The Wall Street Journal has ingenuous coverage of the latest jobless claims report:

The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits dropped sharply last week, reversing the previous week's spike and confirming the gradual improvement in the jobs market. [. . .] Initial jobless claims fell 42,000 to 415,000 in the week ended Jan. 29, the Labor Department said Thursday in its weekly report. The previous week's figures, which were distorted by snow that hit four Southern states, were revised to 457,000 from 454,000.

(Emphasis supplied.) So if the higher number for the previous week was "distorted," how can we know that the employment situation is "gradually improving?" To be sure, the 415k claims number this week is bad under any circumstance. More . . .

Via Atrios, rortybomb writes:

[W]e already have this great system for writing down and managing burdensome debt, and it’s this marvelous thing called our bankruptcy laws. [. . .] We could easily pass a streamlined, modified version of bankruptcy just for this crisis. [. . .] We can make this fair on the backend. [. . .] It can have clawback mechanisms to address potential future appreciation.

[. . .]Why doesn’t this happen?

It doesn't happen because it requires banks to recognize huge losses. The reality is that given the choices made by the Obama Administration, the most effective way to get past our balance sheet recession is for underwater homeowners to walk away from their houses. More . . .

Bob Shrum:

Morning in Obama's America The president sounds like Reagan. His opponents have a bad case of malaise

State of the Union addresses are often a wash; the one Obama delivered this week was a watershed. The evening produced two visions, one hopeful, the other infused with fear; one delivered from high ground, the other emerging from a low bog of grievance, gloom, and doom. The events of the coming months and the direction of the 2012 campaign will be shaped by the terrain that each camp has claimed.

The American people get it. The Republicans don't. In their downbeat responses, the official one and the Tea Party artifact, Representative Paul Ryan and his Palindrone colleague Michele Bachmann in effect renounced Reagan's optimism and darkly warned that the country's best days may be behind us.

Does current reality intrude on this perception? Today, the Commerce Department announced that the economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.2% in the 4th quarter of 2010:

Digby:

[. . .] Bob Shrum says the country is optimistic and inspired and that talk of economic malaise and angry resentment and such are "the politics of 2010." Chris Matthews says that Obama is very much like Vince Lombardi.

At this point, I think Obama ought to be worried that Morning in America has arrived two years too early and that it will be dark again by the time he faces re-election.

Today's unemployment claims report:

In the week ending Jan. 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 454,000, an increase of 51,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 403,000. The 4-week moving average was 428,750, an increase of 15,750 from the previous week's revised average of 413,000.

Speaking for me only

Jobless claims rise:

The number of first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments jumped in the first week of 2011 to the highest level since October as more Americans lined up to file following the holidays. Initial jobless claims rose by 35,000 to 445,000, according to Labor Department data released today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey called for 410,000 filings. The average number of applications over the past four weeks, a less-volatile gauge, increased to 416,500.

And just wait until Part 2 of the Norquist Strategy kicks in.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in a much followed foreclosure case. The opinion is fairly straight forward and, frankly, if there is rule of law in this country, should have been completely predictable. But apparently it has sent shock waves. Consider the simplicity and fairness of the result, as described by Felix Salmon:

[H]omeowner[s] being foreclosed upon will as a matter of course challenge the banks to prove that they own the mortgage in question. If the bank can’t do that, then the foreclosure proceeding will be tossed out of court. This is likely to slow down foreclosures enormously, as banks ensure that all their legal ducks are in a row before they try to foreclose.

(Emphasis supplied.) Salmon muses about the SCOTUS maybe getting involved, which would be ironic, in light of the Twombly and Iqbal decisions, which make it very difficult to even get in the courthouse at all. More . . .

Via Atrios, HAMP'd:

U.S. home foreclosures jumped in the third quarter and banks' efforts to keep borrowers in their homes dropped as the housing market continues to struggle, U.S. bank regulators said on Wednesday. [. . .] HAMP loan modifications fell by almost 46 percent in the third quarter, according to the report.

There is an untold story in this - homeowners have come to realize that HAMP modifications are a scam that only work for the banks. You will see uncontested foreclosures increase as a result, as homeowners realize that walking away is the better deal.

Heck of a job, Timmie!

Speaking for me only

HuffPo:

The 2008 bank bailout bill gave the Treasury secretary broad discretion to spend money to fend off foreclosures. But while Treasury has approved $7.6 billion in expenditures to help states prevent and clean up foreclosures[. . . ] States initially applied for funds from the program in the spring of this year, but the Treasury refused to extend money for tackling legal bills. [. . . Sen. Sherrod] Brown and 30 Democratic members of the House sent a letter to Geithner asking him to reconsider his decision. Geithner refused[. . . MORE]

David Dayen:

Republicans see [The Deal] as the impetus to cut spending and essentially cancel out the stimulative properties.

In remarks prepared for the Senate floor, Republican leader Mitch McConnell [said] “This bipartisan compromise represents an essential first step in tackling the debt,” McConnell said. “[B]ecause in keeping taxes where they are, we are officially cutting off the spigot.”

Exactly. This is the entire conservative project in a nutshell – starve the beast. That’s what the most conservative Congress in history wants to do and what they will seek to do. [. . .] This deal faces a future of savage cuts to needed public services, which will diminish its positive impact. The talk of stimulus doesn’t take into account the full picture.

Precisely. The Deal is a terrible mistake by President Obama.

Speaking for me only

In an otherwise typically intelligent col;umn, Paul Krugman seems oblivious that The Deal will lead to less government spending NEXT fiscal year. Krugman writes:

I’m often asked how I can oppose that deal given my consistent position in favor of more stimulus. The answer is that yes, I believe that stimulus can have major benefits in our current situation — but these benefits have to be weighed against the costs. And the tax-cut deal is likely to deliver relatively small benefits in return for very large costs.

I think Krugman overstates the stimulative effect of The Deal because he completely ignores that the deficit caused by The Deal will be used to bludgeon federal government spending. What The Deal does is trade out fiscal spending stimulus for tax cut stimulus. Which is the opposite of what Krugman says we need:

Maybe someone should do something:

In a jolting surprise to the economic recovery and market expectations, the United States economy added just 39,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, according to the Department of Labor. November’s numbers were far below the consensus forecast of close to 150,000 jobs added and an unchanged unemployment rate of 9.6 percent.

A face in the crowd:

Velma Hart, who told President Obama she was "exhausted" of defending him and became the face of disappointed Americans this fall, has lost her job. [. . .] A spokesman for AmVets confirmed that Ms. Hart's layoff was "an economic decision that had nothing to do with her job performance."

Ms. Hart spoke for many when she asked President Obama whether this was the "new reality." I'm not sure what the Obama Administration has to offer: