President Obama’s Parting Gift – the Green Pork Plan

green_money_windmills

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Washington Examiner claims President Obama is on the verge of stitching up a deal to pass a massive raft of green pork tax credits in the final weeks of his Presidency, after the November Presidential election.

Obama readies clean energy ‘end-game’

The White House is devising an “end-game” strategy to pass a suite of clean energy tax subsidies that were swept to the wayside in last December’s omnibus spending bill deal, said a top White House official.

The tax credits were not attached to last year’s spending bill, although the measure did include a landmark deal extending wind and solar subsidies for five years with an incremental phase out. The orphaned clean energy subsidies that were left out of the deal are for things like hydrogen fuel cells, renewable fuel infrastructure, geothermal and other alternative energy resources.

Attempts to include the extensions in other bills, including the Federal Aviation Administration’s reauthorization bill, collapsed earlier this year following a campaign by a number of free-market groups urging Republican lawmakers to oppose including what they referred to as “green pork” to the FAA bill.

He [Deese] explained that the administration is “working closely” with Senate and House Democratic leaders Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of California, respectively, who “are very focused on that issue as well.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-readies-clean-energy-end-game/article/2604314

People involved with renewable companies often seem to have close relationships with US politicians. For example, senior figures linked with Solyndra, the US solar company whose collapse cost taxpayers over $500 million in US federal loan guarantees, attracted controversy when they attended an exclusive Obama fundraiser.

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “President Obama’s Parting Gift – the Green Pork Plan

    • Well hopefully we still do have a Congress with a House of Representatives, with at least some members who are not neuter gender. We already know that none are hermaphrodites.

      This whole mud fight in the dung pile, can likely be traced back to the fact that Americans voted into the house and senate a bunch of feeble woosies who simply refused to do what they were sent there to do.

      As often happen the biggest clumps of dung, rose to the top.

      G

    • Leo,

      All green meats, green ham included, are rotten and not fit for human consumption. Don’t eat them, just don’t.

  1. You ain’t seen nothing yet ! Hilarity is going to bust the bank, she has got friends in places that the “Gods” don’t know about !
    ( just make me Boss)

    • You know, in America, there is no rule against anyone from paying more into the system than required. So perhaps you should send a boat load of your cash and designate it for “carbon reduction”. Or are you in the ” as long as it is other people’s money” faction?

      • Leftists and environmentalists show their devotion to “the cause” by giving away other people’s money.

      • Tom, because me paying more cash does nothing to alter the incentives of everyone to consume the economically efficient quantity of carbon based fuels.

      • Seaice, it’s not economically efficient to make fuel more expensive. We are not anywhere near running out of fossil fuel and don’t even know the full range yet, and CO2 is feeding all of nature.

      • One constant with leftists, they are convinced that they know what is best for everyone else.
        The very idea that you know what the correct price for “carbon fuels” is, is the height of hubris.

      • A.D., when we do start to run out of carbon fuels, the price for them will rise naturally. No need for government to cause it.
        The rise will also be gradual as cheaper (easier to access) deposits start to run out. This rise in prices will cause oil companies to start exploiting deposits that are harder (more expensive) to access. This will in turn put an upper limit on how fast prices rise.

      • seaice1 October 12, 2016 at 7:31 am
        “Tom, because me paying more cash does nothing to alter the incentives of everyone to consume the economically efficient quantity of carbon based fuels.”

        Like the ideal temperature for the Earth, everyone’s “economically efficient quantity” is in the eye of the beholder. You nor anyone else has any right to dictate to me or others what that might be. Using the tax base to engineer another person’s ideology of social behavior is wrong, very wrong.

      • Realistically, the only thing that the Government should have it’s hand involved in Taxation-for-spending money venue is for Space exploration and Military protection. The rest can be done generally cheaper through the private sector
        And, even now, Space Exploration is entering the private sector

      • seaice1 October 12, 2016 at 7:31 am
        “Tom, because me paying more cash does nothing to alter the incentives of everyone to consume the economically efficient quantity of carbon based fuels.”

        seaice1 – that’s not the point at all. tom’s solution is perfectly valid.

        If YOU throw away your money, however you wish, that increases YOUR incentive “to consume the economically efficient quantity of carbon based fuels” to save/replace the thrown away money. There is NO REASON you cannot calculate a carbon tax for every gallon of gasoline, every hundred cubic feet of natural gas, etc., that you consume, then send that self-tax to your favorite charity every month. Get all of your friends and family to do the same. EVERYONE (or nobody) can participate to the extent they desire, and INCENT THEMSELVES in the same fashion, one which does not require imposing your opinion on others, nor using government’s power of legal confiscation of their money.

      • US government has no charter for space exploration. Paying the National debt, and for the defense of the United States of America (not tom dick or harry) is the only thing they are permitted to tax us for.

        So they cheat, and put everything on a credit card, which makes it part of the National Debt so then they can tax to pay that. Except they never do pay the national debt… So it’s bait and switch.

        Private enterprise can do the space exploration. So far it has discovered no co-inhabitants.

        G

    • Far better to do away with all these measures and do nothing else.
      Why create big problems in order to solve a problem that never existed?

      • MarkW, you can agree with my sentiment and think the appropriate tax rate is zero. Thus, yes, it is better to have an appropriate tax than try to interfere in a micro management way. And by the way, I think the appropriate tax is zero.
        However, those advocating the interference do not believe it is zero.

      • The appropriate tax is $-1 per ton. Since it is beneficial to the biosphere, we should be paid for the CO2 we produce

      • Well I once actually got a bill from a government agency for $0.00, and they kept on bugging me and threatening to garnish my pay.

        I finally did send them a cashier’s check for $0.00 and that fixed the problem.

        G

    • So long as that “Carbon Tax” is applied uniformly across EVERY product containing ANY carbon in ANY form whatsoever, then I could go for a carbon tax.

      But if even ONE product is exempted from that carbon tax, then I oppose the tax.

      G

      • The tax would apply to fossil carbon only. If applied at the point of extraction it will naturally pass through the chain to everything.

      • Fossil carbon only? Presumably that would include all things made from fossil carbon – like plastics and nylon, to name just a couple. Right there that means most camping equipment (tents and tarps) and winter protective clothing (raincoats and boots), a great deal of regular clothing, plus computers, phones, toys, car parts, bicycle bits… The list goes on, look around you, there is plastic everywhere.

        What are the greenies going to do without all those things? How will they protest then?

      • But George, except for a 117 of 118 raw elements almost everything else contains carbon… even you
        and everything that is alive has it so a Carbon Tax is really a Life Tax

      • Like I said seaice, ALL or nothing.

        Stop playing with the weasel words.

        If you want to put carbon in brake shoes and tires so they perform better, but spread waste carbon all over the place, it should be carbon taxed like any other pollutant.

        G

      • Considering that Sugar is composed of C12 H22 O11, Sugar is just over 42% carbon by weight. So what is the proposed Tax on the Carbon in Sugar?

    • Seaice1 – Just move your tushie out to Washington State in the US of A – you’ll get your fill of ‘carbon’ taxes – from the Department of Ecology’s recent fiat tax to energy producers/suppliers/major end users, to a duplicate tax proposal on the November ballot for a regional ‘carbon’ tax.

      I can include the links if you doubt my statement above, just ask.

      You’ll ‘fur shur’ get your ‘carbon tax’ fill, and your H20 dream can be fulfilled. If that is of course what you really dream for. Live the dream buddy, or get off the pot.

      Best,

      MCR

      • The US Congress has the power to collect taxes, to pay the DEBTS, and for the common defense and general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.

        It has NO authority to put a tax on carbon.

        G.

        ps. I highlighted “of the united states” to make the point that the Constitution is NOT talking about the welfare of tom dick and harry.

        Just that entity in Washington DC, which is one of the three parties to the contract (besides “we the people”, and “the several states”)

        First words of the US Constitution says ” Article. I., section. 1. ”

        And before that there’s a “preamble” that just says roughly what the following Constitution is about.

    • I have to shake my head in disgust every time I see a politician or other individual (usually on the Left) propose a tax on a consumable in the belief that the tax will somehow alter the behavior of people in some desired way. In the case of seaice1 here of course, we are talking about a tax on fossil fuels in the belief that we will all use less of it. Maybe there are such studies, but I have yet to see and read one that analyzes the effect that higher taxes on consumables supposedly would have on people, if any. I suppose it depends on the amount of the tax.

      While it is certainly true that people in general are very sensitive to the price of gasoline (at least here in the U.S. anyway), the price of it is low enough right now that an additional 10-cent or 20-cent tax on it is unlikely in my view to have a significant effect on demand for it. However, when it gets to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon, yes, people will probably use less of it. It is perhaps difficult to say how much higher our electric bills from another tax would have to get before we cut back on electricity use. Again, I have seen no studies that analyze or answer that question.

      The Left’s never-ending enchantment with this idea that they can use higher taxes or additional taxes on consumables to engineer or alter our behavior with regard to those consumables ties back to their belief that government is characterized by benevolence, righteousness and superior intelligence. It ALWAYS knows what it is doing and ALWAYS does the right thing. Seaice1 apparently believes this to some extent with his fossil fuel tax proposal, but such a proposal is IMHO just turning the screw a little tighter on their never-ending war on the lives of the American people and the economy.

      I have always said this and I’ll say it again: The road to a post-fossil fuels era is going to be paved with technological advances and improvements (probably from the private sector), not a government war on the existing technologies and fuels. Whether higher taxes on the existing fuels and technologies will spur on those technologies (and I’m NOT talking about wind and solar energy here) remains to be seen.

      IMHO, seaice1’s proposal is more religion and a matter of blind faith than anything else.

      • ” in the belief that the tax will somehow alter the behavior of people in some desired way.” Well, they raised the taxes on tobacco astronomically and it had the effect of reducing consumption. Proof that taxing something alters people’s behavior.

      • CD – All based upon the science fiction of ‘The Social Cost of Carbon’, the most laughable (if it were not, in fact being used to direct regulation and subsequent taxation) construct of the quasi-scientific mind ever concocted. Everything is negative in the Social Cost of Carbon equations being used to justify taxing the emission of Carbon Dioxide from the work-a-day, mundane activities of the daily lives of humanity.

        If all outcomes (in negative dollars assigned) of the emission of Carbon Dioxide are computed, and the negative amount far exceeds the result of the negative dollars of taxation – then the tax is…wait for it…a Net Positive!!

        This, my friends is how the world will be saved.

        Science Fact? Looks like yes, and very soon. This is why election results matter, among other reasons.

        The Right Way Forward?

        I think not.

        MCR

      • Perhaps, but more likely in the case of tobacco it was more of younger people finally understanding how bad smoking is for your health. As for others, making smoking so expensive that poorer people just didn’t have the money to buy more tobacco should never be applied to a necessary utility like electricity or transportation. When I was driving up to 150 mile per day for a sales job, the price of gas was $4.50 per gallon but I really didn’t care because the tax deduction was 55 cents per mile. My big old V-8 Mercury Marquis got 25 miles per gallon on the highway so when you do the math I came out way ahead. So the price didn’t matter to me but it sure hurt the lower income people.

      • @Richard Baguley October 12, 2016 at 9:28 am.

        I say no. It is generally understood these days that people want to live healthier lives. Tobacco obviously doesn’t fit in to any such plans to do so.

        Nicotine, as I understand it, is one of the most addictive drugs in existence. If I am wrong about that, anyone out there is free to correct me. When you are addicted to nicotine, higher taxes on cigarettes are not going to cure you of that addiction.

      • the difference between Fossil Fuel energy and Renewable Energy (solar/wind) is that Fossil sources have a proven track record like Grandma and Grandpa while most renewable technology is still in it’s infancy.
        I don’t think that it is time yet to put Grandma and Grandpa in the old folks home and let the ababies run the world. They still have A-LOT of growing up to do first

      • The same politicians who propose “sin” taxes in the belief that they will cause people to consume less of a product, will then turn around and declare that an income tax has no impact on economic activity.

      • Richard, much of the drop in tobacco consumption was a switch from legal (and taxed) tobacco products, to smuggled tobacco products.

      • Wind and solar aren’t in their infancy, they have been around decades for solar and hundreds of years for wind.
        If they were ever going to be practical, they would have already done it.

      • Fossil fuel use is highly inelastic. People cannot stretch their behaviors so suddenly use a lot less gasoline, for example. If they drive to work, they can’t just drive half way to work and walk the rest of the way.

        There are no electric snowmobiles. There are no electric aeroplanes or helicopters. All those uses will continue at the sale rate whatever the cost.

      • Don’t forget about Solar Impulse 2, the solar powered airplane that provoked it is possible to fly one man around the globe using no fossil fuel for power and in only 16 months. Almost as fast to bicycle around the world
        Though there are a number of Electric and Fuel Cell powered flying machines including many Planes and a Helicopter
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

  2. The President can propose all he wants. It’s up to Congress to appropriate the money. So, if the money is in the budget, and the current Republican led house and Senate pass it, then it’s Congress’s fault.

    • That’s right, SMC. Teleprompter Swivelhead can stitch and stitch and bob and weave, but, he will get NONE of that junk passed. As if.

      Talking it over with Puhlosi and Reeeed, heh. Of course! No one else will listen to him.

      • There is still the “Presidential Decree” that he has available then Congress would need to act to revoke what damage he does after the fact and be unable to forestall it.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree

        Similar to the Presidential Pardons that he will surely hand out to a number of questionables

      • Well Janice, just imagine the ExP on the sideline at the net in Arthur Ashe Stadium.

        Think how useful all that practice will be.

        G

      • Thank you for your caution, Bryan A, however, in the U.S. any such “decree” or executive order would be ultra vires and not need revoking. Illegal on its face, it would simply be ignored (unless his partisans in a department illegally followed that order — even then, court (or Congress, also could) action would stop them. That can, moreover, be done very swiftly if a judge wants an immediate stop to happen.

        That wiki thing was relevant, but, for U.S. law, not really on point; it was a pretty broad little entry — it talked about the whole world! In the U.S., the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land. Rejoice!

      • Hi, George,

        Lol — yes! He has special expertise!

        Hope you are still both enjoying and doing your fine informing (of the truth about “organic” and the like) at your Saturday farmers market. Cauliflower good this year?

        Take care,

        Janice

      • What are the odds Obama will pardon HRC for anything that may arise from Bengazi or the emails?

      • Well, you’re both right, but Obama has had a history of redirecting certain budgeted funds in the Executive branch to other, unlawful purposes. Congress MUST begin to legislatively cut the budgets and missions of the Department of Energy and the EPA.

  3. The real end game will be the shut down of the skeptical voices. And thanks to the American collapse it is coming soon.

    • Agreed. If Hillary wins, the Left’s next big move will be to eliminate any opposition.

      Look for internet and broadcast content laws.

      • And the conservative echo chamber has bemoaned the “loss of control” of the Internet (the ICANN contract expiration.)

  4. The crazed “social democrats” who are socialists want to destroy the western industrialized society. They attack from many different angles and this is just one of them. The people pushing this boondoggle don’t believe it will ‘help the environment” any more than I do. But there is gold in those crazed proposals.

    • I might add that ” The crazed “social democrats” who are socialists want to destroy the western industrialized society’, FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.

  5. The Greenie corruption is rotting and eating away the flesh of the Constitution. It is an Obamanation.

  6. Green Pork? Then what were the x-billions shoveled into the bird blender, pilot-blinder, tortoise fryer trough over the past decade? More parroted propaganda.

  7. I live in British Columbia where we have had socialist governments. In each case, enough folk get pissed off enough to vote them out.
    Always do the “scorched Earth” thing in ramming through as much of their fantasies as possible.

  8. It’s all a money laundering scheme to fund democrat political campaigns, not unlike the public employee unions. Feds grant money to green companies. Feds write rules and regs that favor same green companies in the marketplace. Green companies start up with great public fanfare and quickly go bankrupt on the public dime. Owners / investors take their winnings, write large caliber checks to democrat campaigns who put people in office to start the cycle once again. Taxpayers are the only ones left holding the bag. Cheers –

    • Unfortunately it’s not just green companies that partake of this scam.
      It’s the inevitable result whenever government is given the ability to pick the winners and losers in the market place.

    • agimac, You are dead on , rinse and repeat every 4 years and if it looks like they are going to lose on the other election cycle do the same. It is a never ending story of corruption. That is why they are scared of Trump.

  9. Just so both sides are informed on this, the strongest balance sheet in the solar sector does not need the renewable tax credits at this point. The cost reductions through tech and immense R&D effort plus scale volumes got us here. You are both wrong top to bottom, period. The tax policy at this point is going beyond reason to help the chronic losers and the critics are just out of date. It’s frustrating.
    http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/06/why-first-solar-is-built-to-last-the-solar-storm-a.aspx

  10. People involved with renewable companies often seem to have close relationships with US politicians.

    Trudeau anyone in Canada???????

  11. Prime Minister Photo op is too busy trying to get into wedding photos on the beach .
    The actual people that run the government now would be the ones cozying up to
    the bird blender charity corporations.

  12. Don’t know how he is going to “pass ” a plan to pay off his “renewable donors . However with the useless Republicans sitting around and some aisle crossing prospects anything can happen .
    We are witnessing a fall of the Roman Empire event as the corruption is now on full display .
    Hang onto those guns folks you are going to need them .

Comments are closed.