Politics and the US Economy

[4est_4est_Gump]

The problem here was that they weren't even making a bet, a lot of the companies in question were headed up by big-time bundlers.




__________________
When you work for government, government works for you.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[RightField]

Economic Illiteracy, Thou Art Obama's Defense of Solyndra
By John Tamny


Dissembling about the capital destruction debacle that was his Administration's loan guarantee to bankrupt green-energy firm Solyndra, President Obama told ABC News last week that "if we want to compete with China, which is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this space...we've got to make sure that our guys here in the United States of America at least have a shot."

Of course if the president were better schooled in basic economics, he would well understand that "our guys" do have a shot to compete in this space thanks to U.S. capital markets being the deepest in the world. Thanks to angel financing, venture capital, PIPEs, convertible bonds, bonds themselves, and stock issuance, those with a good idea have myriad options when it comes to marrying their innovation with capital.

And there lies the obvious problem with Solyndra. Unable to raise needed operating funds in the private markets, it was forced to go to the federal government to get what our markets would not provide.

The implications for our economy are similarly obvious. Though $535 million is presently a laughable sum to a government that knows no limits, and which doles out a great deal more to support the waste that increasingly symbolizes Washington, there's an unseen quality to this.

Indeed, what's continuously forgotten by our federal minders is that they have no resources. For the Obama administration to guarantee a $500 million dollar loan is for it to ultimately extract $500 million from the private economy where it might have actually funded a real, economy enhancing concept. Unseen is what Microsofts, Intels and Facebooks (the latter's initial funding $500,000 - Facebook supposedly now worth $75 billion) will never see the light of day thanks to the political class's hubristic belief that it knows better than private markets disciplined by success and failure about where capital should be allocated.

As for President Obama's assertion that we need to fund these ideas to "compete", apparently he's oblivious to the basic truth that an idea is not wealth unless the distribution of that which entrepreneurs create is broad. Assuming the Chinese rush ahead of us in the green technology space, in order for its private companies or its government to achieve a return on investment they'll have to sell their innovations into the marketplace; final destination unknown.

In short, assuming the Chinese crack the alternative energy code on the way to market-changing advances for energy and environmental preservation, Americans will enjoy them as though they'd been conceived in Silicon Valley. And for those eager to make the laughable assertion that the Chinese will not sell us those advances, we'll simply purchase them from those they do sell to.

Of course if the opposite occurs, as in if this rush to alternative energy with the money of others proves the capital wasting joke that an already skeptical marketplace presumes, the American economy will be better off for Americans not wasting human, physical and financial capital on something of no economic value. The reality is that the Japanese are ahead of us with televisions, the Italians perhaps are with shoes and clothing, and the Brazilians harvest better coffee beans, but we enjoy all three thanks to our own comparative productivity in other areas.

Basically we let others make our televisions, suits and coffee, and this gives us time to create Google, Coca-Cola and Amazon. A more wealth enhancing trading relationship would be hard to find, but with our president laboring under the absurd notion that trade is war and the imports that reward our productivity hurt us, he's used and is using his power of taxation to force Americans to fund that which the markets don't presently want.

Importantly, there's a lesson here for many on the right in this country deluded by the economy-sapping notion of "energy independence." Just as we'll be the beneficiaries of any worthy Chinese advancements in green technology should they ever materialize, so will we be able to consume the world's oil irrespective of where it's discovered as though it bubbled up in West Texas. Oil is not wealth until it reaches the marketplace, U.S. interests are "size buyers" of the petroleum product, and with there existing no control over the final destination of any commodity, a world awash in oil means we'll purchase as much as we want for as long as we want at the global price.

At present there exists the fiction that oil is expensive when in fact oil is only expensive insofar as the dollar is cheap, so commentators who should know better argue for drilling anywhere and everywhere with an eye on "creating jobs." It should be stressed that this writer has no objection to drilling anywhere and everywhere, but with Texas's implosion (and the resulting collapse of banks bailed out by U.S. taxpayers) during the strong dollar ‘80s in mind, it should be said that we always eventually return to a strong dollar, the latter will quickly expose much of this excitement about oil deposits stateside as non-economic, so let's at least curb our enthusiasm.

Oil is no different than any other commodity desired by market actors, and we should view it much as we do increasingly worthless solar panels made in the U.S. If we want either, there's a market we can enter for both.

Though unaware when he uttered it last week, President Obama's illiterate defense of government subsidization of green energy explains exactly why the government shouldn't be subsidizing it. As he notes the Chinese are spending a lot more on alternative energies than we are, which means we can sit back and either see them fail, or better yet, see them succeed on the way to importing their innovations. Either way we win.

 

[RightField]

This is just the first section, the rest of the article is in the link below.

Obama's Off-Target Class War
By JOEL KOTKIN | 10/12/11 9:30 PM EDT
Politico

For many conservatives, the notion of class warfare that President Barack Obama now evokes is both un-American and noxious — a crass attempt to cash in on envy among the masses. Yet the problem is not in class warfare itself — but in being clear what class you are targeting.

In this sense, Obama’s populism is little more than a faux version. He is not really going after the privileges of the super-rich — that would involve actions like removing the advantages of capital gains over earned income or limiting dodges to nonprofit foundations or family trusts. Rather than a war against plutocrats, Obama’s thrust is against the upper end of the middle class, whose income is most vulnerable to higher taxes.

The president is within his rights to use these class warfare tactics; it’s just too bad he is aiming at the wrong target. Exploiting class divisions, in fact, has long been a part of American politics — from the Jacksonian era through Abraham Lincoln, the New Deal and even Bill Clinton. Obama’s sudden tilt toward class warfare may thrill left-wing commentators such as The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner. But it’s no real threat to the real ruling classes.

Though the president’s rhetoric focuses on “millionaires and billionaires,” his proposals do less harm to the ultrarich and their trustifarian offspring than to the large professional and entrepreneurial classes, whose members are earning more than $200,000 a year. More affluent than most Americans, these members of the upper middle class hardly constitute oligarchs. Ninety percent of the targeted class earns less than $1 million annually. Only a tiny sliver, or .01 percent, are billionaires.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal to raise the target income level closer to $1 million is a concession to political common sense — but still avoids the big distinction between investor and income earner. Meanwhile, the administration’s rhetorical gambit of using Warren Buffett as the class warfare poster boy reveals its fundamental disingenuousness.

Many rich do avoid high taxes through dynastic trusts concocted largely to avoid the Internal Revenue Service. Others, like Buffett, put vast amounts into foundations — in his case, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where it sits tax free. In addition, the patrician class, because its members tend to be more active investors, also pays less, largely because its capital gains earnings are taxed at a low 15 percent rate, less than half that paid by high-income professionals.

Obama’s biggest problem with class is that his policies have made a bad situation worse. During both the Clinton administration and most of the George W. Bush years, the rich prospered. But so, too, did middle- and working-class homeowners, professionals and construction workers.

Today, however, only the high-end housing market, roughly 1.5 percent of the market, is flourishing. The vast majority have seen their property values shrink — down 30 percent since 2006. Markets, like Manhattan , which is increasingly dominated by foreign investors, have surged — the average price of a New York condo or co-op has topped $1.4 million, a nifty 3 percent increase over last year.

But to a large degree, this reflects those who are the biggest beneficiaries of the largesses of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: hedge fund managers, investment bankers, the corporate aristocracy and officials of “too big to fail” banks. For these financiers, the time since the economic collapse has been very fat years — at least until the European debt crisis.

The situation, however, has been far worse for small businesses — with serious consequences for job creation. The number of start-ups with employees — the traditional source of new jobs — has dropped 23 percent since 2008. Most entrepreneurs, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, expect the job market to weaken and unemployment to stay high for the foreseeable future.

“Corporate profits may be at a record high,” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist of the National Federation of Independent Business, “but businesses on Main Street are still scraping by.”

Obama’s phony class war also carries considerable political risk. As Mark Penn, the former Clinton adviser, and others have pointed out, the newest Obama tax strategy most penalizes the professionals who flocked to his cause in 2008. These voters — concentrated largely in high-tax, high-cost blue states — are also particularly vulnerable to any reduction of write-offs for mortgage interest and state taxes.

Obama’s left turn also fails to address the America’s biggest problem: how to ignite broad economic growth.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65768.html#ixzz1afMLJ3Wt

 

[RightField]

The scapegoat strategy
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: October 13
Washington Post


What do you do if you can’t run on your record — on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn’t noticed that you’ve been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains.

President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America’s dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.

Didn’t work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama’s base lusts for above all.

Hence Obama’s new strategy: Don’t whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich — and their Republican protectors — for wrecking America.

In Obama’s telling, it’s the refusal of the rich to “pay their fair share” that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don’t pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

And then what? Haven’t gotten that far.

No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles — and its failures — on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.

From the Senate to the streets, it’s working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.

 

[mercury14]

It's like RightField needs his own forum.

 

[RightField]

Welcome to the new world of Hope and Change!


U.S. "misery index" rises to highest since 1983
Ann Saphir

CHICAGO (Reuters) - An unofficial gauge of human misery in the United States rose last month to a 28-year high as Americans struggled with rising inflation and high unemployment.

The misery index -- which is simply the sum of the country's inflation and unemployment rates -- rose to 13.0, pushed up by higher price data the government reported on Wednesday.

The data underscores the extent that Americans continue to suffer even two years after a deep recession ended, with a weak economic recovery imperiling President Barack Obama's hopes of winning reelection next year.

Inez Stallworth, an underwriting assistant for a financial services company, recently gave up her car, in part because of rising costs for gasoline and groceries.

"I can't fit it in," said the 27-year-old Chicago resident, who said most of her extended family was getting by "paycheck-to-paycheck."

Consumer prices rose 3.9 percent in the 12 months through September, the fastest pace in three years.

With gasoline prices high, consumers have less to spend on other things. Moreover, a rise in overall prices saps economic growth, which is typically measured in inflation-adjusted terms.

The last time the misery index was at current levels was in 1983. But in 1984 an improving economy probably helped President Ronald Reagan win reelection. This year, the index has risen more than 2 points.

INFLATION RESPITE

While the misery index rose in September, many economists expect some respite in coming months, driven by softer inflation.

Wednesday's price data showed inflation outside food and energy rose at the slowest pace in six months in September.

Weakness in the jobs markets also accounts for some factors that could push inflation lower in coming months, economists say.

"With households facing weak wage growth and tight budgets, it is difficult to see a sustained, broad-based increase in prices," said Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Neil Dutta.

He said Wednesday's data showed that businesses' ability to raise prices on clothing, movies and toys was "hitting a wall." Weak incomes also will make it harder for building owners to raise rents, further dampening inflation, Dutta said.

Indeed, inflation could slow to below 2 percent by mid-2012, said Capital Economics economist Paul Ashworth.

But a decline in the misery index declines due to softer inflation might not help Obama's reelection chances much.

"Any lowering of inflation isn't going to have much effect. People are just focused like a laser on unemployment," said independent political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

Analysts polled by Reuters last week saw the jobless rate -- currently stuck at 9.1 percent -- barely ticking down to 8.9 percent by the end of next year. With the election in November 2012, the expected decline looks unlikely to help Obama's job prospects much.

Harold Archie, a bus driver with the Chicago Transit Authority, knows well the toll that unemployment is taking on Americans. Higher food and gasoline prices have compounded the strain on his finances since his son lost his job. Archie, 57, has been helping him financially.

Archie said his son might have a shot at getting his job back, but with a pay cut: "And he was only making $13 an hour to start with."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Those fucking obstructionist Republicans!

Here's one you might like:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_will_save_new_york_herman_cain.html

 

[NeverEndingMe]

we need to put this into the constitution, every government "manager" and political leader must operate a 711 store for 1 year before entering "service".



and by service - I mean a flipping job

 

[MeeMie]

Exciting GOP Presidential Ideas the Media Ignore

Some exciting developments in the Republican presidential race are being ignored by the media. We believe Americans will be excited when they understand the revolutionary nature of these candidate's proposals.

It all started with Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. As Newt Gingrich said this week, "Herman should be congratulated for starting an important discussion." And he should.

But our hope comes from other excellent proposals by GOP candidates that are being neglected in the news media. Most of the plans would help, but three of the plans from different candidates if adopted together would supercharge the economy and put the private sector back to work.

First we love Governor Rick Perry's Flat tax proposal. His plan is a 17% flat rate on all income above $36,000. Below $36,000 all taxpayers would pay zero. The Perry plan will also eliminate taxes on personal savings and capital gains. Investments would be encouraged by this plan. It is fair and will take politics out of tax policy.

Next Congressman Ron Paul's balanced budget should be adopted by every campaign. It is brilliant. He has laid out just how we can balance the budget. He will eliminate agencies that provide no real value to Americans only special interests, end foreign aid, repeal reams of regulations, cut military spending by brings troops home to America, reduce the federal workforce, and freeze mandatory spending. Paul's cuts would amount to $1 trillion in immediate savings. The Federal budget would be completely balanced in three years.

Finally, Michele Bachmann has proposed cutting the cost of Washington's regulatory burden on the economy by trillions of dollars. A misunderstanding of the Reagan era is the belief that he only focused on tax cuts. This is simply untrue. Maybe of even greater importance was the thousands of pages of regulations repealed by the Reagan Administration. It is in the regulatory policy where you see the big difference between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Under Bush regulations exploded and business became more difficult because of this burden. Bachmann's ideas deserve to be implemented.

America's system of taxation is broken. In 1986, Ronald Reagan brokered an important revision of the tax code which dramatically lowered rates and launched a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity. The key to Reagan's success was lowering rates and eliminating politically motivated tax incentives and kickbacks that undermine fairness.

Sadly, during the years of prosperity that followed the Reagan reforms, the US Congress under both Republican and Democratic leadership used the good times to once again load the tax code full of crony capitalism, kickbacks to favored groups. Now the system is collapsing under the weight of this corruption.

Obama's answer is raising rates even higher so he can give out even more favors to his chosen groups. This solution will only make the problems with the tax code even worse. Billionaires like Warren Buffett can always game the system, while the middle class gets fleeced. Buffets hypocrisy in supporting Obama's plans is astounding while the firm he runs Berkshire Hathaway is legendary for its ability to avoid taxes and currently owes over a billion dollar is back taxes.

Perry's plan would fix all this and lower rates even further than Reagan did. Maybe this is the elixir that can get his campaign back on track. Steve Forbes thinks so. He told the Wall Street Journal this week, "I'm very, very excited by it. What Perry is proposing is a radical simplification of the income tax code....It's finally coming to pass."


http://townhall.com/columnists/floydandmarybethbrown/2011/10/21/exciting_gop_presidential_ideas_the_media_ignores/page/full/

 

[RightField]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513#.TrGwX7f_YUM.facebook

This is a good one broadcast and thought provoking. Although not specifically mentioned, the very democrat-controlled State of California got around the Davis-Bacon regulations by outsourcing a multi-billion dollar bridge to a Chinese firm. In the broadcast it was said that they saved a billion dollars by hiring the Chinese firm. Wow, I'll bet if regulations weren't at the heart of the problem, we could have hired an American firm with American workers to do the job if the unions would have settled for a decent rate (instead of one elevated by fiat).

 

[mercury14]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513#.TrGwX7f_YUM.facebook

This is a good one broadcast and thought provoking. Although not specifically mentioned, the very democrat-controlled State of California got around the Davis-Bacon regulations by outsourcing a multi-billion dollar bridge to a Chinese firm. In the broadcast it was said that they saved a billion dollars by hiring the Chinese firm. Wow, I'll bet if regulations weren't at the heart of the problem, we could have hired an American firm with American workers to do the job if the unions would have settled for a decent rate (instead of one elevated by fiat).

But this is EXACTLY why regulations are needed. Chinese firms are state-owned and their costs are subsidized by their government. They pay their workers next to nothing and can have their government pay part of wages if they need be. This means Chinese companies will always under-cut American ones. Getting rid of Davis-Bacon will not help since the cost of American labor even at below the prevailing wage is still miles higher than Chinese labor.

What we need are better, more refined regulations.

 

[RightField]

But this is EXACTLY why regulations are needed. Chinese firms are state-owned and their costs are subsidized by their government. They pay their workers next to nothing and can have their government pay part of wages if they need be. This means Chinese companies will always under-cut American ones. Getting rid of Davis-Bacon will not help since the cost of American labor even at below the prevailing wage is still miles higher than Chinese labor.

What we need are better, more refined regulations.

Or maybe we should find a few democrats who believe in doing the right thing even if there isn't a law or regulation....such as using US stimulus money meant to create US jobs with US labor to build their California bridges. Seems dems can't even manage to follow their own initiatives.

 

[mercury14]

Or maybe we should find a few democrats who believe in doing the right thing even if there isn't a law or regulation....such as using US stimulus money meant to create US jobs with US labor to build their California bridges. Seems dems can't even manage to follow their own initiatives.

Your own video says a big portion of stimulus money was turned down for the project.

 

[Solid Muldoon]

The 1% needs to wake up and realize that the 99% owns 99% of the guns.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The 1% needs to wake up and realize that the 99% owns 99% of the guns.

Unlikely.

The 1% not only probably own 30% of the guns they also have enough money to pay 50% of the population to shoot the other 49%.

 

[RightField]

China Is Not The Source Of Our Jobs Problem

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
Posted 12/20/2011 06:53 PM ET

Republicans and Democrats, liberals as well as conservatives, have bought into anti-Chinese trade demagoguery.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that tariffs against China are a "key part of our 'Make It in America' agenda."

During his 2010 campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called his Tea Party-backed Republican challenger, Sharron Angle, "a foreign worker's best friend."

In a recent news conference, President Obama gave his support to the anti-China campaign, declaring that China "has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage," adding that "we can and should take action against countries that are keeping their currencies undervalued ... (and) that, above all, means China."

Republican 2012 presidential candidates have also jumped on the anti-China bandwagon.

Mitt Romney wrote: "If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, I will work to fundamentally alter our economic relationship with China. ... I will begin on Day One by designating China as the currency manipulator it is."

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was even more challenging, saying, "I want to go to war with China."

Let's look at the magnitude of our trade with China. An excellent place to start is a recent publication (8/8/2011) by Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, titled "The U.S. Content of 'Made in China.'"

One of the several questions they ask is: What is the fraction of U.S. consumer spending for goods made in China? Their data sources are the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Hale and Hobijn find that the vast majority of goods and services sold in the United States are produced here.

In 2010, total imports were about 16 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, and of that, 2.5% came from China.

A total of 88.5% of U.S. consumer spending is on items made in the United States, the bulk of which are domestically produced services — such as medical care, housing, transportation, etc. — which make up about two-thirds of spending.

Chinese goods account for 2.7% of U.S. personal consumption expenditures, about one-quarter of the 11.5% foreign share.

Chinese imported goods consist mainly of furniture and household equipment; other durables; and clothing and shoes.

In the clothing and shoes category, 35.6% of U.S. consumer purchases in 2010 were items with the "Made in China" label.

Much of what China sells us has considerable "local content." Hale and Hobijn give the example of sneakers that might sell for $70.

They point out that most of that price goes for transportation in the U.S., rent for the store where they are sold, profits for shareholders of the U.S. retailer, and marketing costs, which include the salaries, wages and benefits paid to the U.S. workers and managers responsible for getting sneakers to consumers.

On average, 55 cents of every dollar spent on goods made in China goes for marketing services produced in the U.S.

Going hand in hand with today's trade demagoguery is talk about decline in U.S. manufacturing.

For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimated that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion. If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy — with its own GDP — it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth-richest economy.

Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is $234,220, three times higher than it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990.

That means more can be produced with fewer workers, resulting in a precipitous fall in manufacturing jobs, from 19.5 million jobs in 1979 to a little more than 10 million today.

The bottom line is that we Americans are allowing ourselves to be suckered into believing that China is the source of our unemployment problems when the true culprit is Congress and the White House.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Pssst. Take down that copy and paste before you realize that what that article says in short is Americans are paid less than half of what they deserve if you rank it by anything shy of you're only worth whatever the 1% deign you to be worth.

 

[RightField]

Pssst. Take down that copy and paste before you realize that what that article says in short is Americans are paid less than half of what they deserve if you rank it by anything shy of you're only worth whatever the 1% deign you to be worth.

It says that productivity has increased, it doesn't say you "deserve" more. Productivity and quality improvements are the only way we can stay competitive.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Bullshit. If you're productivity has tripled you deserve at the very least 1.5 what you were being paid before, not roughly 73%. That's just you getting screwed.

 

[RightField]

Bullshit. If you're productivity has tripled you deserve at the very least 1.5 what you were being paid before, not roughly 73%. That's just you getting screwed.

