White House, Media try to spin terrible job numbers

by alexvanbuskirk

White House, Media can’t spin terrible job numbers

By David Harsanyi @ Human Events (August 3, 2012)

In July, the Labor Department reports, the economy added 163,000 jobs and unemployment ticked up to 8.3 percent. The economy, which typically needs around 100,000 jobs just to keep pace with the new workers entering the labor market, is on a three-month average of 105,000.  So another disaster. (Also, job creation in June was revised down to 64,000.)

The White House claims that “today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover.” But stagnation is not recovery — a noun, meaning a return to a normal state of health or strength. Unless, that is, this is the new normal and voters accept it.

Then we’re told that bad news is not all bad because it may mean a new round of quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve. Rarely do reporters even bother to explore this issue past their own assumptions. Rarely, if ever, do they mention that previous rounds of quantitative easing, of Operation Twist and of large-scale Federal stimulus (and let’s not forget that yearly trillion-dollar Keynesian stimulus plan called the deficit) have done little, if anything, to improve the situation.

Never mind all that … because this New York Times story says that the “one bright spot from Friday’s report, economists say, is that it may spur the Federal Reserve to act.” Economists say a lot of things. “Economists” say everything, actually. If you watch well-known financial writers and economics reports on Twitter, they seem to believe that all our economic struggles could be solved if the Fed simply injected more liquidity into the economy — and they craft all their stories accordingly.

In that same piece  there is a quote from Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse, that sums up where we are: “This is the weakest recovery we’ve ever seen, weaker even that the recovery during the Great Depression. If you’re not scared by that then you’re not paying attention.”

Which begs the political question: If George Bush was responsible for the recession, is Obama in charge of the recovery?