Obama punting on new epa regulations until after election
|
|
|||||
|
10 votes
|
|
15% | ||
|
5 votes
|
|
8% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | ||
|
50 votes
|
|
76% | ||
1. Obama ‘Punting’ on New EPA Rules Until Post-Election
A new report from Senate Republicans warns that the Obama administration and the EPA are delaying implementation of painful new regulations until after the election.
The report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ Minority Staff, “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013,” points to a “slew of job-killing EPA regulations that the Obama-EPA has put on hold until after the election but will be on the ‘to-do’ list for 2013.”
“As the economy has continued to falter over the past year, team Obama has been delaying rule after rule that will eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes.”
The report goes on to state: “It’s pretty clear that if President Obama secures a second term, the Obama-EPA will have a very busy next four years, moving full speed ahead to implement numerous major rules and regulations that he has delayed or punted due to the upcoming election.
“The radical environmental left may not need to worry, but what about American families, who are working hard in tough economic times, trying to make ends meet?
“As the nation struggles to recover from a lagging economy in the coming year, Americans could also be grappling with a regulatory onslaught from the Obama-EPA that will strangle economic growth, destroy millions of jobs, and dramatically raise the price of goods, the cost of electricity, and the price of gas at the pump.”
The “punted” regulations include:
Greenhouse gas rules that will “virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation,” and inflict new permitting costs on more than 37,000 farms. New ozone standards that would cost $90 billion a year. Regulations on hydraulic fracturing that will have “serious impacts on domestic energy production.” Expansion of federal control “over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small.” Storm water regulations that could include “mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm water sewers, and streets.” Reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline that could boost prices by 9 cents a gallon. Clean Water Act rules that “could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths.” Other regulations would affect coal ash, farm dust, oil and gasoline spill prevention, and more.“This report is a wake-up call on the economic pain that the ‘abusive’ Obama-EPA plans to inflict next year,” said Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member on the committee.
“It reveals a president who is more concerned about saving his own job than the millions of Americans who are looking for one today.”
Top Opinion
-
Ken 2012/10/21 15:20:15All of the above
Barack H. Obama 2008
Romney flipped on flopped on coal..This is from Politifact - when Obama said he stood in front of a coal mine and said this mine kills..he was telling the truth..Romney championed regulations..the same ones Obama is championing:
"Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said, "That plant kills people." But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced.
And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal.
If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, it’s fairly safe to assume that "one would also support such things nationally," said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health.
The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even in...
Romney flipped on flopped on coal..This is from Politifact - when Obama said he stood in front of a coal mine and said this mine kills..he was telling the truth..Romney championed regulations..the same ones Obama is championing:
"Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said, "That plant kills people." But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced.
And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal.
If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, it’s fairly safe to assume that "one would also support such things nationally," said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health.
The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions -- the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio.
The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say Romney was right or wrong at one time.
But with additional information from emissions data, interviews and the public record of his governorship, the Obama campaign claim about Romney’s coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day.
On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates Mostly True."
We are going to be in the same mess that got us into all of this trouble in the first place if Romney...God forbid...gets in
http://www.mrc.org/node/36360
And...
http://www.businessinsider.co...
"Mitt Romney keeps saying that President Obama can't run on his record.
That's silly.
Obama's record, at least with respect to the economy, has been solid — especially relative to the economy of the prior adminstration (whose policies Romney wants to return to)"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.co...
If you go to that business insider website you can see all of the major economic charts from before and after the stimulus...we could very well have went into a depression if it hadn't been for the influx of money...the last thing we need..is to go back to the policies that got us into this mess...Yes, it's taken a while for a full recovery..but we had a big hole to climb out of..and there are a lot factors that determine the speed of recovery..It has improved..but..giving more money to the rich is certainly not the answer..the rich do not create a strong economy..they are the result of a strong economy...and the republicans? Their plan to reform health care? The system was in dire need of reform...costs had been increasing astronomically for years before Obama got into office..they had doubled under Bush..something needed to be done...th...
http://www.mrc.org/node/36360
And...
http://www.businessinsider.co...
"Mitt Romney keeps saying that President Obama can't run on his record.
That's silly.
Obama's record, at least with respect to the economy, has been solid — especially relative to the economy of the prior adminstration (whose policies Romney wants to return to)"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.co...
If you go to that business insider website you can see all of the major economic charts from before and after the stimulus...we could very well have went into a depression if it hadn't been for the influx of money...the last thing we need..is to go back to the policies that got us into this mess...Yes, it's taken a while for a full recovery..but we had a big hole to climb out of..and there are a lot factors that determine the speed of recovery..It has improved..but..giving more money to the rich is certainly not the answer..the rich do not create a strong economy..they are the result of a strong economy...and the republicans? Their plan to reform health care? The system was in dire need of reform...costs had been increasing astronomically for years before Obama got into office..they had doubled under Bush..something needed to be done...the republicans plan to do nothing?
Under a new 893-page proposal unveiled last week, automakers must hit a fleet-wide fuel economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025–double today’s 27.3 standard. The government says it would cost automakers $8.5 billion per year to comply, which means a spike in sticker prices of at least $2,000 to $2,800, according to official projections. Other estimates peg the added costs at $3,100, and that could go even higher. As The Wall Street Journal writes, “Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence.”
all this comes as the former “Detroit Three” are struggling with weak auto sales, projected to be down by 17.9 percent in 2011 from where they stood at the onset of the recession. Ironically, the federal government that bailed out the industry is now imposing regulations that could once again threaten its existence. The Obama Administration is pointing to the supposed benefits of the new standards–including a fuel savings of $1.7 trillion–but as Katz writes, that number is “pure speculation given that actual savings would depend on the price of gasoline,”...
Under a new 893-page proposal unveiled last week, automakers must hit a fleet-wide fuel economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025–double today’s 27.3 standard. The government says it would cost automakers $8.5 billion per year to comply, which means a spike in sticker prices of at least $2,000 to $2,800, according to official projections. Other estimates peg the added costs at $3,100, and that could go even higher. As The Wall Street Journal writes, “Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence.”
all this comes as the former “Detroit Three” are struggling with weak auto sales, projected to be down by 17.9 percent in 2011 from where they stood at the onset of the recession. Ironically, the federal government that bailed out the industry is now imposing regulations that could once again threaten its existence. The Obama Administration is pointing to the supposed benefits of the new standards–including a fuel savings of $1.7 trillion–but as Katz writes, that number is “pure speculation given that actual savings would depend on the price of gasoline,” which can’t be predicted 14 years into the future, much less next summer.
There’s another point to be made, as well: American consumers would face higher-priced vehicles and fewer choices all at the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who have never been authorized by Congress to set fuel-efficiency standards for any purpose. That, though, is consistent with President Obama’s modus operandi–to regulate where he cannot legislate. There is something Congress can and should do: bar the EPA and the NHTSA from implementing and enforcing the new standards by withholding funds or passing a law prohibiting the regulation.
The EPA should not be in the business of picking and choosing what kind of cars and trucks Americans can drive, and neither should President Obama. But if Congress does not take action, that could certainly be the result.
The only department that doesn't need to do so is the US Treasury, only because Congress has made sure that the financial industry has no law that affects them and they can screw the middle class at will.
Romney said that regulations and the rate of regulations quadrupled under Obama. He was basing that on the Heritage study, but he did not include important caveats about how the study was conducted.
And more importantly, the actual data on regulations show Obama's rate of regulations is no different from the past 18 years.
This is a broad claim describing its own evidence inaccurately. False.