Democrats’ promises of “shovel ready jobs” was a shovel load of sh*t. That’s pretty much what we’re learning.
Here’s a headline to remember: “Construction unemployment rises to 22.7%.”
In a clear sign of construction’s persistently severe problems, the industry’s jobless rate hit its highest level in at least a decade, climbing to 22.7% in December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported.
The latest BLS monthly employment figures, released Jan. 8, show that construction’s December jobless rate rose from November’s 19.4%, and also was well above the December 2008 mark of 15.3%.
“In at least a decade”? That would be during – your audible gasp here – the Clinton years, when the streets were paved with gold (but clearly not laid by construction workers).
Hot Air shows us what a bunch of hot air Obama’s and the Democrat’s promises really were:
Democrats insisted that they would usher in a wave of new jobs by speeding up spending on infrastucture, especially road construction. All across the US, signs began appearing that heralded the local traffic snarl as a product of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — Porkulus, as we came to call it. Did it do anything to create or even “save” jobs? The Associated Press says no:
Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP’s analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.
Which is to say, Obama is depending on “the butterfly effect” for his stimulus package to actually work.
I should confess here that I have actually captured a butterfly, and have evilly created chaos all over the planet by forcing it to flap its wings. But apparently no U.S. jobs have come out of it.
I also have to mock the part about the porkulus road signs (actually the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” – but “porkulus” has turned out to be FAR more accurate). We find that the Democrats are spending millions of dollars for “stimulus” road signs that aren’t stimulating anything but the Democrats’ political slush fund to bribe votes for their ObamaCare boondoggle.
Michelle Malkin presented what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signs SHOULD HAVE looked like nearly 8 months ago:
Meanwhile, what is unemployment among government workers?
Rush Limbaugh was all over that on like poop on stink (which is rather like Obama on stimulus, but actually telling the truth):
“I mean you cannot take $50 trillion or $50 billion, any amount of money out of the private sector then put it back in and say you’re stimulating something. You’d have to infuse money that’s not already there. And there’s no money to do that. You have to print it, you have to borrow it, or you have to tax it and then put it back. This is an old shell game; it’s an old trick. It’s designed to enhance the growth of government. But the proof is right there in the latest unemployment numbers — and I don’t mean the 10% employment, which is an obvious disaster, and I don’t mean the 17% real unemployment. That’s an obvious disaster. But here are two numbers from last Friday’s jobless numbers: Construction unemployment is 22.7%. It’s 22.7%! Now, remember, the stimulus was for “shovel-ready jobs;” Roads, bridges, schools, all this infrastructure stuff. Construction unemployment is almost 23%. Government worker unemployment is at 3%, 3.6, less than 4%.”
The Associated Press has the following story (from which the quote from Hot Air above is a part):
Stimulus for roads no path to help joblessness
Analysis comes as Obama urges another bill funding more transit projects
updated 9:01 a.m. ET Jan. 11, 2010
WASHINGTON – Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an AP analysis has found.
Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama’s argument that more road money would address an “urgent need to accelerate job growth.”
Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are “at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth.”
And Rush Limbaugh picks up from there:
“The AP is admitting here it didn’t work but then, hey, they say let’s try it again. They outline in this piece that the stimulus money that’s been spent so far has had no effect on jobs, none. Not anywhere. The veil is off. They’re no longer pretending that there are jobs created or saved. Now, here how the story starts: “Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in –” and it’s not Bush’s. It’s Obama’s. “– spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an AP analysis has found. Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama’s argument that more road money would address an ‘urgent need to accelerate job growth.’”
All they can talk about from the stimulus that’s been beneficial is the extension of unemployment compensation benefits. So, you know, the real question there, folks, is how come despite the vast amount of history that’s available to all of us, all of the smart, so-called smart educated business and economic people, hard evidence, examples of failure and successes, charts and graphs, data out the wazoo, we still seem to be confounded by the elementary process of creating and keeping jobs. Why is this? Why is the blueprint for coming out of the circumstance we’re in, the 1980s, JFK in the 1960s, why is it ignored? And why is this, government spending, constantly looked at as a panacea when it isn’t? And the answer is it’s not looked at as a panacea. The people in charge of doing this know exactly what they’re doing. They’re weakening the private sector for a host of reasons that we’ve mentioned. I’m going to get blue in the face here, repetitive. Just don’t doubt me. It’s being done on purpose and the reasons are all recounted in various multiple monologues at my website, RushLimbaugh.com.”
Meanwhile, the government sector is absolutely thriving compared to the rest of the economy.
Would you have supported the stimulus if you’d known the TRUTH: that instead of “shovel-ready jobs” we’d be getting “bureaucrat-ready jobs”?