Hannity repeats false calculation of job creation cost
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity asserted that the economic stimulus bill would amount to spending at least $217,000 for every job created, echoing a false calculation from a press release issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee and repeated by numerous media figures. In fact, by calculating the per-job cost by dividing the estimated total cost of the stimulus package by the estimated number of jobs created -- and thus suggesting that the sole purpose of that package is to create jobs -- these media figures ignored other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and education, health, and public safety investments.
During the January 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, host Sean Hannity asserted, "If, on the high side, we reached their job-creation number of 4 million, that's going to cost $217,000 to get that job," echoing a false calculation from a press release issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee and repeated by numerous media figures. In fact, by calculating the per-job cost by dividing the estimated total cost of the stimulus package by the estimated number of jobs created -- and thus suggesting that the sole purpose of that package is to create jobs -- these media figures ignore other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and education, health, and public safety investments.
As White House senior adviser David Axelrod noted in a January 18 appearance on ABC's This Week: "We're not just spending money to create jobs; we're investing money to strengthen this economy. We're investing in areas like energy independence. We're investing in creating the classrooms of the 21st century for our kids to give us the kind of education system we need. We're investing in computerizing the health-care records of this country so that we can reduce costs and improve care. These things will pay long-term dividends to this country."
Moreover, economists, including Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, have presented another criticism of the claim. In a January 24 post on The American Prospect's Beat the Press blog, Baker wrote: "The Republicans have become fond of saying that President Obama's stimulus package will cost $275,000 for every job created. The media have been typically derelict in simply reporting this number without making any assessment to evaluate it -- as though readers in their spare time are supposed to determine whether it is accurate or not." Baker continued:
Okay, let's do the reporters' work for them. First, where do the Republicans get this number? They divide the the $825 billion cost of the stimulus by 3 million jobs that President Obama had originally pledged.
Their arithmetic is right but both numbers are wrong. First, the projections from the Obama team is that their package will create 4 million jobs, not 3 million. Furthermore, it is important to note that this over 2 years, not one year.
The cost is also wrong, or at least misleading. If we assume that the stimulus will work as planned, then it will boost GDP by approximately 1.5 times the amount of spending or $620 billion a year. If GDP rises by this amount, then it will translate into roughly $155 billion a year in higher taxes/lower spending than if we didn't do the stimulus. This is money that should be subtracted from the cost to the taxpayers.
So, if net out the increased revenue from the growth generated by the stimulus we end up with a 2-year cost of $515 billion which will generate roughly 8 million job-years. That comes to about $65k per job year, less than one-fourth of the Republicans' number.
Similarly, in his January 25 New York Times column, Krugman wrote, "As the debate over President Obama's economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan's opponents aren't arguing in good faith," and that "[t]he true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts."
From the January 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Well, the problem is, the Heritage Foundation -- and we've been dealing with this now for the last, you know, two weeks on the program. It is the $6,700 of debt per family in America --
DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): Right.
HANNITY: -- right off the top.
MORRIS: Right.
HANNITY: They're going to spend more in a week than they spend usually in a year, Dick.
MORRIS: That's right.
HANNITY: And they're going --
MORRIS: It's incredible.
HANNITY: If, on the high side, we reached their job-creation number of 4 million, that's going to cost $217,000 to get that job.
MORRIS: Yeah. And we're not going to do that.















Hannity is a liar...he even won an award for lying.
It appears he is going for 2 straight years of winning the "Misinformer of the Year" award.
I wonder. Has anybody calculated how many jobs were created as a DIRECT result of George (Numbnuts) Bush's tax cuts? How much did each of those jobs cost?
Just curious.
you have it all messed up here. bush didn't 'create' any jobs. he created job losses. and THOSE cost us money. but i think no one has done the numbers on how much each of those lost jobs cost us.
Not exactly. However, I did calculate the following:
Papa Hannity
Food - $174,400
Clothes - $7,500
Beer - $1,404
Education - $10
Mama Hannity (nee "Gert")
Food - $135,350
Clothes - $14,300
Liquor - $5,800
Bail - $50/each incident (number of occurences unknown)
Sean (through age 28)
Food - $210,035.99
Clothes - $47
Helmet - $30
Miscellaneous - $3,274
Total cost of creating Shyawn - $552,200.99. If ya wanna talk wasteful spending...
i think you're low on the clothes expenses. suits with big, manly shoulder pads? those are expensive.
If I'm not mistaken Bush spent a few trillion dollars to move unemployment up 3 percentage points.
Everyone knows that the only way to create jobs is by cutting taxes.
Tax cuts, good for what ails you.
Economy failing? Cut taxes.
Kids doing poorly in school? Cut taxes.
Diagnosed with cancer? Cut taxes.
Favorite team not in the playoffs? Cut taxes.
Not getting any from spouse or significant other? Cut taxes.
Country at war? Cut taxes, or go shopping. One or the other.
I forgot that we also have to shop.
Nothing says shared sacrifice more than a trip to Wal-Mart.
Or the auto dealer.
Remember post 9/11, the "Make America Strong" sales that they were all having?
Another question.
How many jobs did Sean Hannity create with his tax cut? How many jobs did Rush Limbaugh create with his?
Hannity has the easiest job on the planet- no research required, just wait for the light to go on and then start spouting any nonsense you want with the authority of an expert. Never use words like "maybe" or "I think" or "its possible." Be absolutely, positively CERTAIN about everything to say, whether you are declaring that the New Deal caused the unemployment rate to rise or that Barack Obama gets his daily marching orders from Bill Ayers.
And once you've nailed down a talking point like "if this bill is passed it will cost $217,000 for every new job created," pound away at it until it becomes accepted fact. After all, if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes true, right?
By the way, it takes four years of engineering school plus 5 years experience in the field to become eligible for the title " expert ' and even then, you must author papers or sign technical drawings on the subject. Plus be employed in the field of expertise. To claim a flame -out caused physical damage to the engine without noting what component of the engine gets damages only highlights his ( Bill O'Reilly's ) ignorance and Geraldo Rivera's. i saw the B747 testing the 777 engine suffer a flameout at BOEING field on T/O and after shutting down fuel flow, they got the beast restarted and continued an uneventual test flight. With a little bit o googluing he might have prevented his public proliferation of ignorance.
Plus pass a rather rigorous test.
absolutely. But I have worked with many who do not have the stamp and knew the subject from lab tests and just plain smart guys. I met many on the 777 program.
Very true, there are a lot of us out there that don't have the stamp but could still be labeled P(ractical)E(ngineer). But the stamp seems to be necessary for credence as an expert.
The Night school College of Uremia and Blintz Drive Through.
never mind the added revenue from copies of the product you designed that is being sold.
Jeez, I'm more valuable than I thought! Thanks
they sold many 757's with my part (s) in them.
Maybe we should go ask for a raise?