Obama's "substantial recovery" is challenged by the Department of Labor

When it comes to reporting statistical information,  an editor such as myself,  has to deal with a host of conflicting information on nearly every statistical issue.  While some readers criticize me for my political rhetoric,  I do not get feedback that accuses me of publishing statistical misinformation. Sometimes,  I really cannot tell the difference between statistical information this is pitched for the purpose of causing confusion.

Take a look at these two charts,  supposedly of the same period of time.

The top chart presents 23 months of employment "recovery" and originate from unofficial labor stats produced by an Obama oriented private survey.  The second chart covers 21 months of the "recovery" and produces adjusted unemployment from the Department of Labor.

The second chart,  again, from the Department of Labor,  is the least supportive of Obama claims.  I see this sort of statistical manipulation every day.

The top chart supports the notion that we are in a substantial recovery.  The second,  I would assume to be the "truth,"  presents us with a much more fragile recovery circumstance.

Point of post:  with all the talk of economic success during this election year,  a little truth does not hurt.  Assuming the value of the second chart,  we can appreciate the critical nature of rising fuel prices to the continuing nature of the recovery.

While the Administration wants higher fuel prices and intends to use that circumstance to modify domestic behavior favoring alternative fuels  (which are nowhere to be found,  as of yet),  the threat to the economy is real and a serious concern for one who would seek re-election.