Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 207

Thread: The Overbearing EPA

  1. #161
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    More nudging...


    EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

    January 29, 2014

    It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80 percent of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.

    While EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit. To put this amount in context, EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.

    Most wood stoves that warm cabin and home residents from coast-to-coast can’t meet that standard. Older stoves that don’t cannot be traded in for updated types, but instead must be rendered inoperable, destroyed, or recycled as scrap metal.

    The impacts of EPA’s ruling will affect many families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 survey statistics, 2.4 million American housing units (12 percent of all homes) burned wood as their primary heating fuel, compared with 7 percent that depended upon fuel oil.

    Local governments in some states have gone even further than EPA, not only banning the sale of noncompliant stoves, but even their use as fireplaces. As a result, owners face fines for infractions. Puget Sound, Washington is one such location. Montréal, Canada proposes to eliminate all fireplaces within its city limits.

    Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earth Justice.

    Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish.

    “Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.

    And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.

    In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending EPA in court between 1998 and 2010. This didn’t include money spent by EPA for their legal costs in connection with those rip-offs because EPA doesn’t keep track of their attorney’s time on a case-by-case basis.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has concluded that Sue and Settle rulemaking is responsible for many of EPA’s “most controversial, economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years”. Included are regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries. Such consent decree-based rulemaking enables EPA to argue to Congress: “The court made us do it.”

    Directing special attention to these congressional end run practices, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has launched an investigation. Last year he asked his Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to join with AGs of 13 other states who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking all correspondence between EPA and a list of 80 environmental, labor union and public interest organizations that have been party to litigation since the start of the Obama administration.

    Other concerned and impacted parties have little influence over such court procedures and decisions. While the environmental group is given a seat at the table, outsiders who are most impacted are excluded, with no opportunity to object to the settlements. No public notice about the settlement is released until the agreement is filed in court…after the damage has been done.

    In a letter to Caldwell, Senator Vitter wrote: “The collusion between federal bureaucrats and the organizations entering consent agreements under a shroud of secrecy represents the antithesis of a transparent government, and your participation in the FOIA request will help Louisianans understand the process by which these settlements were reached.”

    Fewer citizens would challenge EPA’s regulatory determinations were it not for its lack of accountability and transparency in accomplishing through a renegade pattern of actions what they cannot achieve through democratic legislative processes.

    A recent example sets unachievable CO2 emission limits for new power plants. As I reported in my January 14 column, a group within EPA’s own Science Advisory Board (SAB) determined that the studies upon which that regulation was based had never been responsibly peer reviewed, and that there was no evidence that those limits can be accomplished using available technology.

    Compared with huge consequences of EPA’s regulatory war on coal, the fuel source that provides more than 40 percent of America’s electricity, a clamp-down on humble residential wood-burning stoves and future water heaters may seem to many people as a merely a trifling or inconsequential matter. That is, unless it happens to significantly affect your personal life.

    As a Washington Times editorial emphasized, the ban is of great concern to many families in cold remote off-grid locations. It noted, for example, that “Alaska’s 663,000 square miles is mostly forestland, offering residents and abundant source of affordable firewood. When county officials floated a plan to regulate the burning of wood, residents were understandably inflamed.”

    Quoting Representative Tammie Wilson speaking to the Associated Press, the Times reported: “Everyone wants clean air. We just want to make sure that we can also heat our homes” Wilson continued: “Rather than fret over EPA’s computer – model – based warning about the dangers of inhaling soot from wood smoke, residents have more pressing concerns on their minds as the immediate risk of freezing when the mercury plunges.”

    And speaking of theoretical computer model-based warnings, where’s that global warming when we really need it?

  2. #162
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    Its going to have consequences for the EPA and the rest of the government.

    Wait until the revolt.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  3. #163
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA


    Wyoming Welder Faces $75,000 A Day In EPA Fines For Building Pond On His Property

    March 14, 2014

    All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.

    But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

    “I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”

    But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.

    The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.

    The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

    “Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

    But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines.

    Johnson plans to fight. “This goes a lot further than a pond,” he said. “It’s about a person’s rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules.”

    Johnson says he was “bombarded by hopelessness” when he first received the administrative order from the EPA. He then turned to state lawmakers who fast-tracked his pleas to Wyoming’s two U.S. senators, John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

    The Republican lawmakers sent a March 12 letter to Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s acting assistant administration for water, saying they were “troubled” by Johnson’s case and demanding the EPA withdraw the compliance order.

    “Rather than a sober administration of the Clean Water Act, the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy,” the letter states.

    The EPA order on Jan. 30 gave Johnson 30 days to hire a consultant and have him or her assess the impact of the supposed unauthorized discharges. The report was also supposed to include a restoration proposal to be approved by the EPA as well as contain a schedule requiring all work be completed within 60 days of the plan's approval.

    If Johnson doesn’t comply -- and he hasn't so far -- he’s subject to $37,500 per day in civil penalties as well as another $37,500 per day in fines for statutory violations.

    The senators' letter questioned the argument that Johnson built a dam and not a stock pond.

    “Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption,” they wrote. “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”

    The EPA told FoxNews.com that it is reviewing the senators' letter. "We will carefully evaluate any additional information received, and all of the facts regarding this case," a spokeswoman for the agency said.

    The authority of the EPA has recently been called into question over proposed rule changes that would redefine what bodies of water the government agency will oversee under the Clean Water Act.

    The proposed changes would give the agency a say in ponds, lakes, wetlands and any stream -- natural or manmade -- that would have an effect on downstream navigable waters on both public land and private property. “If the compliance order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country,” the letter states.

    For now, the matter remains unresolved. Johnson says he’s not budging and there’s been no indication from the EPA they will withdraw the compliance order.

    Regardless of the outcome, Johnson says his legal fight with the government agency is a teachable moment for his kids

    “This is showing them that they shouldn’t back down,” Johnson said. “If you need to stand up and fight, you do it.”

  4. #164
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA


    USA Brass Ammunition Company Raided by Obama's EPA - Alleges "Environmental Violations"

    March 29, 2014

    Environmental Protection Agency and FBI agents raided the ammunition company USA Brass over alleged “environmental violations” early Thursday morning.

    NBC Montana was tipped off by witnesses that federal investigators were there until at least 4 a.m. on Thursday. Federal agents could be seen going through the company’s building and taking items to a truck parked outside. EPA lead criminal investigator Bert Marsden said that the agency was looking into alleged “environmental violations” by USA Brass.

    “We are investigating alleged violations of environmental law,” Marsden said on Thursday. “An investigation takes as long as it takes, and I can’t provide any details as it relates to that.”

    “I can make a statement that there is no immediate threat to the public or the community at this time,” said Marsden.

    It’s unclear exactly what the environmental violations were, but USA Brass has come under fire from federal agencies before for lead exposure. USA Brass cleans and resells used ammunition casings, and NBC Montana reports that local health officials found elevated levels of lead in the blood of 22 current and former employees.

    Last September, the company was fined more than $45,000 by the U.S. Labor Department for 10 serious violations. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also found that USA Brass has overexposed workers to lead and failed to “provide basic safeguards to reduce lead exposure, including breathing protection and protective clothing,” reports NBC Montana.

    “The toxic effects of occupational exposure to lead have been well known for a long time, but this employer did not have basic safeguards to protect workers against this hazard,” Jeff Funke, OSHA’s area director in Billings, said last September.

    It’s still unclear whether or not EPA and FBI agents were also looking into lead exposure issues. An OSHA inspection in March actually found that the company complied with federal requirements for several months, apparently learning from its mistake last year.


    The company said it would reopen on Friday morning.

    Source

  5. #165
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA


    Republicans: EPA Violated Scientific Standards And Ethics In Human Testing

    April 2, 2014

    Republicans say the Environmental Protection Agency violated ethics and scientific standards through human testing with deadly air pollutants.

    “It is abhorrent for EPA to be conducting these human experiments without providing robust information and notification to the patients about the risks of death and following the strictest protocols,” said Georgia Rep. Paul Broun.

    “When justifying a job-killing regulation, EPA argues exposure to particulate matter is deadly, but when they are conducting experiments, they say human exposure studies are not harmful,” said Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

    Republicans have been concerned about EPA’s human testing practices for sometime. Broun was the first to bring up such concerns. He was followed by Vitter and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, both of whom expressed concerns that the EPA was using human testing to advance its regulatory agenda.

    The EPA inspector general launched an investigation last year into the agency’s human testing procedures. The report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, found that the EPA was not to disclose to human test subjects the risk of cancer and mortality from exposure to particulate matter, or PM, and diesel exhaust.

    “While the EPA champions protecting human health, in one case, EPA doubled the amount of particulate matter it was exposing individuals to without fully informing the participants or all the proper ethical review boards,” Broun added. “This blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of others is despicable, and the proper steps must be taken to ensure that such carelessness does not occur again.”

    The IG report found that “exposure risks were not always consistently represented and that “the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies’ consent forms.”

    According to the IG’s report, “only one of five studies’ consent forms provided the subject with information on the upper range of the pollutant” they would be exposed to, but even more alarming is that only “two of five alerted study subjects to the risk of death for older individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

    “This lack of warning about PM,” the IG’s report notes, “is also different from the EPA’s public image about PM.”

    The EPA has repeatedly cited PM as being a deadly air pollutant, even after short-term exposure. But this was not disclosed to human test subjects in three of the studies exposing them to the contaminant. Diesel exhaust also contains PM, along with 19 known carcinogens, but the EPA did not disclose to participants its potential carcinogenic and deadly effects in one of the experiments.

    The EPA has sounded the warning alarm on PM for years now, and have set regulatory standards for the air pollutants based on the assumption that it was deadly and could cause considerable harm to people.

    The EPA is currently looking to clamp down on PM2.5 standards, under the assumption that it is harmful to human health. Republicans argue that the EPA may have been using shoddy science to push its regulatory agenda.

    “This is a prime example of how EPA handpicks what scientific information and uncertainties they use to support their overreaching agenda,” Vitter added. “Discounting the risk involved to human study subjects violates proper scientific protocols and fundamental ethics.”

    The EPA did not immediately respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

  6. #166
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    Of COURSE they did.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #167
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    EPA McCarthy will ‘go after’ critics who question agency

    May 5, 2014 — bunkerville




    Please let me know Ms McCarthy, just what do you have in mind when you claim you plan to “go after your critics? Send in the IRS? Already done? You are the same person who stacked the deck with your cronies with your faux science. The EPA now has become the almost if not the most dangerous agency of this regime. The story has been out there, but take a look at how she has stacked the deck last year.


    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who say the agency relies on “secret science” for its regulations — a charge made frequently by Sen. David Vitter and House Science Chairman Lamar Smith — during a speech this morning at the National Academy of Sciences.


    “Those critics conjure up claims of ‘EPA secret science’— but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world-renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society,” McCarthy will, according to excerpts previewed for ME.


    She adds: “It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of ‘secret science’ because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it.”


    Vitter: “leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.


    “We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.


    Earlier Massisve EPA propsed land grab underway, rigged and corrupt October 21, 2013 — bunkerville
    What happens when Washington’s top environmental policymaker packs a government advisory board with federal grant recipients so she can regulate virtually every acre in the United States of America?


    Smith and Stewart accuse EPA of “pushing through a rule with vast economic and regulatory implications before the agency’s Science Advisory Board has had an opportunity to review the underlying science.”
    EPA says its rule-making will be based on the final version of the SAB’s scientific assessment


    Catch 22: The SAB is paid to verify whether the EPA report is technically accurate but the panel has not yet been provided with the proposed rule, even though the Office of Management and Budget has it.


    McCarthy took no chances with letting hard-headed state or local water officials in, despite nominees from the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Missouri Dept. of Conservation, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, New York City Dept of Environmental Protection, and the State of Wyoming.


    But here’s the worst part of it: Half of McCarthy’s choices received EPA grants in the last 10 years!

    H/T: http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/u-s...ycrusaders.com
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #168
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    The IRS is Not the Only Government Agency Hiding Documents from Congress

    Pete Kasperowicz
    2.4K

    Shares






    House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Wednesday said he would begin contempt proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to give the committee documents it started asking for six months ago.
    Last November, Issa subpoenaed the EPA for various emails and documents that Republicans suspect will show that the White House interfered with congressional requests for information.
    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Wednesday she was not ready to hand over all documents Republicans have requested, which prompted a top Republican to say contempt proceedings would begin. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)



    In a Wednesday morning hearing, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said she was still not ready to hand over the documents Issa is seeking. McCarty indicated that EPA staff was still negotiating with committee staff and trying to work with the request for papers, but Issa said that answer wasn’t good enough after more than six months.


    “Could you imagine if I just went ahead and set up a coal energy plant without a permit, started burning raw coal to produce electricity, and then told you for month after month after month that I look forward to working with you?” Issa said.
    “I am informing you today that it is my intention to hold the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt and to schedule a business meeting to do so at the first business day available to this committee, which will be after next week.”


    McCarthy said several times that EPA staff had shown committee staff one email “in camera,” or in private, which she said shows there was no coordination between the White House and EPA about what documents to give to Congress. McCarthy said this work is similar to work that has been done in the past between Congress and the EPA.


    But Issa shot down that idea as well, and said the soft negotiations taking place reflect the poor job of oversight that Democrats did when they controlled Congress.

    “This is my watch, this is my time,” Issa said. “Elections have consequences. You have not complied with the subpoena. I am telling you, the time to comply is now.”


    Issa also warned repeatedly that the time for negotiations is over.


    “There is no negotiation. Negotiation time has expired long time,” he said. “It is contemptible for months to pass and have you say that you’re negotiating. That in-camera offer quite frankly was insufficient.”


    Issa and other Republicans have pressed the EPA for the last several months on oversight matters such as the EPA official who pretended to be a CIA agent, and bilked the agency of thousands of dollars. McCarty said Wednesday that there is an ongoing criminal investigation against this official, John Beale, and said EPA is still trying to limit the retirement benefits of that official.


    Republicans have also investigated an EPA official who received a discount for a new Mercedes from a lobbyist, and an EPA official who watched two to six hours of pornography on the job. In May, Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe testified about the pornography case.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  9. #169
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    Joke, right?

    Whole lotta smidgens! EPA tells Oversight Committee hard drive crashed, emails lost

    Posted at 1:11 pm on June 25, 2014 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

    • Share on Facebook


    This must be a joke, right EPA? Are you serious? twitter.com/ChadPergram/st…

    Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) June 25, 2014
    Move over, IRS. There’s a new set of butterfingers in town!
    #BREAKING: More missing emails. This time at EPA. Crashed ard drive belonging to retired employee. EPA didn't tell Nat'l Archives until Tues—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    EPA's McCarthy to Oversight cmte on crashed hard drive: We are having trouble acquiring the data.—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    Rep Mark Meadows (R-NC) on EPA crashed hard drive: It seems as if the federal records act has been violated by the EPA.—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    EPA's McCarthy to Oversight cmte on crashed hard drive: It seems as if there are some records that we cannot produce—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    EPA's McCarthy to Oversight Cmte on crashed hard drive: I am still hoping we acquire these emails.—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    Missing EPA emails belong to Philip North, now-retired EPA employee in AK. Oversight cmte says he worked against Pebble Mine project in AK.—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    Crashed EPA hard drive belonged to Philip North. Refused O'sight Cmte iview. No one now knows where North is. Had planned yr long boat trip.—
    Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 25, 2014
    Smidgens on parade, baby.
    This admin appears to have chronic email retention problems, primarily at agencies under congressional investigation twitter.com/ChadPergram/st…
    Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) June 25, 2014
    Oh, FFS. twitter.com/ChadPergram/st…
    Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 25, 2014
    Even more smidgeons – RT @ChadPergram: #EPA's McCarthy to Oversight cmte on crashed hard drive: We are having trouble acquiring the data.—
    Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) June 25, 2014
    Sounds like maybe we should have used some of the stimulus funds to modernize gov't email archiving twitter.com/ChadPergram/st…
    Political Math (@politicalmath) June 25, 2014
    Oh now EPA is claiming lost data?—
    Jo (@JDtheBard) June 25, 2014
    Most tech savvy administration in history.. Magically suffers chronic hard drive crashes at most inconvenient times. * boop *—
    S.M (@redsteeze) June 25, 2014
    Hard drive crashes are becoming a government fad, I see.—
    Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) June 25, 2014
    You just know some computer is going to "crash" over at the VA any day now.—
    Matthew (@Matthops82) June 25, 2014
    Just wait.
    In the meantime, here’s a modest proposal:
    New rule.. If your government agency has a hard drive crash, it's eliminated.—
    S.M (@redsteeze) June 25, 2014
    Sounds good to us.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #170
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    What Is the EPA Hiding From the Public?

    The agency shouldn't get to decide who sees the science behind its rules. Open the research to outside analysis.






