Archive for April 5th, 2012

Cookin’ the books? … 2 numbers to watch when the BLS reports tomorrow.

April 5, 2012

Loyal readers know that I’m a bit skeptical re: the employment numbers that the BLS has been spitting out in recent months.

Two reasons: (1) Unemployment rates are diverging from the Gallup daily surveys, and (2) Seasonal adjustment factors are boosting the employment numbers.

First, the Gallup relationship …

Historically, Gallup’s mid-month unemployment rate has tracked closely to the BLS end-of-month rate.

Not so in February … Gallup reported 8% … BLS reported 8.2%.

Hmmm.

Gallup’s mid-month rate for March was 8.9%.

Let’s see what the BLS says tomorrow.

image

* * * * *

The 2nd number to watch is the the seasonal adjustment adder.

For the prior10 years, the BLS has seasonally adjusted February employment numbers upward by 1.1423%.

Last month, they upped the raw numbers by 1.1688%.

That’s a big difference when floated into the unemployment rate calculation.

The prior 10 year adjustment factor for March has been .6209 %.

If the seasonal adder is higher than that tomorrow … be suspicious.

image

* * * * *

My bet: the unemployment rate will magically hang at 8.3% … .6% below the Gallup number.

>> Latest Posts

3 pages, single-spaced … due Thursday noon.

April 5, 2012

On Monday, former Constitutional law prof and now President Obama, laid into the Supreme Court for even thinking about declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional — either in part or in total — saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

CBS News reports:

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional.

And, in the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

An Appeals Court Judge asked a DOJ lawyer if she agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago.

Now the part that I like.

The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power.

That’s a big difference between academia and the courts …  I always ask my students to double-space their homework.

>> Latest Posts