“There are many numbers in this plan…It will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.

But out of all these numbers, there is one that matters most to me: this recovery plan will save or create more than 3 million new jobs over the next few years. “

Despite this promise, unemployment today stands at 9.7%, the highest it’s been since 1983. The broader unemployment rate is a staggering 16.8%. Last month, unemployment surged in 27 states.

For the most part, there seems to be a consensus that unemployment is a lagging indicator, meaning its rise is delayed until after other segments of the economy have already improved. Even so, since the recession began in December 2007, 7.4 million jobs have been lost. 4 million of those have been shed since December of 2008, just a month before President Obama’s official transition to power. As of last month, 9.1 million people had accepted part-time work, unable to find full-time, permanent employment.

In fact, job creation as a result of the stimulus has been limited to government jobs. USA Today reports:

“Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they’ve hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That’s helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report.”

It gets even worse. Not only has the stimulus failed to create private sector jobs, but the administrative structures created to implement and oversee the stimulus are depleting the emergency funds they were created to oversee.

“Thirteen agencies that report stimulus-related administrative expenses separately on their weekly spending reports say they’ve spent $186.8 million so far on salaries and other overhead. Those agencies have reported spending $46.1 billion in stimulus funds overall.”

Supporters of the stimulus would argue that distributing the funds and creating jobs costs money. And, to a certain extent, that is true for any government action aimed at creating growth. Tax cuts also cost money — in theory — in decreased revenue for the government. But, they don’t drain the government of funds set to up to increase jobs, funds that are borrowed and upon which interest accrues.

Back in January, The Heritage Foundation pointed out that if the stimulus created 3.675 million jobs, each job would cost $217,000. I wonder if their figure included all the various administrative costs required to create the jobs in the first place. Or to oversee the distribution of the funds.

Presumably, there are some stimulus projects that have gotten underway. Road paving projects for one — because they are faster to get off the ground than construction projects that have numerous environmental hurdles to overcome. But, we now have seven months worth of data and no evidence that the stimulus has created any jobs — save for government jobs. As for saving jobs that would otherwise have been eliminated, I have yet to see anything that offers up a method of calculating this shaky proposition.

So, seven months into the program, unemployment is climbing, and jobs that were promised to Americans if only they trusted Washington to pass the biggest spending bill in U.S. history, are nowhere in sight.

In the statement quoted earlier, the President also promised:

“I can also promise that my administration will administer this recovery plan with a level of transparency and accountability never before seen in Washington. Once it is passed, every American will be able to go the website recovery.gov and see how and where their money is being spent.”

In addition to calling the stimulus bill a jobs bill, the President and his administration promised an unprecedented level of transparency related to the stimulus funds. Recovery.gov is a website that became all too familiar to Americans (well, except to Vice President Biden who famously blanked on the ‘number’ during a live TV spot). Yet, here we are seven months later, and recovery.gov offers nothing more than a very general overview of how stimulus funds have been distributed by state and department.

But, we now have a firm date for the new site, October 1. State and local contractors and other entities will have 10 days each quarter to provide specific information identifying the funds they received, how they were spent and how many jobs were created out of those funds.

But, even this is not without it’s problems. BusinessWeek reports:

“Put another way, without careful auditing, the government will have little way of judging whether all those tens of thousands of stimulus funds recipients are accurately relaying where they spent the money and how many jobs were truly created.”

Seven months in and unemployment is rising, job losses of 550,000 per week are nothing out of the norm, consumer spending is low despite the rebates included in the stimulus, and with Democrats’ health care reform and cap-and-trade proposals still on the table, the spending spree may not be over.

It’s time for Washington to come to terms with the fact that the stimulus is not working. Perhaps they should listen to the 60% of Americans who doubt that the feds will use the stimulus funds as promised on infrastructure or to the 75% of voters who do not believe that the stimulus has helped the economy.

The right thing to do is to cancel the stimulus and regroup. But, as Democrats have made clear with health care, their biggest fear is that they do not have time on their side. So, they refuse to tear up the old plans and start anew; instead, they’ll continue to pull numbers out of the air like ‘the stimulus has saved 1 million jobs.’ And sadly, in another 7 months, things might not look that different than they do today.

This is one time when I can get behind President Obama’s sentiments – although he may not like my reasons for it. What Obama failed to recognize in making that statement is that if the founding fathers were around today, they would abhor his intrusive, expansionist policies. The ‘spirit’ of the founders Obama alluded to was based on a fundamental distrust of those in power and of the tendencies of government itself. James Madison once said that “all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”. Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment when he said, “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” And thus, the founders designed the system of checks and balances we admire today to limit power and to hold government accountable.

Not only did the founders distrust the people in government, but government itself. Madison’s distrust of government is exemplified in his statement, “In framing a government…you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Obliging government to control itself – in making his remarks yesterday, President Obama seems to have forgotten the fear and distrust the founders had of placing too much power in the hands of a distant few governors with a tendency to want to grab more and more power.

Indeed, the actions of this administration thus far have been completely antithetical to the wishes of our founders. President Obama, not wanting to ‘let a crisis go to waste’ believes that the current economic crisis is his best opportunity to transform America – by passing the biggest spending bill in American history, making future generations and states beholden to the federal government, fundamentally changing our health care system so that the government is at the helm of that industry, and imposing burdensome standards and regulations on us in the guise of climate change when there is far from a consensus on global warming. (As I sit here writing on the 4th of July with temperatures in Chicago in the 60s, it’s especially difficult to buy into this theory!)

According to the Congressional Budget Office, within the next 10 years, government debt will be equal to 82% of GDP. The U.S. now has the same number of jobs as it did in the year 2000, erasing 9 years of job creation. And despite massive spending by the federal government, states like California, who received stimulus dollars, are now issuing IOUs to cover their bills.

So, President Obama was right yesterday when he called on all of us to the look to the founding fathers for answers. In this time of economic turmoil and great debate about the proper role of government, we should all turn to them for guidance and remember why the structures they put in place created a system that produced the most wealthy and innovative country in the history of the world. The founders created a magnificent structure. And, it is up to us to remember, understand and defend it from those who would wish to expand government at the expense of our freedoms through monolithic changes to our system with plans such as ‘health care reform’ (which should properly be termed government takeover of the health care industry) and cap and trade (more accurately known as cap & tax).

*Originally published July 5, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

Not happy about the new ‘asset’ (if you could call it that) that you’ve acquired? Well, you’re not alone. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 67% of Americans oppose the new deal. But wait, it gets worse. Only 18% of people surveyed believe that the UAW and federal government will do a good job of running GM. Not surprisingly, government workers are the only ones cheering on the joint venture, while 54% of private employees believe that this won’t end well.

It’s no secret that the majority of the country, conservatives and liberals alike, are opposed to bailouts and the new bailout and spending addiction that has hit Washington. We’re told that had the Detroit companies been left alone, our economy would not have been able to handle the horrendous aftermath. But, no one is out there explaining why nationalization and spending more taxpayer money were the only solutions. Why isn’t the administration out there making the case and explaining why this was the only choice we had?

And most importantly, just as it happened with Chrysler, the administation muscled its way through these negotiatons and convinced yet another group of secured lenders to step back behind the administration’s friends and supporters, the unions, and accept less than what they should be repaid. In the new world we live in under President Obama, risk-takers and lenders get punished; failure is rewarded. Rich Lowry of National Review recently wrote that this way of running the economy will ultimately be corrupting and stultifying. With the administration strongarming secured lenders yet again, I think we’re already there.

*Originally published May 31, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.