Dec 03 2009

Job Summit Will Not Address Fictional Jobs “Created or Saved”

As a corollary to my previous post I must note what will also not be addressed at the WH jobs summit today – all those fictional jobs ‘created or saved’:

The Obama administration claims that its $787 billion economic stimulus program has “created or saved” 640,329 jobs across the country, with more to come. That breathtaking figure includes 24,448 jobs in Illinois.

Alabama housing authority officials said that a $540,071 grant would create 7,280 jobs. They were off by only 7,266 jobs, the Birmingham News reported.

ABC News reported that Moore’s Shoes & Services in Campbellsville, Ky., claimed nine jobs were created from an $890 grant for nine pairs of work boots for the Army Corps of Engineers. Yes, $890. No zeros are missing.

The California State University system supposedly saved 26,156 jobs — but that’s more than half the university’s statewide work force.

The Wall Street Journal found hundreds of reports that, taken together, artificially inflated the stimulus claims by at least 20,000 jobs. College work-study money? Jobs saved! Money spent to give some folks modest raises? Jobs saved!

The government’s Web site,, reported that 30 jobs were saved or created in Arizona’s 15th Congressional District. Except Arizona has only eight congressional districts. Memo to Washington: There is no 99th Congressional District in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all, officials claimed jobs were created in more than 400 phantom congressional districts, according to ABC News.

It’s all fiction folks.

2 responses so far

2 Responses to “Job Summit Will Not Address Fictional Jobs “Created or Saved””

  1. Toes192 says:

    I hired GuytheGuy to help “create” a gravel walkway in the front roundabout … and… “Build” the foundations for our new greenhouse that we “bought” from a company that “imports” them from a “small business” in Israel…
    Jobs created, Toes… WD… Pat pat pat…
    ps… Where’s my peace prize…?

  2. fiatlux says:

    In looking at the source of funds for many of the studies that Mann et al did, one finds various US government and foundation grantors.

    I am not familiar with the grant process but I can imagine foundations often rely on the “scientific community” when reviewing whether they are getting a good return but doesn’t the biggest funder, Uncle Sam, have any responsibility or mechanism for quality control?

    Here, we see that the more blatant the manipulation and the less the transparency, the faster the taxpayers’ money is shoveled out the door. Can someone enlighten me on who protects the taxpayer?