New AFP ad highlights Obama's job creation - overseas

We all know about President Barak Obama's penchant for spending your tax dollars on 'green energy' companies. 

It was supposed to be an 'investment' in green jobs but all we have to do mention names like Solyndra (bankrupt), America's worst wind energy project, First Solar (laying off thousands), Solar Trust for America (bankrupt), Evergreen Solar (bankrupt), or SpectraWatt (bankrupt) to know how that turned out.

But many do not know that a lot of that so-called stimulus money, designed to improve the employment picture here in the United States, actually went to create job overseas.

Americans for Prosperity has put together a few of the highlights on how those stimulus dollars were spent:

*  $2.3 billion in tax credits went to create jobs in foreign countries.
*  $1.2 billion went to a solar energy company to help finance a new plant in Mexico.
*  $500 million to an electric car company which created hundreds of jobs in Finland.
*  Tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in China.

But they're not counting on just bloggers and press releases to share this information. Here is their latest ad:



I saw this commercial twice last night during prime time. It's running in eight states, including Ohio where Obama's 'green energy' plans aren't just tanking in terms of creating new jobs, but are responsible for killing existing jobs here as part of his promise to bankrupt the coal industry.

I'm certainly not in favor of government picking the winners and losers in the marketplace via such funding, but if you're going to spend the money, at least ensure that our American tax dollars are helping American taxpayers, for goodness sake!

This is an important election.  Don't hope that your family, friends and neighbors will see this ad or read a blog about it.  Spread the word - especially to those union workers with the bumper stickers that say "Out of a job yet?  Keep buying foreign."  Make sure they know that their union leaders are firmly and staunchly supporting Obama - and spending their union dues to help a President who is sending jobs overseas.

Guest Post: Investment Best Left to Private Sector, Not Government

The following is a guest post by William O’Keefe, chief executive officer of the George C. Marshall Institute, and president of Solutions Consulting Inc.

Investment Best Left to Private Sector, Not Government

Al Gore’s self-aggrandizing claim that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” has haunted him since he first uttered it during a 1999 interview. Newt Gingrich has taken a good deal of flack since claiming “helped lead the effort to defeat communism” late last year. It makes sense. In a society where people expect to be rewarded for their hard work and good ideas, the public generally abhors those who take credit where it’s not due. Self-promotion is what hucksters do.

For those reasons and others, politicians—especially those seeking reelection—should avoid engaging in unwarranted swagger. President Obama has not.

In his State of the Union address and campaign ads, Obama attempts to credit his administration with the recent boom in U.S. oil and gas production. Yet the facts don’t bear this out.

Obama has been more of an obstacle than an enabler to growth in America’s energy industry: straddling the fence over his support for development, targeting the sector for punitive tax hikes, and failing to issue a single new offshore permit in fiscal year 2011. So what are we to make of the President’s sudden embracing of traditional fuels and the more than 9 million workers whose jobs are supported by this industry? Why, election year politics, of course.

The President has already kicked off his swing state tour, traveling across the U.S. touting the need to create manufacturing jobs throughout 2012. Manufacturing is an important part of the Ohio economy, making this a politically savvy move to ensure his rhetoric resonates in the state. The manufacturing sector is the largest contributor to Ohio GDP at over 17 percent, and employs over 600,000 workers in the state. Nationally, the sector represents 11 percent of GDP.

But has the Obama administration really played the role in boosting manufacturing in the energy industry as he claims? In a word, no.

Private sector engineers invented hydraulic fracturing, the process responsible for the boom we’re witnessing in domestic natural gas production, back in 1947—over a decade before the President was even born. This innovation has enabled U.S. firms to unlock resources never before accessible and invest billions in our economy in the process. Far from encouraging this success, the President has singled out this sector for massive tax hikes—jeopardizing our already shaky position in the global energy market (not one U.S. company is in the top 15 largest energy companies worldwide).

In effect, by increasing taxes on U.S. companies, this desired policy would send more jobs and revenue abroad. This is a far cry from creating needed manufacturing jobs domestically. While domestic employment has been declining during the president’s tenure, employment in the oil industry has grown over 20%.

While gunning for oil and gas, the White House is playing favorites with the renewable lobby. Currently, about $11.3 billion taxpayer dollars are directed toward “green” energy annually. Despite decades of massive subsidization, the industry still accounts for only eight percent of U.S. energy demand. Heavily subsidized failures like the botched $500 million Solyndra loan are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to government failures at picking winners and losers in the energy sector.

Ohio needs jobs, and that will require a plan to make our state and nation as a whole more attractive to investment and innovation. The President’s continued pursuit of job killing punitive tax hikes on manufacturers puts off investors and is contradictory to his campaign message touting the need for job creation. If Obama is serious about job creation, he must move to leave capital in the hands of proven private sector innovators, and stop trying to increase taxes to fund failed pet projects.

If you think Solyndra is bad, wait until you see this

We've all heard about the Solyndra scandal, but that may pale in comparison to what is being described as America's Worst Wind Energy Project.

The article takes a look at General Electric's (GE) Shepherds Flat project in northern Oregon - which the author says "is a real stinker."

The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon is coming courtesy of federal taxpayers. And that largesse will provide a windfall for General Electric and its partners on the deal who include Google, Sumitomo, and Caithness Energy. Not only is the Energy Department giving GE and its partners a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, but as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

The deal was so lucrative for the project developers that last October, some of Obama’s top advisers, including energy-policy czar Carol Browner and economic adviser Larry Summers, wrote a memo saying that the project’s backers had “little skin in the game” while the government would be providing “a significant subsidy (65+ percent).”
...
The memo continues, explaining that the carbon dioxide reductions associated with the project “would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton for CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.” The memo continues, saying that that per-ton cost is “more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules.”

Never mind that GE made $5.1 billion (yes - with a 'B') from their U.S. operations last year without paying any taxes. Never mind that GE clearly has the capital/financial ability to finance this project on their own. Never mind that GE's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is the head of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

No, those facts are irrelevant. Our tax dollars are going to pay for this 'little' project and then to reward the 'investors' who have no skin in the game.

And the worst part about all of this is that these billions (yes - again with a 'B') are being taken from you and me and all Americans (probably borrowed from China) to reward campaign donors and promote a false idea that wind energy is a viable choice.

So just how many jobs will this little project create? Only 35 permanent positions. As the article says:

How much will those “green energy” jobs cost? Well, if we ignore the value of the federal loan guarantee and only focus on the $490 million cash grant that will be given to GE and its partners when Shepherds Flat gets finished, the cost of those “green energy” jobs will be about $16.3 million each.

Really?!? $16.3 million to 'create' a job?!? And that is excluding the billion in loan guarantees!!!

Where is the outrage?

The article does have some good news though. It appears that the more people learn about wind energy, the less they like it. Not because they don't want to have an alternative form of energy, but because they realize that the industry isn't viable without huge subsidies of their dollars, which they know diverts limited funds from other purposes.

During the webinar, Justin Rolfe-Redding, a doctoral student from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, discussed ways for wind-energy proponents to get their message out to the public. Rolfe-Redding said that polling data showed that “after reading arguments for and against wind, wind lost support.” He went on to say that concerns about wind energy’s cost and its effect on property values “crowded out climate change” among those surveyed.

The most astounding thing to come out of Rolfe-Redding’s mouth — and yes, I heard him say it myself — was this: “The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.” After the briefings on the pros and cons of wind, said Rolfe-Redding, “enthusiasm decreased for wind. That’s a troubling finding.” The solution to these problems, said Rolfe-Redding, was to “weaken counterarguments” against wind as much as possible. He suggested using “inoculation theory” by telling people that “wind is a clean source, it provides jobs” and adding that “it’s an investment in the future.” He also said that proponents should weaken objections by “saying prices are coming down every day.”

They can spin it any way they want, but the truth came directly from a wind supporter:

As Rolfe-Redding said, the more people know about the wind business, the less they like it.