Maybe Because It Was a Bad Idea?

The Washington Post’s editorial page is at its most scolding tendentiousness when it comes to climate and energy issues. Today one of the editorial writers responsible for the tone, Stephen Stromberg, deputy opinions editor, perfects the approach in a bylined op-ed, “What sank the Senate’s climate bill.” Posing the question, “Who killed the climate bill?” he observes that Senate Democratic leaders chose not to hold a vote on the legislation and some environmentalists blame compromise-minded Senators for the bill’s demise. Stromberg concludes:

But the real answer is simpler: Too many senators have little, if any, incentives to pass climate policy that’s rational in the long term and good for the country as a whole.

Let’s explore another possibility: Too many senators have little, if any, incentives to pass climate policy that’s irrational in the long term and bad for the country as a whole.

Isn’t it possible?

Perhaps Senators studied the economic analyses that concluded the Waxman-Markey bill’s regulations, government programs and more expensive energy would destroy millions of jobs and reduce economic growth.

Senators possibly chose caution after reading accounts of the politicized climate science, e.g., the Climategate e-mail scandal.

Senators might have been reluctant to accelerate the federal government’s growing control of the private sector, believing that solutions to greenhouse gas emissions are more likely to come from new technology and efficiencies produced by the free market.

It is possible that some Americans — including Senators — believe higher energy prices are not a good thing, are not “rational.” They may even argue that point of view in good faith.

Maybe, just maybe, Senators thought passing a climate bill was a bad idea.

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


New Poll Shows Ohioans Recognize Need for Labor Flexibility

The same day that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi again touted the Employee Free Choice Act, a new poll showed Ohioans to be overwhelmingly opposed to the kind of labor policies EFCA represents. The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions released rules of a statewide poll of 1,800 Ohioans, and the respondents’ views on labor were surprisingly strong.

National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez interviewed the Institute’s Matt Mayer on the poll in NRO’s The Corner blog. From “Ohio Wants Something Different“:

Q: What surprised you most about the poll findings?

A: The biggest surprise to us was the high level of support among all demographic groups for workers to have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a labor union to get a job. Given Ohio’s long history of being labor-union-friendly, we thought the numbers would be lower. Our read on this result is that Ohioans know that we won’t be able to grow our manufacturing or overall job market if we remain a state with higher labor costs and greater workplace rigidity. With the current pro-union policies, we just don’t stand much of a chance to attract the big opportunities like South Carolina just got with Boeing’s move to build the new 787 Dreamliner in that state. We’ll get a bone or two every now and again by using big incentive packages, but not in the numbers to get our job market to where it needs to be for the 11.4 million Ohioans to experience real prosperity.

See, competitiveness is structural. You can affect growth and employment on the margins with incentives, grants, stimulus dollars, earmarks, etc., but if the underlying business environment is anti-competitive the winners tend to be the few whom government has picked to be the winners.

More from the poll:

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Congressional Leaders Reaffirm Commitment to Jobs-Killing Legislation

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spoke to Communications Workers of America convention delegates yesterday. Her remarks to the union activists coincided with what House leaders have deemed “Making it in America” week, promoting a strong manufacturing economy and employment.

Yet the Speaker used this opportunity to reiterate her support for the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act, which would lead to the destruction of 600,000 American jobs in the first year after its enactment. As the economic analysis of the legislation by the nonpartisan LEGC shows that for every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration will result in a 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate the following year. The Speaker predicted that the legislation would soon be “the law of the land.” Unfortunate.

Meanwhile the head of the Communications Workers of America, Larry Cohen, said, “[When] a majority of the Senate wants to take action, they can.” He added: “There is no hope of any meaningful restoration of private sector bargaining rights as long as we have these Senate rules.”

Mr. Cohen asserts that the only thing stopping this legislation is procedural hurdles in the upper chamber of the U.S. Senate. We respectively disagree. The only thing stopping this legislation is the legislation itself. Countless members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are united in opposition because the bill wouldn’t restore “private sector bargaining rights,” but would instead promote forced unionization, exacerbate labor-management conflict, rob the U.S. labor market of its dynamism and kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs. It appears that union leaders not only want to change labor laws in their favor but also overhaul longstanding Senate rules to pass their priority.

Union leaders’ strategy here is clear. If you don’t have a popular proposal, change the rules of the game.

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Key Vote: Manufacturers Oppose $11.5 Billion Tax Increase

The National Association of Manufacturers has just sent a “Key Vote” letter to the U.S. House, expressing the NAM’s strong opposition to H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.

The full letter is available here. The gist:

An estimated 22 million people in the United States—more than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53 percent of all manufacturing employees—are employed by companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing $11.5 billion in tax increases on these companies as proposed by H.R. 5893 will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.

Many of the tax increases proposed in H.R. 5893, which are mischaracterized as closing tax loopholes, actually represent significant changes to the pro-growth tax policy supported by Congress and the Administration. For example, the proposed anti-competitive limitation on the use of Sec. 956 loans removes a greatly needed source of U.S. cash for worldwide American companies – a source that Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sought to facilitate in guidance issued as recently as last December. As we continue to work through one of the greatest credit crunches in U.S. history, taking away a source of cash for U.S. companies to grow, build and create jobs puts our fragile recovery at risk.

We are disappointed that many of the bill’s proposed tax increases have not been adequately scrutinized during congressional hearings. In many cases, taxpayers have relied on these longstanding tax provisions in structuring their businesses. Changing the rules without fair and adequate hearings will cost in terms of jobs, investment and manufacturers’ ability to compete overseas.

Manufacturers believe strongly that changes to our international tax laws should be considered in the broader context of tax reform that makes the United States more competitive – not as “pay fors” for unrelated policy initiatives. Moreover, targeting some international tax law changes in advance of the tax reform debate would make the goal of pro-growth, pro-competitiveness reform that much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

The bill has some good provisions, such as extending the Build America Bonds authority and lifting the state volume cap for private activity bonds for water and waste water infrastructure. But the major impact of the bill is to raise taxes on companies that create wealth and jobs in the United States, in the process making the U.S. a less attractive, less competitive place to do business.

The NAM uses “Key Vote” letters to inform members of Congress that the pending votes will be taken into account when assessing a member’s record on manufacturing-related issues.

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


House Passes Manufacturing-Related Bills

The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed three bills that Democratic leadership featured in its “Make it in America” manufacturing-themed week.

Here is the summary of the floor action taken from The Congressional Record’s Daily Digest. Consideration started on Page H6169.

National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010: H.R. 4692, amended, to require the President to prepare a quadrennial National Manufacturing Strategy, by a 2/3 yea-and-nay vote of 379 yeas to 38 nays, Roll No. 477; Pages H6169-79, H6214-15

Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010: H.R. 5156, amended, to provide for the establishment of a Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Fund to assist United States businesses with exporting clean energy technology products and services; Pages H6179-83

End the Trade Deficit Act: H.R. 1875, amended, to establish an Emergency Commission to End the Trade Deficit; Pages H6183-89

Agreed to amend the title so as to read: “To establish the Emergency Trade Deficit Commission.”.
Page H6189

The last bill was amended to remove the objectionable provisions that would have prevented a President from submitting trade agreements to Congres before the commission completed its action.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made a statement on the floor about manufacturing’s importance to the U.S. economy and workers.

The National Association of Manufacturers believes it will take enactment of comprehensive manufacturing strategy, which includes substantive policies on such issues taxes, trade and energy, to improve the competitive environment in which manufacturers in the United States operate. The policy guide and call to action is the NAM’s “Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America.”

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Blowing the Whistle on Whistleblower ‘Protections’

Several major bills lately have included provisions to expand whistleblower protections for employees. The goal of such provisions is to allow employees to report actual employer wrongdoing, bringing regulatory violations and crimes to light in order to correct them. In the cases of the Protecting America’s Workers Act, the Robert C. Byrd Miner and Safety Act and now the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010, these safeguards are meant to allow employees to report unsafe work practices by employers without retaliation.

These protections would be administered by the Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA.) Would they accomplish their stated goal? Well, it’s valuable to look at how other similar whistleblower statutes have played out. OSHA currently has responsibility for processing allegations of whistleblower claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley (“Sarbox”) corporate governance laws. But in examining the caseload of these allegations of the 1,066 claims filed by employees only 25 whistleblower claims were actually upheld. This means that only about 2 percent of all of these whistleblower claims were legitimate.

This is a problem for employers, as they must use valuable resources to address all those other 98 percent of claims that have no merit and are not acted on by OSHA. These claims can be costly and further drive up the cost of doing business in the United States. As several of the aforementioned bills have expansive whistleblower enhancement included, we would hope that Congress would take the time to carefully review and debate the effectiveness of such measures.

The signs of such careful review are not encouraging. The Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010 was introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) late Monday night and is slated to be voted on by the full House on Friday. The speedy action is far from the regular order that would allow the careful consideration of such a major bill that would divert resources away from job creation.

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Natural Gas is So Great. Now Let’s Regulate It Into Submission

Talk about your mixed messages. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) unveiled an “energy” bill on Tuesday that would spend $3.8 billion on rebates to retrofit trucks and other fleet vehicles to natural gas. But at the same time, the bill embraces the environmentalists’ favorite line of attack against hydrofracturing, the technology used to develop the nation’s abundant deposits of shale gas.

From CQ Politics, “Reid’s Energy Bill Revives Fight Over Hydraulic Fracturing“:

Senate Republicans and small oil and gas producers are crying foul over a provision in Majority Leader Harry Reid ’s energy bill that would impose new chemical disclosure requirements on a controversial onshore drilling technique.

The language, included in Reid’s energy bill released Tuesday night, would force companies to publicly disclose the chemicals involved in hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from shale deposits. The widely used process, also called “fracking,” involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep underground to force the gas to the surface.

Environmental and anti-energy groups try to alarm the public over hydrofracturing by putting the words “chemicals” and “water” together in the same sentence, not really caring that the pressurized liquids used to fracture the gas-bearing strata are injected thousands of feet below the drinking water. As long as you can scare people.

You can see the effect in scores of news reports like this one from Pittsburgh radio station KDKA, in which a local resident complains his drinking water is tainted, but the state environmental agency finds no evidence.

“That’s exactly right,” Helen Humphreys, a spokesperson for the DEP, said. “The test results came back with results that are consistent with water in southwestern Pennsylvania.”

The DEP says it also has been unable to verify any contamination cases in the state caused by drilling, even though much of the public believes otherwise.

The Reid provisions resemble a bill sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA), S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act.

OK, but why not disclose the chemicals if there’s no risk to the public? Lee Fuller, head of the industry alliance, Energy In Depth, explained:
(continue reading…)

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)


Taxes, Liability, Incentives and an ‘Energy Bill’

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the long-awaited “energy bill” on Tuesday, legislation that has no cap-and-trade, no utility-only CO2 limits, nor any renewable energy portfolio standards. All to the better…

The legislation is being called “Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act.” (Reid statement, bill summary, text.)

The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the bill is straightforward, “Energy Bill Would End Oil Claims Cap“:

WASHINGTON—A draft energy bill unveiled Tuesday would eliminate the cap on damage claims oil companies must pay for spills, and offer new federal subsidies for natural gas and electric vehicles. But the proposal by Senate Democrats faces an uphill fight….

Mr. Reid’s draft bill would lift the current $75 million cap on economic damages paid to residents and small businesses by oil companies after oil spills. It would also provide various subsidies to encourage the production and purchase of natural-gas and electric vehicles. A new program would encourage homeowners to make energy efficiency upgrades.

The measure’s estimated $15 billion cost would be financed by raising the per-barrel surcharge that oil companies contribute to the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, reacted to the bill with a critical statement, “Senate Energy Bill Threatens Jobs, Economic Growth“:

[The] liability provision sticks out as a jobs killer. Requiring an unattainable level of insurance coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer Continental Shelf will force the vast majority of American companies out of U.S. waters, according to insurers. 

This would cut domestic production, kill American jobs, slow economic growth and cost billions in federal oil and natural gas revenues.

The Journal also refers to the concerns that the bill’s goal of switching transportation to natural gas, coming at the same time that environmental groups and some politicians are calling for increased regulation of hydrofracturing, could produce a price spike as demand outstrips supply. This release last week from the energy consumers explains the objections, “Coalition of Consumers Urges Senate Not to Legislate Natural Gas Demand in Energy/Climate Bill.” (continue reading…)

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Slay the Anti-Tax Monster? Already Dead and Buried

Our dear friend at The Washington Post, Steven Pearlstein today challenges the President to drive a stake “…through the heart of the anti-tax monster that has cast a menacing shadow over American politics for the past 30 years. The idea that it is bad to raise any tax on any taxpayer at any time under any circumstances is a pernicious fallacy that is so ingrained in political conversation that it prevents the country from addressing its most pressing problems.”

Since September of 2009, President Obama has signed into law $670 billion in permanent tax increases. Our take? Challenge met.

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Durable Goods Report Adds to Signs of Slowing Recovery

Today’s report on June durable goods orders adds more fuel to the fire of concern that the recovery is decelerating. For the first time in nearly a year and a half, new orders for durable manufactured goods fell for a second consecutive month in June. While May’s decline was mainly caused by a large decline in nondefense aircraft orders, the June decline was joined by drops in new orders for both computer and electronic products as well as machinery. These declines in new durable goods orders are a worrisome sign that, after the recent growth due in part to fiscal stimulus measures as well as inventory restocking, the economy is now on a decelerating path, which is not a good place to be in the early stages of a recovery.

Based on today’s report, this slowdown will be felt more in the third quarter than the second. Due to stronger gains in prior months, shipments of nondefense capital goods increased at an annual rate of 12.5 percent in the second quarter. This is solid evidence that some combination of exports and domestic business investment made a positive contribution to second quarter GDP growth, which will be released on Friday. Given that machinery, one of the most export-intensive manufacturing industries, posted the strongest shipment gain in the second quarter, I believe that exports are currently a more-prominent driver of the manufacturing recovery than domestic business investment. Uncertainty about the underlying strength of the domestic recovery is likely restraining plans to increase capital investment.

VN:F [1.9.1_1087]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


The Blog for Manufacturers

  • Categories

  • Connect With Us

          
  • Blogroll

  • © 2010 National Association of Manufacturers. All Rights Reserved. | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy