Showing posts with label Unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unemployment. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Peter Ferrara

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies.  As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics.  That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.  Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%.  It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently.  The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years.  The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.  The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.  They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet.  In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars.  By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion.  Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics.  Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax.  As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year.  The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times.  The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors.  The death tax rate would go back up to 55%.  In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill.  In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well.  Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere.  While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.  After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more.  After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months.  Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression.  Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery.  Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years.  Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years.  By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression.  But this is not correct.  This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.  Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective.  While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

Peter Ferrara is director of policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at the Heartland Institute.  He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under President George H. W. Bush.  He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins.

Friday, November 09, 2012

Give a Man a Fish…


By: Bryan Baumgart  

11/2/2012


In total since January of 2009, a net of 194,000 new jobs have been created while 14.7 million people have joined the food stamp rolls. As The Weekly Standard points out today, “During that time, our nation’s debt has risen $5.63 trillion. Total spending on food stamps is now more than $80 billion annually. Total welfare spending is now approximately $1 trillion, or enough to send every household beneath the federal poverty line an annual check for $60,000.”

Some may not be surprised by this trend; we are after all in the grips of a pretty stagnant economy. The problem however, isn’t the ever increasing number of Americans added to the rolls of food stamps. The problem is that the current administration has put in a much greater effort to increase food stamp rolls than to increase job creation. They have promoted dependence rather than empowerment.

President Obama claims, “We do not pressure any eligible person to accept benefits, nor is our goal to simply increase the number of program participants.” You can imagine how surprised I was then, when I was approached by a friend recently who mentioned that they were currently receiving SNAP themselves. They stated that while applying for college at Education Quest, counselors approached them and suggested they apply for SNAP.  The process was easy enough. They applied, had an interview, and began receiving food stamps immediately. Counselors even coached them on how to be accepted into the program stating, “It helps if you are a full time student working at least 20 hours a week.”

Despite the president’s claims, the focus of the Obama administration remains on increasing enrollment in SNAP. The administration has partnered with Mexico, meeting with Mexican officials over 30 times in an effort to boost participation among immigrants.

The USDA boasts a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” Awards are provided to local assistance offices for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits. A “Common SNAP Myths” sheet details the importance of reaching people who do not think they qualify or have beliefs that conflict with accepting food stamps. A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program. Despite the high rate of food stamp participation, the USDA has numerous blueprints posted on their website aimed at getting more people to enroll. The USDA even goes so far as to argue that the program is “the most direct stimulus you can get.”

Only 194,000 net jobs have been created under the Obama administration. This pace doesn’t even keep up with the population increase. So few jobs have been created that the employment rate actually decreased due to an increasing number of working age adults have given up even looking for jobs. The real unemployment number (U-6) currently hovers around 14.6 percent.

While on the campaign trail, the president’s slogan has been to, “ask a little more from the wealthy”.  He doesn’t plan to ask though, he plans to take. Allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire equates to a tax increase on job creators. In the words of Senator Marco Rubio, “I have never met a business owner waiting for the next big tax increase before he will create some jobs.”  Under the president’s current proposals, job creation in the private sector isn’t likely to pick up anytime soon. If these trends continue, we won’t have enough employed Americans to fund SNAP for the needy. If the trends aren’t reversed, America will soon go the way of our European neighbors.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Congressman Wants REAL Unemployment Rate as New Standard


The important numbers:
  • 88 MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF WORK (More people not working in American than entire population of Germany).
  • 19.1% IS THE REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.
by Wynton Hall - 4/1-/2012

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) wants Americans to know what the real unemployment rate is, not the figure that the Bureau of Labor calls unemployment which excludes those who have given up hope and are no longer seeking employment.

Rep. Hunter says his one-page bill, the "REAL Unemployment Calculation Act" (H.R. 4128), is not an effort to make President Barack Obama look bad, but rather to shoot straight with the American people:

“If a Republican gets elected this year and gets sworn in next year this will be their unemployment figure too. So you have to have truth no matter who it hurts or who it actually affects. You have to have the actual truth, that’s what we need here - truth to power. And that’s how things start getting fixed,” Hunter said on Fox News.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the current unemployment rate at 8.2 percent. If Rep. Hunter's bill were to become law, the current unemployment rate would be 9.6 percent.

Presently, the government already calculates both figures, but reports the so-called U-3 rate as the nation's official unemployment figure. Rep. Hunter's proposal would report the U-5 rate as the nation's unemployment rate.

The U-5 stat measures, “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,” while the U-3 stat or the “official unemployment rate,” measures, “total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force.”

Rep. Hunter believes the currently used U-3 statistics ignores “a subset of Americans who are not counted.”

As The Hill reports, the U-5 rate Rep. Hunter favors does not include all individuals out of work:

Still, the U-5 rate does not factor the reasons that individuals stopped looking for work, such as, deciding to go to school, inheriting money, or realizing that jobs were not available in their local area. It also does not account for the number of individuals who are on unemployment insurance, according to a source familiar with the monthly survey.

Still, Rep. Hunter believes the change would be a step in the right direction and would provide greater transparency about the unemployment crisis:

We need to be realistic and focus our attention on the figure that provides the most accurate representation of national unemployment—not the figure that under-represents the challenge we face.

As Big Government reported Saturday, a record 87,897,000 Americans are not in the labor force. When the number of individuals who have stopped looking for a job and/or who are working part-time but desire full-time employment is included--a figure known as the "underemployment rate"--real unemployment now stands at 19.1%.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

GOP Wants BLS to Report the Real Unemployment Numbers


Counting only those Americans who are actively looking for work, the jobless rate is 8.3 percent, but counting those who stopped looking for work within the last year, the rate is 9.8 percent. And counting all of the above, plus those who settled for part-time jobs, the rate is 14.9 percent. 

March 09, 2012 - Fox News

While the Labor Department reports a surge in private-sector hiring and the nation's unemployment rate holding steady at 8.3 percent, a closer look at the numbers paints a less flattering picture of the country's post-recession growth.

The latest report for February shows lingering economic disparities among different segments of the population. And, as has been the case for decades, the unemployment rate used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not tell the whole story.

Related Stories
Economy adds 227,000 jobs in February, unemployment rate unchanged at 8.3 percent
On the Job Hunt: Job seekers leverage social media

Counting only those Americans who are actively looking for work, the jobless rate is 8.3 percent, just like it was in January. But counting those who stopped looking for work within the last year, the rate is 9.8 percent.

And counting all of the above, plus those who settled for part-time jobs, the rate is 14.9 percent.

"Everybody who has friends knows it's higher," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told Fox News.

Hunter is pushing legislation that would require the Bureau of Labor Statistics to broaden its definition for the unemployment rate. He wants the department to count those who stopped looking for work as well, which would put last month's rate at 9.8 percent.

"We just want to know what the truth is, because we can't make good policy here unless we know what the actual unemployment number is," Hunter told Fox News on Thursday, ahead of the latest labor report release. "It's not 8 percent -- anybody who's out there in the real world knows that. We need real numbers, not D.C. numbers."

The report continues to show subsets like white college grads faring the best in the slow-to-recover economy.

Black workers still face a 14.1 percent jobless rate. The rate for Hispanics is 10.7 percent.

Education level is a huge factor. While those with a bachelor's degree or higher have a 4.2 percent unemployment rate, those with less than a high school diploma are looking at 12.9 percent unemployment.

Youth unemployment, for those between 16 and 19, is 23.8 percent. Black youth unemployment is 34.7 percent.

As a whole, though, the economy showed sustained growth. Employers added 227,000 jobs in February, keeping up one of the best hiring streaks since the recession.

The Obama administration on Friday said the report shows the economy is going in the right direction.

"Today's employment report provides further evidence that the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression," Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement. "It is critical that we continue the economic policies that are helping us dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the recession that began at the end of 2007, including measures to help the sectors that were most severely harmed by the bubble economy that misdirected investment and created too few durable jobs."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/09/jobless-stats-reveal-disparities-as-economy-starts-to-recover/#ixzz1ol0Rnaqu

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Not Enough “Rich” to Cover the Deficit

Barack Obama would have us believe that if the "rich" would just pay their fair share our economic woes would disappear. History tells us that the opposite approach – lowering the tax burden on everyone, including higher earners –  is the real path to economic growth and higher tax revenues.

With all of Barack Obama's overblown rhetoric about the "rich" paying their fair share, what effect (other than making it more difficult for job-creators to add to their staffs) would higher taxes have on reducing deficits?
  • Those earning more than $10 million per year earned a total of $240 billion in 2009. That would fund federal government operations for a mere 18 days.
  • If every dime earned by taxpayers making over $1,000,000 was paid in taxes, it would still not cover the federal deficit.
  • Even doubling federal income taxes for every taxpayer would fall short of a balanced budget by $400 billion.
So, let's sum up. The rich don't have the money to bring order to our budget chaos, nearly half of all "taxpayers" pay no federal income taxes at all, and a large number receive more in refunds than they had withheld in taxes.

What is the answer?

The only remaining solution is to drastically scale back Obama's Solyndra-type projects, hack away at waste in government, eliminate redundant federal bureaucracies and take a meat cleaver to whole programs that the federal government should leave to private industry.

Read the article in the Daily Mail.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/39534 

IRS: Not enough rich to cover the deficit

August 5, 2011 by Don Surber

Soak the rich, eh?

They do not have the money.

A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.

Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.
Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.

Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.

In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.

From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers. Adjusted gross income is the amount on the last line of the front page of a Form 1040 tax return.”

Individual tax collections totaled $1,175,422,000,000 in 2009 — or 15.4% of all income.

Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.

We must cut. We cannot afford to buy everything we want.

Nearly Half of Americans Don't Pay Income Tax

Talk about living at other's expense!!!  I have always hated the term, "living off of the government".  No you aren't!  We ARE the government...you are living off of US!!!

Chart of the Week: Nearly Half of All Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes

Rob Bluey: February 19, 2012

This year’s Index of Dependence on Government presented startling findings about the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. (See last week’s chart.)

Another eye-popping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now accounts for nearly half of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, most of that population receives generous federal benefits.

“One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.

The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government, Beach and Tyrrell warned. Coupled with higher spending on government programs, it is already proving to be a major fiscal challenge.

“This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government,” Beach and Tyrrell wrote. “If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?”