The Democrats and their collaborators in the legacy media want to disappear this graph:
ASIDE: This particular version is nearly a year old, but suffice it to say that the red has still gotten nowhere near the light blue, much less the dark blue.
This graph (minus the red stuff) comes from “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, the document prepared by the Obama transition team to sell President Obama’s stimulus plan.
Obviously, nothing even remotely like this happened, so — being unable to change the unemployment numbers — the Democrats want to disappear the prediction. We’re told by Democratic tools such as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler that citing this chart as though it had anything to do with Obama is a lie. (Three Pinocchios!)
Got that? Just because the prediction was prepared by Obama’s team, and written by Obama’s chief economist, to sell Obama’s policy, which was then duly enacted by Obama’s Democratic Congress, doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with Obama!
Just to expand on the point, let’s take a look at the prediction was received by President Obama’s pet pundit, Paul Krugman. On January 10, 2009, Krugman wrote:
OK, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein have put out their estimates of what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would accomplish. But Romer and Bernstein don’t speak for the administration-in-waiting; we’re going to have to wait to hear economic predictions from the President-elect’s own lips. It’s a pity that he doesn’t put something official on the table so we can argue policy with him.
Just kidding! Actually, this is what Krugman wrote:
OK, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein have put out the official (?) Obama estimates of what the . . . American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would accomplish. The figure above summarizes the key result.
Kudos, by the way, to the administration-in-waiting for providing this — it will be a joy to argue policy with an administration that provides comprehensible, honest reports, not case studies in how to lie with statistics.
That said, the report is written in such a way as to make it hard to figure out exactly what’s in the plan. This also makes it hard to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumed multipliers. But here’s the thing: the estimates appear to be very close to what I’ve been getting.
Now it’s funny that Krugman lauded Obama for producing comprehensible, honest reports and then in the very next breath lamented that the report wasn’t comprehensible and honest. But never mind that. The point here is there was no doubt in Krugman’s mind over whether this was a serious document prepared by the Obama administration-in-waiting giving estimates for the results of its plan.
Krugman apparently entertained a slight doubt (written “(?)”) as to whether the “Obama estimates” (as he called them) were “official”, but never entertained any doubt as to whether this document was prepared by the administration-in-waiting or just a couple of staffers. For example, he wrote “Kudos, by the way, to the administration-in-waiting for providing this. . .”, and later wrote “So this looks like an estimate from the Obama team itself saying. . .”.
The chart is damning; it’s no wonder the Democrats want it to go away. But it won’t.
(Via Don Surber.)