New York Times Leader

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Flat Jobless Rate a Sign the Worst of Slump is Past,” lists the unemployment rate for February, unchanged at 9.7 percent, and interprets the results as positive news for the economy. As verification of that interpretation, the stock market rallied on Friday upon release of the news.

There does seem to be one unchangeable result of the “Great Recession,” and that is the hardening of lines of our citizens into “two Americas.” The term, first used in John Edwards political campaign, emphasizes the split of our people into two groups, the relatively affluent, and those struggling to make ends meet.

People in the second America don’t travel by car — they use the bus and mass transit. People in the first America have kids who are going to prominent colleges, and, as a result, will be set for life. The kids in the other America attend public schools and tend to drop out or go to vocational community colleges.

The growth of the second America can be seen in the increase of long-term unemployment — people who have been out of work for a year or more. What chance do they ever have of finding new jobs? People in the first America are already experiencing the upturn of the economy.

This split of the United States is dangerous, more so than Republicans and Democrats, and we must find some way to reverse it.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Senators Strike Bipartisan Deal on Job Creation.” The story describes an agreement between Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Senator Charles Grasslely, Republican of  Iowa, on a combination of job creation and tax breaks for business. Though the result seemed to have been blessed by leadership on both sides of the aisle, the result was thrown into doubt by some revisions made by Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate.

Apparently, Mr. Reid was concerned by previous Republican negotiating tactics on  healthcare when they had made early progress and then torpedoed the effort by poison pill, political amendments.

And he was right to be concerned. The Republicans  have almost no incentive to bargain in good faith, and their idea of compromise, as President Obama noted, is to get all their proposals passed while giving little in return. Senator Reid was rightly concerned by some rumblings from Mitch McConnell and some special deals for some senators that could be attacked by the Republicans just like they did for Senator Ben Nelson in the healthcare debate.

Let the Republicans remember for a change who won the last election. And the latest CBS/New  York Times polls seems to put the public on the Democrats side as far as trust and lack of ulterior motives.

The lead article in The New York Times today is titled, “Jobless Rate Falls to 9.7%. Giving Hope Worst is Over.” It describes the fall from the 10 percent rate last month despite the net loss of jobs.

Talk about rose- color glasses, or grasping for straws, or seeing the glass as half full … or any other metaphor you can think of. Surely, we can hope for something better than this. Being happy at a net loss of jobs?

Yes, there are some positive signs. Manufacturing jobs increased as did temporary workers — indicating a need for more labor hours even if businesses aren’t hiring new full-time employees. But with the number of people who’ve lost their jobs — what is it eight million now? And the continuing blight of foreclosures? And an increased likelihood of a double-dip recession?

We need some new legislation from Washington that addresses these problems. Just like the automobile industry was resuscitated by “cash for klunkers,” we need to resuscitate the out-of-work and under-employed in this nation. Only in that way will we start to generate the badly needed revenues that will bring us out of this mess.

Let’s hope the Democrats and Republicans can work together for a change to help a nation in crisis. It’s no longer just the tea partyers who are angry.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is a news analysis titled, “A Red-Ink Decade.” It describes the limited options for future Presidents in light of the size of the deficit and the necessity to address it.

Apparently, President Obama’s projections call for significant deficits for the next ten years. This makes it highly unlikely that future Presidents will have the opportunity for any domestic programs. It is compared in the article to homeowners whose mortgage is greater than the value of the house; in other words, the American government is “under water.”

The article also makes several astute political observations including the unwillingness of the Republicans to raise taxes and the unwillingness of the Democrats to cut programs, especially Social Security. In light of these limitations, the article paints a very pessimistic picture of their implications.

The article concludes on a somewhat optimistic note, citing Stein’s law. “If a trend cannot continue, it will stop.” In fact, the addressing of the problem on the front page of The New York Times means that even a so-called liberal newspaper is increasing awareness of the situation.

Ideally, President Obama will stimulate the economy in the short run, boosting jobs, and therefore revenue, and will ride that additional revenue to reduce the deficit. Sounds easy on paper …

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama, On Own, to Set Up Panel on Nation’s Debt.” It describes the failure to do so by Congress — the vote was 53 in favor in the Senate when they needed 60 votes — but the new commission will have no legal authority to force Congress to act.

The death of the commission in the Senate shows the hypocrisy of both parties in the attempt to get the budget under control. Democratic liberals were afraid of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts while Republicans were afraid of an attempt to raise taxes. The Democrats were also upset by the exemption of the military from the Commission’s jurisdiction while social programs remained a prominent target.

Well, this new executive commission is a little flabergasting. It seems like a waste of time because Congress will do whatever it wants in any case. Meanwhile, the President is buffeted by two opposing forces: the pressure to create jobs in the short term, involving more spending, and the pressure to balance the budget in the long term, involving less spending. His proposed three-year freeze on 8 percent of the government’s expenditures already seems to have been discounted.

Well, let’s see how the State of the Union goes tonight. I’m still upset by the refusal of the House to pass the Senate’s healthcare bill!

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “85,00 More Jobs Cut in December, Fogging Outlook.” The article lists the latest economic statistics and their possible impact on the Obama administration.

The unemployment rate for December remains in double digits at 10.0 percent, and some economists predict it will get worse. For the unemployment rate to stabilize, the economy needs to add 100,000 new jobs every month to match the rate of growth in the work force.

Economists had expected a job loss of about 10,000 jobs so the current statistics are significantly worse. However, to put the numbers into perspective, at one point during the recession, we were losing 700,000 jobs per month.

The Obama administration is faced with a dilemma. The Republicans are making a lot of noise about the size of the deficit; however, the economy still needs a significant boost, and trying to re-balance the budget at this point could throw us into a double-dip recession. Paradoxically, if we do try to balance the budget, and this happens, the deficit will become even worse because of the impact on revenues.

I’m not an economist, but I recognize when we seem to be between a rock and a hard place. President Obama will have to walk a tightrope, with the Republicans trying to sabotage him every step of the way. I still think there’s hope, though. The strength of the American people, our inherent creativity and work ethic, and especially our resilience, will see us through this tunnel to the light at the other side.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “In Surprise, Jobless Rate Fell to 10% in November. The rate declined 0.2 percent even though technically 11,000 jobs were lost. Yet there were other encouraging signs. More than 50,000 temporary workers were hired, and the underemployment rate (including those working less hours than they wish) also fell. And, just as important, the average weekly wage rose as well, thus bringing some hope of increased spending to keep the cycle going.

President Obama’s administration credited the stimulus program as a major factor in the improvement, and they deserve some good news for a change. In fact, the improvement in the work force is occurring more rapidly than the last two recessions in the early 1990s and 2001.

The only worrisome statistic involves the number of long-term unemployed created by this downturn. One can only hope they will find some kind of community training program that the administration and Congress are considering.

Typically, the Republicans refuse to give any credit to Obama for the situation, even though they were quick to condemn him when the economy was declining. It’s almost as if they want the economy to remain mired for political reasons. The Republicans seem to be rooting against America and a speedy economic recovery.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Unemployment Hits 9.7% Despite Slower Job Losses.” It reports that the unemployment rate in August rose from 9.4% to 9.7% despite reports of the economy improving. The article talks about a jobless recovery and compares it to the last recession in 2001 when unemployment rates continued to decline for two years after the recession was over.

According to the article, government officials said the figures would be much worse if the stimulus plan hadn’t been enacted, and at least the economy wasn’t in “free fall” like before. But the article also notes that consumer spending drives 70 percent of economic growth, and it’s hard to see how this presents good news about even a jobless recovery. One bright spot: two-thirds of the stimulus money remains to be spent.

In my opinion, these statistics present a real political hazard to President Obama. While the American people have difficulty understanding more complex policy matters, they do understand statistical benchmarks that have been around for a long time, and catch-phrases used by the opposition. If the unemployment rate hits double digits, as expected, you know the Republicans will exploit that with every rhetorical flourish at their command.  Any Party who can turn the health bill into “death panels” will have a field day with double digit unemployment.

The Obama administration needs to focus on the economy like a laser beam if it wants to hold Congress in the mid-term elections. Yes, it’s that serious. To borrow a line from President Clinton’s campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “An Upbeat Fed Views Recession as Near an End.” The article describes a recent statement by the Federal Reserve noting progress on consumer spending and financial markets though employment is still lagging behind. As a result, the Fed has decided to end its emergency program of purchasing $300 billion in Treasury bonds in October.

The article goes on to note that the Treasury bond program is minor when compared to the amount being spent to purchase mortgage securities, $1.25 trillion, and that the housing market remains the prime area of concern. However, the economy only slowed by 1 percent in the second quarter of 2009 compared to 6.4 percent in the first.

In my opinion, these statistics and distinctions remain arcane to the average American who evaluates the economy primarily by the unemployment rate. And the article notes that the unemployment rate is expected to remain around nine percent through the end of 2010.

There seems to be something skewed in the Fed’s analysis. How can the economy respond when so many people are unemployed and thus don’t have any spare money to spend? And the lack of individual earnings also means a continuation of reduced tax revenues for states and the federal government.

Hopefully, the stimulus will start to kick in with more jobs because the current situation remains untenable. Cash for clunkers is a great program, but everyone is forced into some spending just by product obsolesence and the need to replace necessities. Let’s see what happens in the next few months before we declare “mission accomplished.”

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Black-White Gap in Jobless Rates Widens in City.” It describes the impact of the recession on the black community, and in New York City, in particular. The article notes that while much attention has been focused on professional services, such as the financial sector and Wall Street, the impact on other sectors of the City’s economy has been even greater.

The article’s new jobless statistics seem to defy common sense. While it would be easier for businesses to save money by cutting higher-paying jobs at the top of the corporate ladder, the impact on lower-paying jobs, especially in the retail sector — due to the decline in consumer spending – has been even greater.

However, the results should come as no surprise to observers of U.S. politics and economic realities. Despite the fact that we have a black President, there is still much inequality in our nation. We’re making progress, but sometimes it appears to be two steps forward and one step back.

Fortunately, the best approach, to shine a light on the situation, is now occurring thanks to the article in the Times. Here are the statistics cited in the Times study: From the first quarter in 2008 to the first quarter in 2009, the national unemployment rates for blacks rose from 8.9 percent to 13.6 percent, compared to a rise for whites of 4.8 percent to 8.2 percent. In NYC, it was even worse: from 5.7 percent to 14.7 percent, compared to 3.0 percent to 3.7 percent for whites.

Do the math, and you’ll see the disparity.  If you’re an employer, please think carefully about your human resources policy.