Mississippi Craft Center Named Travel Attraction of the Year by Mississippi Tourism Association

Ridgeland, MS--The Mississippi Tourism Association named the Mississippi Craft Center its Travel Attraction of the Year at the Governor's Conference on Tourism in Tupelo, MS, Tuesday, March 2, 2010. Governor Haley Barbour addressed the conference and spoke of the importance of tourism to the State of Mississippi.

Accepting the award, Executive Director Julia Daily stated, "What an honor for the dedicated staff members, committed board and volunteers to receive such an award for the operation of our magnificent facility. However, it is a special honor for our talented artisans, the members of the Craftsmen's Guild of Mississippi. Their fine craft work entices travelers from all over the world, and more often than not, goes home in visitors' suitcases!"

Opening in 2007, the new Craft Center has experienced visitors from all 50 states and 27 foreign countries and is the home to the Craftsmen's Guild of Mississippi Exhibiting Members. Growing from 30 members in 1973, the Guild now boasts more than 400 members today. The Center has 250 annual craft demonstrations by master craftsmen, classes, a sales gallery, events and exhibits. The mission of the Guild is to preserve, promote, market, educate and encourage the highest standard of excellence in regional crafts.

In addition to events and exhibits, the Center has become a renowned space for weddings and corporate retreats.

The EPA, Keeping Chemicals Secret Since 1976

The Environmental Working Group, always on its green toes, has released a report showing that nearly 20 percent of the 84,000 chemicals used commercially in the U.S. have been kept secret from the public. Both the names and physical properties of these chemicals are kept confidential even from state officials and within the EPA because an exemption was written into the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act to protect industry trade secrets: public disclosure of information about a chemical is not required if it would affect a company's bottom line. It's a loophole the Environmental Working Group calls, "a regulatory black hole, a place where information goes in - but much never comes out."

The number of secret chemicals now totals about 17,000, many of which are found in everyday consumer products—apparel, plastic products, furniture. At least 10 of the 151 confidential high-volume chemicals (more than 1 million tons produced a year) are used in products targeted specifically to children.

Industry representatives defend the practice of secrecy, saying the spread of information jeopardizes competition within the industry, and it is true that many of the chemicals are harmless. But as the Washington Post notes, 65 "substantial risk" reports were filed with the EPA in March, and over half of those involved secret chemicals.

Planet Green

Professor Gingrich at work: What Is "Reconciliation" And Why Is It A Threat?

This may take a little while to digest. Especially if you click on the links and really study it. But, as is often the case, Newt Gingrich does a good job being the teacher. If you care about what seems about to happen in DC, you'll want to take the time.


By Newt Gingrich

During last week's health summit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uttered a remarkably dishonest and, in retrospect, ironic statement, claiming that "nobody is talking about reconciliation" to pass the health bill.

It was a dishonest statement because Democrats have been openly floating the specter of passing the health bill using reconciliation since it first became obvious it would have difficulty passing the Senate, including just days before the summit by Sen. Reid himself.

It was ironic because it seems that all the cable news shows, talk radio, blogs and pundits have been talking about since the summit is whether President Obama, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use the Senate budget reconciliation process to pass their big government, big bureaucracy health bill.

But what exactly is the reconciliation process? And why, exactly, is it so controversial a move to pass the health bill?

A Tool for Congress to Meet Spending Goals

The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation

While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.

To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present -- whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (learn more about the parlamentarian here.)

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)

Reconciliation in Action

Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending

This is why passing the left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.

Leaving aside the bill's merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation's health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left's health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) "an outrage that must be resisted."

It's also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton's efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left's latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Welfare Reform vs. the Left's Big Government Health Bill

This week, the left is out in force, pointing to other significant pieces of legislation passed by Republicans using the budget reconciliation process as justification for passing their health care bill. One of the examples they are using is welfare reform.

Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress' efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was "deficit neutral". President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that "added one dime" to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.

Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown's stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left's health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can't get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left's health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left's plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Three Corrupt Options for the Left

The left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. It is incapable of obtaining any bipartisan support in the Senate.

Faced with this reality, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should do the responsible thing and scrap the unpopular bill and start over, focusing instead on smaller pieces of legislation that could obtain bipartisan support.

However, they've made it clear they aren't willing to do this. The Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive health bill no matter how unpopular it is. This means they have to use reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.

There are several corrupt options available to the Democrats using reconciliation.

One option would be for the House to pass the exact same health bill the Senate passed in December (thus avoiding the need for the Senate to marshal 60 votes again for a final bill now that Scott Brown is in office) with an understanding that a separate bill with a series of fixes would be passed immediately afterward using the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.

The left argues that technically, this would keep the use of reconciliation fairly narrow. However, the plain truth of the matter is that the Democrats would be using the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill they could not otherwise pass using the normal legislative process. It is a dirty trick that ignores congressional tradition and the overwhelming opposition to the bill from America.

Another option is for the Democrats to try and pass the full health bill in the Senate with 51 votes using reconciliation and then for the House to pass the same bill that emerges from the Senate.

For all the reasons outlined above, this would be an enormously inappropriate use of the budget reconciliation process. But it also means that the left's endlessly complicated bill that creates hundreds of new regulations, new programs, and new bureaucracies would have to survive the Byrd Rule tests, creating the possibility that by the time all the extraneous provisions are removed, the final "swiss cheesed" legislation would be unrecognizable.

For President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to promise to pass a bill when they, in reality, don't know what the final bill will look like, is the height of irresponsibility. (Of course, they passed the stimulus without reading it so it would certainly fit with their precedent.)

How Far Are The Democrats Willing To Go?

Which brings us to a third, more drastic option for the Democrats to get their high tax, big government, big bureaucracy health bill passed.

As explained above, under the Byrd Rule, the vice president of the United States is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a provision in a reconciliation bill is extraneous. It is merely tradition that dictates he follow the advice of the parliamentarian, not a Senate rule.

To avoid their legislation being subjected to Byrd Rule tests, the vice president could choose simply to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on points of order and rule to keep the extraneous provisions in the final bill. Any senator can appeal these rulings, but the appeal may be defeated with a simple majority vote.

To be clear, no vice president has ever acted in this fashion in the history of the reconciliation process. But no one has ever tried to push this kind of bill through reconciliation before either.

With the American people overwhelmingly opposed to the health bill, not to mention every other part of the left's agenda, and the political environment turning increasingly toxic for the Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could decide to make a cynical, calculated political decision.

Faced with the high likelihood of political defeat in November, they could decide it is preferable to pass the bill they want and be defeated rather than to fail to get a health bill (or only a partial bill), and be defeated anyway.

In fact, this seems to be the message Speaker Pelosi was pushing this past weekend , dismissing her caucus' concerns of defeat.

Republicans Must Vow To Replace the Left's Health Bill

If the Democrats are bound and determined to exert all their power and manipulate every rule they can to pass their big government health bill, Republicans may not be able to stop its passage.

We'll find out today as President Obama is set to announce his recommendation on the way forward.

But no matter what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid decide, the bottom line for Republicans is that they must stand with the American people in opposing this bill.

This doesn't just mean voting against it and using every parliamentary maneuver available to delay its passage.

It also means running on a platform of replacing whatever left-wing health bill the Democrats manage to pass with real health reform that empowers patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, to bring down health costs. And delivering on that promise in 2011 if Republicans gain control of Congress.

And if President Obama is still determined to ignore the will of the people by vetoing the Republican bill after such a clear message from America, it means that the Republican candidate for President in 2012 must run on a platform that includes signing the replacement of the left's big government health bill. After all, no matter what dirty tricks the politician may try to get his way, in America, the people have the final say.

Wyden, Gregg propose tax code overhaul

Two senators worked across party lines to develop a proposal to overhaul the tax code and rebuild it around a broader tax base and lower rates.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) contend they can build support for the measure by emphasizing the job-creation benefits of a simpler tax system.

Their plan, which isn't likely to go anywhere in this election-shortened legislative year, nonetheless could help frame the debate when Congress does get ready to tackle a tax overhaul.

It would lower the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 24 percent and would keep the top individual rate at 35 percent, even as most Democrats propose letting the top rate rise to 39.6 percent in 2011. It would also repeal the alternative minimum tax, triple the standard deduction and retain popular deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

To offset the revenue lost through such moves, the senators would trim or eliminate dozens of preferences built into the tax code, especially those benefiting multinational corporations.

"We can take on a host of the special interests and write legislation that gives all Americans — individuals, businesses, all Americans — an opportunity to get ahead," said Wyden.

Congress.org

ATF seizes 30 toy guns in Oregon, infuriating local business owner

CORNELIUS, Ore. - A local business owner is flabbergasted after a shipment of 30 toy guns for his store was confiscated by ATF agents in Tacoma.

Brad Martin and his son, Ben, sell the Airsoft BB guns from their store in Cornelius where they’ve been in business for seven years.

The Martins said they buy their stock from Taiwan because the merchandise is less expensive. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seized a shipment of 30 in October. That shipment is worth around $12,000 and the ATF is promising to destroy the entire shipment.

Special Agent Kelvin Crenshaw said the toys can be easily retro-fitted into dangerous weapons.

"With minimal work it could be converted to a machine gun," Crenshaw said.

Brad Martin is furious about the loss of money, for sure, but also in what he now thinks as a loss of his time and the use of government agents to seize toy guns.

"All this manpower, all this time, all this taxpayer money, [it is] wasting my time and my profitability,” Martin said. “[Just] to seize 30 toy guns!"

Ben Martin disagrees that the toy guns could ever be considered dangerous.

"To say these are readily convertible to machine guns is absolutely preposterous,” he said. “The round wouldn't go into the firing chamber and even if the firing pin did strike the primer the gun would basically blow up in your face.”

ATF said it also seized the toys because they are missing the blaze orange tips required on all imported toy guns.

The Martins said they've received shipments before from Taiwan that were missing the orange tips and were simply asked by customs agents to drive up to Tacoma and paint the tips orange themselves. They are wondering why it is an issue now.

KOIN Local 6

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate

WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.

But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.

“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”


“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”

The New York Times

4 new stores coming to Renaissance

Renaissance at Colony Park has ongoing construction and plans to add four new stores to the 2-year-old shopping center.

Ridgeland's sales tax base has remained steady while many communities are seeing heavy declines in sales tax revenue that has resulted in layoffs and loss of services.


Through January, the city had received more than $6.8 million since July 1, compared to $6.3 million in 2007, the year the center opened.

Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee says Renaissance's progress should mark the start of an uptick in interest from businesses looking for a place to locate.


More people are calling the city this year to inquire about places where a business could set up shop, not only on Highland Colony Parkway but also places like Old Canton Road and the Ross Barnett Reservoir, he said.

"It's probably not as fast as it was two years ago, but there's been an upswing," McGee said.

The Clarion Ledger

Obama open to adding GOP ideas to health plan

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Tuesday he was open to four new Republican proposals on health care legislation, in a gesture of bipartisanship meant to jump-start his stalled drive to overhaul the system.

The proposals Obama listed are: sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste; expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs; increasing payments to Medicaid providers and expanding the use of health savings accounts.

He rejected the GOP's preferred approach of scrapping the existing sweeping overhaul bills and starting afresh with step-by-step changes.

At its core the Democrats' legislation would extend coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans over 10 years with a first-time mandate for nearly everyone to buy insurance and a host of new requirements on insurers and employers.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who attended the summit, said adding a few GOP ideas won't sway Republicans.

"This is not a car that can be recalled and fixed," he said.

Democrats argue that the GOP calls to scrap the existing legislation and start anew further their argument that Republicans have been unreasonably opposed to almost any compromise, justifying the White House decision to push for passage with no GOP help at all.

Associated Press

Four 'shake and bake' meth labs discovered in Ridgeland

A search warrant Madison County deputies and Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics agents served at a Ridgeland man’s residence last Thursdaym turned up four “shake and bake” methamphetamine labs, according to MBN Director Marshall Fisher.

Madison County Herald

Reports that HB 1282 to extend deer season has died in committee at the hands of Senator Tommy Gollott

The bill had the full support of MS Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and would have featured and additional 3 full weeks of rifle hunting for the state's young hunters under the age of 16.


Ya'll Politics

Supreme Courts Gun ruling will have repercussions beyond Second Amendment

Are you a "state's rights" believer? A Second Amendment advocate? Ever think you would have to choose between the two?

The Supreme Courts hearing today of McDonald v. Chicago could effectively gut many gun control laws, while empowering the Federal Government. Any future federal rulings that favor gay marriage or other groups could then bind the states.

In other words, are states bound by the Bill of Rights, or do they simply bind the Federal Government. If it is the former, then future rulings can virtually wipe out state rights and end the argument once and for all in favor of a powerful Federal Goverment. If it is the latter, then Second Amendment advocates must allow that some states and local governments have the authority to implement gun control laws.

George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley prognosticates the possibilities in a Roll Call opinion piece today.

Turley says, "Since most rules affecting gun ownership are municipal and state laws, the decision could make it difficult to ban outright possession of handguns and other types of weapons. However, there is an even more significant constitutional question in the case that could have ramifications far beyond gun rights — an issue that has divided both the liberal and conservative alliances in the case."

The Washington Post argues, "It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation's capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution.

"That is not to say, however, that a recognition of individual rights should foreclose the possibility of regulation. Writing for the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Indeed, even First Amendment rights of free speech and association have been subject to restrictions when the government proves it has a compelling reason. The court should rearticulate this important principle."





 

BlueFire Ethanol Applies for DOE Loan Guarantee; Company Seeks to Secure Complete Funding for Fulton, MS Biorefinery

BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, Inc. has submitted an application for a $250 million dollar loan guarantee for the company's planned cellulosic ethanol biorefinery in Fulton, MS. The application, filed under the Department of Energy (DOE) Program DE-FOA-0000140, which provides federal loan guarantees for projects that employ innovative energy efficiency, renewable energy, and advanced transmission and distribution technologies, was submitted 15th of February, 2010 and serves as a phase one application in a two phase approval process.

The Fulton plant is already a recipient of an award of up to $88 million from the U.S. Department of Energy under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. If approved, the loan guarantee will secure the financing for the remainder of the costs to construct the facility, which will produce 19 million gallons of ethanol per year from woody biomass, mill residue, and other cellulosic waste.

"We are very optimistic that the DOE will consider the enormous benefits of BlueFire Ethanol's technology to convert cellulosic waste products into useable biofuels during this selection process," said Arnold Klann, CEO of BlueFire Ethanol. "Programs like the DOE loan guarantee enable first-of-its-kind technologies to come to fruiting and ultimately help ease the United States' dependence on fossil fuels like petroleum, which is oftentimes imported from hostile nations."

Currently, BlueFire Ethanol is focused on the development of two cellulosic ethanol facilities in Lancaster, CA and Fulton, MS.

Bozeman Scholars Announced

Recipients of the 2010 Dudley Bozeman Memorial Scholarships were Allen Smith and Justin Brown.

These $2000 awards were made possible by contributions in memory of Dudley Bozeman to the Mississippi Cattlemen's Foundation Endowment Fund.

What America Needs: A Bumper Crop of Young Entrepreneurs

By Dr. Craig Columbus
The Center for Vision & Values

Compared to prior recessions, something is definitely different this time. If you’ve lost your job, it is harder than ever to replace it.

The New York Times reports that 6.3 million Americans have been unemployed for six months or longer, more than double the next-worst period, in the early 1980s.

Tighter credit, outsourcing, globalization, and productivity-enhancing technologies have played a role—and each is here to stay. As a result, many older employees are delaying retirement, making it increasingly difficult for recent graduates to enter the workforce.

Voices across the political spectrum agree that America desperately needs private sector job growth, and many are calling for change. In a recent USA Today editorial, Robert Kiyosaki, the best-selling author of Rich Dad Poor Dad, calls for two different public-school programs: one for employees and one for entrepreneurs.

Mr. Kiyosaki writes, “If I were running America's school system, I would create the U.S. Business Academy for Entrepreneurs, modeled after our federal military academies. Admissions would be via congressional appointment along with nominations from community business leaders.”

He envisions a U.S. Academy for Entrepreneurs that would produce leaders focused on sustainable jobs and responsible growth. Finally, Mr. Kiyosaki says that his academy could boost results by having “only real entrepreneurs as teachers.”

In my opinion, Mr. Kiyosaki identifies the root problem of America’s job malaise—the need to produce more entrepreneurs. However, I depart from his solution to create more government-run education programs, regardless of how selective or expertly staffed.

As one tasked with educating future entrepreneurs, I would argue that the state of entrepreneurial education has never been more vibrant. Three decades ago, only a handful of colleges offered courses in entrepreneurship. Through the pioneering work of scholars such as Babson’s Dr. Jeffry Timmons and the advocacy of the Kauffman Foundation and others, the field has subsequently flourished.

Today, over 2,000 academic institutions offer at least one course in entrepreneurship compared with just 16 in 1970. Five hundred colleges and universities currently grant an entrepreneurship degree, up from 175 in 1990. And 200 university-based entrepreneurship centers collaborate as members of The Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (GCEC).

As for the notion that the discipline lacks the perspective of “real” entrepreneurs, there has been a concerted effort by top entrepreneurship programs to recruit current or recent entrepreneurs as classroom instructors. Perhaps more than in any department on campuses across America, academic administrations are increasingly receptive to the integration of practitioners.

I am not suggesting that entrepreneurship education cannot be improved. For example, we need a greatly expanded dialogue about ethics, a stronger commitment to service learning, and much more emphasis on how to actually build things.

But America’s aspiring entrepreneurs have more educational choices and more intellectual capital resources than at any point in the nation’s history. So where is the bottleneck in entrepreneurial dynamism? In a word: incentives.

Much like the Great Depression, the current recession has left an imprint on many young people. They have seen their parents struggle with mortgage debt, and classmates flounder in their job searches. It’s no wonder that students are increasingly drawn to “safe” endeavors.

In the current environment, that most often corresponds to government or government-backed jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, federal agencies have been hiring at a pace not seen since the end of the Cold War.

However, the nation’s entrepreneurial framework requires more creative and lasting solutions—and soon. That’s because America’s demographics demand a bumper crop of young entrepreneurs.

Nearly one in three American workers will be over the age of 50 by 2012. The “baby boomers,” those born between 1946 and 1965, started small businesses in record numbers during the 1970s and ‘80s.

Just as with the massively overbuilt stock of residential housing, supply-demand imbalances often create severe economic shocks. During the next 20 years, the outcome of the so-called “silver tsunami” will be, in part, determined by boomers finding willing buyers for their small business ventures to fund their retirement needs.

However, current and aspiring entrepreneurs repeat a consistent refrain. They want government to control its spending for the sake of long-term interest rate stability. They don’t want to feel like they are on the outside looking in on a state capitalism “green zone.” And the entrepreneurial class seeks relief from the burdens of state licensing and regulatory departments.

Entrepreneurs also crave a better business climate with reduced payroll taxes, tax credits for research and development, and more manageable workers’ compensation and healthcare costs. Many are attracted to states with low or no income and capital-gains taxes.

Finally, we need to help entrepreneurs attract seed capital and make it easier to get new business loans without personal guarantees, allowing them to retain larger equity stakes.

There will be no meaningful job growth beyond the administrative state without a national embrace of those entrepreneurs that create them. A generation of skilled young entrepreneurs stands ready. Is their government ready for them?

Look out Farmers! The U.N. is calling for a Tax on Cow Farts

Livestock should be taxed to reduce the contribution made by their flatulence to greenhouse gas emissions, the United Nations said on Thursday in a report that will give fresh ammunition to campaigners against the preponderance of meat in the foodchain.

The novel suggestion by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation to use taxation comes as campaigners focus on the impact on climate change of emissions of methane from cattle, sheep and pigs.

“Market-based policies, such as taxes and fees for natural resource use, should cause [livestock] producers to internalise the costs of environmental damages,” the FAO said in its annual report, The State of Food and Agriculture .

“The sector is consuming a large share of the world’s resources and is contributing a significant portion of global greenhouse gases emissions,” the report adds.

The proposal, if supported by governments, could hit companies such as JBS of Brazil, the world’s largest meat producer, and large US-based businesses such as Tyson Foods, Cargill or Smithfield. Governments do not necessarily follow the FAO’s recommendations, but its views carry some weight, particularly among European policymakers.

Financial Times

President's Yucca Policy Inconsistent with Nuclear Rhetoric

President Barack Obama's proposals on nuclear energy do little to back up his pro-nuclear rhetoric. Most worrisome is his effort to terminate the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project.

His budget provides no funding for Yucca construction activities, and the Department of Energy (DOE) has filed a motion to permanently withdraw its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct the repository. Such action not only flouts existing statute but threatens to end America's nuclear renaissance before it even begins.

According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, the federal government was obliged to begin collecting nuclear waste by 1998. According to the Yucca Mountain Development Act of 2002, Yucca Mountain was to be the waste repository. Despite having collected over $30 billion in waste disposal fees from electricity ratepayers and spending $10 billion on Yucca development, no waste has been collected.

This has put the federal government in partial breach of contract even before the President decided to ignore existing statute and terminate the Yucca program. With over 60 suits already filed, the federal government has paid out $214 million in settlements. Without Yucca Mountain or any backup plan, this taxpayer liability will amount to over $12.3 billion through 2020 and $500 million annually thereafter.Terminating the program without regard to existing statute exacerbates these problems, and communities are already beginning to investigate the feasibility of pursuing additional legal actions.

The Heritage Foundation

Natural gas lobby challenging coal

Natural gas lobbyists, who felt their industry got the short shrift in climate legislation, are pushing new incentives to encourage utilities to switch from coal to natural gas.

In doing so, the sector is starting a lobbying fight with the coal industry, which has long and deep ties on Capitol Hill and is determined to hold onto its role as the dominant source of electricity in the United States.

Lobbyists for natural gas companies were heartened by reports that President Barack Obama would announce during a speech on the economy last Wednesday a program to encourage utilities to displace coal with natural gas.

The Hill

Obama plans to target low-performing schools

President Barack Obama will announce Monday a national effort to reduce the high school dropout rate and better prepare students for successful college careers.

The administration has committed $3.5 billion to fund changes in persistently low-performing schools around the country, with priority given to high schools with graduation rates below 60 percent.

Every day, 7,000 students drop out of school -- a total of 1.2 million students each year. In addition, only 70 percent of entering high school freshmen graduate every year, creating a loss of $319 billion in potential earnings.

The Hill

American reliance on government at all-time high

The so-called "Great Recession" has left Americans depending on the government dole like never before.


Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.

Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.

Washington Times

Medicare pay cuts loom large and there is no easy fix.

Medicare payments to doctors were supposed to fall by 21% at the start of this year, but Congress passed a last-minute, two-month patch to block the cuts. Without action, those cuts again become a reality on March first.

The budget bill Congress passed in 1997 introduced the “sustainable growth rate” for Medicare, otherwise known as SGR. The SGR says basically that the amount Medicare pays doctors for an average Medicare patient can’t grow faster than the economy as a whole. If growth in payments per beneficiary grows more than the economy as a whole, the SGR says you have to lower payments to doctors across the board to keep costs under control.

The economy slowed and health-care spending skyrocketed earlier this decade, and reimbursements were cut in 2002. Every year since then, the SGR has called for more cuts. However, every time Congress has stepped in to block the cuts. Short-term patches of scheduled Medicare pay cuts to doctors have become standard operating procedure.

Now, according to the SGR, reimbursements should actually be cut by more than 40%--something that is not likely to occur.

The American Medical Association (AMA)and other physician groups are continuing to lobby lawmakers to enact a costly permanent reform to the complex formula that calculates the payment levels. The AARP is supporting their efforts, as is the Military Offices Association of America (MOAA) because the Pentagon’s health program pays medical providers at Medicare rates.

In addition to their joint lobbying campaign and efforts to activate their grassroots networks, the AMA, AARP and MOAA launched a television advertising campaign in eight states in January.

The Senate recently passed a pay-as-you-go law that would require balancing all new spending with tax increases or spending cuts. But, that legislation included a loophole: Congress can allocate an additional $82 billion for physician payments without having to find new sources of revenue or savings. That’s not enough to scrap the current payment system altogether, but it could be enough to block scheduled pay cuts for up to five years, further putting off the pain to future generations.

A bill to permanently block the cuts failed in the Senate last year, in large part because senators couldn’t figure out how to pay for it.

Supporters of the cuts argue that unless programs like Medicare and Medicaid are limited, they will devour greater portions of the federal budget, threatening its overall solvency.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats plan to introduce another bill that would delay the effective date for more than 30 days. A previous Senate bill is allowed for the possibility of a 7-month delay.

It is anticipated that whatever solution comes outs, it would be retroactive to March 1. That way, CMS carriers would pay March claims that were put on hold at the current rate, although physicians would receive their money later than usual.

The CMS officials are struggling to do everything in their authority to minimize payment disruption to providers and prevent access problems for patients.

It remains to be seen if Congress postpones the pay a second and third time over the next few months. But one thing is certain: hard choices lie ahead, this can't go on forever. Some reports indicate the Democrat majority may soon bring to a vote stand-alone legislation (S. 1776) to repeal the SGR formula altogether. It's not like they were using it.

Leaving out an SGR "fix" from the health "reform" legislation" allows Democrats to free up billions of dollars that they can then apply to make other changes in a health care plan-making it easier for the majority to pass its government takeover of health care. So, a vote for S. 1776 could be seen as setting the stage for passage of a government takeover of health care. According to a Concord Coalition analysis in November of 2009, omitting an SGR fix in the Health Care bill understates the cost of health reform by nearly $250 billion.