Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions organization conducted “The Real Jobs Summit” in Cincinnati Thursday to counter the White House’s Forum on Jobs Creation and Economic Growth. His group’s jobs platform includes excellent proposals, including many concerning taxes and expanded energy production, policy areas given insufficient attention during the White House program.

Gingrich also writes an op-ed in today’s Washington Examiner, “Crashing the Obama jobs summit,” that cites the views of Paul Taylor, head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association. (We blogged about Taylor’s comments yesterday.) Gingrich:

In an interview with a Pennsylvania newspaper in anticipation of the president’s visit, Taylor delivered a point-by-point repudiation of the White House and the Democratic Congress’ big-government, big-spending, high-taxing plan for the economy.

Taylor expressed the same concerns I heard this week in a series of “Real Jobs Summits” with small-business people and entrepreneurs in Cincinnati, Ohio and Jackson, Miss.: Out-of-control government spending and bureaucratic red tape in the form of Democratic health, cap-and-trade and big-labor legislation are crippling America’s engines of job creation, our small businesses.

Gingrich is a fierce partisan, obviously, and so casts the arguments in a partisan political terms. But yes indeed, the policies — and the uncertainties they represent — are major impediments to jobs creation. (See Irwin Steltzer in today’s Examiner, “Job creation requires certainty, not government action.”)

House Republican Leader John Boehner — a former manufacturer — also made the argument about uncertainty in criticizing the White House event. From CNSNews.com, “Obama’s Snub to Chamber of Commerce in Keeping With ‘Job Killing’ Policies, Boehner Says“:

“I know what it takes to meet a payroll,” Boehner said. “What it means to create jobs. And without certainty, without some confidence about what tomorrow’s going to bring, I’m not going to move.“Look at all of these policies that are being proposed,” Boehner said. “Tax rates that are so uncertain – it’s no surprise to any of us that employers continue to do nothing.”

Yes, tax policy must be a priority in any discussion of jobs and U.S. competitiveness.

UPDATE (6:40 p.m.): Boehner stops after an hour. Speaker Pelosi now closes the debate. Votes to follow.

______________________

Allowing us time to get home, that is, if the commute has improved since yesterday.

From House Republicans’ American Energy Solutions Group:

Cap-and-Tax

Friends - Last night, at 3:00 a.m., the House Democrats released a 300-page amendment to their 1,200-page national energy tax legislation. No one - not one single Member of Congress - has read the bill that the Democratic Leadership is bringing up for a vote today. Remember, Speaker Pelosi promised the American people at least 24 hours to read a bill before a vote in her “New Direction for America” document distributed in 2006 that remains on her website today. Another broken promise from Washington Democrats.

So at the conclusion of his floor statement this afternoon, Republican Leader John Boehner will read the 300-page amendment on the House floor to America and the assembled Members of the House. By House tradition, three Members have the right to deliver unlimited floor remarks - the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader. This is the House equivalent of the filibuster in the Senate. We expect it may take a while, but Members of Congress, and - more importantly - the American people have a right know what the House is voting on.

You can view the floor proceedings on CSPAN or at http://www.c-span.org/.

Yesterday on the way home we caught a glimpse of Reese Witherspoon out the bus window. No doubt hard at work at a green job.

Forecasting a possible labor agenda under an Obama Administration the WSJ outlines today that includes many familiar items — the Employee Free Choice Act — and some not so familiar, including the RESPECT Act, as well some lesser known provisions within the card check bill such as language to impose binding arbitration for first contracts. The column’s summary of the mandatory arbitration provisions is the most concise argument against the card-check bill that’s out there.

Another labor-friendly provision of the Employee Free Choice Act is mandatory arbitration. Under current law, labor and management are required to bargain in good faith but aren’t obliged to reach an agreement. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, if the parties can’t settle on a contract within 120 days, the dispute goes to an arbitration panel which can impose a contract that is binding for two years.

 

As a practical matter, contracts typically involve dozens of provisions dealing with wages as well as seniority, grievances, overtime, transfers and promotions. Rarely is this accomplished in four months. The provision would notably shift bargaining power to unions, which would have an incentive to run out the 120-day clock and let an arbitrator impose a contract that is bound to include much of what unions demand.

Other points included in the column:

• Senator Obama’s support for the RESPECT Act. This seemingly innocuous bill would drastically amend the National Labor Relations Act to change the legal definition of a supervisor. The result would place many supervisors in the same bargaining unit as their subordinates. As clear conflict of interest;
• The Senator would bar companies from replacing striking workers; 
• Sen. Obama’s plans would also force state and local governments to recognize union leaders as the exclusive bargaining agent for first responders instead of allowing these important public servants to negotiate directly with their employers.
• Additionally, the column states that Sen. Obama is against states’ rights to pass Right to Work laws that protect employees that refuse to join a union or pay union dues.

In other related news, House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) opines in Townhall.com other plans to implement big labor’s agenda. His piece focuses on the impact of EFCA and Sen. Obama’s position on the bill. Boehner speculates that if EFCA passes “With the stroke of a pen, a time-honored right [to secret ballot union elections] would be signed away into the pages of history.”

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke today at an American Spectator/Americans for Tax Reform newsmaker luncheon today, with Heritage Foundation blogging guests also on hand.

Boehner and 10 Republican freshmen returned this week from an energy-oriented trip to Colorado and Alaska, and today’s session concentrated on energy issues.

The leader’s arguments:

• The majority of the public favors additional domestic energy supply, i.e. drilling.
• Clear majorities exist in both the House and Senate for pro-supply measures. In the House, Democratic leadership therefore prevents votes on legislation. 
• House Republicans intend to try to force votes, but it’s unclear whether the strategy will succeed.
• Republicans also intend to make energy a campaign issue this fall.

We’ll let the partisan politics speak for itself, although yes, it does seem like pro-energy supply bills would pass if allowed to come to a straight up-and-down vote.

A good question came from Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity. Kerpen cited the EPA’s recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the regulation of greenhouse gases, alluding to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. Kerpen asked whether Congressional policymaking on energy isn’t ultimately moot if the EPA regulates carbon dioxide under the 1970 Clean Air Act, and whether Congress might respond in some fashion, perhaps a rider on the continuing resolution. 

Boehner:

First you have to remember that the Democrats control the Congress, and you’ve seen their willingness to give us an opportunity to amend their appropriations bills, or for that matter, almost any bill.

If I had my way I would make it clear that CO2 is not the enemy, because under that court ruling, we’d have Fish & Wildlife Service and EPA in charge of every CO2 permit in America. I think it’s going to become very evident by this time next year in Congress that if they haven’t acted, they’re going to have to act. But I see no evidence on the part of the Democrat majority in the House and Senate to address the issue.

Kerpen wrote a column highlighting the regulatory implications (dangers) of the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “The EPA’s Blueprint for Disaster.”

UPDATE: (4:20 p.m.) A good, brief account of today’s session from David Weigel at Reason.

A huge margin of victory on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act. We’ll post the roll call when it becomes available.

UPDATE: Here’s the roll call.

Majority Leader Hoyer’s floor statement.

Republican Leader Boehner’s statement.

UPDATE (4:24 p.m.): Sen. Barack Obama endorses the legislation. The angry left is disappointed. Or angry.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) in a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

I write to you today regarding Select Committee on Energy Independence Chairman Ed Markey’s (D-MA) introduction of his long-awaited legislation aimed at reducing the level of carbon in the air by imposing new taxes on emitting it.  Based on his comments last week, Chairman Markey’s legislation is expected to be much more far-reaching – and much more costly – than the legislation the Senate is debating this week.  Make no mistake: House Republicans support responsible climate change policies that will protect our environment, advance our energy security, and create more American jobs.  But in both cases, Chairman Markey’s bill and the Senate bill amount to large tax increases that would impact virtually the entire economy and would saddle consumers with even higher energy costs.  I believe this approach is not only inadvisable; it is reckless and inappropriate…

While I disagree fervently with the logic of raising energy costs while consumers already face astronomical prices for gasoline, I respect your prerogative as Speaker to follow through on your promise and schedule a vote on the bill.  And frankly, I welcome the debate.  At a time when families are reconsidering their summer travel plans because of the record-high gas prices, I believe there is no clearer distinction between the two parties in Congress than on this issue.

Boehner’s full letter is here. 

We hadn’t looked at Chairman Markey’s proposal since the influence of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming’s is in inverse proportion to the length of its name — the longest committee name in the House. But it’s quite the proposal, “revolutionary,” as Markey calls it. We can’t make out in the plan just where the proletariat seize the means of production, but they sure wind up with all the proceeds.

It would be a very illuminating debate.