The EPA's $600,000,000 Lie

Several years ago the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a report that claimed that air pollutants from burning coal were killing at least 6000 people per year.  The EPA also claimed that 10’s of thousands more people were suffering severe health problems as the result of coal fire pollutants.

At the time I wrote a blog disputing that claim based on my own empirical evidence.

Five and one-half years of my youth (grades 7 through 12) were spent in southern West Virginia where coal was king.  There was no natural gas available; some of the bigger businesses used heating oil, and a few homes burnt wood; everything else was powered or heated by coal.

All electricity was generated by coal and the Norfolk & Western railroad operated massive (2-6-6-4) articulated steam locomotives that burnt coal by the tons.

Our home was located at the beginning of a very long grade where the coal trains required two locomotives at the front and a third locomotive at the rear of the train.  They would haul 100 or more 90 ton coal cars per train.

Under those conditions, the locomotives were belching thick clouds of heavy black smoke as they ascended the mountain.

The result was that it was a rare day, usually mid-summer, when you did not smell the unmistakable aroma produced when bituminous coal is burnt.

From late Fall through early Spring, in the early mornings you to could see a heavy smoke cloud hanging over every valley.  From October to February that cloud could be several hundred feet thick.  On sunny days, a few hours after Sunrise, the cloud seemed to dissipate somewhat, but the smell of burning coal was just as strong.

We don’t have any scientific measurements telling us the exact amount of exposure to coal-fire-particulates the population was exposed to, but it was at a bare minimum, 1000 times greater than the levels that the EPA reports claimed was fatal!

If the EPA report had even a semblance of truth, 25% to 50% of the entire county’s population would have died from exposure every year.   The rest of the people would have been hospitalized.  

However, in reality, there were not any masses of people dying from lung disease there were few people, perhaps three in my entire high-school, suffering from asthma.

We now know that the EPA spent $600 million in taxpayer money to generate false studies about the effects of coal particulates.  The reason for these studies were not for improved health but because the EPA wanted to end coal mining. 

In fact it was the long term goal of the EPA to end all mining in the United States.  

An investigation must be made to find who authorized and carried out this shameful abuse of power and illegal use of funds.  Those parties should be criminally charged.     

Let us hope that the Trump administration replaces the agenda driven pseudo-scientists at the EPA with real scientists that rely on facts.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Bullet 'Health' Fears Dry Up Ammo Supplies

Obama's 'green' procurement plan creating 'de facto ban'

by F. Michael Maloof

WASHINGTON – At the same time federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security are buying up ammunition stockpiles around the country and shipping large quantities overseas for use by the military, the Obama administration is now pushing states to mandate “green ammunition” that is free of lead.

The result? Ammo supplies for law-abiding citizens have dried up in recent months, and experts expect it to get worse.

“The potential exists for a de facto ammunition ban,” says Ryan Bronson of the Minnesota-based National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Some sources even describe the developments as a conspiracy to limit Americans’ Second Amendment right.

Unprecedented ammunition shortages have been in headlines for months, with stores often limiting purchases to one or two boxes, if they have the desired caliber at all. Often retail shelves that used to hold abundant ammunition supplies display nothing but dust.

Now it appears the developments creating that unwelcome convergence include a campaign to move toward non-toxic, non-lead bullets because of the health concerns associated with lead, the mass purchases government is known to make, and even the shipments of supplies overseas.

Health concerns
Sources say health-care advocates are arguing that lead bullet fragments, especially in game such as venison, are neurotoxins that can harm children and developing fetuses.

Even the U.S. Geological Survey has had something to say about lead-based ammunition. It estimates that nationwide there are 400,000 pieces of lead shot per acre in areas where game is hunted, which can potentially be eaten or washed into waterways.

The USGS further claims 650,000 metric tons of lead were fired off in 2012, the second largest use of lead besides storage batteries.

Supporters of traditional lead ammunition, however, say that there is no study to show any significant reduction in wildlife populations from lead poisoning nor danger to people who eat game that has been killed either from birdshot or more powerful rounds.

‘Green’ ammo
Developing “green ammunition” has proven to be slow going, as the federal government and some states are looking at alternative metals that can provide the same weight as a lead bullet.

Those options include copper and tungsten materials, but they are so hard that technically they could violate federal regulations barring armor-piercing ammunition.

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense purchasing program outlines regulatory guidance such as Executive Order 13423 in “Green Purchasing” on a variety of products.

“DOD is committed to being a good steward of the environment,” a DOD brochure said. “Always think green at the start of the acquisition process!”

While environmental organizations have periodically expressed concern about lead in ammunition, it has not garnered widespread attention until recently.

But sources say they believe those pursuing the Obama administration’s known agenda for restricting access to weaponry and ammunition, which saw daylight after the Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colo., mass shootings, are now adding environmentalism to their anti-gun arsenal of tactics.

Generating an ammunition shortage by pushing for still unavailable “green” ammo, while buying up existing lead-based supplies, would contribute to that, they say.

]The government’s Green Procurement Program previously addressed:

• Recycled content products
• Energy Star and energy-efficient products
• Alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuels
• Bio based products
• Non-ozone depleting substances
• Environmentally preferable products and services
• Priority chemicals.

But now ammunition has been added, with the apparent aim of using the federal agency green purchasing program to force ammunition manufacturers to switch from lead to non-lead bullets.

Until that’s available, sources say, the federal government continues to reach agreements to buy “all” lead-based ammunition in pre-production from major manufacturers.

“This could explain the huge FEMA purchase run-up over the last couple years,” one weapons industry source said, referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the DHS.

Even the U.S. military is supposed to shift to “green,” non-toxic or lead-free composite projectiles, said to be more “earth friendly” and better for the environment. Sources say it will cost four times as much to make “green” ammunition.

Overseas shipments

And, sources add, a complication means that lead bullets sent overseas to Iraq and then to Afghanistan to combat the war on terror cannot be returned to the U.S. because the ammunition was originally transported without proper export licenses.

Moreover, large quantities of the lead-based ammunition stockpiles in the U.S. are being directed to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center under DHS, sources say.

At the same time, the FLETC is purchasing lead-free ammunition as it becomes available for training, referring to as “reduced hazard ammunition,” or RHA.

Because the FLETC in Georgia is a major federal law enforcement center, sources say some 30 agencies use the facility’s contracts to purchase more than three billion rounds of RHA.

Some lead-based ammunition is being imported from South Korea, Turkey, Brazil, Bulgaria and other countries to make up for existing shortfalls.

These imports will help meet demand until domestic production can once again make up for the DHS purchase of more than 1.6 billion rounds, which has effectively diminished supply and the ability for the average U.S. citizen to purchase it for legal purposes.

The Green Procurement Program has transpired over the course of three administrations. It was begun under President Bill Clinton, pushed aside by President George W. Bush and then revived by President Obama.

FBI sources tell WND that the “green” ammunition will never be acceptable to everyday shooters, or to law enforcement, since firearms would need to be adjusted at great individual expense to handle this new ammunition, leading to possible jamming and potential damage to firearms.

The FBI source added that “green” ammunition is used during training, but lead-based ammunition will continue to be used operationally.

Volatile subject

The ammunition issue became so volatile only a week ago that the House of Representatives voted to stop the DHS from entering into new contracts to buy millions of rounds until a report on the government’s need is assembled.

If approved by the Senate and signed by Obama, the bill from Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., would mean a delay in DHS plans to buy another 1.1 billion rounds until the report is completed.

Only two months ago, Fox News reported that schools training individuals to handle guns were allocating staff time to hunt the Web for ammunition supplies and customers were being told to bring their own ammo.

While there has been a massive jump in purchases of weapons and ammunition since Obama took office, the last few months have seen shortages reach a critical point. Some police departments have asked their town’s citizens for help in maintaining a supply adequate for their work.

WND reported in April that the federal government admitted it was running the stock of ammunition dry.

Word came when then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was talking to members of Congress and was asked about the ammunition issue.

Questioned by Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., about reports of the massive purchases, Napolitano explained that her department dismissed the concerns when they arose, not feeling them worth a response.\

Huge purchases confirmed

Napolitano said she thought reports of DHS’s purchase of 1.6 billion rounds – enough for many years of war at the rate ammunition is used by the U.S. military these days – were accurate.

“This was a five-year strategic sourcing contract for up to one-point-whatever billion rounds,” she confirmed.

The actual reports have contained the figure 1.6 billion rounds. And calculations done by the Washington Examiner suggest that would be enough for “something like a 24-year supply of ammunition on hand.’

What it is accomplishing is that other consumers of ammunition, from the weekend hunter to police departments, are finding the shelves bare.

For example, Utica, N.Y., police have been told it could take up to 10 months now to get the ammunition they order.

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

The High Cost Of Zero

New EPA regulations will cost billions with no detectable results

by Paul Driessen
The count is 1,920, and rising. That’s how many regulations President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated since his 2009 inauguration. Many, if not most, will bring few health or environmental benefits — but will impose high economic and unemployment costs, often to advance the administration’s unabashedly anti-hydrocarbon agenda.

The Heritage Foundation calculates that the EPA’s 20 “major” rule-making decisions to date (costing $100 million or more annually) alone could cost the United States more than $36 billion per year.The latest in this regulatory tsunami involves a third layer of rules that the agency claims will further improve air quality by forcing refineries to remove yet more sulfur from gasoline. The so-called Tier 3 rules need to be examined in the context of U.S. air-pollution history.

Since 1970, America’s cars have eliminated 99 percent of pollutants that once came out of tailpipes. “Today’s cars are essentially zero-emission vehicles, compared to 1970 models,” says air pollution expert Joel Schwartz, co-author of “Air Quality in America.”

Recent models start out cleaner and stay cleaner throughout their lives, he adds. “As a result, fleet turnover has been reducing on-road emissions by an average of about 8 [percent] to 10 percent per year.” Over time, that has brought tremendously improved air quality, and continues to do so.

Since 2004 under Tier 1 and 2 rules, refiners have reduced sulfur in gasoline from an average of 300 parts per million to 30 ppm — a 90 percent drop. By 2022, existing emission-reduction requirements will slash volatile organic pollutants by an additional 62 percent, carbon monoxide by another 51 percent and nitrous oxides 80 percent — on top of reductions achieved between 1970 and 2004.

Even this doesn’t satisfy federal regulators. Now the EPA wants sulfur levels slashed to 10 parts per million — even though the agency’s own computer models demonstrate that Tier 3 rules would yield essentially no air quality or health benefits, when earlier and ongoing reductions are factored in.In fact, Tier 3 improvements would reduce monthly ozone levels by barely 0.5 parts per billion on average to 1.2 parts per billion at peak levels, according to estimates by Environ International Corp., using EPA models. To illustrate how tiny a cut this is, it’s equivalent to saving 5 to 12 cents out of $100 million. These reductions could not even have been measured by equipment existing a couple decades ago. The improvement to human health would be essentially zero.
However, the new Tier 3 standards would cost $10 billion in upfront capital expenditures and an additional $2.4 billion in annual compliance expenses, the American Petroleum Institute and other industry experts say. They will raise the price of gasoline by 6 to 9 cents a gallon, on top of new state fuel-tax hikes and gasoline prices that have rocketed from $1.79 to $3.51 per gallon of regular unleaded under Mr. Obama.

These costs ripple throughout the economy, affecting job creation and retention, the price of goods and services, commuting costs and the price tag on family vacations. They kill jobs and harm poor families most of all.Moreover, these Tier 3 rules are loaded on top of carbon-dioxide, mercury, particulate, water-quality and numerous other rules that are being imposed to address risks and achieve benefits that exist only in EPA and environmental-activist computer models, press releases and fear campaigns. They are an integral part of the administration’s war on coal and other fossil fuels.Another serious problem is that the EPA always assumes there is no safe threshold level for pollutants and that they must constantly be ratcheted downward, eventually to zero. This flies in the face of what any competent epidemiologist knows: The dose makes the poison.

There is a point below which a chemical is not harmful. There are even chemicals that at low or trace quantities are essential to proper operation of our muscular, brain and other bodily functions but at higher doses, can be poisonous. There are also low-level chemical, radiation and pathogen exposures that actually safeguard our bodies from cancer, illness and other damage, in a process known as hormesis.

The EPA thinks the additional pollution reductions demanded by its Tier 3 sulfur rules and thousands of other regulations are technologically possible. The prevailing attitude seems to be: If it can be done, the agency will require it, no matter how high the costs or how minimal the benefits.

Coal, oil and natural gas provide 84 percent of the energy that powers America and makes our health and living standards possible. Wind, solar and biofuel sources provide less than 4 percent — and have serious health and environmental problems of their own.The enormous air- and water-quality improvements to date are adequate for now, absent clear and convincing evidence that further pollution reductions are needed to safeguard human health. We have other crucial health, environmental, employment and economic problems to solve, which also affect human health and welfare.

The EPA’s actions are forcing us to expend vast financial, human and technological resources to achieve minimal, or even zero, quantifiable health benefits. We need science-based standards and common-sense regulations. Scrapping the unnecessary Tier 3 rules is a good place to start. Citizens and lawmakers need to make certain the EPA and the president get the message.

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

UMWA: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

During his campaigning in 2008, Barack Obama promised, on several occasions, “I will bankrupt the coal industry “.

In spite of that promise, the president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) Cecil E. Roberts announced on May 21, 2008 that his organization is endorsing Barack Obama for president. Roberts then added, “He understands and will fight for the needs our members have today and the hopes our members have for a secure future for themselves and their families.”

Obama has taken the steps needed to fulfill that promise. All coal burning power plants are scheduled for shutdown and the supporting mines are being shuttered.

Yet, in several recent appearances Roberts has addressed the issue as if it were a rogue EPA and not Obama that is responsible for the dismantling of the coal industry.

A couple of weeks ago it was announced that the United Mine Workers of America had decided not to endorse either Obama/Biden or Romney/Ryan.

Mike Caputo stated, “As of right now, we have elected to stay out of this election.” Then added,
“Our members right now have indicated to stay out of this race, and that’s why we’ve done that.... I don’t think, quite frankly, that coalfield folks are crazy about either candidate."

(Note: Mike Caputo is an UMWA official and a Democratic member of the West Virginia House of Delegates.)

Stay out of the race? Endorse no one? How stupid can they get?

Full disclosure:
The old WachDog grew up (at least my first 23 years) in the coalfields of WV. My Grandfather was a miner (WV and IL); my father was a mining engineer and superintendent, I spent four summers working at assorted mining jobs. And there are still many relatives and friends working in mines.

I was for a brief time a member of the UMWA. At that time, John L. Lewis, a devout communist, was the president. In the fifty years since, the UMWA has had a long history of ho-hum presidents. It would appear that Cecil E. Roberts is no exception!

The rank and file members are not stupid people. You cannot function in a modern mine without a considerable degree of intelligence. So why do these otherwise smart people blindly follow their idiot leadership down the road to oblivion? I could not answer that question in the 1950’s and I can’t answer it now. But I can tell you that if you have a choice between someone that you don't like because he is not a democrat and someone that is is devoted to wiping out your job, your community, and your families future, you want to make damn certain that the bastard is defeated.

To insure that Obama is defeated, you must support Romney! 

The choice is yours, defy your union handlers and vote to save your job or spend the rest of your life dreaming of what might have been.          -- WD

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.

Sneaky Dems Attempt Gun Control In CyberSecurity Bill

Reprinted from Freedom Outpost  (July 27, 2012)
by Tim Brown

Democrat Senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines. May I ask what in the world high capacity gun magazines have to do with cybersecurity? I already know. They have nothing to do with it, but this is how our Congress works.

However, with this particular amendment, S.A.2575, was sponsored by Democrats Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). These liberal Senators are looking to make it illegal to transfer or posses large capacity devices that feed guns more than 10 rounds with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. Apparently you can have a thousand round drum of those on your weapon and you’re ok.

The amendment is identical to a different bill that was sponsored by Frank Lautenberg.

In the first place, the stupid thing about the law is that it would only affect these devices that were sold or transferred after the law took effect. So people they are afraid of can still legally own these, just as long as they got them before the law was in effect. That makes absolutely no sense.

Chuck Shumer, the New York Democrat, and yes this is the same New York that gave the country the likes of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was pushing for passage of this amendment.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

Mr. Schumer seems oblivious that the only people that have compromised are Republicans and frankly they need to stop compromising. That’s what gets us into this mess in the first place. The gun control laws on the books are the result of Democrats calling for more gun control and Republicans caving to that demand. The more we compromise, the further left we drift.

I think we can find common ground. Stop making new gun control laws Mr. Schumer. The government has tens of thousands of gun laws on the books now and they don’t stop all the things you claim they will stop.

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

It is true. Liberals like Chuck Schumer think that by disarming the population they can get a better handle on crime and control the people. What they fail to see is that the very people they are out to stop do not adhere to their laws, which is why they are called criminals. That’s C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S. As Rush says, “For those in Rio Linda” that means they are guilty of a crime, which means they violate the law. They disregard it. They oppose the law. The law simply defines who the criminals are and in this case, with this amendment, people, such as myself, who would seek to purchase a magazine for their Glock, or 1911 or AR-15 that would have more than 10 rounds, would become a criminal. See how that works?

“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can come together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”

OK, there are a lot of ‘maybes’ and ‘mights’ in Schumer’s statements here. “Mights” and “Maybes” are what the left always use to try and push their agenda. There is never a definitive “this will work and here’s how.”This kind of argument is emotional, not logical. The only way this will “make the country a better place” is for people like Charles Schumer to stay out of the gun marketplace and allow Americans the ability to purchase a weapon of choice for whatever they intend to use it for, whether it is hunting or sport shooting or self defense.

While Schumer also decried assault weapons and said that average Americans didn’t need such a weapon to go hunting or protect themselves, he is not to determine such things. Tell that to the victims of the tyrannical government under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno that brought bloodshed in both Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge for no real reason or threat. Americans should be able to purchase whatever weapons are on the market. Laws are in place to make sure that legal transactions are checked thoroughly. Those criminals that are intent on getting high capacity magazines are going to do it despite Schumer and the Democrats passing a million laws and the law-abiding citizens are the ones that will pay for their stupidity.

This bill is set to be voted on next week.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Soros/Obama Conspire To, “End America as we know it!”

A few weeks ago, George Soros hosted a major economic conference, called the Bretton Woods Event, whose purpose was to change the entire global economy. The main objective is to remove America as a key player in the world’s economy by destroying the Dollar.  The major media paid little attention to the event.

What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.

It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency.  In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”

In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.

Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'

It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”

Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”

One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.

There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.

The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.

Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'

Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.

For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.


Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!

Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10.  He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.

All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.

That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”

“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?

Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
 -- WD

 
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

We All Must “Sacrifice” (Except The President’s Friends)

By Austin Hill
We live at a time when all Americans must sacrifice.

All, that is, except those of us who can be politically helpful to our President as he seeks re-election.

Last month, President Barack Obama addressed a gathering of the National Governor’s Association, wherein he suggested that “shared sacrifice” should become a new catch-phrase, of sorts, for America. “If all the pain is shared by one group,” the President noted, “that’s not good for anyone.”

In that same engagement, the President went on to address his healthcare “reform” legislation from last year. “I "I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress we've made," he noted, but then explained that he wanted a bipartisan group of Governors to work with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to make Obamacare “even better.” "I will go to bat for whatever works,” he claimed, “no matter who it comes from."

Before we move on to the broader issue – this insincere notion of “shared sacrifice” – let’s look carefully at some of the “straw man” arguments and erroneous insinuations that the President articulated to the Governors, just based on the portion of his speech recorded above. Why, for example, would the President suggest that the “pain” of the economic downturn is only being felt among “one group” of Americans?

The Great Recession has been felt in nearly every sector of the economy, among people from nearly every socioeconomic category. Even the wealthiest among us (a group President Obama so often disparages as being “greedy”) have had fewer opportunities in which to invest and with which to expand their wealth – and de facto that has meant fewer employment opportunities for others.

In reality, the “one group” of people that has been most successfully sheltered from the “pain” that the President wants us all to “share” is government employees, themselves. And on that matter, President Obama told the Governors that "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”

Here are the facts of the matter. In the state of Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pension contributions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state has not been about Wisconsin indiscriminately firing government workers or cutting the workers’ benefits, but about the necessity of government employees taking more financial responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare. This, of course, led to Wisconsin school teachers storming the state capitol and chanting “tax the rich – don’t cut our benefits…”

But never mind the disparity between the economic realities of the private sector, where most of us pay for a good bit of our healthcare and contribute our own earnings to private retirement accounts, and the comforts of the government sector where tax payers foot the bill for these things. According to our President, holding government employees responsible for modest portions of their own retirement and healthcare costs is “villifying” and “denigrating,” Sacrifice ought not be shared among “them.”

And now, back to Obamacare. From 2007 (when his presidential campaign began) to March of 2010 (when the bill was signed into law), Mr. Obama insisted that his plan for national healthcare “reform” would expand healthcare access. And it would save the federal government from going bankrupt. And it would produce a higher quality of healthcare. And it would save state governments money. And it would “bend the healthcare cost curve downward.”

Today there is no evidence that any of these things are even remotely on their way to happening. Over half the states in our union (26) have filed law suits to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. And over 1000 private organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with the mandates of Obamacare,

And note the disingenuous essence of the “waivers.” While the President created this healthcare monstrosity that is supped to be good for all Americans, his Administration has been busy “waiving” groups that can be politically helpful to the President himself.

The list of waiver recipients includes hundreds of local labor unions; McDonald’s restaurants (a company that employs over 30,000 hourly workers nationwide who earn less than $11,000 a year), Carlson Restaurants (owners of “TGI Fridays” – again lots of low wage workers); and the General Electric Corporation, whose C.E.O. Jeff Immelt was a large cash contributor to the President’s first presidential campaign. Interestingly, Mr. Immelt also received another nice political favor from our President when G.E. was granted a waiver from complying with federal environmental regulations surrounding a G.E. power plant project in California.

So the call for “shared sacrifice” only applies to those of us who are not politically helpful to the President. Government employees enjoy the benefit of President Obama seeking to shelter them from economic reality, while private groups that can help with the 2012 campaign are now blessed with Obamacare exemptions.

America must make a better choice in 2012, and put an end to this corruption.

 
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

The EPA: Public Enemy #1

The Obama administration has been unsuccessful at getting the Congress to aid and abet them in committing economic suicide by passing “Cap and Trade” and other Carbon regulating laws.
This administration, not about to be hamstrung by constitutional checks and balances, is making an end-run around Congress and using the EPA to do its dirty work.

Economists, on both sides of the issue admit that regulations currently being drawn up by the EPA are going to cost jobs and drive-up the cost of nearly everything that we purchase. The only difference, between the two sides, is how much?

The administrations statements tell us that we will see gasoline at somewhere around $8 per gallon, the cost of electricity will more than double, the cost of food may more than double, and tens of thousands of jobs will be lost!

Obama and crew are of course painting a “BEST” case scenario for us. The truth will be much worse.

In addition, these new regulations will prevent job creation and economic recovery.

On January 7, 2011, the EPA took its first step toward Carbon regulation when they went after their first target, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). What was LDEQ’s great sin? They had approved the construction of a new steel mill by NICOR Steel in St. James Parish, La. As a condition of the approval LDEQ had required NICOR to use” good combustion practices” to control Greenhouse Emissions!

The EPA objected because NICOR had not been required to implement “Carbon Capture and Store” technology; a technology which is not commercially available.

This single action is preventing the generation of hundreds immediate jobs and is preventing 10’s if not 100’s of millions of dollars in economic growth in La and the nation.

The GOP in both Houses of Congress are introducing legislation aimed at reeling in the EPA, but these bills will be of no consequence as they will not pass in the Democrat controlled Senate.; even if they did pass in both Houses, the White House would veto them.

So what can Congress do? The simple answer is for the House to cut the budget for the EPA!

What? You say. That will take too long and the damage will be done!

Fortunately, the failure of the last Congress to enact a budget (they extended the old one until March 4, 2011) has opened a window of opportunity.

The House needs to slash EPA funding in the new budget and if necessary fight the fight required to enforce those cuts even if it means shutting the government down.

Historically, the GOP has allowed itself to be intimidated by the EPA. In 1995, with Newt Gingrich at the helm, the House made an effort to reform the EPA but that effort collapsed under pressure generated by Carol Browner and friends.

Obama and his EPA are coming after each and everyone of us. They are all about us losing our jobs and our standard of living.

The big question is, are John Boehner and his supporting cast up to the task?

If not, we are doomed to a third world status at best.

Contact your Senators and Representatives and let them know that you want the EPA reined in.

Note: You can obtain the contact information by clicking on “U.S. Senate” and/or “U.S. House of Rep” listed in the suggested links section of this Blog. --WD

 
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.