The American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and the American League of Lobbyists have sent the White House counsel, Gregory Craig, a letter asking President Obama to rescind Section 3 of the President’s March 20th directive, “Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds.”

This is the provision that prohibits registered lobbyists from speaking to Executive Branch officials on any specific project that might be funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, i.e., the stimulus bill. (See earlier post.)

The provision is an affront to First Amendment — you can’t speak to public officials? — but as if being unconstitutional weren’t enough, the restriction also will also produce bad government. From the letter:

First, banning lobbyists from in-person and telephonic communications will not advance the stated purpose of ensuring public transparency and accountability and avoiding improper influence or pressure in the decision-making process. For example, non-lobbyists employed by potential recipients of Recovery Act funds, who are permitted oral contact with executive branch officials, may well have contributed significant funds to the presidential campaign and/or to the campaigns of members of Congress who sit on the committees with oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the expenditure of Recovery Act funds.

They may hold positions of enormous power in the business world and have influence in Washington far beyond that of the average registered lobbyist. In addition, many of these nonlobbyists may have a substantial pecuniary interest in whether or not the government awards Recovery Act funds for a particular project, application or applicant. Also, nothing in this memorandum prevents a member of Congress from attempting to influence a funding decision, such as recently occurred with OneUnited Bank. Banning lobbyists from engaging in oral communications, but not bank vice presidents, corporate directors, and others who might seek to influence decision makers is unlikely to result in any real public benefit. Limiting the applicability of Section 3 to registered lobbyists wholly misses the risks inherent in communications with such individuals, while significantly restricting the free speech rights of others who may have no such pecuniary conflict.

And it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

From the Screen Actors Guild Constitution and By-Laws, October 2007:

Section 3. The President, Secretary-Treasurer, Members of the Board of Directors and Alternate
Directors shall be nominated and elected as follows:
(A.) Elections shall be by secret ballot in which all qualified members shall have the right to
participate.

If it’s good enough for Martin Sheen and the other West Wing actors who are in D.C. today touting the ballot-destroying Employee Free Choice Act, it should be good enough for America’s workers.

From Politico, “President Bartlet, aides push EFCA“:

The West Wing” is back — sort of.

The award-winning NBC drama went off the air in 2006, but on Tuesday, “West Wing” stars Martin Sheen, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff will try to use their celebrity status to promote the Employee Free Choice Act, the divisive labor union bill that has stalled in the Senate.

The three actors will unveil a new program called Faces of the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by the pro-labor group American Rights at Work, at a news conference at Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s office. The labor bill is also known as “card check” in business circles because it would get rid of the secret ballot for union elections.

The Screen Actors Guild uses secret ballot elections in voting for their union’s leaders.

Actors have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else (except lobbyists in the White House), so welcome to D.C. and let’s hear the arguments. Oh, heck, Martin, get yourself arrested to show how much you care.

A serious point amid this unseriousness is this: Despite Sen. Specter’s decision to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, organized labor still has every intention of passing this anti-democratic legislation.

More …

Newsmax.com, “Sheen, ‘West Wing’ Stars Push ‘Card Check’ ”

National Journal, “Bartlet On EFCA“

Wall Street Journal, “Night of the Living Death Tax“:

Lawrence Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, declared recently that “Let’s be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year.” Oh yes, yes, there are. The President’s budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history in 2010.

The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of the President’s budget. That note reads: “The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters.” This means the death tax won’t fall to zero next year as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). Better not plan on dying next year after all.

Saving the death tax will have one unavoidable impact: Jobs destroyed or not created.

From the Washington Post, “House Approves Early-Voting Bill, Ban on Chemical in Baby Bottles“:

Another bill would make Maryland the first state in the country to ban the use of bisphenol A in the production of baby bottles, sippy cups and other plastic items for infants. The nation’s six largest bottle manufacturers have announced they will cease use of the chemical because a series of studies have linked it to a wide range of health problems, including neurological damage, diabetes and breast cancer.

Sponsor James W. Hubbard (D-Prince George’s), who persuaded colleagues last year to ban lead-containing toys in Maryland, said he hopes a state law could push the federal government to crack down on the chemical.

That strategy has worked so well with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and phthalates, hasn’t it?

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) sent a letter on March 27 to Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, blasting her for being critical of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

From his news release highlighting the letter, “Durbin Blasts CPSC Chair for Recent Comments on Criticizing New Consumer Safety Laws.”

“Recent comments you have made in the press and in letters to Congress regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) show your continued resistance to modernizing your agency and addressing the genuine public concern over unsafe products,” Durbin wrote. You accused a law that significantly strengthens the Commission’s hand as having “taken away our responsibility to look at the risks and make judgments about what is or isn’t safe for American consumers.” You have also agreed with the appalling implication that the law is responsible for the deaths and serious injuries of children who ride adult ATVs and motorbikes. Noticeably absent from the majority of your public remarks is an emphasis on protecting consumer safety, which happens to be the mission of the agency you lead. Your recent comments make clear that your misguided personal views have not changed, even if they contradict the mission of the agency that you lead and the President that you now serve.”

Nord is a Bush appointee and has been a target for several Congressional Democrats and “consumer activists” who pushed for more restrictive, intrusive and expansive regulations in passing the CPSIA last year. We’re not naive about the partisan politics here, and if need be, blast away.

But it’s not Nord, it’s the professional staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission that outlined the practical impossibility of the agency meeting the demands of the CPSIA. It’s the career, professional, nonpartisan staff that wrote the 21-page letter to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), asserting the law’s demands have “severely overstretched the agency staff and has begun resulting in delays in implementation that will continue until we are able to fully hire and otherwise maximize the resources that have just been provided to the agency for the second half of fiscal year 2009.” It’s the professional staff that detailed the serious difficulties and major costs that the law has caused manufacturers, retailers, thrift stores and booksellers.

And it’s not political appointees who offer views like these, reacting to the law’s ban of children’s mini-bikes and off-road motorcycles. From the Temecula Valley News, California:

I thought that [the ban] wouldn’t be good,” said Hunter Rastavan, 11, of Lake Elsinore. There’s a lot of people in this sport, all the kids out there on minibikes, and it wouldn’t be fair ’cause everybody wants to ride.”

Marcus Gaffner, 10, of Temecula, said sadly, “When I heard about the ban it made me feel really bad that I couldn’t get a new 85cc bike. I’m outgrowing my 65cc bike. Isn’t this about Chinese products and not American or European products anyway?”

Austin Madigan, 8, of Temecula, stated, “I don’t think that it’s fair that as my parts wear out I won’t be able to get any more. Then I can’t ride. It ruins the sport.

“We’d have to skip up to a 250cc bike for me to ride and that’s not safe. I’m not big enough yet for that size bike, but our family has discussed it anyway.”

That’s the little picture, literally. Here’s the big picture, from the Motorcycle Industry Council, “CPSIA Ban On Youth Powersports Vehicles Could Cost Industry $1 Billion Annually“:

The projected loss is based on 2008-estimated value of the retail marketplace* for ATVs and off-highway motorcycles and factors out vehicles and related economic value not included as part of the ban. MIC projects that the estimated value of the retail marketplace related to all youth ATVs and off-highway motorcycles exceeds $1.5 billion, but the ban applies only to products that are intended primarily for youth aged 12 and under. Powersports companies have stopped selling affected youth products with lead content in excess of the limits identified in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that went into force February 10.

“The potential losses for the powersports industry are massive at a time when this country cannot afford additional economic losses,” said Paul Vitrano, general counsel for MIC and SVIA. “With these vehicles sitting in warehouses instead of on showroom floors, the related sales of most protective gear, accessories, and parts and services are virtually non-existent. Thousands of small businesses across America are impacted by this ban.”

There’s nothing partisan or political in the views of the children or the industry association, and they deserve a serious response.

The LA Times opined yesterday its support for certain aspects of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). While we appreciate that the LA Times is troubled  with the EFCA’s effective elimination of secret ballot union elections (as they should be) we are troubled that they feel that there may be ways to improve this section of the bill. We feel that secret ballots are the best way to protect workers from intimidation and coercion in the workplace.

The piece claims that the bill’s binding arbitration  provisions are an “appropriate” aspect of the bill. They further claim that this aspect simply would “ fine-tune the arbitrator’s role” and that “rule makers ought to consider imposing either side’s last, best offer as a way to encourage both sides to be more realistic in their offers and make negotiations more productive.” In practice this provision would fundamentally alter the collective bargaining process, as both parties would prepare for this inevitability by effectively positioning themselves rather than negotiating in good faith.

This part of the bill is backdoor to government wage mandates,  that remove the ability of employers to make key economic decisions that are in the best interest of his business and employees. Proponents often underestimate the impact of this part of the bill, but in reality if the parties engage in collective bargaining can’t reach agreement by unusual fast 120 day period, they’d be forced to have a Federal arbitrator set the binding terms of wages, benefits and work rules.

Under this provision, arbitrators wouldn’t be simply working out the details of the agreement between the parties, they’d be actually writing the terms themselves. The bill doesn’t make it clear how appeals could be made under this language so it could create an environment where businesses would like become less competitive. So what’s the impact? Jobs. Hundreds of thousands of them.

Despite the Times’ proposal to change this legislation, we remain firmly committed to defeating this bill – or any related legislation in any form. Passing the EFCA at any time would be grossly irresponsible.

From The Tax Foundation, “Federal Cigarette Tax Hike Goes Into Effect Tomorrow“:

The federal cigarette tax goes from 39 cents to $1.0066 per 20-cigarette pack tomorrow. The increase, as we noted in February, was coupled with an expansion of the federal children’s health care program.

As my colleague Gerald Prante and I argued, a politically popular and expensive program should never be funded by a small, low-income, politically unpopular minority like cigarette smokers. Just because the government needs revenue to fund some general spending program that has broad benefits doesn’t mean that an arbitrarily selected group of people should pay the tax. Popular, expensive, broadly available public programs should be paid for with broad-based taxes on income or consumption. In our paper, we run through many of the non-revenue reasons for raising cigarette taxes for S-CHIP and find them wanting, including the claim that the tax compensates for cigarette smokers disproportionately consuming public services.

This tax increase will be paid primarily by low-income people, which breaks President Obama’s pledge that families earning less than $250,000 will not see “any form of tax increase…not any of your taxes.”

Anti-smoking advocates north of the border predict what will happen next. From the Canadian Council for Tobacco Control (CCTC), February 19, 2009:

On February 4, 2009, President Obama signed a child health insurance bill that will be paid for by increasing U.S. federal taxes from US$3.90 per carton of 200 cigarettes to US $10.01. “This record increase gives the U.S. government a new motivation to shut down the factories,” concludes Bob Walsh.

“Unless action is taken, it is inevitable that the illegal factories will start sending illegal cigarettes throughout the U.S. instead of just to Canada. President Obama can advance both U.S. and Canadian interests by taking effective and immediate action.”

Excerpts from the President’s remarks, via Reuters.

An e-mail to GM employees from Rick Wagoner, forced out as GM CEO:

On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with Administration officials.  In the course of that meeting, they requested that I “step aside” as CEO of GM, and so I have.

Fritz Henderson is an excellent choice to be the next CEO of GM.  Having worked closely with Fritz for many years, I know that he is the ideal person to lead the company through the completion of our restructuring efforts.  His knowledge of the global industry and the company are exceptional, and he has the intellect, energy, and support among GM’ers worldwide to succeed.  I wish him well, and I stand ready to support him, and interim Non-Executive Chairman Kent Kresa, in every way possible.

I also want to extend my sincerest thanks to everyone who supported GM and me during my time as CEO.  I deeply appreciate the excellent counsel and commitment of the GM Board and the strong support of our many partners including our terrific dealers, suppliers, and community leaders. I am grateful as well to the union leaders with whom I have had the chance to work closely to implement numerous tough but necessary restructuring agreements.

Most important of all I want to express my deepest appreciation to the extraordinary team of GM employees around the world.  You have been a tremendous source of inspiration and pride to me, and I will be forever grateful for the courage and commitment you have shown as we have confronted the unprecedented challenges of the past few years.  GM is a great company with a storied history.  Ignore the doubters because I know it is also a company with a great future.

From a Washington Post story by Juliet Eilperin, “Winds of Change Evident in U.S. Environmental Policy“:

Businesses facing new regulation, however, often call it a case of unelected government employees running amok.

“It’s safe to say [that] within the regulatory bureaucracy, there’s a built-in inclination to draft regulations, because that’s what they do,” said Hank Cox, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers. “With some of these bureaucrats and activist groups, there’s an obliviousness to the costs of these regulations. We’re more comfortable with having people high up in government taking a fairly tough line on new rules.”

After years of behind-the-scenes disputes with their superiors who favored regulatory restraint, many longtime federal workers are now what Cox calls “more in sync” with the new political hires running their agencies.