The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that 96,000 jobs were created last month, slightly under economists’ projections for 125,000 jobs. The job creation numbers for both June and July were revised down, but the unemployment rate also ticked down to 8.1 percent.

40 percent of the unemployed have been looking for work for six months or more. This chart shows how much of a problem long-term unemployment continues to be:

Despite this, the federal government has been slowly rolling back its extended unemployment benefits program. Currently, only half the unemployed are collecting benefits at all, according to the National Employment Law Center:

While it is natural to assume that most unemployed workers are eligible for UI benefits, at most, only two‐thirds of all unemployed workers received state or federal UI benefits at any time during the economic downturn. Today, less than half the nation’s 12.8 million unemployed workers receive some form of UI. Approximately 3.2 million collect state UI benefits, covering the first 26 weeks of unemployment, while an additional 2.3 million job seekers receive federal UI under the EUC08 program.

This is occurring because federal benefits phase out as states’ jobless numbers decline. Because states are seeing their jobs numbers improve — to levels that are by no means adequate — federal benefits are phasing out. That leaves workers with only 26 weeks of state benefits to use, which leaves them 13 weeks shy of the average duration of unemployment.

Unless Congress steps up, by 2013 more than two-thirds of the unemployed will collect no benefits. Finding a way to boost job creation is surely important, but it’s also important that, until the economy gets all the way back on its feet, those who lost jobs through no fault of their own do not have to go without life’s basic necessities.

The Great Recession, not long ago, was labeled the “man-cession,” because it hit sectors that employed male workers hardest. That doesn’t mean it spared female workers, though, and the ensuing economic recovery has been worse for women, as manufacturing and other male-heavy industries have rebounded but education and other female-dominant sectors continue to struggle.

One of the biggest causes of female workers’ woes is the rapid shrinking of America’s public sector, which has lost more than 700,000 jobs since 2009. Women have lost 450,000 of those public sector jobs — many of them in education — wiping out nearly 45 percent of the private sector job gains women have made since the recession ended, as the National Women’s Law Center noted in a release today:

“Today’s jobs data present a mixed picture for women,” said Joan Entmacher, NWLC Vice President for Family Economic Security. “Women’s unemployment rate is lower than it’s been at any time since April 2009. But overall job growth was modest last month and public sector job losses continue to hit women especially hard. Women’s public sector losses have wiped out 45 percent of their private sector gains over the course of the recovery. Continued cuts in local education, where 83,600 jobs have been lost since last August, also mean more crowded classrooms as students return to school.”

As NWLC highlighted in its release, the unemployment rate for women dropped to a three-year low in August. Given that nearly two-thirds of American households now feature a woman as a primary or co-breadwinner, though, the continued contraction of the public sector threatens both the economic security of our nation’s female workers and the economy as a whole. Women, and minority women in particular, are already disadvantaged because of the significant wage gap that exists between them and male workers, and the disproportionate effect of the public sector cuts only exacerbates their problems.

On CNBC today, Carl Quintanilla asked vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan if he thought today’s disappointing jobs report would inspire a third round of quantitative easing — the monetary stimulus the Federal Reserve has engaged in off and on since the recession. Ryan replied by saying that the costs of quantitative easing “are clearly outweighing the benefits”:

RYAN: I’ve known [Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke] a long time. He and I have disagreements on these issues, but they’re respectful of one another. I think QE3 — I think QE — the costs outweigh the benefits in my personal opinion. But I think this lackluster report probably increases the likelihood… But at the end of the day Carl, all this easing is simply, in my opinion, the Federal Reserve trying to bail out bad fiscal policy. And I think the costs are clearly outweighing the benefits of this.

