Tag Archives: Regulation

Business leaders blame Obama for high unemployment rate

Story from Reuters about a recent jobs summit. (H/T American Spectator via ECM)

Excerpt:

At a recent symposium, Intel boss Paul Otellini, a contributor to both parties, expressed concern about the “amount of variability in the system” created by the state of policy flux in healthcare, energy and tax policy. “It is very difficult to make a hiring decision,” he said. General Electric chief executive Jeffery Immelt, a strong supporter of Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal, added he would just like to “know what the rules are.”

All in all, a disturbing replay of the 1930s when FDR’s big changes left business reeling with uncertainty and confusion. The “devil you don’t know” and all that.

Small business is certainly with Big Business on this, particularly regarding the mercurial nature of healthcare reform. The substance of ObamaCare continues to morph daily — from the state of the public option to employer mandates to financing expanded coverage – as Senate leader Harry Reid scrounges for votes. On energy, the president will make big promises at Copenhagen even though cap-and-trade looks stillborn in the Senate.

As for financial reform, Senate banking committee chair Chris Dodd has proposed sweeping changes, while the Tim Geithner-Barney Frank version in the House seems beamed in from a universe where the credit crisis never happened. Compromise could prove elusive. Even Obama’s tax reform panel has delayed releasing its findings.

The thing you have to understand about business is that finding and hiring an employee is an expensive process. If this employee has to be laid off later because of government increasing tax rates or regulations, then that layoff poisons the atmosphere in the entire company. If you want businesses to feel comfortable about hiring, you need to convince them that you aren’t going to raise their taxes or expenses, unionize their work force, fine them for hurting the environment, or pass laws that encourage their employees to sue them for being offended, etc.

Legislative initiatives like card-check, health care mandates, cap-and-trade, ENDA, increased government spending, tariffs, “pay equity” laws, restrictions on executive salaries, capital gains tax hikes, etc., make businesses very risk-averse about hiring decisions. If Obama wants to attack businesses, these businesses may just leave the USA and set up shop elsewhere. But more likely they will just stay here and avoid hiring any new employees until the 2012 election.

Australia rejects cap and trade tax, New Zealand caught hiding the decline

Story from the UK Times. (H/T Hot Air)

Excerpt:

Australia’s plan to be at the forefront of efforts in Copenhagen to tackle global warming has been torn to shreds after the Senate voted against carbon emission legislation.

The Government’s Bill was voted down 41 to 33 this morning at the end of a marathon debate. The defeat became inevitable yesterday when the main opposition party dumped its leader and replaced him with a climate change sceptic.

Tony Abbott, a right-wing maverick, ousted Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal leader, by one vote in a backroom ballot. He immediately vowed to oppose the Government’s proposed carbon emissions trading scheme Bill.

[…]“The last thing we should be doing is rushing through a great big new tax just so Mr Rudd can take a trophy to Copenhagen,” Mr Abbott said minutes after taking over the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Earlier this week, I blogged about the new opposition leader Tony Abbott.

A good summary of the week’s climate news is here at Michelle Malkin‘s blog.

New Zealand may be hiding the decline, too

And finally, Watts Up With That is reporting about a conflict between New Zealand’s official climate data and the raw climate data. (H/T MandM, Evolution News)

Excerpt:

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century… But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result… Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

[…]There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

Here we go again! If you click through, just compare the first two graphs. The first graph is the official data, the second graph is the raw data. They are completely different because of the apparently unjustified “adjustments”.

Australian conservatives elect social conservative as new leader of opposition party

Story here from LifeSiteNews. (H/T Thoughts Out Loud)

Excerpt:

Tony Abbott, the former federal minister for health and a pro-life Catholic, has won the leadership of the opposition Liberal Party of Australia, putting him in line for possible leadership of the country in Australia’s next general election.

The Federal Member for Warringah and shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, was voted in at the party’s Dec 1st leadership convention, beating the incumbent Malcolm Turnbull by a single vote. The vote makes Tony Abbott the first social conservative to lead the Liberal party since the resignation of John Howard.

Abbott is known for his outspokenness on life issues.

[…]In 2006, as health minister, Abbott refused to allow the abortion drug RU486 to be made available in Australia, arguing that it was more dangerous to women than surgical abortion. This led to a conscience vote in which the House of Representatives deprived the health minister of regulatory control of the drug.

[…]Abbott has also opposed the use of embryonic stem cells and cloning in health research in another conscience vote, preferring continued use of adult stem cells. In family law, Abbott proposed a return to at-fault divorce to reduce the divorce rate, a system that required spouses to prove offences like adultery, habitual drunkenness or cruelty before a divorce was granted.

[…]In comments after this week’s leadership race, Abbott also blasted the current Rudd government’s climate change legislation, a key issue for parliament in the coming weeks, denouncing it as a tax grab.

The article talks more about some of his positions and accomplishments. Does this guy ever sound awesome! Would my readers from Australia, New Zealand, India and the Phillipines please comment on Abbott? It seems to me like Australian conservatives have selected the equivalent of Michele Bachmann or Maurice Vellacott or Edward Leigh to head their party. Wow!

By the way, in Australia, the conservative party are called the Liberal party, and they usually form a coalition with the National party. The secular leftists are the Labor party and the Green party. The leftists are currently in power.