Friday, April 16, 2010

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

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

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

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:32 AM

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Why is Lindsay Graham Helping Obama and GE?

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

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:05 AM

Thursday, February 18, 2010

National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Corporate Retreat from Cap-and-Trade on Fox Business Network's "Cavuto" This Friday

IMPORTANT UPDATE: This interview has now been cancelled.

Tom Borelli, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, is scheduled to appear on the Fox Business Network's "Cavuto" program on Friday, February 19 at 6:00 PM eastern.

Tom has been asked to talk about the recent defection of several corporations from the business-special interest USCAP lobby coalition. A key player in the push for the Obama Administration's cap-and-trade energy tax agenda, five businesses were reported to have abandoned their USCAP memberships this week.

Tom personally took on the leaders of many of these same corporations for their USCAP membership at past shareholder meetings.

National Center press releases on this major development in global warming politics can be found here and here.

Check your local listings for Fox Business Network on cable. Fox Business Network is available on channel 117 on Fios, channel 206 on Dish Network and channel 359 on DirecTV.

This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at [email protected].

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by David W. Almasi at 4:29 PM

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Tom Borelli Talks with Gordon Liddy about New SEC Climate Regulations


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:56 PM

Monday, January 25, 2010

Three Steps the IPCC Must Take

IPCCLogo.jpgIn the wake of admissions the IPCC knew all along it was putting bogus science in its 2007 Assessment Report, that the false prediction was included specifically for its "impact on policymakers and politicians," and that this allegedly was covered up as long as it was because the IPCC chairman was raising money for his personal pursuits based on the prediction, the IPCC must immediately take three steps to restore its credibility. If it does not, the Obama Administration should use its influence to have it shut down.

To restore its credibility, the IPCC should:
1) Return its half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and replace its current leadership;

2) Adopt and enforce a strict conflict-of-interest policy;

3) Adopt an uncompromising transparency policy, which includes the release of all data, all emails, all meeting minutes, all drafts and all other documentation related to the development of assessment reports and all other policy pronouncements, in the past and from this date forward.
Step one would signal to the world that the IPCC is serious about reform.

Step two would reduce, though not eliminate, the temptation faced by IPCC personnel to tailor conclusions to moneymaking, career or fundraising opportunities for themselves or affiliated businesses or institutions.

Step three would be a constant reminder to IPCC personnel that their work genuinely will be peer-reviewed, in a universal sense, which is as it should be given the gravity of the IPCC's work.

Politicians relying upon IPCC recommendations are considering policies that would limit the access of billions of people to low-cost energy in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is a grave step that should be undertaken only if the alternative is worse. As many have considered the IPCC to be the institution that can answer that question, given the gravity of these circumstances, no level of transparency and ethics can be too high.

Global warming believers and "skeptics" do not often agree, but this is a subject upon which we should be able to reach a true consensus. No one benefits when the IPCC knowingly publishes bogus science.

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 AM

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Message to IPCC: Time to Return the Nobel Peace Prize

Kids holding candlesChildren in Kenya light candles to illustrate the need for access to energy in their community. Many of the pictured children cannot do homework at home after dark, as they do not have electricity in their homes. Photo by David Ridenour

The relevant scientist at the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now admitted false information on the alleged aggressive melting of Himalayan was placed in the 2007 IPCC report to "impact policy-makers and politicians," and that he knew the information was not based on a solid scientific foundation.

For this work, the IPCC won half the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 (sharing it with Al Gore, who was awarded half in his own right).

For committing this fraud, the IPCC should voluntarily return the Nobel Peace Prize, and, if they want the IPCC to ever have credibility again, people who believe in the global warming theory should join us in this call. Unless there are severe repercussions -- in the case of the IPCC, mostly embarrassment -- for intentionally committing scientific fraud, we'll get more and more of it. There is money to be made if the global warming theory is proven true, which leads to a lot of temptation that not every scientist or allegedly scientific organization is going to resist.

The stakes are high here: People in developing countries need low-cost access to energy to reach the living standards we in the U.S. mostly take for granted. Policies to combat carbon raise energy prices, retarding that development.

Anti-global warming policies also disproportionately hurt the poor in developed countries.

To be brutally frank, our politicians have enough trouble delivering sound energy policies when they do have access to accurate information; the odds get significantly higher when scientists intentionally feed them lies.

To prove it has learned its lesson (and thus is worthy of being trusted in the future), and to send a strong message to every scientist that deceit will not be tolerated, the IPCC should immediately return its half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Furthermore, it should accept the resignation of its chairman and clean house, top-to-bottom, putting a strong error-checking and strict anti-conflict-of-interest system in place.

Addendum: Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters points out that this story was broken by the British press, and chastises the U.S. mainstream media -- quite properly -- for ignoring important global warming-related stories their counterparts abroad cover deeply. For additional developments on this breaking story (and there are plenty of them), visit Climate Depot.

Addendum 2: We may be looking at a criminal case.

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:44 AM

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Note to Project 21 Fans: Glenn Beck Rebroadcast of Most Recent Show Featuring Project 21 Members

GlennBeckLogoThe Fox News Channel is rebroadcasting, right this minute, the second of two Beck shows featuring a discussion with black conservatives (including Project 21 members).

If you can't catch it on the Fox News Channel for whatever reason, Booker Rising (a website I often visit, but don't mention as much as I should) has made available the video of the entire show, which is entitled "A Time To Be Heard."

We also posted on this blog the segments of the show featuring Project 21 members. Go here to watch Lisa Fritsch; go here to watch full-time Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli on the "A Time To Be Heard" Glenn Beck broadcast.

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

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:01 PM

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Tom Borelli Discusses Climategate, Greening of California on Glenn Beck

Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of our Free Enterprise Project, was on the Glenn Beck Show Friday with Eric Bolling, guest host, discussing both the granting of economic stimulus funds to Climategate scientist Michael Mann and also Arnold Schwartzenegger's efforts to "green" California.

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:38 PM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Not British Health Care

If the United Nations can't run a climate conference, how could it possibly run climate policy? This video of the waiting line outside the COP-15 UN climate conference in Copenhagen on 12/15/09 shows the United Nations is equipped for neither task.

As David Ridenour notes in the video, which he shot, this may look like a waiting line for health care in a country with government-run medicine, but it's actually a waiting line for a conference attempting to establish a world government-run energy rationing scheme.

This liberal scheme is so badly thought-out, even the left is walking out on it.

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

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:50 AM

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:14 AM

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

David Ridenour Appearing on WBAL Baltimore

If you are in the Baltimore/DC area or on your computer now, you you can tune in to WBAL 1090 AM to hear David Ridenour discussing his latest paper, which is on how 820,000 people a year will lose health insurance if the Obama-supported Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill goes through.

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:39 PM

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What's Happening Now

Even the anecdotes are lies. (Does this White House vet anything?)

Would you support a sex tax to pay for Obama's health care reform?

When a health care system has other priorities: "We were told to wrap him in a blanket and let him die."

How the poor cheat the IRS.

Scott Johnson: Who is lower, ACORN or the New York Times?

538: Baucus compromise draws enthusiastic support of Senator Max Baucus.

Obama Treasury Department admits: Cap-and-trade a huge energy tax.

This time, it's caribou: The left is trying to regulate energy using the Endangered Species Act again.

David Harsanyi: Conservatives have never opposed a president before. (So it must be racism.)

Congratulations to Mark Levin. (I'm one of the million.)

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

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:46 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

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:17 AM

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Washington Post: Obama Has a "Ready Command of Facts"

In "Polling Helps Obama Frame Message in Health-Care Debate" in Friday's Washington Post, reporter Michael D. Shear writes, "Obama is known for his soaring speeches and his ready command of facts..."

Ready command of facts?

Is he talking about the same President who admitted he was unfamiliar with a critical provision in his own trillion+ dollar health care plan?

Who thinks one of the functions of a living will is to stop extraordinary measures if "brain waves are no longer functioning"?

Who believes carbon dioxide emissions "contaminate the water we drink"?

Who says 14,000 people "every single day" will lose their health insurance unless we follow his advice on health care policy?

Who believes pediatricians remove tonsils?

Who says the health care plan he is backing will "keep government out of health care decisions"?

Who was under the impression that Austrians speak "Austrian"?

Who says with a straight face that his health care plan "will be paid for"?

