 15th and 21st of a random national sample of 1,202 adults, and has a margin of error of 3 points.
Clinton Got Over 2.5 Million Votes More Than Trump
From the Cook Political Report. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton got 2,554,576 more votes nationwide than Donald Trump got -- and yet Trump will be sworn in as our next president in January. That is unjustifiable, and it's undemocratic. We must get rid of our archaic and unfair electoral college -- and return our country to a democracy (where the winner is the person who gets the most votes).
The silly electoral college system means that our corporate masters don't need to buy the votes of people in all 50 states (which even they could not afford to do), but only in a few "swing states". That's not democracy -- it's plutocracy.
Trump And Pence Buy 800 Jobs With Taxpayer Money
Trump had used Carrier's decision to ship a couple of thousand jobs to Mexico as a campaign theme. He promised that wouldn't happen if he was elected. Did he keep his promise? Not really.
First, only 800 jobs were actually kept in this country thanks to the Trump/Pence "deal" with Carrier. The other 300 jobs they are claiming to have saved were research and headquarters position -- which the company was never going to export.
Second, Carrier didn't keep those 800 jobs in Indiana out of the goodness of its corporate heart, or because Trump asked them to do it. They are receiving a very nice payoff -- they get $7 million dollars in tax cuts over the next 10 years -- about $8,750 in tax breaks for every job. That's not a "deal" -- it's a bribe (which I guess we should have expected, since Trump is used to paying bribes to get what he wants around the world).
In addition, Carrier's parent company (United Technologies) gets assurance that Trump won't interfere with their $5 billion in federal contracts.
This is not just a bad deal -- it's a terrible deal. And it sends a signal to every other American corporation. If you still owe any taxes after all the loopholes and subsidies you normally receive, then just threaten to move jobs to a low-wage country. The Trump administration will be happy to give you more millions in tax breaks. It makes millions more jobs a hostage to corporate greed.
And who gets to pay for those corporate tax breaks? State and federal taxpayers do. This may be a good deal to Trump, but it's a horrible deal for American taxpayers.
Third, Carrier (United Technologies) still gets to ship 600 jobs to Mexico from Indianapolis, and another 700 from Huntington, Indiana. So, after Trump's "great deal", 1300 jobs will still be lost to Mexico.
Is that your idea of a great deal?
(NOTE -- The image above is from YouTube.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)