<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>If Bush Did It &#187; Stimulus Spending</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ifbushdidit.com/category/stimulus-spending/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com</link>
	<description>We would still be hearing about it!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:12:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Crisis of Governability in the Industrial Democracies</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/01/02/the-crisis-of-governability-in-the-industrial-democracies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/01/02/the-crisis-of-governability-in-the-industrial-democracies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sckarsz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[houses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/01/02/the-crisis-of-governability-in-the-industrial-democracies/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Charles Kupchan, at Foreign Affairs , " The Democratic Malaise: Globalization and the Threat to the West ": Globalization has expanded aggregate wealth and enabled developing countries to achieve unprecedented prosperity. The proliferation of investment, trade, and communication networks has deepened interdependence and its potentially pacifying effects and has helped pry open nondemocratic states and foster popular uprisings. But at the same time, globalization and the digital economy on which it depends are the main source of the West’s current crisis of governability. Deindustrialization and outsourcing, global trade and fiscal imbalances, excess capital and credit and asset bubbles -- these consequences of globalization are imposing hardships and insecurity not experienced for generations. The distress stemming from the economic crisis that began in 2008 is particularly acute, but the underlying problems began much earlier. For the better part of two decades, middle-class wages in the world’s leading democracies have been stagnant, and economic inequality has been rising sharply as globalization has handsomely rewarded its winners but left its many losers behind. These trends are not temporary byproducts of the business cycle, nor are they due primarily to insufficient regulation of the financial sector, tax cuts amid expensive wars, or other errant policies. Stagnant wages and rising inequality are, as the economic analysts Daniel Alpert, Robert Hockett, and Nouriel Roubini recently argued in their study “The Way Forward,” a consequence of the integration of billions of low-wage workers into the global economy and increases in productivity stemming from the application of information technology to the manufacturing sector. These developments have pushed global capacity far higher than demand, exacting a heavy toll on workers in the high-wage economies of the industrialized West. The resulting dislocation and disaffection among Western electorates have been magnified by globalization’s intensification of transnational threats, such as international crime, terrorism, unwanted immigration, and environmental degradation. Adding to this nasty mix is the information revolution; the Internet and the profusion of mass media appear to be fueling ideological polarization more than they are cultivating deliberative debate. Voters confronted with economic duress, social dislocation, and political division look to their elected representatives for help. But just as globalization is stimulating this pressing demand for responsive governance, it is also ensuring that its provision is in desperately short supply. For three main reasons, governments in the industrialized West have entered a period of pronounced ineffectiveness. First, globalization has made many of the traditional policy tools used by liberal democracies much blunter instruments. Washington has regularly turned to fiscal and monetary policy to modulate economic performance. But in the midst of global competition and unprecedented debt, the U.S. economy seems all but immune to injections of stimulus spending or the Federal Reserve’s latest moves on interest rates. The scope and speed of commercial and financial flows mean that decisions and developments elsewhere -- Beijing’s intransigence on the value of the yuan, Europe’s sluggish response to its financial crisis, the actions of investors and ratings agencies, an increase in the quality of Hyundai’s latest models -- outweigh decisions taken in Washington. Europe’s democracies long relied on monetary policy to adjust to fluctuations in national economic performance. But they gave up that option when they joined the eurozone. Japan over the last two decades has tried one stimulus strategy after another, but to no avail. In a globalized world, democracies simply have less control over outcomes than they used to. I like Kupchan, but he errs badly here: In the United States, partisan confron­t­ation is paralyzing the political system. The underlying cause is the poor state of the U.S. economy. Since 2008, many Americans have lost their houses, jobs, and retirement savings. And these setbacks come on the heels of back-to-back decades of stagnation in middle-class wages. Over the past ten years, the average household income in the United States has fallen by over ten percent. In the meantime, income inequality has been steadily rising, making the United States the most unequal country in the industrialized world. The primary source of the declining fortunes of the American worker is global competition; jobs have been heading overseas. In addition, many of the most competitive companies in the digital economy do not have long coattails. Facebook’s estimated value is around $70 billion, and it employs roughly 2,000 workers; compare this with General Motors, which is valued at $35 billion and has 77,000 employees in the United States and 208,000 worldwide. The wealth of the United States’ cutting-edge companies is not trickling down to the middle class. These harsh economic realities are helping revive ideological and partisan cleavages long muted by the nation’s rising economic fortunes. During the decades after World War II, a broadly shared prosperity pulled Democrats and Republicans toward the political center. But today, Capitol Hill is largely devoid of both centrists and bipartisanship; Democrats campaign for more stimulus, relief for the unemployed, and taxes on the rich, whereas Republicans clamor for radical cuts in the size and cost of government. Expediting the hollowing out of the center are partisan redistricting, a media environment that provokes more than it informs, and a broken campaign finance system that has been captured by special interests. The resulting polarization is tying the country in knots. President Barack Obama realized as much, which is why he entered office promising to be a “postpartisan” president. But the failure of Obama’s best efforts to revive the economy and restore bipartisan cooperation has exposed the systemic nature of the nation’s economic and political dysfunction. His $787 billion stimulus package, passed without the support of a single House Republican, was unable to resuscitate an economy plagued by debt, a deficit of middle-class jobs, and the global slowdown. Since the Republicans gained control of the House in 2010, partisan confrontation has stood in the way of progress on nearly every issue. Bills to promote economic growth either fail to pass or are so watered down that they have little impact. Immigration reform and legislation to curb global warming are not even on the table. Ineffective governance, combined with daily doses of partisan bile, has pushed public approval of Congress to historic lows. Spreading frustration has spawned the Occupy Wall Street movement -- the first sustained bout of public protests since the Vietnam War. The electorate’s discontent only deepens the challenges of governance, as vulnerable politicians cater to the narrow interests of the party base and the nation’s political system loses what little wind it has in its sails. Kupchan relies less on his globalization variable in the American case than he does on rising inequality and partisanship. And you'd have to code "protests" by leftward or rightward orientation for Occupy Wall Street to be "the first sustained bout of public protests since the Vietnam War." Actually, by that logic it was the tea parties that were the first sustained protests since Vietnam, but if you code "public protests" only as left-wing, one can forget about the tea parties --- a protest movement that dominated all of 2009 and is widely considered to have formed the grassroots constituency driving the GOP to the House majority in the 2010 elections. Beyond that, I agree there's a crisis of governability in the industrial democracies. I just don't think Kupchan's focusing on the most important causes. The unsustainability of the European social welfare state model is probably a more important factor in the political turmoil in Europe in 2011. Globalization is important as well, no doubt, but the EU nations can only blame themselves for digging the kinds of debt holes in which they found themselves unable to climb out. Kupchan just barely touches on this, and he blames the economic crisis more so than the ultimately flawed social welfare commitments. Governments like Greece and Italy fell not just from economic and social crisis but because leaders lacked independence from EU institutions, which have enforced continued commitments to a continental bargain whose fundamental failures are finally being revealed. And for the wider systemic challenge facing the Western democracies, Kupchan suggests more statism and accommodation to globalization --- the same variable he posits as the number one factor causing the decline of industrial competitiveness and economic dynamism. In other words, Kupchan's recycling failed theories of a sort of globalist Keynesian bargain: "state-led investment" in the domestic economies and "progressive populism" in the political systems of these states. It sounds fancy. But that's the kind of thing that got these nations into trouble in the first place. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2012/01/02/the-crisis-of-governability-in-the-industrial-democracies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Place the Super Committee Blame Where it Belongs: On the Democrats</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/22/place-the-super-committee-blame-where-it-belongs-on-the-democrats/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/22/place-the-super-committee-blame-where-it-belongs-on-the-democrats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>KettermanLaurent966</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[already-written]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jennifer-rubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street-journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/22/place-the-super-committee-blame-where-it-belongs-on-the-democrats/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Look, idiot progressives are in denial, but the fact is Democrats have pushed for higher taxes all year and the GOP hasn't budged. Here's GOP Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, at Wall Street Journal , " Why the Super Committee Failed : Even if Republicans agreed to every tax increase desired by the president, our national debt would continue to grow uncontrollably. Controlling spending is therefore a crucial challenge. The other is economic growth and job creation, which would produce the necessary revenue to fund our priorities. In the midst of persistent 9% unemployment, the committee could have enacted fundamental tax reform to simplify the tax code, help create jobs, and bring in over time the higher revenues that come with economic growth. Republicans put such a plan on the table—and even agreed to $250 billion in new revenue by eliminating or limiting most of the deductions, credits, loopholes and tax expenditures mainly enjoyed by higher-income Americans. We offered this to avoid the even larger tax increases already written into current law that will intensify the pain Americans are feeling during these difficult economic times. Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan. The Democrats said no. They were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes—and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis. Unfortunately, the committee's challenge was made more difficult by President Obama. Since the committee was formed, he has demanded more stimulus spending and issued a veto threat against any proposed committee solution to the spending problem that was not coupled with a massive tax increase. RTWT. Jennifer Rubin places blame directly on the president: " The consequences of presidential weakness " (via Memeorandum ). Additional thoughts at Left Coast Rebel . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/22/place-the-super-committee-blame-where-it-belongs-on-the-democrats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate to block competing infrastructure plans 
    (AP)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/03/senate-to-block-competing-infrastructure-plans-ap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/03/senate-to-block-competing-infrastructure-plans-ap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>stuartbramhall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[another-batch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[batch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facing-defeat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infrastructure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pablo-martinez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wednesday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/03/senate-to-block-competing-infrastructure-plans-ap/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ AP - President Barack Obama's campaign-style drive for another batch of economic stimulus spending is facing defeat yet again at the hands of Republicans in the Senate. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/11/03/senate-to-block-competing-infrastructure-plans-ap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reid: Dems will â€˜pursueâ€™ $35 billion stimulus in Obama jobs bill 
