Tag Archives: federal

IKEA to Phase-Out Incandescents Starting August 1st, 2010

Photo: Flickr , CC First U.S. Retailer to Phase Out the Bulb Starting August 1st, 2010, IKEA will start phasing out incandescent bulbs (which are a lot more effective at producing heat than light) from its U.S. stores, with the goal of having completely eliminated the bulb by January 1st, 2011. But IKEA isn’t only doing this out of concern for the environment: “The IKEA phase out will come in advance of the federal legislation that will begin to phase out incandescent light bulbs in 2012.” Why are they doing this and w… Read the full story on TreeHugger

More:
IKEA to Phase-Out Incandescents Starting August 1st, 2010

Open Thread: Another DOJ Lawsuit Against Arizona?

Attorney General Eric Holder said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that if the suit filed last Tuesday — on the grounds that immigration falls under the federal government’s jurisdiction — failed, the Justice Department could sue on the grounds of racial discrimination . …Holder said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the federal government was leading with its “strongest” argument in the suit filed Tuesday and would not rule out a second suit months down the road — if the law ends up going into effect. “It doesn’t mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had … and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact,” Holder said. “If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.” Will DOJ have a case if Holder pursues this angle?

Visit link:
Open Thread: Another DOJ Lawsuit Against Arizona?

BP ‘cuts payments to 40,000′ over incomplete claims forms

BP plans to reduce payments to some 40,000 oil-spill claimants, potentially making life more difficult for individuals and businesses affected by the Gulf oil spill, a Louisiana official has said. The Associated Press reports that Louisiana's secretary for children and family services, Kristy Nichols, found “a significant cut in daily payments” during a recent review of claims against BP, which appears to be related to incomplete forms. In a letter to Ken Feinberg, the federal administrator of the oil spill claims process, Nichols wrote that it was “rash” of BP to cut payments to 40,000 of the 99,000 claims filed so far. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0711/bp-cuts-payments-40000/ added by: unimatrix0

Bartiromo: Stimulus Likely Didn’t Save Economy –- Fed Did; Warns Obamanomics Stunting Job Growth

While some on the left side of the aisle in Congress are getting all starry-eyed about prospects of more federal stimulus spending, the first round of stimulus under President Barack Obama may have done even less to help the ailing economy than supporters claim. On MSNBC’s July 9 broadcast of “The Daily Rundown,” co-hosts Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie interviewed CNBC “Closing Bell” anchor Maria Bartiromo from the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colo. And Bartiromo offered her views why the economy didn’t spiral out of control any more than it did. She said according to some on Wall Street, it wasn’t Obama’s $787-billion “stimulus” that included a huge bulk of state government bailout spending, but instead action by the Federal Reserve to put more liquidity in the economy. “Look, there’s no doubt about it – we were close to going off a cliff the weekend at Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Merrill [Lynch] was sold and AIG acquired by government,” Bartiromo said. “You know, I mean I think we were very close and the economy needed stimulus in a big way. It’s arguable whether that stimulus that helped the economy was really because of the stimulus plan or really because of the Federal Reserve. I think most people on Wall Street will believe and will tell you that it was really the Fed action in terms of giving greater access to the banks to overnight lending that really, really got us out.” “But you know – it doesn’t matter,” she continued. “I mean, here we are and we are still in a very weak situation in the U.S. economy and the recovery is quite fragile and I think at this moment in time, many people are worried that in fact it may not necessarily officially be a double-dip recession that we’re headed toward but we are looking at another leg down.” Guthrie asked why that if corporate earnings look strong, as they’re expected to, aren’t these corporations doing more to hire and lower the overall unemployment rate in the United States. According to the “Closing Bell” host, business is looking overseas because of the uncertainty the Obama administration has put into the economy with taxes and health care. “I think right now you have hit on the one very bullish part of the economy and that is the corporate sector,” Bartiromo said. “We’re heading into a new quarter where we will get  quarterly earnings and probably will be a better than expected. And the reason is because corporations have cut to the bone. They have cut employees. They have cut R&D spending. They’ve cut anything they can. They cut all the fat out so we are talking about enormous cash levels. What they’re doing with the cash is another question. They’re sitting on it. They’re not investing in the U.S. economy. They’re actually following the growth overseas. PepsiCo [is] building 13 plants in China. GE building more places, businesses in India. You are seeing businesses follow the growth outside of the United States. But absolutely – that is the positive. The reason that they’re not hiring right now is because there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty. And that has everything to do with the policies coming out of this administration. Higher taxes in 2011, higher expenses as a result of health care costs. That’s why they’re not hiring. ” So what can be done to encourage more hiring with all this cash on the books by major businesses? According to the “Closing Bell” host, business needs more incentives to hire and she rattled off some for MSNBC viewers. “One they could do soon is not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011,” she said. “Giving some – the end of the 2010, giving some confidence that they won’t have that added expense. A lot of people are worried about that. Now, Tim Geithner had an important interview with Larry Kudlow last week and Geithner said that he is prepared to keep capital gains and dividends taxes at 20 percent. This was very, very positive and I think that is part of the reason the market has been rallying the last three days because there was an expectation that capital gains taxes would go all the way up to 39.6 percent. If, in fact, the administration keeps it at 20 percent, I think that’s very positive.”

Excerpt from:
Bartiromo: Stimulus Likely Didn’t Save Economy –- Fed Did; Warns Obamanomics Stunting Job Growth

Clean Energy and Climate Bill Would Cut Deficit by $19 Billion: CBO

Photo via Wind Guys One of the persisting myths about comprehensive, carbon-pricing legislation is that it would cost the nation an arm and a leg to enact. This simply is not the case, as a recent bipartisan, independent analysis of the dying Kerry-Lieberman clean energy and climate bill reveals: The Congressional Budget Office found that passing the climate bill would trim the federal budget by $19 billion dollars over the next ten years. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Go here to see the original:
Clean Energy and Climate Bill Would Cut Deficit by $19 Billion: CBO

Open Thread: Arizona Guilty of Enforcing the Law

There are, contrary to popular belief, a number of states with immigration laws similar to Arizona’s. They are not, of course, being sued by the Justice Department. Why ? California is NOT being sued by the Federal Government for it’s law regarding illegal immigration and law enforcement cooperation with detaining suspects who may be illegal aliens. California’s law forbids ANY entity from interfering with the enforcement of this law, but California does not enforce this law, instead Los Angeles is boycotting Arizona and the Obama administration is spending million in taxpayer dollars to tell a court that States cannot enforce Federal laws, despite Federal laws that urge and seek local and state cooperation. Why isn’t California being sued? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE- California has no intention of enforcing this law while Arizona does. What’s your reaction?

Read the rest here:
Open Thread: Arizona Guilty of Enforcing the Law

Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. — Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence. Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn’t include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented. The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law. Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration. The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down. Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit. So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story: Although the lawsuit cites potential “detention and harassment” of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, “we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that’s something that we would take action on.”  Shh! Let’s not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

The rest is here:
Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

Flying Car a Step Closer to Reality

Weird-looking cars are a dime a dozen. Far less common are weird-looking cars that can also fly AND have approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. Indeed, as far as we know, there's only one of those babies: The Terrafugia Transition. The private aircraft/funky-looking car has been in the news before. But the recent announcement that it's going into production sparked mega-searches on the Web. Almost immediately, online lookups for “terrafugia transition” and “terrafugia transition pictures” both, well, took off. A popular article from the UK's Daily Telegraph explains that the FAA's special exemption allows the vehicle to function as both a “light aircraft” and a car. Normally, for a plane to meet the “light aircraft” designation, it can weigh no more than 1,200 pounds. The Terrafugia Transition weighs 1,320, due primarily to the number of car-related safety features, like airbags and crumple zones. The “light aircraft” designation is key, because licenses for planes with that label require only 20 hours of flying time. Fewer hoops to jump through means more potential sales. So, how does the plane/car work? Check out the flying car's official video below. So far, 70 people have placed a deposit. The total retail cost: $194,000. Expensive, but really, can you put a price on skipping commercial flights? Link to comments—- http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93804?fp=1 added by: remanns

George Stephanopoulos Lashes Out at Republican Carly Fiorina: Are You Running for the Wrong Job?

Former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos on Thursday attacked Republican Carly Fiorina for opposing the current unemployment plan in the Senate. The Good Morning America host derided, ” And are you running for the wrong job? How do you create jobs in the Senate, if you don’t pass legislation? ” Stephanopoulos also recycled the California candidate’s June 9 joke about Democratic opponent Barbara Boxer’s hair. Citing the nearly month-old gaffe , he challenged, “I have to ask you about what everybody saw right after the primary, that hair comment, off-mic. Why not apologize for that?” Each Stephanopoulos question either repeated a Boxer talking point or attempted to force Fiorina onto the defensive. The GOP hopeful asserted, “Since the stimulus bill passed, the unemployment rate in California has gotten worse. It was a little over ten percent when the stimulus bill passed in February of ’09. It’s now 12.4 percent.” In a surprised tone, Stephanopoulos retorted, “You think that’s because of the stimulus?” When Fiorina offered an alternative to the Democratic unemployment bill, the ABC host recited, “But 200,000 Californians right now are going to lose their benefits.” Apparently, it didn’t occur to Stephanopoulos to wonder what responsibility the incumbent, Boxer, has for California’s problems. A transcript of the July 1 segment, which aired at 7:08am, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jon, thanks very much. Let’s get more on this, now, with Carly Fiorina, the former chairman of Hewlett-Packard. Now, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in California. CARLY FIORINA: Great to be with you. STEPHANOPOULOS: And let’s start with immigration. The President is going to give a speech. Certainly going to take on Arizona’s tough, new immigration law. His attorney general calls it unconstitutional. They’re going to file suit. You said, it’s right for Arizona. But you wouldn’t recommend it for California. Isn’t that trying to have it both ways? FIORINA: No. I think, sadly, the people in Arizona have been placed in a terrible position. Border security is the federal government’s job. And it should remain the federal government’s job. Unfortunately, the federal government isn’t doing its job. And we have a situation where portions of the border are virtually lawless, where we have members of drug cartels, Mexican drug cartels well inside the Arizona border, on lookout posts, observing our law enforcement officials. That’s an untenable situation. And what’s going on on the Mexico/Arizona border is truly dangerous. So, I believe the federal government needs to do its job. Secure the border. I also think the federal government needs to do its job and create a temporary worker program that works. It’s very important in California for agriculture, technology. We don’t have a temporary worker program that works. STEPHANOPOULOS: You believe the Arizona law is constitutional? FIORINA: I do. And I’ve read the Arizona law. If you read it, 20 pages, it’s not difficult to read. It’s actually less onerous than federal immigration law. It’s certainly less onerous than the immigration laws in Mexico or virtually any other country. I think, sadly, the people of Arizona felt they had no choice but to protect their citizens. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the number one issue in the country, jobs. FIORINA: Yeah. STEPHANOPOULOS: California has the third-highest unemployment in the nation. Two million people out of work. And more than 200,000 Californians are going to lose their benefits if Congress doesn’t extend the unemployment benefits. That’s stalled in Congress right now. If you were in the Senate, would you vote to extend benefits? FIORINA: Not the way it’s put together today. STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not? FIORINA: Because the problem with this bill has a lot of other things that are appended to it, which add to the deficit, which increases taxes. You know, that’s what Congress always does. I think people are tired of professional politicians because they see a lot of political posturing on both sides. But, they don’t see problems being solved. First, I think, we need to be focused on job creation. And we haven’t been focused on job creation. So, let’s give, small businesses, for example, a two-year payroll tax holiday if they would hire unemployed workers. I would far rather have seen us focus on job creation over the last 18 months. STEPHANOPOULOS: But 200,000 Californians right now are going to lose their benefits. FIORINA: Absolutely. And, so, why can’t we put forward a bill that does nothing but extend unemployment benefits? Why do we put all these other things on top of it? So that we have a deficit-busting, yet another, deficit-busting bill. You know, Californians are worried about two things, whether they’re Democrats, independents or Republicans. They’re worried about jobs. We have 2.3 unemployed people, as you point out. Third-highest unemployment rate in the nation. But they’re also worried about out-of-control spending. Because they don’t understand. They’re cutting back in their families and businesses. But they see Washington, D.C. Getting bigger and bigger and more expensive. STEPHANOPOULOS: But- And you’ve said, passing legislation in the Senate is not the way to create jobs. And are you running for the wrong job? How do you create jobs in the Senate, if you don’t pass legislation? FIORINA: Well, what I actually said was that passing stimulus legislation in the Senate is not the way to create jobs. Since the stimulus bill passed, the unemployment rate in California has gotten worse. It was a little over ten percent when the stimulus bill passed in February of ’09. It’s now 12.4 percent. STEPHANOPOULOS: You think that’s because of the stimulus? FIORINA: I think the stimulus bill has been an utter failure because it’s not focused on job creation. We spent over $800 billion of taxpayer money and the unemployment rate has gotten worse, not better. In fact, what we’re doing in California is destroying jobs because of high government spending, high taxation, thick regulation and too rich entitlements. I’m running because I think California’s a harbinger of what’s to come in this nation if we continue down this path, the destruction of jobs. STEPHANOPOULOS: Your opponent, Senator Boxer, passed legislation in her committee yesterday, to lift the liability cap on British Petroleum. She says that BP has to pay for all of the pollution. Would you vote to lift that cap? FIORINA: Well, I think, in essence, it has been lifted. Bp has agreed to a $20 billion fund. I think the President did exactly right to conclude that agreement with BP. I think it’s probably unfair to ask BP to pay for the workers that have no longer have work, given the President’s ban on offshore drilling, which a federal judge has challenged. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you wouldn’t vote to lift the cap? FIORINA: I wouldn’t say that. I said BP should pay for all of the cleanup costs, whatever that turns out to be. And clearly, $20 billion is way above the original cap. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, we’re just about out of time. I have to ask you about what everybody saw right after the primary, that hair comment, off-mic. Why not apologize for that? FIORINA: You know, I regret the comments, because I gave people the opportunity to talk about something superficial and petty. I’m probably insufficiently sensitive about hair. I started this campaign bald, literally, because I went through chemotherapy and battled cancer last year. But, this is an election about serious issues. And those serious issues include how are we going to create jobs? How are we going to get government spending under control? And how are we going to create a more accountable bureaucracy in Washington? You know, people are tired of a level of incompetence in Washington bureaucracies and lack of accountability, that we would not tolerate anywhere else.

View original post here:
George Stephanopoulos Lashes Out at Republican Carly Fiorina: Are You Running for the Wrong Job?

New York Power Authority Applies For Long Island Offshore Wind Farm Lease From Feds

photo: Julian Menichini via flickr Never to be left out of the action, New York has joined other northeast states in marching down the path towards building offshore wind farms: Reuters reports the New York Power Authority will soon be applying for a lease from the federal government required to build a 350-700 M… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more here:
New York Power Authority Applies For Long Island Offshore Wind Farm Lease From Feds