About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Rove falsely claims Biden's stimulus numbers "don't match up"

July 19, 2010 12:34 pm ET — 20 Comments

Karl Rove falsely claimed that Vice President Biden's "own numbers don't match up" since Biden said the Recovery Act has saved 3 million jobs, while Recovery.gov lists less than 700,000. In fact, those figures reflect only a portion of the Recovery Act spending, and more detailed economic analyses conducted by the Obama administration, private analysts, and the nonpartisan CBO conclude that the stimulus has raised employment by between 1.4 and 3.6 million.

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

Rove claims Biden's "own numbers don't match up"

From the July 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

ROVE: I love it, he says we've got 3 million jobs. On his own website, he says the recovery bill has funded, that is to say has paid money out to affect 634,000 jobs. Not created them, not saved them, but just funded them. And so, where's -- you know even his own numbers don't match up.

In fact, Rove is confusing recipient reports with more detailed economic analysis of Recovery Act

Recovery.gov: 682,370 jobs directly funded by stimulus in first quarter of 2010. Recovery.gov states that recipients of stimulus dollars have reported that 682,370 jobs were directly funded by the Recovery Act during the first quarter of 2010. Recipient reports are collected every quarter and calculate the number of jobs created or saved "by taking the total number of Recovery Act funded hours worked in a quarter, and dividing it by the number of hours of a full-time schedule in a quarter as defined by the Recipient." According to Recovery.gov:

The recipient reports contain information on projects for the specific quarter for which they were filed. Although the overall spending figures are cumulative, the jobs figures are not and represent only the number of full-time equivalent jobs that were funded by Recovery money during the quarter covered by the latest recipient report.

CBO: Recipient reports reflect "abut one-sixth" of Recovery Act spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated in its May estimate of the Recovery Act impact that "Recipients reported that ARRA funded almost 700,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs during the first quarter of 2010. Such reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law's impact on employment in the United States." CBO stated that "a more comprehensive analysis" is required since:

First, some of the reported jobs might have existed in the absence of the stimulus package, with employees working on the same activities or other activities. Second, the reports filed by recipients measure only the jobs created by employers who received ARRA funding directly or by their immediate subcontractors (so-called primary and secondary recipients), not by lower-level subcontractors. Third, the reports do not attempt to measure the number of jobs that may have been created or retained indirectly, as greater income for recipients and their employees boosted demand for products and services. Fourth, the recipients' reports cover only certain appropriations made in ARRA, which encompass about one-sixth of the total amount spent by the government or conveyed through tax reductions in ARRA during the first quarter; the reports do not measure the effects of other provisions of the stimulus package, such as tax cuts and transfer payments (including unemployment insurance payments) to individuals.

CEA: There are no recipient reports for many parts of Recovery Act. As the Council of Economic Advisers explains in its quarterly report on the Recovery Act, the job impact of stimulus tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits is not captured in the recipient reports:

It is obviously not possible to identify specific jobs associated with the Recovery Act for the types of stimulus, such as individual tax cuts and extended unemployment insurance benefits, that support spending on a broad range of goods and services produced by a wide range of firms. Largely for that reason, there are no recipient reports associated with the components of the Recovery Act that consist of tax reductions, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, and with many categories of spending, including unemployment insurance benefits and aid to states under the temporary Medicaid FMAP increase.

Job impact estimates range from 1.4 million to 3.6 million, according to CEA. CEA estimated that as of the second quarter of 2010, the Recovery Act, "has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." The CEA report also included a chart of independent and private analysts' estimates of the Recovery Act's impact on employment:

AP: "[G]rowing body of independent economic analysis suggests the law has boosted jobs." A July 14 Associated Press article about the White House's stimulus figures stated that while "exactly how many jobs" the Recovery Act has created "is a matter of dispute," "a growing body of independent economic analysis suggests the law has boosted jobs and kept people off the unemployment line."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by historygeek001 (July 19, 2010 12:35 pm ET)
      4  
      Why isn't KKKarl in prison?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (July 19, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
      7 4
      Hey, last week, RightON was confused about the CBO's evaluation of the Recovery.gov's numbers, thinking that their inability to determine an exact number of jobs created due to financial stimulus funding actually meant something.

      Could it be that RightOn and Rove are one in the same?

      The estimates of job creation are just that - estimates. Those estimates, however, are based upon good scientific research and on respected statistical analysis. It's not some hocus-pocus just because they don't have an exact number. They have a reliable and accurate range they use. It's not irresponsible to quote a range. It would be irresponsible to NOT provide some idea of what the job picture looks like, and this is done just like they evaluate other immeasurable(not able to measure exactly, down to the exact number of people) things, like GDP and monthly unemployment
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 19, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
        4 9
        Sue, Just to clarify your misreprenstation, from the CBO below, the horses mouth so to speak; You are more than free to laud the CBO when it's politically convenient, I look at them with skepticism no matter what.

        Recipients report that about 640,000 jobs were created or retained with ARRA funding through September 2009. Such reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the laws impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports). First, it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (July 19, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
          8 1
          Oh please. Yet another, "there's no way to know" argument? And one being used to counter data that clearly shows the stimulus has had a positive effect?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 19, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
            1 8
            I only repeated what the CBO says, take up your complaint with them.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 19, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
            3 7
            I only repeated what the CBO says, take up your complaint with them.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MidnightWriter (July 19, 2010 2:07 pm ET)
              7 2
              Nope. I'll challenge you on it since you presented it in your post.

              Regardless, I've been hearing and reading variations on this same, "for all we know" argument quite a bit recently. It seems to be framed around the all too reluctant admission that, yeah, the economy is getting better, but "for all we know" if might be the same, or even better, the stimulus had never been passed, and we had just left things the way they were.

              Of course, what's being ignored by those who make that "argument" is that the economy was falling apart. Leaving things the way there were would essentially been the same as having sliced open our wrists and just saying, "Oh, just leave it be. It'll heal itself," instead of doing something to stop the blood from gushing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 19, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
                3 5
                Huh? Obviously there is a disconnect somewhere here. I have said in previous posts that I don't blame Obama for doing what he did. When he took office our economy was headed off a cliff, so I agree with your last paragraph. That is not a bone of contention with me, as I have said.

                What is is relying on the unimpeachable accuracy of the CBO and what the spinners tell us, the rosiest picture possible. I don't need either, facts and unemployment figures and jobs and other factors speak for themselves.

                It's never as good as those in charge tell you, and it's never as bad as those out of power want us to believe either. So for MMfA to criticize anyone who questions the WH spin on this is just petty partisanship. It deserves to be questioned, look at their own words for proof of that.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MidnightWriter (July 19, 2010 3:24 pm ET)
                  4  
                  A better argument and a valid one. Much, much better than, "there's no way to know." Dude, we've butted heads on a few things. You certainly didn't expect me to let you get away with something as weak as that, did you?

                  Still, I'll back MMFA's putting their sights on Rove over this. Obviously, from the table posted above, Biden ran with the rosier numbers. Our good friend Karl took only a selected sliver and used that to run with the now trite, "there's only been government jobs created," nonsense.

                  The bottom line is Rove presented this offering the spin that the CBO report showed the stimulus had no effect on jobs, when, in fact the report showed it had. If he had honestly said, "The report said it could be as high as 3 million, or it could be as low as 1.4," no one would be arguing his points. But he didn't, so here it is.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 19, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
                    3 3
                    Fair enough. But to me it's just more partisan party loyalists battling their own numbers game, to feed their political egos.

                    Not that they all don't do it, because they do. I just think to go off slamming the one who offers up their own spin, to what degree can be argued I guess, is counterproductive and rests on very shaky ground.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by lipreader (July 19, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
                      4  
                      We all know that Rove has "THE math". Why question him? Just because he is wrong about everything?

                      If Rove is "Bush's Brain" then Bush is truly a moron.
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (July 19, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
          5  
          I don't completely disagree with you but it's sort of like saying the death toll in Iraq is not accurate because some of those people would've died even if there hadn't been a war.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (July 19, 2010 10:37 pm ET)
          2  
          Yeah, I already debunked this on the last thread you tried this out on, and I also had already refuted it on this thread.

          Loser paid troll that you are, you dishonestly try to mislead people at any opportunity you get.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by peebs755 (July 19, 2010 1:07 pm ET)
      2  
      Karl Rove... got his facts wrong... that can't be right! (heavy sarcasm)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 19, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
      3  
      I wonder what would happen if Rove ever told the truth? He'd probably burst into flames or something.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by union (July 19, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
      4  
      Awaiting Rove's statement, "Duh, I read it wrong," any moment now.

      ...And still waiting...


      Report Abuse
    • Author by Space-Pedestrian (July 20, 2010 8:33 am ET)
        1
      C'mon Karl, unemployment would be like 15% if not for Stimulus.
      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.