White House Changes Stimulus Jobs Count Rules

White House Changes Stimulus Jobs Count Rules

(1) Zero jobs to be counted as "saved" or "created jobs.

example:

When Chrysler reported a $53 million contract to build 3,000 government vehicles last fall, it listed zero jobs because it used existing employees to fill the orders. But under the new rules, those workers would have counted. Anyone receiving a contract, grant or loan is required to file a report each quarter detailing how the stimulus money was used and how many people were put to work.

Obama will tell you existing jobs were saved. Zero jobs last fall but Jan 15 Chrysler jobs "saved" will be counted. Zero Chrysler jobs were created.

(2) Counting pay raises as jobs.

example:

The Associated Press found that some recipients were counting pay raises as stimulus jobs. That will be OK under the new rules, but only if they are counted as fractions of a job.

Obama will tell you a job was "created" or "saved" because of stimulus money used for pay raises.

example:

(3) Layoff notices for workers counted.

The California state auditor rapped the state corrections department (PDF) for reporting 18,000 jobs instead of just 5,000 officers who had received layoff notices before stimulus money came in. But under the new guidance, the corrections department may have been right because stimulus money is helping it make payroll for all its employees.

Obama will tell you 18,000 corrections dept jobs were "saved" by obama.

These are FAKE numbers. Obama is cooking the "books" and must believe Americans will buy the BS. Some will because they have "sold their soul" to obama and they don't care what he says or does. It doesn't matter if obama lies about jobs or invents jobs.

Unparalleled level of deception.

Jobs created or saved’ has simply lost all its credibility.

The statistic called "saved jobs" does not exist. Ask any statistician.

.........................................................................................
Controversial From the Start
.........................................................................................

When the first stimulus reports came out in October, the White House faced a fusillade of criticism about the accuracy of its jobs count (640,329, to be precise). Journalists found recipients who overcounted and recipients who undercounted. The government’s stimulus watchdog said the data was “riddled with inaccuracies.” A top Democrat called the mistakes “ludicrous.” And at a congressional hearing, Issa trotted out the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “propaganda.”

To address these concerns, the new OMB guidance attempts to simplify rules that were leading recipients of stimulus money to interpret the jobs formula in multiple ways.

The formula is essentially division—the number of work hours spent on stimulus projects over the number of hours in a typical full-time schedule.

“Successful use of the formula is dependent upon correctly inputting the appropriate number of hours in the numerator (or ‘top’ of the formula) and the denominator (or ‘bottom’ of the formula),” the guidance reads.

Seems easy enough. Ten people working full-time equals 10 jobs. Ten people working half-time equals five jobs.

One would expect a contractor engineering a bridge to be able to do long division. But the reality turned out to be a lot more complicated.

First, recipients had to make a subjective decision: Without stimulus money, would this worker have a job? Even if the worker had a job, is there more work because of the stimulus—for example, an actor in a play that can now run for three weeks instead of two?

Then, suppose you have 50 workers who worked for seven months, 20 workers who worked for 1 1/2 months and 10 workers who worked for five months but only part-time. How do you figure that?

The new guidance even provided a series of examples reminiscent of high school math problems: If J. Adams worked 520 hours in the quarter and T. Jefferson worked 260 hours, how many equivalent jobs were created or retained?

Part of the problem is that there’s no accepted standard for counting jobs, said Mary Foelster of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

“It’s not so much calculating jobs; it’s trying to have evidence that a job was retained,” she said. “What is the client going to point to to say, ‘I was going to lay someone off, but now I’m not?’”

The numbers are inherently inaccurate because we’ll never know how many jobs would have been created or lost without the stimulus. To do so, we’d need a control group, say giving stimulus money to North Carolina but withholding it from South Carolina.

A more accurate way to account for the effect of the stimulus is to look at the unemployment numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics or by some sort of model like the White House Council of Economic Advisers uses.

Labor reported Friday that the economy continued to lose jobs in December, for a total of 2.7 million since the stimulus was passed in February. The White House council says that number would be 600,000 to 1.5 million higher without the stimulus.

Bogus white house numbers statements can't be backed up with numbers.


85,000 jobs lost in Dec 09. Unemployment at 10%

Despite Obama’s promise to track “every dime,” it was never feasible for the administration to count every job attributed to stimulus money. More than $450 billion is being spent on things like tax rebates, food stamps, unemployment checks, Social Security and health insurance. Economists say all of those eventually lead to jobs as families spend more at the grocery store, the health clinic or the shopping mall. But it’s nearly impossible to do a head count of those jobs.

The cumulative jobs tally posted on Recovery.gov dealt only with money going out in a contract, grant and loan—about a third of the stimulus package.

Theoretically, if every recipient followed the new guidelines, analysts might be able to use the jobs-per-quarter figures to come up with a cumulative total at the end of next year. But because the new and old numbers are counted differently, they would have to throw out any jobs that were created or saved from February through September 2009.

Throw out the jobs created or saved from feb to sept. They are fake numbers anyway. Just like obama a FAKE.

Neither the White House nor the board that runs Recovery.gov has any plan to produce a cumulative number.

Obama doesn't plan to produce real numbers on unemployment. Just fake numbers. Obama supporters still "cling" to fake hope and change obama style.


........................................................................................
Obama cyphering abilities mimics Jethro Bodine when it comes to counting unemployment.
.........................................................................................

Jethro is the son of Jed's cousin, Pearl Bodine. He drove the Clampett family to their new home in California and stayed on with them to further his education. The whole family boasted of Jethro's "sixth grade education" but nevertheless felt he was a bit of an idiot. Jethro was simply naive in the first season of the show, but became incredibly ignorant and pompous as the series progressed.

He often showed off his cyphering abilities with multiplication and "go-zin-ta's", as in "five gozinta five one times, five gozinta ten two times," etc. After that, he decided to go to college. He managed to enroll late in the semester at a local secretarial school due to his financial backing and earned his diploma by the end of the day because he didn't understand what was going on in class and was too disruptive.

Is obama a type of jethro? It would seem so if you are to believe what obama says about jobs "saved" or "created"

Jethro was simply naive in the first season of the show, but became incredibly ignorant and pompous as the series progressed.

Obama was simply naive his first year in office, but became incredibly ignorant and pompus as his tenure contimued. :)