The saga on "How Obama completely destroyed the US economy" continues--
The Obama EPA Administration is going to regulate carbon dioxide emissions due to some socialist junk science that insists it CO2 endangers public health.
FOX News reported:The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing senior Obama administration officials.Jammie Wearing Fool says this is another sign that the Obama administration plans to completely wreck the U.S. economy as fast as possible.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare documentation for a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare, the newspaper said.
There is wide expectation that Jackson will act by April 2, the second anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that found that EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse pollution under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
In an interview with the Associated Press on Tuesday, she said the EPA will soon decide whether greenhouse gases are a danger to human health and welfare, the legal trigger for regulation under federal law.
"We are going to be making a fairly significant finding about what these gases mean for public health and the welfare of our country," Jackson said.
Um...hello?? Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas that is essential to the correct functioning of this planet!!! These idiots might as well try to tax oxygen. Or water. Either of those make just as much sense.
In addition, Hot Air dissects the article, which proves to be an interesting exercise in itself:
This is outrageous! They're going to enact some of the most restrictive, oppressive, and expensive policies in the history of our country...without even bothering to put it through Congress!!! If my history is correct (and it is, at least on this point), America was founded partly on anger at taxation without representation. How is this any different? Are we going to have to carry out another revolution -- or at least another Tea Party -- before some sanity returns to Washington?Well, you have to love how the New York Times has decided to become the spin masters of the Obama administration. Take a look at the second paragraph of the article, in which John Broder breathlessly informs us that regulating carbon dioxide could "accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States' negotiating position at United Nations climate talks". It could do all that, but what Broder doesn't mention is that it will also rapidly increase energy costs, making it costlier to produce goods and services inside the US while foreign competitors gain an advantage.
How long does it take for Broder to mention the fact that increased regulation and imposition of controls will "significantly increase costs"? Paragraph 15, of 26. He only mentions it in reference to expected opposition from Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), whom Broder helpfully casts as a "champion" of the auto industry. Funny, though, that the New York Times didn't bother much with describing people as "champions" of this industry when covering the auto-industry bailouts, which will now apparently go to waste, thanks to this new regulatory push that will make both the manufacturing and products of the industry obsolete.
In fact, in the entire 26-paragraph article, only two paragraphs speak at all about the opposition to such an approach. The rest almost fawningly describe the effort in glowing, even heroic tones. It's quite the piece of propaganda, and I'm certain the Obama administration will bless the NYT with even more scoops like this in the future. It's far below Broder's usual standard.
Interestingly, the Most Transparent and Accountable Administration in World History will not ask Congress to pass these new regulations. Getting the People's Branch involved apparently is too time-consuming and tiresome. Instead, the EPA will just start issuing regulations, and will ask us to trust them to be reasonable. No, I'm not kidding:
She also said that while Mr. Obama supported Congressional action on climate change, he was also committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.
Mr. LaBolt said the White House would not interfere with the agency's decision-making process.
If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.
Remember all those on the Left that complained about George Bush's "imperial" approach to the Presidency? Do you suppose they'll complain about this? Neither do I.
This is no surprise to anyone who had their eyes open during the primaries (remember his promise to bankrupt the coal industry and deliberately cause skyrocketing energy prices?). Obama is a radical Leftist who subscribes to socialist and Marxist beliefs, so it is only natural that he would enact this sort of oppressive, controlling measure. However, there are going to be a great many Americans who find themselves suddenly experiencing hardship as the result of these policies, and will, for the first time, demand answers and accountability. Thus, it is critical that we be armed with the truth, the facts, and an alternative.
Obama and the Democrat Congress is unleashing liberalism to its fullest extent, and things like this EPA ruling are the end result. For those of you who believed the Obamessiah's promises that he won't raise taxes on you...get ready, because you're about to get loaded up with taxes on things like carbon emissions due to this ruling and many, many others that we'll see soon enough.
Buckle up, because this ride isn't going to be pretty in the meantime.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment