THE INTERNET TAX MORATORIUM EXPIRATION

COUNTDOWN

Tell the Senate
to Make the
Moratorium
Permanent.
Click Here to Sign the Petition Before It's Too Late.
00
DAYS
00
HOURS
00
MINUTES
00
SECONDS

Tom Fletcher

EPA Hands Over Lisa Jackson E-mails


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Tuesday, January 15th, 2013, 1:27 PM PERMALINK


Anyone hoping for insight into the Lisa Jackson a.k.a. Richard Windsor EPA e-mail scandal will be sorely disappointed, thanks to the stonewalling nature of the EPA. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who discovered the secondary, fake e-mail account, filed a Freedom of Information request on May 8th, 2012 to see where the paper trail went. After wrangling with the EPA for nearly 8 months, the agency finally delivered the e-mails but there was a problem, the e-mails. After receiving the emails Horner said:               

“In short, this response is deeply troubling and seems to have gravely compounded the unlawful activity we have exposed involving a false identity assumed for federal recordkeeping purposes. Problems begin with the cover letter, which states not the promised (to the court) first delivery of ‘approximately 3,000’ but ‘more than 2,100 emails received or sent by Jackson, on what EPA insists is her one non-public account.”   

Not only did the EPA just send two thirds of the e-mails required, they also continue to deny any improper or illegal behavior on their or Lisa Jackson’s part. Unfortunately, the limited information they have disclosed only raises more questions of Jackson and the EPA. Chris Horner stated:

“Perhaps seeking to take the air out of a growing scandal, EPA defective compilations boasts an impressively anemic content-to-volume ratio. It starts with Washington Post daily news briefs, then follows with Google alerts for “Lisa Jackson EPA” (none for” Richard Windsor”). Then EPA HQ national news clips. And so on. Rope a dope Clever. Maybe too much so.”

The secondary email remains the focus of Horner and CEI’s prob but according to the EPA, “Windsor was just another secondary account.”  This is a problematic stance.

“Staking out the position Jackson used only one secondary account signals the agency has gone to bunker. Rather than search or produce from the Richard Windsor account, it is more likely the agency intends to in essence pretend it does not exist. Count as wasted that week EPA spent with all the muttering to the contrary about its origin being a combination of her pet’s name and the town in which she once lived.”

As long as the EPA continues to obstruct Mr. Horner and CEI, answers will remain few and far between. For a government agency to flout the law and not cooperate with a legitimate inquiry is a disgrace in and of itself. Their behavior at this juncture is just the tip of the iceberg.  
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Farewell to Lisa Jackson a.k.a. Richard Windsor


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Thursday, January 3rd, 2013, 9:43 AM PERMALINK


Lisa Jackson’s tenure at the EPA could most aptly be characterized as catastrophic.  Over the course of President Obama’s first term, Lisa Jackson oversaw and directed policies that were hostile to job creators and burdensome to millions of Americans. Whether it was trying to ban hydraulic fracturing, closing coal plants, or increasing the average American’s electricity bill, Jackson seemed to leave no stone unturned in her quest to make the EPA the chief decision maker of American energy, environmental and economic policy. Writing in the Washington Times, Steve Goreham remarked:

For four years she [Jackson] led our nation down a regulatory path of economic destruction unmatched in the 40-year history of the EPA. New regulations from Ms. Jackson’s reign of terror impact power plants, industrial plants, refineries, and vehicles, as well as the cost of almost all goods and services. Unless her policies are rolled back, Americans will pay for decades with higher energy prices, job losses, and economic stagnation in exchange for negligible environmental benefits.

Before the Presidential election in November, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), released a report detailing numerous post-election regulations planned by the EPA. His report exposes the EPA’s intent to force hundreds of billions of dollars in new regulations unto the American people at the expense of thousands of American jobs.  While Lisa Jackson will not be able to see her brainchild mature as she departs the EPA, most Americans unfortunately will. The EPA needs reforming, not empowering. Lisa Jackson leaving is hopefully a modest step in the right direction.   
 
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Sen. Inhofe: Don't Raise Taxes


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Thursday, November 29th, 2012, 3:51 PM PERMALINK


Senator Inhofe defends the Taxpayer Protection Pledge on Fox and Friends and lists numerous ways to rein in Obama's overspending.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Just Say No to a Carbon Tax


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Thursday, November 29th, 2012, 3:00 PM PERMALINK


In an attempt to head off a possible carbon tax, Senator David Vitter (R-La.) and Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) plan to introduce a resolution in the House and Senate expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the economic interest of the U.S.

The forthcoming Vitter-Pompeo resolution is necessitated by increased calls – from traditionally conservative organizations and liberal interests – to implement a carbon tax.

Senator Vitter has stated, “there’s a lot of talk in Washington about raising taxes, and finding ‘revenues’ in creative ways, to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, but a carbon tax – which would force more financial hardship upon family budgets, energy consumers and job seekers – needs to be completely taken off the table. Our resolution would enshrine that.”   

Congressman Pompeo was equally adamant in that “the concurrent resolution states that a carbon tax, which would increase the cost of manufactured goods and harm America’s manufacturing sector, is regressive in nature and would unfairly burden those vulnerable individuals and families in the U.S. who are struggling under a stagnating economy.”

A carbon tax would undoubtedly cripple the already struggling American economy and be a boon to proponents of Big Government.
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Heritage Panel Discussion on Wind Energy Tax Credit


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Wednesday, November 28th, 2012, 1:48 PM PERMALINK


The Heritage Foundation assembled a panel of experts to talk about the Wind Energy Tax Credit, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Participating in the discussion were Dr. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, David C. Brown, Senior Vice President Exelon Corporation, and Dr. David W. Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.  Part of the wide ranging discussion included the financial and economic implications of the tax credit in its current form as well the efficiency and science of wind energy. The panel agreed that the wind energy tax credit should expire but also that there is a future for wind energy in the market place.

                       Top Myths Surrounding Wind Energy Subsidies as told by Dr. David Kreutzer

Myth: Need to subsidize wind to stay competitive with international countries
Fact: Germany and Spain, the so-called models of wind energy, have cut their wind subsidies because of cost and because they had trouble integrating it as renewable power.

Myth: Stimulates Economy and Creates Jobs
Fact: You don’t subsidize something whose economic output is less than the value of its input. If the output is greater than the input, you don’t need to subsidize it.
 

Myth: Running Out of Fossil Fuels and Need Energy Security
Fact:  Oil and Electricity are not related in the United States. Wind generates electricity but doesn’t substitute for petroleum. The United States is not running out of fossil fuels

Myth: Wind Energy is Cheap
Fact: If wind is so competitive you don’t need to subsidize it.

Myth: Businesses Need Certainty
Fact: The subsidy ends on December 31st, 2012.  
 

Heritage Panel Discussion Video: http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/11/wind

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


EPA Regulation of the Day: 316 (b) Cooling Towers Rule


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012, 10:22 AM PERMALINK


Quote of the Day:
“Somehow we have to have to figure how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”- Energy Secretary Steven Chu

Regulatory cap-and-trade
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.

A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen EPA regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be reelected.

Every single day until November 6, ATR will highlight a pending EPA regulation.

316 (b) Cooling Towers Rule: $384-$460 million

From the Inhofe Report:

EPA is planning to require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power plants under the Clean Water Act. EPA’s own estimates put the draft rule costs between$384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17 million – a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1. As the Washington Guardian noted about the delay, “In its latest election-year delay of regulations, the Obama administration said Tuesday it will defer until next year acting on a Clean Water Act rule that could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths. The postponement by the Environmental Protection Agency was not unexpected, with the agency having only recently completed a public comment period on its latest data. Still, the move to add another 11 months to the rulemaking marks the latest step by the administration to delay potentially controversial environmental rules until after the November election.”

Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?

Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn one of the EPA’s most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted “Yes,” they wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted “Nay,” they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


EPA Regulation of the Day: Stormwater Regulation


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Monday, November 5th, 2012, 11:45 AM PERMALINK


Quote of the Day: “Fundamentally we need the large emitters which is power plants, manufacturing, and the transportation sector to make a really substantial shirt away from fossil fuels.”- EPA Region 2 Administrator Juduth Enck

Regulatory cap-and-trade
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.

A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen EPA regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be re-elected.


Every single day until November 6, ATR will highlight a pending EPA regulation

Stormwater Regulation: $700-$865 million annually

From the Inhofe Report:

In 2009, EPA announced, as part of the Chesapeake Bay Settlement Agreement, that the agency would propose new nationwide stormwater rules by September 2010 with final action by November 2012. EPA’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to expand the universe of federally regulated stormwater; establish a first time standard for post-construction stormwater runoff; require first time retrofit requirements on stormwater systems – which could include mandates on cities to change existing buildings, stormwater sewers, and streets; and mandate the use of “green infrastructure” techniques (like “green roofs,” rain gardens, permeable pavement) to replace conventional stormwater management practices. All this will put enormous cost burdens on states and municipalities and on anyone who owns property or wants to develop property. If the final rule does everything EPA has proposed, it could be the most expensive rule in EPA history. According to EPA’s website, the proposal has been punted until June 2013 and the final rule is due in December 2014.
 

Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?
Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn one of the EPA’s most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted “Yes,” they wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted “Nay,” they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.  
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform


EPA Regulation of the Day: Boiler MACT Rule


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Friday, November 2nd, 2012, 10:20 AM PERMALINK


Quote of the Day:
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”- President Obama

Regulatory cap-and-trade
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.

A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen EPA regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be reelected.
 
Every single day until November 6, ATR will highlight a pending EPA regulation.

Boiler MACT Rule: $1.2 Billion

From the Inhofe Report:
            
           EPA’s Boiler MACT standards are so strict that not even the best performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas. The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs. Because of bipartisan Congressional opposition to the standards, the agency is now reconsidering certain aspects of the rule. In what can only be seen as another politically calculated move, the new rule is now being held by the White House, presumably until after the election. Not only is this creating uncertainty among the regulated community, it is also fueling speculation that very few changes have been made to the rule and that the White House would prefer that it not be made public until after the election.
 

Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?
Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn one of the EPA’s most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted “Yes,” they wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted “Nay,” they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


EPA Regulation of the Day: Coal Ash


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Thursday, November 1st, 2012, 10:10 AM PERMALINK


Quote of the Day:
“If anyone wants to build a coal fired plant they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them”- President Obama

Regulatory cap-and-trade
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.

A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen EPA regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be reelected
.

Every single day until November 6, ATR will highlight a pending EPA regulation

Coal Ash: $79-$110 billion

From the Inhofe Report:

            EPA’s proposed coal ash rule could cost $79 to $110 billion over 20 years, destroying 183,900 to 316,000 jobs; this will have disastrous impacts in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Missouri. As the Charleston Gazette reported, “Despite initial tough talk on the issue, Jackson issued a regulatory proposal that did not settle on a particular strategy.” Politico also noted, EPA is “sitting on proposed regulations to declare coal ash to be a hazardous substance…Administrator Lisa Jackson has said the agency will issue a final coal ash rule by the end of the year, but environmentalists and coal ash recyclers aren’t convinced.”

The President and EPA have made their disdain for coal – a resource hailed for its efficiency and reliability— abundantly clear. Attacking the coal industry will not only costs jobs but hurt ordinary Americans struggling to pay their electricity bills affordable energy.
 

Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?
Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn one of the EPA’s most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted “Yes,” they wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted “Nay,” they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.  
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform


EPA Regulation of the Day: Hydraulic Fracturing


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Wednesday, October 31st, 2012, 12:16 PM PERMALINK


Quote of the Day:
“I have the view, that the issue of fracking is the Achilles heel for our natural gas industry.”- Sectretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

Regulatory cap-and-trade
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.

A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be re-elected.

Every single day until November 6, ATR will highlight a pending EPA regulation.
 

Hydraulic Fracturing: 1.449 billion to 1.615 billion annually

From the Inhofe Report:

Today the Obama administration – through no less than fourteen federal agencies,
including the EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – is currently working to find ways to regulate hydraulic fracturing at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether. In order to curtail hydraulic fracturing on public lands, BLM, under Secretary Salazar’s control, will be finalizing new regulations sometime after the election, which will have serious impacts on domestic energy production. According to one study, “The total aggregate cost for new permits and well workovers resulting from this rule would range from $1.499 billion to $1.615 billion annually. This is a conservative estimate of the delays and costs associated with the proposed rule which equates to about $253,800 per well, and $233,100 per re-fracture stimulation.” The Obama Administration’s anti-hydraulic fracturing agenda doesn’t stop there. In the months following the election, we can expect the EPA alone to: issue guidance for the usage of diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing, which will strip states of the primacy granted to them through the Safe Drinking Water Act; complete a study – highly criticized and unsupported by multiple state and federal agencies – desperately attempting to link hydraulic fracturing to water contamination in Pavillion, WY; answer countless petitions filed by radical environmental organizations potentially leading to the back-door regulation of hydraulic fracturing through the Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Clean Air Act; and potentially introduce Effluent Limitations Guidelines for both shale gas extraction and coalbed methane.

Natural gas is already regulated on the state and federal level – tens of thousands of wells have been drilled over the past decades. Further regulating an accountable industry will only result in slower growth and energy development.

Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?
Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn on the EPA’s most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted “Yes.” They wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted “Nay,” they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.  
 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Pages

hidden