Regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency got the message early.
A month before President Obama promised to review all government regulations to remove unnecessary burdens on small business, EPA lawyers asked a federal court for a 16-month delay in implementing a new rule that would limit toxic air pollution from industrial boilers. The rule had been more than a decade in the making, and was issued last June only after the agency had been forced to act by the courts.
The EPA’s initial proposal would have cost companies an estimated $9.5 billion to bring more than 2,000 heat and steam plants across the U.S. into compliance, according to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), headed by regulation czar and Obama confidante Cass Sunstein.
However, the OIRA analysis also showed that reduced particulate matter, carbon monoxide, chlorine, mercury and dioxin emissions from the rule would prevent about 1,900 to 4,800 premature deaths, 1,300 cases of chronic bronchitis, 3,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 3,200 hospital and emergency room visits and 250,000 lost work days each year. The total health benefits, calculated at $17 billion to $41 billion a year, far outweighed the cost of the proposal, according to OIRA.
Environmentalists feared the EPA’s request was a harbinger of a new administration approach to regulation now that Republicans are in control of the House and the president is focused on creating jobs. “The EPA was running scared because the White House wouldn’t back them,” fumed Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “After the election things changed.”
The January 18 executive order and memorandum outlining the administration’s new regulatory policy seemed to confirm that analysis. Again in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, the president pledged to weed out unnecessary and duplicative rules and promised to halt any rules that stood in the way of small business’ ability to create jobs.
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them,” Obama said. “But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people.”
The administration has moved quickly to cozy up to business. In the past week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew two rules that had angered business lobbyists, one a proposed rule that would reduce noise pollution in workplaces and the other that would make companies keep records on musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace."Hearing loss caused by excessive noise levels remains a serious occupational health problem in this country," said OSHA chief David Michaels, whose agency often bears the brunt of small business antagonism toward government regulation.
During the Bush administration, Michaels, then a professor at George Washington University, frequently criticized OSHA and other regulatory agencies for failing to follow science when setting rules for protecting workers and public health. “It is clear from the concerns raised about this proposal that addressing this problem requires much more public outreach and many more resources than we had originally anticipated,” he said as he withdrew the noise rule.
Regulation has always been at the heart of corporate and Republican concerns about the direction the federal government takes under Democratic control. Long before there was a “job-killing” health care bill, there was the job-killing EPA, the job-killing Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the job-killing Mine Safety and Health Administration and any number of agencies that stand accused of undermining economic growth when they enforce laws designed to protect America’s air and water, food and drugs, and working and housing conditions.
Industry lobbyists invariably play the job-killing theme in public when lobbying against proposed rules, even as they use scientific arguments, which they must, while making their case before regulatory agencies. But that gets industry only so far. Science and economic analysis usually support tighter rules as more becomes known about the health effects of hazards and the cost of pollution-control technology drops.
For instance, the EPA’s clean air scientific advisory committee, a panel of outside experts that evaluates scientific evidence presented by stakeholders, had endorsed the tougher standards contained in the EPA’s original rule on industrial boilers.
The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners fought back. It commissioned a report that claimed the EPA’s June rule would put 338,000 jobs at risk and cost twice as much as the EPA/OMB estimate. “There are so many things that have to be changed (in the rule) to make it economically viable. They need to provide some flexibility,” said Robert D. Bessette, president of the Council, whose membership includes most of the nation’s largest chemical and paper products manufacturers. Their industrial boilers are among the largest stationary sources of air pollution outside the electricity generating and oil refining industries.
Earlier this month, the District of Columbia federal court turned down the EPA’s request for a delay and gave the agency until mid-February to come up with a final rule. “We are working to complete the final rules now,” a spokeswoman said.
“Congress will be closely monitoring the final rules when they are released next month and considering what steps can be taken to protect jobs and prevent reckless regulation,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI). “The EPA will come up with a rule that I’m sure will make no one happy,” predicted Bessette. “Either the enviros or us will petition for a reconsideration.”
The final industrial boiler rule doesn’t just have economic significance, it could signal the future direction of Obama administration policy on major regulatory issues. A number of major decisions coming down the pike will either please or enrage some of most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington, whether on the industry or environmental side. They include administration plans for regulating greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide; coal-burning electricity generating plants whose emissions cross state lines, the so-called clean air transport rule; and the next round of automobile fuel standards, which will go into effect in 2016.
Those major decisions, not skirmishes over minor or duplicative rules, will determine how far the administration is willing to go to please business. “We’re hoping that the agencies and Cass Sunstein will be doing a lot more cost-benefit analysis and offer more regulatory flexibility,” said Susan Eckerly, senior vice president for federal policy at the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a small- business lobbying group. “Those big EPA decisions might not impact small businesses right away, but they will affect our energy costs.”
Environmentalists and other public interest groups are getting ready to push back. “We want 60 miles per gallon by 2025 and a 6 percent decrease in emissions,” said Ann Mesnikoff, director of the green transportation campaign at the Sierra Club. “California shows the technologies are there to get there very cost effectively.”
With unemployment stuck at 9.4 percent, environmentalists recognize the general public is concerned about getting the economy humming again, so they are touting the job-generating potential of green technologies. Much of the intellectual muscle for their new approach is coming out of California, which has taken the lead on regulating greenhouse gases.
Charles Cicchetti of the Pacific Economics Group, a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California and a Republican, recently issued a report that said the coal plant and industrial boiler rules would create one million jobs by generating $150 billion in new capital investment in the nation’s aging energy infrastructure.
“These are real jobs that can be generated right now,” he said. “The technology exists; the capacity to produce it is sitting idle; and the electricity industry can self-finance anything… This is a far more effective way of creating jobs than the stimulus bill since the feds won’t have to borrow money and go further into debt.”
This post originally appeared at The Fiscal Times.
Deadline confirms the deal with Universal but isn’t able to say whether Julian Assange will participate in the film. Regardless, the movie could be a firebrand that surpasses the interest generated by Mr. Gibney’s last few films.
Julian Assange, the founder of the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks and therefore responsible for the release of thousands of confidential government documents, is a figure that people tend to either love or hate. To some he’s a hero and a champion of free speech and democracy; others see him as an enemy and someone who endangers our freedom by compromising the inner workings of government. (And there are probably many who see him as a troublesome, egocentric kid.)
All that being the case I’d say that Alex Gibney is the perfect man for this job, and I’m eagerly awaiting the results of his work.
In addition, producers at Josephson Entertainment and Michelle Krumm Prods have optioned Andrew Fowler‘s forthoming biography of Mr. Assange, called The Most Dangerous Man in the World. They plan a ‘suspenceful drama thriller’ based on the bio. The book follows the WikiLeaks founder from childhood to the present day. Producers compare the story they want to tell to All the President’s Men.
No word on a screenwriter, director or cast for the biopic at this point. Too bad Steven Soderbergh likely won’t have any interest in this; he’d be great for it. [Variety]
bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft company Regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency got the message early.
A month before President Obama promised to review all government regulations to remove unnecessary burdens on small business, EPA lawyers asked a federal court for a 16-month delay in implementing a new rule that would limit toxic air pollution from industrial boilers. The rule had been more than a decade in the making, and was issued last June only after the agency had been forced to act by the courts.
The EPA’s initial proposal would have cost companies an estimated $9.5 billion to bring more than 2,000 heat and steam plants across the U.S. into compliance, according to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), headed by regulation czar and Obama confidante Cass Sunstein.
However, the OIRA analysis also showed that reduced particulate matter, carbon monoxide, chlorine, mercury and dioxin emissions from the rule would prevent about 1,900 to 4,800 premature deaths, 1,300 cases of chronic bronchitis, 3,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 3,200 hospital and emergency room visits and 250,000 lost work days each year. The total health benefits, calculated at $17 billion to $41 billion a year, far outweighed the cost of the proposal, according to OIRA.
Environmentalists feared the EPA’s request was a harbinger of a new administration approach to regulation now that Republicans are in control of the House and the president is focused on creating jobs. “The EPA was running scared because the White House wouldn’t back them,” fumed Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “After the election things changed.”
The January 18 executive order and memorandum outlining the administration’s new regulatory policy seemed to confirm that analysis. Again in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, the president pledged to weed out unnecessary and duplicative rules and promised to halt any rules that stood in the way of small business’ ability to create jobs.
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them,” Obama said. “But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people.”
The administration has moved quickly to cozy up to business. In the past week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew two rules that had angered business lobbyists, one a proposed rule that would reduce noise pollution in workplaces and the other that would make companies keep records on musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace."Hearing loss caused by excessive noise levels remains a serious occupational health problem in this country," said OSHA chief David Michaels, whose agency often bears the brunt of small business antagonism toward government regulation.
During the Bush administration, Michaels, then a professor at George Washington University, frequently criticized OSHA and other regulatory agencies for failing to follow science when setting rules for protecting workers and public health. “It is clear from the concerns raised about this proposal that addressing this problem requires much more public outreach and many more resources than we had originally anticipated,” he said as he withdrew the noise rule.
Regulation has always been at the heart of corporate and Republican concerns about the direction the federal government takes under Democratic control. Long before there was a “job-killing” health care bill, there was the job-killing EPA, the job-killing Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the job-killing Mine Safety and Health Administration and any number of agencies that stand accused of undermining economic growth when they enforce laws designed to protect America’s air and water, food and drugs, and working and housing conditions.
Industry lobbyists invariably play the job-killing theme in public when lobbying against proposed rules, even as they use scientific arguments, which they must, while making their case before regulatory agencies. But that gets industry only so far. Science and economic analysis usually support tighter rules as more becomes known about the health effects of hazards and the cost of pollution-control technology drops.
For instance, the EPA’s clean air scientific advisory committee, a panel of outside experts that evaluates scientific evidence presented by stakeholders, had endorsed the tougher standards contained in the EPA’s original rule on industrial boilers.
The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners fought back. It commissioned a report that claimed the EPA’s June rule would put 338,000 jobs at risk and cost twice as much as the EPA/OMB estimate. “There are so many things that have to be changed (in the rule) to make it economically viable. They need to provide some flexibility,” said Robert D. Bessette, president of the Council, whose membership includes most of the nation’s largest chemical and paper products manufacturers. Their industrial boilers are among the largest stationary sources of air pollution outside the electricity generating and oil refining industries.
Earlier this month, the District of Columbia federal court turned down the EPA’s request for a delay and gave the agency until mid-February to come up with a final rule. “We are working to complete the final rules now,” a spokeswoman said.
“Congress will be closely monitoring the final rules when they are released next month and considering what steps can be taken to protect jobs and prevent reckless regulation,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI). “The EPA will come up with a rule that I’m sure will make no one happy,” predicted Bessette. “Either the enviros or us will petition for a reconsideration.”
The final industrial boiler rule doesn’t just have economic significance, it could signal the future direction of Obama administration policy on major regulatory issues. A number of major decisions coming down the pike will either please or enrage some of most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington, whether on the industry or environmental side. They include administration plans for regulating greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide; coal-burning electricity generating plants whose emissions cross state lines, the so-called clean air transport rule; and the next round of automobile fuel standards, which will go into effect in 2016.
Those major decisions, not skirmishes over minor or duplicative rules, will determine how far the administration is willing to go to please business. “We’re hoping that the agencies and Cass Sunstein will be doing a lot more cost-benefit analysis and offer more regulatory flexibility,” said Susan Eckerly, senior vice president for federal policy at the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a small- business lobbying group. “Those big EPA decisions might not impact small businesses right away, but they will affect our energy costs.”
Environmentalists and other public interest groups are getting ready to push back. “We want 60 miles per gallon by 2025 and a 6 percent decrease in emissions,” said Ann Mesnikoff, director of the green transportation campaign at the Sierra Club. “California shows the technologies are there to get there very cost effectively.”
With unemployment stuck at 9.4 percent, environmentalists recognize the general public is concerned about getting the economy humming again, so they are touting the job-generating potential of green technologies. Much of the intellectual muscle for their new approach is coming out of California, which has taken the lead on regulating greenhouse gases.
Charles Cicchetti of the Pacific Economics Group, a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California and a Republican, recently issued a report that said the coal plant and industrial boiler rules would create one million jobs by generating $150 billion in new capital investment in the nation’s aging energy infrastructure.
“These are real jobs that can be generated right now,” he said. “The technology exists; the capacity to produce it is sitting idle; and the electricity industry can self-finance anything… This is a far more effective way of creating jobs than the stimulus bill since the feds won’t have to borrow money and go further into debt.”
This post originally appeared at The Fiscal Times.
Deadline confirms the deal with Universal but isn’t able to say whether Julian Assange will participate in the film. Regardless, the movie could be a firebrand that surpasses the interest generated by Mr. Gibney’s last few films.
Julian Assange, the founder of the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks and therefore responsible for the release of thousands of confidential government documents, is a figure that people tend to either love or hate. To some he’s a hero and a champion of free speech and democracy; others see him as an enemy and someone who endangers our freedom by compromising the inner workings of government. (And there are probably many who see him as a troublesome, egocentric kid.)
All that being the case I’d say that Alex Gibney is the perfect man for this job, and I’m eagerly awaiting the results of his work.
In addition, producers at Josephson Entertainment and Michelle Krumm Prods have optioned Andrew Fowler‘s forthoming biography of Mr. Assange, called The Most Dangerous Man in the World. They plan a ‘suspenceful drama thriller’ based on the bio. The book follows the WikiLeaks founder from childhood to the present day. Producers compare the story they want to tell to All the President’s Men.
No word on a screenwriter, director or cast for the biopic at this point. Too bad Steven Soderbergh likely won’t have any interest in this; he’d be great for it. [Variety]
bench craft company>
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft company[reefeed]
bench craft company
bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft companyRegulators at the Environmental Protection Agency got the message early.
A month before President Obama promised to review all government regulations to remove unnecessary burdens on small business, EPA lawyers asked a federal court for a 16-month delay in implementing a new rule that would limit toxic air pollution from industrial boilers. The rule had been more than a decade in the making, and was issued last June only after the agency had been forced to act by the courts.
The EPA’s initial proposal would have cost companies an estimated $9.5 billion to bring more than 2,000 heat and steam plants across the U.S. into compliance, according to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), headed by regulation czar and Obama confidante Cass Sunstein.
However, the OIRA analysis also showed that reduced particulate matter, carbon monoxide, chlorine, mercury and dioxin emissions from the rule would prevent about 1,900 to 4,800 premature deaths, 1,300 cases of chronic bronchitis, 3,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 3,200 hospital and emergency room visits and 250,000 lost work days each year. The total health benefits, calculated at $17 billion to $41 billion a year, far outweighed the cost of the proposal, according to OIRA.
Environmentalists feared the EPA’s request was a harbinger of a new administration approach to regulation now that Republicans are in control of the House and the president is focused on creating jobs. “The EPA was running scared because the White House wouldn’t back them,” fumed Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “After the election things changed.”
The January 18 executive order and memorandum outlining the administration’s new regulatory policy seemed to confirm that analysis. Again in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, the president pledged to weed out unnecessary and duplicative rules and promised to halt any rules that stood in the way of small business’ ability to create jobs.
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them,” Obama said. “But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people.”
The administration has moved quickly to cozy up to business. In the past week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew two rules that had angered business lobbyists, one a proposed rule that would reduce noise pollution in workplaces and the other that would make companies keep records on musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace."Hearing loss caused by excessive noise levels remains a serious occupational health problem in this country," said OSHA chief David Michaels, whose agency often bears the brunt of small business antagonism toward government regulation.
During the Bush administration, Michaels, then a professor at George Washington University, frequently criticized OSHA and other regulatory agencies for failing to follow science when setting rules for protecting workers and public health. “It is clear from the concerns raised about this proposal that addressing this problem requires much more public outreach and many more resources than we had originally anticipated,” he said as he withdrew the noise rule.
Regulation has always been at the heart of corporate and Republican concerns about the direction the federal government takes under Democratic control. Long before there was a “job-killing” health care bill, there was the job-killing EPA, the job-killing Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the job-killing Mine Safety and Health Administration and any number of agencies that stand accused of undermining economic growth when they enforce laws designed to protect America’s air and water, food and drugs, and working and housing conditions.
Industry lobbyists invariably play the job-killing theme in public when lobbying against proposed rules, even as they use scientific arguments, which they must, while making their case before regulatory agencies. But that gets industry only so far. Science and economic analysis usually support tighter rules as more becomes known about the health effects of hazards and the cost of pollution-control technology drops.
For instance, the EPA’s clean air scientific advisory committee, a panel of outside experts that evaluates scientific evidence presented by stakeholders, had endorsed the tougher standards contained in the EPA’s original rule on industrial boilers.
The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners fought back. It commissioned a report that claimed the EPA’s June rule would put 338,000 jobs at risk and cost twice as much as the EPA/OMB estimate. “There are so many things that have to be changed (in the rule) to make it economically viable. They need to provide some flexibility,” said Robert D. Bessette, president of the Council, whose membership includes most of the nation’s largest chemical and paper products manufacturers. Their industrial boilers are among the largest stationary sources of air pollution outside the electricity generating and oil refining industries.
Earlier this month, the District of Columbia federal court turned down the EPA’s request for a delay and gave the agency until mid-February to come up with a final rule. “We are working to complete the final rules now,” a spokeswoman said.
“Congress will be closely monitoring the final rules when they are released next month and considering what steps can be taken to protect jobs and prevent reckless regulation,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI). “The EPA will come up with a rule that I’m sure will make no one happy,” predicted Bessette. “Either the enviros or us will petition for a reconsideration.”
The final industrial boiler rule doesn’t just have economic significance, it could signal the future direction of Obama administration policy on major regulatory issues. A number of major decisions coming down the pike will either please or enrage some of most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington, whether on the industry or environmental side. They include administration plans for regulating greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide; coal-burning electricity generating plants whose emissions cross state lines, the so-called clean air transport rule; and the next round of automobile fuel standards, which will go into effect in 2016.
Those major decisions, not skirmishes over minor or duplicative rules, will determine how far the administration is willing to go to please business. “We’re hoping that the agencies and Cass Sunstein will be doing a lot more cost-benefit analysis and offer more regulatory flexibility,” said Susan Eckerly, senior vice president for federal policy at the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a small- business lobbying group. “Those big EPA decisions might not impact small businesses right away, but they will affect our energy costs.”
Environmentalists and other public interest groups are getting ready to push back. “We want 60 miles per gallon by 2025 and a 6 percent decrease in emissions,” said Ann Mesnikoff, director of the green transportation campaign at the Sierra Club. “California shows the technologies are there to get there very cost effectively.”
With unemployment stuck at 9.4 percent, environmentalists recognize the general public is concerned about getting the economy humming again, so they are touting the job-generating potential of green technologies. Much of the intellectual muscle for their new approach is coming out of California, which has taken the lead on regulating greenhouse gases.
Charles Cicchetti of the Pacific Economics Group, a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California and a Republican, recently issued a report that said the coal plant and industrial boiler rules would create one million jobs by generating $150 billion in new capital investment in the nation’s aging energy infrastructure.
“These are real jobs that can be generated right now,” he said. “The technology exists; the capacity to produce it is sitting idle; and the electricity industry can self-finance anything… This is a far more effective way of creating jobs than the stimulus bill since the feds won’t have to borrow money and go further into debt.”
This post originally appeared at The Fiscal Times.
Deadline confirms the deal with Universal but isn’t able to say whether Julian Assange will participate in the film. Regardless, the movie could be a firebrand that surpasses the interest generated by Mr. Gibney’s last few films.
Julian Assange, the founder of the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks and therefore responsible for the release of thousands of confidential government documents, is a figure that people tend to either love or hate. To some he’s a hero and a champion of free speech and democracy; others see him as an enemy and someone who endangers our freedom by compromising the inner workings of government. (And there are probably many who see him as a troublesome, egocentric kid.)
All that being the case I’d say that Alex Gibney is the perfect man for this job, and I’m eagerly awaiting the results of his work.
In addition, producers at Josephson Entertainment and Michelle Krumm Prods have optioned Andrew Fowler‘s forthoming biography of Mr. Assange, called The Most Dangerous Man in the World. They plan a ‘suspenceful drama thriller’ based on the bio. The book follows the WikiLeaks founder from childhood to the present day. Producers compare the story they want to tell to All the President’s Men.
No word on a screenwriter, director or cast for the biopic at this point. Too bad Steven Soderbergh likely won’t have any interest in this; he’d be great for it. [Variety]
bench craft company
bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft company
bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft company bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company bench craft companyFox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
In a surprise even to insiders, 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager will lead the news division, along with Bloomberg's David Rhodes. Howard Kurtz on the back story—and what it spells for Katie Couric.
Small business is all about customer care. So how to you feel about new proposed legislation that is designed to prevent online clients from tracking customer.
bench craft company This is perhaps a kind of "make money online", where you earn money with the help of the most popular video portals like YouTube. I have written about "Making money online" before, but I have not mentioned intentionally YouTube, because I think it's worth a separate article. There are about 24 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute and the site has about 2 million hits a day. Well, it suggests an enormous potential, and there are ways to make money by using this potential.
Imagine, there is a video on YouTube that is several hundred thousand hits. This means that a lot of people like the video and see, right? You can often see ads that run in the bottom of the video, or around the video window itself. This is what it is. The ads can lead to large gains, but the question is, how to do this to win a share of revenues.
There are two main methods to make money from YouTube. One of them requires less skill and maybe you do not even have to upload videos excellent, but the gain of money from this method is also less. The way you need to produce quality videos from time to time, it is necessary to spend more effort and time, but also more money for you.
1. Adding ads, watermarks, etc of an existing video for profit:
This is an ancient method. The videos are seen by a variety of people on YouTube, so there's a lot of potential customers out there. Their job is to attract the attention of these people and lead them to your website, product sales site, blog, affiliate site or elsewhere. So the steps are:
* Download the popular YouTube video (do not try this with copyrighted videos though!)
* Add for example, a watermark to the source. (Add a visible place, but preferably not in the middle, for obvious reasons.) Of course, you can do this with your own video if you have some good ones.
* Upload video to YouTube with a good title, description, to call attention.
With the watermark, as said before, you can promote your blog, affiliated sites, pay sites to bring anything, so you can make money (often worth it to promote products free to download as ringtones call or music). The more people see the video, the more likely it is to make money.
Tip:
Your affiliate URL is often very long, so it's hard to remember. You can make it easier to remember using a redirection service such as TinyURL.
Read Terms and Conditions is really important in YouTube, as well as advertising. Always check if a video is copyrighted or anything, review criteria affiliate marketing, you may not allow you to use words like "free", "click here", etc. Keep your eyes open will lead you on your way.
2. Quality content uploaded to YouTube and cooperation:
This is the hardest part that requires massive energy, time and the entrance to the ability to succeed. This method does not work from day to day. With the first method, you can earn money without producing videos of themselves and with advertising in place. Here is the reverse. You produce quality videos and upload them to YouTube. That the promotion of these videos and try to make them as popular as possible. If people like your videos that could continue their daily work and his audience grow. Later, you can join the association of YouTube in which gain several benefits and this is the part where you can earn money:
* After you register for an association, YouTube put the video advertising and, optionally, you can place ads next to your video with the help of Google AdSense. The revenue generated by these ads is split between you and the company. (Of course, it is forbidden to click on these ads, because every click you make money. It's even in the contract to get a reading on it.)
* You can rent your videos. Companies are seeking publicity material every day, and if they find their work on the product and the ad you want to do, you pay money to use the video.
To be in partnership with YouTube that actually have to produce quality content and you have to have several hundred thousand views. Often it is just a stroke of luck you need. There are success stories of the children even made videos with simple cameras later became famous on YouTube. If there are millions of people who see their work, many of them will definitely be interested in the ads next to it.