Watch it:

Ryan’s assessment is simply bizarre. The “costs” Ryan is referring to are presumably higher inflation rates, which he’s repeatedly warned are just around the corner ever since the Fed began using QE. Inflation has stubbornly refused to comply with Ryan’s predictions, however. Ever since the recession, it’s stayed right around the Fed’s preferred target of two percent:

And controlling inflation is only one half of the Fed’s dual mandate. The other half is keeping unemployment low. As the chart above shows, there’s been some progress on this front, but the country remains in an employment crisis.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently argued that the first two rounds of QE added as many as two million jobs to the economy. That would certainly count as a sizable benefit. Even if this is an overestimation, there’s simply no evidence of negative costs from QE that would suggest reticence from the Fed is the right course. And there are millions of unemployed Americans that suggest another crack at QE is more than called for.

The Romney campaign has so far refused to clarify which tax deductions and loopholes it would eliminate in order to make its huge proposed tax cut for the rich revenue neutral. Despite repeated requests, the campaign and candidate have refused to budge, content to say that the tax plan “can’t be scored” due to its lack of detail.

And even Fox News has apparently had it with the campaign’s consistent dodging of this question, as Fox’s Gregg Jarrett repeatedly asked Romney policy director Lanhee Chen about it during an interview on Friday:

JARRETT: He’s not saying which of the loopholes and deductions and credits and exemptions he wants to close. That is huge. That’s significant. How can he not tell the American people those facts?

CHEN: Well, let’s back up for a second. This is a race about two dramatically different philosophies. [...] As you’ve said, they’re going to get rid of some of this underbrush, some of the deductions and some of the exemptions that are clouding our tax code.

JARRETT: But why won’t he explain how and which ones and by how much?

CHEN: Well, you know, a number of different bipartisan commissions over the years have told us exactly how we get there. The key is presidential leadership and that’s something that’s been lacking. That’s something that Governor Mitt Romney is going to provide in the White House.

JARRETT: But Mr. Chen, forgive me, you’re just not answering my question. So let me put it again: which loopholes and deductions and credits and exemptions the President’s going to get rid of would affect all Americans. Before they cast their ballot, don’t they deserve to know which ones are going, which ones are not, and by how much?

CHEN: Look Greg, Governor Romney’s been very clear that first of all we’re going to look to curb deductions for high-income taxpayers. And secondly, a lot of different deductions and exemptions are out there, we’ve got a lot of different ways to get there.

Watch it:

According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, even assuming that Romney eliminates all deductions and exemptions for high-income individuals, he would still have to raise middle-class taxes in order to pay for his tax plan. Romney, of course, is not going to completely eliminate all tax preferences enjoyed by the wealthy, so his plan will either raise middle-class taxes or bust the budget. And even Fox News, it seems, wants Romney to divulge the details sooner rather than later.

On September 8, 2011 — one year ago tomorrow — President Obama laid out a series of policy proposals known collectively as the American Jobs Act. The plan included stimulus spending in the form of immediate infrastructure investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers to encourage consumer spending and job growth, and efforts to shore up state and local budgets to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public safety officials.

The American Jobs Act never became law, however, because Republicans opposed it from the start, blasting it as another form of “failed stimulus” that wouldn’t help the economy. (They ignored the fact that the first “failed stimulus,” the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasn’t a failure at all.) One month later, the GOP blocked the bill in the Senate, preventing the creation of more than a million jobs and the added growth that multiple economists predicted would occur if the bill passed:

–Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.

–The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.

–Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.

–Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.

The American economy has continued to recover since the American Jobs Act failed. It added 96,000 jobs last month, according to today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report, making August the 30th consecutive month in which the private sector has grown. But growth could have been faster: the public sector shed 7,000 jobs in August, adding to the more 700,000 it has lost since 2009. That includes hundreds of thousands of teachers and educators, firefighters, and police officers. Had the public sector spent the last three years growing at its previous rate, unemployment would be at least a full point lower than it is now.

The American Jobs Act and policies like it would have unquestionably boosted job creation and economic growth, a stark contrast to the tax-cutting policies put forth by congressional Republicans, whose “job creation” bills would have actually destroyed thousands of jobs. Republicans nevertheless continue to ignore economists and basic economics, instead pushing supply-side tax policies that have repeatedly failed to boost job creation and economic growth.