Unemployment Numbers Prior to the Election Were Falsified



Mr.Obama wearing an apron that says, ‘I’m cooking the books.’

The US Department of Labor has launched an investigation into reports that some of the numbers in the government’s monthly jobs report out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics may have been fabricated in the run-up to the 2012 election.

The unemployment numbers immediately before the election plummeted .3% to under 8% and as it turns out, the numbers might have been manipulated with the full knowledge of the Census Bureau.

The NY Post reported yesterday that a reliable source said the unemployment numbers were manipulated and the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

It is too soon to determine the accuracy of the report and if the numbers of employees involved were large enough to have made a significant difference, but it is interesting in light of the attacks on Jack Welch who said they were cooking the books.

Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, said BLS was cooking the books back in October 2012. Everyone said the unemployment in October would be at 8.1% or 8.2%. No one said it would be under 8%. The election was coming up and no president had ever been elected with numbers at 8%. Suddenly, they were 7.8%.

The U-3 number went down to 7.8% in October because of an alleged .3% increase in part-time jobs.

Jack Welch said someone was cooking the books in a tweet for which he was roundly criticized. He tweeted: Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers.

Jared Bernsetein said Jack Welch should be ashamed of himself. The NY Times and business insider said he was a conspiracy theorist. Ben White of Morning Money said it was ‘disgraceful.’

Austin Goolbee, Obama advisor, said: ‘love ya jack but here you’ve lost your mind @jack_welch Unbelievable jobs #s. the Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate, change #s’

Hilda Solis said insinuations that she cooked the books are conspiratorial and “ludicrous:”

“I’m insulted when I hear that, because we have a very professional civil service organization. These are our best trained and most skilled individuals,” she told CNBC.

“It’s really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement.”