From Fox News, “Democrats Post Health Care Bill Online, Starting 72-Hour Clock“:

The updated health care reform bill has been posted online, starting the clock on a 72-hour window before the House can vote on it. 

Click here to see the proposed changes to the bill, as well as the original Senate package. 

President Obama pledged in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday that the final provisions of the health care plan would be “posted for many days before this thing passes” to give the public a chance to review it. 

The earliest the House could vote on the latest health bill is Sunday. 

You know, for a health care bill, there’s sure a lot of nationalization of the student loan program. From the substitute amendment:

TITLE II-EDUCATION AND HEALTH
Subtitle A-Education
Sec. 2001. Short title; references.
PART I-INVESTING IN STUDENTS AND FAMILIES
Sec. 2101. Federal Pell Grants.
Sec. 2102. Student financial assistance.
Sec. 2103. College access challenge grant program.
Sec. 2104. Investment in historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions.
PART II-STUDENT LOAN REFORM
Sec. 2201. Termination of Federal Family Education Loan appropriations.
Sec. 2202. Termination of Federal loan insurance program.
Sec. 2203. Termination of applicable interest rates.
Sec. 2204. Termination of Federal payments to reduce student interest costs.
Sec. 2205. Termination of FFEL PLUS Loans.
Sec. 2206. Federal Consolidation Loans.
Sec. 2207. Termination of Unsubsidized Stafford Loans for middle-income borrowers.
Sec. 2208. Termination of special allowances.
Sec. 2209. Origination of Direct Loans at institutions outside the United States.
Sec. 2210. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 2211. Terms and conditions of loans.
Sec. 2212. Contracts; mandatory funds.
Sec. 2213. Agreements with State-owned banks.
Sec. 2214. Income-based repayment. 

In a discussion with  member companies earlier this week, National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler criticized the pending health care legislation for its lack of costs saving, dismissing the claims it helps reduce the budget deficit.

There isn’t a person on this call, there isn’t a person I come across, whose balance sheet wouldn’t look pretty good if they could take 10 years of revenue and set against that only six years of expenses. That’s how this is being handled in the Congress, when they say we’re making money and reducing the deficit.

Who wouldn’t? Ten years of revenue, six years of expenses - of course you look good. But the piper will have to be paid.

The remarks remain on point with the release of new Congressional Budget Office scoring on the latest version of health care legislation, presumably the one that the House will vote on this weekend. Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com reacts to the budget gimmickry, citing the $940 billion in gross payouts:

This is why they’re delaying the start of the program, of course. If it kicked in right away, the decade-long estimate would obviously be well into the trillions. So they simply stalled it for four years, incurring just $17 billion in costs — or 1.8 percent of the total 10-year estimate — through 2013 so that wavering Democrats could go back to their districts and tell baldfaced lies to their constituents about the pricetag. A perfect ending to this travesty.

As for the process gimmickry, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Stanford Law School professor and former Appeals Court Judge Michael McConnell explains why the “Slaughter” legislative approach of “deem and pass” cannot be squared with the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7. As McConnell wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law. 

Unconstitutional and built on budgetary deceit: The health care legislation certainly doesn’t deserve the term “reform.”

From Diana Furchtgott Roth at the Manhattan Institute, “Why the SEIU Wants Health Reform“:

What’s the connection? The SEIU needs more new dues-paying members to pay for the retirement of current members if it is to rescue its pension plans from subpar performance. It’s a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. With many of its members employed in health care, the union believes - not illogically - that if more Americans have health insurance, the demand for health care will expand and so will employment in the health sector.

The Senate is unlikely to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would impose mandatory arbitration and take away workers’ right to a secret ballot in union representation elections. This was first on unions’ 2009-10 wish list, and union leaders want to show that they still have political power. So they will settle instead for the health care “reform” bill.

Change to Win, the Big Labor umbrella group that includes the SEIU, has just endorsed the health care legislation. What legislation? Well, whatever it is that the House is going to vote on. The statement from CTW Chairwoman Anna Burger is sloganblatherneering:

It is time for Congress members to decide on which side of history will they stand. They must choose between working families struggling to get by and an insurance industry that puts profits before the people they are supposed to serve.

For generations, this country has known the need for reform. For the past year, we have as a nation debated and fought for real health insurance reform. Now, it’s time for Congress to deliver.

The “or else!” threat is left unsaid.

Quin Hillyer of The Washington Times comments on the should-be-higher profile case of Comer v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., in a column, “No butterfly caused Katrina“:

A case called Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, winding its way through federal courts, offers leftists a perfect storm of fantasy fulfillment. Yet their fantasy balloons may well get popped. If the case is decided correctly, it could strike separate blows against both lawsuit abuse and global-warming alarmists, including those at the radicalized Environmental Protection Agency. …

This is the class-action lawsuit in which Mississippi residents sued  150 energy companies, chemical manufacturers and other emitters of greenhouse gases, claiming the emissions increased global warming, which made Hurricane Katrina so much more powerful and damaging to property. Compensate us!

Hillyer writes:

Remember the theory of the “butterfly effect,” whereby the flap of an insect’s wings in Brazil somehow could cause a tornado in Texas? In essence, the Comer theory amounts to sort of a butterfly effect writ extra-large. The problem with the butterfly effect is that a gazillion other creatures are flapping their wings all over the world, so it is literally impossible ever to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between airflows in Brazil and Texas or between Bolivia and Tennessee.

The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Louis Girola, Jr., dismissed the lawsuit because it sought to use the courts to balance complicated economic, environmental and international interests. These interests are constitutionally the domain of the political branches of government, not the courts. Unfortunately, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed, allowing the case to proceed. Now the full court will now consider the litigation en banc. Hillyer:

Remember, this first fight involves mere standing to sue, not the merits of the global-warming, butterfly-effect claims. But if it proceeds to trial, literally every one of us who uses energy could be legally liable for some degree of Katrina’s devastation. Energy-company shareholders, including retirees whose pension funds rely on stock in those companies, would see their savings diminished, while consumers surely would pay vastly higher prices if the millions of people who suffered damages in Katrina could lay claims for damages.

Hillyer cites an amicus brief filed in the litigation by the American Farm Bureau Federation, joined by the National Association of Manufacturers, the the American Tort Reform Association. The brief and case summary is available at the NAM’s Manufacturing Law Center’s entry on Comer, here.

PBS “Newshour” last night featured an excerpt of a good debate on the educational and economic value of increasing the number of college students. (We had previously noted the discussion in this post citing George Leef’s column.) The show’s description:

Miller Center Debate: Does the U.S. Need More Grads?

March 17, 2010 3:00 PM 

Editor’s note: Paul [Solman] recently moderated a Miller Center debate on whether the United States must dramatically increase its number of college-educated citizens to remain a leading economic power. Former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and Michael Lomax, president of the United Negro College Fund, argued that the United States needs more graduates to maintain its economic might, while George Leef, director of research at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education in North Carolina, and Richard Vedder, professor of economics at Ohio University, argued that many jobs being created today don’t require college degrees.

You can see an excerpt of the debate on Wednesday’s NewsHour, or watch the full debate below or at the Miller Center’s Web site.

In the excerpt, Secretary Spellings and especially Michael Lomax attempted to redefine the debate topic away from the economic value of increasing the number of graduates from four-year colleges to the social/cultural/esteem benefits of ensuring additional minority enrollment. On that point, one wonders how much real benefit there is from impelling more students into four-year college educations, which are already too often mediocre or irrelevant to one’s life in the working world.

And how about a cost-benefit analysis? Is increased federal subsidization of college enrollments really a good use of the taxpayers’ dollars?

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, will testify this morning, 10 a.m., at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing, “HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits.”

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing entitled “HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits” on Thursday, March 18, 2010, in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. This hearing will examine proposed legislation to incentivize home energy retrofits and increase employment in the construction and related sectors.

INVITED WITNESSES:

•The Honorable Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
•Larry Laseter, President, Masco Home Services
•The Honorable John Engler, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Manufacturers
•Michael Thaman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Owens Corning
•Christopher A.S. Pratt, Vice President, Construction and Development Services, LLC

The NAM Vice President Dorothy Coleman issued a statement on the HomeStar program on March 3.

Manufacturers are encouraged by President Obama’s comments yesterday on the Home Star Program and its potential to create jobs at a crucial time in our country. We believe this is a step in the right direction. At the same time, we think there is room for improving the proposal in ways that would result in the creation of even more manufacturing, construction and retail jobs.

We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to advance this important program.

From the University of Phoenix, “University of Phoenix Teams With The Manufacturing Institute to Educate Workforce to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century“:

PHOENIX, March 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, University of Phoenix announced an innovative partnership with The Manufacturing Institute (”Institute”), the non-profit, non-partisan education and research affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Through this educational alliance, University of Phoenix will develop curriculum relevant to today’s manufacturing workforce that aligns to the NAM-Endorsed Manufacturing Skills Certification System (SCS). SCS describes the competencies, certifications and educational attainment levels appropriate to manufacturing careers…[snip]

University of Phoenix will offer programs that enable working learners to advance in their careers while acquiring the skills and competencies in the SCS, which were developed by the Institute and endorsed by NAM. These programs are being specifically developed with the working learner in mind, giving students greater access and flexibility to obtain advanced degrees in a convenient manner. With a greater emphasis on strategic planning and new technologies, the curriculum also ensures that the manufacturing sector stays current and competitive in a global market.

“This unique alliance will provide an education with real-world relevancy that meets the needs for high-tech manufacturing – graduates will gain the knowledge and skills most needed in the manufacturing industry, both today and tomorrow,” said Dr. Brian Lindquist, Dean, University of Phoenix School of Business.

Also, Phoenix Business Journal, “University of Phoenix, Manufacturing Institute launch program.”

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, spoke via conference call with NAM members Tuesday from small- and medium-sized manufacturers, one of a series of quarterly webinars used to bring folks up to date on Washington activities.

On health care, the boss had lots to say. We’ve transcribed some of his comments, with only light editing:

Our priorities at the NAM are unchanged. We came to the health care debate in good faith, saying, “Look, it’s time we have health care reform because we need to reduce health care costs, and we ought to respect all the employer plans that are out there.”

The NAM membership, mostly everybody, provides health insurance to their employees, so we were in the category of “doing the right thing.” Now we’re in the category of “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Our priorities are the same:

• Let’s maximize for manufacturers the widest possible set of opportunities and choices to have different options, some of those very much more affordable than what we have today.
• Let’s improve for the entire system and reform the way we deliver health-care services.
• Let’s increase the transparency on the costs and the quality of that health care, regardless of who’s providing it.

We’ve long been at the manufacturers part of employer-based coalitions, which have sought to educate members of Congress and the public on what we think are the significant economic consequences of what’s being proposed up on the Hill.

Prominent play on the front of the Metro section in today’s Washington Post, “Virginia leaders express interest in offshore drilling“:

RICHMOND — Never has the political climate in Virginia so favored offshore drilling.

Most Virginia leaders — regardless of their political party — have expressed interest in joining Alaska, Texas, Louisiana and other states in setting up offshore platforms to drill for oil and natural gas.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell and fellow elected Republicans strongly back the proposal, as do most members of the state’s congressional delegation, including both U.S. senators, who are Democrats.

The Tallahassee Democrat reports, “Drilling report’s conclusions disappoint both sides:

With its chief proponent saying he is in no hurry, the push to open Florida waters to oil and gas drilling inched past another milestone Monday when a House panel was briefed on a report by a Florida think tank.

House Speaker-designate Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, said he was pleased with the report, which was prepared by the Collins Center and the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida.

“It was fascinating how much of it jibed with what we’ve been hearing in testimony from the experts,” Cannon said.

Cannon: “I’m pleased with the report.” Newspaper: “Both sides disappointed.”

The report concludes that Gulf of Mexico oil production would produce $80 million to $190 million annually in revenue to the state, creating 2,000 to 5,000 jobs.

A recent article in Newsweek provides the big picture, or deep picture, as the case may be. From “Journey to the Center of the Earth“:

From the window of a helicopter 1,500 feet above the Gulf of Mexico, oil platforms look like Tinkertoys in a swimming pool. Dozens dot the horizon stretching south from New Orleans and continuing out as the water deepens and turns a darker blue. Then, about 50 miles offshore, the platforms stop, and for the next hundred miles there’s nothing. This is the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, where the ocean floor is 8,000 feet down and covered in a heavy layer of muck. Below that is an ancient salt bed several miles thick, and hidden under that, trapped tens of thousands of feet down, there’s oil—billions and billions of barrels of it. And it’s all in U.S. waters.

The article uses Chevron’s Tahiti platform (pictured above) as the base of reporting. Good story, tremendous prospects.

If only …

From The Washington Examiner, “The Obama Moratorium: No offshore drilling while he’s in office”

The Obama administration’s six-month delay in approving new offshore drilling leases in federal waters will become a new three-year ban, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quietly told reporters last Friday. Which means that no new oil and gas leases will be approved during President Obama’s term even though two –thirds of the American public supports such activity, according to a December 2009 Rasmussen poll.

Sixty percent also believe that gas and oil prices will drop if the government allows offshore drilling, opening up an estimate 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

When a Cabinet secretary declares a “sea change” in national transportation and infrastructure policy, raising non-motorized transportation to the same priority level as motorized transportation, you’d expect intense coverage from the media. Right?

But as previously noted, reporting on Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s embrace of transportation equivalency last week has been limited to bicycle advocacy sites. One exception has been Trucker.com, a trade publication/website.

Today, a breakthrough! The Baltimore Sun took note. That is, the Sun’s transportation reporter, Michael Dresser, took note in a post on his “Getting There” blog. The post, “LaHood elevates biking, walking to parity with cars“:

Call it sacrilege. Call it radical. But U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has actually elevated the  bicycle and  the human foot to parity with the automobile in federal transportation policy.

On Monday, LaHood announced what could be — if it is backed with actual dollars-and-cents policy — a sea change from the auto-centric bias that has prevailed in federal transportation policy since World War II.

“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he said. “We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

Dresser reports that the The WashCycle blog has called LaHood’s statement “simply the strongest statement of support for prioritizing bicycling and walking ever to come from a sitting secretary of transportation.”

We don’t call it sacrilege, but radical is a fair description. It is indeed a sea change in federal transportation policy that could have profound implications for the U.S. economy and the 80 percent of freight that moves by truck. The Sun is the first mainstream media outfit to recognize, however briefly, the potential impact. Hope it’s not the last.