Mediaboss Marketing

By David Shepardson | WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON A trade association representing General Motors Co (GM.N), Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) and nine other automakers on Tuesday asked new Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt to withdraw an Obama administration decision to lock in vehicle emission rules through 2025.

On Jan. 13, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy finalized a determination that landmark fuel efficiency rules instituted by President Barack Obama should be finalized through 2025, a bid to maintain a key part of his administration's climate legacy.

Mitch Bainwol, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a letter to Pruitt the decision was "the product of egregious procedural and substantive defects" and is "riddled with indefensible assumptions, inadequate analysis and a failure to engage with contrary evidence."

Automakers have argued that the rules could result in the loss of up to 1 million jobs because consumers could be less willing to buy the more fuel efficient vehicles since their engineering will result in higher price tags.

The EPA had until April 2018 to decide whether the 2025 standards were feasible but in November moved up its decision to Jan. 13, just before Obama left office.

Separately, the Association of Global Automakers, a trade group representing Honda Motor Co (7267.T), Nissan Motor Co Ltd (7201.T), Hyundai Motor Co (005380.KS) and others, said late Tuesday it had formally petitioned the EPA to withdraw the determination. The group argued in a separate letter to Pruitt Tuesday reviewed by Reuters that "EPA opted for political expediency" and "jammed through a final determination in the waning days of the lame-duck administration."

EPA spokeswoman Julia Valentine said the agency is reviewing the letter and declined to comment further. Pruitt told a Senate panel earlier he will review the Obama administration's decision.

The auto group requests follow a separate letter to President Donald Trump earlier this month from the chief executives of GM, Ford Motor Co and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, along with the top North American executives at Toyota, VW, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan and others urging Trump to revisit the decision.

Automakers say the rules impose significant costs and are out of step with consumer preferences. Environmentalists say the rules are working, saving drivers thousands in fuel costs and should not be changed.

In 2011, Obama announced an agreement with automakers to raise fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 miles per gallon. This, the administration said, would save motorists $1.7 trillion in fuel costs over the life of the vehicles but cost the auto industry about $200 billion over 13 years.

The EPA said in July that because Americans were buying fewer cars and more SUVs and trucks, it estimated the fleet will average 50.8 mpg to 52.6 mpg in 2025.

McCarthy could not be reached Tuesday but said in her determination in January the rules are "feasible, practical and appropriate" and in "the best interests of the auto industry."

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Lisa Shumaker)

BEIJING/DHAKA China's state-run Zhenhua Oil has signed a preliminary deal with Chevron to buy the U.S. oil major's natural gas fields in Bangladesh that are worth about $2 billion, two Beijing-based Chinese oil executives said.

SINGAPORE Oil traders from around the world, including the United States, Britain and Brazil, have tripled their sales to Asia as they take advantage of an emerging supply gap following OPEC-led production cuts announced late last year.

LONDON Anglo-Dutch consumer goods group Unilever said it was reviewing its options to increase shareholder value, just days after it swiftly rejected a surprise $143 billion takeover bid from Kraft Heinz .

Read more from the original source:
Automakers urge new EPA chief to withdraw Obama car fuel-efficiency rules - Reuters

Throughout the years Barack Obama was in power, Jordan Peeles impression of the president emerged as the most recognizable, only rivaled by Jay Pharoahs take on Saturday Night Live.

During the comedians appearance on Seth Meyers Late Night Monday to promote his well-reviewed new film Get Out, the host told Peele he thought the Obama impression was the gold standard.

Peeles take on the president from his Comedy Central show, Key & Peele, would portray Obama as extremely even-keeled and calm. During these sketches his comedic partner, Keegan-Michael Key, would play an anger translator, expressing the frustration Obama presumably decided he couldnt.

The popularity of the recurring impressions became so popular that the real Obama invited Key to be his anger translator for part of his speech at the2015 White House Correspondents Dinner.

With this context, Meyers asked Peele to revive his impression and asked what Obama is thinking about the United States at the moment. Although he didnt outright mention his name, Meyers heavily implied he wanted Peeles Obama to respond to the fact thatDonald Trump now runs the country.

At least according to this new impression, Obama no longer needs an anger translator the post-Trump Obama is willing to get mad all by himself.

Peele set up his take with a mention that Obama has been on vacation and a guess that the former president is now holding a glass of whiskey in his hands while watching TV.

This is some messed up stuff here, Peeles drunk Obama yelled out in response to watching news on TV. Then while swirling the imaginary whiskey glass, Peele slurred in his Obama-voice, Michelle, top her off. Michelle, top her off.

Peele-as-Obama reacted again to the TV and said with clear frustration, Well, you done done did it now, America!

Before wrapping up the take, Peele referenced Trumps past insistence that Obama was not born in the United States. In the impression, Peeles Obama repeatedly asks Michelle where he is from, before stating himself that the answer is Hawaii.

His last line as Obama? Well,mele kalikimaka mother f, making sure to stop himself short.

Read more here:
Jordan Peele's Barack Obama Impression Is Now Drunk And Angry At Donald Trump - Huffington Post

A former advisor of President Barack Obamas ambassador to Israel defended Obamas legacy in Israel on Tuesday.

Scott Lasensky, a UCLA alumnus, served as a senior advisor to Ambassador Daniel Shapiro, where he worked to improve public engagement and policy advising in Israel. He spoke to about 35 students, faculty and community members in Bunche Hall.

The United States has been Israels strongest ally politically and militarily. However, relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became strained over Israels occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, construction of settlements and the Iran nuclear deal, among other issues.

Lasensky began his discussion by highlighting a central dilemma for policy makers about Israel: whether the U.S. should defend Israel or promote peace. He added many see the two objectives as contradictory to each other.

Lasensky added he thinks most presidents have handled that dilemma similarly, trying to negotiate without making any stark decisions, which has created historical continuity in U.S. relations with Israel.

He also said he thinks Obamas performance was about the same as past presidents.

I think for the most part, though I know a lot of people disagree with me, Obama did a great job in Israel, Lasensky said. If you look closer at what he did, he deserves a lot of credit.

Lasensky said he thinks Obamas best diplomatic move was appointing John Kerry to oversee Israeli-Palestinian relations. Kerry negotiated with Israelis while involving Arabs and Egyptians, which led to one of the most quiet periods in Israels history, he said.

When comparing other presidents to Obama, Lasensky said he thinks President Bill Clintons presidency was a low point for U.S. relations with Israel because Clinton ignored Israels neighbors. He added he thinks President George W. Bush was not effective enough either because he focused too much on saying nice things without any action.

Clinton was too involved and Bush was too laid back, Lasensky said. Obama gets high marks for being there to step in when needed but not constantly hovering over.

Lasensky said he thinks people should judge Obama on a lower standard than other presidents because Israel is experiencing a difficult era.

Theres a lot that goes on every day that the public knows nothing about, Lasensky said. Obama continued to invest millions of dollars in a functioning security system on the ground. He wanted to make sure that the Israelis felt confident and safe.

Lasensky added he thinks the Obama administration was too silent on what it was doing to improve U.S. relations with Israel.

When three Israeli teenagers were murdered in 2014 on a field trip in Israel, many Jewish groups criticized Obama for not denouncing the murder, Lasensky said. However, Obama personally reached out to the parents of the teenagers, which the public did not know about, he added. Lasensky said he thinks the administration should have been more transparent about Obamas support for Israel.

Students who attended the talk said Lasensky helped them better understand the diplomatic situation between the U.S. and Israel.

I liked how, although many people are opposed to Obamas attempts in Israel, he gave a positive outlook on his administration, said Dina Abdel Mooti, a third-year political science student.

She added she thinks Lasensky did a good job of informing her about Israel.

Brandon Lee, a third-year political science student, also said Lasensky helped him understand the complicated situation.

I dont know a better way to get the inside scoop about the situation in Israel than from the senior advisor to the United States ambassador, Lee said. Its a once in a lifetime opportunity to hear his perspective on the matter.

Here is the original post:
Former advisor to Israeli ambassador and alumnus talks Obama policies - Daily Bruin

C-SPAN released a survey Friday that asked historians to rank past presidents and former-President Obama was voted the country's 12th best, right behind Woodrow Wilson and in front of James Monroe.

Historians were asked to essentially grade the presidents on items like public persuasion and moral authority. Politico reported that Obama rated high in the category of equal justice for all, but received low marks for his relationship with Congress.

Of course, it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of a presidency so soon after the president left office.

"Although 12th is a respectable overall ranking, one would have thought that former President Obamas favorable rating when he left office would have translated into a higher ranking in this presidential survey," Edna Greene Medford, a Howard University professor and member of C-SPAN's historical advisory board, told Politico.

Abraham Lincoln retained the top position, and George Washington came in a close second.

Read this article:
Historians rank Obama 12th best president in new survey ...

The resolution is astart of rolling back harmful Obama-era regulations, which have cost the American business consumers a staggering $890 billion, making our companies less competitive and even driving some of them out of business. White House press secretarySean Spicer, press briefing, Feb. 14, 2017

The White House spokesman, in speaking about a House resolution signed by President Trump to roll back regulations enacted in the closing months of the Obama administration, cited an interesting statistic that Obama-era regulations have cost the American business consumers a staggering $890 billion.

That seemed like a rather specific number, so we wanted to explore how valid it might be.

A White House spokesman said Spicer gotthe figure from a calculation done by the American Action Forum, a right-leaning issue advocacy group run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Sam Batkins, AAFs director of regulatory policy, wrote that with a last-minute flourish of $24 billion in final regulatory costs in the last three weeks, the Obama Administration passed $890 billion in cumulative burdens. He said that the George W. Bush administration averaged $42 billion in average annual final-rule costs, compared with$111 billion for President Barack Obama. Under Obama, the agencies with the biggest regulatory impact were the Environmental Protection Agency ($344 billion) and the Department of Energy ($194 billion).

These numbers are supposed to represent net present value estimates, Batkins said, based onthe published costs during the Obama administration. Some of those regulations have been delayed by courts or the administration and have not imposed costs, but its just a measure of what regulators publish in the Federal Register, he said.

On its website, the AAFhas a nifty interactive feature called the Regulation Rodeo, which provides links to the costs and benefits of every rule cited. We used this to spot-check how the AAF calculated its numbers. Whenever possible, AAF used the net present value provided by the administration, but otherwise it would do its own calculation based on the range of cost estimates provided.

For instance, a Renewable Fuel Standard Program rule published in 2015 listed its annual costs as $203 to $240 million in 2015 and $480 to $1,182 million in 2016. The AAF listed the total cost as $1.4 billion ($240 million + $1.182 billion) which is the high end of the estimate. Thats the number that was part of the $890 billion. For the annual cost of the rule, AAF used a midpoint ($711 million). We try to capture those ranges in our annual and total figures, Batkins said.

Another nuance in the AAF data is that the estimated benefits of the rules clearly outweigh the costs. From AAFs data:

Total Costs: $890 billion Annual Costs: $139 billion Annual Benefits: $458 billion

We realize that some experts have raised serious questions about how some of the benefits are calculated and whether they are valid but the fact remains that regulators who developed the cost estimates determined that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Susan Dudley, director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Bush, said that there arent glaring errors in the AAF calculation, but it suffers from the flaws all such estimates do. Those are ex ante estimates, rather than actual measured costs.

Batkins noted that there is little research done to see whether an agencys estimates actually came close to reality. A comprehensive approach would conduct a retrospective review of everything during the Obama administration to determine actual costs imposed versus benefits generated, likely an impossible task, he said. A 2015 retrospective study of environmental regulations found that most costs and benefits were often overestimated.

Dudley said anyflaws in the estimates are even more likely in the agency calculations of the benefits. I dont think its wrong per se to speak only of the costs, she said. Its equivalent to the fiscal budget, where we talk of the size of the budget while recognizing that those expenditures also have benefits.

The Obama administration certainly imposed many regulations. But Spicer errs in suggesting that these costs have already been paid by consumers and businesses, when in fact some are in the future, and in claiming that this is an absolutely (staggering) solid figure. The number is derived from agency estimates, but in some cases, the high end of an estimate was used. Moreover, the estimates often have significant ranges and it is unlikely that the actual costs of the rules will ever be determined.

Spicer would have been on more solid ground if he had said the regulations were estimated to cost as much $890 billion, since that would have signaled this was both an estimate and possibly a high-end one at that.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Share the Facts

1

5

The resolution is a start of rolling back harmful Obama-era regulations, which have cost the American business consumers a staggering $890 billion."

Sean Spicer

White House Press Secretary

at a press briefing, Washington, D.C.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

02/14/2017

Original post:
The White House claim that Obama-era regulations have cost $890 billion - Washington Post