Jessica Onstrom,

I understand your frustration. I too was out of work for a year, after 20 years in the same line of work. I made a point of sending out a minimum of 2 resumes a day and making sure they were jobs that I was well qualified for, in that year I had exactly 2 interviews. It wasn’t until I dumbed down my resume that I got the second interview and a job, at pretty much an entry level position making substantially less than I was accustomed to.

I would imagine your first problem, like mine, is your resume. Touting 40 years experience tells an employer two things, #1, your approximate age, and all that goes with hiring someone of your age and #2, they can probably hire someone cheaper based on your overqualifications.

Finding a job these days is not like it was before. In the past you would call, set up an interview, sell yourself in person. Today, you see something online, you email a resume with hopefully a well worded cover letter, and you wait… There is no feedback, nothing to tell you why you were not even worthy of some kind of response, just waiting and hoping. Resumes were important in the past, but you could answer any questions a perspective employer had regarding any holes they may be concerned about in that interview, not today.

Take a good hard look at your resume.

As to the unemployment benefits extensions and why they are bad to continue to extend… Well, first off, unlike you, there are plenty of people just fine with what they are getting on unemployment, they do not even bother looking for a job, this is an issue. I worked with a temp agency before the last extension, they were crushed when the extension went through because that meant that they would not have the people to fill jobs that they had available. Many people are unwilling to work for just a few dollars per hour more than what they are getting on unemployment. That is just a reality. The real unfortunate truth is that it usually does not make economic sense for them to work for a dollar or two per hour than what they are receiving on UE. They take a temp job for three months, job ends, their UE is now based off their income from the last job, meaning a cut in benefits, that is an issue.

I dont think that anyone knows what the absolute answer is. Those on the left will say extend UE benefits in perpetuity until everyone has a job. Some on the right will say cut them off after 6 months. I think that the true solution is to create an environment where business flourishes and hires folks. Sadly, that is not the environment created here in Oregon, and with the new incoming governor, it doesnt look to change.

Article source: Source

I support and endorse Sharon Sund for US Congress. Sharon will represent the Third District in Minnesota.

For years, the Third District, in which I live, was represented by a moderate Republican, Jim Ramstad. Though I never voted for him, it was not all that annoying that he was in Congress because, as I say, he was moderate. Ramstad was pro choice, suppored stem cell research, he was not anti science and he was pro gay rights (but did not support gay marriage). I mention all this because it should reflect the electorate of the 3rd District which he represented.

Around the time of his retirement, of course, Republicans were busy jettisoning their moderates. When the seat became open two elections back, the Democrats put up a person who could be thought of as a moderate Democrat, and in particular, as a veteran Marine with experience in Iraq, and a lawyer, a candidate who could appeal to the sorts of republicans that must have been electing Ramstad since 1990. That was Ashwin Madia, and I worked for his campaign as much as I had time for, canvassing, phone banking, and blogging. Madia was a great guy but for reasons which I will lay out in a moment, he lost that election despite the coattails of Barach Obama and Al Franken, also running that year.

Madia was defeated by Eric Paulsen, coming from the Minnesota House. Paulsen is a Bush-Bachmann Republican. He opposes a good health care system, voted agains tthe American Clean Energy and Security Act, against all of the economic emergency bills that were proposed a couple of years back, he is uniformly against all gay rights and is in favor of discrimination against women. How did such a person win against Madia in this moderate district?

There are probably two or three reasons. First, Madia was a great guy and his positions were in line with what one would think the district would support, but he was not a dynamic presence on the stage, and therefore no matter what he said during debates and public performances, he did not pick up support during those events. Second, Paulsen matches the district more than one might have thought. Even though Ramstat was re-elected again and again, he also ran against virtually no opposition again and again. When I first moved to the district, and asked around, I discovered that most people didn’t even know if he was a Republican or a Democrat, or what his positions were or, in some cases, if he was a state or federal Representative. Putting it another way, there hadn’t been an election for office of the Third Congressional District since 1990. Third, the above mentioned coat tails were not as long as one might have thought. Remember, Franken only barely beat Coleman, having run what Franken himself calls “The most efficient election to the Senate ever.”

Once Paulsen was in place, he showed himself to be a follower. Mainly, a follower of Michele Bachmann. When his first re-election campaign came up, and he was opposed by Jim Meffert, I did an analysis of Paulsen’s voting record and found that it was almost exactly identical to Michele Bachmann’s (see: Who is Erik Paulsen, anyway?). I think that situation has not changed since the, though it became difficult to compare any one’s voting record to Bachmann because she stopped casting votes to go run for President.

Meffert, running against Paulsen two years ago, was also a moderate candidate, and I think he may have been put forward by the party for similar reasons as Madia; Ramstat was moderate, thus the district is moderate, thus put up a moderate. However, now that this strategy has failed twice in a row, it is clearly time to consider a different option.

And that option is clearly Sharon Sund.

Sund is not a moderate. She is not wishy washy or equivocating on any of the key issues.

She supports investment in education, opposes the unfunded federal mandate, and would never support the teaching of anti-science or bad science in the science classroom. Sund wants to increase Pell Grant funding, expand loan forgiveness, and supports maximizing STEM funding. Her energy and environment policy is pro-environmental and pro-jobs, supporting investment in green energy, and tax incentives for green technology development. At the same time she wants to redirect fossil fuel subsidies to develop green economies, invest in infrastructure, and repatriate jobs via tax incentives.

Sharon is unabashedly pro LGBTQ. She has made a campaign promise to co-sponsor the repeal of DOMA, supports marriage equality, social fairness and equality, and extends this to partner immigration rights.

Unlike Paulsen, Sharon Sund will vote for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, she supports federal funding for Planned Parenthood, is Pro Choice and supports funding of Medicare for parents, children, and others, and supports reinvestment in Head Start and increasing tax credits and deductions for Child Care expenses.

One of the things that attracts me most to Sharon Sund’s candidacy is her position on science. Sharon is actually a scientist, holding degrees in science related fields. She did research and development work on a battery used in windmill-based electricity generation. She supports STEM funding and excellence in science education. You can check out her positions on science and other issues on her web site, but I’ve heard from her directly on these issues and I’m very positively impressed with her enthusiasm regarding the importance of science in policy. Some time in the near future I want to ask her about the Science Pledge and see if she’ll sign on to it. I’m guessing yes. I’ll let you know.

Here’s the thing: Sharon Sund is a clearly progressive candidate who overtly foregrounds science and related economic, educational, health, and social policy informed by science. I really could not have asked for a better candidate running in my district. I hope that you feel the same way. Running moderates in the Third District has not been an effective strategy against a Michele Bachmann clone. The choice has not been clear enough. Name recognition and machine politics have given an advantage to the Republican candidate, and this advantage is only getting stronger. Sund is a progressive who represents the views of many people in this district. She is a pro-science person, and many people who live in this district are in science related jobs (as is the case with all of the Minnesota suburubs). She is a pro-education candidate, and her district is probably the most pro-education district in the state. Sharon Sund can gain support a moderate could have never gained here. And with that support she can actually win this race and allow Minnesota to shift its delegation to a more progressive stance.

If you are not a resident of the Third District of Minnesota, I still need you to do something. I need you to Click Here and donate $10 to Sharon’s campaign. Having her in Congress will benefit you even if you live in Peoria. For that matter, it will benefit you even if you live in Tokyo. So send Yen!

If you ARE a resident of the Third District of Minnesota, then you MUST CLICK HERE and donate $100 to Sharon’s campaign, AND you must volunteer for her.

If Sharon Sund is elected to Congress, the number of scientists in the House of Representatives of the United States will increase by about 15%. You can help make this happen!

Article source: Source

Friday’s good news on the economy – an unemployment rate that dropped to 8.3 percent in January as the economy added 243,000 jobs – might have caused the White House staff to do cartwheels. If you’re going to get blamed when things are rough, why not celebrate when they go well?

Skip to next paragraph

• Unemployment rate: How many Americans are really unemployed?

• Unemployment rate drops to 8.3 percent. Is that a problem for Mitt Romney?
• Unemployment rate drops to 8.3 percent
• Unemployment benefits 101: four basic questions answered

• U.S. Economy
• Economic Indicators
• Labor Market
• Lagging Economic Indicators
• Unemployment Rate
• Job Growth
• 2012 Election

But that would have been behind closed doors, and the official response was more measured.

“These numbers will go up and down in the coming months, and there’s still far too many Americans who need a job or need a job that pays better than the one they have now,” President Obama said. “But the economy is growing stronger.”

The Monitor’s Weekly News Quiz for Jan. 27-Feb. 3, 2012

Came the quick retort from Mitt Romney, front-runner in the GOP race to try and unseat Obama: “Not so fast, Mr. President. This is the 36th straight month with unemployment above the red line your own administration drew. The real unemployment rate is over 15 percent. Mr. President, America has also had enough of your kind of help.”

(Romney’s “real unemployment rate over 15 percent” apparently includes the underemployed and those who’ve gotten discouraged and stopped looking.)

So the political question is: How much can Obama be credited with what looks to be an economic turnaround – if indeed that’s what we’re seeing?

On ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Larry Summers, Obama’s former economic adviser who served as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, put a positive spin on the new employment figures.

“Unlike many of the favorable past reports, if you look beneath the surface of this one, almost every indicator within it is favorable,” he said. “The growth is mostly from the private sector. The alternative survey, the household survey, suggested 500,000 or more jobs were created. The revisions of past months were favorable. People are working a longer week. Paychecks are going up. The number of vacancies, firms looking for work, are going up.”

Blogging in the New Yorker, John Cassidy points out that if January’s rate of hiring continues, within a few months the jobless rate will drop below 7.8 per cent – where it stood when Obama took office.

“At that point, it will be tough for Mitt Romney to stand up and say the President’s policies have made the recession worse,” Cassidy writes. “And it will be impossible for Republicans to deny that things are getting better.”

Republican congressional leaders don’t deny that the employment situation is improving. They just think it would be better if they were in charge – or at least if Obama would urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take up the jobs bills that have passed in the House with bipartisan support.

Political prognosticators say the improving employment news gave a bump to Obama’s standing in the 2012 presidential race.

The Intrade prediction market now gives him a 57 percent chance of being re-elected. Romney has a 38 percent chance of preventing that, according to Intrade.

“While a month of 250,000 jobs added isn’t sufficient to get the president re-elected, it was necessary,” writes Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics. “We should realize that this isn’t exactly the 1.1 million jobs added in September 1983, but it is absolutely an important first step for Obama to get back into the 2012 race.”

Still, in a mock election Obama leads Romney by a scant 2.2 percent in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls.

And in an article titled “Why Obama should be worried,” Jim Vandehei at Politico warns against “Pollyanna punditry.”

“There are a bunch of real-time numbers coming in that tell a much different tale,” he writes.

“There’s a new Congressional Budget Office report that shows unemployment likely to climb to nearly 9 percent by the election, there’s polling data showing Obama tied or trailing Mitt Romney in the most important swing states (and doing only marginally better against Ron Paul), and there is mounting evidence that the assumption of a decisive Obama fundraising advantage for the fall might be flat wrong,” Vandehei writes.

Over at Gallup, the polling organization reports that in just ten states and the District of Columbia do a majority of those surveyed approve of the job Obama is doing, according to monthly tracking data through 2011.

So if the White House gained a little spring in its step from the latest job figures, it needs to focus on other trends as well.

The Monitor’s Weekly News Quiz for Jan. 27-Feb. 3, 2012

Article source: Source