Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.”

The solutions were bold but would obviously involve more than giving one speech. He called for the elimination of the EPA, replacing it with a new agency that would take economics and business interests into account in all decision-making. On tax policy, Gingrich called for a 12.5% corporate tax rate, abolishing the death tax, and the option of a 15% flat tax for individuals he called a tax cut.

Citing the need to shrink spending to meet revenue levels and the replacement of the current Civil Service system with a new modern personnel management system, his remarks appeared to be well received. Gingrich also cited abolishing the Dept of Energy (DOE) and a task forced to be headed by Texas Governor Rick Perry focused on the 10th amendment to return power to the states, as appropriate.

Gingrich also called for an audit of the Federal Reserve and an end to Ben Bernanke’s term as Chair of the Federal Reserve. The former Speaker also called for a more honest foreign policy, one acknowledging the dangers of radical Islamists intent on doing America and Americans harm.

Usually. Which is why the latest fiasco over the Agency’s proposed Boiler MACT rule is so noteworthy.

After writing new rules in mid-2011 that would require electricity-generating boilers to meet a shockingly high emissions standard – at a capital cost of $9.5 billion – a wide swath of industries, most notably the paper and wood business, pushed back. EPA was set to impose the rules anyway, risking hundreds of thousands of jobs, sky-high costs, and electrical production capacity.

Yet shockingly, EPA suddenly changed its mind in December, apparently having listened to the industries’ criticisms and deciding to stay any formal enactment of the proposed rules. EPA wanted more time to study the potential effects and revise the regulations.

But of course, the environmentalist left wouldn’t have that. From the PJ Tatler:

In December 2011, though, the EPA changed course and decided to delay implementing the rule. It actually appeared to be taking industry concerns into account, for once. The Sierra Club and others had filed suit to force the EPA to stick to its original timeline. The federal court in Washington, DC heard the case and sided with the Sierra Club in January. So now, the EPA is being forced by a judge to implement a rule that the EPA itself has acknowledged is problematic and requires more study.

The minute the EPA actually listens to industries’ concerns and decides it wants a more balanced approach, they get stuck with a federal court ruling requiring them to enforce the original rules they have already acknowledged are faulty.

Luckily, in order for sanity to prevail, Republicans are pushing legislation that will shield the EPA from the court’s ruling and give it the time it needs to draft new rules that lessen the burden on industry. The legislation, titled the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, has been bouncing around Congress. The House has already passed the bill as part of the payroll tax cut package passed in December. It’s the Senate’s turn now.

Even the EPA itself admits that too much is at stake.

However, while these words are encouraging, the Administration’s actions over the last three years tell a different story.

One highlight was the President’s emphasis on natural gas — a game-changer for the US economy. President Obama mentioned the words “manufacturing” and “manufacturers” fifteen times. This is because manufacturers of such commodities as steel, paint, fertilizer and chemicals, who use natural gas as a feedstock, have seen record low prices for the commodity in the United States. The boom in natural gas, created by the combination of two old technologies – horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — has made the resource abundant and extremely affordable. Low energy prices, driven by an increased supply, benefits all Americans. This resource has been and should continue to be developed safely and without jeopardizing our environment. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent considerable time and effort over the past few years trying to impose new regulations on natural gas production that could, in effect, render future production uneconomical.

The President also failed to mention the Keystone XL pipeline. His Administration’s decision just last week to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion energy infrastructure project built completely with private funds, could bring over 700,000 barrels of oil from Montana, North Dakota, and our trusted friend Canada and create thousands of union jobs during construction. If his Administration is serious about generating new jobs and economic growth through energy policy, there is no better, or more immediate, way than approving this “shovel ready” project.

While his emphasis on the return of domestic manufacturing rightfully deserves attention, he left out several other key energy issues – some of which could strengthen energy security and put Americans back to work in weeks, not years.

Despite claims that oil production has increased under his Administration, the reality is that road blocks and bureaucracy have slowed the permitting process to a crawl. It seems that President Obama is out of touch with his regulators, who seem to jump through hoops to ensure production does not move forward in a meaningful way. Under the Obama Administration, offshore leasing revenues have fallen from $9.48 billion the year before he took office to a measly $36 million last year. This is not because the prospects for offshore oil and gas have declined but because the Administration’s permitting and leasing programs have made the offshore areas that much less attractive. Permitting activity in the Gulf of Mexico is down over 60 percent from the historic average for deep water and shallow water wells.

For companies who have already paid the US government more than $3 billion to explore offshore Alaska, the Administration has thrown up road block after road block, placing onerous regulations on top of factually inconsistent conditional approvals before an operator can even begin to explore the estimated 27 billion barrels of oil these untapped reserves contain. This is on top of years of delay the project has already experienced. The President’s promise to eliminate the bureaucratic red tape that inhibits job creation is laudable, but it’s his actions, not words, that matter to energy consumers. It is time his Administration moved forward in support of sensible offshore development.

President Obama also claimed that he would make available more than 75 percent of the country’s offshore oil and gas resources. However, his Administration’s offshore leasing plan leaves the Atlantic and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off-limits to energy exploration and production. Due to this decision, coastal states like Virginia and South Carolina – states that have expressed interest in offshore activity – cannot assess their resource potential due to these restrictions.

The President also failed to mention gasoline prices which, with a national average of $3.38, are at an all-time high for this time of year. Making matters worse, experts project that 2012 will be the most painful year for our truckers, highway users, commuters and anyone who depends on gasoline and diesel to deliver basic commodities like food. Yet, as prices climb, we have failed to pursue an energy policy that values the benefits domestic production will have for our trade deficit, our energy independence, and our consumers.

Investing in alternative energy is an additional key part of our “all of the above” energy solution. Yet permitting for new transmission lines to carry wind and solar power to market is facing the same bureaucratic delays and obstacles that the oil and gas industry faces.

With Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz and instability in other key oil exporting countries, our nation’s inability to secure a sound energy future will have devastating consequences for our economic and energy security.

As the President seemed to indicate last night, “no” is no longer an answer to his Administration’s approach to energy policy. Consumer Energy Alliance believes that any sensible energy policy must recognize that we have the intellectual capacity and technology to develop our natural resources AND protect the environment. Those who urge this Administration to “get the US off oil” do not seem to grasp the reality; oil and fossil energy will be the dominant resource for decades to come. Our challenge is not falling victim to this false choice of energy development versus the environment. It is encouraging is President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union signaled that he is now going to embrace the need for energy development, and its promise for job creation and economic growth.

While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.

A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.

The same must be said about the Executive Branch and the President of the United States, although he has some additional quivers in his pouch where getting his way is concerned: the bully pulpit (self-explanatory) and the Executive Order.

About.com’s US Politics pages say this about Executive Orders:

“Executive Orders (EOs) are official documents, numbered consecutively, by which the President of the US manages the operations of the Federal Government.

“Since 1789, US presidents (“the executive”) have issued directives that are now known as Executive Orders. These are legally binding directives to federal administrative agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials as their agencies implement congressionally-established law. However, Executive Orders may be controversial if the President is acting counter to real or perceived legislative intent…

“Presidents have been accused of using the power of the Executive Order to make, not merely implement, policy. This is controversial, as it subverts the Separation of Powers as outlined in the Constitution.”

Some accurate examples of a President transgressing the Separation of Powers via Executive Oder have been provided by the Obama Administration in the form of:

▪ The EPA: Functioning under the authority of the Executive, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enacted regulations that serve, effectively, as legislation, so much so that many members of Congress – from both parties, sans the Progressive contingent of the Democrat Party – have sought to craft legislation to forbid the agency from enforcing said regulations. Additionally, the EPA, again, under the authority of the Executive, is questing to expand its power “to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of ‘sustainable development’”; to make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues. Under agency chief Lisa Jackson, the EPA targets broadening its focus to include both “social” and “economic,” as well as environmental “pillars” to its mission and authority.

▪ The NLRB: Again, functioning under the authority of the Executive, albeit at an arm’s length – thus providing plausible deniability to the Oval Office, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has, under the Obama Administration, routinely championed labor unions over private sector corporations and businesses, i.e. the job creators. Even as the hierarchy of the Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) that is General Motors discusses exporting the manufacturing of the Chevy Volt to China, so as to avoid the high cost of domestic manufacturing (thank you labor unions), the NLRB has moved forward with regulations that mandate unprecedented facilitation to labor unions in non-union shops so as to organize and hold organizational votes; votes that jettison the sanctity of the secret ballot.

▪ The Recess Appointment: Although recess appointments are commonplace in presidential politics, the recess appointments made thus far during the Obama Administration have been to entities that champion a Progressive social engineering of the country and to fill vacancies on boards and agency chairs that have been contested by a significant number in the US Senate. A perfect example comes in the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an entity created of the infamous Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill and which is being actively contested by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. This recess appointment followed, in rapid-fire succession, by three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, thus facilitating that entities ability to execute its labor-friendly special interest agenda in the run-up to the 2012 General Elections.

It should be noted here that all four of the recess appointments mentioned should be challenged in court – that is if the Republican leadership in Congress can dislodge their heads from their rectums – on the basis of constitutionality as recess appointments cannot be made while Congress is in session. The Senate is in pro-forma session.

Further, when the cancer of social engineering is at the root of an empirical presidency – as is the case with the Obama Administration, the rights of some are manipulated in a quest to “correct” a perceived wrong affecting others.

A perfect example of one voter demographic’s rights being manipulated or denied in deference to another’s comes at the hand of Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

Starting with the DoJ’s refusal to prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, two New Black Panther Party members who executed gross and egregious voter intimidation during the 2008 election cycle outside a Philadelphia polling place, to the DoJ’s lawsuit targeting the State of Arizona for daring to attempt the securing of its borders, to the DoJ’s politically opportunistic denial of State Voter ID laws under the guise of an adherence to “civil rights,” the US Department of Justice exists as an entity that obliterates the notion of “justice for all,” instead affecting justice to some over others, predicated on skin color, sexual preference or allegiance to foreign entities hostile to the United States.

Governing unilaterally, such as with the examples above, executes an empirical presidency and, in most cases, usurps the Separation of Powers needed to maintain the checks and balances established by our Founders and Framers in the three co-equal branches of our Constitutional Republic.

So, as is evidenced, the promises made by those running for office – whether they are running for POTUS, Congress or the many State, County and local seats of power – can either be thwarted by opposition or rendered unrealistic by the law. Further, in a quest to keep campaign promises made to those who want more than good government in return, some candidates may consent to nefarious, and in some cases unconstitutional, means by which to satisfy their commitments to these ideological benefactors, their base voting blocs or both.

Because of these realities, we must understand that while politicos might say things we would like to hear on the campaign stump, we – you and I, both – must be more deliberative in our decision making before we pledge our support; before we dedicate our most precious of constitutional rights – our vote, to any one man of woman seeking political office; to any politician seeking to represent you and I in elected office.

It is our constitutional duty – by right of citizenship – to take the time to research the deeds of each of the candidates; their records, dispensing with the ever-placating rhetorical commitments packaged with the precursor, “when I become president of the United States.” Most often a campaign trail promise and $16.00 will buy you a $16.00 government purchased muffin.

When a candidate says that he is going to “repeal Obamacare,” ask the question “How?” Make them explain to you the process by which they will affect satisfaction of that promise.

When a candidate says that his experience will afford him the wherewithal to “create jobs,” ask him how he will cajole Congress into passing legislation that will free the private sector of burdensome legal constraints, or how he will pressure the labor unions into accepting reasonable restrictions on their greed.

And when a candidate says he will not “allow Iran to become nuclear capable,” ask him how, exactly, they intend to utilize the full force of the office of President of the United States to affect that reality. Will he seek a Declaration of War from Congress, a feat which has eluded every president elected during a time of military action since World War II? Or will he allow Congress to once again – and in cowardly and political opportune fashion – abdicate its responsibility to define the mission for our brave men and women in uniform?

Asking the rough and tough questions and demanding no-nonsense, direct and real answers from candidates for public office is how We the People can defend the US Constitution from those who believe it is a “fundamentally flawed document.”

It is well past time that we expect detailed information and definitions about solutions and agendas from those running for office. It is also well past time that we refuse to accept as truth the pre-packaged, agendized, bumper-sticker sound-bite, oratorical vomit that passes for media coverage of political campaigns by the mainstream media.

Ask questions and demand real, substantive and detailed answers before vocalizing your support for any candidate. To paraphrase the unwashed masses from all of the labor union protests and “Occupy” rallies: This is what defending the Constitution looks like.

Indeed, while the past few months have seen tiny signs our economy might be growing despite Obama’s anti-job policies, the White House is ramping up its effort to make sure our labor force is expunged of every last coal job it can find. It’d be humorous if it wasn’t so real.

If we start exposing this radical nonsense coming out of the Obama EPA, conservatives can push back on these bad policies. Environmentalists rarely get their way when people actually pay attention to what they want to do.

The latest battle will be coming any day now, as the EPA has said it will issue its Utility NSPS (New Source Performance Standards) sometime in January. Any new utility plants will have to meet a new set of environmental standards – standards that conveniently work out great for natural gas but are prohibitively expensive for coal plants, even new ones, to meet.

In capitalist terms, this means the United States can say goodbye to the construction of any new coal plants on its soil.

Sadly, this war on coal didn’t start here. Last month, moments before Christmas weekend, the EPA released its new Utility MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) rule, which set new emissions standards for pre-existing U.S. coal and oil power plants. The EPA did this in spite of the fact that the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) warned in November that such a rule would shut down as many as 300 coal power plants at the same time. Some of the older plants would be unable to meet the post-modern standards so quickly.

Nearly half of total U.S. electrical supply is provided by coal. It’s one of the most vibrant and successful industries in the country. It’s a home-grown resource, begging for U.S. workers to mine it out of the ground and convert it into electricity that millions of Americans can use to power their homes and small businesses.

27 states have filed complaints asking for a delay, arguing the strict standards under such a short time span are realistically unfeasible.

I’d start asking why the Obama Administration has decided to demonize the coal industry, risking massive power shortages and thousands of American jobs just to satisfy the environmentalist left. They’ve always hated coal, and under this White House, as early as this year, they might get their wish.

From the Washington Times:

During two days of recent congressional hearings into how as much as $1.2 billion disappeared from MF Global customer accounts, the chief operating officer of the imploding investment firm responded again and again that he did not know.

Yet as the House and Senate interrogated Bradley I. Abelow and other top executives at MF Global Holdings Ltd., lawmakers did not mention Mr. Abelow’s role as a financial adviser for the Environmental Protection Agency, which as of Tuesday listed him as the chairman of its financial advisory board.

Even as he finds himself the public face of a bankruptcy and admitted to lawmakers that he had no idea how client funds disappeared, Congress and the administration have voiced no public concern about Mr. Abelow’s role advising the $8.6 billion government agency on its finances.

Mr. Abelow also served as former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine’s chief of staff before Mr. Corzine went on to become MF Global’s CEO.  Interestingly, current EPA Administrator Lisa Smith also previously served as then-Gov. Corzine’s chief of staff.  Whether the Corzine connection played any role in Mr. Abelow’s appointment to the chairmanship of the EPA’s Financial Advisory Board is as yet unclear.

Mr. Abelow, who as recently as July 2011 appears to have donated $30,800 in campaign donations to the Democratic National Committee and $5,000 in June to President Barack Obama, said over a dozen times during congressional hearings that he didn’t know how MF Global customers’ funds disappeared under his watch.

