Thomas Jefferson's Government

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

We have had the public trained in socialism through many years of public schools.

As a statesman, you have the responsibility to lead your constituency in the proper direction. As you consider whether this will be a continuation of socialism or an alternative, you may want to consider a number of quotes by Thomas Jefferson.

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Require Publication of Research by Public Grant Receivers

An article by Britt Erickson in the November 28 issue of C&E News is entitled "Open Access Movement Grows". It concerns the availability of scholarly articles on the sciences and humanities to the general public.

The previous argument was whether university scientists should be required to publish their research in publicly available journals. Many scientists believed this should not be a requirement, in spite of the fact that they had received taxpayer funds in the form of government grants to support their research. My previous opinion was that publication should be a requirement, because in the acceptance of public funds, the grant receiver gives up his right to privacy. I maintain that position.

However, the argument has changed. Nine years ago a group of advocates, for publication and availability to the general public of such scholarly articles, held an open meeting called Berlin 9 Open Access Conference. With each subsequent annual meeting, support has grown to open publication. The theory has been that with the increase of such research publishing, science and humanity development will be enhanced. After nine years, this seems to be correct. There have been many more published articles and even the introduction of public access journals.

This indirectly supports my contention that those persons who receive government money have an obligation to return something of value to those supplying the funds; namely taxpayers.

The B-1 Bomber and Terrorism

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your newsletter.

I agree with your position on the B-1 bomber. President Obama has shown weakness to all potential foreign aggressors, and this is not the time to be significantly reducing our military might; not for aggression but for protection. I can also understand your pandering to Dyess Air Force Base for vote getting, but I hate to see it put in the same category as national defense.

It's nice to hear what the House is doing on the payroll tax extension, but what are you doing personally?
With regard to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I disagree with your position. Government must be required to arrest any US citizen suspected of having committed or planning to commit terrorism against the United States. The law should include conditions for speedy trial, rather than an indefinite hold at a place such as Guantánamo.

Merry Christmas!

Excess Spending Through Federal Agencies

To Rep. Ralph Hall:

I am faxing you a detailed two-page article, which appeared in the December 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News and which is entitled, Science Agencies Hold Their Own".

You will notice in that article that Congress has passed budgets for the so-called "science " branches of government. The new budgets total about $50 billion.

You are mentioned as being one of the leaders in the passage of the various bills involved in this budgeting, and I take this opportunity to criticize your judgment in leading to a budget, which essentially maintains the previous level of taxpayer expenditures in these areas. This is done at a time when we have a gross deficiency in federal budget balancing. You may be impressed by the "science" designation of the various agencies. However, I can assure you that as a PhD scientist with experience in business, I can strongly assure you that you have arranged to continue wasting considerable taxpayer money.

EPA Revises Boiler Regulations

To: Calvin M. Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council

Congratulations to you on your success in forcing the EPA to reduce their stringent requirements for pollution control on industrial boilers. Attached is an article in Chemical and Engineering News, which elaborates on this topic.


The article says that in the reduced number of targets for the regulations, the application would involve only 1% of the industrial boilers in the US, However, it is also said that the cost to businesses will be about $2.3 billion annually, with a potential life-saving potential of reducing premature deaths by 8100.

You have complimented the EPA for reducing the number of industrial boilers, to which the restrictions will apply. However, the lack of detail brings up some questionable factors. For example, an outright expenditure of $2.3 billion may or may not prevent 8100 premature deaths annually. The question is whether these people would be dying of something else anyhow and how the EPA could come up with that number in the first place. The other lacking detail is on the specific pollutants and the concentrations that which they present a hazard? If CO2 control is involvement in the restriction, it is a ridiculous assertion to do so. S02 has already been controlled for many years and has drastically reduced acid rain. There would seem to be no basis for further reduction of SO2 concentration. Some control of NOx and mercury would seem advisable, but we need to consider the levels to which they should be reduced.

You have made considerable progress with the EPA, I encourage you to continue to press them for practical controls, which will have some economic and health benefits.

Anti-regulatory Action

Anti-Regulatory Action

Fax to Rep. Lamar S. Smith and Rep.Geoff Davis:

Congratulations to both of you for your sponsorship of HR 3010 and HR 10, respectively. Attached is an article from the December 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News concerning this sponsorship.

The third bill HR 527 was apparently passed on December 1. There is nothing in C&E News indicating the sponsorship. But congratulations to whichever representative was involved in that. Collectively, these bills on anti-regulatory action are a significant step forward in reestablishing economic superiority of the US. Hopefully, they will help in recovering from the damage done by Pres. Obama and his Administration.

Unfortunately, we recognize that the Senate is not likely to pass these bills, and the President will likely veto them. However, you have made a considerable step forward in your presentation, since we anticipate political control of the Senate and the Presidency in the next election. At that time, I ask you to reintroduce these bills to the Senate, so that we will have the possibility of actual progress

We Cannot Have Gestapo-like Arrests

Open e-mail to Rep Neugebauer:

Randy,

I heard on the Neal Boortz radio program this morning that there is a rumor concerning a bill in the Senate which would allow the President to declare, at his discretion, any US citizen in the United States to be a terrorist, and arrested by the military.

The difficulty with this bill and any subsequent law, which may follow, is in the definition of "terrorist". In the strict interpretation of the term, a terrorist is a person who actually commits a physical act detrimental to the general public. However, the interpretation has generally been extended to include any person who by previous background, MAY perform an act, which is perceived to be detrimental to the general public. Notice that this would include not only physically destructive acts, such as explosions, but also intellectual acts involving criticism of the government.

I now take you back to Germany in 1938. With the advent of NAZI control, the Gestapo was given broad arrest powers. They came to domiciles, broke in if necessary, and arrested people, who the administration had previously considered enemies of the state. This action was primarily against Jews, but likely included defenders of Jews. The arrested persons were sent to concentration camps, without benefit of trial. You know the rest.

If our President and his Administration are allowed to declare any person or group of persons as enemies of the state, through a government perception, and allow an arrest without subsequent trial, we will have a repeat of Gestapo action. We cannot allow that.

Another Ridiculous Budget Buster

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I just learned that the House and Senate passed minibus bill H. Rept.112-284, and it was on its way to the President for signing. He has possibly signed it by now.

According to C&E News, the bill contains funding for five federal agencies. Total expenditure will be $33 billion. Only NASA will see a budget cut. Three other see increases of 3 to 7%. The FDA budget is unclear in the C&E News report, but it is presumably up.

I continue to hear about a huge deficit in the total federal budget. How do you rationalize these increases, when we should be having significant decreases?

In the last federal election, we elected a bunch of fiscal conservatives to the house. What happened to them? Did they become brainwashed? How did you vote on this minibus bill?

I'm a scientist, but I'm not ignorant about money. I can tell you that these so-called "science" agencies are budget busters, and you and your organization have contributed greatly to the continued decline of US economic power.

I was also under the impression that we were supposed to shrink government. How do we do that, if we keep throwing money at these various agencies?

It appears that House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Chairman, Harold D. Rogers was very favorable to this budget. He said that, "this minibus represents a fiscally responsible bipartisan compromise that will prevent a potential government shutdown." I suppose it's unreasonable to ask you you how he could come up with such a ridiculous statement. Rogers is ostensibly a Republican from Kentucky. Based on his recent work, he is not a Republican. He is a socialist, with the cloak of a Republican. Get him out of there. He is doing a lot of damage.

Good Intentions and Abuse of Regulations

I see that Rudy Baum is back to his old program of supporting big government and excusing its abuses.

Rudy is the Editor in Chief of Chemical & Engineering News, the house organ of the American Chemical Society. Rudy uses C&E News as a forum to promote his Communistic/Socialistic ideology. He does this through his editorials and also presumably by applying pressure on his reporters, who write individual articles.

In the November 14 issue of C&E News, Rudy has an editorial, entitled "The Cost of Prevention". As is standard for Rudy, he usually uses a title intended to enlist sympathy of the readers, while the essence of the article is somewhat different. In this case, Rudy is defending the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In the present editorial, Rudy starts his dissertation by expounding on the pleasures of his recent boat trip on the Chicago River. He says that at one time the Chicago River was the sewer of Chicago, but with the introduction of the Clean Water Act by Congress, and the appointment of the EPA for enforcement the river's environment changed. However in spite of Rudy's accolades, the EPA still calls it a sewer, unfit to swim in.

I doubt that many persons will dispute the value of the Clean Water Act, and likely most will support the action of the EPA in attempting cleanup of the Chicago River, but that is not the main point.

What we need to consider is the bad decisions and actions of the EPA, as well as the good. More importantly, we need to address the likely supposition that the EPA has changed its operational vision from improving the environment to becoming more of a political arm of the President in establishing a global redistribution of wealth, which leads to destruction of a previous strong US economy.

Related to this is my previous condemnation of US environmental organizations. My claim is that they have been taken over by Communists/Socialists, who also are major donors to the Obama reelection fund. This also fits in well with Obama's Communist/Socialist agenda and with Obama's control of EPA, as an arm of the same program.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said there were no government regulations which had a negative effect on jobs. He seems to have neglected the fact that the federal government sharply restricted logging in a 2,000-acre radius around known spotted owl nests, required that at least 500 acres of the largest trees in that zone be left uncut, and prohibited logging within 70 acres of a nest. Before the restriction, annual production of lumber in the 1980s from the Sweet Home Ranger District in the Willamette National Forest was 86 million board feet of timber. By 1992, the height of the Northern Spotted Owl controversy, the district produced only 100,000 board feet. Men showed up for work at the mills and went home early--with pink slips. Timber dependent small family-owned businesses closed their doors. Men needing to support their families moved elsewhere to find family-wage jobs. The local timber industry no longer offered jobs to high school youth dropouts, nor provided work for those not versed in modern computer technology. Many former mill workers and loggers, when possible, retrained for other jobs. The other jobs all too often proved to be entry level, minimum wage jobs. Men could not support their families on such jobs. They lost their houses.

The Internet is full of such cases, but I'll mention only one more. That is the case of the snail darter, which is a small fish living in rivers. As an excuse for preserving the snail darter, the EPA was able to shut down a nuclear power plant, with the obvious loss of commercial power to support and enlarge our economy. This was consistent with the new environmental movement and Pres. Obama's agenda to redistribute global wealth.

The obvious problem, with the Clean Water Act and the use of the EPA to administer it, is the usual situation with government. Intentions are initially good and first actions are helpful, but then outside influences begin to change the program, in order to satisfy the avarice of individuals and political organizations, including other branches of government. There is an obvious answer to this. Congress needs to have some mechanism by which it continually follows operations resulting from previous Acts, and when necessary, make appropriate changes. It is now past time to do this with EPA, to remove its political action.

Professors at Public Universities Have Sold Their Academic Freedom

Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Freedom of Information Versus Academic Freedom", in the November 14 issue of Chemical & Engineering News.

The article essentially covers an argument about the writings, particularly e-mails, of professors at public universities. Specifically, the American Tradition Institute (API) is requesting the University of Virginia to supply copies of Michael Mann's e-mails, which he issued when he was an employee of the university. It will be recalled that Michael Mann has been one of the leading advocates for acceptance of the theory that climate change is caused by man. The significance of his promotion is that it aids in supporting a program of global redistribution of wealth, by using a taxing approach called Cap & Trade to limit economic development of advanced countries, such as the United States.

Public university professors and associated organizations have supported the University of Virginia's refusal to supply the requested e-mails. Their main reason is that making all such information public would lead to grossly limiting communication among professors and inhibit the development of science.

However, many states including Virginia have freedom of information laws, which allow anyone to request information involving University operations which involve use of public (taxpayers) funds. Since Michael Mann was a University employee supported by public funds, there seems to be no legal basis for the University of Virginia to withhold the requested e-mails.

Many public university professors are essentially saying that in spite of state laws they should not be required to make their writing public information. They claim this as their right to academic freedom.

However, it seems clear that in accepting the benefits of public funding for their work, they have essentially sold their academic freedom. If academic freedom were of primary importance, and they wished to continue their academic work, they could have sought employment at private colleges and universities.

Rep. Neugebauer's News Letter

Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer

Randy,

I read your latest newsletter.

Balanced Budget Amendment
It's nice that you support it, but what are you doing to expedite it?

US Supreme Court on Obama Care
You didn't need to report this. The news media already has it well covered. We also know you are against it.

Super Committee on Spending Cuts
We already know about the Super Committee, and we know your favorable position on spending cuts.
You didn't mention that even if the Super Committee fulfills its objective, it will be insufficient with respect to our needs on total spending cuts. We can anticipate another downgrading of US government bonds. What are you doing to correct the situation?

