Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises

You know that it had to have been horribly painful for the New York Times to print this...

In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.

“I won’t say I’m not frustrated,” said Van Jones, an Oakland activist who served briefly as Mr. Obama’s green-jobs czar before resigning under fire after conservative critics said he had signed a petition accusing the Bush administration of deliberately allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a claim Mr. Jones denies.

A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.

Sigh.

In war, Helmuth von Moltke said that "no plan survives contact with the enemy." (Ok, that's a pithier Engish version of the actual German quote, but work with me, here.) That's the case for liberal economic plans and reality, too. Any plan, the success of which is dependent on people not responding to incentives and disincentives, and economic realities ceasing to function, is doomed to failure. And they don't care. Their intentions are good, so that's the important thing. They want to create "green jobs," and they're willing to spend other peoples' money on it, and therefore, the "green jobs" should materialize!

The world doesn't work that way.

House Dems to call for tax hikes

Remember how the New York Times criticized the Republicans last week for offering "more of the same" on the economy? Somehow, I don't think that the Democrats are going to get the same commentary on this:

A group of House Democrats is calling for any deal to raise the debt ceiling to bring about the end of the Bush tax rates for the wealthy.

The lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), also say that, following last week’s weak job report, they are concerned that certain decreases in federal spending could hurt the economy’s recovery...Republicans have said new tax revenue is the one deficit-reduction approach they will not consider in any deal to increase the debt limit, arguing that Americans want to see Washington get more serious about rolling back spending.

But Democrats have said taxes need to be part of the discussion.

For the Democrats, a good day to raise taxes is any day that ends with a "y"...

Whose reality is this, anyway?

The NY Times editorial this morning, Poverty and Recovery, is interesting in its utter and complete disconnectedness from the reality of the world in which I live.

In 2008, the first year of the Great Recession, the number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.7 million to nearly 47.5 million. While hugely painful, that rise wasn’t surprising given the unraveling economy. What is surprising is that recent census data show that those poverty numbers held steady in 2009, even though job loss worsened significantly that year.

Clearly, the sheer scale of poverty — 15.7 percent of the country’s population — is unacceptable. But to keep millions more Americans from falling into poverty during a deep recession is a genuine accomplishment that holds a vital lesson: the safety net, fortified by stimulus, staved off an even more damaging crisis.

Congress should take a good look at those numbers, and consider that lesson carefully, before it commits to any more slashing and burning.

A couple of things...

• "the safety net, fortified by stimulus, staved off an even more damaging crisis" - Contrary to "staving off an even more damaging crisis," in the world in which I live, the stimulus was a key component of, and contributor to, the crisis that took place.
• "slashing and burning..." - In exactly which universe has "slashing and burning" taken place? Or even been proposed? The Federal government spent an estimated 35% more in 2010 than it did in 2007. The Federal government is spending, as it has nearly every year since the early 40's, about one of every five dollars of wealth that Americans produce. Speaking as someone who would LOVE to see some "slashing and burning" in the Federal budget, I ask, again, where the heck is it?

Oh, one more thing on that "slashing and burning." Has not the NY Times been among the outlets that has spent the last week and a half chastising Americans for un civil language in our political discourse? Isn't "slashing and burning" a little harsh as rhetoric coming from those with the language sensitivity of the discourse nannies at the New York Times?

NY Times on Giffords shooting

Abridged version:

If only our racist, murderous enemies on the other side of the aisle would tone down their rhetoric...