Policy sanity also stands to take a beating, or else gain a new lease on life. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which by design strangles our ability to use them.  Further, the Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.

With über-green Germany, even nuke-happy France, appearing set to ramp up their coal use in the wake of Japan’s nuclear incident, the first rational response would be to call off EPA’s war on coal. Not to fight like mad to preserve and advance it.

But fight like mad to preserve and advance this war on coal is what the administration and its Senate enablers are doing.

And as George Mason University professor of science and public policy Thomas Lovejoy said in an astonishing admission to the Washington Post not long ago, in the context of this very Obama Power Grab:

“When Congress resists action on pressing environmental issues, regulation provides a way forward”.

Actually, no. Our Constitution – so quaint and outdated according to certain quarters though it may be (it’s still better than whatever it is we have today) – makes it quite plain that it is only when Congress decides to act that agencies have a way forward.

It is untrue that, in our system, elected representatives act on major policy issues only unless and until the unelected regulators decide they have waited long enough. If they act lawfully, they act only when granted authority by the legislative branch. The ‘executive’ branch is called that for a reason. They are to execute laws. Not make them.

Argue all you want that EPA is doing so, but the fact that EPA tries the patently untrue line that the supreme Court made them do this shows you how weak the argument for the action is. EPA’s power grab is nothing but an admission that they think they’ve waited long enough. They also know they would wait forever if they waited on the democratic process to work.

In June 2007 the House barely passed legislation authorizing this move. If the Senate followed suit, it would have expressly provided EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases for the very first time. As my CEI colleague Marlo Lewis details, the Clean Air Act as written and amended surely never did. And every other time Congress considered doing so it decided against it.

Senators, seeing the public outrage over the House’s move, proved to be too worried about jobs to pass the measure as well – their own jobs. The bill never saw the light of day.

So, now, EPA is seeking to impose regulations it acknowledges in public filings lead to ‘absurd results’; to accommodate this it also seeks to actually rewrite the statute even more expressly.

Remember this when the Senate votes on EPA’s power grab, an indirect if powerful tax on energy, with zero chance of doing that which it is ostensibly being pushed to do (impact the climate); amid standard-fare, mindless hysteria from usual suspects, but now trotting out children in oxygen masks (seriously) to preserve a scheme that the same senators – particularly Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – previously acknowledged would be devastating, in courting the few holdouts to come to the table and agree to legislate something less egregious if only by a matter of (pardon the pun) degree.

Two wrongs, by the math of people who think the Constitution is a mere impediment to be circumvented, actually make a right. They don’t of course. But it’s up to those who feel strongly enough about Big Government, regulatory overreach, separation of powers, economic recovery, and other mundane affairs whether those who vote know how the people they represent feel. Here’s to hoping the people make their voice heard.

In refusing to vote to authorize EPA’s stunt, the Senate listened once before. They’ll listen again if you make them.

Now, for the election analysis — including lots of good news from the events of Nov. 2.

There’s no doubt the American electorate in many, many places rejected the Obama-Pelosi-Reid anti-Constitutional approach to government, i.e. Progressivism.

That’s clear, even though the Republican pickup in the Senate was disappointing, especially with the re-election of Harry Reid. Take a look at Republican gains in the State legislatures: 650-700 seats, compared to 505 in 1994. That’s huge.

There’s bad news to be sure.

Boxer won, and by a surprisingly comfortable margin. Polls can still be wildly wrong, apparently. Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi coasted to easy wins, Moonbeam Brown became Governor of California again. State legislators there are their younger clones. All that seals that state’s fate. It will be at least 25 years before the once-Golden State recovers, if ever, no matter who is elected two, four, or six years from now.

Worse still, the majority of voters in Nevada betrayed their fellow citizens by re-electing Harry Reid, who will almost certainly remain Majority Leader. This is bad news far beyond the re-election of one of the six most dangerous Federal employees in the country. (Obama, Reid, Bernanke, EPA head Lisa Jackson, Sec. Sebelius, and any swing vote on the Supreme Court.)

The reason is simple: Reid can now tie up any pro-freedom legislation introduced in the House while Obama has Executive Branch bureaus ensnare the populace through administrative regulations. That means among other things that repeal of any part of ObamaCare will have to wait until 2013. Luckily, the major handouts don’t start until 2014, so there’s time.

Now to leaven our depression with a little more good news.

Russ Feingold got his pink slip. The prime author of legislation that violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is now unemployed. He has been replaced by a very promising Republican.

The other author of that odious bill, John McCain, conned his way into a six-year reprieve by donning a new conservative suit. However, despite his desire to appear the maverick, McCain can often be relied on to go along with his Republican peers, especially on defense issues. Since Cap-and-Tax is essentially dead for the next two years at least, he can’t do any damage on that score. Better still, he had a close brush with unemployment and may be more cautious for a while.

In more good news, the loathsome Blanche Lincoln — she was a major driver of the ruinous Farm Bill and voted for ObamaCare — has been shown the door with a healthy boot (58% for Boozman v 37% for her) to assist her on her way. With so many nearby states turning Red too, maybe the south really is rising again.

Perhaps best of all, Marco Rubio tromped the opposition in Florida, a state where most voters normally have no idea who they are. Rubio is young, a relatively reliable pro-freedom voice, and he’s being touted as Vice Presidential material. He’s also Cuban-American. While discussions of ethnicity in politics are generally loathsome, it’s a clear indication that Hispanics won’t always vote Democrat.

There are some heartening results in the House races, too. Walt Minnick lost his Idaho seat by a 10% margin. Far from the worst Democrat around — he voted against ObamaCare — he still voted with his party 70% of the time. That’s interesting not so much because Raul Labrador is a Republican — Idaho is firmly a Red State and Minnick’s election a fluke — but because he was such a weak candidate with far inferior TV ads and still won.

All these disparate results offer a clear overall theme: with exceptions like the utterly hopeless Massachusetts, California, and New York, the majority of the American people are now saying they strongly favor fiscal conservatism and limited government — at least for now.

To keep them favoring it will require a continued educational campaign that demonstrates every day the rightness of those positions. Republicans could easily blow it. They have many times before. But there is beginning to build in the House (and to some extent in the Senate) a consensus around Madison’s view of government.

If we help stiffen Congressional spines daily, America has a good chance to gain needed breathing room from the 50-year-long onslaught of Progressivism in government. (Even Reagan had to deal with a Congress that tilted left much of the time.)

Into that gap can slip the cultural changes that are essential to keeping the political momentum going.

That means educating the American people about why every piece of Progressive legislation has harmed them, including Social Security and Medicare — the immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional twin programs that are bankrupting the country.

It means teaching citizens why the Constitution is not just a bunch of rules of thumb. Though the Supreme Court shouldn’t be, they’re heavily influenced by the tone of Congress and public sentiment. If the people believe more firmly in the Constitution, SCOTUS will uphold it more consistently.

It means re-creating a country that broke all the precedents set by the 2,000 years before its founding to become the freest, most innovative, most prosperous, and most moral society in history.

It’s now up to the American people to decide the future they desire. The odds of them choosing wisely, and their chances of success, have just improved by an order of magnitude.

The media would have you believe that in California, former Governor Jerry Brown has already won with poll reports showing Meg Whitman trailing and Barbara Boxer surging to a low single digit lead over Carly Fiorina. Sources associated with the Whitman and Fiorina campaigns have indicated that internal polling actually shows Whitman and Fiorina to be much more competitive than the media would have you believe, and in some cases, beating Brown and Boxer who represent the relics of failed Democrat ideals.

Americans have come to understand the phrase “all politics is local” as immortalized by former House Speaker Tip O’Neill; however, all local politics are not reported equally.

I would like to share with you three examples where the media has been protecting politicians and an explanation of how the media is being influenced in their decision to not report these stories.

First, on October 19, 2010, with news cameras present in studio and rolling, it was revealed on The Rick Amato Show that Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA 51st) was having an inappropriate relationship with a Southwest Airlines corporate lobbyist. It was also revealed that Congressman Filner who serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed to sponsor legislation impacting aircraft maintenance.

All of this occurred while Congressman Filner received nearly $30,000.00 from airline and aviation special interest groups, including Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association PAC. Besides sexual favors, there seem to have been additional perks for the Congressman. At his urging, Filner received free airfare from Southwest Airlines for constituents to travel to Washington, D.C. The Congressman’s own office admits that it enlisted the support of Southwest Airlines to help with transportation expenses for the Chula Vista Park View Little League World Champions to travel to Washington D.C. where they met with President Barack Obama. He also arranged for airfare tickets for high school students from California’s Imperial Valley to travel to the nation’s capital, all free of charge.

It is unquestionable that Southwest Airlines has a large presence in the San Diego region and has regularly been rated one of the best companies in the United States. Perhaps Southwest Airlines is just being a good corporate citizen by offering free airfare; and corporate donations to Congressman Filner’s re-election may just be a way of showing gratitude for being willing to sponsor favorable aviation industry legislation; or perhaps not.

Secondly, there is the story from San Diego, once known as “America’s Finest City” which has rightfully earned the title of “Enron by the Sea”. San Diego City Council President Ben Hueso who is running for California State Assembly admitted this week to money laundering $25,000.00 in campaign donations by illegally funneling that money to a union controlled campaign committee to support Mr. Hueso’s brother, Felipe Hueso, who is attempting to replace Ben Hueso on the San Diego City Council. Although there has been some local media coverage for this particular story, one would think that an elected official publicly admitting to committing a felony would garner more media attention. One angle to this story that the media has thus far kept from the public is that Mr. Hueso was not the only elected official to break the law. California Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, (D-56th Assembly District) representing portions of Los Angeles County and nominee Henry Perea (D-31st Assembly District) who is a candidate to represent the people of Fresno, California also broke the law by making illegal donations to support the candidacy of Felipe Hueso for the San Diego City Council.

The third example of the media’s bias involves a relatively unknown race that in many circles would elicit yawns for being one of the most boring. That would be the campaign for San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk. Yes, even in California we vote on who should be issuing your marriage licenses. One important function that this office performs is assessing property values which the County of San Diego depends on for determining the amount of property tax to be collected from homeowners. With billions of dollars in upscale beachfront property to downtown high rise condominiums to mountain vista estates it quickly becomes evident how important this elected bureaucratic position is.

On Tuesday, San Diego County voters will be asked to decide between two candidates that most have never heard of, Ernie Dronenburg and David Butler. Mr. Butler is technically the incumbent in this race, having been appointed to the position in March 2009. This boring race has remained so, due to the local media’s refusal to report a discovery that David Butler, who is responsible for determining the amount of property tax that homeowners pay has been cheating on his own property tax. It seems that in 1992, Mr. Butler made a second story addition to his private residence but failed to disclose the true value of that addition. Records obtained from the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego show that his failure to properly report the improvements to his residence resulted in his escaping payment of tax on nearly $1.2 million worth of property value over an 18 year period. And then there is the aspect to the story where he tried to cover all of this up by instructing a county employee to alter tax records. One would think that the public would be interested in knowing about the veracity of the person responsible for determining the amount of property tax that others pay when he himself is not willing to pay his fair share. However, the media seems to think differently on this matter.

So, what do Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Bob Filner, Ben Hueso and David Butler all have in common? Why does the media report certain stories and not others? The answer is simple: labor unions. Americans have come to know and understand the power of labor unions in politics, but that influence has now extended to our unofficial “fourth branch of government”, the media.

As editors evaluate the news worthiness of stories, they have to make a careful analysis to determine if the story is simply a “gotcha attempt” by a political opponent just prior to a contentious election. But more and more, those determinations are not based on the news worthiness of the story but upon politics. Television stations in California that rely heavily on the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in political campaign advertisements are finding that if they run the wrong story they risk being boycotted altogether by one political party or the threat of a labor dispute action by their employee unions. Has anyone noticed that the number one television station in the San Diego market has no Democrat television ads? It certainly cannot be because Jerry Brown feels that confident he is going to win the Governor’s race. And what about those television cameras that were present to capture the moment that Congressman Filner’s inappropriate relationship with the lobbyist was revealed on The Rick Amato Show? The story was killed by a local news editor who happens to support the congressman. What about the absence of any news stories about a public official cheating on $1.2 million worth of property taxes? The one commonality that all of these stories have is the influence of labor unions over mainstream media.

Many Americans believe that this Tuesday they will simply vote for a new city council representative, congressman or governor. Some even believe that this is a referendum on public policies and economic factors; but the reality is that this election is more than just about people. It is about ideas. It is about the very essence of our republic and the democratic principles that our country was founded upon. We have accepted that labor unions have influenced our politicians and public policies but many have yet to grasp the influence that these same groups now have on the mainstream media and the information that you receive. As you vote this Tuesday, be sure to educate yourself so that the union tentacles that have a stranglehold on Washington, Sacramento or your local City Hall don’t strangle your voice to be heard or your vote.

Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA) kissing Southwest Airlines corporate lobbyist.

San Diegans for Healthy Neighborhoods – California Form 460

Waters, of course, is embroiled in an ethics scandal and will proceed to a full ethics trial following the election.  The case against Waters is focused on her alleged use of her elected office as a U.S. Representative for the financial benefit of a family member.  This is relevant to Boxer’s “purchase” of her endorsement not only because it is unseemly for a sitting Senator who chairs her chamber’s ethics body to be buying the endorsement of someone facing such charges, but also because Waters’ slate mailer “business,” which appears to focus entirely on the sale of Waters’ endorsement for sometimes large sums, is a financially lucrative enterprise that involves her using her political position again to financially benefit her family.

The slate mailer “business” is run by Boxer’s daughter, and has been criticized by (among others) good government groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Sunlight Foundation.  Karen Waters has benefited to the tune of over $400,000 since 2004 by virtue of her mother’s willingness to hawk her political backing to various high-bidding Democrats, including Boxer.

In 2004, Boxer paid $25,000 for a slot on Waters’ slate mailer.  Ahead of this June’s primary (in which she faced no serious competition) she paid $5,000 for Waters’ endorsement– when Waters’ ethical travails were well-publicized.  Now, days ahead of the 2010 general election, she once again has a slot on Waters’ slate mailer– backing from Waters that she has no doubt paid thousands of dollars for, again, making Boxer complicit in this particular ethically-questionable Waters scheme.

Boxer, of course, isn’t known as a paragon of virtue when it comes to ethical behavior herself, either.  Reports this year from this site, the LA Times, the Sacramento Bee, the Daily Caller, National Review (times 1, 2, 3 and 4), and RedState among others, have detailed her ethical missteps including her payment of Waters for her endorsement, pushing legislation that financially benefited her son, being less than transparent regarding loans from Countrywide, paying her son hundreds of thousands of dollars out of her PAC funds, bouncing an astonishing 143 checks while serving in the House, and using her political station to take a great many privately-funded junkets to luxury destinations including a high-priced Mexican resort and Paris.

However, her coziness with Waters and willingness to continue funneling money to Waters’ family via this particular questionable scheme may give some voters pause when heading to voting booths on Tuesday.

Because some local social studies teachers encourage students to volunteer, Boxer campaign volunteer coordinators notified a handful of schools near the campaign headquarters that the campaign was accepting volunteers. The letter did not ask teachers to solicit students to work on the campaign or to use school facilities, supplies or equipment for political purposes. The sole intent of the letter was to provide interested students with information about a volunteer opportunity. However, the letter, which was written by a volunteer and reviewed by a junior staffer, was inappropriate and we apologize. The author of the letter has been counseled and campaign coordinators will no longer conduct outreach to public schools.”

I acknowledge there’s an amount of wordplay, an amount of posturing done in a campaign, particularly when we get down to the wire in a tight race, but the hubris in this response is overwhelming, if not impressive.  The aforementioned letter begins, “As you may know, Senator Boxer is facing her toughest race yet.  With only 19 days left until election day, it’s now or never.” Later on it’s suggested that teachers can award extra credit to students who work on the Boxer campaign. Yet, according to the Boxer crew…

The letter did not ask teachers to solicit students to work on the campaign or to use school facilities, supplies or equipment for political purposes…

If this is true, then why are they apologizing?  They’ve done nothing wrong after all!

But they have done something wrong: Those responsible for Boxer’s reelection bid asked teachers to pimp out their kids for her campaign, and got caught red handed.  Now they have the audacity to play semantics games in the press and pass the blame down the chain to “a junior staffer.”

Honestly, how dumb does Barbara Boxer think we are?

Here’s the letter again:

***

It’s far from unheard of that a teacher offers his or her students extra credit for visiting a campaign headquarters, but this letter, supposedly from the Boxer campaign, is not encouraging the teachers to give a hands on civics lesson.  This passage is the giveaway: “As you may know, Senator Boxer is facing her toughest race yet.  With only 19 days left until election day, it’s now or never.” No, this letter isn’t suggesting a unique educational opportunity for our youngest Americans, it’s a plea to help the Boxer campaign.

“Net neutrality, in principle, sounds fantastic,” Fiorina said in a ten-question online forum hosted by PDF. “But I grew up in the telcom industry, and I know how bureaucratic, and frankly antiquated, the regulations in the telcom industry have been.”

Fiorina, the former chief executive of tech giant Hewlett-Packard, warned the FCC against imposing a dated regulatory regime on industry that thrives on innovation.

“I don’t think we should take a regulator structure that was created in the early 20th century and apply it in the 21st century,” she said, adding, “I don’t support reclassifying broadband as telecom as a result.”

In the wake of House Democrats’ failure to adopt legislation on the matter, the FCC has renewed its interest in reclassifying broadband under a regulatory regime developed in the 1920’s for traditional telephone services, known as a Title II common carrier, ensuring the industry is within the agency’s regulatory reach.

Mrs. Fiorina’s opponent, Senator Barbara Boxer, also participated in the forum, and holds a decidedly different view: No regulation is bad regulation. “I strongly believe that we must preserve Net neutrality,” the 18-year incumbent says in her response.

Boxer had previously co-sponsored legislation to adopt Net neutrality rules. But like the majority of legislation the senator has championed, it was spiked by her colleagues.