CALIFORNIA YANKEE

McAuliffe's stalled electric car company salary raises funding scheme questions

At this point the failures and false promises of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s electric car company, GreenTech, have been well documented.

For those who need a refresher, Clinton fundraiser and party insider McAuliffe re-christened himself a 'Virginia businessman' in his second quest for the Old Dominion governorship and touted several supposed job-creating ventures on the campaign trail, one being a wood pellet firm that has yet to become operational, and another was GreenTech Automotive, which he pledged would create thousands of jobs. 

First, it was revealed that those promised jobs were to be created in Mississippi, not Virginia. Then, McAuliffe was caught fibbing about why the company chose to locate outside the state, claiming Virginia authorities had rejected their application before it was made clear that GreenTech had never completed its application materials. Then the revelation that Virginia officials were concerned that the company was "a visa-for-sale scheme" given its lack of a credible business plan and utilization of the EB-5 funding mechanism, which hands out U.S. visas to foreign investors (more on this later). 

Eventually, it came out that McAuliffe had resigned from GreenTech in December 2012 despite continuing to use his role with the company as a key talking point as he campaigned around Virginia.

It is GreenTech’s participation in the EB-5 program that raises questions about why McAuliffe broke precedent and took a salary from the fledgling company. 

The Statement of Economic Interests  released by McAuliffe in March, shows that he received at least $10,000 in salary and wages from GreenTech in 2012. On its face, this may not seem odd given that McAuliffe was the Chairman of the company during that period. However, when one considers that GreenTech was the only company McAuliffe took a salary from between 2008 and 2012, McAuliffe has a history of declining salary from organizations he’s been involved with (he did not take a salary as DNC Chairman from 2001-2005 and vowed to donate his salary during his 2009 run for governor), and $10,000 is chump change to multi-millionaire McAuliffe, it makes less sense.

The requirements for businesses looking to utilize the EB-5 visa program – which grants foreign investors in U.S. companies green cards in exchange for investing $500,000 or more – include creating a minimum of "10 full-time jobs" within two years. Considering GreenTech’s failure to create jobs in any significant numbers, it begs the question: Was McAuliffe accepting a salary to enable GreenTech to be eligible for EB-5 funding?  And if so, doesn’t that bear out concerns from Virginia Economic Development Partnership officials about GreenTech’s "(lack of) management expertise, (lack of) market preparation" and the potential that the company was "a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications?"

The only person who can answer these questions is Terry McAuliffe and to date he’s kept mum on any details concerning GreenTech’s job creation, production, and why the company has fallen so short of the projections he gleefully cited in past months. So it's unlikely he will open up about his role in enabling his company to become "the largest project to ever depend upon the EB-5 program for at least a part of its funding," according to a Mississippi Business Journal report. 

Multiple reports from the Washington Post and others have exposed flaws and potential abuse within the EB-5 program, which has come under fire for national security implications, "fuzzy" job-creation estimates, and the charges that an inordinate number of jobs have gone to "consultants, brokers and other fee-seeking middlemen."

It would seem that raising investment funds via EB-5 is just about all that GreenTech has to show for itself. A recent report by a Virginia NBC affiliate found no evidence of any significant infrastructure or production at the company’s Mississippi site. With a number of recent incidents of fraudulent and/or failed businesses taking advantage of EB-5 to the point that investors are getting cold feet, McAuliffe needs to answer questions about his role in developing and implementing GreenTech’s funding mechanism.

Perhaps McAuliffe has perfectly reasonable explanations on all of these points. But it seems unlikely given his reticence and changing stories on the issue. Until McAuliffe comes clean, Virginia voters (and reporters) should be asking him questions like: How much did you earn from GreenTech? Did you take that salary so the company would qualify for the EB-5 visa program? And all of your activities with regard to GreenTech were above board, why won’t you release your tax returns to prove it?

Or does Terry McAuliffe not think that Virginians deserve a governor with a commitment to honesty and transparency? The answer thus far is a resounding "no."

Follow @cayankee

Michele Bachmann won't seek reelection in 2014

Minnesota Republican Representative Michele Bachmann announced Wednesday that she would not seek a fifth term in Congress next year:

My good friends: After a great deal of thought and deliberation, I have decided next year I will not seek a fifth congressional term to represent the wonderful people of the Sixth District of Minnesota. After serious consideration, I am confident that this is the right decision.

Bachmann's announcement was made in an eight-and-a-half-minute video during which she emphatically stated her decision was "not impacted in any way by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign or my former presidential staff." The Federal Election Commission and the Office of Congressional Ethics are investigating allegations that her presidential campaign may have improperly used money raised by one of her House-affiliated political action committees to help her presidential bid in the run up to the Iowa presidential caucuses in January 2012.

She also said her decision was "not in any way influenced by any concerns about my being reelected to Congress." Bachmann was being challenged again by Democrat Jim Graves, whom she defeated by fewer than 5,000 votes, or 1.2 percent last November.

Bachmann left the door open to future political campaigns:

"There is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political area or otherwise, that I won’t be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation for future generations."

You can watch Bachmann's video announcement below:

Bachmann has served in the House since 2007,  is the first Republican woman to represent of Minnesota in Congress, and is the founder of the TEA Party Caucus.

Congress should rein in the Export-Import Bank

Another sign of the blatant cronyism involving the Export-Import Bank emerged this week.

 

First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer, is by most standards a failing company. It suffered a net loss of $39 million in 2011, and an even greater loss of nearly $100 million in 2012. The company threw away $215 million at one point on solar panels that ended up failing at high temperatures. (A solar panel that can't withstand heat?)

 

But First Solar has political connections within the Obama Administration. And it also has a trump card: First Solar is a member of the "Business Alliance," a secret clique of corporate donors to the Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP, in turn, lobbied Capitol Hill for First Solar, without disclosing the financial support it receives from the flailing solar energy company:

 

"Though the think tank didn't disclose it, First Solar belonged to CAP’s Business Alliance, a secret group of corporate donors, according to internal lists obtained by The Nation. Meanwhile, José Villarreal — a consultant at the power-house law and lobbying firm Akin Gump, who 'provides strategic counseling on a range of legal and policy issues' for corporations — was on First Solar's board until April 2012 while also sitting on the board of CAP, where he remains a member, according to the group's latest tax filing."

Just so we've got this straight: the Export-Import Bank secures funding for First Solar in the form of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. First Solar uses some of that money to fund CAP, which in turn lobbies Washington to funnel more taxpayer money to First Solar.

One of the government-supported projects CAP's representatives touted before Congress was Antelope Valley, a solar farm backed by — you guessed it, First Solar. It's a  vicious circle of cronyism.

 

Another beneficiary of the Ex-Im Bank’s largess, actually its biggest beneficiary, is Boeing. Boeing receives 82% of all the Bank’s loan guarantees. So it is with great surprise that we learn that Boeing is actually leading the recent stock market rally, up about 20% on the Dow. Yet Boeing receives more funding in the form of taxpayer-backed export loan guarantees than any other company. This doesn’t make sense.

 

Neither does it make sense that the Bank helps finance helicopters for off-shore drilling in Mexico. Would it not make more sense for the U.S. economy for the Obama administration to permit more off-shore drilling here in the United States? Mexico’s oil industry is run by a state-run monopoly, Pemex, an entity labeled "the most corrupt entity" in the federal government.

 

The Export-Import Bank appears to be out of control. As Congress considers the re-nomination of Bank chief Fred Hochberg this year and the reauthorization for the Bank itself next year, it should demand significant reforms.

Obama co-opts Mother's Day in yet another campaign to sell ObamaCare

In the face of criticism from Democrats about his incompetent implementation of ObamaCare, President Obama co-opted Mother's Day in his latest campaign to sell ObamaCare.

Obama used a Mother’s Day-themed event to kick off another campaign-style effort to get people to sign up for the so-called Affordable Care Act. In a statement dripping with condescension Obama tried to blame misinformation for his health care troubles:

So precisely because there’re been so much misinformation, sometimes people may not have a sense of what the law actually does.  And that misinformation will continue -– at least through the next Election Day. 

