Follow by Email

Friday, October 14, 2011

JOBS JOBS JOBS Three Year Span

Real Life History Lesson on Job Creation and Energy Production.

Hey folks,

Back on October 13, 2011, Rush Limbaugh talked about this Article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal - "Green Jobs Brown Out -- How to spend $157,000 per job."

"A new report by the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General examined a $500 million grant under the stimulus program to the Employment and Training Administration to 'train and prepare individuals for careers in "green jobs."' So far about $162.8 million has been spent. The program was supposed to train 125,000 workers, but only 53,000 have been 'trained' so far, only 8,035 have found jobs, and only 1,033 were still in the job after six months." So a half a billion dollars in stimulus money, Porkulus money supposed to go to jobs training for so-called green jobs. Three years later, only a third of that money has been spent, only 40% of the people who were to be trained have been trained, and only 15% of those trainees have gotten jobs, and only 12% of those people have kept the job for six months.

So all told, fewer than 1% of the people who were supposed to be put in green jobs by this green jobs training program now have jobs, and it only has cost $157,000 per job. And there's no business there! But that's not all. There is more. The regime has expanded the definition of green jobs now to include bus drivers. EPA regulators, university professors, that now qualifies as a green job, and therefore suitable for federal funding, even the Washington lobbyists who have been scoring these bad green energy loans. Meanwhile, Obama's latest jobs bill asks for more of exactly the same kind of jobs training for more green jobs.
This was money spent 3 years ago, and THIS is what we have to show for it? No energy, tons of wasted money. No Jobs. Then he talked about this Article in the National Review online - America’s Worst Wind-Energy Project

"The more people know about the wind-energy business, the less they like it," says Mr. Bryce, "And when it comes to lousy wind deals --" now, this is gonna blow your mind -- " General Electric’s Shepherds Flat project in northern Oregon is a real stinker. I’ll come back to the GE project momentarily. Before getting to that, please ponder that first sentence. [Wind-energy proponents admit they need lots of spin to overwhelm the truly informed.] It sounds like a claim made by an anti-renewable-energy campaigner. It’s not. Instead, that rather astounding admission was made by a communications strategist during a March 23 webinar sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy called 'Speaking Out on Renewable Energy: Communications Strategies for the Renewable Energy Industry.'" And they admit they need lots of spin to overwhelm people who really know what's going on.

"During the webinar, Justin Rolfe-Redding, a doctoral student from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University --" now stop and think of that, the Center for Climate Change Communication, a propaganda department at George Mason University "-- discussed ways for wind-energy proponents to get their message out to the public. Rolfe-Redding said that polling data showed that 'after reading arguments for and against wind, wind lost support.' He went on to say that concerns about wind energy’s cost and its effect on property values 'crowded out climate change' among those surveyed.

"The most astounding thing to come out of Rolfe-Redding’s mouth -- and yes, I heard him say it myself -- was this: 'The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.'" The wind energy proponent, the PR guy, the strategist, said, "'The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.' After the briefings on the pros and cons of wind, said Rolfe-Redding, 'enthusiasm decreased for wind. That’s a troubling finding.' The solution to these problems, said Rolfe-Redding, was to 'weaken counterarguments' against wind as much as possible. He suggested using 'inoculation theory' by telling people that 'wind is a clean source, it provides jobs' and adding that 'it’s an investment in the future.' He also said that proponents should weaken objections by 'saying prices are coming down every day.'

"It’s remarkable to see how similar the arguments being put forward by wind-energy proponents are to those that the Obama administration is using to justify its support of Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar company that got a $529 million loan guarantee from the federal government. But in some ways, the government support for the Shepherds Flat deal is worse than what happened with Solyndra. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon is coming courtesy of federal taxpayers." Two billion, forget solar; now we're on to wind. Two billion for the Shepherds Flat wind project

"That largesse will provide a windfall for General Electric and its partners on the deal who include Google, Sumitomo, and Caithness Energy. Not only is the Energy Department giving GE and its partners a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, but as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million. The deal was so lucrative for the project developers that last October, some of Obama’s top advisers, including energy-policy czar Carol Browner and economic adviser Larry Summers, wrote a memo saying that the project’s backers had 'little skin in the game' while the government would be providing 'a significant subsidy (65+ percent).' The memo goes on to say that, while the project backers would only provide equity equal to about 11 percent of the total cost of the wind project, they would receive an 'estimated return on equity of 30 percent.'"

Now, wait. It gets better. "The Obama administration’s loan guarantee for the now-bankrupt Solyndra has garnered lots of attention, but the Shepherds Flat deal is an even better example of corporate welfare. Several questions are immediately obvious: First: Why, as Browner and Summers asked, is the federal government providing loan guarantees and subsidies for an energy project that could easily be financed by GE, which has a market capitalization of about $170 billion?" Why are they being given two billion?

"Second: Why is the Obama administration providing subsidies to GE, which paid little or no federal income taxes last year even though it generated some $5.1 billion in profits from its U.S. operations? Third: How is it that GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, can be the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness while his company is paying little or no federal income taxes? That question is particularly germane as the president never seems to tire of bashing the oil and gas industry for what he claims are the industry’s excessive tax breaks.

"A few months ago, I ran into Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy. I asked him why Duke -- which has about 14,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity -- was investing in wind9energy projects. The answer, said Rogers forthrightly, was simple: The subsidies available for wind projects allow Duke to earn returns on equity of 17 to 22 percent." So my point, green jobs are government jobs, and the government is funding and subsidizing already wealthy corporations and then giving them a large return on their profit. Immelt may as well be in the same bed as Obama is in. "In other words, Shepherds Flat is adding yet more wind turbines to a region that has been overwhelmed this year by excess electrical generation capacity from renewables. And that region will now have to spending huge sums of money building new transmission capacity to export its excess electricity."

As Robert Bryce said, "The more people know about the wind-energy business, the less they like it."
That's because there is NO MARKET for this. There is nothing there. "Alternative" or "Green Energy" doesn't exist. As of yet, no one has come up with a method to make it self sustainable. No one has come up with a plan to make it able to be stored, mass accessible, and affordable for all. Without the Government throwing all this money away propping up these companies, they would simply go away. Then again, with Solyndra, AFTER a half Billion dollars, they STILL went Bankrupt.

So now let look at something TRULY amazing. Remember Perdido? They go out and say, we think there is an Energy Source here. From nothing, 2 years later, they are producing an Energy Source we KNOW will help increase the Supply, lowering the Demand, on what the World NEEDS to run. Here's a Video I hope you find as impressive as I. Check out the Video. It truly is amazing. I said this.

So let's recap. No oil. A structure larger than the Eiffel Tower, weighing as much as 10,000 cars, that will be producing oil from THREE different fields, and a product to market within 2 years. Do not tell me we can't do it. Do not tell me we can't drill our way out of foreign dependency. Out of outrageous gas prices, and do not tell me that this will kill the planet. We can do whatever we set our minds to. THAT is what has always, and will always, keep us great.
So TWO years, we can have increased Revenue to the Government to help pay down debt. Increased National Security. Lower Energy Costs for all. If the Government would just get out of the way, Tens of Thousands of Jobs would be created. Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs, both direct and ancillary, will be created all over the Country. History tells us this.

So which do you prefer? The "Green" Scam? Or REALITY. 3 Years and $500 Million Dollars to Create 1,033 Jobs and NO Energy? Or 2 years that Produce Hundreds of Thousand of Jobs, and affordable Energy for all? OH, and by the way. All that Exploration, Extraction, Refining, and Shipping? It costs Tax Payers ZERO. Not one Dime. No. Not one Pennie.

WSJ - Green Jobs Brown Out
The Washington Examiner - Solyndra funder Kaiser paid zero taxes for years
National Review online - America’s Worst Wind-Energy Project
OPNTalk - Ten to Fifteen Years
Rush Limbaugh - /the_green_jobs_training_scam">The Green Jobs Training Scam

No comments: