Post by Ryan Maue
EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus should be given credit for showing up Thursday to an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing, but may not be returning any time soon. Let’s just say his performance was cringe-inducing as he spun like a top attempting to deflect the very pointed, and basic yes-or-no questions of Rep. Cory Gardner (R – Colorado). An exasperated Stanislaus even resorted to a face-palm maneuver to regain his rhetorical footing. Of course, YouTube video exists…see below.
It’s clear that the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA’s current attempt/ability to regulate greenhouse gases (CO2) and, here, coal-ash, and is using its newly acquired power in the House to call hearings, demand/compel Obama administration officials to testify, and expose the job-killing nature of the EPA’s regulations. In other words, this is how politics works. The liberal media’s lack of coverage of this “inconsistency” in word versus deed with the Obama EPA demonstrates how in-the-tank the media is for the ’12 re-election. Ideology is more important than jobs.
Right wing outlets are hyping the performance of the EPA deputy as a victory and tacit admission that the EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs. From the DAILY CALLER:
“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.
Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles…
Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.
“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs… and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”
Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.
“I’d like to see a list of all of the rules that you have proposed that haven’t taken into account jobs,” Gardner said. “We need to know if the EPA considers jobs in their analysis and whether you have, and whether EPA’s position is to consider jobs when it does an economic analysis.”
Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis, but that the form of the analysis is driven by the requirements rules that are under consideration.
The EPA official’s testimony has generated negative reactions from pro-business advocates who say Stanislaus’s testimony shows the agency is out of touch with reality and is indifferent to job creation.
The painful testimony reaches a crescendo at the 3:00 minute mark, when the EPA bureaucrat appears to be looking for an exit. At least Stanislaus showed up. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is unavailable for testimony with a fully booked schedule, including her speech Saturday night at the Socialist Youth Climate Conference in Washington D.C. From POLITICO:
House Republicans aren’t happy that top EPA officials are skipping hearings on efforts to roll back the agency’s regulations.
“We could call them the Evaporating Personnel Administration, I guess,” Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said Friday. “They don’t seem to ever show up and be accountable.”
“I do find it troubling once again that Lisa Jackson once again is a no show at a very important hearing that she’s had every opportunity to be in attendance,” Barton said. “The MACT truck is about to run us over all and she’s not even here to comment on those regulations.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ummm defund?
So, tell us, Mr. Barton, if they don’t want to answer your questions, are you going to give them their money anyway? Because if so, why should they bother?
My sister has unruly dogs. They got that way because when she gives them a command, and they don’t obey, she just yells at them. She has trained them to ignore her.
That… was… HILIAROUS!!
Thanks, a perfect end to a night.
yeah, start with defunding and then continue on to prosecuting and jailing these bureaucrats like genachowski(fcc) and head of epa who overstep their bounds….that will send the message – rule by law, or else…
You have to understand that under the progressive form of government, the people under the President only answer to the President. The President is the only one who needs to answer to congress. It seems that this administration is picking and choosing the rules they wish to live under and those rules keep everybody from appearing before congress.
It is kind of funny see the EPA who has forced so many to do extensive studies to see the effect of their actions be subjected to the same.
Lisa Jackson justify EPA policy before Congressional Inquiry?
I would expect no more out of her than we saw come from former Attorney General John Mitchell.
Obama has just issued a signing statement to the effect that even though congress has eliminated budget funding for his tzars, he will continue to fund them by executive order. What makes you think de-funding the EPA will yield a different result? This is a serious constitutional showdown, people. Congress holds the purse strings, not the president. Does the word impeachment ring a bell? Sorta rhymes with Arrogant.
Dena says:
April 16, 2011 at 10:30 pm
You have to understand that under the progressive form of government, the people under the President only answer to the President. The President is the only one who needs to answer to congress. It seems that this administration is picking and choosing the rules they wish to live under and those rules keep everybody from appearing before congress.
—-
REPLY Dena, that is exactly how this model of government is supposed to function! The EPA, as a federal agency with a seat on the Cabinet, reports only to the Executive branch (Obama). I hope this is useful:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
Time to abolish the EPA, FCC, DOE, Dept. of Ed, NPT, NPR, NPB, and a plethora of other alphabet soup agencies. Budget problem solved! (along with many other problems)
How much does this bureacrat get paid by the taxpayers of the USA?
Thanks for posting this, though the information is obvious, seeing it admitted to so freely is revelatory.
I do believe that they consider jobs when analyzing the potential benefits of each new regulatory scheme that they promulgate. Unfortunately the only jobs they’re truly interested in, are the multitude of new tax drains that can be added to the public payroll to more effectively hector and harass the rest of us out here in flyover serfland.
Right wing outlets are hyping the performance of the EPA deputy as a victory and tacit admission that the EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs.
Right wing outlets? Like WUWT?
Glad to see we’re getting some answers under oath. We do need have the policy-setters testify, though, not merely the “I vass chuss vollowink orderss” underlings.
The EPA….
This is an organization that is still trying to say that ethanol is a way to reduce ozone pollution. They are happily ignoring all the evidence that ethanol increases ozone pollution, but since ethanol is seen as green, they continue to support ethanol.
If they can’t figure out that ethanol causes more ozone, how are they supposed to regulate CO2?
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/12/ethanol-ozone-and-the-epa/
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
April 16, 2011 at 11:01 pm
REPLY Dena, that is exactly how this model of government is supposed to function! The EPA, as a federal agency with a seat on the Cabinet, reports only to the Executive branch (Obama). I hope this is useful
Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.
Even if congress didn’t have this power it is still in the best interest to show up for hearing as the house is the source of money and the senate must approve what the house decides.
I think the Environment and Energy subcommittee and congress should have him back often to clear up more of these clearly complex issues.
Ee buh dee buh dee — that’s all folks!
Squidly says:
April 16, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Time to abolish the EPA, FCC, DOE, Dept. of Ed, NPT, NPR, NPB, and a plethora of other alphabet soup agencies. Budget problem solved! (along with many other problems)
==========================
Hell yeah! Add the DEA and the FDA, and ALL of the czars to that list, while you are at it.
It is a shame because the EPA did some good in beating back the dioxin-agent orange-pcb monsters of Monsanto in the 70s….but now, in general they are ALL in bed with one another.
Its disgusting.
And if this pipsqueak ultra-bureaucrat automaton deputy administrator of the EPA is a measure….it is worse than we thought.
MUCH WORSE.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
TIME TO START OVER FROM SCRATCH.
I highly recommend everyone to this letter / editorial from the Cato Institute entitled “Who Elected Lisa Jackson?”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v33n2/cpr33n2-2.html
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I remember a similar discussion in the Scottish Renewables forum, some naive new comer had said something like: “why don’t we talk about the job creation from renewables to help sell the idea to the public”. After a none reply (it was all in private) the questionner continued after which it was spelt out in black and white terms that wind energy in Scotland would not help create jobs and was not exactly a selling point.
Which explained why they point blank refused to talk about the economic aspects of wind energy in the Scottish Parliamentary Renewable Energy group that they ran.
Back in 2000 the UK greens and wind lobbyists were talking about creating 45,000 jobs. Now in 2011 an analysis shows that for every job created in wind 3.5 (I think) jobs are lost to the wider economy by the increased taxation.
I think the questioning is kind of silly. If jobs are lost it will be as an indirect result of costs being added to energy production and industry. If the EPA analysed the cost to industry accurately (unlikely), an economist could estimate its effect on jobs. Whining that this wasn’t doesn’t done for them is kind of irrelevant.
I don’t support the Global Warming scam, but it doesn’t impress me to see hair-splitting posturing by a smarty-pants politician. If he thinks (quite rightly) the costs on industry will mean loss of jobs, he should make that case. Brow-beating a bureaucrat isn’t making the argument that needs making.
Hint: When someone uses the phrase “clearly” more than once in a short interview, he is full of ****.
I think I heard him use the word “clearly” at least 5 times LOL.
Sort of reminds me of the incessant (and rather monotonous) disclaimer coming from the mouth of this current president: “Let me be clear.”
Clear as MUD.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I ran across this quote from former President Bill Clinton speaking at the dedication of his boyhood home in Hope, AR: “If you have an ideology you have the answer to the question before you look at the facts.”( Hmm sounds a lot like some of our favorite characters in science. /sarc)
The guy speaking does a terrible job with his doublespeak. The correct answer is: “no”.
But I have to say I think the Congressman is misguided: “jobs” is not a unit of economic analysis. Dollars of cost or benefit is. Converting that to jobs could be done I guess, but it isn’t standard in economic analysis, and it would be arbitrary. Perhaps ‘jobs’ is more standard in economic analysis in the United States regulatory environment. Economics isn’t really concerned with the extent to which labour is redistributed, much less counting one side of that redistribution – jobs lost, which I think is what the congressman was interested in.
I think we just found the replacement comedy series for Two and a Half Men.
Besides the tragic use of analysis (singular) when analyses (plural) is indicated…
Jobs are considered in all of its economic analyses.
Jobs were not considered in this cost-benefit analysis.
Therefore this was a non-economic cost-benefit analysis.
Therefore this cost-benefit analysis concerns that which does not have an economy. In theory a purely communist society would qualify, where everyone possible works for the state, all resources are allocated by the state, and all forms of interpersonal transactions involving goods, services, or anything else considered to be of value, are expressly forbidden.
Therefore the EPA decision to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” is highly premature, their “ideal society” hasn’t materialized in the US yet.
Gee, no wonder this administration and the “progressives” are so eager to bankrupt the US and the rest of the “western” world, and have us all be bought up by China. So far China has become slightly capitalist because they couldn’t survive as purely communist in a world where they don’t control everything. Well then, looks like a solution has been found for that problem. These people will just keep going until China can revert to pure communism, and then they’ll have their human-made Utopia on Earth!