We continue our look at governors’ states of the state addresses for their references to “manufacturing” or “manufacturers.” Earlier posts on New York Gov. David Paterson, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and Kansas Gov. Mark Patterson are below.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered his final State of the State address on Thursday, Jan. 7, in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, was first elected with the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and then re-elected in 2006.

His specific reference to manufacturing (text of speech):

And fourth, since we want California to be the dynamo of green technology, I ask you to pass our proposal exempting the purchase of green-tech manufacturing equipment from the sales tax. That too means jobs. (Applause) Those are jobs for the new economy.

No references to “industry” or its variants.

Again, the exercise is to just search for those terms. All these states of state addresses deal with economic policy; we’re just interested to see if “manufacturing” rises to the level of specific mentions.

Fresh from his Senate confirmation, David Michaels, the new Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, made his maiden speech as OSHA Administrator Wednesday. He spoke at a conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health, an address entitled, “Making Green Jobs Safe: Integrating Occupational Safety & Health into Green and Sustainability.” Excerpt:

I think it’s very fitting and proper that my first speech as Assistant Secretary should address the issue of green jobs - what green jobs mean for the earth, for our economy and for American workers.

We’re all aware of the job opportunities that green jobs offer, and in the present economy, new technologies with the potential of new jobs are especially welcome.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis recently announced nearly $55 million in green job grants, authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. These grants will support job training and labor market information programs to help workers, many in underserved communities, find jobs in expanding green industries and related occupations.

Is it fitting, really, that the first comments by a powerful federal regulator single out one segment of the economy for implicitly favored treatment? No one really knows what “green jobs” or “green industries” are; subjective definitions and standards are enemies of consistent regulation — and the rule of law, for that matter.

To be fair, the occasion was a forum dedicated to greenness, so comments to the topic were to be expected. But when speaking about the broader economy, Michaels offers even more of this subjectivity and invidiousness. This is a striking statement, coming as it does from a powerful regulatory and enforcement official who should embrace fairness and objectivity.

Where, and when possible, OSHA must move ahead on rulemaking for urgently needed standards - and to create good standards, we’ll need the input of scientists and engineers, academics, students and workers. We’ll also need allies in the progressive business community who will say “yes” to sensible changes and participate in the rulemaking process with constructive comments and insight.

Those comments divide employers into good business and bad business, progressives and reactionaries, those to be rewarded, those to be punished. In other words, “If you go along with us, support our proposals with our ’sensible changes’ you’re progressive and good, and we’ll get along just fine. If you disagree with our proposals, object to our ’sensible changes,” well, then, we won’t pay any attention to you. If you’re lucky. If you’re not, we might pay a lot of attention to you, and you won’t like it a bit.”

We would have expected a top official in the jobs-minded Obama Administration and Department of Labor to begin his tenure with speech that says, “We are going to work with everyone to create good jobs in a safe and healthy workplace.” Instead, we get a speech that told employers to fall in line with whatever OSHA says or pay the consequences.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis appeared Thursday on the public radio program, the Diane Rehm Show, interviewed by guest host Frank Sesno. The day’s economic news, a rise in the 3rd Quarter GDP, and unemployment were big topics.

The odd thing about the discussion was Secretary Solis’ overreliance on talking points about “green jobs,” hybrid vehicles and renewable energy. It sounded as if the Obama Administration thinks U.S. manufacturing should reorient itself to federally subsidized green jobs and nothing but.

There’s more to manufacturing!

Solis: [I] think there are going to be new opportunities too. For example, yesterday a visit I had in Las Vegas with Nevada Energy, through the smart grid we’re making moneys available, $138 million, to help jump start a new infrastructure there that will allow consumers in that state to be able to monitor and meter their use of energy, electricity, which means a great deal for Nevada because, you know, the extreme hot weather there during the summer and also right now as we get into winter, obviously cooling trends. But if people can have information to be available to know how they’re using, consuming energy and how they work to reduce those high costs themselves, that’s a big incentive for all of us.

Sesno: I want to talk more about the whole smart grid and green energy and all of that in a moment, but you mentioned Nevada. Nevada has been slammed, of course, because the property values there have just fallen through the floor, home sales have been stifled, and the tourism industry has taken a big hit because of the rest of the economy as well. So with that particular example, that money you were talking about, does that create in the short term more jobs for Nevada?

Solis: Well, it will, because there will be at least 200 jobs that will be created for individuals who’ll need to be trained in the reading of these new meters that are going to be ….

Sesno…That’s a start…

Solis …situated

Sesno: But that’s still a drop in the bucket

Solis: No. Well, it’s a start, but what happens is there’s additional retail activity that has to happen, or will happen, because people will be purchasing different pieces of equipment that you can attach to your refrigerator that will serve as a thermostat, and that will happen. There will be accountants that have to be hired. There will business managers, there will have to be warehouse people hired, people in trucking industry, they’ll have to help us transport.

We’ve transcribed more from the interview here.

Green jobs? Good. We like them. But they’re not a panacea, and judging from the examples Secretary Solis cited in the interview, the Administration seems to favor the green jobs that require heavy federal subsidies.

(Edited Saturday for grammar.)

The Economist’s U.S. correspondent, who writes under the nom de plume of “Lexington,” is exasperated about the lack of straight talk from Congressional advocates for government limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Lexington believes in taking action, with the most straightforward way being a carbon tax. But, since the public regards taxes as bad, politicians “waffle and obfuscate” on energy policy.

From “The myth of green jobs“:

John Kerry, who is neither stupid nor ignorant, claims not to know what “cap and trade” means. 

And Barbara Boxer, asked what the government should do to create jobs, said we should pass an energy bill, ie, the cap and trade bill that dare not speak its name. This, she said, would “allow this economy to take off“.

For heaven’s sake. The point of putting a cap or a tax on carbon emissions is to curb carbon emissions, thereby saving the planet from cooking. It is not about creating jobs. It will certainly create some, but it will destroy plenty, too.

Both presidential candidates last year vigorously promoted the notion that halting climate change will not merely be painless but will actually provide a huge boost to the economy. Kevin Hassett explains why this is nonsense. 

If politicians insist on pretending that everything is a free lunch, they should not be surprised if a) many voters don’t believe them and b) the rest get angry when the bill arrives. 

The Senate bill sets a target of reducing C02 emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The House bill set a target of a 17. The NAM and the American Council for Capital Formation analyzed the House bill, Waxman-Markey, and found the legislation would result in up to 2.4 million lost jobs, higher energy prices for businesses and consumers, and cumulative GDP losses of up to 3.1 trillion dollars over an 18-year period.

Yeah, for heaven’s sake.

Today the National Association of Manufacturers heard from its first member of the Obama Cabinet as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis addressed the morning session of the NAM Manufacturing Summit. The Administration has been quite good on keeping lines of communication open with the NAM, and certainly our members — some 200+ manufacturers in the room — appreciated her speaking.

Secretary Solis thanked the NAM for its support for the President’s stimulus bill, quickly highlighted the serious state of the economy, and endorsed programs to help train and retrain workers, especially in the area of green jobs and health care.

A few quotes, first on the recession…

I know we all carry this along us, because this is a crisis that affects everybody. But we can get out of it. I am assured that this is just one down payment, the stimulus, it won’t last long. But we have to produce something, and I know that many of us who are working in the Administration are going to want to see that there is some output, there’s some good results, there’s accountability, transparency, and that we partner with different parts of the country, so we really spread the resources around regionally.

We interpreted her comment as a general “there’s a lot of work to do,” not the foreshadowing of a second stimulus bill.

And looking forward…

In spite of all the bad news, I really believe the American public knows, as you know, there is going to be change in the next few months. It may not be where we’re going to see the unemployment rate drop dramatically, but you will see new start-up businesses, you will see people getting into back into new homes, and you will see the enthusiasm of the young people…who are looking for the next place to go — that education, that certificate, or that new job.

Secretary Solis did not comment on any issue where the NAM has sharp disagreements with the Administration or that might invite controversy, e.g., the Employee Free Choice Act. She did not take questions.

Sound files…
Part 1
Part 2

From Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, “Obama’s Economic Mirage“:

Together, health care and energy constitute about a quarter of the U.S. economy. If their costs increase, they will crowd out other spending. The president’s policies might, as he says, create high-paying “green” or medical jobs. But if so, they will destroy old jobs elsewhere. Think about it. If you spend more for gasoline or electricity — or for health insurance premiums — then you spend less on other things, from meals out to home repair. Jobs in those sectors suffer.

The prospect is that energy and health costs may rise without creating much gain in material benefits. That’s not economic “progress.” Rebating households’ higher energy costs (as some suggest) with tax cuts does not solve the problem of squeezed incomes. Given today’s huge and unsustainable budget deficits, some other tax would have to be raised or some other program cut.

Read the whole thing. But then, with a Samuelson column, that’s always good advice.

On the eve of destruction.

From Bloomberg, “Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study“:

March 27 (Bloomberg) — Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

Bloomberg adds that Acerinox SA, the steel company, decided against expanding in Spain because of energy costs, choosing the United States and South Africa instead.

South Africa, the land of rolling blackouts? Spain must be really bad to make more South Africa attractive to heavy electricity consumers like a steel mill.

(Hat tip: Chris Horner.)

On Thursday, the White House blog previewed the Philadelphia meeting of the Adminstration’s Middle-Class Task Force with this post, “Green job spotlight: Energy auditor“:

Green jobs are going to be one of the primary ways the middle class benefits from the economic recovery. That’s why they’re the focus of the Middle Class Task Force’s first meeting tomorrow, in Philadelphia.

But even though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was just signed, there are previews of the impact all over the country.

The Philadelphia Inquirer today profiles Suechada Poynter, a 39-year-old woman who is a home energy auditor — she checks for air leaks and improperly functioning furnaces to make buildings more energy efficient — exactly the kind of job the ARRA will create:

“Green jobs have opened a lot of doors for a lot of lower-class people to get into this field,” said Poynter, a Thai immigrant and mother of seven who lives in Philadelphia’s Logan section and earns $11 an hour for her work.

“”I’d tell him to open more doors to get more people into this field,” she said. Passionate about the environment, she is studying architecture in college. “This is just the beginning of a bigger door,” she said.

Thing is, Ms. Poynter works for the Energy Coordinating Agency, a non-profit corporation. Worthy, socially useful work, but…

Are jobs with non-profits really the model on which to build a strong, resilient economy? How much stimulus does one get if “home energy auditor” is “exactly the kind of job the ARRA will create?”

David Leonhardt of the New York Times was on NPR this morning, discussing his Sunday NYT Magazine piece, “The Big Fix,” a rumination on the economy, industry and infrastructure.

“Green jobs” are no panacea, Leonhardt said this morning:

“They’ve oversold green jobs a little bit.”

He notes that the president has talked about green jobs “almost like they’re a free lunch — that they will bring a huge economic boom, and they’ll bring these environmental and political booms.”

Obama’s energy policy, according to Leonhardt, is actually aimed at making “dirty energy” more expensive to encourage the use of cleaner energy technology. “And raising the cost of dirty energy isn’t a great force for an economic boom,” he said.

The he turned to a discussion of the institutional and political forces that discourage economic growth a transformation, citing the work of Mancur Olson.

We’ve always appreciated Mancur Olson because he was a North Dakota farm kid who made it big in the field of economics. (New York Times obit.) In his Sunday Magazine piece, Leonhardt finds continued relevance in his works:

Olson, a University of Maryland professor who died in 1998, is one of those academics little known to the public but famous among his peers. His seminal work, “The Rise and Decline of Nations,” published in 1982, helped explain how stable, affluent societies tend to get in trouble. The book turns out to be a surprisingly useful guide to the current crisis.

In Olson’s telling, successful countries give rise to interest groups that accumulate more and more influence over time. Eventually, the groups become powerful enough to win government favors, in the form of new laws or friendly regulators. These favors allow the groups to benefit at the expense of everyone else; not only do they end up with a larger piece of the economy’s pie, but they do so in a way that keeps the pie from growing as much as it otherwise would. Trade barriers and tariffs are the classic example. They help the domestic manufacturer of a product at the expense of millions of consumers, who must pay high prices and choose from a limited selection of goods.

Olson’s book was short but sprawling, touching on everything from the Great Depression to the caste system in India. His primary case study was Great Britain in the decades after World War II. As an economic and military giant for more than two centuries, it had accumulated one of history’s great collections of interest groups — miners, financial traders and farmers, among others. These interest groups had so shackled Great Britain’s economy by the 1970s that its high unemployment and slow growth came to be known as “British disease.”

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine gave his State of the State address to the Legislature yesterday, an event reported in today’s Washington Post under the headlines, “Economic Recovery A Priority For Kaine — Governor Pushes For Green Jobs as Legislature Opens.”

“Green jobs” is a recurring theme for Governors and Legislatures as the 2009 sessions get under way across the country, an emphasis on transforming the economy in the pursuit of new employment, national leadership and a sense of purpose. (See the relevant passage from Kaine’s speech.)

It’s this decade’s “smart growth.”

Remember smart growth? A dozen years or so ago, governors and states were touting their smart growth agendas, claiming that a new emphasis on planning, urban density and environmental sensitivity would create a better world, with shorter commutes, more time for the family and simply a better, less-polluting way of life. Initiatives, planning groups, grants, spending and spending and spending resulted. It was a moment in the sun for land-use planners, academicians, and those who wanted to direct the economy away from the vicissitudes of the free market. (The National Governors Association was a fan, and Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening led the way, in the process creating a post-governor gig for himself.)

Now?

The advantage of smart growth as a political platform was that no one really knew what it meant, and its lack of specificity allowed politicians to claim victory no matter the outcome.

Today, “green jobs” is serving the same function for elected officials. Yes, we all want jobs, and good jobs, and environmentally sensitive jobs. Sustainability, etc., great!

But without a clear definition, “green jobs” lacks accountability, efficiency and ultimately public support. It could well prove itself to be a fad, doing nothing to improve the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. economy.