Read It And Weep For America’s Future

Obama gets bad numbers from Congressional Budget Office

Jobs and the deficits are going to be big themes of President Obama’s big speech tomorrow — and he got some bad numbers on both topics today from the Congressional Budget Office.

Oval colleague Richard Wolf breaks it down for us:

Here’s more bad news on the budget front for President Obama: A new report by the Congressional Budget Office says the nation’s $1.4 trillion deficit is likely to stay in that range for the next two years.

The 2010 deficit should be about $1.35 trillion, and if Obama keeps President Bush’s tax cuts in place and extends other expiring tax breaks, the 2011 deficit would be about the same, the report says. Over the next decade, the nation would rack up another $12 trillion in deficits, thereby doubling the size of the $12 trillion national debt.

“Daunting” and “bleak” were just some of the adjectives used by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on Tuesday to describe the 10-year budget picture. Spending is projected to outpace revenue, and the debt would soon be two-thirds the size of the overall economy. By 2020, interest payments on that debt would be more than $700 billion, about four times the size of the current amount.

The report shows the unemployment rate rising slightly above 10% before declining slowly. Not until 2014 would the rate drop back to 5%.

“In sum, the outlook for the federal budget is bleak,” Elmendorf said. “U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering.”

But don’t worry, it’s Obama to the rescue.

Obama’s federal spending freeze

The White House has been cranking out initiatives daily in an effort to regain the public’s confidence, and on Tuesday, its target was the enormous federal deficit. Aides to President Obama disclosed that his forthcoming budget will call for a three-year freeze on “non-security discretionary funding.” That’s bureaucratese for capping everything but defense, homeland security, veterans, international affairs and entitlements (for example, Medicare and welfare), with no adjustments for inflation. That would result in $250 billion less being spent over the coming decade than currently projected, said Rob Nabors, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Although it’s merely a gesture, it’s a good one that sends the right signals to Congress and the public.

Skeptics were quick to note how little of the budget actually would be affected — about 17% — and how small the savings seem in comparison to the $6 trillion in total deficits expected over the coming decade. And presidential budgets are just proposals; Congress controls the purse strings. It’s hard to say how well received Obama’s latest offering will be, given how few details have been released. The official line is simply that the administration’s budget for fiscal 2010 (which runs from October 2010 through September 2011) will call for cutting some programs and increasing others.

So, in case you’re still confused, the National Debt is projected to double to over $20 trillion in the next ten years and Obama’s answer is to save $250 billion over the next decade. It’s like trying to put out a five alarm fire with a squirt gun, it’s a joke.

Oh, and remember that useless “stimulus” that we borrowed almost a trillion dollars for, the Democrat porkfest that had to be passed immediately to keep the unemployment rate below 8%? Well, four million jobs lost and a 10% unemployment rate later, guess what?

Officials Say Stimulus Bill to Cost $75B More

Last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill is going to be even more expensive — $75 billion more.

The new Congressional Budget Office estimate, released Tuesday, provides more ammunition for Republicans who say the stimulus has been long on spending and short on creating promised jobs. The additional cost also eats into the savings forecast from the budget freeze President Barack Obama is expected to propose Wednesday night during his State of the Union address.

Almost half of the additional cost, $34 billion, is because the food stamp program won’t be able to take advantage of lower-than-expected inflation rates and will instead have benefits set by the stimulus bill.

Higher unemployment insurance costs added $21 billion to the bill, and stimulus-subsidized bonds to pay for infrastructure projects have proven more popular than expected with state and local governments.

The $75 billion increase would erase one-third of the $250 billion in 10-year savings that would come from the partial domestic spending freeze being proposed by Obama. The boost in unemployment payments alone would more than erase the $10 billion to $15 billion in first-year savings from such a freeze.

And don’t forget that we borrowed the “stimulus” money so the debt service over time is going to make it cost more.

Read the whole depressing, frightening, and sobering CBO report:

The Budget and Economic Outlook:
Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

See also:
Bleak Economic Projections as Obama Prepares for State of the Union Address
The CBO’s Economic Outlook Is Bleak
US Congressional Budget Office Chief Sees ‘Bleak’ Outlook
CBO Chief: “The Outlook For The Federal Budget Is Bleak”
Budget Office: The government’s finances on ‘unsustainable path’
CBO: Federal Deficit Projected at $1.35T
The Obama Fisc
Budget sanity
A ‘Bleak’ Budget but Slightly Better
Obama Seeks Partial Three-Year Spending Freeze
Broad range of programs targeted by proposed spending freeze
How much would Obama’s spending freeze trim US deficits? Not a lot.
The “spending freeze” in context
Tepid Reception for Obama Spending Freeze
Obama faces backlash on spending freeze
The Obama Spending Freeze is Simply Not Credible
Spending Freeze Won’t Melt Partisan Divide
Stimulus is now $75 billion more expensive
Stimulus Bill to Cost $75 Billion More Than Expected, CBO Says
Congressional Budget Office says stimulus bill to cost $75 billion more
CBO: Stimulus $75 Bln More Expensive Than Estimated
Stimulus price tag soars as jobless rate rises

/no matter what Obama sys tomorrow night, the State of the Union, is not strong

The First Stimulus Has Been A Total Disaster So Naturally Democrats Plan To Waste Even More Borrowed Money On More Useless Stimulus

Hey, I know, the first “stimulus” isn’t working, so let’s spend more money we don’t have on a second “stimulus”. Nevermind that we haven’t even spent one third of the first trillion dollar “stimulus” yet.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

/Albert Einstein

STIMULUS WATCH: Unemployment Unchanged by Projects

A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama’s first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an “urgent need to accelerate job growth.”

An Associated Press analysis of stimulus spending found that it didn’t matter if a lot of money was spent on highways or none at all: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless. And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.

With the nation’s unemployment rate at 10 percent and expected to rise, Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress including billions of additional dollars for roads and bridges — projects the president says are “at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth.”

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the administration’s recovery program Monday, writing on his blog that “DOT-administered stimulus spending is the only thing propping up the transportation construction industry.”

Road spending would total nearly $28 billion of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to help lower the unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The Senate is expected to consider the House-approved bill this month.

But AP’s analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed the strategy of pumping transportation money into counties hasn’t affected local unemployment rates so far.

“There seems to me to be very little evidence that it’s making a difference,” said Todd Steen, an economics professor at Hope College in Michigan who reviewed the AP analysis.

And there’s concern about relying on transportation spending a second time.

“My bottom line is, I’d be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we’ve seen broader effects from the first stimulus,” said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who also reviewed AP’s analysis.

And what if your “stimulus” isn’t creating even a fraction of the jobs you promised? Well, as they say, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull[expletive deleted]!

White House Inflates Stimulus Job Creation With Accounting Gimmicks

The Obama administration is changing the way it counts jobs created or saved by stimulus spending in a way that will make the programs look far more successful.

Under the old rules, only jobs that were actually newly created or not lost because of stimulus money were counted. Now the administration plans to count all jobs for projects funded by stimulus money—even if that job already existed and the person was never in danger of losing the job.

The changes were made in a little noticed memo sent to federal agencies by OMB director Peter Orszag, according to a new report from ProPublica.

See also:
More Stimulus? Analysis Finds Funds for Roads, Bridges Has Had No Impact
Stimulus? There’s No Stimulus Here
Where Are The Stimulus Jobs?
U.S. road projects don’t help unemployment
Study: Road projects don’t help unemployment
No Unemployment Impact from Road and Bridge Spending
White House Changes Stimulus Jobs Count
White House changes how stimulus jobs are counted
Farewell “Saved or Created”: Obama Administration Changes the Counting of Stimulus Jobs
Counting jobs
White House panics on jobs
SUBJECT: Updated Guidance on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Data Quality, Non-Reporting Recipients, and Reporting of Job Estimates

/Democrat’s “stimulus”, throwing money in the money hole, what’s the difference?

Obama And The Democrats Never Met A Borrowed Dollar They Couldn’t Squander

Remember the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was originally passed to purchase toxic assets from banks but then, in a classic bait and switch, was spent on bailing out troubled banks instead? Well, the good news is that some of the banks, to escape onerous government interference and micromanagement, are actually paying back their TARP funds, with interest, and it looks like the American taxpayer won’t take as big a hit in the shorts as previously thought.

The bad news is that, instead of using the recovered TARP funds to pay down part of our record $12 trillion national debt, as the original legislation required, Obama and the Democrats now want to squander it on a new “stimulus” program. It seems they just can’t help themselves. Of course, once they waste the recovered TARP cash on even more useless Democrat pet projects, the money will be gone forever, the American taxpayer will never see it again and be even deeper in debt.

Bernanke speech: financial stability is returning

It’s welcome news for US taxpayers: The cost of the great bailouts of 2008 is coming in smaller than some forecasters had predicted.

Exhibit A this week is the financial rescue program called TARP – the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Fund. The money paid out in loans or investments to banks and other corporations is being paid back faster than expected, the Obama administration says. Although the US Treasury still expects a loss rather than a profit from the program, it now predicts that the 10-year cost will be no more than $141 billion, which would be $200 billion less than the administration predicted as recently as August.

Using TARP funds for job creation: creative or reckless?

President Obama and congressional Democrats haven’t even announced their latest job creation plans, but already they’re stirring controversy with an idea on how to pay for it – by tapping the Treasury’s so-called TARP funds.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created by Congress 14 months ago to save the financial system from a collapse that threatened the whole economy. Now, as many banks are repaying money that the government had invested, Democrats say the unexpected windfall can be used to finance a jobs bill that may cost $50 billion or more.

But Republican lawmakers argue that the plan still expands the deficit, whether or not TARP is cited as the source of money. They put it this way: Borrowing less on the TARP bailout doesn’t mean the Treasury should then borrowing more for a jobs program.

The spin from both sides regarding the TARP funds could shape the broader debate over a jobs package. Mr. Obama and congressional leaders could try several tactics to boost employment. The possibilities include a new infusion of federal infrastructure spending, additional aid to state and local governments (to reduce planned layoffs), and tax incentives for businesses to hire.

See also:
Obama: Use TARP for job creation
Obama’s Setup
Obama May Use TARP for Jobs
US bank bail-out money could boost jobs, says Obama
Use of Cash From TARP Hits Hurdle
Tarp travels down a hazardous road
US Sen Gregg:Using TARP Cash For Jobs Package Would Be Illegal
TARP makes a profit! Washington immediately blows the profit!
How’s That Trillion Dollars In “Stimulus” Working Out?
Setting Records
You Can’t Stop Them, You Can’t Even Hope To Contain Them
Spending Like A Drunken Sailor On Crack

So far, less than 25% of the original trillion dollar “stimulus” has even been spent and now Obama and the Democrats want to spend another few hundred billion dollars on more “stimulus”? HELLO? What’s wrong with this picture? If their first “stimulus” was so wonderful, why do they need a second “stimulus”?

I’ll tell you why. Their first “stimulus” sucked big time, it’s not doing [expletive deleted] except flushing money down the toilet, and now Obama and the Democrats are panicking because unemployment is at 10% and the 2010 midterm elections are looming in the not so distant future.

/doubling down on their original “stimulus” mistake by squandering even more borrowed money on Democrat pet projects will only exacerbate our national debt and the inflation that’s eventually coming down the road, but don’t expect long term economic reality to stop them, they think they can buy 2010 votes through constituent targeted deficit spending, it’s the Democrat way

Lots Of Bull[Expletive Deleted] Saved Or Created

Obama tells business leaders they are key to job growth

President Obama kicked off a much-anticipated jobs summit Thursday, telling 130 business leaders and others summoned to the White House for the afternoon-long session that private business, not government, holds the key to future job growth.

“Ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector,” Obama said.

Thank you President Oblivious! You needed a “jobs summit” to announce that? It’s telling that you and most of your Cabinet has absolutely zero private sector experience.

See also:
President Obama holds jobs summit to refocus on economy
Economic ideas floated at local jobs summit
Labor Praises Jobs Summit, Calls For Action—But Obama Sending Mixed Signals on Major Spending
As Obama Holds Jobs Summit, Frustrated Left Complains About Slow Growth
Bing pleads for federal dollars for Detroit at Jobs Summit
RNC Chairman Steele Blasts Job Summit
Jobs Summit or White House ‘Photo-Op’?
Gingrich hosts his own jobs summit

Hey Obama, here’s an idea, if you really want to get the recovery going stop spouting stupid platitudes at meaningless “job summit” photo-ops and CUT TAXES! It’s not rocket science, it’s been proven to work time and time again.

/although I’m not holding my breath because cutting taxes is to Democrats as garlic is to vampires

How’s That Trillion Dollars In “Stimulus” Working Out?

What does a trillion dollars in wasteful deficit spending on Democrat pet pork projects buy, besides record deficits and the most unsecured national debt in American history? Well, lets see, 2.7 million jobs lost since the “stimulus” just had to be passed immediately, without anyone even having read it, and the highest unemployment rate in 26 years, with no net job growth in sight. Hip, hip, hooray, you go Obama and the Democrats (hopefully starting in 2010)!

dd
gr2009032100104

Job losses accelerate to 263,000 in September

The nation’s job losses accelerated in September, driving the unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 9.8% and casting a cloud over the incipient recovery, economic data showed Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls fell by a greater-than-expected 263,000 in September, the Labor Department reported. It marked the 21st consecutive month of job losses.

Since the recession began in December 2007, 7.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has doubled.

While disappointing, the September numbers were not catastrophic, economists said.

“We are more inclined to view September as a temporary setback than as a signal that the decelerating trend in job losses has stalled out,” wrote Stephen Stanley, chief economist for RBS Securities. “It is far too early to be pulling the alarm on this nascent recovery.”

But another economist sounded the warning.

The “weak employment report lessens hope for a sustainable recovery,” wrote Harm Bandholz of UniCredit Research. “Once the impact of the inventory cycle and the fiscal stimulus has run its course, gross domestic product growth will slow down substantially again.”

The employment figures also carried a political dimension, as Republicans said the continued job losses proved the stimulus had failed, while Democrats said they proved that government support is essential.

“Today’s job report is a sobering reminder that progress comes in fits and starts — and that we’re going to need to grind out this recovery step by step,” said President Barack Obama. “I’m working closely with my economic advisors to explore any and all additional options and measures that we might take to promote job creation.”

“We are headed for what appears to be, at best, a jobless recovery,” said Rep. John Boehner, the Ohio Republican who leads the GOP in the House. “That is not what the American people were promised.”

Details of the report were almost universally dismal, with the number of unemployed people rising by 214,000 to 15.1 million.

And of those, 5.4 million have been out of work longer than six months, accounting for a record 35.6% of the jobless.

Stimulus Spending Doesn’t Work

The global recession and financial crisis have refocused attention on government stimulus packages. These packages typically emphasize spending, predicated on the view that the expenditure “multipliers” are greater than one—so that gross domestic product expands by more than government spending itself. Stimulus packages typically also feature tax reductions, designed partly to boost consumer demand (by raising disposable income) and partly to stimulate work effort, production and investment (by lowering rates).

The existing empirical evidence on the response of real gross domestic product to added government spending and tax changes is thin. In ongoing research, we use long-term U.S. macroeconomic data to contribute to the evidence. The results mostly favor tax rate reductions over increases in government spending as a means to increase GDP.

. . .

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

Gee, who would have ever figured that tax cuts were more effective at stimulating the economy and creating jobs than massive government deficit spending on Democrat pet pork projects that do nothing to create sustainable jobs. Just a thought, maybe the Democrats should have passed more tax cuts instead of wasting most of a trillion dollars in taxpayer money on incredibly stupid crap like frozen sliced ham, turtle tunnels, and outhouses in national parks.

See also:
US unemployment at 26-year high
Jobless rate reaches 9.8 percent in September
263,000 Jobs Lost, Worse Than Views; Jobless Rate 9.8%
Unemployment rate rises to 9.8% as employers cut more jobs than expected
UPDATE: Fed’s Rosengren Sees High Unemployment Next 2 Years
2.7 Million Jobs Lost Since “Stimulus” Bill Enacted
Stimulus can’t ease job pain for U.S. states and cities
Biden on Unemployment: “Less Bad” Isn’t Good
Republicans Seize on Jobs as Proof Obama’s Policies Have Failed
Job Numbers Released, GOP Pounces
As Biden lays out stimulus goals, GOP demands specifics on new jobs
Romney: Stimulus Not Working, Time to Fix It
Stimulus: New Research on Government Stimulus Spending and Tax Cuts
How Bad Does The “Stimulus” Suck?
Where’s The Stimulus And Why Do We Need Any More Of It Anyway?

/so, Obama and the Democrats have lost 2.7 million jobs, the U.S. unemployment rate is the highest in 26 years, and their trillion dollar “stimulus” has failed miserably, I guess there’s only one thing left for them to do, blame Bush!

How Bad Does The “Stimulus” Suck?

Let Tom Coburn count the ways. As a taxpayer, you’ll have trouble believing just how bad it really is and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

A Second Opinion on the Stimulus

Earlier this year, Congress was quick to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus bill that promised to jumpstart the economy and put Americans back to work by spending $787 billion on “shovel-ready” projects across the country.

There was no question that the nation’s economic condition demanded bold action. Nor is there any question that the massive amount of stimulus spending so far has created some new jobs. Yet, as recent statistics have shown, the jobs that may have been created or saved from the stimulus are not offsetting the millions of jobs that our economy is still hemorrhaging. In my estimation, Congress chose the wrong approach to stimulating the economy by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. Real stimulus includes lowering the tax and regulatory burden on hardworking families and businesses, which creates good jobs for the long term.

Unemployment soared to 9.4 percent in May 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), with 14.5 million Americans now out of work. These numbers are staggering, but may actually be too low. BLS also reports that “true unemployment” could be as high as 16.4 percent when adjusted for all workers that would like to work full time but are discouraged from doing so. Behind these statistics are stories of families trying to make ends meet without a steady pay check, and even those who have not lost their jobs are anxious about their own financial situation, as well as the future that they can expect for their children and grandchildren.

It is fair to say that these statistics do not tell the full story of the stimulus. Taxpayers have a lot of questions about how the stimulus is working and they deserve answers.

For example, what kinds of jobs are being created? Are these permanent jobs or seasonal and temporary jobs that will soon be gone when the project is completed? What are the merits of projects being funded with stimulus dollars? Will these projects make real improvements in the lives of taxpayers and communities or are they simply pet projects of politicians and lobbyists that never got off the ground because they are a low priority? Are some stimulus projects actually making matters worse for ordinary Americans?

Taxpayers would not be shocked to hear that millions of dollars of stimulus money are being wasted, but they might be shocked to learn the answers to these questions. After a review of thousands of projects, it is fair to claim that there are some successes, but there are also places where we need to do better.

Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, estimates that at least $55 billion of the money may be lost to waste, fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, we all have come to expect waste and mismanagement when Washington spends money. But this time the expectation must be different. When ordinary Americans are laid off or lose their jobs, they are losing more than just income. They are losing their health insurance, as well as their ability to pay their mortgages, to send their kids to school, or even provide necessities like food and shelter.

This report is an attempt to look beyond the statistics of jobs created or even money wasted. It, instead, provides a closer examination of 100 projects, programs and missteps – worth $5.5 billion – some even in my own home state of Oklahoma, that are likely to fail the expectation of out of work Americans who were hoping this bill would create good jobs that they are desperately seeking so that they can provide for their families once again.

I plan on issuing additional reports on stimulus projects in the months to come in the hope that by keeping government accountable, we can provide the most value for taxpayers.

Tom Coburn, M.D.
U.S. Senator

GOP senator issues list of 100 wasteful stimulus projects

It’s no secret that Sen. Tom Coburn isn’t wild about the federal stimulus.

But on Tuesday the Oklahoma Republican underscored his displeasure with a 45-page report on 100 stimulus projects he considers wasteful, with special care for his top 10 most dubious projects. Read the complete report here.

The worst project in his view is a wastewater facility in Perkins, Okla. The town gets $1.5 million in stimulus help for the project, but it comes with enough other federal strings attached that it has forced a 60 percent rate hike, Coburn claims.

Only one stimulus project from Arizona made his list, a $5.4 million grant to the Phoenix Police Department that will likely go to ticketing equipment rather than extra cops.

Back in February, even before President Barack Obama signed it into law, Coburn released a list of 37 stimulus projects he considered wasteful.

“There was no question that the nation’s economic condition demanded bold action. Nor is there any question that the massive amount of stimulus spending so far has created some new jobs,” Coburn notes at the outset of his latest report. “In my estimation, Congress chose the wrong approach to stimulating the economy by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.”

Top 10 wasteful stimulus projects

Senator Tom Coburn (R – Okla), a staunch opponent of wasteful spending, has issued a report entitled 100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion. The report highlights 100 of the most wasteful projects funded by the stimulus. Here are the top ten wasteful projects according to the report.

1. “Free” Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, Oklahoma

2. $1 billion for FutureGen a power plant that uses “cutting edge technology.” The irony of the whole project is that the costly technology being used is already obsolete.

3. $15 million for “shovel-ready” repairs to little-used bridges in rural Wisconsin are given priority over widely used bridges that are structurally deficient.

4. $800,000 for little-used John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport to repave a back-up runway; the “airport for nobody” has already received tens of millions in taxpayer dollars.

5. $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passage,” a way for animals to go under a busy road, in Florida.

6. Nevada non-profit gets $2 million weatherization contract after recently being fired for same type of work.

7. Non-existent Oklahoma lake in line for over $1 million to construct a new guardrail.

8. Nearly $10 million to be spent to renovate a century old train station that hasn’t been used in 30 years.

9. Ten thousand dead people get stimulus checks, Social Security Administration blames a tough deadline.

10. Town of Union, New York, encouraged to spend money it did not request for a homelessness problem it does not have.

See also:
Sen. Coburn Questions Stimulus Projects
New Report Cites Wasteful Stimulus Spending — Going Nowhere
Stimulus program fraught with waste, report says
Sen. Coburn questions 100 stimulus projects
Guardrail to ‘Nowhere’ Should Go, Says Coburn
Coburn: Stimulus Forces Higher Utility Rates
Some projects raise question: Where’s the stimulus?
More to Florida turtle crossing than Oklahoma Sen. Coburn claims

And here’s another “stimulus” gem that didn’t make Coburn’s list, but it proves the law of unintended consequences and that no one actually read the shameful “stimulus” bill before they voted on it.

STIMULUS WATCH: $25 check may cost you food stamps

When President Barack Obama increased unemployment benefits as part of his economic stimulus, he also made some Americans ineligible for hundreds of dollars a month in food stamps.

Under the economic recovery plan, laid-off workers have seen a $25 weekly bump in their unemployment checks as part of a broad expansion of benefits for the poor. But the law did not raise the income cap for food stamp eligibility, so the extra money has pushed some people over the limit.

Laid-off workers and state officials are only now realizing the quirk, a consequence of pushing a $787 billion, 400-page bill through Congress and into law in three weeks.

And for people hurt by the change, there’s no way around it.

See also:
Obama’s unemployment boost kicks thousands off foodstamps
How $25 Extra in Unemployment Benefits is Hurting Some
Stimulus bill adds jobless benefits; removes food stamps
Georgia Man Says Stimulus Money Costing Him
Move To Help Families May Be Hurting Others

So, here we have even more evidence that very little of the “stimulus” money has been spent so far and the money that has been spent has been spent of ridiculous Democrat pet projects that do nothing to boost the economy or ease unemployment. And, seeing as the economy is already starting to recover despite the “stimulus”, any further insane spending of money we don’t have on things we don’t need, is an unconscionable waste of borrowed money that taxpayers, present and future, will have to repay, with interest.

/in the name of common sense and basic fiscal responsibility, CANCEL THE REST OF THE “STIMULUS”, CANCEL IT NOW!

Are You Listening President Obama?

The American people have figured out that the $1 trillion (with interest) worth of “stimulus” isn’t doing anything to help the economy and is nothing more than wasteful spending on Democrat pet projects that we couldn’t afford in the first place.

45% Say Cancel Rest of Stimulus Spending

Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans say the rest of the new government spending authorized in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan should now be canceled. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 36% disagree and 20% are not sure.

According to news reports, only $36 billion of the stimulus plan had been spent as of late May.

Just 20% of adults say the tax cuts included in the stimulus plan should be canceled while 55% disagree. The stimulus plan includes $288 billion in tax cuts.

While there is a wide partisan gap on the question of stimulus spending, there is little partisan disagreement on maintaining the tax cuts.

President Obama on Monday vowed to speed up the pace of stimulus spending and said the money will help “create or save” 600,000 more jobs this summer.

However, only 31% of Americans believe the new government spending in the stimulus package creates new jobs. Forty-eight percent (48%) say the stimulus spending does not create jobs, and 21% are not sure.

Americans have mixed feelings about whether speeding up the new government spending in the stimulus package will help the economy. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say the increased spending will be good for the economy, but 44% say it will be bad. Eight percent (8%) think it will have no impact.

A plurality of government employees believe speeding up the stimulus will be good for the economy. However, those who work in the private sector strongly disagree.

See also:
Poll: 45 Pct of Americans Want to Cancel Rest of Stimulus
Poll: 45 Percent Say Cancel Stimulus Spending
Public Wants Wasteful Stimulus Package Canceled
45% Of Americans Say Cancel The Rest Of The “Stimulus” Spending Spree
Brit Hume Explains Why the Economic Stimulus Is Not Working
Where’s The Stimulus And Why Do We Need Any More Of It Anyway?

Of course, since the “stimulus” isn’t doing any good, the prudent, fiscally responsible thing to do would be to cancel what’s not spent already, especially since we couldn’t afford it in the first place. The people can see right through this sham and the polls are showing it. But since Obama doesn’t care about the people or fiscal responsibility, he just promised to spend the “stimulus” faster.

Obama confronts doubts on stimulus, vows faster spending

His assertions — that 150,000 jobs have been saved or created already, and that the summer goal is 600,000 more — appear to be elastic and are hard to verify.

President Obama billed it as an adrenaline jolt — a $787-billion stimulus package that not only would put people back to work, but also underwrite construction and energy projects the country had long neglected.

But with the economy still sputtering and some experts doubting the program was meeting its goals, Obama vowed Monday to accelerate stimulus spending with the goal of creating or saving 600,000 jobs by summer’s end.

Ooh, he’s going to “create or save” 600,000 jobs. Has he looked at the unemployment rate lately?

Unemployment rate is a wake-up call

Jobless claims in America rose to 9.4 percent in May, the highest jobless claims rate in 25 years. In response to the report, Vice President Joe Biden called the numbers “encouraging.” One in 10 Americans without work is hardly encouraging, especially after a massive $800 billion stimulus that was supposed to put Americans back to work.

Ahead of the stimulus vote, economic advisers to the president and vice president warned that without the money contained in the bill, unemployment would reach 9 percent. Republicans offered amendments and alternatives to speed infrastructure spending and tax relief to help businesses expand and hire to get Americans working again.

However, congressional Democrats scoffed at the idea that their plan would not act quickly enough and passed the package they said would turn the economy around fast.

See also:
Meet the new stimulus, same as the old
Obama repackages stimulus plans with old promises
26-Year High Unemployment Rate Contradicts White House Stimulus Claims

So, the reality is that there are many more people unemployed now than the day the “stimulus” bill was signed into law. In fact, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the “stimulus” bill has “created or saved” a single job!

The Media Fall for Phony ‘Jobs’ Claims

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto’s problem was that he simply lacked the magic words — jobs “saved or created.”

“Saved or created” has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs — and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could “save or create” an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will “save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years.”

Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. “We would never have used a formula like ‘save or create,'” he tells me. “To begin with, the number is pure fiction — the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being ‘saved.’ And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it.”

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama’s jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one — not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics — actually measures “jobs saved.” As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama’s jobs claims are “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.” Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula “save or create” allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a “non-measurable metric.” And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

“The expression ‘create or save,’ which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius,” writes Mr. Mankiw. “You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus.”

Amidst Questions About Their Numbers, White House Says Stimulus Will Save or Create 600,000 Jobs in the Next 100 Days

The administration last month claimed that 150,000 jobs had already been saved or created due to the stimulus bill, though that number is based on a theoretical projection and not an actual count.

As ABC News’ David Kerley points out, last week Keith Hall, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, told a House subcommittee that he could not substantiate the claim.

“No,” Hall said. “That would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate…We’re busy just counting jobs.”

See also:
Obama’s Stats On Jobs Created, Saved ‘Silly’: Expert
“Create or Save”
Obama’s Preposterous ‘Create or Save’ Jobs Promise Was Never Uttered During the Campaign
Create-or-save — Anyone can play
Obama to “Create or Save” Jobs?

In other words, Obama is just pulling random numbers out of his ass and making [expletive deleted] up. The bottom line is that we can’t afford the “stimulus”, the “stimulus” hasn’t done anything to stimulate the economy and hasn’t “saved or created” a single job, except in Obama’s imagination. And yet, despite the usless “stimulus” spending, the U.S. economy is climbing out of the latest recession all by itself, as part of a global recovery.

The American people, armed with these facts, can see straight through the unaffordaable, useless, wasteful “stimulus” program and the polls are showing they collectively realize that the only prudent, fiscally responsible thing to do is to cancel the rest of the stimulus now.

Are you listening to the American people President Obama? They’re trying to tell you something important.

/CANCEL THE REST OF THE UNECESSARY, DEBT ALBATROSS, PORK “STIMULUS” SPENDING, CANCEL IT NOW!