The table below compares the White House’s February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

By Mark Steyn

The other day, wending my way from Woodsville, N.H., 40 miles south to Plymouth, I came across several “stimulus” projects — every few miles, and heralded by a two-tone sign, a hitherto rare sight on Granite State highways. The orange strip at the top said “PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK” with a silhouette of a man with a shovel, and the green part underneath informed you that what you were about to see was a “PROJECT FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT.” There then followed a few yards of desolate, abandoned, scarified pavement, followed by an “END OF ROAD WORKS” sign, until the next “stimulus” project a couple of bends down a quiet rural blacktop.

I don’t know why one of the least fiscally debauched states in the Union needs funds from “the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” to repair random stretches of highway, especially stretches that were perfectly fine until someone came along to dig them up in order to access “stimulus” funding. I would have asked one of those men with a shovel, as depicted on the sign, but there were none to be found. Usually in New Hampshire, they dig up the road, and re-grade or repave it, while the flagmen stand guard until it’s all done. But here a certain federal torpor seemed to hang in the eerie silence.

Still, what do I know? Evidently, it’s stimulated the sign-making industry, putting America back to work by putting up “PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK” signs every 200 yards across the land. And at 300 bucks a pop, the signage alone should be enough to launch an era of unparalleled prosperity, assuming America’s gilded sign magnates don’t spend their newfound wealth on Bahamian vacations and European imports. Perhaps if the president were to have his All-Seeing O logo lovingly hand-painted onto each sign, it would stimulate the economy even more, if only when they were taken down and auctioned on eBay.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, India, China, Japan, and much of continental Europe the recession has ended. In the second quarter this year, both the French and German economies grew by 0.3 percent, while the U.S. economy shrank by 1 percent. How can that be? Unlike America, France and Germany had no government stimulus worth speaking of, the Germans declining to go the Obama route on the quaint grounds that they couldn’t afford it. They did not invest in the critical signage-in-front-of-holes-in-the-road sector. And yet their recession has gone away. Of the world’s biggest economies, only the U.S., Britain, and Italy are still contracting. All three are big stimulators, though Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi can’t compete with Obama’s $800 billion porkapalooza. The president has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet.

Actually, when I say “to less effect,” that’s not strictly true: Thanks to Obama, one of the least indebted developed nations is now one of the most indebted — and getting ever more so. We’ve become the third most debt-ridden country after Japan and Italy. According to last month’s IMF report, general government debt as a percentage of GDP will rise from 63 percent in 2007 to 88.8 percent this year and to 99.8 percent of GDP next year.

Of course, the president retains his formidable political skills, artfully distracting attention from his stimulus debacle with his health-care debacle. But there are diminishing returns to his serial thousand-page trillion-dollar boondoggles. They may be too long for your representatives to bother reading before passing into law, but, whatever the intricacies of Section 417(a) xii on page 938, people are beginning to spot what all this stuff has in common: He’s spending your future. And by “future” I don’t mean 2070, 2060, 2040, but the day after tomorrow. Democrats can talk about only raising taxes on “the rich,” but more and more Americans are beginning to figure out what percentage of them will wind up in “the richest 5 percent” before this binge is over. According to Gallup, nearly 70 percent of Americans now expect higher taxes under Obama.

But the silver-tongued salesman sails on. Why be scared of a government health program? After all, says the president, “Medicare is a government program that works really well,” and if “we’re able to get something right like Medicare,” we should have more “confidence” about being able to do it for everyone.

On the other hand, says the president, Medicare is “unsustainable” and “running out of money.”

By the way, unlike your run-of-the-mill politician’s contradictory statements, these weren’t made a year or even a week apart, but during the same presidential speech in Portsmouth, N.H. At any rate, in order to “control costs” Obama says we need to introduce a new trillion-dollar government entitlement. It’s a good thing he’s the smartest president of all time and the greatest orator since Socrates because otherwise one might easily confuse him with some birdbrained Bush type. But, if we take him at his word, then a trillion-dollar public expenditure that “controls costs” presumably means he’s planning on reducing private health expenditure — such as, say, your insurance plan — by at least a trillion. Or he’ll be raising a trillion dollars’ worth of revenue. Either way, under Obama nothing is certain but death panels and taxes — i.e., a vast enervating statism, and the confiscation of the fruits of your labors required to pay for it.

That’s why the “stimulus” flopped. It didn’t just fail to stimulate, it actively deterred stimulation, because it was the first explicit signal to America and the world that the Democrats’ political priorities overrode everything else. If you’re a business owner, why take on extra employees when cap’n’trade is promising increased regulatory costs and health “reform” wants to stick you with an 8 percent tax for not having a company insurance plan? Obama’s leviathan sends a consistent message to business and consumers alike: When he’s spending this crazy, maybe the smart thing for you to do is hunker down until the dust’s settled and you get a better sense of just how broke he’s going to make you. For this level of “community organization,” there aren’t enough of “the rich” to pay for it. That leaves you.

For Obama, government health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture in which all elections and most public discourse will be conducted on Democratic terms. It’s no surprise that the president can’t make a coherent economic or medical argument for Obamacare, because that’s not what it’s about — and for all his cool, he can’t quite disguise that. Apropos a new poll, the Associated Press reports that Americans “are losing faith in Barack Obama.”

“Losing faith”? Oh, no! Fall on your knees and beseech the One: “Give me a sign, O Lord!”

But he has. They’re all along empty highways across rural New Hampshire: “This Massive Expansion of Wasteful Statism Brought to You by Obama Marketing, Inc.”

The Left is acting as if its political dominance — super majorities in both houses of Congress and, of course, the Presidency — eliminates the need for thoughtful debate. Over the past eight months, politicians in Washington have pushed an ambitious agenda highlighted by several trillion dollar proposals (stimulus, health care and climate), all of which deserved substantive debate and cautious consideration.

Unfortunately, all these proposals were rushed, diminishing debate even as dissenters were summarily dismissed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused boisterous dissenters of being “un-American,” while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) characterized efforts to engage in a substantive debate as “obstructionist tactics.” Similarly, President Obama often notes that “doing nothing” is not an option. Critics and opponents of liberal reform are now in the crosshairs.

All this rhetoric obscures one simple fact: Americans are genuinely concerned with the direction of our country. Recent events at town hall meetings across the country are evidence the American people want to engage in a genuine debate about our country’s future. Unfortunately, the Left would rather ignore or demagogue the existence of alternative points of view. And while you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage, there are plenty of alternatives.

Let’s take a look.

Stimulus

During the “stimulus” debate, President Obama said “the strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate.” But, he added, Congress needed to “pass this plan” “without delay.” Such a formulation, while eloquent, was intended to dismiss the very thoughtful options proposed by others. Republicans in the House and Senate offered a comprehensive alternative. Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) American Option emphasized international competitiveness and aimed to reward entrepreneurship. Senator John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) Fix Housing First Act, while flawed, was another good-faith alternative. There were plenty of good ideas to stimulate the economy. What was lacking was our political leaders’ willingness to engage in real debate.

Health Care Reform

Senator Reid’s fond of saying that those who oppose liberal health care reform support the “status quo.” Yet a quick glance at The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 demonstrates that no one has a monopoly on reform.

The legislation, introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) along with Representatives Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), is equally as ambitious in its attempts to transform America’s health care system, though it does so through very different mechanisms. The aforementioned Senators repeatedly offered to discuss their proposal with Senator Reid. According to well-placed sources, the invitation has gone unacknowledged.

Senator DeMint also has his Health Care Freedom Plan, which is far from the status quo. Again, ideas are abundant and, in this case, actually preceded the hodgepodge of liberal ideas being discussed.

“Clean Energy”

In case you haven’t noticed, the President and many of his allies have abandoned their climate-change rhetoric, instead opting for code words like “clean energy incentives,” “all of the above” and “jobs.” The new verbiage is based on poll-tested language that was necessitated when the public rejected a cap-and-trade scheme. If liberals want to talk about energy production and jobs, conservatives have ideas and actual legislative proposals that would really work.

The American Energy Act, introduced by House Republicans, and the energy-focused No Cost Stimulus Act introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-La.) and Representative Rob Bishop (R-Utah) are just two examples. This isn’t the debate the House of Representatives had this year, but it’s the debate the American people deserve.

Small Ticket Alternatives

The existence of alternatives is readily apparent to any intellectually honest observer. And alternatives were offered on other contentious laws enacted this year. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered a conservative alternative to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. Senator Burr offered an alternative, along with Senator Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), on tobacco regulation reform. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) offered a thoughtful and workable alternative to the wage discrimination legislation. This is hardly a “just say no” philosophy.

New, Innovative Ideas

Conservatives have also offered some innovative ideas of their own. Representative Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) introduced legislation that would bring a new approach to nuclear power, jettisoning subsidies in favor of regulatory certainty. Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Senator Vitter introduced the RAISE Act, which would remove the “seniority ceiling” on wages paid to unionized workers. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced the Government Ownership Exit Plan Act to set a date certain for ending government ownership of banks, auto companies and various other private entities.

It is disingenuous to say conservatives are without ideas. If the media, Congress and the President are interested in real reform, real dialogue and a real American-style debate, they should recognize that they don’t hold a monopoly on ideas, community organizing or the passion of the American people.

by Glenn Foden

by Eric Allie

by Eric Allie

View all recent cartoons