NP Rank:
Stimulus Job Losses......What?
In an apparent contradiction of the Obama administration prediction's, job losses are continuing their long downhill slide.
Earlier this year, the administration released numbers showing projected job gains, by state, that would result from the president's plan. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, today released a table comparing the administration's projections with actual results.
The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.
The difference between the projected and actual numbers is almost staggering. Does this mean that the stimulus has failed? Is an indication that the package dubbed, "Porkulus" by opponents, really is as much about pork, as it is about stimulus?
Opposition to the bill, crafted under the leadership of Democrat leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid, flush with Obama's victory, was panned as catering more to Democrat interests, than it was towards stimulating the economy.
At a cost of more than three quarters of a trilllion dollars ($789,000,000.00), let us hope that it isn't a total bust.
Crowd Power
-
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Recommendations (48)
-
israeli.agent
India -
everchanging
Phoenix, Arizona, United States -
albertacowpoke
Canada -
politisite
Columbia, South Carolina, United States -
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States
-
jefhow22
Wilmington, Massachusetts, United States -
PIM of SPAIN
San Pedro de A, Malaga, Spain -
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States -
QueensHart
boston, USA., United States -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States





Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (20)
at 14:34 on October 21st, 2009
I would like to see some figures of job loses/gains if nothing had been done. No stimulus, no infrastructure.
This table goes through 2010, so we need to drag it out in 14 months and look at the totals.
at 14:40 on October 21st, 2009
Very true, a211423. The table tells us where we are NOW.
The pork part of the package, payback for political favors, and some simply greed for gaining votes back home, won't even effect the economy for years....if ever.
at 14:53 on October 21st, 2009
You mean like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
Realistically, earmarks--or pork as you can them, you seem to have an affinity for pork--are part of the compromises that go on in Washington. Whether we like it or not, a lot of legislation is done through compromise and "you wash my back, and I will wash yours." Lyndon Johnson was the master at this, which is how he passed so much social legislation in his term with an obstinate Congress. Ted Kennedy was likewise a deal maker in this way.
at 15:01 on October 21st, 2009
agreed about the pork....unfortunately, it is a very, very, expensive habit.
Tell the truth, i wouldn't mind it a bit, were they spending their own money. As it is, they are spending mine, my children's, my grandchildren's, and my great-grandchildren's.
And they aren't just spending a little, they are spending a lot.
at 15:26 on October 21st, 2009
Hugh: Let's see what the unemployment figures are for October . The BLS is scheduled to release those figures on November 6. The unemployment rate is 9.8% for September. The Republicans are being disingenuous here in my opinion. As a211423 pointed out, the administration's projections were to the end of 2010. Of course it would take a miracle for the Obama projections to materialize, but let's keep our fingers crossed.
BTW: In July of 1982 (under Reagan) the unemployment rate hit 9.8%, peaked at 10.8% in December of that year, and didn't come down into the 9% range until July of 1983. It was 8.3% on November 1981 , continued to trend up and stayed in the 10% range for ten months and didn't start trending below 7% until November of 1986.
at 15:34 on October 21st, 2009
I see some reader are still hopeful that The Stimulus will produce fruit. Economists for told this story. This bill was a loser from ground zero. Doing nothing would have lessened the national debt. Doing nothing would have not caused a government expansion. The Administration promised only 8.5% unemployment with a stimulus and a 10%-11% w/out Guess what? Unemployment is near where the Administration said it would be w/out the Stimulus.
at 16:19 on October 21st, 2009
politisite! Hope and change! Hope and change! Oooh! Oooh! Ooh! Can you spare some change? LOL!
at 15:36 on October 21st, 2009
they are spending mine, my children's, my grandchildren's, and my great-grandchildren's
This hackneyed phrase from the Republican side is getting tiresome, and it's the same thing that was said to FDR when he wanted to create Social Security. And even with its need now for an overhaul, its one of the best social programs ever created and has served the American people well since 1935.
at 17:04 on October 21st, 2009
i will quit using it when it is no longer true. fair enough?
at 15:44 on October 21st, 2009
politisite
Granted and I have seen the projections.
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/stimulus-transportation-spending-lags-predictions-1002
Some of the problem is the stimulus spending for transportation projects was to amount to half of the 3.2 million jobs projected, but only 7% of the stimulus money has been paid out so far. Once these monies get to the state projects--I hope California is one of them--we will see some jobs creation. This is why unemployment is considered a lag indicator.
at 16:05 on October 21st, 2009
There were many economists who were, and who are, proponents of the stimulus. It is fair comment that the unemployment forecasts were understated, not many foresaw how dire it was. There is some evidence that the stimulus slowed the unemployment crash, and frankly that is only one indicator of economic performance. It is far more unlikely to think that the system would have self-corrected faster and with less pain without intervention based on the data we have to date. Criticizing the pork elements of the stimulus is absolutely valid. Saying we shouldn't have had one at all is less defensible
at 17:03 on October 21st, 2009
rng, no argument with what most of what you say.
However, looking at unemployment number show that they are worse than reported.
Once folks quit looking for work, they are no longer counted as "unemployed".
People whose hours have been cut are not counted, nor are the self-employed (accounting for 25% of the workforce) counted even if they have no business.
Another couple of groups not included in the numbers: part-time workers - some who exist on more than one part-time job, and who have lost a part-time position, and the immigrants (legal or not), who have returned (mostly to Mexico) in droves.
Did the stimulus slow the crash? Who knows. You can call it however you like - i have absolutely no idea - but would guess it has made some difference. Both sides will us the same figures to make their differing points.
at 18:45 on October 21st, 2009
That's politics as normal. I just hope that we CAN fix it or we aree looking at a very sad future.
at 17:00 on October 21st, 2009
Do these current numbers of the unemployed (individuals) include those (individuals) that have collected unemployment and are no longer eligible for unemployment (off the books) and still have no job or source of income? I believe those individuals not collecting assistance "off the books" are not included in these numbers above, had they been included in the latest figures we would fall off our chairs. The reality of the situation is staggering and completely unnecessary,
I would like to see the accountability of those individuals from the politicians, bankers to the federal reserves (especially the New York division) who knowingly and who blindly brought this upon the American people of today and the generations to come. Where are the committees and courts to present those that caused this and those who created the problem in the first place. When any one person or small business does a crime and gets caught they have to go to trial or are fined for their actions or are these individuals above the law?
at 15:52 on October 22nd, 2009
Everchanging:
"Do these current numbers of the unemployed (individuals) include those (individuals) that have collected unemployment and are no longer eligible for unemployment (off the books) and still have no job or source of income?"
Good question! The short answer is NO! In other words, the unemployment numbers paint a much rosier picture than what the unemployment situation really amounts to.
Source: bls.gov
at 01:08 on October 22nd, 2009
Unemployment creeps above 10% and stubbornly will stay there. The funding for job creation was based on an assumed 8.9% unemployment rate while the real rate maybe in the region of 15% is a realistic possibility if as everchange correctly mentioned, all the others "off the book" are included. “One American in nine depends on the government for his daily bread. There are 6.2 million more people on food stamps than when the recession began. And there are 6 people waiting in line for each job opening, up from 1.7 when the recession started.” To be more precise on this subject: Large government deficits choke off the very investment that is needed to create jobs.
at 11:47 on October 22nd, 2009
I may collect a menial retirement check once a month but hardly enough for me to even consider moving out of my rented room in someones big house. Some retirement. I had to get out of the fire service for health reasons and NO I am not on disability. I went to a full-time job at a local airport until the company fell flat on it's face. I look for work EVERY week because it is a condition of me getting state assistance every week. I have applied at gas-stations, restaurants, Walmarts, and even selling newspapers with a route. Guess what...the "O" wants to bail out the newspapers, people can't afford gas, Walmart is not hiring, and people can't afford to go out to eat. Yes I am bitter and "pissed-off" at this situation but I still look for work. "Once folks quit looking for work, they are no longer counted as "unemployed". and I am still unemployed.
at 13:01 on October 22nd, 2009
Unemployed, but still looking. Lot of folks in the same position, sadly.
Hang on to your hat, it isn't going to get better for a while.
at 14:36 on October 22nd, 2009
jefhow22
Good Luck to you in your job search. I know it must be incredibly frustrating for you, but something has got to come up soon, and at least you have a place to live to ride out this economy. I don't have any health insurance because it costs too much, so I am waiting it out as well. I hope we get some kind of coverage in the next year.
Let us know how you are doing.
at 23:58 on October 22nd, 2009
Indeed a sad story jefhoww22 writes. Unfortunately there are out too many in the same situation. But pushing on in finding a job will certainly be honored one day, that's for sure. Hope you don't stop yr efforts before. Keep going that's the best advice in store.