Archive for the ‘Environmental Protection Agency-’ Category

TRUMP’S BIG BUDGET CUTS

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

 

These are the promises that Trump ran and won on.  Call or write to your representatives in congress if you agree that these cuts need to be made.  Without those of us at the grassroots letting our voices be heard,  congress won’t have the backbone to do this.  Nancy 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Trump Budget Seeks Big Cuts to Environment, Arts, Foreign Aid

EPA, State Department are among those to see sharp spending reductions to offset military outlay in White House plan

March 16, 2017

President Donald Trump called for sharp cuts to spending on foreign aid, the arts, environmental protection and public broadcasting to pay for a bigger military and a more secure border in a fiscal 2018 budget blueprint released Thursday.

The budget proposal is certain to run into stiff opposition in Congress, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already signaled they are unlikely to enact Mr. Trump’s deep cuts when they pass spending bills that actually fund the government.

The budget proposes hefty cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health and the State Department. It also seeks to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts and other independent agencies long in the crosshairs of some conservative Republicans.

The cuts, if enacted, would mean some agencies would have to lay off federal workers, though the budget doesn’t always offer exact head counts. It does specify that cuts to the EPA “would result in approximately 3,200 fewer positions at the agency.”

“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” said Mick Mulvaney, the president’s budget director. “I would expect there would have to be reductions of forces at various agencies.”

(more…)

Share

THE JUST WAR ON THE EPA

Monday, February 6th, 2017

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The just war on the EPA

The EPA and its counterparts need reining, a measure that’s long overdue

 – The Washington Times – Thursday, January 26, 2017

:

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: According to a report in The New York Times the “EPA sponsored a drive on Facebook and Twitter to promote its proposed clean water rule in conjunction with the Sierra Club. At the same time, Organizing for Action, a grass-roots group with deep ties to Mr. Obama, was also pushing the rule. They urged the public to flood the agency with positive comments to counter opposition from farming and industry groups.”

The EPA even employed Thunderclap, an innovative social media tool, to help spread its message to hundreds of thousands of people, like a virtual flash mob, the Times reported.

All of this is against the law because federal agencies are prohibited from propagandizing. You see — federal agencies are supposed to be neutral in their rule-making, and let public opinion, industry, scientists and lawmakers derive the best path forward.

  Scott Pruitt, Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the agency, knows this all too well. He’s sued the agency 13 times, and understands its culture of executive overreach, lawlessness and environmental activism. That’s why he’s the perfect man for the job.

The mainstream media is in panic mode.

“Hour by hour — shock decree by shock decree — a once great nation is being diminished by self-inflicted blows beyond its enemies’ wildest dreams,” Philip Gourevitch, a staff writer at The New Yorker, penned on Twitter in response to the news that the Trump administration is mandatingEnvironmental Protection Agency scientific studies and data undergo review by political staff before public release.

EPA staffers — who reportedly cried and had to take days off for counseling after Donald Trumpwon the presidency in November — are in full revolt. After the Trump administration took away their social media accounts and froze their grants, a rogue staffer at the National Park Service tweeted out climate facts.

And yet, the EPA and its environmental counterparts within the federal bureaucracy need reigning in — it’s a measure that’s long overdue

.

(more…)

Share

PRAGER U VIDEO – THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT WON’T CHANGE THE CLIMATE

Tuesday, January 17th, 2017

 

PRAGER U VIDEO – THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT WON’T CHANGE THE  CLIMATE 

 

Share

COAL IN TRUMP’S STOCKING

Tuesday, December 27th, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Coal in Trump’s Stocking

A last-minute Obama regulation sets Donald up for a big win.

December 21, 2016

The Obama Administration has given Donald Trump an early Christmas gift, in the form of a punitive 11th-hour regulation on coal. Issued by the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), the rule takes effect Jan. 19 as a classic example of the job-killing rules that Mr. Trump has vowed to overturn.

Though issued Monday, the Obama Administration has been working on the Stream Protection Rule for six years. Ostensibly it’s about keeping American waterways clean. In reality it’s a power grab aimed at giving federal regulators more authority to make coal too expensive for anyone to mine or use.

No one should be surprised. In 2008 candidate Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that while people would still be free to build a coal-powered electricity plant under his energy policies, it would “bankrupt them” because of the costs his regulations would impose.

This is what Hillary Clinton meant in March when she said “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work.” It’s also what Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthymeant last month when she said that a Trump Administration would fail in its promise to revive the coal industry because her agency had helped destroy the market for coal.

Under the Stream Protection Rule, federal regulators will have expanded power to draw up new standards that make it harder to get a coal-mining permit. OSM’s federal water standards would suddenly take precedence over the state standards that have long governed the industry under the Clean Water Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service would also gain the power to veto coal permits.

The aim is to take permitting power from states and impose a one-size-fits all standard. When this process started, 10 states signed onto Interior’s rule-making process as state cooperating agencies. But eight of the 10 later withdrew because Interior wasn’t interested in what they had to say.

(more…)

Share

DANGEROUS COLLUSION – DAVID LIMBAUGH

Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

 

Dangerous Collusion

David Limbaugh

10/21/2016 12:01:00 AM – David Limbaugh

I’ve never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.

Perhaps I can be considered a bit of an alarmist, but if I am, so are millions of others when it comes to the dire state of this nation on a number of fronts. We have a staggering national debt, a dangerously declining military and a runaway regulatory state that is suppressing our liberties, insulating government from accountability and helping to smother economic growth. We have onerous taxes on people who are still working (notwithstanding the malicious lie that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share), an exploding welfare state, a war on the Second Amendment and the rights of private gun owners, and a government-caused health insurance catastrophe — with liberal promises of more of the same. We have unprotected borders (which threatens jobs, national sovereignty and the integrity of democratic processes), a war on Christian religious liberties by militant secularists who deny they’re doing it and a sick, amoral culture supported by the openly valueless Democratic Party, which glorifies abortion as a quasi-religious right so important it must be subsidized by the federal government. We have politicized governmental entities — e.g., the IRS, Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Communications Commission — and we are suffering ever-deteriorating race relations and a war on cops fomented and fueled by the president and his race-exploitive Democratic Party. We have proliferating Islamic terrorism accompanied by an administration that is in denial about it and sees more danger in generic extremism and conservative “bitter clingers” than it does in Islamic extremism.

(more…)

Share

WHY DOES THE IRS NEED GUNS?

Monday, June 20th, 2016

Why Does the IRS Need Guns?

After grabbing legal power, bureaucrats are amassing firepower. It’s time to scale back the federal arsenal.

Dr. Coburn is a physician and former U.S. senator from Oklahoma. He is the honorary chairman, and Mr. Andrzejewski is the founder and CEO, of OpenTheBooks.com, a repository of public-spending records.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  On Friday, June 17, our organization, American Transparency, is releasing its OpenTheBooks.com oversight report on the militarization of America. The report catalogs federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies. During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

Some examples of spending from 2005 through 2014 raise the question: Who are they preparing to battle?

Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees?

The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.

What exactly is the Obama administration up to?

(more…)

Share

THE GREEN WAR AGAINST THE WORKING CLASS

Thursday, April 28th, 2016

 

The Green War Against the Working Class

Stephen Moore /  /  COMMENTARY BY

The latest evidence came last week when another coal giant in America, Peabody Energy Corp., declared bankruptcy. This is the same fate suffered by Arch Coal Inc., Alpha Natural Resources Inc., and other coal producers that have filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors.

Peabody has stated that the lower cost of natural gas may have been a factor in their decline, and I am all for market competition, but this isn’t a result of free market creative destruction. This was largely a policy strategy by the White House and green groups.

They wanted this to happen. This was what Clean Power Plant rules from the Environmental Protection Agency were all about.

The EPA set standards by design that were impossible to meet and even flouted the law that says the regulations should be “commercially achievable.” This was a key component of the climate change fanaticism that pervades this White House.

(more…)

Share

OBAMA’S NEW RULINGS AND PFIZER’S RESPONSE TO NEW RULING

Monday, April 11th, 2016

 

The first article   gives an in-depth look at more new regulations coming out of the Obama Administration.  The Obama Administration has till Mid May to issue new regulations  (If Republicans win the White House and maintain control of Congress, any rule issued by Mr. Obama within 60 legislative days of the end of his term could be overturned. That is because a Democratic president wouldn’t be there to veto a congressional vote to block the regulation).
 The second article by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer explains how the U.S. pharmaceutical industry will be impacted by this week’s U.S. Treasury’s new ruling which will affect their competitiveness against foreign companies .      Nancy 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Obama Readies Flurry of Regulations

Burst of rule-making comes in an election season that has already been tough on corporate interests

Planned moves—across labor, health, finance and the environment—range from overtime pay for white-collar workers to more obscure matters such as requiring food makers to disclose added sugar on cartons of flavored milk.
The expected burst of regulation follows an intense few weeks in which the administration has targeted corporate tax inversions, imposed new rules on brokers and advanced restrictions on company relations with union organizers.

The could’ve-been Pfizer-Allergan mega-merger was scuttled by new Obama administration regulations on corporate inversions and something called “Earnings Stripping.” How could these clampdowns be costly to companies with interests overseas? Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. Photo: AP
The moves have drawn sharp reactions from business groups. After the tax rules, a top U.S. Chamber of Commerce official lamented “politicians bullying America’s job creators.” The head of the Business Roundtable, which represents big-company CEOs, criticized “unilateral action” by the administration.
The rush reflects President Barack Obama’s aim to use his final months in office to cement a progressive domestic-policy legacy using executive powers despite fierce opposition from a Republican-controlled Congress.
Share

WHY WE OPPOSE JUDGE GARLAND’S CONFIRMATION

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

We Oppose Judge Garland’s Confirmation

He is a friend of big labor and regulators, not small businesses.

By

Juanita Duggan  

Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

March 17, 2016

President Obama on Wednesday formally nominated Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court. After studying his extensive record, the National Federation of Independent Business believes that Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members we represent, the NFIB opposes Judge Garland’s confirmation.
In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers. Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.
In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius. We fear that as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, Judge Garland could apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else.
In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties. What worries us is that Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In fact, in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB.
With more than 320,000 members, our organization is the country’s largest advocate for small-business owners. When we asked members on Wednesday whether they wanted to fight the Garland confirmation, the response was overwhelming. More than 90% urged us to take action.
It is especially important that we get involved now because this year and in future sessions, the Supreme Court will hear cases in which NFIB is a plaintiff. We are challenging the Waters of the United States rule, an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s power to regulate water. The Clean Power Plan, another massive expansion of federal power that we are challenging, threatens to drive up energy costs for consumers—and for small businesses.
Given Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court, is there any question about which side he would take in these cases? When it comes to big government versus small business, we know where he would stand.
This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee. As the plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, our members know the power that a single Supreme Court justice can wield. We cannot support his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

 

Share

FEDS SPENDING MILLIONS TO ARM EPA, FDA, VA

Sunday, January 24th, 2016

 

FEDS SPENDING MILLIONS TO ARM AGENCIES

EPA, VA among those nabbing heavy armaments
By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times – Thursday, January 7, 2016

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:
Some agencies like the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management have come under fire in recent years for conducting raid-like operations with heavily armed agents. In 2013 armed EPA officers raided the town of Chicken, Alaska. The agency said the raid was conducted to look for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.

As the U.S. engages in a national debate over the militarization of the police, federal data shows that government agencies charged with largely administrative roles are spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to purchase SWAT and military-style equipment.

Since FY 2006, 44 traditionally administrative agencies have spent over $71 million on items like body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition, according to federal spending data from watchdog group OpenTheBooks.com.

This comes in addition to the $330 million spent on such equipment in that period by traditional law enforcement agencies like the FBI, Secret Service and Drug Enforcement Administration.

Some examples of the purchases include:

• Nearly $2 million spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs on riot helmets, defender shields, body armor, a “milo return fire cannon system,” armored mobile shields, Kevlar blankets, tactical gear and equipment for crowd control.

• Over $300,000 spent by the Food and Drug Administration on “ballistic vests and carriers” in fiscal 2014.

• Over $200,000 on body armor spent by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama administration years, versus just $30,000 in the three previous fiscal years.

• More than $28,000 by the Smithsonian Institution on body armor for its “zoo police and security officers” in fiscal 2012. (more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories