Free Markets, Free People

Green jobs? At $23 million a pop?

How many times have we said the government shouldn’t be involved economically in picking winners and losers?  And how many times have we seen examples of the government doing precisely that and the program ending up a disaster.

Solyndra, for instance.   But political agendas rarely yield to the laws of economics so it is fairly easy to predict how they’ll end.   The Obama administration’s “green jobs” agenda – again see Solyndra for the latest prime example – is a consummate failure.  And a look at where that agenda is headed serves as an example of why what has been said right here (and many other places) continues to be true.

But in case you’ve missed it or are inclined to wave off what we might say here, here’s a guy from CATO:

Jerry Taylor, senior policy analyst for the free-market Cato Institute, says the whole program shows that the federal government should not be picking private-sector winners and losers.

"It’s a lot of money for very few jobs if you do the math," Taylor said. "If nobody in the private sector is willing to invest their capital, that’s a pretty good signal."

What is he talking about?  Take a look at the chart.

Yes, those are Department of Energy numbers for the number of jobs that will be created for $6.5 billion in loan guarantees for the 9 companies in question.  That’s right, $6.5 billion in guarantees will create 283 permanent jobs.   That’s $23 million of your dollars (or borrowed money) per job.

Where’s the private investment?  Why are these companies having to seek federal loan guarantees so they can get loans?  If they’re viable, as Jerry Taylor points out, the private sector should be willing to invest in them.

Why aren’t they?

In fact, why, given that it appears the private sector is not willing to do so, is the DoE even considering these loans?

Because there’s an agenda at stake here.   This isn’t about market viability or sound economics, it’s about trying to save an agenda that promised 5 million green jobs, remember. 

And this is what you get.   A failed Solyndra and 9 companies the private sector won’t invest in which may create 283 jobs.  May.  Government estimates about programs it supports have never been known to be overly optimistic, have they?

$23 million a pop for 283 jobs that may or may not materialize. 

The fact that they’re even considering these loan guarantees tells you all you really need to know about how clueless they are. 

And there are people that still wonder why there is a growing body of us out here wanting smaller, less costly and less intrusive government that binds itself to the limits of the Constitution?



Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

14 Responses to Green jobs? At $23 million a pop?

  • One of the hardest things to do is really KNOW what something costs…stem to stern.
    For instance, how much has it cost to make us more dependent on something as CULTURALLY undependable as the FLUCKING wind???  What does that do to the power-grid holistically???  How will it effect industry and business???  How will effect residential users???  How many people might it kill???
    Markets innovate, provide choice, and RAISE the standard of living for everyone.

  • Hmmm, not that I’m in love with NASA lately, but I wonder how they could have put $6.5 billion to use, considering we just shut down our space program.

  • They could probably stimulate the economy better if they just took the money and handed it out in half million dollar chunks to random tax payers (who, of course must make less than $250,000 a year).

    • Two trillion more in debt and we could cut everyone a $6000 check. 

      I expect this suggestion get trial balloons roughly on or before Oct. 2012. 

      • Whaaaaat – are trying to make EVERYONE a winner?   No, no, no, no, no!
        We can better control this funneling the half millions to ‘winners’ to keep in scheme with the current government plan of choosing the winners and losers.  Warren Buffet has no need of that $6000 check!  He doesn’t pay enough as it is!  No, this money must go to unwed illegal immigrant mothers or something, not to Republicans or ‘the rich’ (but I repeat myself according to the progressives)!   Besides those Tea Party guys would be against the spending, they might send the checks back or something and wouldn’t use it to stimulate the economy (or they’d buy guns, or bibles or who knows what).  No, we need to send this cash to people who are likely to vote the right way.

  • This may give a “body blow” to the “green economy” …

    In response to a report that could lead to questions about the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling for hearings to investigate. The report — from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA — reveals that the scientific basis, on which the administration’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases hinged, violated the EPA’s own peer review procedure.
    In a report released Wednesday (at Sen. Inhofe’s request, dating back to April) the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “pubic health and welfare.”

    The Most Incompetent Administration Evah

    • But, NO..!!!
      They are not MERELY incompetent.

      • Yes, we’re supposed to believe the smartest, brightest, most articulate, brilliant messianic President in our history has surrounded himself with an epic posse of incompetent dunderheads.
        How does that happen?
        Once again, just like when we had stupid old “Dumbya”, the most evil genius to ever occupy the White House, the contradictory story line hardly makes sense, but once again, emanates from comes from what I’ll have to classify as the childish left.

      • (at Sen. Inhofe’s request, dating back to April)

        The report is dated Sept 26, 2011, but really, how long has the EPA been sitting on this ?  How many lawsuits out there revolve around the CO2 Endangerment Finding ?
        I keep asking myself, is this the reason Obama suspended those new EPA regulation the other week ?

  • They can pay me a mere 1% of that – 230,000 dollars, and I’ll “work” a second job doing jack-all.
    Saves them money, makes me money, and no waste!