Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, shared the new page on Facebook this morning with the comment: “I’ve spoken a number of times this year on the Fed’s Dual Mandate — a congressional requirement to promote both maximum employment and price stability. We’ve just launched a Dual Mandate site with background information and links to my speeches on the topic.”

The page features graphs of the unemployment rate and changes in consumer inflation since 1999, together with the current projection from the FOMC, the Fed’s policy committee, of what the unemployment rate and inflation rate will be in the next five years. The Fed’s most recent projections, from the start of November, say that the unemployment rate will remain above 7.5 percent through 2013, and the inflation rate will remain below 2 percent during that same time period.

That’s an unacceptably high level of unemployment for Evans, who has said that it’s worth tolerating a higher rate of inflation, up to 3 percent, in order to accelerate a return to full employment.

Evans has been the loudest voice on the FOMC in favor of using monetary policy to stimulate the economy further. In the FOMC’s most recent policy statement, which announced that it would continue to maintain its current level of monetary stimulus, Evans was the lone dissenting vote. He voted against the majority because he favored “additional policy accommodation.”

In a conversation with reporters at the Council on Foreign Relations today, Evans reaffirmed that he is calling for “increasing amounts of policy accommodation” in order to reduce the unemployment rate, which is currently 9 percent. “We ought to be behaving as if there’s a very big problem out there.”

Evans’s vote was the first dissent for further stimulus since December 2007. Since then, all dissenting votes have come from inflation hawks who have opposed the FOMC’s efforts to further stimulate the economy in the wake of the recession. That the vote for further stimulus comes from Evans is particularly noteworthy because all of the dissenting votes against stimulus in the past three years have come from his fellow Federal Reserve Bank presidents on the FOMC.

Seven seats on the FOMC are appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress, but five seats are reserved for presidents of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. As the American Independent has previously reported, these presidents aren’t selected by democratic representatives but rather by the Federal Reserve Banks’ boards of directors, which are predominantly made up of senior business and financial executives.

Some of Evans’s fellow Federal Reserve Bank presidents have made statements indicating they don’t believe that unemployment should be reduced by government at all. In a speech on the same day as the most recent Fed statement, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank president Richard Fisher criticized government efforts at reducing unemployment. ”Pliant fiscal authorities,” Fisher said, “have run out of enabling money.”

Fisher added that were the Federal Reserve to support Congress’ spending by “monetizing their debts”, it would end “in the most ruinous of scenarios, the onset of hyperinflation.” The government must not, Fisher said, “hide under the skirts of the Federal Reserve.”

This is not only a rejection of Evans’ belief that the Federal Reserve should directly undertake more stimulus, it is also a rejection of Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke’s statements at his most recent official press conference that Congress should engage in short-term fiscal stimulus in order to reduce unemployment.

But as the Chicago Fed’s new dual mandate page explains, the Federal Reserve does have a legal obligation to reach maximum employment. The Chicago Fed page quotes exactly where in the Federal Reserve Act the mandate is written:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. [emphasis added]

The most recent FOMC statement is at odds with this mandate, as it currently states in its own projections that unemployment remains unacceptably high, but is simultaneously committed to maintaining policy constant. Moreover, under current policy, inflation is projected to remain under 2 percent, below what it has been in past decades, and talk of “hyperinflation”, or extremely rapid or out of control inflation, is considered by most economists to be a red herring in the debate over whether to stimulate the present day American economy.

Here are the Chicago Federal Reserve’s charts showing unemployment and inflation over the next five years:

Minnesota’s unemployment rate remained at 7.2 percent, slightly less than the nation’s average of 9.1 percent, according to data released by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Thursday.

Source: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

The lackluster numbers were “skewed by the “smoothing” of data that understated the impact of thousands of state employees returning to work en masse,” according to DEED.

But the state did add around 5,800 jobs in the private sector in August, much of the gain coming in the construction industry.

“We have seen state manufacturers, construction companies and other private businesses add more than 42,000 jobs in the past four months,” DEED Commissioner Mark Phillips said in a statement.

Losses in areas like the hospitality industry, which dropped 3,300 jobs last month, evened out the unemployment rate for August.

The state has lost about 2,600 government jobs as local governments tightened their belts. The Mankato area has shown the most job growth in the state this year.

Protesters at a Wednesday Minnesotans for a Fair Economy rally outside Wells Fargo’s Minneapolis office donned huge puppet masks showing the faces of U.S. representatives and their supporters, claiming they’re killing jobs and refusing to give up their “piece of the pie.”

While a crowd of more than 100 called for job creation actors dressed as U.S. Reps. Erik Paulsen, John Kline and Michele Bachmann and one of their corporate sponsors, Wells Fargo MN CEO and Minnesota Chamber of Commerce chair Jon Campbell, “gobbled pies and refused to share a piece with hardworking Minnesotans,” according to a news release.

Participants passed out pie-themed fliers criticizing Wells Fargo donations by its PAC and executives in support of the representatives and others who have pushed federal budgets that would, according to the group, kill jobs in education, health care and throughout the economy with draconian cuts.

The release states that between PAC and employee contributions, Wells Fargo has given more than $5 million to politicians, including at least $8,700 to Bachmann, $12,250 to Kline, and $28,000 to Paulsen. More than $10,000 of donations to Paulsen came directly from the Wells Fargo PAC, with additional money as a personal contribution from Wells Fargo CEO Campbell, according to the release.

“We’ve already been attacked for so long, it seems like it’s getting harder and harder to climb out from the state we’re already in,” Carri Love of New Hope said in the release. Love, who attended the rally, said she has been looking for a job since July 1.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its jobs report for July Friday morning, finding that 117,000 new jobs were created and the unemployment rate dropped very slightly from 9.2 percent to 9.1 percent. However, more people left the labor force than jobs were created.

The private sector added 154,000 new jobs. Government jobs declined by 37,000, showing that state and local governments are still shedding jobs because of lower revenues and as funds from the Recovery Act dry up. However, 23,000 of those job losses were due to the Minnesota government shutdown last month. It takes about 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth, according to the BLS — meaning that even job gains like this are simply not enough to make a dent in the unemployment rate.

However, the employment-population ratio — the number of working-age people who are employed — fell to 58.1 percent, its lowest number since 1983. Such a low number means that many people are still discouraged and have dropped out out of the labor force. The U-6 measure — a broader measure of unemployment including involuntary part-time workers and discouraged workers — remains at just over 16 percent.

The U.S. has regained about 1.8 million of the 8.7 million jobs lost during the recession, according to Bloomberg; adding 117,000 in a month is nowhere near enough to return to a natural unemployment rate of five percent.

The U.S. House passed the tax cut compromise proposed by President Obama on Thursday night, splitting Minnesota’s congressional delegation in strange ways. Staunch conservatives and liberals voted together, albeit for different reasons. The majority of ‘no’ votes came from Democrats. The bill passed by a vote of 277-148 and will now be sent to Obama for a signature.

Voting for the bill were Reps. John Kline, James Oberstar, Erik Paulsen, Collin Peterson and Tim Walz. Voting against the bill were Reps. Michele Bachmann, Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum.

Bachmann opposed the bill because it contained an extension of unemployment benefits that she wanted paid for, while Ellison and McCollum objected to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Before the vote, progressive Democrats offered an amendment to reduce the estate tax exemption so that those with $3.5 million are taxed instead of a cap at $5 million. The amendment would have also raised the estate tax from 35 percent to 45 percent.

Ellison, McCollum and Oberstar voted to increase the estate tax while Walz and Peterson joined the Republicans. That amendment failed.

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve officials said Thursday that the region can expect an increase in employment and little change in unemployment rates in 2011. Businesses in the region are optimistic about an economic recovery, they added, and the Fed’s model for personal income showed an increase is expected in 2011.

“Optimism is back,” Toby Madden, regional economist at the Minneapolis Fed, said in a statement Thursday. “After two years of overall pessimism, businesses expect increased sales, employment and profits. In addition to the survey results, our statistical model predicts increases in income and employment.”

In a video presentation he said, “The mild economic recovery currently underway is expected to warm up in 2011.”

Rob Grunewald, associate economist at the Fed said that businesses are more hopeful for 2011. “Employment levels are expected to increase in all states in the district but unemployment numbers are expected to stay the same. Meanhwile small wage increases are expected.”

The Minneapolis Fed serves Montana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota Western Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

“In Minnesota expect the pace of employment growth to remain the same,” said Grunewald. “Unemplyment rates will remain above historical averages in all states” in the region.

Madden added, “According to the Minneapolis Fed’s forecast models, overall personal income should grow faster in 2011 than 2010. The largest gains are in Minnesota and South Dakota.”

Additionally, the economists said that the overall picture for agriculture in the region looks good.

Here are the video presentations the Fed put out this week:

Supporters of President Obama’s tax cut compromise with GOP Senate leadership defeated a threatened filibuster by mostly liberal Democrats through the use of cloture Monday evening. Minnesota Democratic Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar were among those voting for cloture. The bill could see an up or down vote as soon as today. Klobuchar said she voted to advance the bill because of the middle-class tax cuts contained in it. Franken said he supports the measure reluctantly, citing an extension of unemployment benefits as a key reason for his support.

Klobuchar said in statement following the vote, “I voted to advance the bill because I don’t think the middle class should be socked with a $3,000 average tax increase right now, and while there are parts of the bill I completely disagree with — I supported bringing the taxes on people making more than $250,000 back to the Clinton levels — but in the end the parts that I disagreed with were outweighed by the benefits for the middle class.”

She added, “I also am going to work on getting potentially some debt reduction language in this, or at least I know we’re going to be working on this next year, we have to.”

Franken was a bit less happy with the bill.

“I don’t like extending the excessive Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I don’t like the explosion in the deficit it will create, and I don’t like how the President made this deal. But I would hate even more to see Minnesota families get hurt,” he said. “There’s a lot in here to help create jobs and to help middle-class Minnesotans weather this recession: tax cuts for working families, a payroll tax holiday, energy tax credits, and the extension of Recovery Act initiatives that are already making a difference. And a lot of harm would come to working families if unemployment insurance isn’t renewed. So I’m voting for this reluctantly and will continue to fight passionately to get our economic policies on the right track.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann told radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday that President Obama “flat out lied” during his press conference on the tax cut plan he’s negotiating with Republicans. The 6th District Republican seemed to take issue with Obama’s assertion that Republicans oppose tax cuts for the middle class — the party voted against them in the House last week because the Democrats didn’t include a tax cut for the nation’s wealthiest — and said Obama’s speech was “highly partisan, bitter, angry.”

“I understand the desire for a fight, ” Obama said on Tuesday. “I’m sympathetic to that. I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years. In the long run, we simply can’t afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.”

He later added, “Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is — seems to be their central economic doctrine.”

“I watched the president’s press conference afterwards,” Bachmann told Levin. “He was highly partisan, bitter, angry; he made contradictory statements. He made odd statements. He said, for instance — and I wrote ‘em down –the Republicans want to end middle-class tax cuts. I thought, are you kidding me? The Republicans want to end middle-class tax cuts?”

“He said that it’s his job to grow the economy,” she said. “He made one, kinda, odd statement after the other. And he said that Republicans oppose various credits for the middle class. Those are flat out lies! And then he said that it is our ‘holy grail’ to be able to stand for tax cuts for the wealthy. So he is continually setting up ‘Marxist economics.’”

She continued, “He’s already laid out his game plan for the next two years. He’s gonna drive harder on this class warfare argument and I think a lot of people are going to get really tired of him because he’s supposed to represent all Americans — not be about punishing success. And that, fortunately, does get tiring after a while, to hear someone continually punishing success.”

Bachmann has been critical of Obama’s tax cut plan, saying that it will cost too much money. She defended the Republican-backed unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy on Fox News on Wednesday while criticizing the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits as contributing to the deficit.

“We’re pleased to see that we’re looking at a two percent reduction in the payroll tax, what we normally call the Social Security tax for employees,” she said. “What this will mean is a decrease in revenue for the Social Security Trust Fund. That will, again, add to the deficit going forward. So both of these measures that President Obama is proposing will actually have a cost towards increasing the deficit.”

She said that the Bush tax cuts do not increase the deficit because people get to keep their own money. “It’s curious to me that they say there’s a cost involved when people are allowed to keep their own money. And they’re talking about Americans being able to keep $700 billion of their own money. The cost is to the Treasury, but really it’s a cost out of the American peoples’ pockets. So that’s a definition of terms.” She added, “The real cost will be in the outlay of unemployment benefits and in the reduction to the treasury in the Social Security taxes.”

Here’s a clip of the interview:

Despite coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Betty McCollum have found something to agree on: that President Obama’s compromise with Republicans over extending tax cuts and unemployment benefits is a bad idea. McCollum said that the plan does little to help middle-class families, while Bachmann complains that an extension of jobless benefits will add to the deficit. Rep. Keith Ellison, as part of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also weighed in on the measure.

“This is a deal that will continue to explode the deficit while the rich get richer and struggling middle-class families get crumbs,” said McCollum, who says she’ll cast a no vote. “The Republicans successfully held unemployed Americans hostage to give even more tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. This plan is irresponsible, and I will oppose it.”

Bachmann said that the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent.

“Certainty must be provided to individuals, businesses large and small, farmers, and everyone impacted by the tax code,” she said. “I called for the current tax rates to be made permanent for all Americans, but it appears a compromise for a two-year extension will be the temporary solution.”

The 6th Congressional District Republican said she would not support an extension of unemployment benefits if they aren’t paid for. (The extension of Bush tax cuts are not paid for either, as Sen. Al Franken noted over the weekend).

“As part of the compromise, the President wants to extend unemployment benefits for another 13 months,” Bachmann said. “Unemployment benefits are already at a historical length of 99 weeks, and the President’s request would push benefits to three years. The President hasn’t indicated any other spending offsets or reductions to pay for these benefits, even though he claims to be committed to reducing the deficit.”

Rep. Keith Ellison, along with fellow Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul M. Grijalva, released this statement about the tax cut deal:

We call on our Congressional leaders in the House and Senate to hold firm on passing a middle class tax cut with no strings attached. We also call on Congressional Republicans to stop using unemployed Americans as bargaining chips in exchange for another tax break for the wealthy.

Tax breaks for billionaires don’t create jobs. The George W. Bush Presidency and the Republican recession are proof of that. Giving rich people more money just for being rich does nothing to help the economy, in fact, serves only to exacerbate our problems. No amount of Republican rhetoric can change that fact.

We simply cannot afford to borrow another $700 billion to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who aren’t paying their fair share, especially when there are millions of Americans still looking for work. Just 1 percent of that $700 billion would pay for almost 142,000 elementary school teachers for an entire year. That money should be used to create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, and educate our children — not for the wealthy to buy more yachts.

We agree with the President that there is no time to delay – the recovery is fragile, and American families are hurting. We need to make the right decisions right now to boost our economy. The unemployment crisis is a harsh reality for millions of Americans and giving more money to the super rich won’t do anything to solve it.

This holiday season should be about supporting middle class Americans, not another taxpayer funded present for the wealthy.

The U.S. House just passed an extension of federal unemployment benefits, as the U.S. Senate did Wednesday night. The bill now moves on to President Barack Obama, who will likely sign the benefits into law today or tomorrow morning.

The package does not create new benefits, or re-up the $25-a-week Federal Additional Compensation, added to many employment insurance checks. Rather, the $34 billion bill restores benefits that sunsetted on June 2, and extends them through Nov. 30. Jobless workers can expect their checks in the next two to four weeks — depending on the state. The federal benefits come into effect after a worker has exhausted his state benefits, after 26 weeks, and provide up to 99 weeks of additional unemployment insurance — depending on the unemployment rate in the worker’s state.

The passage ends a two-month stalemate, with Senate and House Democrats attempting to push through a number of bills to restore benefits to 2.6 million Americans, as 300,000 a week lost their checks. Republicans did not object to extending benefits, but objected to adding to the deficit to supply them; Democrats pushed for emergency spending, not subject to normal paygo rules, hoping to add to the overall stimulus as the recovery sags.