Author Topic: Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted from Tally of Stimulus Bill  (Read 387 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted from Tally: Caroline Baum
By Caroline Baum - Jul 18, 2010
 

________________________ ________________________ ____________

Can you believe they’re still touting that silly metric?

When I heard last week that the White House would be announcing the number of “jobs created or saved” as a result of the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, my first reaction was embarrassment.

Imagine how Christina Romer must feel. The chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors was dressed in a cheery, salmon-colored jacket, a complement to the upbeat news she had to deliver on July 14. The $787 billion stimulus enacted in February 2009, which subsequently grew to $862 billion, increased gross domestic product by 2.7 percent to 3.4 percent relative to where it would have been, and added anywhere from 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs compared with an ex-stimulus baseline.

“By this estimate, the Recovery Act has met the president’s goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs -- two quarters earlier than anticipated,” Romer said with a straight face. (More than 2.5 million non-farm jobs have been lost since ARRA was enacted in February 2009, all of them in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

How does the CEA arrive at these numbers? It uses two methods, Romer said. The first is a standard macroeconomic forecasting model that estimates the multiplier effect of fiscal policy. (The government’s spending is someone else’s income.) The second method is statistical, using previous relationships between GDP and employment to project future behavior.

Model Imperfection

These numbers might just as well have been pulled out of a hat. Recall that it was the same model and method the administration used in January 2009 to predict an unemployment rate of 7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 with the enactment of the fiscal stimulus and 8.8 percent without. The unemployment rate now stands at 9.5 percent.

This same model convinced policy makers that the subprime crisis was contained, encouraged the rating companies to slap AAA ratings on collateralized garbage, and led banks to believe they had adequately managed their risks and reserved for potential losses.

Econometric models rely on the assumption that $1 of government spending generates more than $1 of GDP, the so-called multiplier effect. There is no allowance for the negative multiplier on the other side.

Sure the government can spend money and generate GDP growth in the short run: Government spending is a component of GDP!

What it giveth it taketh away from the private sector via taxation or borrowing. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar the private sector doesn’t spend, an investment it doesn’t make, a job it doesn’t create. This is what is unseen, as Frederic Bastiat explained in an 1850 essay.

Hiring Disincentives

“If the administration wants to take credit for ‘jobs created or saved,’ it should also accept responsibility for ’jobs destroyed or prevented,’” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business.

Ignoring the flaws in the stimulus for the moment, Congress raised the hurdle for hiring entry-level workers when it refused to delay the third step in a three-stage minimum wage increase last year. And the Department of Labor cracked down on unpaid internships, outlining six criteria that businesses had to satisfy in order to hire someone willing and able to work for nothing to get the experience.

For example, the employer must derive “no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Recession’s Advantage

At the White House briefing last week, Romer touted the leveraging of public investment with private funds, with $1 of Recovery Act funds partnering with $3 of outside spending. Romer said this public spending “saved or created 800,000 jobs” in the second quarter alone.

Once again, what would have happened in the absence of the government’s targeted intervention?

According to a June 2009 study by the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Missouri, well over half of the companies on the Fortune 500 list, and almost half of the fastest growing companies in America, were started during a recession or bear market. Dunkelberg calls this phenomenon “negative push starts.” People might not be willing to quit their jobs, but if they get laid off during a recession and were thinking about starting a business, they might seize the day, he said.

“When people ask me when the best time to start a company is, I tell them the day before the recession ends,” Dunkelberg said. “They can do it on the cheap, and the next day you get cash flow.”

Model That!

What’s more, firms less than five years old are responsible for all of the net new jobs created in the U.S., the Kauffman study found. Job creation by start-ups is more stable, less sensitive to the business cycle.

So, if the goal is to create more jobs, and start-ups are the ones that create them, why is the Obama administration partnering up with existing firms?

“Job-creation policies aimed at luring larger, established employers will inevitably fail,” said Tim Kane, Kauffman Foundation senior fellow in research and policy and author of a follow-up study released this month.

Not to worry. The White House has a model that turns failure into success.

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net.

________________________ ________________________ __________________

240 - you have asked me many times to provide the specific promises Obama made for the Stim Bill.  Well, here you go, read this. 

Its the direct document provided the the misrepresentatives who voted for this mess. 

http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_obamadoc.pdf


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted from Tally of Stimulus Bill
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2010, 05:11:02 AM »
Obama and the far left are going to be screaming the same bs a year from, two years from, etc. 

________________________ ________________________ ___________

The Forgotten EmployerJuly 20, 2010 - 3:39 pmShare 
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2010/07/the-forgotten-employer/?boxes=Homepagecolumnsblogs


-----------------------------------------------------------


Everyone agrees the American job picture is a disaster. Unemployment estimates from June stretch from the official 9.5% to 16.5% to a sickening 22% by the most inclusive definition.

Economists, politicians and pundits debate the reasons. You’re familiar with the arguments.

--Those on the right look at the $1.8 trillion of cash reserves held by American companies--and those are just the publicly traded ones-- and conclude that business has gone on a capital strike. Business is refusing to invest aggressively in the future, including hiring more people, in an atmosphere of rising taxes and regulations, not to mention overt rhetorical attacks on business by President Obama.

--Those on the left point to weak demand, overcapacity and banks that won’t lend. Some, fearing deflation, argue for massive quantitative easing so as to force cash off the sidelines of corporate balance sheets and into the game of investment and hiring.

What’s lost in these arguments about jobs, especially by those on the left, are the voices of the jobs’ creators themselves. Those would be the employers. Let me repeat: In a national debate about jobs and job creation, hardly anyone is talking to job creators about jobs!

For example:

John Harwood, The New York Times, “Where Did the Jobs Go?”

Harwood: “[The question] which reclaims center stage in Washington this week, is this: Why is unemployment so high? The whodunit has flummoxed economists in both parties for a year. In 2009, as the new Obama administration grappled with the financial crisis, joblessness rose nearly two points beyond customary recession forecasts.”

In 788 words, Harwood does not quote a single employer.

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, “The Problem for Business Isn’t Obama”

Krugman: “All the buzz lately is that the Obama administration is “antibusiness.” And there are widespread claims that fears about taxes, regulation and budget deficits are holding down business spending and blocking economic recovery. How much truth is there to these claims? None.”

"None" also happens to be the number of employers quoted in Krugman’s piece.

Barbara Kiviat, Time, “The Uncertainty Excuse Needs to Come to an End”

Kiviat: “Maybe it's time to stop blaming the government for the state of the economy and job creation. Maybe, instead, it's time for business leaders to--ahem--lead and make some decisions about the futures of their companies.”

Kiviat talked to no employers for her piece. She does briefly quote GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, from a CNBC interview.

Daniel Gross, Slate, “Poor Little CEOs”

Gross: “The notion of these guys [e.g, employers, as represented by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses] holding a jobs summit is a little like BP holding a deepwater drilling safety summit. ... The CEO class exhibits an unseemly combination of myopia and ingratitude.”

Gross hacks away at straw CEOs throughout his 718-word piece. What he can’t be bothered to do is actually talk to one.

I understand the left's reluctance to talk to employers directly. Talking to employers about jobs, and lack thereof, would wreck the left's narrative. What do you hear when you listen to employers? You hear stories like this one, from the comments section of a recent Mort Zuckerman piece:

I am a building designer, used to have employees and wanted to grow my firm to about 8 people. No longer. I will be more likely semi-retired by choice from this point on because:

Cost of Employees way up: Workman's Comp, Unemployment insurance, Health Care is up by nearly $ 8 per hour over 3 years. Health care alone now costs $4 an hour if they are young, over $5 per hour if over 50.

Business Regulation - every purchase over $ 600 needs a 1099 form, meaning I have to get the address and the tax ID of the power company, the insurance company, Office Depot, etc. I will be going from 4 1099's to over 100.

Health Care - I will now have to track where my employees go in the event of HazMat exposure. Did the government office they measured in for a few days contain lead or asbestos. Duh - yes, but it is supposedly safe for government employees why not mine.

Security - I must have lots more records on my employees keyed to their SS#, but if somehow I lose my laptop I am a crook.

I could go on and on, but my reward is:

My marginal tax rate jumps in 2011, about 30% more than before.

the FICA income limit keeps rising, that is 15% of net for the self employed on the marginal increase.

It is obvious that there will be a lot more taxes coming. So my risk is way up, but the government now TAKES over half of any marginal increase. I would rather fish.

Multiply “I would rather fish” by a few hundred thousand small business owners and you get a jobs crisis. You get 9.5%, 16.5% or even 22% unemployment when the models say it should be 8% at this point in the rocky recovery.

The forgotten man in this crisis is the employer. We forget him at our danger.

Post your comments below.

Tags: bosses, CEO, employers, jobless, jobs, Recession, recovery, Unemployment
 Email Twitter Facebook Digg Buzz More

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted from Tally of Stimulus Bill
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2010, 06:33:34 AM »
Well,about 10% of Americans think its an utter failure,so they already know Obama and the administration are liars.