Why Obama’s Use of Regulation vs. Legislation is Flawed
The Obama administration is using regulatory controls in place of legislation in many areas. By moving traditionally legislative actions into the executive branch, President Obama does not need to depend on a Congress that may not be able to produce the laws needed to force his progressive agenda on the whole of America. What he has failed to recognize is that the approach has a major flaw that could leave his legacy .. empty.
The latest of Obama’s regulatory pushes is the EPA’s push to limit CO2 by stretching the intent of the clean air act to illogical extents. By simply “declaring” carbon dioxide, the same element in human exhalation, a pollutant, the executive branch agency can create legally enforceable regulations that can limit anything that produces, and perhaps consumes, the life-giving molecule.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 910 last month in response to the administration’s dictator-like actions. The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 is a bill that would prohibit the EPA Administrator from regulating carbon dioxide. It passed the house 255-172, but will likely die in the progressive-heavy Senate. The executive branch trumps the legislative – what happened to checks and balances?
In April, CDN reported on the EPA’s successful maneuver to block Shell Oil from drilling in the arctic sea. As the article shows, EPA head Lisa Jackson and her band of progressive extremists didn’t use the law, didn’t even try to fight the actual act of drilling – they killed the project because of the CO2 emissions of a single ship.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. (emphasis mine)
Right out of Saul Alisnky’s teachings the EPA uses ridiculous guidelines, that no one could possibly follow, to grind the American business machine into the ground.
Where the Obama team has been short-sighted is in thinking that this tactic will create lasting change. By relying on the executive branch’s authority, all one needs to do to reverse it is .. that’s right .. change the executive.
If Kathlene Sebelius uses regulation to define a market-killing health care system, whomever the next president chooses to replace her will undo it. Which will effectively render the law worthless precisely because it relies too heavily on regulatory authority and not enough on legislative backing.
This will apply to the EPA’s overreach on CO2, health care regulation and anything else the Obama administration dreams up. This is up to the will of the people. The founders of our nation may just have been even more wise than we have or can imagine.