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 info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:56 PM

Friday, January 29, 2010

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

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

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

---

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Jobs, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:23 AM

Friday, January 22, 2010

Tom Borelli on Climategate; Cap-and-Trade on Varney & Co.

In the category of "in case you missed it," here's video from the debut show this week of the Fox Business Channel's Varney & Co., with host Stuart Verney. In this video clip, our Tom Borelli discusses funding from the "stimulus" bill being granted to the work of a scientist involved in the Climategate scandal, and he also discusses the impact of cap-and-trade on California.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Power, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:05 AM

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Tom Borelli to Join Fox Business Channel 's Stuart Varney on "Varney & Co" Debut Monday

National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow and Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli, Ph.D., will be a guest Monday, January 18 on the debut of Stuart Varney's new show, "Varney and Co." on the Fox Business Channel.

Tom will be discussing companies that are lobbying heavily for -- and betting heavily on -- the adoption of cap-and-trade and other energy-limiting regulations, and other ways proponents of energy regulation are scheming to profit from anti-global warming regulations.

And here we thought the cap-and-trade lobbyists were concerned for the fate of the Earth...

"Varney and Co." debuts at 9:30 AM Eastern on the Fox Business Channel; Tom is scheduled to appear at 10:30 AM Eastern. Editor's note: After this was posted, Tom's interview was moved to 10:20.

For those of you who missed it, here's Tom talking with Stuart Varney last week on the topic of Climategate scientist Michael Mann receiving a grant from federal stimulus funds.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Economics, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:24 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 info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Climate, Energy, Environment, Government Spending, Jobs, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:38 PM

Monday, January 11, 2010

Does Government Know the Definition of the Word "Voluntary"?

From the New York Times about a new plan by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to cut the salt intake of all Americans, even those who have never visited New York: "The plan is voluntary for food companies and involves no legislation. It allows [emphasis added] companies to cut salt gradually over five years so the change is not so noticeable to consumers."

Coming up next, a national bedtime.

---

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

Labels: Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:03 AM

Thursday, October 29, 2009

"California's Going to Make Out Like a Bandit With This Legislation"

...so says Ohio Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) regarding the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, referring to $385 billion in transfers the bill requires some states (including Ohio) send to others (such as California).

Senator Voinovich's presentation includes a map comparing the states slated to receive funds with the votes cast in the House in favor of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. (Let's just say he finds some similarities.)


During his presentation, Senator Voinovich asks Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer (D-CA), "Does your definition of bipartisan mean someone who agrees with you?"

The video clip above includes Senator (please note, Senator) Boxer's response.

Hat tip: Senator Jim Inhofe's Press Office's YouTube Channel.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:46 PM

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Nero Profited While Rome Burned

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

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

---

E-mail comments to 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

Friday, October 02, 2009

What's Happening Now

Senator Kerry blocks Senate fact-finding trip to Honduras.

Woman who "essentially starved" her toddler to death served a mere six months and is now accused of grotesquely abusing her son. Six months?

State of Michigan threatens woman for babysitting.

A population map.

In the none-of-its-business department: Major U.S. corporation spends $290,000 telling Irish voters to vote to join EU.

John Goodman asks: Why is AARP selling out seniors?

---

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: Congress, Courts, Crime, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

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

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

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

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

---

E-mail comments to 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, Climate, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:48 PM

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here are one million British National Health Service patients who don't use the Twitter hashtag #welovethenhs.

Fire extinguishers are dangerous -- people might use them.

Public health care is SO reliable. </sarcasm>

Making Dan Rather look good: Swedish newspaper admits it had no evidence when it claimed Jews steal organs from Palestinian children, then defends article making the claim.

Cap-and-trade a ball-and-chain.

Unions get a handout in the health care bill. Cheer up: Only $10 billion. (H/T @BridgettWagner)

Betsy McCaughey on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, friend of 15-to 40-year-olds everywhere.

---

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: Climate, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Regulation, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:02 AM

Sunday, August 23, 2009

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

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Postal Supervisors Are Not Happy With Our President

The National Association of Postal Supervisors is not happy with President Obama for what it says are his "negative references... without knowledge of the facts" about the performance of the U.S. Postal Service.

The Heritage Foundation, as usual, has excellent points to make about what Americans can learn from our experience with a "public option" postal system.

For myself, I wonder why the President -- despite his on-again-off-again-on-again statements about the public option over the last few days -- is so wedded to public health care option if he believes UPS and FedEx are doing fine, while the post office is not.

I hate to say it, but sometimes I wonder if he really thinks things through.

---

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: Conservatives, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:40 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 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

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: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

- 30 -

---

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: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:01 AM

Monday, July 20, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Administration Considering Forcing Men Out of Science, Engineering and Math Classes

The Obama Administration is considering the possibility of applying Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to force colleges and universities to mandate that half of all students taking science, engineering, math and technology classes be female.

Since it is illegal to force women to take these classes, the most practical response to this mandate by colleges would be to limit male enrollment in these courses.

Title IX is the law under which numerous men's college sports programs were closed so that the number of women and men participating in college sports programs could be made equal.

An article in BusinessWeek in 2004, "America's Failure in Science Education" by William C. Symonds, says America already has a shortage of science and technology graduates and explains how this shortage hurts the nation.

I'd suggest that President Obama might want to read it, but as he said at a March 24, 2009 press conference that "if we're not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won't grow 2.6 percent, we won't grow 2.2 percent. We won't grow," I guess he already knows.

Hat tips: Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Walter Olson on Overlawyered.

---

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: Education, Political Correctness, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:24 AM

Friday, July 17, 2009

Quote of the Day: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on Waxman-Markey from The Foundry

Looks like cap-and-trade's potential to create yet another wealth-killing bubble is receiving at least some attention from Senate Democrats.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Outrage of the Day: Congress Kills Jobs; Doesn't Care

Neither the left nor the right has reason to oppose reform of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, foolish legislation adopted last year with little thought to its ramifications, but Congress won't reform it, and Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee continues to refuse to even hold hearings.

CPSIA reform wouldn't end the recession, but it would end some job losses at no greater cost than the passage of the bill. As Congress is going to pay itself anyway, why not?

Carter Wood of the Shopfloor.org blog more details in "CPSIA Update: Jobs Being Destroyed, Congress Looks Away," or visit my Outrage of the Day for March 16, "Waxman Drags Feet on Needed CPSIA Reform."

---

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

Labels: Congress, Legal Reform, Outrage, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

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

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

Labels: Climate, Corruption, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:47 AM

Friday, July 03, 2009

Climate Policy: No Gain, No Pain

Thanks to a head's up from Climate Depot, I read with interest the following on the weakness of the computer models used to predict climate from the Britsh Number Watch website:

Most computer models are nonsense. This does not include those used by engineers in designing airplanes, bridges etc., which are based on detailed experiments on the systems involved and tested in a variety of real conditions before being used.

The reason they are nonsense is that they tend to be based on guesses of the value of coefficients assumed, particularly and disastrously feedback coefficients. There are few, however, that are quite as bad as climate models, where the physics of the interactions between variables and parameters is virtually unknown to mankind.

...Imagine you settled down in your seat in a jumbo jet and noticed a plaque on the back of the seat in front which reads 'This machine was designed with the aid of a super-computer. We did not know the values of all the parameters, so had to guess most of them.' You would get off in a hurry. Yet the world's political and media establishment are asking you to gamble the economic future of yourself and your descendants on just such a proposition.

Yes, that really is what the global warming debate comes down to. Shall we believe computer models that are at best based on educated guesses (and which disagree with one another), and enact policies that significantly harm the economy based upon them, even knowing that the policies themselves wouldn't affect the climate noticeably?

I say no; it's wrong to hurt people based on a theory you have no idea is correct, especially if you know the solution won't fix the problem even if your theory IS correct.

You've heard of "no pain, no gain" with regard to weight training? The cap-and-trade climate debate is the reverse: "no gain, no pain." That is, as there isn't going to be any noticeable gain from Waxman-Markey and its ilk, why inflict the pain?

Hat tip: Climate Depot.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:43 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 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

Naughty Conservatives Shouldn't Mind Votes for Waxman-Markey (Or So We're Told)

In an error-riddled column posted Wednesday on TownHall.com, the supposedly conservative Michael Gerson has a novel take on the Republican Congressmen who voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: He blames conservatives for minding.

One of his reasons: "It is typical that we praise independent judgment and political nerve in our elected officials -- until they actually show those qualities."

If any conservatives and/or others dedicated to limiting government called on our elected representatives to show "independent judgement and political nerve" in service of anything other than principle, they were wrong to do so.

Gerson doesn't quote anybody, though, and I can see why: There are a lot more quotes available of conservatives calling upon their elected representatives to govern conservatively.

Gerson's try to tar the conservative movement with a hypocrisy tag doesn't work.

Gerson is honest, though, in saying he likes the bill (I find it difficult to believe this man is a conservative).

He likes it because, he says, the global warming theory is the dominant view of the "scientific community" (a brush broad enough to include gynecologists), because "some scientists" warn of "possible 'tipping points'," and because, supposedly, mankind's carbon dioxide emissions have reduced crop yields and driven some species to extinction. How he could possibly know this is not mentioned, possibly because what he claims is beyond the current ability of modern science to prove or disprove.

Gerson says "global warming since the 19th century is undeniable," which is another way of saying the planet warmed as the Little Ice Age ended, though Gerson does not mention that there even was a Little Ice Age (and before it, warmer temperatures, though no SUVs).

