The Stalling Obama Economy: Incomes Falling, Unemployment High, Low-paying Jobs, and Average Earnings growth anemic

The Stalling Obama Economy: Incomes Falling, Unemployment  High, Low-paying Jobs, and Average Earnings growth anemic

The economy is adding jobs, though not enough to bring down the sky-high unemployment rate. But it’s not just the quantity of jobs that’s a problem, it’s the quality, too.

– Despite the pickup in hiring, average earnings have continued to moderate and are up just 1.9 percent over the past year.

– Real after-tax per capita income, or real take-home pay, has fallen in two of the past three months and is down modestly over the past year.

Why are incomes falling in real terms? It’s because “a disproportionate share of the jobs that have been added over the past two years have been in relatively low-paying industries” such as in the retail, leisure, hospitality, temp, and home healthcare industry. Hiring in those sectors has accounted for 40.7 percent of the jobs added over the past two years. By comparison, these industries account for just 28.9 percent of the workforce. Not only is average hourly pay relatively low in these industries, but a large proportion of the jobs tend to be part-time.

Federal Reserve's Unbridled Power Gone Wild

 

Introduction

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created the United States Federal Reserve, for the purpose of avoiding financial booms and busts, the latest of which had occurred in 1907 and nearly ruined the country’s financial system. The savior of the crash of 1907 was J. Pierpoint Morgan, who stepped into the crisis decisively. He browbeat his brother bankers into coughing up sufficient money, time and time again, and succeeded eventually in stopping the ongoing runs on banks all over the country. J. P. Morgan saved the day in 1907, and has gone down in history as a true American hero. 

The purpose of creating the Federal Reserve was to create a source of money to do exactly what J. P. Morgan did, for future financial emergencies. Sad to say, this noble purpose has failed miserably. Why? Because committees of people are never as smart as J. P. Morgan, or even lesser humans, and the history of the Fed is a history of abject failure and disaster. 

The Fed’s Performance In The Great Depression of the 1930’s

It is well known that economists of all persuasions agree that at the onset of the Great Depression the Fed made a colossal and tragic mistake in slowing money growth. Indeed, Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz and Allan Meltzer (and even Ben Bernanke) have written that the Great Depression not only was made much worse by this misguided and ill-advised Fed action, but that the Great Depression actually would not have occurred but for this unbelievable perverse and misguided screw up by the Fed.

The Fed’s Performance 2000 to 2012

Starting in 2003-2005 the Fed held interest rates too low for too long, thereby encouraging  excessive risk-taking and stimulating a housing bubble. It then jumped interest rates too quickly, resulting in a bust, culminating in the panic of 2008. (To be fair, Congress also bears a large responsibility for the housing bubble by passing laws to encourage risky lending.)

Reacting to the panic of 2008 the Fed lowered interest rates to basically zero, and has promised to keep rates at zero well into 2014. In the latter half of 2008 the Fed also embarked on large scale purchase of mortgage backed securities (MBS’s) and longer term Treasury securities. This is known as “quantitative easing”, and has occurred twice now, QE1 (November 2008 to March of  2010), and QE2 (November 2010 to July 2011).

QE1 and QE2: How Much Has The Fed Balance Sheet Grown?

With QE1 and QE2 the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke has pumped $2 Trillion Dollars into the US Financial System, consisting of vapor ware, i. e. numbers entered into a computer. This is not even "printing money" like the Weimar Republic did, since no paper money is produced - it is just numbers changed on a computer screen by Ben Bernanke.

The top figure shows a reddish line, denoting the the money (in billions of dollars) that was "deposited" by the Fid into financial institutions in the US and worldwide. The Fed "exchanged" these dollars for MBS's (Mortgage Backed Securities and other securities) held by the financial institutions. For example, this amounted to zero dollars in August of 2008, then increased to $700 Billion in November of 2008, and then increased to $1.2 Trillion in January of 2010. 

More accurately, the financial institution transferred the MBS's ownership to the Fed, and the Fed in return allowed the financial institution to add the supposed value of the MBS to the account of the financial institution, by keyboarding that dollar amount into the financial institution's account. Cute, n'cest pas?

QE1 and QE2: What Effect Did It Have On Equities and the Stock Market?

The impact of the Fed infusion of money on the Dow Jones Index may be gauged by comparing the Dow performance from January of 2008 to March of 2012, to the amount of money injected. Obviously, the Fed action created a bull market during the Fed's QE1 and QE2 bond purchase periods, as shown in the top figure. Clearly, Ben Bernanke and the Fed achieved one of their goals, namely creating a bull market in equities. But at what cost?

Cost of QE1 and QE2: Inflation

When the QE1 and QE2 money eventually comes back out of the banks and financial institutions, where it currently is sitting (doing nothing, since Banks are not lending it out), and enters the real economy, then what do you think will happen? Inflation gone wild.

What is the Authority for QE1 and QE2?

The $2 Trillion dollars created out of thin air and entered into the accounts of US and Foreign financial institutions, was created on the sole unchecked authority of Ben Bernanke. Not the President of the United States. Not Angela Merkel. Not David Cameron. And helicopter Ben did this on his own nickel, so to speak. No one could or can stop him. Note that the amount of money was bigger than the infamous $865 Bilion Obama-Pelosi-Reid Stimulus Package of 2009, and bigger than the $700 Billion Bush TARP.

Now do you believe Ron Paul is right to be concerned about the out of control, unbridled, all powerful Federal Reserve? 

Where Did the Dollars For QE1 and QE2 Come From?

As was stated above, the increase in the Fed Balance Sheet due to QE1 and QE2 was $2 Trillion dollars. That is the amount of increase in the Fed balance sheet that occurred as a result of QE1 and QE2, as shown in the second figure above. Where did this money come from? Not from the US Taxpayer. Not from borrowing. The sad but true answer is that this money came out of thin air, from the fingertips of Ben Bernanke on a computer keyboard. This money is not backed by gold, it is not backed by anything, really. Oh yes, it is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, its people who are alive today, and all future generations of Americans.

Impact of QE1 and QE2 on Money Supply – Currency In Circulation

At the same time as the Fed infused money out of thin air into the accounts of financial institutions in the US and worldwide, the United States Treasury was also busy printing money. The dollar amount of currency in circulation is shown as a chart versus time, in the bottom figure above. In January of 2008 there was $800 Billion dollars in circulation. By March of 2012 this amount had increased by about 37.5%,  to $1.1 Trillion dollars. Why is this important?

The answer to this question is: inflation. In other words, if there are 37.5% more dollars in circulation, with no additional backing by gold or other tangible reserves, why then it means that the dollars have become devalued by 37.5%. Inflation.

When Will the Inflation Begin?

But, you say: Wait a minute, we have not seen anything close to 37.5% inflation from January 2008 until today, March of 2012. Why is that? 

The answer is that the additional currency is not in the real economy. It is not in the hands of people who are working or spending. The currency is sitting in the coffers of the financial institution the world over, and governments the world over. Well, that's great, you say, we are saved from inflation, right?

Wrong. At such time as the economy eventually recovers, and lending conditions improve, and interest rates rise, well at that time the money will come out of the coffers, and will begin to flood into the real economy, and that is when inflation will start to hit, and that is when inflation could get really really large, like up to 37.5%.

“What is To Be Done?”

What is to be done? The long term answer is to gradually normalize interest rates. But a permanent fix would be as follows:

1. Fire Ben Bernanke

2. Make the Fed accountable to elected officials, or failing that, kill the Fed.

 

Obama Agonistes: Only 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve Obama Presidential Performance

For those from Rio Linda, "Agonistis" means "struggling with adversity"

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13

Forty eightt percent (48%) believe the federal gas tax should be eliminated until gas prices come down. Forty percent (40%) disagree.

Also on the energy front, voters strongly believe that it is possible to develop the nation's shale oil resources without damaging the environment.   Just 14% see it as an unattainable goal. Not surprisingly, 57% favor the use of "fracking" to develop energy resources in the United States.   Most believe it is possible that the development of shale oil resources could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, President Obama leads Mitt Romney leads by a single percentage point, 45% to 44%. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, the president leads 47% to 43%. 

 

"Gasoline Stagflation": Higher prices simultaneous with lower sales

Drivers are losing their thirst for gas. The national average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gas climbed to $3.898 on Tuesday.

SUN -0.49% Yet high crude costs are proving difficult to pass on to the consumers. That has made refining—which once was considered a must-have business for many large energy companies—unprofitable and unfashionable.

Obama's EPA hastens the decline of America's top source of electricity

The Environmental Protection Agency's new greenhouse gas rules will hasten the decline of America's top source of electricity. "This standard effectively bans new coal plants," one lobbyist told The Washington Post.

Upshot: New Obama administration regulations are recklessley and ideologically pushing us from a cheap, abundant, source of energy without providing a practical alternative that has any possibility of meeting current and future energy needs of America.

Obama: I'm not "hiding the ball" on Russia

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57405077/obama-im-not-hiding-the-ball-on-russia/

Obama: I'm not "hiding the ball" on Russia.

Speaking to the microphones intentionally this time, President Obama on Tuesday assured he had no hidden agenda with Russia for a second term. The president also sought twice to dispense with the controversy with a dash of humor. Obama then covered up his microphone and jest, enjoying a hearty laugh and handshake with the Russian leader. Obama got caught on tape Monday telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more room to negotiate on missile defense after getting through a November election, presumably expecting to win and not have to face voters again.

'AFTER MY ELECTION I HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY'

Patrick Henry in the Virginia House of Burgesses in late May 1765: "if this be treason, make the most of it".

Promising the Russians a better missile defense deal after he is re-elected. Keeping the sweeter Russian deal a secret from the American people. In other words, bribing the Russians to help his re-election by keeping quiet, to be rewarded later with a sweet deal on missile defense after election. Is this not a violation of law? Soliciting foreign election aid? Sharing national security secrets with a foreign power? Btw, It wouldn't be a big surprise  if Obama also had a similar deal going with Israel: i. e.,  Keep cool, don't attack until after the election. Is this man to be trusted by either Russia or Israel? Only the shadow knows.

"This Is The Unemployment Line"

"I've Got Your Back"

Santorum Nation

 

With 100% of the precincts reporting late Saturday, Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator won handily with more than 91,000 votes or 49% of the vote, according the Louisiana Secretary of State's unofficial tally. Romney picked up more than 49,000 votes or 27% of the vote.

"Ronald Reagan fought that battle in 1976 and he did something that had not been done since: as someone as a conservative running against the establishment, he won 11 states. Well tonight, thanks to the great people of Louisiana, we have won our 11th state in this primary fight," Santorum said.

The phony recovery: Drop in unemployment rate due to people leaving workforce

Excerpts from Anthony Mirhaydari's excellent article:

 http://money.msn.com/investing/are-american-workers-getting-lazy-mirhaydari.aspx?page=0

Labor productivity, a measure of how much work is done per hour, has plunged over the past four months while labor costs have spiked toward pre-recession highs. The unemployment rate has dropped dramatically. And yet wage growth has stalled.

You could read these data to suggest Americans are getting lazier, losing their skills or letting them fall out of date, and choosing not to take jobs they view as beneath them. Or you could fault employers for not offering enough rewards to interest even the long-term unemployed.

This laziness dynamic, to the extent it is present, seems to affect the young rather than the old, men more than women, and the uneducated more than the educated.

This isn't just older people stepping out. The numbers are particularly painful in the 16- to 24-year-old male demographic, with workforce participation falling from nearly 80% in the late 1970s to around 58% now.

In addition to the workforce churn caused by the recession, we have an underlying demographic changing of the guard. Older, highly skilled and motivated workers are leaving -- choosing retirement, having it forced on them or becoming "self-employed" or "consultants" -- often euphemisms for "laid off and can't find a job worth taking."

Even though the economy is running 5% below its potential output (a loss of nearly $1 trillion in economic activity), inflation has returned to pre-recession levels and is above the Federal Reserve's 2% target. Simply put, the economy has slipped a gear when it should be upshifting instead.

It's these retiring boomers who have been pulling down the unemployment rate so dramatically of late. If the drop were driven by new high-paying, high-quality jobs, the improvement would be showing up in growth in the gross domestic product, wages and spending, says Société Générale economist Aneta Markowska. That's not the case.

And that calls into question the validity of interpreting the recent drop in the unemployment rate as an unabashedly positive sign. In addition to some seasonal factors that may be distorting the numbers, it's masking ongoing problems.

Yes, job creation has improved. But, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently warned, the drop in the unemployment rate from 9.1% in August to 8.3% now overstates labor market strength because of people leaving the workforce. The chart above illustrates the precipitous fall in this measure -- a fall that, according to UBS economists, is well outside the realm of historical post-recession experiences.

In a traditional recovery, the participation rate increases as new jobs bring people back into the workforce. This time, the opposite is happening. That's because as older workers (with high participation rates) retire or die, the overall participation rate is pulled down as younger workers (with lower participation rates) increase as a share of the population.

UBS economist Maury Harris crunched the numbers and found that of the 5.5 million workers who left the workforce after 2006, only 20% left because they were discouraged by being unable to find a job. The rest were a result of demographics.

Recovering the Lost Job Versus Monthly Job creation Rates

From the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution (a Washington left of center org aligned with Dems & Libs, though self-describes as non-partisan):

 If the economy adds about 208,000 jobs per month...it will take until February 2020—8 years—to close the jobs gap. With a more optimistic rate of 321,000 jobs per month,  the economy will reach pre-recession employment levels by April 2016—not for another four years. Under even the most optimistic projections for employment growth, it will take many years to return to “normal.”

See my article in Examiner.com: http://www.examiner.com/recession-in-los-angeles/are-we-there-yet-straight-line-extrapolating-the-unemployment-trend, for another estimatefor the time to recover the lost jobs based on extrapolation of trends.

Obama Approval Rating Vs Gasoline Prices In US Regions

Note that Obama's approval rating in April of 2011 was headed straight for the toilet, the expected trend since gasoline prices were rising rapidly at that time. But on May 1, 2011 Navy Seal Team 6 assassinated Osama Bin Laden, and this jacked up Obama's approval  by about 10 percentage points. This was then followed by a fairly steep decline in Obama's approval, bottoming in the high 30's in late fall of 2011. The rating then recovering all the way up to 48% in late February and early March of 2012, as gas prices fell from the peak in June of 2011 to the first of the year in 2012. The recent gasoline price rise has halted Obama's approval rating increase, which topped out at 48% and dropped to 46% in the latest polls. Recall that according to inviolable US election law, a minimum approval rating of 50% is the sine qua non of re-election victory.

To get re-elected Obama must cause gas prices to fall, which he can do for example by releasing oil from the US Strategic Oil Reserve. Re-election also depends vitally, most crucially, and most def on Israel not launching an attack on Iran. That's why Obama will do anything at all that Netanyahu and Israel ask for between now and the election. Netanyahu owns Obama, his back, his front, his everything. He is Obama's Daddy, and even much much worse metaphors come to mind. In particular, Obama will not utter a peep no matter what attacks Israel launches against Gaza, and the same goes for settlements and peace talks. In the immortal words of Gilbert Godfrey: "SOB!!"

How Obama Approval Rating Stacks Up With Previous 1st Term Losers and Winners

The above chart shows the Presidential approval ratings of 1st term Presidents (in succession) LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, in the last year and a quarter of their first terms. An approval rating of at least 50% on election day is obviously the sine qua non for re-election, and an an iron clad rule of modern Presidential re-election campaigns, never yet violated in recorded American history. So today, March 8, 2012, Obama sits at a 48% approval rating, on the hoary cusp of either winning... losing re-election. Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

In view of the abysmal state of the economy and the excruciatingly slow recovery, and the fact that unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics (who presumably are at the very core of Obama's base) has actually gotten worse, is an amazing and astonishing circumstance. According to the March 9, 2012 Bureau Of Labor Statistics Jobs report, the overall unemployment rate remained at 8.3%, while both Black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment rose in February as compared to January of 2012 .
 

Inexplicably, publications and blogs from left coast to left coast, including  the August WSJ, are trumpeting that this is indeed excellent news. Why?? Is it the power of charm, charisma, and a mellifluous deep voice? Is it the crease of his pants? Or is it the Kool-Aid?

Gallup: U.S. Unemployment Up in February

Increase in February unemployment compared with January is the largest such month-to-month change Gallup has recorded in its not-seasonally adjusted measure since December 2010...Gallup's U.S. underemployment...increased to 19.1%. Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a substantial deterioration since mid-January...the reality Gallup finds is that more Americans are looking for work now than were doing so just six weeks ago.
 (See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Unemployment-February.aspx )

 

 

 

The job market still stinks. Gallup: Unemploymet back to 9.1%!!

Anthony Mirhaydari's analysis is well worth reading. The link is:
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=44572741-42ce-4aa6-b155-401f4d96816b

 

 Anthony Mirhaydari wrote 6 weeks ago in money.msn.com that: "the job market still stinks...Don't believe the drop in the unemployment rate. There is still something very wrong with the economy." His words were as prophetic as they were depressing, in view of today's Gallup report on unemployment. Unemployment jumped from 8.6% in January to 9.1% in February, the largest jump in several years,and an indication that the recent pollyanish Rosie Scenarios being bandied about by the President and his minions are, like the reports of Mark Twain's death, greatly exaggerated.

Will home prices fall 20% more?

Some excerpts from Anthony Mirhaydari excellent article (see link: http://money.msn.com/investing/will-home-prices-fall-20-percent-more-mirhaydari.aspx).

For most Americans, there are only two economic data points that matter: the unemployment rate and the strength of the housing market.

Time to pop the confetti and buy a few Miami condos? Not quite.

The truth is, a combination of factors is set to push national home prices down an additional 10% or so before a hard bottom is found. And if Europe's debt mess and fiscal bickering in Washington result in another recession, the drop could be double that.

The problem with much of the recent enthusiasm is that it's been based on rising home-sales data, which...makes the gains seem dramatic. But at 4.6 million units annually, the sales rate is pitiful compared with the 7.3 million sales peak hit in 2005.

Because of the "robo-signing" foreclosure scandal, the big banks have dramatically slowed the rate at which they push delinquent homeowners through the foreclosure process. Until they iron out the wrinkles, they would rather let deadbeats get a free ride than compound what was already a public-relations nightmare.

the number of foreclosure filings has dropped from the 2008-2010 running rate of around 100,000 per month to closer to 60,000 per month now. Because of this, the time between a borrower going 60 days delinquent on a mortgage and liquidation of the property has increased to nearly three years -- up from just five months in 2004...all those postponed foreclosure filings are about to move forward -- unleashing a wave of distressed properties into a weak market. Gluskin Sheff chief economist David Rosenberg notes that when this complete "shadow inventory" of homes is properly accounted for, that number for months of supply on sale in the housing market will jump from 6.2 into the double digits.

there are still around 3 million excess residential housing units on the market. That means that even if builders stop all activity and no new homes come to market, it would take nearly eight months to clear them out.

No wonder prices are weakening again. According to Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller Home Price Index, prices have fallen eight months in a row and have reached new post-bubble lows, with prices returning to levels not seen since late 2002. In other words, although the recession officially ended in 2009, the housing market continues to weaken. Hardly a reason for optimism.

Reality is setting in, however. Economists up and down Wall Street are marking down their growth forecasts as data on things like durable goods and factory activity disappoint. And now, the ITB exchange-traded fund is in the midst of a new downtrend, nearly 8% off its high. There's good reason for investors to head for the exits.

Michelle Meyer at Bank of America Merrill Lynch is looking for an additional 8% drop in home prices through the end of the first quarter next year, assuming the economy remains buoyant. Her downside scenario, which would see prices drop an additional 20%, is based on inventory jumping to nearly 12 months' of supply by 2013. According to Rosenberg's calculations, we may already be close to that level.

An additional 20% decline would put the cumulative, post-bubble home price drop at 46% and return home prices to levels last seen in 2000. And the risk is that this weakness becomes self-sustaining, since additional home price weakness would pressure the banks to further tighten mortgage lending, pressure household spending via reduced wealth, and pressure the government via increased budget deficits as economic activity slowed.

So not only is the housing market far from "safe" by any traditional definition of the word, it's very likely that a double-dip in home prices could slam the brakes on an already feeble recovery.

the current excitement amounts to little more than another false dawn. Back in January 2010, Wall Street was looking for housing starts to average 1 million in 2011. But the actual pace was about 600,000. This year, initial forecasts were for 900,000 versus 700,000 now. Eventually, perception will catch up to reality as widespread investor pessimism sets the stage for an upside surprise in two years' time.

Recession and Recovery of '81-'85 Was Worse But Shorter Than "Great Recession"

We have come to regard the "Great Recession" of 2008-2010 as the most cataclysmic economic event in the United States since the Great Depression of the 1930's, but is this really true? The above chart shows that the supposedly not-so-great-recession-as-today of Reagan (1982-1984) was in truth much worse in terms of unemployment that the Great Recession of the last few years. Specifically, unemployment among Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites reached 22%, 17%, and 10%, respectively, during the Reagan period. During Obama's recession, these levels were not as severe, reaching levels of 17%, 13%, and 9-10% for Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites, respectively.

Reagan had a much worse economy on his hands than Obama, for the most important and painful measure of economic pain, namely unemployment. So why don't we recall just how horrendously bad the Reagan period was. Very simple answer. Because Reagan acted decisively on taxes and economic policy, with the result that his recession, as the chart shows, lasted a little over a year despite being egregiously deep as regards unemployment. Obama, who had less depth to the unemployment figures, has instituted policies which have not only failed to resolve the economic malaise, but actually arguably have extended the time to recover fourfold compared to Reagan. Obama has made the recovery worse. We are now 4 years into a recession followed by the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. By any measure of comparison it is an inescapable, demonstrable fact, as the above chart demonstrates, that Obama's economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster, and have made for the current slow recovery.

Who Do You Trust?

Five Measures of Economic Recovery: Percent Up From the Bottom

No one doubts that we are in a period of economic recovery from the economic Great Recession whose bottom was reached in the dismal Spring of 2009. Almost every economic indicator known to man plunged in those days, most prominently among these were the following very important five measures of the health of the economy:

(1) Dow Jones Index
(2) Consumer Confidence Index
(3) Industrial Production
(4) Job Loss (This is a lagging indicator, and bottomed in January 2010).
(5) Residential Housing

We will have fully recovered from the Great Recession when all the indeces are back to where they were at the start of the recession in January of 2008, or 100% up from the bottom of the recession in the spring of 2009.

The above chart shows the 5 indicators, scaled so that all 5 bottoms are aligned to a level of -100%. This allows comparisons to be made among the indicators; so we can meaningfully judge which sectors of the economy are recovering faster and which are recovering slower. The story is in the chart above, and the results are summarized below, according to the amount of recovery in %, from the bottom point of the recession:

(1) Dow Jones Index
             Best in show recovery. The Dow is up 99% from the bottom, and back to where it was at the start   
             of the recession, near DOW 13,000. The peak in the Dow was in October 2007, over 14,000.
(2) Consumer Confidence Index (CCI)
            The CCI is the most skittish of indices, exhibiting wild fluctuations month to month. The CCI is up
            73.5% from the bottom.
(3) Industrial Production
             Industrial Production is up 73.3% from the bottom of the Great Recession, doing well.
(4) Job Loss (This is a lagging indicator, and bottomed in January 2010).
            Job Losses are only up 36.1% from the bottom, showing that unemployment is the second most
            recalcitrant, and first most painful to Americans of all the indicators.
(5) Residential Housing
           Residential Housing is the slowest of the 5 indicators, only up 14.4% from the recession bottom
           The economy will not recover without a recovery in housing.

So the reports of a healthy economic recovery, like Mark Twain's death, are premature. Celebration is certainly way prematur, since the most important and most painful of economic measures, jobs and housing, are still moribund, four whole years after the start of the recession.

The rooster may crow, taking credit for the sunrise. And Obama may crow, taking credit for the most anemic recovery in history. But all the chickens will come home to roost in November.

The economic case against Obamanomics: Abe Lesnik's favorite 6 Pethokoukis charts

James Pethokoukis, one of my favorite economic analysts, just published a veritable plethora of charts (see  http://blog.american.com/author/jpethokoukis). This was too much even for moi, so I have selected my 6 favorites. The charts clearly show that the current recovery is the slowest and most painful (in terms of unemployment and lost income) of any since the 1930's.