We responded of one line of argument against the NAM/ACCF study — that of slanted assumptions – in a post below, and were going to get to the other criticism, which boils down to: “Look how much the economy grows with Waxman-Markey. It’s great!”

Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has already done the work, though, and done it well, so we’ll just defer to his post at Planet Gore, the global warming/energy blog of National Review Online, “When Opponents Stop Trying.”

[Naturally] Team Soros hails the conclusions, “NAM/ACCF Forecasts 20 Million New Jobs Under American Clean Energy And Security Act”. Implication: it’s some sort of job creator. Here’s their announcement’s lead, with emphases added to highlight the implied claim:

A new analysis of the economic impact of clean energy legislation forecasts powerful job and economic growth through 2030. The analysis of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), commissioned by the right-wing National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), finds that 20 million new jobs will be created in the United States by 2030, even under high-cost assumptions.

The logic, you see, is because it wouldn’t kill EVERY new job between now and then. Ha! It’s a good thing . . . new jobs occur “under this bill”! (Where’s my giggle emoticon? Had it here somewhere . . . )

That was our reaction too. They’re just dismissing the loss of 2.4 million jobs as a little inconvenience, a minor bump, no big deal. Tell that to 2.4 million individuals who aren’t working thanks to Waxman-Markey.

P.S. The Team Soros dig is a reference to the Center for American Progress and its various arms, affiliates and Internet emanations, in this case The Wonk Room at the Think Progress blog. Leftist market manipulator George Soros is a major source of funding for the group.

Congress is gone, the President travels, Washington goes quiet as the heat descends, and townhall protests are this year’s media pick to fill the August news vacuum.

The Senate holds a pro forma session today and then returns on Tuesday, September 8. The House also returns Sept. 8.

Members of Congress head overseas this month, and Foreign Policy has the itineraries of the Congressional delegations, i.e., CODELs.

President Obama returns this evening from Guadalajara, where topics included swine flu, Mexican trucks and “Buy American” provisions. Tuesday he travels to Portsmouth, N.H., for a town hall meeting on “health insurance reform.” (Not “health care reform.” The preferred terminology is changing…) Wednesday morning, the President welcomes new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor to the White House. That afternoon, he holds the Medal of Freedom ceremony. (Recipients.) On Friday, he and the First Family travel to Bozeman, and visit Yellowstone and Grand Junction, Colo., Saturday. On Sunday, it’s the Grand Canyon and Phoenix, where he will address the VFW’s annual convention.

CPSC: On Thursday, the new product tracking labels requirements imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act go into effect.

Economic Reports: Second-quarter productivity figures are released Tuesday, and the June report on the U.S. trade deficit is out Wednesday. On Thursday, the government reports July retail sales. Friday it’s the CPI report along with July industrial production. (More from CNNMoney.com.)

The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee convenes Tuesday and Wednesday, and is expected to maintain interest rates. Reuters: “Policy-makers are also likely to allow a controversial scheme to buy $300 billion of longer-dated Treasuries to end on schedule in September. But they may discuss extending a separate program to support the flow of credit to consumers and business, with an eye on propping up commercial real estate.”

And today Senate Majority Leader Reid and the Center for American Progress Action Fund sponsor the National Clean Energy Summit at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. Energy Secretary Chu is on hand, and the Summit reports, “This year’s summit will bring together the nation’s top minds including former President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, energy executive T. Boone Pickens, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, White House Council on Environmental Quality Special Advisor Van Jones, Nevada State AFL-CIO executive Danny Thompson.” Check out the Center’s website for a better sense of its “progressive” agenda for the U.S. economy. Clean energy is just a piece.

The House Homeland Security Committee continues its markup at 5:30 p.m. of H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act, a seemingly well-intentioned piece of legislation that will make U.S. production and storage of chemicals more expensive and burdensome with no appreciable benefit to public safety and national security. Extension of the current 2006 regulations would allow the increased safety measures known as the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, or CFATS, to be implemented fully in a logical, effective way. The Obama Administration supports such an extension.

We posted on the bill here and here, and have also noted the writing of E.F. Glynn, blogging at KansasMeadowlark, concerned about the impact of yet more government regulation on farmers and the ag economy. In a new post, “Homeland Security may impose new regulations on agriculture,” Glynn includes videos from last week’s committee meeting and expresses astonishment that the debate seems to be driven by a left-leaning think tank: “A Center for American Progress study that shows no economists or engineers on the project team, nor any economic or engineering analysis, is enough for Congress to decide national chemical security policy?”

Well, count up the usual suspects. The believers in regulations first and always at OMB Watch say, “Chemical Security Bill Withstanding Industry Assault“: “With luck and the continued hard work of the ‘Blue Green Coalition’ of labor, environmental, and public interest groups, the bill hopefully will emerge from this committee mostly unscathed.” See, obviously this coalition formed because of their mutual interest in fighting terrorism.

There’s also the U.S. PIRG news release, “U.S. PIRG Urges Passage of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.”

Both groups support the “citizen suits” provisions which create a second regulatory system, that imposed by environmentalist lawsuits. Blogger P.J. Coyle also wonders about the impetus behind the newly added “citizen suits” provision at his blog, “Chemical Facility Security News.”

As committee members debate this legislation that will add costs to a major employer during a serious recession, we would remind them of these facts, courtesy the American Chemistry Council:

That’s 5.66 million jobs.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the likelihood that President-elect Obama will nominate Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Nobel prize winner, to be the next Energy Secretary.

The possibility elicits the single most arrogant, condescending quote we’ve seen this week:

“The Chu pick is exciting because (he) will bring scientific rigor to the new administration’s energy policy,” said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. “After the anti-science Bush administration, this is like going to a Mensa meeting after eight years of being trapped in the Flat Earth Society.”

Keep it up, Weiss. That’s a great tone to strike as you try to persuade the country to adopt jobs-killing policies. You disagree with us? You’re a dunce and we’re going to mock you.

Organized labor has every right to enjoy a victory lap. Congratulations and all that.

At the same time, we detect a mixed response to labor’s claims it now sets the agenda. The business community objects to labor’s aggressive plans to restructure the entire economy during a downturn, of course. But others you would think more friendly toward the unions’ demands are at least reticent.

A lot of the “now, hold on, don’t go so fast,” is being expressed by allies, on background, or by implication.

From the Wall Street Journal, “Next Administration Shows Signs It Will Seek Middle Ground With Business on Thorny Issues“:

WASHINGTON — The weak economy, congressional races that empowered moderates and President-elect Barack Obama’s choice of business-friendly advisers suggest Democrats will go slow on controversial labor and regulatory issues.

A bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workers, efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, and a slew of contemplated taxes will likely take a back seat to broader economic issues for now, Democratic operatives say.

This administration from what I’m seeing is going to be very mainstream, middle of the road on tax and business policies,” said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a think tank close to the Obama transition. “I believe most businesses are going to find it pretty moderate…they’re trying to convey that.”

And from the Wall Street Journal’s story, “Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight,” a paraphrase redolent of political repositioning:

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to fight for the legislation, but whether it is introduced in the first 100 days of his administration could signal how strongly he is aligning himself with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, say political consultants. Moderate Democrats and those who have just won seats in traditionally Republican states are expected to argue against making the legislation an early priority.

The Center for American Progress  (and Center for American Progress Action Fund) is especially interesting as a signal-sender. We noted yesterday that its homepage outlined priorities for the new Administration, but failed to mention any labor items. 

From the affiliated blog and website, “Think Progress,” the post-election manifesto, “ A Progressive Mandate” features the same notable omissions. Missing are any references to “organized labor,” “unions,” or “workers.” For this mandate, labor is optional.

The relegating of organized labor to a second-tier, back-bench status is even more interesting when you consider the Center for American Progress has been heavily financed by organized labor. And we mean heavily. (Hat tip: Bret.)

The chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, Delegate Terry Kilgore, has announced a public hearing in Richmond on November 6 to launch a study of mining the state’s uranium resource.

“The need for independent American sources of energy is a matter of national security and economic prosperity. We know that Virginia has a significant, high-quality uranium deposit and as Virginians and Americans, we have a responsibility to study the feasibility of mining it safely,” said Delegate Kilgore…

“The Coal and Energy Commission conducted a similar study in the eighties and deals regularly with mining issues; it is the Commonwealth’s repository of mining expertise and the right entity to conduct this study. The Commission will work the affected locality and surrounding areas to develop parameters to the study,” Kilgore said.

Pittsylvania County in the southwest part of the state is the site of what’s believed to be the largest deposit of uranium ore in the United States. A locally based company, Virginia Uranium, has been formed to explore its development. If the United States is serious about nuclear energy — and it sure should be — then the study will prove a useful step forward. As Jack Spencer at the Heritage Foundation wrote in August, the Pittsylvania site could provide as much as 110 million pounds of uranium.

This quantity of uranium could supply all 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, which provide 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, for two years. And we’re not even talking about new technology. Uranium has been mined safely for decades in many global spots, including in New Mexico, Nebraska, Utah and Wyoming.

Right now the United States relies on imports (Canada, Australia, Russia) for the vast majority of its uranium supply: 47 million pounds of U3O8 equivalent in 2007, compared to 4 million pounds of domestically derived uranium, according to Department of Energy figures. Daniel Weiss at the Center for American Progress Action Fund says, see, more nuclear power, more energy dependence (h/t Bradford Plummer at TNR).

Nuclear power will not lead to energy independence because the U.S. must import over 90% of its uranium, with nearly one-third coming from Russia. If we double the number of nuclear plants, as McCain has called for, we would become even more dependent on countries that, in McCain’s words, “don’t like us very much.”

How so, with a resource like the Pittsylvania ore available? Unless, of course, you expect environmentalists to block mining and nuclear power as they have in the past, in the process guaranteeing continued energy insecurity.

From the Senator’s webpage:

On Tuesday, August 19, Nevada Senator Harry Reid will partner with the Center for American Progress Action Fund and UNLV to host the National Clean Energy Summit at UNLV. This summit will bring together major industry leaders, scientists, policy experts, and elected officials including former President Bill Clinton to define an agenda that accelerates the development of renewable energy, energy-efficiency technologies and robust clean energy markets throughout the nation and world.

The Summit’s objective is to define consensus ideas and principles that participants can carry to the parties’ political conventions and into the next presidential administration. As Senator Reid has maintained that the nation cannot drill its way out the current energy crisis, he believes Nevada can be the world leader in clean renewable energy, drawing upon its vast solar, wind and geothermal resources to provide clean, stable power while creating thousands of jobs for our state’s economy. For more information on the summit click here . Read more on Reid’s efforts to promote renewable energy in Nevada and across America.

The cosponsoring Center for American Progress appear not at all consensus-oriented, unless by “consensus” you mean no fossil fuels.

Where We Stand on Energy and the Environment

CAP is pioneering progressive, 21st century policy proposals to transform our nation and our economy in ways that protect the global environment, boost global prosperity, and create sustainable sources of clean energy to reduce the world’s reliance on dirty, carbon-based energy. Our low-carbon policy priorities encourage comprehensive upgrades in the efficiency of energy production and consumption as well as environmentally safe and sustainable energy diversification. And our commitment to sound scientific energy and environmental technology innovation exemplifies progressive ideals and pragmatism at work.

The Center for American Progress also advocates a cap-and-trade system of heavy taxation and regulation to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide.

Reading through the alumni bulletin the other day, we spotted an item about Columbia J-School grads going to work for ProPublica:

ProPublica, a nonprofit public interest journalism newsroom, continues to build its staff of investigative reporters. After receiving hundreds of applications, five new staffers were hired…

Right, ProPublica.  Another “public interest” journalism project, well-funded by foundations, not accountable to the marketplace. Supplying investigative projects to media outlets. Wonder which way its coverage will lean.

Today, we can see what kind of stories the project produces.

WNYC has learned in a joint investigation with ProPublica – a non-profit investigative news organization – that New York state regulators have been actively promoting the safety of a practice that has caused environmental damage elsewhere. And they may not be ready to handle the regulatory complexities. WNYC’s Ilya Marritz has the story.

REPORTER: For over a decade, gas companies have been intensively tapping unconventional plays in western states like Colorado. Drill rigs have brought a lot of wealth, but at the same time they’ve dredged up a host of environmental problems – contaminating water supplies and drying up aquifers.

The culprit is a practice called hydraulic fracturing. It’s never been done much in New York. But it’s the only way to get gas out of the Marcellus. Basically the driller blasts the bottom of the well shaft with water, sand, and chemicals, under very high pressure in order to free up the gas. Hydrofracking demands a huge amount of water of water – up to six million gallons per well.

And here’s how the Albany Times-Union plays the 2,700-word story:

And from the website:

Upstate New York’s looming natural gas nightmare
Regulators asleep as lawmmakers attempt to declare vast acreage open to the energy industry’s iffy underground fracturing technique

They’re aghast at hydraulic fracturing? Calling it toxic? Criminy.

If you can manage to demonize one of the basic processes now used widely in oil and natural gas production in the United States, well, turn out the lights, bundle up and put the car up on blocks.

This report is evidence of a journalistic trend that should profoundly trouble free-market and business advocates. With newspapers cutting staff, more and more editors will be looking for ways to fill the paper. So now you have “independent” groups doing journalism, offering their reports in the “public interest.”

This manifestation, at least, is clearly political, anti-business. From ProPublica: “Lead funding for this effort is being provided by the Sandler Foundation, with Herbert Sandler serving as Chairman of ProPublica; other leading philanthropies also providing important support. A Board of Directors and a Journalism Advisory Board have also been formed.”

Herb and Marion Sandler are prominent California bankers (now retired) and major contributors to liberal causes and candidates. From a New York Times Sunday Magazine profile:

Since the late 1980s, the Sandlers used their wealth to finance a variety of nonprofit organizations, including Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union and Acorn, the grass-roots organizers. They helped found the Center for Responsible Lending, where they are among the largest benefactors. They are also among the very few philanthropists in the country who finance basic scientific research, at the University of California at San Francisco. And they have set up nonprofits to conduct research into parasitic diseases and asthma. In 2003, they started the Center for American Progress, which is intended to be a liberal counterweight to the heavyweight policy centers of the right, like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. So far, the Sandlers have given around $20 million to the center.

Acorn? So now the man who funded the notoriously secretive, corrupt and hard-left activist group, Acorn, is able to pay his way onto the front page of newspapers like the Albany Times-Union. 

It’s as if George Soros had a free wire service, operating under the guise of “public interest.”