[. . .]

And we’re going to need everybody out there to make sure --get the right information.  Don’t just read a blog -- (laughter) -- or some commentary from some pundit that has a political agenda.  Make sure you know what the actual facts are . . . .  Don’t let people confuse you.  Don’t let them run the okiedoke on you.  (Laughter.)  Don’t be bamboozled.  (Laughter.)

Obama seems to have forgotten that a lot of misinformation about ObamaCare results from his statements. For example, it was Obama who repeatedly assured Americans they would be able to keep their health insurance plan:

1. Obama promised, "If you like your doctor, you're going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan."
2. Obama said, "Second, Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have…"
3. Obama wrote, "The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, …"
4. Obama said, "There's no doubt that we have to preserve what's best in the health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctor and like their health care plan to keep their plan. And that's going to be a priority for us."
5. Obama said, "I know a lot of Americans who are satisfied with their health care right now are wondering what reform would mean for them, so let me be clear: If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too."
6. Obama said, "Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan, you won't get to choose your doctor, that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That's also not true. Michelle and I don't want anyone telling us who our family's doctor should be, and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period. End of story."
7. Obama said, "If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it.”

Less than a year after the ever unpopular ObamaCare became law, there was warning after warning that Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster admitted to the House Budget Committee that it was not true that under the ObamaCare law, it was "not true in all cases" that people would get to keep their coverage if they liked it.

Shortly after Foster's admission, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned a House subcommittee that about a million fewer people would not obtain health coverage through their employer during the period 2019 through 2021 than would have been the case if ObamaCare was not enacted.

In June 2011, Grace Marie-Turner warned a McKinsey study suggested that as many as 78 million Americans could lose their health coverage due to a dramatic decline of employer-provided health insurance under ObamaCare.

In October 2011, the nation's largest private employer, Wal-Mart, announced that new part-time employees who work less than an average of 24 hours a week would no longer get health insurance from the company.

In November 2011, Gallup reported that governments and businesses have and will continue to cut back and/or reform their health coverage offerings due in part to the requirements ObamaCare:

"Employer-based health insurance has declined since 2008, falling from 49.8% in the first quarter of that year to 44.5% in the third quarter of 2011. If Wal-Mart's decision is a precursor of how employers intend to manage their healthcare costs, the downward trend in employer-based healthcare will likely continue.

At the same time, the percentage of Americans who are uninsured is on the rise again after remaining fairly steady throughout 2010."

Last year the nonpartisan CBO, found that ObamaCare could cause as many as 20 million Americans to lose their employer-provided healthcare.

As noted by the Associated Press article, the administration's hope that the Mother's Day co-option event would draw widespread attention was crushed by the double-barreled revelations about the Benghazi cover up and the political abuse of the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of Conservative groups. This all but garauntee that the upcoming midterm elections will be as passionate as the 2010 elections.

 

Red state Dems’ deafening ObamaCare silence

Leading Democrats have criticized the president's implementation of ObamaCare:

• The Democrats' majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, said last week that he agreed with Democrat Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat architect of the law, who said about the ObamaCare implementation, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."
• Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden expressed concern about what's going to happen with young people if their insurance premiums shoot up.
• Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin told White House officials that he was concerned about big rate increases being sought by the largest health insurer in his state.
• New Hampshire Sen Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire complained, "We are hearing from a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with the law."

The criticism must have hit home because President Obama felt compelled to respond. In his most recent press conference he dismissed the criticism implying the Democrats' are complaining about nothing more than "glitches and bumps."

As Obama co-opted Mother's Day in his latest campaign to sell ObamaCare, CBS political correspondent John Dickerson reported it will be a tough sell. Dickerson described ObamaCare as “particularly ugly," "complicated," and "bumpy" in its implementation:

NORAH O’DONNELL: Why does the administration feel they need to do this?

JOHN DICKERSON: This is the President’s signature achievement of his presidency regardless of what happens to come. Unlike what we normally see which is the President campaigning for a law to get it passed, now it’s passed and he has to go out there and sell it for both policy and political reasons. On the policy front, he needs more people to sign up because that will keep costs lower, particularly younger Americans. If those younger Americans don’t join these new exchanges, the premiums will go up because the people who do join the exchanges will be the chronically ill. So he’s got to sell it to make it work better, so that’s the policy piece, and politically Republicans are gunning for this for the 2014 elections. They’re hoping the run against all democrats on this, so the President has to go out there and provide cover, explain why there are good parts of it and get out there and sort of rebut these attacks as best he can.

O’DONNELL: But, John, it sounds like the White House says this is going to sound like a pre-mother’s day speech. The President is ging to be speaking to mothers. We know the preventative services provided by Obamacare are some of the most popular parts of the plan but what about the story tlike Jan Crawford reported on earlier this week that small businesses still don’t know how they’re going to make this work.

DICKERSON: Well they don’t know how they’re going to make it work so the President has to explain it. He has get out there and talk about the way it will work, but this is not a pretty piece of legislation. Remember how it was put together. This is not a sleek operation with Swiss watch timing, and so it’s going to be bumpy and it’s going to be ugly as it gets implemented. The best thing the President can do is to try and accentuate the best parts and also educate people because there’s no better voice for educating it than the President.

CHARLIE ROSE: You anticipated my question, John. Is this simply badly constructed legislation?

DICKERSON: Well, all legislation is pretty ugly and this was particularly ugly because of the way it was put together and it had to be jammed through at the end. So this is — and it’s complicated. It’s dealing with bringing millions of new people into this insurance system. It’s forcing people to change the way they do things, and so it’s got lots and lots of different moving parts, and also, by the way, when Democrats talk about train wreck here, what they’re saying, some of them, is Republicans have not funded this as much as we, the Democrats would like, and also Republicans governors are dragging their feet so there’s opposition that’s constant here. [Transcript via Washington Free Beacon].

Which brings us to the silence of other Democrats like Mark Begich, Bruce Braley, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Gary Peters and Mark Pryor.

Leading Democrats now admit what many of us always knew -- ObamaCare is a train wreck. The ever unpopular ObamaCare remains so as people start to finally see what was actually in the bill, how incompetently it was drafted and implemented, and how expensive it is even with all the smoke and mirrors the Democrats to make it seem "affordable."

More and more Americans now unfortunately know all too well that Obama did not keep his oft-repeated promise that those that like their doctor and like their health care plan will be able to keep their doctor and health plan. Last year the nonpartisan CBO, found that ObamaCare could cause as many as 20 million Americans to lose their employer-provided healthcare.

So why do Democrats like Begich, Braley, Hagan, Landrieu, Peters and Pryor remain silent about The ObamaCare train wreck? Perhaps those Democrats in red states that voted for ObamaCare are silent because they fear ObamaCare will cost them the 2014 midterms as it did the 2010 midterms.

Gomez responds to Markey's despicable negative attack ad

Yesterday we took the very Liberal Democrat Congressman Ed "Mudslinging" Markey to task for his despicable ad that features Republican Gabriel Gomez's face directly next to Osama Bin Laden's.

Republican Gabriel Gomez, a former Naval Aviator and Navy SEAL, responded directly to Markey's negative attack ad this morning on Fox and Friends. Gomez called Markey's use of Osama Bin Laden a disgrace, not only to his service, but also to his former teammates and the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Meanwhile, one of the things that he's done in the campaign is to have a negative ad about you in which you are, I believe, pictured along side Osama bin Laden. Do you have any response to that?

GABRIEL GOMEZ: Yeah. I mean, a career politician like Ed Markey comes swinging out of the gate with his first ad, it's a negative, despicable ad which puts me next to Osama bin Laden which is an absolute disgrace, not only to my service but also to my former teammates and more importantly to the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters. I think people are tired of these despicable, untruthful ads, and I can't think of anything more dishonorable than what he just did.

TUCKER CARLSON: Now you were at, as we said a minute ago in your intro, at the Boston Marathon shortly before those explosives devices went off. Did you hear it? Did you know what it was when you heard it? What was your initial reaction to it?

GOMEZ: I did. I was about a block and a half away. I'd just seen my wife and four young kids before I crossed the finish line. Shortly thereafter, I heard the first explosion and I saw the smoke coming up. I knew right away what happened, just with some experience before in the service. Obviously my first reaction was trying to figure out where my kids and wife were. It took about 25 minutes because of the cell coverage. But I knew right away, and I saw the first responders responding right away, I saw the police officers getting on the horn, getting the emergency vehicles there. I mean, from going from the worst in Boston, I literally saw the best in Boston immediately right after.

You can watch the video of Gomez's response here.

We are not the only ones objecting to Markey' mudslinging. Medal of Honor recipient Thomas Hudner calls Congressman Ed Markey’s Osama Bin Laden ad "dishonorable," and said it should be taken down "immediately":

"I was shocked to see that the first advertisement from Congressman Ed Markey’s campaign is a negative attack on Gabriel Gomez that places a picture of him next to the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.” said Hudner. “This dishonorable political attack is beneath the dignity of the office for which Congressman Ed Markey is running for and he should immediately take down this outrageous ad.

Gabriel Gomez is a former Navy Pilot and Navy SEAL and fought like so many other brave men and women to defend this country against threats from abroad. As a Veteran, he deserves better than to be juxtaposed with a terrorist for Congressman Markey’s political gain."

Markey's Osama Bin Laden attack ad, entitled 'Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican," can be seen here.

Like we said yesterday, there is no other reason why the Markey campaign would take such a negative tone right out the box unless they were fearful of losing.

Markey so fearful of Gomez he goes negative right out of the box

Democrat U.S. Senate hopeful, the very Liberal Congressman Edward Markey,  launches a negative ad just two days after winning the Democrat primary in the campaign to fill the now vacant Senate seat formerly held by John Kerry.

The despicable Markey ad, features Gomez's face directly next to Osama Bin Laden's. It's hard to imagine how worried and desperate Markey must be to do that to a former naval aviator and Navy SEAL. Markey's ad is pure swift boating -- a tactic the left relentlessly rails against. The Markey ad brings back memories of the controversial Max Cleland ad that became a Liberal/Progressive cause célèbre during the 2008 campaign, but even that ad didn't do what Markey campaign has done.

So why does Markey feel he has to resort to such gutter tactics at the start of his campaign against Republican nominee Gabriel Gomez? Perhaps it is the newest polling on the Gomez/Markey race. According to a new Emerson College poll released Thursday, Gomez trails Markey by just six points -- 36 percent to 42 percent. The new poll is in line with Public Policy Polling revelation that its first general election Massachusetts Senate poll results look like a single digit race.

A single digit race is remarkable considering the two-to-one registration advantage Democrats enjoy over Republicans in Massachusetts.

The Emerson College poll also  suggests that Independents are breaking for Gomez at a nearly two to one rate -- 46% to 25%.

In addition to the polling, perhaps Markey is trying to change the subject from his failure to take Gomez up on his challenge to Markey to accept three debates. As Gomez puts it:

"Ed Markey launched his mudslinging campaign with negative political attacks.  He will do and say anything to avoid talking about what matters most – out of control spending in Washington and putting people back to work.

As a professional debater, Congressman Markey has debated every day for almost 40 years, why stop now?  Why is Congressman Markey afraid to stand before the people of Massachusetts and deliver his negative attacks in person?"

There is no other reason why the Markey campaign would take such a negative tone right out the box unless they were fearful of losing. That's because Markey is a relic of the past, a 36-year Congressman that first went to Washington when Gomez was playing Little League baseball, and never left.

Massachusetts voters are overwhelmingly Democrat but they still echo the rest of the American public that is fed up with the way Washington works. Ed Markey is the epitome of Washington and that's why he is on the verge of losing this race.