Oh dear! What will Obamaphiles say or do now? No less than a (supposedly non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), better known as the “stimulus,” is a long-term drag on our economy. It concluded that the stimulus created fewer jobs than expected and hindered private investment.
The stimulus may have saved or produced 700,000 jobs (far fewer than the 3.5 million jobs the Obama administration estimated and promised), and “will reduce output slightly in the long run – by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016,” says the CBO.
Also, a CBO study released in February, 2011, says that each job saved or created cost $228,055 each. That figure was based on the CBO’s estimate of between 1.5 million jobs and 3.5 million jobs, something their latest report disputes. So if we take the CBO’s latest figure of 700,000 jobs, each job costs $1,124,285, using the $787 billion (original) figure, which the CBO now says has risen to $825 billion. Not bad work if you can get it! (Was my last remark snarky? It was meant to be!)
The CBO changed its model for the stimulus’ impact on the economy, and the new calculations show that the act did less than originally predicted. The CBO is now saying it’s possible that the stimulus had virtually no effect on the economy despite its massive expenditures.
Obama promised the stimulus would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers,” unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction,” and keep unemployment under 8%. What we really got was the worst recovery, if what we got can be called a “recovery,” since the Great Depression.
So I guess the pertinent questions are, “Why was all that stimulus money spent, driving this country further into debt?” “Why does Obama (and his economists that he selected and his administration) think the second stimulus he proposed will be any different from the first?”
No opinion, just (sourced) facts!