Not if the competition is dropping prices more quickly....to quote Clint Eastwood in the movie Unforgiven "Deservin' ain't got nothin to do with it"

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've commented on that several times.



Bastiat covered the topic well in Sophisms of the Protectionists.

There is no China miracle, it's not a brick house...



Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion…,

 

[RightField]

There are many causes for our jobs problem, but the democrats are a significant contributor to the problem for their anti-business, anti-growth policies. They're willfully killing the goose that lays the golden eggs for a mouthful of gooseflesh "because it's fair" in their eyes.

 

[RightField]

Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs

By Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig, Published: December 25
Washington Post

Linda Sterio remembers the excitement when President Obama arrived at Solyndra last year and described how his administration’s financial support for the plant was helping create hundreds of jobs. The company’s prospects appeared unlimited as Solyndra executives described the backlog of orders for its solar panels.

Then came the August morning when Sterio heard a newscaster announce that more than a thousand Solyndra employees were out of work. Only recently did she learn that, within the Obama administration, the company’s potential collapse had long been discussed.

“It’s not about the people; it’s politics,” said Sterio, who remains jobless and at risk of losing her home. “We all feel betrayed.”

Since the failure of the company, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-
technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign.

Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal *e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.

The records, some previously unreported, show that when warned that financial disaster might lie ahead, the administration remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra.

The documents reviewed by The Post, which began examining the clean-technology program a year ago, provide a detailed look inside the day-to-day workings of the upper levels of the Obama administration. They also give an unprecedented glimpse into high-level maneuvering by politically connected clean-technology investors.

They show that as Solyndra tottered, officials discussed the political fallout from its troubles, the “optics” in Washington and the impact that the company’s failure could have on the president’s prospects for a second term. Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean-
energy technology.

“What’s so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they’re not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is ‘How are we going to manage this politically?’ ”

The administration, which excluded lobbyists from policymaking positions, gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration, the records show. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean-
energy program.

Documents show that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision on the loan so Vice President Biden could announce it during a trip to California. The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors, but they suggest that there was an unwavering focus on promoting Solyndra and clean energy. Officials with the company and the administration have said that nothing untoward occurred and that the loan was granted on its merits.

Most documents that have been made public in connection with a congressional investigation relate to the period after the loan was granted. The process began in the George W. Bush administration but resulted in the first loan in the program being granted under Obama. As a result, many factors that led to Solyndra winning a half-billion-dollar federal loan remain unknown.

White House officials said that all key records regarding Solyndra’s loan approval have been released.

Officials acknowledged that some of the records provide an unvarnished view that they might have preferred to keep private — such as a senior energy adviser’s reference to a conference call about Solyndra as a “[expletive] show,” or a company investor writing that when Solyndra was mentioned in a meeting, Biden’s office “about had an orgasm.”

Officials said those unflattering disclosures reinforce their position that they are not hiding their actions and that, despite the blemishes, nothing suggests political considerations affected the original decision to extend the loan to Solyndra. They stressed that the administration disregarded advice to avoid political problems by replacing senior Energy Department managers and moving to abort Obama’s visit to Solyndra.

“Everything disclosed . . . affirms what we said on day one: This was a merit-based decision made by expert staffers at the Department of Energy,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement.

Officials said that concern for workers was reflected in the administration’s decision to allow Solyndra employees to receive aid under a program for workers displaced by foreign competition.

“When Solyndra’s liquidity crisis became clear, the Department of Energy underwent a robust effort to find a viable path forward for the company,” the White House’s prepared statement said. “This administration is one that will fiercely fight to protect jobs even when it’s not the popular thing to do.”

Star power in D.C.

Like most presidential appearances, Obama’s May 2010 stop at Solyndra’s headquarters was closely managed political theater.

Obama’s handlers had lengthy e-mail discussions about how solar panels should be displayed (from a robotic arm, it was decided). They cautioned the company’s chief executive against wearing a suit (he opted for an open-neck shirt and black slacks) and asked another executive to wear a hard hat and white smock. They instructed blue-collar employees to wear everyday work clothes, to preserve what they called “the construction-worker feel.”

White House e-mails suggest that the original idea for “POTUS involvement” originated with then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, did not respond to a request for comment from The Post.

Well beyond the details of the factory photo op, raw political considerations surfaced repeatedly in conversations among many in the administration.

Just two days before the visit, Obama fundraiser Steve Westly warned senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett that an appearance could be problematic. Westly, an investment fund manager with stakes in green-energy companies, said he was speaking for a number of Obama supporters in asking the president to postpone the visit because Solyndra’s financial prospects were dim and the company’s failure could generate negative media attention.

“The president should be careful about unrealistic/optimistic forecasts that could haunt him in the next 18 months if Solyndra hits the wall,” Westly wrote. Westly did not respond to a request for comment from The Post.

Similar concerns arose repeatedly among officials inside the White House. One staffer at the Office of Management and Budget suggested to a colleague that the visit could “prove embarrassing to the administration in the not too distant future.” Even Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff, acknowledged “risk” in the trip.

But administration officials ultimately waved off the jitters, after assurances from Energy Department officials that their policy was sound and that Solyndra’s troubles would be fleeting. After Obama’s trip, the administration hung a photo from his visit on a wall in the West Wing, to underscore good things to come.

Solyndra’s financial picture did not improve, however, and by year’s end the company was crumbling. Its investors pitched bailout plans, seeking help from what a Solyndra executive referred to as the “Bank of Washington” — his apparent term for U.S. taxpayers. The Energy Department rebuffed the plans, at least initially.

In late 2010, Solyndra board member Steve Mitchell told his associates that Energy Department officials had conceded that additional financing was necessary yet said in private meetings that they lacked the political muscle to deliver it. “The DOE really thinks politically before it thinks economically,” Mitchell concluded. A spokesman for Mitchell said he would have no comment for this article. An Energy Department spokesman said that all decisions regarding the loan were based on merit.

Solyndra eventually realized that it had to lay off workers to stay afloat — no small step for a company that the president had backed to create jobs in a recession. But *records indicate that the Energy Department urged company officials to delay the move until after the contentious November 2010 midterm elections, which imperiled Democratic control of Congress.

Despite the effect that timing might have on workers, one e-mail among company investors ended the discussion by asserting: “No announcement till after elections at doe request.” An Energy Department spokesman did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

More than once, investors wrote that the administration appeared to be making particular decisions to avoid looking “bad.” A December 2010 e-mail between administration officials’ staffers seemed to confirm the suspicions, concluding that “a meltdown” at Solyndra “would likely be very embarrassing for DOE and the Administration.”

An outside energy adviser foresaw serious political damage, writing to senior West Wing officials in February to warn that because federal loans went to companies linked to Obama donors, a wave of Republican attacks “are surely coming.” He recommended that Obama consider replacing Energy Secretary Steven Chu and his deputies, perhaps with a bipartisan management team.

A Solyndra board member, in a memo, described at length mistakes he thought that company founder Christian Gronet had made, saying that some of the stories about his actions “border on moronic” and that Gronet’s missteps had sparked an executive mutiny. *Gronet survived, the board member suggested, only because of his close relationship with Energy Department leaders and because he had “star power in D.C.”

Gronet’s attorney, Miles Ehrlich, said in a statement last week that Gronet did his best but *acknowledged that there had been internal debate about the business strategies he chose.

Political calculus was especially on display in an e-mail early this year between administration staffers who calibrated the damage that could result from pushing back Solyndra’s collapse by a few months at a time.

“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad whenever it occurs,” an OMB staff member wrote to a colleague. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”

Solyndra executives and investors were attuned to the value of playing politics. Memos from Solyndra’s lobbying firm, McBee Strategic Consulting, stressed the need to “socialize” with leaders in Washington and to mobilize a lobbying effort described variously as quiet, surgical and aggressive.

Dinner in Vegas

Beyond the West Wing, the documents provide a vivid glimpse into high-level machinations inside the world of clean-energy entrepreneurs.

Solyndra’s strongest political connection was to George Kaiser, a Democratic fundraiser and oil industry billionaire who had once hosted Obama at his home in Oklahoma. Kaiser’s family foundation owned more than a third of the solar panel company, and Kaiser took a direct interest in its operations.

With the 2010 midterm elections just days away, Kaiser flew to Las Vegas to help the party cause. He was a guest at a private fundraising dinner for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), but the real attraction at the event was its headliner — Obama. Realizing he might have an opportunity to talk with the president, Kaiser’s staff prepped him with talking points about Solyndra.

Kaiser did not have to angle for Obama’s attention. Organizers seated him next to the world’s most powerful man — for two hours.

“OK, I’ll admit it. It was pretty intoxicating,” Kaiser effused in an e-mail to an associate at 5:30 the next morning. “Charming and incisive as always. Casual conversation; not speechifying.”

Kaiser did not squander his time. While he avoided the use of the word “Solyndra,” according to the account he later gave to colleagues, he complained to the president about Chinese manufacturers dumping cheap solar panels on the U.S. market and pressed Obama’s deputy chief of staff about the need for a Buy American Act for federal agencies. The company was intent on making the federal government a major customer — part of what a Solyndra investment adviser called the “Uncle Sam” strategy — and the new act would give Solyndra an advantage.

Kaiser, who has declined in*terview requests, said through spokesman Renzi Stone that he has not discussed Solyndra’s loan “with the U.S. government.” Other e-mails show that he rejected requests to take a more forceful role in advocating for the company.

Nonetheless, records show that Kaiser, a frequent visitor to the White House, was in contact with officials at Solyndra and its biggest investors, and advised them on leveraging the power of the West Wing.

“Why don’t you pursue your contacts with the WH?” Kaiser advised a Solyndra board member in October 2010.

Nonprofit law specialists said that Kaiser’s focus on Solyndra was striking, because he had no official role at the company and had no personal investment in the corporation. After amassing a fortune in the oil and banking industries, Kaiser had endowed a nonprofit corporation that bore his name, but he did not sit on its board.

The nonprofit corporation, known as the George Kaiser Family Foundation, had its own investment fund, which owned a third of Solyndra. Mitchell, a Solyndra board member, was the fund’s manager.

Despite those walls between Kaiser and Solyndra, e-mail exchanges show that Mitchell repeatedly sought Kaiser’s counsel and in one instance requested *“authority” to make a major move.

Nonprofit experts stressed that once Kaiser donated his money to charity — and thereby qualified for millions of dollars in tax breaks — the money was no longer his under federal law.

Kaiser arrived in Las Vegas on the Friday night of the fundraiser, carrying a photo of himself and the president, which Obama signed for him. Over the evening, the oilman’s conversation moved from social chatter to business.

“I talked in general about the Chinese and solar but didn’t want to get too specific with him,” Kaiser told associates. “I did talk to him about the Chinese subsidy over the past nine months and the effect it was having on U.S. solar and wind manufacturers. . . . I thought that a more aggressive trade policy with the Chinese was essential. . . . [Obama] said that these issues would be addressed aggressively at the G-20.”

As for majority leader Reid, Kaiser confided in his e-mails: “Harry was mushy nice . . . Barack said privately that Harry would win by a small margin. I hope he’s right.”

Stone said last week that the dinner was only the second time Kaiser had met the president and that there was nothing wrong with Kaiser taking an interest in the foundation and its investments. While the foundation’s board respected Kaiser’s advice, its members made all the financial decisions, he said.

Packing up

Today, a handful of Solyndra employees remain at its Silicon Valley factory, helping wind down operations. Of the 1,100 workers who lost their jobs, an estimated 90 percent remain unemployed, such as Sterio. She’s relying on help from relatives to make payments on her home, where she lives with her ailing husband and four grandchildren.

Solyndra has failed to attract a buyer who would keep the plant operating, so it is trying to unload its assets piecemeal to pay off its debts. The first $75 million recovered is expected to go to Kaiser’s nonprofit organization and other investors; it is unclear how much will be left for taxpayers.

Along with selling its microscopes and industrial robots, the company in November auctioned off the 30-foot-long blue banner that served as a backdrop for Obama’s factory visit.

Winning bidder Scott Logsdon, a laid-off Solyndra worker who’s been lucky enough to land a new job, snapped up the sign for $400. He’s hoping that with all of the political attention Solyndra’s failure has received, the value of the sign will appreciate by Election Day.

It reads: “Solyndra . . . Made in the USA.”

Research director Alice Crites contributed to this report.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I linked to that in another thread.



It is clear that government planning favors contributors more than science or economics.

 

[RightField]

I linked to that in another thread.

It is clear that government planning favors contributors more than science or economics.

Seems to be the only thing they're interested in.