Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Yes, Let Us Thank The Governor For Creating Jobs

Unless you've been drinking so much that you blacked out for the past 24 hours or so, you know that Scott Walker is claiming that he channeled his inner Kathleen Nicholaus and suddenly found nearly 60,000 jobs that weren't there just a few days ago.

There's been a lot of contention whether Walker's numbers are even real, much less accurate*.  Besides the highly suspicious timing of this sudden discovery, Walker has made it plenty obvious that his primary concern regarding the alleged job growth is not the benefit it would be for Wisconsin, but that it should be supporting his campaign to stay chief figurehead for the corporations that want to suck the lifeblood out of the state.  (To paraphrase a right wing talking point: They hate us for our wealth, our natural resources and our independence.)

But besides the highly questionable nature of this sudden revelation of the before-hidden jobs, there is something else that is highly noticeable by its absence about Walker's claim of job growth.

Here, go scour his press release regarding it and see if you notice what's missing.  I'll wait.

Did you notice what's missing?  No? Go and take another look see.

Did you see it yet? Or more accurately, did you not see it?

Walker's statements and all the reports that I've seen thus far are missing the monthly breakdown of Walker's Numbers of Mystery.  Walker is claiming that from December 2010 to December 2011, instead of losing 34,000 jobs, the state actually gained 23,000.  So the next question, for a cognitive dissident anyway, would be "When were those jobs gained?"

And that's what Walker doesn't want you to think about.

But we already know that answer:

According to the chart, Wisconsin gained about 35,000 jobs while Governor Jim Doyle's budget and policies were still in place.  Then, as soon as the effects of Walker's budget and policies kicked in, the state went through a six straight months of job loss.

So there was a job gain in 2011, but only in the first half.

And if you listen to the incessant ads from the Koch front groups and Team Walker (but I repeat myself), they'll tell you that if we elect Tom Barrett, we'll go back to the Doyle days.  Well, think about this, if Barrett had been elected in 2010, and if he did follow in Doyle's footsteps, we'd have seen about 70,000 jobs instead of the paltry 23,000 that Walker is claiming, if those numbers are even real.

In summary, I agree with Walker and the right wing zombie echo chamber in saying that we should thank the governor for creating what jobs he did.

Thank you, Governor Jim Doyle! I hope you're doing well.

*Pro tip for Team Walker: When you have to over-emphasize that the numbers are real and that the "data is irrefutable," that's a tell that you're most certainly lying your arses off.


  1. So wait did you suggest in that Kathleen Nicholaus made up or "fixed" those votes in Waukesha? The vote totals were not properly initially reported and everyone knows that. Hell even our friend math surley agrees with this notion. Kathy found votes that WERE CAST but not properly counted in the reports to the AP just like the jobs numbers. So that is a proper use of context but just probably not in the way you were trying to slip it in there as to what you thought was a cleaver little gab.

    1. Are you really defending a person who was so pathetic at her job for so many years that she had to be removed from having any responsibility for totaling votes?

  2. Oh but Capper you are wrong, she was not removed. Just another lie. Waukesha Freeman had her on the front page the day after the primary last week with her claiming to be in charge. It was all just a charade. And the Journal Sentinel never covered it...

    The power of Dan Vrakas. And the power to determine the outcome of the June election. Politicos in Chicago are humbled by the stories out of Waukesha - voter fraud capitol of the US.

    1. Please cite one example of a vote cast in Waukesha County that should not have been counted. Bet you can't.