Minnesota State Legislative Session is a foot

The Minnesota State Legislature kicked off a new session yesterday. The session will be interesting as the Democrats look to press lame duck Governor Pawlenty on several issues facing the state. The main push by the DFL appears to be, at least early on, for job creation and higher education. Yesterday the DFL party unveiled a $1 billion public works proposal that has many on the other side of the aisle shaking their heads. A claim by the DFL is that the proposal will add 10,000 new jobs while the Republicans contend these jobs will be only temporary. If what the Republicans say is true about the temporary job creation, why would any rational person vote for such a bill when Minnesota is already facing a $1.2 billion deficit?

When I think of job creation my thoughts drift to sustainable and permanent jobs not temporary work. Granted some of the temporary work may lead to permanent employment but let's think wisely before we through around tax payer money. My hope is that the Minnesota State Legislature will learn from the mistakes of the Congress and the Obama Administration that government intervention is not the answer to sustained growth in the economy or the job market. Yesterday there was an article in the Star Tribune that discussed the windmills that dot the metro area and attempted to answer the question: Why are they not spinning?

While I agree that looking for alternative fuel sources is a good thing, we need to be smart about the choices pursued. The trouble with the windmills is that they were not properly outfitted for Minnesota Winters. That lack of thought boggles my mind. If the Minnesota State Legislature is serious about job creations then craft legislation that opens the door for nuclear energy. I understand that the Carter law has put a moratorium on new nuclear plants and the reusing of spent rods to which I say, "So what." We must take care of Minnesotans first and lead the way for other states to have the courage to stand up for their Constitutional rights as states.

I challenge the Minnesota State Legislature to fight for state rights and enact legislation that opens the way for more nuclear power plants in Minnesota. Previously I blogged about the job creation one new plant brings to a community. Not only will it bring new jobs to communities and Minnesota but it will also bring renewable energy as well. A renewable energy source that is cheaper per kilowatt than solar and wind combined. Does that not make sense? We are able to kill two birds with one stone; we create thousands of jobs and establish a green source of energy.

For those that live in Minnesota, please take time to contact your representative and express your concerns. If you do not know who your representative is start here to find out: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/ Also check back to that website to keep tabs on your representative as I will be. A goal of mine this year is to interject more local politics into the blog too.

President Obama’s job creation program is short sighted

Today President Obama will be announcing that he wants to use bailout money to fund a new jobs program in order to stem the tide of unemployment rate that is still above 10%. The unemployment rate did decline over the past month, mainly due to people falling off the record. The national unemployment rate is "computed solely from the Current Population Survey (CPS) of about 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau. Residents of selected households are interviewed about their work experience. From these responses, the Bureau of Labor Statistics then estimates the size of the labor force and the number of people who are jobless" (http://dli.mt.gov/resources/howrate.asp). While statistics can be altered to establish the view one wants, we'd like to hope that our Government is not doing that as well. One thing the unemployment rate does not take into consideration is if people are working part-time or have taken a full-time temporary job.

That being said, President Obama is want to use the leftover Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to go to new construction project and small business loans to assist main street America rebound. "It means that some of that [leftover] money can be devoted to deficit reduction. And the question is: Are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP," said President Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/08/2009-12-08_bam_to_toss_tarp_on_jobless_woes.html). The trouble I see in this thought process is twofold. First, President Obama is trading a potential short-term gain (jobs) for long-term debt since new construction jobs will be temporary employment and will not be paid back thus the deficit continues to grow. Secondly, TARP is meant to be used as a slush fund; rather TARP was established to rescue the failing financial sector.

The door was opened though by using TARP funds to bailout the automotive industry. The door needs to be closed on TARP and the money needs to be applied to the deficit. If the president is serious about job growth and sustained job creation then it is time for the Obama Administration to look to nuclear power. Many detractors of nuclear power state it takes 8 to 10 years to get a plant fully functional. All the better I say then. That means that Americans can enjoy 8 to 10 years of constant construction work after which more jobs will be created; jobs that cannot be outsourced. Not only will the building of nuclear power plants bring sustainable, high paying jobs it will assist in the "Green" initiative going on.

As I wrote June 8^th in my blog entry "Obama short sighted on summer job program" that "According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a nuclear power plant generates "approximately $430 M in sales of goods and services in the local community and nearly $40M in total labor income." Nuclear power plants employ between 400 to 700 permanent jobs while offering, according to NEI, "36 percent more than average salaries in the local area." NEI estimates that during the construction phase a new nuclear power plant will create "1,400 to 1,800" jobs with a peak of 2,400." Does it not make sense to kill two birds with one stone by ramping up the establishment of nuclear power plants? The data provided by the NEI is for just one plant; imagine the job creation if each state started the construction of two or three power plants tomorrow.

Again, my question is why is nuclear energy not being given higher priority when it comes to Obama's energy and job creation policies? Instead Obama wants to tap TARP, which has its own legal issues to start with, and establish a pattern with TARP as a slush fund. Sort of reminds me when Congress decided to bring SSN into the General Fund. President Obama needs to allow the unused TARP funds to go to the deficit and focus on real job creation; nuclear power.

Cap and Trade: Ponzi Scheme

While President Obama is in Italy, one of his goals was to build upon the Cap and Trade notion to curb emissions. Major push back came from India, China, and other developing countries that see high-carbon emission energy sources as a requirement to assist in creating economic development in their countries. Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his article G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change on the The Huffington Post:

“For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
• It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
• Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."
• It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.”

I agree with Dr. Hansen that “Cap and Trade” is a Ponzi scheme being played out in Congress. The day that the House of Representatives discussed the bill it was comical to watch the wheeling and dealing being done on the House floor to gain the votes needed to pass. Also, there were about 300 pages of change that passed the Rules Committee at the wee hours of the morning on the day the bill came to the House floor. Representatives on the House floor all but admitted that they had not seen nor read the 300 pages. An official copy wasn’t even put together until the debate was nearly done.

If Congress and Obama’s administration are serious about reducing “Green House” gasses than scrap the Cap and Trade notion. There will need to be a transition period from fossil fuel to renewable energy. So let’s plan for that. Phase out coal, natural gas, and oil over the next 15 years.

Over the next 15 years as the fossil fuels are phased out, America opens up our country for oil exploration and place tariffs on foreign oil and natural gas. Wind and solar are not the only uses of power that needs to be explored. During the 15 year phase out, America can build nuclear power plants and remove the executive order put in place by President Carter that prohibits the re-using of spent rods in nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is reliable and safer than 20 years ago. Nuclear power creates jobs and builds communities. As I wrote in Obama short sighted on summer job program posted June 8th, nuclear power plants creates between 1,400 and 1,800 jobs while establishing between 400 to 700 permanent jobs which are “36 percent more than average salaries in the local area (per NEI).” The Cap and Trade bill does not account for nuclear power in the 1500 pages of legislation. President Obama and Congress scrap the bill and replace with a program that includes and pushes nuclear power. As we phase out the coal plant, we can build nuclear power plants across the street.

Obama short sighted on summer job program

According to the Washington Post, “President Barak Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787B stimulus plan this summer.” The big picture question is how many of these jobs will be permanent versus temporary. Back in March of this year, President Obama attended the graduation of 25 police recruits in Columbus, Ohio. At that time the Administration herald the graduation as a success of the stimulus bill. The trouble is at year end, those 25 fresh graduates will be out of a job because the Columbus City Council budget will be $120M in the red and cuts will need to be made.

America needs sustained growth in the job force. As the $787 stimulus bill was being rammed through Congress, with not one person reading it, the President’s administration was claiming the unemployment rates would not rise higher “than 8 percent”. As of the last week, we are 9.4% with the expectation that we will top out around 11%. The Washington Post further reports that, “Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far.” Never mind the fact the economy has lost 1.6M jobs in the meantime.

At least the percentage is better than the less than 1% trimming of his $1.2T budget touted two weeks ago by the President. The vast majority of the 600,000 new jobs are for temporary work. The tasks slotted to see the majority of the 600,000 jobs are improvements in the national parks, upgrades to Veterans Affairs medical centers, establishment of new rural waste and water systems, and the cleanup of Superfund sites. The one potential long lasting job creation will be the funding to the Justice department for an additional 5,000 law enforcement jobs.
Why are we not creating sustaining jobs that will contribute to our nation’s health and recovery? Instead of focusing the temporary projects, see above; let’s focus on something more permanent and benefitual. President Obama stated in his address in Cairo last week that he had no trouble with Iran power themselves with nuclear power. Over 80% of France’s energy comes from nuclear power. Why are we not moving forward with nuclear energy?

If we repeal the Carter law on re-using spent rods, we can recycle the rods and use them an additional time thus reducing the waste product by nearly 80%. Experts say that if this is done, it would take over 100 years to fill up the approved storage site in the Yucatan Mountains. Besides, if the unmanned military space craft, which was announce yesterday, is successful we can eventually launch our waste into space.

The experts say it takes 8-10 years to build a nuclear plant that is fully operational. That is sustaining growth in job creation. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a nuclear power plant generates “approximately $430 M in sales of goods and services in the local community and nearly $40M in total labor income.” Nuclear power plants employ between 400 to 700 permanent jobs while offering, according to NEI, “36 percent more than average salaries in the local area.” NEI estimates that during the construction phase a new nuclear power plant will create “1,400 to 1,800” jobs with a peak of 2,400.

So, why is nuclear energy not a top priority in the energy policy of President Obama? The numbers above are just for one nuclear site. Now if we start projects in every state we can increase the work force and establish roughly 35,000 permanent jobs and 900,000 jobs during the construction phase. Also, America would be creating a clean source of energy that will not increase our heating, cooling, and electric rates like the “cap and trade” energy policy of President Obama will do. Why stop at 1 new site per state? Nothing to stop us from expanding this policy to adding more and creating more jobs. California is looking at a huge budget deficit and already experiences rolling black outs, it would be two-fold for California. Let’s create jobs that have more bang for their buck.

Instead our President wants to start projects this summer that will create no revenue for the local communities and will only be a temporary job. I agree with the President that we need to secure our future on energy and become less dependent on coal. Then let’s get started. Lift the moratorium on nuclear power and repel Carters executive order on recycle spent rods so we can create sustaining jobs while creating an energy source that is “green”.