Apologies in advance — this is not much of a diary.  I haven’t written one in a while so I guess I’m a bit out of practice.  This is more of a rant.  I realize this is a bit of a breach of posting protocol, but sometimes you just need to vent.

While browing RCP I came across the following linked article by John Hayward at Human Events regarding ObamaCare.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50081

The article itself is short and to the point, but it sets up the embedded video in which Senator Ron Johnson (R – WI) is questioning Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about revised ObamaCare cost estimates that appeared in his recently proposed budget (that will never be passed, or course).

The payoff is in the first two minutes.  During that time span, while Senator Johnson questions her about cost, by my count, at least four times Secreatry Sebelius basically says she does not know or has no idea what the cost estimates / savings are (or were).  She either hems or haws or defers to Senator Johnson by saying she “assumes” his figures are correct.

How could you not know?  You are in front of the Appropriations subcommittee.  What did you think they were going to ask you?

And then it hit me.  Sebelius and Obama and many others in this administration literally do not care about cost and expense.   You can see it on her face that she is annoyed with the line of questioning.  You can almost hear the thoughts in her head (“Pish-posh.  Numbers schmumbers.”).

Until now, while I was always disturbed by the runaway freight train of spending we’ve witnessed by the administration, I still thought they actually believed some of their fairy tale rhetoric.  Whether it was that we could solve the deficit through additional taxation of the rich.  Or the federal coffers would be just fine once the economy recovered because we would get growth of 50% per quarter.  Or aliens would come down from space to buy our shiny new green technology giving us a financial boom like we’ve never seen.  Never going to happen, but I thought they at least believed it themselves (or at least sort of, because surely no one could think that we can sustain this spending pattern).

But now I see that they really don’t care.  Costs be damned.  We’ve got programs we’re going to implement.

Full disclosure  — I am an accountant and CPA (inactive), so this likely disturbs me more than most, but I am officially terrified, particularly when I consider what they might try to push in a second term with no worries about a re-election campagin.  Like all good liberals, they know they just have to get their foot in the door.  Once a program is entwined in the government fabric, it’s almost impossible to disentangle.

Yikes.

As is my usual practice on Mondays, last week I went to my parents for dinner after work.  While watching the news and Ground Zero Mosque coverage, my mother relayed a story that for her captured the feelings of, I believe, all of us who oppose the building at that particular site.

Near the neighborhood I grew up in as a child there had been two families, one with a little girl and the other with a little boy.  The children were of approximately the same age and were friends and played together often.

One day the two children were playing at the boy’s house and he got into his father’s gun cabinet.  In a cruel twist of irony, the boy’s father was a gunsmith.  I don’t know if he regularly kept his cabinet unlocked, or that on this particularly tragic day he just failed to secure it.  But the gun went off and the girl was shot.  She lingered in the hospital for a bit, but infection set in and she later died.  It breaks the heart.

Shortly afterwards the boy’s family moved away.

They did so not because they didn’t have a right to live in that neighborhood.  They did so not because the rest of the neighborhood was in their yard with torches and pitchforks.  They did so not because the little girl’s family demanded they leave. 

They did so because they knew what their ongoing presence in that neighborhood would mean to the little girl’s family.  Nothing was ever going to bring their little girl back, but every time they saw the boy’s parents or the boy himself, it would be like re-living that awful day again and again.

Striking.

With the primaries nearly done and the November matchups clearly taking shape, I think there are a couple of simple messages / strategies for the Repblicans.

1. Related to the Ground Zero mosque, I believe that until they cancel plans to build it in its current location, this will continue to be an issue through election day.  However, the GOP should not make this about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.  I don’t like his comments about the US being an “accessory” to 9/11, but he is incidental to this story.  It’s not about him.  It’s about the building itself.  I don’t care who was proposing that building, it should not be in that location.  Muslim terrorists around the world will see a building at that site as a victory nearly a decade after bringing down the twin towers.  The more the candidates and GOP pundits make it about Rauf, the more they play into the elitist talking points about this being a matter of religious persecution and Islamophobia.
2. Republicans should not touch questions regarding the recent poll that showed 18% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim (up from previous poll of 11%).  MSM is also trying to turn that story into one of Islamophobia and GOP-induced fear mongering.  Republicans should not feed into this and should not allow MSM to bait them.  If asked, they should just say, “The President says he is Christian, and I’ll take him at his word.”
3. I’ve seen a number of stories showing that Democrats who are up for re-election are running away from Obama and his agenda.  Republicans should attack this strategy aggressively.  “Beware the Democrat who runs to the right.”  If the health care fight taught us anything it was that, when push comes to shove, Nancy and Harry will force their iron will upon their members.  The Dems will vote the way they are told to vote. 
4. Regarding Obama’s economic car metaphor of Republicans having driven the economy into a ditch and now wanting the keys back, Republicans need to challenge his timeline.  He will always bring up the eight Bush years.  However, his party took over Congress in January 2007.  We went into recession in December 2007.  So they definitely had one firm hand on the proverbial economic steering wheel for Bush’s last two years, but few pundits ever bring this up.  If Democrats want to claim that the damage had already been done at that point, Republicans should ask if they were that charitable in March 2001.  Bush came into office in late January 2001 and we went into recession that March.  Democrats instantly blamed that on Bush, ignoring that it is impossible to drive an economy into recession in 1.5 months.  Would current Democrats admit that Bush, dare I say, “inherited” a recession from Bill Clinton?
5. Republicans need to defang the Dems predictable class warfare strategy  (e.g. – trying to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top two tax brackets).  Republicans should emphasize the entire populace is in this economic environment together and we make no progess by playing favorites (like say, the unions and the benefits they got from auto bailouts, stimulus, etc.). 
6. Put some meat on those bones.  Keep it simple but come together with some cohesive plans that you can roll out across the country.  If you make it all about Obama, Nancy, and Harry’s agenda you play into the “party of no” mantra.
7. Keep Michael Steele on the sidelines.  I’m sorry Michael.  I’ve tried giving you the benefit of the doubt time and time again, but your equivocation of the Arizona immigration law this week was the last straw.  You’re not helping the cause.

My $.02.

As an accounting / finance type I am, by nature, a cautious fellow.  I like fixed rate loans so that I know what I’m paying every month.  I drive defensively.  I read my e-mails at work 3 or 4 times before sending them. 

Within that framework, however, I am still cautiously optimistic about the upcoming elections and the prospects for a conservative resurgence (as best embodied by the GOP, although the GOP has disappointed me in some areas).  I’m not as optimistic as Bill Kristol is in his piece here at The Weekly Standard where he says a 60 seat pickup in the House is possible (although Mr Kristol has always struck me as a cautious optimist himself).  I also don’t think there is any way the GOP will take over the Senate.  Too many things would have to break their way.  I would be thrilled to get 46 – 47 seats (besides, in 2012 a staggering 26 Dem senators are up for re-election.  That’s when the GOP can really make it’s senatorial push). 

Broadly speaking, however, I think it will be a good November 2.

But then I read a story like this.  So Rep. Jack Kingston’s (Ga.) appering on “America’s Morning News” says that Sarah Palin should stay out of the Republican primaries because she “….is dividing the Republican Party at a time when we don’t need to be divided”.

Now I appreciate that Palin is a divisive personality.  There seems to be little middle ground with people either loving her or hating her (put me squarely in the “loving her” camp).  However, if you’re in the GOP, throwing out red meat quotes like that to the MSM does you no good, whether you agree with her endorsements or not.  Furthermore, love her or hate her, there is no denying that she has injected a lot of enthusiasm and vitality into a party that sorely needs it.  I would also say she serves as a constant reminder to the GOP that they need to return to their conservative roots, as opposed to the Washington-established GOP that is often indistinguishable from the Dems.  So don’t be stupid Congressman Kingston.

Then there is Ben Quayle.  The son of former VP Dan Quayle is running for Congress In Arizona.  I’m not going to speak to the side show of whether or not he was involved with some racy web site.  He denies it.  I’m not interested enough to care.  That will sort itself out one way or another.  However, on a more national note, he recently ran an ad calling Barack Obama “…the worst President in history”.

It’s not that I necessarily disagree with him, but throwing out broad inflammatory rhetoric like that once again does not help.  The American public will render that verdict but having you put it in an ad just makes you sound like the nutty left when speaking about George W.  Also, it doesn’t help when you’re Dan Quayle’s son.  VP Quayle was treated miserably by the press and was made out to be a cartoonish buffoon for a couple of innocuous gaffes during his 4-year tenure (most notably correcting a grade school child’s spelling of the word “potato” and incorrectly changing it to “potatoe”.  Horrors.).  But if you take all of Dan Quayle’s gaffes in his 4 years as VP and add them up, what you end up with is a pretty average week for Joe Biden.  Be that as it may, the lasting impression, of VP Quayle is not a favorable one in most American’s minds, and his son throwing out statements like this one about Obama is only going to dredge up old history and bad jokes about the former VP.  If nothing else, Ben, your Dad didn’t need this.  Don’t be stupid.

Those are two stories that were prominently featured this week (along with the concocted GQ story about Rand Paul supposedly “kidnapping” a girl while in college and forcing her to do drugs.  The woman has since come forward and refuted the story (dare I say, “refudiated” the story.  Tip of the cap to Sarah.))  This in a week when Harry Reid made another round of racist comments, unemployment claims went up further, the market took a dive, the controversy over the 9/11 mosque heated up, etc.  Good to know the MSM has its priorities straight.

Furthermore, I am disturbed by what I am starting to see as overconfidence bordering on arrogance coming out of the GOP regarding the elections.  I’m seeing too many stories that seem to assume they will take over the house.  I’m seeing some politicians acting like they already have been given a mandate by the public. 

Also, the GOP strategy heading into the elections seems to be one of trying to run out the clock.  Bash Obama.  Point out the weaknesses in the economy and his unpopular agenda.  Now vote for the GOP.  That’s not good enough.  You’ve got to stand for something other than platitudes.  Few have shown the courage of a Paul Ryan in actually laying out a budget proposal with his fiscal “roadmap” (special kudos to Ryan for going mano a mano with Paul Krugman of the NYT over his plan and pounding him into submission).  Or how about showing some “cojones” (one more tip of the cap to Sarah) like Chris Christie in taking on the unions?

So I remain optimistic, yet cautious.  I still think there are those in the GOP who can find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Just don’t be stupid.

The weekend news programs have been afire with Michael Steele’s Afghanistan comments, and to some degree, rightly so.  Before that there was Joe Barton’s BP comments.  The MSM also tried taking John Boehner’s “ant” comments out of context, but that one didn’t have legs.

So while the MSM is working overtime to bring GOP controversies to the forefront, they are working just as hard to ignore stories that don’t reflect well on the Dems.  Obviously for anyone on this site, this is not news, but there are some whoppers out there.  Not even counting Joe Biden’s latest gaffes (after all, that’s just “Joe being Joe”), there are 3 huge stories being roundly ignore by the media.  I’m listing them in what I consider to be order of importance.

Exhibit #1 : Former DOJ attorney goes public about corruption behind the dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation case.   Former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams resigned from the department in protest.  He has accused others at the DOJ of lying under oath about the Black Panther case and has said that there is a standing order to not prosecute any such election disputes in the future.  On its surface, Mr. Adams appears legitimate.  He has a clean record.  He was not fired.  He does not appear to have any ax to grind, except that he seems to have integrity.  Remember the relentless Dem attacks against Alberto Gonzalez that led to his eventual resignation (despite the fact the only thing they proved was that the DOJ has sloppy personnel recordkeeping procedures)?  This is a huge story, or it should be.

Exhibit 2 : Dems refuse to pass a budget prior to the November elections.  Granted, budgets are not a sexy topic, but in this current environment of reckless spending you need one, to at least gauge how far over your limits you are spending.  With no guidelines in place, do you think spending in Washington will go up or down?  Yeah, I thought so.  Dems are once again using their “Inside Baseball” strategy here thinking that no one is going to pay attention.  Per the linked article above. Rep Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Northern Virginia said just as much by saying, “Name one person who won or lost an election because they didn’t get a budget resolution passed. It’s totally inside baseball.”  We should make that change this November.  But the MSM has decided this is not a story, so they’re not reporting it.

Exhibit #3 : Al Gore sexual assault case re-opened.  This is sleazy.  It is embarrassing for the country for the former Vice President of the United States (and almost President) to be accused of such a crime.   I’m sure the MSM would say, “Well, Al Gore has no official capacity any longer.  He’s a private citizen, so there is no reason to cover this.”  That’s essentially what they did on the John Edwards story.  However, I know what would be happening if this was Dick Cheney.  Reporters would be camped out at his house.  We would be hearing all sorts of heart attack jokes.   But Al Gore has been an MSM darling because of his environmental stance (despite the fact his carbon footprint would make Big Foot blush), so he gets a pass.  As the linked article above states, the MSM had no problem heavily covering the alleged affairs involving Nikki Haley.

Power of the MSM to nudge the news the way it wants really hit home yesterday.  I was talking to my sister from out of town to wish her a Happy July 4.  She is not politically motivated.  In fact, she regularly gets annoyed with me for pushing her on the subject.  On her personal blog months ago when writing about her good acts during the Easter Lenten season, she wrote of forgiving me for always pushing her to become a Republican.  However, in talking to her yesterday, one of the first things she brought up to me was Michael Steele.  So she had heard plenty about that.  I asked her about the above three topics.  She had heard a little about Al Gore, but didn’t know any details.  She knew nothing of the other two topics.

The point is that political aficionados like ourselves on this site will usually be aware of the under-reported stories, but the MSM is targeting the very casual news gatherers.  The people who may only vote every 2 years (or maybe only every 4 years).

As others have opined on this site, GOP needs to wake up when it comes to the media.  Can’t play nice.  Can’t try to be their friend.  The MSM is a third-party media arm of the Dems and that is the agenda they will push.  Basically, they need to realize what people on this site knew long ago.

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):          (125,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):           433,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):             313,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):           208,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       39,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in January 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         14,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):    (109,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       64,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (224,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (225,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (212,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (346,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (515,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (387,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (528,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (753,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (726,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                                (3,079,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                       7,079,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Job losses came in at (125,000) in June. May figures were increased just slightly from 431,000 to 433,000, while final April numbers were revised higher from 290,000 to 313,000 jobs gained for the month.

The losses for the month ended a streak of five consecutive months with job growth.  The losses included the dismissal of about 225,000 temporary census workers, whose previous hiring had somewhat propped up the jobs data in earlier months (e.g. – in May, census workers accounted for 411,000 of the 433,000 gain in jobs).  Private sector hiring was an anemic 83,000 in June, which was still an improvement from May but not a good result for an economy that is supposed to be in recovery mode. Wall Street was unimpressed at the job numbers with the Dow shedding 46 points to close at a new low for 2010 of 9,686.

Unemployment rate as of : June 2010, 9.5%

May 2010, 9.7%

April 2010, 9.9%

March 2010, 9.7%

February 2010, 9.7%

January 2010, 9.7%

December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate decreased to 9.5% in June, the lowest rate of the year.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) inched down to 16.5%, versus May’s 16.6%.

Unfortunately, the dip in unemployment rate is not really good news as the drop is again caused by discouraged workers quitting their job searches and thus not being included in the unemployment rates calculations.  In June, 652,000 such people left the workforce pool. 

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This month is a prime example of such a case as the economy lost (125,000) jobs, but yet the unemployment rate went down by 0.2%.

Reaction from economists appeared fairly downbeat.  While most seem to agree that the last couple months of job reports don’t indicate the country is heading for a double-dip recession, the lack of private sector growth seems to characterize an economy stuck in neutral.  Here’s a good summary of the highlights of the jobs report from The Wall Street Journal.  First quarter GDP was recently revised down to only 2.7%.  That would be a decent number in the midst of a long expansion, but it’s a weak result for an economy supposedly in recovery and coming off a low base.  If GDP growth does not strengthen, there’s no reason to expect robust job hiring.  Many employers also seem to be sitting on stockpiles of cash, but are unwilling to invest because of the specter of additional taxation and regulation looming on the horizon. 

Of course, if you listen to Nancy Pelosi, unemployment is a good thing.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the job losses from its early months should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  We have now lost over 3 million jobs since he took office, and if we gain those back to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):           431,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):           290,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):           208,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       39,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in January 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         14,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):    (109,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       64,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (224,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (225,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (212,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (346,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (515,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (387,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (528,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (753,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (726,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                                (2,979,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                       6,979,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Job gains came in at 431,000 in May. April figures were unchanged, and March numbers were revised lower from 230,000 to 208,000 jobs gained for the month.

While on the surface the May job growth was the best result since March 2000, it was almost all the result of further temporary hires by the US Census Bureau for the 2010 census (411,000).  Those jobs will start going away next month as the census activity begins to wind down.  Wall Street was immediately spooked Friday by the lack of private-sector growth with the Dow having its third worst day of the year, falling 324 points to end below 10,000 at 9,931.

Unemployment rate as of : May 2010, 9.7%

April 2010, 9.9%

March 2010, 9.7%

February 2010, 9.7%

January 2010, 9.7%

December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate decreased to 9.7% in May, the same rate it held for the first three months of the year before ticking up to 9.9% last year.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) fell to 16.6%, versus April’s 17.1%.

Dip in unemployment rate seems to be for the opposite reasons of last month’s small increase.  In April, the increase in the unemployment rate was largely attributed to discouraged workers getting off the sidelines and re-entering the job seeking arena, and thus being included in the unemployment rate calculations.  In May, unfortunately, the decline is not because of sufficient hiring, but workers largely leaving the labor force.

 It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  April was a prime example of such a case as the economy added 290,000 jobs, but yet the unemployment rate went up by 0.2%.

Reaction from economists was mixed.  Some seem to think that this report was just a bump in the road of a modest but solid recovery, while others seem to indicate that this is another reminder of the very fragile state of the broader economy.  Here’s a good summary of the highlights of the jobs report from The Wall Street Journal. 

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the job losses from its early months should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  We have now lost over 3 million jobs since he took office, and if we gain those back to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):           290,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):        230,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       39,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in January 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         14,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):    (109,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       64,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (224,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (225,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (211,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (344,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (504,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (347,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (582,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (753,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (726,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                                (3,388,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                       7,388,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Job gains came in at 290,000 in April, the best showing in about four years.  Additionally, another 121,000 jobs were added as a result of revising both February and March results.

