“The Affordable Care Act is building a health insurance market that works for consumers,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Thanks to the health care law, no one will be discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition.”

“The Affordable Care Act recognizes that well-run, equitable workplace wellness programs allow workers to access services that can help them and their families lead healthier lives,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Employers, too, can benefit from reduced costs associated with a healthier workforce.”

The Obama administration issued:

Pre-Existing Conditions

A proposed rule that, beginning in 2014, prohibits health insurance companies from discriminating against individuals because of a pre-existing or chronic condition. Under the rule, insurance companies would be allowed to vary premiums within limits, only based on age, tobacco use, family size, and geography. Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to any American because of a pre-existing condition or from charging higher premiums to certain enrollees because of their current or past health problems, gender, occupation, and small employer size or industry. The rule would ensure that people for whom coverage would otherwise be unaffordable, and young adults, have access to a catastrophic coverage plan in the individual market. For more information regarding this rule, click here.

Minimum Standards for Coverage

A proposed rule outlining policies and standards for coverage of essential health benefits, while giving states more flexibility to implement the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are a core set of benefits that would give consumers a consistent way to compare health plans in the individual and small group markets. A companion letter on the flexibility in implementing the essential health benefits in Medicaid was also sent to states. For more information regarding this rule, click here.

Employment-Based Wellness Programs

A proposed rule implementing and expanding employment-based wellness programs to promote health and help control health care spending, while ensuring that individuals are protected from unfair underwriting practices that could otherwise reduce benefits based on health status. For more information regarding this rule, click here.

From the White House, the Obama administration marked TDoR, according to a report from LGBTQ Nation. Among the comments was this one from Labor Secretary Hilda Solis: “I stand proudly today — and every day — as an ally to the transgender community and to every person and family impacted by anti-transgender bullying and violence. Transgender people are part of the diversity that America celebrates today and they, like every American, deserve to live without fear of prejudice or violence.”

Then there was a press release, sent to me by Mercedes Allen, from the province of Nova Scotia, which announced that it is moving to add gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds in the Human Rights Act. The press release said “The amendments will be introduced today because Nov. 20 is Transgender Day of Remembrance, an international day to remember people killed as a result of transphobia.” Isn’t that touching? Who says politicians don’t have heart? Bravo for Nova Scotia! It now becomes the third Canadian province to move to protect its transgender citizens — and I think the other provinces will follow suit.

Ontario has already moved to protect trans people, and is probably a step ahead of all the other provinces with its recent legislation allowing trans people to change official gender designation without first undergoing SRS.

Also, today I received a nice email from Seth at GLAAD, along with a press release about some of the many things GLAAD has been doing on behalf of transgender people and TDoR. Says GLAAD president Herndon Graddick in the release: “With anti-transgender violence on the rise, we remember our colleagues, friends and family whose lives were taken simply because of who they are. We must stand together to end the violence, working every day to spread awareness and acceptance of transgender people.”

When I got home from work tonight and had a chance to look on the Internet at what people have been writing about TDoR on this day, I was touched by outpouring of empathy and support by so many for transgender people — from politicians and media outlets and others..

What strikes me about all of this is, a lot of people care. Sometimes we think the opposite, that nobody cares, that everybody hates us. But it’s not true. A lot of people showed that they care today.

Still, as TDoR founder Gwendolyn Ann Smith says in the GLAAD release: “With so many seeking to erase transgender people — sometimes in the most brutal ways possible — it is vitally important that those we lose are remembered, and that we continue to fight for justice.”

So, we are making progress. And we will continue to fight for justice. And we will remember those we have lost.

Meanwhile, be proud of who you are.

Jillian

According to Victor E. Kappeler and Gary W. Potter in The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice, corporate crime poses more of a threat to society than the total of all violent crime and property crime combined (148). The idea that corporate criminality causes less economic and physical damage than traditional street crime is a myth. In fact, the cost of so-called suite crime significantly outweighs that of street crime. Additionally, corporate crimes are often not accidents and the current laws and enforcement efforts are not sufficient to deal with the problem.

This begs the question, what are the potential causes of crime in the suites? And why does it occur on such a grand scale?

To me, the physical distance between the perpetrator and the victim is a major contributor to corporate crime. In The Criminal Elite: Understanding White-Collar Crime, author James Coleman compares two situations involving violent crime—one in which a robber accidentally kills a store clerk and another in which an engineer falsifies test results to conceal a deadly flaw in an automobile’s braking system (73). While both the robber and the engineer are committing crimes that likely result in the death of another, “the engineer’s distance from their victims allows them the luxury of pretending that no one will really be hurt by their crimes” (73). Thus, what is out of sight is essentially out of mind, as the engineer does not directly see the results of his or her crime; however, the damage is just as real. This raises the query, if we lessened the distance by putting a face to the victim—showing the engineer the people his decision has affected—would corporate crime still happen?

The answer, of course, is yes, for there are several other possible causes and cases of corporate crime. According to Eduardo Porter in “The Spreading Scourge of Corporate Corruption” in the New York Times, though it is difficult to know why corruption is spreading in the suites, there may be a few plausible explanations. “From globalization to rising income inequality to the growing role of corporate money in political campaigns, political and economic dynamics may have increased both the scope of corporate wrongdoing and the incentives for business executives to bend, or break, the rules” (Porter 2). Therefore, political power likely contributes to suite crime as large corporations and financial giants may sway politicians and lawmakers to ignore corporate crime by either not prosecuting or providing lighter sentencing.

In addition, many wonder why people already in wealth and power not only desire more, but also take risks to gain more. Whether it is a state legislator committing tax fraud or a pharmaceutical company hiding the risks of an expensive drug, people in power are often referred to as risk seekers who get satisfaction from increasing their wealth regardless of the actual utility of those gains (Coleman 197). These so-called “risk seekers” are driven by greed whereas others are motivated by a fear of falling or losing some of the wealth that they have already achieved (Coleman 197).  Then there are those who experience a sense of moral deregulation—those who simply think the rules don’t apply to them. The fact that many cases involving corporate crime are not prosecuted fuels this belief that people in wealth and power do not need to follow common law.

So what can be done to deter corporate crime? The most obvious answer is to increase the punishment on individuals and corporations. However, there are enforcement, structural and political reforms that need to take place in order for this to happen.

First, there is a significant need for more resources. According to Coleman, “regulatory agencies and prosecutors are often hopelessly outmatched by their corporate opponents who command larger and more skilled staffs and much greater financial support” (241). To remedy this, regulatory and enforcement agencies must be given substantial increases in their budgets so we can focus more heavily on preventing future corporate crimes while prosecuting and imprisoning executives responsible for past and present corporate offenses (Coleman 241-243). In addition to imprisonment, larger fines and financial penalties should be imposed on corporations, as current penalties often do not equal the profits made from the company’s crimes.

Structurally, corporate organization should be changed to reduce the incentives for illegal activities and make such activities more difficult to commit (Coleman 245). Some criminologists have suggested that public representatives be added to the boards of directors of all major corporations to act as a watchdog on the companies. These representatives would ultimately be responsible for “supervising corporate behavior, hearing complaints and uncovering corporate illegalities” (Coleman 245). Also, a freer flow of information among corporate directors, regulatory agencies and the general public would further discourage corporate crime and likely make the enforcement agencies’ job easier (Coleman 246).

Lastly, the political process needs to be reformed, particularly the present system of campaign financing. According to Coleman, the fact that most politicians heavily rely on campaign contributions from large corporations and executives has a paralyzing effect on the battle against white-collar crime (248). Coleman suggests the creation of a system of federal and state financing for election campaigns, which would provide each candidate with the same amount of money to spend from government funding. This way, politicians and lawmakers would no longer need to rely on corporations for funding and the political clout would likely diminish, allowing more cases to be strictly prosecuted.

In the end, significant changes must be made to current legislation and enforcement policies in order to begin properly punishing and deterring corporate crime. First and foremost, the punishment must fit the crime, which indicates that there should be stricter civil and criminal penalties on corporations and executives. Next, in order to prosecute more cases of corporate crime, more resources need to be given to regulatory and enforcement agencies. Finally, political ties must be cut between lawmakers and large businesses so that people in power are appropriately punished for committing corporate crimes. Thus, by increasing the level and form of discipline and decreasing political clout, suite crime can begin to be deterred.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

• Coleman, James W. The Criminal Elite: Understanding White-Collar Crime. 6th ed. New York: Worth, 2006. Print.
• “Commonly Used Statistics.” United States Department of Labor. OSHA, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2012. <http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html&#62;.
• Kappeler, Victor E., and Gary W. Potter. The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice. 4th ed. Long Grove: Waveland, 2005. Print.
• Porter, Eduardo. “The Spreading Scourge of Corporate Corruption.” New York Times 11 July 2012. Print.

These are ten reasons we need hard core Conservatives.

We have seen what rampant liberalism can do after these three-and-a-half years of misery. The left pushes an agenda that punishes success in order to spread the wealth around. It is important to know how some on the left operates:

1. President Obama

Give the former community organizer a second term in office and see the havoc that will follow. Unrestrained by political concerns, expect every possible left-wing policy to be enacted by executive order or through agency regulations. He already has taken us half-way to bureaucratic Gomorrah with his Obamacare travesty. The president has fulfilled his promise to transform America by making us more dependent on government.

2. George Soros

Most of the liberal infrastructure has been funded by financier George Soros. He has helped keep afloat such left-wing mainstays as Media Matters, Center for American Progress and Moveon.org., and donated heavily to the National Council of La Raza and Planned Parenthood. Funny how you don’t hear the left complain about the political influence of deep-pocketed donors when it comes to the billionaire sugar daddy for progressives.

3. Mainstream media

Led by the New York Times and the Washington Post, the mainstream media—which forgot to vet the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama in 2008—are making sure that no stone is left unturned when it comes to Mitt Romney. From Romney’s high school antics to his wife’s equestrian hobby, the supposedly objective media are trying to make scandals out of triviality while shedding no lights on a failed administration.

4. Harry Reid

The Senate majority leader is dangerous because he is virtually inert. The upper chamber passes nothing of consequence while sitting on bills passed by the House. Under his leadership, the Senate has not produced a budget in years—disregarding a statutory duty. Reid’s inaction fits right into Obama’s strategy of attacking a “do-nothing Congress.”

5. Eric Holder

Under siege in the Fast and Furious scandal, the attorney general has dropped all pretenses and is brazenly using the DoJ to pursue a political agenda. The department filed suit against Arizona’s immigration law and Texas’ voter ID law and Holder continually plays the race card to excuse his power grabs. As the contempt of Congress charge  plays out, expect Holder to play hardball and lash out at critics.

6. Hollywood stars

With George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker hosting Obama fundraisers, Hollywood is mobilizing to get Obama reelected. Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin and others love to lecture the rest of us about global warming and the evils of Wall Street. How about boycotting a movie with a known progressive as the star?

7. Lisa Jackson

The Environmental Protection Agency, under the direction of Lisa Jackson, is moving to control aspects of daily life in ways never imagined when the agency was formed. From enacting rules to combat global warming to regulating workplace dust, the EPA is pushing an agenda that couldn’t get through Congress even when Democrats controlled it.

8. Big Labor

With pro-union Hilda Solis heading the Labor Department and the National Labor Relations Board stacked in its favor, President Obama has returned the favor for the support Big Labor supplied for his election. He will need the unions even more in order to return for a second term. With the rest of his base lagging in enthusiasm, it will take the dedication of paid-union goons to get out the vote.

9. Janet Napolitano

For all the yapping from progressives about President George W. Bush’s disregard for the Constitution and the evils of the PATRIOT Act, there is little being said about the vast expansion of the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Janet Napolitano. From groping Transportation Safety Administration workers to drones monitoring America, the massive agency is increasingly eroding our freedoms while trying to protect them.

10. Nancy Pelosi

It will take years, if not decades, to undo the damage done by the spending spree during Pelosi’s tenure as speaker of the House. From 2006 to 2010, the nation racked up trillions of dollars in debt, largely due to spending bills initiated by Pelosi’s Democratic House majority. And without her strong-armed tactics, Obamacare never would have become law. Let us make sure in November that there is not a second act for a Speaker Pelosi.

*Grant Targets New Yorkers Who Lost Employment Due to Hurricane Sandy or are Unemployed and Not Receiving Unemployment Benefits

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that New York State has received $27,792,296 in federal Disaster National Emergency Grant (NEG) funds. The grant will be used to hire workers who lost their jobs as a direct result of Hurricane Sandy in Bronx, Kings, New York, Richmond, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and Westchester counties to help clean up impacted communities.

“This federal grant will provide funds to hire much-needed extra workers to help clean up and recover communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy and put unemployed New Yorkers back to work,” Governor Cuomo said. “I thank Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis for her quick response to deliver assistance to our state.”

To be eligible, workers must be unemployed as a result of Hurricane Sandy or unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefits or other types of income support.

Workers interested in this program should call 1-888-4-NYSDOL (1-888-469-7365). The New York State Department of Labor will work with local officials to recruit and hire workers.

Information will also be available at local Disaster Recovery Centers and One-Stop Career Centers. A list of One-Stop Career Centers can be found on the State Department of Labor’s website.Counties eligible for cleanup assistance under this grant are those covered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Declaration for Public Assistance. They include Bronx, Kings, New York, Richmond, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and Westchester counties.

This tweet just came across from Scott MacFarlane:

And here is the picture:

“Today’s increase in the unemployment rate is a sad reminder that the economy is at a virtual standstill. The jobless rate is higher than it was when President Obama took office, and there are still 23 million Americans struggling for work. On Tuesday, America will make a choice between stagnation and prosperity. For four years, President Obama’s policies have crushed America’s middle class. For four years, President Obama has told us that things are getting better and that we’re making progress. For too many American families, those words ring hollow. We can do better. We can have real economic growth, create millions of good-paying jobs, and give middle-class families the security and opportunity they deserve. When I’m president, I’m going to make real changes that lead to a real recovery, so that the next four years are better than the last.”

Romney and most Americans see it as yet another sad day in a four-year struggle with the economy and unemployment.

Not the Obama administration.

Generation Opportunity, the largest non-profit, non-partisan organization in the United States engaging and mobilizing young Americans on the important economic issues facing the nation, announced non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) 18-29 youth unemployment rate data for October 2012 as the Presidential election nears:

• The youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds specifically for October 2012 is 12.0 percent (NSA).

• The youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year old African-Americans for October 2012 is 21.4 percent (NSA); the youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year old Hispanics for October 2012 is 13.4 percent (NSA); and the youth unemployment rate for 18–29 year old Women for October 2012 is 11.8 percent (NSA).

• The declining labor force participation rate has created an additiona1.7 million young adults that are not counted as “unemployed” by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.

• If the labor force participation rate were factored into the 18-29 youth unemployment calculation, the actual 18-29-unemployment rate would rise to 16.5 percent (NSA).

Don’t worry though, things can turn around after Election Day.

In a press release to CNN, Romney reiterated his five-point plan to create a real recovery in America:

Together with Paul Ryan, I’ve put forward an economic recovery plan consisting of five central elements that will in four years create 12 million jobs. 

We will produce more of the energy we need to heat our homes, fill our cars, and make our economy grow.  We will stop President Obama’s war on coal, his disdain for oil, and his effort to crimp natural gas by federal regulation of the very technology that produces it. We will support nuclear and renewables, but phase out subsidies once an industry is on its feet. We will invest in energy science and research to make discoveries that can actually change our energy world. By 2020, we will achieve North American energy independence. 

We will retrain our work force for the jobs of tomorrow and ensure that every child receives a quality education no matter where they live, including especially our inner cities. Parents and students, not administrators and unions, need to have greater choice. Our current worker retraining system is a labyrinth of federal programs that sprawls across 47 programs and nine agencies. We will eliminate this redundancy and empower the 50 states and the private sector to develop effective programs of their own. 

We will make trade work for America.  We’ll open more markets to American agriculture, products, and services. And we will finally hold accountable any nation that doesn’t play by the rules.  I will stand up for the rights and interests of American workers and employers. 

We will restore fiscal sanity to Washington by bringing an end to the federal spending and borrowing binge that in just four years has added more debt held by the public than almost all previous administrations combined. We will put America on track to a balanced budget by eliminating unnecessary programs, by sending programs back to states where they can be managed with less abuse and less cost, and by shrinking the bureaucracy of Washington. 

Finally, we will champion small business, the great engine of job creation in our country, by reforming the tax code and updating and reshaping regulations that have suffocated economic growth.

What do you want America?  A President who celebrates mediocrity in America, or a President who will bring back exceptionalism to this great nation?

US Labor Secretary just bounced into studio with a big smile.Handed out candy to reporters.Loves job numbers twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews…

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 2, 2012

7.9 percent unemployment! Yippee!

Someone ask the Labor Secretary where she was able to find malaise and stagflation flavors of candy.—
John Hayward (@Doc_0) November 02, 2012

Update:

Here's the candy basket….. http://t.co/3oil4NlB—
Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) November 02, 2012

  ” The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the release of the Jobs Report (which is typically released on the first Friday of each month) for October could be delayed until after the federal election takes place next Tuesday because of Hurricane Sandy. “

News Release

OSHA News Release: [10/18/2012]
Contact Name: Diana Petterson or Adriano Llosa
Phone Number: (202) 693-4681 or x4686
Release Number: 12-2060-NAT

US Department of Labor’s Worker Safety and Health Challenge: develop a tool to inform young workers about hazards

Deadline is Nov. 30

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor challenges developers, students and anyone else with a little tech savvy and creativity to enter the Workplace Safety and Health Challenge. The goal is to design a tool that demonstrates the importance of recognizing and preventing hazards by helping young people understand their rights in the workplace.

Submissions may be designed for Internet browsers, smartphones, feature phones and social media platforms, or as native Windows or Macintosh applications. The deadline is Nov. 30.

“New technologies have the promise of making our safety and health resources even more accessible for workers and employers,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. “Successful proposals could take many different forms, such as interactive and informative games, a smartphone app, social or professional networks, or data visualization.”

Each submission should meet both of the following objectives:

• Demonstrate the importance of knowing about workplace safety and health hazards:
  Components should be included that inform young workers about hazards in the workplace and the serious consequences of workplace injuries. Information on safety and health from the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, state workers’ compensation programs and/or other government sources must be incorporated. Additional suggested features include those that bring awareness to best management practices, such as engineering controls and personal protection equipment.
• Help workers understand their rights in the workplace:
  Components should be included that help young workers understand their rights in the workplace and their employers’ responsibility to ensure their health and safety on the job. The content and type of application must be age-appropriate, and should also feature mechanisms for users to interact or share with each other.

A panel of judges that includes Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the co-hosts of the popular Discovery Channel show “Myth Busters,” Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, will select winners for the “Safety in the Workplace Innovator Award” that comes with a $15,000 prize, and the “Safety and Health Data Award” and the “Workers’ Rights Award,” each of which includes a $6,000 prize. There is also a “People’s Choice Award” that has a $3,000 prize for the developer of the app that receives the most public votes on the challenge website. For more information, including instructions on how to submit an entry, visit http://workersafetyhealth.challenge.gov and Michaels’ blog at http://social.dol.gov/blog/safety-innovation-at-our-fingertips.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

This is why Obama put a socialist union goon in control of the Labor Department: to hide and spin the numbers. Wonder how much money goes to Obama’s campaign due to these “uncaught errors?’

From Free Enterprises:

It should come as no surprise to anybody who has been following the exploits of the Department of Labor (DOL) to learn that Secretary Solis and her team aren’t exactly doing a bang-up job in ensuring that union bosses adhere to federal disclosure requirements concerning union finances.  Indeed, a recent report by the DOL’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) details how DOL’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) “does not assess whether union financial integrity, democracy or transparency have actually increased.”

OLMS administers and oversees the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), a law promoting transparency within labor organizations.  The law requires, among other things, labor unions to file annual financial reports with OLMS.  These reports help union members keep an eye on officers managing the union’s finances.

OLMS conducts audits of select unions each year to evaluate their compliance with the law’s reporting requirements.  The recent OIG report looks at how effective these audits have been and whether OLMS can properly measure its own performance.

How rigorous is the audit program?  Not very.  The OIG report states that “OLMS did not determine overall if its [audit program] was effective in detecting criminal and civil violations of the LMRDA to improve safeguards of union assets.”  In other words, OLMS cannot demonstrate whether it is effectively promoting union transparency and financial integrity.  As an example, according to the OIG report, in a sample of 513 audits, OLMS only identified violations in 81 (16%) of the audits.  However, when OIG reviewed the same 513 audits, it found that 473 audits (92%) contained violations of the federal disclosure requirements that should have been found by OLMS.  Whether attributed to OLMS’s incompetence or union favoritism, this glaring disparity is simply unacceptable.

Continue reading>>>

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Republicans are crying “foul” over new jobs numbers showing the unemployment rate dropping to 7.8 percent – the lowest rate since President Obama took office.

They are claiming that the figures were manipulated for political reasons.

A new survey from Public Policy Polling Monday found that 61 percent of Republicans in Minnesota think the Bureau of Labor Statistics is manipulating the unemployment numbers to help President Obama.

That includes Republican US Senate candidate Kurt Bills, whose campaign told WCCO today Bills believes the numbers are “suspicious”.

It all started with a tweet from business icon Jack Welch.

“These Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch wrote on Twitter.

And it’s still coming, from the Donald, on “FOX and Friends” Monday. When asked if the numbers where manipulated, Donald Trump nodded.

“I do. I do. I think there’s a lot of monkey business. And I’m telling you, in a month and a half they will do a readjustment like they have been doing for the last year and a half,” Trump said.

That’s a lot of MISINFORMATION in one 8-second sound bite.

And it doesn’t reflect the reality of how the employment numbers are arrived at.

Since 1940, the Labor Department has conducted two monthly surveys:

• A household survey, which produces the unemployment rate.
• And an employer survey, which measures how many jobs were gained.

This is where the 2012 jobs conspiracy was born.

For the conspiracy to work:

• The Obama administration would have to access encrypted data.
• Manipulate nearly 100,000 answers.
• And do both of the above within a very short period of time, perhaps hours.

That’s why Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who oversees the Bureau of Labor Statistics, appeared offended when she was confronted with that question on CNBC.

“I’m insulted when I hear that. It’s ludicrous to hear that kind of statement,” Solis said.

That’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

The Obama administration might be able to say the economy is doing better. But it does not mean the economy is doing well.

Of the 873,000 job gains last month, 600,000 were part time jobs. That includes workers whose hours or pay are reduced, or who can’t find full time work.

Here are some of the sources used for this Reality Check:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

US Census

Where the Job Numbers Come From 1

Where the Job Numbers Come From 2

Fox & Friends

CNBC

Jack Welch On Twitter

Public Policy Polling

While Americans want the unemployment rate to drop and the economy to improve, there is a severe contradiction regarding the positive unemployment report released Friday which says that the unemployment rate in the nation has suddenly dropped three-tenths of one percent to put the rate below 8.0% for the first time in nearly four years – except for one month, the duration of President Barack Obama’s presidency. The contradiction which isn’t being explained is quite clear when it clearly reports that, on the one hand, 873,000 people found work and, on the other hand, only 114,000 new jobs were created.

Obviously, one does not need a math degree of any sort to realize that something is amiss with these figures and thereby needs further explanation. It appears as though their number of those who found work, the number of new jobs created, or both are inaccurate.

Naturally, it’s also curious that the alleged jobs report shows such improvement for the first time in 43 months just five weeks before the presidential election. Anyone who has read Hilda Solis’ job reports on a monthly occurrence knows that – even when the unemployment rate increased – Ms. Solis irritatingly put the hint of a positive spin on it. Her motive for possibly doing such a thing could be that her boss, naturally, is President Barack Obama.

Her continual positive spin compounded with a report where the numbers simply don’t completely add up is of severe concern to persons who want to know the true unemployment rate – the true jobs situation – in the nation. By all practical reasoning, the report released for on October 5, 2012 for September 2012 does not logically register in totality.

Again, allegedly 873,000 people found work but there were only 114,000 new jobs. If the jobs aren’t created, where are these jobs being had? Answers are needed. While the federal government always seems to find a way to confusingly answer such questions, let’s be honest. Common sense dictates that 873,000 jobs found out of 114,000 new jobs is skewed data – apparently skewed with a political agenda. While jobs may be found from other sources, the variation between 873,000 and 114,000 is extremely huge.

The members of the stock market community on Wall Street were quick to figure out that something was wrong with the figures. After the announcement that the unemployment rate declined below 8.0%, the stock market showed gains in the early hours on Friday. Before long, as the details were released, the stock market quickly reacted and Wall Street turned, reacting negatively to the Department of Labor’s otherwise positive unemployment rate figure.

Aside from questionable figures being released from the federal government in the midst of a pre-election period, Americans have to somehow find the truth through the clouded liberal media-reporting as well.

A day after the latest unemployment rate was released, Ed Morrissey made an extremely appropriate observation by comparing what the media said about Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate just before Obama’s reelection in 2012 to the 5.4% unemployment rate just before President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

In 2004, when the unemployment rate was stalled at 5.4% under President Bush, the New York Times negatively wrote: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported. The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy…”

Yet, in 2012, when a much worse unemployment rate of 7.8% is announced just before Obama’s reelection, the New York Times writes with a positive spin for Obama: “The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign…”

What? In 2004, the media suggested a 5.4% unemployment rate was reason to defeat Bush – but in 2012, a 7.8% unemployment rate is reason to elect Obama. There is absolutely no defense for the media to continually report against the Republican candidates and to continually report in favor of the Democratic candidates in such situations– in which their reports are apparently designed to sway voters’ opinions rather than to simply report the facts.

There is little that can be done about the stilted reporting one can do rather than to voice their concern – as I am here – and to not patronize the newspaper.

But as far as the government report is concerned, it is beyond the time a politician in Washington, D.C. calls on the Department of Labor to release more details regarding the figure put out monthly and the summary released by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis – which continually indicate that the employment rate in the United States is anywhere from stabilized to improving. In the latest report, again, there are contradictory and doubtful numbers. Ms. Solis’s report does not address the obvious confusion one has after receiving the “7.8%” figure.

Obviously, I am not the first who has said in recent times that the unemployment rate released by the government obviously appears to be much lower than the true unemployment among Americans. Does anyone really believe that only 78 people who want to work in this nation out of every thousand are without jobs?

Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the basic truth that so many Americans are underemployed – working part-time when they want and need full-time employment, or in terms of the menial jobs they are performing when they’ve educated or prepared themselves to do so much more in our society.

The time for the congressional intervention is now – weeks before the presidential election – before the next doubtful report tells us that the unemployment rate has improved by three-tenths of a percent again.

It may also be added that Obama’s promise before spending trillions of dollars of our tax money on stimulus jobs – which turned out to be not so “shovel-ready” after all – was that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. That’s right, for our money we were told the nation’s unemployment rate would be 5.6% by the next election. Obviously, at the alleged 7.8% rate, it’s not even close.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[javascript src=http://www.examiner.com/sites/all/libraries/cbswidget.min.js]

While Americans want the unemployment rate to drop and the economy to improve, there is a severe contradiction regarding the positive unemployment report released Friday which says that the unemployment rate in the nation has suddenly dropped three-tenths of one percent to put the rate below 8.0% for the first time in nearly four years – except for one month, the duration of President Barack Obama’s presidency. The contradiction which isn’t being explained is quite clear when it clearly reports that, on the one hand, 873,000 people found work and, on the other hand, only 114,000 new jobs were created.

Obviously, one does not need a math degree of any sort to realize that something is amiss with these figures and thereby needs further explanation. It appears as though their number of those who found work, the number of new jobs created, or both are inaccurate.

Naturally, it’s also curious that the alleged jobs report shows such improvement for the first time in 43 months just five weeks before the presidential election. Anyone who has read Hilda Solis’ job reports on a monthly occurrence knows that – even when the unemployment rate increased – Ms. Solis irritatingly put the hint of a positive spin on it. Her motive for possibly doing such a thing could be that her boss, naturally, is President Barack Obama.

Her continual positive spin compounded with a report where the numbers simply don’t completely add up is of severe concern to persons who want to know the true unemployment rate – the true jobs situation – in the nation. By all practical reasoning, the report released for on October 5, 2012 for September 2012 does not logically register in totality.

Again, allegedly 873,000 people found work but there were only 114,000 new jobs. If the jobs aren’t created, where are these jobs being had? Answers are needed. While the federal government always seems to find a way to confusingly answer such questions, let’s be honest. Common sense dictates that 873,000 jobs found out of 114,000 new jobs is skewed data – apparently skewed with a political agenda. While jobs may be found from other sources, the variation between 873,000 and 114,000 is extremely huge.

The members of the stock market community on Wall Street were quick to figure out that something was wrong with the figures. After the announcement that the unemployment rate declined below 8.0%, the stock market showed gains in the early hours on Friday. Before long, as the details were released, the stock market quickly reacted and Wall Street turned, reacting negatively to the Department of Labor’s otherwise positive unemployment rate figure.

Aside from questionable figures being released from the federal government in the midst of a pre-election period, Americans have to somehow find the truth through the clouded liberal media-reporting as well.

A day after the latest unemployment rate was released, Ed Morrissey made an extremely appropriate observation by comparing what the media said about Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate just before Obama’s reelection in 2012 to the 5.4% unemployment rate just before President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

In 2004, when the unemployment rate was stalled at 5.4% under President Bush, the New York Times negatively wrote: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported. The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy…”

Yet, in 2012, when a much worse unemployment rate of 7.8% is announced just before Obama’s reelection, the New York Times writes with a positive spin for Obama: “The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign…”

What? In 2004, the media suggested a 5.4% unemployment rate was reason to defeat Bush – but in 2012, a 7.8% unemployment rate is reason to elect Obama. There is absolutely no defense for the media to continually report against the Republican candidates and to continually report in favor of the Democratic candidates in such situations– in which their reports are apparently designed to sway voters’ opinions rather than to simply report the facts.

There is little that can be done about the stilted reporting one can do rather than to voice their concern – as I am here – and to not patronize the newspaper.

But as far as the government report is concerned, it is beyond the time a politician in Washington, D.C. calls on the Department of Labor to release more details regarding the figure put out monthly and the summary released by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis – which continually indicate that the employment rate in the United States is anywhere from stabilized to improving. In the latest report, again, there are contradictory and doubtful numbers. Ms. Solis’s report does not address the obvious confusion one has after receiving the “7.8%” figure.

