Hey Brother, “Can You Spare $100 Million?”

Lord, what a beautiful morning in foothills of the Catskills...

In 2008 Obama raised and spent nearly $750 million. The Democratic Party raised and spent about $1   billion. By contrast McCain raised  and spent $350 million and the Republicans about $650 million. Obama does deserve credit for an emphasis on small contributions (43% to Romney’s 13% in this election cycle). In 2008 Obama raised more small contributions than any other candidate in history, but he also raised $850K from Goldman Sachs employees, $600K from Citibank, and another $600K from JP Morgan Chase. While it is true that Shelly Adelson, Harold Simmons, Bob Perry, and the Brother’s  Koch will make this the slimiest election on record-- we can thank Chief Justice Roberts master manipulation of the Citizens United case for that-- we ought not to pretend that Obama raised all his money from kid's piggy banks and hard-working mom's cookie jar funds. (Though he saved Obamacare we don’t have to pretend Roberts is a liberal either.)

 The system is completely flawed and completely broken. Both parties own that truth. The perpetual fund raising machines are in place precisely to maintain a wholly corrupt status quo.  While there can be some argument as to whether all the money is the cause or the effect, there is little doubt as to the deleterious results our current system creates. While one party or another may gain an edge from cycle to cycle, the truth is that the massive funding has both parties locked into a grid-locked tie. Committed conservatives make up about 35% of the electorate and the liberals another 35%. Those who lean consistently in one direction or another add approximately another 10% to each parties support, leaving about 10% of the electorate up for grabs in any single national election.

At the state level there seems little reason to even hold elections anymore as the amount of independent votes in each election is well below 10%. When we were children we were constantly schooled about the sham elections in communist countries. We can be certain that any election in any country-- with the possible exception of Mandela’s first win in South Africa in ’94-- which results in 90% or greater support for a single party or candidate, is a sham. But what then are we to make of the state and local elections in this country which consistently entrench nearly 2/3 majorities? 

Seats are contested, but control of most State Legislatures is locked up in a way that would have made the East German Stasi proud. In New York, no more than five or six of the 62 state Senate seats is truly contested each election cycle. While this does have the potential to swing control of that body to one party or the other, the other house, the state assembly is completely gerrymandered  into Democratic hands, leaving just enough Republicans (42 of a total 150 seats) to provide a thin veneer of small “d” democracy. In Texas the same holds in reverse with the Republicans controlling 19 seats in the state Senate out of 31, and 102 seats in the Texas House out of 150.

Is it any surprise than that according to OpenSecrets.org Texas Republicans garnered about $80 million in contributions while the Democrats there raised only about $30 million? By comparison in New York $74 million went to Democrats and just $42 million to Democrats. While one could argue that the contributions are merely flowing to the party in power in a democratic and mutually reaffirming process, there can be little doubt that the result of this process is democratic only in the sense of gauzy and supposedly profound photos released the first Tuesday in November. This is of course unless one considers virtually uncontested one party rule democracy.

Small “d” democracy in these states and dozens of others no longer exists at the state level, and it’s here that boundaries are written which determine congressional house districts. The slicing and dicing of the CD’s in turn form the foundation of the Electoral College map by which America elects its president. As we now enter into our national elections, there is little question which way New York or Texas will go. I have no doubt that either Santorum or Cain or Bachman, undisciplined zealots though they may be, would have carried Texas. Despite national polls which show a very close race the real contest will be fought in maybe ten states. If you wanted the candidates to care about your vote you might want to move to Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire or North Carolina. The rest of you can suck eggs. However, in an odd twist on reality, big states with money and power still matter. Because money has become the primary means by which candidates seek votes, leaving ideas trampled in the dust, far behind, New York, Illinois, Texas, California and Florida which lead in fundraising are really the places where national elections are still won and lost.

The formidable powers now aligned to further each party’s agenda are staggering. Each party has its own “news” network. Fox News, and Murdoch’s empire in general, is at the complete disposal of the GOP. The Democrats meanwhile have MSNBC pumping out their “Lean Forward” agenda. There are arguments both ways as to whether the two networks are molding the landscape or reflecting it, but there is little doubt that millions of Americans freely accept their news from nearly propagandistic media organizations. While the largest news operations still claim neutrality, most Americans perceive bias and happily wander into the self-affirming dessert of Fox and MSNBC. Average primetime viewership of Fox News was 1.8 million, while at MSNBC it was just under 700,000. CNN draws up the rear at 400,000 viewers.

Meanwhile what passes for news is an endless parade of mindless banter and worthless drivel all focus grouped to within an inch of its useful life. Earlier this year Jon Stewart brought to our attention a new stunt—quickly dispensed by the way— where the CNN morning news team cold called newsmakers and celebrities. One particular call to an obviously still sleeping member of the Kennedy clan went virally off the tracks. Then just this week in a classic metaphor for what news has become, both CNN and Fox racing through the Supreme Court decision on Healthcare read Chief Justice Roberts’ first few sentences where he clearly bounced the commerce clause argument and reported incorrectly that Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional. Why wait for the whole story when you can just crib note the first few sentences and report the news? Erroneously. Both networks left the incorrect conclusion up for deliciously long periods of time before reporting their mistake. 

 Certainly a criticism can be made that Americans who complain of gridlock in Washington have only themselves to blame. But to an ever greater extent the real reason American elections look increasingly like a tricked up hybrid of late 20^th century Egypt and Poland, circa 1980, is that big money has clawed away any attempt at reform since poor little tricky Dick Nixon amassed his oh so sweet $500,000 slush fund and perverted the Democratic nomination results in 1972.

Even when they are hopelessly corrupted elections have consequences. While most Americans know that as a result of demographic shifts entitlements need to be reined in, and that to balance the budget a lot of us will need to pay more taxes.  Even middle class people, stretched as they are I believe could be convinced to stretch themselves even  a bit more if there was a comprehensive and balanced plan. But Shelly Adelson is not paying $100 million for any of that sort of loose talk. Adelson is making his “investment” in Republicans for the specific purpose of making sure that compromise is never, ever reached. It is contributions at that astounding level which cause (or allow) Republicans to stand absolutely resolute against any compromise on any level of tax increases.

According to an April 2012 New York Times Poll, “A large majority of Americans believe that global warming made several high profile extreme weather events worse, including the unusually warm winter of December 2011 and January 2012 (72%), record high summer temperatures in the U.S. in 2011 (70%), the drought in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 (69%), record snowfall in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011 (61%), the Mississippi River floods in the spring of 2011 (63%), and Hurricane Irene (59%).” Yet Congress has taken no significant action to curb greenhouse gasses during the whole of Obama’s term. While the EPA is moving forward with the regulation of greenhouse gases, this is in direct confrontation to a bitter Republican house majority that repeatedly has voted to defund the EPA as the core of its frequently touted “job creation” bills. Check out the top three: The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (HR872), The Energy Tax Prevention Act (HR 910), and the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (HR 2018). The Koch Brothers, David and Charles who run a $100 billion energy company are not going to cough up $100 million to let the EPA regulate the production of energy on which they make their vast profits.

Neither Party has really embraced Dodd-Frank, the 2010 legislation intended to prevent another wall Street creation like financial catastrophe of 2008. Both parties are deeply dependent on Wall Street cash. The result is a Republican Party that completely champions repeal of ALL regulations and a Democratic Party which treads oh so lightly on any sort of Governmental controls. Despite all the socialist/communist assertions to the contrary this is where we are: A highly monetized and militant right and a moderate, supine, center left alternative, far too beholden to cash which emanates from at best questionable sources.  

The Republicans have enshrined repeal of Dodd-Frank as a campaign manifesto. Though it’s not on the ridiculous list of day one priorities Romney has had made clear he would try to get it repealed. Meanwhile, Democrats, in control of all regulatory authority in the Executive branch, have left hundreds of the necessary controlling regs unwritten. Before it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, Glass-Steagall prevented banks from “investing” depositor’s money.  Phil Graham was the former head of the Senate Banking committee. His committee was the industry’s chief overseer. In turn Graham pulled by far the greatest amount of his campaign case from Wall Street. His Top 5 contributors were all financial firms. Graham was also responsible for the deregulation of the derivatives market in 2000 which in combination with the low interest money available after post 9-11 caused the sub-prime Wall Street markets to go into overheated hyper drive. In 2008 he was laughably quoted as saying he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that legislation he authored caused the sub-prime crisis. Graham is now the Vice Chairman of UBS, a Swiss based investment bank. He joined the firm in 2002 immediately after leaving the Senate.

The Volcker rule designed as modest alternative to Glas-Steagull, but which would keep the money flowing, was passed in a seriously weakened form after Wall Street flushed Washington with partially taxpayer TARP funded millions in lobbying efforts in 2010. But even the Volcker rule which would have headed off Chase’s recent multi-billion dollar loss—losses Jamie Dimon Chase CEO said were based on "errors," "sloppiness" and "bad judgment”-- has two years later yet to have regulations written to enforce it.

And so it goes… In 2012 democracy in America is awash in two-headed coins flowing equally to both parties. Groups like Common Cause, the forever champions of clean elections still exist far removed on the sidelines as they wait patiently for the scandal of the century that will finally galvanize Americans into demanding reform. Considering the watered down and unimplemented response to the 2008 Wall Street meltdown it’s hard to picture what it would take for Americans to demand the type of action that will be required to affect real change.

With the Supreme Court decision on Immigration in Arizona and especially the stunning ruling on Obamacare this was a good week for America. The Arizona ruling was a real victory, the Obamacare ruling, as with the policy itself a little less so. I am happy and surprised that the Supreme Court chose not to overturn such a complex piece of legislation. BUT…the Act itself is deeply flawed, a product of compromise, not only of ideology, which is tolerable, but also of deeply engrained financial interest which as with everything else corrupted the process. America will get better healthcare, or at least a more inclusive healthcare industry in which more people are covered. But the entrenched and all powerful financial interests of the health industry-- insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and hospital corporations, just as with the surviving Wall Street banks—will now be more entrenched and more powerful as a result of Obamacare steering millions more towards private insurance. This it seems to me is that great irony of the Obama presidency so often called Socialist by his opponents: Large and already too powerful private financial institutions keeping getting bigger and will be far more difficult for government to regulate in the future as a result of his supposedly Socialist agenda.  Yet, it’s seems this is the best we can do. It is not nearly enough.

Still a magnificent morning though. Birds chirping, Saturday quiet, warm soft breezes, brilliant sunshine, lush greenery set against endless blue skies, all I could ask in that regard...

The Strange Politics of Fast & Furious

I will write more on this later, but for those trying to make the political point that Fast & Furious shows the abject failure of the War on Drugs, the following article shows that the realities of the case are far more complex. Dan Olmstead really got me motivated to seek some answers here. Last night on CNN Soledad O'Brien first interviewed Katherine Eban, who wrote the attached article for Fortune magazine, and then interviewed a Republican member of Issa’s committee—Issa refused to come on to discuss the article—who blasted the article in every way possible short of actually addressing the facts asserted by Ms. Eban. Giver her credit, O’Brien was tenacious, fierce even in her questioning, but the congressman was not going to budge in the direction of anything like the truth.

The main points of the article as I see them are as follows, though you can hit the link and check it out for yourself.

1) The only real gun walking that took place in Fast and Furious was a single case initiated by the supposed whistle blower, John Dodson. 2) The amount of gun trafficking going on legally in Arizona between several hundred legal gun dealers, a handful of poor slubs trying to make a few dollars on the edge of the gun operations (one on food stamps) and Mexican drug gangs is staggering, with single deals running into the hundreds of weapons. 3) ATF officials tried repeatedly to take cases to prosecutors for trafficking and the prosecutors refused repeatedly to bring charges. 4) Only after the death of the customs agent were charges brought in any case. 5) ATF officials are completely hamstrung, specifically by a lack of a data base which would allow them to electronically track gun sales in real time, and weak laws which the gunrunners find easy to outmaneuver. 6) The main political entity responsible for the inherent weakness of the trafficking effort legislatively is the National Rifle Association—The NRA .

Ms. Eban made the case on CNN last night that no guns were actually walked as a result of fast and furious and I do find it odd that no news web site has anything on this Fortune article considering the explosive nature of the allegations. Quite clearly more investigation is called for. Although likely to be held in contempt by vote of Congress today, Holder, as I said, seems to be doing fine. Once again the NRA’s fingers are on this case in that regard though also. They are scoring this vote meaning Democrats who vote against the contempt citation will get a lower NRA score in voter guides in the fall. According to reports I saw on NBC that will sway about 30 democrats to vote in favor. In a strange irony of the case O’Brien pointed out repeatedly that the Republican right  is apoplectic that the Attorney General did not do more to seize more weapons which and here’s the rub purchased legally in the United States. In Polls Repubs and Dems are virtually upside down in their response to gun rights with 2/3 of repubs in favor of fairly unrestricted access and 2/3 of dems in favor of stronger regulation.  The NRA which both feeds off that sentiment and intensifies its affect is one of the strongest lobbies in Washington and around the country.  

Merits aside, it seems to me there is no national consensus on an overhaul of the nation’s drug policies. While most would agree that treatment is far preferable to incarceration even in my home state,  the very liberal New York, reforming what were commonly referred to as The Rockefeller Drug Laws required a nearly decade long effort and the involvement of Russell Simmons and other high profile personalities.

There is also no national consensus on guns. The violence we have seen in Chicago this year, and the violence In Mexico can be directly traced to drugs, guns, and the NRA.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

The War at Home

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled law enforcement officials in Arizona could ask anyone they stopped to prove their citizenship. The O’Reileys of the world would almost never be asked for their papers. And well, the Riveras? I think we know what they can expect in a state like Arizona, a cross between Alabama and Mississippi on the Immigration Rights battlefront. Romney spokesman Rick Gorka when asked for the campaign’s response to the ruling said in part, “Look, again, I¹ll say it again and again and again for you. The governor understands that states have their own right to craft policies to secure their own borders and to address illegal immigration." In a muddled decision, ironically, the court said the states do NOT have the right to enforce their own immigration policies striking down the rest of the Arizona law. Apparently Gorka wanted to “say again and again” pretty much nothing.  Gorka might have said, “Let me reiterate the candidate’s position—the same guy who called just a few months ago for “self-deportation”-- is opaque and we will work hard to keep it that way.” We can be sure that Arizona police will direct most all of their enquiries to minorities and citizens will face the same inquisition as non-citizens. Yesterday state rights trumped human rights, but hey man, Romney’s trying to become President here.  You can really expect him to talk about that.

Just a week earlier in a game that reminded me of the three card monte players I discovered on 14th Street a few decades back, Romney slid the cards around like the shark he so clearly was at Bain Capital. CBS’ Bob Schieffer asked Romney four times for his response to the Obama plan to allow children of immigrants legal status. On the third try Romney gave this response: “Well, it would be overtaken by events, if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution.” Of course Schieffer gave it one more shot, but Romney behind in polls with Hispanics by 40 percentage points, shifted the last card off the table. Give me the $20, a**hole. Game over.

Leaders who choose to conceal their positions during the campaign cannot really be assumed to be leaders and the likelihood of a candidate like that actually breaking the catastrophic stalemate which currently exists in Washington is virtually nil. So we can ascertain, I guess, that Romney supports the posture which endorses the state’s right  to address immigration issues without actually saying he is for the right of police to ask almost anyone they want to prove their citizenship. 

To be fair as an executive order, Obama’s move will have little practical or lasting effect unless he is re-elected.  The criticism on the budget, environmental policy, gay rights, and yes here on immigration policy that he didn’t get a lot done in the first two years when Dems controlled the Senate and the House is about right. All of the capital went into healthcare and it very much looks like the core of that law, individual mandates to buy insurance, will be struck down. If the mandate is gone the rest of legislation becomes problematic from a cost containment standpoint.  The grand bargain was that the mandate would steer a lot more people towards private health insurers and for that they would have do more like allow kids to be on their parents policy and cover pre-existing conditions.

If you’re starting to feel that America is becoming a country with a Constitution that provides few protections to her citizens take heart. Yesterday the Supreme doubled down on Citizens United and eviscerated a Montana law designed to limit corporate control of state elections. While there had been some recent reports in the press that the Court was moving towards revisiting Citizens United, yesterday’s ruling indicated the opposite. There are judicial activists on the court determined to wipe out any semblance of balance between big money and America’s citizens. That’s freedom, right? The attack on campaign finance is true whether enacted legislative at the state or Federal level.  ONLY an Obama election and a potential switch of one of the solid majority of five in favor complete campaign lawlessness (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito). Scalia and Kennedy are 76, but Thomas just turned 64. It should be noted that Ginsburg is 79 and Breyer is 74, so if Romney is elected the return of robber baron politics could accelerate dramatically by the end of the next presidential term.

At both the Federal and State level small “d” democratic electoral politics is at least for the time being completely confounded by the influence of big money. Open Secrets reports that in the 25 year period from 1989 to 2012, the top 140 donors contributed $2.4 billion to the two political parties. Campaign contributions this year will dwarf that. Shelly Adelson, a Las Vegas Casino potentate has vowed to spend $100 million to further his right wing, anti-union, anti-worker, myopic and dogmatically pro-Israel, agenda. The Koch brothers fresh from spending $8 million to defend anti-Union Wisconsin Governor against recall have also vowed to spend about $100 million. The Koch brothers are ostensibly supporting Republicans, but their real goal is to attack unions, environmental laws which impinge on their rapacious energy companies, and tax policies which will do anything to affect their already vast fortune. How quaint Nixon’s $500,000 slush fund seems now. One imagines today’s big money political gangsters patting Dicky gently on the head, and saying, “How sweet, now you go play over there…”

Middle class conservatives who supported the evisceration of any sort of campaign finance will pay with less workplace protection for them and their children and environmental policies that will affect generations beyond. Liberals who hold out hope that our billionaires are better than theirs are grasping a slim reed and it seems to me, Zuckerburg notwithstanding, willfully ignoring how someone might have accumulated such wealth.

More powerful than Christianity, the Church of Willful Ignorance is America’s looming theology.  Politicians, especially on the right, attack academics and intellectuals, science and discourse, as effete East or West Coast puffery. Real men wield money, I guess. The court has ruled that money deserves the same protection as speech. Romney has called corporations people. If all this is so then democracy is dead.  At every Citizens United turn Americans see their own voices drowned out by the larger and more pungent breath of corporate might. Perhaps we are all too busy surviving to do much else. How and why America and the world became mesmerized, seduced, addicted and attached to the love and admiration of the money as its own end for no purpose or positive societal affect is an ongoing fascination to me. Americans now know that they got hosed by big money. But at no level do they seem to have the spirit to fight it. Money is the reason that while 90% of scientists believe global warming is real, a small cadre of zealots has been able to stymie any action. It’s the reason that reforms on Wall Street are stalled. And it’s the reason that the rather meek Health Care Reform package has been vilified so effectively and will now probably be overturned by the activist Robert’s court.  The corruption of money has tainted the entire American dialogue.

Leave it to Aaron Sorkin to state the obvious results in the opening monologue in the new HBO series “Newsroom”. At a fictional give and take with students at Northwestern University a student asks a panel of news people and political operators to give their reasons as to why America is the “greatest country in the world”. After banality about freedom and liberty from other members of the panel Sorkin gives fictional TV newsman Will McAvoy the following words:

“…And yeah you, sorority girl, just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know. And one of them is there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world. We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force and number four in exports.

We lead the world in only three categories. Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined 25 of whom are allies…”

I have always liked Sorkin’s work. I’m a pushover for his troubled, flawed, committed liberal characters. But according to Wikipedia the US rates 49^th in infant mortality and 10^th in literacy, so let’s say Sorkin character may have taken some liberties and the following will not be a totally finite point. I was struck in watching “Newsroom”, however, with the notion that no real person newsperson would ever portray such bitterness or truth. Can it be the only place America can get real truths anymore is from the mouth of fictional characters on TV or Jon Stewart?

Meanwhile, as my friends in Chicago know, gang violence is run amok. On the weekend of March-17 and 18, ten people were murdered including a six year old girl named Aliyah Shell. On the weekend of June-09 and 10 nine people were killed, including 16 year old Joseph Briggs. A stunning 43 were wounded. Last weekend four more were killed including two teenagers, Antonio Davis, 14, and Tyquan Tyler, 13. 30 more were wounded. Chicago is not alone. Capone-style gang violence is a problem in Denver, Indianapolis, and Camden, New Jersey and gangs are at war in virtually every mid or large size city.  Can it be that America has the strength to quit when casualties mount to unsustainable levels as they are in Afghanistan where fatalities are running about 35 per month through June, but not the soul to fight to end violence at home where guns and gangs take far more lives? Trayvon’s murder at the hands of a vigilante neighborhood watchman garnered headlines for a month and dominated every TV News broadcast.  No one seems to care about Aliyah.

While both Obama and Romney posture and position to speak to their base and ease an accommodation with independents, will either strive to expand our dialogue to those among us who hunger or hurt or die every weekend in a hail of nihilistic juvenile bullets? The answer seems to be an almost unquestionable no. I am so sick to death of all it. I have been fascinated with politics since I was a youngster. Before I was even a teenager Bobby and Martin showed that politics could be meaningful, that America was a great country, not always because of who we are, but because of what we wanted to be.  Now I just don’t know.

democracy Takes Another Hit

Heaven help us from the specter of the grown man balling his eyes out on CNN moaning about the “end of democracy as we know it”. His blabbering was replayed needlessly in news show recapping the Wisconsin recall election in which the Evil Empire of entrenched capital racked up another electoral victory.  This guy is by no means alone. He is the contemporary of the middle aged Occupy protestor who ends every sentence with “Maaan…”, her hennaed hair no doubt reeking of incense.  Though I sympathize with the cause the images of these people make me want to wretch.  Though I recognize this makes me a complete misanthrope d***head, I often just want to yell shut up when I see the images flicker on the TV screen.

Lauryn Hill was in the new this week stating the reason that she did not pay any taxes in 2005, 2006, or 2007 was because she was trying to “build a community of people, like-minded in their desire for freedom and the right to pursue their goals and lives without being manipulated and controlled by a media protected military industrial complex with a completely different agenda.”  While we can be sure that there is in fact a military industrial complex, does the media really protect them? I think it’s more that the media and the public get so easily distracted. Let’s not forget Lindsey Lohan got in a car accident this week, and friggin’ Kim Kardashian’s walked somewhere in New York, so that had to covered. Meanwhile, Ms. Hill earned $1.5 million in this period when she was on the run from the man. She tried to explain all this to the IRS, apparently thinking they were not part of this vast complex that wanted to crush her soul, but they chose to prosecute anyway. Strange…

That I am aware of all of these stories just shows what a media whore I am.

But I digress. I wanted to talk about Wisconsin.

Much has been made of the expense of the recall. Through the end of May about $66 was accounted for, but the non-Partisan  campaign finance watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimates that the final total could be close to $80 million, which would come out to about $32 for every vote. But the sources and amounts of some of the campaign cash are where the real ugliness occurred. CNN reported the following:

·         Wisconsin roofing magnate, billionaire Diane Hendricks, gave Walker more than $500,000

·         Texan home builder Bob Perry, who bankrolled the infamous 2004 "Swift Boat" attacks against John Kerry, contributed $500,000 to Walker

·         Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson gave $250,000

·         Michigan Amway Billionaire Dick DeVos donated $250,000.

Four people, all of whom are spilling their corrupt cash across the political landscape spent $1.5 million to keep Scott Walker Governor or Wisconsin.

 The NY Times reports that the Republican Governor’s Association poured $8.7 Million into the campaign, and that Americans for Prosperity, the financial arm of the Koch Brother’s criminal business enterprise, spent an additional $3 million. At the height of the Iraq war, I marched with tens of thousands of others during the Republican National Convention in New York. People were angry. I remember the Fox News truck was assaulted with outstretched middle fingers. People chanted “This is what Democracy Looks like!!”  But in 2012, Fox News contributed $1.0 Million to the Republican Governor’s Association. Sadly, this is what Democracy looks like today. A corrupt system awash with so much money, some of it from News outlets which are ostensibly there to report on the campaigns, that voices of dissent can barely be heard.

In Wisconsin—the home of Bob Lafollette, the founder of the Progressive Party in America--  Walker  outraised his opponent by 7 to 1 in direct contributions, but when outside money is included it’s closer to 3 to 1.  Of Walker’s total, 70% came from outside Wisconsin. So what? When such obscene amounts of money are raised and spent in such a small and in terms of media costs inexpensive state does any of it really matter?  Let’s be honest Wisconsin is not the capital of corruption; it is really just a satellite office.

Union membership which was about 30% of all American workers at its peak is now less than 6%. In 1982 when I helped organize a feeble little Walk-A-Thon to raise money for an antinuclear/ antiwar group, we managed to raise about $10,000 after three month’s work. At the time UAW local 65 was an active ally in the movement to defund the military, arrest Reagan’s headlong rush to place Nuclear missiles in Europe, and accelerate  the process of investing in the infrastructure of the US economy.  I often saw UAW 65 people around in those days. Everyone knows that these unions, though not always bastions of progressive politics, are now just faint shadows of their former selves.

Though still politically active private union membership has shrunken so dramatically that conservatives have set their sights on public employee unions. That conservatives continue to rally against a political force, long since vilified virtually out of practical relevance,  which maybe harnesses a tenth of it former power, shows how completely the game has  changed and how fervently they want to wipe out any opposition to the unfettered application and power of capital.  Though conservatives suffered a setback in Ohio, where voters rebuked Republicans governor’s Kasich’s efforts to outlaw collective bargaining, they scored an obliterating neutron bomb victory in Wisconsin.  The buildings stand. Everything else is gone.

Scott Walker in Wisconsin initially wanted big public sector union givebacks. He got them, and then showing the real teeth of the conservative coalition he pushed for legislation to outlaw collective bargaining on a basketful of issues in the future. This virtually guarantees that teachers, fire fighters, and DMV employees will never again have recourse to claw any of these concessions back in the future.  The Unions which invested million in the battle were massively outspent. Hello Citizens United, goodbye, democracy, “Maaan…”

Americans it seems have come to the conclusion that consolidated wealth is good and workers are just annoying impediments in the furtherance of that goal. Nothing it seems angers Americans anymore unless of course their cable goes out. Well, let me restate, there is most certainly anger, but mobilization is lacking and the power structure is not afraid. The threat of non-violent direct action is too diffuse and too little employed. Occupy protestors raised all sorts of alarm bells last summer and fall, but then went silent when cold weather and revised and more subtle police tactics maneuvered them into near silence.  Capital may have been annoyed, but they were never worried. In general it seems pretty clear that the Tea Party, well-funded by the same entities that paid for Scott Walker’s campaign have more staying power. Money always talks. Always.

It’s hard to believe that just a short time back in our history things looked so completely different. Calls for change on civil rights could not be silenced even after Medgar Evers was killed in 1963. A few months later four little girls were killed in the bombings at the 16^th Street church in Birmingham.  Still year after year the marvelous new militancy that Dr. King spoke of continued to grow.

In 1967, Abbie Hoffman attempted to levitate the Pentagon, and the following year the Chicago Police rioted at the Democratic Convention beating and gassing ant-war protestors.  In 1970 four kids were shot in Kent State. Anti-war protests continued.  Ten days later, two more student protestors were killed and a dozen more were wounded at Jackson State.  Still despite all that, the anti-war movement driven by anxious self interest in opposition to the draft, and the horrific images of the war projected on TV screens every night (images no longer allowed) eventually prevailed.

In August 1965 the Watts riots nearly destroyed inner city Los Angeles. There was at the time a feeling that no matter the ugliness or violence change was going to come, one way or another, by any means necessary as Malcolm X famously said. 

In July 1968 riots destroyed large sections of Detroit and Newark accelerating the white flight. This was both the nadir and the zenith of the movement for progressive social change.  Middle class white American was genuinely frightened into action. However given a few years progressive social change came to be seen, and was masterfully projected by cynical politicians, as a handout for minorities and the mood in the country first darkened and then turned ugly.  Capital found a reason and a way to strengthen their hand.

This is not to suggest that positive social change has not taken place in the interim. Women’s rights, gay rights, The Americans with Disability Act, and the environmental movement all coalesced and moved forward after 1970 when it seemed that country had just had it with protests and militancy. Enlightened self-interest and more modest goals and agendas generated change. Enough of a window opened so that many of the wounds of racism, sexism, and homophobia are no longer festering to the same degree. Though, success cannot be claimed, progress cannot be denied.  I firmly believe that in a generation or two, my children’s children, or maybe their children’s children will wonder what all the race, gender, and sexual orientation fuss was about. That will be all to the good.

But while all this good stuff was taking place starting with Reagan in 1980 capital reasserted itself. It almost seems like capital was willing to concede some battles in order to protect their larger concerns.   The most profound and important changes often come when the elite power structure comes to fear in one way or another. Today there is so little fear that lies are promulgated by the day. The true elites, those with money, call those that oppose them class warriors.  The image one is left with is protests in front of the bank rallying against unfair and dangerous practices, while behind the bank the fat f*** with the shiny suit loads the van full of money. Bank robbers may have to be happy with thousands, but millions and billions are looted by those wearing fancier suits and absurdly more expensive shoes. Kozlowski went to jail for looting $81 million from Tyco. $81 million. It really was hard then even to fathom the need for the stupidly expensive umbrella stands and all that. Steve Martin’s funny and prescient comments on fur sinks come to mind. Boesky and Milken ran up junk bond fortunes in the hundreds of millions before they were prosecuted, fined, and jailed. But even these guys were small time hoods compared to the billions which were bet and lost on the sub-prime loans. Most of these losses were eventually covered by American taxpayers, so The US and the world go move forward as economic entities. Alright I get that, but the rapidity with which capital now calls for deregulation even beyond the minimal amount under which they f***ed all of us really does astound. This is our new reality. Moral hazard replaced by endless whining and complaint by institutions which are so large that government can barely contain or even comprehend their power or complexity.

Between them Obama and Romney raised almost $140 million in May. Wall Street is again awash in cash and spending it feverishly to influence elections. It’s really astounding that the large media outlets handicap the horse race of who outraised the other when the loser still managed to top $60 million and seems to schedule an event or three a week that raises another two or three million. One might call it all funny money until you realize that many of the elements of the Dodd- Frank legislation to oversee the financial industry have yet to see actual regulations written to enforce them. To the extent that agencies have been set up by the legislation Republicans in Congress are underfunding enforcement. When I was in China, I can’t remember where I saw it, but I read that the banks understood that that to kill Dodd Frank they did not need to kill it overturn it, they just needed to slow it down. That they have done. Yet all we hear is Dodd-Frank this and Dodd-Frank that as if the legislation has not been completely stalled out by the bank lobbyists and campaign contributions. Though profits are still weak owing to the state of the economy bonuses and salaries are roaring again and back to pre-crisis levels.

While I’m not going to weep openly about the “end of democracy as we know it”, I do think that electoral politics as a means to enact positive social change is at a standstill, if not a complete dead end.  Democrats are moderate at best and seem to have no stomach for the hand to hand combat required to move a progressive agenda forward today.  As Bill Maher pointed out last night there are no crazy mother-f***ers on the left remotely comparable to the Tea Party which would tend to balance things out in Congress. I am not as sanguine as the hordes of Hollywood celebrities, all so certain that Obama is a great or even good President. That Sarah Jessica Parker spot to win a chance to meet the president made my skin crawl. This election has come to be a steel cage death match about fundraising. I’ll wade through the swamps of filth to vote for the president, but without enthusiasm.

The results in Wisconsin are ominous. The canary in the coal mine, the last gasp of any sort of truly democratic process, hit the water at 60 miles an hour. Its lifeless carcass now lies splayed across the sand of the pseudo- beach off the edge of the yellow ramp at the Lake of the Dells. Flies pick at it while carnivores lie in wait for the cover of darkness to carry it away completely and forever. Americans will soon enough forget that there was ever a good reason to have unions, or small “d” democratic elections which were not funded by a couple dozen billionaires.  The most vibrant progressive institutions in the country long under siege are now completely marginalized, and I wonder what power structure has the courage, imagination, or will to do battle with entrenched capital. We have reached a valley in the exercise of our Constitutional Government and I really don’t see any way out.  Is it the end of democracy as we know it? I don’t know, but electoral politics looks increasingly like Oz’s massive  green curtain, behind which massive amounts of money change hands never to be seen again.  It’s all a lie, Maaan… Where we go from here, I really don’t know.

The Depths of My Ignorance

May-20, 2012, Yangjiang, China

The girl could not have been more than two. Her feet, uncalloused and pudgy in the way children’s feet are, dangled loosely, one pressing slightly on her father’s belly, seemingly in an attempt to step up to gain a better, higher, view. Her fingers, also dimpled and pudgy, were intertwined in her father’s hair, one wrapped around each side of his neck.  She had curly hair which reminded me in color and texture of my son’s before his first substantial hair cut when his splendid curls disappeared, never to return.  The little girl wore a pink sundress over pink stretchy pants. What is it about a toddler’s feet that just make you want to reach out for a tickle and an easy giggle? This little girl in her manner and movement brought me deliciously back to that time when my own children were that age.

The father wasn’t particularly noticeable in any extraordinary way, except for the black beard which appeared neither trimmed nor untrimmed. The beard seemed to grow on its own in an even way which covered his lower face with precision. Even in my 50’s, I still often wish I could get mine to grow like that. Vanity never sleeps, I guess. The father was hustling his family, his wife, daughter and himself, through O’Hare, a lovely family really, just getting from here to there in the crush of thousands of others all moving with luggage and purpose in every possible direction.

The mother followed closely behind the father and child, exchanging some conversation with the father. They stopped for a moment not far where I waited in line to get my boarding pass, mother, father, and child, extraordinary in no special way, except they were Muslim, and the woman wore an abaya and niqāb which covered her head except for small slits for her eyes as well as her medium frame all the way down so that only a short glimpse of red pant leg and tips of tan shoes was visible when she was walking.

Muslims believe that Mohammed was a messenger of God and that he was the last law bearer in a series of prophets and through him God’s truths were revealed.  There are several passages in the Muslim holy book, which is believed by the devout to be the word of God delivered through the messenger, which refer to the required coverage of the female form to protect from raising sexual desire in men.

What is most often called a burqa is a specific sort of covering, but there are different types of clothing that a devout Muslim woman would wear. The burqa is the covering seen in the most conservative societies, and is full coverage head to toe, where both the eyes and often even the hands are kept from public view.  A different type of clothing, the abaya, often referred to incorrectly as a burqa, also provides full body covering. This is then combined with a niqāb, which is the veil which covers all but the eyes.  By choice, some Muslim women were a hijab head covering which exposes the face but covers the hair, the ears, and usually in combination with other clothing the neck. The hijab extends to what most often are loose fitting clothes designed to shroud any female features.  Women who wear this combination sort of appear to be wearing lose fitting pajamas with a tightly drawn head scarf. I saw several women wearing the hijab, walking with their families in the Hong Kong Airport, laughing and talking with their kids and spouses. Dour these people were not and the thought passed through me that I really don’t know much about the lives of Muslims.

The commitment to this attire certainly attests to the devout nature of the women wearing it. I think the same when I see Hasidic women in my community dressed in long skirts, industrial strength hose, and hair covered in a wig, which is then often covered over with a hat.  Orthodox Jews also believe that the female form is a dangerous preoccupation of men. As do fundamentalist Christians. Pat Robertson, the 700 Club TV preacher, who in his reading of the bible is such an easy mark it almost seems unfair to bring it up, has a history of saying outrageous things about the subservient posture of women. 

But I do not write this to bash any religion or practice, all of which rise from deep wells of faith and form a foundation of morality for the believers. The last time I touched the subject of religion I was stunned by the vitriol of those that do not believe and it occurred to me that non-believing is in a lot of cases a dogma on its own merits. Often times there is little tolerance or acceptance of believers. I thought at the time how their narrow-mindedness was not all that different from the believers they so fervently despise for what they believe is their narrow-mindedness.

For me the larger challenge to religious faith is more scientific than theological.  As a child I always loved the visits to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. There we would be told of the millions, perhaps billions, of galaxies of which our little planet is part of just one. I think it may have been there where they explained the size and scope of just our universe that seeds of doubt may have been placed.   I was a good little catholic boy then, but the fact that the vastness of all creation exists, for me at least raised doubts as I got older about the dogma of my youth.

Years later I remember sitting in the Hayden Planetarium in New York watching a Christmas show with my kids, all the time thinking about what to me at least is the absurdity of the idea that the world’s three great religions all rose from an area covering thousands of square miles in the portion of the Earth referred to as the Middle East, vast in terms of the space on earth, but microscopic in the space of our planet and our universe let alone the known and unknown galaxies. We are led to believe that In God’s infinite wisdom the prophets and ancestors of these three theologies were all plopped down in almost the same place, nose to nose so they could argue with and pester each other till the end of time. If only the Buddha was born in Oman, instead of India the origins would be complete.

So, even though prayer in some odd but compelling way still informs my daily life, I am not a believer per se. Even my attachment to prayer as a spiritual support is sometimes shaken when I see baseball players and other athletes give all praise to God for the win or the great play. I know it is modesty-- all praise to and all that—but it just aggravates me. God in his or her wisdom allowed you or helped you to win that important game, while he or she allowed the plane to go down in Indonesia. Really? The extent of human narcissism is limitless.

The vast nature of the cosmos is just one limitation to my faith, and as I remarked to a friend a couple of weeks ago, of the big three religions Judaism seems to me at least the most logical. Jews at least are still waiting for their Messiah. It just cannot be that the savior arrived 2,000 years ago, and the messenger followed a few hundred years later, and this is what we have gleaned from their time on earth: A world filled with too much hunger, too much war, and too much hatred, mostly and especially between those of varying and hard scarred religious belief. While I recognize the doctrine of free will that places the responsibility for man’s failure at humanity’s feet, largely absolving God,  it still seems to me that we have done precious little with the admonition to love your brother as yourself and turn the other cheek. 

This is especially so when one comes to understand that though neither considers him the messiah, both Jews and Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus. Beyond the total lack of commitment to the most humane portions of religious dogma, analysis of what God chooses to engage in (A baseball  game?) or leave alone (Genocide in Congo?) is problematic to put it mildly to any rational belief I might have in an almighty power active in our lives. And yet out of my own uncertainty, the comfort it provides, and the lessons of my youth, and despite my rational and what I think are well-reasoned reservations, I still pray all the time. Odd…

So, back to our family at O’hare. There they were. We see Muslims in our communities more often these days, but just as I am isolated from the Hassidim which form a major part of the town in which I live I am even more lacking in interaction with the Muslims in our midst. Though I’ve never seen a woman wearing abaya and niqāb working in a retail store, I have been struck by the numbers I see popping up in the rather large shopping complex which abuts our community wearing the hijab.  Immigration from South and Central America, as well as from across Asia and Africa with their large populations of Hindus and Muslims, is where America now draws its fresh blood and vibrancy.

What got me to thinking though is how that little girl could ever be comfortable in that tiny box of containment, the clothes of her family’s orthodoxy. In conservative societies girls are expected to wear the abaya before they reach puberty, but I wondered how this family would handle that, especially since they were already somewhat liberal in permitting their daughter to appear barefoot which in some societies would not be permitted.  I wondered how the parents and their devout faith would influence that girl to hide her light, not only to cover her body as though its mere existence was somehow vile and unclean, but also to accept the subservient role to men’s needs and desires that the wearing of the garments implies.

The three great religions, all patriarchal, are built on the premise that woman are impure temptations to men. The entire point of view is from that of the men in the church. Male Catholic leaders decide what role women will have in the church, and at least for now they may be lay leaders, but not spiritual leaders. It all seems so archaic to me. But then again the immodesty of many secular youth does not appeal to me either. Maybe I’m just too old and cranky to figure any of this out. But with all of that how will they do it?  How will the parents of that little girl pull it off? I remember reading some time ago, a novel by the wonderful mystery writer Faye Kellerman who often writes about orthodox Jewish characters. In this particular novel she wrote of a young boy who wanted to escape the confines of his orthodox community.  Hasidic and Orthodox Jews are often organized into tight knit communities and the children do not attend public school, but Muslims with few exceptions are assimilated in our communities.  It would seem logical to me at least, that just as Kellerman’s character almost every child might face that desire.  With the strings of community and faith many will not act on it. I wondered what this little girl who reminded of nothing so much as my own kids at that age, I wondered what road she would take. I said a prayer for her and went to board my plane.

The Truth About Job Creation

With all the talk about relative job growth or losses under Bush and Obama I started wondering what the historical record was. One thing that sparked my curiosity was the record in the first six months of each Presidency. Reagan, Clinton and Bush ’43 all enacted major economic legislation including substantive changes in tax policy in their first year, but none accomplished their legislative goals until summer meaning that their tax policies whatever they were would have barely affected their first six month’s job performance. Based on the impossibility that those tax adjustments could have any effect on the economy I thought might be interesting to view the job creation record of each president starting with their 7^th month, basically charging the first six to the pervious guy, and then following through to the first six months of the following presidency.

For example, in the first six months of the Truman presidency, which began in April 1945 after the death of FDR, the United States shed 2.8 million jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.0 million jobs were lost in September ’45 alone. Six days after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan surrendered. One month later, In September, 2.0 million were furloughed. However, the economy created 611,000 jobs in the three months that followed and postwar recovery was underway. In total the economy added 8.4 million jobs and the GDP grew 61% during the Truman Presidency.

In a period well before ideological extremism Eisenhower succeeded Truman. In the first six months the economy added just 350,000 jobs and for the full two terms it added just 3.5 million jobs. GDP growth slowed to just 39% for Eisenhower’s two term. After the dynamism of the Post-World War II jobs machine under Truman, the “Eisenhower Economy” merely hummed. Eisenhower, a technocrat more than an ideological force maintained the forward momentum of social programs established under FDR and Truman, had two lackadaisical terms, left the country hungry for younger, more dynamic, leadership and paved the way for Kennedy.

The GDP grew 13% in Kennedy’s three years in office. In the critical first six months of his administration the US economy created 234,000 jobs, a little less than 40,000 a month, but through the balance of his presidency it added about 100,000 per month bringing the country back to the dynamism of the Truman years, pretty much what he was hired to do. Job creation was solid under Kennedy, but not what would be unleashed under Johnson. The Kennedy Tax Cuts, which were relatively aggressive for their time and enacted before protecting the narrowest sliver of the electorate was a Republican obsession were actually approved by Congress in 1964, after his assassination.

Johnson in a little more than one term created almost 12 million jobs. The GDP grew 37% in the same period. Part of this legacy may be the so called 1964 “Kennedy’ Tax Cuts. But with all the pointing back to Reagan and Clinton as guideposts for the future, perhaps the Johnson administration and the Great Society programs enacted under him, not to mention the dynamic forces set free by progressive civil rights legislation are more instructive.

Poverty, in 1964 when Johnson declared a War on Poverty, had declined to 19% from just over 22% at the end of 1959, leaving one in five Americans on the economic fringes. In a burst of bureaucratic creativity and legislative action not seen since the depression, and perhaps never to be seen again, Johnson created the Job Corps, Head Start, the Vista Program which encouraged young people to engage and work in underserved communities, and a host of other programs. Medicare and Medicaid were enacted under revisions to the Social Security Act in 1965.

In addition to 12 million jobs created and 37% GDP growth in a little more than a five year period, the dramatic effect on Poverty was stunning. By 1973 Poverty rates had fallen to 11%. Though the population of the country grew from 1960 to 1970 by 20 million people, by the beginning of 1973, 17 million fewer Americans were living in poverty. Primarily because of Medicare, poverty among the elderly has fallen from 28.5% in 1964 to around 11% today. While it can be argued that the 1964 “Kennedy” tax cuts created a positive economic environment for Johnson’s grand experimentation, the mixed bag of results in succeeding years from Reagan (tax decreases; spectacular job growth), to Clinton (tax increases; spectacular job growth) to Bush (tax decreases; the shittiest economy in 100 years) seem to indicate that other motivations take a part in dynamic job creation.

Whatever tax policies are enacted, the Johnson and Clinton years make a case for policies designed to lift all boats. After nearly two decades of hostility to programs which benefited the poor, under Clinton poverty dropped from about 15% to about 11%. While Republicans point endlessly to the hot-check economy of the Reagan years for job growth, Clintons job growth numbers when taxes were higher are as good, and Johnson’s, especially considering the size of the population at the time, are stunning.

Following is a basic primer of economic statistics for each President since Truman. Take special note of ole Jimmy Carter’s stats. Better per year job and GDP growth than either Reagan or Clinton, and unlike Reagan he did not run up the national debt like a madman. A good way to F*** with your repub freinds I think is to ask them who had higher GDP growth? Carter or the sainted Reagan. Same with job creation per year.

Bush has the worst record since Hoover. He is worse by far in this analysis than any other President. Since the economic calamity came at the very end of his second term he has no one to blame but himself. Obama’s record is not good at all, but the deep hole of the 3.8 million jobs lost in the first six months of his presidency cannot be overstated, especially since these job losses were on the heels of 3.6 million jobs lost in 2008. In the Reagan recession-- which took place after Tax cuts were enacted by the way—2.8 Million jobs were lost in a 17 month period. Even as World War II wound down the losses were not as deep. 3.4 million jobs were lost from March to September of 1945, but in the following 18 months the economy regained more than 5.0 million jobs.

While an argument can be made that since Obama enacted substantive economic legislation in his first months in office the job performance should be all his, I think most reasonabale people can understand the effort to hang the entire mess around his neck is purely partisan. That being said, the following analysis also indicates that leadership matters. While I believe it is wildly unfair to judge the president from the vantage point of these past three years, I would still say that history will judge. When it comes to economic performance Obama has a long way to go. Going back to the point on poverty reductions under Johnson and Clinton and the corresponding growth in GDP and job creation, when was the last time you heard the president say something or suggest improvements in progams which serve the poor?

I am aware that some of the numbers presented are at some variance to articles and information I have seen posted elsewhere. I have for example seem Reagan’s job creation numbers touted as twenty million even though that is not what the BLS says. Job growth refers to Non-Farm employment in BLS nomenclature.

Truman

GDP Growth  61%                     
Average Annual GDP Growth 6.4%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 8.4 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 970,000

Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 358,000

Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 10,953,000
Average Growth Per Month 129,000
Census Year 1940
US Population  142 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.09%                       

Eisenhower
GDP Growth  39%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  4.9%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 3.6 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 447,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 234,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 3,455,000
Average Growth Per Month 36,000
Census Year  1950
US Population 151 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.02       

Kennedy

GDP Growth 13%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth 4.3%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 3.5 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 1,219,000                                                                                                                            
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)  861,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 4,112,000
Average Growth Per Month 117,000
Census Year 1960
US Population  179 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.07       

Johnson
GDP Growth  37%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  7.4%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term  11.9 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  2,377,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 1,391,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 12,547,000
Average Growth Per Month 246,000
Census Year 1960
US Population  179 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population  0.14       

Nixon

GDP Growth  34%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth 5.7%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 9.4 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  1,682,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)   Minus 1,337,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 6,661,000
Average Growth Per Month  99,418
Census Year 1970
US Population 203 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.05       

Carter

GDP Growth 37%                       

Average Annual GDP Growth  9.3%

Total Job Growth during Presidential Term  10.5 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth 2,622,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)  546,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 8,994,000
Average Growth Per Month 187,375
Census Year 1980
US Population     226 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population   0.08       

Reagan

GDP Growth   63%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  7.9%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 15.9 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth   1,992,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 1,120,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term  16,509,000
Average Growth Per Month 171,969
Census Year 1980
US Population 226 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.08       

Bush 41

GDP Growth 16%                       
Average Annual GDP Growth  4.0%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term  2.5 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  636,000
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) 1,248,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 2,673,000
Average Growth Per Month 55,688
Census Year 1990
US Population 249 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population  0.02       

Clinton

GDP Growth 49%                       

Average Annual GDP Growth  6.1%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 23.1 Mil

Ave Annual Job Growth 2,883,000                                                                                                    

Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) Minus 434,000

Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 21,383,000
Average Growth Per Month   223,000                                                                                                   
Census Year  1990
US Population 249 Mil
Job Growth as % Of Population 0.09%                                                                                               

Bush 43

GDP Growth  16%      
Average Annual GDP Growth 2%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term 2.1 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  43,750
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President) Minus 3,876,000
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term Minus 1,544,000
Average Growth Per Month Minus 16,083
Census Year  2000
US Population 281 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population Minus 0.01

Obama 

GDP Growth    8.3%                       

Average Annual GDP Growth 2.8%
Total Job Growth during Presidential Term Minus 1.4 Mil
Ave Annual Job Growth  Minus 427,692
Job Growth Handoff (1^st Six Months Succeeding President)                                        
Job Growth from Month 7 Of President Term to Month 6 of Following Term 2,486,000
Average Growth Per Month  73,118
Census Year 2010
US Population 308 Mil 
Job Growth as % Of Population Minus 0.02