Start A Petition

Underselling the Sequester Cuts

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, congress, corruption, cover-up, dishonesty, ethics, Govtfearmongering, lies, media, politics, propaganda, republicans, socialsecurity )

- 1897 days ago -
An ad from a fiscally conservative group makes a true but misleading claim that the sequester only amounts to "a 3 percent cut in federal spending." A majority of federal spending is exempt from the sequester cuts, so the parts that are not will be cut-->

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 9:02 am
Pie Chart: bipartisan

An ad from a fiscally conservative group makes a true but misleading claim that the sequester only amounts to “a 3 percent cut in federal spending.” A majority of federal spending is exempt from the sequester cuts, so the parts that are not will be cut much more deeply than that. For example, defense spending (other than for military personnel) will be cut by 8 percent across the board, and nondefense discretionary spending will be cut by between 5 percent and 6 percent.

President Obama has warned that with sequester cuts “people are going to be hurt,” jobs will be lost and government services will be seriously hampered. Republicans have accused the president of over-hyping the impact, and we have written about the ways in which some Democrats have exaggerated the impact.

The fiscally conservative group Public Notice takes the opposite approach, downplaying the effects of the sequester. Its ad features video of pennies dropping into a jar to bring home the point that the sequester amounts to just “three cents out of every dollar the government spends.”

****See Video at VISIT SITE ****

An ad from a fiscally conservative group makes a true but misleading claim that the sequester only amounts to “a 3 percent cut in federal spending.” A majority of federal spending is exempt from the sequester cuts, so the parts that are not will be cut much more deeply than that. For example, defense spending (other than for military personnel) will be cut by 8 percent across the board, and nondefense discretionary spending will be cut by between 5 percent and 6 percent.

President Obama has warned that with sequester cuts “people are going to be hurt,” jobs will be lost and government services will be seriously hampered. Republicans have accused the president of over-hyping the impact, and we have written about the ways in which some Democrats have exaggerated the impact.

The fiscally conservative group Public Notice takes the opposite approach, downplaying the effects of the sequester. Its ad features video of pennies dropping into a jar to bring home the point that the sequester amounts to just “three cents out of every dollar the government spends.”

According to Roll Call, the ad is part of a “six-figure cable TV and online ad campaign” from Public Notice, a group that is headed by a former aide to President George W. Bush.

[Announcer: President Obama called sequestration “a meat cleaver’” that will “eviscerate government services.” What is sequestration? A 3 percent cut in federal spending. Three cents out of every dollar the government spends. We’re more than $16 trillion in debt and the government wastes billions each year on duplicate programs. Americans have made tough choices and cut back. Washington refuses. Call Washington. Ask them why it’s so hard to cut spending.]

Similar comments have been made by Republican leaders, including Sen. Orrin Hatch and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Hatch, Feb. 27: No one likes how the sequester is structured, but let’s get real here: what we’re talking about is cutting 2 to 3 percent of our federal budget at a time when we’re $16.6 trillion in debt.

McConnell, Feb. 26: Look, the choice we face isn’t between the sequester and tax hikes. Remember, we are only talking about cutting 2 to 3 percent of the budget. Any business owner or middle-class parent will tell you it is completely ridiculous to think Washington can’t find a better way to cut 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget at a time when we are $16 trillion in debt.

The sequester was part of a negotiated compromise to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Included in the Budget Control Act of 2011, its intent was to act as a poison pill to encourage deeply divided lawmakers to forge a compromise that would result in savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That compromise never came to pass, and the sequester was ultimately activated March 1.

The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.

But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending. They include cuts to discretionary defense spending (such as weapons purchases and base operations, but not military personnel) and to both discretionary and nondiscretionary domestic programs (everything from airport security to education aid to research grants). Cuts to those programs will be much deeper than 2.3 percent. For a full accounting of the programs subject to, and exempt from, sequestration cuts, see the White House’s September report on sequestration transparency.

According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction. (See Table 1-2 on page 14.)

Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget. Rather, it mostly targets discretionary defense spending and domestic spending. Those programs will see budget reductions more than two to three times higher than the amount claimed by the Public Notice ad and some Republicans.


– Robert Farley | Fact The Annenburg Public Policy Center|


JL A (281)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 9:52 am
"Oh what webs we weave when first we try to deceive." And the $85 billion could be achieved by eliminating oil company tax subsidies ($60 billion) and future year corporate interest tax deductions without any of the sequestration harms whatsoever. Why is that so hard?

Arielle S (313)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 10:58 am
These cuts probably won't hurt the 1% a bit - and not much pain for the top 10% either. Everyone else gets to feel them but they are no big deal to those who aren't affected. Oh, to just change places for about six months - bet things would be a bit different then...

Yvonne White (229)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 12:03 pm
Corporations are More Important than real people, cutting their kick-backs would be as bad as prosecuting their price gouging or, heaven forbid, asking them to Pay Taxes (without loop-holes?;)!!!!!

Barbara K (60)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 12:45 pm
We have some people in congress who don't want to work for their money, they take many and long times off and don't want the middle class to survive. We all know who they are and we need to remember that come election time. Heck, they don't even want the country or government to survive. Hurting us makes them gleeful. They won't cut the subsidies that would save our economy immediately because they get rich off them.

Ro H (0)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 3:01 pm

Angelika R (143)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 3:26 pm
An out- of- the- bushes-ad, anyone surprised? What I'd like to know is, out of which pot is the govt taking the extra compensation $$ is has promised to the Pentagon to make up for the sequestral spending cuts?

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:09 pm
Hold on, liberal friends. It was President Obama himself who opted for this sequester in order to get his tax hike. So, what are you really saying here? So, please, let us be clear. Obama, in order to get the debt ceiling raised proposed sequestration to force the passing of a budget. The budget was never passed. So, sequestration kicked in on March 1st.

Why is it so difficult for the liberals here on Care 2 to place the blame of what is going on today squarely where it should be placed? It should be placed at President Obama's feet. Why are you unable to do that?

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:14 pm
As a republican, I see a disturbing trend with the liberals to igore what Obama has done in terms of cutting expenses. If you are so opposed to it, then why aren't you emailing President Obama? No one forced him to do this....this is all Obama.

And I have a misguided thought above that I would like to correct in that sequestration wasn't about the tax hike it was about raising the debt ceiling.

Now, my liberal friends, what should President Obama do to correct this issue?

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:15 pm

So sorry Diane but it was none other than Paul Ryan that was mostly responsible for the language of the sequester and Obama that was dumb enough to sign on.

I blame Obama all the time, and so do most "liberals" here at Care2. The fact is this is a stupid way to run a government, no matter where one chooses to lay the blame.

This article is from Fact Check and if you know anything about the Annenburg Foundation you must know that it is completely non-partisan and will call out any one that abuses or misuses the facts.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:19 pm

Obama is not a King but the president. He has presented a very workable budget with cuts that would make Reagan blush. That too was presented in full on Care2 by myself. If that budget needs more tweaking or negotiation, than I suggest Mr Boehner do his job and offer some suggestions.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:19 pm
It IS Obama's issue.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:23 pm
Thank you, Kit. It was Jack Lew and another person, I can't bring up the name at the moment, who orchestrated this language.

With all due respect, it is not the responsibility of the republicans to smooth out the wrinkles in this. We are spending far too much money and we need significant cuts to offset what we are spending. You are a smart woman and you know this is true.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:26 pm
I am amazed at the excuses the liberals continue to make for Obama's incompetence in our White House. To suggest that it is now Boehner's job to make it work is ludicrous. Obama holds the "pen." With one stroke of his "pen" he could redirect these cuts but he is not doing that. So, who is left to blame for Obama's arrogance and incompetence? I mean, who else is there? Obama is the President. He is being overwhelmingly political to a major fault. Do you not agree?

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:30 pm

As you please, I see no positive outcome in arguing facts. It is the duty of all of Congress, but the Constitutional duty of the House to work on budgets and debts. If they do not like the budget than work with the president and find a common ground. Three of those [who lunched with the president] Senators and ten house members have stated they had not read the president's budget. No excuse for that. I found the entire budget online without a staff to do my work.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:35 pm
Obama hasn't produced a budget. His only attempt was not passed by the Senate. Kit, come on here. You are not one to side step the facts.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:37 pm
You are supporting a President who isn't doing his job. Bottom line....Obama has been years without a budget. And, are you saying this is a republican issue? Please be clear.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:40 pm
Okay, this is rich. You found a budget on line without a staff in your words. Why haven't the American people seen this budget? Why have the republicans not seen this budget? Why are we not talking about Obama's budget? I'm a bit confused here.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:49 pm

The budget:

JL A (281)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 5:51 pm
The Constitution requires Congress to pass a budget. They were supposed to have done so by Oct.1, 2012. They are responsible for the absence of a budget. The President has now provided the budget data for two years--here is the link for the one Congress is supposed to act on by Oct. 1, 2013 already completed by POTUS:
Easy for anyone with research skills to find.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:01 pm
JLA, nice try.. When President Obama was elected it was required that he submit a budget. Now, you are throwing out October 2, 2012. Obama's own democratic Senate didn't pass his lame budget.

No matter what you post you cannot get around the fact that Obama has yet to get a budget passed. Work on that JLA and do your own research. No budget Obama. No budget Obama. You can't alter the facts, my friend.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:04 pm
I am amazed each and every time I come up against not only liberals, but educated, highly educated liberals who throw out information like this when they KNOW that Obama hasn't had a single budget passed. How can intelligent liberals support this "no budget President" with a clear conscience? I don't get it. The facts are the facts. No budget passed Obama. This is what our country is dealing with.

Did either one of you have a response to that?

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:13 pm
If this was a republican President who had not submitted a budget which was passable you two would be screaming. However, this isn't a republican President it is a democrat President and he has no budget submitted that has been passed.

This is breathtaking and I cannot wait for your answers. I'm ready.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:16 pm
I'll settle with "*****crickets******on your behalf.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:16 pm

The link to read the budget was given, now the ball is in your court. Read or do not. J L is just stating the facts, the US "purse" is Constitutionally the responsibility of the House. The President presents a budget and the house will either pass it as it stands, or offer suggestions. That is the way it has always worked.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:28 pm
Obama hasn't had a budget passed....period. You can pull up all the links you want and the ball will never be in my court because until a budget is passed, Kit, by the budget exists. Even YOU know this to be a fac. The Senate didn't pass Obama's first budget. So, after what you stated, where do you stand on that?

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:28 pm

I didn't think you would take the time to read the budget. Yes, consider that a laying of the gauntlet.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:37 pm

Wow! My fifth grade students know the Constitution and responsibilities of each branch of government. Go and read. The HOUSE, the House of Representatives will or will not pass the budget. Just because you saw some TV celebrity say that it must go to the Senate or John Boehner is trying to shift his responsibility do not make that a change in the Constitution.

The Constitution designates the “power of the purse” as a function of Congress.1 That includes the authority to create and collect taxes and to borrow money as needed. The Constitution does not, however, specify how Congress should exercise these powers or how the budgeting process should work. Nor does the Constitution specify a role for the president in managing the nation’s finances.

As a result Congress has established a process that has evolved over time. Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress passed key laws that shaped the budgeting process into what it is today, and formed the federal agencies—including the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office—that provide oversight and research crucial to creating the budget.2

JL A (281)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 7:02 pm
According to Paul Ryan
The Budget

The Basic Framework

The Constitution grants the "power of the purse" to Congress,1 but does not establish any specific procedure for the consideration of budgetary legislation. Instead, a number of laws and congressional rules contribute to the federal budget process, with two statutes in particular forming the basic framework.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, established the statutory basis for an executive budget process by requiring the President to submit to Congress annually a proposed budget for the federal government. It also created the Bureau of the Budget (reorganized as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1970) to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities, and the General Accounting Office (GAO, renamed the Government Accountability Office in 2004) to assist Congress as the principal auditing agency of the federal government.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297) established the statutory basis for a congressional budget process, and provided for the annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget as a mechanism for facilitating congressional budgetary decision making. It also established the House and Senate Budget Committees, and created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide budgetary information to Congress independent of the executive branch.

The Budget Cycle

The President is required to submit to Congress a proposed budget by the first Monday in February. Although this budget does not have the force of law, it is a comprehensive examination of federal revenues and spending, including any initiatives recommended by the President, and is the start of extensive interaction with Congress.

Within six weeks of the President's budget submission, congressional committees are required to submit their "views and estimates" of spending and revenues within their respective jurisdictions to the House and Senate Budget Committees. These views and estimates, along with information from other sources, is then used by each Budget Committee in drafting and reporting a concurrent resolution on the budget to its respective house. Other information is gathered by the Budget Committees in reports and hearing testimony. That information includes budget and economic projections, programmatic information, and budget priorities, and comes from a variety of sources, such as CBO, OMB, the Federal Reserve, executive branch agencies, and congressional leadership.

Although it also does not have the force of law, the budget resolution is a central part of the budget process in Congress. As a concurrent resolution, it represents an agreement between the House and Senate that establishes budget priorities, and defines the parameters for all subsequent budgetary actions. The spending, revenue, and public debt legislation necessary to implement decisions agreed to in the budget resolution are subsequently enacted separately.

Discretionary spending,2 in the form of appropriation bills, involves annual actions that must be completed before the beginning of a new fiscal year on October 1. Changes in direct spending3 or revenue laws may also be a part of budgetary actions in any given year. When these changes are directly tied to implementing the fiscal policies in the budget resolution for that year, the reconciliation process may be used. Reconciliation typically follows a timetable established in the budget resolution. Other budgetary legislation, such as changes in direct spending or revenue laws separate from the reconciliation process, changes in the public debt limit, or authorizing legislation, are not tied directly to the annual budget cycle. However, such legislation may be a necessary part of budgetary actions in any given year.

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037) established the sequester4 as a means to enforce statutory budget limits. Amendments to this act were designed to use sequesters to control direct spending and revenues (through the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, process) and discretionary spending (through spending caps). Under these mechanisms, the budgetary impact of all legislation was scored by OMB, and reported three times each year (a preview with the President's budget submission, an update with the Mid-Session Review of the Budget, and a final report 15 days after Congress adjourned). If the final report on either the PAYGO or spending caps mechanism indicated that the statutory limitations within that category had been violated, the President was required to issue an order making across-the-board cuts of nonexempt spending programs within that category. Those mechanisms expired October 1, 2002.5 Currently, both the House and Senate have rules, commonly referred to as PAYGO rules, that limit the consideration of direct spending and revenue legislation, however they are enforced through points of order rather than a presidential sequester order.6

The Budget Resolution and Reconciliation

The budget resolution represents an agreement between the House and Senate concerning the overall size of the federal budget, and the general composition of the budget in terms of functional categories. The amounts in functional categories are translated into allocations to each committee with jurisdiction over spending in a process called "crosswalking" under Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. Legislation considered by the House and Senate must be consistent with these allocations, as well as with the aggregate levels of spending and revenues. Both the allocations and aggregates are enforceable through points of order that may be made during House or Senate floor consideration of such legislation. These allocations are supplemented by nonbinding assumptions concerning the substance of possible budgetary legislation that are included in the reports from the Budget Committees that accompany the budget resolution in each house.

In some years, the budget resolution includes reconciliation instructions. Reconciliation instructions identify the committees that must recommend changes in laws affecting revenues or direct spending programs within their jurisdiction in order to implement the priorities agreed to in the budget resolution. All committees receiving such instructions must submit recommended legislative language to the Budget Committee in their respective chamber, which packages the recommended language as an omnibus measure and reports the measure without substantive revision. A reconciliation bill would then be considered, and possibly amended, by the full House or Senate. In the House, reconciliation bills are typically considered under the terms of a special rule. In the Senate, reconciliation bills are considered under limitations imposed by Section 305, 310, and 313 of the Congressional Budget Act. These sections limit debate on a reconciliation bill to 20 hours, and limit the types of amendments that may be considered.

The Appropriations Process

The annual appropriations process provides funding for discretionary spending programs through regular annual appropriations bills. Congress must enact these measures prior to the beginning of each fiscal year (October 1) or provide interim funding for the affected programs through a "continuing resolution." By custom, appropriations bills originate in the House, but may be amended by the Senate, as other legislation.

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees are organized into subcommittees, each of which is responsible for developing an appropriations bill. Appropriations bills are constrained in terms of both their purpose and the amount of funding they provide. Appropriations are constrained in terms of purpose because the rules of both the House (Rule XXI) and the Senate (Rule XVI) generally require authorization prior to consideration of appropriations for an agency or program.7

Constraints in terms of the amount of funding exist on several levels. For individual items or programs, funding may be limited to the level recommended in authorizing legislation. Also, between FY1991 and FY2002, the discretionary spending provided in appropriations acts were limited by discretionary spending caps (these spending caps are described below). Finally, the allocations from the budget resolution made to the Appropriations Committees under Section 302(a) of the Budget Act provide limits that may be enforced procedurally through points of order in the House and Senate during consideration of the legislation. In the absence of a final agreement on a concurrent resolution on the budget, the House or Senate may adopt a "deeming resolution" to establish provisional enforcement levels.8

Section 302(b) of the Budget Act further requires the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to subdivide the amounts allocated to them under the budget resolution among their subcommittees. These suballocations are to be made "as soon as practicable after a concurrent resolution on the budget is agreed to." Because each subcommittee is responsible for developing a single general appropriations bill, the process of making suballocations effectively determines the spending level for each of the regular annual appropriations bills. Legislation (or amendments) that would cause the suballocations made under 302(b) to be exceeded is subject to a point of order. The Appropriations Committees can (and do) issue revised subdivisions over the course of appropriations actions to reflect changes in spending priorities effected during floor consideration or in conference.

Revenue and Public Debt Legislation

The budget resolution provides a guideline for the overall level of revenues, but not for their composition. Legislative language controlling revenues is reported by the committees of jurisdiction (the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee). The revenue level agreed to in the budget resolution acts as a minimum, limiting consideration of revenue legislation that would decrease revenue below that level. In addition, Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives, although the Senate may amend them, as other legislation. Revenue legislation may be considered at any time, although revenue provisions are often included in reconciliation legislation. The budget resolution also specifies an appropriate level for the public debt that reflects the budgetary policies agreed to in the resolution. Any change in the authorized level of the public debt must be implemented through a statutory enactment.9

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 7:29 pm

Taken from the Constitution: (and enhanced by legal interpretations of the Court)

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse—that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

Under the Articles of Confederation, under which Congress possessed the power to appropriate, there was no independent executive authority. With the creation of an executive under the Constitution, the Founders decided, in the words of Justice Joseph Story in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, "to preserve in full vigor the constitutional barrier between each department...that each should possess equally...the means of self-protection." An important means of self-protection for the legislative department was its ability to restrict the executive's access to public resources "but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Justice Story continues:

And the [legislature] has, and must have, a controlling influence over the executive power, since it holds at its own command all the resources by which a chief magistrate could make himself formidable. It possesses the power over the purse of the nation and the property of the people. It can grant or withhold supplies; it can levy or withdraw taxes; it can unnerve the power of the sword by striking down the arm that wields it.

The second part of the clause, the "Statement and Account" provision, resulted from an amendment offered by George Mason of Virginia in the final days of the Convention. Mason proposed that "an Account of the public expenditures should be annually published." Questions concerning the wisdom and practicality of this proposal led to the adoption of an amendment, offered by James Madison, to substitute the less-demanding "from time to time" for "annually." This "would enjoin the duty of frequent publication," Madison argued, "but leave enough to the discretion of the legislature." The requirement for a "Statement and Account," said Justice Story, makes Congress's responsibility as guardian of the public treasure "complete and perfect" by requiring an account of receipts and expenditures "that the people may know what money is expended, for what purposes, and by what authority." Today, the "discretion of the legislature" is a "plenary power to exact any reporting and accounting [the Congress] considers appropriate in the public interest." Richardson v. United States (1974).!/articles/1/essays/67/appropriations-clause


Kit B (276)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 7:31 pm

Before you again begin your attacks I suggest Diane, that take the time to learn the facts

Diane O (194)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 4:27 am
Kit, I was not attacking at all! High spirited, perhaps, but not one to attack. I learn new things here every day. If you say Obama has a budget that has been passed by congress then I yield the floor to you and stand corrected. I simply had no idea that Obama finally got a budget passed. That's all. Now I know.

I always know you can back up with you post. Besides, today is my birthday LOL! This will be a day of smiles and cake!

paul m (93)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 7:14 am

The Governments of the Westeren World caused these problems ,getting loans they,,we can't pay back and it seems to be our fault ,cut-backs on every scale, lower wages, higer prices and then they tell us things are getting better , this year we're comming out of the Recession things are better, in four years time ,,
am I to belive thease stories ?

David Johnson (13)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 7:18 am
Kit...I agree. Factcheck is definately non-partisan and accurate.The campaign of misinformation is truly underway. We must stay aware and keep informed.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 10:30 am

i said, clearly that I offered you the actual budget to read, and gave you the link. This budget has not been passed as we all know. I also said that Constitutionally it is the legal responsibility of the House to pass or work with the president on the budget. That is the constitutional imperative of the House not the Senate nor the president.

