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
There have been some comments that this action will have no short term impact. That is false. Currently there is a continuing resolution in effect that authorizes federal spending through March 4th. It is extremely important to Obama to have another continuing resolution signed before March 4th. While Obama could theoretically veto everything the Republicans propose, in reality he will refuse to be responsible for shutting the government down. Nowadays the Republicans have a far larger media voice with Fox News, conservative radio and internet, and the radical decline of mainstream (Democratic) TV news and newspapers than used to be the case. There is tremendous concern in the public about runaway federal spending. This is the area where the Republicans have maximum political leverage and they will focus on extracting the maximum amount of concessions from Obama.
The Republicans will certainly extract some concessions from Obama in the next continuing resolution that will be signed in the next couple of weeks. Since he is trying tack to the middle for his reelection campaign, he is not going to risk being thought as someone who shuts down government for radical causes. The senate probably tries to mostly do what Obama wants to help him get reelected.
savethesharks says:
February 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm
To R. Gates he says:
“As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”
____
I think 100% would qualify as “enough”. There is waste across the entire federal government, with the bloated military being exceptionally wasteful. Those who have been in the military know this. Balancing the federal budget will be painful for everyone, but should be especially painful (if its done honestly) for those companies who have made their profits by supplying over-priced and unnecessary goods and services to the U.S. military. If the conservatives want to weld a mighty-budget ax, and make all sorts of noise in doing so, then it needs to fall equally on both the EPA and the Pentagon. Ron Paul gets this, and it brings me no small amount of joy.
R. Gates, thanks for your reply. One of my questions wasn’t clear, the clear version is “what is opinion of ceding control of energy usage to international agencies like IPCC rather than maintaining free market (I shouldn’t have said sovereign) control?”
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 13, 2011 at 7:07 am
R. Gates, thanks for your reply. One of my questions wasn’t clear, the clear version is “what is opinion of ceding control of energy usage to international agencies like IPCC rather than maintaining free market (I shouldn’t have said sovereign) control?
_____
No country should ever cede any control of anything it does to an outside agency or international body. But there is a big difference between giving control to any outside authority and volunteering to participate cooperatively with other countries on issues that have a global effect. But this must always be seen as cooperation, and never as a granting of authority to an outside agency. Putting aside the issue of AGW for a moment, it seems that there are many in this country (and other countries) who simply refuse to admit that there are issues that need international cooperation and require a consistent multi-national approach to solving them. I don’t understand this kind of thinking at all. There are many issues that require the international community to agree (voluntarily) to cooperate to solve them, if they are to be solved. These issues range from the global ecosystems to dictators possessing nuclear weapons, and international cooperation is the only way they will be solved. It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.
In short, no the IPCC, nor the UN, nor any outside agency should ever have the ability to control our energy usage. But if it turned out that something we were doing with our energy usage were indeed having global impacts, one could only hope that we’d be smart enough and unselfish enough to want to voluntarily agree to do something about it.
And what vote do we have when our government agrees to “cooperate” with an outside entity?
Pamela Gray says:
February 13, 2011 at 10:33 am
And what vote do we have when our government agrees to “cooperate” with an outside entity?
_____
Living in a democracy, our leaders should represent the will of “we the people”, not the will of Oprah, Haliburton, or the Koch Bros. Hence why we need comprehensive campaign finance reform, so that the best leaders make it to D.C., not the best financed. So, to your question– to the extent that the leaders represent the will of the people (and not the money of the rich and powerful) then the agreements they make will reflect the will of the people.
On a tangential note: The leaders in Washington–from Democrat to Republican to Tea Party, will NEVER willingly give up their gravy-train umbilical cord ties to big money. It will require a true grass-roots movement to forever separate that umbilical cord. I have my skepticism that such a we-the-people campaign finance reform movement could occur as it is far too easy for big money to initiate confusion through the media and get the common voter arguing about other emotionally charged hot-button issues while the foxes stay in charge of the chicken coop.
Let’s hope that the House holds firm on this cut. They will have the media against them, but they have their $100B of cuts mandate on their side. If a government shutdown occurs, then they simply need to keep saying over and over and over – like a broken record, “we promised the American people a mere $100B in cuts and this is what we must insist on.”
Having been a mid-level manager conducting and doing atmospheric research at EPA for over twenty years, I know what budget cuts can do. I’ve been retired for over 20 years and one reason I retired early was that research was becoming more politically directed. “Finding” CO2 to endanger public health and wellfare was most politically motivated and did not follow the guidelines of the Clean Air Act. This will be decided in the courts. I hope Alan Carlin wasn’t the last objective researcher to leave EPA and the Agency can return to the job that it was established to do. I hope that the threat of budget cuts at any amount will prevent bad regulations based on bad science and force them to go back to the drawing board and do their research as directed in the Clean Air Act. I would favor a lessor cut if they would do that. This may be a negotiating point.
R. Gates;
It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.>>>
Your naivety is charming. Seems so obvious, doesn’t it, this notion that if only people were educated enough they would see the “obvious” need for voluntary cooperation. I submit to you that if people were properly educated, the impracticality of such a notion would be obvious, as would the mortal danger freedom would be in if any such consensus was ever achieved.
Impractical; Because an enormous portion of the world is ruled by dictatorships who could not care less about the good of the planet or their own people. They only care about their own power. Do you think the apocalyptic terrorist leaderships who influence hundreds of millions of people give a moment’s thought to the “good” of the global population? If 90% of the people die, including their own, but they wind up in power, do not for one second fool yourself as to which way they will choose.
Mortal Danger; To achieve world wide cooperation on any issue, even a small one, someone has to be in charge of implementation. Someone has to set standards and have the power to enforce them on a global basis. All the education in the world will not change this oft repeated phrase “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Consider the IPCC. For just a fraction of the power that you propose, they became corrupt to the point that even if you believe in the CAGW story line, you have to admit that they are corrupt to the core. They follow on the heals of another initiative that the world decided to cooperate on called “Food for Oil”. Billions of dollars in the pockets of corrupt (though highly educated) officials who, when exposed, had the audacity to investigate themselves and declare themselves innocent. Multiply that corruption 10,000 times and you will have the spectre of educated, world wide, cooperation for the good of humanity, looming over you in its proper perspective.
davidmhoffer says:
February 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm
R. Gates;
It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.>>>
Your naivety is charming. Seems so obvious, doesn’t it, this notion that if only people were educated enough they would see the “obvious” need for voluntary cooperation. I submit to you that if people were properly educated, the impracticality of such a notion would be obvious, as would the mortal danger freedom would be in if any such consensus was ever achieved.
____
I am hardly naive about the realities of the world, and that, in general, individuals, groups, and whole societies will usually act in their own best interest. At some point, certain issues cross national borders and require cooperation to solve. If a “dictator” doesn’t want to cooperate, then so be it. If the issue is severe enough, they shall eventually suffer the consequences. Educated people do make better decisions than uneducated people, and even more so, educated people also are less swayed by propaganda. Witness, for example, current smoking rates, and the entire campaign by Big Tobacco to convince uneducated people that smoking (1st or second hand smoke) had no proven connection to cancer and other health disorders. As it turns out, rates of smoking are higher among the lower educated peoples, not just in the U.S., but across the planet, and in fact, the Tobacco companies love to pray on the uneducated, as it is the last bastion where they can sell their products.
See:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a1.htm#tab
This is exactly analogous to events which require international cooperation. There would be groups who would like to convince the uninformed that such cooperation is unnecessary. The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.
See: http://tiny.cc/7wux3
I am not specifically talking about the AGW issue here at all, but the general need for international cooperation on certain issues that have global impact, from the environment to nuclear proliferation.
To R. Gates,
Should the masses be “educated” in CAGW using the IPCC bible?
Fred H. Haynie says:
February 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm
To R. Gates,
Should the masses be “educated” in CAGW using the IPCC bible?
______
Not just educated, but indoctrinated! The IPCC findings should be taught to every first grader from Anchorage to Miami and from Sidney to Moscow. A picture of Al Gore should be placed on every schoolroom wall with the words below to read: “From the Internet to Global Warming…he showed us the Light!”
(sarcasm off)
On second thought, how about we just teach real science to our kids…then they might understand the uncertainty involved in climate science and not be 25th out of 37 countries in the world for math and science. And guess who’s #1…yep, China.
See
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
Maybe if we weren’t so preoccupied with our petty politics and other distractions, we might actually put such nonsense behind, roll up our sleeves and rebuild our educational system (yep, that means an end to tenure), and realize that we’re rapidly slipping way back in the pack and leaving our kids with a future of McJobs…
R. Gates;
The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.>>>
Your naivety is both charming and dangerous.
Who decides what facts to put into the education in the first place? What history, and whose version of it? Religion’s version of creation or science’s? Which religion? Which science? Who decides? And how do you curb the power of those who decide? Do you even understand what power that gives them?
But more to the point, let’s examine your notion that undeducated make bad decisions and well educated people make good ones. It was the intelligentsia that sold communism to the uneducated masses, how well did that turn out? They identified the most intelligent amongst their population, and gave them the best possible education, and put them to work building 5 year economic plans that failed utterly, made them managers in factories that functioned at 5% capacity, and at the end, put the best minds they had either in jail for pointing out reality or to work building publicity plans to deny reality and convince the masses that their misery was really happiness.
Who had the better education and higher IQ, Carter or Reagan? Who was more EFFECTIVE?
Who enabled Hitler’s rise to power? Answer; The very intelligentsia that were promptly slaughtered when they were no longer needed. One would have thought those highly educated people would have seen that coming.
I had dinner out this evening. My waiter had a degree in philosophy and another in liberal arts. What ever skills his education gave him, they didn’t make him a very good waiter. But that’s OK, he’s got degrees and is very smart, let’s put him in charge of what our children learn and what they don’t.
And as for your dictators who won’t cooperate, do you really think a “shrug, so be it” is going to be effective? How many dictatorships do you think there are? 2? 3? Grab a globe and mark the true democracies on it. Not pretend democracies like Russia or Iran or any of many other examples, REAL democracies like Canada, the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain. Not as many as you would think, are there? Which is why you can’t just shrug off dictatorships that won’t cooperate as if they are some sort of minority.
Reality sucks. Barging ahead with global plans driven by the educated intelligentsia sucks more. Way more.
davidmhoffer says:
February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm
R. Gates;
The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.>>>
Your naivety is both charming and dangerous.
Who decides what facts to put into the education in the first place? What history, and whose version of it? Religion’s version of creation or science’s? Which religion? Which science? Who decides? And how do you curb the power of those who decide? Do you even understand what power that gives them?
_____
Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught. Creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and as such has no place in schools except as a topic in a religious studies class perhaps. As the Chinese leave us behind and take command of the 21st century, they will teach us the that truth is what works many times over. While we bicker about evolution vs. creationism or the whether Thomas Jefferson was a great American or a cad, or get caught up in our mindless liberal vs. conservative bickering, the Chinese are building tomorrow with faster computers, high-speed rail, and now lead the world in patents. Some backwards thinking people will say the Chinese stole our technology and other such nonsense. Nope, they’ve learned what we used to know…the way forward is through hard work (their students study an average of 20 hours more a week at the high school level their our students do), innovation (they now lead in patents– meaning new original technology), and thrift (Americans have used their large McMansions as ATM machines for far too long).
I applaud anyone’s effort to cut the U.S. debt, as it is a necessary but painful first step forward. But we must not lose sight of what made us great in the past…those values of hard work, innovation, and thrift. We must work to once more having the best education system, the most innovative technology, and learn to actually save, rather than spend like drunken sailors. If we do all these things well, we may just have a chance of preventing the slide of America into a second-class country full of McJobs. Balancing the U.S. budget is a good first step, but the harder tasks are ahead…
R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm
You quote me as saying just this:
“As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”
==========================================
But what you did not quote me me saying to you after that is, for obvious reasons,
left out:
But I will repeat it here:
“But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.”
Your arguments are complete waste material.
I am using a euphemism here to keep from getting censored. But it is true.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
davidmhoffer says:
February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“REAL democracies like Canada, the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain…”
___
And you called me naive? With the majority of our U.S. Senators being millionaires, and it costing tens of millions of dollars just to get one of those coveted senate seats, the days of being able to call the United States a “real” democracy is long ago passed away. It takes big money to buy your way to D.C., and that big money expects to be taken care of once you get there. Voters are manipulated by expensive campaign ads backed by big money. The term plutocracy is far more appropriate for what the former American democracy has devolved into. Many Americans will resist the idea that their democracy is really a plutocracy (if they even know what that means), but the plain truth is that big$ rules Washington, and the Liberal vs. Conservative battle is just a side show that only dictates which big$ is in charge at any given time.
R. Gates says:
February 13, 2011 at 5:12 am
If the conservatives want to weld a mighty-budget ax, and make all sorts of noise in doing so, then it needs to fall equally on both the EPA and the Pentagon. Ron Paul gets this, and it brings me no small amount of joy.
============================
No.
They are NOT the same.
No matter how much you try to equate them apples to apples in your usual moronic lackluster psuedo-logic….they are NOT the same….and therefore no reasonable comparison can be made.
Do you ever get out? It seems doubtful. You live behind your computer screen, not in the real world.
You live in an ideal, animated world, with pixie sparkles and fluffy clouds.
The EPA is on its way down [unlike the Military…which will never ever go away]…and, to quote your, “I get no small sense of joy” watching Lisa Jackson and her ilk squirm.
But then again….there is a reason you are going to try and steer this conversation away from EPA: you are more like them.
Both of you believe the “AGW models” [heh heh remember your insistence on that term, R….even though there was no such thing]….and both are swayed by the arguments from authority of bureaucrats and minds even more swayed than yours!
And neither of you would last a day in the battlefield, because to you, the world is imaginary [or to your own imagination,] and in a case of rubber meeting the road survival…you would be lost. No wonder you loathe the military.
Let me ask you this: Have you ever swung a hammer or built something….or planted your own crops or milked a cow….played sports or hunted deer??
I did not think so.
Stop wasting people’s time with your sophistry and hijack of threads. That needs to be said…even more than you have already demonstrated yourself without it ever being said.
If you want to contribute something beneficial…then your contribution…[until you can learn how to contribute in a logical way]….is to not contribute!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks says:
February 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm
You quote me as saying just this:
“As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”
==========================================
But what you did not quote me me saying to you after that is, for obvious reasons,
left out:
But I will repeat it here:
“But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.”
_____
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don’t see you offering any little bits of truth yourself to counter what I say, but rather, simply putting labels on what I say. It probably bothers you that I propose deep cuts across the board in the U.S. budget, including that traditional sacred cow to many (but not all conservatives) the mighty Pentagon. You wrongly assume that bigger is better and more is better when it comes to military spending. Such irrational thinking is thankfully not present in conservatives such as Ron Paul, who knows that bigger can sometimes mean just plain bloated and in need of a huge reduction program.
R. Gates says:
February 13, 2011 at 9:30 pm
The Chinese are building tomorrow with faster computers, high-speed rail, and now lead the world in patents. Some backwards thinking people will say the Chinese stole our technology and other such nonsense.
=============================
Once again you take a nuggets of truth….[HSR, patents, and computers] and destroy those nuggets with your complete and utter ignorance.
They DID steal and they steal today.
Apple Computers, revolutionary cable-stayed bridges, or “patents”….none of them were invented in China.
China took it and ran with all of the above because they have no concept of private property…and because they can.
No doubt their quantum leap into the 21st Century from the 19th is remarkable…and point well taken that no doubt we need to pay attention.
But the last part of your argument is complete trash.
Why do you always shoot your self in the foot, R….and nobody else even has to touch you LOL?
It’s entertaining.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
It probably bothers you that I propose deep cuts across the board in the U.S. budget, including that traditional sacred cow to many (but not all conservatives) the mighty Pentagon
=========================
NO.
What bothers me…is your deliberate and squirrelly manipulation of what other people say!
You are a spin doctor….quickly coming to the defense of other spin doctors like James Hansen and his current NASA and Lisa Jackson and her outmoded, BLOATED EPA.
There are many other government agencies, besides the EPA and the current NASA…the Department of Education, the DEA, the IRS, the FDA, the FCC, and many, many others like them…that need to be axed….[or at least radically trimmed down].
But….unlike the military….none of these diseases that mask themselves a government agencies….depend on LIFE OR DEATH for their survival.
You are a fool, R Gates if you think otherwise.
But….given your performance so far….I am not surprised.
Incapable of change, you automatically try to appear like one who adapts…but in reality, you do nothing of the sort.
A true definition of a ‘second-hander’ in an Ayn Rand novel.
So the true colors are revealed here: You are not just loathing the US Military.
You are in a backhanded, passive-aggressive way, trying to defend the EPA.
Hilarious!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
At 9:30 PM on 13 February, among other things R. Gates had extolled:
.
This particular point requires at least some kind of response. The central government of these United States has been debauching the currency at increasing rates. In this condition, “thrift” is not possible. Dollar-denominated savings accounts cannot earn interest sufficient to compensate for the purchasing power thieved away by government counterfeiting while those dollars are on deposit, and – of course – dollars not spent or invested in ways providing yields above the real inflation rate are eroded by continuing and accelerating government theft-of-value.
