Author: Jack
I retired in 2008 and so I have more time now to devote to several of my interests The blog here is mainly for my interests in some current events but may have the occasional rant on other subjects. I have also decided to keep my genealogy posts here instead of in a second blog (and so simplify my life a little).

Stimulus worked, more jobs needed

Stimulus worked, more jobs needed

Posted on by Jack

The graph below shows the month to month change in private employment during the 45 months from January 2008 to September 2011. Thus months 1-12 are 2008 during the Bush admininstration. Months 14 -45 are the Obama administration. And month 13 is January 2009 which was split between the 2 administrations. The numbers on the right indicate thousands of jobs gained or lost each month.

All numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. The month to month change was calculated and graphed with Excel.

Jobs Chart BLS numbers

The graph clearly shows accelerating job loss in 2008 hitting over 800, 0000 jobs lost in January 2009, staying in that area for several months, followed by a decreasing job loss, and emerging into positive job growth in April 2010. The job growth is too small bring down our stubbornly high unemployment rate but it is moving in the right direction. We need to create more jobs to keep up with the constantly growing labor force. We have had 17 straight months of job gains in the private sector. (The August figures are often reported as zero but that was because the number of jobs in the public sector shrank.)

There are quite a few things that could influence the economy in this time. The slow-down in job decline in early 2009 seems to suggest that stimulus plan seems to have worked but is now slowing down. The TARP program passed in late 2008 may have helped this recovery. And one could argue that things would be better or worse if we had followed a different plan.

The present jobs bill being promoted by President Obama should also stimulate job creation the same way. And there is a focus on fixing infrastructure, things we need to do anyway. One could argue certain aspects of the plan could be improved but many critics think this plan is a waste of time and money since the first stimulus didn’t work. It looks to me like it probably worked but may not have been enough so it is well worth trying something similar.

The stimulus was working but is now slower

The stimulus was working but is now slower

Posted on by Jack

The economic stimulus plan of 2009 is widely criticized as not working but it seems that it did work but is now slowing down. They say it didn’t create jobs but that is not right.

They say the government can only create government jobs. While it is true that government creates government jobs directly, it also plays a large role in creating private-sector jobs, say by contacting with a construction company to build a road or repair a school. Also those government workers and private-sector workers paid to do the work that the government funds, spend their money and that will further stimulate the private sector.

Why do I say this? Let’s look at the data. To make my point I’ll just look at private employment. Government employment is useless according to the critics. I disagree but I’ll leave that point alone right now. But it complicates the picture and gets into an argument that just distracts from my point. So private-sector only.

Monthly job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor from January 2008 to as close to present as we can get are plotted here.

Jobs Chart BLS numbers

I downloaded the numbers from BLS and ran the numbers myself and produced a similar graph. My graph did not look nearly as nice as this one so I went ahead and used the one already published on the internet.

There are quite a few things the would influence the ecomomy beside that change in Presdential administrations. And one could argue that things would be better or worse if we had followed a different plan. Or one could argue that the TARP program passed in late 2008 was a part of this recovery. But the slow-down in job decline in early 2009 seem to suggest that stimulus plan seems to have worked but is now slowing down. Jobs are being added but at a slow pace.

The present jobs bill being promoted by President Obama should also stimulate job creation the same way. And there is a focus on fixing infrastrucure, things we need to do anyway. Some critics think this plan is a waste of time and money since the first stimulus didn’t work. It look to me like it probably worked but may not have been enough so it is well worth trying something similar.

The President Is a Sick Man by Matthew Algeo

The President Is a Sick Man by Matthew Algeo

Posted on by Jack

No. It is not the current president or a recent past president. I’m sure there are many people who would think this title is one of the many political hatchet jobs that have been published in the last few years. But the full title The President Is a Sick Man: Wherein the Supposedly Virtuous Grover Cleveland Survives a Secret Surgery at Sea and Vilifies the Courageous Newspaperman Who Dared Expose the Truth makes it clear that this is not about a recent president at all and there is certainly more to it than the usual political hatchet job.

The President is Grover Cleveland, the year is 1893, the country faces a financial crisis and there is some secret stuff going on. Cancer is not spoken off in polite society and a president with cancer would be severely weakened politically at a crucial time. President Grover Cleveland has cancer. So the While House just lied.

This is the story of the event and a cover-up lasting for nearly a quarter century. And, of course, the reporter who broke the story in 1893 was believed to be a liar. (Since the President is an honest man.) Matthew Algeo is a reporter and covers this little-known historical event well, putting things in the context of the times and issues and making the story interesting.

The asides are interesting too. President Cleveland had excellent medical care but this seems to be an exception. President today have very good care but that has not been the case for much of our history. I learned in school that President Garfield was shot and died of the resulting infection. The part you don’t learn in school is that the wounds were not fatal but the infection probably resulted from his medical care. Other presidents had doctors picked for political or social reason. Some were good enough but some were really incompetent. The Baby Ruth candy bar is often said to be named for President Cleveland’s daughter Ruth but that does not seem to be the case. I found the background on newpapers of the day fascinating.

The author addresses differences between journalism and newspapers of the 19th century and today’s journalists and media. This a completely enjoyable book. I highly recommend it.

Huntsman Beats Obama

Huntsman Beats Obama

Posted on by Jack

Jon Huntsman beats Barack Obama in making public a jobs plan. President Obama’s plan should be out in a few days. Gov. Huntsman’s plan has already been available for several days. It covers many aspects of the economy as would be expected as jobs are not an isolated issue and they are but a part of the larger economy. Here is the whole plan as a PDF as well as a blog entry on the candidate’s website that summarizes.

Let us hope more of the candidates come out with plans like this so we can have a debate on some ideas. I was a bit disappointed that parts of Huntsman’s plan were vague but I’m sure these points will be more fully explained in the near future.

The Help: good movie and good book

The Help: good movie and good book

Posted on by Jack

A few days ago, I went to see the movie version of The Help. My wife had read the book by Kathryn Stockett on which that the movie was based and said it was a good book and she hoped the movie was as good. I wasn’t so sure about being a good movie, but went anyway. We got there early as we expected a big crowd. Unfortunately, that meant 20 minutes previewing movies that did not interest me and watching advertisements which were of even less interest. The movie started and didn’t look promising. I was worried and just hoped I didn’t start snoring loud enough to disturb those around me. But after a few minutes I was completely taken by the movie.

I am told it was a good book and there is a long waiting list at the library for it. So if you are in any hurry to read “The Help” by Kathryn Stockett, you might want to check at Amazon to see how much the paperback or Kindle edition will cost. Come to think of it, you might want to buy more books there to take advantage of the free shipping.

Can the President ignore the debt ceiling ?

Can the President ignore the debt ceiling ?

Posted on by Jack

I am of the opinion that an agreement is the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion. There are arguments on both sides.

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …

So if congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more than revenues, the President has a duty to borrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to limit his abilities.

The President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.

So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation where he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick either this one debt ceiling law or all the others. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitutional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.

On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling. But then nowhere does it say that Congress can refuse to pay debts or limit the ability of the President to carry out the laws that they passed.

And nowhere does it say that the President cannot borrow in order to carry out the laws.

Debt ceiling: do the right thing, compromise now

Debt ceiling: do the right thing, compromise now

Posted on by Jack

I’ve writtten many times deficit and the debt ceiling. I think law makers on both sides of the aisle should “do the right thing” and compromise now. Some feel compelled to stick to a position because of a previous pledge or stance. I have previously written about The “no taxes” pledge or a higher duty. But the same applies to both sides. To members of Congress are concerned that the deficit ceiling or budget negiotiations may cause them to violate their previous pledges or stances, but need to remember that you took a more important oath when they were sworn in to offfice.

But if both sides are stubborn, everyone loses. Think about it. If we default or even come close, the markets are likely to reward us with a higher interest rate on our debt. Even a small increase on a mutli-trillion dollar debt is a lot of money. We could also stubbornly refuse to reform pet programs and find those programs can not last in the long-term.

Do the right thing, compromise now.

Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free by John Ferling

Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free by John Ferling

Posted on by Jack

I’ve been reading Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free by John Ferling for a few weeks now. For me, nonfiction goes much slower than fiction and that has its advantages and disadvantages.

The book focuses on the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence. The author is a historian known for his expertise in the American Revolutionary era and several previous books have shown that he knows how to tell the story well. Concentration of this relatively short period of a few years allows the author to tell the story in some detail and explain well both the English desire to control a part of their empire and the change as the colonists and Continental Congress progressed from just wanting their rights as Englishmen to the realization that independence was neccessary.

Of course, not everyone made that jump, and those that did, moved a very different rates. I very much enjoyed reading about the interactions of the members who moved from their uncertain prospects to the founding a successful republic and highly recommend this book for those who would like more insight into this era.

Debt ceiling and the Constitution

Debt ceiling and the Constitution

Posted on by Jack

If Congress and the President do not reach an argreement on the debt ceiling, the U.S. could default for the first time in its history. Since this has never happened before, we don’t know with certainly what will happen. But do we want to take a chance to make a point?

I am of the opinion that an agreement is the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion. There are arguments on both sides.

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …

So if congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more that revenues, the President has a duty to bowrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstituional to limit his abilities.

On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling.

I don’t knows how the Supreme Court would come down on this. Sort of like the War Powers Act in that both sides have a good argument but both also have much to lose if the courts decide that the other side has a better argument.

Debt ceiling fiasco

Debt ceiling fiasco

Posted on by Jack

More on the debt ceiling fiasco –

Bill Clinton has an easy answer for the current debt stalemate: If push comes to shove, President Obama should just raise the ceiling on his own and force Republicans to sue to stop him.

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether they pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy”

I’ve quoted Slate in the blockquote and the quote within the blockquote is President Clinton.

I agree it does seem crazy for Congress to appropriate money we don’t have and then have to vote again to approve the borrowing. If they didn’t want to spend it, why approve the budget in the first vote?

A compromise is probably the best and most certain solution. But will compromise come in time?

The President also has Article 2, Section 3 of the constitution on his side. Of course, the abilty of the President to ignore the debt ceiling law could be challenged and we can never be sure how the courts will decide but the suggestion that this is a likely outcome could increase the seriousness of Republican negotiating. (see Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?).

The Republican position now seems to be that your side is not giving enough and our side doesn’t have to give anything. But it would be good to remind Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that they do not hold all the cards. If we are going to negotiate this, let both sides give a little.

The “no taxes” pledge or a higher duty

The “no taxes” pledge or a higher duty

Posted on by Jack

To members of Congress concerned that the deficit ceiling or budget negiotiations may cause them to violate their “no taxes” pledge, please remember that you took a more important oath:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The quote is from the House Member FAQ. Senators take a similar or identical oath.

Stimulus efforts: Shovel ready or not. Please fix our infrastructure.

Stimulus efforts: Shovel ready or not. Please fix our infrastructure.

Posted on by Jack

The stimulus efforts have seemed to slow down for a variey of reasons but often cited is that there are very few truly shovel-ready projects. The infrastructure needs to be fixed. Our roads are certainly in need of improvement and not so long ago a bridge collaped with loss of life and many of our bridges were inspected and found to be sorely lacking. The power grid could use updating too. Remember the black-outs. It would be a long list if I tried to list all the needs and even then I’d surely miss some. Lots of infrastructure improvements are needed in this country.

A project does not need to be shovel-ready to be a stimulus to the economy. The planning stage requires much work (jobs!) and is followed by construction jobs. So we need to fix our infrastucture and stimulate our economy at the same time.

Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?

Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?

Posted on by Jack

In my past few posts I’ve said that I believe the President has authority to exceed the Congressionally authorized debt ceiling by virute of his (or her) duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3). (See http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/2011/07/15/government-by-separation-of-powers-and-ambiguity/ and http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/2011/07/14/debt-ceiling-choices/ )

This is what I would do if I were in the President’s position. I would remind everyone the President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.

So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation were he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.

Of course, the abilty of the President to ignore the debt ceiling law could be challenged and we can never be sure how the courts will decide but the suggestion that this is a likely outcome could increase the seriousness of Republican negotiating.

A compromise is probably the best and most certain solution. But will compromise come in time? The Republican position now seems to be that your side is not giving enough and our side doesn’t have to give anything. But it would be good to remind Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that they do not hold all the cards.

Government by separation of powers and ambiguity

Government by separation of powers and ambiguity

Posted on by Jack

Yes, in my last post I did indicate that the President has authority to exceed the Congressionally authorized debt ceiling by virute of his (or her) duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3). I think it would be a reasonable intepretation that although Congress has the power to appropriate money they cannot limit the executive’s ability to pay bills or debt resulting from previous Congressional actions. This seems to be reinforced by the 14th amendment. And if laws conflict, the President has discretion in deciding which laws to carry out.

But that is just my opinion and who knows how the Supreme Court would come down on this. Sort of like the War Powers Act in that both sides have a good argument but both also have much to lose if the courts decide that the other side has a better argument.

So we not only have a separation of powers but ambiguity and somehow it all works. That seems to be the genius of the Constitution. There is quite a bit of ambiguity in the Constituion but lawmakers add more as we go.