The Buck Stops Here

Published on April 9, 2005 By NJforever In Politics

A common opposition tactic against anybody is to bring out the "that's not what the people want!" argument. Apparently, only what is popular can possibly be right. That is complete and utter nonsense. An important part of leadership is doing what you believe is right, no matter what others think . It's important to have strong convictions and believe in them. A great example of how important this is is Harry S Truman.

Truman, was, of course, 33rd president of the United States. He had a sign on his desk, which read "The buck stops here." And it certainly did. Truman is notorious for always standing up for what he believed in, no matter what popular opinion was. In fact, it nearly cost him the election (I never saw it, but the victorious Truman holding a paper with the headline "Dewey defeats Truman" is memorable). But he didn't care. And you know what? It turns out Truman really helped the nation. He's up there in presidential rankings (and I know my presidential rankings. Just ask Dr. Guy). I greatly respect and admire Truman for his strong convictions.

Obviously, I tend to stick by my convictions. I believe it is a quality every leader should have. Also, I never care for those "that's not what the people want!" arguments. You know what? Too bad. Prove to me that it isn't working, not that it isn't popular, and I'll happily agree with you. But don't start throwing polls and whatnot at me (don't even get me started on polls; I got a Roosevelt-Landon story there). I guess this makes me a Truman Democrat. Are you a Truman (insert party here)?

Comments (Page 3)

COL Gene

on Apr 12, 2005

drmiler:

You are just blind. below are the e-mails I received from BLS staff that sight the data I am using. The info I reference is per the BLS staff and show the following:

Official Unemployment rates have not returned to the levels that existed in Dec 2000. They are 5.4% in march and they were 3.7% in Dec 2000.

The underemployment rates were 6.7% in dec 2000 and are not 9.3%.

In addition, please explain how since the economy has recovered, we are running a difference between Federal Revenue and Federal Expneses of $675 Billion THIS YEAR? This can not be explained by the recession in 2001 and 2002 (they are over) nor even by the war since that is only $100 Billion of the $675 Billion.

Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting us with this question. You can access unemployment data in both rates and numbers from our website by starting at www.bls.gov.

Click "National Unemployment Rate" under "Employment & Unemployment"
Click Get Detailed CPS Statistics"
Click "Most Requested Statistics
Make the appropriate selections i.e. "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force - LNS12000000" & "Unemployment Rate - Civilian Labor Force - LNS14000000 " (and any others in the list) to compare employment versus unemployment.
Click "Retrieve Data"
This will provide data for the last 10 years by default. For more information on this data, contact the National Labor Force Statistics program office at 202-691-6378, or by email at cpsinfo@bls.gov.

Please contact us again with questions regarding wages, prices, employment or productivity at BLSData_staff@bls.gov or call 202-691-5200.

Sincerely,

Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:23 AM
To: feedback@bls.gov
Subject: Unemployment rate

I am researching data for my book. I would like to understand how the unemployment rate today is about the same as in 2001. As I learned, we have about the same number of jobs as we did in 2001. Can you give me the number of jobs in Jan 2001 and Jan 2005? I have also found that between Jan 2001 and Jan 2005 we have added about 5 million new workers because of population growth. If we have about the same number of jobs as four years ago and 5 million more workers, HOW CAN WE HAVE THE SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?

Thank you,

Gene P. Abel

genep0041@earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.

Gene,
Thank you for the suggestion. I have forwarded this information to the National Labor Force Statistics program office which can be contacted at 202-691-6378, or by email at cpsinfo@bls.gov.
Sincerely,

Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies

-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:24 AM
To: Berridge, Scott - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

Mr. Scott Berridge, BLS

Thank you for the information. Below is a suggestion about the need to change the way we report Job Growth. I plan to include this in the revised edition of my book, Four More For George W.

Unemployment Rate does not give a clear job picture!
Added 262,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes UP

By COL Gene
Posted Friday, March 04, 2005 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics

The employment numbers today were a step forward by producing 262,000 new jobs. Not only is that more than were expected, but it is more than economists claim are necessary to keep pace with population growth. To keep pace with our growing work force, our economy needs to produce about 125,000 new jobs each month. Thus, last month we produced more than double that amount. Most would believe that would result in a reduction of the nation's unemployment rate when in fact the unemployment rate increased from 5.2 to 5.4%.

We have seen months in the past when almost no jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down. Thus it is clear, the unemployment rate statistic is not giving us a clear picture of job condition in our country. What we should be doing is producing monthly , the number of Americans who do not have jobs that pay a living wage. It should include all people who need a living wage job that do not have such a job and compare that statistic month-to-month see how well we are doing in creating meaningful jobs for our growing population.

Dear Mr. Abel,

I work in the Division of Labor Force Statistics (group name: cpsinfo@bls.gov) and would just like to add a couple of thoughts to Mr. Berridge's. We are responsible for the national data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). First, we agree with you that the presence of economic hardship among workers is important to know. To that end, we produce a report annually on the working poor. The most recent report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf

We also agree that just one number, the official unemployment rate, doesn't provide a full picture of labor market difficulties. You might be interested in alternative measures of labor underutilization that we produce monthly. These data are published in the Employment Situation news release, the most recent of which is found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table A-12 shows the alternative rates.
U-6 is the broadest measure; that rate is nearly twice that of the official unemployment rate.

Finally I want to mention that the unemployment rate is calculated as the number of unemployed divided by the labor force (which is the sum of the employed plus the unemployed)--not the population. Movements in the unemployment rate depend on changes in both employment and unemployment. The unemployed are defined as those who actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks and were available to take a job, plus those who were on layoff from a job and expected to be recalled. Individuals who were not in the labor force (i.e., were neither employed nor unemployed) do not factor in to the unemployment rate.

I hope this information is helpful. To read more about CPS concepts, see the publication, How the Government Measures Unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Sharon Cohany
Economist
Division of Labor Force Statistics, BLS
202-691-6378
cpsinfo@bls.gov

To see the historical data for A-12, just click on:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
and select the series you want. The December 2000 value is 6.9 percent.

Sharon Cohany

-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

Sharon Cohany:

Thank you for the information. It was very helpful. Can you tell me what U-6 on table A-12 was in December 2000? I see the rate as of Feb 2005 is 9.3%.

Gene Abel

Dear Mr. Abel,

I believe your question would be best addressed by the Census Bureau, which maintains statistics on family income (as well as individual and household income). I spotted this table on their website: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f01.html
It appears that the second page of the table has income in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The income branch's home page is at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.html
Questions on the income data from the CPS can be sent to this branch on 301-763-3242 or by writing to hhes-info@census.gov

I hope this information is helpful.

Sharon Cohany
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:55 AM
To: Sharon - BLS Cohany
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

What is the best source to show how the average family has done over the past four years? I am trying to obtain data that shows if the average family income is higher, the same of less after inflation and wage increases are considered.

Gene Abel

----- Original Message -----
From: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
To: genep0041@earthlink.net
Sent: 3/10/2005 11:02:40 AM
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

To see the historical data for A-12, just click on:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
and select the series you want. The December 2000 value is 6.9 percent.

Sharon Cohany

-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

Sharon Cohany:

Thank you for the information. It was very helpful. Can you tell me what U-6 on table A-12 was in December 2000? I see the rate as of Feb 2005 is 9.3%.

Gene Abel

----- Original Message -----
From: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
To: Berridge, Scott - BLS;genep0041@earthlink.net
Cc: CPSInfo
Sent: 3/8/2005 12:25:34 PM
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

Dear Mr. Abel,

I work in the Division of Labor Force Statistics (group name: cpsinfo@bls.gov) and would just like to add a couple of thoughts to Mr. Berridge's. We are responsible for the national data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). First, we agree with you that the presence of economic hardship among workers is important to know. To that end, we produce a report annually on the working poor. The most recent report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf

We also agree that just one number, the official unemployment rate, doesn't provide a full picture of labor market difficulties. You might be interested in alternative measures of labor underutilization that we produce monthly. These data are published in the Employment Situation news release, the most recent of which is found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table A-12 shows the alternative rates.
U-6 is the broadest measure; that rate is nearly twice that of the official unemployment rate.

Finally I want to mention that the unemployment rate is calculated as the number of unemployed divided by the labor force (which is the sum of the employed plus the unemployed)--not the population. Movements in the unemployment rate depend on changes in both employment and unemployment. The unemployed are defined as those who actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks and were available to take a job, plus those who were on layoff from a job and expected to be recalled. Individuals who were not in the labor force (i.e., were neither employed nor unemployed) do not factor in to the unemployment rate.

I hope this information is helpful. To read more about CPS concepts, see the publication, How the Government Measures Unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Sharon Cohany
Economist
Division of Labor Force Statistics, BLS
202-691-6378
cpsinfo@bls.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Berridge, Scott - BLS
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:38 AM
To: 'genep0041@earthlink.net'
Cc: CPSInfo
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

Gene,
Thank you for the suggestion. I have forwarded this information to the National Labor Force Statistics program office which can be contacted at 202-691-6378, or by email at cpsinfo@bls.gov.
Sincerely,

Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies

-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:24 AM
To: Berridge, Scott - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate

Mr. Scott Berridge, BLS

Thank you for the information. Below is a suggestion about the need to change the way we report Job Growth. I plan to include this in the revised edition of my book, Four More For George W.

Unemployment Rate does not give a clear job picture!
Added 262,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes UP

By COL Gene
Posted Friday, March 04, 2005 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics

The employment numbers today were a step forward by producing 262,000 new jobs. Not only is that more than were expected, but it is more than economists claim are necessary to keep pace with population growth. To keep pace with our growing work force, our economy needs to produce about 125,000 new jobs each month. Thus, last month we produced more than double that amount. Most would believe that would result in a reduction of the nation's unemployment rate when in fact the unemployment rate increased from 5.2 to 5.4%.

We have seen months in the past when almost no jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down. Thus it is clear, the unemployment rate statistic is not giving us a clear picture of job condition in our country. What we should be doing is producing monthly , the number of Americans who do not have jobs th at pay a living wage. It should include all people who need a living wage job that do not have such a job and compare that statistic month-to-month see how well we are doing in creating meaningful jobs for our growing population.

Island Dog

on Apr 12, 2005

Monthly job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) continue to surprise economists, this time by moving in opposite directions than usual. The rate of unemployment rose by 0.2 percentage points to 5.4 in data released today, reversing its January decline, while payroll job growth finally beat expectations with a solid increase of 262,000 jobs in February. The dissonance between the two top-line indicators over the last year – tightening unemployment rates alongside flat payroll growth – reveals deeper trends at work in the economy.

The workforce is aging, while society is getting wealthier and healthier. How these forces shape labor supply cannot be known with certainty, but the lesson for data watchers is clear: look at demographically neutral indicators if your goal is to assess the macro economy. It does no good to obsess over the total number of jobs if labor supply is contracting because people simply feel wealthier. Likewise, a booming number of jobs would be misleading if the cause is higher birth rates from two decades ago.

Instead, the best way to assess the health of the labor market itself is to measure the number of jobs relative to the available labor supply. Meet the unemployment rate. It is defined as the number of people who are unemployed divided by the labor force of people who have or want a job.

In February, the unemployment rate nationally was 5.4 percent, in line with what economists call the “full-employment” or “natural” rate. During President George W. Bush’s first term, which included a mild economic downturn in 2001, the unemployment rate actually averaged 5.53 percent, which compares very favorably with the average since Harry Truman’s second term in 1948 of 5.67 percent.

A comparison of unemployment rates during presidential terms in Table 1 shows that the first Bush term was sixth best. Few of the five “better” terms, however, included a recession, and all of them preceded recessions because they reflected overheated economies – most notably under President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 and President Bill Clinton in 2000. Few economists forecast a looming downturn as a result of today’s labor market.

Link

COL Gene

on Apr 12, 2005

Just as I said. Unemployment is 5.4% and it was 3.9% when Bush took office. The Bush policies are not working. The underemployment rate is 9.3%. Those are the workers that DO NOT HAVE JOBS THAT PAY A LIVING WAGE! not only is that a problem for about 9.3% of the workforce but we also do not get the benefit of the higher spending from that group because of the low paying jobs. The good paying jobs are being exported out of the country based on our asinine trade policy which Bush will not change. Yes, I know it started in the Bush 41 and Clinton terms but you would think by this time Bush W. would recognize that it is not working.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!