While job growth in April did include 66,000 of temporary hires in the federal Census Bureau to assist in the 2010 census, there was still broad-based, though modest, growth in almost all other sectors.  The only major sector that lost jobs was Information Services.  Manufacturing added 44,000 jobs, the best result in about 12 years. 

Unemployment rate as of : April 2010, 9.9%

March 2010, 9.7%

February 2010, 9.7%

January 2010, 9.7%

December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate increased to 9.9% in April.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) stood at 17.1%, up from March’s 16.9%.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This month is a prime example of such a case as the economy added 290,000 jobs, but yet the unemployment rate went up by 0.2%.

The increase in the unemployment rate, despite the overall addition of jobs, signals that many people who have been sitting on the sidelines, and thus not included in the unemployment rate calculation, are trying again (labor force grew by about 805,000 in April per the Household Survey).  This could lead to further increases in the rate in future months.  It’s a bit of a good news / bad news scenario.  On the positive side, it indicates that people are encouraged to start looking for jobs, but on the bad side, the overall market is still tight and it’s unlikely the unemployment rate is gong to come down significantly any time soon.

Here’s a good summary of the highlights of the jobs report from Fox business.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the job losses from its early months should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  We have now lost over 3 million jobs since he took office, and if we gain those back to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):          162,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):     (14,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in January 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         14,000

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):    (109,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       64,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (224,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (225,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (211,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (344,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (504,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (347,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (582,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (753,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (726,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                                (3,799,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      7,799,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Job gains came in at 162,000 in March, the best showing in three years, although a bit below consensus estimates.  In other encouraging signs, final January numbers were revised from a loss of (26,000) to a gain of 14,000, and February losses were reduced from (36,000) to (14,000).

Job growth in March was somewhat propped up by continued temporary hiring in the federal Census Bureau to assist in the 2010 census (about 48,000 hires in March).  These jobs will end in the third quarter of the year once the census is complete.  The numbers within the various sectors also showed a positive trend for the month as even some of the hardest-hit industries showed some growth this month, such as construction (+15,000 jobs) and manufacturing (+17,000).

Unemployment rate as of : March 2010, 9.7%

February 2010, 9.7%

January 2010, 9.7%

December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.7% in February.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) stood at 16.9%, ticking up slightly from February’s 16.8%. .

Link to March 2010 Release of Unemployment Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This month is a prime example of such a case as the economy added 162,000 jobs, but yet the unemployment rate was unchanged.

Here’s a collection of reactions on the job numbers from leading economist as compiled by the Wall Street Journal.  Generally, the tone seems upbeat, but cautious.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  We have now lost 4 million jobs since he took office, and if we gain those back to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):       (36,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in January 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):       (26,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):    (109,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       64,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (224,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (225,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (211,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (344,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (504,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (347,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (582,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (753,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (726,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                               (4,023,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      8,023,000

Job losses came in at (36,000) in February, a bit better than most estimates which expected steeper losses for the month.  Final December losses were revised to an improved (109,000) from (150,000), and January was slightly revised to losses of (26,000) from the earlier (20,000).

Within the various employment sectors, the job news continued to be mixed for the month.  The construction industry lost (64,000) jobs, the information industry lost (18,000), while manufacturing and retail were flat.  Temporary help services did add 48,000 workers in February.  Temporary hires are often viewed as a prelude to permanent hires and regarded as a good sign by some.  The federal government also began ramping up hiring for the 2010 census by hiring 15,000 temporary workers.  The government intends to hire about a million people for temporary work involving the census in 2010.

Unemployment rate as of : February 2010, 9.7%

January 2010, 9.7%

December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.7% in February.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) stood at 16.8%, up from January’s 16.5%.  The change likely indicates an uptick in discouraged workers who have given up looking for work which stood at 1.2 million in February.

Link to February 2010 Release of Unemployment Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  January 2010 is a prime example of such a case as the economy shed 20,000 jobs, but yet the unemployment rate improved by 0.3%.

February’s figures seem to reinforce recent trends that would indicate that the unemployment rate may have hit its peak in October 2009, and that the worst of the layoffs may be over.  There is also the possibility that February’s snowstorms may have also had an additional negative impact on the figures, and in their absence, we could have even seen some growth for the month.  In her monthly release on the jobs data, Christina Romer, Obama’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the storms caused 100,000 in job losses.  However, others seem to feel that the opposite could be true in that the blizzards limited the reporting data.

On the downside, companies seem to be in no rush to hire new employees, and even the most optimistic forecasts show only modest job growth in the coming months. So, unlike Harry Reid, most prognosticators are reserving judgment.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  We have now lost 4 million jobs since he took office, and if we gain those back to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in January 2010 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):       (20,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):  (150,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):       64,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (224,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (225,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (211,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (344,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (504,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (347,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (582,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (753,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (726,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                             (4,022,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      8,022,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Job losses came in at (20,000) in January, a figure slightly worse than most estimates for a slight gain to flat results for the month.  Above data includes revisions for all of 2009 which show job losses to be much steeper than originally estimated.  With the revisions, the economy has now lost 8.4 million jobs since the current recession began in December 2007, sharply up from a previous figure of 7.2 million.

Looking deeper inside the numbers there is certainly some cause for cautious optimism as retail sector added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007.  Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs.  That could be an encouraging sign as employers often hire temporary workers before full time employees.  The manufacturing sector even added 11,000 jobs, its first gain since April 2006.  Still, on a broader basis, employers appear to be reluctant to hire, raising concern that employment will drift while companies wait to see more assurances that the recovery has taken hold, particularly once some of the government incentives offered in 2009 begin to fade.

Unemployment rate as of : January 2010, 9.7%

December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate dropped to 9.7% in January.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) also improved to 16.5% from 17.3% in December.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  January 2010 is a prime example of such a case as the economy shed 20,000 jobs, but yet the unemployment rate improved by 0.3%.

Obama lost no time in pouncing on the improvement in the unemployment rate, saying “we are climbing out of the huge hole that we found ourselves in.”  Clever bit of wordsmithing there as he both complimented himself and indulged his favorite pastime of blaming the Bush administration.  Despite the optimism, Obama’s own budget as just submitted does not offer a rosy employment picture as it predicts a 9.8 unemployment rate by the end of the year. 

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Over the holidays the Obama administration had a very quiet release of a change in how jobs will be counted to track the success (or failure as the case may be) of the stimulus program.

Recall that the administration had always claimed that they were counting jobs created or “saved”.  That “saved” part was getting them into trouble.  In October, they came up with their first comprehensive count of jobs created or “saved”, claiming about 640,000 jobs.

Two problems with their estimates:

First there is the reality of mounting actual job losses and the growing unemployment rate.

Secondly, there were numerous reports of overcount, double-counts, and even imaginary counts from non-existent congressional districts.

Fortunately, the administration has recognized the error of its ways and released these new counting standards.

But here’s the rub, Recovery Act recipients have now been told to report all jobs funded with stimulus money.  It doesn’t matter of it is a new job or an existing one.  It doesn’t matter if the job was safe and at no risk of being eliminated.  Just count’em all.

Shockingly, the Obama administration is now claiming that the estimate of jobs created or “saved” has skyrocketed to about 2 million.    Well, perhaps it’s not that shocking, when you get to count everything.

Unbelievable.

Jobs gained / (lost) in December 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):    (85,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):     4,000   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):         (127,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (139,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (154,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (304,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (681,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                             (3,423,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      7,423,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Job losses came in at (85,000) in December, a figure worse than most analysts’ estimates.  However, the November job estimate was actually revised to a gain of 4,000 from the previously reported (11,000) jobs lost.  That’s the first gain of jobs in 23 months.  The net increase of November jobs was almost exactly offset by the final October figure which has (127,000) in losses, greater than the earlier estimate of (111,000).

Unemployment rate as of : December 2009,  10.0%

November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.1%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.6%

February 2009 : 8.2%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment held steady at 10.0% in December.  The unemployment rate might have looked worse, but some 661,000 people dropped out of the labor altogether.  People no longer seeking work are not counted in the unemployment rate.  The “underemployment” rate (a measure including those that have quit looking for work, as well as those settling for part-time work when they can’t find a full-time job) is actually 17.3% for December.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results. 

After the encouraging November report, Christina Romer, Obama’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, conceded that December was a “slight setback”.  The figures for December also increase concern about January, as December figures likely still included a lot of temporary holiday season jobs that will evaporate come January.  

As of late, the administration has not been touting its number of “saved” jobs, perhaps due to the numerous stories of holes in its figures (overcounts, double-counts, counts from nonexistent congressional districts, etc.).  That notwithstanding, it still has not adjusted its “saved” / created jobs count on recovery.gov  (still sitting at the 640,329 posted on 10/30/09).

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in November 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):    (11,000)   

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):       (111,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :   (139,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (154,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (304,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (681,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                             (3,337,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      7,337,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Losses sharply declined to just (11,000) in November, the smallest number since January 2008 (the month that started the current 23 month streak of jobs lost).  In other positive news October losses were revised lower with (111,000) vs initially reported losses of (190,000), and final September figures were also revised downward with (139,000) losses vs previously reported number of (219,000).

Unemployment rate as of : November 2009, 10.0%

October 2009, 10.2%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.5%

February 2009 : 8.1%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment eased down to 10.0% from 10.2% in October.  This is the first decline in the unemployment rate since July when it declined briefly before trending upward to its current level.  

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, and the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like this one when you had slight job losses of (11,000), but yet the unemployment rate itself improved by 0.2%.

Despite the encouraging signs, the New Year’s eve champagne should not be uncorked for a premature celebration.  Some amount of the hiring that helped keep the job losses down in November is coming from temporary holiday jobs.  That may hold through December but expect many of those jobs to disappear come January.  Many economists estimate that the rate could climb again and hover around 10% throughout 2010 as frugal consumer spending and tight credit markets are not going to provide a robust hiring environment.  Here’s a good summary of various reactions by leading economists in The Wall Street Journal.

Obama lost no time in seizing on the latest report, while noting “…we’ve got a lot more work to do before we can celebrate.” 

Meanwhile, on the “saved” jobs front, there were numerous reports over the last month stating that the number of jobs the administration is claiming as “saved” are inflated.  Reviews have shown double-counts, overcounts, and jobs having been “saved” in congressional districts that don’t even exist.  This has lead to reactions like this.  Now Joe Biden has said the errors will be fixed, but like most things in the government, the change is slow in coming as the number of ”saved” / created jobs posted on recovery.gov hasn’t budged (still sitting at the 640,329 posted on 10/30/09).

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in October 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim):       (190,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) : (219,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (154,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (304,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (681,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :                             (3,485,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                           4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      7,485,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Losses eased to (190,000) in October, the smallest number since August 2008.  September losses were revised lower with (219,000) vs previously reported losses of (263,000), and final August figures were also revised downward with (154,000) losses vs previously reported number of (201,000).

Unemployment rate as of : October 2009, 10.2%

September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.5%

February 2009 : 8.1%

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (unemployment rate trends)

Unemployment rate sharply spiked to 10.2% from 9.8% in September.  This is the highest rate since April 1983.  Many economists estimate that the rate could climb as high as 10.5% and that the rate will hover around 10% throughout 2010 as frugal consumer spending and tight credit markets are not going to provide a robust hiring environment 

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when there were job losses of (304,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased (from 9.5% to 9.4% that month), as well as the current month when you had a smaller amount of job losses, but a spike in the unemployment rate.

There has been muted reaction from the Obama administration to the actual data.  It has instead tried to focus on its claim of 650,000 jobs being “saved or created” thus far due to the stimulus.  However, based on this report from the Chicago Tribune (and others like it) they may not want to tout that figure too much, since it looks like it is rife with overcounts, double-counts, etc.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2.  The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in September 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) : (263,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :      (201,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (304,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :            (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :             (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):              (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):            (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :       (681,000)

Total jobs gained / (lost) since Obama took office :       (3,386,000)   

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  7,386,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data (raw figures of jobs gained / (lost)).

Losses shot back up with (263,000) in September.  August losses were revised lower with (201,000) vs previously reported losses of (216,000).  However, that was more than offset by the final revision of July numbers with (304,000) losses vs the previous figure of (276,000).

Unemployment rate as of : September 2009, 9.8%

August 2009 : 9.7%

July 2009: 9.4%

June 2009: 9.5%

May 2009: 9.4%

April 2009  8.9%

March 2009 : 8.5%

February 2009 : 8.1%

Unemployment rate ticked up to 9.8% from 9.7% in August.  Most economists expect the rate to continue to climb past 10%.  This can be expected as many who had given up looking for work are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.  With some positive signs in the broader economy we can expect many to re-engage which could cause a spike.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when there were job losses of (304,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased (from 9.5% to 9.4% that month).

Reaction from the Obama administration is predictable.  Per Joe Biden, the stimulus has worked and spending efforts need to be “redoubled” in the weeks ahead.  At least he didn’t make any claims of how many jobs have been “saved”.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million). 
2.  The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in August 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) : (216,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :     (276,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :       (463,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):          (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  7,110,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Losses continue to ease down with (216,000) lost this month.  However, job losses in past months were revised higher with June revised from (443,000) to (463,000) and July revised from (247,000) to (276,000).

Unemployment rate shot up to 9.7% from July’s 9.4%.  Despite the declining jobs losses the White House has said it expects unemployment to hit 10% or higher before the end of the year.  This can be expected as many who had given up looking for work are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.  With some positive signs in the employment picture we can expect many to re-engage which could cause a spike.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when there were job losses of (276,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased (from 9.5% to 9.4% that month).

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.  Following the spike in the unemployment rate after the release of the initial May jobs report, Obama claimed he would renew efforts to ramp up stimulus spending which would lead to 600,000 jobs being “created or saved” this summer.  To that point, he was claiming that the stimulus had helped to “save” 150,000 jobs.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in July 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :      (247,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :      (443,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final) :        (303,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):          (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  6,845,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Relatively good news this month.  Loss of (247,000) jobs was the smallest since August 2008.  Additionally, job losses in May were revised from (322,000) to (303,000), and losses in June were also revised from (467,000) to (443,000). 

Unemployment rate ticked down to 9.4% from June’s 9.5%.  Still, the White House expects unemployment to hit 10% or higher before the end of the year.  This can be expected as many who had given up looking for work are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.  With some positive signs in the employment picture we can expect many to re-engage which could cause a spike.

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  This can explain a month like July, when we had job losses of (247,000), but yet the unemployment rate slightly decreased.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.  Following the spike in the unemployment rate after the release of the initial May jobs report, Obama claimed he would renew efforts to ramp up stimulus spending which would lead to 600,000 jobs being “created or saved” this summer.  To that point, he was claiming that the stimulus had helped to “save” 150,000 jobs.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in June 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (prelim) :      (467,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (revised) :      (322,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (final):          (519,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (final) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                       4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                  6,641,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

No word yet from the Obama administration of just how many jobs were “saved” this month.

After a few months of declining losses, the pace of layoffs picked up again in June.  Additionally, job losses in May were revised from (345,000) to (322,000), however this pickup was largely offset by an increase in the final count of April losses which came in at (519,000) vs the previously estimated (504,000). 

Unemployment rate in June edged up to 9.5% from May’s 9.4%, marking the highest rate in 26 years.  

It’s important to note that the jobs losses and the unemployment rate are determined through separate surveys.  Job losses come from Establishment Survey Data, while the unemployment rate comes from Household Survey Data.  While the two measures should be directionally consistent, differences in the methodology can occasionally lead to what might appear to be disparate results.  For example, you could have a month with little to no job gain / loss activity, but the unemployment rate could still move up or down.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.  Following the spike in the unemployment rate after the release of the initial May jobs report, Obama claimed he would renew efforts to ramp up stimulus spending which would lead to 600,000 jobs being “created or saved” this summer.  To that point, he was claiming that the stimulus had helped to “save” 150,000 jobs.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge.  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly

Jobs gained / (lost) in May 2009 per the US Dept of Labor :                       (345,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in April 2009 per the US Dept of Labor  (revised):          (504,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in March 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (revised):        (652,000)

Jobs gained / (lost) in February 2009 per the US Dept of Labor (revised) :    (681,000)

Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration :                            4,000,000

Number of jobs remaining to hit goal :                                                      6,182,000

Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Losses have slowed and both April and March were revised with slightly fewer losses, but it’s probably a bit premature to start popping the champagne corks just yet.  Note that May figures include a one-time hiring binge of 70,000 in the Census Bureau to ramp up the preparation for the 2010 population counts.  Also these figures obviously don’t include any of the upcoming losses for the newly announced GM plant closures which are estimated to cost about 20,000 jobs through the end of 2010.

Unemployment rate in May leapt to 9.4% from 8.9% in April, prompting alarm bells by the Obama administration which said in February that without the stimulus, we could be facing an unemployment rate as high as 8.8%.  Now that we’re 0.6% higher than their dire prediction even with the stimulus, they’ve decided that’s only proof that the stimulus money isn’t being spent quickly enough.

Notes:

1. Number of jobs promised by the Obama administration has varied between 3.5 – 4 million.  He promised 4 million early, and then started easing off on that.  I’m sticking with his original promise. (also “The road to 4 million” sounds a little better than “The road to 3.5 million).
2. The above is tracking only new jobs created / lost as tracked by the Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor statistics.  Obama team has repeatedly said the 4 million represents jobs created or saved.  Since a “saved” job is highly subjective and can’t be calculated by any consistent standard, they are not accounted for above.
3. Obama administration would likely dispute that the current job losses should be held against them, but that is life in the big city when you’re President.  The last economic recession started in March 2001 when George W Bush had been in office for 1.5 months.  Democrats were only too eager to hang that around his neck (ignoring the fact that it is economically impossible to drive the economy into recession in that short a time period).  Also, it is only fair to assume that Obama’s pledge involves a net gain of 4 million jobs as of the point when his administration took charge .  If we lose 4 million jobs at the beginning of his tenure only to gain 4 million jobs later to end up where we started, I hardly think that fulfills his promise.
4. Updates to continue monthly