Conservatives like Sibby take predictable pleasure in citing increased unemployment as evidence that the stimulus package has failed. They further their schadenfreude by pointing out actual unemployment numbers have exceeded the overly optimistic predictions of job recovery cited by the Obama Administration at the beginning of 2009:
New York Times article I discussed this morning includes this graphic to demonstrate that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working:
Three independent companies—IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers, and Moody's Economy.com—agree that, thanks to the February stimulus, more people are working and more money is flowing than if we had followed the Republican line and done nothing. Three independent sources—heck, that's probably more non-WorldNetDaily sources than Sibby will cite all week.
Did Obama's people botch their guess on the jobs picture? Sure. They underestimated the magnitude of the problem President Bush left them with. If Obama's number crunchers had adopted a more accurate and dire interpretation of job trends, they'd have had an argument for an even bigger stimulus package.
What the Obama Administration didn't get wrong was the net improvement the stimulus package would bring. And remember: there's still three-quarters of the stimulus money coming.
But hey, Moody's and I could be wrong. Watch Moody's Mark Zandi debate Obama's economic policies with a bunch of other economic heavy hitters (and Eliot Spitzer?!) on Intelligence Squared.
A three-hoghouse morning - Hit a legislative reporter’s trifecta Wednesday morning! The House State Affairs Committee in the finest fashion of bipartisanship accepted not one but thr...
3 hours ago