McKinley Fights EPA Coal Ash Rule

Cheap energy, at one time, was part of our competitive advantage in manufacturing. Obama promised to make energy prices go up. He definitely kept that promise.

President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations

08/31/11

President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations
McKinley bill will save economy billions, protect jobs

Washington, D.C. – In a response letter from President Obama to Speaker of the House John Boehner, the president acknowledged that his EPA’s proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material is one of the seven most costly regulations his entire administration has proposed. According to a June 2011 Veritas economic report the president’s estimate that the coal ash rule would cost the economy up to $1.5 billion annually is grossly underestimated. The report stated that the EPA’s hazardous designation would cost up to $110 billion over 20 years with estimated job losses ranging from 184,000 to 316,000.

“President Obama admits there is a great cost to Americans because of the EPA’s proposed regulation on coal ash,” McKinley said. “While his estimates are dramatically low, he agrees with those of us who has said this is one of the costliest proposed regulations by the EPA. The question comes down to this: will the president finally make the economy a priority by supporting this jobs bill, or will he forge ahead down a path that even he now acknowledges will cost the economy dearly?”

Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) introduced legislation that would prevent hundreds of dollars in increased electricity costs, stop hundreds of thousands of job losses, and strengthen and protect public health by blocking the EPA’s proposal and instead establish a state-based regulatory framework for coal ash. The bill would tighten the disposal and the management of coal ash and give states the control of the program as well as the ability to work with the EPA to ensure it is handled, stored and monitored properly. This legislation was passed through the full Energy and Commerce committee 35-12, with one-third of the committee’s Democrats crossing over to support it.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Monday that McKinley’s legislation will receive a vote in the full House of Representatives this fall.

###

The Tenth Anniversary of a Heinous Attack. What's Missing?

9/11 is fast approaching. It's hard to believe that ten years have passed since some unidentified group of people did something pretty bad. But we should forget the bad stuff and trade in our SUVs for a hybrid the size of a toaster oven.

Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.

Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?

Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.

All Too Often, Education Stops At the Schoolhouse Doors

Education often finds itself barred from the schoolhouse. Certainly schools have books, computers, teachers, and other modes of transmitting information, but a complete education does not come from these alone. Education comes from discussion and debate of issues, ideas, and values. Schools are certainly okay with expressions of certain kinds of values and love to toss about the word "tolerance." However, tolerance, and education itself, end when the school slams the doors shut on ideas that it will not tolerate.

La Reina High School of Thousand Oaks, California joins the list of schools that have shut their eyes, ears, and minds to the concepts of natural rights, free markets, and other values held dear by Americans for centuries. One of the students at this religious school for girls wanted to open a Young Americans for Freedom club. She met all of the required criteria, but was told that her club was politically biased in nature. YAF clubs are not connected to any political party and only represent ideas long established in American tradition. How shocking that a school would reject a club that would enhance discussions of politics, economics, and society!

Their position on this matter is untenable because of the nature of one of the other clubs on campus. "The Green Team" is a club that promotes "eco-friendly" behavior and raising student awareness of environmental issues. If students want a green club, that should be fine. But let's not pretend that environmentalism is completely non partisan, but discussions of free markets and natural rights are too political.

La Reina High School plays the same old tune. Liberal causes get the welcome mat while those deemed conservative get shut out. It's not that anyone should force this private school to open this or that club. They should feel that it is part of their educational mission to permit these activities.

Michelle Obama or Marie Antoinette? Who Was More Out of Touch?

The American media for the most part has been hammering the president on his lack of, well, almost anything presidential. Comments from former supporters parallel the complaints of Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives in 2008. The president looks overwhelmed, incapable, and out of touch. But his worse public relations problem may be his wife.

First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.

Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.

The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.

Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.