New York Times: “New Consensus” Agrees That The Stimulus Is Working
Its messy, the paper says, but it is working. According to them.
WASHINGTON — Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say. …
…the White House and Congressional leaders are talking about a new “jobs bill.” But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.
The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.
First, the idea that Obama is anywhere near keeping his promise on jobs is blown up by this chart from his economic team’s original pitch for the “stimulus” spending modified to reflect actual unemployment numbers:
“Jobs saved” is an impossible metric for anyone to use with any level of honesty. It’s little more than political spin intended to be gobbled up by fawning reporters like those at the New York Times.
Second, this “the stimulus is working” analysis ignores one metric that’s much more important than “jobs saved.” How about “deficits created?”
In a relatively short 10 months Obama and his fellow liberals have exploded the national deficit, going from “bad” under President Bush to “much, much worse” now. We’ve tripled the budget deficit, and the only thing that can make that better is either massive budget cuts (bloody unlikely with the liberals in charge) or tax hikes.
And what impact will tax hikes have on our fragile economy? Why, the impact tax hikes always has on an economy. Less job growth. Less prosperity. Fewer jobs.
I actually think the spin here from the Times might be aimed at dampening the liberal push for more “stimulus” spending. It’s obvious to any honest observer that the first “stimulus” spending has been a failure. But the Times can’t admit that The One and his fellow liberals might have made a mistake, so they’re trying to head off their attempts to double down on “stimulus” spending by spinning the existing “stimulus” spending as having had a positive impact. Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics
