Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 219728 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Opinion
Obama's No. 1 problem? He tried to redistribute the economic pie, not grow it.
www.realclearpolitics.co m





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


President Obama and congressional Democrats could have pursued sensible policies that promote growth and fairness. They didn't. And now voters stand ready to support the Republicans' pro-growth agenda in midterm elections next week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Patrick Fleenor / October 28, 2010
Alexandria, Va.

As congressional Democrats brace for an electoral shellacking next week, one question still seems to puzzle pundits: “Why didn’t President Obama do more to help the economy?” The short answer is that his goal has always been to redistribute the economic pie – not necessarily grow it. That’s a shame, because he could have pursued policies that achieve both.

.“[W]hat people really want is fairness” Mr. Obama stated during the campaign. “They want people paying their fair share of taxes. They want that money allocated fairly.” After his victory, despite the economic crisis, he eschewed the Clinton mantra of “it’s the economy, stupid” and set out to make America more equitable.

Voters want economic growth

Voters, it turns out, are much more concerned about ensuring the economy grows than who gets what – especially during a deep recession. Unfortunately, the president seems locked into the mindset that greater equality of income must come at the expense of economic growth.

One Minute Debate: What's the best way to create more jobs?

Take the administration’s signature achievement: enactment of healthcare reform, aka Obamacare. This legislation subsidizes health insurance for low- and middle-income groups with taxes on high-earners, leveling material wealth but dampening economic growth by encouraging everyone to pare back on their work effort.

High-income workers have an incentive to work less since they get to keep less of what they earn. Low- and moderate-income workers face the same incentive because they can now maintain the same standard of living with even less effort.

Do high tax rates really harm the economy? Consider the countries of the European Union. Since the end of the Second World War, these nations have offered their citizens generous social benefits such as government provided health care and mandated lengthy vacations. Today per capita purchasing power in the EU is just two-thirds that of the US. More-equal slices maybe, but from a much smaller pie.

To deflect criticism that his policies are harming the economy, the president has tried to rely on his formidable rhetorical skills: expanding health care coverage was going to somehow drive down costs, handouts to state and local governments became a stimulus package, climate change legislation became a “green jobs” bill, and so on. Voters, it seems, aren’t buying any of it.

Policies that achieve growth and fairness

This didn’t have to happen. Obama could have embraced many policies that would have enhanced both equity and economic performance. And some of them could have bridged the ideological divide.

An obvious candidate would have been to tackle one of the biggest factors that contributed to the financial crisis in the first place: massive federal subsidies to the real estate industry via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The implicit loan guarantees provided by Fannie and Freddie prior to the bust shifted risk from participants in real estate transactions to taxpayers and allowed capital to flow into the industry under very favorable terms.

This allowed Realtors, homebuilders, developers, mortgage lenders, securities traders, and others to reap enormous gains during the boom, only to dump their losses on taxpayers during the bust. It was a classic case of private gains, socialized losses. Eliminating these loan guaranteees – indeed, cutting all federal support for Fannie and Freddie – would not only have greatly enhanced equity, it would also have helped steer investment away from ever more conspicuous McMansions and into productive endeavors like building newer, more-efficient factories, stimulating economic growth.

Another area ripe for reform would have been the loophole-ridden tax code. Today the proliferation of carve-outs means that only 40 percent of personal income is taxed, pushing rates to more than twice what they could be and creating the situation where similarly situated families often face vastly different tax burdens depending on their ability to game the system. It also means that investment is steered away from companies adept at building better products and into those with the knack for lobbying.

By closing loopholes and broadening the tax base, the president could have slashed rates, enhanced equity, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy. Instead, he’s done the opposite, adding even more loopholes and promising to raise rates.

Obama and Democrats will probably pay a high price next week for failing to see a pro-growth path to fairness. Will the presence of a Republican-led, pro-growth Congress persuade the president to pursue his goal of greater fairness in a way that helps economic growth? Our mutual prosperity depends on it.

Patrick Fleenor is chief economist of the Fiscal Economics, Inc.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Redistribute, sick of hearing that bullshit from the Dems. I work hard for my pay check, if someone else chooses not to well tuff shit.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Redistribute, sick of hearing that bullshit from the Dems. I work hard for my pay check, if someone else chooses not to well tuff shit.

According to the far left, and even obamas dad, people should pay 100 percent to the govt and let them dole it back to you as they see fit. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Oh My : 70 Percent of Independents Support Repeal
Weekly Standard ^ | NOVEMBER 1, 2010 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON


________________________ ________________________ ___________________


Rasmussen's final pre-election poll on the repeal of Obamacare shows that independents favor repeal by the colossal margin of 45 points (70 to 25 percent).

Likely voters on the whole favor repeal by a margin of 22 points (58 to 36 percent), men favor repeal (55 to 39 percent), women favor repeal (61 to 34 percent), every age-group favors repeal (with those in their 30s favoring it by the largest margin), and even 26 percent of Democrats favor repeal.


(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
According to the far left, and even obamas dad, people should pay 100 percent to the govt and let them dole it back to you as they see fit. 

Well they can go pound sand, I stimulated the economy today by purchasing a new Remington 870 Marine Magnum ;D
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Well they can go pound sand, I stimulated the economy today by purchasing a new Remington 870 Marine Magnum ;D


Sweet gun bro -   I shot a 17/25 at trap with that gun out of the box not even knowing what I was doing.  That gun rocks. 

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Going to look at SA 1911a1 Loaded on the weekend to round out the collection
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Going to look at SA 1911a1 Loaded on the weekend to round out the collection

Nice I like the  "Operator" model in olive drap color.  Can't go wrong with the SA 1911. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
It's Official: The Government Won't Be Getting Its Money Back From The GM Bailout
The Business Insider ^ | 11/2/10 | Megan McArdle




Well, they've priced the GM IPO, and it looks like they've valued the firm at just about what we lent it: $50 billion. Since the government only took a 60% stake, that's well below what would be needed for the government to recover its investment. Even with the billions they've already "paid back"--by not using all the money--Uncle Sam needed the company to be worth more like $70 billion to break even on the bailout. IPOs are usually priced at a discount, in order to ensure that a lot of buyers are interested; this creates a robust, liquid aftermarket in the stock, so that if the company needs to go raise more capital, there will be lots of buyers and sellers. But even if you think that the price will go up in the aftermarket, the government is going to take a hefty 30% loss on the $10 billion worth of shares that will be sold in the initial public offering. Moreover, the big block of stock that the government still owns will put some downward pressure on the price in the aftermarket. Everyone knows that the government is going to want to get rid of the remainder of its shares sooner rather than later, which means that secondary offerings will follow in fairly short order. Unless GM turns in some pretty spectacular profits, it looks to me like the government is going to lose at least $10 billion on this deal.


(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Hmmm I wasn't aware that it was the governments money
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Stimulus follies: $535 million down the drain in California in “green jobs”
Share21posted at 9:25 am on
November 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/05/stimulus-follies-535-million-down-the-drain-in-california-in-green-jobs/


________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____


The Obama administration made Solyndra, a solar-power manufacturing company, a symbol of its “green jobs” push in the Porkulus program. Barack Obama himself toured the factory, as did Barbara Boxer. Taxpayers ended up sinking $535 million into building Solyndra a new facility that promised to add jobs in the clean-energy sector. Instead, now that Solyndra has its new facility, it’s closing another older facility and will lay off dozens of employees and cancel the contracts for 150 more contract workers:
Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company’s plans to hire 1,000 workers.
Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.

The moves mean that instead of having 2,000 workers in Fremont, Solyndra will cap its work force at 1,000, which is about the current level. Solyndra also will, over the next several weeks, eliminate 155 to 175 jobs in Fremont. That includes 135 contract employees and 20 to 40 full-time workers, said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.

In other words, we invested $535 million into a company that apparently couldn’t compete on a price basis with its foreign competition. Perhaps Obama and Boxer would choose to do this with the royalties each make from their literary enterprises. That would have been their money to lose.

Instead, though, they borrowed $535 million — a significant portion from China, as one might recall — in order to gamble on Solyndra while putting us on the hook for the investment. Solyndra did all right from it; they got a nice new facility and now can dump their old plant. The television report focuses on the risk if Solyndra has to abandon the new plant, but the same can probably said about its old plant, at least when it comes to getting a new tenant. The old building will sit vacant for a long time in all likelihood while Solyndra downsizes and attempts to stay in business at their taxpayer-funded digs.

It’s an object lesson in the incompetence of politicians and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in private markets.


________________________ ______________________

And you idiot libs wonder why most people now despise this fool? 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Mileage Rules Prompt Backlash(This is laughable:Auto companies are owned lock,stock & bbl by Obama)
wsj ^ | 11/8/10 | josh mitchell


________________________ ________________________ _______________



Auto makers and car dealers, emboldened by rising profits and a more business-friendly Congress, say they will fight the Obama administration's proposal to boost average new-car fuel economy to as much as 62 miles a gallon by 2025.

The auto makers' main trade group accused regulators in documents filed last week of understating the costs by billions of dollars and suggested the industry might go to court over the issue.

It's a fresh sign that the "go along to get along" approach some industries took during the first two years of the Obama administration is over.

Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry's main trade group, said he expects the new Republican-controlled House to review "regulations and policies that they would deem harmful to the overall business environment." He noted that the auto industry is the only sector currently regulated for carbon-dioxide emissions.

Less than two years ago, the heads of the Detroit Three auto makers— General Motors, Chrysler Group and Ford Motor— pleaded before Congress for immediate government aid to prevent an industry collapse. Months later, in the middle of the government's bailout efforts for GM and Chrysler, industry executives signed a deal with the White House and California agreeing to boost fuel-economy standards nearly 35% by 2016 in return for California's agreement not to develop its own, separate fuel-economy rules.

But in recent months the industry has steered back toward a more confrontational posture. Auto makers lobbied heavily against a bill to mandate new safety technologies and increased government oversight, which was proposed in response to the uproar over Toyota Motor Corp.'s sudden acceleration recalls. That legislation now appears all but dead.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
FDA Says it Will Take Vending Machine Owners an Extra 14 Million Hours a Year ... (truncated)
csnews.com ^ | 11-8-10 | Dan Joseph

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/fda-says-it-will-take-vending-machine-ow


________________________ ________________________ ___________________


Original title: FDA Says it Will Take Vending Machine Owners an Extra 14 Million Hours a Year to Comply with Obamacare Calorie Mandate

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates that it will take the food service industry 14 million additional hours each year to comply with a new regulation that mandates chain restaurants and vending machine operators label the products they sell with a calorie count in a place visible to the consumer.

Most of the burden of the regulation, which is buried in President Obama’s 2,000 page health-care reform bill, will fall on the vending industry.

In the Nov. 5 edition of the Federal Register, the FDA estimates “a total of 14,068,808 recurring hours, with nearly all of these for vending machine operators, including 31,408 recurring hours for recordkeeping and 14,037,400 recurring hours for third party disclosure” in conjunction with the regulation.

The recordkeeping element includes recording and keeping track of the calorie content of each item offered in a vending machine, while the vast majority of the time will be spent on third party disclosure -- actually communicating that content to the consumer.

The FDA says that time will have to be invested again each year, as the labels will likely “have a relatively short life and the mix of product in a machine will change over time.”


Ned Monroe, the senior vice president of government affairs for the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), called the required time investment “absurd” and “unfair.”

“Our industry has always understood that consumers need access to product nutritional information, but requiring an industry to invest 14 million hours annually is absurd and sure to kill jobs,” he said. “We are opposed to the colossal burden these regulations impose on our industry and this report just confirms what an enormous and unfair burden it truly is.”

As CNSNews.com previously reported, Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) says companies with 20 or more restaurants or vending machines must disclose nutrition content for standard menu items, and that for vending machines in particular, the company “shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.”

Eight months after the bill was signed, however, the FDA is “still trying to get their arms around” what guidance to give operators on how to implement that rule, Monroe said.

While full guidelines still have not been issued, the latest entry in the Federal Register does provide two basic suggestions for disclosing calories.

“Because there is wide variation in the kinds of vending machines used--in materials, display, mechanism--there will likely be a variety of solutions,” the FDA writes. “On the high end, a calorie display that is integrated with the graphics on the machine may cost several hundred dollars or more. On the low end, a set of calorie stickers affixed to the front of the machine would cost at most a few dollars per machine.

“Given the low margins in the vending machine industry, and given that nearly all of the regulated operators will be small businesses, FDA believes that almost all operators will, at least initially, choose the sticker option. In the long run, the manufacturers of vending machines, and the larger vending machine operators, such as the soft drink companies, may use the more integrated, and thus expensive, solution.”

The industry, which is dominated by small businesses, continues to question the need for the new regulation.

Monroe told CNSNews.com in August that he believes most customers “recognize the snacks and the drinks have the nutritional facts panel already on the packaging,” and that most people understand the relative nutritional values associated with the often familiar products.

“People that purchase items out of vending machines -- it’s not the first time they’ve tried the product, so they understand that there are certain calories in a chocolate treat versus a honey bun versus a baked chip.”

In doing its own calculations, NAMA has determined that that the FDA’s estimate may still be underestimating the time investment necessary, Monroe said.

“It’s even more troubling that after reviewing the calculations in the report the 14 million hour estimate might not even be enough,” he said. “The implementation for this policy is completely wrong. It’s obvious that the FDA needs to rethink this approach completely. In this economy where our small business members are struggling to survive, they can’t afford to spend 14 million hours each year to comply with this new regulation.”

While the calorie-disclosure regulation technically went into effect when President Obama signed the health-care law on March 23, the FDA said it would “refrain” from enforcing the provision until it publishes the final guidelines. Those will be ready in December.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama & Fed impose 20% tax on all Americans
http://toddkinsey.com/Obama-Fed-impose-20percent-tax.html ^




President Obama defended the Fed’s decision to implement a second Quantitative Easing (QE2) amidst disagreement by fellow G20 countries China and Russia. Both countries stated that they believe the G20 should have been consulted before the United States followed through with plans to print more money and begin purchasing its own debt.

A little over a year ago Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke swore under oath that he would not monetize America’s debt. For those that don’t quite grasp the concept, we are essentially borrowing the money from ourselves by issuing bonds (IOU’s) and then printing money to purchase the bonds from ourselves. By printing billions of additional dollars the Fed is purposefully causing inflation, which, by Chairman Bernanke’s own admission, is a tax increase. That’s a neat trick, maybe I’ll pay my mortgage with Monopoly money next month. I could use a Quantitative Easing just in time for Christmas.

Many top economists believe this second massive printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve will cause a dramatic decrease in the value of the dollar on the world market. Bill Gross who manages the world’s largest mutual fund asserted that the Fed’s move will ‘devalue the dollar by as much as 20%.”


(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Report: White House altered drilling safety report
 By DINA CAPPIELLO
The Associated Press
www.washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, November 10, 2010; 11:11 AM


________________________ ________________________ ____________


WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department's inspector general says the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the idea of the administration's six-month ban on new drilling.

The inspector general says the editing changes resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. The scientists were only asked to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.

"There was no intent to mislead the public," said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who also recommended in the May 27 safety report that a moratorium be placed on deepwater oil and gas exploration. "The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House."

The Interior Department, after one of the reviewers complained about the inference, promptly issued an apology to the reviewers during a conference call, with a letter and personal meeting in June.


The inspector general's report, which was originally requested by Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Steve Scalise in June, said the administration did not violate federal rules because the executive summary did not say the experts approved the recommendations and the department offered a formal apology and had publicly clarified the nature of the expert review.

But Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, a Republican, said in a statement that the investigation proved "that the blanket drilling moratorium was driven by a politics and not by science."

"Candidate Obama promised that he would guided by science, not ideology," Cassidy said. Cassidy said if that were true thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity would have been preserved on the Gulf coast.

The Web site Politico was first to report the inspector general's findings. The Associated Press on Wednesday obtained a copy of the report, which has not been publicly released.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
More federal workers' salaries skyrocket past $150,000
USA Today | 11-10-2010 | By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY



 

MY SUMMATION:

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has increased 10x  in the past five years and doubled since President Obama was inaugurated
Already, some Republicans are going to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to provides alternatives to Obama's plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2 million plus federal workers.

 

read the rest at USA Today --->>  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Job-Killing Environmentalists
How the EPA cripples the American economy
Jon Basil Utley | November 10, 2010



________________________ ________________________ _________




President Barack Obama seems more concerned with appeasing environmental extremists in his administration than he is with the lost jobs of poor Americans. He’s letting the environmentalists run wild with long pent-up schemes to force a change in the American way of life that includes small cars, small apartments and, for many, a return to an idealized 19th century lifestyle. It’s not China that’s responsible for American job losses; it’s Washington’s fault for shutting down whole industries and preventing new jobs from being created.

What’s happened is that Obama has given the environmental extremists the power to make some of their wish list come true. Modern measurement techniques allow scientists to measure tiny parts per million; much of the technology did not exist when the Clean Air Act was first legislated in 1990. Using these new techniques environmentalists are able to impose their fantasies upon American business and labor. For industry, removing the last parts per million is prohibitively costly. For instance, technology which could have removed the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was prohibited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because the discharged ocean water would still contain more than 15 parts per million of oil.

When the American economy was growing fast these EPA job killers were not so damaging. Now, in slower times, they are proving deadly.

Below are eight areas where the environmental extremists hope to wreak havoc on the American economy.

Carbon Dioxide. Human activity accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions and CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor accounts for most of the other 80 percent. The actual quantity of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere is about 0.0387 percent, or 387 parts per million. The Christian Science Monitor recently published an excellent analysis of how the EPA’s plans for reducing carbon dioxide could cause the loss of over a million jobs and raise every family’s energy costs by over $1,200.

Factory boilers. The EPA wants new, more stringent limits on soot emissions from industrial and factory boilers. This would cost $9.5 billion according to the EPA, or over $20 billion according to the American Chemistry Council. A study released by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners says the new rules would put 300,000 to 800,000 jobs at risk as industries opted to close plants rather than pay the expensive new costs. The ruling includes boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, and refining, as well as shopping malls, laundromats, apartments, restaurants, and hotels.

Home Remodeling. Some contractors are refusing to work on houses built before 1979 (when lead paint use was discontinued) because of stringent new EPA permitting required for lead paint removal. Lead paint in powdered or edible form can hurt growing children. It was once used in the hard gloss paint for wood surfaces, but has been painted over with non-lead-based paint during the past 30 years. The new fines of $37,000 per day are ruinous for smaller contractors and individual workers. Many jobs will therefore not be created as smaller contractors stop replacing window frames or turn down other work where lead paint may be present.

Ground Level Ozone. AutoBlog reports that the EPA has asked the U.S. government to enact draconian new smog regulations for ground-level ozone. The request to cut levels to .006 to .007 parts per million comes less than two years after standards were set at .0075 particles of pollutants per one million. As AutoBlog notes, “That doesn't sound like a very big change, but the New York Times reports that the agency quotes the price tag of such a change at between $19 billion and $100 billion per year by 2020. Oil manufacturers, manufacturing and utility companies are the main source of air pollution and they will have to spend heavily to meet the proposed regulation.”

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Fish and Wildlife Service is drawing up plans that define more parts of ANWR as “wilderness” thereby permanently removing any possibility for oil drilling in the vast field. The full Alaskan nature reserve is the size of South Carolina while the proposed drilling area would be the size of Dulles Airport.

Alaska Oil. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has prohibited all off-shore drilling until further notice, although Shell Oil and others’ proposed sites are in less than 150 feet of water and use fixed drilling platforms, not the floating kind used for deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. Potentially vast oil fields and the accompanying jobs are therefore on hold.

Cement Kiln Regulations. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who led the fight to expose so called man-made global warming, warns of a new EPA job-killing plan. “EPA’s new cement kiln regulation could shut down 18 plants, threatening 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs,” he writes. “According to an analysis of EPA’s rule by King’s College (London) Professor Ragnar Lofstedt, EPA could send 28 million tons of U.S. cement production offshore, mainly to China.”

The above are all large-scale restrictions. There are also many smaller, mostly unreported new regulations. A Heritage Foundation study describes 43 such restrictions imposed during 2010 and totaled up their cost as well over $26 billion. As Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) complained before her defeat, farmers, ranchers, and foresters “are increasingly frustrated and bewildered by vague, overreaching, and unnecessarily burdensome EPA regulations, each of which will add to their costs, making it harder for them to compete.”

Gulf of Mexico Oil. While Salazar ostensibly lifted his illegal and unnecessary suspension of all oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we don’t yet know if he has put up interminable, cost-wrecking regulations in the ban’s place. Just one of his changes, allowing government bureaucrats 90 days instead of the prior 30 days to issue every decision, may be enough to ruin future oil drilling. The big floating rigs rent for over half a million dollars a day to operate. Just the threat of non-decisions along the chain of government command may be fatal and do to oil drilling what the environmentalists did to nuclear energy—namely, shutting down all new plants by making the costs and risks prohibitive. Michael Bromwich, Salazar’s director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said that there were only 10 new well permits pending, but according to The Washington Post there were 69 unapproved exploration and development plans sitting in his office. Even simple, continued drilling in already producing oil sands, where the geological conditions are measured and known, has been suspended.

Salazar also suspended shallow well drilling in less than 500 feet depth from fixed platforms. Washington only issued 13 such shallow well permits in the seven months since the Macondo blowout in April. Before that it was issuing about 13 shallow well permits per month. As is often the case with Washington’s heavy-handed regulators, it is the smaller companies, doing less costly drilling closer to shore, that are bankrupted or driven out of business by these costly and burdensome rules. All this comes after 40 years of successful drilling without a major blowout or spill.

Government restrictions and environmentalist lawsuits also affect other mining activity. For example, there is currently a shortage in Chinese rare earth elements, which are essential to a number of technologies, including hard drives and environmentalist-friendly hybrid-car batteries. Yet despite an abundance of rare earth reserves in the U.S., domestic production has been essentially shut down by the president’s allies.

It’s time for Congress to investigate what the EPA and its reckless agenda is costing American workers, businesses, and taxpayers.

Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent for Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. For 17 years, he was a commentator for the Voice of America. In the 1980s, he owned and operated a small oil drilling partnership in Pennsylvania.




Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Examiner Editorial: New EPA regs would kill jobs, stall economy
Washington Examiner ^ | November 11, 2010 | Editorial


________________________ ________________________ _____________________


It sounds innocuous enough. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new guidelines Thursday requiring state and local authorities that issue pollution permits based on federal standards to use the "Best Available Control Technology," or BACT. The stated goal is to achieve a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. Most of the facilities affected by the new guidelines will likely be power plants, refineries and cement production operations. What the BACT guidelines simply mean, according to the agency, is this: "After taking into account technical feasibility, cost and other economic, environmental and energy considerations, permitting authorities should narrow the options and select the best one. EPA anticipates that, in most cases, this process will show that the most cost effective way for industry to reduce GHG emissions will be through energy efficiency."

Others don't share EPA's sunny outlook about the consequences of imposing this new standard, which lowers permissible greenhouse gases from the current level of 75 million parts per billion to 60 million parts per billion. Achieving that level of reduction in greenhouse gases won't be easy or cheap. This immense new burden on the private sector comes at precisely the wrong time for an economy still struggling to create new jobs and reduce near double-digit unemployment. One of the skeptics is University of Mississippi professor William Shughart II, whose op-ed elsewhere in Friday's Examiner notes that many jurisdictions across the country can't meet the present greenhouse gas standard, much less reach the lower threshold anytime soon. "If a county or city is not in compliance, its economy won't be able to grow, so the EPA's proposal would spell economic stagnation for many communities," Shughart contends.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Jindal hammers Obama in new book
By: Jonathan Martin
November 12, 2010 12:15 AM EST
www.politico.com

________________________ ______________
 

NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal uses a new book to portray President Barack Obama as disconnected from the Gulf oil spill, charging that he was more focused on the political aftermath than the actual impact of the crisis.

Jindal recounts a pair of private conversations with the president that paint him as consumed with how his actions were being perceived.

On Obama’s first trip to Louisiana after the disaster, the governor describes how the president took him aside on the tarmac after arriving to complain about a letter that Jindal had sent to the administration requesting authorization for food stamps for those who had lost their jobs because of the spill.

As Jindal describes it, the letter was entirely routine, yet Obama was angry and concerned about looking bad.

"Careful," he quotes the president as warning him, "this is going to get bad for everyone."

Nearby on the tarmac, Jindal recalls, then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was chewing out his own chief of staff, Timmy Teepell.

“If you have a problem pick up the f——n’ phone,” Jindal quotes Emanuel telling Teepell.

The governor asserts that the White House had tipped off reporters to watch the exchange on the New Orleans tarmac that Sunday in May and deemed it a “press stunt” that symbolized what’s wrong with Washington.

“Political posturing becomes more important than reality,” he writes.

And after Obama instituted a moratorium on offshore drilling, Jindal recounts that the president dismissed his concerns about the economic impact of the ban.

“I understand you need to say all of this, I know you need to say this, that you are facing political pressure,” Jindal quotes Obama telling him. When the governor said he was concerned about people losing their jobs, he said the president cited national polls showing that people supported the ban.

“The human element seemed invisible to the White House,” he writes.

Asked to respond to Jindal's assertions, Obama aides didn’t directly address either conversation but pointed to the president’s overall response to the spill.

“From Day One, President Obama has directed his administration to work with state and local governments to respond to and help Gulf communities recover from the BP oil spill,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams. “The administration’s response was the largest response to an environmental disaster in our nation’s history and included not just nutrition assistance but also over 40,000 workers, ongoing efforts in science and seafood safety, the Mabus report for long-term Gulf recovery and the creation of the BP $20 billion fund for Gulf families and businesses.”

Jindal has criticized the administration in the past over the spill, but that he would do so at the outset of his book suggests he wants to raise his national profile — and perhaps seek national office.


In an interview with POLITICO prior to the book’s release, the governor argued that Obama’s response to the disaster was a metaphor for what he described as the administration’s more fundamental problem.

“They’re not connected to reality on the ground,” he said.

The book, titled “Leadership and Crisis,” amounts to a national introduction for the 39-year-old first-term governor. While a familiar figure to political insiders — largely for his Indian-American heritage, sterling résumé and a regrettable State of the Union response last year — Jindal is largely undefined with the broader voting public.

After losing his first bid for the governorship in 2003 and then serving two terms in Congress, Jindal has enjoyed wide popularity since winning the governor's mansion in his native Baton Rouge in 2007.

He’s passed tax cuts and historic ethics reforms in the notoriously corrupt state and won accolades for his administration's responses to hurricanes and the oil spill.

But he faces a looming $1.5 billion budget deficit, and his proposed cuts to higher education this week brought hundreds of protesters to the state Capitol.

Louisiana’s fiscal straits and his refusal to raise taxes to avoid the education cuts have increased local speculation that Jindal, who has already held an array of political jobs in his short career, is eyeing an exit.

But in the interview, he indicated he was staying put.

Asked if he’d ever want to be president, Jindal recited his stock answer — “I’ve got the best job I will ever have.”

Pressed on whether he had any desire to return to Washington, Jindal offered a flat “no.”

Plainly, though, he’s interested in joining the political conversation beyond his home state.

Jindal uses the 283-page tome to tell his only-in-America story as the son of immigrants growing up in a Southern university town, to tout his record in office and to lay out a roster of policy prescriptions and political reforms.

What’s striking about the book — and what illustrates the degree to which it’s aimed at raising his profile among grass-roots conservatives — is the harshness of his attacks on Democrats, the media, elites and the political establishment in Washington.

Such broadsides are, of course, standard fare for aspiring Republicans. But they don’t necessarily square with the image Jindal has carved out in Louisiana as a get-it-done, wonky reformer more interested in ideas and solutions than in lobbing bombs across the aisle.

In addition to the shots he takes at Obama, Jindal also recounts anecdotes that depict reporters as out-of-touch liberals, turns around the famous William F. Buckley line to claim he’d rather be governed “by the first one hundred names in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, phone book than the faculty of Harvard University” and approvingly cites the old saw that “dumb people need representation too ... and they surely have it in Washington.”

Jindal dismissed any notion that the pugnacious tone of his book was in conflict with his pragmatic brand.

“I have always been a principled conservative who doesn’t believe government is the answer to everything, but I am also somebody who is deeply interested in practical policy solutions,” he said. “I don’t care if they are Democratic or Republican ideas.”


But for some of the toughest language in his book, Jindal made no apologies — and was even feistier in person.

He writes that “the sad truth is that serving in Congress is now often an apprenticeship program for lobbyists-in-waiting” and likens the image of the former members reminiscing about their days in Congress with current members to “aging high school football players recalling their glory days on the field."

“These politicians-turned-lobbyists exploit their political access to cash in on what was supposed to be public service,” Jindal concludes.

Reminded that he served with former members of Congress from Louisiana whom he now suggests are exploiting their time in government, the governor allowed that former Republican congressmen like Jim McCrery and Richard Baker “served the state honorably.”

But Jindal also used the opportunity to broaden his indictment.

“There is almost this attitude among elected officials that [lobbying] is their deferred compensation,” he said. “I think their attitude is: Look, my buddies in law school are all making a lot more money than I did in private law firms, and I didn’t get to make that much money, and so this is my way of making up for all those lost earning years. To me that’s ridiculous. ... People should come back to their states, and people should go back to the private sector after they’re done in public service.”

The governor did, though, say in the interview that his party ought to be careful about not attacking political opponents personally. Having once been attacked for his own given Indian name, Jindal winced when reminded about those conservatives who mock Obama by referring to him as “Hussein,” his middle name.

“I think we can disagree with the president without being disagreeable,” he said. “Name-calling is not going to win elections or convince the American people."

Recalling some of the shots at President George W. Bush, Jindal added: “We didn’t like it when there was a Republican president, so we shouldn’t engage in that kind of activity when there is a Democratic president.”

The GOP, he said, should take the fight to the opposition based on ideas.

And there is no lack of them in his book.

Jindal joked that his advisers urged him to cut out some of the denser discourse on health care policy.

But he devotes an entire chapter to the topic, offering a list of what he calls “market-based health care reforms,” and another one on how to pay for Medicare. He also offers extended treatment on energy, tweaking those in his own party for their single-minded focus on oil exploration.

Conservatives, he writes, “need to do more than simply shout ‘Drill, baby, drill’ — we need to aggressively pursue the next generation of renewable and clean energy production technologies.”

Jindal also writes at length about cultural issues and national security. But, as made clear with his denunciation of Washington’s lobbyist culture, he’s as interested in reforming the political process as he is in addressing policy matters.

He proposes a “seven-step recovery program” for Congress that includes such perennials as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a line-item veto but also argues for some newer ideas, such as requiring a supermajority to raise taxes and having the body become a part-time legislature.

Such notions, of course, would be most easily implemented if Jindal were president.

But as he gears up for his reelection next year, the governor dismissed the notion.

“This is not a campaign manifesto; this is not a platform,” he said of the book. “This is my contribution to help get our country to get back on track.”
 
 
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
New deepwater drilling permits: Zilch

Relief wells were drilled this summer to stop the BP spill, which led to a shut down in Gulf of Mexico deepwater drilling.
 By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.comNovember 12, 2010: 9:14 AM ET




NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.

11Email Print CommentThe Interior Department halted deep water permits shortly after BP's Macondo well blew out last April. The accident resulted in the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The moratorium was lifted in mid-October after government officials were confident new, stricter rules and regulations were in place.

But no new permits for wells covered under the ban have been issued, according to a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement.

"[BOEMRE director Michael] Bromwich has indicated that he hopes to see some approved by the end of the year but cannot speculate," the spokeswoman said in a statement.

Even if a few permits come through, analysts say it will be a far cry from the amount issued pre-spill.

"We're not holding our breath for a return to business as usual," Whitney Stanco, and energy analyst at the Washington Research Group, wrote in a recent research note. "Despite pressure from Gulf state lawmakers and the oil and gas industry, we believe permitting in 2011 will likely be slower than it has been in recent years."

The moratorium did not affect current oil production in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, which comes from wells that have already been drilled. Currently, about a quarter of the nation's five-million-barrel-a-day crude output comes from the deepwater Gulf, according to the Government's Energy Information Administration.

But future output could fall if new wells aren't drilled. EIA predicts U.S. output will drop by about 170,000 barrels a day in 2011 thanks to the ban.

With Republicans taking over the House, it's possible that the generally more pro-drilling lawmakers will push the administration to issue more permits.

"You could see hearings in the first quarter of the year," said Kevin Shaw, an energy lawyer at the law firm Mayer Brown. "But it will just be a stick to beat the administration with. I'm not expecting a much different outcome."


0:00 /:59BP's rebound
Indeed, analysts say most lawmakers will be reluctant to push the Interior Department to issue permits faster than it thinks it can safely do so.

"What happened this summer was pretty dramatic," said Joseph Stanislaw, an independent energy adviser at Deloitte & Touche. "I think everyone agrees that people really need to work out the rules."

That's tough news to the people who do the actual drilling.

"What's going on over here is a whole lot of nothing," said Jim Noe, and executive at Hercules offshore, who said they are still having a hard time getting permits even for shallow water wells.

Noe said they haven't had to lay off too many people yet, and have kept workers busy doing maintenance work and other jobs. But the longer the permit drought continues, the harder it gets.

