Recent polling by the Workforce Fairness Institute shows that voters in Colorado and Nevada oppose the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act and are increasingly concerned with the state of our economy.

As the Las Vegas Sun highlights the feeling of Nevada voters on the bill:

The poll showed 57 percent of respondents oppose changing the way unions are organized and 64 percent oppose allowing mandatory arbitration to settle organizational disputes between workers and managers, as is proposed under the bill.

The Hill newspaper also notes that this polling shows that voters in Colorado oppose the bill and the proposed government takeover of wages and benefits that would result:

When read a description of EFCA, 66 percent of Coloradans said they’d prefer a candidate who would vote against the union organizing bill, compared to 29 percent who said they would prefer a candidate who supports the “card check” bill.

This data should send a strong message to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Michael Bennet that voters in their states are focused on improving our economy and are not interested in radically overhauling our nation’s labor laws. It’s time for all Senators to finally take away the threat of this jobs-killing proposal and oppose card check legislation in any form.

IN: Favors for organized labor. Kevin Troutman of Fisher & Phillips writes in a Houston Chronicle op-ed, “Goodies for labor tucked away in health bill,” including: “[Another] provision would establish lucrative state training partnerships that contain little or no opportunities for non-union employee organizations. Provisions in Senate proposals would exempt union-negotiated health care plans from taxes on “Cadillac” health plans.

OUT: Any serious tort reform. From Point of Law, “The Senate health care bill dodges liability reform,” a report that there’s only a “sense of the Senate” language suggesting state demonstration projects. But not too strong of a suggestion.

IN: The Bo-tax, a 5 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery. See Los Angles Times, “Paying for healthcare reform with a ‘botax’”

OUT: Support for consumer-oriented health care reforms, such as Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). From Joe Jackson, chairman of Save Flexible Spending Plans and CEO of WageWorks Inc., a news release, “Senate Health Bill Would Significantly Curtail Flexible Spending Accounts.”

IN: New taxes and taxes increases. From the Joint Tax Committee, via Heritage.org, “The Senate Health Bill: Higher Taxes from Harry Reid“:

Reid Taxes as calculated by the Joint Tax Committee:

1. 40% Excise tax on High Value plans such as $8,500 for Individual and $23,000 for a couple. $149.1 billion in new taxes over the next ten years.
2. 0.5% Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax Hike, for single earners over $200,000 and joint earners over $250,000. $53.8 billion in new taxes over the next ten years.
3. Changes to Health Savings Accounts, Archer Medical Spending Accounts and Health Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Reimbursement Arrangements, $5 billion in new taxes.
4. Cap Flexible Spending Accounts at $2500 in cafeteria plans from the current status of unlimited FSA, $14.6 billion.
5. Increase Penalty for early non-qualified Health Savings Accounts Withdrawals from 10 to 20 Percent, $1.3 Billion.
6. Tax on Branded Drugs: manufacturers and importers of branded drugs that will cost taxpayers $22.2 billion.

(continue reading…)

CBS Marketwatch, “Reid hoping to bring up health bill in Senate next week“:

“We hope to move to health reform,” said Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle on Friday. No date has been set to bring the bill to the floor for debate, she said, adding that Reid wants to bring it up “as soon as we can.”

Reid hasn’t yet unveiled a bill he melded together from separate measures passed by the Senate committees on finance and health. The Congressional Budget Office is still poring over the majority leader’s plan, and the analysis it comes up with be influential in the debate.

Here it is. Vote.

Maybe it won’t go quite that quickly. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, told a Republican gathering in Iowa that anticipates extended debate. From IowaPolitics.com, “Grassley looking for “weeks” of Senate debate on health care reform“:

“You’re restructuring one-sixth of the economy,” Grassley said. “Health care, just the words; life or death issues for 306 million Americans. It ought to be taken pretty seriously. And when most of the program doesn’t get started until 2013, what’s the hurry of getting to get it done right now instead of getting it done right?

In the meantime, all sorts of new tax increases are being thought up to finance the health care bill’s new programs, coverage and government control.

Two headlines on the front page of today’s Washington Post concern the federal government and health care:

“Reid says bill will include a public option“

“Why such a shortage of swine flu vaccine?“

As for the vaccines, here’s the sub-hed on the story: “Administration points to drugmakers, and both point to science”

Also, Sen. Reid’s office has released a video of the Majority Leader criticizing the insurance industry and making the case for the public option.

UPDATE (2:05 p.m.): Mark Tapscott of The Examiner identified the same unifying thread in a commentary from last weekend, “From the people who brought us the swine flu vaccine shortage – Government-run health care! UPDATED“

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday downplayed the prospects for Senate action on cap-and-trade climate legislation this year. From The New York Times, “2010? Reid’s Comments Add Uncertainty to Climate Vote’s Timing “:

Reid had suggested that the global warming legislation could be tossed to the sidelines because of a packed legislative agenda that includes equally bruising battles over health care and Wall Street reform.

“So, you know, we are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year,” Reid said. “And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to.”

The odds of Congress acting on what amounts to a major new tax on energy seems unlikely during an election year. The Times also quotes Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), a member of the Democratic leadership, who is up for re-election in 2010 in North Dakota, an energy-producing state: “I think its increasingly difficult to have a climate change bill done before the end of the year.” (Reid is also up for election.)

• Wall Street Journal, Environmental Capital Blog, “Is Harry Reid bailing on climate legislation?“
• he Guardian (U.K.), “Climate change: Senate Democrats may delay legislation“

Maybe this will swing the debate: “Sweden Urges US Senate To Pass Climate Bill“:

STOCKHOLM — Sweden’s environment minister urged the U.S. Senate on Monday to pass legislation to control greenhouse gases, saying a delay in the vote is impeding negotiations on a new international climate treaty.

Minister Andreas Carlgren said America’s complex debate over health care reforms is sidelining its vote on a climate bill that is needed to persuade other nations — especially the fast-growing economies of India and China — to commit to lowering their greenhouse gas emissions at the Copenhagen climate summit in December.

“It is crucial that the Americans deliver a reliable emission pathway,” Carlgren said, referring to a plan for how emissions will be cut to stated targets. “But that is dependent on the Senate’s lawmaking.”

Only by acting to raise the costs of energy and destroy jobs can the United States demonstrate its seriousness in Copenhagen, or so goes the argument. Is it proportional? The more jobs we destroy, the more serious we are?

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has just indicated that the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act will not be considered by the Senate anytime soon. Leader Reid explained to a Las Vegas business audience, “We have too many other things on our plate.”

While we’re encouraged that the Senate won’t take up the bill in the short-term, that doesn’t mean the legislation is dead.

Just last week the heir-apparent at the AFL-CIO claimed that union bosses will up the pressure on the card check legislation once the health care debate is completed. Richard Trumka shouted that the labor will resume its efforts soon, claiming:

“We WILL PASS EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT legislation, we will not allow our ‘friends’ to pass on this essential part of an economic recovery solution!”

Recovery? How about recovering a little common sense and acknowledging that legislation that forces union membership onto unwilling employees and employers, both, is nothing but a jobs killer?

From The Houston Chronicle, reporting on the National Clean Energy Project gathering held Monday in Washington, “Federal control urged over revamp of electrical grid.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would propose giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to trump states in deciding where to place new power lines as part of a bid to boost electrical transmission capacity nationwide.

Current rules require approval from local, state and federal agencies before new transmission systems are installed. States generally have the final say about where new transmission lines go, an authority that state utility regulators have been reluctant to relinquish.

Under Reid’s proposal, states in regions with huge renewable energy potential would have time to come up with their own plans for building new transmission capacity, but if they moved too slowly, FERC could get involved.

“We must … focus our energy and investments on planning and siting new transmission and breaking down barriers to a truly national approach,” Reid said.

Wasn’t the 2005 Energy Policy Act supposed to achieve that same end? Apparently more effort in that direction is indeed necessary, as witness last week’s ruling concerning siting of transmission lines in Virginia. From Leesburg Today, “States Win As Appeals Court Narrows Federal Power Line Rules“:

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Richmond Wednesday has energized opponents of plans for a number of high voltage transmission lines across the state.

The ruling, on a case brought by the Piedmont Environmental Council and multiple states against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, would curtail FERC’s power to intervene in transmission line decisions in the state.

In its decision written by Judge Michael, the court reversed what it called FERC’s “expansive interpretation” of the language of Section 216 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that granted the federal commission authority to supercede a decision by state regulators to withhold permission to build lines within designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors for more than one year.

The court ruled that while the federal agency could act if a state permit review is delayed, the statue does not permit, as FERC claimed, the authority to overturn a denial of an application.

For a good example of arguments from the anti-energy, anti-transmission, see this op-ed from a woman who fought transmission lines necessary to bring solar-generated electricity to San Diego, “EDITORIAL: CALL ME A SORE LOSER– HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT POWERLINK“:

As a Campo property owner and native San Diegan I just can’t fathom how 120
miles of transmission lines with 150 ft. high steel towers buzzing and crackling their way into San Diego fits with “America’s Finest City” image….[snip]

The fact is that few of us will be able to determine what type of energy is being transmitted across these unnecessary transmission lines. Is it wind, solar, geothermal, or fossil fuel? You tell me. After the so-called “energy crisis” a few years back and now the deceitful attempts to persuade the public that Sunrise Powerlink is a good thing for San Diego,will you ever trust San Diego Gas & Electric again? Is this line about renewable energy or SDG&E’s bottom line?

It’s an aesthetic, emotional, viscerally anti-business and highly individual argument — lots of “I” — which doesn’t really help keep the lights on in San Diego.

The writer is correct in observing that transmission lines are transmission lines, carrying electricity generated from any source. That’s why Senator Reid’s comments are so welcome. It’s fair to say he’s not a fan of coal power, and yet that opposition is not preventing his support for a national, rational energy transmission grid.

More…

• Bloomberg, “Reid Proposes Plan to Speed Approval of Power Lines“
• CNET News, “Sen. Reid has plan to reform energy infrastructure“
• Greentech Media, “Sen. Reid: Feds Should Trump States in Building the Smart Grid”

Las Vegas Review Journal, “Reid tries to reimpose oil shale extraction ban“:

From the office of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):

We’ve just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America’s West is estimated to hold between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.

Here is the text of Reid’s proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a “stimulus” package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.
Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.

Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog has more.