TOP

Obama’s Green Energy Policies Hurt the Poor

obamaenergy

Oct 1, 2012 1 Comment Pat DollardExcerpted from The Washington Examiner: President Obama has made so-called “green energy” policies a key part of his economic agenda, but as a new book argues, they actually disproportionately hurt the poor by boosting the cost of energy.

Last week, Examiner columnist and Manhattan Institute fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth, author of the new book “Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America’s Economy,” explained that:

Most people think green is good but pay little attention to associated increases in costs. In 2015, it will cost between $49 and $79 to generate one megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas. A megawatt hour from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, and from solar photovoltaic will cost between $242 and $455.

As her book demonstrates in this chart, rising costs of energy hit lower income Americans the hardest, because they spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy:

Energy Costs as a Percentage of Income by Quintile, 2011

Read More
TOP

Food Stamp spending Doubles under Obama

The chart speaks volumes.  Volumes of Food Stamps that people have to use thanks to Obamanomics.

Read More
TOP

Obama’s Tax Deduction LIE

Obama’s Tax Deduction Lie

From RedState

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  October 5th, 2012 at 10:40 AM  |

Obama thinks the American people are stupid.  Throughout the debate, Obama regurgitated his talking points about a balanced solution to the debt crisis.  In the process he insulted the intelligence of every voter by intimating that the budget can be balanced by eliminating a few tax credits.  No, he didn’t commit to tackling the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security.  He declined to confront the ballooning cost of all the welfare programs.  The only thing he wanted to discuss was eliminating a few tax credits for oil companies and corporate jets.

In May 2011, the Senate took up a bill to eliminate $2 billion worth of tax credits for the gas and oil industry.  Let’s overlook their fallacious charges that these are unique handouts to the industry – and treat them as if they are expenditures.  We are slated to spend over $3.6 trillion this year, yet Obama is obsessing over $2 billion in tax credits.  Here are some of the major expenditures for last fiscal year, including the so-called handouts to big oil (in billions):

Yes, these tax credits barely register among our major ‘expenses.’

Using a 10-year budget frame, we are expected to spend another $46 trillion.  Democrats claim that their plan to cut the oil tax deductions would save us $21 billion over 10 years.  That amounts to .00045% of our estimated outlays.

What about the much beleaguered corporate jet tax deduction?  That would save $3 billion over ten years – $300 million per year.

Mitt Romney rightfully lambasted Obama for overlooking the $90 billion in subsidies for green energy while focusing on a few billion in deductions he feels he could demagogue.

But there’s more to the story than just the dollar figure comparison.  For Obama, a universal tax deduction to those who already pay a lot of taxes is a handout, while a parochial handout to a sectarian interest that pays no taxes is a tax cut.  And the fact is that green energy companies have no tax liability.  Perforce, their tax credits are nothing more than refundable handouts.

The green energy sector is even more parasitic when scrutinized by performance.  Consider this chart detailing our energy usage by source for 2009; solar, wind, and biomass are barely on the map, even though they are almost completely subsidized.  Here is a chart from the Institute for Energy Research comparing federal subsidies per unit of production of different energy sources:

As you can see, Solar is being subsidized by over 1200 times more than fossil fuels, while Wind enjoys over 80 times more in taxpayer cash.  The reality is that no amount of subsidy can compensate for the impotence of green energy.

Moreover, while most of the government’s investments in green energy are in the form of direct subsidies, Oil and Gas companies don’t receive subsidies; they enjoy universal credits and deductions that are afforded to all businesses.    Additionally, oil and gas companies pay an effective corporate tax rate about 55% higher than that of most other industries.  All the while, the renewable-energy sector is ostensibly kept afloat by the taxpayer, offering nothing in terms of revenue.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal laid out the facts about who pays taxes and who doesn’t.

The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available. That alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending—and it would cover a lot of Solyndras. That figure also doesn’t count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business. [...]

Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil and gas company, says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically. Another way of putting it is that for every dollar of net U.S. profits between 2006 and 2010, the company incurred $1.45 in taxes. Exxon’s 2010 tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The company can stay in business because it operates globally and earned a total net income after tax of $30.5 billion in 2010 on revenues of $370.1 billion.

