masthead-highres

Thursday, April 29, 2010

General Electric Questioned About Its Attacks on Conservatives

ALT TAGDavid Ridenour at 2010 GE shareholder meeting


General Electric's plan to shed a majority stake in NBC Universal may be an attempt to repair GE's tarnished image with conservatives and moderates.

At the General Electric shareholder meeting in Houston Wednesday, I asked GE CEO Jeff Immelt about the growing public perception that General Electric is committed to a particular ideology, which isn't in the long-term interest of shareholders.

As an example, I noted that MSNBC, part of GE's NBC Universal, runs programming that is offensive to a substantial portion of the population. Keith Olbermann has called the Tea Party movement the "Tea Klux Klan" and has said the Republican Party wants to re-impose Jim Crow Laws.

Whatever your political outlook, I said, this doesn't make sense for GE - offending a substantial number of GE customers or would-be customers. I noted also that a large number of GE shareholders, including those gathered, sympathize with what the Tea Parties are trying to do or are members of the Republican Party.

I then noted that the Gallup organization has consistently shown that the number of people who self-identify as conservative outnumber those who self-identify as liberal 2 to 1. This, I said, is further supported by the fact that Fox News Channel has been far more successful than MSNBC, consistently getting more than double the viewers.

I then asked him to explain GE's thinking in going after the 21% of the population that is liberal rather than 79% of the population that isn't, but Fox is, with NBC's programming. I also asked what he was doing to address the perception - especially among conservatives -- that GE stands against them.

Quite a bit of applause followed.

Immelt didn't answer but went to the next question.

Later, I asked the questions again, noting he hadn't even attempted to answer my questions.

He said that GE has never attempted to influence the programming for its news or public affairs programs.

I asked: What about CNBC?

That goes for CNBC, too, he said.

I then interjected that its been widely reported that GE did just that (see New York Post article here) to curb criticism of President Obama's agenda.

Again, he asserted GE never attempts to influence programming.

Then he suggested that it was a moot point anyway because GE had divested itself of NBC Universal.

I responded, GE will still have a 49% stake.

Immelt then thanked me and moved on to the next questioner.

More questions about NBC Universal - both on its politics and on the proposed sale --followed.

What was particularly interesting is that on at least three occasions, including once during my question, Immelt said GE was divesting itself of NBC Universal - a point that is factually incorrect.

When asked by one shareholder how much control GE will have over the NBC Universal joint venture with Comcast, he said "effectively none."

GE will have a 49% stake in the company, have representation on the board of directors and yet have zero influence over the decisions?

Laughable.

This has all the markings of a company that wants to continue to influence NBC Universal programming (by serving on the board) and yet avoid accountability.

When Rachel Maddow says Tea Party activists can't hear what they're cheering for because their white hoods muffle the sound (yes, she said that), and Immelt is called on it in the future, he simply will blame Comcast.

The company has burned a lot of bridges with conservatives, not only through NBC Universal, but its support for cap-and-trade legislation, participation in TARP, and lobbying for stimulus dollars.

That's likely one of the reasons GE is reducing its stake in NBC Universal - this also may be the reasoning behind its gift of $15 million to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and becoming a presenting sponsor of Reagan's centennial celebration.

The political winds are changing... and all the GE-built wind turbines in the world can't change that.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 2:07 PM

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Pro-ObamaCare Corporations to Be Questioned at Stockholder Meetings Thursday

National Center for Public Policy Research staff members Tom Borelli, Deneen Borelli and Justin Danhof will be attending the annual stockholder meetings of Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson Thursday to directly ask the corporations' CEOs why they bankrolled lobbying and ad campaigns supporting the passage of ObamaCare.

Johnson & Johnson's CEO will also be asked why Johnson & Johnson is lobbying for cap-and-trade.

More details are available in our press release.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:38 PM

Friday, April 16, 2010

**UPDATED** Video: Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli Speaks at Washington DC Tax Day Tea Party Rally



Here's a video of Dr. Tom Borelli, director of our Free Enterprise Project, speaking at the Washington, D.C. Tax Day Tea Party (April 15, 2010).

Correction/apology: I originally posted the wrong video. This mistake has been corrected. I apologize to anyone who was inconvenienced.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:32 AM

Friday, April 09, 2010

Is General Electric Exploiting Ronald Reagan?

Is General Electric exploiting the memory of Ronald Reagan to distract Americans from its lobbying for President Obama's ultra-liberal cap-and-trade plan?

Watch Tom Borelli, director of our Free Enterprise Project, discuss the question with Stuart Varney on the Fox Business Channel, or read our press release here.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:04 AM

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Deneen and Tom Borelli on Fox Shows Friday

Project 21 full-time fellow Deneen Borelli will be a guest on Fox and Friends Friday at 7:15 AM, discussing the subject of the racist attacks she receives, such as those sampled in this blog post.

Her husband Tom, who serves as the director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest on Fox's sister channel, the Fox Business Channel, a few hours later. At approximately 10:40 AM, Tom will be a guest on Varney and Co. He will discuss General Electric's exploitation of the memory of the late President Ronald Reagan.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:29 PM

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Treat All Car Companies the Same

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker asks: "Will GM execs be dragged before Congress?" as the Toyota executives were?

Ordinarily I oppose Congressional show trials of corporate CEOs, finding it repulsive that people responsible for the insolvent Medicare and Social Security systems pretend to be morally qualified to sit in judgment of the business acumen of others, but now that the U.S. government is in the car business, Congress must bend over backwards to be neutral.

While the GM executives are testifying, I hope someone asks them to account for their membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which lobbies for cap-and-trade legislation. Tax money should not be used for lobbying.

P.S. My opinion in this situation is unrelated to my past ownership of a Chevrolet Cavalier with a so-called "sticky accelerator." Very scary situation to be in. I was able to get out of it by braking as hard as possible while switching the car out of drive and coasting to a stop. I took it to a Chevy dealership for repair, but the dealership said it could not replicate the problem, so I was left to take my chances. I sold the car instead (with full and emphatic disclosure) to a car dealer, and bought my first foreign car of my life to replace it. These days, ironically, I own a Toyota. 83,000 miles on it so far, and no problems.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:38 PM

Friday, February 26, 2010

No Climate Bill In 2010

InvestorsBusinessDailyLogo.jpgIn an article by Ed Carson that includes embedded video of our Tom Borelli, Investors Business Daily's "Capital Hill" Politics and markets blog is reporting that President Obama will fail to get his climate legislation adopted by the Senate this year.

This failure could turn out to be the best thing the Obama Administration ever does to reduce unemployment.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:30 PM

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Bloomberg Covers National Center Questions for John Deere Management

JohnDeereLogo.jpgBloomberg News is covering Tom and Deneen Borelli's appearance at the John Deere stockholder meeting today:
...[John Deere CEO Samuel] Allen defended Deere's membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership amid questions from Tom and Deneen Borelli, with the conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research, who say proposed cap-and-trade legislation will push up fuel prices and hurt job growth. U.S. CAP is a coalition of companies and environmental groups seeking legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Cap and Trade

Allen said Deere wants to be part of the debate and is evaluating all proposals, and that cap and trade can succeed if done the right way.

'The best opportunity to help is to be at the table,' Allen said in response to public questions at the meeting.

Tom Borelli said cap and trade will be a tax on fossil fuels and hurt customers ability to buy Deere products. He noted the decision by Caterpillar Inc. not to renew its membership.

'Sitting at the table is not good enough,' Tom Borelli said.

Allen said he would evaluate cap-and-trade policy with the interests of Deere, its customers and shareholders in mind...
Read Bloomberg's entire article here.

Tom and Deneen attended the meeting as representatives of the National Center, which is a John Deere stockholder. Tom directs our Free Enterprise Project, and Deneen is a full-time fellow with the African-American leadership group we sponsor, Project 21.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:02 PM

Why is John Deere Lobbying for Cap-and-Trade?

JohnDeere022410DBorelli.jpg
Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, and his wife Deneen Borelli, Project 21's full-time fellow, are spending the day at the John Deere headquarters, attending the stockholder meeting and asking company executives: Why are you members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership? Why are you part of an organization that exists to lobby for cap-and-trade, which will hurt your customers and the American people?

In an article published today by FoxNews.com, Tom sets out the issues in more detail:
Big business support of President Obama's health care and energy policy has put CEOs on the front lines of the nation's biggest political battles. Big PhRMA - the drug industry trade group - is credited with bringing Obama's health care plan to the precipice of passage and the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) - a coalition of business and environmental special interest groups - played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House of Representatives last year.

Clearly, CEOs see big bucks in big government.

Beyond dreams of fortune, chief executives also proved to be a national risk when their mismanagement drove our nation into greater debt through taxpayer-funded bailouts.

While liberty-minded citizens can seek to elect politicians that support limited government, big government CEOs (or, perhaps, progressive CEOs) remain largely beyond our reach.

Because CEOs can represent as much of a risk to liberty as elected officials, limited government advocates need a voice in the boardroom.

For this reason, my wife Deneen and I are attending the John Deere annual shareholder meeting today in Moline, Illinois on behalf of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a free-market think-tank that owns shares in John Deere.

Our goal is to press management to justify why John Deere remains a member of USCAP and why these executives believe a cap-and-trade scheme is in the company's best interest. These questions are especially timely, as BP, Caterpillar and ConocoPhillips made national news this month, after they abandoned USCAP...
You can read the rest of the FoxNews.com article here.

We'll have more updates later.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:41 PM

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Why is Lindsay Graham Helping Obama and GE?

Why is Senator Lindsay Graham seeking to bail out GE and Obama's failing [anti-]energy plan?


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:05 AM

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Here's How Big Business Benefits from Cap-and-Trade

Tom Borelli explains how General Electric plans to benefit from President Obama's cap-and-trade plan on a recent edition of Stuart Varney's Varney and Co. show:


Unfortunately for the American public, GE's gain would be our loss.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:48 PM

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Keith Olbermann Lists Children As Worst Persons in World for Making Innocent Snow Joke About Al Gore


Keith Olbermann Tuesday night named among his "worst persons in the world" four minor grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, along with their parents. Their "crime"? They built an igloo out of snow and posted near it a sign with a very innocent Al Gore joke ("Al Gore's new home. Honk if you [heart] global warming.").

Olbermann claims it was wrong for the family to make a snow joke, because the snowstorm killed people (though not, he should have noted, in or because of the Inhofe family's igloo). Up to now, weather-related jokes have not been considered beyond the pale, even for children.

InhofeGrandchildrenIgloo020910.jpg
Olbermann then put on his best "you're an idiot" voice to claim that "global warming" is really called "climate change" (implying strongly the children are dumb because they called the theory by the same name James Hansen uses), and, Olbermann says, "climate change" means it will be colder in winter.

InhofeGrandchildrenIglooSign020910.jpg
GE should be ashamed of itself for allowing its personnel to attack children on the air. These kids probably are sophisticated enough to realize that Olbermann's just doing it for attention, but it's still pathetic to see a giant corporation going after kids.

Hat tips to the FixedNewsChannel for uploading this to YouTube and to Senator James Inhofe for the pictures.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:04 AM

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Video: Stuart Varney Interviews Tom Borelli on New SEC Climate Guidelines


More about the SEC's new climate change regulations here.

Hat tip: Thanks to CEOMonitor for uploading it to YouTube.


E-mail comments to info@n[email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:52 PM

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Tom Borelli Talks with Gordon Liddy about New SEC Climate Regulations

GordonLiddyHeadshot.jpg

Our Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli visited with G. Gordon Liddy the other day to discuss the Securities and Exchange Commission's new rule requiring publicly-held corporations to disclose the risks of global warming -- including the risks to their corporation of stupid laws and regulations Congress and/or the Administration adopt in a futile attempt to control the climate.

The SEC did not use the word "stupid" -- that's mine -- but really, even the backers of this stuff agree it won't change the climate, so what's the point?

Enough editorializing from me. You can listen to Gordon interview Tom here, or go here. (Note: Tom's interview is during the last quarter-hour of the linked podcast file.)

For a quick look at what Tom's talking about, below is our press release on the matter:
Another Blow to Obama's Agenda: New SEC Guidance on Climate Change Disclosure Will Force CEOs Who Lobby for Cap-and-Trade to Expose the Business Risk of Cap-and-Trade Legislation to Shareholders

Washington D.C. - Corporate CEOs who have been actively lobbying for cap-and-trade climate legislation may soon find themselves in an embarrassing position thanks to a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation, says Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project.

The SEC voted January 27 to provide public companies with interpretive guidance that encourages corporations to disclose the possible business and legal impact of climate change to shareholders. Full disclosure will require companies to assess and describe how cap-and-trade legislation can harm company earnings.

"Fully disclosing the business risk of cap-and-trade will embarrass many CEOs who are lobbying for emissions regulations. Shareholders will discover that these CEOs are pursuing legislation that will negatively impact their company," said Borelli.

By issuing interpretive guidance on climate change, the SEC is encouraging companies to fully describe a wide range of business and legal risks posed by climate change on business operations. In these communications with shareholders about business risk, the SEC wants companies to address the following areas: Impact of Legislation and Regulation, Impact of International Accords, Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends, and Physical Impacts of Climate Change.

"Finally, the SEC is taking a position on the business risk of climate change regulation. Through Congressional testimony and participation at shareholder meetings over the past few years, I've been calling on CEOs to assess and disclose the regulatory impact of cap-and-trade to shareholders. While CEOs find it easy to ignore an individual shareholder, they can't ignore the SEC," said Borelli.

"Shareholders are going to discover that many CEOs have not been forthcoming about the business risk posed by cap-and-trade legislation and that they have failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibility by not assessing and communicating the impact of emissions regulations on their businesses."

Borelli cites Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens as an executive who has arrogantly disregarded the business risk of cap-and-trade. At a shareholder meeting, Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost benefit analysis of cap-and-trade on his business before he joined the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying organization pursuing these carbon dioxide emission limits.

In a subsequent Caterpillar shareholder meeting, when challenged by Borelli, Owens agreed that carbon caps could hurt heavy industry in the U.S., including Caterpillar. When Borelli asked how Owens could be held accountable if his lobbying course backfired on Caterpillar shareholders, Owens told Borelli to sell his stock.

Economic studies on the impact of cap-and-trade consistently report that capping emissions will lead to job losses and slower economic growth -- developments that would negatively impact earnings of large cap corporations.

"Caterpillar currently identifies general economic conditions and the amount of mining and manufacturing activity as key risk factors for its business, yet the company fails to warn investors that cap-and-trade will lead to a reduction in economic growth and a significant decrease in coal mining. Disclosure on climate change regulation will expose the conflict between cap-and-trade and shareholder interests," added Borelli.

"Armed with this information, Caterpillar shareholders will demand to know why Owens is lobbying for a law that will harm their investment. With the new disclosure detailing how cap-and-trade will harm Caterpillar, perhaps shareholders will follow Owens' advice and sell the stock," said Borelli.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:56 PM

Friday, January 29, 2010

Tom Borelli to Appear on Varney & Co on Fox Business Channel Friday

FoxBusinessLogo

Tom Borelli, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and director of our Free Enterprise Project, will appear on Stuart Varney's "Varney and Co." show on the Fox Business Network Friday morning at 10 AM 10:30 AM Eastern.

Tom will discuss new guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission that may have an interesting impact on the climate change debate.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:23 AM

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Tape of Tom Borelli on Glenn Beck

For any of you who missed it, here is a tape of Tom Borelli's appearance on the Glenn Beck Show Tuesday, with guest host Charles Payne.

The quality of the tape is not great, for which I apologize, but the substance of the interview comes through fine.

Addendum, 1/6/10: I changed the video link to a better copy, posted on YouTube by GlennBeckClips. The original video I had posted here is still available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS31VFLabWE.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:26 AM

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Tom Borelli on Glenn Beck Today

GlennBeckLogoTom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest today, December 29, on the Fox New Channel's Glenn Beck Show.

Tom will be discussing the relationship between GE, President Obama and climate change policies.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:57 PM

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Doubletalk

Policy Analyst Matt Patterson, working with research compiled by Executive Director David Almasi, exposes some joint Obama-ABC News doubletalk in the Washington Examiner op-ed pages today.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:01 AM

Friday, December 18, 2009

We May Know Why Conservatives Were Locked Out of ABC's Health Care Programming in June (Aside From ABC Being Liberal)

Last June, ABC allowed President Obama to pitch his health care proposal in a special edition of ABC's Primetime hosted by retiring World News anchor Charlie Gibson and (now incoming anchor) Diane Sawyer. Obama was given additional airtime to pitch his health care agenda that evening on Nightline.

Conservatives didn't get equal time.

Worse, ABC News even refused to allow the conservative group Conservatives for Patients Rights to purchase paid advertising to put out an alternative perspective.

Immediately afterward, the National Center began a multi-month review of the commercials run on World News. We found something interesting.

In the 98 broadcast days of ABC World News advertising logged by National Center Executive Director David Almasi and analyzed by Policy Analyst Matt Patterson, ABC's World News broadcast featured 1,102 commercials, 597 of which were placed by member companies of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) trade association, representing 54.17 percent of total commercials aired.

PhRMA very aggressively supports President Obama's health care agenda.

David Almasi doesn't think it's a coincidence.

"It's clear that World News relies on the members of PhRMA to sponsor it," Almasi says. "Ford and Proctor and Gamble are reliable sponsors, but the overwhelming amount of paid ads were for drugs pushed by the members of this very powerful and very political trade association. Ad after ad on World News comes from members of the drug lobby group PhRMA. It's almost laughable how many ads they run each day. If they were to stop, it would seem doubtful the broadcasts could continue."

Says Matt Patterson, who analyzed and wrote a report on the findings, "ABC News seems to have a significant financial stake in the success of ObamaCare. Should we be surprised that they hand over an hour to Obama to promote his plan, while shutting out opposing views?"

"There was not one day in which the members of PhRMA were not major advertisers on World News," Almasi adds. "It's hard to believe that the producers of the program don't have this on their minds when they are selecting the issues they cover. CBS burned off the series Swingtown two summers ago because the network found advertisers weren't interested... NBC cancelled Southland before the second season even aired because of concerns the show... would be unacceptable to advertisers. The concerns of advertisers do drive content. With so many PhRMA members sponsoring World News, it would be hard not to think that people at the network are always mindful of who is paying their bills. PhRMA makes no bones about its support for ObamaCare, and PhRMA's member companies appear to be the lifeblood of ABC's flagship World News program."

Patterson recalls something Newsbusters readers won't have forgotten: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn attacked the legitimacy of Fox News in October and White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod said of Fox's news programming, "it's really not news." Patterson notes that the White House has shown no similar concern for objectivity at ABC: "ABC appears willing to turn over large chunks of its news programming to a politician, if that politician is backed by companies representing more than half of their advertisements. And for the President, it seems it's OK for a news organization to support a point of view - so long as it's his."

Cross-posted, more or less, on Newsbusters


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:52 AM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

"Carbon Credit Gum: World's Biggest Bubble"

CarbonCreditGumMany.jpg
Caption on gum packages reads: "Carbon Credit Gum: World's Biggest Bubble"



The National Center for Public Policy Research is warning of the dangers of creating a new "carbon bubble" based on an artificial market in carbon credits by distributing bubble gum balls bearing the warning: "Carbon Credit Gum: World's Biggest Bubble."

The Bubble gum is being distributed at the COP-15 climate meeting in Copenhagen by Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli (seen in video, above), National Center Vice President David Ridenour, and National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli.

Distributing candy is a light approach to a serious policy question, but bubbles are bubbles. If our government creates an allegedly-tradable product in carbon allowances, it will be creating an artificial market that eventually will burst. Seasoned policy pros such as Al Gore presumably will leave the market long before that, their money made, but what will be the impact on regular folks? As we saw with the mortgage bubble, regular folks get hurt -- including very many who never profited from the original bubble.

We already know an artificial carbon market won't make a measurable difference in the planet's temperature -- even if all the dire but often contradictory warnings by global warming theory believers somehow turned out to be true. It very likely would not make even an unmeasurable difference. All a carbon market would do is move money around. I understand why designated recipients and profiteers are in favor of this, but that doesn't make it a good idea.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:59 PM

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Media Matters Tries to Blame Climategate on Exxon Mobil, Fails Utterly

MediaMattersActionNetworkLogo.jpgThe Media Matters Action Network has a page up claiming we at the National Center for Public Policy Research are "doing everything in [our] power" to draw "attention to the so-called 'Climategate' scandal" and implying that the fact that Exxon Mobil has donated to us is the reason.

What dishonest dopes. We've barely touched on Climategate. A few sentences here and there. In fact, given the gravity of the scandal, we really should have done more.

Media Matters is trying to claim it is relevant that handful of groups that have in the past received funding from Exxon Mobil have mentioned Climategate, which is a huge, major story (not broken by any of these groups, incidentally) repeatedly covered by every major newspaper in the English-speaking world and in many many newspapers and other media elsewhere. Hello? Are all the major papers in Britain, including the openly left-wing Guardian and its most famous ultra-green columnist (who takes Climategate very seriously indeed), in the pockets of Exxon Mobil?

Sorry, Media Matters, your desperate ploy won't work. Climategate has shown the unreliability and unprofessionalism of some Ph.Ds the U.N.'s IPCC and other organizations -- including yours, Media Matters -- have relied on for many years to help prove to the world that massive job-killing, government-growing treaties and policies are necessary. This is YOUR scandal, not ours, and even if you put a nice pretty red bow on it, we aren't going to accept it from you as a gift.

Yes, Exxon Mobil has contributed to us and we appreciate its support as we do the support we receive from any of our 100,000+ supporters. (Without Exxon Mobil, the whopping approximately 1.5 percent of our annual revenue that comes from corporate sources would be a little smaller. How much corporate support do you get, Media Matters?)

But Exxon Mobil's funding does not specifically support our work on climate nor has the corporation suggested in any way, shape or form that we mention, promote, acknowledge or otherwise notice Climategate, a scandal that is getting worldwide attention because it is newsworthy.

And we remind Media Matters that the only reason Media Matters knows about Exxon Mobil's gifts to public policy institutions is because Exxon Mobil and many of the recipient foundations (including us) freely and voluntarily disclose this information. (Does Media Matters CEO David Brock voluntarily disclose which corporations and special interests help pay for his nearly $300,000 salary?)

Which reminds me. Media Matters found eight public policy groups that have received at least one contribution from Exxon Mobil since 2001 that either have mentioned Climategate or, in the case of one, are affiliated with an individual who wrote a story about Climategate in an unaffiliated opinion journal (wow, there's a smoking gun for you). Here's a seven-page list of all the public policy institutions that received gifts from Exxon Mobil in 2008 alone. Over 130 institutions, some of them very liberal, are listed, and yet Media Matters could only find eight public policy groups receiving such gifts since 2001 that have mentioned Climategate or work with someone who has? Only eight?

P.S. to Media Matters: Have you guys apologized yet for promoting environmentally-useless climate policies that can hurt people based on unverifiable information? People really do rely on the jobs you want to kill, you know.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:14 AM

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Deneen Borelli on Fox Sunday

FoxNewsLogoProject 21 full-time fellow Deneen Borelli will be a guest on the Fox News Channel on Sunday, December 6 at 7:15 AM Eastern, discussing what President Obama should -- and should not -- do if he really wants to see the jobs situation in the U.S. improve.

You can read more about Deneen's views on the subject in
this Dallas Morning News op-ed.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:03 AM

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Climategate Should Put a Halt to Duke Energy's Lobbying for Cap-and-Trade

The National Center's Free Enterprise Project has called on Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers to cease lobbying for cap-and-trade in the wake of revelations regarding the integrity of processes underpinning the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate conclusions.

In the Climategate scandal, released documents from a British university reveal what appear to be efforts to manipulate data to support the preexisting views of leading climate researchers.

Raw data without which it is impossible to confirm the accuracy of IPCC findings also has been destroyed.

Duke Energy has said the company's decision to lobby for cap-and-trade is based on the very IPCC report whose conclusions have now been called into question. A company report says: "...our policy positions are driven by the IPCC peer-reviewed science and by our judgment that this science is not only credible, but that it is accepted by the vast majority of public policymakers who will shape U.S. climate legislation in the years to come."

"Rogers must exercise his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by carefully assessing whether he has been duped by a group of rogue climate change scientists," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the Free Enterprise Project. "The burden of proof is now on Rogers to show his global warming policy is sound and Duke Energy's board of directors must hold him accountable."

Rogers has taken a high-profile role in lobbying for cap-and-trade, including testifying in Congress and appearing in advertising.

"If climate change is proven to be a fraud, the billions of dollars of carbon credits Rogers is seeking from cap-and-trade legislation will be worthless. There is no secondary market for a government contrived commodity such as carbon dioxide," added Borelli.

Go here for a Free Enterprise Project press release.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:28 PM

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Nero Profited While Rome Burned

Looks like the lobbying profession, taken as a group, couldn't be happier that the feds are messing up our health care system so badly.

Notice that the lobbyists quoted in the The Hill story by Jeffrey Young that I linked to above apparently did not want to be identified by name. I guess they still have enough pride to be ashamed of themselves.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:29 PM

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Another on Rush

Another on Rush, from a Steelers fan:
Dear Amy Ridenour,

I am glad people are talking about boycotting the NFL. I have already emailed them to let them know of my intent. I almost ditched the Steelers last Super Bowl when Mr. Rooney thanked President Obama. As a huge Steelers fan myself, this was the last straw for me and the entire NFL.

Thanks.

Joseph McCoy
Oil City, PA

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:09 PM

Another Thought About Rush

Another observation about Rush and the NFL:
Unlike the opposition, Rush Limbaugh handled this situation with class. But let this be a warning! This is a good snapshot of what is happening to OUR country. How dare the left stand on their soap box and play the race card. So far their objectives and goals about Rush Limbaugh are the only transparent objectives and goals of this administration.

Best regards,

Jeanne

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:03 AM

More on Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

On Rush Limbaugh and the NFL, more from the mailbag:
When our youngest (of 3) child became a serious soccer player, he introduced us to the world of international "football" or soccer. Now twenty years old, he has announced that he will never buy an NFL ticket or another NFL jersey, and he doesn't even listen to talk radio. If you were to check out his Facebook page, you would see an appeal to free Plaxico. He is well informed about the NFL and its players and the rather uneven penalties meted out to the players depending on where they may be found "guilty", and he may still watch a Panthers game or two, but he will save his money for English Premier League, European Soccer or World Cup.

And this is where the NFL is (pardon the expression) idiotic. The world of sports viewership is now global. And as William has pointed out this week to us, you don't hear the EPL players making political statements or any of the European or African players we follow. The governing bodies of international soccer may be territorial, but they are most definitely not commenting on the politics of team owners. A Russian thug can buy an English team, but that won't affect whether we root for Chelsea FC or not (we are, in fact, Arsenal FC, another London club, fans; and they are affectionately know as the "gooners", nothing politically correct about that, despite the rampant political correctness in the UK).

So, good luck NFL, I have been introduced to the excitement of the EPL and I will now allow that to monopolize my weekend viewing. An American actually owns a piece of Arsenal, but that doesn't affect my affections one iota. I will delight in the skills of players from Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, France, England, Bosnia, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mexico, and any other country that produces Arsenal talent. And, guess what, these players even understand economics (unlike some loud mouths from the NFL who have no problem alienating me and my pocketbook) and have commented on how the increase of UK income taxes from 40% to 50% this year will affect where they choose to play and the contracts they negotiate. Witness the top player in the world leaving Manchester for a Spanish team this year.

We now live in a GLOBAL economy. The NFL has just revealed how provincial it really is. So weekdays if I'm in my car, I'll listen to Rush; and weekends I'll be tuned in to the soccer channels. I grew up on Johnny Unitas and the Baltimore Colts. I'll relish my football memories as I savor political debate. Life is too short to waste time on Keith O's pregame show or whining football players. RIP, NFL. Your competition is global and your days are numbered. That's what they put the nets up for, regardless of the sport.

Mary Bejan
Durham, NC 27707

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 AM

Friday, October 16, 2009

Quote of Note: Did Rush Really Lose?

"...most of the same people who want Limbaugh ostracized are the same ones who think it is OK for Roman Polanski to drug and rape a 13 year old. These are also the same people, the white ones, who do not want Michael Vice to ever play again, or at least to make his life a living hell as long as he does play.

In the end, and to their shame, the group of potential owners caved in and removed Rush Limbaugh from the investor group saying that it was not worth it to keep Rush involved if it risked their not getting the franchise.

In the past 2 days ESPN and other media outlets have been announcing that Rush Limbaugh has been punted, and there is I am sure great rejoicing in this in many quarters, particularly in the black community and on the left. They see this as some great victory. This is very sad. Why? Because I ask the simple question, who really won and who really lost? Did Rush really lose? Did black players or even more so black Americans win?

Rush is still the most popular radio personality in America. He will still earn over $25 million a year, and he will still want Barack Obama to fail. Nothing has changed.

At the same time, will one black child do better in school? Will one less gang killing take place in Chicago, Philly LA. Will the Rams play any better? The answer is of course no. No new jobs have been created and Iran, North Korea are still feverishly building nuclear weapons.

This is a sad state for our nation. Black America in the grip of the Liberal establishment is more addicted to mediocrity than they are to 'Crack Cocaine.' They are the willing pawns in the Liberal game. This is a sad state. In the end everyone that needs to win loses."

-Eddie Huff, "NFL vs. Rush Limbaugh - Who's The Real Loser," New Black Thought, October 14, 2009


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:56 PM

Cancelling the NFL Sunday Ticket

My favorite letter of the day, and not just because it is from a Pittsburgher:
Amy,

I completely agree with your suggestion to boycott the NFL. I too am originally from Pittsburgh and know exactly what you mean when you say that you care strongly about the sport. In fact, I almost feel like someone has died now that I canceled the NFL Sunday Ticket. I can't however continue to financially support an organization that would single out a private citizen for punishment simply because they don't agree with their political views. Is NBC aware of the hateful vomit that is spewed daily from Keith Olbermann?

In addition, I wonder what sacred "standards" the Commissioner was referring to in his press conference the other day. Are they the same standards that turn a blind eye to sadistic dog killers, wife beaters, suspected murders, and other unsavory thugs? Apparently the Commissioner is fine with filling the NFL ranks with the likes of Michael Vick, Dante Stallworth, Pacman Jones, and Ray Lewis - but conservative talk radio hosts need not apply. I am a proud conservative that is appalled at what is happening to this country. Too bad the NFL doesn't like my political views. I guess they don't like spending my money either. They will never get another penny of it.

It is a sad day for America,

Leah
Pembroke Pines, FL

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 AM

What's Happening Now

Bob Moffit on a new way the Senate leadership is trying to deceive you.

Roundup of black conservative opinion of NFL-thinks-it-is-too-good-for-Rush-Limbaugh dustup.

Judge tosses out yet another lawsuit trying to set global warming policy in the courts instead of the legislatures.

Is the Honduran constitution negotiable?

Snow in New Jersey on October 15 does not disprove the global warming theory.

Daniel Henninger: Donald Rumsfeld was right.

Obama says the damage from Katrina was caused in part by a "breakdown of government." If gov't came make a hurricane worse, why would we want it to run health care?


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:51 AM

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Sharpton and Jackson Attack on Rush Limbaugh a "Racist Act," Says Black Conservative

It's not up on the Project 21 webpages yet, but Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli has issued a statement about the Rush Limbaugh situation that may interest readers:

Jackson & Sharpton Effort Against Rush Limbaugh is an Effort to "Get Whitie" and a "Racist Act," Says Leading Black Conservative

Statement of Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli
The left-wing jihad against Rush Limbaugh is un-fair and un-American. Rush is being targeted simply because he is a conservative and a leading critic of President Obama's wealth redistribution policies.

With conservative blood in the water, it's predictable to see the 'race card duo' -- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -- circling the victim. Since the election of the first black president, they have been searching for some white meat to feed on and Rush just happens to be a juicy target. Whipping up unjustified black anger is their specialty.

Frankly, I see their effort as 'get whitie' -- an inherent racist act.

It's outrageous that the 'race card duo' are worried about Rush buying a football team following a graphic example of black on black gang violence in Chicago -- Jackson's home town. As so-called black leaders they should be putting their time and effort in dealing with the human tragedies in the urban community: crime and failing schools and not a conservative exercising his right to play in the free market.



Written by Amy Ridenour. E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:40 PM

NFL, Rush Limbaugh & the Rams: What Conservatives Should Do

In regards to potential NFL approval of Rush Limbaugh being part of a bid to purchase the NFL's St. Louis Rams, SI.com is reporting "...League sources told SI.com that Limbaugh's candidacy in any Rams bid had 'zero chance' of being approved by the league's owners."

I think conservatives have to stand up and take notice that outspoken mainstream conservatives are not welcome in the NFL. I see two possible practical responses:

1) Boycott;
2) Monitor every liberal NFL owner, coach, player, office worker or dogsbody employed directly or indirectly by the NFL and raise a huge and public stink every time they say anything remotely liberal on a public policy issue.

One way to begin #2 is for those of us so inclined to create Google Alerts covering as many of these people we have time for, and be prepared to make a fuss.

For myself, I am perfectly willing to boycott if others are. I already did it for one season after Limbaugh was treated badly the first time, and I'm from Pittsburgh, which is all that need be said about whether I care strongly about NFL football.

If mainstream conservatives aren't allowed in the NFL club, I see no particular reason why mainstream liberals ought to be, either. Leave the NFL to the unopinionated drones.


Written by Amy Ridenour. E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:08 PM

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

What's Happening Now

If All Nippon airways really wanted to reduce carbon emissions, it wouldn't ask its customers to pee; it would ask them to stay home.

Here's hoping the idiotic sports reporters who attacked Rush Limbaugh over his perfectly-appropriate Donovan McNabb comment in '03 gag on this news.

Which health insurer denies the most claims? Find out here.

Tell me again why the USA gives one penny to the United Nations.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:01 AM

Friday, October 02, 2009

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest

Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli has been closely monitoring the corporations who lobby for cap-and-trade.

Tom issued a statement Friday on the ways the new Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill (or perhaps I should say, bill framework, because it appears to be out of fashion these days for legislators to actually finish drafting their proposed bills before introducing them):
Senate Cap-and-Trade Bill Favors Corporate interests Over National Interest

The "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) favors corporate interests over our national interest, says the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. The bill calls for a 20% reduction in emissions, exceeding the 17% target in the House Waxman-Markey legislation passed in May.

Boxer-Kerry lacks many important details, including a disclosure of which industries will benefit from free emissions credits.

"In the rush to legislate, the Boxer-Kerry bill is silent on key elements, such as how the government will hand out free emissions allowances that are worth billions of dollars. With that amount of money left on the table it opens the door for a behind-the-scenes lobbying fest that will reward well connected companies while looting taxpayers," said Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project.

Waxman-Markey awards most of the estimated $777.6 billion of free allowances to industry between 2012-2020. Utilities were the biggest winner in the "House bill lottery," receiving 35% of allowances.

President Obama originally wanted to auction all the emission credits with the revenue going to reduce the budget deficit.

In addition to the allowance windfall, a few select companies will benefit from specific provisions. Caterpillar would gain from sales of its newly-developed hybrid bulldozer, because the bill empowers the EPA to issue new emissions standards for "new heavy-duty vehicles and engines and for nonroad vehicles and engines."

The Caterpillar hybrid bulldozer is priced about $100,000 more than conventional bulldozers – an added cost that will be passed on to construction projects.

The Boxer gift to Caterpillar may be a reward for CEO Jim Owens. Under Owens, Caterpillar is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of corporate and environmental special interest groups lobbying for cap-and-trade. Owens is a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"Owens is putting his personal short-term interest over our national interest. He has previously acknowledged that cap-and-trade can harm the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries, yet he remains a member of USCAP," added Borelli. "Owens' thirty pieces of silver is a hybrid bulldozer."

"It's clear the only winners with cap-and-trade will be the lobbyists, CEOs and their environmental allies. The bill represents a huge transfer of wealth in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars to industry. While the Washington elite benefit, the rest of America will end up paying the cost through higher energy prices, slower economic growth and sending jobs overseas," said Borelli.

Visit the Free Enterprise Project online at http://www.freeenterpriser.com.

###

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM

Friday, September 11, 2009

What's Happening Now

Final words from 9-11. Don't forget.

Iran, Libya and Obama's inexperience.

An American experiences the NHS.

Government Electric?

Death panels strike again.

ATR: Top five tax fibs in Obama speech.

Osteoporosis drug controversy in the UK.

Britain may not have enough hospital beds to handle swine flu.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:40 AM

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Tom and Deneen Borelli to Speak on Global Warming Alarmism at Independence Mall in Philadelphia

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli and Tom Borelli, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, will speak at Americans for Prosperity's rally "Hot Air Tour Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom," on Wednesday, September 9th at Independence Mall in Philadelphia (rain or shine) from 4:30 pm to
6:30 pm.

Deneen will focus on the negative economic consequences of cap-and-trade legislation and Tom will urge concerned citizens to "vote with their wallet" and not purchase products from companies that are actively lobbying Congress to impose climate change-related economic restrictions.

You can keep up with Tom by reading his FreeEnterpriser blog. Deneen's most recent nationally-distributed op-ed, "Cap-and-Trade is a Ball-and-Chain for Poor Americans," can be read here.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:48 PM

Monday, September 07, 2009

Next Year, Cancel Labor Day

President Obama said today that we all owe something to unions.

We certainly do: A big (figurative) punch in the nose, as a bigger job killing machine has never been invented.

Speaking of labor unions, I wish they (and the president) would stop claiming unions are responsible for the 40-hour work week. Prosperity and technological innovation, not lobbying or striking, is what made the 40-hour work week possible. Excluding businesses that accept bailouts, the only businesses that can offer workers 40-hour work weeks are the ones that can afford to. Lobbying and/or striking doesn't make that possible.

Besides, who has a 40-hour work week? Relatively few entrepreneurs and small business owners, I bet.

I suggest we cancel the day meant to honor people who only work 40 hours a week and instead create one to honor entrepreneurs and small business owners. The day could be spent penning thank-you letters to the people who make our jobs possible in the first place.


E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:44 PM

Friday, September 04, 2009

ABC Won't Air Anti-ObamaCare Ad, But a Double-Standard is in Play

ABC and NBC are refusing to air a commercial critical of Obama's vision to remake health care as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Uncle Sam, but ABC's reasons for doing so don't stand up to scrutiny.

The ad, created by the League of American Voters, features neurosurgeon Dr. Mark J. Cuffe warning about threats posed by government-run health care such as rationing and limits on medical innovation. The commercial can be viewed above or by clicking here.

For reasons of full disclosure, be advised that League executive director Bob Adams is a former National Center for Public Policy Research employee. He did not, however, solicit this posting and my discovery of his link to the organization came after I was already appalled by ABC's duplicity.

According to a report posted on FoxNews.com, both ABC and NBC are refusing to run the ad nationally in its present form. In particular, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a statement: "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue... Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News." NBC might accept a revised version of the ad.

The ad is running on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.

Former Clinton Administration political advisor Dick Morris, who is now helping out the League of American Voters, disputed ABC's assertion of impartiality. He said: "It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform... For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."

In fact, during ABC's June 24 White House event in which Obama was able to lay out his health care agenda with virtually no opposition from a small and select audience, the network did air an ad from PhRMA - the pharmaceutical lobby group that is a strong proponent of ObamaCare. It also ran an ad from Health Economy Now, a coalition made up of PhRMA, labor unions and special interest groups that is also backing ObamaCare.

It seems there is a double-standard at ABC as to what constituted partisan activity. And yet they insist they are being objective.

The National Center has been tracking national advertisers of ABC's daily "World News" program all summer as well as its specials on health care and oil. You can find a list of these sponsors and their contact information here. Write or call those sponsors. Tell them what you think of a network that restricts the ability of both sides of an issue to make their case.

In the commercial, Dr. Cuffe warned that what he feared might happen here under Obamacare is already happening in places such as Canada and England. The National Center recently published a compilation of stories of people denied proper and efficient care under government-run health care schemes abroad that can be downloaded for free by going here.

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by David W. Almasi at 10:24 PM

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Don't Let Health Care 'Reform' Rain on Your Picnic

The National Association of Manufacturers has a released a new video using a picnic analogy to succinctly illustrate ways we can improve our health care system -- and warning us of the dangers of the so-called "public option."


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:37 AM

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Another Cash for Clunkers Clunker

During the Cash for Clunkers program, GM sales dropped 20 percent vs. last year's and Chrysler's dropped 15 percent.

Ford sales increased 17 percent.

The reason -- aside from the fact that people don't want to buy from Government Motors -- is that GM and Chrysler didn't have sufficient inventory of the kind of cars that qualified for the program.

So, let's see here... Government-run companies couldn't anticipate the demand from a government-run incentive program.

I knew they didn't understand the free market, but they don't understand government either.

And if Chrysler and GM didn't have sufficient inventory for demand, why the heck were the two companies matching the cash for clunkers program with their own incentive program? Why not apply their incentive to the vehicles that didn't meet Cash for Clunkers' specifications?

This post was written by David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at [email protected]. As we occasionally reprint letters, please note if you prefer that correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: ,

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 9:34 PM

Sunday, August 30, 2009

What's Happening Now

What would John Jay do?

Obama and Kennedy "weren't that close." We could tell from Obama's eulogy.

Laws covering certain major campaign supporters will not be enforced, Obama Labor Department says. Equal justice under law is "the animating ideal of our democracy," says Obama. We aren't feeling animated today.

Ed Morrissey, optimist: "We've spent enough on the UAW, thank you very much." Realist: We'll never stop paying for the UAW.

Moe Lane/RedState: "Sometimes, I miss Tony Blair." Me, too, but I suspect it's because we live here.

Ed Driscoll: "It can't happen here." Or it can.

Nice enough to make you want to be a cave dweller.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:02 AM

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Dear President Obama: Please Read This

Join me in urging our President and every Member of Congress to read the article "How American Health Care Killed My Father" by David Goldhill in the September issue of the Atlantic.

Sample paragraph:
I'm a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America's lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system - largely problems of incentives - our reforms won't do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government's role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.
Read it all here, pass the link (or this post) on to your Congressman, the White House and to others you know.

Hat tip: Greg Mankiw's Blog.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:18 AM

Outrage of the Day: A Rockefeller Questioning Profits

Senator John D. Rockfeller IV (D-WV) has sent a letter to the top 15 health insurance companies asking them to report how profitable they are. In part because Rockefeller is a Senate Committee chairman, the letters carry with them the threat of an implied subpoena if the companies don't respond.

The day he had the letters sent, Rockefeller said in a statement, "Too often consumers are not getting a fair deal for what they pay, they are not getting the protections they deserve, and the insurance companies are awash in profit."

How does he know? He can't have received any replies yet.

As the Senator's condemnation of the replies before he received them implies, this is grandstanding, not research. Health insurance companies report their profits to various regulators.

Why, if the Senator honestly wanted to know, he could have Googled it. I did.

From the August 5, 2009 Wall Street Journal:
'For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs -- doctors, hospitals, and drugs,' says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.
More Google results here, here, and here, among many others.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:38 AM

Friday, August 21, 2009

Postal Rationing Confirmed?

A lot of mail came in about David Almasi's blog post about D.C. area post offices rationing stamps.

Of those we were given permission to publish, the following two stood out:
i am a long time window clerk. cant say where for fear of retribution. this is nothing new. i have seen stamp increases where we do not have the supplemental stamps available at all. for ex.. price increase from 29 to 31.. no 2 cent stamps.. at all.. or ones.. limited 3 centers.. so let the customer buy them.. or how about running out of forever stamps.. or how about down to 26 total 44 cent stamps available period.. that includes coils.. we are not supposed to break coils of 100 apart.. believe me. .i have done it.. many many times.. clerks are put in an embarassing situation.. has been going on for about 10 years now... bad bad bad.. and no acct for management... they tell clerks.."do what you have to do"...or "deal with it"
-Name Not Published

It really gets to me when people (the President included) make statments when they are ignorant as to the facts.

I have been a dedicated Postal employee for over 29 years. The Post Office Department used to be totally funded by the government. The current Postal Service is supported solely by the sale of all types of postage.

One of our biggest challenges is that when we became self-supporting, congress did not give up control to allow us to run efficiently.

Another challenge is that we are pre-funding future employees' retirement benefits. What other business/company/entity in the United States has to do this??

Furthermore, whenever a post office is announced to be closed, the community rallies their congressman and the post office remains open. If you ran a business and you paid $45K for 1 person (there may be more at that particular office), $35K in rent, $20K in water bills, electricity, etc. to just be open and your revenue from stamp sales equals about $1k per week, would you keep it open at a minimum annual loss of $48K????? Multiply a minimum net loss of $48K by thousands of offices across the US. The total is staggering. We are hemorrhaging cash and we can do nothing to prevent it!!!

Does any other business have a congressman telling them what they can and cannot do when they are required to be successful and self-sufficient?? I am not a gambler, but I will bet your answers are NO!

The last, but huge issue is that congress itself has abused us for years in another way. They are allowed to mail ALL correspondence without paying a cent. They are required to pay at the end of the year a "percentage" of what they sent out. In reality, almost NONE have ever repaid this burden of cost upon the Postal Service. Mail does not process itself. There are costs involved to move it by donkey, boat, truck, or plane. Congress finally admitted a few years back that they were guilty. They also pledged to repay us at a rate of $29M per year. This did not happen. They again responded that we were correct and would begin repayment. Again, they did not make the pledged payment. I have seen no such statement or document that they have done so to date.

Faxes, scanners, and on-line catalogs have all but destroyed most of our services. I too am guilty of using both, but back to the beginning... Before people make such statements -or- perpetuate statements of others, homework should be done PRIOR to the publishing deadline. You have done a dis-service to your readers and postal employees everywhere. This response is not to offend you, but I hope it will encourage you to do more research about the Postal Service before a public statement. We are so often the brunt of much, but have many hardworking, dedicated employees that give much for so little.

Sincerely,

Bob
Robert S. Hartsel, Jr.
Manager, Transportation
U S Postal Service
Roanoke, VA
Notice in the second letter the allegation that Members of Congress have been cheating the post office. Ethics investigation, anyone? The comments below, plus others we received by email but were asked not to print, do bear witness that Mr. Hartsel is correct: the post office does have many dedicated employees.

PostalReporter.com ran a link to David Almasi's blog post and allowed comments.

A few samples:
That must be happening nationwide...that is what happened at our P.O. too. I was told it was to force customers to spend that dollar doing it online.
-justsaying

This is happening in my office too. I've had no stamps to sell on more than one occasion.
-Anonymous

If this is true, we are truly led by morons.
-skullking

Put a sign in the lobby. When they find out they are rationed, you will have lobbies full of people buying more stamps then they need. Human nature, like filing taxes on the 15th of April. Think about it!
-john

This is NOT a problem.
The Postal Service will issue I.O.U.s in lieu of stamps.
Now quit your whining get back to work.
-V.P. Of I.O.U.s

What a load of bull! This 'article' is nothing more than a conservative organization's thinly veiled attack on the current health debate. The PO has never, and will never have a need to ration stamps! Whereas a lone clerk, station manager or PM might be inclined to make such a grievous error based on misguided logic, the PO would never turn away any paying customer, provided we could accommodate them immediately. This is our job! They print stamps whether we sell them or not. This article is an affront to the hardworking people of the PO, and yes as much as I regret saying it, even management.

Those of you that choose to buy into this propaganda are way too gullible, too eager to slight the PO, or perhaps have never worked for the PO. Spreading this kind of baseless rhetoric is ridiculous and undermines the PO.
Get real!
-roflmao

This absolutely IS occuring in Westchester County in New York. We have been told we cannot order stamps as we always have on an "as needed" basis. We are currently out of MANY types of stamps the customers need and continually ask for and the district tells us we must wait until a certain date to put in an "emergency" order. It is a pathetic situation as I watch many customers walk out without the stamps they came in to purchase bewildered as to how their local Post Office cannot get them. I've never in my many years on the job seen this before. So, don't tell me it's propaganda!
-JP

We are being harrased of late about our stamp stock being "too high." This has never happened in years past. Our postmaster now gives us stock in small amounts compared to what we used to get. Theyt run out quickly. She says she's been told she can't get the usual allotment anymore. Hence, we are always low or out of the fast movers. It's a joke.
-Harry

The only thing were good at selling,besides BS,and now we cant get our mitts on enough of em.No wonder this business model won't work.
-Dexter

Ummm, lets see... We sell postage to generate the money that runs the company. We're in the hole big time so top brass decides to ration the thing that brings in money? What am I missing here?
You couldn't make this s--- up!
-dwhite

Idiotic stuff like this IS true. We have a very strict limit that we can have on hand. If we run out of something and have to do and "emergency" order for something then we can not do another one for 21 days. If we are going to go "over" our limit of stamp stock, then the stamp distribution office will not send you your stamp order.(We only get one day each month for a "scheduled" stamp order.)
It's ridiculous. It is supposedly to keep theft/risk down, save time when conducting stamp audits etc.
In the meantime, sometimes we are not able to have on hand what our customers need at the time. We are supposed to "guesstimate" what our customer's needs are.
I too think they are trying to drive out all the business from the P.O. counters. That way they can have the tanning salon down the street sell stamps w/o having to pay the bennies and salaries!
-wake up and smell the stink


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:18 AM

Copyright The National Center for Public Policy Research