CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS WILL DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS ON PLANET EARTH (MORE INCONVENIENT TAXES & REGULATIONS)

Global CLIMATE CHANGE Laws (new TAXES) being pushed by Pres OBAMA and other Elite world leaders will not "Save the Planet", nor "Protect the Future of our Children".

So what is the real "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" about CLIMATE CHANGE??

Is it only about reducing CARBON EMISSIONS?

These new set of Global CLIMATE CHANGE Taxes and Regulations being pushed by the Wealthy Elite, will in fact help to reconfigure Mankind on planet Earth via destroying the current Middle Class and eliminating people stuck in Poverty.

It is really all about making the Super RICH more Wealthy by creating only two Economic groups:

~ The Elite, Super Wealthy & Big Banks - LEADERS

~ A New Lower Class - WORKING SERVANTS

~ NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS



~ Climate Change Laws Hurt The Poor And Benefit No One: Why Are Political Elites Pushing So Hard?

August 21, 2015 by Bob Loewen
Bob Loewen is the chairman of the California Policy Center.

I was eighteen years old in 1966 when my plane circled the tiny airport in Ontario, California. I was traveling from the Bay Area to Claremont to begin my freshman year in college. Looking down from my window seat, the overcast cloud cover prevented me from seeing the freeways and buildings on the ground. When we landed, however, I looked up and saw a hazy blue sky. Then I realized that I was looking up through the cloud cover that I had observed from above. To my horror, what I had seen below me from the sky was not cloud cover at all; it was thick, brown smog, and I was breathing it.

That was the day I became an environmentalist. Although I have a libertarian’s skepticism of government, many times I have supported government programs to clean up the air, water, forests and beaches. In this way, I am like other Californians. Because all of us love and defend the natural resources of our state, the brand “environmentalist” is almost as popular as Santa Claus.

George Orwell warned, however, “political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” [1] California’s climate change laws have nothing to do with removing smog or keeping California’s beaches clean. They hurt the poor and benefit no one. Yet a political elite has managed to impose its will on the California economy without having to explain why it has chosen to hurt the poor for no benefit to the public largely because they use the label “environmentalist”. It is time to hold them accountable.

Orwell’s warning also applies to the substance of the climate change conversation. The climate change elites do not discuss climate change issues in the manner of scientists; they collapse multiple distinct issues into demonizing rhetoric: “The science is settled,” they say in response to every argument that is made; this means that the opponent is a “science denier”. Seldom is this rhetoric even arguably responsive.

While science is one of the principal subjects of the discussion about predicting earth’s climate future through scientific computer modeling, it is no more than political rhetoric to argue that one scientist is so completely wrong in his opinion, and the other so clearly correct, that the first is “denying” the very principles of science. And this is not even the main point of this essay…

Opponents who have other reasons for their opposition to climate change laws usually do not challenge the science. Assuming the climate change outcomes have been predicted accurately by proponents, for example, opponents nevertheless contend that enforcement of climate change laws will not eliminate or delay the predicted harmful effects of climate change because reductions in GHG emissions required by California (or EPA) are more than offset by increased emissions from new power generation plants in China and India.

Opponents who make this point do not deny the science; they embrace it.

The climate change elites do not respond to this point as a distinct argument for which they are accountable; at most, they pretend that the issue does not exist, a slick move worthy of Orwell’s admonition about “political speech”.

California has the most aggressive climate change laws of any state in the nation and is the only state imposing a cap and trade protocol on emitters. It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels no later than 2020.

This year, new laws have been proposed to tighten that standard, requiring that 2020 emissions be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels. Other restrictions include specific requirements that specified minimum levels of wind and solar power be included in the mix of power sources.

All of this makes power in California the most expensive in the nation.

According to the Manhattan Institute, “California’s renewable energy mandates and climate change policies . . . are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor.” [2] The report found that “in 2012, about 1 million California households were living in energy poverty, a term that applies to households that spend 10 percent, or more, of their income on household energy costs.”

