Republicans Claim 23 Million Unemployed?

Clint Eastwood said something at the Republican National Convention about 23 million Americans being unemployed, but the official unemployment number in July 2012 is 12,794,000 unemployed.

(*See my update towards the middle of this page.) 

And don't miss this companion piece:  If so many are unemployed, where are the benefits?

A reader asked:

Why do Republicans continue to say that 23 million Americans are out of work if your numbers suggest 12 million? Where are they getting that number from?

My reply:

It's an issue of definitions.  They are using alternate unemployment numbers, which have always been calculated, but never used officially.

Which of these groups of people would you consider unemployed other than people actively looking for work? 

People who are discouraged and have not looked for work for over a month? People who haven't looked for work for over a year?  16 year old high school kids who want to get a part-time job after school?

Someone who says they want a job but they haven't applied anywhere, spoken to anyone, or made any phone calls about employment for the past month?

People who haven't looked for work in the past month because they are ill?  People who haven't looked for work for the past month because their car has died?  People who are working part-time but want a full-time job?

People who are retired? People who are home with young children?

The constant definition of unemployment, the one that has been used for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations, is that someone has to be actively looking for work, at least one resume, one application, one interview OR one contact, within the past four weeks to be considered officially "unemployed". 

In addition, people need to be 16 or over to be counted.  Also, people in the military or people in institutions such as prisons or nursing homes are NOT counted. 

There are alternate numbers of unemployment that include some of the groups I  listed above, but they have ALWAYS been considered "alternate". The Republicans don't want to give Obama credit for anything, so they have now pivoted away from the usual and constant definition of unemployment to one of these alternate definitions of unemployment.

Now, the "official" definition of unemployment does include 16 and 17 year olds who are looking for a part-time job after school. Of the 12,800,000 people officially looking for work, 2,000,000 of them are looking for part-time jobs. Of those 2 million, 500,000 are high school aged kids looking for part-time work during school. Another 300,000 are college aged kids looking for part-time work. If we didn't count these part-time kids, the unemployment rate would be 7.8%.

But it's best to stick to calculations like this that are tried and true and widely used.

Update 9/2/2012:   Here are various numbers of people who are considered unemployed, employed, or "not in the labor force" as of July 2012.  Which of these groups or subgroups would you consider "unemployed"?

There are 9,307,000 people 18 and over now unemployed who are ACTIVELY looking for full-time work:

• Start with 12,974,000 officially unemployed, as described above.
• The above number includes about 650,000 young people (16 to 19 years of age) enrolled in school who want part-time or summer work (vs. full-time year round work). 
• The above number includes about another 1,600,000 people 20+ who are looking for part-time work (vs. full-time work).
• The above number also includes 1,417,000 people who are on temporary layoff but expect to return to work.  
• Subtract these groups out, and there are about 9,307,000 people 18 and over now unemployed who are ACTIVELY looking for full-time work. 
• In addition, 878,000 of these 9 million people QUIT their last jobs.  (They weren't laid off, nor were they new workers; they actually quit.  Should they be counted?)

8,246,000 people who are working part-time and want to work full-time, but...

• 8,246,000 people are working part-time but want to work full-time.  However: 
• Of these 8,246,000, 5,342,000 are working part-time because of "slack work or business conditions" at their part-time job.  This includes insufficient demand (about 5,193,000*) and seasonal periods of slack work (about 338,000*).  We don't know how many of these people expect to return to full-time work in the next weeks or months nor do we know if any of these people are now actively looking for work elsewhere.  (This number is down from 5,695,000 a year ago.)* These two numbers do not add up due to seasonal adjustment factors.
• Of the 8,246,000 "involuntary part-time workers", 2,576,000 say they can only find part-time work.  We have no way of knowing how many of these people are actively looking for full-time work elsewhere.
• Remember that these involuntary part-time workers have NEVER been considered as part of the officially unemployed.  Even in the best of recent times (since 2000), we have had at least 3,000,000 involuntary part-time workers.  

