Former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming used to say, “If government ownership of land and natural resources was the best way to protect the environment, then we should have found a Garden of Eden in the Soviet Union after the Iron Curtain came down.  Instead, there was one environmental horror story after another.”

It makes you wonder if America faces a similar fate as the federal government already owns almost 650 million acres of land in the U.S.  That’s about 30 percent of all the land area in the nation and includes national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

That’s  1 out of every 3 acres in the U.S.—1 out of every 2 acres in the West, says Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), a member on the Natural Resources Committee and ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

Federal lands are managed differently based on their purpose.  Some lands are managed by the National Parks Service, others lands are held as wildlife refuges and still others are labeled wilderness areas.  How the federal government regulates these lands often impacts the economies of surrounding local communities.

A study by Environmental Trends in June 2011 looked at the relationship between wilderness areas and local communities by comparing county total payroll, county tax receipts and county average household income.  The findings concluded that when, “controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions.”

(more…)

“It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”
- Warren Buffett, NY Times Op-Ed August 15, 2011

Those high-minded and selfless words from one of the nation’s richest men inspired the Democrats’ latest push for higher taxes on job creators.  It also sounds like one of the creepy slogans chanted and repeated by the aromatic “Occupy Wall St” protesters when they decry corporate greed and the doomed capitalist system.

Yes, Mr. Buffett has entered his ninth decade of this mortal coil as somewhat of a folk hero to progressives and leftists who would normally be revolted by a multimillionaire investor.  But Buffett (whose many holdings include the GEICO insurance company) has purchased a little media insurance by speaking out against his own tax rates and has practically begged the government to take more of his money and money from the rest of us who are business owners and are trying to be next decade’s Warren Buffett.

Meanwhile, according to research done by Americans for Limited Government, Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, has a decade-old dispute with the IRS over its corporate tax bill, an obligation worth $1 billion dollars, so far.

“The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”

(more…)

Nowadays everyone has a cell phone.  In fact, most can’t even recall how life happened before cell phones existed.

But there is one group of Americans who largely remain contract free and live without the convenience of a smart phone.  Many in that group are considered America’s poor, who simply cannot afford such a luxury.

This untapped market has not gone unnoticed.  The federal government is now busy working with telecommunications companies to make sure everyone enjoys the comfort of cell phone ownership—even if they can’t afford it.

“The program is about peace of mind,” says Gary Carter, manager of national partnerships for Assurance Wireless, a company helping low-income people obtain cell phones.  “It’s one less bill that someone has to pay, so they can pay their rent or for day care. … It is a right to have peace of mind.”

Does the federal government, in partnering with companies like Assurance Wireless, see owning a cell phone as a right? Since the program cost $1.32 billion in 2010, it makes it pretty clear that yes, the federal government thinks that owning a cell phone is now a right.

Through programs called Lifeline or SafeLink, low-income people can now apply to receive a cell phone of their very own, free of charge.  Some programs allow up to 250 free minutes a month.  For a low-income person to qualify for a free cell phone, one must meet federal low-income guidelines or qualify for one of many social service programs, including food stamps or Medicaid or even school lunch programs.

Funds for this program come from the federal Universal Service Fund.

(more…)

Republican lawmakers who have expressed concern over the power and influence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have offered up some compelling proposals. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, has for example, said that he considering legislation that would block President Obama’s team of unelected lawyers from revamping union election rules.

That’s a good start, but Congress as a whole must move decisively to reclaim constitutional authority that was surrendered during the “Progressive Era” of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Matthew Spalding, a particularly astute legal scholar with the Heritage Foundation, has testified at some length on the use of czars within the Obama Administration and how this relates back to progressive ambitions. In many respects, the NLRB fits with extra-constitutional schemes the disadvantage the free market and dilute the policy making authority of elected officials.

In June, the three Democrats who sit on the Board proposed rule changes that would curtail the amount of time for private union elections. Brian Hayes, the only Republican member of the board, has been sharply critical of the proposal, but his input has been limited.

If the rule changes go into effect, they would set elections from a current median time of 37 days to as little as 10 days from the filing of an election petition. They would also set pre-election hearings for 7 days after a petition is filed; the rules would also require the employer to respond to a pre-hearing questionnaire raising any legal issues or waive its right to do so. And finally, the new rules would defer a decision on the issues raised at the hearing till after the election, putting an employer at risk if the decision is challenged.

But free market groups have made a concerted effort push back and this is cause for encouragement.

(more…)

Without additional transparency and tighter enforcement of proxy-voting requirements, publicly-held companies could be pressured into accommodating political agendas that are detached from the economic interests of retirement funds, according to a U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General audit released in March.

Since average Americans are reliant upon retirement plans that invest in corporate stock, they are entitled to know whether or not shareholder recommendations are made with an eye toward potential financial gain, or if public policy motives have worked their way into the process.

Proxy advisory firms, which make shareholder recommendations to investors and research proxy issues, are an integral part of this equation and deserve more scrutiny. Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), formerly RiskMetrics, is widely viewed as the most influential of the advisory firms. It also appears to be joining forces with organized labor. That’s bad news for investors and bad news for the economy.

Bradford Campbell, who oversaw EBSA as the Assistant Secretary of Labor during the Bush Administration warns that, “The law protects workers by prohibiting pension plan officials and others in charge of the plan’s assets from using their positions to benefit themselves or to pursue a political agenda. Proxy voting is a fiduciary duty, and the economic interests of the plan cannot be subordinated to the personal, union or corporate interests of the person casting the vote on the plan’s behalf.”

(more…)

When it formed in 2005, the Change to Win coalition was heralded as a dynamic organizing force that would rejuvenate the labor movement and swell membership rolls for constituent unions.  However, U.S. Department of Labor figures show that only one union organization has benefitted from its affiliation with Change to Win while the others have lost out.

The Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) membership has risen from about 1.5 million to more than 1.8 million and its annual receipts are up to about $75 million since 2005, according to government records. SEIU has in turn contributed $5.7 million to support the coalition, which is far more than any other coalition member. By contrast, the other six unions that split off from the AFL-CIO to form Change to Win have either flatlined or declined.

In 2006, the first year Change to Win filed Labor Department financial disclosure forms, the coalition claimed over 5.3 million members but its most recent filing in 2008 shows it had less than 4.8 million members; that’s a decline of almost 11 percent. In 2006, Change to Win listed $11.7 million in assets, a figure that dropped to $8.8 million in 2008. During that time, liabilities spike by more than 130 percent from about $550,000 in 2006 to more than just $1.25 million in 2008.

Annual receipts have also plummeted, falling from $18.7 million in 2006 to just $6.5 million in 2008. In 2006, revenues far exceeded expenditures, but this ratio was turned upside down in 2008 with Change to Win’s spending outpacing its revenues.

“Despite being a coalition of several unions, Change to Win has been of material benefit to one union only, and that is the SEIU,” Glenn Spencer, the executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce has observed.   “The coalition started with great fanfare and was meant to be an alternative to the AFL-CIO – the new front of labor organizing, but it just hasn’t worked out that way.  It’s now an organization struggling to justify its existence.”

(more…)

Earlier today, two independent reporters in Springfield, Massachusetts attended a Martha Coakley for Senate event. Prior to the candidates arrival, several union members surrounded the two reporters. From one of the reporters, Erich Heyssel:

The mood when we arrived was tense. They seemed to be an unhappy group of people. Dour, even. There were about 100 people outside the Teamster’s Local 404 building and, another 100 or so inside. We started trying to film the gathering and asked some basic questions. We were told we had to leave.

(more…)

From Americans for Limited Government:

October 7th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned members of the House for voting to refer a resolution that would have removed Congressman Charlie Rangel as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

“Once again, the Democrat-controlled House has voted to sweep outright corruption under the rug on behalf of a fellow party member who failed to report more than $1 million in outside income as required by House rules,” Wilson said.

“The least Congress can do is not have Rangel serving as Chairman of a committee that deals with taxes while an ‘ongoing’ ethics probe into his undisclosed income is taking place,” Wilson added.

The Resolution, proposed by Congressman John Carter, called for Rangel to be removed as Ways and Means Chairman until the Ethics Committee concludes its probe.

Instead, the House voted 246 to 153 to refer the resolution to the Ethics Committee. “A vote to refer the Rangel resolution to the Ethics Committee was a vote against the resolution, plain and simple,” said Wilson. (more…)

I am reaching the conclusion we on the political Right may have been deceived by Americans for Limited Government (ALG).

As readers of Big Government know, late last Friday, ALG issued a press release claiming it had received an offensive e-mail from Dateline NBC producer, Jane Stone. Within hours, the Rightroots had been mobilized and the story when viral.

Known as the “Bite me Jew boy” e-mail, both Ms. Stone and NBC were pilloried by the Right. Throughout the weekend, Matthew Vadum chronicled the exchange of statements and press releases here on this site.

So Now What?

It’s been five days and ALG has yet to provide indisputable evidence to prove its claim and NBC continues to back Ms. Stone’s assertion she never sent the e-mail in question.

(more…)

**UPDATE** Politico: NBC Vehemently Denies Allegations Over Anti-Semitic Email

**UPDATE 2** ALG Statement in Response to Alleged NBC Email

**UPDATE 3** NBC News Statement

**UPDATE 4**Group Stands Ground Over Claims That NBC Employee Issued Anti-Semitic Email

Apparently NBC “Dateline” producer Jane Stone or someone else who has access to her Blackberry has a problem with groups that oppose ACORN and with an ethnocultural minority.

When Stone received an email urging Congress to defund ACORN from Alex Rosenwald, director of media outreach for Americans for Limited Government, the following sentence came back to Rosenwald from Stone’s account: “Bite me, Jew Boy!”

Bite me Jew boy! –

Americans for Limited Government released the following statement:

Americans for Limited Government does not contend that NBC or its parent company GE, are anti-Semitic. What is highly disturbing, however, is that there clearly is a culture at NBC that has allowed this person who clearly has issues to go unchecked.

Ms Stone claims she did not send the offensive email. If that is not the case, we at ALG call upon her to help ascertain who did send it using her Blackberry and her email address. If Ms Stone did, in fact, send it, we at ALG call upon Ms Stone to apologize to Mr. Rosenwald, and we call upon the NBC hierarchy above Ms Stone to join her in issuing that apology.

I am told by fellow right-leaning journalists that getting rude and offensive emails from reporters in the mainstream media is a fairly common occurrence. (more…)