The White House communications shop is making progress is the timely posting of materials, having yesterday afternoon’s press briefing by Robert Gibbs up by this morning. So that’s good.

We note an exchange over the President’s tax plans and its impact on small businesses, as Gibbs responds to a guestion from Chip, whom we will assume is Chip Reid of CBS:

MR. GIBBS:  Well, that’s true.  But it’s on their income.  I mean, I think it’s interesting, as people listen to those complaining about some aspects of the budget, I think it’s just interesting to note — I think the President was pretty clear on Tuesday — we’re talking about people that earn in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Q    And a huge percentage of those people are small business owners.

MR. GIBBS:  Some of them are, sure.  Some of them are big business owners.  Some of them are home-run hitters in major league baseball.  Some of them run kickoffs back for a living.  Some of them are the President of the United States. 

Q    But a lot of them create jobs.

MR. GIBBS:  Some of them — certainly, some of them, that’s what their job is.  But I would reject this overall premise that when we’re asking for tax fairness from the American people, that we’re — that this is going to kill jobs.  I guess if I follow the logic of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, how do you explain last month’s unemployment figures?  Current tax rates, 550,000 jobs — what happened?

That seems awfully dismissive: Small business, big business, baseball millionaires, yadda, yadda.

The comments also slide right over the reality about small businesses filing as individual taxpayers. Last October, the Heritage Foundation published a paper on the Obama versus McCain tax plans. Relevant passage:

While Obama claims only to raise taxes on the “rich,” the group he is targeting includes many entrepreneurs. The biggest tax hike is placed on those with annual income above $250,000—this group consists of at least 65 percent small-busi­ness tax filers. In other words, most of those fil­ers being targeted with the higher rate are small businesses. These small businesses have an aver­age income of about $645,000. These businesses also hire workers, and steeper tax rates could mean lower wages for those workers, no new job openings, and layoffs.

That’s the issue the reporter was getting at, an important issue worth more than just a gibe in response.

In response to the introduction of the Secret Ballot Protection Act, many EFCA proponents claim that the bill’s supporters are “lying.”

 Webster’s dictionary defines the word “lying” as an intransitive verb:

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Simply because one disagrees with another individual doesn’t necessarily mean that they are promoting lies. The “Think Progess” blog asserts that the supporters of the Secret Ballot Protection Act are “liars” because they argue the Employee Free Choice Act would result in devastating harm to small businesses. Referring to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), the blogger writes:

DeMint took to Fox News to describe why he thinks his firewall is necessary. Amidst the usual false rhetoric about Employee Free Choice eliminating the secret ballot, DeMint also incorrectly claimed that the act would harm small businesses:

 And this is not just for big auto companies, this is for small electrical contractors, companies with 10 or 15 people. It would change the business model of the United States to the same model the U.S. auto industry has in Detroit.

The AFL-CIO and Think Progress themselves point out:

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) excludes non-retail employers whose interstate commerce is less than $50,000 and retail employers whose gross annual volume is less than $500,000; there are various other size exemptions for all sorts of industries, from newspapers to taxicab companies. These exemptions would not change under the Employee Free Choice Act.

In fact, Senator DeMint made no untrue statement. The Employee Free Choice Act would definitely harm small businesses as there is no minimum employee threshold for employers under the bill. And look at the small dollar figures in the threshold of interstate commerce, which most manufacturers engage in. Of course small business is affected. As Senator DeMint highlights, the bill could very harm employers of even 10 or 15 people. Or even less. Is he a “liar” when he contends the legislation would change the basic U.S. business model during tough times, when manufacturers are struggling to remain competitive?

One could go back and forth on the rhetoric, but current law and the proposed legislation are both very clear in whom the bill would harm – INCLUDING the very smallest of businesses.

To all these accusations from the groups who prefer name-calling to debating substance, we are forced to offer a rock ‘n roll retort:

Below we note the possibility of a House Small Business Committee hearing into the effects of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a hearing tentatively scheduled and then unscheduled. Which reminds us of this item we pulled from the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s website on December 8, 2008 (since deleted):

*THE FOLLOWING HEARING HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED*
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008
Implementation of the CPSIA: Urgent Questions about Application Dates,
Testing and Certification, and Protecting Children
This is an oversight hearing examining implementation of Public Law 110-314
(H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)).
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Hearing
10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

Postponed until a date to be determined.

Well, when is that date?

UPDATE (8:30 p.m. Saturday): A reader asks how one knows if a committee (such as the House Small Business Committee) has scheduled a hearing, postponed it, or nothing is one the agenda. Answer: Check the Congressional Record’s Daily Digest on Fridays, when it carries a list of the upcoming week’s hearing. According to the latest Daily Digest, no hearing is pending.

Otherwise, if a hearing does get put on the schedule, we’ll make sure to note it here at the blog. But you shouldn’t anticipate one.

Smart commentary on the PBS Newshour last night from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office. From NRO, The Corner:

Putting aside the philosophical differences about using the income tax for redistribution, I think these tax increases run into two problems of logic. The first is that, when this stimulus bill was passed, a lot of the spending occurred past 2010 into 2011, 2012, 2013, and that was defended by saying, “Gee, the economy might still be weak. We can’t possibly stop spending.”

Well, they’re now going to turn around and whack it over the head with a big tax increase. Those two shouldn’t be around at the same — they don’t make any sense.

The second is, our fundamental problem over the long term is spending. And we won’t tax our way out of that problem. There’s no economist who believes we can raise taxes enough to cover our long-term spending bill.

This budget gets us off on the wrong foot, because where it does cut spending, it turns right around and spends it again on something else. It doesn’t on net put any controls on spending. And spending is the ultimate fiscal discipline. That’s what we need.

From Overlawyered.com, news of a Congress committee hearing planned and then unplanned on the damages to businesses by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. From CPSIA Chronicles, February 26:

A prime objective for critics of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in recent weeks has been to obtain a hearing on Capitol Hill that might focus lawmaker and press attention on the law’s many unexpected and harmful effects. Now it looks as if that might be happening. Rick Woldenberg:

I have been invited to testify before the Subcommittee on Regulations and Healthcare of the House Committee on Small Business next Thursday. The purpose of this hearing is to explore Small Business issues related to the CPSIA. The Subcommittee is still looking for small businesses to testify. … If you are motivated to testify, you may want to reach out to the Subcommittee staff to volunteer, or if you have a Congressman on the Subcommittee, contact their Washington office urgently.

Rick Woldenberg is chairman of Learning Resources Inc., and one of the most effective voices of those whose businesses have been attacked and, in some cases, destroyed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and its obdurate enforcement. But now ot appears he won’t have a chance to tell his story directly to Congress.

Again, Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com:

• UPDATE 5:45 p.m. Eastern: Well, that was quick. A source reports that Congressional staffers hastily announced that they’re canceling the hearing next week and that the idea is “not likely to ever be brought back”. Someone must have realized that letting people from around the country get in front of a microphone and talk about the effects of this law would not exactly do wonders for the image of Henry Waxman, Public Citizen, PIRG, or Consumer Federation of America. More: Rick Woldenberg confirms cancellation/disinvitation.

Rick comments, “This is the third time I have been invited and uninvited to testify before Congress. Mr. Waxman must be terrified to have me on the record. Say, Henry, what’s up? Why are you afraid of me?”

Well, rigid, righteous certitude is a more common attitude than fearfulness among many committee staffers who claim to be looking out for the consumers.

The Small Business Committee hearing was a good idea, allowing people to speak on the record to members of Congress who passed a bill that’s depriving them of their livelihoods — and depriving the public of desired and useful products. Granted, the committee has no relevant jurisdiction, so it couldn’t write legislation to fix the CPSIA, but the public would have least had an opportunity to speak.

And maybe a congressional hearing would have finally prompted the New York Times and the TV networks to cover the issue…which, as Walter Olson suggests, was probably the threat that led to the hearing’s cancellation.

NAM President and CEO John Engler gave the keynote address Thursday at a Brookings Institution event, “The Future of Middle-Skill Jobs,” marking the release of a paper of the same name by Harry Holzer of the Georgetown Public Policy Institute and Robert I. Lerman of American University and the Urban Institute.

Engler’s remarks are available here as an .mp3 file. (About 18 minutes).

Middle-skills jobs are those requiring some post high-school education but not necessarily a four-year degree or other advanced study. In manufacturing, examples the paper cites are first-line supervisors and managers, machinists, cutters and solderers.

Contrary to preconceptions, conventional wisdom and some economists’ arguments, middle-skills positions will remain a significant portion of the economy, and the nation’s educational and workforce development systems must more effectively serve the public to reflect this reality.

David Moltz of Inside Higher Ed was on hand and wrote a very good report on the discussions of the day, “Educating ‘Middle-Skill’ Workers.” Key passages:

Projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that, during the next decade, 45 percent of job openings will be in “middle-skill” positions. These jobs encompass a wide swath of professions from construction supervisors and machinists to dental hygienists and paralegals. Still, those on the Brookings panel expressed concern that projections for the public attainment of skills necessary for these jobs does not appear to meet the high demand.

“If we emerge from this recession without a skilled workforce, then this recovery will be a jobless one,” said John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers and former governor of Michigan

 And …

Holzer argued that “high quality” career and technical education does not trap low-income or unskilled students in certain careers and opportunities. This argument, he said, could be made of traditional vocational education. He noted that solid career and technical education, both at high school and at community college, does not just prepare students for a singular job but provides them with skills for a wide-range of fields.

“We need something to get rid of that wasted senior year,” said Engler, arguing that these high school students should already be making progress toward either college or some work skills credential. “Kids who leave high school should be ready for college without remediation and those who don’t go to college need to have industry certified skills.”

Bold.

In The Know: Are We Giving The Robots That Run Our Society Too Much Power?

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is now on the job, having won Senate confirmation on Tuesday. And the first news release we see:

$2.2M DOL grant to assist auto workers in Missouri

The U.S. Department of Labor on February 26 announced a $2,199,132 grant to assist approximately 574 workers affected by layoffs from automotive industry suppliers across Missouri and in nearby Kansas.

“Today’s grant will allow affected Missourians to receive skills assessment, training and job search assistance to transition into new occupations within the local area,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.

And those are all good things. So congratulations, Madame Secretary, and best of luck. On workforce development, there’s much that can be worked on together. On labor and workplace issues, well, there will no doubt be spirited debate and disagreement.

To get things started on a positive note, we respectfully suggest that it might be wise to ask that union group, American Rights at Work, to remove your name from its website as a member of its Board of Directors. It’s time to put THAT controversy to rest.