Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (52768)	7/14/2012 9:40:01 PM
From: greatplains_guy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Why Has Long-Term Unemployment Doubled? By Jim Powell, Forbes July 13, 2012 The media has focused on prolonged unemployment over which is underported as just over 8 percent, while generally downplaying a shocker: the soaring number of people unemployed for more than 6 months. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in, there were 2.6 million people unemployed for more than 6 months. By June 2012, the ranks of the long-term jobless soared more than 100 percent to 5.3 million. Obama has promoted long-term unemployment by adopting policies that make it harder and more expensive for employers to hire people. He has relentlessly pushed for higher taxes, higher energy costs, compulsory unionism and, of course, Obamacare. One doesn’t need a Harvard degree to figure out that when government makes hiring more difficult and expensive, there’s likely to be less of it. Obama’s policy of extending and re-extending unemployment benefits is another culprit. Many academic studies show how unemployment benefits undermine the urgency of finding a job. People can afford to be more picky, and as a result they’re out of work longer. But the longer they’re out of work, the more out of touch they’re likely to be and the harder to find a another job. From an employer’s point of view, it’s always difficult to determine whether a job seeker will be able to do what he or she is supposed to. Calling references often doesn’t reveal much, since an employer might be sued for making candid comments about a former employee’s performance. An employer might be willing to confirm only that a particular individual was an employee at the firm. Moreover, many washouts have had glowing resumes. It’s no wonder employers seem to feel more comfortable making an offer to somebody who has a job rather than somebody who lost a job. As extended unemployment benefits finally expired, large numbers of out-of-work people have applied for Social Security disability benefits. Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration acknowledged that “when people become unemployed, they seek a way to continue having income. So, we had an increase in the number of applications and the number of people receiving benefits.” The Social Security Administration reported that in May 2012, the latest period for which statistics are available, more than 10 million people were receiving disability benefits at an annual rate of about $130 billion. These people, incidentally, aren’t counted among the unemployed – another way the unemployment rate under-states the severity of our current crisis. Reportedly many of the applications for disability benefits have been based on claimed mental illness. It’s difficult to independently verify such claims. Even when a claim is about a physical condition, there is no medical test for pain – doctors must rely on what patients report. During the last calendar year, there were 2.9 million applications, and about 35 percent were awarded benefits. To the extent that disability benefits create incentives to exaggerate real or imagined problems like mental illness, they’re surely making people even less employable than they were before. In addition, by signing up for extended unemployment benefits and disability benefits, large numbers of people have created a forbidding “hole” in their resume. Many employers might wonder whether an applicant with such a hole was in prison during the unexplained time. If an applicant doesn’t volunteer a convincing explanation, an employer might be reluctant to ask, since the result could be an anti-discrimination lawsuit. No surprise, then, that disability benefits are a factor reducing participation in the labor market. MIT economist David H. Autor pointed out that “the program provides strong incentives to applicants and beneficiaries to remain out of the labor force permanently.” The surge of disability claims has caused financial problems for the government, too. According to Autor, “the program’s expenditures on cash transfers and medical benefits – exceeding $1,500 per U.S. household – are extremely high and growing unsustainably.” The 2012 annual report of Social Security trustees acknowledged as much: “The Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test [of solvency]. The Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year.” The issue isn’t whether some people need a helping hand. The issue is how government programs create perverse incentives that multiply rather than solving problems. Jim Powell, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of FDR’s Folly, Bully Boy, Wilson’s War, Greatest Emancipations, Gnomes of Tokyo, The Triumph of Liberty and other books. forbes.com

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (52768)	3/21/2013 8:25:24 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Rotten Tomatoes for a Billion-Dollar Farm Payout Calling all women and Hispanics who once thought about applying for a loan. By JAMES BOVARD March 20, 2013, 7:05 p.m. ET Are you a woman or a Hispanic who planted a backyard garden between 1981 and 2000? Did you ever dream of asking for a loan for help growing more? If so, you might be a victim of discrimination and entitled to a $50,000 payout from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But hurry—the deadline for submitting your claim is March 25. The USDA announced in September that it would award a total of at least $1.3 billion to women and Hispanics who were not offered subsidized farm loans that they applied for, or said later they would have liked to apply for, from 1981 to 2000. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, saying that his agency was following the "path to justice," invited "women and Hispanic farmers and ranchers who allege past discrimination" to come forward "to receive compensation." The bonanza was spurred by the Obama administration's apparent discovery of a constitutional right for every citizen to squander tax dollars while farming. Since most farm loans previously went to white males, Uncle Sam is atoning by giving awards of $50,000 apiece to claimants from other ethnic groups or the non-male gender. But the Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C., and other advocates for female farmers took exception to the USDA's requirement that claimants submit solid evidence that they actually farmed or sought subsidized loans during the late 20th century. The current standard for women and Hispanics is more rigorous than the one used during the rounds of settlements—the last one ended in 2010—to award billions of dollars to blacks who claimed to be victims of USDA discrimination between 1981 and 1996. In those cases, black claimants' simple assertion that they had attempted to farm or had applied unsuccessfully for a farm loan was sometimes sufficient to collect a large payout. In December, the Government Accountability Office noted that most of the black applicants' claims had been "evaluated based solely on the information submitted by the claimants and, as a result, the adjudicator of these claims has no way of independently verifying that information." Advocates for female farmers are also unhappy because the USDA is not providing free lawyers to help claimants collect a payout (as it did for black claimants). A report last October for Arent Fox by sociologist Eugene Ericksen also complained that the claims form was "excessively burdensome" because it requested women to specify the "exact year(s)" they applied for subsidized loans and to "describe your farming operation or your effort to farm" and "your prior farm experience(s), training or education." Such questions may have been spurred by the profusion of shaky claims under prior settlements. More than 90,000 African Americans filed claims before the deadline in 2012, asserting that they were wrongly denied farm loans or other USDA benefits in the 1980s and 1990s. The Census Bureau later estimated that there were at most 33,000 black-operated farms nationwide in those years. Even that number probably is inflated because anyone who sells more than $1,000 in agricultural commodities—the equivalent of 150 bushels of wheat, or one horse—is categorized as if he were a bona fide farmer. Women's groups have been pressuring the administration to lower its standards for years. Twenty organizations, including the American Association of University Women, MomsRising and the National Women's Law Center co-signed a letter to President Obama in 2011 complaining that the higher evidence standard proposed in the current settlement offer "perpetuates the United States government's pattern of treating women and Hispanic farmers in a discriminatory fashion." Political pressure may sway the Obama administration to downgrade the evidence requirement for women and Hispanic claimants to the "attempted to farm—trust me!" standard used earlier. Instead of suing the USDA, many frustrated loan applicants should have gotten down on their knees and thanked heaven. Uncle Sam has a long history of giving farm loans to people with no apparent farming competence. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that a quarter of bankruptcies among USDA's farm borrowers in the 1980s occurred because farmers received too many subsidized loans. Almost half of such borrowers were delinquent in the mid-1990s, and the agency wrote off $15 billion in bad farm loans between 1989 and 1996. A 2006 USDA study found that half of the subsidized farm loans granted in 2000 had defaulted at least once by 2004, and that vast numbers of loan recipients simply gave up farming. It is hard to understand how government wronged anyone by not providing the financial steroids that would have led many to ruin. Besides, many of the claims that the USDA is recognizing now have little in common with the average American's understanding of discrimination. Some female farmers claim victimhood because, after they defaulted on one government loan, the USDA denied them another loan to try again. The real problem with federal farm loans is that they are prejudiced against common sense and sound business practices. There is no shortage of commercial loans nowadays for competent, credit-worthy farmers. USDA loan programs exist solely to let Congress steer capital to politically favored applicants. The fact that the loans often leave recipients worse off is irrelevant as long as congressmen reap campaign contributions and votes from many beneficiaries. What do taxpayers owe to groups of people who did not receive subsidized loans that nobody deserved? Is the USDA supposed to operate like the National Endowment for the Arts and give everybody a tractor so they can express themselves? If the Obama administration wants to advance justice, it would abolish farm-loan programs and stop letting politicians pick winners and losers in rural America. Mr. Bovard is the author, most recently, of a new e-book memoir, "Public Policy Hooligan." online.wsj.com