About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox & Friends report on "overstated" stimulus job impact ignores that errors were corrected a week ago

October 29, 2009 1:12 pm ET — 17 Comments

In an October 29 report, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade said that an Associated Press investigation showing that some of the jobs reported by federal contract recipients as having been created due to the stimulus were inaccurate, which Kilmeade said "makes the [jobs] numbers suspect." But, while Kilmeade reported that the "White House says it's aware of the problems and working to fix them," he ignored that the White House has claimed that the majority of the errors identified in the AP report had already been corrected prior to the report running and that the job data posted represent "just 2% of Recovery Act spending."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Fox report: Stimulus job "numbers suspect"; ignores that most of identified errors had been fixed

From the October 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: A Colorado company said it used stimulus money to create 4,200 jobs. In fact, it was fewer than 1,000. A Florida company said it used stimulus money to save 130 jobs; instead, it gave pay raises to employees. The Associated Press says companies across the country are routinely inflating what they've done with their stimulus money. No one's telling the truth anymore, and that makes the numbers suspect. In tomorrow's big report on the impact of the stimulus, the White House says it's aware of the problems and working to fix them.

overstated

Four of the five errors AP identified had already been corrected

White House: "Of the five specific problems cited by AP, four had already been found and fixed." The AP report identified five different specific instances in which businesses reported inaccurate job numbers. From an October 29 White House press release (the italized text indicates a direct quote from the October 29 AP report):

"A Colorado company said it created 4,231 jobs with the help of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan. The real number: fewer than 1,000."

FACT: The very first example AP cites was already corrected more than a week ago as part of the twenty-day review process and the change is in the final data posting being prepared for Friday. This item represents over 3,000 -- or 60 percent -- of the "nearly 5,000 jobs" AP uses to try to make its argument.

[...]

Officials at East Central Technical College in Douglas, Ga., said they now know they shouldn't have claimed 280 stimulus jobs linked to more than $200,000 to buy three semi-trucks and trailers for commercial driving instruction, and a modular classroom and bathroom for a health education program.

FACT: This item -- which represents less than .06 percent of the total jobs reported was also already corrected more than a week ago as part of the twenty-day review process and the change is in the final data posting being prepared for Friday.

[...]

The San Joaquin, Calif., Regional Rail Commission reported creating or saving 125 jobs as part of a stimulus project to lay railroad track. Because the project drew from two pools of money, the commission reported that figure twice, bringing the total to 250.

FACT: This item -- which represents less than .04 percent of the total jobs reported - was also already corrected as part of the twenty-day review process and the change is in the final data posting being prepared for Friday.

[...]

The Toledo, Ohio-based Koring Group also received two FCC contracts to help people make the switch to digital television. The company reported hiring 26 people for each of the two contracts, bringing its total jobs to 54 on the government's official count. But the company cited the same 26 workers for both contracts, meaning the same jobs were counted twice. The job count was further inflated because each job lasted only about two months, so each worker should have counted as one-sixth of a full-time job.

FACT: This item -- which represents less than .01 percent of the total jobs reported -- was also already corrected as part of the twenty-day review process and the change is in the final data posting being prepared for Friday.

Obama administration: Companies were given until October 30 to correct job numbers

Recovery Board chair said prior to data's release, "[W]e don't expect perfection"; recipients can correct errors in their reports. On October 13, prior to releasing the first batch of stimulus job data, Recovery Board chairman Earl E. Devaney noted that "there will be errors and omissions in some reports" and stated:

For those of us at the Recovery Board, October is a pivotal month. For the first time since our founding in February under the Recovery Act, we will be posting data from recipients of Recovery funds on our website, Recovery.gov. As many of you no doubt know, we built this new, state-of-the-art website so that we could provide you, the American people, with an inside look at how your money is being spent. On Oct. 15, therefore, we will be posting data from companies and other entities that received direct contracts from federal agencies. Two weeks later, on Oct. 30, we will disclose data from recipients receiving grants and loans.

We don't expect perfection in these initial data reports. Indeed, there will be errors and omissions in some reports, and still other recipients may not even bother to submit information. Given our focus on accountability and transparency, we are urging federal agencies to work closely with recipients to correct any problems in their reports. Agencies can point out errors, omissions or other problems, but only recipients can make changes in their reports -- and, then, only during a brief period. Over time, with so much public scrutiny of the data, we expect improved reporting; the number of recipients will grow and more information will be displayed on Recovery.gov.

White House: "[R]ecipients were given through October 30th to clarify and confirm their data." An October 29 White House press release repeatedly stated: "All recipients were given through October 30th to clarify and confirm their data -- including those linked to federal contracts. Any conclusions drawn about the quality of that small portion of data as it was posted two weeks ago are simply premature."

New York Times reported the jobs "come from a small slice of a sliver of the $787 billion stimulus program." On October 15, when the data was released, The New York Times reported, "The new jobs reported Thursday come from a small slice of a sliver of the $787 billion stimulus program: the roughly $16 billion worth of stimulus contracts that were awarded directly by federal agencies, of which about $2.2 billion has been spent so far." Recovery.gov shows that the $16 billion in federal contracts awarded, of which around $2.2 billion has been paid out, is a relatively small portion of the direct stimulus spending for contracts, grants, and loans. The following graphics were posted on Recovery.gov [accessed 10/23/09]:

Recovery.gov chart Recovery.gov graphic

Funds for contracts, grants, and loans are one portion of stimulus package. Recovery.gov states that the $787 billion stimulus package is comprised of three categories: 1) tax benefits, for which $62.5 billion has been paid out as of October 8; 2) contracts, grants, and loans, for which $47 billion has been paid out; and 3) extensions of entitlement benefits, of which $63.7 billion has been paid out:

jobcount6-

Job data from stimulus "grants and loans" not yet available. Recovery.gov states, "As of Oct. 10, 2009, there were 112,219 total awards, 8% were federal contracts, 91.7% were grants, and 0.3% were loans." The job data from recipients of "grants and loans will be added on Oct. 30," according to the website.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Cheney2012 (October 29, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
        10
      If they were corrected a week ago, why wasn't the White House out front informing us of that fact?

      TRANSPARENCY

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (October 29, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
        7  
        Try reading the entire article. The companies were given until 30 October to correct numbers.
        On October 13, prior to releasing the first batch of stimulus job data, Recovery Board chairman Earl E. Devaney noted that "there will be errors and omissions in some reports"

        how is that for "out front"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 29, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
        6  
        Because the final report is due on the 30th, and we WERE told that the numbers might be adjusted before that final report came out.

        I swear. Do you even try to read these things before you comment on them?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NG_Officer (October 29, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
          5  
          Why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (October 29, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
          4  
          AP looked at the data 3 days after it came out. Then they failed to look at the updated data about 10 days later before they published their story. If they had looked at the updated data, they wouldn't have still seen about 90% of these duplications and errors in the data.

          It's called a FAIL.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 29, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
        3  
        Whatever Cheney. How many jobs has the private sector created since February?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 29, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
        2  
        Whatever Cheney. How many jobs has the private sector created since February?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (October 29, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
      2  
      These right wingers are a joke. Lost in all this bloviation is the fact that, while job creation may be coming along more slowly than anticipated with the stimulus, you see nearly zero subsidy free, private sector job creation.

      We should be asking conservatives to defend their market fundamentalism in the face of so much private sector failure and inability to get the economy back on track.




      Report Abuse
      • Author by libertycop (October 29, 2009 8:45 pm ET)
        2 3
        Come on roundhouse, party-line? I know you are better than that.
        We actually should be asking ourselves, what system created a nation of prosperity in 233 years? Government and industry have become entangled through regulation both necessary and unnecessarily onerous, fiscal and monetary policy and political-corporate cronyism. It's impossible to get through the day without being able to point out a plethora of ways local and Federal government impact our lives both negative and positive. The so called private sector isn't so private if look at it honestly. What industry for the passed 30 years wasn't lousy with regulation, taxation and government control? I can't name one. And I'm not suggesting that a certain amount of regulation isn't necessary, but have you ever run a business, employed a single employee? It's easy to claim private industry a "failure" in this event and ignore the damage that government policy, political policy, and government regulation have played. While I agree the finger pointing from the "conservatives" is counter productive, this is hardly now, nor has it been for quite some time a "free market", private sector economy. Perhaps short term stimulus of the economy by the Government-Industrial complex at this point is needed, but I think it's done so we don't actually feel the real pain of our Governments failed policy. You see, right now, you and I type back and fourth on electricity driven luxury items called computers complaining about how bad things are. We use our cell phones, turn on lights with the flip of a switch, go to our refrigerators for a cold drink, drive our cars which were all inventions or innovations from the "failed" private sector.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 12:10 am ET)
          3  
          Your posts like this, all one paragraph, aren't readable. Then to top it off, you don't think things through - it's like you vomit words and sentences that don't give the reader any idea what point you're trying to make.

          Massive fail.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by libertycop (October 30, 2009 12:35 am ET)
              4
            "Your posts like this, all one paragraph, aren't readable" - DellDolly
            So don't read them.

            Then to top it off, you don't think things through - DellDolly
            Please be more general.

            Sometimes I'm a little lazy on style, DellDolly.
            Actually working for a living and supporting my fellow citizen is tiring.
            Sorry I've failed in your opinion, *sniff*.
            Now I have to go read 1990 pages if you'll excuse me.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (October 31, 2009 3:46 am ET)
              1  
              What? If your posts aren't readable, you're okay with us not reading them?

              Then why are you posting them? Do you need the keyboarding practice that desperately?

              I mean, come on, there's NO DOUBT that you post stuff so that others will read it. Get a clue.

              So, like I said, "Your posts like this, all one paragraph, aren't readable."

              And no, it's not my job to help you craft a post. Figure it out on your own. Figure out your own failings. Think things through before you vomit words onto these pages. That truly IS pretty descriptive.

              And stop with the false friendliness. I'm not here to make friends. Neither are you.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by libertycop (October 30, 2009 12:53 am ET)
              4
            Oh; if you want me to sort out and explain my post more clearly (I realize it's a bit concentrated), let me know.

            Initially I figured you're really not all that interested and just decided to point out how smart you think you are (or how stupid you think I am?) So in case I'm wrong; let me know.
            Have a great day, DellDolly.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 12:58 am ET)
          3  
          Good to hear from you.

          My perspective is not party line at all. Except for a handful of Democrats like, Dennis Kucinich, and the Independent, Bernie Sanders, my perspective is not shared by the Democratic Party at large. The current Democratic Party is comprised mostly of corporatists. My perspective is purely that of an economic populist.

          However, we do agree, in as much that, we do not (I would argue that we never did) have a free market. If you look deeper, you'll see it wasn't the private sector alone that brought us electrification, the automobile or even the internet; it took heavy government investment, through subsidies, tax breaks and research and development, not to mention a strong public infrastructure to enable their proliferation.

          And yes, it is so easy to blame this recession on private sector failure and deregulation because they failed to behave as good stewards of the communities that supported them and they sucked off as much as they could for themselves in the name of the free market. They did so because nobody in government acted in a responsible manner and told them that low wages and predatory capitalism was destroying our economy. It's right there for all to see.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by libertycop (October 30, 2009 8:42 pm ET)
            1  
            As expected, a thoughtful response. You know I appreciate that you identify that you are an economic populist. It gives perspective to your posts.

            I think we have a common ground on two points; the corporatist nature of our government, and that we have probably never had a truly free market.

            As you have probably guesses I base my philosophy on individual liberty and strict Constitutionalism.

            I guess I don't feel that I have the right to a job. I get a job because someone has a need or desire for my services. How much I am paid is based on the value that I and the employer place on my talents or services.

            I don't care how much the business owner makes in profits, they take the risk, supply the start up capital and cover operating expenses, whatever is left over is theirs. I see no problem with that. Of course if you don't treat your employees well they won't stay long and you won't stay in business long.

            I suppose we differ in that I see a voracious Government as the problem and you see corporate greed as the problem. At least we both agree there is a problem.

            I would be interested to know what you believe the details of the economic collapse were. My understanding is that it was multifaceted event. Deregulated banks, bad mortgage loans, complicated derivative securities ("securities" there's an oxymoron), Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac.

            I have read that The Graham Leech Bliley Act contributed to the problem; and I've read that the problem predates the legislation as well. I'm only interested in the causes from perspective of being able to solve the regulatory issues; I wish the Government would focus on this as it wouldn't cost a dime and it would go toward solving the primary issue of the economy.

            "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

            Hope that made sense, a week of long days have me a little road weary.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by libertycop (October 30, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
            1 1
            Oh just as an aside, you do know that Fannie Mae required 40% of mortgage loans be sub prime? Does that make sense? 40% mandated high risk loans by a Government entity corporation (another term that should scare the heck out of us). Again I don't blame the "kids" I blame the "parents". If you let them run wild they will; especially if they have nothing to loose and everything to gain.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (October 31, 2009 4:11 am ET)
              1  
              That's not true what you say about 40%. And I know who probably told you that - the Wall Street Journal. But it's not true. They had to give about half of their loans to people with income above the average in the local areas, and about half to people with below average incomes. Just because someone has a below average income doesn't mean that they got a sub-prime mortgage though. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually targeted the least risky of all the loans being made to people with below-average incomes. In one year, they purchased about 40% of the sub-prime mortgages through their purchase of mortgage-backed securities. Other years, they purchased 20%. Saying that they required the mortgages to be sub-prime is a lie. At least 1/3 of the people in these categories who were sold sub-prime loans with toxic ARM's or balloon payments could have been sold regular mortgages, but they weren't. The people selling the mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were supposed to insure that those kinds of things weren't bundled in. They didn't.

              See, you claim you want to come here and have a fair and friendly debate, but then you throw out totally off the wall numbers, trying to blame Fannie Mae, when they had almost nothing to do with the financial collapse, and would be about 6-8th on the list of groups responsible for the collapse. And if you want to blame the 'parents', then you should blame HUD and the mortgage writers and the investors who stoked the feeding frenzy.
              Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.