President Elect Obama and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter sing in harmony about creating millions of “green energy” jobs. While any government created job is of suspect value, these new jobs are especially troublesome, and taxpayers should be alarmed at their impacts. In fact the “green economy” will cost jobs, stifle economic growth, limit positive investment, and burden the poor.

Governments often seek to stimulate economic growth with public works programs, although it rarely helps. FDR tried with no success to end the Great Depression with aggressive spending on roads and bridges, as did Japan during its lost decade of economic malaise. The upside to these programs is that the US actually needs roads and bridges. Eventually, people will use them to go about their business and prosper. Furthermore, during a recession labor and construction materials are abundant, making it a good time to build. Hopefully once the projects are complete, the economy will have recovered, and the builders can move on to the private sector.

Obama and Ritter have an extra plan, though, to create government mandated jobs through a “green economy.” Through a carbon cap and trade program, along with other mandates, the Democrats have vowed to increase the US energy sector work force by several million people. Of course, the way to pay for these workers is to raise energy prices, permanently.

Public works projects eventually end, and the government funded jobs move on. These new “green jobs” are meant to be permanent. Instead of a boost to the economy, these jobs are subsidized by a government mandate to use more costly energy sources. Government mandated employment is paid with money people would otherwise spend elsewhere. Ultimately, jobs must be destroyed to pay for the new “green economy” salaries, and the net effect is less employment and prosperity.

Unlike public works projects, which build useful infrastructure, the “green economy” is simply to replace a system that already works well. Unlike most of the world, the lights almost never go out in the US. With the exception of nuclear power, there is no current “green” energy technology that can guarantee reliable power to the US. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, traditional energy sources must power people’s homes, traffic lights, and hospitals. Indeed, for all the hype about wind and solar, they can provide no more than 20% of the US’s electricity, which is why Colorado’s plan to go “green” relies heavily on replacing coal plants with natural gas turbines. Not only is the “green” economy expensive, it doesn’t even work very well.

Because environmentalist Democrats hate nuclear power, they will select against that source of energy. Never mind that nuclear is among the safest and cleanest technologies ever invented. Never mind that only nuclear can generate electricity reliably. Never mind that nuclear costs far less than wind and a tenth as much as solar. Never mind that the nuclear capital of the US is Obama’s home turf of Illinois. Government meddling for political gain will stifle the only “green” technology that works and is cost competitive with natural gas and coal.

Worse still, the cost to implement inefficient technologies in favor of superior options will fall on the poor. The “green economy” is actually a regressive tax on lower income homes, as rising energy bills pinch the poor much more than the rich. The “green” wing of the Democratic party is hardly looking after the little guy.

Yet another sad mess, invented, hyped, and delivered to you by big government.

The government is in a giving mood lately, having bailed out Fanny, Freddy, AIG, and more. Even Washington elites think the commitment of over a trillion dollars is a lot of money and are wondering what they have bought into. One sure consequence of doling out free money as a reward for failure is that every pig will line up at the trough. Since the only requirement for begging in DC is to arrive on a private jet, no one was surprised to see GM, Ford, and Chrysler hat in hand.

With the floodgates of corporate welfare wide open, how can the Government say no to GM and the rest of the Detroit 3? If AIG deserved a bailout, why not GM? GM employs more Americans, and for most of the 20th century was the corporatre symbol of the US itself. GM advocates speculate that GM’s failure will dislocate a million jobs or more. Therefore, if the Government is in the bailout business, why not GM?

For starters, a GM bailout can’t work. GM is hopelessly under water, with $45 bln in unfunded retiree benefits, and an overall $60 bln accumulated deficit. In other words, if GM were to liquidate, creditors would lose $60 bln, with much of that loss falling on the shoulders of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, A.K.A. the taxpayers. A hole that deep can’t be filled with just $25 bln. Indeed, the bailout money wouldn’t even keep GM going for a year.

Unlike the $25 bln for Detroit, the $700 bln financial bailout has a reasonable chance of working. Assuming the current recession doesn’t last more than a year, taxpayers might actually earn a profit on the $700 bln thrown at struggling financiers. This is because, unlike GM, many of the financial charity cases are otherwise successful going concerns. Once asset values recover, their business models will allow them to repay the loans. GM loses money every day based on every measure of profit. Having accumulated a $60 bln loss, there is no reason to expect a quick turn-around. Over the decades, GM has proven incapable of standing up to its unions, controlling costs, or shortening its product design cycle. Free money from Uncle Sugar is hardly an incentive for GM to repent from sloth.

The financial crisis affected nearly all business that extend or receive credit. The bailout was needed to save an entire industry upon which nearly every company in the US depended. Not so with GM and the rest of the Detroit Three. Huge numbers of cars are made in the South in factories owned by foreign corporations. None of these companies have gone to DC with a sob story. These factories employ Americans, and, indeed, Americans can own as much of Toyota, Honda, and Daimler as they want. The only difference between the Detroit Three and foreign owned American operations is that their headquarters are not in the US and their leaders are paid far less. GM’s plight results not from an industry crisis, but from a bloated management that became too cozy with its unions.

A GM bailout must be rejected, but in these already shaky times, the systemic shock of a complete failure would be immense. The pension liabilities alone would heavily burden taxpayers. Given GM’s operational troubles, the necessary debtor in possession financing for GM might not be available. Therefore, if the Government must come to the aid of GM, it should be as a part of a prepackaged chapter 11 restructuring.

Because of GM’s deep troubles, both equity and debt holders will likely have to lose all of their investments. Ownership will revert to the GM pension fund, saving taxpayers tens of billions in liabilities. After that, the GM union rules will have to be reset to reflect market reality. Many union jobs pay twice their free market equivalents in the South, an operational liability no manufacturer can endure.

So, if the Government has the political will to wipe out the investors in GM, throw tens of billions of dollars into an uncertain receivership, and stare down the country’s most militant unions, a bailout might work. Fat chance. Once GM files for Chapter 11 protection, and its management, creditors and unions are on the ropes, the Government will be in a much better position to help GM’s operations and employees. The Government needs to understand which parts of GM really need help, and the best way to find out is to let GM fail.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter unveiled his latest budget, and it is a combination of an offense to common sense, paper thin pandering to conservatives, and more of the same budgetary manipulation to encourage tax increases that have been the Ritter trademark.

Ritter claims that the budget is “conservative,” which means a spending increase of 5%, about twice what TABOR would otherwise allow, mostly spent on over 1300 new state employees. Ritter has ridden the wave of Ref. C to explode the state budget during his tenure. Ritter’s budget is a 43% increase over the 2004 budget that preceded his election as governor. The State is not short on funds.

Ritter wants to establish a “rainy day fund,” which presumably would not be funded during this year of economic recession. Why, after years of submitting budgets did Ritter choose 2008 to introduce a reserve fund? Only because Amendment 59 just failed in the voting booth. 59 would have repealed TABOR forever, allowing the State to keep all tax revenues. Ritter’s goal is to avoid tax refunds and to expand spending. The next best solution, absent repealing TABOR, is to keep the money in a savings account. Ritter’s priorities are: 1. Tax, 2. Spend, 3. Hoard. Ritter would not have considered a reserve fund so long as he could have spent the money, hence the cynical timing. True fiscal conservatives should take note and remain cautious.

Ritter has not given up on a tax increase, as his transportation budget shows. Rather than cut wasteful spending on bogus “green” initiatives, or freeze the hiring of new bureaucrats, Ritter has proposed cutting road budgets. Again, this is a cynical manipulation of the budget process to encourage tax increases. Ritter and his Democrat allies will spend all the available tax money on their pet projects, and then claim poverty when spending on legitimate items, like roads, falls short. Indeed, Democrats are already calling for license plate fee increases to fund transportation. The money is already there, but Ritter’s shell game will try to deceive voters into passing yet another tax increase.

Every year, Colorado tax and spend Democrats plead poverty, try to raise taxes, all the while spending wastefully. Voters should say no to more waste, corruption, and lies.