The Problem of Good

[orangebox21]

I am certain that it is God acting, I am certain that it is not [only] me acting, I am not certain but open to the possibility that it is God and me acting.

Fair enough.

The reason I'm trying to figure out, is that it seems that good actions are only caused by God acting and are impossible without him, then by very definition, God is responsible for all good actions.

That's a valid argument if we assume that libertarian free will is not true.

Similarly, he is responsible for all good actions not taken.

That would be true if determinism is true.
That would not be true if compatibilism is true.

The whole idea of the free will defense to the problem of evil is to shift responsibility form a God that could act but chooses not to, and shifts it to us, because we were given a choice; however, if we are unable to do good without God, then God would be the sole determining factor as to whether or not a good action was taken. Of course, there are other defenses of free will, but this approach would totally obviate the free will defense.

If I may suggest, at this point you'll need to decide how you are defining free-will.  If you choose libertarian, then you wouldn't have an argument at all given that man's choice is completely independent of God's will [although that would strongly support your initial contention; if people have done good then they did it and if they have done bad they did it, and they deserve the credit/blame for it, although your contention would be limited to choices completely within the control of the individual, which would rule out things like getting a job, etc.]  If you choose determinism, then you could attempt to bring a charge against God but only at the expense of inconsistency within your own worldview.  In your worldview, if determinism is true and God does not exist then people would not be morally responsible for their actions but rather naturalistic processes would be.  At that point you would have to defend the position that no one does anything right or wrong.  At that point your worldview could either claim that morality does not exist [I think this is the more consistent naturalistic deterministic position/If morality does not exist then how can God be morally responsible] or you could claim that morality exists but all moral responsibility lies with naturalistic processes [this position is unlike the reality in which we live/This position would allow you to bring a charge against God but you would have to deny reality in order to do it].  Or you could choose the compatibilist view which would allow for both determinism and morality.  In that case the moral responsibility is held by the person making the choice and not the determiner.  In that case God [the determiner] would not be morally responsible.  

Some things to think about.