Should "Green/alternative" energy loans and subsidies continue?

[tucker]

On the behalf of defenseless, voiceless pond scum everywhere, I'd like to request a retraction of this grievous insult. Just because it's unattractive and smells, it's no reason to further tarnish its reputation by associating it with Obama.

Retracted!

Comparing Obama to a higher form of life like pond scum is insulting.

[tucker]

Ok, let me see if I’ve got this right.

I have a big ugly windmill in my front yard and the roof of my house is covered with expensive solar cells.

And now

Obambi wants me to put a scum filled pond in my back yard, right?

The neighbors are already pissed about the windmill and the mirrors just think what they are going to say about the pond. I guess I won’t be winning any prizes for congeniality.

[AMDScooter]

A-... = fail...

GAO shows grade inflation at the Department of Energy

Remember this moment from two weeks ago? Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) challenged Energy Secretary Steven Chu to assign himself a grade specifically on his stewardship of Department of Energy resources in relation to the 2009 stimulus funds granted for the Loan Guarantee Program. After Broun recites a litany of failures in the LGP, Chu insists that he’s done very well — and gives himself an A-minus:



As it turns out, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has another grade entirely for the LGP, the DoE, and ultimately Energy Secretary Steven Chu. In the report released this week, the GAO’s spot check of applications and loans granted and committed under the LGP — $30 billion in all — shows systemic mismanagement, uncompleted reviews, missing documentation, and a process failure rate of 85% or more, emphases mine:

The Department of Energy (DOE) has made $15 billion in loan guarantees and conditionally committed to an additional $15 billion, but the program does not have the consolidated data on application status needed to facilitate efficient management and program oversight. For the 460 applications to the Loan Guarantee Program (LGP), DOE has made loan guarantees for 7 percent and committed to an additional 2 percent. The time the LGP took to review loan applications decreased over the course of the program, according to GAO’s analysis of LGP data. However, when GAO requested data from the LGP on the status of these applications, the LGP did not have consolidated data readily available and had to assemble these data over several months from various sources. Without consolidated data on applicants, LGP managers do not have readily accessible information that would facilitate more efficient program management, and LGP staff may not be able to identify weaknesses, if any, in the program’s application review process and approval procedures. Furthermore, because it took months to assemble the data required for GAO’s review, it is also clear that the data were not readily available to conduct timely oversight of the program. LGP officials have acknowledged the need for a consolidated system and said that the program has begun developing a comprehensive business management system that could also be used to track the status of LGP applications. However, the LGP has not committed to a timetable to fully implement this system.

The LGP adhered to most of its established process for reviewing applications, but its actual process differed from its established process at least once on 11 of the 13 applications GAO reviewed. Private lenders who finance energy projects that GAO interviewed found that the LGP’s established review process was generally as stringent as or more stringent than their own. However, GAO found that the reviews that the LGP conducted sometimes differed from its established process in that, for example, actual reviews skipped applicable review steps. In other cases, GAO could not determine whether the LGP had performed some established review steps because of poor documentation. Omitting or poorly documenting reviews reduces the LGP’s assurance that it has treated applicants consistently and equitably and, in some cases, may affect the LGP’s ability to fully assess and mitigate project risks. Furthermore, the absence of adequate documentation may make it difficult for DOE to defend its decisions on loan guarantees as sound and fair if it is questioned about the justification for and equity of those decisions. One cause of the differences between established and actual processes was that, according to LGP staff, they were following procedures that had been revised but were not yet updated in the credit policies and procedures manual, which governs much of the LGP’s established review process. In particular, the version of the manual in use at the time of GAO’s review was dated March 5, 2009, even though the manual states it was meant to be updated at least annually, and more frequently as needed. The updated manual dated October 6, 2011, addresses many of the differences GAO identified. Officials also demonstrated that LGP had taken steps to address the documentation issues by beginning to implement its new document management system. However, by the close of GAO’s review, LGP could not provide sufficient documentation to resolve the issues identified in the review.

On 11 of 13 loan applications investigated by the GAO, they found that the DoE hadn’t done the required work for reviewing and approving applications. That’s an 85% failure rate. And more than three years into this program, even with the deficiencies identified, the DoE still hasn’t fixed their problems. That kind of failure is more associated with an F-minus, not an A-minus.

Furthermore, as I note in my column for The Fiscal Times, this comes from the same administration that loves to harp on “irresponsible lenders” who fail to adhere to lending and documentation standards when playing with their own money:

President Obama himself told a Nevada town hall in February 2010 that “tax dollars shouldn’t be used to reward the very irresponsible lenders and borrowers who helped bring about the housing crisis.” At least that was Obama’s position until this month, when he announced a plan that would expand HAMP to include the real-estate speculators that helped inflate the housing bubble.

Almost exactly a year prior to the Nevada town hall, Obama gave a speech in Mesa, Arizona in which he castigated “dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibly, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didn’t know better.”

Just one month ago, Obama spoke about the legal settlement with the banks that finally allowed long-pent-up foreclosures to move forward. In his speech, Obama twice mentions irresponsible actions by lenders that hurt others who acted more responsibly. He specifically noted the robo-signing and other violations that drove the process off the rails and cost many people their homes:“In many cases, they didn’t even verify that these foreclosures were actually legitimate. Some of the people they hired to process foreclosures used fake signatures on fake documents to speed up the foreclosure process. Some of them didn’t read what they were signing at all.”

Except for the fake signatures, that sounds like a pretty fair description of what the GAO found in its audit of the Department of Energy and the Loan Guarantee Program. With $30 billion in taxpayer money at risk, the DOE under Steven Chu didn’t bother to conduct the reviews it claimed it would on applications for loan guarantees, didn’t keep records of what reviews they did accomplish, and signed off on loans with incomplete documentation and inadequate oversight of the risk. The result — perhaps $6.5 billion immediately at risk, according to CBS, and possibly most of the $30 billion.

Be sure to read it all. This GAO report should have heads rolling at the Department of Energy, especially that of Professor Chu, who demonstrated the most extreme case of grade inflation yet seen.

Update: The Anchoress asks, “ remember when he wanted us all to paint our rooftops white, to save the planet?”

[SteveW]

^ Don't you worry your little head, they'll surely run the new Health Care program better.......

[AMDScooter]

^ Don't you worry your little head, they'll surely run the new Health Care program better.......

So far only twice the cost for fewer people insured... better than I expected.

[Dutchcedar]

So far only twice the cost for fewer people insured... better than I expected.

Free rubbers.

I'm convinced that liberals believe in the adage, "you have to spend money to make money".

[SteveW]

So far only twice the cost for fewer people insured... better than I expected.

So far only twice what was originally forecast - give 'em time and it will grow, and grow and grow......

[AMDScooter]

Ecoinsanity defined. Gubberment sponsors a $10 million dollar contest to create an affordable light bulb and awards prize to $50 a pop bulb creator.

The Government We Deserve: Government Contest For Green, Affordable Light Bulb Results In One Lucky Winner... And One $50 Light Bulb

Affordable light bulb.

Fifty smackers.

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.”...


Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” said Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs. “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

What can you say.

By "Cadillac product," I assume they mean something like "achieves a type of illumination nearly as good as the 4-for-$1.50 light bulbs which have now been outlawed."

Do us all a favor Chu. Stop doling out billions of our tax dollars to your ecotard pals and go paint your roof white.

[AMDScooter]

Fisker back in the news..

10 Reasons Why Fisker May Be Worse Than Solyndra

This story has been updated below.

Automotive and green technology advocacy Web sites are abuzz with a story about a former employee of Fisker Automotive who claims the company released its $102,000-plus Karma electric sport sedan prematurely, in order to meet targets set forth by the Department of Energy so Fisker could access funds from a $529 million loan award.

This followed reports from all over the Internet that Consumer Reports purchased a Karma in Connecticut for $107,850, only to see it totally disabled before the magazine could run it through its tests.

