Immelt's soft shot at White House earns a smackdown

After General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt told a private dinner of Italian business executives that he didn't believe China was willing to be a fair business partner, and that the Obama Administration's heavy regulatory approach was not conducive to helping the U.S. economy, senior White House officials, upon hearing about the comments, went into bully mode.

Immelt made his comments at dinner in Rome earlier this week and they were later reported by the Financial Times. The remarks about the Obama Administration did not include any disparagement of the president himself.

Yet, according to a contracting lobbyist for GE in Washington, senior White House officials and senior members of the Commerce and Energy Departments called Washington GE officials and corporate officers in New York.

"They [the Obama Administration] weren't happy, and wanted to know why a GE official would be making those comments," said the lobbyist. "The underlying message was that GE has dealings with the federal government. It wasn't a threat, but these folks are from Chicago."

Within hours GE released an official statement saying Immelt's comments didn't reflect the company's views. The lobbyist says he does not know if the White House demanded the statement.

The lobbyist would not identify who in the administration made the calls, but in the past senior officials like Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel and deputy Jim Messina have been known to make such calls to business executives.

"It's fairly common with this crowd," says another lobbyist, who is employed by a Fortune 50 company in Washington. "The second my boss says something that could be interpreted as anti-Obama administration, we get phone calls. They are very thin skinned. Add to that the fact that they just hate the business community, and you have a tense relationship."

One writer has read cap and trade bill, loathes it

"The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets – theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries – so that big US emitters will not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences – and the bottom line for all that is business as usual."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/706bbcde-640d-11de-a818-00144feabdc0.html