Obviously, I am not the first who has said in recent times that the unemployment rate released by the government obviously appears to be much lower than the true unemployment among Americans. Does anyone really believe that only 78 people who want to work in this nation out of every thousand are without jobs?

Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the basic truth that so many Americans are underemployed – working part-time when they want and need full-time employment, or in terms of the menial jobs they are performing when they’ve educated or prepared themselves to do so much more in our society.

The time for the congressional intervention is now – weeks before the presidential election – before the next doubtful report tells us that the unemployment rate has improved by three-tenths of a percent again.

It may also be added that Obama’s promise before spending trillions of dollars of our tax money on stimulus jobs – which turned out to be not so “shovel-ready” after all – was that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. That’s right, for our money we were told the nation’s unemployment rate would be 5.6% by the next election. Obviously, at the alleged 7.8% rate, it’s not even close.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[javascript src=http://www.examiner.com/sites/all/libraries/cbswidget.min.js]

While Americans want the unemployment rate to drop and the economy to improve, there is a severe contradiction regarding the positive unemployment report released Friday which says that the unemployment rate in the nation has suddenly dropped three-tenths of one percent to put the rate below 8.0% for the first time in nearly four years – except for one month, the duration of President Barack Obama’s presidency. The contradiction which isn’t being explained is quite clear when it clearly reports that, on the one hand, 873,000 people found work and, on the other hand, only 114,000 new jobs were created.

Obviously, one does not need a math degree of any sort to realize that something is amiss with these figures and thereby needs further explanation. It appears as though their number of those who found work, the number of new jobs created, or both are inaccurate.

Naturally, it’s also curious that the alleged jobs report shows such improvement for the first time in 43 months just five weeks before the presidential election. Anyone who has read Hilda Solis’ job reports on a monthly occurrence knows that – even when the unemployment rate increased – Ms. Solis irritatingly put the hint of a positive spin on it. Her motive for possibly doing such a thing could be that her boss, naturally, is President Barack Obama.

Her continual positive spin compounded with a report where the numbers simply don’t completely add up is of severe concern to persons who want to know the true unemployment rate – the true jobs situation – in the nation. By all practical reasoning, the report released for on October 5, 2012 for September 2012 does not logically register in totality.

Again, allegedly 873,000 people found work but there were only 114,000 new jobs. If the jobs aren’t created, where are these jobs being had? Answers are needed. While the federal government always seems to find a way to confusingly answer such questions, let’s be honest. Common sense dictates that 873,000 jobs found out of 114,000 new jobs is skewed data – apparently skewed with a political agenda. While jobs may be found from other sources, the variation between 873,000 and 114,000 is extremely huge.

The members of the stock market community on Wall Street were quick to figure out that something was wrong with the figures. After the announcement that the unemployment rate declined below 8.0%, the stock market showed gains in the early hours on Friday. Before long, as the details were released, the stock market quickly reacted and Wall Street turned, reacting negatively to the Department of Labor’s otherwise positive unemployment rate figure.

Aside from questionable figures being released from the federal government in the midst of a pre-election period, Americans have to somehow find the truth through the clouded liberal media-reporting as well.

A day after the latest unemployment rate was released, Ed Morrissey made an extremely appropriate observation by comparing what the media said about Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate just before Obama’s reelection in 2012 to the 5.4% unemployment rate just before President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

In 2004, when the unemployment rate was stalled at 5.4% under President Bush, the New York Times negatively wrote: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported. The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy…”

Yet, in 2012, when a much worse unemployment rate of 7.8% is announced just before Obama’s reelection, the New York Times writes with a positive spin for Obama: “The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign…”

What? In 2004, the media suggested a 5.4% unemployment rate was reason to defeat Bush – but in 2012, a 7.8% unemployment rate is reason to elect Obama. There is absolutely no defense for the media to continually report against the Republican candidates and to continually report in favor of the Democratic candidates in such situations– in which their reports are apparently designed to sway voters’ opinions rather than to simply report the facts.

There is little that can be done about the stilted reporting one can do rather than to voice their concern – as I am here – and to not patronize the newspaper.

But as far as the government report is concerned, it is beyond the time a politician in Washington, D.C. calls on the Department of Labor to release more details regarding the figure put out monthly and the summary released by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis – which continually indicate that the employment rate in the United States is anywhere from stabilized to improving. In the latest report, again, there are contradictory and doubtful numbers. Ms. Solis’s report does not address the obvious confusion one has after receiving the “7.8%” figure.

Obviously, I am not the first who has said in recent times that the unemployment rate released by the government obviously appears to be much lower than the true unemployment among Americans. Does anyone really believe that only 78 people who want to work in this nation out of every thousand are without jobs?

Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the basic truth that so many Americans are underemployed – working part-time when they want and need full-time employment, or in terms of the menial jobs they are performing when they’ve educated or prepared themselves to do so much more in our society.

The time for the congressional intervention is now – weeks before the presidential election – before the next doubtful report tells us that the unemployment rate has improved by three-tenths of a percent again.

It may also be added that Obama’s promise before spending trillions of dollars of our tax money on stimulus jobs – which turned out to be not so “shovel-ready” after all – was that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. That’s right, for our money we were told the nation’s unemployment rate would be 5.6% by the next election. Obviously, at the alleged 7.8% rate, it’s not even close.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[javascript src=http://www.examiner.com/sites/all/libraries/cbswidget.min.js]

While Americans want the unemployment rate to drop and the economy to improve, there is a severe contradiction regarding the positive unemployment report released Friday which says that the unemployment rate in the nation has suddenly dropped three-tenths of one percent to put the rate below 8.0% for the first time in nearly four years – except for one month, the duration of President Barack Obama’s presidency. The contradiction which isn’t being explained is quite clear when it clearly reports that, on the one hand, 873,000 people found work and, on the other hand, only 114,000 new jobs were created.

Obviously, one does not need a math degree of any sort to realize that something is amiss with these figures and thereby needs further explanation. It appears as though their number of those who found work, the number of new jobs created, or both are inaccurate.

Naturally, it’s also curious that the alleged jobs report shows such improvement for the first time in 43 months just five weeks before the presidential election. Anyone who has read Hilda Solis’ job reports on a monthly occurrence knows that – even when the unemployment rate increased – Ms. Solis irritatingly put the hint of a positive spin on it. Her motive for possibly doing such a thing could be that her boss, naturally, is President Barack Obama.

