QuoteBy Julianne Pepitone, staff reporterJanuary 8, 2010: 5:03 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama unveiled a program Friday that will provide $2.3 billion in tax credits for the clean energy manufacturing sector, a move aimed at creating 17,000 jobs.
The funding, which comes from the $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, has been awarded to 183 projects in 43 states, the White House announced.
Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story
"If we harness ingenuity, take the talent of our workers and innovators, and we invest in it, we'll forge a future where life is better in our country over the long run," Obama said.
The projects selected must be commissioned by February 2013, and the government expects about one-third of those will be completed this year. The program provides a 30% tax credit for those projects.
The credit is focused on U.S. manufacturing of clean energy technologies such as solar and wind. Obama has said he wants to double the amount of renewable energy the United States uses over the next three years.
In addition to the federal funding, private firms are investing $5.4 billion, which will create 41,000 more jobs, the White House said.
*****Obama noted the United States spearheaded solar technology, but fell behind Germany and Japan in production,***** and that most of the batteries used here are made in Asia.
"This will help close the clean energy gap between America and other nations," the president said.
David Kreutzer, energy economist at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, was skeptical about the program's ability to boost the labor market.
"It runs back to the notion that government spending will create jobs, but to do that truly you need people to [generate] more money than their work costs," he said.
How the winners were chosen
The White House said it received 500 applications from companies seeking a total of $7.6 billion in aid by the program's Oct. 16 deadline. The departments of Energy and Treasury reviewed the applications, and sent their selections to the Internal Revenue Service to award the credit.
0:00 /2:53Green small businesses on hold
The applications were screened for a variety of factors, including job creation potential, technological innovation and geographical diversity. The new facilities should also boost the export of U.S. manufactured clean energy products, the government said.
Advantage was given to "shovel-ready" projects -- those that have state and local permits in place and are ready to go, senior officials said.
Kreutzer said the initiative's focus on a particular sector is flawed, and he suggested that if these manufacturing facilities can only get started with government subsidies, they will fail when the funds run out.
"It's a government program to pick winners and losers, and we need a broader, overall view," he said. "Lower taxes, not higher subsidies -- lower energy costs, not more windmills."
Some of the funds will go to companies with headquarters outside the United States, but the money must be committed to building U.S. facilities and creating domestic jobs.
Some of the facilities that qualified for the tax credit include manufacturers that will produce plug-in electric vehicles, geothermal equipment, fuel cells and microturbines.
The announcement came after a government report released earlier Friday showed employers cut 85,000 jobs in December, a much worse report than economists expected. The unemployment rate held at 10%.
"We have to continue to explore every avenue for recovery, and the [stimulus] has been a major force in that trajectory," Obama said.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/08/news/economy/green_manufacturing_jobs/
The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation as usual is WRONG!!
We have seen what government support of the new energy economy can do in countires like China,..........we simply CANNOT afford to let China take the lead any more than it already has.
These are called start-up subsidies, to get to the point where economies of scale can make these new energy systems more profittable.
Take it from me as an economist.
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 10, 2010, 06:21:54 PM
Take it from me as an economist.
Gee Faye...is there anything as an "economist" you DON'T know?
*gagme*
Faye, we lost 700,000 jobs last January, how will the numbers you have really help?
China had a much better stimulus than the US. The fact that Socialist Obama was beaten by China is interesting, but some worry about the new bubbles that will burst in China. Who will bail them out, or will they sell commodities to pay for their 8% GDP growth?
Uhm... Im NOT an economist, but according to my little Microsoft calculator, taxpayers are are paying $135,294 per job?
Is that really a good use of tax dollars?
Quote from: Dan B on January 10, 2010, 11:44:14 PM
Uhm... Im NOT an economist, but according to my little Microsoft calculator, taxpayers are are paying $135,294 per job?
Is that really a good use of tax dollars?
Yeah, that's quite the poor investment in OUR NATIONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE compared to $280,000 per rider on Sunrail!!
or the $380,000 per daily rider on HSR....come on Faye, you need to start making better (and not hypocritical) arguments.
QuoteHow the winners were chosen
The White House said it received 500 applications from companies seeking a total of $7.6 billion in aid
Is this "corporate welfare"?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2010, 08:18:07 AM
QuoteHow the winners were chosen
The White House said it received 500 applications from companies seeking a total of $7.6 billion in aid
Is this "corporate welfare"?
It is absolutely corporate welfare, and Faye has taken on the role of spinning for "Big Green". How is Faye earning a paycheck? Lobbyist?
Quote from: buckethead on January 12, 2010, 08:51:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2010, 08:18:07 AM
QuoteHow the winners were chosen
The White House said it received 500 applications from companies seeking a total of $7.6 billion in aid
Is this "corporate welfare"?
It is absolutely corporate welfare, and Faye has taken on the role of spinning for "Big Green". How is Faye earning a paycheck? Lobbyist?
Cute! I wish we were at the point of having Big Green!!!
This is in today's news:
QuoteToday we launch another Causes Channel, Trailblazers for Good. Conceived by our founder and CEO Randy Paynter, the channel will explore social entrepreneurship and new visions for change.
http://www.care2.com/causes/trailblazers/blog/trailblazers-for-good/
I was just wondering what the term meant. I know Faye is 100% against it as she has said so more than once. If "corporate welfare" is getting grants, tax breaks, special exemptions, etc from local, state and federal governments then this seems to qualify as "corporate welfare". :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2010, 10:13:14 AM
I was just wondering what the term meant. I know Faye is 100% against it as she has said so more than once. If "corporate welfare" is getting grants, tax breaks, special exemptions, etc from local, state and federal governments then this seems to qualify as "corporate welfare". :)
Oh, so now there is uproar over helping green technology in the start-up phase of their industry, but the
established Big Oil industry quietly rakes the tax-payer subsidies in:
QuoteOpinion: Big oil gets the biggest U.S. energy subsidies of all
By Blaine Townsend
Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 12/23/2009 04:24:34 PM PST
Updated: 12/23/2009 06:33:29 PM PST
Ever since New England Whalers ran the oil business, we've been a country of "barrel half-full" types. There will always be more oil! All it takes is a prone leviathan, a deposit in an unstable, war-torn country or a new find in the middle of some environmentally sensitive area.
Unfortunately, we need to find the equivalent of a new Saudi Arabia every four years just to keep up with demand around the world. And that isn't getting any easier. Pumping seawater under the Arabian Desert and squeezing oil from tar sands near Glacier National Park is a lot more expensive than boiling blubber or watching oil gush on the West Texas plains. And we all foot the bill.
Today, the oil industry receives north of $100 billion per year in subsidies and collateral support.
This is the equivalent of one AIG bailout per year, every year. The web of direct subsidies includes billions in government sponsored low-cost construction loans and tax breaks like the Foreign Tax Credit. "Last in, first out" accounting practices, special write-downs for core operations and royalty "relief" for leases in the Gulf of Mexico have robbed the federal coffers of billions more.
This past September, the Environmental Law Institute released a study on direct subsidies to Big Oil from 2002-2008. The conservative tally was $72 billion, compared to $13 billion for nonethanol alternatives.
And unlike support for alternative energy or other industries, many of these direct subsidies are written permanently into the tax code, not phased in and out of various legislations.
By contrast, funding for alternative fuels waxes and wanes with political will. For example, funding for alternatives took a precipitous drop in 2006 and 2007 before rebounding last year.
These oil subsidies began nearly a century ago to support the nascent domestic oil industry, just as whaling was dying out. After joining forces with other special interests, the industry then helped cement its growth by influencing public policy toward highways over public transportation and fuel inefficiency over conservation and innovation.
With ExxonMobil earning more in 2008 than the US government spent on wind and solar energy during this entire decade, it's safe to say the wind, solar and biofuel industries could use more help going forward.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14059017
So it IS "corporate welfare"? What matters is the percieved level of "evilness" of the recipient? I think we should further explore this concept of "good corporate welfare" and "bad corporate welfare" because Faye seems to have clouded the subject... :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
So it IS "corporate welfare"? What matters is the percieved level of "evilness" of the recipient? I think we should further explore this concept of "good corporate welfare" and "bad corporate welfare" because Faye seems to have clouded the subject... :)
Goodthink will be rewarded, badthink will be punished.
BT, you missed the key concept of start-up vs ESTABLISHED and HUGELY PROFITABLE.
Why is BIG OIL STILL raking in the tax-payer subsidies??????????????
Slow down Faye... I'm still trying to figure out your definition of "corporate welfare" which you say you are against. If you are for "corporate welfare" for start ups but against "corporate welfare" for profitable companies just say so.
QuoteBy Julianne Pepitone, staff reporterJanuary 8, 2010: 5:03 PM ET
..........Advantage was given to "shovel-ready" projects -- those that have state and local permits in place and are ready to go, senior officials said. ..........
Sounds like start up but not really if the projects are already
permited "shovel ready".
QuoteSlow down Faye... I'm still trying to figure out your definition of "corporate welfare" which you say you are against. If you are for "corporate welfare" for start ups but against "corporate welfare" for profitable companies just say so.
Faye?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 13, 2010, 07:28:43 AM
QuoteSlow down Faye... I'm still trying to figure out your definition of "corporate welfare" which you say you are against. If you are for "corporate welfare" for start ups but against "corporate welfare" for profitable companies just say so.
Faye?
Yeah, giving corporate welfare to hugely profitable companies is like giving major amounts of foodstamps to a millionaire. It's a HUGE waste of monies.
Start-ups that are well-screened and vitally important in terms of innovation and our nation's economic sustainability, should be nurtured to allow them to grow to the point where economies of scale are feasible. That way we won't lag so much behind China and Europe in terms of reaping the benefits of solar, wind and geothermal energy production.
http://www.our-energy.com/energy_facts/geothermal_energy_facts.html
That is what's called government INVESTMENT in our nation's infrastructure, similar to the economic value of government investment in our nation's highway system in the 1950s. President Wight Eisenhower justified the project through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as
essential to American security.
QuoteGreen Recovery: A New Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy
Source: Robert Pollin, Heidi Garrett-Peltier, James Heintz, and Helen Scharber, Center for American Progress, September 9, 2008
From an article:
A new report released today shows that the United States can create 2 million jobs over two years by investing in a rapid green economic recovery program.
The new report shows that, in addition to creating 2 million jobs nationwide over two years, this $100 billion green economic recovery package would:
• Create nearly four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry and 300,000 more jobs than a similar amount of spending directed toward household consumption.
• Create roughly triple the number of good jobs--paying at least $16 dollars an hour--as spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.
• Bolster employment especially in construction and manufacturing. Construction employment has fallen from 8 million to 7.2 million jobs over the past two years due to the housing bubble collapse. The Green Recovery program can, at the least, bring back these lost 800,000 construction jobs.
The report is accompanied by state-by-state fact sheets showing the potential impact on each state in terms of investment and new jobs.
http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org/infrastructure/?limit=10&offset=40
Still not answering I see... but from your responce I am guessing you are for corporate welfare as long as they are not currently profitable, new, well screened, innovative, and green.
Am I right or just confused...?