First, jobs were getting lost before Dec 2007. I was laid off by a real estate broker of 35 years, six months before the recession officially began. He didn’t close his doors till Dec 2007, but I was a cost-saving measure as the housing bubble popped, so I’m clearly a victim of the official recession.

Second, as they note in the article, there’s now 30 million Americans unemployed. And 14.5 million lost their jobs since the official start of the recession. By comparison, at the peak of the Great Depression, 22 million were jobless.

That’s right, in actual numbers more Americans are jobless now. 33% more are. And while that’s a smaller percentage of all working age Americans, we now have more Americans desperate, trying to survive. And that’s a dilemma our government still has no answer for.

And it’s predicted to get worse yet before it gets better. The bottom could be 9 months away.

Buddy, can you spare some work?

For those who don’t recall, Dana Priest, with Anne Hull, broke the Walter Reed Hospital scandal. And Marcy Wheeler’s coverage of the outing of Valerie Plame, during the Scooter Libby trial, exceeded every MSM outlet in its depth and scope. So remember those names. I can recall how most have contributed and I intend to learn more about the others.

Faretheewell, Dan. I expect to read your stuff again.

At the beginning of this year, you may remember, Mr. Obama made an eloquent case for a strong economic stimulus — then delivered a proposal falling well short of what independent analysts (and, I suspect, his own economists) considered necessary. The goal, presumably, was to attract bipartisan support. But in the event, Mr. Obama was able to pick up only three Senate Republicans by making a plan that was already too weak even weaker.

At the time, some of us warned about what might happen: if unemployment surpassed the administration’s optimistic projections, Republicans wouldn’t accept the need for more stimulus. Instead, they’d declare the whole economic policy a failure. And that’s exactly how it’s playing out. With the unemployment rate now almost certain to pass 10 percent, there’s an overwhelming economic case for more stimulus. But as a political matter it’s going to be harder, not easier, to get that extra stimulus now than it would have been to get the plan right in the first place.

The point is that if you’re making big policy changes, the final form of the policy has to be good enough to do the job. You might think that half a loaf is always better than none — but it isn’t if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach.

Which brings us back to health care. It would be a crushing blow to progressive hopes if Mr. Obama doesn’t succeed in getting some form of universal care through Congress. But even so, reform isn’t worth having if you can only get it on terms so compromised that it’s doomed to fail.

This isn’t a left vs. right issue. It’s about who’ll get left out, again. And if Obama doesn’t know how best to use the bully pulpit on such a major issue, then he really is just an empty suit with lots of fancy words that won’t heal a damn thing.

a) uses public funds to pay the airfare to visit his lover. And no, repaying it should not mean exoneration any more than it would if I stole your car, then brought it back;

b) takes a trip and discusses trade with a foreign representative in violation of US policy;

c) especially when discussing agricultural trade with a rep from a country that defaulted on its debts, harming major US farmers.

It seems Sanford owes a few more apologies and should be investigated for apparent law violations.