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 State of the Union address

Last night President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress by giving the annual State of the Union address. Unfortunately I was not able to watch it as I was out trying to build my business but I did take a moment to read what the Star Tribune had to report. While I recognize this is just one source, even though they do import from other sources, I think they do an adequate job at hitting the high points. I will write more on this topic once I have more other outlets read. That being said, I did see a tidbit in the Star Tribune that caught my eye on what President Obama said last night. President Obama has a renewed focus on jobs and the creation of new jobs.

The area that President Obama plans, or suggests that Congress, focus in on is passing legislation aimed at the green sector. Even though reports from Europe have accurately displayed that green jobs are a net loss, I do applaud President Obama for doing something. The question will be is if he will have the political clout to pull it off after spending it on failed races, a failed bid for the Olympics, and on the Stimulus package that has save nothing. Another aspect of the article about Obama's speech that caught my eye was the announcement of spending freeze to take place in 2011.

In building my business this week I have heard the speeding freeze talked about on various radio stations. My understanding, prior to reading the Star Tribune this morning, that the spending freeze was going to take place this year and last three years and be only freezing 18% of the overall budget. When I first heard that President Obama was looking to enact a spending freeze it made me happy then I heard what was being frozen and that baffled me. As I wondered how he'd be able to get health care, energy, and job bills passed without spending more money but after last night's speech and the announcement of the freeze not taking hold until 2011 I found my answer.

So the plan is then to increase spending this year to heights never seen before and then freeze it at that level. Sounds great but hasn't anyone learned that expansion of government and increased spending does not create sustainable jobs nor does it turn around the economy? I did notice that President Obama mentioned his inheritance, an inheritance similar to President Reagan, and I asked myself why this is relevant. The man ran on hope, change and transparency which not one element has been implemented in this administration. Do not get me wrong, I applaud Obama for looking to freeze the budget but that is just not enough to turn around our economy. More to come but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. What are your thoughts on President Obama's speech? What are your thoughts on his first year in office? What do you think we need to do to move the country forward?

I recognize that the anonymous posting is getting a little out of hand as of late. I hope those that post will continue to post not as anonymous but as another more identifiable name. Please remind yourself that we want to have open, honest and respectful dialogue on The Hamburg Post.

Senate Save America!!!

After Fridays House of Representatives vote on Climate Control Bill which passed 219-212. A group of reporters conducted an interview of President Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and White House coordinator of energy Carol Browner. President Obama stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate-text.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics), in regards to the passing of the bill, “I think this was an extraordinary first step.” While I watched the debate on the House floor on Friday, deals were being cut on the House floor for future consideration and even leaving an open line in the bill if were to pass to insert a place for an earmark for a Florida research center on hurricanes.

The bill that passed was written to emulate Spain’s efforts to create “Green Jobs” while controlling carbon emissions. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, PhD, published a report on Spain’s outcomes of their “green” jobs initiatives called Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources. http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf In the Executive Summary, the “study’s results demonstrate how such “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.”

President Obama, and others in Congress, touts the Climate Control Bill as a job creation bill. Yes, it will create jobs in the new “green” sector. The bigger question is will the bill have a net positive in jobs. According to Dr. Alvarez’s study, Spain has seen “9 jobs lost for every 4 created” in the energy industry while leading to an additional “2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created” elsewhere in the economy.

Many on the House floor on Friday argued that it “taxes” Americans. Now there is not straight out tax on consumers but there is on the producers of energy through the permits they will need to purchase. In every business model I have seen, not one has it where the company will absorb the price of purchasing carbon permits. The cost will passed along to the consumer in rate hikes. Some companies are already trying to get ahead of the curve by raising rates now.

While everyone agrees that America’s dependence on foreign oil promotes security risks to the future of the United States, the question is Congress prepared to pass a net-job loss bill that will drive up energy costs (total amount is up for discussion) and drive industry to countries, China or India, that do not have the same emission standards. Now to help level the playing field the Climate Control Bill does provide for tariffs of goods from countries that do not meet the new U.S. standards.

During the group reporter interview on Sunday with President Obama, a reporter asked, “One of the provisions that got added very late to this bill that senators had expressed some reservations about was the one that puts tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t have these sorts of restrictions. What do you think of that revision and would you like to see the Senate strip it out?”

President Obama responded by saying, “At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there. “ One of the Obama’s campaign promises was to keep jobs in the United States and penalize companies that ship jobs overseas. An argument against the Climate Change Bill was that companies will move their factories to countries with lower energy costs.

This argument is echoed in Dr. Alvarez’s study as Spain saw several companies, Ferroatlantica and Grupo Celsa, move parts of their operations to other countries. The two mentioned went to France where nuclear power is the prime energy source. While America will see an increase in “green jobs” mainly because the industry doesn’t really exists. The trouble, as demonstrated by Dr. Alvarez’s study, is the net is a job loss and increases costs to lower and middle class.