Who keeps saying the U.S. is importing more oil today than ever before?

Who thought Emperor Hirohito personally surrendered to General MacArthur?

Who says the $1 trillion price tag on his health care bill is less than what we have spent on the war in Iraq?

Who repeatedly asserts that if his health care plan passes, "if you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you'll pay less."

The article in which this appeared, by the way, is about how the White House staff uses polls to determine what to put in the President's teleprompter. As one "top advisor" (evidently, his name is top secret), told the Post: "I mean, I'm looking at polling, like, all the time."

Right, dude.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

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

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:22 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.


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 [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: , , , , ,

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.

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

Labels: , ,

Posted by David W. Almasi at 2:36 PM

What's Happening Now

House leadership tells Republican Congressman he's not allowed to use the phrase "government-run health care."

Patriotic Americans know when to die.

Racism makes Harvey sad.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) says there is no point in Members of Congress reading the health care bill: It's incomprehensible.

Fundamental facts about Honduras.

1932 Hupmobile drivers be advised: Discretion is the better part of valor.

Federal spending by the numbers.

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:12 PM

Saturday, July 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill, the taxpayers have to give General Electric $200 every time it sells a refrigerator.

Government medicine won't work for little Gunner.

Can you picture in your mind's eye the scene on the Battleship Missouri as Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers? Apparently, President Obama can't.

Who's uninsured -- in pictures.

India questions the science behind the global warming theory. Would James Hansen try the Indian government "for high crimes against humanity and nature"?

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

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:30 AM

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

Project 21 says the NAACP's apparent search for purpose is leading it down the wrong road:
NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

For Release: July 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 507-6398 x11 or [email protected]

Struggling for purpose in light of the election of the first black president, the NAACP moves in the wrong direction, says a group of black conservatives, when it endorses a climate policy in tandem with the World Wildlife Federation that is opposed by a majority of black Americans.

"I'm all in favor of the nation's oldest civil rights group redefining its mission and agenda; however this indicates that the NAACP continues to struggle with current realities that face the nation's black communities by promoting policies they are opposed to," said Project 21’s Joe Hicks, who is also a PajamasTV commentator. "If this group simply wants to be defined as another left-wing organization touting the weak science on climate change, then it is destined to face ever-growing irrelevancy."

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli added: "It's outrageous for the NAACP to place liberal ideology over the welfare of the nation. By aligning with the environmental activist lobby, the NAACP is now an official member of 'Club Green' - the exclusive club of elites waging war against fossil fuels. Tragically, the cover charge for their membership - job losses, reduced standard of living and high energy costs - will be borne disproportionately by the very people the NAACP claims to represent."

The NAACP's zeal for regulation is opposed by most black Americans. A recent poll of 800 black Americans found 76 percent believe Congress should make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority. 56 percent believe policymakers do not adequately consider the quality of life of black Americans when addressing climate policy. When asked how much they would pay for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions, 76 percent said they would be unwilling to pay more than $50 a year while 52 percent were unwilling to pay anything at all.

Hicks added: "The NAACP shows how out of touch it has become by advocating Obama Administration policies on so-called climate change that impact the very population that claim to represent - poor, black Americans. Adding an increased burden of higher coast for essential things like gasoline and electricity at a time of economic hardship demonstrates that they have no independent course of leadership, but instead is blindly following this administration's disastrous lead."

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for The National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsors Project 21, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at:

- 30 -

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

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:01 AM

Friday, July 17, 2009

Project 21's Massie Critiques Obama NAACP Speech On Tonight's "O'Reilly Factor"

MMassieRoberts805b copy 1Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" program on Friday, July 17 at 8:00 PM eastern. Laura Ingraham is guest-hosting. Also on with Mychal will be Professor Mark Sawyer of UCLA.

Mychal has been invited to discuss President Obama's remarks last night to the NAACP convention in New York City. Along with praising the group on its centennial, Obama specifically promoted his vision for education reform.

Fellow Project 21 member Kevin Martin made the following remarks following the President's remarks to the NAACP:
President Obama may believe his speech before the bobbing heads of the NAACP won him some points in the black community, but the reality is that it is the past and present actions of elected officials such as Obama that are responsible for the current state of education in our community. Obama and his liberal allies on Capitol Hill have sought to crush any alternative to our failed public education system - such as public charter schools, vouchers and increased parental involvement - most likely because it would ultimately make the teacher unions and elected officials have to become more accountable.
Expect Mychal to echo Kevin's feelings as well as discuss how Obama's plan to institute new energy taxes is also against the best interests and will of black Americans.

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by David W. Almasi at 1:36 PM

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Carol Browner's Hijinks: They Call This Open Government?

Mark Tapscott is on the case of White House "climate czar" Carol Browner, who appears to be continuing her wily Clinton Administration pattern of dodging and weaving whenever legal niceties interfere with her left-wing agenda.

As Mark writes in his piece entitled "'Put Nothing In Writing,' Browner Told Auto Execs on Secret White House CAFE Talks; Sensenbrenner Wants Investigation":
Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner's conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner "intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards."

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act...
Browner should answer these charges and very specifically, too, but President Obama must be held to account as well. It's not as though he didn't know what he was getting when he appointed Browner. As my husband David Ridenour pointed out in an op-ed published around the U.S. early this year, when Browner was head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration, it made a practice of skirting the law.

David wrote, in part:
Throughout [Carol Browner's] 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 Hinchman, comptroller general of the United States, noted, EPA officials 'distributed EPA fact sheets to various organizations' and '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 Byrd, D-W.Va., accused the EPA of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act again. 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. Browner was forced to terminate the program.
The following year, 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, Browner had her computer hard drive re-initialized, wiping it clean. Lamberth then held the EPA in contempt for 'contumacious conduct.'
As little respect as she's shown for the law, Browner has shown even less for science. During her years at the EPA, agency scientists who didn't toe the party line were subjected to relentless harassment.

David Lewis, an EPA Science Achievement Award recipient, publicly criticized the quality of science used in crafting regulations. In response, the EPA charged Lewis with ethics violations and repeatedly denied him promotion. Although he won whistle-blower judgments against the EPA, he was eventually forced into retirement.
I recommend reading both Mark's full editorial on Browner's CAFE shenanigans and David's full op-ed on Carol Browner's ideology and ethics, as well as a second commentary by Mark, "Browner Has History of Deceit on Government Files" in today's Washington Examiner.

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

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:47 AM

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Obama's Risky Energy Policy

National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen has an op-ed running in newspapers nationwide saying President Obama is playing "Russian roulette" with our energy future.

The piece begins:
President Barack Obama is playing Russian roulette with America's quest for energy independence by rushing to replace fossil fuels with unreliable and expensive renewable energy.

The global balance of power is already shifting away from the United States toward China and Russia in the critical area of strategic natural resources...
You can read the full piece on the website of the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, which distributed the piece nationally, on the Baltimore Sun website, or find it elsewhere via search engines.

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

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:41 AM

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Russia and America's Energy Future

In light of President Obama's trip to Russia, National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen and Dow Jones Newswire Journalist Alexander Kolyandr discussed Russia's energy resources and U.S. energy policy on the Fox Business Channel this morning.

Among other things, Bonner addressed the conundrum that Russia has extensive oil resources that are difficult to get to, while U.S. oil companies have the technology to get to it. Yet Russia's legal structure is, as Bonner put it, a "kleptocracy," which makes it difficult for any U.S. company to do business there.

Bonner also discussed the limitations of the Obama Administration's reliance on renewable fuels.

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

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:24 AM

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 [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

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 [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:14 AM

Saturday, June 27, 2009

American Spectator Covers African-American Energy Poll

Thanks to W. James Antle for his story "Lights Out," in the American Spectator, which mentioned The National Center's poll of the African-American community on energy issues.

The article appeared on Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff" Thursday.

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

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM

Friday, June 26, 2009

National Review Online Coverage of Our Poll

National Review Online has covered our poll on African-Americans and climate policy -- twice.

On The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez contributed "Blacks vs. Cap and Trade," and at Planet Gore, Edward John Craig wrote "More Opposition to the Obama Energy Tax."

Much appreciated!