Gerson doesn't mention, either, that if concern for crop yields is paramount, a little more CO2 in the atmosphere might be just the thing.

And then there's his comment that warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is "closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide," which by itself would prove nothing if it were true, but it isn't.

There's more, such as Gerson's ludicrious comment that in failing to appreciate cap-and-trade, "conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage... innovation," as if Waxman-Markey had anything whatsoever to do with free markets (oops, Gerson left the word "free" out, so there goes the innovation).

I could go on, but there's really no need. I linked to the version of this column on TownHall with comments. The column is impossible to appreciate, but some of the comments are superlative.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:16 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

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM

Friday, June 26, 2009

Examiner Coverage of Poll

Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner, covered our poll today in his editorial, "Survey Finds Three-Fourths of African-Americans Have Big Worries About Obama-Waxman-Markey."

Many thanks to Mark, whose editorial page is a must-read. If you aren't reading daily now, try it for a week -- heck, try it for a day -- and you will be hooked.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Polls, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:23 PM

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:21 AM

Politico Coverage of Our Poll

Cesar Conda has covered our energy and climate poll of African-Americans in his blog on Politico.

Thanks to Cesar for the coverage!

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:14 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: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:29 AM

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"The American Family Needs Large Vehicles Too"

In a story he tells today in U.S. News and World Report, Peter Roff and his family go out for custard, finding themselves at the same frozen custard store as President Obama and his eleven SUVs and vans (not counting the ambulance).

Peter doesn't begrudge the President his big-vehicle motorcade. He figures the President and the Secret Service need big vehicles.

What he does is wonder is why our mileage-standard-tightening President won't return the favor, because, as Peter put it, "the American family needs large vehicles, too."

---

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

Labels: Environment, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Thursday, June 18, 2009

CWRA's Chances of Passage

Senator James Inhofe believes it is doubtful the the Clean Water Restoration Act will pass the full Senate.

I am a bit less sanguine, but readily acknowledge his superior familiarity with the Senate.

Here's hoping he's right.

---

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

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM

CWRA Approved by Senate Committee, As Expected

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Clean Water Restoration Act by a party-line vote this morning.

This was expected.

Prospects for CWRA on the Senate floor are less predictable. It could go either way, although the left appears to have an advantage given 1) its control of Congress, and 2) the limited public attention (even from conservative media) the onerous provisions of this massive bill are receiving.

On a more positive note, excluding the bigger-the-government-the-better crowd, the more Americans look at this bill, the less they like it. And why would they like it? Who wants to get a federal permit, or the very least have to investigate whether they need a federal permit, just to landscape their own back yards?

It is not as though the original Clean Water Act, which is a powerful law by anyone's definition, has been repealed or expired. We don't need CWRA to have clean water.

---

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

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 PM

Inhofe on CWRA

Senator James Inhofe's opening statement on CWRA from the hearing is a useful addition to the debate.

I hadn't previously realized the National Association of Realtors and had come out against the bill (perhaps I should stop reviewing the environmental groups' propaganda sheets, which often claim only right-wing dirty water lovers oppose CWRA).

An excerpt from Senator Inhofe's statement:

I see this bill as a significant part of a hostile agenda aimed squarely at rural America. Whether it’s new energy taxes from cap-and-trade legislation or more unfunded environmental mandates, it’s clear that this bill is yet one more raw deal for rural America.

Allowing EPA and the Corps to exercise unlimited regulatory authority over all inter- and intrastate water, or virtually anything that is wet, goes too far and is certainly beyond anything intended by the Clean Water Act. But, that is what S. 787 does. It vastly expands Federal control of private property, despite assurances contained in S. 787. In fact, the very premise of the bill is to override a State’s fundamental right to oversee waters within its borders and to usurp the power of land owners to manage their property as they see fit. The Constitution never envisioned federal jurisdiction being boundless; it carves out room for state and local governments and private property owners to manage their resources.

Two of my Republican colleagues have filed amendments to S. 787, which highlight some very legitimate concerns with the bill. I have chosen not to try and amend the bill because, frankly, I don’t think this bill is fixable. Allow me to just briefly list some of the groups that have expressed concerns with this bill that are not covered by any the amendments filed today: The Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of REALTORS, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Association of Airport Executives, and the list goes on for about 14 pages...

Senator Inhofe's statement on CWRA should be read in its entirety.

---

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

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 PM

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Clean Water Restoration Act Scheduled for Senate Committee Vote June 18

An important message from National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith on the Clean Water Restoration Act, which is less about protecting our nation's waters and more about expanding the federal government's power to regulate private property.

From R.J. Smith:

I received an email at 11:05 p.m. last night from Senate Environment and Public Works staff that Senator Barbara Boxer and company are going to bring the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) up for full committee mark-up and vote in their Thursday 18 June business session scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in the EPW Hearing Room, 406 Dirksen.

This is Senator Russ Feingold's S.787, which was introduced on April 2.

With the Democrats having nationalized the financial, banking and automobile industries -- bringing a strong layer of socialism to the key portions of the US economy -- they are now moving to nationalize the American land and water.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Federal government only had the authority to regulate "navigable waters" and control the discharge of pollutants and dredge and fill activities within those navigable waters.

The so-called Clean Water RESTORATION Act restores nothing. That is a hoax. Instead, it removes the restrictive and limiting terms "navigable" waters and unconstitutionally extends the Federal regulatory authority over ALL waters of the United States. This includes the driest desert areas that may only hold water for a few weeks a year during summer monsoon rains. And it includes completely isolated prairie potholes (small ponds and marshes) with no connection whatsoever to any other waters.

Furthermore, the bill will now prohibit ALL activities affecting all waters of the United States. This means that anything a landowner, a business, a county roads department, a waterfowl conservation program undertakes that could conceivably affect anything that is wet -- will be subject to the discretionary jurisdiction of Army Corps or EPA bureaucrats. They will then be able to make the lives of family farmers, ranchers, tree farmers, home builders -- almost anyone and everyone -- literally impossible. They will have the total power to force every farmer or rancher or ordinary business owner to run a gauntlet of permits, red tape, delays -- that will delay projects long enough and cost so much as to essentially shut down or bankrupt even the most necessary and innocuous projects.

There are copious examples of wetlands horror stories over the last 20 years in which people have been imprisoned and fined staggering amounts for simply building their own home, cleaning up dumps, or creating habitat for waterfowl. And that occurred under the CWA restrictions of "navigable waters" and prohibitions only on discharging pollutants and dredge and fill activities.

Once those constraints are removed by the CWRA, life will quickly become a bureaucratic nightmare with no exit -- particularly so throughout all of rural America. This bill would be much more honestly named "The Rural Cleansing Act of 2009."

This will be a tough battle given that the E&PW Committee make up is 12 Ds and 7 Rs (which includes Senators George Voinovich and Lamar Alexander).

It is important that people who are concerned about this enlist the help of the agricultural community, especially county and state farm bureaus. They should notify not only the members of the Senate E&PW but also the Senate Agriculture Committee.

It is also vital to contact Rep. Collin Peterson Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and request that he ask for oversight hearings on the impact of the CWRA on America's farmers and the nation's food production.

They should also request that the farmers and ranchers they know and their county and state farm bureaus and cattlemen's associations contact the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, asking them to strongly oppose the CWRA.

Addendum (6/14/09): For more information on the Clean Water restoration act, please visit our new CWRA information webpage at http://www.nationalcenter.org/CWRA.html.

---

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

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:03 PM

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 AM

Thursday, May 28, 2009

"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

Friday, May 15, 2009

The Folly of Cap and Trade

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project is warning against the folly of adopting cap and trade in a column in the recent issue of Power magazine:

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

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

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

Read it all here.

---

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

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:09 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

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Mandating Dirty Dishes

Today's Outrage of the Day is news out of Spokane of environmentalist efforts to ban the sale of dishwasher detergent that actually gets dishes clean.

From Nicholas K. Geranios of the Associated Press:

The quest for squeaky-clean dishes has turned some law-abiding people in Spokane into dishwater-detergent smugglers. They are bringing Cascade or Electrasol in from out of state because the eco-friendly varieties required under Washington state law don't work as well. Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation's strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

But it's not easy to get sparkling dishes when you go green.

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe's left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand...

The article goes on to say that Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York are joining Washington state in mandating dirty dishwasher dishes, and that there is a bill on Capitol Hill to make the phosphate ban national.

The article also says the affected industry group, the Soap and Detergent Association, at first opposed the ban, but now it has completely surrendered to the point of exhibiting signs of Stockholm syndrome (not the AP's wording).

The piece ends by quoting a Spokane resident who runs his dishwasher longer to make up for what the green groups have gotten mandated by law. That, he says, uses five gallons more water (and more electricity).

So we're basically going to hurt the environment by using more water (longer cycles or hand-washing after the dishwasher finishes) and more electricity in order to help the environment.

Is there any part of our lives that is not now or will not soon be regulated by environmentalists working through patsy legislatures?

Go here to read the rest of the AP article.

---

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

Labels: Environment, Liberals, Outrage, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:09 PM

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

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

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.

Not.

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 info@nationalcenter.org.

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

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.

_____

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 PM

U.S. House Holds Kangaroo Hearing to Fool Public About Causes of California Drought

The National Center for Public Policy Research has sent a 'kangaroo' to a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Resources Committee on climate change and the California drought.

The kangaroo's appearance will to protest the fact that the hearing is expected to ignore the contribution of environmental regulations in exacerbating the drought, and also the fact that only representatives of government agencies, mostly federal, have been invited to testify.

Our press release explains:

'Kangaroo-Court' Hearing a One-Sided View of California Drought

Regulations Making Water Shortage Worse

For Release: March 31, 2009 10:30 AM

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

Washington, D.C.: The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources is holding a one-sided hearing this morning on the California drought that is expected to blame climate change for a critical water shortage while glossing over the role of activist-inspired environmental policies in exacerbating the shortage, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

The hearing, entitled "The California Drought: Actions by Federal and State Agencies to Address Impacts on Lands, Fisheries, and Water Users," will be held today, March 31, at 10:30 am in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building.

Only representatives of government agencies will be permitted to testify at the hearing. Most of the witnesses will be from federal agencies.

To draw attention to the biased nature of the proceedings, The National Center for Public Policy Research will send a representative to the hearing best suited for a kangaroo court - a kangaroo.

"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," remarked R.J. Smith, a Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Let's have an open Committee hearing and hear real people discussing the impacts on their lives from government regulations and their massive job losses - instead of more government bureaucrats who are only causing the problem."

California - the nation's largest producer of tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, apricots, strawberries and many other crops - risks agricultural losses of over $2 billion for the upcoming season and $3 billion in total economic losses in 2009. According to a University of California at Davis study, 80,000 jobs could be lost in the Central Valley.

Although global warming is expected to receive much of the blame for this economic disaster, government regulation is a more significant - and preventable cause - of it, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

For example, state and federal water officials have sharply cut agricultural water deliveries in California so that more water can go out to sea as part of an effort to protect the Delta Smelt - a three-inch long fish listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In February, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced a "zero allocation" of water from the Central Valley Project, cutting off the massive federal irrigation system that serves numerous California farms. The supply of water from California's State Water Project is 20 percent of normal.

"By demanding that the water flow into the Pacific Ocean, government meddlers have forced farmers to abandon production, threatening both the nation's fresh food supplies and the jobs of farm workers, many of whom are among the nation's poorest minorities," said Mr. Smith. "Ironically, the cut-off of agricultural water has done nothing to help the Delta Smelt. Every year less water is diverted for agriculture, yet the fish population continues to decline."

The state of California also deserves blame for the water shortage because it has failed to build the water infrastructure necessary for the state's growing population.

Donn Zea, President of the Northern California Water Association, wrote in the March 5th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle that although California's population has doubled over the past 40 years, the state has not meaningfully updated its water storage capacity since 1967. "As a result, when drought hits, we have an amount of water suitable for California in 1960 - not 2009," wrote Mr. Zea.

The Resources Committee - which has a history of promoting global warming alarmism - is expected to explore the dubious link between a modest increase in global temperatures and localized weather patterns devastating California.

"If certain members of the House Natural Resources Committee want the world to believe that a regional drought in an arid area of California is further 'proof' of global warming, then let's hope that they apply the same reasoning to the floods that are ravaging eastern and central North Dakota," remarked Dr. Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research. "By the thousands, residents of Fargo and Bismarck are trying to protect their cities from the rising waters of the Red and Missouri Rivers. The blocks of ice on the Missouri River north of Bismarck were so huge that explosives were used to blow them up. Will Chairman Rahall invite Fargo's mayor and other North Dakota officials before his committee to testify on how ordinary citizens spent hours in sub-freezing, snowy weather protecting their homes and businesses from the effects of global cooling?"

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 www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.

-30-

Here's hoping our 'kangaroo' (actually, a man in a kangaroo costume) is able to draw some attention to government regulations that are needlessly hurting Californians.

___________________

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:23 AM

Monday, March 30, 2009

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

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

Enriching a Handful of Portly Middlemen

Ask one of your friends who believes in the adoption of cap-and-trade to read just one sentence against it. If they agree, send them to this Nick Loris post on the Foundry.

(By the way, the "honorable House" referred to at the beginning is our House of Representatives, believe it or not.)

___________________

Labels: Climate, Congress, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 PM

Massive Omnibus Public Land Management Act to See Another Vote

By R.J. Smith:

Sometime today the Omnibus Public Land Management Act will come up for its final vote in Congress. A courageous band of defenders of energy production, natural resources use, public multiple-use of the public lands, and property rights and private land ownership have tenaciously fought this massive 160+ bill package since the fall of 2007.

On Thursday 19 March the Senate completed the complicated bill switch, replacing H.R. 146 (the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act) with S.22 and then voting on that. The Senate passed the bill 77-20 (2 NV). 20 GOP voted Nay. 21 RINOs voted Yea to further shut down the West, destroy domestic energy production, lock-up tens of millions of acres of public lands in categories that much of the public will never be able to use. Destroying energy production, mining, timber harvest, grazing, and recreation.

Bad enough in normal times. Unforgiveable in a recession and energy shortage.

In addition to the 1,000 miles of new Wild and Scenic River designations there were 2,800 miles of new National Trails that will have the authority to shut down anything that can be seen from the trails that the Feds disapprove of.

Senator Reid had allowed Senator Coburn to offer 6 amendments, 5 of which were defeated, and one of which the Democrats had agreed to pass on a voice vote.

Coburn's successful amendment was to the Paleontological Resources Protection Act section of the Omnibus which would criminalize any private collection of fossils on the public lands. His amendment removed the criminalization of "casual and unintentional" collection of rocks that may contain a fossil or portion of a fossil. However, any knowing collection of a fossil is now a felony, with the Feds having nationalized all fossils on public lands and essentially closing down amateur and independent paleontological discovery, research and collection on the public lands.

But the most important provision of Coburn's amendment was that it removed the bill's draconian provisions to apply civil asset forfeiture laws to all who collect any fossils -- giving the Feds the authority to seize the vehicles and equipment and even the homes, ranches, farms and lands of amateur and professional paleontologists.

Because the original H.R. 146 had already passed the House, the complicated Senate actions sent the Omnibus and the Battlefield bill back over to the House on Monday, with the House needing only to vote to concur with the amended Senate bill.

Yesterday the House Rules Committee voted to consider it under a closed rule -- eliminating the possibility of a motion to recommit and all amendments to the bill. The House Natural Resources Committee minority members had submitted about a dozen amendments for the Committee to consider, but they were rejected. There will now be a one hour debate on the rule and then a one hour debate on the Omnibus -- and then a simple majority vote, guaranteeing that this monstrous bill will pass.

The Democrat leadership even rejected an amendment to codify the right to carry concealed weapons on National Park and National Wildlife Refuge lands -- one of the last regulations from the Bush Department of Interior. A week ago a U.S. District Court judge issued an injunction blocking the regulation. Reportedly the Democrat leadership promised the pro-gun, conservative and Blue Dog Democrats that they would bring up a stand-alone bill to restore Second Amendment rights. But it is highly unlikely that Rep. Pelosi and other extreme liberals will ever allow such a bill.

The genuine hero in the long convoluted efforts to kill this terrible bill was Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and everyone should make an effort to thank him. He kept the land-grab bottled up for almost a year and a half.

In the House, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) certainly deserve your thanks for fighting this bill in the House and for attempting to have honest and open hearings and debates on the scores of bills in the Omnibus which the House had never considered or debated.

This is another massive "mystery meat" bill with well over a thousand pages of bills which no one has read or understands. Driven by the shameful lust of Congressional members to bring pork to their districts at the expense of American freedom, energy production and security, natural resources use and the locking-out of more and more of the public from the use of their lands.

It is a step closer to making America a Third World country and a feudalistic nation with the government owning an ever-increasing majority of the land and resources.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith. 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.

Addendum: Here's how the vote ended up.
________________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:12 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

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Harry Reid Tries Again

Today's Outrage of the Day goes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his reported intention to try again to get the monster Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (S. 22) into law without proper deliberation.

Following the bill's defeat last Wednesday (under suspension of rules) in the House, Reid reportedly plans to try again by attaching the huge bill as an amendment to a bill, H.R. 146, "The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act," that has already received House approval, and is to be voted on early this week in the Senate.

As National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith pointed out in this extensive commentary last week, it's likely that no one has read the bill-cum-amendment, as it's 1,294 pages long and nine inches thick. There have been no hearings, mark-ups or floor debate about most of it.

What's the hurry, Harry?
___________________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:51 PM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Omnibus Public Land Management Act Defeated - For Now

A followup to our blog post on the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (S. 22) posted during the wee hours this morning, from the New York Times, by Eric Bontrager:

The House rejected an amended omnibus package of more than 160 public lands, water and resources bills despite a last-minute change designed to ease concerns about the bill.

By a vote of 282-144, the House failed to pass S. 22 (pdf) under a suspension of the rules, which barred any amendments from being added to the bill but also required a two-thirds majority for passage...

Read the rest here.
___________________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:21 PM

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 on House Floor Today - 170 Bills in One; Half Have Had No Hearings

By R.J. Smith:

S. 22, the giant Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, will go to the House floor today (Wednesday, March 11) under suspension of rules. This means debate will be limited to a mere 40 minutes and amendments will not be permitted. Congressmen will be asked to vote on the bill without knowing what is in the 1,294-page, 9-inch thick bill! Some 170 separate bills have all been rolled into this one omnibus. Nearly half of them have never had any hearings, review or mark-up in the House.

The major concern with the bill is the vast expansion of every sort of Federal land ownership, including new and expanded National Parks, National Trails, National Heritage Areas, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, National Preserves, National Historical Parks, National Historic Sites, and more.

It creates 82 new Wild and Scenic Rivers including over a thousand miles of rivers.

It will also create millions of acres of new Wilderness Areas.

In addition, S. 22 will give legislative authority and statutory permanence to the National Landscape Conservation System. The NLCS was created by decree in June 2000 by then Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. It effectively removed at least 26 million acres from BLM multiple-use management, giving these lands near-Wilderness status. Federal bureaucrats and environmentalists have longed to give this new land-management system official designation, placing it on a par with the National Park System and preventing future secretaries from opening the lands to even necessary and vital energy exploration.

This massive Omnibus bill would lock up millions of acres of land at the height of an economic recession and at a time the U.S. is struggling to improve energy security. Instead of creating jobs and increasing resources, energy supplies and wealth -- it would destroy them. It will shut down cattle grazing, mining, timber harvest, energy exploration and production and recreation.

And it will add another $10-12 billion of Federal spending.

Hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas will be locked up. It will kill a vital new Liquefied Natural Gas terminal/port in Massachusetts so that Congressman Barney Frank -- who frequently rails against oil companies for pushing energy prices higher -- won't have it spoil his view.

The Omnibus creates a new Coastal and Estuarine Conservation program as well.

It also includes provsions providing Global Warming and Climate Change programs on public lands.

Under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act it makes it a Federal crime to collect or pick up fossils or fossilized rocks on any Federal lands. It will become a Federal crime for school children to collect fossilized sharks' teeth. And in a scary twist it would extend civil asset forfeiture, permitting the government to seize ownership of all vehicles and equipment used in the gathering of any fossilized material.

The good news is that because the bill is coming up under suspension, it requires a 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives. This means only 146 votes against the bill will be sufficient to derail it.

Please spread the word about this bill and encourage people to contact their Congressman. Because it is coming up tomorrow, time is of the essence.

Thanks for your help.

Update here.
______________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:01 AM

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Carol Browner: Dictating Climate Policy Like Caesar of Old

An op-ed by David Ridenour on President Obama's choice of Carol Browner to serve as a so-called "climate czar" has appeared in newspapers nationwide, including this version from Investor's Business Daily:

Climate Czar Will Reign Like Caesar Of Old

By David A. Ridenour

President Obama vowed to set a new direction of ethics and transparency in government and with his selection of Carol Browner as climate control czar. Unfortunately, her steadfast belief in the far-left policies of extreme environmentalism make that vow impossible to achieve.

An environmental zealot, Browner has so much baggage she could be an airline. But then, maybe not. For despite Browner's best efforts, some of her baggage simply won't stay lost.

Carol Browner is the right person to drive expansion of the state under Barack Obama.

The Washington Examiner recently discovered that she was one of 15 original members of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a branch of the Socialist International, an organization linking socialist and labor parties throughout the world.

Among other things, its Declaration of Principles 'demands compensation for . . . social inequities.' That's another way of saying that if you've prospered because of ingenuity or hard work, be prepared to give a lot of it away to those who haven't.

The issue isn't that Browner is a socialist. We crossed the socialism bridge — a real bridge to nowhere — when we sent a man to the White House who promised to spread our wealth around.

The real issue is the attempt to hide this fact from the public. Browner's photograph, which once appeared alongside that of close Vladimir Putin ally Sergei Mironov, was quietly removed from the Socialist International's Web site after the Examiner's story broke. Much like the trillions of dollars in bailouts and economic stimulus, it's as though Browner never existed.

This isn't transparent government, but all-too-transparent politics. Browner has a lot more baggage, too.

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 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.

The term 'czar' comes from the Latin word caesar — as in Julius Caesar, the Roman leader who proclaimed himself dictator perpetuo (dictator in perpetuity) and oversaw massive expansion of government bureaucracy.

If a czar is actually what President Obama was looking for, Carol Browner may have been the perfect choice, after all.

Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, nonpartisan think tank.

____

Labels: Climate, Environment, Government Power, Liberals, Regulation, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:44 PM

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Government Agency Head to Get Arrested by the Government in Order to Protest Government Policy?

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: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:45 AM

Thursday, February 19, 2009

New York Times Editorial Covers Up Book Ban

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

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

Don't take it from me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what the New York Times published:

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

Needless???

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-posted on Newsbusters

__________________

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 PM

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

First They Banned All the Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: Ace of Spades.

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:53 PM

Profiting from Global Warming

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:57 AM

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

By David Almasi:

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

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

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

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

_____

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:34 AM

Friday, February 06, 2009

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

Image via Wikipedia

By David Almasi:

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

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

In 2007, Tom named Immelt one of the top five worst corporate CEOs, noting:

...Immelt's global warming strategy is causing a series of unintended consequences. For example, the incandescent light bulb - a GE product and invention of its founder Thomas Edison - will be phased out by federal law.

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

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

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

Tom's full commentary can be found here.

_____

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:27 PM

Ak'Bar Shabazz: States and Localities Should Be Wary of Federal Strings

Columnist and spokesman Ak'Bar Shabazz of Project 21 says states and localities should be very wary that huge federal infusions of cash don't bring with them a decline in local autonomy.
____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Power, Government Spending, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:16 PM

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Yet Another Way Governments are Killing Jobs

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

Hat tip: @WalterOlson.
____

Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:39 AM

Friday, January 30, 2009

Regulation Expected to Push Gas Stations Out of Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here.
____

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:21 AM

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Tom Borelli on G. Gordon Liddy

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

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:49 PM

At Energy and Commerce Hearing, House Conservatives Call CEOs to Account

Looks like conservatives on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee are calling turncoat corporate CEOs to account on the Hill today:

From Stephen Power's account on the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog, as posted there by Keith Johnson:

The Waxman era begins: The first congressional hearing of 2009 on climate change got off to an acrimonious start Thursday, as House Republicans blasted a group of corporate CEOs and environmental groups for staging a press conference instead of appearing before the House Ènergy and Commerce Committee to answer lawmakers’ questions about their ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Republicans also vowed to hold members of the US Climate Action Partnership accountable for their own use of fossil fuels, by demanding they explain to the committee whether they traveled to Washington by corporate aircraft and how much fuel they used.

“Be prepared for a battle,” Illinois Republican John Shimkus said at the start of the hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Shimkus vowed to “hold accountable” any Democrats from coal-abundant and petroleum-producing states who vote in favor of legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions and set up an emissions trading system in which companies would have to buy permits allowing them to pollute.

Mr. Shimkus and other Republicans called such legislation, which is favored by President-elect Barack Obama, “a shell game designed to hide” the true costs of regulation from consumers...

Good, good, good.

Using Congress for profiteering is reprehensible; doing it in the name of conservation while flying in on corporate jets to lobby for disproportionately-higher energy costs on lower-income and minority populations makes it doubly so.

I'm not at the hearing, but who wants to bet they have it heated nice and toasty on this bitterly cold global warmy January day?

The only creature comfort the conspirators will be missing is a collection of puppies for the CEOs and the liberal Congressmen to kick on their way out of the hearing room (or so I assume).

We issued a press release on this expensive nonsense earlier this morning:

Energy Bubble, Anyone?

Henry Waxman Gives Public a Look at the Corporate-Congressional Alliance that Threatens to Raise Energy Prices in Pursuit of Private Profit

Thursday's first hearing of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee since Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) ousted Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman is drawing criticism from the National Center for Public Policy Research, which says the hearing illustrates how powerful corporate interests are working with influential special interests and with the liberal majority in Congress to use government to enhance private profits at great cost to economic growth and liberty.

The hearing will, according to the committee's announcement, "present the perspectives of members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership ('USCAP'), a coalition of over 30 businesses and nongovernmental organizations that has called for Congress to pass legislation to address the climate change threat."

"Today's hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership exposes the dangers posed by the new political economy," said Tom Borelli PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The alignment of corporations, special interest groups and liberal members of Congress aiming for this legislative goal is frightening. The housing bubble was born from an alliance of similar interest groups and now we are about to repeat the same mistake with energy policy."

Corporate members of USCAP 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. Under cap-and-trade, emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, would be limited by the federal government. Companies that are over their emission allotment will be forced to purchase credits from another company that is below its allowance.

Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices to reduce their emissions. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as the National Center's Vice President David Ridenour noted in a recent article in Investor's Business Daily:

* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

* According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 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."

"The alignment of corporate and government agendas for the so called "social good" is eerily similar of the warnings in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged which described the unraveling of capitalism" said Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.

"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," added Tom Borelli. "Let's not forget USCAP corporate membership reads like a who's who list of corporate losers; AIG and Lehman Brothers were founding members and General Electric stock is trading at multiyear lows. Ford, Chrysler and GM are also members -- need I say more?" said Tom Borelli.

"Unfortunately for shareholders, the USCAP CEOs, like their banking industry colleagues, have executed poor risk management regarding the impact of cap-and-trade on their businesses. While banking CEOs thought real estate prices could only go up, USCAP CEOs somehow think there is no downside risk to high energy prices and handing over more power to government bureaucrats. They also think the environmental special interest groups are their friends. That's incredibly naïve," Tom Borelli said.

"We know for a fact that some USCAP CEOs have not analyzed the impact of cap-and-trade on their business. In response to my question about the company's participation in USCAP at the Caterpillar shareholder meeting in 2007, CEO James Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost benefit analysis of cap-and-trade on his business. Shareholders should be outraged over such incompetence," said Deneen Borelli.

"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Tom Borelli. "ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide than 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 Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."

"Finally, if General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is so concerned about the state of the planet," Tom Borelli Continued, "why was he selling electricity infrastructure equipment to Iran? Nuclear Iran poses a much greater threat than carbon emissions."

America doesn't need cap and trade and it doesn't need a carbon tax. Any look at the sorry state at the USCAP portion of America's business community, however, makes clear that of the two, cap and trade is worse, because it pits the profit interests of big business directly against the pocketbook interests of the little guy.
____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Government Power, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Regulation, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:55 AM

Monday, January 05, 2009

Land Grab Bill to Be Reintroduced?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:58 PM

Monday, December 15, 2008

The Obama Administration on Science

From Melanie Scarborough:

Carol Browner, the latest Clinton administration retread to be tapped by Barack Obama, will serve in the newly created and still undefined role of White House ‘energy czar.’  If her statements earlier this year are any indication, she also will serve as court jester...

Read it all here.
____

Labels: Energy, Environment, Government Power, Liberals, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:33 PM

Thursday, December 04, 2008

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

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

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

Read it all here.
____

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:16 PM

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Capping Greenhouse Gases: Here's Why Not

Husband David has an op-ed in today's Washington Times as well as other papers on what a cap on greenhouse gas emissions would due to our economy.

An excerpt:

When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight.

Yet government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions would do precisely that, adding enormous additional weight to an economy already reeling. This additional weight shouldn't just be thrown from the bus -- it should be thrown under it.

Most econometric studies agree that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would slow our already sluggish economy.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.

Other studies suggest smaller economic costs: Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.

Sharp emissions restrictions would also push the costs of energy and other consumer products higher. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.

The people most vulnerable to such price increases are the poor. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15 percent 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." Indeed, the lowest quintile income group would pay nearly double what the highest quintile income group would, as a proportion of income, pay in increased energy costs.

And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming. With emissions from China, India and other developing nations growing at breakneck speed, even this modest benefit would be completely erased.

Some argue that we should undergo this pain anyway to set an example for others to follow. The European Union tried that and now, apparently, they're throwing in their collective recycled-material towel... Read it all here.

____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:38 PM

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Could Do to Our Economy

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

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

Read the entire piece here.

____

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:08 AM

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Prince Charles: Cutting Carbon a Priority; Economy Comes Second

I wonder if he flew to Toyko.
____

Labels: Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:39 PM

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The Root Features Project 21 Commentary on Green Policies Hurting Blacks' Bottom Line

By David Almasi:

As cooler weather approaches, there are indications that it is going to be both a cold and expensive winter. Scientifically-monitored sunspot activity and the wise Farmer's Almanac both predict it will be cooler than normal, and the federal government is predicting the cost of heating a home will be a lot higher.

Already earning less than the average American household, black and brown households will take the biggest hit unless something is done - now and over the long-term - to bring down energy prices.

Project 21 Deneen Borelli has a new commentary that was published today on The Root, a black-focused web site jointly operated by The Washington Post and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University.

Deneen points out how policies promoted by radical environmentalists and their political allies on Capitol Hill are keeping us from tapping into America's rich natural resources and freeing our nation from foreign energy dependence:

Failing schools, crime and single-parent households are just a few of the challenges facing urban communities. Now, thanks to radical environmentalists and their supporters, a bunch I like to call "Club Green," they must face soaring energy as well...

Despite the hype about wind power and boasts about other renewable energy sources, 85 percent of our nation's energy comes from fossil fuels. Energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar only currently provide about 7 percent of our power and cannot replace fossil fuels anytime soon.

In its September 2008 report, the federal Energy Information Agency predicted a 25 percent rise in heating oil prices and a 17 percent rise in natural gas prices this winter as well as a 9.5 percent projected increase in electricity costs in 2009. Adding to that, gasoline still hovers near $4 a gallon, and the public demands more domestic energy production. A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters found that 67 percent supported new offshore fossil fuel exploration.

Our nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural resources. The problem is that Congress, at the demand of Club Green, blocks access to these resources at the peril of families.

To read the full Deneen's commentary, click here.

_____

Labels: Energy, Environment, Liberals, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:33 PM

Monday, September 08, 2008

Project 21 in Washington Times

Project 21 members and staff have been published in the Washington Times' op-ed page several times recently. Fans of the group may wish to click on one or more of the following:

"Speed-Limit Myths" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie takes on Senator John Warner of Virginia's trial balloon favoring a federal mandate to lower speed limits. After explaining who/what really would benefit from such a policy (hint: not the environment, but it involves something green), Massie suggests that "it might be better if Mr. Warner just drove off into the sunset. If only he could go a little faster."

"History is the Final Judge" - Project 21 member Ak'Bar A. Shabazz asks, "if we disregard the calls for freedom and democracy in places such as Tibet, where are we placing ourselves as it relates to world history?," and quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., saying "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

"Property Rights" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein examines the government's use of eminent domain power in a predominately black city to take choice land from small businesses in order to sell it to large ones. He says, "Self-professed champions of the poor don't help when they oppose eminent domain reform. Doing so simply allows government to take from one and give to another - at the expense of communities - just to rake in tax dollars."

"Let Them Eat Cake" - Project 21 member Kevin L. Martin calls on Congress to allow more oil drilling, saying "There may be a day when we all have electric cars, but the one I have right now doesn't have a plug, solar panel or hydrogen converter. It takes gasoline. While I don't object to the possibility of alternative energy sources in the future, I know that most Americans own cars that need gas and live in homes that are powered at least in part by coal. When the elites stifle access to plentiful power, the financial burden is a lot smaller for them. They can afford to pay more for a hybrid car and rave about getting better gas mileage. They can also feel better about their indulgences when they buy imaginary 'carbon credits' that give them the moral authority to use more energy than they want to allow the masses. Like Marie Antoinette, they think the rest of America can 'eat cake' like they can. Sadly, we can't."

"The Civil Rights Shakedown: Myth or Reality?" - Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli takes a look at shakedown allegations against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and describes her own effort to urge a corporate board not to be part of such a process. Deneen wrote, in part, "Frustrated by what appears to me to be a long history of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton using semi-subtle campaigns to pressure corporations to donate, I spoke up at the JPMorgan shareholder meeting. After Mr. Jackson spoke, I took his place at the microphone and asked Mr. Dimon and his board: 'Will there ever be a day where you will stand up and say 'No' to Mr. Jackson and to his demands and messages of victimization and divisiveness? This is the United States of America, and this is not the 1960s. People should be hired based on their talents and they should be retained based on their results. There should not be color-coded hiring in the United States.' Shareholders clapped. But, unlike Mr. Jackson's, my question went unanswered."

"Gaining Access with Identification" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein turns the Voter ID debate into a civil rights issue -- but maybe not in the way you think: "The bottom line is that someone without proper identification is out of step. And those who want to keep them there are out of line."

"Black America is Still Not Free" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein reviews the new book "Sweet Release: The Last Step to Black Freedom" by psychologist Dr. James Davidson, Jr.: "...although he criticizes liberals, Davidson is quick to note he is no conservative. He writes: 'My behaviors and ideas [are] anything but conservative. Trying to improve one's social and economic lot by rejecting traditional societal and black community standards for achievement seemed antithetical to [being] conservative.' The apolitical goal of Sweet Release is to create advancers: 'What you seek is simply not in the 'hood. It never has been, and it never will be... We must now move beyond our own remaining chains, beyond the mental barriers that keep so many of us constrained in our thoughts and deeds.'"

"Governance drives this crisis" - Project 21 associate and Initiative for Public Policy Analysis executive director Thompson Ayodele asks, "Hunger is an everyday problem in Africa. What can be done about it?," and answers, in part: "For one thing, a better governmental infrastructure and incentives can stimulate production if done right. Anything that would dampen competition, and thus lower the incentive to produce, should be avoided. When these programs are instituted, they must be administered with professionalism and transparency."

"Too few Watts: 'Segregated News' is Not the Answer" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie isn't too thrilled about former GOP Congressman J.C. Watts' plans to create a black news television channel: "...the question begging an answer is what exactly constitutes 'black news.' There are things that happen to black people in black communities that don't really have an impact on the rest of America, but that doesn't mean they should be provincial to black America. News happening in America is American news, and it should be everyone's concern."

"Jesse Jackson Outrage Strategy: No Dough, No Go?" - Project 21 staff director David Almasi and research associate Justin Danhof wonder why Jesse Jackson never challenged XM Satellite Radio for alleged racial insensitivity for a gold tooth ad similar to one run by Toyota which Jackson did protest. They ask: "Remember when Jesse Jackson challenged XM Satellite Radio for its racist advertising? Probably not, since it never happened. Why he didn't is the question." Could it be because Toyota has more money?
_____

Labels: Climate, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Government Power, Human Rights, Media, Project 21, Property Rights, Race, Regulation, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:45 PM

Thursday, August 21, 2008

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge's Mysterious Files

As an executive of a non-profit foundation I read with interest the article by Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center about the mysteriously flexible ownership of 132 boxes of files of a now-defunct non-profit called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Mr. Kurtz wishes to review these files, which are in the possession of the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (a publicly-supported institution), because he is researching the relationship between a former member of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, and the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. Both men were officials of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a non-profit organization, before the group closed in 2001.

A bit of a mystery has developed because the Daley Library, having not long ago gone out of its way to make the Chicago Annenberg Challenge files available to Mr. Kurtz for his research, suddenly withheld its permission. The ins-and-outs of the story are best learned by reading Mr. Kurtz's article, but the short version is that a concern by the Daley Library that it does not have the legal right to display the material has suddenly emerged. The library told Mr. Kurtz it was working with the donor to resolve this problem, but it declined to tell Mr. Kurtz the identity of the donor.

Mr. Kurtz then speculates that, among other possibilities, Mr. Ayres himself, a former CAC executive, may be the donor.

That's the part I noted with interest, because I don't think he is likely to be. Bill Ayres could only legally donate the CAC documents to the Daley Library if he had legal ownership himself. Odds are that he doesn't have it and never has.

Under the tax laws, if a non-profit goes out of business, it must transfer any remaining assets to another non-profit. It can't just give its assets to a person, unless the assets are transferred as taxable compensation and properly declared, or it is returning a contribution (which would be irrelevant here).

If Bill Ayres has the physical property of a closed non-profit, he MIGHT properly have it because he took the files as part of his taxable compensation (or because he bought the property from the non-profit for its fair market value), but the odds that he did so are not great. Few employees accept old files as taxable compensation, and few non-profit executives would want to pay cash for 132 boxes of a dying group's old files.

Buying the non-profit's property would be particularly dicey for Ayers, too, because as an executive of the non-profit, he's an "insider," and thus subject to stiff penalties if the IRS ever were to determine that he bought assets from the group for less than its fair market value. So if he bought the files he would have incurred a legal (tax) risk to do so, only to then donate -- however ineffectively -- the files he'd just bought to the Daley Library. It's just not likely that he took a risk to buy the files, just to give them away.

IF Ayres actually is the "donor," he probably kept the files when he shouldn't have (itself unlikely because 132 boxes of files wouldn't be convenient to cart about), and then gave them to the Daley Library. If that's the case, he wasn't entitled to keep them nor to give them to the Library, and the Library has stolen property. If this is the case, Ayres wouldn't personally have the legal authority to give or not give consent over whether the files now are open for public viewing, and under what conditions, because they aren't his files and never were.

My guess is that Ayres isn't the donor at all, even if in his capacity as an official of a non-profit he once played a role in their transfer to the library (I have no idea if he did). I further suspect that no individual person donated the files. I believe they were donated either by the non-profit Chicago Annenberg Challenge itself or by the non-profit to which (as Mr. Kurtz reports) the CAC transferred its remaining assets upon its closure, the Chicago Public Education Fund.

The Chicago Public Education Fund is a non-profit, as is the Daley Library. As such, it would have been perfectly legal for the CAC to give its files to the Chicago Public Education Fund, and for the Chicago Public Education Fund to, in turn, give the files to the library. A CAC-Daley Library transfer would have been equally legal and quite understandable, as CAC executives may have seen the files as part of the group's legacy, and may have have wanted the group's work to be remembered.

Such a donation of files to the Daley Library could have been arranged by Bill Ayres himself or someone reporting to him in his capacity as a CAC official, but even if Ayres personally carried all 132 boxes from CAC offices to the library on his bicycle, the donation legally would have come from the non-profit.

Now that CAC is closed, any authority any CAC executive or officer had as a CAC official over CAC assets has evaporated. So, unless its staff knew nothing whatsoever about the law, the Daley Library would not now contact Ayres or any other ex-CAC official acting in that capacity to get a signed "deed of gift" or to request permission to do anything whatsoever with the CAC files.

If the Chicago Public Education Fund truly was given all of CAC's remaining assets when CAC closed, as Mr. Kurtz's article says, and if the CAC files weren't properly or fully gifted to the library (as library official Ann C. Weller implied to Mr. Kurtz), the files probably belong to the Chicago Public Education Fund.

A list of the Fund's board can be found here.

As the Fund is a non-profit barred from electoral activity, the Fund's board presumably would want to be very careful not to make any decisions regarding document access that are less than scrupulously neutral.

If, on the other hand, the Daley Library owns the files (as it apparently believed it until very recently), its governing board will face the same need to be scrupulously neutral on political matters, assuming the University of Illinois system operates as a non-profit to which donations are tax-deductible under federal tax laws, as many universities do.

Hat tip: Scott Johnson at PowerLine.
____

Labels: Regulation, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:45 AM

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights and How We Can Fight It

David Ridenour shared news of a new property rights information resource with the National Center for Public Policy Research's email list last night:

Dear Friend,

I'm writing to tell you about an excellent new book – and exceptional resource – that will be released tomorrow, "Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights and How We Can Fight It." It was written by my friend Don Corace and I had the privilege of getting an advance peak at the book.

The book details a series of property rights horror stories, some that you've no doubt heard about, such as the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case, and some that might be unfamiliar to you.

Corace tells the story, for example, of Jim and Tom Stephanis, who fought the City of Pompano Beach to build a hotel on a 1.3-acre site where their restaurant once stood. They fought the city for 31 years, during which time the Pompano government officials stonewalled the project through bureaucratic shenanigans and frivolous lawsuits. The city even deliberately violated a court order. The Stephanis brothers won nine consecutive lawsuits and numerous appeals before a chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court intervened, ordering an appeals venue change and hand-picking the judges who would hear the case – a highly-irregular and controversial move. This was the turning point in their battle and the Stephanises ultimately lost millions they'd invested in the project. Within a year of their final blow – the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear their case – Jim Stephanis suffered a major stroke. Today he works as a wine manager for a liquor store. His brother, Tom, is retired.

Government Pirates provides especially good insights on how government and outside special interests collaborate to take away Americans' property rights. As a successful real estate developer, Corace has seen this process up-close, first-hand.

If you'd like to take a look at sample pages of the book or see where you can tune in to hear Don Corace talking about the book (he'll be on Hannity and Colmes this week, for example), check out the Government Pirates website. Journalists and bloggers can download a press kit or email publisher HarperCollins here. To pre-order Government Pirates right now, go here.

This book is not only a must-read, but a vital reference book for your library. I encourage you not only to purchase it, but to tell others about this truly important contribution to the property rights movement.

Best,

David A. Ridenour
Vice President

_____

Labels: Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:43 AM

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:59 AM

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Congress Investigates EPA for Following the Rules on Clean Water Act Enforcement

Nick Loris has it right in this Foundry post.

Do Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and James Oberstar (D-MN) really want the EPA to ignore a Supreme Court decision?

I believe acting outside of proper channels is the kind of thing that could get EPA administrators hauled before Waxman's committee.

Oops. They have been.

Next time, EPA, don't stick to the rules.

Congress is watching.
____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:17 AM

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Weyrich: Congressional Hearings on Land Trusts Needed

Conservative leader par excellence Paul Weyrich has written a column about National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso's National Policy Analysis paper, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Paul begins:

Phil Truluck is today Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation. He is the right-hand man of Edwin J. (Ed) Feulner, Jr. In 1973 he worked under my supervision. Then as now he is one of the most able and tireless laborers for the cause I ever have known. That year he worked day and night on the liberal's pet cause of that era - namely, land use. Had the land use bill passed the federal government would have been able, in effect, to do away with private property.

Although others took credit for the defeat of that terrible bill, I can state without fear of contradiction that it was Truluck's work that was responsible for the outcome. It is true that this bill has not reared its ugly self for the past 35 years but no bad idea ever dies in Washington. The National Center for Public Policy Research has issued a new study which contends that the federal government has found a new way to restrict the use of private property. A total of 37 million acres throughout the nation is under the control of land trusts. The best known of these is the Nature Conservancy. Dana Joel Gattuso, a senior fellow at the National Center, is author of the report, "Conservation Easements: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly." It seems that the Conservancy approaches land-rich but cash-poor farmers. In return for donating their land for supposed conservation purposes, the land owners are provided with federal and state tax breaks provided they agree never to develop or use the land for anything other than farming or ranching.

But the next thing that most often happens is a land flip...

Paul ends the piece with a call upon Congress to hold hearings to expose the way conservation easements are being abused, with an eye toward amending the law to prevent these abuses.

Read the rest of Paul's commentary here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:36 PM

America Only Oil-Producing Nation That Severely Limits Its Production

National Center for Public Policy Research Research Associate Reece Epstein has a letter to the editor in today's D.C. Examiner newspaper, written in response to an opinion column by Irwin Stelzer entitled, "No Quick Energy Fixes, Despite Officials’ Promises."

Says Reece:

Irwin Stelzer is rightly disappointed in politicians who "prefer to keep Alaska safe for caribou rather than tap our own oil reserves." America remains the only oil-producing nation that severely limits its own production.

Federal law currently prohibits tapping about 10 billion barrels of oil in the barren tundra of Alaska and another 16 billion barrels off the coasts. It also prevents utilizing the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, which are found in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The RAND Corporation estimates that between 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil can be found in the shale of the Green River formation, making it the largest known fossil fuel deposit in the world.

With demand for energy skyrocketing and supply subject to incessant instability, we have a clear imperative to develop this untapped and readily obtainable supply of American oil.

Reece Epstein
Research Associate
The National Center for Public Policy Research

Labels: Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:28 AM

Friday, June 06, 2008

What John Warner Doesn't Know Can Cost You

Senator John Warner to Fox's Neil Cavuto: "Just why [gasoline] prices have skyrocketed, we know not."

Shouldn't the co-sponsor of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which several independent econometric studies have concluded would significantly raise consumer gasoline prices, have bothered to learn the mechanics of gasoline pricing before creating, co-sponsoring and promoting his bill?

Warner, in the same interview, called concerns that his bill would raise gas prices "purely a scare tactic." One wonders how he could possibly know.

Ben Lieberman at the Heritage Foundation doesn't think gas increase fears result from a scare tactic.

Says he:

A recent study by The Heritage Foundation estimates a cost increase of at least 29 percent by 2030, or $1.10 per gallon based on current gasoline prices. The Environmental Protection Agency is a bit less pessimistic, estimating a price boost of 53 cents per gallon by that year. But others predict an earlier impact - a National Association of Manufacturers' study projects as much as $1.07 more per gallon by 2014.

Anyone want to pay anywhere from .53 - $1.10 more per gallon of gas just to have an outside chance -- a very remote outside chance -- of reducing global warming by 0.013 degrees (C)?

_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Power, Government Spending, Regulation, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:26 AM

Monday, June 02, 2008

Rush Limbaugh's Take on NCPPR's Lieberman-Warner Poll

Rush Limbaugh discussed the National Center for Public Policy Research's poll on the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill Friday. He also discussed a poll on energy production and prices conducted by Gallup.

Debate on Lieberman-Warner in the U.S. Senate is expected to begin today.

From RushLimbaugh.com, an excerpt:

...A couple of interesting polls.  First off, Gallup poll.  It's an energy poll.  It's out today on gasoline prices. It has some interesting findings.  Americans want increased domestic production, even if it means opening areas that are now off limits.  The Gallup poll found the majority of 57% to 41% of Americans support drilling in US coastal and wilderness areas, which are now off limits.  By comparison, by the way, in a more specific Gallup poll taken in March three years ago; a majority of Americans, 53%, was opposed to opening ANWR for oil production.  So there has been a big shift.  Despite the onslaught from the Drive-By Media and both presidential candidates, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose rationing.  A slight majority, 53%, support price controls on gasoline, but an overwhelming majority, 79%, oppose the rationing of gasoline that would result from price controls, and unlike some in Congress, most Americans don't blame Big Oil.  Despite recent high-profile hearings with oil company executives, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%.  

That's the Gallup poll.  Now, here's another one.  This poll is the National Center for Public Policy Research.  Their poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Warner-Lieberman, the cap-and-trade bill that attacks the US economy when they learned about the impact on gasoline and electricity prices.  Sixty-five percent of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Does this jibe with what you think?  This kind of surprises me. Sixty-five percent of Americans -- this is the National Center for Public Policy Research poll -- reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  Seventy-one percent of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.  When gasoline and electricity price increases are taken together, 90% of the American people reject Lieberman-Warner's plan and its costs, even at the low range of the projecting costs.  Now, I think this poll is a bit different than most other standard Drive-By Media polls, because what the National Center for Public Policy Research did is they went out and said, 'Okay, here's what Warner-Lieberman will do, and here's what it's going to cost you.'

Then they asked the question, 'Do you support paying higher gasoline prices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?' Sixty-five percent of the American people said no.  The Gallup poll, I don't know how this one was conducted.  I've got the full poll.  I just haven't clicked on the link to get the questions.  But both polls surprise me because the public perception is like Vaclav Klaus said a couple days ago when he was at the National Press Club doing a speech, the Czech Republic president. He said (paraphrased), 'We've lost. The facts don't matter. The facts do not matter now in the global warming debate.'  Well, maybe they do.  Maybe they do.  I'm under the impression that over half the American people have bought into this.  But I don't think that's true.  I think all of the media has bought into it.  We played those sound bites of poor old Juan Williams who had no clue, no clue that environmentalism is an ideological advancement, that it's liberal.  He had no clue that it was about an expansion of government and a huge attack on individual liberty. He said Vaclav Klaus raised his consciousness on this.  Well, that's good, you know, any time that happens...

I believe Rush Limbaugh is America's #1 asset on global warming education. He takes the time to understand the science and the economics, and has the talent to explain it understandably and entertainingly. I shudder to think we're we'd be without Rush.

For a longer excerpt from Rush's Friday broadcast, go to RushLimbaugh.com. For more on our poll, go here; for a quick summary of Lieberman-Warner, please go here.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:35 AM

Friday, May 30, 2008

Poll Shows Little Public Enthusiasm for Lieberman-Warner

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

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:26 PM

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Government Land Acquisition on the Sly

Joe Thomas of WCHV in Charlottesville, Virginia has posted a podcast online of his radio interview with National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso.

Dana, as many of you know, is the author of the absolutely excellent new paper on conservation easements, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," published by the National Center for Public Policy Research on Tuesday.

If you are among the millions of Americans concerned about the steady growth of government, and you aren't already aware -- as most aren't -- of the explosive growth in conservation easements and how these easements are a door through which governments are exerting greater ownership of and control over private land (typically without the taxpayers knowing about, or any legislature ever voting for, the expansion), then I urge you to read Dana's study.

For a shorter summary of what the issue is all about, I recommend our press release, ably written by Judy Kent, and reproduced below.

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

Landowners Beware - The Government's Found a New Way to Control Your Land

Conservation Easements Not What They Used to Be, Says New Report

Washington, D.C.: Under the guise of making more land accessible for the public's use and providing tax relief for land-rich but cash-poor landowners, the government has found a convenient way to restrict the use of private land - often without the original landowner's knowledge. Enter The Nature Conservancy and other large land trust conglomerates that approach farmers or large landowners with what seems like a "win-win" for all involved. In return for donating their land for conservation purposes, the landowners are provided with federal and state tax breaks and agree never to convert, develop or use the land for any purpose other than farming or ranching.

A total of 37 million acres of land throughout the United States are currently under the control of land trusts.

However, according to a new report by the National Center for Public Policy Research titled, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," all-too-often that acquired land, placed under "conservation easements," goes from the land trust right into the governing hands of the largest landowner in the United States, the federal government. Dana Joel Gattuso, author of the report and senior fellow of the National Center, explains these "prearranged flips" provide a back door approach to acquiring land control that is good for the government and the original land trust, but bad for the unsuspecting landowner, who has been kept out of the loop.

How profitable is it for conglomerates like The Nature Conservancy to participate in flips? Gattuso cites their annual report, which states about a fifth of the land trust's annual support and revenues come from the sales of easements to the government. "In one example, The Nature Conservancy bought an easement for $1.26 million, then directly sold it to the federal Bureau of Land Management for $1.4 million," she says. The Nature Conservancy certainly isn't alone, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, one of that state's largest land trusts, has sold more than 700 of its 850 easements to the state and federal government.

Besides being able to take control over more and more land, "Government agencies like the arrangements because they are able to restrict activity on private property absent public approval, unlike land purchases, zoning laws and other land conservation regulations, which can draw heated opposition - and great angst," Gattuso says. According to a Department of Agriculture report on easements, "conservation easements provide opportunities for public agencies to influence resource use without incurring the political costs of regulation or the full financial costs of outright land acquisition." It is troubling that "easements, absent reforms, could evolve into the prevailing method for government to shift lands unobtrusively from private to public control under a pretense of private stewardship," she states.

This trend toward more government involvement in land trusts troubles Gattuso. While conservation easements "have become the rage in land conservation - rising in number from 740 in 1995 to 6,500 today - so has the role of government and government's influence over land trusts." Initially, the benefits of land trust involvement with easements created the possibility of an effective land stewardship program. "Yet land trusts, particularly the larger organizations, are changing their focus from independent and private approaches, to working in tandem with government agencies in an effort to assist government in controlling private lands," she cautions.

Gattuso says the biggest reason landowners enter into a conservation agreement is to obtain relief from burdensome taxes - especially death taxes, which break up well-managed lands. Tax benefits are extended to everyone, from wealthy landowners who own hundreds of thousands of acres to struggling farmers who have inherited a hundred-acre farm. These easements, however, extend into perpetuity and can become a big concern when future generations inherit the affected land, the report says. Environmentalists presently view this as beneficial, but what is ecologically-beneficial one day, may not be the next. Legal and policy experts agree these binding agreements that extend into perpetuity "ultimately become antiquated and, therefore, useless or even harmful. The rule fails to recognize that conservation needs - as well as definitions of scenic, aesthetic and cultural - change over time, and that the easement may eventually lose any ecological benefit or even become a detriment. Modern views in ecology hold that the environment is in a constant change rather than in search of a stable end-state," Gattuso reports.

Robert J. Smith, also a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research and a foremost authority on property rights, shares Gattuso's concerns. "Short-term conservation easements were once considered a method to protect lands short of fee simple acquisition. But over time they have morphed into perpetual lock up of lands in a single use. This is not only disastrous from an environmental viewpoint, because nature is forever changing - but it is also the antithesis of a free market because they preclude all future choice," he says.

Additional problems with tragic consequences arise when there are different interpretations of what a conservation easement allows. There is no shortage of landowners who offer their own disastrous story of their involvement with conservation easements. As an example, the Property Rights Foundation of America cites the case of a farmer who bought a 42-acre property in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Wanting to build a farmhouse to house three generations of his family, he didn't expect to run into any problem with a conservation easement that had been placed on the land. The easement noted the land could be used only for farming or nature conservation, and for small buildings related to those uses. However, the French and Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust sued to stop the construction, claiming the farmhouse did not fall within the parameters of what was allowed to be built on the land. A judge with the Chester County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the farmer and noted the construction of the farmhouse "does not offend the easement definition of a 'small building' incidental to farming use." Construction on the farmhouse continued and so did the legal stranglehold the Trust held against the family. The Trust appealed the judge's decision all the way to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Ultimately, the tragedy of how these conservation easements can be misunderstood is evidenced by the bulldozing of the family's farmhouse, which destroyed the dreams of three generations of family farmers and 15 years of savings.

The paper, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," by Dana Joel Gattuso is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free-market communications and research foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill.

-30-

_____

Labels: Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Senator John Warner: Do As He Says, Not As He Does

From David Almasi:

Would someone please figure out the carbon foot-stomp that Senator John Warner (R-VA) helped make on May 15 just so he could turn a wrench?

A ceremony in which Senator Warner was given the honor of tightening the "last bolt" on the almost-completed I-95 Woodrow Wilson Bridge across the Potomac River created a traffic nightmare in the Washington, D.C. area. According to reports, the ceremony, held at 11:00 am on a Thursday, caused traffic back-ups of up to eight miles over a stretch of more than five hours.

During times of major construction on the bridge, events predicted to have a severe impact on traffic normally were planned for weekends in order to prevent jams. It obviously can't be expected for important people such as Senator Warner, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D), Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D), D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to give up their weekends, however, for what was ostensibly a private event held on the bridgespan.

It is particularly insulting that Senator Warner, the chief sponsor of a bill about to be debated in the Senate that will raise energy and consumer prices to allegedly cap "greenhouse gas" emissions, was the star of the show. He was beaming at the honor bestowed upon him in photos taken of the ceremony, but one has to wonder if it weighed on his conscience in the slightest that all those miles of cars and trucks were out there idling - spewing emissions - so he could play Bob the Builder.

It's sickening, but that's politics.

To read more about the event, click here.

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:54 PM

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

NCPPR's Almasi Comments on CAFE in National Review

In the May 5 print edition of National Review, Fred Schwarz described how the catalytic converter was perfected just as automakers faced potentially crippling federal emissions requirements. Liberals cite this as proof that all that is needed to make technological breakthroughs happen is to give industry a swift regulatory kick in the pants, but this particular development was a happy coincidence. Had a breakthrough - discovered after many frustrating failures - not come when it did, the auto industry could very well have been devastated.

Schwarz sees the development of the catalytic converter as another step in the march of science that will, in time, bring about the changes some people hastily want to mandate.

Schwarz’s article is great but for the one line. Schwarz calls newly-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards "feasible." Hardly. They are most likely to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and subsequently more dangerous in the short-term before (in the minds of the regulatory crowd) the long-hidden formula to fuel cars with water is unveiled.

National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi explained one of the problems with increased CAFE standards in a letter to the editor that now has been printed in the May 19 National Review (print edition). David's letter is reprinted in its entirety below:

Fred Schwarz is right to predict that science will achieve regulatory goals at its own pace ("Machina ex Machina," May 5).

He also says that "[current] CAFE standards are quite feasible, and while opponents have criticized them on economic grounds, at least no engineering miracles will be required." True - but the biggest problem with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system concerns safety, not economics or engineering. By historical precedent the easiest way for automakers to meet higher fuel-efficiency requirements is to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and inherently less safe. A 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated between 1,300 and 2,600 accident-related deaths each year can be attributed to CAFE standards.

It’s also the case that these new CAFE standards will raise the price of new vehicles large enough for family use by thousands of dollars. If you don’t like paying an extra buck a gallon for gasoline, just wait until you have to spend an extra ten grand for the car.

Thanks, Congress.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:52 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Flaws in Clean Water Restoration Act Exposed in Congressional Hearings

From Mike Hardiman comes this roundup of information about recent Congressional hearings on the Clear Water Restoration Act:

Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives recently held hearings on the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act. These hearings are a clear sign that the environmental community intends to push this controversial legislation to a vote in both houses of Congress sooner rather than later.

The Senate hearing was held on April 9 under the direction of bill co-sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and the House followed on April 16 with a hearing chaired by the legislation's House sponsor, Representative James Oberstar from Minnesota.

Contrary to the sponsors’ wishes, the two hearings exposed numerous flaws and very strong opposition to HR2421/S1870, the proposal to dramatically expand the federal government's role in land use regulation.

Senate Hearing

The Senate hearing, held by the Environment and Public Works Committee, unveiled several issues to which bill sponsors had difficulty responding.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke at length regarding the bill's removal of the phrase "navigable" from the term "navigable waters." He claimed it would lead to a dramatic expansion of federal authority over wetlands from navigable waters to nearly anything that is wet.

Both witnesses and Senators supporting the bill denied that it would be an expansion of power, despite the removal of the key modifying word "navigable." Meanwhile, a witness opposing the bill, rancher Randall Smith, said of removing the word navigable, "it is a dream for litigators" and "it opens up a whole can of worms."

Supporters stated that the bill's purpose is only to clear up confusion generated by a recent Supreme Court decision, known as the Rapanos case, while opponents showed that it was actually a considerable expansion of authority.

Bill supporter Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general, lectured at length witness David Brand, a county engineer from Ohio opposed to the legislation. Whitehouse insisted repeatedly that "we are just picking up where we left off (before the Rapanos decision)."

Brand replied, "No, and repeating that doesn't make it true."

An exasperated Whitehouse responded, "Yes, it does make it true."

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was opposed to the bill, and stated that he could not think of any kind of water that was not covered by the bill.

Attempting to contradict him, Clinton-era EPA Administrator Carol Browner said puddles were exempt. Vitter asked for a definition of a puddle, and Browner was unable to directly answer the question. Senator Whitehouse unconvincingly chipped in, insisting that "EPA has no interest in chasing puddles."

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming asked witnesses how the proposed bill benefits ranchers and farmers. Bill supporters did not address the question, while opponents said it would be harmful.

House Hearing

Representative James Oberstar is both the bill sponsor and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which held its own hearing April 15. This marathon session featured twenty-three witnesses and forty-four congressmen questioning them, resulting in an eleven hour hearing that stretched into late evening.

Oberstar accused the Supreme Court of "legislating from the bench" and said his bill only sought to repeal two court rulings on wetlands from recent years which protected private property, the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions.

This was challenged by congressman John Mica of Florida, who said the Oberstar bill would "fundamentally alter the course of water regulation" and produced a display featuring several hundred organizations opposed to the legislation and a pile of petitions several feet high opposing the bill.

Oberstar said his bill would clear up ambiguity that had been created by the Supreme Court. Mica agreed that there would be no ambiguity under the bill, because there would be no restriction on federal control of all water, since any non-federal or private rights would be overridden.

Congressman John Boozman from Arkansas pointed out that the bill proposes to regulate all "activities" near waters, instead of current law, which says only "discharges" into waters are regulated.

Some members were undecided. Congressman Nick Rahall from West Virginia did not take a position for or against the bill, but said "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting." After several witnesses complained about both current law and the proposed legislation, Congressman John Salazar from Colorado told them there must be more than complaints, and asked how to make the bill better.

Witness Virginia Albrecht pointed out another major change proposed in the bill, that federal agencies be given the power to regulate "to the limit of constitutional authority." Congresswoman Thelma Drake from Virginia agreed that these are "absolute words" which could fundamentally change federal-state relationships.

Attorney Robert Trout testified that "if this bill passes, it will put my kids through college" because of all the new litigation that will be generated.
Witness Linda Runbeck, a former Minnesota state legislator, said the bill negatively impacts private property rights and hurts families because most of their net worth is tied up in the land they own, which may be sharply devalued by the bill. She also brought up the poll commissioned by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which shows that when the bill is described to them, most Americans stating an opinion do not support it.

Overall, a very thorough airing of opinion was had in the two hearings, and the legislation's many weaknesses were displayed out in the open and for the record. However, the bill's supporters remain determined first to wipe out gains made by property owners in the Supreme Court, and, second, to expand federal authority beyond current law.

_____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:55 AM

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

NCPPR Senior Fellow Helps Clear the Air on Clean Water

From David Almasi:

On the heels of congressional hearings in both the House and Senate, the Washington Examiner published a scathing editorial against the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA). The editorial came after National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith had a long conversation with Examiner editorial page editor Quin Hillyer about the April 16 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on the CWRA.

The Examiner editorial read, in part:

With the real estate market already reeling, Congress would be foolish to do anything that would further drive down property values. It would be even worse to do so while also mounting a wholesale assault on private property rights. But that's what would be done by the misnamed Clean Water Restoration Act sponsored by Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN. Oberstar's proposal is so bad it ought to be permanently buried six feet under dry land...

Now comes Oberstar, who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He held an April 16 committee hearing on his misnamed bill, which would vastly expand the definition of "waters" covered by stringent regulation to include almost any area, "interstate and intrastate," that ever gets wet. Oberstar set a May 1 deadline for interested parties to respond to hearing testimony.

The National Center for Public Policy Research recently spearheaded a coalition letter of over 50 organizations concerned about the CWRA's threat on private property rights and published a National Policy Analysis paper on the threat the bill poses to hunting and sporting activity.

The full Washington Examiner editorial against the CWRA can be read by clicking here.

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at