The National Association of Manufacturers just released a statement from NAM President and CEO John Engler on President Obama’s proposed FY2010 executive budget:

At a time when our country is mired in a severe recession, suffering from rising job losses and a financial system in turmoil, the high taxes and anti-investment provisions proposed in the Administration’s budget plan will stifle our economy’s ability to recover, grow and create jobs. As a strong supporter of the recently-enacted legislation to stimulate economic recovery and growth, we are extremely concerned that the Administration’s proposed budget will take us in exactly the wrong direction.

The NAM acknowledges and appreciates the President’s budget recommendation to promote innovation and job creation by making the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent and providing important tax relief to struggling companies of all sizes.

At the same time, the benefits of these pro-growth tax provisions and those contained in the recently enacted stimulus legislation are dwarfed by major, job-destroying tax increases on thousands of manufacturers of all sizes across all industry sectors.

The NAM supported the temporary stimulus legislation because the targeted government investment and tax relief in the plan will jump start the economy. But it makes no sense to jump start one minute, slam on the brakes the next and then head full-speed into reverse. That’s what today’s budget proposal means for jobs and growth. Not only would it destroy jobs and impair the recovery, it would further devastate 401k accounts, pensions and other retirement funds.

We are not prepared to give up on our nation’s economic recovery and growth or on the ability of businesses to create quality jobs for American workers. To succeed, though, we need an environment that promotes investment and job creation. The answer is not to impose a massive tax increase on job-creating businesses that will slow down our economic recovery and severely damage the ability of employers to hire new workers.

We recognize that today’s budget blueprint is the first step in a long process. We will continue to review the details of the plan in the coming days. The manufacturing economy and our 12 million-plus workers and their families have much to lose if the budget plan as released today is enacted into law.

A friend forwards the following e-mail from an acquaintance who has volunteered at Community Homestead, a farm/occupational center in Wisconsin for adults with disabilities. The young woman writes:

As you may know, 4 years ago I spent my summer working at an organic farm that did lifesharing work with people with disabilities. It was the best environment I have ever seen for adults with disabilities, doing valuable work, forming lasting relationships, and giving back to their community. Right now, that community is in danger due to new testing laws for toy manufacture (how the farm supports itself through the winter months) which will put countless independent businesses, particularly of hand crafted toys, out of business. If you want to learn more about this, you can read the e-mail below, but if not, please take one moment to go to this website http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/ and sign the petition. It will take less than a minute and could make a huge difference for this amazing community.

So add the developmentally disabled to the long list of groups affected by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act – or rather, people, individuals, deprived of opportunity and activity because of “consumer activists” and Congress.

She appends an email from Community Homestead:

Please take time to read this. It is critical to our future here at
Community Homestead. Please forward and inform anyone who will help us here.

Recently we became aware of a law which will be enacted on Feb 10th 09.�
(CPSIA) This law as it stands effectively stops us producing toys for�
children. No more puzzles, swords, shields, aprons, perhaps boxes and�
wall -hangings.
  (continue reading…)

If the Toxic Substances Control Act is to be rewritten (see below), one of the targets in the process will be nanotechnology. From the Houston Chronicle, “Warnings issued on nanotechnology“:

Pressure for regulation

This month, the EPA decided to classify carbon nanotubes as “new” chemicals. But even if all nanomaterials are classified as “new,” they’re unlikely to face a rigorous review because of weaknesses in the toxic substances act, said J. Clarence Davies, a senior advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Davies plans to be among those testifying at today’s hearing before the U.S. House subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. He and others are expected to urge lawmakers to pressure the EPA to adopt a more comprehensive approach to regulating chemicals, similar to that of a 2006 European Union law. That act requires companies to prove chemicals are safe, unlike TSCA, which puts the burden on the government to prove a harm.

The looming regulations have prompted something of a boon for consultants who seek to guide companies.

“Everyone in the country is laying off people,” said Harry Bushong, president of NanoTox. “Right now, I need to hire people.”

Perfect. Apply the precautionary principle to nanotechnology and watch innovation disappear. But consulting firms…

UPDATE: (11:20 a.m.): And indeed, the testimony on nanotechnology came from the Chronicle-cited

And here’s the witness list and prepared premarks for today’s Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Hearing on “Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.”

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee holds the opening hearing today in what could well be a multiyear effort to establish the “precautionary principle” as the regulatory framework for treatment of all chemicals used in commerce. The precautionary principle requires those who seek to introduce new products into the marketplace to prove conclusively that those products will cause no harm, ever. Applying this unattainable standard to chemicals — prove the negative: NO RISK! – would stifle innovation, invite yet another expansion of the litigation shakedown game, and drive people out of business. (For more on the precautionary principle, see the extended entry section below.)

Think the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has had disastrous effects on home-based businesses, thrift stores, the clothing industry, recreational vehicle manufacturers and retailers, libraries and bookstores, artisans, toy makers, Irish step-dancers and, oh yes, consumers? Rewriting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 could be CPSIA tripled.

According to the website of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the committee’ hearing is, “Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976,” scheduled at 10 today to “address critical gaps in the statute and explore how these gaps hinder effective chemical safety policy in the United States.”

Some commenters have seen the hearing as setting the stage for reintroduction of the Kid Safe Chemical Act, legislation that would “ensure for the first time that all the chemicals used in baby bottles, children’s toys and other products are proven to be safe before they are put on the market” – that’s the description from a news release last year by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Lautenberg, Rep. Henry Waxman — the full committee chairman — and Rep. Hilda Solis, now Labor Secretary, sponsored the legislation in 2008. (H.R. 6100 and S. 3040). Thankfully, bills that mentions “kids” or “children” in their titles never affect anyone other than children or have unintended consequences.

In attempting to rid the world of all risk, advocates of the precautionary principles create regulatory and economic paralysis. If you’re the manufacturer of plastic bath toys, for example, trying to replace the phthalates banned by the CPSIA, every possible substitute chemical is an invitation to lengthy, expensive and capricious regulatory review followed by cash-seeking litigation. Why bother?

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, chaired by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), is the committee with jurisdiction over implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Rather than holding an oversight hearing into the economic catastrophe caused by the law, the committee is looking to see what other portions of the economy it can intervene in. A more serious, necessary focus would start with a review of the CPSIA. (continue reading…)

Prepared testimony from Wednesday’s hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee, “Offshore Drilling: Industrial Perspectives.”

Witnesses:
Marvin E. Odum, President, Shell Oil Company
Lamar McKay, Chairman and President, BP America, Inc.
Larry Nichols, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Devon Energy Corporation
Tim Cejka, President, ExxonMobil Exploration Company
Gary Luquette, President, Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company
Karen A. Harbert, President & CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Nichols testified not just as chairman of Devon but also as chairman of the American Petroleum Institute. His statement was also endorsed by the American Exploration & Production Council, Independent Petroleum Association of America, International Association of Drilling Contractors, National Ocean Industries Association, Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association, and the US Oil & Gas Association.

His conclusion:

What the nation needs is a policy that increases, not decreases, domestic energy production. Offshore development is a vital component of U.S. energy development. Barriers to offshore oil and natural gas production contribute to volatile energy prices, slower economic growth, lost American jobs and a weakened U.S. position in global markets. We need to find and develop our offshore oil and natural gas resources in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound way. By so doing, we can put America on the road to economic recovery and help ensure our nation’s energy security for decades to come.

A 1,900 percent tax increase on beer! So propose the Oregon legislators sponsoring HB 2461.

The Oregon Brewers Guild puts the tax increase in context:

If, 25 years ago, a group had approached Oregon Legislators promising their industry would produce 5,200 direct jobs and over 10,000 indirect jobs, if they promised their industry would be clean, green, popular with Oregonians and provide a uniquely Oregon attraction for visitors that would equal the states wineries, if they would forego any tax breaks plus agree to pay tens of millions of dollars for the privilege of doing business in Oregon – what would legislators have said?

That is the history of Oregon’s craft brewing industry. We’ve grown an iconic industry built on uniquely Oregon advantages in agriculture, people, place, lifestyle and tourism. Oregon legislators have encouraged the growth of the Oregon craft beer industry by keeping beer taxes here competitive with neighboring states. Only 1 of the top 50 Craft brewing companies in the U.S. in 2007 resides in a top 10 beer excise tax state. Oregon is home to 7 of the top 50 craft brewing companies in the U.S.

Raising Oregon beer tax rates would be bad for Oregonians and Oregon beer producers because…

Boosting beer taxes by nearly $50 per barrel – an increase of over 1900% – would make Oregon beer taxes the highest in the country.

Raising Oregon beer taxes by nearly $50 per barrel would be the largest single increase in beer taxes in American history.

All across the country, citizens are gathering to protest federal spending, the stimulus, mortgage relief plans and government excess — protests adopting the model of the Boston Tea Party.

Now, in Oregon, government is trying to recreate the conditions that produced the Whiskey Rebellion.

Students of American history may appreciate these developments, but there’s nothing aesthetic about taxes targeting industries and destroying jobs.

(Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds)

James Lileks comments on the ritualized response coming from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom upon being caught with bottled water. Bottled water! How unenlightened, declasse and antigreen.

This sums up with exquisite precision the people we elect to guide our institutions:

Fix on something small and symbolic, and demonize it;

Propose a response that does little to address the fundamental problem;

Forbid the thing to others;

Reserve its use for yourself;

Adopt a penitent tone when caught which underscores the hypocrisy and makes you look like a dweeb for apologizing for something which, while petty, you have infused with moral failings. 

I’m not big on shouting HYPOCRITE, for the most part, because failing to do a thing you   endorse does not mean the thing you’re endorsing isn’t a good idea. But that equation changes when it’s something they want to take away from you, but reserve for themselves. In any case, it’s just laughable to see a weightless fool who, for the sake of public image and sending the right messages,  has to apologize for having the wrong kind of water container  – and has an aide describe it as an indulgence.

Sir. Six oysters for breakfast with a rasher of bacon is an indulgence. Three showgirls in your lap is an indulgence. Racing a car at high speed on weekends is an indulgence. Having a moral tuning fork that twinges when someone drinks water from a plastic bottle is an affectation. 

Today, bottled water. Tomorrow, who knows what will be on the list of socially accepatable goods? Some other perfectly normal product that people buy because they want to.

Actually, might be a fun little guessing game. Pate de foie gras is evil. Products with transfats, verboten. Bottled water, eeek!

Our guess: Ice cream that uses carrageenan, demonized because of the harm caused to ocean life in the harvesting of seaweed. Birds, fish and phytoplankton are traumatized.

Hugh Hewitt, the popular radio talk show host, attorney and law professor — one of the best interviewers out there — is taking an interest in the enormous economic harm caused by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. On his blog today, Hughhewitt.com, he wonders how President Obama’s economic prescriptions can overlook the CPSIA catastrophe. From”Fixing CPSIA, Now”:

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:40 AM Yesterday marked the first day that plaintiffs’ attorneys could file suits against anyone selling goods covered by the Consumer Products Safety Improvements Act  –basically anything intended for use by children.  This draconian law continues to sweep across the retail world and to cause economic damage that is deep and enduring.  The impact on all-terrain vehicles, for example, was clearly not foreseen by Congress but the strict liabilities of the Act have forced the withdrawal of tens of millions of dollars of product from the market and a resulting devastation on the industry.

Listening to the president last night promise recovery, it occurred to me that the appropriations bill now moving through the Congress is a vehicle for CPSIA reform.  At a minimum it ought to include a rider that delays the effective date of CPSIA for another year.  Alternatively, it could provide funding to replace the suddenly worthless inventory covered by the Act and an exemption for the resale market.  (Thrift shops and other charitable resellers have been particularly hard hit by CPSIA given their very low profit margins and their inability to afford pricey compliance lawyers.)

The recession has already slammed many retailers.  Allowing CPSIA to continue its rollout, now accompanied by legions of plaintiffs’ lawyers, is the equivalent of the old medical practice of bleeding the ill.  Congress can fix this, and should.

We’re not wild about the idea of having to compensate those damaged by the law. For one thing, the taxpayers and the taxpayers of 2023 are already being asked to pay for too much, and the CPSIA’s economic harm is TOO MUCH. From Overlawyered.com, “CPSIA: Powersports, crystals, and stranded inventories”:

With large inventories of kid-sized motorbikes, mini-ATVs, and similar products rendered worthless and unsalable under tarps or in back storage rooms, the Motorcycle Industry Council now estimates that the economic damage from the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in its sector of the economy alone could reach $1 billion in 2009 if Congress does not act to restore the products’ legality

As Hewitt argues, Congress should just fix it. But has any member of the majority party talked about this issue, any committee chairman? Constituents of Democrats are getting hammered as hard as constituents of Republicans.

From The New York Times, “Economic Crisis Complicates California’s Goals on Climate“:

COLTON, Calif. — Only a few years ago, CalPortland planned on keeping its plant here operating as long as Mount Slover’s limestone held out. For more than a century, Colton’s kilns and crushing machines have been churning out cement for the streets and buildings of Los Angeles.

But the company says the plant’s future is now uncertain. The recession has sent cement prices plunging, lowered profits and forced CalPortland’s drivers to cut back on hours. And the company says it faces new expenses: the cost of meeting California’s new requirements that manufacturers take steps to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.

The state’s plan includes a cap-and-trade system, a concept that President Obama endorsed in his speech last night. It turns out that in trying to sell the scheme to transform the state’s economy, economist/advocates/analysts dramatically underestimated the costs.

But the projections were strongly criticized as unrealistic by the affected industries and by independent economists who reviewed the analysis — including two from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which supports the emission reduction goals.

In one withering review, Matthew E. Kahn of the University of California, Los Angeles said the analysis unconvincingly portrayed the law as “a riskless free lunch.” Another economist, Robert N. Stavins of Harvard, said the regulators were “systematically biased” in ways “that lead to potentially severe underestimates of costs.”

The comments are found in the peer review comments to the California Air Resource Board’s Economic Analysis Supplement to the Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan.

So much for policy being driven by sound science. It’s certainly not a good precedent for a national cap-and-trade scheme.

New York Times, “Climate bill needed to ‘save our planet,’ says Obama “:

President Obama lent his voice last night to the push for a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions, using his first speech to a joint session of Congress to lobby for controversiallegislation sure to spark a heated debate during tight economic times.

Obama campaigned for president last year with climate change and energy issues atop his agenda. And he returned to those themes yesterday, saying that a cap-and-trade bill would help spark economic recovery by giving U.S. companies greater incentive to start producing more wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels and battery-powered automobiles.

“To truly transform our economy, to protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” Obama said in his address to Congress. “So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. That’s what we need.”

Washington Times, “Obama counting on cap-and-trade“:

President Obama is banking on $300 billion to come in by 2022 from a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a source with knowledge of the president’s proposed budget.

Mr. Obama expects money from the climate-change proposal to start rolling in by 2012, and that amount would come in over the subsequent 10 years as companies purchase carbon offsets, according to the source.

The budget’s assumption of money from a revenue stream that does not yet exist provides a concrete indication that Mr. Obama expects a cap-and-trade system to be in place soon although Congress still must shape, write, debate and decide on a timetable for legislation that likely will be divisive even among Democrats.

It’s worth remembering that in Europe, cap and trade has failed to “save our planet” and “transform our economy.” It’s failed all the way around.

Heritage Foundation, Why Should the U.S. Embrace Failure?

Chris Horner, Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review Online, “Verdict: Failure.”