The Stimulus Boondoggle In Maine
Recovery.gov has started posting detailed accounts of stimulus money, and how it has been spent. We are now able to go to the site and view the amount of money spent and the number of jobs that money has produced in each congressional district.
Looking at the data from Maine, we find some troubling information. In the first congressional district (Chellie Pingree’s), the Federal government has allocated $491,144,080 (that is about $770.48 per resident of the district, which of course includes tens of thousands of children who don’t pay income taxes, as well as those who are unemployed or elderly – the cost per member of the workforce is much higher). What has Maine gotten for that 491 million dollar investment?
920 jobs.
And that is assuming those job reports are legit – which many recent reports call into question.
For those of you keeping score, that is roughly $533,852 per job. For that kind of money, these people had better be high level CEOs generating enormous amounts of capital and long term private sector jobs. No? That’s not what these jobs are? Uh oh.
In the second district, the Feds have spent $268,219,940 ($420.75 per resident – same parameters), and have “created or saved” 690 jobs. That comes out to a much more reasonable $388,724 per job.
I will grant two, and only two caveats to these numbers.
First, the stimulus was never “only” about jobs – it was also about capital improvements, transportation, etc. Because of this, it isn’t entirely fair to judge the above figures as the entirety of the cost of creating a job, when much of the work is intended for long(er) term infrastructure development.
Second, not all of the allocated money has been spent. Recovery.gov states that roughly 160 million of the money has been spent so far. “Ah ha!” you might say, “that means those figures above are inaccurate and wrong!”. Well, not so fast. First of all, even if we were to go with that figure, that still gives us a cost of almost 100,000 dollars per job “created”. That remains an enormously expensive figure. Secondly, the President’s promise with the stimulus was that it would be timely, and immediately create jobs that would help keep unemployment nationwide under 8%. The money was not allocated to “create or save” jobs two years from January – it was sold as a stimulus to the economy immediately.
Thus, all of that allocated money, and all of that rhetoric about immediately stimulating the economy has not produced significant job creation in the state of Maine. I find it very fair to include all of the allocated money into this analysis. But as I said, I don’t really need to split that hair, because no matter what figures are being used, the stimulus money is producing jobs at an unbelievable cost, regardless.
By any objective measure, these figures raise great doubt as to the effectiveness of the Federal stimulus package.
Did it help Maine? If you live in the first district, do you feel like you have gotten $770 worth? You may want to keep in mind that basically all of that money was borrowed, which means the serviced debt on your $770 investment will likely be several times higher than that – only your kids will be paying it long after you are dead.
If you live in the second district – was that $420 you shelled out worth it?
It should also be noted that there is an additional $662,257 that has been spent that did not fit in either CD-1 or CD-2, which is a matter of human error in the inputting of CD data. Adding that information into where it would appropriately live would raise your costs even higher.
It begs the question – is 800 million dollars for about 1600 jobs in the state of Maine a worthwhile investment? Even if more than 1600 come and we are facing north of $100,000 per job saved or created – is that bang for your buck? Is that return on investment?
President Obama’s stimulus package may have been about more than jobs – but he sold it to us as a way to immediately stem the tide of unemployment, generate economic activity, and pull the country out of recession. As the country now pulls itself out of recession, we are left to wonder.
He argued that investing in what he wanted to invest in would give us “bottom up” rather than “trickle down” economic growth – in other words, all of this money would create the need for jobs and workers, which would then provide a base for longer term job growth as well.
None of that has happened, and none of it IS happening. The stimulus has been a monumental failure in the state of Maine, providing only nominal job creation with an unbelievable price tag. That price tag will be paid by us, and our children – and will be much higher than the original investment due to the cost of interest.
Every man woman and child in the state is on the hook for at least $420 for this effort – but indeed our share will each climb into the thousands of dollars before this is all said and done.
And for what? A handful of public sector jobs that will go away once the stimulus money disappears?
Ask yourself – but more importantly your Representatives and Senators (each and every one of which voted for the stimulus package) if that is the kind of public policy we want.
For me, it most certainly isn’t. I was loudly opposed to the stimulus plan before it was ever considered – and yes friends, I was also opposed to George W. Bush’s “stimulus” as well, for this very reason. This is government corruption and incompetence of the highest order, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen.
I have a 2 and a half year old son, and he will be paying for this boondoggle for his entire life. I find that an insidious act of cowardice on our part – that in a time of recession we allowed ourselves to be swindled into such an obvious political bribe with such painful and long lasting consequences for our children – for little more than the promise that our “hardship” would be slightly lessened. As our hardship lessens on its own, it is looking even more foolish.
Even if the stimulus “worked”, there is something revolting about going on a debt binge of this magnitude just so we can have a slightly less painful economic downturn. Can any of us honestly say that our parents and grandparents of the depression era – who essentially all collectively sacrificed themselves and their own well being for the benefit of their children would have done something this selfish and fool hearty?
No, they wouldn’t. This is irresponsible, and it is wrong – and our representatives should hear from us about it.
But, more than that – Congress is so out of touch with reality that they are thinking of attempting this madness for a second time. Do not let them – call the people who represent you in Washington, and tell them the first stimulus was an outrage, but that the idea of a second is insanity.
Olympia Snowe
- (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins
- (202) 224-2523
Chellie Pingree
- Phone: (202) 225-6116
Mike Michaud
- Phone: (202) 225-6306
Popularity: 3% [?]


Thank you for the analysis and for the exhortation to call Congress to account and to stop the insanity.
A couple of points of response:
- This limited consideration of HOW stimulus money is spent and the elementary arithmetic used to calculate a ‘per-job’ figure is deceptive. First, stimulus monies go beyond just creating jobs. Much of it covers state-level debts to preserve health and unemployment benefits and make investments in education. Also, simple cost-per-job math like this fails to consider the cost of supplies and materials. When you start a small business and you spend thousands of dollars to create an inventory, lease a space, and establish your business, would you count each job by dividing investment by jobs created? No! That would be silly. So when we consider the funds needed to cover unemployment for Mainers whose jobs were lost, in preserving jobs for Maine teachers, or in the materials needed to pave our roads, build new bridges, etc, why are we using simple math? A stimulus is simple more complex.
- Second, a cursory knowledge of macroeconomics will inform that, in a recession (which is essentially a lack of spending and growth in the private sector), a government stimulus serves to make up the loss. Government spending offsets the economic contraction and often results in returns of something like 3-to-1. That’s $3 in economic growth (more jobs, preserved benefits, etc) for every $1 invested. In a recession as severe as this, government intervention isn’t just beneficial, but it’s necessary.
prg388,
Nice try but your logic is pretty flimsy.
First of all, that state level debt that we are “covering” is being covered with FEDERAL debt. That is like paying off your visa with your American Express card. It might “plug the hole”, but it solves nothing, and in fact only makes the problem worse in the long run. Investments in education? Please.
Secondly, I covered the ancillary costs very early in this article. I also dismissed it out of hand, and there’s a very good reason why. This stimulus was not pitched to us as a long term investment in the future – it was pitched as a method to arrest the tide of job loss and economic deflation. It was pitched as a way to keep unemployment under 8% and “save or create” jobs. It is basically an entire year later and it has done none of those things.
I am evaluating the stimulus based on what it was sold to us as, simple as that. All the wonderful flowery ideas about infrastructure development and long term material purchases (which, by the way are largely foreign made materials that are paid for with, YOU GUESSED IT, debt owned by foreign countries – foreign governments buying foreign materials that we are taking a loan out on, and by the time we pay back the debt, they’ll have all turned to dust) is nonsense, and has essentially nothing to do with what this was sold as.
Third, that simple math does take into account those “saved” jobs for teachers and such. The way this reporting works out, the vendor who doles out the money reports the job creation/savings factor of the money. If educators had their jobs saved via stimulus funds, that would have been reported.
But fourth – and MOST importantly – nice try with the “macroeconomics” argument. I took several macro classes, thanks, and your argument here is nothing more than a stripped down, simplistic explanation of Keynesian hot air. This government intervention model has been exposed as a sham repeatedly (ask Japan how their Keynesian stimulus model worked in the 1990s), and is just as nonsensical now.
Look, it is pretty simple. When the economy contracts, it EXPOSES inefficiency and provides an opportunity to cut waste, reorganize and get efficient so that you can position yourself for the recovery and grow again. That is what the private sector does – but not the public sector. No – instead we have stimulus funds propping up overly bloated state employee rolls and insolvent budgets, we have political favors being funded by BILLIONS of dollars and providing little to no benefit for the people, and on top of it all, we have a government borrowing more than a trillion dollars to engage in a massive political game, forcing us and our children to service that debt and destroy our future ability to allocate resources for things we want to pay for with our own money.
This is a shame – a Keynesian, nonsensical sham. Defending it is laughable.
“Second, a cursory knowledge of macroeconomics will inform that, in a recession (which is essentially a lack of spending and growth in the private sector), a government stimulus serves to make up the loss. Government spending offsets the economic contraction and often results in returns of something like 3-to-1. That’s $3 in economic growth (more jobs, preserved benefits, etc) for every $1 invested. In a recession as severe as this, government intervention isn’t just beneficial, but it’s necessary.”
This tired old Keynesian approach is not the answer.
On a philosophical level, it assumes the the people’s money is the government’s to tax at whim, which it is not, and presumes to put the people’s money toward better uses than its earners.
The economy is not a car to be jump-started. The stimulus sapped the economy of money many Americans would have otherwise saved, thus enabling easier lending, and may have sparked some activity in targeted areas (construction), but if youre an employer looking to invest in your business or hire people you recognize these phenomenons for what they are: temporary, that is, not indicative of any long term economic growth.
Leave a comment!
The Town Hall »
Mainers Calling for Competent Management
The jaw-dropping victory by Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race completes an I-95 trifecta that started in Virginia, headed north to New Jersey, and landed in the Bay State. Where does the momentum go …
Commentary »
Maine Needs A Governor Like Chris Christie
Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie has been making a lot of noise lately for doing something that was entirely unexpected: being blunt, speaking truth, and pragmatically dealing with problems that his state …
...So Goes The Nation »
Things, They Are A-Changing In The Republican Party
Few would have believed it possible only a couple years ago, but the Republican Party is increasingly being made less hospitable for culture warriors.
I’ve been arguing since my days in college – which, looking back, …
Media Appearances »
Matt Gagnon on Drive Time Bangor 2.10.10
Last Wednesday, Matt Gagnon of Pine Tree Politics called in to Drive Time Bangor to talk about the Washington D.C. Snowpocalypse, party caucuses in Maine, and the curious campaign of Jason Levesque.
Every Wednesday, Matt talks …
Fan Us On Facebook
Authors
Most Popular Articles
Recent Comments
Democratic Politics
Government
Maine Political Blogs
Media
Republican Politics
Archive
Tag Cloud
2008 Election 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary 2010 Gubernatorial Race 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary Announcement Bill Beardsley Bruce Poliquin Campaign Finance Chellie Pingree Democratic Politics Drive Time Bangor Election Day Eliot Cutler Gay Marriage Gubernatorial Interviews Hannah Pingree Healthcare Reform Jason Levesque John Richardson Kevin Raye Les Otten Libby Mitchell Maine's First Congressional District Maine's Second Congressional District Maine House Maine House Legislation Maine Presidential Leadership Series Maine Republican Party Maine Senate Matt Jacobson Mike Michaud New Media Olympia Snowe Pat McGowan Paul LePage Peter Mills Republican Agenda Republican Politics Rosa Scarcelli Steve Abbott Steve Rowe Susan Collins TABOR Tax Reform US SenateRandom Posts
Latest Video Post
Most Commented
Most Popular