33 states report on stimulus job creation.

[Elphaba]

According to UPI: 33 States Report on Stimulus Job Creation:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 (UPI) -- The $787 billion stimulus package passed in January is credited with saving or creating 388,000 jobs in 33 states, reports from individual states show.

A federal report compiling data from all 50 states is due Friday, USA Today reported Wednesday. In the meantime, the figure from states already reporting -- meant to be an actual count, not an estimate -- appears to back up the claim from President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers that 600,000 to 1.1 million jobs have been created or saved, the newspaper said.

Former economic adviser to President George W. Bush Kevin Hassett said the state reports "vastly overstates," the number of jobs salvaged or created.

States say the bulk of the jobs rescued are in the field of education. California reports 20,000 teaching positions saved, while Indiana reports 13,000.

Of the 33 reports, 23 report on educational positions. Added up, 156,000 educational jobs have been saved among the 23 states, the newspaper said.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Apparently, though, in at least some cases educational jobs were considered "saved" even if it was just a matter of a tenured professor using some of a federal research grant.

I don't doubt that some--perhaps many--jobs were created. I just question the numbers, and wonder whether it's worth everything we'll be paying for them in the end. At this point I'm inclined to trust Obama's numbers on his economic policy as much as you trust Bush's numbers on his Iraq policy.

[bytor2112]

The phrase "created or saved" is pure political genius by Obama and pure snake oil.

[ryanh]

Hard to say what the real story is. Seems there are competing news stories out there regarding the accuracy of the numbers.

Stimulus jobs overstated by 1,000s

[boyando]

Hey, I know I feel better.

And this news makes me feel so much better about all the people I know, with out a job.

[beefche]

I don't understand. If so many jobs were created, why is unemployment at a high 9.8%? Wouldn't that number be lowered with the creation of so many jobs?

[NeuroTypical]

What a tragic, horrible thing. The federal government taking my children's money to give to someone else today, for something that most likely the State govt ought to decide about.

Horrible, unrighteous, unconstitutional, inefficient, bad thing.

LM

[Traveler]

What a tragic, horrible thing. The federal government taking my children's money to give to someone else today, for something that most likely the State govt ought to decide about.

Horrible, unrighteous, unconstitutional, inefficient, bad thing.

LM

Any job loss above 8% is because of the current administration that said if they could not install their changes what we would see unemployment rise to 8%. This is proof that the cure is worse than the sickness.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

Stimulus jobs overstated by 1,000s

educational jobs were considered "saved" even if it was just a matter of a tenured professor using some of a federal research grant.

According to both articles, part of the problem is recipients don’t know how to determine if a job counts as “saved,” or not. I have no idea what instructions the government provided, but perhaps a more precise directive needs to be disseminated.

It is absolutely ridiculous to count tenured professors. It is also offensive because it appears, at least to me, that the university’s administration purposely chose to included tenured profs to make the numbers look better than they were. Did they think we’re so stupid we wouldn’t notice?

I think it is important to recognize there were still thousands of jobs that can legitimately be counted as saved by the stimulus.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

All those states saved all those education jobs, but they still slashed their own state budgets and cut many state employee jobs....I wonder how many of those 33 states cut state jobs.

[bytor2112]

According to both articles, part of the problem is recipients don’t know how to determine if a job counts as “saved,” or not. I have no idea what instructions the government provided, but perhaps a more precise directive needs to be disseminated.

It is absolutely ridiculous to count tenured professors. It is also offensive because it appears, at least to me, that the university’s administration purposely chose to included tenured profs to make the numbers look better than they were. Did they think we’re so stupid we wouldn’t notice?

I think it is important to recognize there were still thousands of jobs that can legitimately be counted as saved by the stimulus.

Elphaba

You can recognize it all you want Elph... That being said, it is pure political genius....."created or saved". My hat is off to him for that one. That phrase will likely be used for generations to come to combat lower than expected job growth.

President Obama is in a tough position. Unemployment will likely never return to levels seen under Clinton and Bush. The economy has changed for a very long time. I predict that we will still be above 8% in 2012 and probably beyond.

[Moksha]

When we have a depression there is mass unemployment. Big spending has enabled the market to stay afloat and with it jobs are not lost as fast. Is spending the answer? Who knows. I certainly see the benefit of having a balanced budget, but the consequences of that are very unappealing as well.

[bytor2112]

When we have a depression there is mass unemployment. Big spending has enabled the market to stay afloat and with it jobs are not lost as fast. Is spending the answer? Who knows. I certainly see the benefit of having a balanced budget, but the consequences of that are very unappealing as well.

No...spending is not the answer. The GDP clicked up this quarter.....3.5%, BUT, that number is inflated. Inflated by cash for clunkers and the first time buyer program. Next quarter will likely be a better gauge of where we are at economically.

Spending cannot be sustained....it is simply debt and will have to be paid back. How? Don't know how......and we will definitely be in trouble IF or perhaps WHEN this health care fiasco occurs. Reduce taxes....personal and corporate. Let the normal cycle of the economy occur and allow people to keep MORE of there income. Taxes are going up in 2010. Everyone will have a tax increase from the bottom to the top. The lowest rate of 10% goes up to 15%.

Please note: I am not opposed to social programs or even a government alternative for health care. Social programs that REALLY lift and help on a grand scale, rather than programs that barely sustain and keep people in bad situations. I am opposed to waste and our government is overflowing with waste. Reduce the size and scope of government and eliminate waste, lower taxes and ALL will benefit.

[jadams_4040]

The phrase "created or saved" is pure political genius by Obama and pure snake oil.

Tell that to the people whom still have there jobs and homes due to the stimulas. i personaly know sevearl families in our state {nevada} has benifited tremendously from the stimulas allreadly; good hard working, patriotic honest upstanding american citizens whose jobs were on the block because of bushies recession. they are now working, paying there bills , holding heads up and looking to the future.:)

[Just_A_Guy]

Lest anyone conclude the White House knows what it's doing:

[bytor2112]

Tell that to the people whom still have there jobs and homes due to the stimulas. i personaly know sevearl families in our state {nevada} has benifited tremendously from the stimulas allreadly; good hard working, patriotic honest upstanding american citizens whose jobs were on the block because of bushies recession. they are now working, paying there bills , holding heads up and looking to the future.:)

Bravo!! Now back to my comment......it is snake oil. You can't REALLY measure "saved" jobs. It is political posturing and it's laughable. Genius...but laughable and pathetic. Oh and Bush didn't create the financial crisis.....neither did Obama. The wheels of the disaster were turning well before Bush was President and while Obama cannot and should not be blamed for it, he has yet to do anything but add to the woes. I wish it were not so and I promise I would gladly praise him if he were to do something that is responsible. Jadams, I am just being honest. Try and be objective and understand the very real danger we face as Obama and the idiots in Congress continue to print money and run up a debt that cannot be sustained.

Surely you don't operate your own house hold budget that way? Look at California. As more money is printed the value of the dollar falls. At some point in time we will not be able to pay the interest on the debt owed to nations like China that hold our debt and then kaboom!! Sigh....I am sure you don't care or don't understand. Obama thanks you and people like you for there vote.

Edited October 30, 2009 by bytor2112

[Palerider]

Tell that to the people whom still have there jobs and homes due to the stimulas. i personaly know sevearl families in our state {nevada} has benifited tremendously from the stimulas allreadly; good hard working, patriotic honest upstanding american citizens whose jobs were on the block because of bushies recession. they are now working, paying there bills , holding heads up and looking to the future.:)

Tell that to the State Employees that are without jobs because of states making budget cuts after your stimulus money...and lets not forget your obama said something like, if we don't pass this stimulus, unemployment will go to 9%....it passed and unemployment went higher.

Lets just keep passing kool aid around....

[Elphaba]

That being said, it is pure political genius....."created or saved".

Nice quote from the Wall Street Journal.

My hat is off to him for that one. That phrase will likely be used for generations to come to combat lower than expected job growth.

Actually it was used by a generation prior.

March 24, 2005: Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced the selection of 26 loan and grant recipients in 14 states that will receive $9.2 million in rural business development funds.

. . . .

"These funds are part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to spur economic development in rural areas and will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs.”

May 7, 2007: Agriculture Under Secretary Thomas C. Dorr today announced the award of $19.75 million to create or retain jobs at rural businesses.

"These funds will help support local economic development agencies, finance infrastructure improvements, establish low-interest revolving loan funds, and help jurisdictions implement regional business and community development plans," Dorr said. "The funding announced today is expected to save or create more than 2,300 jobs in 20 states."

Apparently Bush had no problem with his Department of Agriculture using the phrase. Neither did the Wall Street Journal. Especially this one:

June 24, 2004, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman: Our Rural Development programs also help communities with infrastructure such as electricity, water and telecommunications and with economic development assistance. We have estimated that our rural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs just since the Bush Administration took office in January of 2001.

Elphaba

Edited October 30, 2009 by Elphaba
Added a period.

[Elphaba]

Social programs that REALLY lift and help on a grand scale, rather than programs that barely sustain and keep people in bad situations.

What do you mean by "keep people in bad situations"?

If you're talking about welfare, I have explained before that a person can only receive Tempoary Assitance of Needy Families (TANF) for a maximum of two years, or five years under special circumstances, during which they must be either looking for work, or in a training program. After that, they will not receive any more assistance, so they are not kept in bad situations.

People can no longer stay on welfare indefinitely. Additionally, the "welfare queen" slur uttered by Reagan is a myth, and most people, the majority of them women, only stayed on welfare long enough to get on their feet.

If you were talking about something else, would you let me know?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Tell that to the State Employees that are without jobs because of states making budget cuts after your stimulus money...and lets not forget your obama said something like, if we don't pass this stimulus, unemployment will go to 9%....it passed and unemployment went higher.

Lets just keep passing kool aid around....

I looked up the statistics for the states, and it is very grim. All of them are in a crisis, laying off hundreds of employees, and it's only going to get worse. According to The Center on Policy and Budget Priorities:

Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recover

The worst recession since the 1930s has caused the steepest decline in state tax receipts on record. As a result, even after making very deep cuts, states ontinue to face large budget gaps. New shortfalls have opened up in the budgets of over half the states for the current fiscal year (FY 2010, which began July 1 in most states). In addition, initial indications are that states will face shortfalls as big as or bigger than they faced this year in the upcoming 2011 fiscal year. States will continue to struggle to find the revenue needed to support critical public services for a number of years.

• New gaps in 2010 budgets. An increasing number of states are struggling to keep their 2010 budgets in balance as the mid-point of the fiscal year approaches. Because revenues have fallen short of projections, mid-year shortfalls have opened up in 26 states — some of which have already addressed them — totaling $16 billion or 4 percent of these budgets.

  These new shortfalls are in addition to the gaps states closed when adopting their fiscal year 2010 budgets earlier this year. Counting both initial and mid-year shortfalls, 48 states have addressed or still face such shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2010, totaling $178 billion or 26 percent of state budgets — the largest gaps on record.

• Additional large gaps for 2011. States’ fiscal problems will continue into the next fiscal year and likely beyond. Fiscal year 2011 gaps – both those still open and those already addressed — total $80 billion or 14 percent of budgets for the 35 states that have estimated the size of these gaps. These totals are likely to grow as revenues continue to deteriorate, and may well exceed $180 billion.
• Combined Gaps of $350 billion for 2010 and 2011. These numbers suggest that when all is said and done, states will have dealt with a total budget shortfall of at least $350 billion for 2010 and 2011. (This includes both gaps already closed and gaps projected for the future.)

However, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is part of the stimulus, is lessening the blow. Again, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The Role of Federal Assitance

Federal assistance is lessening the extent to which states need to take pro-cyclical actions that further harm the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted in February includes substantial assistance for states. The amount in ARRA to help states maintain current activities is about $135 billion to $140 billion over a roughly 2 ½-year period — or between 30 percent and 40 percent of projected state shortfalls. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding and a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” (There are also other streams of funding in the economic recovery act flowing through states to local governments or individuals, but these will not address state budget shortfalls.) This money has reduced the extent of state spending cuts and state tax and fee increases.

But it now appears likely the federal assistance will end before state budget gaps have abated. The Medicaid funds are scheduled to expire in December 2010, which is just halfway through the 2011 fiscal year in most states.[3]

States will have drawn down most of their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund allocations by then as well. So even though the 2011 budget gaps may well be larger than those for 2010, there will be less federal money available to close them. States are likely to respond with spending cuts and tax increases even larger than those that have already been enacted. Such measures in most states will take effect with the 2011 fiscal year — that is, in July 2010, thereby reducing aggregate demand and weakening the economy at a critical moment in its recovery.

A possibility would be for the federal government to reduce state budget gaps – and hence avert some spending cuts and/or tax increases — by phasing-out the Medicaid funds over the period during which state fiscal conditions are expected to still be problematic, rather than cutting them off in December 2010. The federal government could also provide additional assistance to states for education through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Ideally, such action would be taken relatively soon, so that it can be factored into states’ budget decisions for fiscal year 2011.

But it now appears likely the federal assistance will end before state budget gaps have abated. The Medicaid funds are scheduled to expire in December 2010, which is just halfway through the 2011 fiscal year in most states. States will have drawn down most of their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund allocations by then as well. So even though the 2011 budget gaps may well be larger than those for 2010, there will be less federal money available to close them. States are likely to respond with spending cuts and tax increases even larger than those that have already been enacted. Such measures in most states will take effect with the 2011 fiscal year — that is, in July 2010, thereby reducing aggregate demand and weakening the economy at a critical moment in its recovery.

A possibility would be for the federal government to reduce state budget gaps – and hence avert some spending cuts and/or tax increases — by phasing-out the Medicaid funds over the period during which state fiscal conditions are expected to still be problematic, rather than cutting them off in December 2010. The federal government could also provide additional assistance to states for education through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Ideally, such action would be taken relatively soon, so that it can be factored into states’ budget decisions for fiscal year 2011.

The CPBP has an extensive breakdown of the financial status of each state, including projected shortfalls and budgets. As I said above, the situation is very grim. I am shocked at how bad it is.

Elphaba

Edited October 30, 2009 by Elphaba
Deleted double word.

[bytor2112]

Nice quote from the Wall Street Journal.

I linked to it...did you read?

Actually it was used by a generation prior.

Oh well....still a very clever claim, don't you think?

Apparently Bush had no problem with his Department of Agriculture using the phrase. Neither did the Wall Street Journal. Especially this one:

Just as bogus....maybe it didn't get criticism because Bush wasn't using to claim job growth. Dunno, still bogus, regardless of who says it. Is it possible that jobs are saved...sure.....but

[bytor2112]

What do you mean by "keep people in bad situations"?

If you're talking about welfare, I have explained before that a person can only receive Tempoary Assitance of Needy Families (TANF) for a maximum of two years, or five years under special circumstances, during which they must be either looking for work, or in a training program. After that, they will not receive any more assistance, so they are not kept in bad situations.

People can no longer stay on welfare indefinitely. Additionally, the "welfare queen" slur uttered by Reagan is a myth, and most people, the majority of them women, only stayed on welfare long enough to get on their feet.

If you were talking about something else, would you let me know?

Elphaba

My complaint over government assistance is that it doesn't go far enough. I wish it was much more comprehensive and really helped solve the problems so many face. TANF BARELY sustains the recipient and there families. I spoke with an elderly lady a while back that lives on social security.....maybe $850.00 per month...and she applied for food stamps (not sure of official name) and was offered $18.00 dollars per month.

I am not slandering those who receive aid.....I just wish the aid was more substantial. Rather than five years of TANF....why not five years of TANF income rolled into one? Rather than a subsidized apartment (section 8) for years, why not opportunity for ownership? Make sense? I am advocating for an enormous increase in aid to the truly needy.

My complaint with government has more to do with waste than anything else. My mother has struggled most of her life....so I am very aware of what she and others like her go through. Horrible! Her fault? To some degree, yes. If there was less waste and I know you probably disagree, but the stimulus bill and omnibus is laden with waste (yes Bush and well before wasted too) the issue of how to pay for health care or making assistance much more substantial wouldn't be as much an issue. Smaller and more effective government.

[Elphaba]

I linked to it...did you read?

I had already read it. Even though I'm a Democratic who detests people in this country so much (per JAG), I still like to stay informed, even if it is conservative publication.

Elph

[bytor2112]

I had already read it. Even though I'm a Democratic who detests people in this country so much (per JAG), I still like to stay informed, even if it is conservative publication.

Elph

You know Elph....I think when the political rhetoric is put aside, the people that make up the two major parties share most of the same goals in life. We have just allowed politicians to set and define the agenda.....politicians that are more interested in power and a future vote than actually making responsible choices on behalf of the those they are supposed to represent. Such is the nature of the mess in DC.

[talisyn]

I love all the blame going around. If the stimulus bill hadn't passed people would be clamoring for blood because our president didn't get it passed, and y'all know it. Our president, the one term senator from Illinois who did not cause this problem is akin to someone trying to plug up a leaking dam while a bunch of hecklers shout insults from the top.

Idaho has a rainy day fund worth quite a lot of money that Gov. Butch Otter was not going to touch until the Huns were at the foothills. He was going to slash education, state employees and hours, and a host of other services (including WIC and state health services like adult rehabilitation and drug courts (hugely successful, btw)) and when the federal money became available he famously decided to not ask for any until certain members of the state legislature threatened mutiny. So yes, the stimulus bill saved a number of jobs the state of Idaho could have saved itself if the rainy day fund had been tapped. Does that mean the money wasn't needed?