No wonder the solar industry is tanking

This is also a further indictment of state legislators who mandated that companies get their power from 'green' energy sources. From Crane's Detroit Business May 11, 2011:

A $3 million solar energy installation to help power General Motors Co.'s Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant was formally announced Wednesday by GM and DTE Energy Co.

The project is expected to be the largest photovoltaic solar array in Southeast Michigan and generate 516 kilowatts of electricity at the plant, home to the Chevrolet Volt electric car.

The array will be built on six acres on the south side of the plant and is expected to save the plant about $15,000 annually, under a 20-year agreement.

Do the math: $3,000,000 cost divided by $15,000/year savings means it will take 200 years to see a return on the investment (ROI).

Think about it - 200 years ago we were in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, moving from human and animal labor toward machines - primarily the steam engine.

Do we really think the solar array installed at this Volt plant is even going to be around in 200 years?!?

Perhaps only as a museum exhibit....

The solar array for the lights on our new I-280 bridge had a 150-year ROI. In fact, most solar projects take much longer to recoup the investment than even the life of the panels themselves (usually around 20, but maybe 30 years).

Without huge handouts of taxpayer money to install them - or mandates from politicians, no business would willingly choose such a poor investment. The technology may advance to the point where it is viable, but it will never reach that point if unprofitable and illogical 'investments' are promoted or mandated by government.

Just say no to government picking the winners and losers.

More First Solar layoffs?

Just two weeks after telling Congress the company was "financially strong," First Solar announced it was going to lay off half the 240 workers at its Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One (AVSR1) power plant near Los Angeles. They have a facility in Perrysburg.

The Washington Free Beacon has the story:

A politically connected, taxpayer-funded solar firm announced a massive round of furloughs on Friday, just weeks after its chairman told Congress his company was “financially strong.”

First Solar, an Arizona-based solar panel manufacturer that received more than $3 billion in federal loan guarantees under President Obama, has furloughed half of the 240-person workforce at its Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One (AVSR1) power plant near Los Angeles.

...

The announcement comes two weeks after First Solar chairman Michael Ahearn told members of the House Oversight committee that the company “remains financially strong and well positioned to execute through the current market environment.”

Ahearn’s testimony was supplemented by a presentation that included testimony from a number of First Solar employees, including Javier Pomposo and Zachary Christensen from the AVSR1 plant.

...

It is not known whether Pomposo and Christensen were among the 120 employees furloughed.

...

Congressional investigators have raised questions as to whether the Obama administration cut corners in an effort to funnel taxpayer dollars to First Solar. The company has close ties to Democratic leadership and the White House.

Kathleen Weiss, the head lobbyist and vice president of First Solar, has visited the White House at least 16 times to meet with Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett and other senior administration officials.

Jose Villarreal, a board member of the Center for American Progress—a left-wing think tank closely tied to the administration that has lobbied aggressively for green energy loans—sits on the board of First Solar.

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.

BREAKING: First Solar lays off 2,000, closes factory, idles production

Following bad news over the weekend, another solar firm announces major restructuring moves, including layoffs, today.

First Solar (FSLR) was kicked off the Nasdaq-100 Monday and replaced by Texas Instruments.  First Solar is based in Tempe, AZ, but was founded in Toledo under the name of Solar Cells, Inc.  Their only U.S. manufacturing facility is in Perrysburg Township.

In October, they fired their CEO.  In December, they announced 100 layoffs and a delay at their Mesa plant. 

Today, they announced further changes, including closing operations and laying off 2,000 - roughly 30% of their workforce:

As part of this program, First Solar will close its manufacturing operations in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany, in the fourth quarter of 2012. Additionally, the Company will indefinitely idle four production lines at its manufacturing center in Kulim, Malaysia, on May 1, 2012. These actions, combined with other personnel reductions in Europe and the U.S., will reduce First Solar's global workforce by approximately 2,000 positions, about 30 percent of the total.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office offered nearly $4.5 billion in conditional loan guarantees to three of First Solar's projects. This is the same office that loaned tax dollars to the bankrupt Solyndra, the bankrupt Energy Conversion Devices Inc, and others as well as pledged funding to the bankrupt Solar Trust of America.  Earlier this month, First Solar received their first advance on one of the loans.

That loan was for the controversial Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One.  They projected that the Antelope Valley project would produce enough energy to power 54,000 homes, but as of the receipt of the loan, that number had jumped to 75,000 homes - though that seems a bit on the small side for "one of the largest such projects in the world."  And then there was this claim from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform:

For a specific example, the report claims that First Solar’s Antelope Valley project involved no true innovations and hence should not have been eligible for the treatment it received. The report claims that DOE employees deliberately bent the rules and modified their assessments to maintain First Solar’s eligibility, moves that eventually prompted Director of the Technical and Project Management Division, Dong Kim, to write in a June 2011 email:

Someone keeps changing [Antelope Valley Solar Ranch] Technical slides to include single axis trackers as an innovation. Be clear that this not an innovation. The record will show that we did not grade this as innovative during intake review. It will not stand up to scrutiny if compared with CVSR [California Valley Solar Ranch] trackers. Whoever continues to make this change needs to understand that Technical does not support the 20 percent of the CVSR field with trackers as an innovative component. [Emphasis added by report.]

It would be one thing—deplorable, to be sure—if the DOE’s loan guarantee program had insufficient procedural safeguards to protect taxpayer money. However, what the new report confirms is that on several occasions—and not just involving Solyndra—Administration officials allowed certain companies to receive government assistance only by bending or even ignoring the program’s own stated rules.

In March, the Washington Examiner revealed that First Solar used taxpayer grants and loans to sell its solar cells to itself. 

In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two wind farms in Canada. That means if the wind farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.

But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.

A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the wind farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar's panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this "export."

First Solar closed yesterday at $20.82, its lowest price ever and a far cry from its high of $317.00 in May of 2008.  They have scheduled a conference call today at 11 a.m. to discuss this announcement. A replay of the conversation will be available at 1 p.m. (instructions here).

Link Roundup - taxes, tyranny, tortoises and free speech

Here are some interesting stories from around the Internet that I came across and wanted to share:

* Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech - it's hard to believe but a union in Indiana is arguing in court that the state's new right-to-work law, which makes union dues voluntary and not a requirement for employment, impedes their right to free speech because it cuts the amount of money they have to 'communicate' that speech.

They're claiming that free speech depends on funding. As the article says:

The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech. The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself. It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else. Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

* Mojave Solar Project Killing Threatened Desert Tortoises - Environmentalists and conservations have documented that the have documented that the have documented that the BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah solar power project in the Mojave Desert has directly caused many desert tortoise deaths, in addition to disturbing the natural environment of all the reptiles in the area.

It's bad enough that the project is costing more than $2 billion. Shamefully, the solar energy from Ivanpah will be three times more expensive than natural gas or coal. What's even worse is that the state's Public Utilities Commission has estimated that customers will see their bills increase up to 50% for renewable energy as a result.

But the kicker is the hypocrisy of all who support the project. Could you imagine the outrage, outcries and demonization that would come from politicians and the media if this was an oil or coal plant doing the same thing?


* Women vs. the State - the National Center for Policy Analysis has summarized a recent Reason Magazine article on how women fare under many laws. What I thought was particularly interesting was the tax ramifications which many people don't think about:

• Unless a wife makes more than her husband (and 72 percent do not), the government will tax the first dollar the wife earns at her husband's highest marginal rate.

• This tax policy and the steep jump in the marginal rates as a couple's income rises discourage women from working, as they receive disproportionately low after-tax compensation.

• The effect is a marriage penalty on women's desire to work.

• According to economists Nada O. Eissa and Austin Nichols, married women increased their employment substantially in response to reductions in marginal tax rates following the 1986 tax reform, and similar results were seen again in the 1990s.

• It also explains why, despite the fact that almost 80 percent of working mothers say they would prefer to work part time, almost two-thirds work full-time instead.

