Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. She and her husband David, the vice president of the National Center, are the parents of three second graders. David's comments, like those of other National Center staff members, directors, associates and fellows, often appear in this blog.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
Copyright 2003-2008 National Center for Public Policy Research
All links on this site are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any post on this blog be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.
Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author. Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
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.
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.
Comments to author Mike Hardiman can be sent to info@nationalcenter.org. Mike Hardiman, a Capitol Hill veteran, recently completed a special educational project on the Clean Water Restoration Act for the National Center for Public Policy Research.
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.
Washington Post Treats Insipid Barbara Boxer Comment as News; Ignores Bigger Story Behind Bush's Global Warming Speec
I already knew Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:
The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.
What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"?
Why, no difference at all.
Even more amusingly, this was probably a prepared quote taken from a statement issued by her office rather than something she said off the top of her head.
Speaking of this Washington Post article, by Juliet Eilperin: It quotes six people taking the alarmist, hurt-the-economy position on global warming, and not one who believes either that alarm is unnecessary or that the hurt-our-economy approach is the wrong way to go. An acknowledgment is made that "senior GOP lawmakers... continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions," but that's it. No reason why is given. Nor is a reader told that not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be.
There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story.
A insipid statement by Barbara Boxer was a higher priority. ____
Hunters, Anglers, Boaters, Shooting Sports Enthusiasts and Others: Beware the Clean Water Restoration Act
In a new paper for the National Center for Public Policy Research, Peyton Knight explains exactly how a new bill under consideration by Congress could make life difficult for hunters, anglers, boaters, shooting sports enthusiasts, users of all-terrain vehicles and others who pursue outdoor sports and activities. _____
Another 53 Major Organizations Warn Congress, Public About Clean Water Restoration Act
Following up on a letter signed by over 100 organizations and individuals last fall, the National Center for Public Policy Research is today releasing another coalition letter warning the public and the policymakers about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act.
CWRA is to be the focus of hearings in the Senate and House on April 9 and 16, respectively. We can be sure that the very liberal Senator Barbara Boxer (D-MN), and the bill's main sponsor, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), the chairmen of the committees holding the hearings, will examine the bill quite objectively. (Not.)
More about the letters, and links to the letters, including a list of signers:
Representatives of 53 Organizations Warn Congress, Public about Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act
Farm Bureaus, Manufacturers, Sportsmen, Taxpayer Advocates, Think-Tanks and Others Express Concern About Expansion of Federal Power
Washington, D.C. - A letter signed by representatives of over 53 organizations expressing grave concerns about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, or CWRA, is being delivered to Congress this week.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has scheduled a hearing on CWRA for April 9. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by CWRA sponsor James Oberstar (D-MN), has a hearing scheduled April 16.
The letter says CWRA sponsors are wrong in claiming CWRA would restore the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Instead, the letter says, CWRA would greatly expand its scope.
The letter is signed by representatives of nineteen state farm bureaus. Other organizations with representatives signing include the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Family Farm Alliance, the Family Water Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the California Land Institute, and very many public policy advocacy groups and think-tanks.
"The Clean Water Restoration Act would not restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, but significantly expand it. It would expand federal clean water regulations to often dry land by re-defining dry lake beds, intermittent streams and, possibly, even tiny backyard fish ponds as 'waters of the United States,'" said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which organized the letter. "This expansive federal power goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972."
The letter also says CWRA would increase confusion within the already highly-litigated question of what waters are subject to regulation. Although the bill itself greatly expands federal power, as Congress' authority to regulate waters rests on the Commerce Clause, those waters that have no impact on interstate commerce would be immune from the authority of the Act. Knowing which waters meet the Commerce Clause test could be nearly impossible for the average landowner, however. Many cases would be settled only after expensive and protracted litigation.
"Rather than eliminate the ambiguity of the original law, CWRA would codify it. Instead of providing clear, predictable standards of regulation, CWRA would punt these decisions to the courts," said Ridenour.
This letter follows another letter, signed by 100 conservationists, family advocacy groups, civil rights leaders, sportsmen organizations, seniors advocates, think-tanks and taxpayer action groups in October 2007, expressing nearly identical concerns about CWRA. As hearings in the House and Senate about CWRA neared, this second letter was organized in response to demand from organizations concerned that the public, and many legislators, remain unaware of serious problems within this legislation.
The letter and list of signers is available online here (pdf). The October letter can be found here (pdf).
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C, now in its 26th year.
National Wildlife Federation's Global Warming Expert Calls for Voluntary Action
By David Ridenour:
Laura Hickey, senior director of global warming education at the National Wildlife Federation said, "If people participate in a voluntary system, then I don't see the need for a legislative strategy," according to an article in the March 19 Washington Post.
Okay, to be fair, Hickey wasn't referring to regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
She was referring to Catalogue Choice, a project set up by the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups to combat efforts to create a federal "do not mail" registry designed to stop junk mail. Catalogue Choice encourages retailers to voluntarily stop sending materials to people who sign up on Catalogue Choice's own "do not mail" registry.
All this is a bit confusing: The National Wildlife Federation supports voluntary action in this case, but also supports the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would impose an involuntary cap on carbon emissions.
It's not as though people don't already "participate in a voluntary system" to reduce carbon emissions. There is, for example, the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Why does NWF support voluntary action and see "no need for a legislative strategy" in one case, but not the other?
Perhaps because NWF would have to pay a price in one case, but not the other. The NWF derives a significant portion of its revenue through the mail and a federal "do not mail" list could cost it dearly. Lest we forget, junk mail can not only be annoying, but is transported by carbon-spewing planes and trucks -- something NWF is supposed to be against.
Say what one will about global warming skeptics: At least skeptics aren't hypocrites.
If Animals Ran Political Ads, What Would They Look Like?
To draw a bit of fun attention to the polar bear question (should they or should they not be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to "global warming"), The National Center for Public Policy Research, in conjunction with Citizens United, has released a parody political ad that reveals a few facts about the polar bear situation while having some fun.
The video has had over 5,000 YouTube views since its release four days ago, and has just been posted on the Media Research Center's new video sharing website Eyeblast.tv (worth checking out!).
For those who like a few more facts than a one-minute parody of a political commercial can deliver, we also offer a 5,000-word policy paper on polar bears. Or you can read our press release, reprinted below:
Parody Ad Takes Up Cause of Ringed Seals, Says Polar Bear Populations are Prosperous and Growing
Listing the Polar Bear as "Threatened" Under the ESA Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike; Says New Study Released with the Ad
In light of environmentalist campaigns pressuring the Administration to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the National Center for Public Policy Research, joined by Citizens United, has released for the Internet a lighthearted parody political ad to remind the public that the polar bears' situation isn't as dire as some environmental organizations are leading the public to believe.
The ad, a parody of the wild charges and breathless style of many political campaign ads, lets the public know what is not always clear from environmentalist lobbying campaigns: The global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago.
"Many people will be surprised to learn there are 22,000 polar bears and their population has doubled," said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "While obviously many aspects of our parody ad - such as the polar bears in suits, lobbying Congress - are complete fiction, the steady growth in the global polar bear population is real. We hope that people who view our parody ad seeking a laugh will remember that fact, and perhaps be inspired to look a little more deeply into the basis of environmentalist claims regarding the polar bear."
The ad is being released in conjunction with a National Center for Public Policy Research policy paper, "Listing the Polar Bear Under the Endangered Species Act Because of Projected Future Global Warming Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike," by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour.
The paper questions the wisdom of listing the polar bear as threatened based on environmentalist organizations' projections of future global warming because:
* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.
* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.
* The anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.
* Listing the polar bear as threatened on the basis of projected future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.
* Listing the polar bear based on projected global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.
* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.
"Having failed despite spending tens of millions of dollars to convince the public, or even a Democratic Congress, that drastic and very expensive greenhouse gas emission reductions are warranted to deter theorized global warming, environmental organizations are now hijacking the Endangered Species Act to do an end-run around our democratic institutions," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research and co-author of the paper. "The formal petition to the government seeking 'threatened' status for the polar bear makes it very clear: The environmental groups behind this scheme are trying to use the polar bear to force the government to impose a -- in their words -- 'drastic' reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. They want policies like those in the Kyoto global warming treaty forced upon Congress and the American public. The tragedy is that, if the environmentalists succeed, Americans -- especially lower-income Americans -- will be harmed, and so will the polar bears."
"Listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act could harm bear conservation efforts by eliminating revenues from the carefully-regulated sport hunting of polar bears by Americans and the importation of polar bear meat and trophies into the U.S. As hunting by non-Americans would replace hunting by Americans, nothing would be accomplished in terms of reducing the number of polar bears killed, but the revenue currently generated by American sport hunters for conservation and research efforts would be eliminated," added Amy Ridenour. "And what's more, global warming -- if the global warming theory turns out to be accurate -- would still occur, because greenhouse gas emissions in China, India, Europe and elsewhere are still growing by leaps and bounds."
Peyton Knight penned this letter to the New York Times in response to a February 27 op-ed by Alex Prud'homme, "There Will Be Floods." The Times did not print it, so I'll give it some exposure here:
Alex Prud'homme paints a scary picture of America's antiquated system of levees and fingers two culprits: a backlogged Army Corps of Engineers and lax wetlands protection due to a recent Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. There are two contradictions here.
He invokes the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, yet fails to mention that it was a wetlands protection lawsuit, filed by an environmental group, which prevented a massive hurricane barrier from being built 30 years ago. As Joseph Towers, former Army Corps chief counsel in the New Orleans district, lamented, "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded."
In addition, the Supreme Court ruling Prud'homme bemoans (Rapanos v. U.S.) should enhance the Corps' ability to focus on backlogged projects. Now the agency can spend less time regulating every isolated wet area in the country and focus on more pressing projects like levee rehabilitation.
Perhaps because there are so many broadcasters -- and talk radio guests -- among their ranks, Project 21 members have for years taken a keen interest in opposing a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. This past week, six of them submitted comments (pdf) to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern that proposed new "local programming" regulations could re-impose a version of the Fairness Doctrine thorugh the back door.
Concerned that proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations regarding "local programming content and diversity" could lead to a new "Fairness Doctrine," black broadcasting veterans affiliated with Project 21 have submitted comments to the FCC opposing new restrictions on currently-accepted political and social content.
"We've seen an explosion in broadcast content since the FCC set aside the political restrictions of the Fairness Doctrine over 20 years ago," said Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli. "To bring about new restrictions now would hurt businesses, political discourse and the diversity these proposed regulations purport to want to foster. All it will do is hurt free expression and free speech."
The FCC released a report in late January on the topic of "broadcast localism" that ostensibly seeks "to ensure that broadcasters are appropriately addressing the needs of their local communities." Some of the report's proposals include "increase[ing] local content and diversity in programming," "establish[ment of] permanent advisory boards... to consult periodically on community needs and issues" and new licensing guidelines to "ensure that all broadcasters provide some locally-oriented programming."
Project 21 members and other critics of new regulation of accepted broadcast content contend this would set the stage for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. This defunct FCC rule, requiring broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, was abolished in 1987. Between the 1980s and today, talk radio grew from 75 stations nationwide to around 1,800. It is feared that a return of content restrictions would return broadcasting to what former NBC "Meet the Press" host Bill Monroe called "timid, don't-rock-the-boat coverage."
It is also noted that technological innovations such as the Internet - with services such as blogs, YouTube and other web sites - and 24-hour broadcast news outlets now offers an environment in which access to all views is readily available.
"Media is a business driven by success and profit. While this FCC report proposes regulations with a veneer of promoting balance and fairness, a closer examination shows they will likely blunt today's most successful models of discourse," said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie, a former talk radio host. "Any government interference in content that draws views or listeners and does not violate accepted standards of decency should be viewed hyper-critically."
Project 21 members submitting comments against the FCC's Report on Broadcast Localism and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (MB Docket No. 04-233) include Chairman Mychal Massie, Fellow Deneen Borelli, and National Advisory Council members Kevin Martin, Bob Parks, the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson and Elder Doctor Levon Yuille. All have been involved in radio and television broadcasting.
David's op-ed on the many problems with ethanol continues to be picked up by newspapers (since the nine newspapers I mentioned Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Oakland Tribune, the Alameda Times-Star and the Argus in California have run it), and is generating an unsually high amount of comment emails -- all opposed to ethanol subsidies -- to the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Here's a sample of the letters we're getting:
My husband has been on this bandwagon for years. Ethanol makes no sense in any way.
Our ultra liberal daughter acted as if everybody knew how stupid this whole ethanol aberration was.
We were shocked to find one issue we could agree on.
Yet our congress rolls on mightily filling ADM's pockets and others with cash for destroying food crops and further increasing the worlds hunger problem.
As a right wing Jesus freak, I would like to add it is a sin to burn food when people are starving.
Sharon Milton Norphlet, Ar
Public interest in ethanol -- or, more precisely, public interest in ending ethanol subsidies and mandates -- appears to be greater than I had at first supposed. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps this is an issue on which we can win.
P.S. A bunch more have run it now, but I'll stop listing them all. _____
Peyton Knight takes a close look at Earthjustice polling on the Clean Water Act:
Last month, the environmental activists at Earthjustice breathlessly released the results of a poll the group had commissioned that supposedly reveals rural voters' feelings on the Clean Water Act. The purpose of this classic push poll is to give the impression that rural voting districts support a vast expansion of the Clean Water Act, and therefore, would support the Clean Water Restoration Act (H.R. 2421 and S. 1870), a bill designed to bring federal regulatory authority to every field drainage ditch, pond and prairie pothole in the nation.
However, a look at the actual polling data reveals a different story than the group presents in its press release.
For example, in its press release, Earthjustice claims: "Results from the survey of 300 randomly selected rural voters in each of three congressional districts in Illinois (15th), Ohio (18th) and Tennessee (4th), polled in mid-December, show that more than three-fourths of those polled indicated they were very concerned about pollution of lakes, rivers and streams."
This simply is not true. The poll results clearly show that an average of only 55 percent of those polled responded that they were "very concerned" about "pollution of lakes, rivers and streams." Thus, Earthjustice inflated the poll's actual results by over 20 percent.
In addition, the results show that a clear majority of those polled (roughly 63 percent) do not have ANY concerns about drinking water straight from the tap. This bit of inconvenient truth failed to make it into the Earthjustice press release.
Christine Matthews, president of the firm that conducted the poll for Earthjustice, states in the press release: "The notion that farmers might view environmental regulations as excessive was absolutely not in evidence here."
This may be true, however, only because Matthews' company didn't bother to ask many farmers. The polling data shows that a whopping 77 percent of those polled do not "currently own, operate, or work on a farm."
Earthjustice also trumpets that 55 percent of those polled agreed with the poll interviewer that "the government has not gone far enough with laws to protect the environment and to keep our water free from pollution." But considering the usual one-sided nature of push polls, this particular poll's 5.6 percent margin of error and the fact that those likely to be most affected by federal clean water regulations (i.e., farmers) weren't truly represented, this number is hardly impressive. In fact, nearly half of those questioned either responded that "the government has gone too far with laws regulating environmental protection which has hurt businesses and landowners," or didn't care enough to have an opinion.
Government Health Care Threatens Burgers and Fries?
Three Mississippi state lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban Mississippi restaurants from serving food to obese people.
We've written before how government bans on tobacco use in bars and resturants have reduced customer traffic in those establishments (here and here, for example). One can only imagine how few customers restaurants would have if they had to do height and weight checks on all patrons at the door.
As reported in the Junkfood Science blog, the bill's lead author, Republican W. T. Mayhall, Jr., says one of the reasons he wrote the bill is to "call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system."
I'm well aware of the way government health care systems deny people access to health care through waiting lines, cancelled operations, rationing of expensive drugs, etc. (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here for some examples), but this is perhaps the first case of it threatening access to burgers and fries.
Doggone government health care fanatics not only want to end our lives early, they want to cut out half the fun of what life we'll have left!
But perhaps I fret needlessly. The bill bans serving food to obese people, but says nothing about serving alcohol.
What might an effective environmental movement be like?
WILLisms writes what could, and should, be the philosophical basis of a new environmentalist manifesto:
I tend to think of myself as an environmentalist, but completely removed from today's movement. I reject the Marxism that pervades the modern environmental movement. On the contrary, the way we can best improve our environment is to make everyone rich enough to afford it (something that is already happening); once enough people have enough dough, they move into the next phase of human actualization. Sure, we still have to cross a few priorities off the top of the ole "to do" list, but once a critical mass of people can afford a cleaner environment, they'll go ahead and buy it.
The answer to future environmental problems will be found in the minds and efforts of entrepreneurs, who can only succeed if there are plenty of yuppies wealthy enough to afford to become early adopters for various green ideas. Sometimes I wonder how much healthier our environment would be if we had seen a GDP growth rate of just 1 or 2% higher each year, over the course of the 20th century. The U.S. could easily have a 30 or 40 trillion dollar-per-year economy, instead of a 14 trillion dollar one. Then I start thinking of how 1 or 2% each year over the next century could mean the difference of hundreds of trillions of dollars of wealth, yet how we're not always maximizing our pro-growth policies. Those hundreds of trillions in potentially-lost dollars are precisely what could produce the brilliant breakthroughs that will improve our planet.
So, to me, when I see enviro-luddites burning down homes and torching SUVs, when I see so many people transfixed on punitively taxing carbon and subsidizing allegedly better alternatives, when I see anti-intellectual hysteria over a degree Fahrenheit of global warming over a century's time, and when I see all sorts of anti-business taxes and regulations masquerading as necessary for the environment, I see a lot of negative unintended consequences. I see people standing in the way of progress. I tend to view today's collection of largest environmental interest groups, replete with anti-human population control worldview and socialist overtones, as-- at best-- neutral for the environment in the short term and terrible for the environment over the very long term.
There's a lost more to Will's post, including a comparison of air pollution levels between 1980 and 2006, but I just had to quote the above before suggesting you go here to read the rest. ____
Ethanol. Raises food prices. Hurts the environment. Harms the Poor.
The House of Representatives is set to vote today on an energy bill that would require a seven-fold increase in the use of ethanol over the next 15 years.
However, as National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso reports in a study released today, corn prices already have doubled since last year, in large part because Congress is mandating that food be converted to fuel.
Says Dana, in part:
For the past four decades, food prices have remained fairly stable, lagging far behind inflation. But as the USDA reports, food prices this year are soaring, rising twice the rate of inflation - the highest annual increase in over a decade. Corn prices, which doubled since last year, are close to $4 a bushel. Eggs are up 44 percent from last year, while milk, up 21 percent, has jumped to $3.83 a gallon - the highest retail price since World War Two.
What's driving record food prices? Federal policies mandating more food for fuel are a big factor. Requirements that we use more ethanol over oil for energy use are causing us to divert larger amounts of farmland from food to corn-based fuel, contributing to record food costs. In 2000, we were using a modest 6 percent of our cropland for ethanol production. Last year, that share increased to 20 percent; this year, one quarter of our corn harvest is diverted from food to fuel.
Dana also points out that "producing biofuels leaves a huge ecological footprint, exceeding that of fossil fuels."
Ethanol isn't so great for low-income Americans, either, who already spend about 40 percent of their budget on food.
Dana adds:
None of this will matter, of course, when Congress acts on the energy bill. As is the way of the world in the nation's capital, the powerful agribusiness and ethanol interests will trump science, and Congress will turn a blind eye to the poor's struggle against soaring food prices.
Ethanol. Raises food prices. Hurts the environment. Harms the poor.
On Cap and Trade, Senators Advised to Learn from 'Europe's Dirty Secret'
A contribution from Peyton Knight:
As the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee prepares to vote this week on the Lieberman/Warner global warming bill (S. 2191), which would strap the U.S. with mandatory carbon dioxide restrictions and establish a cap-and-trade system whereby industries could buy and sell so-called emissions credits, Senators are advised to examine Europe's failure with a similar system, lest they follow in kind.
According to O'Brien, some U.S. policymakers have not learned the lessons from Europe's failed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - despite their claims to the contrary.
O'Brien noted that Europe's market for emissions credits has effectively collapsed. "It's a Soviet-style system," he said, "that is open to all kinds of abuses." He explained that big energy companies, industries and special interests have made windfall profits selling excess emissions credits. Meanwhile, in the first year of the ETS (2005-2006) emissions rose 3.6 percent in the United Kingdom and rose 0.8 percent across the European Union as a whole.
O'Brien also warned that the way the Lieberman/Warner bill distributes emissions credits - namely, giving a good portion of them away - makes it more likely that the bill will resemble a pork-barrel boondoggle along the lines of current U.S. agriculture spending bills, or worse, Europe's ETS. Because of this, O'Brien said he does not get a sense that U.S. lawmakers understand "the disaster they're signing on for."
Although the EU is trying to mend its ETS, claiming to have learned its lessons, O'Brien and Open Europe still see future failure. In order for the ETS to work, he says, there must be a good degree of certainty in the long-term cost of carbon. Without that certainty, companies will not invest in the system. In the initial phase of the ETS, the EU put way too many emissions credits into the system - hence the collapse of the market and the rise of emissions. However, "fixing" this by allowing fewer credits in the future, or adjusting the amount of carbon dioxide that companies are allowed to emit, would only contribute to the underlying problem of uncertainty, O'Brien said.
Click here to download Open Europe's recent report: "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working."
Hurricane Season Ends with Egg on NOAA's Proverbial - and Politicized - Face
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been inflating the number of named storms. This aids political efforts for the imposition of costly caps on energy use by helping to fuel the unproven belief that human activities are causing more frequent, and more intense, hurricanes and named storms:
NOAA Inflating Storm Numbers and Aiding Political Campaign for Carbon Restrictions, Group Says; End of 2007 Hurricane Season Shows NOAA Forecasts Wrong for Second Year in a Row
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is inflating the count of tropical storms and aiding a political campaign to regulate energy use in the process, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Today marks the official end of the 2007 hurricane season, and for the second year in a row the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's forecast for the season was wrong. NOAA had predicted there would be seven to nine hurricanes, three to five major hurricanes and 13-17 "named storms." The season ended with just five hurricanes, two of which were major (category three or above) and 14 named storms.
"NOAA correctly predicted the number of named storms, but it's not clear this statistic has any meaning, as the agency is inflating today's storm numbers relative to storms in the past," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research and author of a forthcoming new report on this year's hurricane season. "NOAA is doing so both by changing the criteria for naming storms and by failing to account for changes in technology that make detection of storms much easier."
In its annual hurricane season forecast and subsequent tropical cyclone reports, for example, NOAA makes no mention that it started naming subtropical storms for the first time in 2002. This year, one storm - equal to 7% of named storms - was a subtropical storm.
State-of-the art equipment is also enabling observers to detect cyclones they would have missed in the past. The QuikScat, an orbiting satellite that measures the ocean's surface winds, produces more than 200 times the amount of ocean wind information that had been available from ships.
"Unfortunately, NOAA's forecasts and cyclone reports suggesting increased activity are being seized upon by activists to support their campaign government take-over of energy," said Ridenour. "There's no truth to the claim that global warming is putting cyclones on steroids, unless we're talking about one of the side-effects of long-term steroid use - impotency."
The National Center's observations mirror the findings of Neil Frank, former director of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, who says that as many as six of this year's named storms wouldn't have been named in past decades.
Bill Read, deputy director of the National Hurricane Center, disputed this in published reports saying, "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the storms named this year would have also been named."
"The National Hurricane Center started naming subtropical storms for the first time just five years ago," said Ridenour. "To suggest that the criteria for naming storms hasn't changed is simply dishonest."
Auto Efficiency Standards Change Little; Auto Efficiency Changes Much -- and New York Times Doesn't Notice
Peyton Knight points out that the New York Times editorial page is so enamored by regulation, it has lost sight of reality:
The New York Times is worried that some of the most anti-energy provisions of the anti-energy bill, which Democratic House and Senate leaders are currently trying to finalize, might get scrapped for expediency's sake.
Arguing in favor a significant increase in fuel economy standards for vehicles, the Times notes: "Efficiency standards have changed little in 30 years."
More important than standards, however, is efficiency itself, which has certainly improved over three decades.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average fuel economy of the U.S. fleet of passenger cars in 1975 was 13.5 miles per gallon (mpg). In 2006 it was 24.6 mpg - representing a fuel efficiency increase of 82 percent.
In 1975 the average fuel economy for light trucks was 11.6 mpg. In 2006 it was 18.4 - representing a fuel efficiency increase of 59 percent.
Market forces have generated a wide array of choices that fit consumers' preferences. Consumers who prefer a four-door sedan that gets 46 mpg, which is 11 mpg higher than what the Senate energy bill calls for by the year 2020, need only go buy one.
House Passes Massive Heritage Area Bill, But Not Without Controversy
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1483, the "Celebrating America's Heritage Act." The bill would create six new national heritage areas, including the controversial Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area, and increase federal funding for nine existing heritage areas by 50 percent.
That's the bad news.
But the National Center for Public Policy Research's Peyton Knight sees some good news:
The somewhat good news is that the bill was hotly debated on the floor of the House, and when it was finally put to a vote, 122 congressmen (all Republicans) voted against it. This represents the most opposition to a heritage area boondoggle since 1994, when the House passed the "American Heritage Areas Partnership Program," which received 137 "no" votes and later died in the Senate.
H.R. 1483 passed despite the objections of congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), who recognize the threat the Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area poses to local governance and the rights of property owners in their districts. In a rather unprecedented move, promoters of the heritage area in Congress opted to force the heritage designation on congressmen Bartlett and Goode, rejecting the Congressmen's request to have their districts removed from the heritage area's boundaries.
During debate on the floor of the House, Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) made strong arguments against H.R. 1483 and stressed the need to return to fiscal sanity and better protect property rights. He pointed out that if two congressmen can be run roughshod with a heritage area designation they do not want, so too can property owners within the boundaries of a heritage area. Congressman Bishop also entered into the Congressional Record a coalition letter (pdf) spearheaded by The National Center and signed by 114 groups and local leaders calling for an end to National Heritage Areas.
Congressman Bartlett made an impassioned argument for strong property rights protections and a fiscal restraint, neither of which is represented in H.R. 1483. Congressman Bartlett also pointed out the irony that H.R. 1483 doesn't so much hallow America's heritage as it tramples upon it.
"All of our nation's founders knew of the intimate connection between personal liberty, taxpayers' interests and property rights," said Bartlett. "H.R. 1483 tramples over rather than honors these hallowed principles."
One month ago, when the Celebrating America's Heritage Act passed the House Natural Resources Committee along mostly party lines, 15 Republicans on the committee signed a letter in opposition to the measure, calling it "a thumb in the eye to private property rights advocates and fiscal responsibility."
"Those who will not celebrate are private property owners who may have an empowered, enriched, and Congressionally-blessed heritage area management entity to spar with," reads the letter.
Earlier this week, The Heritage Foundation published an excellent report on national heritage areas, and suggests that if H.R. 1483 makes it to the president's desk, he should veto it. The Heritage report concludes:
"H.R. 1483 would deepen the federal government's involvement in select local economic development initiatives at considerable cost to taxpayers and at the expense of the core mission of the NPS [National Park Service], whose faltering stewardship over the nation's most precious natural and historical places leaves much to be desired. Of potentially greater concern is the growing role for NHAs [national heritage areas] in interfering with the property rights of private citizens. This Congress should reject approaches that designate new NHAs or expand existing ones. If H.R. 1483 is passed, the President should veto it."
For more on National Heritage Areas, a few of our more recent publications are here, here (pdf), here, and here, among others; some oldies-but-goodies on the subject are here, here, here, here and here. Or just plug "national heritage area" into the National Center's search engine; goodness knows you'll find plenty to read. _____
So you are a group who believes that we must disregard our proud American heritage.You are a sorry bunch.You probably also believe in legalizing drugs because there is money to made.Or why not sell the Washington Monument to the Communist Chinese.
It is amazing how many people believe that if you don't shower something -- in this case, six regions of the United States -- with earmarks and then take steps to federalize them, you don't value them at all.
Celebrating America's Heritage Act Wins in House Committee in Mostly Party Line Vote
An update on this week's action by the House Resources Committee on the Celebrating America's Heritage Act, a step toward federal zoning (with pork attached). Peyton Knight contributes this update:
On Wednesday, the House Natural Resources Committee passed the Celebrating America's Heritage Act, 23 - 12, on a mostly party line vote. The bill would create six new National Heritage Areas and significantly increase federal funding for nine existing heritage areas. Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) was the only Republican to join 22 Democrats on the committee in support of the bill.
Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered a commonsense amendment to the bill that would have excluded Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's (R-MD) and Rep. Virgil Goode's (R-VA) districts from the controversial Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area - one of the new heritage areas created by the bill. Congressmen Bartlett and Goode are rightly concerned that the Hallowed Ground heritage area, which is being pushed by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), does not sufficiently protect the property rights of folks who own land and homes within the proposed boundaries of the area. In order to protect their constituents' rights, they want no part of it. In a rather unprecedented move, Heller's amendment was voted down, thus forcing a heritage area designation on two congressmen who don't want it in their districts.
We've received reports that Rep. Wolf, a powerful senior member on the House Appropriations Committee, actually attended the hearing, despite not being a member of the Resources Committee, and sat prominently at the witness table, staring down his colleagues in an apparent effort to make certain his heritage area emerged unscathed.
In addition, we received word that an attorney from the D.C. law and lobby firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld also attended the mark-up to help lobby support for Wolf's heritage area.
During the vote, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) made a compelling argument against national heritage areas, and read portions of the coalition letter (pdf) that the National Center for Public Policy Research delivered to members of the committee earlier this month, signed by over 100 influential think tanks, state policy groups, elected officials, sportsmen and grassroots leaders. The letter opposed the creation of any additional heritage areas. Rep. Bishop also entered the National Center's letter into the Congressional Record.
As soon as the mark-up ended, Congressmen Bartlett, Goode and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) rushed to a meeting of the Republican Study Committee, where they informed their colleagues of the dangers (pdf) of national heritage areas in general and the Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area in particular.
The Hill newspaper's Congress Blog covered the letter we organized, signed by 114 organizations and local leaders, calling on Congress not to support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for the creation of new heritage areas.
It begins:
Congress Expands Opportunity for Self-Dealing While Claiming Progress on Ethics
While Senators were congratulating themselves for passing ethics reform, they approved a series of “national heritage area” bills significantly increasing the potential for self-dealing and corruption. National heritage areas are creations of Congress in which special interest groups, whose work at times has been funded through earmarks, team up with the National Park Service to influence decisions over local land use.
The federal government should not be forcing taxpayers in one state to pay for special interest lobbying in another.
In response, The National Center for Public Policy Research brought together 114 policy groups and local leaders to call on Congress not to support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for the creation of new heritage areas.
The letter is being delivered to the House and Senate leadership and members of the natural resource committees September 4.
If the investigations into earmarking abuse tell us anything, it is that we need greater accountability, not less. National heritage areas push us toward less government accountability. Committees composed of unelected and unaccountable individuals - some of whom have a financial stake in local land use decisions - are given substantial influence over these very decisions through national heritage area designations. If you think power corrupts elected officials, just wait and see what it does to unelected ones.
Dr. Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation has described how a federally-funded partnership seeking Congressional authority to manage a proposed new heritage area is apparently planning to use its management authority, if granted by Congress, to give itself a “near monopoly on real estate development opportunities” within the proposed heritage area. Such a monopoly presumably would be immensely profitable.
“National heritage areas are nothing more than government sanctioned looting of private property rights, and in many instances, minorities and lower income folks bear the biggest brunt of this theft,” said Deneen Borelli, Fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network.
The letter also thanks Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) for his “leadership on this important issue.”
The Hill is read by nearly everyone on Capitol Hill, so it is getting increasingly difficult for Congressmen and Senators to claim that they don't know why there are serious ethical and Constitutional problems with national heritage areas.
If the Founding Fathers had wanted local zoning decisions made by the federal government, they would have written the Constitution that way. _____
114 Groups & Leaders Write Congress About National Heritage Areas
The National Center for Public Policy Research on Tuesday delivered to the Congressional leadership, as well as the members and leadership of the natural resource committees, a letter signed by 114 organizations and leaders calling on Congress to stop creating and funding national heritage areas.
The letter says:
Dear [Elected Official]:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against government abuse of property rights. The "bridge to nowhere" and other wasteful programs triggered angry protests against the practice of earmarking.
National heritage areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one.
National heritage areas are preservation zones where land use and property rights can be restricted. They give the National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many with histories of hostility toward property rights) substantial influence by giving them the authority to create land use "management plans" and then the authority to disburse federal money to local governments to promote their plans.
As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on heritage areas states: "[National heritage areas] encourage local governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their property."
The proposed "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act" provides a good case study on how heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and influence projects.
The chief lobbying organization for this heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage area - an earmark that was granted before the organization was even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense of the rights of local landowners.
We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle of representative government and this inherently local function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests the authority to develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance their efforts.
Once established, National heritage areas become permanent units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAO, "sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting federal funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received funding reauthorization from the Congress."
Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights protections and less pork-barrel spending - not more earmarks to programs that harm property rights.
Please do not support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.
Sincerely,
David Ridenour Vice President National Center for Public Policy Research
J. William Lauderback Executive Vice President The American Conservative Union
John Berthoud President National Taxpayers Union
Paul Poister Executive Director Partnership for the West
Larry Pratt Executive Director Gun Owners of America
William Niemeyer Mayor City of West Alton, MO
Ryan Ellis Executive Director American Shareholders Association
Peter Flaherty President National Legal and Policy Center
Steve Snow Supervisor Loudoun County, VA
Carol W. LaGrasse President Property Rights Foundation of America
Tom DeWeese President American Policy Center
Rachel Thomas Property Rights Advocate Huachuca City, AZ
Rose Ellen Ray Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights Loudoun County, VA
Paul Driessen Senior Policy Advisor Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Maxine Korman Korman Ranch Hinsdale, Montana
Gerald Hobbs President Public Lands for the People
John Grigsby Vice President Taxpayers for Accountable Government
Don Parmeter Executive Director American Property Coalition
Leo Schwartz Chairman Virginia Land Rights Coalition
Pat King Anvil Ranch Tucson, AZ
Tom Borelli, Ph.D. Portfolio Manager Free Enterprise Action Fund
John and Connie Morris Members, Tongue River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus
Brad VanDyke Representative Rural Utahns for Local Solutions
Jerry Hamilton Environmental Coordinator Formation Capital Corporation
F. Patricia Callahan President and General Counsel American Assoc. of Small Property Owners
Erich Veyhl Publisher Maine Property Rights News
Dane vonBreichenruchardt President U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
Mark Williamson Founder and President Federal Intercessors
New Mexico Federal Lands Council
New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
Beth Machens Board of Aldermen City of West Alton, MO
Janet M. Neustadt Board of Aldermen City of West Alton, MO
William J. Richter Board of Aldermen City of West Alton, MO
Deborah Anderson Treasurer City of West Alton, MO
Susan Silk City Clerk City of West Alton, MO
Charlotte Meyers Assistant Administrator City of West Alton, MO
Ora B. Anderson, Jr. Planning and Zoning Commission City of West Alton, MO
Ray Ponciroli Board of Aldermen City of Portage, MO
Paul M. Weyrich National Chairman Coalitions for America
Tom McClusky Vice President of Government Affairs Family Research Council
Jay Lehr Science Director The Heartland Institute
Jim Martin President 60 Plus Association
Bill Moshofsky Vice President Oregonians In Action
Niger Innis National Spokesman Congress of Racial Equality
Gregory Cohen President and CEO American Highway Users Alliance
Richard Falknor Executive Vice President Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.
Linda C. Runbeck President American Property Coalition
Thomas K. Remington Managing Editor U.S. Hunting Today
Lew Uhler President National Tax Limitation Committee
Jon Caldara President Independence Institute
Dan Byfield President American Land Foundation
John Taylor President Tertium Quids
Susan Carlson Chairman and CEO American Civil Rights Union
Gary Palmer President Alabama Policy Institute
Lenore Hardy Barrett State Representative Idaho
Jonathan DuHamel President People for the West-Tucson
Jack and Patricia Shockey President and Director Citizens for Property Rights
Fred Grau Executive Director Take Back Pennsylvania
Mike Dail Chairman American Land Foundation
Chuck Cushman President American Land Rights Association
James Stergios Executive Director Pioneer Institute
Deneen Borelli Fellow Project 21
Marilyn Hayman Chairman, Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights
Bruce Colbert Executive Director, Property Owners Association of Riverside County, CA
Randall and Ruth Lillard Farmers and Landowners Madison County, VA
Joyce Morrison Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist Fieldon, IL
Donald Castellucci, Jr. Councilman, Town of Owego Tioga County, NY
Milari Madison Property Owner Loudoun County, VA
Robert L. Sansom Farmer and Landowner Madison County, VA
Mary E. Darling Sonoita, AZ
James Vadnais Port Angeles, WA
Floyd Rathbun Fallon, Nevada
Steven and Peggy Breen Boise, Idaho
Peggy Bogart Access Advocate
Dan Goulet Portland, OR
Susan Freis Falknor Bluemont, VA
Fred L. Smith President Competitive Enterprise Institute
Matt Kibbe President FreedomWorks
Mychal Massie Advisory Council Chairman Project 21
Steve Baldwin Executive Director Council for National Policy Action, Inc.
Caren Cowen Executive Director New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association
Randy T. Simmons Mayor, Providence City, UT Professor, Utah State University
Donald E. Wildmon Founder and Chairman American Family Association
Leroy Watson Legislative Director National Grange
Kelsey Zahourek Executive Director Property Rights Alliance
Roy Cordato, Ph.D. VP for Research and Resident Scholar John Locke Foundation
C.J. Hadley Publisher/Editor Range Magazine
Elizabeth Arnold Grassroots Consultant, Environmental Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK
Greg Blankenship President Illinois Policy Institute
Bill Wilson President Americans for Limited Government
Jane Hogan Secretary Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc.
Katherine Lehman President People for the USA Grange #835
Howard Hutchinson Executive Director Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties
C. Preston Noell III President Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Dr. William Greene President RightMarch.com
Leo T. Bergeron President Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed Council
Eugene Delgaudio President Public Advocate of the U.S., Inc.
Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D. Charter Member Virginians for Property Rights
John McClaughry President Ethan Allen Institute
Richard O. Rowland President Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
James W. Jarrell, Sr. Board Member Virginia Bear Hunters Association
Harold L. Stephens Member Citizens to Protect the Confluence
Jerry Fennell Chairman Jicarilla Mining District
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Fellow National Center for Public Policy Research
Amy Ridenour Director Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
A press release, "Hypocrisy Watch: Congress Expands Opportunity for Self-Dealing While Claiming Historic Progress on Government Ethics," describing the project in more detail is available here. _____
Showdown in New York: Spurred in part by information in a new report by New York State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky (D), the state legislature is worrying that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers $8 to enter lower Manhattan on weekdays would put a disproportionate burden on low and middle-income drivers.
Mayor Bloomberg has other priorities, namely, the $500 million in tax dollars the Bush Administration has promised New York if the driving restrictions are adopted by next Monday. As reported in the New York Times:
"With this window of opportunity rapidly closing, it’s imperative that our state leaders put aside their competing interests and come together on this issue,” the mayor said. “To leave this half a billion dollars just sitting on the table would be absolutely ridiculous."
"Sitting on the table" is mayor-speak for not requiring the residents of the other 49 states to subsidize a new transportation bureaucracy in New York City-- a bureaucracy that, apparently, would hurt low and middle-income people.
Not incidentally, the $8 toll is unlikely to relieve traffic congestion. Assemblyman Brodsky's report says it would increase driving speeds an average of one sixth of one mile per hour. By comparison, a typical comfortable walking speed for a healthy adult is three miles per hour.
From Stella Dulanya and Peyton Knight, a report on the latest Senate global warming hearing:
Yesterday, National Center Senior Fellow Thomas J. Borelli, Ph.D., testified on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund before the U.S Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector."
In his testimony, Tom stressed that CEOs who succumb to, or attempt to capitalize on, the political flavor-of-the-day risk harming their company's long-term profitability.
As Tom pointed out:
All too often, today's CEOs make decisions based on appeasing social and political pressure or by trying to generate revenue through legislation that favor their company. In our view, these strategies are shortsighted because they stymie competition, innovation and jeopardize future earnings.
For these very reasons, we strongly oppose cap and trade legislation and company participation in the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). Accordingly, we are in opposition to legislation that sets carbon dioxide limits and allocations for the utility industry.
While the science implicating human activity on global warming is uncertain and speculative, the economic costs of cap and trade legislation are certain and severe. We are deeply concerned about the affect of cap and trade on both the U.S. economy and on the future profitability of the companies in our portfolio - including PG&E and Duke Energy.
Borelli also discussed the specific CEOs, including Caterpillar, Inc.'s James Owens:
Caterpillar's CEO James Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis of cap and trade before deciding to join USCAP. In addition, he was not aware of the CBO study that found cap and trade regulations would hurt his coal industry customers.
This CEO survey illustrates a complete ignorance about the consequences of global warming regulations on the economy and their businesses.
Caterpillar's participation in USCAP is a perfect illustration of CEO incompetence and deception surrounding cap and trade legislation. Caterpillar's future profit depends on a growing economy and growth in the energy and mining industries. In fact, according to its 10-K filing with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), it cites
