EPA will use Clean Air Act to Attack Small Business

Applauding the defeat of the Murkowski Resolution, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson released a statement consistent with the White House's "just lie" policy....

The Murkowski resolution also undermines EPA's common sense strategy for cutting greenhouse gases. Our carefully constructed approach exempts small businesses, homes, farms, and other small sources from regulation. We know that the local coffee shop or the backyard grill is no place to look for meaningful CO2 reductions. We're tackling our largest polluters and calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy and climate law -- one that would extend the protection of small businesses. (Read complete statement here.)

Targeting the largest polluters? Really?

With the failure to pass the Murkowski Resolution, through the EPA & an over reaching use of the Clean Air Act, Cap & Trade has been effectively enacted through regulation over legislation. Besides killing the coal industry & causing utility prices to skyrocket, the EPA will be targeting small business' Jackson claims to be exempting from these draconian measures.

A little know provision of the Clean Air Act -- the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy -- small businesses will also become a target of the Green Energy Goon's at the EPA & the administration's quest for control....

From NYT -- (emphasis added)

The Environmental Protection Agency is 10 years behind schedule in setting guidelines for a host of toxic air pollutants, according to a report from the agency’s inspector general.

The report, which was released last week, found that the agency had failed to develop emissions standards, due in 2000, for some sources of hazardous air pollutants. These included smaller sites often located in urban areas, like dry cleaners and gas stations, but also some chemical manufacturers.

The inspector general also found that the agency had not met targets outlined in a 1999 planning document, the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, including tracking urban dwellers’ risk of developing health problems from exposure to pollutants.

For example, the agency’s last assessment of the risk of toxic air pollutants is based on emissions data from 2002. That analysis found that 1 in 28,000 people, or 36 in 1 million, could develop cancer from lifetime exposure to air toxics from outdoor sources. That number is an average, however, and people living in densely populated cities may face a higher risk.

Jeffrey Holmstead, who was assistant administrator for air and radiation at the E.P.A. from 2001 to 2005, said that even though Congress increased the agency’s budget when it passed significant amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, the E.P.A. still did not have enough money to fulfill all its requirements.

Some evidence suggests that there is now more attention being paid to this category of air pollutants within the E.P.A. The agency noted in its response to the report that for the first time in a decade, funds are shifting to the air toxics program this year to meet regulatory deadlines.

Senator Sherrod Brown Supports Suppression of Free Speech

Patriots please find below the response of Senator Sherrod to one of members contacting him about the Free Speech killing DISCLOSE Act. (Click here to read more about the Disclose Act)

As many of us had already guessed, Senator Brown has no problem supporting measures limiting your right to Free Speech....

Dear Robert:

Thank you for sharing your views on the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act (S.3295). While you and I disagree on this issue, I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

On January 21, 2010, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing precedent that prevented businesses from spending corporate dollars on campaigns. Large corporations can now use their near-unlimited treasuries to pump billions of dollars into the support or opposition of candidates.

I am extremely troubled that there will now be even more special interest money in the political system. Drug companies, insurance companies, and Wall Street banks will now be free to spend millions of dollars on campaigns to push their agendas. The Court's decision is not good for our political system, and it is not good for America.

S.3295 would protect American consumers by imposing disclosure requirements on businesses that choose to use corporate dollars in political races. These protections would make it easier for consumers to know if portions of their daily purchases are being used to fund political advertisements and campaigns. This legislation would also ban contributions by foreign-controlled corporations in order to protect the American democratic process from foreign interference and influence. Campaign spending by government contractors would also be banned as an additional measure to ensure that taxpayer money is not spent on political advertisements.

In addition to S. 3295, I have introduced the Citizens Right to Know Act, S. 3004, which would ensure the public knows when corporations are sponsoring campaign ads, prevent corporations from diverting dollars into campaign spending without the explicit approval of their shareholders, and further stop foreign-owned corporations from influencing U.S. elections.

S. 3004 is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. As a member of this committee, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that people, not corporations, hold the power in our democratic system.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

Hmmm.... I wonder if the color of Senator Brown's shirt matches his last name?

Thomas Jefferson says...

From FSOP

Obama & Crew Miss Deadline for Creating High Risk Pools

From New Patriot Journal via Heritage Foundation

We’ve all heard it before — the age-old saying “Better late than never.” Well, get ready to hear it again, this time from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, regarding the creation of high-risk pools under Obamacare.

The pools were supposed to provide coverage for individuals who cannot get health insurance due to chronic illness. Obamacare slated the establishment of the pools to occur no later than 90 days after the legislation passed on March 23. This past Monday marked day 90, and the pools remain nowhere to be found.

Covering the uninsured and those who need it most was advertised as one of the top priorities for the congressional majority’s health care agenda, so it’s hard to understand how Secretary Sebelius could have overlooked such an important deadline. After all, it’s her job to implement Obamacare.

It gets worse. Not only has the secretary failed to meet the high-risk pool deadline, but earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office found that the pools will be underfunded by $5 billion to $10 billion. This blunder could result in 500,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions not receiving the coverage they were promised.

According to the White House, as many as 12 million people are currently denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. In its current design, the poorly-designed federal high-risk pool program will provide coverage to just a small fraction of these people. Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary, claims it will be able to do so for only one or two years before exhausting its allocated funding. Armed with this information, at least 19 states are declining these new high-risk pools.

These mammoth mistakes have not gone unnoticed. Tuesday, Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and 30 other Republicans sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius reminding her of the missed deadline.

The senators also had a few questions for the Secretary: When will the money for these high-risk pools be distributed to participating states? When will funding be provided for the 19 states that have refused to participate in the federal program? And how many individuals will covered by these pools each year?

Sebelius was asked to respond by June 30, but it’s unlikely she will have any more luck in meeting this deadline than she did the previous one. More likely, she will follow the “better late than never” mantra. And all the while, it’s becomes more and more clear that Americans would have been better off had Obamacare never passed.

SANTELLI TELLS GOVERNMENT: STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! 6-28-2010

From TPP Facebook page --

Marine Vets Denied Right to fly Gadsden Flag

Some Marine Vets have been denied the right to fly the Gadsden in CT because lawmakers say it's been adopted by the "tea party."

It's now up to Richard Blumenthal, the CT Attorney General who lied about his service in Vietnam.

Let AG Blumenthal know how you feel -- Ph: (860) 808-5318 / Fax: (860) 808-5387 / Email: attorney.general@ct.gov.

From TPP Facebook page via Fox News --

A group of retired Marines is asking Connecticut's attorney general to allow the "Don't Tread on Me" Gadsden flag to fly over the state Capitol on July 4 after Capitol Police refused the request saying it doesn’t fall within the state’s flag flying parameters.

The group says the yellow banner, which sports a coiled rattlesnake and its trademark motto, is the original flag of the U.S. Marine Corps and clearly fits into the section of the policy which states that the Connecticut State Capitol can fly “flags of recognized military organizations of the U.S.A.”

But Capitol Police have denied several requests to fly the flag -- More...

Tree Huggers vs Green Energy Goons

Already starting to get upset over the impact on the environment by illegal immigrants, the tree-huggers have now set their sights on the green energy goons.

From Public Employees for Enviromental Responsibility --

News Release

For Immediate Release:

June 25, 2010
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

HEAVY TOLL ON WILDLIFE PROMPTS LAWSUIT AGAINST CAPE WIND — Scientific Reviews of Impact on Endangered and Threatened Birds Skewed

Washington, DC — A coalition of groups filed suit today against federal agencies responsible for approving the proposed Cape Wind turbine farm on the grounds that the project will exact a terrible toll on federally protected migratory birds. The suit contends that required scientific studies were not done and that mandated protective measures were ignored in approving the controversial 130-turbine project slated for Nantucket Sound, a principal bird migration corridor off the Massachusetts coast.

The lawsuit filed today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. contends that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (until recently known as the Minerals Management Service) and Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treat Act, and National Environmental Policy Act in green-lighting the offshore wind farm. Plaintiffs include Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Cetacean Society International, Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE), Three Bays Preservation and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, as well as Cindy Lowry, Barbara Durkin, and Martha Powers. They are represented by the Washington, D.C. public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal.

Among the issues raised by the suit are the –

• Refusal to adopt recommended protective measures for the endangered Roseate Tern and the threatened Piping Plover, such as shutting turbines down during peak migration periods;

• Refusal to collect or submit acoustic, radar, infrared, or observational data on bird migration; and

• Failure to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement when new information came to light that a large aggregation of the highly imperiled North Atlantic Right Whale was present in the project area.

As a result of these failures, there is no reliable information on how many birds will perish in the huge turbine blades despite requirements that the best scientific information must be used. In addition, there are questions about whether the project will harm, harass, or kill critically endangered Right Whales.

“We are in this lawsuit because science was manipulated and suppressed for political reasons to which the Obama administration turned a blind eye,” stated PEER New England Director Kyla Bennett, a biologist and lawyer formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noting the role of the (now former) Minerals Management Service and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. “Condemning rare birds to extinction is not required for offshore wind development.”

A January 2010 Interior Inspector General report found that the agencies reviewing the project’s environmental impact study were unnecessarily rushed in their reviews because of the applicant’s desire to complete the environmental review prior to the exodus of the Bush Administration. Moreover, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologists protested that the lack of data that made it impossible to adequately assess the project’s impacts on birds. The agency then reassigned the lead biologist.

“After years of personally witnessing the destruction of precious coastal habitat to wind industrial complexes, I am disturbed to see the federal agencies entrusted with the protection of our public waters act so recklessly in approving the Cape Wind project,” concluded Walt Kittelberger, Chairman of the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation.

###

Read the lawsuit
View the Inspector General report on Cape Wind
See the lack of safeguards for scientific integrity inside the Interior Department