Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Earth to lawmakers: Wake up
Posted in:
* A Mike Sneed story was flat-out denied today by the Democratic Party of Illinois…
Sneed hears rumbles that former Dem U.S. Senate hopeful David Hoffman, who ran a tough campaign against Alexi Giannoulias, is one of five names on state Dem party leader Mike Madigan’s wish list for lieutenant governor.
Steve Brown, party chairman Michael Madigan’s spokesman, said the item was not true, there is no list, added that Sneed had not called to confirm and said he was giving her his “Dumber than a box of rocks award.”
Back to Sneed…
Top Tip: The list also includes Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez as well as Gov. Quinn’s favorite pick: former state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth, who is considering the possibility.
Top Tip II: Sneed also has learned that Quinn personally called Alvarez over the weekend to see if “she would be available for the job . . . should it come to that,” but Alvarez respectfully declined.
* Republican US Senate candidate Mark Kirk criticized Alexi Giannoulias’ poll results this week. The Giannoulias poll showed the Democrat leading Kirk 49-45. But the Kirk campaign refused to release its own numbers, which tended to undermine their otherwise decent argument…
The Kirk camp attempted to refute the Giannoulias poll numbers which showed the Dem leading Kirk by 4%, but they refused to release their own internal numbers, and pollster Greg Strimple said he “thinks this race will be close all year long.”
Strimple argued that Giannoulias’ numbers lacked credibility because of the low number of undecided voters. The Kirk camp sees a high number of undecideds, particularly in the St. Louis media market and western edge of IL. Their polls also include Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones, who is on the Nov. ballot. He argued that Jones may win a significant number of votes this year from disenchanted Dems. […]
[Kirk campaign spokesman Eric Elk] did not deny that Pres. Obama is extremely popular in IL. The Giannoulias poll showed Obama with a 64% favorability, and Strimple said his poll showed a similar level. But Elk said he couldn’t “imagine (Obama) wants to campaign” alongside “Chicago politician” Giannoulias.
Elk might not be able to imagine Obama campaigning with Giannoulias, but I can.
Also from that conference call…
Eric Elk, the Kirk’s campaign manager, indicated the Kirk campaign isn’t concerned about a third party bid, ideologically right of Kirk.
“A third party bid is somewhere between wishful thinking and a pipe dream for Giannoulias,” Richard Goldberg, another Kirk senior staffer said. They feel confident in the ability of Kirk to unite voters around fiscal sobriety, his Republican independence and homeland security issues.
* Meanwhile, incumbents can’t even have a fundraiser these days without being jumped on by the other party. I’ve seen it happen over and over, from both sides, and this is just the latest…
Good morning – Democrat campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen will be in Illinois today fundraising for vulnerable Democrat Representatives Bill Foster and Debbie Halvorson. Please see the following comments and research from the Republican National Committee:
“The president and Democrat leaders promised vulnerable Democrats they would be taken care of if they sold out their constituents and voted for unpopular big government policies. After voting for government-run health care and the failed stimulus amid Illinois’ 11.1 percent unemployment, Representatives Foster and Halvorson are welcoming Van Hollen with open arms as they try to line their campaign coffers and stave off competitive Republican challengers who embrace the fiscally responsible policies voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia have already demanded. But they should give their constituents more credit – come November voters won’t forget how Foster and Halvorson sold them out during tough times.” – RNC Spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski
* With the one-year federal stimulus anniversary this week, a Republican congressional candidate went on the attack…
State Sen. Randy Hultgren used the anniversary to highlight U.S. Rep. Bill Foster’s support of a stimulus that the GOP challenger views as a failure in creating the job growth or job preservation promised to the country. Hultgren said in a written statement that he’s seen rampant unemployment and hurting families during his travels throughout the 14th District. The only growth Hultgren said he’s seen is in government spending and the national debt as the stimulus, originally estimated at $787 billion, is now projected to be about $862 billion.
And that brings us to our graph of the day. Click the pic for a larger image…
[Via Sully.]
* Related…
* Bean not worried about tea parties: “There is no question that when there is an economic downturn, that definitely the anxiety levels go up - absolutely - and the passion levels go up,” said the Barrington Democrat during an interview Thursday with the Daily Herald editorial board. “But I get a lot of people saying, ‘I like what you are doing.’”
* Schilling responds to Hare campaign kickoff
* Kirk, Giannoulias camps agree Senate race is tight
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Earth to lawmakers: Wake up
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I wonder if Hoffman floated his own name.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:15 am
Rich, where did the graph come from?
Comment by Anon Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:24 am
I hear Sneed is officially the second winner of the “dumber than a box of rocks” award with the first going to madigan for allowing Cohen to run unabated through the primary even though madigan knew about his background.
While Madigan remains the odds on favorite to win the next “dumber than a box of rocks” award with key decisions like Cohen’s replacement and budget issues forthcoming, expect a hard charge from Alexi also–he still hasn’t explained his involvement in Broadway Bank even though he promised to before the primary.
And you can never rule out quinn. So many prisoners–so many early releases.
One thing is for certain, it will be a tight race.
Comment by Easy Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:25 am
I think it’s interesting that Duckworth is considering it, if she really is. Maybe being a high-level federal appointee in the Obama admin isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?
Quinn will be in his mid-60’s at the end of his first full term if he wins. That’s certainly young enough to go for another. 8 years is a long time to wait to be governor, though. I wonder, if his favorite, Duckworth, takes it, is there an implied one-term-only promise to allow her to run in 2014? That would give her four years to campaign since she wouldn’t have much else she had to do in the lt. guv job. This option must give the Madigans the chills. 4 years of Quinn.
8 years (or more) of Duckworth….then, unpredictable…
Comment by cassandra Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:27 am
Anon, I’ve seen it several places this week. I think I got it from Sullivan’s site.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:31 am
I just don’t get all the pushing of Duckworth. Being a disabled veteran means she’s given a huge amount for our country, but it doesn’t mean she has actual skills in governing. She went from nowhere to an appointed position in Veterans Affairs. I haven’t seen that she knows anything about elective office or state government. People keep treating her like the second coming, but I don’t get it.
Comment by ChicagoRick Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:33 am
If I were Duckworth I’d consider it — I think she’s a very attractive statewide candidate for the Dems and they would find her something meaningful to do in the office and/or set her up to run for higher office. Mike M. might not like that though — cuts in on Lisa’s turf — so I don’t think it would happen.
It’s hard to imagine someone better on the ticket than Duckworth — I’d send her out with Quinn on every campaign appearance. Only Dan Hynes has a similarly high upside.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:34 am
I would like to see Illinois’ graph of job loss.
And yeah - the US graph looks promising. It looks like we’re not losing as many jobs as before.
How about a jobs hiring graph to balance this out? You know, actually showing that the job situation is actually improving…
And, according to the latest monthly postings, there are still a lot of media out there using the term, “unexpectedly” - STILL after January 2008 to today. Just how could job losses be unexpected after two years of job losses? The same people who see trends that don’t exist, now don’t see trends that have been around for 24 month. “Unexpectedly” - sheesh, losers!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:35 am
I wonder if Hoffman floated his own name.
—————
Of course, he did.
Comment by Niles Township Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:42 am
Erik Elk’s statement about the President is just encouraging the perception that Kirk and Co. are too D.C.
I mean - the President himself is a “Chicago Politician,” right?
Their RNC talking points may work out in D.C., but I don’t think they will work here.
Comment by George Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:43 am
Anyone who’s taken Economics 101 should be able to identify this graph as a typical “bust” cycle.
Employers (outside of government, of course) downsize and become more efficient once a long term economic downward economic trend is identified.
Companies overshoot downsizing until they realize they need some of the people they dumped, then hire new people at less than they were paying those they let go to make up the diffrence.
It’s interesting to note that the rates of increase in downsizing pretty much matches the rate of reduction in firing, indicating this is more of a natural economic phenomenon than the result of government policy.
This is pretty consistent with the theory that the “stimulus” had little economic effect. It just took money from the private economy and shifted it over to the public economy.
It seems likely this economic trend would’ve occurred without the ruinous “stimulus”, Wall Street and auto union bailout programs weren’t enacted.
Comment by PalosParkBob Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:54 am
George makes a good point. What will make DC talking points even less effective is that this is a non-presidential election year where a lot of people will be focusing on the gubernatorial race.
I won’t go as far as to say that Rep. Kirk is completely out of touch with Illinois voters but I think that he is getting some bad messaging advice.
Comment by Obamarama Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 9:55 am
I’m wondering what “Republican Independence” means, and how the recent “earn the voter’s respect” (sorry if I didn’t phraise it correctly) message got lost. McCain himself seemed to indicate that he understands that Illinois is–and wants to remain–very different from DC.
In trying to get R, D, and I votes, you’d think a campaign would be focusing on the issues/positions that all might have in common (building), rather than trying to slight (intentionally or not) one group in favor of another. Aside from the obvious as to why such an approach may go wrong, there’s just too much time left and people will notice.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:06 am
===This is pretty consistent with the theory that the “stimulus” had little economic effect.====
Please. Where do you get your economic ideas? Off the back of a cereal box?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:07 am
PPB, methinks the GOP talking points hath taken over your stream of consciousness. Your conclusions all are pretty ridiculous, and refuted by credible economists of all ideologies, but let’s parse one:
==It just took money from the private economy and shifted it over to the public economy.==
Really? The graph Rich posted above appears to invalidate that platitude. The private sector was shedding jobs at an alarming rate many months before the stimulus took effect. A more reasoned argument is that many private businesses were direct beneficiaries of stimulus spending.
Comment by The Doc Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:10 am
Lot’s of people in Illinois are tired of Chicago-style politicians, and part of the President’s appeal is that he has distanced himself from the “Chicago-style politician” image. Obama sure hasn’t looked like he has wanted much to do with Giannoulias so far.
Comment by 10th Indy Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:12 am
most sites source the graph to talking points memo. what is interesting about the graph is that it is pretty stark evidence that the market lost faith in george bush and renewed its faith with barack obama’s inauguration.
more to the point, tax cuts exacerbate market failure. and we need to be very clear here: the market *did* fail. it failed to regulate itself (witness all the ponzi schemes hatched under bush’s watch), it failed to heal itself and the ramifications of both will hinder economic development for years. the washpost published a story today about how community banks are under stress due to their heavier commercial lending and the failure rates of that lending is just starting to effect the market.
the simple fact is that markets need governments in order to operate efficiently. they need government regulation, they need governments to maintain safety and security within the markets and consumer base and they need governments to maintain user trust in their efficacy. all this costs money. like most americans, the markets would like to get this for free, but the jig is up. it is obvious that there are no “market solutions” to the problems that face this state and the country today. and the introduction of ponzi-scheme like financing into government (after all, many conservatives have been arguing that government should be run like a business, and our current fiscal crisis can be linked to this type of thinking) has only increased the financial instability illinois faces.
this chart is remarkable, because it makes clear how much an intangible thing like trust effects the markets. it would be remarkably stupid to conclude that this graph would have been the same without a massive effort to restore consumer confidence in the marketplace; iow, without the campaign and election of barack obama. but there are always those who want everything for nothing. and they will come up with any excuse to justify their greed — and our paying for it…
Comment by bored now Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:12 am
===Employers (outside of government, of course) downsize and become more efficient===
Why does downsizing automatically make a firm more efficient? Oh right, it doesn’t. You see, PPB, in Economics 102 they teach you about marginal cost of production and sunk costs. If you already have a high marginal cost of production (high overhead or slim profit margin on your product or service), cutting could exacerbate the situation.
===Companies overshoot downsizing until they realize they need some of the people they dumped, then hire new people at less than they were paying those they let go to make up the diffrence.===
Have you ever had to make hiring or firing decisions? You will be hard pressed to find a situation where your business is better off by firing an experienced and trained employee, replacing him or her with someone else, paying them less, and having to train and acclimate them to your business operation. It is a pain both in terms of financial resources and human resources.
===It’s interesting to note that the rates of increase in downsizing pretty much matches the rate of reduction in firing===
Wait a minute, increasing downsizing, by firing people, leads to a decrease in firing? Sure, if you downsize yourself out of employees, there is no one left to fire.
Comment by Obamarama Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:18 am
I think it’s clear that the stimulus did create jobs. The problem is that it didn’t create nearly enough jobs, fewer than 2 million so far believe, if you believe the claims.
Sounds good, but I’ve read that a strong recovery, which would substantially reduce unemployment and also provide jobs for a growing workforce (US population is still growing) would require the creation of 10,000,000 jobs over the next two years. That’s about 200,000 a month.
The govt. can’t do it alone. It’s going to have to come from the private sector, over and above all these public works projects, and that is probably going to require some business-friendly policies that Democrats are so not going to like.
Comment by cassandra Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:19 am
===
Lot’s of people in Illinois are tired of Chicago-style politicians, and part of the President’s appeal is that he has distanced himself from the “Chicago-style politician” image.
====
Applying that to the Kirk campaign, it doesn’t mean Illinois wants “DC-style” politicians either. And with regard to distancing from the “Chicago-style politican” image, what stands out most in the media is Chicago pol now on the “social” circuit in DC and across the globe, which, which while popular with some is extremely unpopular with others. And, Obama’s support of Giannoulias is probably a lose/lose situation for Kirk either way, erring on more of a win for Kirk if Obama DOES support Giannoulias.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:21 am
Vanillaman:
Its pretty easy to build your own graph at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.
Here’s what I can tell you:
During Jim Edgar’s terms (you know, when we raised taxes), Illinois added a net of about 700,000 jobs (seasonally adjusted, all employment, 1/91 - 1/99).
During George Ryan’s term, Illinois lost 70,000 jobs.
During Blago’s years, Illinois had a net gain of zero jobs, although employment did peak at a net gain of 150,000 jobs in Jan. 2008.
Since Quinn became Governor, Illinois has lost about 230,000 jobs, and we currently have about the same # of people working as we did in Oct. of 1995.
Hope that helps.
YDD
P.S. What’s actually more interesting is looking at manufacturing employment.
Illinois created virtually NO manufacturing jobs in the 8 years Edgar was governor.
LOST 260,000 manufacturing jobs in four years of George Ryan.
LOST 90,000 manufacturing jobs during Blago’s reign.
LOST 60,000 manufacturing jobs during the Quinn administration.
Illinois Republicans and their chums love to blame Democrats for the loss of manufacturing jobs in Illinois, but the data just doesn’t support it.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:24 am
Bored. Where in the world did you learn about government and markets. Outside of the military there are NO government programs that are not inefficient and expensive. Market based solutions, by their very nature, have to be efficient and cost contained.
Comment by Springfield Sceptic Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:27 am
===
Why does downsizing automatically make a firm more efficient?
===
My question is “how long does the ‘downsizing’ actually last”? Being very close to these types of projects for a decade now, what seems to happen in many professions is that the jobs wind up getting shipped overseas where headcount–within a very short period of time–is then doubled. It’s a “bait and switch” that often winds up costing companies more with quality of services going down–even after additional headcount is added.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:28 am
Sneed should get credit for getting her story mostly right. It was Pat Quinn’s Wishlist, not Madigan’s.
Has Kirk surrounded himself with total idiots? Don’t challenge your opponent’s poll unless you’re willing to release your own. It’s waaay to early to look that desperate.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:29 am
what’s not business-friendly about democratic policies? (i’ll answer the question from a business owner’s p.o.v.: not a thing.)
all businesses want their costs (and the cost of government tends to be seen mainly through taxes) as low as possible and their profits as high as imaginable. but businesses require things that government provide. we will be the first to call the cops when there is crime in the neighborhood, the first to see the costs of neglect (like poor road maintenance), the first to feel the pinch when consumers have reduced their spending. sure, businesses will flee an area when their costs could be lower a mile or so away (we’re americans, we’ll drive to get a better deal), but most businesses don’t notice business-friendly or business-unfriendly policies from government. government is simply not a factor in our daily lives, and its very rarely a factor in our business decisions. as a business OWNER, i worry about government only when it’s not doing what i need it to do to operate effectively, and a couple of times a year when i have to deal with taxes. business friendly policies would mean making it easier to file my taxes and maintaining the roads so i don’t have to buy new tires before they are supposed to wear out…
Comment by bored now Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:29 am
There’s no way obama is not going to campaign for alexi. obama never campaigned for seals but that was because seals was a black sheep that no one in the dc democrat party wanted to see elected. this is his seat.
kirk doesn’t need a 3rd party challenge to lose he just needs enough conservatives that won’t vote for him. Kirk doesn’t spend 10 years in his district voting like a democrat on social issues and then seek an endorsement from sarah palin because he discovers a love for alaska.
Comment by shore Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:30 am
==The govt. can’t do it alone. It’s going to have to come from the private sector, over and above all these public works projects, and that is probably going to require some business-friendly policies that Democrats are so not going to like==
Cassandra, these public works projects - are they being performed by gov’t employees?
And what, pray tell, are the biz-friendly policies that Dems will reluctantly have to embrace that will result in private sector job growth?
Comment by The Doc Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:32 am
===Outside of the military===
You ever work for the military?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:32 am
sorry, springfield, i don’t have any government-based experience from which to pontificate. what i *do* have is experience based on owning a medium-sized business, several smaller businesses, and experience writing econometric equations into wall street models on economic activity. in the course of that experience, i’ve been able to sit down with the roundtable, and other business owners. i’ve been lucky (well, at least smart). sorry if speaking from experience doesn’t fit your ideologically-based view of how things are supposed to be…
Comment by bored now Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:33 am
**Outside of the military there are NO government programs that are not inefficient and expensive. Market based solutions, by their very nature, have to be efficient and cost contained. **
A) So,you are saying the military is efficient and inexpensive?
B) No program - not a single one in the history of government - is either efficient or inexpensive? Is that really your stance?
C)Market theory and market reality are two different things. If we have learned anything from the onset of the current recession, I would hope it is that.
Comment by Montrose Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:33 am
===
It’s a “bait and switch” that often winds up costing companies more….
===
I’ll add one more thing to that thought, and then I’m done on this topic. I still don’t understand why companies don’t understand that the other countries with whom they’re doing business have clearly stated objectives to employ MORE and MORE of their workers.
Protectionism practiced over there is ignored for some reason by those making business decisions here. Case in point a very SMALL article years ago in the papers re: a healthcare company that had once shipped jobs overseas, got caught up in the “bait and switch”, and wanted to pull out because they were no longer realizing the profit margins they were expecting. Government in that country wouldn’t allow them to do so–as long as they were making even a miniscule profit–without paying out a bunch of $ to bail out. So after looking at the new numbers, they decided to stay. Live and learn.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:39 am
Im guessing RNC made a statement because Halverson had Van Hollen in - so it wasnt just a run of the mill fundraiser. Van Hollen is part of the national demacratic leadership that is developing the big government policies like cap and trade and gov run healthcare, that voters in these districts are unhappy with. Most folks in those two districts probably dont agree with Van Hollen on most issues.
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:41 am
Good grief people! This graph says a whole lot less than you people think it says.
It doesn’t mention the stimulus. It doesn’t make a comparison to previous recessions. It doesn’t say what kind of jobs these are. It doesn’t even say how many jobs were created. It doesn’t mention the kind of pay the jobs loss had, or the benefits. It doesn’t say a single thing about business efficiencies.
It is just a bunch of numbers based on a remarkably wide definition.
Please stop politicizing it and recognize that what it suggests to some people - is what some people what it to suggest.
Thanks YDD on the Illinois breakdown. Those are very frustrating figures. I watched my South Side manufacturing world end and lived it.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:42 am
===democrat party===
You are killing me, Shore.
Comment by Obamarama Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:43 am
Yes, Rich. I also served. My experience has been that even civilian employees find out very quickly what is and what IS NOT acceptable work ethic when dealing with a military constituency.
Comment by Springfield Sceptic Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:44 am
According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, Illinois’ tax climate ranks pretty much in the middle: 30th.
And BTW, Alabama has the top-ranked business-friendly tax policy in the U.S.
As of Dec. 2009, their unemployment rate was 10.6%, and they’ve has lost 30% of their manufacturing jobs since 1991.
By contrast, the state with the most “anti-business” tax climate is New Jersey, which most recently reported an unemployment rate of only 9.8% in Dec. 2009.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:46 am
Anon - this graph was put out by the Speaker and DNC in early Jan. I find it amusing that it ended up here - considering the disdain we have for “DC Spin” and “DC tp’s”
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:53 am
No chart of the day that includes the “expected job losses” with and without the stimulus?
=I think it’s clear that the stimulus did create jobs. The problem is that it didn’t create nearly enough jobs, fewer than 2 million so far believe, if you believe the claims.=
Undefeated in all of his campaigns, Evan Bayh this past Monday after deciding to retire with a 20 point lead on his opponent.
“But if I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”
I have an idea. Would a stimulus that wasn’t required to use Davis-Beacon “prevailing wage” rules create one job? Maybe two jobs?
The White House used “saved and created” nonsense for a reason. The press largely bought it. I can show you more WMD from Iraq that you can show me jobs created as a result of the stimulus.
Meanwhile another family moves to a pro-growth state while leaving a no or low-growth state. The President approves new loan guarantees for nuclear power creation in Georgia. The sun belt states do have business friendly tax environments, but they really pale in terms of economic production to the rust belt.
This pattern shows no sign of changing.
Comment by Brennan Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:03 am
=this graph was put out by the Speaker and DNC in early Jan. I find it amusing that it ended up here - considering the disdain we have for “DC Spin” and “DC tp’s”=
It was?
Oh yes. It was.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/recoveryanniversary
Is it new data? Rich’s version has clipped the source for the data.
Comment by Brennan Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:07 am
Brennan, do you find that it is inaccurate? If so, say so.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:08 am
A conservative independent will run for the U.S. Senate, because Rep. Kirk is more liberal than many Democrts. Dr. Eric Wallace might run because he thinks that he might win.
Comment by Conservative Veteran Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:09 am
=what is interesting about the graph is that it is pretty stark evidence that the market lost faith in george bush and renewed its faith with barack obama’s inauguration.=
I have bad news for you. Barack Obama is the President. He’s not the Fed Chairman. The graph closely follows teetering investment and commercial banks.
Comment by Brennan Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:11 am
Rich: Just quote your sources. I read Capitol Fax for a reason. I comment mainly to interact with your other readers.
Comment by Brennan Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:14 am
With all due respect, ConVet, that sounds more like a reaction than a strategy.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:15 am
Brennan, I didn’t get that from the Obama page. I saw it several times and made the screen cap and then couldn’t remember where it came from. I think it was Andrew Sullivan, as I posted here earlier. That’s where I got the last graph I used here.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:23 am
We all read CapFax “for a reason”, Brennan. We all comment “for a reason”, too.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:27 am
I don’t see how anyone can say that the stimulus plan has helped anything other than save some public sector jobs. The data that the White House keeps pushing gets repeatedly refuted to the point that it seems they’re making things up as they go along. The “unemployment rate” is at 9.7% nationally (according to the White House), yet the real unemployment rate is at around 20%, a number you’ll never hear uttered from the WH.
The unemployment rate here in IL is around 11%, yet the real unemployment rate is also at 20%+. Illinois is 48th in job creation over the last 10 years. Clearly it’s a hostile business environment and the solution by the democrats to raise taxes is incredibly misguided. If you increase the tax base, you don’t have to increase taxes.
Comment by Steve-O Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:31 am
Yep, Sullivan… http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20120a8b1bb0e970b-popup
And, Steve-O, the stim has had a significant impact on GDP. Please don’t be deliberately dense.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:35 am
We all know Sneed is way wrong more often then she is right..
But I heard there were 75 people who want that job…why would she print it..they could all float their own names. I think Madigan doesn’t want anyone to know what he’s thinking yet. Would start a backlash.
Comment by RogersParkTom Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:59 am
BTW, the renowned economist Joe Stiglitz was on Chicago Tonight last night and said that the stimulus has created jobs and prevented more unemployment, but should have been larger to be even more effective…
www.democracynow.org/…/2/…/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_on_obamas
Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:04 pm
S’field Septic wrote, “Outside of the military there are NO government programs that are not inefficient and expensive. Market based solutions, by their very nature, have to be efficient and cost contained.”
Thanks for the laugh of the day.
The Social Security Administration, Medicare and Medicaid all operate with dramatically lower overhead than their private sector counterparts. Are there occasional problems (ie, “inefficiencies”) with gov’t agencies? Sure.
But I also long ago lost count of the number of times private companies have misdelivered, misplaced or misappropriated stuff I have bought or sold to them….
Then again your one example of a supposedly “efficient” government agency, the military, has literally lost truckloads full of bricks of $100 bills, not to mention all those $1000 hammers and $100 bolts they keep getting price gouged on and all the faulty and shoddy contractors they continuously work with (to the point of food poisoning and accidental electrocutions in poorly wired showers).
The “free” market ain’t exactly free (witness the lavish bonuses recently doled out to execs despite big red numbers on those companies’ bottom lines).
The real bottom line? Your lame conservative talking points don’t hold water.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:08 pm
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81451-the-graph-every-democrat-wants-you-to-see
Comment by Graph Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:11 pm
PS - A version of that graph was released earlier in the week by Organizing for America. I got the e-mail blast from Plouffe on Tuesday.
http://www.barackobama.com/recovery/video.php
The data is based on info from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is corroborated by info from non-partisan groups like Moodys, Congressional Budget Office, etc.
The White House should’ve been promoting this data for the past 6+ months so the GOP’s urban myths wouldn’t have had as much unfettered time to seep into the “I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell ya” crowd.
That said, Hultgren needs to stop lying. If his plan would’ve been to do nothing then that unemployment he’s seeing now would likely be at least twice as bad.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:13 pm
Is Madigan’s camp poo pooing Hoffman, or just the suggestion of a wish list?
Another riddle wrapped in an enigma.
I don’t know why the Dems would be opposed to Hoffman (very strong choice), unless Madigan just really wants a Republican governor to raise taxes, as they have historically done. Bill Brady will need to get the dirty work done before Lisa takes over for the rest of our lives, and Brady is just the patsy to do it.
Comment by just sayin' Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:16 pm
Rich, show me any tangible evidence that supports that the rise in GDP is nothing more than temporary? There’s nothing sustainable that’s come out of this stimulus plan so far. And the long-term costs of paying interest on the debt that we’ve incurred as a result will be devastating.
Comment by Steve-O Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:19 pm
PPS Steve-O wrote, “The “unemployment rate” is at 9.7% nationally (according to the White House), yet the real unemployment rate is at around 20%, a number you’ll never hear uttered from the WH.”
The Obama White House is using the same unemployment formula that every president since Reagan has used. Reagan in fact was the first one to convert the gov’t stats to using that particular formula.
Why are you just now complaining about it?
And, are you saying Reagan was wrong to start using it in the first place?
(This is just like the conservatives’ incessant complaints about Obama’s anti-terrorism policies which, in reality, are still the policies Bush put in place. If they don’t think they’re working now why didn’t they have a problem with them before January 20th, 2009?)
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:21 pm
By contrast, the state with the most “anti-business” tax climate is New Jersey, which most recently reported an unemployment rate of only 9.8% in Dec. 2009.
States’ tax policies are driven by many things. In NJ’s case, their location on the Eastern seaboard and proximity to NY give them situational power to do things many other states couldn’t get away with, and still remain in relatively good shape. Lots of factors here.
Is there any state that has “gained” manufacturing jobs in the last 5? Let’s hear those success stories, if there are any.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:23 pm
Steve-O, keep digging that whole deeper…
If the “long-term costs of paying interest on the debt that we’ve incurred as a result [of the Stimulus] will be devastating” then what about the long-term costs of the 10x larger debt incurred as a result of Bush policies?
…Why the sudden concern about ballooning deficits?
I agree we need to be mindful of deficits but if conservatives didn’t have an issue with them before 2009 why the sudden change of heart on a batch of debt that is still dramatically smaller than the huge debt racked up under Bush?
You really need to start looking up more stats and facts from non-partisan sources before continuing to burp up those right-wing talking points.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:25 pm
Steve-O, i don’t want to bore you with the facts — mindless ideology is, after all, mindless — but you’re inability to see how “anyone can say that the stimulus plan has helped anything other than save some public sector jobs” shows considerable ignorance on the subject.
you’d be wrong that “the data that the White House keeps pushing gets repeatedly refuted.” in fact, just the opposite. there’s not only a broad concensus that the stimulus worked, it’s pretty overwhelming:
in fact, the concensus is so complete that “despite their best efforts they can’t find anyone to endorse the standard Heritage/NRO/GOP view that the stimulus” isn’t working. my god, if you can’t even get the economist for the national federation of independent business to declare support for your position, i guess all you have left is that leap of faith you made.
forgive me if i need facts and an independently-verifiable method before believing something about the economy…
Comment by bored now Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:50 pm
bored now - you have it correct in all respects. Virtually all the behavioural economists and business leaders, with whom I have some contact almost daily, who know marketplace reality, believe that the stimulus did in fact stimulate GDP and avert a much worse economic catastrophe. I don’t know how long the GOP/Heritage ideologues can maintain their scam. The voting public will probably get past partisan propaganda and begin to better sense our economic recovery this Summer. I have founded companies and run large operations around the world, and know how and why business leaders make choices and create job opportunities. I am becoming fairly optimistic for a faster-than-expected recovery. One more thing: having consulted and/or managed in the military, government, and private business sectors, to think that one is naturally more or less efficient due to some economic principle, is laughable. There are good and bad operations in all sectors.
Comment by walkinfool Saturday, Feb 20, 10 @ 12:41 am
Hoffman ?
Puh-lease….
No room for losers on the ticket. He could not beat an ethically challenged Alexi.
Comment by Curious Saturday, Feb 20, 10 @ 9:05 am
I like how the people trying to refute my points are automatically assuming that I favored Bush’s policies. That’s the trouble with liberals…anytime someone disagrees with Obama’s policies, they run to his defense by saying, “but…but…Bush was worse”. I thought Bush was a disaster, and I think Obama is also a disaster. How anyone in their right mind can think that we can spend or borrow our way out of trouble is beyond me.
Comment by Steve-O Saturday, Feb 20, 10 @ 4:23 pm