Sykes Has A New Dilemma: Support Walker Or Himself

We all know that Charlie Sykes does little more than parrot the talking points that the GOP email him that morning or the night before. So day in and day out, Sykes will use his bully microphone to rant and rave about the continued high unemployment or the poor education that our children are supposed to be receiving. And if he is not tearing down the good things, he is building up the bad, such as with false praises of Scott Walker, even if he has to lie to do so (which is most of the time).

But Sykes is also an author, who has a number of published books. One of his more well-known books is "Dumbing Down Our Kids," in which he decries that kids can't read or write like they should be able to, and how that is a drain on society. Or something like that.

And that is where Sykes faces a new dilemma.

Over the weekend, Sykes' favorite boy, Scott Walker, shot his fool mouth off and told kids that they would be best off to drop out of school and try to get a job in this depressed economy. And that is in spite of the fact that people with higher educations are experiencing less problems with unemployment than people with only a high school diploma or no diploma at all.

So now, does Sykes stay true to himself and say Walker was wrong in that comment or does Sykes throw himself under the bus to help support Walker's campaign?

The Great Whodunit?

McIlheran, continuing the McSykes tradition of days of yore, cites Sykes, who yet cites another person, named Kristen Lopez Eastlick who blames the minimum wage increase for a decline in teenage jobs. (Sidenote: When was the last time that the so-called "blogfather" wrote anything original? Anyone? Hint to Sykes: Real Pulitzer Prize nominees write their own stuff.)

This is hard to swallow for a couple of reasons. One is that, per the government, the increases are coming in increments, the last one being nearly a year ago, and the other not due for over another month from now. Another reason is that the proof that minimum wage affects teenage employment levels is somewhat in doubt:

Supporters point to a controversial study by Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger of minimum wage employees in New Jersey, which found little or no impact on employment. Economist Robert Solow, an MIT Nobel Laureate, wrote in a 1995 New York Times article that the “main thing about the research is that the evidence of the job loss is weak.... And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests the impact on jobs is small.”

There are many more likely and realistic causes of a low employment rate for teens these days. One is that, thanks to Bush's failed economic policies (not to mention spending billions and billions of dollars on an unjust war), money is tight for everyone. Potential employers would be understandably reluctant to hire on any help when money is so tight.

Following this would be the fact that there is an ever increasing number of adults that are also scrambling for work, as overall unemployment rates continue to climb.

Adding to the economic crisis is the fact that such costs such as gasoline are reaching unprecedented levels, causing both consumers and businesses to cut back. This in turn cycles the unemployment issue, such as the recent announcement that GM is going to close their Janesville plant.

If a manufacturer can barely afford to get his product to market, he will not have the extra cash to hire on even part-time help. Likewise, if consumers are forced to cut way back on their spending to pay for necessities like health insurance and electricity, store owners will not even need, much less afford, to hire anyone of any age.

That is only common sense. But even common sense may be too much to ask of the local right wing media.

No such thing as a dumb question? Well ...

A new court ruling says Wisconsin's W2 program must provide benefits to people in the program who are employable but can't find jobs.

Paul Soglin gets it:

Think about it. It helps end poverty. Assuming the state does not want to increase the welfare rolls, people who want to work will be given an opportunity to work for a living.

As for increasing the welfare rolls, that is not a problem. The decision does not say "put them on the dole." It clearly says, "provide for job opportunity." Those offered meaningful work who turn it down, do not get welfare.

You know who doesn't have a clue, asking:

Isn't this called "unemployment"?
Don't they already have benefits for that?

As she would say, Umm, no.

Jessica solves the unemployment problem

Don't sit there in the central city saying there aren't any jobs.

Look in the classifieds. Whallah! Good jobs for everyone!

Sorry we ever doubted. She's a genius.

The March unemployment figures put the Milwaukee metro area jobless rate at 5.5%, but that doesn't count a lot of "discouraged" workers who are not officially in the pool and actively looking. That rate equals 43,932 people looking for work.

The headline on McBride's post is a classic:

THERE ARE ENOUGH JOBS TO FILL THE CLASSIFIED ADS EVERY SUNDAY

In the same way, I have marveled at the fact that there is just enough news every day to exactly fill the pages of the Journal Sentinel. They never run out, and there's never any extra. Whallah!

Then there's the fact that there are just the right number of every kind of job to match the population -- just enough executive jobs for people who want to be executives, and enough garbage collection jobs for people who want to collect garbage.

This must be what they call Intelligent Design, no?