Michael Goodwin

Obama's Jobs: Time To Stop
Passing The Blame

Steve Wynn Who Employs 15 To 20,000 Workers Shows His Disgust With Barack Obama and His Administration--Implies Correctly That A Bunch of Amateurs Will Not Create Jobs or Improve The Economy

Personal Income (Per Capita Income)Every Man, Woman and Child Drops Under Obama Stimulus

Thursday, March 25, 2010

U S personal income declined an average 1.7 percent in 2009--Composite Broken Down By Individual States

State Personal Income 2009

WASHINGTON DC, March 25, 2010

State personal income declined an average 1.7 percent in 2009, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Harry Reid's State of Nevada Takes Nation's Most Disastrous Hit

The annual percentage change in state personal income ranged from -4.8 percent in Nevada to 2.1 percent in West Virginia (one of six states with a personal income gain in 2009). Inflation, as measured by the national price index for personal consumption expenditures, fell to 0.2 percent in 2009 down from 3.3 percent in 2008.Map of US

In three of the six states with personal income growth in 2009, a rise in net earnings and transfer receipts offset declines in property income. Net earnings, which declined 3.7 percent nationally in 2009, rose 0.7 percent in Maryland, 0.7 percent in West Virginia, and 0.3 percent in Virginia. The gains in Maryland and Virginia largely reflect earnings inflows associated with commuters who work in the District of Columbia; wages and salaries paid by employers located in Maryland and Virginia fell 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent respectively. In the other three states with personal income gains in 2009 (Maine, Kentucky, and Hawaii), increased transfer receipts were sufficient to offset declines in both property income and net earnings.

Obama's Jobs

In the states with the largest personal income declines in 2009, the industries with the largest earnings losses typically reflected the states' distinctive economies: Nevada's 4.8 percent personal income decline, the second largest decline among states since 1969, is mostly accounted for by construction and the accommodations industry (which includes casino hotels). The biggest contributors to Wyoming's 3.9 percent personal income decline were mining (including oil and gas extraction) and construction. In New York, where personal income fell 3.4 percent, the earnings losses were primarily concentrated in the finance industry. The biggest earnings decline in Connecticut was also in the finance industry, but manufacturing and construction declined almost as much. Michigan's 3.0 percent personal income decline reflected large losses in durable goods manufacturing. The industries contributing the most to the 2.5 percent fall in personal income in California, and the 2.7 percent fall in Arizona and Florida were construction and manufacturing. Farming can account for all of South Dakota's 3.5 percent personal income decline.

Per capita personal income. Per capita personal income (personal income divided by population) fell 2.6 percent nationally in 2009 after rising 2.0 percent in 2008. Across states, per capita personal income fell as much as 5.9 percent in Wyoming and grew as much as 1.8 percent in West Virginia.

Fourth quarter personal income. State personal income growth averaged 0.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 and ranged from 0.3 percent in Wyoming to 2.2 percent in South Dakota. This is the largest average increase since the 1.2 percent rise in the second quarter of 2008 and contrasts with a 0.4 percent decline in the third quarter. Personal consumption prices rose 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, the same increase as in the third quarter.

Obama's Jobs

The industry making the largest contribution to fourth-quarter personal income growth nationally was health care. Notably, earnings in the cyclical manufacturing industry also grew in the fourth quarter for the first time in two years while construction earnings continued to fall. Excluding Texas, earnings in the state and local government industry fell $1.6 billion in the fourth quarter; in Texas those earnings grew $1.9 billion.

Five of the ten fastest growing states in the fourth quarter-South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas-are in the Plains region. Their strong performance is accounted for by the farm sector; nonfarm personal income growth in these states was at or below the national average.

Quick links to all of the regional statistics underlying this news release along with mapping and charting software and a detailed methodology are available at http://www.bea.gov/regional/quick.cfm.

Obama's Jobs

NOTE.–Quarter-to-quarter percent changes are calculated from unrounded data and are not annualized. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between published estimates.

Definitions

Personal income is the income received by all persons from all sources. Personal income is the sum of net earnings by place of residence, property income, and personal current transfer receipts. Property income is rental income of persons, personal dividend income, and personal interest income. Net earnings is earnings by place of work (the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors' income) less contributions for government social insurance, plus an adjustment to convert earnings by place of work to a place-of-residence basis. Personal income is measured before the deduction of personal income taxes and other personal taxes and is reported in current dollars (no adjustment is made for price changes).

Per capita personal income is calculated as the total personal income of the residents of a state divided by the population of the state. In computing per capita personal income, BEA uses the Census Bureau's annual midyear population estimates.

Disposable personal income is personal income less personal current taxes. It is the portion of personal income that is available for spending and saving.

The estimate of personal income in the United States is derived as the sum of the state estimates; it differs from the estimate of personal income in the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) because of differences in coverage, in the methodologies used to prepare the estimates, and in the timing of the availability of source data.

BEA groups all 50 states and the District of Columbia into eight distinct regions for purposes of data collecting and analyses: New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont); Mideast (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania); Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin); Plains (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota); Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia); Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas); Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming); and Far West (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington).

Obama's Jobs

BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business; and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

****

Job Losses Continuing in 2010

NASDAQ

Excerpts:

The unemployment rate, calculated using a household survey, fell to 9.7% last month from an unrevised 10% in December, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast the jobless rate would edge higher to 10.1%.

Meantime, nonfarm payrolls fell by 20,000 compared with a revised 150,000 drop decline in December. Economists had expected payrolls to be flat. The December figure was revised down sharply from an originally reported 85,000 drop.

The Labor Department's annual benchmark revision to the survey that produces the monthly payroll report painted a bleaker 2009 picture. Last year, job losses were almost 600,000 more than previously reported, the revisions showed.

Full article 20,000 More Jobs Lost in January

Real Clear Politics

October 12, 2009

Job losses mar recovery, create woes for Dems

Tom Raum

Excerpts:

A distressed economy is widely blamed for President George H.W. Bush's re-election defeat in 1992, and a decade earlier, for the loss of 26 House seats in midterm elections by Ronald Reagan's Republicans. Yet in both instances recession had already ended or was winding down.

It's a point not lost on President Barack Obama's White House or Democrats headed into next year's midterm elections. The stock market may be up, U.S. service industries may be recovering, banks may be lending again and housing prices holding. But one major piece of the recovery puzzle is still missing: a brighter employment picture.

And that's bad news for the party in power, whether the recession is officially over or not.

Job losses are expected to continue at least into the middle of next year, likely driving the unemployment rate above 10 percent from 9.8 percent last month. It could take three or four more years for it to fall to normal levels.

Full article Tom Raum Real Clear Politics

Yahoo!

Reuters

U.S. Sept non-farm payrolls plunge 263,000

On Friday October 2, 2009, 8:32 am EDT

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers cut a deeper-than-expected 263,000 jobs in September, lifting the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent, according to a government report on Friday that fueled fears the weak labor market could undermine economic recovery.Reuters - A worker constructs a new home in Geneva, Illinois, June 23, 2009. REUTERS/Jeff Haynes ...

The Labor Department said the unemployment rate was the highest since June 1983 and payrolls had now dropped for 21 consecutive months.

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 180,000 in September and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the prior month. The poll was conducted before reports, including regional manufacturing surveys, showed some deterioration in employment measures.

Full article Lucia Mutikani Yahoo!

REAL CLEAR MARKETS

October 1, 2009

Job Creation Bills Will Kill Them

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Excerpts:

...The bill even acknowledges the likelihood of job losses in a lengthy section on how to compensate workers who lose their jobs. Entitled "Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance," it sets out a petition process for workers from energy-producing industries, or those industries dependent on energy, or energy-intensive industries, or consumer goods manufacturers. That list doesn't leave much unmentioned...

Other Job losing measures--HEALTH CARE

...The House and Senate health-care bills face similar problems. Although President Obama this summer was calling health-care reform a prerequisite for economic recovery, the bills would be expensive, and would have to be paid for by increased taxes. Taxes discourage work and investment, thereby reducing employment.

UNIONS--THE "UNION INTIMIDATION BY THUGS" BILL EUPHEMISTICALLY CALLED THE "EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT"

...Fewer than 8% of private-sector workers belong to unions, and large unionized manufacturing industries are going offshore in search of less-expensive labor. Unionized auto companies are shrinking and losing market share to non-union firms because of difference in labor costs...

FULL ARTICLE Diana Furchtgott-Roth Real Clear Politics

WASHINGTON TIMES

He's spending your future

After the president taxes the rich, you're next

By Mark Steyn (Contact)

Monday, August 24, 2009

Excerpts:

The other day, wending my way from Woodsville, N.H., 40 miles south to Plymouth, I came across several "stimulus" projects -- every few miles, and heralded by a two-tone sign, a hitherto rare sight on Granite State highways. The orange strip at the top said, "Putting America Back to Work" with a silhouette of a man with a shovel, and the green part underneath informed readers that what they were about to see was a "Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." There then followed a few yards of desolate, abandoned scarified pavement, followed by an "End of Road Works" sign, until the next "stimulus" project a couple of bends down a quiet rural blacktop.

I don't know why one of the least fiscally debauched states in the union needs funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to repair random stretches of highway, especially stretches that were perfectly fine until someone came along to dig them up in order to access "stimulus" funding. I would have asked one of those men with a shovel, as depicted on the sign. But there were none to be found. Usually in New Hampshire, they dig up the road and regrade or repave it while flagmen stand guard until it's all done. But here a certain federal torpor seemed to hang in the eerie silence.

Still, what do I know? Evidently, this has stimulated the sign-making industry, putting America back to work by putting up "Putting America Back to Work" signs every 200 yards across the land. At $300 a pop, the signage alone should be enough to launch an era of unparalleled prosperity, assuming America's gilded sign magnates don't spend their newfound wealth on Bahamian vacations and European imports.

Full article Mark Steyn Washington Times

BreiBart.Com

Unemployment tops 10 percent in 16 states in June

Jul 17 10:45 AM US/Eastern

By JEANNINE AVERSA

AP Economics Writer

National Unemployment Rate Reaches 9.5 Percent

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Labor Department says unemployment topped 10 percent in 16 states last month. The rate in Michigan surpassed 15 percent, the first time any state hit that mark since 1984.

Home to the nation's struggling auto makers, Michigan has been clobbered by lost factory jobs. Its jobless rate of 15.2 percent in June was the highest in the country, but the record-high for the state was 16.9 percent in November 1982.

Still, the government says it's the first time in 25 years that any state has suffered an unemployment rate of at least 15 percent. In 1984, it was West Virginia.

The national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, a 26-year high, and is expected to hit 10 percent by year-end.

Full article Jeannine Aversa AP Brightbart.Com

Recovery's Missing Ingredient: New Jobs

Experts Warn of A Long Dry Spell

By Michael A. Fletcher

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, June 22, 2009

Excerpts:

Despite signs that the recession gripping the nation's economy may be easing, the unemployment rate is projected to continue rising for another year before topping out in double digits, a prospect that threatens to slow growth, increase poverty and further complicate the Obama administration's message of optimism about the economic outlook.This Story

Recovery's Missing Ingredient: New Jobs

The likelihood of severe unemployment extending into the 2010 midterm elections and beyond poses a significant political hurdle to President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are already under fire for what critics label profligate spending. Continuing high unemployment rates would undercut the fundamental argument behind much of that spending: the promise that it will create new jobs and improve the prospects of working Americans, which Obama has called the ultimate measure of a healthy economy.

"Our hope would be to actually create some jobs this year," Obama said in an interview with The Washington Post in the days before taking office.

Obama has defended his economic approach -- which includes the $787 billion economic stimulus plan and record investments in health care, alternative energy, education and job training -- as necessary to stabilize the shaky economy and point the way to job growth.

Full article Michael A. Fletcher Washinton Post

###

The economy is now under the complete control of President Barack Obama and the large majority of the Democratic Congress.

As the new president extracts trillions of dollars from taxpayers, and constantly decries the mistakes of the Bush administration, it is time for him to deliver.

Let's have ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS to replace Mr. Obama's present course of WORDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN ACTIONS.

Mr. President, for well over sixteen months-12 campaigning and four after being elected, we've heard a non-stop drumbeat of all that the Bush/Cheney administration did wrong and how much you would change for the better.

You've now been given the largest amount of money ever given to any person or entity of any kind, with a huge majority in congress backing you and according to polls, the huge backing of a majority of Americans.

It is time to either deliver with reasonably rapid results or change course.

Since we are already past the normal turn down period of about one year, by about 4 months, the time for deflecting blame and put up or shut up has arrived.

Obama's Jobs To Editorials

Consumer Price Index +0.3% Jan 2009

Unemployment Rate 8.1% Feb 2009

Payroll Employment -651,000(p) Feb 2009

Average Hourly Earnings +$0.03(p) Feb 2009

Obama's Jobs

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director

U.S. Congress

Washington, DC 20515

March 2, 2009

Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

At your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared a year-by-yearestimate of the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009 (ARRA, Public Law 111-5), which was enacted on February 17, 2009.

Obama's Jobs

Short-Run EffectsThe macroeconomic impacts of any economic stimulus program are very uncertain.Economic theories differ in their predictions about the effectiveness of stimulus.Furthermore, large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted, so it is difficult to distinguishamong alternative estimates of how large the macroeconomic effects would be. Forthose reasons, some economists remain skeptical that there will be any significanteffects, while others expect very large ones.CBO has developed a range of estimates of the effects of stimulus legislation on grossdomestic product (GDP) and employment that encompasses a majority of economists’views. By CBO’s estimation, in the short run ARRA will raise GDP and increaseemployment by adding to aggregate demand and thereby boosting the utilization oflabor and capital that would otherwise be unused because the economy is in recession.

Obama's Jobs

Most of the budgetary effects of the legislation are estimated to occur over the next fewyears, and as those effects diminish, the short-run impact on the economy will fade.Different provisions in the law differ in both the magnitude and timing of their effectson aggregate demand. To simplify analysis of the overall effects, CBO grouped thevarious provisions into a number of more general categories. Each category wasassumed to have a range of effects on the economy that could by summarized by“multipliers”—the cumulative effect on output of a one-time increase in spending, orreduction in taxes, of one dollar. The numbers in Table 1 indicate the cumulative impactof the provisions in each category, on average, on GDP over several quarters. Forexample, a one-time increase in federal purchases of goods and services of $1.00 in thesecond quarter of this year would raise GDP by $1.00 to $2.50 in total over severalquarters, with most of that effect in the first two quarters and little effect beyond a year.

Obama's Jobs

www.cbo.gov

Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Page 2

The multipliers are applied to outlays when they occur and to changes in taxes ortransfer payments when they affect disposable income. CBO’s estimates thereforeaccount for the different rates of spending for various types of appropriations and,similarly, for the timing of the different tax cuts or transfers.Table 1 also shows the categories to which CBO assigned the major provisions ofARRA. (In some cases, when different elements of a single provision were estimated tohave different multipliers, the total cost of a provision was divided among more thanone category. In those cases, the provision is shown in the table in the category to whichmost of its budgetary cost applied.) Provisions affecting outlays (including refundabletax provisions) are identified by the same names used in CBO’s cost estimate for theconference agreement on H.R. 1 (see Table 2). Provisions affecting revenues areidentified by the names used in the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue estimate forthe same legislation.

Obama's Jobs

1 Long-Run Effects

In the long run, the economy produces close to its potential output on average, and thatpotential level is determined by the stock of productive capital, the supply of labor, andproductivity. Short-run stimulative policies can affect long-run output by influencingthose three factors, although such effects would generally be smaller than the short-runimpact of those policies on demand.In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation will reduceoutput slightly in the long run, CBO estimates. The principal channel for that effect,which would also arise from other proposals to provide short-term economic stimulusby increasing government spending or reducing revenues, is that the law will result inan increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth asgovernment bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment,the increased debt will tend to reduce the stock of productive private capital. Ineconomic parlance, the debt will “crowd out” private investment. (Crowding out isunlikely to occur in the short run under current conditions, because most firms arelowering investment in response to reduced demand, which stimulus can offset in part.)CBO’s basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowdsout about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital (with the remainder ofthe rise in debt offset by increases in private saving and inflows of foreign capital).Because of uncertainty about the degree of crowding out, however, CBO hasincorporated both more and less crowding out into its range of estimates of the long-runeffects of the stimulus legislation.The crowding-out effect will be offset somewhat by other factors. Some of thelegislation’s provisions, such as funding for improvements to roads and highways,might add to the economy’s potential output in much the same way that private capitalinvestment does. Other provisions, such as funding for grants to increase access to1 See www.house.gov/jct/x-19-09.pdf.Honorable Charles E. GrassleyPage 3college education, could raise long-term productivity by enhancing people’s skills. Andsome provisions will create incentives for increased private investment. According toCBO’s estimates, provisions that could add to long-term output account for betweenone-quarter and one-third of the legislation’s budgetary cost.The effect of individual provisions could vary greatly. For example, increased spendingfor basic research and education might affect output only after a number of years, butonce those investments began to boost GDP, they might pay off over more years thanwould the average investment in physical capital (in economic terms, they have a lowrate of depreciation). Therefore, in any one year, their contribution to output might beless than that of the average private investment, even if their overall contribution toproductivity over their lifetime was just as high. Moreover, although some carefullychosen government investments might be as productive as private investment, othergovernment projects would probably fall well short of that benchmark, particularly inan environment in which rapid spending is a significant goal. The response of state andlocal governments that receive federal stimulus grants will also affect their long-runimpact; those governments might apply some of that money to investments they wouldhave carried out anyway, thus lowering the long-run economic return on those grants. Inorder to encompass a wide range of potential effects, CBO used two assumptions indeveloping its estimates: first, that all of the relevant investments together will, onaverage, add as much to output as would a comparable amount of private investment,and second, that they will, on average, not add to output at all.In principle, the legislation’s long-run impact on output also will depend on whether itpermanently changes incentives to work or save. However, according to CBO’sestimates, the legislation will not have any significant permanent effects on thoseincentives.Net Effects on Output and EmploymentTaking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that thelegislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast ofbetween 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percentand 3.4 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent bythe fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 3). Beyond2015, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent. Toillustrate the short- and long-run effects of the legislation on output, with CBO’sJanuary baseline projection of potential GDP set as a reference point, Figure 1 showsthree different projections of the economy’s actual output: CBO’s January baselineprojection of GDP (which does not include the effects of ARRA), GDP using CBO’shigh estimate of the effects of the legislation; and GDP using CBO’s low estimate of theeffects of the legislation.22 For details of CBO’s January 2009 baseline, see Congressional Budget Office, The Budget andEconomic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009-2019 (January 2009).Honorable Charles E. GrassleyPage 4Corresponding to the effects on output, CBO estimates that ARRA will increaseemployment by 0.9 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 millionto 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.8 million by the fourthquarter of 2011, and