Tag: George Will

No Abeyance in Protests Against NLRB’s Boeing Complaint

How could we have gone three days without a post on the radicalized National Labor Relations Board? Well, there really have been few developments after last Thursday’s hearing in the Senate HELP Committee, “The Endangered Middle Class: Is the American Dream Slipping Out of Reach for American Families?,” which turned into a hearing on Boeing and the NLRB.

Mostly the story has percolated as new columnists catch up on the issue, as in George Will’s excellent piece over the weekend, “The Dreamliner nightmare.” (Datelined North Charleston, S.C., which means he was there. We saw Will rushing through Union Station last week, looking quite fit for a scribe who just celebrated his 70th birthday. Congratulations!)

The major substantive development was the introduction of S. 964, the Job Protection Act, by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on Thursday, May 12. In his floor speech (here), Alexander explained:

The Job Protection Act, which I introduce today on behalf of 34 Senators, would preserve the Federal law’s current protection of State right-to-work laws in the National Labor Relations Act and provide necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies.

Specifically, the Job Protection Act would, first, explicitly clarify that the board cannot order an employer to relocate jobs from one location to another; two, it guarantees an employer the right to decide where to do business within the United States; and, three, it protects an employer’s free speech regarding the costs associated with having a unionized workforce without fear of such communication being used as evidence in an anti-union discrimination suit.

Sen. Alexander announced general plans for the bill on May 4, and it appears he and his colleagues used the time since to craft a solid piece of legislation.

We appreciate the Senator’s mention of the First Amendment protections, a underreported part of this controversy. The NLRB seeks to punish Boeing in part because several top executives spoke openly about the business costs of labor disruptions. If the board’s complaint stands, company executives could be deprived of their rights to say things like, “We’re concerned that a strike could make it hard to deliver our products and make us less competitive.” That’s not a threat of retaliation, that’s a statement of opinion that should always be protected free speech.

Elsewhere, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. In a discussion of the 2012 campaigns and Republican candidates, she also repeated her call for a comment on the NLRB’s complaint from President Obama. (continue reading…)

VN:F [1.9.7_1111]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Well, At Least for Two Years

The Hill reports that some Senate Democrats may attempt to have it both ways on whether the Executive Branch should set climate and energy policy  by supporting a resolution by Sen. Jay Rockefeller that would put a two-year moratorium on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

What message does that send? 

  • With this vote, we affirm Congress’ policymaking role in the American system of government. Well, at least for two years .
  • EPA regulation would be disastrous for the economy. Therefore we stand strongly against its destruction of jobs and prosperity. Well, at least for two years.
  • We recognize that EPA regulation is wrong, but important political constituencies demand some sort of action — even if it is EPA command-and-control. We believe this resolution represents a reasonable compromise. Well, at least for two years.

 

Do they not recognize that uncertainty is the enemy of investment, jobs and economic recovery?

George Will’s column today is timely and on point, “Jobs report a nightmare for Obama progressivism.”

Today investors and employers are certain that uncertainties are multiplying.

They are uncertain about when interest rates will rise, and by how much. They do not know how badly the economy will be burdened by the expiration, approximately 200 days from now, of the Bush tax cuts on high earners — aka investors and employers.

They know the costs of ObamaCare will be higher than was advertised, but not how much higher. They do not know the potential costs of cap-and-trade and other energy policies.

They do not know if “card check” — abolition of the right of secret ballot elections in unionization decisions — will pass, or how much the economy will be injured by making unions more muscular.

They do not know how the functioning of the financial sector will be altered and impeded by the many new regulatory rules and agencies created by the financial reform legislation.

Let uncertainty multiply. The recovery is not a priority. Jobs can come later.  The economy will not get well, at least for two years.

VN:F [1.9.7_1111]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Geo. Will, Barone: Uncertainty Causing Capital to Go On Strike

George Will and Michael Barone this weekend both theorized that the federal government’s spending, inconstancy and incompetence have produced what could be a 1930s’ style “capital strike,” where business will not invest because of uncertainty. Good historical comparison. Who gets credit?

Jake Tapper and George Will from ABC’s “This Week” roundtable discussion, Sunday.

TAPPER: Let’s turn to the economy as long as Liz has brought it up. The May jobs number report came out showing 431,000 jobs were created. Only 41,000 of them were in the private sector. The unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, and 46 percent of the unemployed have been jobless for 27 weeks or more. George, this is not good news.

WILL: It’s terrible news. In May, the private sector essentially stopped producing jobs. It was one-fifth the job creation of April. The 41,000 created in the private sector is less than half as many jobs that have to be created in order to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force.

Now the question is why is this happening? One answer might be that we’re seeing now the prospect of a jobless recovery because of what happened with the late New Deal when business threw up its hands and said there’s too much uncertainty.

WILL: The Bush tax cuts are going to expire. Interest rates have to go up sooner or later. The House, just before going on recess, passed a so-called jobs bill with $80 billion more dollars of taxes in it. There may be climate change regulation. No one knows quite how Obama Care is going to effect the private sector. In pandemic uncertainty, capital goes on strike.

Michael Barone, Examiner, June 6, “Oil slick, joblessness may stymie Dems’ rebound“:

[The] bad news keeps coming out. The Gulf oil spill is evidently not going to be stopped for at least another two months; you’ll see lots of oily pelicans on newscasts between now and Election Day. The May jobs report showed that 411,000 of the 425,000 jobs gained were temporary Census workers.

The Democrats’ stimulus package kept many unionized public employees on the job. But, as liberal economists Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have pointed out, it has not done much to stimulate private-sector job creation.

Maybe the contrary. We may be seeing something like the “capital strike” of the late 1930s, when investors and entrepreneurs held onto their money and refrained from creating jobs because of high tax rates and intrusive government.

Our emphases.

UPDATE (11:55 a.m.): Amity Shlaes, author of the excellent book on the Great Depression, “The Forgotten Man,” addressed the 1930s capital strike in her Bloomberg column last November:

The dynamic of preachy executive and elusive lenders recalls the mid-1930s, when a petulant Franklin Roosevelt gave a label to banks’ puzzling behavior: “capital strike.”

The capital strike was followed by the depression of 1937-38 within the Depression. Today, too, capital ponders going on strike. And without big policy changes the economy will face similar consequences.

VN:F [1.9.7_1111]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Mother Nature, Global Warming Denier

From George Will’s column today:

Plateau in Temperatures
Adds Difficulty to Task
Of Reaching a Solution
     — New York Times, Sept. 23

In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word “plateau.” It dismisses the unpleasant — to some people — fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it.

The “difficulty” — the “intricate challenge,” the Times says — is “building momentum” for carbon reduction “when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.” That was in the Times’s first paragraph.

In the fifth paragraph, a “few years” became “the next decade or so,” according to Mojib Latif, a German “prize-winning climate and ocean scientist” who campaigns constantly to promote policies combating global warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates “maybe even two” decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times’s “decade or so.” By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere “plateau,” not warming’s apogee, the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.

And from Bloomberg, “U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade“:

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.

When the climate crime trials come, Mother Nature will be sitting in the dock. And Mr. Sunspots will be waiting his turn.

VN:F [1.9.7_1111]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Kuttner: The New Deal Worked, It Was Just Called WWII

New Deal analogies were being thrown around by the Roundtable panelists on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, starting with the useful reminder from George Will, “Before we go into a ‘New New Deal’ we can we at first acknowledge the New Deal didn’t work? That is, the biggest collapse in industrial production in history occurred in 1937, eight years after the stock market collapsed in 1929 and five years after the New Deal.”

A few minutes later (at the 7 minute mark) Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect responded:

Robert Kuttner: Now, on the question of whether the New Deal worked, Doris Goodwin said to me the other day, don’t look at the Roosevelt of 1933, look at the Roosevelt of 1941, 1942.

The New Deal got us halfway out of the Depression, and it was Roosevelt’s effort to balance the budget in 1937 that caused the downturn. But in 1941-42, we converted to a wartime footing and unemployment disappeared. And the deficit went as high as 28 percent of GDP. Now, I’m not saying the deficit has to go that high.

But Doris’ point was, look at the auto conversion in 1941, 1942, when they shut the lines, they retooled, they started making planes and tanks and produced aircraft and weaponry at a rate the world had never seen. We could do that with fuel-efficient cars as the price of the auto bailout.

Rarely does a self-styled progressive like Kuttner so clearly state the view of how the economy should be managed, that is, that it should be a government-directed, wartime economy — just without the war. So 1942 was the halcyon instance of the American economy, Kuttner suggests. What else was common in 1942?

  • Rationing of gas, meat, tires, butter, sugar, coffee, on and on.
  • Travel restrictions. A maximum “Victory Speed” of 35 mph.
  • Mass civilian mobilization for everything from buying War Bonds to collecting scrap metal and cooking grease.
  • The military draft. Ultimately, more than 16 million Americans served in WWII.

Bring it all back. Only this time make global warming the enemy and “public service” the equivalent of the draft. That’s the “progressive” prescription for the New New Deal.

(The photo of the rationing coupon comes from the American Historical Society’s website devoted to WWII rationing.)

 

 

VN:F [1.9.7_1111]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


Around the Energy Horn Again

  • New York Times,Drilling Boom Revives Hopes for Natural Gas “: “HOUSTON — American natural gas production is rising at a clip not seen in half a century, pushing down prices of the fuel and reversing conventional wisdom that domestic gas fields were in irreversible decline.”

 

  • Reuters,First mass U.S. crossing for hydrogen cars completed“: “LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Hydrogen fuel cell cars from nine automakers completed a 13-day cross-country trip this weekend, in the first such mass U.S. crossing for vehicles powered by a zero-emission technology still in its infancy.” The vehicles were trucked between Rolla, Mo., and Albuquerque because of the lack of hydrogen filling stations.

 

  • Wall Street Journal, Washington Wire Blog, “Pelosi on Natural Gas: Fossil Fuel or Not?“: “On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, the speaker twice seemed to suggest that natural gas – an energy source she favors – is not a fossil fuel. …”I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

 

  • Wall Street Journal, Environmental Capital Blog, “Texas Breeze: Landowners Call Wind Turbines Ugly; Court Says Too Bad“: “For now, wind power’s triumphant march in the U.S. can count on another legal smackdown of “NIMBYism,” after a Texas appeals court yesterday dismissed a suit by landowners upset with a big wind farm built by FPL Energy. Landowners decried the turbines’ noise and their spoiled sunsets—which the court agreed was a pity—but the appeals court couldn’t find grounds to rule against the power company.”

 

  • Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,ANWR Option“: “Sean Parnell, lieutenant governor and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed a land swap as a way of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ‘I propose a land swap of 2,000 acres of state land to the federal government in exchange for 2,000 acres of the coastal plain in ANWR into state hands,’ Parnell said at a press conference Tuesday in Fairbanks.”
     

  • George Will, “Obama’s Economic Fairytale“: “Obama has also promised that “we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years.” What a tranquilizing verb “get” is. This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both — billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would spurn.”
VN:F [1.9.7_1111]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


A Manufacturing Blog

  • Categories

  • Connect With Manufacturers

            
  • Blogroll

  • -->