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

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:21 AM

House Leadership Takes Suicidal Stand Against Its African-American Base -

David Ridenour has a new column published on examining the Democratic Congressional leadership's seemingly suicidal lack of concern for the wishes of its most loyal core constituency, African-Americans.

It begins:
Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change...
Go here to read the rest.

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 AM

Poll Shows: Black Americans Prefer Delaying Action on Climate Change; Want Economy Fixed First

76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a poll just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The U.S. House of Representatives is planning a vote today on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill.

The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming, based on a Heritage Foundation analysis.

The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.

Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;

* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;

* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.

* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The questions we asked, plus summary materials, can be viewed at:

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:29 AM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Game, Set and Match to the Heritage Foundation

The National Resources Defense Council has attempted to undermine the credibility of the Heritage Foundation's analysis on the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill.

The NRDC would have done itself a favor to stay home from work that day. Heritage's response to the critique so thoroughly nails the NRDC that all the NRDC has done is give the Heritage study more publicity.

For instance, in the second paragraph of its critique, the NRDC complains that the Heritage Foundation analysis of the cost of the Waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill fails to take into account the "cost of inaction," that is, the cost of the bad stuff that would happen if Waxman-Markey is not adopted.

HEL-LO! Anybody home, NRDC? Waxman-Markey, even in a best-case scenario, would have negligible, if any, impact on the climate. And the Heritage Foundation DID mention this, to whit, in the original study:
The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable [emphasis added].
You don't need to take Heritage's word for it, or mine. Even prominent environmental organizations that agree with the NRDC about the global warming theory say Waxman-Markey would not (to their way of thinking) sufficiently affect the climate.

Optimists are saying Waxman-Markey might (believe me, nobody knows) lower world temperatures by half a degree celsius over 40 years or so.

If spending all that money isn't going to solve the alleged problem, then what's the point of spending the money?

By way of congratulations to Heritage, let's recap Heritage's conclusions...

If Waxman-Markey is adopted, by 2035:
  • The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.

  • Pain at the electric meter causes consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,933 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

  • The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $8,000 more between 2012 and 2035.

  • In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $24,000. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $24,000 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.

  • As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment takes a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 844,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by more than 1.9 million jobs.

  • The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. Waxman-Markey drives up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 29 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $33,400 per person, or more than $133,000 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.
No wonder the NRDC was so desperate to try to undermine Heritage's credibility.

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 AM

Monday, June 08, 2009

We Need the Energy; We Need the Jobs; We Need the Revenue

In an op-ed appearing in papers nationwide this week, David Ridenour says Congress and the Obama White House are "shunning [an] economic stimulus that would cost taxpayers zilch, yet could create up to 160,000 jobs and up to $1.7-trillion in new government revenue."

What's more, he says, "A significant part of this would flow to cash-strapped states, giving them funding needed to help unemployed workers and their families, fund schools, and avoid cuts in critical state services."

The stimulus: Drilling for oil.

Let's face it: We need the stuff.

Speaking of which, David's piece also examines the likelihood that solar and wind power can meet America's energy needs.

Read the article online on the Miami Herald website, the Cleveland Plain Dealer website, or the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer website, among others.

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

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:34 AM

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Obama's Solar Powered Dishonesty

Speaking Wednesday at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, President Obama bragged that a federal-government owned solar electric plant at the base saves taxpayers $1 million a year:
...right now, we're standing near the largest solar electric plant of its kind in the entire Western Hemisphere -- the entire Western Hemisphere. More than 72,000 solar panels built on part of an old landfill provide 25 percent of the electricity for the 12,000 people who live and work here at Nellis. That's the equivalent of powering about 13,200 homes during the day.

It's a project that took about half a year to complete, created 200 jobs, and will save the United States Air Force, which is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, nearly $1 million -- $1 million a year.
My first thought: But what did it cost to build?

Courtesy of DRJ at Patterico, we have an answer: Over $100 million.

The plant opened 18 months ago, so President Obama's statement won't be true for 97 1/2 years.

Assuming no tax funds are spent on maintenance by then.

The only positive thing I can say here is that the President's statement probably wasn't technically a lie, because he most likely literally had no idea what he was talking about.

But what's his staff's excuse?

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

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:05 AM

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 [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:36 PM

Thursday, April 16, 2009

The Kangaroo Returns: Obama Administration's One-Sided Energy Hearing a Kangaroo Court

The Kangaroo poses with an unidentified woman outside the Obama Administration hearing in San Francisco

The kangaroo is back:
Live "Kangaroo" Returns to Highlight One-Sided Obama Administration Hearing; San Francisco Hearing on Offshore Energy Resources a Kangaroo Court

For Release: Immediate

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 507-6398 x11 or
[email protected]

The kangaroo is back, and with good reason!

After an appearance last month in the halls of Congress, a live "kangaroo" appeared today at a federal hearing in San Francisco to protest the "kangaroo court" atmosphere at an important meeting to discuss the future of national energy policy.

Obama Administration Interior Secretary Ken Salazar presided over a public hearing today that effectively represented only one aspect of the debate over offshore energy development. The kangaroo is meant to point out that oil and gas exploration is being largely ignored in favor of promoting wind power along the Pacific coast.

The kangaroo was seen protesting the hearing outside the Robertson Auditorium on the Mission Bay campus of the University of California, San Francisco (1675 Owens Street) between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM Pacific Time.

"Oil and gas exploration could create trillions in revenue and tens of thousands of jobs, but this hearing is likely to overlook this economic stimulus package in favor of dubious green technology," said National Center executive director David W. Almasi. "Right now is the window of opportunity. The government is considering the next five-year plan for energy policy. To ignore drilling today is irresponsible, which is why it is considered a kangaroo court and why participants will find a live, bouncing marsupial there today."

Today's hearing is the third of four being conducted by Salazar and the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service. The hearings follow a report issued by the Obama Administration that says Southern Oregon and Northern California are prime areas for wind-energy development. This is despite the acknowledgement that current technology and the ocean terrain in the region are incompatible and that the region also lacks the transmission infrastructure necessary to accommodate any offshore production of wind energy.

To the contrary, the Point Arena Basin off Mendocino County, California is thought to have a more than 1.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The California coastline is already the home to many offshore drilling operations.

A kangaroo visit was already made to a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources in Washington, D.C. on March 31. A similar "kangaroo court" on drought conditions in California was being protested at that time. Before last-minute testimony by area congressmen was added, this hearing was expected to be simply a platform for government officials and environmental radicals to promote further regulation of resources in the name of combating global warming.

"As was seen in yesterday's tea parties against out-of-control government spending and taxation, it's clear that people want their leaders to be more accountable," said The National Center's Almasi. "The same applies to the creation of public policy. When crafting something as important as our nation's energy future, a one-sided hearing just won't do. If they continue in this manner, they can expect to be seeing a lot of this kangaroo."

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit 501(c)(3) communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. For more information, visit the National Center's website at or call (202) 507-6398.


Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:08 PM

Monday, April 06, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Costly Waxman-Markey Global Warming Tax

Last Tuesday, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) unveiled proposed legislation that, if adopted, would kill (at best) hundreds of thousands, more likely, millions of jobs and put a substantial and highly-regressive global warming tax on every American even as Congressional leaders wring their hands and bemoan the state of our economy.

Adding insult to injury, Waxman made the outlandish claim the monstrosity "will create millions of clean energy jobs," though, admittedly, there are few liberal politicians who have not made the moronic claim that raising the cost of energy will be a net job-creator.

If there is any educated person left who doubts that environmentalists care little about the welfare of ordinary people, even a brief review of this bill should permanently prevent a reoccurrence of that particular hallucination.

Lest I be thought the only one who thinks it would be idiotic for the Congressional majority to nearly bankrupt the nation via a trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill only to immediately intentionally shoot the economy in the proverbial head with a cap-and-trade-plus global warming tax, here are a few other opinions expressed following the release of the Waxman-Markey draft:
"Since 85 percent of U.S. energy demand is met by fossil fuels, taxing the lifeblood of the American economy would have disastrous consequences. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis' study of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill found aggregate real GDP losses (adjusted for inflation) of nearly $5 trillion -- for comparison, this is equivalent to the economic damage done by over 600 hurricanes. The bill would've also destroyed between 400,000 and 800,000 jobs each year. It should be noted that the targets and timetables in the discussion draft are considerably more stringent than those in Lieberman-Warner and thus would be costlier."
-Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry Blog, March 31, 2009

Add together NASA since its inception, the cost of Hurricane Katrina and spending on the New Deal. Adjust for inflation. What do you get? Not quite the amount of money a cap and trade program would generate in energy taxes on consumers. The $1.9 trillion generated over eight years from a cap-and-trade bill would still be larger than the $1.5 trillion from NASA, the New Deal, and Hurricane Katrina.
-Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry Blog, April 2, 2009

"Many U.S. lawmakers view cap and trade as a politically superior non-tax approach to climate policy. However, cap and trade imposes identical economic burdens on households to a similarly designed carbon tax. ...we present new estimates of the distributional impact of a typical cap and-trade system by income, age, U.S. region and family type. In total, households would face an annual burden of roughly $144.8 billion per year with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households, those under age 25 and over 75 years, those in Southern states, and single parents with dependent children."
-Andrew Chamberlain, "Who Pays for Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact of a U.S. Cap-and-Trade System," (pdf) Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 6, March 2009

"The bill as drafted clears the way for carbon protectionism. It envisages "rebates" to companies that have to pay higher costs than their international competitors, which amounts to illegal state aid under WTO rules. Further, it directs the President to institute what is laughably called a 'border adjustment' program requiring foreign companies to pay for the cost of carbon. This is nothing more than a tariff aimed at eliminating the competitive advantage of other nations. Taken together, these provisions represent the first shot in what is likely to prove a disastrous carbon trade war."
-Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute, March 31, 2009

"Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said cap and trade systems would be devastating to coal manufacturing states like Illinois and West Virginia and proposed cap and trade legislation could kill the entire coal mining industry.

'This cap-and-trade scheme may not just reduce Illinois coal jobs further -- it is my worry that this legislation aims to kill the entire coal industry,' Shimkus told

Shimkus and Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) held a press conference Wednesday to rally support opposing the cap and trade proposals, which they said would lead to both higher energy costs and severe job loss in the coal mining industry..."
-Ryan Byrnes, "Cap and Trade Legislation Would Kill Coal Industry, Congressman Says,", April 2, 2009

"Until recently, much of the debate on climate change focused on the extent of the threat. But now that House Democratic leaders are planning to take up legislation to set up a mandatory cap-and-trade system for greenhouse emissions sometime this summer, opponents are focusing on the cost.

'They seem to give people the impression that it's going to be a huge environmentally friendly free lunch,' said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. 'This lunch is not free.'"
-Jim Angle/AP, "Republicans Criticize Cost of Cap-and-Trade Emissions Plan,", April 2, 2009

E-mail any comments to [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:42 PM

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

NY Times Story Gives Huge Waxman-Markey Global Warming Tax Bill One-Sided Treatment

When the New York Times today told its readers about the massive Henry Waxman-Ed Markey 648-page draft global warming tax bill, it bent over backwards to report the pros and cons of the proposal.


The March 31 story, supplied by Darren Samuelsohn and Ben Geman of Greenwire:
* Included sponsor Rep Waxman's claim that "this legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution," without a balancing rebuttal or reference to the economic damage passage of the bill would almost assuredly cause.

* Followed that favorable quote by California liberal Democrat Waxman with a favorable quote by California liberal Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

* Followed those two favorable statements with seven sentences quoting Democrats Rep. Charles Gonzales (D-TX), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Rick Boucher (D-VA), who have quibbles on the margins about the proposal but who like the concept.

* Followed that with two sentences from the lone voice of rebuttal, the only Republican/conservative quoted, and the only person quoted who addressed the massive negative impact the bill, if adopted, would likely have on the economy, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX).

* Followed the two sentences allocated to Rep. Barton with 32 paragraphs of discription of the bill, none of it a critical analysis.

* Concluded with seven paragraphs headlined "Reactions," which covered quotations and opinions from four organizations on an ideological spectrum ranging from very left-wing to far left-wing: The Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Oxfam America and Environment America. No economists, energy experts, free-market groups, businesses or business groups or any other individual or institution other than left-wing environmental organizations were quoted or cited.
No one with a straight face could call this a balanced story.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

E-mail any comments to [email protected].

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:06 AM

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 [email protected]. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.


Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 PM

Monday, March 30, 2009

Earth Hour

I thought "Earth Hour" was dumb, but I'm rethinking this now that I realize Al Gore must have thought so, too.

P.S. It seems most Californians and New Yorkers agreed with me/us.


Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:38 AM

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


Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:13 PM

Monday, March 02, 2009

No Coal! No Oil! No Power! No Heat!

Anti-global warming protester uses a "Stop Global Warming" sign as an ice scraper at rally at the U.S. Capitol coal-fired power plant Monday

"We don't want the world to boil, no coal, no oil!"

There was no chance, despite the warning of this protest chant, of anything boiling outside in Washington, D.C. today. Global warming activists who threatened "mass civil disobedience" in the nation's capitol Monday probably never expected to be competing with the biggest snowfall of the season.

Not going to get much power from this snowy solar panel...

Yet this seems to happen every time the global warming activists plan a major event to talk about how hot our planet is going to get. (For more information about this practice, see the children's story "Chicken Little.")

LightBulbsDontWork030209.jpg the non-functioning light bulbs supposedly powered by that solar panel demonstrate.

Hundreds of activists - mostly students, from the looks of it - were protesting Nancy Pelosi's private coal-fired power plant. It's the plant that powers the Capitol complex. Until recently, Pelosi and company pretended to have a carbon-neutral Congress by using taxpayer dollars to buy "carbon offsets" that essentially gave them little more than peace of mind. This practice has since been discontinued. An analysis found it might not be doing any good, and they no longer have faith in throwing money at their embarrassment (now, if we can get them to expand this line of thinking to their spend-and-tax agenda).

David Almasi and Devon Carlin of the National Center for Public Policy Research

Anyway, the Competitive Enterprise Institute enlisted the help of The National Center for Public Policy Research, FreedomWorks and other groups to point out that coal and oil provide plentiful and affordable energy to average Americans. Energy bills are up this year, and there is no way wind and solar - the darling energy-generation methods of today's protestors - are going to provide people with the amount of energy they need at the prices they can afford.

Where's James Hansen?

No one is against new and alternative sources of energy, but it's their way or the highway in the minds of these protestors. If they are successful, expect bigger bills and energy shortages in the future.

This blog post was compiled largely from notes compiled by David Almasi.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Government Agency Head to Get Arrested by the Government in Order to Protest Government Policy?
Snapshot of Hansen video at, 2/25/09

Note in this blog post by environmentalist Bill McKibben the announcement that James Hansen, who directs an agency of the U.S. government, is planning to get arrested in order "to give [Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress] the political space they need to act on their convictions."

McKibben believes those convictions include banning the burning of coal, which provides about half of our electricity, and other radical acts related to combatting the alleged threat of human-caused global warming. Evidently, these guys believe that a few radicals getting arrested will convince Congress to wreck what's left of the economy on purpose.

My sense is that, despite a fairly high percentage of duffuses among Congressional Democrats, they aren't dumb enough to intentionally sabotage economic recovery while spending hundreds of billions that they told the public are being spent to "stimulate" the economy.

There's a reason, you know, that President Obama has signaled to Congress that he will be perfectly happy to wait until 2010 for an anti-global warming bill. My guess is that perfect timing for him is soon enough to appease the left in the 2012 Democrat primary, and late enough that the economic pain of such legislation won't be felt until after the November 2012 election.

But somehow, all that seems almost a side issue, compared to the spectacle that is a government agency head getting arrested by government employees in order to pressure the government to do something it supposedly wants to do anyway.

I'm not sure this really is a government. It looks more like a bad circus.

Hat tip: Prometheus.

Addendum, 2/25/09: See Hansen, on videotape, inviting the public to participate in what organizers apparently hope will be the "largest mass civil disobedience for the climate in U.S. history." [Snapshot shown above]

Hansen doesn't claim to be speaking for NASA's Goddard Institute in this video, but it seems inappropriate at best for a government agency head to urge his fellow citizens to break the law. If federal agency heads don't respect the law, why should the rest of us?

Possibly old-fashioned concepts like obeying the law, along with paying for our own mortgages, went out with the Bush Administration.


Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:45 AM

Copyright The National Center for Public Policy Research