They are still using the same tired rhetoric, about inheriting the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. The truth is that the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression is the Obama administration. Barack Obama stands with Herbert Hoover as the only presidents with negative job growth during their administrations. As if stuck in the 1930s, Obama dusted off FDR’s playbook, since he had no personal executive experience to draw on, and that playbook didn’t work then and it’s not working now.

So along comes an opportunity for a major “shovel ready” project, backed by unions, that can create thousands of jobs, move us closer to energy independence, help us depend less on getting oil from Middle East despots, and what does Obama do? He kills it. What he wanted to do, was defer a decision on this until after the election, eleven months away. He wanted to do what he does best, vote “present”.

Congress, particularly the Republicans who seem to be the only adults working on Capital Hill, included a provision in the payroll tax holiday extension, to make a decision within sixty days. People are hurting, gas prices are creeping up, unemployment benefits have been extended to extraordinary lengths, and this incompetent president says that sixty days was not enough time to review the proposal so he had to, sadly, reject it. Perhaps if he hadn’t played all those rounds of golf, perhaps if he had studied it a little closer instead of spending all that time in Hawaii, perhaps if he put this job creating proposal on the top of the EPA’s to-do list instead of their focusing on the job killing regulations to limit power plant emissions, he would have gotten his job done. But no, sorry, I don’t have my homework, teacher, I dunno, I forgot, my dog…. Enough!

Let China make an oil deal with Canada. We can always buy the oil back from them at a premium. Why not, they probably don’t have enough of our dollars as it is now. Why not give them more? This president is making decisions that will cobble together a coalition of supporters to get him reelected. This is about appeasing the environmental movement so that they won’t abandon him.

At an event in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Dec. 31, Rick Santorum mocked the idea that the pipeline posed the threat of environmental damage, noting that there were already many other pipelines in the area it would go through. “This is just, again, pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” Mr. Santorum said.

The State Department, which has authority over this since it goes between us and Canada, “said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the environmental harm.” Bullfeathers. It’s a 1700 mile pipeline. The area in question is a fraction of that length. Agree to the pipeline, get started hiring people and building it in areas not in dispute, and work to resolve the section in question. But unless it is killed, Obama risks losing the green vote and what is more important, America or Obama’s reelection?

I’d like to ask my Congressman, Tim Bishop, to weigh in. What do you have to say about this, Tim? Or are you too busy manufacturing your own campaign issue around outsourced phone center jobs. If jobs are really important to you, you would stand up and challenge Obama for killing an opportunity for good, high paying, union jobs in America. On the other hand you can stay silent, not challenge President Obama’s error and risk his ire and possibly lose campaign funds and support. So what do you stand for, Tim? Putting America first or putting your interests right up there with President Obama’s and above America’s.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

photo by kevin dooley

Tim Bishop is frustrated. He says so in an e-mail to constituents. When you have subsisted in Washington by spending other people’s money while making it appear you are Santa Claus, you get frustrated when the spending spigot is shut off. He laments that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has not “advanced a real agenda”. Really? The House passed a budget. How are Tim’s Bishop’s colleagues in the Senate doing with that? With the nation sinking under $16 trillion in debt, about $6 billion of which was added since Tim Bishop went to Congress, the Republicans passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” Tim Bishop voted against it, and his colleagues in the Senate wouldn’t even vote on it. Just what does the term “real agenda” mean to Tim Bishop?

Tim Bishop voted against a bill that would halt new EPA regulations on cement companies until the matter was studied further. Tim Bishop voted billions of dollars for “shovel ready” projects that President Obama later snickered weren’t so shovel ready (another revelation for the most inexperienced president in our history). Who knew? Now if I am not mistaken, as an engineer I believe a fair amount of concrete would be needed in most construction projects. So again, we have Tim Bishop in a fight with himself. He calls for more infrastructure spending, and then opposes delaying new regulations on cement companies, cement being one of the primary ingredients in concrete. What a concept; let’s spend boatloads of money on construction and make construction more expensive at the same time so that we get the least amount of bang for our buck.

Tim Bishop voted against a bill that would require the economic impact of EPA regulations be evaluated. If it is okay to require an environmental impact statement on construction projects, why not require an economic impact statement on EPA regulations? Tim says that would be bad.

If that is not enough, he closes his e-mail by asking constituents to send him ideas on how Washington should get more involved. This is from the Congressman who had to intervene on behalf of Long Island wineries to get Washington to speed up on the approval of the shape of their wine bottles and their labels. This we need more of? If you look at the Constitution, half of what the federal government does is not in there and should be shut down.

Tim Bishop voted for the stimulus that will have to be paid back. Based on the fact that his district is wealthier than average (let’s chant together, “Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich!”), we will end up paying about $3 billion of that tab while the district got about $600 million in funds. That means that Tim Bishop voted in favor of a program that will provide about $3 billion in funding somewhere else at a cost of around $600 million to those citizens. This has typically been the case in New York. Our heavily Democrat congressional delegation keeps voting for bigger and bigger government that New Yorkers have to pay far more for than they ever receive in benefits and they wonder why New Yorkers are moving elsewhere? (Hint: that’s why we are losing two Congressional seats). How dumb is that?

Tim Bishop doesn’t have a clue, and doesn’t appear to be looking for one. It is time for a change.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by boss tweed

Ah, 1922, the Yankees won their second American League pennant and finished up their final season at the Polo Grounds before moving across the river to their new stadium in the Bronx. In the summer, hyperinflation in Germany meant it took 493 marks to equal one dollar. Feature length film Nanook of the North  is released. In the fall the conversion rate in Germany is 1,000 marks to the dollar. Stalin comes to power in Russia, and Mussolini in Italy. By November it takes 3,000 marks to equal one U.S. dollar in Germany. Alexander Graham Bell dies. By year-end it takes 7,000 German marks to equal one U.S. dollar. It was also the last time the 9th Congressional District in New York was held by a Republican.

Printing money was not working in Germany. In 1921, there was a deep recession in the U.S. Unemployment hit 11.7 percent, but the Republican administration did not launch any massive bailout programs nor plaster the economy with new regulations. Business owners had the freedom to react to their circumstances. They could adjust wages and prices as the market demanded. They did and as steep as the recession had been the snap back to full recovery was just as sharp. By 1922 the unemployment rate was down to 6.7% and a year later in 1923, it was down to an incredible 2.4%.

We are now in an economy under this administration where the unemployment rate started at 7.4% and has climbed and is now stuck at around 9%. It has been this way for nearly three years and the projections are that it will stay this way for years in the future, just like it was under FDR. And why not? President Obama is following many of plans of FDR that didn’t work in the 1930s and are not working now.

If a trillion in stimulus spending didn’t work, let’s spend another $500 billion, right? If passing enormous regulations such as ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, EPA, kills any business desire to hire people, blame the Republicans for saying STOP!

A message went out from New York to Washington last night. In a district with 3:1 Democrat advantage. The people voted for a Republican. A Republican who said stop the spending, support our allies, don’t destroy our social institutions and remember that all Obama’s horses and all Obama’s men and women, are not smarter than the rest of us. Get out of our way. Let us make decisions for our own lives and stand back. We, the American people, not the bureaucrats in Washington who never set foot in the private economy, like Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner, will turn this economy around. Give us our lives, our liberty and stop impeding our pursuit of happiness. It is our pursuit and our responsibility to catch up with our happiness. You bureaucrats cannot deliver it to us. Give not, Take not.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours; Please comment below.

Photo by Robert Scoble

And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can. And at the same time, we’ll be freeing our families and small businesses and states from the burdensome and costly federal government so those groups can create, innovate and succeed. — From Rick Perry’s speech announcing his run for the presidency.

That is the pledge of a person who deeply respects the Constitution. It is the sentiment of a person who understands the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Rick Perry believes as the Founding Fathers did that the purpose of the national government is to do those few things that are best handled as a single nation, but then leave everything else to the states and the people. For the most part Washington should be inconsequential to our lives. Instead the leviathan has become anything but inconsequential  reaching deeper into our lives and with every law, every rule, every regulation, we lose more and more of our liberties.

Washington should be responsible, first and foremost, for our common defense and yet our borders are unprotected and those who come here illegally are shielded, and given benefits. Our president travels the world apologizing to those who would cause us harm, emboldening them. Of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, seven of them pertain to national defense; more than any other category. But in our daily lives we should not have to think about national defense.

Other powers granted to Congress to act as one government concern naturalization, bankruptcies, the coining (not printing) of money, standards of weights and measures, to punish counterfeiting, establishment of the post office, patents and copyrights, and providing for a federal court system. Are any of these things something we should worry about each day as we get out of bed? The areas that are a concern are taxes and borrowing. However, if Washington stuck to what the Founders envisioned, taxes and debt would be an inconsequential concern.

But they are a concern because of the explosive growth of government brought to you by the Progressive movement. Many of their programs have failed to deliver on their promise and have saddled us and future generations with enormous debts. We are in the midst of an economic malaise because the tentacles of government have choked the life out of small and medium businesses, the very engines of job creation. Instead of Washington being inconsequential, there is hardly a day that goes by that a business owner does not worry about what regulation he is not following, what penalty is lurking around the corner, how quickly the crushing weight of our national government may come crashing down around him.

Private businesses don’t want to go public, a step they might need to grow, because of the burden of Sarbanes Oxley regulation. Banks have to find new ways to make money because Dodd-Frank has impacted their credit and debit card lines of business. Power companies and in turn manufacturing businesses that need affordable power are trying to calculate the cost of EPA regulations that will kill ten percent of our electric generating capacity. The National Labor Relations Board is dictating to businesses where they can or cannot open factories. Hardly inconsequential. Rick Perry is the first presidential politician who has spoken out strongly about where to draw the line between what the federal government can do and what they cannot.

Freedom

Rick Perry also understands the meaning of the First Amendment and the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Saying a prayer before a meeting or asking for a blessing to play your best football game without getting hurt is not the same as passing a law through Congress establishing the Church of the United States of America. I fully support the right of atheists to stick their fingers in their ears and holler “LA, LA, LA, LA, LA…” until the prayer is over. But I do not accept their marching into court to prohibit the free exercise of religion by anyone else. If you don’t understand the difference then you need to go back to grammar school and learn, once again, how a law is made. As Ann Coulter points out in her book Demonic, when the term “a wall of separation between church and state” was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, said Baptists were living in Connecticut where the state religion, you read that right, the state religion was Congregationalism. You see, the First Amendment restricts Congress, not the states.

Mitt Romney has taken a veiled swipe at Perry by talking about career politicians having gotten us into this mess and they don’t understand how to get us out of it. But Romney also had a spell in government as a one term governor of Massachusetts and while he turned that states finances around quickly he also left behind RomneyCare. He still seems to claim that that universal health care worked while ObamaCare doesn’t. It is not a strong argument. Romney has also changed his stripes on a number of issues and there is no reason to think that he won’t change them back. After all, he has not given a reason for why he changed in the first place, other than for political expediency.

Perry, on the other hand was elected governor in Texas three times. Job growth in Texas has been strong, he was able to put curbs on personal injury lawyers and their runaway lawsuits, which has resulted in malpractice insurance premiums on doctors dropping and the number of doctors applying for licenses in Texas to soar.

We can expect the main stream media to attack Perry mercilessly to try to reach a point where Barack Obama’s odious job as president might be palatable for another four years. But the media and Obama may just find out that Perry knows how to counter-punch, and Obama has a lot more vulnerabilities to protect than Perry. It is not a lock and there is a long way to go, but right now, Rick Perry is someone I can support.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The UN’s World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually.

On August 31, the EPA quietly released interim results of its ongoing review of possible drinking water contamination at several sites near Pavillion, Wyoming. Kevin Book, an energy expert with ClearView Energy Partners, an energy market research firm, reports, “Although EPA’s latest data did not conclusively link
contamination to fracking, EPA’s guidance that residents should avoid drinking the water may give Congressional fracking opponents a valuable sound bite to use when calling for mandatory disclosure rules [identifying chemicals used]“.

Minimal to non-existent; Unlikely; No serious reforms were on the way; Needs to take a close look; Hardly the inspiring rhetoric of Knute Rockne or Winston Churchill. Tim Bishop’s back in his congressional seat starting his fifth term in office and already the group he was meeting with, the Long Island Farm Bureau, was expressing buyer’s remorse.

Some at the meeting questioned whether Mr. Bishop could still effectively represent local farmers in Congress now that he is a minority member of the House of Representatives after Republicans gained control during midterm elections.

In response, Mr. Bishop said that despite the shift in power, he could still provide a voice for farmers on pressing issues.

It’s not like they didn’t see it coming. The only people who did not forecast a Republican takeover of Congress seemed to be sitting around a table with Joe Biden. After voting in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi as she added $5 trillion to the national debt since 2006, people are very nervous about how big the debt has grown and what will happen, particularly if interest rates return to historical levels. At 6%-7% for Treasuries, we may be facing payments of $1 trillion per year in interest alone. Something has to be done and fast. So what kind of leadership is Tim Bishop showing?

“You want to shut down Social Security? Fine. Come with me to a senior citizen center and explain it,” the congressman said.

Really? It that what his constituents pay him $174,000 per year, plus all the trappings of office for? I ain’t gonna tell ‘me, YOU tell ‘em. I know of no instance of anyone saying that shutting down social security is a near term option. There are a number of proposals on the table, including one in my book, Liberty’s Lifeline, but telling seniors, sorry, no more Social Security checks isn’t one of them. It is the same old tired demagoguery of the left. Do you remember the commercials of Republicans pushing grandma down the stairs in a wheelchair? It is purely scare tactics, like the diversion a magician makes to watch over here, so you don’t see what they are really doing over there.

Tim Bishop agrees that something needs to be done, but far be it from him to come up with anything. The Republicans propose cutting $61 billion and Tim Bishop is fighting to put it back. While it is admirable to fight for the jobs at Brookhaven National Labs, we have to be honest. The government has recklessly spent too much money for too long and it has to stop and the reality is some people in government programs are going to lose their jobs. They will have to move to the private sector that should start growing again once this administration stops spending.

He also said Congress needs to take a close look at agricultural subsidies, none of which are enjoyed by Long Island farmers.

Who has been in Congress for the last eight years while farm subsidies have continued and we pay for them? Who is Mr. Bishop representing, his district or Nancy Pelosi? The farmers asked him about the tough EPA regulations affecting the fertilizers and pesticides they use and the congressman had this to say:

Mr. Bishop said the new leadership of congress appeared determined to reign in the EPA in order to bring more balanced regulations on pesticides.

The new leadership would be the Republicans, no? What has been going on the last eight years with Congressman Bishop in Congress?

Perhaps the icing on the cake is Mr. Bishop’s appeal for calm and civility. In talking about immigration and migrant farm workers he had this to say:

“We have allowed anger and emotion and demagoguery to rule the debate on immigration as opposed to fact and reason and trying to be in the real world,” he added of the issue.

This raises two interesting points. First, is that Mr. Bishop just finished running a campaign that was predominantly personal attacks and very little substance, and he cries out for civility. Hypocrisy?  Second, why didn’t Mr. Bishop tell the farmers that they should get American workers instead of immigrants, illegal or otherwise? Isn’t that outsourcing? Isn’t that what he fought so hard for in his campaign? Giving jobs to foreigners when the unemployment rate is so high? Tell the immigrants to go home and tell the people on unemployment to come on down.

Ridiculous, isn’t it? It just points to one more area where Tim Bishop is out of his depth. Spending all one’s time in the ivory towers of academia and then going into government and trying to tell people how the economy works, when he doesn’t understand it himself. Hopefully, with him in the minority we can limit the damage he can do. We don’t have term limits so it is up to the members of the district to retire him.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

By now you are probably getting pretty tired of the comparisons of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and how Obama is/would/should apply the lessons learned by Bill Clinton and coast to a second term. I, however, have always seen Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as two very different politicians with different goals.

In my view, Bill Clinton’s goal in life was to be President of the United States and to do whatever was necessary to get there and serve two full terms.  Barack Obama I see as a man with an agenda and the presidency is the best means to implement that agenda. Unlike many former presidents, Jimmy Carter excepted, Bill Clinton still loves being on the stage, getting called to rally the troops, being consulted, in short, being the center of attention.

Barack Obama matured within a philosophy of wealth distribution, social justice, big government and has demonstrated his zeal to implement as much change as possible, before the opposition knows what hit them. He advanced those ambitious programs that fit that agenda (Stimulus, Health care, cap and trade) while letting favorites of the left but not fundamental to his vision (Guantanamo, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan)  wait.

Bill Clinton had no problem moving to the center if that helped him get reelected. Clinton was and is a brilliant politician who knows how to follow the script to deliver a convincing performance to the crowd. Obama has a trickier and riskier task.

With all he has put on hold that his far left base wanted if he moves dramatically to the center, they will abandon him to a primary challenge and his reelection chances will collapse. If he doesn’t appear to move to the center, the independents who have been leaving him in droves will continue to do so and his reelection chances will collapse. He has to fake a move to the center long enough to slow the defections of the independents and then circle back to the left to hold them long enough to get reelected. So how does he do that?

Time may not be on his side, as two years is a long time to fool two diverse groups. He is off to a good start though. He gave a strong speech in Tucson. There has been little activity in Washington other than the ObamaCare repeal that was newsworthy, allowing Obama’s ratings to climb by about ten points. He wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal announcing a change in the way regulations are written such that they will require a cost/benefit analysis, a sign he is moving toward the middle. Since most of the electorate loses focus during the “off-season”, similar sleights of hand may help him achieve his goal.  Sleight of hand?

I call it a sleight of hand because in the same document that he called for cost/benefit requirement on every new regulation he also included this:

 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.”

The left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away. Is it just cynicism on my part? The EPA is “confident that that it won’t need to alter a single current or pending rule.” So, in effect, the “new” ruling on regulations is all smoke and mirrors.

If Mr. Obama makes sure he knows where his teleprompter is at all times, he might be able to pull it off. He is a very good rehearsed speaker. Let 2008 be your guide.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Not surprisingly, we hear the administration telling us how they have been in charge since day one regarding the BP oil gusher.  But as I have often said before, if there is a major problem in America look for government to be right in the thick of it and this is no exception.

Statists like to blame the free market for such problems and that more government is the answer.  You will also hear them mistakenly say that conservatives don’t want any government involvement in the marketplace.  Conservatives believe in government, albeit limited government, but we also expect that the government that is in place do its job.  There was plenty of regulation in the BP case, perhaps too much government in that there was no one clear responsible agency but an overlapping mess.  When it comes to regulation I like to use the sports analogy of a baseball umpire.  Congress writes the rulebook and the executive branch is the umpire that makes sure the rules are followed.  If the umpire is looking at an attractive girl in the stands instead of the play on the field, he is apt to blow the call.  Blown calls seemed to be a way of life in the BP case. 

Deepwater exploration progressed faster than the regulations could keep up with the technology, and government was providing incentives to accelerate that exploration.  So there we have our first example of the government acting in a push-me, pull-you fashion, that is, incentives to explore but lacking regulations to make sure it is done safely and orderly.  Rather than looking at deep water drilling where the physics are different as a different animal needing a comprehensive review of the regulations, the regulations were piecemeal approvals of shallow water regulations. 

When BP first looked at drilling in this area they requested from the federal regulators an exemption from a rigorous environmental review.  That exemption was granted.  They also used riskier equipment that deviated from their own company safety policies.  Regulators also approved testing the blowout preventer at a pressure that was lower than federally required.  When BP wanted to delay mandatory testing of the blowout preventer when they lost “well control” in the weeks before the rig exploded, again the regulators granted the delay.

One federal agency, the Minerals Management Service, is in the dual role of both promoting drilling and regulating it.  They both collect royalty payments and issue fines for violations.  Do you think there may be a conflict here?  Is this the most effective form of government?  Here is a core beef of mine and of other conservatives.  The free market should provide the incentives for off shore drilling.  Either it is worth doing from a business standpoint or it is not.  The government’s role should be in the regulation.  When government wades into the middle trying to work both sides, it is doomed to fail.

There are multiple agencies that all have responsibility for regulation in this area in addition to the Minerals Management Service including, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.  Where there are gaps in regulation, whose responsibility is it to plug the gap?  When there is overlap, whose regulations controls? 

The Minerals Management Service approved BP’s drilling plan that projected a “worst case” blowout as producing 250,000 barrels per day of escaping oil.  However, the agency did not require BP to develop a contingency plan on how they would deal with such an occurrence.  The agency also did not require companies to have a backup systems to trigger in the event a blowout preventer failed.

There were early indications of problems with the well but federal regulators approved proceeding with the drilling rather than order it be halted until the issues were addressed.

So once this disaster spun out of control how did our government respond?  Based on laws written after the Exxon Valdez spill the government and BP were supposed to cooperate.  How did the administration show their cooperation?  They said they were going to keep their “boot on the neck of BP.”  Do you feel inspired to cooperate with someone who tells the world they will keep their boot on your neck, or do you start looking for ways to protect yourself?  Instead of concentrating on giving BP whatever assistance it needs to cap the well and focusing on containing the spread of oil, the administration sends in lawyers to start a criminal investigation.  Can’t that wait until the well is capped?  Why divert attention from the problem and have BP start losing focus on the well and more on assembling a legal team?

When governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wanted to build a sand barrier to stop the oil from reaching the wetlands in his state, he was told to wait while our federal government dithered for three weeks haggling among the White House, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency over the best approach.  If this administration, as they have claimed, has been in charge since day one and all of these agencies fall under the administration, why couldn’t this be hashed out in a day or two?  They finally approved one barrier rather than the 23 that were requested but eventually allowed more.  For an in depth story see New York Times

For the last year and a half we have been told we don’t have enough government running our lives and telling us what to do.  Yet here is a classic case of government regulator piled on top of regulator, and regulators trying to promote and control businesses at the same time.  We have regulators granting waiver after waiver of regulations that ultimately led to disaster and our administration instead of stepping up and taking responsibility is trying to look like they are in charge while at the same time blaming everyone else, yes even Bush, for what happened.  The head of the Materials Management Service resigned and President Obama says he learned about it afterwards.  Interior Secretary Salazar said she resigned on her own volition and that she wasn’t fired.  Why not?  For all the exemptions and waivers that were granted by the government that could have prevented the worst environmental disaster in history, this administration doesn’t think anyone other than BP should be responsible.

So we are supposed to let this administration grow government and control more of our lives when they can’t take responsibility for what is already under their control.  But don’t look for a serious investigation of government’s responsibility unless a large number of incumbents are flushed out of Congress and replaced by new members who actually represent the people.

Remember the stimulus package that had to pass immediately or we would face economic catastrophe?  Recently released data from the Commerce Department show that the economy was recovering before the stimulus went into effect.  Unemployment has risen above what the Obama administration said it would if the stimulus passed, but oh well, Congress approved and the president signed the legislation to spend $787 billion of your money.

The Next Boondoggle

Now President Obama is trying to ramrod through the Cap and Trade legislation that will put another enormous burden on taxpayers and we have to do this now, immediately, imperatively, or south Florida will be under water and polar bears will be extinct.

A 98 page report from a veteran in the EPA garnered this response from his boss, Al McGartland:

“‘The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. “I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.’ ”

Who is the EPA working for?  Is this a government of the people or of the statists?  So because they won the election, the policies of their most extreme supporters must be put in place, no matter how large the bill or how effective the policy.  If it is a sham, too bad, they want it…they shall have it and you get stuck with the bill, the loss of liberty, and them telling you how to live your life.

The Problematic Report

Here is the essence of the report , written by EPA scientist Alan Carlin,  that the EPA finds so damning:

Carlin compiled a 98 page report that pointed to some inconvenient facts that call the connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature into doubt, at a time when the President is pushing “urgent” carbon emissions regulation through the Congress. From FOXNews.com:”Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been ‘greatly diminished.’ ”

But hey, on the other side of the ledger you have Al Gore and he has a Nobel prize and an Academy Award, so who are you going to believe?

The global warming threat may be in the process of being debunked but the fiscal threat from the Obama Administration will cause far more damage if we don’t take urgent steps to stop them.

In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring, about which some have credited the beginning of the environmental movement.  It also led to the subsequent ban of DDT in 1972.  DDT was accused of causing cancer and in damaging wildlife, particularly birds by causing eggshells to thin.

Prior to this DDT was believed to be a miracle, and the scientist who discovered it, Dr. Paul Muller, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948.  During WWII, GIs would cover themselves liberally with the substance before heading into the jungles for protection against malaria.  It is also believed that its use eradicated malaria in the U.S. and other developed countries.

Flawed Science

A 1969 study found a higher incidence of tumors in mice that were fed DDT.  Let’s think about that.  A single study found an increase in cancer in mice fed DDT.  However over 20 years of widespread use among humans did not show any increase in the cancer rate among those populations that used them.  Upon closer examination of the study they found that both the subject and control groups had increased levels of tumors. Oops.  It appears that both groups were fed moldy food that contained a carcinogen.  When the test was repeated, neither group had any tumors.

The studies of birds whose eggshells were thin, were also given closer scrutiny.  It was determined that the cause was due to a calcium deficiency, not DDT.  Actually during the period of greatest DDT use in the U.S. many of the bird species under study grew in numbers rather than fell.

Don’t Let Science Stand in the Way of Politics

In 1971, authority for pesticides was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency.  What better way to kick off a new government bureaucracy than some bold action:

“In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that ‘DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. . . . The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.’” — Sweeney EM. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings. 25 April 1972 (40 CFR 164.32)

However, two months later, the new head of the EPA, William Ruckleshaus, instituted the ban on DDT.  This was done without him attending a single hearing on the matter as it was discussed over a seven month period or reading the transcripts.

The Tragic Results

In Ceylon, modern day Sri Lanka, widespread use of DDT cut the number of malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17, that’s right, seventeen in 1963.  Spraying was stopped in 1964 and by 1969 the number of cases had risen again to 2.5 million.

It is estimated that in the last ten years alone the number of deaths worldwide from malaria is over 27 million.

There is an aggressive program today to raise money to buy bed nets to protect children in Africa and other parts of the world where malaria is still rampant.  Billions of dollars are estimated to be needed to buy and deliver these nets.  One of the positive factors about DDT was that it was inexpensive, around seventeen cents per pound.

If only had cooler heads prevailed, and the “science” looked at with a reasonable dose of skepticism, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and malaria, perhaps eradicated.  But when some in the environmental movement latch onto a position it soon moves into the realm of settled or consensus science.

The Next Blunder

So before we drive the world over the next environmental cliff, perhaps it’s time to tune out Al Gore, take a cleansing breath, and take a closer look at the science with clear eyes.  What the global warming, er, global climate change crowd is proposing would cost in the trillions. Let’s ask if what some scientists are saying that global temperature peaked about ten years ago, why is the earth cooling if we continue to pour more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?  Why are we calling carbon dioxide, which is essential to life…we exhale it, trees take it in and give off oxygen…a pollutant?  What if we eradicate the pollutant, carbon dioxide like we did DDT?

Will there be anyone around to count the damage?