There have been a number of recent stories exposing the complete folly of the so-called "stimulus" plan and the number of jobs claimed to have been "created or saved" by this rapacious spending undertaken by the Obama Administration.  Take for instance, the 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, the administration it claimed to have 'saved', even though they really only employ 508 people.   Or how about the 129 jobs that were said to have been 'created' at a childcare center in Florida when the money was actually used for employee raises, and not new jobs.

Using these methods, in Obama speak, today I created or saved 3,000 calories towards my diet. Clearly, I could have eaten 300 more calories if I tried, but I "saved" those calories due to my stimulus plan. At this rate, I could lose 100,000 calories while still gaining weight! Now, that is Obamanomics.

Well, many have already become expert 'Obamanomists.' I asked some of my constituents in Orange County, CA for their experiences using 'Obamanomics,' and I recieved many good responses, but the one below is by far my favorite.  I am interested in hearing your best example of 'Obamanomics.'

Dear John:

Using Obamamath, I've just saved, nay, created a great deal of money. How? I had wanted to buy a new Lamborghini Gallardo roadster so that I could drive to the White House to personally thank our beloved President for all that he is doing to save us from financial ruin. The trip, via New Orleans in order to view the results of former President Bush's failure to forestall Hurricane Katrina, would have been an approximately 6,000-mile roundtrip.

I didn't buy the Lamborghini, as it wasn't manufactured by Government Motors. I not only saved (created) some $243,000 (including tax) by not making this purchase, but I saved (created) an additional $1,500 by not purchasing fuel for the trip.

Since both the Gallardo and its fuel would have been imported, I'm sure that the Governmental Accountability Office would classify these as "green" savings.

Thus by not buying a Lamborghini Gallardo, and not driving it to visit our President, I will have created a total of $244,500 in Green Savings. Not bad for an amateur!

But think for a moment: If each of the approximately 4 million families who live in Barack Obama's Illinois and Joe Biden's Delaware were to NOT buy a new Lamborghini, and NOT drive to the White House (via New Orleans), we would create an additional $1 trillion in new Green Wealth. Now that's Obamawealth with a vengeance!

 Add Congressman Campbell on Facebook!

Death Tax: Last week, the House passed a permanent extension of the Death Tax, setting the tax rate on any estates over $3.5 million at 45%, not indexed for inflation. The vote was 225-200 with ZERO Republicans voting in favor and 26 Democrats voting to oppose. The Senate is talking about a much preferable 35% on estates over $5 million, indexed for inflation. I favor complete repeal of the tax, although the Senate proposal would be a step in the right direction. Here is a clip of my 2 minute floor speech on why I oppose this bill and this tax.

You may or may not know why this blog is titled the Greeneyeshade Blog.   I am a CPA by training, a self-professed bean-counter.  I also sit on 3 of Committees available to Members of the House that hold jurisdiction over areas of federal economic policy, budgeting, and economic analysis.  I feel it is particularly instructive that we take a look at some history…because after all, the numbers don’t lie.

- In February 2009, Democrats enacted a debt increase, with the premise and promise that by borrowing another trillion dollars would create jobs for more Americans and that it would happen immediately, thereby thwarting the unemployment rate from rising above 8%...we are now at 10.2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this is a 26 year high.

- Since taking control of Congress in January of 2007, Democrats have presided over a 39% increase in the nation’s debt from $8.670 trillion to $12.039 trillion.

- According to the President’s budget, the national debt will soar from $9.961 trillion at the start of 2009 to more than $24.4 trillion in 2019…that’s an increase of 144%.

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

—President Barack Obama, November 18, 2009

Recently, the White House indicated that it has plans to raise the national debt limit as part of a larger upcoming piece of legislation.  What this means is that the United States Government has run out of its statutory borrowing authority…just like the credit card you have in your wallet or purse…there is a limit on what one can spend.

This is the second time in 2009 that the debt limit has been increased. 

Here is a brief situation report of our economy right now:

• - The national debt has increased to $12.039 trillion or 85 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• - The debt limit was raised from $11.315 trillion to $12.104 when Speaker Pelosi and President Obama passed their ‘non-stimulating’ stimulus bill, nine months ago.
• - The government is now roughly $70 billion away from reaching the current limit.
• - The White House is now seeking a debt limit increase of at least $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion—increasing the limit to anywhere from $13.1 trillion to $13.6 trillion.

I will have more on this and a historical glimpse in the past tomorrow.

There are some extra congressional districts in California receiving stimulus dollars…the trouble is, they don’t exist.

