• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • White House Aide Contradicts Obama on Stimulus II

    We noted yesterday that White House aides were already backtracking on President Barack Obama’s promise that his $50 billion infrastructure plan “will not only create jobs immediately, it’s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul.” Specifically a “senior administration official” told Politico: “This is not an … immediate jobs plan.”

    Well The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank apparently has been talking to the same “senior administration official.” Here is how he reports the exchange between reporters and the Obama White House:

    Q. What is your estimate of how many jobs would be created?

    A. We don’t have a jobs estimate for that.

    Q. What are you thinking in terms of timing?

    A. I don’t want to make a prediction about timing.

    Q. So just your best-case scenario . . . when do we start to see jobs created as a result of all this?

    A. In 2011.

    Q. And are we talking January 2011 or December 2011?

    A. Over the course of 2011.

    Milbank then adds: “Obama himself must not have been briefed, because he told the crowd in Milwaukee that the plan would ‘create jobs immediately.’”

    The President is scheduled to give another speech outlining another economic stimulus today at 2 PM. We’ll let you know if he gets his facts straight.

    Heritage analyst Ron Utt has written extensively on the false hope of infrastructure spending job creation:

    Infrastructure Bank Proposals Rely on Backdoor Deficit Spending
    Learning from Japan: Infrastructure Spending Won’t Boost the Economy
    More Transportation Spending: False Promises of Prosperity and Job Creation

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to White House Aide Contradicts Obama on Stimulus II

    1. dannyroberts Phoenix says:

      i think by now every one is very aware that Obama and that gang in the white house have no clue as to what is going on in the real world,we will not let our great country be diminished by these lost souls. Obamas

      time has come and gone! the fish tank is really starting to smell, it's time to clean it!

    2. Bill, ID says:

      The administration tells us that a billion dollars spent on *additional* infrastructure provides about 47,000 jobs. Let us assume for a moment that to be true.

      We have in the neighborhood of 14.8 million unemployed people. So, if we spent 315 Billion dollars on infrastructure we would have "full unemployment", right?

      But, we all know 100% employment is neither realistic or desirable. Well, our unemployment rate is around 9.6%, right? Shall we say cutting that in half is a good place to be? That would mean we only need to "provide jobs" to 7.4 million people. According to the Administration (and Congress critters), we'd only need to spend, well lets round it up to 160 Billion dollars.

      Yet we have spent around a trillion, close to three times as much. Yet we are losing jobs. And they want to spend more. IF their figures on spending created jobs at the rate they claim we'd have no unemployment problem. IF their figures were accurate we should have added some 37,600,000 jobs for our 800+ billion. Even at half that we should have "full employment". Even if it was divvied up over 2 years we should have no unemployment concerns.

      Now, yes there are good reasons why the numbers don't hold out. And every one of them is a reason why the government spending money to "create" jobs is a bad idea from pretty much every angle. The position that we can do that effectively (never-mind morally whether we should) is literally indefensible.

      The only outstanding question that might stand a chance is whether we have that much work that needs done. According to what we've been told for what, half a decade or so it would cost us over 1.3 trillion dollars to just fix what we already have.

      For the amount we've spent we could have taken half the unemployed people, spent 24k on teaching them to do roadwork, bought them a car, and "provided a job" for them. And we'd be well on our way to the "clean bill of health" for our infrastructure.

      Yet, again, this is not what has happened, or is going to happen.

    3. Pingback: Limestone Tiles – Natural Material For Your Floor « Crystal Shade

    4. Pingback: Spring Jewelry Guide « Discount Chanel Bags

    5. Pingback: Greenhouse Designs – Small Greenhouse Kits | interior-exterior-design.com

    6. george-Tempe, AZ says:

      As iis self-evident, the tax-payer will have less money to spend with the higher tax rates than with lower tax rates; but, that is not the only consequence of taxation. As government ratchets up the tax rates, tax-payers will have even less money. Taxpayers with less spendable income, i.e., “after tax dollars,” will have diminished purchasing power. Demand for all products and services wanes. Reduced demand forces businesses to reduce staff to match the lower levels of demand. People lose their jobs, companies go out of business, and prosperity falls. The more government tries to “help” by taking more money from those who are still working, to give to those who are not working, the worse the problem gets. Of course, for awhile, government will have more money to hire more bureaucrats to “eat of our substance.”

      Conclusion

      In short, we cannot escape this fiscal malaise, by “stimulating” the economy. Instead, to avoid more tragedy and travesty, the public must come to the knowledge that government spending always carries a cost. Government cannot spend until it has taken; and governmental taking carries a very high cost. For some items government provides, we are willing to pay the price. However, because government can only add to the net cost of production, we cannot afford to let government take on more obligations than it absolutely needs to fulfill its “enumerated” powers and we cannot afford to let government tax more than it needs to provide those constitutional obligtions..

    7. Bobbie says:

      Zero tolerance for government leadership failure to communicate with mutual understanding to the people they're suppose to be representing!!!!!! "That's not what he meant…" " that's not what she said…" Wonder how many hours have been wasted and the continuing destruction will cause because of intended miscommunication?

      No wonder government can be so ignorant to what WE MEAN! They don't even know what they mean. Zero tolerance for American government! America deserves NONE OF THIS GOVERNMENT!!!!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×