Again, via Twitter (today):

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

Gallop: Unemployment rose to 9% mid-February. Food stamp use is at all time high. True unemployment rate may be over 15%. 9:26 AM – 22 Feb 12

“….True unemployment rate may be over 15%.”

The unemployment statistic which has been consistently utilized by everyone and is reported in the media as the unemployment rate is the U-3. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has “[a]lternative measures of labor underutilization”, one, the U-6, which includes the “[t]otal unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force”. The U-6 is always a higher number.

The seasonally adjusted U-6 was 16.4% in September 2011 and 15.1% in January 2012.

It’s interesting that Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) is just discovering (or is it spinning?) these standards.

As for Gallup?:

Everyone Is Freaking Out Over A New Survey That Shows Unemployment Surging Again

Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 21, 2012, 3:46 PM

….Has the economy really deteriorated just like that?

Nah, don’t worry.

As The Bonddad Blog pointed out last week, this Gallup data isn’t seasonally adjusted (in fact it says that in the chart right up there).

Since it’s not seasonally adjusted, you have to look at it year over year, and guess what.

And guess what, a year ago Gallup was at 10% and BLS was at 9.0%. So with Gallup now being at 9%, you could surmise that BLS will stand at 8.0%, another solid drop….

[emphasis added]

We’ll find out when the BLS releases the next monthly report.

Meanwhile, Representative Hartzler (r) is either an idiot, or thinks everyone else is, or both.

DailyKos‘ Joan McCarter reports that when asked about the prospects for the President’s jobs bill, Illinois Senator Dick Durban allowed that there aren’t enough Democratic Senators who can be relied on to pass the bill:

There are some senators who are up for election who say I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people. So, we’re not gonna have 100% Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bi-partisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.

McCarter notes that Durban does not name names, so she supplies some of the most obvious:

We pretty much know who he’s talking about here: Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Claire McCaskill. Maybe Bill Nelson, maybe even Jon Tester, as well.

Get that? Is our Claire McCaskill really one of the votes standing in the way of policies that we elected her to support? Given the content of her recent email, touting an op-ed she wrote for the  Kansas City Star, I’d say it’s hard to tell just where she plans on coming down; it seems to be a little of this and a little of that, amounting to not too much of anything.  

I include the introductory content of her email – minus the op-ed she also includes – below the fold. (The op-ed can be found here.)  You will notice, if you read both, that she’s carefully trying to work both sides of the street, shoveling on the GOP’s favored anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-tax rhetoric, while mentioning some of the jobs bill provisions and other initiatives that liberals can be expected to approve.

McCasill’s quick to endorse ideas meant to appeal to the center-right, like the President’s proposed tax cuts “that have traditionally won bipartisan support,” while she’s down on “big promises” to fix the economy and “unreasonable or untimely regulation” that might “overburden” business. She carefully tries to distance herself from anything that smacks of liberal, progressive or, to put it mildly, comprehensive governmental approaches to fixing our problems:

During this debate, Missourians have heard from politicians on the extreme ends of the spectrum – some shouting that the government can’t do anything and folks should be left on their own, and others shouting that government is the solution and that we can spend our way into a full-blown recovery.

The solutions she explicitly endorses are okay, mostly, if underwhelming. Lots are typical McCaskill, which is to say lots of itty-bitty pecking-at-the-details types of legislation, which, while undeniably useful, are apt to have correspondingly small effects, at least when taken individually in the way she seems to be promoting. She mentions such efforts as consolidating job training programs, combating tariff evasion, etc. She indicates that she will support transportation infrastructure spending, although she does not indicate the extent of her support of the relevant proposals in the President’s jobs bill, nor does she mention support for education infrastructure spending or other important provisions that the President has proposed. In short, McCasikill has produced a genuinely artful exercise in trying not to piss anyone off too terribly much. And we all know the problem with this type of approach, right?

McCarter gets it right when she observes, apropos the supposed obstructionism of these Democratic-lite senators:

How about instead of protecting these senators, leadership leans on them a little harder to get on board with what is probably the key push to save all their hides, including President Obama’s, in 2012: jobs. A little bit of populism, a little bit of taxing the rich, in Nebraska, in Missouri, in Montana, even in Florida, isn’t going to hurt any senator seeking reelection. Not in those states. Of course, there’s always the possibility that some of these senators are more concerned with their big money supporters than the voters.

I personally wouldn’t accuse McCaskill of anything more venal that worrying about the much vaunted outstate conservatism. I will, however, hold her accountable for enabling a destructive GOP narrative when she doesn’t really have to do so. As to what she’s going to do about the jobs bill when push comes to shove, who knows? And aren’t we entitled to know? We pay her salary after all. Same goes for asking whom she expects to please with efforts of this sort. Or, put another way, just whom is she trying to fool?

September 29, 2011

Dear XXXXXXXX,

I spent the month of August criss-crossing Missouri to hear directly from Missouri businesses and workers.  They all told me the same thing, that they want to see Washington stop playing politics and get to work on commonsense measures that can get bipartisan agreement.  They don’t want any more big promises.  They want to see those hard-working Missourians struggling in this economy get back on their feet and back to work without losing their homes or ability to feed their family in the process.  They want an economy that is not overburdened by unreasonable or untimely regulation. They want Washington to listen and to focus on helping in ways that actually work.  

Based on what I learned in August, I have introduced bills to crack down on unfair trade practices, and ensure that contracts reserved for small business actually go to small business, and I am working on legislation to consolidate job training programs so that less money gets wasted on administration and more money gets to the businesses and workers who use it.  I am fighting to win a long term extension of transportation funding so we can fix our nation’s crumbling roads and bridges and put thousands of Americans to work in construction.  And I am prepared to work on provisions in the President’s jobs proposal, like tax relief for middle income earners and tax incentives for businesses hiring new employees, that have traditionally won bipartisan support.

With this in mind, and knowing of your interest in the state of our economy, I have included the op-ed I recently published in the Kansas City Star about my trip, which you can read below.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill

United States Senator

Find McCaskill’s op-ed here

I was struck by an article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, describing the imminent closure of a campground for people displaced by the Joplin tornadoes earlier this year. Among the few remaining inhabitants of the camp are some who claim to have come to Joplin in hopes of finding work when the rebuilding starts. That’s what 9%+ national unemployment numbers get you – people so desperate they hope to turn disaster into a job.

Economist Jared Bernstein helps put our current situation into perspective with this chart from the Bureau of Labor Standards, which shows the components that make up the unemployment picture during the period from 2007-2011:

We’re not losing jobs, but we are failing to create new jobs, condemning millions to literally years of unemployment  The truly pathetic aspect of this situation, however, is the performance of the politicians we send to Jefferson City and Washington to watch out for our interests. There are some brave Democrats in Jefferson City, but too many of our state and federal legislators are refusing to deal with our urgent jobs crisis, preferring instead to quibble about spending cuts and to fight over which parts of an already decimated budget carcass they get to pick over.

The GOP response is worse than useless. On one end of the spectrum we have Roy Blunt’s obsequious concern for his corporate benefactors, or “job creators,” to use the GOP designation for the very wealthy, in spite of the absolute failure of these putative job machines to produce more than a minimal up-tick in employment when, as during the Bush years, their needs were tended so assiduously. On the other hand, we have the outright contempt for the unemployed evinced by GOP State Senator Jim Lembke who filibustered to prevent the use of federal funds to extend unemployment benefits, asserting that beneficiaries of the benefits were “stealing from their neighbors.”

But the totally unsurprising GOP fecklessness doesn’t mean that our Missouri Democrats are doing much better. Whether it’s Senator McCaskill dithering about what she really meant when she was talking about not extending unemployment benefits, or Governor Nixon, who, in the words of a Post-Dispatch editorial last May, was “too worried about making a campaign misstep or flying around the state announcing government handouts with dubious job-creation ability to provide the leadership that was needed,” the impression they create is one of timidity and weakness.

It isn’t as if there aren’t Democrats who know just what to do. Take, for instance, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, whose “Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act,” would put more than 2 million people to work, with particular emphasis on the long-term unemployed, the 99ers, whose joblessness has exceeded the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance our mostly millionaire congress-people are willing to grant them. But that’s not all – remember we also need to address revenue and debt issues – the act would be:

… financed by separate legislation introduced by Schakowsky called the “Fairness in Taxation Act,” which would raise taxes for Americans who earn more than $1 million and $1 billion. It would also eliminate subsidies for big oil companies while closing loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we’ve got Roy Blunt responding to a negative jobs report that reflected mostly federal jobs lost due to GOP inflicted spending cuts with the following bit of predigested GOP pablum:

Missourians are looking for jobs, but today’s latest unemployment report indicates yet again that there just aren’t enough jobs out there for people who are looking to get back to work. Washington Democrats are ignoring their pleas to cut taxes, quit spending so much, and help the private sector create real, permanent jobs.

Or there’s McCaskill, claiming that we can’t do much to create jobs, but maybe, just maybe we can fiddle around a little and:

… look at patent reform, we can look at trade agreements as long as they’re fair and don’t hurt American middle-class workers even more than they’ve already been hurt. We can look at regulations — what regulations are absolutely necessary and what regulations are getting in the way of businesses.

And while our Missourians are busy percolating this type of hot air, everybody agrees that the excellent, commonsense proposals put forward by Representative Schakowsky, proposals that would actually address our endemic joblessness, are DOA, victim to ideological warfare, greed, and cowardice.

Is our problem that, like the Japanese emperor,  Gov. Nixon has been sleeping with the Sun Goddess?  Is that the reason that new college grads are facing a job seeker’s stone wall and that former shift supervisors are working part time at Home Depot and Hardee’s in an attempt to make the mortgage payments?

Or is it something more insidious, like, say, a thirty year trend of rising military spending, rising CEO pay, rising Wall Street bonuses, rising gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us, rising productivity, rising poverty rates among children, rising dropout rates?

An AP article points toward the latter explanation. Seems that a barely-worth-mentioning 1% of economic growth after the Great Recession has gone to wages and salaries. 88% of growth went to corporate profits. The proportion is 88 to one? It didn’t always used to be like that. The last three recessions illustrate the pattern of change. 1991-92 is an anomaly (that I’d like somebody to explain), but the trend is clear: corporations are getting richer and they ain’t concerned about the rest of us.

Percent of economic growth that went to:

Wages and Salaries                                           Corporate Profits

1981-82                                        

25%                                                            28%

1991-92        

50%                                                           none

2001    

15%                                                            53%

2008-11

1%                                                             88%

The trends above are national, but they are abetted at the state level by the course that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) tells Republican state legislators to steer. And boy howdy, do they steer it ALEC’s way in Missouri: cut funds for schools, for example, and then complain about lazy teachers with tenure who do an ineffective job–all this in hopes of eventually privatizing school systems that the wealthy would run. And the excuse given for cutting school funding is that the state is broke.  

Of course it is. We haven’t changed the state’s top tax rate since the thirties. It’s $9,000. Which means that some poor sucker earning $8,999 is paying the same rate of tax to the state as the CEO of Express Scripts. Democratic leadership in this state moans about how broke the state is. Why not howl, instead, about a solution voters would love. By a margin of two to one, U.S. voters, in poll after poll, support raising taxes on incomes over 250 thou a year. Even 43% of Republicans approve the idea. Democrats should be baying at the moon. They need to find a way to present a united front and smack Missouri voters upside the head with the notion that if they were in the majority in the state house, they would work to see taxes raised on the wealthiest.

Let Claire run the Medicare ads; that’s a federal issue. But our state legislators have a winner on the tax issue if they would grab it.

Because in the end, those hateful trends I mentioned won’t change without lots more progressives in office, both at the federal and state level. Getting Gov. Nixon to kick the Sun Goddess out of bed isn’t going to cut it.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its March 2011 national employment numbers report this morning:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

Seasonally adjusted

Mar. 2010 – 9.7%

Nov. 2010 – 9.8%

Dec. 2010 – 9.4%

Jan. 2011 – 9.0%

Feb. 2011 – 8.9%

Mar. 2011 – 8.8%

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

Seasonally adjusted

Mar. 2010 – 16.8%

Nov. 2010 – 17.0%

Dec. 2010 – 16.7%

Jan. 2011 – 16.1%

Feb. 2011 – 15.9%

Mar. 2011 – 15.7%

[emphasis added]

8.8% is a lot better, given dubya’s legacy, but it’s still too high.

