"The big fear people have is loss of jobs. That's haunting the whole economy," said the advisor, who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. "People are holding back from buying because of fear of job loss. So presumably, if people hear the goal is to create or preserve 3 million jobs, layoffs aren't quite as scary."
Obama's plans to revive the economy hinge on the passage of his stimulus package, which Congress plans to take up Jan. 6.
Though he has the votes in the House, the Senate is another matter.
Republican senators could delay or derail it with a filibuster. Republican leaders have voiced skepticism about the stimulus, warning that there must be a thorough public vetting for such an expensive measure.
They've also vowed to oppose any plan that includes pork barrel projects meant to reward special interests.
Republicans derisively cite as an example a proposal by U.S. mayors that includes a $1.5-million initiative to chase prostitutes from Dayton, Ohio.
To reassure skeptics and build a durable coalition, Obama is insisting that the stimulus package meet certain standards, transition officials said. The bill must:
* Underwrite projects that will produce jobs without delay.
* Avoid pet projects put in by lawmakers to reward special interests.
* Fund programs based on objective evidence rather than on partisan considerations.
* Allow for public debate.
Some economists say Obama's new job goals may be rooted in salesmanship. It is virtually impossible to quantify jobs saved, so the figures have little meaning, they said. By raising the ante to 3 million, Obama may have something else in mind: persuading the public that a stimulus costing hundreds of billions of dollars is necessary.
Peter Morici, an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, said in an interview Saturday that Obama's revised job numbers are an exercise in political marketing.
"He's trying to make the case for a huge stimulus package," Morici said. "Every time you turn around, the numbers get bigger."
--
peter.nicholas@latimes.com