Now let’s contrast that with green energy companies:

For comparison, nuclear power comes in at minus-99.5%, wind at minus-163.8% and solar thermal at minus-244.7%—and that’s before the 2009 Obama-Pelosi stimulus. In other words, the taxpayer loses more the more each of these power sources produces.

If Obama wants his green-energy campaign donors to be on equal footing with oil companies, maybe they should begin producing something useful and actually incur a tax liability before they receive tax credits.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Read More
TOP

How Obama is Hurting America’s Energy Economy

Nicolas Loris

October 1, 2012 at 3:42 pm

 

One of the few bright spots over the past few years in America’s economy has been energy production, but this has occurred largely in spite of this Administration’s energy policies, not because of them.

And the simple fact remains that our energy economy could be even brighter, but egregiously burdensome regulations have stifled energy projects or threaten to dim the lights on the successful energy endeavors that have created jobs and increased supply to put downward pressure on prices. The President has doubled down on wasting billions of dollars to subsidize politically preferred energy sources. Although he has aimed to save or create jobs, in the energy sector he is destroying jobs, threatening to destroy jobs, or failing to create them.

Here are 10 of the most troubling energy and environmental regulations implemented or proposed by the Obama Administration.

  1. Slowing energy production on federal lands. According to a recent report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), energy production decreased 13 percent on federal lands in fiscal year (FY) 2011 when compared to FY 2010. The official moratorium and de facto moratorium as a result of a molasses-like permitting process reduced planned capital and operating investments by $18.3 billion and cost the Gulf more than 900,000 jobs in just the past two years. Federal production in the West has experienced a similar fate: The Administration’s delays on permitting oil and gas projects public lands are preventing economic activity. In Utah and Wyoming, for instance, 20 projects held up by the National Environmental Policy Act process is preventing the creation of 120,905 jobs, $27.5 billion in economic activity, and $139 million in government revenue.
  2. Failing to open areas to exploration and development. Where the Administration is destroying energy jobs on federal jobs, it is failing to create them by aggressively opening America’s federal lands and waters to exploration and development. According to a recent study from energy consultant Wood Mackenzie, allowing access to domestic resources and imports of Canadian oil would generate more than 1 million jobs by 2018 and more than 1.4 million jobs by 2030. The federal government would stand to benefit tremendously as well, collecting more than $36 billion as soon as 2015 and more than $800 billion by 2030.
  3. Delaying a decision on Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the U.S., but President Obama punted the decision until after the election despite bipartisan support and despite the Department of State’s conclusion that the project would pose no significant environmental risk. The pipeline would create thousands of jobs, and the states through which the pipeline would pass—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—would benefit greatly. The six states are collectively projected to receive $5.2 billion in property taxes in the course of the 100-year operating life of the pipeline,
  4. Tripling down on energy subsidies. America’s addiction to energy subsidies began well before President Obama took office. According to the EIA, the U.S. spent $8.2 billion on energy subsidies in 1999. That spending more than doubled to $16.6 billion in 2007. Rather than eliminating subsidies for all energy sectors, President Obama tripled down by providing $53.2 billion in the 2009 stimulus bill for energy programs. We have a diverse, competitive energy sector, but government subsidies merely concentrate power in Washington. Energy subsidies merely shift labor and capital away from economically viable projects that would actually help grow our economy to those projects that have political preference. Further, subsidies increase the incentive to lobby and perpetuate mediocrity in technological innovation by removing the incentive to lower costs and compete in the marketplace without the subsidy.
  5. Stifling all energy projects in red tape. The government’s assault on energy projects is relentless. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified 351 energy projects stalled by “not in my backyard” lawsuits, regulatory red tape, and, of course, endless lawsuits from environmental activists who want to quash these projects. Perhaps most surprising is the fact that almost half of these projects (140) are renewable-energy ones. These energy projects could provide a $1.1 trillion injection to the economy and create almost 2 million jobs.
  6. Shutting down coal. With 497 billion tons of recoverable coal in the U.S.—enough to provide electricity for 500 years at current consumption rates—coal has the potential to be an important resource long into the future. Regrettably, the Obama Administration has taken actions that significantly reduce coal’s share of America’s energy portfolio now and in the future. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory train wreck will prematurely shut down approximately 20 percent of America’s coal-fired electricity generation—enough to power 50 million homes. The EIA projects that 8.5 percent of the coal-fired generation capacity will come offline in the next four years.
  7. Using extreme and unprecedented power. In an unprecedented move, in January 2011, the EPA revoked a water permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007 for a West Virginia mine. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down those EPA procedures, calling them “unreasonable.” The EPA also proposed a more stringent revision of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. Attaining that standard would have exceeded $1 trillion in costs between 2020 and 2030 and destroyed more than 7 million jobs by 2020; it was so devastating economically that President Obama had to request that EPA administrator Lisa Jackson withdraw the agency’s draft for more stringent NAAQS. The EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which would compel companies to retire up to seven gigawatts of electricity generation and retrofit up to 576 plants, was struck down recently by a federal appeals court panel, which decided that the rule “transgressed statutory boundaries.” And the EPA, using inadequate and inaccurate information, is threatening to shut down the Pebble Mine in Alaska, one of the world’s largest concentrations of copper, gold, and molybdenum in the world that would create 1,000 high-paying jobs. The companies have not even applied for the permit yet, but the EPA is threatening to veto the permit because of an environmental analysis of a theoretical mine that would not come close to meeting state and federal standards for mining activities.
  8. Threatening hydraulic fracturing. The shale gas production as a result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has dramatically lowered natural gas prices, saving consumers money through lower energy bills but also lower prices for goods and services. In fact, the Yale Graduates Energy Study Group calculated that in 2010 alone, the consumer surplus (the consumer savings or gain from reductions in price) from shale gas production was worth over $100 billion. The abundance of natural gas makes the U.S. an attractive place to do business, especially for energy-intensive industries. Used in over 1 million wells in the U.S. for more than 60 years, fracking has been successfully used to retrieve more than 7 billion barrels of oil and over 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Just 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to heat 15 million homes for one year. Despite the length of time that hydraulic fracturing has been used, and despite the fact that the states have effectively regulated fracking, the Administration is proposing regulations that would be both unnecessary and duplicative and drive away opportunities for the safe development of affordable, reliable energy. In 2010, unconventional gas supported 1 million jobs in the U.S. and that figure is set to increase to 1.5 million by 2015, with an estimated $3.2 trillion in investments in unconventional gas over the next 25 years.
  9. Shutting down Yucca Mountain. The Obama Administration says it wants to pursue nuclear power, but its rhetoric does not match its nuclear policy. Its decision to abandon the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project without any technical or scientific data is a case in point. With nearly $15 billion spent on the project, the data indicates that Yucca would be a safe place to store America’s used nuclear fuel. Yet the Obama Administration decided to terminate the program without having anything to replace it. Absent any nuclear waste disposal options, the U.S. simply will not significantly expand nuclear energy. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has suspended its reactor licensing activities as a result of this failed policy.
  10. Attacking on consumer choice. The federal government finalized new automobile efficiency rules today for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2025. The government acknowledges that increased fuel efficiency standards will increase the upfront cost of a vehicle. Although the government also estimates that higher prices will be more than offset by gasoline savings, generally these cost savings assume that the buyer keeps the vehicle for its entire lifespan, which usually doesn’t happen. Further, consumers tend to drive new, fuel-efficient vehicles more, which reduces the estimated price, oil, and emissions savings. Higher prices reduce demand and force people to hold onto their older vehicles longer. Reduced demand means fewer cars produced, which means automakers have to shed jobs. Although not directly applicable to the Administration’s new rule, the Michigan-based consulting firm Defour Group projected that a 56 mpg standard would destroy 220,000 jobs. At the heart of the issue is consumer choice. Consumers have plenty of vehicles to choose from, including more than 160 different models today that get better than 30 mpg. While some may argue that the increased efficiency came as a result of mandated fuel efficiency standards that have been around since the 1970s, fuel efficiency has always been a top priority for consumers—whether they are purchasing compact cars, light-duty trucks, or heavy-duty trucks. The federal government shouldn’t be restricting that choice and determining what producers make and what consumers buy.
Read More
TOP

Obama’s FAKE Steel Worker – the LIES continue

 

From the Gateway Pundit

Obama Camp to Deploy Fake GST Steel Employee to Bash Mitt Romney Before Debate

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, September 30, 2012, 8:54 AM
The Obama Campaign will attack Mitt Romney’s business record before the debate this week by sending out a phoney GST steel employee to bash the Republican nominee. David Foster spoke against Mitt Romney at the DNC too.

David Foster’s first line at the DNC:
“I’m David Foster and I was a steelworker for 31 years.” (He forgot to mention he was a union organizer and not an employee of GST steel.)


But David Foster never worked for Bain or GST. He was a union organizer.

The Politico reported:

The Obama campaign will deploy a group of surrogates to go after Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital record in the days surrounding the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, a campaign official said Saturday.

Among those surrogates will be multiple ex-employees of companies owned by Bain. Randy Johnson, the former Ampad worker who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, will campaign in Wisconsin on Oct. 2 and 3. Former Dade Behring employee Cindy Hewitt will appear in Florida on Oct. 3 and 4. And David Foster, who was a union negotiator for workers at the Bain-owned company GST Steel, will visit Ohio on Oct. 3 and 4 and join some of Johnson’s events in Wisconsin.

But former “steelworker” David Foster never worked at GST or Bain. He was a union organizer.
ABC reported on this during the DNC convention:

David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel, but was not employed at our facility,” according to BC Huselton, who was head of HR at GST.

Instead, Foster was a union organizer, who negotiated for workers that did work for the company.

Read More
TOP

Democrat LIES about Romney and Ryan

 

LIES ABOUT ROMNEY/RYAN

Read More
TOP

Obama helped destroy the Middle East

Read More
TOP

Obama will Necessarily make Electricity prices Skyrocket

While the insane Cap & Trade plan didn’t pass, Obama’s EPA is hard at work forcing regulations that don’t make any sense and necessarily hurt businesses, consumers and taxpayers.

Obama in his OWN words:

Read More
TOP

Wages of Obama

A picture is worth a thousand words – or shows the epic FAILURE of the Obama Administration

Read More
TOP

The Lie that Ryan will Ban In Vitro Fertilization

Another egregious lie by Democrats and far left wing groups is that Paul Ryan will ban in vitro fertilization.  Democrats are using the 3 page ‘The Sanctity of Human Life’ bill to make up this lie.  Here’s the TRUTH:

The bill is a declaration regarding when life begins.

The bill does absolutely nothing to address any laws.

There is ZERO language regarding in vitro fertilization.

There is no languange banning ANYTHING in the bill.

Oh and by the way – this bill was NEVER passed.

The full text of the bill is here:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf.  You can read it for yourself and see the ridiculous nature of yet another Democrat lie.

Read More
TOP

Democrats have ZERO respect for Women Voters

Democrats have been telling the most despicable lies to women voters.  They are fearmongering and lying about all for a vote. What they don’t talk about is the higher poverty rate for women under Obama or the high unemployment rate for women under Obama’s reign.

Click on the links below to find out the TRUTH

 

Read More
TOP

Obama in his OWN Words

Obama is his OWN WORDS.

 

h/t Pat Dollard

Read More
TOP

Welfare Spending Increased under Obama

Welfare spending has indeed increased under Obama despite what many Democrats try to spin.   Note that numbers for 2012 are only estimates as the actual numbers have not been released.

Charts below are from www.usgovernmentspending.com and back up the data in the chart above.

Read More
TOP

Spending – Bush vs Obama – Republicans vs Democrats

Seeing as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hasn’t bothered to do his job an put a budget into place in over 3 years… it’s time to take a gander at spending under Obama and versus Bush because the Democrats still like to blame Bush after 3.5 years of having control.

 

 

 

Read More
TOP

Hysterical Liberal Lies that Republicans will ban Abortion

 

Liberal Hysteria:

Republicans are going to ban abortion!!!

Republicans are going to force women to have babies!!

Republicans are going to overturn Roe v Wade!!!

 

The TRUTH:

Even when Republicans held a MAJORITY in all branches of government, Roe v Wade wasn’t overturned.

Even when Republicans held a MAJORITY in all branches of government, there was never a National ban on abortions.

Roe v  Wade is law.

States make laws about abortions, not the Federal Government.

The majority of Republicans believe that abortion is acceptable in the cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at stake.

Even if Republicans would LIKE to ban abortion based on their belief that it is the murder of a child, they have NEVER tried to pass a National Bill banning abortion.

Republicans do not believe the Federal Government should pay for abortions – and neither do the majority of people.  51% of Americans are pro-life; their tax dollars should not be spent on ending life.

 

Liberal women should stop hysterically lying about Republicans and Conservatives and worry more about the record levels of POVERTY that women are in thanks to Democrat policies.

Read More
TOP

Corporations buy Republicans

The Demcorats’ lie that Corporations buy Republicans is just that, a LIE.  As you can see from the chart below:

Notice which political party gets more money in donations…and notice it’s Unions that are buying Democrats.

Read More
TOP

Obama Won’t Raise Taxes

18 New Taxes in Obamacare that will necessarily affect the working and middle classes!!!

Read More
TOP

Obama Campaign Calls Romney a Felon

Obama lies about it to reporters

Read More
TOP

The Democrats’ $6,400 Medicare LIE

Updated August 19, 2012, 10:24 p.m. ET

The $6,400 Myth

Breaking down a false Obama Medicare claim.

 

One of President Obama’s regular attacks on Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is that it would force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care. But merely because he keeps repeating this doesn’t mean it’s in the same area code of accurate.

The claim is based on a now out-of-date Congressional Budget Office estimate of the gap between the cost of health care a decade from now, in 2022, and the size of the House budget’s premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022.

Editorial board member Joe Rago critiques the latest Obama Medicare ad.

In other words, the $6,400 has no relevance for any senior today. None. But it also is unlikely to have any relevance for any senior ever because CBO concedes that its number is highly uncertain and “will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict.” That’s for sure.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during the Victory Rally in Florida at Town Square, Lake Sumter Landing on August 18, 2012 in The Villages, Florida.

The more fundamental problem is that the CBO analysis has nothing to do with the current Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan plan. Nada. Over the last year Mr. Ryan has made major adjustments to his original proposal as he sought a compromise with Democrats. In its most up-to-date analysis, CBO admits that it “does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects” in the new version. That is, it does not have the tools to make its $6,400 exaggeration again.

The reason CBO can’t model the 2013 House budget and the Romney-Ryan plan is that they harness markets with competitive bidding. Congress’s budget gnomes can’t handle these dynamic forces.

So how would Ryan 2.0 work in practice? Traditional Medicare and all private insurers in a region would make bids to cover seniors and compete for their business by offering the best value and prices. Then the government would give everyone a subsidy equal to the second-lowest bid.

If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they’d break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they’d keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they’d get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they’d pay the difference above the government subsidy.

That structure ensures that seniors would have at least two choices (and likely far more) that they are guaranteed to do better than they do now. The amount of the premium-support subsidy would also be tied to underlying health-care costs, so it would not shift costs to beneficiaries, as Democrats also falsely claim. The very reasonable Romney-Ryan policy bet is that costs could nonetheless fall over time because seniors would have the incentive to switch to the most competitively priced Medicare plan.

The latest real-world reason to expect that would happen comes from a new paper by the Harvard economists Zirui Song, David Cutler and Michael Chernew. The researchers—Mr. Cutler used to be an Obama health adviser—looked at Medicare Advantage, the program that currently gives one of four seniors private alternatives (and that ObamaCare deliberately undermines).

The Advantage insurers make bids today against a benchmark set by traditional Medicare spending, and the Harvard trio find that the second lowest bid in 2009 came in 9% below the normal program on average. Medicare costs $717 per person per month, but the cheapest private plan could provide the same coverage for 87 cents on the government dollar. The second cheapest could do it for 91 cents.

Messrs. Song, Cutler and Chernew are alarmed because they say their results imply—broadly speaking—that seniors in traditional Medicare would have to pay $64 a month more if they kept that coverage. (Note: That totals $768 a year, not $6,400.) But a better way of reading the data is that seniors would migrate to more cost-effective options, saving both themselves and taxpayers a bundle.

None of these facts are likely to deter Democrats from their distorted claims. But the truth is that the Ryan-Romney reform isn’t anywhere close to Mr. Obama’s cartoon version.

A version of this article appeared August 20, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The $6,400 Myth.

Read More