Watch Video |
Listen to the Audio
JEFFREY BROWN: Payrolls were up and unemployment was down in the January jobs report.
The president hailed the news today, while Republicans insisted it could've been better still.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The economy is growing stronger. The recovery is speeding up. And we've got to do everything in our power to keep it going.
JEFFREY BROWN: President Obama wasted no time this morning at a fire station in Arlington, Va., touting the best job creation numbers in nine months.
In fact, the Labor Department report exceeded economists' hopes, with 243,000 jobs added in January, about 90,000 more than expected. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, the lowest in three years. The rate has been down for five months in a row.
And there were other positives: 50,000 new jobs in manufacturing and 21,000 in construction.
In Nevada, though, Republicans campaigning for the president's job said the increases could have been seen a long time ago.
MITT ROMNEY (R): The policies of this administration have not been helpful. They, in fact, have been harmful. They have slowed down the recovery, made it more difficult.
NEWT GINGRICH (R): Obama raises taxes, increases regulation, is anti-American energy, and engages in class warfare, sort of the anti-jobs presidency.
JEFFREY BROWN: Republicans in Congress pointed to nearly 13 million people still out of work and nearly 24 million considered underemployed.
But at his event this morning, the president warned against repeating what he called mistakes of the past, when Republicans ran the government.
BARACK OBAMA: We can't go back to the policies that led to the recession. And we can't let Washington stand in the way of our recovery.
So I want to send a clear message to Congress: Do not slow down the recovery that we're on. Don't muck it up. Keep it moving in the right direction.
(APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY BROWN: The president also outlined a program to hire veterans for conservation work on public lands.
At the same time, he cautioned that employment figures may fluctuate. The Congressional Budget Office issued a similar warning this week. It projected that unemployment could return to near 9 percent later this year.
We'll get to the politics of the jobs situation later, but, first, we look at the numbers themselves.
Joel Prakken is co-founder and senior managing director of Macroeconomic Advisers, an economic analysis firm in Saint Louis. Harry Holzer, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now teaches at Georgetown University.
And, Harry Holzer, I'll start with you.
A nice surprise, for a change. What are the key positives you see here?
HARRY HOLZER, Georgetown University: Well, the payroll growth number of over 240,000 was really much larger than most of us expected it to be.
We had had a couple of good months already. Last couple of months came in at about 150,000 and then about 200,000. We expected possibly some sliding back, as has often happened in this recovery. The fact that we came in at 240,000 growth across most sectors of the economy, the dip in unemployment, all of that was positive news.
JEFFREY BROWN: You said most sectors. Fill that in a little bit. Where did you see things that looked particularly good?
HARRY HOLZER: You saw it in manufacturing, also in construction, which we haven't seen much of any recovery so far. You saw it at the high end in professional services. But you also saw it at the low end in leisure and hospitality, health care which, of course, has been strong throughout, so really spread quite nicely across most parts of the economy.
JEFFREY BROWN: Joel Prakken, I want to ask you about some of the reservations. But, first, stay on the good news here. What would you add to that? What jumped out at you?
JOEL PRAKKEN, Macroeconomic Advisers: Well, better than expected.
And in this economy, we like the upside surprises. I agree with the previous comments. And as your viewers almost certainly know, this report today actually has two surveys on employment, the establishment employment, the numbers for which you just reported. But it also polls households to see what their employment statistics are.
And that separate survey of employment actually grew in excess of 300,000 for the month. So there was corroborating evidence in the companion survey that employment is on the uptick.
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, staying with you, Joel Prakken, this has all been so up and down. Give us the continuing concerns here, or start that out. What reservations do you want to throw out there when we look at what we see today?
JOEL PRAKKEN: First thing to remember is that employment is generally considered to be a lagging indicator of the economy. So the uptick we're seeing here could just be a reflection of the strengthening in GDP growth that occurred in the last part of 2011.
In the first half of 2012, there are some legitimate concerns about how fast the recovery will proceed. First, we've got the constant drag from housing. We built too many houses. We have to work off that physical inventory. We have a lot of houses that could go into foreclosure, gumming up the works.
And of course there's the ongoing constipation in the mortgage finance market. Fiscal policy is in contractionary mode. The Obama stimulus is winding down. The spending caps that were passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are starting to bite. And state and local governments face ongoing pressures that are forcing them to raise taxes and trim.
In addition, there are uncertainties emanating out of the debt crisis in Europe. If a -- quote -- "Lehman event" -- unquote -- happens in Europe during 2012, it could send financial shockwaves around the globe without regard to economic borders.
And all of these risks and uncertainties occur at a time when the Federal Reserve, having already pushed interest rates very low, is not very well poised to try to offset any negative surprises.
JEFFREY BROWN: Harry Holzer, pick up on the -- where we started, was the -- how do you view the unemployment number, as a lagging indicator, as a helpful indicator for how strong the economy really is?
HARRY HOLZER: It is a lagging indicator. It does usually lag by at least a few months.
What's interesting is that at the end of last year, we had GDP growth, economic growth of a little under 3 percent. That's a good number, relative to what it's been. It's not a spectacular number. And -- and we're not even sure that that's going to survive going into the future. Some of that was just businesses restocking their inventories.
So there was concern about whether that kind of production will continue. And yet it does seem to be enough to have lead to some job growth over the last several months. On the plus side, population growth has slowed. Productivity growth has slowed. So even a modest amount of economic growth does seem to be translating into some job growth, at least for now.
And, again, whether or not it continues is anybody's guess.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, Joel Prakken, of course, the president himself warned that the numbers may bounce around. That's what you're suggesting, is that we may well see things go down for a few more months before perhaps they go -- continue -- I'm sorry -- go up again, the unemployment number go up for a few months before it continues down.
JOEL PRAKKEN: Yes. As pleased as I am with today's number, it's far too early to know whether this is an inflection point or some kind of breakout report on the employment side.
There are enough economic uncertainties facing us in 2012 that it is simply premature to do handstands over today's number, as encouraging as it, in fact, was.
JEFFREY BROWN: And bring in the Fed, Joel Prakken, the Fed saying this week as it said the week before that they're just going to keep the interest rates very, very low through 2014, suggesting continuing real fears about the economy, right?
JOEL PRAKKEN: That's correct.
The Federal Reserve is interested in promoting a healthy recovery. It has said now that interest rates will be maintained at a low level for the next several years, extraordinarily low levels. And that is a stimulus to the economy.
Whether it is enough of a stimulus in combination with the other risks and uncertainties facing us to promote very strong job growth in the coming months is anybody's guess. But let's put this in some perspective. We're still five million or so jobs below the previous peak, and even further below the level of jobs that would be necessary to get us back to a full employment rate of, say, 5 percent if the participation rate was as high as it was three or four years ago.
And one of the things that Harry noted that is very interesting here, the unemployment rate is falling with very slow economic growth.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, what does -- expand on that, Harry Holzer. What does that mean? What does that tell us?
HARRY HOLZER: It tells us that, at least for now -- there used to be a rule of thumb that said you need about at least 3 percent economic growth to lower the unemployment rate, because you need about 1 percent to absorb extra population growth, and you need about 2 percent to absorb higher productivity growth.
In the last year, productivity growth has slowed down. Over the long term, that's not great. But in the short term, it helps you. Population growth, on the immigration side especially, has slowed down. So even a smaller amount of GDP growth is translating into some drop in unemployment.
That is a good thing. Also, part of the unemployment drop has also been just some people who have stopped looking for work. That's not such a good thing.
JEFFREY BROWN: That has been a long-term problem.
HARRY HOLZER: That's right. If they come back in, in the next six to 12 months, you can could see the unemployment rate tick back up, even if jobs are being created.
JEFFREY BROWN: But we've had so many months and even years of bad news. Give us a little good news, since it is a good news day, just to end this. For people that have suffered for a long time, does this suggest some hope?
HARRY HOLZER: This suggests hope.
And if you look at some specific groups, the unemployment rate among men has dropped pretty significantly the last two or three months. Unemployment rate for African-Americans is down significantly. We hope that lasts.
But these are some the groups that got hit really hard. So they're starting to see some relief. And we now have four or five straight months of improvement in the job numbers. I don't know if that's a trend or not. It is too early to celebrate, but it's nice see that trend so far.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right. We will all, of course, watch.
Harry Holzer and Joel Prakken, thank you both very much.
HARRY HOLZER: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on the jobs numbers online, we have Paul Solman's own measure of unemployment, which includes the underemployed and those out of work so long, the government no longer counts them. That's on our Making Sense page.
Prosecutors alleged the owner submitted more than $1.2 million in claims to Medicaid, and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from fraudulent claims
A statue of President Abraham Lincoln stands in front of the old Essex County Courthouse in Newark in this file photo.
NEWARK — The former owner of a now-defunct mental health and substance-abuse counseling center has been convicted of defrauding Medicaid through false claims totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars.
A Superior Court jury in Newark found Rostislav Vilshteyn guilty of health care claims and Medicaid fraud Friday, said the state Attorney General’s Office, which prosecuted the case.
Prosecutors alleged Vilshteyn, who owned the Bloomfield Health Pavilion on Bloomfield Avenue in Newark, submitted more than $1.2 million in claims to Medicaid, and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from fraudulent claims.
Vilshteyn, 33, submitted or approved the claims although the services had either not been provided or had not been provided to the extent alleged in the claims, prosecutors said.
He was acquitted of kickback charges in the form of Pathmark gift certificates he gave to Medicaid beneficiaries to lure them to his office, and for submitting false claims related to those visits.
The Staten Island, N.Y., man faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines when sentenced on March 16. His attorney, Don Savatta, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.
Pointing out the similarities (and differences) between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with climate change in a new way
In 2005, while teaching history at a French university, I was struck by the general disbelief among students that rational and sensitive human beings could ever hold others in bondage. Slavery was so obviously evil that slave-holders could only have been barbarians. My students could not entertain the idea that some slave-owners could have been genuinely blind to the harm they were doing.
At the same time, I was reading a book on climate change which noted how today's machinery – almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels like coal and oil – does the same work that used to be done by slaves and servants. "Energy slaves" now do our laundry, cook our food, transport us, entertain us, and do most of the hard work needed for our survival.
Intriguing similarities between slavery and our current dependence on fossil-fuel-powered machines struck me: both perform roughly the same functions in society (doing the hard and dirty work that no one wants to do), both were considered for a long time to be acceptable by the majority and both came to be increasingly challenged as the harm they caused became more visible.
The history of slavery and its abolition shows how blurred the frontier between what is considered good and evil can be, and how quickly it can shift. We have a mental image of slave-owners as cruel, sadistic, inhuman brutes, and forget too easily the ordinariness of slave ownership throughout the world. To many, slavery seemed normal and indispensable. In the US, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Lifestyles and healthy incomes were predicated upon it, just as we today depend on oil. Similarly, many slave-owners lived with the impression that they were decent people.
Obviously, there are differences between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels. Fundamentally, slavery is a crime against humanity. Fossil fuel use is not a moral evil, but burning coal or oil contributes to global warming, already causing widespread harm: it now directly or indirectly kills 150,000 people per year according to
a 2004 World Health Organisation study. States and energy companies' lust for oil also leads to wars and the toppling of democratically elected governments. Our addiction to fossil fuel is increasingly destructive.
Unlike the harm caused by slavery, the harm in the use of fossil fuels is of course indirect, long range, even unintended. It seems at first glance to be a fundamentally different kind of harm, and the unintended consequences of ongoing use of fossil fuels have only recently become understood. Initially, their use was seen as positive and progressive. But now that we know the consequences, and continue, globally, to increase emission levels, how can we still consider these consequences "unintended"?
Consumers of goods made by slaves or absentee plantation owners who lived in Britain in the 18th century also benefited from the slave system without maintaining direct connections to it. Those beneficiaries can certainly be said to have committed a morally comparable sort of human transgression to that of people who benefit from fossil fuels today.
Why is all of this relevant for climate change policy? Our contemporary economies have become extremely dependent on fossil fuels, just as slave societies were dependent on their slaves – indeed far more than the latter ever were. As one scholar remarked: "That US Congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising."
It should thus come as no surprise that there is so much resistance to climate science. Our societies, like slave-owning societies, have a vested interest in ignoring the scientific consensus. Pointing out the similarities between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with the issue in a new way, and convince us to act, as no one envisages comfortably being compared with a slave-owner.
Furthermore, because of the striking similarities between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels, policymakers can find inspiration from the campaigns to abolish slavery and use them to tackle global warming. For example, the history of the abolition of slavery, in the UK at least, suggests that an incremental approach and the development of compromises worked better at moving the cause forward than hardline stances.
The evidence also implies that slavery came to be challenged and finally abolished when people became aware of an alternative. This alternative – steam power – was of course a great moral improvement until we came to know the consequences of fossil fuel consumption. This, in turn, suggests that we will restrain our use of fossil fuels if we can favour a new energy transition and find clean sources of energy – and that we should concentrate our efforts on developing "green" technologies at the same time as reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.
If we do not change, the human family will pay heavily for the consequences of our reckless activity. Moreover, future generations will look back at us and wonder how our civilisation could have been so backward and have lived in such appalling moral blindness. Will the next generation have any awareness that industrialised societies had mitigating circumstances? Probably not. They are more likely to curse us for the irreparable damage we have done to the planet. Surely, they will say, we were a barbarian people.
• Jean-Francois Mouhot is a visiting researcher at Georgetown University. He is the author of Past Connections and Present Similarities in Slave Ownership and Fossil Fuel Usage,
published in the journal Climatic Change, and the book
Des Esclaves Energetiques: Reflexions sur le Changement Climatique.
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
blog, Twitter and Facebook blowback to the Susan G. Komen Foundation's
pullback of Planned Parenthood funding hasn't died down yet. Watching this debacle unfold through social media,
I was struck by how poorly managed and organized the SGK response was.
Social marketing professional Nedra Weinreich of Weinreich Communications and the
Spare Change blog makes some good points to Daily Kos on how this is all playing out on line:
Once the news started to spread and outraged former Komen fans began chiming in across social media, the Komen Foundation's social media silence was deafening. While people beat them up far and wide online, they lost their prime opportunity to make their case and stave off the blood flow.Another interesting view of the failure of SGK to anticipate and utilize the internet comes from Netroots Foundation/Netroots Nation's executive director
No matter what they had said, many would have turned against them because of the implication that this new policy was politically motivated in a direction that many who supported the organization disagree with. But there would have also been people -- especially those who invested their time, energy and identity in their support for Komen -- who would look for reasons to continue their support and defend the organization. But by not even posting an explanation on Twitter or Facebook for over 24 hours in response to the uproar, it felt like they were hiding and hoping it would all blow over, not even confident enough to stand up for their decision. Every minute the message "Komen hates poor women" was amplified without any counter-message, it lost more context, and turned into a huge brand implosion.
Twenty four hours or more without any response from Komen undid the organization's lifetime of development of brand goodwill. For it to turn into a "war" between Komen and Planned Parenthood that made many feel like they had to choose sides only hurt Komen. At this point, they will be lucky to salvage any positive feelings toward them by those who are pro-choice and who watched this play out in real time.
Raven Brooks:
A lot of people have been writing that Komen didn’t have a communications strategy and that was their problem. Well that was one problem. Others include a complete lack of understanding of the Internet, how news spreads during a news cycle, and the temperature of progressive activists after a lot of backsliding on this issue specifically, and more generally with things learned from the ACORN fight. But the biggest issue is they completely changed their mission without even realizing it.Raven makes some great points in this post, but I have to ask how much of this was deliberate mission changing (i.e deciding to choose conservative donors over pro-choice ones and expecting but being unprepared for the magnitude of the blowback), and how much was complete unanticipated reaction to a political move they committed themselves to make.
Whereas I am always ready to assume incompetence over maliciousness, here's one case where that may not apply. Even so, it may be that it's a case of which kind of incompetence was dominant: expecting but mismanaging fallout, or not anticipating it in the first place.
[Update 2/3/2012]:
Outcry Grows Fiercer After Funding Cut by Cancer Group
The nation’s leading breast cancer advocacy organization confronted the growing furor Thursday over its decision to largely end its decades-long partnership with Planned Parenthood, with rising dissension in its own ranks and a roiling anger on the Internet showing the power of social media to harness protest.
[Update 2/4/2012]: The debate is now about what the apology from Komen means, and what it means for them to have their mask ripped off. You can't inject abortion politics into this as Komen clearly did, and then claim to be a victim of people injecting politics into women's health.
Think Progress describes Bush veteran Ari Fleisher's involvement:
Fleischer’s high-level involvement with Komen further complicates its image as an apolitical cancer charity. Fleischer is a prominent partisan commentator and a longtime critic of Planned Parenthood. In his book, Taking Heat, Fleischer criticized Planned Parenthood as a partisan, ideological organization that receives undeserved positive coverage in the press. In 2001, Fleischer said that the Clinton administration verged too far to the left on family planning efforts because “if Planned Parenthood wanted it, the previous administration favored it.”
Please, contribute to Planned Parenthood on Act Blue.
Category: Health News
Created: 2/2/2012 6:06:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/3/2012
highly regarded book of the same name, is coming out at exactly the right time to help reframe our understanding of just what the Susan G. Komen Foundation exists to do. It's not just that they're right-wing in the anti-Planned Parenthood sense. They also represent a deeply corporate approach to breast cancer that is just not the right way to combat the disease. As
emptywheel writes, in the same vein:
But now that everyone has become aware of Komen’s sleaziness, it’s time to look at what they–and the cancer industry–do more generally. They fund efforts to diagnose and find a cure but–as this
excellent diary describes–they work against things like prevention. They also
tend to push back against research that shows we’ve been over-diagnosing and
over-treating breast cancer. (I know such studies are controversial, but as someone who learned only after my treatment that European countries would have treated my case very differently, for a fraction of the cost and invasiveness, but with statistically equivalent outcomes, I take them seriously.)
Corporate sponsorship brings a lot of money to breast cancer research—but funding from pharmaceutical companies isn't going to steer us away from thinking the answer to breast cancer lies in expensive pharmaceuticals. Funding from make-up and food companies isn't going to address the use of carcinogens in everyday products. And regardless of their stance toward Planned Parenthood, that's exactly the approach Komen takes.
Donate to Planned Parenthood so they can continue providing actual care to women who need it.
Category: Health News
Created: 2/3/2012 11:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/3/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/2/2012 2:06:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/3/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/3/2012 11:01:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/3/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/3/2012 11:01:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/3/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment