Below we note criticism of the White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth from two prominent Republicans, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).

Gingrich and Boehner raise a criticism we’ve seen elsewhere, that the President excluded important employer groups like the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, and the National Association of Manufacturing.

Eh. We’re not inclined to complain. As these posts demonstrate, there were plenty of manufacturers among the 130 attendees and they provided good input. The White House has said in the past it wants to hear from the actual company leaders, the employers in the trenches, and fair enough.

But …

If that’s the theory, then shouldn’t organized labor’s representatives have been the heads of local unions, the men and women dealing with job loss and creation in their home communities? It’s not as if Andy Stern doesn’t have enough opportunity already to talk to White House officials.

Instead …

• Mark Ayers, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
• Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
• Edward Wytkind, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
• Ed Hill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
• William Hite, United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
• Leo Gerard, United Steel Workers
• Terry O’Sullivan, Laborers International Union of North America
• James Hoffa, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• Anna Burger, Change To Win
• Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO
• John Wilhelm, Unite Here
• Joe Hansen, United Food and Commercial Workers
• Andy Stern, Service Employees International Union
• Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers

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.

Now the unions are hiring Pinkertons!

A federal lawsuit by an international security company, the OSO, details services the company provided to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as the union dealt with fraternal battles over representation of California health care workers, specifically the rebellious local, United Health Workers.  As a news release from the National Union of Healthcare Workers (an anti-SEIU group) details (OK, claims):

On January 15th the OSO Group began its operations for SEIU, according to the lawsuit. It deployed off-duty and retired police officers – at $110 per hour – to conduct 24/7 surveillance of UHW’s offices. The agents, who were stationed in cars outside SEIU-UHW’s offices, attempted to intimidate union members and staff by photographing and videotaping them as they came and left the offices. Click here to see pictures of one of the company’s plain-clothed, gun-toting agents on the sidewalks in front of SEIU-UHW’s Oakland office before the trusteeship.

(continue reading…)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a column in today’s Politico, “Arbitration the real threat in EFCA,” that raises important objections to the binding arbitration provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. However, the Speaker repeats a mistake we’ve seen elsewhere, that is, that legislation would force politicized, National Labor Relations Board arbitrators into the employer-union negotiation process.

Here’s the relevant passage from the text of the bill, S. 560, specifically Sec. 3, “Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements.” Our emphasis.

`(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.

`(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.’.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is NOT the National Labor Relations Board and it’s not the Department of Labor, it’s an independent agency within the Executive Branch. Its arbitrators are not permanent agency appointees. As the FMCS explains (in a 2006 publication):

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) maintains a roster of approximately 1,400 arbitrators, who are experienced practitioners with backgrounds in collective bargaining and who meet FMCS arbitration requirements. To be listed on the roster, FMCS will determine whether the applicant:

• Is experienced, competent and acceptable in decision-making roles in the resolution of labor relations disputes; or
• Has extensive and recent experience in relevant positions in collective bargaining; and
• Is capable of conducting an orderly hearing, can analyze testimony and exhibits and can prepare clear and concise findings and awards within reasonable time limits.

Binding arbitration is a terrible, terrible idea. But strong opposition to the binding arbitration provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act should not be interpreted as denigrating the current FMCS-appointed arbitrators. The FMCS’s arbitration process now occurs largely out of public eye and from what we can gather, appears to be effective.

Note how the service now emphasizes “voluntary arbitration” in its publications. The Employee Free Choice Act would make a company’s operations — wages, benefits, work rules — subject to binding arbitration, leading to a potentially life-or-death decision about those operations being made by a third party. That’s unacceptable.

(Edited at 4:42 p.m. for clarity.)

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), speaking today to the National Association of Manufacturers, at the “Leadership Luncheon”:

At a time when innovation is the driving force of how we grow economies worldwide, science, research and development have to be at the top of our agenda. Unfortunately, we’ve seen R&D funding in the United States fall to sixth in the world in terms of the percentage of our GDP. Sixth is not high enough. Again, if you look at historic numbers, post WWII, America has always led in its R&D efforts. We’ve seen those efforts cut back in terms of …it’s too often easy enough to cut those efforts in the short term, in the long term we will pay for those cutbacks.

What do we need? Well, we do need more federal efforts in R&D. That does NOT mean that the federal government should be picking technology winners and losers. That should be left to the marketplace. But in terms of basic research the federal government, I believe, should play an increasingly important role.

By coincidence, Newt Gingrich on NPR’s “Morning Edition” this morning:

There are smart things the government should do. I favor, for example, doubling the size of the National Science Foundation. I think it’s absolutely imperative that we make the investment to remain the world’s leader in science and technology.

Senator Warner’s remarks on technologry and R&D were cited in an NAM news release today, “SENATOR WARNER (D-VA) SHARES WITH MANUFACTURERS HIS VISION FOR STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S COMPETITIVENESS.”

The Wall Street Journal has the text of Treasury’s financial rescue legislation, i.e., the bill authorizing the purchase of mortgage-related assets.

Also, a WSJ Q&A.

UPDATE: (4:20 p.m.): This column, “A Bad Bank Rescue” by the Washington Post’s Sebastian Mallaby is gaining wide circulation. In it, he explains why it’s false to compare the provisions to the Resolution Trust Corporation’s formation to overcome the S&L crisis. And there are preferable alternatives, Mallaby writes:

Within hours of the Treasury announcement Friday, economists had proposed preferable alternatives. Their core insight is that it is better to boost the banking system by increasing its capital than by reducing its loans. Given a fatter capital cushion, banks would have time to dispose of the bad loans in an orderly fashion. Taxpayers would be spared the experience of wandering into a bad-loan bazaar and being ripped off by every merchant.

Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, chides conservatives for preparing to acquiesce to the Administration’s plans and says Congress is owed some answers before it acts. And there are multiple crises hurting the economy, he he argues in a column published at National Review Online,

There is an immediate crisis of liquidity on Wall Street.

There is a longer time crisis of a bad energy policy transferring $700 billion a year to foreign countries (so foreign sovereign capital funds are now using our energy payments to buy our companies).

There is a longer term crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley (the last “crisis”-inspired congressional disaster) crippling entrepreneurial start ups, driving public companies private, driving smart business people off public boards, and driving offerings from New York to London.

There is a long term crisis of a high corporate tax rate driving business out of the United States.
No solution to the immediate liquidity crisis should further cripple the American economy for the long run. Instead, the liquidity solution should be designed to strengthen the economy for competition in the world market.

Another point from Gingrich: Congress already passed a “grotesque” $300 billion housing bailout paying off politicians’ left-wing allies. Didn’t work, did it?

From The San Francisco Chronicle’s website, SFGate, writing about Sen. John McCain’s latest energy policy pronouncements:

Environmental groups said McCain’s proposal is at odds with his own legislative proposals in recent years to set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, which would ultimately shift America away from fossil fuels.

“Drilling in protected areas offshore won’t solve our energy needs in the short term, and in the long term will increase the threat of global warming,” said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski.

But former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in an interview Monday on a radio show produced by the National Association of Manufacturers, said drilling offshore is a crucial way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and boost national security.

“We have an unknown potential offshore in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico where it’s been illegal to look for oil,” Gingrich said. “The fact is there are a lot of American sources we could be using.”

For the Gingrich interview on America’s Business, please go here.

And note well the comments from Karpinski. He is stating the environmentalist position that opposes any expansion of oil development, not just in “protected areas offshore.” Because fossil fuels contribute to global warming — he says — their use is unacceptable. That’s an extreme position, but the real one held by the green groups.

It’s not WHERE the drilling occurs, it’s the fact THAT any drilling is occurring at all.