There is nothing new about politicians making preposterous claims. Sometimes, even though they should know better, they actually believe what they are saying. Other times they calculate it is advantageous to argue a point they realize is not true.
Since coming into office President Obama and the members of his administration have repeatedly justified government stimulus spending as "creating or saving" jobs. William McGurn wrote in The Wall Street Journal (June 9, 2025) that the President announced the stimulus has already "created or saved" 150,000 jobs, that an additional 600,000 jobs will be "created or saved" in the summer, and that as many as four million jobs will be "created or saved" in the next two years.
Mr. McGurn points out that the promise to "create or save" jobs is inherently specious because there is no way to determine how many jobs are "saved." Economists do not have a method for measuring the net number of jobs saved. No matter how bad unemployment levels get, administration officials can always say that even more jobs would have been lost without the stimulus.
The "created or saved" fallacy has not been lost on other astute observers. The Harvard economist Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric" and perhaps facetiously refers to the administration's use of it as "an act of political genius." In March the Democratic Senator Max Baucus criticized Treasury Secretary Geithner for the "saved jobs" term because, as Baucus put it, "you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
The McGurn article questions why the White House press corps gives the President a pass for the "create or save" narrative. Of course, Mr. McGurn knows that a lot is explained by the journalists' sentiments toward President Obama. With Bush the younger many expressed their contempt by pouncing on any slip or error as evidence that he was a malicious liar. By contrast, these same journalists are highly sympathetic to the Obama administration and eager to see it enjoy success.
So what animates the Obama team to insist its programs are "creating or saving jobs"? Surely they are as sophisticated as their critics and realize there is no reliable way to count the phantom "jobs saved." Are they unaware of the importance of evidence, or deliberately engaging in deceit?
Perhaps the policy experts sincerely feel their stimulating is "creating or saving" an enormous number of jobs. They are using an econometric model to predict how many jobs will be created, destroyed, saved, or lost under various scenarios. If you plug in numbers for how much money the government spends, how quickly, and where the money goes it the spits out a prediction for jobs "created or saved."
Never mind that there is no way to test the accuracy of the model. They might believe that an unverifiable prediction could be true. The important point is that it was crafted by economists who are trustworthy members of the Obama team. The policy experts are accepting the model's forecasts based on faith; faith in the model's author.
If the Obama policy makers believe in the "creating or saving jobs" claim they are rejecting the principle that forecasts must be testable. There is no need to check your work for accuracy. It is enough to have good intentions and feel that you're right. One wonders whether, when other policy issues arise, the Obama team will make other forecasts or claims that cannot be verified.
Perhaps the Obama policy experts do not believe the "creating or saving jobs" line. They might be scientifically savvy and realize that "jobs saved" is a phantom. However, it might be expedient to make the claim anyway, since it sounds good to the political base. Say the stimulus will "create or save" jobs because that is what voters want to hear.
If those on the Obama team do not believe their own message, they are acting cynically; they are employing a tactic that works to the extent that Americans are ignorant or inattentive. Is there ever an excuse for government officials to attempt to mislead citizens?
The Obama administration insists the stimulus package will "save jobs." Perhaps they are sincere and feel no need to prove their claim. Alternatively, they might calculate it is shrewd to make an unverifiable promise. Which is better?
