The Right to Regulate Your Breathing

As expected, the EPA today declared CO₂ a pollutant subject to regulation by the agency under the Clean Air Act. As the WSJ opines, this is a dangerous and undemocratic ruling. It allows the administration to impose regulations through the EPA and existing laws, sidestepping the legislative process.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit, and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda.

With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

As the editorial reports, this ruling is loaded with political cynicism. As the Cap and Trade bill has stalled, the administration has used this backdoor to impose draconian restrictions on businesses, who, it apparently hopes, will acquiesce to their demands for legislation limiting carbon emissions.

The administration realizes how ridiculous the limits are, as evidenced by its stated intention to raise the barrier from 250 tons per year to 25,000 tons. This is unlikely to survive for long as green groups almost certain to sue to force the EPA to enforce the more restrictive standards. As the law is explicit and clear these challenges have a good chance of succeeding.

For now, this decision moves into the courts, and years if not decades of litigation. Yet the decision really is historic: The White House has opened a Pandora's box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.

We will all come to regret this. There is nothing that any of us do that does not in some way involve the release of CO₂. This ruling allows the EPA to literally regulate every single aspect of every single activity engaged in by every single person every single day, including breathing. As if there were any doubt it was dead already, we can chisel today's date on the tombstone of limited government.

Congressman Heller Addresses Panel on Issues and Politics

“I like to tell people I’m a low tax, small government, reasonable regulation, free-market capitalist,” two-term Republican Congressman Dean Heller told a gathering of bloggers, talk-radio hosts and others sponsored by the Nevada News Bureau. “There’s not very many of us left in Washington, D.C.,” he added.

Heller commented on the propensity of Congress to exempt itself from the laws it passes. For example, he noted that there is a provision in the Cap-and-Trade bill “that exempts Congress from that act...We even exempt ourselves from hiring practices. We’ve exempted ourselves from some of the OSHA rules. We’d exempt ourselves from gravity if we thought we could get away with it.”

During a committee debate on health care reform, Heller related, “a member on the other side said, ‘If I went home and told my wife that we were going to have the same health care as everybody else, she wouldn’t be very happy with me.’”

Addressing the complaint of the Republicans as the “Party of No” Heller responded, “It works well politically, but I don’t think it’s fair.” He noted that Republicans have submitted over 40 proposals on health care, mentioning two of his own – forgiving some student loans from doctors and nurses who agree to practice in underserved areas and allowing doctors to write off expenses for indigent care. The latter he claimed would allow the uninsured to avoid the more expensive treatment at hospitals and emergency rooms but it was opposed by even his fellow Republicans, who cited the fear that lawyers would then be able to deduct their pro bono work.

He expressed his belief that tort reform must be central to any health care reform, claiming that “you can reduce the cost of health care in this country by 20-25% by having meaningful tort reform.” But he isn’t optimistic about the chance of any such provision being included. “The trial lawyers are helping write this piece of legislation,” he said. “You’ve got 3000 trial lawyers right now that are camped in Washington, DC writing this health care bill for 300 million Americans. That’s what’s going on and that’s why you see no tort reform in the bill.”

He believes this is an example of the Democrats repaying their supporters. “This is just payback time for trial lawyers, environmentalists and unions right now. With card check with cap and trade and with health care – they’re paying those 3 groups back.”

Health care was far from the only area with which Heller expressed disagreement with the administration. “I’m almost convinced that nobody in this administration has gone west of the Mississippi. You know all we’re hearing in the beltway right now…is that this economy’s turning around. We’re hearing that we’ve reached bottom and we’re well on our way.” He continued, “Boy, they need to spend some time here in this town. They need to talk to some developers; they need to talk to some of the planners, the city people, some of the gaming people and find out what’s really going on out here in the West...I don’t think they have a full grasp right now of the extent of how deep this recession really is.”

As for last week’s White House Jobs Summit, “There were some private sector people there but you know the bulk of those who attended that meeting, they were government employees, they were trial lawyers, they were environmentalists and they were unions.”

Its purpose was to reach a pre-determined conclusion, in Heller’s view. “[Obama] brought the people in who would tell him, ‘We need a second stimulus.’ When he did actually talk to…people who own small businesses, those who own manufacturers, they’re telling him just the opposite,” such as to abandon many policies that the President favors. “[Obama]’s all for a second stimulus. The second stimulus is going to be a bailout to states.”

There was one area in which Heller agreed, although with reservations, with President Obama – Afghanistan. “I hope he’s right. I want this President to be right,” Heller declared. His concern was that last week’s address by President Obama “was a very different speech. Everyone in here has heard this President speak. That was a very different style because I got the feeling that he didn’t believe what he was saying.”

He cautioned against half measures in prosecuting the war. “I will tell you from the data and information I get in Washington, DC that the troops on the ground felt and believed that they needed 80,000 troops and they got 30 [thousand]. So are we handicapping their ability to win this war? If we are, then we ought to bring them home, just bring them home right away...It’s either all in or get out.”

Later, he said, “What’s not realistic is telling them we’ll be out in 18 months.” He claimed Obama was trying to “split the baby with that speech. He knew that we needed to go in there, that there needed to be a surge. But he knew the left wouldn’t support that and so he put a timeline in there trying to make everybody happy.”

When asked to define victory in Afghanistan, Heller stated it would be when American troops were “able to come out of that country with [the Afghans] being able to police themselves – be able to govern themselves.” He expressed little faith in the current Afghan government. “I have a hard time thinking that we are going to release a country to a corrupt government.”

Heller expressed his opposition to trying suspected terrorists captured abroad in civilian courts and to torturing them as well. However, he was hesitant to define torture other than to defer to the judgment of the military. Heller also was reluctant to endorse a definite course when asked about the fate of the Navy Seals charged with mistreating terrorist suspect Ahmed Hashim Abed, saying that the President “needs to step in” and request all of the information but stopping short of advocating dropping charges against them without knowing all of the facts.

Heller expressed confidence in Republicans’ chances of defeating Senator Harry Reid. Referring to a recent poll in the Review-Journal, Heller stated, “I think it’s very clear we have candidates who can beat Senator Reid.” But he declared it’s very early in the race and a lot could happen, including changes in the mix of candidates, although he rejected a suggestion that he would be one. “I have no doubt it’s going to be a very typical Harry Reid race. It tightens, it gets close, it’s going to be ugly and it’s going to come down to a few thousand votes.”

The key, according to Heller, is exploiting Reid’s weaknesses. He explained, “I think health care is a weakness for him, I think Cap-and-Trade is a weakness for him, I think Cash for Clunkers is a weakness for him, I think bailouts are weaknesses for him, I think stimulus is a weakness for him, I think omnibus spending, huge spending bills is a weakness for him.”

Regarding the scandal surrounding Nevada’s other Senator, Republican John Ensign, Heller declared, “I haven’t asked for his resignation.” He did, however, state that if an investigation reveals that Senator Ensign violated any laws, “I think it’s a different thing if we start getting into things that are legal.”

As for the political fallout of the scandal, Heller said, “I don’t think there’s any doubt” that his scandal will have a negative impact on conservative candidates in next year’s election. Of his own campaign, Heller said, “I have not asked for his support in my campaign for reelection in Nevada. I’ll run on my own merits. I’ll run on my own…record.”

Heller predicted that the upcoming election cycle will “be anti-incumbent.” Although much sentiment runs against the Democrats because they are in power, this does not necessarily translate into support for Republicans. “There are some Republicans that the Ron Paul people won’t support. There are some Republicans out there that [the] Tea Party people won’t support. And they’re going to get” challenged in the primaries.

“It isn’t necessarily pro-Republican,” he continued. “I think that they kicked the Republicans out. They were tired of Bush; they were tired of the majority Republicans. Now they’re sick of the Democrats but I don’t think” that means they want Republicans back in power.

Steve Sebelius and NNB have reports on the gathering.

Good News! Now Let's Squander It

Because TARP recipients are repaying the money they've received from the program, the Treasury estimates the program will cost $200 billion less than previously thought. But, since Washington can't stand prosperity, they're looking for another way to squander it.

The Obama administration, buoyed by a resurgent Wall Street, plans to cut the projected long-term cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program by more than $200 billion, in a move that could smooth the way for the introduction of a new jobs program.

The White House and leaders in Congress are debating whether to use any of the remaining TARP funds for other domestic efforts, such as a jobs bill. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program during the height of the financial crisis.

The Treasury now estimates that over the next 10 years TARP will cost $141 billion at most, down from the $341 billion the White House projected in August. The reduction stems in large part from faster-than-expected repayments by some of the nation's largest banks, as well as less spending on programs to help shore up the financial sector.

Rather than use the money to reduce the debt, the administration believes that it can be put to use on another Keynesian fantasy of government job creation. There is a reason that government programs to create jobs inevitably fail.

Like many in Las Vegas I have a lawn with no grass. The landscaping at our house is a combination of trees, shrubs and landscape rock.

I get up one morning determined to do my part to stimulate the economy. So I head off to my local hardware store and spend $500 on a brand-new lawnmower. According to Keynesian theory, I've just stimulated the economy with my purchase. That $500 I just spent will go to employees and suppliers, who will spend it on other items, multiplying its economic impact. But what have I really done?

The hardware store has exchanged a mower worth $500 for an equal amount of cash. What about my side of the ledger? I now have $500 less cash than I had before. In exchange I have something that's worth absolutely nothing to me. In fact, it's going to cost me time and money to store and maintain. I've reduced my net worth by $500.

This transaction, meant to stimulate the economy, has not stimulated anything. The reality is that it has actually reduced the combined net worth of the parties involved.

This is the problem with Keynesian stimulus. The idea that government spending can stimulate the economy results in the government doing the equivalent of buying a lot of lawnmowers for people without grass to cut, with the net effect of reducing the combined net worth of the country.