“Those who are always accusing people in the private sector of ‘greed’ almost never accuse government of greed, no matter what it does. Indeed, the question of whether the government is greedy almost never comes up, so most of us probably never think about it. … There are escheat laws, under which the government can seize the assets of someone who has died and whose heirs have not claimed those assets after some period of time. The theory is that there is no reason why banks should get that money. On the other hand, there is no reason why politicians should get it either, but the politicians write the laws. … Escheat laws are just one of the ways governments seize money. Income tax rates have been as high as 90 percent in the top brackets. Even after you have paid the taxes on your income and saved or invested part of what is left, the government comes back to take more of that same money, after you die, with estate taxes. Perhaps one of the most unconscionable acts of greed by government is confiscating people’s homes, in order to turn this property over to other people, who are expected to build things that will pay more taxes. … The biggest beneficiaries are the politicians who get a larger amount of tax money to spend in ways that will increase their prospects of getting re-elected. Seldom, if ever, are the people whose homes are destroyed, and whose lives are disrupted, among the affluent or rich. Urban renewal may go through the South Bronx, but not through Beverly Hills. And no one calls it greed.” –economist Thomas Sowell
Greed, and Government
October 19, 2010Of Tapeworms, Liberals, and parasites in General
October 19, 2010“The political success of liberalism is parasitic, feeding off order and prosperity that the implementation of liberal policies couldn’t possibly create. Bill Clinton’s recent bragging on the campaign trail about the budgets that he balanced in the 1990s is an illustration of this: Where did those budgets come from? Not from the policies of liberalism. Take away the significant reductions in defense spending that came from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War, the wealth from an entrepreneurial economy that an era of tax cuts generated, and the check on Democratic spending schemes from Newt Gingrich’s Congress, and those budgets would never have been balanced. In his first term, Clinton had every intention of busting the budget with HillaryCare, but he just couldn’t get away it. If Clinton is a ‘successful’ president, as pundits these days insist, that’s because his agenda failed where Obama’s succeeded. By passing ObamaCare and a raft of other bad bills, the Democrats have made it possible for voters to measure liberal rhetoric against the grim realities it produces. The parasite got fat enough to eat the conservative host whole, and now it is dying. … Liberalism normally enjoys the demagogic advantage of appealing to emotion over reason. But in moments of crisis, people want reason over emotion.” –columnist George Neumayr
Index of Economic Freedom: 2010
October 19, 2010“The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom lowers the ranking of the United States to eighth out of 179 nations — behind Canada! A year ago, it ranked sixth, ahead of Canada. Don’t say it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Half the data used in the index is from George W. Bush’s final six months in office. This is a bipartisan problem. For the past 16 years, the index has ranked the world’s countries on the basis of their economic freedom — or lack thereof. Ten criteria are used: freedoms related to business, trade, fiscal matters, monetary matters, investment, finance, labor, government spending, property rights and freedom from corruption. The top 10 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile. The bottom 10: Republic of Congo, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Venezuela, Burma, Eritrea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea. The index demonstrates what we libertarians have long said: Economic freedom leads to prosperity. Also, the best places to live and fastest-growing economies are among the freest, and vice versa. A society will be materially well off to the extent its people have the liberty to acquire property, start businesses, and trade in a secure legal and political environment. … Why is the United States falling behind? ‘Our spending has been excessive’ [says Bill Beach, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis]. … ‘We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. (Government) takeovers of industries, subsidizing industries … these are the kinds of moves that happen in Third World countries.’ … If we want to reverse America’s decline, we’d better get to work. There’s a lot of government to cut.” –columnist John Stossel
The Ruling Class — Past and Present
October 18, 2010Defenders of the idea that only the ruling class should be able to make decisions for everybody else desperately try to put lipstick on the tyrannical pigs of history and today.
One common argument – in both Russia and in the West – is the defense of Lenin as a well-intentioned guy whose good work was cut short by his premature death. Then that bad old Stalin took over and tyranny sprang up like flowers after a rain in the desert.
Robert Gellately in Lenin, Stalin and Hitler has examined this notion and has totally destroyed its claim to veracity from first-hand accounts. His conclusion is that Lenin was “a heartless and ambitious individual who was self-righteous in claiming to know what was good for humanity, brutal in his attempt to subject his own people to radical social transformation, and convinced he held the key to the eventual overthrow of global capitalism and the establishment of world Communism.”
The picture Gellately paints of Stalin and Hitler shows that Lenin’s character flaws were shared by them as well.
Gellately describes Lenin in terms that disturbingly fit Saul Alinsky, President Obama’s intellectual inspiration. Both men wrote that the current system needs to be collapsed. While Alinsky argued that it should be collapsed from within, Lenin sought the same goal by deliberately provoking a civil war which would then be followed with murder and terror as an official regime policy. Lenin was successful, and as a result of the war, he emerged in total control of the country at a cost of two million dead. Of course, he and his disciple Stalin killed many tens of millions more in the years following.
Larry Grathwol was the FBI agent who infiltrated close-Obama-friend Bill Ayers’ terrorist Weather Underground. He testified that he had a conversation with Ayers in which the terrorist said that after taking power it would probably be necessary to kill 25,000,000 Americans who could not be reeducated to accept the new communist system.
Grathwol reported that Ayers made that statement in a room of some twenty-five people, most of whom had graduate degrees. Gellately found that the leaders of the death squads in Hitler’s Nazi regime were also similarly well-educated. This information certainly adds perspective to the detrimental value afforded by a liberal arts education in most universities of the United States.
All three of these mass murderers followed the Alinsky prescription faithfully, namely, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” When we look at President Obama’s method of operation, we can see that he learned this lesson well. (Indeed, Obama taught Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for two years at the University of Chicago School of Law).
He picks targets for smearing (banks, insurance companies, Republicans, etc.). He then goes on to freeze his target, to personalize it (greedy executives, House Minority Leader John Boehner) and then to polarize. Polarizing is part of the acid used by the 20th Century’s tyrants as well as Saul Alinsky and his followers.
While we are not yet where Germany and Russia ended up,, the end game of polarizing the population against a personalized enemy led to the destruction of Jews and foreigners under the Nazis. And in the Soviet Union, it led to the destruction of the nobility, the educated, and the clergy, as well as businesses and farm owners. As Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s close friend and former White House Chief of Staff has put it, you never let a good crisis go to waste. The crisis allows the implementation of the Alinsky formula, creating an enemy that must be fought. In order to fight the enemy, the tyrant demands that all power be handed over to him.
According to Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama now controls seventy percent of the private sector in the United States. This takeover has been carried off by a constant rush from one crisis to another. “The time for talking is over. The time for action is now.”
Well, Mr. Obama, the time for voting is coming. The time for the arrogance of power is over.
President Obama’s voting puppets: GOA strikes back
October 18, 2010On the Campaign Trail in Arkansas
| Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund endorsed three candidates in Arkansas for the November elections: Richard Crawford in the First Congressional District, Tim Griffin in the Second, and John Boozman for Senate.
All three are campaigning vigorously, and their hard work is paying off in recent polls. Arkansas First Congressional According to a poll released this week by The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political news organization, Rick Crawford is leading his Democrat opponent in the First Congressional District. Crawford, a small business owner and constitutional conservative, is forthright in his support for the Second Amendment. His commitment to protecting the right to keep and bear arms earned him an “A” rating from GOA.  GOA Vice-Chariman Tim Macy (left) with nationally syndicated talk show host Roger Hedgecock on the campaign trail in Arkansas
His rival, a staffer for the retiring Congressman in the district, did not return a GOA survey even though he was given two opportunities to do so in the past few months. This is usually a sign that the candidate is hiding anti-gun views. Learn more about Rick http://www.meetrickcrawford.com. Arkansas Second Congressional In the Second District, Tim Griffin leads his opponent by 17 points. A fifth generation Arkansan, Tim is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and is committed not only to opposing the anti-gun schemes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but he will also work to roll back the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. His opponent, “F” rated by GOA, will be just another vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her radical, anti-gun agenda. Tim’s website is http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com. Arkansas Senate In the race for one of Arkansas’ U.S. Senate seat, Rep. John Boozman holds a double-digit lead over incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln. In the U.S. House, Rep. Boozman has been a champion for the Second Amendment, one of only six House members to earn an “A+” from GOA. In addition to holding a perfect voting record, Rep. Boozman is the author of the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” a bill which would allow concealed carry licenses to be recognized while traveling across state lines. He also recently took the lead in opposing President Obama’s efforts to block the importation of—or even destroy—nearly one million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea. The firearms are lawful for Americans to own, and Rep. Boozman continues to work on this issue even as the congressional session winds down. His opponent has proven to be one of President Obama’s voting puppets. Sen. Lincoln voted for a slew of anti-gun nominees put forward by the President, including two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices and a U.S. Attorney General who would like to reinstate the semi-auto ban of 1994. The polls indicate that voters have had enough of Sen. Lincoln marching in lockstep with the President and his anti-gun agenda. Rep. John Boozman is a proven leader and a consistent friend of gun owners both across the state of Arkansas and across the country. Visit John Boozman on the web at http://www.boozmanforarkansas.com. The elections in Arkansas are crucial for the makeup of the new Congress. Not only are pro-gunners leading in Districts 1 and 2, but both seats also stand to flip from Pelosi-supporting anti-gun puppets to strong Constitutional leaders. And in the Senate, John Boozman will be one less vote for anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid, and one less vote for the devastating Obama agenda. Although their hard work is paying off with great polling numbers, none of these candidates are taking anything for granted. They are campaigning hard right up to Election Day, so if you can help out any of these campaigns with volunteer efforts or a financial contribution, please visit their websites. |
New York: Imitating California, as in going full blown stupid..?
October 18, 2010
Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation
Posted by Walter Olson
There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor’s race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat’s reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the “dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today’s ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett’s famous 2008 Village Voice article.)
I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it’s also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn’t much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the “next tobacco,” following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).
Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they’d fold their hands and yield to “gun control through litigation” (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.
Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”
I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can’t figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.
Second Amendment Foundation Defends an American Veteran!
October 17, 2010Alright… I like the Second Amendment Foundation, what they do, and why they do what they do. What makes me sick though is the never ending begging for bucks that they engage in. Want to donate? Fine, I’ll plug in a link at the end.
Now, the meat of this is a theme often addressed here. That being life time bans of inalienable rights for less than felonious deeds. Indeed, since the treasonous and un-Constitutional Lautenberg Abomination that made ex post fact law the national norm? Things have only become worse, due to hot button political correctness. The Second Amendment Foundation is taking this head on. Playing follow the leader is not always a bad thing, as Gun Owners of America have been on top of this from day one. While the NRA, sat back, and collected dues…
SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over
Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial
Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.
The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
MILITARY VETERAN ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE DENIED RIGHT TO OWN A GUN
In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their “territory,” according to the complaint.
FBI THREATENS TO CONFISCATE SCHRADER’S FIREARMS
Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.
FELONS GIVEN MORE RIGHTS THAN HONORABLE SERVICEMAN
“Schrader’s dilemma,” explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.
“No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way,” he added. “Mr. Schrader’s case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws.”
Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer’s bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.
Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn’t happen to you.
YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON THE VALUE OF YOUR LIFE
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.
We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.
Here is the obligatory link…
An excellent essay dealing with the times that we live in.
October 16, 2010Every so often, someone, somewhere writes so eloquently that it is difficult to comprehend just how they did it. What follows are snips, be sure to follow the link to the entire essay.
On Feb. 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, “We Are All Socialists Now.” Since then, much has transpired, including the sale of Newsweek (the business entity) to the highest bidder for $1. Now, 1 1/2 years later, a more poignant cover story might be “We Are All Tea Partiers Now.”
The Tea Party is the leading edge of a “Great Awakening” in America. In many ways, it appears to have the force and vitality of one of the religious awakenings that have occurred throughout our nation’s history. It is more than a populist movement. It is more than a reactionary group expressing voter dissatisfaction and anger. It can’t be boiled down to election results. It will not be co-opted neatly by the Republican Party. It is something much, much bigger.
The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.
~snip~
The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.
Our nation is in the grip of an overwhelming, seemingly inescapable malaise, not because our government hasn’t done enough for us, but because it has tried to do too much. Over the decades, “government” has mutated into “big government,” and its weight is killing us. Recent massive efforts to stimulate the economy or save certain sectors of it through increased government intervention and spending, far from helping us, have only added to the fog of uncertainty and oppression.
Washington’s presumed role of always knowing what is best for every aspect of our lives is over. One by one, people are waking up and realizing that perhaps they know what is best for themselves, their families, their local communities and their states. The Tea Party movement is not just an expression of disfavor with how things get done in government. It is the promise of a tectonic shift of decentralization and reduction of government.
~snip~
For more than 200 years, the United States has been a repository of the most incredible truth in the world about man’s desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and how to secure these as a nation. In some ways, this truth has been in a deep freeze just as a steak might safely be saved in your freezer at home. If you offer a frozen steak to a hungry guest, it’s of no practical use to him. But if you put that steak on the grill with a fire under it, suddenly the fat starts to sizzle, the juices begin to run, and you begin to smell the aroma of the roasting meat. That steak becomes enticing to the hungry person. The Tea Party movement is the vehicle, the tiny match, by which the fire is lit under old truths so that even those who have never given a thought to their unalienable personal rights and the role of government now have a voracious hunger to experience these truths in their own lives.
~snip~
Many people now see that our nation is at a crossroads: Our personal liberties, economic prosperity and the place of the United States within the world are at risk. Their eyes have been opened to the reckless stewardship of the political class in Washington, which, by creating an ever-growing government with massive, unsustainable entitlements, sweeping unintelligible legislative reforms and volume after volume of free-market-choking regulations, has charted this ill-fated course toward its progressive vision for America.
~snip~
For the past year and a half, the media and other detractors have dedicated themselves to snuffing out the Tea Party movement through tactics of mockery, dismissiveness and false accusations. From Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insinuating that grass-roots protesters at town-hall meetings last summer were Nazis to President Obama using mocking sexual innuendo, calling the Tea Partiers “tea baggers”; from the unsubstantiated claims of Tea Party violence and racism during health care reform protests on Capitol Hill in March to the NAACP’s unwarranted charge of Tea Party racism to the constant drone of politicos and pundits about Tea Party extremism during the primary elections, the assault on the Tea Party has been relentless. If Tea Partiers were a protected class rather than a targeted one, most of the media, academia and political intelligentsia would be on trial for hate crimes.
~snip~
The Tea Party is more than an angry political movement, as it is frequently described. Something much deeper is going on here. It is a living expression of bedrock truth about humanity’s rights and our own human nature – that men and women have a yearning to be free and to self-govern while participating in and enjoying civil society.
My hats off in appreciation to Doug Manwaring.
Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives
October 16, 2010As directed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado Constitution, the Board of Directors has reviewed the 2010 amendments and propositions on the ballot for voter consideration. There are seven proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and two propositions to change the Revised Statutes.
Moves bingo and raffle licensing from Sec State to Dept of Revenue (or other designated by the state legislature). In addition to time, energy, and money already expended on this change to existing law, there will be a onetime $116,000 expenditure from bingo and raffle license fees.
The amendment makes no significant changes to the Colorado Constitution or the long term financial situation of the State Government-
Eliminates property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
The fiscal effects of this amendment are relatively minor, but should increase the efficiency of local governments by reducing the costs of assessing and collecting minor amounts of property taxes from numerous small assessments.
-Requires audit and enforcement of this section.
-All owners of real property would be entitled to vote on all proposed property taxes affecting their property.
-Voters may petition to lower property taxes
-Property tax issues shall have November election notices separate from debt issues
-Property Tax bills list only property taxes and late charges
-Enterprise and authorities shall pay property taxes. Lower mil-levy rates to offset income to taxing dist
-10 year expiration on property tax rate increases
-Extending expiring property taxes, is a tax increase
-Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring in 4 years. Local governments and enterprises will have to make serious adjustments to their budgets and seek direct voter approval of property taxes on at least a four-year cycle.
-by 2020, non-college school districts phase out ½ of their 2011 property tax rate for operating expenses. State aid replaces the revenue. Shifts school operating costs to State general fund from local resources.
-Repeals existing Article XI Section 3 and re-enacts the original 1876 version of this section to read, “The state shall not contract any debt in any form.”
-Repeals Article XI Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) as obsolete and superceded.
-Repeals and re-enacts Article XI Section 6(1) to require voter approval for local governments to contract debt. Also requires ballot title to be specific.
-Adds further specific requirements concerning debt to Article X section 20(4)
–November Ballot approval
–10 year limit on new local debt
–borrowing can’t exceed 10% of assessed valuation
–Tax Rates must be reduced when borrowing is repaid
Would define person as at the beginning of biological development and entitled to full protection of Colorado law.
This is an effort to insert the State into the intensely personal decisions concerning the beginning of human life. It would only further complicate already difficult decisions.
This is in response to the recently enacted Federal health care decrees. It is unfortunately now necessary for Colorado to take a stand to protect individual and state rights associated with US Constitution Article I and Amendments 9 and 10.
-reduces and eliminates vehicle taxes and fees over next 4 years.
-eliminates all state and local taxes on telecommunications service, except 911 fees
-requires voter approval to for future vehicle and telecomm fees.
Adds requirements to Colorado Statutes to prohibit release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to pretrial services program unless it is a first offense and is nonviolent misdemeanor.
If passed this measure will reduce the ability of Judges to release those accused of crimes while awaiting trial. Those unable to afford additional bonding expenses would remain in custody. Additional total costs to the State are estimated at $2.8 million.
For the 2010 November election, voters are asked to consider retention/non-retention of a number of Judges. The LPCO encourages all voters to carefully consider each judge.
Several of the Citizen initiated amendments on the 2010 November Ballot are in response to Supreme Court decisions contrary to the intent of existing constitutional provisions. The activist nature of the recent Colorado Supreme Court and it’s decisions appears to be more focused on predetermined outcomes rather than the Rule of Law.
From: LPCO Board of Directors
To: Colorado Libertarians and interested Voters
Subj: Libertarian Party of Colorado Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives.
Perhaps the LPCO has regained some semblance of sanity? Time will tell.
When orders from HQ change… Enviro whacko’s and Texas fights back!
October 16, 2010Texas is firing back after the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would apply the 1970s clean air laws to carbon regulation and effectively seize permitting authority from states that don’t comply quickly enough. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA’s national office chooses priorities, but state regulators run the relevant programs and issue the necessary permits. When orders from HQ change, as with carbon over the last year, states get three years to revise their ‘implementation plans.’ But in August, [EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson decided that the law posed too long a climate wait and decreed that if these plans aren’t updated by an arbitrary January 2011 deadline, her office will override the states and run the carbon permitting process itself.”
Given the EPA’s current lack of permitting resources, the Journal notes that this decision “is tantamount to a ban on major construction or building expansion — not merely Texan refineries but any kind of carbon-heavy utility, industrial production, manufacturing plant or even large office buildings.” Indeed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality projects that the new regulations will end 167 current projects in 2011 alone. In response to Jackson’s fiat, the Lone Star State has filed a lawsuit with the DC appeals circuit, arguing the EPA went “beyond [its] powers” and is asking for an emergency stay of the new regulations.
The EPA itself admits that its actions “may have adverse consequences for the economy.” Of course, we’ve seen how little “adverse consequences” mean to an administration convinced that when it comes to federal bureaucracy, bigger is always better.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 