But we have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.

The shift — (applause) — the shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require some tough choices along the way.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

“Climate change” is the euphemism for “global warming.” For example, in the 2007 announcement of his presidential bid, Obama said, in phrases similar to what he used in his State of the Union, especially the part of future generations:

“We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Let’s be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.”

And the western drought is part of a natural cycle that strikes our area every 100 years, or perhaps 500 years if it turns out bad enough. After all, most of California really is a desert. Despite humans’ efforts to water it, sometimes it reverts to its natural state.

As to “global warming,” here are today’s Drudge Report headlines for the Southern — not Northern — states. That is, these areas all are South of the White House:

RESIDENTS TOLD: TWEET FOR POLICE

Then Democrats promoted him at their 2004 convention, he landed in the U.S. Senate, became a presidential candidate, sales of his books took off, and he became a multimillionaire. Nice work if you can get it.

Meanwhile, under him real wages — for middle-class and poor folks — have dropped 3.2 percent during his presidency.

Income equality also is the excuse for action California. Reports the Chronicle:

“When state voters cast their ballots in November, they could be making decisions on several measures intended to bring the income levels of rich and poor closer together. They include a cap on hospital executives’ pay, more taxes on oil companies and a higher minimum wage.”

If those pass, here’s what would happen:

• Cutting hospital execs’ pay would encourage the best of them to leave the state, making our hospitals less efficient, possibly killing some patients.
• Taxes on oil companies would be passed on to drivers through higher gas prices at the pump.
• A minimum wage would destroy tens of thousands of jobs, as companies unable to make the higher payrolls closed their doors or, if they could, moved to other states and countries.

What helps

What really helps the poor and middle-class is what President Reagan did in the 1980s:

• Cut taxes.
• Cut spending.
• Cut regulations.

Executive action

But that’s not going to happen. The president wants to keep Obamacare perking as his legacy. He needs its tax increases to fund its regulations and spending.

And he’s now unilaterally imposing new regulations through executive fiat:

“But he doesn’t like to do this, does he?” the NPR host asked Podesta.

“Uh, I think he’s warmed up to it,” Podesta replied, laughing.

“And I think you’ll see that across a wide range of topics, including retirement security, moving forward on his climate change and energy transformation agenda,” said Podesta. 

“There’s a lot that he has the authority to do that’s vested in him under the laws of the United States and his constitutional powers, and I think that he’s looking forward to a year of action, and I think he’s looking forward to tonight (when he gives the State of the Union speech) as a breakthrough year where he can lay out some of these practical, concrete ideas that will get people onboard a stable economic footing and see their wages going up for the first time in a long time,” said Podesta. 

Actually, such dictatorial powers are not “vested in him.” But who follows the Constitution any more?

Government workers

One group seeing its wages increase is government workers:

President Obama, in the first of potentially many executive actions tied to his State of the Union address, will unilaterally increase the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts to $10.10 an hour, from $7.25, in an effort to build momentum for a minimum wage hike for all Americans. 

The executive order, which had been pushed by progressive Democratic lawmakers, applies to all contractors performing services for the federal government and would affect more than 2 million employees, according to an administration official.

Of course, that’s easy to do if the costs are passed on to taxpayers.

Meanwhile, Congress, and the American people and democracy have become superfluous as the country gets poorer by the minute. That’s the state of the union.

By John Seiler

In State of the Union address yesterday evening, President Obama said, “Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line.”

What “tax relief” is he talking about? Joined by the “small government” and “tax-cut” Republican leadership in Congress, on Jan. 1 he massively increased taxes on 77 percent of Americans. That was part of the “fiscal cliff deal” — really a fiscal ripoff — that jacked up payroll taxes 2 percentage points. Those making just the minimum wage usually don’t pay income taxes; but they sure pay the payroll tax.

He talked a lot about helping the “middle class,” but most people will pay about $1,000 more a year. In a two-earner household, that’s $2,000 more a year that won’t go toward kids’ education, a down payment on a new home, car repairs or other essentials. Instead, the money will be sucked in by the D.C. lobbyists and government functionaries who are draining the country of its life’s blood.

As I wrote about a month ago, I’m meeting the massive tax increases by cutting spending. Today I just canceled Netflix DVDs. Savings: $8.63 a month. Sorry, Netflix workers.

While doing so, I also noticed that Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30 tax increase had boosted that bill by 2 cents a month. Not much, but it adds up on other purchases. For example, I just had an unexpected car repair bill of $1,450. About $1,000 of that was for parts, meaning Prop. 30’s sales-tax increase of 0.25 percentage points “on the rich” dinged me for $25. I’ll be cutting spending big time for that, and not just for the $25.

Next week, I’m canceling my Financial Times subscription. Savings: $39.90 a month. I can get similar information elsewhere, for free. Sorry, fellow journalists, I can’t afford you now.

Tax backers

By the way, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and the FT are big tax-increase supporters. So they should blame themselves for the loss of my custom.

I’ve also cut back on eating out by half, to once a week. I’ll probably cut that back even more. Although my culinary skills are on the level of the Three Stooges, if you don’t have the money, you don’t have it. Sorry, restaurant owners and workers.

I still have to make more cuts in spending. When government revenues shrink, politicians go on spending sprees paid for with more robbing the people and more debt.

My reaction is different: cut back to live within my means.

In the State of the Union, the president brought up tax increases numerous times.

And on NBC, Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House Minority Whip, just said more tax increases are coming: “Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a paying for problem. We haven’t paid for what we bought, we haven’t paid for our tax cuts, we haven’t paid for war.”

Well, “we” didn’t “buy” that — the spendthrift Congress did, beginning with him. “I” don’t want any of what he “bought” with my money. So, Steny, don’t steal more of “my” money to pay for it!

But he will anyway.

As in January, no doubt the Obama-Hoyer tax-increases eventually will be supported by the Republican leadership, and imposed on us.

Time to cut more of my spending.

In the comments below, write what spending in your life you’re cutting so our Masters in Government can live better at our expense.

By DAVE ROBERTS

“Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” said Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis regarding the need for governmental transparency – but apparently not when it comes to solar power and other renewable energy sources. California has embarked on an ambitious, unprecedented program to provide one-third of its power from renewable energy sources by 2020. It’s likely to be expensive replacing oil and cheap natural gas with costly, inefficient solar and wind power. But Californians aren’t being told how much extra they’ll have to pay.

“I don’t understand what the size of the bill will be for it all,” said Robert Michaels, a Cal State Fullerton professor of economics and an energy expert. “Basically, what’s happening is everybody is being kept in the dark about this. Allegedly because it’s necessary to maintain competition among projects. It’s a drama that none of us is allowed to see, and none of us is allowed to get the figures on.”

Many of the purchase power agreements for renewable energy projects are coming in at above the market rate for energy — a cost that will be passed on to ratepayers. But the amount is known only to the California Public Utilities Commission, which keeps the figures under wraps for years.

The CPUC approves nearly every renewable project that comes before it, regardless of cost. But that’s not how it was supposed to be. The enabling legislation in 2002 for what is known as the Renewables Portfolio Standard, SB 1078, required that the cost of proposed renewable projects be compared to the market price of energy, and that procurement be restricted if the project’s price is too high. It also provided for above-market costs to be paid from a state-controlled above-market fund, rather than passing the extra cost on to the consumer.

This was reaffirmed in follow-up legislation. In 2006, SB 107, by State Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, increased and accelerated the renewable target goals while continuing to limit procurement if prices were too high. Likewise in 2007 with SB 1036 by then-Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland. And similarly in last year’s SBx1 2 by Simitian.

But as the pressure has increased to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, the prices have also increased — and cost-containment has gone by the wayside like a golden eagle after flying into a windmill blade.

The average bids for solar projects doubled while wind projects increased about 50 percent from 2005 to 2007, according to the CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates in a report last August titled “The Green Rush.” Fifty-nine percent of renewable contracts have been awarded at above-the-market rates in recent years, with PG&E leading the way with 77 percent of its contracts.

But what about that above-market fund that was supposed to pick up the tab for the high-cost contracts? As of last August, $773 million had been allocated — but a whopping $6 billion is needed to pay for all of the above-market contracts that have been approved. Michaels said that fund has since run out of money.

Pay for It

“Essentially you now have no choice but to pay whatever the contract price is for the renewable,” he said. “Renewable energy in California means wind and solar. Wind is expensive and solar is astronomical, particularly for the power you get. So what you have got now is a more interesting problem: People are not allowed to find out what the actual bills for these projects will be. The reason is because the PUC has agreed with utilities complaining, ‘We can’t let ordinary people know what the price of these things are, because you can cause competitive problems and it can result in price fixing’ — or something like that.”

Michaels cited what he called an “outrageous project” — PG&E’s solar project in the Mojave Desert. The plant could cost an estimated $1.6 billion while generating only 250 megawatts. Although scheduled to be completed it 2014, it may not be hooked up to the electrical grid until 2018 after needed upgrades are made.

Likely emboldening PG&E to lay out that kind of money for a questionable project is that it comes with a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. That’s the same DOE that provided a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra.

“That’s a staggering amount to pay for the kind of power you are getting — it only works when the sun is shining,” said Michaels. “The Division of Ratepayer Advocates is very upset about all of this. But there’s nothing that can be done about it. This is only the start. When we get closer to the 33 percent requirement, it’s just going to get worse, because the resources will be even more expensive.”

Shortly after the PUC approved PGE’s 25-year contract for the Mojave project in November 2011, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates sent out a press release headlined, “DRA Troubled By Continued CPUC Approval of Overpriced Renewable Projects.” It pointed out that the CPUC had also recently approved the overpriced North Star Solar project in Fresno. Both approvals ignored the legislative directive to contain costs.

“The Commission has the power to keep the cost of renewable energy reasonable,” said DRA’s acting Director, Joe Como. “Instead … it is signaling to the market that California will accept overpriced renewable energy, and that it is willing to lock customers into higher rates for decades to come. I agree with Commissioner [Mike] Florio [the only vote against the Mojave project], who said that we should be getting twice the amount of renewable energy for the price of this contract.

“The CPUC must get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and it can’t do that by ignoring the costs. DRA strongly supports the state’s renewable energy goals, but fears that customer backlash against high energy bills will hurt the state’s efforts. Sending a message to renewable energy developers and investors that the cost of renewables must be reasonable will support the effort to reach California’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas. We simply can’t afford to do otherwise.”

Encouraging Development

One of the encouraging developments in renewable energy recently is the significant price drop for photovoltaic energy due to the increased production of solar cells (ironically a contributing factor in Solyndra’s demise because its products were made at a higher price). The cost of these systems dropped 19-23 percent in California (depending on the size of the system) from late 2008 to mid-2010. But, at the same time the utility bid prices for photovoltaic systems actually increased, according to the DRA.

Also concerned about the increased cost of renewable energy is the state watchdog agency the Little Hoover Commission. It held a hearing Feb. 28 at which Commissioner David Schwarz asked what can be done to get the CPUC to put the brakes on the renewable energy “spending binge.”

Matt Freedman, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network, responded, “The era of approving overpriced renewable generators has passed. Most were in 2008, 2009. For years the PUC has pretty much approved whatever the utilities wanted. It goes to the oversight of utilities by regulators who feel it’s their job to give the utilities what they want when they want it. There’s been a spending binge.”

But that binge may not be over, according to Como, who said, “The commission has accepted all but two contracts in the last several years. There have been about 170 contracts from 2003, and only two have been rejected. It does speak a lot to the fact that there are political and other pressures that go into the final decision other than ‘best fit, least cost’ analysis. I think we are still looking at contracts that are overpriced. The prices are confidential. But we do look at the trends.”

Schwarz accused Como’s group of not sufficiently advocating for ratepayers by not fighting the confidential pricing system. “Aren’t you doing your constituents a disservice?” Schwarz asked. “I would like to see confidentiality lifted so we have transparency.”

Como responded, “I’m in support of modifying confidentiality, not lifting it. Three years of confidentiality may be too long. Six months to a year would be good. Nevada doesn’t have a confidentiality cloak on its procurement.”

Asked what the cost impact will be to customers in order to achieve the 33 percent goal, Como said, “It’s probably about 5 to 7 percent on a typical bill of a customer. The above-market costs that we have identified, that’s probably what the impact will be.”

Cost Unknown

But Freedman said that no one knows how much it’s going to cost. In 2009, a consultant estimated there would be a 7 percent increase, but that study is already out of date because “all of the assumptions are totally wrong in respect to price. For example, it was thought solar thermal, big mirrors in the desert, was going to be the primary way we would reach the 33 percent target. It assumed 7,200 megawatts of solar thermal. Half of that has been canceled. It assumed photovoltaics would cost between 29 and 47 cents a kilowatt-hour. We have been looking at prices in the 11-to-14 cent range approved last year. They are lower today than last year, and it looks like they will be going lower still. Every long-term model ends up being wrong. In the field of renewables, we have seen a very dynamic market with extremely fast-changing prices, more than anybody could ever predict.”

The energy experts are confident that California will be able to meet the renewable energy goal by 2020. The big question remains the size of the bill that Californians will get stuck with.

“It would be wonderful if we can make this work,” said a dubious state Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad, who is also a Little Hoover commissioner. “To me right now the bottom line is what is the cost to the user. Particularly in a state where we have the second-highest unemployment in the country, where privately a very senior official in this government has said, ‘We all know the real rate of unemployment is closer to 17 percent,’ where the human cost is really, really, really difficult, and at the same time when we have some companies leaving. I just think at the end of the day we need to know: Can we deliver this in such a way that it doesn’t hurt jobs? We’ll see.”

There’s one thing I want to hear from President Obama tonight in his State of the Union Address: That he is ending the molestation of airline passengers by the perverts at the Transportation Security Administration. Under edicts imposed by Republican President Bush, but fully enforced under Democratic President Obama, fliers — even old ladies and young girls — are routinely grabbed, poked, felt up and otherwise molested by TSA goons.

These Gestapo tactics must stop for America to be free again. Obama needs to stop it. If he doesn’t, he’ll go down in history as one of the world’s worst tyrants.

Things are so outrageous that former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is suing the TSA for forcing him to undergo a Nazi search:

Former Governor Jesse Ventura has taken steps to sue the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, naming their chiefs John Pistole and ‘Big Sis’ Janet Napolitano in a lawsuit that will take oninvasive airport pat-downs[READ LAWSUIT]. Ventura first told Alex Jones of his intent to sue the TSA privately back in September while traveling for the making of TruTV’s “Conspiracy Theory,” expressing grave concern about what he viewed as his country’s transformation into East Germany.

Jones recalls Ventura’s outrage at the TSA’s harassing old people in wheelchairs with the invasive new pat-down procedures. The former governor himself is routinely sent to secondary screening due to a hip replacement in 2008, and Jones witnessed him undergo repeated humiliating searches during pat-downs at the hands of TSA. Worse, at airports across the country, even those presenting medical cards describing special needs or equipment from a doctor are routinely ignored as TSA agents demand that medical patients remove urostomy bags, prosthetic breasts or that TSA be allowed to grope a pacemaker patients’ breasts.

“That’s why I want to leave the United States,” Ventura had told Jones at the time. “This is why I go down to Mexico– this is wrong.” Ventura indicated that he was most concerned about the destruction of the 4th Amendment and passing of the America he once knew.

Ventura filed his lawsuit Monday, January 24, 2011 in Minnesota and news reports have namedDavid Olsen as his lawyer. The former governor has indicated that his suit will include violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 4th Amendment, arguing that he and others with disabilities have been discriminated against and unduly singled out by TSA despite presenting no threat and warranting no reason for lawful search. Further, Ventura has argued that his ability to travel freely has been infringed, hampering his ability to work.

Jan. 25, 2011