How much fun can one administration have? More dead GIs. New record trade deficit. Stock market plunge. Defeated ally in Spain. New Spanish prime minister says the occupation in Iraq is a "continuing disaster" and he's pulling his troops out. Still no jobs. And then the guy who was supposed to be the new jobs czar turns out to have laid off 75 of his own workers while building a $3 million factory in China to employ 165 Chinese people. Whoever has the aspirin concession at the White House must be making a fortune.
The unfortunate matter of the would-be jobs czar came at a particularly awkward moment. More than six months ago, President Bush promised to appoint a "manufacturing czar" at the Commerce Department. As the Center for American Progress points out, since then we've lost another 250,000 manufacturing jobs. Bush was on his way to Ohio last week, where the economy has just been hemorrhaging jobs, to "focus on jobs." He actually claimed, "We're creating jobs – good, high-paying jobs for the American citizen."
The guy is living on some parallel planet. Bush chose Anthony Raimondo, CEO of a manufacturing company in Nebraska, to be the jobs czar, which would have worked out better if Raimondo hadn't just outsourced those 165 jobs to China. The website Daily Misleader found a truly impressive convergence between Bush's top campaign contributors and the corporations that have outsourced the most jobs abroad. Bush has gotten $440,000 and the Republican Party has gotten $3.6 million from the corporations that have outsourced the most jobs, including American Express, Bechtel and several computer companies.
Here's the catch. Even if the globalizers are right, and outsourcing every manufacturing job in America – which is pretty much where we're headed – is a terrific idea, what does it take to get the "good, high-paying jobs" Bush claims they're creating?
In theory, the new jobs will be "brain jobs" in biotechnology and other forms of advanced applied science, plus the creative fields, and for that you need scientists, entrepreneurs, creative people and intellectuals. Basically, everybody Bush doesn't like.
He's shown so much favoritism to the big corporations, I don't see how he can claim to like even entrepreneurs. He has consistently replaced scientists on all kinds of government advisory boards with religious activists. He had ignored scientific reports that indicate his various policies either don't work or are actually harmful.
This White House has changed and rewritten reports made by government scientists, particularly in the area of the environment. Bush kissed off biotechnology with the stem cell research decision. Apparently, he hates Hollywood. We know he doesn't like intellectuals, and he's not in favor of green technology because he continues to subsidize extractive and polluting industries with tax breaks. How do they ever expect this thing to work?
Apparently, they think they can just lie about it. Last month, Bush released a personally signed report claiming his economic plan would create 2.6 million new jobs. Then he had to "distance himself," as they say in Washington, from that absurdity, and so Labor Secretary Elaine Chao appeared before Congress last week to claim Bush never actually signed the report.
Their contempt for government means they just don't govern well. What can you say about an administration that threatens to fire people if they tell the truth to Congress?
The latest example of this charming policy is the case of Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Knight-Ridder News Service reported in an exclusive that Foster's boss at the time, Thomas Scully, wrote "a direct order not to respond to certain requests and instead to provide the responses to him and warned about the consequences of insubordination."
What Scully was sitting on was the rather pertinent information that Foster's cost estimates on that stinking prescription drug bill were $100 billion higher than Congress was willing to go. You may recall the prescription drug bill – which is practically no help to seniors and is a giant payoff to Bush's big contributors in the pharmaceutical industry – passed the House on a 216 to 215 vote after the R's held the vote open for hours.
Many R's were unhappy with the bill and vowed not to vote for it if it cost more $400 billion in the first 10 years. Foster had a whole series of estimates that put the bill at over $500 billion. In January, the White House said the cost would be $540 billion.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said, "Tom Scully told my staff that Rick Foster would be 'fired so fast his head would spin' if he released this information to us." Last summer, Scully told The Associated Press: "They don't have the right on the Hill to call up my actuary and demand things. These people work for the executive branch, period."
Scully said he would release the analysis, "if I feel like it." Uh, actually, "Mr. Scully's people" work for the taxpayers of this country and so does he, and we're represented in Washington by the Congress.
We are also of the opinion that Congress writes better legislation when it has some idea – within a hundred billion or so – what the damn law will cost us.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:54:50 PM new
Good article, Bunni. I watch Lou Dobbs (CNN) when I can and he says pretty much the same thing. It's sad to watch anymore. I wonder if any newly elected President will be able to undo the crap he's dealt?
posted on March 17, 2004 01:29:55 PM new
In spite of that somewhat biased report:
---------------------
Survey: Nearly One-Third of Businesses Hiring in Second Quarter
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
March 17, 2004
MILWAUKEE, WI (Talon News) -- A new survey finds that hiring by American companies will take off in the second quarter to meet the demand for goods and services by the American consumer.
The Manpower survey released on Tuesday found that 28 percent of the 16,000 businesses polled are planning on hiring between April and June.
This is a significant jump from the 20 percent who expanded in the first quarter this year.
Hiring projections are double what they were for the second quarter in 2003. In fact, this is the third straight quarter that hiring projections have increased.
Additionally, companies who said they would be reducing their workforce fell from 13 percent in the first quarter to a mere 6 percent in the second quarter.
Manpower chief executive Jeffrey Joerres said he has seen a "pent-up demand for workers" because of tremendous economic growth.
"Someone looking for a job no doubt will have an easier time now than in recent memory, than in the past two or three years," Joerres revealed in his analysis of the survey results.
This bodes well for President George W. Bush who has been touting his economic policies during his reelection campaign.
And this is not good news for likely Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) who has attempted to use the issue of jobs as the centerpiece of his campaign to defeat Bush.
The survey provides solid evidence that jobs will continue to be created as they have for the past six months.
As for the specific industries showing the best opportunity for hiring, the Manpower survey shows the construction industry in the South is booming.
A robust 42 percent of construction companies say they will be increasing hiring in the coming months.
Manpower declares this as the most anticipated quarter for job growth since the first quarter of 2001.
Also, Manpower reports job prospects in the South are expected to be the strongest while those in the Northeast will not be as strong.
The survey was taken by telephone in late January/early February and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.8 percentage points.
Manpower is the largest source for temporary workers in the United States.
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
posted on March 17, 2004 01:50:00 PM newKerry Makes Bogus Comparison to Great Depression
He claims US suffers greatest job loss since the 30's, which is not true
December 4, 2003
Modified: December 5, 2003
Summary
John Kerry didn?t make it through the third paragraph of his formal announcement speech before stumbling over a key fact about the U.S. economy. In his Sept. 2 speech in South Carolina, Kerry claimed the U.S. is suffering ?the greatest job loss since the Great Depression.? That?s wrong.
Analysis
Comparing the current job slump to the Great Depression is ludicrous.
In the 1929-1933 economic disaster an estimated one in four American worker were idle. There?s been nothing remotely like it since. In the Bush slump unemployment peaked at 6.4% before it started to decline due to strong economic growth. The unemployment rate has been higher than that in seven of the nine previous slumps going back to 1950. The worst unemployment since the Great Depression actually was in Ronald Reagan's first term, when it peaked at 10.8% in November and December of 1982.
Kerry based his claim on raw numbers of jobs lost, but he still got it wrong. The standard measure of payroll jobs -- what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "total nonfarm employment" -- declined by just over 2.7 million between its peak in February 2001 and August 2003, when it hit bottom. That's fewer jobs lost than in the much more severe Reagan downturn, when more than 2.8 million jobs were lost.
Furthermore, Kerry's distortion is even worse when population growth is taken into account. Measured as a percentage of peak employment, Bush's job loss was just over 2% of all jobs, compared to more than 3% in the Reagan downturn.
Analysts at the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute state that this was ?the worst hiring slump since the Great Depression,? but they were careful ? as Kerry and many other Democrats are not ? to make clear that they were speaking only of private sector jobs, not total jobs. But the EPI statement is itself misleading, ignoring the fact that government hiring grew even while private-sector businesses shed jobs.
As a result, looking only at private jobs makes the job picture look more bleak than it really is. It is true that nearly 3.3 million private sector jobs disappeared between the peak of employment in February 2001 and the depth of the job slump in August, 2003. And that is the highest number of private-sector jobs lost during any slump since 1939 when records first were kept.
But that 'record' is due mainly to population growth, not to the severity of this downturn.
Furthermore, many of the government jobs that EPI?s analysis ignores are better than the private sector jobs that disappeared. For proof of this, look no further than the 50,000 federal airport security screeners who now work for the Transportation Safety Administration, replacing low-wage contract employees.
Sources
John Kerry, "Kerry Announcement Speech," Patriot's Point SC 2 Sept. 2003.
Annenberg Public Policy Center, "US Unemployment 1948 - 2003," Nov. 2003.
Jared Bernstein and Lawrence Mishel, "Labor market left behind: Evidence shows that post-recession economy has not turned into a recovery for workers" Briefing Paper #142, Economic Policy Institute (Washington DC) Sept. 2003.
posted on March 17, 2004 03:33:01 PM new
I do not think that there is any way to stop outsourcing however there is no reason to give these same corporations millions in tax credits to do so.
If they want to move to cheap labor markets then I see no need for the taxpayers to fund them.
Lou Dobbs [CNN] had a good point showing that at the present rate that jobs are leaving that in 20 years the U.S will become a third rate nation.
China and India will dictate policy that will effect everyone else as they become the new super powers.
The sad part is that we just handed it over to them. The empire is in decline.
posted on March 17, 2004 06:00:21 PM new
Job Losses and Trade
A Reality Check
by Brink Lindsey
Brink Lindsey is the director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies.
Executive Summary
Fears about job losses and chronic job shortages are on the loose again. Over the past few years, millions of U.S. jobs have disappeared, and foreign competition is increasingly taking the blame. Manufacturing jobs are supposedly fleeing to China, while service-sector jobs are being "offshored" to India.
Job losses are always painful, and the recent recession and sluggish recovery have meant real hardship for many Americans. It is important, however, to shun hysteria and demagoguery in assessing what is going on with the labor market and why. The employment picture today is that of a temporary, cyclical shortage of jobs caused by the recent downturn; there is no permanent shortage of good jobs on the horizon.
Even in good times, job losses are an inescapable fact of life in a dynamic market economy. Old jobs are constantly being eliminated as new positions are created. Total U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 17.8 million between 1993 and 2002. To produce that healthy net increase, a breath-taking total of 327.7 million jobs were added, while 309.9 million jobs were lost. In other words, for every one new net private-sector job created during that period, 18.4 gross job additions had to offset 17.4 gross job losses.
International trade contributes only modestly to this frenetic job turnover. Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Meanwhile, despite the new offshoring trend, the Department of Labor is forecasting a 35 percent increase in computer-and math-related jobs over the next decade.
Calls for new trade restrictions to preserve current jobs are misguided. There is no significant difference between jobs lost because of trade and those lost because of technologies or work processes. All of those job losses are a painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and productivity increases that is the source of new wealth and rising living standards.
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
posted on March 18, 2004 10:27:34 PM new
The bottom line is that the US economy has lost 2.7 million jobs, and for those of you that think the "unemployment rate" dropping is an indicator that jobs are being created are misinformed. The unemplyment rate now only counts those who are drawing unemployment insurance. The 375,000 people whose unemployment insurance ran out in January 2004 are no longer counted as unemployed.
Bush is the first president since Hoover to have a net job loss.
I think it makes little difference to those that have lost their jobs to quibble over whether the statistics compare to the Great Depression.
Bush is a dolt. Due to his record, he doesn't deserve to be elected.
And we must keep in mind that he wasn't actaully elected the last time.
posted on March 18, 2004 11:03:15 PM new
Someone refresh my memory. When was Nafta signed? Who was President? Who is sending American companies overseas?
posted on March 18, 2004 11:39:05 PM new
this problem of companies relocating in countries with cheaper labor is not unique to the U.S.A.
Germany seems to be having a worse time of it than we are. Too many foreign laborers comming in and companies going where the profit is higher. It's happening in a lot of countries that enjoyed a good economy.
posted on March 18, 2004 11:47:41 PM new
Linda, we recently discussed Bush Sr.'s dream of NAFTA and how he wanted it so bad or is it easier to just overlook that? I found this on NAFTA and I don't think you can put all the blame on Clinton.
******************************************
A little background on NAFTA:
Gerald Ford started planning for free trade between Ottawa and Michigan in the seventies. Also in the seventies, an office for free trade was opened in our government and was charged with developing the plan. The US/Canada Free Trade Agreement was the result and was signed and implemented during the Reagan administration. There was much talk about expanding it and calling it the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement and adding Mexico and Great Britain. George Bush Sr. signed NAFTA however it was not sent to the Senate until Clinton took office. Clinton added an environmental and a wage rider to the agreement.
The majority of the folks that did the ground work for this agreement have come from Republican administrations. I find it very difficult to give credit to Clinton for anything except implementing a plan he was handed.
posted on March 18, 2004 11:56:39 PM new
So even if we blame NAFTA on Clinton, has Bush made any effort in 4 years to do away with NAFTA ? NO HE HAS NOT.
But as I pointed out in another thread, Bush the idiot is exporting jobs due to his stupid policies.
Because of Bush's policy on stem cell research, that research has moved overseas. aND NOW THE PENTAGON HAS A CONTRACT FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH WITH AN OVERSEAS COMPANY DUE TO BUSH'S STUPID POLICIES.
The Bush administration is not smart enough to manage trade policies, nor does it have the brains to manage international issues.
posted on March 19, 2004 12:10:34 AM new
Tell me how can you do away with NAFTA. It is done deal.
When American Companies can go somewhere else for lower wages why should they stay here. We americans priced ourselves out the the jobs. We are the ones at fault. People are in business to make money and when they don't they find other ways to do it or give it up completely. We haven't seen the end of it yet. Here is Wisconsin we saw a lot of jobs go to the southern states because wages were lower there. Companies that had been here for years. then when the wages there began to rise they just moved a little more south. Workers got greedy.
There is no way to "Take it Back". We can debate this for ever but face the facts american workers priced themselves out of the jobs.
posted on March 19, 2004 12:50:23 AM new
USA Today 3-9-04
Candidates positions:
Trade
Candidates in 2004 face tough decisions on how to balance traditional protectionism with the recent dramatic growth of a global economy. China's emergence into international trade and the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) both continue to figure prominently in U.S. politics.
The candidates on trade
George W. Bush (R)
Supports liberalized trade and is pursuing a variety of bilateral trade deals as well as one for the Western Hemisphere.
Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D-MA)
Supported North American and world trade agreements and elevated trade status with China.
Says trade agreements should have labor and environmental standards but U.S. cannot insist in these deals that foreign standards rise to the level of America's. That would be "a policy for shutting the door."
posted on March 19, 2004 12:59:18 AM newGermany's unemployment rate rises
1/8/2004
FRANKFURT, Germany --
Germany's unemployment rate rose in December to 10.4 percent from 10 percent the previous month as the number of jobless people increased by 132,000, the government labor office said Thursday.
That brought the jobless total to 4.317 million, or about 91,400 higher than the same month a year ago.
The latest jobless figures underlined the continuing gap between the more prosperous western part of the country, which had a jobless rate of 8.4 percent, and the formerly communist east, which had a rate of 17.9 percent.
The head of the labor office, Florian Gerster, said the year-end increase in the raw number of jobless was not as great as in past years and showed that government efforts to improve the work of unemployment offices were paying off.
"The development at year's end and for the entire year show that reforms on the job market and at the state labor office have had a positive effect on unemployment despite economic weakness," Gerster said in a statement.
While three years of near-zero growth have boosted Germany's jobless rate, many economists say rules on hiring and firing are so rigid that companies hire fewer people because it's so difficult to drop workers in a slowdown.
In an attempt to deal with the problem, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has pushed through limited measures aimed at loosening labor market rules and trimming the burden on business of generous welfare state benefits.
posted on March 19, 2004 01:08:18 AM new
Japan too has been struggling for approx. 4 years too. But now they're experiencing a turn around, just as the U.S. is.
From CNN 1-20-04:
TOKYO, Japan (Reuters) -- Japan's unemployment rate fell in December to its lowest since June 2001 and deflation showed signs of easing its grip on the economy, but consumers still remain cautious about spending.
Government data released Friday put the jobless rate at 4.9 percent, down from 5.2 percent in November and the first time since June 2001 that the number of unemployed has been below five percent of the workforce.
Economists had expected the rate to stay at 5.2 percent.
The better outcome reinforced expectations that gross domestic product (GDP), helped by strong exports, may have grown as much as five percent on an annualized basis in the October-December quarter.
The government upgraded its outlook on the jobs market and an official said the unemployment rate, which hit a post-war record high of 5.5 percent in January 2003, was expected to keep falling, although at a moderate pace.
Ministers took a cautiously optimistic view.
-----------
posted on March 19, 2004 01:17:40 AM newJapan too has been struggling for approx. 4 years too. But now they're experiencing a turn around, just as the U.S. is.
You're kidding right ? Japan has had an economy in the toilet for over 10 years. And we're in a "turn around" ? A turn-around of what ? From bad to worse ?
Bush is a retard and has made a disaster out of nearly everthing.
It seems that Bush's supporters resort to blaming Clinton or anyone or anything else besides themselves for their assinine policies and initiatives and the horrible results.
Bush will be held accountable in November 2004 -- and he will lose.
posted on March 19, 2004 01:22:23 AM new
Neither Kerry nor Bush need to rescind NAFTA. But Bush has demonstrated that he is not smart enough to mangae international trade.
Rescinding NAFTA will not stop jobs from going to India and China.
posted on March 19, 2004 01:27:34 AM new
There is more than one way to skin a cat in international trade. It does not require overt protectionist laws, nor rescinding treaties.
There are many benign structural ways to protect national economic interests.
Bush and company aren't smart enough to recognize or pursue these things.
The stem cell debacle is just an example of Bush's stupid approach to modern international economies.
Another 4 years of Bush is another 4 years of ruin for our country.
posted on March 19, 2004 01:45:17 AM new
What difference does it make about all these other countries ? NONE.
I can sit here and list countries that have never had a strong economy. So we should hold Bush to some new standard ?
You totally miss the point about international trade.
Neither candidate can overtly promote protectionist agendas. Protectionist agendas just spur other countries to do the same.
However, Bush has adequately demonstrated that he is unable to promote structural advantages for our economy. Adding to this his international integrity problems and we have a recipe for a very grave disaster on a very large scale. Poland's leaders have recently announced that they were lied to by Bush about Iraq, but so far have agreed not to pull out.
posted on March 19, 2004 01:50:03 AM new
reamond - I disagree. When several countries are having job loses and had times, it shows a world pattern. Not one isolated to the US only.
-----------------
Here's President Bush's trade position, taken from the same site I posted for kerry and nader. Hopefully for a good way to compare the three candidates.
George W. Bush on Free Trade
Click here for 15 full quotes on Free Trade OR 10 older headlines OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.
Fact Check: Free trade tempered by steel protectionism. (Jan 20)
Repeals steel tariffs he imposed in 2002. (Dec 2003)
Don’t link trade to environment and labor. (Sep 2000)
Sow free trade and farmers will reap. (Jan 2000)
A free market promotes dreams and individuality. (Dec 1999)
Import fees are not the answer to foreign competition. (Dec 1999)
The fearful build walls; the confident demolish them. (Jun 1999)
China
Agrees with Clinton-Gore: PNTR for China. (May 2000)
China NTR promotes freedom, security and economics. (May 2000)
WTO for both China & Taiwan; maintain Taiwan relations law. (Dec 1999)
NAFTA + WTO
Establish Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. (Apr 2001)
Add Chile, Brazil, Argentina, & others to NAFTA. (Oct 2000)
No trade barriers from Alaska to the tip of Cape Horn. (Apr 2000)
Fast Track in west; WTO in east. (Apr 2000)
Supports Fast Track; WTO; NAFTA; anti-dumping. (Apr 2000)
--------------------
posted on March 19, 2004 01:58:46 AM new
You can disagree all you want but your examples are irrelevant and a vain attempt to protect Bush by lowering the standard.
The US is the leading economy of the world. The fact that these other economies are having trouble is an effect of our economy, not a cause of our economy.
You can also post all you want about Bush's policies, but all you need to post is that Bush has lost 2.7 million jobs during his term.
posted on March 19, 2004 02:54:29 AM new
Yes, reamond, I read that this morning too.
They're all running scared from the worry the terrorists will do to them what they did to Spain. They have small military's and few ways to protect themselves.
But President Bush isn't running scared. He's dealing with these terrorists and not backing down, showing fear. Kerry will most likely do just like Spain, Poland and now South Korea's leaders are considering......RUN and let the terrorists win.
We can't run. PERIOD.
and I also wanted to add that I read a quote from Poland's leader who said what he said was taken out of context. But I can't find the link to that right now. I'll post it when I do.
CLINTON
