The Associated Press is reporting that Friday’s unemployment report will be … bad (tip: Don Surber). But the administration says it’s the weather’s fault. (At least it’s not the climate’s fault.) The AP calls shenanigans.

The report can’t just be dismissed. Once the snow effect is filtered out, they say the data will still signal weak hiring: Little if any job growth, and an unemployment rate predicted to rise to 9.8 percent or more from 9.7 percent.

While everyone’s getting their panties in a wad over the number of unemployed, they don’t realize that there is an easy way to solve the unemployment problem.

Make more people lose their jobs.

Now, sure, this sounds like a Barack Obama solution. He’s one to address a problem of too much government by having more government.

But, this isn’t the same thing. You see, I’m thinking that we could get more people back to work if a few certain select people joined the ranks of the unemployed. I can think of 257 people that need to lose their jobs, and things will get better.

Wait! I just thought of 59 more!

This will work.

You’re welcome.

Barack Obama keeps saying he inherited problems. And, the statistics show that, just maybe, he did.

Look at this graph from the Bureau of Labor.

[Source: Bureau of Labor]

Notice that unemployment was on its way up before he took office. It looks like Obama did inherit rising unemployment.

But then, take the statistics from this source — the Unites States Senate — showing which party controlled the Senate, and apply it to that graphic.

What do you get? This:

[Source: American Thinker]

So, when you go to criticize Barack Obama for his dismal performance, keep in mind that it’s not just his fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault.

And the fault of those that keep electing Democrats.

The job numbers for August are out. And they don’t look good.

Unemployment is now at 9.7% — the highest it’s been since 1983.

The “underemployment rate” — the unemployed rate plus part-time workers who prefer a full-time position plus people who want work but have given up looking for a job — is at 16.8 percent, a record.

What does all this mean?

Obviously, nearly 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. But what else does it mean?

It means that the wrong people are losing their jobs.

We need to fire some elected officials. I’m thinking the entire Obama administration would be a good place to start. But then, I said don’t hire those rascals to begin with. But did America listen to me? No. 52% of American voters went and did something stupid.

Oh, sure. They were frustrated. They didn’t like how things were. But not putting any thought into a solution is a bad solution.

So, we have unemployment near 10%.

I think we ought to give Congress a 10% unemployment rate. That would mean 10 Senators losing their jobs. And 43 or 44 Representatives being sent packing.

Some say to throw them all out. But, as a Representative said yesterday, there are downsides to doing that. Remember, that’s basically what happened to put Obama in office: a desire to get rid of who was there. They seemed to forget that Bush wasn’t running for a third term. Stupid Obama voters.

So, which 10% of Congress should be unemployed?

Oh, I have some ideas.

Senators who are up for reelection in 2010:
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)

Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
…Oh heck, I could go on and on with Representatives. But I’d start with this group.

If 10% of Congress lost their jobs … the most useless 10% … then unemployment might not be a bad thing after all.

Imagine this group having to work for a living. Or even trying to find a job.

There’s a company several miles down the road from here called Alatech. They’re in Eufaula, Alabama. And they make condoms.

And they used to sell condoms to the U.S. government. To the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to be precise.

But, according to McClatchy, that’s about to end:

In a move expected to cost 300 American jobs, the government is switching to cheaper off-shore condoms, including some made in China.

The switch comes despite implied assurances over the years that the agency would continue to buy American whenever possible.

“Of course, we considered how many U.S. jobs would be affected by this move,” said a USAID official who spoke on the condition that he would not be named. But he said the reasons for the change included lower prices (2 cents versus more than 5 cents for U.S.-made condoms) and the fact that Congress dropped “buy American language” in a recent appropriations bill.

Which means that the U.S. is going to be buying rubbers from the Red Chinese.

And that makes sense, if you thing about it. I mean, what else would socialists (Obama and the “Democratic” party) screw capitalists (American companies) with but commie condoms?

At least they’re using a rubber.

Remember the recent presidential election?

Sure you do. It was in all the papers.

Anyway, there was talk about how bad the economy was, and that putting a Democrat in office — even a raving socialist like Obama — would bring back the Clinton economy. Remember that?

Well, guess what? It’s happened.

The Dow closed this afternoon at 6725.02. It hasn’t closed that low since April 21st, 1997, when it closed at 6660.21.

That’s when Clinton was president.

At this rate, we’ll soon be a prosperous as we were during the Roosevelt administration, where the Dow peaked at 194.40, on March 10, 1937.

Ah, the good old days.

During the run-up to the recent election, those of us on the right said that an Obama election would be bad in several ways, including for the economy.

And now, Barack Hussein Obama agrees:

In the intervening weeks, the economy has showed clear signs of worsening. Employers said they eliminated more than 500,000 jobs in November alone and retailers reported disappointing holiday-season sales.

“The economy is going to get worse before it gets better,” he said twice in the early moments of the interview, taped Saturday in Chicago.

What else does he now agree with us about?

That he’ll be weak on national defense? That he’ll raise your taxes? That he’ll increase government interference in your life? That he’ll send the country to hell in a handbasket?

I wonder: Regarding Obama, what else we were right about?

After much consideration, I am in favor of the auto industry bailout.

I don’t make this decision lightly. I considered many factors, and have decided that it would be best if the U.S. government bailed out the Big Three auto makers.

The thing most people forget is that the U.S. auto industry is more than Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Those are the big auto makers that are headquartered in Michigan. But that’s not where all the cars are made.

Tennessee, for instance, has GM plants. And Volkswagen is building a plant there. Nissan builds vehicles there, too.

And Alabama. Mercedes builds vehicles there. Yes, there are Mercedes built in Alabama. Betcha didn’t know that. And Honda vehicles, too. And Toyota.

Georgia is getting a new Kia plant. They’re hiring, by the way.

What all this means is, while things are rough up north, the auto industry in the south is doing well. Or a helluva lot better than Detroit.

I live in the south. Born here. Live here. Love it here.

And that’s why we need to bail out the auto industry. Up north.

You see, all those blue states — the ones with Democrat governors and Democrat Representatives and Democrat Senators and Democrat Legislatures — have let the Democrats in power screw up their economies while down here in the red states — the ones with Republican governors and Republican Representatives and Republican Senators and Republican Legislatures — have had better economies.

What I’m worried about is that all those folks that keep electing Democrats that screwed up those northern economies will move down here where the jobs are, register to vote, then elect Democrats to power that’ll screw up things down here as bad as it is up north.

So, I say bail out the auto industry.

We’ve got enough problems down here in the south without a bunch of damn Democrats moving down here and screwing things up even worse.

Bail them out.

Or build a fence. Right about the Mason-Dixon line ought to do.

A friend of mine mentioned yesterday that he’s investing in gold.

He seems to think the whole world economy has only begun to go to hell in a handbasket. He thinks the worst is yet to come.

Because he thinks Obama will win the election.

And Obama might.

Yes, my friend is right: If Obama wins, things will only get worse.

And perhaps my friend has the right idea: invest in metals.

Only, I don’t think I’m going to invest in gold.

I’m thinking steel, brass, and lead.