Face palm: EPA bureaucrat tap dances during testimony

EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus

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.”
About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Face palm: EPA bureaucrat tap dances during testimony

  1. TGSG says:

    ummm defund?

  2. DJMoore says:

    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.

  3. Adam says:

    That… was… HILIAROUS!!

    Thanks, a perfect end to a night.

  4. joe says:

    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…

  5. Dena says:

    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.

  6. rbateman says:

    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.

  7. Richard G says:

    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.

  8. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    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:

    The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient. The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.

    Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

    Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html

  9. Squidly says:

    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)

  10. Steeptown says:

    How much does this bureacrat get paid by the taxpayers of the USA?

  11. Dave Wendt says:

    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.

  12. Mike McMillan says:

    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.

  13. John Kehr says:

    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/

  14. Dena says:

    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.

  15. Bill Davis says:

    I think the Environment and Energy subcommittee and congress should have him back often to clear up more of these clearly complex issues.

  16. Mike D. says:

    Ee buh dee buh dee — that’s all folks!

  17. savethesharks says:

    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.

  18. savethesharks says:

    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

  19. Mike Haseler says:

    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.

  20. Chris Watson says:

    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.

  21. savethesharks says:

    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

  22. Gilbert K. Arnold says:

    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)

  23. ben says:

    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.

  24. old44 says:

    I think we just found the replacement comedy series for Two and a Half Men.

  25. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Besides the tragic use of analysis (singular) when analyses (plural) is indicated…

    …to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

    Stanislaus then replied saying EPA considers jobs in all of its economic analysis…

    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!

  26. mondo says:

    How embarrassing!

  27. Baxter 75 says:

    This is an EPA story which has a happy (sort of) ending and is to do with the use of chlorine for the disinfection of water supplies and which also produces minute by-product traces of chloroform and chloroform like derivatives. This led to the zeroing out by the EPA of chloroform residuals in drinking water.
    Agency scientists had carried out an exhaustive review of toxicological data on chloroform going back 20 years. Based on that review, the scientists recommended EPA adopt a standard of 300 parts per billion for water supplies. The scientists’ conclusion, which recognised a threshold level below which human exposure to chloroform poses only a minuscule risk, was hailed by scientists outside the agency, even drawing praise from the Society of Toxicology, the largest professional association of toxicologists in the world.
    That praise, however, quickly disappeared when, in December 1998, EPA announced it was proposing a zero standard. In year 2000, the drama continued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on March 31st seriously castigated the US EPA for its action. The case was (at the time) one of the most closely watched in the recent history of regulation. To acknowledge that there is little or no risk below a certain threshold undermines one of the key tenets of modern environmentalism which denies the existence of such thresholds.
    In the end, EPA had cast its lot with the environmentalists and ignored the findings of its own scientists.
    Happily the court of appeal’s ruling rejected the EPA’s position and reintroduced science into the environmental regulatory process.
    But like the multi-headed hydra…..plus ca change

  28. DennisA says:

    Check out the progress of another executive order here:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_agenda_21_will_rule_us_waves.html

  29. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    What qualifies Stanislaus and Jackson to be in their jobs? Are they economists or scientists at all? Why is the world being led by people who are not the physical and intellectual elite, who have not earned their stripes by blood, sweat and tears, who don’t have a single rational braincell between them?

  30. the_Butcher says:

    You can tell just by the looks of him…

  31. P. Solar says:

    Ryan Maue “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.”

    The EPA were up to this game long before Obama came onto the scene. The MSM have been “in-the-tank” on climate fraud long before Obama came onto the scene

    The report of EPA being very effectively put on the spot before the committee is excellent but you can go post your partisan political rants elsewhere.

    We’re still in early 2011 , WUWT is not a platform for your personal cheerleading for 2012. Take it somewhere else.

  32. Luther Wu says:

    “…the form of the economic analysis is really driven by the requirements of the rules…”

    Deputy Stanislaus gave it all away with that one statement.

  33. P. Solar says:

    It’s shame that Rep. Cory Gardner, after being so insistant and making the EPA admin look so stupid, actually gave up and failed to get a yes or no answer on the record.

  34. Nick says:

    So where do I apply for a job with Mr Gadner?

    Or better still, how do I introduce him to my mate Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan?

    I’ve worked for blokes like this. Some difficult and some fantastic. This is how you cut through the cr#4p.

    Something the ecoloons have no clue about. True accountability and responsability.

    The EPA is toast!

  35. Jim says:

    The biggest part of economic analysis is the effect on jobs. Stanislaus should resign for not knowing this basic but very important tenet of economic analysis.

    Somehow one feels he will walk away from this meeting complaining about being misunderstood rather than realising he is completely clueless.

  36. Robertvdl says:

    You remember this one

    Senator Sanders asks Bernanke WHERE IS THE MONEY!!!

    or

    Bernanke Confronted On Which Foreign Banks Recieved Over Half a Trillion Dollars

    You are in a BIG problem if you need 1000 dollars to buy a loaf of bread. Look at gas prices. The Federal Reserve is your BIG problem. You think they think in jobs ?

  37. John Marshall says:

    Jobs must be within the scope of any economic analysis. It is the jobs that form the basis of any economy and, through taxation, government gets enough money to ‘work’.

  38. dr says:

    This is how you spin things. An “indirect” analysis on jobs includes costs and how they propagate to the industries impacted. Clearly the EPA knows and has a good handle on what costs it creates. To ask what kind of explicit job impact that has, would require an honest answer from the employers in industry, which you will never get, because it impacts their wallet. The cost propagates clearly and impacts jobs. This is a very complex issue, because we all know the upper echelon may fire lower people first and finally in a hysteresis collapse itself. … This is probably too complicated, just as the answer, yes, we did do a cost analysis (because we had access to those data) but not a direct analysis on jobs (because we would be guessing).

  39. Luther Wu says:

    “Nick says: The EPA is toast!”
    ______________________________
    Nope.
    In fact, the EPA’s just solidified it’s status as being completely unanswerable to Congress or the will of the people.

    When you see Lisa Jackson subpoenaed for ‘contempt of Congress’ for saying, in effect, that she’s ‘too busy to bother with mere Congress’, then your point will have some merit…

  40. John Silver says:

    Where does this kooky idea of a president (ersatz king) come from anyway?
    Switzerland rules:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council

  41. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Poor Stanislaus failing miserably under cross-examination. My bet is he was only following orders. Green initiatives have been sold based on saving the planet and creating green jobs. The cost/benefit of both should be part of any economic analysis but then the evidence shows the costs far outweigh the benefits, and green jobs come at a cost of other jobs. If this were untrue, there would be much less scepticism given there would be an easily demonstrable economic benefit. The greenwash would be a much simpler sales job. Instead we get scenes like this where the Economy Pillaging Agency gets embarrassed.

    As for what we should do with these career bureaucrats, I disagree with Joe about jailing them as that would still be a cost to the taxpayer. However, the WWF does now own a large part of the Amazon, so we could ship these people there with some basic supplies and let them demonstrate how to build their ideal low energy/low carbon utopia. If it works, principles they demonstrate could be adopted elsewhere. If it doesn’t, well, no great loss.

  42. T.C. says:

    Same thing happened here in British Columbia about seven years ago – kept seeing all these provincial govt. job ads looking for people to hire onto the Ministry of Environment to do “benefit analysis” on economic activity that would flow from the implementation of greenhouse gas programs. That was in the job title and description -”benefit analysis.” No mention of the word “cost,” as in “cost/benefit” analysis. But then again, look at the premier we had running the province:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_campbell_arrested_dui.jpg

  43. polistra says:

    Congressional hearings are nothing more than point-scoring festivals, giving both sides new talking points to raise money. Congress is supposed to legislate, not investigate; every minute they spend on hearings is a minute they’re not working on their proper job. They should abolish EPA and all of its enabling laws, jail all present officials for life, and then apply its budget to a force of armed auditors, whose job is to stop any official in any department from attempting to restore the regulations under a new guise. Arrest at gunpoint, shoot to kill. EPA has been making war on us since 1988. Time to eradicate the enemy.

  44. cedarhill says:

    Really, really big point made in the post. Namely, the MSM being “in the tank” for them. As most who visit this site know, it started in 2001 and accelerated through the 2008 election cycle, plateaued in 2009, slowly rose again for the 2010 elections and now are “hockey sticking” for 2012. And my definition is not just the rickety AP and NYT but extends to all broadcast media from radio call in shows to movies to cartoons to Big Bird to all forms of TV shows. Never forget, all things you see or hear is scripted overwhelmingly by the Left. Even interviews are planned to cover specific topics in specific orders and that’s before the cutting room floor. If it’s live, you might have one sound bite and usually an “adversary” is just not interviewed live.

    The least obvious of all tactics the MSM uses is from the old phrase “it’s not what’s reported – it’s what’s repeated”. They call it “legs” on the Sunday talk shows. Today, we see news that’s only reported on the internet blogs. Without the GOP and/or Tea Party reporting and repeating it, the story simply doesn’t exist for most voters.

    The internet is great for reporting but, frankly, fails to make the “legs” grade. Only the MSM can easily produce legs with it’s later re-reporting even if it has to use the deceitful “some say…”. To make an impact it needs to be a repeated by the MSM. Blogs and the internet simply cannot, even with “sticky” posts because there’s no updating with fresh facts or interviews to drive interest for more than a few days.

    Without legs you won’t get what Bill Clinton once observed, “it takes three days after it appears (in the MSM media) before you see an effect in the polls”. Think about how long Climategate took to have any kind of legs in the MSM and how they’ve effectively reduced it to nearly nothing and are continuing to erode what is really the biggest breaking news story, ever, in climate.

  45. John Cooper says:

    The Spanish didn’t consider job losses or price increases when formulating their “Green Energy” program, either. Now Spain is on the verge of bankruptcy. From http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf (52 pg. .pdf)

    …we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

    Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

  46. Curiousgeorge says:

    I would like to know why Lisa Jackson is speaking at the Socialist Youth Climate Conference, and what she said. Was this some sort of suck up speech? Is she coming out of the commie closet? WUWT?

  47. W.C.T. says:

    I grew up with the environmental movement. We needed to protect our resources – land, air, and water. We needed science to study problems. We needed to evaluate the impact – environmental, economic, social, cultural impacts – of our decision making. What wound up happening to me is that I spent my life fighting bureaucrats (30+ years), who were more interested in growing fiefdoms and budgets, than considering reality. And, gradually came to care more about their pensions, healthcare and retirements and then people. Now, we have academic institutions who have trained young minds on the destruction of a free society. We are seeing not just the hubris of this current bunch. We all know what will come next and it won’t be pretty. Now, for a second, think about how stupid this government looks and then consider how many people are fighting them. Equal and opposite forces are at work. That’s our economy, producing nothing of value but idle chatter.

  48. Holbrook says:

    The problem here is that it is another nail in the coffin of AGW but unless the MSM reports it and deals with it as they should it will all be overlooked as the ruling elite and their puppets impose ever more stringent rules, regulations and taxes on us all.

    The whole AGW farce has now fallen apart…but does the public know…or care?

  49. Ian W says:

    It is an interesting parallel that the US Administration with the agencies is actually running the country with no democratic accountability, in the same way as the European Commission and the European agencies run the EU. Congress and the Senate are steadily being reduced to the talking shop status of the European Parliament.

  50. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    In the end the GOP will do nothing.

    Also, the EPA head, Lisa Jackson, says greenhouse gases, which would include H2O, are pollution:

    31 second video

  51. 3x2 says:

    Truly embarrassing (and I’m in the UK). The contempt shown toward the real economy is criminal.

    You can bet that the EPA will have done a full assessment regarding all the extra staff and funding that they will require.

    I must say, I’m surprised that Lisa Jackson is able to avoid the hot seat by heading off to a greenshirt rally.

  52. S Bleve says:

    Our governance tool box is full of tools rusted by non-use excepting for the three most often used – Omnibus bill legislation is convenient to disguise the aroma of a particular hidden-pork-favoritism provision. Czars are not accountable to Article 1 Section 8, in a democratic republic? Executive Orders have the ability to legislate outside of Congress, with time in existence creating a non legislated law (these alone should stand no longer than 90days-? without provision to renew outside of Congress).

    Congress alone has the authority and power to impeach. This is quite profound in any proceeding that ‘investigation’ is part of governance. The ‘caught in the craw’ syndrome is political power subdivided into committee’s. Congress in the past 100 years has in most part only given ‘warnings’ for passing a school bus blinking red lights.

    By ignorance or perhaps most useful deceit by Congress to clarify that citizens do not have the understanding of complex matters. This is perpetual in that Latin/old Hebrew is spoken to a citizen of a Maidu village 1850.

    Some have said that there is not a more powerful addiction (drugs) than political power over another person-society.

  53. Luther has it

    This, from Mr. Stanislaus gives it away:

    “…the form of the economic analysis is really driven by the requirements of the rules…”

  54. Robert of Ottawa says:

    This is the famous Spanish stufy of green jobs: 2.2 lost for every green job.

    http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

  55. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    With the EPA’s loving help, some wonderful not-commercials are showing up on the local TV stations as presumably-shown-for-free PSA’s (public service announcements) for this organization:

    SAVE WATER TODAY
    http://www.savewatertoday.org/

    By the year 2013, 36 U.S. states are expected to face serious water shortages. Save Water Today is a public service campaign from the Student Conservation Association and American Water, in partnership with EPA’s WaterSense program.

    Wow, just one year and about eight months away, 36 states with serious water shortages. What is “serious” and how many currently have these shortages?

    A leak the size of a pinhole in a home water system can waste more than 4,000 gallons of water per month.

    For a 30-day month, that’s over 5 1/2 US gallons an hour, almost 1 1/2 cups of water a minute. They must be using very large pins to gauge those holes, or figuring very high pressure.

    Fortunately, most people are smart enough to notice when over five gallons an hour are dumped in their ceilings, in their walls, even when dumped in their basements, wherever the interior plumbing exists that has that single pinhole spewing that much. Unfortunately, these people, helped by the EPA, apparently don’t agree with that.

    The amount of water leaked from U.S. homes could exceed more than 1 trillion gallons per year, according to the USEPA. That’s equivalent to the annual water use of Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami combined.

    Wow, that could be over 20,800,000 of those pinhole leaks.

    According to the US Census Bureau (ref), in 2000 there were 105,480,101 households. So basically 1 in every 5 households could have one of those 4000 gal/month leaks, and not even know it!

    If that 1 trillion gallons a year were evenly spread out among all of those households, that’s about 9,480 gallons lost per year per household, about 25 gallons a day.

    So everyone go around their household, and look for pinhole leaks that are spilling at least 25 gallons a day. If you don’t have them, then you have neighbors that have them. Go check out their households. If they won’t let you, report them to the EPA. 36 states will be facing serious water shortages in less than two years. This is serious. You have to report them. The Administration will be grateful.

    About the PSA’s:

    Created by Emmy Award-winning writer and director Gilly Barnes, the videos feature celebrities sharing easy tips on how everyone can do their part to use water wisely and start making a difference in a matter of hours or days.

    Thank you to the celebrities who graciously donated their time to film these Public Service Announcements and to The Visionaire for providing the location.

    Finally found a bio of the director/writer. Her 2002 Emmy was for directing and writing some PSA’s that aired on PBS. Very impressive.

    Celebrities donating their time for a worthy cause, with an award-winning writer/director. With help from the EPA. What could go wrong with such noble Green-ish sentiments? (Clue available here.)

  56. Menns says:

    TC – The irony that american readers may not appreciate is that in the late seventies British Columbia proudly implemented the harshest drunk driving laws in North America, giving police unprecedented powers to punish drivers (without due process) they accused of drunk driving.
    For me, this marks a key turning point in the shift we have seen over the last 30 years away from due process for the sake of expediency. In this case, as in the current discussion with the EPA, due process is sidestepped for a “clearly” noble cause.

  57. SukieTawdry says:

    Wow, now that’s the way to question these birds. Kudos to Rep. Gardner.

  58. Theo Goodwin says:

    Chris Watson says:
    April 17, 2011 at 12:39 am
    “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.”

    No, your argument is made in terms of economics. The EPA has authority to kill jobs by fiat. They can classify various work activities as no longer meeting EPA standards. In other words, they can put companies out of business because they are not Green. You do remember what the ozone scare did to service station employees and independent contractors who did refrigeration and air conditioning work, don’t you?

    Anyway, you should not assume that EPA has done even a minimally competent economic analysis. If they have, where did they get the staff? My guess is that they have a stable of geniuses like Mathy. Across the board, EPA does not have the staff to do the job that Lisa Jackson has decided to do. It will have to expand ten-fold. Then it will be duplicating work done elsewhere in the government.

  59. Theo Goodwin says:

    ben says:
    April 17, 2011 at 1:07 am

    “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.”

    You are overlooking the fact that EPA can kill classes of work activity with a single ruling. Remember the ozone scare and the millions of service station employees and private contractors who saw their refrigeration and air conditioning work totally altered by government fiat?

  60. Theo Goodwin says:

    Curiousgeorge says:
    April 17, 2011 at 4:30 am
    “I would like to know why Lisa Jackson is speaking at the Socialist Youth Climate Conference, and what she said. Was this some sort of suck up speech? Is she coming out of the commie closet? WUWT?”

    You gotta be kidding! Lisa has never been anything but a hardcore communist Warmista.

  61. Keith G says:

    That was painful, like watching bad karaoke. Originally, I kind of felt bad for Mr. Stanislaus. Rep. Gardner was just using him as a pinata….it was like watching Mike Tyson beat up Tex Cobb. I figured he was some kind of nice, harmless ecology professor who didn’t know what he was getting into when he was appointed.

    But then I read his biography. Mr. Stanislaus is a lawyer. And he’s been around the EPA and politics for a long time, even dealing with Congress before. He should have been better prepared than that, and known when to say “I’ll provide a full written report on our economic methodology blah blah blah.”

    http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/osweraa.html

    And for those of you who miss the old Mike Tyson, here’s your link:

  62. ew-3 says:

    great Bio for this Bozo. A real political activist.

    Prior to assuming the position of Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Mr. Stanislaus co-founded, and co-directed the New Partners for Community Revitalization, a NY not-for-profit organization whose mission is to advance the renewal of New York’s low and moderate income neighborhoods and communities of color through the redevelopment of Brownfields sites. In collaboration with community, commercial, government and nonprofit partners, Mr. Stanislaus led the development of policies, programs and projects aimed at achieving the remediation and sustainable reuse of Brownfields sites in New York.

    He is a former counsel for EPA’s Region 2, senior environmental associate in the environmental department of the law firm Huber Lawrence & Abell, and director of environmental compliance for an environmental consulting firm. He has served on the board of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. Mr. Stanislaus has also been an advisor to other federal government agencies, Congress and the United Nations on a variety of environmental issues. He chaired an EPA workgroup in 1997 that investigated the clustering of waste transfer stations in low income and communities of color throughout the United States. In June 1994, as a member of United Nations Environment Programme – Environmental Advisory Council, he served as counsel to the United Nations’ summit that examined environmental issues affecting New York’s indigenous communities of the Haudaunosaunee Confederacy, as part of United Nations’ International Year of the Indigenous Communities.

  63. Olen says:

    Bottom line, he stated it is the president’s policy the EPA was supporting when they did not directly do a study on jobs. The witness confirmed the democrats belief they can do anything regardless of the people.

  64. Bruce Cobb says:

    That is some mighty fine steppin’. Perhaps he should try out for Dancing With The Stars.
    Of course, Lisa Jackbootson would have outdone him by a mile, but she’s too busy propagandizing to the brainless Greenie Socialist Youth pep rally. Where do her loyalties lie, I wonder? Certainly not with the U.S.A.

  65. evanmjones says:

    Socialist Youth Climate Conference

    Redistribution of warmth?

  66. Henry chance says:

    I have published research in the Economist in the 70′s. Having said that, to be called an economist with this regime is a smear or slur to the profession.

    In CO2 and warming, there are long lists of variables.
    In our economy, many variables contribute to inflation, unemployment (employment) and financial pain. The EPA is a few steps removed from high food costs. Fertilizer, fuel and freight will help us see some foods rise 40% in price this year. Gives you less money to spend at Walmart for stuff from China. Too many of our energy dollars go to the middle east and are not recycled here. High energy prices cut into home construction. From the cost of materials on one hand to the lack of disposable income to qualify for more debt.
    If I spend 30 dollars more a week to fill my tank, I have 30 dollars less for increased house payments.

  67. David Byrd says:

    This video illustrates the all to common occurrence of gross incompetency that is replete throughout government bureaucracies. Government has become the dumping ground for incompetents. On balance it is what it is, until one of the incompetents gets involved in something that actually affects the productive sector. That is what we are witnessing here.

    For what it’s worth I do believe that Lisa Jackson should be made accountable for the USEPA’s regulatory malpractice. If she doesn’t respond to a subpoena then maybe she should be arrested by US Marshals to deign us with her views on this subject.

  68. Ray says:

    It sounds as if Greenpeace is in control of the EPA… I guess they are.

  69. Theo Goodwin says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    April 17, 2011 at 6:06 am

    Thanks, Kadaka, that was a hoot! Locally, some people have been killed by high pressure leaks from pin holes in water lines. Others have seen the foundations of their houses entirely eroded. (The people who put out these ads really should move to California and smoke medical marijuana constantly.)

    On a more serious note, I guess it never occurs to the makers of these ads that 36 states having water emergencies would constitute a serious decline in the number of water emergencies. It’s their reality problem, don’t you know. Of course, I guess none of them have operated a working farm. Water emergencies are a way of life on farms. Once upon a time in my youth, I moved an electric pump four times in two days to support 13,000 chickens. Yes, that included stringing the electric lines. Of the three wells and one creek that I used, the creek was the better solution. Of course, at all times I had ready a two-and-half ton flatbed with a 500 gallon water tank on it. No doubt all of this is now illegal by EPA standards.

    The EPA’s solution to all this? Easy! Everything will be corporate. You will no longer buy a house, farm, or anything; rather, you will lease it from a corporation that has the staff and economy of scale necessary to file all the EPA forms for daily operation. So much for “Live Free or Die.”

  70. DJ says:

    The aforementioned conference???
    A little late and a carbon footprint short, but here’s the website and schedule of focus groups::

    http://www.powershift2011.org/electives?type=Panel

    Amongst them you’ll find a discussion of “The Republican War on Science”…….
    (curious, in that many of the republican scientists would be confused by the implication that republicans aren’t scientists..)

    SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE: SHOULD POLITICIANS DECIDE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH?

    One of the key power levers on energy and environmental issues is who determines the facts. The efforts to address climate change or prevent action depend on the ability to establish or overturn accepted scientific truth. Is scientific credibility a quaint, outdated notion? Or is it something upon which the survival of our society depends? Our experts are national leaders in this field, including author Chris Mooney, whose book “The Republican War on Science” laid bare the concerted campaign on the right to discredit science and scientists. They’ll tell you where we are today and where we’re headed on this critical topic.

    Dave Hamilton, Sierra Club
    Chris Mooney, Author, Lecturer, Blogger
    Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned Scientists

  71. PaulH says:

    I almost feel sorry for Mr. Stanislaus. Almost. Their little fiefdom is under siege and they seem totally unprepared for the hard questions.

  72. jorgekafkazar says:

    The testimony also included an admission that costs of energy would increase. I don’t know if this point was returned to, but it might have made for a couple more swift kicks to the bureaucrat’s tender spots before returning to the jobs issue.

  73. Taphonomic says:

    Stanislaus has obviously risen to his level of incompetence.

  74. Latitude says:

    ew-3 says:
    April 17, 2011 at 7:10 am
    great Bio for this Bozo. A real political activist.

    Prior to assuming the position of Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Mr. Stanislaus co-founded, and co-directed the New Partners for Community Revitalization
    ====================================================

    We have a government of irresponsible immature community organizers…….

    …..and not a one of them can balance a check book

  75. Pete H says:

    I left the UK for a country that is more mellow to its people after seeing the extremely poor quality of political leaders and bureaucrats pretending to lead the U.K.

    After watching Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus I await my friends in the U.S. joining me! If that is the best that a country the size of the U.S. can put second in charge of a government department…well, my heart bleeds!

    Imagine, he cannot answer a straight question and even worse (for a bureaucrat!) he cannot even filibuster! Sir Humphrey Appleton would die of shame!

  76. SionedL says:

    Obama signed an Executive Order to streamline regulations: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review – Executive Order, Jan 18, 2011

    The following is from: http://eyeonfreedom.com/index.php/obama-regulations-must-consider-equity-human-dignity-fairness-and-distributive-impacts/

    [quote from article]
    No sooner had Obama told the bureaucracies to subject all regulations to a cost- benefit test than the bureaucrats began telling reporters that they are already a model of modern efficiency, thank you very much. Among many others, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement that it was “confident” it wouldn’t need to alter a single current or pending rule. “In fact, EPA’s rules consistently yield billions in cost savings that make them among the most cost-effective in the government.”
    Perhaps the EPA’s confidence owes to a little-noticed proviso in Mr. Obama’s order. When the agencies weigh costs and benefits, the order says, they should always consider “values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.” [emphasis added]
    Talk about economic elasticities. Equity and fairness can be defined to include more or less anything as a benefit. Under this calculus, a rule might pass Mr. Obama’s cost-benefit test if it imposes $999 billion in hard costs but supposedly results in a $1 trillion increase in human dignity, whatever that means in bureaucratic practice. Another rule could pass muster even if it reduces work and investment, as long as it also lessens income inequality. [end of article quote]

  77. Elizabeth (not the queen) says:

    The video reminds me of my conversation with our four-year old, after I had noticed that someone gave our family pet, the cat, a hair cut.

  78. Joe Crawford says:

    Actually I feel a bit sorry for Deputy Administrator Stanislaus. Ms. Jackson fed him to the wolves. She probably called him at the last minute with: “Mathy, can you fill in for me today at the hearing? I’ve got another meeting I simply must attend.”

    I don’t actually know how competent he is, but I would imagine that’s the last time he’ll fall for that little trick.

  79. steve dobbs says:

    [snip - call to violence ]

  80. kMc2 says:

    The EPA Deputy Administrator may be trying not to say the EPA analysis factors only the “JOBS CREATED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION” of the mandate…the growth of government jobs, more bureaucrats/compliance monitors. There seems to be negligible interest in, concern for, or thought of private sector jobs, which might explain the seeming befuddlement that such a concern would arise.

  81. James Sexton says:

    EPA greenhouse regulations will kill (civility alert!) jobs.
    ===================================
    Lol, very nice Ryan!

    I am astounded that there are people out here that don’t believe jobs should be a consideration for the EPA to implement rules or be part of any “comprehensive” economic analysis. If you’re not considering jobs, then it isn’t comprehensive and only measuring direct costs. Many EPA regulations increase “jobs”, but decrease wealth generation. Any decrease in jobs directly effects many other facets of society and should be considered before implementing any asinine regulation.

  82. JPeden says:

    EPA would ~”not propose a rule where the costs exceed the benefits”?

    Translated: “Capitalist dogs, your False Consciousness pales before dem. inner city ghettos the Communist Utopia!

  83. rbateman says:

    This is very interesting, and most revealing:

    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.

    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.

    Therefore, the form of the analysis in question did not involve economics, period. The requirements rules for the EPA Greenhouse Regulations was purely political in nature, at the order of the President, to carry out said policy.
    There is no other way I can see that Mr. Stanislaus came to the hearing bereft of economic analysis findings.
    Bottom line: The EPA has no economic analysis of the effects of Greenhouse Regulations, and has no intention of doing anything of the kind.

  84. David S says:

    This is just one more example of the insanity we get into when government is allowed to ignore the constitution. The very first sentense in the constitution says all legislative authority is vested in the congress, not the EPA. But congress has allowed the EPA to make rules which carry the force of law and so we get this mess.

    More examples-

    Starting wars without a declaration of war by congress. And in the case of Libya without even consulting congress.

    In another case involving the EPA, the agency was going to subject dairy and dairy product producers, processors, handlers and distributers to the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule. Fortunately we dodged a bullet on that one, as the EPA changed their mind.

    The TSA subjects air travelers to highly invasive body pat-down searches that involve touching the private parts of the travelers. The constitution says the government needs a search warrant to do that and the warrant can only be issued on probable cause. But the TSA doesn’t give a damn about the constitution. And they also think that having a TSA agent put her hands all over a frightened 6 year little girl is OK too. Was there probable cause there?

    If we the people don’t rein in these blatant violation of the constitution by federal agencies we will lose the constitution and all of our rights will go with it.

  85. Walter Schneider says:

    Atomic Hairdryer says:
    April 17, 2011 at 3:24 am

    Poor Stanislaus failing miserably under cross-examination. My bet is he was only following orders….

    That is the crux of the matter. I distinctly heard the Nuremberg excuse: “We were just following orders,” although not exactly in those words. It was more like, “Well, clearly, the president wanted us to…”

    Yup, it is there, at about 2:47, “Well, clearly, we up, we all, you know, and the president has made that commitment, and we have to look at job consequences.”

    So is that then the open admission that the EPA did not look at job consequences? I guess that depends on the meaning of “directly”, provided that the meaning of “indirectly” is quite clear and as intended by Stanislaus.

    After a few days no one will care anymore, especially considering the fact that there will never be a trial like the Nuremberg trials on any of this. It can all be done with impunity and total immunity.

  86. mikelorrey says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    April 16, 2011 at 11:22 pm (Edit)

    “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?”

    No, but you know that the left wing outfits, i.e. the mainstream media, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, will never broadcast this. The folks of WUWT cross the political spectrum, but we are all dedicated to the truth.

    [RyanM: thanks mikelorrey for picking out the obvious bias in the liberal media. If this were a Bush administration official and the House were run by Dems, the clip would have led the Nightly News, even the "perky" one would have howled in laughter at the bureaucrat squirming under Henry Waxman's brilliant cross-examination.]

  87. oeman50 says:

    dr says:
    April 17, 2011 at 3:13 am

    “This is how you spin things. An “indirect” analysis on jobs includes costs and how they propagate to the industries impacted. Clearly the EPA knows and has a good handle on what costs it creates. To ask what kind of explicit job impact that has, would require an honest answer from the employers in industry, which you will never get, because it impacts their wallet. The cost propagates clearly and impacts jobs. This is a very complex issue, because we all know the upper echelon may fire lower people first and finally in a hysteresis collapse itself. … This is probably too complicated, just as the answer, yes, we did do a cost analysis (because we had access to those data) but not a direct analysis on jobs (because we would be guessing).”

    I must disagree (civilly) with the dr. In my dealings with the tsunami of recent EPA regulations (I am in the utility business), they severely underestimate even the costs they do put into their analyses. They use outdated data and do not consider the impact of recent regulations on permitting even though they have issued those same regulations. Then they overestimate the health benefits by relying on some dubious studies.

    This is part of the war on coal. Utilities all over country are looking at their fleets and figuring out which units that are currently producing power are to be shut down because it is too expensive or technically impossible to retrofit them. The power will be replaced with natural gas. The gas plants will run with no more than one quarter of the people that a coal plant does. There go your jobs.

  88. David Ball says:

    Vogon.

  89. oatley says:

    Winning the House gave the Republicans committee chairmanship and the opportunity to call the bureaucrats to testify (what were there assumptions in their models…if any at all) for the record. This is just the beginning…

    UNLEASH THE HOUNDS!!!

  90. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Theo Goodwin on April 17, 2011 at 7:56 am:

    (…) Locally, some people have been killed by high pressure leaks from pin holes in water lines. (…)

    Sure, I can believe that. I’ve worked in industrial situations and know high pressure is dangerous. It’s strange to work inches from hydraulic lines with pressure that could cut right through you, and realize you’re not even thinking about it. But those aren’t pressures I’d expect in a home.

    (…) Others have seen the foundations of their houses entirely eroded.(…)

    Which brings up something curious with that 1 trillion gallons/yr number. From the Save Water Today site:

    If every American home installed water-efficient fixtures and appliances, each year we could save about 2 billion gallons of water and $5 billion worth of energy.

    Go through every home, giving the plumbing a through looking-over while installing these water-efficient things, and you’d only save 1/500th of the amount presumably lost? Thus it seems the majority of the loss is outside the house. To comply with a new regulation at a house in town with municipal water, the old galvanized steel pipe going out to the street was replaced. When uncovered, yep it had a slow leak. It wouldn’t be detected by the water meter inside the house. Also, that pipe was right next to another rusted pipe. Apparently the replaced one was a replacement for that original pipe, done at least two decades ago. Well, if that house has gone through two street supply lines, in what condition is the water main running under the street?

    Water is disappearing, pumped into municipal systems. Rather than address the major issue of aging water mains that may have been buried more than a century ago, and the lines going into the house that might not be the property owner’s responsibility, the recommendation is made for thousands of dollars to be spent at each location to save 1/500th of what’s estimated to be lost. Yup, sounds like something the EPA would be involved in.

    On a more serious note, I guess it never occurs to the makers of these ads that 36 states having water emergencies would constitute a serious decline in the number of water emergencies. It’s their reality problem, don’t you know. (…)

    The distinction should be made between shortages which in theory are chronic statewide conditions, and emergencies which seemingly pop up at least several times a year in every state, somewhere in that state. “Serious water shortages” in 36 states in less than two years? Seems highly unlikely given all the winter precipitation that built up snow packs, refilled reservoirs, and recharged aquifers, and if this spring is any indication then we’ll get plenty more. But we could get a year of drought that’ll wipe those increases out by the 2013 deadline. Of course that’d be weather, not climate.

    Although, as I’ve said before, as the (C)AGW proponents define things, weather is not climate unless weather is climate change. ☺

  91. R. Shearer says:

    What would it take to get a politician to say, You’re fired!?”

  92. Smokey says:

    “What would it take to get a politician to say, ‘You’re fired!?’ ”

    The bureaucrat would have to be a Republican.

  93. Andrew30 says:

    Rep. Cory Gardner: Mr. Stanislaus, in order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that you are re-releasing in to this chamber I ask that you confine your answers to simply yes or no, or better yet just nod for yes and shake for no.

    Rep. Cory Gardner: When doing the impact assessment did you consider any jobs other then your own?

    Rep. Cory Gardner: Is that a Yes or a No?. Joe what do you think, is that a nod or a shake?

    Rep. Joe Barton: Umm, Cory, I’m no doctor but that sure looks like spastic convulsions.

    Rep. Cory Gardner: Medic!!

  94. JP says:

    I am new here, so just out of curiosity: is WUWT purely about climate issues, or is it also a forum for supporting right wing politics?

    [RyanM: you'll find that many of the readers and purveyors on WUWT span the entire political spectrum. I'm glad you have made the critical connection of defunding EPA being mainly a right wing idea. If that's what you wish to describe those that oppose the imposition of liberal climate policy, then so be it. Also, the blog police are like air traffic controllers, asleep when "opinions" are being purveyed. Please make a distinction.]

  95. Ryan Maue says:

    Note: this was the comment of the day (April 17): very snarky and witty :-)

    evanmjones says:
    April 17, 2011 at 7:26 am (Edit)

    Socialist Youth Climate Conference

    Redistribution of warmth?

  96. Todd D says:

    Why am I not surprised that at no point in this story do you actually identify the legislation the EPA is proposing? Seems pretty sensationalist to post this video of Rep Gardner grilling this EPA bureaucrat on a beautiful “You didn’t directly analyze the impact on jobs” sound byte without actually referencing the rule the EPA is proposing. I love that Gardner’s supporters see this as him tearing the EPA a new one, but I watch this video and just laugh because all the Rep from Colorado is doing is completely ignoring the EPA bureaucrat so he can so the word job for the 15th time.

    I don’t think this guy could have made this one more clear. They did an analysis on the impact of the proposed legislation, however flawed some of the other commentators seem to think it was, and that analysis included direct economic impact but didn’t look at jobs directly, just overall direct economic impact. Gardner seems very confused by this distinction, so much that he has to keep asking the same question, over and over.

    Either Gardner is an idiot and doesn’t understand what a direct economic impact study is, or he just wanted to say “jobs” a few more times. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt so my vote is for the latter.

  97. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Todd D vents on April 18, 2011 at 2:25 am (bold added):

    Why am I not surprised that at no point in this story do you actually identify the legislation the EPA is proposing? Seems pretty sensationalist to post this video of Rep Gardner grilling this EPA bureaucrat on a beautiful “You didn’t directly analyze the impact on jobs” sound byte without actually referencing the rule the EPA is proposing.

    From the quoted Daily Caller section (bold added):

    “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.

    From Ryan Maue’s text before the video:

    It’s clear that the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA’s current attempt/ability to regulate greenhouse gases (CO2) and, here, coal-ash

    Todd D opines:

    I don’t think this guy could have made this one more clear.

    Are your comprehension skills specifically attuned to bureaucrat-speak?

  98. TomVonk says:

    Why am I not surprised that at no point in this story do you actually identify the legislation the EPA is proposing?

    Bad reading skills ?
    It’s written for those who can read .
    The issue was the EPA’s project for regulating the coal ash .
    And they clearly are not interested in how many jobs it will destroy which is basically the point .
    If it was an irresponsible bureaucrat, he’d have been fired on the spot in any serious business. Such an amount of incompetence and arrogance doesn’t deserve tax payer’s money.

  99. Steven Kopits says:

    Oh my goodness. What a nightmare to be caught out like that.

  100. Michael Jennings says:

    Todd D; There is definitely an idiot hidden somewhere in your comment but alas it is not Rep. Gardner. That leaves two people left and I will allow you to choose which one it is.

  101. Theo Barker says:

    As a constituent of Rep. Gardner, I sent him an email thanking him and asking him to pursue Lisa Jackson and the EPA for greater accountability, instead of letting them off so easy. Thanks to the other commenters here for their insights…

  102. Todd D says:

    Kadaska, TomVonk:

    Which regulation?
    This one?
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2050-AE81?opendocument
    or some other one?

    Is it one that says you can’t legally dump coal ash into my drinking water? Or one that says you can’t use it at all?

    My point is the article makes a reference to WHAT is being regulated, but not the regulation being proposed. As a group most of you seem to be up in arms that the EPA didn’t look at the direct job consequences of this bill. If the bill covers dumping coal in your drinking water, do you really care about the direct job consequences? If you’re going to talk politics first and foremost I find it’s best to read the actual bill that’s being proposed so you can know what is being talked about.

    I’ve read some of the bill that I linked above (again I have NO idea if that’s the correct proposed regulation) and it actually sounds like sound smart legislation for what amounts to dumping toxic waste into a landfill.
    The problem that I see is that based on the information available no one in this discussion has any idea what the EPA is even proposing and I’m only guessing that I’ve got the correct legislation.

  103. flicka47 says:

    Todd D

    Well, I don’t know which specific regulation it is either, but… Why does the EPA have to regulate what they are calling a “non-hazardous waste” which is what they called it in your link?

  104. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Todd D on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 am:

    My point is the article makes a reference to WHAT is being regulated, but not the regulation being proposed.

    Follow the link to the original Daily Caller article:

    Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.

    That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.”

    The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.

    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.

    Googling on “epa Resources and Recovery Act RCRA” leads to this:

    Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976)

    There is found the RCRA Online link. Searching for “regulatory impact analysis” yields this page on RIA’s. And also an interesting point is found.

    You had previously said:

    I don’t think this guy could have made this one more clear. They did an analysis on the impact of the proposed legislation, however flawed some of the other commentators seem to think it was, and that analysis included direct economic impact but didn’t look at jobs directly, just overall direct economic impact.

    From that EPA page:

    EPA develops Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) to support the development of national air pollution regulations. RIAs contain descriptions of the potential social benefits and social costs of a regulation, including those that cannot be quantified in monetary terms and a determination of the potential net benefits of the rule including an evaluation of the effects that are not monetarily quantified. Typically, an RIA is structured similarly to an EIA, except that a benefits analysis of the rule is included along with an estimation of the net benefits.

    You think the mentioned RIA included examining direct economic impact. EPA says they do not.

    By the mentioned Executive Order, the EPA was to consider jobs. Gardner asked if they had conducted a direct economic analysis, which would consider jobs. This is as opposed to the RIA they had done, which would not look at jobs.

    So basically, Gardner asked Stanislaus if the EPA had done their duty per the EO. And basically, Stanislaus said they had not. Looks clear to me.

    Now as to your “point” about Ryan Maue not mentioning the specific proposal, which was not mentioned in the Daily Caller article anyway… First I’ll note that you can’t find it, yet you expect Ryan to be able to not only find it but to provide you that info.

    Thankfully a simple Googling of “epa coal ash proposal” finds: Coal Combustion Residuals – Proposed Rule. Have fun.

  105. caipira says:

    Ryan Maue says:
    April 18, 2011 at 12:24 am
    Note: this was the comment of the day (April 17): very snarky and witty :-)

    evanmjones says:
    April 17, 2011 at 7:26 am (Edit)

    Socialist Youth Climate Conference

    Redistribution of warmth?

    ———–

    Indeed. Green is the new red…

  106. Richard G says:

    Todd D says:
    April 18, 2011 at 11:07 am
    “…My point is the article makes a reference to WHAT is being regulated, but not the regulation being proposed. As a group most of you seem to be up in arms that the EPA didn’t look at the direct job consequences of this bill. If the bill covers dumping coal in your drinking water, do you really care about the direct job consequences? If you’re going to talk politics first and foremost I find it’s best to read the actual bill that’s being proposed so you can know what is being talked about.
    I’ve read some of the bill that I linked above (again I have NO idea if that’s the correct proposed regulation) and it actually sounds like sound smart legislation for what amounts to dumping toxic waste into a landfill.
    The problem that I see is that based on the information available no one in this discussion has any idea what the EPA is even proposing and I’m only guessing that I’ve got the correct legislation.”
    __________________________
    You don’t seem to grasp the distinction between regulation and legislation. The distinction is not that fine. I’ll spell it out: Congress writes legislation, EPA writes regulations. Legislation is voted on, regulations are not voted on. Congress created the EPA through legislation. The EPA regulates within the framework created by congress.

    The problem is that the EPA has gotten too big for it’s britches (it’s congressional mandate), enabled by the courts. EPA has no mandate from congress to regulate CO2 because it is not a toxin, it is a nutrient. They want to regulate coal ash as a way to constipate the coal industry, thereby indirectly regulating CO2 without a congressional mandate.

    Congress needs to hold EPA accountable for bad regulations and adverse economic impacts. The voters need to hold congress accountable for bad decision making.

    Hey I have an idea, lets regulate dirt. It’s awfully dirty, and food grows in dirt. It must be dangerous. There must be a million ways to raise the cost of living if we only put our minds to it.

    EPA needs to return to its origin of actually cleaning up the very real pollution that did occur in the past. EPA’s fundamental problem is that by its success it has diminished the need for itself. It must continually invent new things to regulate to keep itself in business? It really should regulate itself into a smaller and smaller role as it solves the problems it seeks to cure.

  107. TonyG says:

    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    
—-
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).

    Sir, in light of: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people., please tell me where the Constitution authorizes the EPA?

    Not that it matters anymore:

    David S says:
    This is just one more example of the insanity we get into when government is allowed to ignore the constitution. …
    If we the people don’t rein in these blatant violation of the constitution by federal agencies we will lose the constitution and all of our rights will go with it.

    David, I think you may be using the wrong tense…

  108. Elene Parker says:

    Speaking of the EPA, I actually came across an article today that I think you may or may not have seen already, but it sheds a pretty good light on the current situation with the EPA and the “Haze Plan” that some seem to be pushing. Either way, it just came out in the Albuquerque Journal and is ranked as one of the top current articles regarding the EPA, so I thought I’d share it with you nonetheless. If you’re up for a glance, here’s a link http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=93P42TS46AM&preview=article&linkid=a2c15c0c-b9ae-4983-afac-9715fc90ded9&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d

    Have a good one!

Comments are closed.