HALF-FULL REPORT 03/04/11

Published March 4, 2011 | By Jack Kelly

There is, I suppose, no more appropriate way to begin this week’s Half Full Report than with a report that is half full.

The good news, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is that the unemployment rate has fallen to 8.9 percent.

The not so good news is that the number of persons unemployed (13.7 million) is essentially unchanged from January, and the civilian labor force participation rate (64.2 percent) is the lowest its been in 27 years.

John Podhoretz is puzzled.

But as is now sadly usual, the overall employment number makes no sense. It’s down nearly 10 percent from November’s 9.8 percent, which is amazing — but over the course of those months, only 300,000 new jobs have been created, which shouldn’t have been enough on its own to shrink the employment rate at all. Indeed, as Jim Pethokoukis, the great economics columnist for Reuters (and COMMENTARY contributor), mentioned on Twitter this morning: “The labor force participation rate went nowhere — unchanged. So we are still dealing with a shrunken jobs market.” In other words, the percentage of able-bodied Americans of working age who are actually working did not improve at all.

According to Gallup’s survey, the unemployment rate for February was 10.3 percent.

The Gallup number is more in line with the flatness in the civilian labor force participation rate.

The BLS has tended in recent months to revise, significantly, its monthly estimates following the official press release. The revisions rarely attract the media attention the initial announcement does. Could our government be misleading us? Perish the thought!

The dollar dropped on the “good news.” Apparently currency traders don’t think the news was all that good.

One government official, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, admitted to a hearing in the House of Representatives Thursday she’s been double counting $500 billion in alleged Medicare “savings.”

In the latest news from Wisconsin:

Protesters finally have left the state capitol building, but they could come back on Monday.

It could cost Wisconsin taxpayers up to $7.5 million to clean up after them.

The state senate has authorized the detention of the 14 fleebagging Democrats for contempt.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says today’s action is legally different from an arrest but "definitely a shift from asking them politely."

Maybe the cops could nab one or two when they sneak home at night.

A Madison television station reports the main reason the fleebaggers fled was to buy time for unions to ram sweetheart contracts down the throats of local governments.

Gov. Walker said that if the fleebaggers don’t return by today, he’ll be forced to send out layoff notices to 1,500 state employees.

Police have found live ammunition on the Capitol grounds.

A Democrat state assemblyman threatened a GOP state rep with death.

A Rasmussen poll Thursday indicated 52 percent of Wisconsinites oppose Gov. Walker’s efforts to reduce the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

The poll indicates most support the governor’s efforts at budget cutting.

Meanwhile, the Ohio senate Wednesday passed a tougher than Wisconsin bill to restrict collective bargaining rights of public employees. It goes now to the House, where the GOP has a 59-40 majority.

The Associated Press is alarmed: click to view

With barely a whimper of the protests that have convulsed Wisconsin, legislation to curb public employee unions is speeding toward passage in Ohio, an even bigger labor stronghold.

A lawyer for Ohio’s police union threatened a Republican state senator.

When they say it isn’t about the money, it’s usually all about the money.

Newsweek economics writer Robert Samuelson thinks unions, public and private, are in big trouble.

Unions could be in even bigger trouble than Samuelson thinks.

If you dislike New York Times columnist Paul Krugman as much as I do, you’ll enjoy how Iowahawk dismembered him over his assertion that unionized teachers in Wisconsin do a better job than non-union teachers in Texas.

I rarely watch Fox News, because I think Bill O’Reilly is an insufferable ass, and although Sean Hannity is a sweet guy, I think he’s a poor interviewer (he rambles on when the guest to whom he’s posed his long-prefaced question (Karl Rove, Dick Morris, whomever) would say what he wants to say, only better, if he’d give them a chance to talk), and I cringe whenever he talks about a subject I know well.

But I’d watch Fox virtually every night if O’Reilly were replaced by this person:

Here’s a bit of good news, at least for the guys: click to view

The study found the men who stared at breasts more often showed lower rates of heart problems, a lower resting heart rate and lower blood pressure.

