green jobs

Unemployment Jumps to 9.6%, 54,000 More Jobs Lost

by Hans Bader on September 3, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

Unemployment went back up to 9.6%, as the nation shed 54,000 jobs in August.  Yet Obama calls this “Recovery Summer.”  This is the same Obama who complained about the economic recovery in 2004 being jobless because unemployment was at 6 percent.  If you include discouraged workers, unemployment may be as high as 17 percent.

Earlier, governors warned that ObamaCare will increase unemployment.  Indiana’s governor said it will wipe out thousands of jobs in his state by raising taxes on medical device manufacturers.  It will also kill jobs by imposing huge record-keeping burdens on small businesses, requiring them to file IRS forms over even small purchases.

Employers are afraid to hire new employees because of looming new burdens, such as the global-warming regulations being drafted by the EPA, which could wipe out at least 800,000 jobs in the short run, and far more in the long run.  They also worry about costly new Congressional mandates, such as global-warming legislation backed by liberal Senators, which would provide corporate welfare for some businesses, but impose heavy burdens on many others.  Capping greenhouse gas emissions isn’t cheap — Obama himself told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan to fight global warming, Americans’ electricity bills would “skyrocket,” and coal power plants that now provide much of the nation’s energy would go “bankrupt.” Although Obama and other backers of this “cap-and-trade” concept claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations, resulting in dirtier air, and damage to forests and water supplies.

The Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly admitted that Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package will shrink the economy “in the long run.”  The stimulus contained welfare and repealed welfare reform.  Unemployment is higher now than if Congress had voted it down.  Countries that refused to adopt big stimulus packages have fared better than those that imitated President Obama.  The biggest-spending countries have suffered worst in the recession. The stimulus package wiped out jobs in America’s export sector, while giving “green jobs” funding to foreign firms.

Record Federal Spending Increase Due to Wasteful Spending Like the Failed Stimulus Package

by Hans Bader on September 1, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, International, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

Federal domestic spending increased by a record 16 percent this year, thanks to wasteful spending by the Obama administration, such as its “huge economic stimulus package.”

The $862 billion stimulus package increased unemployment by wiping out thousands of jobs in America’s export sector, while giving 79 percent of its green-jobs funding to foreign firms.

Obama falsely claimed that the $787 billion stimulus package was needed to prevent “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that it would actually shrink the economy “in the long run.”  As the Washington Examiner notes, “If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent . . . The reality is that it passed 10.3 percent.”

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe the $787 billion stimulus package the president passed last year has helped create jobs, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.”As the Washington Examiner notes, “a recent survey of business economists showed they didn’t think the stimulus was creating jobs, either.”  President Obama falsely claimed that virtually all economists supported his stimulus package, but this was patently untrue at the time he made this claim, when at least 200 economists publicly opposed it, and it  is even more untrue now.

Unemployment has skyrocketed past European levels, as big-spending countries have fared worse than thrifty ones.   Germany, which avoided adopting a huge American-style stimulus package, has an unemployment rate much lower than ours, and experienced a massive 9 percent growth rate in the second quarter of 2010.

“President Obama’s policies would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said” earlier.

BlueGreen Alliance Forgets their Aristophanes

by Marlo Lewis on August 16, 2010

in Global Warming

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) mothballed cap-and-trade legislation when it became apparent that he could not muster the three-fifths super-majority required to end a Republican filibuster. Because coal-state Democrats don’t like cap-and-trade either, assembling the requisite 60 votes to stop a filibuster was never easy. It became more difficult after Democrats lost their 60-seat majority with the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Unsurprisingly, sore losers are now calling for a change in Senate rules to abolish the filibuster or lower the number of votes required for cloture.

Congressional Quarterly Online reports that the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental organizations hawking cap-and-trade as a font of ”green jobs,” and a group of freshmen Democratic Senators led by Tom Udall of New Mexico, are calling for a change in Senate rules.

There’s just one small problem. It takes a two-thirds (67-vote) supermajority to change Senate rules. To belabor the obvious, two-thirds is more than three-fifths. If cap-and-traders were strong enough to change the rules, they wouldn’t need to change them — they could already easily overcome GOP filibusters.

If BlueGreenies can’t see what a pickle they’re in, they should try reading Aristophanes, the master of Greek comic poetry. 

Aristophanes’ play Ecclesiazusae, “Assemblywomen” or “Congresswomen,” is a ribald satire on egalitarian excess. Although written millennia ago, it is spot-on relevant in the Age of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama. 