About those 2,529,000 "marginally attached" workers:

• Another 2,529,000 people are "marginally attached to the labor force".  Please understand that people who are "marginally attached to the labor force" are people who have NOT LOOKED FOR WORK in the past four weeks.  However, these people DID look for work sometime in the past year.  Would you count people as unemployed if they did not look for work?   
• These are the reasons these "marginally attached" people have not looked for work in the past four weeks:
• 852,000 are "discouraged over job prospects".  (This is down from 1,119,000 last year.)
• 260,000 have not looked for work in the past month due to "family responsibilities".
• 249,000 have not looked for work in the past month because they were in school or in training.
• 203,000 have not looked for work in the past month because they have been ill or were disabled.
• 965,000 did not look for work for "other" reasons, including some who had child-care or transportation problems. (No breakdown available of these 965,000 people.)
• Remember that these "marginally attached" workers have NEVER been considered as part of the officially unemployed.  

You decide:  Who would you count as unemployed?

I will update this post later with historical numbers on these figures.  In the meantime, you decide:  Who would you count as unemployed and who would you not count?  

• Do people have to be looking for work in the past month before you would count them?  
• Should part-time people who want full-time work be counted if they aren't actively looking for that full-time work?
• Should people who quit their last job (vs. being laid off) be counted?      

Something else to think about:

If the unemployment situation is still SO bad and there has been NO

improvement- then why have the Republicans in Congress been pushing so strongly for fewer weeks of unemployment compensation for the unemployed and claiming that longer terms of unemployment keep people from getting work?  If unemployment is so bad that Obama should not be reelected.. why did they want to cut off unemployment benefits from the unemployed?    

More about the 23,000,000 unemployed HERE at the bottom of the page at Factcheck.org.

 

Unemployment Under Obama?

What has happened to the unemployment rate under Obama?

Has unemployment under Obama Increased or Decreased?

Note:  These charts are outdated. This chart has been updated for March 2015 HERE!

The latest charts, graphs, and information describing unemployment and the unemployment rate under President Barack Obama-- since Obama took office in January 2009 --  can be found HERE. along with information about the peak of unemployment under Obama and a discussion about unemployment under President George Bush.

Two charts on THIS PAGE about the unemployment rate under Obama are reproduced here:

• This chart compares the seasonally adjusted and the unadjusted employment rates from the time that Obama took office in January 2009 until July 2012, the latest month for which unemployment data is available as of the date of this post.  Data is shown in three month intervals plus the current month.

• This chart compares the unemployment rate under Obama with the unemployment rate under Bush at the same times in their presidencies.  More comparisons of employment under Bush and Obama can be found HERE.

Women's Employment and Unemployment Under Obama (Updated for September 2012)

What is happening with women in the labor force since Obama took office?  

Note:  Updated with numbers from September on October 16th. 

Are there more or fewer employed?  Is the unemployment rate for women higher or lower?  More or fewer women unemployed under Obama? 

Where are women doing well in the labor market and where are they doing poorly?

Here's a quick summary:

Women were spared in the early months of the recession.  When Obama took office, a year after job loss had started, women still had an unemployment rate significantly below that of men.  (Women's unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.0%; the unemployment rate of men was already 8.6%.)  This was because the first casualties of the recession were people employed in construction sectors, which is primarily a male employment field. 

The private sector has recovered all jobs that were lost during the first months of Obama's administration, but, for the first time in a modern recession, government jobs have not been able to contribute to the recovery.  This is particularly true in the state and local government levels, as the numbers at the bottom of the page show.  

The chart below (from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post Wonk blog) shows the difference in government employment in the four most recent recessions.  That green line that keeps going down?  That's government employment in this latest slowdown.. now.  (The peak in that green line represents the hiring and laying off of 2010 Census workers.)

From the Washington Post Wonk Blog by Ezra Klein

So... .What's the point? 

We now have more women holding private sector jobs than we did in January 2009, but we have a deficit of 450,000 jobs at the various government levels.  There is no deficit at the federal government level, and only a minor deficit at the state government level.  However, there is a deficit of 450,000 jobs at the local government level, including a 350,000 jobs deficit in local government (education).  Teachers.

Update October 16:   There are 144,000 more women employed in the private sector now, as of September 2012, than in January 2009.  The deficit of women in government jobs now has declined to 427,000.  Most of that jobs deficit for women is the result of the decline in the number of teachers on the local government level.  The unemployment rate for women has fallen quickly over the summer and is lower than the unemployment rate for the country as a whole; however, at 7.5% it still is higher than it was in January 2009.   

To summarize:   Right now, women are struggling to recover jobs more than men.  The biggest reason for this are the cutbacks at local education levels, meaning we have fewer teachers and support personnel in public education.  These positions are overwhelmingly held by women.

The President's Jobs Bill of 2011, which was introduced last year and has not gone anywhere, would have put up to 280,000 teachers, most of them women,  back to work.  These people would be buying food, paying bills, and perhaps buying larger consumer items, buying cars, and taking vacations by this time.  But no, the President's Jobs Bill, which was written to be revenue neutral (paid for) was not acted on by the Republican Congress.

And then the Republicans try to tell the American public that the reason we have fewer women working than we did in January 2009 is the fault of the President and the Democrats.

I hope that most people reading this are not that gullible.    

Here are the numbers (* denotes an increase over the number in January 2009):      

Women employed:  

• January 2009 (when Obama took office)--  66,969,000
• February 2009 (Obama's first full month in office)--  66,916,000
• Trough of recession (June 2011)--  65,316,000
• July 2012-- 66,754,000
• September 2012-- 67,222,000 *
• 306,000 MORE women employed than in February 2009.
• 1,906,000 MORE women employed since trough of recession (June 2011).

Women unemployed:

• January 2009--  5,005,000
• February 2009 (Obama's first full month in office)--  5,294,000
• Trough of recession (April 2010)--  6,332,000  
• July 2012--  5,865,000
• September 2012--  5,456,000 
• 162,000 MORE women unemployed than in February 2009.
• 876,000 FEWER women unemployed since trough of recession (April 2010). 

The unemployment rate of women:

• January 2009--   7.0% 
• February 2009-- 7.3%
• Trough of recession (November 2010)-- 9.0%
• July 2012--  8.1%
• September 2012--  7.5% 
• .2% INCREASE in unemployment rate since February 2009.
• 1.5% DECREASE in unemployment rate since trough of recession. 

Women in the various employment sectors:

Women's jobs in total:

• January 2009--  66,122,000
• July 2012--  65,721,000
• September 2012--  65,839,000

Women in private-sector jobs:

• January 2009--  53,169,000
• July 2012--  53,215,000
• September--  53,313,000 *

Women in government sector jobs in (all levels):

• January 2009--  12,953,000
• July 2012--  12,506,000
• September 2012--  12,526,000 

Women in federal government jobs:

• January 2009--  1,240,000
• July 2012-- 1,246,000 
• September 2012-- 1,244,000 *

Women in State government jobs (all groups):

• January 2009--  2,663,000
• July 2012-- 2,651,000
• September 2012-- 2,639,000

Women in state government jobs (education)--seasonally unadjusted:

• January 2009-- 1,230,000
• July 2012--  1,197,000
• September 2012-- 1,138,900

Women in local government jobs (all groups):

• January 2009-- 9,050,000
• July 2012--  8,606,000
• September 2012-- 8,640,000

Women in local government jobs (education)-- seasonally unadjusted: 

• January 2009-- 6,064,000
• July 2012--       5,717,000
• September 2012--  4,898,700

Counting Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan

Are Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan going down? 

I just came across the following comment on NBC politics: 

 "More troops have DIED under Barry than George..........."

This is simply not true.  icasualties.org keeps a year by year count of fatalities for both Iraq and Afghanistan, for the U.S., the U.K, and all other countries in theatre.  The site allows you to look at fatalities by month, year, field of operation, by country, and by type.  It actually lists the names, rank, and cause of death of those who died.

6593 Fatalities, Both Hostile and "Non-hostile"

We've had a total of about 6593 fatalities in both fields of operation, a total that includes service people who have died in both hostile and non-hostile action.  (Non-hostile causes include such things as vehicle accidents, suicide, illnesses, helicopter crashes that were not the result of hostile fire.)

There have been 1741 fatalities since 2009, which includes 84 fatalities in early 2009 (January and February) that Obama really had no control over, leaving 4852 fatalities that occurred in the Bush administration. 

Fatalities have come down rapidly since 2010. The peak was 1021 fatalities in 2007, most of them in Iraq.  There were 599 fatalities in 2010, most in Afghanistan ; 472 in 2011, and 244 so far in 2012.

20% of Afghan fatalities are "non-hostile".

About 20% of the fatalities listed in Afghanistan were classified as "non-hostile".  In 2012, 46 out of 247 deaths in Afghanistan in 2012 to date have been classified as "non-hostile".
I couldn't get the site to work to calculate the total "non-hostile" deaths for Iraq.  However, there were 54 fatalities in Iraq in 2011 and 1 fatality in 2012.  Of those 55 fatalities in Iraq, 21 were "non-hostile", including that 1 fatality in early 2012.  That serviceman actually died in Bahrain.

Here's the year by year breakdown of U.S. fatalities since 2001:

• 2001:  12
• 2002:  49
• 2003:  534
• 2004:  901
• 2005:  945
• 2006:  921
• 2007:  1021
• 2008:  469
• 2009:  466
• 2010:  559
• 2011:  472
• 2012:  244

In Memoriam:  
There is no way I can write about military fatalities without adding:  My deepest sympathies to the family members and loved ones of all that perished.  And, to those who died:  Thank you for your service.  Rest in peace.

How Many Jobs Have Been Created or Lost in the Last 3 Months? (April to July 2012 update)

How Many Jobs Created in the Last 59 Months HERE!

How many jobs have been created in the last three months, from April  2012 through July 2012?   314,000

How many private-sector jobs have been created in those three months?   361,000

How many more people working in those three months, from April through July 2012?  355,000 

Have jobs been lost (seasonally adjusted numbers) in the last three months?  NO.  I'll repeat that:  NO jobs have been lost (NET) in April through July 2012. 

How many jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) have been lost in the last three months?  NO jobs (NET) have been lost in April through July 2012.  

This report is from 2012, three years ago.  Recent numbers and reports can be found HERE.

How many jobs TOTAL were created over the past three months from April 2012 to July 2012?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 314,0000 jobs have been CREATED in the last three months.  That's 105,000 MORE jobs a month since April 2012.  This is the best April-July jobs growth number since 2005.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers,  77,000 jobs have been LOST in the last three months.   That's an DECREASE of 26,000 jobs a month since April 2012.  Despite the fact that this number represents a loss, this is the best April-July jobs growth in unadjusted numbers since 2007.     
  

How many PRIVATE-SECTOR jobs were created over the past three months from April 2012 to July 2012?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 361,0000 private jobs have been CREATED in the last three months.  That's 120,000 MORE private jobs a month since April 2012.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers,  1,652,000 private jobs have been CREATED in the last three months.   That's an increase of 551,000 PRIVATE jobs a month since April 2012.  This is the best April-July private sector growth in unadjusted numbers since 2006. 

How many GOVERNMENT jobs were created over the past three months from April 2012 to July 2012?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 47,0000 government jobs have been LOST in the last three months.  That's 16,000 FEWER government jobs a month since April 2012.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers,  1,729,000 government jobs have been LOST in the last three months.   That's a decrease of 576,000 GOVERNMENT jobs a month since April 2012.
• Government job loss in summer is primarily the result of layoffs in the education sector.  Most of these jobs are added back in September. 

How many more people are working over the past three months, from April 2012 to July 2012?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 355,000 MORE people are working now vs. April 2012.  That's 118,000 new workers for each of the past three months, from April to July 2012.  This is the best April-July increase in people working since since 2006. 
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 1,131,000 MORE people are working now vs. April 2012.  That's 377,000 new workers per each of those 3 months. This is the best April-July increase in people working (in unadjusted numbers) since since 2007. 

How many jobs total were created in 2012 to date?  Private sector jobs in 2012?  Government jobs in 2012?  People working in 2012?

• Read here for the number of jobs lost and gained in 2012 to date (July 20121).

How many jobs total were created over the past year from July 2012 to July 2012?  Private sector jobs over the past year?  Government jobs over the past year?  People working over the past year?

• Read here for the number of jobs lost and gained year over year from July 2011 to July 2012.

How many jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 to now, July 2012?  How many more people working since that time?

• Read here for jobs figures from the "trough" of the recession to now.

How many jobs were created in the last month, July 2012?

• Read here for the jobs figures for jobs created in July 2012

What gets counted as "jobs" and who gets counted as "working"?

You will see reports here for both the number of "jobs" and the number of people "working".

There are two parts of the BLS numbers:

1) The "jobs numbers" refer to the Establishment Report; that is, employing "establishments". This is basically what is included and excluded in the Establishment report:

"Employment data refer to persons on establishment payrolls who received pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month. Data exclude proprietors, the unincorporated self-employed, unpaid volunteer or family workers, farm workers, and domestic workers. Salaried officers of corporations are included. Government employment covers only civilian employees; military personnel are excluded. Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency also are excluded." (Found HERE.)

Therefore, independent contractors who are paid as 1099 employees would NOT be included in those numbers, neither would people starting their own small businesses, whether incorporated self-employed or non-incorporated self-employed. Farmers would also NOT be considered in the monthly "jobs" reports.

2)  However, the Current Population Survey counts people from their own perspective; in other words, it doesn't talk to employers, it talks to people. It asks people if they are working for money in any given month. This is the study from which we get the unemployment rate and the number of people "working". Independent contractors are included in that count. 

The count of people who are employed is always higher by some 9,000,000 people as it includes farmers and people who are self-employed along with a few other groups of workers.  There were about 9,615,000 unincorporated self-employed workers in July 2012, so this is where independent contractors would be reported.  There were also about 5,256,000 incorporated self-employed workers in July 2012.

(Note:  All of my employment number reports are based on monthly reports and data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Monthly numbers reports are based on the monthly Employment Situation Report.  The Employment Situation report includes month over month and year over year jobs numbers.  My analysis is taken from the monthly BLS data copied to an Excel spreadsheet every month.  I calculate detailed percentage increases/decreases, 3 month numbers, 2011 to date numbers, and I compare jobs numbers to those at the time of Obama's inauguration and at the "trough" of the recession.)

How Many Jobs Created in 2012 To Date? (July update)

How many jobs were created in all of 2012 to date, from December 2011 through July 2012?   1,059,000

How many private-sector jobs have been created in 2012?   1,124,000

How many more people working in all of 2012 to date, from December 2011 through July 2012?  1,430,000 

Have jobs been lost (seasonally adjusted numbers) in 2012?  NO.  I'll repeat that:  NO jobs have been lost (NET) in 2012. 

How many jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers)have been lost in 2012?  NO jobs (NET) have been lost in 2012.  

This report is currently being updated for August 2012.  Check back later!

How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in July 2012?

Latest jobs and unemployment reports (August 2012, all 2012 and 2011) HERE!

ADP Jobs Report for August 2012 HERE!

How Many Jobs Have Been Created in the Last Two Years?  The Last Ten Years?  HERE!

            

Jobs Created Month by Month (Private & Govt) HERE

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 1,059,000 jobs have been CREATED in 2012.  That's 151,000 jobs ADDED per month in 2012.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 97,000 jobs have been LOST in 2012.  That's 14,000 jobs LOST per month in 2012.
• In terms of seasonally adjusted total jobs and private-sector jobs, we have ONLY JOB GAINS in 2012, but we have JOB LOSSES in unadjusted numbers.  This is typical for July as government workers, primarily in education, are laid off during the summer.  In 9 out of the past 12 years, we have had negative unadjusted  jobs numbers for the year in July.  Generally these jobs are added back in September.

How many private-sector jobs were created in all of 2012, from December 2011 through July 2012?  Have private-sector jobs been created or  lost in 2012?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 1,124,000 private-sector jobs have been CREATED or ADDED in 2012.  That's 161,000 NEW private-sector jobs per month in 2012 as of July 2012.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 1,560,000 private-sector jobs have been GAINED, CREATED, or ADDED in 2012.  That's 223,000 NEW private-sector jobs per month as of July 2012.

How many government jobs were created in all of 2012, from December 2011 through June 2012?  Have government jobs been created or lost in  2011?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 65,000 government jobs have been  LOST in 2012.  That's  9,000 government jobs LOST per month in 2012.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 1,657,000 government jobs have been LOST in 2012.  That's 237,000 government jobs LOST per month in 2012.  
• Remember that most of the lost government jobs are due to summer layoffs in the education sector. This is typical for July as government workers, primarily in education, are laid off during the summer.  We have had negative unadjusted  government jobs numbers for the year every July since 1944.  Generally these jobs are added back in September.

How many more people are working in all of 2012, from December 2011 to July 2012?

• In seasonally adjusted numbers, 1,430,000 MORE people are working now vs. December of 2011.  That's 204,000 NEW workers each month of 2012 to date.
• In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 2,445,000 MORE people are working now vs. December 2011.  That's 349,000 NEW workers each month of 2012 to date.

 Have jobs or workers been lost in 2012? 

• In 2012, we have had ONLY NET GAINS in seasonally adjusted total jobs, private sector jobs and in all measures of workers.  
• We have had losses in the number of government jobs since December 2011.    
• To reiterate, in terms of private jobs, we have ONLY JOB GAINS in 2012.  
• Please understand that people are laid off and people quit every month.  About 1,900,000 people have been laid off every month in 2012.  About 2,100,000 people have quit every month in 2012.  But about 4,300,000 have been hired every month in 2012.  When the number of people hired exceeds the number of "separations" (people who quit or are laid off), the jobs numbers go up.  When the number of people laid off plus the number of people who quit exceed the number of people hired, the jobs numbers go down.  That's what we mean by "NET" job numbers.

How many jobs total were created over the past three months from April 2012 to July 2012?  Private sector jobs over the past three months?  Government jobs over the past three months?  People working over the past three months?

• Read here for numbers of jobs lost and gained over the past three months.

How many jobs total were created over the past year from July 2012 to July 2012?  Private sector jobs over the past year?  Government jobs over the past year?  People working over the past year?

• Read here for the number of jobs lost and gained year over year from July 2011 to July 2012.

How many jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 to now, July 2012?  How many more people working since that time?

• Read here for jobs figures from the "trough" of the recession to now.

How many jobs were created in the last month, July 2012?

• Read here for the jobs figures for jobs created in July 2012

What gets counted as "jobs" and who gets counted as "working"?

You will see reports here for both the number of "jobs" and the number of people "working".


There are two parts of the BLS numbers:

1) The "jobs numbers" refer to the Establishment Report; that is, employing "establishments". This is basically what is included and excluded in the Establishment report:

"Employment data refer to persons on establishment payrolls who received pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month. Data exclude proprietors, the unincorporated self-employed, unpaid volunteer or family workers, farm workers, and domestic workers. Salaried officers of corporations are included. Government employment covers only civilian employees; military personnel are excluded. Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency also are excluded." (Found HERE.)

Therefore, independent contractors who are paid as 1099 employees would NOT be included in those numbers, neither would people starting their own small businesses, whether incorporated self-employed or non-incorporated self-employed. Farmers would also NOT be considered in the monthly "jobs" reports.

2)  However, the Current Population Survey counts people from their own perspective; in other words, it doesn't talk to employers, it talks to people. It asks people if they are working for money in any given month. This is the study from which we get the unemployment rate and the number of people "working". Independent contractors are included in that count. 

The count of people who are employed is always higher by some 9,000,000 people as it includes farmers and people who are self-employed along with a few other groups of workers.  There were about 9,615,000 unincorporated self-employed workers in July 2012, so this is where independent contractors would be reported.  There were also about 5,256,000 incorporated self-employed workers in July 2012.

(Note:  All of my employment number reports are based on monthly reports and data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Monthly numbers reports are based on the monthly Employment Situation Report.  The Employment Situation report includes month over month and year over year jobs numbers.  My analysis is taken from the monthly BLS data copied to an Excel spreadsheet every month.  I calculate detailed percentage increases/decreases, 3 month numbers, 2011 to date numbers, and I compare jobs numbers to those at the time of Obama's inauguration and at the "trough" of the recession.)

Paul Ryan Brings Home the Bacon: A Quarter of a Billion in Stimulus Money for his District

Hypocrisy, thy name is Paul Ryan.

Classic Paul Ryan Expression.  

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who decries "big government" and "big government" spending, who voted against the stimulus (officially the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), not only petitioned various agencies to get stimulus funds for his Wisconsin Congressional district, but his district also raked in at least a quarter of a billion bucks of various stimulus projects.  The counting is just beginning for this hypocrite.

He supported TARP, the bank bailout passed in October 2008, in the waning days of the Bush administration, but he opposed the ARRA stimulus, designed and supported by the new President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Why did his district get a dime?

Now, you tell me:  If this guy opposed government spending and Keynesian economics so much, why did his district get one penny of hard-earned tax dollars?  And why was he petitioning the various department heads a few months after the stimulus was passed for money for specific projects in his district?  

I'm not going into the specifics of his requests for stimulus money.  If you don't believe me or want more information, check out this Rachel Maddow clip.  Every other news outlet is starting to report on this as well.  

How Much Did Wisconsin's First District Get?

But I started to wonder how much the first Congressional district of Wisconsin got altogether in stimulus funds.  Well, I've just started looking, and it's a nice chunk of change.  Do Ryan's conservative anti-big-government constituents realize that their hero brought home plenty of bacon to the good people of southeastern Wisconsin?  Probably not.     

So, from www.recovery.gov., the government's site which publishes recovery projects and statistics, here is a partial list of cities in Ryan's district that have received recovery funds. I'm not saying Ryan specifically asked for these funds or projects for his district, but, as he opposed ARRA, why were any of these cities in Wisconsin's first getting recovery money at all?  Maybe the Democrats should have played hardball with these hypocritical Republicans:  Unless you support ARRA by voting for it and talking it up, we're not going to give your district one red cent. 

Wisconsin cities in Ryan's district which got a buck or two or three...

I haven't finished reviewing the extensive data at recovery.gov, but these are among the biggest cities benefiting from stimulus bucks: 

• Kenosha received 113,000,000 in recovery funds.
• Racine ...      58,000,000
• Janesville .... 35,000,000
• Oak Creek...  18,000,000
• Burlington...  12,000,000
• Caledonia...   21,000,000
• Lake Geneva..  4,000,000

I'll have to finish over the next couple of days, but so far, Ryan's district, represented by a man who did not support ARRA,  raked in at least 261,000,000, yes, that's millions, in recovery bucks:  A quarter of a billion bucks to a district represented by a guy who doesn't believe that government creates jobs or can actually do any stimulating of the economy.
Everyone of these anti-ARRA Republican hypocrites, not just Ryan, should be telling their constituents exactly what their district received from ARRA and how it helped their towns. 

I have to cross check the towns to see which ones are in the first Congressional district so completing this task is a bit time consuming. 

The data can be found here, at  Recovery.gov