Job Count changed for economic stimulus

Status
Not open for further replies.

amish

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
4,295
6
81
WASHINGTON – The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.

The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House's latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.

Numbers published last month identified more than 640,000 jobs linked to stimulus projects around the country. The White House said the public could have confidence in those new numbers, which officials argued proved the administration was on track to keep Obama's promise that the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.

But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts, from the substantive to the clerical. Republicans have used those flaws to attack what so far is the signature domestic policy approved during Obama's presidency.

The new rules are intended to streamline the process, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget. They came in response to grant recipients who complained the reporting was too complicated, from lawmakers who complained the job counts were inconsistent and from watchdog groups who complained the information was unreliable, Gavin said.

"We're trying to make this as consistent and as uniform as we possibly can," he said.

The new stimulus job reports will continue to offer details about jobs and projects. But they were never expected to be the public accounting of Obama's goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs, Gavin said.

The quarterly job reports posted on the Web site for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board reflect only a fraction of the jobs created under the program and can't account for job creation stemming from other stimulus programs such as tax rebates and other federal aid, the spokesman said.

But the result of the new rules will be that future claims of job creation from the stimulus will be even more misleading, said Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act's impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to produce sustainable economic growth or real job creation," Issa said in a letter sent last week to the government board monitoring stimulus spending.

Recipients of recovery money no longer have to show that a job would have been lost without the stimulus help, and they no longer are required to keep an ongoing tally of jobs saved or created. The new rules allow stimulus recipients to limit the job tally to quarterly reports, making it impossible to avoid double-counting a job that was created in one quarter and continued into the next.

Issa wants the Recovery Board, the government's independent oversight panel, to change how it identifies the count of stimulus jobs and to add a note on its Recovery.gov Web site explaining that there is now a different definition for what constitutes a job under the stimulus.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_counting_jobs

i wonder if they are going to count the bank execs that got big bonuses as a job saved/created by the economic stimulus bill? so honestly, where did all the money go?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
When you spend a dollar, a dollar gets spent. If you give a cash-strapped county goverment $40k, they get to use it to pay an employee's salary, whether directly or indirectly. It's as simple as that. Any claim otherwise is just political trickery.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_counting_jobs

i wonder if they are going to count the bank execs that got big bonuses as a job saved/created by the economic stimulus bill? so honestly, where did all the money go?
Interesting article, but the first line is total bullshit.
The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.
The reason they abandoned it is because it was so laughably bad at its stated purpose - counting jobs saved or created - that it was impossible to track those jobs in the first place. Thus abandoning the "controversial method" has nothing to do with making it impossible to track those mythical jobs.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
This is going to make the cost per job go from an estimated $160,000 in October to .... well I hate to think about it.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
From the ABC news version of the same story:

[q] In other words, if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job.[/q]
So under the new metrics definition, the Obama Administration could arguably claim as a "stimulus" job any position that receives stimulus funding, even if that position was not in jeopardy or lost to the current economic crisis.

Shouldn't the metric only count jobs created or reclaimed...not jobs sustained?

So essentially the old metric was bogus, and the new metric has as fudge factor that will inflate the numbers.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
From the ABC news version of the same story:

In other words, if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job.
So under the new metrics definition, the Obama Administration could arguably claim as a "stimulus" job any position that receives stimulus funding, even if that position was not in jeopardy or lost to the current economic crisis.

Shouldn't the metric only count jobs created or reclaimed...not jobs sustained?

So essentially the old metric was bogus, and the new metric has as fudge factor that will inflate the numbers.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
So essentially the old metric was bogus, and the new metric has as fudge factor that will inflate the numbers.

Obama has to come out in 2 or so weeks and give the state of the union. He simply cannot have his headline program from year 1 look like the failure it actually is, so they have to make up numbers to make it appear that it worked.

It is a pretty transparent attempt.
 

theevilsharpie

Platinum Member
Nov 2, 2009
2,322
14
81
When you spend a dollar, a dollar gets spent. If you give a cash-strapped county goverment $40k, they get to use it to pay an employee's salary, whether directly or indirectly. It's as simple as that. Any claim otherwise is just political trickery.

/thread
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Hard to imagine why the financial industry and govt are in bed together. They both like using bogus accounting to sell us on a bill of goods.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Even if you take their silly figure and divide it into $787B you realize that it was a terrible use of money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.