    By Lamar Smith


    June 23, 2014 6:45 p.m. ET


    The climate is changing and, yes, humans play a role. But that does not mean, as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy would have us believe, that the debate—over how much the climate is changing, how big a role humans play, and what can reasonably done about it—is over. Still less does it mean that anyone who questions her agency's actions, particularly the confidential research it uses to justify multimillion and billion-dollar air rules, is a denier at war with science.
    The EPA's regulatory process today is a closed loop. The agency funds the scientific research it uses to support its regulations, and it picks the supposedly independent (but usually agency-funded) scientists to review it. When the regulations are challenged, the courts defer to the agency on scientific issues. But the agency refuses to make public the scientific research it uses.
    Enlarge Image


    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy Getty Images




    The House Science Committee will vote Tuesday on legislation to open up this closed loop. The Secret Science Reform Act, which I co-sponsored, has a simple goal: EPA regulations should be based on legitimate science and data that are open to the public.
    Scientific journals in a variety of disciplines have moved toward data transparency. Ms. McCarthy sees this effort as a threat. Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences in late April, she defended her agency's need to protect data "from those who are not qualified to analyze it."
    The EPA essentially decides who is or is not allowed access to the scientific research they use—research that is paid for with public funds, appropriated by Congress, on behalf of American taxpayers. This is wholly improper.
    I recently received a letter of support for the Secret Science Reform Act that was signed by more than 80 scientists, including physicians, and professors of environmental science, physics, statistics, economics and engineering. The signatories included George Wolff, former chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in the Clinton administration and Forrest J. Remick, former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the George H.W. Bush administration. They wrote that the bill would "make the agency's regulations more accountable, credible, and enforceable" and that its transparency requirements "can be accomplished without imposing unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or raising confidentiality concerns."
    Costly environmental regulations must be based on publicly available data that independent scientists can verify. For example, take the administration's recently proposed plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants—regulations that could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and spike electricity rates.
    In the announcement of her agency's 645-page Clean Power Plan, Ms. McCarthy claimed "The science is clear. The risks are clear. And the high costs of climate inaction keep piling up." Yet any reporter willing to read beyond the EPA press release would find that the reality doesn't match the rhetoric.
    Monday's Supreme Court decision (Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA) underscores the need for scrutiny of agency claims. The court called EPA's rewriting of the Clean Air Act "outrageous," and said that "When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate 'a significant portion of the American economy,' we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism." Such skepticism is well deserved.
    Virtually all of the EPA's health claims for its latest power-plant rules, including that they would save thousands of lives a year, are based on data that haven't been made public. In any event, for most of the EPA's 2030 projections, a majority of the health benefits claimed have nothing to do with carbon dioxide. They come from reductions in air pollutants already regulated by the EPA such as particulate matter and ozone.
    The EPA also claims that its Clean Power Plan will yield climate benefits, such as lower sea levels, which the agency calculates using its "social cost of carbon." But a recent analysis by Ted Gayer, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, found that most of these alleged benefits take place outside the U.S. Even using the EPA's own numbers, the costs of this regulation may exceed the direct, domestic benefits.
    The EPA, like every other government institution, should be accountable to the American people. We need to protect our environment, but this should be done on the basis of open and honest information. That is the goal of the Secret Science Reform Act.
    Mr. Smith, a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  11. #171
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    I'm a little behind the curve on this as it happened about 10 days ago but I just found out that GovLiquidation has pulled all auction listings of CUCVs, Deuces, 5 Ton trucks, and HETs.

    The prevailing word on this is that the EPA has their hand in this.

    This is the email that went out to people that were on GovLiquidation's email list:
    Dear Valued Customer,

    At the request of the Department of Defense,
    Government Liquidation has pulled certain
    vehicles identified by the Department from our sales.
    We are currently engaged in a dialogue with the
    DOD regarding the future of these vehicles.

    We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.

    Thank you,
    Government Liquidation
    You can also go over to GovLiquidation and see for yourself: http://www.govliquidation.com/Trucks...-Vehicles.html

    There's a note at the top.

    There is a discussion over on SteelSoldiers about this: http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthr...ruck-Auctions/

  12. #172
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    Looks like it isn't just the sale of soft skin trucks to civis...


    From the Annals of Police Militarization: EPA Shuts Down MRAP Transfers

    July 3, 2014

    Not exactly gun but . . . TTAG reader RS writes:

    You may be interested to know that about two weeks ago the EPA notified DOD that ALL engine powered equipment transfers to ANYONE ANYWHERE was to stop. This includes to fire departments, police, other government entities including GSA and including foreign military sales. This should be shutting off the conduit of MRAP crack to law enforcement. But as they are “special,” who knows? Fire or cop the minimal miles per year isn’t doing diddly in the pollution level. Perhaps the smoke from the fire I’m going to put out might be a large issue? Right now, as Obama closes the Army, a HUGE quantity of great low mile/hour stuff is available. In reality this should be going into storage yards of THE NEXT WAR.