And speaking of taxes, since they're are due by April 15th, this article from Cato is especially timely...

* American Income Tax Tyranny - This article details several types of tyranny in the tax code, including the lie that our taxes are imposed by the 'consent of the governed':

The United States has the most progressive (i.e., unequal) tax system in the world. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on average, receives more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes — while the highest earners pay a wildly disproportionate amount of their income in taxes — despite the myth that Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than his secretary. A progressive income tax only meets the test of “consent of the governed” when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only “fair,” ignoring the fact there is nothing at all “fair” about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others.

But this is only one such tyranny. I hope you'll read the entire article.

First Solar sold it's solar panels to itself

Yes, you read that correctly. First Solar sold its solar panels to itself - and it used taxpayer grants and loans from the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) to do so.

The Washington Examiner has the story:

After First Solar pocketed this $17.3 million in government grants and $15 million in government loans, Ex-Im entered the scene.

In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two wind farms in Canada. That means if the wind farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.

But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.

A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the wind farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar's panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this "export."

You should read the entire article, as it details other instances in which the Export-Import Bank helped companies purchase from themselves. Oh - and the Export-Import Bank is up for a continuation vote in Congress. Cato Institute has a great article on why expanding the Ex-Im is a mistake.

FirstEnergy closing 6 plants due to new EPA rules

Just great - not! President Barack Obama said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry and now, as a result of his new EPA standards, we're losing jobs and electricity sources in Ohio.

FirstEnergy today announced the closing of six coal-fired plants, including our plant here in Oregon, Ohio, and three others in our state. We already have some of the highest electricity rates in the state. How much will our rates go up without this local plant?

And what about the employees??? More than 500 employees will be out of work, though some may relocate to other plants or take early retirement. And then there are the ancillary jobs and economic benefits that will decrease, including transportation, office and manufacturing suppliers, etc...

So much for a President who said his number one priority was jobs.

For more information about how Pres. Obama's coal policies are costing us hundreds more per year, check out this blog post by Warner Todd Huston.

Here is the FirstEnergy press release:

FirstEnergy, Citing Impact of Environmental Regulations, Will Require Six Coal-Fired Plants

FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) announced today that its generation subsidiaries will retire six older coal-fired power plants located in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland by September 1, 2012. The decision to close the plants is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were recently finalized, and other environmental regulations.

The total capacity of the competitive plants that will be retired is 2,689 megawatts (MW). Recently, these plants served mostly as peaking or intermediate facilities, generating, on average, approximately 10 percent of the electricity produced by the company over the past three years.

The following plants will be retired: Bay Shore Plant, Units 2-4, Oregon, Ohio; Eastlake Plant, Eastlake, Ohio; Ashtabula Plant, Ashtabula, Ohio; Lake Shore Plant, Cleveland, Ohio; Armstrong Power Station, Adrian, Pa.; and R. Paul Smith Power Station, Williamsport, Md.

In total, 529 employees will be directly affected. Existing severance benefits will apply to eligible, affected employees. However, the final number of affected employees could be less as some are considered for open positions at other FirstEnergy facilities and work locations, and eligible employees take advantage of a retirement benefit being offered to those 55 years and older.

"This decision is not in any way a reflection of the fine work done by the employees at the affected plants, but is related to the impact of new environmental rules," said James H. Lash, president, FirstEnergy Generation and chief nuclear officer. "We recently completed a comprehensive review of our coal-fired generating plants and determined that additional investments to implement MATS and other environmental rules would make these older plants even less likely to be dispatched under market rules. As a result, it was necessary to retire the plants rather than continue operations."

The plant retirements are subject to review for reliability impacts, if any, by PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that controls the area where they are located.

FirstEnergy is finalizing MATS compliance plans for its remaining coal-fired units. Since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970, FirstEnergy and its predecessor companies have invested more than $10 billion in environmental protection efforts.

Since 1990, FirstEnergy has reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides by more than 76 percent, sulfer dioxide by more than 86 percent and mercury by about 56 percent. When the six coal-fired plants are removed from FirstEnergy's competitive generating fleet, more than 96 percent of the power provided will come from resources that are non- or low-emitting, including nuclear, hydro, pumped-storage hydro, natural gas and scrubbed coal units.

FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company dedicated to safety, reliability and operational excellence. Its 10 electric distribution companies comprise the nation's largest investor-owned electric system. Its diverse generating fleet features non-emitting nuclear, scrubbed coal, natural gas, and pumped-storage hydro and other renewables, and has a total generating capacity of nearly 23,000 megawatts.

The top 10 economic myths of 2011

Every year the Business & Media Institute takes a look at the year's news and determines the top 10 worst economic myths.

Here is their 2011 list:

10. Congress took a "machete" to the budget in August.
9. In order to win, the GOP wants to sabotage the economy.
8. Who cares about a Soros' sponsored effort to remake global economy?
7. With 7 billion on the planet, it's time to panic.
6. Apocalypse Al is a "genius," and climate change is a real threat.
5. The jobs are right around the corner.
4. Occupy Wall Street is the new Tea Party.
3. Green jobs are the future.
2. $52 million from Soros doesn't mean we're biased.
1. "We are the 99 percent."

They give a complete explanation for each one, but some of the best lines are below:

From #10 "Congress took a "machete" to the budget in August." Media Myth: Spending cuts actually cut spending.:

"...95 percent of stories ignored the fact that the federal debt would still rise by $12 trillion (from $14.29 trillion to $28.8 trillion).

"...remember that real spending cuts by the government are nearly as fantastical as finding a leprechaun and his pot of gold at the end of a rainbow."

From #5 "The jobs are right around the corner." Media Myth: Obama is creating jobs and more are on the way:

"President Obama's record on jobs is that his promises have fallen flat. His economic policies were supposed to create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. The results have been dismal with a net loss of 1,623,00 jobs lost since Feb. 2009. But the news media have continued to look for "silver linings" and "bright spots," only to be disappointed by "unexpected" jobs data."

From #4 "Occupy Wall Street is the New Tea Party." Media Myth: "Occupy Wall Street: A Tea Party for the Left?"

In reality, the two couldn't be more different. The Tea Party protesters were peaceful, promoted small government and worked to elect candidates with their values, all while the media did its best to portray them as "terrorists" and "racists." On the other hand, OWS lacked a unified message - but the protesters' big government, anti-free market and at times anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiments have been on display. The volume and tone of news coverage was also dramatically different.

Violence (including rape and sexual assault), crime and disrespect of authority has also been evident at many of the OWS rallies. The twitter feed @OccupyArrests claimed 5,248 arrests as of the morning of Dec. 7. According to The New York Times, OWS troublemakers are merely a fringe minority of the protesters. Yet, the Tea Party was '"responsible for the behavior of people" at its rallies. The broadcast networks chose to ignore violence at the "peaceful" rallies such as Occupy L.A.

From #2 "Millions from Soros doesn't mean we're biased." Media Myth: George Soros is just another left-wing philanthropist:

Since 2003, Soros has donated more than $52 million to all kinds of media outlets - liberal news organizations, investigative reporting and even smaller blogs. He has also been involved in funding the infrastructure of supposedly "neutral" news, from education to even the industry ombudsman association. Many other operations Soros supports also have a media component to what they do.

All that money has created a liberal "echo chamber," that in the words of one group he backs, "in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times."

Of course Soros has denied his influence, blaming Fox News: "Another trick is to accuse your opponent of the behavior of which you are guilty, like Fox News accusing me of being the puppet master of a media empire." But as BMI exposed in multiple reports, Soros' dollars reach far and wide into the media industry.

That echo chamber is often used to further Soros' view, including his view that the "capitalist threat" is a bigger problem than communism these days.(emphasis added by me)

And from #1 1. "We are the 99." Media Myth: Occupy Wall Street claims to be the "99 percent," pushes class warfare rhetoric that captures attention and favorable coverage from media.

But the extreme anti-capitalists, anarchists, communists and socialists protesting in NYC and other cities across the country did not speak for 99 percent of people. In fact according to the Seattle P-I, as of Nov. 13, only 33 percent of people supported OWS based on a poll from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling firm. This despite overwhelmingly positive media coverage.

The media's promotion of OWS did not come as a surprise because it was the natural outcome of the mainstream media's reporting on wealth and inequality and the liberal economists they interview. The phrase "We are the 99 percent" shouted by protesters in Zuccotti Park and Occupy Wall Street encampments may be new, but the class warfare foundation for it has "roots in a decade's worth of reporting," The New York Times admitted in a front page homage to OWS on Dec. 1.

Going green costs jobs

Investors Business Daily had an interesting Friday editorial that took a look at the consequences of cutting off water to an area in order to 'save' the delta smelt. Turns out, jobs were lost and families lost their farms. And the worst part of it all is that it didn't help the delta smelt one bit.

Consequences: The green lobby assured everyone it knew what it was doing when it got a judge to cut water to Central Valley farmers to save the delta smelt. But while the Valley economy is now ruined, it hasn't helped the smelt.

Some day, environmental radicals will be held accountable for crimes against the ecosystem — the human ecosystem.

Back in 2007, they convinced federal Judge Oliver Wanger to rule that the Endangered Species Act gave the federal government the right to cut water to thousands of farmers in California's Central Valley to protect a 3-inch baitfish called the delta smelt.

That ruling turned many of the Valley's prized vineyards and almond groves into wastelands. Jobs were lost, family farms were shut, fields went fallow and food prices rose.

But there's been just one problem with this overreaching of the law: Cutting off water didn't save the smelt.

A draft of a new study from the Delta Stewardship Council shows the water cutoffs had no effect on the smelt. The smelt remains endangered even as farmers have been punished with a policy that cut off as much as 90% of their water.

"Environmentalists claimed the sky was falling in Delta, and the only way to save smelt was to flush more fresh water to the ocean," said Andrew House, spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. "So they embarked upon a narrow path of diverting water from (San Joaquin Valley) farmers by using science to confirm their predetermined assessment of what was going on."

But it didn't work. Similar evidence is now coming out from the Pacific Northwest stating that shutting down the logging industry never did save the spotted owl.

Read more

Why do tax dollars pay for job training?

The Department of Labor (DOL) issued a press release announcing $100 million in grants to various entities for green jobs training.

Their announcement was promptly followed by various governors and congressmen touting the money in the individual states and districts, including one from our own Ted Strickland.

The source of the money is stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill (ARRA) - in other words, you and me and our descendents.

From the DOL:

The grants will support job training programs to help dislocated workers and others, including veterans, women, African Americans and Latinos, find jobs in expanding green industries and related occupations. Approximately $28 million of the total funds will support projects in communities impacted by auto industry restructuring.

From Gov. Strickland:

“This assistance will help Ohioans who may be struggling in the current economy to find jobs and long-term careers in our state’s growing green energy fields.”

So who is getting all this money? Unions - and their training centers. Ohio will be covered by several of the training programs, as highlighted below.

* The International Transportation Learning Center is getting $5 million. They are a non-profit with a board of 10 members. Four of the members are union officers, one is a former appointee of President Bill Clinton, one is the director of the center, three are managers of public transportation systems, and one is a former board member of a transit system. According to their own press release:

The grant will provide funding to train 3,640 participants for good jobs in the US public transportation sector...

If you read further, you'll see that the four locations utilizing the money have existing partnerships and training programs already in place. In fact, they claim to have already trained 16,000 individuals with $17 million in grants since 2001.

So here is my question: if they already have training programs available and people have already taken advantage of them, why must my tax dollars pay for any of this? If I want additional or new training, I have to go out and get it myself. Why aren't people who need better (or new) jobs expected to pay for their own training?

And what, exactly, is the demand for new public transit workers? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook 2010-11 Edition, there is average to below average growth expected in this industry through 2018 primarily due to retirements and resignation for job advancement. Additionally, the average growth is in the primary field of school bus drivers.

While the BLS makes a projection that more people will use public transit in the future, that assumption is not supported by current public transit data. In fact, public transportation is reliant upon public funding and many systems are finding the recession has impacted them, just like everyone else. Of course, with taxpayers facing tougher financial conditions, it is unlikely that increased funding for public transport will be forthcoming in the near future.

So, if there are already training programs in place for such public transit workers and if the job growth in this area is average, why must I pay (through my taxes) for someone to get this training? Why can't the people taking the training pay for it themselves, if it's such a great deal? And, if their job prospects are good or average, can't the cost of their training come out of future earnings? Isn't that 'more fair' than expecting others to pay instead?

* The Institute for Career Development (ICD) Inc. will be getting more than $4.6 million to train 2,000 participants (displaced steelworkers) as "wind farm field technicians and maintenance workers, solar panel installers, or geothermal installers. Training in these fields will also prepare workers for employment in fields related to energy generation such as construction, HVAC, and home retrofitting."

The ICD, according to their website:

"...is a unique workforce training program for eligible members of the United Steelworkers.

We have a wide range of classes to meet any interest or skill level. Instruction ranges from basic skills, such as GED preparation, to graduate-level college courses. Steelworkers can also take personal enhancement courses, like photography and foreign languages, and a variety of classes that teach technical skills, such as plumbing, electrical wiring or small engine repair. The most popular course offerings are computer-related, and many Steelworkers earn certifications through the program."

By their own admission, these training programs are funded through a contractual obligation with participating companies. Depending upon the contract, the employers set aside around 15 cents for each hour worked and pay that into the program.

If these training programs are already paid for by the employers, why does the ICD need more than $4.6 million dollars of taxpayer funding?

* The Communications Workers of America (CWA) National Education and
Training Trust is getting just under $4 million to provide "provide 1,000 dislocated workers in auto impacted regions across Ohio with short term training opportunities in advanced manufacturing that are endorsed by manufacturing employers across the state."

According to the CWA website:

This Trust coordinates our apprenticeship and employment center referral projects. Certification and training update programs will also be provided through the Trust. We recently opened our first center in Fremont, California; and we expect to open the Cleveland, Ohio center this fall. Other CWA training sites will be considered based on the interest of employers and local representatives, provided methods can be put in place to fund our efforts.

From what I learned on their website, their training is offered to members and their families. They have links to employer contracts so members can determine if their particular training program is paid for or reimbursed by their employer and they have scholarships available for certain courses.

So why are tax dollars paying for "short term training opportunities in
advanced manufacturing" if there is already funding in place for the training? And, again, why can't the people who are benefitting from the training cover the costs, either up front or after they are employed?

* The International Training Institute for the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Industry is getting $5 million to train 1,200 sheet metal workers careers "in energy efficient building construction, retrofitting, and manufacturing through a series of customized training courses that address the skills gap of the targeted workforce."

According to their website, the ITI trains its members in all aspects of the job. If preparing for 'green' industries is so critical, why aren't they already doing it? Why do they need customized training courses for 1,200 members? Why not just, as a matter of service to members, incorporate the 'green training' into the existing courses and make sure that all sheet metal and a/c workers are prepared?

Apparently, they do.

On their partner page of their website is this listing:

The National Energy Management Institute (NEMI) is a not for profit organization sponsored by the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (SMWIA) and the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (SMACNA). The mission of NEMI is to identify emerging markets and employment opportunities and to develop programs to capitalize on them. (emphasis added)

So what, exactly, will the $5 million purchase that isn't already available to members at their own expense?

* The Ohio Electrical Labor Management Cooperative Committee is getting $4.8 million to "provide training for 1,288 participants who will earn nationally recognized certificates from the National Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (NJATC), as well as college credit through the University System of Ohio. The project will develop an operational manual to provide a step by step implementation model of the scope of work encompassed by the project."

I couldn't find a website or information on the Committee, but the Columbus Dispatch described it as "jointly run by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the National Electrical Contractors Association."

(I put in a call to both the Governor's office and the DOL for more information and will update this post upon receipt.)

In May, NECA hosted politicians at open houses in their local training centers.

The Open House events showcased the "Green Jobs" curriculum recently published by the National Joint Apprenticeship Training Program (NJATC). The curriculum was developed to meet a growing demand for improved energy efficiency and conservation and projects incorporating renewable energy sources into their electrical systems.

NECA, together with the IBEW and the NJATC, has been extremely active in preparing its workforce to install solar photovoltaic panels, wind power turbines, and fuel cells to the same high standards as its traditional electrical work. The “Green Jobs” curriculum also includes building automation as an integral aspect of energy efficiency and conservation.
...
Nationwide, there are more than 300 JATCs co-sponsored by NECA chapters and IBEW local unions. Most now offer training in renewable energy technology, energy efficiency and conservation.

"This was an excellent opportunity for Congressional leaders to see first-hand how NECA and the IBEW are already training workers to do green energy jobs," Ferry said. "There's a clear national mandate on building green, and I believe that energy solutions are what really make buildings more environmentally-friendly and cheaper to operate."

So, again, the question remains: why are tax dollars are funding this training instead of the recipients?

Some of these programs are available only to union members and the union training centers will be the beneficiaries of the funds. I'm certain there were no political considerations in this decision.

But more than anything, I'm outraged that government - and unions - seem to believe it's better for everyone in the country if certain favored groups get their job training paid for by others. There are plenty of people who are motivated to enhance their skills to make them more attractive in the job market. Fortunately, most of them have made the decision and sacrificed in order to achieve this goal. They - and their children - are now being taxed so others can have for 'free' what they've worked so hard to attain.

While I'd still have a problem with the federal government spending money for job training, I'd find it a bit more palatable if these were loans to individuals and not grants. Loans, at least, need to be repaid (for the most part though some government loan programs now have 'forgiveness' clauses).

What most fail to understand, however, is that if the government didn't tax us so much at every level and opportunity, we'd all have the personal funds to pay for these things ourselves and not 'need' the government to do it for us.

But that would make us independent - and that's the opposite of what the politicians want.

Things I'd blog about if I had all day

* There's an interesting analysis of the Van Jones resignation and what it says about President Barack Obama and his administration in the Washington Examiner. While I was driving yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh's take on this as well.

Both author Michael Barone and Limbaugh questioned how someone like 'green jobs' czar Van Jones, a self-avowed 'truther' could end up in the Obama administration, especially given his other beliefs and associations. Could it be that the Obama administration didn't know? Or is it that they knew, and approved?

Either way, it spells long-term trouble for the president. If he didn't know about Van Jones, what else doesn't he know about the other czars in his administration who are in charge of multiple initiatives and public funds? If he did know and brought him in anyway, is it an indication of Obama's belief in and/or support for such theories or philosophies?

Perhaps only time will tell.

* This same article also had an interesting opinion on 'green jobs' which I fully share:

"If there were money to be made in green jobs, private investors would be creating them already. In fact big corporations like General Electric are scrambling to position themselves as green companies, gaming legislation and regulations so they can make profits by doing so. Big business is ready to create green jobs -- if government subsidizes them. But the idea that green jobs will replace all the lost carbon-emitting jobs is magical thinking."

I only hope our local mayoral candidates will remember this fact about the free market.

* Michael Moore's new movie premiered this week and basically says that capitalism is evil. Here's my question for all candidates, especially those who say they are Democrats (as that party has embraced this filmmaker and his films): Do you agree with Michael Moore that capitalism is evil?

The answer to that question will tell more about the candidate than any policy or position paper or press conference.

I'd also like to know what the everyday Democrat thinks of this opinion? Is this really what my neighbors, who are registered as Democrats, think of our economic system?

Or is that some people are evil and do bad things - and that even good people will make bad (evil) decisions?

* There's been a lot of discussion about the conservative opposition to the health care bill and government-run health care versus Medicare and Veteran's Services health programs.

Here's the thing: I oppose the concept of Medicare and of the government forcing our Veterans to use a government-run program for their health care needs. I can find no authorization in the Constitution (except the 'general welfare' clause which our founders specifically said should not be used as a catch-all for anything government wants to do) for such programs.

However, individuals have participated in and paid into the Medicare program and expect a return for that investment and promise. So it wouldn't be 'fair' or 'right' to suddenly eliminate a program people are participating in, or expect to provide for them in the future.

There is another way, though, that those on the left fail to consider. Instead of continuing to collect the money from today's payers in order to fund yesterday's enrollees (which is causing the bankrupting of the system as it goes broke), modify it so that the individuals get the funds back and make the decisions about how to spend those funds on their own. That way, they get more purchasing power for their money since the government isn't taking its share (for government salaries, program administration, etc...) right off the top.

What would happen if we suddenly returned to the individuals their portion of what they'd paid in and then said, 'we trust you to make good decisions that are in your best interests without us telling you what to do?' Or would there be too many who truly believe that people cannot make good decisions which is why the government must do it for them?

Again, the answer to that question tells us everything we need to know about the person giving the answer.

* I heard a sound clip on one of the talk shows yesterday about a businesswoman in California at one of the health care town hall meetings - it should be heard by everyone, especially the elected officials.

What go her so upset to begin with was that she had taken the time to call and write her representative. But she said that when she did so, she got a form letter response saying 'thank you for your support', which obviously indicated no one had really read what she'd written; or she was condescendingly told by staffers that the representative really knew better than she did.

Her point was that as a business owner, there were two things Congress could do immediately to help 'solve' the claimed health care 'crisis': 1) tort reform and 2) open up the market between states. She then said something startling: there are 1,300 insurance companies in the nation but only six that are available in California for her to choose from.

Can you imagine? Over 1,300 companies that could be offering plans and competing for our business, but only six that Californians can select? I have no idea how many there are in Ohio, but could it be a similar amount?

Opening up inter-state competition wouldn't cost a thing. And it could be done by Congress pretty much immediately. Why not try it and see if providing such immediate 'choice and competition' would have any effect before setting up huge bureaucracies to 'provide choice and competition'????

The only reason why that would be opposed would be in lawmakers thought they'd somehow lose either control, power or campaign funds in doing so.

It's an instant way to provide exactly what they say they want to provide without costing taxpayers a single penny. Why wouldn't they do so if 'choice and competition' were truly the goal?

* Hourglass 1941 blog has a second video of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy refusing to answer questions about H.R. 3200, America's AFfordable Health Choices Act of 2009, will be paid for. Instead, she walks away. She should either admit she doesn't know or explain how the bill will be funded. Perhaps she just afraid that doing either would look worse than just walking away?

An oldie but goodie - Konop should read it

With both Lucas County Commissioner (and mayoral candidate) Ben Konop and President Barack Obama touting a taxpayer-funded college education for all, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at this oldie but goodie from the Foundation for Economic Education.

The article, "No More Subsidies for Higher Education" by George C. Leef, was published in FEE's magazine, The Freeman, which is also available on line.

The author makes several excellent points:

* He tears apart the 'social justice' argument that higher education is something that society 'owes' to low-income and other 'under served' populations.

* He points out that a 'good education' does NOT equate to a college degree, especially considering the lack of 'quality' education many students are getting in today's public schools.

* He looks at employment outlooks that show many anticipated job openings are in fields that might require specialized training, but do not require a college degree.

* He questions why existing opportunities are not sufficient to meet the demand. (And note that neither President Obama nor Comm. Konop have indicated a 'demand' for more college graduates - especially in such fields as women studies or English literature.)

While the article is from 2002, the points are as valid today as they were then. Even if you look at the 'green job's' being touted by the President and Konop, you'll see that many of them are for tasks that certainly do not require an 'advanced' degree. Does a window or insulation installer need a four-year bachelor's degree - or just some on-the-job training?

Konop should read the article ... but I won't hold my breath waiting for his 'rebuttal.'