We’ve talked many times about a possible “October surprise” in the presidential race.  I still believe that it will have something to do with student loan debt forgiveness, but was Friday’s 7.8% unemployment rate Obama’s October surprise?  Some people may think so … people like James Pethokouskis.  Then there are others like former GE CEO Jack Welch and CNBC’s Rick Santelli.  Both had the nads to say exactly what many of us in America were thinking on Friday: Were these numbers manipulated to favor Obama?  A question that offffffended our Labor Secretary Hilda Solis --- like we care.  Wasn’t it you, Hilda, who decided that unemployment data would be collected and analyzed by the federal government instead of the states?  Could this be why? 

Now before we go any further, let me state this for the record.  If this 7.8% U-3 unemployment rate is an accurate reflection of the unemployment situation in America, then than that is good thing.  You never wish harm on someone else – and you never root against them getting the job they need to support their family, keep their home and put food on their tables.  That type of negativism will come back and smite you like you would never believe.  I hope the new unemployment numbers are true,  because that would means that more Americans are finding jobs – not even enough to keep up with population growth – but enough for the ones who will actually now get pay checks.

Still --- the question remains, is this 7.8% unemployment rate an accurate reflection of what is happening in America?  That is where things become questionable. Let’s look at some of the details beyond this 7.8% U-3 unemployment rate.

You’ll notice that I am referring to the U-3 unemployment rate.  This is the official number used as our unemployment rate, but it does not take into account part-time workers who want full-time work and discouraged workers who’ve given up looking.  If you actually count these people in order to calculate an unemployment rate, this is called the U-6 unemployment rate.  For September, the U-6 unemployment rate is 14.7%.  Interestingly enough, this number remains unchanged from the previous month. 

The truth is that the 7.8% U-3 unemployment fell dramatically because of part-time hiring.  In September, 582,000 part-time jobs were filled.  That’s great for those people who are now earning a paycheck, but how many of those people were really looking for full-time work and are forced to settle for part-time instead?  But this amazing jump in part-time hires is what some believe is the cause for such an astounding Household Survey report, which "added" 873,000 jobs … the biggest one-month increase in nearly 30 years.  The last time a Household Survey showed a jump in the number of jobs like this, our economy was growing at a clip of 9.3%.  We are currently growing at a measly rate of about 1.5%.  Big difference.  Economists characterize this current figure as ‘implausible … a statistical quirk.’

Then there’s the issue of the labor force participation rate.  The good news is that it DID increase.  But with that being said, it is still well below where it was when Obama took office.  In fact, it is still down to 1981 levels!  But as James Pethokoukis points out, if the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. 

Politically, Obama and his propagandists are no doubt celebrating.  But somebody should remind Dear Ruler that this 7.8% unemployment rate is considered a failure based on his own predictions and promises.  When he shoved his economic stimulus plan down our throats, he and his economists predicted that our unemployment rate would be 5.6% in September 2012.  We are two points above that prediction … and yet Obama’s policies are working?  Yeah, right.  And hilariously, Harry Reid Tweeted that our unemployment rate could be lower if it weren’t for Republican obstructionism in Congress.  Yeah … because when Democrats were in control of the Congress and the presidency, their grand idea of a stimulus plan really turned things around!

Here’s the bottom line, from the Wall Street Journal: “Obama touted the latest jobs report and repeated his refrain that the economy has created five million jobs during this recovery. What he didn't say is that in a normal recovery we would have nearly twice that number, and that the economy is still about 4.5 million jobs short of where it was in 2007.  He also didn't mention that those jobs aren't paying all that well because real median household income is down $3,040 since the recession ended in June 2009.”

And I’ll leave you with this … any guesses as to who said the following?

“… the unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as ‘not in the labor force.’  In other words, the government has cooked the books.”

It wasn’t Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.  It wasn’t Newt Gingrich or Ann Coulter.  Nope, this accusation of government “cooking the books” by dumping people onto the Social Security disability dole in order to lower the unemployment rate came from none other than … Austan Goolsbee, Obama economic advisor, in 2003.  Meanwhile, under the guy that Goolsbee is currently advising, we are seeing a record number of Americans collecting Social Security disability.  In fact, in the same month when our unemployment rate supposedly dropped to 7.8%, we saw a record number of people draw Social Security disability!  From CNSNews: “The Social Security Administration has released new data revealing that 8,786,049 American workers are collecting federal disability insurance payments in September. That sets yet another record for the number of Americans on disability.”  In fact, during the grand ObamaRecovery, we had one month (June 2012) where more people joined the Social Security disability dole than got new jobs!  Cooking the books, Mr. Goolsbee?