The National Association of Manufacturers pushed hard for passage of five-year Net Operating Loss (NOL) tax relief this year as critical to promoting investment and aiding the recovery. The NAM certainly counts President Obama’s signing of H.R. 3545, the unemployment insurance bill with the NOL tax relief, as a big help to many manufacturers.

And retail too! Ian Swanson of The Hill reports that angle today in “Black Friday boom? Retail sales boosted by carry-back legislation“:

“We think it will have a benefit,” said Craig Sherman, vice president of government affairs for the National Retail Federation (NRF), which lobbied vigorously for the measure.

Sherman said the provision will help retailers by providing money to pay for adding inventory or to hire more workers to meet the masses of December shoppers. Without the change in tax law, firms could only carry back losses to the last two tax years. Given the recession, that didn’t help many retailers who had seen minimal or no profits over the past two years.

Even if the money isn’t yet technically available, Sherman said retailers are using the incoming funds as collateral to get loans from their banks.

The NAM’s webpage with background and documents on the new NOL law is here.

The National Retail Federation previewed Black Friday sales earlier this week with a survey and news release, “Black Friday Bargains to Attract Up to 134 Million Shoppers This Year.”

How’s it go again? Cyber Monday I’ve got Black Friday on my mind?

Performing are the Easybeats from Australia, the best pop act to emerge from Down Under before the Bee Gees from Down Under.

Here’s Richard Thompson covering the song from his “1000 Years of Popular Music” shows. And Gary Moore, 1987, doing just a typically overwrought version.

The song also works in Finnish, at least judging of this version of “Perjantai kallossa” by Moogetmoogs. Of course, they don’t have Black Fridays in Europe, since Thanksgiving on Thursday is a U.S. holiday. They do have the extended hours of Langer Samstag — Long Saturday — in Germany, though. It’s also a festive holiday-in-the-mall flick from 1992.

The annual BNA survey (available here; subscription needed) of Thanksgiving holiday plans shows that almost 80 percent of employers will be giving employees paid leave this year on both Thanksgiving AND the Friday after. This leave benefit will allow most employees the opportunity to spend four days with their family and friends. This amount is particularly high in manufacturing workplaces.

The study shows that almost all manufacturers (95 percent) will be granting their employees a four-day weekend. Not only will they get additional time off, but a quarter of manufacturers will give their employees holiday gifts, most often take the form of a turkey or a gift certificate to purchase one.

These types of non-wage benefits are all part of the reason why manufacturing employees earn 22 percent more in total compensation than the rest of the workforce. In these challenging economic times manufacturers highlight the value of their dedicated workforces with this type of recognition.

Chairman Ed Markey of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has just announced a committee hearing for next Wednesday, “State of Climate Science.” Given recent news, the terms “degraded” and “discredited” come to mind when describing it state, but Rep. Markey’s announcement indicates no interest in the controversy over the hacked communications from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia — documents that demonstrate bad faith and bad science from the researchers. From Markey’s news release:

With the international climate change talks in Copenhagen fast approaching, there is real urgency to reach diplomatic consensus on a planetary solution. In a hearing next week, Chairman Edward J. Markey and the Select Committee will explore with climate scientists from the Obama administration the urgent, consensus view on our planetary problem: that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse.

The past decade has been the hottest in recorded history, with all of the years since 2001 being in the top 10 hottest on record, according to NASA. This summer, the world’s oceans were the warmest in NOAA’s 130 years of record-keeping. Meanwhile, global heat-trapping pollution continues to rise.

Chairman Markey made it a cause celebre when one temp employee of a lobbying firm faked advocacy letters to Congress on energy and global warming, devoting a hearing to the deceit and using it to criticize the coal industry. So one limited case of a single bad actor warranted such a dedicated inquiry. But documented, repeated debasement of science used to affect public policy gets nothing?

In a thorough report, Declan McCullagh of CBS News finds computer experts shocked at how shoddy the data and computer coding reaction really were.  Megan McCardle, blogging at The Atlantic, summarizes in a post, “The Real Problem with the Climate Science Emails“:

Sexing up a graph is at best a misdemeanor. But a Declan McCullough story suggests a more disturbing possibility: the CRU’s main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish. . . . That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.

Yes, indeed, that’s quite a state climate science has found itself in. It’s certainly worth examination at a congressional hearing, and McCullough’s report was headlined, “Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails.” He writes that Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) are interested in hearings, but no mention of Rep. Markey. 

(Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, who continues to offer many informative links on the scandal.)
 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has released the floor schedule for next week. Look for debate to start Wednesday on H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses.

The bill would continue as permanent this year’s $3.5 million exemption from the death tax and a permanent top tax rate of 45 percent. Under current law, the estate tax falls to 0 in 2010 and then kicks back up to its previous, damaging level. As the American Farm Bureau explains: “When this happens, stepped-up basis will be limited to $1.3 million per person plus an additional $3 million for property passed to a surviving spouse. After 2010, the exemption will shrink to $1 million a person and the top rate will rise to 55 percent and full step up in basis will be reinstated.”

The National Association of Manufacturers is part of the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, which urges a permanent rate. In a September 24 letter to the Senate, the coalition argued:

The FBETC is on record this year supporting the Lincoln/Kyl estate tax amendment that passed the Senate floor with a majority of votes during the budget proceedings. This amendment would provide family businesses with certain and permanent relief by reducing the top rate to 35 percent and increasing the exemption to $5 million. Such relief is critical for family businesses at a time when they are struggling to expand their businesses and create much needed jobs.

A House version is H.R. 3905.

So, House bill:

• $3.5 million exemption, 45 percent top tax rate

Preferable bill, which encourages investment and job creation:

• $5 million exemption, 35 percent top tax rate.

Nineteen aviation, business and labor groups, the National Association of Manufacturers included, sent a joint letter to House Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica urging support for modernizing the nation’s air traffic control system. The letter takes note of both the House Democratic leadership’s plans for a “jobs” bill and President Obama’s Dec. 3 White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth.

Competitiveness Under Threat
Currently, the aerospace industry provides a significant positive contribution to our balance of trade. However, the U.S. competitive position is being challenged by other countries like the European Union, Australia and Canada, which are outpacing us in implementing NextGen. Other countries like China and India will look to either the U.S. or Europe for leadership as they develop their air traffic control system. If the U.S. does not demonstrate leadership in deploying these technologies, opportunities for U.S. manufacturers and workers will be lost.

Economic and Employment Impact
Accelerated NextGen funding will drive the nation’s economic recovery and stimulate job growth across all sectors. The Joint Economic Committee has estimated that airline delays and congestion cost $40 billion in lost productivity and time for passengers and our economy. Solving the congestion and delay problems through more direct flights and increased efficiencies will increase productivity across the nation and put a serious dent in that $40 billion of lost productivity.

NextGen deployment will employ thousands of engineers, software developers and other high-tech workers to support a transition from a ground based radar infrastructure system to a satellite based infrastructure. In addition, pilots and other aviation jobs such as maintenance and installation jobs will benefit. A viable aviation sector enhances economic activity in a wide number of industries outside aviation including, among many others, travel and tourism and industries that rely on just-in-time global inventories and shipping capability.

The Air Transport Association has posted the full letter online.

The NAM has a summary sheet on NextGen here.

From Iain Murray at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate,” a primer on what was revealed when hackers publicized e-mails and other computer data from Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.*

Here are the highpoints:

• First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.
• Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.
• Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

Jonah Goldberg at National Review’s The Corner adds more context:

One reason this seemed to me like less of a big deal at first was that the individual e-mails — “hide the decline” and so forth — while damning, also seemed open to interpretation. And I still think that’s the case in some instances. But what seems incontrovertible at this point is that the global-warming industry (and it is an industry) is suffused to its core with groupthink and bad faith. For many of us, this is not shocking news. But it is shocking evidence. Proving bad faith and groupthink is very hard to do. But now we have the internal dialog of those afflicted made public (I hope some intrepid reporters are asking other climate institutions whether they are no erasing their files for fear of being similarly exposed). It is clear that the scientists at the CRU were more interested in punishing dissenters and constructing a p.r. campaign than they were in actual science.

It is also an enormous journalistic scandal, Goldberg writes, since the elite press attempts to marginalize and silence critics of the “scientific consensus,” even as governments expand their power, the poor are hurt, and trillions of dollars are spent. Where’s the vaunted journalistic skepticism?

Glenn Reynolds has good links on the topic here.

* Does anyone remember the Pentagon Papers? Besides The New York Times, that is? The comparison is apt because the climate communications were stolen but their release served the greater public interest, maybe. But were the e-mails, etc., really stolen? Or hacked? Or released by someone with inside knowledge, a whistleblower? Yeah, a whistleblower! Journalists love a whistleblower.

The Washington Post puts the issue on the front page today, and that’s good news judgment…in our judgment.

From “Nuclear power regains support“:

It has been 13 years since the last new nuclear power plant opened in the United States. But around the world, nations under pressure to reduce the production of climate-warming gases are turning to low-emission nuclear energy as never before. The Obama administration and leading Democrats, in an effort to win greater support for climate change legislation, are eyeing federal tax incentives and loan guarantees to fund a new crop of nuclear power plants across the United States that could eventually help drive down carbon emissions.

From China to Brazil, 53 plants are now under construction worldwide, with Poland, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia seeking to build their first reactors, according to global watchdog groups and industry associations. The number of plants being built is double the total of just five years ago.

Now that’s a good topic for the Dec. 3 White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth, unemployment in nuclear power. As NAM President John Engler told the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers on November 6:

As I’m sure you know, there hasn’t been a brand new nuclear power plant completed in the United States since the 1980s. We’re losing our expertise, our infrastructure, and missing out on jobs.

A typical power plant creates 14,000 to 15,000 jobs during pre-construction, up to 2,400 jobs during construction, and 700 permanent, high-paying jobs thereafter.

So real energy security – and jobs.

The National Association of Manufacturers has signed a letter from a coalition of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), intellectual property organizations and other business groups asking U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., chairman and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, respectively, to oppose S. 1368, the Access to Repair Parts Act.

The groups also oppose H.R. 3059, the House companion. The letter states:

Manufacturers of unlicensed automobile parts have to meet only one basic threshold, to produce a copy that looks similar to an original part. Those who produce such parts incur no costs attributable to original design, research and development and most importantly, product safety testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer of the original product for whom such unlicensed replacement parts are made does not know how these parts will perform and how their use will impact the quality and integrity of the original product. Automotive collision repairers are very concerned about the quality of replacement crash parts. Permitting this intellectual property infringement also exposes consumers to significant safety, performance or durability risks.

A copy of the letter is here.

The Automotive Service Association has more details on the legislation here and here.

From Michael Shaw at HealthNewsDigest.com, “It’s Time To End The Anti-BPA Hysteria,” covering numerous examples of the bad science, hyped reports, campaigning journalism and fear-mongering on the useful plastics additive, Bisphenol A.

Finally, “hysteria” is the best way to refer to the posture of Consumer Reports on BPA, as presented in the December, 2009 issue. The piece “Concern over canned foods” is rife with errors, but space allows me to mention only two.

Consumer Reports claims that dietary exposure to BPA is close to levels shown to cause harm in animal studies. Yet, the lowest oral exposures to BPA that cause adverse effects in animals are 500,000 times higher than typical human exposure.

Consumer Reports conflates oral ingestion data with animal studies in which BPA was directly injected into the blood, thus bypassing all metabolic pathways. As author Trevor Butterworth reminds us, every regulator and risk assessment in the world has rejected injection studies as a relevant method for assessing human risk from BPA, since our exposure to the chemical is through ingestion. Large, statistically rigorous, multi-generational reproductive toxicity studies have failed to reproduce the findings of injection-based studies.

Indeed, an EPA-funded rodent study recently published in Toxicological Sciences found that low-dose exposures of bisphenol A (BPA) showed no effects on the range of reproductive functions and behavioral activities measured.

See also this summary of a new EPA report from STATS, non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, “New independent study by EPA refutes BPA risk“: “[A] second independent study by the Environmental Protection Agency, published in the leading toxicological journal, Toxicological Sciences, has failed to find evidence of the low-dose hypothesis claimed by environmental activists and widely reported in the media.”

Unfortunately, as former Ohio Treasurer Ken Blackwell has written, a BPA scare can help drum up business, for trial lawyers especially. See “A Chemical Scare Campaign Is Good Business for Some.”

The public would be well served by a high-profile, dispassionate assessment of these issues. We suggest a Senate hearing as venue.

David Michaels, President Obama’s nominee to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, has been a prominent promoter of the “BPA is DANGEROUS” school of thought from his position as director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy.  A headline on a piece Michaels wrote for The Washington Post on BPA proclaimed, “If Two Similar Studies Completely Disagree, Look at How the Funders Framed the Issue.”

Agreed, SKAPP was formed with money from the trial lawyer industry and is supported by George Soros’ Open Society Institute. And Business Insurance reports, “Surging legal action over BPA targets manufacturers.”

So, yes, a Senate hearing would be a good place to explore the issues surrounding BPA, science and political advocacy as front for the litigation industry. How about at the Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing for Michaels?

Alas, too late. Chairman Tom Harkin pushed through Michaels’ committee approval with no hearing.