Unemployment: No More Extended Benefits For People Laid Off

WASHINGTON -- After this week, workers laid off through no fault of their own will not be eligible for any of the generous extended unemployment benefits layoff victims have received from the federal government since 2008.
States typically provide the first 26 weeks of unemployment insurance and Congress has provided extensions during every recession since the 1950s. But the current extensions, which give the unemployed an unprecedented 73 additional weeks of aid in some states, are set to expire at the beginning of January.
"There's a real potential cliff coming for unemployed people," emailed Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group. "The federal unemployment programs all expire at the end of this year. This means that anyone who is laid off on July 1st or later, will ONLY receive state benefits unless Congress acts to keep these needed programs up and running."
It's not incredibly likely that Congress will be in the mood to keep these programs up and running. Even when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives last year, Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate caused delays every time the aid needed to be reauthorized. With Republicans in control of the House, additional federal spending to support the economy will be even less popular. (Earlier this year, the GOP pushed a bill that would allow states to redirect federal funds for jobless benefits.)
Spokesmen for Republican leaders in the House either did not comment or did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
In December, Democrats only managed to preserve the benefits through this year by attaching them to two years of continued tax cuts. Several Dems grumbled that the benefits would be in trouble come January 2012.
"The rich get everything they wanted," Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) told HuffPost in December. "They don't care about the other stuff because they know it will all go away. The unemployment benefits -- we're gonna be fighting that one this time next year, right in the middle of when [Republicans] are in control. What chance do we have then? Zero."

Advertisement

Nearly 4 million people are currently collecting benefits under the federal programs, according to the latest data from the Labor Department. As of May, 6.2 million people had been out of work for six months or longer. The average unemployed person had been out of work for 39.7 weeks.
Federal unemployment benefits have never been dropped with a national unemployment rate above 7.2 percent.
"Quite frankly, this will be nothing short of a disaster –- for those workers and their families, and for local economies across the country," Conti said. "It's not too early for Congress to hold good-faith and open-minded negotiations about how to keep these federal programs up and running until the economy recovers enough, and creates enough jobs, that the programs are no longe

ATF Chief Melson Will Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee

Phineas - Well, this could get very interesting. Instead of resigning in disgrace and going away quietly so that everything could be swept under the carpet, Acting ATF Director Ken Melson has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a deal between Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA):

The head of the embattled federal agency that combats gun trafficking has agreed to talk with Senate investigators, a potentially important breakthrough as Congress tries to determine whether higher-ups in the Obama administration knew about a controversial sting that let assault weapons flow across the border into Mexico’s drug wars.
The testimony — expected next month from Kenneth Melson, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — was brokered as part of a deal between Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and the committee’s top Republican, Iowa’s Charles Grassley. Grassley and his fellow Republicans were given full access to ATF documents, Melson, and other key witnesses; and in return, Grassley agreed to release three Obama administration nominees he had been blocking, according to correspondence obtained by Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

So, is Melson the new John Dean, or is this a prelude to being the fall-guy? At Pajamas Media, Bob Owens considers five possibilities:

1. Melson falls on his sword.
2. Melson implicates the head of the DoJ Criminal Division, who signed off on a Gunwalker wiretap.
3. Melson implicates Attorney General Holder, himself.
4. Melson also names Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano.
5. Melson does the “full Dean” and implicates Obama.

For various reasons, Bob considers numbers two and three the most likely, leading to the resignation or even impeachment of the officials involved. Be sure to read the piece to find out why. Going a step further, Howard Nemerov makes a plausible argument that Holder and other officials could be charged as accessories before and after the fact to federal crimes.
Regardless, Melson’s forthcoming testimony promises some summer fireworks.

Economic Confience Drops Below 2010 Levels In America

Ed Morrissey - News on consumer confidence comes to us from two different sources today.  First, via Suitably Flip, the Conference Board’s consumer-confidence measure dropped to 58.5, the lowest level in seven months.  Bloomberg reports that analysts are seeing demand dry up and predict a long, unhappy summer, and they skip the happy spin on housing prices that Reuters employed:

Consumer confidence dropped to a seven-month low in June as Americans grew concerned about the outlook for jobs and wages.
The Conference Board’s sentiment index decreased to 58.5 from a revised 61.7 in May that was higher than previously estimated, figures from the New York-based private research group showed today. Home prices fell in the year ended in April by the most in 17 months, another report showed.

Wells Fargo analyst Mark Vitner advises people to get used to this:

“We have a fairly weak economy with little to no job growth,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in Charlotte,North Carolina. “With consumers so worried about their job prospects, I’m not so sure that we can count on demand picking up. The housing market is dead in the water.”

Gallup also released its latest polling data on consumer confidence, and finds that it has dropped below 2010′s somewhat meager expectations:

After surging in May, Americans’ economic confidence receded in early June and remains near its 2011 low, averaging -33 in the week ending June 26. This is down seven percentage points from the week ending May 29 and down a similar amount compared with the same week a year ago.
U.S. economic confidence peaked this year at -18 in February and then generally declined, reaching -39 during week ending April 24, as gas prices surged and economic activity slowed. Confidence increased in May, averaging -26, likely in response to the news of Osama bin Laden’s death in a U.S. military raid.

It’s not the only unpleasant comparison to 2010.  A year ago, 36% believed the economy was improving as we headed into Joe Biden’s promised “Recovery Summer.”  This year that figure is 31%.  The 2011 numbers first dropped slightly below 2010 levels in March and have tracked well below 2010 ever since except for the brief post-bin Laden mission period.  More people now rate the economy as “poor” (45%) than a year ago, albeit narrowly (42%).
Consumer spending has outpaced GDP growth this year, although that’s not exactly robust praise.  Consumer spending rose a little over 2% in a quarter that got a 1.9% annualized GDP growth rate.  As consumer confidence falls, spending will decrease and push the growth numbers even further towards zero or worse.  The report already shows fewer consumers planning large-ticket purchases in the next six months on vehicles or appliances.   That also will have an impact on job creation; the Conference Board’s percentage of respondents expecting job growth dropped from a pessimistic 16.7% last month to 14.2% now.  More than twice as many (38%) expecting the stock market to decline, the highest level since March 2009.
Flip calls the economic indicator data dump today “stinky.”  It certainly isn’t good news for Barack Obama and his flailing economics team.

House Deals Pres. Obama A Blow With The Illegal War In Libya

Jennifer Steinhauer - The House of Representatives dealt a symbolic blow to President Obama on Friday by resoundingly failing to approve a bill authorizing the contentious military operations in Libya. But the House stopped short of a total desertion of a war-time president by also rejecting a measure to limit financing to support the military operations there.
The resolution to support the mission, which was based on a Senate measure introduced Tuesday by Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, failed 295 to 123, with 70 Democrats joining Republicans on an issue that has divided Democrats and became a major Constitutional flash point between Congress and The White House. (See how all the members voted.) The Senate has yet to take up their measure.
A second measure, which would have prohibited money for military operations outside of support activities like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — essentially ending direct American combat activity like missile strikes — failed 180 to 238, with 89 Republicans deserting their party on the measure, and only 36 Democrats voting in favor of it. The measure, which had the support of Republican leadership, was intended to severely limit America’s role while not completely leaving NATO allies in the lurch.
The message – a bipartisan muddle – reflected both a nation weary of wars across party and geographic lines, and a Congress that dislikes having its powers usurped by the executive branch.
Over the last few months, there has been increasing hostility toward the Obama administration in the House among both Democrats who oppose the war and many Republicans who cite Constitutional issues over the president’s refusal to seek authorization from Congress for the operations in Libya. They say such authorization is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
Under that law, presidents must terminate unauthorized deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have begun. If what the United States military is doing in Libya constitutes “hostilities” — the administration argues that it does not — then that deadline passed on May 20.
Speaker John A. Boehner has repeatedly warned President Obama that the House considers the situation untenable and would seek to intervene through resolutions and its power of the purse.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with scores of House Democrats and urged them to vote against the defunding resolution, insisting the collective effort in Libya was close to ousting the nation’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In emphatic language, Mrs. Clinton warned them that a resolution to bar money for Libya would be disastrous to American interests in that war-torn nation, said some of the 60 or so Democrats who attended.
“The secretary was there to make the case on behalf of the administration on why they want to continue the war,” said Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, one of the attendees. He added: “It would appear inside the caucus that there is a split on this, and I think the fact that the secretary came over tells you a couple things. One, that the White House is very concerned about the vote, and second, that there is a sudden awareness that the fact that the administration has ignored Congress may carry with it a price.”
Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California, said that while Mrs. Clinton “did a really good job of making the administration’s case,” Ms. Woolsey was ultimately not swayed to support the activities in Libya. “She did what the White House should have been doing all along, which is come to us, talk about the situation, tell us what their perspective is, and have a conversation,” Ms. Woolsey said.
A bipartisan group of representatives will also offer an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill, which may be voted on as early as Friday, which would further cut funding for intelligence and operational support in Libya, and end all activities by October. It is not clear how much support that measure would have if the more limited resolution offered by Mr. Rooney passes.

Why African-Americans Are Not Outraged Over Obama Economy And 16.2% Unemployment Rate

Tara Wall - Between 2004 and 2007 I was a spokesperson and liaison for minority media at the Republican National Committee, and I routinely fielded questions from black journalists about what the Bush White House and Republicans were going to do about the “alarmingly high” 9% unemployment rate for African-Americans. People were outraged when I had the audacity to point out that unemployment was still pretty low (the overall rate was 5%) and that there had been record-breaking continuous and consecutive job growth month-over-month. No matter, the black community was still in a “crisis.” And it was all the Republicans’ fault.
Apparently it still is. After all, who else can be blamed? Some folks get downright indignant at the mere thought that Obama would be challenged on this issue. Others dare not question his administration, perhaps for fear of being labeled racists. Others find themselves, as I recently did, engaged in a heated discussion with a brother who insisted (to the point of calling me a liar) that unemployment was far higher under Bush than it is under Obama. I also recall (during the Bush years) one angry young sister in a long line outside a Washington, D.C.-area gas pump when prices were $4 a gallon screaming how it was “all Bush’s fault.”
The economy has been far weaker under President Obama than it was under President Bush, which is why Obama’s disapproval rating on the economy is at 60%. Even after all of the bailing-out and “stimulating” that was supposed to create jobs and bring us back from the brink, we’re at over 9% unemployment nationwide. The unemployment rate for African-Americans stands at 16.2%.
Conservatives aren’t surprised by the economic consequences of Obama’s failed policies. What is surprising is the deafening silence among my counterparts in the press corps. No outrage. No outcry. Not a peep. People aren’t asking the same questions of this president that they asked of Bush. Where are the critical, “non-partisan” voices who spoke out against Bush? Are they calling the DNC and demanding action? Are civil rights leaders blaming “racist” Obama administration policies for not getting black folks out of these dire straits? Where is the equal-opportunity reporting?
It’s no coincidence that the Obama administration has begun to ramp up its so-called “outreach” to black Americans by touting a new African-American White House webpage. It’s not because President Obama has been successful at closing the achievement gap between white and black students, delivering on substantive health parity issues that plague minorities or creating incentives to help jumpstart minority businesses and create jobs. It’s because that’s what Democrats do when it comes time to court minority voters. They pull out the spit and polish to ensure the shoe looks shiny and new. It would behoove black media and GOP hopefuls to pay more attention to the worn-out sole rather than the shine.

Obama's Illegal War On Libya Costs $9,421,000 A Day

Andrew Malcolm - The Obama administration is spending almost $9.5 million every single day to blow things up in Libya because the president has determined that is in the country's national interest, this country's national interest, not Libya's.

You may not have noticed the $392,542 flowing out of the national treasury every hour, day and night, since those first $1.5 million Tomahawks flashed from the launch tubes back on March 19.

But Libya's dictator Moammar Kadafi has. Not enough to quit, mind you, because he can hide while his troops do the dying and killing.

Kadafi's military might has been degraded sufficiently by allied missiles and bombs to perhaps create a long-lasting stalemate with rebel forces in the desert conflict that Obama initially promised House members would last a matter of days, not weeks.

Thirteen weeks later Obama, who was elected running against the war in Iraq, finds himself also embroiled in an escalating constitutional conflict at home over another war that he started while touring South America with his family in March.

You may recall that nine days later the Real Good Talker did what he usually does when attacked; he gave a speech to address the outcry over the sudden conflict without meaningful congressional consultation.

"When our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act," the Democrat declared. The president made the case that Kadafi was a ruthless ruler, who vowed "no mercy" on his own protesting countrymen. Obama added:

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -- a city nearly the size of Charlotte -- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."

The trouble is that numerous bad guys are killing their own people all the time around the world. Syria comes immediately to mind as a place where government security forces didn't even bother vowing "no mercy." They've just killed an estimated 1,000 protestors in recent weeks. Obama has "warned" Syria many times and frozen bank assets.

How could the Nobel Peace Prize winner order a military intervention over a possible civilian massacre in Libya, which was not attacking the United States, but do nothing over an actual civilian massacre in Syria? And how exactly is avoiding a stain on the world conscience in the vital national interests of the United States?

Additionally, Capitol Hill and many Americans have the notion that Congress is responsible for declaring war. They cite the War Powers Act of 1973, a legislative legacy of the divisive Vietnam War, which was also prosecuted by a Democratic president.

That act, passed by a veto-beating two-thirds majority, sets numerous requirements for any president involving the U.S. military without congressional authorization or a declaration of war: There must be an "attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president must notify Congress within 48 hours. And the White House has a total of 90 days to prosecute the conflict and withdraw without a declaration of war or legislative authorization.

Sunday is Day 90 of the Libyan war.

As Congress prepares to debate the new fiscal year's defense budget, House Speaker John Boehner warned the president this week he would be in violation on Sunday and mentioned cutting off funds for the mission. Cutting funds to troops, however, is extremely risky politically and unlikely.

Boehner added:

"The ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your administration."

On Wednesday, Reps. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, and Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, both staunch war critics, sued the administration in federal court over what they call its unconstitutional prosecution of a war.

On the same day the administration delivered a package of materials to Congress maintaining basically that the conflict, which will have cost $1.1 billion by late September, is so limited and inconsequential that Obama does not need congressional authorization.

Lawyers for Obama, who is not the first president to ignore the War Powers Act, argued the Libyan operation is not so much war as normal military operations that sometimes might involve hostilities:

"U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo."

A Boehner spokesman called the White House response "creative arguments" requiring further study and ongoing consultations.

NYT: Obama Overruled Top Pentagon, DOJ Lawyers On Libya War Powers Act

ALLAHAPUNDIT -  - No “Quotes of the Day” post today. This is big enough that I don’t want anything new on the site distracting from it overnight.
The Times is treating it as the major story that it is, but under a Republican president (especially one named, say, George Bush) it would be a scandal of nuclear proportions. What they’re basically saying here, without actually saying it, is that the president’s own lawyers told him that the Libya war is illegal and he responded by looking around for other lawyers who’d tell him what he wanted to hear.
The congressional hearings begin on Monday, I hope.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch…
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.
In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

See what he did here? The OLC is typically called “the president’s law firm” because it’s tasked with advising him on what he can and can’t legally do with his office. They study the law and consult with relevant agencies, and then they make a formal determination to guide his actions. That’s what should have happened here — they likely would have determined that he was violating the War Powers Act, which in turn would have forced him to go to Congress and finally request formal authorization of the mission. (In fact, Johnson, the Pentagon’s counsel, reportedly told Obama he’d be on firmer ground if he stopped the drone strikes, at least. Obama refused.) This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the OLC as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t. Disgraceful.
Ironically, Boehner’s now in almost as tough a position as Obama is. He’s the one who confronted O about the War Powers Act after Kucinich forced his hand; now he’ll have to figure out what the proper congressional response to this should be. Does the House hold hearings? Vote to defund the mission, citing Krass and Johnson for authority that it’s illegal? File suit in federal court charging Obama with violating the WPA, even though any court will almost certainly refuse to rule on it on “political question” grounds? And what happens to O’s supporters on Libya in Congress, especially among Democrats, now that his warmaking has been deemed renegade by his own core legal team? This doofus almost certainly could have gotten congressional authorization shortly after the mission began if he’d asked for it, but for reasons I still don’t understand, he refused. I guess he wants to maximize his presidential prerogative to use drones anywhere he likes, notwithstanding Johnson’s assessment that that’s enough to constitute “hostilities” under the WPA, in order to give himself a free hand in Yemen and beyond. Good work, champ — you’ve now forced a high stakes, politically risky separation-of-powers confrontation with Congress over a conflict to which virtually no one has paid attention for weeks. Click on the image.
Here’s Harry Reid insisting that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply here, and even if it did, “this thing’s going to be over before you know it anyway.” Which is basically what Obama himself said — three months ago. Remember “days, not weeks”? Exit question: That’s going to be one awkward round of golf, huh?

Gallup Poll Results : Obama vs. Any Generic Republuican

Ross Kaminsky - Gallup prefaced the results of their recent Obama vs. Generic Republican poll results thus: "A generic Republican presidential candidate has a slight but not statistically meaningful edge over Barack Obama, 44% to 39%, in registered voters' preferences for the 2012 presidential election. Historical data from June in the year before an election have not been very predictive of the outcome."
In my view, Gallup's language understates just how bad this news is for President Obama.
Let me stipulate that Gallup's assertion is true that this poll, based on past history, is not highly predictive. (One then has to wonder why they bother with it.)
But to argue that it's not statistically significant seems an excuse too far.
First, President Obama trails the generic Republican by 5 percent while the notes to the poll give it "95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
Second, the last time the same poll was taken -- a month ago -- Obama held a three point lead over a Republican-to-be-named-later. Thus, the swing is a large 8 percentage points, an amount which can't possibly be statistically insignificant. (And again, if it is, then this poll question should never be asked in this way.)
Finally, it's one thing for an incumbent to trail in polls against a particular opponent. But it's another thing entirely to trail a generic, nameless, faceless candidate. In the two prior election cycles where there was no front-runner at this point in the election cycle, Gallup polled the question of the incumbent versus a generic member of the other party. In both cases, the incumbent had a huge lead -- although George H.W. Bush ended up losing to Bill Clinton. For Barack Obama to trail a generic Republican right now shows far more weakness than Gallup would have us believe.

Bi-Partsian Lawmakers Sue President Obama Over Illegal War In Lybia

Ried J. Epstein - A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.
“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

The White House is expected on Wednesday to deliver to Congress a much-anticipated report detailing military activity in Libya. According to Kucinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration’s “circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad.”
It also will ask a judge to prohibit the White House from conducting a war without congressional approval.
Kucinich has scheduled a press conference at noon in front of the D.C. federal courthouse.
The suit comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent Obama a letter claiming that military action in Libya will violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution if it does not end by Friday, 90 days after it began.
The Kucinich-Jones group also includes Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republicans Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Ron Paul of Texas, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Dan Burton of Indiana.

1.9 Million Fewer Jobs Since Obama Passed $800 Billion Stimulus Plan

(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-eight months after Congress passed President Obama’s signature economic stimulus law, and nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010 to be “Recovery Summer,” 1.9 million fewer people are employed.
In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.
While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession – 137.9 million in December 2009 – those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending.
This does not mean that the economy is not creating jobs, but rather that it is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with a combination of layoffs and people entering the job market for the first time.
In a Washington Post op-ed, former White House chief economist Larry Summers noted that the percentage of the population that has a job has not improved, even though the economy is technically in recovery.
“From the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2011, the U.S. economy’s growth rate averaged less than 1 percent a year,” Summers wrote. “The fraction of the population working remains almost exactly at its recession trough, and recent reports suggest that growth is slowing.”
The fraction of the population with a job has in fact fallen in the 28 months since Congress passed the stimulus – down from 60.3 percent in February 2009 to 58.4 percent in May 2011.
The economy cannot create jobs fast enough to keep pace with layoffs and recent high school and college graduates seeking employment. If the trend continues, as Summers notes may happen, the economy will suffer further in the future as college graduates delay entry into the labor force, reducing their lifetime productivity.
“Beyond the lack of jobs and incomes, an economy producing below its potential for a prolonged interval sacrifices its future,” argued Summers. “Huge numbers of new college graduates are moving back in with their parents this month because they have no job or means of support.”
As both Summers and the BLS data make clear, the economy is not creating new jobs fast enough to make up for layoffs and new graduates, calling into question Obama’s oft-repeated claim that the economy is recovering and creating jobs.
In fact, by citing figures from the first quarter of 2006, Summers is understating the economy’s poor performance. According to BLS data, the number of people with jobs peaked at 146.6 million in November 2007, meaning that over the entire recession – which officially began in December 2007 – the number of people employed has fallen by 6.8 million.

Gov. Rick Perry: Will He Run for President?

