American Elephants

The Total Fraud of Obama’s ‘Green-Jobs’— Exposed. by The Elephant's Child

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Energy, Section 1503 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus), the part of the act that covers green energy projects got $9 billion of stimulus cash for 2009-2011. Nine billion. It also created a grand total of 910 direct jobs, those that were directly involved in the ongoing operation of the wind and solar projects that were funded by the Act. Investors described their detective work:

Now, the report doesn’t come right out and say this. You have to pick through it and look past the “indirect” jobs said to have been created by the manufacture and installation of the bird-chopping wind turbines and water-cleansed solar panels.

The administration has a most curious way of describing what a green job is, but if you count just the “direct” jobs, it cost taxpayers $9.8 million to create each of those long-term jobs.

Throw in the indirect jobs supporting the direct jobs estimate of 4,600 (we’re confused too) and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.

John Galvin, the Bureau of Labor Statistics acting commissioner. was grilled by Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-CA) on what actually constitutes a “green job.” Which provides a welcome dose of humor. But $1.63 million per job is a  little startling. Obviously the $1.53 million did not go to the bus drivers and guy who put gas in the school bus. I wonder where it went?

If You’re Beating a Dead Horse, For Heaven’s Sake Dismount! by The Elephant's Child
February 20, 2010, 7:46 pm
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Progressivism | Tags: ,

Back in early September of 2009, Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation wrote:

In 1939, after a doubling of federal spending failed to relieve the Great Depression, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau said that “we have tired spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot!” Japan made the same mistake in the 1990s building the largest government debt in the industrial world) , and the United States is making it today.

This repeated failure has nothing to do with the pace or type of spending. Rather, the problem is found in the oft-repeated Keynesian myth that deficit spending “injects new dollars into the economy,” thereby increasing demand and spurring economic growth. According to this theory, government spending adds money to the economy, taxes remove money, and the budget deficit represents net new dollars injected. Therefore, it scarcely matters how the dollars are spent. John Maynard Keynes famously asserted that a government program paying people to dig and then refill ditches would provide new income for those workers to spend and circulate through the economy, creating even more jobs and income.

Last week, Mr. Riedl added:

On the stimulus’s first anniversary, keep in mind one number: 6.3 million.

That is the Obama jobs gap — the difference between the 3.3 million net jobs President Obama said would be created (not just saved) and the 3 million additional net jobs that have since been lost. …

The White House’s new estimates of “saving” nearly 2 million jobs are not based on observations of the economy’s recent performance. Rather, they are based on the Obama administration’s unshakable belief that deficit spending must create jobs and growth. Specifically, the White House’s “proof” that the stimulus created jobs is an economic model that they programmed to assume that stimulus spending automatically creates jobs. …

The White House says the $300 billion spent from the stimulus thus far has financed as many as 2 million jobs. Maybe. However, the private sector now has $300 billion less to spend, which, by the same logic, means it must lose the same number of jobs, leaving a net employment impact of zero. But the White House’s single-entry bookkeeping simply ignores that side of the equation.

So this time, there will not be another “stimulus.”  There will be a “jobs bill.” When you can’t won’t change your policy, just change the language in which you describe it.  Or possibly “Damn the evidence, full speed ahead.”

President Obama Proposed a “Spending Freeze,” Here’s What That Means. by The Elephant's Child
February 6, 2010, 8:48 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Politics, Taxes | Tags: , , ,

The talk is all about millions and billions and trillions, and it gets really confusing.  President Obama, in his State of the Union speech proposed a domestic “spending freeze” which sounded good.  The question is — does it mean anything?  The answer seems to be — No, not much.  From the mathematician at Political Math.

(h/t: Jonah Goldberg, The Corner)

%d bloggers like this: