…the White House’s planned government-wide review of regulations could end up being a “distraction” for agencies already dealing with scarce resources.

“To the extent that analysis draws them away from enforcing the regulations and protecting the health and safety of workers, we think it’s a distraction,” Trumka said. “We think we would have rather not seen it.”

And there you have it – since the incentives to pass and sustain business regulations for the AFL-CIO are political and not about the workers, business regulation becomes and end in itself; with the means already justified.

Short sighted of course, as getting rid of regulations which work to stall economic growth (regardless of  the regulations’ initial intentions) would help more people get hired.

Additionally, the reduction in the number of regulations could in fact realign the scarce resources dealing with these issues towards the most important regulations instead of being bogged down with the more political regulations.

But when the incentives are more about political power than worker protection, this is the end result.  Just as Mr. Tumpka stated,   even working towards improving the balance between economic growth and worker protections, is by itself, by definition, wrong.

Infinite Monkey Theorems

Headlines 

Worth Reading 

….or at least pondering and forgetting….. 

From the First Amendment Center, the new Alabama governor displays amazing religious intolerance and arrogance.  I thought this was 2011….. (whole thing here): 

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told a church crowd just moments into his new administration that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters, shocking some critics who questioned yesterday whether he could be fair to non-Christians. 

“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother,” Bentley said Jan. 17, his inauguration day, according to The Birmingham News. 

From the Obama Administration: Remember Obamacare?  Which was going to add 39 million previously uninsured people to the status of insured (here via CBO)?  

Well, here we are in 2011 – a time when Obamacare is *not* implemented and the provisions that have gone into effect only went into affect on January 1, 2011. 

Apparently that’s a very long time though….. as according to the WhiteHouse via the Department of Health and Human Services, repealing Obamacare will put 129 million insured at risk (here via HealthCare.gov). 

Seriously?  I wonder if DHHS is still accepting information on those (here via DA) dealing in misinformation with regards to Obamacare? 

From Wired, a meaningless, and based upon presented evidence, a false headline [emphasis added] Supreme Court Upholds Intrusive Government Background Checks.   

The actual article?  

The Supreme Court ruled that private contractors working for the government cannot be shielded from background investigations based upon a right to privacy.  That government contractors can in fact, by virtue that they are basically government employees, be treated just as any other federal employee. 

Maybe it’s just me, but subjecting yourself to a background check that resembles the exact same background check of others you work with doesn’t seem to be intrusive.  

Which is irregardless for Wired anyway, as even *if* this decision could be argued logically as intrusion, the article doesn’t even attempt to offer proof of such an assertion. 

From eScience News, US Office of Naval Research announces big news on the “Cool Things That Kill” front (here): 

Scientists at Los Alamos National Lab, N.M., have achieved a remarkable breakthrough with the Office of Naval Research’s Free Electron Laser (FEL) program, demonstrating an injector capable of producing the electrons needed to generate megawatt-class laser beams for the Navy’s next-generation weapon system. 

Artist's Rendering "PHALANX WITH LASER CANNON" Source: Raytheon

To put a little context into what megawatt means (1,000 kilowatts), Scientific American reports in July 2010 (here): 

In a grainy, black-and-white video that looks like a home movie of a UFO attack a sleek aircraft streaks through the sky one minute, only to burst into flames the next and plummet into the sea…. 

Using a 32-kilowatt laser (article cont’d): 

The defense contractor says it depicts part of a test conducted in May during which the U.S. Navy used a solid-state laser to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles over the Pacific Ocean…. 

& Lastly – ESO’s Hidden Treasure Contest reveals winner (here): 

M78 for ESO Processing contest. WFI camera on 2.2m telescope

Hidden Treasures gave amateur astronomers the opportunity to search ESO’s vast archives of astronomical data for a well-hidden cosmic gem. Astronomy enthusiast Igor Chekalin from Russia won the first prize in this difficult but rewarding challenge…. 

More amazing astronomical artwork here: Top 100 from ESO

WASHINGTON (AP) — Taking another step toward mending his relationship with the business community, President Barack Obama will order a review of federal regulations with an eye toward getting rid of those that stifle job creation and hurt economic growth.

Upon hearing this news, I was immediately reminded of the Simpsons’ episode.  The episode is about NASA, who having problems with funding, decides to put an average man in space for marketing purposes.  The press conference (here):

Scientist: Ladies and gentlemen and members of the press.  I’d like to
           present the new generation of NASA astronauts: the average
           American.
            [Curtain rises to show Homer wearing a "Hail to the Chef"
           apron and Barney dressed as a golfer]
Reporter: Jim Wallace, Associated Press.  [clears throat] Is this a
           joke?
Scientist: [cheery] Far from it, Jim.  One of these men will prove space
           travel is within the reach of the common man.
Reporter: Toby Hunter, Minneapolis Star.  No really, is this a joke?
Scientist: No, Toby, and no more questions about whether this is a joke.
            [Everyone lowers their hand, dejected]

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m hoping, like a lot of people, that the President is serious about this.  However, almost every single action taken by this administration shows an absolute love of controlling by regulations, even when no obvious reason for doing so exists.

This is after all the same President who gave us an executive order which prevented anyone from drilling for oil offshore due to one oil spill on a platform owned by BP (DA post here). 

This was all prior to the government report released late last year, which held BP accountable, but even after blaming BP for the entirety of the incident, they announced a month later continued blanket regulations against an all of the industry.

Even the President’s own fact finding commission is wondering what many others questioned before – what is this continued ban is supposed to fix?  They plan to press the administration on the issue soon.

And that’s just regulations for a small part of the energy industry.  This is also the same administration who pushed for financial reform.  Financial reform which as pushed before they had anyone had any idea what took place.  The reform which included controls on market segments which are known to have little to no impact on the financial crisis like hedge funds, derivatives, executive compensation and more (here & here).  The reform which has now been passed, but will fail to do one of the most crucial elements of any reform claiming to prevent “too big too fail” – (here):

The Act does not deal with the mispricing of pervasive government guarantees throughout the financial sector. This will allow many financial firms to finance their activities at below-market rates and take on excessive risk.

Which is all outside of the elephant in the room, health care reform.   Which, as far as I’m aware, is the first attempt by any US administration to purposefully regulate an American citizen while they do absolutely nothing.

Which is also outside of them spending 1 trillion dollars to regulate economic activity towards job growth (fail), outside of trying to regulate buying habits of  car buyers and home buyers.  This is even without discussing government ownership GM.

So…. Mr. President, with all due respect, is this a joke?

With all the rhetoric being pushed around however, true analysis tends to get lost in the noise…. which is where Stratfor enters; not only asking pertinent questions and attempting to answer them, but in giving the treaty the full historical context it deserves.

First, what is the START Treaty (whole thing here)?

….The original START was signed July 31, 1991, and reductions were completed in 2001. The treaty put a cap on the number of nuclear warheads that could be deployed. In addition to limiting the number of land- and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, it capped the number of warheads that were available to launch at 6,000…. START I lapsed in 2009, and the new treaty is essentially designed to reinstate it….

What Sratfor notes however, is the difference in geopolitical relationships from START I to New START, mainly that the original treaty began in a very different climate in the 1980′s (article con’t):

…The political relationship that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s is not the same as the relationship that exists today. Starting in the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union were in a state of near-war….

In what was basically a balancing act by the two major global powers at the time, conventional and nuclear weapons, were built and deployed as the United States & Russia tried to gain an advantage (article con’t):

…The differences between them were geopolitically profound. The United States was afraid that the Soviets would seize Western Europe in an attack in order to change the global balance of power. Given that the balance of power ran against the Soviet Union, it was seen as possible that they would try to rectify it by war.

Since the United States had guaranteed Europe’s security with troops and the promise that it would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to block the conquest of Europe, it followed that the Soviet Union would initiate war by attempting to neutralize the American nuclear capability. This would require a surprise attack on the United States with Soviet missiles. It also followed that the United States, in order to protect Europe, might launch a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet military capability in order to protect the United States and the balance of power….

This process of seeking global influence, resulted in many things, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Star-Wars (BMD), a build up in both strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals, and basically a stable, but highly tense situation of mutually assured destruction.

Then in 1991, the need for this policy was diminished for both sides with the implosion of the Soviet Union.   Even at that time one could argue the need for such a treaty was minimal, but when the process started during higher tensions in the 1980s, and given the level of fear around the world, going forward with the pact seemed reasonable.

Which brings us forward to today (article con’t):

Even with a back drop where Russia continues to seek more influence in the Eastern bloc, while the US attempts to minimize it (DA articles here & here), the fear of any war, much less all out nuclear annihilation is miniscule.

What’s the point then? (article con’t)

…An idea emerged in Washington that there needed to be confidence-building measures. One way to build confidence, so the diplomats sometimes think, is to achieve small successes and build on them. The New START was seen as such a small success, taking a non-objectionable treaty of little relevance and effectively renewing it. From here, other successes would follow….

Which is countered by (article con’t) the idea that:

….using an archaic issue as a foundation for building a relationship with Russia allowed both sides to evade the serious issues dividing the two sides: the role of Russia in the former Soviet Union, NATO and EU expansion, Russia’s use of energy to dominate European neighbors, the future of BMD against Iran, Russia’s role in the Middle East and so on….

It’s unlikely to help much as seemingly noble, but unnecessary gestures might change domestic opinion, but they very rarely affect geopolitics.  Ultimately of course, time will tell which side’s argument is more accurate. 

For now – I think you can chalk this up as a minor political victory for President Obama, and truly little else.

The President has even argued in that no so distant past (2009) that raising taxes during a recession was bad policy, but apparently he is now against the policy he was sort of for, but then again against….

Speaking on Monday he explains what really, really, might, sort of be true, depending upon whether he’s for it or against it… (whole thing here):

…A few minutes later, Chuck Todd of NBC News asked the president what he had to say to fellow Democrats. That prompted a different analogy – that he was trying to prevent harm to the American people, who were essentially being held hostage in the tax debate.

Quick side bar – I wonder how the voters who just sent this group of legislators to Washington DC feel about being associated with hostage takers?  Meh, probably nothing.  Continuing:

“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed,” Mr. Obama said. “Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy.”

With all due respect, I think people should be questioning the wisdom of a sitting President who seems to be so insecure about a recent decision, that he feels the need to use inflamatory rhetoric in order to distance himself.

Though seen through this light, the Democrats’ prior inflamatory statements probably fits into the overall strategy for re-election.  When the President can “trumpet” the tax deal, while other top Democrats talk about the inevitable “screwing” without the deal, then you can see a basic strategy to take credit for the deal most Americans agree with, while simultaneously distancing himself from the deal his backers don’t like (poll info here).

But the best part of the President’s discussion on this issue has to be this:

“I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised,” he said. “Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.”

Which for those playing the home game means, “I know I haven’t done everything I said, but my intentions are in a good place.”

Just like the world’s worst surgeon saying something like, “I know I keep killing patients, but honestly I’m trying desperately not to”, the President is telling us directly, all that matters are his intentions.

If only it were that easy.