The Loud Talker

Focus on getting it right, not being right.

  • Archive

  • Subscribe

  • Advertisements

Archive for the ‘economy’ Category

Just Another News Day In Our Obamanation

Posted by cann0nba11 on October 29, 2013

I often find myself talking to friends and coworkers about how crappy things have become lately. My liberal friends still like to talk about “wars we can’t afford” while ignoring wildly reckless spending here at home at levels far greater than the cost of our wars. They like to chortle about how stupid GW Bush was while ignoring how poorly the current president performs sans teleprompter. They dream of affordable healthcare for everyone (at least for all poor Progressives) while having no factual or mathematical understanding of the problem.

And when I point out the many problems we face, caused by our president and his hand-picked cabinet, I am called a racist. Bush is blamed. Ted Cruz is blamed. “Republicans shut down the government!” (no, Harry Reid and President Obama did that.)

I see today’s passionate Obama supporter as battered wives. You know the type, the woman that gets beaten all of the time, so she calls 9-1-1 for help, but when the police arrive and handcuff her thug husband she starts yelling “get your hands off my man, pig!” Yeah, that’s the sort of denial today’s Obama supporters are living in.

So I figured I would gather a few headlines from today to help my friends recognize our actual reality. Sort of an intervention, or maybe just a dose of our peril. Just a little bit of peril.

CBS: The Obama Administration knew all along that Benghazi was a terror attack.

LA Times: The Middle Class in deep blue California are suddenly realizing that their healthcare costs are rising.

More from CBS: More than 2 million people are losing their coverage (or 3X more than are actually buying it right now).

LA Times: Foreign leaders upset at US spying on them. Oops… looks like the State Department approved spying on allied leaders. (of course, like most every other problem lately, President Obama had no idea it was happening)

NBC: The Obama administration knew three years ago that millions of Americans would not be able to keep their health insurance. But they lied about it for three years because Obama wanted it.

The lady running the entire healthcare roll out is going to blame the government contractors for the problems, it is their fault they did not live up to government expectations, it is not the governments fault at all. Of course not, the government is perfect.

I know… this is all just racist banter. Nothing to see here. Did you know that President Obama and Jay-Z hang out sometimes?

Note: I gathered these headlines from, a great place to find conservative data with plenty of source links. If I said this at the beginning of this post most liberals would have stopped reading, because what the words say means nothing; it’s all about who is saying them that matters.


Posted in economy, Politics | Leave a Comment »

Shutdown? ::yawn::

Posted by cann0nba11 on October 3, 2013

Prior to the current government shutdown there have been 17 other shutdowns since 1976.

  • Five of them lasted eight days more.
  • The longest was 21 days and happened under Clinton.
  • The next five longest all happened under Carter (ranging from 8-17 days).
  • Three of Carter’s happened even though his party controlled both the House and Senate.
  • There were fourteen shutdowns under Reagan, the longest was 3 days.
  • There were no shutdowns under GW Bush.

17 shutdowns since 1976

Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that “the cupboard is bare.” Someone get her to a hospital, because obviously there is a shortage of oxygen reaching her brain. The government is spending $3.4 trillion and she has the audacity to make this statement? Folks inside the beltway have lost their minds, and too many folks outside the beltway aren’t using theirs.

Emotion is the enemy of critical thought, and the combination of a woefully biased ratings-focused liberal media plus a politically ignorant populace is leading America down a scary path. Rome is burning, this shutdown is a symptom of a much larger problem.

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »

Minimum Wage, Minimum Perspective

Posted by cann0nba11 on August 30, 2013

Labor Day, according to the official US Department of Labor Day definition, “is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.”

There is no mention of wages or unions. Yet in the news this week we have SEIU organizing protests and events that support increasing, even doubling, the current minumum wage of $7.25.hour. Passionate progressives are demanding that minimum wage be increased because it is the humane thing to do. “How can anyone live on minimum wage?” they ask.

Well, there’s a reason it’s not called “Living Wage.” It is not meant to be a living wage.

Minimum wage was introduced in America in 1933 by President Roosevelt during the Great Depression. It was part of The New Deal and was abolished by the Supreme Court in 1935 for a variety of reasons. The law included acts and new government departments the quickly became bloated, bogged down with reams of legislation, and many unintended consequences occurred. Shocker. Sounds like the health care law to me, or pretty much any other major government legislation.

And as history has shown, “the main finding of economic theory and empirical research over the past 70 years is that minimum wage increases tend to reduce employment.” (source)

Compounding the minimum wage issue is the current national mindset around entitlements. Many of today’s youth simply want more for nothing. They feel owed a higher wage, and our president agrees with them, obviously a wise stance given his vast economic and business experience. Many people today are unwilling to take entry-level jobs because they feel that the work is beneath them. THIS is a problem.

My first job was washing dishes at an old folks home for $3.35 an hour. I got the job because a couple of my friends already worked there and they suggested me when an opening became available. It was part time work, and I did everything I could to earn more hours. How? By proving that I was a dependable person, that I could show up on time, that I could follow instructions, learn, and do the job I was paid to do. That is what a minimum job is supposed to do. It sets the foundation for your resume and future work potential.

After my first job, then took a different dish washing job for a higher wage at a nicer location. The nicer location charged higher prices and could pay a higher wage. I got the job because I had experience already at the old folks home, and I knew somebody that worked there. Later on while in college I grabbed a job in the fast food industry. Having had a couple of jobs under my belt made it easier for me to get hired.

Then I started temporary work, or “temping.” Temp agencies specialize in filling temporary jobs of all kinds, from basic manual labor to advanced computing skills. I had no office experience, but my track record of success at basic minimum wage jobs gave the agencies (I worked for more than one) confidence in me. The assignments were often boring, extremely simple or repetitive, but I took every one I could find. I stuffed envelopes, did light physical labor and basic clerical work. More importantly, I learned new skills and was introduced to corporate business etiquette: How to dress, how to listen, how to follow instructions and set myself up for success with new or unfamiliar tasks.

These menial jobs led to desk work. Answering phones, mail room duties, etc. Best part was that I started using computers and learning things like word processing, spreadsheets and presentations. This helped me work on my typing and writing skills.

Eventually I landed a “temp to perm” position, something akin to a job audition. The company hires you on an evaluation period and if you do well they have the option of hiring you. In my case one of them worked out and landed me my first job with a regular salary plus medical benefits — a first for me at age 24.

I could go on about the jobs I’ve had and how I moved up the ladder. I could go on about the jobs I lost, about being on unemployment, and even welfare for a while. Each time I lost a job I worked hard to find a better one. I’ve moved for new jobs, and I’ve taken pay cuts for new jobs. Having a job is not a right, it is a privilege.

Let me add this: There is great value in providing unemployment insurance, as long as it is a temporary solution, not a lifestyle. There is great value in providing a minimum wage, as long as it dictated by market conditions instead of government bureaucrats, and more importantly, as long as it is not expected to be a lifestyle.

At the end of the day, history has shown that forcing a raise in the minimum wage ends up decreasing the hours of the very workers the wage is intended to help. There are basic economic laws in effect here, and those that try to distract Americans with outlier stories like Wal-Mart vs. Cost-Co are doing the topic a disservice. The wildly vast majority of minimum wage jobs are provided by small and medium sized businesses: millions of jobs all over the country, performed by people of every type.

So while you are chomping down on your burger or hot dog this weekend, think about who should be determining how businesses run: business owners with years of experience feeding the economy, or government officials with years of experience stifling it.

Posted in economy | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Understanding Recent US Deficits

Posted by cann0nba11 on July 6, 2013

A popular talking point from the left lately has been “Deficits are shrinking! Republicans are wrong!” Rachel Maddow’s blog is just one recent example. And, mathematically speaking, yes the deficits are decreasing. And thank God they are. But this story requires some context.

The Maddow blog shows a brief history of the deficit. I prefer a bigger picture view to help people understand how bad things have gotten and why this Democratic rally is not as exciting as they would like you to believe.


I created this using historical deficit tables (click on it to see a larger version).

  • Presidents are listed at the top, red for Republican, blue for Democrat.
  • The tall colored columns indicate Congressional control: red for Republican control of both houses, blue indicates Democratic control of both houses, and purple indicates a split Congress.
  • The red arrows show the trend of the deficit for the duration of each president’s tenure.
  • The green portion of the bar for 2009 is the $700B Hank Paulson directed TARP bailout.
  • Side note: The deficit for 2012 under President Obama, this single year of over spending, was more than the financial cost of ten years of those hated “Bush wars we can’t afford.” Please, let’s remove that last quote from our vocabulary.

To me a couple of things jump out of this chart. First is the magnitude of governmental spending that kicked in after Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Even without TARP, the deficit would have reached $700B, nearly twice the amount of the worst deficit under President Bush. TARP was voodoo, a scare tactic that gave one man (Paulson) incredible power. And, funny thing, the $700 billion TARP figure was not even based on any analysis or facts. A Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes magazine “It”s not based on any particular data point, We just wanted to choose a really large number.” How’s that for a quality decision making methodology? Glad to see our leaders are sticking their wet fingers in the air and making stuff up.

Second, look at the chart under the GW Bush years. After the initial economic effects of the dot-com crash and 9-11 and the start of a new war, the deficit under Bush was trending back toward zero. But an unpopular war ushered in a Democratically controlled Congress in 2006, and the tax & spend festival got underway. And, the housing bubble that was started in the 70s by Jimmy Carter, came crashing down. These are not problems Bush created, he was just in office when they happened. I’m not defending GWB, (I didn’t even vote for him in either election), but the facts are not debatable. He didn’t cause the 9-11 attacks 8 months into his first term (shut up Truthers), he didn’t cause the dot-com bust, and he didn’t create the housing crisis. In fact, Republicans started raising red flags about the Fannie/Freddie crisis as early as 2001, the first year of the hated Bush administration.

Third, the rate of decrease in the deficit under Obama is welcome, but should also be viewed with some perspective. Think of it this way: imagine if you gained 50 pounds for three or four year in a row. Then in year five you only gained 40 pounds, and in year six you only gained 30 pounds. From a short term perspective, “Hooray for you, you are decreasing your physical deficit rate.” But you are still so unhealthy that you have a very long way to go before you get healthy and drastic action needs to be taken. You are so sick right now that you cannot afford to coast for a few more years living your current lifestyle. You need surgery, you need exercise, and you probably need an intervention.

Another way to view this is to look at gas prices. Gas was under $2/gallon when Obama was elected. It spiked to around $4, so today when people see gas dropping to the low $3 range they think “Hooray! Gas prices are coming down.” True, but not great.

So yes, the Obama deficit is decreasing each year. But it is doing so only because of the massive spending at the start of the Democratic control of Congress (rubber stamped by the lame duck Bush,) and then accelerated by the Obama presidency that stomped down on the “free money” gas pedal. Current trends look positive, but they are still slow, just like unemployment numbers. We need real action and real financial change, not this trickle up spending decrease mentality that will take decades to work. We don’t have that kind of time. Perspective matters.

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »

Happy Tax Day – Taxing The Rich Still Won’t Work

Posted by cann0nba11 on April 15, 2013

For some reason, the president and his supporters believe that the solution to our financial woes is to simply have rich folks like him pay just a little bit more in taxes. They don’t see massive governmental overspending as overspending. And, if you consider the fact that the president expects Americans to think that the impact of a 2% sequester cut will cause mass hysteria, you are also expected to accept the idea that current government spending is just barely enough to keep America going. So how much will raising taxes on individuals?

Take a look at this chart:Taxes3

In 2010, the Federal budget called for $3.6 trillion in spending with the expectation of $2.3 trillion. Of that $2.3 trillion, $950 billion (47%) came from individual income taxes. Within this group the top 10% of earners (people making more than $116k/yr), paid 45% of all personal income tax revenue, totaling $427B.

Let’s put aside for the moment the obvious question of “why does our government need to spend, in one year, $1.3 trillion more than it expects to take in. And, let’s also ignore the fact that this single year of governmental overspending costs more than ten years of those evil Bush “wars that we couldn’t afford.”


The chart above shows that even if we double the tax rate for the top 10% of taxpayers, it would have only a modest effect on the deficit, the gap in spending versus revenue would still be $800 billion. I think it is important to note that even that $800 billion dollar gap after soaking the rich and middle-income Top 10%-ers is still more than twice than that of any previous president, with the single exception of the massive bailout spending authored by Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by lame duck president Bush in his last year.


Today, Obama’s new budget (his first in four years), calls for spending $3.7 trillion with only $2.4 trillion in revenue expected. Yes, every year this administration has offered trillion dollar deficits. This year it’s a gap of $1.4 trillion. For some perspective, even if we doubled EVERY American’s taxes (from $950B to $1.9T), we would still have a gap of $500B just for this year. And that $500 billion gap is still more than any previous president.

Bottom line, Obama math doesn’t work. We cannot tax our way into prosperity. If you get results from stimulus, the results go away when the stimulus funds run out. We need real economic change, not divisive ideological rhetoric. We need to stop arguing about gay marriage. We need to stop legislating useless anti-gun legislation. We need to start using our brains.

If you think that we can fix our problems by taking more money away from Americans, you are not opening your eyes, you are letting emotions cloud rational thought. There is simply NO way that asking the rich to “pay their fair share” will have any impact on our financial situation.

Posted in economy, Politics | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s “Tax The Rich” Diet Plan

Posted by cann0nba11 on December 17, 2012

Sign me up for this!

The basic premise of President Obama’s 2012 campaign was a tax the rich, make them pay their fair share argument. And now Obama and Speaker Boehner are having lots of closed door meetings (where is the transparency?) to work out a “deal” on taxes.

Allow me to cut to the chase. Let the president have his tax cuts. Don’t ask for anything. Let him raise the rates on the wealthy from 35% to 39%. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Why? Because doing so won’t help our economy one bit, nor will it help our deficit or the unemployment rate. Doing so won’t stop food prices from rising, or housing values from falling.

But it will kick millions of Americans right in their wallets. And this is the only thing that matters to most Americans.

It has been widely publicized that allowing the tax rate to rise on the rich will generate $824 billion in savings over ten years. Ignoring for a moment that this amount is less than a single year of Obama deficits, the CBO estimates that the first year of tax savings will be $42 billion.  How much is that? What portion of Obama’s budget is that exactly? It amounts to 1.1%. To put this in terms most of us can easily understand, take a look at the following image.

tax_burger Our budget needs a diet, and the president thinks he has the answer. His “tax the rich” diet is the mathematical equivalent of removing three french fries from your every day Big Mac medium combo. Three fries. If you throw in the caloric impact of letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the middle class, you go right ahead and take out another ten fries. Wow! Eat your heart out Richard Simmons!

Do you like pizza? This Obama diet is awesome. By taxing the rich you can take off 1/8 of a slice of pepperoni. Not 1/8 of the whole slice of pizza, just 1/8 of one of one individual pepperoni slice. The Bush tax cuts ending for the middle class? Take of an entire half of a slice of pepperoni meat. tax_pizza

If you want to think in terms of beer, the Obama Tax The Rich  and Stop Drinking Program equates to no more than the spittle at the bottom of the cans in that six pack you just finished. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire on millions of middle class Americans equates to filling up a shot glass with beer and then drinking the rest of the six pack. ::burp:: Yee haw!

Taxing the rich more serves no purpose other than to appease people that have no idea how our economy work or how jobs are created. It embodies the president’s class warfare “spread the wealth around” mindset that sounds great in liberal college classrooms or in community organizer meetings. It is not based on anything close to reality, and the president’s plan will do nothing to help our nation. So let him have it. Sure, some of us will pay more now. But maybe this is the kick in the pants that millions of Americans need to wake the heck up and become more involved and aware about our political environment.

Bon appetit!

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »

“Freedom This, Motherf******!”

Posted by cann0nba11 on December 11, 2012

How’s that for a nice patriotic post title? It’s a direct quote from one of the constitution loving union members that participated in the non-peaceful destruction of property in Michigan today.

Thomas LaDuke, Executive Director and co-founder of FTR Radio was at the AFP event today where union thugs went wild. The complete unedited video is below (language warning, union members are fond of the f-bomb).

This behavior is just the latest example in what we can expect for the next four years under the energetically re-elected Barack Obama administration. After all, President Hope and Change owes his initial election to the massive blind devotion of uneducated and uninformed union workers all over America. Stupid is as stupid does, and we all need to give a big round of applause to union thugs that think the behavior exhibited in this video is praiseworthy. Perhaps this is the “persuasion of power” that Obama’s union buddy Andy Stern told us about? Remember how this clean and articulate black  presidential candidate told his supporters how he wanted them to “argue with them, and get in their face?” You want an economy that rewards work? You want real change? Mission accomplished, baby.

I’m sure there will be an investigation into this senseless violence. And I’m sure there will be plenty of coverage on the fine networks known as CNN and MSNBC. After all, they report the truth, right? They would never make up fake stories about violence or racism coming from the Tea Party, so surely they will honestly and accurately report this event tonight. Liberals are so intellectual, unions are so altruistic, and the media is so respectable, right?

Here are some stills from the video.


This courteous gentleman was kind enough to give Mr. LaDuke a warning that the peaceful, law-abiding union members were about to tear down the tent.


This gentleman was proud of his claim that he has “killed 20 motherf***ers with guns.” I’m sure his mom is proud.


This man was obviously helping the people trapped under the tent by breaking out his box cutters and slashing this rented tent to pieces. We all carry box cutters, right? I wonder if the tent rental place is a union shop.


This man wanted to make friends by shouting “you’re gonna get your f***ing ass kicked.”

Be sure to stop by FTR Radio tonight at 8pm EST for The Snark Factor with Fingers Malloy.  Stephen Crowder, the man assaulted during this union craziness will be our guest, along with regular host Thomas LaDuke, the man that recorded this video.

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »

A Difference Of Economic Opinion

Posted by cann0nba11 on July 10, 2012

Cast aside social issues for just a moment. We can talk about abortion or civil unions versus gay marriage once we get our financial house in order. If America is not economically stable in the very near future, all of those other issues mean nothing. They will be replaced by much more serious things that fall in the lower levels of Mazlow’s Hierarchy of Needs, such as food and shelter.

Liberals claim that Conservatives lack compassion, yet cannot reconcile this emotional belief with the fact that conservatives, especially the faithful, donate more money and time to help the poor at home and abroad. Meanwhile, Conservatives claim that Liberals lack a basic understanding of math. This makes sense when you ask a Liberal how to pay for growing social programs, single-payer health care and other well-intentioned yet financially irrational programs. They can’t answer, they simply respond that we have to do it, just like a young child demands a cookie. Pure heart, pure emotion, pure desire, but no logic. Sort of like any random OWSer that screams how evil Bush and Romney are before stepping into their beater with the Coexist bumper sticker on it. Coexist dammit! (but only with people that agree with you). But I digress…

Liberals want more government, they think that only government can solve the problems we face today, and that because centralized planning has worked so well all over the world that we just need to tweak it a bit to make it work in America. Conservatives think that we need less government. Not NO government, just less of it. Liberals will counter with extremes and say that we want NO regulations, NO healthcare, NO unemployment insurance and NO clean water, etc. Simply not true. So again, the left wants more government, the right wants less.

I created the following chart to visualize the primary difference between the Left and the Right.


Click on the image for a larger version. What is the point? President Reagan experienced a recession in his first term that lasted 16 months. However, unlike President Obama, Reagan enacted policies meant to stimulate the economy, not to suppress it. The end result was a sharp and rapid recovery that lasted many years.

Despite having complete control of Congress during his first two years in office, Obama squandered his historic opportunity and has managed to continually muzzle the greatest economic engine in the history of mankind. I’ve lined up the two recessions in the image above to make the comparison obvious to even the most stubborn of Liberals.

There is no way to blame Republican obstructionism for this. Two years of complete control wasted. Then, even after Republicans regained control of the House and offered dozens of economic bills, they were crushed by Harry Reid’s willfully destructive arrogance in the Senate.

So what has the president been doing with his time? Besides more than 100 rounds of golf and dozens of fund raising trips, he has managed to divide our nation with is class warfare rhetoric and open condescension toward conservatives and the faithful. He rammed a highly unpopular yet horrible expensive health care bill down our throats despite the known financial impacts that Democrats so skillfully hid and pushed down the road a few years out of political expedience. He has maintained many of Bush’s hawkish military policies (a good thing) after whipping up his liberal base in 2008 over how horrible those still-intact policies where. He has given his attorney general plenty of leeway and freedom to sue states that dare to enforce existing laws or enact new laws to fill the gaping void created by this administrations willful non-action. I could go on.

The point of this post is to visually highlight how the Left and Right are different from an economic perspective. Obama’s track record is proof positive that his policies do not work. Feel free to disagree, but please bring facts to the table. Remember, emotion is the enemy of critical thought.

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »

Is Obamacare The Largest Tax Ever?

Posted by cann0nba11 on July 4, 2012

[I’ve been away from the blog for a couple of months. Changed roles at my day job (for the better), family life has been busy, and frankly the battle to save my country has made me weary. I’m tired of the divisiveness, tired of the childish behavior and willful denial on the left, and I’m tired of having to constantly correct lies posted by the left. However, Justice Edwards’ ruling on Obamacare has rocked me out of my funk, just like George W. Bush did during the Ramos/Compean border agent debacle. So here goes…]


A post at Mother Jones has been making the rounds on Facebook with the table to the left as the main point. To quote author Kevin Drum, “Democrats have long insisted that Obamacare’s penalty for not buying health insurance isn’t a tax, but on Thursday the Supreme Court upheld it on the grounds that it was a tax. J’accuse! Or, as America’s Bard of the Frozen North tweeted, “Obama lies, freedom dies.” This is so stupid it hurts.”

Yes Kevin, I agree. Disagreeing with the fact that the SCOTUS saved the bill on the basis that it is a tax is stupid indeed. The source of Drum’s angst is a Forbes article that says the following:

“And if both the premium and the penalty are considered a tax, the mandate becomes the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And that doesn’t include all of the other taxes imposed by the legislation.”

However, Drum does not provide the quote, nor does he properly analyze it. He omits the part in bold. He omits the numbers relating to the premium. His analysis is based on just the financial impact of the penalty, which I think is a mistake.

But let’s ignore that glaring mathematical error for the time being and stick with his main premise. Drum created this table to prove a point, to clearly show that Republicans are stupid for claiming that the tax is the largest tax in history. (The data came from this Treasury Department report.) If you compare the impact of Obamacare to previous large tax hits as a percentage of GDP, Drum is correct, this is not the largest tax increase in history.

But, if you look at the raw dollars of the deal, again using Drum’s numbers, the cost of Obamacare is $71.18 billion dollars. (0.49% x 2010 GDP of $14.526B). That would make it the largest tax increase ever. The second highest dollar amount in the list? Clinton’s 1993 tax increase of $33.34 billion, which is less than half of the Obama tax increase. Third would be GHW Bush and fourth Reagan.

But let’s take this further because this is not just about bashing flawed logic. It is about exposing the truth. There have been larger increases than Obamacare, and some of them were passed by Republican presidents. I think it is important to note that the vast majority of massive tax increases took place during Democratic leadership. Liberals are free t0 whine about how Conservatives hate this massively expensive government overreach. But let’s use this topic as yet another opportunity to point out how the left wants bigger government spending more money, as proven by their track record of instituting the largest taxes in our history.

The following charts should provide more transparency on the topic.




Perhaps the short of this is that I could post the following chart and hope it goes viral on Facebook.


Please don’t believe everything you read. Do the research before committing to something. Our country is in danger, shortsightedness and emotions are getting in the way of our future.

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »

Who Runs The Worst Cities In America For Finding A Job?

Posted by cann0nba11 on December 12, 2011

Forbes has published a brief essay on the top worst cities in America for finding a job. That tea-bagging racist organization known as MSNBC posted an article about it too, so it must be true. The top ten worst cities to find work are:

  1. Miami, FL
  2. Los Angeles, CA
  3. Riverside, CA
  4. Las Vegas, NV
  5. Detroit, MI
  6. Sacramento, CA
  7. Memphis, TN
  8. Rochester, NY
  9. St. Louis, MO
  10. Orlando, FL

It might be interesting to see how these cities are being led. What are their policies? What side of the political spectrum do you think they might fall on? Are the pro-business or pro-entitlement? It turns out that nine out of the ten cities are led by mayors of the same political persuasion.

  1. Miami has been run by a Democrat mayor since 1947.
  2. Los Angeles has never had a Republican mayor. The last time a Republican ran was back in 1977.
  3. Riverside is historically Republican, but has been Democratic since 1994.
  4. Las Vegas has had a Democrat mayor since 1959.
  5. Detroit has had a Democrat mayor since 1962.
  6. Sacramento has had a Democrat mayor since 1975.
  7. Memphis has historically been Democrat territory, I can’t find specific mayoral party history.
  8. Rochester has had a Democrat mayor since 1970.
  9. St. Louis has had a Democrat mayor  since 1949.
  10. Orlando has had a Democrat mayor  since 1956.

A legitimate question is whether or not mayors have statistically significant influence on the job markets they preside over. I would think that they do since they drive the tax policies and employer incentives in their geographies. But I’ll leave this research item to people above my pay grade that have things like research assistants and interns.

Posted in economy | Leave a Comment »