Unemployment (or joblessness), as defined by the International Labour Organization, occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is a measure of the prevalence of unemployment and it is calculated as a percentage by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals currently in the labour force.

There remains considerable theoretical debate regarding the causes, consequences and solutions for unemployment. Classical, neoclassical and the Austrian School of economics focus on market mechanisms and rely on the invisible hand of the market to resolve unemployment. These theories argue against interventions imposed on the labour market from the outside, such as unionization, minimum wage laws, taxes, and other regulations that they claim discourage the hiring of workers. Keynesian economics emphasizes the cyclical nature of unemployment and potential interventions to reduce unemployment during recessions. These arguments focus on recurrent supply shocks that suddenly reduce aggregate demand for goods and services and thus reduce demand for workers. Keynesian models recommend government interventions designed to increase demand for workers; these can include financial stimuli, job creation, and expansionist monetary policies. Marxism focuses on the relations between the controlling owners and the subordinated proletariat whom the owners pit against one another in a constant struggle for jobs and higher wages. This struggle and the unemployment it produces benefit the system by reducing wage costs for the owners. For Marxists the causes of and solutions to unemployment require abolishing capitalism and shifting to socialism or communism.

In addition to these three comprehensive theories of unemployment, there are a few types of unemployment that are used to more precisely model the effects of unemployment within the economic system. The main types of unemployment include structural unemployment which focuses on structural problems in the economy and inefficiencies inherent in labour markets including a mismatch between the supply and demand of laborers with necessary skill sets. Structural arguments emphasize causes and solutions related to disruptive technologies and globalization. Discussions of frictional unemployment focus on voluntary decisions to work based on each individuals' valuation of their own work and how that compares to current wage rates plus the time and effort required to find a job. Causes and solutions for frictional unemployment often address barriers to entry and wage rates. Behavioral economists highlight individual biases in decision making and often involve problems and solutions concerning sticky wages and efficiency wages.

History

In traditional societies, salaried jobs did not exist, as money was not in use. These cultures lived off the land directly, and the land belonged to the tribe or to no one. Everyone knew how to build shelter and make food. When these cultures invented currency and moved to the cities, they began to depend on money to buy food from a middle man, instead of growing, gathering, or hunting the food directly from nature. Dependence on jobs to make money to buy food and shelter was the beginning of unemployment.

Because it has not always been acknowledged or measured systematically, there are limited historical records on unemployment. Industrialization involves economies of scale that often prevent individuals from having the capital to create their own jobs to be self-employed. An individual who cannot either join an enterprise or create a job is unemployed. As individual farmers, ranchers, spinners, doctors and merchants are organized into large enterprises, those who cannot join or compete become unemployed.

Recognition of unemployment occurred slowly as economies across the world industrialized and bureaucratized. The recognition of the concept of "unemployment" is best exemplified through the well documented historical records in England. For example, in 16th century England no distinction was made between vagrants and the jobless; both were simply categorized as "sturdy beggars", to be punished and moved on. The closing of the monasteries in the 1530s increased poverty, as the church had helped the poor. In addition, there was a significant rise in enclosure during the Tudor period. Also the population was rising. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped and hanged. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a "V" as the penalty for the first offense and death for the second. During the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. In the 1576 Act each town was required to provide work for the unemployed. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, one of the world's first government-sponsored welfare programs, made a clear distinction between those who were unable to work and those able-bodied people who refused employment. Under the Poor Law systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland a workhouse was a place where people who were unable to support themselves, could go to live and work. According to Jackson J. Spielvogel, "Poverty was a highly visible problem in the eighteenth century, both in cities and in the countryside...In France and Britain by the end of the century, an estimated 10 percent of the people depended on charity or begging for their food." By 1776 some 1,912 parish and corporation workhouses had been established in England and Wales, housing almost 100,000 paupers.

The decade of the 1930s saw the Great Depression impact unemployment across the globe. One Soviet trading corporation in New York averaged 350 applications a day from Americans seeking jobs in the Soviet Union. In Germany the unemployment rate reached nearly 25% in 1932. In some towns and cities in the north east of England, unemployment reached as high as 70%; the national unemployment level peaked at more than 22% in 1932. Unemployment in Canada reached 27% at the depth of the Depression in 1933. In 1929, the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 3%. In 1932, 25% of all American workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed. In Cleveland, Ohio, the unemployment rate was 60%; in Toledo, Ohio, 80%. There were two million homeless people migrating across the United States. Over 3 million unemployed young men were taken out of the cities and placed into 2600+ work camps managed by the CCC.

About 25 million people in the world's 30 richest countries will have lost their jobs between the end of 2007 and the end of 2010 as the economic downturn pushes most countries into recession. In April 2010, the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.9%, but the government’s broader U-6 unemployment rate was 17.1%. There are six unemployed people, on average, for each available job. Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948. 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009. Officially, Detroit’s unemployment rate is 27%, but the ''Detroit News'' suggests that nearly half of this city’s working-age population may be unemployed. 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.

Unemployment in the United Kingdom fell later in the 1930s as the depression eased, and remained low (in six figures) after World War II. However, by 1972 it had crept back up above 1,000,000, and was even higher by the end of the decade, with inflation also being high. Although the monetarist economic policies of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government saw inflation reduced after 1979, unemployment soared in the early 1980s, exceeding 3,000,000 - a level not seen for some 50 years - by 1982. This represented one in eight of the workforce, with unemployment exceeding 20% in some parts of the United Kingdom which had relied on the now-declining industries such as coal mining. However, this was a time of high unemployment in all major industrialised nations. By the spring of 1983, unemployment in the United Kingdom had risen by 6% in the previous 12 months; compared to 10% in Japan, 23% in the United States of America and 34% in West Germany (seven years before reunification).

Unemployment in the United Kingdom remained above 3,000,000 until the spring of 1987, by which time the economy was enjoying a boom. By the end of 1989, unemployment had fallen to 1,600,000. However, inflation had reached 7.8% and the following year it reached a nine-year high of 9.5%; leading to increased interest rates. Another recession began during 1990 and lasted until 1992. Unemployment began to increase and by the end of 1992 nearly 3,000,000 in the United Kingdom were unemployed. Then came a strong economic recovery. With inflation down to 1.6% by 1993, unemployment then began to fall rapidly, standing at 1,800,000 by early 1997.

The official unemployment rate in the 16 EU countries that use the euro rose to 10% in December 2009 as a result of another recession. Latvia had the highest unemployment rate in EU at 22.3% for November 2009. Europe's young workers have been especially hard hit. In November 2009, the unemployment rate in the EU27 for those aged 15–24 was 18.3%. For those under 25, the unemployment rate in Spain was 43.8%.

Into the 21st century, unemployment in the United Kingdom remained low and the economy remaining strong, while at this time several other European economies - namely France and Germany (reunified a decade earlier) - experienced a minor recession and a substantial rise in unemployment.

In 2008, when the recession brought on another increase in the United Kingdom, after 15 years of economic growth and no major rises in unemployment. Early in 2009, unemployment passed the 2,000,000 mark, by which time economists were predicting it would soon reach 3,000,000. However, the end of the recession was declared in January 2010 and unemployment peaked at 2,500,000 shortly afterwards, appearing to ease fears of unemployment reaching 3,000,000.

A flood of inexpensive consumer goods from China has recently encountered criticism from Europe, the United States and some African countries. As of April 26, 2005 ''Asia Times'' article notes that, "In regional giant South Africa, some 300,000 textile workers have lost their jobs in the past two years due to the influx of Chinese goods". The increasing U.S. trade deficit with China has cost 2.4 million American jobs between 2001 and 2008, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). From 2000 to 2007, the United States had lost a total of 3.2 million manufacturing jobs.

Definitions, types and theories

Economists distinguish between various overlapping types of and theories of unemployment, including cyclical or Keynesian unemployment, frictional unemployment, structural unemployment and classical unemployment. Some additional types of unemployment that are occasionally mentioned are seasonal unemployment, hardcore unemployment, and hidden unemployment. The U.S. BLS measures six types of unemployment, U1-U6.

Though there have been several definitions of voluntary and involuntary unemployment in the economics literature, a simple distinction is often applied. Voluntary unemployment is attributed to the individual's decisions, whereas involuntary unemployment exists because of the socio-economic environment (including the market structure, government intervention, and the level of aggregate demand) in which individuals operate. In these terms, much or most of frictional unemployment is voluntary, since it reflects individual search behavior. Voluntary unemployment includes workers who reject low wage jobs whereas involuntary unemployment includes workers fired due to an economic crisis, industrial decline, company bankruptcy, or organizational restructuring.

On the other hand, cyclical unemployment, structural unemployment, and classical unemployment are largely involuntary in nature. However, the existence of structural unemployment may reflect choices made by the unemployed in the past, while classical (natural) unemployment may result from the legislative and economic choices made by labour unions or political parties. So, in practice, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment is hard to draw. The clearest cases of involuntary unemployment are those where there are fewer job vacancies than unemployed workers even when wages are allowed to adjust, so that even if all vacancies were to be filled, some unemployed workers would still remain. This happens with cyclical unemployment, as macroeconomic forces cause microeconomic unemployment which can boomerang back and exacerbate these macroeconomic forces.

Classical unemployment

Classical or real-wage unemployment occurs when real wages for a job are set above the market-clearing level, causing the number of job-seekers to exceed the number of vacancies.

Most economists have argued that unemployment increases the more the government intervenes into the economy to try to improve the conditions of those without jobs. For example, minimum wage laws raise the cost of laborers with few skills to above the market equilibrium, resulting in people who wish to work at the going rate but cannot as wage enforced is greater than their value as workers becoming unemployed. Laws restricting layoffs made businesses less likely to hire in the first place, as hiring becomes more risky, leaving many young people unemployed and unable to find work.

However, this argument is criticized for ignoring numerous external factors and overly simplifying the relationship between wage rates and unemployment- in other words, that other factors may also affect unemployment. Some, such as Murray Rothbard, suggest that even social taboos can prevent wages from falling to the market clearing level. It is noted that there can be unemployment when job market is in equilibrium. For example, the salary of appliance repairman in a city is $3,000. At this salary, the appliance stores of city want to hire 100 repairmen. But there are 300 repairmen looking for jobs within the city. So there are 200 repairmen looking for jobs are unemployed. At this time, job market is not in equilibrium. But six months later, the salary of appliance repairman in this city drop to $1,000. At this salary, the appliance stores of city want to hire 200 repairmen. There are 200 repairman want to accept jobs. For the rest 100 repairmen, they no longer want to work for this kind of job because the salary is too low. By this time, job market reaches equilibrium. But there are still 100 repairmen unemployed because they no longer want to work for this kind of job.

Cyclical or Keynesian unemployment

thumb|right|200px|The ''IS-LM Model'' is used to analyze the effect of demand shocks on the economy.Cyclical or Keynesian unemployment, also known as deficient-demand unemployment, occurs when there is not enough aggregate demand in the economy to provide jobs for everyone who wants to work. Demand for most goods and services falls, less production is needed and consequently fewer workers are needed, wages are sticky and do not fall to meet the equilibrium level, and mass unemployment results. Its name is derived from the frequent shifts in the business cycle although unemployment can also be persistent as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s. With cyclical unemployment, the number of unemployed workers exceeds the number of job vacancies, so that even if full employment were attained and all open jobs were filled, some workers would still remain unemployed. Some associate cyclical unemployment with frictional unemployment because the factors that cause the friction are partially due to cyclical variables. For example, a surprise decrease in the money supply may shock rational economic actors and suddenly inhibit aggregate demand.

Classical economists reject the conception of cyclical unemployment and alternatively suggest that the invisible hand of free markets will respond quickly to unemployment and underutilization of resources by a fall in wages followed by a rise in employment. Similarly, Hayek and others from the Austrian school of economics argue that if governments intervene through monetary policy to lower interests rates this will exacerbate unemployment by preventing the market from responding effectively.

Keynesian economists on the other hand see the lack of demand for jobs as potentially resolvable by government intervention. One suggested interventions involves deficit spending to boost employment and demand. Another intervention involves an expansionary monetary policy that increases the demand of money which should reduce interest rates which should lead to an increase in non-governmental spending.

Marxist theory of unemployment

}}

According to Karl Marx, unemployment is inherent within the unstable capitalist system and periodic crises of mass unemployment are to be expected. The function of the proletariat within the capitalist system is to provide a "reserve army of labour" that creates downward pressure on wages. This is accomplished by dividing the proletariat into surplus labour (employees) and under-employment (unemployed). This reserve army of labour fight among themselves for scarce jobs at lower and lower wages. At first glance, unemployment seems inefficient since unemployed workers do not increase profits. However, unemployment is profitable within the global capitalist system because unemployment lowers wages which are costs from the perspective of the owners. From this perspective low wages benefit the system by reducing economic rents. Yet, it does not benefit workers. Capitalist systems unfairly manipulate the market for labour by perpetuating unemployment which lowers laborers' demands for fair wages. Workers are pitted against one another at the service of increasing profits for owners.

According to Marx, the only way to permanently eliminate unemployment would be to abolish capitalism and the system of forced competition for wages and then shift to a socialist or communist economic system. For contemporary Marxists, the existence of persistent unemployment is proof of the inability of capitalism to ensure full employment.

Involuntary unemployment

In ''The General Theory'', Keynes argued that neo-classical economic theory did not apply during recessions because of excessive savings and weak private investment in an economy. In consequence, people could be thrown out of work involuntarily and not be able to find acceptable new employment.

This conflict between the neoclassical and Keynesian theories has had strong influence on government policy. The tendency for government is to curtail and eliminate unemployment through increases in benefits and government jobs, and to encourage the job-seeker to both consider new careers and relocation to another city.

Involuntary unemployment does not exist in agrarian societies nor is it formally recognized to exist in underdeveloped but urban societies, such as the mega-cities of Africa and of India/Pakistan. In such societies, a suddenly unemployed person must meet their survival needs either by getting a new job at any price, becoming an entrepreneur, or joining the underground economy of the hustler.

Involuntary unemployment is discussed from the narrative standpoint in stories by Ehrenreich, the narrative sociology of Bourdieu, and novels of social suffering such as John Steinbeck's ''The Grapes of Wrath''.

Full employment

In demand-based theory, it is possible to abolish cyclical unemployment by increasing the aggregate demand for products and workers. However, eventually the economy hits an "inflation barrier" imposed by the four other kinds of unemployment to the extent that they exist.

Some demand theory economists see the inflation barrier as corresponding to the natural rate of unemployment. The "natural" rate of unemployment is defined as the rate of unemployment that exists when the labour market is in equilibrium and there is pressure for neither rising inflation rates nor falling inflation rates. An alternative technical term for this rate is the NAIRU or the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment.

No matter what its name, demand theory holds that this means that if the unemployment rate gets "too low," inflation will get worse and worse (accelerate) in the absence of wage and price controls (incomes policies).

One of the major problems with the NAIRU theory is that no one knows exactly what the NAIRU is (while it clearly changes over time). The margin of error can be quite high relative to the actual unemployment rate, making it hard to use the NAIRU in policy-making.

Another, normative, definition of full employment might be called the ''ideal'' unemployment rate. It would exclude all types of unemployment that represent forms of inefficiency. This type of "full employment" unemployment would correspond to only frictional unemployment (excluding that part encouraging the McJobs management strategy) and would thus be very low. However, it would be impossible to attain this full-employment target using only demand-side Keynesian stimulus without getting below the NAIRU and suffering from accelerating inflation (absent incomes policies). Training programs aimed at fighting structural unemployment would help here.

To the extent that hidden unemployment exists, it implies that official unemployment statistics provide a poor guide to what unemployment rate coincides with "full employment".

Structural unemployment

thumb|Okun's Law interprets unemployment as a function of growth in GNPthumb|130px|"Driver looking for work" Unemployed German laborer in 1949Structural unemployment occurs when a labour market is unable to provide jobs for everyone who wants one because there is a mismatch between the skills of the unemployed workers and the skills needed for the available jobs. Structural unemployment is hard to separate empirically from frictional unemployment, except to say that it lasts longer. As with frictional unemployment, simple demand-side stimulus will not work to easily abolish this type of unemployment.

Structural unemployment may also be encouraged to rise by persistent cyclical unemployment: if an economy suffers from long-lasting low aggregate demand, it means that many of the unemployed become disheartened, while their skills (including job-searching skills) become "rusty" and obsolete. Problems with debt may lead to homelessness and a fall into the vicious circle of poverty. This means that they may not fit the job vacancies that are created when the economy recovers. Some economists see this scenario as occurring under British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1970s and 1980s. The implication is that sustained ''high'' demand may ''lower'' structural unemployment. This theory of persistence in structural unemployment has been referred to as an example of path dependence or "hysteresis".

Much technological unemployment (e.g. due to the replacement of workers by machines) might be counted as structural unemployment. Alternatively, technological unemployment might refer to the way in which steady increases in labour productivity mean that fewer workers are needed to produce the same level of output every year. The fact that aggregate demand can be raised to deal with this problem suggests that this problem is instead one of cyclical unemployment. As indicated by Okun's Law, the demand side must grow sufficiently quickly to absorb not only the growing labour force but also the workers made redundant by increased labour productivity. Otherwise, we see a jobless recovery such as those seen in the United States in both the early 1990s and the early 21st century.

Technological unemployment has historically been temporary and the economy has adapted and created jobs in other sectors, however, some analysts, such as Martin Ford, in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future'' argue that many jobs in the economy will ultimately be automated via advancing technologies such as robotics and artificial intelligence resulting in substantial, permanent structural unemployment.

Seasonal unemployment may be seen as a kind of structural unemployment, since it is a type of unemployment that is linked to certain kinds of jobs (construction work, migratory farm work). The most-cited official unemployment measures erase this kind of unemployment from the statistics using "seasonal adjustment" techniques.

Frictional unemployment

Frictional unemployment is the time period between jobs when a worker is searching for, or transitioning from one job to another. It is sometimes called search unemployment and can be voluntary based on the circumstances of the unemployed individual. Frictional unemployment is always present in an economy, so the level of involuntary unemployment is properly the unemployment rate minus the rate of frictional unemployment, which means that increases or decreases in unemployment are normally under-represented in the simple statistics.

Frictional unemployment exists because both jobs and workers are heterogeneous, and a mismatch can result between the characteristics of supply and demand. Such a mismatch can be related to skills, payment, work-time, location, seasonal industries, attitude, taste, and a multitude of other factors. New entrants (such as graduating students) and re-entrants (such as former homemakers) can also suffer a spell of frictional unemployment. Workers as well as employers accept a certain level of imperfection, risk or compromise, but usually not right away; they will invest some time and effort to find a better match. This is in fact beneficial to the economy since it results in a better allocation of resources. However, if the search takes too long and mismatches are too frequent, the economy suffers, since some work will not get done. Therefore, governments will seek ways to reduce unnecessary frictional unemployment through multiple means including providing education, advice, training, and assistance such as daycare centers.

The frictions in the labour market are sometimes illustrated graphically with a Beveridge curve, a downward-sloping, convex curve that shows a correlation between the unemployment rate on one axis and the vacancy rate on the other. Changes in the supply of or demand for labour cause movements along this curve. An increase (decrease) in labour market frictions will shift the curve outwards (inwards).

Hidden unemployment

Hidden, or covered, unemployment is the unemployment of potential workers that is not reflected in official unemployment statistics, due to the way the statistics are collected. In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programs) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working. The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" - those with part time or seasonal jobs who would rather have full time jobs. In addition, those who are of working age but are currently in full-time education are usually not considered unemployed in government statistics. Because of hidden unemployment, official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates.

Long-term unemployment

This is normally defined, for instance in European Union statistics, as unemployment lasting for longer than one year. It is an important indicator of social exclusion. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports this as 27 weeks or longer.

Measurement

There are also different ways national statistical agencies measure unemployment. These differences may limit the validity of international comparisons of unemployment data. To some degree these differences remain despite national statistical agencies increasingly adopting the definition of unemployment by the International Labour Organization. To facilitate international comparisons, some organizations, such as the OECD, Eurostat, and International Labor Comparisons Program, adjust data on unemployment for comparability across countries.

Though many people care about the number of unemployed individuals, economists typically focus on the unemployment rate. This corrects for the normal increase in the number of people employed due to increases in population and increases in the labour force relative to the population. The unemployment rate is expressed as a percentage, and is calculated as follows:

$\backslash text\{Unemployment\; rate\}=\backslash frac\{\backslash text\{Unemployed\; workers\}\}\{\backslash text\{Total\; labour\; force\}\}$

As defined by the International Labour Organization, "unemployed workers" are those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work. Individuals who are actively seeking job placement must make the effort to: be in contact with an employer, have job interviews, contact job placement agencies, send out resumes, submit applications, respond to advertisements, or some other means of active job searching within the prior four weeks. Simply looking at advertisements and not responding will not count as actively seeking job placement. Since not all unemployment may be "open" and counted by government agencies, official statistics on unemployment may not be accurate.

The ILO describes 4 different methods to calculate the unemployment rate:

''Labour Force Sample Surveys'' are the most preferred method of unemployment rate calculation since they give the most comprehensive results and enables calculation of unemployment by different group categories such as race and gender. This method is the most internationally comparable.

''Official Estimates'' are determined by a combination of information from one or more of the other three methods. The use of this method has been declining in favor of Labour Surveys.

''Social Insurance Statistics'' such as unemployment benefits, are computed base on the number of persons insured representing the total labour force and the number of persons who are insured that are collecting benefits. This method has been heavily criticized due to the expiration of benefits before the person finds work.

''Employment Office Statistics'' are the least effective being that they only include a monthly tally of unemployed persons who enter employment offices. This method also includes unemployed who are not unemployed per the ILO definition.

The primary measure of unemployment, U3, allows for comparisons between countries. Unemployment differs from country to country and across different time periods. For example, during the 1990s and 2000s, the United States had lower unemployment levels than many countries in the European Union, which had significant internal variation, with countries like the UK and Denmark outperforming Italy and France. However, large economic events such as the Great Depression can lead to similar unemployment rates across the globe.

European Union (Eurostat)

Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, defines unemployed as those persons age 15 to 74 who are not working, have looked for work in the last four weeks, and ready to start work within two weeks, which conform to ILO standards. Both the actual count and rate of unemployment are reported. Statistical data are available by member state, for the European Union as a whole (EU27) as well as for the euro area (EA16). Eurostat also includes a long-term unemployment rate. This is defined as part of the unemployed who have been unemployed for an excess of 1 year.

The main source used is the European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS). The EU-LFS collects data on all member states each quarter. For monthly calculations, national surveys or national registers from employment offices are used in conjunction with quarterly EU-LFS data. The exact calculation for individual countries, resulting in harmonized monthly data, depend on the availability of the data.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labour force surveys conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition. The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers. This survey measures only nonagricultural, nonsupervisory employment; thus, it does not calculate an unemployment rate, and it differs from the ILO unemployment rate definition. These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. Additional data are also available from the government, such as the unemployment insurance weekly claims report available from the Office of Workforce Security, within the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides up-to-date numbers via a pdf linked here. The BLS also provides a readable concise current Employment Situation Summary, updated monthly.

The BLS also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:

U1: Percentage of labour force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.

U2: Percentage of labour force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.

U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.

U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.

U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.

U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

''Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labour force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6.'' The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.

Statistics for the U.S. economy as a whole hide variations among groups. For example, in January 2008 U.S. unemployment rates were 4.4% for adult men, 4.2% for adult women, 4.4% for Caucasians, 6.3% for Hispanics or Latinos (all races), 9.2% for African Americans, 3.2% for Asian Americans, and 18.0% for teenagers. Also, the U.S. unemployment rate would be at least 2% higher if prisoners and jail inmates were counted.

The unemployment rate is included in a number of major economic indexes including the United States' Conference Board's Index of Leading Indicators a macroeconomic measure of the state of the economy.

Limitations of the unemployment definition

The unemployment rate may be different from the impact of the economy on people. The unemployment figures indicate how many are not working for pay but seeking employment for pay. It is only indirectly connected with the number of people who are actually not working at all or working without pay. Therefore, critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account the 1.5% of the available working population incarcerated in U.S. prisons (who may or may not be working while incarcerated), those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants, those who have retired before the official retirement age but would still like to work (involuntary early retirees), those on disability pensions who, while not possessing full health, still wish to work in occupations suitable for their medical conditions, those who work for payment for as little as one hour per week but would like to work full-time. These people are "involuntary part-time" workers, those who are underemployed, e.g., a computer programmer who is working in a retail store until he can find a permanent job, involuntary stay-at-home mothers who would prefer to work, and graduate and Professional school students who were unable to find worthwhile jobs after they graduated with their Bachelor's degrees.

Internationally, some nations' unemployment rates are sometimes muted or appear less severe due to the number of self-employed individuals working in agriculture. Small independent farmers are often considered self-employed; so, they cannot be unemployed. The impact of this is that in non-industrialized economies, such as the United States and Europe during the early 19th century, overall unemployment was approximately 3% because so many individuals were self-employed, independent farmers; yet, unemployment outside of agriculture was as high as 80%. Many economies industrialize and experience increasing numbers of non-agricultural workers. For example, the United States' non-agricultural labour force increased from 20% in 1800, to 50% in 1850, to 97% in 2000. The shift away from self-employment increases the percentage of the population who are included in unemployment rates. When comparing unemployment rates between countries or time periods, it is best to consider differences in their levels of industrialization and self-employment.

Additionally, the measures of employment and unemployment may be "too high". In some countries, the availability of unemployment benefits can inflate statistics since they give an incentive to register as unemployed. People who do not really seek work may choose to declare themselves unemployed so as to get benefits; people with undeclared paid occupations may try to get unemployment benefits in addition to the money they earn from their work.

However, in countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan and the European Union, unemployment is measured using a sample survey (akin to a Gallup poll). According to the BLS, a number of Eastern European nations have instituted labour force surveys as well. The sample survey has its own problems because the total number of workers in the economy is calculated based on a sample rather than a census.

It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force." These are people who have no job and are not looking for one. Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labour force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labour force activities. And of course some people simply elect not to work, preferring to be dependent on others for sustenance.

Typically, employment and the labour force include only work done for monetary gain. Hence, a homemaker is neither part of the labour force nor unemployed. Nor are full-time students nor prisoners considered to be part of the labour force or unemployment. The latter can be important. In 1999, economists Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger estimated that increased incarceration lowered measured unemployment in the United States by 0.17% between 1985 and the late 1990s. In particular, as of 2005, roughly 0.7% of the U.S. population is incarcerated (1.5% of the available working population). Additionally, children, the elderly, and some individuals with disabilities are typically not counted as part of the labour force in and are correspondingly not included in the unemployment statistics. However, some elderly and many disabled individuals are active in the labour market

In the early stages of an economic boom, unemployment often rises. This is because people join the labour market (give up studying, start a job hunt, etc.) because of the improving job market, but until they have actually found a position they are counted as unemployed. Similarly, during a recession, the increase in the unemployment rate is moderated by people leaving the labour force or being otherwise discounted from the labour force, such as with the self-employed.

For the fourth quarter of 2004, according to OECD, (source Employment Outlook 2005 ISBN 92-64-01045-9), normalized unemployment for men aged 25 to 54 was 4.6% in the U.S. and 7.4% in France. At the same time and for the same population the employment rate (number of workers divided by population) was 86.3% in the U.S. and 86.7% in France. This example shows that the unemployment rate is 60% higher in France than in the U.S., yet more people in this demographic are working in France than in the U.S., which is counterintuitive if it is expected that the unemployment rate reflects the health of the labour market.

Due to these deficiencies, many labour market economists prefer to look at a range of economic statistics such as labour market participation rate, the percentage of people aged between 15 and 64 who are currently employed or searching for employment, the total number of full-time jobs in an economy, the number of people seeking work as a raw number and not a percentage, and the total number of person-hours worked in a month compared to the total number of person-hours people would like to work. In particular the NBER does not use the unemployment rate but prefer various employment rates to date recessions.

Effects

Costs

Individual

Unemployed individuals are unable to earn money to meet financial obligations. Failure to pay mortgage payments or to pay rent may lead to homelessness through foreclosure or eviction. Across the United States the growing ranks of people made homeless in the foreclosure crisis are generating tent cities. Unemployment increases susceptibility to malnutrition, illness, mental stress, and loss of self-esteem, leading to depression. According to a study published in Social Indicator Research, even those who tend to be optimistic find it difficult to look on the bright side of things when unemployed. Using interviews and data from German participants aged 16 to 94 – including individuals coping with the stresses of real life and not just a volunteering student population – the researchers determined that even optimists struggled with being unemployed.

Dr. M. Brenner conducted a study in 1979 on the "Influence of the Social Environment on Psychology." Brenner found that for every 10% increase in the number of unemployed there is an increase of 1.2% in total mortality, a 1.7% increase in cardiovascular disease, 1.3% more cirrhosis cases, 1.7% more suicides, 4.0% more arrests, and 0.8% more assaults reported to the police. A more recent study by Christopher Ruhm on the effect of recessions on health found that several measures of health actually improve during recessions. As for the impact of an economic downturn on crime, during the Great Depression the crime rate did not decrease. Because unemployment insurance in the U.S. typically does not replace 50% of the income one received on the job (and one cannot receive it forever), the unemployed often end up tapping welfare programs such as Food Stamps or accumulating debt.

Not everyone suffers equally from unemployment. In a prospective study of 9570 individuals over four years, highly conscientiousness people suffered more than twice as much if they became unemployed. The authors suggested this may be due to conscientious people making different attributions about why they became unemployed, or through experiencing stronger reactions following failure.

Some hold that many of the low-income jobs are not really a better option than unemployment with a welfare state (with its unemployment insurance benefits). But since it is difficult or impossible to get unemployment insurance benefits without having worked in the past, these jobs and unemployment are more complementary than they are substitutes. (These jobs are often held short-term, either by students or by those trying to gain experience; turnover in most low-paying jobs is high.)

Another cost for the unemployed is that the combination of unemployment, lack of financial resources, and social responsibilities may push unemployed workers to take jobs that do not fit their skills or allow them to use their talents. Unemployment can cause underemployment, and fear of job loss can spur psychological anxiety.

Social

An economy with high unemployment is not using all of the resources, specifically labour, available to it. Since it is operating below its production possibility frontier, it could have higher output if all the workforce were usefully employed. However, there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and unemployment: if the frictionally unemployed accepted the first job they were offered, they would be likely to be operating at below their skill level, reducing the economy's efficiency.

During a long period of unemployment, workers can lose their skills, causing a loss of human capital. Being unemployed can also reduce the life expectancy of workers by about 7 years.

High unemployment can encourage xenophobia and protectionism as workers fear that foreigners are stealing their jobs. Efforts to preserve existing jobs of domestic and native workers include legal barriers against "outsiders" who want jobs, obstacles to immigration, and/or tariffs and similar trade barriers against foreign competitors.

High unemployment can also cause social problems such as crime; if people don't have as much disposable income as before, then it is very likely that crime levels within the economy will increase.

Socio-political

High levels of unemployment can be causes of civil unrest, in some cases leading to revolution, and particularly totalitarianism. The fall of the Weimar Republic in 1933 and Adolf Hitler's rise to power, which culminated in World War II and the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of much of the physical capital of Europe, is attributed to the poor economic conditions in Germany at the time, notably a high unemployment rate of above 20%; see Great Depression in Central Europe for details.

Note that the hyperinflation in the Weimar republic is not directly blamed for the Nazi rise – the Inflation in the Weimar Republic occurred primarily in the period 1921–23, which was contemporary with Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, and is blamed for damaging the credibility of democratic institutions, but the Nazi party only assumed government in 1933, 10 years after the hyperinflation but in the midst of high unemployment.

Benefits

Unemployment is argued to be "beneficial" to the people who are not unemployed in the sense that it averts inflation, which itself has damaging effects, by providing (in Marxian terms) a reserve army of labour, that keeps wages in check. However the direct connection between full local employment and local inflation has been disputed by some due to the recent increase in international trade that supplies low-priced goods even while local employment rates rise to full employment.

thumb|In the [[Joseph Stiglitz#Efficiency wages: the Shapiro-Stiglitz model|Shapiro-Stiglitz model of efficiency wages, workers are paid at a level that dissuades shirking. This prevents wages from dropping to market clearing levels. Full employment cannot be achieved because workers would shirk if they were not threatened with the possibility of unemployment. Because of this, the curve for the no-shirking condition (labeled NSC) goes to infinity at full employment.]] The inflation-fighting benefits to the ''entire economy'' arising from a presumed optimum level of unemployment has been studied extensively. The Shapiro-Stiglitz model suggests that wages are not bid down sufficiently to ever reach 0% unemployment. This occurs because employers know that when wages decrease, workers will shirk and expend less effort. Employers avoid shirking by preventing wages from decreasing so low that workers give up and become unproductive. These higher wages perpetuate unemployment while the threat of unemployment reduces shirking.

Before current levels of world trade were developed, unemployment was demonstrated to reduce inflation, following the Phillips curve, or to decelerate inflation, following the NAIRU/natural rate of unemployment theory, since it is relatively easy to seek a new job without losing one's current one. And when more jobs are available for fewer workers (lower unemployment), it may allow workers to find the jobs that better fit their tastes, talents, and needs.

As in the Marxist theory of unemployment, special interests may also benefit: some employers may expect that employees with no fear of losing their jobs will not work as hard, or will demand increased wages and benefit. According to this theory, unemployment may promote general labour productivity and profitability by increasing employers' rationale for their monopsony-like power (and profits). However the tool of denying jobs to willing workers seems a blunt instrument for conserving resources and the environment—it reduces the consumption of the unemployed across the board, and only in the short term. Full employment of the unemployed workforce, all focused toward the goal of developing more environmentally efficient methods for production and consumption might provide a more significant and lasting cumulative environmental benefit and reduced resource consumption. If so the future economy and workforce would benefit from the resultant structural increases in the sustainable level of GDP growth.

Some critics of the "culture of work" such as anarchist Bob Black see employment as overemphasized culturally in modern countries. Such critics often propose quitting jobs when possible, working less, reassessing the cost of living to this end, creation of jobs which are "fun" as opposed to "work," and creating cultural norms where work is seen as unhealthy. These people advocate an "anti-work" ethic for life.

Controlling or reducing unemployment

Societies try a number of different measures to get as many people as possible into work, and various societies have experienced close to full employment for extended periods, particularly during the Post-World War II economic expansion. The United Kingdom in the 1950s and 60s averaged 1.6% unemployment, while in Australia the 1945 ''White Paper on Full Employment in Australia'' established a government policy of full employment, which policy lasted until the 1970s when the government ran out of money.

However, mainstream economic discussions of full employment since the 1970s suggest that attempts to reduce the level of unemployment below the natural rate of unemployment will fail, resulting only in less output and more inflation.

Demand side solutions

+ United States Families on Relief (in 1,000's)
!	! 1936	! 1937	! 1938	! 1939	! 1940	! 1941
Workers employed
! WPA	1,995	2,227	1,932	2,911	1,971	1,638
! CCC and NYA	712	801	643	793	877	919
! Other federal work projects	554	663	452	488	468	681
Cases on public assistance
! Social security programs	602	1,306	1,852	2,132	2,308	2,517
! General relief	2,946	1,484	1,611	1,647	1,570	1,206
Totals
! Total families helped	5,886	5,660	5,474	6,751	5,860	5,167
! Unemployed workers (BLS)	9,030	7,700	10,390	9,480	8,120	5,560
! Coverage (cases/unemployed)	65%	74%	53%	71%	72%	93%

Many countries aid the unemployed through social welfare programs. These unemployment benefits include unemployment insurance, unemployment compensation, welfare and subsidies to aid in retraining. The main goal of these programs is to alleviate short-term hardships and, more importantly, to allow workers more time to search for a job.

thumb|170px|left|Government unemployment office with job listings, Berlin, Germany.A direct demand-side solution to unemployment is government-funded employment of the able-bodied poor. This was notably implemented in Britain from the 17th century until 1948 in the institution of the workhouse, which provided jobs for the unemployed with harsh conditions and poor wages to dissuade their use. A modern alternative is a job guarantee, where the government guarantees work at a living wage. Temporary measures can include public works programs such as the Works Progress Administration. Government-funded employment is not widely advocated as a solution to unemployment, except in times of crisis; this is attributed to the public sector jobs' existence depending directly on the tax receipts from private sector employment.

In the U.S. the unemployment insurance allowance one receives is based solely on previous income (not time worked, family size, etc.) and usually compensates for one-third of one's previous income. To qualify, one must reside in their respective state for at least a year and, of course, work. The system was established by the Social Security Act of 1935. Although 90% of citizens are covered by unemployment insurance, less than 40% apply for and receive benefits. However, the number applying for and receiving benefits increases during recessions. In cases of highly seasonal industries the system provides income to workers during the off seasons, thus encouraging them to stay attached to the industry.

According to classical economic theory, markets reach equilibrium where supply equals demand; everyone who wants to sell at the market price can. Those who do not want to sell at this price do not; in the labour market this is classical unemployment. Increases in the demand for labour will move the economy along the demand curve, increasing wages and employment. The demand for labour in an economy is derived from the demand for goods and services. As such, if the demand for goods and services in the economy increases, the demand for labour will increase, increasing employment and wages. Monetary policy and fiscal policy can both be used to increase short-term growth in the economy, increasing the demand for labour and decreasing unemployment.

Supply-side solutions

However, the labour market is not 100% efficient: it does not clear, though it may be more efficient than bureaucracy. Some argue that minimum wages and union activity keep wages from falling, which means too many people want to sell their labour at the going price but cannot. This assumes perfect competition exists in the labour market, specifically that no single entity is large enough to affect wage levels. Advocates of supply-side policies believe those policies can solve this by making the labour market more flexible. These include removing the minimum wage and reducing the power of unions. Supply-siders argue the reforms increase long-term growth. This increased supply of goods and services requires more workers, increasing employment. It is argued that supply-side policies, which include cutting taxes on businesses and reducing regulation, create jobs and reduce unemployment. Other supply-side policies include education to make workers more attractive to employers.

However, recent meta-analyzes involving many studies refute that there is any statistically significant, negative impact of minimum wages on unemployment. Further, a number of scholars argue that the predicted negative impact is based on incoherent or simplistic logic that ignores mitigating environmental factors, such as non-minimum wage labour markets including farm, service and self employed workers. They argue that the benefits of minimum wage laws outweigh the supposed but unproven costs.

See also

Notes

References

*

External links

Economic Policy Institute

Historical data

* ''Looking for Work: A History of Unemployment'' - An hour-long history public radio program exploring U.S. unemployment over more than three centuries

* Thermal maps of the world's unemployment percentage rates - by country, 2007–2010

* Historical US Unemployment Rate Chart - interactive chart for U.S. unemployment rate data - 1948 to present including subcategories

* U.S. Unemployment Rate – unemployment rate in U.S., since 1976, annual data

* Historical US unemployment rate – since 1948 till June 2009, monthly data

* The United States Unemployment Rate – unemployment rate in U.S., since January 1948, monthly data

* Official Bureau of Labor Statistics table – unemployment rate and some other statistics for U.S., since 1940, annual data

Current data

* Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization (USA)

* Unemployment Benefits Comparison By State (USA)

* Current unemployment rates by country

* OECD Unemployment statistics

In Popular Culture

* The Adventures of Unemployed Man. A satirical graphic novel from Origen & Golan, New York Times bestselling authors of Goodnight Bush.

Category:Economic problems Category:Labor economics Category:Personal financial problems Category:Article Feedback Pilot

af:Werkloosheid ar:بطالة az:İşsizlik be-x-old:Беспрацоўе bs:Nezaposlenost bg:Безработица ca:Atur cs:Nezaměstnanost cy:Diweithdra da:Arbejdsløshed de:Arbeitslosigkeit et:Tööpuudus el:Ανεργία es:Desempleo eo:Senlaboreco eu:Langabezia fa:بی‌کاری fr:Chômage gl:Desemprego ko:실업 hi:बेकारी hr:Nezaposlenost io:Chomeso id:Pengangguran ia:Desempleato is:Atvinnuleysi it:Disoccupazione he:אבטלה kn:ನಿರುದ್ಯೋಗ kk:Жұмыссыздық la:Inopia operarum lv:Bezdarbs lt:Nedarbas hu:Munkanélküliség mk:Невработеност mr:बेरोजगारी ms:Pengangguran mn:Ажилгүйдэл nl:Werkloosheid ja:失業 no:Arbeidsledighet nn:Arbeidsløyse uz:Ishsizlik pl:Bezrobocie pt:Desemprego ro:Șomaj ru:Безработица sah:Үлэтэ суох буолуу sq:Papunësia scn:Disuccupazzioni simple:Unemployment sk:Nezamestnanosť sl:Brezposelnost sr:Незапосленост sh:Nezaposlenost fi:Työttömyys sv:Arbetslöshet ta:வேலைவாய்ப்பின்மை te:నిరుద్యోగం tr:İşsizlik uk:Безробіття vi:Thất nghiệp wa:Tchômaedje vls:Weirklôoseid yi:ארבעטסלאזיקײט zh:失業

Coordinates	51°28′53″N18°26′8″N
name	Jeremy Kyle
birth date	July 07, 1965
birth place	Reading, England, United Kingdom
nationality	British
other names	''Jezza''
known for	''The Jeremy Kyle Show''
education	University of Surrey
employer	''ITV''
years active	1996–present
occupation	Broadcaster
spouse	(divorced)
children	3 daughters, 1 son
website	}}

Jeremy Kyle (born 7 July 1965) is an English radio and television presenter, best known for his British daytime television chat show on ITV, ''The Jeremy Kyle Show''. Kyle is also the host of an American talk show of the same name which premiered on 19 September 2011.

Radio career

From 1986-95, Kyle worked as a salesman for life insurance, recruitment, and radio advertising. He then became a radio presenter and after a brief stint at Orchard FM in Taunton and Leicester Sound in Leicester, he was signed by Kent's Invicta FM in 1996. In 1997, he joined BRMB in Birmingham, presenting the shows ''Late & Live'' and ''Jezza's Jukebox''.

In 2000, Kyle moved to the Century FM network, taking this format with him. The show was called ''Jezza's Confessions''. It was broadcast between 9pm and 1am. He won a Sony Award for ''Late & Live'' in 2001. On 1 July 2002, he made his first broadcast on Virgin Radio, presenting ''Jezza's Virgin Confessions'' every weekday from 8pm to midnight. In mid-2003, he broadcast the show from 9pm to 1am every weekday, and in January 2004 the show went out from 10pm to 1am, Sunday to Thursday. He left Virgin Radio in June 2004. From 5 September 2004, Kyle presented the ''Confessions'' show on London's Capital FM. The new programme aired Sunday to Thursday from 10pm to 1am with live calls on relationship issues of all kinds. ''Capital Confessions'' came to an end on 22 December 2005 to make way for ''The Jeremy Kyle Show'', a similar show which ran from January 2006 to December 2006.

In late 2007, Kyle began a new show (''The Jeremy Kyle Show''), broadcasting across Gcap Media's One Network, of which Orchard FM, Invicta FM and BRMB, his previous employers, are a part. The programme differed from his previous shows in that he interviewed celebrities. Kyle also began broadcasting a new programme, on Essex FM, in November 2007.

Kyle joined Talksport on 21 September 2008 to present a lunchtime sports show every Sunday called ''The Jeremy Kyle Sunday Sports Show''.

As a result of Talksport's Premiership coverage on a Sunday, Kyle's show was cancelled, and he left the station.

TV career

In 2005 Kyle moved his format to ITV, with a programme also entitled ''The Jeremy Kyle Show''. Here Kyle has reached his widest audience to date. His often aggressive manner with guests has been the source of both popularity and criticism. He is seemingly unafraid of reprisal from his guests, believing that speaking his mind is better than holding his peace. Guests sometimes take offence at Kyle's comments, one guest even attempting to throw a chair at him, whilst another threw an envelope at the back of his head, but he often justifies his criticism by claiming that he only wants to help them. Kyle recently claimed on air that his show was watched by 1.8 million viewers, a very high figure for a daytime chat show.

In September 2007, Judge Alan Berg described ''The Jeremy Kyle Show'' as trash which existed to "titillate bored members of the public with nothing better to do". He went on to say "It seems to me that the purpose of this show is to affect a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people whose lives are in turmoil" and added that it was "human bear-baiting". The judge so characterised it "after [a] husband was provoked into headbutting [his] wife's lover in front of [Kyle's] studio audience".

In February 2008, ''The Jeremy Kyle Show'' was again criticised in court after a man who found out during the recording of a show that he was not the father of his wife's baby later pointed an air rifle at her.

Other shows Kyle is involved with include ''Kyle's Academy'', a ten-part series for ITV1 daytime which first aired on 18 June 2007. A team of experts (so-called life coaches and psychotherapists), headed by Kyle take five people and work with them over an intensive fortnight to help them on the road to a happier more fulfilled life. Kyle has also presented ''Half Ton Hospital'', a show about morbidly obese people in the United States. In December 2009 he played himself in ITV1's comedy-drama ''The Fattest Man in Britain''.

On 19 April 2011, Kyle began presenting a new documentary series called ''Military Driving School'', where he visited the Defence School Of Transport in Yorkshire, following a group of new recruits as they undergo training as front line military drivers. He is the presenter of the ITV1 show ''High Stakes'', which began on 11 October 2011. Billed as a game of "knowledge, risk, and tension," the show involves participants answering questions and stepping on the correct six squares on a grid in order to avoid trap numbers.

Writing career

Kyle writes a column for ''Pick Me Up'', a women's weekly magazine published by IPC. In his column, titled ''Jeremy Kyle Says...'', Kyle adopts a frank style in responding to readers' problems that closely resembles the approach he takes on The Jeremy Kyle Show.

In 2009 Kyle wrote his first book, 'I'm Only Being Honest', about Britain's social problems and his views on how to solve them including recounts of his past and personal life.

Personal life

Kyle was born in Reading, Berkshire. His father was an accountant and personal secretary to the Queen Mother. He attended the independent Reading Blue Coat School in Sonning, Berkshire and studied history and sociology at the University of Surrey.

He met his first wife, Kirsty Rowley, in 1988, when he was a recruitment consultant in an agency in Bristol. They became a couple within a fortnight, and were engaged within two months. They married in Almondsbury near Bristol seven months later, in July 1989. Their daughter, Harriet, was born in June 1990. The marriage ended just five months after the birth, in November 1990. His ex-wife has since claimed that Kyle had carefully concealed a destructive and expensive gambling habit from her over the course of their marriage.

He met former model Carla Germaine in 1999, while he was presenting on a BRMB radio show, and Germaine entered the controversial ''Two Strangers and a Wedding'' contest hosted by the station.

As the winner of the bride part of the contest, her prize was to marry the selected groom, Greg Cordell. Their marriage lasted only three months, after claims that Greg had an affair just days after their honeymoon, and she subsequently married Kyle in 2002. They have two daughters and a son together.

Kyle is a supporter of West Ham United. He suffers from obsessive–compulsive disorder and has stated that he "licks his mobile phone to make sure it's clean", as stated in his book "I'm Only Being Honest".

Kyle has described his opinion on "Broken Britain": :''I think it starts with the breakdown of the family unit. Society should invest more in our kids. There should be community centres and youth clubs. And our benefits system – it's the greatest in the modern world. But there are loopholes and people taking advantage.''

In October 2010, Kyle appeared at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham. He chaired "Getting Britain Back To Work" alongside George Osborne.

References

External links

''The Jeremy Kyle Show'' at itv.com

Category:1965 births Category:Living people Category:Alumni of the University of Surrey Category:English people of Scottish descent Category:English radio DJs Category:English radio personalities Category:English television presenters Category:English television talk show hosts Category:People educated at Reading Blue Coat School Category:People from Canning Town Category:Virgin Radio (UK)

cy:Jeremy Kyle

Coordinates	51°28′53″N18°26′8″N
birthname	Richard John Santorum
jr/sr	United States Senator
state	Pennsylvania
party	Republican
term	January 3, 1995 – January 3, 2007
preceded	Harris Wofford
succeeded	Bob Casey, Jr.
state2	Pennsylvania
district2	18th
term2	January 3, 1991 – January 3, 1995
preceded2	Doug Walgren
succeeded2	Mike Doyle
birth date	May 10, 1958
birth place	Winchester, Virginia
dead	alive
occupation	Attorney, politician
residence	Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
law school	Dickinson School of Law, 1986
spouse	Karen Garver Santorum
alma mater	Pennsylvania State University University of Pittsburgh Dickinson School of Law
religion	Christian (Roman Catholic)
footnotes	}}

Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a lawyer and a former United States Senator from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a member of the Republican Party and was the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

Santorum is considered both a social and fiscal conservative. He is known for his stances on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Social Security, intelligent design, homosexuality, and the Terri Schiavo case.

In March 2007, Santorum joined the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. He was to primarily practice law in the firm’s Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., offices, where he was to provide business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. In addition to his work with the firm, Santorum also serves as a Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and was a contributor to Fox News Channel.

Santorum is a candidate for president of the United States in the 2012 election. He formed a presidential exploratory committee on April 13, 2011, and formally announced his candidacy on June 6.

Early life, education, and legal career

Santorum was born in Winchester, Virginia, and raised in Berkeley County, West Virginia, and Butler County, Pennsylvania. He is the son of Aldo Santorum (born 1923) and Catherine Keane (née Dughi; born 1918). His father was an Italian immigrant, and his mother was of half Italian and half Irish descent.

Both of Santorum's parents worked at the Veterans’ Administration (VA) Hospital in Butler, and the family lived on the VA hospital post. His father became licensed as a psychologist in August 1974. He attended schools in the Butler Area School District, where he gained the nickname “Rooster”, allegedly because he "always had a few errant hairs on the back of his head that refused to stay down", and he was "noisy, showy, dogged and determined like a rooster and never backed down".

Santorum graduated from Carmel High School in Mundelein, Illinois, in 1976, where his father transferred within the VA hospital system. He lists his residency as Penn Hills, Pennsylvania, and maintains a home in Leesburg, Virginia, for his work in Washington, D.C.

Santorum earned a Bachelor of Arts degree, having majored in Political Science, from The Pennsylvania State University in 1980, and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1981. He is a member of Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity.

In 1986, Santorum earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the Dickinson School of Law, was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar, and began practicing law in Pittsburgh. While working at the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was not a sport. Santorum left private practice after first being elected to the House in November 1990.

Family

Santorum and his wife, Karen Garver Santorum, have seven children: Elizabeth Anne (born 1991); Richard John ("Johnny"), Jr. (born 1993); Daniel James (born 1995); Sarah Maria (born 1998); Peter Kenneth (born 1999); Patrick Francis (born 2001); and Isabella "Bella" Maria (born 2008). Bella was subsequently diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a serious genetic disorder which is fatal before birth in 90 per cent of cases. In 1996, their son Gabriel Michael was born prematurely and lived for only two hours (a sonogram taken before Gabriel was born revealed that his posterior urethral valve was closed and that the prognosis for his survival was therefore poor). While pregnant, Karen Santorum developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant and allowed doctors to give her Oxytocin to speed the birth.

Karen Santorum wrote a book about the experience: ''Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum''. In it, she writes that the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and introduced the dead child to their living children as "your brother Gabriel" and slept with the body overnight before returning it to the hospital. The anecdote was also written about by Michael Sokolove in a 2005 ''New York Times Magazine'' story on Santorum. Karen is also the author of a book on etiquette for children.

Santorum and his family usually attend Latin Mass at Saint Catherine of Siena Church, near Washington, D.C. On November 12, 2004, Santorum and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta in a ceremony at St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York.

Political career

Santorum first became actively involved in politics through volunteering for the late Senator John Heinz.

After earning his Juris Doctor, Santorum became an administrative assistant to Republican State Senator Doyle Corman (until 1986). He was director of the Pennsylvanian Senate's local government committee from 1981 to 1984, then director of the Pennsylvanian Senate's Transportation Committee until 1986.

In 1990, at age 32, Santorum was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 18th District, located in the eastern suburbs of Pittsburgh. He scored a significant upset, defeating a seven-term Democratic incumbent, Doug Walgren. Although the 18th was heavily Democratic, Santorum attacked Walgren for living outside the district for most of the year. He was re-elected in 1992, in part because the district lost its share of Pittsburgh as a result of redistricting. In Congress, as a member of the Gang of Seven, Santorum worked to expose congressional corruption by naming the guilty parties in the House banking scandal.

In 1994, at the age of 36, Santorum was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating the incumbent Democrat, Harris Wofford, who was 32 years older. The theme of Santorum's 1994 campaign signs was "Join the Fight!" Santorum was re-elected in 2000 defeating Congressman Ron Klink by a 52.4% to 45.5% margin.

In 1996 he endorsed Arlen Specter for president.

In a 2002 PoliticsPA feature story designating politicians with yearbook superlatives, he was named the "Most Ambitious".

As chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Santorum directed the communications operations of Senate Republicans and was a frequent party spokesperson. He was the youngest member of the Senate leadership and the first Pennsylvanian to hold such a prominent position since Senator Hugh Scott was Republican leader in the 1970s. In addition, Santorum served on the Senate Agriculture Committee; the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Senate Special Committee on Aging; and the Senate Finance Committee, of which he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy.

In January 2005, Santorum announced his intention to run for United States Senate Republican Whip, the second-highest post in the Republican caucus after the 2006 election. The move came because it was presumed the incumbent whip, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, was viewed as having the inside track to succeeding Bill Frist of Tennessee as Senate Republican leader.

During the lame-duck session of the 109th Congress, Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against Robert Gates to become Secretary of Defense. He opposed Gates' advocacy of engaging Iran and Syria to solve the problem, saying that talking to "radical Islam" would be an error.

During his third term re-election campaign for his Senate seat against Bob Casey, Jr., Santorum introduced the term "Islamic fascism", while questioning "his opponent's ability to make the right decisions on national security at a time when 'our enemies are fully committed to our destruction.'"

Santorum sat at the Senate's candy desk for ten years and kept it stocked with Hershey’s chocolates, Peanut Chews and Hot Tamales.

Santorum was defeated 59% to 41% in the 2006 U.S. Senate election by Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980.

Political ideology

He is known for his “confrontational, partisan, ‘in your face’ style of politics and government.”

In September 2005, Santorum gave a speech that outlined the successes and failures—but more centrally the future—of conservatism, at the Heritage Foundation's First International Conservative Conference on Social Justice. In November 2005, he adapted his speech into an op-ed piece for the political website Townhall.com outlining his vision for "Compassionate Conservatism".

The Associated Press reported that on July 20, 2006, Santorum stated that "Islamic fascism rooted in Iran is behind much of the world's conflict, but he is opposed to military action against the country", in a speech where he "also defended the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay." The senator indicated that "effective action against Iran" would require America's fighting "for a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel, and a strong Iraq."

On September 7, 2006, Santorum outlined his views on foreign policy in an op-ed piece for the ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette'' and discussed Islamic fascism, closing with a rally cry:

Santorum has referred to his grandfather's historical encounter with Italian fascism as an inspiration for his 2012 presidential campaign.

Legislation and issues

Santorum has attracted support and criticism because of his socially conservative and strong views, including his views on same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and abortion. His views are presented in his 2005 book, ''It Takes a Family'', published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Wilmington, Delaware.

Santorum has been active in addressing the issues of welfare reform and government accountability. He is a self-described conservative who favors restricting or prohibiting abortion. Santorum has said he is personally against abortion and has expressed disapproval of homosexuality, issues that he believes should be decided by elected officials rather than the Supreme Court: “what I’d like to do is have these kinds of incredibly important moral issues be decided by the American public, not by nine unelected, unaccountable judges.”

Illegal immigration

In 2006, Santorum opposed the Senate immigration reform proposal. Instead, Santorum stated that the U.S. should act to enforce currently existing laws. He has openly stated his strong opposition to amnesty for undocumented immigrants. He supports the construction of a barrier along the U.S.–Mexican border, an increase in the number of border patrol agents on the border, and the stationing of National Guard troops along the border. He also believes that undocumented immigrants should be deported immediately when they commit crimes, and that undocumented immigrants should not receive benefits from the government. Finally, the former senator believes that English should be established as the national language in the United States.

Intelligent design

In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language which came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" into the No Child Left Behind bill that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools. The amendment, crafted with the assistance of the Discovery Institute, would have required schools to discuss possible controversies surrounding scientific topics, and gave the theory of evolution as an example, opening the door for intelligent design as an opposing theory to be presented in science classrooms. A federal court in Santorum's own state, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", portraying it as being the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.

Though not included in the final version of the Act made law, the language from the amendment was included in a report attached to the Act known as the Conference Report. The Discovery Institute and many intelligent design proponents, including two Ohio Congressmen, have repeatedly invoked this to suggest that intelligent design should be included in public school science standards as an alternative to evolution.

In a 2002 ''Washington Times'' op-ed article Santorum wrote that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." By 2005 Santorum had adopted the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy approach, stating in an interview with National Public Radio "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. What we should be teaching are the problems and holes, and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution", a statement which mirrors the Teach the Controversy strategy, the most recent iteration of the intelligent design movement. The day after the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' decision that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature came down, Santorum announced that he was resigning from the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center which had defended the Dover school board. Most recently Santorum wrote the foreword for the March 2006 book, ''Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement'' a collection of essays largely by Discovery Institute fellows honoring the "father" of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson.

Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Santorum and U.S. Senator John Kerry, (D-MA), were the lead sponsors of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA), which would require employers to accommodate the religious observances of their employees as long as such accommodations would not impose an "undue hardship" on the employer. Thus, employers would be required to afford employees flexible work shifts so that they could observe religious holidays and to permit employees to wear religiously required clothing at work. Versions of the WRFA have been introduced in 1997, 2000, and 2003, but have failed to be enacted.

National Weather Service

On April 14, 2005, Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 to "clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service (NWS), and for other purposes". This legislation, if enacted, would prohibit the NWS from publishing weather data to the public when private-sector entities, such as AccuWeather, a company based in Santorum's home state, perform the same function commercially. Accuweather employees have contributed at least $5500 to Santorum since 1999, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Opponents of this bill contend that weather data is collected at taxpayer expense, and therefore it should be made freely available to the public, and not provided solely to private corporations that will charge fees for access. They also claim that the vague language in the bill is an attempt to prevent the NWS from issuing free forecasts because such functions are currently provided by the private sector and would be considered competition.

The bill was never enacted or voted upon, dying in committee.

Statements regarding homosexuality

A controversy arose following Santorum's statements about homosexuality in an interview with the Associated Press that was published on April 20, 2003. In response to a question about how to prevent sexual abuse of children by priests, Santorum said the priests were engaged in "a basic homosexual relationship", and went on to say that he had "[...] no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts"; that the right to privacy, as detailed in ''Griswold v. Connecticut,'' "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"; that, "whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family"; and that sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts that "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family". When the Associated Press reporter asked whether homosexuals should not then engage in homosexual acts, Santorum replied, "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality".

When questioned for his remarks, Santorum stated that they were intended not to equate homosexuality with incest and pedophilia, but rather as a critique of the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults (such as bigamy, incest, etc.).

In protest of the remarks, syndicated columnist Dan Savage launched a contest among his readers in May 2003 to coin a new word "santorum" with an unflattering sexual definition, and followed this with a Google bombing campaign to spread the new term. Since 2004, Savage's Google bomb has regularly been the top search result for Santorum's surname, leading to what commentators have dubbed "Santorum's Google problem". Santorum has characterized the campaign as a "type of vulgarity" common on the Internet.

During the presidential debate held August 11, 2011, in Ames, Iowa, Santorum stated that the Iranian regime "tramples the rights of gays", suggesting that he opposes bias against gays as part of his general support for past U.S.-backed intervention in domestic Iranian politics.

Comments about the Boston Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal

In 2005, a controversy developed over comments about Boston, Massachusetts, that Santorum made in a 2002 article about the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. Santorum wrote: }}

These comments came to wider attention through an opinion column in the ''Philadelphia Daily News'' on June 24, 2005. Columnist John Baer cited Santorum's article, stating, "I'd remind you this is the same Senate leader who recently likened Democrats fighting to save the filibuster to Nazis."

Santorum's remarks were criticized, especially in Massachusetts. On July 12, 2005, ''Boston Globe'' columnist Brian McGrory called on Santorum to explain his statement, and reported that Robert Traynham, Santorum's Director of Communications, told him "It's an open secret that you have Harvard University and MIT that tend to tilt to the left in terms of academic biases. I think that's what the senator was speaking to." Julie Teer, a spokeswoman for Governor of Massachusetts, Republican Mitt Romney, said "What happened with the church sex abuse scandal was a tragedy, but it had nothing to do with geography or the culture of Boston."

Later that day, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) delivered a personal rebuke to Santorum on the Senate floor, saying "The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say." Santorum has stood by his 2002 article and has not apologized.

On July 21, 2005, Rush Limbaugh interviewed Santorum about Kennedy's speech. Santorum said that he was being targeted by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which, he said, coordinated with the media to publicize Kennedy's speech. He argued that his statement about Boston was taken out of context from an article he had written three years earlier. Santorum agreed with Limbaugh's summary that it was "no surprise that the center of the Catholic Church abuse took place in very liberal, or perhaps the nation's most liberal area, Boston." Santorum reiterated his broader theme of a cultural connection, saying that it is "no surprise that the culture affects people's behavior. [...] the liberal culture—the idea that [...] sexual inhibitions should be put aside and people should be able to do whatever they want to do, has an impact on people and how they behave." When asked why Boston specifically was mentioned, Santorum pointed out that, in July 2002, the outrage of American Catholics, as well as his own, was focused on the Archdiocese of Boston.

Hurricane Katrina

On September 4, 2005, Santorum spoke to a Pittsburgh television station, WTAE, about the evacuation warnings given for Hurricane Katrina:

The campaign of Bob Casey, Jr., his Democratic opponent for the Senate, criticized Santorum's remarks.

On September 6, in a follow-up interview with WTAE, Santorum said,

On September 8, during an interview with public-radio station WITF-FM, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Santorum said

Santorum was the sponsor of legislation proposed to ''prevent'' the National Weather Service from issuing those warnings, thus competing with private-sector weather services, as discussed above.

Santorum added a synthetic-fuel tax-credit amendment to a larger bill introduced in the Senate by Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who headed the Senate Finance Committee. ''Time Magazine'' called this tax-credit scheme "a multibillion-dollar scam." The amendment was inserted in the Tax Relief Act of 2006, which provides aid for Hurricane Katrina victims and sets new policies for tax-exempt groups.

Pennsylvania residency and tuition fee

In November 2004, a controversy developed over education costs for Santorum's children. Santorum's legal address is a three-bedroom house in Penn Hills, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, which he purchased for $87,800 in 1997 and is located next to the home of his wife's parents. But since 2001, he has spent most of the year in Leesburg, Virginia, a town about one hour's drive west of Washington, D.C., and about 90 minutes' drive south of the Pennsylvania border, in a house he purchased for $643,000. The ''Penn Hills Progress'', a local paper, reported that Santorum and his wife paid about $2,000 per year in property taxes on their Pennsylvania home ($487.20 per year to Allegheny County, 2006 through 2008, based on a 2007 value of $106,000, plus Penn Hills School District tax). The paper also found that another couple—possibly renters—were registered voters at the same address.

At the time the issue arose, Santorum's five older children attended the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, with 80 percent of tuition costs paid by the Penn Hills School District. At a meeting in November 2004, the Penn Hills School District announced that it did not believe Santorum met the qualifications for residency status, because he and his family spent most of the year in Virginia. They demanded repayment of tuition costs totaling $67,000.

When news reports showed Sen. Santorum was renting his Penn Hills home, Santorum withdrew his five children from the cyber education program that Penn Hills School District paid for. That saved Penn Hills taxpayers about $38,000 a year. Although Santorum said he would make other arrangements for his children's education, he insisted that he did not owe the school board any back tuition. Once the controversy surfaced, the children were withdrawn from the cyber school and were then home schooled.

On July 8, 2005, a Pennsylvania state hearing officer had ruled that the Penn Hills School District had not filed objections to Santorum's residency in a timely manner and dismissed the complaint. Santorum hailed the ruling as a victory against what he termed "baseless and politically motivated charges". Santorum told reporters that "[n]o one's children—and especially not small, school-age children—should be used as pawns in the 'politics of personal destruction.'" In the 2006 senate campaign, Santorum ran television commercials with Santorum's son saying "My dad's opponents have criticized him for moving us to Washington so we could be with him more."

In September 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Education agreed to pay the district $55,000 to settle the dispute over money withheld from the district to pay for the children of U.S. Senator Rick Santorum to attend a cyber charter school.

The matter rose again in May 2006. Santorum has said that his family stays during holidays and at times on weekends at the Penn Hills house. But the ''Progress'' reported in May that the house appeared unoccupied, and Casey's campaign noted that in a press release. Santorum then accused Casey's campaign of supporting trespassing on his property, saying of Casey "Now that he is a nominee, it is time for him to start acting like a candidate instead of a thug." Casey, in a statement, called the charges "false and malicious." His campaign, in a news release, described Santorum's actions as "weirdness".

In September 2006, Santorum formally asked that the county remove the homestead tax exemption from his Penn Hills residence. He said that he had made similar requests to county officials in conversations in 2005 and earlier in 2006, but to no avail. In his letter, Santorum insisted that he was entitled to the exemption, which is worth about $70 annually, but chose not to take advantage of it because of the political dispute. While homeowners in the county are eligible for a tax savings averaging $70 a year on their primary residences, the county council president noted that Santorum had "said during a televised debate that he spends about 30 days in his Penn Hills house each year.".

Allegheny County Election Office records indicate that, while a registered voter in the county, Santorum had since 1995 voted absentee.

The only way for Santorum to not pay for his children's private education was to enroll them in the Penn Hills School District. Virginia state law only requires local school districts to pay for private school tuition fee when a student has disabilities and enrolls in a school that can satisfy his or her needs, according to Charles Pyle, Virginia Department of Education spokesman. Otherwise, children in Virginia must attend their local public schools.

Santorum's supporters have said that the controversy is politically motivated because the school board is controlled by Democrats (Erin Vecchio, the school board member who first publicly raised the issue, is the chair of the local Democratic Party). They also have said that since Santorum votes in Penn Hills and pays property and school taxes there, he is entitled to the same privileges as any other Penn Hills resident and should not be deprived of these privileges as a result of his service in the U.S. Senate. Non-residency issues have raised questions of hypocrisy, in that Santorum had previously castigated Representative Doug Walgren for moving away from his district.

Declaration regarding WMDs in Iraq

In June 2006, Santorum declared that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had been found in Iraq. The specific weapons he referred to were chemical munitions dating back to the Iran–Iraq War that were buried in the early 1990s. The report stated that while agents had degraded to an unknown degree, they remained dangerous and possibly lethal. Officials of the Department of Defense, CIA intelligence analysts, and the White House have all explicitly stated that these expired casings are not part of the WMDs threat that Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched to contain.

Santorum's declaration was based, in part, on declassified portions of a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. Portions were declassified in a summary that made six key points:

Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded or vacant mustard or sarin nerve agent casings.

Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre–Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled warheads are believed to still exist. They have no viable military capability, however.

Pre–Gulf War chemical munitions could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups could have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq.

The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectile casings.

The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, the residue could be hazardous upon dermal contact.

It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

Animal rights

In 2005 a coalition of animal rights groups, spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) mounted a failed effort to push the ''Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005'' (PAWS) through Congress. The bill was proposed by Senator Santorum and sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (then-R-PA). PAWS would have reclassified most small and hobby breeders as commercial breeders subjecting them to USDA regulations, allowed home inspections and placed fees and compliance expenses on pet breeders. Fellow Congressmen were told that PAWS was "the puppy mill bill". This was Santorum's third failed attempt at pet-related legislation.

ACLU suit

In 2005, four teenagers were ejected from a bookstore in Wilmington, Delaware, where Santorum was scheduled for a book signing, after they were overheard expressing critical opinions of the senator. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit, which was settled in 2007. As a result of the settlement, the Delaware State Police were required to pay legal fees for the plaintiffs and provide training to officers on free speech rights. The Santorum staff members who requested the ejection were required to apologize and to relinquish their salaries for the event—$2,500.00—to plaintiffs in damages.

Other

As a key member of the Gang of Seven (a group of seven freshmen Republican Congressmen), Santorum helped expose a scandal at the House Bank. The Gang of Seven's reform-minded agenda is often cited as a foundation of the 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.

In 1996, as a U.S. senator, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform.. The legislation that became the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 written by Florida congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Though not a named author of the special Schiavo legislation, Santorum played a key role in shepherding the bill through the Senate to a vote on March 20, 2005. Santorum has frequently stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" exists under the Constitution, even within marriage; he has been especially critical of the Supreme Court decision in ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed the aforementioned right, and on that basis, overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives.

Santorum is also a supporter of partial privatization of Social Security. Since the 2004 presidential election, Santorum has held forums across Pennsylvania on the topic.

In 2005, Santorum sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated $10 million aimed at regime change in Iran. The Act passed with overwhelming support. However, Santorum nevertheless voted against the Lautenberg amendment which would have closed the loophole which allows companies like Halliburton to do business with Iran through their foreign affiliates.

In reference to the Iraq war in 2006, Santorum drew an analogy with ''The Lord of the Rings'' in one of his addresses:

Santorum informed senator John Ensign that Ensign's affair with a staff member was about to become publicly known.

2006 campaign

In 2006, Santorum sought re-election to a third term in the U.S. Senate. His Democratic opponent was State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr., the son of popular former governor Robert Casey, Sr.(D) Santorum's seat was a prime target of Democratic efforts to gain Senate seats in the 2006 elections. Casey's candidacy was bolstered by his opposition to abortion, negating one of Santorum's key issues.

Republican strategists took as a bad omen Santorum's primary result in 2006, in which he ran unopposed for the Republican nomination. Republican gubernatorial nominee Lynn Swann, also unopposed, garnered 22,000 more votes statewide than Santorum in the primary, meaning thousands of Republican voters abstained from endorsing Santorum for another Senate term. This may have been partly due to Santorum's support for Arlen Specter, over Congressman Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Even though Santorum is only slightly less conservative than Toomey, he joined virtually all of the state and national Republican establishment in supporting the moderate Specter. This led many socially and fiscally conservative Republicans to consider Santorum's support of Specter to be a betrayal of their cause.

On May 22, 2006, the polling firm Rasmussen Reports declared that Santorum was the "most vulnerable incumbent" among the Senators running for re-election. However, in August 2006, polling showed Santorum with his highest approval rating in months, 48 percent, a twelve-point jump between July and August. Nearly as many Pennsylvanians, 45 percent, said they had an unfavorable view of the Senator.

For most of the campaign, Santorum was behind by 15 points or more. Most polls during the summer of 2006 showed the race between Casey and Santorum becoming increasingly competitive, but a poll released by Quinnipiac University on September 26 showed Casey's margin ballooning back to a double-digit lead.

One day before the Quinnipiac poll was released, a Pennsylvania state judge ruled against a potential third-party candidate, Carl Romanelli of the Green Party. Romanelli fell about 8,900 petition signatures shy of the threshold needed to be placed on the statewide ballot in November. On October 4, 2006, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court also rejected Romanelli's legal challenge. This was a potential blow to the Santorum campaign, as Romanelli was expected to siphon off some Casey voters.

There is also some question as to whether Romanelli and Pennsylvania's Green Party violated federal election laws when they accepted tens of thousands of dollars in donations from people also backing Santorum's campaign.

Santorum found himself mired in controversy over his residency. For many years, he has maintained a modest home in Penn Hills, a suburb of Pittsburgh, which he claims as his official residence. However, his family lived in the Virginia suburbs of Washington when the Senate was in session. Since this meant Santorum spent most of the year away from Pennsylvania, critics argued it was not unlike the living arrangements he denounced in his 1990 House race against Walgren. Santorum accused Walgren of being out of touch with his Pittsburgh-area district, symbolized by his home in the Virginia suburbs. On NBC's Meet the Press on September 3, 2006, Santorum admitted that he only spends "maybe a month a year, something like that" at his Pennsylvania residence.

Santorum also drew criticism for enrolling five of his six children in an online "cyber school" in Pennsylvania's Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh and most of its suburbs), despite the fact the children lived in Virginia. The Penn Hills School District was billed $73,000 in tuition for the cyber classes.

At least one of Santorum's television ads called into question his campaign's use of the facts regarding Casey and persons who have donated money to the Casey campaign. According to the ad, some of the persons who have given Casey money are or have been under investigation for various crimes. An editorial in Casey's hometown newspaper, ''The Scranton Times-Tribune'', points out that all but one of the contributions "[was] made to Casey campaigns when he was running for other offices, at which time none of the contributors were known to be under investigation for anything." In fact, two of the persons cited in the Santorum campaign ad had actually given contributions to Mr. Santorum's 2006 Senate campaign. Another died in 2004. However, the Santorum campaign pointed out that the money the Santorum campaign received from those donors was not kept by the campaign, but rather donated to educational institutions.

A heated debate between the candidates occurred on October 11, 2006. There, according to coverage by ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette'', the candidates appeared "less statesmanlike than either Gov. Ed Rendell or challenger Lynn Swann, who had debated each other in Pittsburgh the [previous] week".

In late October, during the Lebanon County Republican Committee’s annual dinner at the Lantern Lodge, Santorum said "If we are not successful here and things don’t go right in the election, there’s a good chance that the course of our country could change." "We are in the equivalent of the late 1930s, and this election will decide whether we are going to continue to appease or whether we will stand and fight while we have a chance to win without devastating consequences."

Santorum on August 28 gave a speech to Pennsylvania media at the Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg (which he earlier gave to the National Club) claiming that terrorist attacks on America by "radical Islamists" were part of a more than three-century-old plot to restore Shia clerics to power and bring "the 12th Imam" out of hiding. He said, according to the online news service, Capitolwire: “They believe, as all Shias do, in the Hidden Imam, the 12th Imam," the 12th descendant in a straight line from Mohammed the Prophet, who disappeared in 874, at the age of 5. “The Shia believe that he is the Messiah and he is in hiding and that he will return. … They believe … he will return with radical Islam, when Shia dominates the world. Well, for over 1,000 years, ... the East and West fought, up until 1683 ... In 1683, not that long ago, the Islamists had surrounded the gates of Vienna and were on the verge of toppling it after a siege; ... but the West united, and led by the Poles, [King] John Sobieski and the Polish Hussars defeated [the Arab forces] in a one-day battle on the plains outside Vienna. “What was the high-water mark of this 1,000-year war? It was the day before. What was the date the day before? Sept. 11, 1683.”

This speech eventually led to Santorum launching a tour called "The Gathering Storm," comparing himself to the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who alerted his nation and the world to the Nazi menace in the 1930s, and then fought with America, Russia and others to defeat the Germans, Italians and Japan in World War II in the 1940s. The Associated Press' Jennifer Yates wrote on Oct. 27 that Santorum said: "This is a moment, a critical crossroads in American history," as she noted that "Santorum, who invoked Winston Churchill's memoir – "The Gathering Storm" – about the causes of World War II" then told her and audiences: "The parallel is so profound."

Days before, Yates reported, Santorum said: Casey's election and that of other Democrats trying to take over the U.S. House and Senate would be "a disaster for the future of the world."

On the Sunday before the election, Casey responded to the comment, telling Capitolwire: "Who runs a campaign like that? No one believes terrorists are going to be more likely to attack us, because I defeat Rick Santorum. Does even he believe that?"

Santorum wrote that many women have disclosed to him that it is more "socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else – or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon – find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." Polls showed many female voters resented this description of why they worked, especially Republican and independent women whose abandonment of Santorum doomed his campaign, reported the online news service Capitolwire, based in Harrisburg. In a question-and-answer session on Aug. 28 at the Pennsylvania speech, Santorum tried again to address the issue and said his problem was that federal taxes now consumed 27 percent of family wages, and the second wage earner in most families made only 25 percent of the first's wages.

“First, I would say, read the book and I think if you read the book, you can answer the question yourself. Because anyone who has read the book instead of the comments pulled out by the Democratic National Committee about the book, which was four sentences, by the way, in a 430-page book, … would tell you I am supportive of families in a variety of different ways. ... What does the average second-earner in the family make? Twenty five percent of the first earner. ... Because of our tax code, we make it virtually impossible to maintain a standard of living and at the same time, be home with your children. ... Number two, look, I believe that women should have choices when it comes to the workforce. And they should be real choices. "And look, I came from a family where my mother worked, all her life, made more money than my dad (N.B.: his mother and father were a registered nurse and psychiatrist, respectively). I have more people working in my office who are women, in senior policy positions, than men. So I don’t have a hang-up with women working. I do have a hang-up with the government and others in society not nurturing, supporting and encouraging parents to be home with their kids when they need to be home. And I think we need to do more as a society to help them.”

In the November election, Santorum lost, with 41% of the vote to Casey's 59%, the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.

Post-Senate career

Before failing to win re-election in 2006, Santorum had frequently been mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. Such speculation faded when, during the course of the campaign and in light of unimpressive poll numbers, he declared that, if re-elected, he would serve a full term. After he lost, Santorum once again ruled out a presidential run.

In March 2007 Santorum joined Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, where he primarily practiced law in the firm's Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. offices providing business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. He also joined the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a D.C.-based conservative think tank. Santorum was also a contributor on the Fox News Channel. Santorum also writes an Op/Ed piece titled "The Elephant in the Room" for the Commentary Page of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Santorum told the ''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'' that he would address many geopolitical issues, and then joked, "I don't do Anna Nicole Smith, that's all." After leaving the Senate, Santorum joined the Board of Directors of Universal Health Services, a hospital management company based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

On February 1, 2008, Santorum said he would vote for Mitt Romney in the 2008 Presidential Republican primary race, stating: "If you're a Republican, if you're a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now and that's Mitt Romney.". He has criticized John McCain, questioning his pro-life voting record and whether Sen. McCain holds true conservative values. In September 2008, Santorum expressed support for McCain, citing Sarah Palin as a step in the right direction: "Knowing McCain, he's choosing someone in whom he sees a lot of himself...He tries to find people who have a similar head as he does, and if he sees him in [Palin]...that gives me a better feel for him and a little more confidence in him." In 2011 he said McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war, did not understand how the "enhanced interrogation" process works.

On April 12, 2007, political action committee America's Foundation, Highmark and a former Highmark vice president were fined by the Federal Election Committee for sponsoring Santorum with corporate money. The problem had been reported by Highmark, which uncovered the matter during an internal review.

Santorum was mentioned as a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2010. At one point, he was said to have "quietly but efficiently put his fingerprints on a wide-array of conservative causes in the state." However, Santorum declined to seek the gubernatorial nomination and instead endorsed eventual winner Tom Corbett.

2012 presidential campaign

In the fall of 2009, Santorum hinted that he was considering a run for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 presidential election. On September 11, 2009, Santorum spoke to a group of Catholic leaders in Orlando, Florida and told them, "I hate to be calculating, but I see that 2012 is not just throwing somebody out to be eaten, but it's a real opportunity for success." He scheduled various appearances with political non-profit organizations that took place in Iowa.

Santorum repeated his consideration of a 2012 run in an e-mail and letter sent on January 15, 2010 to supporters of his political action committee, saying, "After talking it over with my wife Karen and our kids – I am considering putting my name in for the 2012 presidential race. I'm convinced that conservatives need a candidate who will not only stand up for our views, but who can articulate a conservative vision for our country's future," he wrote. "And right now, I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate. I have no great burning desire to be president, but I have a burning desire to have a different president of the United States". He formed a presidential exploratory committee on April 13, 2011.

Santorum formally announced his run for the Republican presidential nomination on ABC's ''Good Morning America'' on June 6, 2011, saying he's "in it to win."

Works

References

External links

Rick Santorum ''official campaign site''

Column archives at ''Townhall.com''

;Articles

Excerpt from Santorum interview ''USA Today'', April 23, 2003

Lawsuit Abuse Critic Explains Suit ''ABC Primetime'', November 10, 2005

Editorial: Charities on the Hill ''Washington Post'', March 7, 2006

Santorum Against the World, Michael Dougherty, ''The American Conservative'', July 30, 2007

{{U.S. Senator box | before=Harris Wofford | state=Pennsylvania | class=1 | years=1995–2007 | alongside=Arlen Specter | after=Bob Casey, Jr.}}

Category:1958 births Category:American political writers Category:American people of Italian descent Category:American Traditionalist Catholics Category:American writers of Italian descent Category:Animal rights advocates Category:College Republicans Category:Dickinson School of Law alumni Category:Intelligent design advocates Category:Knights of Malta Category:Living people Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania Category:Pennsylvania State University alumni Category:Pennsylvania lawyers Category:Pennsylvania Republicans Category:People from Winchester, Virginia Category:The Philadelphia Inquirer people Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Category:Republican Party United States Senators Category:Traditionalist Catholic writers Category:United States Senators from Pennsylvania Category:United States presidential candidates, 2012 Category:University of Pittsburgh alumni Category:Writers from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Category:Writers from Virginia

de:Rick Santorum es:Rick Santorum fr:Rick Santorum it:Rick Santorum la:Ricardus Iohannes Santorum nl:Rick Santorum ja:リック・サントラム pl:Rick Santorum ru:Санторум, Рик fi:Rick Santorum sv:Rick Santorum zh:里克·桑托勒姆