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.”