While White House claims to create jobs, government kills jobs

The news that the Environmental Protection Agency prevented early clean-up of floating oil in the Gulf by refusing to waive its “clean water” limit of 15 parts per million should make us all focus on the job killing structure in Washington, D.C. Just three days after the BP spill, the Dutch government offered their oil-skimming ships and ocean oil-cleansing technology, but were rejected because the cleaned ocean water would not reach the EPA’s limits of being 99.9985 percent pure. Imagine if even half the oil had been skimmed off; the rest probably would not have even reached shore because oil degrades quickly in warm ocean water. But because oil did reach the shore, Washington ordered a moratorium on all deep water drilling over 500 feet in the Gulf, and a moratorium on all offshore drilling in Alaska and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In Louisiana, the order is causing an estimated loss of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of oil production over the next two years. Blue-collar jobs on Gulf oil rigs earn an average of $60,000 per year.

An economic crisis with high unemployment is the best time to confront and even possibly reform Washington’s job-killing laws. Most Americans are either uninformed about the quantity and consequences of these laws or they regard them as normal. So now is the time to recognize, enumerate, and challenge the worst of them. But to reform bad laws, first you need to get them debated in public.

All too often we hear that cheap Chinese labor is wrecking havoc with our industries. In reality, it is a host of costly, job-killing burdens from Washington that are responsible. How many investments and job creations are not made because of compliance costs associated with excessively strict regulations (and the lawsuits they generate)? It’s no wonder that our great achievements nowadays are in fields such as electronics, movies, and games, where entrepreneurs and innovators face less government obstructions, lawsuits, and labor costs. Compare this to an investor trying to build new factories or mines.

For example, in a remote area of Alaska, efforts to start up one of the world’s richest copper and gold mines is stymied by unending Kafkaesque regulations and lawsuits. In Utah, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar arbitrarily cancelled 77 previously issued oil/gas leases because the smell produced by the drilling might affect air quality in the desert near national parks. New mining ventures today have mostly moved to Canada to avoid such unnecessary hassles.

Another prime example is nuclear electric power, which could be cheap and abundant. China is building 60 new nuclear plants over the next 10 years, while in Washington it takes 10 years to build even a single plant. Both the Chinese and the French build them in a bit over 3 years. President Barack Obama said he favored such plants and proposed billions of dollars in subsidies, but he made no mention of the obstructive permitting process that makes nuclear power so uneconomical. Remember also that nuclear energy plants are an established technology. Why does each plant have to go through such a bureaucratic rigmarole?

The EPA’s extremism and vicious fines and penalties are a primary reason why America is falling behind much of the world. Yet we hear complaints from the usual suspects that the only jobs America produces are service ones. The consequence of that view is growing trade protectionism, since we blame foreigners for “unfair” competition. This causes even more job losses: Witness the inability of Congress to ratify new trade agreements with Korea and Colombia.

Kagan would allow people to sue over environmental damage

Environmental issues dominated the last portion of the questioning, with Feinstein asking about the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and the ability of citizens to sue companies for contributing to pollution and global warming. Normally, citizens can only bring cases if they have been personally “injured,” but environmental injury is a gray area.

“Do you believe it’s possible for citizens to demonstrate that environmental harms have injured them for constitutional purposes?” Feinstein asked.

“The answer is yes, much depending on what Congress does,” Kagan replied.

Given the EPA's new powers, "This was the day freedom died"

The Senate just claimed the title of the world's most delusional body by refusing to strip unelected EPA bureaucrats of the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This was the day freedom died.

One wonders why we have a Congress at all. The 53 profiles in cowardice that could not get a cap-and-tax bill through the U.S. Senate voted Thursday to let the Environmental Protection Agency keep the unprecedented power Congress did not expressly give it. It is power that the EPA arrogated to itself through regulation to control every aspect of the American economy and our very lives.

This country was born over anger at taxation without representation. Regulation without representation may spark another revolt come November. The Tea Party movement began precisely because of such arrogant disregard for the wishes of the American people. Unlike health care reform, this time the cowardly lions of the Senate couldn't even do it themselves and ceded their authority to the EPA.

What you are exhaling is now a dangerous gas, say Democrats

Senate Democrats yesterday voted to empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), trial lawyers and activist judges to enact Obama’s cap and trade national energy tax through regulation and against the will of the American people.

Voting down Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res.26) by a 47-53 margin, Democrats approved handing the EPA the unprecedented power to drastically regulate carbon dioxide, the very substance human beings exhale when we breathe.

All Republicans voted in favor of the disapproval resolution that would have stripped the EPA’s ability to enforce their “endangerment” finding, six Democrats crossed over to vote with Republicans.

How did your Senator vote?

With its new powers to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA could change statutes and destroy firms or industries

Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) Resolution of Disapproval of the EPA's Endangerment Finding was defeated 53 to 47 this afternoon. Only six Democrats joined with 41 Republicans to vote yes.

"Senate Democrats voted today to allow the Obama EPA to wreck America through regulation of greenhouse gases. "Americans should consider those who voted against the Murkowski resolution to be enemies of sound science and economic recovery," said JunkScience.com's Steve Milloy.

It is difficult to overstate how much this action endangers the nation's economic outlook and the financial security of individual Americans. Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) has released the following statement:

"The Senate has just voted to affirm that the EPA should be able to arbitrarily set the nation's energy policy by imposing unilateral restrictions on carbon emissions without any vote at all in Congress," he said. "This is a vote that will assuredly lead to higher energy prices, lost jobs, lost business, and the tyrannical imposition of a radical, environmentalist agenda upon the American people."

So long as the scientifically flawed endangerment finding remains in place there is no limit on how intrusive and expansive the EPA's new regulatory regime can become.

For starters, the federal EPA and its state counterparts will need to accommodate an estimated 41,000 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permits annually as opposed to 280 it currently digests and over 6 million Title V operating permits per year versus 14,700.

This means a long and copious list of previously unregulated entities such as office buildings, apartment complexes, small manufacturers and small kitchens would come under government control. To alleviate the backlog, the EPA has proposed a "tailoring rule" to restrict the new regulations to large facilities. This is problematic in that the rule may not be legal under the CAA and could be overturned in court.

However, even if the tailoring rule withstands a legal challenge, the EPA will proceed to regulate smaller emission sources within a few years. This exercise cuts to the heart of why the Murkowski resolution is so critical. Essentially, the EPA stands poised to amend a statute without congressional consent in the name of environmentalism.

Moreover, even if the courts uphold EPA's tailoring rule it would not offer any safeguard against what is arguably the most pernicious aspect of the endangerment finding namely the rulemaking that would set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) well below current atmospheric concentrations for greenhouse gases.

The economic fallout would be devastating. The lowered CO2 targets favored by environmental pressure groups, which are in the neighborhood of 390 parts per million to 350 ppm, would spur a global depression. This would enable environmental activists to use the CAA as vehicle for forced deindustrialization. Murkowski's resolution would have short-circuited the grand designs of green activists.

American freedom suffered a terrible but hopefully not an irrevocable setback today. It will take forceful leadership to restore our nation's elected branches back to their proper station. As Democracy gains ground in the Middle East thanks to perseverance of U.S. soldiers, it is ironic to see it lose ground here at home.

Democrats looking for escape on issue of EPA power grab

Democratic leaders are scrambling to prevent the Senate from delivering a stinging slap to President Barack Obama on climate change.

They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates.

The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.

But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill.

So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it.

They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Senate sources say.

A spokeswoman for Reid declined to comment on the offer. But Democrats on Wednesday thought it was good enough to win a crucial vote on the Republican resolution.

Murkowski, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is using the Congressional Review Act, an element of the Contract With America, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers. The Review Act expedites a floor vote.

Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they would need in both chambers to overturn an Obama veto. But Republicans say passing the resolution through one chamber would be a big win.

“Anything close to half the Senate says this is a congressional responsibility and not the administration’s, that’s a strong message from the country to the president,” said Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), referring to the EPA plan to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Democrats suffered a serious setback Tuesday when Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce panel, announced he would vote for Murkowski’s resolution. He joined Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are co-sponsors of the measure.

If Republicans keep their conference unified, that would give them 45 votes for Murkowski’s proposal, with a handful Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.), in play as potential allies.

Rockefeller said EPA regulation of carbon could have a “devastating” impact on West Virginia. He threw his support to Murkowski after his leaders denied him a vote on his alternative bill resolution, which would prevent the EPA curbing carbon emissions for two years from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories.

Having destroyed the pseudo-science behind global warming, the sane now try to block EPA's fascist social engineering bid

The Senate is set for a key test environmental vote this week and the White House is already threatening a veto.

On Thursday, the Senate will take up Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) EPA Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res. 26) under a consent agreement that was reached before the Memorial Day recess.

The resolution would overturn the EPA back door attempt at enacting a national cap and trade energy tax through regulation.

The White House threatened a veto Tuesday, then attempted to link the vote to the disaster in the Gulf.

“The administration and opponents of the disapproval resolution know they’re losing the argument about the costs of EPA climate regulations. They’ve trotted out one red herring after another, but trying to link this bipartisan measure to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sets a new low,” Murkowski said.

“There is nothing in my resolution that negates fuel economy gains or makes our country more dependent on oil. Falsely linking this effort to the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is an insult to those impacted by the spill and to the hundreds of stakeholders that are concerned about the economic consequences of EPA’s climate regulations,” Murkowski continued. “Farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, and Americans from every corner of the country have weighed in to express their support for this resolution. To suggest they are somehow tools of the oil industry for speaking out against the EPA’s regulatory overreach is cynical and categorically untrue.”

“The EPA’s endangerment finding does nothing to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that impacted victims receive timely compensation for damages or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is opportunistic and it cheapens the ongoing tragedy while deflecting attention from the government’s lackluster response,” Murkowski added. “The only similarity I see between the oil spill and the EPA’s climate regulations is that both are unmitigated disasters. The difference, of course, is that it’s not too late for Congress to stop the EPA’s regulations.”

The Senate resolution has bi-partisan support from 41 co-sponsors as well as from senators like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) with a large state coal mining industry.

“I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said.

Senate to vote Thursday on massive EPA power grab that would empower the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant

On Thursday, the Senate will vote on S.J.Res.26, a resolution to block EPA from usurping powers never delegated to it by Congress. Failure means allowing EPA to go forward, apparently in flagrant violation of our constitutional traditions simply because too many in Congress desire, but can’t bear to take responsibility for, more of the Obama agenda.

EPA’s breathtaking Power Grab raises questions critical to our form of governance. The powers EPA has claimed for itself include staking out national policy on the contentious “climate” issue, and even amending the Clean Air Act on its own initiative and authority.

S.J.Res. 26 was originated by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). It is co-sponsored by 40 others, mostly Republicans but including three Democrats (the math of which also tells you that three Republicans are not on board: Sens. Brown, Collins and Snowe). It seeks to exercise, for just the second time, the Congressional Review Act passed in 1996 as part of the “Contract with America”. That law allows legislators to check bureaucrats gone wild by vetoing a “major rule” within 60 days of an agency publishing it.

In this case, the rule is the Obama EPA’s effort to delegate to itself inherently legislative powers. These include Congress’s authority—wisely eschewed to date—to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, which would make EPA an economic regulatory agency despite having been caught as complicit in promoting scandalous “climate science” in the push to spectacularly expand its budget and powers.

You may recall “ClimateGate” from last year and the series of “-gates” befalling the UN’s big-government project, the IPCC. EPA outsourced its scientific assessment responsibilities in this matter, to principally rely instead on the work of the two disgraced bodies caught sexing up their claims of unfolding climate catastrophe. When caught out, EPA silenced their internal whistleblower.

The Senate is not voting on science, however. The Murkowski resolution merely overturns the legal force and effect of EPA’s claim that carbon dioxide endangers human health and the environment (really). Congress has serially rejected that proposition. Now EPA is saying “so what?” This poses a referendum not on climate science but the constitutional propriety of EPA making climate policy without Congress providing any specific guidance to do so.

That is, the Senate will vote whether to let an agency carry out the most expansive regulatory intervention in American history on its own.

EPA is dealing with its insane judgment that carbon dioxide, present in plants and animals, is hazardous to life as we know it

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday announced a new “tailoring rule” to attempt to postpone the disastrous consequences of their earlier “endangerment finding” that declared carbon dioxide, the substance humans exhale, a danger to life as we know it on the planet.

The endangerment finding issued last December was designed to side-step authorization from Congress for the administration’s draconian greenhouse gas permitting regulation scheme using the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a means to regulate carbon. The Democrats’ cap and trade national energy tax is DOA in the Senate.

But the endangerment finding has disastrous consequences to the economy. And for Democrats in the November elections.

As a delaying tactic, the EPA now seeks to modify the CAA -- an actual statute -- with a “tailoring rule” to raise limits on carbon well above the hard and fast numbers designed for actual dangerous substances in the CAA. The limits set forth in the CAA -- if applied to carbon -- could regulate even local donut shops, pizza parlors, nursing homes, and apartment buildings.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), top Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said the tailoring rule violates the clear legal requirements of the Clean Air Act they’re attempting to misuse to regulate carbon.

‘In short, EPA is buying political time because it knows the political and practical consequences that will arise from its endangerment finding,” Inhofe said. “The only way to stop EPA is for Congress to overturn that finding and provide certainty for employers so they can create jobs, expand their businesses, and get America on the path to economic recovery.”

EPA: Do as I say, not as I do

At last December’s UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ran up a $13,000 bill for conventional combustion engine cars, a private driver, and old-fashioned baggage vans, according to government records.

The EPA paid more in two weeks for cars than most Americans make in a month. Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, chose to ignore Copenhagen’s readily available crunchy alternatives, like hybrids or algae-fueled vehicles that were available — for free — to VIPs and governments through the Danish Foreign Ministry, or demonstration cars that ran on new green fuels produced by California companies. Jackson rented from the very conventional Avis, and drove around in a 158-horsepower, 16 valve conventional gas-powered Ford Mondeo.

The car that Lisa Jackson and her driver used in Copenhagen would have failed the president’s new fuel efficiency standards released yesterday of 35.5 miles per gallon. Her Mondeo only got 25.2 miles per gallon.