Tag Archives: regulation

Cyber Monday Alert: U.N. Plans May Change Your Online Future

Access Denied

It’s Cyber Monday – the online equivalent of Black Friday. As you prepare to take advantage of online deals and revel in the marvel that is modern technology, it’s a good time to keep in mind that next month the UN will meet to put into place it’s first step in global Internet regulation. The meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will begin on December 3 in Dubai. The 11-day meeting (11 days?It’s terrifying to think what 11 days of UN meetings could produce) will address such issues as spam and fraud, according to the ITU. However, there are other issues of concern tucked into the agenda. On the table will be proposals that could grant wider accessing power to dictatorships like China and Iran, putting bloggers and online freedom activists further at risk for censorship and punishments. The ITU will also propose ideas to impose fees on providers and platforms like Google and Facebook. Those companies would pay fees for anyone who accesses their sites across borders. The money raised from those fees would then go to the UN to provide Internet access in underdeveloped countries. ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure (why are there so many black communists named Toure these days?) has already announced Internet access should be considered a basic human right and the U.N. is hard at work to enshrine that right across the globe.

Companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon are already warning their customers of the potential threat to what is now referred to as “net neutrality” and plan to attend the conference to protest. In an online statement, Google had this to say: “Engineers, companies and people that build and use the web have no vote. The billions of people around the globe that use the Internet, the experts that build and maintain it, should be included” in the decision-making process.

Naturally, the ITU claims it has no plans to restrict online expression (no, not the U.N.! They would never seek to censor anyone, ever) but that they simply want to adjust outdated international responses to changing technology. ITU’s Toure says he expects “a light-touch regulatory approach”. The United States is expected to resist any regulations and will send a 123 member delegation to the meeting next month.

123 members of one nation to attend an 11-day U.N. meeting in the most expensive place on earth – that sentence alone is everything that is wrong with the United Nations. It is an organization run by thieves and despots. These are the same people who want to regulate what small arms we own as American citizens and what parental rights we have when it comes to our disabled children…but we’re supposed to believe they will take a “light-touch regulatory approach” to what has been the biggest boon for freedom and free markets in the history of mankind.

This is one time where I wish the liberal narrative of “big business” were true. I wish Google and other Internet giants were all-powerful like they are in Hollywood and could just use their Illuminati-fueled powers to destroy this nonsense once and for all. Unfortunately, just like nearly every other liberal premise that one is mostly fantasy. Hopefully the amount of money those companies add to the U.S. economy will be enough to motivate Obama’s delegation to resist any attempts at international control of American communications. For our part, we can call our representatives and let them know we know about this and are concerned and we can also spread the word about what will be happening in Dubai. Share this blog and other stories about the conference. Check in with Google, Amazon and others to sign their petitions and find out more about how you can make yourself heard.

The Internet has opened the doors to freedom, free communications and prosperity across the planet. It is no wonder that the dictators and whack jobs in the U.N. feel moved to control it. It’s in their nature. That is in the nature of communist/socialist believers – the idea that we humans are and should be in control of everything. It is a dangerous idea and it is on our doorsteps. Don’t forget that as you support the economy online today.

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

In the War on Coal – It’s Grundy vs. Obama

Screen Shot 2012-10-17 at 11.09.22 PM

In another episode in the annals of the Obama administration’s war on coal, the town of Grundy, Virginia is being denied its right to indulge in the American dream.  They want to expand their small air field, in order to accommodate private jets to stimulate economic development.  The problem is that a portion of the runway expansion lies on top of coal. Hence, this story – and many others like it – are critical as Grundy is in the heart of coal country.

Grundy is about an hour an a half from Abingdon and rests between the three-way border of Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia.  This area could be critical in deciding the upcoming presidential election.  The federal quarantine on Grundy’s economic plans has been going on for three years according to Debra McCown of the Bristol Herald Courier, who reported on this development for The Washington Times.  That’s just around the time when the Obama administration stopped issuing coal permits.

McCown wrote yesterday that “Donnie Rife is chairman of the Dickenson County Board of Supervisors and a member of the Breaks Regional Airport Authority, the regional entity working on the project… said it might be tough to explain the nuances to federal regulators, but ‘there’s a huge difference in mining coal and building an airport…mining is involved, he said, because the area’s severe topography makes construction impossible otherwise in the hilly terrain. The original airport was built on a piece of land made flat by surface mining by United Coal Co., which gave the land to Grundy.”

Furthermore,”Mr. Rife said the delay has cost an estimated $20 million. Three years ago, he said, the coal that underlies the runway site would have sold for a higher price, helping offset the cost of what could be a $60 million project. He said the lengthened runway is crucial to the region’s plans to attract business and investment.”

Moreover, the parties involved aren’t even asking for a coal mining permit – they’re asking if they can expand the runway.

According to McCown:

Modernizing the airport is part of a broader plan to open up this part of Appalachia by developing infrastructure, a concept made possible by the ability to move mountains, thanks to equipment used by the industry that drives the local economy: coal mining. The first miles of a four-lane highway, the Coalfields Expressway, already are taking shape, thanks to public-private partnerships with two mining companies. Mr. Rife said the airport is a key piece of the region’s economic development plan.

Ironically, it is the coal that underlies the airport site that is causing the delay. The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy initially approved the airport authority’s proposal, spokesman Mike Abbott said.

The mining department determined that the project was exempt from the need for a mining permit, including a government-financed exemption, which applies to government-financed projects and an Abandoned Mine Land Enhancement grant, which applies to projects where the coal removed is “incidental” to reclaiming the land and removal is necessary to address other hazards.

Mr. Puckett [State Senator (D-Lebanon)] said that under an initial public-private partnership, Alpha Natural Resources, a Southwest Virginia-based coal company, would bring the runway to rough grade and, in the process, mine the site and reclaim a dangerous highwall — a clifflike scar left on the landscape by previous mining.