Her continual positive spin compounded with a report where the numbers simply don’t completely add up is of severe concern to persons who want to know the true unemployment rate – the true jobs situation – in the nation. By all practical reasoning, the report released for on October 5, 2012 for September 2012 does not logically register in totality.

Again, allegedly 873,000 people found work but there were only 114,000 new jobs. If the jobs aren’t created, where are these jobs being had? Answers are needed. While the federal government always seems to find a way to confusingly answer such questions, let’s be honest. Common sense dictates that 873,000 jobs found out of 114,000 new jobs is skewed data – apparently skewed with a political agenda. While jobs may be found from other sources, the variation between 873,000 and 114,000 is extremely huge.

The members of the stock market community on Wall Street were quick to figure out that something was wrong with the figures. After the announcement that the unemployment rate declined below 8.0%, the stock market showed gains in the early hours on Friday. Before long, as the details were released, the stock market quickly reacted and Wall Street turned, reacting negatively to the Department of Labor’s otherwise positive unemployment rate figure.

Aside from questionable figures being released from the federal government in the midst of a pre-election period, Americans have to somehow find the truth through the clouded liberal media-reporting as well.

A day after the latest unemployment rate was released, Ed Morrissey made an extremely appropriate observation by comparing what the media said about Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate just before Obama’s reelection in 2012 to the 5.4% unemployment rate just before President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

In 2004, when the unemployment rate was stalled at 5.4% under President Bush, the New York Times negatively wrote: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported. The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy…”

Yet, in 2012, when a much worse unemployment rate of 7.8% is announced just before Obama’s reelection, the New York Times writes with a positive spin for Obama: “The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign…”

What? In 2004, the media suggested a 5.4% unemployment rate was reason to defeat Bush – but in 2012, a 7.8% unemployment rate is reason to elect Obama. There is absolutely no defense for the media to continually report against the Republican candidates and to continually report in favor of the Democratic candidates in such situations– in which their reports are apparently designed to sway voters’ opinions rather than to simply report the facts.

There is little that can be done about the stilted reporting one can do rather than to voice their concern – as I am here – and to not patronize the newspaper.

But as far as the government report is concerned, it is beyond the time a politician in Washington, D.C. calls on the Department of Labor to release more details regarding the figure put out monthly and the summary released by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis – which continually indicate that the employment rate in the United States is anywhere from stabilized to improving. In the latest report, again, there are contradictory and doubtful numbers. Ms. Solis’s report does not address the obvious confusion one has after receiving the “7.8%” figure.

Obviously, I am not the first who has said in recent times that the unemployment rate released by the government obviously appears to be much lower than the true unemployment among Americans. Does anyone really believe that only 78 people who want to work in this nation out of every thousand are without jobs?

Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the basic truth that so many Americans are underemployed – working part-time when they want and need full-time employment, or in terms of the menial jobs they are performing when they’ve educated or prepared themselves to do so much more in our society.

The time for the congressional intervention is now – weeks before the presidential election – before the next doubtful report tells us that the unemployment rate has improved by three-tenths of a percent again.

It may also be added that Obama’s promise before spending trillions of dollars of our tax money on stimulus jobs – which turned out to be not so “shovel-ready” after all – was that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. That’s right, for our money we were told the nation’s unemployment rate would be 5.6% by the next election. Obviously, at the alleged 7.8% rate, it’s not even close.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[javascript src=http://www.examiner.com/sites/all/libraries/cbswidget.min.js]

While Americans want the unemployment rate to drop and the economy to improve, there is a severe contradiction regarding the positive unemployment report released Friday which says that the unemployment rate in the nation has suddenly dropped three-tenths of one percent to put the rate below 8.0% for the first time in nearly four years – except for one month, the duration of President Barack Obama’s presidency. The contradiction which isn’t being explained is quite clear when it clearly reports that, on the one hand, 873,000 people found work and, on the other hand, only 114,000 new jobs were created.

Obviously, one does not need a math degree of any sort to realize that something is amiss with these figures and thereby needs further explanation. It appears as though their number of those who found work, the number of new jobs created, or both are inaccurate.

Naturally, it’s also curious that the alleged jobs report shows such improvement for the first time in 43 months just five weeks before the presidential election. Anyone who has read Hilda Solis’ job reports on a monthly occurrence knows that – even when the unemployment rate increased – Ms. Solis irritatingly put the hint of a positive spin on it. Her motive for possibly doing such a thing could be that her boss, naturally, is President Barack Obama.

Her continual positive spin compounded with a report where the numbers simply don’t completely add up is of severe concern to persons who want to know the true unemployment rate – the true jobs situation – in the nation. By all practical reasoning, the report released for on October 5, 2012 for September 2012 does not logically register in totality.

Again, allegedly 873,000 people found work but there were only 114,000 new jobs. If the jobs aren’t created, where are these jobs being had? Answers are needed. While the federal government always seems to find a way to confusingly answer such questions, let’s be honest. Common sense dictates that 873,000 jobs found out of 114,000 new jobs is skewed data – apparently skewed with a political agenda. While jobs may be found from other sources, the variation between 873,000 and 114,000 is extremely huge.

The members of the stock market community on Wall Street were quick to figure out that something was wrong with the figures. After the announcement that the unemployment rate declined below 8.0%, the stock market showed gains in the early hours on Friday. Before long, as the details were released, the stock market quickly reacted and Wall Street turned, reacting negatively to the Department of Labor’s otherwise positive unemployment rate figure.

Aside from questionable figures being released from the federal government in the midst of a pre-election period, Americans have to somehow find the truth through the clouded liberal media-reporting as well.

A day after the latest unemployment rate was released, Ed Morrissey made an extremely appropriate observation by comparing what the media said about Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate just before Obama’s reelection in 2012 to the 5.4% unemployment rate just before President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

In 2004, when the unemployment rate was stalled at 5.4% under President Bush, the New York Times negatively wrote: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported. The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy…”

Yet, in 2012, when a much worse unemployment rate of 7.8% is announced just before Obama’s reelection, the New York Times writes with a positive spin for Obama: “The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign…”

What? In 2004, the media suggested a 5.4% unemployment rate was reason to defeat Bush – but in 2012, a 7.8% unemployment rate is reason to elect Obama. There is absolutely no defense for the media to continually report against the Republican candidates and to continually report in favor of the Democratic candidates in such situations– in which their reports are apparently designed to sway voters’ opinions rather than to simply report the facts.

There is little that can be done about the stilted reporting one can do rather than to voice their concern – as I am here – and to not patronize the newspaper.

But as far as the government report is concerned, it is beyond the time a politician in Washington, D.C. calls on the Department of Labor to release more details regarding the figure put out monthly and the summary released by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis – which continually indicate that the employment rate in the United States is anywhere from stabilized to improving. In the latest report, again, there are contradictory and doubtful numbers. Ms. Solis’s report does not address the obvious confusion one has after receiving the “7.8%” figure.

Obviously, I am not the first who has said in recent times that the unemployment rate released by the government obviously appears to be much lower than the true unemployment among Americans. Does anyone really believe that only 78 people who want to work in this nation out of every thousand are without jobs?

Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the basic truth that so many Americans are underemployed – working part-time when they want and need full-time employment, or in terms of the menial jobs they are performing when they’ve educated or prepared themselves to do so much more in our society.

The time for the congressional intervention is now – weeks before the presidential election – before the next doubtful report tells us that the unemployment rate has improved by three-tenths of a percent again.

It may also be added that Obama’s promise before spending trillions of dollars of our tax money on stimulus jobs – which turned out to be not so “shovel-ready” after all – was that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. That’s right, for our money we were told the nation’s unemployment rate would be 5.6% by the next election. Obviously, at the alleged 7.8% rate, it’s not even close.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[javascript src=http://www.examiner.com/sites/all/libraries/cbswidget.min.js]

While Americans want the unemployment rate to drop and the economy to improve, there is a severe contradiction regarding the positive unemployment report released Friday which says that the unemployment rate in the nation has suddenly dropped three-tenths of one percent to put the rate below 8.0% for the first time in nearly four years – except for one month, the duration of President Barack Obama’s presidency. The contradiction which isn’t being explained is quite clear when it clearly reports that, on the one hand, 873,000 people found work and, on the other hand, only 114,000 new jobs were created.

Obviously, one does not need a math degree of any sort to realize that something is amiss with these figures and thereby needs further explanation. It appears as though their number of those who found work, the number of new jobs created, or both are inaccurate.

Naturally, it’s also curious that the alleged jobs report shows such improvement for the first time in 43 months just five weeks before the presidential election. Anyone who has read Hilda Solis’ job reports on a monthly occurrence knows that – even when the unemployment rate increased – Ms. Solis irritatingly put the hint of a positive spin on it. Her motive for possibly doing such a thing could be that her boss, naturally, is President Barack Obama.

Her continual positive spin compounded with a report where the numbers simply don’t completely add up is of severe concern to persons who want to know the true unemployment rate – the true jobs situation – in the nation. By all practical reasoning, the report released for on October 5, 2012 for September 2012 does not logically register in totality.

Again, allegedly 873,000 people found work but there were only 114,000 new jobs. If the jobs aren’t created, where are these jobs being had? Answers are needed. While the federal government always seems to find a way to confusingly answer such questions, let’s be honest. Common sense dictates that 873,000 jobs found out of 114,000 new jobs is skewed data – apparently skewed with a political agenda. While jobs may be found from other sources, the variation between 873,000 and 114,000 is extremely huge.

The members of the stock market community on Wall Street were quick to figure out that something was wrong with the figures. After the announcement that the unemployment rate declined below 8.0%, the stock market showed gains in the early hours on Friday. Before long, as the details were released, the stock market quickly reacted and Wall Street turned, reacting negatively to the Department of Labor’s otherwise positive unemployment rate figure.

Aside from questionable figures being released from the federal government in the midst of a pre-election period, Americans have to somehow find the truth through the clouded liberal media-reporting as well.

A day after the latest unemployment rate was released, Ed Morrissey made an extremely appropriate observation by comparing what the media said about Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate just before Obama’s reelection in 2012 to the 5.4% unemployment rate just before President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

In 2004, when the unemployment rate was stalled at 5.4% under President Bush, the New York Times negatively wrote: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported. The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy…”

Yet, in 2012, when a much worse unemployment rate of 7.8% is announced just before Obama’s reelection, the New York Times writes with a positive spin for Obama: “The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign…”

What? In 2004, the media suggested a 5.4% unemployment rate was reason to defeat Bush – but in 2012, a 7.8% unemployment rate is reason to elect Obama. There is absolutely no defense for the media to continually report against the Republican candidates and to continually report in favor of the Democratic candidates in such situations– in which their reports are apparently designed to sway voters’ opinions rather than to simply report the facts.

There is little that can be done about the stilted reporting one can do rather than to voice their concern – as I am here – and to not patronize the newspaper.

But as far as the government report is concerned, it is beyond the time a politician in Washington, D.C. calls on the Department of Labor to release more details regarding the figure put out monthly and the summary released by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis – which continually indicate that the employment rate in the United States is anywhere from stabilized to improving. In the latest report, again, there are contradictory and doubtful numbers. Ms. Solis’s report does not address the obvious confusion one has after receiving the “7.8%” figure.

Obviously, I am not the first who has said in recent times that the unemployment rate released by the government obviously appears to be much lower than the true unemployment among Americans. Does anyone really believe that only 78 people who want to work in this nation out of every thousand are without jobs?

Also, there needs to be more emphasis on the basic truth that so many Americans are underemployed – working part-time when they want and need full-time employment, or in terms of the menial jobs they are performing when they’ve educated or prepared themselves to do so much more in our society.

The time for the congressional intervention is now – weeks before the presidential election – before the next doubtful report tells us that the unemployment rate has improved by three-tenths of a percent again.

It may also be added that Obama’s promise before spending trillions of dollars of our tax money on stimulus jobs – which turned out to be not so “shovel-ready” after all – was that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% by now. That’s right, for our money we were told the nation’s unemployment rate would be 5.6% by the next election. Obviously, at the alleged 7.8% rate, it’s not even close.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[javascript src=http://www.examiner.com/sites/all/libraries/cbswidget.min.js]