To get the real as opposed to the “official” rate of inflation, calculate the rate of increase in the M3 monetary aggregate. Which the Federal Reserve System quit reporting in November 2005.
It is nonetheless possible to estimate the M3. Track that and you have the real rate at which the federal government is turning the dollars in your paycheck into toilet paper.
Everyone who practices “thrift” in terms of saving U.S. currency in bank accounts and other “thrift” instruments is subjecting his accumulated wealth to slow, steady confiscation by way of government policy.
As long as the politicians continue to “keep the interest rates down” by flooding the financial markets with Federal Reserve funds literally conjured out of thin air, only borrowers have any ability to survive. In the practice of “thrift,” one becomes nothing more than a victim of government pillage.
I would not hesitate to say that all of America’s present economic woes – R. Gates‘ complaints about “the slide of America into a second-class country full of McJobs” included – are the results of currency debauchment inflicted upon the nation as a matter of government policy by way of the Federal Reserve System.
I’m damned if I understand how it is that otherwise intelligent and perspicacious people don’t appreciate that key factor, and focus upon it. This is not merely a subject recently made popular by Ron Paul’s End the Fed persistence brought into the spotlight since 2007. It has been the subject of proper attention throughout the past century and more, and only through the prestidigitation of government economists – the Keynesians and the monetarists chiefly – has the attention of the general public been diverted from this sole cause of all the economic dislocation R. Gates decries.
This failure to consider the root cause notwithstanding, the effects of government currency counterfeiting cannot be denied, and the fact that “thrift” has not for decades been a viable option for anyone in the American economy should not be allowed to escape consideration in the exchanges taking place in this forum.
R. Gates said “Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.
Creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and as such has no place in schools except as a
topic in a religious studies class perhaps. As the Chinese leave us behind and take command of
the 21st century, they will teach us the that truth is what works many times over.”
That’s an all-too-common philosophy. I guess it evolved from utilitarianism. The truth is that the only truth is faith. Everything else is subject to change by new evidence. Overall coherence is as far as we will get in science.
As for the Chinese and their utilitarianism, I would remind you they also harvest organs from their condemned. I remember another Asian country that made a great clone of the Z80 processor in the 70’s By the 80’s they were flying high, like Icarus. The Chinese will follow that path, but being even more utilitarian they won’t make the same mistakes that the Japanese did and will fly even higher. That just means they will fall from a higher up and the results won’t be pretty.
R. Gates;
Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.>>
I repeat the question: Whose truth? Who decides? Was there an Armenian genocide or wasn’t there? Shall you teach history according to Turkey or the Armenians? Does CO2 heat the planet? Whose version of physics will be taught? You think that there some actual thing as Truth? The only actual truth is that when someone puts a capital T on it, death is coming, in waves.
Not to mention that you neatly sidestepped the major points in my comment altogether show show rather conclusively that your idealistic isn’t practical in the first place because you shrug of dictatorships as if they are insignificant players on the world stage.
Then you descend into some sort of babble about the US not being a democracy. Puhleaze. If everything you said was true, which it isn’t but for sake of argument lets say it is, then on a scale of one to ten with one being totalitarian dictatorship and ten being democracy, the U.S would still score about an 8. Russia 3. China 2. North Korea 0. Iran 0. Saudi Arabia 0. Pakistan 2. Lybia 0. Venezuala 3. You are splitting hairs to distract from the gigantic holes in your argument and you seem to have abandoned your original premise in the first place hoping no one will notice that you’re attacking a moot point rather than defending your position.
I love what Boehner said, “I smoke, leave me alone.” It is the business of individuals to smoke, drink, or do whatever is deemed dangerous. And it is the business of private business to allow it or not. Do-gooders will often say, “We need to educate the people so they make better choices.” When that doesn’t work, they will often say, “We need to impose regulations so that people make better choices.” R. Gates, when that happens, we lose our freedom AND our vote! You advocate, in essence, sharia law, which we already have in this country in several forms. The burka covers both you and me. That you don’t realize it is interesting.
boballab says:
So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:
Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA.
You have too much faith in the media. In reality it would be more like this:
Republicans force government shut-down:
Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats refused to pass dangerous Repulican legislation aimed at undermining essential government services.