It's obvious that noone in this Administration has spent ANY time in Private Business....
Solyndra Loan Program on Pace to Commit Equivalent of $5M Per Permanent Job
By Judson Berger Published September 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
As the Energy Department moves to finalize the last remaining loan guarantees from a controversial clean-energy fund, the federal government is on pace to put up about $4.9 million for every permanent job saved or created by the program.
To date, the program that doled out money to now-bankrupt solar firm Solyndra has backed up $12 billion in clean-energy loans. And although the program, which expires Friday, aims to wean the country off fossil fuels and build up the alternative power industry, it also has been touted as a jobs generator.
The loan guarantees do not necessarily represent an actual government payment -- they are a commitment by the government to assume debt if a company or project goes under. But in the case of Solyndra, the government ended up lending $528 million, with taxpayers on the hook in the wake of the bankruptcy.
For all the money the federal government is putting on the line to support renewable energy projects that administration officials say are the key to winning the future, the program has saved or created fewer than 2,500 permanent jobs.
According to Department of Energy figures reviewed by FoxNews.com, the program that funded Solyndra is credited with saving or creating 2,437 permanent jobs. If temporary construction jobs are lumped in, the total rises to more than 14,700.
Counting all jobs, the government is still committing the equivalent of about $800,000 per job.
The number of jobs pegged to each project varies widely. A $197 million loan guarantee for an Oregon solar panel firm was estimated to create or save 500 permanent jobs. A separate $737 million loan guarantee finalized this week for a Nevada solar facility was tied to just 45 permanent jobs -- as well as 600 construction jobs. A $646 million loan guarantee being announced Friday for a California solar facility is projected to fund 20 permanent jobs and 350 construction jobs.
"Where are the jobs?" Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., chairman of the House panel looking into the Solyndra case, said in a statement Friday. "Here we have a stimulus program in its final hours with DOE poised to rush billions out the door, yet the latest $646 million loan creates just 20 permanent operations jobs -- that's $32 million per job!"
The Department of Energy argues the tally is actually much higher when other programs are factored in. The department's loan office administers three different programs and in a statement earlier this month estimated they've created or saved about 44,000 jobs total. That tally factors in construction jobs, as well as the 33,000 jobs the administration claims were saved by a Ford loan through a program designed to support emerging vehicle technologies.
Federal officials indicate the program is not just about creating jobs. Administration officials have stressed the program is meant to help the United States expand on its relatively modest foothold in the clean-energy market.
Jonathan Silver, director of the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, testified before a House committee investigating the matter that China is home to five of the 10 largest solar manufacturers, and Asia as a whole is home to seven of them. The United States, he said, is home to just two.
"It is in this context that we should discuss the Solyndra transaction," he said, describing the program as a matter of national interest.
"Developing a robust clean-energy manufacturing sector in the United States is critical to our long-term national interests, and one of the most important tools as our global competitors have already learned is low-cost financing effectively targeted and deployed," he said. "We invented this technology, and we should produce it here."
A department statement also said the program is designed to encourage others in the private sector to take their own financial risks and back similar projects.
Though Solyndra went bust, administration officials say they have been conducting extensive analysis on the remaining loans.
The department said in a statement that every application "has undergone many months of due diligence." The department said analysts are evaluating applications to make sure they are "commercially viable."
A few of the commitments offered the Department of Energy are partial guarantees.
The loan guarantees cover everything from solar to wind to geothermal projects, many of which are based in Western states.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Now we're Giving Away Money we Don't have to Spanish Owned Businesses...Does this make any sense to you???
Spanish-Owned Firm Receives $132 Million Loan Guarantee From Energy Department
Published September 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Just one day before the controversial federal loan program that backed bankrupt solar company Solyndra was to end, a Spanish-owned firm received a $132 million loan guarantee.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced Thursday that Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass would receive the guarantee to support the development of a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant that is estimated to create 300 construction jobs and 65 permanent jobs in Kansas.
“Investing in a domestic advanced biofuels industry will help us compete in a growing, global clean energy economy while creating jobs in rural communities across the country,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. “At the same time, these investments will help us reduce carbon emissions and decreases our dependence on oil.”
The company is a subsidiary of Abengoa Bioenergy US Holding, Inc., which is part of the Spanish engineering firm Abengoa.
Abengoa has also received more than $2.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from the Energy Department for two power-generating complexes, with the most recent $1.2 billion guarantee closing just this month.
Created under President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, the Energy Department’s $38.6 billion loan guarantee program aimed to ignite the nation’s clean energy sector. But the program, which ends Friday, has come under intense scrutiny since the first recipient, Solyndra, filed for bankruptcy this month, leaving taxpayers on the hook for $528 million. Federal authorities are now investigating the company.
The Energy Department approved three more loan guarantees Friday totaling about $3.5 billion. The Arizona-based First Solar Inc. received a $1.5 billion loan guarantee for a 550-megawatt solar farm on federal land in Southern California and Exelon Corp. received $646 million for a 230-megawatt solar plant near Los Angeles.
A third project worth $1.4 billion will support installation of about 750 solar rooftop panels in 28 states.
Abengoa’s press releases tout the thousands of construction and other jobs that the two projects receiving $2.6 billion in federal loan guarantees will create. But the Energy Department’s own website reveals that the projects – one in the Mojave Desert in California, the other southwest of Phoenix –will permanently employ no more than 130 people after completion.
According to its 2010 annual report, Abengoa’s entire staff worldwide was 526 employees.
Published September 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Just one day before the controversial federal loan program that backed bankrupt solar company Solyndra was to end, a Spanish-owned firm received a $132 million loan guarantee.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced Thursday that Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass would receive the guarantee to support the development of a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant that is estimated to create 300 construction jobs and 65 permanent jobs in Kansas.
“Investing in a domestic advanced biofuels industry will help us compete in a growing, global clean energy economy while creating jobs in rural communities across the country,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. “At the same time, these investments will help us reduce carbon emissions and decreases our dependence on oil.”
The company is a subsidiary of Abengoa Bioenergy US Holding, Inc., which is part of the Spanish engineering firm Abengoa.
Abengoa has also received more than $2.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from the Energy Department for two power-generating complexes, with the most recent $1.2 billion guarantee closing just this month.
Created under President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, the Energy Department’s $38.6 billion loan guarantee program aimed to ignite the nation’s clean energy sector. But the program, which ends Friday, has come under intense scrutiny since the first recipient, Solyndra, filed for bankruptcy this month, leaving taxpayers on the hook for $528 million. Federal authorities are now investigating the company.
The Energy Department approved three more loan guarantees Friday totaling about $3.5 billion. The Arizona-based First Solar Inc. received a $1.5 billion loan guarantee for a 550-megawatt solar farm on federal land in Southern California and Exelon Corp. received $646 million for a 230-megawatt solar plant near Los Angeles.
A third project worth $1.4 billion will support installation of about 750 solar rooftop panels in 28 states.
Abengoa’s press releases tout the thousands of construction and other jobs that the two projects receiving $2.6 billion in federal loan guarantees will create. But the Energy Department’s own website reveals that the projects – one in the Mojave Desert in California, the other southwest of Phoenix –will permanently employ no more than 130 people after completion.
According to its 2010 annual report, Abengoa’s entire staff worldwide was 526 employees.
Wall Street Turns Against Obama...
Wall Street turns against Obama...And why wouldn't they..all he's done is demonize them for the past 2 1/2 years.
Obama's former campaign funders on Wall Street turn against him
The president's fundraising difficulties speak to his contentious relationship with the financial community.
By Nathaniel Popper, Los Angeles Times September 30, 2011
Reporting from New York— The race is on to tap one of the most vital sources of campaign cash — Wall Street — and the early results are not looking good for President Obama.
The president's campaign struggled this week to sell out a fundraising dinner Friday at Manhattan's gilded Four Seasons restaurant despite its being hosted by America's No. 1 capitalist, Warren Buffett, according to people close to the campaign who were not authorized to speak publicly. The dinner for 100 was also a relative bargain at $10,000 a plate; recent fundraisers in Hollywood and New York have gone for $35,800 a pop.
The episode highlights a worrying trend for the Obama campaign. Wall Street, a key contributor to Obama in 2008, seems to be switching allegiances.
"His record has been one of reform and that has been an uncomfortable process for some of the major sources of political cash," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political fundraising.
Or as one big-ticket Wall Street fundraiser for Obama put it: "It's more difficult this time around."
The race is far from over, but Obama's difficulties speak to his contentious relationship with the financial community. After raising $43 million from the industry in 2008, he has spent much of his first term railing against Wall Street's excesses. Pushing for financial reform, he made a reference to "fat cat bankers" that still has executives smarting.
Obama has made three campaign swings through Manhattan in the past few months, raising money from financial industry leaders on each visit. He wants the banking industry's support. The question is whether the bankers still want him.
Wall Street appears to be lining up behind Republican Mitt Romney, who became Massachusetts governor after founding private-equity firm Bain Capital. He held a sold-out breakfast fundraiser at the exclusive Essex House hotel Tuesday. That was preceded by a breakfast with one of the biggest names on Wall Street, JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon.
Dimon, a Chicagoan who at one point was rumored to be in contention for Obama's pick as Treasury secretary, has not made any donations this year. His private breakfast with Romney was viewed as a defection of sorts and a natural outgrowth of his recent criticism of the Obama administration's push for regulation.
The candidates have been canvassing New York aggressively before Friday's deadline for reporting campaign contributions in the third quarter — a milepost that will provide important signals about the strengths of the candidates.
In previous quarters, Obama handily outraised all Republican contenders. But in the narrow but crucial confines of the finance industry — responsible for more donations in the 2008 campaign than any other sector — Romney has been king.
Seen as an early frontrunner for the Republican nod, Romney raised $4.9 million before June 30 of this year, nearly twice what Obama gathered and far surpassing any of his Republican rivals, according to an analysis of campaign data by the Center for Responsive Politics. It was a stark reversal from 2008 when Obama handily outraised all opponents, even New York's hometown favorite, Hillary Clinton.
Obama's performance has been particularly poor in some marquee corners of the street such as Goldman Sachs, a frequent target of criticism from politicians. Employees at the firm, which swung heavily for Obama in 2008, gave more than six times as much money to Romney as Obama in the donations reported so far.
The story in New York is not all gloom and doom for the president. He has hosted a string of sold-out fundraisers with financiers in the city. Most recently, on the evening of Sept. 19, he packed the Park Avenue apartment of Ralph Schlosstein, the CEO of investment bank Evercore Partners, and his wife, Jane Hartley, CEO of consulting firm Observatory Group.
With the couple's 20-year-old black cat wandering among the tables, Obama told the guests, "I can only do it with the help of all of you."
He spent most of his time talking about his efforts to create jobs for those less well off, but he noted that the faltering economy would hit even the affluent: "It's not going to be good for those of us who have done incredibly well in this society."
One person who was there who was not authorized to speak publicly said the president showed no signs of being discouraged: "The president was relaxed — he was ready to go."
Obama steered clear of hot-button issues for bankers, such as the Dodd-Frank financial reform and his recently proposed tax on millionaires. The 60 millionaires in attendance, meanwhile, asked few questions about issues that would directly hit them and showed more interest in broader problems with the economy and foreign affairs, according to attendees.
Romney, on the other hand, has tailored his campaign more directly to the interests of Wall Street, calling repeatedly for a repeal of the financial reform bill.
That has helped him win over a number of bankers and hedge fund managers who gave to Obama in 2008. Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund executive who has been one of the most vocal defectors to Romney, said he has been turned off by what he sees as Obama's attempts to stir up "class warfare."
"I have found incredible success in raising money for Gov. Romney," Scaramucci said earlier this summer. "We are raising the guy a fortune from people who are disaffected by what the president is doing."
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said Romney's efforts to win over the finance industry are not unexpected.
"It's no surprise that the Romney campaign is raising money from Wall Street by saying they want to repeal consumer protections and allow Wall Street to write its own rules," LaBolt said.
For his part, Obama has taken a number of steps to smooth relations with the financial community. In January, he hired a JPMorgan executive, William Daley, to be his chief of staff. A few months later, top executives from several firms were invited to the White House for a conversation with the president.
These efforts have not always played well with ordinary voters, many of whom harbor a distrust of Wall Street and its influence in Washington. Steven Brandstetter, an Obama supporter in New York who has led protests against Wall Street, said he doesn't like to see Obama's New York fundraising push.
"I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see him not doing it," said Brandstetter. "If he doesn't go after that money the other side will."
Ron Paul is really "Out There"....Too "Out There" for me....
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Obama's "Buffet Bill"....but Warren Buffet doesn't Agree With It...
Buffet's got his name on Obama's bill...but he doesn't agree with it????...Is he just old or senile....Sounds like again Obama is just marketing something he wants to pass and isn't afraid to use someone's name on it even though that person doesn't appear to agree with it?
More of the Same From Obama - Political Favors to his Donor and Wasting Taxpayer Money...
All of this latest expense will develop FORTY FIVE permanent Jobs....???? And Obama says he serious about job creation???
The Solyndra Legacies
The Obama Administration has been knee-deep in scandal after green energy “model” Solyndra went bankrupt less than two years after receiving a $500 million loan guarantee from the federal government. Now, they are up against another controversy.
Days before a recent deadline, the Department of Energy brazenly approved two additional loans for more than $1 billion for solar energy projects in the Obama Administration’s green jobs program. The latest ill-fated ventures include a $737 million loan guarantee to Solar Reserve for a 110-megawatt solar tower on federal land in Nevada and a $337 million guarantee for Mesquite Solar 1 to develop a 150-megawatt solar plant in Arizona.
Loan guarantees like these are destined to fail, because they are either granted to companies that could not remain viable without them or because the loan was supported by political connections; or both. This round of loans includes the latter—just as it appears Solyndra was aided.
For example, Solar Reserve lists PCG Clean Energy and Technology Fund (East) LLC as an investment partner. Ronald Pelosi, brother-in-law of the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is an executive with PCG. Another investment partner: Argonaut Private Equity, the employer of Steve Mitchell, who served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors.
As for Solyndra, the story continues to unravel as the political connections and foolish moves come to light. As reported in The Washington Post:
The Energy Department pushed for the restructuring despite preliminary warnings from OMB [Office of Mangement and Budget] staff members that restructuring Solyndra could cost taxpayers $168 million more than liquidation.
What’s more, after the loan was out the door, Solyndra reportedly violated the terms of its loan agreement, according to The Wall Street Journal. Layered within all of this are big-time Obama donors like George Kaiser, a Solyndra investor, who visited the White House several times in the days leading up to the loan approval. There’s no good explanation for this mess, and taxpayers are taking the fall for it.
For a variety of reasons, the Department of Energy should have considered sitting these two latest loan guarantees out. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is on the hot seat now, as much responsibility for overseeing the program overall falls on him. But Obama bears the ultimate responsibility.
President Obama was reportedly advised by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and then-economic advisor Larry Summers that the loan guarantees were being hastily approved and were too risky. But Obama pressed forward on the countering advice of Chu, then-energy advisor Carol Browner and Ron Klain, then chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden.
Weeks later, President Obama and Vice President Biden were enthusiastically promoting Solyndra. Solyndra was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee covered by the 2009 stimulus package. Obama stood behind the loan last year, saying Solyndra was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”
There’s an important lesson behind Solyndra’s failure, demonstrating that the government can’t simply create demand. There is a proven way to tell if new technologies will work: You let the chips falls to the market. A good idea will grow its own legs and take off. A bad one is destined to die no matter how much someone else wants it to succeed. As Heritage’s David Kreutzer testified:
When the savings of new, more energy-efficient technologies exceed the costs of adopting those technologies, markets have the incentive to adopt them. But it is the voluntary participants in these market transactions that best know the full spectrum of the costs and benefits that matter most to them.
The government often backs questionable ventures, but throwing taxpayer dollars at risky projects without regard for proven market truth is counterproductive. The new loans are the latest offense for the Department of Energy and the Obama Administration—and they are heading straight for another deep failure that promises another expensive lesson for taxpayers.
As a country deep in debt, America does not need to waste money on President Obama’s political favors and errant energy subsidies.
The Solyndra Legacies
The Obama Administration has been knee-deep in scandal after green energy “model” Solyndra went bankrupt less than two years after receiving a $500 million loan guarantee from the federal government. Now, they are up against another controversy.
Days before a recent deadline, the Department of Energy brazenly approved two additional loans for more than $1 billion for solar energy projects in the Obama Administration’s green jobs program. The latest ill-fated ventures include a $737 million loan guarantee to Solar Reserve for a 110-megawatt solar tower on federal land in Nevada and a $337 million guarantee for Mesquite Solar 1 to develop a 150-megawatt solar plant in Arizona.
Loan guarantees like these are destined to fail, because they are either granted to companies that could not remain viable without them or because the loan was supported by political connections; or both. This round of loans includes the latter—just as it appears Solyndra was aided.
For example, Solar Reserve lists PCG Clean Energy and Technology Fund (East) LLC as an investment partner. Ronald Pelosi, brother-in-law of the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is an executive with PCG. Another investment partner: Argonaut Private Equity, the employer of Steve Mitchell, who served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors.
As for Solyndra, the story continues to unravel as the political connections and foolish moves come to light. As reported in The Washington Post:
The Energy Department pushed for the restructuring despite preliminary warnings from OMB [Office of Mangement and Budget] staff members that restructuring Solyndra could cost taxpayers $168 million more than liquidation.
What’s more, after the loan was out the door, Solyndra reportedly violated the terms of its loan agreement, according to The Wall Street Journal. Layered within all of this are big-time Obama donors like George Kaiser, a Solyndra investor, who visited the White House several times in the days leading up to the loan approval. There’s no good explanation for this mess, and taxpayers are taking the fall for it.
For a variety of reasons, the Department of Energy should have considered sitting these two latest loan guarantees out. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is on the hot seat now, as much responsibility for overseeing the program overall falls on him. But Obama bears the ultimate responsibility.
President Obama was reportedly advised by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and then-economic advisor Larry Summers that the loan guarantees were being hastily approved and were too risky. But Obama pressed forward on the countering advice of Chu, then-energy advisor Carol Browner and Ron Klain, then chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden.
Weeks later, President Obama and Vice President Biden were enthusiastically promoting Solyndra. Solyndra was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee covered by the 2009 stimulus package. Obama stood behind the loan last year, saying Solyndra was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”
There’s an important lesson behind Solyndra’s failure, demonstrating that the government can’t simply create demand. There is a proven way to tell if new technologies will work: You let the chips falls to the market. A good idea will grow its own legs and take off. A bad one is destined to die no matter how much someone else wants it to succeed. As Heritage’s David Kreutzer testified:
When the savings of new, more energy-efficient technologies exceed the costs of adopting those technologies, markets have the incentive to adopt them. But it is the voluntary participants in these market transactions that best know the full spectrum of the costs and benefits that matter most to them.
The government often backs questionable ventures, but throwing taxpayer dollars at risky projects without regard for proven market truth is counterproductive. The new loans are the latest offense for the Department of Energy and the Obama Administration—and they are heading straight for another deep failure that promises another expensive lesson for taxpayers.
As a country deep in debt, America does not need to waste money on President Obama’s political favors and errant energy subsidies.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Obama's Goal...Make America Dependent on Government....And He says he's NOT a socialist????
State Gets $5 Mil Bonus For Food Stamp Sign Up
Updated: Thu, 09/29/2011 - 3:26pm
In its quest to promote taxpayer-funded entitlement programs, the Obama Administration has actually rewarded one state with a $5 million bonus for its efficiency in adding food-stamp recipients to already bulging rolls.
It’s part of the administration’s campaign to eradicate “food insecure households” by improving access and increasing participation in the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Incidentally, the program was recently changed to SNAP to eliminate the stigma that comes with a name like food stamps. Just a few months ago the federal agency that administers the program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), launched a multi-million-dollar initiative to recruit more food-stamp participants even though the number of recipients has skyrocketed in the last few years.
This week Oregon officials bragged that the USDA has given the state $5 million in “performance bonuses” for ensuring that people eligible for food benefits receive them and for its “swift processing of applications.” The money comes on the heels of a separate $1.5 million award from the feds for making “accurate payments of food stamp benefits to clients.” So welfare recipients are clients? .
It marks the fifth consecutive year that Oregon has been “recognized” by the federal government for “exceptional administration” of the entitlement program, according to the announcement posted on the state’s Department of Human Services web site. The state official who runs SNAP assures that her staff will “continue working very hard to exceed expectations” so that Oregonians can “put healthy foods on their table quickly.”
Could this be why the number of food-stamp beneficiaries in Oregon has increased dramatically in the last few years? Since 2008 the state has seen a 60% boost in the number of food-stamp recipients, which means that more than 780,000 people (one out of five Oregonians) get groceries compliments of Uncle Sam.
As if this weren’t bad enough, the feds are also giving the state a two-year grant to test an “innovative approach” to the food-stamp “client eligibility review process.” This will make it even easier for people to get food stamps because it grants state officials a waiver that allows them to grant the benefit without interviewing the candidate.
Updated: Thu, 09/29/2011 - 3:26pm
In its quest to promote taxpayer-funded entitlement programs, the Obama Administration has actually rewarded one state with a $5 million bonus for its efficiency in adding food-stamp recipients to already bulging rolls.
It’s part of the administration’s campaign to eradicate “food insecure households” by improving access and increasing participation in the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Incidentally, the program was recently changed to SNAP to eliminate the stigma that comes with a name like food stamps. Just a few months ago the federal agency that administers the program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), launched a multi-million-dollar initiative to recruit more food-stamp participants even though the number of recipients has skyrocketed in the last few years.
This week Oregon officials bragged that the USDA has given the state $5 million in “performance bonuses” for ensuring that people eligible for food benefits receive them and for its “swift processing of applications.” The money comes on the heels of a separate $1.5 million award from the feds for making “accurate payments of food stamp benefits to clients.” So welfare recipients are clients? .
It marks the fifth consecutive year that Oregon has been “recognized” by the federal government for “exceptional administration” of the entitlement program, according to the announcement posted on the state’s Department of Human Services web site. The state official who runs SNAP assures that her staff will “continue working very hard to exceed expectations” so that Oregonians can “put healthy foods on their table quickly.”
Could this be why the number of food-stamp beneficiaries in Oregon has increased dramatically in the last few years? Since 2008 the state has seen a 60% boost in the number of food-stamp recipients, which means that more than 780,000 people (one out of five Oregonians) get groceries compliments of Uncle Sam.
As if this weren’t bad enough, the feds are also giving the state a two-year grant to test an “innovative approach” to the food-stamp “client eligibility review process.” This will make it even easier for people to get food stamps because it grants state officials a waiver that allows them to grant the benefit without interviewing the candidate.
More Political Favors by Obama Gambling with OUR Taxpayer Money...
Good Investments OR Political Favors....It's pretty obvious it's just more corrupt crony capitalism and more political favors by Obama and the Administration...
More solar companies led by Democratic donors received federal loan guarantees
Published: Updated: 3:26 AM 09/29/2011 By John Rossomando
A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.
And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.
Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded to TheDC with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”
Concerns about the long-term viability of Solyndra, first made public by The Daily Caller back in February, have now expanded to include the financial health of other loan-guarantee recipient firms as well.
These companies have suffered from declining stock prices despite their favored status in the White House. Yet as the end of the federal government’s fiscal year looms on Friday, a new series of loans could be finalized amounting to more than nine times what taxpayers have already lost on the failed company Solyndra.
“Who was visiting the White House during this period of time?” Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton asked when contacted by TheDC. Barton is a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Who were they talking to and what were they talking about? Are there more loans at risk of not being paid back? Are these good investments or political favors?”
“The American people just lost a half billion dollars and they deserve answers to these questions before more money is wasted. Until we know exactly what happened, I think we should slow down this loan program and take a closer look at each case.”
“It is becoming more clear with each revelation that warning signs were ignored in the Solyndra case,” Barton continued. “Yet in the next 48 hours — because of a deadline that can still be changed — the Department of Energy is going to hand out another $5 billion in loans.”
Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA have already, collectively, received billions in loans through Obama administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants in the southwestern United States.
Yet each, with the exception of the privately held SolarReserve, has seen its stock price hammered at the same time it was lobbying the Obama administration and Congress for billions in loan guarantees.
Ads by GoogleThe Hill newspaper reported Wednesday that the Santa Monica, Calif.-based SolarReserve has secured a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for a Nevada solar project.
That company has ties to George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire who raised $53,500 for President Obama’s campaign in 2008. Through his Argonaut Private Equity firm, Kaiser holds a majority stake in Solyndra.
Argonaut has a voting stake on SolarReserve’s board of directors in the person of Steve Mitchell, who also serves on Solyndra’s board of directors.
More solar companies led by Democratic donors received federal loan guarantees
Published: Updated: 3:26 AM 09/29/2011 By John Rossomando
A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.
And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.
Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded to TheDC with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”
Concerns about the long-term viability of Solyndra, first made public by The Daily Caller back in February, have now expanded to include the financial health of other loan-guarantee recipient firms as well.
These companies have suffered from declining stock prices despite their favored status in the White House. Yet as the end of the federal government’s fiscal year looms on Friday, a new series of loans could be finalized amounting to more than nine times what taxpayers have already lost on the failed company Solyndra.
“Who was visiting the White House during this period of time?” Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton asked when contacted by TheDC. Barton is a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Who were they talking to and what were they talking about? Are there more loans at risk of not being paid back? Are these good investments or political favors?”
“The American people just lost a half billion dollars and they deserve answers to these questions before more money is wasted. Until we know exactly what happened, I think we should slow down this loan program and take a closer look at each case.”
“It is becoming more clear with each revelation that warning signs were ignored in the Solyndra case,” Barton continued. “Yet in the next 48 hours — because of a deadline that can still be changed — the Department of Energy is going to hand out another $5 billion in loans.”
Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA have already, collectively, received billions in loans through Obama administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants in the southwestern United States.
Yet each, with the exception of the privately held SolarReserve, has seen its stock price hammered at the same time it was lobbying the Obama administration and Congress for billions in loan guarantees.
Ads by GoogleThe Hill newspaper reported Wednesday that the Santa Monica, Calif.-based SolarReserve has secured a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for a Nevada solar project.
That company has ties to George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire who raised $53,500 for President Obama’s campaign in 2008. Through his Argonaut Private Equity firm, Kaiser holds a majority stake in Solyndra.
Argonaut has a voting stake on SolarReserve’s board of directors in the person of Steve Mitchell, who also serves on Solyndra’s board of directors.
The #1 Reason to Make Certain Obama is NOT REELECTED....Obamacare!
The NUMBER 1 Reason to Make Certain Obama is NOT Reelected....So we can Repeal Obamacare!!!
Obamacare's Soaring Price Tag
On January 21, 2009, Barack Obama stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and, in his inaugural address, pledged to America that he would "wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost." What he did wield, of course, was a 2,000-page bill known as Obamacare. More than a year on, we now know that health care costs are soaring, and the President's signature legislation is to blame.
Most Americans know that medicine is getting more expensive, but a new survey puts a shocking sticker price on the rapid increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust report that between 2010 and 2011, family premiums increased by 9 percent and for individual premiums by 8 percent. According to the survey, "The average premium for single coverage in 2011 is $452 per month or $5,429 per year ... The average premium for family coverage is $1,256 per month or $15,073 per year."
What's driving those costs? In large part, Obamacare. According to Kaiser Family Foundation CEO Drew Altman, the President's health care legislation was responsible for approximately 20 percent of the increase in premiums. Heritage's Kathryn Nix explains what parts of Obamacare are to blame:
Provisions of the law that have already gone into effect are driving up the cost of premiums, including requiring insurance plans to cover children up the age of 26 on their parents’ policies and requiring government-approved preventive care measures to be covered with zero cost sharing by all plans.
The bad news is that Americans can expect costs to go even higher. For starters, the full force of the law won't even kick in until 2014--in other words, there's an onslaught ahead. And even without Obamacare, premiums are skyrocketing and hitting small businesses. Just imagine what the future will hold. Nix warns that "already-enacted provisions are just the beginning," and just next week, the Institute of Medicine will release its recommendations on what should and should not be covered under Obamacare's "essential health benefits" package. What could be the result? Even larger premium hikes than we've already seen.
With the cost of health care growing so tremendously over the past decade (for families, 31 percent higher premiums today than in 2006, 113 percent higher than in 2001), one might think that the news media would begin to ask whether the very law responsible for even higher costs ought to stand. That question, though, is not being asked, and the issue of Obamacare’s contribution to increased costs is not being examined.
Fortunately, the very basis of Obamacare will face ultimate legal examination. Yesterday, the National Federation of Independent Business filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit's decision that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation. Twenty-six states, too, have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court, filing a petition for certiorari. Likewise, the Department of Justice yesterday asked the Court to review the lower court finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Washington Post reports that a decision will likely come next summer.
While America waits for a decision from the Supreme Court, Obamacare's damage continues unabated. Families, individuals, and businesses are paying higher costs for health care. New regulations are exacting a heavy toll on job growth. And there are more regulations to come. The good news is that Obamacare is not the only option--real reforms can reduce health care costs for all Americans. And that change can come with repealing Obamacare, offering consumers more choices of coverage and full ownership of that coverage, and giving states greater latitude to experiment and innovate with health care programs, as Heritage proposes in its Saving the American Dream plan.
America's health care system is already unaffordable, and Obamacare only makes it worse. Fortunately, there are conservative alternatives to the President’s flawed plan.
Obamacare's Soaring Price Tag
On January 21, 2009, Barack Obama stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and, in his inaugural address, pledged to America that he would "wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost." What he did wield, of course, was a 2,000-page bill known as Obamacare. More than a year on, we now know that health care costs are soaring, and the President's signature legislation is to blame.
Most Americans know that medicine is getting more expensive, but a new survey puts a shocking sticker price on the rapid increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust report that between 2010 and 2011, family premiums increased by 9 percent and for individual premiums by 8 percent. According to the survey, "The average premium for single coverage in 2011 is $452 per month or $5,429 per year ... The average premium for family coverage is $1,256 per month or $15,073 per year."
What's driving those costs? In large part, Obamacare. According to Kaiser Family Foundation CEO Drew Altman, the President's health care legislation was responsible for approximately 20 percent of the increase in premiums. Heritage's Kathryn Nix explains what parts of Obamacare are to blame:
Provisions of the law that have already gone into effect are driving up the cost of premiums, including requiring insurance plans to cover children up the age of 26 on their parents’ policies and requiring government-approved preventive care measures to be covered with zero cost sharing by all plans.
The bad news is that Americans can expect costs to go even higher. For starters, the full force of the law won't even kick in until 2014--in other words, there's an onslaught ahead. And even without Obamacare, premiums are skyrocketing and hitting small businesses. Just imagine what the future will hold. Nix warns that "already-enacted provisions are just the beginning," and just next week, the Institute of Medicine will release its recommendations on what should and should not be covered under Obamacare's "essential health benefits" package. What could be the result? Even larger premium hikes than we've already seen.
With the cost of health care growing so tremendously over the past decade (for families, 31 percent higher premiums today than in 2006, 113 percent higher than in 2001), one might think that the news media would begin to ask whether the very law responsible for even higher costs ought to stand. That question, though, is not being asked, and the issue of Obamacare’s contribution to increased costs is not being examined.
Fortunately, the very basis of Obamacare will face ultimate legal examination. Yesterday, the National Federation of Independent Business filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit's decision that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation. Twenty-six states, too, have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court, filing a petition for certiorari. Likewise, the Department of Justice yesterday asked the Court to review the lower court finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Washington Post reports that a decision will likely come next summer.
While America waits for a decision from the Supreme Court, Obamacare's damage continues unabated. Families, individuals, and businesses are paying higher costs for health care. New regulations are exacting a heavy toll on job growth. And there are more regulations to come. The good news is that Obamacare is not the only option--real reforms can reduce health care costs for all Americans. And that change can come with repealing Obamacare, offering consumers more choices of coverage and full ownership of that coverage, and giving states greater latitude to experiment and innovate with health care programs, as Heritage proposes in its Saving the American Dream plan.
America's health care system is already unaffordable, and Obamacare only makes it worse. Fortunately, there are conservative alternatives to the President’s flawed plan.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Even Europe has Obama's Number saying his rhetoric is Arrogant, Absurd, Pititful and Sad...Even they see his rhetoric as just covering his failures
The World from Berlin
Obama's Euro-Crisis Lecture Is 'Pitiful and Sad'
REUTERS
Obama slammed the Europeans at an event in Mountain View, California on Monday.
US President Obama has given the Europeans a harsh lecture on the dangers of their ongoing debt crisis. Offended by the unsolicited advice, Europeans have suggested the US get its own house in order first. Obama's remarks were "arrogant" and "absurd," German commentators say on Wednesday.
Europeans are well aware of the seriousness of their ongoing debt crisis. But they don't, it seems, like to receive lectures from other countries -- especially the United States, which is struggling to deal with its own mountain of debt.
On Tuesday, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble curtly rejected recent American criticism of Europe's approach to solving its debt crisis. "I don't think Europe's problems are America's only problems," said Schäuble, who has become increasingly sharp-tongued as the euro crisis deepens. "It's always easier to give other people advice."
Schäuble was referring to strongly worded comments made by US President Barack Obama and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in recent days. At an event in California on Monday, Obama warned Europeans that their inaction was "scaring the world." The Europeans, he said, "have not fully healed from the crisis back in 2007 and never fully dealt with all the challenges that their banking system faced. It's now being compounded by what's happening in Greece." He continued: "They're going through a financial crisis that is scaring the world, and they're trying to take responsible actions, but those actions haven't been quite as quick as they need to be."
Distracting From Problems at Home
Those comments came hot on the heels of Geithner's remarks over the weekend. Speaking in Washington Saturday at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Geithner warned that the European debt crisis represents "the most serious risk now confronting the world economy." He said Europeans needed to do more to create a "firewall" against further contagion and talked of the threat of "cascading default" and runs on banks. "Decisions as to how to conclusively address the region's problems cannot wait until the crisis gets more severe," he said.
German observers have reacted angrily to the comments, saying that the US is in no position to criticize other countries, given its own $14-trillion pile of national debt and ongoing wrangling over the country's debt ceiling. Others claim that Obama is just trying to distract attention from the US's problems and point out that the US president was in California to raise funds and voter support ahead of his reelection campaign next year.
But perhaps the Europeans simply don't like a taste of their own medicine. When a US default was looming back in July when Congress was unable to agree on raising the debt ceiling, European commentators were quick to weigh in and give Obama and the US unsolicited advice. "The global economy needs an American agreement," said a French government minister at the time.
On Wednesday, German media commentators slam Obama's criticism of Europe.
The mass-circulation Bild writes:
"Obama's lecture on the euro crisis … is overbearing, arrogant and absurd. … In a nutshell, he is claiming that Europe is to blame for the current financial crisis, which is 'scaring the world.' Excuse me?"
"The American president seems to have forgotten a few details. The most important trigger of the financial and economic crisis was US banks and their insane real-estate dealings. The US is still piling up debt … The American congress is crippled by a battle between the right and the left. The banks are gambling just as recklessly as they did before the crisis. The president's scolding is a pathetic attempt to distract attention from his own failures. How embarrassing."
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"One needs to remember the context within which Obama's scolding of the Europeans took place. It was an event where the president was raising money for the Democrats and where he wanted to explain to voters why the US economy is much worse off than he and his economic experts had believed until recently. Hence his criticism of the EU was simple electioneering."
"The problem, however, is that the US president is absolutely right. For far too long, the Europeans -- including the Germans -- treated the financial crisis as a purely American problem. They have still found no solution for their own debt crisis. Now Europe's problems are having a negative impact on growth and jobs around the world, including in the US. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Europe is threatening Obama's already precarious chances of reelection in 2012. That is something that surely does not leave Obama cold. In that respect, it doesn't help much to point out that, once the Europeans have got their house in order, the financial markets will return their attention to America's debt crisis and its ailing political system. Financially, Europe is currently the most dangerous place in the world."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Dark clouds have gathered over the American president. The gloomy state of the economy is putting a dampener on Obama's future prospects. The optimism of the past is gone, replaced by a cheap search for a scapegoat."
"Obama thinks he has found one. He blames the Europeans for reacting too late to the debt crisis. We Europeans are apparently taking on too little new debt to get out of the crisis. But we are already feeling the wonderful effects of borrowing too much money."
The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:
"That's not how friends talk to each other. That applies particularly to friends who have themselves failed to get a handle on their own, self-made crisis. Barack Obama governs a country where, despite billions in state aid, the economy is stagnating, companies refuse to invest despite calls for patriotism, and which gets embroiled in one political trench war after another … Now this country is dispensing advice, suggestions and finger-pointing."
"These are suggestions that have already failed to work in the US: Money is supposed to save Europe -- quickly and in the largest quantities possible. US Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner has been trying for more than two-and-a-half years to suffocate his crisis with money. But aside from the lack of success, the collateral damage is immense. It manifests itself in a loss of government credibility, a loss of trust in the currency and the paralysis of any sort of dynamism -- because the crushing debt mountain is robbing the famously optimistic Americans of their confidence."
"The fact that Barack Obama, who is a brilliant thinker, knows full well that things are much more complicated in reality does not help. Indeed, it does the opposite. In the desperate battle for his re-election he'd rather construct myths, such as claiming that the Europeans alone are responsible for the American mess. Not only is this fundamentally wrong, but -- coming as it does from a friend -- it's downright pitiful and sad."
-- Kristen Allen and David Gordon Smith
Obama's Euro-Crisis Lecture Is 'Pitiful and Sad'
REUTERS
Obama slammed the Europeans at an event in Mountain View, California on Monday.
US President Obama has given the Europeans a harsh lecture on the dangers of their ongoing debt crisis. Offended by the unsolicited advice, Europeans have suggested the US get its own house in order first. Obama's remarks were "arrogant" and "absurd," German commentators say on Wednesday.
Europeans are well aware of the seriousness of their ongoing debt crisis. But they don't, it seems, like to receive lectures from other countries -- especially the United States, which is struggling to deal with its own mountain of debt.
On Tuesday, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble curtly rejected recent American criticism of Europe's approach to solving its debt crisis. "I don't think Europe's problems are America's only problems," said Schäuble, who has become increasingly sharp-tongued as the euro crisis deepens. "It's always easier to give other people advice."
Schäuble was referring to strongly worded comments made by US President Barack Obama and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in recent days. At an event in California on Monday, Obama warned Europeans that their inaction was "scaring the world." The Europeans, he said, "have not fully healed from the crisis back in 2007 and never fully dealt with all the challenges that their banking system faced. It's now being compounded by what's happening in Greece." He continued: "They're going through a financial crisis that is scaring the world, and they're trying to take responsible actions, but those actions haven't been quite as quick as they need to be."
Distracting From Problems at Home
Those comments came hot on the heels of Geithner's remarks over the weekend. Speaking in Washington Saturday at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Geithner warned that the European debt crisis represents "the most serious risk now confronting the world economy." He said Europeans needed to do more to create a "firewall" against further contagion and talked of the threat of "cascading default" and runs on banks. "Decisions as to how to conclusively address the region's problems cannot wait until the crisis gets more severe," he said.
German observers have reacted angrily to the comments, saying that the US is in no position to criticize other countries, given its own $14-trillion pile of national debt and ongoing wrangling over the country's debt ceiling. Others claim that Obama is just trying to distract attention from the US's problems and point out that the US president was in California to raise funds and voter support ahead of his reelection campaign next year.
But perhaps the Europeans simply don't like a taste of their own medicine. When a US default was looming back in July when Congress was unable to agree on raising the debt ceiling, European commentators were quick to weigh in and give Obama and the US unsolicited advice. "The global economy needs an American agreement," said a French government minister at the time.
On Wednesday, German media commentators slam Obama's criticism of Europe.
The mass-circulation Bild writes:
"Obama's lecture on the euro crisis … is overbearing, arrogant and absurd. … In a nutshell, he is claiming that Europe is to blame for the current financial crisis, which is 'scaring the world.' Excuse me?"
"The American president seems to have forgotten a few details. The most important trigger of the financial and economic crisis was US banks and their insane real-estate dealings. The US is still piling up debt … The American congress is crippled by a battle between the right and the left. The banks are gambling just as recklessly as they did before the crisis. The president's scolding is a pathetic attempt to distract attention from his own failures. How embarrassing."
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"One needs to remember the context within which Obama's scolding of the Europeans took place. It was an event where the president was raising money for the Democrats and where he wanted to explain to voters why the US economy is much worse off than he and his economic experts had believed until recently. Hence his criticism of the EU was simple electioneering."
"The problem, however, is that the US president is absolutely right. For far too long, the Europeans -- including the Germans -- treated the financial crisis as a purely American problem. They have still found no solution for their own debt crisis. Now Europe's problems are having a negative impact on growth and jobs around the world, including in the US. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Europe is threatening Obama's already precarious chances of reelection in 2012. That is something that surely does not leave Obama cold. In that respect, it doesn't help much to point out that, once the Europeans have got their house in order, the financial markets will return their attention to America's debt crisis and its ailing political system. Financially, Europe is currently the most dangerous place in the world."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Dark clouds have gathered over the American president. The gloomy state of the economy is putting a dampener on Obama's future prospects. The optimism of the past is gone, replaced by a cheap search for a scapegoat."
"Obama thinks he has found one. He blames the Europeans for reacting too late to the debt crisis. We Europeans are apparently taking on too little new debt to get out of the crisis. But we are already feeling the wonderful effects of borrowing too much money."
The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:
"That's not how friends talk to each other. That applies particularly to friends who have themselves failed to get a handle on their own, self-made crisis. Barack Obama governs a country where, despite billions in state aid, the economy is stagnating, companies refuse to invest despite calls for patriotism, and which gets embroiled in one political trench war after another … Now this country is dispensing advice, suggestions and finger-pointing."
"These are suggestions that have already failed to work in the US: Money is supposed to save Europe -- quickly and in the largest quantities possible. US Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner has been trying for more than two-and-a-half years to suffocate his crisis with money. But aside from the lack of success, the collateral damage is immense. It manifests itself in a loss of government credibility, a loss of trust in the currency and the paralysis of any sort of dynamism -- because the crushing debt mountain is robbing the famously optimistic Americans of their confidence."
"The fact that Barack Obama, who is a brilliant thinker, knows full well that things are much more complicated in reality does not help. Indeed, it does the opposite. In the desperate battle for his re-election he'd rather construct myths, such as claiming that the Europeans alone are responsible for the American mess. Not only is this fundamentally wrong, but -- coming as it does from a friend -- it's downright pitiful and sad."
-- Kristen Allen and David Gordon Smith
One by One Obama Supporters are Abandoning Ship....Because It's Sinking!!!!
Obama’s top ‘fat cat’ strays
Last Updated: 1:05 AM, September 28, 2011
JP Morgan honcho Jamie Dimon, once a “fat cat” ally of President Obama, seems to have strayed to Republican contender Mitt Romney.
Dimon, a lifelong Democrat who was rumored to be on Obama’s short list for treasury secretary before he settled on Tim Geithner, met privately with Romney on Tuesday morning before a fund-raiser at Brasserie 8¹/2 hosted by Highbridge Capital, a JPMorgan-owned hedge fund.
Dimon, who was spotted “in a discreet one-on-one” discussion with Romney, cannot publicly endorse a candidate because he sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But he donated to Democratic candidates in 2008 and privately supported Obama.
Jamie DimonWhile Dimon’s spokesperson declined to comment, a JP Morgan insider tells us that Dimon has not attended an Obama fund-raiser and has not made any contributions to his campaign during this election cycle. And Dimon has met privately with many of the Republican presidential candidates.
Political insiders are buzzing that a defection would signal further Wall Street hostility toward Obama, who famously called them “fat cat” bankers in 2009. Dimon responded, “I don’t think the president of the United States should paint everyone with the same brush.”
One insider said, “There is not a person on Wall Street, with the exception of the genetic Democrats, who would get anywhere near supporting Obama. The hostility to the administration is huge. Dimon will continue to look bipartisan, then work behind the scenes to get a Republican elected.”
There were few big Wall Street names openly linked to Obama’s fund-raisers in New York. And we’re told ticket sales for Obama’s Friday event with Warren Buffett have been slower than expected, with staffers calling and e-mailing supporters to shift tickets at up to $35,800. Obama’s team insist they are expecting a “packed house,” but didn’t get back to us about Dimon last night.
Last Updated: 1:05 AM, September 28, 2011
JP Morgan honcho Jamie Dimon, once a “fat cat” ally of President Obama, seems to have strayed to Republican contender Mitt Romney.
Dimon, a lifelong Democrat who was rumored to be on Obama’s short list for treasury secretary before he settled on Tim Geithner, met privately with Romney on Tuesday morning before a fund-raiser at Brasserie 8¹/2 hosted by Highbridge Capital, a JPMorgan-owned hedge fund.
Dimon, who was spotted “in a discreet one-on-one” discussion with Romney, cannot publicly endorse a candidate because he sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But he donated to Democratic candidates in 2008 and privately supported Obama.
Jamie DimonWhile Dimon’s spokesperson declined to comment, a JP Morgan insider tells us that Dimon has not attended an Obama fund-raiser and has not made any contributions to his campaign during this election cycle. And Dimon has met privately with many of the Republican presidential candidates.
Political insiders are buzzing that a defection would signal further Wall Street hostility toward Obama, who famously called them “fat cat” bankers in 2009. Dimon responded, “I don’t think the president of the United States should paint everyone with the same brush.”
One insider said, “There is not a person on Wall Street, with the exception of the genetic Democrats, who would get anywhere near supporting Obama. The hostility to the administration is huge. Dimon will continue to look bipartisan, then work behind the scenes to get a Republican elected.”
There were few big Wall Street names openly linked to Obama’s fund-raisers in New York. And we’re told ticket sales for Obama’s Friday event with Warren Buffett have been slower than expected, with staffers calling and e-mailing supporters to shift tickets at up to $35,800. Obama’s team insist they are expecting a “packed house,” but didn’t get back to us about Dimon last night.
Bev Purdue Sounds Serious to Me....Take a listen
She sounds VERY SERIOUS to me...What do YOU THINK?....But why would this Governor LIE about what she said...why wouldn't she have the guts to stand up for what she said even if it was dumb and partisan....These Democrats would do ANYTHING rather than to face reelection....they know they will get clobbered...And it's only going to get worse between now and November 2012...
New audio: NC governor struck serious tone on suspending congressional elections
Published: 11:26 AM 09/28/2011 | Updated: 1:42 PM 09/28/2011
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
If it was a joke, North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue needs to polish her delivery.
Newly released audio contradicts the claims of Perdue’s press team that her call Tuesday for suspending Congressional elections was a joke or hyperbole. In the recording, her tone is matter-of-fact and her comments are part of a serious speech.
“Listen to the Governor’s words: She wasn’t joking at all,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller. “The congressional Democrats are wildly unpopular in North Carolina, so she may have been trying to invent a solution to save their jobs from public accountability.”
“If it was a joke, what was the set-up?,” Lockwood adds. “What was the punch-line? Where was the pause for laughter? It took them three hours to say it was a ‘joke,’ but when that flopped it became ‘hyperbole.’ We’ll just call it an unconstitutionally bad idea.”
Perdue faced almost instant national criticism on Tuesday after she recommended suspending elections until the economy recovers.
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”
Shortly after the controversial comments made national headlines, Perdue’s press team began claiming it was a joke. Until the audio of her comments was released, though, there was no way to know if she was serious.
Perdue spokeswoman Chris Mackey, who originally told TheDC that it was a joke and “hyperbole,” told TheDC the Governor and her press team are sticking to their statement, even after this new audio came out.
This story was updated to include a comment from Gov. Perdue’s spokesperson.
New audio: NC governor struck serious tone on suspending congressional elections
Published: 11:26 AM 09/28/2011 | Updated: 1:42 PM 09/28/2011
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
If it was a joke, North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue needs to polish her delivery.
Newly released audio contradicts the claims of Perdue’s press team that her call Tuesday for suspending Congressional elections was a joke or hyperbole. In the recording, her tone is matter-of-fact and her comments are part of a serious speech.
“Listen to the Governor’s words: She wasn’t joking at all,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller. “The congressional Democrats are wildly unpopular in North Carolina, so she may have been trying to invent a solution to save their jobs from public accountability.”
“If it was a joke, what was the set-up?,” Lockwood adds. “What was the punch-line? Where was the pause for laughter? It took them three hours to say it was a ‘joke,’ but when that flopped it became ‘hyperbole.’ We’ll just call it an unconstitutionally bad idea.”
Perdue faced almost instant national criticism on Tuesday after she recommended suspending elections until the economy recovers.
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”
Shortly after the controversial comments made national headlines, Perdue’s press team began claiming it was a joke. Until the audio of her comments was released, though, there was no way to know if she was serious.
Perdue spokeswoman Chris Mackey, who originally told TheDC that it was a joke and “hyperbole,” told TheDC the Governor and her press team are sticking to their statement, even after this new audio came out.
This story was updated to include a comment from Gov. Perdue’s spokesperson.
Obama...His Demented Politics of Reelection....
Obama's Strategy to get Reelected.....Create a Snitch State that curtails Free Speech and Demonizing those That Have Achieved the American Dream....Now that's Responsible American Presidential Behavior....NOT!
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The Plot on the Solyndra Scandal gets More and More Interesting...
Solyndra’s Creditors Include California Democratic Party
Published September 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Among the roughly 5,000 creditors named by Solyndra, a bankrupt solar energy company that is under investigation for losing a half billion dollars in federal loans, is the California Democratic Party, which says it doesn't know why.
The bankruptcy filing doesn't say why the organization is listed as one of the creditors or how much money it is owed. The filing contains about 200 pages of creditors listed in alphabetical order with their address but not the amount owed.
Tenoch Flores, the communications director for the California Democratic Party, told FoxNews.com that he wasn't sure why the organization was named a creditor since the California-based company didn't owe it any money.
But he said there's likely a procedural explanation, such as Solyndra providing a list of all potential creditors, including organizations and companies that ever received a payment or contribution for any purpose.
Solyndra did not respond to requests for comment.
Solyndra gave $7,500 to the party last October, according to campaign-finance records reviewed by The Washington Times, which first reported the listing. Solyndra employees also donated $20,800 to federal candidates and committees since 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that amount, 72 percent went to Democrats, 27 percent to Republicans and 1 percent to Libertarians.
President Obama was the top beneficiary of that campaign cash, receiving $2,800, CRP said.
Solyndra has come under investigations by the FBI and Congress since it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.
Congressional Republicans are investigating the $528 million loan Solyndra received from the Energy Department in 2009. Solyndra's top executives pleaded the Fifth Amendment more than a dozen times Friday in a congressional hearing.
Solyndra was back in bankruptcy court in Delaware Tuesday morning to reportedly seek permission to sell its state-of-the-art factory that was built with the federal loan.
Solyndra was the first renewable energy company to receive a loan guarantee -- before the direct loans -- under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model of success. President Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking ceremony.
Since then, the company's implosion and revelations that the administration rushed Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment and headache for Obama as he tries to pitch his new $450 billion jobs plan.
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other top economic advisers raised red flags to the president in late October 2010 about the selection process for the federal loan guarantees, arguing that the lack of rigor increased the risk that fund could be going to the wrong companies, including ones that didn’t need the help.
Published September 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Among the roughly 5,000 creditors named by Solyndra, a bankrupt solar energy company that is under investigation for losing a half billion dollars in federal loans, is the California Democratic Party, which says it doesn't know why.
The bankruptcy filing doesn't say why the organization is listed as one of the creditors or how much money it is owed. The filing contains about 200 pages of creditors listed in alphabetical order with their address but not the amount owed.
Tenoch Flores, the communications director for the California Democratic Party, told FoxNews.com that he wasn't sure why the organization was named a creditor since the California-based company didn't owe it any money.
But he said there's likely a procedural explanation, such as Solyndra providing a list of all potential creditors, including organizations and companies that ever received a payment or contribution for any purpose.
Solyndra did not respond to requests for comment.
Solyndra gave $7,500 to the party last October, according to campaign-finance records reviewed by The Washington Times, which first reported the listing. Solyndra employees also donated $20,800 to federal candidates and committees since 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that amount, 72 percent went to Democrats, 27 percent to Republicans and 1 percent to Libertarians.
President Obama was the top beneficiary of that campaign cash, receiving $2,800, CRP said.
Solyndra has come under investigations by the FBI and Congress since it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.
Congressional Republicans are investigating the $528 million loan Solyndra received from the Energy Department in 2009. Solyndra's top executives pleaded the Fifth Amendment more than a dozen times Friday in a congressional hearing.
Solyndra was back in bankruptcy court in Delaware Tuesday morning to reportedly seek permission to sell its state-of-the-art factory that was built with the federal loan.
Solyndra was the first renewable energy company to receive a loan guarantee -- before the direct loans -- under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model of success. President Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking ceremony.
Since then, the company's implosion and revelations that the administration rushed Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment and headache for Obama as he tries to pitch his new $450 billion jobs plan.
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other top economic advisers raised red flags to the president in late October 2010 about the selection process for the federal loan guarantees, arguing that the lack of rigor increased the risk that fund could be going to the wrong companies, including ones that didn’t need the help.
Jackson Lee...Continues to be an Embarassment!
Shiela Jackson Lee ....what an embarassment!...I guess she just doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech....Looks like there's some cracks in the Black Coalition...Their "BOY" isn't doing enough for them and they're pissed....But Obama hasn't taken those issues seriously....
Untitled from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.
Obama Blames the Republicans, but It's the Democrats in the Senate that are the Holdup on the Jobs Bill....
Even the Democrats ARE NOT in a HURRY to even discuss much less try to pass Obama's Jobs Bill....They'll go on Vacation First....But why not...Obama went on Vacation First....the truth is Reid might not have the democrat support for the bill ...with 20+ Senators up for reelection they probably won't go for the tax increases proposed in the bill....
By Stephen Dinan
Obama’s jobs plan isn’t top priority for Reid -
The Washington Times Tuesday, September 27, 2011
President Obama still is pressing Congress to pass his jobs stimulus bill immediately, but his own party leaders in the Senate, where Democrats have a majority, have pushed that vote off yet again.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said Monday night that when the Senate returns from a weeklong vacation, the chamber will work instead on a bill that would push to label China a currency manipulator, which would make retaliatory steps in order.
“I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade,” Mr. Reid said.
Late Monday, before he closed down the Senate, Mr. Reid locked in an early test vote for when senators return next week.
Mr. Obama two weeks ago sent Congress legislation he said would create jobs by extending and expanding temporary tax cuts and boosting infrastructure spending, which he offset by increasing taxes over the long term.
The president has been traveling the country demanding that Congress act immediately, but even his own party has not been keen to rush the legislation.
Mr. Reid is the Senate sponsor of the measure, but he said there are other priorities.
“We’ll get to that, but let’s get some of these things done that we have to get done first,” he said.
On the House side, GOP leaders, who control that chamber, have said they are waiting for an evaluation of the bill from the Congressional Budget Office and will then send the legislation through the committee process.
Republicans have said there are some ideas in Mr. Obama’s plan that they can accept, though they and some Democrats have rejected the tax increases Mr. Obama has called for — particularly the $400 billion he would raise over 10 years by limiting deductions for high-income taxpayers.
The China currency legislation, meanwhile, is sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, and Mr. Reid said he’s confident it can pass the upper chamber.
“China trade is a jobs bill. It’s long, long overdue,” he said.
The legislation would push the Treasury Department to declare that China manipulates its currency in order to seek an edge in international trade.
By Stephen Dinan
Obama’s jobs plan isn’t top priority for Reid -
The Washington Times Tuesday, September 27, 2011
President Obama still is pressing Congress to pass his jobs stimulus bill immediately, but his own party leaders in the Senate, where Democrats have a majority, have pushed that vote off yet again.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said Monday night that when the Senate returns from a weeklong vacation, the chamber will work instead on a bill that would push to label China a currency manipulator, which would make retaliatory steps in order.
“I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade,” Mr. Reid said.
Late Monday, before he closed down the Senate, Mr. Reid locked in an early test vote for when senators return next week.
Mr. Obama two weeks ago sent Congress legislation he said would create jobs by extending and expanding temporary tax cuts and boosting infrastructure spending, which he offset by increasing taxes over the long term.
The president has been traveling the country demanding that Congress act immediately, but even his own party has not been keen to rush the legislation.
Mr. Reid is the Senate sponsor of the measure, but he said there are other priorities.
“We’ll get to that, but let’s get some of these things done that we have to get done first,” he said.
On the House side, GOP leaders, who control that chamber, have said they are waiting for an evaluation of the bill from the Congressional Budget Office and will then send the legislation through the committee process.
Republicans have said there are some ideas in Mr. Obama’s plan that they can accept, though they and some Democrats have rejected the tax increases Mr. Obama has called for — particularly the $400 billion he would raise over 10 years by limiting deductions for high-income taxpayers.
The China currency legislation, meanwhile, is sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, and Mr. Reid said he’s confident it can pass the upper chamber.
“China trade is a jobs bill. It’s long, long overdue,” he said.
The legislation would push the Treasury Department to declare that China manipulates its currency in order to seek an edge in international trade.
There ARE Better Ways to Handle Disaster Relief....
How Harry Reid Manufactured a Crisis Over Disaster Aid
Listening to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or reading The New York Times yesterday gave the impression that disaster relief victims were suffering from a lack of government aid.
"Without additional funding," Reid warned, "thousands of people who have lost literally everything they owned will be forced to go without food and shelter."
The New York Times, reporting from Tunkhannock, PA, noted, "Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expect a bit more from their government."
Yesterday, with Reid on the brink of forcing a government shutdown, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced things aren't so dire. The agency has $114 million on hand for the remainder of the week, enough to get through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
So the agenda of the tax-and-spend crowd is now clear. President Obama created the problem by overusing FEMA on disasters a record 222 times so far this year where federal aid was not essential. Then liberals manufactured a crisis and exploited disaster relief victims in order to keep expanding the size of government. What's worse is that the some members of the media played along with it.
Not once in yesterday's Times story does it mention the role of private charities in and around Tunkhannock. Yet a few phone calls by Heritage revealed that these organizations are doing yeoman's work for flood victims. They're playing a vital role that Reid and the Big Government amen corner completely ignored in the funding dispute.
Take the Wyoming County United Way, for example. Its executive director, Connie Pheiff, said she's been overwhelmed by the community's generous support. Private citizens have donated food, clothing and furniture -- so much that Pheiff is now looking for a warehouse in Scranton to store the items until flood victims are ready to accept the donations.
Private industry has also stepped forward to make an incredible difference in the community. Pheiff acknowledged the support of a handful of oil and gas companies, many conducting hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the area. Those companies suspended work for days to help evacuees at all hours of the day.
So far the Wyoming County United Way has received 2,000 disaster-assistance applications. Pheiff expects that number to more than double in the coming weeks. The organization is offering vouchers and providing support for temporary housing. Pheiff said private donations to the group have made it possible.
While the local United Way is helping with housing, other groups have stepped forward to feed families. Ed Shaffer of the Seven Loaves Soup Kitchen in Tunkhannock is supplying goods to food shelters and collecting perishable items from community organizations. He said there's been no shortage of donations.
The Weinberg Regional Food Bank, meanwhile, has fed 6,500 families, the equivalent of 15,000 people. Gene Brady, executive director of the Commission on Economic Opportunity, said the food bank is serving three counties hit hardest by the floods in Pennsylvania.
It has received 233,863 pounds of food and disbursed 176,759 pounds. Brady credited private companies such as Procter & Gamble, Nature's Way and Wegmans for coming through with large donations of paper products and food. Local retailers have also pitched in to help.
Those are just a few examples we found in Pennsylvania. But these stories aren't isolated. Communities across America come together after disasters to provide relief to those in need. They also do a better job of it than FEMA or any government agency.
Writing about grassroots disaster response, Heritage's James Carafano and Jennifer Marshall noted, "The greatest advance that America could make in preparing for catastrophic disasters is to build better individual-based programs, a culture of preparedness, and resilient and self-reliant communities."
That's because these groups are more personally engaged with them than a government agency or bureaucrat could ever be. Heritage's Ryan Messmore has observed:
Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need.
In his speech to the Senate yesterday, Reid spoke glowingly of the miracles performed by FEMA while trashing those asking for offsets to pay for the additional spending.
"Republicans must not continue to block FEMA from getting the resources it needs to help disaster victims," Reid said, an assertion even FEMA has now debunked.
Reid failed to acknowledge a single private charity helping with disaster relief. The New York Times published a 1,000-word article about the same Pennsylvania community we've told you about. Upon reading the Times story, you might think private charities don't exist there.
Liberals in Washington and New York have spent too much time isolated in a bubble. They've become too reliant on government to solve all of America's problems. It's time to put faith back in our communities.
Listening to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or reading The New York Times yesterday gave the impression that disaster relief victims were suffering from a lack of government aid.
"Without additional funding," Reid warned, "thousands of people who have lost literally everything they owned will be forced to go without food and shelter."
The New York Times, reporting from Tunkhannock, PA, noted, "Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expect a bit more from their government."
Yesterday, with Reid on the brink of forcing a government shutdown, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced things aren't so dire. The agency has $114 million on hand for the remainder of the week, enough to get through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
So the agenda of the tax-and-spend crowd is now clear. President Obama created the problem by overusing FEMA on disasters a record 222 times so far this year where federal aid was not essential. Then liberals manufactured a crisis and exploited disaster relief victims in order to keep expanding the size of government. What's worse is that the some members of the media played along with it.
Not once in yesterday's Times story does it mention the role of private charities in and around Tunkhannock. Yet a few phone calls by Heritage revealed that these organizations are doing yeoman's work for flood victims. They're playing a vital role that Reid and the Big Government amen corner completely ignored in the funding dispute.
Take the Wyoming County United Way, for example. Its executive director, Connie Pheiff, said she's been overwhelmed by the community's generous support. Private citizens have donated food, clothing and furniture -- so much that Pheiff is now looking for a warehouse in Scranton to store the items until flood victims are ready to accept the donations.
Private industry has also stepped forward to make an incredible difference in the community. Pheiff acknowledged the support of a handful of oil and gas companies, many conducting hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the area. Those companies suspended work for days to help evacuees at all hours of the day.
So far the Wyoming County United Way has received 2,000 disaster-assistance applications. Pheiff expects that number to more than double in the coming weeks. The organization is offering vouchers and providing support for temporary housing. Pheiff said private donations to the group have made it possible.
While the local United Way is helping with housing, other groups have stepped forward to feed families. Ed Shaffer of the Seven Loaves Soup Kitchen in Tunkhannock is supplying goods to food shelters and collecting perishable items from community organizations. He said there's been no shortage of donations.
The Weinberg Regional Food Bank, meanwhile, has fed 6,500 families, the equivalent of 15,000 people. Gene Brady, executive director of the Commission on Economic Opportunity, said the food bank is serving three counties hit hardest by the floods in Pennsylvania.
It has received 233,863 pounds of food and disbursed 176,759 pounds. Brady credited private companies such as Procter & Gamble, Nature's Way and Wegmans for coming through with large donations of paper products and food. Local retailers have also pitched in to help.
Those are just a few examples we found in Pennsylvania. But these stories aren't isolated. Communities across America come together after disasters to provide relief to those in need. They also do a better job of it than FEMA or any government agency.
Writing about grassroots disaster response, Heritage's James Carafano and Jennifer Marshall noted, "The greatest advance that America could make in preparing for catastrophic disasters is to build better individual-based programs, a culture of preparedness, and resilient and self-reliant communities."
That's because these groups are more personally engaged with them than a government agency or bureaucrat could ever be. Heritage's Ryan Messmore has observed:
Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need.
In his speech to the Senate yesterday, Reid spoke glowingly of the miracles performed by FEMA while trashing those asking for offsets to pay for the additional spending.
"Republicans must not continue to block FEMA from getting the resources it needs to help disaster victims," Reid said, an assertion even FEMA has now debunked.
Reid failed to acknowledge a single private charity helping with disaster relief. The New York Times published a 1,000-word article about the same Pennsylvania community we've told you about. Upon reading the Times story, you might think private charities don't exist there.
Liberals in Washington and New York have spent too much time isolated in a bubble. They've become too reliant on government to solve all of America's problems. It's time to put faith back in our communities.
Monday, September 26, 2011
REASONS NOT TO BUY PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE!
STAY AWAY FROM PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE.....
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE is owned by Peter Lewis: Who is he?
You've seen and smiled at the Progressive Insurance TV commercials. Well, as Paul Harvey would say, you're about to learn the rest of the story:
PROGRESSIVE AUTO INSURANCE
You know their TV commercials, the ones featuring the ditsy actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the Chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the major funders of leftist causes in America ..
Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of Americas Judeo-Christian heritage.
Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and America Coming Together, two key propaganda arms of the socialist left.
His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the America-hating socialist who is the chief financier of the Obama political machine.
Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism, but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the American free enterprise system that is targeting television shows on Fox News.
Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans (who buy his auto insurance) that he applies to dismantle the very system that made him wealthy. He's banking on no one finding out who he is, so, STOP buying Progressive Insurance and pass this information on to all your friends..
Chairman Lewis' gift helps the ACLU promote their anti-Christmas agenda such as:
· Removing nativity scenes from public property
· Banning songs such as Silent Night from schools
· Refusing to allow students to write about the Christian aspect of Christmas in school projects
· Renaming Christmas break Winter break
· Refusing to allow a city sponsored Christmas parade to be called a Christmas parade
· Not allowing a Christmas tree in a public school
· Renaming a Christmas tree displayed on public property a Holiday tree
In addition to their war on Christmas, the ACLU uses gifts like that from Chairman Lewis to:
· Sue states to force them to legalize homosexual marriage
· Force libraries to remove porn filters from their computers
· Sue the Boy Scouts to force them to accept homosexuals as scout leaders
· Help legalize child pornography
· Legalize live sex acts in bars in Oregon
· Protect the North American Man Boy Love Association whose motto is "sex by eight or it is too late"
· Censor student led prayer at graduation
· Remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance
· Remove "In God We Trust" on our currency
Verify at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/peterlewis.asp or http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-lewis.htm
All of a sudden their "funny commercials" aren't so funny anymore!!
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE is owned by Peter Lewis: Who is he?
You've seen and smiled at the Progressive Insurance TV commercials. Well, as Paul Harvey would say, you're about to learn the rest of the story:
PROGRESSIVE AUTO INSURANCE
You know their TV commercials, the ones featuring the ditsy actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the Chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the major funders of leftist causes in America ..
Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of Americas Judeo-Christian heritage.
Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and America Coming Together, two key propaganda arms of the socialist left.
His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the America-hating socialist who is the chief financier of the Obama political machine.
Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism, but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the American free enterprise system that is targeting television shows on Fox News.
Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans (who buy his auto insurance) that he applies to dismantle the very system that made him wealthy. He's banking on no one finding out who he is, so, STOP buying Progressive Insurance and pass this information on to all your friends..
Chairman Lewis' gift helps the ACLU promote their anti-Christmas agenda such as:
· Removing nativity scenes from public property
· Banning songs such as Silent Night from schools
· Refusing to allow students to write about the Christian aspect of Christmas in school projects
· Renaming Christmas break Winter break
· Refusing to allow a city sponsored Christmas parade to be called a Christmas parade
· Not allowing a Christmas tree in a public school
· Renaming a Christmas tree displayed on public property a Holiday tree
In addition to their war on Christmas, the ACLU uses gifts like that from Chairman Lewis to:
· Sue states to force them to legalize homosexual marriage
· Force libraries to remove porn filters from their computers
· Sue the Boy Scouts to force them to accept homosexuals as scout leaders
· Help legalize child pornography
· Legalize live sex acts in bars in Oregon
· Protect the North American Man Boy Love Association whose motto is "sex by eight or it is too late"
· Censor student led prayer at graduation
· Remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance
· Remove "In God We Trust" on our currency
Verify at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/peterlewis.asp or http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-lewis.htm
All of a sudden their "funny commercials" aren't so funny anymore!!
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Great Article that justs Points out the Hypocricy of Obama and the Left....
August 1, 2011
How the Obamas (and the Guilty Left) Can Pay More Taxes
By Paul B. Matthews
President Obama and others on the "guilty left" love to talk about all of the "Bush tax breaks" they receive but don't need -- a theme that was again prevalent in Obamas address to the nation Monday night on the debt ceiling.
How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?
In April, he reiterated this point during a speech on deficit reduction.
I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. That some of you wouldn't be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that's done so much for them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.
Obama has also repeatedly called to sharply reduce the utilization of itemized deductions on married couples with incomes over $250,000 -- what the left now affectionately calls "spending within the tax code."
[T]he tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions[.] ... And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like home ownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize.
If Obama and the others with incomes over $250,000 genuinely believe that they are "not paying their fair share" of income taxes, then here are a few tax strategies they can use to increase the amount owed each year to Uncle Sam.
1. Do not utilize itemized deductions.
According to the 2010 Obama personal tax filing, Barack and Michelle Obama claimed $373,289 in itemized deductions. Instead of claiming all these deductions, the Obamas could have simply selected to utilize the standard deduction ($11,400 for married couples), thereby boosting their taxable income by $361,889.
By utilizing this strategy, they could have paid an additional $126,661 in 2010 income taxes (utilizing a 35% marginal tax rate).
2. Do not place any money into deferred asset accounts including 401Ks, IRAs, Self-Employed 401Ks, SIMPLE or any other retirement type account.
In 2010, the Obamas contributed the maximum of $49,000 into a Self-Employed 401K. By utilizing this strategy, the Obamas successfully managed to avoid $17,150 in 2010 income taxes.
3. Do not recognize capital losses.
The Obamas managed to take the maximum capital tax loss deduction of $3,000 in 2010. If the Obamas had not recognized a long-term capital loss at some point in the past, they could have paid an additional $1,050 in 2010 federal taxes.
4. Do not utilize the Foreign Tax Credit.
Given that President Obama is hypercritical of U.S. multinational companies for holding assets overseas to avoid high U.S. corporate tax rates, it's almost hypocritical of the president to utilize the Foreign Tax Credit on the individual Form 1040. But that is exactly what he did -- to the tune of $22,215.
If the Obamas had utilized these four simple tax maximizing strategies, they could have paid an additional $167,076 in 2010 federal taxes.
This number would have more than offset the $69,050 they "saved" thanks to the Bush 4.6% marginal tax rate cut on incomes over $250,000.
So the next time President Obama goes on a tirade that he is not paying his fair share of income taxes, please feel free to reference this article.
Paul B. Matthews is an Austin, TX-based CPA. He holds an MBA from the University of Texas.
How the Obamas (and the Guilty Left) Can Pay More Taxes
By Paul B. Matthews
President Obama and others on the "guilty left" love to talk about all of the "Bush tax breaks" they receive but don't need -- a theme that was again prevalent in Obamas address to the nation Monday night on the debt ceiling.
How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?
In April, he reiterated this point during a speech on deficit reduction.
I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. That some of you wouldn't be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that's done so much for them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.
Obama has also repeatedly called to sharply reduce the utilization of itemized deductions on married couples with incomes over $250,000 -- what the left now affectionately calls "spending within the tax code."
[T]he tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions[.] ... And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like home ownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize.
If Obama and the others with incomes over $250,000 genuinely believe that they are "not paying their fair share" of income taxes, then here are a few tax strategies they can use to increase the amount owed each year to Uncle Sam.
1. Do not utilize itemized deductions.
According to the 2010 Obama personal tax filing, Barack and Michelle Obama claimed $373,289 in itemized deductions. Instead of claiming all these deductions, the Obamas could have simply selected to utilize the standard deduction ($11,400 for married couples), thereby boosting their taxable income by $361,889.
By utilizing this strategy, they could have paid an additional $126,661 in 2010 income taxes (utilizing a 35% marginal tax rate).
2. Do not place any money into deferred asset accounts including 401Ks, IRAs, Self-Employed 401Ks, SIMPLE or any other retirement type account.
In 2010, the Obamas contributed the maximum of $49,000 into a Self-Employed 401K. By utilizing this strategy, the Obamas successfully managed to avoid $17,150 in 2010 income taxes.
3. Do not recognize capital losses.
The Obamas managed to take the maximum capital tax loss deduction of $3,000 in 2010. If the Obamas had not recognized a long-term capital loss at some point in the past, they could have paid an additional $1,050 in 2010 federal taxes.
4. Do not utilize the Foreign Tax Credit.
Given that President Obama is hypercritical of U.S. multinational companies for holding assets overseas to avoid high U.S. corporate tax rates, it's almost hypocritical of the president to utilize the Foreign Tax Credit on the individual Form 1040. But that is exactly what he did -- to the tune of $22,215.
If the Obamas had utilized these four simple tax maximizing strategies, they could have paid an additional $167,076 in 2010 federal taxes.
This number would have more than offset the $69,050 they "saved" thanks to the Bush 4.6% marginal tax rate cut on incomes over $250,000.
So the next time President Obama goes on a tirade that he is not paying his fair share of income taxes, please feel free to reference this article.
Paul B. Matthews is an Austin, TX-based CPA. He holds an MBA from the University of Texas.
A Sad Day for America!
If this is True and it appears that it is....It's a SAD day for America...
Tyson Foods
Eliminates Labor Day in favor of Muslim Holiday!
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you take over America? One American at a time. Tyson chicken anyone?? None for me thanks!!!! We all need to heed this message!!!!!
Tyson Food in Shelbyville, Tennessee has eliminated Labor Day as a paid holiday in favor of the last day of Ramadan because they have 700 Muslim employees. Tennessee is the newest Hot-Bed for Muslim immigration. According to the 2010 Government Census more Muslims are flocking to Tennessee than any other state in the union.
I will no longer purchase any Tyson products. It's just one more little chunk of America that's been bitten off. If you wish to join me, then let your e-mail friends know this. If we don't stand up for something we will fall for anything. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
This was verified:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/outrage.asp
I did not believe even Snopes, so I checked it out myself:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,397645,00.html
Tyson Foods
Eliminates Labor Day in favor of Muslim Holiday!
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you take over America? One American at a time. Tyson chicken anyone?? None for me thanks!!!! We all need to heed this message!!!!!
Tyson Food in Shelbyville, Tennessee has eliminated Labor Day as a paid holiday in favor of the last day of Ramadan because they have 700 Muslim employees. Tennessee is the newest Hot-Bed for Muslim immigration. According to the 2010 Government Census more Muslims are flocking to Tennessee than any other state in the union.
I will no longer purchase any Tyson products. It's just one more little chunk of America that's been bitten off. If you wish to join me, then let your e-mail friends know this. If we don't stand up for something we will fall for anything. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
This was verified:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/outrage.asp
I did not believe even Snopes, so I checked it out myself:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,397645,00.html
From The President of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry...certainly NOT Obama Fans...
By: Dan Juneau President - La. Assoc of Business & Industry
THE DEFIANT ONES
It was almost like watching a scene in a B-grade monster movie. Just before being attacked by the monster mutant, the victim empties his revolver into the beast and then, in one last futile gesture, throws the gun at the creature before being devoured. That scene captures the plight of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke as he announced the Fed’s latest attempt to jumpstart the sluggish U.S. economy. The new gambit is far weaker than Bernanke’s previous initiatives, which centered upon maintaining artificially low interest rates for extended periods and “quantitative easing”— the practice of rapidly expanding the money supply in an attempt to bolster the stock market and facilitate lending.
Bernanke’s latest ploy is a mere hiccup compared to his previous gambits. It centers upon swapping short-term treasury bonds for longer term bonds in an attempt to reduce long-term interest rates for mortgages and corporate borrowing. This is truly throwing the empty gun at the beast. Mortgage rates and borrowing costs are already at near historic lows. Reducing them a fraction will not generate economic activity to any appreciable degree, because the economy is not being thwarted by high financing costs. It is being knee-capped by uncertainty.
Whether he likes it or not, Bernanke is handcuffed to the regulatory and fiscal policies of President Obama (almost like a fiscal version of a remake of the movie “The Defiant Ones”). No amount of fiscal stimulus by Bernanke can overcome the chilling effect current federal policies are having on business expansion and investment.
Take the most recent example. A few days ago, President Obama stood on the Ohio side of a river in a photo-op with a substandard bridge connecting Ohio with Kentucky in the background. The bridge joined Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner’s Ohio district with GOP Minority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell’s state. The president used the backdrop in a partisan political speech in which he demanded that the two Republican leaders pass his “jobs” bill in order to get the bridge fixed. Unfortunately, even if Congress passed the bill tomorrow Obama’s proposal would not fix the bridge. Why? Because it doesn’t qualify as a “shovel ready” project. Why? Because the environmental assessments and permits necessary would delay the start of construction on the bridge until 2015 at least. This is one of thousands of examples of the economy being lassoed by excessive federal regulations.
Any hope for the president to put an end to the maze of federal regulations thwarting economic expansion were dashed recently when Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Lisa Jackson appeared before a congressional committee investigating the negative impact of federal regulations on the economy. Jackson not only denied any adverse economic impact of the EPA’s regulations, she made the farcical claim that they would help create jobs.
Any small amount of fiscal stimulus coming from Ben Bernanke’s basically failed attempts at stoking the economic fires would be more than offset by President Obama’s plans to significantly increase taxes on businesses large and small. Even former President Clinton (the last Democrat since John Kennedy to preside over a growing economy) threw cold water on the tax increase proposal claiming that it would do nothing to expand the economy and create jobs.
So the bad movie continues. Economic trends remain stagnant due to the uncertainty that federal policies create or threaten to create. As the numbers get worse, Bernanke makes increasingly hollow and desperate moves to provide stimulus. Where the movie ends is uncertain, but unless the script is changed soon, the ending will not be a good one.
THE DEFIANT ONES
It was almost like watching a scene in a B-grade monster movie. Just before being attacked by the monster mutant, the victim empties his revolver into the beast and then, in one last futile gesture, throws the gun at the creature before being devoured. That scene captures the plight of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke as he announced the Fed’s latest attempt to jumpstart the sluggish U.S. economy. The new gambit is far weaker than Bernanke’s previous initiatives, which centered upon maintaining artificially low interest rates for extended periods and “quantitative easing”— the practice of rapidly expanding the money supply in an attempt to bolster the stock market and facilitate lending.
Bernanke’s latest ploy is a mere hiccup compared to his previous gambits. It centers upon swapping short-term treasury bonds for longer term bonds in an attempt to reduce long-term interest rates for mortgages and corporate borrowing. This is truly throwing the empty gun at the beast. Mortgage rates and borrowing costs are already at near historic lows. Reducing them a fraction will not generate economic activity to any appreciable degree, because the economy is not being thwarted by high financing costs. It is being knee-capped by uncertainty.
Whether he likes it or not, Bernanke is handcuffed to the regulatory and fiscal policies of President Obama (almost like a fiscal version of a remake of the movie “The Defiant Ones”). No amount of fiscal stimulus by Bernanke can overcome the chilling effect current federal policies are having on business expansion and investment.
Take the most recent example. A few days ago, President Obama stood on the Ohio side of a river in a photo-op with a substandard bridge connecting Ohio with Kentucky in the background. The bridge joined Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner’s Ohio district with GOP Minority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell’s state. The president used the backdrop in a partisan political speech in which he demanded that the two Republican leaders pass his “jobs” bill in order to get the bridge fixed. Unfortunately, even if Congress passed the bill tomorrow Obama’s proposal would not fix the bridge. Why? Because it doesn’t qualify as a “shovel ready” project. Why? Because the environmental assessments and permits necessary would delay the start of construction on the bridge until 2015 at least. This is one of thousands of examples of the economy being lassoed by excessive federal regulations.
Any hope for the president to put an end to the maze of federal regulations thwarting economic expansion were dashed recently when Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Lisa Jackson appeared before a congressional committee investigating the negative impact of federal regulations on the economy. Jackson not only denied any adverse economic impact of the EPA’s regulations, she made the farcical claim that they would help create jobs.
Any small amount of fiscal stimulus coming from Ben Bernanke’s basically failed attempts at stoking the economic fires would be more than offset by President Obama’s plans to significantly increase taxes on businesses large and small. Even former President Clinton (the last Democrat since John Kennedy to preside over a growing economy) threw cold water on the tax increase proposal claiming that it would do nothing to expand the economy and create jobs.
So the bad movie continues. Economic trends remain stagnant due to the uncertainty that federal policies create or threaten to create. As the numbers get worse, Bernanke makes increasingly hollow and desperate moves to provide stimulus. Where the movie ends is uncertain, but unless the script is changed soon, the ending will not be a good one.
Interesting Twist...and NOT Totally Impossible....
Will Obama Pull Out?
Written on September 24, 2011 by Dick Morris
As bad news piles up for the Democrats, I asked a top Democratic strategist if it was possible that Obama might “pull a Lyndon Johnson” and soberly face the cameras telling America that he has decided that the demands of partisan politics are interfering with his efforts to right our economy, and he has decided to withdraw to devote full time to our recovery. His answer: “Yes. It’s possible. If things continue as they are and have not turned around by January, it is certainly possible.”
Just looking at Michelle Obama’s unsmiling face during her husband’s recent speech to Congress triggered an insight: These folks aren’t having fun anymore.
Obama, whose insistence on passing a health care law that the courts will probably throw out, cost his party the House and will now cost his party the Senate, too. Indeed, it is even possible that the Republicans win 60 seats.
Currently, there are strong Republican candidates in 12 states represented by Democrats. In a 10- to 15-point landslide (which is shaping up) all could win. They include: Virginia (George Allen), Florida (Adam Hasner), New Mexico (probably Congressman Steve Pearce), Montana (Congressman Denny Rehberg), North Dakota (Congressman Rick Berg), Nebraska (Jon Bruning), Missouri (Sarah Steelman would be the best), Michigan (Pete Hoekstra), Ohio (Josh Mandel would be good), Wisconsin (Tommy Thompson or one of the others), Pennsylvania (Tim Burns would be great), and Connecticut (Chris Shays — better than Linda McMahon).
If all win, the GOP is only one vote shy of 60. The final seats could come if strong challenges shape up in West Virginia, New Jersey, Washington State, Minnesota and Maryland. And, with Obama this far behind, they probably will.
These Senators — all with targets painted on them — are not going to be happy to see Obama at the top of the ticket dragging the party — and them — down to massive defeat.
President Obama’s historic race to the top in 2008 was animated by huge margins and turnouts among four key groups: African-Americans, Latinos, Jews and young voters. New polling data and the results of the Brooklyn-Queens, Turner-Weprin elections suggest that his base is decaying, piece by piece.
— An analysis of the past three Fox News surveys indicates that Obama’s job approval rating among under 30-year-old voters has declined to 44 percent. By combining the past three surveys, Fox News was able to accumulate data on 600 under 30 voters, indicating a sharp decrease in the president’s approval from his former supporters.
— According to Gallup, Obama’s approval among Latinos has also dropped to 44 percent. Aggregating data from recent polls as Fox News did, Gallup concluded that the president’s ratings among Latinos were not much higher than among the general electorate.
— The election of Republican Bob Turner in the single most Jewish district in America — one that had not gone Republican since the 1920s, shows the decay in Obama’s Jewish support. Alienated by his perceived anti-Israeli bias, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews voted in massive numbers for Turner. Results in heavily Jewish areas reflected his desertion. But even in neighborhoods like Forest Hills, Queens, populated by Reform and Conservative Jews, showed the candidates running almost even.
Only the African-Americans remain of Obama’s 2008 coalition. Surveys show his approval among blacks above 80 percent indicating no diminution of his enthusiasm there.
Yet the entire campaign strategy of the Obama people is to move to the left, fanning class warfare, to elicit strong liberal support. Rather than compensating for his loss of liberals by reaching out to independents and traditional swing voters, he just doubles down on his appeal to the left, further alienating the middle.
But the kind of enthusiasm Obama kindled in 2008 cannot be ignited easily by negative appeals. Particularly if the Republicans nominate a more moderate candidate like Mitt Romney, Obama will not be able to rely on partisan animosity to succeed where job approval has failed. And, given all that, he may not even run.
To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Written on September 24, 2011 by Dick Morris
As bad news piles up for the Democrats, I asked a top Democratic strategist if it was possible that Obama might “pull a Lyndon Johnson” and soberly face the cameras telling America that he has decided that the demands of partisan politics are interfering with his efforts to right our economy, and he has decided to withdraw to devote full time to our recovery. His answer: “Yes. It’s possible. If things continue as they are and have not turned around by January, it is certainly possible.”
Just looking at Michelle Obama’s unsmiling face during her husband’s recent speech to Congress triggered an insight: These folks aren’t having fun anymore.
Obama, whose insistence on passing a health care law that the courts will probably throw out, cost his party the House and will now cost his party the Senate, too. Indeed, it is even possible that the Republicans win 60 seats.
Currently, there are strong Republican candidates in 12 states represented by Democrats. In a 10- to 15-point landslide (which is shaping up) all could win. They include: Virginia (George Allen), Florida (Adam Hasner), New Mexico (probably Congressman Steve Pearce), Montana (Congressman Denny Rehberg), North Dakota (Congressman Rick Berg), Nebraska (Jon Bruning), Missouri (Sarah Steelman would be the best), Michigan (Pete Hoekstra), Ohio (Josh Mandel would be good), Wisconsin (Tommy Thompson or one of the others), Pennsylvania (Tim Burns would be great), and Connecticut (Chris Shays — better than Linda McMahon).
If all win, the GOP is only one vote shy of 60. The final seats could come if strong challenges shape up in West Virginia, New Jersey, Washington State, Minnesota and Maryland. And, with Obama this far behind, they probably will.
These Senators — all with targets painted on them — are not going to be happy to see Obama at the top of the ticket dragging the party — and them — down to massive defeat.
President Obama’s historic race to the top in 2008 was animated by huge margins and turnouts among four key groups: African-Americans, Latinos, Jews and young voters. New polling data and the results of the Brooklyn-Queens, Turner-Weprin elections suggest that his base is decaying, piece by piece.
— An analysis of the past three Fox News surveys indicates that Obama’s job approval rating among under 30-year-old voters has declined to 44 percent. By combining the past three surveys, Fox News was able to accumulate data on 600 under 30 voters, indicating a sharp decrease in the president’s approval from his former supporters.
— According to Gallup, Obama’s approval among Latinos has also dropped to 44 percent. Aggregating data from recent polls as Fox News did, Gallup concluded that the president’s ratings among Latinos were not much higher than among the general electorate.
— The election of Republican Bob Turner in the single most Jewish district in America — one that had not gone Republican since the 1920s, shows the decay in Obama’s Jewish support. Alienated by his perceived anti-Israeli bias, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews voted in massive numbers for Turner. Results in heavily Jewish areas reflected his desertion. But even in neighborhoods like Forest Hills, Queens, populated by Reform and Conservative Jews, showed the candidates running almost even.
Only the African-Americans remain of Obama’s 2008 coalition. Surveys show his approval among blacks above 80 percent indicating no diminution of his enthusiasm there.
Yet the entire campaign strategy of the Obama people is to move to the left, fanning class warfare, to elicit strong liberal support. Rather than compensating for his loss of liberals by reaching out to independents and traditional swing voters, he just doubles down on his appeal to the left, further alienating the middle.
But the kind of enthusiasm Obama kindled in 2008 cannot be ignited easily by negative appeals. Particularly if the Republicans nominate a more moderate candidate like Mitt Romney, Obama will not be able to rely on partisan animosity to succeed where job approval has failed. And, given all that, he may not even run.
To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Obama Loses His Cool at the CBC
Obama loses his cool at the Congressional Black Caucus....He tells them to stop complaining and March....Once again even to his own race...it's shut up and dow what I want!....
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Obama's Job Plan won't fix the unemployment problem short term, AND it wll make things WORSE in the Longer Term....Obama Just Incompetent!
Obama's Jobs Plan Wouldn't Make Huge Dent in Jobless Rate, Economists Say
Published September 24, 2011 | Associated Press
President Barack Obama greets supporters after speaking near the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011.
Even if Congress heeds President Obama's demands to "pass this bill right away" and enacts his jobs and tax plan in its entirety, the unemployment rate probably still would hover in nosebleed territory for at least three more years.
Why? Because the 1.9 million new jobs the White House says the bill would produce in 2012 falls short of what it's needed to put the economy back on track to return to pre-recession jobless levels of under 6 percent, from today's rate of 9.1 percent.
That's how deep the jobs hole is. The persistent weakness of the U.S. economy has left 14 million people unemployed and more than 25 million unable to find full-time work.
Economists of all stripes pretty much agree that it will be a long, hard road no matter what Congress does. Right now, the Republicans who run the House and the Democrats who lead the Senate aren't finding much common ground.
Obama estimates his American Jobs Act would lower unemployment by just a single percentage point by next year, to just over 8 percent, heading into the 2012 presidential election.
Burned before by making overly optimistic job-creation predictions, the White House turned to prominent outside economists to crunch the numbers.
The projection of 1.9 million new jobs, a 1 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate and a 2 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product under Obama's plan came from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.
But Zandi said in an interview his forecast also is based on an assumption that "the president's entire package is passed by the end of the year," a slim prospect given the current divided leadership in Congress, and that there are no other budgetary policy changes.
"I assumed that it would be paid for," Zandi said. "I didn't know when I did that simulation how the president proposed to pay for it."
Since then, Obama has said he would pay for his $447 billion package with permanent income tax increases of about $150 billion a year, mostly on wealthy individuals and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That's drawn criticism from Republicans, who say any tax increases could further stall the fragile recovery.
Zandi, who has advised both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said he's still sticking with his forecast, mainly because the stimulus in the plan, including a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and employers and infrastructure spending, would come in 2012 and be paid for later.
But there is one feature Obama doesn't emphasize.
Zandi said his job-creation figure only applies to 2012.
"Beginning in 2013, and certainly into 2014, the plan is a drag on the economy because the stimulus starts fading away," he said. "So by 2015, the economy is in the same place as now, as if there were no jobs package."
Also, Zandi said, his forecast does not leave any room for a new recession. If that happens, all bets are off.
"So it's very important to get as many people working as fast as possible," he said. "If we go back into recession, it is going to be very difficult to get out. And it's going to cost taxpayers tremendously."
Job creation has ground to a virtual standstill. The economy produced a scant 20,000 net new jobs in June, 85,000 in July and none in August. Economic output, as measured by the GDP, has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate below 1 percent.
The global economy is showing no signs of strengthening. A divided Federal Reserve is nearly out of ammunition for additional stimulus. And the U.S. is once again facing the possibility of a government shutdown at the end of next week.
The Obama-Zandi target of 1.9 million new jobs next year, or 158,000 a month, is somewhat higher than private analyses that suggest the plan would create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month.
Heidi Shierholz, economist for the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calculates it would take job growth of 400,000 every month for three years in a row to get back to the 5 percent jobless rate last seen in December 2007, at the recession's outset.
"To get down to 5 percent in five years, we need around 280,000 jobs every month," she added. "Right now, we're more than two years into the official recovery, and we're still bumping along at extremely low levels."
What if Obama gets none of what he requested? She said failure to renew some current anti-recessionary programs such as extended unemployment insurance and the existing Social Security tax break for employees "will be a big blow" both to the economy and to the employment picture.
More likely, Congress will probably produce a watered-down version.
As long as the GDP grows at an annual rate beneath 2.5 percent, it cannot create enough jobs for new entrants into the workforce, let alone to re-employ those laid off during the downturn, said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's biggest business lobby.
The chamber estimates it will take 20 million jobs over the next decade to get the economy back to pre-recession levels. It has its own jobs plan, which includes increased trade, greater oil drilling, quicker road and bridge construction and temporary corporate tax breaks.
"If you want to go from 9.1 percent down to 5.5 or 6 percent unemployment, you're going to have to grow roughly at 4.5 percent (GDP) for three years," Regalia said. "I don't see that in the forecast."
In the first six months of this year, the GDP grew at a scant 0.7 percent rate. Private forecasters see it growing about 2 percent in the final six months of 2011, about 2.5 percent throughout 2012, and increasing to about 3.2 percent in 2013.
Obama is quick to acknowledge a rocky road ahead.
"For a decade now, incomes and wages have flat-lined for the American people -- for ordinary Americans, for working families," he says. "They are working harder, making less, with higher expenses. And that's been going on for a long, long time."
Published September 24, 2011 | Associated Press
President Barack Obama greets supporters after speaking near the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011.
Even if Congress heeds President Obama's demands to "pass this bill right away" and enacts his jobs and tax plan in its entirety, the unemployment rate probably still would hover in nosebleed territory for at least three more years.
Why? Because the 1.9 million new jobs the White House says the bill would produce in 2012 falls short of what it's needed to put the economy back on track to return to pre-recession jobless levels of under 6 percent, from today's rate of 9.1 percent.
That's how deep the jobs hole is. The persistent weakness of the U.S. economy has left 14 million people unemployed and more than 25 million unable to find full-time work.
Economists of all stripes pretty much agree that it will be a long, hard road no matter what Congress does. Right now, the Republicans who run the House and the Democrats who lead the Senate aren't finding much common ground.
Obama estimates his American Jobs Act would lower unemployment by just a single percentage point by next year, to just over 8 percent, heading into the 2012 presidential election.
Burned before by making overly optimistic job-creation predictions, the White House turned to prominent outside economists to crunch the numbers.
The projection of 1.9 million new jobs, a 1 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate and a 2 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product under Obama's plan came from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.
But Zandi said in an interview his forecast also is based on an assumption that "the president's entire package is passed by the end of the year," a slim prospect given the current divided leadership in Congress, and that there are no other budgetary policy changes.
"I assumed that it would be paid for," Zandi said. "I didn't know when I did that simulation how the president proposed to pay for it."
Since then, Obama has said he would pay for his $447 billion package with permanent income tax increases of about $150 billion a year, mostly on wealthy individuals and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That's drawn criticism from Republicans, who say any tax increases could further stall the fragile recovery.
Zandi, who has advised both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said he's still sticking with his forecast, mainly because the stimulus in the plan, including a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and employers and infrastructure spending, would come in 2012 and be paid for later.
But there is one feature Obama doesn't emphasize.
Zandi said his job-creation figure only applies to 2012.
"Beginning in 2013, and certainly into 2014, the plan is a drag on the economy because the stimulus starts fading away," he said. "So by 2015, the economy is in the same place as now, as if there were no jobs package."
Also, Zandi said, his forecast does not leave any room for a new recession. If that happens, all bets are off.
"So it's very important to get as many people working as fast as possible," he said. "If we go back into recession, it is going to be very difficult to get out. And it's going to cost taxpayers tremendously."
Job creation has ground to a virtual standstill. The economy produced a scant 20,000 net new jobs in June, 85,000 in July and none in August. Economic output, as measured by the GDP, has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate below 1 percent.
The global economy is showing no signs of strengthening. A divided Federal Reserve is nearly out of ammunition for additional stimulus. And the U.S. is once again facing the possibility of a government shutdown at the end of next week.
The Obama-Zandi target of 1.9 million new jobs next year, or 158,000 a month, is somewhat higher than private analyses that suggest the plan would create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month.
Heidi Shierholz, economist for the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calculates it would take job growth of 400,000 every month for three years in a row to get back to the 5 percent jobless rate last seen in December 2007, at the recession's outset.
"To get down to 5 percent in five years, we need around 280,000 jobs every month," she added. "Right now, we're more than two years into the official recovery, and we're still bumping along at extremely low levels."
What if Obama gets none of what he requested? She said failure to renew some current anti-recessionary programs such as extended unemployment insurance and the existing Social Security tax break for employees "will be a big blow" both to the economy and to the employment picture.
More likely, Congress will probably produce a watered-down version.
As long as the GDP grows at an annual rate beneath 2.5 percent, it cannot create enough jobs for new entrants into the workforce, let alone to re-employ those laid off during the downturn, said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's biggest business lobby.
The chamber estimates it will take 20 million jobs over the next decade to get the economy back to pre-recession levels. It has its own jobs plan, which includes increased trade, greater oil drilling, quicker road and bridge construction and temporary corporate tax breaks.
"If you want to go from 9.1 percent down to 5.5 or 6 percent unemployment, you're going to have to grow roughly at 4.5 percent (GDP) for three years," Regalia said. "I don't see that in the forecast."
In the first six months of this year, the GDP grew at a scant 0.7 percent rate. Private forecasters see it growing about 2 percent in the final six months of 2011, about 2.5 percent throughout 2012, and increasing to about 3.2 percent in 2013.
Obama is quick to acknowledge a rocky road ahead.
"For a decade now, incomes and wages have flat-lined for the American people -- for ordinary Americans, for working families," he says. "They are working harder, making less, with higher expenses. And that's been going on for a long, long time."
Obama JUST trying to get more control of YOUR life...
All Obama wants it extend the control of the FEDERAL Government over the education system and that's NOT GOOD....It's all about federal control of everything...more big government....more union control of education....NO Child Left Behind is not perfect, but it's not as bad as giving up more control to Obama and the federal government...
Obama Highlights Education Agenda to Promote Jobs Plan
Published September 24, 2011 | Associated Press
President Obama says changing education policy and spending billions to upgrade schools and keep teachers on the job is the right thing to do, not only for America's schoolchildren but also for the country's future economic vitality.
Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to push his $447 billion jobs bill through the prism of education. He also recapped steps he has authorized to let states opt out of unpopular proficiency standards since Congress has been slow to update the existing law.
"If we're serious about building an economy that lasts, an economy in which hard work pays off with the opportunity for solid middle-class jobs, we had better be serious about education," Obama said. "We have to pick up our game and raise our standards."
Obama said the package of tax cuts and direct spending he has sent to Congress would put tens of thousands of teachers back to work and modernize at least 35,000 schools. He called on lawmakers to pass the bill "right now," as he does on frequent trips outside of Washington to build public support for it. But the bill received a cool reception on Capitol Hill and it could be weeks before lawmakers even begin to debate it.
He said that the 2001 No Child Left Behind education law was well-meaning but has serious flaws that are hurting schoolchildren and that he took action to fix the problems because Congress has yet to do so.
"Our kids only get one shot at a decent education. And they can't afford to wait any longer," Obama said.
On Friday, Obama announced steps to allow states to scrap a key requirement that all children show they are proficient in reading and math by 2014. But states can opt out only if they meet certain conditions, such as imposing their own standards to prepare students for college and careers and setting evaluation standards for teachers and principals.
"This isn't just the right thing to do for our kids, it's the right thing to do for our country and our future," Obama said.
In the weekly Republican message, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine called for a "timeout" on federal regulations that many in her party say are hurting the economy and keeping small businesses from expanding and creating much-needed jobs.
She promoted ideas for taming what she called a "regulatory behemoth," including requiring agencies to consider the costs and benefits of any new regulation before it is imposed. She also suggested putting certain costly new rules on hold for one year.
"In sports, a timeout gives athletes a chance to catch their breaths and make better decisions," Collins said. "American workers and businesses are the athletes in a global competition that we must win. We need a timeout from excessive regulations so that America can get back to work."
Obama Highlights Education Agenda to Promote Jobs Plan
Published September 24, 2011 | Associated Press
President Obama says changing education policy and spending billions to upgrade schools and keep teachers on the job is the right thing to do, not only for America's schoolchildren but also for the country's future economic vitality.
Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to push his $447 billion jobs bill through the prism of education. He also recapped steps he has authorized to let states opt out of unpopular proficiency standards since Congress has been slow to update the existing law.
"If we're serious about building an economy that lasts, an economy in which hard work pays off with the opportunity for solid middle-class jobs, we had better be serious about education," Obama said. "We have to pick up our game and raise our standards."
Obama said the package of tax cuts and direct spending he has sent to Congress would put tens of thousands of teachers back to work and modernize at least 35,000 schools. He called on lawmakers to pass the bill "right now," as he does on frequent trips outside of Washington to build public support for it. But the bill received a cool reception on Capitol Hill and it could be weeks before lawmakers even begin to debate it.
He said that the 2001 No Child Left Behind education law was well-meaning but has serious flaws that are hurting schoolchildren and that he took action to fix the problems because Congress has yet to do so.
"Our kids only get one shot at a decent education. And they can't afford to wait any longer," Obama said.
On Friday, Obama announced steps to allow states to scrap a key requirement that all children show they are proficient in reading and math by 2014. But states can opt out only if they meet certain conditions, such as imposing their own standards to prepare students for college and careers and setting evaluation standards for teachers and principals.
"This isn't just the right thing to do for our kids, it's the right thing to do for our country and our future," Obama said.
In the weekly Republican message, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine called for a "timeout" on federal regulations that many in her party say are hurting the economy and keeping small businesses from expanding and creating much-needed jobs.
She promoted ideas for taming what she called a "regulatory behemoth," including requiring agencies to consider the costs and benefits of any new regulation before it is imposed. She also suggested putting certain costly new rules on hold for one year.
"In sports, a timeout gives athletes a chance to catch their breaths and make better decisions," Collins said. "American workers and businesses are the athletes in a global competition that we must win. We need a timeout from excessive regulations so that America can get back to work."
Friday, September 23, 2011
This is Just Like Obama Spitting Right into Your Face....
Federal Loans Fund Big-Ticket Energy Projects at Firms Outside of U.S.
By George Russell Published September 23, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Among the biggest recipients on the Department of Energy's controversial list of loans to renewable energy companies like the failed Solyndra Inc. are a number of non-U.S. firms whose big-ticket energy projects will cost taxpayers billions of dollars -- but will generate no more than a few hundred permanent U.S. jobs.
Some of the companies employ complex solar technologies that cost more than twice as much as any other land-based renewable system, including nuclear.
The huge cost and relatively low long-term employment payoff for the investments could cast doubt on the Obama administration's claims that big investments in new green technologies will lead the U.S. to innovative parity with countries like China, and also create significant long-term employment gains for the U.S. economy.
As recently as July, for example, President Obama declared in a radio address that "we're accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy and doubling our use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power -- steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America."
A case in point is Abengoa Solar, Inc., a Spanish-owned firm that has received more than $2.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from DoE for two power-generating complexes, with the most recent $1.2 billion guarantee closing just this month. Abengoa's press releases tout the thousands of construction and other jobs that will be result from the projects, one in the Mojave Desert in California, the other southwest of Phoenix.
Nonetheless, the DoE's own website reveals that the two projects will permanently employ no more than 130 people after completion.
Abengoa's entire staff worldwide, according to its 2010 annual report, was 526 employees.
The Solyndra scandal erupted at the end of August, when the company filed for bankruptcy about two years after it was given a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for nearly $530 million, followed by a loan for the guaranteed amount from the Federal Financing Bank.
Loan guarantees under DoE's so-called 1703 program are given for "innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks."
In the case of at least one Abengoa property, its Mojave Desert project, the administration's involvement apparently goes well beyond a loan guarantee. In its 2010 annual report, the Spanish company reports that it was subsequently able to obtain a loan from the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank, which according to its website has "statutory authority to purchase any obligation issued, sold, or guaranteed by a federal agency to ensure that fully guaranteed obligations are financed efficiently."
It may also be debatable whether Abengoa should be able to get federal financing guarantees for its projects purely on the grounds that its technology is so innovative that private sector funding would not be forthcoming. According to its annual report, the use of cutting edge high technology in marketing and creating solar energy facilities is one of the key elements of Abengoa's business model, and a part of its global competitive advantage in solar energy construction.
"This proprietary technology development and a strategy of continued investment in R&D preserves Abengoa Solar's leadership position," the report says. It gives the company "a competitive advantage in an industry where technological change happens quickly, a better chance to offer competitive technologies in the future, as well as an adaptable portfolio of solutions and components for each project or market."
Click here for the annual report
Several efforts by Fox News to contact Abengoa executives to discuss the company's U.S. projects prior to this article's publication were unsuccessful.
In its annual report, Abengoa says it is successfully building plants using similar or related technology in Abu Dhabi, Algeria and multiple locations in Spain -- where expansive subsidies for solar power inaugurated by the Socialist government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero were cut back dramatically in 2008, as the country entered its current deep financial crisis.
In the case of its Mojave Desert plant, located about 100 miles south-east of Los Angeles, Abengoa has announced that it has begun building foundations in time to qualify for a 30 percent federal cash grant.
When the Mojave Desert plant is complete -- currently anticipated for 2013 -- it will sell energy to Pacific Gas and Electric, a California utility that is subject to dramatically increased mandates for renewable energy signed earlier this year by California Gov. Jerry Brown, and described in various reports as the most aggressive in the country.
Under the new mandates, California must get 33 percent of its energy from renewable resources -- solar, wind, biofuels -- by the end of 2020. That is a 65 percent increase over the previous mandate, which called for 20 percent renewable by the same deadline.
Critics of the new mandate have said that they will hike already steep electricity prices in the Golden State by an additional 19 percent.
Abengoa's Arizona solar energy plant, which was dubbed the largest solar energy facility in the world when the contract was announced in 2008, is now under construction. It will deliver energy to the Arizona Public Service Company, a state utility, under an Arizona renewable mandate that calls for 15 percent renewable energy generation by 2025.
The Arizona utility has announced that it will hike consumer energy bills by about 6.6 percent to meet the mandate.
In addition to "thousands" of temporary construction jobs on the project, and 60 permanent jobs tallied by the Department of Energy on its website, Abengoa has said that an additional 180 permanent jobs will be produced in Arizona in a factory that will make specialized mirrors for the project.
Both Abengoa projects make use of specialized "solar thermal" power rather than the photovoltaic sun-to-electricity panels familiar to most homeowners and consumers. Solar thermal power generation involves the construction of huge arrays of curved solar mirrors to focus the sun's energy on a tower containing water or another fluid medium, which is superheated and ultimately powers an electricity-producing turbine. Retaining and using heat when the sun is down adds to the expense and complexity of the system.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), such solar thermal power is far and away the most expensive option that it considered in projecting the cost of new electricity technologies over the next four years.
Using a complex calculation known as "levelized cost," EIA says that solar thermal energy will weigh in at $311.60 per megawatt/hour, vs. $210.70 for more conventional solar paneling, and $113.90 for "advanced nuclear."
Compared to more conventional energy sources, solar thermal is even pricier -- much pricier. The EIA says that natural gas-fueled energy plants, even using advanced techniques to remove carbon from their emissions, would cost $89.3 per megawatt/hour, while ordinary gas fueled natural gas generation would cost $66.10.
A conventional coal-fired electrical plant -- anathema in green circles -- would provide energy at $94.80 per megawatt/hour, and one equipped with "clean" coal technology and sequestration of carbon emissions would provide electricity at a cost of $136.20 per megawatt/hour.
The second-most pricey option on the EIA list, after solar thermal, is energy from wind turbines placed in the ocean, which comes in at $243.20 per megawatt/hour.
In other words, even that difficult and costly-to-produce energy source is projected to cost only three-quarters as much.
By George Russell Published September 23, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Among the biggest recipients on the Department of Energy's controversial list of loans to renewable energy companies like the failed Solyndra Inc. are a number of non-U.S. firms whose big-ticket energy projects will cost taxpayers billions of dollars -- but will generate no more than a few hundred permanent U.S. jobs.
Some of the companies employ complex solar technologies that cost more than twice as much as any other land-based renewable system, including nuclear.
The huge cost and relatively low long-term employment payoff for the investments could cast doubt on the Obama administration's claims that big investments in new green technologies will lead the U.S. to innovative parity with countries like China, and also create significant long-term employment gains for the U.S. economy.
As recently as July, for example, President Obama declared in a radio address that "we're accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy and doubling our use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power -- steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America."
A case in point is Abengoa Solar, Inc., a Spanish-owned firm that has received more than $2.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from DoE for two power-generating complexes, with the most recent $1.2 billion guarantee closing just this month. Abengoa's press releases tout the thousands of construction and other jobs that will be result from the projects, one in the Mojave Desert in California, the other southwest of Phoenix.
Nonetheless, the DoE's own website reveals that the two projects will permanently employ no more than 130 people after completion.
Abengoa's entire staff worldwide, according to its 2010 annual report, was 526 employees.
The Solyndra scandal erupted at the end of August, when the company filed for bankruptcy about two years after it was given a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for nearly $530 million, followed by a loan for the guaranteed amount from the Federal Financing Bank.
Loan guarantees under DoE's so-called 1703 program are given for "innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks."
In the case of at least one Abengoa property, its Mojave Desert project, the administration's involvement apparently goes well beyond a loan guarantee. In its 2010 annual report, the Spanish company reports that it was subsequently able to obtain a loan from the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank, which according to its website has "statutory authority to purchase any obligation issued, sold, or guaranteed by a federal agency to ensure that fully guaranteed obligations are financed efficiently."
It may also be debatable whether Abengoa should be able to get federal financing guarantees for its projects purely on the grounds that its technology is so innovative that private sector funding would not be forthcoming. According to its annual report, the use of cutting edge high technology in marketing and creating solar energy facilities is one of the key elements of Abengoa's business model, and a part of its global competitive advantage in solar energy construction.
"This proprietary technology development and a strategy of continued investment in R&D preserves Abengoa Solar's leadership position," the report says. It gives the company "a competitive advantage in an industry where technological change happens quickly, a better chance to offer competitive technologies in the future, as well as an adaptable portfolio of solutions and components for each project or market."
Click here for the annual report
Several efforts by Fox News to contact Abengoa executives to discuss the company's U.S. projects prior to this article's publication were unsuccessful.
In its annual report, Abengoa says it is successfully building plants using similar or related technology in Abu Dhabi, Algeria and multiple locations in Spain -- where expansive subsidies for solar power inaugurated by the Socialist government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero were cut back dramatically in 2008, as the country entered its current deep financial crisis.
In the case of its Mojave Desert plant, located about 100 miles south-east of Los Angeles, Abengoa has announced that it has begun building foundations in time to qualify for a 30 percent federal cash grant.
When the Mojave Desert plant is complete -- currently anticipated for 2013 -- it will sell energy to Pacific Gas and Electric, a California utility that is subject to dramatically increased mandates for renewable energy signed earlier this year by California Gov. Jerry Brown, and described in various reports as the most aggressive in the country.
Under the new mandates, California must get 33 percent of its energy from renewable resources -- solar, wind, biofuels -- by the end of 2020. That is a 65 percent increase over the previous mandate, which called for 20 percent renewable by the same deadline.
Critics of the new mandate have said that they will hike already steep electricity prices in the Golden State by an additional 19 percent.
Abengoa's Arizona solar energy plant, which was dubbed the largest solar energy facility in the world when the contract was announced in 2008, is now under construction. It will deliver energy to the Arizona Public Service Company, a state utility, under an Arizona renewable mandate that calls for 15 percent renewable energy generation by 2025.
The Arizona utility has announced that it will hike consumer energy bills by about 6.6 percent to meet the mandate.
In addition to "thousands" of temporary construction jobs on the project, and 60 permanent jobs tallied by the Department of Energy on its website, Abengoa has said that an additional 180 permanent jobs will be produced in Arizona in a factory that will make specialized mirrors for the project.
Both Abengoa projects make use of specialized "solar thermal" power rather than the photovoltaic sun-to-electricity panels familiar to most homeowners and consumers. Solar thermal power generation involves the construction of huge arrays of curved solar mirrors to focus the sun's energy on a tower containing water or another fluid medium, which is superheated and ultimately powers an electricity-producing turbine. Retaining and using heat when the sun is down adds to the expense and complexity of the system.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), such solar thermal power is far and away the most expensive option that it considered in projecting the cost of new electricity technologies over the next four years.
Using a complex calculation known as "levelized cost," EIA says that solar thermal energy will weigh in at $311.60 per megawatt/hour, vs. $210.70 for more conventional solar paneling, and $113.90 for "advanced nuclear."
Compared to more conventional energy sources, solar thermal is even pricier -- much pricier. The EIA says that natural gas-fueled energy plants, even using advanced techniques to remove carbon from their emissions, would cost $89.3 per megawatt/hour, while ordinary gas fueled natural gas generation would cost $66.10.
A conventional coal-fired electrical plant -- anathema in green circles -- would provide energy at $94.80 per megawatt/hour, and one equipped with "clean" coal technology and sequestration of carbon emissions would provide electricity at a cost of $136.20 per megawatt/hour.
The second-most pricey option on the EIA list, after solar thermal, is energy from wind turbines placed in the ocean, which comes in at $243.20 per megawatt/hour.
In other words, even that difficult and costly-to-produce energy source is projected to cost only three-quarters as much.
Perry is the ONLY candiate the understands the Border....
IF anyone understand the borders, it's Rick Perry....I agree Santorum was way out of line and frankly he doesn't know what he's talking about. I get a kick out of these candidates from up north, new england and anywhere but the border being an expert. They have probably taken a two day trip to the area where they were pampered and given a tour. Perry lives with the border....it's advantages and it's problems...he's tried on numerous occasions to try to engage Obama on the problems only to be totally snubbed....I wish he would just tell all to just shut up until they really know what they are talking about...that Romney, Bachmann, Santorum and the others...
September 23, 2011 2:00 P.M.
Santorum’s Ill-Advised Border War
He stepped into unknown territory to criticize Perry’s legitimate immigration policies.
Rick Santorum, in his day the U.S. senator I most admired, is an embarrassment as a no-hoper presidential candidate — and nowhere has that been more painfully evident than in his attempt to characterize Rick Perry as being soft on illegal immigration. Last night, he ridiculed a health-insurance initiative Governor Perry had supported for the benefit of those living on the Texas–Mexico border. “He gave a speech in 2001 in which in talked about ‘binational health insurance’ between Mexico and Texas,” Santorum said. “I don’t think even Barack Obama would be in favor of binational health insurance.” This was followed by thunderous applause from an audience that clearly didn’t know anything more about the issue than Santorum does.
Santorum is absolutely correct about one thing: Barack Obama would not have supported the plan, which would have liberalized health-insurance regulations in Texas, allowing insurance companies — private companies — to write policies on both sides of the border, and to write policies that cover medical procedures on both sides of the border. Which is to say, Santorum was giving Perry grief for having the audacity to suggest that insurance companies ought to be allowed to sell insurance to whom they please and where they please, that consumers ought to have more choices, and that we can alleviate the costs of providing health care to the uninsured by letting markets work. No doubt Barack Obama would be opposed — but why is Rick Santorum? Two possible answers to that question: 1. He is engaging in cheap demagoguery. 2. He has no idea what he is talking about.
Texas has more than a thousand miles of border with Mexico, and it has many thousands of people who have ties to both countries: Mexican nationals who live in Texas, U.S. nationals who live in Mexico, people who live in one country but have family in the other, people who travel daily between the countries, etc. Illegal immigrants are, of course, a part of the picture, but they are not the entire picture. There are more than 1 million people who live on one side of the border and work — legally — on the other side. Let’s say you’re a Mexican national working in Laredo, Texas, with a wife and children in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. You can buy health insurance for yourself through an employer-provided plan — but not for your wife and children, and not a plan that covers expenses for treatment in Mexico if you get sick or injured while you are there. Health insurance that doesn’t cover you where you are, or that excludes your family, is not terribly useful. And if those uninsured spouses and children get sick or injured, whose emergency rooms are they going to end up in? Mexico’s? Probably not.
Beyond that, there are thousands of Americans who cross the border every day to take advantage of less expensive medical and dental services in Mexico. (Memo to Rick Santorum: Markets work.) You will not be surprised to know that the main opponents to the binational proposal were physicians’ groups whose members did not want to compete with Mexican doctors and dentists.
There’s a boatload of illegal immigrants in Texas, to be sure. There’s also a boatload of illegal immigrants in Santorum’s native Pennsylvania, and an even bigger boatload in the Washington suburbs, where he now lives. Texas’s binational health-insurance initiative was not a plan to have the government buy immigrants insurance; it was a plan to let them — and Americans living along the border — buy insurance for themselves. Are we better off with more immigrants insured or with fewer immigrants insured? The answer to that is obvious, but, if you cannot figure it out, visit an emergency room in Alexandria, Va.
Governor Perry has got a lot of grief for allegedly coddling illegals, but here’s something to keep in mind: Governors don’t set federal border policy — they just have to deal with its real-world consequences. Congress writes the law.
Santorum, during his time in the Senate, was pretty solid on illegal immigration, opposing the “comprehensive” reform proposals of George W. Bush and authoring the Border Security First Act of 2006. Santorum’s border-security act is worth reading. (Do so, here.) In his key piece of immigration legislation, Santorum did not call for a sea-to-shining-sea border fence, or even one stretching from Galveston to El Paso. What he called for was: limited strategic fencing, surveillance, increased manpower, technology, infrastructure, and a stronger federal commitment to securing the border. In other words, when Senator Santorum proposed border-security legislation, he proposed exactly what Rick Perry proposes today. I happen to think that Governor Perry is wrong about building a border fence — the logistical challenges are significant, but they are not insurmountable — he is not entirely wrong when he says that “the best solution involves added manpower, not unmanned walls.” A guy who wants to deploy Predator drones and the U.S. military to police the border, who would ban sanctuary cities, and who handed the Obama administration a $350 million bill for the cost of dealing with illegals in Texas is not an open-borders squish.
Santorum ought to approach the issue with a little more circumspection. He spent a decade and a half in Washington, during which time the federal government did approximately zilch on border security, while Perry — who does not have an army or the power to make immigration policy — has dispatched the Texas Rangers, along with millions of dollars, to do a job that Washington ought to be doing but isn’t.
— Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review.
September 23, 2011 2:00 P.M.
Santorum’s Ill-Advised Border War
He stepped into unknown territory to criticize Perry’s legitimate immigration policies.
Rick Santorum, in his day the U.S. senator I most admired, is an embarrassment as a no-hoper presidential candidate — and nowhere has that been more painfully evident than in his attempt to characterize Rick Perry as being soft on illegal immigration. Last night, he ridiculed a health-insurance initiative Governor Perry had supported for the benefit of those living on the Texas–Mexico border. “He gave a speech in 2001 in which in talked about ‘binational health insurance’ between Mexico and Texas,” Santorum said. “I don’t think even Barack Obama would be in favor of binational health insurance.” This was followed by thunderous applause from an audience that clearly didn’t know anything more about the issue than Santorum does.
Santorum is absolutely correct about one thing: Barack Obama would not have supported the plan, which would have liberalized health-insurance regulations in Texas, allowing insurance companies — private companies — to write policies on both sides of the border, and to write policies that cover medical procedures on both sides of the border. Which is to say, Santorum was giving Perry grief for having the audacity to suggest that insurance companies ought to be allowed to sell insurance to whom they please and where they please, that consumers ought to have more choices, and that we can alleviate the costs of providing health care to the uninsured by letting markets work. No doubt Barack Obama would be opposed — but why is Rick Santorum? Two possible answers to that question: 1. He is engaging in cheap demagoguery. 2. He has no idea what he is talking about.
Texas has more than a thousand miles of border with Mexico, and it has many thousands of people who have ties to both countries: Mexican nationals who live in Texas, U.S. nationals who live in Mexico, people who live in one country but have family in the other, people who travel daily between the countries, etc. Illegal immigrants are, of course, a part of the picture, but they are not the entire picture. There are more than 1 million people who live on one side of the border and work — legally — on the other side. Let’s say you’re a Mexican national working in Laredo, Texas, with a wife and children in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. You can buy health insurance for yourself through an employer-provided plan — but not for your wife and children, and not a plan that covers expenses for treatment in Mexico if you get sick or injured while you are there. Health insurance that doesn’t cover you where you are, or that excludes your family, is not terribly useful. And if those uninsured spouses and children get sick or injured, whose emergency rooms are they going to end up in? Mexico’s? Probably not.
Beyond that, there are thousands of Americans who cross the border every day to take advantage of less expensive medical and dental services in Mexico. (Memo to Rick Santorum: Markets work.) You will not be surprised to know that the main opponents to the binational proposal were physicians’ groups whose members did not want to compete with Mexican doctors and dentists.
There’s a boatload of illegal immigrants in Texas, to be sure. There’s also a boatload of illegal immigrants in Santorum’s native Pennsylvania, and an even bigger boatload in the Washington suburbs, where he now lives. Texas’s binational health-insurance initiative was not a plan to have the government buy immigrants insurance; it was a plan to let them — and Americans living along the border — buy insurance for themselves. Are we better off with more immigrants insured or with fewer immigrants insured? The answer to that is obvious, but, if you cannot figure it out, visit an emergency room in Alexandria, Va.
Governor Perry has got a lot of grief for allegedly coddling illegals, but here’s something to keep in mind: Governors don’t set federal border policy — they just have to deal with its real-world consequences. Congress writes the law.
Santorum, during his time in the Senate, was pretty solid on illegal immigration, opposing the “comprehensive” reform proposals of George W. Bush and authoring the Border Security First Act of 2006. Santorum’s border-security act is worth reading. (Do so, here.) In his key piece of immigration legislation, Santorum did not call for a sea-to-shining-sea border fence, or even one stretching from Galveston to El Paso. What he called for was: limited strategic fencing, surveillance, increased manpower, technology, infrastructure, and a stronger federal commitment to securing the border. In other words, when Senator Santorum proposed border-security legislation, he proposed exactly what Rick Perry proposes today. I happen to think that Governor Perry is wrong about building a border fence — the logistical challenges are significant, but they are not insurmountable — he is not entirely wrong when he says that “the best solution involves added manpower, not unmanned walls.” A guy who wants to deploy Predator drones and the U.S. military to police the border, who would ban sanctuary cities, and who handed the Obama administration a $350 million bill for the cost of dealing with illegals in Texas is not an open-borders squish.
Santorum ought to approach the issue with a little more circumspection. He spent a decade and a half in Washington, during which time the federal government did approximately zilch on border security, while Perry — who does not have an army or the power to make immigration policy — has dispatched the Texas Rangers, along with millions of dollars, to do a job that Washington ought to be doing but isn’t.
— Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)