Unemployment Claims Surge -- December 31, 2015; Wow! Surges 20,000! Four-Week Average Jumps 4,500

I saw it over on breaking new. Can't wait to see the Reuters/Bloomberg spin. Apparently unemployment claims were up 20,000. It's not yet being reported in the mainstream media.

At calcuatedrisk:

In the week ending December 26, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 287,000, an increase of 20,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 267,000. The 4-week moving average was 277,000, an increase of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 272,500.

Bloomberg/Reuters not yet reporting; I assume they are working on the spin now. I assume the spin will be this:

a) end-of-year numbers are always unpredictable and unreliable due to the holidays; and
b) job numbers continue to support theme that job market is fine

Update: 30 minutes later, the story is still not found in Reuters/Bloomberg. The top hit for this story is at The Las Vegas Sun. Oh, there it is: Reuters:

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose sharply last week, a potential signal the job market was losing steam although some of the increase might be attributed to temporary holiday factors.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 20,000to a seasonally adjusted 287,000 for the week ended December 26, 2015. 

That was the highest since July, although in recent months the weekly readings for claims have held near a 42-year low. 

The four-week moving average, which analysts follow closely because it smoothes out volatility, rose 4,500 to 277,000.

Still, claims have been below 300,000, a threshold associated with a buoyant labor market, for 43 consecutive weeks, the longest stretch since the early 1970s.

The claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid rose 3,000 to 2.20 million in the week ended Dec. 19.

 The spin is pretty much as expected. I would have expected more comments regarding the Fed's recent action; the layoffs in the oil and gas industry; and the fact that gasoline demand is unremarkable considering how inexpensive it is. Also, in California one in three Californians have health insurance targeted for the poor, and one can assume not every Californian that qualifies has actually signed. Could as many as one-half of Californians qualify for "free" healthcare?

********************************

Another Pinoccio

This one was caught by The [London] Daily Mail: US State Department claims "bringing peace, security to Syria" is among its successes in 2015. For those who have forgotten, SecState John Kerry,who served in Vietnam, is SecState and is padding his resume to be on the short list for a Nobel Prize next year.

********************************

A Sign Of Economic Strength?

I'm having trouble with this one. The Los Angeles Times seems to imply that this is a good news story. You decide. I'm perplexed. According to The Los Angeles Times, one in three Californians in now covered by Medi-Cal:

The state's health plan for the poor, known as Medi-Cal, now covers 12.7 million people, 1 of every 3 Californians.

If Medi-Cal were a state of its own, it would be the nation's seventh-biggest by population; its $91-billion budget would be the country's fourth-largest, trailing only those of California, New York and Texas.

Expanding Medi-Cal was a key part of the Affordable Care Act, the national law that overhauled the healthcare system and required nearly all Americans to have insurance starting in 2014. Under the law, Medi-Cal — historically a health program for poor families and the disabled — was opened to all low-income Californians starting two years ago, with the federal government paying for those new enrollments.

Though a surprise, the high Medi-Cal enrollment is generally hailed as a success.

California's uninsured population has been cut in half since Obamacare, in large part because so many Californians signed up for Medi-Cal, which is free for beneficiaries.

The question California officials now face is how — and on days with a gloomier economic outlook, if — the massive health program can be sustained. Already, Medi-Cal is seen by many as underfunded, with patients struggling to find doctors and sometimes receiving low quality of care. A group of activists and others recently filed a federal civil rights complaint alleging that Latinos are being denied access to healthcare because the program does not pay doctors enough.

The Affordable Care Act allowed states to open up Medicaid to anyone making less than 138% of the federal poverty level — for a single person, a couple or a four-person family, that means an annual income of less than $16,243, $21,983 and $33,465, respectively.

In California, officials predicted that fewer than 1.5 million people would have enrolled by now. Instead, more than 4 million Californians have signed up.

In California, state officials are discussing how they'll afford the program next year. Gov. Jerry Brown called a special legislative session this year to address funding for Medi-Cal.

Much, much more at the link. The federal government pays for 95 - 100% of the cost. The state pays for 0 - 5% of the cost. A pretty good deal for the state of California. For now.

One can assume not every Californian that qualifies has actually enrolled with Medi-Cal. Could as many as one-half of Californians qualify for "free" healthcare? If so, that's a very, very scary thought. I doubt undocumented immigrants are signing up in large numbers. 

*************************************

Fox News: #2

This is an incredibly interesting story. These are the top 10 -- I don't watch television (except for occasional sports so I'm not sure the description (in parentheses) is completely accurate, except for ESPN --

#1: ESPN (read, NFL football)
#2: Fox News Channel
#3: tbs (rerun movies)
#4: usa network
#5: TNT (rerun movies)
#6: HG tv (really)
#7: Discovery
#8: History channel
#9: amc (rerun movies)
#10: FX (science fiction)

CNN was #22 and MSNBC was #26.

Fox News became the first news network to ever finish among the Top 3 in basic cable.

CNBC? I knew it was bad, but I did not know it was this bad -- #46 in prime time and #49 in total day. But it handily beat FBN, at #84 and #82, in the two categories.

Al Jazeera America? #99 in both categories.

Most influential "political journalists":

#5: Dean Baquet, executive editor of the NY Times (explains the front page of the NY Times)
#4: Matt Drudge (considered a conservative despite linking many NY Times articles; never reports the news; simply links stories around the globe)
#3: Jeff Zucker, turned CNN around
#2: Chuck Todd
#1: Roger Ailes, Fox News