"We're not optimistic we'll be back in business in a meaningful way anytime soon," he said. 


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The EPA’s new ozone regulation will damage the US economy for no reason
climatequotes.com ^ | 11/14/10 | Sam



 There was much talk about the EPA's recent declaration of CO2 as a pollutant, and rightfully so. However, there is something else the EPA is regulating which is also very harmful to the US economy: ozone levels. Not only do they currently regulate ozone levels, but they are about to tighten their regulations on them. Many areas in the US are projected to already be in violation as soon as the new regulations are in place.

The current limit on ozone level is 75 ppb (yes that's parts per BILLION), which was set in 2008 by the Bush administration. The Obama administration has been wanting to change it ever since they got into office, and they were about to in August, but they didn't. Why? Politics. They intentionally waited until after the election to change the regulation. It is expected to change at the end of this year.

It isn't know exactly what level they will change the regulation to. It is expected between 60-70 ppb, but I expect it will be on the low end of that scale because changing the level from 75 to 70 hardly seems worth the amount of time they have invested in it. If the level is set at 60ppb, will that really be a problem? Absolutely. Here are a few articles from different areas in the US warning what is about to come:

Manatee likely to violate new ozone rule

MANATEE — Manatee and Sarasota counties soon could face a big-city problem: excessive smog. The two-county area is likely to violate new federal ozone standards, triggering an extensive — and expensive — effort to improve the region’s air quality, officials say. “I think they’re going to lower the standard to a point where we are going to be in violation,” said Mike Maholtz, a planner with the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization....The DEP estimates 14 Florida counties would not meet a 70 parts per billion standard. At 60 parts per billion, that figure jumps to 38 counties.

EPA ozone targets will hurt job creation in Lehigh Valley, New Jersey

Our region’s government health departments and businesses are working hard to reach the current 2008 ozone standard. The oil and gas industries alone spent $175 billion from 1990 to 2010 to meet all of the Clean Air Act emission standards. This is a difficult task because, as in football, the final few yards are the most difficult to achieve.

For the Lehigh Valley and New Jersey, very real economic hardships will result if the EPA implements these new regulations. Twenty-eight Pennsylvania counties and 21 New Jersey counties are expected to have ozone levels above 60 ppb in 2020. EPA’s new 60 ppb standard will force these counties into a “nonattainment” violation of the standard. This will force power plants, energy-intensive industries, trucking firms, commuters and small businesses under Draconian restrictions on their ozone emissions which will cause the destruction of profitability and growth. The EPA literally will be choking the economic life out of these 28 Pennsylvania counties and 21 New Jersey counties and their businesses.

This NYT article has two interesting quotes in it. The first is talking about the potential costs:

According to an analysis by the Manufacturers Alliance, setting the standard at 60 ppb would cost the economy about $1 trillion per year from 2020 to 2030 and would result in the loss of 7.3 million jobs.

$1 trillion a year?!?! That sounds high, but this regulation will put hundreds of counties across the nation into 'nonattainment', which is expensive. But how much does the EPA say it will cost? That brings me to my second quote:

In its proposal last January, EPA said it would set the standard somewhere between 60 and 70 ppb, eliciting the applause of environmental and public health groups. Depending on the standards chosen, the proposed changes would yield between $13 billion and $100 billion in health benefits at a cost of $19 billion to $90 billion, according to EPA estimates.

First of all, when governmental agencies estimate costs they usually are off by at least three-fold, usually five or more. However, what if we did take the numbers simply at face value? Look at the range of uncertainty! The ranges are essentially the same! In other words, the EPA is going to force every county in the US to obey an arbitrary ozone limit in order to obtain health benefits which are essentially the same as the cost imposed.

Why are they lowering the limit at all? Here is a fact sheet about the proposal. They say this:

• On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. The proposed revisions are based on scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and the environment.
Alright, so they are basing these results on scientific evidence. What evidence is that? Let's see:

• In this reconsideration, EPA is not relying on studies about the health and ecological effects of ozone that have been published since the science assessment to support the 2008 review was completed. However, EPA conducted a provisional assessment of these newer studies and found they do not materially change the conclusions of the Agency's earlier science assessment.

So they aren't even looking at new evidence since the 2008 limits were put in place. They are basing it on the same evidence they had earlier, but they believe that 75ppb wasn't tight enough. However, they believe that 70ppb is tight enough. Obviously FIVE parts in a BILLION is enough of a difference to merit a new draconian rule. Are we really supposed to believe that a decrease of a few parts in a billion will significantly affect the health of our nation? If ozone is that bad (there is no safe background level) why is 60ppm the right number? There will still be asthmatic children harmed at 60ppb, so why not 20ppb or 0ppb? Can someone please inform the EPA about the concept of statistical significance? What I want to know it the margin of error on the ozone monitoring equipment. I bet it is at least 5ppb.

Counties and states across the country should stand up to the EPA and tell them the truth: you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Leave us alone.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Few Businesses Sprout, With Even Fewer Jobs .Article Comments (30) more in Financing & Investing ».
By JUSTIN LAHART And MARK WHITEHOUSE
www.wsj.com

________________________ ________________________ __



Fewer new businesses are getting off the ground in the U.S., available data suggest, a development that could cloud the prospects for job growth and innovation.


Dan Krauss for The Wall Street Journal
 
A circuit board by Tesla Controls, one of many new companies with no workers beyond its founder.

In the early months of the economic recovery, start-ups of job-creating companies have failed to keep pace with closings, and even those concerns that do get launched are hiring less than in the past. The number of companies with at least one employee fell by 100,000, or 2%, in the year that ended March 31, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

That was the second worst performance in 18 years, the worst being the 3.4% drop in the previous year.

Newly opened companies created a seasonally adjusted total of 2.6 million jobs in the three quarters ended in March, 15% less than in the first three quarters of the last recovery, when investors and entrepreneurs were still digging their way out of the Internet bust.


Starting a Global Business, With No U.S. Workers

Shortage of Capital Costs Firm

Research shows that new businesses are the most important source of jobs and a key driver of the innovation and productivity gains that raise long-term living standards. Without them there would be no net job growth at all, say economists John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland and Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda of the Census Bureau.

"Historically, it's the young, small businesses that take off that add lots of jobs," says Mr. Haltiwanger. "That process isn't working very well now."

Ensconced in a strip mall behind a Carpeteria outlet, Derek Smith has been tinkering for two years with a wireless electrical system that he says can help schools and office buildings slash lighting bills. With his financing limited to what he earns as a wireless-technology consultant, he has yet to hire his first employee.

Experience WSJ professional Editors' Deep Dive: Banks Remain Ambivalent on SMB LendingDOW JONES BUSINESS NEWS

JP Morgan Doubles SBA Loans

 Credit Union Times

This is a far cry from his last start-up, which he cofounded in 2002. At the two-year mark, that company, which makes radio-tracking gear for hospital equipment, had five employees, about $1 million in funding from angel investors and offices with views of downtown San Diego.

