For years, the lawyers have not been able to resist instructing the auto industry. Since Ralph Nader began tinkering in the sixties, cars have gone from iconic to ridiculous. We have seen great cars like the Impala turned into a tiny little go-cart filled with airbags and other safety equipment. While I do not begrudge those of us who like safety equipment (after all, that’s why God created Volvos), I long for some of the breathtaking muscle cars of my youth–the proud beasts of an era gone by.

Lawyers cannot fix cars. The talent required for turning a wrench is not the same talent you use when twisting a contract. Most attorneys are not as comfortable working beneath the hood of a car as they are running behind an ambulance. So a wise nation keeps attorneys as far away from their automotive plants as possible.

But change has again found its way into the auto industry. No longer content to direct the industry from the back seat, this Administration has planted itself firmly behind the steering wheel. After taking over General Motors and selling Chrysler to Fiat (an Italian manufacturer best known for its expensive short-lived replacement parts), they invested half a billion taxpayer dollars into the the Fisker–Al Gore’s car of the future. There is no question who is driving the industry into the second decade of the new millennium.

But it’s not going as smoothly as planned. Just recently, the electric Fisker recalled its entire product line for problems that could lead to the cars catching on fire. I guess the future just came a little too early. It seems the problem is not unique to the Fisker either. A Chevy Volt burst into flames while ironically parked over at the Safety Administration. Nothing says “Green” more than black smoke car fires.

In an effort to stem the worst PR event since the Ford Pinto, GM offered Volt owners loaner cars until they could figure out what caused the fire. When two more blew up, they actually offered to buy them all back, resulting in the largest one-day sale of Volts in the history of the nameplate. (more…)

The Barack Obama Administration has, since its inception, been moving the United States dramatically leftward, trying to (at the very least) make us a western European socialist entity. Ideologically, a full-on participant in – rather than a rational outlier of – the patently absurd United Nations (UN).

Perhaps the greatest – and worst – example of President Obama’s UN-ing of America was his Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s December 2010 illegal Network Neutrality Internet power grab.

The Administration going to these unlawful lengths to commandeer control of the ‘Net makes it a little more difficult to persuade international autocrats and dictators to leave alone their portions of the World Wide Web.

Or ours.

Which brings us to the United Nations. (more…)

On Friday, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) saved Americans from the extremely hard and dangerous task of having to manually reduce the volume on their TVs during commercial breaks. Thanks to the leadership of Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA), the government will now regulate the volumes of such advertisements, since apparently American citizens cannot even be trusted to adjust the sound on their television sets appropriately.

Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA)

This regulation follows a series of other liberal proposals designed to reduce the individuality of the American citizen by outsourcing all personal responsibility to the federal government. Whether enforcing new smoking bans, using taxpayer money to campaign against obesity, or paying our bills through welfare checks, the government’s role has expanded well beyond its constitutional authority to protect the citizenry into micromanaging their lives. A federal government must provide services that individual citizens cannot, such as national security, trade agreements with foreign nations, and infrastructure construction.

However, the personal decisions of individual citizens, such as how to quit smoking, lose weight, or cover their expenses, are more efficiently handled when accomplished through individual motivation rather than government mandates. Even if the politicians feel that certain citizens are not making the right choices on some of these decisions, they have neither the right nor the ability to protect us from ourselves. The fact that federal politicians feel they have to intervene in our lives to so great an extent, especially on such a trivial matter as the volume of our television sets, demonstrates the lack of trust they have in the average American citizen. We all have remote controls. Why is it necessary for a government miles away to perform a function that we can all do in our own living rooms?

(more…)

LOS ANGELES /PRNewswire/ — There will be no more “Made in the USA,” with millions of jobs lost if the United States doesn’t start mining and stock piling certain strategic metals, according to Alisha A. Ahern, co-director of the Academics & Periodicals Department at American Elements, the global chemical and metals manufacturer which published the list. Today the company released the 2011 U.S. Endangered Elements List (EEL11) naming the five metals that can most upset American industry, especially if the countries that the U.S. imports the metals from decide to shut off supply.

American Elements funded preparation of the EEL11 to help manufacturers, the government and consumers better understand the gravity of the situation. 20th Century metals such as copper, iron, nickel and tin have given way to 21^st Century critical metals, particularly the rare earths, of which the U.S. mines almost none.

“Today China mines a whopping 97 percent of all global rare earth production. America no longer has the resources to manufacture the things we invent,” says Ahern. “New metals like the rare earths have become essential to thousands of household goods including computers, cell phones, cars and nearly all electronics. If we lose access or run out of these elements, there will be no more ‘Made in the USA.’”

(more…)

On virtually every policy issue and in most sectors of the economy, the left’s solutions call for bigger government. The clear implication of that worldview: We should trust government bureaucrats more than private individuals to innovate, create and provide prosperity and general well-being.

President Obama argued in a recent speech on the economy, for instance, that we need to “make the investments … in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing.”

And in his blueprint for energy for coming decades, Obama says government must fund and lead the way to new energy solutions: “We can get there by creating markets for innovative clean technologies … the Federal government needs to put words into action and lead by example [my emphasis].” Others on the left agree,  even some on the right and still others go even further, insisting that government must soup up its already pronounced role, and lead the way in medical research, transportation, education and more.

Whatever Barack Obama’s latest claims to Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive mantle, though, history dismantles the notion that without paternalistic governmental guidance, the economy would be left in a morass of confusion and stagnancy. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Government often lags, and even obstructs the ingenuity of the private sector.

(more…)

$787 billion.  Plus interest.  At downgrade – and thusly increased – rates.

Behold the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – the “Stimulus.”  Brought to you by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their Congressional Democrat cohorts.

Passed in the panicked wake of the 2008 Community Reinvestment Act-Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac-government-induced global economic collapse.  Because “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Passed, we were told, to create “or save” jobs.  In places like non-existent Congressional districts.

Passed, we were told, to keep unemployment below 8%.  How’d that work?

The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 7.6%. The stimulus was passed in February 2009. According to Obama, it was never supposed to go above 8% — well, it was already at 8.1% when the stimulus became a law. And it never got any better. According to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, the unemployment rate remained high. There were some predictions that it would stay above 9% until 2012 (and this was from the White House no less). The CBO also predicts that the unemployment rate would be 8.2% come November 2012 which is higher than when he took office.

It worked swimmingly.  Drowning-ly, actually.

As we said way back in February:

Government attempting to “assist” the private sector is the D.C. version of the elementary school game Red Light-Green Light.

If the government has given itself the Green Light – and is lumbering and lurching around the free market, blindly and ignorantly throwing around laws, regulations and money – the private sector freezes in place, afraid to move in any direction for fear of the next federal anvil to fall.  The overactive government has thusly emplaced a Red Light in front of the private sector.

Rarely if ever has the federal government been more active than they have been these past two plus years.  And as a result the private sector has been exceedingly timid – which explains why our “recovery” has been so pathetic – if not non-existent.

—–

Which brings us to the government “helping” the Internet.

(more…)

We never thought that there would be a problem with an Obama administration regulatory agency not regulating enough, but that bizarre day has come. The Federal Electric Reliability Commission (FERC), which is charged with ensuring that the nation’s power grid remain operational, is frozen like a deer in the headlights when it comes to a pair of incoming EPA rules that pose a grave threat to reliability.

To repeat: in the one instance when we actually need federal regulators to intervene, the agency in question is failing to do its job.  Oh, the irony.

From Politico:

A FERC DIVIDED – It’s not only lobbyists and lawmakers who are arguing over whether EPA regulations pose a threat to the U.S. electric grid. The debate has consumed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the board tasked with ensuring the nation a reliable supply of electricity.

The most outspoken commissioner, Philip Moeller, is pushing for his agency to scrutinize EPA’s proposals more closely, while saying the EPA should consider delaying implementation of some rules for more than a year. But fellow Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and John Norris argue that delaying the rules might run afoul of the certainty that Moeller is seeking.

(more…)

As you may know, the merger process at the FCC and DoJ is a mess.  In fact, some believe the entire process is not much different than extortion.  Not only do we have some newly reported shenanigans going on around the AT&T merger – with FCC staff last week playing fast and loose with data in an effort to sink the merger once and for all – now we have this gem.

To fulfill part of its merger “penance” with the FCC from earlier this year, Comcast / NBC-U announced the other day it has entered into agreements that:

…create new and innovative cooperative news gathering and reporting arrangements with a series of locally-focused, non-profit news organizations.

The partnerships are with ProPublica, which will work with all ten owned stations, serving the following markets: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas-Fort Worth, Washington, D.C., Miami, San Diego and Connecticut; The Chicago Reporter which will work with NBC 5 Chicago; WHYY which will partner with NBC 10 Philadelphia; and KPCC which work with NBC4 LA. (Emphasis and links added)

As I wrote about previously on these pages, the Comcast Merger Order “voluntarily” commits the new company to foster local journalism via the “Voice of San Diego Model,” a socially progressive news organization.  ProPublica, The Chicago Reporter, and KPCC make good on this promise.  They are archetypical liberal media outlets, which are supported in large measure by the usual suspects among America’s top progressive foundations (like Soros, Ford, MacArthur, Knight, Pew, etc.).

What’s amazing is it’s happening as I had predicted – coming just in time to boost progressive messaging for the 2012 elections, all in key urban cities that are vital to Obama maintaining the White House.

Quite a “voluntarily agreed to” platform, huh?  And, go figure, a progressive one at that.  Hmm…

(more…)

An article in a recent issue of The Economist (“Sweet Land of Subsidy,” December 3rd to 9th, 2011, p. 42) tells the story of Iuka, Mississippi, a small community (2000 pop. 3,059) in Tishomingo County, where the local economic development foundation “invested” an unreported sum of the taxpayers’ money in the mid-1990s to build a 90,000 square foot facility so as to lure a job-creating private employer to the area. Although several call-centers have since “taken a look”, the building never has had a rent-paying tenant and remains vacant nearly two decades on.

The director of the development foundation there blames the county’s failure to attract businesses on the lack of local access to broadband internet connections.

Not to worry, though. In early November, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it would redirect $4.5 billion from a program established to guarantee universal access to landline telephone service to a new “Connect America Fund” (CAF), intended to provide “reliable” broadband internet connections to Americans living in rural areas and, as is obligatory in a period of state-created recession, claiming with a straight face to add 500,000 new jobs and $50 billion to GDP over the next six years.

According to the FCC, 18 million U.S. souls do not now have broadband service, and it claims that 7 million of them can be reached with the new subsidy. The subvention thus amounts to more than $640 per person, assuming that none of the unconnected people live in the same household. (The marginal cost per household is estimated to be $775, although, owing to duplication, the incremental cost of previous subsidies has run as high as $350,000 per house.)

More recently, according to the same article, $7.2 billion in federal stimulus money was spent on rural broadband access. CAF raises the ante by 62.5 percent.

(more…)

You know, this whole FCC torpedoing AT&T’s planned T-Mobile merger is nonsense.  As I have written about often, I think the merger’s a mini jobs stimulus plan which can inject jobs into the economy far beyond anything that may happen at the company post-merger.

We sorely need that here in America.  This privately borne proposal is just one such plan, one which would provide some needed fuel for new American jobs.  Up to 96,000 by AT&T’s estimation.

Yet the FCC’s got the company by the proverbial short hairs, firmly believing that its judgment is better than those who are taking the risk and making investments needed to build out new broadband facilities for Americans.  Consequently, as one industry observer dryly noted:

“This is central planning at its most repugnant.”

Yes it is.  And, it’s got some powerful cheerleaders from the media-Marxist crowd jumping up and down with profound excitement.

Leading this pack is the holier-than-thou radicals at Free Press.

Holier-than-thou because, though they claim AT&T’s Washington money has corrupted communications policy, it is they who have raked in millions from murky “progressive” foundations – the latter actively working this past decade to corrupt and “transform” America by laundering – often from hidden / non-transparent sources – approximately $100 million to kneecap telephone, cable and media companies with new rules, regulations and costly proscriptions.

Not surprisingly, Free Press sits atop the list of “media reform” foundation grantees.

(more…)

Government Motors has finally found its hottest car and the Chevy Volt is it. Unfortunately for Chevy, it isn’t because it is popular. It’s because the car seems to catch on fire a lot. Industry watchers are preparing for the Volt to undergo a recall to fix whatever problem the car’s lithium-ion battery pack has that seems to be causing the vehicles to spontaneously burst into flames.

Of course, this little catching on fire problem seems emblematic with everything about Government Motors. After President Barack Obama pumped $53 billion of our tax dollars into bailing out GM all we’ve gotten out of the deal so far is a stock tumble from $53 a share to under $25 (a $15 billion loss) and a badly selling “green” car that catches on fire every time you turn around. Such a deal.

As to the burning issue of the day, the Associated Press notes that an “investigation” has begun by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine why the cars are catching fire.

One Volt battery pack that was being closely monitored following a government crash test caught fire Thursday, the safety administration said in a statement. Another recently crash-tested battery emitted smoke and sparks, the statement said.

For its part, GM claims the cars are perfectly “safe.” Well, except for that whole catching on fire business, I suppose.

(more…)

In a move that grabbed attention among the technology and retail business communities, three senators—Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)—introduced legislation aimed at allowing states to require online-only, out-of-state retailers to collect and remit to states tax on sales made to residents of those states.

In a press release, the three senators touted their legislation as an effort to give states “the option to collect sales and use tax revenues from out-of-state sellers through a new, simplified tax system,” but “only if they adopt certain minimum simplification requirements and provide sellers with additional notices on the collection requirements.”  The Enzi-Durbin-Alexander bill also “exempts sellers who make less than $500,000 in total remote sales in the year preceding the sale.”  It reportedly has the support of big bricks-and-mortar retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, as well as Amazon.com.

In multiple states around the country over the past year, legislators and officials have been looking to sales made by out-of-state, online-only retailers as a potential revenue stream capable of being tapped in order to help fill budget holes. California has been notably aggressive in pursuing a so-called “Amazon Tax,” which would force retailers like Amazon.com and O.co to collect and remit to the state sales tax on sales made to Californians.

(more…)

In 2007 Google decided it wanted a more permanent role in the political game. The company launched its D.C. public policy headquarters the following January. Google and policy makers in D.C. were excited to see this step being taken by the tech giant; the expectation was that Google would take the system by storm.

Over the last three years Google has been highly invested in the public policy process and in many cases they have molded policy to their whims and desires. In 2008 Barack Obama ran as a pro-net neutrality candidate and Google jumped on that bandwagon donating $814,540  to the campaign.  His opponent, John McCain received less than $100,000. Additionally another million  dollars was provided by Google to MoveOn.org. This grand show of support was in hopes that it would ensure Google Federal Communications Commission support for Net Neutrality. For the most part they got it. And that policy looks to stick, for now, after last week’s inaction by Congress, allowing the FCC to start passing law for the United States.

Though recently it appears Google has begun to realize a valuable lesson about the world of D.C. politics, when the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission announced they would be investigating Google for monopoly practices.

Recently, Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, spoke with the Washington Post after his first appearance for congressional testimony, and the “take D.C. by storm” expectation certainly appeared to be catching up with Google as Schmidt vocalized his frustration.

“So we get hauled in front of the Congress for developing a product that’s free, that serves a billion people. OK? I mean, I don’t know how to say it any clearer,” Mr. Schmidt stated to the Post. “It’s not like we raised prices. We could lower prices from free to . . . lower than free? You see what I’m saying?”

(more…)

We have oft spoken of how ridiculous Government General Motors (GM) has continued to become since receiving $50 billion of our bailout money.

And of the Barack Obama Administration’s puffing up for political and campaign purposes GM’s alleged “recovery” from its bankruptcy.

(A bankruptcy, by the way, that could have just as easily transpired without our $50 billion.  But I digress….)

It’s not really much of a recovery when one considers the fact that GM’s thus far $7.4 billion in 2011 profits is greatly fostered and augmented by the Obama Administration’s years-on-end GM federal tax exemption.

A Crony Socialist boon to the tune of as much as $45.4 billion.

(How’s that for federal deficit reduction?  Is absolutely nothing at all GM’s “fair share?”)

GM’s is an even less impressive “recovery” when we remember that We the People still own just over 500 million shares of GM stock.  On which to break even we need to sell at $53 per – and it is currently trading at around $23.

Which sets up We the Taxpayers for a more than $15 billion loss.

Not quite the GM “success” President Obama is repeatedly touting on the Trail to 2012.

(more…)

Reuters recently offered an apologetic profile on Solyndra figurehead, RockPort Capital Managing Partner, and Solyndra Board Member David Prend.

The article, a fawning exhibition of non-investigative journalism, referred to Prend as the “Guru of Green.” Reuters neglected to question whether Prend’s close government connections had created conflicts of interest as he secured multi-million dollar government loans and grants for his investments.

Prend lobbied the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Carol Browner, for Solyndra’s doomed $535 million DOE loan and presidential endorsement. Prend also visited the White House at least twice and discussed two companies with Browner while lobbying for Solyndra. (The White House refuses to release the second company’s name.)

Prend’s other investments suggest that he is benefiting from taxpayer support for far more than just two companies.

Prend is a board member for scandal-plagued concrete sealant manufacturer Hycrete. Around 2008, Hycrete received a $2 million Corps of Engineers earmark from Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN) shortly before company executives donated $20,000 to his campaign and the DCCC. In July 2009, former Hycrete CEO David Rosenberg was invited to a WH Summit on Energy Innovation and Jobs where Obama praised Hycrete as a job creation leader.

Prend was apparently involved in another RockPort Capital investment, Soliant Energy. Soliant went bankrupt even after receiving a $4 million DOE grant. Prend also apparently sits on the board of SustainX, which recently secured a $5.39 million DOE grant. (more…)

The vote on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J. Res) 6 – the Resolution of Disapproval to undo the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s illegal, unilateral Network Neutrality Internet power grab – is a watershed moment for the members of the Senior Circuit.

The FCC – in fact no federal Agency, Department or Commission – can do anything unless and until Congress writes a law that says “Yo – do this.”

As a unanimous D.C. Circuit Court pointed out in April of 2010, Congress has never done this for the FCC with regard to the Internet and Net Neutrality.

The Commission clearly, simply doesn’t have the juice to do what they again did last December.  It is an egregious overreach, and it must be undone.

Senators – not agencies like the FCC – write laws.  That’s their gig.  Each and every Senator that votes against S.J. Res 6 is giving up on what they asked their constituents to send them to Washington to do.

To vote No is to give up on being an elected representative of We the People.

(more…)

Specifically, on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res. 6) – the vote to overturn the Obama Administration Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Net Neutrality Internet power grab.

If you live in Massachusetts – please call/email/fax the Senator and let him know he’d be very wrong to do so.

And that he next year needs Conservatives and Republicans – from Massachusetts and around the nation – if he has any hope to keep his seat.

• Scott Brown – Massachusetts
  • Phone: (202) 224-4543
  • Fax: (202) 228-2646
  • Email: Here

From most appearances, the Senate will this week vote on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res) 6 – the Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval of the Obama Administration Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s illegal Internet Net Neutrality power grab.

Only 51 votes are required for passage – which means only 4 Democrats are needed.  There are 23 Democrat Senate seats up for reelection next year.  A few of these folks aren’t running.  The rest are – many in center or center-right states.  Additionally, there are a few other Senators that should also be subject to Constitutional reason, and thusly contacted.

Behold a list below the fold of some of these Senators and their contact information.  Reach out and tell them to vote Yes on S.J.Res 6.  Also tweet it all out using the hashtag #freethenet. (more…)

President Barack Obama last week unveiled his latest attempt to divert attention away from his horrendously failed economic policies and record.  In his ongoing effort to “fundamentally transform America” and his loomingly piteous campaign to get reelected, the newest phraseology is “We Can’t Wait.”

From his weekly radio address on Saturday:

“The truth is, we can no longer wait for Congress to do its job….So where Congress won’t act, I will.”

There is so much disingenuousness contained in just this tiny excerpt.  The truth is, there is nothing at all new about this.  President Obama has been end-running Congress to unilaterally “fundamentally transform America” since (at least) November 2, 2010. That election day was a stinging, historic rebuke of the Leftist, Big Government policies of President Obama and his Democrats.  Not just in D.C. but throughout the nation, at the state and local levels as well.  It was a crashing, crushing wave that Obama himself described it as a “shellacking.”

We the People elected Republicans in huge numbers up and down the ticket to (amongst other things) serve as a blockade to the Socialism being further emplaced by Donkeys. Unfortunately, the will of We the People remains utterly irrelevant to Obama. After the brutal Congressional slog that was the jamming-through of ObamaCare, over the expressed objections of We the People, the President had enough of the legislative (or constitutional) way of doing things, so he began his regulatory fiat power grabs.

Can’t pass the energy sector-assault that is Cap & Trade?  No problem, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will start imposing large swaths of it as if it has. Can’t pass the workplace-assault that is the Big Union-payoff Card Check?  No problem, President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)  and Department of Labor will start imposing large swaths of it as if it has.

So for the President this weekend to pretend his democracy denying-dictaorial-ism is something new is mendacious.  He’s been going at it at a pretty good for years and he’s only announcing that he’s now really going to ramp it up. He isn’t tired of “wait(ing) for Congress to do its job.”  He long ago lost any interest in anything having to do with Congress — save their utility as an electioneering punching bag. Congress is in fact doing exactly the job we (in part) elected them to do: Be an impediment to the President’s overarching, overreaching Leftist agenda. And they have been largely successful when Obama isn’t illegally, serially, wantonly going around them.

(more…)

We have often discussed the incredible peril Network Neutrality poses when placed in the hands of government — it’s the incredible economic and First Amendment damage that can (and will) be done by the federal Leviathan once it gets its Net Neutrality tentacles around the World Wide Web. Nearly as pernicious, are the private big companies who benefit from big government generally – and the incredible Big Government power grab that is Net Neutrality specifically.

We’ve heard a little about Netflix – the gigantic pro-Net Neutrality Internet movie delivery company.  Netflix is pro-Net Neutrality because Netflix wants grandmothers to pay more to email their grandchildren so that they can continue to use tons and tons of Internet bandwidth to make tons and tons of money – and not pay for it. This is one of the terrible things Net Neutrality does: It prevents Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – the people who spend billions of dollars building and perpetually bettering the highways and byways of the World Wide Web – from charging people who use more bandwidth more money.

Let us disabuse ourselves of a pro-Net Neutrality myth – the Internet Superhighway is not a free ride (nothing, of course, is).  Roads cost money, whether to your house or to your computer and Net Neutrality allows some of the biggest riders to do so without paying for the privilege. Net Neutrality outlaws per-use pricing.  It’s like telling a grocery store they must charge people purchasing one steak the same price as people purchasing fifty. It’s Socialism for the Internet – and we’ll end up with everyone getting equal amounts of nothing. And as we go down, your Grandma’s – and your, and my – Internet prices shoot skyward so as to subsidize the incredible bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Google.

(more…)