The jobs numbers the Obama administration doesn’t want you to see
posted at 11:03 am on February 8, 2012 by Howard Portnoy
“President Obama praised the latest jobs report,” write ABC News’ Tom Giusto and Rachel Martin. The column goes on to quote the president as saying:
Today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. We are turning the corner.
Before you start popping corks, you should know that the dateline on that article is April 2, 2010. It provides a cautionary context to an Associated Press blurb on Obama’s reaction to the latest latest jobs report. On February 3 of this year, he told reporters, “The U.S. economy is growing stronger and the economic recovery is speeding up.”
But this time, we are assured, the cause for rejoicing is real. Here’s Katrina vanden Heuvel writing in the Washington Post several days after the president spoke:
The January jobs report—243,000 jobs added—was greeted with widespread relief. The economists over at the Wall Street Journal were virtually giddy: ‘a game changer,’ ‘positive report in really every way,’ ‘strength is everywhere,’ ‘a blow-out number.’ Liberal analysts celebrated its effects on Obama’s reelection prospects. Matt Yglesias hailed ‘recovery winter,’ arguing that barring ‘some tragic unforeseen disaster,’ we ‘should be in for … accelerating growth that put(s) us back on the path to full employment.’ Ezra Klein concluded that the report— ‘all good’—contained ‘the sort of numbers that win elections.’
Game, set, match. With “Recovery Winter” raining dollars down on us, can prosperity be far behind?
The answer depends on who you ask. If you ask former hedge fund manager Bruce Krasting, you get the distinct sense the government is telling the American people less than the whole story. On his blog My Take on Financial Events, Kasting writes:
The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a key economic statistic today. Changes in the LFPR are shaping the direction of the capital markets, federal economic policy, monetary policy and, most importantly, politics.
The LFPR hit a new record low on Friday. The key question that must be answered is: Is the current LFPR a temporary phenomenon, or is this the ‘New Normal?’
Another blog, Zero Hedge, quantifies this metric, complete with a graph. The author’s conclusion is that the LFPR has fallen to a 30-year low. The civilian labor force lost an unprecedented 1.2 million participants in January—the same month that produced the BLS jobs report that has liberals dancing in the street.
The reason for the disparity between the White House’s reading of the jobs report and realists like Kasting and Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not factor LFPR into its equation. An article at The Blaze.com suggests the BLS may be cooking the books and cites an email from Reagan budget director David Stockman that claims
the reports are so massaged, estimated, deemed, revised, re-bench marked and seasonally adjusted that any month-to-month change has a decent chance of being noise. What deep secret might they be hiding?
Related Articles
- Obama’s P. T. Barnum campaign strategy is working
- Study: Americans’ incomes have fallen more during recovery than during recession
- Obama to stimulate economy through executive power grab
- American Jobs Act will create 1.9 million new jobs (at $235K apiece)
- Poll: Obama’s handling of debt crisis sucks less than GOP’s
- Poll: 44% of Americans say they worse off under Obama; 34% say better off
- Obama’s “Recovery Summer” clashes with predictions that another recession is looming
Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Quelle surprise. Gee, what deep secret might they be hiding? That‘s a poser.
J.E. Dyer on February 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM
I have believed all along that this administration was only concerned with one thing–its own re-election. And the best way to insure re-election is to have a rising economy during the spring-summer leading up to the election itself.
These self-absorbed narcissists are counting on the premise that voters have short memories and will forgive the administration for subjecting the entire country for perpetuating misery for 3.5 years; all of the bailouts and handouts that mortgaged our future were intended to shore up the base of true believers who can influence the willy-nilly populace.
I don’t believe VA has much chance of really going blue again, but the longer the news cycle stays positive the closer it will be.
Someone needs to remind voters that the real effects of Obama’s “economic plan” don’t kick in until 2013.
rwenger43 on February 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM
this is dear leader we are talking about…of course they are going to fudge the numbers to make him look good
cmsinaz on February 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM
IMAO, the only surprise available would be for us somehow to learn just how much BHO & Co. believe their own press-clippings:
Are they all a bunch of evil Svengali’s and puppet-masters, leading the greatest nation on earth into serfdom?
Or is it even statistically possible for that many people to be as monumentally stupid as their policies suggest?
Enquiring minds…
“Cogito, ergo TEA Party!” ~ DeepWheat
DeepWheat on February 8, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Or is it even statistically possible for that many people to be as monumentally stupid as their policies suggest?
Yes, Deep, it is statistically possible. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
lfwest on February 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM
I, for one, never have underestimated the stupidity out of our dear leader(s). The deafening roar of the BS from official government reports can be a bit overwhelming. It must be the after effects of all that statistical noise on my unprotected eardrums that makes me quite cynical.
Turtle317 on February 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Isn’t it funny, that the states that have some of the worst unemployment number AND deficits seem to be:
A – States run by liberals
B – States that voted for this hot mess in 2009
C – States, that me & mine will have to bail out in the next 5 years, regardless who wins Congress or the White House.
BlaxPac on February 10, 2012 at 7:20 AM