There is a considerable disparity between wealthy areas, such as Mill Valley in Marin County, whose monthly energy costs were only $200 per home because of mild weather conditions, and middle-income areas, such as the town of Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley, where harsher average weather leads to average monthly energy costs of about $500 per home.

The climate change elite is leaving the poor and middle class behind in other ways too.

The Manhattan Institute study found that because of the high cost of compliance (estimated $115 billion to meet renewable requirements alone), California’s climate change laws are forcing businesses out of the state, resulting in job losses. There are also collateral effects from the general hostility of climate change elites to any business involved with fossil fuels. Take fracking, for example. Two years ago, Californians were excited about the potential for thousands of jobs when we learned that California’s shale formations are even richer than those in boom states like North Dakota. [3] A USC study predicted that fossil fuels from shale would provide “up to 2.8 million jobs, increasing the state’s total economic output by up to 14.3 percent . . . boosting personal income by up to 10 percent.” [4] Due to actions in Sacramento, nothing has happened. Why not? A public official who wants to help the poor and middle class close the economic gap has enough information to allow fracking to proceed, but for now, the political elites prefer to keep fossil fuels right where they are, embedded deep in California’s shale.

Most troubling is that the goals of climate change laws are not achieved even when they are strictly enforced. For example, the EPA is pressuring American utilities to stop using coal because it generates more GHGs than other fuel sources. India and China, however, both build coal-fired power plants faster than the United States can remove its own. [5] Eric Roston, writing for Bloomberg Business, observes “’The U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere as quickly as India is adding them,” and “By 2020 India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity [in coal] as the U.S. is about to lose.” [6]

China, “the world’s biggest coal addict by far,” has a plan to build hundreds of coal plants, which negates the efficacy of emissions limits imposed by political elites in this country. Eric Lawson of Princeton University, known for his strong stance in favor of the science of climate change, is quoted by Stephen Moore in Investors Business Daily: “From 2010 through 2013, (China) added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week for seven straight years. [7] And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.”

California’s climate change laws are particularly vulnerable to the criticism that they will not change the predicted outcome of man-made warming because, according to the Manhattan Institute study, all of California’s emissions are only 1% of GHG emissions worldwide and 6% of total U.S. emissions. There are no climate models that support the idea that reduction of some or all of those amounts will affect global climate change given increases of emissions in China and India.
Instead of responding directly to these criticisms, some have argued that China and India will change; if the U.S. sticks with its stringent emission reduction policies, they contend, our example will encourage them to reverse the increases in emissions that represent their recent history and turn those into reductions in emissions.

This is pure Utopian fantasy.

About 900 coal plants are currently planned in China and India.

Where is the evidence that India or China have made any plans to change these to lower-emission energy plants? What plans have been made to tear down the existing coal plants and replace them? Absent concrete plans, the follow-my-lead theory is far-fetched.

There is no precedent to suggest that follow-my-lead will succeed. There is, however, precedent suggesting it will not succeed. In California, proponents of AB32 sold the most aggressive state law on climate change in America partly on the follow-my-lead theory. They told Californians that when AB32 was enacted, other states would follow California’s example by adopting statutes similar to AB32.

This effort failed; not one state has adopted a climate change law like California’s. Since it should have been easier to convince another state, like Oregon, to join California on climate change law than to convince a sovereign nation like China, California’s experience disproves the follow-my-lead theory.

Proponents of climate change laws point to the “Joint Announcement” on climate change dated November 12, 2014 signed during President Obama’s visit to China as supposed proof that China is willing to reconsider its policy of increasing emissions.

The Joint Agreement, however, confirms that China will continue to increase its emissions through at least 2030. Much false information has been implied about this nonbinding statement. But it is available on line, and its meaning is pretty clear.

[8] China does not commit anywhere in the document to reduce its emissions; it only states, without agreeing, that it might reach a peak in its increases by 2030. By signing the Joint Agreement, President Obama effectively acknowledges that current conditions will not change before 2030 at the earliest. This means that the heavy burdens created by California’s emissions limits cannot achieve the intended benefits until sometime after that date.

These critical problems with climate change laws have been known for a long time.

Yet climate change elites do not respond to them, making it clear that they have no response that makes sense. This does not mean that nothing should be done about climate change.

But it does mean we need to change the laws that are hurting the poor and middle class, examine what is possible in the area of adaptation, and hold the political elites accountable. The future of California depends on it.

FOOTNOTES

(1) “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell, 1946
(2) “Renewable Energy Mandates Same As A Tax On The Poor,” by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, 7/26/2015
(3) “Fixing California: Will Fracking Bonanza Be Allowed?,” Chris Reed, CPC Prosperity Forum, 9/30/2013
(4) “The Monterey Shale & California’s Economic Future,” USC Price School of Public Policy, March 2013
(5) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(6) “The Grim Promise of India’s Coal-Powered Future,” Eric Roston, Bloomberg Business, 5/21/2015
(7) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(8) U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11/12/2014


Sources: California Policy Center, Manhattan Institute, Fox News, YouTube, CPC Prosperity, USC Price School of Public Policy

Apple Pockets Billions In Profits & Dividends Due To China's Cheap Labor: Manufacturing Jobs Shipped Overseas

Apple announces dividend and stock buyback

Apple on Monday announced plans for much of the $97.6 billion in cash it has accumulated from massive iPod, iPhone, iPad and Macintosh sales.
The company said it would begin giving shareholders a quarterly dividend of $2.65 per share sometime its fiscal fourth quarter, which begins in July. Apple last offered a dividend in 1995.

Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) will also buy back $10 billion of its own shares over three years, beginning in October.

"We have used some of our cash to make great investments in our business through increased research and development, acquisitions, new retail store openings, strategic prepayments and capital expenditures in our supply chain, and building out our infrastructure," Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, said in a prepared statement.

"Even with these investments, we can maintain a war chest for strategic opportunities and have plenty of cash to run our business. So we are going to initiate a dividend and share repurchase program," he added.

Stock repurchases generally help companies inflate their earnings per share because it reduces the number of shares outstanding. But profit growth has rarely been a problem for Apple, which routinely blows past Wall Street analysts' quarterly earnings forecasts.

Apple said the share buybacks will help stave off earnings-per-share dilution from future employee stock grants and purchase programs.

The company said it expects the dividend to cost the company $2.5 billion per quarter, making it one of the largest dividend payers in the United States. Combined with the repurchase program, Apple said it will likely utilize $45 billion of its domestic cash through 2015.

It's significant that Apple is using its domestic cash, rather than the much heftier stockpiles it holds overseas, because foreign cash would be subject to a sizable "repatriation tax" if brought back into the United States. Cook said the company didn't want to pay that tax.

Shares of Apple rose just less than 3% to close at an all-time high of $601.10.
Growth at Apple has not been a problem: The company is on pace to become the largest technology company in the world by revenue, and during the holiday season it posted the second-most profitable quarter by any corporation in U.S. history.

Nevertheless, Apple is actively looking for new investors. Some fund managers have stopped buying shares as Apple's stock price has soared. But many funds require a dividend from the stocks they invest in, so they have had to stay away from Apple.

"Investors have been wresting with the question of, 'Who is left to buy the stock?'" said Alex Gauna, tech analyst at JMP Securities.

Cook said he hopes the dividend will open up Apple's stock to a new investor base.
Apple's dividend yield -- the percentage of a company's share price that it pays out in annual dividends -- is currently 1.8%.

That's higher than the dividend yields of other technology giants, such as IBM (IBM, Fortune 500), Cisco (CSCO, Fortune 500) and Oracle (ORCL, Fortune 500), but it's lower than the yields of more direct rivals like Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ, Fortune 500).

Apple's dividend yield is nearly twice the average for the tech companies in the S&P 500, but a bit less than the 2.1% average for the overall S&P 500.




Cheap Labor, Taxes, Location: Why Apple Doesn't Build Products in the U.S.


People in the automobile industry are buzzing over that New York Times article about Apple, which gave a detailed look at why it builds its products in China. Attracting manufacturing is a huge topic in the Midwest, where Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and other states are doing everything they can think of to land investments.

Dustin Dwyer at our Changing Gears public media project wanted to know why Apple finds China so much more attractive than America. So, he spoke with Jeffrey Liker, the University of Michigan professor and author of the best-selling series of books on Toyota, for a Midwestern take.

Liker doesn’t buy the claim that U.S. workers don’t have the skills or the flexibility to make Apple products. Any manufacturer opening a new plant has to do some training, he says.


He gave three main reasons why he believes Apple won’t build in America:


1) Cheap labor.

Apple executives may not want to admit it, but Liker says one of the biggest advantages of going overseas is that workers there are much, much cheaper. This is really an obvious reason, and we all know it. But it’s worth remembering whenever someone tries to claim that the actual reason is because our workers don’t have the right skills. “Right now is the worst time to make that statement since the recession has put so many people out of work,” Liker says. “There are all kinds of skilled workers right now.”


2) Taxes.

Liker says another big reason Apple and other manufacturers do work in Asia is because taxes are cheaper there. Usually, if a company makes profits from something built overseas, they have to pay American taxes when they “repatriate” those profits back to their headquarters here. But if a company spends money at lots of overseas factories, it just re-invests the profits over there, and it never pays the higher tax. Liker estimates this could make a 20-30 percent difference in profits for a company like Apple.


3) They’re there because they’re there.

Once the decision to make products overseas has been made, it becomes incredibly difficult to reverse, Liker says. “Apple is not a manufacturing company,” he says. “They’re a design and marketing company.” All of Apple’s manufacturing plants in Asia are owned by suppliers, not by Apple. If Apple executives suddenly decided they wanted their products built in the U.S., they’d have to invest billions of dollars in new factories. In China, the infrastructure is already there. “They made that decision decades ago,” Liker says. “I don’t think they’re revisiting it.”

There’s another wrinkle to this discussion that Liker says is worth mentioning. Right now, he says China actually has a far greater shortage of skilled workers than the U.S. Demand for workers in China is so high that factories there have trouble holding on to people. Liker says turnover rates of 20-30 percent are common in Chinese factories.

So, according to Liker, the truth is the exact opposite of what Apple claims.


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, Forbes, Fox Conn, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Rolling Back Unnecessary Gov't Regulations For Job Growth! Decision 2012

Obama Administration Moves Plan To Ax Hundreds Of Regulations

The Obama administration disclosed plans Tuesday to cut or roll back hundreds of federal regulations, including some that will streamline tax forms at the Internal Revenue Service, let railroad companies pass on installing expensive new technology, and speed up the visa process for low-risk visitors to the U.S.

The administration said the regulations will save businesses up to $10 billion over the next five years and spur job growth in the private sector.

The move, announced while President Barack Obama was on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, was the latest White House gesture to reach out to a business community that has often felt alienated from the administration.

The move was criticized by some as too little, too late.

"The administration's findings and determinations, on their own, are a worthy effort at making technical changes to the regulatory process, but the results of this look-back will not have a material impact on the real regulatory burdens facing businesses today," said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Administration officials said the plans unveiled Tuesday include 500 regulatory reforms, including more than 100 from the Department of Transportation and more than 70 from the Department of Health and Human Services. Once the reforms are fully implemented, the administration estimates businesses will save about $10 billion over five years.

Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the savings for businesses will give the private sector an opportunity to create new jobs. But Sunstein said he had no estimates on how much help the regulatory reforms would provide.

Many of the regulatory reforms are designed to help small businesses, the administration said. Those include accelerating payments to as many as 60,000 small businesses that have contracts with the Department of Defense, and requiring the Small Business Administration to adopt a single electronic application in order to reduce paperwork burdens.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the administration's announcement was "underwhelming." And the Chamber of Commerce said real regulatory reform should include permit streamlining and reforms that would make it easier for businesses to get environmental clearance to start projects.

Obama called for federal agencies to scrutinize their existing regulations after his party suffered sweeping losses in the 2010 elections. The president acknowledged at the time that his relationship with the business community had soured, and he vowed to scrap "dumb" rules that were hindering private sector growth.

Sunstein said the reforms would not impact regulations needed to protect consumers and the environment, including rules used by the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure safe air travel and by the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration to protect food safety.

Sources: Huffington Post, U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, Youtube

GOP Leaders Where's YOUR Jobs Plan? They Don't Have One!

The GOP Jobs Plan That Wasn't

It’s been over three months since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and strengthened their caucus in the Senate. The central premise of the GOP midterm campaign was that it could create badly needed jobs—the Republican National Committee drove a bus through the lower 48 states emblazoned with the slogan: “Need a Job? Fire Pelosi!”

Now, after focusing its initial legislative efforts on repealing “ObamaCare,” pushing Tea Party-backed dreams like a balanced budget amendment, and fighting to strip regulatory agencies of their authority, the GOP has finally released a job plan…that consists of a balanced budget amendment, the repeal of Obamacare, and several assaults on regulatory authority.

Freshman Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who headed the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush, released the official Senate GOP jobs plan yesterday. The unveiling received a surprisingly scant amount of media attention. Surely the ongoing bin Laden saga helped overshadow the announcement, but the complete lack of any new ideas might also have been a factor. Beyond the aforementioned goals, the GOP job plan advocates expanded off-shore drilling, steep tax reductions, medical malpractice reform, and other well-worn conservative policy tropes.

Aside from being unoriginal, few of these measures could be said to have even an ostensible effect on jobs. “It is very hard to see this as much of a jobs bill,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

The first part of the plan attempts to attack the federal deficit. It outlines three provisions: a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, a statutory spending limit that “provides a budget strait-jacket so that Congress is forced to make difficult decisions each year to live within its means,” and immediate spending cuts.

This method of job creation by way of government austerity was, of course, the preferred path of Herbert Hoover in 1932. The GOP plan asserts that “out of control spending spree creates uncertainty in the economy and stops the investment,” but economists have long since dispensed with what Paul Krugman calls the “confidence fairy”—the idea that the only thing preventing companies from hiring is a lack of confidence in the government’s long-term fiscal health. Slashing federal spending often has the exact opposite affect—countries like Ireland, Latvia, and Estonia enacted steep spending cuts in the recent global downturn, and each saw subsequent slumps in output and employment.

Quite paradoxically, the plan immediately moves on to a series of proposed tax cuts, which would of course make the federal deficit much larger. It calls for a reduction of the corporate tax rate to 25 percent along with lowering individual rates, reducing taxes on capital gains, and making tax credits for research and development and small business investment permanent.

Baker said the R&D tax credit might have a “modest positive effect” on job creation—but Congress has voted to extend it every year since the early 90s anyhow. Otherwise, the idea that jobs are created by reducing tax rates for big corporations and individuals is widely discredited. (See Bush tax cuts and job growth, 2001-08).

The GOP “jobs” proposal also calls for a broad assault on what the government is allowed to regulate. It advocates passage of the Reins Act, which would allow Congress to veto almost any regulation imposed by the federal government, and also once again demands the EPA lose its ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Losing that authority may be a precondition for the next part of the GOP jobs plan: expanded offshore drilling for fossil fuels while allowing “greater access” to federal lands for energy exploration.

Once again, it’s very hard to see how these provisions—which are harmful in their own right—have anything to do with job creation. Baker acknowledged that expanded oil drilling “may lead to a small number of additional jobs in the oil industry,” but would also “almost certainly lead to more environmental damage, which will cost jobs.”

The gulf between the GOP “jobs” plan and reality was evident even in Portman’s rollout. Last week he previewed his party’s blueprint at Lincoln Electric in Euclid, OH. “What we’re trying to do is to create an environment for companies to succeed and, right now, America’s tax policies, our energy policy, the regulatory policy, the legal policy is making it harder for us to create jobs here in America,” he said. “So what we’re trying to do is to create more certainty, to create a more pro-growth, pro-jobs policy framework and companies, like Lincoln, will benefit directly.”

Portman noted the company added 50 production jobs in the first part of this year. But he didn’t mention one of the company’s major new projects: assembly of the largest wind turbine in northeast Ohio. The GOP plan calls for nuclear energy subsidies, but no green technology investments.

Additionally, federal and local governments helped fund the turbine project. Funds from the 2009 stimulus provided $1.12 million for the project, and the Cuyahoga County government kicked in another $350,000 loan.

(Finally, Lincoln Electric might not be the best place to push for reduced EPA authority. USA Today reported in 2008 that Lincoln emits a wide array of toxic chemicals that affect five nearby elementary and middle schools).

So nobody can now say the GOP doesn’t have a jobs plan. But nobody can really say it would create many jobs, either.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, MSNBC, The Nation, The Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps

Did Obama Give BP Free Pass On Oil Spill & Clean Up?

Obama Gives Brits Free Pass On Oil Spill While Lashing Out At Congress


President Obama on Saturday reassured Prime Minister David Cameron that his frustration over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not an attack on Britain.

But a day earlier, Obama blasted U.S. lawmakers and Tea Party activists for criticizing his response to the nation's worst environmental disaster, suggesting they are being hypocrites.

"I think it's fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending," he told Politico in an interview.

Obama also suggested the criticism coming from anti-big government protesters, such as Tea Party activists, was hypocritical.

"Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying 'do something' are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much," Obama said. "Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks, who just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms."

But Obama sang a much different tune to Cameron on Saturday when the two leaders held a "warm and constructive" telephone conversation for more than 30 minutes, Cameron's Downing St. office said.

Cameron's office said the prime minister “expressed his sadness at the ongoing human and environmental catastrophe,” but stressed BP's economic important to Britain, the U.S. and other countries.

Then Obama told the prime minister "that his unequivocal view was that BP was a multinational global company and that frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity. The prime minister stressed the economic importance of BP to the U.K., U.S. and other countries. The president made clear that he had no interest in undermining BP's value.”

Cameron is under pressure to get Obama to tone down the criticism fearing it will hurt the millions of British retirees that hold BP stock. The company's stock has lost 40 percent of its value since the April 20 oil rig fire.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., fired back at Obama over his criticism of Congress, saying hypocrisy is no excuse for inaction "in addressing the dysfunctional and corrupt nature of the Minerals and Management Service" -- the agency that oversees offshore drilling.

"If President Obama had exercised some long overdue leadership and called on Congress to address the cozy relationship between MMS and the industry they regulate, I would have been the very first person to partner with him and give MMS the overhaul it desperately needs," Issa said in a written statement.

"After 10 inspector general reports, 10 GAO reports, a congressional investigation, the real question is, why did it take such a catastrophe for the president to call for action," he said.

Obama has sharpened his attacks on BP in recent days as the company struggles to stop oil gushing from its ruptured deepsea well.

Obama has said he would have fired BP's top executive, if he were in charge, and has supported the idea that the oil company suspend its quarterly dividend.

In a sign the company feels the pressure, BP said Saturday that its board would meet Monday to discuss deferring its second-quarter dividend and putting the money into escrow until the company's liabilities from the spill are known. BP said no decision had yet been made.

Obama also has reproached BP for spending money on a public relations campaign and occasionally refers to "British Petroleum," although the company years ago began using only its initials and is a far-reaching international corporation with extensive holdings in the United States, including a Texas refinery and a share of the Alaska oil pipeline.

This past week, the usually measured Obama said in a television interview, "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers -- so I know whose ass to kick."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Google Maps

DOT Issues New 3-Hour Stranded Passenger, Tarmac, Limits

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feds Come To Aid of Stranded Air Passengers


Stinky toilets, crying babies, airless cabins — the Obama administration said Monday passengers don't have to take it any more. It ordered airlines to let people get off planes delayed on the ground after three hours.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the three-hour limit and other new regulations are meant to send an unequivocal message to airlines not to hold passengers hostage on stuck planes. Coming on the eve of the busy holiday travel season, the announcement was hailed by consumer advocates as "a Christmas miracle."

The airline industry said it will comply with the regulations — which go into effect in 120 days — but predicted the result will be more canceled flights, more inconvenience for passengers.

"The requirement of having planes return to the gates within a three-hour window or face significant fines is inconsistent with our goal of completing as many flights as possible. Lengthy tarmac delays benefit no one," said Air Transport Association President and CEO James May.

LaHood, however, dismissed that concern.

"I don't know what can be more disruptive to people than to be stuck sitting on a plane five, six, seven hours with no explanation," LaHood said at a briefing.

This year through Oct. 31, there were 864 flights with taxi out times of three hours or more, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Transportation officials, using 2007 and 2008 data, said there are an average of 1,500 domestic flights a year carrying about 114,000 passengers that are delayed more than three hours.

Last month, the department fined Continental Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines and Mesaba Airlines $175,000 for their roles in a nearly six-hour tarmac delay in Rochester, Minn. In August, Continental Express Flight 2816 en route to Minneapolis was diverted to Rochester due to thunderstorms. Forty-seven passengers were kept overnight in a cramped plane because Mesaba employees refused to open a gate so that they could enter the closed airport terminal.

It was the first time the department had fined an airline for actions involving a ground delay. Transportation officials made clear the case was a warning to the industry.

Under the new regulations, the only exceptions to the requirement that planes must return to the gate after three hours are for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she thought the 3-hour rule would not cause any problems for security: "I can't imagine it would. I call it the rule of common sense," Napolitano said.

Airlines could be fined $27,500 per passenger for each violation of the three-hour limit.

The regulations apply to domestic flights. U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers. Foreign carriers do not fly between two U.S. cities and are not covered by the rules.

Just the beginning

Tarmac strandings have mostly involved domestic flights, but the department is studying extending the three-hour limit to international flights, LaHood said.

"This is the beginning," LaHood said. "We think we owe it to passengers to really look out for them."

Airlines will be required to provide food and water for passengers within two hours of a plane being delayed on a tarmac, and to maintain operable lavatories. They must also provide passengers with medical attention when necessary.

Airlines will also be prohibited from scheduling chronically delayed flights. Carriers who fail to comply could face government enforcement action for using unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Pending legislation sponsored Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, would also impose a three-hour limit, but the new regulations go even farther, giving passenger rights advocates many of the reforms they've sought for years.

"No more will they be able to strand passengers for over three hours in hot, sweaty, metal tubes," said Kate Hanni, founder of Flyersrights.org. Hanni, who called the rules a Christmas miracle, was stuck on an American Airlines jet in Austin, Texas, for over nine hours in December 2006 when storms forced the closure of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, stranding more than 100 planes.

Past efforts to address the problem have fizzled in the face of industry opposition and promises to reform.

Congress and the Clinton administration tried to act after a January 1999 blizzard kept Northwest Airlines planes on the ground in Detroit, trapping passengers for seven hours. Some new regulations were put in place but most proposals died, including one that airlines pay passengers who are kept waiting on a runway for more than two hours.

The Bush administration and Congress returned to the issue three years ago after several high-profile strandings, including a snow and ice storm that led JetBlue Airways to leave planes full of passengers sitting on the tarmac at New York's Kennedy International Airport for nearly 11 hours.

After those incidents, DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel recommended that airlines be required to set a limit on the time passengers have to wait out travel delays grounded inside an airplane.

A year ago, the Bush administration proposed airlines be required to have contingency plans for stranded passengers, but the proposal didn't include a specific time limit on how long passengers can be kept waiting. It was denounced as toothless by consumer advocates.


Sources: MSNBC