Eldridge Economics Part 2 — The Stimulus and the CBO

March 3rd, 2011 by Lee Eldridge

Today let’s discuss the stimulus package, and the predictions made by the CBO. And in particular, how supporters of the stimulus bill continue to cite the CBO for writing that the legislation created millions of jobs. This will all tie into Eldridge Economics. Eventually.

First let’s go back to the beginning. In late 2008 during the election, the economy was stumbling. We were headed into a recession. Politicians from the left and the right agreed that something needed to be done. The President developed his economic stimulus plan. It was originally estimated that the bill would cost $787 billion. Two of the President’s key economic advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, famously predicted that the stimulus bill would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. There were critics of the bill.

Paul KrugmanHardcore Keynesians: There were those on the far left, including the New York Time’s chief economist and columnist Paul Krugman, who advocated for a $2 trillion stimulus package. Remember, according to Keynesian Economics, the more money the government spends, the more the GDP will grow, and the more jobs are created.

Free Market Economists: There was a group on the right, like some of  the economists at the Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily, who warned that the stimulus package would hurt the economy and make things worse. That we would be better off doing nothing than passing the President’s bill. Critics also explained that the bill was more about big government spending than economic stimulus. Here’s one example from the WSJ.

The CBO: And then there was the CBO somewhat in the middle. Using their Keynesian model, they predicted that the stimulus bill would indeed create millions of jobs. But they ALSO warned that by the end of 2011, there would be little NET job growth. In other words, we were going to spend nearly $1 trillion to end up at the same place a year and a half later.

President Obama said that the stimulus was the right bill at the right time. It was necessary, and must be passed immediately. Congress obliged and passed the bill.

So what happened? Things got worse. Unemployment escalated towards 10%, and has continued to hover around 9.5% for months.

The President and the White House did what all politicians do. They engaged in revisionist history. They had to admit they were wrong to prove that they were right. How were they wrong? Because the economy was worse than they thought. How were they right? Because their stimulus plan created millions of jobs and kept us from a depression.

How can they do this with a straight face? Because Keynesian Economics says that government spending creates jobs. And to admit that it did not would be to admit the Keynesian Economics is wrong.

But the CBO Says That It Created Millions of Jobs!
Defenders of the White House continue to quote the CBO who wrote as late as this last November that the stimulus bill “Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise.” The quote is from this CBO report.

The problem with citing the CBO? They don’t research and attempt to determine whether or not the bill actually created these jobs. So how did they come to their conclusion? Because they continue to plug the numbers into the same Keynesian formula. The CBO uses multipliers to predict how government spending increases GDP. They have different multipliers for different ways the money is spent. Brian Riedl from The Heritage Foundation (a rightwing organization) has explained this in detail. Here’s a link to one of his articles.

With the CBO’s most recent report they adjusted their predicted cost for the bill to be $814 billion. They plug the government’s expenditures into their model. And they predict the growth in GDP, and predict how many jobs are created FROM the growth in GDP.

So in other words, the stimulus bill lives in a vacuum. If the model predicts that the bill will create two million jobs, and the economy loses four million jobs, then their conclusion is that without the bill the economy would have lost six million jobs. Or if the economy creates five million jobs, their conclusion is that the economy would have only created three million jobs without the stimulus bill. So no matter what happens in real life, they continue to predict that the stimulus bill creates jobs.

If you read the entire report, they explain their methodolgy: “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.”

They go on to explain, “However, the reported number of jobs funded is not a comprehensive measure of ARRA’s effect on overall employment, or even of those provisions of ARRA for which recipients’ reports are required. The actual impact could, in principle, be significantly larger or smaller than the number of jobs reported.”

So who was right? The economists from the WSJ and IBD made the most accurate predictions, though this doesn’t inherently prove that the stimulus bill was bad, or that it made things worse. The economy does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot plug the same numbers into the same formulas and expect the same results when the economic environment is constantly changing. And there are times that government spending will NOT grow the GDP and create jobs, despite what Keynesians would like you to believe.

Next we’ll discuss the role of government in our economy.

Tags:

4 Responses to “Eldridge Economics Part 2 — The Stimulus and the CBO”

  1. Bobby Says:

    Wow. Great post Lee. I assume you know that Obama and the dems aren’t even the ones who wrote the original stimulus bill? The bill was largely based on a paper written by the Apollo Alliance called the Apollo Economic Recovery Act. The Apollo Alliance was co-founded by Van Jones, previously one of Obama’s czars, and an extreme leftwing activist and revolutionary.

    http://apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/clean-energy-serves-as-foundation-for-proposed-reinvestment-bill/

  2. Bobby Says:

    Learn more about Van Jones here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPKqfCX3VCg

  3. Lee Eldridge Says:

    Hey Bobby. As always, thanks for reading.

    Probably not accurate to say the dems didn’t write the bill, though yes I was aware that parts were likely influenced by Apollo and other organizations.

    You can probably split the bill into three sections: temporary tax cuts that I think totaled about $200 billion (don’t quote me and I didn’t google it), assistance (or bailout) for the states, and direct federal spending (much of which coincides with green energy recommendations from groups like Apollo).

    Though who wrote it and exactly where the money went is largely besides the point of where I’m going with these posts. Whether these portions of the bill were EVER intended as “stimulus” is worthy of its own debate. And will have to wait for another day 🙂

  4. Why Liberals Love Keynesian Economics | Lee Eldridge Blogs on Sports and Politics Says:

    […] wrote two articles about Keynesian Economics back in March (Keynesian Economics Insufficient and The Stimulus and the CBO). I won’t rehash what we’ve already covered, but there is a core belief among […]