NEW JOBS FOR MASSACHUSETTS LAUNCHES

Group Advocates Job Creation

Boston and Worcester, MA…Today Mike Hruby and Marty Lamb launched an advocacy
group focused on job creation in Massachusetts called New Jobs for Massachusetts
(NJFM).

“We have a job crisis in Massachusetts. We’ve had no net job growth in 21 years,”
said Hruby, President of NJFM.

Jobs Needed

Unemployed workers

300,000

Under-employed workers

600,000

College graduates per year

90,000

High school graduates not going to college

10,000

Total

1 million

“Right now we need one million new jobs in the Commonwealth. Due to this urgent
need, we felt it was important to establish this advocacy group solely focused in
on growing jobs. There are many government barriers to creating jobs and someone
needs to address them,” said Hruby.

First on his agenda is to fight the independent contractor rule which is the worst
in the country. Presently, the way the regulation is written it is nearly impossible
to do contract work. It forces companies to make everyone an employee which on the
surface seems productive, but it actually suffocates new service firms from growing
and thus hiring a skilled workforce.

“Our goal is to reverse the anti-jobs laws passed on Beacon Hill by educating our
elected officials on the difficulties of adding to a business payroll. As small
business owners, we know first hand how difficult our laws and regulations can be.
By eliminating or reducing barriers, we can spur on critical job growth,” said Marty
Lamb, Vice President of NJFM. “My daughter just graduated from high school. I want
her to have the economic opportunities I had when starting out.”

There are several groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business
and Associated Industries of Massachusetts that focus on the business side of legislative
issue. NJFM will advocate for policies that grow jobs both in large and small businesses.

NJFM is funded by private small contributions so this new organization does not
have a membership list that might face retaliation from the State House for being
vocal on issues.

Mike Hruby has been a consultant to large and mid-sized technology companies for
more than 20 years. During the course of over 500 projects his firm helped companies
nationwide enter new markets for their products. Since 2004 he built a data center
cooling business for a client based on its patent, and found licensees for corporate
technologies. He wrote an award-winning book on corporate growth strategy titled
Technoleverage. He has a Master’s degree in Resource Economics from the University
of New Hampshire. He lives in Boxborough, Mass., with his wife, Leslie.

Mr. Lamb graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University
in 1985 and received his Bachelor of Arts from Hampshire College in 1982. He has
an extensive background in real estate law, formerly with Adelson, Golden & Loria,
P.C., Edward A. Sokoloff & Associates, and Lamb & Shaffer, P.C. and is currently
with Lamb and Browne, P.C. He is a member of the Real Estate Bar Association of
Massachusetts and small business. An active participant in community affairs, Mr.
Lamb sits on the Board of Directors of New England Region of United Synagogue and
is a past president of Temple Beth Torah in Holliston. He has also served on the
Holliston Elementary School Council and the Campaign for Holliston Schools. In
2010 Lamb won the hotly contested GOP primary for Congress in the 3rd district.

www.NewMassJobs.com

Yesterday Power Line reported that scientists at the National Solar Observatory have released a report stating that the sun may be entering a period of decreased solar activity, lowering the temperature on earth.  On Tuesday, Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat posted an article on the three trends that point to a decrease in solar activity.

Mr. Watts reports:

“A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

“As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.

“The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces:  http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/“

The bottom line here is that many scientists are predicting a period of global cooling. 

The article at Power Line reports:

“Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
“During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.”

I am not a scientist.  All this means to me is that there is not a consensus on what the earth’s future climate will be or exactly what will be responsible for any changes in climate we see in the next fifty years.  Therefore, I would suggest that we move slowly in taking any actions to change or impact the things that might impact the earth’s climate until we truly know what direction the climate is heading.  We don’t always correctly forecast the weather for next week.  What makes us think we can predict weather thirty years from now?

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that the state’s collective-bargaining law could take effect, overruling a lower court judge who had put the law on hold. 

The article states:

“The decision limits Wisconsin’s public employees to bargaining over their wages. Raises will be limited to the inflation rate unless voters approve larger increases. The law also requires public employees to contribute 5.8% of their salaries to their pensions and pay at least 12.6% of their health-care premiums.”

This is the platform Governor Walker ran on and that the legislature passed. 

The article further reports:

“Next month, nine state senators–six Republicans and three Democrats–will face recall elections sparked by public rancor over the collective-bargaining debate. The Senate currently has 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats.