Here’s the next Keith Olbermann, Lawrence O’Donnell, trying and failing to browbeat Allen West:

My hero of the week is Judge Roger Vinson, the U.S. District Court judge in Florida who ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Justice Department asked him to tell the 26 states that brought the suit that they must begin implementation of it anyway (Alaska and Florida have said they will not). I bet Holder is sorry now that Justice did.

Judge Vinson agreed to stay his decision – but for only one week. And only on the condition Justice appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta within that week. And he verbally slapped the Obama administration around:

So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”

(snip)

The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be. And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and judgment and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal.

It should not be at all difficult or challenging to “fast-track” this case. The briefing with respect to the general issues involved are mostly already done, as the federal government is currently defending several other similar challenges to the Act that are making their way through the appellate courts. Furthermore, the legal issues specific to this case have already been fully and very competently briefed. With a few additional modifications and edits (to comply with the appellate rules), the parties could probably just change the caption of the case, add colored covers, and be done with their briefing. . . . [T]he stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court.

Hans von Spakovsky and Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation explain the significance of this: click to view

This is a serious strategic loss for the government. Judge Vinson has challenged the federal government to speed up the appeals process, which would normally take much longer, forcing the hand of the Administration, which would like to slow down the litigation through questionably legal tactics if it can get away with it so it can implement as much of Obamacare as possible before it gets to the Supreme Court. And it is also a clever suggestion to the appellate courts that will next hear these claims: The Administration’s dilatory tactics should not trump the rule of law. As Judge Vinson correctly observed, “[i]t is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible.” Important to everyone except the Obama Administration.

The putz of the week award goes to Kenneth Vogel of the Webzine Politico. I noted in a column last that violent behavior and uncivil rhetoric journalists have searched for in vain at Tea Party rallies has been evident in abundance at the labor union protests in Madison and elsewhere.

Most “mainstream” journalists have simply ignored it. But Vogel takes the double standard a step farther. He attacks conservatives for pointing out extremist rhetoric and thuggish behavior.

Stung by allegations of incendiary, racist and homophobic rhetoric at tea party rallies last year, conservative activists with flipcams and camera phones have circulated at the union protests sprouting up across the country in hopes of catching violent or abusive behavior by their liberal adversaries.

It’s no coincidence that conservative corners of the Web seem inundated with videos and photos of Democrats and union supporters using offensive or violent rhetoric, and even physically engaging with tea partiers:

Conservative leaders have been encouraging activists to try to record their pro-union opponents, and to use the kind of confrontational tactics that liberals say are meant to provoke.

The goals of the video offensive are two-fold: marginalizing liberals in ongoing battles, such as the raging debate over collective bargaining and government salaries, and trying to reverse a media narrative blaming heated political rhetoric from the right for poisoning the political discourse.

The mainstream media might be reluctant to give wider coverage to the videos and photos being circulated by the right because the extreme rhetoric of some union supporters isn’t being echoed by high-profile liberals, suggested Mark Crispin Miller, a media studies professor at New York University.

“There’s a difference between grass-roots anger and profanity, on the one hand, and extremely prominent public figures making violent remarks on the other,” he said. “Most of the Democratic criticism of inflammatory speech was aimed at prominent public figures in the Republican Party or the right-wing media. Sarah Palin was the one who urged people to reload. Glenn Beck has made several incendiary remarks.”

Florida’s Supreme Court agreed today that Gov. Rick Scott does indeed have the right to stick a fork into President Obama’s plans for a high speed rail network in his state.

Meanwhile, China’s high speed rail system is rapidly becoming an enormous white elephant.

Isn’t it fascinating how neither the Democrats nor the journalists who cover them give a damn whether the things they throw our money at work?

I’ve had the flu all week, so my week has been less than half full. I hope yours has been better.