Claim that Unemployment Figures Were Cooked Not so “Ludicrous” After All?
By Mary Theroux • Friday October 19, 2012 6:27 PM PDT • 7 Comments
When the September unemployment figures were announced a month before the presidential election as having miraculously declined to below 8% for the first time since the current administration started, more than a few speculated that there may have been some book-cooking in the back room.
In response, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, said she was “insulted” by the notion that her department might have fudged the numbers, and that any such contention was “ludicrous”:
“I’m insulted when I hear that, because we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists,” Solis said on CNBC.
“These are our best trained and best skilled individuals working at the BLS. It’s really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement.”
Well, maybe not so much.
The Labor Department the following week reported that weekly jobless claims had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, their lowest level since February 2008, and the media quickly broadcast that good news as well.
However, Labor soon revealed that “one major state” had failed to “fully document” its jobless claims. Speculation focused on California, but the California State “Employment Development” Department (now there’s a misnomer—in fact, its primary function is to dole out unemployment pay) “strongly denied” the charge:
“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible,” California Employment Development Department director Pam Harris said in a statement last week.
Yesterday, the feds fessed up. Yes, it’s true: California had under-reported jobless claims, and this week’s are now 46,000 higher, for a total of 388,000 new claims.
The agency in charge of reporting the data to the feds — the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency — is headed by a political appointee, appointed by Democratic governor Jerry Brown: Marty Morgenstern.
According to campaign disclosure records, Morgenstern donated $4,600 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to the 2008 Obama camapaign, beginning with a $1,000 contribution to Obama for America in February 2008. Morgenstern followed up that donation with a $1,300 contribution in June, and then a $2,300 payout in early September.
On all three disclosures, Morgenstern indicated that he was either “not employed” or “retired.”
“Top, top economists,” indeed. I’ll take mine Austrian.
Tags: Bailouts, Budget and Tax Policy, Business, California, Corruption, Elections, Employment, Labor, Power, Transparency, Unemployment 
Even Jack Welch recently and publicly noted the cooked numbers released by the BLS for CPI/inflation indexs
richard | Oct 20, 2012 | Reply
Of course the numbers were cooked! What do you expect from those dem’s! It ‘s not surprising this came out before the election?,
Jim Dusek | Oct 21, 2012 | Reply
I think we all knew that was deception on behalve of the Libs to try and fool the public I have to say they fudged it way to much for it to be true.
David | Oct 21, 2012 | Reply
The old saying is still true, If it sounds too good, it probably is. Nothing new that it is California either. Our democratic party run state is well known here for making figures lie. “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
Jim | Oct 21, 2012 | Reply
Corruptocrat Obama and his administration knows No truth.
Mike | Oct 21, 2012 | Reply
The liberal media created the 8% threshhold to help Obama, constantly reminding us that no president has been re-elected with unemployment above 8% since FDR.... I and millions predicted that a month or two before the election, they would lower the rate below 8.0%. Viola 7.8%! A large number of prominent Republicans on TV and radio fell for and repeated the Democrat talking point.
I don’t trust the measurements coming from our gov’t anymore, and not just system, or data collection. I mean deliberate manipulation.
This is not a good time in America. This is most dishonest and corrupt administration in my lifetime. The backlash and correction in the upcoming ‘Romney Years’ will be difficult. I have a feeling the liberal media will continue, even expand, their partisan role in politics.
Paul Hoffmann | Oct 22, 2012 | Reply