“”Gov. Walker and the legislative Republicans’ insistence on union-busting and taking away workers’ rights resulted in months of legal wrangling, unprecedented political divisiveness and millions of dollars of lost budget savings,” Senate Democratic Leader Mark Miller said.”

The battle to bring fiscal sanity into state budgets and state worker’s benefits will probably continue in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  I don’t believe anyone wants to take away the benefits of federal or state workers–I do believe that the goal here is to bring federal and state workers’ benefits in line with benefits in the private sector.  Hopefully, Wisconsin (and other states) will be successful in this effort.

Yesterday the New York Times reported that the Pakistani government has detained five informants that helped the CIA locate Osama Bin Laden. 

The article reports:

“The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers. 

“Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda — instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.”

This is another indication that Pakistan may not be our best ally in the war on terrorism.  At risk is the future of the drone program that has been so instrumental in dealing with the top leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.  There has been a lot of pressure from Pakistan to end this program. 

The article further reports:

“Another casualty of the recent tension is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in those same tribal areas. That program has ended, both American and Pakistani officials acknowledge, and the last of about 120 American military advisers have left the country.

“American officials are now scrambling to find temporary jobs for about 50 Special Forces support personnel who had been helping the trainers with logistics and communications. Their visas were difficult to obtain and officials fear if these troops are sent home, Pakistan will not allow them to return.”

Pakistan receives $2 billion in American military aid annually.  It might be time to take another look at how that money is being spent.

Another recent event should cause America to question the seriousness of the Pakistani’s war on terror.  The article reports:

“American officials said Mr. Panetta presented satellite photographs of two bomb-making factories that American spies several weeks ago had asked the ISI to raid. When Pakistani troops showed up days later, the militants were gone, causing American officials to question whether the militants had been warned by someone on the Pakistani side.

“Shortly after the failed raids, the Defense Department put a hold on a $300 million payment reimbursing Pakistan for the cost of deploying more than 100,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, two officials said.  The Pentagon declined to comment on the payment, except to say it was “continuing to process several claims.””

Enough.

Innovation is one of the things that has made America great.  In a free market economy, innovators can reap the rewards of their inventions because a good invention will sell.  It doesn’t even have to be particularly useful–for example the hula hoop.  Many of us had a lot of fun with that invention, the inventor made millions, and everyone was happy.  That is how the free market works.  The good inventions succeed, progress is made, and everyone moves forward.  Congress has other ideas.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article on Congress’ latest adventure in crony capitalism.  Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats are both involved in this latest attack on the free market. 

The article explains:

“But HR 1380, sponsored at last count by 105 Democrats and 83 Republicans, is another government intervention in the free market. Instead of getting government out of the way of innovators, it would give a tax credit for up to 80% of the purchase cost of a natural gas vehicle — with a cap dependent on the car’s weight, $8,000 for passenger cars and up to $64,000 for heavy trucks — to get more gas-powered vehicles on the road.

“It so happens that a company called Westport Innovations is a leading provider of technology that allows engines to operate on clean-burning fuels such as compressed natural gas and would be expected to benefit from HR 1380’s huge allocation of taxpayer dollars.”

The article goes on to mention that one of the major stockholders in Westport Innovations is George Soros.  Mr. Soros also profitted handsomely from his investment in Petrobras.  The details of that escapade were reported at rightwinggranny on December 8, 2009.  Unfortunately, this is not a new thing.

The article at Investors.com also points out:

“HR 1380 effectively puts an end to all challenges to the EPA’s regulatory dictates in a section (403) that says EPA “regulations should take into account the petroleum reductions provided by such vehicles and also quantify all greenhouse-gas emission reductions.” As such, HR 1380 would give the unelected bureaucracy at the EPA a blank check to control all U.S. energy production and consumption.”

I am not opposed to ‘green energy;’ however, I believe that a free market brings out the best ideas.  A government controlled market does not result in the kind of energy innovation we need at this time.  If we really want to see ‘green energy’ become a practical part of America’s energy program, we need to get the government out of the energy marketplace and let the innovators take over (and make a profit).  There is nothing wrong with profit–our economy depends on it!

This Executive Order is truly under the radar.  Today the Canada Free Press posted an article about an Executive Order signed by President Obama on June 9, 2011.  The executive order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing, Health, Education, and others. 

The article reports:

“Roger K. Lewis suggests that “smart growth” was designed by market forces driven by “green building.” He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people’s understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.

“I have not met Americans who think, “sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete” as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?”

There is no way Washington should be allowed to create more government employees to control rural America.  I am not sure what recourse Congress or the American people have in dealing with an Executive Order.  However, this Executive Order seems to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  Some of the logic behind this order is distrubing.

“It is obvious that “smart growth plans” or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt “smart growth plans,” denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21“smart growth,” they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.

“The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.

“”Sustainable development” is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is “sustainable de-growth,” plain and simple. The focus is “low-income agriculture” and to set limits on the developed world.”

America, like the rest of the world, is going through a rough economic patch right now.  I happen to think that the reason we have not fully come out of the current recession has to do with the policies currently being implemented by the current White House and Congress.  I believe that a change of administration in 2012 will remedy a lot of America’s current economic problems.  Our prosperity as a country has always been related to the freedom of our people.  Freedom is a concept that the current United Nations does not understand.

As I have said before, I don’t know what can be done about an Executive Order, but we need to get rid of this one as soon as possible.

Today’s UK Mail posted an article about the number of people killed by euthanasia in Belgium without their consent so that their organs could be used in organ transplants.  Euthanasia became legal in Belgium in 2002; the law at that time required that the individual involved request euthanasia.  Evidently, things have changed.

The article reports:

“‘Given that half of all euthanasia cases in Belgium are involuntary it must be only a matter of time before the organs are taken from patients who are euthanised without their consent.

“‘The matter of fact way the retrieval process is described in the paper is particularly chilling and shows the degree of collaboration that is necessary between the euthanasia team and the transplant surgeons – prep them for theatre next to the operating room, then kill them and wheel them in for organ retrieval. All in a day’s work in Brave New Belgium.’

“He added: ‘Doctors there now do things that those in most doctors in other countries would find absolutely horrific.’

The report comes just a year after researchers found a high proportion of deaths classified as euthanasia in Belgium have involved patients who have not requested their lives to be ended by a doctor.”

The idea that any of these deaths involved patients who have not requested their lives to be ended by a doctor is frightening.  Doctors in America take an oath to “do not harm.”  I don’t know if doctors in other countries take that oath or not.  It seems like now might be a really good time to encourage doctors around the world to encourage life–not try to end it in order to satisfy a demand for used body part in good shape.

Remember all the promises that Obamacare would prevent anyone applying for health insurance from being denied coverage due to previous medical conditions or past healthcare history?  Well, another promise just got broken.

Today’s Daily Caller reported that some time between June 19, 2009, the date on a copy of the Obamacare bill obtained by The Daily Caller, and early fall 2009, when the Democrats introduced the bill into the House of Representatives, the provision that would have stopped Medigap plan providers, including American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) partners, from discriminating against senior citizens with pre-existing conditions was dropped.  This is very interesting since the AARP was one of the strongest supporters of the bill.  By supporting the bill, the AARP totally betrayed the people they are supposed to represent.

The article reported:

“A House Democratic aide told Kaiser Health News (KHN) earlier this year that the Medigap provision was removed from the bill because it cost too much.”

There is so much chicanery surrounding the Affordable Care Act and the way it was passed that it should be repealed because of that alone!  I hope the courts strike this law down–it does not do the things that are needed in healthcare reform and it creates nothing but problems for Americans who have previously been satisfied with their health insurance and healthcare.  It is a perfect example of both crony capitalism and government overreach.

CNS News reported today that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs today than had jobs before the stimulus law was signed. 

The article reports:

“In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.

“While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession – 137.9 million in December 2009 – those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending.”

That is an awful lot of money spent on a program that didn’t get the intended result.   Former White House chief economist Larry Summers reported in a Washington Post op-ed recently that the percentage of the population that has jobs has not improved–in fact it has fallen from 60.3 percent in February 2009 to 58.4 percent in May 2011.

As I have stated previously, I did not watch the Republican debate last night.  I am on vacation, and the time difference is totally confusing my news consumption.  However, I heard enough sound bites from the debate to know that the Republicans have valid plans to create jobs and turn the economy around.  The excessive regulations–those regulations already passed and those regulations that companies fear will be passed–have put a damper on economic growth during the past two years.  We need to end overregulation and create a balance between total chaos and overregulation for the future.  I believe that any one of the Republican candidates currently running for President will aim in that direction.  As a country, we cannot afford four more years of President Barack Obama. 

One of the more interesting events in some small New England towns is the Town Meeting.  This is an event that usually takes place in a local school auditorium annually or when special funding is requested for an item.  All residents of the town may attend the meeting, but only registered voters may vote.  In the town of Plainville, Massachusetts, a town of 8,264 people, generally two or three hundred people attend the town meeting.  In the case of Plainville, town meetings may be carried over to another night if all the items on the warrant are not covered on the first night.

Last night was the second part of the annual town meeting in Plainville, Massachusetts.  The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported on the second part of the meeting.

The article states:

“A fear of Big Brother government encroachment on individual freedom dominated debate at town meeting Monday as an energy conservation measure was rejected and an abandoned building bylaw was challenged.”

The energy conservation measure that was voted on last night was actually a reconsideration of an article that had been voted down during the first part of the meeting.  The program, called the Stretch Code, would have resulted in the town receiving government grants in order to make buildings in the town more energy efficient.  It would have also put energy requirements on new construction and any remodeling projects done by homeowners.  The residents of the town simply did not want more government regulation.

The abandoned building bylaw did pass, although it was challenged. 

The article reports:

“An argument against government regulation was also made in a failed attempt to defeat an abandoned building bylaw. Voters approved it on a voice vote.

“The bylaw requires owners of vacant buildings to maintain them and register them with the town so they do not become public safety hazards.

“Some claimed that bylaw would allow “vengeful town officials” to crack down on a house if an elderly resident was in the hospital or away on a long vacation.

“”I’m afraid of Big Brother. A lot could fall through the cracks,” one woman said.

“But, town officials said the law would only kick in if the building was vacant for 45 days or more and if it fell into a state of disrepair.”

The abandoned building law will help the town deal with Falk’s Market, an abandoned building in the center of the town.  The building is an eyesore and a hazard, and town residents are not pleased with the lack of legal recourse in getting the building either rebuilt or torn down.  This law will change that.

Generally speaking, it was a productive town meeting.  Town meetings are representative government in its most basic form.  Attending a town meeting is a good way to learn how government works and how things get done within the context of town government.

I have to admit that I am on vacation and did not watch the debate.  I did hear portions of it, but did not watch any of it.  There are, however, two of the news sources that I trust that have posted summary articles on the debate.

Michael Barone posted his summary at the Washington Examiner.  Mr. Barone summarized each candidate and their weak and strong points.  He concluded that Mitt Romney conducted himself as the frontrunner, although Mr. Barone states that he believes that there is no actual frontrunner.  He also pointed out that Mitt Romney is wise to avoid the Iowa caucus because Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann are expected to do well there.   

John Hinderaker at Power Line also posted a summary of the debate.  Mr. Hinderaker felt that Mitt Romney came across very well.  He also points out that the candidates were focusing on issues and generally attacking the policies of President Obama rather than attacking each other.

In listening to other commentary on the debate, I heard comments about the fact that CNN is not a neutral news service in moderating this debate.  In the portions of the debate that I did hear, the candidates were not asked serious questions and not allowed to answer the questions completely before they were cut off. 

This is a serious election.  There are serious matters that need to be dealt with.  We have an economy in trouble, natural disasters in many states, three wars, and the threat of terrorism.  It is time for a serious debate where candidates can give complete answers that allow the voters to make an informed decision as to who will lead the country.

On Thursday, the Heritage Foundation posted an article about the Falkland Islands.  These are the islands off the coast of Argentina that Argentina invaded in 1982, capturing more than 1,800 British civilians.  The British fought back, losing 257 British soldiers in the process.  Now Argentina is again attempting to regain control of the Islands, with the backing of the United States, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.  That is not really the company I like to see the United States keeping.

The article at the Heritage Foundation reports:

“On June 7, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a declaration[1] calling for Argentina and Great Britain to enter into negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position that London has long viewed as completely unacceptable. The White House signed on to the declaration, putting it at odds with the British and in league with a number of anti-American regimes, including Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua.”

This is the footnote:

[1]Organization of American States, “Draft Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands,” June 7, 2011, at http://www.oas.org/en/41ga/docs/AG05445E02.doc (June 9, 2011).

The article further reports:

“As Margaret Thatcher reminded the world in an address to the House of Commons after the Argentine invasion in 1982, the Falklands are, and will always remain, British:

“The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our Endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.”

I really don’t understand what the Obama administration is doing here.  The islands are British.  This would be like the United States being asked to turn Hawaii over to another country.  It just seems as if the Obama administration is supporting troublemakers around the world and turning its back on our traditional allies.

There is a website, called World War II Experience, that is collecting first-hand, personal stories of our World War II veterans.  The stories are short, personal accounts of wartime experiences, sometimes including links to more complete stories.  The areas the website covers include the Pacific Theatre, the European Theatre, Prisoners of War, and the Home Front.  It is a very interesting website. 

We are rapidly losing those veterans who fought in World War II, and it is wonderful that someone is collecting their stories to preserve that period of history.  Please visit the site to learn some of the experiences of the people who were there.

I really don’t want to debate whether or not the media is biased.  The bias is documented in a number of places. 

The chart below is from the website of Media Research:

If you question the premise, there is more information at that website.

The first casualty of media bias is public interest and involvement.  There are a large number of Americans who do not care about the political process because they believe all politicians are crooks or that the process is fixed.  They have long since given up on actually knowing the truth of any given issue.  An objective media might bring them back to the point of being involved.  Public involvement is a necessary ingredient of a successful representative republic.

The second casualty of media bias is the quality of candidates running for office.  In 1987, the media destroyed Robert Bork, who was nominated for the Supreme Court.  Judge Bork did not initially answer the charges levied against him by the media because he assumed that the public would not believe them–they were so over-the-top.  Obviously, he paid dearly for that mistake.  Since then, there have been a number of Republican and Conservative candidates the media has attempted (and sometimes succeeded) in destroying–Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin.  The list goes on.  How can we expect anyone to come forward to offer new ideas or a new perspective as a candidate if they have to run the risk of being destroyed by the media?

The third casualty of media bias is good legislation.  The healthcare bill passed by Congress was over 2,000 pages long.  Representative Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying, “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.”  Do you think an objective media might have looked at the bill more closely to see exactly what was in it?  The latest financial regulation bill is also about 2,000 pages long, and again there are questions as to what exactly is in it.  We need an objective media to help Americans keep track of the laws Congress is passing and how they will impact us as average citizens.  There have been a number of times in the past that Congress was in a position to pass legislation that would have helped avoid our present fiscal situation, but fear of public opinion prevented that legislation.  We are currently watching the media trash Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, when it may be a very necessary answer for Medicare.

I realize in writing this that no media will ever be totally objective.  It would be nice, however, if the media were willing to state its political affiliations.  I don’t expect reporters to be neutral–they are very aware of what is going around them and quite likely to have an opinion.  They are entitled to that opinion, just as you and I are entitled to our opinions.  What the media is not entitled to is to report the news in a biased manner while pretending to be objective.  Bias in the media is not good for America, and all Americans need to be aware when they read a news story that they may not be hearing the whole story.

On Thursday The Hill reported that new Environmental Protection Agency regulations have caused  American Electric Power to shut down five power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with the regulations. 

The article reports:

“”Let me be clear, it’s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy,” said  (Sen. Joe) Manchin (D-W.Va.), an outspoken critic of the EPA.

“But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.””

There is a need for balance between jobs and the environment.  I don’t think anyone is actually in favor of dirty air or dirty water.  However, I think that to institute extreme environmental regulations at a time when the country is going through difficult economic times is destructive.  The regulations involved are ‘pending.’  I hope they remain pending instead of being put into place.

Another article posted at the Yahoo Contributors website:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8094613/why_i_am_having_trouble_with_scott.html?cat=9

Enjoy!

For those who are interested, I have a new article posted at Yahool Associates:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8099475/confessions_of_a_cat_shelter_foster.html?cat=7

I hope you enjoy it!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article stating that House of Representatives Democrats are demanding an end to the ‘Bush tax cuts’ in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. 

The article states:

“A group of House Democrats is calling for any deal to raise the debt ceiling to bring about the end of the Bush tax rates for the wealthy.

“The lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), also say that, following last week’s weak job report, they are concerned that certain decreases in federal spending could hurt the economy’s recovery.

“”At this point, both government and private-sector economists agree that sharp immediate cuts in government spending risk plunging our economy into a double-dip recession that will cost further jobs and ultimately worsen our fiscal situation,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter obtained by The Hill.

“They added that allowing the Bush tax rates for the wealthiest to expire at the end of next year would by itself “stop the growth of the deficit over the next decade.””

There are a number of probems with this statement.  First of all, it is mathematically challenged–ending the ‘Bush tax cuts’ would net about $700 billion over ten years.  That would not even eliminate the growth of the deficit over ten years–it wouldn’t even cut this year’s deficit in half.  Secondly, the ‘Bush tax cuts’ impact a lot of small businesses–the people who create jobs.  Eliminating the ‘Bush tax cuts’ means that any new hiring that might happen in the next year or so will probably not happen.  Finally, the way that the House of Representatives is structured, the minority party has very little power.  Simply stated, the Republicans have enough of a majority to pass anything they want.  Hopefully they won’t abuse that power, but nevertheless, they do have it.

The Democrats are making another attempt to become known as the ‘tax and spend’ party.  That comes at a time when Americans are looking to cut taxes and spending.  The kind of logic in the Democrat proposal on the Debt Ceiling may actually help the Republicans in 2012.

Yesterday the Chicago Tribune posted a story about the lasting benefits of preschool.  The original article I read on this study came from the North County Times (NCTIMES.COM) in Southern California.  That article is not listed as the source of my information because although the article was on the front page of their newspaper, I could not find it on their website.  There are some interesting differences between the two articles, but they draw the same conclusions.

The Chicago Tribune points out that the study shows the benefits of preschool, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.  The study tracked 1,400 students from Chicago Public Schools for 25 years to determine the value of a preschool education.  The study compared children who started preschool at age 3 in Child-Parent Centers, located in or near elementary schools serving low-income students, with those who didn’t attend preschool at all or went to the typical Head Start program

The article reports:

“The Child-Parent Centers ensure students have two years of preschool before kindergarten and then follow children through second and third grades. The program focuses on developing reading, writing and math skills, along with requiring parent participation in classrooms twice a month. A program like Head Start teaches preschoolers to recognize letters of the alphabet and build their vocabulary but also focuses heavily on providing socio-emotional development and health services to kids.”

There is a minor problem I have with this study.  Most teachers will tell you that students do better in school when their parents are involved.  I have no doubt that the children were helped by the academic portion of the program, but I also believe they were helped by their parents’ involvement in their education.

The article in the North County Times listed some of the statistics included in the study:

• 80 percent of the preschool group finished high school versus 75 percent of the others
• Average annual adult income for preschool group was about $11,6000 as opposed to $10,800 in the other group
• 48 percent of the preschool goup had been arrested as adults and 15 percent had been in prison.  In the non-preschool group , 54 percent had been arrested and 21 percent had been in prison.

I don’t doubt their statistics, I just doubt their conclusion.  One of the major problems in our society for the past fifty years or so has been the breakdown of the family, the need for two parents to be in the workforce instead of one parent being home with their children, and the number of single-parent homes.  Although the academic part of the preschool program is good, I think the key to the success of the program is the requirement that parents be involved in their children’s education.  There is a value to preschool programs, and I support them, but there is a greater value in getting parents involved in their children’s education and that costs a whole lot less.

Today The Hill reported that Boeing has opened its manufacturing plant in South Carolina in spite of the fact that the lawsuit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against them is still ongoing.  The NLRB has sued Boeing for opening the manufacturing plant in South Carolina (a right-to-work state), rather than in Washington state, where they have other manufacturing plants.

The article reports:

“But Friday was not about that, Gayla Keller of Boeing said. 

“”While there’s been a lot in the news recently about government attempts to force Boeing to place the second final assembly line in Puget Sound and close the South Carolina final assembly and delivery facility, we are confident that Boeing will prevail against the National Labor Relations Board complaint,” Keller said in an email to reporters. “But today for us is not about that dispute, but instead we want to celebrate the opening of the South Carolina final assembly facility, as well as the continued outstanding work by our employees in the Puget Sound as they build the world’s best commercial aircraft.” 

The new plant in South Carolina will manufacture the 787.  The new plant does not move any jobs from Washington state to South Carolina, it will be a new manufacturing facility. 

By opening the new plant in South Carolina, Boeing will bring jobs to the state and create a product that can be sold, thus improving the economy.  Hopefully, they can continue to do this without any further government interference.

Yesterday The Hill reported that Exxon has made a major oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico.  The discovery,  700 million barrels of oil equivalent, was made at a deepwater well off the coast of Louisiana. 

The article reports:

“”This is one of the largest discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico in the last decade,” Exxon Mobil Exploration Company President Steve Greenlee said in a statement.”

At the moment, the Obama administration has been very slow to issue drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.  Only fifteen deepwater permits have been issued since February. 

Congressional Republicans are arguing the drilling permits in the Gulf need to be approved more quickly in order to take advantage of the new discovery.

Approving drilling permits more quickly would help lower unemployment in the Gulf region, and would also result in the creation of more jobs in the Gulf states. 

Fox News reported yesterday that according to a new report issued by the Institute of Medicine, ‘green’ buildings may be hazardous to your health. 

The article points out that when homeowners winterize their homes by plugging air leaks to the outside, they may unintentionally cause the air inside the house to become less healthy. 

The article reports:

“By making buildings more airtight, building owners could increase “indoor-air contaminant concentrations and indoor-air humidity,” the report said. By adding insulation, they could trigger moisture problems. By making improvements to older homes, crews could stir up hazardous material ranging from asbestos to harmful caulking — though that problem is not unique to energy improvements.” 

This is not news to anyone who lives in a climate where heat is needed in the winter and air conditioning is needed in the summer.  Nothing compares to the first warm day in the Spring when you can open up the windows and air the house out after a long winter. 

The article at the Institute of Medicine urged organizations to be aware of the consequences of making buildings more energy efficient and take actions to minimize their impact on the public health.  Obviously, balance is the key.

Yesterday U. S. News reported at its Washington Whispers Blog that two new ‘pending’ regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency will have a major negative impact on the coal industry.  The new regulations are designed to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants.  Americans get about 54 percent of their electricity from coal, so any regulation that impacts coal-fired power plants is going to impact the cost of electricity. 

If the ‘pending’ regulations are passed, electric rates for Americans are expected to rise between 11 and 23 percent.  There are also predictions that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost. 

The article reports:

“Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.”

The one thing I had trouble finding when I researched this article was exactly what change would result from the ‘pending’ regulations.  First of all, I don’t believe in the concept of ‘pending’ regulations.  The government doesn’t do ‘pending’–it just does.   Americans are used to having available, reasonably-priced electricity.  If we are being asked to give this up (along with employment losses of over 1.4 million jobs by 2020), I want to be sure that the regulations would make a significant difference in air quality, and that the end result would be worth the sacrifice.

Meanwhile, I am not sure that implementing any regulation that increases the economic burden of Americans and causes jobs to be lost is a good idea at this time.  Unless there are overwhelming problems caused by the current regulations on coal-fired electric power plants, I think this might not be the time to change the rules.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta will hear arguments against Obamacare today by lawyers representing 26 states.  There are two major legal objections to Obamacare.  The first is that the individual mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance in unconstitutional.  The argument here is that if the government can require you to purchase health insurance, there is no limit to what the government can require you to purchase.  The second major objection is the way that Obamacare dramatically expands Medicaid.  Medicaid is a federal program that is partially funded by the states.  The idea that the Medicaid program would be massively expanded and the states forced to pay for the expansion is in violation of the Tenth Amendment. 

It is very likely that the next stop for Obamacare will be the Supreme Court.  It will be interesting to see if they take the case and how they rule on it.

CNS News reported today that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to establish a market for greenhouse gas (GHG) credits, a key component of a cap and trade system, to help reduce carbon and other emissions that apparently contribute to global warming.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that the projects were the beginnings of establishing an American Carbon Market. 

The money is part of the Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) program that is supposed to encourage innovation in environmental technology and business. 

The article states:

“In other words, the CIG grants fund projects that attempt to measure the quantity of GHGs that are saved – by not farming rural land, for example – and how those savings affect the value of the offsets – how many GHG credits a particular action is worth.

“In a cap and trade system, farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers theoretically stand to make money by selling credits to other, GHG-intense businesses such as manufacturers and power companies.

“Among the projects being funded is a $1 million program across eight states to show that beef and dairy farmers can be incentivized to change how they handle animal feeding and manure to produce less methane emissions.”

It might be a good time to mention that cap and trade legislature has never been appoved by Congress.  It also should be mentioned at this time that America is scheduled to run out of money some time in August.  This is an expenditure the House of Representatives should block.  It is neither helpful nor has it been voted into law.