A release from the White House:

The Employment Situation in March

Posted by Austan Goolsbee on April 01, 2011 at 09:43 AM EDT

Today’s employment report shows that private sector payrolls increased by 230,000 in March, marking 13 consecutive months of private employment growth. Private sector employers added 1.8 million jobs over that period, including more than half a million jobs in the last three months. The unemployment rate fell for the fourth straight month to 8.8 percent. The full percentage point drop in the unemployment rate over the past four months is the largest such decline since 1984, and, importantly, it has been driven primarily by increased employment, rather than people leaving the labor force.

As long as millions of people are looking for jobs, there is still considerable work to do to replace the jobs lost in the downturn. Nonetheless, the steep decline in the jobless rate and the solid employment growth in recent months are encouraging. The last two months of private job gains have been the strongest in five years. We are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this Administration – such as the payroll tax cut and business incentives for investment – are creating the conditions for sustained growth and job creation.   We will continue to work with Congress to find ways to reduce spending, so that we can live within our means and focus on the investments that are most likely to help grow our economy and create jobs – investments in education, infrastructure, and clean energy.

In addition to the increases last month, the estimates of private sector job growth for January (now +94,000) and February (now +240,000) were revised up significantly. Overall payroll employment rose by 216,000 in March. Payroll employment grew in almost every sector. Solid employment increases occurred in professional and business services (+78,000), education and health services (+45,000), leisure and hospitality (+37,000), wholesale and retail trade (+31,800), and manufacturing (+17,000). Local government experienced a decline of 15,000, and has shed jobs in 16 of the past 17 months.

The overall trajectory of the economy has improved dramatically over the past two years, but there will surely be bumps in the road ahead.  The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision.  Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.

Austan Goolsbee is Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers

Who could have predicted? From a February 11, 2009 White House conference call with bloggers:

“…and frankly, it’s not rocket science…” (February 12, 2009)

Jared Bernstein: ….Uh, but the, the kind of quantitative metrics you suggested I also think are important. Um, the unemployment rate, uh, is expected in the absence of, uh, this, uh, uh, package to get up into something close to double digits, uh, um, by, uh, um, the, uh, probably, uh, late, uh, uh, later, uh, sometime a, I, I would guess, uh, around, um, late this year, uh, next year in the absence of, of our package. Um, I think, uh, the package should help to reduce the unemployment rate by about a couple of points. So, instead of being nine, nine and half, ten, ten and a half per cent, uh, the unemployment rate, uh, uh, um, may go, uh, oh a point, a point and a half higher than it is right now. It’s about seven and a half, so we could be looking at eight and a half, you know, maybe, maybe that neighborhood instead of, uh, maybe seven and a half by the end of, uh, two thousand and ten kind of back down to where we are now. Uh, if, uh, if the program is, is, successful. Now, uh, you have to be very careful when you give these quantitative metrics because, uh, they’re kind of, uh, uh, if things go as planned and obviously, uh, there’s lots that could happen between now and then. And no economist can, can, can know the future. That’s one of the reasons why our forecasts have large, um, guess, uh, confidence intervals, but large margins of error around them,

And so, uh, I think we should look for unemployment that, that is lower than it would be otherwise. Uh, um, we think we’re gon…to, as I said, create or save, uh, three, four million jobs. We’ll be tracking that closely….

[emphasis added]

What happened? The deficit scolds cut back on the stimulus. Because Wall Street doesn’t give a damn about unemployment?

From 2009:

Now what, Claire? (October 2, 2009)

Remember this, from February?:

Just saw Krugman’s comments on reduction in recov act. Question for him. Would no stimulus act be better than one thats 800 B instead of 900

Paul Krugman:

…What happened was a, a lack of conviction, a lack of, you know, if you’re gonna do something like this you’re gonna have a stimulus program you gotta go and do it…This is the kind of situation where you’re trying to build a bridge across an economic chasm. If you build half a bridge it doesn’t work. You have to do the real thing…

[….]

And to think, if millionaires hadn’t retained their Bush era tax windfall before the 2010 election because Democrats in Congress and the Administration always blink we’d probably have lower unemployment and a lower deficit to boot.

Now what?

Today St. Luis Public radio KWMU broadcast our Missouri senatorial delegation’s somewhat muddled thoughts on the President’s proposed tax deal.

Claire McCaskill, as usual, says as little as possible as deliberatively as possible:

So, I’m gonna continue to drill down and look at it very carefully, make sure that what we are doing is very stimulative. Frankly, that extra bonus for the multimillionaires, that’s not very stimulative. If it were stimulative we would have had a lot of jobs created the last decade and we haven’t.

Let’s see … McCaskill’s going to have to “drill down” to figure out how stimulative giving a hundred thousand dollar minimum tax break to each American millionaire might be? Somebody should acquaint her with the fact that economists are already on the record that there’s little stimulus to be found in that quarter. It’s actually common knowledge, which is why the Republican rhetoric is so hilarious and will cost them dearly in the long run. And why isn’t she worried abut the effect on the deficit? This is a woman who opposed a program proven to be  stimulative, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, because it wouldn’t be “fiscally prudent.”

Kit Bond, on the other hand, sleepwalks it in:

And I expect if this bill goes through it is going to generate the jobs. And I think it is simple economics 101 and I am disappointed that some people don’t understand that. No jobs are created by raising taxes.

Glad to know that Kit’s got those expectations. Not likely to be realized though; as those of us who actually took economics 101 know, the relationship of tax policy to economic growth is just a little more complex than he realizes. Ample evidence exists that tax cuts don’t always create jobs – if they did, the Bush tax cuts would have done so over the ten years they were in force. Instead, after years of lack-luster performance, we are in a employment crisis.    

Interesting fact: Missouri has 55,000 households that earn over $200,000. It has around 280,000 unemployed. Whose spending do you think is going to do the most for the economy? Believe me, those 55,000 aren’t going to do that much to provide an alternative for the 280,000 who need jobs – real stimulus is the only thing that will do it.

Interesting question: Who are McCaskill and Bond working for? The 55,000 households that would see their tax on income over $250,000 increase? Or those of us who muddle along – including the 280,000 who won’t muddle along too much longer without continued unemployment subsidies. How much longer will we put up with pols who would even consider holding the welfare of the majority hostage to the welfare of their wealthy pals.

Later thoughts …. Reading this over, I am not sure that I made it clear that I think the problem is that our Senators are seriously considering a deficit-busting deal that would give away $133 billion in tax breaks to 4.8 million people on the GOP side, as opposed to $214 billion in tax breaks and other provisions to benefit 156 million people on Obama’s side. It costs too much for the amount of stimulus it will provide, it’s unfair to the working poor, and there are too many risky elements – setting a precedent for raiding Social Security payroll taxes, for one.

An elegant solution: let all the tax cuts expire, come back in 2011 and introduce legislation for a middle class tax cut and let the GOP oppose that if they dare! The only issue that gives me any pause when I consider this suggestion is that of the unemployment benefits extension, but I truly believe that if they were willing to fight, the Democrats could get benefits extended for a lot less cost.  

I came across some interesting nuggets tonight while reading Think Progress. According to a report from a nonpartisan group, Campaign Money Watch:

— Missouri has lost 102,608 jobs due to trade policies that encourage outsourcing since 1994.

— So far, during this election cycle, the Chamber of Commerce, a leading proponent of outsourcing, has spent $259,375 on attack ads targeting Robin Carnahan.

A Connecticut Post blogger who summarized several GOP candidates’ records on outsourcing noted that Blunt “voted five times to protect loopholes that reward companies that ship American jobs overseas and voted against providing extra assistance to Missouri workers who lost jobs due to outsourcing.”

Do you see a pattern emerging? One that perhaps explains Blunt’s failure to even mention outsourcing in that “Jobs Plan” he is always ballyhooing. Instead, he promises to:

— Repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which will not go into effect until 2014 and which has had no appreciable effect on our current employment problems – although, since repealing the ACA will, according to the CBO, exacerbate the deficit problem, it might well make unemployment worse long-term.

— Fight against energy legislation that has the potential to create new clean-energy jobs.

— Cancel the stimulus funding that has not been paid out – although most of the remaining funds have been committed and projects have commenced; canceling these projects would do little but contribute to even more unemployment and misery.

— Cut taxes and cut them again – which has an arguable stimulative effect on the economy, but which would definitely zoom the deficit into the stratosphere.

— Cut spending to reduce the deficit – and given the effect on the deficit of his proposed tax-cutting spree, those cuts would have to be mighty indeed to have any effect, gutting essential programs like Social Security, Medicare and defense.

As you see, there’s lots of questionable verbiage about jobs, but not one mention of outsourcing. Does anyone need to be reminded that a similar formula didn’t perform that well during the Bush years?  Nor is there any reason to think it will be more effective the second time around, when conditions are worse and the need greater.

There are many factors that make outsourcing jobs attractive. Labor is defenseless in many countries and can be exploited for next to nothing; some favored locations are more than willing to degrade their natural environment, offering a regulation-free environment; and currency issues can be exploited to make the already lowered costs even more appealing.

There’s also plenty that Congress could do to make outsourcing less attractive and keep good paying jobs here in America, where workers would spend their surplus wages on American-made goods, creating even more jobs. Of course, that probably wouldn’t work so well for Blunt’s Chamber constituency, nor for their foreign donors who might just stand to gain when American workers lose.

Have you noticed how the GOP is exploiting the jobs issue – the problem they caused – as a club to fight off everything that worries their corporate friends no matter how weak the connection? Roy Blunt is no exception. Section 6 of his six point jobs creation plan offers this little favor for his long-time pals and clients of his lobbyist son in the telecommunications industry.

FCC Regulation of the Internet – Over the past two decades, the country’s telecommunications providers have taken advantage of a light regulatory environment to invest in and expand access to wide varieties of high-speed communications.  Unfortunately certain voices within the Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are determined to impose sweeping government regulations on the Internet. This will result in slower investment and innovation in this critical industry and fewer jobs of all levels.

What Blunt is talking about here is net neutrality – as in killing net neutrality, which is something that the big telecoms and Internet Service providers (ISPs) really, really want their pet politicians to do. If you’re not up on what net neutrality is and why it is important, take a look at this brief video:

Currently, as Blunt indicates, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new rules that would preserve net neutrality.  In response, the ISPs recently debuted the “net neutrality will cost jobs” line of attack, and Blunt, like a good little toady, is simply parroting the industry line.  

Prior to launching their attack, the industry commissioned several “studies” that attempt to show a connection between job loss and the FCC’s proposed rules. Needless to say, none of the studies stand up to serious scrutiny, nor do they need to do so to serve their purpose. They are intended to bamboozle poorly informed but well-intentioned politicians like Missouri’s Russ Carnahan, Lacy Clay, and Emanuel Cleaver while providing some media talking points for the Blunts of the world, a way to muddy the waters in discussions where real scrutiny is almost always lacking.

At first glance, the three most ballyhooed studies seem to be issued by reputable sources, the New York Law School’s Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, the DLC affiliated Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), and by George Brazalon of the Brattle group. One should not, however, be deceived by appearances. PPI receives much of its funding from AT&T and the Bradly Group, which Timothy Karr describes as “a right-wing cabal  of anti-Neutrality groups.” The other studies were commissined and paid for by the telecoms, and, in the first case, co-authored by a known industry stooge, Bret Swanson, characterized by Techdirt as “AT&T’s go to guy for pure anti-net neutrality propaganda,” who “seems to relish in totally making stuff up.”

For what it’s worth in these days of “truthiness,” these studies have all been widely debunked in terms that ought to leave those responsible writhing in shame – if they were capable of shame, that is. For example, in the report cited above by Bret Swanson, mentined above, has:

… used completely bogus “science” to insist that network neutrality rules would result in 1.5 million job losses. He came to that number simply by adding up all of the people employed by companies that submitted comments to the FCC opposing network neutrality (seriously).

So much for net neutrality as a killer of jobs. In fact, as Karr points out, the ISPs have been busy cutting jobs for some time – a trend that will continue no matter what:

PPI’s report assumes that if the FCC has basic oversight authority, it will lead to bad outcomes. But history tells a different story. When the Bell companies were subject to the full weight of Title II, they increased employment by 15 percent, according to their own SEC filings. But once the FCC began dismantling these pro-competitive rules through massive deregulation, these companies shed nearly 40 percent of their work force, even as their revenues increased and profits soared.

AT&T and Verizon alone are responsible for tens of thousands of layoffs over the last two years. Verizon is accelerating its layoffs, while AT&T laid off 12,000 workers through 2009 and thousands more in 2010.

“Sadly, this pattern of ISPs destroying good jobs while reaping higher profits will likely continue with or without reclassification and Net Neutrality,” Turner says.

Of course, you can bet good ole Roy won’t talk about this predatory, job-killing corporate behavior, but  will, instead, whenever necessary, pull out the “research” that shows that preserving the Internet for all of us will cost jobs. After all, the job that he is worried about the most is his own – and AT&T and, over the years, the Baby Bells have done him and his very good indeed in that respect.

“….Public schools are closing. Teachers are being laid off by the thousands. First class jails and second class schools. Today there is a plan, a plan for comprehensive immigration reform. A plan for Afghanistan, we commit resources, a hundred billion dollars for a hundred Al  Qaeda. A plan, don’t ask, don’t tell, for gays. A plan for national reform. But no plan for the investment for urban policy to put America back to work. So, we bail out the predators, the bankers that drove us in this hole. The victims remain on the sideline desperately looking for a job….” – Reverend Jesse Jackson, NAACP National Convention, July 14, 2010.

“….Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that. They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money.  So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed.  They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help.  And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline….” President Obama, weekly address, July 17, 2010.

Oh, the republicans have a plan for November 2010.

President Obama’s weekly address for July 17, 2010:

The White House transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

The White House

July 17, 2010

This week, many of our largest corporations reported robust earnings – a positive sign of growth.

But too many of our small business owners and those who aspire to start their own small businesses continue to struggle, in part because they can’t get the credit they need to start up, grow, and hire.  And too many Americans whose livelihoods have fallen prey to the worst recession in our lifetimes – a recession that cost our economy eight million jobs – still wonder how they’ll make ends meet.

That’s why we need to take new, commonsense steps to help small businesses, grow our economy, and create jobs – and we need to take them now.

For months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  But too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress.  And that has very real consequences.

Consider what that obstruction means for our small businesses – the growth engines that create two of every three new jobs in this country.  A lot of small businesses still have trouble getting the loans and capital they need to keep their doors open and hire new workers.  So we proposed steps to get them that help:  Eliminating capital gains taxes on investments.  Establishing a fund for small lenders to help small businesses.  Enhancing successful SBA programs that help them access the capital they need.

But again and again, a partisan minority in the Senate said “no,” and used procedural tactics to block a simple, up-or-down vote.

Think about what these stalling tactics mean for the millions of Americans who’ve lost their jobs since the recession began.  Over the past several weeks, more than two million of them have seen their unemployment insurance expire.  For many, it was the only way to make ends meet while searching for work – the only way to cover rent, utilities, even food.

Three times, the Senate has tried to temporarily extend that emergency assistance.  And three times, a minority of Senators – basically the same crowd who said “no” to small businesses – said “no” to folks looking for work, and blocked a straight up-or-down vote.

Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it’s a form of welfare. They say it discourages folks from looking for work.  Well, I’ve met a lot of folks looking for work these past few years, and I can tell you, I haven’t met any Americans who would rather have an unemployment check than a meaningful job that lets you provide for your family.  And we all have friends, neighbors, or family members who already knows how hard it is to land a job when five workers are competing for every opening.

Now in the past, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is – an emergency expenditure.  That’s because an economic disaster can devastate families and communities just as surely as a flood or tornado.

Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that.  They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money.  So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed.  They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help.  And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline.

Well, I think these Senators are wrong.  We can’t afford to go back to the same misguided policies that led us into this mess.  We need to move forward with the policies that are leading us out of this mess.

The fact is, most economists agree that extending unemployment insurance is one of the single most cost-effective ways to help jumpstart the economy.  It puts money into the pockets of folks who not only need it most, but who also are most likely to spend it quickly.  That boosts local economies.  And that means jobs.

Increasing loans to small business.  Renewing unemployment insurance.  These steps aren’t just the right thing to do for those hardest hit by the recession – they’re the right thing to do for all of us.  And I’m calling on Congress once more to take these steps on behalf of America’s workers, and families, and small business owners – the people we were sent here to serve.

Because when storms strike Main Street, we don’t play politics with emergency aid.  We don’t desert our fellow Americans when they fall on hard times.  We come together.  We do what we can to help.  We rebuild stronger, and we move forward.  That’s what we’re doing today.  And I’m absolutely convinced that’s how we’re going to come through this storm to better days ahead.

Thanks.