Posted on 02/12/2011 12:22:23 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Hill E2 wire reports:
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.
The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.
The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
BTW Tim Walberg’s Youtube Channel has a speech about regulations killing business and small business in particular.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RepWalberg
*******************************EXCERPT**********************************
John Whitman says:
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
- – - – - – - – - -
R. Gates,
A (presidential veto) would just greatly enhance the probability that our current president is a one term president!
It is a win-win-win situation for the Republicans no matter if the bill is passed or not passed or vetoed. Think of the simple elegance of the overall Republican strategy. : )
The democratic Achilles heel is they think they are more intelligent than there political opponents . . . . a fatal assumption.
NOTE: Come to think of it, it sort of mirrors the fatal assumption of the elitist scientists (dare I say ‘the Team”) supporting the ideological AGW movement of the biased IPCC.
NOTE 2: And I am not even a political party endorsing US citizen.
John
Excellent! It’s a good start but hopefully they won’t stop there.
Even O-Zero can not veto a Zero.
Cut it to 0
In Benishek’s district #1 :) Bart’s Stupid’s old stomping grounds.
Thanks for the link, listening right now.
This is great news, but the reason for the Democrats, the Left IMO to be pushing such regulations in the first place is for the same reasons they are pushing us towards renewable energy sources they damned well know don’t exist, and won’t even start to replace oil, natural gas, etc., and that is to force the American people to the streets just like the ME, and soon Europe demanding change.
Before they can rebuild in their vision they have to reduce what is to rubble, and make what is undesireable in the eyes of the sheeple. Then, and only then can they persue their goal with the support of the sheeple.
Fact is that they President has difficulty vetoing a spending bill....tantamount to shutting down the Government...
ONLY Congress appropriates MONEY to run the Government!
I haven’t heard much out of Benishek but that’s normal for “freshmen”. (I hate that crap)
And see #11 also.
nice!
When the EPA budget is set for 2012, set it to ZERO. Let's see how many “dedicated” public servants in the EPA will work or show up for no pay. No pay, no work, no EPA. It is that simple.
Bulldoze it and salt the earth.
Pray for America
*************************************EXCERPT****************************************
boballab says:
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
Looks like R. Gates didn’t read the article. You see this bill isn’t just for funding the EPA, it’s to fund the entire government:
The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
So if Obama Vetos the bill or the Senate Dems kill it they just cut all funding for the government, you know the whole shut down the government thing that the Dems and the MSM have been saying for weeks would be political suicide for the GOP to do.
House of Representatives
Battle Over Budget Cuts Raises Specter of Federal Government Shutdown
So there is Obama’s and the Dems choices cut the EPA funding (and the other 97 Billion in cuts ) or shutdown the government. Imagine what his approval rating will then be on handling the economy, the debt and the deficit. He’s already at 27% approval on handling the debt, 30% on the deficit and 37% on the economy. I guess he thinks the first to 0 approval wins!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110209/pl_yblog_theticket/obamas-approval-rating-on-the-deficit-hits-new-low
An excellent start. Tricky Dick Nixon originated the EPA to try to get a few creds from the environmentalists (a hopeless cause for him). Why do we need a federal agency for that? The states are already doing too much as it is.
*********************************EXCERPT*******************************************
The legislation includes funding limitations on another of the Obama administration’s other energy and environment priorities. It would cut funding for the Bureau of Land Managements “wild lands" policy, which would allow the Obama administration to protect lands that have not been formally designated as wilderness land. Republicans have railed against the policy, arguing it could result in restrictions in oil and gas drilling.
It would also prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from terminating a license review for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The repository has been marred by years of regulatory delay and President Obama moved to abandon the project when he became president.
If this does not turn out to be a sham, it’s great news. Perhaps the new class of Republicans has introduced some backbone to the house.
Eliminate it altogether.
Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.