Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken

[Soul Crusher]

Follow MeRichard Epstein
The LibertarianMy ProfileMy Headline GrabsMy RSS Feed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government By Waiver: The Breakdown Of Public Administration
Nov. 23 2010 - 1
By RICHARD EPSTEIN


http://blogs.forbes.com/richardepstein/2010/11/23/government-by-waiver-the-breakdown-of-public-administration/?boxes=opinionschannellatest

________________________ ________________________ _________



The past year has marked the passage of the two most massive legislative reforms in the history of American politics: ObamaCare for health care and Dodd-Frank for the financial sector.  Their size and complexity dwarf those of any New Deal legislation.

These new laws require a stunning acceleration of the longstanding practice of relying on delegated authority to implement statutory commands.  According to its New Deal champions, this welcome division of authority could cure the manifold defects of a market economy by combining the best of democratic politics with the best of administrative expertise.  Under the new division of labor, the political branches of government set the broad direction of legislative reform, and then trust skilled administrative agencies to turn general directives into specific commands.

The sheer magnitude of the new legislative ventures has thrown this model–which, in truth, has never worked well–into disarray. Rulemaking is no small operation.  Typically, an agency has to gather enough information to take an intelligent stab at issuing reasonable rules.  It must therefore try to bring itself up to speed by a cumbersome, multistage process for gathering and synthesizing the needed information from hundreds, if not thousands, of separate sources.

Stripped to its essentials, the relevant agency decides what it needs to know to formulate a set of intelligent rules.  It must then conduct extensive surveys of the relevant stakeholders–industry and consumer groups, for starters–to obtain needed data.  Next it formulates and publishes preliminary rules and regulations.  These in turn are bombarded by comments from literally hundreds of separate groups, each with its own agenda.  Once the agency issues its final rules, they may well be challenged in court on a variety of statutory and constitutional grounds.

This complex administrative process only has a fighting chance of generating sensible rules with a statute that embodies some workable principles in the first place.  Here is one typical instance of how the process has gotten gummed up under ObamaCare. As a matter of grand legislative policy, ObamaCare decreed that firms would be required to knock out wasteful administrative costs by attaining favorable “medical loss ratios,” which in turn require them to slash their administrative expenses for individual and group health care plans to between, say, 15% and 20% of total costs.  The numbers are often little more than half of the current expense ratios for various kinds of plans.

The statutory commands all rest on the grand assumption that these administrative costs are a form of disguised waste that mere competitive market forces could not eliminate.  But the claim is a delusion.  No one has any clear idea what counts an “administrative cost” for statutory purposes, which itself leads to all sorts of jockeying and lobbying for strategic advantage inside the administrative process–which just raises those administrative costs even more.

Since the politicos miscalculated the regulatory burdens, they have to brace for the real possibility that some health care plans will collapse under the strain.  Starting in late September, reality hit home when McDonald’s announced that it would have cut out its “mini-med” program for about 30,000 of its low-paid workers. It insisted that it could not meet the statutory requirements for the simple reason that high employee turnover raises administrative costs.

Rather than face this public relations disaster, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, granted a one-year waiver from the requirements of the program.  That particular result does not stand alone.  Since that time fresh waivers have been routinely dispensed by the Department of Health and Human Services to many other organizations, including many powerful unions. At least one million workers are now out from under ObamaCare, with more to come.

The process vividly shows how unrealistic expectations can undermine the rule of law.  Waivers are by definition an exercise of administrative discretion that benefits the party who receives its special dispensation.  Yet nothing in ObamaCare explains who should receive these waivers or why.

The dangers from this uncertainty are enormous. Make no mistake about it, a waiver gives the favored organization a competitive advantage over its rivals. But it is not only one applicant that pulls out all the stops.  Its competitors often follow suit while simultaneously trying to block the waiver for the original applicant.  Administrative expertise quickly takes a back seat to old-fashioned political muscle and intrigue.

What’s more, waivers are typically only for short periods–say one year.  They are often given on condition that the firm take steps to bring itself into compliance during waiver period.  But what happens if the firm requests a renewal?  Is it issued on the ground that no amount of ingenuity could have brought the firm into compliance? Or is it denied in order to make sure that the overarching statutory command is not nullified by endless short-term compromises?

What matters systematically is not the outcome of any particular case but rather the long-term toll that extensive rulemaking exacts from the administrative process.  The safeguards of the rule of law are always undermined by fierce short-term pressures on administrative agencies.

Economically, the high fixed costs of administrative compliance drive small firms to seek takeover by powerful larger firms whose deeper purses and better political contacts help them weather the storm.  The palpable irony is that the same health care experts who once touted ObamaCare now fear that the new combinations will make health care more monopolistic, raising prices while cutting costs.  But no one can expect private firms to stand still in the face of those mortal threats.  Better a concentrated industry than a decimated one.

Squads of health care experts and political pundits envisioned a Pax Obama for heath care once the political hubbub quieted down. It won’t happen.  Without major steps to overhaul or repeal ObamaCare, government by waiver will become standard operating procedure to the detriment of us all.

[Soul Crusher]

I would get rid of the epa,nea,  dea, batf, DHS, Commerce Dept, etc. 

[Soul Crusher]

November 25, 2010
President Barack Obama: Job Killer
By Larry Elder



President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office in January 2009 during a severe economic downturn led by a meltdown in housing prices -- and promptly made things worse.

By bailing out banks, insurance companies and auto firms -- done to a lesser extent by the previous administration -- Obama rewarded poor performers and punished their better-managed competitors. Prevented from pouncing on wounded rivals and thus increasing market share or buying the assets of the wounded at fire sale prices, Ford, for example, watched GM and Chrysler get a cash infusion from taxpayers. Despite GM's recent "successful" public offering, taxpayers lost billions of dollars.

Obama and the Democratic congressional supermajorities passed a nearly trillion-dollar economic "stimulus" package and then proceeded to award fiscally irresponsible states with "stimulus" funds, helping postpone the day of reckoning when states must meet their budgets by reducing spending and cutting the size of government. Stimulus supposedly "saved or created" 3.5 million jobs, but it merely succeeded in transferring money from the pockets of producer taxpayers into the pockets of others.

Obama spends billions to "invest" in mythical "green jobs of the future." Investing is the job of the private sector, which uses private funds to produce a product that addresses a need or desire. Success is determined by the willingness of the consumer to pay good money for said product. A bad bet means somebody loses his own money -- a possibility that the private investor weighed before he chose to risk his capital.

But government "investments" are driven by politics, with decisions made by bureaucrats operating under rosy scenarios with romantic wish lists. When taxpayer money goes down a rathole -- as is far more likely than with privately invested money -- nobody gets fired, but the country is impoverished a little bit more.

ObamaCare puts 30 million Americans on the rolls of the medically insured. Since its passage, insurance companies -- citing the cost of ObamaCare mandates, rules and regulations -- jacked up their premiums and cut coverage. Over 100 waivers have been granted to companies and organizations that, but for these waivers, would have had to drop coverage, increase copays or reduce medical benefits. Nice to have friends in high places.

The AARP, a staunch proponent of ObamaCare, announced a reduction in benefits for its own employees, lest the tax kick in for so-called "Cadillac plans." To "bend the cost curve," ObamaCare promised cuts in Medicare reimbursement. So doctors are dropping their Medicare patients.

The administration signed into law new banking and financial regulations that keep intact the very government agencies that helped precipitate the housing meltdown -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Under policies aimed at allowing everyone with a pulse and a dream to buy a home, these "government-sponsored entities" allowed the players in the housing market -- banks, borrowers, investment banks and buyers of "exotic securities" -- to play with taxpayer money.

The Obama administration's various government efforts to "keep homeowners in their homes" are floundering, serving only to postpone the necessary market re-pricing of homes that are now worth less than they once were. Cash for Clunkers induced people who were going to buy cars anyway into making their purchases earlier. When the program ended, car buying slumped. The result was more taxpayer dollars removed from the hands of producers and put into the hands of recipients.

The administration, with some Republican support, increased the minimum wage and several times extended unemployment compensation -- both well-intended policies, but job killers nonetheless.

Obama promised to raise taxes on the rich, who, under Bush, got tax cuts they "didn't need" and "didn't ask for." So the rich sit on their money, not knowing whether they will be allowed to spend or save or invest it -- or whether Washington has other ideas. Most Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and if not extended, rates will go up on income, capital gains, dividends and estates.

The recent Republican takeover of the House and loss of the Senate's Democratic supermajority likely mean that the rates will be extended for all -- including the dastardly, job-creating rich. But businesspeople cannot plan -- and are thus reluctant to hire -- until they know whether their taxes are going to increase.

Candidate Obama demagogued against trade agreements that "shipped jobs overseas," and promised to tweak the Bush administration-negotiated treaty with South Korea. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the pact would create 250,000 jobs in America and it would open up exports to a NAFTA-sized market. But during his recent trip to Asia, Obama failed to get the South Koreans to go along with his changes aimed at benefiting the American auto and beef industries. The South Koreans said no, insisting that they had a deal and that if the U.S. won't do business with them, other countries will.

For two years, Obama has practiced Obamalism: Spread the wealth; redistribute income; punish success; reward ineptitude; and encourage the victicrat-entitlement mentality by making the lack of health insurance the responsibility of others.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Soul Crusher]

US to establish 187,000-square-mile ‘critical habitat’ for polar bears in Alaska
Boston.com/AP ^ | November 25, 2010


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a “critical habitat’’ for polar bears, an action that could add restrictions to future offshore drilling for oil and gas.

The total, which includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast, is about 13,000 square miles less than in a preliminary plan released last year.

Tom Strickland, Interior assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, said the designation would help polar bears stave off extinction, recognizing that the greatest threat is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

As EPA Goes Green, Businesses See Red From Lack Of Guidance
By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 11/30/2010 07:18 PM ET
 


EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has urged congressional action on cap-and-trade - or her agency will act instead.


Big business is bracing for a series of Environmental Protection Agency regulations set to begin in January. The problem is, it doesn't really know what those regulations are going to be. Neither does the EPA, which has essentially punted that responsibility down to the states.

Starting Jan. 2, owners of factories, utilities and the like must meet higher standards when they apply for EPA emissions permits. In green jargon, they will have to install the "best available control technology" to limit greenhouse gases before they can operate.

Tough And Vague

But the EPA has no standard for determining what is the best technology — or how much the emissions must be reduced. Businesses are simply being told to do better and to figure out what that is with local government officials.

"There is no set answer and no set amount of emissions reductions or standard," said EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones. The new process is a "case-by-case determination that is made by the permitting authority — usually a state or local environmental agency."

Jones said the process would give "a lot of flexibility" to agencies to determine the best process.

Federal officials say they are working closely with states to smooth the process.

Big business sees a major problem for members, who don't know how to proceed to renew their licenses. Ross Eisenberg, Chamber of Commerce counsel on environmental issues, said dealing with the coming changes "dominated" a recent meeting of the group.

"The first word out of CEOs' mouths is 'regulatory overload,'" Eisenberg said. "And regulatory stuff is usually not a high priority for Washington types, but it really has moved to the forefront because it has become overwhelming."

Applying for an EPA permit for a factory or utility can take years of planning. Those plans now require last-minute revisions as companies have to determine what is the best technology for cutting emissions — and get others to agree with them.

"At the end of the day, you have to figure how to get that done,you have to convince the local permitting authorities of this and then, more than likely, defend that in a court of law, because someone is going to challenge you," Eisenberg said.

Keith McCoy, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, says the process is eased somewhat because existing permits will be honored until their original expiration. Only those whose permits are up for renewal will need to upgrade their facilities.

"EPA's thinking is that they'll have some time on this," McCoy said. "What they are not factoring in is a company's capital planning. Some of these things are multiyear decisions." Uncertainty in the permitting process will scramble that.

Grill On The Hill

Permitting is expected to become a headache for the EPA as well. Once local companies begin to deal with the new permit process, they will complain to lawmakers, who'll seek answers from federal officials.

GOP lawmakers vying for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have already promised to regularly grill top Obama officials, especially EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, on green policies. Other lawmakers have vowed inquiries as well.

State and local governments may not be ready for the added responsibility. The nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislators says little prep work has been done.

"There is minimal state legislation addressing how states will handle these new regulations," NCSL policy analyst Jacquelyn Pless said.

Green groups are bracing for a backlash, especially efforts to limit or roll back EPA authority.

"The lobbying that we are seeing in Washington is only growing," said John Coequyt, energy policy analyst for the Sierra Club. "Companies and industry associations are using this as an opportunity to argue against regulations writ large."

The new permit rules reflect the White House's frustration with the lack of progress on cap-and-trade. It pushed lawmakers to pass a cap-and-trade bill, but after a bill was rammed through the House, it stalled in the Senate.

Late last year, EPA's Jackson announced that the agency was asserting the right under a 2007 Supreme Court decision to regulate carbon emissions as a pollutant. It was a message to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade: Do it first, or we'll step in.

The legislation remained stalled, so the EPA went ahead. It essentially ordered caps but no trading. Some lawmakers, like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., tried to pass legislation barring EPA action, at least temporarily. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held off on a vote and has now indicated there won't be one in the current Congress.

"We have a long list of items to consider and not much time to do so," said Reid spokeswoman Regan LaChapelle.

Lobbyists on both sides expect green efforts to pick up again, and with renewed urgency, when the 122nd Congress convenes in January. Republicans will control the House and will have a bolstered minority in the Senate.

[Soul Crusher]

Source: No new drilling in Gulf for seven years
CNN ^ | 12/1/2010 | Dan Lothian





A senior administration official confirms that President Obama will not be allowing new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years. This is a result of the BP oil spill.


(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cn n.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Obama makes US even more dependent on foreign oil
Flopping Aces ^ | 12-03-10 | DrJohn






A search for "Obama reneges" yields 15,800 hits in Google.

And once again Barack Obama reneges, this time on offshore oil drilling and in so doing makes the United States even more dependent on foreign oil. This is the first step in Obama's bypassing Congress to rule by Executive Order.

The Obama administration instituted what was supposed to be a six month moratorium on "deepwater"drilling following the Deep Horizon spill. A Federal judge struck it down, but Obama just instituted another one. On October12, the Obama administration announced that it would lift the deepwater drilling moratorium but has issued no new permits. The issuance of new permits was promised to be a slow process


President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.

Really, really slow, as it turns out.


On Wednesday, the Interior Department said it would not propose oil exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines or the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years.
As is Obama's usual policy, he called for bipartisan support while acting in a strictly partisan manner.

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

[Soul Crusher]

US Chamber of Commerce says EPA 'over-stepping' on coal ash rule
McGraw Hill ^ | 11/19/2010


Washington (Platts)--19Nov2010/537 pm EST/2237 GMT

The US Chamber of Commerce Friday said the Environmental Protection Agency is "overstepping its bounds" as it considers whether to regulate coal combustion waste as a hazardous material.

The chamber was among hundreds of corporations, associations and individuals that submitted comments on the proposal by Friday's deadline. The agency has held public hearings around the country that pitted environmentalists and concerned citizens against companies worried about the economic effects of coal ash regulation.

"This rule has potentially devastating consequences for America's construction industry," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the agency. "The EPA blatantly side-stepped a critical requirement by not performing a study of the potential impact on employment of this regulation. At a time when our country continues to struggle to dig out of the recession, we simply cannot afford this guaranteed job-killer."

Coal ash is recycled and used in cement, concrete, wallboard, roofing materials, paints and plastics and highway projects -- so-called beneficial uses that would be restricted or eliminated if ash is categorized as "hazardous," the chamber said.

The chamber also criticized a "dramatic increase in burdensome regulation by Congress and the administration in several ... areas, including healthcare, financial markets, energy, and labor," saying the actions are creating tremendous uncertainty for business owners.

"Once again, EPA is overstepping its bounds to attack the coal industry, and it is ignoring the adverse employment impacts on the nation's construction industries," Kovacs said. The group charged that the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA to study the effects on employment of new environmental regulations.

Environmentalists have launched a massive campaign calling for EPA to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste following a massive spill at Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston plant in December 2008 that unleashed five million cubic yards of coal ash into surrounding rivers and land areas.

EPA is considering whether to regulate coal ash as hazardous or under non-hazardous RCRA rules that would be less stringent.

--Jason Fordney, jason_fordney@platts.com

[Soul Crusher]

Dismal Jobs Numbers Exposes a Leaderless White House on Economic Policy
Pajamas Media ^ | December 3, 2010 | Richard Pollock Posted on Friday,


As today’s calamitous jobless numbers report came out and the official unemployment rate spiked to 9.8%, Obama’s economic dream ended.
The economy is now his mess.  It’s his car that’s in the ditch.   There will be no economic recovery any time soon for millions of American workers under this president. And that may end up being  Barack Obama’s political legacy.

The depressing new numbers — only 39,000 jobs created after 150,000 were generated last month — also shine a bright spotlight on the fact that there is no economic leadership within the Obama administration.  The president’s economic “dream team” dissolved after Labor Day and there is no discernible Obama plan or vision to get America back to work and to generate millions of new jobs.  It simply doesn’t exist.

This fall, two of  Obama’s key economic chieftains — Christina Romer and Peter Orszag — called it quits and returned to their universities and academic centers. A third – Lawrence Summers — will leave at the end of the year. He’s going back to Harvard.

In August, Christina Romer, who promised unemployment would not top 8% if the federal stimulus was passed, announced she was going back to her position as an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Orszag left earlier in the summer for family reasons.  Upon their departures many commentators said Obama’s economic brain trust dissolved.

The word on the street is that no economic stars with real business experience are interested in joining the Obama White House.  Two Clintonites, investment banker Roger Altman and numbers cruncher Gene Sperling, have been publicly courted but have not decided to share Obama’s bed.  That appears to be the best the president can do.

No one is being sought who has any experience running a 21st Century corporation and who actually knows how to produce jobs.  This is what happens when you declare war on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and your closest business ally, the Business Roundtable, excoriates you as they did this summer, you have created an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.”

And Jack Lew, the new Office of Management and Budget director, who is in charge of spending priorities for the federal government,  has been operating without a deputy since he was confirmed.

Michael S. Barr, the assistant Treasury secretary who shepherded the new federal regulations for the financial industry through congress, has departed.  Diana Farrell, the deputy director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council and another architect of the regulatory legislation, will leave at the end of the year. The team is breaking up.

In August White Robert Gibbs explained to reporters that Obama’s economic team was “exhausted.” The only ones left from the original team is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner and the sclerotic Paul Volker, Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Federal Reserve Chairman under former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Last Tuesday, President Obama, in a “news availability” (meaning he refused to take any questions) told reporters after meeting with Republican congressional leaders for the first time since the election, that the American people “want us to come together around strategies that will accelerate the recovery and get Americans back to work.”  So where are the Democratic strategies to generate millions of new jobs?

The Democratic-led Lame Duck session and the President are our only insight.  And thus far, they have ducked all legislative questions on economic strategies that can promote prosperity.  Their single Hallelujah jobs legislation — a $12 billion unemployment benefit extension that isn’t paid for — does not create a single new job.  What about the only other economic piece of legislation, preserving the Bush tax cuts?  Democrats passed an extension that does not include that highest earners — what incoming Speaker John Boehner calls “chicken crap.” But the extension of the tax cuts will not generate any new jobs either; it will simply assure there aren’t more job losses. The tax cut bill is a jobs preservationist policy, not a job growth policy.

The mainstream media’s spin of the Democratic drubbing last month was that it was only due to unemployment and not a reflection on the President’s policies.  A larger issue the media has all but ignored is that there is no one at the White House directing economic growth policies.  And today’s horrible jobs numbers shows it.

Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.

[Soul Crusher]

No Jobs For Americans at Heinz
By: Ruth Calvo Saturday December 4, 2010 3:38 am
Tweet5 Share

 


No Jobs for U.S. workers declares Bill Johnson, CEO at Heinz, on Wall Street Journal Report last Saturday

Last Saturday, the CEO of Heinz, best known for ketchup production, told Maria Bartiromo that Heinz will not be hiring Americans this year (at 3:55).  The reason he gave was the ‘uncertainty’ produced by the ‘inability’ of the government to decide on really important things such as the tax rate his business will pay.  He announced at the same time on the same program that Heinz will be opening facilities and hiring in other countries, and concentrated on China where they make soy sauce.

When you go to any fast food restaurant, you are likely to see his product in little packets.  When you visit the grocery store you will find that Heinz enjoys vast amount of that vital shelf space.   You are quite likely to have some of Heinz products in your home as well.

Fortunately, I have no taste for ketchup, so I am not a supporter of the services that are not giving any jobs to U.S. workers until the government gets with their program.  I just checked, and my sweet relish (wonderful with ham sandwiches) is store brand.   There will be no Heinz products in my home again, ever.  . . .
The price of doing business in this country is so great that almost every existing business competes for the U.S. consumer with the well known profligacy in buying stuff.   This country, instead of competing for the lowest standards of worker pay and benefits, should be taking advantage of the terrific market that our store shelves present.

Government is falling into a distortion of reality by abandoning public protections to attract business.   The natural attraction of our consumer economy should be promoted, instead.   I would suggest charging for business licenses, and banning products that do not promote our own economic health.

Heinz has pointed up a huge fallacy in our government’s role in regulating business.  We need to start refusing business complicity with competitors to blackmail this country into unfriendly policies for our public.   Businesses have warped into abusive lobbies with the profits they make from our markets.   It’s past time to turn that on them, and demand that access to the profitable U.S. market be gained by promoting the public good instead of trampling on it for their ‘bottom line’ practices.

[Soul Crusher]

Updated: Mon., Dec. 6, 2010, 5:00 AM 
The jobs O hates
By BEN LIEBERMAN
www.nypost.com




For all his talk of job creation, Presi dent Obama has targeted many occu pations for extinction. Using un elected bureaucrats to implement a host of job-killing measures, his administration is generating piles of pink slips:

Oil: Even before the BP spill, Obama's Interior Department had cracked down on domestic drilling. In 2009, regulators allowed less than $1 billion in new oil and natural gas leases on federally controlled areas -- both onshore and offshore -- compared to $10 billion under President George W. Bush the year before.

Then, in response to the Gulf spill in April, Obama slowed down things even further, with a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That proved so unpopular that the administration officially ended it -- but it remains in force unofficially, as regulators bottle up drilling permits with red tape and delays, keeping workers idle. Most recently, Obama regulators placed the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts off limits to drilling.

Factories: Rising regulatory burdens, energy prices and health-care costs -- Obama has left no stone unturned in making American manufacturing globally less competitive and in forcing jobs overseas.

For example, several new Environmental Protection Agency permit requirements have shut down the construction of coal-fired power plants needed to provide manufacturers with affordable electricity. Jeffrey Holmstead, a former top air-quality EPA official, noted that in 2009 the incoming Obama bureaucrats "withdrew permits that had already been issued," and that "dozens are being held up today because they have no way to meet a new standard that EPA has put out."

It will soon get worse. A barrage of new regulations, including measures intended to address global warming, will hit in January 2011 -- directly targeted manufacturers, and far more costly and complex than anything imposed by America's global competitors, like China, on their own industries.

Mines: The decades-long regulatory squeeze on minerals mining continues unabated, and the Obama administration has now added coal mining to the hit list. The attack includes global-warming regulations that seek to restrict demand for coal and also direct attempts to stop new coal mines from opening.

States that rely on coal-mining jobs are feeling the pinch. Joe Manchin, formerly West Virginia's governor and now its newest US senator, boasts that, "over the past year and a half, we have been fighting Obama administration attempts to destroy the coal mining industry." As governor, Manchin sued the EPA in an attempt to prevent the agency from blocking coal mines in his state. But Obama shows no sign of budging -- even though Manchin is a fellow Democrat.

Fishing: Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is imposing strict fishing limits, even where there is little or no evidence of an overfishing problem. Its controversial catch-shares program is destroying jobs in such fishing communities as Gloucester and New Bedford in Massachusetts, both of which are challenging the program's legality in federal court.

And the White House's new Ocean Policy Initiative would place more burdens on a US fishing industry that is already heavily regulated. Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, fears that this scheme "circumvents existing state and local decision-making bodies and replaces them with made-in-Washington zoning with the power to declare areas off limits to fishing."

There's a common thread among these and other beleaguered occupations: Environmentalists hate them. Green absolutists would be happy to see no oil or coal taken out of the ground or fish out of the sea and as many factories dismantled as possible, without any regard for the impact on jobs. Instead, they hype "green jobs" doing things like building wind turbines and solar panels, but these jobs are proving to be a mere trickle compared to those being lost.

Radical environmentalists have all but declared war on high-wage blue-collar jobs in this country, and the Obama administration has sided with them. The nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate is evidence they're winning.

Ben Lieberman is a senior fellow in envi ronmental policy with the Competitive En terprise Institute in Washington, DC.

[Soul Crusher]

Obamanomics: Only fat cats prosper
By CHARLES GASPARINO

Last Updated: 3:48 AM, December 7, 2010


________________________ ________________________ ___________


For all of President Obama's rhetoric about "fat cat" investment bankers who gambled the country into economic decay, he sure seems to have a larger soft spot for big Wall Street than for average Americans.

