So that’s good, right? You betcha. According to United Press International (UPI), the market had been “lifted by favorable economic reports.”

And which reports were those? The UPI didn’t say. But there were several to choose from that same day. Was it the one about the rise in unemployment claims? The one about the decrease in factory orders? Or could UPI have been referring to news of the dollar getting snatched, trussed up and tossed out of a speeding Citroen by the euro, now at $1.17 with a bullet?

Actually, the pound, the Swiss franc, even the loonie of Canada are all looking pretty fat these days. And maybe that’s good news, too, in a weird way, since the U.S. needs to attract $500 billion or more a year in foreign investment to fund its deficit account. (And you thought the $290 billion deficit achieved under Bush senior was impressive.)

Not that anyone should get too worried about boring old things like trade deficits when our president keeps promising growth at home. Sure enough, under the new tax law, the public debt will grow to $7.38 trillion.

But let’s not go there. Let’s just keep our tired eyes on the little green arrow in one corner of the TV screen. It’s pointing up, by golly, and that means consumer confidence is up too.

There’s just one little problem with all these confident consumers — robustly confident, according to BBC World News. They aren’t spending any money.

So where is all this confidence coming from? Apparently from investors, the handful of people who still have something left to put into stocks and haven’t yet been indicted. And why wouldn’t they invest? The wealthiest ones, who live mostly on stock dividends and capital gains, as opposed to money earned by, you know, working, just got a big boost from the same tax cut that shafted regular Joes and the poor.

Why, if your tax rate on easy money had just dropped a whompin’ 20 percent and a bunch of good old boys had handed you and your accounting and legal teams a new game plan for evading taxes anyway, you’d be feeling rather confident too. Perhaps even robustly so.

You might, for example, be able to ignore the fact that demand for cars is down. Because it wouldn’t be your ’97 Dodge that just got repo’d. You wouldn’t need a car to, say, use as a domicile with your four kids while Mommy and Daddy looked for jobs. You wouldn’t be carpooling to make up for a monthly pay cut in an already pitiful teacher’s salary.

Not, you, babe. You’d be among the folks who can now deduct up to 100 grand for your car, provided it’s a gas-guzzling hunk of metal that weighs in at 6,000 pounds or more. So crank up the Clear Channel radio, rock along with Rush, and try not hit too many homeless people as you speed through the next underpass.

These are happy days, my friend. According to market analysts, the gains in productivity are high as an elephant’s eye. No, really.

Of course, if you pull back the camera from that one perky little statistic, you’ll see that “increased productivity” actually means that this year businesses cut more than half a million jobs and still met customers’ needs.

And one reason they met the so-called need is because “customers” — we the people, one nation without cashola — know that just one more trip to the store to buy a new pair of underpants or a can of SpaghettiOs could grease the wheels of our already runaway household debt and send us and our families into oblivion.

So a lot of us have decided that we don’t, um, need anything. As in, I really don’t need shelter, groceries, clothing, an adequate education, or prescription medicines.

Another aspect of this “productivity” is the big increase in exports. Oh, not goods or anything, just jobs. An impressive 3 million or more service jobs are expected to ship out of this country over the next 15 years. It’s the ultimate business trip, no return ticket needed! So if you do have a job (for now) make the most of your less-than-2-percent wage growth, because you never know when you might need it.

According to the latest Federal Reserve report, household debt grew at a 10 percent rate in the first quarter. Now that’s robust. And that’s the good news, because household debt was growing at an even faster rate in the previous quarter. So, sure, we’re all still heading for the falls in a heavily mortgaged, overcrowded raft that could deflate on us at any moment — but at least now we have time to admire the rocks.

So, don’t let’s worry our pretty little overdrawn, underpaid, increasingly unemployed heads about all the tedious little details that would clutter up more comprehensive reports of what’s happening to the U.S. economy. The Dow arrow is pointing up, and that’s good enough for us.

That’s silly, I said. Everybody knows that there are only three Bad Guys in the whole world — Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Simon Cowell. And besides, when you vote for somebody they have to do what’s the best thing for you, right? So the only way they could do something crazy mean is if they had special permission.

Papa said, “If you see it in the newspaper, it’s so.” And then Papa looked at Mama and they both laughed so hard it woke up every cockroach in our apartment. Please tell me the truth, Mr. Editor. Is there really an insanity clause?

Sincerely,

Virginia O’Hanlon

- – - – - – - – - – - -

Dear Virginia,

Your little friends are right. They have been disaffected by the cynicism of a callous age. They believe what they see on TV. They know that nothing can really be understood by their little minds. Not all minds are little, Virginia. Just the minds of ordinary people. Some business leaders and politicians have very big minds, filled with vast empty spaces that keep their thoughts from bumping into each other and make them forget where they put things, like the security code for their favorite guest ranch, and their conscience.

In this great universe of theirs, ordinary man is a mere insect, an ant, as compared with the boundless power of the small circle of people that exclude him, and that is how come the bad guys can squash you and your little friends like a convoy of 18-wheelers blasting through a couple of fruit flies and still act like they care about your basic needs.

Yes, Virginia, there is an insanity clause. It exists as certainly as meaningless campaign catchphrases like “Children are the future.” Why, without the insanity clause, Virginia, the folks you refer to might have met the $350 billion cap on the tax cut by dialing back breaks to the upper 1 percent of the population instead of telling impoverished kids with no health insurance and their overworked, barely paid parents to suck it up.

Alas, how dreary would be the world of the most privileged if there were no insanity clause! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias and their parents for them to patronize every four years. There would be no childlike faith then, no skulduggery, no capitalist elitism to make profitable their existence. The wealthy few would have no enjoyment of thousands of dollars in additional personal gain, and no freedom from double taxation on stock dividends that their accountants were going to shelter from the IRS anyway. The extortionist booty with which they build up their world would be relinquished.

Not believe in the insanity clause! You might as well not believe in the free market doing whatever a dozen of the country’s most powerful people say it should. You might get your papa and mama to watch in all the polling booths on election eve to catch the insanity clause, but even if you did not see the insanity clause coming down, what would that prove?

Nobody sees the insanity clause, but that is no sign that there is no insanity clause. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor other ordinary people can see because big people with “special” powers sneak it past them.

Did you ever see terrorists dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Well hell, Virginia, why do you think the Homeland Security folks made you, your little pink Air Britney shoes, and even your Bear Market Barbie submit to a thorough search when you took the plane to see your grandma in Tucson?

No insanity clause! By George, it lives, and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, the economic effects of the insanity clause will continue to make wretched the heart of your children’s children’s childhood. But not to worry, Virginia. A few of us will be just fine.

“Larry, I’m standing here with Bill and Emily Smith, who woke up this morning to find dozens of jobs on their doorstep. Emily, can you tell us what happened here?”

“Well, Shard, alls I know is that when Bill and I found out we were going to get a break of $217 it made us feel all confident and we started making a list of ways to spend the money. It was real hard to pick just one, what with falling behind on the mortgage and needing to help the kids’ schools hold bake sales to keep math and spelling on the curriculum. But then we seen a lot of our neighbors out stimulating the economy and that looked real fun. So we went to the All-Mart and bought us a nice DVD player made in Malaysia. Next thing you know, all these jobs started showing up.”

“Now, that’s Republican! Emily, you must be saying to yourself, ‘Even though more than 2 million jobs have disappeared since the previous tax cut of $1.3 trillion a couple of years ago and the economy is now even weaker than when current Treasury Secretary John Snow, in a speech made July 21, 2001, called it the weakest he’d seen in 20 years, it only stands to reason that the circular flow of my $217 when subtracted from the likely punitive increases in my state and local taxes will surely help us bring private capital back into the system even as the rising deficit approaches 3 percent of the gross domestic product.’”

“Exactly, Shard. And I’d like to give a shout-out to my mother in Pawnsville, Iowa, who’s been in a coma on my sister-in-law’s couch ever since her Medicaid got cut off by –”

“Tee-riffic, Emily! Now back to you, Sherry.”

“Thanks, Larry. Weatherwise, the NTR forecast calls for isolated outbreaks of common sense, but it looks like most of it will clear up by November of 2004! Next up on NTR … ‘Republican Makeovers!’”

“Recently we sent our style team to Indianapolis, where President Bush gave the performance of a lifetime as part of his ‘American Idle’ tax-cut tour. Now hold on to your hairspray, Larry, as you watch those VIPs seated behind the president go from formal to farm belt just by taking off their neckties!”

“If we can go to the pictures, here’s Indiana House Minority Leader Brian Bosma with a necktie, and here he is again without. Oh, and he’s even removed his pocket square! Brian, please, this is a family show! But doesn’t he look fabulous? It’s so … grassrootsy. Larry?”

“Sherry, I also like what the design team from ‘Persuading Spaces’ has done to spruce up the backdrops for the president’s televised speeches. Earlier today, I interviewed political style maven Alberta Spears, and here’s what she had to say:

“‘Larry, the old exterior, which depicted authentic American locations, was too depressing for today’s voters, so we installed a soothing wallpaper pattern of campaign buzzwords like “growth,” “jobs,” and “Made in the U.S.A.” The idea was to combine old-world charm with cutting-edge illusion for a truly seductive look.’”

“Wow. Sherry, that’s what I call … Homeland Obscurity.”

“You said it, Larry. Now, while Larry’s explaining himself to the FBI, let’s head on over to Terry for this morning’s movie reviews. Terry, what’s big at the box office?”

“Well, Sherry, still at number one is ‘Bush Almighty,’ with grosses way ahead of John Ashcroft’s ‘Identity’ and Dick Cheney’s competing releases, ‘Lawless Heart’ and the remake ‘Thief of Baghdad.’ Meanwhile, critics are still weighing in on box office flop ‘Swept Away,’ starring Ari Fleischer, who is also responsible for the fuzzy dialogue, and former EPA chief Christie Whitman, who actually brought considerable, uh, chemistry to her role as a hapless double agent. But the big news is ‘Hyping Private Lynch,’ the made-for-TV-news fantasy produced and directed by the Pentagon, with a script that would do justice to the journalistic stylings of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. Now back to you, Sherry, for a look at what’s coming up next.”

“Thanks, Terry. After the break: Moneyman Barry McGarry tells us why tax cuts bring much-needed relief to America’s wealthiest, who will now find it a lot easier to pay for those $50,000 ‘leadership luncheons’ hosted by Republican campaign guru Karl Rove. And ‘Cooking With Carrie’ raves about the latest dining trend — food banks! With more than 965 food banks in New York City alone — up from only 35 pantries and kitchens in 1983 — this is one culinary trend that’s really catching on! But first, stay tuned for a word from our sponsor, Bechtel. Bechtel — Building a Better World … Somewhere Else.”

You maxed out your credit cards to invest in photocopying, postage, career counseling, résumé evaluation, and — even though you are living on Top Ramen and tap water — a “dress for success” makeover that screams, “I am a Republican congressional candidate from the year 1986.”

And now, success! You’ve landed a job interview. It’s time to develop a winning strategy. The prize? Confinement in a tiny, windowless cubicle and prolonged exposure to people even more neurotic than you.

But let’s start with the basics. What is a job interview?

At least one dictionary defines it as “a painful surgical procedure designed to extract the last shred of dignity from the job applicant’s ingrown psyche.”

During the procedure, sharp probes are directed at the insult-awareness areas of the frontal lobe in an effort to stimulate the irony glands. These probes generally take the form of questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the job applicant’s career history, abilities or distinctions, but instead are designed to test one’s ability to retain rigidity of the facial muscles, more commonly called “keeping a straight face.” For example:

“If all your former employers were gathered in one room, what would they say about you?”

In this test, the applicant with an excess of intelligence and self-esteem, deducing that such an event would be predicated on the sudden and conveniently located funeral of said applicant, might conclude that the former employers would say things like, “She looks like she just fell asleep — shove a desk under her face and you’d think she was still working in Advertorials,” and “Well, that’s that. Anyone for happy hour at El Torito?”

But this would be wrong. The correct answer is, “They would chant in unison that I am efficient, courteous and professional, the most accomplished employee ever to be included in a mass layoff. Then they would all run to the window to see the flying pigs go by.”

Other questions are designed to test the limits of credulity and put pressure on raw nerves. For example:

“Have you ever worked with anyone who might be considered difficult?”

In this high-risk procedure, the success rate, particularly among applicants who have accumulated more than eight hours of job experience, is very low. Yet one study reports that at least one applicant — a subject with more than 20 years of experience in working for large organizations staffed by overworked, underpaid, unloved, addictive personalities behind on their bills and living in apartments with orange shag carpeting — was able to maintain an upright position and masklike expression while mouthing the words, “I have been very fortunate to work only with wonderful people as well as with terrific bosses, each so sweet and endearing that they collectively make Fred Rogers seem like the Marquis de Sade.”

In the final analysis, what interviewers are really looking for is not competence or a proven history of success, but someone who can memorize vague yet analytical sounding responses to stupid questions. Think Ari Fleischer being interviewed by Kelly Ripa.

To help you, here are some standard interview questions and recommended answers.

“What prepares you to move from being a world-famous brain surgeon to putting hot dogs on sticks?”

Recommended response: “Well, although I have not had professional experience in putting hot dogs on sticks, I have 17 years’ experience in saving lives, using highly specialized skills developed through intensive study and 48-hour unpaid shifts made possible by $75,000 in student loans, during which I affected the mortality rate by 20 percent plus or minus over the last quarter, and I’d like to be able to make similar contributions to your kiosk at the Westridge Mall.”

“Why did you apply for this job?”

Never say, “Because I need income to provide my family with food and shelter.” This gives the employer the impression that you are only willing to engage in exhausting, dehumanizing labor for years on end if there is something in it for you. At a time when employers are exercising their options to decrease overhead, reduce benefits, institute pay cuts, freeze pensions, double the workload, lower safety measures, implement cheaper materials and inflate profits, it’s rather unseemly for the job applicant to express a naked desire for minimum wage.

(This would explain why more and more companies are running credit checks on potential employees. Clearly, the candidate who needs a paycheck is not as desirable as one who can also buy shares in the company, thus giving the CEO time to lock in a Florida mansion before declaring bankruptcy.)

Recommended response: “As a highly experienced professional, I have been targeting my job search for a company that would allow me to develop a marketing campaign for cemetery time shares. Or to insert wooden sticks into hot dogs.”

“What do you know about this company?”

This is the biggie, your chance to show the interviewer that you are so desperate to be hired that you actually went to the trouble to track down and read a stack of annual reports written by sleep-deprived legal assistants and printed in 9-point type.

Recommended response: “Well, in my research I learned that your company headquarters move from place to place depending on the likelihood of a visit from Mike Wallace of ‘Sixty Minutes.’ I also know that at first you were primarily a brokerage firm and that you now mostly employ incarcerated individuals to provide customer service to an elderly demographic with liquid assets. I also read in a testimonial from one of your clients in the Pennysaver Freesheet, that she had switched to your product line and services even without understanding what they are exactly, because she felt that planners at your firm really cared about her, and especially about the possibility of her being accidentally run down by a gray minivan with no license plate.”

Now, get out there!

Remember, an interview is simply an opportunity to lie about what you enjoy doing most and forget about what you do best. As the “I Ching” says, “Nourish the docility of a cow, and there will be good fortune.” Armed with that, some well-rehearsed inanities, and an ill-fitting necktie or pair of pantyhose, you will impress interviewers with your ability to hammer one last nail in the coffin of your own hopes and dreams. Now get out there and dazzle ‘em! You’re closer than you think to achieving your goal of joining the working poor.

All over the United States, the popularity of unemployment is growing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rose from an unimpressive 4.0 percent at the close of 1999 to a more respectable 5.8 percent in February of 2001. Then in April 2003, as states slashed budgets, CEOs claimed multimillion-dollar bonuses in exchange for meeting bankruptcy goals, and conservative moralists hit the casinos, unemployment finally achieved an inspiring 6.0 percent, a rate some experts say would be even higher if it reflected the thousands of people who, having run out of benefits, contacts and relatives with sofa beds, are no longer seeking employment but merely a reason to live. Analysts say the trend is likely to continue.

“What started as a flirtation has clearly become a lifestyle,” said professor Ed Yu, as he and his former colleagues cleaned out their desks at the Center for Economic Development in Washington. “I think you’re going to find more and more people of all ages, education levels, and belief systems turning to unemployment as the current administration focuses on the important tasks of rebuilding Iraq, bombing North Korea, rebuilding North Korea, bombing Syria, rebuilding Syria, bombing Cuba, and so on.”

But is unemployment for everyone?

“Not everyone can cut it,” admits Charles “Chump” Brown, widely recognized as an unemployment insider by his fellow former hotshots in California’s Silicon Valley. “A venture of this scale takes enormous outlay, and not everyone’s got that kind of capital to invest. There’s the constant career counseling, the daily two-hour commute to job fairs, the bulk mailing of résumés. It all adds up. And if you’ve also got mortgage payments on a one-bedroom condo in a high-crime area, that’s an extra 700 thou right there. So, no, unemployment is definitely not for amateurs.”

But others are more enthusiastic. “I think you’ll do fine as long as you’re someone who thrives on stress. And boredom. And hunger. And stress,” says Tracie Nervosa, a former teacher, speaking from a pay phone in Helpus-Dammit, Vt., where she had been hunting for loose change. “For me, the appeal of unemployment is the fact that you never know what’s going to happen next. One day, you’re racing from one pointless networking meeting to another, the next day you’re still in your bathrobe in the middle of the afternoon watching reruns of “The Golden Girls” and snacking out of the cat food dish. It’s very creative. Today I’m going to be selling my blood at various plasma centers, auctioning my children on eBay, meeting friends for Community ‘Panhandling in the Park’ Day — and I still have to be back here by noon so I can let in the sheriff for my eviction.”

While many experts predict a strong future for unemployment, others are more cautious. After conducting an exhaustive two-year study of the nation’s newspapers, Lou Seur has discovered some disturbing anomalies. “If you examine the graphs I’ve inked onto the underside of my arms as the madness progressed, you’ll notice that three sectors of the economy have proved stubbornly resistant to unemployment: self-absorbed celebrity divas without surnames, athletes with extensive criminal records, and the vast majority of elected officials. For reasons that we’re still trying to determine, not even their most abysmal performance reviews have secured them so much as a demotion. If anything, it’s led to better book deals, new reality TV shows, and more endorsements of expensive cars, overpriced junk food, and luxury-class prescription drugs.”

“I think Lou is being shortsighted,” says his wife, Anita Nichol-Seur, who like her husband, must now buy her reading glasses at Bottom of the Barrel World, where she also shops for bargains on canned pig-nose ravioli for the couple’s weekly meal in their modest cardboard home on a densely populated median strip. “My sense is that, as more people begin turning to movie theaters, sports stadiums and voting booths for shelter instead of entertainment, the opportunities for unemployment should become more widely available.”

But for now, the dream of more equitable unemployment remains just that — a dream. At Halliburton, Bechtel and the White House, dozens of people still show up every morning to point at their ringing phones and tell somebody else to get it.

“Of course, I can’t,” says Ima Wrecknow, former administrative assistant, “seeing as how I’ve ended up at a bus station in Nottahope, N.D. But I really appreciate the gesture, and would love to offer a gesture of my own. Perhaps someday, when we all meet in a dark alley of the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, I’ll get my chance.”