Red State Job Engine

Via NewsBusters:

The establishment press will never tell their readers, listeners and viewers that the five best-performing states in job growth through the first eleven months of this year, as well as nine of the top eleven, have relatively conservative Republicans occupying their respective governors’ mansions. If these eleven star performers had only performed as well as the rest of the nation, over 300,000 fewer people would be working, and the unemployment rate would be at least 0.2% higher.

As will be seen after the jump, the list, based on date released today by Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, includes several against which the Obama administration has undertaken significant job-killing or job-deferring actions (i.e., these states have outperformed despite the handicaps, and would have done much better without them):

I wanted to say something about Rachel Maddow’s “debunking” of Texas jobs,

and that is that she skews her stats on this a bit. Firstly however, minimum wage laws (which play a part in this waxing of the numbers) play a big roll in keeping people unemployed. This isn’t my main point however, here are some points made elswhere:

But there’s no escaping it. The number is real. Which means that if you care about putting people back to work at a time when nearly 14 million in this country are unemployed, maybe Texas has something to teach us.

Unfortunately, that’s not the posture many commentators have taken. Instead, when the data from Texas emerged — touted first by Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — conservatives were quick to celebrate, embracing the jobs tally as powerful evidence of the superiority of Republican ideas as well as proof that Texas Gov. Rick Perry would make a good president. But that’s overly simplistic.

Meanwhile, those on the liberal end of the spectrum immediately set out to shoot the numbers down. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, for instance, held up a giant bologna and mocked the notion of a “Texas miracle.” That view, however, is too cavalier….

To be sure, Texas is not without lots of problems. And its remarkable employment growth is not without attendant concerns. But for those on the left to dismiss the state’s jobs story out of hand, just because Republicans have embraced it as a showpiece, is counterproductive and foolish.

(LA Times)

While the LA Times article struggled a bit, but ended up shining at the end, the following is what Maddow and the LA Times writer didn’t fully account for:

In her column for The Daily, Reason Foundation’s Shikha Dalmia delves into Gov. Rick Perry’s record and writes that Texas “has one of the lightest personal tax burdens in the country and a low cost of living, which are hugely attractive to out-of-work Americans. Their flocking to the state has bumped up Texas’ unemployment rate to 8 percent, prompting Rachel Maddow to jeer on the air that Perry’s jobs record is not a whole lot better than many other states. What she refuses to see is that while in those states high unemployment is due to anemic job growth, in Texas it is due to robust population growth. If anything, Texas offers proof that people prefer jobs, even low-paying ones, to lavish social benefits — repudiating the liberal tax-and-spend economic model.

Just wanted to include a quick rebuttal to Madcow’s many, many  mistakes.

 

 

Maddow Epic Fail-Again

This correction from BigJournalism on the numbers Maddow typically runs:

The study on which Maddow based her claim was conducted by Robert Lang. And while it did project a $121 million surplus for the state budget by the end of June, 2011, had Maddow read further she would have seen that Lang also “[outlined] $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy, [and] the public defender’s office and corrections.”

Hmmm … I’m not great at math but let me try this: $258 million in outstanding payments minus $121 million in state budget “surplus” equals a $137 million shortfall in funds available (which is the very shortfall Governor Walker is trying to forestall when he talks about the pending “$137 million deficit”).

The last time Maddow got something this wrong was just last month, when she mocked Sarah Palin for suggesting that the American military ought to invade Egypt. The problem was that Palin had never suggested such an invasion. (Maddow was eventually forced into the uncomfortable position of admitting that the source she’d used to support the Egyptian invasion theory was from a satire website rather than a news outlet.)

…(read more)…

Take note Rachel also makes this mistake that Chris Matthews and others have made. And that is that police and fire unions supported the Wisconsin governor:

Baltimore Sun Lays Into Rachel Maddow

NewsBusters h/t:

Some on the left have been crying foul at CNN’s decision to air live Rep. Michele Bachmann’s response to the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. None have been more vocal than MSNBC libtalker Rachel Maddow.

One media critic had enough. On Thursday, the Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik laid into Maddow’s criticism, saying it derives from “the mentality of a lockstep party member, not a journalist.” Zurawik’s gripe was Maddow’s insistence that because Bachmann was not officially representing a political party, her speech should not have been given comparable treatment to the president’s or to Rep. Paul Ryan’s Republican response.

Journalists “don’t let political parties tell us who we should and shouldn’t cover,” Zurawik added. “I have a West Highland terrier named Bugsy who has better journalism credentials and chops than you do,” he quipped.

…(click here to see video of Maddow)…

Here is the portion of the Baltimore Sun article that I think sums up the corrupted thinking at MSNBC and specifically Rachel “Madcow.” Take note “Z on TV” references the video, which can be seen in the link above:

….The essence of my critique: The Tea Party has played a major role in shaping the new Congress, and it has already had a significant effect on American life. Given that, if you aren’t sure about whether or not to cover, you err on the side of inclusion — not exclusion. Provide citizens with as much information as you can so that they can make the best decisions about their lives.

But check out the video MSNBC thinks I should see and note that Maddow’s argument boils down to this: Bachmann should not have been covered because she was not “ordained” by the Republican Party as its official responder.

This is the mentality of a lockstep party member, not a journalist. Unless the party “ordains” someone to speak, they shouldn’t be covered by the press, in Maddow’s thinking.

Memo to Maddow: That’s not the way journalists think. We bring citizens as much information as we can whether THE PARTY ordains it or not. Just like we don’t let the executive branch tell us which news operation is a “legitimate” journalistic enterprise, and which isn’t, we don’t let political parties tell us who we should and shouldn’t cover. Journalism 101 at Goucher College where I teach.

CNN was right in covering Bachmann. And by the way, there are interns at CNN’s Washington bureau who have better journalism credentials than you do, Ms. Party Operative Think. In fact, I have a West Highland terrier named Bugsy that has better journalism credentials and chops than you do….

…(read more)…

So easy a child should get it.


Rachel Maddow Wrong Again! (Sorta) Plus: Chinas Carrier Killer Missile-the Dong Feng 21D

Here is some more critiquing of bad stats from MSNBC’s “smartest” host via NewsBusters:


….It appears Maddow must have been out of the country during Desert Storm when Patriot missiles were used to take out Iraqi Scud missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although their success rate was a great source of debate at the time (see the July 1996 Center for Defense Information study), no one disputes that some Scuds were indeed shot out of the air.

More importantly, at least twelve countries are currently using Patriot technology as part of their missile defense programs.

Maddow was either oblivious to these facts or was being disingenuous with her argument.

But that wasn’t the MSNBCer’s only miscue in this brief discussion, for she clearly didn’t understand why the Reykjavik Summit fell apart. Even the liberal website Wikipedia agrees with Moore’s view:

In 1986 Reagan had proposed banning all ballistic missiles, but wanted to continue research on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that could potentially be shared with the Soviets. Yet Soviet suspicion of SDI continued, and U.S.-Soviet relations — already strained by the failure of the Geneva Summit the previous year[citation needed] — were further strained by the Daniloff-Zakharov espionage affair.

At Reykjavík, Reagan sought to include discussion of human rights, emigration of Soviet Jews and dissidents, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, Gorbachev sought to limit the talks solely to arms control. […]

Gorbachev, however, citing a desire to strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(ABM Treaty), added the condition that any SDI research be confined to laboratories for the ten year period in question. Reagan argued that his proposed SDI research was allowed by any reasonable interpretation of the ABM treaty, and that he could not forget the pledge he made to Americans to investigate whether SDI was viable. He also promised to share SDI technology, a promise which Gorbachev said he doubted would be fulfilled, as the Americans would not even share oil-drilling technology. […]

The talks finally stalled, Reagan asking if Gorbachev would “turn down a historic opportunity because of a single word,” referring to his insistence on laboratory testing. Gorbachev asserted that it was a matter of a principle, and the summit concluded.

As such, Moore was quite correct that the failure of this Summit was over SDI, and Maddow was once again wrong.

And this is supposedly MSNBC’s most intelligent prime time commentator.

…(read more)….

Okay, she got some stuff wrong, typical and expected. However, she is correct in part — even though she wasn’t referencing this aspect of modern missile defense. Two things, first the bad news: the newest missile our Pentagon boys are worried about is the “Carrier Killer,” or the the Dong Feng 21D. One commentator mentions this in regards to this new threat:

….This new ballistic missile (flies up, falls down from close to orbital height with limited or no guidance on the way down) goes hundreds of miles and can carry a tactical nuclear warhead, and is not really defensible (moves too fast, detonates too high, etc.) beyond taking it out before it’s launched with pre-planned Tamahawk strike, tactical nuke strike, etc….

So this is the type of missile that Patriot missiles are useless against. So even though Maddow wasn’t even talking about this (or knows about it), she is technically right. Which is why missiles on missiles may not be an only option for future defense, although a part of it. The Dong Feng can be fired from 900 miles away, which is why this (the second point — which is good news) is one of our up and coming defenses, the first successful test was in February 11th, 2010 (see video).

This is the type of stuff that will defeat “Carrier Killers” and ICBMs. All traced back to Reagan’s insights, and not Maddow’s, or, Madcows!