RUSH: I have here a review of AP stories on unemployment, and it is hilarious. All three are from the AP by Christopher Rugaber. From this morning at 8:30, AP story headline: "Jobs Report Could Show Signs of Modest Growth." This is before the news was released, now. This story ran before the job number of zero was announced. "Businesses likely shrugged off recession fears and kept hiring in August, although not nearly enough to lower the unemployment rate. Analysts forecast that the economy added 93,000 jobs last month, down from 117,000 in July. Unemployment rates expected to stay at 9.1%, according to a survey by Factset." Okay. That's number one. At 8:30, businesses likely shrugged off recession fears, kept hiring in August, added 93,000 jobs in August.
Next story is about 11:15 this morning, same reporter, Christopher Rugaber. "August began with rising fears that another recession was about to hit. That was then. A month later,
the economy and the stock market appear more resilient, suggesting that consumers, businesses and investors remain confident enough to keep spending. A more authoritative test will come Friday, when the government issues the August jobs report. Employers are expected to have added 93,000 jobs, which would not be enough to significantly lower the jobless rate of 9.1 percent. But it would solidify evidence that the economy, though still weak, is growing steadily. Many analysts now expect it to strengthen in the months ahead."
Okay, and then after that Christopher Rugaber heard that the number was not 93,000 jobs added, but zero, zilch, zero, nada and he ran around the AP newsroom saying, "Oh, my God, get me rewrite!" Washington: "Employers Added No Net Workers Last Month -- The unemployment rate was unchanged, a sign that many were nervous the US economy could be at risk of slipping into another recession. The Labor Department said Friday that total payrolls were unchanged in August, the weakest report in almost a year." So actually the first report was 15 hours ago, then early this morning, and then the number comes out. Three AP stories, the first two talking about revived growth, 93,000 new jobs in August. Then they released the number, and the headline: "Employers Add No Net Jobs in Aug.; Rate Unchanged -- The Labor Department said Friday that total payrolls were unchanged in August, the weakest report in almost a year. It's the first time since February 1945 that the government has reported a net job change of zero."
Now, Reuters refrained from mentioning this detail in its report, the 1945 aspect. Now, this is profoundly embarrassing. It's hilarious but it's embarrassing. Two stories from AP, before the number is known, 93,000 jobs expected in August, sign the economy is growing, confidence rebounding, blah, blah. Then the number comes out zero. No mention of their previous two erroneous stories. But the question remains, who told AP that there were gonna be 93,000 new jobs in August? Who leaked that to 'em? And they believed it. I explained that. If the labor force were as large today as it was when Obama was immaculated, the U3 unemployment rate would be 11.4%. The actual unemployment rate, you count people that stopped looking, their benefits have expired and all that, we're up to 20%. We are at 16.9% unemployment in the black community.
One out of five Americans cannot find work in the greatest nation on earth. We have journalistic malpractice going on here from the Associated Press, telling everybody in stories leading up to the release of the number that 93,000 jobs are gonna be created. And what number do you think people might remember? Two stories at 93,000, then the real news hits and it's zero and it's sort of undersold and no big deal. The black youth unemployment rate in August was 46.5%. Black youth, that's teenagers. The real unemployment number should be derived from the number of jobs actually filled in America divided by the number of Americans of working age. That's what most people probably think it is. But it's not.
The regime is reducing the size of the labor force. They're basically saying fewer Americans want to work, so there are fewer jobs to fill. So if you lower the universe, that's how you have an unemployment rate that stays at 9.1% when not one person got a job. Stop and think of that, not one job created in August, not one. There actually was one, and the networks were all ready to interview the guy today, but he got laid off August 31st.
RUSH: Here's Richard, White Plains, New York, Open Line Friday rolls on. Hello, Richard.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Real quick, Huntsman was on Greta last night, and his plan was basically to reform the tax code. He said nothing about entitlement reform or even cutting spending.
RUSH: Yeah, I've since learned that his tax overhaul plan is sort of like Reagan's '86 plan. He would lower the corporate and individual tax rates, which would broaden the base, taxpayers, he would eliminate loopholes and eliminate the capital gains and dividend taxes.
CALLER: Yeah, but he strategically avoided upsetting anybody on the left or even independents, you know, by saying he's not gonna cut anything. He should be a Democrat. But anyway, the point I want to make was that three years ago when Obama was elected, I said it back then that if he didn't turn the economy around, him and his partners in the Drive-By Media are gonna blame Bush again as their reelection theme. I saw a poll last night that was taken recently that shows 60-something percent polled believe the poor economy is still Bush's fault.
RUSH: What poll was that, do you remember?
CALLER: Oh, God, Rush, there's so many, Zogby, Rasmussen, one of those. It was on Fox.
RUSH: I'm not disputing it. I haven't seen a poll that says 60% still blame Bush.
CALLER: It was in the sixties, Rush, I'm almost certainly positive of that.
RUSH: I haven't yet seen it. I'll try to find it out there. I was wondering if you ask those polled why they blame Bush, the best answer they could give you is a guilt by association answer. Well, he was in office, that's why it was his fault. So, you know, since we have a simple guilt by association logic that is, of course, driven by the liberal media, and now you have Obama and his supporters in the media trying to blame a Republican Congress for our poor economy, my question is, where was the guilt by association when the Democrats took over Congress the exact two years the economy tanked in '07 and '08?
RUSH: All right, a great question. And I, of course, as host have the answer for you. Now, there's an AP-GfK poll from the other day, and I don't know if this is the one you saw, but that poll says that 51% blame Bush. The reason that whatever percentage blame Bush is to me quite simple. Three, if not four years of daily, unstoppable, smothering smearing and criticism of Bush that was unanswered by anybody in the White House.
RUSH: And in fact even in the first term of the Bush administration, the media was trying to say that the economy then was bordering on recession. They were trying to tell us
when the unemployment rate was 4.7%, then five and five and a half percent, that we were trending toward recession, and they were doing that leading up to the '08 campaign, years prior. This was all about making sure that a Democrat, any Democrat, before they'd even chosen Obama, was elected president in 2008. But if you have the Bush administration, I mean smotheringly smeared multiple times a day for five years and the White House not once reacting to it, rejecting it, disagreeing with it, offering counter evidence, what are people gonna do?
CALLER: Rush, I equate the media to the artillery for those four years shelling, you know, shelling before the infantry goes in --
RUSH: Precisely. The second part of your question is how come nobody has blamed the Democrats since Pelosi took over since 2007? Sir, since 2007 this economy has been in recovery, it's been growing, as far as the media is concerned. Look at this absolute abomination from AP just today and yesterday. Yesterday, AP with a story, 93,000 jobs will be created in August, it will be announced tomorrow. Not enough to change the unemployment rate but a sure sign that there are positive signs of growth. Then the number comes out and it's zero. And they ho-hum report that and never reference the fact that they were dead wrong in their forecast of 93,000.
The answer is, there has not been a smothering smear of the Democrats and their economic policies every day for four or five years. There hasn't been that for a single day in the Drive-By Media. So that's why people still blame Bush. It's not just that. While the media was smearing Bush each and every day multiple times a day, they were ginning up personal hatred for the guy along with opposition to whatever his economic policies were. For seven years we heard the Bush tax cuts were creating poor people and destroying the economy. The White House never responded to it. The answer to your question is simple, frustratingly so, but it's very simple.
Your analogy of artillery is a great one. The media is a constant barrage, and we don't have that. We don't have it. In fact, our side, look what happens when Obama asks to upstage a Republican debate with a phony job speech, our smart people criticize our Speaker for turning him down. We don't have an artillery. We got a bunch of appeasers in our media in Washington, 'cause we're afraid of angering the independents, or I don't know what else. I almost shouted the F-bomb there, folks. I gotta get another call here. Richard, you're dangerous.