The Senate Commerce Committee has announced a hearing for next Wednesday on the nominations of Anne Northup and Robert Adler to serve as commissioners on the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Details here.

That’s quick. (The President has only announced his intention to nominate Northup. Assuming the actual nomination comes today or Monday.)

News coverage on Northup’s nomination:

• Louisville Courier Journal, “Obama picks Anne Northup for Consumer Product Safety Commission.“
• Lexington Herald-Leader, “Obama to nominate Northup for consumer safety post“

MSNBC characterized the nomination as another “step by Obama to bring Republicans into the Administration.”  Since it’s a commission seat reserved for a non-Democrat, not really. A clarification followed.

From a news release by the Associated General Contractors of America, “Stimulus Construction Funds Have Little Impact to Date on Companies’ Ability to Hire New Employees, Analysis Finds“:

The stimulus plan appears to be having little influence on construction companies’ ability to expand payrolls to date according to a new industry analysis of the impact of the federal program’s construction spending released today by the Associated General Contractors of America. The “disappointingly” slow pace of construction spending outside of the transportation sector is one of the main reasons for the relatively small impact on new hiring, the group noted.

“While the construction portion of the stimulus is having an impact, it is far from delivering its full
promise and potential,” said Stephen E. Sandherr, the chief executive officer of the contractors association. “With construction unemployment at almost double the national rate, it is disappointing to see so many stimulus programs getting off to such a slow start.”

• View the survey results.
• View AGC’s analysis.
• Listen to the conference call.

From The Detroit Free Press: “WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved an emergency $2-billion infusion for the cash-for-clunkers program this afternoon, with a plethora of lawmakers from around the country calling it a runaway success that should not be ended.”

The National Association of Auto Dealers is very supportive of the concept, but worries that a rushed or unclear process could leave dealers not reimbursed:

NADA Chairman John McEleney, an Iowa dealer, said the organization had been assured by the Obama administration that all transactions consummated through today will be honored.

“Nonetheless, until further definitive guidance on the availability of funding is provided by the administration, dealers who accept additional ‘clunkers’ deals may face a risk that they will not be reimbursed,” McEleney said.

At National Review Online, Henry Payne points to provisions of the law that merit some tough questions. From “Crush for Clunkers“:

[A] little noticed provision of the program requires that the trade-in vehicles be “scrapped, crushed or shredded.” The 136-page rulebook [PDF] by which NHTSA administers the Clunkers program is a revealing window into the planet-first ideologues that are now running our country….

[Demands] that the guzzlers be permanently shredded means that already hurting used-car and -parts businesses will suffer. By insisting that the cars not only be crushed — but also that their engines be disabled — Congress’s decree will penalize the industry at time when a dozen U.S. parts suppliers have filed for bankruptcy this year.

The Washington Post today publishes an op-ed by Philip K. Howard, chairman of the Common Good legal reform group and a partner with the law firm Covington & Burling, “Health Reform’s Taboo Topic.”

Not taboo at Shopfloor.org, where we’ve been writing (crankily) about the influence of the powerful special interest, the trial lawyers, and their influential lobbyists, preventing consideration of liability limits as an element in any health-care reform. Howard explains the cost of that omission:

[Congressional] leadership has slammed the door on solutions to the one driver of waste that is relatively easy to fix: the erratic, expensive and time-consuming jury-by-jury malpractice system. Pilot projects could test whether this system should be replaced with expert health courts, but leaders who say they want to cut costs will not even consider them.

What are they scared of? The answer is inescapable — such expert courts might succeed and undercut the special interest of an influential lobby, the trial lawyers. An expeditious and reliable new system would compensate patients more quickly and at a fraction of the overhead of the current medical justice system, which spends nearly 60 cents of every dollar on lawyers’ fees and administrative costs.

Even more compelling, expert health courts would eliminate the need for “defensive medicine,” thereby helping to save enough money for America to afford universal health coverage.

And here’s yet another Washington Post story on the influence of lobbying on the health care debate, “Industry Is Generous To Influential Bloc.”

And yet again, no mention of the American Association for Justice or campaign contributions from the plaintiffs’ bar.

The House on Thursday passed H.R. 2749, the food safety regulation bill, by a vote of 283-142. Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com notes the New York Times coverage omitted the controversial aspects of the legislation. The regulatory impact may take several years to be felt in its full impact, he suggests.

We wondered whether the excesses of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act informed the debate, providing any cautionary lessons, etc. After all, it’s a regulatory measure that invokes “safety.” But searching through The Congressional Record for terms like “consumer product” or “CPSIA,” we find no mention of the 2008 legislation.

The Commerce Department report on second quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was better than expected, showing the economy fell only 1 percent – less than the 1.5 percent drop that was expected – and significantly less than the revised 6 percent decline for the first quarter. (Commerce news release.)

Exports declined only 7 percent in the second quarter after falling 30 percent the quarter before, and business investment fell 8.9 percent after declining 39 percent the quarter before. Coupled with the increase in durable goods orders reported earlier this week, these are positive signs that suggest the economic decline is leveling off.

On the other hand, the private sector is still struggling. If you factor out government spending, the GDP actually fell by 2 percent in the second quarter. And consumer confidence fell again, a cause for concern.

The overall trend is positive and suggests business will improve in the third quarter, but probably not enough to move the economy into positive growth.

The House has just started debating the rule for H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act, and a final vote on the bill is expected in the early afternoon.

The National Association of Manufacturers sent a “Key Vote” letter to House members yesterday expressing the NAM’s opposition, arguing that the bill would be excessively burdensome and disruptive to companies during tough economic times. Excerpt:

The debate about executive compensation is important; effective accountability is key to preventing excessive abuses. The NAM believes that H.R. 3269 would not provide real solutions but would have serious unintended consequences. Specifically, we oppose provisions that would: 1) require an annual, non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation; and 2) grant the government authority over employee compensation for certain companies.

By law, executive pay is already disclosed to shareholders with an extensive explanation by the compensation committee regarding the rationale behind executive pay. The NAM believes that communication between investors and management is accomplished effectively through the current process. Requiring shareholders to approve compensation packages would interferes with the directors’ role in to effectively manage corporations, which includes the power to set compensation levels. We also have significant concerns about Section 4 of the bill, which would give authority to government regulatory agencies to review and prohibit pay arrangements for a wide array of employees.

We strongly oppose efforts to grant authority over internal business decisions, including employee
compensation, to governmental authorities, which would set a dangerous precedent./blockquote>The Heritage Foundation released a paper yesterday, “House Executive Pay Legislation Puts Pay Czar’s Boot in the Door.” A key argument is that the tax system also distorts the pay structures.

Rather than removing perverse government incentives, the Obama-Frank plan attempts to solve problems caused significantly by existing regulation with more regulation. New regulations are unlikely to have a better result; most likely they will have spectacular failures of their own. Policymakers should cover their ears and avoid any tempting siren calls for even more government regulation of private-sector pay.

The White House yesterday issued a statement announcing President Obama’s plans to nominate the former U.S. Representative from Kentucky, Anne Northup, to be a member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She would hold a Republican seat on the commission.

If Northup and Robert Adler, a Democrat whom the President nominated in June, are confirmed by the Senate, the CPSC would reach its full five-member composition called for by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Gaining that full membership increases accountability and, theoretically, responsiveness to the public.

During her five terms in Congress, Northup was a strong supporter of the U.S. manufacturing economy. Her voting record on “Key Votes” as identified by the National Association of Manufacturing’s Key Vote Committee was always between 90 and 100 percent, and she received the NAM’s Award for Manufacturing Legislative Excellence. (Voting record summary.) So Northup appreciates what it takes to create a strong economy.

It’s also safe to identify her as being endorsed by the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Presidents defer to the Senate leaders and home-state Senators when selecting political appointees from the minority party.

If there’s any heartburn at all here, it’s that President Obama has chosen to follow the political model when making appointees to this regulatory agency. That’s the approach where the executive rewards party loyalists, often defeated candidates for public office. CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum ran and lost a U.S. Senate race in South Carolina; Northup lost her race for governor of Kentucky. (Adler, it should be noted, was a longtime CPSC staffer.)

The other approach is to appoint experts or people with experience in the regulated subject matter to a regulatory agency. In this model, the regulatory agency is led by people who strive to be impartial arbiters, making decisions purely on evidence, science and the Congressional intent behind the law.

The political model’s strength is that the appointees may be more sensitive to the impact their regulatory decisions have on the public. Tenenbaum, a former state education superintendent, and Northup are both experienced in listening and responding to constituents.

The downside is the appointees often defer to the members of Congress, especially the heads of the committees of jurisdiction and the appropriators. It’s not unusual for staff members of regulatory agencies to grouse that, “Oh, Chairman X has gone up to the Hill to get his marching orders.”

Politics have not served the public, consumers or manufacturers in the drafting and enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. As we have detailed in scores CPSC Update posts, the law has made safe products illegal, deprived consumers of desired products, and put people out of business. The economic costs amount of hundreds of thousands millions of dollars, yet the committee members in charge have dismissed the protests as whining or the pleas of greedy business people.

As a regulatory agency, a CSPC that defers to partisan politics, Congressional dictates and the zealousness of “consumer activists” will NOT be serving the public.

The public radio program, Marketplace Morning Report, did a brief segment this week on Consumer Product Safety Chairman Inez Tenenbaum traveling to Asia and the opening of a CPSC office in China. The day’s program summary also lists music they used that day, including “The Safety Dance” by Men Without Hats.

Why hadn’t we thought of that? Perfect for all the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Updates.  The Safety Dance!

The music video, full of medieval cavorting, was a staple of MTV during the mid-80s. A simple two note phrase repeated on the synthesizer made it a hit.

It turns out the band they could reproduce the sound live, too. (Albeit with a Wall of Voodoo vocal vibe.)

Another great Montreal rock band, come and gone.

Today, given the CPSC’s recent affirmation of the CPSIA’s ban on bangles, beads and sparkles, the song could best be performed by a band named Kids Without Hats.

There’s much of interest in a new report issued Wednesday by the America’s Energy Future project of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. This report, overseen by a committee that includes now Secretary of Energy Steven Chu as well other world-class researchers and energy industry leaders, concludes that even with advances in efficiency, America will need more energy, including oil, coal (with carbon capture) and nuclear power.

From the news release: “Actions Taken over the Next Decade to Demonstrate and Deploy Key Technologies Will Determine U.S. Energy Future” (with our emphases):

Deploying existing energy-efficiency technologies is a near-term and low-cost way to reduce U.S. energy demand, the report says. Fully deploying these technologies in buildings alone could save enough power to eliminate the need for new electricity generating plants to meet growing U.S. demand. However, some new plants would likely still be needed to address regional supply imbalances, replace obsolete technology, or present more environmentally friendly sources of electricity. Deployment of efficiency technologies in the building, industrial, and transportation sectors could reduce projected U.S. energy use by 15 percent in 2020 and by 30 percent in 2030. Even greater energy savings would be possible with more aggressive policies and incentives.

The United States has many promising options for obtaining new sources of electricity over the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage and evolutionary nuclear technologies can be deployed at an adequate scale. However, according to the report, the deployment of these new technologies is very likely to result in higher consumer prices for electricity. In addition, the nation’s electrical grid will require expansion and modernization to enhance its reliability and security, accommodate changes in load growth and electricity demand, and to enable the deployment of new energy efficiency and supply technologies, especially intermittent wind and solar energy.

In the transportation sector, petroleum will continue to be an indispensable fuel in the coming decades, but maintaining current rates of domestic petroleum production (about 5.1 million barrels per day in 2008) will be challenging. There are limited options for replacing petroleum or reducing petroleum use before 2020, but there are more substantial long-term options that could begin to make significant contributions by 2030 or 2035. Reductions in petroleum use could be obtained through increased vehicle efficiency, production of alternative liuid fuels such as cellulosic ethanol or coal-and-biomass fuels, and expanding deployment of battery electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.

From The National Academies, the full study:

• America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation

Follow the links below for related titles from the America’s Energy Future study.

• AEF’s Summary of a Meeting
• Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments
• Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts
• Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States