Bill Wilson - Obama's Lost Labor Force

Since Barack Obama assumed office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total population over age 16 has grown by 5.845 million to 240.5 million, and yet, since then, the civilian labor force has actually shrunk by 349,000 — from about 154.2 million to 153.8 million. 

This is a startling contradiction, and it is at the heart of why the unemployment rate is much higher than the 8.5 percent being reported.

The problem is that the measured civilian labor force participation rate has fallen from 65.7 percent to 64 percent since Jan. 2009, reflecting people who have lost hope and simply stopped looking for work.  If those people were still counted, the actual civilian labor force would be 4.176 million higher than is reported at about 158 million.

Based on this analysis, the number of unemployed is actually closer to 17 million instead of the 13 million reported jobless.  That is simply astounding.

Instead of 8.5 percent, the effective unemployment rate should be closer to 10.9 percent, and the underemployed closer to 17.4 percent, or 27.3 million.  This is what we mean when we say that the unemployment rate is no longer a valid economic indicator.

Propaganda is not going to get the real unemployed into jobs.  It's not going to help families keep their homes.  It's not going to help college graduates to enter the work force.  We're nowhere near where we should be, and it's Obama's fault.

It's his regulatory burdens that are being imposed through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) carbon endangerment finding and through Obamacare.  It is he who is insisting on raising taxes on job creators, and playing class warfare to cobble together a constituency that wants to apparently take from their employers' purses.  It is Obama who has refused to get the nation's crushing debt load under control, where the $15.2 trillion national debt is nearly larger than the entire economy. 

To get the economy moving again, the government needs to slash corporate tax rates, which are the highest in the world of advanced economies.  It is imperative that the regulatory overkill come to an end.  The dollar needs to be strengthened to lower costs and stabilize energy and food costs.  The debt needs to be paid down and retired, and the budget balanced. Onerous federal securities laws and state-by-state blue sky laws need to be repealed that make it cost-ineffective for new businesses to raise capital.

In short, it must become competitive to do business here in America again.  And that will probably not happen so long as Obama is in office.  It is clear the nation needs new leadership that is intent on actually creating jobs and restoring hope, instead of ignoring the despair of Obama's lost labor force.

###

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

NH Sen. Jeb Bradley - Continued Frugality Necessary to Protect Taxpayers and Grow Jobs

By Jeb Bradley 11/28/2011

In passing the 2011 budget, the Legislature made tough decisions and difficult cuts to stabilize NH finances while also laying the groundwork for economic recovery.

Judging the 2011 budget must be made in the context of the previous two budgets which increased spending 23% from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion. In those prior budgets, when tax revenue underperformed, Legislators resorted to unprecedented borrowing for operating expenses and Stimulus funds to close growing deficits. That gap from prior budgets was at least $800 million when current legislators began formulating the 2011 budget. Difficult choices could not be avoided!

Those of us tasked with producing a balanced budget also recognized that New Hampshire taxpayers, working families, and small business owners were still reeling from nearly 100 new or increased taxes and fees passed in the previous four years. Those new levies included the job killing LLC business owner income tax and the camping tax that proved to be so odious they were repealed. Given the negative impact that higher taxes would have on job growth and hardworking Granite Staters, higher taxes were an obvious non-starter.

Two of the more difficult decisions involved funding for hospitals and the University System. Due to the fact they are both large expenditure items, cuts in these line items could not be avoided if the budget was to be balanced. Very few legislators wanted to make these cuts, but unfortunately they were necessary.

Due to their not-for-profit status hospitals pay no business taxes and very little property taxes. Over the years these hospitals have absorbed numerous private physician practices that had previously paid taxes, but now don’t, because they are under the hospital umbrella.  Meanwhile, some of these not-for-profit hospitals act like large businesses by engaging in expensive advertising wars fighting for market share. Nevertheless, a provision in the budget allows some future funding for hospitals should revenue become available.

While virtually all state departments received less funding, the Senate retained funding for the mental-health system and for families that have disabled children.

Other budget cuts that generated much discussion were in the Department of Transportation and were made necessary by the expiration of the $30 (and in many instances higher) surcharge on motor vehicle registrations. The surcharge was enacted in the 2009 budget and promised to be a temporary measure.  New Hampshire residents complained about this surcharge as much as any of the nearly 100 taxes or fee increased in the previous four years -- rightly viewing it as a “fee” to get to work. 

Allowing it to expire as promised does have consequences in the Transportation budget however. Initially the Department proposed snow plowing cuts on secondary roads.  Several legislators led by Sen. Chuck Morse and Rep. Gene Chandler objected and the newly appointed Transportation Commissioner announced an alternative plan that will ensure the same level of plowing as in past winters.  Instead, reductions will be made in maintenance, mowing, road sweeping, tree trimming, and pavement markings in 2012 and the Department will work with the Legislature to meet budget constraints.

In my view, we must prioritize necessary maintenance over most new construction with the exception of projects such as Route 93 expansion, the Little Bay Bridge or Conway bypass that have  state-wide traffic significance.  There also must be recognition that maintaining our roads and highways costs money.

Because of realistic and conservative projections, revenue is somewhat ahead of expectations -- welcome news indeed.  Business taxes, the most important revenue source, are 12% above predicted. The rooms and meals tax, the communications tax, and the real estate transfer tax are all slightly ahead. It is a hopeful sign of possible light at the end of the recession tunnel, when business, real estate, and tourism revenue are improving.

A key priority, especially for the Senate, has been enacting legislation that improves the business climate for job creation. We passed bipartisan legislation (SB 125) that dramatically curtails the ability of the Department of Revenue to foist a de-facto income tax on the salary a business owner pays him or herself.  We passed legislation (SB-86) that restricts the Department of Labor from imposing large fines on business owners for rather minor paperwork violations without first warning the business.  We expanded net operating loss provisions to encourage start-up businesses and job creation by wrapping SB-126 into the next budget.   Also included in the budget, SB-154 made changes to development rules near rivers and lakes that will encourage a depressed home building industry by easing requirements while still protecting the environment.

Furthermore, the Senate sought to relieve future pressure for tax increases through a number of government reform efforts.  A new education funding formula sponsored by Senators Jim Rausch and Nancy Stiles ended donor downs and prevented unsustainable future cost increases while ensuring the cities and towns received the same level of funding in these difficult times.  SB-147 reforms Medicaid, the largest cost center in our budget, saving significant present and future costs while maintaining quality services for those in need.  And finally pension reform will save property taxpayers from skyrocketing costs.

This Senate legislation – much of which I was the primary sponsor of -- will pave the way for more cost effective, efficient government and a demonstrably improved business climate. New Hampshire’s unemployment rate -- while still too high -- has dropped from 5.7% in November 2010 to 5.3% today. However, the fact that nearly 40,000 of our friends and neighbors remain out of work gives added urgency to these measures.

There are also budget storm clouds on the horizon. The federal government seeks to recoup $35 million of excess Medicaid payments made to New Hampshire several years ago. This calls for continued careful budgeting and living within our means.  Governor Lynch was able to save $26 million from the previous budget through carefully managing each department’s expenditures. 

A budget provision supported by Governor Lynch as well as Senate and House budget writers would curtail welfare eligibility saving $8million per year. Though almost most legislators agree with this change, a drafting mistake was made and the language was not reflected in the final budget. 

Realizing this, the Senate met in early September to pass fix-it legislation before more money was spent. Unfortunately, the House waited for a month to address the issue which cost nearly a million dollars.  The House then added a non-germane amendment that will foolishly cost another two million dollars.

The State needs to continue to practice frugality to protect hard pressed New Hampshire taxpayers and to help our economy weather the national recession.

Carol Shea-Porter - Yes, The Stimulus Did Work

In late 2008, the economy was in free fall.  The daily headlines were downright frightening. Two were particularly ominous: “In String of Bad News, Omens of a Long Recession” and “Next Year Is Looking Even Worse.”  In December, America lost more than 700,000 jobs, and economists worried about a global depression.  They were predicting the longest and most severe recession since World War II.  The New York Times noted the “demoralizing rat-a-tat of grim reports on jobs, sales and public confidence.”  In the wake of that financial crisis, nearly 8 million Americans lost their jobs.

The severity of the economic crisis that President Obama inherited called for strong and prompt action to keep America from slipping into a depression.  Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 13, 2009. The goal was to jumpstart the economy by saving and/or creating jobs and by increasing economic growth.  There was money to keep state and local governments afloat, money for infrastructure, a tax cut for 95% of American workers, and tax cuts for small businesses.  The total cost of the package, called  “The Stimulus,” was $787 billion.  It’s been almost three years since the bill was passed, and the two political parties are still fighting about it.  Recently, the nation heard a Republican presidential candidate dramatically insist that the Stimulus had not created a single job.  The question is—did the Stimulus work?

A study by two economists, Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who was presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's economic advisor, said that the government's various interventions averted a second Depression.  In studying the effects of policy responses to the recession, they argue that without the government's various interventions, our gross domestic product would be 6.5% lower, we would have lost 8.5 million MORE jobs, and would be experiencing deflation instead of low inflation.  They conclude that the interventions "reinforced each other," and that "While the effectiveness of any individual element certainly can be debated, there is little doubt that in total, the policy response was highly effective."

What did the stimulus actually do for NH?  Who got the money?  Why do Republican leaders say it failed even as they show up to celebrate the beginning or the end of successful projects?  As mayor, one of our NH Congressmen pushed so hard for money that then-Attorney General Kelly Ayotte accused him of being a “grandstander.”  The Stimulus has been used as a club to beat President Obama and Democrats so often that many believe that the money evaporated without helping anyone.  That simply is not so.

The money was spent to help communities cope with recession.  It helped pay for waste-water treatment facilities and clean water.  It kept teachers working, helped Head Start, and kids with special needs.  Stimulus money was used to provide meals for seniors in centers or at home. It helped homeless children, crime victims, people with brain injuries and many others.  It helped New Hampshire build, repair, and renovate.  Money went to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, creating good jobs and bolstering national security.  The National Guard received funds, as did the NH Broadband Mapping Program.  The Small Business Administration was able to expand small business lending.

Money was used for invention and innovation. The Green Launching Pad, initiated by Governor Lynch and the University of New Hampshire, was funded with stimulus funds. Governor Lynch said:

"The first round of the Green Launching Pad has been a tremendous success, benefiting not only those companies that participated, but working to strengthen our state's economy…I am focused on making sure that we are growing the jobs and companies of the future right here in New Hampshire and the Green Launching Pad is just one way we are doing that. The ideas and the products that have been nurtured by the Green Launching Pad are helping create good jobs..."

This plan wasn’t perfectly executed everywhere. But USA TODAY got it right on August 30, 2010 with the headline: “Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs.” They continued, “Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930’s.”

I voted for that Stimulus because I wanted to do exactly that—stave off a rerun of the 1930’s. It is time for the political opposition to correct the record and let people know their government did do something good with the people’s money.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011.  She is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Carol Shea-Porter - JUST SAY YES TO THE JOBS ACT

President Obama came out—finally—with a jobs bill last week. Members of Congress, who have not passed a single jobs bill of their own, immediately started to pick at it. Republicans thought it spent too much, some Democrats thought it was not bold enough. And so it begins again. The endless tussling, the fighting, the political partisanship and games have started. While most disguise their partisanship with polished phrases, one senior Republican aide actually told the truth straight-out when he told Politico, “Obama is on the ropes. Why do we appear ready to hand him a win?”

And meanwhile, millions of Americans wait, either jobless or feeling insecure about their own jobs. The millions who are unemployed worry about unemployment benefits ending, and about how to find work in a country that keeps focusing just on deficits, and on cutting jobs instead of growing them. America lost eight million jobs in the Recession, but the economy had been growing jobs until last month. All of the cutting led to zero job growth last month. In their zeal to cut budgets and jobs, our leaders forgot a basic rule for economic growth. There has to be consumer demand for businesses to grow. Consumer demand is 70% of our economy. If people aren’t working, they cannot spend. The best way to reduce deficits is to grow the economy, not to just slash spending and lay off government and private workers. And for those who always say the government does not create jobs, just ask government workers who lost theirs. Ask companies that rely on government contracts, and ask their employees if government creates jobs.

The President’s plan invests in the economy, and offers many of the ideas that each party has embraced in the past. There are tax cuts in there for individuals and for businesses. Although I worry about the payroll tax reduction because I believe it could ultimately weaken Social Security, I also know that we have hit a red light in our economic recovery, and I think compromise is essential if we are going to move forward. Most economists have been positive about the president’s plan, USA Today reported, and that includes being positive about those payroll tax cuts. “Payroll tax cuts are very powerful," said Allen Sinai, chief economist of Decision Economics. "They provide a boost to direct income and, in turn, spending, which is important to growth." The newspaper also covered Mark Zandi’s supportive comments. Zandi was John McCain’s economic advisor during his campaign for president, and is now the chief economist at Moody's Analytics. The paper said that Zandi “estimated that the president's plan would boost economic growth by 2 percentage points, add 2 million jobs and reduce unemployment by a full percentage point next year compared with existing law.” There is a possibility that President Obama is wrong, and that these economists are also wrong. But given the current situation we find ourselves in, doing nothing or continuing to just slash spending and slash jobs presents the greater danger.

