Thursday, July 02, 2009

National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck

In case you missed it, here's the segment of Glenn Beck's Fox TV show from Wednesday night featuring Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.

The topic is cap and trade, USCAP, corporations doing the bidding of the left, the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and the use of last minute amendments filled with goodies (amendments Congress wasn't given time to read, of course) by the House leadership to get the legislation approved by the House.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Look, Everybody, I Have a Hybrid!

Not me; I don't, but when I saw this car in a parking lot, I thought, "Gee, do you suppose car companies believe hybrid buyers want the world to know they drive a hybrid?"

I think I'll get a big sticker for the back window of my vehicle. It will say: GASOLINE.

I'm sure everybody's very interested.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Energy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:14 AM

Monday, June 29, 2009

What Killed GM

In this CNBC interview, Peter Flaherty of the National Legal and Policy Center argues that government regulation killed GM.

Peter includes the role of government-backed unions in his analysis:

...[GM's management's] biggest shortcoming... was the failure to take on the unions. No executive in Detroit would dare take on the unions or build a non-union plant in a southern state. Now, there is a reason for that... That’s because of the government, because of the power of the United Auto Workers on our government. If one of them tried, they would have been run out of town. And now we have the ultimate manifestation of it where the UAW has an equity stake in the company and I predict the results are just going to be worse and worse.

Dittos to Peter on that one.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Conservatives, Government Power, Labor Unions, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

Sunday, June 28, 2009

There's Money to Be Made

Al Gore reportedly has billions of reasons to be glad the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill was approved by the House in a squeaker Friday.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 AM

Thursday, June 25, 2009

ABC Stands for "All Barack Channel"?

Writing on the Fox News Channel's Fox Forum website, our Tom Borelli examines the political connections of ABC and NBC, saying the Obama Administration seems to have a deliberate political strategy of co-opting media corporations as a deliberate strategy.

But that's no reason, Tom also says, for corporations such as Disney, which owns ABC, and GE, which owns NBC, CNB and MSNBC, to play along, or for the public to stand for it.

Tom's entire piece can be read here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:10 PM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Tom Borelli to Tackle Cap and Trade on Fox Thursday

Tom Borelli of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Thursday, June 25 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.

Tom is planning to talk about the Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" legislation that could come up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as this Friday. This bill would regulate the emissions of American businesses, inevitably raising consumer prices for what is predicted as a negligible effect on climate change.

A recent poll commissioned by the National Center's Public Opinion and Policy Center found that black Americans in particular are opposed to such new regulation while the economy is under strain. Of 800 black Americans polled, 76% want economic recovery to be the top priority of lawmakers and 52% do not favor paying even a single penny in higher gas and electricity prices to promote liberal climate change policy.

A press release summarizing the results of the POP Center poll can be found here.

To access the live Internet broadcast on Thursday, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by David W. Almasi at 7:23 PM

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Regarding Cap and Trade, Is Caterpillar CEO in Over His Head?

Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has taken a look at our Tom Borelli's question to Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens last week.

Carney believes Owens may be in over this head.

Read it for yourself here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:33 PM

Saturday, June 06, 2009

Go For It, Indiana

Here's hoping the U.S. Supreme Court hears this case.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Courts, Government Power, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:13 PM

GE's Jeffrey Immelt Fights Back

General Electric boss Jeffrey Immelt faced a tough crowd at GE's annual stockholder's meeting in April, and it's just now becoming clear how much he minded.

At the meeting, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli asked if media reports that Immelt had tried to silence anti-Obama reporting on GE-owned networks are true. During her dialogue with Immelt, her microphone was cut off (it was restored after she continued talking anyway).

Then Fox News Channel O'Reilly Factor Producer Jesse Watters, a GE shareholder, asked Immelt about Keith Olbermann's handling of the Janeane Garofalo interview. Watters' microphone was soon cut off as well, but this did Immelt no good, as next up was the National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli, who, as I reported here in April, asked Immelt about GE's business with Iran, GE's lobbying for cap-and-trade, and GE's double-hit on senior citizen stockholders [by cutting dividends after saying it wouldn't while lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations that will dramatically raise consumer energy prices].

Following the meeting, in an apparent counterattack against Borelli, false allegations were made that Tom was there as a front for Fox News, which competes with GE-owned MSNBC and CNBC. Tom has no relationship with Fox News except that he appears on the network periodically as a guest and he lent an audiotape he made of the GE shareholder's meeting to Fox, which broadcast it (leading fact-challenged Keith Olbermann to falsely accuse Fox's Jesse Watters of making the perfectly legal tape and lying about it to GE security guards).

So why bring all this up now? Because it seems that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, whom one would think has better things to do, was so upset that three shareholders -- Deneen Borelli, Jesse Watters and Tom Borelli -- would ask him questions about the GE-owned networks' liberal bias, trade with Iran and lobbying for cap-and-trade that he ordered retaliation against a news media outlet that reported they had done so.

Specifically, the LA Weekly's Nicki Finke's Deadline Hollywood column reported Friday night that after Paul Bond of The Hollywood Reporter wrote a story about the three questions and the shareholder's meeting (a story immediately picked up by the Drudge Report), Immelt immediately ordered a GE-wide ban on Nielsen Business Media, which owns The Hollywood Reporter.

Here's how Nicki Finke of LA Weekly reports it:

That's when, sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt ordered a GE company-wide ban on all of THR's parent company: advertising, editorial, the works. After a few days, the ban was reduced to GE's NBC Universal against Nielsen Business Media's The Hollywood Reporter and lasted six weeks. (My NBC Universal sources believe the ban was lifted yesterday.)

My reporting is the first about the ban or what led to it. "People need to know that GE is using its media arm to stifle coverage about its company, and this is coming from Immelt and Zucker," a Nielsen Business Media insider said.

Finke adds:

...sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt personally issued a GE ban on all of the Nielsen company. "Jeff Immelt severed relations between all of GE with all of Nielsen over that story. Immelt called Zucker, and Zucker took it from there. Then, after a few days, GE backtracked, and then it became NBC Universal severing relations with The Hollywood Reporter."

According to my sources, Zucker ordered NBC Universal employees "not to talk" to THR. "They took away passes and tickets," says one insider. Another told me advertising was affected: it appears all or almost all advertising was stopped by NBC Universal at what was and continues to be a very important revenue time for the trade -- just before the Emmy nominations. Still another told me that NBC Universal employees stopped returning THR reporters' calls. One NBC Universal employee actually said to a THR reporter: "I'm not allowed to talk to The Hollywood Reporter."

Only a handful of people within the publication knew about the GE/NBC Universal ban. "It was all very mysterious," one reporter whose calls stopped being returned by NBC Universal told me. "No one told me specifically why. But I think some story really pissed them off."

I don't want to quote all of the Finke column here, so I'll just say GE's retaliation evidently did not stop there. GE reportedly also tried to use its advertising clout to get The Hollywood Reporter journalist, Paul Bond, fired (go to the Finke piece for details).

My conclusion: Never assume the corporate and news executives whose work product is being criticized aren't paying attention. GE's Jeffrey Immelt is one of the most powerful corporate executive in the world. His corporation owns not just MSNBC and CNBC, but the storied NBC itself. Yet despite his lofty position, he not only is paying attention, he's paying close attention, and he apparently doesn't like the criticism one bit.

Maybe someday he'll figure out that if he cleans up his networks and starts running GE like a capitalist firm instead of as a welfare queen-wannabe, he can get the criticism he hates so much to stop.

Note: For video on the story as it originally unfolded, go here for the audio of a Glenn Beck radio interview with Tom Borelli (prepared by Olbermann Watch) and here for video of the story on the Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Fox News shows, including an interview with talk radio host Laura Ingraham about it.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Conservatives, Defense, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:17 AM

Monday, June 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Political Decisionmaking at Government Motors

From "Lawmakers Seek to Influence Plant Locations" by Neil King, Jr. and Kate Linebaugh for the June 2 Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration has said repeatedly that it won't use its majority stake in General Motors Corp. to meddle in the company's daily affairs. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren't being so shy.

The areas of potential concern to lawmakers range from proposed plant and dealership closings to longer-term plans for more fuel-efficient cars. And key elected officials are already promising to weigh in even as President Barack Obama and his aides say they will shield GM from outside pressure.

"I think members will express themselves for sure. We should do that," said Rep. Sandy Levin, a Michigan Democrat whose district lies just north of Detroit. "We should express the interests of our constituents."

...Lawmakers have already shown they have muscle with GM, and they aren't likely to back off now. Members of the Michigan delegation rebelled last month when word got out that GM, post-bankruptcy, planned to boost its imports of cars made at GM factories in China. As a result, GM agreed as part of its talks with the United Auto Workers union to reopen two idled plants by 2011 to manufacture as many as 160,000 compact cars a year.

Rep. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat whose district north of Detroit includes three plants set to cease production, is one of many lawmakers in the region who want the refitted plants in their backyard.

He has backing from Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who said Monday that she is going to be "aggressive" about trying to snare a facility that will help keep some automotive jobs in the state, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Ms. Granholm, besides countless television appearances pleading for aid, has made about a dozen trips to Washington to meet with Mr. Obama, the president's automotive task force and dozens of other officials...

"I think where GM builds its next plant is going to be more of a political decision than a business decision," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from western Michigan. "For the foreseeable future, these car companies will be run by the Obama administration, and it will not be arm's length."...

Lawmakers care about their own prominence and re-electability, not profitability. They are not going to run General Motors successfully. Mostly (as is obvious from the priorities stated by the Congressmen in the article above, and by such things as the adoption of legislation forcing automakers to meet unrealistic and anti-family mileage standards), they aren't even going to try.

General Motors didn't stay competitive. Even hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars won't change that fact.

If the U.S. government actually wanted to help the domestic car business, Congress and the Administration would repeal mileage standards (which kill Americans as well as car companies), stop pro-union public policies and get the government out of car company management and ownership immediately.

The government isn't doing any of those things.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, FreeEnterpriseProject, Jobs, Outrage, Socialism, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Friday, May 29, 2009

Outrage of the Day: "Subsidymagination"

Writing in the Washington Examiner, columnist Timothy Carney exposes General Electric's penchant for lobbying the federal government to force us to pay for its products.

Carney writes:

GE is not simply taking advantage of subsidies that exist -- the company lobbies, with its $18 million-a-year lobbying outfit, to create or protect these subsidies. On greenhouse emissions restrictions, GE is leading the pro-regulation charge.

But these "green" profits for GE don't come out of nowhere. Regulations force businesses to buy GE's products. Subsidies incentivize them to buy GE's products. In either case, regular people foot the bill -- either through higher prices for electricity, shipping, and manufactured goods, or through higher taxes.

Pathetically but hilariously, Carney quotes the head of GE's "Ecomagination" scam, Steven Fludder, trying to pass off GE's lobby-robbery of taxpayers with a little spin:

I'd prefer not to think of words like 'subsidies' and that type of a construct. I think it is more supporting the creation of scale.

We'd prefer not to think of words like "subsidies," too, Mr. Fludder, if only parasites like General Electric and others who prefer not to earn their bread through honest trade would just mend their ways.

The column quotes Steve Milloy, who co-directs the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, which has written extensively about GE's brand of game-the-system legal extortion on its FreeEnterpriser blog, crediting him with coining the term "subsidymagination." (Steve is also the author of the excellent new book about the harm environmental lobbyists due to ordinary folk, Green Hell, and he runs JunkScience.com.)

In the Washington Times today, Jerry Seper writes about a decision by political appointees at the Justice Department to overrule career lawyers, who wanted to prosecute men who allegedly stood outside a Philadelphia voting booth and intimidated voters with a stick.

I think of General Electric as the genteel lobbyist version of the men with sticks. We don't want to buy their products, but if we don't, the men with sticks -- Congress and the regulators backed by the tax men -- will see to it that we do.

I don't believe Obama's appointees are on our side on this one, either.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, Outrage, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:32 AM

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Chrysler Dealership Closings: They're Calling it "DealerGate"

Did the Obama White House pressure Chrysler to close some dealerships for political reasons?

Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor of the Washington Examiner, examines the question here (blog post) and here (newspaper column).

Others on the story include Josh Painter at RedState; Sammy Benoit at Yid with Lid; Doug Ross @ Journal and more.

A Gateway Pundit post on this tonight leads with: "After Weeding Out GOP-Linked Dealers, Chrysler Looking To Open New Dealerships."

This article sticks out in my mind: "After Surviving Katrina, a Local Car Dealer Becomes a Casualty of the Economy." Nothing overtly political in that story, but it's worth a read for the angle of the guy who pulled up his bootstraps to get a dealership in the first place, only to be hit by Katrina and spend years recovering, now to suffer a killing blow from his government.

Paul Ibrahim notes, accurately, I believe: "Regardless of whether these specific allegations are true, one would be foolish to believe that government makes decisions based on business judgment as opposed to political considerations."

Hat tips: Yid With Lid and Say Anything.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Government Power, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:46 AM

"Airy Fairy Thinking"

Our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser, has a two minute and 41 second really great video take-down of cap-and-trade.

Take less than three minutes for a fast-paced tutorial by Karry Kudlow of CNBC's Kudlow Report.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Regulation, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:26 AM

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congressmen and Businesses Supporting Economic Suicide Pact

In a press release today, the National Center for Public Policy Research makes the point that the Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) is akin to an economic suicide pact:

Cap and Trade Bill Economic Suicide for Taxpayers and Businesses, says National Center for Public Policy Research

Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Get ready to be taxed even more, America!

Memorial Day is the target date set by Democrats Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) for passage of a cap-and-trade bill that promises economic hardship for all. The Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) would raise taxes on American families by nearly $3,100 a year, lead to huge job losses, and dramatically raise the energy expenditures of American households.

Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as numerous studies dictate.
* The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis determined that Waxman-Markey would reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those previously rejected by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs.

* A study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology determined the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.

* A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15% noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
Given these dire consequences, some may be surprised that some of the nation's largest corporations are lobbying for this bill. Companies participating in the United States Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying group of over thirty corporations and environmental activist organizations, are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so-called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases.

During last week's ConocoPhillips shareholders meeting, Tom Borelli, Ph.D, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research confronted ConocoPhillips Chairman James Mulva about ConocoPhillips' involvement in the USCAP. Mulva responded by saying he wanted to be at the table when energy policy decisions were being made. [An audio recording of the exchange is available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uZVcyBfi2M ].

"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Borelli. ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide as traditional oil. Since cap-and-trade will increase the cost of carbon emissions, Mulva is lobbying to increase the cost of his investment. In addition, his USCAP partner the Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."

"Pursuing legislation that will raise energy prices in the middle of a recession is economic suicide. It exposes the inability of these CEOs to connect the dots between economic growth and their future earnings," Borelli warns. He told Mulva that ConocoPhillips has done a poor job of promoting the "social good" the Company has done in terms of jobs, tax revenues and energy production.

Instead, "USCAP's support of President Obama's energy policy for what they deem as the 'social good,' illustrates the perils of corporatism - and is eerily similar of the warning in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which described the unraveling of capitalism," says Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free-market communications and research foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill. It receives support from over 80,000 individual contributors. Under 2 percent of its revenue is received from corporations.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Outrage, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:00 AM

And We're Supposed to Believe Their Positions are Based on Principle?

Ross Kaminsky, writing for the National Taxpayers Union Government Bytes blog, laughingly notes which eight corporate members of the pro-cap-and-trade U.S. Climate Action Partnership once were members of the anti-global warming-regulation Global Climate Coalition.

The Government Bytes post is an excellent resource in other ways as well.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:42 AM

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Boneless Goose

The "central activity" of the Obama Administration "is corruption," says George Will today.

The column begins:

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil -- the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness...

Read it all here.

Hat tip: Drudge Report.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Corruption, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:33 AM

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Misbehaving for Money: Something Wanda Sykes, Perez Hilton and Donald Trump Have in Common

When comedian Wanda Sykes, heretofore largely anonymous, got the gig to be the professional funny person at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, she could have been funny (she knows how). Everyone would have laughed (it was an easy crowd), she would have received compliments afterward (and presumably some more bookings), and that would have been that.

Alternatively, she could do something outrageous, be all over the news for a few days, and get even more bookings and interviews and make a lot more money.

When professional gossip Perez Hilton had the chance to be a judge at the Miss USA pageant, he could have asked the sort of question pageant judges ask, or limited himself to questions appropriate to a show with untold numbers of children in the audience, or even restrained himself from behaving intolerantly and abominably (and to the detriment of the political cause he claims to champion) after receiving the answer he solicited and presumably expected. Because he did not, he received extensive national publicity, which, I expect, has benefited him financially and professionally.

When Donald Trump saw that personnel employed by the beauty pageant he owns were behaving grotesquely, he could have issued a few orders and knocked 90 percent of this story off the front pages. Because he made a different choice, the news media is abuzz with the fact that he will hold a press conference in the morning, and he'll no doubt be all over the news tomorrow. Ratings for his pageant will be up next year, not because greater numbers will tune in to admire the young ladies for their grace and beauty, but for the same reason people slow down on the highway to look at a car wreck. But Donald Trump will receive more publicity, and he will earn more money.

The behavior of Wanda Sykes, Perez Hilton, Donald Trump and others who intentionally behave less than graciously for money and profit is not admirable. If we wish to see less of it, we should turn our eyes away.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:20 AM

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Tom Borelli to Appear on Fox Business Network 8 AM Monday

Tom Borelli, co-director (with Steve Milloy) of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will appear on the Fox Business Network at 8 AM Monday, May 11.

The topics will include executive compensation and shareholder activism.

Video above is taken from a prior appearance by Tom on the Fox Business Network, discussing shareholder activism and proposed legislation to deal with alleged global warming.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:49 PM

Friday, May 08, 2009

GE Apparently Concludes ObamaCare Would Spend Less on Diagnostic Health Care Equipment Than Private Insurers Do

In "Is GE Dancing to the White House Piper?," Washington Examiner writer Timothy Carney says GE is altering its business strategy to take into account President Obama's government-run health care plan:

President Obama is calling for a greater government role in health care. He has proposed allowing all Americans onto a government-run plan that would compete with private insurers, and he has also proposed government cost-containment measures. This could be worrisome to GE, which makes expensive diagnostic equipment.

Ironically, while Obama's plans to regulate Americans' energy use could benefit GE financially, the President's desire to push Americans into government-run health care could hurt the company. GE apparently has concluded that government-run health care programs will spend less on the diagnostic equipment GE makes than do private insurers.

Evidently, it isn't just right-wing extremists such as ourselves who believe private insurers shell out more for patients' welfare than government-run systems do.

P.S. It's on a different subject, but consider signing our petition to GE.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:44 PM

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Money Manager Castigates President, and Good for Him

By way of the Zero Hedge blog, by way of New York magazine, The Lid blog reprints a nice tough letter from money management executive Clifford S. Asness about President Obama's recent attack on hedge fund managers.

An excerpt of the letter (the full version of which you can find on all three websites above):

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration's bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them "speculators" who were "refusing to sacrifice like everyone else" and who wanted "to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout."

...Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It's not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it's supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler's creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let's be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients' money to share in the "sacrifice", they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients' money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That's how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could "share in the sacrifice", you would not be happy...

...Let's also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing...

By the way, New York magazine reports that Mr. Asness supported Mr. Obama during the last election.

Hat tip: Mychal Massie.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Government Power, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:15 PM

Monday, May 04, 2009

Supporting Cap-and-Trade "Almost Demented"

"Charlie Munger, the second in command behind Warren Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway, says in an interview on CNBC that it's 'almost demented' to pass cap-and-trade given the state of our economy."

So reports Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, on our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser.

For more, including a link to the video, read Tom's "Berkshire's Munger: Cap & Trade Won't Work," here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Energy, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:36 PM

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Chrysler: Orwell's Animal Farm

Image via Wikipedia

Doesn't Barack Obama write any of his own material?

His statement on Chrysler Thursday could have been taken from the pages of George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Barack Obama apparently believes all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Obama blamed Chrysler's chapter 11 bankruptcy on some of the company's creditors who he says are unwilling to make the same sacrifices as everyone else.

"Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting," Obama said in his statement.

Since the return on investment for all Chrysler's creditors is negative, perhaps he should have taken them up on their very generous offer to get twice as much of it. Note to Obama: If you don't understand the basic concept of return, perhaps you shouldn't be in charge of "investing" our tax dollars.

Obama -- who bears a striking resemblance to Animal Farm's Napoleon -- wasn't asking Chrysler's financial sector creditors to make sacrifices like everyone else. He was demanding that they assume a disproportionate share of the sacrifice.

Obama's plan called for these creditors to forgive 67% of the debt owed them (or about $4.6 billion) in exchange for a 10% stake in Chrysler. The United Auto Workers, on the other hand, would forgive about 48% of the money owed to their retirees health care trust (or $4.2 billion) in exchange for a 55% stake in the company.

Even among the financial institutions owed money, not all animals are equal on Obama's farm.

JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, which together hold about 70% of Chrysler's debt to such institutions, all backed Obama's plan. All four firms -- perhaps not surprisingly -- have received significant federal Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. The 20 lenders balking at the deal have not received TARP funds.

The parallels with Animal Farm don't end there.

In Animal Farm, Napoleon takes control over the farm after farmer Jones so completely mismanages the farm that it experiences severe financial difficulties and proves incapable of caring for the farm's animals adequately.

Once in power, Napoleon didn't tolerate opposition. When a rival advanced an alternative plan for the farm, Napoleon had him driven out spreading false rumors that his rival was secretly trying to sabotage the farm.

I think that pretty much sums up Obama's press conference yesterday.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

Labels: Business, Economics, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 8:29 AM

Monday, April 27, 2009

Fox Haters Week in Review

Johnny Dollar's Place has a lot of fun with Keith Olbermann's inability to get the facts straight in its latest Fox Haters Week in Review.

This edition has several links back to this blog and coverage of our General Electric-related activities (among other stories and issues), but it would have been a fun read for me even without that.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:18 AM

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Hurting the Nations by Hurting the Rich

A very good column by composer/producer Andrew Lloyd Webber (Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats, The Phantom of the Opera and more) on the pitfalls of raising taxes on the rich is directed at a British audience, but ought to be read by Americans.

Here's hoping lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic pay attention.

Andrew Lloyd Webber writes:

The opinion polls have uttered. The country loves the new 50 per cent top rate of income tax. Soak the rich. Smash the bankers...

...I believe that this new top rate of tax could be the final nail in the coffin of Britain plc.

I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth...

...I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs. The Government must modify its proposals.

I give you this example. I have altered the details of the family I write about for obvious reasons. But the essentials are true.

Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what's left.

This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live.

His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.

He says that he is young enough to set up shop somewhere else. The new tax rates were the final straw. These talented young people know they will make it impossible for them to educate their kids privately in the UK.

So Britain plc loses not just the 40 per cent he would have paid in personal taxes under the old regime - plus NI and everything else - but... Come on, I don't need to explain the knock-on effect. It's obviously huge and immensely damaging - that's why I am writing this article quickly and probably with too much passion...

...Of course there are thousands of people like my friend - some employing themselves through their own companies, some self-employed, some employed by others. But all are part of the wealth-creation engine that has helped power Britain's economy...

...So I ask the Government to reconsider what it is doing. More than ever before we need to keep high-flying professionals in the UK. We can't, as we have done in the past, dump on them through penal personal taxation...

...The next few years are going to be horrendous in the UK. The last thing we need is a Somali pirate-style raid on the few wealth creators who still dare to navigate Britain's gale-force waters.

Read it all here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Social Welfare, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM

Hollywood Reporter Updates 'Drama at GE Shareholders Meeting'

Reporter Paul Bond of the Hollywood Reporter has substantially updated his report on the GE stockholders meeting, with a new version published Friday evening.

I could tell you what he added, but you might as well go directly to the source, which is here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:15 AM

Friday, April 24, 2009

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Report the Alleged GE Corruption Story

Here's Bill O'Reilly being interviewed by Glenn Beck, April 23, 2009, to tease the GE cap-and-trade story O'Reilly would present later that evening on the O'Reilly Factor.

Here's the actual report by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor, April 23, including his conversation with nationally-syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham.

Here's the portion of Tom Borelli's audio tape of the GE stockholders' meeting's Q&A covering Jesse Watters' question to GE CEO Jeff Immelt about MSNBC, as run by Fox News, including the O'Reilly Factor, on April 23.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:35 AM

Jesse Watters as the American Archetype

As part of a report on the confrontation between Jesse Watters, Deneen Borelli, Tom Borelli and others versus the GE management at yesterday's GE stockholders' meeting, The Cable Game blog has a great "picture" of Fox News Producer Jesse Watters.

It only takes a second to take a look.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:43 AM

Keith Olbermann: Worst Fact-Checking in the World

The odious Keith Olbermann, GE employee, named Jesse Watters runner-up for "Worst Person in the World" for asking questions at the GE stockholder meeting.

You can see it here (or above) if you like. The segment on Watters has several factual errors (such as claiming Watters' mike wasn't cut off), which is really inexcusable, but what else is new?

After I fact-check my own list of the errors in the segment with those who were there, I'll post the other errors Olbermann made, so if you care, watch this space.

Addendum: OK, I've checked. As I suspected, Keith Olbermann had more wrong than his false claim that Jesse Watters' microphone wasn't cut off. Olbermann also claimed that Watters audiotaped the Q&A session and then lied about it when GE asked if he was taping. In fact, Watters didn't tape the session, Tom Borelli did. Tom -- later -- allowed Fox News to use a copy of his tape.

(As an aside, Tom tells me that "Jesse was being watched by GE security and every time he took his Blackberry out - they were all over him." This is bizarre. What did GE think a lone guy was going to do to them with a Blackberry?)

Then there's Olbermann's assertion that one of the people who asked about CNBC works for Fox News. Two people asked about CNBC: Deneen Borelli (the "unidentified woman" in the oft-quoted Hollywood Reporter story) and Tom Borelli. Both work for the National Center for Public Policy Research (Tom as co-director of the Free Enterprise Project; Deneen as full-time fellow with Project 21. Tom also works, independently, for the Free Enterprise Action Fund mutual fund), and neither has ever worked for, been paid by, or received funds from, Fox News.

So Olbermann had four errors in 78 seconds:

1) Olbermann falsely claimed Jesse Watters' microphone wasn't cut off, when it was (as was, temporarily, Deneen Borelli's);

2) Olbermann falsely claimed Jesse Watters audiotaped the Q&A session;

3) Olbermann falsely claimed that Watters lied when he denied taping the meeting;

4) Olbermann falsely claimed that one of the two persons who asked about CNBC was representing Fox News.

That's one error every 19.5 seconds.

Maybe at next year's annual GE stockholders' meeting, the stockholders should question the competency of a news division that makes an error every twenty seconds.

Hat tip: A commenter on Olbermann Watch.

Note: Comments on the video were made by YouTube user Gamingeagle19, who is not affiliated with the National Center for Public Policy Research.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:21 AM

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Olbermann Watch Has Tom Borelli/Glenn Beck Interview Audio as Video

The Olbermann Watch website has Tom Borelli's April 23 Glenn Beck radio interview, as a as a video. (It had been posted on YouTube by "Olbywatch.")

Watch it for Tom and Glenn's take on the significance of events at the GE shareholder meeting and information about the petition to GE Tom's Free Enterprise Project is circulating for signatures.

Hat tip: Olbermann Watch.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:59 PM

CNBC Coverage of GE Stockholder Meeting

Gateway Pundit has video, as does YouTube (see above) of a CNBC news report on the GE stockholder meeting.

Note: I originally posted the wrong video in this post. I have since corrected the error. Apologies to all for any inconvenience.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:49 PM

GE-Owned Networks' Media Bias, Conflicts-of-Interest Remain Focus Day After Stockholder Meeting

As readers here know, at yesterday's annual GE shareholder meeting, CEO Jeffrey Immelt was challenged on the subject of media bias at GE-owned NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.

The story is far from over. I encourage those interested in it to watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight for additional in-depth reporting, including the airing at least part of an audio recording of the Q&A session inside the stockholders' meeting made by Tom Borelli. (As of this writing, Fox has also made a tiny portion of the tape, the part featuring Fox reporter Jesse Watters asking about about Keith Olbermann's handling of the recent infamous Janeane Garofalo interview, and the shareholders booing when GE cut off Jesse Watters' mike, available on its website now here, and it has been linked to by Drudge.)

Borelli is co-director (with Steve Milloy) of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, and, independently, a long-time shareholder activist with the Free Enterprise Action Fund pro-free enterprise mutual fund.

Leading the questioning about media bias at the shareholder meeting (the unidentified woman whose microphone was cut off by GE in Noel Sheppard's report) was Deneen Borelli, Tom's wife and full-time fellow at the conservative African-American group Project 21.

Here's how Tom described events on the Free Enterprise Project's Free Enterpriser blog:

The Hollywood Reporter described the events at yesterday's GE shareholder meeting in its story Drama at GE Shareholder Meeting

In addition, here is our first hand account from yesterday's meeting. Deneen is my wife.

Censorship and limited government was a theme at the General Electric (GE) shareholder meeting in Orlando, FL.

Deneen had the opportunity to ask the first question, directed at GE CEO Jeff Immelt. She inquired whether he tried to silence anti-Obama criticism on CNBC as it was reported in the media. The New York Post reported that GE executives were concerned that CNBC was perceived as too critical of President Obama. Immelt responded that he does not interfere with the opinions of his networks even though he doesn't necessarily agree with them.

Deneen's concern is Immelt will do anything to preserve a favorable relationship with Obama in order to sell GE's green technologies. At some point in Deneen's dialogue with Immelt, Deneen's microphone was shut off.

I told Immelt he was not only a threat to shareholders but also to liberty and limited government. I reminded Immelt that the company's stock was underperforming the stock market before the economic crisis.

I advised Immelt that we have an online petition that encourages GE never to trade with enemies, to stop pursuing cap-and-trade legislation that would raise energy prices, and that he uses his media empire to advance his agenda.

I also told Immelt that "We surround you" and that it was time for a "GE Tea Party" to reign in this out of control corporation.

In cutting off Deneen's microphone when she asked about media bias at CNBC (GE restored the mike when Deneen kept talking anyway), and then that of Fox producer Jesse Watters, when he asked about Keith Olbermann's handling of the Janeane Garofalo interview, GE showed itself to be defensive. (It also showed itself to be ineffective, as the next person up at a microphone was Tom Borelli, who asked Immelt about GE's business with Iran; GE's lobbying for cap-and-trade, and GE's double-hit on senior citizen stockholders [by cutting dividends after saying it wouldn't while lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations that will dramatically raise consumer energy prices].)

It's no wonder GE is defensive, however. As Tom's pointed questions, and Bill O'Reilly's comments tonight on the Glenn Beck TV show ("We're in an area right now that makes Watergate look like a Shirley Temple movie.") illustrate, the best that can be said about General Electric is that it is hip deep in conflict of interest. It's running TV networks that prop up liberalism, the global warming issue and Obama, while privately lobbying hard for cap-and-trade, from which it intends to profit heavily.

It is that last angle we can expect O'Reilly to illuminate tonight.

Meantime, in an apparent counterattack against Tom Borelli for his long-time free-market activism against GE's left-wing activism, media allegations are being made that Tom is employed by or is on the payroll of Fox News. This allegation is incorrect. Tom is not now nor has he ever been employed, paid or funded by Fox News. He is employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research to co-direct its Free Enterprise Project and, separately, he is co-director of the Free Enterprise Action Fund mutual fund. In these capacities Tom attends many shareholder meetings (such as one in March in which Disney CEO Robert Iger swore at him), including each of the last four GE shareholder meetings.

Arguments that the Borellis are agents of Fox News are a diversion intended to take interest away from GE's use of media outlets it owns to promote global warming policies from which it can handsomely profit. We shouldn't let the diversion succeed.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

Addendum: Jeff Poor, writing for Newsbusters, has a good write-up of the O'Reilly broadcast on this tonight.

Addendum 2: Moonbattery does, too.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:50 PM

Her Microphone Was Cut Off: GE Executives Respond to Questions About Media Bias, More at Shareholder Meeting

Tom and Deneen Borelli have emailed this report about their participation in the General Electric Shareholder meeting today:

Censorship and limited government was a theme at the General Electric (GE) shareholder meeting in Orlando, FL.

Deneen had the opportunity to ask the first question directed at GE CEO Jeff Immelt. She inquired whether he tried to silence anti-Obama criticism on CNBC as it was reported in the media. The New York Post reported that GE executives were concerned that CNBC was perceived as too critical of President Obama. Immelt responded that he does not interfere with the opinions of his networks even though he doesn't necessarily agree with them.

Deneen's concern is Immelt will do anything to preserve a favorable relationship with Obama in order to sell GE's green technologies. At some point in Deneen's dialogue with Immelt, Deneen's microphone was shut off.

Tom told Immelt he was not only a threat to shareholders but also to liberty and limited government. He reminded Immelt that the company's stock was underperforming the stock market before the economic crisis.

Tom advised Immelt that he has an online petition that encourages GE never to trade with enemies, to stop pursuing cap-and-trade legislation that would raise energy prices, and that he uses his media empire to advance his agenda.

Tom also told Immelt that "We surround you" and that it was time for a "GE Tea Party" to reign in this out of control corporation.

For more information, visit the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterpriser website, or read other recent posts on this blog.

And remember to catch Tom on the Glenn Beck radio show Thursday morning at 10 AM Eastern (the start of the show's second hour, if you listen via a podcast) for more detailed information.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:29 AM

Drama at GE Shareholders Meeting

Image by MatthewBradley via Flickr

Tom Borelli tells me the GE shareholders' meeting today was very interesting.

The first of several questions about media bias at GE-owned CNBC and MSNBC was asked by Mrs. Tom Borelli, aka Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli.

We'll have more details from Tom and Deneen about what happened shortly (they're writing up a summary of events right now, in between talking to journalists), but for now, you can whet your appetite with this story by the Hollywood Reporter (which was just linked to by Drudge, so you can tell it's interesting).

For an even better report, catch Tom on Glenn Beck's radio show Thursday morning at 10 AM Eastern.

And if you haven't already done it, sign the online petition to GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:17 AM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A (Brief) E-Mail Response from GE

An individual whose signature line identified him as a tax analyst for GE based in Ft. Myers, Florida sent along one of the shortest blog comments possible: a link to a page on GE's website, with no accompanying commentary.

The link is:

http://www.ge.com/news/our_viewpoints/iran.html

For the convenience of our readers, the linked page says:

Iran Policy

GE doesn't do business in or with Iran. Due to the developing circumstances there, the concerns of our shareholders, and our view of our corporate responsibilities, GE and its board decided in 2005 to stop doing business in Iran.

There have been two exceptions to this: completing the work for existing contracts as quickly as possible and humanitarian activity, which is authorized by U.S. Government licenses. As of June 2008, we have completed all business in Iran. GE at all times acted in full compliance with U.S. and other laws. We have always required our businesses to follow U.S. sanctions and other applicable laws. In fact, our policies have been more restrictive than U.S. law.

GE does business in more than 100 countries. We carefully consider the locations in which we do business. We want to do what is best for our shareholders, our company, our partners, and the countries in which and with whom we do business. We devote significant resources to ensuring that our business activities are in compliance with all applicable laws, that they are conducted with integrity and that they deliver value for our shareholders worldwide.

Our actions regarding Iran reflect our shareholders' concerns, our board of directors' judgment, and GE's dedication to being a responsible corporate citizen. In light of business and reputation risks that may arise from doing business with countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism by the U.S. Department of State (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria), GE will not accept business in any of these countries, except activity that is authorized by the U.S. Government for humanitarian or public policy purposes.

I don't believe this conflicts with anything we've said about GE, and it is of course silent on several of our concerns (such as GE's lobbying for cap and trade, for the new "green bank," etc.). Nevertheless we are happy to make this brief response from GE conveniently available to our readers.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Defense, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:21 PM

Want Tax Money to Fund a New "Green Bank"? If "No," Sign Our Petition to GE

Do you agree with GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt that America needs a new, taxpayer-funded "green bank"?

If you're not sure, Watch the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck interview Free Enterprise Project co-director Tom Borelli about GE and the "green Bank" proposal.

If you don't, you may wish to sign our Free Enterprise Project's petition to Jeffrey Immelt.

For more information, go here or here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:10 PM

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Tom Borelli on GE Doing Business with Iran

A year ago, on the occasion of General Electric's 2008 shareholder meeting, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News interviewed our Free Enterprise Project's Tom Borelli on GE's relationship with Iran.

The video includes audio, with an on-screen transcript, of Tom Borelli directly confronting GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt at the 2008 shareholder meeting about GE's receipt of what Tom called "blood money" from Iran.

Fox News conducted "man on the street" interviews outside the 2008 GE stockholder meeting and found a lot of support for Tom's position, then and now.

Do you disagree with GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt on Iran, on the need for greater regulation of the economy, and more government funds going to the private sector? If so, go here to sign Tom's petition to GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

For more information on why so many Americans are upset with GE, go to the Free Enterprise Project home page or visit this post on this blog.

And return to this blog in coming days to learn what happens at this year's annual GE stockholder meeting, which Tom Borelli is attending in Orlando today.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Defense, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:45 AM

Free Enterprise Project Takes on GE Today: Join It By Signing Our Online Petition

If you've followed the work of Tom Borelli and the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, you know Tom and his crew have been very tough on General Electric and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

GE has its shareholder meeting today in sunny Orlando, Florida. Tom will be there, and you can be, too -- virtually, that is.

You can do so by going to the Free Enterpriser website and signing the Free Enterprise Project's petition to GE CEO Immelt.

Read the petition to review the concerns Tom and his allies have about GE, both from a free enterprise and American perspective, and if you agree, please go here and add your name to the over 1,000 people who signed the petition in just the first day or so of its posting:

Jeffery Immelt
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
Dear Mr. Immelt,

We surround you.

I'm writing you to express my deep concern that under your leadership, GE's business practices are undermining the principles of our free society.

I'm outraged that GE sold infrastructure equipment to Iran -- a country that is a recognized state sponsor of terror. Moreover, I'm appalled you defended your business dealings with Iran by saying "The issue of whether to conduct business in certain countries is complex; we must take into account not only the views of the U.S. Government but all relevant stakeholders."

It's reckless for you to place your short-term business interest ahead of our national security.

I'm troubled by your use of GE's considerable lobbying resources to expand the growth and influence of government over my life. Specifically, GE is supporting so-called cap-and-trade legislation that would increase energy prices, increase job losses and result in slower economic growth. In addition, the legislation would lead to a massive government bureaucracy and loss of individual freedom.

I'm concerned that you are using GE's media empire to manipulate public opinion. NBC News and MSNBC are slanted to favor the left-wing political agenda and network programming is skewed to promote -- without attribution -- GE's "green" business goals.

As a supporter of the 9-12 Project and the Tax Day Tea Party rallies, I'm motivated to take action to promote the values and principles on which our country was founded.

Accordingly, I'm encouraging you to never trade with enemies of the U.S., to stop lobbying for cap-and-trade legislation and to bring fairness and balance to your media empire.

I'm putting you and your board of directors on notice that your decisions are inconsistent with my values and to inform you that as one of thousands of liberty loving citizens -- we surround you.

Sincerely,

For more information, go to Glenn Beck's website and listen to Glenn's first-hour radio interview with Tom on 4/20 (paid subscription required), and/or watch Glenn interview Tom about GE on Fox's Glenn Beck show on February 9 in the video I've embedded above.

You can also go here to read what happened when Tom confronted GE at its 2007 shareholder meeting, here to read a quote from Jeff Immelt calling for more regulation on private business, go here to see how GE lobbies for global warming regulations, or here to see Tom name Immelt one of the nation's five worst CEOs.

Or come back to this blog later today, when I post more video of Tom on other programs, discussing GE policies.

But, above all, don't forget! If you agree, go here to sign the petition to GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Defense, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:43 AM

Monday, April 20, 2009

Attention Glenn Beck Fans

Tom Borelli, co-director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest on the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday morning at 9:40 am Eastern. Tom will be talking about upcoming corporate shareholder meetings he will be attending and an associated petition project.

Stay tuned for more details...

___________________________
Post From My iPhone

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:32 PM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Putin's Totalitarianism

As detailed in this Kim Zigfeld article for American Thinker, Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to get worse.

Zigfeld writing about a Russian court in Siberia issuing a $1.7 billion judgment against a Norwegian telecom firm reminds me of something I wrote back in 2002:

In the past few years, bureaucrats inside the Russian government have demonstrated a troubling tendency to use Soviet-style tactics when dealing with private companies. A situation exemplifying this growing problem has occurred in the case of world famous Stolichnaya Vodka.

Vodka production is Russia's second biggest industry. After the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1991 the government sold the assets of the Russian vodka industry to private industry. SPI International, now based in the Netherlands, bought the rights to Stoli Vodka and has run the company successfully for over a decade. Over one and a half million cases of Stoli Vodka are imported into the U.S. each year.

But last October, the Russian state trademark industry turned SPI's vodka trademarks over to the Russian Ministry of Agriculture, which subsequently declared the trademarks void. A Russian court intervened on behalf of SPI but, to the chagrin of independent observers, the Russian government is ignoring the court's findings and orders. In fact, the government seized the company's assets and trademarks for its own purposes.

If this worrisome situation had occurred only to one company in one industry, it would be troublesome, but perhaps an aberration. Alas, SPI is not alone. Other private enterprises in Russia are suffering similar, all but catastrophic, fates.

If we imagine the havoc that would occur in the United States if our Securities and Exchange Commission (which regulates Wall Street), was corrupt, and officials of the President's cabinet felt empowered to seize the assets of industries as large as, say, our automotive industry - even if ordered not to do so by U.S. courts - then we have an approximate picture of the chaos into which Russia economy may be sliding.

This bureaucratic rot imperils Russia's democratic reforms. For Russia's sake, as well as our own, Congress and the President should press this point to Mr. Putin, who is the one man currently in a position to effectively reverse these dangerous trends in Russia. If necessary, normal trade relations and WTO membership should be withheld.

An impartial legal system that guards property rights is the irreplaceable cornerstone of democratic capitalism. No less than the future of an economically secure and democratically stable Russia is at stake.

I regret that my worries in 2002 don't appear to have been overblown.

I've discussed Putin's Russia many times (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and news keeps getting worse.

I am reminded of a Putin quote I posted in this blog in 2005:

First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.
-Russian President Vladimir Putin

P.S. I think we can suppose Putin still defends the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Foreign Policy, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:43 PM

Monday, April 13, 2009

More on Making Green Loans

The CEO of e3bank has written to respond to the post last week about e3bank.

Here's what he had to say:

Good Morning Amy,

I have read your blog and would like to respond to statements made about the recent New York Times article on e3bank.

Our goal at e3bank is to provide credit worthy people with financial tools that help them incorporate sustainability into their lives, homes and businesses. As a triple bottom line bank, all of our business decisions - including loan decisions - are viewed through three lenses: What are the impacts of our decisions on profitability? What are the impacts on the environment? What are the impacts on all of the people who are affected by them?

We have no intention of lowering credit standards. We're all suffering through the results of that kind of behavior. However, we recognize that companies and individuals who are focused on energy conservation and environmental responsibility tend to have a better risk profile. Understanding sustainability and taking action on it is an indicator that these customers are forward-thinking and conservative in the broadest sense of the word.

Frank J. Baldassarre, Jr.
President/CEO
e3bank
enterprise. environment. equity.
346 East King Street
Malvern, PA 19355
(484) 614-6883
www.e3bank.com

Fair enough.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Making Green Loans

On our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser, Tom Borelli notes a new start-up among the phenomenon of businesses set up with a social purpose:

A story published in the New York Times describes the growth of green banks. E3bank recently received approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and if it gets the final ok from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and by the commonwealth it will be ready for business.

E3bank will incorporate the principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to its lending practices in an effort to stimulate the green economy.

"Instead of following the industry standard -- basing loans on a borrower's ability to pay and the up-front costs of the building -- e3bank officers will be authorized to modify debt-to-income and loan-to-value proposals. Financial products would be tailored to account for the up-front costs of more expensive green projects but also factor in cost savings from lower energy consumption that would be netted over the course of the loan."

By lowering lending standards for a social purpose the green banks are repeating the mistake made by the banking industry in pushing mortgages on low income households. Social purpose should not be the criteria for lending money -- only the ability of the individual to repay the loan.

I wonder if the FDIC charges banks more for deposit insurance if they use criteria other than/in addition to the ability to repay when making loans. Since taxpayers are ultimately behind the FDIC, I hope so.

Note: Mr. Frank J. Baldassarre, Jr., the president and CEO of e3bank, has sent us a reply to this post. Readers can find it here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:17 AM

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Washington Post & Far Left Team Examine Geithner

Writing on the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterpriser blog, Tom Borelli says the Washington Post learned a few interesting things when it and a left-wing group jointly examined the role Timothy Geithner played in magnifying the banking crisis.

Says Tom:

An investigative story published in the Washington Post charges that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner played a significant role in creating the economic crisis.

While in charge of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner facilitated the trading of credit derivatives - exotic financial instruments - that magnified the banking crisis and he failed to adequately regulate the banks under his control.

Specifically, Geithner was aware that the banks had not properly assessed the risks - including those posed by credit derivates - from an economic down-turn and did not take strong measures to address these issues.

"Records and interviews show that Geithner and his colleagues did not employ some of the harsher tools at their disposal to bring the banks into line. From 2006 through the start of the credit crisis in the summer of 2007, they brought no formal enforcement actions against any large institution for substandard risk-management practices."

Had Geithner exercised his regulatory power, it's possible we could have averted significant portions of the current economic crisis. Nevertheless, Obama promoted Geithner to head the Treasury Department. Clearly, Geithner's selection calls into question Obama's judgment.

Interestingly, the Washington Post story was jointly written by Post reporter Robert O'Harrow, Jr., and Jeff Gerth, a former New York Times reporter now employed by the left-wing non-profit ProPublica. ProPublica was founded and is funded (to the tune of $10 million annually) and chaired by Herb Sandler, who, with his wife, Marion, is former CEO and owner of Golden West Financial and the World Savings S&L. The acquisition of these institutions, which specialized in adjustable-rate mortgages, by Wachovia in 2006 was cited as a key factor in the substantial losses suffered by that bank in 2008. While the Post acknowledged that its story was co-written with ProPublica, it did so referring to the organization as a "independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest." The Post made no mention of the rather obvious conflict-of-interest ProPublica has on this particular subject matter.

For more on the Sandlers, their left-wing agenda, the economic crisis and ProPublica, I recommend this Carter Wood post on ShopFloor.org and this Ed Lasky post on American Thinker.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:58 PM

A New Government Bank?

If events in recent months have convinced you that what America needs is a new government bank, funded by tax dollars, to lend money to the production of so-called "green" technologies that don't merit a loan from a free-market bank, then you'll be pleased to know that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), has introduced legislation to create such an entity.

If, on the other hand, you are less-than-pleased, you may want to watch the 5-minute Glenn Beck interview of Tom Borelli, co-director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, about this proposed government bank.

For additional information and links, please visit our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Spending, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:28 AM

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Dick Morris on "Ending American Sovereignty"

Dick Morris on the new financial regulatory framework.

He's not at all happy about it.

My brief thoughts on this are here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Foreign Policy, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:46 PM

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Obama and the Bankers

President Obama meets with bank CEOs.

Where to begin?

Perhaps the outrageous pitchfork remark.

Or the pretense that Obama opposes generous executive compensation.

Or the request that banks not return TARP money.

Just one meeting, so many editorial targets.

I'll be brief.

Publicly, Obama says, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." Privately, Obama associates with ACORN, and helps ACORN raise money. ACORN is waving pitchforks.

Publicly, Obama criticizes executives receiving bonuses. Privately, he end-runs Congressional restrictions on such bonuses.

Publicly, Obama claims to support the free market. Privately, he asks banks not to return TARP funds anytime soon.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Government Power, Government Spending, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:08 AM

Why Obama Doesn't Want TARP Funds Returned

This Wall Street Journal op-ed by Fox Business Channel host Stuart Varney should be read by one and all:

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story...

Read it all here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:42 AM

Friday, April 03, 2009

The New Byrd-Hagel

The Senate has voted 89-8 to oppose cap-and-trade if it raises electricity or gasoline prices.

Of course, cap-and-trade would raise electricity and gasoline prices, so the Senate has effectively just gone on record 89-8 against cap-and-trade.

In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which opposed the adoption of any climate treaty that exempted developing nations. As the Kyoto global warming treaty exempted developing nations, Byrd-Hagel was seen as a signal that the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. As a result, though then-Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty on behalf of the United States, the Clinton-Gore Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.

Will Senator John Thune (R-SD)'s amendment be the new Byrd-Hagel? Not without continuing hard work by those of us who don't want electricity and gasoline prices to rise in a wasteful and expensive effort to enrich a handful of businesses and wage a futile effort to control the planet's climate...

...but it definitely has possibilities.

Hat tip: Roger Pielke, Jr. on Prometheus.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:56 AM

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

The California Drought's Congressional "Kangaroo Court"

The kangaroo waits for the hearing to begin.

The kangaroo listens attentively to hearing proceedings. The National Center for Public Policy Research's Jeff Temple and Devon Carlin are seated to the kangaroo's left.

Devon Carlin provides a report on the U.S. House Resources Committee hearing Monday -- the one to which the National Center for Public Policy Research sent a "kangaroo" (actually, an undercover operative in a kangaroo suit).

By Devon Carlin:

Rural Californians are in their third year of a severe drought, but Congressional leaders seem more fixated on finding a "comprehensive" solution that accommodates endangered species and adheres to the belief in catastrophic man-made global warming than in dealing with very real human suffering.

This was our observation during a March 31 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources hearing, titled "The California Drought: Actions by Federal and State Agencies to Address Impacts on Lands, Fisheries, and Water Users."

According to the hearing's initial announcement, the hearing was to feature only one panel of witnesses - one overwhelmingly comprised of federal bureaucrats.

To some, this was seen as a "kangaroo court" that would promote the global warming and endangered species gospel with little or no opposition. It seemed to lack everything but an actual kangaroo. But the National Center for Public Policy Research was more than happy to provide one!

As the overflow crowd lined up for entry into the hearing room, the National Center's kangaroo stepped out of a nearby elevator. As participating members of Congress arrived, they certainly noticed the large, brown kangaroo. When acting Committee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano (D-CA) gaveled the hearing to order, our kangaroo was prominently seated in the audience.

As National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith pointed out in a press release that was handed out at the hearing:
At the height of a California drought and during a serious recession with massive unemployment in California's Central Valley, one would hope that the Committee cared enough about agricultural workers and minorities to invite as witnesses actual unemployed farm workers from the scores of communities closing down. Let's have an open Committee hearing and hear real people discussing the impacts on their lives from government regulations and massive job losses - instead of more government bureaucrats who are only causing the problem.
The furry, National Center-provided visual reminder - and some last-minute intervention from a bipartisan delegation of Congressmen from districts affected by the drought - helped to provide balance.

While it seemed the Committee's leaders had already made up their minds, they and the witnesses they selected nevertheless ended up receiving an earful about the human suffering brought about by poorly-applied government regulations and what could be done to alleviate the distress.

It was originally announced that testimony would be given exclusively by the panel of representatives of government agencies. Invited agency representatives were Mary M. Glackin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; J. William McDonald of the Bureau of Reclamation; Candy Thompson of the Farm Service Agency and California Secretary of Natural Resources Mike Chrisman. The lone critic was to be Allen Ishida, a Tulare County Supervisor and farmer.

Things changed due to the last-minute inclusion of a bipartisan panel of Congressmen representing the region worst hit by the drought. This panel was comprised of Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA), Dennis A. Cardoza (D-CA), George Radanovich (R-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Wally Herger (R-CA) and Ken Calvert (R- CA).

This new panel, unanticipated at the time the hearing was announced (and the kangaroo was called) brought much-needed balance.

All participants appeared to agree that California is in bad shape. The lack of an adequate supply of water in affected areas is putting farmers and ranchers out of work. Their crops aren't growing and livestock are going thirsty. Employment rates in affected areas range from 20 to over 40 percent, and job losses could rise to nearly 80,000. Families are flocking to food lines. Depleted food bank pantries reflect the state's shortage of produce. Incredible numbers of acres are left even more vulnerable to the type of brush fires that consumed more than one million acres last year. Agricultural economic losses are projected to exceed $3 billion by year-end.

What people want to know is what the government is going to do to help. The representatives of the government, and their liberal supporters among the Committee majority, seem committed to a "comprehensive" solution that protect the environment first and merely seeks to aid the afflicted human population. Conservatives, however, offered concrete plans to alleviate human suffering and increase agricultural productivity while minimizing environmental impact.

Congressmen from the affected areas - both on the Committee and on the testifying panel - noted that, despite California's historic familiarity with natural drought conditions, the problem this time is man-made. With rainfall and snow-pack totals nearing the average when compared to recent years, neither nature nor global warming can be blamed for the water shortage.

One of the many regulatory culprits is the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The Delta Smelt, for example, is a three-inch long fish that has been declared "threatened" under the ESA. Federal water officials reallocated a substantial amount of the water supply to flow out to sea in order to help protect the Delta Smelt. In the process, it recklessly slashed water deliveries to agricultural areas of California.

The local Congressman pointed out factors in the Smelt's population decline that are not man-made, such as larger predatory fish. Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), who represents the region and is a member of the Committee, noted from the dais that more water diverted for the good of the Delta Smelt has not helped its recovery.

When queried, the government officials, who gave very dry presentations about "comprehensive" relief strategies, offered no precise ways to bring about an end to the human suffering in the region.

Conversely, the lawmakers whose constituents were affected and have a sense of the needs of the region proposed multiple relief plans and suggested reform of the ESA that would bring water back to residents in need and pose a minimal threat to the Delta Smelt population.

In the short history of the Obama Administration, conservatives have been cast as obstructionist and lacking ideas by their liberal counterparts. At this hearing, exactly the opposite was the case.

One proposed idea, known as the "Two-Gates" project, involves the installation of two temporary gates in the central Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These gates would reduce the number of smelt removed from the Delta, thus permitting water export restrictions to be minimized.

Another proposal was to reform the ESA to overcome an ESA-based lawsuit that forced the Red Bluff Diversion Dam ("RBDD") to cease operating. Prior to the lawsuit, the RBDD performed as an efficient, gravity-fed water diversion. Shutting the existing diversion down has created the need for a comparable alternative. A popular pitch for its replacement is a power-driven, screened pumping plant that would supply 150,000 acres of agricultural land with irrigation water.

These and other relief proposals were called "shovel-ready" and within the scope of projects that could be funded by the recently-passed "stimulus" bill. The committee liberals' response? Representative George Miller (D-CA) mocked members of the Congressional panel who voted against the "stimulus." As for human suffering at the hands of government regulation, he considered that "cherry-picking history." He passed off any blame to a judge, whose decision set the policy.

This liberal disdain is surprising when the drought was called the "Katrina of California" by both panelists and members of the committee alike.

Near the end of the hearing, freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) came right out and asked the direct and nearly rhetorical question that was surely on the minds of many in attendance: "What's more important - people or fish?"

This post was written by Research Associate Devon Carlin. To send comments to the author, write her at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Endangered Species, Environment, Land, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:28 PM

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Watch Tom Borelli on the Fox Business Network's "Money for Breakfast" on Wednesday Morning

Note: Due to news coming from the G20 meeting, the Fox Business Network has postponed running the scheduled April 1 interview with Tom Borelli until April 2. We apologize for any inconvenience to our readers who tuned in April 1 expecting to see Tom.

From David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, director of The National Center's Free Enterprise Project, is scheduled to be a guest on the Wednesday morning edition of the Fox Business Network's "Money for Breakfast" program (April 1, 2009). Tom will be talking about the inherent problems with imposing a "cap-and-trade" policy relating to greenhouse gas emissions.

"Money for Breakfast" airs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM eastern on the Fox Business Channel. Tom is tentatively scheduled to appear around 7:40 AM eastern. Check your local cable listings for local channel number or click here.

In a recent column on Townhall, Tom wrote about why some big businesses are lobbying for the inherently risky cap-and-trade policy:
...Clearly, these firms have placed a huge wager on cap-and-trade since the legislation will make carbon dioxide a commodity and drive demand for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines and solar panels.

But carbon trading is very speculative at best. For example, JPMorgan is seeking to create carbon emission credits from distributing energy-efficient stoves in Africa. Since the stoves will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere because they burn less fuel than traditional cooking methods, the company wants to claim the savings as a carbon emission credit. The carbon credits would then be sold in the carbon exchange to a company that is over its government mandated limit...

...There must be something in the water on Wall Street that makes these firms dream up such ridiculous ideas. Creating a market built on a house of cards that man's activity is causing global warming is dangerous enough, but that risk gets magnified when markets are created by assigning an artificial value to a ubiquitous and invisible gas such as carbon dioxide.
Additionally, a National Center poll taken in 2008 found that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose a cap-and-trade policy. The poll results can be found here

To learn more about the "Money for Breakfast" program, click here.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

_____

Labels: Business, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 PM

Monday, March 30, 2009

Watch Tom Borelli on Fox's "Glenn Beck" Tonight

From David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, is scheduled to be a guest on today's "Glenn Beck" program on the Fox News Channel. He has been asked to appear to talk about proposed legislation to create a government-run "green bank" meant to help finance so-called green technologies.

Tom notes: "The last time the government got involved in banking we ended up with Fannie Mae and the housing bubble. Following that disaster, the last thing we need is to fund a green bubble."

"Glenn Beck" airs at 5:00 pm eastern on the Fox News Channel. Tom is tentatively scheduled to appear around 5:20 pm eastern. Check your local cable listings for channel.

To learn more about the "Glenn Beck" program, click here.

_____

Labels: Business, Economics, Government Power, Government Spending, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:33 PM

Would You Buy a New Car From the Folks Who Run the Post Office?

I guess being President of the United States isn't enough of a job for Barack Obama.

Now we're about to see how well he can run GM and Chrysler, too.

My guess: It won't go well. Auto firms can't print money, and Barack Obama won't be willing to stand up to unions.

Hat tip: John Amato at Crooks and Liars.

___________________

Labels: Business, Government Power, Government Spending, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:05 AM

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Obama's Hypocrisy on Lobbying

As a candidate for President, Barack Obama made attacking lobbyists one of the linchpins of his candidacy.

As President, though, he seems to be of two minds.

On the one hand, among other things that might loosely be described as "anti-lobbyist," he's issued a directive against lobbyist participation in the distribution of "stimulus" funds that's thought by some to be so draconian, the ACLU, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the American League of Lobbyists have, as Kenneth P. Vogel of Politico tells us, decided to protest it.*

On the other hand, he's given the high-profile position of "climate change czar" to former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, whose record leads many to suspect she believes that anti-lobbying laws are there to be broken.

As David Ridenour (full disclosure: my husband) of the National Center for Public Policy Research writes in Monday's Washington Times:

...Throughout her years as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration, EPA officials routinely violated the Anti-Lobbying Act - a law prohibiting federal employees from using agency money for "telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress."

In 1995, the EPA flagrantly violated that law when it lobbied against the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, a bill that would have curbed some of the EPA's worst abuses.

As James F. Hinchman, comptroller general of the United States, noted, EPA officials "distributed EPA fact sheets to various organizations ... directly lobbied the Congress." Not only that, but an EPA regional administrator wrote a strong Op-Ed designed to stop the bill's passage.

Four years later, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, accused the EPA of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act again. Mr. Byrd - who has made a career of steering pork to his state - complained that the EPA's Transportation Partners Program was coordinating and funding anti-road lobbyists against the law and his state's interests. Mrs. Browner was forced to terminate the program.

The following year Mrs. Browner was at it yet again. This time, her agency was accused of allowing special interests to improperly influence last-minute - so-called "midnight" - environmental regulations. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to preserve communications with such groups. Instead, Mrs. Browner had her computer hard drive re-initialized, wiping it clean. Judge Lamberth subsequently held the EPA in contempt for "contumacious conduct."...

Did President Obama stern admonish Carol Browner that behavior of this sort would not be tolerated in an Obama Administration (and, if so, why take the risk of appointing her at all?)? Or are rules against "outside" lobbyists the only ones Barack Obama wants enforced?

* Note: In my view, the new directive to supposedly limit lobbyist influence on spending of the so-called stimulus won't mean much in the end. Businesses, unions, lobbying firms, lobbyist law firms, state and local governments and special interests wanting a piece of our tax dollars will simply lobby for it using personnel who are not required to register as a lobbyist under the terms of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (or, in some cases, people who are required to, but didn't). The only way to keep lobbyists from going after federal money is to shrink the pot of federal money available as government-distributed handouts (for instance, by leaving it in the hands of those who earned it in the first place).

Hat tip: I learned about the ACLU's position on the new lobbying directive from the Don Irvine Blog.

___________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Environment, Government Power, Government Spending, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:33 PM

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Pickens Plan May Test Obama's Leadership

From David Almasi:

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli's commentary on the inherent problems within the "Pickens Plan" was published in today's Washington Examiner newspaper.

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens claims altruistic reasons for promoting the construction of massive wind farms and converting trucks and fleet vehicles to be powered by natural gas in order to lessen U.S. demand for foreign oil. Deneen points out the plan may result in both misery for politically-weak urban communities and money for Pickens.

Ultimately, she notes, the Pickens Plan may be a test of President Barack Obama's leadership.

In "Pickens Plan is Hot Air That May Burn America," Deneen writes:
Converting vehicles to natural gas taps a resource now used by power plants to generate electricity. To compensate, the Pickens Plan suggests massive wind turbines. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 100,000 such turbines - many the size of 40-story buildings - would be necessary to handle just 20 percent of the nation's electricity needs.

To deliver that power, the Energy Department further estimates 12,650 miles of new transmission lines would be needed by 2030 at a cost of between $64 and $128 billion...

...Pickens compares the proposed new power grid to the construction of the 46,000-mile interstate highway system decades ago. Sadly, back then it was often the poorest neighborhoods selected for eminent domain evictions to make way for new roads.

So-called "negro removal" in Detroit's Paradise Valley and Newark's Central Ward helped spark the July 1967 riots that collectively led to 66 deaths. Highway construction destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes in a process the San Francisco Chronicle in 1959 called "a crime that cannot be prettied up."

Pickens has not assured the public his plan would not repeat this exploitation of minorities and the politically-disadvantaged.

Pickens would also likely profit from his plan, thanks to taxpayer support. He testified before Congress that his plan might succeed only with the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), which was recently extended by the $787 billion bailout bill.

Mesa Power, a Pickens' company, wants to build a 2,700-turbine wind farm in Texas. According to a report by the National Center for Public Policy Research, "Pickens' firm stands to receive between $1.66 billion and about $3 billion in PTC payments alone over 10 years, a significant portion of its original investment."
Regarding the proposal as a challenge for the President, Deneen notes:
Obama's leadership will soon be tested. Will he side with the little guy, protecting their homes and guarding their access to affordable energy? Or will he deliver for special interests like T. Boone Pickens and anti-energy environmental organizations?

If he chooses the latter, it won't be the change so many people thought they voted for last November."
To read the entire commentary, click here.

_____

Labels: Business, Energy, Environment, Project 21, Property Rights, Race, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:13 PM

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Must Read: Dear AIG, I Quit! by Jake DeSantis

Please read this New York Times reprint of a letter by A.I.G employee Jake DeSantis to A.I.G CEO Edward M. Liddy.

There is much in it that hasn't been revealed by the mainstream press, to its shame (typical).

As I read it, I had this vision, a fantasy, of AIG employees picketing the homes of Members of Congress.

Won't happen.

Too bad.

___________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Media, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:24 PM

Tom Borelli on the Jerry Hughes Show - Listen Live

Tom Borelli, co-director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project with Steve Milloy, will be a guest on the Jerry Hughes Show today from 3 - 4 PM Eastern.

The Accent Radio Network show is heard on 19 stations nationwide. Click here to see if it is broadcast in your area, or click "listen live" at the top of that page to hear the interview via the Internet.

___________________

Labels: Business, Government Spending, Media, Radio

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:25 PM

Monday, March 23, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Turncoat Retailers Shop Card Check Compromise

As Mike Allen reports in this Politico article from Sunday night, three large retailers, Starbucks, Costco and Whole Food, are shopping around a so-called compromise on "card check" legislation, even though the position of business -- that workers should be allowed to vote on whether their own workplace should be unionized -- seems to hold the winning hand in the U.S. Senate.

(For those who haven't followed the issue, the card check bill, formally and Orwellianly known as the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor unions to unionize workplaces without first winning a secret-ballot vote of the workers involved.)

Opponents of the legislation, which is backed by Big Labor (naturally!), the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party's Congressional leadership, say the bill does not now have the sixty votes it needs to pass the Senate.

As Mike Allen reported:

Rhonda Bentz, on behalf of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which is working to defeat the measure, said: "Those three companies do not represent the business community’s position. Unions don't have 60 votes in the Senate [for the measure] … A compromise such as this is at best seriously misguided or at worst akin to snatching defeat out of the hands of victory."

I agree.

On a related issue, no word yet on whether President Obama will propose legislation to permit him to be re-elected if he can get 50 percent-plus-one of registered voters to call a secret phone number that will be monitored privately by the Democratic National Committee.

Hat tip: Carter Wood and Keith Smith at Shopfloor.org.
___________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Labor Unions, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:14 AM

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Watch Tom Borelli Live on Fox's "Strategy Room" Monday

From David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, is scheduled to speak about current events and breaking news as part of the group discussion on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Monday, March 23 between 9:00 and 10:00 am eastern.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

To learn more about Fox's "Strategy Room" Internet talk show, click here to see an article about the program that appeared in this past Monday's New York Times.

_____

Labels: Business, Government Power, Government Spending, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:31 PM

New Tax Betrays the Founders, Borelli Charges

Project 21's Deneen Borelli says it's not just the issue of the ban on bills of attainder that make Congress' anti-AIG tax constitutionally suspect.

It's also unconstitutional to interfere this way in contracts:

Legislation to specifically target AIG employees with a 90 percent tax on retention bonuses directly conflicts with the founding principles of the United States, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli charged today on the Fox News program "Strategy Room."

Saying Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts," Borelli says the AIG bonus controversy is a creation of the lawmakers who rushed bailout legislation earlier this year without due consideration. These are the same lawmakers who now seek to hide their mistakes by pushing this new and selective tax.

"Politicians need to be reminded that we are a nation of laws. To impose a hastily-concocted tax as a means of rectifying a problem that the government itself created and mismanaged calls their ability to lead into question," says Borelli. "To suddenly enact a new tax to punish a few dozen people for something that was legal at the time is ludicrous, and it smacks of the British treatment of the colonists that provoked the revolt that created the United States. Have we come full circle already?"

Read the rest here.
_____________________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Government Power, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:25 AM

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Outrage of the Day - Congress Treats Death Threats Lightly

Today awarded to Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) for his callous response to death threats received by private citizens, including children, employed by or related to someone employed by AIG.

Sound public policy relating to AIG - whatever that might be and not that we can expect this Congress to enact it - does not require that Congress possess the actual names of AIG employees who received contractual bonuses. Even the farcical policy of handing out money only to tax it right back (really, how ridiculous can Congress get?) does not require that Congress have these names. (The IRS would take care of collections.)

Congress leaks. And leaks. And leaks. (Usually for very selfish reasons; once in a while due to stupidity or carelessness.) Anyone who cares a fig for the safety and peace of mind of these people should just err on the side if caution and leave people's names out of the debate.

Or maybe we've just reached a place in this country in which Congress doesn't care if children are the focus of death threats.
______________________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Power, Government Spending, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:55 AM

Monday, March 16, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Waxman Drags Feet on Needed CPSIA Reform

Today's Outrage of the Day to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), for his refusal to hold hearings on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), legislation adopted last year (see this blog's prior coverage here and here) that has forced charities and thrift shops to toss out large volumes of used clothing and other goods, caused used bookstores to toss out children's books published before 1985, halted sales of dirt bikes, handmade toys and other children's goods, and more.

Congress adopted this law in apparent response to widespread reports of children ingesting dirt bike parts.

No, not really. Congress adopted adopted this law in part because it has no idea what it is doing (that's what happens when lawmakers vote on bills no one has read, coming from an ideological bias that the bigger government grows, the better we'll be), but that's no excuse for not revisiting the issue now that the truth is kicking many people in the teeth.

Every day this law remains unreformed, jobs get killed and books (some of which are irreplaceable) get tossed away.

You can tell that to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), though, chairman of the House Committee with jurisdiction, and he'll tell you he'll get to it later.

As Walter Olson put it on his Overlawyered blog:

...Waxman, for his part, has announced his intent to hold no hearing on the law until the Obama Administration installs a new chair at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That serves the multiple functions of 1) stalling (while more small enterprises are driven out of business and thus are neutralized as political threats); 2) reinforcing the impression that the ball is in someone else’s court on addressing the law’s harms; 3) assisting in orchestrating whatever hearing is eventually held, since he expects an ally of his own to be installed as CPSC chair...

So now, as Overlawyered reports it, ordinary citizens are now planning their own "people's hearing" on the matter, hoping through direct action to get some relief.

It shouldn't be necessary. Congress made a huge mistake. It should admit it, and fix it.

For more on this, visit Overlawyered's CPSIA tag.

Hat tip (as if you couldn't guess): http://overlawyered.com.
___________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Power, Jobs, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:12 PM

Friday, March 13, 2009

Tom Borelli Interviewed on Breitbart TV About Disney Chairman's F-Bomb Attack at Shareholder Meeting - Watch Online

From David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, director of The National Center's Free Enterprise Project, appeared on Thursday's Breitbart TV "B-Cast" program with hosts Scott Baker and Liz Stephans to discuss being verbally accosted by the CEO of the Walt Disney Company.

To access the Internet broadcast at any time, click here.

After making a presentation in favor of making the miniseries available at the company's annual shareholder meeting, Borelli, who was representing the Free Enterprise Action Fund (a Disney shareholder), tried to shake Iger's hand. Iger scowled at Borelli and said "f--- you." Borelli then returned to the podium reported the exchange to his fellow shareholders. The B-CAST plays the Disney-doctored tape, noting that, at the spot where Tom Borelli and other witnesses say he reported the expletive from the podium, the tape -- including sounds from the audience -- briefly goes mysteriously silent.

The B-CAST program also explains why the mini-series "The Path to 9/11" has become such a headache for Disney. It includes excerpts from John Ziegler's video, "Blocking the Path to 9/11."

On Thursday, Breitbart-TV also posted Disney's version of Tom Borelli's entire presentation at the meeting, as well as the Disney Chairman John Pepper's response, available here.

For more information, see National Center for Public Policy Research press releases here, here, and here.

__________________

Labels: Business, Media, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 AM

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Foul Mouse! WorldNetDaily on Disney

World Net Daily has run two stories on Tom Borelli's presentation to the Walt Disney Company's annual stockholder meeting.

In Foul Mouse! Disney 'Drops F-Bomb' Over '9/11', WND columnist Joe Kovacs asks, "Did the head of the Walt Disney Company drop the F-bomb on one of its own investors at its annual shareholder meeting?" Kovacs goes on to cover Disney's denial, and our response, and includes some additional information about Disney's attitude toward the "Path to 9/11" miniseries it owns, but declines to distribute.

In the news story Disney Censors F-Bomb From CEO Iger to Conservative Activist, NewsMax recounts how the Walt Disney Company edited out of the webcast version of its March 10 annual shareholder meeting the incident in which conservative activist and Disney investor Tom Borelli received the "f-bomb" from Disney CEO Robert Iger.

The piece begins:

The Walt Disney Company has edited out of the webcast version of its March 10 annual shareholder meeting an incident in which Disney CEO Robert Iger dropped the "f-bomb" on conservative activist and Disney investor Tom Borelli.

Iger scowled at and said "f--- you" to Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, at Tuesday's annual Disney shareholder meeting after Borelli told shareholders about Iger's refusal to sell the DVD or the distribution rights of the miniseries "The Path to 9/11."

Borelli, who was attending the meeting on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund with which he is affiliated, had just ended his presentation and was attempting to shake Iger's hand when Iger used the phrase. Iger also refused to uncross his arms and shake Borelli's hand. Borelli, who had received applause from fellow shareholders after his presentation, went back to the podium and precisely reported to his fellow shareholders what Iger had just said, to gasps from the assembled crowd....

Read the rest here.
___________________

Labels: Business, Liberals, Media, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:46 PM

Inside the Beltway Covers Disney Dustup

John McCaslin's popular Inside the Beltway column in the Washington Times today began with the Disney story:

The late Walt Disney, who in testimony before Congress accused the Screen Actors Guild of being a Communist front, must have rolled over in his grave when Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger reportedly spouted "[expletive] you" to Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, at Tuesday's annual Disney shareholder meeting.

Mr. Borelli says he just finished informing shareholders from the podium about Mr. Iger's refusal to sell the DVD or distribution rights of the miniseries "The Path to 9/11," and upon returning to his seat attempted to shake hands with Disney's CEO.

That's when the not-so-kind words were uttered. At which time Mr. Borelli says he stepped back before the microphone and quoted Mr. Iger word-for-word, which caused "gasps" from the crowd of shareholders.

"So much for the family-friendly Disney reputation," he now says in a statement released by the District-based conservative think tank and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense.

A two-part miniseries based on the federal 9/11 commission report, "The Path to 9/11" received seven Emmy nominations after airing in 2006 to large audiences over the Disney-owned ABC television network.

The think tank suggests Mr. Iger, who is labeled a longtime donor to "liberal politicians," considers the miniseries too embarrassing to officials who served in the Clinton administration.

Read the entire column here.

___________________

Labels: Business, Liberals, Media, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 AM

Breitbart.tv Posts Borelli Portion of Disney Shareholder Meeting

Breitbart.tv has posted the portion of the audio recording of the Walt Disney Company Shareholder's meeting in which Tom Borelli makes his presentation. Quite apart from the controversy regarding the expletive, Tom's full (and quite frank) presentation to the Disney shareholders will be of interest to many conservative activists, who also are likely to appreciate the fact that the assembled shareholders gave Tom strong applause.

As we noted yesterday, the audio recording the Disney Company released does not include the recording of Tom reporting Iger's remark to him after Tom concluded his presentation.

Walt Disney Company Chairman John Pepper's response to Tom is included at the end of the recording.

The entire recording runs just under nine minutes.

P.S. For those interested, the spot at which Tom returned to the podium to report to the other shareholders the comment Iger had just made to him -- the comment erased from this version of the tape by Disney -- ran from 5:52 to 5:53 on Breitbart.tv's time clock.

More specifically, the tape begins with Disney Chairman John Pepper introducing Tom. Then:

-Tom's presentation
-the applause following the end of Tom's presentation starts at 5:46
-Mr. Pepper says "thank you Mr. Borelli" at 5:50
-silence where Tom's comment about what Mr. Iger said is cut out from 5:52 to 5:53
-Mr. Pepper says "let me respond to your comments, Mr. Borelli" at 5:54
-Mr. Pepper responds until the end of the tape

___________________

Labels: Business, Liberals, Media, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:17 AM

Disney Issues Denial; We Respond

A spokesman for the Walt Disney Company apparently is denying that CEO Robert Iger used an expletive when conservative activist Tom Borelli tried to shake Iger’s hand following Borelli’s presentation at Disney’s annual stockholder’s meeting this week.

Our press release has the details:

Disney Spokesman Denies CEO Used "F-Bomb" to Conservative Activist; Witnesses Recount What They Saw and Heard
For Release: Immediate
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Washington, D.C. - Columnist Tommy Christopher at the AOL News website "Political Machine" reported Wednesday that a spokesman for the Walt Disney Company has denied that Disney CEO Robert Iger said "f--- you" to conservative activist Tom Borelli at the company's March 10 stockholder meeting.

Said Christopher:
"According to... the National Center for Public Policy Research, Disney CEO Robert Iger used an F-word other than Fantasia at this year's annual shareholders meeting. Conservative columnist Tom Borelli, senior fellow with the organization... claimed that Iger said "F**k you" to him at the meeting...

...Disney spokesman Jonathan Friedland, however, told me that he was 'sitting right there,' and that 'Bob didn't say anything back to him.' He also said he was 'pretty sure Bob shook his hand.' He described the episode as 'strange.'"
The following are statements from Tom Borelli, Deneen Borelli (Tom's wife and fellow of Project 21, who was present), and Steve Milloy (co-director with Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, which Tom was representing at the stockholder meeting, and also of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, who was listening to the live audio webcast of the stockholder meeting as it took place):

Tom Borelli:
"Here is what transpired.

On the way to make my statement I stopped and shook Iger's hand. He was sitting in front of the podium and because of the extra time it took for me to greet him I was late getting to the podium. In the audio recording, you can hear Mr. Pepper calling my name for a second time and asking if I'm going to be making the presentation. My first few words of my statement I mentioned I was late because I shook Iger's hand.

After I finished my presentation I again walked by Iger and offered my hand once again. He just stared at me and said 'F--- Y--.' I immediately walked back to the podium where I told the audience what Iger said to me. Passing Iger the second time, a security official was sitting right behind him and shortly after I walked by them Iger left the auditorium. He was not in the theater during the other shareholder proposals.

Finally, the shareholder that responded to my statement about the controversial nature of 'The Path to 911' defended Iger for displaying 'restraint' because he felt I launched a personal attack and he added - 'if it were me I would have probably knocked him on his rear end.'

Perhaps the Disney representative witnessed the first handshake and missed the second encounter."
Deneen Borelli:
"Mr. John Pepper, Chairman of The Walt Disney Company, opened and conducted most of the shareholder meeting. Once he completed several opening remarks, Mr. Pepper introduced Mr. Robert Iger to welcome and address the audience. During this portion of the meeting, Mr. Iger updated shareholders about company business and several sneak previews were aired introducing new Disney movies. At some point during this portion of the meeting, Mr. Iger came down from the stage and took a seat in the audience in front of the podium set up for representatives of the shareholder proposals. Mr. Iger was alone. There were several security personnel seated a few rows behind Mr. Iger.

Following the executive session of the Disney shareholder meeting, Mr. Pepper invited Tom to present his proposal. Before taking his place behind the podium, Tom stopped next to a seated Mr. Iger and shook his hand.

At some point while Tom was presenting his proposal, a woman walked past me towards Mr. Iger and took a seat to the right of Mr. Iger - either immediately next to him or with one seat in between them - where they engaged in brief conversation while listening to Tom.

Before Tom completed his presentation, the woman got up and walked away and Mr. Iger was seated alone.

Tom completed his proposal. While returning to his seat, he extended his hand to Mr. Iger. Mr. Iger did not shake Tom's hand. Then, Tom had a surprised look on his face and immediately went back to the podium and repeated what Mr. Iger told Tom."
Steve Milloy:
"I was listening to the live audio webcast. Tom completed his presentation. There was a short pause; then I heard Tom's voice. It sounded like he was near to the microphone, not at the microphone. He said, 'He just told me to go f--- myself,' or something like that.

I find it hard to believe they would deny that; there was a whole room full of people.

If you listen to the Disney version of the tape now, there's a big gap -- like Rosemary Woods. They didn't even have the brains to remove the gap. If they are going to deny it happened, they had better remove the gap.

The guy after Tom complimented Iger on being so restrained; that he would have punched Tom, I guess."
The two previous National Center for Public Policy Research press releases on this incident can be found at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Disney_Iger_Censor031109.html and http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Disney_Iger_Shareholder031009.html. As of March 11, Mr. Christopher's column could be found at http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/11/disney-denies-ceo-cursed-out-right-wing-columnist-at-shareholder/ and a link to the archived audio webcast of the shareholder meeting supplied by the Walt Disney Company can be found at http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/presentations.html.

-30-

___________________

Labels: Business, Media, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:58 AM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Disney Company Censors Shareholder Meeting Webcast Archive

There’s been a development in the Walt Disney-CEO-uses-expletive-story, as this National Center for Public Policy research press release reveals:

Disney Censors Webcast of Shareholder Meeting

Report of "F-Bomb" from CEO Iger to Conservative Activist Edited Out

For Release: Immediate
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: The Walt Disney Company has edited out of the webcast version of its March 10 annual shareholder meeting an incident in which Disney CEO Robert Iger dropped the "f-bomb" on conservative activist and Disney investor Tom Borelli.

Iger scowled at and said "f--- you" to Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, at Tuesday's annual Disney shareholder meeting after Borelli told shareholders about Iger's refusal to sell the DVD or the distribution rights of the miniseries "The Path to 9/11."

Borelli, who was attending the meeting on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund with which he is affiliated, had just ended his presentation and was attempting to shake Iger's hand when Iger used the phrase. Iger also refused to uncross his arms and shake Borelli's hand. Borelli, who had received applause from fellow shareholders after his presentation, went back to the podium and precisely reported to his fellow shareholders what Iger had just said, to gasps from the assembled crowd. Borelli then sat back down.

On March 11, Disney released on its website what it calls "a re-play of The Walt Disney Company's annual meeting of shareholders on March 10, 2009" at http://tw1.us/lD. A review of the webcast reveals that Borelli's report about Iger's remark to his fellow shareholders has been replaced by white noise.

Borelli's report of Iger's remark was audible, however, during the live webcast of the shareholder meeting, making it apparent that Disney personnel purposefully censored the material before posting the archived version on its website's information page for investors.

Iger's remark to Borelli appears to violate Disney's own "Standards of Business Conduct," which, as described by Iger in an open letter on the Disney website, includes, in Iger's words, "acting responsibly in all our professional relationships, in a manner consistent with the high standards we set for our business conduct." The standards also, Iger's letter says, "govern how we treat everyone with whom we have contact. These are standards of integrity... honesty... trust... respect... fair play... and teamwork." (Original at http://tw1.us/lo.)

For more information on Tom Borelli's presentation at the March 10, 2009 Disney shareholder meeting and Iger's remark to Borelli, please see the press release "Disney CEO Drops F-Bomb at Shareholder Meeting; Iger's Nasty Comment to Investor Rooted in 9/11 Miniseries Controversy," at www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Disney_Iger_Shareholder031009.html.

-30-

___________________

Labels: Business, Media, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:35 PM

WMAL Talker Chris Plante on Disney CEO's Expletive

Chris Plante, talk show host on ABC Radio's 630 WMAL in Washington D.C. today discussed the incident in which Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger used an expletive to conservative activist Tom Borelli.

The following is a transcript of that segment of Plante's show:

Transcript of the Chris Plante Show, March 11, 2009

Bob Iger, Robert Iger, the CEO of the Walt Disney Corporation drops the F-bomb after it's revealed that he's still carrying water for the Clintons.

Uh, you may remember, I guess a couple of years ago now, the ABC television network, owned by the Disney Corporation, produced a miniseries that was called "The Path to 9/11." It was based on the 9/11 Commission Report and it was supposed to be a factual telling of what led to the attacks of September 11th, and what was done, and what was not done, by, primarily, the Clinton administration.

It was considered to be, in many instances, embarrassing to the Clinton administration; in particular, to Sandy "Burglar," the then-National Security Advisor, who had instructed special operations forces affiliated with the CIA to not pull the trigger on Osama Bin Laden, and, uh, and a couple of other things that they found embarrassing. Well, you may remember that the Clinton administration officials complained to ABC and to Disney, and Disney went back and kind of changed a couple of things, you know, because you certainly wouldn't want to offend any Democrat politicians. Same policy they have with Republicans, right?

Um, well, a fellow, Tom Borelli, who represents a mutual fund, speaking at the Disney Company's shareholder meeting, brought up the fact that Bob Iger, who is a contributor to Democratic causes, a supporter of the Clinton administration, and a big Dem lib, the CEO of Walt Disney, has refused to package up the very, very popular, somewhat controversial "Path to 9/11" miniseries on DVDs and sell them. Well, Tom Borelli brought that up at the shareholders' meeting. And he pointed out the fact that Bob Iger is putting politics before profits and that shareholders are being denied an opportunity to benefit from DVD sales of this ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11."

And he said: "Since its broadcast in September 2006, Iger has refused to profit from this project, despite its significant market potential."

"The Path to 9/11," he said, received seven Emmy nominations, had 25 million viewers over two nights, and was highly ranked in the Nielsen ratings. The first night it was number-two and on the second night it was number-one - most-watched TV programs in the country.

[He] says: "Not only has Iger decided that Disney will not to sell the DVD, he will not allow the sale of the distribution rights. Lion[s] Gate was told that, uh, distribution rights were not available," and this fellow says it's all because Bob Iger is in the pocket of the Clintons.

Well, Mr. Borelli then walked down into the audience to Bob Iger, went to shake his hand. Bob Iger crossed his arms, refused to shake his hand, and said [pause] "FU!" Although he didn't abbreviate it that way; he used the entire word - "F--- you!" So much for Disney's family-friendly...

I, I, I love this guy "Tom Borelli" at the Disney board meeting, though. He then, after Bob Iger said "F--- you!" to him, in an unabbreviated form, Borelli returned to the podium and explained to the gathered audience exactly what Iger had just said; to the gasps of the audience!

We appreciate Mr. Plante's comments, and his show as well, which -- especially since President Obama's inauguration -- has been quite invigorating.
____________________

Labels: Business, Media, Radio, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:10 PM

Outrage of the Day: Disney CEO Swears at Conservative Activist at Shareholder Meeting

Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger dropped the "f-bomb" on conservative activist and company investor Tom Borelli at the Walt Disney Company's annual shareholder meeting Tuesday.

Details can be found in this National Center for Public Policy Research press release:

Disney CEO Drops F-Bomb at Shareholder Meeting

Iger's Nasty Comment to Investor Rooted in 9/11 Miniseries Controversy

For Release: Immediate

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger scowled at and said "f--- you" to Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, at Tuesday's annual Disney shareholder meeting.

Iger's remark came after Borelli told shareholders about Iger's refusal to sell the DVD or the distribution rights of the miniseries "The Path to 9/11."

Borelli had just ended his presentation and was attempting to shake Iger's hand on his way back to his seat. Iger, who was sitting in the audience at the time, also refused to uncross his arms and shake Borelli's hand. Borelli, who had received applause from fellow shareholders after his presentation, went back to the podium and precisely reported to his fellow shareholders what Iger had just said, to gasps from the assembled crowd. Borelli then sat back down.

"The Path to 9/11" is a miniseries based on the federal "9/11 Commission Report." The miniseries aired in 2006 on the Disney-owned ABC television network. The shareholder meeting was held at the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, California.

"So much for the family-friendly Disney reputation," said Borelli. "Shareholders have a legitimate concern about the political and financial implications of Iger's actions. It wasn't until today that the depths of his contempt were revealed."

Borelli, who was attending the meeting on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund with which he is affiliated, registered a shareholder proposal asking the company to be more transparent about the company's political donations due to concerns about Iger possibly using the company’s assets to advance Iger’s personal political agenda. Borelli cited Disney's refusal to sell the DVD or its rights to "The Path to 9/11" miniseries as evidence of iger's bias. Iger is a long-time donor to liberal politicians and the miniseris was thought to be embarrassing to officials who served in the Clinton Administration. Withholding distribution of the DVD for personal political reasons would be a conflict with shareholder interests.

In his statement he made at the shareholder meeting, Borelli said:
Unfortunately, because CEO Bob Iger is putting politics before profits - shareholders are being denied an opportunity to benefit from DVD sales of the ABC-TV miniseries "The Path to 9/11."

Since its broadcast in September 2006 - Iger has refused to profit from this project - despite its significant market potential.

"The Path to 9/11" received seven Emmy nominations, had 25 million views over two nights and it was highly ranked in Nielsen ratings - the first night it was number-two and on the second night it was the number-one - the most-watched TV program in the country.

Clearly, "The Path to 9/11" is a valuable asset!

Not only has Iger decided that Disney will not to sell the DVD - he will not allow the sale of its distribution rights. Lions Gate was told the distribution rights were not available, and Disney has ignored repeated attempts by our company to negotiate the purchase of the miniseries distribution rights.
This is the second year in a row that Borelli has pressed Iger and Disney to release "The Path to 9/11" on DVD. Borelli has offered to negotiate to purchase the rights to the miniseries in three letters to Iger and the Disney board of directors. Disney has never replied.

Additionally, the Fund's shareholder proposal for more transparency with regard to the company's political contributions received 24 percent support.

Borelli added: "Disney truly can say it's putting people before profits - in this case, it's Bill and Hillary Clinton. Lions Gate inquired about buying the rights to 'The Path to 9/11' and was rebuffed... It's a shame that Disney is allowing these profits to slip away at a time when Disney is laying off employees."

Disney has said webcast of the meeting will be made available at http://corporate.disney.go.com.

-30-

___________________

Labels: Business, Conservatives, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:29 AM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Letter to General Motors

If you haven't seen this letter to General Motors that has been circulating around the Internet for the last few months, it is worth a read.

Doesn't make the UAW or the the auto industry look very good, though.

Hat tip: R.J. Smith.

___________________

Labels: Business, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:00 PM

Monday, March 09, 2009

Congress Blowing Its Next Bubble

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli has an op-ed in the D.C. Examiner: "Congress, corporate lobbyists creating Green Bubble."

It begins:

With President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress pushing for a cap-and-trade regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gases, the future of American energy is at a crossroads — and the creation of an economic “Green Bubble” is in the works.

It’s not surprising that liberal politicians embrace the cap-and-trade cause, but to many it is shocking and surprising to see corporate CEOs joining the crusade. The 21st century business model of these CEOs seems to be: “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

But their capitulation is likely to lead to history repeating itself, and not in a good way.

If there’s one lesson we all can take from the housing bubble, it’s this: The pursuit of liberal policy goals is not a sustainable business strategy.

The housing crisis developed after businesses yielded to social activism and the seduction of politically-driven and unsustainable economic incentives. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, which encouraged banks to lend in poor neighborhoods. The Clinton administration later lowered credit standards, and set subprime lending quotas for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the leftist advocacy group, also pressured banks to make loans, and Congress skewed laws to encourage lenders to give mortgages to buyers with poor prospects for ever repaying them.

With the game rigged to make unsound lending practices profitable over the short-term, Wall Street was happy to play in this government-constructed casino. For a time, it was a win-win situation.

Profits were made, ACORN was pacified and lawmakers deemed lenders “responsible” for providing loans to low-income households with nary an eye cast to the soundness of it all. But when the over-inflated housing market collapsed, all the fun came to a crashing halt.

Yet, like hard-core gambling addicts, some CEOs haven’t learned their lesson. Instead of returning to selling good products at market prices, they want to go back to the craps table. They’re lobbying Congress to create yet another “bubble” in which government regulatory policy creates artificial value, this time in a ubiquitous gas, carbon dioxide.

Call this forthcoming disaster the “Green Bubble,” for it’s based on the notion that fortunes can be made buying and selling something for which there is no real-world market, greenhouse gas emissions credits...

Read the rest here.

___________________

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:14 PM

Friday, March 06, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Dow Down 50 Percent Since Obama Inauguration

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 20 percent since Inauguration Day, the fastest drop under a newly elected president in at least 90 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."

-Eric Martin, "'Obama Bear Market' Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps," Bloomberg.com, March 6, 2009

Hat tip: Drudge Report.
___________________

Labels: Business, Outrage, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:01 PM

Friday, February 20, 2009

Egg on Faces of Al Gore and Ban Ki-Moon

Roger Pielke, Jr. of the Promethus Blog spotted a little egg on the faces of ex-V.P. Al Gore and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon the other day.

I wouldn't be surprised if he noticed before they did.

It seems the esteemed gentlemen submitted an op-ed to Britain's Financial Times without fact-checking it first (or, more likely, telling the lackey who fact-checks to fact-check the lackey who writes).

The op-ed claims: "In the US, there are now more jobs in the wind industry than in the entire coal industry."

Roger asked:

First, is this in fact true?

Second, if it is true, how can it be that wind can ever be cost competitive with coal? Consider that coal, according to the US EIA was responsible for generating 155,000 thousand megawatt-hours of energy production in November, 2008. Wind was responsible for 1,300 thousand megawatt hours. This means that the US saw about 120 times as much energy produced from coal as wind. If it takes more employees to generate 0.8% of the energy as coal produces, how can it ever be cost competitive?

Something does not add up. Someone please explain this.

Somebody did.

It seems that, for the wind industry totals, the esteemed gentlemen counted every job involved in supplying equipment to the wind industry, including component manufacturing, legal services, marketing, etc., and for the coal industry, the men counted only miners.

So if you hear this shibboleth, beware.

____________________

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Environment, Health Care, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:47 PM

Thursday, February 19, 2009

New York Times Editorial Covers Up Book Ban

A New York Times editorial published this week has been excoriated by Walter Olson, proprietor of the popular "Overlawyered" blog and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and justly so.

The subject is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), a law that went into effect earlier this month and which even now is causing libraries, thrift shops and used book stores to throw away large volumes of used children's clothes and toys and any children's books published before 1985.

Don't take it from me:

If you browse through the racks of children's clothing at area Goodwill stores, you'll notice half the supply is gone - all because of a new law being implemented by the federal government Tuesday morning.
-KPTM FOX 42 News, Omaha, 2/9/09 (Hat tip for the link: Ace of Spades.)

...our realistic choices are:
1. Shut down our children's section, or
2. Ban kids 12 and younger from the library.
-Librarian, Idaho (Hat tip for the link: Ace of Spades.)

Chip Gibson, president and publisher of Random House Children’s Books... 'This is a potential calamity like nothing I’ve ever seen. The implications are quite literally unimaginable,' he said, noting that children’s books could be removed from schools, libraries and stores; nonprofit groups like First Book would lose donations; and retailers, printers, and publishers could ultimately go out of business. 'Books are safe. This is like testing milk for lead. It has to be stopped.'
-Talkback on Publishers Weekly, 1/12/09 (Hat tip for the link: Overlawyered.com.)

'The economy is tough enough right now, and now I'm not allowed to sell dirt bikes?'
-Hitching Post Motorsports (MN) sales manager Andy Buddensiek, as quoted by KARE 11 News, Twin Cities. The Motorcycle Industry Council estimates that $100 million dollars worth of motorbike inventory may have been frozen nationwide. As sales of adult ATVs are unaffected, some worry that children will ride adult ATVs that are too difficult for them to properly handle. (Hat tip for the link: Overlawyered.com.)

...unless the law is modified... handmade children's products will no longer be legal in the U.S.
-Handmade Toy Alliance (Hat tip for the link: Overlawyered.com.)

There are many, many more specific examples of damage this law is doing on Overlawyered.com, some of which are heart-rending.

Here's what the New York Times published:

Unfortunately, the commission has yet to implement important aspects of the new law. The delay has caused confusion and allowed opponents to foment needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises like libraries, resale shops and handmade toy businesses. (Emphasis added)

Needless???

Walter Olson at Overlawyered put it this way, in part:

...The Times editorialists warn against “needless fears” that the law “could injure” smaller enterprises. Got that? Not only will they not be driven out of business, they won’t even be “injured”. So small enterprises from coast to coast are just imagining things if they plead desperately for places like the Times to notice that they have already closed down, or will have to do so in the foreseeable future, or have lost thousands of dollars in unsalable inventories. Motorbike dealerships around the country are just imagining things if they think they’re staring at massive losses from the inability to sell their products, even though news-side talent at the New York Times has in fact covered their story well — coverage which the editorial studiously ignores.

For as long as anyone can remember, the New York Times has unthinkingly taken its line on supposed consumer-safety issues from organized groups like Public Citizen and Consumers Union. In this case, the result of such reliance has been to render the nation’s leading newspaper a laughingstock.

It appears the New York Times' belief that regulations have no harmful economic or social benefits is so calcified, it didn't even examine the question of whether anyone was being harmed by CPSIA before declaring news of such harm as being the product of mere "needless fears."

Meanwhile, a significant part of our nation's cultural heritage (children's books published before 1985) is literally been thrown in the dumpster, and many small businesses and charities and the people they serve are being hurt. Some are being hurt quite a lot.

Shame on the New York Times for putting its passion for regulation ahead of the truth.

Cross-posted on Newsbusters

__________________

Labels: Business, Government Power, Media, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 PM

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

First They Banned All the Books

Though in this particular revolution, it appears they are starting with children's books published before 1985.

Possibly that's to get us used to the idea.

To be fair, though, Congress didn't only vote to ban books. The legislation behind this, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2008, also eviscerates a significant chunk of our nation's cultural heritage, kills jobs (see the links below for stories about what this is doing to some small businesses), and hurts charities.

(If you hadn't yet heard that used bookstores, thrift shops and other establishments have begun throwing out large numbers of children's books, as well as children's clothes, toys and other goods, read this article by the Manhattan Institute's Walter Olson, and then head over to his superlative website, Overlawyered.com, for more details and updates.)

I checked to see if our fearless leader voted for this bill, but he blew off the vote entirely. His chief-of-staff Rahm Emmanuel, then an Illinois Congressman, was an original co-sponsor in the House, and Rep. Bobby Rush, also of Illinois, was the main sponsor.

In the Senate, the only "no" votes were: Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Kyl (R-AZ), Vitter (R-LA) and Wicker (R-MS).)

Folks, this is what big government gets you. Brace yourselves for more.

P.S. If you sell used clothes on EBay, yard sales, etc., beware. The penalty for breaking this law is fines up to $100,000, prison time, or both. You don't have to harm anyone to go to prison.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades.

Labels: Business, Congress, Environment, Jobs, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:53 PM

Profiting from Global Warming

Don't miss Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's op-ed in today's Washington Examiner. It begins:

When the housing bubble burst, it exposed an unseemly alliance between special interests and the financial sector. Activists wanted homes for all at any cost, and lenders were happy to oblige despite the inherent risk.

Although the economic devastation this bubble wrought is still not under control, a similar toxic alliance is working on the next one: The green bubble.

Failing companies such as AIG, General Electric and General Motors, already propped up with tax dollars, have partnered with radical environmentalists in a scheme their CEOs believe will allow them to profit on fears about global warming...

Read the rest here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:57 AM

Watch the Borellis Live Online on Fox's "Strategy Room" Wednesday

By David Almasi:

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to discuss ACORN and the so-called "stimulus" bill and other current events as part of the group discussion on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Wednesday, February 18 between 9:00 am and 10:00 am eastern.

Tom Borelli, the director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, is set to be participating in the"Strategy Room" discussion later on the same day - 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm eastern - to discuss the detrimental economic effects of "cap-and-trade" regulatory policy and breaking news.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

To learn more about Fox's "Strategy Room" Internet talk show, click here to see an article about the program that appeared in this past Monday's New York Times.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Government Spending, Project 21, Race, Regulation, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:34 AM

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Facebook Bans Anti-Stimulus Petition; Implies It May Be Porn

Edwin Mora of CNSNews.com is reporting this morning that the social networking site Facebook has removed a conservative group's anti-stimulus petition from its website:

Facebook, one of the Internet’s top social networking sites, has kicked out a conservative group’s Web site --“NoStimulus.com” -- from its paid advertising space.

NoStimulus.com, which is promoting a petition to stop President Obama’s economic stimulus bill, is sponsored by the nonprofit conservative group Americans for Prosperity.

Phil Kerpen, national policy director for Americans for Prosperity, said the paid ad had been running for days on Facebook with no problem.

“They had already screened it and approved it,” says Kerpen.

The petition featured in NoStimulus.com allows for those who oppose the stimulus bill to voice their objections, which are then sent to their respective lawmakers...

Amazingly, according to CNSNews.com, Facebook told Americans for Prosperity that one of the reasons it withdrew the ad was because it allegedly violated Facebook's Rule 8, which says "that ads may not 'contain, facilitate or promote 'adult' content or content that is 'offensive, profane, vulgar, obscene or inappropriate' or 'defamatory, libelous, slanderous and/or unlawful.'"

Since, this week anyway, Americans are still allowed to express an opinion on legislation, one must assume Facebook thinks opposing the stimulus is pornographic or potentially libelous. (I'm going with pornographic, since it is metaphysically impossible to libel Congress.)

During the first hour of her syndicated radio show today, Laura Ingraham is citing projects Facebook does allow. Among them: "F--- the Troops" (yes, the American troops) and projects supporting the release of terrorists from Gitmo.

Good going, Facebook. Guess you must have thought you had too many satisfied members.

Labels: Business, Economics, Government Spending, Liberals, Media, Radio

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:48 AM

Friday, February 06, 2009

Tom Borelli on Fox News Channel's "Glenn Beck" Discussing GE

Image via Wikipedia

By David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, appeared on the Fox News Channel's "Glenn Beck" program today at 5:00 pm eastern to discuss the appointment of General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt to a new presidential advisory panel.

President Barack Obama today announced members of his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Immelt is one of the members. Tom has been a leading critic of Immelt's corporate advocacy for environmental causes at the peril of consumers, stockholders and employees.

In 2007, Tom named Immelt one of the top five worst corporate CEOs, noting:
...Immelt's global warming strategy is causing a series of unintended consequences. For example, the incandescent light bulb - a GE product and invention of its founder Thomas Edison - will be phased out by federal law.

Over the past year, GE lobbyists had to fight hard to defeat outright bans of incandescent bulbs and buy time to restructure its lighting business that currently relies more on traditional bulbs.

GE's coal business is also feeling the heat from concerns over global warming. While it has invested heavily in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), a technology that captures carbon dioxide from coal-fired electricity plants, environmentalists have another plan - just ban the use of coal.

This year, environmental activists have been successful in blocking the construction of a number of coal-fired power plants including 8 of 11 plants in Texas. The termination of the Texas power plants resulted in the cancellation of orders for GE's steam turbines worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Tom's full commentary can be found here.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Energy, Environment, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:27 PM

Tom Borelli is on Glenn Beck Right Now

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli is a guest on the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program right now, talking about the GE corporation's left-wing activities.

Catch him on Fox now, if you can.

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Government Power, Government Spending, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:12 PM

"Stimulus" Interview Podcasts Available

Both Tom Borelli, senior fellow of the National Center for Public Policy Research and co-director of our Free Enterprise Project, and and Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, have been doing a good bit of local and national radio on our behalf on the so-called "stimulus" plan.

I've got links to podcasts to two of the national radio interviews conducted of Tom this week. These links permit you listen to all or part of these interviews at your convenience:

* The G. Gordon Liddy broadcast, February 5. The show's podcast page is here; a link to the actual feed of Tom being interviewed by Gordon Liddy is here.

* Radio America's Dateline Washington, Greg Corombus, host, February 4. Podcast page here; direct link to MP3 podcast file here.

If I acquire podcast links to any of the other immediate past or future broadcast media interviews our folks do on the stimulus, I'll try to add them, schedule permitting. Unfortunately, most shows, even major ones, do not make interview podcasts available.
____

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Power, Government Spending, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:00 PM

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Open Letter to the U.S. Senate on the So-Called Stimulus

Along with other individuals from a variety of organizations, I signed the following letter, distributed today to members on the Senate, urging them not to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a so-called stimulus plan. The plan has been rushed; it is wasteful, and it won't work.

In my view, a true plan to stimulate the economy would cut taxes, trim regulations where possible and help make energy more accessible and thus, more affordable.

The text of the letter and the list of signers follows:

February 4th, 2009

To the Members of the U.S. Senate:

We the undersigned public interest organizations, representing millions of members and supporters nationwide, hereby call upon you to reject the $819 billion spending bill that passed the House of Representatives last week.

This legislation will total some $1.2 trillion when interest is calculated over the next decade, and represents an unsustainable growth of government.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the budget deficit will already be $1.2 trillion for 2009. On January 3rd, the Washington Post reported that the deficit could total as much as $2 trillion. In part, it depends on how badly the recession hits the U.S., but also on how much productive capital the government takes out of the broader economy.

The irresponsible expansion of the budget to bail out state governments from their own budget deficits, expand Medicaid, boost education spending, food stamps and unemployment benefits, build federal buildings, provide more for public housing, construct climate change supercomputers, erect trade barriers overseas, create refundable tax credits, and make special interest payouts will not stimulate sustainable economic growth.

Instead, the astronomical growth of government spending, coupled with further monetary easing and protectionism, will discourage investment, savings, and capital creation, because in the longer term it means higher taxes, higher interest rates, and inflation. It will destroy jobs in the private sector, thus increasing individual dependency on government.

Importantly, it will steep American taxpayers ever deeper into a spiral of debt, now nearly $10.7 trillion. That includes $4.3 trillion owed in the form of unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other commitments, and $6.4 trillion held privately, $3 trillion of which is held overseas. 40 percent of the debt held privately comes due this year. The only way for the government to pay it is to borrow yet more money.

As a result, the federal government is running the serious risk that it will default on its financial obligations, as the nation's creditors during the current economic downturn may be unable to continue sustaining the uncontrolled growth of spending, leaving the nation in financial ruin.

America needs a plan now to begin paying down the national debt, not an ill-conceived scheme that will make that task impossible for our children and our children's children. The nation needs to tighten its belt, and learn how to live on less credit, less borrowing, and less debt.

This is a change that must occur at the individual level, at the county level, the state level, and the national level. It is not a change that should begin by doubling down on a hasty, careless gamble.

In addition, permanent tax cuts that change incentives are much more effective than temporary targeted tax incentives and spending. What economists call the "permanent income hypothesis" shows that individuals and businesses only change their spending and investment habits significantly when they expect policy changes to be permanent. It takes more than one-year, for instance, to build a factory, and businesses may not do so if they think that tax incentives are only temporary.

Preventing tax increases on individual income, capital gains and dividends, changing the tax code to allow full-cost, first-year expensing for business equipment rather than the arbitrary IRS depreciation schedule, and lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, among the highest in the world, would yield much more bang for the buck in ensuring a rapid economic recovery than the current package of massive spending with a sliver of targeted tax cuts.

Again, on behalf of our members nationwide, we the undersigned urge you to reject the $819 billion spending bill now being considered. Instead, we ask you to promulgate a real plan for change, to finally set the nation's fiscal house in order, to provide permanent tax relief to businesses and individuals, to free the American people from the boom-to-bust economic cycle, and to at last retire the national debt.

Sincerely,

Fred L. Smith, Jr.
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Gary Aldrich
Chairman
CNP Action, Inc.

William Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

Mark Williamson
Founder and President
Federal Intercessors

Thomas McClusky
VP for Government Affairs
Family Research Council

David N. Bossie
President
Citizens United

James L. Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Duane Parde
President
National Taxpayers Union

Mark Chmura
Executive Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Thomas Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Dr. William Greene
President
RightMarch.com

Ken Blackwell
Chairman
Coalition for a Conservative Majority

John Berlau
Director
Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs

Ron Shuping
Executive Vice President of Programming
The Inspiration Networks

Alex-St. James
Chairman
African American Republican Leadership Council

Cliff Kincaid
President
America's Survival, Inc.

Richard Falknor
Chairman
Maryland Center-Right Coalition

Amy Ridenour
President
National Center for Public Policy Research

____

Labels: Business, Congress, Conservatives, Government Spending, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:35 PM

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Yet Another Way Governments are Killing Jobs

Coyote Blog writes about cases in which local governments have forced people who want to start new businesses to prove their new business is "justified by the marketplace," that is, won't harm their likely competitors too much.

Hat tip: @WalterOlson.
____

Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:39 AM

Friday, January 30, 2009

Regulation Expected to Push Gas Stations Out of Business

From Alfred Lee at the Pasadena Star-News, information that new environmental regulations in California will push some gas stations out of out of business:

Dozens, and potentially hundreds, of gas stations around California are choosing to shut down rather than comply with a state mandate that would require owners to purchase new equipment to reduce vapor emissions at the pump.

The requirement, known as Phase II in the state's Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program, is set to go into effect in April. It requires gas station owners to individually purchase tens of thousands of dollars of equipment designed to prevent harmful vapors from escaping into the air when gasoline is pumped.

But smaller retailers say that the requirement puts an unfair burden on businesses that don't sell enough gasoline to offset the extra cost - and that don't contribute much to the problem in the first place.

Among them is George Fasching, who after 31 years of selling gasoline at Fasching's Car Wash in Arcadia, stopped in December.

"I came to the decision that I was too small a volume operator to continue on with the expenses imposed by the bureaucracy of the state," Fasching said.

April's requirements would have cost him $35,000, he said. Fasching used to sell the gasoline as a convenience for his car wash customers, and blames the new regulations for forcing him to stop.

"It will have some effect on my business, but at least I have the relief that I don't have to deal with these people anymore," he said.

As of the end of December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District had heard back from 3,109 of its 4,500 sites about EVR Phase II.

Seventy-six - or 2.4 percent - indicated they will be shutting down on April 1, 2009 rather than upgrade their sites...

Read the rest here.
____

Labels: Business, Environment, Environmental Justice, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:21 AM

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Very Good Point

Kudos to Rep. Joe Barton and to Iain Murray for drawing attention to this question.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Corruption, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:09 PM

Tom Borelli on G. Gordon Liddy

As a followup to this press release, Tom Borelli will be a guest on the G. Gordon Liddy national radio broadcast on Friday, January 16, at 10:30 AM Eastern.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:49 PM

So Was Barbarossa, Buddy, But It Doesn't Mean We Approve of It

"'The fact that we got this coalition to coalesce around a set of choices I think is impressive,'" said Jeffrey R. Immelt, chief executive of General Electric."
-Coalition Agrees on Emissions Cuts, Steven Mufson, Washington Post, January 15, 2009

More on our take on rich executives lobbying Congress to raise energy prices on poorer people so they can get richer still here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:44 PM

Monday, January 05, 2009

Land Grab Bill to Be Reintroduced?

Rumor has it that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is re-introducing his massive federal land control bill.

The National Center for Public Policy Research polled African-Americans on the legislation. 52% oppose the legislation while only 37% support it.

As our vice president, David Ridenour, noted when the poll was released:

This is a key test of whether liberal politicians listen to African-Americans who cast 95% of their votes for Barack Obama and accounted for nearly one-quarter of all of President-elect Obama's votes. Black Americans don't want more land locked up if it means restricting energy development and home construction, driving up the price of both. And that's precisely what this bill would do.

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, an amalgamation of more than 100 bills that would place new restrictions on energy exploration, home construction, and business activity, has been scheduled by Harry Reid (D-NV) for a vote during this week's special lame duck session of the Senate.

The bill would restrict use of millions of additional acres of land, both public and private, through the creation of new National Heritage Areas (a program creating de facto federal zoning), new wilderness area designations, and management practices that would clear the way for special protections for so-called "view scapes," "sound scapes," and even "smell scapes."

The National Center also helped Americans for Tax Reform gather signatures for a coalition letter to the U.S. Senate on this issue that ATR spearheaded, a PDF of which can be found here.

Addendum, January 12, 2009: The bill was brought to the Senate floor Sunday, January 11, and adopted 66-12.
____

Labels: Business, Congress, Endangered Species, Energy, Environment, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:58 PM

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

A Way to Help End the Recession

Drilling.

Labels: Business, Economics, Energy, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:16 AM

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Will Economic Crisis Make Obama Think Twice About Global Warming Regulation?

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's latest Townhall.com column examines President-elect Obama's attitude toward global warming regulation.

He asks, "Will the economic crisis make Obama think twice about cap-and-trade?, and answers: "There’s no sign yet that it will."

Read it all here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:16 PM

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Could Do to Our Economy

Writing in Investor's Business Daily today, David Ridenour says, "When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight."

He's talking about government-mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and what they could do to our economy.

Read the entire piece here.

____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:08 AM

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Steve Milloy Picks Apart Paulson Plan on WBAL at 1:30 on Thursday - Listen Live!

By David Almasi:

Steve Milloy, a director of the National Center's newly-announced Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest of Clarence Mitchell IV on WBAL radio in Baltimore this afternoon at 1:30 pm eastern. Steve will discuss his comments yesterday warning Congress that it would be unwise to grant excessive new powers to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and other cabinet officials (and their successors) under any financial "bailout" legislation.

You can listen to Steve from anywhere in America by going to the WBAL web site and clicking the "Listen Live" tab that can be found at the top left of the page.

In a release on the topic of Paulson and the bailout yesterday, Milloy noted:
Paulson should not be given more opportunities to punish his enemies and promote his friends. Engineering the sale of Bear Sterns at a fire sale price and allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt while making efforts to save Goldman Sachs should raise serious questions about Paulson's personal agenda. Having served in the Nixon Administration it seems Paulson took careful notes in the creation and execution of an enemies list. Let's not forget that under Paulson's leadership Goldman Sachs made millions by creating the mortgage crisis.
The full press release can be read by clicking here.

_____

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Spending, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:25 AM

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Billionaires Seeking Welfare

Billionaire Warren Buffett famously says taxes should be increased.

Well, no wonder! He's trying to get on -- if he isn't already on -- the moral equivalent of welfare himself by buying into Goldman Sachs at a time when that firm's former CEO is lobbying Congress furiously for a tax-funded bailout package that will benefit Goldman Sachs.

More on Buffett benefiting from a bailout in a Lawrence B. Lindsey article here
____

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Spending, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:36 AM

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie on Federal Bailout Controversy

By David Almasi:

Mychal Massie, the chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network Project 21, has this to say about our nation's current financial mess and those willing to do anything but let free market mechanisms bring things back to normal:
Our nation's current financial turmoil should be no surprise to those charged with overseeing our financial system, yet those yelling the loudest about our not being prepared seem to have been the ones with their heads in the sand the longest.

Case in point: When the Bush Administration suggested a regulatory overhaul of the housing finance industry in 2003, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) said: "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Source: "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," New York Times, September 11, 2003) The Fox News Channel is broadcasting a similar pronouncement by Frank made in 2005.

At the time, Frank was the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. Today, he is the chairman. He is part of the crowd seeking the bailout that will probably cost taxpayers well over a trillion dollars to correct. It could and should have been prevented by something he refused at the time to acknowledge.

To add further insult to this epic fiscal injury, lawmakers and members of the Bush Administration are seeking ways to game the free market to correct the very problem that government negligence allowed to happen in the first place.

It is unwise for the government to presume American taxpayers do not have a breaking point. It is a misrepresentation of that which is being proposed to portray this - as they are - as a "recovery plan." It is a "bailout," and a wholesale bailout of industries ad nauseam at that.

It is simply unfair and unjust for taxpayers to essentially be the financial safety net for those responsible for foreseeable economic misdeeds on a gargantuan scale.

_____

Labels: Business, Congress, Economics, Government Spending, Liberals, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:01 PM

Monday, July 28, 2008

Project 21's Borelli on Civil Rights Shakedowns in Philadelphia Inquirer

By David Almasi:

An article critical of activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson by Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli was published Friday in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Said Deneen:
Al Sharpton is making headlines again, but it's not for one of his crusades. Instead, Sharpton, his National Action Network (NAN), and several major corporations that have donated to NAN have been subpoenaed in recent months by federal investigators.

While Sharpton's attorneys reported Tuesday that the criminal probe over millions allegedly owed in taxes by Sharpton and NAN has been dropped in lieu of civil action by the IRS, federal authorities remain tight-lipped over the status of any investigations.

Critics have long accused Sharpton of obtaining corporate contributions by threatening racial boycotts.

Sharpton denies this, saying "That's the old shakedown theory that the anti-civil-rights forces have used against us forever."

But there's plenty to wonder about. In November 2003, according to the New York Post, Sharpton picketed a DaimlerChrysler air show, threatening a boycott. After the company began sponsoring NAN's annual conference in 2004, however, Sharpton bestowed an award on it for corporate excellence. General Motors and American Honda also began giving to the group after similar threats.

Sharpton's not alone. Critics of Jesse Jackson claim he has perfected the art of the shakedown. Suspicions persist, for instance, about motives behind repeated generous contributions from mortgage giant Freddie Mac to Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. As the National Legal and Policy Center has reported, "Jesse Jackson's relationship with Freddie Mac began in 1998 when Jackson accused Freddie Mac of racial discrimination and encouraged major shareholders to sell their stock. Freddie Mac began financial support for Jackson's organizations and his criticism of Freddie Mac stopped."

Freddie Mac donated $150,000 to a Rainbow/PUSH conference earlier this month, even as Congress was debating a bailout of the struggling firm and Fannie Mae, a bailout that the Congressional Budget Office says might cost taxpayers as much as $100 billion.

A 16-year crusade against Anheuser-Busch for not having enough minority beer distributors ended with Jackson's sons being awarded a lucrative Chicago distributorship. Businesses that Jackson has criticized, including Toyota and NASCAR, have become sponsors of his annual Wall Street Conference...
Deneen then discussed her own experience challenging Jackson directly at the recent JPMorgan Chase and Company shareholder meeting. To read more about this or hear Deneen in action, click here.

To read the full Philadelphia Inquirer commentary, click here.

_____

Labels: Business, Corruption, Project 21, Race, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:00 PM

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Cap and Trade Carbon Policies Could Increase Emissions, Says Justin Danhof

Cap and trade policies ostensibly designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could have the opposite effect, says the National Center for Public Policy Research's Justin Danhof in an op-ed published today by the Christian Science Monitor.

That's because of an established principle of behavioral law and economics explaining that when a stigmatized behavior is turned into a commodity that can be bought and sold, that behavior tends to lose the stigma associated with it.

Writing in the Monitor, Justin describes a social science experiment in which parents were fined if they arrived late to pick up their children from child care. After the fine was imposed, the number of parents arriving late increased, because guilt associated with arriving late had been replaced with the opportunity to buy the right to arrive late, guilt-free. "Parents," says Justin, "were no longer 'arriving late,' but rather, purchasing extra child-care hours."

Justin continues: "A similar situation could occur under a cap-and-trade regime. Under cap-and-trade rules, the government places an artificial cap on the amount of carbon each regulated facility may emit. Facilities producing more carbon than they are allowed are required to purchase additional credits to make up the difference. The opportunity to purchase these credits creates a market where none previously existed. As in the example of the fined parents, the purchase of the right to emit greenhouse gases would likely reduce any stigma associated with doing so. Emission levels, consequently, could rise."

Justin says there are real-world examples of this principle at play in the global warming arena: "Al Gore says the risk of catastrophic global warming is so great that Americans should act immediately to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet his home uses 20 times more energy than the average American home, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. That's OK, the former vice president assures us, because he purchases offsets to ensure that he lives a carbon-neutral lifestyle... If Mr. Gore could not purchase offsets, would he feel more pressure to reduce his energy use? The likely answer is 'yes.'"

The article goes on to cite works by Santa Fe Institute researcher Samuel Boles and columnist Charles Krauthammer, and to review the results of Europe's cap and trade program before concluding: "The social stigma of carbon emissions grows stronger each day. As this stigma grows, companies are increasing their investments into research and technologies to reduce and store carbon. If Congress removes the stigma associated with these emissions by assigning a price to them, it may not like the results."

The complete article can be read on the Christian Science Monitor website here or via http://tiny.cc/4HhHG. To send Justin Danhof a comment, write him at info@nationalcenter.org.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:59 AM

Businesses Strike Back

In an op-ed in the Charleston Daily Mail Tuesday, David Ridenour writes about a business that is fighting back against unfair lawsuits in a creative way:

West Virginia isn't "almost Heaven," but "almost Hell" where its judicial climate is concerned.

But finally, there's some good news on the horizon. After years of being battered by the state's bizarre system of jackpot justice, sucker-punched businesses are beginning to strike back.

In late May, the West Virginia Supreme Court, historically a good friend of the plaintiffs' bar, voted 5-0 to deny a request by two major natural gas providers - Chesapeake Energy Corp. and NiSource - to hear an appeal of a dubious $405 million jury verdict that found the companies underpaid landowners.

At issue was the firms' practice of deducting production and marketing costs from the royalties they paid.

The Roane County trial court inexplicably found that leases specifying that the royalties are "an amount one-eighth of the price, net all costs beyond the wellhead" and "less taxes, assessments, and adjustments" are ambiguous.

Ambiguous or not, the court interpreted the language in favor of the owner.

A week later, Chesapeake Energy countered with an eye-opening announcement: It was canceling a $35 million commitment to build a futuristic regional headquarters on the outskirts of Charleston's airport.

Chesapeake spokesman Scott Rotruck tied the decision directly to the high court's denial of an appeal request that would have been granted pro forma in most states...

Read the rest here.
____

Labels: Business, Legal Reform

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:46 AM

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Global Warming Computer Models Lead to Rise in Insurance Rates

If the global warming theory doesn't pan out, do you suppose the companies in this story will refund the extra premiums they collected?

Hat tip: Benny Peiser.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:34 AM

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Court Continues Welcome Trend of Reigning in Excessive Punitive Awards

From Research Associate Justin Danhof comes this look at the decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, handed down June 25:

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker grounded on a reef off Alaska's coast, spilling millions of gallons of oil. Since that time, Exxon has spent $2.1 billion in clean-up efforts, $900 million to settle a civil lawsuit and $303 million in voluntary payments to private parties.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, that that is enough... almost.

The Supreme Court did rule that punitive damages are allowed under maritime law. In a 5-3 decision, however, the majority directed the lower court to reduce the punitive award from $2.5 billion to no more than $507.5 million.

The Court took a commonsense approach by aligning punitive damages with compensatory damages. Associate Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, rejected a hard cap for punitive damages and instead affixed the maximum punitive award to the compensatory award: a one-to-one ratio. Although these studies were not dispositive, the Court cited empirical studies showing that a one-to-one ratio is consistent with America's average punitive award.

The decision was made under maritime common law, not the due process clause under which most punitive challenges are brought. Justice Souter explained:
[t]oday's enquiry differs from due process review because the case arises under federal maritime jurisdiction, and we are reviewing a jury award for conformity with maritime law rather than the outer limit allowed by due process.
Although the decision did not set direct precedent for future constitutional claims, it offered guidance to lower courts and was instructive of the Court's position towards punitive awards generally.

The Court was mindful that punitive awards are often criticized for their unpredictability. This unpredictability runs counter to a main goal of punitive awards: to provide an example. The Court explained that,
...a penalty should be reasonably predictable in its severity so that even Justice Holmes's 'bad man' can look ahead with some ability to know what the stakes are when choosing one course of action or another.
This decision goes a long way towards achieving this goal.

The Court's decision continues a welcome trend of the court reigning in excessive punitive awards. In State Farm v. Campbell (2003), the Court held that a single-digit maximum (i.e., no greater than a nine-to-one punitive to compensatory ratio) is appropriate in all but the most exceptional cases. Indeed, the Exxon decision follows State Farm's guidance which suggested that,
[w]hen compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee.
Justice Souter's majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens dissented, arguing that the Court went too far in limiting punitive awards. Justice Alito, a holder of Exxon stock, took no part in the decision.

Excessive punitive awards are a scourge on the business community; reducing innovation, investment and economic growth. Today's decision sends an appropriate message that companies will be held accountable for their mistakes, but not bankrupt by untenable punitive award figures.

Important Links

About Amy Ridenour

About the National Center

Featured from our Blogroll

Historic Documents

Archives

Highlighted Project

Fine print

Thursday, July 02, 2009

National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Look, Everybody, I Have a Hybrid!

Monday, June 29, 2009

What Killed GM

Sunday, June 28, 2009

There's Money to Be Made

Thursday, June 25, 2009

ABC Stands for "All Barack Channel"?

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Tom Borelli to Tackle Cap and Trade on Fox Thursday

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Regarding Cap and Trade, Is Caterpillar CEO in Over His Head?

Saturday, June 06, 2009

Go For It, Indiana

GE's Jeffrey Immelt Fights Back

Monday, June 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Political Decisionmaking at Government Motors

Friday, May 29, 2009

Outrage of the Day: "Subsidymagination"

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Chrysler Dealership Closings: They're Calling it "DealerGate"

"Airy Fairy Thinking"

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congressmen and Businesses Supporting Economic Suicide Pact

Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

And We're Supposed to Believe Their Positions are Based on Principle?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Boneless Goose

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Misbehaving for Money: Something Wanda Sykes, Perez Hilton and Donald Trump Have in Common

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Tom Borelli to Appear on Fox Business Network 8 AM Monday

Friday, May 08, 2009

GE Apparently Concludes ObamaCare Would Spend Less on Diagnostic Health Care Equipment Than Private Insurers Do

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Money Manager Castigates President, and Good for Him

Monday, May 04, 2009

Supporting Cap-and-Trade "Almost Demented"

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Chrysler: Orwell's Animal Farm

Monday, April 27, 2009

Fox Haters Week in Review

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Hurting the Nations by Hurting the Rich

Hollywood Reporter Updates 'Drama at GE Shareholders Meeting'

Friday, April 24, 2009

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Report the Alleged GE Corruption Story

Jesse Watters as the American Archetype

Keith Olbermann: Worst Fact-Checking in the World

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Olbermann Watch Has Tom Borelli/Glenn Beck Interview Audio as Video

CNBC Coverage of GE Stockholder Meeting

GE-Owned Networks' Media Bias, Conflicts-of-Interest Remain Focus Day After Stockholder Meeting

Her Microphone Was Cut Off: GE Executives Respond to Questions About Media Bias, More at Shareholder Meeting

Drama at GE Shareholders Meeting

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A (Brief) E-Mail Response from GE

Want Tax Money to Fund a New "Green Bank"? If "No," Sign Our Petition to GE

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Tom Borelli on GE Doing Business with Iran

Free Enterprise Project Takes on GE Today: Join It By Signing Our Online Petition

Monday, April 20, 2009

Attention Glenn Beck Fans

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Putin's Totalitarianism

Monday, April 13, 2009

More on Making Green Loans

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Making Green Loans

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Washington Post & Far Left Team Examine Geithner

For Release: Immediate
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

For Release: Immediate
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

For Release: Immediate

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org