How effective is the Obama Stimulus?
Written by Michael Vass
So just before the White House comes out with its victorious cries of success on the Obama Stimulus, I suggest we all look at what really is happening. Yep, time for a bit of math. Something I’m sure President Obama’s supporters will hate.
Right now several States have released the numbers being submitted to the Government about how many jobs were saved with the Stimulus. I say just saved as any claim at job creation pales in the wake of 9.8% unemployment. That’s 3 million Americans without a job since the Stimulus passed, that’s almost 2% higher than the guarantee the Stimulus was sold to the public to preserve. And that says nothing of historic levels of mortgage failures, continued bank insolvency, and a real unemplyment in excess of 15 million people.
But staying focused on the ’saved’ jobs, which includes jobs that are part-time, temporary, and even a few full time full year jobs. I was able to find 7 seperate reports via a google search for stimulus package report. The States are: California, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, and Tennessee.
California was the big winner. They claim 100,000 jobs saved since the Stimulus passed. Which sounds great, and will be the big focus of Democrats. What they will avoid is the fact that it cost $5.3 billion. Working the numbers that means it cost $53,000 for each job. And somehow I don’t believe that 100,000 people got that for a year of work via the stimulus. I’ll bet money on that.
Michigan lost its mind for its jobs, spending $189,743 per job ’saved’. That may sound like quite a bit (especially when you factor in the fact that it is in the Democrat threashold of ‘rich’), but it does not top the list. That honor goes to North Dakota.
North Dakota reported spending $207 million of stimulus money. At the same time they reported 624 jobs. That’s $331,730 per job. This ridiculous amount of money is insane. Especially since the jobs created did not pay that amount to any 1 individual. Which means the money is either being wasted, or otherwise disappearing.
The other States come in from the relatively reasonable $18,780 spent in New Mexico (for 4100 jobs) and $27,722 spent in Tennessee (for 7700 jobs) to the extreme $135,593 in Minnesota (for 11,800 jobs).
Does any of that sound reasonable? Maybe New Mexico, but what about the rest? Why is it costing so much to give a person a $30,000 job. In fact if you do the numbers, it would have been better to give every American man, woman and child $2600 than to have used the stimulus as it has been so far.
Which highligts something else. I’ve said it before, a stimulus is something that causes an immediate reaction, the Obama Stimulus does not. But the Obama Stimulus does spend the bulk of its social reform money in 2010, just before the mid-term elections.
Does that sound like buying votes? I can hear the political ads now. Some Democrat up for re-election will stand before a crowd claiming that any and every improvement in the economy is a result of the Stimulus [as opposed to reguar cycles] and promise that the next Stimulus plan will be even better than the last [which I said months ago would happen]. Yes, Democrats will praise what has happened, hoping the public doesn’t stop to think about it.
We were told all the bridges we use would be fixed - they are not. We were promised unemployment would not exceed 8% - it has. We were told that jobs would be created in the millions - they haven’t even been done in the dozens. And every job that has somehow been credited to the Obama Stimulus costs more than 2 jobs anywhere else (in total).
But I will say this, it is a stimulus. It will do it’s job. It will stimulate the political futures of Democrats. It will help to preserve (save of create) their jobs in Congress. The real cost? Roughly $3,896,039,603.96 for every Democrat that get re-elected in 2010. And if you are President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or a Liberal, I’m sure you think its a bargain.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
California Unemployment Trends - August 2009
California Unemployment Trends in Heat Map form:
here is a map of California Unemployment in August 2009 (BLS data)
http://www.localetrends.com/st/ca_california_unemployment.php?MAP_TYPE=curr_ue
versus California Unemployment Levels 1 year ago
http://www.localetrends.com/st/ca_california_unemployment.php?MAP_TYPE=m12_ue
October 15th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Paul,
I assume you are using this vague map comparison to state that California is in a better position? Perhaps it is, though the efforts of the Governator likely had much to do with that. Even so, my point was not that things had not changed but how effective was it. According to their own data only 100,000 jobs were created. Which is not enough to create the change in the map that it states. Further the jobs cost $53,000 on average. So unless every dollar went to the employee, there was massive waste. Which says nothing if that the same money, used to create small businesses that create long lasting real jobs (IE jobs that don’t go away once the Government funding goes away), is more efficient and real.
or do you think everyone should work for the Government?