Jennifer Rubin - Sources close to [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry tell me he is now “serious” about a presidential bid. He has been talking with his big money donors for the past week, and they had a conference call on Monday to talk assembling a possible 2012 campaign.
But the rub was this: There was no way Perry would run for president without his top political consultant, Dave Carney. And it also would be nice to have his former campaign manager, Rob Johnson, on board.
Unfortunately for Perry, both of those guys were working on Gingrich 2012. Carney was advising Gingrich in New Hampshire and Johnson was Gingrich’s senior political adviser. As one top Republican strategist told me on Tuesday, the canary in the coal mine for a Perry presidential run is whether Carney would leave Newt.
Now, Gingrich’s entire team has up and quit. And all of a sudden Carney/Johnson are available. And Rick Perry is for real.

The availability of key aides means one barrier to a presidential run has been removed. But there are reasons Perry might not want to run. To start with, he’s been clear that his view of the federal government is driven by the 10th Amendment, namely do as little as possible and get out of the way. But even if one’s vision is less federal government, a presidential candidate is going to need affirmative policies, most especially when the complaint against President Obama is that he’s not leading. Does Perry have a national agenda? We don’t know.
Moreover, as soon as Perry gets in he’s going to face stiff competition from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) for the votes of social conservatives and Tea Partyers. Do they divide up the conservative base, allowing Mitt Romney (as John McCain did in 2008) to slip through? The prospect of running is different than the reality of trying to put together a race very quickly (would he have to skip Iowa?) and finding a toe-hold early in the race (could he win before South Carolina?).
Opinion among experienced Republican campaign advisers and former officials varies. I talked to a number last night, none of whom are supporting a 2012 candidate.
One experienced conservative told me that of the populist-leaning candidates, such as Bachmann, he found Perry the most electable. A GOP official tells me, “He is a great politician not to be underestimated. His message works in Iowa, New Hampshire and everywhere.”
But others profess wonderment at the buzz he is generating. Some are concerned about his penchant for being the “wild card,” not unlike Gingrich or Bachmann. He’ll have to explain his comment about Texas secession and demonstrate the sort of discipline a national race with national media demands.
Others are concerned about finding a candidate with appeal outside of GOP strongholds. As one strategist put it, “I hate to say it, but I don’t think the nation is ready for another ‘swashbuckling’ Texan.”
Some are even more harsh. A Republican adviser on Capitol Hill cracks, “I think he’s PT Barnum. He’s a showman and no one’s sure if he’s serious about his beliefs.” He also recalls that Perry was the Democratic state chair in 1988 for Al Gore. And then there was his controversial executive order for all Texas girls to be vaccinated with Gardasil, an anti-STD drug whose company employed Perry’s former chief of staff as a lobbyist.
All of that said, he has some real strengths, including an enviable economic record, a sophisticated understanding of energy policy, vast campaign experience (he’s in his fourth term, replacing George W. Bush in 2008 and then winning three additional terms) and a willingness to be ruthless (ask Kay Bailey Hutchison). He’s a prodigious fundraiser and a charismatic speaker.
Chances that Perry will get into the race are very high. But the notion that he can simply walk away with the primary is downright silly. A experienced campaign adviser summed it up, “The enduring question is how good he is when forced to go beyond the talking points, how deep he is. He’ll have to prove that.” As will his opponents.

Gov. Mitt Romney Skipping Iowa Straw Poll

W. James Antle - Mitt Romney is effectively skipping the Ames straw poll, suggesting that he is going to deemphasize the Iowa caucuses next year. When Romney lost Iowa in an upset to Mike Huckabee in 2008, it was a major hit to his campaign. Now that Newt Gingrich's entire Iowa team has resigned, it has raised questions about how important Iowa is going to be this time around.
But Iowa may still have a significant role, especially if the field remains more or less where it is now. Iowa will be Tim Pawlenty's best shot to establish himself as the main alternative to Romney. If he wins the caucuses -- or performs very strongly despite his anti-ethanol subsidy stance -- his path to the nomination begins to come together. If Pawlenty doesn't catch fire and he finishes behind candidates like Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul, it is much harder to see how he moves into the top tier.

Median Period Of Unemployment Hits All-Time High

 HighEd Morrissey - Call this the Chart of the Day, courtesy of ABC News’ Dan Arnall.  The length of time between jobs for the unemployed has hit an all-time high of almost 40 weeks.  For eleven percent of job seekers, that time period goes longer than another year, which is another all-time high as well:

We’ve seen the headline numbers from the monthly jobs report; losing a job means a long stint without employment these days. The median period of unemployment is now at a historic high; 39.7 weeks according to the May Report. That’s the highest it has ever been in the history of the survey.
A new research report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics dug into this trend to offer new details on how long it takes to make the transition from unemployed to employed and found that 11 percent of job seekers took a year or longer to land a new job. Another off-the-chart reading.
Data included in the report shows that between 2000 – 2008 about half of all unemployed people found a job within five weeks. Last year, a little more than a third of jobseekers were able to land a new position in that amount of time.

Given the increases in unemployment in the second quarter of this year, one can expect that the red and orange bars won’t drop much for 2011, either.  While the Obama administration has been (until recently) trumpeting the job creation numbers from Q1, the truth is that the rate of job creation during the two-year recovery hasn’t kept up with population growth.  We have spent the recovery going backward, not forward, and the slowdown in Q2 will only make that more clear.
Sara Murray notes that trend at the Wall Street Journal’s Real Time Economics blog:

Jobless Americans who dropped out of the work force typically searched for work for five months before ultimately giving up last year. …
Labor-force participation, the share of Americans who are working or looking for jobs, has fallen to its lowest percentage since the mid-1980s. That’s partly because people have grown discouraged about their ability to find jobs and have given up looking. With those workers on the sidelines, the unemployment rate has been lower than it otherwise would be.
The official unemployment rate hit 9.1% in May. Including all of those who had part-time jobs but wanted to work full-time as well as those who want to work but had given up searching, the rate was 15.8%.

As Murray notes, that has harsh implications for the national economy.  Not only do we lose the output of these workers, but most of them will transfer to government entitlement programs, which will eat further into productivity and wealth creation.  Further, the lack of income keeps the housing markets from finding qualified buyers, which has home values deflating across the country.
It’s time for a new economic approach that encourages capital investment and unburdens businesses from oppressive regulation.  Otherwise, we will continue to develop an underclass of discouraged workers, and our population growth with only increase our problems.

CNN Poll: 48% Believe A Great Depression Is Coming Soon

Ed Morrissey - Alternate headline: Great Depression worries go mainstream.  I guess we can count Barack Obama among the 51% who aren’t worried about it, since he’s not even worrying about a double-dip recession.  CNN’s latest poll shows an almost even split between Americans who expect a big collapse within a year, and, er, Americans who aren’t quite as worried about it:

President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating has dropped below 50 percent as a growing number of Americans worry that the U.S. is likely to slip into another Great Depression within the next 12 months, according to a new national poll.

The three-point difference makes this a dead heat within the margin of error.  Moreover, this is the most pessimistic survey result we’ve seen on the subject.  In 2008, only 38% expected another Great Depression, which rose to 41% in 2009 shortly after Obama took office.  In the two years of the Obamanomics recovery, it’s jumped seven points — which shows just how effective people believe Obamanomics to be.
His Osama bin Laden bounce has dissipated, CNN’s analysis concludes, especially among Republicans.  Two weeks ago, 27% of Republicans approved of his performance, but that’s been cut almost in half to 14%.  Independents have also started peeling away, with a five point drop in the same period from 47% to 42%.  His overall approval rating dropped from 54/48 — apparently a math-challenged result in May from CNN that adds up to 102%, so I’m guessing that’s a typo for 54/46 — to 48/48 today.
CNN doesn’t break down approval ratings on the issues for Obama in this release (nor its sample breakdown, for that matter), but they did poll on which issues matter most to those voting for President in 2012.  The ratings for “extremely important” show 51% selecting that option for the economy, followed by a tie at 45% between unemployment and health care.  If 51% of people think that the economy is extremely important for their vote and 48% think we’re going to enter a Great Depression before they have a chance to cast it, that’s not exactly going to bode well for Obama’s re-election chances.
Maybe he needs to worry a little more about the economic backslide, or at least acknowledge it.

Teen Unemployment Rate Reaches 25% In America

Ron Scherer - Only 1 in 4 teens is working today – the lowest proportion since the end of World War II, according to one researcher. Although some programs are trying to help young Americans get jobs, the unemployment rate for 16-to-19-year-olds who want to work now stands at 24.2 percent, according to the May report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released Friday. Among African-American teens, the rate is 40.7 percent.
"I am not hesitant about calling it a crisis," says Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group.

RELATED Local jobs: Top five cities leading the turnaround

It's a crisis with potentially important implications. When teens can't find work, they have time on their hands and can be prone to getting in trouble. One particular problem can be higher incidences of teen pregnancy. Also, in the long run, teens who don't work miss out on developing important skills for later on, such as learning to take orders from supervisors, getting along with co-workers, and coping with criticism.
"The more work experience they have, the higher the wage when they reach ages 20 to 25 years," says Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. "Many employers who are hiring say the kids don't have the 'soft' skills, but the only way to get them is to be in the workforce. So not having a job today affects employability in the future."
The scarcity of jobs for teens comes at a time when many are starting to search for summer jobs. In 2009, as part of the Obama stimulus program, Congress set aside $1.2 billion for youth activities, including summer jobs. But that money is now gone.
As a result, even jobs such as working as a lifeguard are expected to be in shorter supply. For example, New York City will create 23,000 summer jobs, down from 52,000 two years ago.
Many mayors are scrambling to raise money from the private sector to fund summer jobs. In Louisville, Ky., Mayor Greg Fischer has collected $420,000 in pledges – enough money to provide summer jobs for a couple hundred kids, says Michael Gritton, executive director of KentuckianaWorks, a workforce development agency.
till, for many teens in that program, finding a job is very challenging. Seventeen-year-old Victoria Martin, who lives with her mother in rural Shepherdsville, Ky., will have to juggle work with caring for her two children, ages 4 months and 2 years. But it's not the children that are the problem, says Victoria, who has earned her certified nursing assistant degree as well as her GED. She says potential employers such as nursing homes and hospitals have told her she must be 18 for their insurance purposes. Skip to next paragraph

• 

  Graphic: Few jobs for teens
  (RESEARCH: Geoff Johnson, GRAPHIC: Rich Clabaugh/Staff)