"When I started this the plan was to go out and raise a bunch of money," says Mr. Smith, who is 36 years old. That was in late 2008, just as financial markets around the world collapsed. "I quickly discovered I can't do what I did before."

Tough economic times have pushed more Americans into business for themselves, working as consultants or selling wares online. But many are not taking the additional step of forming a company and hiring employees.

For people like Mr. Smith, lack of funding seems to be the biggest problem. Two traditional sources of start-up cash—home-equity loans and credit cards—have largely dried up as banks wrangle with massive defaults and a moribund housing market. Venture-capital firms that typically invest in young companies, as well as angel investors that focus on early-stage start-ups, are pulling back as they struggle to sell the companies they already own.

Venture-capital firms invested $25.1 billion in the year that ended in September, up 10% from the same period a year earlier but still down 27% from two years earlier, according to Dow Jones VentureSource. Angel investment amounted to $8.5 billion in the 2010 first half—30% below the average level in the five years leading up to the financial crisis, estimates Jeffrey Sohl, director of the Center for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire.

"I've never seen seed capital so low," says Mr. Sohl. "This is alarming."

.Some entrepreneurs say it's not all about financing, though. They express concern about taxes, health-care costs and the impact that wrangling in Washington over the federal budget deficit will have on them. "I can't determine what the cost of providing health care for employees would be," says Kevin Berman, 47, who is starting a local-produce company in Orion Township, Mich., called Harvest Michigan. Starting a company "is harder than it was at any time I can remember."

San Diego has long been one of the nation's entrepreneurial hotbeds, a culture that dates back to the 1960s with the founding of Linkabit Corp., a communications company whose alumni have launched scores of technology companies. A 1970s biotechnology start-up, Hybritech Inc., gave rise to a thriving biotechnology industry.

Lately, though, the pace of start-ups securing funding in San Diego has been slowed at the University of California at San Diego center that helps researchers move their work into the commercial sphere. "Investors are moving away from early-stage companies," says Rosibel Ochoa, director of the William J. von Liebig Center. "Nobody wants to touch them."

Scarce funding is putting researchers like Deli Wang in a bind. The 42-year-old engineering professor is an expert on nanowires, thread-like structures with widths less than a thousandth the diameter of an average human hair. He has a plan to make light-emitting diodes using nanowires that, he says, would be far more efficient than existing alternatives. Investors, he says, are interested—if they can see a prototype. Building one would cost Mr. Wang $200,000 that he doesn't have. "We're kind of stuck," he says.

To be sure, some companies are still getting started, particularly in biotechnology, where cash-rich pharmaceutical concerns are eager buyers and investors. In the first half of 2010, health care and biotech accounted for 44% of all angel investments, Mr. Sohl says.

View Full Image

Dan Krauss for The Wall Street Journal
 
Derek Smith, owner of Tesla Controls, handles his own bookkeeping, emails and circuit-board fabrication.
.And in many cases, entrepreneurs today don't need as much money, or as many people, to start new businesses. Software, communications technology and high-tech equipment are far cheaper and far more powerful than they were a decade ago.

At Mr. Smith's one-man San Diego start-up, Tesla Controls Corp., circuit boards, semiconductor chips and other components litter a plastic folding table he uses as a workbench. "The hardware stuff is all cheaper," he says. "Any of these chips are $5 or less."

Much of Mr. Smith's economizing is the result of necessity. With a family to support, he doesn't want to borrow against his house. Angel investors, if interested, would demand a larger stake at a lower price than he can stomach. And the small stake he still has in his earlier start-up, Awarepoint Corp., is only paper wealth.

The lack of funding is slowing him down. And the day a week he spends on consulting takes away from the time that he can devote to his new company. "I would love to be able to hire other people," he says. "But right now I can't."

Write to Justin Lahart at justin.lahart@wsj.com and Mark Whitehouse at mark.whitehouse@wsj.com


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
700,000 Medicare Beneficiaries to be Displaced
Weekly Standard ^ | November 20, 2010 | Jeffrey H. Anderson


________________________ ________________________ _______________

Today's Wall Street Journal reports:


Seniors enrolling in private Medicare policies starting this week are finding fewer options, as health insurers close down certain types of plans due to legislative changes and looming cuts to federal funding.

Cigna Corp., Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, several Blue Cross Blue Shield plans and others aren't renewing hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans, which are Medicare policies administered by private insurers. The moves will displace some 700,000 beneficiaries who must find new policies, according to Humana Inc., a large seller of Advantage plans.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare Advantage funding would be cut by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($254 billion) in Obamacare's real first decade (2014 to 2023), which amounts to cuts of about $25,000 for each of the roughly 10 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Those cuts wouldn't be made if Obamacare is repealed in January of 2013, but $8 billion will be cut by the end of 2012. These Medicare cuts -- both the $8 billion and the $254 billion -- wouldn't be used to make Medicare more solvent over the long haul, but would instead be spent on Obamacare.


(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Retrained for green jobs, but still waiting on work

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 22, 2010; 10:07 PM

www.washingtonpost.com




OCALA, FLA. - After losing his way in the old economy, Laurance Anton tried to assure his place in the new one by signing up for green jobs training earlier this year at his local community college.

Anton has been out of work since 2008, when his job as a surveyor vanished with Florida's once-sizzling housing market. After a futile search, at age 56 he reluctantly returned to school to learn the kind of job skills the Obama administration is wagering will soon fuel an employment boom: solar installation, sustainable landscape design, recycling and green demolition.

Anton said the classes, funded with a $2.9 million federal grant to Ocala's workforce development organization, have taught him a lot. He's learned how to apply Ohm's law, how to solder tiny components on circuit boards and how to disassemble rather than demolish a building.

The only problem is that his new skills have not resulted in a single job offer. Officials who run Ocala's green jobs training program say the same is true for three-quarters of their first 100 graduates.

"I think I have put in 200 applications," said Anton, who exhausted his unemployment benefits months ago and now relies on food stamps and his dwindling savings to survive. "I'm long past the point where I need some regular income."

With nearly 15 million Americans out of work and the unemployment rate hovering above 9 percent for 18 consecutive months, policymakers desperate to stoke job creation have bet heavily on green energy. The Obama administration channeled more than $90 billion from the $814 billion economic stimulus bill into clean energy technology, confident that the investment would grow into the economy's next big thing.

The infusion of money is going to projects such as weatherizing public buildings and constructing advanced battery plants in the industrial Midwest, financing solar electric plants in the Mojave desert and training green energy workers.

But the huge federal investment has run headlong into the stubborn reality that the market for renewable energy products - and workers - remains in its infancy. The administration says that its stimulus investment has saved or created 225,000 jobs in the green energy industry, a pittance in an economy that has shed 7.5 million jobs since the recession took hold in December 2007.

The industry's growth has been undercut by the simple economic fact that fossil fuels remain cheaper than renewables. Both Obama administration officials and green energy executives say that the business needs not just government incentives, but also rules and regulations that force people and business to turn to renewable energy.

Without government mandates dictating how much renewable energy utilities must use to generate electricity, or placing a price on the polluting carbon emitted by fossil fuels, they say, green energy cannot begin to reach its job creation potential.

"We keep getting these stops and starts in the industry. There is no way it can work like this," said Bill Gallagher, president of Solar-Fit, a Florida energy company whose fortunes have fluctuated with government incentives in its 35 years in business.

Like many people who run renewable energy companies, Gallagher said he sees no need to expand his 25-employee firm because the business is simply not there.

Although 29 states have enacted laws setting benchmarks for the amount of energy utilities must generate from renewable sources such as wind and solar, the standards vary greatly. And with a new congressional majority poised to take office - including many members elected pledging to reduce Washington's role in the economy - it remains an open question whether new federal regulations that would support expansion of the industry would be enacted anytime soon.

"Green energy investment has been a central talking point of the Obama administration's job growth strategy," said Samuel Sherraden, a policy analyst at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization. "It was a little bit too ambitious given the size and depth of the recession and the small size of the renewable energy industry."

Sherraden said it was unwise for the administration to invest so heavily in green energy, at least if short-term job creation was the goal. He said green energy comes with "political and market uncertainty" that has overwhelmed its job creation potential.

Despite that, Obama has described the surge of clean energy spending as crucial both to the nation's economic and environmental future.

"Our future as a nation depends on making sure that the jobs and industries of the 21st century take root here in America," Obama said in October. "And there is perhaps no industry with more potential to create jobs now - and growth in the coming years - than clean energy."

But other administration officials acknowledge that it is likely to be years before the spending on green energy produces large numbers of jobs. And they add that only part of the money earmarked for green energy has been spent. They also agree that the government will have to help create demand to support green energy.

Still, they are optimistic for the long term, even if the spending will not significantly ease the nation's unemployment crisis in the short run.

The money going into building car battery plants, for example, could allow the nation to capture as much as 40 percent of the global demand in that growing business in five to seven years, said Carol M. Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

"This stuff is coming on line," Browner said. "We all want it to come on line much more quickly."

Here in Ocala, the federal emphasis on green energy was eagerly embraced by local officials grasping for ways to blunt the area's skyrocketing jobless rate, which now stands at 14 percent.

The housing crisis had decimated the local economy, wiping out thousands of jobs that will probably never return. There were huge losses in construction jobs. Several plants that made building supplies and home furnishings have gone out of business. And last year, Taylor Bean and Whitaker, a mortgage company that employed more than 1,000 people, suddenly closed.

Now with real estate development not predicted to resume its former breakneck pace anytime in the foreseeable future, the local economy is left without an obvious source of new jobs.

That means many of the real estate agents, construction workers, mortgage brokers, kitchen cabinet makers, retail clerks and building supply people thrown out of work are going to have to find new careers. The overhang of workers who will need new skills to find work in new industries made the promise of green energy jobs all the more appealing.

When Workforce Connection, Ocala's regional work force development board, applied for a federal green jobs training grant last year, its top goal was to retrain 665 workers in green jobs skills with "immediate employment potential."

Ocala seemed like a good place to bet on green energy, particularly solar. The region's various window companies and other light manufacturing firms, coupled with its strategic location as a southeastern distribution hub make it a natural, local officials said.

"We felt like the expertise of a lot of the companies here translated easily to making solar panels and such," said Rusty Skinner, chief executive officer of Workforce Connection. "When you think of it, a solar panel is nothing more than a window with some added mechanisms."

Meanwhile, central Florida's abundant sunshine made the idea of marketing solar hot water heaters and solar electrical systems to nearby homeowners seem like a winning proposition.

But those assumptions have yet to pan out.

Federal incentives, which cover 30 percent of the installation costs, were offset by a state energy policy in disarray. Funding for a Florida program that offered rebates to residents and businesses who invested in solar energy was suspended earlier this year, leaving more than $50 million in claims up in the air and paralyzing the solar energy business.

Although Florida officials recently decided to use federal stimulus money to pay down part of the backlog of claims, the damage had been done. The turmoil over the incentive programs meant installation firms and manufacturers no longer had a reason to expand, green energy advocates said.

"There is no growth in this industry right now," said Colleen Kettles, executive director of the Florida Solar Research and Education Foundation. "In fact, some are going out of business."

Meanwhile, many of the unemployed workers who have retrained for jobs in the green energy business are out of luck.

Carols Arandia, 59, has earned seven green jobs certificates since beginning classes this year, while renting a room from a friend to weather the hard times.

Often studying well into the night, Arandia is familiar with hard work. He ran a small manufacturing business in his native Venezuela before arriving in the United States in 1996. For years, he lugged around a dictionary and a notebook in which he religiously wrote down words and phrases until his English became passable. He worked seven years at Boston Chicken. Later, he sold cars.

But now, after nearly two years of being out of work and a series of classes that have not led to a job, his optimism is dimming.

"What is the point of giving somebody the tools to do something but to have nowhere to use them?" he asked. "I think it's a great program, but I don't see the connection with all the training and jobs. And I need a job."

Christine Bageant, 45, also jumped at the opportunity to train in green jobs, after losing her position at the county library. She viewed the new classes as an opportunity to "get in on the ground floor of something big."

Since then she has earned similar training certificates as Arandia. A few months ago she started looking for work as a painter. She thought her newly acquired expertise in abating lead paint would make her a hot commodity.

But many of the painting contractors she has interviewed with are tiny companies, with no more than two or three employees. They are struggling to survive, and Bageant's expertise in lead abatement has left them unimpressed.

"Right now they are blowing it off," she shrugged. "They don't think it's important."

Officials who helped develop the training program nod knowingly when asked about the difficulty graduates are having landing jobs.

"I think this is a great program," said Peter J. Tesch, president and chief executive of the Ocala/Marion County Economic Development Corp. "Applying it to real life, that is the challenge. In a place like Florida everybody's talking the talk, but they're not walking the walk. The market place has not caught up to the technical training and skill sets that have been provided these people."

That much was obvious at a recent ceremony for 15 graduates of a solar electric training class. The students beamed proudly as family members took pictures and program officials offered words of wisdom.

Then, one-by-one, they walked up front to receive their certificates. But rather than serving as a passport to a job, the certificates were more like IOUs to be redeemed sometime in the distant future.

"There is significant job creation potential in clean energy. But it is not revealing itself quickly or clearly," said Jerone Gamble, executive manager of continuing education at the College of Central Florida, and a chief architect of the green jobs training program. "In the time being, we're really selling hope."