Obama's Abysmal Record On Poverty

In celebrating 50 years since President Lyndon Johnson declared his war on poverty, Obama has now declared his own war on poverty; and well he should.  That's because, right now, the poverty rate in America is higher than it has been in 49 years; when, in 1965, it stood at just 15.1%.

If you listen to the President, poverty could be lessened if we force companies to pay a higher minimum wage, extend unemployment benefits, and pass another stimulus package which he now calls a Jobs Act.  But, we already did all these things before and the poverty rate has only gone up and is showing no signs of dropping.

What Obama doesn't seem to understand is the fact that half the jobs that he keeps taking credit for are low paying, entry-level, and minimum wage work.  The kind of jobs that put, and keep, people in poverty. 

References:

Half Of All Jobs Created In The Past 3 Years Were Low-Paying: Study: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html

Despite massive increase in welfare spending, no change in poverty level: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/despite_massive_increase_in_welfare_spending_no_change_in_poverty_level.html

Democrats Craziness On Extended Unemployment Benefits And the Minimum Wage

According to Barack Obama, the current minimum wage of $7.25/hr or $290/week is absolutely not enough to survive on for any of the 1.7 million Americans that earn that wage.  So, he's pushing for a fair, liveable, $9 an hour; or, a weekly income of $360.  But, what Obama isn't telling you is that 2 million people, or 300,000 more than those making minimum wage, work for less than that, and, raising it won't help those people one iota.

Then, there's the issue of Obama's call to renew the extended unemployment benefits for the 1.3 million Americans who saw their benefits expire just after Christmas.  Their average income was $300/week or just $10 more than a minimum wage worker.  Are they, too, like the current minimum wage earners, getting too little money to survive?  Of course, extending the unemployment benefits isn't going to help the 8 million of  the 11 million workers who are officially unemployed and receiving zero benefits.  Nor will it help another 9 million workers who have left the workforce because they are frustrated and cannot find a job.

But, the real irony in all these discussions about wages is that you're probably better off being on welfare than either collecting unemployment or even working for minimum wage.  That's because, in a majority of states, 35 states to be exact, welfare recipients collect the equivalent of $400 a week or higher.  How's that for income inequality, Mr. Obama!


References

Seeking Alpha: Extended Unemployment Benefits Statistics:  http://seekingalpha.com/news/1484551-Over-1M-affected-as-extended-unemployment-benefits-expire

Forbes Magazine: Welfare pays more than the minimum wage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Minimum Wage and Lower Income Wage Earner Stats: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

The Politics About 1.3 Million Losing Unemployment Benefits

According to Barack Obama, those heartless Republicans in Congress decided to go home for the holidays and let 1.3 million Americans lose their much-needed and extended unemployment benefits --- just four days after Christmas.  Certainly, this makes the GOP the Grinches. Of course, they could have been even more heartless by allowing benefits to expire just before Christmas.  But, mercifully, and unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, they waited until the Saturday after.

In reality, the loss of these benefits was part of the bipartisan budget deal that was approved by both Democrats and Republicans alike; in both Houses of Congress; and, was signed into law by the President.  Everyone (Obama, the Republicans, and the Democrats) knew that the budget deal would drop extended benefits for the unemployed.   Never once was there a threat by Obama to veto the deal if the benefits weren't extended, nor was there any movement on the part of the Democrats to extend them before the bill was passed into law. Of course, once signed, the President, unlike the Republicans, who only went home for the holidays, flitted off to Hawaii for perfect weather, beautiful sand and beaches, and, of course, some of the best golf courses in the world.  No way was he going to stick around frigid Washington and attempt to get an eleventh hour deal to save those unfortunate workers from heir fate

Now, after the benefits are gone, Obama and the Democrats think that they should be renewed. Not by 13 weeks, or 26 weeks, but instead, by 47 weeks.  This odd number conveniently extends the benefits until after the November elections.  As usual, the President could care less about people losing their benefits.  Instead, like the delay of oh so many ObamaCare mandates, it's all about winning elections.

Jobless Claims Fall Sharply On Seasonal Adjustments

This morning, jobless claims fell by 35,000 after rising by 36,000 in the previous week.  The Boston Globe (Boston.com) said this:  "benefits dropped by 35,000 last week, a figure that may have been distorted by seasonal factors".  The operative word in that statement is "distorted".  Then, the "Globe" went on to say: "Applications surged two weeks ago, reversing a big drop the previous week. But economists caution that the government struggles every July to account for temporary summer shutdowns in the auto industry."  In this case, the operative word is "struggles".

The problem with the government tinkering with the jobless claims number by using "seasonal" adjustments is that it is too open to tinkering for political reasons.  But, more importantly, in a day of widespread computerized data management, it seems impossible to believe that we are still having to estimate claims based on samplings and on seasonal adjustments.  Theoretically, there's no reason why the government couldn't have the actual numbers; on any day; and, in real time.  Why aren't all this nation's claims offices being locked into a single database?

The other problem I have is the concept of seasonal adjustments being singularly done for the auto industry.  These adjustments are probably not needed anymore.  They are hangovers from the days when the auto industry was the major employer in the country and at a time when almost every car sold was made here.  And, every year, the Big Three (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler), for competitive reasons, would do a complete or major redesign of cars.  This, in turn, necessitated long shutdowns of the manufacturing facilities for retooling; every July.  The laid off employees would then apply for unemployment benefits. Also, today, many of our so-called American autos are made in places like Canada and Mexico.

Today, those major redesigns just don't occur with any regularity.  For example, the PT Cruiser, which was in production from 2001 to 2010, changed very little in all those years.  The Chevy Cruze and Volt, which share the same body style and frame, have not changed for the last three years.  Furthermore, automobile manufacturers are no longer following the tradition of introducing their "all new models" in the Fall of every year.  You can buy the "all new" 2013 Nissan Altima; right now. And, the Altimas are either made in Smyrna, Tenn. or in Canton, Miss. and I'm quite sure that the government didn't seasonally adjust when those plants were shut down for retooling; early this year.

The point that I'm trying to make is that these "seasonal adjustments" make no sense anymore; and, quite simply, they are as the Globe said: distortions.

Boston.com story: http://www.boston.com/business/markets/2012/07/26/jobless-claims-drop/kRT7wGdwrxQkRrtbkVgLDP/story.html