Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 24, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 634)

producer-price-index-ppi

The Producer Price Index (PPI) reported by the Labor Department Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Labor Department reported on Wednesday the Producer Price Index (PPI) increased 0.1% in the month of January, beating estimates for a decline of 0.2%. The numbers come after PPI fell 0.2% in December. Wholesale producer prices–excluding the volatile food and energy components–rose 0.4%.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the PPI dropping 0.2 percent last month and falling 0.6 percent from a year ago.

The index for final demand services increased 0.5% in January, marking the third straight month of gains. The 4.0% jump in margins for machinery and equipment represented nearly half of the increase in prices for services last month.

Goods prices declined 0.7% after another mirrored drop in December. A key measure of underlying producer price pressures that excludes food, energy and trade services gained 0.2% last month after advancing by the same margin in December.

The so-called core PPI was up 0.8 percent in the 12 months through January.

Table A. Monthly and 12-month percent changes in selected final demand price indexes, seasonally adjusted
Month Total
final
demand
Final
demand
less
foods,
energy,
and
trade
Final demand goods Final demand services Change
in final
demand
from 12
months
ago
(unadj.)
Change
in final
demand
less
foods,
energy,
and
trade
from 12
mo. ago
(unadj.)
Total Foods Energy Less
foods
and
energy
Total Trade Transportation
and
warehousing
Other

2015

Jan.

-0.6 -0.1 -1.9 -0.7 -9.8 0.1 0.1 0.5 -0.8 -0.1 0.0 1.0

Feb.

-0.5 -0.1 -0.3 -1.4 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.7 -0.7 0.1 -0.5 0.8

Mar.

0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.9 0.6 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.3 0.1 -0.9 0.7

Apr.

0.0 0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -2.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.3 0.4 -1.1 0.8

May

0.5 0.0 1.2 1.1 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.8 0.7

June

0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 -0.5 0.8

July

0.1 0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -0.7 0.0 0.3 0.6 -0.1 0.1 -0.7 0.9

Aug.

-0.2 0.0 -0.5 0.2 -2.6 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.9 0.2 -1.0 0.6

Sept.

-0.5 -0.1 -1.0 -0.3 -5.3 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -1.1 0.5

Oct.

-0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.7 -0.2 -0.1 -1.6 0.4

Nov.

0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.2 -1.1 0.3

Dec.

-0.2 0.2 -0.7 -1.4 -3.5 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 0.3 -1.0 0.3

2016

Jan.

0.1 0.2 -0.7 1.0 -5.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 -0.2 0.8

NOTE: Some of the percent changes shown here and elsewhere in this release may differ from those previously reported because seasonal adjustment factors have been recalculated to reflect developments during 2015. In addition, indexes for September 2015 have been recalculated to incorporate late reports and corrections by respondents. All indexes are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

The Labor Department reported on Wednesday the

2016 Nevada Republican Caucus

30 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (Tuesday February 23, 2016)

[election_2016_polls]


Polling Data

[wpdatatable id=27]


Above is table listing the latest 2016 Nevada Republican caucus polls and aggregate PPD polling average. There are 35 delegates up for grabs in the Nevada Republican caucus on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016, which are to be allocated proportionately and bound to candidates based on the caucus vote. Each precinct caucus casts votes for the candidates by secret ballot and chooses the precinct’s delegates to the County Conventions. Caucuses begin from 5 to 7p. Absentee ballots are permitted.

[ssbp]

2016 Nevada Republican Caucus 30 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (Tuesday February 23,

San-Bernardino-shooters

Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, the suspects responsible for the San Bernardino Islamic terror attack. (Photos: AP/EPA)

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) CEO Tim Cook said the company will fight a federal judge’s order to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) get into an iPhone belonging to one of the radical Islamic terrorists responsible for the San Bernardino terror attack last December.

In a statement released early Wednesday, Cook said that even though the company has “no sympathy for terrorists,” what the federal government has asked from them does not exist and is “too dangerous to create.”

“The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” Cook said in the statement. “We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”

The FBI essentially has asked Apple to build a backdoor to the iPhone in order to bypass a security protocol that may or may not have been disabled. When a user attempts 10 times incorrectly to access the iPhone, it disables and locks the user out.

“Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation,” Cook explained. “In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

The ruling Tuesday tied the problem to the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people in a Dec. 2 shooting at a holiday luncheon for Farook’s co-workers. The couple later died in a gun battle with police.

Cook said the company sees a two-fold problem: The threat to data security and settings a dangerous precedent.

Cook on Data Security:

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.”

Cook on Precedent:

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company

Bernie-Sanders-NH-Victory-Speech

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders gives his victory speech in New Hampshire on Feb. 9, 2016. Photo: AP/J. David Ake)

Many people of mature years are amazed at how many young people have voted for Senator Bernie Sanders, and are enthusiastic about the socialism he preaches.
Many of those older people have lived long enough to have seen socialism fail, time and again, in countries around the world. Venezuela, with all its rich oil resources, is currently on the verge of economic collapse, after its heady fling with socialism.

But, most of the young have missed all that, and their dumbed-down education is far more likely to present the inspiring rhetoric of socialism than to present its dismal track record.

Socialism is in fact a wonderful vision — a world of the imagination far better than any place anywhere in the real world, at any time over the thousands of years of recorded history. Even many conservatives would probably prefer to live in such a world, if they thought it was possible.

Who would not want to live in a world where college was free, along with many other things, and where government protected us from the shocks of life and guaranteed our happiness? It would be Disneyland for adults!

Free college of course has an appeal to the young, especially those who have never studied economics. But college cannot possibly be free. It would not be free even if there was no such thing as money.

Consider the costs of just one professor teaching just one course. He or she has probably spent more than 20 years being educated, from kindergarten to the Ph.D., before ending up standing in front of a class and trying to convey some of the knowledge picked up in all those years. That means being fed, clothed and housed all those years, along with other expenses.

All the people who grew the food, manufactured the clothing and built the housing used by this one professor, for at least two decades, had to be compensated for their efforts, or those efforts would not continue. And of course someone has to produce food, clothing and shelter for all the students in this one course, as well as books, computers and other requirements or amenities.

Add up all these costs — and multiply by a hundred or so — and you have a rough idea of what going to college costs. Whether these costs are paid by using money in a capitalist economy or by some other mechanism in a feudal economy, a socialist economy, or whatever, there are heavy costs to pay.

Moreover, under any economic system, those costs are either going to be paid or there are not going to be any colleges. Money is just an artificial device for getting real things done.

Those young people who understand this, whether clearly or vaguely, are not likely to be deterred from wanting socialism. Because what they really want is for somebody else to pay for their decision to go to college.

A market economy is one in which whoever makes a decision is the one who pays for that decision. It forces people to be sure that what they want to do is really worth what it is going to cost.

Even the existing subsidies of college have led many people to go to college who have very little interest in, or benefit from, going to college, except for enjoying the social scene while postponing adult responsibilities for a few years.

Whether judging by test results, by number of hours per week devoted to studying or by on-campus interviews, it is clear that today’s college students learn a lot less than college students once did. If college becomes “free,” even more people can attend college without bothering to become educated and without acquiring re any economically meaningful skills.

More fundamentally, making all sorts of other things “free” means more of those things being wasted as well. Even worse, it means putting more and more of the decisions that shape our lives into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who control the purse strings.

Obamacare has given us a foretaste of what that means in reality, despite how wonderful it may sound in political rhetoric.

Worst of all, government giveaways polarize society into segments, each trying to get what it wants at somebody else’s expense, creating mutual bitterness that can tear a society apart. Some seem to blithely assume that “the rich” can be taxed to pay for what they want — as if “the rich” don’t see what is coming and take their wealth elsewhere.

Many older scholars have lived long enough

Tesla-6-Tesla-Motos

Model 6 | Tesla Motos (Photo: Courtesy of Tesla Motors)

The Tesla S is the closest thing to a totally driverless car available now. I had to leave my state to test-drive it. New York’s archaic laws forbid taking both hands off the wheel.

Once outside New York, the Tesla representative in the passenger seat had me turn on the autopilot.

Suddenly, I was doing nothing. The car drove itself.

Actually, I didn’t do nothing. I hyperventilated. It’s not natural to sit passively while “driving” at 65 mph.

Then came my accident! In a narrow tunnel, the car drifted left, and a tire banged against the side of the tunnel. If I hadn’t quickly grabbed the steering wheel, we would have crashed.

Was the computer-guided car unable to handle a narrow tunnel? No, it turned out the mistake, as usual, was human error — my error. I had nervously touched the steering wheel when we entered the tunnel, and that disengaged the autopilot. The Tesla guy didn’t warn me. Or maybe he did, but I forgot.

Once I learned how the car works, I found the driverless car pretty wonderful, although weird. It’s counterintuitive to trust a computer to handle a car’s sharp turns or stop-and-go traffic.

But it does work. That’s the big point — driverless cars are safer than we drivers are. Ninety-four percent of people killed in car crashes are killed because of human error.

The car’s sensors see when I’m approaching another car. They see better than we do. They are our future, says economist James Miller.

I asked him why drivers should trust the computer. After all, computers crash!

“People know that machines are better than people at a lot of tasks,” was his smart answer. “Our brains are basically machines — but not machines optimized for going 65 miles an hour.” As for “crashing,” he points out that computer buyers aren’t willing to spend extra money for a backup system, but drivers definitely will.

Robot cars may soon save 30,000 lives a year, if bureaucrats let them. It will be a battle. The technology is way ahead of our laws.
Soon after my car was driving itself, I got bored. So I picked up a newspaper.

“Not a good idea, John!” scolded my Tesla copilot. He reminded me that state laws say a human driver must always be “in control.”

It would also be against the law if I had gone to sleep. But someday, that will be an option. Commuting will be much less stressful.

Because robot cars are safer, insurance rates will drop. Some people will still want to drive themselves, and those people will pay a little more. That’s fine, but then our authoritarian government will probably switch gears and ban “dangerous human driving.”

Maybe that will be the libertarian controversy in 2021.

Freedom doesn’t mean doing anything you want. It means, in part, deciding when to give up control and when to retain it. It also means doing nothing that directly harms others. Giving up some control to machines has been a benefit for centuries.

Robot cars will take away jobs from some taxi drivers, truck drivers, delivery men, etc. Unions, The New York Times and maybe Donald Trump will demand laws to “protect” those jobs. But that’s a mistake.

“Experts” always say automation will create unemployment. In 1930, a New York Times headline said: “Economists predict number of men employed will decline.” But the opposite has happened. Forty-six million Americans had jobs when that headline ran; now 150 million do.

Technology did destroy some jobs. Ninety percent of Americans once worked on farms. Now just 2 percent do. Somehow, today those 2 percent grow more food for less money. A hundred million Americans found other jobs.

This is a great thing.

Farm work was grueling, dangerous and time-consuming. Better agricultural technology frees people up to do safer, more interesting jobs. It also allows people more leisure. Think how many things we’re free to do now that we grow food with the help of tractors.

Maybe someday we will look at driving cars the way we now look at farming with a mule.

John Stossel: The Tesla S is the

food-stamp-fraud

For a wide range of reasons, the federal government should get out of the redistribution racket. Welfare programs are costly, but they’re also not among the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

But for those who don’t care whether the nation abides by its legal rule book, there’s also a very compelling argument that better policy can be achieved by ceding responsibility for anti-poverty initiatives to state and local governments.

As shown by the 1996 welfare reform, you’re likely to get changes that are good for both taxpayers and poor people. We even see some glimmers of progress now that states have more ability to police the fraud-riddled food stamp program.

The Heritage Foundation recently published a report on what happened in Maine when the state started to impose a modest work requirement on childless beneficiaries.

Food stamps is one of the government’s largest means-tested welfare programs, with roughly 46 million participants and costing $80 billion a year. Since 2009, the fastest growth in participation has occurred among able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). …Maine implemented a work requirement for ABAWDs. As a result, their ABAWD caseload dropped by 80 percent within a few months, declining from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.

And here’s a very powerful chart from the study.

food stamps Maine able-bodied

 

Wow, more than 4 out of 5 recipients decided to drop off the rolls rather than get a job.

Which shows that they never needed the handouts in the first place, already had a job in the shadow economy, or got a new job.

Investor’s Business Daily summarizes the situation with characteristic clarity.

The number of childless, able-bodied adult food stamp recipients in a New England state fell by 80% over the course of a few months. This didn’t require magic, just common sense. …This is a remarkable change and needs to be repeated in government programs across the country. How Maine achieved this is no mystery. Gov. Paul LePage simply established work requirements for food stamp recipients who have no dependents and are able enough to be employed.

This type of reform should be replicated, with big savings for taxpayers and even bigger benefits for those who shake off the emotionally crippling burden of dependency and become self sufficient.

The Heritage report says that if the Maine policy were repeated nationally, and the caseload dropped “at the same rate it did in Maine (which is very likely), taxpayer savings would be over $8.4 billion per year.” “Further reforms could bring the savings to $9.7 billion per year: around $100 per year for every individual currently paying federal income tax.” On top of the savings, there would be the added benefit of increasing the number of productive members of the economy, and cutting the cycle of government dependence that is ruinous to a society. …putting the able-bodied in position to be self-sufficient is a service to them, helping them shake their soul-strangling dependency on the state.

By the way, Maine isn’t the only state that is trying to be responsible and proactive.

Wisconsin also is taking some modest steps to curtail dependency. Here are some blurbs from a story in the Wisconsin State Journal.

The 2013-15 state budget created a rule for some recipients of the state’s food stamp program known as FoodShare: If you’re an able-bodied adult without children living at home, you must work at least 80 hours a month or look for work to stay in the program. That rule went into effect in April, and between July and September, about 25 percent of the 60,000 recipients eligible to work were dropped from the program when the penalty took effect, according to DHS data.

That’s good news for taxpayers.

But there’s also even better news for some of the recipients.

…about 4,500 recipients found work.

Yup, sometimes a bit of tough love is what’s needed to save people from life-destroying dependency.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that these reforms in Maine and Wisconsin are just drops in the bucket. The federal government mostly has been a destructive force in recent years, working to expand the welfare state (in some cases using utterly dishonest means).

And even when Washington hasn’t been trying to make things worse, many state and local governments are perfectly content to watch federal money flow into the their state, even if the net result is to trap people in poverty.

Which bring us back to the main policy lesson. We need to get Washington out of the business of redistributing income. To the extent government involvement is necessary, state and local governments should be responsible for both raising and spending the money.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Maine and Wisconsin have led the way

homebuilder-housing-reuters

Homebuilders and construction in the housing market. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The National Association of Home Builder’s gauge of homebuilder sentiment slipped to 58 in February from 61 the month prior, the lowest reading since May. Economists had expected a smaller decline to 60 in the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI) for February.

“Though builders report the dip in confidence this month is partly attributable to the high cost and lack of availability of lots and labor, they are still positive about the housing market,” said NAHB Chairman Ed Brady, a home builder and developer from Bloomington, Ill. “Of note, they expressed optimism that sales will pick up in the coming months.”

The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI) gauges builder perceptions of current single-family home sales and sales expectations for the next six months as “good,” “fair” or “poor.” The survey also asks builders to rate traffic of prospective buyers as “high to very high,” “average” or “low to very low.”

The HMI component measuring sales expectations in the next six months gained by just one point to 65 in February, while the index measuring current sales condition fell 3 points to 65. The component for buyer traffic dropped 5 points to 39.

“Builders are reflecting consumers’ concerns about recent negative economic trends,” said NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. “However, the fundamentals are in place for continued growth of the housing market. Historically low mortgage rates, steady job gains, improved household formations and significant pent up demand all point to a gradual upward trend for housing in the year ahead.”

Meanwhile, all four regions saw their three-month moving averages for the regional HMI register slight declines. The Midwest fell one point to 57, the West registered a 3-point decline to 72 and the Northeast and South each posted a 2-point drop to 47 and 59, respectively.

The National Association of Home Builder’s gauge

Donald Trump Still Winning Cruz’s ‘Courageous Conservatives’ Across Palmetto State

SC-Republican-Primary-Debate

Donald Trump, right, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, left, get into a contentious debate with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, center, caught in the middle at the ninth Republican primary debate in Greenville, South Carolina on Feb. 13, 2016. (Photo: Getty Images)

The likelihood that Donald Trump wins the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday February 20, 2016, is now at its highest level ever on the PPD Election Projection Model. Trump, the national frontrunner and New Hampshire winner, now has a 76% chance to defeat his closest rival Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the Palmetto State.

Unlike other election projection “models,” we’d like to actually explain why that is the case.

In order to understand the players and fundamentals of a South Carolina Republican primary, you have to think of the state as essentially three different regions. The “Northern Up-Country” region of the state is heavily evangelical and helps to propel their share of the electorate to roughly 60%. Voter-rich Greenville County, Spartanburg County and Anderson County hardly resemble the voters in the Eastern Coastal part of the state.

Horry County, where there has been a heavy influx of retirees from the North and Midwest, shares a coastline with Charleston County and Beaufort County, where large numbers of veterans and military families drive the vote. These three counties, along with the less populated Georgetown County, make up the Eastern region of the Palmetto State, though Horry and Georgetown in the past have voted more closely in line with the Up-Country voters.

That has become less true over the last 20 or so years. Nevertheless, in 2012, Mitt Romney received most of his margin from Charleston County and Beaufort County on the Eastern Coastal region.

Richland County, which is located smack dab in the middle of the state, is the only other county that went for Romney when former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s won in a landslide. Worth noting, it shares little in common with the rest of the central part of the state, including the voter-rich counties of Lexington and Aiken. We’ll refer to this region as “Central Palmetto” for the purpose of this analysis.

Now let’s get into the numbers.

As one can imagine, for Sen. Cruz to compete or even defeat Trump in the South Carolina Republican primary, he will have to carry the lion’s share of the Northern Up-Country evangelical vote. Cruz will have to run up the margins among “courageous conservatives” in Greenville County, Spartanburg County and Anderson County in order to offset Trump’s strength in the rest of the state, where Cruz (outside of Horry County) will likely not show very well, at all.

But that’s just not happening and, frankly, hasn’t shown any sign of manifesting over the past six months. As of Tuesday, according to the PPD average of South Carolina Republican primary polls aggregated from 2/10 to 2/15, Trump handily carries these voters by an average 39% to 23%. If that holds, we’re looking at another early call and Trump Thump folks.

The rest of the state just goes downhill for Cruz from there.

Backed by a 24-point margin among moderates, Trump (42%) carries the Eastern Coastal moderates over Ohio Gov. John Kasich (18%), who polls far better than Cruz at an average 4% among these voters.

The Donald also carries every single age group, men (40% to 18%) and women (37.5% to 16.5%), and every single bloc on the ideological spectrum. Republican primary voters who self-identify with the Tea Party, one of the most highly motivated voting blocs in the electorate, back Trump by an average 45.8% to 29% over Cruz.

In a typical year, we would expect Trump to carry Horry County, simply based on the number of migrants from the North and Midwest, where he also draws strong support. But his strengths in the Central Palmetto region (20-plus point margin) coupled with his dominance among “very conservative” and evangelical voters in the Northern Up-Country, make it highly unlikely Cruz (or anyone else for that matter) can win on Saturday.

In fact, Cruz has just a 7% chance of winning the South Carolina Republican primary and, despite him polling in second place, is actually 9 percentage points below Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 16%. Rubio has the backing and organization of some of the most powerful players in the Palmetto State, including the very popular Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy. There are far more big South Carolina power-brokers backing Rubio behind the scenes and he is simply competing in a different lane.

At this point, we find it far more likely that Rubio consolidates that lane than we see Cruz weakening Trump’s base of support.

Pundit’s Perspective

Sure, anything can happen in politics. I get it. Don’t bother to write the email. If I was Donald Trump, I wouldn’t leave the state until Sunday. But, as I repeatedly argue, we at PPD have been the most accurate election projection model on the Internet since our debut in 2014 because we’re “making sense of current events” by “dealing in facts and data,” not wishful thinking.

Absent a complete shift in a six-month strong trend line, Donald Trump will win the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday.

Recent Analysis From the People’s Pundit

http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/analysis/2016/02/11/ted-cruz-problem-courageous-conservatives-voted-donald-trump/

February 16, 2016 – The fundamental problem with the “millions of courageous conservatives” strategy Ted Cruz has staked it all on is that they voted for Donald Trump, not him.


http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/analysis/2016/02/10/new-hampshire-primary-results-reality-check-for-candidates-pundits-media/

February 16, 2016 – At PPD, we deal in facts and data, and our post-New Hampshire primary analysis is nothing short of a reality check for candidates, pundits and the media.


Here's why the likelihood that Donald Trump

manufacturing-reuters

Surveys gauging manufacturing growth or contraction in Empire State. (REUTERS)

The Empire State Manufacturing Survey, the New York Federal Reserve’s gauge of manufacturing activity in the region, remained stuck in contraction territory in February. The gauge came in with a slightly improved reading of -16.64 from -19.37 in January. Economists had expected the Empire State Manufacturing Survey to rise to -10. Readings above 0 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction.

The New York Federal Reserve said the six-month outlook remained weak, with the index for future general business conditions up only slightly from last month’s multi-year low.

Employment levels also remained virtually unchanged from the month prior, as the index for number of employees rose 12 points to -1.0, indicating that employment levels were flat. The average workweek index was also flat at -6.0, suggesting the average workweek shortened.

The prices paid index dropped 13 points to 3, indicating a slight increase in input prices. The prices received index, down nine points to -5.0, suggested a small decline in selling prices.

After falling sharply in January, the six-month outlook showed optimism about future business conditions remained weak. The Empire State Manufacturing Survey did report a small silver lining.

The index for future business conditions rose five points to 14.5. The indexes for future new orders and future shipments recovered somewhat after their steep declines in January, rising modestly to readings in the low 20s. Employment was expected to increase, with the index for expected number of employees climbing to 16.8. The capital expenditures index held steady at 12.9, and the technology spending index edged down to 5.9.

The Empire State Manufacturing Survey, the New

US-Supreme-Court-Getty-Images

An American flag flies at half staff outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo: Brenda Smialowski/AFP/Getty)

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has sparked a debate over if and when the U.S. Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee to replace his conservative voice. Democrats have accused Republicans of using the politics of obstruction to block Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, but the historical record shows they are far more guilty of using such tactics to shape the court.

Below is a list of the longest waits for presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which considers the time the nominee is received in Congress to the end of the Advice and Consent confirmation process. Of the 15 longest, 10 were rightwing or conservative nominees, while only 4 were leftwing Supreme Court nominees and 1 independent nominee.

We’ll explain more below, but those raw numbers are actually very misleading. One of the 4 leftwing Supreme Court nominees was not even held up by obstructionist Republicans playing politics, but rather he was held up due to circumstances that were ultimately more favorable to the Progressive Movement. Yet another leftwing Supreme Court nominee simply wasn’t prioritized by a Democratically-controlled Senate.

You may notice that we’ve considered Melville W. Fuller, who presided over the court when they rightly declared the income tax law unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, a rightwing appointment. While President Grover Cleveland was a Democrat, he was the last of the Bourbon Democrats, who rejected big government and cronyism in favor of free markets and individual liberty.

Further, one of the aforementioned leftwing nominees on the list was nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson. He took a relatively long time to confirm, but that wasn’t the fault of his political opposition. The Democratic Party held a huge 68 to 32 supermajority in the upper chamber. However, he waited in the wind because they were more focused on the War on Poverty than they were on filling the “immediate vacancy” on the court, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently claimed.

Bottom line: While Democrats have sought to once again slap Republicans with the label of obstructionists, the historical record shows the Left has played that role, not the Right.

125 days — Louis D. Brandeis was nominated by Woodrow Wilson and confirmed by a 47-22 vote on June 1, 1916, after 19 public hearings, the first of which was held 12 days after nomination.

108 days — Robert H. Bork was nominated by Ronald Reagan and, though arguably the most qualified man to be considered in at least a century, he was rejected in a 58-42 vote on Oct. 23, 1987. There were 12 public hearings, the first of which Democrats held a whole 70 days after his initial nomination. Bork was the last of about a dozen nominees who were outright rejected by the U.S. Senate.

108 days — Potter Stewart was nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower and confirmed by 70-17 vote on May 5, 1959. Stewart was one of three recess appointments made by a president and all were made by Eisenhower, who was a war hero beloved by the American people but hated by Democrats.

100 days — Abe Fortas was nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson but withdrew after being nominated for chief justice on Oct. 4, 1968. The Congress held 11 public hearings, the first of which was held 15 days after his initial nomination. Worth noting, one of the few nominations by a Democratic president was actually held up by circumstance, not by Republicans playing politics.

100 days — Homer Thornberry was also nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson but withdrew on Oct. 4, 1968. The Senate held 11 public hearings that started 15 days after his nomination.

99 days — Clarence Thomas was nominated by George H.W. Bush and finally confirmed by a 52-48 vote on Oct. 15, 1991. The Senate held 11 public hearings, which didn’t start until 64 days after his nomination. The eventual confirmation of Justice Thomas only came after one of the dirtiest, politically sleazy attempted character assassinations in the history of the Republic.

96 days — Reuben H. Walworth was nominated by John Tyler and his name was withdrawn on June 14, 1844. Tyler, however, was a political independent and his nomination, though withdrawn, was more leftwing statist than conservative textualist.

92 days — Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. was nominated by Richard Nixon and rejected in a 55-45 vote on Nov. 21, 1969. The Democratic, and openly hostile Senate, conducted 8 public hearings, the first of which was 26 days after his nomination.

89 days — William H. Rehnquist was nominated by Ronald Reagan and ultimately confirmed as chief justice in a 65-33 vote on Sept. 17, 1986. The Senate held just 4 public hearings in that time, the first of which was 39 days after his nomination.

87 days — Elena Kagan was nominated by Barack Obama and confirmed by a 63-37 vote on Aug. 5, 2010. The Democratically-controlled Senate held just 4 public hearings, the first of which was 49 days after her nomination. None of the political opposition even raised her past defense of ObamaCare in court on behalf of the administration or sexual orientation at the hearings. Not that we particularly care what that orientation was and is, but these two cases were making their way through the courts at the time, yet many Republicans ultimately joined with Democrats to confirm her.

85 days — Antonin Scalia was nominated by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by a rare 98-0 vote on Sept. 17, 1986. The Senate held just 2 public hearings with the the late and great Justice Scalia, though the first was 42 days after his nomination.

82 days — Samuel Alito, another currently serving conservative justice on the high court, was nominated by George W. Bush and confirmed by a close 58-42 vote on Jan. 31, 2006. The new Democratic Senate held just 5 public hearings, the first beginning 60 days after his nomination.

79 days — Melville W. Fuller was nominated by the great anti-corruption, Bourbon Democrat Grover Cleveland. He was a conservative pick for a conservative president, who was ultimately confirmed by a 41-20 vote on July 20, 1888. While there were no hearings held, the progressives railed against him as a Copperhead—an anti-war Democrat—and published a tract claiming that the “records of the Illinois legislature of 1863 are black with Mr. Fuller’s unworthy and unpatriotic conduct.” Unfortunately, for them, voters had been sick of the new crony, corrupt relationship between government and big business.

79 days — George Harrold Carswell was nominated by Richard Nixon and ultimately rejected in a 51-45 vote on April 8, 1970. The Democrats in the Senate held just 5 hearings that started 8 days after his nomination. They couldn’t wait to send him packing.

78 days – Thurgood Marshall was also nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson and was confirmed by a 69-11 vote on Aug. 3, 1967. After his big landslide, coat-tail-having win, his party held just 5 public hearings before pushing him through. But political opposition wasn’t the problem. He simply took a back seat to the Great Society, and was forced to wait a bit.

The longest vacancy since the court went to nine justices in 1869 was 391 days. After Abe Fortas resigned from the court in 1969, Richard Nixon’s first two replacement nominees were rejected by Democrats in November of 1969 and April of 1970. Worthing noting, if Obama doesn’t get a nominee through, which looks very likely, then the world will not end. The next president would have until March 12, 2017, before the vacancy record would even be broken.

While President Nixon got four nominees through the Senate and eventually on the court, one of which served as chief justice, he also won his election and reelection with mandate-handing landslides at a time when trust/confidence in government institutions, including the Supreme Court, was far higher than it is now. The same can not be said of President Obama or sentiment at the present time.

As previously stated, the last nominee to be outright rejected was Robert H. Bork in 1987, a Reagan pick. He faced 12 brutal hearings and didn’t even get one until 70 days after his nomination. There have been about a dozen nominees who were outright rejected, the vast majority by the Left.

That said, if you read our analysis on Monday, you would know that we aren’t necessarily condemning those tactics. It simply means that the American Left has been willing to fight harder than the Right for what they believe in. Why condemn the Right for doing the same now. That’s the system of government Scalia defended his entire life and, in 2012, he outright told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that he did not want a liberal to replace him.

Democrats have accused Republicans of using the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial