Unemployment eases to 9.4%; percentage of working Americans still drops; Update: BLS juggling the numbers?

posted at 10:18 am on August 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported unexpectedly good news this morning, lowering the unemployment rate to 9.4% and noting a net loss of almost a quarter-million jobs in July.  Most analysts tracking the weekly data, where an average of 550,000 new jobless claims a week had been the norm, expected a slight increase over June’s 9.5%.  The reopening of car plants following the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler may account for the difference:

U.S. employers cut 247,000 jobs in July, far less than expected and the least in any month since last August, according to a government report on Friday that provided the clearest evidence yet that the economy was turning around.

With fewer workers being laid off, the unemployment rate eased to 9.4 percent in July from 9.5 percent the prior month, the Labor Department said, the first time the jobless rate had fallen since April 2008.

The government revised job losses for May and June to show 43,000 fewer jobs lost than previously reported.

Analysts had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 320,000 in July and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.6 percent. The forecast was made earlier this week before other jobs data prompted some economists to lower their estimates for job losses.

This may represent the bottoming out of the recession after almost eighteen months.  The BLS showed most industries still terminating jobs (except health care and education), but the rate has slowed considerably.  Manufacturing losses dropped to 52,000, the first time in 10 months it went below 100,000 in any month.  The service industry lost 119,000 following worse-than-expected news about the contraction of that sector.

Unfortunately, that statistic tells only part of the story.  According to the BLS, the percentage of Americans of working age with jobs continued to drop.  In July, the number was 59.4%, down from 59.5% in June and 60.5% in January.  That indicates that long-term joblessness may not get completely captured in the unemployment numbers shown in this report.

The curve still seems to be following the predicted path of an economy without the Porkulus bill, as noted in Christine Romer’s January analysis:

Having the upward trajectory of joblessness slow down does not make a recovery.  As Winston Churchill reminded the British after the miracle of Dunkirk, wars do not get won by successful evacuations.  Until the economy starts generating a net increase in jobs and not just a lower net decrease, the overall employment rate will creep upwards.  The only way for that to happen is to get capital into the markets to create jobs.  The stock market has shown some indications lately that capital may finally be getting off the sidelines, but it won’t jump fully back into play as long as the Obama administration insists on pursuing policies hostile to business.

Update: Jim Geraghty and James Pethokoukis throw a dash of cold water and reason on these numbers:

In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the civilian labor force was 154,926,000 people.

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce, and thus their unemployment calculations for this month, because they have stopped looking for work “because they believe no jobs are available for them.” Ten percent of the June workforce would be 15.4 million, 1 percent would be 1.5 million, and so 796,000 is roughly one half of one percent.

In other words, BLS took .5 percent of what you and I would consider unemployed and took them out of their total. And with that, unemployment went down one tenth of one percent.

I recall the Left accusing George W. Bush of doing the same thing in 2002-3 in the unemployment figures — when they didn’t get above 7% or so.  I guess it’s now OK to do it.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

dogsoldier

Indeed.

U6 is an apples to apples comparison with the way they counted things in the Great Depression.

But, we have transitioned since then first from agrarian to industrial to information age. And, women have entered the work force in larger #’s since Rosie the Riveter.

trollkiller on August 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I understand, and I did not crow about Bush on many subjects, including this one. But he is no longer in office.

The incompetent Bozo regime is trying to camouflage their poor performance and that the economy will sink even further.

Look, please, when all the unemployed run out of benefits, (including yours truly) the shyte will hit the fan, in ways we cannot fathom or predict. The meltdown will happen in a moment.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Olby’s head might explode tonight.

Rigged numbers say unemployment dropped a whopping .1%, so the recovery is a resounding success.

Lots of videos around to show the rabid right-wing extremist angry mobs trying to get a word in edgewise.

It’s utopia in Uberville tonight.

fogw on August 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM

U.S. stocks and the dollar rose on the data as investors sensed the recession was ending. Safe-haven government bond prices tumbled.

Analysts had expected non-farm payrolls to fall by 320,000 in July and the jobless rate to hit 9.6 percent. The forecast was made earlier this week before other jobs data prompted some analysts to lower their estimates for job losses.

The government revised job losses for May and June to show 43,000 fewer jobs lost than previously reported.

The easing in the unemployment rate could have been the result of the labor force shrinking by 422,000 in July, far more than the 155,000 decline in June, suggesting jobless workers may have given up looking for new work. – reuters

Reuters, Reuters, tsk tsk. Predict 9.6, declare 9.5 and the recession is ending, stocks are flying, and Obama needed a diversion to pump the Townhall debacle

Useful way to pump your own tires

According to a news flash I heard last night most of the new employment is in healthcare and education, which have a fixed employee base, and let us include the green grants jobs, the cash for clunker jobs, etc. When that money flow stops the numbers will also.

No wonder they need healthcare for all and more for teachers. It is the only way to get good numbers for the next month. Too bad it doesn’t touch the general population

I don’t mind cash for clunkers. At least the poor taxpaying schmo gets some his own money back, but these people have now bought a gov subsidized car. Are they in or out of the future car market?

Got to ‘end’ the recession before the Healthcare vote.

Keep it up Reuters, and don’t forget to email Obama with my address so I can be properly handled

entagor on August 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM

In other words, BLS took .5 percent of what you and I would consider unemployed and took them out of their total. And with that, unemployment went down one tenth of one percent.

I knew there had to be something “fishy” about this. Now, how long before revised numbers show it’s much worse, and the media tries to bury the story?

RightWinged on August 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Had to fix it for me… no coffee yet… sorryy….

Romeo13 on August 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Knew what you meant.

singer on August 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Though to be fair to Obama, it does look like he’s found a way to get the unemployment rate down to 5%. If jobs continue to be lost at a 3 million per year rate and workers leave the workforce at a 10 million per year rate, the unemployment rate will be 5% in about 14 months.

jarodea on August 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM

I made a mistake there, 800k being the total of discouraged workers removed by July. ~400k is the number removed for July so it would be if “workers leave the workforce at 5 million per year”, that would be 50 months before unemployment got to 5%. Hopefully just in time for a new president who can reduce the unemployment rate while growing the workforce.

jarodea on August 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM

RI recently threatened to shut down 1200 small businesses for not paying their sales taxes. I imagine most of the owners and their family employees can’t collect and aren’t counted in the ranks of the unemployed. This is probably happening in other states as well as revenue collections are down everywhere.

singer on August 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM

They only want bad news and more jobs lost to score political points, regardless of who it hurts.

Okay this is great news. The financial crisis is over. Can we cancel the rest of the stimulus package then? It looks like the remaining $400 or billion or so in spending won’t be necessary after all.

Mike Honcho on August 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM

OK, so with 350,000 new claims, we somehow have 260,000 less unemployed? How does that happen?

We have 350,000 people lose their jobs, so that means that there were 610,000 new hires in July?

Right.

June total unemployed, 14,729
July total unemployed, 14,462

Somehow we also have lost 422,000 people from our work force?

Not surprising, our total NOT in the labor work force, is at an all-time high, jumped 637,000 in July.

That is how they lowered the unemployment. They moved a bunch of people out of the work force.

They are cooking the numbers.

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I forgot to add, our work force went from

154,926

to

154,504

These are just normal people who could work. Who should be working or looking for a job.

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM

A fall in labor force participation explains the divergence between a positive new claims and a falling unemployment rate. Wasn’t sure if it was posted above, but that’s the primary reason.

You can find unambiguously bad information in other data to be certain, but I’m cautiously optimistic that unless we double-dip (still quite possible!!) we won’t hit 10 percent this year. White House still seems to think we might, oddly enough.

DrSteve on August 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM

(Numbers in thousands)

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Big surprise that the Labor Dept would screw around with the numbers.

I’ve been wondering for months when they would finally get around to it.

guntotinglibertarian on August 7, 2009 at 12:21 PM

If I recall correctly, you’re in or out of the work force depending on how you respond to a survey question about job search. A couple of months ago we had a jump in the LFP because people hit a benefits or credit wall and had to re-enter the workforce to search for a job.

I really doubt BLS is messing with the numbers. Way too many moving parts involved in that process.

DrSteve on August 7, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Here is the nugget,

total of the population that is employed

June – 140,196,000 59.5
July – 140,041,000 59.4

So, .1 percent less people are employed, yet those unemployed went down?

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:25 PM

The last time we were at 59.4 % employment was 1984.

another number,

529,000 less are employed now, then in June, when unemployment number was the same, 9.4%

That is fixing the numbers.

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Should of said

529,000 less are employed now, then in MAY, when unemployment number was the same, 9.4%

That is fixing the numbers.

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:35 PM

A fall in labor force participation explains the divergence between a positive new claims and a falling unemployment rate. Wasn’t sure if it was posted above, but that’s the primary reason.

DrSteve on August 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Yes many times. That’s the main point of contention over whether losing jobs at a 3 million per annum rate is a great thing just because the labor force participation rate is falling quicker.

Also, yeah the unemployment rate is determined by a survey of people who self define as employed, unemployed looking for work, or unemployed not looking for work. That’s the source of problems like “300,000 jobs added last month but the unemployment rate increased 0.1″ and probably the current one. Doesn’t change that the numbers are in no way good.

jarodea on August 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM

The numbers are also getting skewed by the temporary stimulus jobs.
Citi announced this week that they are hiring HUNDREDS to handle the paperwork created by the Cash For Clunkers boondoggle.
They are temp jobs, three months at $15 an hour, but it will serve to lower the unemployment number again and support the claim that the stimulus has created jobs.
Here’s the job posting.

dinobalz on August 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM

I believe they are even playing games to make their cronies money. A few months back, 2 days ahead of the jobs report, private economists predicted a bad job loss # based on examination of preliminary data. I shorted the market at 3 to 1 leverage via ETF’s on these estimations.

The next day the administration refuted the private economists saying the #’s would be better than the pessimistic predictions. The market shot up on this blasting of private predictions.

So, I got burned.

When the official report was released the next morning the actual numbers were in line with private predictions.

The govt. had the same data. There was no way for them to make political hay of this. It seems to me it was more like they were feeding their buddies an opportunity for a quick skim of the market.

trollkiller on August 7, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Should of said

529,000 less are employed now, then in MAY, when unemployment number was the same, 9.4%

That is fixing the numbers.

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:35 PM

There was also an increase in the adult population of 418,000 during that period which at the labor force participation rate would mean about 280,000 new workers. I wouldn’t go as far as to say the numbers are being fixed, but 529,000 few people working, and 280,000 new workers equaling the same unemployment rate is not good and shows how problematic the unemployment rate is as a short-term gauge.

jarodea on August 7, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Lord knows the BLS wouldn’t stoop to politically hackery…

Remember how the BLS would routinely under-report new job creation after the Bush Tax cuts and the “update” the figures a month or so later, thus allowing the MSM to continue to push the “jobless recovery” meme…

phreshone on August 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Please remember we have a chance to vote every single day. Don’t buy anything made by GE… don’t buy “union made” whenever possible. If you have Progressive Insurance… cancel it and get something else. Boycott NBC advertisers and let them know about it. As a group, we conservatives possess the nuclear weapon of political warfare. Our wallets. I’m not referring to political contributions either. Choose where you spend wisely and make sure the vendor involved knows why you are or are not buying.

CC

CapedConservative on August 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Oh and first line of the article says it all about the bogus numbers:

“U.S. employers cut 247,000 jobs in July”

The CUT 250,000 jobs and the Obama administration is claiming unemployment went DOWN?

Yes there is voodoo math going on now.

JeffinSac on August 7, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Lord knows the BLS wouldn’t stoop to politically hackery…

Remember how the BLS would routinely under-report new job creation after the Bush Tax cuts and the “update” the figures a month or so later, thus allowing the MSM to continue to push the “jobless recovery” meme…

phreshone on August 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM

In defense of the BLS, during growth periods it usually underestimates job growth and during recessions it usually underestimates job losses (as it did most of the last year). It’s due to how the numbers are caculated, the same thing usually happens with GDP figures. A more useful way to look at job numbers is “last month numbers + revision amount to last 2 months numbers”. The media won’t do it unless it benefits the Democrats but that’s not the BLS’ fault.

jarodea on August 7, 2009 at 12:54 PM

If my math is correct, if we still count those 796,000 poeple that dropped off the roles as unemployed then we are looking at in fact 9.9% unemployment. But the stimulus is working.

cadams on August 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Market-ticker.org has a report that half of all mortgages could be underwater by the 2011.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Uh…Uh…but..THE STIMULUS PACKAGE ISN’T WORKING!!! KEEP REPEATING THAT!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM

The economy looses a quarter of a million jobs, and you want to declare that the stimulus package is working?

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Print me 1 trillion dollars and I’ll show you a party too.
There is bound to be some bump from all the money thrown at the problem. The problem is they are ‘throwing’ the money at the problem.

bbordwell on August 7, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Fannie Mae posted a $15 billion loss for the last quarter, and needs another infusion of cash. Freddie Mac hasn’t reported yet, but likewise is expected to need another infusion.

ICBM on August 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I read a report last week that FDIC has less than $800M left in it’s accounts.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Isn’t 9.4% still higher than Obama said it would ever get?

Scrappy on August 7, 2009 at 1:15 PM

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce

247,000 fewer net jobs, and the unemployment “went down”? What…did a million unemployed workers die this month?

Jaibones on August 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Hey – that was a pretty good guess. Throw me a friggin’ bone, guys!

Jaibones on August 7, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Unemployment number is number of people ON unemployment compensation.

When it goes down .1% you have to ask: Is it because we had a net creation of jobs or because fewer people are on unemployment?

Less people are on unemployment. The people who lost their jobs last summer when gas prices were 4.50 a gallon and unemployment started up are losing their benefits.

Rich Democrats will still keep drinking the kool-aid that their messiah is saving the economy and reacting with their money in the stock market, then the Senate and House will force healthcare on us through reconciliation, the deficit inflation will come, gas will hit $5 and the market will crash.

And I will cry zero tears for anybody who loses their money when the market hits 3,000. Not one. Anybody stupid enough to get their ecnomonic analysis from Reuters deserves to be destitute. It’s worse than investing in a company because it’s “hot,” when it is actually a shell. Investigate what you’re investing in, and dow investors clearly aren’t.

PastorJon on August 7, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I smell troll.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

That’s why I keep a clothes pin next to the monitor.

MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2009 at 1:16 PM

More to the point – when we are still shedding jobs in November, and some of these people arbitrarily “taken off the unemployment rolls” somehow fight their way back on the rolls, we’ll see the true numbers = over 10%.

Jaibones on August 7, 2009 at 1:17 PM

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce.

They went back to school? Just wait until next month! “We saved the day! Unemployment is a thing of the past!” – hopenchange.

kirkill on August 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Look at the non-seasonal adjusted data.

At the bottom of the Birth-Death Model page, they post a non-seasonally adjusted change in month over month employment. July shows a loss of 1,333,000 jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

Absolutely stunning! Our modern Soviets added ONE MILLION fictional jobs to get the net loss of 247K.

KentAllard on August 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM

KentAllard on August 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Wow

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Ok so when you’ve looked for jobs for months and can’t find one and give up, you are no longer unemployed?! Are you kidding me???

Christian Conservative on August 7, 2009 at 2:01 PM

“U.S. employers cut 247,000 jobs in July”

The CUT 250,000 jobs and the Obama administration is claiming unemployment went DOWN?

JeffinSac on August 7, 2009 at 12:53 PM

And don’t forget we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

angryed on August 7, 2009 at 2:10 PM

The problem is that we are applying math and analytical skills taught to us from the pre 1980′s. In order to understand this, you have apply math skills taught in the public school system since the 1990′s and drop all analytical skills. This will clarify the numbers and better prepare you for the Obama redistricting that will come after the 2010 census.

MichiganMatt on August 7, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Ok so when you’ve looked for jobs for months and can’t find one and give up, you are no longer unemployed?! Are you kidding me???

Christian Conservative on August 7, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Unfortunately that is the case. Although in fairness to the filthy fascist, this is not his invention. This stupidity has been around for a long time. Which is why the unemployment rate is meaningless.

angryed on August 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM

..529,000 less are employed now, then in MAY, when unemployment number was the same, 9.4%

That is fixing the numbers.

WoosterOh on August 7, 2009 at 12:35 PM

WoosterOh, you’re going at it hammer abnd tongs up there and know where you’re coming from — great job! Bottom line though is that The Boy King and his crowd are orgasmic over a .1% drop in the number that the state-owned media reports to brain-dead America. If we’re still around 8.5-9.5% in December when the 8.5-9.5% will be needing to buy Christmas presents for their kids, a tenth of a freaking percent won’t mean diddley squat. The pitchforks and torches will come out and the peasants will be marching on the baron’s castle.

VoyskaPVO on August 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM

KentAllard

It shows the same huge “negative” in 2008?

And, they say there is a historical season modulation to it?

I find it hard to imagine the creation of 1 million plus jobs
from new business in this environment. What are they postulating: that every college grad incorporated in July?

trollkiller on August 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM

This is excellent news.

I also heard that chocolate rations will be increased to 24 grams per week.

Multibucket on August 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Rush is talking about the U6 unemployment rate.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM

They went back to school? Just wait until next month! “We saved the day! Unemployment is a thing of the past!” – hopenchange.

kirkill on August 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Next month? Try TODAY! Look at Drudge…Obambi is claiming to have saved us from “catastrophe”. I’m gonna need some Kool Aid soon or I’m gonna start slitting wrists…and I don’t mean my own!

Fighton03 on August 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM

I’d like to see Bozo make that claim at the unemployment office on Monday.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 2:57 PM

KentAllard

Great Post. Big Wow!

OK. I reread the “beauracratise.” I only speak English.

By their own statement:

1) They count defunct businesses as having cut the same percentage of jobs as the continued existing businesses in the survey sample.

2) They then add in the monthly historical average of jobs gained by business birth based on a 5 year average — when times were better.

There is no way in this climate that does not deflate the uemployment number.

trollkiller on August 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Oh please. I can remember Democrats comparing Bush to Hoover when unemployment was at 6% and the DOW was 11,000. My guess is the BLS figured Obama needed some good news and so they manufactured some for him.

Terrye on August 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM

they have stopped looking for work “because they believe no jobs are available for them.”

So, if everyone stops looking for work, we have full employment! BRILLIANT!!!

RedNewEnglander on August 7, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Wonderful news, Brothers. The choco ration has gone down by only 20 grams!

Don’t forget; if contacted by agents of Goldstein send the info to Flag@Whorehouse.gov

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM

BLS juggling the numbers?

I have no doubt that they are. Even if they weren’t though, unless I misunderstand “unemployment rate” it stands to reason that as time goes by, with a smaller work force at the beginning of each month,the rate of newly unemployed will decrease. This lower rate of newly unemployed does not mean the economy is getting better,only that it is contracting at a slower rate. It is still contracting

oldernwiser on August 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/john-lott-unemployment/

FTA:

In July 102,670 people saw their unemployment benefits run out.

Fox is saying the actual number is 16.3%

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM

People,

The stock market has gone up for two reasons:

1) Interest rates are still low due to the Fed/Treasury.

2) The ridiculous amount of liquidity has nowhere else to go.

It means nothing.

Sapwolf on August 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Terex Cedarapids, which makes rock crushing and paving equipment, will eliminate some 170 jobs when it ends manufacturing at its northeast Cedar Rapids facility in mid-2010.

Terex blamed the drop in construction-equipment orders because of the worldwide recession for its decision to close the plant.


But what about the shovel ready jobs?

agmartin on August 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM

The data dealing with the total employed has been taken down. What’s with that???!?!?

gstrickler on August 7, 2009 at 7:29 PM

There are 6 million more people getting food stamps compared to last year. They are f-in with the numbers. After their actions on health care, I do not trust this administration one bit. I believe nothing they say.

xax on August 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM

How does the number of unemployed persons increase by 247,000, but the unemployment rate decreases by 0.1%?

Hermeticus on August 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Biden and his staff, who never get the meme, said the downward tick would not last and they see unemployment at 10% towards the end of summer.

bayview on August 7, 2009 at 9:18 PM

So, unemployment is really 9.9?

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on August 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Uh…Uh…but..THE STIMULUS PACKAGE ISN’T WORKING!!! KEEP REPEATING THAT!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM

You Dummies …Uh Uh I mean Demos said the Stim had essentially not kicked into gear. So how could it have had any measurable effect ? You know it is a joke but hey keep wearing those knee pads.

CWforFreedom on August 7, 2009 at 9:41 PM

The number of people who truly are unemployed and not included in the government figures has to be at its highest number since the depression.

CWforFreedom on August 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM

“in healthcare and education, which have a fixed employee base,”

I recall readng that lots of the stimulus package went to Medicaid/Medicare/Schip programs. Biden also said that the stimulus has kept lots of public employees employed.

davod on August 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM

I watched Christine Romer, AKA Giggles, give her financial analysis at the Economic Club on CSPAN this week

It was surreal

I believe I posted the correct link which is painful to watch. At one point she has a chart showing three evaluations of the economy, none from her office. I think one was money.com. Bizarre. In the Q&A someone calls her on it. There were tepid questions from the audience, but one good statement, the fellow saying he thought he was watching Nero fiddle while Rome burns

Asked about her job, she said (paraphrase) it was hard, She has a teen son. One night she got home at 11:00 pm, another night, 11:30 pm … and her husband has to do all the work at home now. They used to share.. I have to parphrase, I can’t watch this twice. Maybe in a year

Watch this to understand who is running things in DC

If you are confused about our course this should give you a better handle what is going on in DC

Thanks to CSPAN for putting this out. My opinion of CSPAN is such I wonder if they thought this was a significant speech

entagor on August 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.