The Real Number
Nov 24th, 2009 by David Anderson
The real number driving down the Democrats is U-6. U-6 is 17.5%. What is U-6? It is the total unemployment rate. It is the true measure of those affected by the economic contraction. It is the number that is dragging down Democrat futures because it shows the breath of the discontent. Another number is the household figure which shows more than 1 in 5 are households have someone who is unemployed. This is the voting block which could doom the grandiose plans of the regime.
U-6 is the number which drives consumer confidence and eventually confidence in our political institutions. If your husband can only find part time work when he used to make 45 to 60k, that will impact family spending. If your wife has just given up looking for a while and is focusing on the kids, that will impact your budget. It is not just the U-3 unemployed which is tramatic enough. It is the temporary worker who is one and off. It is the main bread winner trying to squeeze a couple of extra hours from his part time job because his full time one is gone. It is the mom who got 12 hours from Walmart when she used to be a full time employee. It is the college student who just gave up looking and had to cut hours of study. U-6 tells us more than who needs unemployment benifits. It tells us who need employment. It is the number the ruling regime wishes we would all forget, but it is the reality that shapes our lives.
I believe that U-6 tells another story. The jobs are being shed at recessionary levels even though the ruling regime touts the fact that the level of shedding jobs has fallen from its peak, but it is still above where it was under Bush when the Democrats were proclaiming the second coming of the Great Depression. What they are not telling you is hidden in U-6. Part time jobs are increasing at the expense of existing full time jobs. Discouraged workers are increasing and new jobs are appearing at rate which is out matched by the seekers by six to 1 and those who desire full time jobs or will come back into the market when their are signs of life by 10 to 1. The loss of hours is likely a direct result of Democrat policies such as the raising of the minimum wage in a recession, new labor regulations, and pending proposals such as higher taxes on schedule c and sub-s small businesses, paid FMLA (family and medical leave), and cap and tax.
Republicans are not in the free and clear. One Republican claimed the reason unemployment was so high was the extension of benefits kept people from looking for work. He ignored the fact that the reason is the loss of between a quarter of million and a half a million net jobs every month. Reasoning of that nature will only serve to disenfranchise people and make them available for third parties or keep them at home. The discouraged may say a pox on both houses and not vote at all. This would hurt Republicans in the quest to take Democrat leaning districts and states. Their gains would only be in the marginal and Republican leaning districts that they lost in 2006 and last year. A 50 plus seat gain could become a 20 to 30 seat gain. It would be nice but leave the radicals in charge and reduce the blue dog conference which paradoxically could result in even more radical legislation (at the low end). Republicans need to have at least a working majority and preferably a real one.
The path to that majority starts by realizing the impact of U-6.
The first words out of the mouth of every republican should be about economic revival. The last words should be about economic prosperity. In between should be energy policy and whatever else motivates them. People care about the culture, education, the right to bear arms, American self determination, and everything else they always cared about. The economy is the most pressing issue. Republicans actually had a proposal which was scored to produce 6 million jobs at half of the cost of the ruling regime’s stimulus. Instead of being timid. Republicans should hijack the health care debate and say are your ready? This should be our focus. They should offer a substitute bill and completely gut the health care bill and replace it with a real economic stimulus and add Coburn Ryan in its place just to solve health care to boot. When the reactionary left opposes the Republican proposal, cut the ads showing them fighting job creation. The only growth Democrats favor is growth in scope of government, the cost of government, and the size of government. Republicans favor growth in jobs, buisnesses, domestic energy, and economic liberty. That is a debate to have. Let it be the defining debate of 2010.
There are other numbers which illustrate that the recovery is not extending beyond Wall Street. We see this in our own state with a U-6 of nearly 14%. I would submit that the recovery is a media fiction, but I will tackle that in another post. Let it suffice to say that the ruling regime may not have created the problem, though I do not give them a pass when they did not even address the issue in 2007. (They controlled the Congress before it started and did nothing to head it off or midigate it even when warned.) There is enough blame to go around. Wall Street speculators, government regulators, both parties, lousy trade policy, Fed financial and regulatory policy, and the normal cycle. What they do deserve blame is for what they did not do. They refused to consider policies that their own economists said would work better. They rejected real mortgage and bankruptcy reform. They failed in oversight of TARP and allowed the banks to keep both assets and money while the credit markets froze. They allowed an increase in the minimum wage which just made people lose hours instead of make more money. They continue to pursue policies which would cause economic dislocation and uncertainty when the economy is not resilent. I may not blame a doctor for my illness, but I will hold him accountable if he continually gives me the wrong treatment.
Here is the lighter side of the Obama wrecking ball.
http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/biden-says-we-want-to-expand-the-middle-class/
Mike Protack
I like to look at both sides of the health care reform and provide sources when possible. I encourage people to look at an issue from multiple directions.
Here is a review by CBPP of the Coburn Ryan health bill mentioned in the above post.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2879
U-6 in Delaware is 13.5%. I’m working on a post on it over the next day or so.
http://www.examiner.com/x-30090-Delaware-Education-Examiner~y2009m11d15-UD-Cleared-to-Purchase-Chrysler-Plant
U-6 is 13.5% and yet the state is JUST fine with U of D purchasing an abandoned auto plant that was recently retooled and has recently produced SUVs despite a number of “non-union” automakers who expressed interest in the plant. Rumors are Nissan wanted to build the Rogue there and that Hyundai was interested in building their Veracruz here in Delaware.
Democrats waste billions of tax dollars in the U.S. through unnecessary and unconstitutional redistributions of wealth, but let’s not forget that most Republicans support our overseas military presence. I’m not talking about Iraq and Afghanistan exclusively; I’m referring to our permanent bases in over 130 countries around the world. If we returned to a constitutional noninterventionist foreign policy (which is much more of a conservative position than a liberal one), we would not only deal a blow to the formation of the loose form of international government that is in the future, but would save billions of tax dollars that could better be used on true defense (not merely maintaining a “police” presence), and bettering our economy.
Democrats don’t support those bases as well? The last time I checked almost as many did as Republicans percentage wise. Not only are many important as forward troop deployment bases so that we can react quickly in our interests anywhere in the world, not only have they helped keep a sort of global peace, they make great places for Congressmen and Senators to fly into on their junkets with no customs and no personal cost to them. Who wouldn’t support them. LOL
David,
What you’re forgetting to mention to Chris is that most of those bases are actually funded almost entirely by payments, tarriff incentives or other perks from the countries where the bases are housed. I also understand your concerns of forward deployment bases, etc. but I think Chris has an excellent point. It’s time for America to take a small step back. If the rest of the world is sick of America playing protector I say fine. Let’s get our own house in order, pull our boys out of the countries that don’t want us there and ensure that our borders are secure. For those countries happy to have us and willing to pay a lions share of the cost of housing our troops on their soil I say we stay.
That’s all the more reason to become energy independent and to reset our production base here in America as well.
first rule of war fighting, always be the away team, never be the home team.
Well said, that has served us well for over an hundred years. That is not to say that we can’t look over the list of bases. I support a strong military as do most of our readers. I guess it is just a matter of interpreting the best way to maintain that strength.
Getting back to the subject,
I look forward to Dave’s article on Delaware’s U-6. I mentioned it in mine near the end, but I took more of an individual impact and political consequence than I did a local impact. I will enjoy the local angle.
I am disturbed that U-6 is headed for its highest level since the depression (some say it is already there but they changed the way it was caculated around 1993 so there is some debate), and the administration does not even plan to talk about a plan until next month. It is unbelievable. So much for Democrats caring about the little people.