GE’s Immelt? Not the Job Change We Can Believe In
Contrary to appearances, President Barack Obama’s appointment of General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to lead the White House’s new President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is not a sign of the president’s new openness to the business community.
Nor does it indicate the president is taking a new direction either on job creation or innovation.
Rather, by renaming the panel from the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and selecting Immelt as its head, Obama is slapping whitewash on the same team and policies that failed to stimulate job growth during the first two years of his administration.
Immelt, in fact, was already a member of the original economic advisory group. “My hope,” he wrote, in a January 21 commentary in the Washington Post, “is that the council will be a sounding board for ideas and a catalyst for action on jobs and competitiveness. It will include large businesses, small businesses, labor, economists and government.”
While introducing the panel, Obama said it will “focus its work on finding new ways to encourage the private sector to hire and invest in American competitiveness.”
Strip away the corporate and political jargon of new ways and sounding boards, and you’ll find the “green economy” as the major platform that unites both Obama and Immelt.
Obama’s State of the Union speech, in which the president promoted green technologies and called for the elimination of tax breaks for oil companies, only further signals that the new jobs panel will be used to promote the president’s green dream.
Obama and Immelt have made huge, billion-dollar bets on clean energy technology. Any suggestion that they will have an open mind to abandon their previous commitments or put them on the back burner is unrealistic.
Most likely, the reconstituted advisory panel will end up promoting renewable energy as the job growth engine. Obama’s new vision of generating 80% of America’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035 almost guarantees the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will amplify the “green economy” objective.
The failure of cap-and-trade in Congress, a policy aggressively supported by both Obama and Immelt, has, it seems, only temporally jeopardized their green energy agenda. Government regulation limiting carbon emissions would make using fossil fuels more expensive, making renewable energy relatively more competitive.
Despite failing in his objective to enact cap-and-trade, the president is making carbon-based forms of energy — coal, oil and natural gas — more costly, allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Obama administration is also cracking down on oil drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, which will reduce supply and force oil prices higher.
Following the defeat of cap-and-trade in the Senate, Obama promised to deliver an energy policy that would reduce fossil fuel use. In a Rolling Stone interview, Obama said, “We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we’re going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it’s good for our national security, and, ultimately, it’s good for our environment.”
Immelt, for his part, remains in favor of higher energy prices to stimulate investment in clean technologies. At a meeting last September, where he called America’s energy policy “stupid,” Immelt added that the U.S. “needs to establish a ‘long-term price signal’ on carbon emissions, in order for companies to provide ‘appropriate funding for innovation’ regardless of fuel, as well as revive nuclear energy. Such moves would create jobs rather than shift them overseas.”
Immelt reiterated his call for higher prices for fossil fuels this year at a meeting at the Brookings Institution, where he emphasized the importance of a government policy that would raise energy prices to spur renewable energy.
Obama made more than a safe choice in picking Immelt. Not only is Immelt as reliant on a renewable energy future as Obama himself, but GE has become addicted to generating revenue from the president’s big-government agenda.
Looting public funds for an income rush appears to be one of Immelt’s primary business strategies. He hit the jackpot with Obama’s $787 billion dollar stimulus plan. According to Recovery.gov, GE got over $49 million in grants and contracts from a number of government departments.
In addition to getting direct support, the company will likely benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to GE’s utility customers — Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, and Exelon.
Unfortunately, Obama and Immelt have apparently overlooked the consequences of betting our economic future on a green economy and pushing policies that will raise energy prices.
Currently, about 85 percent of our energy needs comes from fossil fuels. Making power more expensive will only drive jobs overseas.
It’s highly unlikely that job creation and innovation will come from Immelt, who has gone all in with President Obama’s big-government agenda. Most likely, the new economic panel will only serve as a propaganda arm for Obama’s “green economy.”
To stimulate our economy and job growth, our country needs economic leaders who embrace the entrepreneurial spirit — not a CEO who needs a government policy to bail out his bad bet on renewable energy.
Don’t believe the hype. Jeffrey Immelt will not bring the job change we can believe in.
Hey, what happened to Halliburton? I thought they were the enemy.
Dear Dr. Bones,
Another day, another unheard-of pajamatarian to bark an’ bellow for Pettybiz!
Unfortunately for Party Neocomrade (fifth class) Th. X. Borelli and his clients, General Electric is not all that petty. Certainly it is *far* more likely to be able to buy what it likes at the Vanity Fair down in Potomac River City than Mom an’ Pop an’ Nephew Tommy are.
¡Happy days! (through affordable healthcare)
–JHM
GE = Government Electric. We all knew it when the government, in typically meddlesome fashion, outlawed incandescent light bulbs. Bend over and take it folks.
“Obama and Immelt have made huge, billion-dollar bets on clean energy technology. Any suggestion that they will have an open mind to abandon their previous commitments or put them on the back burner is unrealistic.”
Could you imagine, just imagine, what would have happened if George W. Bush had made the CEO of a major oil company the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, especially while we were at war in Iraq? The main stream media would have crucified Bush, citing conflicts of interest all over the place, saying that to have an oil CEO while we were fighting in Iraq was just proof of how corrupt the administration was. In fact, the main stream media did crucify Bush because of Cheney’s relationship with Haliburton, even though Cheney had not worked for Haliburton for years prior to his role as Vice President, let alone the invasion of Iraq.
So why not the same criticism of Obama and Immelt? GE has billions of dollars invested in “Green” projects (like windmills) which are heavily favored (and subsidized) by the Obama administration. So do you really think Immelt is going to make any recommendations that would hurt this “relationship” between GE and Obama? You’re kidding me, right?
Oh, and by the way, George W. Bush didn’t need a Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Unemployment was only at about 5% back then. Remember those days? Yep, Bush really didn’t know what he was doing when it came to creating jobs.
And before any of far-left MoveOn types out there scream about how Bush was responsible for this Recession, people need to remember the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had in the mortgage crisis which created this recession, two horrible and corrupt institutions that were constantly boosted and protected by people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and our all-time “favorite” liberal Democrat, Barney Frank.
“Obama and Immelt have made huge, billion-dollar bets on clean energy technology.”
This is true because:
#1. At the risk of increasing US debt.
#2. Favors being cashed in, end result more theft of tax revenue.
#3. Buddy buddy with China. GE is given money(by this admin) to produce green tech. then hands it to China to manufacture the product, then turns around and sells it back to us. GE makes money and “We the people…” pay twice.
Sounds like Obama and Immelt have Vegas odds on their side. And “We the people…)have just crapped out.
You don’t even have to work to see the lines which connect Immelt’s corporate interests to the green energy initiatives – they’re right there on the surface for all to see. As nearly as I can tell, the only true transparency Mr. Obama has brought to the office is that his fealty to his institutional masters is right out there on the surface.
- Andy Stern, founder of a big institutional contributor to his campaign, was given the freest access to the White House of anyone in the country for 18 months.
- Big Pharma, all big corporate contributors to his campaign, were invited to cut a special side deal prior to the health care debate in Congress
- Jeffrey Immelt, head of another big corporate donor to his campaign is given top billing on a ‘Potemkin village’ advisory board created to provide legitimacy to the back-room corporate deals.
That’s transparency we can all believe in.
The classic corporatists of the 20th century would be so proud. I don’t really need to mention their names, do I?
Immelt is a slap in Americans faces” GE gets a big reward from Obama’s election of billions of dollars of the stimulus money to create jobs then GE turns around and creates 80% of those jobs over seas all in the name of going green while Americans are losing their jobs and homes… I’m sure since congress has in side trading info they will invest in these companies to line their own pockets while Americans struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their heads
1. Immelt, for his part, remains in favor of higher energy prices to stimulate investment in clean technologies. At a meeting last September, where he called America’s energy policy “stupid,” Immelt added that the U.S. “needs to establish a ‘long-term price signal’ on carbon emissions, in order for companies to provide ‘appropriate funding for innovation’ regardless of fuel, as well as revive nuclear energy. Such moves would create jobs rather than shift them overseas.”
This, from a CEO whose stock price has fallen by 2/3 during his eleven-year watch.
2. Looting public funds for an income rush appears to be one of Immelt’s primary business strategies. He hit the jackpot with Obama’s $787 billion dollar stimulus plan. According to Recovery.gov, GE got over $49 million in grants and contracts from a number of government departments.
GE’s annual sales are about $150 billion. $49 million is a drop in that bucket.
But tsk: am I letting a mere fact distract me from the narrative?
The vast majority of the new jobs created by GE are outside this country. Let the Chinese or the Indians pay for the guy, they are the ones reaping the benefits.
Besides the fact that Jeffery Immelt was never viewed as anything other than a “green energy” tyrant, by any moderately informed person, and a rubber stamp for President Obama’s job killing policies, and that Both Immelt and Obama are fully aware that their plans and goals are bad for the economy, but see the country as subservient to their goals, the rest of the article was exceptional.
Beware the industrial/liberal democrat complex. . . . “green” energy is not the answer, at least in the near future. . . . .crank up the nukes, drill, baby , drill, and mine that coal. . . . dump ethanol, AND keep trying to develop alternatives. . . .what is so frigging hard to understand?!! The “o” is out to destroy our couuntry, and I am beginning to fear he will succeed.
To what extent is GE invested in “Clean/Green Energy”? Too much money to be made by a very select few. Spain just announced unemployment in excess of 20%. The poor will be poorer and their ranks will swell.
I’m surprised there was no mention made of GE’s ownership of wind and solar power divisions that are already being subsidized by our government to the tune of $300 million per year. This is the main reason that Immelt was so enthusiastic about bringing on cap and trade legislation. Immelt is a thief, stealing taxpayers’ money to improve GE’s bottom line.
Big business gets along famously with tyrants, up to the point where the tyrant nationalizes the business.
The reasons make a lot of sense. Business, by nature, isn’t political or ideological. The purpose of business is to make money. Business wants to thrwart the competition so it can become bigger and wealthier. The bigger a business is, the more influence it can have on the tyrant and the more likely it is that the tyrant will establish conditions that enable the big business to put its competitors out of business, to grow and make more money. The fact that the typant is oppressing the people is irrelevant to a guy like Immelt. He is thrilled with the reciprocal criminal relationship he has with Obama. He fully expects it to last and grow. If GE is nationalized in 15 or 20 years, why would an amoral guy like Immelt care? He’ll be dead by then, or if not dead, he will be so wealthy that the fate of GE will be irrelevant to him. Besides, he is now an official commisar, not just a business leader, a member of the government mafia.
This is why every Obamunist policy favors the biggest, most inefficent businesses and is a death blow to small businesses. The Obamunists don’t want to deal with tens of thousands of small fry; it’s simply too big of an administrative burden. They want to deal with 1 or 2 big fry in every industry. That way they can concentrate their thuggery for maximum impact.
And that is exactly what is happening. Immelt is the poster boy of obamunist fascism.
This is exactly what Hitler did. It worked splendidly for him. Obama’s handlers studied well. They aren’t ideological either, unless you consider the quest for total power to be an ideology.
companies the size of GE are often run (into the ground) by people like immelt. they are political and generally left leaning if not outright marxists. they got to the top because they have no morals and climb the backs of others. (incidentally I am not impressed with Jack Welch either and consider him to be similar to immelt)
they should never be confused with the small company owners and CEO who embrace free market.
Yes, many big business leaders are the furthest thing from free market advocates. More often, like Immelt, they are the opposite. That is another reason they migrate so naturally to fascism. For them, it’s the perfect fit with their desire to shut down competition.
Proreason….what we’re viewing today is the result of a socialist strategy beginning in the late 50′s and accelerated aggressively each decade since the 70′s….CONSOLIDATION AND CENTRALIZATION of America’s larger economic corporations and their mid sized competitors. The federal government subsidized them into monopolies in their respective markets, exploiting easier and expanded federal control.
Crony capitalism insures that the unconnected get beaten over the head. Translation: no business start ups or jobs for “the little guy.”
Don’t count on big corporations supporting the capitalist model upon which the United States was built. They will sell out to the leftists in government if it means profits. If I remember correctly, the merger of big business and government is called fascism.
Immelt is a thief, ok maybe an opportunist at least. You cannot believe that his position is by chance. But the real problem is that this is all just smoke and mirrors. There never was a real intention to use the information gathered to support business growth of any kind. The biggest agent against business and the private sector is Obama. he hates business and the thought of anyone doing anything without the direction or leadership of the government. That is why the picture of Obama and Reagan on the cover of Time magazine is such a joke. Obama wants 100% government control of everything, but it won’t work it won’t happen he will fail and it will ruin his opportunity for a second term.
Let’s not over complicate : Of course he got the job. He paid for it with other peoples money. It worked for Obama getting his job. Must be cosy in that bed togather.
Tom Borelli refers to Jeff Immelt and the new WH Chief of Staff Bill Daley as Obama’s Green Economy Bag Men.
http://townhall.com/columnists/TomBorelli/2011/01/23/obama’s_green_economy_bag_men_chief_of_staff_bill_daley_and_ge_ceo_jeff_immelt
What puzzles me is how O’Sputnik thinks he wins reelection with policies that even if ultimately successful won’t pay off with jobs for years even decades?
Let us not forget, that shortly after Rick Santelli, delivered the rant that launched the Tea Party, Immelt called the CNBC staff to a meeting at which he told them to cool it, and stop criticizing BO. Fortunately, GE has had to sell NBC to help plug the financial hole that GE Capital’s misadventures in sub-prime created.
A glaring, in-your-face example, of the political and corporate corruption marriage, driving Traditional America to its grave.
Why American’s fail to analyze and get aboard a movement to convene a Peoples or States Convention to Amend the Constitution Article I, Section 8, Commerce Clause, is beyond logic. So many of America’s ill’s would be resolved it it were done! At least as an alternative, American’s should respond to such corruption by boycotting the gazillions of consumer products manufactured and or sold by GE and its subsidiaries.
How long will American’s continue to [surrender] their constitutional right of ultimate power and control and restrain the corporate and political corruption machine? I knew American’s were surrendering when they began consistently giving in to arbitrary inflated values for goods and services based SOLELY on what people were “willing” to pay for such goods and services. Imagine the millions of homes some over the past 12 years such as 1940′s and 50′s 2 Bdrm, 1 Bth for $300-500 hundred thousand dollars to people at best, making at or below median income for their area’s….or upwards to 3 and 4 times the 80′s cost of a lovely rural community home, for a new mid priced automobile in the 90′s and 2000′s.
Its the PEOPLE who allow all this political and corporate corruption!
Thanks to the ineptness of Immelt, GE has been transformed from one of the world’s leading companies to one relying on government welfare. I wish Jack Welsh would say how he really feels about the job his successor has done, and how on earth he keeps it.
The real question here is how Jeff Immelt keeps his job after the disaster of the last eleven years. I understand they have managed to suppress the ability of stockholders to really have a say, much as they have done to the citizens rights to have representation in their government decisions, but you would think that some of the large trusts would want more effective management of a company the size of General Electric.