  13. #173
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    This is extremely disturbing on several levels.

    First, the excess military equipment has ALWAYS been sold off to civilians and bidders to recoup money for the treasury. That's the MAIN reason for doing it.

    Second, if they are NOT storing it up some place for a future conflict, WHERE is is going?

    Third, the EPA? Who the FUCK is the EPA to tell the DOD what to do? Who the fuck is the EPA to tell ANYONE what to do?

    Fourth, Where the HELL is Congress again? OH, yes, they are on VACATION and have less thanb 20 days left in this year's session with which to do JACK SHIT.

    TIme to stop these rogue agencies - maybe there are a few rogue military personnel who get it?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  14. #174
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    EPA claims it has the power to garnish wages without court approval

    FoxNews.com


    0





    FILE: June 2, 2014: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a news conference in Washington, D.C.REUTERS


    The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly claimed that it has the authority to unilaterally garnish the wages of individuals who have been accused of violating its rules.
    According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order."
    The notice went on to say that the EPA had fast-tracked the new rule, enabling it to take effect September 2 unless the agency receives enough adverse public comments by August 1. The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a "significant regulatory action."
    The EPA has claimed this new authority by citing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which gives all federal agencies the power to conduct administrative wage garnishment, provided that the agency allows for hearings at which debtors to challenge the amount or the terms of repayment schedule.
    The plan has drawn protests from conservatives, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who told The Washington Times, "The EPA has a history of overreaching its authority. It seems like once again the EPA is trying to take power it doesn’t have away from American citizens.”
    The conservative Heritage Foundation claimed that the rule gives the EPA "unbridled discretion" over the process of challenging fines. David Addington, group vice president for research at Heritage, told the Times that the rule not only puts the burden of proof on the debtor, rather than the agency, but also allows the EPA to decide whether a debtor even gets a chance to present a defense before picking whomever it chooses to serve as a hearing officer.
    The amount of money the EPA has collected in fines has increased steadily since President Barack Obama took office. In 2012, the agency took in $252 million in fines, up from just $96 million in 2009.
    Click for more from The Washington Times
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  15. #175
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    EPA Harasses Americans

    Robert Gordon / /


    Just in time for the Fourth of July, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has added a new regulatory weapon to its arsenal.
    In a Federal Register notice on July 2 titled “Administrative Wage Garnishment,” the EPA stated that by the authority of the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA ) of 1996 it issued a proposed rule that “will allow the EPA to garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order.” According to the Treasury Department, under DCIA, such debts include “unpaid loans, overpayments or duplicate payments made to federal salary or benefit payment recipients, misused grant funds, and fines, penalties or fees assessed by federal agencies.” The EPA explains that, “Prior to the enactment of the DCIA, Federal agencies were required to obtain a court judgment before garnishing non-Federal wages. Section 31001(o) of the DCIA preempts State laws that prohibit wage garnishment or otherwise govern wage garnishment procedures.” It’s worth repeating just part of the list of debts for which wages may be garnished under the DCIA: “fines, penalties or fees assessed by federal agencies.”The EPA rule also states that, “we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment.” Consequently, the rule continues, “This direct final rule is effective September 2, 2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 1, 2014.”
    While one may not be too troubled about collection of unpaid loans or misused grants funds for example, that’s not all there is to consider with this regulation. People like Andy Johnson, a local welder in Unita County, Wyoming, might want to sit up and take note. The EPA issued an administrative order demanding that he destroy a pond he painstakingly built on his own property or face serious repercussions. The EPA has threatened Johnson with fines in the amount of $75,000 per day for violating the Clean Water Act. The pond’s waters are not polluted and the pond is much appreciated by wildlife, given the arid nature of Unita County. Johnson even sought regulatory approval from the state for his private effort to improve the environment. He did not however get a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and consequently finds himself under the EPA’s thumb. Wyoming Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso joined with Louisiana’s David Vitter to issue a letter to the agency stating that the “EPA appears more interested in intimidating and bankrupting Mr. Johnson than it does in working cooperatively with him.”
    Johnson is not alone in suffering this kind of bullying at the hands of the EPA. Chantell and Michael Sackett of Idaho were similarly threatened by the agency with fines of $75,000 per day for seeking to build a home on a small lot situated between two other lots that already had homes, an action the EPA claimed the couple could not even challenge. The Sacketts challenged it anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where they won a unanimous verdict. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the court’s decision stating that, “In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.” Scalia went on that “there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction.”
    While the Supreme Court may have found that the Sacketts and, consequently, folks like Johnson, do have some recourse to challenge administrative compliance orders from the EPA, those who fall into the agency’s sights may now face a new and crushing hurdle: wage garnishment. Just how many people could endure challenging the EPA’s regulatory actions—no matter how indefensible—if they faced fines that the agency could garnish from their wages? How many can be coerced into “voluntary compliance”?
    On July 4 we celebrate our independence. One of the many grievances in the Declaration of Independence—the reasons we listed to explain why we choose to break away and declare ourselves free—was that the king had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” Seems familiar and it is clear that the current Administration is pushing adoption of these regulations, as many federal agencies have issued similar rules. None, however, matches the EPA’s record of heavy-handedness.
    The EPA said that if it receives no adverse comments by August 1, the direct final rule will go into effect. Well, the folks at the EPA already have at least one—in comments submitted on July 3, The Heritage Foundation urged the EPA to “withdraw the direct final rule.” We doubt that we’ll be the only ones.
    This post has been revised.

    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  16. #176
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    The top leaders of the EPA need to be jailed in a dark, unheated hole.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  17. #177
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    Full of wet concrete.

    And Rats.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  18. #178
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    ...And lots of insects that could have been killed with pesticides and fed food that has grown poorly due to it being herbicide free organic shit.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  19. #179
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,425
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    It looks like the EPA meddling on surplus trucks isn't just affecting civis buying up soft skins and police getting MRAPs but, it's also interfering with fire departments getting equipment.

    This was one of the only articles I was able to find on this aspect of it.


    Ban On Defense Department Vehicle Sales To Affect Oklahoma's Rural Fire Departments

    Through the Rural Fire Defense Program, forestry services have acquired federal surplus vehicles for pennies on the dollar. A new federal agreement will stop the sale of defense vehicles that don’t meet emission standards.

    July 2, 2014


    Brush pumpers arrive to battle a grass fire on farmland near East Camp Drive and Douglas Boulevard in Logan County, Monday May 05, 2014

    A decades-old program allowing fire departments to purchase surplus military vehicles appears to be no more.

    An agreement between the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, aimed at reducing emissions, will stop the sale of defense vehicles that don’t meet the EPA’s emission standards, the state forestry service reports.

    “This action will ultimately result in increased exposure of communities to loss of life and property associated with wildfire, as well as increased fire suppression costs,” said George Geissler, state forester and director for Oklahoma Forestry Services. “The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the vehicles are marginal at best compared to emissions of an uncontrolled wildfire.”

    Through the Rural Fire Defense Program, forestry services have acquired federal surplus vehicles for pennies on the dollar, Guthrie Fire Chief Eric Harlow said. The vehicles brought to Oklahoma have been dispersed to departments in need of equipment. Fire crews have 180 days to fully equip vehicles for fighting fires before they’re inspected.

    The Guthrie Fire Department has two trucks that were provided through the program, Harlow said. The agreement won’t prevent crews from using the re-manufactured vehicles they already have, but not being able to acquire more vehicles through the program is a major concern for Harlow and small, volunteer departments.

    “It’s a constant battle with the new equipment,” Harlow said. “It’s a lot of high-tech equipment and it’s prone to having issues and it causes a lot of down time for our equipment.”

    Cecil Michael, the rural fire coordinator for the Northern Oklahoma Development Authority, said the program has benefited fire departments for about 35 years. Without the program, he said, departments will suffer.

    “Whatever it might be that they may or may not have budgeted dollars to buy, this program provides millions and millions of dollars of equipment,” Michael said.

    Forestry services reported 8,812 vehicles and pieces of equipment acquired through the program, valued at more than $150 million, currently being utilized by rural fire departments in the state.

    Oklahoma has about 900 volunteer fire departments in communities of fewer than 10,000 people.

    With an increase in home construction in rural areas over the past decade, the need for well-equipped, local fire departments is an increasing importance, officials said. Local departments in Oklahoma are first on the scene for more than 75 percent of all wildfires.

    Forestry services is working with state and federal officials to resolve the issue and make the equipment available, said Geissler, of the state forestry service.

  20. #180
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The Overbearing EPA

    The EPA appears to be drunk on power. It needs seriously defunded.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •