The Voice of Young Conservatives Blog

Remember “Cash for Clunkers”? The lamebrained White House program that gave up to $4,500 to encourage owners of older cars to trade up? Pretty much anyone with a fundamental grasp of economics realized what a terrible idea this was.

Of course, Democrats have shown that they have no such understanding. Which is partly why we could do nothing but shake our head in 2010, when Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood patted himself on the back for his brilliant idea.  “Cash for Clunkers was wildly successful,” said LaHood. “In a matter of weeks, Americans traded in nearly 70,000 gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars. . . Our program was a win for everyone.”

Except none of that was true.

At best the program simply shifted consumption forward by a few months – incentivizing people who would have bought a new car in a year or two to buy one now. At worst, it actually hurt the economy by needlessly destroying useable products , shifting production towards goods of marginal increased utility, and coming close to killing the used-car market.

Oh, and it was terrible for the environment too. Not only was the program written so as to allow you to receive a $3,500 voucher for trading in F-250 that got say, 14 miles-per-gallon, for a F-150 that got 18 mpg, but it completely ignored the costs to the environment of (1) building a new car and (2) destroying an old one.

Conservatives knew all of this from the very beginning. Which makes it all the more delicious to read things like this from liberal blogger Ezra Klein:

“When the Obama administration first proposed its “cash-for-clunkers” plan in 2009, the initial reaction was favorable. Congress would spend around $3 billion to encourage drivers to swap their old gas-guzzlers for newer, shinier, more fuel efficient cars. What wasn’t to love?

. . . But from the beginning, critics were already pointing out that cash for clunkers might not work as planned. . . So were the naysayers right? It seems so.”

What Mr. Klein is referring to is a new study by economists at the Resources for the Future, which found that Cash for Clunkers was like most federal programs, that is to say, a waste of money. The researchers found,

“[A] large portion of vehicles sold under the program was a result of demand switching from months surrounding the program . . . [overall] the net effect on sales became practically zero by end of 2009. Furthermore, if the program were to be judged as an environmental program, the implied costs of reducing gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions are quite high.”

No wonder Austan Goolsbeen, former chairmen of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, admitted that the programs were a mistake. “If you look at Cash for Clunkers or the first home buyer tax credit, they were geared to trying to shift [recovery] from 2010 to 2009. Given it’s taken this long, I don’t think you would do that short-run stuff,” Goolsbee said in an interview last month.

Unfortunately, that’s all Democrats appear ready to do at this point – admit their stimulus plans were a failure and then turn right around and argue for more. Young adults deserve more than that. This program was $3 billion of additional debt that was added to our tab to pay for cars that would have been bought anyways. So please, before thinking up any more ways to hand out our hard-earned money, act like a young adult and do your homework.

It’s undeniable that the internet has changed the way Americans live their lives. The emergence of social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ have also revolutionized how Americans interact and do business. But while the business landscape has changed, the regulatory landscape is straight out of the 1950s.

This past week, House Republicans took steps to bring those regulations into the modern era by amending securities laws to allow entrepreneurs to do something called “crowdfunding.”

One of the less talked about crises that is holding the American economy back is the widening gap between the number of entrepreneurs and the early-stage capital needed go get their ideas off the ground. Recent estimates from the General Accounting Office show that financial markets fell $60 billion short in meeting the demands of small businesses for start-up financing.

The reasons are clear – the current regulatory environment essentially allows three main avenues for raising money. Banks can lend, venture capitalists can invest, or family and friends can give. Increasingly, however, those options are becoming less available.

The financial crisis has sapped banks ability and willingness to lend to small business start-ups, venture capitalists (including angel investors) are looking more towards large investments that are as close as possible to a “sure thing,” and family members are likely pinching pennies.

As a result, those small-time entrepreneurs with big ideas are being ignored. And the $64,000 question is whether the next Apple, the next Google, or the next Groupon (which just had a record-setting initial public offering) is being lost in the process.

To ensure that doesn’t happen, House Republicans are attempting to expand the menu of financing options open to entrepreneurs. Currently, securities laws compel private companies to go public once they hit 500 shareholders. They also ban something called “general solicitation.” This means that someone looking for investors can only contact those with whom they have a “preexisting, substantive” relationship.

While neither of those may seem like tremendous hurdles, the compliance burden of being forced to register with the SEC is often enough to deter entrepreneurs (the average per-business cost of complying with Sarbanes-Oxley alone is $2.3 million per year). Going public is also a very strategic move, and it is one that doesn’t always fit with young company’s growth plans.

Moreover, these are relics of a bygone era. Back when companies had relatively few shareholders and relatively few people were knowledgeable about investing. And they certainly do not fit with the internet-era, with the ability to reach millions of people with a few keystrokes.

To help bring more capital off the sidelines and move more companies from concept to market, House Republicans have passed four bills to ease the regulatory chokehold on crowdfunding. Namely, they would raise the threshold for SEC registration to allow unlimited numbers of investors up to $5 million. They would also eliminate the current ban against general solicitation to allow entrepreneurs to use accepted online forums to attract potential investors.

This common sense marriage between investors and social media has the potential to dramatically boost economic growth. According to a 2010 study by the Kauffman Fondation startups create an average of 3 million jobs annually and the most new net jobs in the United States. They found that “without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy.

Given these amazing statistics the least Washington can do is provide startups with the tools they need to succeed. After all, who knows if the next Facebook founder is sitting in his garage right now hoping to find someone to finance his idea? Sadly, the better question is whether the Democrat-held Senate will get off their political highhorse and actually pass these bills.

The 1980 election between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was a turning point for American conservatives. Under Carter, Iranian radicals had held hostages in the American Embassy for just under a year. The economy was struggling and inflation was running rampant. Following the Iranian Revolution, gas prices were skyrocketing and there were mile-long lines at every filling station.

It was against this backdrop that Ronald Reagan asked Carter an all-important question. Just one week before the election in the final broadcast debate, Reagan asked the crowd “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

This past week a Minnesota reporter asked Obama essentially the same question – “Are we better off now than we were four years ago?”

“Well, you know, I think we are better off now than we would have been if I hadn’t taken all the steps that we took,” a hesitant Obama said.  “[W]e’ve made steady progress, we just need to make more.”

The ridiculous statement brought out some classic responses. “Are you kidding me?!? asked House Speaker John Boehner after hearing Obama’s answer. “Why don’t you go ask the 14 million Americans who are out of work whether they’re better than they were four years ago.”

Conservative columnist Jim Geraghty’s response was perhaps better: “Define ‘Better.”’

Something tells me Obama’s definition of “better” could be almost as confusing as Bill Clinton’s attempt to define “is.” Remember this gem? When asked if he was having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton told a grand jury, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the – if he – if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is non, that was a completely true statement.”

To which we say, huh?

The word “is” has one meaning and the word “better” has one meaning. Just as Clinton looked ridiculous trying to dance around the issue of an illicit affair, President Obama can’t skirt the fact that things are patently worse than they were four years ago.

Are we further in debt than we’ve ever been? Yes. Are our entitlement programs growing increasingly unsustainable? Yes. Do we have fewer jobs? Yes. Have health care costs continued to increase? Yes. Do we have higher unemployment? Yes.

The list could go on, but let’s focus on the last one. On Friday, new jobs numbers were released, showing yet another month of dismal growth. The Washington Post reports:

“Another month, another dreary jobs report from the Labor Department. The U.S. economy added just 80,000 jobs in October, which isn’t enough to keep up with population growth, let alone get us back to full employment. Indeed, this marks the seventh straight month that the jobless rate hasn’t nudged below 9 percent. (it was 9.1 percent last month.”

Put another way, at our current rate of job growth, the economy wouldn’t get back to 6 percent unemployment (even then not ideal) until after 2023 – more than a decade away. By then an entire generation of young adults could be left behind, muddling through low wage jobs that permanently sap their long-term income potential.

America needs jobs, young adults need jobs, and this White House has shown an inability to get that done. There are currently 18 jobs-related bills that have passed through the House and are sitting in the Senate. There would be more if it wasn’t abundantly clear that Harry Reid has no plans on acting on any of them.

Unfortunately, it appears the only way to change our economic situation is to vote smart come November. And to vote smart, ask yourself one question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Apparently green companies are having trouble staying out of the red.

Yet another green technology company that received a taxpayer-back loan from the Department of Energy has filed for bankruptcy. The Wall Street Journal reports,

“On Sunday Beacon Power Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection, less than a year after the Tyngsboro, Massachusetts-based company received an Energy Department loan guarantee of some $43 million.”

The problem with Beacon, as with many green energy companies, is that the technology and maintenance costs are vastly more expensive than the product they create. In the private sector, that’s what they would call a bad business model.

A fact that Beacon’s CEO Bill Capp seemed to have unwittingly admitted in a September interview. “We absolutely couldn’t have done it without support from the government, because no one else was willing to do it,” Capp said. Now, perhaps I’m no financial whiz-kid, but it seems to me that if nobody in the private sector was willing to invest, it’s probably because there is no money to be made. I know, I know, call me crazy.

Sadly, our troubles with green energy subsidies are just getting started. CBS News reports that EnerDel, which received a $118 million stimulus grant to produce electric car batteries, may soon be the next to fold. Indeed, Enerdel’s stock fell from a high of $4.04 in 2010 to a mere 9 cents on Thursday. In other words, you could pretty much buy the company with the change in your couch.

But while green companies’ shelf-life appears to be one of the few things shorter than Kim Kardashian’s marriage, Senate Democrats are preparing to offer more stimulus.

In a scene that could only happen in Washington, an Energy Department watchdog was testifying about the failures of the stimulus bill’s energy projects the same day that Democrats were preparing to vote on another $50 billion stimulus bill.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

“The Department of Energy’s Inspector General said Wednesday that the 2009 stimulus program for green energy was so at odds with the realities on the ground that it was akin to “attaching a lawnmower to a fire hydrant.”

Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman, testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s panel on stimulus oversight, outlined a range of problems, from a flood of $35 billion in stimulus money that overwhelmed the department’s $27 billion annual budget to weatherization programs of such shoddy quality that more than half of those audited failed inspection because of substandard worksmanship.”

Attaching a lawnmower to a fire hydrant? I don’t even know what that means, but it sounds crazy. Sadly, crazy is pretty close to the word I’d describe Democrats continued attempt to push for more stimulus in spite of example after example of its failure to (1) create jobs, or (2) show any signs of being a good bargain for taxpayers.

Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on a $50 billion stimulus bill geared at infrastructure projects, despite recently cracking jokes about how unsuccessful the first try was at creating jobs. “Shovel-ready was not as  . . . uh . . . shovel-ready as we expected,” Obama said during a meeting of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Interestingly, the same sentiment was expressed today by the Energy Department’s IG, albeit in a much less joking fashion. “The concept of ‘shovel-ready’ projects was not realized, nor, as we have now confirmed, was it a realistic expectation,” said Friedman.

So if we agree that there is no such thing as shovel ready and the failures of government stimulus are revealing themselves daily, remind me again why Democrats insist on voting for more? Could it really be jobs? Of course not! It’s politics. In fact, The Hill reported today that “Democratic operatives are quick to note that they never expected to pass the jobs bills through the Senate, adding that the multiple roll calls will put Republicans on the defensive.”

With leaders like that in the Democratic Party, something tells me their fortunes come 2012 could look a lot like the green-companies they’re throwing our money at. That is to say…bankrupt.

A little more than two weeks ago President Obama presented remarks at the official unveiling of the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National Mall. For that one day, the President shed the divisive rhetoric that has sadly come to define his recent approach to job creation.

“At this moment, when our politics appear so sharply polarized, and faith in our institutions so greatly diminished, we need more than ever to take heed of Dr. King teachings,” Obama said. Later adding that, “[King] would want us to know we can argue fiercely about the proper size and role of government without questioning each other’s love for his country.”

The stirring words of our President encouraged me to look back upon Dr. King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Although its powerful message – the promise of equality – will likely never be forgotten, the metaphor he employed to convey it is sadly, in my opinion, ignored.

It was a promissory note.

“In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check,” Dr. King began. Sadly, he recounts, “America has defaulted on this promissory note . . . a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’ But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity in this nation.”

Opportunity. That was what Dr. King sought for African Americans and it is the central focus of the current debate in Washington.

Sadly, young adults are facing a lifetime of diminished opportunity. And although it cannot compare to the segregation and inequality endured by racial minorities, the threat of seeing the words “insufficient funds” scrawled across our future now threatens to become more than a metaphor.

Our government has spent its way into a debt that our generation will inevitably have to pay, either through higher taxes or reduced services. Moreover, we have inherited an economy that has led to record levels of unemployment for young adults, a fact that will have long lasting implications for our careers.

The question now is, what should our government do? During these very difficult times, in which the continued commitment to the American Ideal is questioned, how can our leaders in Washington live up to the promissory note our nation has written to us?

To Republicans the answer is clear – we must defend America’s commitment to equality of opportunity, born out of the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This daunting, but imminently worthwhile task, cannot be accomplished by demonizing any one group. As President Ronald Reagan asked during similarly trying times, “Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social class and warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?”

These are the questions every one of our leaders in Washington must ask themselves as they debate ways to heal our economy in ways that benefit everyone. Now is not the time to give up on this incredible and unique American experiment in favor of a European-style social welfare state. Americans are a hard-working, entrepreneurial bunch, who will rise above any challenge set before them if the government would only get out of the way.

Americans don’t want a hand-out, they merely want a hand up. They don’t demand equality of results, they merely ask for the equality of opportunity. Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed those sentiments in a recent speech to students at Pennsylvania University.

“Instead of talking about a fair share or spending time trying to push those at the top down, elected leaders in Washington should be trying to ensure that everyone has a fair shot and the opportunity to earn success up the ladder,” said Cantor. “The goal shouldn’t be for everyone to meet in the middle of the ladder. We should want all people to be moving up and no one to be pulled down.”

“Opportunity” is the word scrawled across the promissory note of every generation of Americans. It was what Dr. King asked of the government. And although our struggle is thankfully much different because of his leadership, it is what our generation, must too demand of Washington. Sadly, unless things change and unless divisive politics are put behind us our check will come back marked “insufficient funds.”

At every campaign stop and with every passing speech President Obama never misses a chance to drop his “We Can’t Wait” attack against Congressional Republicans.

“They’re not getting the message,” Obama said in his weekly address, “[and] the truth is, we can no longer wait for Congress to do its job.”

Interesting, coming from a President who has done little over the past year to promote job creation, while the Republican-led House continues to pass bills to help create the environment for economic growth.

The hypocrisy of the President’s position hasn’t been lost on everyone. “You are saying you can’t wait. Then why have you waited?” asked NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd. “Why haven’t you been – why didn’t you start doing this six weeks ago as your guys were pushing the jobs bill . . . If this stuff is going to work, even around the margins why wait as long as you have.”

Six weeks ago? Why not two years ago? It’s often forgotten that for the first two years of his presidency, Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and controlled the House of Representatives.

Rather than jumpstart the economy, they passed a pork-laden stimulus plan that added to our deficit without subtracting from our unemployed, they passed a health care reform plan that contributed to higher insurance costs, and they passed a Wall Street reform bill that is so chockablock with regulations that businesses have no clue what to do, and aren’t hiring until they figure it out.

And those are just the lowlights – he also pushed through cash for clunkers and a homebuyer tax credit – both of which Obama’s former economic adviser Austan Goolsbee admitted were mistakes; bailed out GM-Chrysler; rammed through credit card price controls; and set up mortgage modification programs that nobody signed up for.

None of those things created jobs, at least in the long-term. In fact, many of them likely discouraged firms from hiring. So don’t preach to us Mr. President about how we can’t wait, not after you’ve made us wait for two years while you ignored the economy in favor of shaping America into your perfect liberal vision.

In fact, it’s not House Republicans you should be pointing the finger at.

Responding to a recent Gallup poll of small business owners that shows “complying with government regulations” is the most important problem they face, Republicans have spent the past few weeks passing bills to reduce regulatory hurdles. Indeed, the House has now passed 19 jobs-related bills, many of which would roll back burdensome regulations that are stuck in the Senate and waiting for Democrats to act.

No wonder, small businesses list “poor leadership” as the fifth largest problem they face!

House Republicans aren’t sitting on their laurels either. This week they will vote on at least two more bills aimed at helping entrepreneurs turn their ideas into businesses. These pieces of legislation will update securities regulations for the modern-era by allowing entrepreneurs to use “crowdsourcing” techniques to fund their new ideas. Currently the Securities and Exchange Commission requires a company to contact investors only if they have a “preexisting, substantive relationship” – a requirement that no longer makes sense given the creation of the internet.

Sadly, while Republicans are trying to make it easier for businesses to get off the ground, Democrats have spent the past three years weighing down anyone threatening to take off. Between Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, hundreds of job-killing regulations are coming down the regulatory pipeline, adding to the $1.75 trillion compliance burden already borne by American businesses.

If our economy is ever going to improve, that has to change. Because frankly America’s small businesses can’t wait.

Taxpayer funded stimulus is bad enough. Over the past two years we’ve seen just how inefficient Washington is at turning our money into jobs. But taxpayer funded stimulus to foreign billionaires? That’s enough to make the Occupy Wall Streeter’s and the Tea Partier’s heads explode.

Sadly, that is the latest news from President Obama’s “green energy” initiative. From Pajamas Media:

“Another controversial U.S. Department of Energy “green” loan is coming under scrutiny.

Last July the Obama administration issued a $730 million low interest “green” loan to Russia’s second largest steel company, whose chief executive is a Russian tycoon personally worth $18 billion and who has close ties to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

. . . The DOE renewable energy loan was awarded this summer to Severstal North America to produce high strength steel at its Dearborn, Michigan facility. Steel is not in short supply in the United States an current U.S. steel plants are operating under capacity.”

The loan is questionable in multiple respects.

First, steel production isn’t what you would call “green.” The administration’s logic seems to be that electric car companies could purchase the new steel for inclusion in their new energy-efficient cars. A stretch to say the least. As National Review’s Henry Payne opines, “By Washington’s skewed supply-chain logic, Detroit Edison’s Motown coal plant – which supplies power to Rouge [steel mill] should also get green loans because it endeavors to deliver cheaper energy to make steel.

Second, shouldn’t a Russian tycoon be able to afford these upgrades on his own? After all, Alexei Mordashov, owner of the multi-billion company Severstal, is the 29^th wealthiest man in the world.

“He could finance the Dearborn plant out of his own pocket and still have enough left over to buy his own miniature giraffe,” quipped conservative blogger Sister Toldjah, referring to the popular DirecTV advertisements featuring a fake Russian billionaire.

A report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reveals that Severstal didn’t need the money at all. He may have not been spending it on mini-giraffes, but he was investing it in the US. In fact, prior to receiving the loan guarantee, Severstal had already announced it was closing several plants in order to shift resources to its Dearborn facility.

“Following these closings,” the report states, “Severstal then announced a $740 million modernization project at the facility. Surprisingly, in June 2011, DOE granted an ATVM loan to Severstal, months after the decision to undertake the Dearborn project had already been made.

The timing meant that the government’s decision in no way influenced Severstal’s decision-making process, added any jobs that wouldn’t have already been created, and was, in essence, a taxpayer-funded subsidy to one of Russia’s richest men. Given our enormous deficit, can the Obama Administration honestly claim that there is no better use of our scarce resources?

Then again, this isn’t exactly the first time Americans have learned about the questionable avenues, Obama’s green-energy fund, has driven them down. Just last week, we blogged about the administration’s $529 million loan guarantee to Fisker Automotive – a foreign company that announced it would be assembling its first line of cars in…Finland.

Watching our money being wasted on green-energy boondoggles with little chance of success is unacceptable. Watching our money being given to foreign billionaires to produce steel that could potentially be used in green energy boondoggles with little chance of success is just beyond words.

The soaring cost of going to college is a problem that has too often been overlooked. While Washington is fixated (and rightly so) on housing prices, health care costs, and (wrongly so) on reelection, college is quickly becoming unaffordable for many Americans.

It’s become what we call a “band-aid” problem – one in which the government slaps a quick fix, or band-aid, on and moves on to issues perceived to be more important.

Even if it was merely a crude attempt to woo young voters, President Obama has taken steps to change that.

“How do we make college more affordable,” Obama asked at a recent campaign event in Denver, “and how do we make sure you are burdened with less debt?”

Great questions. It’s just unfortunate he then came up with some terrible answers.

A recent report from the College Board found that average in-state tuition at a four-year public college rose an additional $631 this fall – up 8.3 percent from last year. Indeed, since 1978 the price of tuition has increased 650 points above inflation. As Malcolm Harris writes in N+ Magazine, “To put that number in perspective, housing prices, the bubble that nearly burst the US economy, then the global one, increased only fifty points above the Consumer Price Index during those years.”

Unless something is done to bend the cost curve, America’s colleges may as well come with the disclaimer: “Middle class need not apply.”

To try and solve the problem, President Obama is hopes to alleviate the burden of student loan debt by limiting the cost of monthly payments to 10 percent of disposable income and allow some outstanding debt to be forgiven in 20 years.

Despite elevating the growing cost of college above a “band-aid problem,” this is clearly a band-aid solution. You see, Obama is making student loans more affordable, not college more affordable – and that is a critical distinction. Critical, because in confusing the two, President Obama is only contributing to the soaring cost of college.

In a new paper for the Cato Institute, Neil McCluskey highlights where Obama goes wrong. “The presumption behind many of the taxpayer funded programs for colleges, and especially, students, is that the money will make higher education more affordable, and, hence, boost enrollment,” McCluskey writes. “But underlying this is the assumption that colleges will not raise their prices and capture student aid . . .”

History tells us that assumption is clearly wrong.

Former Secretary of Education William Bennett knew as much. In a 1987 op-ed, Bennett wrote, “If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confidence that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

That has led some to wonder who is really benefitting from the increased flow of federal dollars. “Student aid has in effect become institutional aid,” said educational consultant Arthur Hauptman. “The more cash the government pumps into parents’ pockets, the more the schools siphon from them,” adds Forbes reporter Ira Carnahan.

The numbers seem to support those opinions. Between 1980 and 2010 the real average tuition at 4-year public colleges rose by $5,500, according to a study by Neil McCluskey. Likewise, they rose by $17,800 at private schools. Meanwhile, total aid per student rose by $8,165 – a number which closely parallels the increased tuition when public and private schools are weighted and averaged.

That parallel is likely not mere coincidence. Indeed, economics tells us this is exactly what should occur. Colleges, as rational economic actors, factor in any additional federal assistance into their tuition decisions. This decision is made even easier for administrators because loans payments are capped in both quantity and duration for students. In other words, they can milk the federal government with a clean conscience, and without hurting the demand for a college education.

The problem with all of this is that student loan subsidies, such as those President Obama is implementing, only make college costs rise faster, and thus make our loan dollars worth less. The President, despite his good intentions, is only fueling a tuition bubble that could pop at any minute. And if it does, no band-aid will be able to hold it together.

This year, for the first time in our nation’s history, the amount of outstanding student loans will exceed $1 trillion. Sadly, that number figures to rise given that more than $100 billion in loans were taken out last year alone. This is the makings of a crisis.

Unfortunately, rather the attempt to solve it, President Obama is following his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s advice – “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

Young adults were one of Obama’s most important constituencies in 2008. Of the 22 million Americans under 30 voted, Obama won the group by a two-to-one margin over rival John McCain. Indeed, we accounted for 80 percent of Obama’s margin of victory.

But that support quickly ebbed. The spiraling deficit coupled with Obama’s cluelessness about how to create jobs has led young adults to abandon him in droves. His approval rating among 18-29 year olds, which one sat at 75 percent, has now plummeted to 45 percent.

In one last desperate attempt to woo our crucial age-group, Obama is promising to make college more affordable. But if young adults should have learned anything from the first three years of the Obama presidency it’s that promising and actually accomplishing are not the same thing.

So what exactly does Obama propose? Three things. First, those with direct government loans and government-backed private loans will be able to consolidate their balances in order to cut interest rates. Second, he will limit the amount of some student loan payments to 10% of a graduate’s income. And third, he will allow some outstanding debt to be forgiven in 20 years.

But before you jump for joy at the thought of Obama saving you from being buried beneath mounds of student loans, understand that there is less to this plan than meets the eye. Or as the Washington Posts’s Michelle Singletary wrote, “I can’t help but feel that President Obama’s new student loan proposal could take its title from William Shakespeare’s comedy “Much Ado About Nothing.”

One of the main reasons young adults should feel underwhelmed is the very narrow group of people this will help. Singletary explains,

“The president’s plan does not affect borrowers who took on loans before 2008 and who do not take out a new loan next year. So, if you are already in repayment and are not planning to take out new student loans, this plan does not affect you.”

But the main trouble with the President’s plan is that it fails to address the soaring cost of college. That was a sentiment echoed by the Education Finance Council, a group representing nonprofit student finance organizations in a statement issued Wednesday.

“President Obama’s proposal, available to a limited group of students for a limited amount of time, does not address the real student loan problem: rising tuition and the lack of well-paying jobs,” the group said.

Indeed, the plan may actually contribute to the problem. According to research by Malcolm Harris, since 1978 the price of tuition at US colleges has increased over 900 percent, 650 points above inflation – a figure that makes the housing bubble look relatively benign.

With defaults rising, this situation will eventually turn disastrous. The default rate has gone up every year since 2005. But it’s impossible to get a true perspective on the enormity of the problem since the federal government is handing out deferments and forbearances quicker than Democrats can spend money. In fact, less than 40 percent of student loans are now in active repayment.

One of the main things that has contributed to the incredible increases in tuition (and the massive student loan debt incurred to pay it off) has been government intervention. By further separating students from the true cost of tuition, President Obama is actively making the problem worse.

Think of it this way – Knowing that a student will only be forced to pay a percentage of their income in loan repayment and that everything will be forgiven in 20 years, what incentive is there for college administrators to keep costs low? From their perspective they can jack up costs knowing that the federal government will be the one to pick up the tab. Win-win for school and student.

But there’s no such thing as a free lunch. As tuitions soar, yet loan payments remain capped, deficits will pile up. In essence, we’re simply renaming student loan debt as the national debt. And since college students are already, or will soon be, taxpayers, they’re still stuck with the bill.

In short, students’ growing debt burden deserves attention, but Obama’s plan is sadly just a ploy to get students’ attention. We won’t be fooled.

One of my favorite Halloween traditions is watching “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.” If you haven’t seen it (you poor, poor souls), there’s one great scene in which the Peanuts gang goes trick-or-treating. From house to house, every other kid gets chocolate bars, candy, packs of gum, and even money, but not Charlie Brown. No, at every house, Charlie gets a rock.

Given all the recent news about how Washington is investing our tax dollars it’s a little hard not to feel like Charlie Brown on Halloween when he says, “I don’t understand it. I went trick-or-treating and all I got was a bag full of rocks.”

The Solyndra debacle is perhaps the most visible, but certainly not the only rock filling our pillowcase. A much less-discussed, but no less disastrous, loan to yet another green energy company is just coming to light.

The company is called Ener1 Inc, a lithium-ion battery maker that received a presidential shout out, a tour of the factory, and a $118 million grant courtesy of taxpayers. In other words, Ener1 parallels the Solyndra plotline almost perfectly.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

“Ener1 was founded in 2002, went public in 2008 and has never turn a profit. In August, it restated its earnings for fiscal 2010 at a $165 million loss – nearly $100 million more than previously reported. On September 27 it ousted its CEO, and its share price yesterday was 27 cents – a 95 percent decline from its 52-week high.”

Things have gotten so bad for the company that they have said they are currently “in the process of determining whether the company has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations.”

This isn’t an isolated example. According to the WSJ story, 48 different battery technology and electric vehicle projects received federal money as part of the Obama administration’s green-energy initiative. But apparently they overlooked the fact that the market for such batteries cannot sustain that level of production.

According to a report by consulting firm Roland Berger, “capacity in 2015 will reach 200% of demand,” leading them to conclude that only 6 to 8 batter manufacturers will survive. Remind me again why we’re funding 48?

Looking on the bright-side, at least the Obama Administration was giving money to American manufacturers, even if they did have a terrible business model. Sadly, that hasn’t always been the case for this White House.

“With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work,” reported ABC News this week.

Making the scene even that much more depressing is that Vice President Joe Biden heralded the loan as a “new chapter in which we strengthen American manufacturing by investing in innovation.” “This is proof that our efforts to create new jobs, invest in clean energy economy and reduce carbon pollution are working,” added Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

As it turns out the “clean energy” part of the Fisker deal is also a sham. According to a report by Forbes, Fisker’s new automobile will get about 19 miles to the gallon, making it worse than the city rating of a Ford Explorer. Sorry, Mr. Chu, the only thing your loan proves is that the government has no business gambling taxpayer money on risky bets like these.

So here we are, a bunch of Charlie Brown’s carrying around Washington’s bag of bad investments. And as he concluded on that fateful night of trick-or-treating, “I just don’t understand it.”