posted August 30, 2011 03:14 PM            

The facts say otherwise since more people were working at the end of the Bush administration than are working now in the O'Bomber depression.

So, where did this gigantic lie come from?
It comes from extrapolating made up numbers. For instance, food stamps percolate through the economy and create jobs...not! Ditto for welfare checks and unemployment checks..not!

The irrational, illogical end of this trail would have everyone on food stamps, welfare checks and unemployment...AND we would have full employment..NOT!

August 30, 2011
Where are the 2.5 Million Jobs, Mr. President?
By Karin McQuillan

A job is not something you defer thinking about, when you don't have one, Mr. President. Now that you're back from vacation, I'm not looking forward to your jobs speech. I lie awake at night worrying about my two cousins and a friend of thirty years -- one lost a small business, the second is watching his business go down the tubes, and the third, who supports her handicapped daughter, can't find a job. Another friend tells me her son who graduated college a year ago can't find work. He feels like a total failure in life as only a 22-year-old can, and she is worried about him. One of his jobless college friends recently committed suicide. None of these people I love and worry about show up in the unemployment statistics.

Unemployment at 10% barely indicates the number of people in serious trouble, and the depth of the trouble they are in.

I also know two people who benefitted from the stimulus project. A mentally ill woman in my writers group received a grant to fly to California and lead a creativity workshop for schizophrenics. She was thrilled. The staff geologists in the nearby national park got a chunk of taxpayer money which they used to erect some monitors in the wilderness, part of an existing research project on seismic activity. The extra monitors weren't necessary, but they were pleased to have them.

Do you know anyone whose job was created or saved by the $800 billion in government spending? It's only likely if you're friends with a teacher, since more than two thirds of the stimulus funds went to schools, where they propped up unsustainable salary packages for one short year. At the end of the year the school districts were facing bankruptcy again, and forced to do teacher layoffs. It would have been healthier for the economy, and avoided layoffs, if all states had followed Governor Walker's reforms in Wisconsin instead of wasting half a trillion dollars. (See Do Republican Ideas Lead to Job Growth?)

Obama tells us his stimulus plan was a brilliant success. Yes, it plunged us into economy-destroying debt and deficit. The alternative would have been worse, we are told. All three of my friends and family in financial straits are loyal Democrats, and they believe him. "Obama created 2.5 million jobs," my underemployed friend tells me. "Without his policies, it would have been much worse."

"What are the jobs?" I asked him. Neither one of us had a clue.

We sat down together at the internet and did a Google search, 'stimulus job creation.'

We found out where the number 2.5 million jobs' created or saved' comes from. It comes from a formula. The formula comes from a theory. The formula says that for every dollar the government spends, 1.5 dollars' worth of economic activity is generated, and presto, jobs come out. The economic geniuses working for Obama want us to believe that by definition, since they spent almost a trillion dollars in 'stimulus', they automatically created 2.4 million jobs. This is called the multiplier effect.

The basic idea was that if the federal government prints and borrows money and sends it out, it will be spent, trickle through our economy, saving and creating unknown jobs as it goes. It's trickle-down economics, Obama-style. The benefit is temporary, because the government has to pay back its debt sometime, or collapse. Reagan's trickle-down economics turned on a spigot of private enterprise productivity and wealth creation, while Obama has created an ocean of debt.

If Obama's rationale for the 'stimulus' is that spending money creates economic activity, why do we need the government to take our money, send it to other people and then they spend it? Why don't we get to spend it ourselves?

Once you know about this magic 'multiplier effect' in which any government spending creates jobs, much becomes clear. That's why Nancy Pelosi claimed that unemployment insurance "creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative." The Secretary of Agriculture told us August 16 that Food Stamp are "an economic stimulus," explaining that "every dollar of SNAP (food stamp) benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."

The government puts a multiplier of 2 on money given to Medicaid, so that every dollar they spend on Medicaid they assume doubles in value and grows our GDP. The Congressional Budget Office reported that through the first quarter of 2011 the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by 1-3 percent, and reduced unemployment by up to 1.8 percentage points. Where did the CBO get these figures? It made them up! Using multiplier formulas -- how scientific! Payments to state and local governments for infrastructure were estimated to have a multiplier of between 1 and 2.5, whereas the multiplier for unemployment benefits, food stamps to individuals was between 0.8 and 2.1.

That's it. That's the only reality to 2.5 million jobs created or saved.

Hard to believe? The White House report of July 3, 2011 makes it explicit:

The report was written by the White House's Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the "stimulus" in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using "mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus" (which it describes as a "natural way to estimate the effects of" the legislation), the "stimulus" has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs - whether private or public - at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the "stimulus," and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Of the over $800 billion in stimulus funds, over $450 billion was given to people as tax rebates, food stamps, unemployment checks, Social Security and health insurance. Pro-Democrat liberal media spread White House claims: "Economists say all of those eventually lead to jobs as families spend more at the grocery store, the health clinic or the shopping mall." At the first anniversary of the stimulus in 2009,

Jared Bernstein, the Vice President's chief economist, emphasized that the 640,000 count (of jobs created or saved) represents an incomplete tally of the total jobs added or saved as a result of the stimulus package. It ignores, for example, the jobs created or saved as a result of personal tax cuts or hikes in unemployment compensation checks. We cannot collect anecdotes from Wal-Mart, Safeway, or Disney World telling us how many jobs have been produced by higher consumer spending induced by the stimulus package.

No jobs have to be directly created to claim he saved America with 2.5 million jobs!

The only private sector jobs Obama attempted to stimulate were green jobs. The $2 billion dollars of taxpayer money spent so far has been an economic disaster.

August 23, 2011 On Friday, the Times printed a harsh assessment of the state of the "green" economy-including a conclusion that the President's promise to create five million green jobs over 10 years has proven to be nothing more than "a pipe dream," with California's Bay Area providing a particularly poignant example of how "green" jobs have actually been lost, not gained.

In Seattle, $20 million in taxpayer money was donated to a company that weatherizes homes, a greenly virtuous activity.

More than a year later, Seattle's numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program.

In Oak Park, Michigan, a state-government-funded hybrid bus company sits dormant, out of business just two years after it drew acclaim for being part of Michigan's green future, despite millions in state taxpayer funding and a contract to sell buses to be purchased with federal taxpayer dollars.

80% of the money for green jobs has been used to buy Chinese products, as this example from a solar energy firm receiving government largess in San Jose exemplifies:

... the solar panels themselves will continue being made in China. Mayor Reed said he continued to hope that San Jose would attract manufacturing and assembly jobs, but Ms. Hartsoch said that was unlikely because "taxes and labor rates" were too high to merit investment in a factory in Northern California.

This very month, on his Midwest bus tour Obama pledged 2.4 billion more dollars for green jobs, mostly for batteries for electric cars. We already know how that will turn out. We gave $300 million of taxpayer money to a private firm, Johnson Controls, which manufactures batteries. According to the White House, the firm added 150 jobs - that means we spent $2 million per job.

Private firms with strong marketing and business plans and strong growth sell stock - they don't need government handouts. The market for green products is anemic, a bad investment for anybody, including taxpayers. Obama focuses on green jobs as a purely political calculus. It works for his re-election because it pleases liberal voters. It has a negative economic rationale and a negative economic result. Our president cares about election results, not economic results.

The 2.5 million jobs are invisible because they don't exist. The suffering of my relatives and friends and that of 25 million unemployed Americans is real, and increasingly desperate. It's time to follow the success in job creation of Republican states such as Wisconsin and Texas, and drop the unsuccessful ideas of this wastrel White House. Please, Mr. President, we can't afford another 2.5 million of your phoney jobs.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/where_are_the_25_million_jobs_mr_president.html[/ URL]

posted August 31, 2011 01:10 PM            

Those so called "green jobs" never materialized in spite of O'Bomber throwing billions of dollars of stimulus money at so called "green energy companies".

Those companies have been closing their doors in America, going out of business or moving operations to China...AFTER TAKING BILLIONS IN TAX PAYER MONEY.

Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy
President Obama touted the facility only a year ago
By Scott McGrew
Wednesday, Aug 31, 2011

Solyndra, a major manufacturer of solar technology in Fremont, has shut its doors, according to employees at the campus.

"I was told by a security guard to get my [stuff] and leave," one employee said. The company employs a little more than 1,000 employees worldwide, according to its website.

Shortly after it opened a massive $700 million facility, it canceled plans for a public stock offering earlier this year and warned it would be in significant trouble if federal loan guarantees did not go through.

The company has said it will make a statement at 9am California time, though it's not clear what that statement will be. An NBC Bay Area photographer on the scene reports security guards are not letting visitors on campus. He says "people are standing around in disbelief." The employees have been given yellow envelopes with instructions on how to get their last checks.

Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said "it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that."

The federal government offered $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. NBC Bay Area has contacted the White House asking for a statement.

Some Republicans have been very critical of the loans. "I am concerned that the DOE is providing loans and loan guarantees to firms that aren't capable of competing in the global market, even with government subsidies" Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns told the New York Times.

posted September 04, 2011 08:28 AM            

You know O'Bomber isn't serious about improving employment in America when he consults ivory tower academics who never worked in the private sector.

You know O'Bomber is in trouble politically when 25% of the demoscat party want a different demoscat candidate in 2012.

You know O'Bomber is in trouble politically when 46% of registered voters say they will "definitely not" vote for O'Bomber.

You know O'Bomber is in trouble politically when 50% of Americans say O'Bomber doesn't deserve to be reelected.

Obama's White House is a Harvard Frat House
by Michael Prell
09/03/2011

William F. Buckley famously said “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2,000 members of the faculty of Harvard University.”

By contrast, President Obama would rather America be governed by the faculty of Harvard University than by the first 2,000 people in any American phone book. Least of all; the business pages.

Case in point: the President’s much-anticipated “jobs plan.”

While most Americans struggle to find a job, let alone take a vacation, President Obama crafted his jobs plan from the cloistered and rarefied golf courses and beaches of Martha’s Vineyard. While there, the President found time to pick the brain of his self-described “mentor” – Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree​.

You know, Charles Ogletree – the reparations crusader who represented Anita Hill against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings. He is the “mentor” our President consults to craft his “jobs plan” to save American jobs: a mentor whose career path took him all the way from being a student at Harvard Law School to being a tenured professor at Harvard Law School.

Being tenured means: he can never lose his job for anything. Not even plagiarism.

Charles Ogletree has “written” six books. I can tell you from personal experience that writing books is hard work. Ogletree’s 2004 semi-personal memoir “All Deliberate Speed” apparently wasn’t coming along speedily enough for his publisher. So the Harvard professor parceled out the work of writing his memoir to at least two of his assistants. Nice work, for an author, if you can get it.

But laziness wasn’t the Harvard Law professor’s only problem. Unfortunately, one of his assistants lifted six paragraphs “almost verbatim from another professor’s work,” and Ogletree’s other assistant failed to catch it. As reported in The Harvard Crimson, “when the draft returned, Ogletree did not realize that it was not his material, he said in the statement. But Ogletree said he was closely involved in most of the drafting of the book due to its personal nature.”

Harvard Law…personal memoirs…accusations of plagiarism…where have we heard this before? Perhaps Mr. Ogletree was more of a mentor to Barack Obama​ than we know.

This article is not plagiarized. And it is not about plagiarism. It is about the difference between the wisdom of the American people when it comes to jobs, and the cloistered worldview of Ivy League professors who can never lose their jobs—not even for plagiarism.

posted September 04, 2011 07:13 PM            

however i find the 'drill baby drill" crowd equally naive and incompetent.

as i have also complained about obama's advisors i am not going to argue with that one either. what i have argued, that he is no socialist, still holds true and even jwhop is plumping for the "incompetent" angle now and we hear far less about socialism.

however the economy was picking up until the travesty takeover of the house in nov '10 and from what i have heard the last jobs figures showed an equal amount of PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS ADDED to PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS TRASHED...which led us to the first ZERO JOBS GAIN since obama became president.

good work folks! someone forgot to notice that govt jobs are jobs too. now THOSE people will be picking up their unemployment - still paid by the govt - and added to THOSE figures. just makes you want to strut doesn't it?

with a bit of luck you'll even manage to get a seriously wacked out creationist in the white house who believes that atheists should be denied citizenship! won't that be dandy!

and with the koch brothers deciding what is good for everyone no matter WHAT the vote is, every thing will be fine and dandy, right?

posted September 06, 2011 12:51 PM            

of course there is always a black market of some kind going. the rich do it too, so let's not assume these people are sucking off the taxpayer, they are just not putting into the pot anymore, or not a full share.

posted September 20, 2011 06:49 PM            

What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

happy, archer girl? bearsarcher?

posted September 22, 2011 09:33 AM            

The Bush administration DID NOT set up the Solyndra loan...nor did the Bush administration approve the Solyndra loan.

The Bush administration permitted Solyndra to make an application...note, I said an APPLICATION for a federal loan guarantee.

About 10 days before the end of the Bush administration ended, the Department of Energy refused to approve the loan to Solyndra...and it was not granted.

O'Bomber approved the Solyndra loan for $535 million...over the objections of government analysts...who said...among other things...that Solyndra was not ready for prime time.

Further, an opinion was delivered saying Solyndra would be out of money in SEPTEMBER 2011. Solyndra got the loan of $535 million and filed for bankruptcy in SEPTEMBER 2011.

In the week before the Solyndra loan was approved, a big campaign contributor for O'Bomber...George Kaiser...who was also a big investor in Solyndra...visited the White House 4 times!

Further, Solyndra applied for another government loan for an additional $426 million.

Further, in the restructuring of Solyndra, O'Bomber deliberately permitted investors of Solyndra to get 1st position in any bankruptcy proceedings which cut taxpayers out any recovery of the $535 million.

Instead of taxpayers being secured in the bankruptcy proceedings, O'Bomber's big campaign contributor, George Kaiser was permitted to get in 1st position to receive any funds from the bankruptcy court.

This is the kind of "Crony Capitalism" Sarah Palin talked about that must be stopped. The federal government has no business funding private companies or engaging in "Pay to Play/Bribery with venture capitalists.

posted September 23, 2011 10:02 AM            

The bridge overhaul O'Bomber is attempting to use against Republicans...IS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO BE REBUILT.

Yet, there's O'Bomber acting like Republicans...Boehner and McConnell are obstructing it's REBUILDING.

Something else O'Bomber isn't telling America is that his O'Bomber Son of Stimulus Plan is more likely to "stimulate" jobs in China than in the United States.

O'Bomber's Kash for Klunkers...the plan whereby Americans contributed up to $4,500 per car to buy their neighbors a new car...resulted in more foreign cars being subsidized than Fords, GMs and Chryslers.

This guy has to go. Tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough.

Cincinnati Bridge Typical of Obama's Phony 'American Jobs' Bill
by Roger Hedgecock
09/23/2011

The President landed in Cincinnati this week to sell his "American Jobs Act" using as an example of job creation the need to rebuild the Brent Spence Bridge, which connects the State of Kentucky with Cincinnati, Ohio—the political home bases for Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the visit was political. House Speaker Boehner agreed that the bridge needs to be repaired and rebuilt, but opposed deficit financing to do it. Sen. McConnell said there are a lot of other bridges that need attention too.

No doubt. But rebuilding this bridge or any other part of America's aging infrastructure will not be done by American companies or American workers if the ongoing rebuilding of the Oakland Bay Bridge​ is the precedent. It is Made in China.

The Brent Spence Bridge is a cantilever truss double-deck bridge carrying Interstates 71 and 75 over the Ohio River. Built in 1963, it was designed to carry 85,000 vehicles a day. Current traffic is 155,000 vehicles a day, with projected use topping 200,000 vehicles a day in 2013. Falling concrete from the upper deck to the lower deck closed lanes on the bridge last June.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) calls the bridge "functionally obsolete" and unsafe, one of 15 such bridges in the U.S. It's a terrible bottleneck and a dangerous drive. The answer is to build a second bridge. In a perfect world, the bridge should be demolished and rebuilt to serve the area's 21st century needs.

The FHA plan is to do just that. A new $2.3 billion bridge is on the FHA drawing board, but won't start construction until 2015, with a completion date of 2022. So this bridge project is not "shovel-ready" and does not meet the President's own requirement that highway spending be "immediate" to create jobs now.

Worse yet, building the bridge will not create "American jobs."

In 1989, as game three of the World Series (Oakland As vs. San Francisco Giants) was about to start in San Francisco, the Loma Prieta earthquake, registering 6.9 on the Richter scale, shook Northern California, killing 63, injuring nearly 4,000, leaving up to 12,000 homeless, and collapsing an eastern-end section of the Oakland Bay Bridge, which connects Oakland and San Francisco.

The Bay Bridge was originally approved by Herbert Hoover​'s Reconstruction Finance Corporation​. Construction started in 1933 and was completed in 1936 at a total cost of $77 million. It was the longest bridge in the world at that time.

Following the 1989 earthquake, the east span of the bridge (from Yerba Buena Island to Oakland) was deemed unsafe and a new section was designed, with a completion date of 2013 and a cost estimate of $6.3 billion.

Being built by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the bridge project has been extensively outsourced to half a dozen foreign countries, most notably China.

According to Fox News, thousands of Chinese workers spent more than a million man hours over five years in Shanghai fabricating the steel to construct the roadbeds, cable strands, and the landmark tower for the east span's single-anchor suspension bridge.

The real earthquake here is the State of California, as liberal and union-dominated as any state in the union, outsourcing the steel fabrication for this bridge to save money and get the project done on time.

Caltrans officials publicly defended outsourcing by noting that they saved $400 million in large part because they did not have to pay American union wages and benefits. To get the bridge built on time, the State of California turned to nonunion, nonstriking China to get the job done.

Obama's first "stimulus" bill failed to stimulate anything beyond public employee unions

Obama's new American Jobs Act cannot create American jobs because the environmentalists try to block all infrastructure projects (Obama: "We found out the 'shovel-ready' projects weren't so shovel-ready") and America's manufacturing companies, which built the 20th century's engineering marvels, can't compete today because of Obama's government bias toward unions and Project Labor Agreements.

Because the environmentalists and the unions are the backbone of Obama's political coalition, who is the President trying to kid with this phony jobs bill?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46377

Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Rate Reform

The Davis-Bacon federal prevailing wage law is a Depression-era regulation that requires the payment of the locally prevailing wage -- the wage paid to a majority of workers or the average wage in a given classification in given area -- on all federally-funded construction projects. The Davis-Bacon wage rate is supposed to be based on the information gathered via voluntary wage surveys. In reality, due to inefficiencies and inaccuracies with this archaic program, the federal prevailing rates are often the local union rates and not the prevailing market wage rates.

As a federally-supervised law, Davis-Bacon also requires significant paperwork and reporting. Many smaller businesses avoid bidding for projects that include Davis Bacon requirements because of the added paperwork and reporting requirements. The prevailing rate is an inaccurate, cumbersome system that adds more red tape and bureaucracy for those merit shop contractors who want to bid on federal jobs.

Davis-Bacon prevents the taxpayers from getting the best bargain on federal construction projects by eliminating true competition from the contracting process.

Status of Legislation: The 110th Congress considered several bills expanding Davis-Bacon into private sector and state-funded projects, including loan guarantee programs at the Department of Energy and tax credit bonds for energy production. This trend is expected to increase with the new administration and expanded majorities in the 111th Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 6, 2009

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:

Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced.

(b) The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

Sec. 2. Definitions.

(a) The term "labor organization" as used in this order means a labor organization as defined in 29 U.S.C. 152(5).

(b) The term "construction" as used in this order means construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, repair, or improvement of buildings, highways, or other real property.

(c) The term "large-scale construction project" as used in this order means a construction project where the total cost to the Federal Government is $25 million or more.

(d) The term "executive agency" as used in this order has the same meaning as in 5 U.S.C. 105, but excludes the Government Accountability Office.

(e) The term "project labor agreement" as used in this order means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f).

Sec. 3. (a) In awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, or obligating funds pursuant to such a contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis, require the use of a project labor agreement by a contractor where use of such an agreement will (i) advance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and (ii) be consistent with law.

(b) If an executive agency determines under subsection (a) that the use of a project labor agreement will satisfy the criteria in clauses (i) and (ii) of that subsection, the agency may, if appropriate, require that every contractor or subcontractor on the project agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations.

Sec. 4. Any project labor agreement reached pursuant to this order shall:

(a) bind all contractors and subcontractors on the construction project through the inclusion of appropriate specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents;

(b) allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements;

(c) contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions;

(d) set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the project labor agreement;

(e) provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health;

and

(f) fully conform to all statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders.

Sec. 5. This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project labor agreement in circumstances not covered by this order, including leasehold arrangements and projects receiving Federal financial assistance. This order also does not require contractors or subcontractors to enter into a project labor agreement with any particular labor organization.

Sec. 6. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), to the extent permitted by law, shall take whatever action is required to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement the provisions of this order.

Sec. 7. The Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and with other officials as appropriate, shall provide the President within 180 days of this order, recommendations about whether broader use of project labor agreements, with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance, would help to promote the economical, efficient, and timely completion of such projects.

