To Ryan Teague Beckwith’s credit, he does not accept at face value the White House estimate that the federal stimulus package signed into law law Tuesday will create or save 105,000 jobs in North Carolina.?

Beckwith’s front-page News & Observer story includes this second paragraph:

But the math behind those estimates is a patchwork of best guesses, historical analogies and academic theories.

Two paragraphs later, Beckwith paraphrases Wachovia senior economist Mark Vitner:

He said there’s no real way to know how many new jobs there will be because of the stimulus effort.

Beckwith also notes N.C. State economist Mike Walden’s concerns about the estimates:

[H]e thinks Obama’s advisers are overestimating the number of
secondary jobs created by new spending on things such as roads and
schools.

He said the extra work may be offset by the effects of
massive government borrowing on Wall Street. The debt incurred by the
stimulus package, he argued, could “crowd out” private borrowing that
would otherwise create jobs.

The article also notes that the White House is hedging its bets by noting that its estimates are “subject to significant margins of error.” What’s not explained is the level of error deemend significant. Should we say 105,000 jobs plus or minus 5,000? Plus or minus 50,000? Plus or minus 100,000?

For more on the problems with the stimulus package, click here and here.