    (Daily Caller)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/17/reid-dems-will-ae%cb%9cpursueae%e2%84%a2-35-billion-stimulus-in-obama-jobs-bill-daily-caller/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/17/reid-dems-will-ae%cb%9cpursueae%e2%84%a2-35-billion-stimulus-in-obama-jobs-bill-daily-caller/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Barry Munz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily-caller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[despite-the-failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader-harry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate-democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate-majority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[will-continue]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/17/reid-dems-will-ae%cb%9cpursueae%e2%84%a2-35-billion-stimulus-in-obama-jobs-bill-daily-caller/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Daily Caller - Despite the failure of President Obama&#8217;s jobs bill in the Senate last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Senate Democrats will continue to &#8220;pursue&#8221; $30 billion in education stimulus spending included in the bill, along with $5 billion to &#8220;retain&#8221; police, firefighters and first responders.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/17/reid-dems-will-ae%cb%9cpursueae%e2%84%a2-35-billion-stimulus-in-obama-jobs-bill-daily-caller/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joe Biden: Van Jones? Who’s He?</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/04/joe-biden-van-jones-who%e2%80%99s-he/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/04/joe-biden-van-jones-who%e2%80%99s-he/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kohler</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first-the-bad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joe biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle-class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reserving-every]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schnitt-show]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sheriff-biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[situational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street-group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-frustration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/04/joe-biden-van-jones-who%e2%80%99s-he/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ **Written by Doug Powers First the bad news: I lost a bet because Biden doesn&#8217;t think that Van Jones is a moving company. Now the good news: Joe&#8217;s being Joe again. From the Schnitt Show by way of JWF : Later in his response in talking about the frustration seen in the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street Group, Biden said &#8220;you have on the one end Van Jones&#8217; guys, whoever he is, talking about Wall Street.&#8221; Jack Harris and Tedd Webb stopped him to tell him he had previously been &#8220;Green Czar&#8221; in the administration. The VP responded, &#8220;Oh is that&#8230; alright&#8221; Come on, Joe &#8212; Van Jones &#8212; former &#8220;Green Jobs Czar&#8221; in the same administration you&#8217;re in. Ring any bells? He spoke at the first meeting of the Middle Class Task Force you headed up and received a standing ovation from you and your colleagues. Still not familiar? At that meeting, he was this guy , with a name card in front of him that had &#8220;Van Jones&#8221; written on it. No? Still nothing? Don&#8217;t worry, Sheriff Biden has been reserving every ounce his situational awareness in order to tightly monitor stimulus spending. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/10/04/joe-biden-van-jones-who%e2%80%99s-he/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solar Energy School Propaganda 101</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/30/solar-energy-school-propaganda-101/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/30/solar-energy-school-propaganda-101/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:01:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Riker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infrastructure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/30/solar-energy-school-propaganda-101/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ My latest column investigates the green-washing of the government-funded solar energy racket going in America&#8217;s schools. Do you know what your kids are being taught &#8212; or rather, not being taught about failed eco-subsidies? Find out below. First, a quick Solyndra Watch link round-up: The White House is doing a Chu-step &#8211; sending Energy Secretary Steven Chu to &#8220;take responsibility,&#8221; but without doing anything to hold him accountable. Look for House hearings just around the corner. You&#8217;ve heard, of course, about the Pelosi tie to one of the latest DOE loan guarantee recipients. But Ron Pelosi is small-fry compared to the heavy-hiting, deep-pocketed Democrat Party donors working the system from the inside. IWatchNews.org, in partnership with ABC News, has the scoop on the meddling bundlers with hugetastic conflicts of interest. More at Hot Air . These should be required enviro-class reading assignments. Print, share, enlighten. *** Solar Energy School Propaganda 101 by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2011 The Obama administration&#8217;s crony green subsidy scandal is erupting like a solar flare in Washington. But do you know what your kids are learning in their environmental education classes about this red-hot taxpayer eco-scam ? Chances are: not much. Instead, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Democratic apparatchiks at the National Education Association are disseminating solar power propaganda masquerading as math and science curricula. Titled &#8220; Solar Power and Me: The Inherent Advantages ,&#8221; the lesson plan for middle-school and high-school students directs them to &#8220;take note of how solar energy is incorporated into the infrastructure of various cities nationwide and write a short essay about how they would encourage solar energy use in their own town.&#8221; A worksheet labeled &#8220;All About Solar!&#8221; makes the blanket assertion that solar technologies are &#8220;a sound economical choice as they can reduce or eliminate exposure to rising electricity rates, or even eliminate one&#8217;s need to pay an electrical bill! In addition, solar panels can be a smart long-term investment, with many solar vendors offering 20-30 year warranties on their products.&#8221; The only warranties worth anything from bankrupt, half-billion-dollar solar company Solyndra Inc. are the warranties on the Disney whistling robots and saunas that adorned its Taj Mahal headquarters. But I digress. Another worksheet cheerleads the &#8220;financial savings&#8221; of &#8220;solar power and me&#8221; and coaches students to &#8220;imagine you live in amazing and sunny Anaheim, CA, where the combination of local and federal rebates covers 74 percent of your total cost of a solar panel system!&#8221; The exercise then entices the student to take out a 20-year loan on a new solar panel system to produce even greater illusory savings. Yet another question-and-answer key reads: &#8220;How would switching to solar energy affect energy use at your home and school?&#8221; Answer: &#8220;In general, switching to solar energy would lower your home&#8217;s electrical costs and reduce your emissions, thus saving money and improving the environment.&#8221; But as Brian McGraw of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute points out: &#8220;There might be a small niche market, but solar energy is still largely incapable of producing reliable electricity at rates that are even in the ballpark of cost competitiveness compared to coal or natural gas.&#8221; Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the force behind billions of dollars&#8217; worth of rushed green energy loans overseen by deep-pocketed Obama bundlers, himself acknowledged that solar tech will need to improve five-fold before it even begins to have a cost-competitive shot. After examining decades&#8217; worth of failed subsidized solar efforts at home and around the world, the Institute for Energy Research concludes: &#8220;Although stand-alone solar power has a certain free-market niche and does not need government favor, using solar power for grid electricity has been and will be an economic loser for ratepayers and a burden to taxpayers .&#8221; The DOE/NEA curriculum encourages students to pressure politicians to pour more money into supposedly underfunded green energy schemes. But the House Budget Committee reported last week ( PDF here ): &#8220;The president&#8217;s stimulus law alone included tens of billions in new government subsidies for politically favored renewable-energy interests: $6 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy investments; $17 billion for the Department of Energy&#8217;s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; $2 billion for energy-efficient battery manufacturing; and billions more on other &#8216;clean-energy&#8217; programs for a total of $80 billion. Two years later, the president&#8217;s promise of millions of jobs stands in stark contrast with reality.&#8221; A more useful homework assignment would be to have these future taxpayers calculate how much their moms and dads are spending to prop up Obama&#8217;s green jobs industry and its elite Democratic campaign finance donors/investors. The White House projected 65,000 new jobs from nearly $40 billion in green job stimulus spending. Instead, fewer than 3,600 jobs were created . Get out your calculators, kids: That&#8217;s $4.85 million per job. Investor&#8217;s Business Daily crunches the numbers further on the taxpayers&#8217; return on its DOE green loan guarantee &#8220;investments&#8221; and finds that the program will cost a whopping $23 million per job . A separate NEA solar energy lesson plan marketed with Dow Corning teaches 5th- through 8th-graders &#8220;how solar panels work.&#8221; A more apt, real-world lesson would teach them how they don&#8217;t work. The myth that this alternative energy source &#8220;pays for itself&#8221; is busted with just a cursory glance at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. President Obama staged a photo-op on the facility&#8217;s solar panel roof in 2009 when he signed the green jobs goodie-stuffed stimulus law. The museum refused to disclose electric bills before and after installation of the solar array. But after digging into the lavishly taxpayer-funded project, the Colorado-based Independence Institute discovered that the panels—which only last 25 years—wouldn&#8217;t &#8220;pay for themselves&#8221; until the year 2118, more than a century from now. It&#8217;s elementary. The government shouldn&#8217;t be in the business of picking any eco-winners or losers. &#8220;Too Green To Fail&#8221; redistributes wealth from viable private projects to pipe dreams, forces higher taxes and energy costs on everyone, and rewards partisan funders at public expense. Teach your children well. They&#8217;re inheriting the bill. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/30/solar-energy-school-propaganda-101/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Obama Left Out of His Big Speech</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/09/what-obama-left-out-of-his-big-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/09/what-obama-left-out-of-his-big-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>curits</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[figures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[housing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint-session]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech-on-radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transcript]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/09/what-obama-left-out-of-his-big-speech/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I caught about two-thirds to three-quarters of the speech on radio before getting out of the car. Apparently I missed the parts where Obama talked about how we got into this recession, how Freddie and Fannie played a role in the housing bubble, why all the stimulus spending failed to keep unemployment under 8 percent as his team projected, how all of this new spending will get different results than the stimulus he and his party passed, the figures he cited to explain how tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are holding back recovery, how blaming the country&#8217;s deficit and debt problems on millionaires and billionaires doesn&#8217;t qualify as &#8220;class warfare,&#8221; and why what sounded like another campaign speech had to be given before a joint session of Congress. I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;ll find all that in the transcript. I guess he didn&#8217;t want Styrofoam columns for his party-convention speech this time around. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/09/09/what-obama-left-out-of-his-big-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would Another Stimulus Plan Create &#8216;Green&#8217; Jobs? 
    (ContributorNetwork)</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/08/20/would-another-stimulus-plan-create-green-jobs-contributornetwork/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/08/20/would-another-stimulus-plan-create-green-jobs-contributornetwork/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>curits</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2009-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disappointment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[funds-still]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spending-plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus-aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weekend-news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/08/20/would-another-stimulus-plan-create-green-jobs-contributornetwork/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ContributorNetwork - If the buzz in weekend news shows is correct, President Barack Obama is planning to introduce another stimulus spending package as soon as he gets back from vacation. The 2009 federal spending plan was touted as a boon to the "green" jobs movement. Statistics released earlier this week pertaining to funds still unspent and the lack of jobs created from the Recovery and Investment Act, will another stimulus aid the "green" job growth in America or be another disappointment?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/08/20/would-another-stimulus-plan-create-green-jobs-contributornetwork/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Definition of Insanity: Senate Dems Want New Stimulus Spending in Deficit Reduction Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/06/22/definition-of-insanity-senate-dems-want-new-stimulus-spending-in-deficit-reduction-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/06/22/definition-of-insanity-senate-dems-want-new-stimulus-spending-in-deficit-reduction-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>curits</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget-office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conclusions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader-harry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard-durbin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate-majority]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/06/22/definition-of-insanity-senate-dems-want-new-stimulus-spending-in-deficit-reduction-plan/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ **Written by Doug Powers I checked and re-checked the date on this story to make sure it wasn&#8217;t a couple of years old, because nobody could be this stupid now &#8212; right? Yeah, I know. I soon came to my senses and remembered who we&#8217;re dealing with. Believe it or not, the Captain(s) of the Titanic are talking about taking one more run at the iceberg before the ship goes under : Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday called on Vice President Joe Biden to include new economic stimulus spending in deficit-reduction talks as a way of lowering the 9.1 percent jobless rate that is hobbling the economic recovery. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the proposal to the White House, Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democratic senator, told reporters. &#8220;The Republicans are fixating on the budget deficit and it&#8217;s a serious problem,&#8221; Durbin said. But citing the conclusions of a presidential deficit-cutting commission that he served on last year, Durbin added, &#8220;Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit cutting mode &#8230; get people back to work. Let&#8217;s start moving in that direction.&#8221; More spending should do a lot to address this problem : The Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday that the nation probably will owe outside creditors more than the size of the entire economy in 10 years. The forecast &#8212; a public debt equal to 101% of the economy in 2021 , and rising to 187% by 2035 unless dramatic changes are made &#8212; should be a warning to President Obama, Congress and Vice President Biden&#8217;s band of bipartisan negotiators meeting daily to devise just a short-term fix. Should be a warning, but obviously it isn&#8217;t. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/06/22/definition-of-insanity-senate-dems-want-new-stimulus-spending-in-deficit-reduction-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Fast Can We Turn Things Around?</title>
		<link>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/03/09/how-fast-can-we-turn-things-around/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/03/09/how-fast-can-we-turn-things-around/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>uwwalum</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[care-bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy-tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[killing-policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newt gingrich letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pursuing-job]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/03/09/how-fast-can-we-turn-things-around/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fact is that President Obama has been pursuing job killing policies like an energy tax, the health care bill, and wasteful stimulus spending.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ifbushdidit.com/2011/03/09/how-fast-can-we-turn-things-around/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