Sec. 8. Revocation of Prior Orders, Rules, and Regulations. Executive Order 13202 of February 17, 2001, and Executive Order 13208 of April 6, 2001, are revoked. The heads of executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, revoke expeditiously any orders, rules, or regulations implementing Executive Orders 13202 and 13208.

Sec. 9. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 10. General. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 11. Effective Date. This order shall be effective immediately and shall apply to all solicitations for contracts issued on or after the effective date of the action taken by the FAR Council under section 6 of this order.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 6, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EXECUTIVEORDERUS EOFPROJECTLABORAGREEMENTSFORFEDERALCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS/

And now you know why federal construction projects cost far more than similar construction projects in the private sector!

posted September 27, 2011 09:38 AM            

Top economic advisors to President Obama warned him a year ago about the serious political and financial risks of the Energy Department's loan guarantee program that has resulted in taxpayers likely being responsible for the loss of $527 million loaned to the politically-connected California solar firm Solyndra.

That loan is currently under investigation by a House subcommittee and the FBI, which raided company offices earlier this month.

Obama visited the Solyndra plant in 2010, touting it as a shining example of his program to simultaneously boost the U.S. green-energy industry and create new jobs. Last winter the Energy Dept. restructured the more than half-billion dollar loan to the troubled firm.

But on Aug. 31 the company, whose major owner was also a major fundraising bundler for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign, filed for bankruptcy and eliminated most of its 1,100 jobs.

In a detailed story posted overnight, The Times' Tom Hamburg, Kim Geiger and Matea Gold outline the danger signals set off in October 2010 when secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and chief economic advisor Lawrence Summers warned the president that Energy's vetting process was not stringent enough to weed out troubled applicants in advance.

Energy Secy. Steven Chu, who like Obama holds a Nobel Prize, was eager to push through applications by 30 companies for the program's $17 billion. He wanted even less oversight from Treasury.

The story has developed legs for two reasons:

One, it hints at possible high-level political favoritism using taxpayer dollars in risky ventures with well-connected business people, what some have labeled "crony capitalism."

And, two, it's a classic example of the fundamental ongoing D.C. debate over government's proper role in the economy and the financial dangers to taxpayer funds inherent when officials and bureaucrats, not free market forces, pick corporate winners and losers.

posted September 29, 2011 09:00 AM            

Every single one of these government loans is money down the rat-hole; loans which government has absolutely no business being involved with in the first place.

If private investors will not invest their own money in these so called "green energy" projects then what justification is there for taxpayer money being used to prop up an entire industry which is not competitive with other forms of energy?

It's even worse when all the facts are known about what happens to electric rates when solar and/or wind power electrical energy are fed into the local power grids.

Electric energy prices skyrocket because state laws permit utility companies to pass along their increased costs to rate payers.

posted September 29, 2011 09:17 AM            

A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.

And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.

Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded to TheDC with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”

Concerns about the long-term viability of Solyndra, first made public by The Daily Caller back in February, have now expanded to include the financial health of other loan-guarantee recipient firms as well.

These companies have suffered from declining stock prices despite their favored status in the White House. Yet as the end of the federal government’s fiscal year looms on Friday, a new series of loans could be finalized amounting to more than nine times what taxpayers have already lost on the failed company Solyndra.

“Who was visiting the White House during this period of time?” Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton asked when contacted by TheDC. Barton is a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Who were they talking to and what were they talking about? Are there more loans at risk of not being paid back? Are these good investments or political favors?”

“The American people just lost a half billion dollars and they deserve answers to these questions before more money is wasted. Until we know exactly what happened, I think we should slow down this loan program and take a closer look at each case.”

“It is becoming more clear with each revelation that warning signs were ignored in the Solyndra case,” Barton continued. “Yet in the next 48 hours — because of a deadline that can still be changed — the Department of Energy is going to hand out another $5 billion in loans.”

Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA have already, collectively, received billions in loans through Obama administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants in the southwestern United States.

Yet each, with the exception of the privately held SolarReserve, has seen its stock price hammered at the same time it was lobbying the Obama administration and Congress for billions in loan guarantees.

The Hill newspaper reported Wednesday that the Santa Monica, Calif.-based SolarReserve has secured a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for a Nevada solar project.

That company has ties to George Kaiser, the Oklahoma billionaire who raised $53,500 for President Obama’s campaign in 2008. Through his Argonaut Private Equity firm, Kaiser holds a majority stake in Solyndra.

Argonaut has a voting stake on SolarReserve’s board of directors in the person of Steve Mitchell, who also serves on Solyndra’s board of directors.

Additionally, Federal Election Commission records made available by the Center for Responsive Politics show that SolarReserve board member James McDermott has contributed $61,500 to various Democratic campaigns since 2008, including $30,800 to Obama’s presidential election campaign.

McDermott’s U.S. Renewable Energy Group has a significant financial stake in SolarReserve, and has drawn scrutiny for its ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid —and for reportedly driving green jobs to China.

And Lee Bailey, a fellow SolarReserve board member and U.S. Renewables Group investor, has donated $21,850 since 2008 to Democratic candidates including President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, California Sen. Barbara Boxer and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

SolarReserve’s board of directors also includes Jasandra Nyker of Pacific Corporate Group Asset Management, where former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, holds a leadership position.

Other data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that SolarReserve paid $100,000 in lobbying fees in 2009 to the Podesta Group. That firm’s principal, Tony Podesta, is the brother of John Podesta — who ran Barack Obama’s presidential transition team.

SolarReserve’s financials are not public since it’s a privately held company, but First Solar provides a more transparent example. That solar energy firm’s stock has lost more than $100 in value since it peaked at $170.80 on Feb. 17, 2011. The company was trading at $65.77 per share Wednesday afternoon.

This market tumble came despite First Solar’s success in winning approximately $2.1 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. The company announced Wednesday that it would not be able to qualify for a further $1.5 billion loan guarantee before the Sept. 30 deadline.

First Solar founder and Chairman Michael Ahearn, whom Reuters reported cashed in $68.9 million of his company’s stock last month, has donated $123,650, along with his wife, to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates during the three most recent cycles, mostly in Arizona.

The solar energy giant, the nation’s biggest, also spent more than $1.5 million lobbying Congress and the Obama administration since 2009 on the stimulus and subsequent green-jobs plans. This included approximately $400,000 paid to the Washington Tax Group, which also represented Solyndra.

Investment website The Motley Fool reported Wednesday that First Solar faces a potentially bleak future as its technology increasingly is becoming eclipsed by its competitors.

Ads by Google“As [solar] panel costs fall the balance of system costs becomes more important, highlighting First Solar’s current conundrum,” Motley Fool contributor Travis Hoium writes. “A less efficient panel requires more land, more labor to install, and more auxiliary components than higher efficiency panels. And with feed-in tariffs now leaning on rooftop installations in Europe, First Solar is now behind the curve.”

First Solar’s competitor SunPower has similarly received a $1.3 billion loan guarantee for a solar project in California, but Wall Street has been less than optimistic about the company’s financial health.

SunPower’s stock, like First Solar’s has lost enormous value in recent months. The stock peaked at $21.40 on April 29, 2011, and now trades at $8.36 per share. Morningstar forecasts the company “will post losses in both 2011 and 2012.” SunPower’s technology, Morningstar warns, is likely to remain “too costly compared to its peers” and it expects “mediocre” returns from the stock in the foreseeable future.

SunPower has paid lobbyist Patrick Murphy, a close confidant of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, at least $290,000 in lobbying fees since 2009.

SunPower’s political action committee gave $15,650 to Democratic congressional candidates in 2010 and only $500 to a single Republican candidate. Reid received the largest slice of that pie, a $4,000 campaign contribution.

The Spanish firm Abengoa Solar received a $1.45 billion loan guarantee for an Arizona solar project, yet it has similar financial woes. Abengoa also recently reached an agreement for a second loan guarantee, $1.2 billion for another Arizona project.

Yet despite its success appealing to the Obama administration for financing, the company has consistently lost value since March. Its stock fell from a high of $16.50 six months ago to just $10.45 per share on Wednesday.

Abengoa Solar’s lobbying efforts are spearheaded internally by Fred Morse, a veteran of the Department of Energy from the Carter and Reagan administrations. Since 2009, the company has paid Ernst and Young $330,000 in lobbying fees, according to information made available by the Center for Responsible Politics.

Abengoa also enlisted the help of California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, according to the Institute for Energy Research, to pressure the Department of Energy to expedite the loan guarantees.

“It is wrong when we let the country pick the winners and the losers,” said Mark Kramer, a project faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. “If they can’t get funding privately, they probably shouldn’t exist.”