As the play opens, a cabal of women led by Praxagora don fake beards, sneak into the Athenian Assembly, and agitate for a law to establish the rule of women. They gain the support of enough men to pull it off, because Athenians crave change and the rule of women is the only thing they have not yet tried.

Praxagora and her cohorts claim their agenda is to end all injustice, i.e., inequality. They set up cradle-to-grave welfare and institute a regime of free love in which every man may sleep with every woman.

To ensure that not even the natural assets of youth will be allowed to create inequality, Praxagora decrees that before a young man may sleep with a beautiful young woman, he must first sleep with an ugly old hag. Conversely, before a young woman may sleep with a stud, she must gratify a geezer. 

But, as Orwell was to observe centuries later, under socialism, some are more equal than others. Praxagora, you see, is married to a flatulent dotard named Blepyrus, so she has already done her duty to the elderly. She is now free to consort with as many young bucks as she pleases. It’s kinda like cap-and-trade, in which energy-rationing profiteers reap windfalls (regulatory rents) at public expense in the name of saving the planet.

To pass the Kerry-Lieberman bill, BlueGreenies would have to sneak into the Senate, don Republican disguises, and give Tom Udall and his pals a 67 vote super-majority.

Obviously, that’s not gonna happen, not this Congress or next, because fake beards only work in comedy.

Government Spends Billions Bailing Out Foreign Firms and Countries, and Replacing American Jobs With Foreign Green Jobs

by Hans Bader on August 12, 2010

in Agriculture, Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

Our government spent as much money bailing out foreign firms as some countries spent on stabilizing their entire financial system.  Much of the money in the $140 billion AIG bailout actually went to mismanaged foreign firms that dealt with AIG.  The government also used that bailout to give billions to the Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs, an immensely rich and profitable company that didn’t even need the money.  (While harming most banks, and the productive  sectors of the economy, the recent financial reform bill will benefit politically-connected Goldman Sachs, which endorsed it.  Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest donors to liberal politicians.)

Earlier, the Obama administration devoted $6 billion in taxpayer money to bailing out Greece, which ran into trouble because of generous pensions that let many occupations like hairdressers retire at age 50.

American workers are also suffering due to the stimulus package.  It is using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. It also destroyed thousands of jobs in America’s export sector.

Even more jobs will end up overseas if the Obama administration’s poorly conceived global warming legislation passes.

Reason magazine has an insightful article called “Five Lies About the American Economy.”

Stimulus Package to Cost $75 Billion More Than Predicted; Plus, Government-Employee Bailout Sought

by Hans Bader on June 23, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, International, Labor, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

The stimulus package is going to cost at least $75 billion more than the $787 billion the Obama administration claimed, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  President Obama and congressional leaders kept its projected tab beneath $800 billion to keep the support of wavering lawmakers like the senators from Maine, who worried that earlier stimulus proposals were too costly.   The Congressional Budget Office admitted last year that the stimulus package actually would shrink the economy “in the long run.”

Undaunted, Obama is now backing a $50 billion bailout for state government employees.

Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to prevent the economy from suffering from “irreversible decline,” although the CBO predicted the economy would eventually recover with or without the stimulus (the CBO said the stimulus would increase the economy in the short run, while shrinking it in the long run).  The stimulus ended up being useless even in the short run, since its regulations destroyed thousands of jobs by triggering trade wars with other countries that killed jobs in America’s export sector (the stimulus package barred a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads, a minor NAFTA violation that led to massive Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports of 40 farm products and kitchen goods worth $2.4 billion).  The stimulus also replaced American jobs with foreign “green” jobs through its expensive green-jobs program,which gave 79 percent of its money to foreign firms.  And it wasted money on welfare at the expense of badly-needed investments in roads and bridges.

Unemployment is much higher now than Obama said it would be if the stimulus passed.  As the Washington Examiner notes, “If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent,” but it’s now close to 10 percent.  Unemployment is higher than the Administration predicted it would be even without the stimulus.

Obama fired an inspector general who uncovered fraud by a supporter who misused federal funds, thereby hindering the supporter’s ability to spend federal stimulus money.

Obama Uses Oil Spill to Push Failed Energy Policies

by Hans Bader on June 16, 2010

in Agriculture, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, Health and Illness, International, Legal, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

In his speech last night, President Obama used the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to push his failed energy policies, such as a “green jobs” program that has replaced American jobs with foreign “green” jobs, and a climate-change bill that includes ecologically-devastating ethanol subsidies.  Meanwhile, Louisiana residents rated Obama’s inept response to the oil spill as worse than Bush’s much-criticized response to Hurricane Katrina, in a public opinion poll–perhaps because Obama delayed the clean-up of the oil spill by blocking assistance from many foreign experts.

