All of the Above, Including Coal, Makes the Most Sense

If you follow closely the recent rounds of regulations introduced by the EPA, then Utility MACT is high on your radar to watch.

 

Recently, Senator Inhofe (R – OK) introduced a continuing resolution for review of the EPA Utility MACT in order to stop yet another redundant regulation as the main reason the EPA says this is necessary is already covered under the existing mercury rule.

 

So, if it is already covered why would they introduce this legislation? That’s a good question.

 

As with many other laws in Congress, there are other items in the Utility MACT other than Mercury that will affect not only West Virginia but also virtually every state and its citizens.

 

Utility MACT ensures that all new electric generation be limited to natural gas. Although that might be great for Marcellus Shale and oil and gas exploration, that is a dangerous proposition to put all of our electric source in one basket.

 

As much as natural gas is inexpensive today, as the dependence on one source disproportionality goes in one direction, so does its price – up.

 

Not only will utility rates go up, but with the limitation on coal, and the regressive taxes associated with it also will come closure of Coal Power Plants, such as the John Amos Power Plant in West Virginia.

 

Closure of Coal Power Plants mean loss of coal jobs and shutting down of coal mines, which in turn has tens of thousands of jobs just in WV,  not to mention Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania not only mining the coal but the multiple industries and businesses that support the coal industry.

The ramifications of the Utility MACT are endless as the snow ball continues to roll down hill and get larger and larger so will the utility prices and job losses if it is not repealed.

 

If we want to see the Utility MACT go away, one thing we can do is contact Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and ask him to continue supporting its repeal but also that he reminds his colleagues in the Senate that many of their electric power is originated in WV and everyone will be impacted, not just WV.

Time to Eliminate the Internal Revenue Service

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/18/leftist-group-posts-confidential-irs-information

Nixon used it against his enemies. It currently targets Tea Party groups and apparently cannot keep conservative tax returns private.

The Internal Revenue Service has too much power over the lives of individuals, businesses, and non-profits. It can interpret laws selectively, subjectively, or not at all depending on who they want to go after.

But there is a simple remedy, one that I have kind of resisted in the past. That is to eliminate revenue based taxation entirely and replace it with consumption taxes. This would take a very specific constitutional amendment that wiped away old taxes and set strict limits on new ones.

Consumption based taxation is much less subjective. It does not require sifting through complicated rules and regulations. The federal government can charge x% on every item purchased. No need for audits or selective enforcement on educational non profits.

It is quite obvious that government cannot be trusted with many of the vast powers that it has assumed. Take the IRS off the list of agencies that can ruin our lives and harass us. Go to consumption based taxation.

House of Representatives Fights Indefinite Detention Provisions

The National Defense Authorization Act has returned to the halls of public debate. Some House Republicans seek to amend away powers that enable the executive branch and the military to possibly indefinitely detain US citizens.

Historical and legal precedent are quite clear on the topic of indefinite detention of citizens. British law, from which American law derives its basic principles, placed suspension of habeas corpus (tantamount to indefinite detention) into the hands of the legislative branch. This followed many decades of kings arbitrarily jailing their political opposition, or extortion victims.

The problematic example is the Civil War. At its beginning, Abraham Lincoln unilaterally and illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and was slapped down by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for doing so. Confederate combatants, however, upon capture were held until war's end.

Additionally, at the request of the state of California and against his intelligence team of J. Edgar Hoover and William Donovan, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the indefinite detention of Japanese-America citizens during World War II.

Obama admitted that he signed the bill with reservations, but faced severe criticism from the Left. Forbes magazine quoted Mother Jones and the ACLU in the following:

“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

The NDAA Makes the Status Quo Worse

Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state.

“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

Terrorism is a threat to American security, this is true. But not as threatening as the Japanese or the Confederacy. As the country moves into its second decade since 9/11, there is little justification for these provisions. In fact, they are legally void since they contradict the Constitution’s stance on habeas corpus.

If there is an emergency, Congress can come together quickly and suspend the writ if needed. For now, it needs to eliminate these troublesome phrases from federal law.