edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.Gee, you left this out:Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:
"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."
Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."
"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.
Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf
"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;
9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"
With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.
"Data Reporting and Quality
While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."
And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:
Recommendations for Executive Action
To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.
What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!
Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.
Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts."