InsideSources

One of the most prominent groups among Washington’s net neutrality lobby released a video Wednesday that aims to pit President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders against the FCC, one day before it votes to deregulate an important part of the broadband market.

Public Knowledge (PK), whose founder and former president helped the FCC pass net neutrality rules in 2015, posted the YouTube video that compiles a number of anti-monopoly statements by Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan and others ahead of an FCC vote to deregulate the business broadband market.

Supporters of the FCC plan argue that deregulation will bring increased investment in broadband by providers. Critics, including PK, describe the market, which provides high-capacity service to businesses, hospitals, libraries, schools, public safety offices, ATM networks, and wireless carriers, as highly concentrated. According to more than a decade of FCC data, 73 percent of the business data services (BDS) market is only served by one provider and 97 percent served by only one or two.

Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants to pare down regulations that require large providers like AT&T and Verizon to lease portions of their networks to small competitors like Sprint and Level 3 at regulated rates. If adopted during the agency’s open meeting Thursday, Pai’s order would deregulate BDS markets with one competitor “nearby” or within “a half mile,” meaning only two and in some cases one provider would meet the agency’s bar for competition.

In response, PK’s video cites the anti-monopoly statements of the most powerful Republicans in Washington, and warns allowing the order to go through will bring business broadband competition down to the level of health insurance companies and passenger airlines.

“AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve,” Trump says in video from last year’s presidential campaign trail. “It’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.”

It goes on to show Trump blasting laws that prevent insurance carriers from competing across state lines, which he described as “essentially monopolies.”

“With more choices you have more competition, and with more competition you have lower prices,” Ryan says in a clip pulled from Republicans fight to repeal and replace Obamacare last month. “Having a monopoly isn’t a choice — it’s a monopoly. People are down to one choice, and in some cases no choice. That’s not good.”

Another compares the deregulation to the airline market, stating “airlines were allowed to merge” alongside video of the recent highly publicized forced removal of a passenger from a United Airlines flight. “Look where that got us,” reads the next line.

“High speed fiber with multiple carriers so you’ll be able to bring your cost of broadband down with more choices,” White House adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner says in another.

The video goes on to accuse Pai’s FCC of “supporting monopolies” and “defending duopolies.”

“The simplest way to provide affordable access to the basic needs of American families is through a competitive free market,” PK Vice President Chris Lewis said Wednesday. “House Speaker Paul Ryan makes this point about healthcare and it is definitely true about the basic communications network of the 21st century: high-speed broadband.”

According to the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA), a pro-deregulation policy group whose members include AT&T, the market is “highly competitive.” Figures released by the group show BDS services by cable providers are growing at a rate of 20 percent annually while $23 billion of the total $45 billion in BDS revenue in 2013 went to small providers.

IIA says 75 percent of all buildings served solely by a large provider are within less than 500 feet of competitive fiber, 50 percent are within 88 feet and 25 percent within 17 feet.

“That’s why the FCC should encourage them to invest, build and connect America’s businesses to these modern networks rather than relying on antiquated, government-mandated special access services,” the group said.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google, counters the distance measurements don’t take into account “the realities of the marketplace where a competitor faces high costs to extend that fiber to the building.”

During a PK-hosted conference call Tuesday the group said FCC data like those cited by IIA don’t take into account recent buyouts of small providers by large. Verizon’s purchase of XO Communications, Windstream’s acquisition of Earthlink, and CenturyLink’s pending bid to buy Level 3 will further consolidate the market, they argue.

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

The workforce saw a slight increase in employment growth with an additional 98,000 new jobs for the month of March, according to a federal report Friday.

President Donald Trump has overseen steady employment growth since entering office. The positive trend started in the final years of the last administration. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found in its latest jobs report that the trend continued with a slight uptick of 98,000 new jobs.

“Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up by 98,000,” the report stated. “The unemployment rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 4.5 percent in March, and the number of unemployed persons declined by 326,000 to 7.2 million. Both measures were down over the year.”

The previous jobs reports over the last year usually saw greater job growth closer to 200,000. The unemployment rates has hovered around 4.5 percent for several months, meaning there are less people in the labor market to fill new positions. There are still plenty of people outside the labor force.

“The job market is in very good shape,” Moody’s economic director Ryan Sweet told InsideSources. “The job market continues to tighten, we continue to move towards full employment, I don’t think we’re there yet, but we’re getting closer. Job growth has been very broad based. There has been findings that manufactures are hiring more aggressively and construction is picking backup.”

Average wages increased by five cents and now sit at $26.14 for the month of March. Wages in recent months have shown slow but positive growth. Professional and business services saw the most significant increase of new jobs at 56,000, followed by mining and healthcare. Retail trade lost jobs.

“I think the job market is in a phenomenal place right now,” Sales Consultants of Grand Rapids recruiter Jordan Underwood told InsideSources. “I think there is a lot of opportunities for growth. We work specifically in sales and managerial roles, and just about every company we’re working with is looking to expand.”

The labor market still faces some significant issues despite the positive trends. The labor force participation rate and underemployment have been problematic since the recession. Underemployment occurs when workers are stuck in part-time positions or can’t find roles that match their training or economic needs.

“There’s still the issue of underemployment,” Sweet said. “That’s one reason I don’t think we’re at full employment yet. There’s still too many people working part time for economic reasons. The number of people who are not in the labor force that want a job is still a little bit elevated.”

The labor force participation rate tracks the number of employed and those actively seeking work as a percentage of the total population. The participation rate has dropped considerably since the last recession and now sits at 63 percent. It has leveled over the last year, but has failed to regain those losses.

“We’ve been improving on both fronts,” Sweet said. “The composition of job growth early on in this expansion has primarily concentrated in low page industries, but that’s normal. That’s your low productivity jobs, they’re the first ones to comeback after a recession.”

Sweet adds that the mix of job growth begins to favor high wage industries as economic expansions age. The current recovery just happened to be very long, so that change hasn’t started happening until just recently. He notes a tighter labor market will cause wages to increase which will further incentive people to enter the workforce.

“Typically as you approach full employment it gets harder for business to find qualified workers so hiring will begin to moderate,” Sweet said. “The bar is low for the job market, we only need to create about a hundred thousand jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working age population.”

American Staffing Association (ASA) predicts similar trends based on what’s happening in staffing employment. The industry has started to see a slowdown when it comes to employment growth. Some sectors like staffing employment can serve as indicators for where the rest of the labor market is going.

“As the economy has slowed down in growth recently, we’ve seen the same thing happening with staffing employment,” ASA research director Cynthia Poole told InsideSources. “Usually about three to six months later you’ll see the same type of trend happening in employment overall.”

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year showed a positive increase after being stuck around one percent. GDP tracks the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period. The stock market has shown positive growth as well. Gallup has reported economic confidence has remained around a record high.

Trump has promised to protect domestic workers from unfair foreign competition. He has primarily focused on trade and immigration. Nevertheless, there is concern that too much economic protectionism could cause problems, even for the domestic workers it’s meant to help.

Republicans are hoping to spur economic growth through regulatory and tax reform. They released a blueprint designed to simplify the tax code while also lowering taxes for upper and middle-income earners. Even some supporters of the plan, however, are concerned with provisions like the border adjustment tax.

The jobs report does not include farm workers, private household employees or nonprofits.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Washington can be a tough place to read. Even so, there’s a policy debate at hand that I find puzzling.

We have a new president who has boldly promised to create 25 million jobs over the next decade and a conservative Congress deeply concerned with reducing the tax burden on the American people and addressing the national debt. And yet there is a federal program on the books right now that answers all calls but faces possible expiration on the eve of the Trump administration’s 100-day mark.

How could that be?

The EB-5 program puts Americans to work. According to a recent Commerce Department study, in fiscal year 2012-2013 alone, global EB-5 investors provided $5.8 billion in foreign capital to invest in 562 projects in communities from California to Alabama and created an estimated 174,039 jobs. That’s a hefty economic punch for a program that operates at no cost to taxpayers.

Yet, unless Congress acts quickly, the EB-5 Regional Center program will expire on April 28. For 27 years, EB-5 has been repeatedly reauthorized with large, bipartisan majorities. Now, some vocal critics — and classic Washington intransigence — threaten the survival of the program and the jobs it helps to create.

I founded my company, EB5 Capital, in 2007 to put some of this foreign capital to work in America’s disadvantaged communities and to support living-wage job creation. Building the company during the economic downturn gave me a unique perspective on the lack of liquidity in certain capital markets and the importance of a flexible, independent source of capital for economic development projects.

Through the EB-5 program, my company has helped to end “food deserts” in our nation’s capital, financed hotels to support a growing international airport, and invested in new retail, residential and senior living facilities that have helped restore abandoned historic properties and revitalize long-neglected neighborhoods. EB-5 investment in these projects across five states has created a snowball effect that has enabled other developers, businesses, and communities to flourish in neighborhoods that have often been bypassed because businesses couldn’t get access to capital. Our investments have anchored more than $2.4 billion of development that has created more than 23,000 American jobs.

My success with the program is not unique. EB-5 has helped to fund projects in urban, rural and suburban communities across a diverse range of industries, including energy production, charter schools, and manufacturing plants. It’s also helped to create thousands of jobs through infrastructure projects across the country. Whether it’s manufacturing zero-emission battery-powered buses in South Carolina, redeveloping closed military bases in California, investing in Philadelphia’s public transportation system or rebuilding the Brooklyn Navy Yard, EB-5 has provided critical financing to bolster our nation’s infrastructure.

As in any maturing industry over nearly three decades, there have occasionally been a few bad actors who have abused the program. That’s deeply unfortunate and why our broad-based EB-5 Investment Coalition has long argued that reform is needed to allow EB-5 to continue to do what it does best — help communities spur economic investment and create jobs. While the program’s multi-layered screening process is already substantially more robust than that of any other employment-based visa program, we’ve advocated for the passage of broad reforms that would prevent fraud, protect national security and strengthen the program. These reforms should be debated, voted on and passed through the legislative process — but the clock is ticking.

President Trump has made clear that job creation is his administration’s number- one priority. While ultimate passage of any EB-5 reform and reauthorization obviously rests with Congress, we believe an agreement is within reach and eminently doable by the April 28 deadline. Marking Trump’s first 100 days with anything less would be disconcerting — even in Washington.

President Donald Trump signed into law this week a repeal of Obama-era internet privacy rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission. The new Republican head of the FCC says the internet privacy repeal is the first step in returning that power to the Federal Trade Commission.

“President Trump and Congress have appropriately invalidated one part of the Obama-era plan for regulating the internet,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Monday night. “Those flawed privacy rules, which never went into effect, were designed to benefit one group of favored companies, not online consumers.”

The repealed rules would have required internet providers like AT&T and Comcast to get permission from subscribers before collecting and monetizing personal data including browser history and app use for targeted advertising. Republicans including Pai said they unfairly benefitted the other half of the internet ecosystem — websites like Facebook and Google, which already dominate the online advertising market (and as opponents frequently pointed out, curried favor with the Obama White House).

“American consumers’ privacy deserves to be protected regardless of who handles their personal information,” Pai said. “In order to deliver that consistent and comprehensive protection, the Federal Communications Commission will be working with the Federal Trade Commission to restore the FTC’s authority to police Internet service providers’ privacy practices.”

Edge providers like Google are subject to the FTC’s privacy rules, which only require user permission when collecting sensitive data like health and financial information, and information related to children. Internet service providers (ISPs) were subject to the same rules until 2015, when the FCC passed net neutrality rules that brought ISPs under FCC jurisdiction.

Now that Republicans are in control of Congress and the White House, those in the ISP industry, lawmakers, and regulators on the right want to go beyond the internet privacy repeal all the way to putting lines back where they were.

“We need to put America’s most experienced and expert privacy cop back on the beat,” the chairman continued. “And we need to end the uncertainty and confusion that was created in 2015 when the FCC intruded in this space.”

Pai shares that sentiment with the new acting Republican chairwoman of the FTC, Maureen Ohlhausen.

“The FTC has a long track record of protecting consumers’ privacy and security throughout the Internet ecosystem. It did not serve consumers’ interests to abandon this longstanding, bipartisan, successful approach,” the two said in a joint statement in March. “We still believe that jurisdiction over broadband providers’ privacy and data security practices should be returned to the FTC, the nation’s expert agency with respect to these important subjects. All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules, enforced by the same agency.”

But the internet privacy repeal was the easy part. The FTC is barred under law from regulating common carriers — a public utility classification used to break up telephone monopolies. The FCC reclassified broadband providers as common carriers in the 2015 net neutrality rules.

Last August the FTC lost a legal battle against AT&T over deceptive practices related to the carrier’s unlimited data plans. AT&T argued the FTC couldn’t take action against it because of its common carrier status, and the court agreed.

According to Ohlhausen that’s “a problem for the FTC and for consumers.”

“Say for example you have a common carrier who decided to sell dietary supplements,” she said in a January interview. “The FCC isn’t going to be there policing over dietary supplements, but this could divest the FTC of oversight over them as well.”

It also means the web giants like Google with a side business as a broadband provider (Google Fiber) could fall within an enforcement gap between both agencies. It’s not hard to imagine the implications on web privacy if more telecommunications providers like Verizon buy more popular edge providers (and targeted ad giants) like AOL and Yahoo.

There are solutions to fix the gap. The FTC has appealed its loss to AT&T, and Ohlhausen, like many of her predecessors, has suggested Congress change the law that bars the FTC from regulation common carriers (though decades of similar requests have proved fruitless). In the meantime, Pai and Ohlhausen say they’ll work together to enforce privacy based on the FTC standard, though Ohlhausen implied in January the FTC under her leadership would be less inclined the take enforcement action against companies for using data in innovative ways unless they demonstrated “substantial harm.”

Democrats meanwhile say the issue could have been avoided had Congress not gone through with the internet privacy repeal.

“This legislation will frustrate the FCC’s future efforts to protect the privacy of voice and broadband customers,” Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Terrell McSweeny, the only Democrats left at the FCC and FTC respectively, said in March. “It also creates a massive gap in consumer protection law as broadband and cable companies now have no discernible privacy requirements. This is the antithesis of putting #ConsumersFirst.”

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

The White House has announced that the Trump administration is “driving the train” when it comes to tax reform. This is good news as White House leadership has always been vital to tax reform.

An important first step happened recently with a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on energy tax policy, which also provided an opportunity to correct distortions and misconceptions in the current tax code. As the reform process evolves, lawmakers should ensure equal treatment of all economic sectors — energy, retail, insurance, manufacturers, pharmaceutical and others — as attention focuses on how to enact comprehensive tax reform.

The subcommittee hearing announcement noted, “Reform could affect a host of energy sectors by putting incentives at risk, including deductions and allowances enjoyed by oil and gas companies; breaks for wind, solar and other renewables; and the production tax credit for new nuclear facilities.”

That is a fair objective but the energy industry should not be singled out for “special treatment” when it comes to reform. Punitive provisions not only discriminate, they distort resource allocation. Unfortunately, some subcommittee members trotted out their time-worn arguments about alternatives and false claims about the energy sector’s tax provisions, ignoring important testimony that refuted their rhetoric.

The reality is that in spite of efforts to favor alternatives, U.S. oil and gas production has surged and U.S. companies have become major petroleum exporters. The potential exists to achieve a dominant role in the global energy market and by doing so contribute even more to our economic growth. Removing barriers and distortions in the current code is an important step toward that goal.

The failure of the House to move on health care legislation has complicated tax reform because the assumed $1 trillion in a lower budget baseline now does not exist. As a consequence, static CBO scoring is likely to conclude that any serious reform adds to the deficit. That should not be the case if reform creates incentives to save, invest and bring foreign-earned capital back to the United States.

In drafting legislation, Congress should start with a set of guiding principles. These should include enabling American companies to compete fairly and freely in the global market, providing confidence that encourages long-term investment, treating all companies equally in terms of deductions and incentives, providing a level playing field, and avoiding provisions that either penalize or favor specific industries.

Tax reform along the lines of the House Blueprint would enable U.S. companies to better compete globally by reducing the corporate tax rate from the highest in the developed world — 39 percent — to 20 percent, which is in line with the global average of 22.5 percent. The Blueprint also provides for immediate expensing of capital investments, which also will helps U.S. companies compete in the global marketplace. Such changes are necessary but hardly sufficient, since there are pressures to discriminate against the oil industry.

Some special interests wrongly claim that the current tax code contains special provisions favoring the oil industry. This assertion has been rebutted over and over but this false claim continues to gain traction among some lawmakers. Tax reform that targets provisions taken by the oil industry, such as the production tax credit and foreign tax credit, will reduce domestic investment and the jobs that come with it. In the five-year period from 2011 to 2015, energy producers invested more than $160 billion in domestic infrastructure.

What tax reform legislation should do is eliminate all special interest subsidies that unfairly prop up uncompetitive industries. Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute was clear on this point in his testimony: “Among the central energy-related tax provisions now in effect, the subventions for various unconventional forms of energy … are subsidies. (They) are likely to yield resource waste and thus to make the economy smaller.”

His conclusions were supported by another witness, Robert Murphy of the Institute for Energy Research, who testified that “policymakers should … raise revenue in a manner that distorts consumer and producer behavior as little as possible. … This principle is routinely violated when it comes to tax policy and energy markets” with renewable provisions being the most egregious distortions.”

Tax reform provisions, as Zycher noted, should focus on two questions, “Does it make the economy — the total size of the aggregate economic ‘pie’ — larger? Or: Does the given policy actually correct for inefficiencies in resource use created by other government policies?”

If tax reform legislation answers yes to both questions, capital investment will increase, the energy industry will continue to make strong contributions to economic growth, and resources will not be wasted attempting industrial policy initiatives that inevitably fail.

Policymakers now have a promising opportunity to advance the comprehensive tax reform and encourage the traditional energy sector — indeed all sectors — to invest in America’s economy and ensure businesses are not stifled by America’s outdated tax code. Support for reform along the lines of the Blueprint is widespread within the economic community.

Federal immigration services announced a new initiative Monday aimed at preventing employers from using high-skilled visas for cheap foreign labor, a move that should allay some concerns expressed by critics.

President Donald Trump has expressed concern employers are undercutting domestic workers with cheap foreign labor. The H-1B visa program is supposed to prioritize domestic workers, but some are concerned the system is being misused. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced they will be taking steps to prevent abuse.

“The H-1B visa program should help U.S. companies recruit highly skilled foreign nationals when there is a shortage of qualified workers in the country,” the USCIS said in a statement. “Yet, too many American workers who are as qualified, willing, and deserving to work in these fields have been ignored or unfairly disadvantaged.”

The USCIS is primarily changing how they approach random site visits. The agency visits employers who participate in the program to ensure nothing is amiss. They will begin specifically targeting employers with business information that’s difficult to validate, visa dependent employers, and employers who operate at another organization’s location.

“Targeted site visits will allow USCIS to focus resources where fraud and abuse of the H-1B program may be more likely to occur, and determine whether H-1B dependent employers are evading their obligation to make a good faith effort to recruit U.S. workers,” USCIS said. “USCIS will continue random and unannounced visits nationwide.”

The USCIS adds the site visits are not meant to target foreign-born workers. The visits are instead aimed at identifying employers who are abusing the system. Trump has previously expressed his intention to overhaul the visa program out of concern it is being abused.

“The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration,” Trump said in a statement last year. “These are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse.”

The H-1B visa program also has supporters who believe restrictions are already too tight. They contest the bigger issue is a lack of qualified domestic workers to meet demands. The computer and technology sector has become increasingly in need of skills that are in short supply domestically.

Some supporters agree abuse needs to be addressed, but warn most companies legitimately need those foreign workers. Restrictions could hurt industries that depend on foreign workers to provide needed skills. Industries like tech have helped drive innovation and domestic employment.

Foreign-born workers and their children play a significant role when it comes to the economy and innovation. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor found in a 2012 report that immigrants start businesses at 12.7 percent. Their children start businesses at 16.4 percent. Non-immigrants only start businesses at 12.9 percent.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) conducted a survey to determine which demographics are most innovative. It found that 35 percent of the innovators that were sampled were born outside the country. Another 10 percent were the children of immigrants.

The USCIS announced the changes on the day H-1B visa applications opened for next year. The H-1B program has a congressionally-mandated cap of 65,000 visas. The program is allowed to grant an additional 20,000 for foreigners with advanced degrees.

Visa programs cover a range of labor market needs from agricultural workers to high-skilled employment. The H-1B visa program is specifically designed to fill positions in specialty occupations. It covers skilled sectors like biotechnology, engineering, healthcare, and law.

An inspector general report to lawmakers in November warned that the program is prone to fraud and abuse, and has been a point of concern since the 1990s. The Government Accountability Office published a report in 2011 citing similar concerns.

The USCIS has conducted random administrative site visits since 2009. The agency typically refers cases of suspected abuse to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further investigation. Employers are only supposed to use the H-1B visas when they cannot find a qualified domestic worker do hire.

The H-1B program and some other visas were implemented under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. CNN reported earlier this month the government suspended expedited processing for H-1B visas. The president has argued companies should instead provide jobs to domestic workers.

Trump does face legal limits when it comes to changing the visa program, and can’t overhaul it unilaterally. The H-1B program was included in legislative reforms to U.S. immigration law in the ’60s, meaning it will take an act of Congress to fundamentally change the program.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning 

There is a paradox of regulation clearly not known in the Trump White House. It is this: Regulation can stimulate creativity and move forward innovation.

This has been especially true of energy. Ergo, President Donald Trump’s latest move to lessen the effect of regulation on energy companies may have a converse and debilitating impact.

Consider these three examples:

When Congress required tankers to have double hulls, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989, the oil companies and their lobbyists wailed that it would push up the price of gas at the pump.

Happily, the government held tough and soon oil spills in from tanker punctures were almost eliminated.

The cost? Fractions of a penny per gallon, so small they cannot be easily found.

Victory to regulation, the environment and common sense. In due course, the oil companies took out advertisements to boast of their environmental sensitivity by double-hulling their tankers.

When the Environmental Protection Agency mandated a 75-percent reduction in hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from two-stroke marine engines in 1996, with a 10-year compliance period, the boat manufacturers issued dire predictions of a slump in recreational boating and a huge loss of associated jobs.

In fact, two things happened: Two-stroke marine engines were saved with electronic fuel-injection, and four-stroke marine engines started to take over the market — the same four-stroke engines the manufacturers had said would be prohibitively expensive and too heavy for small boats.

Today, most new small boats have four-stroke engines. They are quieter, more fuel efficient, less polluting and have added to the joy of boating. The weight and economic penalty, predicted by the anti-regulation boat manufacturers, turned out to be of no account. The problems were engineered out. That is what engineers do when they are unleashed: They design to meet the standards.

Similarly fleet-average standards, so hated by the automobile industry, have led to better cars, greater efficiencies, a reduction in air pollution and oil imports. They also pushed the industry to look beyond the internal combustion engine to such developments hybrids and all-electric vehicles and new concepts, like hydrogen and compressed natural gas vehicles.

A high bar produces higher jumpers. Water restrictions have produced more efficient toilets, electric appliance ratings have reduced the consumption of electricity. Regulation is sometimes incentive by another name.

Well-thought-out regulation is constructive, mindless regulation deleterious — as when the purpose is political rather than practical. Restrictions on stem cell research and the unnecessary amount of ethanol added to gasoline come to mind.

In his energy executive order, repealing many of the Obama administration’s clean energy regulations, Trump has done no one any favors: Less challenge, less innovation, less protection of the environment, and less global leadership is a cruel gift.

Take coal mining. Trump wants to save coal mining jobs, but his executive order will cause coal production to increase, further glutting the market. There are ways of burning coal more cleanly and if the president wants to help the coal industry, he should be supporting these. He also might want to look at the disposition of coal ash and its possible uses, not bankrupt what is left of the coal industry by false generosity.

Trump’s energy executive order might have had virtue 40-plus years ago. Back in the bleak days of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and the future shock it induced, coal was our only plentiful energy source. I was one of the authors of a study, prepared for President Richard Nixon, that highlighted coal. Hence a passion that lasted through the Carter administration to gasify coal, liquefy it and back out oil with it whenever possible.

However the national genius produced a flood of innovation, leading today’s abundance of oil and gas.

The Trump administration is exhibiting a worrisome trend: fixing what is not broken, even if you have to break something to do it.

President Donald Trump is receiving some union support for announcing Friday plans to grant a permit that will allow construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

The Keystone XL Pipeline was abandoned by the last administration amid growing political pressure from the left. Labor unions split with progressive allies on the issue. Union workers in the construction and energy sectors stand to see gains from the pipeline.

The president called the pipeline one of many infrastructure projects under his administration, and he noted the safety of pipelines versus other means of transporting oil. The pipeline is expected to create thousands of jobs and cost $8 billion.

The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) is hopeful construction will begin soon. “LIUNA welcomes the news that the Keystone Pipeline has at last won a presidential permit – after years of politically motivated delays,” LIUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan said in a statement provided to InsideSources. “I am hopeful that the remaining review by the Nebraska Public Service Commission will be completed swiftly so that the thousands of hard-working men and women of the building trades who have testified, rallied and supported this project.”

Former President Barack Obama had a strong relationship with unions throughout his administration. Environmental policy and trade were some of the few areas where he received backlash from organized labor. The State Department found the project could create 3,900 construction jobs if completed within one year.

The Teamsters has also been a vocal supporter of the pipeline. “This project will put thousands of Americans, including Teamsters, to work in good union jobs that will support working families,” Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said in a statement.

The split among unions primarily stems from whether their membership will be negatively impacted. The Teamsters represent more than 1.4 million workers from a range of blue collar industries. LIUNA has over a half-million members, primarily in the energy and construction industries.

The Dakota Access Pipeline has also attracted some union support despite general opposition on the left. The Teamsters denounced the last administration for halting pipeline construction last year. LIUNA added that the administration was appeasing environmental extremists.

Environmentalists have noted concern pipelines pose a threat to the surrounding environment. A leak or spill could cause damage to nearby communities, as well. The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group, found that pipelines are actually a safer method for transporting oil.

Not every union deviates from the bunch when it comes to environmental and energy policies. The National Nurses United praised the last administration when it rejected the Keystone pipeline. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) later applauded the decision to stop construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Trump has built his presidency on the promise that he would help domestic workers. The president argued during his announcement that the government has failed workers and companies alike. He added the pipeline will begin making things right again.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

President Donald Trump’s pick for labor secretary faced tough questions Wednesday during his nomination hearing.

Alexander Acosta was nominated Feb. 16 to lead the Department of Labor (DOL). The labor secretary position is one of the last major nominations to be filled with the process facing several delays and setbacks. Senate Democrats asked the nominee a range of questions regarding his past and plans for the department.

“Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” Acosta said during the hearing. “We may not agree on how, but at least we can agree on the need.”

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee held the confirmation hearing. Democrats on the committee asked about a proposed federal budget that would cut the department by 21 percent.

“How are you going to approach this,” Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin asked during the hearing. “Are you going to do 21 percent across the board or do it by bureau.”

The Republican proposed budget would make significant cuts across the federal government. It would slash the labor department by $9.6 billion. The department cuts would amount to a 21 percent decrease from the last budget.

“My personal perspective is it shouldn’t be across the board,” Acosta answered. “I think this requires a thorough review.”

Acosta added the review should determine whether a program is effective and if funds can be better utilized elsewhere. Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray asked about a recent update to overtime rules which is pending before the courts.

“The rule helped restore the 40 hour work week,” Murray said. “Do you believe workers should be paid overtime for the hours they work.”

Managers and executives currently cannot qualify for overtime if they have a salary of at least $23,660. The new rule is designed to increase the overtime salary exemption to $47,476. It also included provisions that would require employers to prove their workers are in an exempt position. Critics contested the increase is too big and rapid.

“Something that needs to be considered is the impact it has on the economy,” Acosta answered. “It’s something I will look at if my nomination is approved.”

The rule was last updated in 2004. Acosta believes the rule probably should have been updated, but warns it was done in a way that may have hurt businesses.

Acosta is an attorney who currently serves as dean of the Florida International University College of Law. Former President George W. Bush previously appointed him to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He has also been an assistant attorney general and federal prosecutor.

The DOL plays a critical role in issuing and enforcing workplace regulations. Former President Barack Obama instituted much of his economic agenda through the department. He hoped to strengthen worker rights, but critics contest he did little to help workers while putting unnecessary stress on employers.

Acosta noted during his opening statement that his views regarding labor stem from his parents. His parents were poor immigrants but worked hard to give him a college education. They were always able to find work. Acosta is concerned work isn’t as available now as it was then.

Those opposed to the last administration also hope the new labor secretary will help bring balance back to the department. The Competitive Enterprise Institute noted in a coalition letter the department imposed $55.7 billion in regulatory costs on employers during the last administration.

Acosta has been seen by some opponents as a more moderate choice for labor secretary. CKE Restaurants President Andy Puzder was originally nominated for the position by eventually dropped out. Democrats and labor unions relentlessly attacked him for his lack of government experience and alleged conduct as an employer.

Acosta has even been able to earn praise from some union leaders. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stated his nomination deserves serious consideration. Trumka and many other union leaders were highly opposed to Puzder, and even touted his leaving as a success for the labor movement.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning