RICHARD BURGER

At some point we need to recognize that about the only good that’s going to come out of the inept federal meddling in the U.S. economy is that at least it provides some comic relief. The funniest examples I’ve read about so far are related to the calculations that a number of community agencies used to determine how many jobs have been “saved” by the “economic stimulus.”  

There were apparently instructions that came with the money to help recipients make the correct calculations, so that they could accurately report the positive effects the money generated in their organizations.

In an Associated Press story recently, the director of the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula, explained to the reporter how she had calculated the number of jobs saved in her agency, which employs 508 people. She said she had simply followed the guidelines the administration had provided, and those guidelines instructed her to multiply the total number of employees, 508, by 1.84, which is the percentage of the pay raise they all received. With that simple multiplication, she arrived at a figure of 935 jobs saved, which she duly reported. 

Now, in all fairness to her, she admitted the instructions didn’t make much sense. She said they were “confusing, at best.” I suppose that the raise she received – while all around her, the unemployment rate was hitting double digits for the first time in decades – made her disinclined to make waves and ask for clarification before she sent in the jobs-saved figure. 

Or maybe in her confusion, she didn’t notice that the instructions may have said to multiply the total number of jobs by 1.84 percent, to arrive at the correct figure. As any fifth grader knows – well, as any fifth grader used to know – there’s a big difference between 1.84 and 1.84 percent. It might have been interesting to see a copy of the instructions, but I guess the reporter didn’t want to take the chance of creating even more confusion. 

Besides, multiplying a job by a pay-raise percent makes no more mathematical sense, in terms of calculating jobs “saved,” even though the resulting number is smaller. Unless, of course, you think like a spokesman for Health and Human Services, who said “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job.” I guess federally-funded raises are different than those the private sector gives. 

Or maybe it’s just a New Liberal Math. If that’s the case, I for one am glad to hear about it. It opens up a whole new range of possibilities that could be put to good use, with a little imagination. 

For example, when it’s time to file your income tax return and you want to increase your write-offs to reduce your taxable income, you simply re-calculate, say,  the amount of interest you paid on your home mortgage by multiplying the actual dollars paid by the interest rate of your mortgage.  

If you’re one of those unfortunate people who signed up for an adjustable-rate mortgage that has just adjusted, you’d have it made!

By the way, if you’re concerned that the New Liberal Math will have any appreciable effect on the accuracy of the official reports on the numbers of jobs saved by the “stimulus” nationwide, don’t bother yourself about it. More than one official has pointed out that the over-reported jobs saved will more than likely be offset by an equal amount of instances in which numbers are under-reported, so the end result will be quite accurate. 

I think we should stop paying attention to this “jobs saved” charade and just sit back and enjoy it for what it is: a comedy routine to distract us from the wanton wasting of a trillion dollars.  

Don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain. We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto. -RB