From the AP, Milwaukee, “Milwaukee loses appeal in lead paint lawsuit“:

An appeals court on Tuesday rejected the city of Milwaukee’s bid to force a former lead paint manufacturer to pay for the cleanup of 11,000 contaminated properties.

The District 1 Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 the evidence was sufficient to uphold a jury’s ruling that NL Industries Inc. does not have to pay the city costs of cleaning up the inner-city homes. The city sought $52.6 million for the program, which spanned 1992 to 2006 and involved replacing old windows.

The Milwaukee County jury ruled last year the widespread presence of lead paint in Milwaukee homes was a public nuisance, but NL Industries did not “intentionally and unreasonably engage in conduct” that caused it and was not negligent.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court in July rejected the legal and factual grounds on which the state Attorney General sued paint manufacturers, and recognizing its losing case, the city of Columbus, Ohio, soon after dropped its litigation. We may be near the end of these “innovative” efforts by ambitious politicians, who sought to twist public nuisance laws so they could shake down third parties with no demonstrable link to lead contamination. For more, see Leadlawsuits.com, put together by the sued-against manufacturers.

The state of Ohio still has a public nuisance suit against the paint manufacturers pending, one filed by the since disgraced and now-resigned attorney general, Marc Dann; interim AG Nancy Rogers kept it alive. A new AG takes office soon, Richard Cordray, and he’s in a good position to say enough is enough, let’s stop wasting state resources on litigation we are bound to lose.

Friday is the deadline for public comment on the EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on  whether carbon emissions constitute an “endangerment” to the environment and public health through November 28, 2008.  If the answer is yes, look for federal regulation of CO2, turning most industrial activity — human activity — over to the control of the EPA.

(EPA? At first. We can easily envision a separate Office of Carbon Control, with enforcement by the Carbon Cops, clad in those smart charcoal gray uniforms. No Fourth Amendment is safe from the Carbon Cops!)

For more background and a web engine that allows you to submit comments to the EPA, please go to this NAM page, “Express Your Concern to the EPA about ANPR.” How’s that for a call to action?

The Heritage Foundation has also been organizating comments on the carbon regulation scheme. From its Morning Bell blog:

There is something you can do today to prevent future job losses, and it will not cost you, or the American taxpayer, trillions of dollars. As you are reading this, bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are deciding whether to implement an all-encompassing plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA believes a 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act gave the agency the unchecked authority to centrally plan our entire economy. The Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking the EPA released earlier this year envisions federal regulations that would bring heavy burdens to one-fifth of all food service businesses, a third of all health care businesses, half of the entire lodging industry, and even 10% of all buildings used for worship. The EPA even claims the power to set speed limits and regulate your lawnmower.

Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis estimates the EPA plan will cause a net job loss of more than 500,000 by 2011, and will destroy 2.9 million manufacturing jobs by 2029. Obama energy adviser Jason Grumet signaled that the Obama administration would use the EPA plan as a job-loss cudgel to force Congress to adopt Obama’s equally pernicious job-killing cap-and-trade plan.

You can help stop the EPA dead in its tracks right now. As part of the regulatory process, the EPA must take comments from the public before issuing its final ruling. The Heritage Foundation has set up StopEPA.com to make it as easy as possible for you to let the EPA know what you think. But the EPA is not forced to listen forever. The agency will stop taking comments this Friday. Before it’s too late, click here to make your voice heard.

Absolutely.

A post from Point of Law, the legal blog run by Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute:

Critics of EFCA have concentrated most of their fire on the bill’s abolition of the right to a secret ballot before installing a union. But Michael Maslanka at Texas Lawyer suggests that union and Democratic strategists may be willing to trade off card check and instead accept some less radical alteration to current election procedures, such as snap elections in which employers would have relatively little time to make their case. That would furnish cover for pushing through EFCA’s other main provision, the one that hasn’t gotten so much attention, which would direct the imposition of an arbitrator-written union contract if the parties failed to reach one after the initial vote. “The unions will put up a fight on the secret ballot but won’t really care. …The gem of EFCA for unions is that they always, always, always get a contract. Sweet.”

Our suspicions are the same. Card check’s attack against the secret ballot is so egregious, running so contrary to the customs of American democracy, that we opponents have highlighted it. The public readily understands the argument, “They want to eliminate the secret ballot and replace it with a process that will allow union organizers to threaten you into joining…or else.”

Still, in the last half year or so, we’ve tried to talk more about the binding arbitration provisions, which are awful and anti-democratic in their own right. If an initial contract is not reached after 120 days, a government arbitrator comes in and simply imposes a contract on the  company and union for two years. If you run company in a hotly competitive industry and the arbitrator gets it wrong? Well, your company dies.

Compromise. Yeah, compromise.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer provided an indication that’s where the majority might be headed when he circumlocuted on the issue on Fox News Sunday.

We’re going to look at that. We’re going to see if there are modifications to it that can be effective. We’ll bring compromise. But we think, absolutely, American workers have the right to organize and be recognized.

Hoyer made similar comments at his November 18 news conference at the National Press Club.

(continue reading…)

From a Politico story on the political pressure Senate Democrats face over the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act:

“We don’t know if we have 60 yet. We’re at 59 [for cloture] right now,” said Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group. “The issue has become front and center, and the worse the economy gets, the more support we get. [Business groups are] trying to make this a volatile issue for senators.”

That’s some spin.

You can claim the 59 votes for cloture with some measure of sincerity. It may be wrong, but it’s not a dishonest claim.

Otherwise, the issue of card check has been front and center since the Senate voted to block H.R. 800 in June 2007. As for the other nonsense:

“The worse the economy gets, the more support it gets.” Sure. The worse the economy gets, the more the public demands the employees be forced into unions against their will. The more attention given to labor’s fault for the domestic auto industry’s difficulties, the more the public says, “Give us more of that!”

“Business groups are trying to make this a volatile issue.” Snort. It’s not business groups that are trying to destroy the secret ballot in the workplace or enact the biggest shift in employer-employee relations since the 1935 Wagner Act. Throw gasoline on the fire of labor relations and don’t be surprised when things get “volatile,” Mr. Goldstein.

Next thing you know labor representatives will try to claim that the Employee Free Choice Act doesn’t eliminate the secret ballot. Do they think the public is stupid?

UPDATE (4:13 p.m.) Well, that didn’t take long. From Dow-Jones:

An aide to Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said that the bill doesn’t address the question of secret ballot votes at all.
It would compel employers to agree to the creation of a union when presented with 50% of worker support, the aide said.

As a matter of principle, or at least sentiment, the view around here is that winners of executive-branch elections get to choose whom they want on the roster of administration appointees. Still, it’s a good thing when these appointees are highly qualified, experienced and operate in a world of reality rather than utopia. So…

NAM President and CEO John Engler: “In the present environment, it is critically important that the President-elect convey a clear message that his Administration will be in place and ready to proceed on day one. Geithner, Summers and Romer bring with them extensive experience dealing with complex economic issues and track records of success in difficult situations. They are well qualified to contend with today’s economic challenges and provide the leadership we need to get our economy growing again.”

Larry Kudlow, CNBC, in National Review Online: “Here’s my thought on his team. Summers, Geithner, and Romer will all recommend no tax hikes in a recession. Maybe for Keynesian reasons; maybe a nod to supply-siders. Obama talked about a liberal-conservative consensus. But what’s especially encouraging is the appointment of Ms. Romer, who easily could serve as CEA head in a Republican administration (just like Geithner could have been McCain’s Treasury man).”

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: “President-elect Barack Obama has now made three things clear about his plans to bring the economy back: He wants his actions to be big and bold. He sees economic recovery as intimately linked with economic and social reform. And he is bringing in a gifted brain trust to get the job done.”

Noam Scheiber, The New Republic: “I was thrilled to hear yesterday about the dream-team pairing that will make Geithner Treasury Secretary and Summers a top White House adviser. Geithner is one of the most able technocrats to have risen through Treasury’s ranks, which makes him the perfect pick to run its sprawling bureaucracy; Summers is one of the top two or three economic minds of his generation, which makes him a guy you want in the room with the president.”

All these statements came before the President-elect’s announcement today of Peter Orszag as his director of the Office of Management and Budget, another appointment of a highly respected, mainstream economic expert.

The asbestos litigation machine hit a major obstacle last week thanks to a ruling in Michigan by Wayne County Circuit Judge Robert Colombo. Judge Colombo threw out medical evidence and expert testimony from Dr. Michael Kelly, a Lansing internist and occupational medicine doctor who has diagnosed thousands of patients with asbestos-related ailments.

Acting on a motion by the company, Sure Seal, Colombo’s ruling affects puts into doubt 2,131 asbestos lawsuits on his docket. As reported the Detroit Free Press, it could also have national ramifications, according to asbestos expert Lester Brickman, a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University in New York: “It is the first time in the history of the biggest litigation ever that a judge has excluded the diagnoses of a physician on the basis that they did not meet the standards of reliability set by the U.S. Supreme Court for expert testimony.” An earlier Detroit Free Press article covers the arguments, “Asbestos diagnoses defended.”

The Wall Street Journal editorialists also examined the Wayne County litigation involving the asbestos-diagnosing Dr. in a November 10 editorial, “Michigan Malpractice”:

Of the 91 asbestos cases Judge Colombo was set to oversee this month, Dr. Kelly provided a diagnosis in 80. In addition to giving the judge a broad picture of Dr. Kelly’s work, defense attorneys also retained two respected pulmonologists to review specific cases. Jack Parker, who spent years at the Centers for Disease Control, provided the court with a blind study in which independent X-ray readers found an abnormality in only one of 68 (1.5%) X-rays that Dr. Kelly read. Dr. Kelly had found abnormalities in 88% of those X-rays.Judge Colombo, who has been the state’s asbestos judge since the early 1990s, initially balked at diving into this medical evidence — suggesting he preferred a quick and easy settlement. But in the face of evidence that up to 90% of the cases in front of him were fraudulent, he ultimately relented and last week agreed to a hearing on Dr. Kelly. At which point something astonishing happened. Within 24-hours of the judge’s decision, the plaintiffs attorneys voluntarily pulled all but one of the suits. They clearly have no interest in subjecting their “doctor,” and his methods, to judicial scrutiny.

The asbestos litigation machine has long depended on things like mass diagnoses and a few favored doctors to stack up absurd legal claims.

Sometimes, the machine even invents them. The American Justice Partnership’s latest issue of “Legal Shakedowns and Scandals” examines the case of Dr. Oscar Frye, who diagnosed a West Virginia employee of CSX with asbestosis.

The phantom Dr. Frye seems to be the concoction of Chambers, who submitted the fraudulent medical report to his lawyers.5 The attorneys failed to verify the authenticity of the report before filing suit against CSX.

The personal injury firm that filed the Chambers case, Robert Peirce & Associates, reacted to the allegations by claiming no knowledge of the fraudulent acts and by withdrawing from its representation of Chambers.

Highly recommended on this topic: The Manhattan Institute’s “Trial Lawyers Inc. Asbestos” report, “A Report on the Asbestos Litigation Industry, 2008.”

Yes, the asbestos litigation machine has bankrupted scores of companies. But it’s important to remember that all the scams, false diagnoses, billing excesses and plain fraud do a profound disservice to those who have suffered from illness and even death from real cases of asbestos exposure.

We inserted a YouTube video of Bobby Bare singing “Detroit City” yesterday into the post about auto industry aid, mostly because we had an excuse to insert a video of Bobby Bare. Twelve-string guitar!

A colleague suggested the message was muddled because, in fact, the song’s narrator does not want to return to Detroit. He’s thinking leaving Detroit to head home.

Last night I went to sleep in Detroit city,
And I dreamed about those cotton fields and home.

We understand that to be a clear reference to more flexible work rules and reasonable wage rates of the auto industry in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina.

In any case, here’s Bobby in Norway:

From Norway to Canada. This story was played prominently in today’s National Post (Canada), “Union concessions must be part of auto bailout plan: Clement“:

The federal Industry Minister warned the Canadian Auto Workers union Monday night it must be prepared to make concessions as part of a federal government aid plan to help the ailing Detroit-based auto manufacturers.

“It’s got to be a message that’s got to be heard by the union,” Tony Clement said in an interview with CPAC, the privately-owned public-affairs channel. “There’s a lot of transformation that has to occur — let’s put it that way.”

Mr. Clement is the first federal politician to indicate that union concessions must be part of an overall plan to help rescue General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC.

Back in the USA, from Marketwatch, “Fed unveils $200 billion plan to bolster consumer lending“: “NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The Federal Reserve unveiled Tuesday what it called a term asset-backed securities loan facility, a plan under which it will lend up to $200 billion to support the issuance of debt backed by consumer and small-business debt, such as credit-card loans, student debt, auto loans and loans backed by the Small Business Administration.”

From today’s Washington Post, “Holiday Travelers Pumped“:

Despite all of the doom and gloom over the economy, people in the Washington area are still planning to travel long distances for dry turkey and the warm embrace of family.

Travel experts say the dramatic fall in gas prices — down from an average of $4.11 a gallon in July to $1.91 today — is likely to salvage a holiday travel season that had been predicted to be one of the worst in memory.

Congress returns to Washington the week of December 8th. We demand a hearing calling the major oil company executives on the carpet, asking them to explain why they and co-conspirators in the futures market have manipulated prices to fall as low as they have. Who’s profiting? Why? Isn’t it it time for a Federal Trade Commission investigation into price-gouging?

Lousy speculators.

A letter to the editor from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in today’s Washington Post, “A Gift to Energy Independence“:

The Nov. 13 editorial “Drilling in Utah” overreached with a headline that called President Bush‘s decision to authorize the sale of oil and gas leases on 360,000 acres in Utah “one last gift to the oil and gas industry.”

It would be more accurate to characterize the president’s decision as a step toward energy independence. By opening up Utah land for environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration, the Bush administration is sending a clear signal that we must act to increase the nation’s domestic oil supply.

To place Utah lands off-limits for such exploration would not only cost jobs and be bad for the economy, it would also show we are not serious about weaning the nation off its dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We cannot afford to keep spending $700 billion every year to buy oil from foreign governments, many of which are not our friends and whose principles are antithetical to those of freedom-loving people around the world.

Developing alternative energy sources, as the editorial correctly points out, is a vital part of solving the energy crisis. I’m a strong advocate for solar, wind, geothermal and other energy alternatives. But that will take time. The last time I checked, 97 percent of our planes, trains, ships and automobiles ran on oil.

Our nation needs to ramp up efforts to increase production of domestic oil and alternative energy sources. The Bush administration recognizes that, and I applaud the president for his foresight and leadership on the issue.

The Post’s editorial to which Senator Hatch is responding is here. The Post’s editorial page is generally balanced and thoughtful on major policy issues facing the country, but on energy and climate change, the editorials tend toward rigidly ideological, pushing the anti-market, anti-fossil fuels agenda of the environmental left. “One last gift to the oil and gas industry?” That’s not thinking, that’s sloganeering.

At the California Manufacturers and Technology Association blog, MPowered, Greg Hines reacts to all the talk of getting people to pay their “fair share” to counter the state’s latest budget crisis. Of course, “fair share” always means higher-income taxpayers and business pay more, even though in a state of more than 34 million people, fewer than 150,000 people contribute approximately 27.5 percent of the state’s entire general fund, while corporate and franchise taxes account for another 11 percent of the general fund budget.

The problem is that we have slowly sent signals to businesses and individuals that California will tax success more than any other State.  Why would any business leader operating in today’s global marketplace make a decision to expand or invest in California?  Ask Intel why they no longer manufacture in the state they were founded, or try to talk to Tiger Woods, the Southern California native golfer, about moving to Florida after turning pro.   Simple answers: Less taxes for the former and $9.6 million less taxes for the latter.

Elsewhere, historian Vincent Davis Hanson, a Californian, includes the state’s errors in a list of 10 random, politically incorrect thoughts.

5. California is now a valuable touchstone to the country, a warning of what not to do. Rarely has a single generation inherited so much natural wealth and bounty from the investment and hard work of those more noble now resting in our cemeteries—and squandered that gift within a generation. Compare the vast gulf from old Governor Pat Brown to Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. We did not invest in many dams, canals, rails, and airports (though we use them all to excess); we sued each other rather than planned; wrote impact statements rather than left behind infrastructure; we redistributed, indulged, blamed, and so managed all at once to create a state with about the highest income and sales taxes and the worst schools, roads, hospitals, and airports. A walk through downtown San Francisco, a stroll up the Fresno downtown mall, a drive along highway 101 (yes, in many places it is still a four-lane, pot-holed highway), an afternoon at LAX, a glance at the catalogue of Cal State Monterey, a visit to the park in Parlier—all that would make our forefathers weep. We can’t build a new nuclear plant; can’t drill a new offshore oil well; can’t build an all-weather road across the Sierra; can’t build a few tracts of new affordable houses in the Bay Area; can’t build a dam for a water-short state; and can’t create even a mediocre passenger rail system. Everything else—well, we do that well.

From Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, “State may need total fiscal overhaul“:

Schwarzenegger’s centerpiece is a 1.5-cent sales tax boost for three years. Another important piece is borrowing $15 billion against the state lottery’s profits to provide $5 billion a year for three years. Many of his spending cuts also are limited in term.

Schwarzenegger’s approach conflicts with forecasts of potentially immense deficits for many years due to economic uncertainty and the underlying structural deficit and because so many recent fiscal moves are short-term gimmicks. It could leave his successor with a big mess.

Causing the biggest ruckus? Schwarzenegger’s proposed tax on veterinarian services. In attempts to broaden the sales tax to services, you always encounter one targeted group that has passion and organization on its side. Pet owners fit the bill this time. Never go up against pet owners.

Meanwhile…San Francisco Chronicle, “California’s clout in Congress grows.”