The BLS jobs report released on Friday morning understandably gained a lot of attention. In January, the US economy gained 243,000 non-farm payroll jobs and the unemployment rate dropped from 8.5% to 8.3%, blowing away analyst expectations. As if the top-line numbers of the report weren't good enough, the jobs numbers from November and December were revised upward by a total of 60,000.
Digging deeper in the January report provides even more encouraging news. 44,000 jobs were created in the leisure and hospitality industry, signifying that people are feeling more confident in their personal financial situation and therefore more willing to spend on restaurants and other non-essential services. 50,000 jobs were created in manufacturing, with most occurring in the production of durable goods. The 22,000 jobs in metal fabrication and machinery production is a good indicator that demand is up for base materials and equipment used in construction--an extremely positive macroeconomic sign and also good news for the beaten-down housing market. On top of that, 21,000 jobs were added in construction in January, an exceptional amount considering it was in a winter month.
While the January jobs report was very good, I have to say I was surprised at the shocked reaction by analysts when it was released. The positive signs have been trickling out for almost a month as companies released their quarterly earnings and forecasts. Leading up to the jobs report, almost every indicator from companies that serve as macroeconomic bell-weathers showed the US economy was on a solid upward trajectory. Caterpillar Inc, the world's largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment reported a 60% increase in earnings in the last 3 months of 2011 and forecast a certainly-low-balled 25% rise in earnings over the course of 2012. Manufacturers of base metals have also recently seen a significant uptick in sales and made positive forecasts for the year. Alcoa, the worlds largest aluminum supplier, serving in its traditional role of kicking off earnings season, topped revenue forecasts by $300 million in the 4th quarter despite historically depressed aluminum prices. The company also projected demand for aluminum to increase 7% in 2012. Steel manufacturers Nucor and Steel Dynamics both released far better than expected 4th quarter earnings and projected the trend to continue in the 1st quarter of 2012. Whirlpool Corporation, the world's leading appliance manufacturer, saw 4th quarter profits rise 20%. Even more encouraging for the domestic housing market, their profits in North America tripled on the quarter and they expected up to a 3% increase in shipments for the continent in 2012.
Economists are understandably skittish about proclaiming that we are truly seeing a burgeoning economic recovery. But they can't deny the data, and the data suggests that this is precisely what is happening. Jobs are being created, but more importantly, they are being created in sectors that point to long term economic growth: durable goods manufacturing and construction. The earnings reports by companies in these sectors (which are key indicators of macroeconomic trends) provided a sneak peek to the booming January jobs report.
Certainly the economy is still fragile and rife with potential pitfalls. Europe looks to be heading toward a recession and their handling of Greece's debt crisis has managed to do the impossible--make the US Congress seem efficient. Even if the Greece situation is resolved, there are numerous other countries in the Eurozone on deck to potentially default, starting with Portugal. I do remain optimistic that Europe will come up with a short-term solution to the debt problems plaguing many of its members (though I'm much less optimistic about the prospects of certain member-countries implementing necessary structural changes to get on solid footing long-term). However I also believe that the US economy is sufficiently decoupled from Europe that even a prolonged recession there won't significantly stifle the domestic recovery.
In my view, all the evidence throughout the month of January pointed to significant improvements in the US economy, in both the short-term and long-term. The jobs report released on Friday was simply the final verdict being read. I expect 2012 to be a good year domestically, with significant employment gains and GDP growth. I also expect that the long-languishing housing market will start to pick up over the next few months. I may simply be an optimist, but the view looks pretty good from here.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Romney As Defender Of Religious Liberty Clashes With His Record
Last night in his speech after winning the Nevada caucus, Mitt Romney said "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience; I will defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom." Romney was of course referring to the new Obama administration policy that universities, hospitals, and charities that provide health insurance to employees must have plans that cover contraception, regardless of their religious affiliation. Despite the fact that 95% of Catholic women use contraception and 85% support expanding access to birth control, Romney and many other Republicans have jumped on the issue. Romney, however, is a particularly ineffective spokesperson as a defender of religious exemptions for contraceptive coverage, and his record shows that he has a startling disregard for religious liberty in general.
In 2002, the year before he became Governor of Massachusetts, Romney's predecessor, Republican Governor Jane Swift, signed into law a bill that would mandate contraception coverage in health care plans offered by employers in Massachusetts, including Catholic universities and hospitals. One would think that this policy, so similar to the one he is now criticizing that was put in place by President Obama, would have outraged Romney and he must have immediately attempted to overturn it when he became Governor months later. The truth of course is that he didn't, nor did he ever even speak out against the 2002 law. In fact, in 2005 Romney's administration mandated that Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception to victims of rape, with Romney himself saying that in his "heart of hearts" he believed that all rape victims should have access to emergency contraception. I guess now Romney believes that his "heart of hearts" carries a deep anti-first amendment bias.
The other problem with Romney's new-found attempt to be the self-appointed defender-of-religious- liberty is that he has repeatedly supported and proposed policies that would legitimately impede the free exercise of religion. In 2005, for instance, Romney raised the ire of civil libertarians when he suggested that the federal government should wiretap mosques. You would think that Federal government intrusion of this magnitude into places of worship would be a far greater example of a policy that would "trample on our first freedom" than requiring Georgetown University to offer health care plans that cover the birth control pill.
Romney's enthusiastic support for religious liberty also did not extend to Park51, a planned mosque and community center in New York City. After weeks of conservative outrage from Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and a poll showing that the construction of the Islamic center was unpopular, Romney, true to form, did the politically expedient thing and came out against it. It seems Romney's pronouncement last night that he would "defend religious liberty" applies only when doing so would be politically popular, and just as importantly, have the requisite tea-party approval.
Romney's lack of regard for religious tolerance also became an issue during his previous presidential run. In 2007, an attendee at a Romney fundraiser reported that Romney ruled out the possibility of appointing a qualified Muslim to a cabinet position, saying that people who practice Islam would only be considered for positions "at lower levels of my administration." Romney's reported statement that a person's religious beliefs would automatically disqualify them from serving in a top administration post is not only outrageous on its face, but certainly violates the tenets of religious freedom that he professes to support.
In the coming weeks I expect Romney to continue his line of attack that President Obama has shown a blatant disregard for the first amendment and its guarantees of free expression of religion. If history has shown us anything, its that Romney is particularly adept at latching on to and speaking passionately about the issue dejeur, regardless of his own previous just-as-passionate statements on the other side of the issue. But if Romney is going to speak out in favor of a broader religious exemption on contraception, he should at least have to explain his own broad exemptions to the ideals of religious liberty and tolerance he now professes to be defending.
In 2002, the year before he became Governor of Massachusetts, Romney's predecessor, Republican Governor Jane Swift, signed into law a bill that would mandate contraception coverage in health care plans offered by employers in Massachusetts, including Catholic universities and hospitals. One would think that this policy, so similar to the one he is now criticizing that was put in place by President Obama, would have outraged Romney and he must have immediately attempted to overturn it when he became Governor months later. The truth of course is that he didn't, nor did he ever even speak out against the 2002 law. In fact, in 2005 Romney's administration mandated that Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception to victims of rape, with Romney himself saying that in his "heart of hearts" he believed that all rape victims should have access to emergency contraception. I guess now Romney believes that his "heart of hearts" carries a deep anti-first amendment bias.
The other problem with Romney's new-found attempt to be the self-appointed defender-of-religious- liberty is that he has repeatedly supported and proposed policies that would legitimately impede the free exercise of religion. In 2005, for instance, Romney raised the ire of civil libertarians when he suggested that the federal government should wiretap mosques. You would think that Federal government intrusion of this magnitude into places of worship would be a far greater example of a policy that would "trample on our first freedom" than requiring Georgetown University to offer health care plans that cover the birth control pill.
Romney's enthusiastic support for religious liberty also did not extend to Park51, a planned mosque and community center in New York City. After weeks of conservative outrage from Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and a poll showing that the construction of the Islamic center was unpopular, Romney, true to form, did the politically expedient thing and came out against it. It seems Romney's pronouncement last night that he would "defend religious liberty" applies only when doing so would be politically popular, and just as importantly, have the requisite tea-party approval.
Romney's lack of regard for religious tolerance also became an issue during his previous presidential run. In 2007, an attendee at a Romney fundraiser reported that Romney ruled out the possibility of appointing a qualified Muslim to a cabinet position, saying that people who practice Islam would only be considered for positions "at lower levels of my administration." Romney's reported statement that a person's religious beliefs would automatically disqualify them from serving in a top administration post is not only outrageous on its face, but certainly violates the tenets of religious freedom that he professes to support.
In the coming weeks I expect Romney to continue his line of attack that President Obama has shown a blatant disregard for the first amendment and its guarantees of free expression of religion. If history has shown us anything, its that Romney is particularly adept at latching on to and speaking passionately about the issue dejeur, regardless of his own previous just-as-passionate statements on the other side of the issue. But if Romney is going to speak out in favor of a broader religious exemption on contraception, he should at least have to explain his own broad exemptions to the ideals of religious liberty and tolerance he now professes to be defending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)