Rash: Monthly jobs data? ‘Foundational.’ Could it have been rigged? ‘Incredibly unlikely.’

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The unrelenting waves that washed over Washington’s ways during President Donald Trump’s first term weren’t unintended chaos but a calculated strategy. Dubbed “flood the zone” by Steve Bannon, who at the time was a presidential adviser, the approach was intended in part to make it difficult for citizens and the press to pressure the administration on any one issue.

The deluge has continued, if not intensified, during Trump’s second term. But notably, one recent event among the constant controversies has been buoyant amid the flood: the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), after a jobs report Trump thought should be torrid turned out tepid.

The enduring concern, according to two Minnesotans with unique insight into the issue, is in part because of how consequential the veracity of the data — and the deliberations — are.

“If you ask, ‘What if you had to pick one figure that we refer to most often indicating the health of the economy,’ you might pick the unemployment rate,” said Matt Varilek, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. The rate, Varilek said, is not only an important indicator that businesses, elected leaders, individuals and institutions like DEED depend on, it’s used in some federal-funding formulas for Minnesota. The figure, he said, “is foundational.”

Fundamental was the adjective chosen by Ryan Allen, associate dean of research at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, who not only relies on research from the BLS but helped create the report during an early career stint at the bureau.

Another factor for Allen and Varilek is how highly unlikely it is that the jobs report was “rigged,” as Trump alleged.

“I’m unaware of an avenue for the commissioner of the BLS to directly influence the numbers that are produced by that office,” said Allen, who explained that there is a “firewall” that would make it “incredibly unlikely” that the numbers were ideologically influenced. “The report is very fact-based; there’s no editorializing that occurs there.”

Regarding revisions, Allen said that’s mostly a function of late data delivery from many entities the government relies on to determine employment levels — data that needs to be correctly updated when it is available. “There’s nothing nefarious about this.”

The same may not be able to be said about the president’s rhetoric.

“To make an allegation like that, impugn someone’s integrity and credibility, one would hope that there was more than just a shred of evidence,” Varilek said. “I’m deeply concerned about the action that was taken” because of “the reputation of [McEntarfer] and frankly, the BLS statistics have been excellent.”

That can create ramifications, Allen said.

“If a commissioner is going to be fired for, by all accounts, dutifully doing her job and bringing the best information forward for consideration by the public and policymakers, elected officials and [others] then it obviously creates a chill.”

Which could freeze more than the monthly employment report. “It’s hard to not see other people who are responsible for producing statistical data will look at this and wonder what it would mean to bring bad news to the public and in particular to elected officials,” said Allen, adding, “It also raises some questions on if we do have good data, good news to report, will there be an asterisk? Will there be a cloud of suspicion over whether that’s rosy because it’s politically expedient and part of job security to create a rosy picture? Or is it, in fact, accurate?”

Varilek concurs. “I think our trust and the accuracy of the numbers has just been eroded now,” he said, adding that even though he hopes for a positive report next month, “our ability to rely on that is weak.”

While both of these experts are well aware of these deeply divisive times, neither’s perspective was political, let alone partisan, but more about the importance — imperative, even — of ethical, efficacious data.

Allen said, “We’re seeing the beginning of what will be, unfortunately, I think an evolving conversation.” While Allen stresses that things haven’t deteriorated to the degree it could, a worst-case scenario might mean “the potential for paralysis or very poor decisionmaking.” And that, Allen warned, “can exacerbate conditions and that would be an enormously bad outcome.”

A self-described “optimist by nature,” Allen said, “I prefer to believe that we will right this ship.”