Coal Miners Release Scathing Ad Accusing Obama of ‘Lies’ When Referencing ThemOct. 15, 2012 5:00am
A group of coal miners that has become the focus of an anti-Romney attack by the Obama camp has struck back in a new ad accusing the president of “lies.”
The ad is in response to an oft-repeated characterization (and Obama ad) that workers from the Century Mine were forced to attend a Romney rally. That was debunked in September and the Obama ad was supposed to have been altered to pull the footage alleging such a thing. The miners, however, are still upset enough about it to have released an ad of there own, which was partnered with a letter to the president:
This is the Obama camp ad:Dear President Obama:We are writing as the employees of American Energy Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio. You have approved in a running television campaign ads about the Mitt Romney event that was held at our Century coal mine. These ads state that we were forced to attend this rally and that is blatantly false. There are numerous false statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event, we, the employees, mostly started by a local shock jock host. Since your approval is attached to these ads, you may not wish to support these mistruths. Why would you lie about the 500 working miners who have signed this letter? We, the employees of Century Mine, would request you immediately stop these false ads. Thank you. Century Mine employees.
Here’s the response ad by the miners:
And here’s the full statement by the miners:
SOURCE: THE BLAZE
Quotes on Cap and Trade and Energy
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity price would necessarily skyrocket. . . . Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas—you name it—whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”— President Barack Obama, January 2008
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.— President Barack Obama, January 2008
“Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”— Rep. John Dingell, April 24, 2009
Speaking on cap and trade, Rep. Rangel said, “Whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees that it’s going to increase the cost to the consumer.”— Charlie Rangel, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, quoted in May 14, 2009
“Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions.”— Peter R. Orszag, Former CBO Director, current White House OMB Director, April 24, 2008,
“The government could either raise $100 by selling allowances and then give that amount in cash to particular businesses and individuals, or it could simply give $100 worth of allowances to those businesses and individuals, who could immediately and easily transform the allowances into cash through the secondary market.”— Peter R. Orzag, Former CBO Director, current White House OMB Director, November 1, 2007
“If you didn’t auction the [CO2] permits, it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States. All of the evidence is that what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits.”— Peter R. Orszag, White House OMB Director, March 2009
Although the direct economic effects of a cap-and-trade program described in the previous section would fall disproportionately on some industries, on some regions of the country, and on low-income households, the program’s ultimate economic effect would depend on policymakers’ decisions about how to allocate the revenues from the emission allowances.— Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Testimony on The Distribution of Revenues from a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions before the Committee on Finance United States Senate, May 7, 2009.
. . .
Some of the effects of a CO2 cap would be similar to those of raising such taxes: The higher prices caused by the cap would reduce real wages and real returns on capital, which would be like raising marginal tax rates on those sources of income.
George Soros: Definitely. I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The US needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation.— Interview with George Soros in Spiegel Online
SPIEGEL: Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as “big government.” Republicans might call it European-style “socialism.”
George Soros: That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful—but also very harmful to our society.
“We need more expensive gasoline to change consumer behavior,” Mr. Jackson said. Otherwise, Americans will continue to favor big vehicles, not matter what kind of fuel-economy standards the government imposes on auto makers. Four dollars a gallon, he added, “is a good start.”— Michael J. Jackson, AutoNation CEO
“Until the consumer is involved, we are not going to make progress” in reducing the amount of oil the U.S. consumes.”— Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive
“Coal is My Worst Nightmare.”— Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, April 23, 2007, presentation at U.C. Berkeley
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”— Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, September 2008
“What the American family does not want is to pay an increasing fraction of their budget, their precious dollars, for energy costs.”— Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, January 12, 2009
“A cap and trade bill will likely increase the costs of electricity. . . . These costs will be passed on to the consumers. But the issue is, how does it actually…how do we interact in terms with the rest of the world? If other countries don’t impose a cost on carbon, then we would be at a disadvantage. . . . We should look at considering duties that would offset that cost.”— Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, House Committee on Science on Technology, March 17, 2009
“You can revisit and ratchet down later,” Chu said, adding that he would “rather have a bill this year” — even a relatively weak one — than no climate legislation at all.— Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, speaking at Harvard University, quoted in Inside Energy, August 10, 2009
Markey, who introduced Chu at the Harvard speech and took questions with him after, said even if the relatively weak House bill becomes law, Congress will revisit its emission-reduction targets in the coming years.— Rep. Edward Markey, speaking at Harvard University, quoted in Inside Energy, August 10, 2009
“This won’t be the last time we will visit this between now and 2020, 2030, 2050,” Markey said.
“The biggest priority is softening the blow on our trade sensitive industries and our consumers. I just want you to know that, that’s the goal.”— Sen. Boxer, July 17, 2009, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing
“We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to be a sucker. . . . And if we go too far with this, all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”— Sen. McCaskill talking to talk radio host Mike Ferguson, July 2009
“We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill [Waxman-Markey] . . . Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science…”— Greenpeace, June 25, 2009
“I can’t give you a specific number today, in large part because the analysis upon which we would make that determination has not been completed. . . . I think it is fair to say there may be additional costs associated with a farming operation, but it is very difficult to quantify.”— Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, June 11, 2009, House Committee on Agriculture Hearing
“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”— EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, July 7, 2009, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing
“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for [Chinese greenhouse gas emissions].”— Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, July 2009, at the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai
When asked about cap and trade Warren Buffet said, “In the utility business, it’s going to be borne by customers. And it’s a tax like anything else.” He added that the “tax is probably going to be pretty regressive.”— Warren Buffett, Interview on CNBC, March 9, 2009
“…my rates will stay pretty steady in the early going. They’ll begin to go up when I begin to react in a costly cap-and-trade market or deploy carbon-capture and storage technology. Rates could go up as much as 30% to 50% to pay for all of that.”— AEP CEO Mike Morris, Interview with Forbes Magazine, June 17, 2009
Look, any cut in greenhouse gases is going to be expensive for American consumers, who are in no mood to bear additional costs.— Robert Reich, former Clinton Secretary of Labor, in an interview with Marketplace, October 16, 2009
The danger if Murkowski were to become law is [if EPA's endangerment finding is not overturned] that there isn’t the immediate incentive to put a price on carbon,” said— Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), quoted in Environment and Energy Daily, June 8, 2010.
“The expensing of IDCs, like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent expensing encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources through a cap-and-trade program. “– U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 2010 “Green Book” Budget Proposal
Addressing the questioner, Obama conceded, “None of that is going to help you this week, though. So, like I said, if you’re getting eight miles a gallon you may want to think about a trade-in. You can get a great deal. I promise you, GM or Ford or Chrysler, they’re going to be happy to give you a deal on something that gets you better gas mileage.” When he mentioned the need to boost fuel efficiency for cars and truck, Obama singled out some in the audience for applauding: Now, I notice some folks clapped, but I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. You’re one of them? Well, now, here’s my point. If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — you may have a big family, but it’s probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then.– President Obama, April 6, 2011
“By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”-President Obama during March 2011 visit to Brazil
Obama has launched his war on coal. He's already on record saying, under his policies our electricity will "necessarily skyrocket":
Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket”
posted at 1:30 pm on November 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey In another clip from the same January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which Barack Obama promised to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants, he also made an interesting admission about his entire energy plan. Obama told the editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket” as the energy industry passed along the exorbitant costs of his cap-and-trade policy:
"The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry.
That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done."
The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.
So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
- Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
- SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
- Solyndra ($535 million)*
- Beacon Power ($43 million)*
- Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
- SunPower ($1.2 billion)
- First Solar ($1.46 billion)
- Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
- EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
- Amonix ($5.9 million)
- Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
- Abound Solar ($400 million)*
- A123 Systems ($279 million)*
- Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
- Johnson Controls ($299 million)
- Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
- ECOtality ($126.2 million)
- Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
- Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
- Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
- Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
- Range Fuels ($80 million)*
- Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
- Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
- Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
- GreenVolts ($500,000)
- Vestas ($50 million)
- LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
- Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
- Navistar ($39 million)
- Satcon ($3 million)*
- Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
- Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.
Figures for four companies have been updated: Beacon Power received $43 million from the U.S. government, not $69 million as originally reported. Azure Dynamics received $5.4 million from the federal government, not $120 million as originally reported. Compact Power Inc. received $151 million as part of the stimulus, not $150 million as originally reported. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group received $700,981 in government funding, not $6 million as originally reported.
The following companies have been removed from the original list: AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy, LSP Energy, Schneider Electric, and Uni-Solar did not receive government-backed loans, based on additional research. The National Renewable Energy Lab did receive $200 million in stimulus funding, but it is a government laboratory.
Additional research provided by Michael Sandoval
SOURCE: The Heritage Foundation