Statistics Show Stimulus Package Results Have Gone From Bad to Worse

March 27, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (22)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

All the attention being paid to the healthcare debate has sort of pushed the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--also known as the stimulus--off the front page.

It's a shame really, because the latest employment figures--real unemployment figures--show it is still failing to deliver as promised. According to a table put together last December by the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, payroll employment declined everywhere except for North Dakota and the District of Columbia in the nine months since the stimulus had been signed into law.

As I wrote at the time, "It is not just that the $789 billion package has not had the effect the White House promised it would; it's that it may actually have been counterproductive, actually lengthening the recession by effectively taking money out of the private economy, where it could have been used to create jobs and for investment purposes." 

On Friday, the committee released an updated version of that chart, which compares the White House's original projections of state-by-state job creation to the actual change in state payroll employment through February 2010 as measured by the U.S. Department of Labor. It shows that things have gone from bad to worse, with Alaska and D.C. now the only places to post job gains. 

It's not too much of a stretch to believe that, with D.C. being the only place to consistently post job gains--no matter how meager--that the only thing stimulated by the Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been the government. 

Tags:
economy,
economic stimulus,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (22)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Bill Hedges of MO, you really should read the Moody's testimony to the government regarding the stimulus bill. Tax cuts are an incredibly inefficient way to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Ironically, one of the absolute best (and counter-intuitive) ways that studies have shown to stimulate the economy is to give more money (or benefits, same thing) to the unemployed.

When the average affluent American is given money by the government, history has shown that they generally either save it or invest it in an economic bubble, neither of which stimulates the economy. Money given to the unemployed or the poor, however, is immediately returned to the economy. People with money *may* want to create jobs, but everyone *needs* to eat. More people buying food creates jobs more surely than anything.

In numbers, for every dollar the government gives to the affluent, ~0.38 dollars of economic stimulus is generated. For every dollar given to the poor or the unemployed, ~1.70 dollars of economic stimulus is generated. Economic stimulus creates jobs, not money stagnating in the bank accounts of the affluent, and money spent on extravagances doesn't reach the pockets of the working class either. Unless, of course, you really think those yachts are built in the US.

How much further disproof do you need of the myth of "Trickle-Down" economics? It's a myth the rich are using their money to make into a truth because the only people it benefits are them. Look at our current situation - post-stimulus studies have shown that the stimulus money has wound up going disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans. Business stats show that layoffs are up, as are CEO salaries and bonuses, which some companies have been shown to pay for by laying off more employees.

After the stimulus, the affluent are out of the recession, but the middle class is still desperately struggling, the poor are worse off than they started, and the economy as a whole is still a total mess.

Temporary tax cuts, by the way, stimulate the economy by 1.02 dollars for every dollar spent. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent? ~0.35 dollars for every dollar spent.

The problem with the current tax system is that having high taxes in high tax brackets doesn't hurt small businesses. It hurts small businesses and small business owners that save or keep money they should be investing in their business. Under the Bush tax cuts, there is no tax incentive for any business execs to invest in their company to keep in a lower tax bracket. Such incentive, creatable with high tax brackets, gives companies a reason to create jobs. Right now, they spend less in taxes by not spending and not hiring. How the heck do the Bush tax cuts help people who want jobs?

Robert of MA 11:46AM December 20, 2010

There are 3-4 million small businesses in this country that have more control over the economy than anything.The gov. can not stiffle them,it must encourage them to invest and expand.Higher taxes and more mandates does not do that.As higher taxes on us doesn't re:VAT tax.

We as a country where and are more prosperous when there is and was a smaller goverment.Not all of our bosses are villians.I don't know about you,in my case,if my boss(co.owner)doesn't make money I'm not getting a raise.

Hunter of WI 10:17PM March 29, 2010

As does yours!

Mitchell of NC 6:17PM March 29, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement