green jobs

CEI Podcast for September 15, 2011: Solyndra

by Ryan Young on September 15, 2011

in Energy, Environment, Podcast

Post image for CEI Podcast for September 15, 2011: Solyndra

Have a listen here.

Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, takes a look at the brewing Solyndra scandal. Solyndra is a company that makes solar panels and recently declared bankruptcy. In 2009, the federal government gave Solyndra a $535 million loan even though its own analysts predicted the company would go bankrupt in 2011. The company’s cozy relationship with political figures, including a major political donor with an investment stake, make the loan — and its low interest rate — look rather suspicious.

Failed Stimulus Spending Erodes America’s International Competitiveness, Wipes Out Wealth

by Hans Bader on July 4, 2011 · 2 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Stimulus to Nowhere

In the Daily Caller, Chris Edwards has an interesting article about why government spending doesn’t “stimulate” the economy over the short-run or the long-run. Rather than growing the economy, stimulus packages are typically wasteful wealth transfers akin to a “leaky bucket,” which harm the economy in the long run, whether or not there are any short-run stimulus effects.

As Edwards notes, “Despite ongoing federal deficits of more than $1 trillion a year, many liberals are calling for more government spending to ‘create jobs.’” But if government spending creates jobs, it’s hard to understand why unemployment has soared, even as government spending has exploded in recent years: “Federal spending has soared over the past decade. As a share of gross domestic product, spending grew from 18 percent in 2001 to 24 percent in 2011.” As he notes, “government spending and taxing creates ‘deadweight losses,’ which result from distortions to working, investment and other activities. The CBO says that deadweight loss estimates ‘range from 20 cents to 60 cents over and above the revenue raised.’ Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein thinks that deadweight losses ‘may exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised.’” Due partly to this “leaky-bucket” effect, Texas A&M economist Edgar Browning concluded that “It costs taxpayers $3 to provide a benefit worth $1 to recipients,” and that “today’s welfare state reduces GDP — or average U.S. incomes — by about 25 percent.”

[click to continue…]

Obama Subsidizes Job-Killing Outsourcing, While Attacking Job-Creating Outsourcing

by Hans Bader on April 28, 2011

in Economy, International, Regulation, Trade

In his 2008 campaign, Obama demagogued about “outsourcing,” but his own policies have outsourced thousands of American jobs, at taxpayer expense, as I explain today at The Washington Examiner.

As ABC News notes, “Nearly $2 billion in money from” the stimulus package has “been spent on wind power,” but “nearly 80 percent of that money” — $1.6 billion — “has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.” Indeed, “a recent report by American Wind Energy Association showed a drop in U.S. wind manufacturing jobs last year.” These subsidies effectively outsource American jobs, driving up America’s trade deficit.

Weirdly enough, Obama supports this taxpayer-subsidized outsourcing, which wipes out American jobs, even while opposing non-subsidized (free-market-based) outsourcing, which can actually save American jobs by reducing the cost of finished goods that are produced mostly — but not entirely — in America. (How can firms’ decisions to outsource save American jobs? Here’s how:  An American manufacturer of a finished product, facing stiff cost competition from overseas manufacturers, can reduce its overall costs, and thus avoid going out of business, by outsourcing low-skill jobs producing crude components of the finished product to low-wage overseas workers, thus enabling the more valuable finished product designed or assembled by skilled American workers to be cost-competitive with finished goods produced entirely overseas.)

Wintery Knight has an interesting commentary on additional ways that stimulus money and taxpayer money are being wasted on foreign companies and liberal interest groups. I earlier discussed how GE was using “green jobs” welfare to fatten its profits while paying no taxes (unlike most American companies, which pay some of the world’s highest taxes) and getting a special bailout at preferential terms from the taxpayers.

Big Company With Ties to White House Paid No Taxes; GE Also Got Corporate Welfare and Bailout on Special Terms

by Hans Bader on March 27, 2011

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Energy, Environment, Stimulus to Nowhere

“The top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world,” but General Electric, whose CEO was recently tapped to lead President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, pays no taxes at all, reported the New York Times.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.  Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

This negative tax rate is the product of lobbying aimed mostly at liberal lawmakers. “G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law,” such as “‘green energy’ credits for its wind turbines.” “Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment.”

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for even more spending on forms of energy that benefit GE.  Government energy spending and tax credits disproportionately benefit GE, which recently spent  $65.7 million on lobbying to get government subsidies.

[click to continue…]

Obama Administration Understated Deficits by $2.3 Trillion; Resists Spending Cuts Needed to Stem Deficits

by Hans Bader on March 25, 2011

in Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Stimulus to Nowhere

The Congressional Budget Office reported last week that the Obama administration understated budget deficits “by more than $2.3 trillion over the upcoming decade,” and that “if Obama’s February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.” President Obama objects to even a tiny two percent cut in the federal budget, submitting a self-indulgent, smoke-and-mirrors budget that would actually increase spending even faster than previously proposed for 2012.

Obama’s record deficit spending is based on the notion — contrary to all evidence — that if the government increases spending, that spending will more than pay for itself through increased economic growth. (Never mind that Canada’s economy boomed after it slashed government spending in the 1990’s, and America experienced an “economic boom” after our government slashed spending in 1946.)

For example, even though “federal education spending has gone through the roof” in recent years, Obama has called for big increases in education spending, saying that “the best economic policy is one that produces more college graduates.” But dumping more money on colleges won’t spur economic growth.

Jacking up college attendance rates further just results in the presence of bored, unmotivated students who are not interested in learning, and only go to college to get a diploma, while spawning an economically-destructive “arms race” over who can acquire the most unnecessary credentials. Already, “36%” of “the nation’s undergraduates” learn “little” or nothing after four years of college, according to a study cited by USA Today. Many of their professors didn’t even try to teach them much: “32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.”

[click to continue…]

Obama’s State of the Union: A Blueprint for Crony Capitalism and Costly Educational Failures

by Hans Bader on January 26, 2011

in Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for even more spending on his cronies — what he euphemistically referred to as “investments” in “clean energy technology.” Such spending benefits companies that donate millions to liberal politicians, like GE,  which recently spent  $65.7 million on lobbying to extract special favors from the government.

As the Washington Post notes, GE received massive taxpayer bailouts on special, preferential terms not available to other companies:

General Electric, the world’s largest industrial company, has quietly become the biggest beneficiary of one of the government’s key rescue programs for banks. At the same time, GE has avoided many of the restrictions facing other financial giants getting help from the government. The company did not initially qualify for the program.  .  .But regulators soon loosened the eligibility requirements, in part because of behind-the-scenes appeals from GE.

GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is the “Chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.”

The “clean energy” spending Obama wants includes “initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector — which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding.”

This is a bad sign for American workers, because such green jobs programs have wiped out thousands of American jobs in the past.  The $800 billion stimulus package used “green-jobs” subsidies to send American jobs overseas.  79 percent of those subsidies went to foreign firms, such as an Australian firm that imported Japanese wind turbines, effectively outsourcing American jobs.  (The stimulus package also wiped out jobs in America’s export sector.)  Moreover, some “green jobs” funding actually damages the environment, like ethanol subsidies:  ethanol mandates actually harm the environment, yet the Obama administration apparently considers them to be a “green jobs” program.

Echoing earlier reports that he would advocate “new government spending” on education, Obama attacked the idea of scaling back massive increases in education spending. He called cutting education spending “like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine.” Lost in his hyperbole was the fact that America already spends much more per capita on education than most other wealthy industrialized countries, with worse results.  As spending has exploded, college students are spending much less time studying and reading than they used to.

Dumping more money on the educational system is unlikely to spur economic growth, since so many college students learn little in college, are not interested in learning, and only go to college in order to get paper credentials rather than an education. Obama wants all Americans to attend at least one year of college, saying in his address that “higher education must be within reach of every American.”

Those paper credentials are increasingly useless to many who obtain them.  Most people who went to college because of rising college-attendance rates in recent years wound up in unskilled jobs (including 5,057 janitors who have Ph.D’s or other advanced degrees), while tuition skyrockets. (100 colleges charge at least $50,000 a year, compared to five in 2008-09.)  Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation, while Obama seeks to double it.

Colleges are so awash in money that many elite colleges are using it to rapidly expand educational bureaucracies.  For example, Wake Forest University increased spending on administrators by 600 percent.

Unlike other countries, which focus on educating engineers and other economically-productive occupations, America focuses on superficial, ideologically-fashionable liberal-arts majors.  The Obama administration seems more concerned about the gender ratios in college science departments than the small number of Americans who go into science, and is now contemplating caps on the number of male science students under Title IX to promote what it perceives as gender equity.  Such caps would be based on the Obama administration’s faulty interpretation of Title IX.

Andrew Sullivan Blames Tea Party for Budget-Busting Deal That He, Not It, Supported

by Hans Bader on January 21, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

The deficit is largely the result of “feel-good” bipartisan policies supported by the political establishment. But rather than taking credit for the deficit it helped to create, the liberal establishment blames it on political outsiders like the Tea Party who have little influence over public policy. Sometimes, the Tea Party is accused of supporting policies it had nothing to do with.

Writing at his blog at The Atlantic, liberal journalist Andrew Sullivan recently faulted the “Tea Party” for the recent budget-busting deal between Obama and congressional leaders that exploded the deficit by extending tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and government handouts: “immediately after the election, moreover, they did a deal borrowing a huge amount more and adding $700 billion to the debt.”

The irony is that Sullivan, one of Obama’s biggest cheerleaders, had earlier endorsed that very deal, a deal also endorsed by other liberal media like the Washington Post because of the government handouts it contained. In an explanation that was hard to follow, Sullivan said that this new “stimulus package financed by borrowing” would somehow create “the best context for serious reform” of the nation’s finances, providing a “big new stimulus” that would help Obama “as he moves toward re-election.”

By contrast, some Tea Partiers publicly opposed the deal. A Wall Street Journal article quotes a Tea Party activist and Senate candidate saying that “she decided to run after watching Congress pass legislation during this month’s lame duck session, including a package of tax cuts, that added to the national debt.”

Most Tea Party bloggers took no position on the deal. The few that did either opposed it or reluctantly supported it as the best one could expect from a government that would still be dominated by liberals in the next Congress (with Democrats controlling both the White House and the Senate).

I criticized the deal in a blog post that was reproduced at a blog called “Freedom Action“” that includes many Tea Party members. It drew no objections from any blogger or reader at that site (which has more than 300 members). I noted that the billions it will spend on extending unemployment benefits won’t stimulate the economy, but will financially burden states. 30-40 state unemployment funds are already insolvent or teetering on the edge, thanks to past federal extensions of unemployment benefits. Giving people unemployment benefits for years on end discourages people from taking lower-paying jobs, and results in some recipients gaming the system. It encourages people not to relocate in search of work, and not to take productive jobs that they think are beneath them, even if those jobs are the only jobs that they will realistically find once their jobless benefits come to an end, because of the disappearance of the type of job they once performed.

As the Heritage Foundation notes, “The consequences of extended unemployment benefits are some of the most conclusively established results in labor economic research. Extending either the amount or the duration of UI benefits increases the length of time that workers remain unemployed. UI benefits subsidize unemployment. They reduce the incentive unemployed workers have to search for new work and to make difficult choices–such as moving or switching industries–to begin a new job.” (The deal also contains other disincentives to work.)

Admittedly, the deal is not as economically-destructive as some of the measures that Obama previously pushed through Congress on party-line votes, such as the $800 billion stimulus package, which actually shrank the economy in several ways. (The stimulus used “green-jobs” subsidies to send American jobs overseas. 79 percent of those subsidies went to foreign firms, such as an Australian firm that imported Japanese wind turbines, effectively outsourcing American jobs. It also wiped out jobs in America’s export sector.)

Unemployment Jumps to 9.8 Percent; Stimulus and New Regulations Wipe Out Jobs

by Hans Bader on December 3, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Stimulus to Nowhere

Unemployment has jumped to 9.8 percent. The population has grown recently, but the number of jobs has remained virtually flat. The White House seems to have learned nothing from this, and there is talk of yet more wasteful stimulus spending.

The stimulus package’s costly “green jobs” subsidies sent American jobs overseas. Their biggest recipient was a bankrupt Australian company that imported Japanese turbines for a windmill farm.  79 percent of the subsidies went to foreign firms.  Spain’s “green jobs” program, which Obama cited 8 times as a model for his own green jobs and global warming programs,  completely failed, destroying jobs and driving up Spain’s skyrocketing government deficit. Each new green job “created” in Spain wiped out 2.2 existing jobs and cost $800,000.   New EPA rules dealing with global warming are expected to wipe out more than 800,000 jobs, while proposed EPA ozone rules could wipe out millions more.

48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since passage of the $800 billion stimulus package.  The Obama administration falsely claimed that passing the stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8 percent, but now it’s close to 10 percent.  The stimulus also contained other provisions that wiped out jobs in America’s export sector, and it encouraged states to impose new job-killing burdens on business through changes to their statutory unemployment-compensation schemes.

Obama’s EEOC appointees are unprecedently hostile to employers, making the Carter-era EEOC look friendly to business by comparison.  New laws backed by Obama, and Obama administration regulations governing employers, have discouraged employers from hiring new employees.

More Stimulus Money Wasted

by Hans Bader on October 21, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

A lot of money was wasted in weatherization projects paid for by the stimulus package, note The New York Times Green Blog and Professor Jonathan Adler.

Eighty percent of homes audited by federal investigators in Illinois “failed final inspection ‘because of substandard workmanship.’ In some cases, technicians who tuned up gas-fired heating systems did so improperly, so that they emitted carbon monoxide ‘at higher than acceptable levels.’”  In two-thirds of the homes audited, “contractors billed for labor charges that had not been incurred and for materials that had not been installed.” Illinois itself “had found a 62 percent error rate when it re-inspected homes weatherized by CEDA,” and that “some of the work created fire hazards.”

Stimulus money also went to prisoners and dead people, wasteful welfare spending, abandoned bridges to nowhere, and unnecessary government buildings.  The stimulus subsidized foreign green jobs and wiped out jobs in America’s export sector.

Liberal newspapers, like the editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times, now parrot false claims by the Obama administration that the stimulus has “saved or created” jobs, and cite a non-existent consensus among economists in support of that claim.  But in reality, many leading economists, including Nobel Prize winners, were skeptical of the stimulus, including but not limited to Alberto Alesina, Robert Barro, Gary Becker, John Cochrane, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Sargent, Harald Uhlig, and Luigi Zingales. The “‘stimulus’ is not the road to economic recovery. It’s the problem, not the solution, writes Nobel laureate economist Vernon L. Smith.” The Cato Institute even ran full-page ads in The New York Times and Washington Post, featuring a statement signed by 200 economists opposing the stimulus package.

The Washington Post itself once admitted that there was no consensus among economists for the stimulus, conceding that “[f]iscal stimulus is far from a sure-fire remedy. Economists disagree about the efficacy of every pump-priming effort from the New Deal to last year’s tax rebates. In general, fiscal policy had fallen out of favor in economics. . .Many economists note Japan’s failed attempt to borrow and spend its way out of a recession during the 1990s” through “repeated stimulus packages. As it is, Japan piled up a massive debt and recovered only modestly, leaving it vulnerable to today’s downturn.” (See Editorial, “Priming the Pump,” Jan. 25, 2009, at p. B6).

Canada’s Green Energy and Jobs Programs Butt Up Against WTO Rules, says Japan

by Fran Smith on September 22, 2010 · 2 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Trade

Do green energy and green jobs mandates run counter to World Trade Organization rules?  Japan says “yes” in relation to Canada’s program for renewable energy generation and green jobs in Ontario. Japan is complaining to the WTO that Canadian measures that mandate domestic content requirements for renewable energy generation equipment are inconsistent with WTO rules because they discriminate against equipment produced outside of Ontario and also represent a subsidy prohibited by the WTO. The country has asked the WTO for a formal consultation with Canada on the issues it raises in its September 13, 2010 filing. Consultations are often the first step in trying to resolve an issue before a country opens an official case with the WTO’s dispute settlement body.

Primarily Japan’s complaint hits Canada’s domestic content requirements in its “feed-in tariff” (FIT) program for Ontario, which requires that the renewable energy equipment, such as solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, and waterpower generation equipment, be produced in Ontario in whole or in part. (Feed-in tariffs are renewable energy payments that electric grid utilities obligate themselves to pay to purchase electricity generated from renewable sources.)  Under the program guaranteed prices for renewable energy electricity production are provided through long-term contracts.

According to a provincial government backgrounder on FIT, the domestic content requirements are intended to support “new green jobs in Ontario”:

Domestic content requirements for both FIT and microFIT projects are intended to help support the creation of 50,000 new green jobs in Ontario. MicroFIT projects will help create new local businesses and green jobs as demand grows for technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, biomass and waterpower generation equipment, and for Ontarians who can design, build, install, operate and maintain these technologies.

And the domestic content requirements can be very specific (and somewhat ridiculous).   Here, for instance, is the one for silicon ingots and wafers:

Silicon ingots and wafer, where silicon ingots have been cast in Ontario, and wafers have been cut from the castings by a saw in Ontario.

From my quick review of the Canadian program, Japan seems to have a real cause for its complaint. Other countries looking to follow Canada’s example for green jobs creation should be wary about including their own protectionist measures.

H/T/ Julie Walsh

← Previous Entries