Category Archives: Obama

British Report: Green sector costs more jobs than it creates

With Solyndra and half a dozen other solar panel boondoggles which seemed only to go into business to launder government money from the American people, to the business and pay off cronies who gave big donations to Obama before shutting down, to the money we are paying for electric cars made in Finland, to the battery plant that is about to shut down in Greenfield, Indiana, to the failure of the government subsidized Chevy Volt; this is a lesson that America is learning the hard way. Except the British learned this lesson last February.

Via the BBC:

A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry.

It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in “honest debate” about the issue.

The Scottish government called the study “misleading” and said 60,000 jobs could be created by the sector by 2020.

The report, called Worth the Candle? The economic impact of renewable energy policy in Scotland and the UK, said the industry in Scotland benefited from an annual transfer of about £330m from taxpayers and consumers elsewhere in the UK.

It said politicians needed to recognise the economic and environmental costs of support for the sector and focus more on the scientific and technical issues that arose.

Richard Marsh, research director of Verso Economics and co-author of the report, said: “There’s a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy.

“Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn’t stack up.”

Co-author Tom Miers added: “The Scottish renewables sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the UK.

“Without this UK-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tools used to promote this industry.”

A spokesman for the Scottish government said other studies had shown Scotland’s natural resources and low carbon opportunities could bring “significant” economic benefits.

Oh we have seen the benefits havent we, namely in inflation, souring energy costs and hundreds of thousands of coal, natural gas, and oil workers put on unemployment by this administrations illegal drilling bans and revocation of environmental permits without cause.

3M CEO: Obama is anti-business

3M CEO George Buckley

Notice Buckley said Canada as well as Mexico. Canada is in the process if lowering its corporate income tax to 16.5% (the USA is 35%). Canada is in the midst of a free-market awakening and wealth is flocking to Canada. They are slowly privatizing their health care system and streamlining their regulatory structure. Canada has realized that as the United States socializes that the wealth will flee, so they are making sure that the wealth does not have far to go.

(Reuters) – The chief executive of diversified manufacturer 3M Co called President Barack Obama anti-business in an interview with the Financial Times, arguing that manufacturers could move to Canada or Mexico as a result.

“We know what his instincts are — they are Robin Hood-esque,” 3M CEO George Buckley told the paper. “He is anti-business.”

Obama is working to shed the reputation that he is against the business community. Earlier this month, he assembled a group of top U.S. executives, chaired by General Electric Co Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt, to advise him on economic matters.

He also brought on JPMorgan Chase executive William Daley as his chief of staff and made a high profile speech to the Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby, earlier this year.

But Buckley said he was not yet convinced by Obama’s actions.

“Politicians forget that business has choice. We’re not indentured servants and we will do business where it’s good and friendly. If it’s hostile, incrementally, things will slip away. We’ve got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada and Mexico — which tend to be pro-business — or America,” he told the Financial Times.

Inded GE’s Immelt has been sending jobs to China while encouraging Obama to do more of the same.

Deficit spending under Obama has been mind boggling

This post may help the laymen wrap their head around just how much deficit spending we are talking about.

The Weekly Standard:

* In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

* In inflation-adjusted dollars, President Obama’s $3.8 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in just three years is nearly double our $2 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in the five fiscal years during which we were fighting World War II (FY 1942-46). It’s no small feat to nearly double the United States’ inflation-adjusted deficits during the largest conflict in human history, and to do so in less time than it took American GIs to fight that two-front war.

* As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), President Obama’s average annual deficit spending is 9.7 percent of GDP. That’s higher than during any single year of the Great Depression, the Cold War, the Korean War, or Vietnam. In fact, the only deficits in more than 200 years of American history that have exceeded even 6 percent of GDP have all involved either the Civil War, World War I, World War II, or President Obama.

* In average annual deficit spending as a percentage of GDP, the nearby chart shows how President Obama stacks up against other presidents who have served during the past four decades.

* The Obama deficit legacy, moreover, will be felt well beyond his tenure in office, especially if that tenure extends beyond a single term. First, Obama’s spending through 2012 essentially doesn’t include Obama-care. The CBO projects that Obama-care will increase spending by more than $2 trillion in the overhaul’s real first decade (2014 to 2023). That’s more than $2 trillion that could -otherwise be used to pay down the debt, rather than allowing the debt to rise continually and then piling a massive new entitlement program on top of it.

And these numbers are just to February of this year.

Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages

Remember that Clinton/Gingrich “Welfare Reform” law that was so effective at stopping people from gaming the system and helping people get back to work? Did you know it was reversed with the stimulus bill?

CNBC:

Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn’t taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement.

Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

“The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,” said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. “Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.”

Corruption: Most Stimulus Funds Spent in Democrat Districts…

[Originally posted on my old college blog in April 2010 – Editor]

Via George Mason University, National Review, and HotAir.

The stimulus bill, as ill conceived as it is, gives is a fantastic opportunity to test Keynesian economic policy and models in comparison to actual results.

According to the law, districts with the highest unemployment were supposed to get the bulk of the stimulus money. Did that actually happen?

First: The idea behind the $787 billion stimulus bill is that, if the government spends money where it is the most needed, it will create jobs and trigger economic growth. Hence, we should expect the government to invest more money in districts with higher unemployment rates.

Controlling for the percentage of the district employed in the construction industry, a proxy for the vulnerability to recession of a district, I find no statistical correlation for all relevant unemployment indicators and the allocation of funds. This suggests that unemployment is not the factor leading the awards. Also, I found no correlation between other economic indicators, such as income, and stimulus funding.

Second: On average, Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as Republican ones. Democratic districts also received two-and-a-half times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts ($122,127,186,509 vs. $46,139,592,268). Republican districts also received smaller awards on average. (The average dollars awarded per Republican district is $260,675,663, while the average dollars awarded per Democratic district is $471,533,539.)

The exact same thing happend under the “new deal” where much of the spending went to swing districts to buy votes. Massive amounts of money spent and non-farm unemployment never dropped below 20% during the New Deal.

The fact remains and it might as well be considered a Law of Economics: Politicians spend money with a political result in mind, not an economic one. Pictorial logarithm proof:

As you can see the log shows no correlation, but look at this….

Well would you look at that. Oh the news gets better…

In the report from Dr. Veronique de Rugy from George Mason University:

I found that an average cost of $286,000 was awarded per job created, a 16.3 percent increase over the previous period.

See the full report HERE.

Now in case you are thinking to yourself, /whiney voice on “Well wait, that economist you quoted doesn’t count cause she is French and she wrote a note about her findings to Natioal Review which means she is a nazi and only twice removed from Hitler’s third cousin!”

Well USA Today hired some econo-geeks and they came up with the same result:

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college…

More crony capitalism and corruption.

48 Out of 50 States Have Lost Jobs since Democrats’ Stimulus Law. Washington DC Gained Jobs.

And these numbers were taken from last December so it is even worse now. We have been losing about 400,000 jobs a week since that time based on new unemployment claims (in fairness this number does not include jobs created which helps to mitigate this number, but with wages going down and inflation goes up, lots of thes enew jobs are part time and/or are people just taking anything out of desperation).

House Ways & Means Committee:

While Democrats promised stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different. To date, 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs, while the unemployment rate has remained at or above 9.5% for 15 consecutive months. As the nation nears the end of 2010 — when final statistics will be available to compare actual outcomes with the Administration’s pre-stimulus projections — Washington, D.C. remains the only place in America where those job-creation projections actually have been met.  Meanwhile, the rest of the nation is left asking “Where are the jobs?”

State Administration Projection of Change in Jobs Through December 2010 Actual Change in Jobs Through October 2010
Alabama +52,000 -43,500
Alaska +8,000 -1,200
Arizona +70,000 -73,800
Arkansas +31,000 -5,100
California +396,000 -543,400
Colorado +59,000 -83,200
Connecticut +41,000 -39,200
Delaware +11,000 -10,300
District of Columbia +12,000 +21,100
Florida +206,000 -169,200
Georgia +106,000 -126,200
Hawaii +15,000 -8,900
Idaho +17,000 -16,100
Illinois +148,000 -160,900
Indiana +75,000 -40,200
Iowa +37,000 -20,200
Kansas +33,000 -32,800
Kentucky +48,000 -7,700
Louisiana +50,000 -15,600
Maine +15,000 -9,900
Maryland +66,000 -13,900
Massachusetts +79,000 -33,500
Michigan +109,000 -105,900
Minnesota +66,000 -24,700
Mississippi +30,000 -23,900
Missouri +69,000 -66,500
Montana +11,000 -8,600
Nebraska +23,000 -11,400
Nevada +34,000 -79,000
New Hampshire +16,000 +5,200
New Jersey +100,000 -104,600
New Mexico +22,000 -13,300
New York +215,000 -127,700
North Carolina +105,000 -81,900
North Dakota +8,000 +6,600
Ohio +133,000 -157,500
Oklahoma +40,000 -24,400
Oregon +44,000 -41,300
Pennsylvania +143,000 -71,900
Rhode Island +12,000 -15,600
South Carolina +50,000 -22,900
South Dakota +10,000 -2,500
Tennessee +70,000 -53,700
Texas +269,000 -54,100
Utah +32,000 -15,000
Vermont +8,000 -5,200
Virginia +93,000 -44,500
Washington +75,000 -70,900
West Virginia +20,000 -10,600
Wisconsin +70,000 -69,100
Wyoming +8,000 -7,800

Source: Administration February 13, 2009 projection and actual U.S. Department of Labor data.

Islam’s Ignorant Defenders

Simply one of the wisest columns on this subject ever written. It is worth reading twice.

By David French:

Our cultural elite knows nothing about Islam, yet they defend with it with sneering, condescending ferocity.

One of the more interesting phenomena of recent times has been the cultural elite’s aggressive defense of Islam. Whether they’re decrying the alleged “Islamophobia” of their fellow Americans, storming off TV sets, offering impassioned defenses of religious liberty, or offering uninformed theological statements about the religion’s alleged true nature, many of our most educated and politically aware citizens are united in outrage. A great religion is under attack, they say, and it’s under attack by a bigoted citizenry who let the actions of a tiny few define the nature of the many.

But what do they actually know about Islam?

Isn’t the “true” nature of a religion defined through its theologians and adherents? “True” Islam has been debated — and fought over — for more than 1,000 years. The existence of Sunni and Shi’ite divisions demonstrates that there is no monolithic definition of Islam even within the Islamic world. And yet men like our most recent presidents purport to define it as a “religion of peace” (President Bush’s favorite phrase) or a “religion that reaffirms peace, fairness, and tolerance” (President Obama’s recent description).

Again and again when I face outraged and indignant liberals — people who defame Ground Zero mosque opponents as bigots or pass around the latest Jon Stewart video as if it were more documentary than comedy sketch — I find their knowledge is skin deep, at best. “Jihad is really the inner struggle,” they say. “Islam had a glorious civilization in the Middle Ages,” they argue. Some cite the Muslims they know — kind-hearted, hospitable people — who serve as stand-ins for Muslims everywhere.

As for me, I spent a year in Iraq, talked to countless Muslims, have read the Koran and much of the Hadith, and I still don’t know what “true Islam” is. How could I? I struggle enough to define (and live) “true Christianity.” Can I really purport to understand Islam in all its complexity?

But I’m not entirely ignorant. Some things I do know, and I know them all too well.

We face an enemy that is recruiting its followers using explicit, religious themes. To them, jihad is not an “inner struggle” but a call to war. The call to jihad has grown so strong that thousands of young Muslims have served as suicide bombers, hundreds of thousands have served as jihadist fighters, and untold millions more support armed jihad through donations, public demonstrations, and in public opinion polls.

Even allegedly moderate Muslims, like a key investor in the Ground Zero mosque property, have been caught giving money to terrorist organizations, and the imam at the center of controversy has a history of radicalism that would shock the conscience of most Americans (declaring America an “accessory to the crime” of September 11 is moderate?).

And it’s sometimes tough to tell the difference between moderates and extremists. Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the world’s most-wanted terrorists, served as a Chaplain at George Washington University, and the Fort Hood shooter was not only an Army officer, he gave briefings on the “Koranic World View” to physicians at Walter Reed Hospital.

Moreover, anti-Semitism is rampant in the Muslim world, with children’s shows in Gaza featuring such characters as Assud, the Jew-eating rabbit, ancient anti-Semitic hoaxes like the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” aired as a “documentary” in Egypt, and Saudi-written and distributed textbooks preaching hate to Muslim children around the world.

Let’s flip the script for a moment. Let’s imagine that in the United States our Christian population was producing thousands of suicide bombers, recruiting tens of thousands of Jihadists, financing hundreds of millions of dollars of arms and ammunition, and distributing literature proclaiming Jews and others as worthy of death. Would Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walk of the set at criticism of Christians? Would Time magazine decry “Christophobia”? Of course not. They would argue that Christianity was in crisis, and they would be right.

During my time in Iraq I met Muslims who laid down their lives every day to protect their community from the jihadists. After all, many thousands more Iraqi soldiers and police officers have died protecting their own country than have American soldiers. Moreover, many Muslim Americans have rendered courageous, indispensable service in the War on Terror. Their faith is real, and their service is greater than that of the vast majority of their fellow citizens. So, what is true Islam?

That definition I leave to Muslims. And as they struggle to work through the complexities of their own faith, I doubt they’ll consult President Bush, President Obama, or Joy Behar.

At the same time, however, all Americans have to deal with and guard against the actions and attitudes of many millions of Muslims, people who believe their faith calls them to support, to finance, and to fight an unending jihad against unbelievers. There is something rotten at work within Islam, and whether it takes five years, five hundred, or five thousand, that rottenness (regardless of its relationship to “true Islam”) must be resisted and defeated.

David French is a lawyer, writer, soldier, and veteran of the Iraq war. He is the director of the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.

Libya’s transitional leader says Islamic Sharia law will be the “basic source” of all law


The readers of this web site are not surprised by this at all. This is trajic, especially for the women of Libya and Tunisia and as well know the women of Egypt are already suffering forced virginity checks etc.

On the domestic front, this will not inspire women to vote for Obama.

AP/Yahoo News:

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Libya’s transitional leader says Islamic Sharia law will be the “basic source” of all law.

Al-Reuters:

The leader of an Islamist party predicted to win the biggest share of the vote was heckled outside a polling station by people shouting “terrorist” — highlighting tensions between Islamists and secularists that are also being felt in other countries touched by the Arab Spring.

Telegraph:

Libya’s liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law …

CPI: Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight by Stimulus Bill (government picking winners and losers)

Before we begin it should be clear that the “Center for Public Integrity” CPI is a far left outfit complete with all the spin and trimmings. And while the story they tell is spun I find it to be directionally accurate. While it is rather obvious that environmental regulations go way beyond science and are in fact used to pick winners and losers for purposes of corruption, influence and donations, this article demonstrates that fact with detail. Unknowingly and in it’s own way, the CPI has made the case against leviathan government and the kind of “Chicago Style” regulations that always result from it as well as this web log ever could.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2565/ :

In the name of job creation and clean energy, the Obama administration has doled out billions of dollars in stimulus money to some of the nation’s biggest polluters and granted them sweeping exemptions from the most basic form of environmental oversight, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found.

The administration has awarded more than 179,000 “categorical exclusions” to stimulus projects funded by federal agencies, freeing those projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Coal-burning utilities like Westar Energy and Duke Energy, chemical manufacturer DuPont, and ethanol maker Didion Milling are among the firms with histories of serious environmental violations that have won blanket NEPA exemptions.

Even a project at BP’s maligned refinery in Texas City, Tex. — owner of the oil industry’s worst safety record and site of a deadly 2005 explosion, as well as a benzene leak earlier this year — secured a waiver for the preliminary phase of a carbon capture and sequestration experiment involving two companies with past compliance problems. The primary firm has since dropped out of the project before it could advance to the second phase.

Agency officials who granted the exemptions told the Center that they do not have time in most cases to review the environmental compliance records of stimulus recipients, and do not believe past violations should affect polluters’ chances of winning stimulus money or the NEPA exclusions.

The so-called “stimulus” funding came from the $787-billion legislation officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in February 2009.

Documents obtained by the Center show the administration has devised a speedy review process that relies on voluntary disclosures by companies to determine whether stimulus projects pose environmental harm. Corporate polluters often omitted mention of health, safety, and environmental violations from their applications. In fact, administration officials told the Center they chose to ignore companies’ environmental compliance records in making grant decisions and issuing NEPA exemptions, saying they considered such information irrelevant.

Some polluters reported their stimulus projects might cause “unknown environmental risks” or could “adversely affect” sensitive resources, the documents show. Others acknowledged they would produce hazardous air pollutants or toxic metals. Still others won stimulus money just weeks after settling major pollution cases. Yet nearly all got exemptions from full environmental analyses, the documents show.

Flashback: Democrats Yearly Deficit Spending 6.5 Times Higher than Republicans. Democrats Pork Spending 50 Times Higher

An important reminder about the budget numbers from 2010.

CNS News reported:

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

So much for that promise.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner:

Press coverage of the budget frenzy on Capitol Hill has suggested that pork-barrel earmark spending is still a bipartisan problem, that after months of self-righteous rhetoric about fiscal discipline, Republicans and Democrats remain equal-opportunity earmarkers.It’s not true. A new analysis by a group of federal-spending watchdogs shows a striking imbalance between the parties when it comes to earmark requests. Democrats remain raging spenders, while Republicans have made enormous strides in cleaning up their act. In the Senate, the GOP made only one-third as many earmark requests as Democrats for 2011, and in the House, Republicans have nearly given up earmarking altogether — while Democrats roll on.

The watchdog groups — Taxpayers for Common Sense, WashingtonWatch.com, and Taxpayers Against Earmarks — counted total earmark requests in the 2011 budget. Those requests were made by lawmakers earlier this year, but Democratic leaders, afraid that their party’s spending priorities might cost them at the polls, decided not to pass a budget before the Nov. 2 elections. This week, they distilled those earmark requests — threw some out, combined others — into the omnibus bill that was under consideration in the Senate until Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled it Thursday night. While that bill was loaded with spending, looking back at the original earmark requests tells us a lot about the spending inclinations of both parties.

In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.

Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House — 174 of them — requested a total of zero earmarks.

Talk to Republicans, and they’ll say it would be nice if there were no earmark requests at all, but party leaders can’t control everybody. “Brown’s retiring, Cao’s defeated, Paul is Paul and Young is Young,” one GOP aide shrugs. Still, the bottom line is that the House GOP’s nearly perfect renunciation of earmarks is striking. “For a voluntary moratorium, it was impressive that there were only four scofflaws,” says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.

If you look at the top 10 Senate earmarkers as measured by the total dollar value of earmarks requested, there are seven Democrats and three Republicans. (The leader of the pack is Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who requested $4.4 billion in earmarks.) The three Republicans are Sens. Roger Wicker, Sam Brownback and Thad Cochran. One of them, Brownback, is leaving the Senate, while the other two are from Mississippi, which is apparently earmark heaven.

 Commentary:

Isn’t it interesting that the only time you hear about “deficits” from the Democrats and the elite media is when they want to raise tyour taxes? Then the Democrats drop a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill in the hopper near the end of a lame duck session and what do we hear? The  ….chirp….chirp….chirp… of crickets in the silence.

As the Deficit Commission has rightly pointed out tax rates need to be lowered for most individuals and businesses because the higher the rate the less the compliance, the higher the rate the more wealth goes overseas, the higher the rate the fewer will take risk, the higher the rate the less small businesses can hire. The simple truth is that the wealthy and upper middle class can take money and park it in a tax free growth account and leave it there. They have the option of not moving their money thus it cannot be taxed. It is for these reasons it is economic growth that generates real revenue, not high tax rates.

You heard the rhetoric all over the elite media and from the Democrat leadership, “If we don’t raise taxes on the “rich” the government will lose half a trillion dollars a year in revenue”. That entire narrative is a canard for the following reasons.

There are very few wage earners who make $250,000 a year.

The way the tax code is set up the majority of people who pay the top marginal tax rate and not individuals at all, but are Sub-S small businesses with 5 – 200 employees.

The half a trillion dollar number is generated from a series of formula’s that make up what is known as the “static Keynesian model”. These models not only are not accurate, but usually are not even clos,e as they do not account for changes in behavior that result from people changing the rules. For example: the government taxes every cheese burger 100 dollars. Since America consumes a billion cheese burgers a year the government estimates that the tax revenue will be $100 billion dollars.

Of course this leaves out the obvious, who would buy a cheeseburger of the government taxed each one $100? So along comes a Republican who proposes to lower the tax to $50 per cheese burger; along comes the media and the Democrats to cry that the tax cuts are costing the government $50 billion a year! Quite dishonest isn’t it?

Lowering tax rates resulted in increased revenue under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton (second term tax cuts), and Bush II.

UPDATE2010 YEARLY DEFICIT: $2.08 Trillion. That is 10 times higher than the last year Republicans had budgetary control.

Third poll says nearly half of all doctors will retire or make significant changes to practice due to ObamaCare

This is the third poll to say this. The first two were the Medicus Poll and the IBD Poll.

IBD:

When we said nearly half of U.S. doctors might close their practices or retire early rather than live under the Democrats’ health overhaul, we were heavily criticized. The critics, though, were wrong.

Four in nine doctors responding to an IBD/TIPP poll sent out in August 2009 said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passed what has become known as ObamaCare. That means as many as 360,000 physicians have plans to be doing something other than treating the growing number of patients in this country.

The doctors also told us — 67% to 22%, with 11% not responding — that they expected fewer students to apply for medical school in the future if the plan became law.

Given these views, it’s no surprise that 71% were doubtful that the government would be able to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans with better care at lower costs, which ObamaCare supporters have promised.

Other findings from our poll of 1,376 doctors included: six in 10 agreeing that the Democrats’ plan would strip drug companies of the incentives they need to make lifesaving pharmaceuticals, and 65% believing that a government overhaul would lead to lower-quality care for seniors.

The critics said our poll was not credible, was “shabby” and “garbage.” They accused IBD of being partisan, pursuing an agenda, trying to sway gullible readers with shameless journalism.

Useful rhetoric for keeping the left stirred up, but it was nothing more than an attempt to poison findings the critics didn’t like.

Now a Merritt Hawkins survey of 2,379 doctors for the Physicians Foundation completed in August has vindicated our poll. It found that 40% of doctors said they would “retire, seek a nonclinical job in health care, or seek a job or business unrelated to health care” over the next three years as the overhaul is phased in.

Of those who said they planned to retire, 28% are 55 or younger and nearly half (49%) are 60 or younger.

A larger portion (74%) said they plan to make “one or more significant changes in their practices in the next one to three years, a time when many provisions of health reform will be phased in.”

In addition to retirement, and finding nonclinical jobs elsewhere, those changes include working part time, closing practices to new patients, employment at a hospital, cutting back on the number of patients and switching to a cash or concierge practice.

A deeper look at the results reveals eight in 10 believe ObamaCare “will erode the viability of the private practice model” while six in 10 are convinced they will be compelled to “close or significantly restrict” their practices to at least one category of patient.

Over half (56%) said they believe the government takeover will affect the quality of care they are able to provide their patients and 86% said doctors weren’t “adequately represented to policymakers and the public during the run-up to passage of health reform.”

It’s significant that the Physicians Foundation survey was taken from the membership of the American Medical Association.

After initially indicating opposition to ObamaCare, that group supported the legislation. For that reason, Dr. Marc Siegel said Tuesday on Fox News that he would be “more worried about non-AMA members and what they have to say.”

We think that we already covered that concern with our 2009 poll.

Doctors simply don’t like what the Democrats have force-fed them. A large segment of the healing profession says it’s willing to close its doors rather than endure the problems that will be created by the overhaul.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of outcome that’s expected when lawmakers leave common sense behind and work far outside their moral and constitutional authority.

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032

While Obama tried to stop offshore drilling and exploration here and while his administration puts more of our domestic resources off-limits, the White House is using taxpayer dollars to aid Petro-Brazil’s  offshore drilling efforts in waters deeper than the United States. George Soros is an investor in PetroBraz and this falls in line with the view of the academic left, that the wealth of the united states should be redistributed to the rest of the world. One way to do that is to send our jobs overseas and to have us send our money abroad for energy.

Jack Gerard API:

“As our country looks for ways out of the hole of lackluster economic growth and job creation, today’s decision shows that this administration would rather keep digging than take the ladder to increased economic prosperity offered by developing our nation’s domestic energy resources. “The oil and natural gas industry is a reliable vehicle for growing the economy and creating good-paying jobs.

This decision shuts the door on new development off our nation’s coasts and effectively ensures that new American jobs will not be realized. It will stifle investment, deny billions in revenue for critical government services and increase our dependence on foreign energy sources.

“The oil and natural gas industry is committed to safe and environmentally responsible operations, and both the industry and regulators have added new safeguards to ensure such operations. This reversal on new lease sales off America’s coasts comes on top of a de facto moratorium, which has all but stopped new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.” 

 

More from Jan Van Ryan:

For months, numerous studies–such as this one from LSU professor Dr. Joseph Mason and another by Moody’s Analytics–have demonstrated the significant economic impact the deepwater drilling moratorium could have on the Gulf and U.S. economies.

A Southern Methodist University (SMU) study released this week is no different, and it presents some alarming figures on the impact the de facto moratorium is having on shallow-water drilling.

According to Dr. Bernard L. Weinstein, associate director of SMU’s Maguire Energy Institute, the Interior Department’s slowdown in issuing new permits for shallow-water drilling operations could mean:  

  • 50,000 lost jobs;
  • Economic losses of $4.3 billion that would occur if 75 percent of the rigs become idle as a result of fewer issued permits; and
  • $12.5 billion in lost income nationwide.

As Dr. Weinstein points out, shallow-water drilling is extremely safe. In the last 15 years, the federal government reports that more than 11,000 wells have been drilled and just 15 barrels of oil have spilled as a result of a loss of well control:  

“Shallow-water drillers work in less than 500 feet of water, mainly extracting natural gas. Projects center on well-charted fields of known pressure and geography, using simple and straightforward technology.”

 

Prior to the moratorium, 10 to 15 permits for new shallow-water wells were approved each month. But since April, only seven permits for new shallow-water wells have been issued, and 15 of 46 shallow-water rigs in the Gulf are idle.  

As Jack Gerard mentioned in a blog post last week, a drilling slowdown hurts more than just oil companies. It’s time to put the oil and natural gas industry back to work and produce reliable American energy for Americans

Former head of CIA “bin Laden Unit”: Libyan rebels are like the Taliban

Is Obama’s entire Middle East policy designed to undermine Israel?

Let us put everything on the wall and examine it.

The dictators in the Middle East kept the Muslim Brotherhood and the Al-Qeada’s at bay. They were necessary for Israel’s security. Mubarak was critical to maintaining the Israeli/Egyptian Peace Treaty.

Now President Obama is arming the Middle East to the gills, including modern tanks to Egypt in spite of the fact that the new authorities are engaging in Taliban like behavior such as attacking peaceful Coptic Christians with armored military vehicles.

If our entire policy is designed to undermine Israel’s security it explains why Obama was not interested in helping the Iranian freedom movement.

The second highest number of suicide bombers and foreign militants fighting us in Iraq are from Benghazi, Libya which is exactly where the rebel uprising against Gadaffi began. So it is no surprise just who these rebels are.

It could be that the arms sales are an effort to resist Iranian influence. In the case of Bahrain the Iranian backed Shia population (about half the country) is allied with leftists in an effort to gain control away from the Sunni government.

The House of Saud will not allow a Shia government on the peninsula and it is not clear how the Iranians will react to more crackdowns. Of course the left is using the crackdowns as a propaganda tool to try to bring international pressure to keep the Sunni’s and the government from resisting Iranian influence. This leaves an important question. If all of these arms sales are designed to prevent more direct Iranian actions or Iranian backed uprisings why would the Obama administration let the Iranian freedom movement fall flat on its face with no support?

Is this about Israel, Iran, or is our foreign policy so divided between the State Department, the CIA, DoD, and the White House that we have a policy that is flailing about without a focus or unified intent?

Dr. Michael Scheuer:

Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages

Remember that Clinton/Gingrich Welfare Reform that was so effective at stopping people from gaming the system and helping people get back to work? Did you know it was reversed with the Obama Stimulus Bill?

CNBC:

Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn’t taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement.

Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

“The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,” said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. “Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.”

Massive Economic Study: Obama Stimulus Bill Cost 1 Million Private Sector Jobs in Ohio

This is not from any light-weight folks, this is linked on Dr. Greg Mankiw.

Mankiw wrote one of the most respected series of econ college textbooks used in universities today.

Dr. Mankiw:

Tim Conley and Bill Dupor have a new paper on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (that is, the Obama stimulus bill).  Their empirical findings:

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

Powerline comments:

Earlier this week, they reported their findings in a paper titled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled.” The paper is dense and rather lengthy, and requires considerable study. Here, however, is the bottom line:

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

So the American people borrowed and spent close to a trillion dollars to destroy a net of more than one-half million jobs. Does President Obama understand this? I very much doubt it. When he expressed puzzlement at the idea that the stimulus money may not have been well-spent, and said that “spending equals stimulus,” he betrayed a shocking level of economic ignorance.

Obama’s EPA: Jobs Don’t Matter

Daily Caller:

The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.

“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.

Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles.

Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.

That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.

The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.

Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.

“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs…  and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”

Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.

Video: How Tax Cuts Work & Why Tax Increases Achieve the Exact Opposite of the Stated Intent

Lee Doren of “How The World Works” explains how tax cuts and increases work in a progressive income tax system like we have here in the United States.

Let us examine some charts that help to illustrate this further.

Here is the tax burden by taxable income that came out at the middle of the Bush Presidency:

You see when tax rates are cut and the economy grows the upper and top parts of the PRODUCER CLASS (notice I did not say rich as many of the super rich are NOT producers) pay the lions share of federal income taxes. Those who produce actually produce more, invest more, take more risk and hire more people when the economy grows. So as they pay a lower tax rate they actually pay more in real dollars because they are punished less by moving their money and takling risk.

Now let us look at the tax burden as it is today. According to the Tax Foundation:

Incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation’s income and income taxes paid.

In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent’s constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. That trend reversed in 2008. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2008 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains.

Another indicator of this reversal in the income and tax shares of the top 1 percent is that during 2007, the top 1 percent had actually paid more in federal income tax than the bottom 95 percent, a comparison that was much remarked on a year ago. But the diminished income of the top 1 percent in 2008 means that the comparison no longer holds. During 2008, the bottom 95 percent (AGI under $159,619) paid 41.3 percent of the total collected, a larger share than the 38.0 percent paid by the top 1 percent (AGI over $380,354).

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

So why did the percentage of the tax burden of “the rich” during most of the Bush presidency go UP year after year till 2007, even after the so called “tax cuts to the rich”?

And why in 2008 did a huge portion of the tax burden get shifted to the working middle class and poor?

It is just as we said, if the incentive is there to produce, if the taxes are low and if the risk is measurable those wealthier Americans and producers will take more risk and be more economically active. If you remove the incentive by threatening them with taxes, cap & trade, ObamaCare, tons of regulations, bureaucrats and the corruption that always follows such policies it creates uncertainty investors and producers can no longer make a measured risk. This is when they bottle their money up or invest it in China, who is smart enough not to punish investors and producers for taking risk.

This shows that the tax rate that the producers or “the rich” pay is secondary to certainty, confidence, and economic growth as to how much tax they pay in real dollars.

It is ironic that the left, who claims to pass this stuff in the name of the middle class and “soaking the rich”, in real dollars accomplish exactly the opposite of their stated intent. It ends up that it is the producing middle class who gets soaked with more tax burden and more inflation.

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

ABC’s Jake Tapper Blasts Obama’s Double Standard on Jobs and Outsourcing

ABC’s Jake Tapper on the double standard: “What would candidate Obama have said if Bush’s jobs adviser ran a company which outsourced thousands of jobs and paid no taxes on $14 billion in profits?

Jeffery Immelt with Obama

Politico (and Politico is very left friendly folks):

The results of GE’s tight relationship with the Obama administration are starting to show.

The company’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, went from being an Obama ally on green energy to being one of his top outside advisers on the economy in the last two years.

In the process, The New York Times reports, GE had one of its best years in 2010, in part by getting a huge tax benefit from Uncle Sam.

Last year, the company paid nothing to the government. Instead, the government paid GE $3.2 billion in tax breaks.

“Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore,” according to The Times.

Some combination of aggressive lobbying for green energy tax incentives — for which the administration had pushed aggressively in the Recovery Act and in President Obama’s budgets to Congress over the last two year — and strategies run out of its in-house tax department have made GE one of the leading companies in reducing its corporate tax burden.

When Immelt was named the chairman of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in January, he acknowledged that his company has a reputation for running most of its business overseas, the result of more than three decades of reducing its domestic operations to minimize costs.

“I know that despite the fact that 60 percent of GE’s revenues are outside of the United States, I personally and this company share in the responsibly and the accountability to make sure that this is the most competitive and productive country in the world,” Immelt said in January.

But he neglected to mention that GE’s offshore operation also allows it to avoid paying most of its taxes to the federal government.

GE’s spokesman told the Times that reducing its tax burden is part of the company’s “responsibility” to its shareholders.

But it also appears to run contrary to Obama’s rhetoric about slowing the rapid offshoring of American jobs.

This lizard (read government) could cost up to 60,000 jobs and 25% of our national oil production.

Some believe that party of this story is the Obama Administration sticking it to Texas just as the Obama Administration is also doing to Texas in regards to the fires.

The government says that where there is oil drilling there are less of these lizards per mile. An interesting method of measurement as there are no shortage of deer and how much space in my home town is covered by parking lots and malls? Deer can be seen every day and is hunted just to keep the numbers from getting out of control.

Massive new oil shale finds have been found in Texas and parts of New Mexico, enough to increase domestic production by 25%. The Obama Administration, if recent history is a guide, won’t have that. The lizard is very skiddish and lives mostly under the sand, so most people have never seen one (hmm I wonder how hard that makes them to count).

ABC News:

The sand dune lizard is a small reptile that has become the scourge of the Texas Oil industry, not because it is dangerous but because the threatened species could put land ripe for oil exploration off limits.

“As far as I am concerned, it is Godzilla,” Texas land commissioner Jerry Paterson told ABC News. “[It’s] the biggest threat facing the oil business in memory,” said Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. They believe the small tan-colored, insectivorous lizard could cost the oil industry and surrounding communities thousands of jobs.

About 63,000 Americans work in the oil and gas well industry as of September 2009, the most recent period available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program. Most of those jobs are in Texas.

The federal government said the sand lizard is on the verge of extinction, and is expected to place it on the endangered species list soon.

If the species makes the list, its 800,000 acre habitat in the shinnery oak sand dune communities of southeastern New Mexico and southwestern Texas would receive protected status. That habitat happens to be right in the heart of Texas oil country.

“If the lizard is put on the endangered species list, then [rigs] would [be] shutdown,” Leslyn Wallace, a land manager at RSP Permian, told ABC News. That would cost many Texans their jobs.

But here is the rub, The eco-radicals in the government have used the Endangered Species Act as a weapon before to target the industries they despise. After the polar bear population had risen 30% the government decided to put the polar bear on the endangered species list anyways because of reductions in polar sea ice, which saw a cyclical low in 2007, but had already rebounded 27% in the following year and is still growing today.

Flashback: Canada Slashes Corporate Tax Rate to 16.5% – US is still 35%

[This is a flashback from December 2010 and Obama is STILL talking about raising taxes on business and so are the Van Jones inspired “occupy” protesters. Remember that “giant sucking sound” that we used to talk about with Mexico?]

Japan is in the process of lowering its corporate tax rate by 5% and just days ago they have proposed to lower it again to 25.5%.

This leaves the United States with the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Of course the little truth about the corporate tax rate is this, corporations never pay this, you do in the form of higher prices. All expenses of goods and services are passed on to the consumer which is you. Corporate taxes are just a way for government to raise your taxes and hide it in the form of higher prices. Of course some companies cannot raise their prices and stay competitive so they leave the country and go to China, Canada, Ireland, Mexico or Brazil.

President Obama’s own deficit commission said that we need lower rates and a leaner tax code to bring business here and to help spur compliance. Indeed, they said that the tax rates should be made lower so the government could collect more revenue to lower the debt. John Kerry even advocated lowering the corporate tax rate when he ran for president. The high tax rate combined with a 16,000 page tax code allows for government to pick winners and losers which generates corruption and paybacks. This is a no brainer folks, it needs to get done.

Will the Democrats do the right thing and lower the rate to bring jobs here? Or will they insist that the best way to grow the middle class is by waging a war of taxes, regulation, and uncertainty on their employers? And by trashing the currency with policy and monetizing the debt (printing money out of thin air). [See Cloward-Piven Strategy LINK1 and LINK2 – Editor]

[YouTube is nuking conservative vids again – You can see the video HERE]

UPDATE – Steve Forbes on why business is not hiring [YouTube nuked this one as well. You can watch the video HERE] :

Obama’s own Medicare Actuary more confident in Paul Ryan’s ‘Road Map’ cost controls than Obama’s health law

These facts have been coming out for a year yet they have fallen out of the dialogue. It is time to remind each other and our friends. With the demise of the CLASS Act it is now worse. We said that ObamaCare would cost a trillion dollars to implement and every day new evidence moves us closer and closer to that number.

Daily Caller:

The government’s chief actuary for Medicare spending on Wednesday said he had more confidence that Republican Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements would drive down health-care costs than President Obama’s recently passed overhaul.

Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, made the comment in response to questions from lawmakers during House Budget Committee hearing.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat from Maryland, went on the attack against committee chairman Paul Ryan’s “Road Map” plan, which is a long-term proposal to make entitlement spending solvent.

Van Hollen pressed Foster on whether Ryan’s plan would work, prompting Foster to point out that one of the biggest problems in health care now is that most new technology that is developed increases costs rather than decreasing it.

“If there’s a way to turn around the mindset for the people who do the research and development … to get them to focus more on cost-reducing tech and less on cost increasing technology, if you can do that then one of biggest components of [increasing costs] turns to your side,” Foster said. “If you can put that pressure on the research and development community, you might have fighting chance of changing the nature of new medical technology in a way that makes lower cost levels possible.”

Foster said: “The Road Map has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, though I’m a little less confident about that.”

The thinking behind Foster’s comment is that a voucher system would reduce the amount of government money available for health care over time, causing consumers to shop around and creating an incentive in the health-care sector to compete for those dollars.

In a brief interview outside the House chamber later in the day, Ryan explained it this way: “There’s only going to be so much money for health care because the economy can only support so much … So is it better spent through the person in a competitive marketplace or through the government under increasing price controls and pressure?”

“If you go through the century, these entitlements consume all money. The GAO calculation assumes Congress is going to wise up and cut back on these programs because people will decide they don’t want 100 percent of their discretionary income going to health care. They want some for food and some for shelter and some for other things. So there will be a curtailment of health care spending in the future,” Ryan said. “The question is which curtailment gets you the better results at going after the cause of health inflation: consumer pressure or government price controls.”

Dick Morris Reports: Consumer Confidence Collapses

Consumer confidence has been in the tank since march.

If you want to know what is going on with the economy in recent months, Dick Morris has a very good explanation in this video.

Dick Morris was the political strategist for Bill Clinton for many years.

Speaking of the former President, Bill Clinton seems to have had enough. For a while he was openly criticizing Obama’s mis-steps with the economy, especially the illegal offshore drilling ban, the yanking of coal permits etc.

This may have also been a political shot across the bow. The Obama Administration was jerking Hillary around for months starting with the Egypt/Libya debacle. The State Department thinks it has agreement across the administration on  Middle-East policy, makes a cautious yet sensible statement on the position of the United States, and Obama comes out the very next day and contradicts it. This kind of thing happened too often to be an accident and is obviously designed to marginalize her. Niall Ferguson asked if we have two foreign policies and mocked the administration. It shows a great immaturity at the White House. It also confuses and undermines the confidence of our allies.

Being a cabinet Secretary is a brutal job. It is often seven days a week and 13 hours a day. Most Cabinet Secretaries last around 20 months. Obviously there are exceptions but that tells you how brutal the job can be. I have seen recent pictures of Hillary lately and she is not looking well.

I am not saying that Hillary resign because she is doing a bad job, although she is not among the best who had held the position, she should resign because the situation in the administration is intolerable and may be designed to do her political damage.

Flashback – Protesters with Former Obama Advisor Van Jones: “String Up Clarence Thomas” – “Revolution Now Like in Egypt”

[Flashback February 2011- these same occupy rent-a-protesters showing us their civility that they like to lecture Sarah Palin on.]

The elite media likes to tell you that the Tea Party are hateful racists, in spite of the fact that there is no good evidence to demonstrate that. However getting people to say these types of things at almost any left of center protest is easy (especially on most any college campus where there are plenty of unhinged Marxist professors and indoctrinated students in one place). I have seen it first hand as a former counter protester myself. What are the odds of seeing this on NBC News?

This group is called “Common Cause” and do I really have to state the obvious?… Yes they get money from George Soros.

Thanks to Andrew Brietbart for the footage.

The Kicker:

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.
The IRS considers them a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity because they are “non-partisan” (non partisan my ear…), so yes indeed being tax exempt means that YOU help subsidize them.

Powerful Democrats help Chinese energy firm get $450 million in stimulus money

The Democratic Party has been caught several times taking illegal campaign money from the Chinese ( 1, 2). It seems that money has not gone to waste.

Jackie Walorski warned of this happening. It seems that she was correct.

MSNBC:

WASHINGTON — Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.

The farm’s backers also have close ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who, at the height of his hard-fought re-election bid this fall, helped blunt congressional criticism over stimulus dollars possibly going to create jobs in China by endorsing a proposal by the Chinese company to build a factory in his home state. Although his campaign received thousands of dollars in donations from the wind farm’s backers and Reid stood on stage with them at a campaign event they hosted, his office declined to answer any questions about the wind farm’s organizers or their plans for Nevada.

The wind farm, first announced more than a year ago, would consist of 300 2-megawatt wind turbines, each perched atop a 26-story-tall steel tower and spinning three blades — each half the length of a football field. The farm would span three counties and 36,000 acres in West Texas land best known for its oil. Dubbed the Spinning Star wind farm, the project’s 600-megawatt capacity is, theoretically, enough to power 180,000 American homes and would be the sixth-largest wind farm in the country.

It is being planned by an unusual joint partnership between the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a Dallas investment firm with strong ties to Washington and the Democratic Party, and A-Power Energy Generation Systems, an upstart Chinese supplier of wind turbines. Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate the Chinese are bringing financing and the turbines.

What the Americans are supplying is the local know-how and political clout in Washington, where decisions on how to distribute billions in loan guarantees, stimulus grants and financial incentives are made.

The clock is ticking for Spinning Star: To claim the stimulus grant it must arrange its financing and begin work on the wind farm by Dec. 31. Besides the $450 million stimulus grant, A-Power’s SEC filings indicate the joint-venture also will pursue a Department of Energy-backed loan guarantee. According to the SEC filings, the project is waiting to hear if it will receive the loan guarantee before financing will follow to build the turbines.