Obama used the oil spill to push for more so-called “green jobs” programs, deceptively boasting that “over the last year and a half,” the government has subsidized the so-called “clean energy industry.”  This was a reference to the February 2009 stimulus package, which contained so-called “green jobs” funding, 79 percent of which went to foreign firms, replacing American jobs with foreign green jobs.  (The administration never bothered to define what a “green job” is, and some so-called “green jobs” turn out to be harmful to the environment.)  The stimulus package also contained regulations that destroyed jobs in America’s export sector.

In his speech, Obama also used the spill to push the so-called “comprehensive energy and climate bill” passed by the “House of Representatives” late “last year.”  That bill expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply.  Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution.   Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

Obama said nothing about waiving the Jones Act, a law that bans foreign ships from working in the U.S. waters unless the President waives the ban.  Past presidents have waived the ban after hurricanes to allow foreign experts to assist the U.S., and speed shipping of relief to hurricane victims.  But Obama refused to do so after the spill, report Voice of America News, the Washington Examiner, and Canadian, Australian, and European newspapers, even though it would make obvious sense to accept help from oil-producing, maritime countries like Norway that have big fleets and expertise in handling oil-drilling and oil-spill issues.   As a result, the Obama administration rejected various offers of assistance from Norwegian, Belgian, Dutch, and Mexican firms.

(The Obama administration has belatedly accepted some foreign equipment for use in fighting the spill, although it continued to block ships with foreign crews, delaying the foreign equipment’s use.  As Voice of America notes, although ”the Netherlands offered help in April,” such as providing ”sophisticated” oil “skimmers and dredging devices,” the Obama administration blocked their crews from working in U.S. waters, and as a result, this crucial ”operation was delayed until U.S. crews could be trained” in June.  “The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.”)

In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations.  But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures.  It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method“ of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills.  Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical“ and “unbelievable“ in its “stupidity.”

Obama Fires Inspector General Who Uncovered Fraud, and Honors Defrauder Instead

by Hans Bader on June 11, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

Earlier, President Obama fired the inspector general for the AmeriCorps program after he uncovered fraud by Obama crony Kevin Johnson.  (Johnson did not receive even a slap on the wrist for his fraud; an organization Johnson ran was required to pay $350,000, but it never did so because it was insolvent; and Johnson himself was not ordered by the Obama administration to pay anything.)

Now, the Obama administration is honoring Johnson despite his fraud, inviting him to be a featured speaker at an event for AmeriCorps, the program Johnson defrauded.

The Obama administration fired the inspector general who uncovered the fraud, Gerald Walpin, falsely claiming he was a senile right-winger, even though Walpin was a successful lawyer with recent high-profile court victories who had uncovered millions in fraud against taxpayers, and even though Walpin, a northeastern moderate Republican, was sufficiently non-partisan that he endorsed Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  (The Obama administration even trumpeted Walpin’s endorsement of Sotomayor to push her nomination.)

LibertyWeek 96: Donut Day Disobedience

by Richard Morrison on June 8, 2010

in CEI Projects, Features, Podcast, Zeitgeist

Richard Morrison and Marc Scribner welcome Chris Horner, Sam Kazman, and Ryan Radia to Episode 96 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We cover Chicago’s dishonorable gun restrictions, a special interview with bestselling author Christopher C. Horner, civil disobedience on National Donut Day, a shout out to CEI’s annual dinner gala and the FTC’s proposed “Drudge Report Tax”.

BP: A “Serial Environmental Criminal” With Close Ties To The Obama Administration

by Hans Bader on June 2, 2010

in Agriculture, Economy, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, Health and Illness, International, Natural Resources, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

BP, which is responsible for the terrible oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, has a safety record infinitely worse than other oil companies, which make safety a priority in drilling for oil.  ABC News reports that “BP ran up 760 ‘egregious, willful’ safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.”  Exxon, the oil company most critical of global warming hysteria, had the best safety record.  BP’s record is so bad that it has been described as a “serial environmental criminal.”

While other companies have invested money in safety, BP has “invested heavily” in an environmentally-conscious advertising campaign that brands the company as “Beyond Petroleum,” and until recently spent money lobbying for the global-warming bill backed by the Obama administration, a bill full of  corporate welfare dressed up as “green energy.”   The company’s advertising campaign successfully duped consumers into viewing it as “the greenest oil company.”

Earlier, the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Louisiana’s governor to allow Louisiana to build barrier islands to contain the damage from the oil spill, insisting that any such islands should be built, if at all, only after a slow and complicated regulatory process that could take years.

Democratic strategist James Carville, who was raised in Louisiana, called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

The Obama administration granted BP a waiver from environmental regulations in April 2009.  Obama received lots of campaign contributions from BP.  ABC News reports that the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.”

The $800 billion stimulus package is using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. Its regulations are destroying jobs in America’s export sector.

The global warming legislation backed by President Obama would also drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated.  That’s one reason why many big companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global-warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over competitors that make their products largely in America.

Although Obama and other backers of this “cap-and-trade” concept claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations, resulting in dirtier air, and damage to forests and water supplies.   It would enrich politically-connected corporations, and result in massive destruction of the world’s forests.

By expanding ethanol subsidies and mandates, it would cause enormous “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have already resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World.

The Washington Examiner earlier explained how the global warming bill would cause deforestation by expanding ethanol subsidies, and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.  Obama’s so-called “cap-and-trade” bill is full of pay-offs for special interests.

Stimulus Package Increases Trade Deficit: Replaces U.S. Jobs with Foreign “Green Jobs”

by Hans Bader on May 24, 2010

in Agriculture, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

The $800 billion stimulus package is shipping American jobs overseas.  More than 79 percent of “green jobs” funding under the stimulus package went to foreign firms.  Meanwhile, to pay for the stimulus package, the government borrowed a huge amount of money from the American people, money that would otherwise have been spent on American products, or been invested in America’s companies.

The stimulus package has also destroyed thousands of jobs in America’s export sector by triggering trade wars that America lost.  It also subsidized countless examples of government waste.

Spain’s “green jobs” program, a model for Obama’s green-jobs and global-warming programs, has turned out to be a complete bust, destroying jobs and contributing to Spain’s skyrocketing government deficit.  (Earlier, Obama’s green jobs czar, Van Jones, resigned over his 9/11 conspiracy theories.  He was hired by Obama despite his long history of Marxism and racism, arrest record, and glorification of a convicted murderer.)

The Washington Examiner earlier explained how the global-warming bill backed by Obama will lead to deforestation, and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.  Obama’s so-called “cap-and-trade” bill is full of pay-offs for special interests.  Obama once admitted that under his cap-and-trade scheme, electricity and utility bills would “skyrocket” and coal-fed power plants would go “bankrupt.”  Treasury Department analysts estimated it could increase taxes on the average American household by $1761 per year.  The bill contains environmentally-harmful provisions, such as massive ethanol subsidies, which will result in “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World, and caused famines that have killed countless people in the world’s poorest countries.

The cap-and-trade global-warming tax is yet another violation of Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.  Obama has admitted that its cost will be passed “on to consumers,” like middle-class homeowners and motorists.

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe the $787 billion stimulus package the president passed last year has helped create jobs, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.”

As the Washington Examiner notes, “a recent survey of business economists showed they didn’t think the stimulus was creating jobs, either.”  President Obama falsely claimed that virtually all economists supported his stimulus package, but this was patently untrue at the time he made this claim, when at least 200 economists publicly opposed it, and it  is even more untrue now.

Obama falsely claimed that the $787 billion stimulus package was needed to prevent “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that it would actually shrink the economy “in the long run”.  The stimulus package has since destroyed thousands of jobs in America’s export sector, and subsidized countless examples of government waste and corruption.

Unemployment has skyrocketed past European levels, as big-spending countries have fared worse than thrifty ones.  As the Examiner notes, “If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent . . . The reality is that it passed 10.3 percent.”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker says that Obama’s policies are delaying economic recovery.

“How is stimulus money allocated? Unemployment isn’t a factor, but politics is,” found George Mason University researcher Veronique de Rugy in a recent study.

Districts where people are struggling and unemployment is high are not receiving any more money than those in which unemployment is low, even though a stated purpose of the $800 billion stimulus package was to help the unemployed.  But politics mattered in doling out federal funds.  And “Democratic districts also received two-and-a-half times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts.”

There are three trillion dollars in tax increases in Obama’s proposed budget, yet it would still borrow 42 cents on the dollar, resulting in colossal deficits.

Obama’s policies would raise the national debt by $9.7 trillion, noted the Congressional Budget Office.

Earlier, one of Obama’s own advisers worried that the “barrage of tax increases” in his budgets could harm the economy and prevent a “sustained” economic recovery.

In 2008, Obama promised a “net spending cut,” but as soon as he was elected, he proposed massive spending increases.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →