Since campaigning on a clean-energy economy in 2008, the White house has suffered a number of set-backs including falling demand for solar panels and the Solyndra fiasco.
In addition, Obama has been fighting a PR war ever since canceling/delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline deal that promised a slew of new jobs in the coming years.
Last night in the State of the Union address, President Obama signaled that — despite these setbacks — he was pushing forward with bold new energy programs including a sharp increase in oil and natural gas production and research into the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking on public lands.
"This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy -- a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs."
And he also doubled-down on his clean energy platform and dealt directly with the Solyndra affair:
"Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. [...] I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs."
The President makes a compelling argument by proposing an increase in domestic oil and natural gas production and tying energy independence to clean energy initiatives.
However, it’s unlikely that the Republican-controlled house will approve ending subsidies for the oil industry only to pass on the corporate handouts to another industry against which it so openly derided when Solyndra collapsed.
Not even the Democratic Senate was able to pass legislation to end oil subsidies.
In order to make this work, the President would have to ransom the drilling rights until the oil subsidies are gone.
With an election looming, it is highly unlikely that Obama will initiate such an aggressive move that risks the promise of even more new jobs.
As a result, expect an executive order to open up the drilling.
But without any way to pay for new clean-energy subsidies, the left and those in the clean energy sector will be wondering what they can do with all that hope and change Obama is so good at instilling.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obama-s-fuzzy-oil-production-math-20110317
Solyndra's failure wasn't good for the American taxpayer, or our children as Obama's green energy programs are funded via borrowed money, but what was even worse is all the evidence of crony capitalism linked to Obama and his campaigns, after he made an express promise to end that kind of crap in Washington? He even based one of his campaign slogans on such promise - CHANGE, remember? But what I didn't hear last night was an admission of guilt or an apology to the American people for the waste of tax dollars and deceitful actions contrary to his original campaign promise of change, did you? I guess that means that what Obama was really saying is expect more crony deals like Solyndra from him in the future if reelected, as opposed to investing tax dollars we don't have in viable energy initiviates.
It's a tough issue because jobs are needed all over the world, but globalization has been profit-based, not humanitarian-based, not, as Zbigniew Brzezinski eloquently phrased it this morning on CBS, "Capitalism with a Human Face." If American Telephone & Telegraph has customers in Manila, then it makes sense to establish a call center there. (BTW, tip from a U.S. AT&T employee acquaintance: if you are an AT&T customer, always ask where the agent is located. If they are not in the U.S., ask for Tier II, "onshore." They will argue but must transfer you to the U.S. This will save you a lot of time, and you will be supporting an American worker.) The idea of rewarding companies that bring jobs home with tax breaks is a good one, but I would want to see metrics that ensured that those jobs were re-introduced to the economy at at least their pre-outsourced pay rates (adjusted for inflation). I can just imagine the companies that sent $15/hour jobs offshore trying to bring them back for minimum wage. I think a good hard look needs to be taken at NAFTA, too.
As skinnyDUDE pointed out on the other board, it's interesting how you think it’s a revelation when Obama mentions it, and yet all the while you conveniently ignore it when the GOP and Tea Party have been pressing the issue for quite some time now. In fact, Obama's plan to reinvigorate manufacturing in the US pails in comparison to the plan laid out by GOP Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, who specifically addresses the issue and has a concrete plan on paper that has been endorsed by heavy industrial manufacturers. Apparently, your sources of information aren't so 'independent' after all if Obama's mention of the issue in last night's speech was the first time that you've been made aware that the issue has been seriously addressed. Wake up Bren and start acting like an independent if in fact you really are one. Also, it doesn't help when Obama's appointed jobs czar, GE's Jeffrey Immelt, who is also an Obama supporter, donor, and bundler, is the poster child of outsourcing today. Did you happen to notice how Immelt, who was front and center at Obama's jobs speech, was noticeably absent at last nights SOTU address?
I've not heavily researched the issue raised in the link u provided, but I've not reason to doubt production was up before the Deepwater Horizon disaster and down afterwards. I did not see anything in that article to indicate that Obama was trying to take credit for Bush energy policy.
And I do think Obama has tried to reduce the grift. Just look at all the unfilled postions in and around the White House as lobbyists are not allowed to fill them. That's a big change. Alas, it was naive for anyone to believe that any one person could change the system entirely. RE Solyndra, the investigation found no evidence for grift. Clearly Obama wants to invest more in clean energy, but I don't think Congress can manage it as I said. The real question is, with such a small amount of energy resources available, America must start developing alternatives. Its not an environmental question, its simply a fact that an oil-based energy system and economy will never allow for true energy independence.
If only there was some way to break from from OPEC influence...
I didn't notice Immelt at the speech I was busy listening. But I agree his face should be red for outsourcing more jobs.
So you oppose the consevative idea the president proposed to lower tax rates on manufacturers here to create jobs? It is afterall one of your Liberal talking points that Walkers tax breaks for jobs is a bad idea. Is obama's same idea brilliant and Walker's bad? You cant have it both ways. I can remain consistant as I agree with this idea. There is no better Government program than a job. So I Gladly make this trade off. If you disagree......... Do you have an alternative idea to get businesses to open up shop here other than making it more expensive and more regulated place to profit? I mean those are reasons not to come back . Like it or not the businesses have options and unlike Government not making a profit isnt one that can sustain them or the jobs they create.
Subsidies have a use, and when they are not needed anymore, they should go away. If they are needed to incentivize domestic jobs, so be it. Giving a tax break that is NOT tied to new jobs/hiting is nonsensical for any party at any level. That's my position. It is not related party affiliation. If Walker has proposed tax incentives for domestic hiring, I would happily support it until there was proof it was not working. Giving tax breaks NOT related to employment doe NOT creat jobs, as I've written on clearly.
As a self-declared independent, one would think that you already did your due diligence on all potential Presidential candidates. And a true independent would base the viability of a candidate on the issues, not whatever it is that has you dismissing completely viable candidates such as Santorum and Paul. Not to mention that a true independent would take notice of the people that their leader chooses to surround themselves with, and offering advisory opinions. After all, aren't you the one who's constantly screaming Koch? The more you describe yourself Bren, the less independent you look and the more you appear to be the lefty liberal Democrat that I called you out as being since your first day on Patch. The reason you probably know nothing about Santorum's plan is because Sharpton, Matthews, Maddow, Schultz, and O'Donnell would rather make fun of his 'google' problem than inform you about his policy positions. Go figure, eh? http://www.ricksantorum.com/made-america There's the link - I hope you actually take the time to read it even though it doesn't take you to the Daily Kos!
You don't find anything like this on Santorum's website, as Santorum views all issues and problems as being American issues and problems - and not trying to divide us the way Obama does! Try again Bren!