Recovery.gov, the web portal designed by the administration to provide transparency and information on where and how the President’s stimulus dollars were being spent lists 9 congressional districts in California that don’t exist, yet they apparently have received $5,740,757 in stimulus dollars, creating 24.2 jobs, which equates to about $237,221 per job.  This odd reporting isn’t limited to California either; ABC News has reported that instances of the same problems are popping up all over the country.

When asked about the problem, Ed Pound, director of communications for recovery.gov said "We're not certifying the accuracy of the information.”  Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers - 26, 45, 14 - to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, "who knows, man, who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.''

I don’t know about you, but I don’t see how the White House can allocate over $1 million in stimulus dollars to California’s 00 District, nor how you can claim to create jobs in a district that doesn’t exist…but if the White House can’t keep track of $787 billion, how are they going to track the $1.6 trillion for health care?!

Last week I highlighted a story from Politico that indicated a shift in strategy by the Obama administration in 2010, to focus on the economy and jobs.

I along with many of my colleagues have been arguing since January that you absolutely cannot tackle any other domestic issues without the benefit of a strong economy and a pervasive jobs market.  Right now, we have neither.  Yet the Obama Administration has insisted on pursuing initiatives that are detrimental to jobs and job growth.

The main domestic focus for any President at a time like this should be…jobs, jobs, jobs.

Don’t take my word for it, here is a comparison chart produced by the Heritage Foundation based on White House estimates and reality…

Today, the D.C. based political newspaper, Politico, featured a story outlining reports of a shift in spending strategy by the Obama Administration, who, according to the story, will shift focus exclusively to cutting the federal deficit in 2010. 

This shift is undoubtedly a result of the political calculus going on over at the White House these days.  Remember, President Obama has spent more money in 9 months than President Clinton spent in eight years, pushing the deficit to $1.4 trillion. 

Meanwhile, the President and his D.C. collectivists are poised to make a final push for an additional $1.6 trillion in spending for its government takeover of healthcare and that’s not even accounting for the costly ‘Cap and tax’ legislation that he and Speaker Pelosi forced through the House earlier this year.

The President says he wants to focus on cutting the deficit, but his actions say another thing, and we all know that actions speak louder than words.

As you may have heard, the latest numbers on unemployment were released today and merely provide a metric for what Americans across the country have known for a while now; the economy still has not recovered. These numbers, which have broken the double digit mark for the first time in 26 ? years, clearly indicate that the President’s Stimulus package has done nothing that it was intended to do, which was to make the recession shorter and shallower.

You will remember that President Obama’s economic advisors indicated that with the passage of the so-called ‘stimulus package,’ unemployment levels would not exceed 7.8%. Now, as we stare down the face of unemployment levels of 10.2%, it begs the question, Mr. President, where are the jobs?

Those of you who read this blog, know that I enjoy posting the occasional political cartoon, and I stumbled across this one this week by Walt Handelsman that is particularly appropriate. The scariest goblins this Halloween are government run health care, the national energy tax, and taxes to pay for more bureaucracies that spend more of your money.

Happy Halloween!

Over the weekend, USA Today ran this Op-Ed on earmarks.  This article really hits the nail on the head.  Click Here to read the full article.

Yesterday marked the last day of Fiscal Year 2009.  I think it is prudent to take a look back at this year in federal spending…

According to CBO, the federal government ran a $1.4 trillion deficit through the first 11 months of FY 2009.  Revenues are down, expenditures are up, and the federal government will borrow 43 cents for every dollar it spends in FY 2009.

The national debt now stands at $11.77 trillion, a 35.8% increase since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.  To provide a frame of reference, this 33 month period has racked up more debt than the total debt accumulated by the federal government from 1789 to1989….In FY 2009 alone, the federal government ran up $1.75 trillion of debt.

Since the non-stimulating stimulus package became law, Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama have not curbed their spending habits.  There is no question that Republicans foolishly abandoned their fiscal conservative roots during the past 8 years, but since taking over Congress, Democrats have turned a projected ten-year $800 billion surplus into a projected deficit of $7.8 trillion over the same period of time.  For you bean counters out there, that is an $8.6 trillion deterioration of the nation’s budget outlook in the 33 months since Democrats took control of Congress.

These numbers are staggering…they speak for themselves.

Over the last 9 months, we have seen a drastic increase in government spending, deficits, and debt. You will often see or hear pundits and TV personalities opining about these metrics in relation to the size of government. However, you don’t often hear about another important metric relative to the expansion of government, and that is the growth of the federal bureaucracy.

Since the President passed his massive non-stimulating stimulus bill, it has proven to have been largely ineffective and inefficient. But several government agencies have made hires just to oversee the stimulus spending, and the federal workforce has ballooned by 15.6% since 2006.

In his request for the stimulus bill, the President said:

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents’ Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.”

However, actions speak louder than words and President Obama has been the vanguard of bigger government, making now routine incursions into virtually every level of private life from student loans to health care. The point here is simple, as the government grows, liberty declines, and inevitably the taxpayer and the rest of the economy suffer.

As Ronald Reagan once said:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs – once launched – never disappear, Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth.”

In the past, I have highlighted various egregious boondoggles or flat out silly expenditures by the federal government, it’s been a while since I last blogged, but here is one boondoggle that I stumbled upon recently.

The stimulus bill, widely touted by the current Administration and Democratic leadership of the House and Senate, was supposed to ostensibly make the recession shorter and shallower.  Unfortunately it has done neither.  Despite unemployment levels near 10% you will be able to take comfort knowing that Washington D.C. was recent the recipient of $2.8 million in stimulus funds from the United States Forest Service for ‘wildland fire mitigation.’  Yet, D.C. doesn’t have any national forests and furthermore hasn’t seen a wildland-scale fire since 1814 when the British burned the Capitol during the War of 1812.  So the obvious question is, ‘where is this money going?’

Well, $2.7 million will be going to Washington Parks and People a non-profit that enhances and restores public parks. 

According to the organization it has:

Sponsored the Marvin Gaye Festival, which includes live musical performances.

Sponsored the Season in Seven Celebration and Tree Lighting

Chaired the International Urban Parks Alliance Forum, the premier forum for parks advocates.

When asked about the grant, they were surprised as anyone to be getting the grant saying, “[W]e do not know anything beyond the information we saw on the web site.”

This is disappointing, but further proof that the President’s stimulus package was both ill-conceived and not truly designed to be stimulative.

As readers of this missive know, I frequently voice my opinionwhen I believe the President is doing the wrong thing. That has been the case with virtually everything he has done thus far. However, when he takes action that I believe to be correct or helpful, I will point that out as well. Such is the case this week when the President announced that he will reappoint Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve for another 4 year term. This is a hugely important and very positive decision for the following reasons:

Independence: The Federal Reserve should make decisions for economic reasons and remain independent of the White House so as not to politicize those decisions. I would say this regardless of who the President is. Bernanke is independent and will have been appointed by both Bush and Obama. Replacing him could have sent a sign that the Administration was trying to control the Fed which would have been a terrible message and precedent.

Past performance: With the benefit of hindsight, one can criticize some of Bernanke’s moves and statements during his first term. Certainly, he can be criticized for not identifying the depth of last year’s crisis sooner, among other things. But virtually none of us foresaw the severity of the crisis or offered a solution that would have prevented it. Bernanke’s swift and decisive action contributed to saving the economy from what would have been acomplete collapse last October. He has done a good job so far and we should let him seethe jobthrough back to a normal economy.

Continuity: Markets hate uncertainty, this is particularly true now. Continuing Bernanke’s Chairmanship until January 2014 gives the markets some confidence that monetary policy will be consistent and measured towards the Fed’s mission of growth with low inflation.

No Debt Monetization: This is probably the single most positive sign from the Bernanke reappointment. The federal debt and deficits are huge, unsustainable, and a major risk to future economic growth. Not to mention, it continues togrow. One way to deal with these problems is to “monetize” the debt. That means that the Fed would print money and buy all the new debt issues from the Treasury rather than sell them in the marketplace. Whenever any government has done this on any meaningful scale, it has resulted in uncontrolled inflation and a precipitous decline in the value of the currency. Bernanke has been clear that he thinks this is disastrous economic policy, and he is entirelycorrect. But it can be a politically easy way out of the mess without raising taxes or cutting spending. But it can’t be accomplished without the Fed Chairman’s 'OK.' Make no mistake; the debt/deficit is still a huge problem. But by reappointing Chairman Bernanke, one of the worst ways to deal with it appears to be off the table. I would also argue that without debt monetization, future inflation prospects are muted somewhat.

Amidst the lulls of the August recess, The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, featured a story on spending increases on the costs of earmarks, and I would be remiss if I didn’t at least bring it to your attention.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House are quick to point out that much work has been done on reducing pork barrel spending in the Capitol.

But according to a report published jointly by Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Center for Responsive politics, after tallying the earmarks in this year’s appropriations bill, it turns out that the cost of earmarks has actually increased! According to the report, $19.9 billion was doled out for earmarks in 2009 compared to $18.3 billion in 2008.

This report simply annunciates that our earmark affliction still dogs us, and its symptoms are immune to any one particular party.

To view it in full click here.