Sunday, August 21, 2011

taxation without representation


Human Events Facebook Fanpage
Follow Us on Twitter
Author Archive
Tell a Friend
Human Events Video
Subscribe to Human Events!
Today's Sponsor
Thursdays with John Hayward 08.18.11 Sign Up for Daily Events
Everyone knows that “taxation without representation” is bad.  It prompted a shower of pamphlets, tea bags, and cannonballs across Colonial America.  But why is it bad?

The colonists insisted that America should hold seats in the British Parliament, in return for paying taxes to the Crown.  They felt that taxes can only be morally and ethically justified if the people who pay them have representation in the government, giving them effective votes over how the government collects and spends money.  The British had a different idea.  They thought the colonists should be satisfied by virtual representation, which means every Member of Parliament represents the entire population. 
We won that argument against the British crown, but we’re losing it against Washington, D.C.  Americans have become quite comfortable with “virtual representation.”  They accept minute control over their lives, wielded by ancient subcommittee sultans they will never be able to vote against, as they come from “safe seats” in distant states.  The people are told reforms they favor by huge majorities, from balanced budgets to eliminating failed programs that waste billions, are simply unthinkable.  Their lives are controlled by judges who have become de facto legislators.  And still the ruling class thinks there is too much direct representation, so they import a more pliable electorate from across the border.

There is only one answer to all of this, and it is the same answer the Founding Fathers gave the British.  There is no such thing as “representation” in a huge, distant government.  Only when power devolves to local governments, with the tax and regulatory authority of the central government sharply limited, can meaningful direct representation exist at all. — John Hayward

Another example of disfunctional government, no one is responsible.

Call Uncle Sam

Obama's unhelpful advice

Close

Email this ArticleObama's unhelpful advice

Cancel

Obama's unhelpful advice
Obama's advice to the farmer was simple: 'Contact USDA.' AP Photo Close
At Wednesday’s town hall in Atkinson, Ill., a local farmer who said he grows corn and soybeans expressed his concerns to President Barack Obama about “more rules and regulations” — including those concerning dust, noise and water runoff — that he heard would negatively affect his business.

The president, on day three of his Midwest bus tour, replied: “If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.”

When the room broke into soft laughter, the president added, “No — and I’m serious about that.”

Saying that “folks in Washington” like to get “all ginned up” about things that aren’t necessarily happening (“Look what’s comin’ down the pipe!”), Obama’s advice was simple: “Contact USDA.”

“Talk to them directly. Find out what it is that you’re concerned about,” Obama told the man. “My suspicion is, a lot of times, they’re going to be able to answer your questions and it will turn out that some of your fears are unfounded.”

Call Uncle Sam. Sensible advice, but perhaps the president has forgotten just how difficult it can be for ordinary citizens to get answers from the government.

When this POLITICO reporter decided to take the president's advice and call the USDA for an answer to the Atkinson town hall attendee's question, I found myself in a bureaucratic equivalent of hot potato — getting bounced from the feds to Illinois state agriculture officials to the state farm bureau.

Here's a rundown of what happened when I started by calling the USDA's general hotline to inquire about information related to the effects of noise and dust pollution rules on Illinois farmers:

Wednesday, 2:40 p.m. ET: After calling the USDA’s main line, I am told to call the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Here, I am patched through to a man who is identified as being in charge of "support services." I leave a message.

3:53 p.m.: The man calls me back and recommends in a voicemail message that I call the Illinois Farm Bureau — a non-governmental organization.

4:02 p.m.: A woman at the Illinois Farm Bureau connects me to someone in the organization’s government affairs department. That person tells me they "don't quite know who to refer you to."

4:06 p.m.: I call the Illinois Department of Agriculture again, letting the person I spoke with earlier know that calling the Illinois Farm Bureau had not been fruitful. He says "those are the kinds of groups that are kind of on top of this or kind of follow things like this. We deal with pesticide here in our bureau."

"You only deal with pesticides?" I ask.

"We deal with other things … but we mainly deal with pesticides here," he says, and gives me the phone number for the office of the department’s director, where he says there are "policy people" as well as the director's staff.

4:10 p.m.: Someone at the director's office transfers me to the agriculture products inspection department, where a woman says their branch deals with things like animal feed, seed and fertilizer.

"I'm going to transfer you to one of the guys at environmental programs."

4:15 p.m.: I reach the answering machine at the environmental programs department, and leave a message.

4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA.

On Thursday morning, POLITICO started the hunt for an answer again, this time calling the USDA's local office in Henry County, Ill., where the town hall took place.

9:42 a.m.:
Asked if someone at the office might be able to provide me with the information I requested, the woman on the phone responds, “Not right now. We may have to actually look that up — did you Google this or anything?”

When I say that I’m a reporter and would like to discuss my experience with someone who handles media relations there, I am referred to the USDA’s state office in Champaign. I leave a message there.

10:40 a.m.: A spokeswoman for the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service calls me, to whom I explain my multiple attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to retrieve the information I was looking for.

“What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.”

She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations.

Finally, I call the USDA’s main media relations department, based here in Washington, where I explain to a spokesperson about my failed attempts to obtain an answer to the Illinois farmer’s question. This was their response, via email:

“Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.”

So, still no answer to the farmer’s question.

The cost of cars due to new EPA mileage rules jumps again.

Thursday, August 18, 2011
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama Administration’s new fuel economy standards will cause the retail price of average motor vehicles to increase over $11,000, according to a study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research.
“A fuel economy standard of 37.6 mpg is associated with a price increase of $5,244, 18.1 percent higher than the 2009 National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) average price of $28,966. A fuel economy standard of 40.8 mpg is associated with a price increase of $6,770, 23.4 percent higher than the 2009 NADA price,” says their report called, “The U.S. Automotive Market and Industry in 2025.”

“A fuel economy standard of 44.8 mpg is associated with a price increase of $8,214, 28.4 percent higher than the 2009 NADA price. The fourth fuel economy standard of 49.6 mpg is associated with an $11,290 increase in retail price. It is assumed that manufacturers and dealers will pass on the cost increase in fuel economy and safety technology to the consumer, at a retail price equivalent.”
The Obama administration’s new fuel economy standards would require automakers to produce cars and light trucks with an average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg by 2025. The Center for Automotive Research says their study is “the result of 11 months of effort and investigation by researchers at CAR in 2010-2011.”
Zoe Lipman, the National Wildlife Federation’s Senior Manager for Transportation and Global Warming Solutions argued on a conference call held Thursday that the estimated fuel savings due to these standards will outweigh the “modest” motor vehicle price increases for consumers.
Hybrids Carpool Perks
In a June 28, 2011 photo, a pair of Toyota Prius hybrid autos bearing yellow California DMV decals on their left front of their bumpers (AP Photo/Reed Saxon)
CNSNews.com asked the participants on the call, “The Center for Automotive Research says the new passenger vehicle standards could eventually cost consumers an additional $5,000-$6,000 for each new vehicle. Will these standards result in higher automobile costs for consumers and are these standards a good idea especially in a fragile economy?” Lipman responded, “I would push back. I think we’re seeing with this final rule some really clear, not speculative, but really clear numbers on what the up front costs look like and if anything they’re lower than initial projections. I think the punch line here is that the fuel savings hugely exceeds any up front costs. Yes, there are modest costs that result from the fuel economy improvements – that’s technology generally being built here going into these vehicles but the savings far outweigh that.”
Their new report called, “Standards Deliver ‘Trucks That Work’ For Wildlife, Economy says, “under the final standard, heavy duty pickup and van owners save over $6,000 over the life of the vehicle.”
Erika Nielsen, director of marketing and public relations at BorgWarner Inc. and David Perkins, president of UAW Local 171 at Volvo Powertrain also appeared on the conference call but did not respond to the question.
Thomas Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research disagrees with Lipman.
“The Obama administration’s latest fuel economy mandates are an aggressive step away from consumer choice and towards government control,” he said in a USA Today op-ed.
“Every day, Americans are seeing the negative consequences of the administration’s increasingly aggressive meddling in the economy—more government control and less consumer choice.”

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Garofa-loser speaks.


Michelle Malkin

Smacking Down Progressives of Pallor

by  Michelle Malkin
08/19/2011
Is there anything more condescending than a porcelain-skinned Hollywood liberal who attempts to show her presumed solidarity with minorities by referring to them as "people of color"?
       
Yes, there is: Two porcelain-skinned liberals attempting to show their allegiance to "diversity" by attacking "people of color" who happen to disagree with their radical politics.
       
Such an exchange took place on a little-watched television show on Al Gore's obscure cable network Wednesday night. I am spotlighting the diatribe for you not because the speakers involved hold any sway with the American electorate, but because paternalistic racism is so prevalent among the media-entertainment elite.
       
And it's about time someone knocked these self-appointed Saviors of the Oppressed off their high horses.
       
Actress Janeane Garofalo -- a former comedian turned Republican-bashing sourpuss -- appeared on the Current TV talk show of disgraced former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. Because she has no actual career achievements or noteworthy projects to discuss, the pair turned to one of their favorite topics: bashing the tea party movement, with an ample dish of vast-right-wing-conspiracy-mongering on the side.
       
Garofalo singled out GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, a black businessman and grassroots favorite, because he is a "person of color." According to the starlet, Cain launched his 2012 bid "because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly. (In) the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been moving more and more to the right, but also race-baiting more."
       
She certainly knows about baiting. For the past six years, with gritted teeth and throbbing veins, she has indiscriminately attacked Republicans as "racist," "rednecks" and "partisan hacks who are always on the verge of punching somebody or always behave as if they've just been cut off in traffic." Projection for breakfast, anyone?
      
From the safety of her Tinseltown cocoon, she has lashed out bitterly at tea party activists as "teabagging rednecks" and assailed their fiscal conservative activism as "f***ing redneck douchebaggery. Unmitigated douchebaggery" -- all while complaining about the lack of civility in politics. In 2009, Garofalo ignored a personal invitation from Texas tea party activist Katrina Pearson and other black conservatives to attend one of their rallies and meet reality.
       
The last thing progressives of pallor want to deal with, you see, are "people of color" who think for themselves, refuse to be hyphenated Americans and reject left-wing orthodoxy on everything from entitlements to bailouts to Big Labor, immigration, social issues and racial preferences.
       
All of Garofalo's and Olbermann's non-white friends and colleagues (however few that may be) think the same slavishly homogenous thoughts they do about preserving the welfare state, coddling union thugs, opening up the borders and whitewashing the eugenics-grounded abortion racket. There couldn't possibly be minority conservatives who think otherwise. And if they do, the progressives of pallor comfort themselves, such aberrant creatures must only be able to embrace free-market principles because they were brainwashed, paid off or born stupid.
       
Thus did Garofalo float her nefarious theory that Cain "is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go, like, 'I love that, that can't be racist. He's a black guy, a black guy asking for Obama being impeached.' Or 'it's a black guy who's anti-Muslim. It's a black guy who is a tea party guy.'" What puppet-master could have engineered Cain's candidacy, according to Garofalo? "The Koch brothers or Grover Norquist or any anything. It could even be Karl Rove."
      
Er, never mind that Beltway establishment King Rove has trashed self-made outsider Cain and belittled him as a mere "talk radio guy."
       
Garofalo forged ahead with her identity-politics smears: "There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there, because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the tea party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors."
       
I've heard more than 20 years of this oppressive windbaggery from do-gooder liberals who treat my unhyphenated American brothers and sisters and me as treacherous puppets for The Man. Their smug refusal to acknowledge free will, individual choice and true diversity of thought confirms that race-obsessed liberals remain the most unrepentant and odious racists of all.

Chevy Volt - Full steam ahead to epic failure!

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt

Full steam ahead to epic failure!
by  John Hayward
08/19/2011

The Chevy Volt has only sold about 3,200 units thus far, which is not only pathetic, but not even good enough to outsell the Nissan Leaf’s 4500 units.  Nevertheless, Government Motors is ramping up for more Volt production.  According to Yahoo Auto news, GM is forecasting “sales of around 16,000 for the year as a whole, with 40,000 sold by 2012.
Wait a second.  16,000 units for which year?  Calendar year 2011?  That means they think sales are going to increase 500% in the next four months?  Even if they’re referring to a later fiscal ending date, or even next year, a 500% sales increase is downright delusional.
In fact, Yahoo News thinks a massive sales decline is on the horizon:
A new study by CNW marketing raises a red flag, finding that the potential buyers GM is most counting on are rapidly losing interest in the Volt.  In March, 21% of so-called Early Adapters said they were “very likely” to consider buying a Volt, while 38.1% said they were “likely” to do the same.  That slipped to 14.6% saying “very likely” in July, and 31.1% “likely.”  Among EV Enthusiasts, reports the CNW study, the number of those likely or very likely to consider Volt fell from a combined 71% to 51% during the same four-month period.
“It’s way too early to tell, but the signs aren’t encouraging,” said CNW’s chief analyst Art Spinella. When it comes to mainstream consumers Volt has all but slipped off the radar screen, with only about 3% of new car buyers likely to consider the Chevrolet Volt, the analyst added.
The problem is said to be the price of the Volt, which is a massive understatement, because everyone buying a Volt is understating the price.  No one purchasing a Volt has the faintest clue what it really costs, because of all the taxpayer subsidies plowed into production, and hefty rebates offered at the point of sale.  $400 million in federal subsidies were extracted from the taxpayer to fund Volt production, and buyers have enjoyed a $7500 federal tax credit. 
That means each of the 3200 Volts sold thus far has rolled out of the lot with $132,500 in taxpayer subsidies stuffed in the glove compartment.  They sticker at $41,000, so that means each Volt sold thus far actually costs $173,500, with only $33,500 paid by the actual purchaser.
What if GM’s rosy sales predictions come true?  Assuming the $7500 tax credit says in place, that would bring the total subsidies paid for Volt production and sales up to $700 million.  Divided by 40,000 automobiles, that works out to $17,500 in subsidies apiece.  The Volt is about to have a price drop to $39,995, so by 2012 the true price of each car would be a mere $47,495.
On the other hand, if sales hold steady or decline as the CNW study predicts, we’d see about 7000 Volts sold through 2012 at best.  That would work out to total taxpayer subsidies of $64,642 per vehicle, for a total per-unit price of roughly $104,000.
So, here are some lessons for those foolish enough to continue believing in the “green economy,” and wondering why billions of dollars have been seized from future taxpayers without visible benefit to employment or GDP:
1. Very few people want to buy a crummy little electric car for $40,000.
2. Nobody can make a crummy little electric car that sells for $40,000.
3. Absolutely no one wants to buy a crummy little electric car for the true price of over $100,000 apiece.
4. It is an outrage to compel taxpayers to subsidize the fantasy of a tiny group of politicians and their followers that crummy little electric cars can be sold for $40,000.
5. There is nowhere taxpayers can go to get their money back after this miserable failure, so it is vital to ensure that people who support nonsense like the Volt, and the rest of the Obama “green jobs” agenda, are never elected to any office, anywhere, ever.

UK Mayhem Leaves Disarmed Citizens at the Mercy of Criminals

UK Mayhem Leaves Disarmed Citizens at the Mercy of Criminals
 
Friday, August 12, 2011
 
By now you have seen the headlines and images of destruction: the rioting, looting, violent assaults, and arson.  London and other UK cities look like war zones and their citizens are afraid to venture out, because the danger is very real.  It's a view of the temporary breakdown of society.  It is gut check time; a time when the concept of being able to defend oneself gives way to the stark reality that few viable options to do so exist. 
Gun laws in the UK are among the most restrictive in the world.  In March of 1996, a deranged man walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and killed 16 children and one teacher. In the aftermath of this tragedy, British politicians sought to reduce violent crime by enacting a ban on all handguns. Handgun owners were given a February 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms--and they did. The UK was supposed to become a much safer place--but dramatic increases in crime following the gun ban proved it didn't.  
A July 3, 2009, Daily Mail article reported that "Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the U.K. also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa."
And the current bedlam has proved it further.  Restrictive laws concerning long-guns, combined with the outright ban on handguns, leave the country's citizens largely defenseless (it was reported this week that sales of one type of aluminum baseball bats on Amazon UK rose 6,541 percent).  In many places, it was reported that police were unable to stop the mayhem. As a result, panicked, defenseless law-abiding citizens were forced to flee their homes, while others watched as their businesses were destroyed.  Compare this to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when armed citizens were able to protect their lives, families, and property from looters and violent mobs.
An August 11 Herald Sun article reported one resident as saying, "its absolute bedlam on the street.  People have been openly looting for an hour, two hours, and the police have been ineffectual. They've done nothing."  Another victim, who was trapped in her hair salon in Clapham Junction while a mob smashed its way in and trashed it, said, "They were mocking us, [saying] 'look, look, they look scared'.  Where is the police?  I want protection.  This is what they're here for . . . I'm not secure at my workplace. I'm not secure at my home place.  Will they be there to protect us tonight?  They weren't here to protect us last night."
The Telegraph.com.au reported on Tuesday that mobs were forcing hapless victims to strip off their clothes while being robbed, and described a shocking video that shows a bleeding, already-pummeled teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet, and then steal the contents of his backpack while he canbarely remain standing, much less defend himself.  
This is what a disarmed country looks like.  This is how little is left when free men and women surrender their right to own a firearm.  
One has to wonder how differently this all would be playing out if the law-abiding were allowed to arm themselves.  How different would the reports be if violent, opportunistic, amoral thugs were confronted with armed resistance from their intended victims? 
It has been said that, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  In this case, good men and women have been stripped of their ability to do something, and evil has certainly triumphed. 
Ironically, the UK is an outspoken proponent of the United Nations' efforts to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty.  Presumably the UK's goal in supporting an ATT is to spread the "safety and sanctity" they imagine their country as having to the rest of the world.   Perhaps the recent calamities will cause the British to rethink their position; we certainly hope so.  It's time for the British government to drop its draconian gun-control laws and restore the right of self-defense to its law-abiding citizens.
It's time to face the facts.  When law-abiding citizens are disarmed, is their society a safer one?  Do gun bans reduce violent crime?  Will the police always be there to protect you?  England's current plight is just the latest example to show us, yet again, that the answer to these questions is an emphatic "No."

The danger of unaccountable bureaucrats

  
Friday, August 19, 2011
 
The nation was watching this week as the Administrative Rules Committee met to review the Natural Resource Commission's final rule for Iowa's first dove hunting season in nearly a century.  In a 9-1 bipartisan vote, legislators overwhelmingly rejected the NRC's underhanded attempt to include a statewide traditional ammunition ban in the final dove rule.  This vote allows for a "session-delay" of the lead ammunition ban, meaning the legislature will have to act during the next legislative session to remove the ban from the final dove rule.  However, Iowa's first dove season will proceed and will not include a traditional ammunition ban.   
During a recent NRC meeting last month scheduled to set bag limits and the length of Iowa's first dove season since 1918, commissioners launched a surprise attack by passing a ban on the use of traditional ammunition while hunting doves.  No population-level impacts on doves or other species have been shown to result from the use of traditional ammunition and the NRC seemed to be relying on emotion and politics rather than sound science.  There were reports of involvement of some national anti-hunting groups that would like nothing more than to see hunter numbers decline with a traditional ammunition ban.  The appointed, seven-member commission flagrantly usurped the authority of the legislators who debated the same ban and overwhelmingly rejected it during this year's passage of the dove hunting bill.
Here are three reasons why the use of traditional ammunition should NOT be banned:
  • No scientific studies regarding traditional ammunition have been shown to have any population-level impacts on doves or other species. In fact, doves are the most popular and abundant game bird hunted in America with population levels at all-time highs.
  • The price of non-traditional ammunition with similar performance characteristics is significantly higher and will keep many hunters from taking part in the historic dove season, especially in these dire economic times.
  • In addition to the lack of sound science, the Commission enacted the lead ammunition ban in an underhanded fashion with no public comment or notice. 
The NRA will keep you informed as this issue moves through the state legislature next year.  Please take a moment to thank the following individuals for their help in stopping the traditional ammunition ban:

ATF Rewards Agents Who Ran "Fast and Furious" and Then Helped Cover It Up

ATF Rewards Agents Who Ran "Fast and Furious" and Then Helped Cover It Up
 
Friday, August 19, 2011
 
In what can only be described as "Washington D.C. logic," the three BATFE agents who were responsible for the "Fast and Furious" debacle in Phoenix have been promoted.
You read that right, promoted!  Not reprimanded, not demoted and certainly not fired, but given bigger jobs with more responsibility and more pay.
Each of the agents now have high profile positions in D.C. William Newell is now special assistant to the assistant director of the agency's Office of Management, David Voth has been made branch chief for the BATFE's tobacco division.
And if those two promotions seem hard to understand, the third is particularly hard to fathom. William G. McMahon, who had been the BATFE's deputy director of operations in the West, has been made the deputy assistant director of the Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations.  That is the division within BATFE that investigates misconduct by agency personnel.
Now, McMahon will be called on to investigate BATFE agents who abuse their positions.  Perhaps in "Washington D.C. logic" it makes sense to put a rogue agent in charge of investigating other rogue agents. To the rest of the country, it makes no sense at all.
For months, the Department of Justice and the BATFE have stonewalled congressional inquiries into "Fast and Furious."  These three agents were not only at the center of running the failed operation in Phoenix, but directly aided DOJ in the efforts to hide the truth from Congress.
In testimony before Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee, all three evaded and dodged questions. This appears to be exactly what senior DOJ officials wanted and expected, and now they have rewarded the agents with promotions.
NRA has called for the resignation of attorney General Eric Holder. But all those involved in "Fast and Furious" should be fired. To promote them instead is a slap in the face of Congress and the American people.   

Subsidies are ok, if Obama likes them.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011
solar panel
Solar panels. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – While President Barack Obama wants to end subsidies that go to oil and natural gas companies, a new Department of Energy report shows that federal subsidies to clean energy are way up, with solar seeing a subsidy increase of 626 percent between FY 2007 and 2010 and wind getting a 946 percent increase.
In April 2011, Obama repeated his call to end subsidies to oil and gas companies and said that “instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, we should invest in tomorrow’s,” adding that “clean energy can lead to new jobs and new businesses,” and “[a]n investment in clean energy today is an investment in a better tomorrow.”
The report by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), released in late July, shows that direct federal financial interventions and subsidies in FY 2010 to clean energy equaled $14.67 billion – up from $5.1 billion in FY 2007.
Direct federal subsidies to the solar industry rose from $179 million (in 2007) to $1.13 billion (in 2010).  That represents an increase of  626 percent.
For the wind industry, it received $476 million in direct subsidies in 2007 and got $4.98 billion in 2010. That translates into an increase of 946 percent.
In the EIA report, it defines direct federal financial interventions and subsidies as “subsidies that are provided by the federal government, provide a financial benefit with an identifiable federal budget impact, and are specifically targeted at energy markets.”
These include direct cash outlays to producers and consumers; “tax expenditures that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy production”; research and development expenditures to increase or improve the “efficiency of various energy consumption, production, transformation, and end-use technologies”; loans and loan guarantees for certain energy technologies; and expenditures for electricity programs for consumers in certain geographic regions of the country.

More fleecing of American taxpayers... solar power for India.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Solar power
A man cleans a solar array at a solar power plant India. (AP photo/Ajit Solanki)
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, says that it has $500 million in loans in the “pipeline” to fund new solar energy projects—in India.
The $500 million in new loans will come on top of $75 million in financing that the Export-Import Bank has already provided this year for solar power projects in India.
“In fiscal year 2011 to date, the Bank has approved financing totaling approximately $75 million for four solar projects in India,” the bank said in a July 18 press release. “The Bank also has about $500 million of India solar projects in the pipeline that will generate an estimated 315 MW of solar power.”
While in India last month, Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg, an Obama appointee, announced two of the new solar projects the U.S.-government bank will be financing.
“In New Delhi, Hochberg announced authorizations totaling more than $25 million for two separate solar transactions,” the Export-Import Bank said in a July 19 statement. ”Ex-Im Bank is providing a $16 million, 16.5-year loan to Azure Power Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd. to purchase thin-film solar modules from First Solar Inc. in Tempe, Ariz, for the construction of a five-MW solar photovoltaic plant in the state of Rajasthan.
“Additionally,” the statement said, “Ex-Im Bank authorized a $9.2 million, 18-year loan for thin-film solar modules from Abound Solar Inc. in Loveland, Colo., to Punj Lloyd Solar Power Ltd. for the construction of a five- MW photovoltaic solar power plant in Rajasthan.”
On May 24, Hochberg told the House Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade that the Export-Import Bank is a lender of “last resort” that loans money for projects in other parts of the world that private-sector banks will not finance.
“I think that … much of global trade has moved to emerging markets, be that Turkey, be that India, South Africa. And, candidly, after the financial crisis in particular, banks are more reluctant to lend to those parts of the world …,” Hochberg told the committee.
“So we really act as a lender of last resort,” Hochberg testified. “We act when--If other banks are unwilling or unable to provide financial support, we will look at it and make sure there is a reasonable assurance of repayment, and in that case, we've been able to step in, with the private sector not able to do that on its own.”
The government-run bank says that by loaning money to fund projects in foreign countries that use goods and services from the United States it creates jobs within the United States.
“Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency that helps create and maintain U.S. jobs by filling gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers,” the bank said in its statement about the solar power investments in India.
The bank says that in the first half of this year alone it approved 173 transactions involving India that had a total value of $1.4 billion. This U.S.-government financing, the banks said, was responsible for “supporting over 10,000 U.S. jobs.”
That works out to $140,000 in U.S. government loans to borrowers in India for each U.S. job “supported” by the bank.