Last week, the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, paid a visit to the California State Legislature.  He spoke at length about his province’s green energy partnership with California in supplying California with electricity while helping the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

I listened to the leader of the Western Canadian province of 4.4 million people and I found myself asking, “What is he selling?”  So, I decided to follow the money.  What follows is a summary of an international green energy scam that costs California taxpayers millions while robbing California of jobs due to higher electricity costs and electricity imports.

The Scam

Decades ago, the West Coast began exchanging electricity.  During the summer, when air conditioning use spiked in California, Washington State and British Columbia would ship hydropower down to the Golden State.  Later in the year, during California’s mild winters, when rivers levels were low in the Northwest, California would return the favor.  The power exchange worked well for everyone.

During California’s 2000-2001 energy crisis, our northern neighbors took Enron-like advantage of us.  BC Hydro, a state-owned utility, through its marketing and trading subsidiary, Powerex, aided in the rampant market manipulation that ended up costing California consumers millions.  Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, sued.  In March 2005, Powerex settled and refunded a fraction of the profits they made at the expense of California ratepayers.

The current version of this energy scam is breathtaking in its scope.

(more…)

Back in February 2010, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the American people that approximately 400,000 jobs would be created due to the passage of the healthcare bill.

Remember Pelosi promised this:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the health summit: “It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.”

Well, it’s almost November and the economy still hasn’t gotten any better and we have no evidence of those jobs being created.  I can only assume that she didn’t mean this either:

The irony of accountability indeed.  Americans are still asking and the rhetoric is not resonating.  So, Speaker Pelosi, where are the jobs?

It’s not a matter of rhetoric, it’s a matter of the American dream being shattered for so many hard-working Americans as a direct result of Obama’s entitlement-laden, job-killing policies.  Such a boastful result when the Democrats fight for “working Americans” as they say–specifically referencing unions.

(more…)

There is little debate that the leadership of the House — lead by Nancy Pelosi — has successfully convinced vulnerable Democrats to walk the plank on issues like the government takeover of our health care system, trillions in wasteful spending, bailouts and even cutting food stamps to funnel tax dollars to the teachers’ unions.  But for some members, it is the Cap and Trade tax that may turn out to be the anchor around their electoral necks.  Look no further than Ohio and Reps. Zack Space and John Boccieri.

Reps. Space and Boccieri voted with Nancy Pelosi and against their districts by supporting the Cap and Tax bill and are now paying the price.  A reader just sent us a copy of this incredibly effective ad that is now running in two districts in Ohio:

The ad reminds voters of the issues at stake — the budget, securing our borders, reckless growth of government and the cost of the Cap and Tax bill – and in Ohio Cap and Tax is a huge liability. Ohio is already experiencing some of the highest unemployment rates in the country (10.4%) and Cap and Tax would send upwards of 100,000 Ohio jobs overseas.  The bill would damage the state so much that even the State Senate has gone on record opposing the bill.

(more…)

ObamaCare expands coverage to millions of Americans, but, warns Professor Shirley Svorny, without stronger measures to expand the supply of healthcare providers and contain costs, we can expect a physician shortage and soaring premiums.

The California State University, Northridge economist suggests options for lowering costs and dismantling state-level regulations that restrain competition and innovation.

(more…)

The news about China overtaking Japan as the world’s second-largest economy is actually quite relevant to the US climate and energy policy debate, which promises to continue despite the scientific scandal and evaporation of political will to associate with a “global warming” or cap-and-trade legislation.

Thanks to a poll by Stanley Greenberg, the measure has been re-branded as “green economy” and “clean energy”.  But whatever you call it, and lame duck or otherwise, this latest excuse for central planning will be with us until it is unavoidably tied to serious political costs, like its forerunner the 1993 BTU energy tax, which according to Al Gore in a 2006 interview with the Financial Times led to the Democrat’s loss of Congress. Instructively, that experience originally prompted the re-branding to cap-and-trade.

Now, about  the relatively fading Japan, it is important to note that although it has been a persistent economic basket case, it nonetheless serves as one of President Obama’s models for stimulating an economy with “renewable energy” mandates (as we’ve documented in this space on numerous occasions, he’s not always the best-informed about these matters).

China’s relevance to our current policy debate is in part due to the ritual “but, China’s doing it…” line of — for lack of a better word — “argument” for why the US should impose all manner of global warming policies on itself. That deserves scrutiny.

(more…)

An Obama attorney charged with overseeing labor disputes has resisted well-documented ethical complaints built around potential conflicts of interest with “pure sophistry” and misleading statements that call out for a larger investigation, a foundation opposed to forced unionization has argued.

In a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWF) points out that Craig Becker, who now sits on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a recess appointee, has declined to recuse himself in multiple cases involving his former employers, most notably, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO.

There is a strong case to be made that Becker’s actions are in direct violation of the ethics pledge he signed in April, the Foundation’s letter states. In the past, he has litigated against Foundation clients and also helped craft legal strategies for SEIU affiliates. Becker has also suggested in his academic writings that major policy changes could be implemented without legislative approval. These controversial views greatly complicated Becker’s confirmation process and President Obama ultimately settled for a recess appointment, which lasts through 2011.

To date, NRTW attorneys have filed over a dozen recusal motions against Becker but he has refused to comply in every case except one. The ethics pledge Becker signed includes the following pledge: “I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”

Nevertheless, Becker has proceeded to take part in cases involving SEIU affiliates.

(more…)

It’s ba-ack!  Facing a $20 billion budget gap, California liberals in the state legislature are reviving a tax-hike plan targeting out-of-state, online retailers that has a diverse coalition of web entrepreneurs and business and political leaders fuming.

The proposal, mentioned during a California Senate hearing just last week, would force companies like Overstock.com to collect and remit to the Golden State sales tax where they advertise with California-based websites.

Supporters say it could add needed revenue to the Golden State’s coffers.

Opponents charge that deeming such out-of-state retailers to have “sales tax nexus” by virtue of advertising in the state would constitute a major tax hike that would worsen the state’s budget woes.

Furthermore, several prominent critics of the proposal contend that it could be unconstitutional.

(more…)

A stinging report was issued yesterday by Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The report, titled “Analysis of the First Year of the Obama Administration: Public Relations and Propaganda Initiatives,” outlines a host of propaganda activities conducted by the Obama administration at the direct expense of the American taxpayers.  It notes in part,

“The Obama Administration frequently used federal resources to promote the President’s agenda. In many cases, the Administration relied on the reach and resources of federal agencies and their personnel to promote certain of the President’s favorite programs. The White House also leveraged ties to the arts and entertainment community to embed propaganda in the content of television programming and artwork. These propaganda efforts violated appropriations riders and federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes.”

“The White House also used its inherent visibility advantages to multiply the effectiveness of websites containing misleading and controversial information. The White House used its resources to push visitors to websites that urge grassroots activism based on false and misleading information. The President’s right to sell his policy recommendations to Congress and the public is not disputed; however, using the resources of the federal government to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of office and a betrayal of the President’s pledge to create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

(more…)

I pose this question seriously, not as a physiologist, but as an economic historian. I am provoked to raise the question by an advertisement that Amazon sent me recently, calling my attention a book titled Can Capitalism Survive? Creative Destruction and the Future of the Global Economy. Seeing this sales pitch, my immediate reaction was my usual sadly amused reply to such a question: Can capitalism survive? What an odd question! Assuming that capitalism ever existed at all, it has been dead for at least a century.

At first glance, I did not recognize that the book being advertised is one for which, in a sense, I am responsible. It turns out that the “new” book is only an old (portion of a) book, now adorned by a new subtitle and two new introductory paragraphs by the Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson. If I reveal that the book’s author is Joseph A. Schumpeter, many readers will recognize it immediately as Part II of that famous economist’s best-known work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, first published in 1942, with subsequent editions in 1947 and 1950.

The new book’s front cover has a blurb from Fortune that declares Schumpeter to have been “the most influential economist of the twentieth century . . . a major prophet.” The back cover has an embarrassingly superficial blurb by publisher Steve Forbes that, among other things, describes Schumpeter as “the twentieth century’s foremost economist.”

I do not consider Schumpeter entitled to be called the most influential economist of the past century―that distinction unfortunately belongs to John Maynard Keynes, and Milton Friedman surely deserves the second place. As for Schumpeter’s rank as a prophet or as the intellectually foremost economist, I would place him below Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek.

Nevertheless, Schumpeter was unquestionably one of the most important economists of his day, and his work has continued for good reason to attract readers ever since his death in 1950.

(more…)

It is impossible to overstate how much we love Ronald Reagan. May we live long enough to see another leader like him. This video is from the Republican Study Committee. Whether they are up to the task will be determined in just a few months.

From the Washington Post:

The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment.

“It’s hard to talk about Avastin without talking about costs,” said Eric P. Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “For better or worse, Avastin has become in many ways the poster child of high-priced anti-cancer drugs.”

Avastin is the world’s best-selling cancer drug, with global sales of $5.8 billion, and it is the top-selling product for Roche, whose Genentech unit makes it. Its use to treat breast cancer brings in about $855 million in annual revenue in the United States.

Avastin is approved for use in treating several cancers, including those of the colon, lung, kidney and brain. So doctors could continue to write prescriptions for it for breast cancer, as an “off-label” use. But in addition to prompting insurers including Medicare to stop paying for Avastin, an FDA revocation of approval for its use in breast cancer treatment might mean that breast cancer patients would lose eligibility for a program in which Genentech caps the annual cost of the drug at $57,000 for women with annual incomes of less than $100,000.

(more…)

UPDATE: A New York Daily News correspondent reports the Hareetz story is untrue:

UPDATE from our Sam Goldsmith, who’s been following this issue and just got off the phone with Sharif El-Gamal, the developer of the project:

“That’s complete misinformation. That’s crazy,” El-Gamal said.

“That’s totally totally wrong. This is more misinformation in this web of misinformation.”

“We’ve never even talked about this as an idea. Everything is on track and moving forward at the same location.”

*****

From Haaretz.com:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero – the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York – it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

(more…)

What really happened during the 2008 elections? Recent information regarding the primary caucuses paints the picture of a campaign that would stop at nothing to win. A campaign that was willing to strong arm candidates and volunteers in order to meet its goal. The documentary We Will Not Be Silenced delves into the Obama 2008 Campaign.

“We believe The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.”

In July, the 2007 2^nd Quarter Obama Donor List was revealed and tied back to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its sister organization Project Vote. On Friday, August 13^th a three-judge panel of the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a funding ban on ACORN stemming from Congressional action:

“Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.”

A clear picture of Obama and his desire to win has emerged and the public is now aware of strong arm tactics and illicit coordination with groups like ACORN. Will an imminent FEC complaint reveal that ACORN/Project Vote used tax-exemept grants and funds to run a partisan voter registration drive to get Obama elected?

(more…)

Pollsters and pundits alike most often concentrate on the marquee political races.  The Florida Senate race garners national attention because of its intrigue and its national implications.  In California, there is a battle for Governor that will decide the direction of the Golden State.  Just below that surface, however, is a key race that could prove every bit as momentous and which may be key to the future of regaining our limited government heritage – the race for California State Controller.

At first blush, it is a race between a big government, union-supporting incumbent – Democrat John Chiang – and a conservative, limited government reformer, State Senator Tony Strickland.  While there are many races that may fit that description, the Controller’s office is not just another political office.

Keep in mind that despite intervals between Republican and Democrat Presidents, Republican and Democrat Governors, Republican and Democrat Legislatures and Congresses, the size of the federal and state governments has exploded since the 1960’s.  The quaint, 1960s, pre-Great Society, federal budgets of $130 billion have given way to a $4 trillion dollar monolith.  Many state budgets, including California’s have seen similar growth.

That explosive growth, under the watchful eyes of both parties, occurs because more often than not, political discourse is a simple matter of what can government do and how can we fund it.  Far less often do meaningful discussions occur about making government accountable for the money it already has.  If limited government is to make a comeback, the latter must take precedence over the former and (1) today’s environment is the time to do it and (2) the California Controller’s race is the election on which to make that stand.

(more…)

As we mentioned in our last article, the prevalence of the Triple Bottom Line philosophy is signaling a changing paradigm, a time of transformation. Our question, then, is this: What exactly are we transforming into?  The knee-jerk answer might be that we are transforming from a capitalist system to a socialist system. However, the widespread adoption of 3BL belies such a simple answer. Socialism, with its complete government control of production, is hardly desirable for private business interests. American corporations are willingly embracing 3BL without even a government mandate. There is something deeper going on than simply a tug of war between two economic systems, and we are seeking to explore just what that may be.

Our first clues as to where we are going lay in the past, with the origin of the term “Triple Bottom Line.” For that we can credit John Elkington (his personal website and blog is here), who introduced the public to the term for the first time in his 1997 publication Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Elkington is a longtime advocate for corporate environmental and social awareness, having cofounded the business development consulting firm SustainAbility in 1987. In fact, we may consider him a “founder” of corporate sustainability, having been called a “dean of the corporate responsibility movement for three decades” by BusinessWeek.  Elkington currently serves as the Executive Chairman of the sustainability think tank Volans, which he helped found in 2008. His work with Volans is what provides a real glimpse into the end game of 3BL, in a concept termed “The Phoenix Economy.”

The Phoenix Economy is a concept professing that the failure of an existing economic system will leave a void and an opportunity for a new system to take its place.  (The term “phoenix” refers to the bird of that name which, in ancient mythology, dies in a self-created fire and is then reincarnated from the ashes.)  Old paradigms and established principles are replaced by a new way of approaching economics — and indeed the culture. Elkington recognizes this as an opportunity to establish a new paradigm based on 3BL philosophy. Global sustainability is the principle by which the economic and social culture will be driven. The Volans website provides a concise explanation of the Phoenix Economy.

According to Volans:

From the ashes of the downturn, a new economy is self-assembling—focused on providing social and environmental solutions, where markets and governments have failed.

(more…)

A blogger at the popular progressive blog Daily Kos has attempted to smear many Americans with a very wide brush of anti-Islamic bigotry, while at the same time espousing a decidedly bizarre progressive view of the worst terror attack in this nation’s history:

…a new CNN poll  that shows that 68% of the nation opposes the construction of the community center in Manhattan. The question asked was about a mosque which I find a little misleading, and it used the inflammatory “Ground Zero” name for the site of the Twin Towers,  but that is not really the point. This new data shows a couple of things that we know already to be true. First off, the majority when asked their opinion will almost always be against the rights of a minority. This is a particular hot issue because of the 9/11 attacks where carried out by Muslims, but it is to be expected even if that were not the case.

Muslims are only a small minority in the United States, with somewhere between 1.3 million and 7 million of our citizens being practitioners of this faith. This makes Muslims between .3% and 2.1% of the over all population. However world wide the followers of Islam are closer to 25% of the planetary population.

Given that they are such a small minority in this nation, it is odd that so many of our fellow citizens see them as such a threat. Yes, the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm. The economy was already taking a hit before the Twin Towers fell.  The reaction of the nation to seeing two major buildings in New York fall on T.V. has boosted the attack out of proportion. While the loss of even a single life is to be condemned and the devastation these deaths caused the families of those killed, more than this number of teens are killed every year in car crashes. These are also tragic losses but we do not make the kind of high profile issue of it that the 9/11 attacks are.

It is this sort of disconnected, community-based reality that these elitists have fabricated for themselves that had led the majority of the nation to find these elitists not just out of touch, but dangerously out of step with the rest of the nation.

(more…)

Medicare is broke.  A record number of Americans are on food stamps thanks to all of the economic stimulus being thrown around by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  So, what do Democrats do when they are finished looting Medicare; they move on to the next and hope no one notices.  Not so.  The Hill reports the Democrats’ plan for the Child Nutrition Act and the best way to fund Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move“  initiative is noted as:

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.

Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

Obviously, cutting the food stamp program when it’s needed is irresponsible on the part of the Democrats.  So, then we must ask, what are the other motivating factors within the Let’s Move program and the Child Nutrition Act and who ultimately benefits?

It’s difficult to ignore the front-group for the SEIU, the Campaign for Quality Services, a major supporter of the Act and states the following on its website:

(more…)

As perverted as this may seem, there is almost no company that is too small to become a target of a union, as long as there are at least two employees.

Even worse, adding to the already-lengthy trail of industrial carnage left by unions, American labor law gives today’s unions the right to destroy small companies under the guise of unionizing employees. This is particularly true in the construction industry where, all too often, unions and their unionized employers compete for work against non-union companies in a Darwinian death dance.

Very often, because of their costly benefits and often-underfunded pension plans, union contractors fail to get the work while non-union contractors get the work. This leaves union tradesmen unemployed–sitting “on the bench.”

With less construction being done these days, the high rate of unemployment among construction unions has led many of them to target non-union contractors for the sole purpose of unionizing them in order to get the work.  In other words, because they already have enough unemployed members, they don’t want the  workers–they want their work.

One of the more insidious ways that unions are allowed to unionize companies is through the practice of “salting.” Salting is the union tactic of sending one or more union members into a non-union company for the sole purpose of unionizing the company from within.

A union salt’s job is to infiltrate, as well as to spy on the company and its employees, to report back to the union bosses, as well as agitate and unionize the workers.  Then, once the job of unionizing the company is finished, the salt typically moves on—often to the next vulnerable company.

(more…)

Today, in 1888, T.E. Lawrence, aka Lawrence of Arabia, is born. His Seven Pillars of Wisdom is still an indispensable guide to the Middle East.