So the Labor Department has announced unemployment went down from 8.1% to 7.8% in its latest jobs report. But the Obama administration did much more than that. They also decided to revise job numbers back through July. Now thatâ€™s initiative. Finally, this administration has shown the kind of motivation we expect from government â€” especially one that may soon find itself unemployed.
The question is, are the new numbers fact or fiction? Many folks arenâ€™t buying what the administration is selling.
Florida Republican Rep. Allen West stood tall and stated his beef in an interview with CNBC. â€śDid the workforce participation rate change? No. Itâ€™s still a 30-year low. Did the U6 computation 14.7 percent change? No. So how is it that we had a drop of three-tenths of a percentage point on the unemployment rate if these other statistics which related to that do not change?â€ť
He also noted that GDP numbers have dropped from 4.1% to 1.9% to 1.7% and â€śgot revised down just about a month ago to 1.3 percent.â€ť
But scrutiny didnâ€™t come from just Republicans.
FOX reported economist Dean Baker, with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the rate drop was â€śalmost certainly a statistical fluke.â€ť Heâ€™s a liberal.
And after scratching his head, former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin said, â€śIt is out of line with any of the other data.â€ť
Unemployment is based upon household surveys â€” you know, like the incredibly accurate voter polls. The ex-director went on to say that an estimate of 873,000 new jobs seems â€śimplausible.â€ť
Even using the Labor Departmentâ€™s recently â€śrevisedâ€ť numbers, the monthly average for jobs added in 2012 is 146,000. The ex-director thinks the new numbers are implausible. How about you?
Bloomberg.com reported a tweet from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch. He took this issue into the back rooms where the game of government is really played. â€śUnbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..canâ€™t debate so change numbers.â€ť
Can you blame him? This is the same administration that brought you Fast and Furious and the recent WARN Act controversy. These folks even tried to blame dissatisfied viewers of a bad movie for the Libya consulate attack. Theyâ€™ve earned any skepticism they get, donâ€™t you think?
Look, government is about power and we all know power corrupts. All administrations, Republican and Democrat, fiddle and diddle behind the curtain. Some administrations are polished, sly and successful and the peasants never discover any shenanigans. Other administrations, far more sloppy and unpolished, end up mired in scandal. But they all play games.
Just ask yourself what is more likely, that virtually all other economic data has remained the same, yet there was a drop in unemployment, or, coming out of an empty suit debate debacle, Obama and his administration decided they needed to fudge a few numbers?
We all hope the drop in unemployment is true because too many American families have been in pain far too long. But for election purposes, does it really matter? It is not even a half-percent improvement. Any person that would justify a vote for Obama because unemployment improved three-tenths of a percent a month prior to voting is clearly a bigger nincompoop than Larry, Curly or Moe.
After getting embarrassed badly in the first debate, Obama and his Liberal-lunatics think improved job numbers will help his re-election chances. Thatâ€™s their bet. What you can bet on is that, like Fast and Furious, the Libya attack and the recent WARN Act flare-up, there is almost certainly more going on here than meets the eye.
And you can take that to the voting booth.