"It's just a matter of being patient. I turn 18 this September," she says.
But even some older teens are having difficulties finding work. One is Erin Allen, who is 19 and wants to get a job in a beauty salon. "I love nails and doing hair," she says, but so far she has not had any job offers.
Ms. Allen, who has a 10-month-old son, plans to go back to school for her GED in July, but in the meantime she has applied for work at a few Circle K convenience stores. She hasn't heard back.
Across America, teens have run into an onslaught of competition for entry-level jobs from older Americans who suffered financial losses during the recession and have had to supplement their income.
Some economists say many teen jobs were lost after Congress four years ago raised the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.
"Employers with these entry-level service-oriented positions, looking for low-skilled labor, pay very little and expect very little from it," says Dennis Hoffman, an economics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe. "When told they have to pay more than the marginal product is worth, they will be deterred from hiring them."
Another teen who's finding the job hunt difficult is 18-year-old Divine Favour Anene. Originally from Nigeria and another participant in the Kentucky program, he has been unable to find work – even with a GED. He wants a job in retailing or health care. He's applied to Wal-Mart and Kroger but has heard nothing back.
"I would say there is work out there, but you have to be a little more patient in this economic time," he says.
Indeed, some companies are gearing up to hire teens. In March, the DOL asked United Parcel Service to "match up" young DOL candidates with the company's plans for summer hiring. As a result, UPS says it will take on 1,500 "working students" who will get paid $8.50 to $9.50 an hour, plus medical benefits.
"No experience is necessary. We will train you, teach you, and hopefully you move forward and grow," says Matt Lavery, director of workforce training at UPS in Atlanta. "Ideally, the employment goes beyond the summer."
In northern California, John Hogan, chief executive officer of the staffing agency TeenForce, says he has recently signed up 15 businesses that are offering part-time work for 21 youths. In the past 10 months, TeenForce, which is only a year old, has placed 67 teens, Mr. Hogan says.
One of Hogan's goals is to improve the image of teen workers.
"Right now the image is not that good," he says. "But if you build a brand that is reliable, on time, and honest, it makes it easier for the next teen as well."

Obama: Incumbents Facing High Unemployment Lost Re-Election

Tina Korbe - Just 25 percent of likely voters expect to be better off financially by November 2012, according to a poll released today by The Hill — and one in three actually expect to be worse off. Perhaps even more tellingly, 65 percent said they think the country is on the wrong track. A plurality — 36 percent — also said they have less pride in America now than they did four years ago.
The poll is anything but good news for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection bid, which will likely hinge heavily on the economy.
But it’s not particularly surprising, given the chronically high unemployment rate and the even-more-dismal-than-expected May jobs report — the worst in eight months. (Although, to be fair, the poll was conducted last Thursday before the release of the May jobs outlook.)
In the last month, unemployment rose from 9 percent to 9.1 percent. A Senate Budget Committee press release estimates underemployment to be as high as 16.1 percent. History tells us incumbents have a hard time overcoming these kinds of disastrous statistics, as this handy chart from the Democratic group Third Way makes clear (via The Fix):

Of course, the pessimism wasn’t quite as pronounced among liberals: 41 percent actually said they expect to be better off financially by next fall. The poll report also points out that just 6 percent of blacks said they believe they will be worse off in one year, while 46 percent expect their situation to be better.
The poll’s political implications are OK by me — I don’t feel badly for what the economy might cost Obama in 2012. But overall, these stats are still highly discouraging, not least because they indicate individuals continue to suffer from depressed mental attitudes about the economy — attitudes that presumably stem from experienced or observed hardship.
But they’re discouraging from another vantage point, too: They highlight just how politicized economic matters have become. That liberal and conservative expectations of individual financial status are so inverse of each other suggests government policy has become a far more potent factor in the economy than should be the case in a capitalist country. That’s really nothing new even here in the United States, but it is a reminder of the deeper philosophical divide between those who think government spending can actually stimulate the economy (perhaps because they experience the immediate — but ultimately unsustainable — benefits of government handouts) and those who accept the reality that it doesn’t.
In other words, it’s depressing so few people expect an improved financial outlook a little more than a year from now, but it’s almost more depressing that some do expect to see some improvement, when all signs suggest this administration still hasn’t learned the lessons failed stimulus programs have to teach.
So, in the interest of putting a positive spin on what is a decidedly dejecting poll, I’m going to chalk up the optimism to good old-fashioned confidence in individual ability and a determined work ethic — and credit to the pessimism a realistic understanding of the effects of the policies of this administration.

James Carville: Unemployment 's About to Cause Civil Unrest Across The Country

Ed Morrissey - And you know who that helps? Er, nobody, really, but it certainly hurts Barack Obama. The Daily Caller provides a four-minute video from today’s Don Imus Show, in which Democratic political strategist James Carville warns that extended unemployment will have a destabilizing effect on American politics, which is hardly the kind of Hope and Change Obama was selling in 200. 

“It is going to be very difficult,” Carville said. “But the country, if that is what we are doing, this is gruesome on people. This unemployment rate for this long is humanitarian crisis of the first magnitude. This financial crisis, people have studied this by the way, they know that the things take this long to work their way through. The aftermath of these things — kind of an academic book that is dry entitled ‘This Time is Different.’ What it concluded it is not different this time. They studied it, the aftermath of the financial crisis. What we are going through is imminently predictable. But this is a terrible thing that has happened to people’s lives. I think the president at one level understands that, you know. But he is limited in what he can do. So we’ll just have to see. But it’s going to be hard. If 54,000 jobs is the new norm – this is going to be very, very tough. Some people say it just might be one more thing. We don’t know.”
But Carville said the consequences aren’t limited to politics alone. He warned of heighten risk of civil unrest with the bleak economic picture.
“You know, look – this is a humanitarian — you know, you’re smart enough to see this,” Carville said. “People, you know, if it continues, we’re going to start to see civil unrest in this country. I hate to that, but I think it’s [eminently] possible.”

Will there be riots in the streets? Doubtful, not unless we see a total collapse of the economy. Right now it’s a toss-up whether we’ll drop into a mild recession, so the civil unrest is hardly imminent, the word the DC mistakenly used to transcribe Carville’s warning. But without a doubt, high and chronic unemployment has caused civil dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democrats; we saw that in the midterm elections, while the GDP numbers were still inching up.
Now that the Keynesian bubble has deflated, Obama is left with no progress at all, and handed his opponents a good argument that far from helping, Obamanomics got in the way of a normal recovery. At the very least, Republicans can ask whether a Democratic warning of impending civil unrest is a sign of success or failure, and ask voters to reach the obvious conclusion

Ron Paul: We Are Supporting A Future American Dictatorship

Steve Watson - 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that a lack of oversight from Congress, the media and the American people is enabling the rise of a dictatorship in the US.
The Congressman issued the warning via his weekly Texas Straight Talk column, noting that in light of current attitudes within the executive and legislative branches, “it would be incredibly naive to think a dictator could not or would not wrest power in this country” at some point in the future.
“Americans who are not alarmed by all of this are either not paying close attention, or are too trusting of current government officials to be concerned.” Paul writes,
“Our Presidents can now, on their own: order assassinations, including American citizens; operate secret military tribunals; engage in torture; enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process; order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment; ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution; continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight; wage war at will; and treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-rays. ” The Congressman urges.
The Congressman also specifically pointed to last weeks passage by Congress of a National Defense Authorization Act that contains an alarming worldwide war provision, noting that it “explicitly extends the president’s war powers to just about anybody.”
The ACLU declared that the provision: “has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.”
Section 1034 of the Defense Authorization bill that says were are at war with the “associated forces” of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
“Would it be so hard for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?” writes Congressman Paul.
Paul warned that future leaders will ” inherit all the additional powers we cede to the current position holders.”

Congressmen Weiner And Lapdog Liberal Media

…or to point out that Weiner all but admits taking a photograph of himself like the infamous picture. That’s all there, of course, but only mildly interesting given what has gone before.
No, the purpose of this post is to show you how much Rachel Maddow is his lapdog in this interview.
Seriously, jump ahead to about 4:10 in the clip and watch her work her way up to the question of whether the photo is of him.  The most shameful moment is when she says, “let me ask you whether you want to answer that question…”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now, truthfully no reporter can coerce cooperation. This isn’t like court where if a person is called to testify (and can’t invoke a privilege against testimony, such as the privilege against self-incrimination), the judge can throw that person in jail for contempt until his or her tongue loosens. But that is not the attitude a reporter should take, especially when dealing with a public official. The attitude you should take is that the people have a right to know the answers to these questions. By asking him for permission to ask a question, she is demonstrating that she has no business claiming to be a reporter, who fearlessly pursues the truth, and as appropriate speaks truth to power. She demonstrates that she is a lapdog, at least for one political party.
As for Weiner, may I suggest that if you are not following Lee’s twitter feed (@stranahan) you really, really should be. He is pursuing an interesting theory that on one hand might exonerate Weiner of the charge of sending the pic, but also might explain why he is acting like he has something to hide. It’s just a theory, but it would very eloquently explain what we are seeing.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

A Double Dip Recession Coming Soon?

Margo D. Beller - Wall Street is having a hard time figuring out what to do now that the U.S. economy appears to be sputtering and yields are so low, Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer, told CNBC.

"What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money," he said. "They can not find a yield and you just don’t want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy.

"We need to find real yield and real returns on these assets. You see bad data, you see Treasurys rally, you see all bonds and all fixed-income rally and then the people who are betting against the U.S. economy start getting bearish on stocks. That’s a huge mistake."

Stocks extended losses after the manufacturing fell below expectations in May and the private sector added only 38,000 jobs during the month.

"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything," Yastrow said. "We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.

"We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under. The technology frontier is limited right now. We definitely have an innovation slowdown and the economy’s gonna suffer."

However, he said he wouldn’t sell stocks.

"Any bears out there better be careful because the dividend yields on these stocks look awesome relative to all the other investment vehicles out there," Yastrow said. "So bears are going to have to find a new way to express their discontent with the U.S. economy."

Gov. Chris Christie Will Visit Iowa Next Month

chris wysoocki -wNope, Chris Christie is not running for president. He said so, again, after meeting yesterday with a group of influential Iowa GOP donors. They flew to NJ in an (apparently unsuccessful) attempt to persuade him to enter the race.

But riddle me this Batman. How many guys (or gals) who aren't running for president have scheduled high-profile trips to Iowa this summer?

Gov. Chris Christie will travel to Iowa this summer to participate in an education summit.
The governor, who has insisted vehemently that he isn't running for president, is going at the request of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, said Christie political strategist Mike DuHaime.

Two other big-name Republicans who aren't running for president either (yet!) also plan to visit Iowa this summer. Rep. Michele Bachmann has all but declared her candidacy already, and Sarah Palin is giving the media fits as her multi-state bus tour bobs and weaves its way to New York, Massachusetts, and … Iowa.
If we take Chris Christie at his word that he's "not ready" to be president, can we perhaps, maybe, potentially see him running for Vice President? Is there a Palin / Christie, or Bachmann / Christie ticket in our future?
He'd certainly lend a whole lotta gravitas to either lady's presidential aspirations. And he still wouldn't be running for president.