"Lives Touched"

[Gaspar]

Oh this is rich!  The Government Accountability Office has released their estimates on the cost of each job "created" by the stimulus.  It cost us $194,213 per job.

Apparently they were not happy with the numbers so they came up with a new term.  They are no longer going to use the term "Jobs Created"  instead, the new term is one of President Obama's favorites.  We've heard it used in speeches when he is trying to sell a box of turds.

You will now see them refer to "Lives Touched" instead of talking about jobs. 

According to the DOE "Lives Touched" is a figure used to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.

Brilliant! 

Hey the Recovery Act "Touched" my life.  I owe the government an extra $40,000 because of it.  So count me in!

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/19/obamanomics-touching-lives-195000-at-a-time/print/

[Gaspar]

Oh! This gets funnier.  There's even a criteria on reporting "Lives Touched"
Reporting Data
1. Report the "Lives touched" headcount for all ARRA-funded contracts or releases
   a. Total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a CHPRC contract.
   b. A worker who charges time to more than one contract or contract release is counted as one life touched.

2. The "lives touched" headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts. The total headcount will never decrease.
   a. Administrative/Overhead personnel included in indirect rate pools should not be counted unless they are working full time on the ARRA funded contract.
   b. Separate the headcount into labor categories on the reporting spreadsheet – 
but DO NOT separate the headcount by contract release.


So basically 1 hour = 1 "Life Touched", and no matter how the workforce shrinks the headcount "can never decrease." 

Well that should make the figures look better! 
Why don't they just make stuff up, it would be easier.

[swake]

Oh this is rich!  The Government Accountability Office has released their estimates on the cost of each job "created" by the stimulus.  It cost us $194,213 per job.

Apparently they were not happy with the numbers so they came up with a new term.  They are no longer going to use the term "Jobs Created"  instead, the new term is one of President Obama's favorites.  We've heard it used in speeches when he is trying to sell a box of turds.

You will now see them refer to "Lives Touched" instead of talking about jobs.  

According to the DOE "Lives Touched" is a figure used to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.

Brilliant!  

Hey the Recovery Act "Touched" my life.  I owe the government an extra $40,000 because of it.  So count me in!

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/19/obamanomics-touching-lives-195000-at-a-time/print/

I think you need to read the source article.

It's just one part of the stimulus, done by the Department of Energy and here is what it was for

"The funds were supposed to create jobs and promote economic recovery by expanding and accelerating the environmental cleanup of hazardous and radiological waste at the nation's nuclear weapons complex."

http://www.ktvz.com/oregon-northwest/24454594/detail.html

This is a good example of how wingnuts work these days. Start with a GAO report on one small program, then take a news report about what a partisan Republican thinks the report says and have far rightwing bloggers take that small nugget of partisan filtered truth and exaggerate it many times over into meaning something else.

Like a report by the GAO whose title is :Most DOE Cleanup Projects Appear to Be Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets, but Assessing Impact of Spending Remains a Challenge"

And turn it into "each job 'created' by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213" which is nowhere in this report at all. In fact, the report says that the while the DOE is claiming this project will SAVE $8 billion by speeding cleanup the GAO disputes that and says it may be overstated by as much as 80%, meaning this project will only save $2 billion.

Here is what the GAO report actually says:

DOE expected that Recovery Act funding would help it achieve several goals, including accelerating the cleanup effort and reducing the footprint of facilities and contamination at 17 of its sites, creating jobs, and reducing total remaining cleanup costs. As the halfway mark in DOE's Recovery Act work approaches, the department has made progress toward completing cleanup projects and the majority, although not all, of these projects appear to be meeting cost and schedule targets. In carrying out its Recovery Act work, DOE has implemented additional steps to address familiar contract and project management challenges, by providing stricter controls over how and when funds are disbursed to cleanup sites, increasing reporting requirements, and paying greater attention to project oversight. Although we do not yet know what effects each of these additional steps to improve project management and increase oversight of Recovery Act projects will ultimately have on DOE's ability to meet projects' cost and schedule targets, some of the steps could be found useful for Recovery Act cleanup work, as well as carry the potential to be beneficial for projects funded under annual appropriations. The department has been less successful in implementing steps to better assess the results of its Recovery Act work.

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/072910_GAO_Report_DOE_Jobs.pdf

The summary starts on page 30

[Conan71]

Skid-mounted goal posts would make the job a lot easier:

[Gaspar]

I think you need to read the source article.

It's just one part of the stimulus, done by the Department of Energy and here is what it was for

"The funds were supposed to create jobs and promote economic recovery by expanding and accelerating the environmental cleanup of hazardous and radiological waste at the nation's nuclear weapons complex."

http://www.ktvz.com/oregon-northwest/24454594/detail.html

This is a good example of how wingnuts work these days. Start with a GAO report on one small program, then take a news report about what a partisan Republican thinks the report says and have far rightwing bloggers take that small nugget of partisan filtered truth and exaggerate it many times over into meaning something else.

Like a report by the GAO whose title is :Most DOE Cleanup Projects Appear to Be Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets, but Assessing Impact of Spending Remains a Challenge"

And turn it into "each job 'created' by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213" which is nowhere in this report at all. In fact, the report says that the while the DOE is claiming this project will SAVE $8 billion by speeding cleanup the GAO disputes that and says it may be overstated by as much as 80%, meaning this project will only save $2 billion.

Here is what the GAO report actually says:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/072910_GAO_Report_DOE_Jobs.pdf

The summary starts on page 30

It doesn't matter dude.  The above counting procedure is from the DOE.  The administration is already using the term, we just didn't know where it came from or what it meant.  Now we do.  This counting procedure has apparently been in place since April.

[Townsend]

It doesn't matter dude. 

I disagree

[swake]

It doesn't matter dude.  The above counting procedure is from the DOE.  The administration is already using the term, we just didn't know where it came from or what it meant.  Now we do.  This counting procedure has apparently been in place since April.

Dude,

This is expensive work that will be done anyway in annual appropriations. By accelerating the work and doing it now, it stimulates jobs and over time will SAVE money in annual appropriations. Over time this doesn't add to the debt, it saves $2 billion in future debt by doing the work now and has the ancillary benefit of creating jobs today.

The DOE is claiming $8 billion in total savings, not cost. the GAO says $2 billion. The difference in the accounting is future dollars vs current dollars and the Time Value of Money.

Either way, this is the stimulus LOWERING the debt.

This program didn't cost you a hyperbolic $40k, it saves you $6.25

[Gaspar]

I disagree

Ok

[Gaspar]

Dude,

This is expensive work that will be done anyway in annual appropriations. By accelerating the work and doing it now, it stimulates jobs and over time will SAVE money in annual appropriations. Over time this doesn't add to the debt, it saves $2 billion in future debt by doing the work now and has the ancillary benefit of creating jobs today.

The DOE is claiming $8 billion in total savings, not cost. the GAO says $2 billion. The difference in the accounting is future dollars vs current dollars and the Time Value of Money.

Either way, this is the stimulus LOWERING the debt.

I have no problem with that part of it.  I am looking at the political spin.  The adoption of the term "Lives Touched" instead of an actual jobs figure has already begun.

It is simply hilarious.

[Townsend]

Ok

Sweet, he gave.  I WIN

[we vs us]

You have to actually read the Daily Caller blog entry from Gassy to get to the actual article, which is here.

In fact this addresses the portion of stimulus funds attributed to the Dept of Energy to create jobs via environmental cleanup.  From the article:

"The lawmakers were concerned about the department's ability to manage the extra $6 billion in funding DOE was provided in the stimulus effort, given the agency's difficulty in managing environmental cleanup spending in a cost-effective manner. The funds were supposed to create jobs and promote economic recovery by expanding and accelerating the environmental cleanup of hazardous and radiological waste at the nation's nuclear weapons complex.

The report shows DOE has taken some positive steps to manage the spending and meet project timetables, but also finds that DOE does not clearly show how the funding has impacted job creation or will reduce environmental risks and future cleanup costs. "

So the DOE has spent lots of money per job (each of which is tasked to help clean up nuclear waste at weapons sites) and hasn't sufficiently accounted for the money spent, how it impacts job development, or the ROI.  

What's interesting is that the investigating (GOP) congresspeople have done what Gassy has done, which is extrapolate this to cover the entire stimulus effort, and in fact the entire idea of stimulus, or government spending in general. They said:

"It seems our concerns about DOE's ability to effectively and efficiently used the funds given to them have become reality. This is yet another example of how, despite the White House's assertions, the almost $1 trillion of stimulus funding has failed to stimulate anything other than government bureaucracy," Burgess said.

I'm truly impressed to see how this can be expanded, rejiggered, and in general repurposed to support a thesis which it might otherwise not support.  In other words, kudos, GOP, for being unswervingly on message.  

EDIT:  What Swake said.  That'll learn me to spend too much time editing my post.

[swake]

I have no problem with that part of it.  I am looking at the political spin.  The adoption of the term "Lives Touched" instead of an actual jobs figure has already begun.

It is simply hilarious.

So you admit that this program is a good one, that it is a positive to the economy and to the debt?

Also, please note that a big part of the disagreement over the counting of jobs is only if sub contractors can be counted too.

[Conan71]

Relax Obama apologists!  The OP was simply looking at how silly accounting for the benefits of stimulus has become.  Lives touched?  Seriously?

[we vs us]

Relax Obama apologists!  The OP was simply looking at how silly accounting for the benefits of stimulus has become.  Lives touched?  Seriously?

Well, you know . . . before I finally give in to all that delicious right wing rage, I'd love to know that I'm not wasting my fury on either a lie, a half-truth, or something Gassy neglected to cite.

I'm having a hard time finding much news reporting on this.  Maybe someone can help me sift through all the Fox Nation punditry?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lives+touched%22+Obama&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=PvJzTOK2NcT_lgeC74DICA&start=0&sa=N

[sgrizzle]