The whistleblower story originated on the pro-Clean tech Web site Gigaom.com, and was written by electric vehicle cheerleader Katie Fehrenbacher. According to her report, “The former Fisker employee said that it wasn’t uncommon for the first Karma cars to have technical issues, and said that was one reason for leaving Fisker — the employee now works at electric car company Coda.” Fisker has drawn $193 million on the DOE loan, with the last reimbursement in May 2011, but can no longer access those funds because of its failure to attain other milestones under the loan agreement.

No one has speculated publicly who the whistleblower might be, so I will. A likely suspect is Coda’s senior vice president of engineering, Thomas Fritz. According to his bio, Fritz headed Fisker’s engineering department for more than three years, and before that had 23 years automotive engineering experience that included Ford, BMW and Rolls Royce. So if anybody is in the position to say authoritatively that the Karma was released before it was ready, it’s Fritz.

The timing makes sense too. Fritz left Fisker in March last year, the same month the Karma was put into production. He landed at Coda in June, only a month after Fisker received its last payment from the DOE loan. Besides the need to meet DOE expectations, Fisker may have responded to market pressures as well.

“A lot of our deposit-holders have been waiting two years or more for their cars,” Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher told Edmunds in March 2011. “We really want to give them firsthand experience with what the Fisker Karma is all about before they finalize their orders and pick trim and color and everything else.”

If the company didn’t come up with something soon, did they run the risk of having to refund down payments to the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore?

Let’s review what has become the Fisker fiasco, which may eventually exceed the Solyndra scandal on the embarrassment scale for the Obama administration:

1. DOE, under Secretary Steven Chu, awarded Fisker a $529 million loan guarantee to produce a vehicle – the Karma – that retails for a $102,000 base price. If the average owner of the $41,000 Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year, it’s logical to conclude this will subsidize the purchase of a luxury car for the very wealthy.

2. Among Fisker’s highest profile backers is the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, which boasts Gore as a senior partner, and whose employees have donated $2.6 million to candidates and political action committees, favoring Democrats over Republicans by a very wide margin, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Fisker’s raisers of private capital are Keith Daubenspeck and Dwight Badger of Chicago-based Advanced Equities, Inc., who have been accused of “foisting junky startups on investors” and are now the subjects of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

3. KPCB spent $50,000 per quarter throughout 2009 and 2010 lobbying Congress on legislation that was heavy-laden with renewable energy government incentives, and Fisker lobbied Congress, the White House and the Departments of Energy and Defense – spending $190,000 in 2009, $480,000 overall – to seek funds through DOE’s loan program, among other things.

4. The law firm that reviewed Fisker’s loan for DOE was Debevoise and Plimpton, whose employees gave nearly $200,000 for President Obama’s campaign in 2008. Debevoise was paid $1.8 million by DOE to negotiate loan terms and conduct due diligence on the Fisker loan and another to Ford Motor Company.

5. Despite receiving $193 million from taxpayers to create U.S. “green” jobs, the Karma is assembled in Finland.

6. Doing the politician thing, the Obama administration took credit for the new “green” jobs they would create as Vice President Biden visited a former General Motors plant in Delaware that Fisker planned to overhaul to produce its Nina model.

7. Despite having access to more than $1 billion total -- according to previous reports that include Fisker’s own admission -- the company terminated 65 employees in February, and stopped the Delaware renovations.

8. Fisker’s shortcomings and mismanagement are contributing to the troubles – and perhaps the eventual downfall – of its battery supplier, A123 Systems, which let go 125 of its plant workers in November. Don’t feel bad for the owners of A123 though, who have received at least $279 million in grants from DOE, as they took care of themselves nicely with raises and parachutes after the factory firings.

9. Consumer Reports bought a Karma to test at its facility, and the vehicle died during its check-in. “We buy about 80 cars a year and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process.”

10. A former Fisker employee – possibly its head of engineering – said the company rushed the Karma to market before all its technological problems had been resolved, in order to capitalize on its DOE loan.

Of course many of these points also apply to Solyndra, but the only reasons Fisker has not superseded Solyndra on the disaster scale is because it has not declared bankruptcy yet and it has received a little less money (although it was "awarded" about the same amount). But with A123, it may turn out to be “two Solyndras for the price of one,” as Forbes described it.

It doesn’t stop there – other undeserving, failed companies like Abound Solar, Ener1, and Beacon Power have received taxpayer grants or backing from DOE under Secretary Chu. The administration of stimulus funds on his watch has been inept at best and corrupt at worst. With his bungling on the gas prices issue, he is both a political and practical liability.

He is, however, the perfect representation of the administration’s priorities and practices. He truly needs to leave, but he’s not the only one.

Update 9:10 a.m., 3/16/2012: Fisker believes the so-called whistleblower in the Gigaom.com article to be a former employee of a dealership, not of the company, and calls his allegations "absolutely untrue."

Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center.

Looks like the vote tally confirms what most already knew.. "Green/alternative" energy loans and subsidies need to go.

[AMDScooter]

I like the idea. Let's just end subsidies period. Real businesses will be the only ones left standinding.

Obama stuck on repeat: End subsidies for big oil

[AMDScooter]

"Taxpayer backed" with this administration means we're paying for it....

Class Action Filed Against Taxpayer-Backed First Solar

Oh.. and this is the good part. their bestus customer..?? Themselves..

Firm sells solar panels - to itself, taxpayers pay

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (L) and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke (R) listen to US Vice President Joseph Biden (C) speak to local officials June 23, 2009, at Willard & Kelsey Solar Group in Perrysburg, Ohio. Biden toured the facility before speaking about the struggles of hard hit auto communities. (Photo by J.D. Pooley/Getty Images)

A heavily subsidized solar company received a U.S. taxpayer loan guarantee to sell solar panels to itself.

First Solar is the company. The subsidy came from the Export-Import Bank, which President Obama and Harry Reid are currently fighting to extend and expand. The underlying issue is how Obama's insistence on green-energy subsidies and export subsidies manifests itself as rank corporate welfare.

Here's the road of subsidies these solar panels followed from Perrysburg, Ohio, to St. Clair, Ontario.

First Solar is an Arizona-based manufacturer of solar panels. In 2010, the Obama administration awarded the company $16.3 million to expand its factory in Ohio -- a subsidy Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland touted in his failed re-election bid that year.

Five weeks before the 2010 election, Strickland announced more than a million dollars in job training grants to First Solar. The Ohio Department of Development also lent First Solar $5 million, and the state's Air Quality Development Authority gave the company an additional $10 million loan.

After First Solar pocketed this $17.3 million in government grants and $15 million in government loans, Ex-Im entered the scene.

In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two solar farms in Canada. That means if the solar farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.

But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.

A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the solar farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar's panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this "export."

First Solar spokesman Alan Bernheimer defended this maneuver, saying this really was an export, pointing out that First Solar paid sales taxes on the transaction.

But this subsidy undermines the arguments for Ex-Im's existence. Ex-Im, whose authorization expires May 31, is supposed to be a job creator, helping U.S. manufacturers beat foreign manufacturers by having U.S. taxpayers backstop the financing.

"It is critical that we encourage more American companies to compete in the global marketplace," Ex-Im Chairman Fred Hochberg said about the First Solar deal, saying the subsidy "will boost Ohio's economy, create hundreds of local jobs and move us closer to President Obama's goal of doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014."

The implication here is that First Solar was "competing" with foreign solar panel makers in order to sell solar panels -- to First Solar.

This isn't the first time Ex-Im has subsidized companies selling to themselves. In late 2000, for instance, the ill-fated power giant Enron won a $132 million direct-loan package from Ex-Im (that is, from the taxpayers) in order to sell "engineering services & process equipment" to a Venezuelan power company owned 49.25 percent by Enron. Enron was both the buyer and the seller in a 1995 sale to Turkey that Ex-Im financed through a $250 million loan.

Enron's healthy feedings at Ex-Im's trough before its bankruptcy also help poke holes in another Ex-Im defense: that it operates at no cost to taxpayers.

Sure, as long as the foreign buyer pays off the debt, then Ex-Im's loans and guarantees don't increase the deficit. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were profitable for years, too, before they failed and taxpayers had to bail them out. Once foreign governments and foreign companies start defaulting, taxpayers pick up the tab. At least one Enron deal resulted in U.S. taxpayers contributing to the Enron bankruptcy fund. Also, Ex-Im has ended up owning a 747 after Air Nauru failed to make its payments because the island nation's economy -- dependent on seagull droppings -- went under.

This week, First Solar unloaded its St. Clair solar farm to NextEra Energy, and so First Solar's financial troubles don't threaten to put the taxpayer on the hook for this deal. But the Ex-Im subsidy itself was a great case in point as to how national industrial policy pitched in the name of helping the U.S. economy often does nothing to help the broader economy, instead helping only those companies lucky -- or politically connected -- enough to get the handouts.

Obama, Reid and most of the Republican leadership want to reauthorize Ex-Im this month and boost the amount of debt it can have outstanding. The lobbyists at Boeing, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers agree. They'll claim Ex-Im is crucial to prosperity. And for a few companies, it is.

-----

CORRECTION: Due to my own brain slip-ups, this column originally referred, repeatedly, to wind farms. No wind farms are involved here. All solar. My apologies for the carelessness and the confusion it caused. -TPC

Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

SCOAMF backed Ponzi scheme.

[AMDScooter]

Administration is getting ready with it's next slew of taxpayer funded political payoffs.

The Energy Department Prepares For The Next Round Of Solyndra Loans

Good news, everybody! A gang of government bureaucrats who couldn’t run a business if their lives depended on it are about to start shoveling billions of your tax dollars at alternative energy firms that are on track to start producing a significant percentage of America’s energy sometime around two thousand never.

. . .

In related news that's not news..

Green energy firm secured millions in taxpayer funding, now faces SEC investigation

Green energy firm Ecotality won plaudits from President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. It was supposed to build 15,000 electric-vehicle charging stations in 18 cities across America, a shining success of the economic stimulus and recipient of a Department of Energy grant.

Ecotality collected roughly $115 million in stimulus funding to manufacture these charging stations for electric vehicles. It secured another $26.4 million from the Department of Energy last October as part of the agency’s “Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation project.”

Today, however, the San Francisco-based company is garnering attention in the nation’s capital for a different reason. Ecotality is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading. Investigative reporter Lachlan Markay, my colleague at The Heritage Foundation, outlined in a three-part series this week the scale of Ecotality’s problems and the ramifications for taxpayers who were left subsidizing a company that failed to accomplish its objectives.

. . .

&

September 13, 2010

63,000 Jobs!!!! YAY!



Then gobs of Obamabucks stopped rolling in..

Video Shows President Obama, Top Politicians Praising Failed Green Company
Obama, Granholm, Levin, Stabenow and Energy Secretary Chu all praised troubled battery manufacturer

A video that has gone virtually unseen highlights the high-powered political rhetoric and unrealized promises put forth by President Barack Obama and Michigan’s top Democratic politicians regarding the heavily subsidized and now-troubled A123 Systems battery manufacturer.

The video, which had just over 600 views since it was posted in Oct. 2010 on YouTube, has Obama, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow singing the praises of the now-troubled advanced battery manufacturer A123 Systems.

A123 Systems, which opened its lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant in Livonia in September 2010, saw its stock plummet to the lowest price ever at 82 cents this week. The previous high was nearly $26.

A class action lawsuit was filed against A123 Systems this week on behalf of shareholders alleging a violation of federal security laws. According to Business Week, the lawsuit claims A123 Systems withheld information about defective batteries from shareholders who bought stock between Feb. 28 and March 23, 2012. The company estimated last month that the cost of replacing the defective batteries would be $55 million.

Last month, the company reported losing $90 million in 2011. It also laid off 125 of its reported 1,000 Michigan employees last year.

The company has become a poster child of government subsidies for green energy initiatives. The state of Michigan gave A123 Systems $100 million in MEGA tax credits. A123 Systems also received another $41 million in tax breaks and subsidies from the state. The Department of Energy awarded A123 Systems a $249.1 million grant as part of the federal "stimulus program."

Even with all the government subsidies, the company has suffered several setbacks.

But in 2010, politicians painted a far different future for A123 Systems.

In the video, Gov. Granholm’s press conference on A123 Systems was interrupted by a phone call.

It was President Obama on the line to remind the audience that it was his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that enabled A123 Systems to be the “first American factory to start high-volume production of advanced vehicle batteries.”

Secretary Chu said in the video that he hoped A123 Systems could create “thousands of jobs.”

“It really does make me feel really happy, proud that we are starting things, giving jobs, creating new jobs and hopefully the first 300 are just the beginning. Another 300 and another 300 …thousands of jobs," he said. "It’s going to be great.”

Sen. Levin predicted “thousands of jobs” by 2011. Gov. Granholm said it made Michigan the “advanced battery capital of North America.”

The video highlights the political rhetoric behind Michigan’s green crusade, said one environmental policy expert.

“This shows the utter dysfunction of politicians’ efforts at economic development via media events and ribbon cuttings,” said Paul Chesser, associate fellow for the National Legal & Policy Center, in an email. “Just because they say a business will work, and they throw millions of taxpayer dollars at it, doesn’t mean it will be a success. Elected officials who conduct their policy planning this way exhibit tremendous arrogance.”

Senators Levin and Stabenow didn’t immediately provide comments when messages were left at their offices. A123 Systems Spokesman Dan Borgasano didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Now no one want's to talk about it.. go figure.

[AMDScooter]

Sooo last month.. but relevant.

Rasmussen: Trickle-down environmentalism a loser

Will another campaign to generate more money for government subsidies on green technology, especially electric vehicles, impress voters in 2012? Not exactly, according to today’s Rasmussen poll. Some may call it crony capitalism, Scott Rasmussen calls Obama’s policies “trickle-down environmentalism,” but either way it doesn’t impress voters at all:

As president, Obama called for putting 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015. He backed that call with more than $5 billion in taxpayer subsidies to jump-start the electric car industry. The president also put in place a program that gave $7,500 to anyone who would actually buy an electric car. Despite that support, sales were minimal in 2011, so his new budget proposes hiking that subsidy to $10,000 a car.

Voters are skeptical. Just 29 percent favor the $10,000 subsidies, while 58 percent are opposed. When told that reaching the goal of a million electric cars on the road could cost taxpayers $10 billion in subsidies, opposition reaches 65 percent. Voters are looking to reduce federal spending, not increase it.

But there’s an important detail suggesting the president’s plan could be an even bigger loser in the court of public opinion. The CEO of General Motors said recently that the average income of those buying Chevy’s electric Volt is approximately $170,000 a year. That puts electric car buyers in the same league as BMW buyers or those who drive a Mercedes-Benz. It may not be the 1 percent, but it qualifies in the top 7 percent of all American earners. That’s a more elite group than those who buy Cadillacs or Lexus cars.

Such trickle-down environmentalism is hardly appealing to voters. Seventy-three percent believe those who earn $150,000 or more should pay the full cost of the car themselves. Only 13 percent think a government subsidy is appropriate.

The Wall Street Journal takes a more in-depth look at the impact of government subsidies on job creation, and finds that voters’ skepticism is well-founded:

Companies have received more than $10 billion to create jobs and renewable energy by building wind farms, solar projects and other alternatives to oil and natural gas under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The program expired in December, and President Barack Obama proposed last week that Congress revive it in the 2013 budget.

On federal applications, companies said they created more than 100,000 direct jobs at 1603-funded projects. But a Wall Street Journal investigation found evidence of far fewer. Some plants laid off workers. Others closed. …

The 1603 program gave $10.7 billion to 5,098 businesses for 31,540 projects, according to the Treasury Department. Recipients were generally reimbursed 30% of their costs after projects were finished.

Those businesses claimed on federal applications that they created 102,883 jobs directly. But the Journal found evidence of far fewer.

About 40% of the funding, $4.3 billion, went to 36 wind farms. During the peak of construction, they employed an average of 200 workers apiece—a total of roughly 7,200 jobs.

Now, those projects employ about 300 people, according to the companies and economic development officials. Their parent companies employ many more, both in the U.S. and abroad.

In Texas, the state comptroller estimated the Cedro Hill wind farm would create 531 jobs directly and indirectly during construction in 2010 and taper down to 44 jobs this year, according to computer models and information from developers.

But county officials said few locals were hired.

Here’s a cautionary tale from the Obama administration’s attempt to pick winners and losers in the energy markets with these subsidies:

Private-equity firm Wayzata Investment Partners created neither jobs nor energy with the $6.5 million it received for a plant in Thompson Falls, Mont. The facility had state permits to burn coal and wood for energy, and Wayzata had invested more than $20 million to comply with government rules, said a person familiar with the matter.

After finishing the work, this person said, Wayzata told Treasury officials the plant would burn only wood; coal-burning plants don’t qualify for 1603 money.

But Wayzata found it couldn’t make money operating the plant on just wood without investing millions of dollars more in equipment improvements, said three people with knowledge of the project.

Wayzata submitted its application to the Treasury Department and in June 2010 received its payment. By then, the plant had not produced power for months, regulatory filings show. The facility, which still doesn’t produce power, is for sale. Wayzata representatives declined to comment.

Well, Obama spent $6.5 million to get them to stop burning coal. And it worked! Too bad everyone lost their jobs, but hey, you have to break a few million eggs to make a coal-free omelette, or something.

Speaking of which, just where do people think they’ll get the electricity to run those million-plus electric vehicles? Michael Ramirez, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for Investors Business Daily, reminds us that all of the new demand for electricity will need a power source capable of supplying it. And that means …

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history. Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here. And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.

[AMDScooter]

Moar "Green energy" kablooey...

REUTERS: OBAMA'S 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS HAVE BEEN A BUST

A recent lengthy report by Reuters confirms what many conservatives have long known: President Obama's promise to create millions of so-called "green jobs" has been a colossal and expensive failure.
A few highlights from the report:

Since 2009, the wind industry has lost 10,000 jobs, even as the energy capacity of wind farms has almost doubled. By contrast, the oil and gas industry have created 75,000 jobs since Mr. Obama took office.

"A $500 million job-training program has so far helped fewer than 20,000 people find work, far short of its goal." The program was so bad that "the Labor Department's inspector general recommended last fall that the agency should return the $327 million that remained unspent." They didn't. And now, the department "remains far short of its goal of placing 80,000 workers into green jobs by 2013."

According to the Labor Department's own figures, the push for so-called "green jobs" has been an abysmal failure. "By the end of 2011, some 16,092 participants had found new work in a "green" field, according to the Labor Department - roughly one-fifth of its target."

The article also highlights the degree to which Obama's big jobs promises have fallen flat. For example, in 2008, Obama promised that "investing" $150 billion taxpayer dollars would create 5 million jobs over 10 years. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden's past green jobs statements now read like punchlines:

"We'll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings, and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs," he said at a wind-turbine plant in Ohio the day before he took office.

In December 2009, Vice President Joe Biden said the effort would create 722,000 green jobs.

None of this will come as a surprise to conservatives and Republicans. Indeed, the ream of failed green energy stories is endless. Still, it's encouraging to see a consensus among mainstream media begin to sprout--even if green jobs aren't.

[kbohip]

^^^Every time I read about another one of BO's great "Green" plans to put Americans back to work, all I can think of is that great scene in the movie "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield. Replace "tape recorders" with "Li-Ion batteries" or "Green technology" and you'll find it's a perfect analogy.