Unemployment Rate Calls Stimulus Claims Into Question
4963931
Early this year, as the U.S. Congress prepared to debate a $787 billion spending bill that's better known as the stimulus plan, President Barack Obama claimed that immediate action was necessary to prevent unemployment from skyrocketing.
"Experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits," Mr. Obama said in a January 24 radio address. "If we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse." The same month, his economic advisors released a report saying that, without the stimulus, unemployment would hit around 8.5 percent by April 2009, and 7.8 percent with it.
We know what happened next: a Democratic Congress quickly approved the legislation. But what may not be as obvious is that even with the stimulus, current unemployment is far worse than the Obama administration had predicted: it's already 8.9 percent.
In the last few days, a marked-up version of that chart has rocketed around economics and public policy blogs, with some administration critics arguing it showed the stimulus was unnecessary. (For perspective, the stimulus' generous $787 billion is roughly 60 percent of the total revenue that the IRS collects each year from Americans' personal income taxes, or almost seven times the entire GDP of New Zealand.)
Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw wrote on Sunday: "In light of the shifting baseline, it is impossible to hold the administration accountable for whether its policies are achieving their intended effects." The conservative Heritage Foundation dubbed it "Obama's growing credibility gap."
Ed Morrissey, a conservative blogger and radio host, argued: "Not only did the stimulus plan not work, the unemployment actually rose faster with the 'recovery plan' in place than the Obama administration predicted unemployment would rise without it."
In fairness to the administration, it's possible that the economy simply was in worse shape in January 2009 than report authors Christina Romer (now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) and Jared Bernstein (the vice president's chief economist) believed it to be. While economists are used to dealing with uncertainties, nuances tend to be lost in Washington's political process.
This points to another problem, which is the virtual impossibility of judging whether the stimulus is working or not. Mr. Obama said in February that the legislation "will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."
The problem: If unemployment rises, the administration can claim that it would have been worse without the stimulus package. If unemployment falls, it can claim that the stimulus worked. That's called having your $787 billion and spending it too.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved. Early this year, as the U.S. Congress prepared to debate a $787 billion spending bill that's better known as the stimulus plan, President Barack Obama claimed that immediate action was necessary to prevent unemployment from skyrocketing.
"Experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits," Mr. Obama said in a January 24 radio address. "If we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse." The same month, his economic advisors released a report saying that, without the stimulus, unemployment would hit around 8.5 percent by April 2009, and 7.8 percent with it.
We know what happened next: a Democratic Congress quickly approved the legislation. But what may not be as obvious is that even with the stimulus, current unemployment is far worse than the Obama administration had predicted: it's already 8.9 percent.
In the last few days, a marked-up version of that chart has rocketed around economics and public policy blogs, with some administration critics arguing it showed the stimulus was unnecessary. (For perspective, the stimulus' generous $787 billion is roughly 60 percent of the total revenue that the IRS collects each year from Americans' personal income taxes, or almost seven times the entire GDP of New Zealand.)
Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw wrote on Sunday: "In light of the shifting baseline, it is impossible to hold the administration accountable for whether its policies are achieving their intended effects." The conservative Heritage Foundation dubbed it "Obama's growing credibility gap."
Ed Morrissey, a conservative blogger and radio host, argued: "Not only did the stimulus plan not work, the unemployment actually rose faster with the 'recovery plan' in place than the Obama administration predicted unemployment would rise without it."
In fairness to the administration, it's possible that the economy simply was in worse shape in January 2009 than report authors Christina Romer (now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) and Jared Bernstein (the vice president's chief economist) believed it to be. While economists are used to dealing with uncertainties, nuances tend to be lost in Washington's political process.
This points to another problem, which is the virtual impossibility of judging whether the stimulus is working or not. Mr. Obama said in February that the legislation "will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."
The problem: If unemployment rises, the administration can claim that it would have been worse without the stimulus package. If unemployment falls, it can claim that the stimulus worked. That's called having your $787 billion and spending it too.
(CBS)
Popular on MoneyWatch
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Forbes names most powerful women 2013 10 Photos
- Rent the cake? Unusual tips to cut your wedding bill
- Student loan defaults rising despite a way out
- Amy's Baking Company could face legal 'nightmare'
- Top 10 professional life coaching myths
- Amy's Baking Company: Post-meltdown PR campaign
- Fed uncertainty extinguishes rally
Posted by sjc_1
I will not lift a finger to help turn this country into the USSA!
Posted by junglejimy12
LOL The little train that couldnt !
Posted by jswilliams451
Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Elected to four terms of office
"New Deal" strategy of Government funded initiatives, public works programs, and overhaul of the financial system.
Elected
1932-1936.
His other terms being 1936-1940, 1940-1944 and 1944-
till his death in office from a Cerebral Hemorrhage on April 12, 1945, in Warm Springs Georgia. He was 62
If he didn?t die at 62 how long would he have been in office.
This is all Obama is trying to do and why he is installing the exact system Roosevelt had.
The reason is, the economic growth models we have used since the end of WWII to fuel our economy have all run their course. And the previous two administrations, Clinton and Bush, did little to nothing to help engineer a soft landing for us.
We need new models now to move us forward and fuel economic growth. The green energy revolution can help. But its only going to be a small part of the equation. The rest is going to have to come from the American People and our penchant for innovation.
Or we are truly doomed.
...........................
It is worse because of Obama's actions. Even Liberal CBS is telling the truth now!!
WE TAKE PRIDE IN OUR 69 ROOM RESORT THAT BOAST 3 POOLS, 1 FED BY VOLCANIC WATER( GREAT FOR ACHES AND PAINS) FULL MED-SPA, FITNESS CENTER, YOGA AND MASSAGE THERAPY. ( IT'S OK TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF)
OUR STAFF INCLUDES DOCTOR'S,NURSE'S, COUNSELOR'S, AND NUTRTIONALIST.
IF NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOU TO MAKE THAT NECESSARY CHANGE IN YOUR LIFE.
(506) 2533-3341 EXT 105 CONFIDENTIAL
TODD COX TODDCOX@NEWHOPECOSTARICA.COM
HTTP://COSTARICANEWHOPE.COM