Happy Birthday, Diane - best wishes for a great day.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 10:36 am

John (Gregoire) I have to guess that you have never seen a real cat fight between two women. Strong disagreement is not a fight. Diane has her opinions, and I have mine. In this case I was able to offer her some solid proof that was not just talking to see my words in print.

Thanks David (Johnson) I use Fact Check for just that reason, whether it is Obama or any other democrat, independent, or republican, I know I can double check Fact Check for accuracy and it will be right on target each time.

Arielle S (313)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 11:28 am
I always trust whatever Kit says because I know she has researched it and can back it up - it is the GOP propaganda to say they did not get a budget from Obama when - as shown - they definitely did. Obama is merely the president - not the dictator, not the emperor, not the king. He has to work within the confines of the Constitution. If there is blame to place, it should be placed on Congress. I will not blame Obama just because he does not suffer fools gladly.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 12:06 pm

And...that statement by Arielle is exactly why I try to check and double check for facts before I submit to Care2. People do have the right to expect that of me. I can not say that just because an article is accurate that everyone will agree with the content.

JL A (281)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 12:25 pm
All too true Kit--some people do not want to accept facts that run contrary to what they prefer to believe and we are powerless to change them.

. (0)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 12:28 pm
Try telling the single person family or the minimum wage earner or the retired person who are barely making ends meet that it's only 3%. All politicians should have to survive on what these people do for 6 months. Maybe then the arrogant elites on both sides of the house might have a greater appreciation of what the average person endures daily thanks to their sophomoric behavior and puerile arrogant policies that benefit only themselves and their corporate and hedge fund manager friends.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 12:34 pm

Yep, J L - people are going to do, say and believe what they think makes them comfortable. Facts will not get in the way of that decided course of thinking. Nor am I here to try and change minds, only to offer some interesting articles and some funny ones as a break in the tension. What each person does with that information is entirely for them to decide.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 12:40 pm

Michel (Kirby) I don't know if you know about Corey Booker the mayor of Newark, New Jersey. But he intentionally lived on food stamps and only the equal amount of welfare money, just to know and understand what the people's lives were really like. The money for the food stamps was completely reimbursed to the state. Any politician that would do that, scores very high in my book. Before anyone screams about how well off the "TAKERS" are must first walk a mile in their shoes.

Diane O (194)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 1:20 pm
Kit, how can anyone not adore and love you? You are on the mark, my dear friend. Yes, I get it.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 1:30 pm

My kitties love me, when they are in the mood. What more can I ask? I do have the most wonderful son, ever in the history of mankind, and of course those are not words from an adoring mom. Soon he will present me with my first grand child - life is good.

Diane O (194)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 2:04 pm
Next month you will become a grandmother, Kit. Your life will forever change and I am very happy for you.
You are a unique woman. I've known that for years as a member here on Care 2. The only time we get fired up is over politics. We've talked about that. The true measure of friendship is understanding each other.

You are my friend and you are going to be a great grandmother!

Good day to you, Kit, this day and every day. Politics be damned! We are first wives, mothers, friends and if we are lucky grandmothers. I am a grandmother of four and I want this for you. We are separated by politics but forever together as women and all that it brings us.

You have always been very patient when it comes to my politics. I thank you for that.

Theodore Shayne (56)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 3:42 pm
Goodness I learn a lot from you gals. Thanks. LOL and Diane, happy birthday and many more.

pam w (139)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 5:41 pm
Isn't it interesting to hear Republicans throw dirt at the President's lack of this or that....when, in fact, their party members in DC have made it TOTALLY CLEAR that obstructing the normal business of government is their primary objective?


Vallee R (280)
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 10:07 am
Learned a lot here - agree with Theodore - also that you'll be a grandma soon Kit!I've got 3 - but on the topic - in the end we will all be hurt by whatever the globalists do - including the puppets that we are suppose to believe run this country - I only pay attention to politics in the sens of what I will have to prepare for - the rest to me is a grand soap opera.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 3:37 pm
Theodore, thanks, my friend. Happy Birthday's at my age are a blessing LOL!

Yes, Val, Kit will be a grandmother soon and she'll be a great one! As for your political comment all I can offer is that we have a severe lack of leadership in Washington. I don't know how else to describe it. Let us hope, and yes, pray, that our country can get through the next four years unscathed. It is, indeed, a soap opera.

Patrice M (84)
Monday March 18, 2013, 2:51 pm
It just cracks me up the way the GOP voters blame the president for every single thing their party has done to hurt working people - and which they, themselves, support. Fortunately, most of the country refuses to buy this nonsense and the GOP knows it. So they are now busy doing the only thing they can to ever win an election again - tampering with the election system. Is there no corruption too great for the GOP to engage in?

Diane O (194)
Monday March 18, 2013, 3:43 pm
I don't agree with you, Angelica. President Obama had a supreme opportunity to help working people early in 2009 after he was inaugurated. He didn't do that. He didn't turn to the small businesses where 53% of Americans have jobs. He ignored them. Instead, he opted to spend an entire year on his legacy healthcare bill which is in the toilet from where I sit. If you have a serious issue with the American people not being addressed in the job market....turn your angst and anger at Obama. He made a choice. He made a very bad choice and it continues to hurt our economy. More people on food stamps....private sector green companies hand picked by Obama using OUR tax dollars and all of them have gone bankrupt.

The GOP are holding President Obama to his promise....he wanted his take hike he got it but he had to agree to spending cuts. What is priceless here is that as the President, with the stroke of a pen he could've realigned those cuts but he didn't do it. He then presented himself as "vindictive Obama...the President."

The GOP never wanted to hurt the American people. They wanted to protect them from tax hikes. They wanted spending cuts across the board.

JL A (281)
Monday March 18, 2013, 3:55 pm
Energy subsidies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers. Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[citation needed]

The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011.[1] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, we will not reach our climate targets.[2]


1 Overview
2 Allocation of subsidies
3 Externalities
4 IEA position on subsidies
5 See also
6 References
7 External links


Main arguments for energy subsidies are:

Security of supply - subsidies are used to ensure adequate domestic supply by supporting indigenous fuel production in order to reduce import dependency, or supporting overseas activities of national energy companies.
Environmental improvement - subsidies are used to reduce pollution, including different emissions, and to fulfil international obligations (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).
Economic benefits - subsidies in the form of reduced prices are used to stimulate particular economic sectors or segments of the population, e.g. alleviating poverty and increasing access to energy in developing countries.
Employment and social benefits - subsidies are used to maintain employment, especially in periods of economic transition.[3]

Main arguments against energy subsidies are:

Some energy subsidies counter the goal of sustainable development, as they may lead to higher consumption and waste, exacerbating the harmful effects of energy use on the environment, create a heavy burden on government finances and weaken the potential for economies to grow, undermine private and public investment in the energy sector.[4]
Impede the expansion of distribution networks and the development of more environmentally benign energy technologies, and do not always help the people that need them most.[4]
The study conducted by the World Bank finds that subsidies to the large commercial businesses that dominate the energy sector are not justified. However, under some circumstances it is reasonable to use subsidies to promote access to energy for the poorest households in developing countries. Energy subsidies should encourage access to the modern energy sources, not to cover operating costs of companies.[5] The study conducted by the World Resource Institute finds that energy subsidies often go to capital intensive projects at the expense of smaller or distributed alternatives.[6]

Types of energy subsidies are:

Direct financial transfers - grants to producers; grants to consumers; low-interest or preferential loans to producers.
Preferential tax treatments - rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, producer levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.
Trade restrictions - quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.
Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost - direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.
Regulation of the energy sector - demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.
Failure to impose external costs - environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[4]
Depletion Allowance - allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil,gas,minerals).

Allocation of subsidies

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[7] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels.[8] However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

The most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments. Rather, they have shifted construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained remarkably consistent throughout the nuclear industry’s history, and distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[10]

Many energy analysts, such as Clint Wilder, Ron Pernick and Lester Brown, have suggested that energy subsidies need to be shifted away from mature and established industries and towards high growth clean energy. They also suggest that such subsidies need to be reliable, long-term and consistent, to avoid the periodic difficulties that the wind industry has had in the United States.[8][11]

According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change. Subsidies to renewable energy are generally considered more environmentally beneficial, although the full range of environmental effects should to be taken into account.[12]

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[13]

In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[14]

In February 2011 and January 2012 the UK Energy Fair group, supported by other organisations and environmentalists, lodged formal complaints with the European Union's Directorate General for Competition, alleging that the Government was providing unlawful State aid in the form of subsidies for nuclear power industry, in breach of European Union competition law.[15][16]

One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".[17]

The subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fuel industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity.[18]
IEA position on subsidies

According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production. "Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits. Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits".[19] In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits". The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. "A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue."[20]

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products ca half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by 2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development. Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies. According to IEA onshore wind may become competitive around 2020 in the European Union.[19]
See also

Feed-in tariff
Renewable Energy Certificates
Renewable energy payments
Financial incentives for photovoltaics


^ [tt_news=2026&cHash=fb6d42b9f07c49b2ba583ea8a8c79b48 EU wind industry faces tough challenge - and politicians should not make it worse] EWEA 04 Feb 2013
^ Fossil fuel subsidies are “public enemy number one” – IEA Chief EWEA 04 Feb 2013
^ (PDF) Energy subsidies in the European Union: A brief overview. Technical report No 1/2004. European Environmental Agency. 2004. Retrieved 2012-04-11.
^ a b c United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. (2002) (PDF). Reforming energy subsidies. IEA/UNEP. ISBN 92-807-2208-5. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
^ Douglas F. Barnes, Jonathan Halpern (2000). "The role of energy subsidies" (PDF). Energy and Development Report (World Bank): 60–66. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
^ Jonathan Pershing, Jim Mackenzie (March 2004) (PDF). Removing Subsidies. Leveling the Playing Field for Renewable Energy Technologies. Thematic Background Paper. Secretariat of the International Conference for Renewable Energies. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
^ a b Pernick, Ron and Wilder, Clint (2007). The Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment Opportunity, p. 280.
^ Koplow, Doug (February 2011). "Nuclear Power:Still Not Viable without Subsidies". Union of Concerned Scientists. p. 1.
^ Brown, L.R. (2006). Plan B 2.0 Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble W.W. Norton & Co, pp. 234-235.
^ Forthcoming, Draft synthesis report on environmentally harmful subsidies, SG/SD(2004)3. OECD. 2004-03-16.
^ "Renewable Energy Being Held Back by Fossil Fuel Subsidies - IEA". 1 November 2011.
^ Legal bid to halt nuclear construction, Energy Fair, published 2011-11-07, accessed 2012-01-20
^ UK 'subsidising nuclear power unlawfully' BBC, published 2012-01-20, accessed 2012-01-20
^ "Complaint about nuclear subsidies may prevent new reactor builds". Energy and Environmental Management. 24 January 2012.
^ a b Tim Keating (3 February 2012). "Death to PV Subsidies". Renewable Energy World.
^ a b World Energy Outlook 2011 Factsheet How will global energy markets evolve to 2035? IEA November 2011 6 pages
^ Henning Gloystein (Nov 23, 2011). "Renewable energy becoming cost competitive, IEA says". Reuters.


JL A (281)
Monday March 18, 2013, 3:59 pm

List of renewable energy companies by stock exchange
From Wikipedia ( View original Wikipedia Article ) Last modified on 14 March 2013, at 04:17
Past industry growth (1995-2007)[1]
Projected industry growth (2007-2017)[2]

Several renewable energy companies became listed on stock exchanges in the period after 2000. The early 21st century was a very productive time for the renewable energy industry, since many governments set long term renewable energy targets. Some chose to directly subsidize the renewables with feed-in tariffs and other temporary measures to bridge the gap to full cost accounting that would properly reward these technologies for their low emissions and lack of interference with ecosystem services, and also to ensure some capacity and motivation to install conservation-focused smart grid technologies.

Smart grid policy in the United States was especially important in driving renewable energy in that country. See also load shedding, energy internet, home area network and cleantech for more on the structure of the industry and why renewables vendors are closely aligned industrially and politically with the vendors of networking technology, smart appliances and energy conservation software, and opposed in general to those of other "energy" firms, which effectively depend on the lack of this intelligence or accounting to appear competitive. For instance, coal vendors rely on a lack of accounting of about US$345 billion in harms done by coal to remain competitive in the US. [1].

In 2004 Russia ratified the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol and the first order under this agreement came into force for the period 2008 to 2012. The period from 2002 to 2008 was a period of rapid growth for the renewable energy industry with the photovoltaics industry experiencing an average of 60% growth per annum, the biodiesel industry 42% and the wind industry 25%.[1] As of the end of 2007 the renewable energy industry was worth an estimated US $77.3 billion.[2] As a result of this growth several companies listed IPOs.

Many public companies involved in the development of this industry and responsible for large market share do not participate exclusively in renewable energy and have been omitted for this list, most notable of these are BP, GE Energy and Sharp. This list consists of companies whose primary produce is either renewable energy or renewable energy products and services.

Table of Contents
1 List of publicly traded renewable energy companies
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

List of publicly traded renewable energy companies

Public renewable energy companies listed by stock exchange and symbol.
Company Exchange Symbol IPO Industry Financials
A2Z Group, India BSE,
NSE 533292 (BSE),
A2ZMES(NSE) Solar Thermal Quote
Abengoa, SA BMAD ABG - Solar Thermal Quote
Aleo solar FWB AS1 2006 Photovoltaics Quote
Alternative Energy, LTD LSE ALR 2003 Renewables Quote
Alterra Power TSX AXY 2011 Geothermal, Hydro, Wind, Solar Quote
Americas Wind Energy Corporation OTC AWNE 2006 Wind Quote
Anwell Technologies SGX G5X 2004 Photovoltaics Quote
Applied Solar, INC NASDAQ - 2005 Photovoltaics Quote
Ascent Solar Technologies, INC NASDAQ ASTI 2006 Photovoltaics Quote
Aventine Renewable Energy OTC AVR - Bio Energy Quote
Ballard Power Systems NASDAQ BLDP 1995 Fuel Cells Quote
Carnegie Wave Energy, LTD ASX CWE 1993 Wave Quote
Canadian Solar, INC NASDAQ CSIQ 2006 Photovoltaics Quote
Centrosolar Group, AG FWB C3O 2005 Photovoltaics Quote
Centrotherm Photovoltaics, AG FWB CTN 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Ceramic Fuel Cells, LTD ASX CFU 2004 Fuel Cells Quote
China Power New Energy HKSE 0735 1999 Wind/Hydro/Biomass Quote
China Sunergy Co, LTD NASDAQ CSUN 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Clipper Windpower, PLC LSE CWP 2005 Wind Quote
Comtec Solar Systems Group Limited HKSE 712 2009 Photovoltaics Quote
Conergy, AG FWB CGY - Photovoltaics Quote
Clenergen Corporation, OTC CRGE - Biomass Quote
DayStar Technologies, INC NASDAQ DSTI 2004 Photovoltaics Quote
DelSolar Co, LTD GTSM 3599 - Photovoltaics Quote
Dongfang Electric HKSE
SSE 1072 (HKSE)
600875 (SSE) 1994 Wind Quote
Dyesol, LTD ASX DYE 2005 Photovoltaics Quote
Eaga, PLC LSE EAGA 2007 Energy Efficiency Quote
Energy Conversion Devices, INC NASDAQ ENER 1993 Photovoltaics Quote
Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. TASE ENLT - Wind, Solar Quote
E-ton Solar Technology Co, LTD TSE 3452 - Photovoltaics Quote
Evergreen Solar, INC NASDAQ ESLR 2000 Photovoltaics Quote
EnviroMission, LTD ASX EVM 2005 Solar Thermal Quote
EDP Renováveis, SA BVLP EDPR 2007 Wind [2]
Finavera Renewables, INC TSX-V FVR 2006 Renewables Quote
First American Scientific Corp. OTCBB FASC 1995 Biomass Quote
First Solar Holding, LLC NASDAQ FSLR 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Gamesa Corporación Tecnológica BMAD GAM 2000 Wind Quote
Gintech Energy Corporation TSE 3514 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Goldwind HKSE
SZSE 2208 (HKSE)
00220 (SZSE) 2007 Wind Quote
Good Energy Group, PLC LSE GEGP - Renewables Quote
Green Energy Holding Corporation OTC GEYO 2007 Renewables Quote
Green Plains Renewable Energy, INC NASDAQ GPRE 2007 Ethanol Quote
GT Solar International, INC NASDAQ GTAT 2008 Solar Mfg Equipment Quote
Iberdrola Renovables, SA BMAD IBR 2007 Wind, Solar, Biomass Quote
Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. TSX INE 2007 Renewables Quote
JA Solar Holdings Co, LTD NASDAQ JASO 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Jetion Solar Holdings LTD AIM JHL 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Kedco PLC AIM KED 2008 Bio Energy Quote
LDK Solar Co, LTD NYSE LDK 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Longyuan Power HKSE 0916 2009 Wind Quote
Suzhou Shenglong PV-Tech Co.Ltd KOSDAQ 900150 2011 Solar Quote
Mass Megawatts Wind Power OTC MMGW 2001 Wind Quote
Motech Industries Inc. TSE 6244 2003 Photovoltaics Quote
Neo Solar Power Corporation TSE 3576 2008 Photovoltaics Quote
Nevada Geothermal Power, INC OTC NGLPF 2005 Geothermal Quote
Nordex, AG FWB NDX 2001 Wind Quote
Ocean Power Technologies, INC NASDAQ OPTT 2007 Wave Quote
Panax Geothermal ASX PAX 2007 Geothermal Quote
Phoenix Solar, AG FWB PS4 2004 Photovoltaics Quote
PV Crystalox Solar, PLC LSE PVCS 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Q-Cells, AG FWB QCE - Photovoltaics Quote
Ram Power, Corp. RPG RPG - Geothermal Quote
ReneSola, LTD AIM SOL 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Renewable Energy Corporation, ASA OSX REC 2006 Photovoltaics Quote
Renewable Energy Generation, LTD LSE RWE 2005 Renewables Quote
Renewable Energy Holdings, PLC LSE REH 2005 Renewables Quote
Renewable Energy Resources, INC OTC RWER 2008 Hydro Quote
Renewagy, AS OMX REN - Renewables Quote
REpower Systems, AG FWB RPW 2006 Wind Quote
Run of River Power Inc. TSX-V ROR 2005 Hydro Quote
Shear Wind Inc.. TSX-V SWX 2006 Wind Quote
Sinovel HKSE
601558 (SSE) 2011 Wind Quote
S.A.G. Solarstrom, AG FWB SAG - Photovoltaics Quote
SMA Solar Technology, AG FWB S92 2008 Photovoltaics Quote
Solar-Fabrik, AG FWB SFX - Photovoltaics Quote
Solarfun Power Holdings Co, LTD NASDAQ SOLF 2006 Photovoltaics Quote
SolarWorld, AG FWB SWV 1999 Photovoltaics Quote
Solco, LTD ASX SOO 2000 Solar Thermal Quote
SunPower Corporation NASDAQ SPWR 2005 Photovoltaics Quote
Suntech Power NYSE STP 2005 Photovoltaics Quote
Suzlon Energy BSE,
NSE 532667 (BSE),
SUZLON (NSE) 2005 Wind Quote
Tiger Renewable Energy, LTD OTC TGRW - Ethanol Quote
Trina Solar, LTD NASDAQ TSL 2006 Photovoltaics Quote
Verenium Corporation NASDAQ VRNM - Biofuels Quote
Vestas Wind Systems, AS OMX VWS 1998 Wind Quote
WaterFurnace Renewable Energy, Inc. TSX WFI 2001 Geothermal Quote
Western Wind Energy Corp. TSX-V WND 2001 Wind Quote
Windflow Technology, LTD NZAX WTL 2001 Wind Quote
Yingli Green Energy Holding Co, LTD NYSE YGE 2007 Photovoltaics Quote
Company Exchange Symbol IPO Industry Financials
See also

JL A (281)
Monday March 18, 2013, 4:07 pm
FactCheck: 2009 Obama jobs bill that passed
President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act - Learn What's In It

Simple research on all the facts for anyone caring about facts...lots done by Obama for jobs and small businesses and a small minority of green businesses went bankrupt--kind of like most industries, not a significant problem and those that didn't are exceeding predicted energy achievements--all positives, BTW

Patrice M (84)
Monday March 18, 2013, 6:02 pm
I hear the same right wing mantra I always hear when we are talking about working people and the president. Republicans want to blame Obama for their own hateful policies, which have affected the entire country. As a matter of fact, it is these hateful policies, combined with the lie of trickle down theory, that got us into the financial mess we are in now. Who, but the right wing, cares about de-regulation of necessary industries? Who, but the right wing. Who advocated for de-regulation of Wall Street? It sure wasn't Obama!

That's the problem with republicans. They can't seem to accept responsibility for any of their horrendous mistakes. Until they do, they will continue to stumble around in the darkness, uttering complete nonsense like, "Why won't women, minorities, the unemployed, and the poor vote for us?"

Why, indeed.

Patrice M (84)
Monday March 18, 2013, 6:05 pm
And this gamesmanship over "Obama hasn't passed a budget" makes me ill. Why hasn't he passed a budget, Diane? Because the trolls under the bridge that you vote for in Washington won't let him pass a budget - and you know it.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.