{"id":171927,"date":"2010-01-12T12:30:39","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T17:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"tag:business.theatlantic.com,2010:\/\/3.33340"},"modified":"2010-01-12T13:29:05","modified_gmt":"2010-01-12T18:29:05","slug":"white-house-gives-up-counting-jobs-saved-or-created","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/171927","title":{"rendered":"White House Gives Up Counting Jobs “Saved or Created”"},"content":{"rendered":"

President Obama’s promise of transparency and quixotic ambitions for the 2009
\nstimulus has created or saved a lot more bad press than the White House anticipated.<\/p>\n

In January the White House promised to keep a running tally of stimulus jobs. One year later, beset by controversies, mini-scandals and major disappointments, the administration is nixing the cumulative counting in favor of a monthly tally of jobs associated with stimulus projects — even if the jobs weren’t in danger of being “lost” at any point.<\/p>\n

This does not look good.<\/p>\n

Consider the time line. In January 2009, Obama promised the stimulus
\nwould “save or create” (a slippery phrase that’s descended into self-parody<\/a>)
\n3.5 million jobs. Early indications revealed the actual pace of job
\ncreation was a third of that. The money was plentiful, but too slow.
\nDespite billions of dollars, unemployment soared above the
\nadministration’s jobless projections without<\/i> the stimulus. Then came the scandals: One report<\/a> found jobs in made-up Congressional districts, jobs counted (or
\ndouble-counted) that simply never existed, and — most colorfully — a
\n$890 shoe order that allegedly spawned nine new jobs.<\/p>\n

Michael Grabell explains how this new rule will change the numbers:<\/p>\n

\n

With tens of thousands of recipients now scrambling to meet the Jan.
\n15 deadline for the next report, the new guidance could significantly
\nchange what the public sees. Some examples:<\/p>\n