A drop to 7 percent unemployment and 203,000 jobs added is extremely positive news, suggesting there is something to be said for benign neglect. Without a stimulus, a new tax plan and or even a budget deal, we had the best month in quite a long time. The economy, if left largely alone, is very resilient.
The very next paragraph:
I agree with my colleague Greg Sargent that this shouldn’t lead to a cutoff in unemployment benefits. Seven percent is still a lot of unemployed people, and the number of long-term unemployed is still historically high. Conservative Doug Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum says via e-mail, “The unemployed are increasingly the long-term unemployed — the hardest policy problem to solve. In addition, memories are short — 200,000 jobs should not be a cause for celebration. At this pace, it will take another 19 months to get the unemployment rate down from 7.0 to 6.0 percent.” In exchange for extending unemployment benefits, Democrats should look at GOP ideas for consolidating and reforming work training programs.
To recap: This proves Obama shouldn't do anything and let the jobs market correct itself, but why doesn't Obama do something about long-term unemployment? And then there's the very next paragraph following the above:
The stratification in unemployment rates among college graduates (3.4 percent unemployment rate), high school graduates (7.3 percent) and high school dropouts (10.8 percent) is worrisome. If the president wants to do something about income inequality, focusing on the dropout program would be a good idea.
Obama should do nothing about unemployment and why hasn't he fixed income inequality yet?
This one is paragraph 5 on the list:
The improvement in the jobs pictures suggests a small-is-better approach to governance. Modest budget deals are perfectly fine for now. In the long-term our entitlement problem is deeply worrisome, but so far this president has shown neither the will nor the ability to face up to it. It will have to wait for the next president.
And finally she ends with this sentence:
Government should do no harm (see Nos. 1 and 5), but it would be better if both sides could agree on a package of growth-enhancing proposals.
We need growth, but Obama should do nothing and why hasn't he fixed the economy?
Here's a better economics question: why is this vapid pile of derp still employed?