Wisconsin's Low Unemployment, and High U.S. Deficits

I saw two items in the news that give updates to a few things I have said in previous.

First of all, the Wisconsin DWD released the December 2009 unemployment/ employment figures for the state. On page 2 of this report, it shows that that over 54,000 additional Wisconsinites were employed at the end of 2010 vs. end of '09, and 67,000 without the seasonal adjustments. As I've mentioned before, the state has weathered this recession better than many, and our unemployment rate now stands at 7.5%, nearly 2 points below the national average of 9.4%.

And if you go further inside the numbers on Pages 2 and 3, you'll see that the metro area with the highest job gains in the last 12 months is Madison, with 2,000 more jobs than this time last year. Madtown is also the home of the state's lowest city unemployment rate at 4.4%, and Dane County's the lowest county rate at 4.6%. You think having a flagship research university and high-skilled government work doesn't pay off in the job market? You bet your ass it does.

This is especially noteworthy because this is the last report of the Jim Doyle era in Wisconsin, and the logical starting point for Scott Walker's alleged opening of Wisconsin for business. So Scotty starts off his reign with the state sporting with a below-national average unemployment rate, demonizing the types of businesses and employees that are a key part of the fastest-growing job market in the state, blocking funding for a big transportation upgrade to that fastest-growing job market and the state being on a pace that is just below his goal of 250,000 jobs in 4 years, with the trend moving up. Let's see if these things hold true for Wisconsin and Madison's strong standing in a year (don't bet on it).

Also saw that the CBO is now predicting Social Security to pay out more than it takes in this year and for a national overall fiscal deficit of $1.5 trillion for the year ending October 1. Gee, you think cutting Social Security taxes by a third and keeping other Bush-era tax cuts in place may have something to do with this problem? And does this mean tax cuts don't pay for themselves, regardless of how many times the Paul Ryans of the world try to tell us they do? Why yes, I think it does.

It also sets up the talking point about how now that we're in a fiscal crisis "we just have no choice but to sell off/ cut things." This is the exact reason I opposed those tax moves in December, because we didn't have to make these cuts to continue our recovery, and it just sets up Obama and co. for failure at a later point. Social Security didn't have these deficits till its tax rates were cut, but now this deficit can be used as the excuse to cut the program that so many millions depend on to keep their standard of living- especially those older Boomers who have been laid off and/or cleaned out in the stock market the last few years.

It may not matter for Obama's 2012 election (especially since the economy should be steadily improving and any GOP candidate is going to have tp say some really dumb things to get the nomination), but the tough choices that needed to be made weren't, and gathering more revenues to keep services afloat should have been part of that.