NWV News - Obama's EPA Scam Hurts Taxpayers' and U.S. Farmers, Say Critics

OBAMA'S EPA SCAM HURTS TAXPAYERS' AND U.S. FARMERS, SAY CRITICS

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
July 5, 2011
© 2011 NewsWithViews.com

In a transaction by the Obama White House that's sure to anger Americans -- if the news media ever bothered to tell them -- the People's Republic of China gets millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help with their so-called green projects. The outrageous part of the story is that the U.S. is indebted to China for almost a trillion dollars.

The Obama administrator, Lisa Jackson, who launched an enormously expensive program to make America's minority communities green, has sent millions of taxpayer dollars to environmental causes in nations overseas, including China, Russia and India.

Ranking members of a congressional energy committee call it "foreign handouts" amid record deficits, soaring unemployment and a looming debt ceiling in the U.S. The money -- $27 million since 2009 -- has been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is headed by Ms. Jackson.

The cash was distributed via 65 foreign grants that don't even include Canada and Mexico, according to a report issued this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and obtained by Judicial Watch, a public-interest group based in the nation's capital.

Among the enraging foreign handouts are $1.2 million for the United Nations to promote clean fuels, $718,000 to help China comply with two initiatives and $700,000 for Thailand to recover methane gas at pig farms, according to public-interest group's investigation.

An additional $150,000 went to help the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) combat fraud in carbon trading and $15,000 to Indonesia's "Breathe Easy, Jakarta" publicity campaign.

This sort of federal spending does not reflect the priorities of the American people, according to a letter that several lawmakers sent Jackson in the report's aftermath.

Since being appointed EPA Administrator, Jackson has gone on a manic spending spree to bring "environmental justice" to low-income and minority communities. Under the program, dozens of left-wing groups have received millions of taxpayer dollars to help poor and impoverished people increase recycling, reduce carbon emissions through "weatherization," participate in "green jobs" training and avoid heat stroke.

The EPA's budget has also surged 34% since Jackson took over to a whopping $10.3 billion. The figure includes $43 million for efforts to reduce greenhouse gases that the agency claims "endanger" public health.

By the EPA's own statements, Administrator Jackson has pledged to focus on core issues of protecting air and water quality, preventing exposure to toxic contamination in U.S. communities, and reducing greenhouse gases. She has pledged that all of the agency's efforts will follow the best science, adhere to the rule of law, and be implemented with unparalleled transparency.

By the same statements, she has made it a priority to focus on vulnerable groups – including children, the elderly, and low-income communities – that are particularly susceptible to environmental and health threats. She has promised that all stakeholders will be heard in the decision-making process.

Nearly half of the EPA's budget goes to grants that fund state environmental programs, nonprofits and educational institutions that help promote the agency's agenda.

OBAMA'S EPA ANTI-FARM STRATEGY

While the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats know that passing so-called environmental legislation will be a tough sell to the American people, the White House is bypassing the legislative process by surreptitiously using the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA officials have declared carbon dioxide and other gases to be a threat to the environment and to the health of Americans. They are currently formulating regulations to restrict emissions from automobiles and trucks, power plants and other sources.

EPA’s proposal would have the following effects:

• The majority of localities with ozone monitors would exceed the new standard under baseline conditions;
• In some cases, businesses would have to reduce emissions by more than 70 percent;
• With existing technology, less than half of the necessary reductions would be achieved. This means that even if business installed all available controls, EPA’s proposal will not be achievable and many counties would be in perpetual non-attainment; and
• It would cost businesses and individuals as much as $4.2 billion, according to the EPA's own estimates.

Restrictive permit requirements discourage companies from building or expanding major manufacturing facilities in the state. These requirements include offsetting new emissions and installing the maximum emission reduction technology without consideration of costs.

Federal funding for highway and transit projects can be lost unless the state demonstrates that the projects will not increase emissions. Costly compliance will make businesses less competitive and thus lead to direct employment losses. These direct losses will generate larger overall losses through multiplier effects.

In addition to EPA's impact on the industrial sector, the EPA plans to initiate a so-called greenhouse gas tax on privately owned dairy farms and livestock. Under Title V of the Clean Air Act, farmers would pay a hefty permit fee for animals that emit 100 tons of greenhouse gasses annually, affecting the vast majority of the nation's livestock operations.

Any farm with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain a permit to operate, which, according to the United State Department of Agriculture, would cover 99 percent of dairy production, 95 percent of its hog production and 90 percent of beef production.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

According to one organization, the New York Farm Bureau, the new permits would cost farmers well over $110 million a year, dramatically impacting the agricultural sector and economy. The tax is estimated at $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 per hog. The added financial burden on already-struggling farmers could force many family farms out of business and lead to hunger and dependency on government handouts.