Back to Basics

On Thursday, the Senate will vote on S.J. Resolution 26. It is an effort to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating “greenhouse gas emissions” without any legislative accountability. If the vote fails, the EPA will be free to continue its assault on the nation’s economy and every aspect of your personal life.

Here’s what my friend, Dr. Kenneth P. Green, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, had to say about the energy and environment “advisor” to President Barack Obama:

“Carol Browner’s selection as ‘energy coordinator’ (sometimes called energy czar) virtually guarantees that the Obama administration’s energy and environmental policies will be anything but moderate.”

“Her two terms as Environmental Protection Agency boss were marked by adversarialism, punitive enforcement actions, draconian tightening of environmental regulations and the message that business is destructive of the environment and dishonest about the cost of environmental regulations.”

And that was just the nice things he had to say about Browner. It is worth noting that Browner has been the lead spokesman about the BP oil spill for the Obama administration after it became obvious that Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, was generating negative public reaction to his ‘get tough’ approach and there have been few public statements issued by Dr. Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy.

The current administrator of the EPA is Lisa Jackson who learned her trade working under Browner until she was picked to head the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. A Browner acolyte, Jackson has presided over an EPA run amuck.

Jackson will be remembered for leading the EPA fight to get carbon dioxide declared a “pollutant” that can then be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is the same reasoning put forth by the constantly renamed Cap-and-Trade Act that is was a “climate” bill and has now become something else. It is based on the same totally bogus “science” that gave us “global warming” until Mother Nature decided that the Earth should begin to cool about a decade ago.

Last week, just in time for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, Apple decided to ban iSlam Muhammad, an app that featured some rather revealing passages in the Koran. Meanwhile Apple chose to leave in place BibleThumper, an app that attacked the bible. Of course those very same Koranic quotes can be found in the numerous Koran apps created by Muslims. But the double standard doesn’t stop there. Before that Apple had decided to ban a campaign App by California congressional candidate Ari David, which criticized his opponent, Congressman Henry Waxman, for being “defamatory”. But naturally you can find Robert Gibbs’ latest “defamatory” statements on the White House App.

This shouldn’t be particularly surprising as Apple does have Al Gore as one of its board members. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is a Democratic donor who has contributed to Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi. Apple fields one of the largest lobbying efforts among computer companies, spending 1.5 million over the last few years. Not only is Apple not politically neutral, it’s decidedly left of central. And it controls one of the largest mobile platforms. Its ability to censor a political App from Ari David, but not from Barack Obama is a thing that has decided implications for the future of an open marketplace of ideas.

Apple’s Developer License Agreement gives it the power to censor “offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind” or any “other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users.” Apple has been known to disable or “Brick” the iPhones of users who attempt to bypass its control. And now that Apple is aggressively getting into the book and magazine business with its new iPad, the troubling idea that Rahm Emanuel’s donor and Al Gore will be deciding what people can or can’t read takes on new meaning.

So when Apple decided that the following statement in Ari David’s app, “(Waxman) Supported Cap & Trade legislation that would have brought us $7 a gallon gas and as President Obama has stated would make electricity rates “necessarily sky rocket” was defamatory, it was passing judgment on political speech. And determining what political content would be acceptable and what wouldn’t be. Robert Gibbs’ regular put downs will apparently pass. Ari David’s policy oriented criticism of Waxman won’t. Similarly anti-war radical Adam Kokesh’s App was allowed through, even though he’s running as a sham Republican. Or perhaps because of that.

The problem is not limited to just Apple. Facebook responding to the boycotts and death threats coming out of Pakistan, by pulling the Facebook page for Everybody Draw Mohammed, proving that while it may be a useful organizing tool, it is also highly vulnerable to being censored. The same goes for YouTube which has taken down many videos, including Michelle Malkin’s and videos questioning Islamic violence. There are numerous similar examples of political censorship, whether out of fear or bias, no one but those on the inside can even begin to say. The larger problem is that the censorship does indeed exist.

Many of these same companies very badly want the government to step in and protect their business model with Net Neutrality, yet while they believe that the government should compel cable and other broadband providers to give them open access to their customers and data sources, they don’t have any intention of returning that same favor to their users. This inconsistency between actions and demands also makes it impossible to trust them.

If Apple cannot tolerate a campaign App which criticizes a congressman for wanting to make vitamins, over the counter only, what sort of political speech can it tolerate? With something like 30 million iPhone users out there, the question is both timely and troubling. The technology we use today has empowered a New Media, but if large companies such as Apple insist on turning their platforms into gated communities, then the same old struggle has to begin again.

Ayatollahs and Mullahs don’t need to cross out the Bill of Rights and draw the Sharia code of Islamic law over it, if Facebook and YouTube will willingly do it for them. Selective censorship of political speech means that the censors, both the actual censors and those who demand that they do the censoring, control the nature of the speech, closing the door on an open marketplace of ideas, and turning back the clock on the same top down media environment in which we have the right to listen or hit the OFF button.

Yet these same companies which have benefited from an open environment, both that of ideas and free enterprise, might wish to reconsider going down the same dead road that their media predecessors followed. Censorship lock those who censor into an inflexible mode, as by shutting down contradictory ideas, they also kill their own ability to react, adapt and change in response to new information. In essence they destroy the very elements that allowed them to be creative and succeed in the first place.

Most of you who are regular readers of this column are aware that my hardworking editor Dee lives in the UK. Living in a socialist environment has given her a unique perspective on the ills of this failed and failing system. The same system (or worse) that the DeMarxists would see instituted here. Unfortunately for them they have run smack dab into the American people. We do not want your socialism. We will not permit you to take our country and freedoms from us.

What follows is Dee’s reply to a critic of the US, excerpted from a chat forum from the island of Guernsey, a British Crown Dependency off of the coast of France. I thought that it would prove instructional. I love the English people, but they have been so inculcated with leftist dogma and institutionalized welfare that all vestiges of independent thinking outside the socialist envelope is lacking along with the spirit of independence. Dee has taken them on and as a Brit she is in a unique position to tell it the way it is.

Forum post in reply to a critic of the USA, 05/19/10, whynotguernsey.com :

Let’s take your points in turn here. First, socialism. Socialism never has and never will work in any country. It’s been tried many times, always with the same result – financial and social disaster. A free economy is the only tried and trusted system. Ok, you get the propaganda a la Michael Moore and Cuba. Have you seen the everyday hospitals that the ordinary folks get treatment in? Socialism means greater state control and big government which swallows up the hard-earned money of the people through taxes.

It would be great to have a university education without the debt to repay….. uh, but who’s going to pay for it? The government I guess – that means us, the taxpayers. I can’t recall anything in the Bill of Rights about further education being a right given by God. If it was, and health care, then surely the three things that all humans need to survive should be free too? Who can survive without air, food and water? Only one of these is free (at the moment, although the left are trying to change this with cap and tax).

Everyone is aware of the democrats’ bill to take over health care, but there has been little attention given to another government take over – Cap & Trade.

I read some of this massive bill and found hundreds of pages dedicated to dictating what types of light bulbs will be available for use.  Naturally, certain areas would be exempt from these mandates, including Las Vegas and California – I wonder who represents those states!  Not quite understanding what all the fuss was over light bulbs I started speaking with others and was amazed at what I learned.

The new energy efficient light bulbs (CFL’s) contain mercury, which makes them hazardous waste.  Along with this comes special handling when replacing bulbs, disposing of bulbs and if a bulb breaks.  If you do not have recycling options for CFL’s then you will have to seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put them in the outside trash.  I spoke with someone who works for an electric company and he told me that the bulbs cost about $15 each to dispose of.

Beware if you break one of these bulbs, because of the mercury the EPA has issued recommendations for cleanup and disposal.  These recommendations include opening windows, shutting of central heat or air and leaving the room for 15 minutes or more.  All broken pieces need to be scooped up using cardboard and placed in a glass container with a metal lid or sealed plastic bag.  Then use duct tape to pick up any remaining pieces.  If the breakage was on carpet you can vacuum after following the instructions above and then you must remove the vacuum bag and put that in a sealed plastic bag.  If clothing or bedding is affected, they recommend throwing it away because washing the clothing or bedding may contaminate your washing machine and pollute sewage.  This is all because of the mercury in the bulbs.  They also recommend the next several times you vacuum that you shut off the heating or air conditioning and open a window before vacuuming and keep it off for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is complete.

So the bill to “help” the environment and reduce greenhouse gases would mandate that we use hazardous light bulbs that obviously pose a health risk, a contamination problem and a possible pollution problem.

I also discovered the bill will permit government officials to enter your home and evaluate and rate how energy efficient your home is.  The bill requires new buildings to be more energy efficient by 30% by 2012 and 50% more efficient by 2016.  For new construction these new energy guidelines can be included, at an increase cost to the home.  So while the housing industry is already in trouble the government is going to “help” by putting more mandates and controls on the industry.

But, we cannot forget about all the buildings, commercial and housing, already in existence.  They will also have to meet these new standards; otherwise you may not be able to sell your home.  Under these new requirements, a government auditor will be allowed to enter your home and inspect your windows, appliances, air conditioning, furnace and anything else to make sure your house meets these new national building codes.  Not only can they inspect it, but they will be able to mandate that you provide the necessary remedies within a specified amount of time regardless of the cost.  They are going to make funding available to help retrofit these homes in the form of loans, but this funding cannot exceed 50% of the actual costs incurred.

Is this another monster program in the making?  After hearing so much about Cap and Trade on the news, I decided to take a look at the bill.  I was again amazed at the items in this bill.

This bill contains pages upon pages of regulations for light bulbs.  Energy efficiency is great, but do we really need another piece of legislature to dictate what type of light bulbs can be sold, and another government agency to make sure the regulations are followed.  Has the government even attempted to work with the manufacturing companies making these light bulbs to address energy efficient bulbs without legislation?  How about providing consumer information so the customer can make energy efficient choices?  Anyone concerned about the environment would welcome accurate information on the benefits of choosing an energy efficient bulb.  Government legislation isn’t necessary.  I was wondering why so many pages were dedicated just to light bulbs.  I also found it interesting that California and Nevada have exemptions from some of these regulations.  I guess energy efficiency isn’t necessary in those states.

The bill also creates a government owned, tax exempt, corporation – the Clean Energy Deployment Administration – wholly owned by the government.  The Administrator of this new corporation would be appointed by the President, and board members would include various secretaries of the government and 4 additional members appointed by the President.  Where in the constitution does it allow the government to create a government owned corporation?  I am baffled by the number of businesses the government wants to own and that Congress would actually approve these actions.  Does anyone see a problem here?  Why isn’t someone doing an investigation?

The bill actually admits it will put a great number of people out of work.  Because of this, the taxpayers will get the privilege of paying a large percentage of their salaries for the next three years.  In a time of high unemployment, why would you pass a bill that guarantees an increase in the number of unemployed people?  You can’t collect taxes to pay for any government programs if people aren’t working – they have no income to tax!  Does anyone understand economics!

Estimates are that this bill would increase the cost of energy to each household by $175 a month, quite a substantial amount for most Americans.  That is only the direct cost.  Everything will go up in price because as businesses see their operating costs rise, they will pass those expenses on to the consumers in the form of higher prices.  So in a recession, why would you pass legislation to further deepen a recession?  But that seems to be the theme of this administration.

If the government is truly concerned about the environment and greenhouse gas emissions then they would be encouraging everyone to do their part without concern of the potential loss of income to the electric companies or the loss of tax by the government.  This ploy of environmental concern is just another means to increase profits to utility companies and more tax money for the government to waste.

People could do so much more.  There are alternative means of producing energy for homes – like solar power or geothermal systems.  Most people have not incorporated these into their homes because the cost is too high.  Whenever there is an incentive program offered, the companies selling the products (liked solar) increase their prices so the consumer doesn’t see the savings; instead these companies reap the benefits.  Those tactics should be stopped and instead efforts should be made so homes can incorporate alternative energy sources.  If the environment is the concern, then the reduction of use from power companies should not be a negative deciding factor.  Homeowner’s associations should not be able to restrict energy saving devises like solar power either.

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker

Lost in the ongoing debate over health care reform was a recent decision by Senate Democrats to delay yet again the introduction of their so-called cap-and-trade legislation. The decision, announced earlier this month by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is a sign that this misguided legislation has not gained the momentum Democrat leaders had hoped.

In reaction to the announcement, the Wall Street Journal said: “The latest delay is probably a submission to reality, which is a rare thing in the current political environment — and a major victory for the U.S. economy, at least for now.” I agree completely. Considering the blow cap-and-trade legislation would have on family budgets, the nation’s economic recovery, and our long-term competitiveness, the news of the bill’s delay was a welcome development.

The Carbon Tax

The House of Representatives narrowly approved cap-and-trade legislation in June. The legislation would ostensibly curb global warming by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. In order to achieve this, companies that emit carbon dioxide — such as power plants, petroleum refiners, and manufacturers — would be forced to purchase allowances from the federal government for each ton of carbon dioxide emissions they produce.

The cost of these allowances would in effect be a massive tax levied on energy producers, manufacturers and other companies across our economy. This massive new tax would not simply be absorbed by the companies. It would be passed along to consumers by way of higher energy prices. This is not just my prediction. As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Obama admitted: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Since energy is used to make and provide other goods and services, Americans would see higher prices across the board.  In writing recently about cap-and-trade, Patrick Fleenor, the chief economist at the Tax Foundation, said that “other effects will be less obvious. Food prices will rise because energy is used extensively in the production and transportation of agriculture products.” In fact, during testimony before Congress, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it was unlikely any consumer product’s price would remain the same under a cap-and-trade program.

Mississippi Impact

A recent study released by the Heritage Foundation provides a window into how a cap-and-trade system would negatively impact Mississippians. The group found that by 2035, Mississippi’s gross state product would be reduced by $3.4 billion if the House-passed cap-and-trade bill became law. Energy prices for everyone in the state would rise. By 2035, the study stated electricity prices would increase by more than $1,000 per household, and Mississippians would pay $1.27 more for a gallon of gasoline.

Cap-and-trade would also severely impact agriculture, our state’s largest employer. Under a cap-and-trade system, the American Farm Bureau Federation reported input costs for agriculture would rise by $5 billion. A recent report by the University of Missouri-Columbia found that under cap-and-trade, a typical corn, soybean, and wheat farm in that state could see increased costs of $11,649 in 2015 and $30,152 in 2050. Results anywhere close to this in Mississippi would be disastrous for the nearly 30 percent of workers in our state employed directly or indirectly by agriculture.

Wrong Direction

Our economy still has a long way to go before fully recovering.  Unemployment has jumped to a 26-year high of 9.7 percent. The last thing our economy needs is for Congress to implement a massive new energy tax that will trickle down and negatively affect every facet of our economy. That is exactly what a cap-and-trade program would do.  Such a scheme is wrong for our country, and I will continue working to ensure its defeat.