As if the Obama administration wanted to help me make the point I was illustrating in yesterday’s article, a new flurry of regulatory threats are now emanating from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently the government is taking its stance on healthcare very seriously now that they have made themselves a fixture in your health insurance and by virtue of that, a fixture in your health care decisions. In addition to everything we have already heard in the healthcare bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now posturing itself to regulate the amount of salt in your foods. This is changing the focus of the agency from protecting you against tainted or diseased foods and assuming the role of deciding what you should eat because a bureaucrat can now decide it is not good for you.
Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.
Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.
In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.
Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.
In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.
The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.
Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?
If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?
The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.
Paul
Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.
Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.
In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.
Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.
In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.
The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.
Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?
If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?
The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment