February 17, 2010 | By Amanda J. Reinecker

More money for fewer jobs…again

In February 2009, President Obama signed into law the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. One year later, the tab for this so-called "stimulus" bill has grown to a staggering $862 billion -- and the spending has done very little to actually improve our sinking economy.

The left boasted that their big-government program would "create or save" about five million new jobs by December 2010 and cap unemployment at eight percent. But so far, it's not living up to these promises. As Heritage's Conn Carroll explains, four million jobs have been lost since the bill went into force, and unemployment rose above 10 percent, though it now stands at 9.7 percent. The President's stimulus would require a mighty turnaround to be deemed anything other than a dismal failure. 

» Today at 11:00 Eastern, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) is joined by Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and Tom Rooney (R-FL) to discuss the "stimulus." And they'll be taking questions live from Heritage's Facebook fans! Become a Fan of The Heritage Foundation on Facebook to participate.

But the left won't admit to the shortcomings of their stimulus bill. In fact, the White House Council of Economic Advisors audaciously reports that last year's stimulus bill created two million new jobs. Heritage experts beg to differ. In a new Heritage analysis, economist Karen Campbell dissects the CEA's report and argues that its findings "fail basic standards of economic analysis" and do little to prove anything about the stimulus.

Nevertheless, the left is forging ahead with its big-spending ways, and wants yet another stimulus, this time dubbed a "jobs bill." The House of Representatives has already passed a $154 billion stimulus package and the Senate is considering one costing taxpayers $15 billion. Both proposals are highly partisan and, like the 2009 stimulus, will do nothing to stop the recession and curb unemployment.

The $15 billion "jobs bill" the Senate is considering is a far cry from the bipartisan compromise bill the Senate was originally drafting. Even The New York Times editorial board panned this substitute bill, brought forth by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), as "pathetic…as an example of legislation deemed capable of winning bipartisan support."