November 1, 2012

“EPA Regs To Destroy 887,000 Jobs Per Year, Senator Says Citing New Study”


EPA regulations the Obama administration is scheduled to unleash in its second term would destroy up to 887,000 jobs a year, Sen. James Inhofe announced today.

Citing the results of a new study released today by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA), Sen. Inhofe described the crushing effects on jobs and family income of the coming EPA regulations:

“Earlier this month I released a Senate oversight report detailing the numerous job-killing regulations that the Obama-EPA has delayed or punted until after the election.

“Now, thanks to a new report from National Economic Research Associates (NERA), we have more insight into just how devastating these regulations will be for American families. According to NERA, they will destroy up to 887,000 jobs per year, hitting coal regions the hardest. In fact, peak year losses in family income in coal country would range up to $1,600 per household.”

Inhofe’s announcement comes a day after the Obama administration missed its second straight statutory deadline for publishing a legally-required report on its regulatory intentions and their economic consequences.


Earlier this month, Sen. Inhofe released a Senate oversight report listing the numerous job-killing regulations that the Obama-EPA has delayed until after the election.

Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation is actively fighting the EPA on this in a suit filed a few weeks back.   As we all here know, it has been a strategy of the Obama Administration to try to buy themselves a second term on a phony “war on women” and class warfare campaign; and they’ve also telegraphed exactly what they plan to do with that second term, even as they work hard to keep the specifics hidden.  Obama will have “more flexibility” to act the imperial President in a second term.

And what that means is, our Constitutional protections are largely gone, because a legal framework that can be selectively followed and enforced is nothing more than the framework of police state.

Ironically, I think there are many in the GOP establishment — among them, saboteurs and blowhards like Chris Christie — who would welcome such a framework.  And in fact — and I realize this is off topic, but I’m going to say it anyway, because why not? — I think Christie is pulling for an Obama victory, with plans of his own to run a Christie / Jeb Bush ticket in 2016. The truth is, the GOP despises its own constitutional conservative base and wants to run moderates who are really nothing more than relabeled centrist Democrats.

The love big government, but they like it constrained a bit more than does the left. The good news is, Christie will likely run as a Republican, and there won’t be many of those left by then, with conservatives and constitutionalists having abandoned the Party.


Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:53pm

Comments (13)

  1. Christie is a Democrat that knows what a budget looks like. I really miss the old Democrats in this country.

    Now it’s just “China won’t ever stop given’ us money. Cause MUREICA.”

    It might watch Glee and not NASCAR, but that’s still danger level stupid.

  2. – White House insider – last minute thoughts.

    – Be sure to click on the Jerrett piece link at the end.

  3. Look, sometimes you gotta break 887,000 eggs to make an omelette. What’s 887,000 more people on food stamps, when the alternative is 90 gazillion babies poisoned to death by Gaia-raping corporate evildoers?

  4. do they know it’s christmas time at all

  5. val gal is one ugly creature

  6. Bill Whittle with a principled call to vote for Mitt.

  7. The Whittle video was good, as usual.

  8. Steven Hayward recommends a vote for Coolidge — Amity Shlaes’ Coolidge.

    Calvin Coolidge would make a fine touchstone of the good modern President, if only we taught about him. Pity we choose socialism instead.

  9. By the way, just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know whether there is a bar in law to prevent a President from seeking to appoint his Vice-President to a seat on his Cabinet, as for instance Romney choosing Paul Ryan as his Treasury Secretary even while Ryan serves contemporaneously as Vice-P. (or warm bucket of spit, pick’em)? Seems like a hideous waste of political talent should Ryan simply be sitting on the sidelines, don’t it?

  10. Silent Cal was Reagan’s favorite president. Someone was paying attention.

  11. Michael Knox Beran — Obama’s Doom and Gloom:

    […] Such an embarrassment of riches would seem to refute Mathus’s pessimism. But neo-Malthusians contend that the most important of the advances that made this brave new world possible—energy derived from fossil fuels—was a lucky break, one that has enabled man only temporarily to evade nature’s Malthusian laws.

    The modern Left would seem to agree. Indeed the Left goes a step further: “green” liberals argue that the fossil-fuel bonanza should be shut down even if it’s not yet out of prosperity-producing gas. Thus President Obama’s war on coal, his dream of a draconian carbon tax, his ambivalence about oil drilling, and his refusal to permit the northern part of the Keystone Pipeline to be built.

    Whatever the president proclaims publicly, his program is a testament to his belief that we have reached the ne plus ultra of prosperity: the end, not of history, but of progress. In a stagnant world, the enlightened statesman can but divvy up an insufficient pie.

    Modern liberalism is not the first political philosophy to rest its case on doom and gloom, and it is unlikely to be the last. But until liberals offer more compelling evidence that the era of heroic growth is indeed at an end (and has not been merely artificially depressed by excessive government interference), the reasonable observer will hold with Francis Bacon: we know too little about future possibility to be justified in the adoption of a dogmatic glumness. Bacon, when pressed for “forecasts of the works that are to be,” replied “that the knowledge which we now possess will not teach a man even what to wish.”

    Francis Bacon was an American-style optimist ahead of his time. Barack Obama is a Malthusian pessimist trying to be president of the wrong country. After four years of his melancholy leadership, Americans are ready for some sunshine.

  12. Thanks for the MKB link.