A look at a GOP campaign promise from 2012

This story ran in The Hill on May 23, 2012:

Mitt Romney says his administration would lower the unemployment rate to 6 percent by the end of his first term.

“I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that we’d put in place, we’d get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, and perhaps a little lower,” Romney says in a Time magazine interview.

The 6 percent prediction is a bold claim that Romney will surely be held to by Democrats if he’s elected.

What a bold and exciting promise! The Republican presidential candidate vowed to the American people that when his first term was over, he would cut dreaded employment to 6  percent by 2016! That’s really living on the edge!

To show how bold a prediction that was, look at what appeared in the news today:

Hiring in America slowed down in January, with government data released Friday showing the economy added 151,000 jobs — less than the blockbuster growth of recent months but enough to keep the recovery on solid ground.

The data also showed a 2.5 percent spike in wages over the past year, an encouraging sign that the strength in the labor market might finally be translating into bigger paychecks. The unemployment rate also dipped to 4.9 percent, inching closer to what many economists believe is its lowest sustainable level.

If you’re listening to Republicans say that the economy is awful and promising that under a Republican administration there will be jobs for all who want them, just remember this. Mitt Romney promised that he would make the unemployment rate higher than is now. That’s exactly what I believe he would have done.

And policies enacted by Democratic President Barack Obama have put the unemployment rate below 5 percent.

When you elect Democrats, you get what you deserve. When you elect Republicans, you deserve what you get.

 

Chemically speaking: the Flint water crisis

Here’s an explanation of the Flint, Mich., lead scandal from a purely scientific standpoint (via Compound Interest):

Flint-Water-CrisisYou see, science is important. And if the governor of Michigan relied on scientists who didn’t see that this was happening, he either needs to fire them all, or admit that he was part of the conspiracy to kill poor people.

Of course, neither is going to happen. But that’s what happens when people believe it’s a good idea to elect rich businessmen as their leaders.

And how do we know that the governor of Michigan was a rich businessman?

In his first gubernatorial election in 2010, [Rick] Snyder campaigned as “pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, [and] pro-family,” with a focus on the economy.[12] His campaign emphasized his experience in growing business and creating jobs in the private sector, saying that his opponents were mainly career politicians.

Now where have we heard that?

George Bailey and the Commies

Seems like everyone loves this Christmas movie:

But according to billmoyers.com, “It’s a Wonderful Life” was the target of FBI and congressional investigations into the communist infiltration of Hollywood.

Michael Winship writes that:

[W]hen the movie first came out, it fell under suspicion from the FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) as Communist propaganda, part of the Red Scare that soon would lead to the blacklist and witch hunt that destroyed the careers of many talented screen and television writers, directors and actors.

And why was it un-American? This from a 1947 FBI memo:

“With regard to the picture ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’, [REDACTED] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘scrooge-type’ so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists.

“In addition, [REDACTED] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [REDACTED] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [REDACTED] stated that the scene wouldn’t have ‘suffered at all’ in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [REDACTED] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and ‘I would never have done it that way.’”

So today, when we talk about the one percent and income inequality, just remember, someone out there thinks it’s all part of a commie plot.

 

Free market pharmacy

9-27-strip-KOS

In case you don’t know the name, Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, is the douchebag who raised the price of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750.

Seeing the wrong of his ways, he did what any capitalist with a conscience would do:

The former hedge funder who garnered widespread criticism for raising a 62-year-old drug’s price by more than 5,000% has hired a lobbying firm.

Turing Pharmaceuticals recently hired four lobbyists from Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, according to disclosure forms filed with the US House of Representatives and US Senate Tuesday.

The lobbying giant filed the disclosure, writing that the purpose was “strategy development and implementation of the company’s federal government relations initiatives.”

Thus cementing his status as a scumbag you most definitely want to punch in the face.