Obama: Picking mostly losers

Abound Solar to Suspend Operations, Will Seek Bankruptcy

Abound Solar Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that was awarded a $400 million U.S. loan guarantee, will suspend operations and file for bankruptcy because its panels were too expensive to compete.

Abound borrowed about $70 million against the guarantee, the Loveland, Colorado-based company said today in a statement. It plans to file for bankruptcy protection in Wilmington, Delaware, next week.

The failure will follow that of Solyndra LLC, which shut down in August after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee from the same U.S. Energy Department program. Abound stopped production in February to focus on reducing costs after a global oversupply and increasing competition from China drove down the price of solar panels by half last year.

“Aggressive pricing actions from Chinese solar-panel companies have made it very difficult for an early stage startup company like Abound to scale in current market conditions,” the company said in the statement.

U.S. taxpayers may lose $40 million to $60 million on the loan after Abound’s assets are sold and the bankruptcy proceeding closes, Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, said in a statement today.

“When the floor fell out on the price of solar panels, Abound’s product was no longer cost competitive,” LaVera said.

Bankruptcy Warning

Cliff Stearns, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight panel that has held several hearings and collected thousands of administration e-mails relating to Solyndra’s guarantee, said he didn’t think Abound’s closure warranted its own investigation.

“We know why they went bankrupt. We warned them they would go bankrupt,” Stearns, a Florida Republican, told reporters today. “The larger question is why the administration was pursuing a green-energy policy in which companies are going bankrupt and wasting taxpayer money.”

Stearns said his panel would probably hold a hearing on the guarantee program. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, continues to investigate the loan-guarantee program and still hasn’t received some requested documents from the Energy Department, said Jeffrey Solsby, a spokesman for Issa.

Abound was awarded the loan guarantee to build two factories to make thin-film panels using cadmium telluride. It completed one plant, in Longmont, Colorado, and never began construction on the second, which was planned for Tipton, Indiana. The company last received money from the Energy Department in August, before Solyndra’s collapse.

Economic Boost

Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, said he supported Abound because he thought the company would boost his state’s economy.

“We had a terrible economic problem. Plants were closing there in that area,” Burton told reporters in Capitol Hill today. “We thought this would be a great way to create jobs. If I had known that Abound, or Solyndra, had been in the fiscal situation it was in, I certainly would have never supported it.”

“This is not surprising at all,” Anthony Kim, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York, said today in an interview. “They were trying to sell to a competitive, over- supplied market with limited production. That keeps costs high.”

$35 Billion

The Energy Department has provided almost $35 billion in loans, loan guarantees and conditional commitments to renewable- energy companies. About 35 percent of that is for solar- generating projects, which benefit from falling panel prices, compared with less than 4 percent for solar manufacturers, according to LaVera.

Besides Abound and Solyndra, two other solar manufacturers received loan guarantees. 1366 Technologies Inc. won approval to borrow as much as $150 million to produce polysilicon for solar panels and SoloPower Inc. was awarded a $197 million guarantee to make rolls of flexible solar panels using a copper-indium- gallium-selenide composite.

Neither 1366 nor SoloPower have drawn funding under the Energy Department program, LaVera said.

Here's a list posted as a comment:

A brief list of 0bama's failed green energy jobs companies, some of which were run by large campaign donors and bundlers who basically got the loans from your tax money and then went bust.

Solar Trust of America: Fail.
Bright Source: Fail.
Solyndra: Fail.
LSP Energy: Fail.
Abound Solar: Fail.
SunPower: Fail.
Beacon Power: Fail.
Ecotality: Fail.
A123 Solar: Fail.
UniSolar: Fail.
Azure Dynamics: Fail.
Evergreen Solar: Fail.
Ener1: Fail.

Did Abound contribute to Obama?

Killing business

Grape growers flood Ukiah court for frost protection lawsuit

By GLENDA ANDERSON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

UKIAH — Scores of Sonoma and Mendocino county grape growers and other farmers packed a Mendocino County Superior Court room Thursday for a lawsuit challenging state frost protection rules for stretches of the Russian River watershed.

Regulators say the rules are necessary to protect salmon and steelhead, the latter a threatened species. Farmers and their attorneys say the regulations are unneeded, trample farmers' water rights and exceed the state Water Resources Control Board's authority.

Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Ann Moorman took the matter under submission after hearing the attorneys argue their cases. She has 90 days to make a ruling.

At issue is the amount and timing of diversions of water from the river and key tributaries during the springtime for use in spraying to protect vulnerable grapes and other crops from frost damage.

The state regulations require significant data collection. They include requiring farmers to install stream flow guages and to measure and report how much water is diverted for frost protection. A stream monitoring program must be developed in consultation with federal and state fish authorities.

It also requires that farmers assess the liklihood their stream diversions could cause fish to become stranded.

The rules were adopted last year by the state Water Resources Control Board but were suspended in February pending the lawsuit's outcome.

The goal is to prevent sudden drops in water levels that sometimes occur when growers simultaneously suck water from the river to spray crops during frosty nights.

The practice can cause the deaths of young salmon that can become stranded by abrupt water level declines, according to the state and environmentalists.

The lawsuit focuses on two such incidents along the Russian River and its tributaries in 2008 — one in Sonoma County and one in Mendocino County. The link of one of the two incidents to frost protection is questionable, Judge Moorman noted.

Attorneys for the growers said there is sparse evidence to indicate the use of river water for frost protection is a significant problem for fish. Many more die each year when rivers dry up naturally, they said.

The lawsuit contends the science behind the regulations is vague; the state hasn't proved they're necessary; and that the water board overstepped its authority.

“It's really about the limits of government,” Redwood Valley grape grower Rudy Light said outside the hearing. He filed one of two lawsuits that were consolidated into Thursday's hearing. The other was brought by a group of Sonoma County growers, the Russian River Water Users for the Environment.

Farmers say they've addressed the water-use issue by voluntarily coordinating frost protection efforts.

“They (state regulators) still want to cram their regulations down our throats,” said Alexander Valley winegrape grower David Fanucchi, a member of the Russian River Property Owners Association.

State Deputy Attorney General William Jenkins told Judge Moorman there is substantial evidence that the regulations are needed to protect fish and that it was clearly within the rights of the water board to initiate the regulations.

The plaintiffs' two attorneys argued the opposite. They also contended the regulations could create economic hardships for some farmers and force them out of business.

The regulations would affect hundreds of growers along 1,700 miles of streams in the Russian River watershed.

The Mendocino County Farm Bureau had urged farmers to attend Thursday's hearing and many did.

To accommodate the crowd, bailiffs brought in extra chairs and seated people in the jury box, but many still were left standing in the small courtroom.

A lone supporter of the regulations was among the group.

The regulations are “a step in the right direction,” said David Keller, of Friends of the Eel River.

Typical Marxist tactic...will Obama follow

Venezuela court freezes assets of anti-Chavez Globovision

The Supreme Court in Venezuela has frozen $5.7m (£3.6m) in assets belonging to a news channel highly critical of President Hugo Chavez.

Globovision accused the government of trying to intimidate it ahead of the start of campaigning for October's presidential election.

Opposition candidate Henrique Capriles said the government was attempting to silence independent media.

Globovision is the only anti-Chavez channel still on air in Venezuela.

It had been challenging a $2.1m (£1.3m) fine imposed by regulators over the coverage of disturbances at the El Rodeo prison, outside Caracas in June 2011, in which more than 20 people were killed.

Media regulator Conatel said the coverage "promoted hatred and intolerance for political reasons".

Globovision had said it could not afford to pay the original fine.

"This decision doesn't surprise us because we are about to begin an election campaign in which the government tends to take judicial actions to intimidate the independent private media," said channel vice-president Maria Fernanda Flores.

A lawyer for Globovision, Ricardo Antela, said they would now pay the original fine to avoid bigger sanctions which could have led to losing their broadcasting licence.

He said once the fine is paid, the court order freezing Globovision assets should be lifted.

Coup attempt

The election campaign begins on Sunday, with President Hugo Chavez seeking a third term in the 7 October vote.

Mr Chavez has accused Globovision of supporting a 2002 coup attempt, and of plotting to assassinate him.

Venezuela's opposition has frequently accused Mr Chavez's government of trying to gag the media.

Several other private radio and television stations have been forced off air for failing to comply with regulations requiring them to broadcast government information.

The government has frequently accused private media companies of using their power to try to undermine the democratic authorities.

State-owned media has expanded dramatically since Mr Chavez took office in 1999.

Another step towards total central planning of the economy

All Hail the EPA

Tuesday the Washington Court of Appeals gave the EPA a blank check to run roughshod over U.S. industry without Congressional input. This breathtaking affirmation of an agency’s power over the U.S. economy is a timely reminder (in this week of Decision Obamacare) of how a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court ruling can profoundly change America’s economic landscape.

Just five years ago, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, five judges gave the EPA the power to regulate inert, non-toxic, non-particulate carbon dioxide (the gas human beings exhale) as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act — a clear violation of the intent of the Congressional legislation.

The Obama EPA since has jumped at the chance, ignoring Congressional reluctance to pass cap-and-trade legislation and establishing itself as a rogue agency tasked with fighting phantom global warming by dictating industrial CO2 emissions levels.

The EPA’s first victim was the auto industry — which the agency hit with an arbitrary 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standard by 2025 intended to force the industry to adopt electric vehicles (just as similar energy standards were meant to eliminate the common light bulb). This alarming development mobilized a broad national coalition — including states from Virginia to Texas and major industries including chemical, energy, utility, agriculture, and mining companies — to bring suit out of fear that the EPA would strike them next (indeed, utilities and mining are already under the jackboot as EPA has targeted coal for elimination with new power-plant CO2 rules).

A spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers denounced the ruling as “a setback for businesses facing damaging regulations from the EPA.”

A unanimous three-judge-panel of Green religious disciples ignored scientific evidence and economic good sense and ruled in favor of the Obama administration’s global warming crusade. The ruling, thrilled New York Timesreporter Matthew Wald, dealt “a decisive blow to companies and states that had sued to block agency rules.”

Oh, joy. Another decisive blow to a country struggling through a recession already elongated by draconian regulation.

Wald further warned the plaintiffs against an appeal to the Supreme Court “given the emphatic nature of the decision.”

“This is a slam-dunk victory for EPA,” cheered a spokesman for the radical green group, Clean Air Watch.

“This is how science works,” the judges wrote. “The EPA is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” So a scientific theory that has been crippled by the scandal of Climategate — not to mention the collapse of computer model predictions in the last decade — now has the credibility of atomic science according to the judges?

Never mind that the world’s top climatologists say that the EPA’s rules will have no effect on global temperature even if Green Church doctrine were correct. Never mind the plaintiffs’ challenge that EPA timetables make no sense. Never mind that thousands of jobs are at risk.

“The court said it did not have the jurisdiction to block (EPA rules),” reports theTimes. Hail the all-powerful EPA.

How total was the defeat for the forces of science and Constitutional law? Consider that the unanimous verdict included a Reagan appointee joining two Clinton appointees. And who brought the original 2007 suit demanding that the Supremes grant EPA power over carbon dioxide? The administration of then–Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The appeals court, after all, was only bowing to that fateful decision. Notably, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers did not join the suit against the 54.5 mpg rules estimated to cost its industry billions. Automakers have decided resistance against the Green Church is futile — and instead are now pouring millions into Washington lobbying firms to game the system in its favor.

In an America in which the EPA has limitless power, and the courts ignore the law, only corporate money speaks. As usual, the American consumer will pay the bill.

More proof we're living in a fantasy world.

U.S. envoy to Kenya quits over rift with Washington

NAIROBI (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to Kenya has resigned just over a year after taking up the post, citing differences with Washington over priorities and his style of leadership, an embassy statement said on Friday.

Scott Gration's departure came a week after the U.S. embassy warned of a threat of an imminent militant attack in the port city of Mombasa, angering the Kenyan government which said the advisory amounted to "economic sabotage".

"Differences with Washington regarding my leadership style and certain priorities lead me to believe that it's now time to leave," Gration said in his resignation statement.

A senior official in Kenya's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the announcement was a surprise.

Political analyst Mutahi Ngunyi said Gration, who had been with the U.S. State Department for three years, had often been too hasty in "pulling out his guns".

"I think the ambassador had been a little gung-ho in his approach," Ngunyi said, giving the example of the Mombasa warning.

On Sunday, two days after the U.S. warning and a day after a grenade attack in tourism hub Mombasa, Kenya's Secretary to the Cabinet, Francis Kimemia, said the embassy had reneged on an agreement not to issue the alert.

There has been a surge in attacks on Kenyan soil blamed on Somali militants and their sympathizers since Kenya sent troops into Somalia in October last year.

Increasing insecurity has hurt the country's tourism industry and threatens to dampen economic growth this year in the region's biggest economy.

Disgraceful and a totally inappropriate small penalty

United Technologies sent military copter tech to China

By Mark Hosenball and Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - United Technologies Corp on Thursday admitted selling China software that helped Beijing develop its first modern military attack helicopter, one of hundreds of export control violations over nearly two decades.

At a federal court hearing in Bridgeport, Connecticut, United Technologies and its two subsidiaries, Pratt & Whitney Canada and Hamilton Sundstrand Corp, agreed to pay more than $75 million to the U.S. government to settle criminal and administrative charges related to the violations.

As part of the settlement, Pratt & Whitney Canada pleaded guilty to two federal criminal charges - violating a U.S. export control law and making false statements.

Federal prosecutors said the company knew that its export of modified software to China would allow Beijing to test and develop its new military helicopter, called the Z-10, using 10 engines that had been legally exported as commercial items.

They said the company harmed national security while trying to gain access to China's lucrative civilian helicopter market.

"P&WC exported controlled U.S. technology to China, knowing it would be used in the development of a military attack helicopter in violation of the U.S. arms embargo with China," said U.S. Attorney David Fein of Connecticut.

"P&WC took what it described internally as a ‘calculated risk,' because it wanted to become the exclusive supplier for a civil helicopter market in China with projected revenues of up to $2 billion," Fein said.

The case comes amid growing U.S. concerns about China's military expansion and escalating electronic espionage.

Federal authorities have brought five major cases since last February, involving everything from drone technology to radiation-hardened computers used in satellite communications.

SLAP ON THE WRIST?

United Technologies said it accepted full responsibility for the violations and deeply regretted that they had occurred. It said it had spent $30 million and hired more than 1,000 full and part-time employees to beef up its internal export oversight.

"These violations revealed important opportunities to strengthen our export compliance program," United Technologies Chief Executive Louis Chenevert said in a statement, adding that both the Justice and State departments had recognized the company's "significant remedial actions."

Fein said the penalties were substantial, but analysts said they amounted to a slap on the wrist for a major global industrial conglomerate with annual revenues of $58.1 billion.

"The fine is substantial ... but it's fairly modest measured against the company's overall revenues," said Loren Thompson, analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. "It will not have a material impact on the company's financial results."

Hamilton Sundstrand and Pratt & Whitney Canada also admitted that they had failed to make timely disclosures, required by regulations, to the U.S. State Department about the exports.

The government said the $75 million settlement included $20.7 million in criminal fines, forfeitures and other penalties to be paid to the Justice Department, and $55 million in payments to the State Department as part of a consent agreement resolving 576 administrative export control violations.

About $20 million of the State Department fines may be used by the company for improving its export control procedures and hiring an independent monitor, United Technologies said.

The export control violations ranged from problems with classification, inadequate monitoring of existing export agreements, and even controls imposed on foreign visitors.

One case centered on the export to Venezuela of a test stand for an F100 engine used for F-16 fighter planes that was falsely classified as commercial because it used only commercial items. The individual responsible is still being hunted by U.S. law enforcement officials.

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to hold accountable those who compromise U.S. national security for the sake of profits and then lie about it to the government," said Assistant Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

As part of the agreement, the U.S. State Department also will impose curbs on new export licenses for Pratt & Whitney Canada, although the company can request licenses on a case-by-case basis. The debarment does not affect the parent company or Hamilton Sundstrand.

The company's shares closed $1.56 lower on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, a drop of 2.1 percent. It said it had put money in reserve to cover the payments.

A CAPABLE, MODERN HELICOPTER

Western experts said the Z-10, first delivered to China's People's Liberation Army in 2009, is developing into one of the world's most modern and capable combat helicopters.

Full production of the Z-10 would give China's military unprecedented levels of "aerial artillery" to support an amphibious invasion and subsequent operations against Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own, said Richard Fisher, an expert on China's military use of so-called dual-use technologies.

U.S. authorities said China had been trying to develop a specialized modern military attack helicopter since the 1980s.

The U.S. government has prohibited the export to China of U.S. defense equipment and technology since Beijing's 1989 crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, but Washington does allow the export of certain so-called dual-use items that may have a military use but are not weapons in and of themselves.

The U.S. case against United Technologies said P&WC knew as early as 2000 that China's effort to develop a new helicopter would lead off with a military variant, but repeatedly made false statements about its knowledge. It also failed to notify its U.S. parent and the U.S. subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand.

U.S. authorities said that Pratt & Whitney Canada's initial involvement in the program was to deliver 10 engines to China from Canada in 2001 and 2002. The company believed the engines did not constitute defense equipment subject to the U.S. military embargo on China because the engines were identical to those it was supplying China for commercial helicopters.

The problem arose when Connecticut-based Hamilton Sundstrand delivered certain modifications to the engine control software, which allowed China to test and develop the Pratt & Whitney Canada engines as it was developing the new military helicopter.

U.S. authorities say the software modifications were specifically for use on the military program, making them subject to the U.S. military embargo on China.

PRATT CANADA FORESAW PROBLEMS

According to court documents, in one 2001 internal e-mail, a Pratt & Whitney Canada manager said: "We must be very careful that the helicopter programs we are doing with the Chinese are not presented or viewed as military programs ... If the first flight will be a gunship, then we could have problems with the U.S. government."

In the United States, U.S. investigators say, Hamilton Sundstrand believed it was providing its software to Pratt & Whitney Canada for use in a civilian Chinese helicopter, although it learned in 2004 about a possible export law problem and stopped working on the Z-10 program. But authorities say Pratt & Whitney Canada then modified software on its own and continued to export it to China through June 2005.

A law enforcement source said the companies did not even launch an internal inquiry until a non-governmental organization involved in examining "socially responsible" investments in February 2006 asked United Technologies whether Pratt & Whitney Canada's involvement in the Z-10's development might violate U.S. export laws. The group threatened to recommend that investors sell their holdings in UTC.

That investigation led to an initial disclosure, in July 2006, to U.S. authorities about the Z-10 issue, but that filing was based on an incomplete investigation and contained false statements, according to company officials and the filings.

Analysts said the settlement was a setback for United Technologies, which is transforming itself into an aerospace giant. But the penalties are unlikely to affect its sales in China, which accounted for almost $10 billion of its 2011 sales.

"It's certainly a black eye," said analyst Jeff Sprague of Vertical Research Partners.

United Tech expects to close in coming weeks on its $16.5 billion acquisition of aircraft components maker Goodrich Corp. It has put three units up for sale, including the industrial arm of the Hamilton Sundstrand division.

Jay DeFrank, a spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, said the company continued to do business in China, but it had now launched major efforts to educate all 70,000 employees in United Technologies' aerospace units about export controls.

"China is and remains an important market for UTC and we will continue to do business there in full compliance with the law," he said. Company officials said they were being particularly cautious about possible sales of Pratt engines for another Chinese helicopter, the commercial Z-15 aircraft.

The Obama administration has lent high-level backing to United Technologies' work in China.

Then-Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, now the U.S. ambassador to China, visited a Pratt & Whitney joint venture in Shanghai in May 2010, according to the company's website.

(Additional reporting by Jim Wolf in Washington, Edith Honan in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Nick Zieminski in New York; Editing by Warren Strobel, Bill Trott, Dan Grebler and Michael Perry)

New taxes

OBAMACARE: SEVEN NEW TAXES ON CITIZENS EARNING LESS THAN $250,000

While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets. If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households. While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners. Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.

The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices. The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees. The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges. Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option. The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax.

Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100. This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country. This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.

The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households. Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy. In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%. This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.

All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public. The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels!

These are the facts. It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy. Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes. This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.

Victor David Hanson explains it...

Not So Good News . . .

I’ve read all the arguments, some ingenious, for why the Roberts majority opinion is actually “good” in the long run. I don’t buy that at all, and worry that rationalizing defeats is no way to learn from them. From now on, the precedent has been established that U.S. citizens can be forced to buy a product that government deems necessary — period. Who cares what a particular president on occasion deems to call it — tax, mandate, whatever — at any given expedient time, or what a justice does to finesse that definition to protect implementation of the law?

The same is true with the Arizona decision. I don’t see how that decision is such great news either: We now live in a country where a state that tries to follow and enforce federal law is seen as a usurping power, while those government entities, such as the sanctuary cities, which deliberately seek to undermine federal immigration law are, for all practical purposes, exempt. Add that Arizona is now supposedly acting unconstitutionally in trying to close its borders, and the president is apparently acting constitutionally as he sidesteps Congress and implements de facto amnesty by fiat, doing far more damage to the notion of federal law than any conceivable action by Arizona. That is surreal.

As for the culture of the Court, we must accept that when four liberal judges vote in typically liberal fashion they are open-minded, and when conservative judges do the same they are partisan and small-minded, putting enormous pressure, apparently, on the latter to now and then vote in liberal fashion, and none at all on the former to do anything but remain orthodox. There is no conservative majority, but rather a 4/3/2 court, with absolutely predictably liberal justices and those inclined often to join them becoming a reliable majority.

As for the Holder contempt charge, nothing much will come of it. Holder will not release the required documents any time soon; the matter will be manufactured into an illiberal assault on an African-American attorney general who has already shamelessly used the race card in his defense; and there will be, as planned, stalling and stasis until after the election and little knowledge about or justice given to a slain American officer.

Meanwhile, after a “disastrous” May and June, Obama is edging up again in the polls. For all the reports of his fundraising problems or his existential election crises, he seems to have many millions in key swing states to run class-warfare hits against Romney. The serial “Swiss bank accounts” and “shipping jobs overseas” don’t seem to be countered, and so are having some effect. If Obama is where he is after a disastrous 60 days, where will he be after a so-so next two months? Conservatives should not listen to themselves and their ingenious rationalization about how things are “really” swinging their way, and instead accept that the presidency, the courts, and much of Congress are doing all they can, as quickly as they can, with enormous powers at their disposal, to change the fundamental nature of the United States — and so far are mostly winning. All of the above should mobilize conservatives in 2012 as never before and open their eyes to the resources and zealotry pledged against them: November is really a sort of last-ditch effort in a way prior elections were not.

technology

BAE Systems' Navsop navigation system rivals GPS

A new positioning system has been developed to complement or even replace current technologies such as GPS.

Made by UK defence firm BAE Systems, it relies on the same signals used by mobile phones, TVs, radios and wi-fi rather than navigation satellites.

The firm says Navsop could help find victims inside buildings during a fire and locate stolen vehicles hidden in underground car parks.

It could also be used in a war if the sat-nav system was turned off.

For now, the prototype is a big box-like piece of hardware placed in the back of one of BAE's cars, which sports a radio antenna on the roof.

But once out on the market, it will be as tiny as a GPS dongle is today - a bit bigger than a coin - says Ramsey Faragher, principal scientist at the BAE Advanced Technology Centre in Chelmsford, near London.

"Let's be clear - for Navsop to start working, you have to have a GPS signal, to know where you are on the face of the Earth," he says, sitting in the back of the car as it drives along Chelmsford's streets.

"But if the GPS signal disappears, we'll still be able to navigate," he adds, pointing to the computer screen depicting a map with a dotted line showing the vehicle's location.

The device works by picking up all the available signals nearby, heavily relying on medium wave radio frequencies.

This is the same part of the spectrum used by radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi more than a 100 years ago, who opened the world's first telegraph in the same city.

Back-up system

GPS (global positioning system) uses signals coming from satellites spinning around the Earth, some 20,000km (12,427 miles) away.

By the time these signals reach the surface of our planet, they are extremely weak and unable to be picked up by receivers, for instance, inside buildings.

They may also suddenly disappear, says Mr Faragher.

"Our society has now become hugely dependent on GPS," he adds.

"The European Commission determined that 800bn euros [$995bn; £642bn] of the European economy is dependent on either precision navigation or precision timing from GPS - the aviation industry, the shipping industry, agriculture, telecommunications, all need GPS to function.

"And that's why it's important to have back-up systems in case GPS signal is not available."

Complementing GPS

For instance, there have been cases when criminals have stolen cars and used GPS jammers bought over the internet to prevent the vehicles' owners from trying to locate them.

There are also natural space events such as solar flares that result in a release of a very large cloud of charged particles, which, once they hit the Earth's atmosphere, can prevent GPS signals from coming through cleanly.

But mobile phones, radios and TVs use signals that are a lot more powerful than those from navigation satellites, as they are broadcast from only a few kilometres away, and cannot be jammed.

So Navsop uses them instead.

"We are not saying that our technology should necessarily replace GPS, but rather complement it," says Mr Faragher.

"If the GPS signal is there, by all means, use it. If not, we say that with Navsop, you can determine your position anyway."

And this could be useful in a variety of scenarios - from precisely determining the position of trains in tunnels to locating victims trapped in buildings after explosions or earthquakes.

It would also be useful to the military in case one side deliberately switches off GPS to prevent its adversary from locating its units.

BAE Systems says that for now, it is not clear when the technology will be put on the market, but in principle it could be used by countries developing other sat-nav technologies.

Currently, Russia has Glonass, and China is building Beidou, also known as Compass.

The European Union and European Space Agency are developing Galileo, a separate 20bn euro project.

I'm sure Tom Friedman approves

China starts "combat ready" patrols in disputed seas

China has begun combat-ready patrols in the waters around a disputed group of islands in the South China Sea, the Defence Ministry said on Thursday, the latest escalation in tensions over the potentially resource-rich area.

Asked about what China would do in response to Vietnamese air patrols over the Spratly Islands, the ministry's spokesman Geng Yansheng said Beijing would "resolutely oppose any militarily provocative behavior".

"In order to protect national sovereignty and our security and development interests, the Chinese military has already set up a normal, combat-ready patrol system in seas under our control," he said.

"The Chinese military's resolve and will to defend territorial sovereignty and protect our maritime rights and interests is firm and unshakeable," Geng added, according to a transcript posted on the ministry's website (www.mod.gov.cn).

He did not elaborate. The ministry forbids foreign reporters to attend its monthly briefings.

China is involved in a long-running dispute with Vietnam and the Philippines about ownership of the South China Sea and its myriad, mostly uninhabited, islands and atolls. Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei also have claims.

Last week China said it "vehemently opposed" a Vietnamese law asserting sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, which straddle key shipping lanes thought to contain rich energy reserves.

That row came days after an easing in a months-long stand-off between China and the Philippines, but shows the persistent cycle of territorial frictions triggered by what some see as Beijing's growing assertiveness in the area.

The South China Sea is potentially the biggest flashpoint for confrontation in Asia, and tensions have risen since the United States adopted a policy last year to reinforce its influence in the region.