From Wednesday's White House press briefing, FOX's Major Garrett asks Robert Gibbs a question predicated on a lie:
GARRET: You talk about the cost of inaction, I'd like to ask you a question about the cost of action. The CBO has come out with an analysis of the job creating potential of the Senate bill. You might regard these numbers as the upside of that -- 2.8 million to 8.2 million jobs over three years. The cost side -- that depends on the multiplier effect the CBO uses on the stimulative effect of the bill -- it also says the cost, on a per job basis, would range from $100,000 to $300,000 for a job created. How valid a measure ---
GIBBS: Is that also over a three year period? That's divided by a three year period?
GARRETT: According to what I've read in the CBO report, yes. So do you consider that a valid metric, and is that a worthwhile cost for the American people to evaluate as they look at not only the cost of this bill, but also the cost of inaction.
Garrett's number sounds simple and sexy. Basically, cost of bill divided by number of jobs created = cost per job. Right?
Actually, no. The benefits of the stimulus bill cannot be measured solely in terms of jobs created over the next three years. Rebuilding our national infrastructure will having a lasting impact, well beyond three years; simply dividing the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created over the next three years is not a meaningful way of evaluating it.
But the real problem with Garrett's claim isn't just that it's gobbledygook.
It's also a flat-out lie.
The number he cites -- $100,000 to $300,000 per job -- does not appear anywhere in the CBO report. It's a number Garrett -- or someone at the GOP central committee (or FNC headquarters, as if there were a difference) -- derived from CBO's job projection numbers.
Here's what the CBO actually said about job creation and the stimulus bill:
By the end of 2010, CBO estimates, about $140,000 of additional GDP would lead to one additional person employed.
Note that this is a very different statistic than the one made up by Garrett. What the CBO is saying is that the job creation potential of the stimulus bill is directly related to how much the legislation ends up boosting GDP.
In other words, the CBO is saying the more the legislation boosts GDP, the more it will boost employment.
This is an important concept because not all stimulus spending is created equal. According to this CBO report, for example, the types of spending favored by Major Garrett and his FNC cronies will have the smallest impact on the GDP, and therefore the least impact on job creation.
Here's the CBO's estimated impact of various types of stimulus spending:
What this CBO report tells us isn't what Major Garrett says it tells us. Instead of serving as a warning against too much spending, it is actually a roadmap for putting together stimulus package with the right kind of spending.
And as it turns out, the programs favored by President Obama and the Democratic Party are the one that will have the greatest impact on GDP, and therefore will create the most jobs.
Just giving more money to the people who already have it -- as Major Garrett would have us do -- won't get the job done.