The White House is boasting that 650,000 jobs have already been saved or created under President Obama's economic stimulus plan, and that the program is on track to reach the president's promise of 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year. White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein says when adding in jobs linked to $288 billion in tax cuts, the stimulus plan has created or saved more than one-million jobs.However, J.D. Foster, an economist at The Heritage Foundation, says the White House is making brazen claims about job creation during a time of rising unemployment. He believes their figures are "fraudulent and misleading."
"In saying that, I'm not criticizing the calculation of the number that they've put out, but rather the interpretation. What they have referred to in effect is a 'gross jobs created' number, and they ignore the jobs that their program has destroyed," says Foster. "And so you end up with a positive. But when you look at the jobs that are destroyed by this program, they're to a first-approximation equivalent to the jobs they say they've saved or created, and you end up with at best a net zero -- and in all likelihood a significant reduction in employment because of this program."The economist notes that in putting its best face forward, the Obama administration is predicting that the unemployment rate will go through ten percent and stay there until at least the fall, but the reality is probably much worse because the programs President Obama is pursuing to help the economy are "utterly ineffective" and are only adding to the national debt.
Stimulus Job Creation = Bigger Government
ReplyDeleteby Veronique de Rugy
On Friday, in the name of holy transparency, the White House released the list of jobs created or saved with the stimulus funds. Now, let’s assume that the government can create jobs even though it can’t. Let’s assume that “job saved” is not the lamest excuse for government spending I have heard in my life time as a budget analyst. And let’s look at what this data means.
The White House claims that 640,329 were created or saved. That, by the way, is way less than what Christina Romer claimed would be created. Last week, she mentioned 1.4 million during a Joint Committee hearing. Remember.
First, $159 billion has been spent so far. That’s $248,273 per job.
However, when you look at some specific contracts that were awarded you find that some jobs were created or saved at an insane cost to taxpayers. For instance, $1,359,633,501 were awarded to CH2M WG IDAHO LLC, in WA to create 2,183 jobs. That’s $622,827 per job. That’s not as bad though as the $258,646,800 awarded to the Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC in NY, to create 25 jobs. That’s over $10.3 million per job.
I would be happy with one of these jobs.
Second, while the administration is promising good and in time reporting, we can see that it’s far from being the case. Agencies report having spent $207.3Billion and yet only $36,688,660,161 were reported by states. That’s a big gap, isn’t it?
Third, some 85 percent of the money went to 4 agencies: HHS, Labor, Education and Social Security. That money wasn’t spent on shovel ready projects. For instance, some of the HHS funds went to some rural high school and college students from Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee to conduct medical research this summer with a team of leading scientists at Vanderbilt University. The Department of Labor spent $11,058,877 in unemployment insurance (UI) modernization incentive funds to the state of West Virginia. And the Department of Education is mainly spending its money to keep union protected school teachers in their jobs. Not really shovel ready projects, are they?
But the most relevant information on Recovery.gov is that most of the jobs created or saved are in the public sector. For instance, according to Vice President Biden, out of the 640,329 jobs, 325,000 went to education and 80,000 to construction jobs. The difference we will soon find out is going to other government jobs.
You need more evidence? 13,080 grants went to the private sector, and 116,625 went to feral agencies.
So even if we assume that the government could create jobs by spending our money, we can see that what this money is being spent on is big government. Or bigger government I should say.
So when you think that, on top of everything, the government can’t create jobs (here and here), this data is transparently depressing.
Chris - Here are some of Bruce's boys. These guys aren't racist at all.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAXHd110mi8&feature=player_embedded
Hey vomamike, what do you think about this article from the HuffPo? Sounds to me like the White House, and Democrats in Congress, are sticking it to investors, and avoiding reform. What a bunch of jerks. You liberals are standing there with egg on your face, and the Democrats are standing there with an empty carton of eggs! LOL. Please vomamike, don't reply with something about me wanting to bring back slavery! ROFLMAO
ReplyDeleteWhite House Quietly Working To Weaken Investor Protection
First Posted: 11- 2-09 07:00 PM | Updated: 11- 2-09 07:38 PM
The White House is quietly working to undercut a key post-Enron reform, significantly weakening protection for everyday investors and threatening the administration's image as a champion for financial regulatory reform.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee that he supports amending the Investor Protection Act of 2009 -- a bill designed to beef up protection for investors -- in order to exempt small businesses from a requirement in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that mandates audits of internal controls. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 in the wake of accounting scandals at Enron and Worldcom that rocked investors and damaged confidence in the markets.
"This has enormous significance to individual investors," former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt told the Huffington Post. "This is something the Republicans could never have accomplished, and what a bitter irony it is that the Democrats...are emasculating the best piece of legislation of the past 20 years."
Emanuel is said to support an amendment proposed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would exempt firms with a market capitalization of less than $75 million from the reporting requirement. Firms under that limit had not yet been subject to the reporting requirement, although they were told they'd have to comply by 2010. Maloney's amendment would further delay implementation. Slightly more than half of all publicly-traded companies would be affected.
Another amendment, offered by freshman Rep. John Adler, a Democrat from New Jersey, would raise that limit to $700 million, exempting four out of five publicly-traded companies.
Last week, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-Penn.), thought he had fought off both amendments. Then the White House intervened. Final roll call votes are scheduled for Wednesday.
The White House position, according to those familiar with Emanuel's argument, is that small businesses should not be the focus of onerous regulations because they aren't the ones causing the problems. And if the Maloney amendment passes, it would allow Democrats to say they're champions of small business.
But these are still public companies, notes Lynn E. Turner, former chief accountant for the SEC from 1998 to 2001. They're not mom-and-pop shops. And if they've decided to go public in order to attract more money, they've agreed to certain costs. The transparency that comes with regular audits of internal controls should be one of them, he says.
Great video John. Thanks I posted it so everyone could see it. I also put on another video of the buffoon on Blitzer. He ducks every question that is hard.
ReplyDeleteHere are some of Bruce's boys. These guys aren't racist at all. Work From Home
ReplyDelete