Thursday, November 11, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Veterans Day 2010


God bless...

Thank you...
Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.95235e4012f771d1c25e68aa7eb984cd.e1&show_article=1

World oil prices neared $90 dollars for the first time in more than two years on Thursday...

November 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/10/job-killing-environmentalists

Below are eight areas where the [Obama administration seems determined to] wreak havoc on the American economy:

Carbon Dioxide -- Human activity accounts for less than 4% of global CO2 emissions and CO2 itself accounts for only 10% or 20% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor accounts for most of the other 80%. The actual quantity of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere is about 0.0387%, or 387 parts per million. The Christian Science Monitor recently published an excellent analysis of how the EPA’s plans for reducing carbon dioxide could cause the loss of over a million jobs and raise every family’s energy costs by over $1,200.

Factory boilers -- The EPA wants new, more stringent limits on soot emissions from industrial and factory boilers. This would cost $9.5 billion according to the EPA, or over $20 billion according to the American Chemistry Council. A study released by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners says the new rules would put 300,000 to 800,000 jobs at risk as industries opted to close plants rather than pay the expensive new costs. The ruling includes boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, and refining, as well as shopping malls, laundromats, apartments, restaurants, and hotels.

Home Remodeling -- Some contractors are refusing to work on houses built before 1979 (when lead paint use was discontinued) because of stringent new EPA permitting required for lead paint removal. Lead paint in powdered or edible form can hurt growing children. It was once used in the hard gloss paint for wood surfaces, but has been painted over with non-lead-based paint during the past 30 years. The new fines of $37,000 per day are ruinous for smaller contractors and individual workers. Many jobs will therefore not be created as smaller contractors stop replacing window frames or turn down other work where lead paint may be present.

Ground Level Ozone -- AutoBlog reports that the EPA has asked the U.S. government to enact draconian new smog regulations for ground-level ozone. The request to cut levels to .006 to .007 parts per million comes less than two years after standards were set at .0075 particles of pollutants per one million. As AutoBlog notes, “That doesn't sound like a very big change, but the New York Times reports that the agency quotes the price tag of such a change at between $19 billion and $100 billion per year by 2020. Oil manufacturers, manufacturing and utility companies are the main source of air pollution and they will have to spend heavily to meet the proposed regulation.”

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- The Fish and Wildlife Service is drawing up plans that define more parts of ANWR as “wilderness” thereby permanently removing any possibility for oil drilling in the vast field. The full Alaskan nature reserve is the size of South Carolina while the proposed drilling area would be the size of Dulles Airport.

Alaska Oil -- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has prohibited all off-shore drilling until further notice, although Shell Oil and others’ proposed sites are in less than 150 feet of water and use fixed drilling platforms, not the floating kind used for deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. Potentially vast oil fields and the accompanying jobs are therefore on hold.

Cement Kiln Regulations -- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)...warns...“EPA’s new cement kiln regulation could shut down 18 plants, threatening 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs. According to an analysis of EPA’s rule by King’s College (London) Professor Ragnar Lofstedt, EPA could send 28 million tons of U.S. cement production offshore, mainly to China.”

* I RECOMMEND READING THE FULL ARTICLE.

November 11, 2010 at 10:41 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/11/11/the_77_of_income_fallacy_98754.html

When Congress returns next week for a "lame-duck," post-election session, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) will try to muster the 60 votes he needs to block a filibuster of a vote on the misnamed Paycheck "Fairness" Act.

It would be better titled the Paycheck Rareness Act, because it would make paychecks rare by driving small firms out of business and sending larger corporations overseas.

This bill would thrust the government deep into compensation decisions of employers. Its declared purpose is to close the alleged "pay gap" between men and women. That gap is mostly a statistical artifact, a false conclusion-and a rallying cry for feminist lobbyists who are well paid to advocate bills like this one.

The complaint that the feminist organizations love to bandy about is..."Today, women make just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes..."

* WHICH IS BULLSHIT.

[Their "math"] omits weekly hours of work, overtime (which is more typically earned by men), education, experience on the job, and time in the workforce.

* IN OTHER WORDS, THE LEFT DELIBERATELY SKEWS THE NUMBERS BY REFUSING TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES... RESUMES TO RESUMES.

(*SMIRK*) (*SNICKER*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

When all of these factors are accounted for, the difference is about five cents on the dollar.

* To be continued...

November 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

And, yes, discrimination against women may-or may not-explain some of that nickel, but the "gap" is far smaller than is alleged and does not merit Congress's imposing a new, cumbersome and costly layer of record-keeping on employers, and inviting more litigation.

The bill would require all employers with more than two employees and $500,000 of gross revenues - no small business exception here - to submit data on sex, race, national origin, and earnings of employees to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, even if no complaint has been filed.

* "...EVEN IF NO COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED." (*SMIRK*)

The threat of litigation about pay differences between men and women would raise the potential cost of employment, discouraging hiring.

(*NOD*)

* FURTHERMORE... (*SIGH*)... THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE WOULD OF NECESSITY HAVE TO GROW - AND THIS GROWTH WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE PAID FOR - IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE NEW PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS!

Employers would face administrative costs that would silently discourage the hiring of those women who might catch the attention of EEOC investigators. This would particularly affect unskilled, inexperienced women who would start at lower rates of pay, and women who might be expected to take time out of the workforce for children, reducing their future productivity compared with men.

The bill would impose litigation costs on employers even as employees are represented with no out-of-pocket expenses by trial lawyers hopeful for a big slice of a big settlement. The result would be, as former Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao described it at the Hudson conference, "a tsunami of lawsuits and tremendous uncertainty," adding to the estimated $300 billion a year America now spends on litigation.

[W]omen would be included in class-action suits against employers unless they specifically opt out, raising the costs of litigation whether or not the EEOC finds for the complaining employees. Second, courts could levy heavier penalties on employers. Under the law now, employers found guilty of discrimination owe workers back pay. Under the pending bill, they would have to pay uncapped punitive damages, with a quarter or a third going to plaintiffs' lawyers. Even innocent employers would be under pressure to settle rather than fight, raising costs of business.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

One way for some employers to avoid the penalties in the Paycheck Fairness Act would be to move jobs offshore, especially if there is an offshore plant that can be expanded. With jobs and the economy now topping Americans' worries, Congress needs to think about how to make America a more welcoming place to create jobs, rather than how best to drive jobs away.

November 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)