Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on April 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

In his Earth Day speech yesterday in Iowa, Barack Obama celebrated by giving us a pair of Obamateurisms in the space of a few moments. See if you can spot the Classic Obamateurism, and the New Improved Obamateurism in this passage:

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we have begun to modernize 75% of all federal building space, which has the potential to reduce long-term energy costs by billions of dollars on behalf of taxpayers. We are providing grants to states to help weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes, which will save the families that benefit about $350 each year. That’s like a $350 tax cut.

Consumers are also eligible as part of the Recovery Act for up to $1,500 in tax credits to purchase more efficient cooling and heating systems, insulation, and windows in order to reduce their energy bills.

And I’ve issued a memorandum to the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances, like dishwashers and refrigerators. Through this step, over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.

We are already seeing reports from across the country of how this is beginning to create jobs, as local governments and businesses rush to hire folks to do the work of building and installing these energy efficient products.

First off, saving $350 a year on energy savings is not “like a tax cut”.  He tried making that same argument about lower interest rates on mortgages, too.  The grant helps in paying for the weatherization, but the cost savings are just that.  A tax cut is when government takes less of your money, not when energy companies take less of your money.  By that definition, a broken lightbulb is like a tax cut, too, and thanks to cap-and-trade, it’ll get you used to the dark, too.

The second, newer Obamateurism comes from Obama’s assertion that local governments and businesses are rushing to hire “folks” to work in these construction and repair jobs to do this work.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics begs to differ.  Construction has lost jobs for three successive months, shedding 126,000 of them in March alone.  Government jobs dropped by 5,000.  Specialty trade contractors have 83,000 workers in March, the bulk of the construction jobs lost — and this is at the beginning of spring, traditionally when these firms add staff for the expected jump in demand.  Of all industries, only manufacturing and professional/business services did worse.

The only “rush” Obama’s created with his stimulus package so far is either a rush to the unemployment line, a rush of capital out of the market, or both.

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This would actually be funny if it weren’t so sad…not to mention scary.

ladyingray on April 23, 2009 at 8:09 AM

For every one green job created 2.2 other jobs are lost, by Obama’s logic that also equals a tax cut…

doriangrey on April 23, 2009 at 8:09 AM

If we just stop paying taxes, it will be like getting a 100% tax cut!

rightside on April 23, 2009 at 8:11 AM

The only “rush” Obama’s created with his stimulus package so far is either a rush to the unemployment line, a rush of capital out of the market, or both.

That’s not entirely true. He’s also created a rush of new lobbyists to D.C. to gobble up as much of the taxpayers’ “stimulus” money as possible.

AZCoyote on April 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM

Is it “like a tax cut” for the person who will pay the taxes that fund the grant that enables the “like a tax cut”?

thespottedowl on April 23, 2009 at 8:14 AM

I hate it when the children are in charge.

rbj on April 23, 2009 at 8:17 AM

And I’ve issued a memorandum to the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances, like dishwashers and refrigerators. Through this step, over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.

Isn’t this the worst of these claims? It seems highly unlikely to me, if not a gross falsehood.

Basilsbest on April 23, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Everything will be fine. Soon everyone will have a job either working in the soylent factories (after health care is nationalized) or as a riot cop (trying to contain the starving mobs in the cities).

Bishop on April 23, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Both of these criticisms seem shaky. One, if the $350 savings is a direct result of gov’t action, Obama’s characterization of that savings as a tax isn’t much of a stretch. The gov’t spends money that results in your having to pay $350 less in energy costs, much like the gov’t having less money in its coffers as a result of letting people keep more money in their check. Doesn’t seem like too far a leap of logic to me, maybe it is to you.

Second, for all of the job loss statistics you list, one can make the argument that they simply would’ve been worse were it not for local governments and businesses rushing to hire folks to do the work of building and installing new energy efficient products. You can’t disprove it, so don’t try.

Bottom line, this was probably your weakest Obamateurism yet. Looks like he did a pretty strong job yesterday. Try to come with something more substantive next time, will ya?

underceij on April 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Basilsbest on April 23, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Nope. If you regulate home appliances to the point that no one can afford to run them, much less buy them, energy will be saved.

Buy yourself a nice washboard and get used to rancid meat and curdled milk; do it for the children.

Bishop on April 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Ave Maria! este pendeho no puede ser tan estupido!

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:23 AM

Obama and his greenie buddies need to cut the BS about consumers saving money on their idiotic quest to save the planet.

The fact remains that every avenue that they pursue including wind, solar, hybrids, etc. end up costing the consumer more money over the life of the product than the current alternative.

If they want to pay more for energy, have at it. But the rest of us just want them to stfu.

there it is on April 23, 2009 at 8:24 AM

Construction has lost jobs for three successive months, shedding 126,000 of them in March alone. Government jobs dropped by 5,000.

But what you fail to see is that there would have been 500,000 jobs cut, thus the actual saving of hundreds of thousands jobs. Don’t ask me to prove it, just trust me. wink wink /Gibbs

yakwill83 on April 23, 2009 at 8:25 AM

Hey, Obama, know what’s REALLY like a tax cut?

A tax cut!

Nethicus on April 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Familiarize with this. It covers most of the words spoken by Obama and this administration.

Propaganda: Manipulation of information to influence public opinion.

The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience. Lobbying, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda, but the term is most commonly used in the political arena. Prior to the20 th century, pictures and the written media were the principal instruments of propaganda; radio, television, motion pictures, and the Internet later joined their ranks. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes use propaganda to win and keep the support of the populace.

-Britannica

genso on April 23, 2009 at 8:28 AM

All of Obama’s pillars of recovery = Tax Hike
Doing the wrong things for 4 years = Incalculable

tomg51 on April 23, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Basil, Bishop:

Did you notice he’s comparing 30 years’ energy savings to One Year of coal-powered energy production? [Well, I guess you could say 15 to 1 with the "twice as much" qualifier.]

…over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year

.

This is as bad as the definition of “is”.

jeanneb on April 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM

A tax cut is when government takes less of your money, not when energy companies take less of your money.

Well, he didn’t say it IS a tax cut. The end result of this investment by the government is an average savings of $350.

Ed, you’re really going to nitpick on this point.

This is exactly like the right trotting out the fact that Sheik Mohommad spilled the beans about the already thwarted Library Tower plot as proof that torture works.

If that’s the best you got, then you must not have much.

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Isn’t this the worst of these claims? It seems highly unlikely to me, if not a gross falsehood.

Basilsbest on April 23, 2009 at 8:18 AM

I thought the same thing. And when can we test Obama at his word and actions? Three decades later when he’s long and gone and our children are still paying for a fat and useless government.

shick on April 23, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Ave Maria! este pendeho no puede ser tan estupido!

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:23 AM

No cabe duda de esto.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 8:33 AM

This is as bad as the definition of “is”.

jeanneb on April 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM

I agree it’s bad but no way near as bad as Clinton’s definition of “is”.

shick on April 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Now that is probably one of the most pathetic displays of taking issue with the author of a blog post that I’ve ever seen…you are parsing the word “like”. A cheap, lazy trick used by Leftists…it means you, Shipley, ain’t got nothing.

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Here we go again. “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”

Where have we heard that before?

But to a broader point, please defend the profligate spending by this administration. Please defend anything the govt. does that’s successful, with maybe the sole exception of the military.

Tell us how govt run anything is successful.

rightside on April 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM

And I’ve issued a memorandum to the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances, like dishwashers and refrigerators. Through this step, over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.

Let’s turn to the Energy Information Administration, “the source for official energy statistics from the U.S. Government.” Coal fired plants generate just under half of the total electricity output in the US – 2,016 million MWh out of 4,157 million megawatthours (MWh)for 2007.

So, obama wants to save the equivalent of 2 out of 30 years worth of coal fired production – that’s only 6.67% at best. The only way to get 6.67% is for everyone to get rid of their old appliances and buy new ones. Not hard to see the problem with that.

Appliances last a long time – who wants to get rid of an appliance that is already paid off and has years of life left for new payments and illusory cost savings (i.e., paying a little more for the electricity required by an “inefficient” appliance is still cheaper than new payments…). Given the current economic situation, who wants to go spend money on new appliances anyways?

rbb on April 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM

“And for you people who have lost your jobs, I want you to know that you’ll be getting a tax cut.”

AubieJon on April 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Anyone add up what this carbon footprint was for this speech?

I would consider the fact he flew to Iowa just to give a speech on Earth Day in his 747 with his entourage and all their vehicles to be a third Obamateurism.

JeffinSac on April 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Tell us how govt run anything is successful.

rightside on April 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Oh hey look… A puppy…..

doriangrey on April 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM

The link for my previous comment is http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

rbb on April 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM

It really is amazing to watch Liberal politicians go in front of a microphone and tell us complete falsehoods. They all seem to believe the theory that we will buy anything & everything they tell us just because they’re the one’s telling us, and they do it so good.

Amazing…

Keemo on April 23, 2009 at 8:42 AM

There is a wind generator blade manufacturer located here in South Dakota. A month ago there was a news article stating they were downsizing or reducing hours because of lower demand for the blades. I would assume the plant in Iowa is currently experiencing similar labor reductions. I doubt there will be any mention in the Obama articles about the current realities of “green” jobs.

trs on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM

That’s like a $350 tax cut.

Yeah, and the folks at the tea parties are a bunch of straight up racists.

And waterboarding is torture.

/

Disturb the Universe on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Ed is the one parsing the word.

Here’s Ed’s explanation again:

A tax cut is when government takes less of your money, not when energy companies take less of your money.

Again, Obama didn’t say the weatherization subsidy IS a tax cut. He said it’s like a tax cut, meaning, as someone else pointed out, the end result of this government action — as with a tax cut — is saving you $350.

It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM

This is exactly like the right trotting out the fact that Sheik Mohommad spilled the beans about the already thwarted Library Tower plot as proof that torture works.

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Terrible metaphor, using a guy who’d sooner have your head by the scruff of your hair in his hand on display before a video camera than give you a chance to have your own personal political opinion…

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:45 AM

Ed,

While this article was worthwhile, I have to agree with a poster from a few days ago that you need to focus more on the Amateur aspect in these themed pieces.

Politicians always do this sort of carnival-mirror presentation of facts. It doesn’t highlight the true incompetence of this man.

OBQuiet on April 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM

It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM

You’re right–it’s a STUPID concept to grab–one from someone plainly overreaching on a simplistic point made by Ed.

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM

who wants to go spend money on new appliances anyways?

rbb on April 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM

You don’t understand, mother government wants to buy new efficient appliances FOR YOU. Mother government will take care of YOU.

Little side note: Most of your taxes will go to fattening mother government and not your appliance.(not that important)/sarc

shick on April 23, 2009 at 8:47 AM

This man missed his calling. He should have gone into new car sales. He would have cleaned up.

I would be interested in seeing the environmental impact reports for the last 15 years or so when the EPA mandated efficiency standards on household appliances. Energy Star appliances had to prove a energy and/or water savings of 30-50% to be given that label. For those households who decided to fork over additional cash to buy an efficient dishwasher, did it make a difference in your utility bills? How much of the planet’s water was actually conserved? Let’s look at the results before you apply even stricter standards which will only drive up the cost of appliances once again.

sherry on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Oh hey look… A puppy…..

doriangrey on April 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM

Dorian!

I know, look over there, at that right wing extremist!

rightside on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

One, if the $350 savings is a direct result of gov’t action, Obama’s characterization of that savings as a tax isn’t much of a stretch. The gov’t spends money that results in your having to pay $350 less in energy costs, much like the gov’t having less money in its coffers as a result of letting people keep more money in their check. Doesn’t seem like too far a leap of logic to me, maybe it is to you.

1. For Obama’s claim to have any weight, one has to take at face value the ideas that a) “hundreds of thousands of homes” is not a huge over-estimate, and b) that number will be in the high hundreds, and not the very low hundreds. Second, one must ignore the fact that in a nation of 300 MILLION people, hundreds of thousands of homes can potentially be not that many homes at all.

2. The houses this “grant money” will go to upgrade will most assuredly NOT be the houses of people who actually pay taxes, but the houses of people who can’t afford to winterize their own homes, because they are too poorly off economically. If you can’t pay to winterize your home, you probably pay little or nothing in taxes. Therefore, the $350 is NOT a tax cut. It’s just more resdistribution of the remains of an economic pie that Obama is aggressively shrinking, whether intentionally or no.

3. Yesterday it was revealed that the cost of Cap and Trade per household will be a little less than $4000 per year. Against that amount, $350 is a pittance, less than 10%.

It’s typical Obama math – not amateurism, per se, so much as a near-total economic illiteracy that is one side of a gargantuan impulse to nationalize and federalize as many corners of American life as possible, without regard to the impact on the well-being of the citizenry.

kiltedscotsman5 on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Hey Tom -

If you don’t like how Ed writes, don’t post here. That’s a simple concept to grasp also.

kingsjester on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Tom Shipley, your word-twisting a&$, it’s not even “like” a tax cut if it is going to people who don’t pay taxes!

It’s more Robin Hood economics..

kiltedscotsman5 on April 23, 2009 at 8:50 AM

The Obama administration has done a bunch of polling and strategy meetings over the terms they use. So it’s not really accidental/amateur on Obama’s part. It’s a clever strategy of deception. When the American people hear ‘tax cut’ they get excited.

justinok on April 23, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Dorian!

I know, look over there, at that right wing extremist!

rightside on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Heh heh heh, I went to a T.E.A party here in San Diego… Now I am on the FBI right wing extremist watch list… My life is so dull and boring these days I almost pity those FBI agents who now have to follow me around… ;p

doriangrey on April 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Oh, and I forgot to mention the obvious point: all these promises of money to go to various people to reduce the burden of Obama’s ruinous economic policies is MONEY THAT DOESN’T EXIST!!! It’s not just money taken from more profitable and worthwhile endeavors, it’s money that simply doesn’t exist, and is found by inflationary practices, making the worth of ALL money less.

Again, the economic illiteracy of – well, pretty much anyone who defends this sort of thinking – is beyond belief.

kiltedscotsman5 on April 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Hey Tom -

If you don’t like how Ed writes, don’t post here. That’s a simple concept to grasp also.

kingsjester on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Whadda you mean, he doesn’t like how Ed writes…where’d you get that idea? what if he loves, Ed, adores him? Is that what you meant to say? You must have nothing to say, kj…keep reaching…lol..sarc

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Even if there is a savings,….that will be wiped out if Cap and Trade is passed. I live in an apartment which is all electricity. Next year, Penelec is raising our costs…there was a hold on rate increases for awhile…and my costs will go up over $100 a month, if not more. Add the Cap and trade cost and I will be sitting in the dark reading by candlelight.

becki51758 on April 23, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Presidente Pinnochio pullin the strings of the Mainstream, tingly legged media and 1/2 the American populace who are too busy eatin and watchin Idol to see their country bein turned into a third world cesspool by a batch of Socialist/Communist clowns.

Tea Party Time!

Oh and Term Limits!

dhunter on April 23, 2009 at 8:56 AM

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:54 AM

I know, chica, I can’t help it. I’m just an ig’nant right wing extremist. I’m just not as enlightened as our Trolls.

kingsjester on April 23, 2009 at 8:56 AM

“Isn’t this the worst of these claims? It seems highly unlikely to me, if not a gross falsehood. Basilsbest on April 23, 2009 at 8:18 AM”

Agreed. Even though his dramatic claim technically only amounts to less than a 7% savings in relation to total coal energy production, it seems like the manufacturers would have to be producing all those more-efficient appliances *today*, and every old fridge, dishwasher, etc. in America be replaced *today*, in order for the full savings to be achieved over the 30 years. And like someone pointed out, who’s gonna remember to prove him wrong when 2039 rolls around?

KS Rex on April 23, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Saving $350 is also kind of like winning the lottery every year…a small lottery, that is, with a $350 jackpot, and after being given a free ticket.

Or, it’s kind of like finding 35,000 pennies stuffed in your mailbox one day.

It’s also kind of like finding out you have a money tree in your back yard that happens to shed 350 leaves every year.

But, really, it’s more like having a distant relative die every year and leave you $350 (after taxes) in each of their wills.

You (or Teh One) *could* argue, I guess, that it’s like a tax cut in the sense that at the end of the day, you have more money, but it’s just about as poor an analogy as many others we could come up with.

Maybe I’m overly cynical, but I question his choice of analogies in light of his campaign promises. It’s almost as if he has tax cuts on the brain, or he’s trying to push anything off as a tax cut these days.

BlueCollarAstronaut on April 23, 2009 at 8:59 AM

doriangrey on April 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM

My co-worker and I went to one a couple hours from where we work in VA, was excellent. Am on that same list now! LOL

rightside on April 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM

i thought this “green” stuff was about recycling too? and not making more trash than is absolutely necessary?

so if i go buy all new energy efficient appliances, where will the old appliances go? in the landfill?

bambi, you didn’t think this one out.

kelley in virginia on April 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM

sherry on April 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Glenn Beck said yesterday that the EPA said back in 1989, that in 20 yrs our planet would be gone, a wasteland. All animals would be extinct.

They were obviously wrong. So why would anyone believe that horse**** about CO2 destroying the planet. I think its time to get rid of that useless group.

oh, he also showed how to clean up one of those energy savings light bulbs. Funny, but scary.

becki51758 on April 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM

“We are already seeing reports from across the country of how this is beginning to create jobs, as local governments and businesses rush to hire folks to do the work of building and installing these energy efficient products.”

Pfftt. Let’s see some these “reports”, please.

KS Rex on April 23, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Let’s turn to the Energy Information Administration, “the source for official energy statistics from the U.S. Government.” Coal fired plants generate just under half of the total electricity output in the US – 2,016 million MWh out of 4,157 million megawatthours (MWh)for 2007.

So, obama wants to save the equivalent of 2 out of 30 years worth of coal fired production – that’s only 6.67% at best. The only way to get 6.67% is for everyone to get rid of their old appliances and buy new ones. Not hard to see the problem with that.

Appliances last a long time – who wants to get rid of an appliance that is already paid off and has years of life left for new payments and illusory cost savings (i.e., paying a little more for the electricity required by an “inefficient” appliance is still cheaper than new payments…). Given the current economic situation, who wants to go spend money on new appliances anyways?

Also, unless we’re talking mainly toasters and such, appliaces are typically kind of big and cumbersome. A nation’s worth of suddenly-obsolete appliances dumped into the landfills is probably not a good thing to propose on Earth Day.

BlueCollarAstronaut on April 23, 2009 at 9:03 AM

hey, i live in a county of about 11,000 people & a town of 1,200. when i throw away one of those funny light bulbs, just where would i take it? where is my recycling center?

i guess bambi thinks i should drive all the way to richmond (65 miles) just to dispose of a light bulb.

well thought out plan.

kelley in virginia on April 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Again, Obama didn’t say the weatherization subsidy IS a tax cut. He said it’s like a tax cut, meaning, as someone else pointed out, the end result of this government action — as with a tax cut — is saving you $350.
It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Oh sure, except for the tax cutting part. You might as well say that giving out welfare checks is a tax cut too because that’s government action. Then again “hundreds of thousands of homes” being weatherized doesn’t exactly mean 150 million Americans are going to see a tax cut.

Bishop on April 23, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Oops, Kelley beat me to it by three minutes.

….but I blame the timezones. I’m in Alabama.

BlueCollarAstronaut on April 23, 2009 at 9:05 AM

and i burned a brush pile on Sunday. lots of pollution probably (though it was just sticks, nothing man-made).

i already compost so a 2 story-high pile of brush wasn’t needed around the yard. and no, i didn’t want to leave it to “create wildlife habitat” because i don’t want groundhogs or rabbits to eat more of my yard.

bambi, think outside of the box, would ya?

kelley in virginia on April 23, 2009 at 9:07 AM

bambi should take a look at some of these “homes” he plans to weatherize. the roof is leaking, termites eat the walls, floors are sagging & the plumbing is well, sh*tty. so let’s spend money to weatherize. why don’t the inhabitants fix any of their own problems? huh? huh?

because they are on some govt. welfare plan that leads them to believe that they don’t have to lift a finger to do anything.

why would these people want to live this way? that’s the real mystery.

kelley in virginia on April 23, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Propaganda, pure and simple.

CP on April 23, 2009 at 9:14 AM

kelley in virginia on April 23, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Im with you. In my town so many houses need painted or torn down. In some cases, the owners cant be found. People buy these buildings who do not live here and then never return to do any work.

becki51758 on April 23, 2009 at 9:17 AM

I’m going to stop paying my 3 car payments and my mortgage….bingo–$4k Tax Cut! Awesome!

Youngs98 on April 23, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Move along, nothing to see here…

faol on April 23, 2009 at 9:18 AM

“Obama didn’t say the weatherization subsidy IS a tax cut. He said it’s like a tax cut…”

Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM

It doesn’t matter if he said it IS or it’s LIKE at tax cut. The strategy is obviously to have people associate The One with “tax cut”. If we hear him say it over & over it’s bound to sink in.

That said, I agree that this isn’t really an Obamateurism – it’s twisting words as part of his cooly calculated plan.

KS Rex on April 23, 2009 at 9:23 AM

We are providing grants to states to help weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes, which will save the families that benefit about $350 each year. That’s like a $350 tax cut.—–Barack Obama

Mmmmmkay.

So when we next hear about Obama’s wonderful cap and trade proposals, remember that any resulting increase in energy costs to consumers, or resultant higher prices paid for goods or services will, by Mr. Obama’s own calculus, be just like a $xxx.xx tax increase.

I’m glad we got that settled.

hillbillyjim on April 23, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Speaking of the Environment and Can the Govt run anything successfully – check out Michael Crichton’s speech from May 2005 or 2006. He discusses the impact of poor govt. management of Yellowstone. The interventions by the environmental “experts” just ruined the park and the “delicate” ecosystems.

IHateTheMedia.com has a series of video that shine the spotlight on the ineffectiveness of the Greenies and the downright lies used over the years to manipulate people into the kind of thinking that allows the Obamaturisms he spouts. Entertaining and sobering material.

(Not a pretty link, but it works)

InTheBellyoftheBeast on April 23, 2009 at 9:28 AM

This is the first year that my company has cut the regular COLA raise. I will make less money this year, as the taxes recently signed will hit soon. So, by Obama’s definition, I get a tax cut as I will have less income to BE taxed. Why don’t I feel good about this?

Doug on April 23, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Grants=confiscated money
tax cuts=money that is not confiscated

He’s a con man and he thinks we can all be conned.

This is all a shell game and the ignorant dolts that believe this stool need to be slapped about the head and neck.
And kingjester you misspelled ignurnt. ; – )

thomasaur on April 23, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Through this step, over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.

Item number 10 in how to lie with statistics.
Comparing multi-year numbers to single year numbers.

He’s comparing how much he hopes will be saved over 30 years to how much is being produced right now by coal plants in one year.

Restated to make things more obvious, his plans will (he hopes) save 1/30th (about 3%) of the energy being produced by coal plants.

Not so impressive when looked at that way.

MarkTheGreat on April 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM

It’s like a tax cut, only different.

Good stuff. Judging by some of the defenders here and the other people who lap up whatever Obama spews forth, I guess it is true, “It’s not what he says, it how he says it.”

Then again, I’m not as impressed with his oratory skills, but that’s off-topic.

I’ll just go with the whole weatherization thing…

Most local power companies have had programs in place for years to help people weatherize. We’re supposed to believe that taxpayer money, that is funneled to state governments and then made available for weatherization projects is a good idea?

What if my home is already weatherized? My tax money goes to DC, then back to my state, into the hands of the hacks there and allegedly into some insulation for some schmuck who couldn’t be bothered before?

What defines who is eligible? How much taxpayer money will be spent to reach that average of $350 in savings in energy costs?

People here mention as a result of gov’t action… give me a break.

reaganaut on April 23, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Consumers are also eligible as part of the Recovery Act for up to $1,500 in tax credits to purchase more efficient cooling and heating systems, insulation, and windows in order to reduce their energy bills.

Might want to look into that one. I’ve got a 25YO AC unit that is about ready to give up the ghost.

I won’t feel guilty, I pay over $15K in taxes every year. (Not over 30 years) It will be nice to get something back for once.

MarkTheGreat on April 23, 2009 at 9:40 AM

We are already seeing reports from across the country of how this is beginning to create jobs, as local governments and businesses rush to hire folks to do the work of building and installing these energy efficient products.

Where? I want to see the reports. Utter BS. Rushing to hire people, I don’t think so. Which states? The 7 extra ones?

If 1,000 people are laid off from real jobs, but a state rushes to hire 10 people to install a new fridge in the DMV breakroom, that doesn’t count.

Beginning to create jobs? A job is created or it is not, how to they “begin” to create a job?

Thousands and thousands of private sector jobs are being lost, but local businesses are rushing to hire people to install new green products? Which businesses? I want a list.

reaganaut on April 23, 2009 at 9:46 AM

By the time Obama gets done we will have saved 10 million jobs…but lost 25 million.

WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

jukin on April 23, 2009 at 9:46 AM

The only “rush” Obama’s created with his stimulus package so far is either a rush to the unemployment line, a rush of capital out of the market, or both.

Also a rush to print greenbacks, which will give us a rush of inflation.

Steve Z on April 23, 2009 at 9:46 AM

I would consider the fact he flew to Iowa just to give a speech on Earth Day in his 747 with his entourage and all their vehicles to be a third Obamateurism.

JeffinSac on April 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Does the DesMoines airport handle 747′s? None of the other airports in Iowa do.

MarkTheGreat on April 23, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Liar in Chief

notagool on April 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Hey Shipley,

a supposed 350 dollar savings is, first of all, assuming the price of energy does not go up due to more expensive generation methods (like solar and weind)and excessive regulation (helloooo, the Dems’ middle name). Using less of a product that ends up costing more is not saving a whole lot there.

Sekhmet on April 23, 2009 at 9:55 AM

weind = wind

I needz caffein in mah bukkit

Sekhmet on April 23, 2009 at 9:55 AM

pathetic

D2Boston on April 23, 2009 at 9:56 AM

But he’s saving jobs!! Just think how fast jobs would be disappearing without porkulus!

/sarc

mr.blacksheep on April 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Spending Trillions to save Billions is, Uh.. freaking stupid!

rgranger on April 23, 2009 at 10:03 AM

we have begun to modernize 75% of all federal building space, which has the potential to reduce long-term energy costs by billions of dollars on behalf of taxpayers.

exactly how “long term” do you think he’s talking to rack up “billions” in savings? I mean, I guess if DHS can save $52 million buying office supplies in bulk, then federal buildings can cut their energy bills by “billions,” but I’m just wondering how long that would take.

Quisp on April 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM

You completely skipped over this gem: (emphasis mine)

And I’ve issued a memorandum to the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances, like dishwashers and refrigerators. Through this step, over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.

So, you compare the savings over 30 years to the production of coal fired plants in a single year. In other words, these appliances will save 3.33% of the electrical production of coal fired plants in any given year, or 1.6% of total electrical demand.

Of course, even this figure is a lie, and this small “savings” will be far outstripped by increasing demand…

gridlock2 on April 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Even IF the faux stimulus was creating jobs…it just ain’t enough, and the monthly jobless numbers show that. It’s a bottomline gig Obama. Ya can’t have a jobless report coming out every month saying the country lost 650000, 675000, 700000 jobs, and then claim that jobs are being created. Selling snowballs in hell worked before the election, but you’re at the North Pole now baby, and that ice don’t market as well w the nation as a whole as it did with Obamabots and MSNBC.

scottm on April 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Pfftt. Let’s see some these “reports”, please.

KS Rex on April 23, 2009 at 9:02 AM

There are reports all across the country of bigfoot and UFOs too. Though there is a possibility they exist, at least the boogeymen have actual witnesses. I’d say there is less probability of these new jobs then there are bigfoot and little green men.

shick on April 23, 2009 at 10:09 AM

And I’ve issued a memorandum to the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances, like dishwashers and refrigerators.

It depends on what he means by “efficient”. One of my colleagues recently bought an “Energy-Star”-rated dishwasher, which was supposed to save energy by using cooler water, less vigorous water spraying, and air-drying rather than heat-drying. It cost him about twice as much as an ordinary dishwasher, took about three hours to run, and the dishes came out dirty, so his wife had to wash them by hand. How is this “efficient”?

Through this step, over the next three decades, we’ll save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.

So many flowery words, but this wins the William Shakespeare “Much Ado About Nothing” award. Coal-fired power plants produce about half of America’s electricity, so “twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants” is one year’s worth of electricity. Saving one year’s worth of electricity over “three decades”, or 30 years, means reducing electricity consumption by 3.3%.

Of course, if Obama had said directly that new efficiency standards on dishwashers and refrigerators would cut power consumption by 3.3%, people would have said, “ONLY 3.3%?” But the long-winded formulation SOUNDS wonderful to the mathematically challenged people in the 57th state, and gives him one more chance to demonize coal-fired plants.

New efficiency standards imposed on appliances aren’t free, because appliance makers will have to spend money on engineering to meet them, and pass those costs to the consumer (they always do), and this will be one more of those “unfunded mandates” demonized by Democrats.

So, to a thinking person, this means “the government forces us to pay more for appliances to save 3.3% on an electric bill”, and maybe dirty dishes to boot.

But Obama is hoping that the sheeple aren’t thinking. He may be right.

Steve Z on April 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

This is really a recurring theme with the president.Take from one group and shower (a fraction of) the money on politically-defined subsets of the population
.
—Cap & trade raising energy costs? Nooooo, we’re going to pay households to cover the increase.

—Payroll taxes: We’ll take wealthier people’s INCOME taxes and give you back some of your payroll taxes.

—And we’ll weatherize their homes (if they’re in the right subset)…they’ll save $350 a year.

The common theme is the “taken” money gets laundered through the Washington machine before Washington beneficently doles it out to favored recipients.

In the first two cases, the recipients are completely subject to the government’s continued goodwill. How long before those energy rebates begin to shrink to “encourage” less energy consumption? And the mind boggles at the bureaucracy that will spring up to monitor and manage all those “transfers”.

All of these are merely a means of placing the government in your pocket or between you and the marketplace. It’s all about power (not the electric kind)

jeanneb on April 23, 2009 at 10:14 AM

But Obama is hoping that the sheeple aren’t thinking. He may be right.

Steve Z on April 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Fortunately the belly has a direct connection to the brain and when the belly gets empty the brain works better out of necessity.

shick on April 23, 2009 at 10:15 AM

I question why he mentioned coal-powered electricity generation at all. If I have understood what the “False Messiah” has said, there won’t be any coal used for anything in a very short time. Some agency(EPA?)of the ‘guvmint’ has already denied permission for coal mines to begin work on some new mines in West Virginia and Kentucky. This is just a back door method to shut down the coal mines.

TruthToBeTold on April 23, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Mmmmmkay.

So when we next hear about Obama’s wonderful cap and trade proposals, remember that any resulting increase in energy costs to consumers, or resultant higher prices paid for goods or services will, by Mr. Obama’s own calculus, be just like a $xxx.xx tax increase.

I’m glad we got that settled.

hillbillyjim on April 23, 2009 at 9:26 AM

According to a post on yesterday’s HotAir, $xxx.xx = $3900.00. Happy Tea Party Day!

Steve Z on April 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Is being unemployed like a tax cut?

single stack on April 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

One, if the $350 savings is a direct result of gov’t action, Obama’s characterization of that savings as a tax isn’t much of a stretch. The gov’t spends money that results in your having to pay $350 less in energy costs, much like the gov’t having less money in its coffers as a result of letting people keep more money in their check. Doesn’t seem like too far a leap of logic to me, maybe it is to you.

Do you even see the irony is your statement? The GOVERNMENT spends money that results in YOU having to pay $350 less in energy costs. Where do you think the government gets the money it is going to spend?

In Vegas there are two kinds of winners, lucky and unlucky.

The lucky winner puts $5 in a machine and wins hundreds. The unlucky puts thousands in and wins $5.

WE, the taxpayers will be paying thousands for this and getting a pittance in return.

Jvette on April 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Ave Maria! este pendeho no puede ser tan estupido!

RepubChica on April 23, 2009 at 8:23 AM

What she said.

TXMomof3 on April 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Some agency(EPA?)of the ‘guvmint’ has already denied permission for coal mines to begin work on some new mines in West Virginia and Kentucky. This is just a back door method to shut down the coal mines.

TruthToBeTold on April 23, 2009 at 10:18 AM

The same thing is happening here in southwest Virginia. I have sent links to tips@hotair.com and commented on it as well, but I guess it doesn’t pass the test for what is considered newsworthy (or blogworthy, or whatever.)

I am sure it is happening in other coal-producing areas as well. Maybe when the price of candles and Sterno skyrockets, someone will pay attention.

hillbillyjim on April 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Does that mean when I find a coupon to save $2 on a pack of toilet paper it’s like a tax cut?
I fail to see the ‘logic’ of Obama’s ‘words’.

By that definition, a broken lightbulb is like a tax cut, too, and thanks to cap-and-trade, it’ll get you used to the dark, too.

Love it Ed.
I’m already making plans by buying up lots of oil lamps.

Badger40 on April 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM

The lucky winner puts $5 in a machine and wins hundreds. The unlucky puts thousands in and wins $5.

WE, the taxpayers will be paying thousands for this and getting a pittance in return.

Jvette on April 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM

I have a neighbor like this. Spends thousands at the Indian casino, occasionally will win a large jackpot.
Somehow he thinks it’s all worth it, but never considers how much he spent to win the pot.
Many voters evidently think like this & that is why they love Obama.

Badger40 on April 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I cut down a tree yesterday. It was old, had to go. Consider it tree eugenics. Oh, and there was a 3′ seedling growing nearby too, aborted it.

kirkill on April 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Is being unemployed like a tax cut?

single stack on April 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM

It’s double plus good! Like getting a Tax Cut and a Government Job at the same time!

kirkill on April 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Guess I’m not gonna get that “$350 like a tax cut” since we weatherized our house years ago in response to rising fuel costs. I don’t need to spend $350 on that. Just like his advice to ‘inflate our tires.’ He’s assuming we haven’t already done so.

And I agree on the efficient appliances comments. We’ve already harvested the big efficiency gains on household appliances. Any additional gains will be minor.

Dee2008 on April 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2