Report: Obama to tell us some jobs are shovel-ready, after all
President Obama, late September 2010, to the New York Times: “[T]here’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works.
President Obama, about a year earlier (off the record to the Times’ David Brooks): “Shovel-ready jobs” don’t exist.
President Obama, June 13, 2011, at a meeting of his jobs council: “Shovel-ready was not as…uh…shovel-ready as we expected.”
CBS News, August 27, 2011, in a report on President Obama’s forthcoming plan to boost job creation:
The President wants to spend big on the nation’s roads and bridges, starting with a two-year, $109 billion spending package that’s been stalled between the House and the Senate — but which he argues — will put tens of thousands of people back to work quickly. (emphasis added)
How much is $109 billion over two years — and how much impact is it likely to have? Well, the 2009 stimulus has disbursed $20.9 billion toward infrastructure, with the number of jobs created as a result peaking at 30,597 in the third quarter of 2010, according to Recovery.gov. (It’s now at 23,109.)
How’s that working out for you?
Do you think the president will explain why the shovels are standing at the ready this time, or (my prediction) will he just act as if he never said all those things in the past?
Note: This post has been edited to correct the spending information from Recovery.gov.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
140 comments Add your comment
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
5:27 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @4:42 pm
Wrong question. The control does not have to be applied to be effective.
Gm
August 29th, 2011
5:31 pm
JD in Marietta
Your thinking is why Georgia is considered the backwood state of America, others states took the stimulas money and created jobs even your hypocrite redneck Perry took money, I tell you what lets see how many of these hypocrites tea party fakes line up to get government money to rebuild their homes.
I bet Sara,Hannity, Rush are not going to condem the tea party hypocrite for taking the money they will continue to spread hate against the President of the United States while there banks accounts get full from angery low self estem whites”””’
JDW
August 29th, 2011
5:34 pm
@Tiberius
“JDW, you can try to dismiss the success of the GOP CONGRESS by giving credit to everybody else, the but the FACT remains that Congress controls the budgetary process, NOT the President, and has for at least 50 years.
Any credit or blame on spending goes DIRECTLY to whoever controls CONGRESS.”
Yet again, completely and utterly false. The President starts the budget process by submitting an initial budget, Congress debates and may or may not change it, then the President either signs it or not.
The President exerts at least, and in my opinion more control than Congress because he defines the starting and to a large extent ending point. Congress has more control over some of the line items, but not the total amount of spending. In fact most if not all budgets end up almost exactly at the total the President started with and I can’t remember an override of a budget veto.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:35 pm
From The Boston Herald: “Obama’s uncle arrested in Framingham on drunken driving charge”
And you gotta love this quote from the story: “Obama Onyango told cops he wanted to “call the White House” after he was nabbed for OUI Aug. 24 after nearly plowing his SUV into a police cruiser.”
Yeah, call the White House guys!
Class act, these Obamas. The aunt gets government housing and then seeks “asylum”, while the uncle drinks and drives.
Meanwhile, the Prez and the Missus live it up on Martha’s Vineyard and don’t do jack-all about the country.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:41 pm
“The President exerts at least, and in my opinion more control than Congress because he defines the starting and to a large extent ending point.”
Which is why you’ll never understand the budgetary process, JDW, in your zeal to blame everything EXCEPT the Dems and this President.
Here’s some clarification on the process, JDW, since you clearly don’t know a thing about it. The President (usually – not in the case of this clueless President as evidenced by his budget being rejected by the Senate 97-0 earlier this year) consults with CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS about what can get through first. THEN he submits.
because CONGRESS isn’t going to do a thing with a budget they haven’t already given their blessing on as far as the main points are concerned.
“In fact most if not all budgets end up almost exactly at the total the President started with and I can’t remember an override of a budget veto.”
Because CONGRESS has controlled the process from start to finish.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:43 pm
“Wrong question. The control does not have to be applied to be effective.”
MarkV-speak for “Dang, he caught he again in another mistake”.
Common Sense
August 29th, 2011
5:44 pm
“For every dollar spent, $1.44 is returned to the economy…”
While this comment seems intriguing, the actual velocity of money in our economy is higher….
See the most recent Fed report:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/page12.pdf
The reality is that for each dollar taken out by the government and spent reduces spending that would have otherwise occurred. For the current velocity of money is higher than the 1.44 government gets when it is spending….
Imagine that.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
6:02 pm
The Idiot Messiah’s plan for long term economic growth? More regulation. Massive unfunded mandates, Higher taxes. Weakening private property protections.
Yeah, that’ll work!
Idiot.
Joe The Plumber too.
August 29th, 2011
6:04 pm
urkle’s uncle will be released from illegal alien detention because his nephew urkle thinks himself above the law. Wonder how many more illegal aliens this clown has living in the country, although I’m sure barry the boy blunder had no knowledge of criminal activities happening within his own family on his watch . What a joke this pretender in chief is.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
6:16 pm
@Tiberius
“The President (usually – not in the case of this clueless President as evidenced by his budget being rejected by the Senate 97-0 earlier this year) consults with CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS about what can get through first. THEN he submits”
HORSE HOOHEY, name one single President that created a budget in collaboration with Congress…not Duhbya, not Clinton, Bush 1 had a few discussions, Ronnie and Tip had a drink or two. Part of being President is controlling the agenda and not a single one will ever let that go.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
6:25 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @5:43 pm: MarkV-speak for “Dang, he caught he again in another mistake”.
I understand that any subtlety goes way over your head, but I am going to give it a try anyway. My response to your pronouncement, “Any credit or blame on spending goes DIRECTLY to whoever controls CONGRESS,” was to point out the simplistic inanity of it, not to blame Republicans for the current deficit, even though they do have an effective control of the Congress. The logical conclusion of your dictum is that if there is a divided Congress, nobody is to blame or to deserve credit. There is no effect of the past, no consideration of the future. All that matters is who at the time controls Congress. A simplistic inanity.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
6:25 pm
The TV just said that Obozo’s new economic adviser has experience with unemployment. That’ll come in handy later next year.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
6:26 pm
“This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite — I call you my base.” –Bush at the 2000 Al Smith dinner
Michael
August 29th, 2011
6:27 pm
Yes, several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth, or lead to increased consumption or higher employment outside of government. And to pay for these jobs, you have to borrow against future tax revenues, which in turn hurts future growth.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
6:29 pm
The Idiot Messiah’s plan for long term economic growth? Less regulation. Massive unfunded wars, lower taxes for the Corporate parasites, and oil parasites. Weakening private property protections.
Yeah, that’ll work!
Idiot (Psst this isn’t 2006!).
________________________________________________
Fixed that for you, buddy. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
“I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.” –Bush: Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
6:36 pm
Michael @6:27 pm: “Yes, several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth, or lead to increased consumption …”
Yes, I guess those people put the earned money under their mattresses instead of buying food, clothing and other necessities.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
6:45 pm
Same ole Andy.
Too partisan to make a coherent point.
You are missing something alright.
Patriotism.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 29th, 2011
7:16 pm
I didn’t realize that laying waste to your nation’s economy was considered “patriotism.”
liberals are weird, aren’t they?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 29th, 2011
7:28 pm
Check this out, so now the word is that the lamestream media hyped the hurricane so that the green weenie libs in New York could apply for federal disaster funds, money which will be taken from real victims in Joplin, Missouri.
liberals aren’t weird, they’re sick.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
8:10 pm
Lil Bushie Bailout: Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
—————–
Memory lane? That was your Idiot Messiah’s Monday morning!
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
8:26 pm
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:45 pm
I do not doubt the inherent difficulty of “identify[ing] and count[ing] each job created” by policies like the stimulus. Here’s what I do have a problem with: People who treat these simulations as the concrete, final word on the matter as opposed to an estimate.
+++++
Since a third of the stimulus was tax cuts and we have essentially been cutting taxing since 2001 what do you have beside conservative economics theory to show that tax cuts actually create jobs. Since 2000 are tax collection has dropped from 20.6% of GDP to 14.9 which is a 28% drop in taxes collected. Are net job creation since 2000 is -1,295,000.
Under Clinton tax collection went from 17.5% of GDP to 20.6 a 17.7% increase. There were 23,070,000 non-farm jobs created over that period..
I agree with you on people who use models as concrete but where is the evidence over the past 20 years on tax cuts actually creating jobs.
I don’t believe the stimulus worked along with the tax cuts that went with them.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
8:55 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:41 pm
“In fact most if not all budgets end up almost exactly at the total the President started with and I can’t remember an override of a budget veto.”
Because CONGRESS has controlled the process from start to finish
+++++
That is completely incorrect. The president does not have to sign the bill which I believe is the finish.
You Tiberius do not know the constitution.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
9:00 pm
Taxes as a percent of GDP increased after our President Bush’s tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003. And then Democrats stopped paying their mortgages.
And oh, by the way, tax revenue has exceeded 20% of GDP in one year since 1950. Your Idiot Messiah is spending 25% of GDP.
It’s the spending, stupid.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
9:11 pm
JDW
August 29th, 2011
5:34 pm
Yet again, completely and utterly false. The President starts the budget process by submitting an initial budget, Congress debates and may or may not change it, then the President either signs it or not.
++++
The President and Congress are co-equals in the budgetary process. Congress has to pass it but president has to sign it. More specifically the people on the appropriation committees are co-equals. Look at where the money goes. Notice John Mica getting his Rail to nowhere in Orlando. These congressman are very powerful and are the more senior members. However, the President has the ability to ensure his priorities are in the budget or cut from the budget. Different Presidents were better or worse at getting what they wanted. LBJ was very good at getting what he wanted even Republicans. Jimmy Carter was not even good at getting what he wanted from his own party. Both had their own party running congress.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
9:18 pm
“The logical conclusion of your dictum is that if there is a divided Congress, nobody is to blame or to deserve credit.”
Actually, MarkV, the LOGICAL conclusion is that they BOTH share blame and/or credit.
“That is completely incorrect. The president does not have to sign the bill which I believe is the finish.
You Tiberius do not know the constitution.”
Actually, Moderate Line, I know the Constitution better than you could possibly ever imagine. But we’re not talking about Constitutional processes here (where you’re already at a disadvantage), but with POLITICAL processes, of which you have been shown to be completely and utterly clueless. Weak Presidents (as we have had for more than 50 years) do not take on Congress, which is why there has been a dramatic drop-off of Presidential vetoes in the past 60 years over traditional highs. And those vetoes have almost always been overridden by Congress. In short, Presidents will always sign budget and spending bills, because they’ve already negotiated the big picture details before submission.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
9:18 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
9:00 pm
Taxes as a percent of GDP increased after our President Bush’s tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003. And then Democrats stopped paying their mortgages.
And oh, by the way, tax revenue has exceeded 20% of GDP in one year since 1950. Your Idiot Messiah is spending 25% of GDP.
It’s the spending, stupid.
++++
You repeat the same false information. Taxes collected as a percentage of GDP dropped in 2004. They never reached the level of 2000.
2000 20.6
2001 19.5
2002 17.6
2003 16.2
2004 16.1
2005 17.3
2006 18.2
2007 18.5
2008 17.5
2009 14.9
2010 14.9
Spending under Obama:
2009 25%
2010 23.8%
Spending under Reagan:
1981 22.2 -2.6
1982 23.1 -4.0
1983 23.5 -6.0
1984 22.2 -4.8
1985 22.8 -5.1
1986 22.5 -5.0
1987 21.6 -3.2
1988 21.3 -3.1
getalife
August 29th, 2011
9:27 pm
Funny Andy.
The suddenly fiscal cons say no to paying for any more disasters.
They want our country to fall apart.
Disband the gop.
@@
August 29th, 2011
9:32 pm
So he’s backed himself into a corner on three separate occasions.
There’s only four corners in a stall. He’s gonna try to shovel the manure one more time!!??!!
Lame.
There’s no helping Obama. He’s either getting lousy advice or he’s simply stuck on stupid.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
9:49 pm
@Moderate Line…”The President and Congress are co-equals in the budgetary process.”
In theory I agree, but personally I believe that the power to start the process and veto the results carries more overall wieght. Congress certainly has a great deal of power over the line items, and has squandered large sums on Ear Marks and other goodies. For that reason I support a line item veto, but neither party can get that passed.
buck@gon
August 29th, 2011
9:51 pm
MarkV @ 1:28,
Shallow?
I think that’s a plain whining.
What if George Bush said, “I think you’re doing a great job, Brownie,” regarding Hurricane Katrina? Oh, wait a minute. He DID say that. Weren’t the presses running non-stop to criticize his “handling” of the situation?
I don’t think it’s shallow at all. I think it is very LIKE the mass media to criticize Republicans in such ways.
Fair is fair, and we need to remember we are in campaign season. “Shovel-ready jobs,” and “focus like a laser on the economy” and his extravagant vacations ARE going to haunt Obama all the way out of the White House.
Count on it.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
9:56 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
9:18 pm
“The logical conclusion of your dictum is that if there is a divided Congress, nobody is to blame or to deserve credit.”
Actually, MarkV, the LOGICAL conclusion is that they BOTH share blame and/or credit.
“That is completely incorrect. The president does not have to sign the bill which I believe is the finish.
You Tiberius do not know the constitution.”
Actually, Moderate Line, I know the Constitution better than you could possibly ever imagine. But we’re not talking about Constitutional processes here (where you’re already at a disadvantage), but with POLITICAL processes, of which you have been shown to be completely and utterly clueless. Weak Presidents (as we have had for more than 50 years) do not take on Congress, which is why there has been a dramatic drop-off of Presidential vetoes in the past 60 years over traditional highs. And those vetoes have almost always been overridden by Congress. In short, Presidents will always sign budget and spending bills, because they’ve already negotiated the big picture details before submission.+++
The same person who said there are lies, damn lies and then statistics is pulling out a statistics to prove his point. Lol The number of vetoes. Where is the context. The President has the power of veto whether he or she uses it or not. How does his use of the veto prove or does not prove he does not have the power. If I see a guy 6′-9” am going to say well this guy is weak because he is never been in fight and won. No. He has never been in fight because no one wants to mess with the guy.
Just because a president does not use his authority does not mean he does not have it. They ALL had the same institutional power. Can anyone say LBJ was a weak president went came to getting the legislation he wanted. He had fewer vetoes because was able to get what he wanted without them. Was Andrew Jackson a weak president
20 Presidents have less than 20 vetoes(This is little misleading since some of these did not serve their full term) only two are in the 20 century. Only 4 Presidents had over 100 vetoes however, three of those where Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Truman. You point to three extreme examples of three presidents over a 30 year time period to show that contemporary presidents are weak using a statistics that really does not reflect their power.
A real reelection of power would be how many times they were overridden. Only 3 presidents were overridden more than 10 times. Truman, Nixon and Andrew Johnson. Only 6 since the Civil War have been overridden more than 5 times.
buck@gon
August 29th, 2011
10:00 pm
MarkV @ about 6:30,
When you create government jobs, you generally don’t create two things that people want. You create one: spending. In the private sector, when I sell you a car, you buy gas, you buy a garage and you begin economic activity (driving it) for your work and enjoyment that produces more and more.
When you sell the government a car, it gives it to its employee, purely as a benefit and insurance risk (because the recipient of a government car ususally has his own), and that employee does not create anything the economy needs or wants.
You might argue for public utilities (like water, sewer, fire and police), but I concede those. They are legitimate functions of government anyway, and also, water and sewer are fee paid items.
The guy at the welfare office, the CDC, the NEA or PBS who drives a k-car, usually is not the guy who always has something to do everytime he goes to work. Many hours of many days (if not all days entirely) are spent wasting time.
When an organization does not have to worry about generating its own revenue, and when middle management is only concerned with gaining more revenue next year, it’s amazing how inefficient the organization becomes. I’ve worked for the government and I know.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
10:06 pm
JDW
August 29th, 2011
9:49 pm
@Moderate Line…”The President and Congress are co-equals in the budgetary process.”
In theory I agree, but personally I believe that the power to start the process and veto the results carries more overall wieght. Congress certainly has a great deal of power over the line items, and has squandered large sums on Ear Marks and other goodies. For that reason I support a line item veto, but neither party can get that passed.
++++
I believe we are in agreement. LBJ was able to get medicare passed and that is essentially 12% of our current budget. Reagan was able to get large increases to defense spending. Bush II got his free prescription for the elderly. Clinton was able to get NAFTA through even though his own party did not want it.
I believe the way you stated it is very accurate.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
10:15 pm
buck@gon
August 29th, 2011
10:00 pm
MarkV @ about 6:30,
When you create government jobs, you generally don’t create two things that people want. You create one: spending. In the private sector, when I sell you a car, you buy gas, you buy a garage and you begin economic activity (driving it) for your work and enjoyment that produces more and more.
++++
The stimulus ship has sailed.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
10:58 pm
buck@gon @10:00 pm
Is there anything in your post related to my post to Michael @6:27 pm? He wrote that” several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth, or lead to increased consumption …” I do not see anything in your latest post to counter my point that those jobs will indeed increase the consumption, because the people will use the earning to purchase necessities. You seem to be assuming that those people had the jobs and just change them for a job in the government, which is an unwarranted assumption
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
11:10 pm
Rafe- Spend more than you take in and you incur debt which will eventually paralyze the country.
The borrower becomes the lender’s slave. Leave it up to a black man to try and lead our country into Chinese slavery. Keep those printing presses rolling o. Free money for everybody.
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
11:19 pm
getalife- Too partisan to make a coherent point
ROFLMFAO! That might be your best one yet.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
11:20 pm
buck@gon @10:00 pm:
Since you have taken a defense of the post by Michael @6:27 pm, and you have expressed similar thoughts but used too specific examples, which do not represent “government jobs” in general, I would like to know whether you agree with the following statement: “Yes, several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth …” If you do, would you care to define jobs that “generate new wealth?”
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
11:34 pm
moderate line@918-
So your point is obama has lowered taxes more than Bush while spending more than Reagan ever did at the same time. I can’t believe you’re not throwing rocks at the white house.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 30th, 2011
10:32 am
and his extravagant vacations ARE going to haunt Obama all the way out of the White House.
Count on it.
______________________________________________
Why? They didn’t haunt Bushie all the way out. He took the whole month of August off in 2001. He was at his ranch a month before September 11th vacaying.