Ted Pile, spokesman for Alpha, said the company would have lowered the mountain beneath the airport’s existing site, creating enough flat land to extend the 2,200-foot runway to 5,700 feet. But the Office of Surface Mining, which operates in the U.S. Department of the Interior and has the right to review projects involving abandoned mine properties, balked.

The issue has stoked anger against the Obama administration amongst voters in these areas.  In the Williamson Daily News, a local paper circulated in Kentucky and West Virginia, staff writer Julia Roberts Goad wrote on October 13 about how United for Coal, “a citizens group created to support the coal mining industry” has declared that “our government has decided to commit ‘Regional Genocide’ against our people [with this regulatory onslaught]”

Two years ago, Bill Raney, also of Williamson Daily News, wrote that:

The EPA has declared a war on Appalachian coal. The agency’s apparent intent to rescind the already issued Spruce Mine permit is the first time such an action has been taken and shows a reckless disregard for the impact on our people, on future investment in our region and even basic fairness. If EPA pursues this course, the very future of mining in our state and region… not just mountaintop mining operations or even surface mining … but all forms of mining is threatened, and with it the futures of 50,000 West Virginian and 80,000 Appalachian families whose livelihoods depend on mining coal.

[…]

The EPA issued the Spruce Mine permit almost three years ago. During a 10-year review prior to its issuance, the EPA participated along with the other agencies every step of the way during the review and praised the company’s efforts to design the project in such a way as to minimize the impact on the environment. In fact, total recoverable reserves of coal were reduced by 10.6 million tons as a result. It is not an exaggeration to say this permit is the most scrutinized mining permit in the history of West Virginia or the Appalachian region.  But the issue goes far beyond a single permit. If EPA revokes the Spruce permit, their action brings into question all forms of economic development across the region – anything that requires a company or an individual to move a shovelful of dirt.

Furthermore, these jobs are part of the American middle class, which Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the Democrats say Republicans wish to destroy.  It’s odd since “the jobs created by the Spruce permit would be high-paying, long-term employment opportunities. These jobs would pay approximately $70,000 annually with full benefits and the total economic impact of this operation is estimated at approximately $15 0 million annually.”  Mr. Romney wants to strengthen this sector of the economy.

Although, there seems to be some government support for the coal industry. Back in March, a federal judge excoriated the EPA for their “magical thinking” in denying permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.

‘EPA resorts to magical thinking’ to justify nullifying permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Arch Coal Inc.’s Mingo Logan mine in West Virginia, wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C.

Berman Jackson said the EPA’s effort to revoke permits already issued by the Army Corps lacked the backing of any statutory provision or regulation. ‘It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration,’ the opinion says.

‘Poof! Not only is this nonrevocation revocation logistically complicated,’ the ruling said, but it also robs industry of the only way they can possibly measure compliance with the Clean Water Act — a permit. EPA ignored the effect that granting itself the right to revoke Army Corps permits could cause uncertainty and financial harm to industries dependent on capital credit for projects involving waterways. [The] ’EPA brushed these objections away by characterizing them as hyperbole,’ the judge wrote. ‘Even if the gloomy prophesies are somewhat overstated,” the concerns are real, she said. Berman called the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act — which she separately lambasts for being poorly written — ‘illogical and impractical.’

Last Wednesday, FreedomWorks had an unannounced press conference about the war on coal in the Harrisburg Capitol, which caught the attention of legislators  in this coal producing and battleground state.  All along the Appalachian Trail, the families of coal miners and the families of businesses dependent on coal mining are saying “enough!”

Grundy’s plight is one of many stories in this administrations unabashed hatred for coal and the communities they are set to destroy if they’re successful at winning re-election this upcoming November.  Sadly, since federal regulators have stonewalled Grundy’s hopes at economic success, it’s most likely going to cost the town.  As McCown quoted Ted Pile at the end of her column, “if this [Grundy airport] project were allowed to go forward when it was first proposed, it would have essentially meant zero cost to taxpayers for a fully prepared airport site…now, because the coal markets have gotten worse, the economics no longer work. It’s a missed opportunity.”

Married To The Game: Where Have All Of The Entrepreneurs Gone?

miccheck

In this episode of the Married to the game, we discuss:

-Why Mitt Romney’s supporters should thank Newt.

-Why sex offenders should volunteer to remove themselves from society.  (self deportation)

-Where have the entrepreneurs gone?

-Can we make people “work” for their welfare?

-Why does Day Care cost SO MUCH???

-Have we reached a point where government regulation is killing our small businesses?

-What is America going to look like, if ONLY the irresponsible people continue to reproduce/have children?

-What if YouTube made you have to join an Actor’s Union to create and post videos?

-What did Michelle Ray do to risk Social Services being called on her?

CLICK HERE NOW to listen to the lengthy, yet fresh discussion.

 

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Shredding George – The Latest in Nanny State Government

Last December, I wrote an article about a bill lurking in the dark shadows of Congress that would begin production of a fourth dollar coin over the past three decades.  Harmless right?  I mean, so what if the Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea coins were total busts.  I remember the biggest deal about the SBA coin was that kids kept jamming them into the quarter slots of the “Asteroids” game at my favorite arcade.  All I remember is that I didn’t get my Atari fix for the week.

 

Oh…. But did I mention that this one wouldn’t be optional?  Yep, that’s right folks, this time, it’s mandatory!!  Say goodbye to George on paper and say hello to the dollar coin, weighing us all down, just like all the other government regulations in our lives.  So much for choice.

 

In the latest chapter of the “we know what’s best for you” bible being written by our government, HR 2977 and its companion bill S. 2049 (co-sponsored by Tom Harkin and that conservative icon we all know and love…. John McCain) would call for the replacement of the dollar bill with a coin….. as a deficit reduction measure…. Yeah, I’ll wait for the literary double-take…. a deficit reduction measure.

 

Nevermind that the minting of these beauties will be three times the cost of the printing of bills….  Yes, yes, I can hear you…  “but, but, but…  they’ll last longer than the bills, therefore they’ll save us in the long run!”  Uh…. That might be true if someone other than the US Government was running the show.  Seriously, you are just going to take their words that this will save us money?  The same folks that overspend $47,000 per SECOND??!!!

 

Yet there is a bigger point to be made here.  WE DON’T WANT A COIN DOLLAR!!  I can say this with confidence due to the fact that there are vaults full of Anthonys, Sacagaweas and Presidential coins…. Wait… only half of the Presidents even made it on this last coin venture – they discontinued them after Chester Arthur..  NO COIN FOR YOU, CLEVELAND!! (channeling the Soup Nazi here).  So naturally, the proper thing for Congress to do, when the whole voluntary transition thing didn’t work would be to force it on us…. Sieg Heil!!

 

And have we stopped to consider the impact this may have on some of the small business owners who deal almost exclusively in cash, like laundromats, vending machines and coin recognition devices?  Pish-tosh!  They’re just the “little people” in fly-over country anyway… no biggie.  So they might have to shell out thousands to replace or retrofit equipment.  We’ll just extend their unemployment benefits after we kill off their business dreams…

 

Today, it’s the appearance of your currency, tomorrow it’s how you spend it.  The next day is how much you can keep and….. oh crap, I think we are already into next week….

 

As someone who has actually taken the 22 minutes it takes to read the Constitution, with amendments, I know that one of the few expressed powers our federal government has is to coin money.  Sure, how it looks and how much is in circulation is implicitly included in that mandate, but it should be mentioned that said government still is basically one big employee – and the American people are STILL the boss.

 

This is bigger than the folding versus jingling argument.  It is about whether we want this level of government intrusion in our lives.  Remember, in 1930’s Germany, it started with regulations on how to cook your lobster.  So you say, “Heck! That’ll never happen here in the good old USA!!”  You mean like some government employee taking a kid’s lunch away because they deemed it too “unhealthy”?

 

I guess you’re right…. That would NEVER happen here in the U.S…..

 

 

 

 

Democrats Regulating the Dead

Personal preferences are a reliable method of distinguishing between conservatives and Democrats. Conservatives believe personal preferences are just that: personal and particular to the individual. When others don’t share his preferences a conservative looks for more congenial companions or surroundings. Sometimes he even takes the initiative and creates a like–minded opportunity in the private sector.

Democrats believe their personal preferences are so noteworthy and have such a significant bearing on the future of society that it’s only fair these indispensible preferences be imposed on the public by force of law.

Which brings us to Democrat Alvin Tillman, a third–term member of the council in Terrebonne Parish, LA, who evidently does not have enough to occupy his time. Tillman is personally offended by the chroma culprits who paint their family tombs anything but white, which is Tillman’s preferred color.

“We want to stop this before it gets out of hand,” Tillman was quoted by the Associated Press. “Before you know it you’ll go out there and the cemetery will look like Mardi Gras.”

Since this is Louisiana — where being dead is no bar to exercising the franchise in favor of Democrats on election day — it could be that Tillman is simply responding to the wishes of his electoral base.

So he intends to persuade the council to pass a law. Unfortunately for his finely–tuned sense of aesthetics, his law will only apply to public cemeteries that are government–owned.

Not only will Tillman ban future non–white paint jobs, he won’t grandfather, so to speak, tombs that have already been painted. Those owners will be required to repaint their tombs, much like cab owners in DC will be required to repaint their cabs a uniform white if Councilwoman Mary Cheh, another Democrat member of the color police, gets her way.

In the South there is bad precedent for government intrusion in cemetery management. When local government was under Klan influence, it wasn’t concerned so much about the color of the tomb as it was focused on the color of the customer. In many marble orchards the tombs and the dead were uniformly white.

Tillman may be personally biased against tombs–of–color, but Louisiana has a long history of using paint to customize family tombs. The AP story also quotes an expert who observes, “Historically, the limewash used on family tombs was colored in shades of yellow, ochre, pink, gray and red.”

White on the outside, instead of the inside, is a recent development.

Personally, I think a tomb of almost any color beats the soggy Teddy Bear and defeated balloon piles dotting the roadside that pass for memorials here in Prince William County. At least in Terrebonne Parish the decoration is in close proximity to the deceased.

Judge Gideon Tucker once said, “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” But in Louisiana you don’t even have to be alive to be at the mercy of a politician’s whims.

Orrin Orrin, Orrin…Why?

Senator Orrin Hatch is in a desperate effort to catchup with his constituency.  It is like the old adage “Which way did my people go?  I need to get ahead of them so I can lead them.”  Senator Hatch is falling into the Washington phenomena game among elected officials and candidates.  It is called “Make a list of ten related things in ten seconds”.

Senator Hatch just announced his latest “ten things” list in an effort to prove to his constituency that he was both hip to the new game and clearly feels their pain.  It’s his “comprehensive, 10-point jobs plan to help strengthen our economy”.  Following is his shallow proposal, in his word, from his website.  In Italics I have stated my own response to his “plan” components.  Please keep in mind that this plan is nothing short of rhetoric emoted to sound relevant.  There is little, if any substance.

FROM: Senator Hatch

Summary of the proposal:

Restore Fiscal Sanity in Washington Great Idea, if it meant what it says.

  • Find real savings and spending cuts in the short-term via the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.  Shallow hidden language for “create more bureaucracy.  Congress has long passed the ability to be effective at anything. I would have avoided bureaucratic growth.
  • Ensure greater fiscal discipline in the long-term by passing and ratifying a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.  I would not support a balanced budget Amendment, in any of its current forms.  Congress will ignore it as do they ignore inconvenient constitutional sections now.  This is a waste of time that couldn’t take effect until after the economy has been destroyed.

Expand U.S. Export Markets

  • Approve pending trade agreements with Columbia, South Korea, and PanamaI say let the market manage itself.  Government get out of the way.
  • Renew Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate new free trade agreements in the future.  I would oppose more regulatory agencies, whose mission will be first to expand.

Reform the U.S. Tax Code

  • Simplify the code and lower rates in order to allow American companies to compete with foreign competitors on a level playing field.  I would not have proposed this.  It is simply more broken regulation to fix currently broken regulation.  Turn all taxation collection and monitoring back to the states. Establish a flat tax.

Repeal ObamaCare  Good Idea, why has Senator Hatch waited?

  • Eliminate harmful and heavy-handed mandates as well as new taxes to relieve burdens on individuals, employers, and state governments.

Repeal Dodd-Frank

  • Eliminate excessive and misguided regulations and mandates to unfreeze credit and allow businesses to expand and create jobs.  Here is my plan: Eliminate excessive and misguided regulations and mandates.

Make Our Regulatory System More Jobs-Friendly

  • Require by statute that all federal agencies perform a cost-benefit analysis when drafting new regulations.  Sorry, this misses the mark.  Require by statute that Congress perform a cost-benefit analysis when drafting new regulations and from all federal agencies .
  • Pass the REINS Act (S. 299) to give Congress more authority and oversight in the drafting of major regulations.  Congress has oversight responsibility for all federal regulations NOW.  I would insist they use that oversight.

Develop America’s Energy Resources

  • End the Obama Administration’s stall tactics on domestic energy projects.  HOW?  You are afraid to encourage the House to Impeach him.
  • Pass the 3-D Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act (S. 706) and the American Energy and Western Jobs Act (S. 1027) to reverse the President’s attacks on domestic energy production.  Once again, Senator Hatch’s response is to create more regulation.  His first response to all issues is more regulation.

Help America Compete

  • Modernize and make permanent the research and development tax credit to incentivize more innovation in the U.S. economy.  Oops.  Did he just say that the government should pretend that people’s earnings should somehow be under their own control, rather than one of his regulatory agencies.?  I would have suggested eliminating taxation on production altogether.
  • Ensure our trade partners recognize and enforce U.S. intellectual property rights.  Nice theory.  The way to make it work is to close our borders to ALL imports from any country that does not protect American property rights. 

Allow Small Businesses to Create Jobs

  • Provide a 20 percent tax deduction for small businesses on their income.  Nope, still missing the mark that inspires production.  Eliminate ALL taxation on income, and apply a flat tax.
  • Repeal the three percent withholding requirement for federal contractors. I agree.

Reform America’s Labor Laws and Reign in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

  • Pass legislation to give more oversight, accountability, and judicial review of the NLRB’s decisions.  Eliminate this irrelevant and irreverent agency altogether.
  • Pass the Employee Rights Act (S. 1507) to protect the rights of workers.  No, senator more regulation will not solve this problem.  Simply repeal any federal legislation that does not foster right-to-work opportunities for American workers.
  • Repeal the prevailing-wage requirements in the Davis-Bacon Act. Agreed.

As you can see, I am a very reasonable man.  I agreed with the Senator on two of his 19 fine points.  Heck, that is better than a stopped clock, which is right only twice in 24 hours.

To truly get the economy functioning again read my post here on Conservative Daily News.

 

Regulated to Death in California-stan

 

There are currently 600 bills on the desk of California governor Jerry Brown waiting to be signed.  Yes, you read that right- 600 bills.  In a state gridlocked with overregulation and arbitrary laws, the legislature has decided what is needed the most is more regulation!  This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who is at all familair with life in California-stan.  Legislators in California are the highest paid in the nation, receiveing over $113,000 in taxpayer money per year.  Add to that a per diem of $162/day for every day the legislature is in session and it doesn’t offer much incentive for lawmakers to get vital state business finished quickly and go home.  A Senator in California-stan can earn up to an extra $40,000/year (on top of their salary) simply for showing up to a job they already get paid to do and signing in, as long as the legislature is officially in session.  That works out to over $19,000/day taxpayers are giving away to lawmakers just to sit and make laws (which, again they already get paid to do).  Many representatives also keep a second residence in the capital of Sacramento, apart from their families in other parts of the state.  They are not engaged in the day to day responsiblities of running their own households, and thus have nothing better to do than collect money to devise new ways to meddle in the day to day activities of the taxpayers.  With an abundance of time and money on their hands, and the opportunity to attach their name to a bill or law, California legislators piled 600 new bills onto the backs of their constituents.  Here are just a few examples of the "necessary" bills waiting to be signed by Governor Brown.

AB 1319-Ban the chemical BPA ­ bisphenol A ­ from baby bottles, sippy cups and other food and beverage containers intended for children ages 3 and younger.

AB 746-Prohibit children under 18 years old from using tanning beds.

AB 353- restricts local police from impounding cars at sobriety checkpoints solely because a driver is unlicensed.

AB 101-Allow unions to organize child-care providers who work out of the home and handle subsidized clients. (dubbed the Babysitter Bill)

SB 292 and AB 900-would provide for an expedited judicial review of environmental challenges to a proposed NFL football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. AB 900 extends the same break to large projects involving clean energy generation or downtown stadiums that get environmental certification. (update: Brown signed this bill into law last week)

AB 6 – Among other things, remove the requirement that food stamp recipients be fingerprinted.

AB 131 – Allow undocumented California State University and community college students who are eligible for in-state tuition to receive publicly funded student aid. (CA Dream Act)

AB 200 – would require the state board to establish the Health and Fitness Award Program to recognize schools that conduct their physical education courses pursuant to the model content standards

AB 564- would allow a taxpayer to designate on a tax return that a specified amount in excess of his or her tax liability be transferred to the Municipal Shelter Spay-Neuter Fund

SB 702-This bill would prohibit any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group from releasing to an owner seeking to reclaim his or her dog or cat, or selling or giving away to a new owner, a dog or cat that has not been microchipped, except under a specified circumstance.
 
These are only 10 of the bills waiting for a signature.  There are 590 more. 590.  Even Governor Brown himself has commented on the ridiculaous and unnecessary number of bills coming across his desk.  The California legislature is has passed so many bills they now find themselves having to pass bills to waive off the results of previous bills.  For example, Governor Brown recently signed AB 155, which postpones by a year the online sales tax earlier enacted against Amazon.  The previous bill drove Amazon to move its business out of California, much to the disappointment and detriment of small business owners who rely on Amazon for retail sales.  The governor was also forced to sign AB 900 in order to waive off some of the stifiling environmental regulations previoulsly encacted that would stand in the way of a very lucrative football stadium being built in Los Angeles.  When a government must pass bills to fix other bills, it can be officially stated the government is the problem and not the actions of its citizens. 
 
In 2011, 725 new laws will be enacted in the state of California.  The amount of regulation imposed on the taxpayers in California is staggering.  It is no wonder the state is ranked dead last in business creation and business-friendly climate in the nation.  For all their rhetoric about job creation, law-makers have been working overtime to stifle creation of any kind.  It is sickening to think that taxpayers will pay over $15,000,000 in salaries this year alone simply for the priviege of being regulated into poverty and/or relocation. 
 
Congratulations California-stan!  In a battle of the government versus the people, the government wins! Your prize?  The fastest declining population and the highest unemployment rate in the union at 12.1% (seasonally adjusted, of course!). 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

A "Safe" & "Legal" Procedure That's Always Fatal

Here we go again, a bunch of fanatics disrupt a public hearing screaming “safe” and “legal” in an obvious effort to block sensible, long overdue regulations that protect health and are supported by a majority of the public.
Furthermore, the only reason these abominations are allowed in the marketplace is because some biased judge made a legally indefensible ruling that flies in the face of public opinion and a sophisticated, modern reading of the Constitution.
Don’t these gun and tobacco mouth–breathers ever get tired of peddling their anti–scientific propaganda? Have they no shame?
Oh, wait. Check signals. This wasn’t the National Rifle Association and Joe Camel disturbing the peace. It was “progressive” Democrats and feminists claiming abortion is “safe” and “legal” and should therefore be immune to regulation — just like handguns.
The occasion for this wailing and gnashing of teeth was the Virginia Board of Health’s decision to once again regulate abortion clinics just as it did prior to 1984.
Briefly, the reinstituted rules require abortion mills that perform five or more first–trimester lethal injections each month to meet the same standards as out–patient surgery centers where customers are expected to survive.
This means just like nail salons, barber shops and funeral parlors; abortion clinics will have to meet state regulations and undergo periodic inspections.
This was too much for the Virginia Coalition to Protect Women’s Health, “The regulations are a backdoor attempt to deny women access to a safe, legal medical procedure…they must protect women’s access to affordable, high quality reproductive health care.”
Wow! For a minute there I thought they wanted the baby to survive, until I recalled that feminists don’t associate “reproductive health care” with actual reproduction.
Corrina Beall, a recent college graduate with what appears to be a very active and spontaneous sex life, complained, “The young women rely on these services. I rely on these services. The families of Virginia rely on these services, and my generation relies on these services.”
And the editorialists at the Washington Post thundered, “It’s already hard to get an abortion in Virginia, and it’s about to get much harder.” This stretches credulity since the number unborn babies executed last year totaled 26,000. What increase in the carnage would make the worthies at the Post more comfortable? Are 40,000 deaths sufficient? 50,000? How high must the pile be?
Smoking is legal, too, yet federal regulators are now proposing to require lurid photos on cigarette packs to deter smoking through the use of shock — an idea I think should be extended to all Planned “Parenthood” offices — and states and cities have almost outlawed the practice within sniffing range of any non–smoker.
By comparison, abortionists are getting off easy and for the foreseeable future won’t be joining smokers in back alleys. Currently the rulebook for abortion clinics weighs in at 26 pages of regulations. This compares well with the regulatory burden imposed on tattoo parlors, which totals 25, and is somewhat smaller than the regulation total for body piercing. Of course those establishments only participate in the death of restraint, rather than actual death like abortion clinics.
For “progressives” death–by–regulation is a reasonable and accepted strategy if you’re talking about offshore drilling, nuclear power or even capital punishment. But when it comes to regulating death in an abortion clinic, any regulation is too much.
Right now complaints are being heard regarding rules that specify the size of exam rooms, width of hallways, unannounced inspections and medical procedures.
The rule booklet even requires a certain number of parking spaces based on clinic size. “Progressives” believe this kind of nit–picking is fine if you are regulating something dangerous like a church, but completely over the top when applied to an innocent abortion emporium.
Virginia even has the gall to require patient records be kept and open to unannounced inspection. Where’s the precedent for this? Don’t pharmaceutical companies, nuclear power plants, offshore oilrigs, hospitals and airlines all self–report and we take their word for the safety of their products and procedures?
The abortion industry is built on the death of innocents and a flight from personal responsibility — all while hiding behind the euphemism of “choice.”
“Progressives” boast their policies are based on science and not superstition. These Darwinian social justice crusaders proclaim that science states unequivocally that human life originated from a single–cell organism that appeared eons ago.
Yet when it comes to any single–cell organisms lurking in the womb, the jury’s out on whether it’s human until it gets a slap from the doctor or a dose of herbal tea from the midwife.

Government Regulation Kills Entrepreneurial Spirit – Again

Midway, Georgia Police shut down a one-day old small business siting a lack of permits. The enterprising young entrepreneurs had decided that instead of working for someone else, they would open a business and make their own way – their way.

The business was a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park The cost of the licenses required to run the stand – $50.00 per day. It would be nearly impossible for the enterprising young ladies to raise the money required for their excursion with the weight of the local government holding their profits hostage.

One girl, 14-year-old Casity Dixon, says the three had to listen to police and shut down.

The girls are now back to performing tasks for their parents to earn their money, realizing that government regulation has effectively strangled their enterprise when it had barely a chance to get started.

The Country Needs a Plan for Growth and Texas Has the Answers

Texas Flag on MapThe Lone Star State is a symbol of success for free-market policy. Austin Local Me reported in May that Texas created more jobs than the eight other states that created any jobs at all combined according to Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Nine states, including Texas, had more jobs in March 2011 than in that month five years earlier. And Texas’ gains far outpaced the combined total for the other states: 539,500 vs. 134,400.

Texas created more than a half million jobs and the other eight states that had any growth at all could not measure up when their totals were combined. What is Texas’ secret?

The article was intended as a fact-check of Rick Perry’s statement that Texas created more jobs than all other states combined. The fact check came out TRUE.

The foundation’s claim that Texas “created more jobs than all other states combined” stands up — considering only those states that had net job gains over five years. That’s the methodology usually used to define job creation in public discourse.

In a nutshell, Texas has a strong history and current policy of allowing the free market to remain free. Government is kept minimal, regulation only where necessary, no income tax and keeping corporate taxation favorable to the economy. These are exactly the opposite of policies coming from states like California and New York and from the Obama administration.

Rick Perry is the epitome of Texas-style governance (Ann Richards not withstanding). He turned down Obama’s federal education money saying that the program “smacks of a federal takeover of our public schools”.

As Texas is irrefutable proof that Obama’s policies are wrong and that free markets work, it is no wonder that he has a visible anti-Texas policy. However, he should realize that without most prosperous state in the union, Obama’s economic and unemployment numbers would be far worse than they already are.

God Bless America, God Bless the great state of Texas.

 

Good Idea, Bad Idea

Boken Light BulbThomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb has not just been replaced; it has been outlawed.  Rather than think our Government did this, lets consider the politicians who embodied the Government in 2009 did it.  Our form of government as defined in the US Constitution could not have done it, but the perverse eroded interpretation of that constitution has allowed ignorant at best, or possibly unscrupulous, politicians to do something quite stupid at best, or even dastardly.

Congress says it is attempting to save us from our own inanity, but they simply prove that they are the dim whits.  These spiraled little florescent bulbs are a very bad idea for the very reason it is supposed to be a good one, and more, much much more.

The one reason for the CFL is to save electricity, thus reduce the carbon emissions from power productions, (even if your electricity comes form a waterfall, windmill, nuclear power, etc.).  Sounds like a good idea.  After all we’ve used incandescent bulbs for a long time to save electricity and illuminate large offices, industry, shopping centers, etc. for many decades.  However most of these are contained in a fixture high above the area they service and are in little danger of breakage.  The problem with these bulbs whether they are in a familiar long tube or a twisted little bulb is that they contain mercury vapor.  Mercury is a dangerous “heavy metal” element that can be breathed in or absorbed through the skin or enter directly into the blood stream, (i.e being cut by the broken tube).  It persists in the body virtually for life.  The build up of such heavy metals causes bizarre health issues involving balance, sight, more debilitating diseases, and grotesque birth defects.   This is why even very minor amounts of mercury poisoning through seafood is avoided at great costs.

Industrial use of incandescent tubes is controlled through proper handling and disposal.  Even so, all too often the correct protection and or disposal is not adhered to, individuals are exposed and land fills are contaminated.  The effects of these exposures are too slight to detect at first and show up months or years after exposure, so symptoms are seldom related to the cause.  Now introducing these problematic bulbs into every home in the nation potentially exposes everyone to this seemingly minor hazard for which serious problems will not appear until years after it is too late to stop and nearly impossible to reverse.

Think of how many times you have broken a light bulb or been near one when it broke.  Now think of how each of those would have been another exposure to mercury poisoning.  Now consider that you are probably more careful than most Americans who don’t take the time to read an article about CFRs much less heed the warning labels on the package of CFL bulbs describing the OSHA approved method of cleaning up hazardous waste and containing it for proper disposal.  It seems our 111th Congress and our president, who passed a law outlawing incandescent bulbs in 2014, expect us to be exposed to more hazardous waist or properly clean them up.  The latter is not very probable.

Thus the problem of disposal of the bulbs themselves.  Are we going to bring them to a hazardous waste collection center centers and pay to get rid of them?  We’re supposed to do that with old batteries now but mostly we just toss them in the trash.  Let’s be real, until there is a Hazardous Waist truck that comes by once a month to pick up our dead batteries, burnt out CFL bulbs, and old computer items, we’re going to pollute landfills with them.  Think of the amount of mercury getting into the land and waterways.  Even fresh water fish could become mercury hazardous.  Drinking water may be threatened as well.  Soon we’ll pay for clean-up and extra collection processes through taxes.  Although it is a capital idea, why would we create more of a problem than we already have?  Does everyone recycle effectively now?

OK, but what about saving electricity, (the price of which is going to skyrocket if the current administration has it’s way)?  Saving is good for the user and for the environment right?  Yes, yes it is.  HOWEVER, these bulbs brag that they give off 60-watts of light for only 40-watts of power.  Newton’s Law of “Conservation of Matter and Energy” points out that this is a physical impossibility.  What it really means is that the bulb supposedly gives you 60 watts of light for what a 40-watt incandescent bulb consumes.  The problem with that deceptive boast is that a 60-watt incandescent bulb doesn’t use much more electricity than a 40-watt bulb.  On top of that, are they really as bright as an incandescent bulb of the same rating?  Put them side-by-side and you tell me.  Furthermore they need “warm-up” time, during which they give you even less light.  Given this, we’ll all be turning on more of these lights to get the same illumination.  Where is the savings to your pocket or the environment?

Oh yes, let’s not forget our economy?  The CFLs are made almost exclusively in China.  We used to make incandescent bulbs here in the US but since they have been outlawed, we don’t make them anymore.  We can’t make to CFL bulbs here because the handling of hazardous materials is so regulated that we can’t compete with the Chinese who don’t seem to prioritize the protection of their workers.  This is not a complaint against our safety standards.  It is a condemnation of the legislation forcing us to we buy something that harms humans in another nation while assassinating our own jobs here.

What’s the solution?  Information.

Why doesn’t everyone know the real story?  Somehow they know a phony story about global warming that hasn’t been happening for the last 11+ years.  The public only knows the stories they are fed through the “Lame Stream Media.”  Until the public demands the truth, we will always be told the lies “they want us to believe.  In this case it is all the trillions that will be made through the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange), the money making side of the Cap & Trade law.  When we stop watching the media that feeds us such lies they will either change their tune or go out of business.  Networks get money from advertising, and advertisers won’t advertise on shows that are not watched.  Do your homework.  Select the networks that feed you the truth or don’t watch them, don’t hit on them, and don’t buy them.  Good idea?  Did a light bulb come on?  Was it incandescent or some twisted reality?

Then there are function CFLs can’t do such as work on dimmers or with timers or photocell switches, frequent switching, moist environments, near anything that vibrates, in enclosed & recessed fixtures, etc., etc.  They can and do interfere with sensitive electrical equipment, computers, TVs, etc..  Now the real kicker.  CFL bulbs don’t work in the “Easy-Bake-Oven.” How could Congress be so cruel?

 

 

HHS announces proposed changes to HIPAA Privacy Rule

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is proposing changes to HIPAA privacy rules.

This proposed rule represents an important step in our continued efforts to promote accountability across the health care system, ensuring that providers properly safeguard private health information. We need to protect peoples’ rights so that they know how their health information has been used or disclosed.

While covered entities are currently required to track electronic accesses of health care records, they are not currently required to provide a report upon request. There is some odd wording in the announcement from HHS  as it uses people instead of patients or guardians, “People would obtain this information by requesting an access report, which would document the particular persons who electronically accessed and viewed their protected health information.”  It is unclear after reading the rule, which “people” will be allowed to request and review this information.

The rule is also conflicting on which type of health record access is reportable. While the announcement and early clauses discuss electronic access to electronic records, this clause mentions hard copy.

The right to an accounting of disclosures would encompass disclosures of both hard copy and electronic protected health information that is maintained in a designated record set. It would cover a three-year period, and would require a covered entity and its business associates to account for the disclosures of protected health information that we believe are of most interest to individuals.

This could complicate an earlier premise in the rule that it would be of low-impact to involved entities.

We believe that these changes to the accounting requirements will provide information of value to individuals while placing a reasonable burden on covered entities and business associates.

The full proposed rule can be viewed at http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/31/2011-13297/hipaa-privacy-rule-accounting-of-disclosures-under-the-health-information-technology-for-economic#p-3.

 

Why Obama’s Use of Regulation vs. Legislation is Flawed

The Failure of Barack Obama 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.

HR 910 Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 [Full Text]

HR 910 RFS

 

112th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

H. R. 910

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

APRIL 8, 2011

 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

 


AN ACT

 

 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011’.

     

SEC. 2. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

    Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     

‘SEC. 330. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

    • ‘(1) Water vapor.

       

      ‘(2) Carbon dioxide.

       

      ‘(3) Methane.

       

      ‘(4) Nitrous oxide.

       

      ‘(5) Sulfur hexafluoride.

       

      ‘(6) Hydrofluorocarbons.

       

      ‘(7) Perfluorocarbons.

       

      ‘(8) Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change.

       

      • ‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Administrator may not, under this Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.

         

        ‘(B) AIR POLLUTANT DEFINITION- The definition of the term ‘air pollutant’ in section 302(g) does not include a greenhouse gas. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such definition may include a greenhouse gas for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.

         

        ‘(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(B), implementation and enforcement of the rule entitled ‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards’ (as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010) and without further revision) and finalization, implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed rule entitled ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles’ published at 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 (November 30, 2010).

         

        ‘(B) Implementation and enforcement of section 211(o).

         

        ‘(C) Statutorily authorized Federal research, development, demonstration programs and voluntary programs addressing climate change.

         

        ‘(D) Implementation and enforcement of title VI to the extent such implementation or enforcement only involves one or more class I substances or class II substances (as such terms are defined in section 601).

         

        ‘(E) Implementation and enforcement of section 821 (42 U.S.C. 7651k note) of Public Law 101-549 (commonly referred to as the ‘Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’).

         

        ‘(A) ‘Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases’, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 30, 2009).

         

        ‘(B) ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

         

        ‘(C) ‘Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010) and the memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, to EPA Regional Administrators, concerning ‘EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program’ (December 18, 2008).

         

        ‘(D) ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (June 3, 2010).

         

        ‘(E) ‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 77698 (December 13, 2010).

         

        ‘(F) ‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 81874 (December 29, 2010).

         

        ‘(G) ‘Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82246 (December 30, 2010).

         

        ‘(H) ‘Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82254 (December 30, 2010).

         

        ‘(I) ‘Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82430 (December 30, 2010).

         

        ‘(J) ‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82536 (December 30, 2010).

         

        ‘(K) ‘Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82365 (December 30, 2010).

         

        ‘(L) Except for actions listed in paragraph (2), any other Federal action under this Act occurring before the date of enactment of this section that applies a stationary source permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a greenhouse gas to address climate change.

         

          • ‘(I) is not federally enforceable;

             

            ‘(II) is not deemed to be a part of Federal law; and

             

            ‘(III) is deemed to be stricken from the plan described in clause (ii)(I) or the program or permit described in clause (ii)(II), as applicable.

             

            ‘(I) is contained in a State implementation plan under section 110 and authorizes or requires a limitation on, or imposes a permit requirement for, the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change; or

             

            ‘(II) is part of an operating permit program under title V, or a permit issued pursuant to title V, and authorizes or requires a limitation on the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.

             

        • ‘(i) RULE- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any provision described in clause (ii)–

           

          ‘(ii) PROVISION DEFINED- For purposes of clause (i), the term ‘provision’ means any provision that–

           

      • ‘(A) NO LIMITATION- This section does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt, amend, enforce, or repeal State laws and regulations pertaining to the emission of a greenhouse gas.

         

        ‘(B) EXCEPTION-

         

        ‘(C) ACTION BY ADMINISTRATOR- The Administrator may not approve or make federally enforceable any provision described in subparagraph (B)(ii).’.

         

    • ‘(1) LIMITATION-

       

      ‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the following:

       

      ‘(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS- Nothing listed in paragraph (2) shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to part C of title I (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or considered an air pollutant for purposes of title V (relating to permits).

       

      ‘(4) CERTAIN PRIOR AGENCY ACTIONS- The following rules and actions (including any supplement or revision to such rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal effect:

       

      ‘(5) STATE ACTION-

       

  • ‘(a) Definition- In this section, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ means any of the following:

     

    ‘(b) Limitation on Agency Action-

     

SEC. 3. PRESERVING ONE NATIONAL STANDARD FOR AUTOMOBILES.

    Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     

    ‘(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any subsequent model year new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines–

     

      ‘(A) the Administrator may not waive application of subsection (a); and

       

      ‘(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph may be construed to waive the application of subsection (a).’.

       

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    • (1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level;

       

      (2) addressing climate change is an international issue, involving complex scientific and economic considerations;

       

      (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis; and

       

      (4) Congress should fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.

       

  • It is the sense of the Congress that–

     

Passed the House of Representatives April 7, 2011.

 

Attest:

 

 

Clerk.

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 910

AN ACT

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

 

President Obama Issues Executive Order On Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Businesswire.com ran an article today praising the order as a much needed help to lift the burden of government regulations on small business owners. In this article, The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Association, (SBA) Winslow Sargeant is quoted as stating:

“I applaud President Obama’s efforts today to reduce excessive and unjustified regulatory burdens on small business,” said Sargeant. “The Office of Advocacy looks forward to continuing to work closely with federal agencies and small business to design cost-effective, evidence-based regulations that are compatible with economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness.”

The fact is that Mr. Winslow also happens to be an Obama appointee. While that certainly doesn’t disqualify him from serving in the appointed position, one has to question the validity of the above statement.

When making such heady statements as to lifting unjustified regulatory burdens on small business, we have to consider what has transpired over the last two years. The vaunted healthcare bill has already had such negative effects on small businesses, that over 200 waivers had to be given out to allow those businesses to keep on offering their employees Health insurance. And there are many more in line for those waivers. Where was Mr. Winslow on this major issue?

Then there is the Food Safety bill that was passed through Congress, then deemed illegal, then basically slammed back through the Senate with more trickery than a magic show. This bill will force small farmers out of business through new regulations and paperwork . Monsanto spent millions and millions lobbying for this bill, and (unless you consider them a small business), the small farmers were left out of the discussion on the ramifications to them when this bill passed. Where was Mr. Winslow when this destructive legislation was being walked through our Congress by the big special interest groups ?

President Obama Mr. Obama is so proud of this executive order that he wrote an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal.

In it, he makes several interesting points. First is this one:

“The EPA and the Department of Transportation worked with auto makers, labor unions, states like California, and environmental advocates this past spring to turn a tangle of rules into one aggressive new standard. It was a victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution. Another example: Tomorrow the FDA will lay out a new effort to improve the process for approving medical devices, to keep patients safer while getting innovative and life-saving products to market faster.”

Apparently Mr. Obama hasn’t had to pay to fill up his vehicle with fuel lately. Gasoline is now averaging $3.22 a gallon. The U.S. Energy Information Administration said Tuesday that there is a slim chance national average gasoline prices could spike over $4 a gallon in September and an even better chance that average prices could run over $3.50 a gallon in the summer. During this time of economic recession, with unemployment still over 9% for the longest period since WWII, we have crippling fuel prices. Looks like the EPA, Unions and environmental advocates Mr Obama champions above are doing just the opposite of what he says they will do, to me. At a time when we need to harvest our own resources to the fullest of our capabilities, Mr. Obama has banned drilling in the Gulf, stopped natural resource permits in the West, clamped down on our coal industry, and increased our overall dependency on Foreign oil in two short years. Throw in the millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on solar companies that have went out of business recently, or moved back to China, and it is quite laughable for Mr. Obama to make the above statements.

Near the end of Mr. Obama’s Op-ed, he makes the following statement:

“Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter—and in some cases tougher—rules to protect our health, safety and environment. Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars”

I’m sorry Mr. President, but those “current estimates” of all these bloated government agencies and new programs saving us billions of dollars, simply won’t put food on my table or a roof over my head. And when you are creating thousands of new Government jobs, that is just more taxes we will have to pay for zero proven benefit. In two short years you have increased the size and scope of our government more than any other U S President in history. Now you expect us to believe that your newest executive order will help small businesses and create jobs? I might have believed that if you had proposed this two years ago before you crippled our economy with your big government expansion.

« Older Entries