Monthly Archives: May 2010

Scary Graph: The US Has 8.2 Million Fewer Jobs Today Than When Democrats Seized Congress In 2007

Posted on by
1

Democrats seized control of Congress during the 2006 election and were sworn in January, 2007.

Graph is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the vertical axis divisions are in 5 million job increments)- click for larger view

By mid 2007, the job market reached its peak and today, the job market  is lower than in 2003 when Democrats were calling the economy the worst since the Great depression.

Since the current recession ‘officially’ started, the labor market has lost 8.2 million jobs.

It is interesting how the two time periods are treated. Today, every new job is met with tremendous fanfare. Via CNN:

President Barack Obama called the increase in jobs last month “very encouraging,” Friday saying the numbers are “particularly heartening” in light of conditions last year when the economy was in “free fall.”

A government report Friday said the economy added 290,000 jobs in April, up from a revised 230,000 jobs added in March.

“This is the largest monthly increase in four years and we created 121,000 more jobs in February and March than previously estimated. Which means we’ve now seen job growth for four months in a row,” Obama said.

While It is good news that some people are finding work, keep in mind that 121,000 jobs is half of the .2 in the 8.2 million jobs lost number.

In 2003, when George W. Bush was being compared to Herbert Hoover,  the left was sneering at adding 1.4 million jobs over an 18 month window:

The good news for Bush is that with a base of 130 million jobs, adding 1.4 million in an 18-month period isn’t out of the ordinary. In fact, 1.4 million jobs would still be below average: Over the past 84 years, the economy typically adds nearly 2 million jobs every 18 months.

If you break out the calculator and using  the 2 million jobs added over 18 month bogey,  the numbers work out to 111,111 jobs / month added.

Per the 2003 standard, 121,000 jobs added in February is nothing. Furthermore, if we are to evaluate the Democrats job creation performance, we need  to look over an 18 month window and those numbers are not pleasant.

With government spending out of control and showing no signs of slowing down, economic growth and job creation is going to be anemic at best.

The worst part about our economic situations is that it is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention:

YouTube Preview Image

Just wait until ObamaCare kicks in and siphons even more money from the private sector.

The Long Shadow Of The Progressives: Jimmy Carter And Energy

Posted on by
7

The progressives have been proposing the same things for decades.

From Jimmy Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” Speech, July 15th 1979:

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.

And 30 years later, they are proposing the same things. Obama’s speech to Congress February 24th, 2009:

But to truly transform our economy, to protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.

So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. That’s what we need.

And to support — to support that innovation, we will invest $15 billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Thursday Night Links: The Mopar Edition

Posted on by
3

The Progressive Assault on America’s Founding Principles

Now, if the kids had wanted to burn the flag . . .

Why do the Phoenix Suns hate my friend?

MSM DeathWatch: Newsweek Losing Money, Put up for Sale

Houghton’s…meet the Houghton’s

Change! Freddie Mac seeks $10.6B in aid after big 1Q loss

PIIGS are on the spit!

People Detroiters Love: ERNIE HARWELL 1918 – 2010

A Prayer for Our Nation

The Cape Wind Boondoggle And What You Can Do

Posted on by
5

The Boondoggle:

Recently, Obama’s Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar announced that the Cape Wind off shore wind farm has cleared the final regulatory road block and is moving closer to becoming a reality.

The Cape Wind is a proposed wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass. It is a true government boondoggle of the highest order.

How big of a boondoggle you ask? Try $2 billion dollars.

I realize in this new era of out of control government spending  a billion dollars is typically a rounding error on some Federal program. However, with that being said, this project is a massive waste of public money.

The $2 billion project is expected to eventually provide 75% of the power to the 274,000 residents of Cape Cod (proponents of wind power are notorious for overestimating the electric output of their projects). However, when you factor in the 2.6 people per household average, the project will only provide power for only 105,385 households.  To look at this another way, the $2 billion project cost works out to $18,978  per household powered by the Cape Wind project.

Well, only 75% of the electricity per household.

According to Heritage:

The Institute for Energy Research provides more details: “Overall, the project is estimated to have a maximum delivered capacity of 454 megawatts based on a design wind velocity of 30 miles per hour and greater to a maximum operational velocity of 55 miles per hour. Based on the average wind speed of the Nantucket Sound of 19.75 miles per hour, however, the average generation capacity of the Cape Wind project would be approximately 182.6 megawatts. At this capacity, the Cape Wind project would annually deliver about 1,600 gigawatt-hours of energy.”

Let’s set aside the $2 billion cost of the project and the federal subsidies Cape Wind receives and focus on the problems that will occur as we attempt to replace fossil fuel-based energy with renewables – both on-shore and off-shore. To replace one offshore natural gas platform we would need 59 Cape Wind projects, which means more than 7,700 turbines covering an area the size of Rhode Island. We would need 24 of these projects to replace one of the 104 nuclear plants we have in the United States.

Unless I’m missing something, virtually all homes and businesses in Cape Cod currently have electricity. Why do residents need a new, intermittent power source to only provide a small portion of their power requirements. This makes absolutely no sense.

Plus, this wind farm will not replace one existing power plant. Denmark has not replaced one coal plant with wind power and Germany is currently on a coal power plant construction binge.

YouTube Preview ImageI haven’t brought up the fact that the wind farm needs a back up. You know, in case the wind isn’t blowing at the required 25 to 35 mph.

What you can do:

Contact your Representative and tell them you are not interested in wasting our Tax money subsidizing this boondoggle to construct off shore windmills. In Massachusetts.

Also, support Jeff Perry, a Republican candidate for Congress (Massachusetts 10th district) who opposes the Cape Wind project:

“My opposition to the Cape Wind project is primarily for economic reasons. Over the lifetime of the project, this plan could cost state taxpayers over a billion dollars through subsidies. I am also very concerned about a pending agreement with National Grid that would significantly raise electric rates for residents and businesses on Cape Cod, and people on the Cape can’t afford that. Local Chamber of Commerce leaders are worried this will cost Cape Cod residents jobs and that it will have serious impacts on tourism. I also worry about the effects of this project on the fishing and recreational boating industry.

“Secretary Salazar’s approval of this project today is not the final step in the process. There is still a long way to go, and officials are jumping the gun if they think this project is a done deal.”

This project will waste money and will not replace one coal fired power plant. Contact your Representative and Jeff Perry and tell them you are against Federal subsidies for this project.

*Perry committed to reducing government spending

Oil And Gas Drilling In Michigan

Posted on by
2

It is amazing, great things happen when you let sound economic principles happen. Notice that not one tax incentive, or heavy subsidy was required:

Michigan’s gas and oil industry entered a new era Tuesday with a record-setting auction that will be a windfall to the state’s land trust fund and could signal a boom in drilling across the northern Lower Peninsula.

The high-rolling bidders for leases to mineral rights on state-owned parcels stunned state officials and other bidders in what became — within hours — the most lucrative oil and gas rights sale in state history.

By early evening, lease sales had topped $178 million — more than seven times the previous record. More than 90% of the proceeds go to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, used to buy recreational and environmentally sensitive property all over the state.

via Bids fuel speculation on Mich. drilling boom | freep.com | Detroit Free Press.

Electric Cars: Building Hype Since 1911

Posted on by
9

With the renewed focus on electric cars as a way to cut our dependence, the greens have really renewed the drum beat for electric cars as a way to slash our dependence on dangerous foreign oil. (Never mind the fact that we import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Combined.)

Take this example from a recent New York Times blog posting about electric vehicles:

“We are on the cusp of an historic worldwide transformation in transportation that starts in the world’s biggest cities,” Mr. Sachs said in an interview. “It’s important from a resource point of view and an environmental point of view.”

A pre-production Chevy Volt was parked on College Walk for the event. Tony Posawatz, the Volt’s line director, said the company was “on a very good glide path to deliver the car.” The first retail cars will be delivered in November, he said. The Volt plugs in and will be home charged; Mr. Posawatz said he was looking forward to “having a gas station in my garage.”

So is New York ready to charge E.V.’s? Arthur Kressner, director of power supply research and development at Con Edison, cited the electric delivery trucks that plied the city’s streets 110 years ago and answered in the affirmative. Except for relatively rare peak demand times, he said, “the grid is more than capable of meeting the demands of electric vehicles.” (emphasis added)

The interesting fact is they have been saying the same things for over 100 years. Take this example from The New Your Times in 1911.

New York Times Electric Car Article from 1911

This excerpt is from an article in 1911:

Another great advantage of the electric in years gone by was their quiet operation, as compared with gasoline cars, and this fact alone was responsible for their widespread use by women.

The designers of electric passenger carrying vehicles have made great advances in the past few years, and these machines have retained all their early popularity and are steadily growing in favor with both men and women. They are very handy for use in the cities, and numbers of the best known and most prominent makers of gasoline cars in this country use electric cars for driving between their homes and their offices.

The enthusiastic interest recently shown by the electric power companies all over the country in furthering the cause of the electric passenger vehicle assures a still greater use of these machines. In the past it was sometimes difficult to make arraignments to have electrics charged unless the vehicles wee stored in a garage where owners of electrics were catered to, but this state of affairs has been changed. Now it is possible for an owner of an electric to install his own charging plant in his stable and the electric power companies are anxious to connect their feed wires to these individual charging plants. (emphasis added)

Just like the Photovoltaic cell, scientists and engineers have been working on electric cars for over 100 years, and EV’s have failed to fulfill the promises touted in the 1911 Times article.

And, even if electric vehicles take off, we will not ‘get off of dangerous foreign oil’ any time soon. The entire supply chain required to manufacture an electric vehicle requires oil, from the light weight plastics used throughout the vehicle (even the polyester used in  seat belts are manufactured from oil) to moving vehicle components on ships, trains, trucks and aircraft.

The entire supply chain requires oil.

China’s Economy May ‘Crash’ in Next 9 to 12 Months

Posted on by
4

I guess the old adage still applies: “If the US economy sneezes the world catches cold” except, right now, we have a cold.

China, who relies heavily on exports to the United States, is having a tough time pulling itself out of a recession:

“The market is telling you that something is not quite right,” Faber, the publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom report, said in a Bloomberg Television interview in Hong Kong today. “The Chinese economy is going to slow down regardless. It is more likely that we will even have a crash sometime in the next nine to 12 months.”

An index tracking Chinese stocks traded in Hong Kong dropped 1.8 percent today, the most in two weeks, after the central bank raised reserve requirements for the third time this year. The Shanghai Composite has slumped 12 percent this year, Asia’s worst performer, as policy makers seek to rein in a lending boom that’s spurred record gains in property prices. China’s markets are shut for a holiday today.

Copper touched a seven-week low and BHP Billiton Ltd., the world’s biggest mining company, fell the most since February on concern spending in the world’s third-largest economy will slow and after Australia boosted taxes on commodities producers. Rio Tinto Ltd., the third-largest, slid as much as 6 percent.

As I pointed out on the excellent web site The Resistance (you should check it out) the Chinese government is trying to prop up its economy through a ‘New Deal’ style government works project and that effort is only prolonging China’s slide in to recession.

via China May ‘Crash’ in Next 9 to 12 Months, Faber Says (Update3) – Bloomberg.com.

The T-50 Russian Stealth Fighter

Posted on by
3

Via The DEW Line (from a Sukhoi press release):

A promising fifth-generation aviation complex (PAK FA) rose today in the sky from the airfield FRI them Gromov in Zhukovsky near Moscow, continuing, thus, a program of flight tests.

Fly the aircraft Honored Test Pilot of the Russian Federation Sergey Bogdan. The first flight of the PAK FA was held on 29 January this year at the airport included holding “Sukhoi” Komsomolsk-on-Amur aviation production association Yuri Gagarin (KnAAPO). Upon successful completion of the first phase of tests, which consisted of six flights, the fighter was delivered to Zhukovsky.

Compared with previous generations of fighters, PAK FA has several unique features, combining the functions of attack aircraft and fighter. The aircraft is equipped with a fifth-generation an entirely new avionics, which integrates the function of “e-pilot”, and promising radar with a phased antenna array. This greatly reduces the load on the pilot and can concentrate on the implementation of tactical tasks. On-board equipment of the new aircraft allows the exchange of data in real time as a land-management systems, and within the aviation group.

Defense analysts think that the T-50 is not so much a challenge to the US Air Force’s F-22 as it is a means to maintain air superiority over the Chinese Air Force:

Even though it is nearly automatic to think of the PAK FA/T-50 in terms of a direct confrontation vs. the F-22, and this may indeed have been the original goal when the programme was first launched in the late 1980s, in the current global strategic scenario it is perhaps more likely that the Russians are rather interested in maintaining an air superiority edge over China’s current J-11s/SU-27s/-30s and future J-12. Also, the expected future worldwide usage of the F-35 JSF attack aircraft with its low observability qualities requires an interceptor capable to deal with this peculiar threat.

A cool video about Future Dog Fights and the F-22: