1 green job created = two private jobs lost

February 26, 2010

In this morning’s Washington Post, Suni Sharan, director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, questions the validity of “the assumption that a ‘clean-energy’ economy will generate enough jobs to mitigate today’s high level of unemployment.”

And yet, as he writes, “‘green jobs’ have become a central underpinning of the Obama administration’s rationale to promote clean energy.” He explains that “the near-term expected levels of investment in and adoption of renewable sources of energy mean that net job creation should top out in the tens of thousands, as opposed to the desired hundreds of thousands or more.”

Sharan concludes that “for the purpose of creating jobs, then, a ‘clean-energy economy’ will not offer a panacea” and that “those who take great pains to tout the ‘job-creation potential’ of the green space might just end up inducing labor pains all around.”

He is onto something. However, the reality is much worse. As we know, President Obama has spent much time praising Spain as being a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. A role model, Spain?

This study, from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain shows that the reality is quite different. After examining Spain’s experience with an aggressive wind-power program, the researchers concluded, among other things, the cost of creating a green job in Spain was 571,000 Euros each (so roughly $800,000) and for each green job created 2 private jobs were lost.

The study also makes predictions in case the president pursues his green job policy.

“Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. could lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals a tendency that means the U.S. should expect such an outcome.”


Obama Thinks Americans are Stupid PART 3 (now with health care).

June 24, 2009

President Obama will be speaking to the stupid American people concerning the health care reform he is proposing. 



 There is nothing wrong with the health care in America. In my opinion, it is the best health care money can buy in this great green earth. I don’t know about you but I like my health care insurance and the choices that I have in that system.

 Obama and the Democrats are trying to hoodwink you in believing that their proposal of public option (government run health insurance) will enable you and I to keep our employer funded health insurance. That is a total lie. Once the government run health insurance is up and running, the government can set the price so low that companies would abolish their health insurance benefits and DUMP their employees into the lap of government run health insurance.

 It may be cheaper but is it better?

 Many countries that have government controlled health care are experiencing longer lines and more denials of treatments and needed medication. Why? The decision making concerning your health is no longer just a decision by you or your doctor but a bureaucrat somewhere will be the ultimate decider on what treatment you should get or not. Is that what you want?

 Here is an excerpt from a study done in 2007 by Dr. David Hogberg of the National Policy Research. This research is warning nations about the SINGLE PAYER HEALTH SYSTEM of Sweden that Obama is trying to sell to stupid Americans:


 Patients in Sweden pay user fees (similar to co-payments in the United States) that are set by county councils.  The fee for seeing a primary care physician varies from 11 to 17 kronas (the Swedish unit of currency; $1 U.S. equals about 6.90 kronas), while the fee for seeing a specialist ranges from 22 to 33 kronas.  While county councils have discretion in setting user fees, the national government limits the amount of total user fees paid per patient at 100 kronas annually for physician and specialist visits.  The maximum user fee for hospital care is nine kronas per day. 

(That means Swedes have a limit of less than 10 doctor visits per year. And the graph below shows the cost of health care in Sweden with single payer system is trending up)


 (The Swedish government instituted some reform on the system but still unable to control cost and waiting line became longer)

Unfortunately, waiting lists began to increase in 1994 and in late 1996 the Patient Choice and Guarantee was abandoned.15  By the early part of this decade, most counties once again faced a problem with waiting lists.16

Worse still, costs have clearly been on the rise again, as demonstrated in Figure 1.  Part of the recurrence of these problems stems from the purchaser-provider split, or lack of one.  First, a majority of county councils did not implement a provider-purchaser split based on a per-case payment basis or did so only partially.17  Thus, there was not sufficient pressure on providers to attract patients for fear of losing funding.  Second, the split was weak to begin with.  As one study of the split policy noted, the contracts between purchasers and providers often amounted to little more than “letters of intent,” and the “escape route back to traditional planning and management was always open to the central county-council administration.”18 

Görann Persson had to wait eight months during 2003 and 2004 for a hip replacement operation.  Persson was not considered to be a very pleasant person to begin with, and he became even grumpier due to the pain he endured while waiting for his operation.  As a result, Persson walked with a limp, reportedly used strong pain medication and had to reduce his workload.20

(Would you want to wait, suffer while you wait, and your quality of life ruined while you wait? Here a graph representing the percentage of Swedes who received treatment within 3 months and the treatment needed)


(Older people tend to be more susceptible to knee and hip replacement and hearing aid fitting, less than 50% of those needing those treatment received treatment within 3 months. Can you see your elderly relatives or yourself suffering while waiting?)

 Here is the conclusion:

 While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system – at least in regards to access – is closer to the third world.  Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery.  Those waiting lists increase patients’ anxiety, pain and risk of death.

Sweden‘s health care system offers two lessons for the policymakers of the United States.  The first is that a single-payer system is not the answer to the problems faced as Americans.  Sweden‘s system does not hold down costs and results in rationing of care.  The second lesson is that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work.  Specifically, government should not protect health care providers that fail to provide patients with a quality service from going out of business.

When the United States chooses to reform its health care system, reform should lead to improvement.  Reforming along the lines of Sweden would only make our system worse.

 Why is it that the government health insurance option is the best according to Obama? It is simple. The government is the only entity that can mandate rationing and price control. The US health care system is still a free enterprise institution. In order for the government to take control of that institution, the government must be the major provider. If not, it is unconstitutional for the government to mandate what private insurers can decide on what treatment you should or should not receive.

 Another thing about this reform is the COST. The CBO estimated the cost to be over $1 TRILLION dollars in 10 years. Add the $634 billion that Obama set aside as a down payment. We are already $1.6 TRILLION in the whole before we get started. The same CBO estimated the savings to be $335 billion in the same time frame. Let me see:


Health care reform expense = 1,634,000,000,000

                    minus Savings =     335,000,000,000


That is $1.3 TRILLION added to the deficit.

 Here is the kicker:


Only 16 million of the claimed 46 million will be insured by Obama’s plan.

 So, Obama and the Democrats are scrambling to hide the cost of their health care reform plan. If you fall for this again, you are indeed stupid.



 Rep. Dingell (D-MI) said it. The cap and trade is a huge tax increase on ALL AMERICANS. 

Warren Buffett says cap and trade is a regressive tax on ALL AMERICANS.

 The CBO estimate that a 15% cut in carbon emission every American will see a 3.3% cut in take home pay. Besides lower take home pay, the unemployment will rise.

 Why will the unemployment rise?

 All companies, big or small, rely on electricity to power their machines and tools to make their products and services. If companies have to pay higher electricity bill because of the cap and trade legislation, companies will be forced to reduce the machines that they are using and also the people that are employed to use those machines. Fewer machines fewer people needed. Companies will be forced to move their manufacturing operations to other countries that do not have cap and trade like India and China.

 Coal provides half of the electric power in the US. States that get most of their electricity from coal are Ohio (86%), Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%), and Wyoming (95%) (from WSJ article). Can you imagine what will happen to the communities in those states once companies have to layoff workers?

 Here is the last paragraph of the WSJ article:

“Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth — but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street “green tech” investors who know how to leverage the political class.”

 Basically, the cap and trade tax is a windfall for the government but disaster for the American workers and companies.

 What is the long term goal of the cap and trade? The goal is to reduce the country’s carbon imprint by 80% by year 2050. Is that possible?

Right now each American has 20 tons per year carbon imprint. By 2050, Obama wants that reduced to 2 tons per year. When was the last time an American had a 2 ton a year carbon imprint? There was never a time because there was no USA yet when the carbon imprint of 2 ton a year per human being. By the way, USA population grows every year, too!

 Americans account for 304 million of the 6.2 billion people on this earth, how about the carbon imprint of those 5.9 billion people whose carbon usage are not tapped? Won’t the untapped carbon usage of the 5.9 billion over shadow the carbon imprint of 304 million?

 In other words, even if we cap American carbon imprint, majority of the world’s carbon usage will overwhelmingly negate what we “conserve”. As a whole, the world will not see any conservation at all.

 Again, this sounds just like the “illusion” of savings of Obama’s and Democrats are pitching on the health care reform just like the “95% of Americans will receive tax cuts”.

 If you fall for this again, YOU ARE REALLY BEYOND STUPID!

Obama must think that American people are stupid (at least his supporters)…

May 12, 2009

I really think Obama believes that he can get away with anything because the American people are stupid, dumb, have a short attention span, or simply just do not care. As long as they get freebees from the government, all is good.  

Why do I think that? 

I agree that Obama is eloquent and have a very cunning way of delivering his message, sort of mass hypnotizing his audience. But I am immune to it because I just do not listen to him speak. I already know that he is just another corrupt politician. 

Back to the point… 

He thinks or believes that by just changing the name of something people would automatically think it is a totally different thing and would fall in line of support that was previously unacceptable. 

Take the “tax cut for 95% of Americans.” Most of us know by now that it is only an illusion.

Next is the “Global War On Terror”, that has been change to “Overseas Contingency Operations.” One of his campaign promises was to end the war in Iraq and send the troops home ASAP. Well, when he got in office, he found out that it is not as simple as that. So to appease his anti-war group of supporters, he changed the name. No more global was on terror, ya’ll, just an overseas contingency operation. Presto! The loud and obnoxious voices of the critics of war on terror since its beginning are suddenly silent. 

The latest is the “CAP and TRADE” tax that is in the heart of the global warning… oops… climate change… policy agenda that is making its way around Congress. It is clear now that the majority of American people are not supportive of a policy that raises taxes on all Americans disguised as a global warming curving policy. As a matter of fact, only 30% of Americans support the cap and trade crap. Now, he is consulting pollsters to see what would be an acceptable “CHANGE” of name so stupid Americans would think it is a totally different monster. One of the circulating suggestion is “CLEAN ENERGY DIVIDE”.

What would you call someone who is trying to find ways to hoodwink you again just like the non stimulus bill and the porkulus spending bill?

If you fall for this again, Obama must be on to something….

Cap and Trade is a TAX…. a BIG ONE!

April 25, 2009

At last, someone in the Democrat controlled Congress admitted that the CAP and TRADE is a tax increase on all Ammericans. It is a hidden tax increase to the tune of $2 trillion dollars that will affect every Americans.

Besides being a new tax burden for the American tax payers to shoulder, this new tax scheme is a sure job killer. Why? Companies will see their operating costs dramatically increase and some will move their operations to other places that do not have a carbon tax scheme like India and China. Do you think the outsourcing trend was bad for American jobs? Wait until the cap and trade takes a bite at the profits of these companies.

As pointed out by this testimony during the congressional hearing on cap and trade, it will decrease the number of jobs available to Americans.