Posts Tagged ‘Silicon Valley’

Developing a perspective …

by Stephen Levine on Monday, July 14th, 2014

This is article 449 of 472 in the topic Government Corruption


Let us consider three world events by developing a perspective framework based on reality …

  • Let us assume that the world is a noisy place, filled with competing interests, all vying for your attention, support, and money.
  • Let us also assume that one must produce bizarre, shocking, or media-worthy events to rise above the daily noise.
  • Let us assume that repetition leads to belief, regardless of the actual facts.
  • Let us assume that the majority of people who are exposed to a message will not take the time and effort necessary to verify for themselves the veracity of the proposed proposition.
  • And, let us assume that most people will accept those propositions that convey some advantage and reject those propositions that appear to have adverse effects.

If there is anyone who can disagree with the above assumptions, let them put forward their arguments for discussion.

Scenario One: Global Warming …

There are those who want to gain or maintain political dominance, but their proposition involves increasing totalitarian measures, the reduction of individual liberties, and must be financed using the proceeds from the public treasury.

What better way to achieve these political objectives than to use “science” and scientists – generally held in higher esteem than corrupt and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats – as a method to validate your political agenda and make it palatable to the public?

Pumping billions of dollars into the scientific infrastructure and making research than tends to support the political agenda the major game in town. Thus biasing the research to one side, while simultaneously depriving the contrarian viewpoint of funding. Add in activism and peer-shunning and you have a perfect storm of deception.

In order to maintain social entitlements and programs plus their wealth redistribution schemes, taxes must be raised across the board, and disproportionately among productive individuals and corporations. With the side-effect of forcing people to keep their wealth and earnings abroad regardless of the increasing tracking and sanctions on foreign transactions.

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Read More

And then there are those who subvert science to advance their own agenda … 

Due to the Climate-gate e-mails, we see that peer-reviewed science is not immune from manipulation.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Standing up against wealth-shaming

by Michelle Malkin on Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

This is article 76 of 83 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

Screen shot 2014-01-29 at 2.02.04 AM




Standing up against wealth-shaming
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2014

America, we have a bullying epidemic. No, not the school bullying issues that get constant attention from Hollywood, the White House and the media. No, not the “fat-shaming” and “body-shaming” outbreaks on Facebook. The problem is wealth-shaming. Class-shaming. Success-shaming.

The State of the Job Creator is under siege.

Last week, a prominent self-made tech mogul dared to diagnose the problem publicly. His passionate letter to The Wall Street Journal decried the “progressive war on the American 1 percent.” He called on the left to stop demonizing “the rich,” and he condemned the Occupy movement’s “rising tide of hatred.”

The mini-manifesto was newsworthy because this truth-teller is not a GOP politician or conservative activist or Fox News personality. As he points out, he lives in the “epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco.” No matter. The mob is shooting the messenger anyway. But maybe, just maybe, his critical message in defense of our nation’s achievers will transcend, inspire, embolden and prevail.

The letter-writer is Tom Perkins, a Silicon Valley pioneer with an MIT degree in electrical engineering and computer science and a Harvard MBA. He started out at the bottom at Hewlett-Packard, founded his own separate laser company on the side and then teamed up with fellow entrepreneur Eugene Kleiner to establish one of the nation’s oldest and most important venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers.

A hands-on dynamo, Perkins immersed himself in the science and technology of the companies in his portfolio. He even accompanied them on sales calls. He poured his heart and soul into the business of business. Perkins achieved great wealth for himself, his partners and his clients — and the world is a better place for it. Kleiner Perkins’ groundbreaking investment in Genentech planted the seeds of the biotech revolution. An MIT profile notes that in its first three decades, the firm “made more than 475 investments, generating $90 billion in revenue and creating 275,000 jobs” and “funded 167 companies that later went public, including Amazon, AOL, Genentech, Google and Netscape.”

Because he dared to compare the seething resentment of modern progressives to Kristallnacht and Nazi Germany, the grievance industry attacked Perkins and dismissed his message. His former colleagues at the venture capital firm he founded threw him under the bus. Left-wing punk journalists immediately branded him “nuts” and a “rich idiot.”

Please note: Not one of those sanctimonious grievance-mongers had anything to say about the Molotov cocktail-fueled riots and fires set by the Occupy mobs at banks, car dealerships and restaurants in Oakland that provoked Perkins’ comparison in the first place.

While he regrets invoking Kristallnacht specifically, Perkins unequivocally refused to back down from his message defending the “creative 1 percent.” He reiterated his fundamental point in a TV interview on Monday: “Anytime the majority starts to demonize a minority, no matter what it is, it’s wrong. And dangerous. And no good ever comes from it.”

Perkins also chastised those who bemoan “income inequality,” including his erstwhile “friends” Al Gore, Jerry Brown and Barack Obama: “The 1 percent are not causing the inequality. They are the job creators. … I think Kleiner Perkins itself over the years has created pretty close to a million jobs, and we’re still doing it.

Click to continue reading “Standing up against wealth-shaming”
Go straight to Post

Obama’s Tax Evaders of the Year

by Michelle Malkin on Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

This is article 206 of 308 in the topic Taxation/IRS

Well, it happened last night. The U.S. Senate Democrats and bend-over Republicans delivered a massive tax-hike/puny spending-cut bill in the ratio of 41-to-1 tax hikes to spending cuts. This is the Washington idea of a “balanced approach” to our fiscal woes. The McConnell-Biden love connection screwed us over big time.

But as American families, business owners, and struggling entrepreneurs now brace for their “fair share” punishment, many of Obama’s wealthiest friends are busy evading the tax hikes their candidate spearheaded. Let’s ring in the new year exposing the hypocrites.

Obama’s Tax Evaders of the Year
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012

President Obama will kick off the new year the same way that he kicked off the old year: by demanding that the wealthy pay their “fair share” in taxes. But while millions of small business owners, struggling entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors brace for a double whammy of fiscal cliff tax hikes and new Obamacare taxes, the class warrior-in-chief’s richest pals are getting a pass.

It’s a Golden Pass for liberal millionaires and billionaires who support higher Obama taxes for everyone but themselves. Meet the Democratic tax evaders of the year.

*GOOGLE. The left-wing Internet giant provided Silicon Valley’s biggest campaign finance boost to Obama, with individual employee donations supporting the tax-hiking candidate by a ratio of more than 31-to-one. Google rank-and-file workers pitched in some $800,000 to Obama. Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt, Google cofounder Sergey Brin, Chief Legal Officer and Senior Vice President David Drummond, and Google vice president and chief Internet evangelist Vint Cerf are all vocal Obama supporters and top donors.

In December, Google’s Netherlands subsidiary disclosed in a tax filing that it had shifted nearly $10 billion in revenues to a Bermuda shell company. That’s “almost double the total from three years before,” according to Bloomberg News. In response to criticism, Google defended the scheme as a legal response to government incentives. “It’s called capitalism,” Schmidt snarked defiantly.

Wonder what all of Obama’s operatives and media lapdogs who bashed evil, selfish Republican offshore tax havens have to say about that? Cue crickets chirping.

*The Washington Post. Speaking of media lapdogs, this newspaper sanctimoniously supported Obama for president and singled out his support for “revenue [tax] increases.” Its endorsement editorial castigated Mitt Romney for embracing an America “in which an ever-greater share of the nation’s wealth resides with the nation’s wealthy, at a time when inequality already is growing.”

The privileged wealthy barons at the Washington Post, however, increased that inequality at the end of the year when they joined a growing number of companies who are paying 2013 dividends in 2012 to protect investors from paying higher Obama taxes on dividend income. It’s “proof positive,” my friend and guest-blogger Doug Powers noted, “that no matter what happens in the negotiations, the country is definitely going off the irony cliff.”

Bonus irony: The $70 million year-end dividend payment will be a windfall for other “higher taxes for thee, but not for me” Obama supporters, including donor Warren Buffet’s firm Berkshire Hathaway. According to the Associated Press, “Berkshire is its largest shareholder with an estimated 1.7 million shares, which means it could
get a roughly $17 million dividend payment.”

*Costco. The mega-retailer’s co-founder, Jim Sinegal, is a lifelong Democrat and top Obama fundraiser.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s Tax Evaders of the Year”
Go straight to Post

Why Are the Rich Still Enamored of Obama?

by Austin Hill on Saturday, April 21st, 2012

A question for the rich: if President Obama successfully breaks the backs of the working middle class, is that really good for you?

And how about this: if over half of your fellow Americans pay no income taxes and are quite happy to have you foot the bill for our wasteful bloated government, will that be good for your portfolios– or anybody else’s?

We’re less than seven months away from selecting either four more years of Barack Obama, or a new President named Mitt. At this point President Obama isn’t running on his track record, so much as he is running against his own characterizations of Congress and his Republican presidential opponent. But is that the stuff that leadership is made of?

The President portrays the Congress as though it is inept and obstructionist. Despite his own party’s control of the entire U.S. Senate, “Congress” is preventing further progress, Mr. Obama tells us, and it is threatening the hope and change that he has already created.

As for Mitt Romney– well, he’s a creature of wealth and privilege, according to President Obama, a man defined by his greed. Ivy League law school grad’s Barack and Michelle understand the struggle of the middle class, but Mitt and Ann are incapable.

But look who’s funding the President’s campaign – overwhelmingly it’s the richest among us. According to a New York Times report last year, Obama’s top donors included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Today the President’s campaign is aggressively seeking low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities. Yet his financial support among middle and lower income Americans is miniscule, while wealthy Americans who are willing to pay up to $40,000.00 for dinner and a photo continue to flock to his side. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in the big-dollar donations, as the headlines indicate, but Barack Obama is still the presidential candidate of choice for rich folks.

And why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the thrill of “hanging” with a U.S. President that they’re ambivalent to the agenda they’re funding? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?

Consider the recent unemployment data. Thus far this year the U.S. Department of Labor has issued 14 reports on unemployment benefits claims, and 14 times the Department of Labor has revised the number upward, after the initial report was released. The Obama Administration grabs headlines with what appears to be a decrease in government benefits, then after the fact reports that the dependency is increasing. Is this what attracts the rich folks?


And how about the sharp decline in the number of people who are actually trying to work? The labor pool is shrinking (not just the number of available jobs) and the President’s solution to the problem is clear: more “free” services for the lower and middle class, and higher taxes for the rich. But is this our pathway to prosperity?

Click to continue reading “Why Are the Rich Still Enamored of Obama?”
Go straight to Post

Obama’s Green Robber Barons

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, January 26th, 2012

This is article 173 of 472 in the topic Government Corruption

Obama’s Green Robber Barons
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012

Had enough of fat cat Barack Obama, his jet-setting wife and his multi-millionaire Chicago consigliere/real-estate mogul Valerie Jarrett attacking the “rich”? Well, brace yourselves. You’ll be hearing much more from the White House about the “wealthy few” who aren’t paying their “fair share” as Obama’s re-election campaign doubles down on class-war demagoguery.

As usual, there’s always a set of immunity charms for the privileged friends and family of the ruling class. When it comes to all the Green Robber Barons who’ve reaped an obscenely unfair share of billions of tax dollars from the Obama administration, the envy trumpeteers will be quieter than a nest of mute church mice.

Obama’s State of the Union address defiantly pitched a new round of clean energy spending orgies to help the “middle class.” But how have the serial bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies of several federally subsidized solar companies — all under Obama’s watch — helped anyone but an upper-crust elite of eco-crats and their lobbyists and consultants?

Bankrupt Solyndra, billionaire George Kaiser. In the wake of the half-billion-dollar Solyndra stimulus bust, company officials revealed plans to hand out hefty bonuses totaling $500,000. Months before the politically connected solar energy manufacturer went belly up, it was doling out bonus payments of between $40,000 and $60,000 to several executives. Last week, a local CBS News crew caught employees at the Silicon Valley headquarters trashing solar panel glass tubes worth an estimated $10 million.

The now-abandoned Taj Mahal complex cost ordinary Americans more than $733 million. But billionaire Democratic donor and frequent White House guest George Kaiser, whose nonprofit foundation was Solyndra’s biggest investor, is still sitting pretty. He and the other private investors of Solyndra will recoup their losses ahead of taxpayers. And while they blast their GOP opponents, double-standard Democrats will remain AWOL on the glaring tax-avoidance strategies of the wealthy Kaiser Family Foundation.

Bankrupt Beacon Power, fat Democratic coffers. This green energy storage plant filed for bankruptcy last fall after a $43 million injection of Obama Department of Energy loan guarantees. Federal election record filings show that CEO William Capp contributed to the 2008 Obama campaign, as well as several left-wing New England Democratic candidates. Beacon Power lobbyist Steve Wolfe was a former aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Beacon sought bankruptcy shelter two days after the White House responded to fiscal watchdogs’ demands for a review of the DOE’s shoddy loan monitoring programs.

Bankrupt SpectraWatt, red-faced Goldman Sachs. A solar cell company based in New York, SpectraWatt went belly up last August despite a half-million-dollar federal stimulus boost and lucrative backing from politically connected Goldman Sachs — whose ties reach deep into the Obama Treasury Department, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, White House National Economic Council and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. itself. The eco-failure was dumped in a fire sale for less than $5 million.

Teetering Nevada Geothermal, cheerleading Harry Reid. Despite $150 million in federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies — not to mention personal lobbying by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — this alternative energy project is on the brink of failure.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s Green Robber Barons”
Go straight to Post

Question For the Rich: Is Obama Good for You

by Austin Hill on Saturday, January 7th, 2012

This is article 493 of 1015 in the topic Obama

What are “rich” Americans thinking?

As President Obama ramps-up his re-election bid, we’re hearing more than ever before about all the things he wants to give to our “children and grandchildren,” and the “middle class.”

His policies are actually an anathema to the middle class – at least to those of us middle class folks who don’t hold a unionized government job, and who actually want to be self-sufficient and to live independently – but the presidential offerings of “help” keep on coming.

In the midst of this, the high-dollar donations keep rolling in to the Obama campaign from the highest of income earners.  And this raises an important question for rich folks:  if President Obama successfully breaks the backs of the working middle class, is that really good for you?

By every indication, the President plans to portray the eventual Republican presidential nominee as a creature of wealth and privilege.  He successfully did this to John McCain in the last presidential election cycle, and if Mitt Romney is the President’s opponent this year it won’t be difficult to pull-off a repeat performance.

Yet in reality Barack Obama’s campaign is funded overwhelmingly by the richest among us.  According to a New York Times report last year, among these donors are included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, homosexual rights activists, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The President’s campaign has been conducting an aggressive outreach to low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities.  Yet his support among middle and lower income Americans has mostly been declining, while wealthy Americans have flocked to his side.

So, why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the idea of rubbing shoulders with a U.S. President at a fundraiser, that they’re thinking nothing of funding an agenda that is undermining the nation? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?

Consider last week’s unemployment numbers.  A slight decline in the unemployment rate seems great; until you consider that the labor pool is declining. And why would the number of willing workers be dropping?  It may very well have to do with the generous federal entitlements provided in the new “Obamacare” law.

According to none other than the Congressional Budget Office, many of us have decided we no longer have to work as much as we once did, given all the “assistance” we can get via Obamacare.

This is not just political “spin” or partisan punditry. It comes directly from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O., a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that employs people to analyze government policies, and consider their impact on the federal budget, and on the economy. The C.B.O. likely produces some of the most objective, “fair,” and non-politicized data that we receive from our government.

Speaking in 2010 at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Mr. Elmendorf noted that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda would be in the labor market.

Click to continue reading “Question For the Rich: Is Obama Good for You”
Go straight to Post

Newt the libertarian on technology issues?

by John Lott on Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

This is article 20 of 45 in the topic Cyber space

How would the world look differently today if Newt hadn’t been there to stop many attempts to regulate technology? From Politico:

. . . Twenty years ago, Gingrich’s appreciation of technology was more novel among Republicans, showing that there was a conservative libertarian interest in preserving the burgeoning Internet from efforts to regulate it. The 1995 Wired magazine cover interview was headlined “Friend and Foe.” At the time, Gingrich talked up the transformative power of the Internet and a world where schools and hospitals would be wired.
Media in his home state dubbed him “Newt Skywalker.”
As House speaker, Gingrich marshaled forces on issues such as data scrambling technologies, freedom of speech on the Internet and securities litigation reform. He helped launch Thomas, the Library of Congress website that provides information about bills. He started the High Technology Working Group, now the Technology Working Group, composed of Republican leaders involved in a wide swath of tech issues.
Gingrich is “sensitive to innovation, to job creation, to startups and not having the government doing — but getting out of the away,” said McNealy, who is now chairman of social media startup Wayin. Gingrich “is a spectacular idea guy.”
Some of the early, libertarian-leaning views that won him fans in Silicon Valley were potential time bombs with the GOP faithful, but he stood his ground. In 1996, Gingrich — then the speaker of the House — resisted an attempt to fight porn on the Internet.
When the Senate began to push for the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Gingrich put up a road block that helped to undermine the act, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court. The act, introduced by then-Sen. Jim Exon (D-Neb.), would have made indecent materials on the Internet illegal and made intermediaries — such as Internet service providers — responsible for policing content on the Web. . . .

Go straight to Post

“Peaceful” Shareef Allman is fugitive Cupertino quarry shooting spree suspect

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, October 6th, 2011

This is article 80 of 341 in the topic Criminal Activity

Three are dead. Seven are wounded, some in critical condition. Keep the victims and their families in your prayers. After going on a bloody early morning rampage in Cupertino, Calif., Shareef Allman is still on the loose.

His friends and colleagues can’t believe their “peaceful” community activist friend would do such a thing.

Time for a reality check:

The Shareef Allman they know would try to stop violence, not deal it out with an assault rifle in a workplace massacre.

Sunny and kind, his tattooed boxer’s biceps as big as his personality, Allman would help people when they had trouble at work, friends said Wednesday. He was the one who stopped gang fights. And he was the one on his cable show “Real 2 Real” interviewing Jessie Jackson about hope and local street walkers about salvation.

As law enforcement launched one of the largest manhunts in South Bay history, ministers and community activists who knew him tried to shake off their tearful disbelief to urge Allman to peacefully surrender.

Absurdly to them, this 47-year-old single father, who wrote a book about overcoming domestic violence, was now a major suspect in an early morning mass murder that began at Lehigh Hanson’s Permanente Cement Plant in Cupertino and left three dead and seven wounded.

Those who knew Allman said they all had the same terrible contradiction in their minds: How could Shareef — who wrote Christmas plays for churches — have done something like this?

“He’s the one who would go out and solve the problem, not to be the problem,” said Pastor Jeff Moore II, the head of the Silicon Valley NAACP, who said Allman is a sharp-dressed, peaceful and uplifting man devoted to the South Bay black community. “He was a quiet storm and I’ve never seen him lift his hand to anyone, ever. This is not the Shareef that we know.”

People surmised there was trouble at the quarry in Cupertino, where most of the victims were killed. But few could pinpoint exactly what it was. Over and over people kept saying: He must have snapped.

The latest on the manhunt:

Shareef Allman, 47, of San Jose remained at large late Wednesday. The search was concentrated on the border between Cupertino and Sunnyvale, where Allman was last seen. Police said they had found four weapons but believed Allman remained armed and dangerous.

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith said Allman showed up for a scheduled 4:15 a.m. safety meeting attended by about 15 people at the Lehigh Permanente Plant, in the hills above Cupertino. He left the meeting, came back and opened fire with a rifle and handgun, she said. Smith described Allman as a disgruntled worker but did not disclose details of what preceded the shooting.

Allman was next seen in a Hewlett-Packard parking lot a mile away, where he allegedly shot an HP employee in the leg and tried to take her car. The victim was taken to a hospital, where she was listed in fair condition.

San Jose residents John Vallejos, 51, and Mark Munoz, 59, died at the quarry. Manuel Pinon, 48, of Newman, south of Modesto, died later at an area hospital. The wounded were not identified by police.

Nine law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, joined the ensuing manhunt.

Click to continue reading ““Peaceful” Shareef Allman is fugitive Cupertino quarry shooting spree suspect”
Go straight to Post

With huge financial losses and bankruptcy looming, Obama administration was “poised” to give Solyndra a second major loan

by John Lott on Thursday, October 6th, 2011

This is article 275 of 529 in the topic Government Spending

So you thought that $535 million to a firm with real financial questions was troubling? How about another $469 million with bankruptcy looming and no financial improvement insight? Well that is what the Obama administration was thinking this summer. Note that “White House career staffers” means nonpolitical appointees. From the Wash Post:

The Obama administration’s Department of Energy was poised last summer to give Solyndra a second major taxpayer loan of $469 million, even as the company’s financial situation was growing more dire.

The Energy Department was actively pushing to provide the second loan guarantee to the troubled solar-panel manufacturer in April and May 2010, when Solyndra’s auditors warned the company was in danger of closing due to its rapidly mounting debts and expenses, according to complete e-mails just released by a House committee investigating the original loan.

White House career staffers, who had first raised concerns in the fall of 2009 about the Department of Energy providing Solyndra with its first taxpayer-backed loan of $535 million , wrote e-mails in gallows humor in April 2010 about the prospect of giving Solyndra more money. That spring, industry analysts were publicly questioning how the Silicon Valley startup could so quickly be running out both the federal loan and $933 million in private capital.

“Apparently the loan size for Phase II is $469 million,” one Office of Management and Budget analyst wrote of DOE seeking a second loan for Solyndra. The analysts’s name was not released by the committee. “I’ve been told we should expect the see that project soon for conditional commitment.”

Another joked: “Possible to close and default on one before closing on a second??? Could be a new record.” . . .

Go straight to Post

Even the New York Times Reports: “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises”

by John Lott on Sunday, August 21st, 2011

Shouldn’t it worry people that it takes so much money to create each job? So what happens when the flow of money ends? From the New York Times:

In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.

“I won’t say I’m not frustrated,” said Van Jones, an Oakland activist who served briefly as Mr. Obama’s green-jobs czar before resigning under fire after conservative critics said he had signed a petition accusing the Bush administration of deliberately allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a claim Mr. Jones denies.

A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development. . . .

Job training programs intended for the clean economy have also failed to generate big numbers. The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one. . . .

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin