The Job-Loss Recovery

Back in the day, the Democrats were busy complaining that following the 2000-2001 recession, the recovery was deemed a jobless recovery. They've since painted the Bush years as one with an economy stuck in neutral, as employment was flat and bookended with the .com bubble bursting plus 9/11 terror attacks at one end and the crash in the real estate and credit markets at the other.

Well, given that the 3Q and 4Q of 2009 were considered to be quarters with positive growth in the economy, the continued hemorrhaging of jobs would suggest not a jobless recovery from the latest recession, but a job-loss recovery thus far.

THE 2000s—the Noughts, some call them—turned out to be jobless. Only about 400,000 more Americans were employed in December 2009 than in December 1999, while the population grew by nearly 30m. This dismal rate of job creation raises the distinct possibility that America’s recovery from the latest recession may also be jobless. The economy almost certainly expanded during the second half of 2009, but 800,000 additional jobs were lost all the same.

Mind you that throughout 2009, millions lost their jobs as the economy shrank and unemployment rates jumped (although tamped down by the way that the BLS calculates the size of the workforce). Many of the jobs that were created during the preceding years disappeared in the real estate market crash and the credit market disaster that imploded major financial firms and caused upheaval in the financial sectors.

Meanwhile, I wonder how long this AP headline will stand:

Obama unveils $3.83T budget with massive deficits

You can't blame that on the prior Administration. That's President Obama's proposed budget. He chose to massively expand the deficit (while claiming he's going to be a deficit hawk starting next year. The deficit is going to be huge, and it is unsustainable.

UPDATE:
The headline has been replaced with: Obama unveils 2011 budget with $3.83T in spending. I've added the screen capture of the original story.