The Hill E2 wire reports:
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.
The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.
The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
Obama must go
‘Ascribing blame is generally an unproductive habit and merely adds to the heat of public rancor. Nevertheless, responsibility for a clearly deteriorating situation must sometimes be assigned and there can be little doubt that the attempt to impose an unpopular leftist program of Robin Hood economics, environmental thuggery, and transnational accommodation upon what is historically a free-market constitutional republic must release the demons of social dissension and cultural rupture. When the misconceived policy of “Islamic outreach” is added to the farrago of mischiefs, the recipe for disaster is pretty well complete. The problem for the left in this latter regard, as Jonathan Spyer points out with respect to the Israeli left in The Transforming Fire, “is that they don’t find leftists on the other side.” Though, obviously, this has not stopped the sinister cohort from blundering on. For all these costly aberrations, the left is undeniably accountable and Barack Obama, as its most conspicuous standard bearer, is the visible manifestation of a disintegrating nation. Inevitably, there will be casualties”.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-must-go/
Literally, the Constitution of the United States of America says:
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is capable of passing the bill against the objections of the Democrat minority. The Democrat majority in the Senate is capable of defeating the bill against the objections of the Republican minority. Although the Senate is not expected to pass the bill without unaccepatable amendments, even if the Senate passed the bill, the president can sign the bill into law, take no action and thereby allow the bill to become law after the elapse of the required number of days, or veto the bill and return it to Congress. The House of Representatives and the Senate could override a President’s veto with a two thirds vote approving the bill, but the prospect of the Democrats of this Congress agreeing to do so with the bill in this form are highly unlikely. So the bill… in its present form…has virtually no chance whatsoever of proceeding further towards becoming a Public Law than the approval of the House of Representatives.
What is likely, however, is the use of this bill to compel concessions from the Democrats in Congress on other legislative bills in exchange for an amended version of this bill. The Democrats face either making a major compromise on this bill and other bills or become blamed by the voters in the 2012 elections for their role in a shutdown of the Federal Government by failing to agree to a Continuing Resolution for an appropriation of budgetary funds in 2011. The Democrats for their part will threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government. What will be seen in the next few weeks as the budget deadline and shutdown of the federal Government approaches is a confrontation between the two parties to see who flinches and compromises firstest and mostest. The EPA, NPR, PBS, and elements of NASA are among the bargaining chips. The EPA faces crippling losses of funding and/or restrictions upon its climate change activities in any event.
Well it certain gives the term checks and balances a new twist!
That’s one big cheque to be taking off the EPA, but at least it will add balance to American democracy…
Ted: …”these bills are political theater intended for impact in 2012.”
Yes, but that’s exactly how you win elections. Obama signed all sorts of things, from Obamacare to stimulus X-Y-Z. Getting folks to vote flushes them out. There are lots and lots of bills that the Dems will have to vote against and ones that Obama will either have to veto or vote present (hoping for a pocket veto).
Imho, what Obama does is not relevant. The House GOP needs to force vote after vote by the Dem Senators where they either vote with the GOP or vote against huge swaths of the voting public. Tying one huge provision with each spending bill and each revenue bill is simply great. The Senate will have to amend it and there is where the 2012 campaigns will be won or lost.
For those concerned about Obama’s re-election, not to worry. You should feel confident that he has plenty of time to showcase his failures between now and Nov 6, 2012.
$3 Billion, huh?
Let’s see, of course the EPA will take the noble course of actions and absorb that cut entirely in-house… Stopping all travel, turning off the A/C, cancelling temporary assignments, cutting salaries, not filling vacancies… Yeah, right! NOT!
More likely the first steps will be: contracts will be cancelled, contractors will be released, grants will go unfunded…
Did I just hear thousands of rectums puckering?
Methinks that faced with choosing between public rows over AGW bad science with sceptics and loss of the golden goose funding CO2 grants the alarmists will have to put us sceptics on the back burner whilst the alarmists run screaming to their lobbyists.
The Republicans have opened an interesting gambit on multiple fronts. Logic demands that the US move to eliminate useless expenditures. I like their first moves!
Now cut NSF funding
AT 1:07 AM on 12 February, Ian H says had written that:
crosspatch,
Although what you say is true, it is only part of the story. I remember Bush appearing in front of the cameras telling Americans about a new regulation that would allow Fannie and Freddie to lend MORE to people with poor credit ratings, in order to bring home ownership to as many Americans as possible. Now, maybe he was coerced into doing this, I don’t know, but I like to judge the walk not the talk.
It was also the case that after the post milenium market crash, Bush and Greenspan applied a peddle to the metal monetary policy to try and reflate the bubble – the so called Greenspan bubble. Too much loose money, artificially low interest rates and laws making Freddie and Fannie lend to the subprime market contributed to the financial collapse.
Oh, what a difference a single election can make!
I would love to see this legislation pass and Obama veto it. The higher energy costs and job losses from the EPA’s GHG regulations, coupled with the strong likelihood of $4.00+ gasoline prices while he is campaigning (due in part to his own policies) will make Obama highly vulnerable to a resupmtion of his career as a university professor. He will do much less harm there.
@Alfred Ledner
“Senate and House Republicans just announced plans to introduce legislation stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). That sounds encouraging?
But the reality is that even if such a bill winds up on President Obama’s desk, he’ll veto it, and there aren’t enough Republicans to override a veto.”
Ah… but here’s the trick. There are many democrats that are naturally against this sort of thing anyway (for example, democrats in coal states) and many others that may not WANT to vote for it, in their heart-of-hearts, but will due to political pressure back home.
Painting it strictly as a D vs R vote is hopelessly nieve. Democrats had a supermajority in congress before the election, yet they had to do a LOT of arm twisting to get things done. It wasn’t twisting the arms of republicans, it was trying to bring their own people into line with what the party leadership wanted.
Now, it may very well be that the republican’s can’t sway enough democrats to override a veto, but it’s not a given. It’s certainly worth a try. And if it doesn’t work, at least the republicans can say, “we tried. If you want us to try again, then vote against the jerk that stopped us.”
I think if we remind the American people of the government science groups who received “stimulus” funds in 2010 (on top of their already outrageous increases in FY2010 budgets) – all while you and I in the private sector were struggling to make ends meet – passing the necessary budget cuts will be very easy, indeed…
Did you know that many government science employees (including our favorite climate elites) received salary increases in 2009 while our economy was tanking???
John Whitman says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Whatever side of the AGW controversy anyone is on, would we all agree it is most appropriate that congress is in the critical detailed chain of command . . . not replaced by a self-reinforcing bureaucracy like the EPA? Does anyone think the EPA hires skeptical thinkers?
John
======================================
The problem is that the EPA like other agencies is not supported by The Constitution. Agencies appear to have been set up and funded to do ‘unpopular’ things so Congress, Senate and the Administration can distance themselves from these actions and weep crocodile tears to maintain voter support.
The issue though is that although some things are no doubt really good endeavors – keeping a clean environment is one – they are not the job of the Federal Government . There is nothing in the Constitution rendering power to the United States (the Federal Government) to ensure rare fish survive, that areas of the various States are declared ‘reserves’ off limits to States’ mineral exploration, or that carbonated caffeine drinks should not have alcohol etc etc, these may be excellent ideas but they are not the job of the Federal Authorities.
The Tenth Amendment needs to be enforced.
Let’s see if I can avoid another goddam HTML error this time.
At 3:25 AM on 12 February, D. Patterson had written:
.
First, the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, ’cause they quit being “democratic” when they enacted Obamacare over the loud and enraged disapproval of an overwhelming majority of their own “on the plantation” voting constituencies) is never going to vote to override a veto issued by their own Mombasa Marxist Messiah.
So let’s get that out of even the remotest kind of speculative fantasy. In fact, the “Liberal” fascist Senate majority isn’t going to allow anything to get to the Resolute desk that might require our Fraudulence-in-Chief to veto it. Like it or not, they’re stuck with that incompetent ignoramus (yet again he says “corpse-man” instead of “corpsman” in a public speech, the stupid son-of-suspect-parentage) as the public face of their faction until either the nation throws him out of office or federal marshals come in with handcuffs and belly-chains to perp-walk that criminal thug through the Rose Garden to a nice cell in Guantanamo.
Second, there’s simply no way that the National Socialists can “threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government” when it’s perfectly clear that this effort to prevent Barry Soetoro’s EPA from shoving the U.S. economy even deeper into economic catastrophe over “global warming” in the depths of the third consecutive deadly cold winter we’ve suffered is precisely the kind of thing over which the 2010 midterm electoral contest was waged.
In every other significant way – particularly with regard to increasing the debt limit – the Republican leadership have done the “go along to get along” bit, even though those new Tea Party congresscritters who provide them with the majority in the House of Representative are conspicuously sharpening big knives and making insurgent noises behind the Boehner back. If anybody is at risk of public hatred for “causing a shutdown of the Federal Government,” it’s the National Socialist bunch.
And they know it. Even though the MSM is still overwhelmingly rah-rah for the fascisti, the MSM is no longer capable of locking down public opinion to favor the Blue Party.
The EPA either ceases to be Barry Soetoro’s vehicle of choice for sidestepping the public will or the EPA ceases to be.
What else can the National Socialists do but back out of this minefield before they get their other leg blown off?
Ian H,
Bullcrap. But I see Crosspatch has already covered one puzzle piece of the financial trouble.
Lets look deeper. Global finance has always been rocky. Personally, I believe the narrative has more to do with Central planners being upset over private capital taking over (unregulated) and the toppling of Communism in the 80’s. I think we are a point of requiring a new financial reserve to satisfy the global growth needs. The fight is over who controls it: central planners or no one (private capital). It’s really a common tale. All the little issues we fight over, like Bush or CRA, are red herring.
The IMF has a fascinating history lesson on all this and more. Do go all the way to the beginning and read it all, if interested.
The Power of private capital: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/mm_dt_05.htm
X-mass in Febuary. Hoo what fun it is tonight…
It’s a no brainer. Trying to control the earth’s temperature by reducing the burning of fossil fuels has less than 0.1% probability of success regardless of how much money you spend to do it. It doesn’t take much of a cost-benefit analysis to figure it is a bad idea. The real motive behind the regulation is the control of energy use and CAGW is being used to justify it. Hopefully, this House action will start the distruction of this “house-of-cards”.
Sorry if this posts twice, it looks like it had a HTML problem 1st try…
EPA has a $10B budget? That’s $10,000 million.
From SBA: “In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates. The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.”
Spread that over only “large businesses”, it’s $546,119 per large business.
Spread that over small businesses (only the ones WITH employees), it’s $1,666 per small business, i.e. mom & pop shops. What on earth can they spend that much on?
A 30% cut is a bad joke. Unless it’s done every year for about 3 years, that would get you to about a 65% total cut. It might begin to come to life and function correctly at that level. I’m inclined to think anything less than an 80% cut is too little, but 30% per year for 4 years would allow them to manage the change and shrink in a more efficient way.
Take a look at this:
Annual Cost of Federal Regulations by Firm size
Type of Cost per Employees for Firms with:
Regulations Fewer than 20-499 500 or More
20 Employees Employees Employees
All Regulations $10,585 $7,454 $7,755
Economics 4,120 4,750 5,835
Tax Compliance 1,584 1,294 883
Occupational
Safety and Home-
Land Security 781 650 520
That is federal compliance PER EMPLOYEE!!! Man, it’s time to cut everything across the board by 80%. Can you imagine the sigh of relief? We’d probably be at full employment in months.
Makes me proud to be an Idahoan. Go Mike Simpson!
While California is in massive debt, Idaho has cut its spending and balanced the state budget under Gov. Otter. Local Dems wail about education spending cuts, but the state isn’t going broke, and is carefully spending its reserves to keep education going albeit at a less an optimal funding level. Even deeper cuts have been made in all other state functions. Idaho will be one of the states that comes through this recession without a massive debt load.
I can’t believe AGWers pronosticators don’t know in advance the outcome of the bill whereas they can predict climate change in 50 years (and how economy will suffer if we do nothing).
A small but important step in the right direction.
It’s a good start. But Harry Reid will never let it through the Senate.
For everyone who is making issues of coal to vs. oil, get over it. Natural gas is the game changer, not syn-fuel from coal. All those coal fired power plants that are not going to be built will instead have a gas fired one substituted for it. The battle is between natural gas and coal. Gas is what made nuclear non-competitive and believe it or not, really tipped the scale against wind. There is another good reason to convert power generation to natural gas. You get a lot of low grade excess heat from electricity generation. Natural gas is clean enough to locate almost anywhere. The excess low grade heat can be used for heating buildings. By using the low grade heat near where power is generated, you can get an overall efficiency approaching 60% vs. 40% for an isolated power plant. My biggest concern is that the fracking process that suddenly and dramatically increased natural gas reserves, can just as suddenly be found to not produce the amount of natural gas expected, resulting in sudden rise in the price of natural gas. If all our eggs are in this one basket, heaven help us.
The other thing that should happen: Ban the EPA from funding non-profit groups of any kind. The idea of a non-political nonprofit org is something of a joke. Browner was caught red headed doing this when at the EPA.
This is the sort of gridlock I can get behind. Go get ’em!