We all know the unemployment number is more realistically around 18% when you factor in the people who have past the limit, people who have had their hours cut back, and people who have been put on part-time.
Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, writes:
Unemployment Still High By Gov't Design
by Erick Erickson, November 6, 2009
• Unemployment at 10.2%
• President's top economic advisor admits this is by government design.
• White House intends for unemployment to go down in an election year.
Unemployment this morning topped 10.2%, even though the number seeking employment has declined. Many have just given up. Likewise, and more troublesome, the average hours worked in a week is at its lowest in decades - 33 hours. That suggests employers are going to just expand hours worked in the future, instead of hiring new people. So the unemployment number will stay high for a while.
On January 18, 2009, Obama's top economics advisor Larry Summers said Barack Obama's stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 10% and could be deemed to have failed if it crossed 10%.
On July 17, 2009, Larry Summers said:
"Both administration and independent forecasts predicted that only a very small part of the total job creation expected from the Recovery Act would take place within six months," he continued. "Indeed, a Council of Economic Advisers' study predicted that only 10 percent of the total job impact of the Recovery Act would take place during calendar year 2009. Given lags in spending and hiring, the peak impact of the stimulus on jobs was expected not to be achieved until the end of 2010."
In other words, an ever growing number of Americans have to sit on the unemployment line until next year by government design. Why? So in 2010, Barack Obama and the Democrats can run on falling unemployment numbers. They'd rather you starve now so they can have recovery happen in an election year.
We're all political pawns to Barack Obama.
One more thing: remember, outside economists say passing the Democrats' health care plan will slow the recovery further, stagnate wages, and increase unemployment. Do we want to do that?