Labor Department spends stimulus funds for ads during Olbermann, Maddow shows

Washington Times
Jim McElhatton

Contract shows no new jobs were created

The Labor Department paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus funds to a public relations firm to run more than 100 commercials touting the Obama administration’s “green training” job efforts on two MSNBC cable shows, records show.

The commercials ran on MSNBC on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in 2009, but the contract didn’t report any jobs created, according to records reviewed recently by The Washington Times.

Spending reports under the federal Recovery Act show $495,000 paid to McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations LLC, which the Labor Department hired to raise awareness “among employers and influencers about the [Job Corps] program’s existing and new training initiatives in high growth and environmentally friendly career areas” as well as spreading the word to prospective Job Corps enrollees.

The firm ultimately negotiated ad buys for “two approved spots” airing 14 times per week for two months on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” and “The Rachel Maddow Show,” according to a project report, which listed the number zero under a section of the report asking how many jobs had been created through the stimulus contract.

David Williams, president of the nonprofit watchdog Taxpayers Protection Alliance, called the contract “questionable” because it created no jobs and because of the placement of the ads on shows viewed as friendly to the administration’s policies.

“Hiring a PR firm does not create jobs, and this was obviously meant for selling a particular political agenda,” Mr. Williams said. “The placement really reeks of a political ad rather than a job ad, and taxpayers see through this.

“Taxpayers would be a lot happier at the end of the day to see a completed road rather than a bunch of ads on cable television,” he said.

The public relations firm did not respond to inquiries from The Times about who directed the ads to appear on MSNBC, but Labor Department officials defended the expenditures, saying the decision to place the ads on the network — now NBC News — had nothing to do with politics.

In a joint email statement to The Times from two Labor Department spokesmen, David Roberts and Michael Volpe, officials said the money was used for outreach efforts to raise awareness among potential employers about the Job Corps’ green training in career areas, including automotive, advanced manufacturing and solar-panel installation.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Volpe also said Labor Department research showed that advertisements would reach the target demographic of business owners and managers interested in hiring “green-trained” employees through a programming list that initially also included shows hosted by CNN’s Larry King and public television’s Jim Lehrer as well as the two MSNBC programs where the ads eventually appeared.

Public television was eliminated because advertising rates were too high, Labor officials said, and Larry King was dropped because MSNBC held the potential to reach more viewers, officials said. Officials gave no indication whether their research indicated if Fox News, ESPN or other cable outlets were considered for the Job Corps ads.

The Labor Department said that as measured in “gross impressions per spot,” the two MSNBC shows — Mr. Olbermann is no longer with the network — were twice as effective compared with running ads on Mr. King’s show, which also is no longer on the air.

Mr. Obama signed the $829 billion stimulus into law in February 2009 with the promise it would sustain 3.5 million jobs. But at its peak it likely was responsible for far fewer, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

The president has since said the economy was in a deeper slump than he had predicted coming into office, and the White House says the stimulus’s combination of spending and tax cuts helped bolster state and local governments and keep the downturn from becoming a depression.

Republicans, though, argue that the price tag was too large and say much of the spending went to fund Mr. Obama’s political agenda, such as green energy programs, rather than to shovel-ready roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Leader Calls for Trillion-dollar "Firewall"

The New American
William F. Jasper

“We need a larger firewall.” So declared Christine Lagarde (left), Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during a speech in Berlin on January 23, in which she called on taxpayers of the world to chip in $1 trillion to the IMF to stave off a global crisis. “We need to act quickly or else we could easily slide into a 1930s moment,” Lagarde warned, in an obvious reference to the Great Depression.

Suddenly, talk of “firewalls” was everywhere. Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan backed Ms. Lagarde, saying that  without “larger firewalls” to protect embattled European nations the global economy was at risk. On January 27, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking at the annual billionaire confab known as the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, said that “building a stronger, more credible firewall,” is key to resolving the eurozone sovereign debt crisis.

But the IMF is not the only institution calling for expensive new fire protection. On January 30 CNN reported that European leaders meeting in Brussels had just concluded an agreement “to strengthen a financial firewall and most members of the 27-nation group will sign a new fiscal compact.” The centerpiece of that pact is €500 billion ($650 billion) to implement the European Stability Mechanism, or ESM, for bailing out Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and other troubled European economies.

Arsonists-R-Us Preaching Fire Protection? Time to Beware!
European Council president Herman Van Rompuy declared: "The early entry into force of this permanent firewall will prevent contagion in the euro area and further restore confidence."

The German audience that IMF chief Lagarde selected to pitch the new $1 trillion IMF firewall was carefully chosen: the German Council on Foreign Relations, or GCFR (in German, it is the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, or DGAP). Like its interlocking counterparts in the United States (the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR), Britain (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, RIIA), and other countries, the GCFR represents the globalist elites of corporate, banking, political, and academic circles that are promoting convergence toward world government. Selling the German public on the massive new funding for the ESM and IMF “firewalls” will be critical, and the influential voices represented by the GCFR will be key to accomplishing that. It remains to be seen whether the GCFR members and their counterparts throughout the Eurozone will succeed in duping their fellow Europeans into giving even more matches and gasoline to the arsonists who have already burned through trillions of dollars in “quantitative easing” and “stimulus” funds.

Secretary Geithner, a CFR member, was only too happy to assist his fellow arsonists in throwing more gasoline on the global “liquidity” and “stimulus” fire. He was interviewed on the main stage at the WEF palaver before a packed audience by Fareed Zakaria, editor-at-large of Time magazine, as well as a host and commentator at CNN, and  — a member and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

More Cash, More Power = Rosy Prognosis
Here is how the DGAP (GCFR) described Madame Lagarde’s speech in the opening paragraph of its report on January 23, on the DGAP web site:

In a cautiously optimistic address at the DGAP, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said that 2012 could be a “year of healing.” But overcoming the crisis will require quick and coordinated action. The eurozone must introduce measures that will lead to more growth and integration – and increases to the euro bailout fund. This is the only way to build trust in the financial system. Lagarde also envisages a massive increase in the IMF’s crisis funds.

“2011 was not a successful year because many measures were not thought through, were half-heartedly implemented, or were not coordinated with other countries,” reports the DGAP, “But the IMF head sees a positive turnaround coming in 2012.”

“We know what needs to be done,” said Lagarde. “It is now up to governments to show the necessary political will.”

The DGAP agrees and predicts a rosy economic picture — if producers and taxpayers will only stop being so miserly and agree to give the IMF, the European Central Bank and other central banks the “tools” they desperately need to solve the problem. After all the wise wizards at the IMF, ECB, and the Fed have sterling track record already, right?

According to the DGAP:

Eurozone countries have already taken important steps, including the establishment of the temporary European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS) and the permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM). But these are only “parts of a more extensive solution."

But what kind of “more extensive solution” would these new creations bring? The kind of solution only the central bankers and their politically connected corporate cronies could love. As The New American’s Bob Adelman and Alex Newman point out, the ESFS and ESM are “the tools of international fiscal dictatorship.”

The EFSM and ESM are integral parts of the scheme to destroy the dollar and “Supersize" the IMF into a global Federal Reserve that this magazine has been exposing for the past several years.

The European Central Bank (ECB) admits that the ESFS and ESM are designed to fit into the IMF’s new globalized architecture, stating in the ECB Monthly Bulletin for July, 2011: “These design features of the European crisis management framework purposely resemble the main design features of the IMF-supported adjustment programmes.”

“Global crises call for global solutions” — GCFR

The German Council on Foreign Relations goes on to offer these points in favor of Lagarde’s arguments for supersizing the ECB and IMF (the enlarged, bold headings are their own):

Comprehensively Solving the Crisis
What would such a comprehensive solution look like? Lagarde thinks Europe needs stronger growth, higher financial firewalls, and more fiscal integration. Eurozone states now have a duty to expand financial firewalls to tackle the debt crisis: by increasing funds for the ESM, with further monetary easing through the European Central Bank, or through eurobonds (an idea that contradicts the German government’s present course)….

More Money to Avoid a Credit Crunch
Additionally, the eurozone bailout fund must be endowed with more than the planned 500 billion euros. “We need a larger firewall,” claimed Lagarde. The permanent bailout fund ESM should be expanded to include all funds set aside for the temporary EFSF… Lagarde thus sees stronger fiscal integration within the eurozone as a third essential task. “We cannot have seventeen completely independent fiscal systems and one common monetary policy.” Risks must be more strongly distributed beyond national borders….

Bulking Up the IMF
Lagarde envisions a massive increase in the IMF’s crisis reserves. This will allow the organization to help not only Europeans, but countries around the world that have been gripped by the crisis – even those without substantial debts of their own. “It is not about saving individual states or regions. Rather, it is about preventing a worldwide downward spiral.” Global crises call for global solutions. Lagarde estimates that 1 trillion dollars will be needed to fight the crisis in the coming years. A 500 billion dollar increase will be needed for the IMF ...

What Kind of Firewall?
"More fiscal integration," "more money," "bulking up the IMF," "global solutions," "higher financial firewalls." But what do the IMF and ECB mean when they talk about firewalls? Wikipedia offers this for its first definition of “firewall”:

“a barrier inside a building or vehicle, designed to limit the spread of fire, heat and structural collapse."

Christine Lagarde and the other Insiders at the IMF, the ECB, the Fed and the other central banks and Treasury departments obviously intend that definition and the image it evokes to win the support they need to pull off this enormous swindle. However, the firewall metaphor in this case not only is completely inappropriate, but ludicrous. Firewalls are made of noncombustible, “fireproof” materials, but the arsonists at the IMF and ECB are calling for throwing more paper and gasoline — more money and credit created out of thin air  — onto the global inferno.

However, Wikipedia offers a second definition for “firewall” that is entirely apropos to the IMF/ECB proposals:

“a technological barrier designed to prevent unauthorized or unwanted communications between computer networks or hosts."

The IMF, ECB, and the Fed do indeed intend to “prevent unauthorized or unwanted” inspection of their activities by citizens or national legislators. The so-called firewall they are constructing is, as Alex Newman puts it, “a massive, perpetual bailout machine.” It is a machine that they intend to be completely unlimited, unaccountable and untouchable.

The Triumph of Capitalism: Jobless Nations

Global Research

By Prof. John Kozy

The Obama administration is intent on applying supply side principles to get the American economy out of the present recession, but supply side principles are based on the belief that if the government cuts taxes on the wealthy, they will invest their savings in new factories, that newly hired workers will increase employment, and that more output will increase tax receipts. But there is no way to make sure the wealthy actually invest their wealth in productive enterprises, especially in the U.S.

This entire theory is based on the mere pop-psychological belief that if you give a person money, s/he will invest it in productive ways. But nothing forces wealthy people to do that, and they haven't, worse, never really have, since creating jobs is not an essential business function, only making money is, and getting financial incentives from government is merely another way of making money, Giving money to businesses will not end recessions or depressions. In fact, it is likely to prolong them, since businesses will not create jobs until it is evident that those jobs will result in profits.

During the California Gold Rust, merchants went to the camps only after gold was discovered, and they left when the lode petered out. They did not use the capital they acquired from the miners to open productive businesses to provide jobs to the now jobless prospectors. In capitalist economies, capital is not acquired to be spent; it is acquired to be accumulated. Businesses do not exist to create jobs. Jobs are created by businesses only when it suits their purposes.


Beliefs in conventional wisdom are always dangerous. More often than not, conventional wisdom is wrong. But there are two kinds of conventional wisdom—the pro and the con. Every bit on conventional wisdom has its naysayers, and just as conventional wisdom can amount to nothing more than mere beliefs, so can the beliefs of naysayers. For instance, that today's economy is failing is rather evident, but many critics of it seem to believe that the problems with today's economy are of recent origin. But that's false. The economy today is little different in essence than it was is the 1600s when the colonists brought it with them from England. The horrors of England's 17th Century economy then are exactly its horrors today. Wealth held in the hands of a few and poverty experienced by the many. High levels of crime infused throughout society. Widespread unemployment, underemployment, and degrading employment. The destruction of human dignity. Homelessness, hunger, and frequent wars fought by common people for the benefit of the merchant class. Prevalent discrimination of various kinds. Government which governs for the wealthy and not for the people in general. And although there have been short-lived periods when the people were led to believe that their prospects were improving, these periods have regularly ended in economic collapses that wiped out any gains the common people had acquired.

The universal features of this economy are exemplified in the following historical vignette.

On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered by James W. Marshall at Sutter's Mill in Coloma, California.

When people learned about the discovery, hundreds of thousands rushed to California. Wherever gold was discovered, miners collaborated to put up a camp and stake claims. Rough and Ready, Hangtown, and Portuguese Flat, among many others, sprang up, and merchants flocked to them, set up business in hastily built buildings, lean-tos, tents, and anywhere else serviceable to sell everything imaginable. Miners lived in tents, shanties, and deck cabins removed from abandoned ships. Each camp often had its own saloon and gambling house. Women of various ethnicities played various roles including that of prostitute and single entrepreneurs.

At first, the gold was simply "free for the taking." Disputes were often handled personally and violently. When gold became increasingly difficult to retrieve, Americans began to drive out foreigners. The State Legislature passed a foreign miners tax of twenty dollars per month, and American prospectors began organized attacks on foreigners, particularly Latin Americans and Chinese. In addition, the huge numbers of newcomers drove Native Americans out of their traditional hunting, fishing and gathering areas. Some responded by attacking miners. This provoked counter-attacks. The natives were often slaughtered. Those who escaped were unable to survive and starved to death. Natives succumbed to smallpox, influenza, and measles in large numbers. The Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, passed by the California Legislature, allowed settlers to capture and use natives as bonded workers and traffic in Native American labor, particularly that of young women and children, which was carried on as a legal business enterprise. Native American villages were regularly raided to supply the demand, and young women and children were carried off to be sold. The toll on the American immigrants could be severe as well: one in twelve forty-niners perished, as the death and crime rates during the Gold Rush were extraordinarily high, and the resulting vigilantism also took its toll.

Hydraulicking as a means of extracting the gold became prevalent. A byproduct of this was that large amounts of gravel, silt, heavy metals, and other pollutants went into streams and rivers. Many areas still bear the scars of hydraulic mining since the resulting exposed earth and downstream gravel deposits are unable to support plant life.

The merchants made far more money than the miners. The wealthiest man in California during the early years of the Gold Rush was Samuel Brannan, the tireless self-promoter, shopkeeper and newspaper publisher. About half the prospectors made a modest profit. Most, however, made little or wound up losing money. By 1855, the economic climate had changed dramatically. Gold could be retrieved profitably from the goldfields only by medium to large groups of workers, either in partnerships or as employees. By the mid-1850s, it was the owners of these gold-mining companies who made the money. When the lode petered-out, the merchants abandoned the sites faster than the miners. The gold rush was over.

I have, in the past, written about many of these horrid features of Capitalist economies, especially its abject immorality. Today I want to discuss an obvious falsehood that still gets repeated especially by right wing politicians and their counterparts in the economics profession and the business community, that is, businesses, not governments, create jobs.

This generic claim is, of course, obviously false and its generality makes it grossly ambiguous. What precisely does it mean, especially since the politicians who utter it spend piles of money and time trying to get jobs that are not created by any business? No business created the jobs of Congressman or President, so what sense does it make for such a person to claim that businesses, not government, creates jobs? The claim is utterly stupid.