We have to take care of the unemployed veterans who cannot find work, especially the wounded. This bill does that. We have to work on infrastructure and put construction workers back on the job. This bill does that. We have to protect unemployment insurance for 6 million people, while trying new and innovative programs to get them back to work. This bill does that. We have to help small businesses with their taxes and we also have to help them compete on infrastructure projects. This bill does that. We need to keep cops and firefighters on the job. This bill does that. And we need to create jobs for low-income youth and adults, who cannot get a leg up into the middle class if there is no work. This bill does that also. There is finally a plan on the table, an idea to move our country out of the quicksand. This bill is not the one the Republicans would have written, if they had written one at all. It is not the one that will get a ringing endorsement from all of the Democrats in Washington. It is the bill that requires compromise and working together. Pass this bill.

#####

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Carol Shea-Porter - Where are the jobs?

Where are the jobs? This is the burning question of our time because we have so many people unemployed. The economy has a mix of good signs--such as continuous private sector job growth for 15 straight months and manufacturing up for 22 months now. This is great news, but we still have a high unemployment rate. So the questions remain. Where did the jobs go, and when will they come back?

We have to look in the rearview mirror to clearly see where we are now. The first devastating blow was when US corporations sent jobs overseas. The US Chamber of Commerce, which is different from the local Chambers, has been an enthusiastic proponent of sending jobs overseas, and also happens to be the top group making outside expenditures in 2010, running ads and engaging in other activities to sway the electorate about candidates and issues. They have too much influence on policy, and for too long, Congress has not forcefully acted against unfair trade policies and created enough incentives to keep American jobs in America.  

During the Bush era, we lost 1/3 of our manufacturing jobs.  However, the biggest whack came in October 2008 when Wall Street bankers did themselves in, taking down small banks and workers and retirees along with them. America lost more than 700,000 jobs just in the month of December 2008, the last full month before Barack Obama became president. The economy was reeling, and it looked as if the world was on the verge of another depression. Thankfully, policies enacted by the 111th Congress and President Obama pulled us back from a depression, but we lost eight million jobs, and that has created great suffering.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called the Stimulus, was passed by Congress in February 2009.  Congress faced a very difficult choice.  It raised the already largest debt in history that President Obama had inherited from the previous administration, but it also created or saved jobs and funded projects around the country. The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed again that the Stimulus did help by keeping the unemployment rate from climbing even higher.  I always believed that  1/3 of the stimulus money should have been used for a jobs program to build and repair infrastructure.   This would have served two purposes--it would have brought jobs and money to our communities and rebuilt our failing infrastructure, so I view that as a missed opportunity.  

Congress also passed and President Obama signed the HIRE Act and the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act. The latter bill brought more money to community banks, which in turn lent it to the small businesses that had trouble getting credit from the very big banks who had created the mess in the first place. Congress beefed up the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the SBA worked very closely with businesses around the country. Small businesses still need help, so I am very concerned that the current US House Majority has actually cut the SBA budget and programs to help small businesses.

The situation is not as dire as it was in 2008 and 2009, but high unemployment persists and is wreaking havoc on many families.  What is the solution? There are many steps America must take to address unemployment. First, the current Congress has to start working on a jobs bill.  They have not passed a single jobs bill out of the House yet—not one! At the same time, they are trying to pass Free Trade Agreements with Columbia and Korea, which will instead cause more job losses.

We need to provide tax incentives for manufacturing to keep jobs here.   We need to make things instead of always importing them.  We need to stop providing subsidies for companies that take jobs overseas.  We need to find and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy that hurts business.  And yes, government still has a role to play in job creation and preservation. There are many public sector jobs that are essential to the health, safety, and well-being of our communities. We should not be shortsighted and eliminate those jobs.  We still have children to teach, fires to put out, criminals to catch, roads to fix, bridges to repair, airports to maintain, etc.

We should not dismantle this great country by dismantling our great workforce.  If we truly want to end unemployment in our country, we must set aside our political differences and concentrate on what is best for our people, not for our politics.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.