Companies added just 64,000 jobs in September 2010, down from 93,000 jobs in August and 117,000 in July 2010. Overall, though, the picture was more bleak for September 2010. The economy overall lost 95,000 non-farm jobs because there was a decline of 159,000 government positions.

"We need to wake up to the fact that the end of the stimulus has really hit hard on local governments," said Andrew Stettner, deputy diredctor of the National Employment Law Project. "There is much more of a slide in the job market than what we really need to clearly turn around."

With the waning of the $787 billion Recovery Act passed in 2009 and credited with increasing employment by millions of jobs, finding new policies potent enough to speed up the recovery has proved difficult, reports Catherine Rampell of the NY Times on October 9, 2010.

"We’re looking for companies to get more confident in the pace of recoery and start to hire around 150,000 jobs a month, which is what we need just to keep the unemployment rate flat," said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics. "But I just don’t see that happening between now and the end of the year."

Catherine Rampell reports: "Flat hourly wages, now at an average of $22.67, also threaten what fragile confidence American families may have in their household budgets. [] Government jobs have been disappearing the last few months as the census winds down. [ ](September), 77,000 Census Bureau employees were let go. But local governmetns cut 76,000 positions as well. State governments shed 7,000 workers."

For the 14.8 million people out of work, the picture is not brightening. The average duration of unemployment continues to hover at record highs. In september, the typical unemployed worker had been searching for a job for 33.3 weeks, reports Ms. Rampell.

See Ms. Rampell’s article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/business/economy/09jobs.html?scp=1&sq=Public+jobs+drop+amid+slowdown+in+private+hiring&st=nyt

According to the Wall Street Journal on October 8, 2010, Damian Paletta reporting: "The vetoed bill, written by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R., Ala.), moved through Congress without attracting much attention and appears aimed at a much broader target than the foreclosure process. It would have required state and federal courts to accept documents of many different kinds that are notarized by people or computers in other states. The House passed the bill in April 2010 by "voice vote" and the Senate passed it unanimously Sept. 27. The bill caught the attention of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat who has battled banks in her state over foreclosure procedures. She raised concerns with the White House earlier this week, she said in an interview, and sent an email to supporters asking for help getting the White House to block it."

"The morgage-servicing process is a regulatory gray area in which dozens of state and federal agencies play a small rule but over which no one agency has primary responsibility. The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, created by the financial industry overhaul law in July 2010, would have powers to act in this area, but it doesn’t ahve its full authority until next summer of 2011."

"The bill raised difficult policy decisions for government officials. Some argued it ought to be easier for banks and others to process documents electronically to help reduce the backlog of foreclosrues and aid the housing market’s recovery."

Harvard Law Professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren has estimated that some 40%+ of family bankruptcies have a nexus with medical losses.

If you have young adult children struggling to make their way in the world, there may be a break for you and them.

The new health laws may enable to you add children to your policies up until they reach 26 years of age. Do not assume that such children are now "automatically" added – there is likely some paperwork that you will need to complete in order to ensure that your older children are on the policy. The older children may be eligible to be added immediately, but there may be a premium increase, so research the situation and be prepared.

This would end the policy of many insurers of booting children off of the policy once they reach 23 years of age.

Again, check with your insurance agent – the coverage may not be self-executing nor automatic – you probably have to affirmatively move in writing to extend or re-establish coverage for such adult children who have previously aged-out of coverage, but remain under age 26.

For more information, see the September 23, 2010, NY Times article by Jacob S. Hacker and Carl DeTorres, Jacob S. Hacker is a professor of political science at Yale University. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/23/opinion/20100923_opart.html?scp=1&sq=The%20Health%20of%20Reform%20Jacob%20S.%20Hacker&st=cse

See Also Kevin Sack’s NY Times Article of the same September 23, 2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/health/policy/23careintro.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=For%20Many%20Families,%20Health%20CAre%20Relief%20Begins%20Today&st=cse

See Also Kevin Sack’s further articles – covers three "real life" stories about (1) the chronically ill, (2) lifetime healthcare caps and (3) insuring adult children to age 26 on parents’ policies: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=2&sq=For%20Many%20Families,%20Health%20CAre%20Relief%20Begins%20Today&st=cse

Nearly one in five Washington workers are unemployed. Their plight is like that of Seattle administrative assistant Lorilee Lines, who applied for more than 200 jobs before landing a meagre 30 hour per week job. This statistic was provided by Sanjay Bhatt of the Seattle Times, November 18, 2009, for the 12 months ending September 2010, in a page one article.

The national unemployment stood at 9.6% and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics placed the "underemployed" statistic at 16.8%, but this is regarded as a very restrictive interpretation of underemployed.

Underemployment rates capture part timers, but they still leave out those working in full time jobs for which they are overqualified.

Through approximately October 2010, Washington has seen a net gain of only about 6,000 jobs. Overall, about 10,200 jobs were added in the private sector, but these were offset by a loss of some 4,200 government and public sector jobs.

Contrary to national trends, jobs continue to contract in Washington. Washington had 8,500 fewer jobs in October 2010 than it had in October 2009 – a decline of 0.3%. By contrast, there was a 0.6% increase in jobs nationwide over the same period. As reported in the Seattle Times, November 18, 2010.