Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012

 Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls. The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.
Solis was adamant today in defending both the revisions and the BLS's methodology for counting part-time workers--relying largely on the upwards revisions for July and August jobs (emphasis added):

CNBC: We're getting bombarded by people who do not believe the number. They believe this number was fixed and typed to coincide with Election Day. What do you say to them?...I'll rephrase the question. A lot of people do not believe the 7.8 number. They believe that somehow BLS fixed this to coincide with the election cycle. What is labor's response?

Solis: You know, I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional, civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS. They've been doing these calculations. These are -- these are our best trained and best-skilled individuals working in the BLS, and it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement, and I say that because just look at the -- we have to look at what happens across the board, not just in one month, but look what happened in the last two months. We also saw revisions there upwards of 86,000 additional jobs added and this brings us now to 5.2 million private sector jobs across the board, we saw 104 private sector jobs created....

CNBC: Before I let you go, you say skepticism over the numbers are ludicrous. You say you're insulted. Is there a danger, you believe, when large sections of the country don't believe the data. Not that it's ever been considered gospel, but when you have disbelief how much danger is embedded in that?

Solis: I will tell you that we look at each report differently. We just saw revisions for the last two months and this happens. I mean, these are estimates that obviously, the BLS puts out. They do the best calculation, using the best measurements and tools and we've been using them for the past 70 years. We haven't changed anything and the information that I received is given to me by our professional, civil service staff in the BLS.

Note that Solis describes the 86,000 upward revision as if it were an increase in private sector jobs, though in fact the increase came entirely from revisions to public sector payrolls by cash-strapped federal and state governments. Instead of shedding jobs, as previously claimed, governments have been adding jobs.

Big Government

No Leadership from Obama Admin in EU Airline Carbon Tax Resistance

by Capitol Confidential

 
 With time running out for a deal on the European Union's carbon scheme, now is not the time for America to keep a pace of action lagging far behind that of other nations.  The Europeans’ controversial emissions trading scheme (ETS), which opens the doors to heightened and unjustified fees, was followed through in January after their apparent inability to reach a deal with the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO).

As it stands now, “all airlines flying into and out of Europe have to submit permits for their carbon emissions made since January 2012.” And if prior, freely-issued permits “don’t cover their emissions then they have to buy more permits on the open market.”

Thing is, the permit requirements apply to the length of the entire journey, not time simply spent in EU airspace. So, the obvious problem lies in the fact that this allows the EU to “effectively collect a tax for activities in the airspace of other sovereign states and territories.”

With its blanket application to non-EU carriers, the move has been rightly ridiculed as a heavy infringement on national sovereignty. February of this year saw the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India issue a jointly-written statement voicing opposition to the scheme. 

That’s not all, either.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia issued a full-throated order to its “national airline not to comply” with the costly rules. Mohammed al-Sabban, a representative of the country when the decision was made, stated that the order was designed to “send them a message that the case will not end easily.”

The Saudis are not alone in their resistance to the ETS rules. While 1,200 airlines complied with data submissions earlier this year, 10--all from China and India, flatly refused. 

Yet until last week, the United States has largely sat on the sidelines while the Europeans have enforced the measure all year. Last Saturday, the Senate came off its laurels and passed a bill granting the “Secretary of Transportation the power to prohibit U.S. airlines from complying.”

For a clear example of the absurdity surrounding the EU having the ability to collect fees for flight times in American airspace, look no further to the fact that it passed the Senate unanimously. Not only that, it was co-sponsored by South Dakota Republican John Thune and embattled Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill. 

Last year, the House passed a bill adopting a similar posture, so reconciliation is “all but assured.”

The ball now lies in the Obama administration’s court for enforcing the prohibition on compliance. It’s been documented that both the “State and Transportation Departments have criticized the EU’s policy.” Not to mention potential political fallout of backing a rarely unified Senate. 

However, as has been the case far too often with President Obama, there is little clarity on whether or not such common-sense will be enforced. Currently, that knowledge “remains an open question.”

Now is the time for America to take a strong posture against a carbon tax that clearly violates national sovereignty for the likely cause of backdoor payments on Europe’s astronomical debt. 

Direct opposition from America could likely serve as a turning point in convincing the EU to halt enforcement of the ETS provisions. For that reason, it is an imperative that the Obama White House takes a clear stance against the EU’s schemes before the bill even reaches the Oval Office. Other nations have already drawn the line; now is the time for America to do the same.

Big Government

Time to Fight

By William L. Gensert

Barack Obama will fall on November 6, 2012, losing the presidential election in a landslide to Mitt Romney.  After the president's performance in the first debate, this is becoming more obvious.

Yet now is not the time to be complacent.  We are engaged in a battle for the heart and soul of America, and an electoral defeat for the president will not change that.

Now is the time to fight.

Living in the Bronx, in the past, I have been guilty of self-censoring.  I always expressed my opinion but refused to get into arguments over politics.  As a conservative, political disagreements with liberals can be written off, but for liberals, any disagreement is evidence of evil intent.

Therefore, I am a bad man -- and, ever since Barack first ran for the presidency, racist as well.

The progressive position is an amalgam of mishmash -- feel-good pabulum supported by facile and flaccid arguments, usually from people who intellectually should know better -- yet choose not to.

Explaining this to someone, however, is basically calling her an idiot.  More often than not, that was a conversation I declined to engage, cheerily changing the topic.

No longer can I allow myself to behave this way in pursuit of civility.  After all, liberals are never civil.  From now on, I "get in their faces."

Recently, while filling up at a local gas station, a man doing the same complained about gasoline prices.  Normally, I would nod sympathetically and resume pumping.  But today we are fighting for our lives, fighting for our very existence.

I told him that if Obama is re-elected, the price per gallon will be $10 by the end of his second term.
He demanded to know why, and I explained that price is a function of supply and demand and that the concept of supply includes not only what we have on hand now, but what is anticipated to be available in the future.

He asked if Romney would do better.  I said a victory for Romney would result in $2.50-a-gallon gasoline by the end of 2013, because Romney will drill and Obama will not.  Dejectedly, the man told me he hadn't thought about it that way, but he couldn't find a reason to disagree.

Then there are the ridiculous polls, some of which show Obama in a runaway victory.  When gloating minions tell me this, I point out that these polls assume equal or greater turnout and enthusiasm for Obama than he enjoyed in 2008.  Then I ask if they believe that more people support the president today than did then.  Usually they change the subject -- and there's the difference.  In the past, it was I who changed the subject.  

They are on the defensive, which is exactly why we need to stay on offense.

...And there is the legacy media.  Barack Obama is losing this election, and justifiably so, since everything he has done to date has been a failure.  Yet they have continued with their willingness to gratify the president at every opportunity while flouting any opposition -- they actually pretend he is way ahead.

Until Election Day, the media will be going all-out for Obama.  It wouldn't be surprising if they called his performance in the debate a "victory," despite all evidence to the contrary.  The fallacy of the all-successful, omnipotent Barack the Inevitable cannot be let go of.

But collectively, November 7 will be a "walk of shame" for the media, when in the light of day they are forced to parade in front of the American public, stockings askew, lipstick smeared, and hair in disarray, and admit they have been in bed with Obama from the very beginning.

Still, they will not change, because the adoration of Barack is not the disease -- it's a symptom. The disease is progressivism and it is terminal.

If this nation is to be saved, it is incumbent on us to fight.  History used to be written by the victors, in leather-bound books and articles in papers of record.  Going forward, history will be told on the internet by people with a keyboard and a care, who comment, blog, and write.  The "truth" can again be true.  But in order for this to happen, the primacy of the progressive meme must be opposed.
America started out as a band of rebels opposing a world power -- and it will be saved in the same way.  

You eat an elephant one bite at a time -- and if you are hungry enough and perseverant, sooner or later, all that will remain is a memory floating over a pile of bones.

My Journey

A serial epistolist, I had several anti-Obama letters printed in the New York Daily News before Obama's election.  Then, in the interest of giving the man a chance, I said little until it became obvious to me in June of 2009 that this was a horrible president and miserable leader.

Afterward, in letters, blogs and comments, I began to earnestly criticize the president.  I had a letter published in the Wall Street Journal in January of 2011 in rebuttal to the president's editorial about unnecessary regulation.

I had my first article published in American Thinker in June of 2011.  The article cost me a friend of 37 years, a woman I had been introducing to people as my sister for decades.  She called me a racist for saying Obama was America's worst president.  As an African-American, she felt it was her right to judge me by the color of my skin and not the content of my character.

I have been speaking out against the disaster that is Barack Obama ever since. But, it can be dangerous to oppose the righteous.  The front windows of my house have been broken twice and my front door egged three times, the most recent instance only weeks ago.

The police in the 49^th Precinct didn't seem to think it was all that important, although the responding officers were all professional and sympathetic.  It took four trips to the precinct, numerous messages, and four weeks for the Community Affairs Officer to call me, but when he finally did, he was also courteous and professional, as he told me he couldn't devote -- and neither did I deserve -- any special attention to my property...since it was probably kids anyway.

Because the windows couldn't be repaired, it cost $7,000 to replace them.

The NYPD is the finest police force in the world, but the man was right.  What could they do?  As a middle-class male, I am not a member of any protected group.  And as a conservative, my free speech is no longer protected, either.  History has shown that rights are eroded a little bit at a time until they are all gone.  

It's like eating that elephant.

The maker of the infamous internet video insulting Muslims, which Obama blames for the results of his policy failures (the attacks on our embassies worldwide and the assassination of our ambassador to Libya), is under arrest for "violating parole."  In a few months, he might even be shot while trying to escape.

Yet, despite Barack Obama's attitude toward the First Amendment, no one will ever tell me what I can and cannot say.

I have lived in my house for 23 years.  And if my girlfriend at the time did not get between me and the front door when my windows were broken, I would have been outside fighting to protect my property -- because I built that.

So I say: if you want me, come and get me.  I am not giving up.  In 2008, I was crushed against a wall by a 48' tractor trailer.  On most days I am in so much pain, I have a hard time getting out of bed, but I am not going down without a fight.

I will not be silenced.

I believe in America, and all it stands for, and while I will never lift a hand towards anyone in anger for their beliefs, I will fight back if attacked.

It's time to fight.  America's future depends on it -- because even without Barack Obama, this battle has just begun.

American Thinker

U.S. Soldiers Urged Not to Shoot Taliban at Night so Locals Can Sleep

by AWR Hawkins

 
 Reports indicate U.S. soldiers and British Royal Marines have been urged to show "courageous constraint" by not shooting Taliban members spotted planting IEDs. The reason? Shooting them might disturb the locals.

This news comes out on the heels of an investigation into the death of Royal Marine Sergeant Peter Rayner, whom witnesses say watched the Taliban plant IEDs at night but was ordered not to engage them. Families of other soldiers and Royal Marines are telling stories of how their loved ones were not allowed to use mortars or night illumination when they came across Taliban members in an area full of IEDs.

The reason given was that "the sound of shooting 'might wake up and upset the locals.'"

This is not "courageous restraint" -- this is appeasement.

Big Peace

Obama Debate Excuses: Blame Lehrer!

by Warner Todd Huston 4 Oct 2012 

 The prevailing opinion on the President's debate performance last night from partisan and non-partisan alike is that he did poorly, to say the least. But as to exactly why the President was so taciturn, lackadaisical, distracted, and downright peevish, the media's consensus was, in many cases, silly. In fact, a number of the President's supporters are actually blaming debate moderator, 78-year-old Jim Lehrer. The voice closest to the President is that of campaign adviser and TV flack Stephanie Cutter, who was quick to dismiss Lehrer as an unnecessary part of the event. Ladling out her usual blather, Cutter told CNN that "we feel pretty good about the President's performance here tonight," but went on to take a swipe at Lehrer. "I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney," she said.

But Cutter wasn't alone. HBO's Bill Maher was as blunt as he usually is on his Twitter feed. "Lehrer sucked," he carped.

Sherri Shepherd, of ABC's The View, tweeted that someone should "throw a spitball" at Lehrer.

The Huffington Post's main Twitter feed wasn't too happy about Lehrer's work, either, saying: "Mitt Romney and Barack Obama moderated this debate. Where was Jim Lehrer?"
In her post-debate wrap up on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow said that Romney spent a lot of time battling both the President and Lehrer. "Romney won every exchange," she noted ruefully.

Maddow had other words for Lehrer, too. "I do believe that we saw this debate format die a very painful death on camera tonight... the format and, I think, the moderator, honestly, with all due respect to Jim Lehrer," she said.

Normally mild-mannered Al Roker of NBC's Today took a shot at Lehrer on his own Twitter feed. "I hope Jim Lehrer gets the license plate of the truck that drove over him in this debate," he joked.

Some wag even started a new Twitter account with the name "Silent Jim Lehrer."

Speaking of Twitter, Poynter has a nice rundown of jabs and slams of moderator Lehrer from such celebrities as Conan O'Brien, Bill Maher, the Onion, Michael Moore, various news folks and others, all slamming Lehrer as the man who wasn't there.

It is pretty amusing, if not a bit ironic, that all these leftists are attacking a card-carrying member of the left-wing media, isn't it? The left loves the Old Media until it does something they feel is counter to their narrative. In this case, though, it's like blaming a referee because a team lost by three touchdowns.

Some reports earlier this year claimed the debate commission had to coax Lehrer out of retirement to do this debate. He initially refused to do it but eventually relented and accepted the role. One might guess that Lehrer won't make the mistake of leaving retirement for a debate again.

Finally, for his part, former Vice President Al Gore had a completely different, but no more logical, excuse for the President’s loss last night. Gore blamed Denver’s high altitude!

"I’m going to say something controversial here," Gore began "Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today – just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust – I don’t know…"

Hilarious.

Big Journalism

Why the Networks Cut Exit Polls

by William Bigelow

 
 The networks and the Associated Press have an insidious plan to help President Obama on Election Day that is being swept under the rug: they are cutting nineteen states from the list of exit polls they will report. For twenty years, all 50 states have been reported, but somehow this year the networks and AP are ignoring 19 of them.  Now just how and why were those 19 states selected? The ostensible reason given is the rising cost of the surveys. Dan Merkle, director of elections for ABC News, and a member of the consortium that runs the polls, said the goal “is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states.”

So just which states are being ignored?  Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The Washington Post tried to gloss over the scheme, noting “how carefully the exit poll planners allocated resources. All 19 of the states with no exit polls are classified as either “solid Obama” or “solid Romney.”

Really? Of the nineteen states (including Washington, D.C.) exactly 4 are for Obama, with a total of 14 electoral votes. The fifteen Romney states add up to 135.

It is utter hogwash that the exit polls were cut from these states because they were in the bag for one of the candidates. If Texas is cut, how about New York and California?

The real reason the consortium has cut these states is that they know that if they report fifteen states coming in for Romney early, independent voters in other states will take notice and be swayed his way.

There is no way that the networks and AP can rationalize their decision without damning themselves with their obvious partisanship. In 2008, the major media outlets were in the tank and lined up for Obama, but it was done under the radar. Now it’s all-encompassing. They are goose-stepping in public.

Big Journalism

Sorry about no posts in the last month but my internet service provider went bankrupt. It took a month to get another provider. Will start posting again tomorrow.