Obama Wants Billions More To Promote Green Energy

As if we haven’t already had enough money wasted on funding green energy projects that do not work, President Obama wants billions more, according to a new Treasury Department report. Yes, you read that correctly. Remember Solyndra and the other failed green energy projects that were propped up with billions of taxpayer backed loans? That’s not enough money thrown down a rat hole, so Mr. Green President is trying to get billions more. Why am I not surprised?

Let’s look at some of the money/tax credits Obama is proposing.

Electric SubsidyFox News – Among the biggest proposals is extending the 30 percent tax credit for Americans who invest in properties involved in advanced-energy products, including facilities that store energy for electric or hybrid-electric vehicles.

The government argues the $2.3 billion already allocated under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has resulted in roughly just one-third of eligible applicants receiving funding and that an additional $2.5 billion in credits should be authorized to meet the need.

The others tax incentives included in the president’s 2015 proposal include increasing the maximum tax break for smaller alternative-energy vehicles, from $7,500 to $10,000. Obama’s proposal also calls for extending the credit beyond plug-in electric vehicles to include all advanced-technology vehicles and for providing more flexibility for the credit.

The seller or financier could, for example, offer the credit as a point-of-sale rebate to the buyer, under the proposal.

But the $10,000 break would not apply to luxury vehicles costing more than $45,000 — including the Tesla Model S and the Cadillac ELR. The credit for those vehicles would be capped at $7,500, according to The Detroit News.

Another proposal is to extend tax credits on fuel-cell vehicles to those that run on such alternative fuels as hydrogen and liquefied natural gas.

The credit would go to manufactures, $25,000 for smaller vehicles and $40,00 of medium-sized ones, and could be transferred to a dealer or buyer.

The final of the four incentives would be extending the $1.01 a gallon tax credit for cellulosic biofuel that expired at the end of last year. The proposal would also make the credit retroactive.

Let me be clear about something. I have no problem with green energy, if it works. If someone can build an electric vehicle that supplies the needs of the consumer, then more power (pun fully intended) to them. What I do not care for is the idea of the American taxpayer subsidizing the cost of these vehicles. You see, the vehicles in question are extremely expensive to manufacture, mainly because of the cost of the batteries. Stack that on top of the fact that they have to be charged after driving a short distance and you have an expensive vehicle that is not even practical for most Americans to use.

I can hear the liberals and other green energy proponents now. I am sure they believe people like me just do not like changes, even if they are for the better, but my opposition to these subsidies has nothing to do with change. I just hate to see the American taxpayer helping an expensive and inferior product to be cheap enough so more Americans can afford the cost. Kind of like the ethanol subsidies that are now ingrained in the money we continue to throw down the aforementioned rat hole.

Every one of these subsidies is claimed to be a part of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, but the reality is that we already have ways to do that. It’s called drilling for oil in our own country. Or maybe approving the Keystone Pipeline. Instead, we continue throwing good money after bad, subsidizing green energy products that are expensive and unpractical. Will we never learn?

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2032 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

31 comments to Obama Wants Billions More To Promote Green Energy

  • The left just does not seem to learn from history. How can the president justify more spending on this in light of the failure of Solyndra and all the other losers he picked? That is, if he considers their failures a to be a failure, after all these companies were all owned by people with ties to the Democrats so who knows where the money ended up.

  • It’s another huge payoff for Democrat big money fundraisers.

  • Even if all these green energy projects were proven successes that would benefit society I would be completely opposed to the government spending even one penny on it. If the private sector can’t do it without government subsidies, it shouldn’t be done. Let the free market decide what products should or should not be pursued.

  • Steven Birn

    This is just another opportunity for Americans. How could anyone oppose opportunity!?

  • Michael

    “Every one of these subsidies is claimed to be a part of reducing our dependency on foreign oil”

    That is, I think, where you guys get this stuff wrong. The ultimate goal, whatever the short-term goal is claimed to be, is reducing or eliminating our dependence on oil. Period. Foreign or otherwise.

    • SirPublius

      I agree…the short-term “goal” of green energy is eliminating dependence on oil, foreign or no. But the road to hell is PAVED with good intentions….and good goals. I would LOVE nothing more than to not pay the RIDICULOUS amount of money I pay on gas. That’s not a conservative vs. liberal thing, at all. Most Americans want an above all tactic. The difference between many liberals and conservatives is conservatives want gas cheaper AND to promote green energy at the same time…an all of the above tactic. Its not one or the other. Liberals on the other hand just want to get rid of oil ANY way they can, and they will say and do ANYTHING to try and make that happen, including throwing money away and claiming conservatives hate polar bears, and the children. There are prudent ways to do things, and not so prudent ways, and I think WAY too much money is being tossed RIGHT down the drain, money we do not have, and it could be easily prevented.

      • You have hit on an important point of difference. Conservatives don’t mind green energy at all. They just want to have access to green energy and fossil fuels at the same time, letting the markets sort out which one “comes out on top”. Above all, they want to make sure the green energy works, before oil and gas is thrown out with the bath water.

        Liberals, on the other hand, want to start by doing away with fossil fuels as much as possible, before viable alternatives are even available. They have the horse and the cart mixed up on their positions in this race.

        • Michael

          This is a situation where the forces of the market are not necessarily going to yield the best result. We need, for a variety of reasons, to move away from fossil fuels, but people don’t want to do anything about it because it is difficult. It’s much easier to go with the infrastructure that’s in place than it is to develop a new infrastructure and method of doing things. As a rule, people don’t want to do the hard thing, even if they need to do it, and the market is driven by what people want, not by what they need.

          • So, in spite of what the people want, they should be forced to move away from fossil fuels? Even if the alternatives do not perform the jobs the people need them to perform?

            And forgive me for starting this argument, but I am not convinced we need to move away from fossil fuels in the first place.

            • Michael

              “in spite of what the people want”

              People want all kinds of things. Wanting it does not make it right. Some people want to shoot up schools full of kids. Other people want to sell drugs to middle schoolers. People used to want to own slaves, and, not too long ago, lynching black men was acceptable enough to be seen as a public spectacle. There’s photographic proof. Those last two were seen as acceptable by the majority of the people who lived in the areas where it happened. Slavery was even an accepted fact in the Constitution of the United States. People wanted it. It did not make it right. If your kid becomes a heroin addict, you don’t say, “Well, he wanted it, so what can I do?”

              “Even if the alternatives do not perform the jobs the people need them to perform?”

              Yet. And the more people like you militate against them, the longer it will take for them to develop.

              “but I am not convinced we need to move away from fossil fuels in the first place.”

              Go ahead. Get it over with.

              • Let me be clear about something, Michael. You will not turn this discussion into something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. My statement that people do not necessarily want to move away from fossil fuels has no relation to slavery or illegal drugs. I will not allow you to do so and I will not respond further to your nonsensical comments that are so completely off the issue.. Either stop twisting words and stay on topic, or I will take action. This is your third warning, and your last.

                I am not mitigating against green energy. I just do not believe it is right or proper for us to continue throwing money away that we do not have. In case you haven’t noticed, our country is financially broke. If the proponents of green energy alternatives want to develop them, they should use their own dime,not mine.

                • Michael

                  Whatever. I was responding directly to what you wrote. “In spite of what the people want?” you asked, and I was saying, yes. In spite of what the people want. Just because people want something doesn’t make it right, and I gave you examples of things that aren’t right despite the fact that people want or wanted them.

                  I would disagree with you when you say that our addiction has no relation to drug use. They’re very much the same. It gives us something that we want–that we feel we need and deserve–and we go after it despite all the bad effects it has on the world around us. We can’t stop ourselves. We say that it’s our right to burn hydrocarbons.

                  When a drug addict has someone in his or her life that has a cooler head, that person steps in with an intervention. You get the addict to see what effect his actions are having on the people around him, and you get him into rehab. You find the money somewhere and pay for rehab. Yes, the rehab center will be making money off of the patient, but that’s okay, because it will be good for the addicted friend.

                  Governmental subsidies for greener energy programs are the cooler-headed friend stepping in to perform an intervention; they’re the concerned family members finding the cash to pay for rehab. Maybe we could cut spending on somebody else’s pet project to spend the money on something that will benefit all of us in the long run.

              • Some teachers at Elementary schools want to shoot up heroin in the bathroom and depend on unions to protect them.

            • Michael

              ” in spite of what the people want”

              The people apparently wanted Barack Obama as President of the United States. Twice. Are you going to stop complaining about him just because the people wanted it?

              • No, I am not likely to stop complaining about Barack Obama. He is the worst thing that has happened to America in a very long time. I plan to continue writing about what he is doing until he is out of office. So, you may as well get used to that fact.

                • Michael

                  It doesn’t matter to me, really. I carry no brief for Obama. I didn’t vote for him either time. I was just interested to see whether your ideas about submitting quietly to “what the people want” extended as far as to include things that you don’t personally want or approve of.

  • SirPublius

    The bottom line is the government is spending money we DO NOT HAVE. It’s really just that simple, noble aims or no, whether its deemed some lefty project or some righty project. We don’t have the money. We need to take a step back and simply realize that we don’t have the money, so on WHAT to spend money that we don’t have is sort of a moot point…or should be if we had sane people in Washington.

    • SirPublius

      I’m all for green energy as well, but THROWING money down the drain like this and subsiding cars for THOUSANDS of dollars for each on because they get a few more miles to the gallon than another car??? How ridiculous.

      • SirPublius

        That’s of course just one example of many. Hey….I kinda like responding to myself. I can have a full conversation without anyone else! lol.

    • And there is that, the final nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned. We simply do not have the money Obama wants to keep throwing at these “projects”. It’s time we all realized that tiny little reality.


  • Trackbacks: