RUSH: Forty-one percent of new jobs in November were in the government. Federal, state, and, local governments hired a net additional 338,000 workers in November. That's 41% of the total of 818,000 net additional jobs created in the United States during the month. At the same time unemployment rate for government workers went down from 4.4% to 3.2% in November. Unemployment for government workers was 4.4% in October.
In November it's 3.2%. The overall national unemployment rate fell from 7.3% to 7.0%. So the agency, the Census, which faked the 2012 election jobs report in October-November of last year, is now telling us that 818,000 new jobs were created, and there's a whole bunch of new people in the labor force, and, "Man, it's really, really good!" Except that it isn't. Forty-one percent of the new jobs are in government.
However, there is a bit of a dilemma for Obama, and right here it is in Reuters. "US Unemployment Rate Hits Five-Year Low; Eyes on the Fed." Why would that be? Well, let me tell you. "US employers hired more workers than expected in November, and the jobless rate fell to a five-year low of 7.0%, which could fan speculation that the Federal Reserve could start reducing its bond purchases," i.e., cut back on quantitative easing.
Reuters wants to be really happy at this news, but they are guarded because they are worried out there. In the first place, "unexpected" is now back in all the unemployment news. The "experts" are shocked! Unexpectedly good news here. But as this article points out, the president could be in a bind. Because if he jiggers the unemployment rate for the midterms -- and remember, now, John Crudel, New York Post, has documentation.
They faked the jobs news prior to the 2012 election, and as far as I'm concerned, anything that comes after that I'm dubious about it. I don't see a rapidly growing or expanding economy, and I don't think a lot of other people working. I don't see how it's possible, what with everything else that's happening in the economy, but here's the thing. Let me stay focused. The Federal Reserve has been pumping $85 billion a month into the stock market via bond purchases, quantitative easing.
This has created the impression that the stock market is going gangbusters, which has created the impression the economy is going gangbusters. Now, it's interesting to note, when there's a Republican in the White House and the stock market does well, that's bad. That just means the rich are getting richer and the president's rich Wall Street buddies and the president are in cahoots to protect themselves while Main Street and the average American dies.
When a Democrat is in the White House and Wall Street's doing well, it means the country's just going great! It's gangbusters, and what the hell is happening the middle class doesn't matter, because all that matters is any news anywhere is to be able to report that the Democrat destroying the economy is actually in charge of a great one. But here's the problem. As they jigger these numbers and as they report a growing economy, which is what you have to have here if you're creating this many jobs, 818,000 jobs...
Never mind that 41% are government jobs.
That's the kind of growth that the Fed might say, "You know what? We don't need to pump any money in the stock market anymore," and if that happens, that could cause the bubble on Wall Street to collapse, and that could take whatever this recovery is with it, because the Wall Street bubble is exactly a bubble. The $85 billion a month going into the bond market that's then being converted to buy stocks and securities, that's not coming from mom and Joe Six-Pack and people out in the country.
That is not you and me and everybody buying stock. That's the Fed printing money and buying stock, and that is artificial. That is not real economic activity. Well, we might get some argument on that because money is money. But the fact is, it's official in the sense that the Fed is printing money to put into the stock market. It's creating a burgeoning, growing stock market, which is a bubble because it isn't real.
You stop pumping that $85 billion into stock market, and what do you think's gonna happen? This is the risk that the Regime faces now as they jigger these numbers and report all these new jobs, what happens, and Reuters even alludes to it here, what happens if the Fed says, "Well, we can cut back now on our quantitative easing. We don't need to prime the pump as much now because the economy's growing on its own." Now we here at the EIB Institute, the Limbaugh Institute, are currently conducting a research project.
We are trying to find out what the unemployment rate has to be next November for the Democrats to hold the Senate and maybe win the House, because whatever that number is, that's what it will be by November of next year before the midterms. You can count on it. So we're gonna try to get a head start on what we think that number would be. We know how they had to jigger the numbers a year ago before the presidential election, and had to bring that unemployment number down below 8%, remember.
They did that by getting a lot of people out of the labor force. It's gonna be fascinating. So we have our algorithms going. We have all the analytics at our disposal going. We are trying to come up with that number, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democrats need to hold the Senate and win the House. Because that's what the number's gonna be next November. Mark my words, that's what it's gonna be. They're doing the same research, too, and they are trying to come up with that number.
But as they do this, over there's the Fed. Now, I know what you are cynics are saying. "But, Rush! But, Rush! Obama controls the Fed. All he's gotta do is call Janet Yellin or whatever and tell her how much money to keep putting in there." We'll see. But he in a blind because if he -- if he jiggers these numbers too much for the midterms, he does risk having the Fed cut back or stop entirely pumping $85 billion a month into the stock market, and that would cause this bubble to collapse, and that would not be pretty.
RUSH: I have another question, ladies and gentlemen.
If the jobless rate, the unemployment rate is at a five-year low, and if the economy is booming, then why are the Democrats demanding that the emergency, temporary, one-time-only federal unemployment benefits get extended for the fifth year in a row, hmm? If unemployment's plummeting -- if employment is skyrocketing and new jobs are being created left and right, and the economy's growing by leaps and bounds -- why are the Democrats demanding that we extend again the emergency temporary, one-time-only unemployment benefit if the fifth year in a row?
That's some emergency!
That's some "temporary" emergency.
It's the fifth year they're demanding this -- and, by the way, I hate to tell you this, but they're hell-bent to get this extension. They are willing to shut down the government to get it. Why is John Boehner talking like he might cave and give it to them? No, no, no, no. I am serious. There it is on Fox here right: "Lawmakers on Capitol Hill race to seal a budget deal," and the Democrats are adamant that we extend unemployment benefits, temporary emergency for the fifth year in a row to coincide with almost the whole Obama Regime.
Do you realize for this entire presidency we have needed emergency unemployment extension every year, and they're damned-well committed to getting another year? Why, if we are having all this great job news, hmm?