Ooooops! Kinda Miscalculated, Huh?

Bloomberg.com is reporting that the government's revised annual job losses for April 2008 to March 2009 will show that 824,000 more jobs were lost during that time than were originally counted.

Bloomberg.com sensationalizes it by saying, "When the government releases Friday's employment report, nearly a million jobs could be erased," then it quickly acknowledges, "[T]he expected drop will show up in the ... revised job losses ... showing the labor market was in much worse shape than we knew at the time."

I agree, the numbers show that things were worse than believed. But this country already knew it was losing half a million jobs or more every month. That's a crisis. The fact that it is worse than we thought it was at the time should not make it acceptable now, in the eyes of any American, for those in government to have ignored it the way they did.

On average, the revision, while alarming, raised each month's total by less than 70,000. Not too long ago, that was considered a bad month. Recently, it has been treated as a sign that things were getting better.

It's all in the way you look at it, I guess.

But, please, don't forget that those 824,000 jobs were held, at one time, by flesh–and–blood people. I'd like to think most, if not all, will find work, but another Bloomberg.com observation punctures that balloon.

Economic theorists have long believed that job losses caused by a company closing could be offset by jobs created by new or existing businesses. But the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics told Bloomberg.com that most of the revision "appears to be due in part to an increase in the number of business closings."

Sounds to me like those jobs aren't coming back.

And if Obama and the Democrats don't want this to be the dreaded jobless recovery, they'd better find a way to encourage a lot of job creation.

Jindal's Stock is on the Way Up

Adam Nossiter of the New York Times says Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is emerging as a leading candidate to be John McCain's running mate.

While Jindal's record in office -- so far -- has been impressive, I think he still needs some seasoning, needs to add a few accomplishments to his resume, before thinking about being a national candidate. He's only in his 30s, about half McCain's age.

McCain needs youth on his ticket -- as well as someone who appeals to social conservatives. Jindal fits the bill on both counts.

And he's got (limited) executive experience. With two legislators running against each other for the presidency, if one has a running mate who has experience on the executive side, that candidate has an edge.

If Jindal had been governor for a few years rather than a few months, he might be perfect for McCain.

Actually, speculation is running rampant among Republicans these days, even though it's early June and observers don't expect McCain to announce his choice until early August.

Matthew Cooper suggests, in Portfolio.com, that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina could be McCain's running mate. Cooper says discussions linking Fiorina to the GOP ticket are "talk she discourages but doesn't dismiss, even if the chances of it actually happening are probably far-fetched."

There also has been talk of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but that's talk that has been drawing a decidedly mixed response.

Some bloggers have been giving Bloomberg a thumbs-down response. "No this would be a bad thing!! New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a huge anti 2nd Amendment person and therefore anti-gun!! McCain should not choose him as a running mate and it worries me to see this!!" writes MaddMedic blog.

Bloomberg's politics appear to be middle of the road, so much so that he's even being mentioned as a possible running mate for Democrat Barack Obama.

And word is that California Evangelicals' survey of its membership finds McCain will suffer a substantial drop in support from followers of that organization if he picks a running mate who is not perceived as a conservative.

I guess the wildest suggestion I've seen is that Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan in 1984 and supported Hillary Clinton in this year's Democratic race, could be McCain's running mate.

On the Democratic side, I have hesitated to speculate on running mates until I was sure who would be the nominee. It's not certain yet, but it sure looks like Obama will be the party's standard-bearer.

I think Obama should pick someone with executive experience, someone who has been a governor or is currently a governor. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is a strong pick.

A governor also has the advantage of having won a statewide campaign, just as senators do.

Aside from Obama, there aren't many blacks holding offices that are elected on a statewide basis.

And the one I can think of -- the governor of New York -- was actually elected lieutenant governor and rose to become governor when the incumbent resigned.

So the experience of having won a statewide race -- even in a relatively small state like New Mexico -- will be valuable to a national ticket.

Other Democratic governors Obama could consider are Ohio's Ted Strickland, Oklahoma's Brad Henry, Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell.

(As for McCain, there are quite a few other Republican governors in the South if Jindal doesn't suit him.)

But I would counsel Obama against picking a woman governor, on the grounds that a black man and a woman on the ticket would be change that is too radical for most voters.

Some of the polls suggest that voters are willing to consider voting for a ticket like that. But people have been known to misrepresent the facts to pollsters.

That's too bad because there are some talented women in Democratic politics -- Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (can you imagine what Democrats could do with a Lincoln on the ticket?).

At some point, the Democrats will put another woman on the national ticket. It just shouldn't be this year.