Week in Review
Captain James T. Kirk didn’t command the Enterprise because of his political connections. No. He commanded the Enterprise because he was the best damn captain in Starfleet history (see Five Leadership Lessons From James T. Kirk by Alex Knapp reposted 2/23/2014 (originally posted 3/5/2012) on Forbes).
In his many years of service to the Federation, James Kirk embodied several leadership lessons that we can use in our own lives. We need to keep exploring and learning. We need to ensure that we encourage creativity and innovation by listening to the advice of people with vastly different opinions. We need to occasionally get down in the trenches with the members of our teams so we understand their needs and earn their trust and loyalty. We need to understand the psychology of our competitors and also learn to radically change course when circumstances dictate. By following these lessons, we can lead our organizations into places where none have gone before.
President Obama is no Captain James Tiberius Kirk. President Obama is a committed ideologue. And will not consider exploring and learning other knowledge. For this committed Keynesian will not even consider learning the classical economics that made the U.S. the number one economy in the world. He will not work with the Republicans. When it came to the stimulus he shut them out completely with the statement that he won the election. And elections have consequences. After his “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” lie of the year (2013) he’s not earning much trust and loyalty these days. His foreign policy has made Iran and Russia stronger. As well as emboldened militant Islam. So he doesn’t understand our competitors. At all. Finally, the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) has been a disaster. But is he radically changing course? No. He’s exceeding his Constitutional authority by rewriting the Affordable Care Act to try and push the more painful parts of Obamacare past the 2014 midterm elections. To make people less angry at him and the Democrats when they vote this fall.
Captain James T. Kirk never put himself or his agenda ahead of the mission. Which is why he was a great leader. Whereas President Obama is beholden to an ideology. And will sacrifice anything for that ideology. Our economy. Our health care system. Even our leadership position of the free world. Something Captain Kirk would never do. Because he was not beholden to an ideology. Which made him a great leader. Unlike President Obama.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, Captain James T. Kirk, Captain James Tiberius Kirk, Enterprise, ideologue, James Kirk, James Tiberius Kirk, Obamacare, President Obama
Week in Review
Democrats say Republicans want to kill women, children, seniors, everyone’s beloved grandmother, etc. They keep saying this. Yet there is no actual body count to back up these claims. Unlike there is for President Obama (see Obama Told Aides He’s ‘Really Good At Killing People,’ New Book ‘Double Down’ Claims by Mollie Reilly posted 11/3/2013 on The Huffington Post).
A new book on the 2012 presidential campaign claims that President Barack Obama told aides that he is “really good at killing people.”
According to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, the authors of Double Down: Game Change 2012, Obama made the comment while discussing drone strikes last year. CNN’s Peter Hamby noted the anecdote in his review of the book for the Washington Post.
While the White House has not commented on the president’s alleged remarks, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Sunday dismissed other reports from the book, including that campaign officials weighed replacing Vice President Joe Biden with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket.
“The president is always frustrated about leaks,” Pfeiffer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I haven’t talked to him about this book. I haven’t read it. He hasn’t read it. But he hates leaks.”
Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, has overseen the expansion of the CIA’s targeted killing program, which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates has killed between 2,528 and 3,648 individuals in Pakistan since 2004. That organization also estimates that between 416 and 948 of those killed in drone strikes were civilians — an estimate disputed by the Obama administration.
Targeted CIA killing program? That’s something that’s only supposed to happen with Republican presidents. Not peace-loving Democrats. In fact, President Obama has more drone kills than George W. Bush. Yet Bush was the deranged cowboy killing people in violation of international law. While Obama remains the cool president.
It makes you wonder if anything President Obama will do will cause his loyal base to stop supporting him. Fast and Furious? Benghazi? Spying on Americans without a warrant? Using the IRS to attack political enemies? The Affordable Care Act lies? And his CIA killing program. Which actually is killing people unlike the Republicans are. These scandals come and go and the mainstream media says move along. There’s nothing to see here.
History will not look kindly on the Obama presidency. Nor the mainstream media. Which helped him do the things history will not look kindly on. By circling the wagons around him whenever something bad happens. And, instead, turning their venom loose on the Republicans. Even though the Republicans aren’t responsible for Fast and Furious. Benghazi. Spying on Americans without a warrant. Using the IRS to attack political enemies. The Affordable Care Act lies. Or the CIA killing program. No. That was the Nobel Peace Prize winner. President Obama.
Tags: Barack Obama really good at killing people, Democrats, Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama, Republicans, targeted CIA killing program
Week in Review
The Democrats are loving the government shutdown. They get to screw Americans and blame it on the Republicans (see Obama wants you! Feds hiring for thousands of open jobs amid shutdown by Jim McElhatton posted 10/8/2013 on The Washington Times).
The federal government is shut down, but that hasn’t stopped agencies from running lots of “help wanted” ads.
More than 4,000 job postings remained active on the federal government’s hiring site as of Tuesday. Although many ads first ran before the shutdown began, nearly 500 posts were placed in the past three days.
They can’t let World War II veterans visit the outdoor World War II monument on the National Mall but they can hire up to 4,000 new employees? Further proof that the partial shutdown is political. With the left making it as painful as possible to the masses of people. While making sure their few friends and campaign donors are not inconvenienced. Such as the big rally on the National Mall for illegal immigrants.
World War II veterans-no. Illegal immigrants-yes. World War II veterans-no. Government bureaucrats-yes. Political-yes. Democrats put the needs of the people above their political agenda-no.
There are two Americas. Resembling a 2-story outhouse. Where the American people are on the lower level. And the liberal Democrats are on the upper level.
Tags: Democrats, government shutdown, illegal immigrants, National Mall, shutdown, World War II veterans
Week in Review
The Democrats don’t like sharing power. Or bipartisanship. They miss the good old days when they controlled everything. Both houses of Congress. And the White House. As well as the three networks. Before there was Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. And cable television. Which let other voices be heard. Something they hate. Why? Because they have a liberal agenda in a country that is only about 21% liberal. So they don’t like debate. Because they are trying to sell what the masses don’t want. Which is why they cloak their intentions in misleading words. More government control over our lives is called investment. Raising tax rates is leveling the playing field. Making everyone pay their fair share. And opposition voices are extremists. Hate peddlers. Who should be censored. Etc.
So liberals lie and deceive to pass a liberal agenda the people don’t want. And they really get upset when they can’t get their way. For liberals are not manly men. They weren’t athletic enough to play sports. Tough or brave enough to go into the military. On Saturday Night Live a character impersonating an Arnold Schwarzenegger bodybuilder type called these men girly men. Men like Alan Alda who ate quiche (at the time there was a saying that real men did not eat quiche). Going further back to the days of Charles Atlas liberals were the skinny guy getting sand kicked into his face. That is, liberals were the victims of bullying. Who weren’t manly enough to stand up against a bully. So when they grew up they went into politics. To wield a different kind of power. The power of the state. So the bullied could become the bully.
We could see this in Breaking Bad. Walter White was a nice guy that finished last in life. Where people walked all over him and gave him no respect. And if that wasn’t bad enough this loser then gets cancer. But then things change. And Walter White goes through a transformation and mans up. Going from bullied to bully. While destroying lives all around him (see Die Like a Man: The Toxic Masculinity of Breaking Bad by Laura Hudson posted 10/5/2013 on Wired).
Masculinity in Breaking Bad is a brittle thing, one so terrified of weakness that any display of vulnerability must be punished, and any slight against another man’s power answered with violence – or else perceived as a weakness. We see it in the hyper-masculine culture of both the neo-Nazis and the drug cartel, where the air is always dripping with machismo and vengeance is considered an almost sacred duty.
This model of manhood also requires control not only over your own life, but over the lives of others. Think about all of the most iconic moments of the show, the badass lines that made us want to pump our fists: “Say my name.” “I am the danger.” “I am the one who knocks.” “I won.” Every single time, it’s about dominance – not just about having power, but about taking power away from someone else…
In short, calling a man a “bitch” is designed to diminish his power by comparing him to a woman. It implies that women are weaker and less powerful, and also that they are to be used and dominated. “Bitch” is linked to exploitation, to submission; if you make someone your bitch, you force them to submit to your will, in one way or another.
If we learned anything from the kind, brilliant Gale, it’s that the Walter White who dies at the end of the show would have had no problem shooting the Walter White of the first episode in the head if he got in his way. When the nerd who was bullied becomes the bully, should we really feel a sense of satisfaction? Or should we take a deep, soul-searching look at the sort of system that makes underdogs like Walt feel like the only way they can be men is by destroying and dominating everyone around them?
Liberals have a lot in common with Walter White. Who will not be satisfied until they make the Republicans their bitch. These girly men (i.e., liberal Democrats) who have for the most part accomplished nothing in their lives other than buy elections have no intentions of giving the Republicans anything. When the Republicans meet with the Democrats to negotiate the Democrats simply refuse to negotiate. Even President Obama said he will not negotiate. Saying the Republicans must first submit to his will. Give him everything he wants first then he will negotiate with them. After which, of course, there will be nothing left to negotiate.
The liberals are not saying it but you can hear them say it. “Say my name, bitch.” “I am the danger, bitch.” “I am the one who knocks, bitch.” And “I will win, bitch.” For liberals are not going to be that bullied kid in high school anymore. They’re the bully now. They have the power. And they want to emasculate the opposition. The jocks and the military types. Who tormented them in high school. But not anymore. For it’s payback time, bitch.
Tags: bullied, bully, bullying, Democrats, dominance, girly-men, liberal, Liberal Agenda, manly men, masculinity, negotiate, real men did not eat quiche, Republicans, submit, Walter White
Week in Review
Many were shocked that President Obama won reelection. What with the horrible economy. And the Benghazi scandal. But what was even more shocking was why Mitt Romney lost. And it wasn’t because of the Hispanic vote. It was because conservatives sat at home on election night. Instead of voting. Baffling many. Especially with the huge conservative turnout during the 2010 midterm elections. Thanks to the Tea Party movement. Which seemed strangely quiet during the 2012 campaign. Now we know why they were quiet during that election. Because the IRS was actively silencing their voice.
Whoa, whoa, said the Democrats. Now hold on a minute. The IRS is politically neutral. And the fact that 95% of the policy-makers at the IRS donated to the Obama campaign doesn’t make the IRS politically biased. Besides, progressive groups were targeted just as much as conservative groups. So there. Of course, the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration begs to differ (see Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups by PAUL BEDARD posted 6/27/2013 on the Washington Examiner).
Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department’s inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.
In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.
The Wednesday letter to the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee punched a huge hole in Democratic claims that progressive groups were targeted as much as the Tea Party groups from May 2010-May 2012, the height of the Tea Party movement.
The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren’t many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.
Well, well, well. The IRS influenced the 2012 election by suppressing the Tea Party’s ability to raise money to pay for political ads. As some in the Tea Party suffered onerous IRS audits in response for their tax-exempt status request. While others wanted to avoid an onerous IRS audit. By keeping their name off of any Tea Party fundraiser list. Resulting with a subdued Tea Party voice in the 2012 election. Allowing the IRS to prevent a repeat of the 2010 midterm election. By abusing the power of their office. And getting the man they supported with donations 95% of the time return to office for a second term. But the IRS isn’t politically motivated. For they are politically neutral.
Tags: 2010 Midterm Election, conservative groups, conservatives, IRS, IRS audit, Progressive, progressive groups, Tea Party
Week in Review
Did the IRS follow orders to harass Tea Party groups? Is there a smoking gun? Probably not. Because there doesn’t have to be. Not when the policy makers of this ‘nonpartisan agency’ clearly think just like President Obama (see Most IRS, government lawyers donated to Obama campaign by Ashe Schow posted 6/14/2013 on The Examiner).
It is not just IRS employees who donated to President Obama in 2012, but lawyers working for the federal tax agency as well. In fact, lawyers at the IRS (and in every other government agency) overwhelmingly donated to Obama during the last election…
…the lawyers for that particular federal agency donated to Obama by an astounding 20-to-1 ratio, according to Robert Anderson, associate professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law…
…Lawyers are relevant because they are the ones taking the lead in writing regulations, litigating cases, and making delicate legal judgment calls in borderline cases…”
Of the IRS lawyers who made contributions, a whopping 95 percent gave to Obama. And if you think that’s a high percentage, 100 percent of the lawyers at the Department of Education, the United Nations and – no surprises here – the National Labor Relations Board (you know, the pro-union agency that sued Boeing) contributed to the Obama campaign.
So there you have it. A nonpartisan agency that clearly is partisan. Well, at least 95% of them are partisan. Making a smoking gun irrelevant. For the president didn’t have to give any order for the people who support him and his policies to know what to do. Because the president delegates authority. Like all presidents do. They put in people that support his vision. And then let them do their partisan work. And for President Obama that holds true even at the nonpartisan IRS.
There’s a piece by Herbert Meyer in The American Thinker creating a lot of buzz (see The Smoking Gun in Plain Sight by Herbert E. Meyer posted 6/3/2013 on American Thinker). Getting a lot of traction on talk radio. And in the conservative blogosphere. Because it compares the IRS scandal—and President Obama—to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. About as provocative as you can get these days. Especially when you throw in the Holocaust.
Very few people are aware of this, but there is no document — not one — linking Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust. Why not? Because Hitler didn’t need to sign a document ordering the slaughter of six million Jews. All he needed to do was to demonize his enemy in speeches at the Reichstag, on the radio, and from one end of Germany to the other — then hire thugs like Herman Goering, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and Josef Goebbels. They knew what der Fuhrer wanted, and der Fuhrer knew he could trust his henchman to get the job done — no matter how, no matter what may be the law — and to not bother him with the gory details.
Reader, take a deep breath. Nowhere in this essay will I suggest, or even imply, that President Obama plans the mass murder of his opponents the way Hitler murdered his. That’s absurd. I am merely pointing out that President Obama has been going about the business of demonizing his political enemies, and then hiring thugs to destroy them without regard to the law, in precisely the same way that Hitler and his fascists did it in Germany. This isn’t an accusation; it’s an observation.
Look at the record: From the moment he took office in January 2009, President Obama has spoken before Congress, on television, and at countless rallies across the country describing his political opponents in terms we haven’t seen before in the United States. Time and again he’s insisted that Republicans aren’t merely wrong, but evil…
His rhetoric heated up fast after the Tea Party movement gave the GOP enough oomph to win back the House of Representatives in 2010, and as the president geared up for the 2012 election. He urged Latino voters to help him “punish our enemies and reward our friends.” He told his supporters at one rally to think of voting for him as “an act of revenge.”
So there probably isn’t a smoking gun. For when 95% of the policy-making people at the IRS are like-minded and in lockstep with the president they don’t need an order from the president (or from anyone in his administration) to act. There may be someone who gave an order. But when you’re that partisan you don’t wait for orders. Because you want what your president wants. And you know your president will approve of your actions. No matter how legally questionable they may be. As long as the president has plausible deniability. And when you don’t sign any orders you have plausible deniability.
Tags: Adolf Hitler, demonizing his political enemies, Holocaust, IRS, IRS scandal, nonpartisan agency, Obama, partisan, plausible deniability, policy makers, political enemies, smoking gun, Tea Party
Week in Review
After the Boston Marathon bombings the liberal media was quick to point out the symbolism surrounding that day (tax day, anniversary of Waco, anniversary of Oklahoma City bombing, Patriots’ Day, etc.) pointing to an anti-government Tea Party nut. Some even commented that they hoped it wasn’t a Muslim. Because they wanted it to be an anti-government Tea Party nut. To justify further oppression of the Tea Party. And not to bring up issues about the war on terror. Or immigration reform. But it had to be some Muslim. Greatly dismaying those on the left.
The same thing happened when someone sent letters with ricin to President Obama and New York City Mayor Bloomberg. It was all over in the news when there was a chance it was some anti-government Tea Party nut. But now you hardly hear anything about it. Because it was not an anti-government Tea Party nut (see Bit-part actor charged over plot to frame husband for ricin letters by Paul Harris posted 6/8/2013 on the guardian).
It is a story that reads like the plot of a cheap, pulp thriller – except perhaps not quite as believable.
On Friday, a pregnant bit-part actor in Texas was charged with sending letters to President Barack Obama and New York mayor Michel Bloomberg laced with the deadly nerve poison ricin in an apparent bizarre bid to frame her husband for the crime.
Shannon Richardson, who has had small roles on TV shows like the Walking Dead and Vampire Diaries, is a mother of five, who first went to the police with her concerns that her husband, Nathaniel Richardson, might have mailed the letters – which were intercepted before they reached their intended recipients.
But as investigators studied the case the focus of their questioning instead began to settle on the person who had made the outrageous claims in a scenario that on its face value saw a marital spat develop into a full blown bio-terrorist attack on the White House…
Amazingly this is not the first case of its kind this year. In April letters laced with ricin were sent to Obama, a Mississippi senator and a local judge. Paul Kevin Curtis of Corinth, Mississippi, was quickly arrested but charges were dropped and another man was picked up. That man, J Everett Dutschke, was later charged with mailing the letters, but also with trying to frame Curtis – who was described as a local rival.
As much as they want these attacks against America to be from disgruntled anti-government Tea Party nuts so they can further marginalize the Tea Party and get more sympathy for using the IRS to harass them they’re not. These people breaking the law aren’t law-abiding Tea Party people. They are anti-American Islamist terrorists. Or just some nut doing something stupid.
But that doesn’t fit the narrative. So the left continues to belittle and marginalize the Tea Party. And uses all the powers of their office to attack them. Or any of their other political enemies. While urging everyone not to jump to any conclusions that the Boston Marathon bombers were radical Muslims who hated America. No. That didn’t mean anything. But the symbolism of April 15? We should all fear the law-abiding people of the Tea Party on that day. For they may do something crazy like throw tea bags into Boston Harbor.
Tags: anti-government, anti-government Tea party nut, Boston, law-abiding, Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, ricin, Tea Party
Week in Review
President Obama said his administration would be the most transparent one. For he has nothing to hide. Right. Pull the other (see Obama Has Rarely Or Never Praised Whistleblowers by Matt Sledge posted 5/18/2013 on the Huffington Post).
In more than four years of office, President Barack Obama has frequently praised the idea of whistleblowing. He even signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act into law in 2012. But has he actually praised any whistleblowers by name..?
“Sad to say, we can’t think of a single one,” Joe Newman, director of communications for the Project on Government Oversight, said when asked if Obama had ever praised a whistleblower.
“I’m not aware of him ever praising a whistleblower, or apologizing to a whistleblower who was wrongfully prosecuted,” said Jesselyn Radack, national security and human rights director for the Government Accountability Project…
As a candidate in 2008, Obama praised instances of whistleblowing as “acts of courage and patriotism” that “should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration.” But since his election critics have repeatedly called into question his record on supporting whistleblowers, pointing to several individuals who have not only not been praised, but were prosecuted.
The whistleblower of my enemy is courageous and patriotic. The whistleblower in my own administration is a no good dirty rat fink. Now there is a slight difference between these two whistleblowers. If you don’t pay attention closely you might miss it. If the whistleblower helps President Obama then he or she is courageous and patriotic. If the whistleblower hurts President Obama then he or she is a no good dirty rat fink. The difference is very subtle. But it’s there. If you look closely enough.
This explains why it took so long for those whistleblowers to come forward on Benghazi. Because they know what happens to no good dirty rat finks. The people they whistle on do everything within their power to make life unpleasant for them. Which is a strong disincentive to whistle blowing. And to hammer that point home President Obama made it very clear how he feels about people squealing on him. For he hasn’t praised a single whistleblower. While prosecuting a few. Basically warning potential whistleblowers ‘not in my administration’.
This policy on truth-tellers is telling. For it suggests there is a lot of truth not being told. Case in point Benghazi. Fast and Furious. The IRS targeting ‘enemies’ of the administration—conservatives. And, of course, the Associated Press. Which looked more like a fishing expedition than a targeted investigation. It makes one wonder how much truth the Obama administration is not telling. And why.
And the credibility gap widens.
Tags: Benghazi, courage and patriotism, no good dirty rat fink, President Obama, truth, whistleblower, whistleblowing
Week in Review
The Left hated few presidents as much as they hated George W. Bush. They called him a war criminal. Even calling for his arrest so he can stand trial for his war crimes. Applauding when nations issue arrest warrants should he step foot inside their countries. His actions only stirred up anti-American sentiment. And provided a recruiting tool for terrorists. President Obama was going to change all of that. He was going to make the world love us again. All while making the world a safer place (see Pakistani Ambassador: U.S. Drone Strikes Cross a ‘Red Line’ by Paul D. Shinkman posted 2/5/2013 on U.S. News & World Report).
The U.S. has conducted 362 strikes in Pakistan since 2004, 310 of which have occurred during the Obama administration, according to data from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. As many as 3,461 people have been killed by the attacks, including as many as 891 civilian deaths, 176 of which were children.
Every U.S. drone strike garners national attention in Pakistan through dozens of television outlets, says Rehman. Pakistanis view the attacks as a “negative and unfortunate” use of power that makes it difficult for the Pakistani government to build a public consensus in its relations with the U.S.
“Operationally, it is counterproductive because it creates more potential terrorists on the ground instead of taking them out,” she says, adding public perception in Pakistan turns the attacks into a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. “We need to drain the swamp.”
If you do the math that means George W. Bush sent in only 52 drone strikes into Pakistan. In other words President Obama sent in 86% of all drone strikes into Pakistan. Our ally. And yet George W. Bush is the war criminal. Not President Obama.
If you crunch the other numbers these drone strikes killed 2,570 terrorists. Along with 715 civilian adults. And 176 children. Making the number of terrorists killed only 74% of the total killed. With civilian adults totaling 21% of the total killed. And children totaling 5% of the total killed. Don’t know how many civilians George W. Bush killed but with 86% of all drone strikes into Pakistan President Obama must have killed the lion’s share of civilians. Yet George W. Bush is the war criminal. Not President Obama. If George W. Bush was still in office the Left would be burning effigies of him for his wonton killing of innocent civilians. But with President Obama we get a shrug of the shoulders. And a simple c’est la guerre.
The lesson here? If you want to use awesome military weapons to kill people around the world make sure you have a ‘D’ next to your name. For if you’re a Democrat you get a pass. While if you’re a Republican they brand you a war criminal.
Tags: drone strike, George W. Bush, Pakistan, President Obama, recruiting tool, recruiting tool for terrorist, terrorists, war crimes, war criminal
Week in Review
No president since FDR has ever won reelection with the unemployment rate about 8%. Which is a problem for President Obama. For except January of 2009, unemployment has never been below 8% throughout his presidency. So you can understand how ecstatic the Obama camp was with the September unemployment rate coming in at 7.8%. And why many in the Romney camp are wondering about the validity of those unemployment numbers. Because the other economic news is not that good. Which has caused some people to wonder if the Obama administration is cooking the numbers with the election coming up next month. Because no president since FDR has ever won reelection with an unemployment rate about 8% (see What Caused Drop in Unemployment Insurance Claims? by James Sherk posted 10/12/2012 on The Foundry).
The news that new Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims dropped sharply to 339,000 last week has raised eyebrows—and aroused suspicion the Department of Labor had massaged the numbers. In truth, there is both more and less to this story than meets the eye. The numbers are incomplete, but because of bureaucratic incompetence, not a grand conspiracy.
The Department of Labor releases information each week on the number of Americans newly filing for UI benefits. These figures shed light on the state of the economy: anything above 400,000 indicates recession territory, while figures below 330,000 show strong economic growth. Since the start of the year around 370,000 Americans have filed for benefits each week—below recessionary levels but still weak. The reported drop would indicate a sharp improvement in the job market.
Except it does not. As the Department of Labor has explained, today’s figures are incomplete. One large state (identified elsewhere as California) did not get all their numbers into the Labor Department on time…
Next week this process will reverse…
Neither this week’s large drop nor next week’s impending jump in UI claims say anything about the state of the economy. They only show that large government bureaucracy’s often cannot get their act together.
So the drop in Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims is not a drop. The numbers are just incomplete. And will be corrected next week. The inaccuracy is due to bureaucratic incompetence. And not a conspiracy to make the employment picture look better for an embattled president trying to win reelection. Of course it begs the following question. Was there bureaucratic incompetence in the September unemployment rate? In an effort to get the unemployment rate below 8% to help President Obama’s reelection chances?
Such an incompetency, if it existed in the unemployment rate as it did in the new Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims number, would certainly help his chances of reelection. Especially when this was the last reported monthly unemployment rate before the presidential election. How lucky for the president that the one time his Labor Department had made a mistake, if they did in fact make a mistake, it’s a mistake in his favor at the best possible time for a mistake. For the Labor Department will issue the next monthly unemployment rate about a day or two after the election. Lucky indeed.
Unlucky in domestic and foreign policy but lucky in bureaucratic incompetence. Will it be enough to help sway those undecided who would not have voted for President Obama had the unemployment rate not fallen below 8% before the election? Possibly. Time will tell.
Tags: bureaucratic incompetence, Department of Labor, President Obama, reelection, September unemployment rate, UI, unemployment, Unemployment Insurance Claims, unemployment rate