Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Obama's Legacy



December 21, 2016

Obama's Legacy.

7 billion-dollar businesses that didn’t exist before Obama took office

Number One is Uber. It seems that this company is the golden child of the Obama Administration. Why?

This business is all over the airwaves about getting people to drive for them. However, this was just released


This business is being touted as the hallmark business from Obamas 8 year tenure. What about other businesses?

Here is a list of some companies that Obama supported, these have gone out of business. They are mainly of the Green Energy genre.

From The Daily Signal.

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  27. Vestas ($50 million)
  28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  30. Navistar ($39 million)
  31. Satcon ($3 million)*
  32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

CORRECTION:
Figures for four companies have been updated: Beacon Power received $43 million from the U.S. government, not $69 million as originally reported. Azure Dynamics received $5.4 million from the federal government, not $120 million as originally reported. Compact Power Inc. received $151 million as part of the stimulus, not $150 million as originally reported. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group received $700,981 in government funding, not $6 million as originally reported.
The following companies have been removed from the original list: AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy, LSP Energy, Schneider Electric, and Uni-Solar did not receive government-backed loans, based on additional research. The National Renewable Energy Lab did received $200 million in stimulus funding, but it is a government laboratory.

Additional research provided by Michael Sandoval

Ego-Enviornmentalism

It was just announced today that Obama has signed off on a provision of a law that allows him to make off limits millions of acres of "federal" offshore undersea lands for off shore drilling. 

This is not to say that these lands are currently being considered by oil companies for exploration, but to unilaterally take this off the table is short sighted, and politically ego-driven.

What actions should President Trump take?

I've often thought that if the Federal Govt would make our energy production and development a matter of National Security, that would trump (pun intended) the current ping-pong battle between environmentalists and business.

As a nation we need secure energy sources, any clear thinking person will agree.
I am certainly not a person who thinks that trashing Gods world is something to take casually. We have been given dominion over the earth and we need to take it seriously, so responsible energy production and consumption is something we all should take seriously.


Businesses that are moving have moved out of the US during Obamas tenure.


This is where a corporation buys a foreign company and then moves its headquarters to that location to take advantage of the corporate tax laws. In effect making a US business a foreign business.

What businesses have done this?

On Tuesday, Burger King announced that it would spend some $11 billion to buy Tim Hortons Inc., a Canadian breakfast food chain, then merge Burger King into it, thereby turning what was once a major American company into a major Canadian one. As the Washington Post reports, Burger King would “move the company’s headquarters to Canada, where corporate taxes are significantly lower.”

This process, called inversion, has been occurring more and more often, despite the fascistic suggestion by President Obama that headquartering outside the United States represents a betrayal of God and country. Members of the Obama administration have taken to labeling business inversions a lack of “economic patriotism” – presumably under the assumption that to stay in America, cut jobs, and lose all profits in order to pay higher taxes represents a sort of higher moral value than moving one’s headquarters and continuing to pay millions of workers and reward consumers with better and cheaper products.
Sadly, the Obama administration’s policies have driven more and more industries out of the country. Since 2008, more than two dozen companies have taken advantage of inversion. Here are seven other companies that have shifted production out of America in order to avoid our ridiculous regulatory schemes, or are considering the possibility of doing so:
Walgreens. Walgreens seriously considered inversion this month, but walked away from moving its headquarters to Europe after purchasing Alliance Boots GmbH. That decision drove Walgreens stock down. Walgreens’ board only decided against inversion, according to the Wall Street Journal, because “the board felt that the arrangement might not easily pass muster with the Internal Revenue Service and created the potential to be hung up in litigation for a decade.”
Pfizer. The pharmaceutical giant has been in on-again, off-again talks to buy Britain’s AstraZeneca in order to take part in a tax inversion. In May, Pfizer walked away from a deal to buy AstraZeneca for some $118 billion – but now, the deal is reportedly back on the table. According to Reuters five days ago: 
Pfizer Chief Executive Ian Read has made clear he is still considering big deals to revive his firm’s pipeline and cut its tax bill – something buying AstraZeneca would allow it to do via a so-called inversion that would shift its tax base to Britain.
Should AstraZeneca not become part of the deal, other companies, like GlaxoSmithKline, could.
Medtronic. Medtronic, a huge medical technology firm, has acquired Covidien, and will adopt Ireland as its legal headquarters. As the Wall Street Journal reports, here is the deal: “Medtronic agrees to call Ireland its legal home, and in return it gets to bring $1 billion or more into the U.S. without penalty.” The deal was for some $43 billion.
Tim Hortons. The company Burger King now seeks to buy participated in what is called a “naked inversion” itself in 2009. It started off as a Canadian company, according to the Congressional Research Service, but was bought by Wendy’s in 1995, then went independent in 2006.
Liberty Global. In 2013, Liberty Global bought Virgin Media for $23.3 billion. The merger, according to BBC, created “the second biggest pay-TV business after BSkyB” as well as “the world’s largest broadband company, with 25 million customers in 14 countries.” Most of the company’s revenue was earned in Europe. Richard Branson, previous owner of Virgin Media, became a 2 percent stakeholder in the new entity. Upon inverting, the tax rate for Liberty Global dropped to 21 percent, and the company was exempted from taxes for several years, according to the American Bar Association.
Chiquita Brands. Just this month, Chiquita participated in an inversion deal, buying Fyffes of Ireland and relocating its headquarters there. The company stated, “Chiquita remains committed to completing its transaction with Fyffes, which it believes will create a combined company that is better positioned to succeed in a highly competitive marketplace while driving strong performance and value for shareholders.”
Eaton. When Eaton bought Cooper Industries and headquartered in Ireland, Eaton saved approximately $160 million on taxes. The companies explained, “Incorporating as an Irish company provides significant global cash management flexibility and associated financial benefits.” As Bloomberg News noted:
Eaton’s effective tax rate for 2011 was 12.9 percent and its rate for 2010 was 9.5 percent, according to company filings. In 2011, lower taxes on its non-U.S. operations made up more than half of the difference between the company’s effective tax rate and the 35 percent top U.S. rate.
Overall, some 25 major companies have participated in tax inversions since President Obama took office. That trend will continue to accelerate as President Obama ratchets up the rhetoric and threatens harsher action against companies that dare to buck his high-tax priorities.



WASHINGTON — On the morning of Jan. 21, 2017, his first full day in office, President Donald J. Trump will take a minute to settle behind the 19th-century Resolute desk, first used in the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy.
Then he will get very busy — if he follows through on his campaign promises for what he will do on his first day in office.
On Day 1, Mr. Trump has promised, he will redirect immigration enforcement, alter trade relations with China and other nations, relax restrictions on energy production, impose new rules on lobbyists, halt efforts to combat global warming, lift curbs on guns, push for congressional term limits and demand a new strategy for defeating the Islamic State. He may face some legal and procedural hurdles, but most of his Day 1 pledges involve issuing presidential directives, executive orders or memorandums that do not need legislative approval.
Although Mr. Trump and his top advisers have appeared to moderate some of his broader campaign pledges — they have suggested he might keep parts of the Affordable Care Act, delay building a wall along the border with Mexico and not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails — Mr. Trump has said nothing to indicate that he will not make good on his explicit Day 1 promises, many of which he delivered in his “Contract With the American Voter” during a speech in late October in Gettysburg, Pa.
Moving quickly is, after all, a modern presidential tradition. On his first day in office, President Obama imposed lobbying rules, closed secret interrogation facilities, banned torture and ordered the prison at Guant√°namo Bay closed (an order that Congress has blocked to this day). Bowing to conservatives, on his first day, President George W. Bush ended funding of overseas clinics that provided abortion services.

To recap, Obamas legacy is a firecracker fizzle. I believe that any in depth delving onto his administration will yield a spaghetti strand mess of  cronyism deals and shady actors.

I think we'll see more influence by the Islamists than we imagined, and evidence more hatred towards the blue collar people who opposed him and his socialist methods.

If you like this blog, please subscribe and share.

Shalom
Jerry

No comments: