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 info@nationalcenter.org. | 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: Business, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Regulation, Retirement, Scandals

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

Labels: Business, Culture, Liberals, Limbaugh, Race, Radio

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

Labels: Business, Culture, Liberals, Limbaugh, Quotes

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

Labels: Business, Culture, Liberals, Limbaugh, Radio

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

Labels: Business, Culture, Liberals, Limbaugh, Project 21, Quotes, Race, Radio

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

Labels: Business, Culture, Liberals, Radio

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?

Labels: Business, Climate, Courts, Environment, Project 21, Race, Retirement, White House

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 info@nationalcenter.org. | 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: Business, Liberals, Project 21, Race

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.

Labels: Business, Liberals

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.

Labels: Business, Climate, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, United Nations

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.

###

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment

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.

Labels: Business, Defense, Europe, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Government Power, Health Care, Taxes, White House

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.

Labels: Business, Climate, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, Regulation

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.

Labels: Business, Labor Unions, White House

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 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, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Retirement

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 info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

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 info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters, please note if you prefer that correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Business, Government Spending

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 info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Corruption, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Labor Unions, Terrorism, White House

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 info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

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 info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Outrage, Regulation, Retirement

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 info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Government Agencies

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:18 AM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What's Happening Now

6,000 surgical operations may be cut to make up for budgetary shortfall in Vancouver. Would 6,000 Canadians trade health insurance for health care? (Let's ask when some of them visit.)

Via Twitter, @ruffedge asks: USA or USSR?

How much would you spend to apply a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist? Me: Not so much. Congress: $8 billion. (H/T Celebrity Paycut)

Media Matters lied? Say it ain't so!

The Cash for Clunkers program's rules say dealers will be reimbursed within ten days, but dealers have found themselves on waiting lists. Reminds me of this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this. You can't make government efficient by passing a law saying it has to be.

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:39 AM

Friday, August 14, 2009

What's Happening Now

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions way down in '08.

If PhRMA doesn't want America to think it was bribed by the White House not to oppose government-run health care, it could oppose government-run health care.

Still deadly after all these years.

"Evil mongers"? But this is worse.

Father of cap-and-trade says there's a better way to regulate carbon (if you must). We agree.

Another one bites the dust.

ACLU movie: Big brother looking out for you.

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Government Health Care, Health Care, History, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:31 AM

Friday, August 07, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Covers National Center Free Enterprise Project's Call on Obama to Dismiss Jeffrey Immelt

The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project has called on President Obama to dismiss General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt from his Economic Recovery Advisory Board following findings from the Security and Exchange Commission that "GE bent the accounting rules beyond the breaking point" to "avoid missing analysts' final consensus EPS expectations."

You can read the Free Enterprise Project's complete press release here.

In the video above, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly covers the Free Enterprise Project's call in this nightly "Talking Points Memo" and adds commentary of his own. He then is joined by political strategist Dick Morris, who continues the Immelt-GE-Obama discussion.

Hat tip: To NewsPoliticsNews for posting the video on YouTube.com.

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Corruption, Energy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:17 AM

Thursday, August 06, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here's who voted which way when the Senate voted to renew Cash for Clunkers. Only 37 Americans in the Senate.

Here's who voted which way when the Senate voted to table Tom Harkin's amendment to limit the car welfare program to individuals earning under $50,000 and couples earning under $75,000. 65 Senators support welfare for the rich. Zero Dems for means testing.

Washington Independent: Cash for Clunkers "steals its funding from a Department of Energy program encouraging the development of renewable energy technologies." Someone thought this bill was about the environment?

John McCain calls Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill "a farce," saying "they bought every industry off - steel mills, agriculture, utilities." More welfare for the rich.

President of the United States or Captain Queeg with his strawberries? Seemingly both.

Searching for swastikas.

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Spending, History, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:33 PM

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

It's Obama v. Obama, as Obama White House unleashes ex-ABCer Linda Douglas to rebut a video of Barack Obama.

The British government spends $12 million a year lobbying itself on global warming, but it won't buy Mrs. Fletcher Lucentis.

The White House is looking for some snitches. Michelle Malkin asks: How much is the snitch effort costing us?

The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on Cash for Clunkers, even as it asks the Senate to renew it.

Russian subs have begun patrolling our east coast. Resetting our foreign policy indeed.

John Stossel blogs about Cash for Clunkers. Not a fan.

10 reasons the government should take over health care (NOT).

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congress, Administration Hurt People, Rip Off Taxpayers to Buy People Cars

I have not yet blogged about Cash for Clunkers because every time I think about it, I become so enraged I become completely incomprehensible.

Until I settle down, I recommend this excellent article, "'Cash for Clunkers' Breaking Down, But Not Before Hurting Lower-Income Buyers, Auto Recyclers," by Elizabath Hovde for the Portland Oregonian.

Hovde explains how Cash for Clunkers hurts "already-hurting auto parts suppliers," recyclers and lower-income people, and she has the facts to prove it.

John McCain reportedly is going to filibuster the renewal of Cash for Clunkers when it hits the Senate next week, and good for him. Too bad it was barely debated when it passed the first time.

I agree with those who point to the initial self-destruction of this program and say, if the federal government can't administer a program to give away free money so people can buy themselves a nice new car, how can we possibly trust it to run our health care?

Somebody is saying that, right? Because we would be insane to trust our very lives to a government this full of boobs.

Cash for Clunkers -- the coercive confiscation of the wealth of some people to help other people upgrade the quality of their consumer goods (notice we don't even bother with means testing anymore) -- is antithetical to common sense, fairness and any sense of budgetary realism. It's so bad, it's anti-American. Our federal government was not set up for the purpose of buying people vehicles (or anything else, for that matter).

I'm going to go now and read the list of the Members of Congress who voted today to extend this travesty. None of them, I believe, deep in the hearts, are Americans. Their passports may say they are Americans, but their hearts show something else. And anybody who takes the money under this program is a welfare queen, and should be ashamed of themselves. You are stealing from your fellow taxpayers, and the government endorsing the theft doesn't make it right.

Addendum, 8/1/09: The U.S. public opposes the program, 54 percent to 35 percent.

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

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Spending, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:35 AM

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What's Happening Now

If you like Fanny Mae, you'll love Fanny Med.

What is "de-developing" and why does President Obama's science advisor want to do it to the United States?

Vote for the most ridiculous lawsuit of the month. (I voted for the Katy Perry lawsuit; but was tempted by the Jose Canseco lawsuit.)

California's yearly pension fund contribution rose from $321 million to $7.3 billion in 8 years. The state pays over 5,000 people more than $100,000 annually in pensions.

Parody: "Nothing irritates me more than the pitter-patter of little carbon footprints."

Obama, Democrat leadership blame the GOP for good done by Dem Blue Dogs in stopping health care bill. Accidental compliment?

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Government Health Care, Health Care, Labor Unions, Legal Reform, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:06 PM

Monday, July 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Is Obama a brat?

The last Toyota you bought might be the last Toyota you ever buy.

How many 800-pound gorillas fit in the U.S. Senate? (Does it matter if they're very ugly?)

Steve Milloy has some questions about Goldman Sachs.

Spooky.

Obama missed his moment.

U.S. government to study dangerous pathogens in Tornado Alley. Yucca Mountain remains unused. Obama is tightening CAFE standards, which make cars less safe. The way we're going, the euthanasia provisions in the health care bill will be superfluous.

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

Labels: Business, Energy, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:17 PM

ABC News Broadcasts Selective "Truth About Oil"

Last Friday, July 24, ABC News aired the special "Over a Barrel: The Truth About Oil." It might have been more correctly titled "Charlie Gibson Hates the Oil Companies."

ABC News newsreader Charlie Gibson interviewed 18 people during the course of the program. Seven were gas station owners, refinery workers and the like - people who were there to specifically deliver raw information about the operations of the oil industry. When it came to the 11 people featured for their political insight, it was obvious Gibson only really wanted to hear one viewpoint.

For those who wanted to bash the oil companies, Gibson gave people such as Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America and New York University professor Vijay Vaitheesweran long segments to pontificate. On the other side was Rayola Dougher of the American Petroleum Institute, who was given very little time at all in comparison to her opponents and who gave more informational responses than a defense of her industry.

The other oil industry defender? Gibson used campaign footage of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and an interview he did with her during her vice presidential campaign. In the opening segment, for example, they have Gibson, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and President Obama state that our nation is "addicted to oil," and then cut to Palin starting a "drill, baby, drill" chant at a rally.

No bias there.

Secretary Chu was also pitched softballs by Gibson, who even prompted Chu at one point to say our nation is "headed for a train wreck" due to our reliance on foreign oil. Despite a small portion of the program talking about how new technology is allowing more productive domestic offshore drilling, there was a definite implication that America's best energy days were in the past. And there was no mention of oil shale or tar sands exploration.

Further showing the network's apparent allegiance to the White House, every previous modern president - from Nixon to Bush 43 - was derided for pledging to reduce American dependence on energy and not delivering. Gibson reserved praise for the promises of President Obama. And Secretary Chu added that things must change to stop global climate change.

That's when they brought on "lifelong Republican" T. Boone Pickens to push for alternative energy. He's invested in windfarms these days.

"Over a Barrel" was billed as a "20/20" special, but it was originally supposed to be a stand-alone special the previous Wednesday. Due to the presidential press conference that day, however, the network decided to go with "I Survived a Japanese Game Show" that night instead.

Despite this apparent acknowledgement by the network through its reprogramming that this was a dog of a program, it still won the sponsorship of some top-tier advertisers such as Home Depot, American Express, S.C. Johnson (Glade air freshener and Off insect repellant) and Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster and Olive Garden).

The National Center has been tracking the advertisers of ABC's World News after they allowed Obama the ability to shill his health care plan on prime time television last month.

To see a list of corporate sponsors of ABC News programming and how you can contact them to express your thoughts on their bankrolling their nightly news and these news specials, go to our ABC News sponsors list.

Labels: Business, Energy, Media

Posted by David W. Almasi at 2:36 PM

Thursday, July 23, 2009

What's Happening Now

A secret meeting. Others are not-so-secret anymore.

Opposed to government-run health care? Join the bus tour.

We need a special prosecutor.

Surprise! A letter to the Senate (pdf) on Sotomayor.

The House Democrats' health care bill and illegal aliens.

Bill Cosby is shocked at Barack Obama.

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

Labels: Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Courts, Crime, Culture, Government Health Care, Health Care, Immigration, Race, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:32 PM

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The Government's Penalties for Success Are Running Into Its Subsidies for Failure

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says today in an article by Matt Cover for CNSNews.com that small businesses don't make $280,000 a year, so new health care tax hikes at that level won't harm small business.

Oddly though -- as a commenter on the CNSNews.com website noted -- the Small Business Administration will provide financial assistance to firms making many times that.

If you manufacture cigarettes, for example, you are eligible for Small Business Administration assistance if you have a thousand employees. Setting aside the question of why Congress is subsidizing cigarette manufacturing while penalizing it with sin taxes, can we rationally assume a business with a thousand employees never clears $280,000 a year?

So we appear to have a case in which you are penalized for being rich at the same time you are subsidized for not being rich enough.

But there is a method to Congress' madness, says Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), as reported by Adam Brickley and Fadia Galindo for CNSNews.com. The Congressional majority's health care tax plan is designed to harm small businesses sufficiently to force them to cut their employees' health care benefits, thus forcing those employees onto the public health care plan.

So when it looks like Congress is taxing and subsidizing the same people in a completely nonsensical way, we can rest assured that there is a purpose behind it after all -- the purpose of driving as many of us as politically-possible into a substandard, inevitably insolvent public health care plan.

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, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Social Welfare, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 PM

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project has repeatedly warned Americans that passage of cap-and-trade will lead to the creation of a new economic bubble (see here, here or here).

Now Rolling Stone magazine is getting into the act, and it's not pulling any punches.

A sample paragraph to whet your appetite:

...cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman [Sachs], is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected. [Emphasis in the original]

"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who spoke out against oil futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."

Read Rolling Stone's "The Great American Bubble Machine" by Matt Taibbi for the rest of the story.

We've said all along that if you actually believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming, and you honestly believe that this global warming must be fought by suppressing energy use, the only approach that has any hope of not being corrupt is increasing energy taxes. We do oppose increasing energy taxes, but would prefer that by far to cap-and-trade.

I did not expect to see this sentiment in Rolling Stone, but we welcome it to the club.

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, Corruption, Economics, Regulation, Scandals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:17 PM

Monday, July 13, 2009

Video of Tom Borelli on Obama's Corporatism Strategy on Glenn Beck

Here's the video of Monday's broadcast of the Glenn Beck Show on the Fox News channel in which Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project and Wall Street analyst/Fox Business News commentator Charles Payne talk about GE's quasi-merger with the Obama Administration, GE's hiring of Linda Daschle as a lobbyist, the recent appointment of a GE executive to a top Obama Administration post at the EPA and how, as Glenn Beck put it in the segment, "the little guy gets screwed."

Hat tip to America's News Today for putting the video on YouTube.

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, Corruption, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Power, Government Spending, Liberals, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:10 PM

Tom Borelli to be on Glenn Beck Today

I've just received word that Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest on Glenn Beck's Fox TV show today.

The video above is from Tom's last appearance, on July 1. In it, Tom and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation discuss cap and trade, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, corporations doing the bidding of the left and the use of last minute amendments filled with payoffs to get the the Waxman-Markey global warming 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, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:42 PM

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.

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.

Important Links

About Amy Ridenour

About the National Center

Featured from our Blogroll

Historic Documents

Archives

Highlighted Project

Fine print

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Nero Profited While Rome Burned

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Another on Rush

Another Thought About Rush

More on Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

Friday, October 16, 2009

Quote of Note: Did Rush Really Lose?

Cancelling the NFL Sunday Ticket

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

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

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

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, October 02, 2009

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

Friday, September 11, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

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

Monday, September 07, 2009

Next Year, Cancel Labor Day

Friday, September 04, 2009

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

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

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

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Another Cash for Clunkers Clunker

Sunday, August 30, 2009

What's Happening Now

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Dear President Obama: Please Read This

Outrage of the Day: A Rockefeller Questioning Profits

Friday, August 21, 2009

Postal Rationing Confirmed?

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, August 14, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, August 07, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Covers National Center Free Enterprise Project's Call on Obama to Dismiss Jeffrey Immelt

Thursday, August 06, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congress, Administration Hurt People, Rip Off Taxpayers to Buy People Cars

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What's Happening Now

Monday, July 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

ABC News Broadcasts Selective "Truth About Oil"

Thursday, July 23, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The Government's Penalties for Success Are Running Into Its Subsidies for Failure

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Monday, July 13, 2009

Video of Tom Borelli on Obama's Corporatism Strategy on Glenn Beck

Tom Borelli to be on Glenn Beck Today

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"?