Obama’s EPA Cut-Off From the National Energy Tax Buffet
Democrats’ Endless Appetite for a Job-Destroying National Energy Tax Meets Resistance from House GOP
On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill to prevent the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from imposing a job-destroying backdoor national energy tax:
“Get a load of this. Some Members of Congress actually think that Congress should have a say in whether or not the government regulates carbon. Some of them even want to have a debate about it first. Don’t these yahoos understand that democratic consent doesn’t apply to the Environmental Protection Agency?
“Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began debating a bill that would prohibit the EPA from abusing the clean air laws of the 1970s to impose the climate regulations that Congress has refused to pass despite President Obama’s entreaties…
“The bill, which the committee will likely approve today and the House will likely pass later this spring, would restore the plain regulatory meaning that ‘pollutant’ held for decades until the EPA decided in 2009 that all of a sudden it also applied to carbon.” (Editorial Board, “Carbon and Democracy,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/15/2011)
HOUSE COMMITTEE APPROVES MEASURE TO PROHIBIT EPA’S BACKDOOR NATIONAL ENERGY TAX: Final Vote on H.R. 910: 34-19 (“House Energy and Commerce Committee Markup,” Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/2011)
House Democrats first tried to enact a national energy tax during the 111thCongress through their cap-and-trade bill, but after this effort died in the Senate, the Obama White House decided to force the issue through the auspices of the EPA:
“After months of trying to pass a greenhouse gas regulation bill, Congress may finally see some action. To the greens’ chagrin, though, the bills being considered would limit, not expand, the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority…
“This represents a sharp turn from earlier this year, when top Democrats argued they were on the cusp of passing broad cap-and-trade regulations. Not only has that effort stalled, but it seems to have boosted efforts to pass counterlegislation to stop the EPA from adopting regulations on its own.” (Sean Higgins, “Climate Shift: Republicans, Some Dems Push Legislation to Curb EPA Authority,”Investor’s Business Daily, 9/21/2010)
211 DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR CAP-AND-TRADE NATIONAL ENERGY TAX: Final Vote: 219-212 (Roll Cal Vote 477, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 6/26/2009)
Evidence grows daily that this massive tax on energy will eliminate hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Traditionally Democratic labor unions joined with Republicans earlier this week to criticize the EPA’s job-destroying regulatory rampage:
“The Obama administration’s environmental agenda, long a target of American business, is beginning to take fire from some of the Democratic Party’s most reliable supporters: Labor unions.
“Several unions with strong influence in key states are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency soften new regulations aimed at pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Their contention: Roughly half a dozen rules expected to roll out within the next two years could put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and damage the party’s 2012 election prospects…
“The EPA rule stirring the most anxiety will be proposed this week…An analysis by the miners’ union says the proposal, along with others targeting coal-related pollution, could put at risk as many as 250,000 jobs. Many of those would come from the utility, mining and railroad sectors, with the heaviest impact falling on Rust Belt states that have many old coal plants—and electoral votes.” (Stephen Power, “EPA Tangles With New Critic: Labor,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/14/2011)
The estimates from organized labor mesh with earlier predictions from industry and business groups that the new EPA rules would prove devastating to the American economy:
“EPA rules were cited more than those from any other agency in more than 100 letters sent by trade associations, businesses and some conservative groups to House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) in response to his call for businesses to identify regulations they deemed burdensome, according to documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal…
“The EPA’s rules to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were cited as an impediment to growth by at least 30 organizations writing to Mr. Issa, including representatives of the agriculture, business, chemicals, energy, paper, manufacturing and steel and iron sectors.
“Groups complained about dozens of other proposed and existing EPA regulations in letters viewed by the Journal, including the agency’s plans to tighten limits on emissions of some pollutants from industrial boilers, ground-level ozone, mountain-top mining, cooling water intake structures, the level of nutrients in Florida waters, and pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay.
“‘The problem is not simply that EPA is issuing a lot of regulations. Rather, it is that it has significantly increased the number of major rules,’ wrote William Kovacs, vice president of regulatory affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.”(Louise Radnofsky, “Business Groups’ Target: EPA, The Wall Street Journal, 2/7/2011)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS:
“The NAM’s overriding concern with the proposal [for EPA ground-level ozone regulations] is that the high compliance costs associated with the more stringent ozone standard will hinder manufacturers’ ability to add jobs and hurt our global competitiveness. One study estimated 60 ppb would result in the loss of 7.3 million jobs by 2020 and add $1.1 trillion in new regulatory costs per year between 2020 and 2030.” (Jay Timmons, National Association of Manufacturers, Letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, 1/7/2011)
AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE: “There are a number of regulations from both EPA and OSHA, that if not implemented correctly and appropriately,could limit the steel industry’s global competitiveness, investment, and job growth in coming years.” (Thomas J. Gibson, American Iron and Steel Institute, Letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, 1/10/2011)
Even as the White House has pledged its commitment to review “obsolete” regulations, it has asserted its commitment to defend its ongoing regulatory onslaught, including the new EPA rules. As House Republicans vote to rein in the EPA, will Democrats stand by or will they work with Republicans to stop burdensome regulations and protect American jobs?:
“But the Obama administration has so far defended the EPA’s efforts to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which business groups fear could ultimately require costly new technology for power plants, factories, refineries and drive up energy costs for all businesses.
“The White House has said its review will focus on older regulations which could be obsolete because of changes in behavior or technology, not its own greenhouse gas proposals.
“‘While all significant regulations are subject to this process, it would stand to reason that any regulations promulgated by this administration are current and already reflect the principles outlined by the president,’ said Meg Reilly, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget.” (Louise Radnofsky, “Business Groups’ Target: EPA, The Wall Street Journal, 2/7/2011)