Krugman calls Obama’s debate lies ‘minor fudges,’ calls jobs report ‘trustworthy’
posted at 3:38 am on October 9, 2012 by Matt Vespa
On the October 7 broadcast of ABC’s This Week, New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman exposed himself as a hyper-partisan liberal hack for the Obama administration. About ten minutes into the roundtable discussion, Paul Krugman made an outrageous claim that President Obama’s lies were “minor fudges” in an exchange with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl. However, it didn’t stop there. Krugman had the temerity to say government is “trustworthy” when it came to the recent labor statistics.
Newsbusters colleague Noel Sheppard posted about this egregious incident yesterday, but it never ceases to amaze me how ABC News and former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos failed tomention his college Jake Tapper’s blog post on September 25 validating what Karl said.
Tapper wrote that:
two new independent studies of health insurance premiums and health care spending indicate both are rising at an accelerated pace, despite President Obama’s 2008 promise to contain those costs and his pledge that his health care legislation would reduce premiums.
Spending on health care rose 4.6 percent in 2011 — up $4,500 per person, on average — according to the nonpartisan Health Care Cost Institute. That’s up from a 3.8 growth rate in 2010.
Health insurance premiums for individuals and families also climbed year-over-year, up 3 percent ($186) on average for an individual and 4 percent ($672) on average for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.
Instead, George went to a commercial break and never went back to Karl’s point. When the discussion about the economy took center stage, in which guest James Carville accused Republicans of dabbling in “economic birtherism,” Krugman described the BLS report as sound. However,the U-6 curve, which indicates part-time workers looking for full-employment, has remained steady at 14.7% and we’re on track to create fewer jobs, on average, per month than in 2011.
These statistics come after spending almost a trillion dollars to jump-start the economy in 2009. Julia Seymour penned a column for Newsbusters about the new jobs report on October 5, which cited economist Peter Morici saying “the labor participation had declined a great deal since Obama took office and caused most of the “reduction in unemployment from its 10.0 percent peak in October 2009.” He pointed out that if the participation rate had remained the same unemployment would be 9.8 percent; 10.7 percent if using the rate from beginning of Obama’s term.”
Lastly, even Gallup’s chief economist said on October 5 that:
The problem is that even though the Household survey tends to be very volatile, this decline seems to lack face-validity, particularly after the prior month’s numbers. The consensus estimate was that the government would report that the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.1% in September. GDP growth was 1.3% in the second quarter and seems to be no better this quarter. The government’s Establishment survey shows there were 114,000 new jobs created in September — very close to the consensus of 113,000 — and not sufficient to lower the unemployment rate.
The obvious conclusion is that a new employment measure is needed. Gallup has proposed such a measure — Payroll to Population (P2P) — the number of Americans employed full-time for an employer as a percentage of the U.S. population. This is a much simpler measure that has none of the numerous adjustments made to the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. The P2P deteriorated slightly to 45.1% in September from 45.3% in August, suggesting the real jobs situation was essentially unchanged last month.However, I think Mary Matilin better described the new report as a “bely crawl.”