Massive Economic Study: Obama Stimulus Bill Cost 1 Million Private Sector Jobs in Ohio

This is not from any light-weight folks, this is linked on Dr. Greg Mankiw.

Mankiw wrote one of the most respected series of econ college textbooks used in universities today.

Dr. Mankiw:

Tim Conley and Bill Dupor have a new paper on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (that is, the Obama stimulus bill).  Their empirical findings:

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

Powerline comments:

Earlier this week, they reported their findings in a paper titled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled.” The paper is dense and rather lengthy, and requires considerable study. Here, however, is the bottom line:

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

So the American people borrowed and spent close to a trillion dollars to destroy a net of more than one-half million jobs. Does President Obama understand this? I very much doubt it. When he expressed puzzlement at the idea that the stimulus money may not have been well-spent, and said that “spending equals stimulus,” he betrayed a shocking level of economic ignorance.

Obama’s EPA: Jobs Don’t Matter

Daily Caller:

The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.

“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.

Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles.

Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.

That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.

The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.

Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.

“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs…  and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”

Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

You can look at the 2010 Budget Chart Book HERE. Just click on the tabs near the top of the web page for the categories and then you will see sub-categories allowing you to examine almost any meaningful statistic imaginable.

Be sure to look at this chart right HERE to find out just who it is that have been paying taxes and you will see that the top 10% of wage earners paid 71% of federal income tax. But there are two very important thing you should know about this stat.

Starting in 2008 and more so today, this number is going down and more tax burden is being transferred away from the wealthy and investor and production classes. Why? because when you have a government that is this active and when you have this level of economic and regulatory and fiscal uncertainty those who can invest or take risk park their money so it is not taxed or they invest it in a safe place like China, where the leaders have some economic common sense. As a result the tax burden is transfered to the middle class, working poor and small businesses.

To understand how this works in detail please see the following link – Video: How Tax Cuts Work

The other thing you should know is that for the super rich and the very well connected it does not matter what the wage earner (small business) tax rate is, because they have loopholes in the 60,000 page tax code made for them and in the case of those like Teresa Kerry or George Soros much of their income is defined as either non taxable or not taxable at the wage earner rate. Now what party has been saying that we need to have a flatter and more simple tax code to help avoid this problem?