Thread: New jobs: zero. Good thing the stimulus is working!

Obama Lays a Goose Egg New jobs: zero. Good thing the stimulus is working!

By JAMES TARANTO
186 Comments
many links on this post

"The U.S. economy added no [net] new jobs in August--the worst showing in a year--as employers cut back hiring and trimmed work hours of existing employees," the Los Angeles Times reports. "The nation's unemployment rate in August stayed at 9.1%, as more people reported that they found part-time work, many of them because that's all that was available."

Next week President Obama will speak to a joint session of Congress. As we noted yesterday, the president reportedly will ask Congress to pass a new "stimulus," though he won't call it that, because the last stimulus didn't--oh, wait. "One More Time: The Stimulus Worked."

That's the headline of a piece by Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic. "Republicans and their allies keep saying the Recovery Act"--the official name for the so-called stimulus--"didn't work," Cohn accurately observes. But the "experts," he tells us, know better.

.The Congressional Budget Office "this week released a new economic projection and, in so doing, confirmed its earlier finding that the Recovery Act succeed [sic]. . . . As of June, the agency says, between 1.0 and 2.9 million more people are working because of the Recovery Act." If you count people who are working more hours than they otherwise would, "the Recovery Act's net impact was the equivalent of between 1.4 and 4.0 million additional full-time jobs."

Well, that settles it. It's science! Or is it? After all, you can't exactly run a controlled experiment to find out what the economy would have looked like had Congress not yielded to the president's request and blown some $800 billion on the so-called stimulus. How exactly does the CBO come up with these numbers?

The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney points us to the answer in the CBO report: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) based its estimates of the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on information from various sources: macroeconometric forecasting models, general-equilibrium models, and direct extrapolations of past data."

Can we have that in English, please? Yes we can, courtesy of Reason's Peter Suderman:

The reports aren't based on a detailed measurement of real-world output. Instead, they're based on measuring the input (how much money was spent), and then using models to project how big the multiplier effect has been. Measuring spending and modeling output means that you can believe the CBO when it says that the stimulus turned out to be more costly than expected, but you should remain wary about any claims made using the "real-world effects" side.

Indeed, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has explicitly made this point, agreeing at a speech earlier this year that that [sic] "if the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis."

So if in reality no jobs had been created, or only 10 jobs had been created, then the CBO's reports would not reflect those numbers. It's using the models that projected the stimulus would create lots of jobs to report that the stimulus did create lots of jobs.

To put it more concisely, the CBO is merely asserting a tautology: If the stimulus worked, then the stimulus worked. Cohn mistakes this for empirical evidence that the stimulus worked. And if the reports of Obama's plans are accurate, the president will call for more so-called stimulus on the strength of this so-called evidence.

It is as if President Bush had asked Congress to declare war with Iran because the war with Iraq was a success if the war with Iraq was a success. If Obama goes through with this, he will deserve to be drowned out with laughter.

Two Papers in One!
Hey, New York Times editorialists, could you keep it down? You were groaning so loudly last night that you kept us awake, and we live all the way across town from your offices.

On the other hand, our interrupted sleep notwithstanding, the resulting editorial, titled "Oh, Grow Up," helped us start our day on a cheerful note. Yes, the Times editorial board is even crankier than usual, thanks to the kerfuffle over the scheduling of President Obama's long-dreaded jobs speech. Here's a sample:

Whenever we think Washington couldn't get more cynical or more craven, it proves us wrong. So we will resist the temptation to say it's hard to imagine anything more base than the food fight over President Obama's planned speech to Congress.

The contemptuous reaction from the House speaker, John Boehner, to the president's request to address a joint session next Wednesday--the day Congress returns from its summer recess--was appalling. No matter how he feels about Mr. Obama personally or politically, there can be no excuse for his lack of respect for the office, to which he is second in the line of succession. And it was distressing to watch President Obama fail, once again, to stand up to an opposition that won't brook the smallest compromise.

The Times does, however, stumble into the truth in the final paragraph: "The political spectacle and the final result only served to further underscore the president's weakness." This got us to wondering, though: Did the Times editors anticipate that Obama might be so weak?

No, they did not. We went back and read the Oct. 23, 2008, editorial endorsing Obama, and its final paragraph praised Obama for having demonstrated "strong leadership." Since Obama had never led anything, on what basis did the Times make that claim? Most of the editorial concerned Obama's liberal policy positions. It's hardly surprising that the ultraliberal Times found them agreeable, but they tell us nothing about his strength as a leader. The editorial also predictably denounced John McCain, and especially Sarah Palin, but that isn't a case for Obama.

The argument for Obama's "strong leadership" pretty much came down to this:

Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems. . . .

Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He's been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife's love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans' patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states "pro-America."

So Obama's having "withstood" harsh and sometimes unfair criticism was sufficient to establish his strength. Today's editorial, however, makes Republican opposition to Obama out as an excuse for his weakness.

But note this sentence from the 2008 editorial: "We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems." The events of the ensuing three years have indisputably proved the Times's belief wrong. Obama did not have the will and ability to forge a broad political consensus. By that test, which the Times set for him, he has failed.

We're going to go out on a limb and predict that a year from now, the Times will endorse Obama's re-election anyway. And of course it is entirely reasonable that they would: By the Times's lights, a liberal president with no leadership ability is vastly preferable to a conservative one, especially if he is an effective leader. But it will be interesting, and potentially quite entertaining, to see how the Times's 2012 endorsement grapples with the incumbent's abject failure to live up to the expectations of its 2008 one.

Seeing Red at the White House
The White House is "furious" at Speaker John Boehner for asking the president to delay his much-dreaded jobs speech, Politico reports:

"It is a big deal that the House said 'no' to the president from our end," a White House source with intimate knowledge of what took place between the House and the president told me Thursday. "This confirms what we all know: They will do anything in the House to muck us up."
According to the report, the president's men were "well aware" that their originally proposed date conflicted with a Republican debate:

Yet the White House did not see this as an obstacle. "With all due respect, the Politico-MSNBC debate was one that was going on a cable station," the White House source said. "It was not sacrosanct. We knew they would push it back and then there would be a GOP debate totally trashing the president. So it wasn't all an upside for us."

It could've been worse for the White House, we suppose. At least Clarence Page is a newspaper columnist rather than a presidential adviser. On MSNBC's "Hardball" yesterday, Page offered this brainstorm:

Frankly, if I was Obama I would have had my speech on the first night and say "Hey, if you guys don't want to show up, you know, that's on you." Let the cameras pan around to the empty seats and see what kind of message that will send to the public. But that's me, that's not Obama. I sometimes wonder why he's not more of a Chicago-style politician because here in Washington, his old role model would have done something that like and he would have won.

Yeah, that would have been great, if Obama were a dictator and actually had the authority to commandeer the Capitol. Or would it have been? Wouldn't Obama have looked even more pathetic speaking to a half-empty room?

USA Today reports that the speech will be at 7 p.m. so that it will be finished before the kickoff of the NFL season opener between the Packers and Saints. And look at this USA Today report from last March:

In case you're wondering why President Obama's speech on Libya began Tuesday at 7:30 p.m., consider this basic television fact:

Prime time starts at 8 p.m.

On Monday nights, that means Dancing With the Stars on ABC, the second-most-watched program on television. . . .

So rather than take on the entertainment world--or his presidential predecessors, for that matter--Obama's team opted for a 7:30 p.m. start.
Given that Obama schedules his speeches around pro football and "Dancing With the Stars," it takes chutzpah to complain that he has been treated disrespectfully by a coequal branch of government.

If Obama Has Lost Cenk Uygur, He's Lost Middle Anatolia
"[President Obama] doesn't realize he's getting pummeled. He thinks this is all still a genius strategy to capture centrists by compromising on every single little thing. He is not trying to put on an appearance of weakness to lull his opponent into a false sense of complacency. He doesn't even realize he is being weak. He's the one with the false sense of complacency. As he's getting knocked around the ring, he thinks he's winning. . . . There is no secret, brilliant strategy. This White House is in a bubble. They think they're winning when the roof is about to cave in."--Cenk Uygur, Salon.com, Sept. 1

It's the TV's Fault!

"As I looked at the screen, I couldn't help thinking how diminished Obama looked and how thin his voice sounded. I wondered if there actually was something happening physically with him. So, I went back to a DVD I have of him speaking on election night 2008 in Chicago's Grant Park. . . . Viewing him now on TV in his promise-not-realized persona made me both sad for what might have been and angry for letting myself believe in the TV imagery of a night in Grant Park in November."--David Zurawik, Baltimore Sun website, Sept. 1

A Democratic Primary?
Ralph Nader "has a new model for challenging President Obama from the left in 2012," the Daily Caller reports:

Nader proposes to assemble a large group of Democratic candidates to take Obama to task on a variety of issues.

The press would ignore one lesser-known candidate, Nader told The Daily Caller, but an unorthodox "slate" of candidates would attract more attention.

"So you have to have several people of distinguished backgrounds--different distinguished backgrounds--run as a slate in various primaries so that he can't ignore someone who has a military-foreign policy background, environmental background, poverty-labor background. See what I mean?" Nader explained.

Commentary's Peter Wehner is also speculating about the possibility of a primary challenge to the president:

It remains unlikely--but bear in mind Obama is turning into a one man wrecking ball when it comes to the Democratic Party. He is already the architect of the worst mid-term election for a party since right around the mid-point of the last century. So we know what his potential for damage in 2012 is.

As the economy continues to sink, so will the president's poll ratings and the fortunes of his party. And so in more and more Democratic hearts, and increasingly on more and more Democratic lips, you will hear the soft whisper, "O Hillary, Hillary! Wherefore art thou Hillary?"

This doesn't mean much: Nader and Wehner are not exactly Democratic partisans (Nader being one of the few non-Republicans who say "Democrat Party"). But with Obama on a downward trajectory, no obvious correction in sight, and a few months to go before the first nomination contests, a primary challenge may not be out of the question after all.

Which brings us to an intriguing observation from reader Tim Magee: "Could the President be brought down by a single poll? How about Obama vs. Hillary Clinton among Democrats? I think she could win that poll, and I don't think Obama could recover, regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton ran."

Let's find out. Somebody please commission that poll.

Out on a Limb
"Tree Sitter in Berkeley's People's Park Defies Order to Climb Down"--headline, Berkeley (Calif.) Voice, Sept. 1

We Blame Global Warming
"Pelosi Blames GOP for Job Numbers"--headline, TheHill.com, Sept. 2

With DNC in Mind, City Bans Carrying Urine, Feces
"Elmer Smith: On Labor Day, Don't Forget the Movement"--headline, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 2

Can't the President Afford Some New Socks?
"Oomf . . . 10 Year-Old Socks Obama With Questions on His Awful Jobs Record"--headline, TheGatewayPundit.com, Sept. 1

Amber Alert for Anita Perry
"Jon Huntsman Says He May Not Have Rick Perry's Texas Rangers, but He Has His Wife"--headline, Houston Chronicle website, Sept. 1

Two Gargantuan Gay Guys in One!

â–*"I tried to get on a Southwest Airlines flight last year, and it didn't go too well. I had just done a podcast for the International Bear Rendezvous, which was a big gay get-together for dudes who look like me. It was a fantastic feeling because I was in a room with people who for the first time were sexualizing me."--Kevin Smith, Newsweek, Aug. 28

â–*"I boarded the plane, and the stewardess showed me to the only available seat on this flight. It was between two petite women. Then a lady from the front desk told me to get off because there were 'safety issues.' . . . I was at the top of Google News for three days, and all the articles said I was fat. It was horrible. It was like being publicly naked."--Kevin Smith, same article
Life Imitates the Movies

â–*Perch Perkins: "What inspired you to build the a second Krusty Krab right next to the original?" Mr. Eugene H. Krabs: "Money!"--dialogue from "SpongeBob SquarePants," 2004

â–*"Why Red Iguana Built Red Iguana 2 Right Next Door"--headline, New York Times website, Aug. 30, 2011

If She Charged Him, It'd Be Illegal
"NM Officer Having Sex on Car Hood Won't Be Charged"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 1

Questions Nobody Is Asking

â–*"Where Is Milwaukee's Avant-Garde?"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 1

â–*"NBC News to Huntsman: Are Perry and Bachmann Too Far Right to Beat Obama?"--headline, BigJournalism.com, Sept. 1

â–*"Do Canadians Lack the Productivity Gene?"--headline, Globe and Mail website (Toronto), Sept. 2

â–*"Surgeon General: Is Your Hair Making You Fatter?"--headline, Charlotte Observer, Sept. 2

â–*"I Cheated on You . . . Will You Marry Me?"--headline, Puffington Host, Sept. 2

Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking

â–*"Romney Money Man on Bachmann-Jewish Story: 'No' "--headline, Washington Post website, Sept. 1

â–*"Why You Must Visit Albania"--headline, Puffington Host, Sept. 2
Dog Covers Up Goldsmith, Bloomberg--Now That Would Be News
"Goldsmith Cover-Up Dogs Bloomberg"--headline, Crain's New York Business, Sept. 2

It's Always in the Last Place You Look

â–*"Runaway Cow Tracked Down in Germany"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 1

â–*"3,000 Pair of Panties Found Along Ohio Highway"--headline, KSPR-TV website (Springfield, Mo.), Sept. 1

Too Much Information
"Space Junk Problem Is More Threatening Than Ever, Report Warns"--headline, Space.com, Sept. 1

Help Wanted
"Calif Professor Wanted for Leading Gang, Drug Ring"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 2

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control

â–*"Tenn. Police: W.Va. Man Streaked at NASCAR Event, Had Wild Raccoon in His Car"--headline, Charleston Gazette, Aug. 31

â–*"Woman's Breast Implant Explodes During Paintball: New High-Impact Sports Risk?"--headline, Los Angeles Times website, Sept. 2
Breaking News From 1966

"Finally, World Trade Center Rises From Ground Zero"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 2

News You Can Use
"Life on an Oil Field 'Man Camp'--Not for Everyone"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 2

Bottom Stories of the Day

â–*"Afternoon Fix: Hagel 'Disgusted' by Republicans"--headline, Washington Post website, Sept. 1

â–*"Yet Another (Failed) Obama
'Jobs Plan' "--headline, Forbes.com, Sept. 1

â–*"Sinead O'Connor Reveals Sexual Frustration on Web"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 31

â–*"Ed Schultz EXPLODES at Marco Rubio: 'Phony,' 'Coward,' 'Stupid' "--headline, Puffington Host, Sept. 2

The Downside of Literacy
Next Thursday is International Literacy Day, so it's fitting that President Obama will be reading a speech that night. But literacy is not an unmixed blessing. Being literate means having the ability to read truly awful books. One such book, according to Meghan McCain, is the new volume by Christine O'Donnell, last year's unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate from Delaware:

I don't find any pleasure in Christine O'Donnell's book and book tour spectacularly bombing. What I am taking from O'Donnell is one big fat warning sign that all Republicans should be aware of moving forward.
O'Donnell is the result of an epidemic within politics today. She's a politician that can gather international media attention by using cheap tricks and publicity stunts with little to no substance or experience to back it up. This is a woman who at one point was getting so much attention, that Saturday Night Live cold opened an episode with a parody of one of her campaign ads.

An even more scathing review comes from Leon Wolf:

It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot. This being a professional website for which I have a great deal of respect, I searched for a more eloquent or gentle way to accurately phrase the previous sentence--but could not find one.
It is important to know that I was repeatedly tempted just to put the book down, eat the relatively small price I paid to download it to my Kindle, and silently curse Hyperion for publishing this book. After all, they are the ones taking advantage of this particular idiot's fifteen minutes of fame by exposing her idiocy for the entire world to see. By all appearances, they didn't even have the decency to hire someone to edit the book.
Oh wait, that isn't O'Donnell's book, which is titled "Troublemaker." The author of "Dirty, Sexy Politics" is . . . Meghan McCain, a 26-year-old whom nobody would have heard of except that she is the daughter of an unsuccessful presidential candidate from 2008. If it's not racist to say so, her disparagement of O'Donnell is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Follow us on Twitter.

Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.

Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michele Schiesser, Michael Segal, Hillel Markowitz, T. Young, Russell Hilleke, Joe Perez, Bill King, John Sanders, Ray Hendel, Saralinda Potts, Dan Tracy, Rod Pennington, Joseph Kaufman, Andrew Koenig, Karen Rothe, Ethel Fenig, David Hallstrom, Tony Mecia, Marion Dreyfus, Bob Wukitsch, Cameron Graber, Rex Pilger, John Bobek, Joel McLemore, Alan Kent, Bryan Fischer, Mike Glasgow, Rick Knowles, Kevin Burns, John Alder, Andrew Lippman and Bruce Goldman. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopOpinion

"They cried 'JOBS! JOBS! when there were no JOBS."

RELATED

California Employment Level Sinks to Record Low as Fewer Women Find Jobs
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-249206.html

Just 55.4 percent of working-age Californians, defined as those 16 or older, had a job in July, down from 56.2 percent a year earlier and the lowest level since 1976 ..