Friday, May 31, 2013

Europe Has a Serious Unemployment Problem... and That is an Understatement

In two of my blogs, the first one titled "How Taxation Has Everything to Do With Economic Growth, Mr. President!" and the second one being "Just to Make the American People Forget About the Acts of Political Profligacy Within the White House, Congress and the President Decide to Raise the Debt Ceiling Again for the Second Time This Year... As Well As Our Federal Deficit," the controversial topic of economic austerity is brought to mind with regards to the Eurozone's economic situation.  Two of the nations in the Eurozone -- Germany and Latvia -- are experiencing exceptional economic growth by virtue of practicing this form of economics, while the rest of Europe -- particularly Spain and Greece, both of whose unemployment rates are hovering at or near the 25% threshold, are mired in what has been referred to by several economists as the "uber Depression."  What seems to be the secret to Germany's and Latvia's success?

Two of the excuses one of the economic magazines I have read about Latvia posit are: 1) Latvia is a relatively small country in comparison with the rest of Europe; and 2) There is not as many political divisions as there are in the other member nation-states of the Eurozone.  Yet, this does not explain the phenomenon of Germany's success with the practice of austerity.  As of 2010, the following is true of Germany's population by state and capital, as well as racial and ethnic demographics (Courtesy of "Kreisfreie Stadte und Landkreise nach Flache unde Bevolkerung 31. 12. 2010" [XLS] [in German] Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. October 2011; and  "International Migration 2006" UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.):

StateCapitalArea (km²)Population
Baden-WürttembergStuttgart35,75210,753,880
BavariaMunich70,54912,538,696
BerlinBerlin8923,460,725
BrandenburgPotsdam29,4772,503,273
BremenBremen404660,999
HamburgHamburg7551,786,448
HesseWiesbaden21,1156,067,021
Mecklenburg-VorpommernSchwerin23,1741,642,327
Lower SaxonyHanover47,6187,918,293
North Rhine-WestphaliaDüsseldorf34,04317,845,154
Rhineland-PalatinateMainz19,8474,003,745
SaarlandSaarbrücken2,5691,017,567
SaxonyDresden18,4164,149,477
Saxony-AnhaltMagdeburg20,4452,335,006
Schleswig-HolsteinKiel15,7632,834,259
ThuringiaErfurt16,1722,235,025

and this list of statistics:

Ethnic Group
 %[156][157]
population
European
88.0
71,935,000
     Ethnic German
80.7
65,970,000
     Polish
2.0
1,654,000
     former Soviet Union (primarily Russian GermansRussians and Jews)
1.7
1,400,000
     European Other (Western Europeans and former Yugoslavians)
3.6
3,000,000
Middle Eastern
5.2
4,260,000
     Turkish
4.0
3,260,000
     others (primarily Arabs and Iranians)
1.2
1,000,000
Asian
2.0
1,634,000
Afro-German or Black African
1.0
817,150
Mixed or unspecified background
2.0
1,634,000
Other groups (primarily the Americas)
1.8
1,470,000
Total population
100
81,715,000

With a population of 81,715,000, Germany is the largest nation in the European Union.  And unlike Latvia, there are several political parties within the parliamentary system of government that hold seats, such as the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic parties, the Free Democratic Party, the Alliance '90/The Greens, as well as minor parties like the Left, Free Voters, and the Pirate Party.  So, this debunks some of the Left's theories that austerity cannot work.  If you will refer back to the second article's link I posted above, it will go into detail what is causing the practice of austerity to backfire for the members of the Eurozone. (Courtesy of Ludwig von Mises Institute) :
The Myth of Austerity
Mises Daily: Friday, November 30, 2012 by Philipp Bagus
Many politicians and commentators such as Paul Krugman claim that Europe's problem is austerity, i.e., there is insufficient government spending. The common argument goes like this: Due to a reduction of government spending, there is insufficient demand in the economy leading to unemployment. The unemployment makes things even worse as aggregate demand falls even more, causing a fall in government revenues and an increase in government deficits. European governments pressured by Germany (which did not learn from the supposedly fateful policies of Chancellor Heinrich Brüning) then reduce government spending even further, lowering demand by laying off public employees and cutting back on government transfers. This reduces demand even more in a never ending downward spiral of misery. What can be done to break out of the spiral? The answer given by commentators is simply to end austerity, boost government spending and aggregate demand. Paul Krugman even argues in favor for a preparation against an alien invasion, which would induce government to spend more. So the story goes. But is it true?
First of all, is there really austerity in the eurozone? One would think that a person is austere when she saves, i.e., if she spends less than she earns. Well, there exists not one country in the eurozone that is austere. They all spend more than they receive in revenues.
In fact, government deficits are extremely high, at unsustainable levels, as can been seen in the following chart that portrays government deficits in percentage of GDP. Note that the figures for 2012 are what governments wish for.
Figure 1
The absolute figures of government deficits in billion euros are even more impressive.
Figure 2
A good picture of "austerity" is also to compare government expenditures and revenues (relation of public expenditures and revenues in percentage).
Figure 3
Imagine that a person you know spends 12 percent more in 2008 than her income, spends 31 percent more than her income the next year, spends 25 percent more than her income in 2010, and 26 percent more than her income in 2011. Would you regard this person as austere? And would you regard this behavior as sustainable? This is what the Spanish government has done. It shows itself incapable of changing this course. Perversely, this "austerity" is then made responsible for a shrinking Spanish economy and high unemployment.
Unfortunately, austerity is the necessary condition for recovery in Spain, the eurozone, and elsewhere. The reduction of government spending makes real resources available for the private sector that formerly had been absorbed by the state. Reducing government spending makes profitable new private investment projects and saves old ones from bankruptcy.
Take the following example. Tom wants to open a restaurant. He makes the following calculations. He estimates the restaurant's revenues at $10,000 per month. The expected costs are the following: $4,000 for rent; $1,000 for utilities; $2,000 for food; and $4,000 for wages. With expected revenues of $10,000 and costs of $11,000 Tom will not start his business.
Let's now assume that the government is more austere, i.e., it reduces government spending. Let's assume that the government closes a consumer-protection agency and sells the agency's building on the market. As a consequence, there is a tendency for housing prices and rents to fall. The same is true for wages. The laid-off bureaucrats search for new jobs, exerting downward pressure on wage rates. Further, the agency does not consume utilities anymore, leading toward a tendency of cheaper utilities. Tom may now rent space for his restaurant in the former agency for $3,000 as rents are coming down. His expected utility bill falls to $500, and hiring some of the former bureaucrats as dishwashers and waiters reduces his wage expenditures to $3,000. Now with expected revenue at $10,000 and costs at $8,500 the expected profits amounts to $1,500 and Tom can start his business.
As the government has reduced spending it can even reduce tax rates, which may increase Tom's after-tax profits. Thanks to austerity the government could also reduce its deficit. The money formerly used to finance the government deficit can now be lent to Tom for an initial investment to make the former agency's rooms suitable for a restaurant. Indeed, one of the main problems in countries such as Spain these days is that the real savings of the people are soaked up and channeled to the government via the banking system. Loans are practically unavailable for private companies, because banks use their funds to buy government bonds in order to finance the public deficit.
In the end, the question amounts to the following: Who shall determine what is produced and how? The government that uses resources for its own purposes (such as a "consumer-protection" agency, welfare programs, or wars), or entrepreneurs in a competitive process and as agents of consumers, trying to satisfy consumer wants with ever better and cheaper products (like Tom, who uses part of the resources formerly used in the government agency for his restaurant).
If you think the second option is better, austerity is the way to go. More austerity and less government spending mean fewer resources for the public sector (fewer "agencies") and more resources for the private sector, which uses them to satisfy consumer wants (more restaurants). Austerity is the solution to the problems in Europe and in the United States, as it fosters sustainable growth and reduces government deficits.
Lower GDP?
But does austerity not at least temporarily reduce GDP and lead to a downward spiral of economic activity?
Unfortunately, GDP is a quite misleading figure. GDP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given period.
There are two minor reasons why a lower GDP may not always be a bad sign.
The first reason relates to the treatment of government expenditures. Let us imagine a government bureaucrat who licenses businesses. When he denies a license for an investment project that never comes into being, how much wealth is destroyed? Is it the expected revenues of the project or its expected profits? What if the bureaucrat has unknowingly prevented an innovation that could save the economy billions of dollars per year? It is hard to say how much wealth destruction is caused by the bureaucrat. We could just arbitrarily take his salary of $50,000 per year and subtract it from private production. GDP would be lower.
Now hold your breath. In practice, the opposite is done. Government expenditures count positively in GDP. The wealth destroying activity of the bureaucrat raises GDP by $50,000. This implies that if the government licensing agency is closed and the bureaucrat is laid off, then the immediate effect of this austerity is a fall in GDP by $50,000. Yet, this fall in GDP is a good sign for private production and the satisfaction of consumer wants.
Second, if the structure of production is distorted after an artificial boom, the restructuring also entails a temporary fall in GDP. Indeed, one could only maintain GDP if production remained unchanged. If Spain or the United States had continued to use their boom structure of production, they would have continued to build the amount of housing they did in 2007. The restructuring requires a shrinking of the housing sector, i.e., a reduced use of factors of production in this sector. Factors of production must be transferred to those sectors where they are most urgently demanded by consumers. The restructuring is not instantaneous but organized by entrepreneurs in a competitive process that is burdensome and takes time. In this transition period, when jobs are destroyed in the overblown sectors, GDP tends to fall. This fall in GDP is just a sign that the necessary restructuring is underway. The alternative would be to produce the amount of housing of 2007. If GDP did not fall sharply, it would mean that the wealth-destroying boom was continuing as it did in the years 2005–2007.
 Conclusion
Public austerity is a necessary condition for private flourishing and a rapid recovery. The problem of Europe (and the United States) is not too much but too little austerity — or its complete absence. A fall of GDP can be an indicator that the necessary and healthy restructuring of the economy is underway.
Just as I said in other articles, the vast majority of Eurozone nations are not practicing austerity right, or at all, for that matter.

***

The Blaze was the first service today I read a report on the update of the state of the economy within the Eurozone.  Here is the article:
BUSINESS

EUROPE’S INCREASINGLY-SERIOUS UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM SUMMED UP IN CHARTS

 
The eurozone’s unemployment situation went from bad to worse in April as the 17-member union broke yet another record, putting itself on track to pass the 20 million mark this year.
“Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics office, said Friday that the unemployment rate rose to 12.2 percent in April from the previous record of 12.1 percent the month before,” the Associated Press reports. “In 2008, before the worst of the financial crisis, it was around 7.5 percent.”
“A net 95,000 people joined the ranks of the unemployed, taking the total to 19.38 million,” the report continues.
 Europe, the EU, the European Union: Overall Unemployment, Youth Unemployment Not Doing so Well
It’s worth noting that the eurozone’s unemployment problems are not uniform.
“The unemployment rate for the overall eurozone masks sharp disparities among individual countries. Unemployment in Greece and Spain top 25 percent. In Germany, the rate is a low 5.4 percent,” the AP notes.
“The differences are particularly stark when looking at the rates of youth unemployment. While Germany’s youth unemployment stands at a relatively benign 7.5 percent, well over half of people aged 16 to 25 in Greece and Spain are jobless,” the report adds.
In fact, as Italy passes the 40 percent mark, Germany’s rate is only 7.5 percent — 20-year low territory:
  Europe, the EU, the European Union: Overall Unemployment, Youth Unemployment Not Doing so Well
But Germany’s excellent record aside, youth unemployment in countries such as Spain and Greece has become a serious and ongoing problem. Indeed, as noted earlier on TheBlaze, youth unemployment has likely contributed to the rise of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party in Greece.
And speaking of Germany, it’s also worth noting that while other eurozone countries continue to struggle with recession (Greece is in its sixth year), the Deutschland enjoys solid economic growth.
But Germany alone may not be able to turn things around.
“Eurostat said Friday that inflation in the eurozone rose to 1.4 percent in the year to May from the 38-month low of 1.2 percent recorded in April,” the report adds. “It attributed the increase to rising food, alcohol and tobacco prices.”
 Europe, the EU, the European Union: Overall Unemployment, Youth Unemployment Not Doing so Well
 Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on TwitterFeatured image AP photo.
Of the nations in Europe executing austerity properly, it is interesting that those two nations -- Germany, Iceland, and Latvia, as were mentioned above -- are two polar opposites of one another.
However, with the exception of Germany, each of these countries had public-debt-to-GDP ratios that increased (i.e., worsened) from 2010 to 2011, as indicated in the chart at right. Greece's public-debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 143% in 2010 to 165% in 2011. This indicates that despite improving budget deficits, GDP growth was not sufficient to support a decline (improvement) in the debt-to-GDP ratio for these countries during this period. Eurostat reported that the debt to GDP ratio for the 17 Euro area countries (EA17) together was 70.1% in 2008, 80.0% in 2009, 85.4% in 2010, 87.3% in 2011 and 90.6% in 2012. Further, real GDP in the EA17 declined for six straight quarters from Q4 2011 to Q1 2013.
Unemployment is another variable that might be considered in evaluating austerity measures. According to the CIA World Factbook, from 2010 to 2011, the unemployment rates in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK increased. France and Italy had no significant changes, while in Germany and Iceland the unemployment rate declined. Eurostat reported that Eurozone unemployment reached record levels in March 2013 at 12.1%, up from 11.6% in September 2012 and 10.3% in 2011. Unemployment varied significantly by country.
***
Does the United States need to trend down this path of economic austerity as has Europe?  Statistics would suggest that if we do, we may or may not like the results we reap.  However, if Dr. Bagus is correct in his assertion that the majority of Eurozone nations are not actually engaged in the practice of austerity because they are still endeavoring in deficit spending (the charts show that very clearly), that might answer a lot of questions.  

Has the U.S. ever practiced austerity economics before?  I have read in a couple of articles that, indeed, this nation has (Courtesy of Investopedia):
When a government tightens its belt in tough economic times the entire nation feels the squeeze. With less money to pay for the full spectrum of government services because of declining tax revenues and increasing debt, deep cuts in expenditures would seem inevitable. A reduction in government spending, however, is usually a last resort as long as legislators permit deficit financing of what government provides for its citizens. Deficit financing means borrowing money to pay for government services and benefits, and taxpayers incur the debt.
government austerity program may be imposed when its debt reaches unsustainable levels and the government can't even service that debt - meaning pay interest on what it owes - without borrowing or printing more money and thus causing inflation.
In addition to government debt are its operational expenses: salaries, pensions, healthcare costs, defense and military spending, infrastructure repair and maintenance, and all the many other commitments of government.
What Is An Austerity Program?
At its simplest, an austerity program, usually enacted by legislation, may include one or more of the following:
   A cut, or a freeze without raises, of government salaries and benefits.
  • A freeze on government hiring and layoffs of government workers.
  • A reduction or elimination of government services, temporarily or permanently.
  • Government pension cuts and pension reform.
  • Interest on newly-issued government securities may be cut, thus making these investments less attractive to investors, but reducing government interest obligations.
  • Government expenditures may cut. Previously planned government spending programs - infrastructure construction and repair, healthcare and veterans' benefits, for example - may be cut, suspended or abandoned.
  • An increase in taxes, including income, corporate, property, sales and capital gains taxes.
  • The Federal Reserve may either reduce or increase the money supply and interest rates as circumstances dictate to resolve the crisis.
  • In times of war the austerities imposed by government may include rationing of critical commodities, travel restrictions, price freezes and other economic controls.
The result of these austerity measures will ripple through the entire economy and citizens will feel the economic squeeze.
Whether or not these austerities produce the desired results - a return to economic health and growth, or a reduction in government debt - has been debated by economists. Although consensus thinking favors most of the measures cited above, other economists have insisted that government spending - which requires the borrowing of more money and or printing more money - is the best way to emerge from hard economic times. In the case of war, the austerities imposed have proven effective in providing the money and material required for a major national military effort.
Austerity Programs in the 19th Century 
The major entitlement programs of the 20th century - social security, Medicare and Medicaid, government pensions, targeted tax incentives or abatements, etc., - did not yet exist. In the free-wheeling decades of the 19th century, government intervention in the U.S. economy was minimal to non-existent.
Government land grants were awarded to individual homesteaders and prospectors, industries such as railroads, cattle and mining, and to state universities as the nation expanded westward. Government also gave special tax breaks and inducements to the telegraph industry, river and canal transport ventures, and overland mail routes. Tariffs were imposed on imports by the government to protect domestic goods and services. These were basically government gifts designed to stimulate growth and economic development.
And so, while government in the mid-19th century was generous in its gifts to individuals and business, government largess was far from costing the trillions of dollars spent in more recent times on the many entitlement programs enacted into law throughout the 20th century.
In the years immediately preceding World War I, the American economy was booming, running the government became more expensive and Congress enacted the modern income tax law in 1913 to finance its operations. The government had imposed income taxes previously, notably to finance the war of 1812 (This is not true - JH), and the Civil War, but those tax rates were relatively low and taxable levels of income were high.
After the U.S. entered World War I in April, 1917, among the first austerities enacted was an increase in the income tax to a maximum effective rate of 77%. Food production and distribution was controlled by the government in an effort to cut domestic consumption and increase distribution to military forces abroad and to the civilian populations of countries in which food production was reduced by the war. Prices of staples and critical commodities were fixed and fuel consumption, including gasless days, was regulated. Daylight savings time was instituted, strikes were outlawed for the duration of the war, and wages and hours were dictated by government in critical, war-related sectors of the economy.
Depression Era Austerities
Without the government economic programs which helped individuals, business and industry enacted during the administrations of U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, economic conditions in the early years of the Great Depression, which followed the stock market crash of 1929, were very difficult. Unemployment at its peak rose to almost 25% around 1932. Bankruptcies and bank failures were frequent. The gross national product - the dollar value of all goods and services produced by a country's residents both domestically and abroad - fell 30%, and the wholesale price index declined a staggering 47%, reflecting the weakened economy.
Rather than impose austerity measures on citizens practicing their own involuntary as well as voluntary austerities, the government spent money through various programs designed to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Austerities of World War II
With America's entry into World War II in 1941, government and industry geared up for the war effort and the economy finally emerged from the depression.
At the same time, the government imposed widespread austerities on its citizens in the form of commodity rationing, including food, gasoline and other commodities essential to the war. Travel restrictions were imposed, wages and work hours were fixed, and new automobile manufacturing was stopped as plants which previously made cars turned out tanks, Jeeps and other military vehicles.
Belt-Tightening after the Great Recession
In the wake of the Great Recession which began roughly in 2008, the U.S. federal government, and state, county and municipal governments accumulated debt at a higher rate than seen in the previous 60 years. This was lower as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) than back in the 40's, but was increasing at a fast rate. These obligations taken on around 2008 included social security, Medicare and Medicare, pension requirements at every level of government, and of course the interest on debt - Treasury Billsmunicipal bonds, general obligation bonds, and other promissory instruments.
As a result of these financial imperatives, widespread and deep cuts were imposed, and other cuts were discussed - some of which were both vigorously supported and vigorously opposed.
In addition to the austerities cited in the first section of this article, and with some specific programs noted below, many of the following were also implemented, or proposed for implementation:
  • A reduction in pension benefits for new hires in the public sector - federal. state and local.
  • A reduction in Medicaid benefits, which vary from state to state.
  • Lower yields on government bonds, another form of belt-tightening.
  • Cutbacks in budget appropriations for defense, education, infrastructure.
  • Cutbacks in every form of previously provided social services.
  • Cutbacks in foreign aid to targeted nations.
  • The elimination of various bureaucratic redundancies and the elimination of certain departments of government deemed unproductive or unnecessary.
What's In Our Future: Austerity or Prosperity?
Do austerity programs work? America continues to test that hypothesis in the real world, in real time, rather than speculating on the theory of austerity. Belt-tightening worked well during World War II, but economic circumstances then were different than they are today.
What are the prospects for America? There are no certainties in economics - part science, part art, and subject to unpredictable variables. A burdensome austerity program and overwhelming debt may plague the American economy, and consequently its taxpayers, for the indefinite future. Or a vigorous economic recovery and long-term boom may be coming as a result of the austerity programs. Many a knowledgeable economist and savvy business people might predict a long period of exceedingly slow growth, if any. While economists may study their economic indicators and historical precedents and make their forecasts, nobody knows for certain when the next boom will begin, although if history is any indication, and with a little luck, good economic times are inevitable, sooner or later.
So, indeed, the U.S. has implemented austerity.  The author of this falsely reported that an income tax was implemented during the War of 1812, but this is not true; it was considered, but never implemented.  And as for FDR's social programs alleviating the burdens of the ailing economy during the Great Depression, this is also false; the only thing that brought the nation out of the depression was the start of World War II, which he arguably was responsible through an act of treason of starting.

***

So, there it is.  Europe is suffering, but is it because of austerity?  The nations of the Eurozone did, indeed, see their national deficits decrease, but there is still one problem: they still are engaged in deficit spending! According to Dr. Bagus, this cannot be if a nation is implementing austerity properly.  From all indicators, it appears as if the U.S. is going to implement austerity as well, something that may have been occurring now since perhaps 2011 according to some articles I have read.  The budget for 2014 as presented by President Obama predicts the federal government will pay down the deficit by $1.4 trillion.  I do not know where he learned how to do his math, as this is a typical trait of Democratic lawmakers who believe they are going to cut spending and raise taxes when in fact that never happens.  The president's implementation of Obama Care is going to cost about  $1.8 trillion provided it does not fall between the cracks or, for that matter, get repealed by Congress.  With his predictions that the economy is going to grow approximately $5.2 trillion between 2014 and 2023, where did he delude himself into thinking that we were going to have the deficit paid off by the last date of that time span?  Does he really believe his "white elephant" of an economic strategy is going to pay off in the way of 3.5% real GDP growth along with 2.2% price inflation in order to maintain a deficit total of $500 billion?  I don't think so.

What has Germany done to counteract the perceived ills brought forth by austerity?  Looking at the graphs above, they have been taking in more tax revenue than they incurred public debt.  And that, my friends, is why they are thriving under austerity while all other Eurozone nations except for Iceland and Latvia have struggled.  Sadly, I fear that the U.S. will suffer the fate that other nations in Europe have endured due to the profligate spending of the Obama administration.

According to The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, as published by The Tampa Bay Times, the GOP is Less Credible than the Democrats....


Once again, the liberal mass media is working fervently to discredit the GOP's credibility.  There is a link to the actual study within the article below from The Blaze that reveals the exact studies of the GOP's perceived dishonesty:
 MEDIA

DO REPUBLICANS LIE MORE THAN DEMOCRATS? POLITIFACT RATINGS SAY ‘YES’ — BUT IS THE FACT-CHECKER BIASED?
  
Does PolitiFact.com, a popular fact-checking outlet produced by The Tampa Bay Times, have a bias against Republicans?
Considering the results of a new study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, some will surely answer affirmatively. Analysis of the first four months of President Barack Obama’s second term found that PolitiFact rated Republicans’ claims false three times as often as Democratic statements.
Naturally, the first reaction in this instance is to assume an anti-GOP bias, especially considering the recent scandals surrounding Benghazi, the IRS and the Associated Press. Considering the extra scrutiny on the Obama administration and a push for viable and truthful information about these scenarios, one would expect Democratic claims to be fact-checked more regularly and diligently (at least in the current climate).
PolitiFacts Findings Show That Republicans Lie More Than Democrats    But Is the Fact Checker Biased? 
(U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the Chicago Hilton on May 29, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Credit: Getty Images)

But, alas, this isn’t the case.
Of the 100 claims that were examined by PolitiFact (46 by Democrats and 54 by Republicans) from January 20 through May 22, 32 percent of Republicans’ statements were rated “false” or “pants on fire,” indicating that these politicians weren’t being truthful. On the flip side, just 11 percent of Democratic claims were given the same designation.
And what about claims of truth?
While Democrats saw 22 percent of their statements rated as “entirely true,” only 11 percent of Republicans’ statements were labeled the same. A similar dynamic existed for claims that were seen as “mostly or entirely true” (54 percent for Democrats versus 18 percent for Republicans).
“While Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama administration, PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party,” said CMPA president Dr. Robert Lichter.
Digging into the findings, one can come to one of two conclusions: Either there’s a bias against the GOP — or Republicans lie much more fervently than Democrats (at least during the first four months of Obama’s second term).
As CMPA notes, this isn’t the first time that analysis of PolitiFact’s work has yielded disparities. In the past, the Mitt Romney campaign was given more negative ratings that the Obama campaign. Again, it’s possible the former lied more regularly, although many would debate this.
Read all of the results of the latest CMPA study about PolitiFact.
***
The liberal mass media will do anything to promote the Democrats' cause.  In a time when their very existence, the media's journalists and editors are under attack by at least the Justice Department and possibly other areas of the federal government for reporting "leaks" that should not have been kept secret to the public, they will still stand by idly and allow the Obama administration to trample on their First Amendment rights.  

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin once had this to say about the press:
"The press must grow day in and day out - it is our Party's sharpest and most powerful weapon." (Courtesy of Buzzle)
The Left -- the U.S.'s disciples of Stalin -- are using their "free" version of TASS to perfection.

Attorney General Eric Holder's Answer to His "Off-the-Record" Interview with the Sheep in the Media: "We Won't Spy on You Again"

If the liberal mass media is willing to believe what Attorney General Eric Holder says, this nation is in even more trouble than just having the government persecute conservatives, Christians, and pro-Second Amendment, and pro-Israeli groups.  

Just yesterday, the embattled attorney general was interviewed in a press conference-type setting "off-the-record."  Most likely, he chose to do this because is too embarrassed with how ignorant he really is.  The following article from The Blaze discusses the terms of this interview in greater detail:

Eric Holder Tells Press in Off the Record Meeting: We Wont Spy on You Anymore

(Attorney General Eric Holder gestures as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 15, 2013, before the House Judiciary Committee as it focuses on oversight of the Justice Department. Holder told the committee that a serious national security leak required the secret gathering of telephone records at The Associated Press as he stood by an investigation in which he insisted he had no involvement. Credit: AP)
GOVERNMENT

ERIC HOLDER TELLS PRESS IN OFF-THE-RECORD MEETING: WE WON’T SPY ON YOU ANYMORE
 
WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — In a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder, executives from several news organizations said the attorney general pledged to change the way the Justice Department conducts investigations that involve reporters.
Government officials said they would work to change guidelines on issuing subpoenas in criminal investigations involving reporters and ensure searches that have raised concerns recently about freedom of the press are not repeated, the editors said.
The news executives made the comments Thursday after meeting with Holder and some of his aides.
The discussion took place following an outcry from news organizations over the Justice Department’s secret gathering of some Associated Press reporters’ phone records and some emails of a Fox News journalist.
Last week, President Barack Obama ordered a review of the Justice Department guidelines.
One of the news media participants, Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, said the news executives told the department officials that reporters were concerned about using their email and concerned about using their office telephones.
“It was a constructive meeting,” said Baron. “They expressed their commitment to the president’s statement that reporters would not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.”
Jerry Seib, Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, said that in addition to the commitment to change the guidelines, there also was a renewed commitment to support a federal shield law for journalists. Such laws in force in many states protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources.
“We diplomatically raised our concerns – don’t know what’s going to happen if anything,” said Jim Warren, Washington bureau chief of The New York Daily News. “Who knows what’s going to happen if they practice what they seem to preach and try to change some laws that we feel are very relevant. I think it’s sort of an opening gambit.” Warren said “there were some specifics talked about, more of a legal and statutory nature,” but he did not elaborate.
Other news media participants were Jane Mayer, a staff writer for The New Yorker; and John Harris, editor in chief of Politico.
The Associated Press didn’t attend the meeting because it objected to the meeting being off the record. The New York Times said it wouldn’t attend because of the department’s off-the-record ground rules.
Asked why the news executives decided to participate, Baron said people in the press frequently have off-the-record discussions.
“We feel very strongly about the issues here,” said Baron. “This was an opportunity for us to share our views with people at the highest level of the Justice Department.”
Besides Holder, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and seven other Justice Department officials also participated.
Featured image via AP
 
Sadly, we really do have sheep for editors and reporters within the media.  This is reminiscent of the Munich Agreement in 1938 between British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, where the British head of government implemented the nation's policy of appeasement toward German dictator Adolf Hitler.  This did little more than buy the British government time to build up its armed forces; unfortunately, it did the same for the German military.  We all know what occurred as a result of this terrible mistake by Prime Minister Chamberlain: the official beginning of the Second World War commenced as a result of the German war machine invading Poland, which was against the Munich Agreement.

This is a game of pitch and catch that we are seeing between the Justice Department, who is the strong-arm of the law for the Obama administration, and the media, who adores the president despite his administration's acts of persecution.  Holder is promising to "call off the dogs" if you will in order to avoid a public backlash by both the media and the American people.  The Democrats, in particular the president, are so used to traditionally being the party of politicians that can do no wrong according to members of the Left within the media and Hollywood actors, actresses, producers, and directors that they are in a very unfamiliar and uncomfortable position.  They are being held accountable for their actions for the first time since perhaps 1968 when, after the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced a grave public backlash against his decisions to further escalate the war, most notably when the great, though liberal, CBS News anchor Walter Kronkite, when the man named "the most trusted man in America" said:
"We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that – negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could." ("Who, What, When, Where, Why: Report from Vietnam by Walter Cronkite,")
Sadly, there are few, if any, news people who are, and can be held, to as high of an esteem as Kronkite.

All of this comes on the heels of a possible pending charge of perjury by Holder during his May 15 testimony before Congress (Courtesy of The Blaze):
 


POLITICSSEE THE LETTER TWO GOP REPS SENT TO ERIC HOLDER REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY HE LIED UNDER OATH
  

Sensenbrenner and Goodlatte send letter to Eric Holder about perjury
Top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have “great concern” over the possibility that Attorney General Eric Holder lied during sworn testimony this month about the Justice Department’s monitoring of reporters.
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said in a letter to Holder on Wednesday that the attorney general’s testimony that he was unaware of any “potential prosecution of the press” conflicted with subsequent media reports that the Justice Department had obtained emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen.
“The media reports and statements issued by the Department regarding the search warrants for Mr. Rosen’s emails appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the Committee,” the letter states. “We believe – and we hope you will agree – it is imperative that the Committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement in and approval of these search warrants.”
Sensenbrenner letter to Holder:




The May 15 hearing was held after the revelation that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed a massive haul of Associated Press phone records, but before the investigation involving Rosen came to light. The letter comes one day after the committee confirmed it is investigating whether Holder misled Congress during his testimony.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the letter, but Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who had been questioning Holder when he made the remarks in question, said Holder’s answer was specific to using the Espionage Act to prosecute any members of the media.
“The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” Johnson told The Hill.
The White House on Wednesday defended Holder from accusations that he lied under oath, with press secretary Jay Carney telling reporters it seemed “self-evident” that Holder told the truth.
“Based on the published reports that I have seen, I have seen no conflict between what the attorney general said and published reports,” Carney said.
***
Based on Congressman Johnson's and Press Secretary Jay Carney's assertions that this administration is apparently the most transparent of any presidency in U.S. history, I guess they must think the American people are, indeed, sheep.