Still, during a Dec. 13 hearing, Mr. Abelow, whose compensation at MF Global involved a guaranteed $3 million, told the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, that he’s deeply sorry to MF Global’s investors and employees:

As the president and chief operating officer of MF Global, I am deeply sorry for the hardship they have all endured…While I know that nothing I say can ease their pain, I hope that through my testimony today, I can help this committee understand what happened at MF Global and how we are attempting to unwind the company in a manner that provides maximum value for all parties.

Several unanswered questions remain:

1.  Why was Mr. Abelow’s role as chairman of the EPA’s Financial Advisory Board never brought up in either of his two appearances before congressional committees this month?

2.  How did Mr. Abelow win his chairmanship on the EPA’s Financial Advisory Board?

3.  Did current EPA Administrator Lisa Smith appoint or recommend Mr. Abelow to serve on the EPA’s Financial Advisory Board?

The biggest unanswered question for MF Global investors remains: where is the $1.2 billion in missing MF Global funds?

Judging from Jon Corzine and Bradley I. Abelow’s testimonies on Capitol Hill, that may be a question that remains unanswered for some time.

To repeat: in the one instance when we actually need federal regulators to intervene, the agency in question is failing to do its job.  Oh, the irony.

From Politico:

A FERC DIVIDED – It’s not only lobbyists and lawmakers who are arguing over whether EPA regulations pose a threat to the U.S. electric grid. The debate has consumed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the board tasked with ensuring the nation a reliable supply of electricity.

The most outspoken commissioner, Philip Moeller, is pushing for his agency to scrutinize EPA’s proposals more closely, while saying the EPA should consider delaying implementation of some rules for more than a year. But fellow Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and John Norris argue that delaying the rules might run afoul of the certainty that Moeller is seeking.

Also:

MORE ON EPA – New England and large swaths of Texas are at risk of electric power shortages in 10 years in part because of power plant retirements and retrofits needed to meet EPA regulations, according to a report (http://bit.ly/w4cGeF) from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (which goes by the street name “NERC”). But EPA says NERC has it all wrong, and in a letter (http://politico.pro/vGmK7D) last week, the agency charged that a draft version of the NERC study, like NERC’s 2010 review, “did not accurately portray the EPA’s regulations or the likely outcomes for the electric grid.”

To that end, the Wall Street Journal has more on NERC:

NERC’s forecasts are the gold standard for the U.S. power system because they are built from the bottom up, starting with finely grained data from individual plants. NERC has been doing this work since 1967, and since 2005 it has operated under the FERC umbrella as an “electric reliability organization” similar to Finra, the securities regulator with quasi-governmental duties.

Hmm, who are we going to trust here? The Obama administration agency that is pursuing an ideologically-driven agenda with the stated goal of scuttling the coal industry in its entirety, or the long-trusted industry group that has no reason to fabricate information to fit a specific ideology?

The growing threat to reliability – not to mention jobs and economic revenue the plants slated for shutdown provide – is not exactly news to Lisa Jackson’s EPA. For a year now, utility providers and state officials have been speaking out about the devastating impact the rules would have on energy providers and consumers alike.

Let’s look at just a few examples of states raising red flags:

Indiana

Former Indiana Democratic Senator and Governor Evan Bayh – who once occupied a spot on Barack Obama’s Vice Presidential shortlist – pens an op-ed in the Indianapolis Star criticizing Utility MACT rule for killing jobs and threatening reliability.  (11/7)

Iowa

KCAU-TV reports that proposed EPA coal and mercury regulations could cost the Nebraska Public Power District $1 billion, and the costs may be passed onto Sioux City residents in next five years. City officials feel the EPA rushed the changes, and South Sioux City Mayor William McLarty wrote a letter to the EPA describing the economic impact of the rule.  (8/3)

Kentucky

The Courier-Journal publishes an editorial stating that Kentucky consumers will pay more for electricity due to environmental upgrades of area power plants. If the Public Service Commission approves a settlement, rates for LG&E customers will rise by about 18 percent by 2016, down slightly from the 19 percent originally projected. Kentucky Utilities customers will get more of a break, with a 9.7 percent increase by 2016 instead of the projected 12.2 percent. The LG&E increases are tied to updating two coal-fired power plants at a cost of $1.4 billion. (11/15)

Nebraska

KVNO News reports that power companies will be required to spend millions to meet new rules from the EPA. The state has two large coal-fired plants (Sheldon Station, south of Lincoln near Bluestem Lake, and Gerald Gentleman Station, the state’s largest coal plant, is in western Nebraska near Sutherland) and predictions for the cost of improvements range from $10 million to $20 million.  (9/27)

New York

Independent Power Producers of New York President & CEO Gavin J. Donohue writes in the [Albany] Times Union that EPA rules, including Utility MACT, have created the need for statewide repowering so that generators can reduce their emissions and provide more electricity sooner than new resources required by the rules can be built and brought online.  (9/19)

North Carolina

Yes Weekly reports that Duke Energy has filed a “rate case” that would increase residential electricity rates by 17 percent and business rates by 14 percent, brought on by the anticipated costs associated with compliance with the EPA rules.

Ohio

Ohio Manufacturers Association Public Policy Director Kevin Schmidt writes an op-ed for The Columbus Dispatch opposing the Utility MACT rule, citing an anticipated 53,500 job losses and 13% rise in electricity costs resulting from the regulation.  (10/20)

The Wheeling News-Register reports that American Electric Power’s Muskingum Power Plant will close because of the Utility MACT rule.  (11/16)

Pennsylvania

The Associated Press details Governor Tom Corbett’s challenge to the Utility MACT Rule. The Pennsylvania governor cites concerns about the EPA rushing its proposal and failing to properly communicate with other agencies and the energy industry about the rule’s impact, and the report estimates that compliance costs for some plants will reach $300 million.  (10/30)

South Dakota

Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports on Governor Dennis Daugaard, Attorney General Marty Jackley and the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission all criticizing the Utility MACT Rule, emphasizing the need to delay its implementation and raising concerns about its impact on reliability.  (10/17)

Tennessee

Chattanooga Times-Free Press editorial acknowledges Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) opinion that the proposed three-year time frame for TVA to clean up its coal plants’ air controls is inadequate. (11/13)

Virginia

The Hill reports that Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli claimed the EPA’s Utility MACT rule will increase electricity prices by as much as 35 percent and kill 180,000 jobs per year from 2013-2020. (11/8)

West Virginia

As reported by the Charleston Daily Mail, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (D) states that West Virginia alone can expect to lose 38,500 jobs over the next few years if the EPA rules go into effect as scheduled.  (10/17/11)

Charleston Daily Mail argues in an editorial that the EPA is ignoring reliability concerns surrounding the Utility MACT rule.  (11/16)

On top of all of this, an unreliable power grid presents a clear and present danger to national security – military bases run on electricity too – and moves us further away from energy independence. As for the supposed health benefits of the Utility MACT and CSAPR rules? Well, decreased reliability makes it more likely that the grid will shut down when it is most crucial for Americans to have a dependable energy source. How healthy does it sound to risk leaving people without heat in the bitter cold or air conditioning in the blistering heat?

Obama is clearly desperate to rally his base as he approaches reelection – the Keystone XL Pipeline and the 20,000 jobs it would have provided have already been sacrificed on that altar – but the fact that prominent Democrats like Evan Bayh, Ray Tomblin, and Joe Manchin are openly opposing the rules should give the President a clue that mainstream Democrats aren’t buying what the EPA is selling anymore.

Obama has already made it clear that he’s ready to jeopardize our energy independence for political gain; let’s hope he reconsiders before putting our national security and the safety and welfare of the American people at risk.