Sign Up to Receive National Center's Free "News of Interest" Newsletter

Vermont’s WJJR Radio’s Terry Jaye wrote today to say this about the National Center’s new newsletter, News of Interest:

Again you are a source of amusement. Thanks for the material. Use it all the time. But remember, we are laughing AT you, not with you. National center for public policy [sic]. Just curious, what nation you are affiliated with …Aryan?

Happy Festivus.

Want to see what has the liberals’ knickers in a twist? Subscribe today to the National Center’s free e-mail list and receive “News of Interest” and our press releases when they’re hot off the (figurative) press!

Go here to sign up.

Privacy and Constitutional Issues at Play as Feds Move to Require Black Boxes in Cars, Says National Center Analyst

The federal government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is soon expected to announce that it will begin requiring that all new U.S. cars and light trucks be equipped with "data recorders" -- better known as "black boxes."

Ford, GM, Toyota and Mazda are among the manufacturers who already have such devices in their new cars, but not all manufacturers' devices have been recording the same data.

GM has included some version of an automotive black box in many vehicles since 1990, and it made them standard equipment in 1995.

In 2006, NHTSA ruled that all black boxes in the 2013 model year or later must collect at least 15 types of specified information. According to the Detroit News, "The recorders collect data for the seconds of a crash, including whether the driver is wearing a seatbelt, speed and whether the brakes were applied."

In August, National Center Adjunct Fellow and Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper wrote a National Policy Analysis paper, "Coming to a Car Near You? The Department of Transportation's Creepy Black Box." The paper looked at legislation in Congress to make automotive black boxes mandatory, and was critical of measures to require the boxes, saying they invade the privacy of car owners.

Horace was not reassured by requirements that black box data will be kept private unless ordered released by a court:

...Don't think the protection of judicial oversight will protect your privacy. This provision merely means that your private information will be accessible for any legal fishing expeditions in which someone has been able to convince a judge to issue a court order. The language regarding court-ordered access isn't limited to whether or not there has been an automobile accident, but instead allows access for whatever reason a judge may deem appropriate.

Of course you could always hire an attorney to challenge any court order, but you've no guarantee of success and you'd be fully responsible for all costs associated with the challenge. In other words, your driving data could be retrieved via court order pursuant to a billing disagreement with the service department that did a repair on your vehicle, as part of divorce discovery, or even to settle a dispute with the IRS over your mileage deductions on your income tax forms. An enterprising attorney could probably come up with many more reasons to get your data.

Moreover, this data could be a bonanza for the insurance industry. Instead of trusting customers to track how many miles they travel a year and merely tracking ticket or accident data, they could insist that customers make their EDR accessible. The technology already exists so that your overall driving data could be instantly accessed at either mandatory checkpoints or even accessed electronically via the Internet while your car is parked at home.

Horace opposes making black boxes mandatory, and also believes requiring them in all vehicles could be unconstitutional:

The use of EDRs also raises serious constitutional concerns. Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court confronted the issue of government tracking automobiles in United States v. Jones. In that case, an FBI task force had attached a GPS tracking device, without first obtaining a valid warrant, to an accused drug dealer's Jeep Grand Cherokee while it was parked in Maryland.

For four weeks, the government tracked the movements of the Grand Cherokee with accuracy to within 50-100 feet. Remarkably, the federal government sought to claim that it was perfectly legal to gather this data and use it in court without a warrant. In a major blow against the surveillance state and a win for privacy, the Supreme Court ruled that this constituted a form of search protected by the Fourth Amendment.9 Unfortunately the ruling still leaves open the question of whether government mandated EDRs would be treated differently than surreptitiously placed tracking devices. Other remaining questions include what the standard should be for allowing warrants for these devices or how much data should be allowed in and over what period.

Even if the most pressing problem facing America today included resolving disputed claims after an automobile accident, mandating a federal "creeper" box to track your every movement in your car or truck is not the right solution.

Mandating an EDR in every new car takes away the option of Americans not to purchase a vehicle that collects data in a significant, comprehensive and intrusive way.

Read all of Horace's paper here.

In Unemployment Figures, Project 21's Green Thinks Americans Got What They Wanted

Project 21 member Derryck Green, doesn’t think there’s a lot to celebrate regarding today’s minimal reported gains in the national employment numbers.  Derryck says:

Our nation’s economic situation continues to worsen under Barack Obama’s leadership.  Is that his fault, or the fault of the American people?  And, at this point, is it really a bad thing?

Unemployment is reported by the government to have dropped to 7.7 percent in November, but there a lot of people who are still not celebrating like I’m sure they are at the White House.  Hidden by the hype about the drop is that black men have an unemployment rate of 13 percent.  Black women have an 11.4 percent unemployment rate.  The overall unemployment rate for Hispanics is ten percent.

Furthermore, the “U-6” unemployment rate that covers all those who are out of work and those who are underemployed and so disheartened that they left the workforce for lack of hope is still up at 14.4 percent.  This figure is backed up by a similar Gallup tracking poll says that their calculated November underemployment rate — covering those who are unemployed along with those who are working part-time but desiring full time work (and without the aid of seasonal adjustment) — rose to 17 percent.  At 8.3 percent, the Gallup seasonably-adjusted overall unemployment rate is higher than the government’s figure.

And this is all allegedly without any additional fallout from Hurricane Sandy.  Maybe that will change in December or upon adjustment.

The President’s solution to this embarrassment is to call for $250 billion in more stimulus spending along with increased tax hikes on the rich — beginning with individuals who make $200,000 or more per year and families making $250,000 or more.

By continuing to press for increased taxes on “the rich” while making no serious and sincere advances to diminish the size and cost of entitlement spending — which adds to the deficit and leads to more borrowing and debt — the President continues to demonstrate an apparent lack of seriousness about reducing the nation’s debt and seems willing to take the nation off the “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year or sometime in the near future.

Even worse, President Obama actually floated the idea of giving himself almost imperial authority over Congress.  He want to be able to arbitrarily raise the debt limit at his convenience — which is a further indication that he’s unconcerned about restoring America’s economic viability.

The issue that all Americans need to be aware of is that going “off the cliff” means the Clinton-era tax rates would automatically be re-imposed, meaning that more Americans will be required to pay taxes — including many who aren’t currently paying taxes.  The payroll tax cut also ends.  Increased taxes will also be paid to cover Obamacare costs.

All of these things mean that all Americans will really pay even more than the Clinton-era rates the President so desires.

President Obama seems to mistakenly believe that — because 51 percent of American voters selected for him in November  — that he now has 100-percent of America’s support for his economic plan.  But his perspective, rooted in arrogance, can be somewhat understood.

Given how naïve and poorly-mismanaged his economic stewardship was during his first four years — having been wrong on stimulus spending, cash for clunkers, blown billions on failed “green jobs” programs, a focus on Obamacare rather than the economy, not passing a budget and continuing to spend money America doesn’t have, quantitative easing and the expansion of the welfare state — the American people should have voted him out.

After all, he was the one who said back in February of 2009 that being an economic failure would result in a “one-term proposition.”

Instead, Obama was returned to office to, in his mind, continue his plan of deficit-spending and blaming the rich for not wanting to pay their fair share.  In other words, he can justifiably believe he was reelected to finish what he started.

Maybe he should.  Maybe America should have to suffer through this.  Consider it cathartic.  As Marc Thiessen recently wrote in a Washington Post commentary: “Americans had a choice this November, and they voted for bigger government.  Rather than shielding voters from the consequences of their decisions, let them pay for it.”

Since more Americans voted in favor of bigger government, maybe they should pay for it.  As Thiessen points out, allowing Obama to get all his wishes would “reset” the baseline for taxes, making the Bush rates the good-old days and “put more people on the tax rolls, and give more Americans a stake in constraining government spending” in the future.

Project 21's Stacy Swimp Gets Cell Phone Smashed by Union Protesters in Lansing, But Lays Seeds for Growth with Rank-and-File

Project 21's Stacy Swimp had a run-in with labor union protestors yesterday that left him with a smashed cell phone, but also with optimism about the ability of conservatives to reach rank-and-file union members with our message.

The scene was Lansing, Michigan, where the state legislature was to vote on (and ultimately, passed) right-to-work legislation for both private and public sector employees (excluding, unfortunately, police and fire). Stacy and Scott Hagerstrom from Michigan Americans for Prosperity joined the forces in support of right-to-work laws, broadcasting on the scene Ronald Reagan's famous right-to-work speech and talking with union members about what conservatives really believe.

Stacy has long been a proponent not only of right-to-work laws, but also the as-soon-as-possible repeal of the racist Davis-Bacon Act.

Davis-Bacon was adopted decades ago with the support of organized labor as a way to keep black Americans away from unionized highway government-construction jobs particularly prized by workers -- prized because the legislation also sets an artificially high wage rate for those jobs, to the detriment of taxpayers.

The law remains racist, and is still wasteful.

It is safe to say that most of the overwhelming number of black American voters who voted to re-elect Barack Obama know nothing about the semi-obscure Davis-Bacon Act (the mainstream media apparently is not offended by it), which Obama has never tried to repeal. Not so for the leadership of America's labor unions, who know all about it, love it, and staunchly oppose its repeal.

The injustice fuels Stacy's outrage, and he spends a good bit of time educating Americans, particularly black Americans, about Davis-Bacon.

In 2011, Stacy wrote that President Obama should try to "repeal the Davis-Bacon Act that regulates federal labor agreements. This would save taxpayers over $10 billion per year and free up more money for more infrastructure projects that the Heritage Foundation estimates will create more than 150,000 jobs."

Stacy also has pointed out that when members of the U.S. House of Representatives' Congressional Black Caucus had the opportunity to vote to repeal Davis-Bacon, only Rep. Allen West, a conservative Republican, did so.

But back to Lansing. An altercation occurred after Stacy scolded a union demonstrator for shoving a lady who was present to support right-to-work. Sadly, Stacy's cell phone did not survive.

But heck, what would a union free speech look like without at least a little violence? After a century-and-a-quarter of union-reasoning-with-fists, we wouldn't recognize it!

But despite the violence, and the fact that the loss of the cell phone meant that Stacy missed a phone interview with KVEL in Utah (apologies, Lincoln Brown!) Stacy nonetheless is optimistic. What he said about the picture, above, taken of him talking with union protestors explains why:

[I'm] in the belly of the beast explaining to union protesters how what they have been led to believe about right to work is not true. I found that there were many who were very open to the information I shared.

One man introduced me to his daughter and said: "This gentleman is a nice man."

If I were a gambling man, I would say half of the protesters [protested in Lansing] because they felt they had to, but will themselves opt out paying union dues soon!

As Stacy says about his many conversations, "I spent a great amount of my time talking to union protesters. I have never believed in merely preaching to the choir. Everyone has a 'sphere of influence.' If we can plant seeds, it can one day lead to change. Just planting seeds!"

The Grouse Wars: Spotted Owls of the Prairie States Threaten Energy Production

The federal government has announced it’s opening 430 square miles (278,000 acres) in the Atlantic to wind development: areas 10 miles off Rhode Island in state waters and, in federal waters, areas for lease in Nantucket Sound (off Cape Cod, Massachusetts) and 23 miles off Southern Virginia’s shore. These wind power leases join others in federal waters off Delaware and in New Jersey state waters.

Strong local resistance to the sheer numbers of turbines needed to generate power means any development of offshore wind power may take awhile.  And before starting any project, buoys are deployed to determine if the location is suitable for efficient wind production.  It took a full 18 months to win federal approval for placing the first such buoy, in federal waters off New Jersey.

Beyond wind power, fossil fuel-based energy production on private lands is at an all-time high while production on federal government-managed lands is completely stalled. 

Offshore, the federal government has offered oil leases no one wants.  Bids were made on only 3% of such offshore leases offered. Why? Because without huge federal subsidies (such as those offered to the “renewables” of solar and wind), such leases are simply not economically viable.  Not all costs can be passsed along to the consumer in the form of higher pump prices or hidden taxes.

And you may have missed it, coming as it did on a Friday just a few days after the presidential election, but those working in America’s on-shore energy-producing prairie states sat up and took notice. 

It was the first salvo in the prairie states grouse wars.

Praire States Grouse Wars

On Friday, November 9, 2012, the Obama administration announced it would close over 1.6 million acres formerly dedicated to energy exploration in the West.  Closed.  Shut down.  Stay out.  No can go, Joe.

The federal government reduced 2 million acres available for shale oil exploration down to 677,000 acres (about 26,000 acres in Colorado, 357,000 acres in Utah, 293,000 acres in Wyoming).  Another 431,000 acres in Utah originally open for potential tar sand exploration, were reduced down to 130,000 acres.

The federal Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cited “environmental concerns” for the proposed changes, removing land with “wilderness characteristics” and land that is “sage-grouse habitat” related to the needs of the greater sage-grouse.

Production of energy is not assured on any of the remaining 807,000 federally-managed acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming kept open for fossil fuel energy exploration.  Exploration is a long way from production and heaven help you if you find grouse on that land.

The greater sage-grouse is found in eastern California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming and in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.  In other words, greater sage-grouse habitat overlaps North America’s energy-producing prairies.

To complicate the issue furthur, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it was considering an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing for another grouse, the lesser prairie chicken, a native of Texas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  In just Texas alone, the bird’s range covers land producing 70% of the state’s oil production, fully 20% of the nation’s domestic oil supply. Add in the Gunnison sage grouse - another 1.7 million acres of “habitat” in Colorado and Utah - and you can see why westerners are grousing about federal regulaton of state lands.

Grouse have been nicknamed the “spotted owls of the prairie” since it’s expected grouse rules and regs will do to energy producers what the spotted owl did to loggers and sawmills.

Serious About Wildlife

The states are responsible for wildlife health, a responsibility they take seriously.  So, even when the federal government triggers an ESA listing, the BLM is forced to coordinate with the state agencies. In this instance, it’s state agencies in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, all operating within the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. For the lesser praire chicken, the Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances holds promise for the coodination of multi-state management for abundance and habitat health - while allowing people to continue to make a living using the land.

While planning processes such as these are supposed to be transparent, it’s unclear if the locals were consulted on the fed’s November 9 closure of more land in their states. The states have 30 days to protest and 60-days to force the federal government to come into some sort of consistency with local and state policies.  After that, the federal government will render a decision for implementation.  Will the feds ignore the states?

The BLM has listed various “indirect” takes on the greater sage-grouse as the primary threat to the birds health: energy production, any sort of infrastructure, habitat fragmentation, invasive weeds and fire.  Mention of “fire” as a negative for Grouse health appears misplaced since fire has a role to play in a healthy prairie.  Long-term fire supression is probably a greater threat than simply “fire.”

BLM also makes no mention of “direct takes” to these ground-nesting birds by eagles and ravens or by canids such as coyotes, foxes and wolves. For example:

• Utah: Nonnative red foxes devastated sage-grouse populations from an abundant 4,000 birds to just 150.

• California: The bird-loving Audubon Society sued in support of reducing the numbers of nonnative red foxes ravaging populations of the least tern, clapper rail and the threatened western snowy plover.

Sage-Grouse Science Questioned

The California-based Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability’s (CESAR) has raised concerns about the government’s greater sage-grouse science.  CESAR’s director is Craig Manson, a Former Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife & Parks at the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

CESAR’s BestScience.org sage-grouse project called attention to:

Significant mischaracterization of previous research, substantial errors and omission, lack of independence in authorship and peer review.

Worse yet, BestScience.org condemned the lack of transparency in the scientific process, stating:

We were unable to replicate the analyses published in the [primary resource document for the 2010 listing determination] as neither the data used in the analysis, nor the algorithms used for Population Viability Analysis are publicly available.  This made it impossible for us to directly evaluate or replicate results independently.  Thus, since the results are neither reproducible nor verifiable, the study fails the fundamental litmus test of sound science.

BestScience.org added:

A close review of the analysis and data demonstrates flaws significant enough to completely undermine its conclusions.  Specifically, both Garton et al. (2009, 2011) and the FWS (2010) downplayed or ignored known issues with the data provided…, errors in formulas used, errors of omission, and bias with their analytical method.  These errors were exposed when the Colorado Division of Wildlife, commissioned independent scientists to review its contents.  These comments, which were formally submitted to the FWS, were uniformly ignored.

While BLM won’t share how it developed its greater sage-grouse science, we continue to believe active and educated management by man can dramatically improve chances for the all the birds’ survival. 

We’d love to see open competition between the “managed” BLM land and land actively mangaged by private producers for energy production and healthy grouse populations. 

That’s a Grouse War we’d love to see waged - and won.  

——————————————————————————————————————

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Photos courtesy of BestScience.org

Why Can Costas Speak, But Not Limbaugh?

Salon magazine this afternoon is asking the silly question, Why can Limbaugh speak, but not Costas?

It is Rush Limbaugh who is banned from speaking, not Bob Costas.

Salon’s David Sirota has a long introduction to his argument (which you can read here) that boils down to this:

In concrete terms… Costas is no less entitled to speak about public issues on the public airwaves than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — and that’s true even though the latter two are billed as ‘political’ and Costas isn’t. To insist otherwise — to insist that Costas has no right while self-ordained ‘political experts’ do — is to champion a hegemonic view of the public square. That is, a view implying that only certain pre-approved political elites have a right to make their voices heard.

Setting aside the nonsense about any individual actually being “entitled to speak about public issues on the public airwaves” (honestly, are there any entitlements liberals won’t rush to embrace?) Sirota is ignoring the elephant in the room: The NFL and the sportscasting world essentially have banned Limbaugh just because he’s conservative.

Their excuse is that he once mentioned efforts by the mainstream press to speak well of black quarterbacks, which itself was partly in response to decades of racism by black owners and coaches, who preferred that quarterbacks be white.

People who notice and retain facts will recall that Limbaugh was thrown off a ESPN commentator gig in 2003 for expressing this opinion:

I don’t think [Donovan McNabb] been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.

As Project 21’s Geoffrey Moore said at the time,

What cost Limbaugh his job as an ESPN commentator might actually be the truth. The media may actually be cheering a little harder for black quarterbacks.

Historically, aspiring black quarterbacks were often moved to positions such as wide receiver, running back or defensive back to take advantage of their athleticism. Another reason was the prevailing belief among owners, coaches and much of society at the time that blacks lacked the intellectual components necessary to play quarterback. We all know these claims now were nothing but racism. But, back then, successful black NFL quarterbacks such as Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon (who played in the Canadian Football League to get a fair chance) and Doug Williams could be counted without removing one’s shoes. Increasing numbers of black quarterbacks began to be drafted in the 1990s. When three were chosen in the first round of the 1999 draft, it equaled the total number chosen in the first round during the previous 63 years.

Why would the media feel the need to cheer a little harder for black quarterbacks? Among the most obvious reasons is guilt, with a dash of social justice. With the pattern of racism that existed primarily at the quarterback position, perhaps they feel it’s their duty now to help correct something in which they were complicit. How many times do we need to hear that a great play made by a white player was smart while a great play made by a black quarterback was athletic?

The NFL and the media that helps make it profitable had some sins in their past, and maybe it was just a bit embarrassing that Rush Limbaugh, in pointing out the coverup, was indirectly acknowledging the sin.

But that’s not the NFL’s only attack on Limbaugh.

In 2009, when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell idiotically said Rush Limbaugh would not be welcome as an NFL owner because “we’re all held to a high standard here.”

Goodell said Limbaugh’s six-year-old comment about McNabb all but made him ineligible to be an NFL owner, all of whom apparently are too virtuous to let on, even subtly, that the NFL had a racist past. As reported by the New York Times:

“I’ve said many times before, we’re all held to a high standard here,” Goodell said. Then he continued: “I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL –- absolutely not.

…”The comments Rush made specifically about Donovan, I disagree with very strongly,” Goodell said. “It’s a polarizing comment that we don’t think reflect accurately on the N.F.L. or our players. I obviously do not believe those comments are positive and they are divisive. That’s a negative thing for us, obviously.”

Compare Goodell’s comments to the entirely of Limbaugh’s quote, above, and you’ll see they don’t match. It’s like Goodell isn’t really thinking about what Limbaugh actually said.

Could there be something else at play?

Goodell wasn’t the only censor in the bunch. Also as reported by the Times:

…the Colts’ Jim Irsay, indicated which way he would vote - a definitive no.

“I, myself, couldn’t even consider voting for him,” said Irsay, who feels Limbaugh “demonizes individuals with his commentary.”

Said Irsay: “When there are comments that have been made that are inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive… our words do damage and it’s something that we don’t need.”

In 2003, the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, Jeffrey Lurie, said that merely to hire Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host, as a commentator, is evidence of ‘institutional racism’ at ESPN. As I said at the time, “Imagine that — merely hiring a conservative as a sport commentator is evidence of ‘institutional racism.’”

Sportswriters were equally intolerant and offensive in their remarks about Limbaugh, who represents the views of tens of millions of mainstream conservatives:

Chicago Sun-Times, 10/4/2003: “This league with such a shameless record on affirmative action was now getting its sociology lessons from a man who would probably, under a polygraph, disavow the Emancipation Proclamation….”

New York Daily News, 10/2/03: “Strip away all Limbaugh’s media (I’m surprised he didn’t say “liberal media”) mumbo-jumbo and what you have is someone who believes McNabb is an inadequate quarterback because he is black.”

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10/4/03: “You didn’t know when, you didn’t know where, but you knew sooner or later, he was going to trot out his racist political venom. …the suits at ESPN… should have known exactly what that political agenda was based on a body of work that suggests - heck it fairly screamed - that Limbaugh was a mean-spirited, liberal-bashing, feminist-bashing, gay-bashing, minority-bashing blowhard who spent a great deal of energy ripping everyone who doesn’t look or think like him.”

NBC Sports: “[Limbaugh’s] fun isn’t in the game. It’s in inflicting his political agenda on a gullible public willing to subcontract their thinking to him. Part of that agenda is based on the basest xenophobic instincts of the human species. It’s about ‘them’ and ‘us,’ and the bad guys just happen to be foreigners and minorities.”

Limbaugh was tossed off ESPN, effectively banned from owning an NFL team and vilified by the sports weenies for being honest and for being conservative. Costas still has his job. Yet silly Salon thinks we’re unfair to Costas.

But what should we expect from an emotive electronic rag that, right next to the Limbaugh/Costas story, was teasing this story: “Remember that time Little Richard was on ‘Blossom’?”

Salon: Home to the airhead demographic, and predictably wrong about Limbaugh.

Chemical fight offers early look at Obama's second-term EPA

In an op-ed in today’s Washington Examiner, I explain how the second Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency will seek to use sound bites, rather than sound science, to pursue an agenda of more excessive and more costly regulation. And when possible, they’ll try to do it below the radar.

I write, 

Throughout the election season, Republicans warned against the excessive regulation that might result from a second Obama term. They lost, and so this week America might get its first peek at what they were talking about.

The Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of abandoning a well-established negotiation process with the chemical industry, and may instead force a broad range of chemical companies to launch a disputed monitoring program. This Thursday may be the last time the sides get to hammer out a deal on how many waste water treatment sites must be monitored for the EPA to conduct an environmental — as opposed to health — risk assessment.

The negotiations are part of an “enforceable consent agreement” process which started in June. As the December 27 deadline approaches, a failure to reach an agreement is “increasingly likely,” according to the Risk Policy Report, a trade publication. If no deal is reached, the EPA may order testing on its own.

The chemicals the EPA wants to test for, known as D4 and D5, are components of siloxanes — the building blocks for silicone products. Siloxanes are ubiquitous, serving unique purposes in products ranging from airplanes to shampoo.

The industry has not opposed risk assessments or monitoring programs for these chemicals, but it has objected to the EPA’s failure to consider independently collected environmental exposure information. The EPA’s threat is to cut off negotiations and force a wasteful monitoring regime on the entire industry. To justify this threat, regulators insist on relying on outlandish models that contradict real-word data already collected and validated by government agencies both in the U.S. and Canada.

One of the silicone chemicals at issue, D5, was the subject of a thorough review by independent scientist for Environment Canada, an agency known for strict standards. The agency concluded that D5 does not pose a threat to the environment now or in the future.

The EPA shouldn’t necessarily rely on Environment Canada’s conclusions, but it should at least take it into account, along with existing data from testing conducted in the United States. Industry has sought to include these results, together with new monitoring from five additional sites. This should provide all the information necessary to conduct a risk assessment based on a full spectrum of conditions and environments.

Yet the EPA is insisting on requiring more than three times more additional monitoring than is scientifically justified. The EPA has backed off its demand for monitoring of 42 sites for traces of chemical that remain in the water, but it hasn’t been able to validate its current demand for 16 sites. As its trump card, the agency has the threat of a return to its earlier Draconian demand, as opposed to offering a substantive response to industry’s position.

If the sides don’t reach agreement, industry and consumers will be left footing the bill of an unnecessarily costly program, with not a molecule of environmental protection, or better risk assessment, to show for it. This heavy-handed regulatory style has reached a point where it is less about political ideology than it is about good government and responsible use of regulatory powers.

The Obama administration’s environmental regulatory approach has been to replace dispassionate risk assessment with agenda-driven campaigns that favor sound bites over sound science. If the EPA doesn’t come back to the negotiating table with a better approach, congressional oversight committees will have some questions to ask. Some experts already consider the EPA’s hard-line approach a regulatory short-cut, given Congress’s decision not to give EPA additional authority through a reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Congressional watchdogs will have to work overtime next year. They should start by asking regulators about the January 2011 executive order from President Obama, which stated, “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation….It must be based on the best available science.” (Emphasis mine.)

Unless these questions are given center stage, Obama’s agency-heads will continually outmaneuver not only Congress, but the will of the public.

President Obama’s “Dope Fiend Move” Decried by Project 21’s Swimp

Project 21 member Stacy Swimp says President Obama is pulling a “dope fiend move” on America.

Stacy’s not saying that Obama is an addict, but that the President is acting like one in the way he is pushing his intended big increases in taxes and spending right now in negotiations with the nation’s other elected federal lawmakers.

Urbandictionary.com defines “dope fiend move” as “an act or effort by a drug addict to trick or mislead another person to gain advantage.”  But it’s not the sole domain of the addicted — it can also apply to when someone knowingly tries to con others into thinking their schemes are in the best interest of everyone when it is just for that individual’s benefit.

With America quickly approaching the fiscal cliff, a post-reelection Obama is now in bully mode as he targets conservatives in Congress.  While the President previously assured voters that he wanted to embrace bipartisanship and compromise — the “dope fiend move” — he is now demanding virtually unregulated authority to raise the nation’s debt limit, even more stimulus spending and more taxes than ever before.

Conservatives on Capitol Hill, however, seem to be wise to Obama’s con.  The Weekly Standard reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he “burst into laughter” after Treasury Secretary Tim Gethner presented the White House’s proposal.  Spending cuts?  McConnell said there was “minimal or no interest” in pulling back on unbridled spending and reforming entitlement programs — that’s something the White House implies they are only willing to discuss after they get control of the cookie jar (and, subsequently, won’t have any reason to care about negotiations since they will then be holding all the controls).

House Speaker John Boehner certainly isn’t buying into Obama’s dope fiend move either.  Boehner flatly said: “No substantive progress has been made.”

Stacy says this sort of con is common to him from his own upbringing.  It might be new to the vast majority of the American people, but he’s seem and heard about the dope fiend move before and all of the hurt it can cause.  And Stacy similarly doesn’t think it will end well for America if Obama’s con succeeds.

Stacy says:

Growing up in the ‘hood, we would always hear the people talk about the “dope fiend move.”

A dope fiend move is best defined as manipulative or underhanded behavior from someone who is consistently dishonest.  While it’s not confined just to drug abusers, it is historically seen among addicts who would pretend to be in recovery in order to manipulate something from someone.

We’re seeing this kind of move right now on the national stage — with out economic future in the balance.  President Obama’s administration made an offer to in Congress that amounts to a dope fiend move.
Repeatedly, when Obama has wanted to appeal to moderate sympathies and play to an adoring media, he has championed the idea of bipartisanship and compromise.

Seeking reelection, he pretended to be in recovery from the my-way-or-the-highway politics he practiced over the past four years when he ignored the congressional authority to force administrative actions that had no constitutional standing.

Not only did the Obama Administration not offer what a reasonable person could consider a compromise, more was asked from the alleged rich and less from those who pay little or no taxes and whose benefits are a major factor in creating the economic crisis.

Obama now insists upon making it difficult for middle class business owners to keep their doors open and provide jobs for struggling families, while simultaneously pretending to be Robin Hood.

Most of all, the Obama tax hike and spending proposal will put countless American business owners in a position where they will not be able to afford to send their own kids to school, and their kids will also likely be less able to qualify for grants or loans.

This is class warfare in all its glory.  And it’s not going to solve our economic troubles — specifically those regarding entitlements that Obama appears all too willing to ignore.

Obama may not be addicted to dope, but there can be no doubt the compulsive addictive penchant for dishonesty can rightly be called a “dope fiend move.”

It renders those who he claimed to defend to a far worse predicament than before he became president.

initial photo credit: iStockphoto.com

Rahm Emanuel: He’s Got Moves Like Bloomberg

At the same time as a high-end shopping mall vending machine in Burbank, California is beginning to dispense caviar, truffles and escargot, city employees in Chicago are looking at the possibilities of finding kale smoothies and organic, gluten-free soy crackers in their vending machines.

It’s all part of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s ongoing effort to make people healthier in the Windy City, whether they like it or not.  Taking a page from fellow mayor Michael Bloomberg’s playbook, Emanuel is imposing new rules on what people can get from vending machines by the only means he can right now — sticking it to his own workforce.

An ordinance was introduced in mid-November to impose content restrictions as a part of the new vending machine contract covering the stocking snacks and drinks in over 350 machines in 90 Chicago-owned or leased buildings.

If imposed at the beginning of 2013 as planned, only 25 percent of cold beverages sold can contain 25 or more calories per eight-ounce serving.  Hot beverages can only be a maximum of 25 calories.  Nothing other than water or seltzer can be dispensed in servings of over 12 ounces (despite an assertion by Emanuel that he does not want to go all Bloomberg on his city and ban alleged oversized drinks).

In snack machines, at least three-quarters of the content must be 250 calories or less per serving.  Five items must also be low sodium.  At least one item cannot contain gluten or nuts.

And all the prices must be approximately equal, apparently despite the possibility of the costs of the new and old items being legitimately different.

As Emanuel puts it: “These new vending machines will make it easier than ever before for city employees and the public to make healthy lifestyle choices.”  Buy essentially making the choice for them?

Emanuel calls this nudging of city employees “tak[ing] their wellness into their own hands.”  But isn’t reducing employee choice of old products to promote likely-untested new items more of an imposition of authority than true freedom of choice?

What’s next?  Facial recognition cameras to catch who is perusing what in the vending machines?  “Trash cams” to make sure employees are eating everything and not just pushing that lentil cake around their plates?

And what happens if the old 25 percent of snacks remain so popular that they need constant restocking?  Perhaps the Emanuel Administration might say that delivery schedules must be restricted or otherwise scaled back out of concern for increased carbon emissions.

While New York City — with the Bloomberg Administration’s heavy-handed agenda of mandated calorie counts, soda bans and a war on trans-fats, among other things — is clearly the gold standard example of a nanny state gone wild, Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel is clearly trying to catch up.

Last year, it was a optional wellness program for Chicago employees.  Optional, that is, provided that those who chose not to participate also didn’t mind an extra $50 increase in their monthly health insurance premiums.  Healthways director Charlie Moore, whose company won the Chicago wellness program contract, called Emanuel’s forced fitness program “changing the culture to a culture of wellness.”  But Moore nonetheless admitted the method of persuasion was “very aggressive.”

Now it’s the content of the city-administered vending machines.

Commenting on Emanuel’s aspirations to become the apparent second in command of Nanny State America, Project 21 co-chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon said:

As I have speculated before, it is so important to follow these nanny state policies being implemented in New York City, California and other places because they are often used as model and encouragement for others to adopt similar policies.

Case in point, Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  This is the same mayor who — during the height of increased crime this past summer on the streets of Chicago — decided to outsource public safety to the Nation of Islam.  We wonder how safe the citizens of Chicago felt with radical Nation of Islam members patrolling the streets?

Since Mayor Emanuel appears to think he has solved all of his city’s problems, he now has turned his attention to being a nutrition expert — following in the footsteps of New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Indeed, he earned the title of vice mayor of the nanny state!

first photo credit: iStockPhoto.com

Signs, Signs Everywhere: ObamaCare Demands Them, Regardless of Cost

The Washington Times and Steve Forbes have alerted Americans to a little known provision in ObamaCare that could cost the food industry millions of work hours and billions of dollars, yet for very little, if any, consumer benefit.

As the Washington Times explains, in part:

It's well established that Obamacare is sending the cost of health care skyrocketing. What's less known is it will make trips to the grocery store more expensive and drive up the cost of pizza. All this is happening because nanny state zealots slipped a zinger into the measure just before it came up for a vote.

A provision requiring restaurant menus to display calorie counts might seem like a minor addition to legislation representing the takeover of one-sixth of the economy, but the seemingly simple addition will cost billions. President Obama's own Office of Management and Budget listed the menu display imposition as the third most burdensome statutory requirement enacted that year, forcing retail outlets to expend 14,536,183 work hours every year just to keep Uncle Sam happy.

Instead of applying the menu rule just to restaurants, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided on its own initiative to sweep certain convenience stores and pizza delivery storefronts under the calorie-count requirements. FDA bureaucrats are even micromanaging compliance, down to determining the sizes of fonts that can be used on menu signs. Small-business franchisees will bear the majority of the burden. 'If they want to put in new products or change pricing or add new toppings, they have to buy new menu boards,' said Jenny Fouracre-Petko, director of legislative affairs for Domino's Pizza. 'That's where it gets expensive.'

It will also become confusing, as the boards must convey the calorie counts for the 34 million possible topping combination that the chain offers. Never mind that most customers order pizza over the telephone or through the Internet. Never mind that Domino's already has an online calculator for weight-conscious customers to figure out calorie counts. Mr. Obama's minions demand things be done their way.

The signage overload is also headed for grocery stores that feature items like fresh bakery goods and food bars. Store owners must either slap up the signs everywhere or label each individual product. The problem is that suppliers, ingredients and recipes constantly change. If a store wants to offer something different, it will have to cough up around $500 to ship the product to a lab for testing and certification. This ultimately affects the products stores will be able to offer consumers. 'It forces you into a central kitchen,' said Jennifer Hatcher, a senior vice president for the Food Marketing Institute, which represents 26,000 retail food stores. 'It eliminates creativity and regional variation.'

Steve Forbes adds a tiny ray of hope, given that the Administration so far seems unconcerned about the needless costs and difficulties it is prepared to inflict:

The good news is that there is bipartisan legislation in the House and Senate to address this issue. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2012 (H.R. 6174 and S.3574) ensures that grocery and convenience stores which already provide nutritional information on a high majority of their food items are not roped into a new set of regulatory burdens. And it permits restaurants to provide nutritional information in a way that makes sense for each individual operation. The bill also provides restaurants protection from frivolous class action lawsuits if the hand-made food does not match the exact specs every time. In other words, the legislation would replace a one-size-fits-all directive with an approach that actually empowers restaurant consumers without breaking the bank.

Even New York City, up to now the nannyist of nanny states, does not require this level of menu labeling. President Obama should order his regulators to show some sense.

Being a Divisive Leftist Apparently Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

My series of posts on Diversity Inc.'s rude and sloppy article of November 26 taking conservative commentator Pat Buchanan to task for words Buchanan never said on a radio show that no longer exists (see here and here) wraps up today with the news that Diversity Inc. founder, CEO and designated sloppy white guy columnist Luke Visconti isn't man enough to apologize.

Visconti actually doubles down on his gross error, now claiming his "column and its opinions are still valid," despite being based on an over-the-top satire piece published on a website that says flat-out that its stories are fake.

Visconti claims that the fact that Buchanan wrote other things entirely means he deserves to be attacked for the fake stuff. Essentially, the logic appears to be that if you are conservative, you are fair game for abuse.

Speaking of which, in 2010 Visconti compared black conservatives participating in Tea Party activities to Jews helping Nazis administer concentration camps.

Open-minded, isn't he?

photo from iStockphoto

Project 21’s Swimp Supports School Over Racist Claims

After two dismal seasons — in which the University of Colorado Buffalos posted a combined record of 4-21 and give up an average of 46 points per game in the latter season — administrators at the school fired football coach Jon Embree earlier this week.

To some, firing this losing coach is an act of racism.

Embree is black.  He — among others — is now charging that black coaches are judged by stricter standards than white counterparts.  And stoking the flames of discontent is Embree pal and former championship University of Colorado coach Bill McCartney, who wants the school to give the sacked former coach at least another year.

Project 21 member Stacy Swimp says college sports is not about scoring points for diversity but about succeeding on the field.  Stacy wishes Embree the best, but supports the actions of the administration to seek out a winning strategy.  He says:

When a football team goes through two losing seasons and does not win a game at home in 2102, it doesn’t matter who that coach is — that person is going to be fired.

Yet there is a white American now playing the race card and the fired black coach is playing victim.

Is there a problem with blacks not having opportunities at quality NCAA programs after being fired from another program?  I don’t know the answer to that question.

What I do know is that college athletic programs are in it to win it.  No one should be forced keep a coach with such a dismal record.  I would have fired Embree too!

Project 21’s Martin on Lingering Libya Questions for Susan Rice

Obama Administration ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, the President’s likely choice to replace departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, today tried to blunt criticism of her performance as the White House’s post-Benghazi scold in a much-hyped meeting with senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH).

It was a failure for Susan Rice and the Obama Administration, whose clear post-election arrogance extends to possible bungling of one of the highest profile terrorist assaults on American since Obama took office.

The senatorial trio’s concerns over Susan Rice emanate from the misstatements she repeatedly made on five Sunday interview shows on September 16.  On these shows, she blamed a YouTube video as the catalyst for the attack rather than the coordinated terrorist action that it is now widely accepted to have been.  Former CIA director David Petraeus said an early version of talking points compiled about the consulate attack identified it as a terrorist act, but the removal of this important finding — which Rice and her supporters use to vindicate her misleading performances — still lacks a known perpetrator of the omission.

Despite high hopes that the Tuesday meeting would allay the senators concerns, public comments made after the meeting show that Rice is still under intense scrutiny.  Ayotte, for instance, plainly said: “I have many more questions that have to be answered.”  Graham added: “The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before… about how four Americans dies in Benghazi, Libya.”

Referring to the audacity previously exhibited by Susan Rice and her defenders that he implied was apparent again today, McCain angrily noted no real change in attitude: “We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn’t get.”

Rice released a statement of her own that she did not intend to mislead anyone.

Project 21 member Kevin Martin, a Navy veteran who served some of his tour in the Mediterranean region and understands the politics of the region from firsthand experience, is skeptical of Susan Rice’s insistence of innocence.  Pointing to past subterfuge during the Clinton era, Kevin also has about as many questions for her as the senators — especially about how Rice’s supporters seem willing to ignore past concerns to come to the defense of the Obama Administration.

Kevin said:

It seems that Susan Rice’s meeting with some senators who are still unsure about her exact role in the Obama Administration’s storytelling regarding what went on in Benghazi on September 11 left more questions than answers.

While Susan Rice’s supporters want to convince the public that the senators’ quest for the truth is just a post-election witch hunt motivated by racism and sexism, these same supporters seem to be muffling the contempt they had for her past mistakes and apparent willful silence to protect her superiors in the Clinton Administration during the Rwanda genocide.

By all accounts, Susan Rice’s commitment would appear to begin and end with the whims and the defense of the reputations of her superiors.  It does not seem to lie with what is right and wrong.

Update on Pat Buchanan Correction and Apology Post

I was in a rush when I wrote the post this afternoon about Diversity Inc. magazine's founder and CEO attacking Pat Buchanan ("Buchanan is a bigot--a racist, anti-Semitic creep. He's chronologically old, but he's one of those people who was born a bitter, ugly, little, shrunken, mean, horrid old man.") and didn't realize until later that I didn't include the words Buchanan allegedly said (but didn't). So I'll add that now.

But first, an update: At the time of my afternoon post, it was unclear whether Diversity Inc.'s founder and CEO, Luke Visconti, even realized he was citing a fake article from a satire site. At this point, the online magazine no longer has that excuse, as I left a message to that effect, and suggesting firmly that Mr. Buchanan is due a correction and an apology, on the column's webpage about six hours ago. The message was "awaiting moderation," but never appeared -- although several others with later time stamps have since been published.

Maybe a correction/apology is still forthcoming, but this isn't the kind of thing that ought to take a long time for an ethical organization to think over.

Now for an excerpt of the article Diversity Inc. treated as real, and attacked, from the satire site The Daily Currant:

...When asked for his reaction to Obama's victory, Buchanan replied brazenly:

"White America died last night. Obama's reelection killed it. Our 200 plus year history as a Western nation is over. We're a Socialist Latin American country now. Venezuela without the oil."

Stunned by his clear racism, Liddy tried to walk his guest back from the ledge:

"With what you just said right there...You seem to imply that white people are better than other people. That's not really what you're saying is it?"

"Of course that's what I'm saying," Buchanan replied "Isn't it obvious? Anything worth doing on this Earth was done first by white people."

"Who landed on the moon? White people. Who climbed Mount Everest? White people. Who invented the transistor? White people. Who invented paper? White people. Who discovered algebra? White people."

"And don't give me all this nonsense about Martin Luther King and civil rights and all that. Who do you think freed the slaves? Abraham Lincoln. A white guy!"

Carte Blanche

"But we're not led by Lincoln anymore, we're led by an affirmative-action mulatto who can't physically understand how great America once was."

"I cried last night G. I cried for hours. It's over for all of us. The great White nation will never survive another 4 years of Obama's leadership."

Liddy tried to reason with Buchanan, reminding him that he shares similar positions with the President on Afghanistan, Iraq, and relations with Russia:

"Of course I agree with half of what he does," Buchanan answered, "He's half white! That's not the half I'm worried about."

In case there is any doubt, The Daily Currant "About" page answers the question "Are your newstories real?" with "No. Our stories are purely fictional..."

So how about a correction and apology, Diversity Inc.?

Ask the White Guy: Does the Diversity Industry Make Stuff Up?

Pat Buchanan

When the first thing you see about someone is their skin color, you miss a lot.

That's one of my conclusions after reading the bizarre attack on conservative commentator Pat Buchanan in the column, "Ask the White Guy: Did White America Die With This Election?," in Diversity, Inc. magazine.

The column begins:

Question: Pat Buchanan's comments that "'White America' Died Last Night" make me angry. What do you think?

Answer: Don't get angry; take solace in what we are witnessing. Buchanan is a bigot--a racist, anti-Semitic creep. He's chronologically old, but he's one of those people who was born a bitter, ugly, little, shrunken, mean, horrid old man.

His white America may have died, but my white America didn't die with this election--it was strengthened and improved. My white America is the one of Thomas Payne, Franklin, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. My white America may not understand Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as it should, but it knows what side of the trajectory of justice it wants to be on...

The first thing anyone who follows national commentary and commentators even nominally would say is, "that doesn't sound like Pat Buchanan to me."

The second thing a person might say, following the source link provided, is that it doesn't make sense that Buchanan said this on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show on November 7, since Liddy retired months ago.

The third thing that struck me is that Diversity Inc.'s source is a satire website.

And the fourth thing to strike me is that Diversity Inc. doesn't appear to realize that. The columnist -- who happens to be Diversity Inc.'s founder and CEO Luke Visconti, not an intern -- didn't check.

Buchanan didn't deserve to be treated fairly?

Diversity Inc. says its "mission is to bring education and clarity to the business benefits of diversity."

I take it that means skin color, not diversity of thought. Heaven forbid that we Americans practice non-conformist diversity.

I posted a comment on Visconti's column's webpage, a comment which as of this writing is "awaiting moderation." I questioned Visconti's admiration for LBJ, a virulent racist, even as he slammed Buchanan for comments Buchanan never made. I then wrote a second comment to draw attention to the fake nature of the attack on Buchanan. That one seems to have vanished. (Perhaps only one comment per person is permitted?)

Regardless, surely by now someone else has pointed out to Diversity Inc. that it has attacked Pat Buchanan based on a made-up satire piece. A correction is very much called for.

If Diversity Inc. has any respectability, it will promptly issue a correction and make a formal apology to Mr. Buchanan. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Visconti has that much integrity.

We Need Government Health Care So We Can Eat Twinkies?

An unintentionally amusing article from the leftie online magazine Salon asks, "Could public health care have saved Hostess?"

It's a serious article, but I'm laughing at the idea that we need a government-run health care system to insure our access to a fatty sugar treat.

Mayor Bloomberg, for once, I ask you to call your office.

The left claims a single-payer, government-run system like Britain's or Canada's would make American companies more competitive, because they wouldn't "have to" pay for their workers' health premiums, so their costs of production would be less.

Never mind that companies in the past never "had to" pay for their employees' health insurance premiums, as this only is becoming mandatory now under ObamaCare. American employers have only been doing so because the tax code allows employees to accept health insurance as compensation without paying income or payroll taxes on the value of the benefit. The health insurance benefit is part of an employee's pay. Take away the health insurance benefit, and any savvy employee is going to ask for the value of their premium in cash. So the employer presumably pays the same compensation either way.

Furthermore, the left rarely if ever mentions that divorcing health insurance from employment by giving individuals the tax benefits directly, as conservatives have recommended for decades, would have the same presumably positive impact on competitiveness as government-run health care (if it did), except...

...it would help more, as employees would shop around for health services and insurance, which would have a price-lowering effect...

...and taxes wouldn't have to go up (including, presumably, taxes on business) to finance the scheme.

Plus, government-run health care is bad for patients, who, presumably, matter.

So before we ruin what's left of our private health care system just to get access to cake, let's pause and realize government-run health care wouldn't save the Twinkie.

And it would be less likely than a private system to save you, if you eat too many of them.

Killing Old King Coal

God blessed America with abundant sources of energy in the form of oil, natural gas and about 10,000 years’ worth of coal, more fossil fuel reserves than anywhere else on the planet.  However, most of these blessings are completely off-limits due to federal policies.

In spite of this hurdle, coal - produced primarily on private lands by private companies - provides us with about 40% of our electricity.  Each American uses about 7,600 pounds of coal a year.  Add in natural gas, also from private lands, and these two natural resources provide about 70% of the electricity produced in the US.  Nuclear adds another 20% to the mix even though we haven’t expanded this sector since the 1970s.  The balance of power comes primarily from hydro (water pwer, about 5%), followed by single digit production from the heavily subsidized wind, solar and biomass (wood, corn) sectors.

Thank the miners and drillers every time you turn on your computer.

Hydraulic fracturing, combined with improved methods of horizontal drilling, has resulted in a natural gas boom.  Wells are being created on very small footprints on private land. The result is natural gas available at very competitive rates, about $3.75 per million British thermal units (Btu).  Compare this to $17 per million Btu for liquefied natural gas in Japan.  

Its current low price makes natural gas an attractive alternative to coal and, with new and expensive regulations facing coal, many of the older plants will be retired and some companies will go bankrupt.  But energy diversity is good policy so we don’t want to lose coal completely, just help clean it up, right?  Especially important since the U.S. has the world’s largest supplies of fossil fuels.

Coal is energy dense so it is a must for electrical output for large-scale manufacturing.  You’re not going to do manufacturing on solar or wind or hamster power.  This is why China, the manufacturing center of the world, is investing heavily in modern and efficient coal-fired energy plants, as many as one-a-week we are told. 

Subsidies

Beyond the price you pay on your gas and electricity bills, we contribute additional cash in the form of federal subsidies per megawatt hour of electricity:

• Solar: $775.64
• Wind: $56.29
• Nuclear: $3.14
• Hydro/Water: $0.82
• Coal: $0.64
• Natural Gas: $0.64

These figures don’t include the decades-old production tax credit (PTC) that transfers billions more of your taxes to the “renewable” energy companies, about $12.2 billion every decade to wind alone. (Oddly, nuclear is not included in this definition of renewable.)

It’s time for a real accounting of costs here.  

If you could see the real cost of wind and solar “power” on our energy bills before all the coal-fired plants are shut down, you simply wouldn’t let it happen.  Europe is beginning to understand this as electricity prices skyrocket and governments are backing out of subsidies in Spain, Germany and the U.K.  They simply can’t afford it.  And worse yet, Spain discovered it lost 2.2 real jobs for every heavily subsidized “green” job. 

Are we backing the wrong sectors in energy production?  Or should our investments reach out to coal, natural gas and nuclear too?

After all, it is important to remember that all solar and wind facilities rely 100% on the back up support of coal, natural gas and nuclear for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. 

Our government policies are littering the countryside with acres of inefficient windmills and solar panels while killing coal through layers of regulation, leaving natural gas and nuclear alone as back up to the “renewables.”

Rigorous or Nonsensical Standards?

Then-Senator Obama said in 2008:  

For us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to us saying that if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.  That I think is the right approach.  …[I]f we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue what’s the best approach for us to take as opposed to us saying at the outset here are the winners that we’re pickin’ and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.

In response to onerous regulations issued by the administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - not Congress - the Patriot Coal Company, with 1.9 billion tons of coal reserves, became the first U.S. coal company to file for bankruptcy in generations. 

Says the EPA, regarding the residue of mercury and carbon dioxide in the emissions of coal-fired plants, King Coal has to get its numbers down:

• Mercury:  U.S. coal power plants account for about one half of one percent of all the mercury in the air, emitting an estimated 41 to 48 tons of mercury per year.  For comparison, US forest fires, most on federal land where logging has been severely curtailed to “save” sub-stocks such as the spotted owl, contribute just as much mercury, about 44 tons per year.  Dwarfing these numbers, power plants in China, many of which are still less efficient than those in the U.S., emit 400 tons of mercury per year.  Volcanoes and geysers emit about 9,000-10,000 tons.

• Carbon Dixode: EPA’s proposal to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) “new source performance standards” (NSPS) for power plants is a carbon pollution standard not based on policy-neutral health or scientific criteria.  Rather, the EPA contrived a standard that coal plants cannot possibly meet.   

Citing “a regiatory environment that puts coal at a disadvantage,” Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the U.S. coal industry to a “negative” rating.  The EPA estimates compliance costs will be $10 billion per year. The National Economic Research Associates estimates compliance costs will cost coal-fired energy plants $21 billion per year, money that simply can’t be passed on to consumers.  In response, Patriot Coal Company’s shares tumbled from $25 to 61 cents in less than a year.  Patriot Coal won’t be the last coal business to go belly up.

The EPA’s mandates are not forward-thinking, technology-forcing mandates. They’re simply regulatory nonsense designed to kill Old King Coal.   

Driving the carbon dioxide regulations is the science on a climate that changes  - provided courtesy of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC). 

And what if the UNIPCC is wrong or, as many think, the hype on “climate change” is primarily overblown campaign rhetoric designed to benefit some at the expense of many? 

Who will be held accountable?  Are we causing electricity costs to skyrocket and dismantling vital industries for no benefit? 

Sharing the atmosphere

The rest of the world is modernizing its energy grid, investing in modern coal-fired plants. China alone is using four times as much coal as we do.

Ashok Bhargava, an energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila, said:

No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source.

We share the atmosphere with China. Killing Old King Coal in the U.S. simply makes the coal miners’ sacrifice look like our collective folly. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO:  Educate yourself.  The costs of energy are reflected in your budget every day in everything you do and everything you buy.  Contact your elected representative and ask for an accounting of the costs related to our federal energy policy.  Only by understanding the true costs of production can we make sensible decisions on how to best design the energy grid of the future.  

——————————————————————————————————————

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research. 

Photo: iStockPhoto.com 

Project 21’s Kevin Martin: Petraeus Testimony Outs Ambassador Susan Rice as “Political Hack”

Closed-door testimony by former CIA director David Petraeus on November 16 reportedly revealed the American intelligence community almost immediately figured Al Qaeda as behind the September 11, 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

This finding, however, mysteriously disappeared from a final version of the talking points on the tragedy distributed among White House staffers.  Petraeus claims to not know who made the edit on the report that removed the Al Qaeda determination.  And, in an administration that is supposed to be rooted in transparency and accountability, Petraeus’ then-deputy Mike Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also proclaim ignorance as to the identity of the person who removed the vital information about the attack that led to the murder of four Americans – including our ambassador in Libya (the first such high-ranking assassination since the Carter Administration).

This might seem to create some plausible deniability for Ambassador Susan Rice, who is said to be the heir apparent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s spot at the top after Clinton resigns to undoubtedly run for higher office.  But Rice’s ascendance is currently in question because of her September 16 appearance on five Sunday news shows in which she blamed the attack and the murders on a spontaneous protest against the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video.

After all, Susan Rice’s carpet-bombing of the networks with the narrative that the YouTube video led to random violence seriously diverges from the initial, unedited intelligence analysis and was the ruse which the Obama Administration hid behind for weeks.

Despite the proclamations of some pundits, Project 21 member Kevin Martin doesn’t think the Petraeus testimony absolves anyone, particularly Ambassador Rice.

Citing Susan Rice’s past, Kevin says the ambassador still has a lot to answer for when it comes to her mid-September assertions about Libya, YouTube and no links to Al Qaeda terrorists.

In particular, Kevin notes that Susan Rice’s comments on September are similar to behavior she allegedly exhibited in 1994 when she is said to have been a party to ignoring the genocide in Rwanda in favor of protecting then-President Bill Clinton’s political viability.

Despite having intelligence at the time that the international community needed to determine that genocide was indeed an issue in Rwanda, Rice – who was then a Clinton Administration staffer at the National Security Council – allegedly shocked colleagues on a conference call by saying about the policy option of confirming facts of mass murders in the African country: “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”

According to a extensive 2001 article about Clinton Administration’s fumbling in the Atlantic by Samantha Power, Rice denied saying that, but said it would have been “irrelevant” if she had said it.  Not that she said she said it.

The Rwanda debacle, by the way, is remembered by President Clinton as the worst mistake he made during his time in office.  That includes cheating on his wife with an intern in the Oval Office!  And, from all the evidence, it would seem Susan Rice was knee-deep in causing that mistake in order to ensure the short-term protection of her boss.

Kevin thinks history may be repeating itself.  He says:

Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday morning media tour in September was likely never rooted in any real truth.  It now seems that later admissions and revelations about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya betray what she said were the real reasons for the violence that killed four American heroes.

It appears it was known almost from the first moments that the attack on September 11 was a coordinated terrorist assault carried out by Al Qaeda.

As these facts trickle out, it becomes clear to me that Susan Rice was showing her true colors as a political hack for the administrations in which she has served.  She appears to have a history of dispensing what can only be seen as half-truths and perhaps even outright lies to cover-up for and promote her bosses.

In 1994, Susan Rice and others in the Clinton Administration essentially turned a blind eye to genocide in Rwanda rather than divulge information that would require the United Nations – and, by extension, the United States – to take action.  Accounts from that time suggest that Susan Rice preferred to keep the terrible facts about death beyond comparison in Africa a secret instead of risking a situation just prior to an election that might make President Clinton look bad.

It looks like Susan Rice might have employed the same tactics this year before the presidential election.  Was it to help deflect blame for the Benghazi attack away from the Obama Administration?  Was it to keep alive the Obama campaign assertion that Al Qaeda was decimated?

Given Susan Rice’s apparent predilection to put the interests of her superiors before the public interest, I wonder if she can give truthful testimony on this or other diplomatic or national security matters.

It certainly puts Ambassador Rice’s credibility in question.

top photo credit: iStockphoto.com

Free Markets, Restricted Markets

The same week that the movie I, Pencil premiered to rave reviews in one section of DC, in another part of town others were calculating just how many restrictions were tying up free people attempting - often futilely - to create and build free markets.  

I, Pencil is based on the classic 1958 essay by Leonard E. Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education.  If you’ve read this essay before, it’s time to read it again.  If you missed it, it’s short and well worth your time. 

Economist Milton Friedman wrote an intro to Read’s essay in 1980 in which he praised Read for “keeping alive, in the early days, and then spreading the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government.”

I, Pencil, the movie, was created by filmmaker Nick Tucker with screenplay by Nicole Woods Ciandella who blogs at Free Market Feminism. The movie’s breathtaking illustrations are the work of Berkeley artist Jen Oaks. 

Tracking Regulatory Restrictions on the Free Market

So, while I, Pencil held its “black tie optional” premiere in one part of DC, others were busy in another section of town counting all the restrictions on the free market.

After you watch I, Pencil, visit their work of art: the Mercatus Center’s database, RegData, a project dedicated to fine-tuning the art of tracking suffocating regulation. It reveals just how severely governments now limit the once-free market.

Number of U.S. Regulatory Restrictions Passes 1 MillionRegData tells us we’ve passed the one-million-restriction mark with about 15% of these laws focusing on “environmental” protection in general. With a million restrictions now on the books at just the federal level, can anyone claim that the free market is really free anymore? Use RegData to create charts and you’ll be shocked to see the regulatory burden we all bear.  In 1936, the Federal Register published about 2,600 pages a year.  Now it’s pumping out about 80,000 pages annually, representing about 4,000 new national laws each year.  The states are even worse, passing about 10 times that many laws, about 40,000 state restrictions annually. 

Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?

Restrictions: Animal Ag, Timber ProductionRegData also tracks by the targets of the restrictions and the source of the restriction.  

The database reveals a heavy regulatory burden on those involved in forestry and ranching. It’s no surprise these industries are in serious decline. 

RegData also tracks the source of the restrictions, revealing that many are coming not from Congress, our official national regulatory body, but from the President’s Administration.

While Congress seems to have abdicated its responsibility to regulate carefully, bureacracy is busy creating more bureacracy.

Restrictions Issued by President’s AdministrationRegulatory Failure

Scott Jacobs of Jacobs, Cordova & Associates works with governments on regulatory reform internationally.  According to Jacobs, we are in the Golden Age of Regulation, restricting people’s lives faster than anyone can keep up. 

But regulatory failure is rampant, says Jacobs, with over 80% of regulations failing to solve the problem they were designed to address.  

After announcing a massive clean up of regulations suffocating individual freedom, the Greek Prime Minister lamented:

We built a world of bureaucracy and lust for power, a world of corruption, of small and big privileges and interests for anyone who could take advantage of other people.

In other words, government is being used to build regulatory battering rams for one group of special interests to pummel another. 

Hope on the Horizon

There is hope for reform.

In the United States, we’ve seen action at the state level to reduce the burden on “cottage cooks,” those creating new products in their own kitchens.

And both 2012 U.S. presidential candidates praised the basic human right to freely buy and sell in the free market. 

According to Jacobs, countries around the world are taking a “regulatory guillotine” approach to quickly rid their books of centuries of layers of suffocating regulation: 

• The UK is clearing laws that are hundreds of years old, regs belonging in a regulatory museum not in the codebooks of a modern society. The UK cleared out food preservation laws from the 1700s, long before refrigeration existed. Such laws were hindering the creation of whole new food businesses. Now the UK requires one law to be taken off the books for every one put on. 

• Italy went further in cutting red tape, eliminating anything in the codes written prior to 1972, over 100,000 laws.  No one missed them. 

• South Korea slashed almost half of its regulations from its legal codebooks and, in the process, unleashed creativity that built over a million new jobs. The savings to businesses was estimated at a remarkable 4.4% of gross domestic product (GDP). Better yet, businesses didn’t have to use higher prices as a way to recover all those regulatory costs from customers! The customer was better served.

How China Became Capitalist, by Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase and Professor Ning Wang, reveals that Communist China only passed 229 national laws between 1978 and 2008.  Even more surprising, only eight pre-1978 laws are still in use in China.  

Can you imagine what cleaning up our regulatory house might do for us here in the United States, for free people all around the world?  

I hope you’ll email the I, Pencil link to your children and grandchildren today.  

It will give them hope that, one day, their dreams will come true!  

——————————————————————————————————————

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research. 

Graphics: iStockPhoto.com 

"Sons of Bitches" Now Being Taken Out - Thank You, Mr. Hoffa

The Teamsters Union has put out a statement today expressing regret for the loss of jobs due to the liquidation of the Hostess company, and has put the immediate responsibility for the company's closure on the unwillingness of another union to make concessions after the Teamsters had done so.

The Teamsters Union should not be so willing to exclusively blame others. When Teamsters Union President James Hoffa yelled, while sharing the podium with the President, no less, "We are at war! ...President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march... Let’s take these sons of bitches out...," he didn't exactly send a "let's make concessions" message to the rank-and-file.

So, the sons of bitches are being taken out now, bub. Enjoy the fruit of your labor.