Stimulus spending on environmentalist policy is a green albatross around the neck of President Barack Obama. Inspectors General are having a field day auditing stimulus-funded programs for so-called “green jobs,” and the media LOVES stories about wasted taxpayer money. What started as a sop to his environmentalist base, now threatens to become a slow-drip nightmare of negative press. The timing couldn’t be worse for the President. It takes time to disburse scores of billions of dollars, so we are only now starting to scrutinize stimulus spending. By November 2012, we’ll be able to account for most of the money, and unless the current trend changes radically, the Executive in Chief is going to look conspicuously incompetent.

Here’s the back-story: In early 2009, the Executive and Legislative branches of government had a popular mandate to defibrillate America’s moribund economy with a huge injection of taxpayer dollars. Instead of limiting this “stimulus” to state bailouts and infrastructure spending, the Obama administration (led by climate “czar” and former EPA administrator Carol Browner) and the Congressional majority (led by House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills)) also sought to advance environmentalist policy.  As a result, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the stimulus, included almost $70 billion in spending for green jobs and renewable energy infrastructure.

Every single link along the green energy supply chain was showered with subsidies. There was funding for green jobs training, funding for factories to make green products, and funding to incentivize demand for green goods and services. It was as like a green Gosplan!

Most of the money went to the Energy and Labor Departments. Budgets ballooned. To cite a typical example, in 2008, the Department of Energy’s weatherization program budget went from $450 million to $5 billion. Making matters worse, federal bureaucrats were told to spend the stimulus as fast as possible, in order to jumpstart job-creation. Exploding budgets and a mandate to rush money out the door—that’s a recipe for poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This is borne out by an increasing number of watchdog reports concluding that stimulus spending for green goals was wasteful. Here’s a laundry list of what they’ve found so far:

• On November 2, Eliot P. Lewis, the Department of Labor’s IG, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the Labor Department received $435 million to train 96,000 people in the renewable energy trade. The goal was to create 80,000 green jobs. Through June 30, according to Mr. Lewis’s testimony, the Labor Department had spent $130 million, which is 30% of the program budget, and created a scant 1,336 jobs, which is 2% of the program target.

• During the same Congressional hearing, the Department of Energy IG Gregory Friedman said that he had launched more than 100 criminal investigations into green energy spending. Each one is a potential scandal.

• GreenWire’s (subscription required) Annie Snider has reported on a series of IG investigations by the Department of Defense faulting the military for wasteful stimulus spending on green energy projects. The report titles say it all: “American Revoery and Reinvestment Act Wind Turbine Projects at Long-Range Radar Site in Alaska Were Not Adequately Planned”; “The Departmnet of the Navy Spent Recovery Act Funds on Photovoltaic Projects That Were Not Cost-Effective”; “U.S. Air Force Academy Could Have Significantly Improved Planning Funding, and Initial Execution of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Solar Array Project”; and “Geothermal Energy Development Project at Naval Air Force Station Fallon, Nevada, Did Not Meet Recovery Act Requirements.”

• On November 7, the Department of Energy Office of the Inspector General issued a “management alert” regarding the Western Area Power Administration’s $3 billion, stimulus-created loan program to facilitate the transmission of electricity from renewable energy projects in the west. According to the IG alert, “Western had not implemented the necessary safeguards to ensure its commitment of funding was optimally protected.”

• In October, Resources for the Future released a report suggesting that the $3 billion, stimulus funded “cash for clunkers” program, whereby the government subsidized the purchase of fuel efficient cars for consumers that agreed to junk their less fuel efficient cars, was an economic and environmental failure.

• Since February, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been investigating Solyndra, the California solar panel manufacturer that declared bankruptcy in September, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for a $535 million stimulus-funded loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

Why is the green stimulus failing? As I note above, ballooning budgets and a mandate to spend fast are conducive to waste.

More fundamentally, central planning of the economy is a loser. Invariably, politics corrupts the process. Members of Congress are less concerned about the economic viability of the industries into which they invest taxpayer money, and much more concerned with getting pork to their districts. Civil servants, no matter how disinterested, know that their political overlords are watching their decisions carefully, so as to ensure that taxpayers give-aways reach their constituents. (For an archetypical example of a Member of Congress browbeating a civil servant, see this post about Sen. Al Franken shaking down Energy Secretary Steven Chu).

When parochial politics isn’t interfering, crony capitalism is. According to “Throw Them All Out,” a new book by Peter Shweizer, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted by the stimulus-created loan guarantee program (whence the Solyndra debacle) “went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.” Of course, political payback is a poor substitute for sound financial analysis.

Gross fiscal mismanagement by government attracts media like flies to dung. So far, most coverage is by local papers reporting on local failures. (See “Seattle’s Green Jobs Program a Bust,” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and “Stimulus Funds Provide Training, But Openings Few in State,” by the Detroit News.) However, even the New York Times, whose editorial board supports green energy subsidies, published a story titled, “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live up to Promises.” Expect many more of these types of articles as the watchdogs continue to do their work.

As the negative press mounts, the President will become ever-more burdened by his foolish bet on green energy.

A week ago, I poked fun at Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) for acting the fool during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Republican legislation that would speed the permitting process for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Yet I also noted,

“While I disagree with everything he does, I nonetheless esteem Rep. Waxman as a master tactician. More than once, I’ve wished that the other party had someone as cunning as the Congressman from Beverly Hills.”

Last week, Rep. Waxman was off his game; this week, I’m sad to say, he has returned to form. Energy and Environment News (subscription required) reported this morning that Rep. Waxman and Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Bobby Rush (D-Illinois) yesterday fired off a letter to Committee Republicans, demanding the holdup of the “Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act” (a.k.a., the TRAIN Act) over some arcane procedural matter. This sort of nitpicky stonewalling is classic Waxman.

The TRAIN Act would mandate an honest assessment of the costs of the Environmental Protection Agency’s suite of anti-energy regulations. Of course, this would expose the EPA’s dishonest cost-accounting. That’s why Reps. Waxman and Rush oppose it.

An issue as complex as a Congressional procedural violation, real or unreal, is easily swept under the rug, so it’s highly unlikely that Rep. Waxman’s letter will engender much, if any, delay. That’s good news, because the TRAIN Act is worthy legislation.

I’ve long suspected that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) keeps Brawny paper towels in his kitchen cabinet. Brawny paper towels are the best—they’re the quickest, thickest picker-uppers—and Rep. Waxman lives in one of the richest Congressional districts, so it makes sense that he uses them, right? I think it does. Rep. Waxman’s logical affinity for Brawny paper towels is troubling, because they are manufactured by Georgia Pacific, which is owned by….KOCH INDUSTRIES!!! Possibly, every time Rep. Waxman wipes spilled caviar off his marble countertops, he’s funding the insidious KOCHTOPUS!!! I doubt his far-left base would appreciate this apparent financial link to a company reviled by liberals for supporting conservative causes. Why, it’s as if Rep. Waxman is contributing to the Tea Party!

I know what you are thinking: These are baseless and ridiculous claims. Indeed. Yet they are no more baseless and ridiculous than the stunt Rep. Waxman pulled yesterday at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the Keystone XL Pipeline. I explained in detail the politics of the pipeline in a previous post. Suffice it to say, it would double U.S. imports of Canadian tar sands oil, and it is staunchly opposed by environmentalist special interests. The focus of yesterday’s hearing was a Republican bill that would speed up the pipeline approval process, but Rep. Waxman wanted to take the panel in a different direction. Namely, he wanted to fabricate an association between the Keystone Pipeline and the left’s favorite piñata, Koch Industries, a.k.a, the Kochtopus.

According to a write up in today’s ClimateWire (subscription required),

At yesterday’s hearing, Waxman continued to press for investigation of the Keystone-Koch connection. He said his staff had contacted Koch representatives to learn more about its investments in the oil sands, but that they had not been willing to answer basic questions alongside other oil companies such as ConocoPhillips Co. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. “The representatives would not discuss whether Koch would export oil from Canada through the new pipeline, whether Koch holds tar sands leases, or whether Koch has plans to produce oil from tar sands,” he said.

While I disagree with everything he does, I nonetheless esteem Rep. Waxman as a master tactician. More than once, I’ve wished that the other party had someone as cunning as the Congressman from Beverly Hills. However, in this instance, he sounded foolish. Koch Industries has denied any link to the pipeline, but even if they stood to gain, what does that have to do with expanding and diversifying our energy supply? If the Keystone XL Pipeline is good for America, and it is, then why does it matter if the Koch’s profit?

In any case, Rep. Waxman didn’t have the goods. He wanted to tar the pipeline with an association to the Kochtopus, but he didn’t have any evidence, and he threw it out there, anyway. In fact, it’s as silly and unfounded an association as the Rep. Waxman/Koch connection I describe in the opening paragraph of this post.

Fortunately, Rep. Waxman’s tom-foolery didn’t go without rebuke. Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said he could care less about George Soros’s (the right’s version of the Kochtopus) documented investment in Suncor, a company that is actively involved in Canadian tar sands oil production.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday marked up and passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a 34 to 19 vote.  All 31 Republicans on the committee supported Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill.  They were joined by three Democrats—Representatives John Barrow (D-Ga.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), and Mike Ross (D-Ark.).

The mark-up started on Monday afternoon with opening statements from members of the committee and then lasted most of Tuesday.  A number of amendments offered by Democrats were variations on the theme that the Congress accepts that global warming science is settled and that it’s a crisis.  All these amendments were defeated easily, but, as my CEI colleague Marlo Lewis points out, Republican supporters of the bill for the most part didn’t defend the bill very well against the Democrats’ attacks.

What the proponents should argue, but did not in committee mark-up, is that H. R. 910 is not about the science or what we should do about potential global warming.  The bill simply says that the EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until the Congress authorizes it to do so.  Chairman Upton’s bill is designed to re-assert congressional authority to make laws (which the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to do) and rein in an out-of-control executive branch.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that passing the Upton bill is a priority.  It is now expected that the bill could be debated on the House floor as soon as the week of 27th March.  On 26th June 2009, the House Democratic leadership railroaded the mammoth Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill through the House in a single day of debate with only one Republican amendment allowed to be offered.  The Republican leadership under Boehner is doing things differently, so there will probably be several days of debate with numerous amendments considered.  The bill should pass easily, with almost unanimous Republican and significant Democratic support.

Late in the 111^th Congress, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was building bipartisan support for a Resolution of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Due to a parliamentary quirk, the Resolution needed only a majority to pass (that is, it wouldn’t necessitate 60 votes to beat a filibuster) and it was entitled to a vote, so the Democratic leadership in the Senate could not sweep it under a rug. Moreover, there are 23 Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2012, and the political mood of the country in the summer of 2010 was shifting right. (This was evidenced by the GOP’s success in last November’s elections.) As such, an EPA reform bill was an attractive vote for many Senate Democrats from purple states, where the EPA is held is lower esteem than in, say, California or New York. As a result of these factors, Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution appeared to have good prospects.

Enter Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Just as Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution was gaining steam, Sen. Rockefeller introduced legislation that would delay the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases for two years, rather than repeal its authority outright (as Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution would have done).

By introducing this lesser measure, Sen. Rockefeller provided Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) an opportunity. Sen. Reid had been in a bind. He didn’t want Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution to pass, because it would upset the DNP’s environmentalist base. But he recognized the tough political position of his colleagues.

Sen. Reid’s solution was to promise to hold a vote on the Rockefeller bill, at some unspecified future date. This provided Democratic Senators political cover from having to make a tough decision on the Murkowski Resolution. They could voice their support for Rockefeller’s measure, and thereby prove to their constituents that they want to reign in the EPA, without having to take a controversial vote. As a result of Sen. Reid’s promise, Senator Murkowski’s Resolution failed in the Senate, by a 53-47 vote.

Naturally, the Senate Majority Leader proceeded to break his promise. The 111^th Congress ended without a vote on EPA reform. Reid had used Rockefeller’s legislation for political expediency, and then discarded it.

In the 112^th Congress, it’s déjà vu all over again. This time around, it’s Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) who are building bipartisan support to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. They co-wrote a bill, H.R. 910 (the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011), that would have the same effect as the Murkowski Resolution. Last week, they gained the support of two senior House Democrats (Rep. Colin Peterson (D-MN)and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)), and this week, the legislation passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with strong bipartisan support.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell unexpectedly introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 as an amendment to S. 493, legislation that provides federal funding for research and development programs for small businesses. As was the case in the last Congress, EPA reform has good political prospects in the upper chamber, due to the fact that 23 Senate Democrats are up for re-election in 2012, and also because the paramount concern of voters is the economy.

So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in a bind, again. And again, he turned to Rockefeller. Last night Rockefeller indicated he will offer his legislation to delay EPA climate regulations as an amendment to S. 493. According to an Energy and Environment News report this morning (subscription required), Senate leadership is thinking about offering the Rockefeller amendment “side by side” with the McConnell amendment. That way, some politically vulnerable Senate Democrats could vote for the Rockefeller effort, and some could vote for the McConnell amendment. Neither measure would pass, but all Senate Democrats get to vote for EPA reform, and thereby attain political coverage.

As of noon today, the vote on S. 493 had yet to take place. It is unclear from the latest news reports whether Senate leadership intends to hold a vote today or after next week’s recess. [Update: It is now being reported that the vote will be delayed until after next week's recess]

While I can’t fault Senate Majority Leader Reid for this cynical strategy (it’s his job), I don’t see how West Virginians aren’t appalled by their senior Senator’s actions. Thanks to the Obama administration’s war on coal, the entire West Virginia Congressional delegation supports H.R. 910/McConnell amendment…except for Senator Jay Rockefeller.

Worse still, it’s not as if Rockefeller is sitting out the debate; rather, he’s actively undermining EPA reform—for the second time! His constituents are getting hammered by this Administration’s EPA, more so than any other state in America. Yet he continues to spurn the interests of West Virginians in order to carry Harry Reid’s water.

The House of Representatives took the first step on Thursday toward reclaiming its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The Energy and Power (yes, that really is its name) Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up and passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which is sponsored by Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.).  H. R. 910 would pre-empt EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act unless and until explicitly authorized to do so by Congress.

Actually, there was no marking up.  The Democrats opposed to the bill offered no amendments, and the bill was passed on a voice vote.  The full Committee has scheduled a mark-up of the bill next Monday and Tuesday. That means H. R. 910 could come to the House floor by early April.  There is no doubt that it will pass the House by a wide margin.  The only question is how many Democrats will end up voting for it.  My guess is that quite a few Democrats are worried about getting re-elected and will therefore vote for it.

The subcommittee meeting was one long whine by minority Democrats.  Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), the ranking Democrat on the full committee and chief sponsor of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that failed in the last Congress, said that H. R. 910 would codify science denial.  Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) chimed in that he was worried the Republicans would try to repeal the law of gravity.  Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) instead thought that Republicans were trying to repeal the first law of thermodynamics and cause children all over the world to get asthma.

Preventing asthma is now the principal reason brought forward by the global warming alarmists in Congress to cripple the U. S. economy with energy-rationing regulations.  Here is what I learned from a ninety-second internet search: “The majority of people with asthma notice that cold, dry air causes more symptoms than mild-temperature or hot, humid air.” Of course, some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists have recently found that global warming is causing a lot of cold weather.

Inslee always plays the obnoxious buffoon, but he was outdone at the subcommittee meeting by Rep. Michael Doyle (D-Penna.).  Doyle claimed that EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would not send any jobs overseas because existing manufacturing plants would not have to apply for permits under the rules already proposed.  Only new or expanded plants have to apply for permits.  Thus only new jobs are being destroyed by EPA regulations, and no one in an existing job has anything to worry about.  I know this sounds unbelievably stupid, but this is an accurate summary of the point Doyle was making.  As the committee counsel tried to explain to Doyle, even that point is true only until EPA finishes implementing emissions rules for existing facilities.

Yesterday morning, the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to mark up H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, but the results was a foregone conclusion. As they say in poker, Republicans had the “nuts.” The legislation, which would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, was co-written by Committee Chair Fred Upton (MI), and it enjoyed the support of all the Rs on the panel. Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (KY) didn’t even bother with a roll call, and the Democrats on the panel didn’t object, so the bill passed by a voice vote alone.

Indeed, the only mystery to yesterday’s vote was whether any of the Subcommittee Democrats would side with the majority party. Already, senior House Democrats Colin Peterson (MN) and Nick Rahall (WV) have sponsored H.R. 910. The most likely Democratic defection, heading into yesterday’s markup, was Utah Rep. Tim Matheson, but he stayed in lock step with his party.

The fact that they had no hope of stopping the legislation didn’t stop Subcommittee Democrats from trying to gum up the proceedings. They adopted a neat division of labor.

• Rep. Henry Waxman (Beverly Hills): He argued that H.R. 910 would overturn the White House brokered “deal” with auto companies to raise fuel efficiency standards. This was an effort to frighten Committee Chair Fred Upton, who represents Michigan, and who is therefore very concerned with the auto industry. It was at Upton’s behest that the text of the legislation exempts this “deal.” The Committee General Counsel testified that Waxman’s interpretation is wrong.
• Rep. Gene Green (TX): Although he voiced support for stopping the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Rep. Green claimed that H.R. 910 is bad legislation because it faced a certain veto in the White House.  [N.B. I’m not so sure this is true. Heading into the 2012 elections, the economy likely will be the paramount issue, and it might not make political sense for the President to proceed with expensive energy climate regulations]. He said he is working on a bill that would delay the EPA.
• Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA): Rep. Eshoo cited federalism as a reason to vote against the bill. She said H.R. 910 would strip California of its authority to set fuel efficiency standards. In fact, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 1975 empowers only the Congress to set fuel efficiency standards.
• Rep. John Dingell (MI): Heading into yesterday’s mark up, I was most interested in what Dingell would do. He helped write the Clean Air Act, and he’s warned before that the Obama Administration is inviting a “glorious mess” by regulating greenhouse gases. Rep. Dingell took a facetious tone, and lightly admonished Committee Chair Upton for calling the bill the Energy “Tax” Prevention Act. Quite rightly, he said that the bill did not address a tax, and if it did, a different Committee (Ways and Means) would have had jurisdiction. He pleaded for “a little truth in labeling.”
• Eliot L. Engel (NY): Rep. Engel followed a clever line of reasoning that, quite frankly, I didn’t fully understand. He seemed to have made a very particular legal argument that H.R. 910 would conflict with prior federal efforts to fight climate change.

As for my take on the bill, I’ll quote my colleague Marlo Lewis, because I can’t say it any better:

“The debate on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations boils down to a very simple issue. Who shall determine the content and direction of national policy—elected representatives accountable to the people at the ballot box, or non-elected bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life? The Constitution permits only one answer to that question.”

From what I understand, the full Committee will take up H.R. 910 on Wednesday.

There wasn’t much to report from yesterday’s climate change science hearing before the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Generally speaking, Republican lawmakers used the entirety of their allotted time to question the scientists they had invited, and Democratic lawmakers did likewise. Click here for opening statements, and also for an archived podcast of the hearing.

Truth be told, the hearing’s pedigree is more interesting than the hearing was. Last week, the same subcommittee held a hearing on pending EPA regulations for greenhouse gases, in order to inform the debate on H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, legislation that would check the EPA’s authority to enact climate policy under the Clean Air Act. During these hearings, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), who is a master parliamentarian, leveraged an obscure procedural rule to demand a hearing of the minority party’s choosing. Subcommittee Chair Rep. Ed Whitfield, in an act of Congressional comity, granted the request. Ergo, yesterday’s “dueling science” hearing.

There was one notable element to yesterday’s action: The extent to which the center is moving away from the Democratic leadership on energy and environment policy. Rather feebly, Rep. Waxman concluded by asking that the majority party agree to postpone tomorrow’s scheduled mark up of H.R. 910…until Tuesday. It was a weak negotiating tactic.

Waxman’s weakness harkened to Rep. Gene Green’s reported pitch last week for a 5 year delay on greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. That was significant because, until then, Congressional Democrats had been willing to countenance only a 2 year delay.

Of course, hardliners like Waxman were undercut by the bi-partisan appeal of H.R. 910. As I noted yesterday, opposition to expensive energy policies has been bipartisan in recent Congresses. This is especially true now, as gasoline surges past $3.50 and starts to dominate the politics of energy. Already, the legislation has won the support of senior House Democrats Rep. Colin Peterson and Rep. Nick Rahall.