EPA Corruption and
Scandal
The EPA and Ms. Lisa Jackson, its chief, have
committed extensive violations of law that should receive in-depth scrutiny
from Congress, law enforcement and the American people. Yes the Obama
administration has yet another serious scandal on their hands. The scandal
features a fantasy administrator, 'Richard Windsor', and 'his' email
account. The account was
established and used by Ms. Jackson to camouflage controversial EPA processes,
discussions, decisions and accountability. To date the known evidence suggests
violations of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), mail and wire fraud laws. Additionally it
surfaces another example of the Obama administration's epidemic
chicanery with the law, Congress and
the Constitution and another failure to keep faith with the American people.
Upon closer inspection the EPA like the GSA and other Obama administration agencies,
demonstrates a lack of managerial/administrative control. It also exhibited a
culture of obfuscation, malfeasance and corruption that did not blossom
overnight. And like other Obama scandals, the mainstream media has again
decided to cover it with their much practiced three monkey act.
For perspective a little recent history is in
order. Lisa Jackson, who is departing the EPA, stated in November of 2011 that,
"...What EPA's role is
to do is to level the playing field so that pollution costs are not exported to
the population but rather companies have to look at pollution potential of any
fuel or any process or any plant or utility when their making investment
decisions."
Simply translated Ms. Jackson makes clear that
her job and the EPA's are to hurt companies/industries that produce energy
counter to the wishes of the Obama administration (and the left's agenda). Ms.
Jackson also demonstrates a very low economic IQ, since higher costs incurred
by energy companies will be passed to end users/consumers.
Coupling her statement with President Obama's pronouncement of a year ago, i.e. "Where Congress is not
willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves"... exposes
his strategy to "legislate" by regulation and executive order (with
Jackson and the heads of other agencies helping). Although Obama indicated it
would be "nice" to work with Congress, his intentions are to evade
the two centuries-old legislative process of the Constitution and impose his
will on all Americans. The EPA under Jackson has become a key bludgeon in this
political and ideological power grab and has used illegal methods in the
effort.
President Obama's inaugural
speech noted the environment may
receive emphasis during his second term. Obama opined that Americans have an
obligation to posterity to "respond to the threat of climate change,
knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations".
Obama immediately followed with a pitch for sustainable energy, e.g. wind,
solar and bio (and more crony capitalism?). Remember this is the man that
promoted cap and trade legislation early in his initial term when the economy
was "nearing
a depression."
An administration's ability
to regulate in the
extreme and by executive action has evolved slowly over the past 70 years,
gaining momentum after the Reagan years. The Congress and our courts have ceded
appreciable power to the Executive branch and government agencies by enacting
laws with little oversight and that rely heavily on internal agency inspectors
such as the EPA's Inspector General. Further the courts have exhibited
discomfort in reining in other government branches unless egregious actions are
uncovered. The Supreme Court's twisted logic/argument to find ObamaCare
constitutional demonstrates the discomfort.
Now due to a whistleblower and the Competitive
Enterprise Institute and Christopher
Horner's investigative work a
federal court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) has ruled that the
EPA must turn over 12,000 "Richard Windsor" emails in four 3,000
email batches. The first group of emails released totaled a mere 2,100 and not
one was from "Richard
Windsor." In a cover letter
Ms. Jackson insisted that she only used one government account for EPA business
even though this directly
contradicted her
earlier admission that she used "Richard Windsor" for internal EPA
discussions. The release makes clear that the EPA and Jackson have taken to the
foxholes and a full denial/stonewalling mode is now in effect. Thus the
Competitive Enterprise Institute has brought another action against the EPA in
the Appeals Court to force immediate release.
Remember, the EPA has an impact on every
American with a tsunami of regulation that is both costly and arguably
infringing on our constitutional rights. Moreover the agency has presided
over an attempt to bankrupt the
coal industry, close coal burning plants, and drive up to cost of motor fuels
-- negatively impacting job creation, the economic recovery and America's
energy security. The estimated costs of EPA regulations range from $353 billion
(Competitive Enterprise Institute) to $460 billion (The American Action Forum)
and are growing like a malignant cancer. These costs
represent from 20% to 26% of the
total cost of US regulations, estimated at $1.75 trillion, and are cited in a
World Economic Forum report as a key reason for a sluggish recovery and
daunting unemployment. For comparison, these costs are appreciably higher than
Health and Human Services regulatory costs estimated at $184.8 billion (the 2nd
highest).
The EPA under Jackson's ideological direction
has taken a leadership position in exploding these costs. EPA costs have
essentially four components; direct, myriad enforcement costs, permit action
reviews and other non-rule making costs. Yet the EPA in its cost-benefit analyses insists that the benefits
of its actions are at
worst three dollars in benefits to one in costs. President Obama has stated on
the stump that some regulations show returns of benefits to costs at a ratio of
25 to 1. The EPA's analyses essentially only deal with direct costs; not the
others noted. Moreover many of the assumptions used in the analyses are
ludicrous and defy common sense (see). Credible sources outside of government
emphatically disagree and posit that the EPA almost always under estimates
costs and dramatically over estimates benefits...with the true net seldom being
a positive.
Recently the EPA
has ruled -- without that power
being granted by Congress -- that automobile maker fleet mileage standards must
rise to 54 miles per gallon (adding costs per vehicle of $2,100 to
$3,000)...that run-off rain water is a pollutant (vacated by the D.C. Federal
Appeals Court)...that lands could not be sold if certain wastes were present
theoretically to prevent 0.59 cancer cases per year (about 3 cases every 5
years)costing $194 to $219 million annually.
Further "sue
and settle", a scam,
has become a common tool of the EPA's to impose oppressive mandates on targeted
businesses with incalculable costs. To implement the scam, the EPA has an
environmental or advocacy group file a suit claiming the federal government has
failed to satisfy some EPA regulatory requirement. The EPA can choose to defend
itself or settle the suit. The "solution" is to put in place a
"court ordered regulation" requested by the advocacy group...neat,
relatively fast and illegal.
But more shockingly the
EPA doles out hundreds
of millions of dollars every year to certain organizations. The funds are
awarded with no notice, accountability or competition according to the Government
Accountability Office. The monies almost always go to favored entities that in
some instances have used the funds for non-environmental purposes.
In sum the EPA, in particular, has severely
reduced our nation's competitiveness as measured by the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. The index places the U.S. behind nations like
Chile and Denmark and in tenth place worldwide.
The EPA's record of sleaziness, its disregard
for transparency, its lack of basic integrity, its fraudulent estimation of
costs/benefits and now its attempt to defy and evade a Federal Court order (and
by extension FOIA, mail and wire fraud laws) combines both inbred corruption
and serious scandal. Together these faults suggest that it may
be time to dismantle the
agency.
Other federal agencies, not just the EPA, have
exhibited this general penchant for ignoring Congress, the courts, the law and
the American people. This systemic and widespread disregard suggests the
approval of a higher governmental authority...the office of the President.
No comments:
Post a Comment