Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

The numbers reported on recovery.gov have gotten so misleading, Congressional leaders are asking that the Administration stop using them all together. Reps. John Boehner and Darrell Issa sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden today, asking him to stop using the unverifiable metric of jobs “saved or created” and start focusing on real job creation. Their letter states:

“The inaccuracy of the job creation and retention claims posted on the Administration’s website, www.recovery.gov, has not prevented Administration officials from touting this misleading and inaccurate number as evidence that the President’s stimulus spending package is succeeding even as the unemployment rate continues to rise. The reality is that the metric of jobs ‘created or saved’ was invented by politicians, not economists – it cannot be verified as accurate.”

The Representatives went on to chide the President for not taking the promulgation of false data more seriously, after Obama called the misreporting on the recovery site a “side issue.” Plainly, the letter states:

“We respectfully submit that the President is missing the point.”

We couldn’t agree more.

The first is that she has another model in mind for winning the presidency, in which case I think her chances are bleak. The second is that she wants to run in 2012 but has no particular strategy in mind, in which case her chances are still more bleak. The third is that she has no intention of running. Note that this third option is compatible with her being an important voice for the causes she believes in.

The Coalition formed to fight the decision of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York Citys federal court, effectively giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of all New Yorkers. Two weeks ago, we sent a letter signed by 300 family members of 9/11 victims to the president, attorney general and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking them to reverse course. The letter has now been signed by over 120,000 Americans and is posted at http://www.keepamericasafe.com.

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%.

Three months after declaring Afghanistan a “war of necessity” and 10 months after launching the then-highly touted “AfPak” strategy, President Obama has come full circle and is now re-evaluating U.S. policy on Afghanistan.

Back on Aug. 17, during a speech given to Veterans of Foreign Wars, Obama laid out the case for a vigorous effort in Afghanistan. He indicated that al Qaeda, and the Taliban who harbor them, are a vital threat to U.S. national security.

“Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again,” Obama said. “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

Today, the administration seems unsure whether the Taliban are even a threat, and some advisors are implausibly arguing that even if the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan, the Taliban would not welcome al Qaeda there.

As Obama contemplates the path forward in—or out of—Afghanistan, the harsh reality is that the security and political situation is nearing its nadir. Seven years after being driven from power, Mullah Omar’s Taliban have clearly regained the initiative. But regardless of U.S. and NATO setbacks in Afghanistan, the United States has a vital national security interest there. A reinvigorated Taliban in Afghanistan would threaten neighboring countries in central Asia and lead to the further destabilization of nuclear-armed Pakistan, which is battling its own mounting Taliban insurgency. And the abandonment of the Afghan people to the brutal predations of the Taliban would tarnish the United States’ reputation in the Muslim world and beyond.

In another stroke of foreign policy “genius,” in September the Obama administration unceremoniously threw the proposed George W. Bushera, Eastern European-based U.S. missile defense system under the bus.

Not only was it a sop to the Russians and to the Lefties here at home (who are increasingly disenchanted with the White House), but more importantly, it will render us increasingly vulnerable to the growing Iranian nuclear weapon and ballistic-missile threat.

While spinning the decision madly so as to not look weak on national security, in the end, it amounts to another Obama foreign-policy fumble in its Pollyanna-ish effort to make everything right with the world—despite American interests.

Barack Obama was not the original author of the Great Wall Street Bailout of 2008. But he carried it across the goal line when he—perhaps alone—was in position to block it.

Later, when Obama became president, he brought with him one of the chief authors of the bailouts, Tim Geithner. Obama also reappointed the captain of the bailout ship, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. And one of the bailout innovators of the last 25 years, Larry Summers, sits in the West Wing.

Unsurprisingly, Obama’s team rolled out new bailouts in 2009, and its financial “reforms” would institutionalize them. Obama, undeniably, is a Bailout President. Even aside from the bailouts, Obama is cozy with Wall Street.

He packed his administration with Goldman Sachs alumni, and he received more campaign cash from the finance industry than any politician in history.

In supporting Obama, the industry is acting out of normal self-interest: it knows his plans to heavily regulate Wall Street would actually end up helping the fat cats of Big Finance.

Obama is a president from Wall Street, and Obamanomics is good news for Wall Street. On this score, at least, it’s hard to see how, compared to Bush, Obama represents Change.

* New CIA documents show that interrogation of terror detainees yielded half of all al Qaeda intelligence

* GOP beats Democrats in voter trust on top 10 electoral issues

* What will Reid and Pelosi find in their stockings Christmas morning?

* Mary Katharine Ham uncovers the research that shows that it’s not the Right that has “issues,” despite the attempts by the media to portray conservatives as insane, unbalanced and ignorant

* The War on Christmas continues: fighting for our religious symbols

* Ann Coulter blasts the political correctness movement that has made the Fort Hood Muslim extremist murderer the “victim”

* Will the administration now dismantle non-banks?

* The “old” media stand up to the White House for Fox News

* Joy Behar spouts even more nonsense

* Exclusive interview with Ol’ Saint Nick

* The “mommy patriot” movement is working to save the next generation

* Dennis Miller excoriates the move to bring terrorists to New York City

* Glenn Beck takes Seattle by storm

* Shock report: Politicians lie!

* S.E. Cupp offers a gunowner’s ode to Christmas

* The FBI’s Kathryn Turman is helping terrorism victims’ families deal with the hurt and questions that surround attacks on Americans

. . . And much more.

The government takeover of the health care industry will institutionalize moral hazards as “too big to fail” could become a registered trademark. Before government mandates that its citizens buy insurance and expands coverage to millions, we should consider the current outlook of health care spending for the American taxpayer.

Let’s start by looking at Medicare in 1966, when costs were around $3 billion and projected to reach $12 billion (allowing for inflation) by 1990, according to the House Ways and Means Committee at the time. However, the actual cost by the projected date was $107 billion, almost nine times the original estimate. In 2008, Medicare’s cost grew to almost $450 billion.

These figures are striking, but only tell part of the story.

Last year’s figures still count baby boomers among those paying into the system. Once this enormous sector of the population begins to retire, there will be a dramatic shift from taxpayers to tax-consumers. The original plan was based on a substantial sector of the population paying into the system. Yet birth rates have never caught up to the historic numbers of the post-World War II generation. This is the Medicare financial disaster that has been predicted for decades. However, due to the political suicide of addressing an issue that affects the country’s largest voting block, the answer has been to wait for another Congress or another administration to handle the problem.

Why should the American people believe that universal health care will be any different? In order for this new system to survive, it will depend on two things: how much funding it can raise through taxes and how many loans it can muster despite a growing federal deficit.

For more on the health reform burdens being placed on the youth, see Robert J. Samuelson’s column in yesterday’s Washington Post.