After all, his latest push to "remedy" 9.8 percent unemployment for the masses is an extension of unemployment benefits. Meanwhile, his policies aren't just making Wall Streeters rich, as bonuses are expected to hit record highs this year. They're also likely (according to some insiders) to spark a hiring spree among bankers in the new year.

This divergence ought to be a big story -- but don't bet on it: The establishment media have been largely silent amid the multiple failings of Obamanomics. For two years now, most reporters have gone out of their way to blame the country's staggeringly high unemployment on the Bush policies that they claim led to the financial collapse and the broader collapse of the economy.

OK, Obama did inherit a mess -- but his policies to turn around the economy have utterly failed to deliver on promised outcomes. Remember the 8 percent unemployment rate we were supposed to get if we spent $800 billion on fiscal stimulus?

Actually, the CEOs I speak to say Obama made a bad economic situation even worse. The massive retrenchment in hiring over the past two years, which led to last week's announcement that unemployment is rising close to 10 percent, is the direct result of business worries about the future costs of the president's social agenda, which only begins with universal health care.

Perhaps worse, Obamanomics looks to have failed utterly on its signature promise to level the economic playing field between the rich and poor.

While the government was releasing those dismal unemployment statistics, senior executives at the big banks were telling me that they'll likely be hiring more bankers and traders in the new year.

Depending on who you speak to, that hiring could be quite substantial. A senior official at Goldman Sachs will only say he's "cautiously optimistic" about employment prospects in 2011. But Nick Leopard, the chief executive of a Wall Street outsourcing firm, Accordion Partners, says he expects the huge backlog of deals and business to trigger a serious hiring spree among the mid-sized and large investment firms -- something in the neighborhood of a 5 percent rise in Wall Street employment next year.

Why? Obama's policies, insiders tell me, may be bad for the middle class -- but they've been pretty good for the banking class.

The bankers may not like parts of the new financial reform law (i.e., no more "proprietary trading"), but they love the fact that the White House has gone out of its way to support (some people think prod) Ben Bernanke's policies of 1) keeping interest rates at rock-bottom levels and 2) pumping the banking system with $600 billion in cash, known in economic circles as "quantitative easing" and in less formal circles as "printing money."

Both measures are supposed to spur lending to small business as banks, flush with cash, start to lend again and businesses can expand. But the direct beneficiaries of the "easy money" are the banks -- which continue to hoard the cash, and (according to Leopard) are ready to rake in billions of dollars in fees as that backlog of deals starts to emerge next year.

Big bankers also don't mind the inflation that Bernanke's policies risk: Inflation usually pushes (nominal) stock prices up -- and when the stock market rises, financiers and traders make a killing, even if the rest of us need a wheelbarrow filled with cash to buy a loaf of bread.

For years, Democrats have raged against the Bush tax rates -- arguing for higher taxes for the "richest Americans" as simply the fair thing to do, since the rich made so much money under Republican rule in Washington.

The president now is reluctantly ready to go along with a deal to extend the Bush-era tax rates in exchange for that extension of unemployment benefits. But he still seems unable to grasp the reality that hiking taxes on even "the richest Americans" is among the dumbest things you could do right now. Those folks spend a lot of money (and thus help keep working-class people working) -- and this tax hike would fall heavily on the small businesses that do much of the "non-rich" hiring these days.

But don't expect the president to make these points: He still doesn't realize that those fat-cat bankers he grouses about have him to thank for their weight gain.

Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Net work senior correspondent; his latest book is "Bought and Paid For."

[dario73]

Bump.

[Soul Crusher]

BUMP for TU, Straw, Lurker, and anyone else who thinks this is all not intentional. 

[Soul Crusher]

The EPA Says "Bah, Humbug!"
Townhall,com ^ | December 25, 2010 | Timothy Lee


Not even Ebenezer Scrooge had the stomach to fire people during the holidays.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, plans to move full speed ahead with new regulations on January 2 that will likely cost many Americans their jobs before the New Year’s Eve party hats have even been put away.

In a nutshell, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will treat emissions from renewable biomass energy the same as emissions from the use of fossil fuels, despite the fact that both policymakers and scientists have long considered biomass emissions to be carbon-neutral due to the life cycle of the forests from which biomass is produced.

This new rule and regulatory uncertainty could spell the end of the biomass energy industry by removing the carbon-neutral status of biomass and, consequently, the biggest incentive to continue investing in it. Recent estimates have shown that biomass generated from forest byproducts could supply as much as 15 percent of the nation’s renewable energy by 2021, yet this will likely never be realized if biomass producers are forced to comply with arbitrary, unfair and unnecessary regulations like those in the Tailoring Rule.

Unfortunately, the Tailoring Rule won’t just disincentivize the use of renewable biomass energy. It will also have widespread effects on our energy options, as well as jobs and the economy.

Forisk Consulting recently released a new study on the economic impact of the Tailoring Rule, which found that the regulations on biomass will result in the loss of over 134 renewable energy projects, up to 26,000 jobs, and $18 billion in capital investment. According to the study’s authors, 23 biomass energy projects have already been placed in limbo due to regulatory uncertainty. In Wisconsin, for example, Xcel Energy Inc. halted plans for a biomass energy plant that would have brought over 100 jobs to Ashland, Wisc., as well as a needed source of domestic power for the entire area. Xcel Energy cited the expected cost increases and regulatory uncertainty as reasons for canceling plans for the plant—and they are likely to be one of many energy companies doing the same.

The negative economic impact will be especially felt in Appalachia and rural parts of the South, the Pacific Northwest, and the Northeast, where biomass energy shows great promise as a source for domestic clean energy and innovative new jobs.

In addition to harming domestic renewable energy development and the economy, the EPA commits a crime that Mr. Scrooge would never commit: wasting money. In President Obama's “stimulus” program alone, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy have collectively spent more than $100 million of taxpayer money to promote biomass power production.

The new study by Forisk Consulting only further confirms what bipartisan governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives, state and local lawmakers, scientists, and forestry industry insiders have been saying all along—that the Tailoring Rule will hurt energy development, jobs, and the economy at a time when we need all three to be thriving.

Even Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN), the outgoing Chair of the House Agriculture, said before the election, “[The EPA is] screwing things up. They’re raising costs for people, they’re raising the price of food, and I don’t think they’re accomplishing anything.”

The intransigent EPA isn’t yet listening to the bipartisan, nationwide outcry against the Tailoring Rule. Perhaps they will finally begin to pay attention to this latest round of hard facts about the impact of their regulations before it’s too late.

[Soul Crusher]

White House Plans to Push Global Warming Policy, GOP Vows Fight
www.foxnews.com ^ | December 28, 2010 | Kimberly Schwandt
________________________ ________________________ ________________________


HONOLULU, Hawaii -- After failing to get climate-change legislation through Congress, the Obama administration plans on pushing through its environmental policies through other means, and Republicans are ready to put up a fight.


On Jan. 2, new carbon emissions limits will be put forward as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares regulations that would force companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.


Critics say the new rules are a backdoor effort to enact the president's agenda on global warming without the support of Congress, and would hurt the economy and put jobs in jeopardy by forcing companies to pay for expensive new equipment.


"They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy. It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms. Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs," said environmental scientist Ken Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Why Jobs Leave
 
Posted 12/29/2010 07:05 PM ET

________________________ ________________________ _________--

 

Economy: Heading into the new year, there's plenty of optimism about the stock market rising, corporate profits recovering and companies hiring. There's just one problem on that last jobs item: Many will be overseas.

On those rare occasions when it's not demonizing businesses as bastions of corporate greed, the White House and all its supporting players spend their time pondering why U.S. businesses, with mountains of cash, won't use at least some of it to hire workers. A mere 900,000 jobs were created in 2010, while U.S. companies sat on $1.1 trillion in cash.

Last week, President Obama went so far as to meet with 20 CEOs for several hours over this, "asking the attendees to dialogue with him on a shared agenda focused on moving our economy forward," according to a White House statement.

We don't have any inside lines as to what was said, but news is trickling out the Obama administration is starting to think about doing something big to end the jobs drought in the U.S.

The something big would be to lower the U.S. corporate tax, which at 35%, stands as the second-highest in the developed world. President Obama only told NPR that he discussed "simplifying the system, hopefully lowering rates, broadening the base."

If so, and if there are no accompanying sleights of hand to extract cash from businesses some other way, as some reports have it, it's good news. Nothing inhibits the creation of U.S. jobs quite like high corporate taxes and their accompanying regulatory regime.

The fact is, companies sitting on cash aren't doing nothing. They're hiring overseas, creating 1.4 million jobs in 2010 alone, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

That's not because they prefer foreigners to Americans, but because the bad business climate here pushes them to do so.

The rest of the world is a vastly different place from Obama's U.S., which is characterized by high taxes and protectionist set-asides for politically connected unions that shut out free trade.

In places like Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, India and Thailand, nobody demonizes business or blasts trade. Instead great efforts are made by the state and the private sector to draw in foreign investment by becoming more competitive than their rivals.

U.S. multinationals go to these places not because labor is cheap but because these policies also create boomtowns with lots of customers. Incredibly enough, sometimes overseas profits and jobs provide a lifeline for troubled U.S. companies back home. Take GM — today, its Brazil and Korea operations help keep it afloat.

Growth in the 8% to 9% range is typical in Asia. But even in other pro-business areas — like the city of Lyon, France, or the manufacturing mecca of Tijuana, Mexico — governments are going out of their way to attract U.S. investment.

In Tijuana's case, they've succeeding despite an ugly drug war.

While high-tax, high-bureaucrat suburbs around Los Angeles draw investment from hot sauce factories and hire unskilled workers, Mexico is drawing aerospace manufacturers and hiring engineers. Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Qatar and even the Republic of Congo are pulling them in, too.

Why? So long as profits are encouraged instead of taxed, the natural outcome is jobs. It's that simple. They get it. Why don't we?

Salon magazine noted that as companies shift their hiring overseas, the 1.4 million jobs created there could have, if they were created here, lowered the unemployment rate to 8.9% from 9.8%.

It's not for nothing that the rescuers of Chile's trapped miners this year knew the names of all the specialized American manufacturers to call for help. These companies had already been working in Chile because the government made it worth it to do so.

If small, remote countries like Chile can create opportunities for U.S. companies to invest and and hire workers, why can't we?

[Soul Crusher]

Is Obama Intentionally Damaging Our Economy?
Powerline ^ | 1-3-11 | powerline

________________________ ________________________ _____

That is the provocative question asked by Peter Schweizer at Big Peace. I think the answer is No, but let's let Peter explain why the question arises at all:

That may seem like an absurd question, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion when you consider what is happening to our energy industry on the Gulf Coast. As the Wall Street Journal reports today, the Obama Administration may have lifted its ban on drilling in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, but there are still long delays in getting other permits approved to drill for oil. Why? No one seems to know. We assume that politicians do what is in their own self-interest, but in this case Obama seems to be damaging himself because he is dragging down the economy. As the Journal puts it, "The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling activity." And Obama doesn't seem particularly eager to change that fact.

Schweizer recalls Bobby Jindal's bizarre encounter with President Obama at the height of the Gulf oil spill crisis:

In his recently released book Leadership and Crisis, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recounts an exchange with President Obama during the Gulf oil drilling moratorium. (Full disclosure: I co-wrote the book with Jindal.) After telling Obama that the moratorium would potentially cost tens of thousands of jobs, "The president went on to assure me that anyone who lost their job would get a check from BP. When I explained that BP might not write them checks because it was the federal government that imposed the moratorium the president said, 'Well, if BP won't pay the claim, they can file for unemployment.' I was amazed by the level of disconnect. The people of Louisiana want to work, not collect unemployment or BP checks."

For Obama, getting an unemployment check is about the same as getting paycheck.

What I think emerges here is President Obama's astonishing ignorance of economics, which is to say, how the world works. I don't think he is intentionally trying to damage our economy, simply because he knows that he has no chance of being re-elected unless the economy rebounds. At the same time, I think he is so appallingly ignorant of how wealth is created that he believes killing off jobs, as his administration has done along the Gulf Coast, is no big deal. The lost wealth will magically recreate itself, perhaps in the form of unemployment benefits. I think that Obama really does not understand the difference between receiving a paycheck in exchange for creating wealth, and getting a government handout in exchange for nothing. But then, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Soul Crusher]

Going Broke by Going Green
Townhall.com ^ | January 12, 2011 | Harry R. Jackson, Jr


Editor's note: This article was co-authored by Harry Jackson, Jr. and guy Innis.

President Obama’s healthcare program came under intense scrutiny in 2010. As we enter 2011, we need to open our eyes to what is really going on behind his green energy propaganda, as well. To some, it may not seem as desperate an issue as healthcare, but it will grow to become just as devastating to those citizens among us who are poor, because access to affordable energy affects everything we do.

The administration’s green policies are being thrust into a precarious American economy. Every “green scenario” shows raised energy costs across the board. Not only will the average person pay more for energy; many will lose their jobs as the forced transition to alternative power sources rocks the stability of current energy-producing and energy-using companies.

Skyrocketing energy prices and lost jobs also mean millions of otherwise healthy Americans are subjected to new health threats: higher air conditioning, heating, transportation and other energy bills. For those who cannot afford the increased costs, this can mean death from heat stroke and hypothermia; reduced budgets for healthy food, proper healthcare, home and car repairs, college, retirement, and charitable giving; and psychological depression that accompanies economic depression.

Land withdrawals and leasing and permitting delays don’t just lock up vast energy storehouses. They kill jobs, eliminate billions in government bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues – and force us to spend other billions to import more oil that we could produce right here at home.

The White House agenda represents a double power grab. It usurps state, local and private sector control over energy prices and generation, and gives it to unelected Washington bureaucrats. It also seizes our reliable, affordable energy, and replaces it with expensive, intermittent power.

While many Americans are duped into thinking renewable energy sources are the ticket to a clean world, they have not looked at the downside to these energy sources. Replacing fossil fuel power with coerced renewable energy means millions of acres will be covered with turbines and solar panels, and built with billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth metals. It means millions of acres of forest and crop land will be converted to farming for inefficient biofuels that also require vast inputs of water, pesticides, fertilizers and hydrocarbon fuels.

Moreover, wind and solar facilities work only 10-30 percent of the time, compared to 90-95 percent for coal, gas and nuclear power plants. Even worse, prolonged cold is almost invariably associated with high atmospheric pressure, and thus very little wind. On December 21, 2010 – one of the coldest days on record for Yorkshire, England (undoubtedly due to global warming) – the region’s coal, gas and nuclear power plants generated 53,000 megawatts of electricity; its wind turbines provided a measly 20 MW, or 0.04% of the total. The same high pressure, no wind scenario happens on the hottest summer days.

“Renewable” and “clean” energy projects received $30 billion in subsidies under the gargantuan stimulus bill. They got another $3 billion in the “lame duck” tax deal. Federal wind power subsidies are $6.44 per million BTUs – dozens of times what coal and natural gas receive, to generate 1/50 of the electricity that coal does. At current and foreseeable coal and gas prices, wind (and solar) simply cannot compete.

As to “green” jobs, Competitive Enterprise Institute energy analyst Chris Horner calculates that the stimulus bill’s subsidies for wind and solar mean taxpayers are billed $475,000 for each job created. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reports that property tax breaks for wind projects in her state cost nearly $1.6 million per job. “Green energy” is simply unsustainable, environmentally and economically.

President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson may be convinced that we face a manmade climate change crisis, and unacceptable health risks from power plant and refinery emissions. However, their “climate science” is little more than a self-proving theory: no matter what happens – hotter or colder, wetter or drier, more storms or fewer – it’s “proof” of global warming.

Thousands of scientists say there is yet no real evidence that we face such a crisis, and most coal-fired power plants and refineries have already reduced their harmful emissions to the point that only the most sensitive or health-impaired would be harmed.

The problem is not runaway global warming. It is a runaway and unaccountable federal bureaucracy.

Putting the green power grab into even sharper focus are these eye-opening comments from two “socially responsible” CEOs, who have lobbied the Congress, EPA and White House intensely for cap-tax-and-trade, far tougher emission policies and still more subsidies. We thank the Wall Street Journal for bringing them to our attention. EPA’s regulations “increase operating costs for coal-fired generators and ultimately increase the price of energy” for families and companies that need electricity," observed Exelon CEO John Rowe. “The upside for Exelon is unmistakable. Exelon’s clean [mostly nuclear] generation will continue to grow in value in a relatively short time. We are of course positioning our portfolio to capture that value.”

“Even without legislation in Congress, EPA is marching forward in terms of regulating carbon dioxide,” noted Lewis Hay, CEO of NextEra Energy, America’s largest producer of wind and solar power. “That puts us in a very good position.”

The Journal summarized the situation succinctly in a recent editorial: “The EPA is abusing environmental law to achieve policy goals that the democratic process rejected, while also engineering a transfer of wealth from the 25 states in the Midwest and South that get more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. The industry beneficiaries [of these destructive regulations] then pretend that this agenda is nothing more than a stroll around Walden Pond, when it’s really about lining their own pockets.”

It is time to face reality. Misnamed “green energy” policies severely undermine any opportunity America may have to rebuild her economy. Perpetuating current jobless rates would be just the tip of the iceberg, if we follow the path that EPA and the White House have laid in front of us.

Let your legislators know that you do not support the White House’s current green programs. We cannot afford to go broke trying to go green.

[Fury]

Spain's a good example of how economically successful "going green" turns out. 

[Soul Crusher]

US axes permit for Arch's giant mountain coalmine [West Virginia: Obama's EPA]
Reuters ^ | January 13, 2011 | Timothy Gardner

________________________ ________________________ ____


The Obama administration revoked a permit on Thursday for Arch Coal Inc's (ACI.N) proposed Spruce 1 mountaintop coal mine in West Virginia, effectively shutting one of the biggest in the United States. "The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend," said Peter Silvan, an assistant administrator for water, at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's final ruling under the Clean Water Act came after a scientific study, a public hearing, and a review of more than 50,000 public comments, the agency said. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had approved a permit for the mine in 2007, but it had not been fully constructed.

Lawmakers from West Virginia said the EPA's move would hurt the state's economy. "Today's EPA decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country's history," Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, said in a release. Senator Jay Rockefeller, also a Democrat, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, that said: "as a nation we must not fall into the trap of forcing unnecessary choices between protecting the environment and having good paying jobs that support energy independence." St. Louis-based Arch said it would vigorously defend the permit in court. EPA's revocation of the permit blocks an additional $250 million in investment and 250 jobs, the company said. It was the latest move by the Obama administration to crack down on mountaintop mining, in which companies blast high peaks to uncover coal seams and often toss the resulting rubble into valleys....


(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Feds threaten to sue states over union laws
            Buzz up! ..By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Sam Hananel, Associated Press – 38 mins ago

________________________ ________________________ __________



WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina.

Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the "card check" process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections.

In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails.

Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional "to conserve state and federal resources."

In his letter to South Carolina's attorney general, Solomon asks the state to take measures that would prevent the Legislature from ratifying the amendment. Solomon requested that Arizona's governor decline to make the amendment official.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he believes the state is on solid ground. He plans to coordinate a response with the other three states.

"If they want to bring a lawsuit, then bring it," Shurtleff said. "We believe that a secret ballot is as fundamental a right as any American has had since the beginning of this country. We want to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens."

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley also promised to "vigorously defend our South Dakota Constitution" against any federal lawsuit.

Unions long have pushed for the card-check legislation, but the effort hasn't won enough support in Congress. Union officials say companies often use aggressive tactics — borderline illegal, they contend — to discourage workers from organizing unions.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that spent millions to back congressional Republicans in last year's elections, was among the groups that pushed for passage of the state amendments. Phil Kerpen, the group's vice president for policy, said the NLRB's action "shows how determined the board is to accomplish card check by backdoor means against the wishes of the American people and Congress."

Kimberly Freeman Brown, executive director of the pro-union group American Rights at Work, said the board was confirming that "these initiatives were intended to restrict workers' rights to determine how they choose a union, disingenuously cloaked in the language of worker protection."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110114/ap_on_re_us/us_unions_secret_ballots

[Soul Crusher]

Obama acknowledges decline of US dominance
times of india ^ | 1/17/11 | staff



MUMBAI: Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the US was no longer in a position to "meet the rest of the world economically on our terms".

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Mumbai, he said, "I do think that one of the challenges that we are going face in the US, at a time when we are still recovering from the financial crisis is, how do we respond to some of the challenges of globalisation? The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime and I'll turn 50 next year - the US was such an enormously dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms. And now because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries, the US remains the largest economy and the largest market, but there is real competition."


(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes. com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Consumer Agency May Not Be Able To Oversee Payday Lenders, Mortgage Firms
First Posted: 01/19/11 06:26 PM Updated: 01/19/11 08:23 PM





The nascent consumer agency dedicated to protecting borrowers from abusive lenders, a cornerstone of the Obama administration's efforts to reform the financial industry, will not be able to regulate the kinds of lenders that helped cause the crisis if the White House doesn't meet a key deadline, federal auditors say.

Firms like New Century Financial, Ameriquest, Fremont General and Countrywide Financial -- lenders that aren't banks and fall outside the bounds of regular federal supervision -- made the kinds of shoddy mortgage loans that ultimately led to the housing crisis. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, currently led by Elizabeth Warren on an interim basis, is supposed to change that by putting them under the umbrella of a robust federal regulator.

But if the White House can't get a nominee through the Senate by July, the bureau will lack the authority to supervise nonbank lenders, according to a Jan. 10 report by the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve obtained by The Huffington Post. In six months, the agency officially assumes the power formally held by bank regulators. Bloomberg News first reported on the existence of the report Wednesday afternoon.

The dilemma poses a challenge to the Obama administration, which sold the agency to Congress and the industry in part based on the promise that it will help level the playing field between banks and nonbanks when it comes to government oversight. Banks have long been regulated by federal agencies and subject to regular audits. Nonbanks, like home mortgage and payday lenders, have been subject to sporadic oversight, at best. Such companies have been hit with billions in fines and legal settlements in response to accusations they engaged in abusive and predatory lending.

Adding to bankers' frustrations is the fact that the agency, even without a director, will be able to oversee consumer lending by banks with more than $10 billion in assets. Because this authority already exists with bank regulators, the consumer agency will be able to assume this responsibility in July, federal auditors said in their report. Nonbanks, though, will be off-limits.

The report puts added pressure on the White House to meet the July deadline. It has struggled to name an agency chief.

Industry officials and their allies in Congress prefer someone who will take a more relaxed approach to oversight. Consumer advocates are pushing for an aggressive regulator who will prevent the kinds of abuses that were common during the housing boom.

Story continues below
AdvertisementThe White House is stuck in the middle of this fight, wanting to please its allies who helped get the agency enacted into law in the first place, and helped the administration counter critics who say it's too close to Wall Street.

But the administration also wants to name an agency head who will face limited opposition in the Senate. Created as part of Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law overhauling financial regulation, President Barack Obama hailed it as one of the top achievements of his presidency.

Under pressure, President Barack Obama tapped Warren in September to lead the agency on a temporary basis. Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, is supposed to stand up the unit before it assumes its full power in July.

The White House has two choices: either go around the Senate and tap the agency's director through a recess appointment, or pick someone the Senate will confirm.

Shortly before tapping Warren, Obama noted the difficulty he's had in getting the Senate to confirm his nominees.

"I'm concerned about all Senate confirmations these days," Obama said Sept. 10. "I mean, if I nominate somebody for dog catcher..."

"I've got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can't get a vote on them," he continued.

Because of that difficulty, the White House "has always looked at a recess appointment as a possibility," said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. "And they can't let the agency go without a director come July."

White House spokesmen didn't respond to e-mailed requests for comment.

Opponents have vowed a nomination fight. Observers believe that whomever the White House chooses will likely face extensive grilling and opposition by Senators who oppose the very idea of a dedicated consumer agency.

Not having a director in place by July -- and thus preventing the agency from supervising nonbank lenders -- would be a "positive" for the industry, said Bill Cosgrove, president and chief executive of Union National Mortgage Company, a nonbank lender based in Ohio. "What we're concerned about is overkill in terms of regulation," he said.

Cosgrove added that state regulators, which currently oversee lenders like his firm, have stepped up their oversight of his industry. His firm has been audited by six different state regulators in the past year alone, he said.

Though the auditors' report places additional pressure on the administration to get a director in place so the agency can police firms like Cosgrove's, and not face the wrath of bankers who will note the administration's broken promise of a "level playing field," Calhoun said he was confident that the White House will meet its deadline.

"They have to," he said.

*************************
Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

[Soul Crusher]

Abbott to cut 1,900 jobs — 1,000 of them here (Illinois)
Chicago Sun Times ^ | 1/26/2011 | AP with Francine Knowles


-_________________________________________________________________



Abbott Laboratories said it is axing 1,900 workers, including about 1,000 of its more than 13,000 people in Northern Illinois as part of a restructuring.

Most of the cuts will take place in the North Chicago-based company’s Lake County pharmaceutical manufacturing operations...

Abbott blamed the cuts on new fees and pricing pressures associated with the healthcare reform law and a “challenging regulatory environment” at the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs.


(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...