National Adoption Month
I say again you should not be promoting culture. When asked whether you support motherhood, you can reply in the affirmative, but there's no reason that I can see why you should be taking the time to write about adoption, when we have significant government problems, which are your direct responsibility.

Foreign Investments in the US

Pres. Obama recently said we have been lazy in trying to attract foreign investments to the US. This statement leads to a couple of questions to Pres. Obama.

First Question: Who specifically is the "we"? Do you mean I should personally be doing more? Do you mean that the Chamber of Commerce, should be doing more? Or, do you mean that your own Administration should be doing more?

Second Question: Why would foreign investors want to invest in the US at higher corporate taxes and more restrictions on business operations than in most other countries, with a promise of continued increases by your Office, the EPA, and the Department of Labor, which you supervise?

What Happened to the Jobs?

What happened to the jobs?

1. The low point of unemployment was 5% in January '08. The high point was 10% in October '09, 21 months later.

2. We must use annual 12 month average data, because monthly data is not available. Average annual data shows a job loss of 4.4%, rather than the actual 5% for 21 months.

3. In 1 year, we lost 6.0 million jobs (4.4%). What were they?

4. Construction job loss was 1.1 million (16% of Construction jobs). Construction is internal; it cannot be exported.

5. The largest loss was 1.6 million Manufacturing jobs (11.6 % of manufacturing jobs).

6. Next largest losses were 1.4 million in Trade jobs (5.3% of trade jobs) and 1.2 million in Professional jobs (6.5% of professional jobs)..

7. The lost 1.6 Manufacturing jobs were mostly transferred to Korea, Taiwan, China and various Pan American Countries. We have seen the names of these countries on much of our US purchased goods.

8. Trade jobs include various sales ancillaries, such as customer service, brochures and instruction booklets. The lost Trade jobs were moved to India, China, Taiwan, Korea, and other countries. Most of us have had the experience of trying to deal with foreigners on customer service and have seen the sometimes stilted writing of foreigners in brochures and instruction booklets.

9. Professional jobs include accounting, architecture, design, R&D, and others. These activities were also moved to the same countries mentioned in #8. We don't see much of these activities but have heard about them.

10. It is not unreasonable to suppose that we have lost 12% of our manufacturing jobs, 5% of our trade jobs and 6% of our professional jobs to other countries. These collectively amount to a loss of 4.2 million US jobs.

11. Why were these jobs lost to other countries?

12. Company executives are primarily interested in holding their own jobs and maximizing their salaries and bonuses.

13 The executives understand that the best way to accomplish their objectives is to maximize company profits, because the boards of directors, who control the top company jobs, are mostly large stockholders who are themselves interested in stock value appreciation and dividends.

14. The few ways to increase company profits are to reduce manufacturing cost per item, sales and administrative costs, and taxes. This not only gives an increased profit per item after taxes, but gives an opportunity to boost item volume sales through competetive price advantage.

15. Most less developed countries have lower labor costs than the US. In most cases, the labor is sufficiently capable of producing quality products at rates equivalent to the US, which reduces cost per item. The leadership of most less developed countries have an interest in manufacturing US type goods to improve their countries' economies.

16. To attract US manufacturing, less developed countries use fewer government restrictions, and lower company taxes. In many cases, foreign governments will give a corporate tax holiday.

17. The free trade policy of the US allows the US company foreign manufactured goods to easily flow back to US markets.

18. For Trade and Professional work, the situation is somewhat similar. Contracts for supply of sales service, brochures, instruction booklets, computer programs, computer designs, accounting services, architectural documents, etc, are almost always less costly when supplied by India or China.

19. The collective low labor costs, tax advantages, friendly foreign government attitude and US free trade were strongly recognized and acted upon by US companies in shipping jobs overseas in the 21-month period between January '08 and October '09.

20. Labor costs in the foreign countries continue to rise, which tends to reduce the incentive for foreign operations by US companies, but foreign tax benefits and restrictions for US companies have not. Free trade persists.

21. US jobs can be returned from abroad by addressing and correcting each of these entities: low foreign labor cost, company taxes, operating restrictions, and free trade.

Strategy on Imports of Solar Modules from China

Jeff Johnson has an article entitled, "Solar Panel Makers Cry Foul" in the October 31 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. A group of seven solar panel makers submitted a petition to the Department of Commerce alleging "dumping" of crystalline solar panels in the US by Chinese companies.

An attorney for the seven companies says, "the Chinese industries are using dump and subsidized pricing to drive US companies from the US market". Solyndra has been in the news as one of the bankrupt companies, and there has been a total of seven other US solar module producers who have gone bankrupt in the past 18 months.

There is no doubt that the US companies filed for bankruptcy, because they had been unable to sell their US manufactured products at prices as low as the Chinese. However, the kettle is calling the pot black.

The concern in the recent Solyndra scandal is that the US government had given Solyndra a half billion dollars in a loan guarantee. This is obviously subsidization at the US level. And, there have been others.

The question then is whether the Chinese are out-subsidizing their solar module manufacturers, as compared to US subsidizing of its manufacturers. The petition of the remaining seven US manufacturers has asked for custom duties against the Chinese products. This would certainly be better than a subsidizing war, which has already cost the American taxpayers dearly.

However, a better approach might be to allow these seven American companies to file for bankruptcy and have the Chinese continue to supply the market at reduced prices. This would give low-cost materials for US installations. If the Chinese later decide to raise prices, bankruptcy laws in the US are such that these companies could go back into production. And then we could give them a further advantage by belatedly applying custom duties to the Chinese imports, in retaliation for the then proven Chinese objective of using dumping to gain control of the US market.

How To Make the Data Quality Act Honestly Effective

Open e-mail to Rep Neugebauer:

Randy,

Sen. James Inhofe recently wrote a letter to Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator. The letter concerned EPA's new Utilities MACT rule, which involves air pollution from coal-fueled power plants. In that letter, Sen. Inhofe refers to the Data Quality Act (DQA). My present e-mail is concerned with the DQA. I will return later to discuss MACT in a separate e-mail.

Congress likely had all good intentions in passing the Data Quality Act, but has missed target, which was to ensure that all data used by the Administration is of sound quality.

The DQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies".

The problem arises in the administration of the act by the OMB.

The Executive Office of the President has 14 entities, of which the OMB is the largest. The Director, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President controls the actions of the Director and presumably data quality through the job appointment and the Director's salary. Confirmation by the Senate starts the appointment, after which the President has full control, resulting again in the fox being in charge of the chicken house.

When the constitution was established, the framers saw the need for checks and balances among the 3 branches of government. They likely did not foresee how complex government would eventually become. It is also a rule of thumb that the more complex an operation is, the more likely there will be fraud and deceit. We see from the above that the potential for presidential partiality in operation of the OMB can seriously jeopardize integrity of OMB reports and conclusions, in spite of the Data Quality Act. This must also be true in many other segments of government.

There are some obvious answers to this. Shrink the size of government, which would automatically simplify operations and give increased transparency. In addition, both House and Senate should have over-seeing responsibility, where each Department Director's performance, including entities of the Executive Office of the President, is periodically reviewed. This function can be assigned to existing committees in the House and Senate. The House, Senate, and President should each have a vote on each Director. Two votes against would require an immediate replacement.

Stop Federal Grants to Industry & Revoke the Bayh-Dole Act

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer;

Randy,

Melody Bomgardner has an article entitled, "DOE Demands Solar Patents" in the October 17 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. It involves the bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar, a solar wafer manufacturer.

In the bankruptcy filing, Evergreen said that it would sell at auction its intellectual property rights related to solar wafer manufacturing. That technology includes three patents. The Department of Energy claims the title for the three patents, which would then not be available for auction by Evergreen.

The Bayh-Dole confirms intellectual property rights of the technology, including patents, to any small businesses which had obtained government financial support. The DOE says that Evergreen received $3 million in a government grant. However, to retain the property rights, a small business must adhere to nine requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act. Three of these requirements are:

1. Report each disclosed invention to the funding agency
2. Elect to retain title in writing within a statutorily prescribed timeframe
3. Grant the federal government a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced on its behalf throughout the world.

Evergreen didn't do the three.

In a single associated case, the court held that since the appellant failed to comply with the Bayh-Dole Act.invention disclosure provisions of a contract, the court upheld the transfer of an invention title to the U.S. Army.

Other than obtaining title transfer, the government can also obtain "march in" rights, which allows the funding agency to effectively ignore the exclusivity of a patent awarded under the act and grant additional licenses to other "reasonable applicants."

While it hurts me to say so, it looks like the DOE is within its rights to restrict Evergreen from selling patents and know-how under auction.

I am bothered in two ways. The DOE should never have granted $3 million of taxpayer money to Evergreen. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to dole out taxpayer money to private companies for anything it considers worthwhile at the time.

Evergreen is only another aspect of the Solyndra scandal and Congress should put a stop to it. It also appears to me that the Bayh-Dole Act was ill-conceived. My original thought was that Congress should modify it, but I now believe my first suggestion takes preference. That is, government should not be granting taxpayer funds to private industry, in which case the Bayh-Dole Act becomes moot. Bayh-Dole should only be wiped off the books for organization sake.

Excessive Restrictions in EPA's Clean Air Program

Randy,

Glenn Hess has an article entitled, "EPA Clean Air Rules Challenged", in the October 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News.

In general, House Republicans are criticizing the EPA for excessive regulations, which negatively affect jobs in these times of economic weakness. More specifically, the House passed a wide-ranging bill (HR 2401) that would halt the EPA efforts to sharply curtail emissions of mercury, soot and acid gases from coal and oil fired power plants and impose stricter limits on toxic air pollution that often drifts across state lines.

I agree with the general implication of the EPA that major air contamination from mercury, soot and acid gases should be eliminated. However, I have a difference of opinion, when we start to consider quantities and concentrations. The House may be on the right track with its HR 2401 in its objection to the proposed EPA regulation, based on the term "sharply curtail".

Congress passed the Clean Air Act 40 years ago. In those 40 years, the EPA has made strides with industry in controlling air pollution, to what I now consider is a low-level. I believe that the several scientists invited by the GOP majority to testify have put their finger on the problem. They say that the US is reaching a point of diminishing returns in setting standards for toxic air pollutants at lower and lower concentrations. Each reduction becomes more difficult and costly to achieve, while yielding minimal, if any, additional health benefits. In other words, the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

The EPA makes exaggerated claims of health benefits, such as "avoiding tens of thousands of premature deaths, preventing tens of thousands of heart attacks and thousands of hospital visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and alleviating hundreds of thousands of childhood asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses". Just as an example of the exaggeration, Michael Honeycutt, of the Texas, Commission on Environmental Quality, pointed out that the EPA's claims of mercury causing lower IQ and heart disease scare the public into avoiding seafood. But, the Japanese eat 10 times more fish than Americans do and have higher levels of mercury in their blood. They have a lower rate of coronary heart disease and high scores on IQ tests.

This again reverts to the problem I previously recognized, which is that the EPA is taking its marching orders from its socialistic/communistic boss Pres. Obama. Congress must in some way change the administration, so that a reasonably scientific EPA can perform its duties without political control of the EPA agenda.

Remove the EPA from Presidential Administration

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "Alleged Science Manipulation" in the October 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News.

At in October 6 hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment & the Economy, GOP lawmakers said they were probing whether EPA's scientific assessments of chemicals hazards are skewed to lead to tighter regulations.

The lengthy article covers various complaints against the EPA. Some say the EPA acts too slowly. Others say it acts to rapidly. Some say the scientific information it collects is skewed toward a preconceived idea. Etc.
This is all based on a general distrust of the EPA, as it has reacted favorably to President Obama's directives over the last several years. As we know, President Obama has a socialistic/communistic agenda with accent to a growth of government, through higher taxes and at the expense of private industry. Many of the EPA decisions in the last three years have shown a strong leaning toward the ideologies of its boss. One outstanding decision was to declare carbon dioxide a poisonous contaminant, with attempts to regulate its emissions from power plants and other sources.

I believe the House is on the right track of pressing the EPA on detail, but I also believe that stronger action must be taken. As Congress originally set up the EPA, it arranged for administration by the President, as was standard for all Congressional formed agencies. The system needs to be changed, because it is now recognized that these agencies have tremendous power through the generous budgets allocated by Congress, and that this power is being used by the President to support his political agenda of reforming the US to a socialistic/communistic model.

Federal Court Suit Against EPA on Boiler Emission and Coal Ash Standards

E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Glenn Hess has an article entitled "House Bills Would Undermine EPA" in the October 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. It involves the EPA's issuance of new boiler and incinerator emission and coal ash standards at the end of October.

House Bill 2250 directs the Agency to develop new standards that can be met with existing technology. Is there something wrong with that? Is it reasonable to expect industry to conform to regulations which are not attainable using current technology, and in consideration of present budget deficits, joblessness, etc.?

The EPA has been operating on the basis of absolute considerations only of environmental contamination with the use of legal controls on industry, and without consideration of economic factors. That is obviously an unreasonable position.

House HR 2250 will go nowhere, because it will not be supported in the Senate and would be vetoed by the President. The net result is that, since it is not a matter of primary public interest, the House is only making a statement. However, without some additional action, the EPA will go on its merry way of instituting another restriction, which will grossly and negatively affect our economy.

I strongly suggest that the House file suit against the EPA in federal court to obtain an injunction to postpone institution of the EPA boiler, incinerator, and coal ash standards, on the basis that it would do nonrepairable damage to an already ailing economy.

Comments on Rep. Neugebauer's News Letter

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your latest news letter.

VETERANS
Nice touch on Veteran's Day. Like agreeing to mother's milk, I suppose you have to do a little of this, but let's not overdue the compassion. Give them the benefits they deserve, with thanks, and get on to the present important problems.

WINDSTORMS
You should not be involved in this. Neither you nor anybody else can control the weather. You can only see that The National Weather Service is doing its job of giving the public notice of forth-coming dangerous weather. We have private insurance companies to reimburse clients for storm damage. Anyone dumb enough to not buy insurance deserves an opportunity to lose their property, without your interference.

HUD
This is simple. I told you previously to shut it down. You also need to pressure the FBI and Justice Dept. to prosecute thieves, in and out of government.

MILITARY ACADEMY NOMINATIONS
Good going on this, but one feather in your cap is enough. Don't overdo it in seeking favorable publicity.

Free Trade Deal with Korea, Panama, and Columbis Is a Bust for the US.

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

SUMMARY

I am sorry to report that Congress has pulled another boner by confirming the free trade deal with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, which had been 3 years in hiatus.

DETAILS
The White House claims the free trade deal COULD increase exports by $13 billion a year and support 70,000 jobs. That seems rather far-fetched, as we look at some of the details.

Market Size
Let's take a look at the relative market sizes, which can be judged by each country's population since it is the individuals who purchase the goods.

COUNTRY POPULATION IN MILLIONS
South Korea 48.2
Panama 3.4
Columbia 46.2
United States 312.5

With the free trade deal, South Korea gains access to a market six times larger than its own; Panama 92 times, and Columbia 7 times.

Market Quality
We measure market quality by Gross National Product per person. This is a measure of the amount of money that each person in the country has access to directly or indirectly. The higher the GNP per person, the more money that person has access to for the purchase of goods.

COUNTRY GNP PER PERSON
South Korea $29,997
Panama $4626
Columbia $2292
United States $43,723

With the free trade deal, South Korea gains access to a market where each customer can buy 46% more goods than can be purchased by each South Korean. For Panama, it is 9 times. For Columbia, it is 19 times.

US Imports

At the free trade deal, we can import duty-free from each of the countries the products which those countries have available for export. These are as follows:

From Korea

Semiconductors, wireless telecommunications equipment, motor vehicles, computers, steel, ships, petrochemicals.

But we already manufacture all of these things ourselves. If we import, we lose manufacturing jobs.

Motor vehicles are a big item, but it is said that due in great part to Koreans' preference for locally made cars, there are no expectations that the new trade pact will result in dramatic increases in the number of American vehicles sold in Korea. S. Korea now imports 50,000 vehicles from all sources. It exports 600,000 (12 times as many) vehicles to the US.

From Panama

Bananas, shrimp, sugar, coffee, clothing.

Bananas can be imported from many Latin American countries. Bananas are already one of the cheapest fruits in the United States, with a retail price of $.59 per pound. Even local pears in season and on sale run $.99 per pound.

We already harvest our own shrimp at the Gulf Coast and could easily locally produce more clothing. Sugar and coffee are available commodities from many countries in Latin America and Africa at low prices.

From Colombia

Petroleum, coffee, coal, nickel, emeralds, apparel, bananas, and cut flowers.

We already have large supplies of petroleum and coal. Bananas and coffee are available from many suppliers at low prices. We can easily make our own apparel. Emeralds is innately a very small market. I'm not sure about the significance of nickel. Cut flowers are likely available from many tropical and semi tropical countries.

Special Factors

Chemical Industry

The Chemical industry has become global in nature. Petrochemicals are manufactured in whatever country raw materials are available and there is a favorable business climate, including taxes and regulations. Raw materials are generally petroleum and natural gas. The primary petrochemical products are monomers, from which polymers and other downstream products are made.

The monomers for bulk plastics are mostly ethylene, propylene and vinyl chloride. These are not easily shipped and usually are converted to bulk polymers on site and then shipped to processors for conversion into film, auto parts, doors & frames, etc..

However, some monomers are easily shipped, and conversion to polymers and subsequent downstream processing can be done away from the monomer production site. Monomers for paints and coatings generally fall into this category. A few examples are acrylates, methacrylates, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and terphthalic acid.

Dow Chemical

CEO Liveris of Dow Chemical had been strongly and personally promoting the free trade agreement. The question is "why"?

Dow Chemical's SEC 10 K Report shows a Dow Chemical subsidiary in Korea. Dow's effective ownership of Dow Chemical Korea Limited is 100%, of which Dow Chemical owns 85.82%
and Dow Europe Holding B.V. owns 14.18%.

An Internet search on the activities of Dow Chemical Korea brings up disjointed information, which still helps to form a picture of why Liveris was strongly promoting the free trade deal.

Dow Chemical Korea has activity with the following: Crude methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),diisopropanol amine, epichlorohydrin, epoxy resin, ethylene acrylic acid, ignition-resistant polystyrene resin (styron), ion exchange resin, low density polyethylene, magnesium ingot, methyl cellulose, polypropylene glycol, propylene glycol, propylene glycol ether, styrene acrylonitrile resin, synthetic rubber latex, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, triethylene tetramine, and vinyl chloride monomer. The quantities of these materials, which will now enter the US duty free is not known. However, the custom duty aspect is not the significant point. The main consideration is that these materials are manufactured abroad, with a loss of investment and jobs to the US.

Some other miscellaneous but related reports are as follows:
1. Dow Electronic Materials is constructing a plant in South Korea to test and make advanced-chip-packaging metallization materials.
2. Dow Chemical Korea manufactures polyurethane with 50-100 employees.
3. Dow Chemical Korea imports products from Dow Chemical Canada in Vancouver, BC via Seattle, Washington.
4. Dow Chemical Korea Hong Kong Br exports products to Edow Chemical Company in Long Beach via Busan.
5. Dow Chemical Korea ships polycarbonate flake / resin to Long Beach, California.
6. Dow Chemical announced in April 1993 the acquisition of a methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) distillation plant from Sung-Hwa Petrochemical Industrial Company, Limited in Korea. The MDI plant located in Yocheon, Korea, had an annual capacity of 25,000 metric tons. The plant is a source of products for HD Polyurethane Company, a 50/50 joint venture recently formed in Korea between Dow and Hannam Chemical Corporation. MDI is used in a wide range of industries such as automotive, appliance and construction.

Randy, the next time something like this comes up, ask me to do the research for you, before you and your associates vote the wrong way.

Pay Attention to Spending Cuts, Not Culture Change

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your latest newsletter.

You devoted the whole newsletter, which was four long paragraphs, to your personal position on abortion and rights of the unborn.

I believe it is not the function of government to change society's culture. In fact, this is my main objection to the Obama Administration and the reason I want it out.

If you believe the same, you should be addressing your attention to the more pragmatic aspects of government business.

We also need you to remain in office to continue with your assigned responsibilities. Generally speaking, society is split on its position with respect to abortion and rights of the unborn. Those diverse opinions are strongly held by the different factions, and there is nothing that you can do to change that, even if you desire to do so. Conversely as you ill advisedly enter the fray, you are bound to lose reelection votes from one side or the other. This is obviously unnecessary, because it is self-defeating.

We have a horrendous budget and debt problem. Government has the responsibility to get both under control and the technique is to radically shrink government spending. This will obviously involve government expenditures for health care, including abortions.

Close down HUD; Support the Motto, "in God We Trust "; Withdraw from the UN

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your newsletter.

I was not aware that you chair the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Congratulations!.

With respect to tomorrow's joint meetings to examine fraud in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships Program, I believe, from your side comments, that you're on the right track.

For many years and with millions and perhaps billions of dollars of taxpayer money, the federal government has been trying to supply the "impoverished" with suitable housing. It doesn't work. Time and again, we have seen construction projects, which after a few years of operation, have again been torn down. The answer for the failure is very simple. The occupants have "no skin in the game", which rapidly leads to destruction of the facilities. In addition, HUD has also proven time and again that it has no capability to police these operations.

The conclusion is obvious. Congress must shut down HUD. This does not mean that the "impoverished" will have no place to live. Private industry has sufficient capital to build multi-occupant units, and more importantly the motivation and facilities to defend their investments.

During World War II, the government needed synthetic rubber and penicillin for the war effort. It built factories to supply these products. At war's end, government sold these facilities to private industry. As you know, these industries have further developed under private ownership. We now travel many thousands of miles farther on improved tires, and we now have a host of antibiotics to treat various illnesses.

HUD is another example where government should not be involved. The operation should be left to private industry. Government should concentrate on aspects of more fundamental significance, such as defense against foreign invaders, control of immigration, etc.

Close down HUD. Sell the existing facilities to private industry at a very nominal price. Leave a vacuum. Private industry will fill it, providing the Administration doesn't hamstring it with ridiculous restrictions.


Support the motto "in God we trust".


Withdraw from the United Nations. It routinely makes decisions which are contrary to the interests of the US. It may continue to do that with or without our presence, but at least we will not be supporting it financially.

US Medical Treatment for Libyan Rebels?

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I just saw on TV that we are flying injured Libyan rebels to the US for medical treatment.

What kind of insanity is this?

There is strong evidence that the rebels are primarily Muslim. May I remind you that the ideology of Islam is to kill non-believers. THAT INCLUDES MOST AMERICANS. Tunisia has just voted in a Muslim government. We helped the Egyptians in their revolt and now find that government in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is antagonistic to the US.

What about compassion? One must use it very, very carefully. In the Movie "Saving Private Ryan", Tom Hanks, as a captain searching for Private Ryan, captures a German prisoner. The nature of the mission makes it impractical to carry prisoners. Hank's patrol members want to execute the prisoner, but Hanks frees him. The prisoner than rejoins his outfit and is able to kill a few more Americans. So much for compassion in time of war. Or, did you think the Libyan operation was not a war?

Consider also that we are broke, which means we have to borrow money to supply medical treatment to our probable enemies. Another aspect of insanity!

Randy, please get onto whoever is responsible for this ridiculous error of judgment and have him get his head screwed on right or relieve him of his management position.

Agency Grants to Universities Foster Dishonesty in Research

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I'm back on the subject of research grants to universities. The October 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Dow Invests in Education". Dow Chremical will spend $250 million over the next 10 years to support breakthrough chemical technologies at 11 major universities.

I find this especially good news, because it shows that private industry can and will support research at universities. You can also be sure that Dow will follow their expenditures to see that they are getting something for their money. Since Dow is in the chemical business, it is obvious that they will be looking toward developments, which have some advantage to their business.

The granting of research funds is not in itself a negative factor. Somewhat like the chemical industry, the government is expecting something for each of its granys. In most cases, the agencies expect research results, which will support the agency's ideological position on the subject for which the grant was made. It is also obvious to the grant receiver that unless he comes up with an answer, which will be satisfactory to the agency, there will be no further grants.

I have long believed that government agencies follow the political ideology of the Administration, After all, the President is the boss of each Agency Director. If a Director does not follow the boss's instructions, he will not be considered part of the team and will be out on his ear. One of the present Administration ideologies is that CO2 in the atmosphere is bad and every effort must be made to control it. The fact that there is no sound scientific basis for this position impels the Administration and its Agencies to issue research grants to find reasons to support the Administrations position. The Administration's goal is to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from various sources such as power plants and cement kilns. Increased acceptance of electric cars is also part of the program, We can only speculate on why the Administration is following this program and can only guess that it is part of the communistic ideology to more equitably distribute wealth on a global basis.

I also recently heard John Huntsman say on television that he is a strong supporter of the theory that carbon dioxide emissions affect climate change. He says that scientists support this conclusion and should not be ignored. Bologney!. He does not know how many real scientists support this theory of carbon dioxide related to global warming nor does he consider the "bribery" system of the various government agencies, as mentioned above.

Even without the private industry support of university research, I continue to strongly propose that Congress should eliminate all government agency research grants to universities. This will only not only lead to honest research, but also will be another step in reducing our budget deficit and national debt.

Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your latest newsletter.

You are favorable to the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, but you are concerned that it it will "diminish progress we have made in the area". What progress? We are not in the business of nation building, or at least shall we say. There is no humanitarian consideration, which should not be a big factor anyhow. We have no intention of taking Iraqi oil. The only possible concern that you could have is to have troops on the ground in the vicinity of Iran to hopefully deter them from military action against Israel. That is also silly. With the advent of terrorism, we have learned some new tactics of war. Basically, you don't need troops on the ground, you demonstrate military might through technology, which involves primarily aerial activity. Even going back to World War II, we reduced Germany to nothing through bombing with conventional explosives. We could do the same to Iran. In addition, we can use drones for specific strikes against foreign leaders, such as we have done recently against terrorists. Finally, we now have intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could carry conventional mega bombs rather than nuclear warheads. All of this requires a strong military, but not for aggressive use, but rather for defensive use against our Homeland and also against a few of our "friends".

With respect to the U.S. Postal Service, I was disappointed to see that you confined your discussions with Postal Service administrators to whether service will be affected in our area. You seem to have taken the naïve approach that sense service would not be immediately affected in our area, all is rosy. This is far from the truth. Your responsibility is to see that the national postal service remains effective. The U.S. Postal Service's has self-admitted that they continue to loose money and must take steps to diminish services. Sooner or later, this is going to affect us. Randy, look at the big picture. Not just what is happening locally.

It's a nice addition for you to encourage young people to apply for appointments to military academies through you.

Get Out Of Iraq Now

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

In the last few days, there has been a lot of controversy on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Hillary Clinton is talking on both sides of her face, and John McCain is bemoaning the decline of US influence.

Even the most inept person will occasionally do something right. In this case, Pres. Obama appears to have accidentally made the right decision on troop withdrawal. I will not go into the details of why we should not have been there in the first place. The present fact is that we are there now, and it costs us a bundle to maintain those troops. The Iraqis don't want our troops there, and neither do I.

McCain's reason for staying as "influence" is ridiculous. The only influence I see up to now is antagonism to our presence on the part of the Iraqis. McCain is implying a positive influence, and the only thing I see is negative. I would like to have him explain why we need to continue spending a bundle in that operation. We are not nation building. There is no humanitarianism. We apparently have no intention of using their oil.

It has been said that withdrawal of our troops in Iraq will give Iran an excellent opportunity to increase its "influence" in the Middle East. Who cares? Perhaps the Russians do. We have not heard from them.

Iran has stated its dedication to elimination of Israel. Conversely, we have stated our dedication to continue the existence of Israel. Whether we are in Iraq or not has nothing to do with it. We have military might, other than troops on the ground, that can support that position. During World War II, we bombed Germany into smithereens to support our position. That is proven technology, which is still available to us, if we maintain a strong military, which I heartily support. Moreover, in these days of improved technology, military power is not measured only by troops on the ground. With CIA and drones, we recently have shown what can be done against terrorists. The same can be accomplished against foreign government
adversaries. In addition, Intercontinental ballistic missiles are available to us. They do not have to be loaded with nuclear weapons, but can use super bombs with conventional explosives.

While it is difficult for me to say this, I strongly urge you to support Pres. Obama in the elimination of troops from Iraq,

Obama's Jobs for Veterans is a Deceptive Maneuver

Pres. Obama is now talking about jobs for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Another political ploy to pull your heartstrings and reelect a "caring" President.

There are no jobs, or least very few, and he proposes to make some. A program which has failed time and again.

Let's take a look at recent history. At the end of World War II, millions of men were suddenly out of a job of fighting a war. They had the option of reenlisting in the military or returning to civilian life. A vast majority decided on civilian life.

The government was deeply in debt from fighting a world war over several years, but it and the people felt they had an obligation to the returning servicemen. There were essentially no jobs. Jobs had been held by women in production of wartime goods and services, and those operations were then being shut down. There was a gradual transition to a civilian economy, but that would take time and meanwhile women held the available jobs.

Government decided that for the interim period while the economy was re-structuring, the returning service men would be given an opportunity to pursue education. A GI Bill was offered. It included free tuition, fees, books and a small monthly stipend for living expense. Millions of veterans took advantage of the GI Bill. Colleges and universities quickly expanded to accommodate the increased enrollment, and the stage was set for higher level employment in the transitioned economy.

The GI Bill cost substantial money to a government already deeply in debt, but the increased debt was regarded as an obligation to the veterans and an investment in the economy. It paid off. By 1953 the unemployment rate was down to 2.5%.

Have we now less obligation to returning service men from Iraq and Afghanistan? No, and we have essentially handled it with the Post 9/11 GI bill. I have looked at the available benefits, including education, and they look good to me. Check them yourself at: http://www.oefoif.va.gov/WhatCanVADoForMe.asp

What is the bottom line? It seems to me we are already taking care of our veterans in a humanitarian and economically sound manner. We are not giving them jobs, but we are giving the opportunity for jobs. This is no different than the close of World War II. But there is one big difference. At the close of World War II, the government did not hamstring itself with excessive regulations on business and general civilian give-away programs with no responsibility on the part of the recipients.

I say again, Obama is "crying wolf" for veterans jobs, when he should be considering undoing the damage he and his cronies have already done to the present economy and its future.

Prayer in Schools

The subject of prayer in schools is loaded with controversy. Since public schools are generally considered a government entity, there is concern as to whether prayer should be allowed in public schools. This seems to be based on an interpretation of the Bill of Rights that government should not be involved in religion

The Bill of Rights actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech etc.".

This can be interpreted in various ways depending on one's emotional state or preconceived ideas. However from an objective point of view, it really says that Congress should not show partiality to a particular religion by establishing it as the official religion of the state. It also says that Congress must not prohibit people from exercising their religious rights, including public prayer.

Congress has not made a law to establish a national religion, nor has it made a law prohibiting the "exercise" of religion, Including the right to public prayer. Note that public prayer or any other form of free speech is permitted by the First Amendment, which includes this as an "Inalienable Right" not to be infringed by Congress.

Therefore, from this First Amendment right, public schools must allow Christian prayers, Buddhist prayers, Islamic prayers, and any other prayers of a religious nature, or even political discussions of any type.

However, the allowance of public prayer in schools could lead to some confusion with respect to majorities and minorities. For instance, an area where most residents are Muslims, school attendees would most likely be exposed mostly to Islamic prayers. This could be wrongly interpreted as government support of Islam. Conversely in an area where most residents are Christians, school attendees would be exposed to mostly Christian prayers and the minority groups would likely place a wrong interpretation as government support of Christianity. This presents a problem for schools, but they have an obligation to deal with it in a practical and constitutional manner. One approach could be to allow a small portion of the curriculum day to allow students of like religions to congregate and offer their prayers. Since the intention of prayer is to communicate with God, students of other religions should not be required to listen to all prayers.

Anti-religious folk have established a slogan that there should be "separation of church and state". However, it is apparent that the First Amendment does not give justification to that position. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says government must be opposed to religion in all its forms and practices. These documents merely state that Congress not must pass a law showing partiality to any particular branch of religion.

Why is it then that we have a general rule and operating procedure that public schools must not allow prayers in their confines in any form? Here we are dealing with the usual human political procedure. That is, those who squeal the loudest get what they want. The position of "No prayer in schools" can be changed, but it will involve over-squealing the anti-religious folk by other groups, such as Muslims, and Christians. There will obviously be considerable argument. The anti-religious folk will battle the Muslims and Muslims will battle the Christians. As long as it remains vocal, the situation will be within Constitutional rights and an operating procedure will be developed. If the controversy becomes physical, we have criminal laws to handle that.

Another aspect is that the controversy could eventually be referred to the US Supreme Court. The Constitution and Bill of Rights outlining permissible laws has already been covered, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The court could incorrectly find for the anti-religious folk and make a "rule of the land" that there would be no prayer in public school.

Because it would be law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the public would accept. However, a subsequent Supreme Court composed of different members, could revisit the case and possibly reverse the decision.

Lastly, within the context of the First Amendment, Congress could pass a law allowing prayer in schools. In so doing, it would not be establishing a state religion, from which it is prohibited.

House Tries to Restrict the EPA on Unecessary Regulations

The October 3 issue of Chemical & Engineering News has an article entitled, "House Takes Aim At Clean Air Act". Author Glenn Hess shows bias in his statement that "a House passed bill would delay EPA rules aimed at reducing toxic power plant emissions". The implication is that the House of Representatives intends to subject the public to toxic materials, which is far from the truth.

Hess shows a picture of a power plant throwing off clouds of what he implies are toxic materials. If one looks carefully at the picture, one will see that at their far extremities the clouds become invisible. This is because the original clouds were a mixture of very small drops of water and air. These substances are called aerosols and are visible. As the water droplets evaporate into the air and become a gas, the clouds disappear. This is not to say that some toxic gases might not also be present, but these would not be visible. A cloud which does not disappear, always contains finely divided solid particles, which may or may not be toxic.

The Supreme Court previously supported the EPA in only considering public health when developing emission standards. The House is objecting to that definition, because the EPA unilaterally decides what is toxic and in what concentrations. The extreme case involves the EPA's designation of CO2 as a toxic gas at the level of part per million in the atmosphere.. The obvious difficulty is that the EPA may force industry to spend many billions of $ to control "toxic" materials that do not need controlling.

The House bill restricting EPA's control of industry will likely not be passed by the Senate nor by the President, but the House is demonstrating a clear understanding of the relationship between science, regulations, and business change in the economy.

Resolution to Chastise US State Department on Samir Khan Killing

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent leader of Al Qaeda and self-avowed terrorist was recently intentionally killed by a CIA drone in Yemen. Samir Khan was with Awlaki in the same vehicle and was collaterally killed.

Samir Khan's family later demanded an apology from the US government for Samir's killing. The US State Department gave the apology.

Note that Samir Khan was with Awlaki at the time of the killing. Samir Khan was also a self-avowed terrorist. He published an article entitled, "Proud to Be a Traitor to America". He also published an article on "How To Make a Bomb" and encouraged readers to use those bombs to kill Americans.

I want a resolution from the US House of Representatives chastising the US State Department, including Hillary Clinton, for apologizing to the family of Samir Khan.

Rep. Neugebauer is Off Target

Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Dear Randy,

I read your latest newsletter. You covered three topics as follows:
1. Renaming Big Spring Veterans Medical Center.
2. Giving farmers new options for federal crop insurance.
3. Increasing awareness of breast cancer.

May I remind you that the most significant US problem, in the minds of citizens is the economy. The associated aspects are high unemployment, the federal budget completely out of balance, and mounting national debt. Some of us believe that this situation is intentionally caused by Pres. Obama in his pursuit of global redistribution of wealth. We also believe that anyone's first objective would be to take care of himself before concern and action to citizens of other countries.

With all due respect, do you feel that your attention to the three points listed above is justified, in view of the fact that "Rome is burning"?

Pres. Obama's Seven Useless Technology Transfer Proposals

In the September 26 issue of C&E News, there is an article entitled, "Moving from Lab to Market". It covers Pres. Obama's proposed seven initiatives on technology transfer to encourage commercialization.

Having spent several years as a Technology Transfer Manager for a major corporation, I feel qualified to write on the subject. I will cover each of the seven initiatives individually.

1. Pres. Obama wants to establish a partnership between the National Institute of Health, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, and the Federal Drug Administration to develop a chip, which will quickly screen drugs for toxicity and effectiveness.

This is a ridiculous proposal. Note also that is not a technology transfer matter, since there is no technology yet to be transferred. It is only a matter of enlarging government into another research field. It is not the prerogative of government to do such research. It's an area for private industry. Drug companies and their associations can do this without any government intervention.

2. Obama proposes startup companies to license more easily technology patented by government agencies.

I completely agree with this but also with an extension. Patents owned by the federal government should be licensed to individuals and corporations without charge and with the most convenience.

3. Obama proposes that the US Patent and Trademark Office, the National Science Foundation Small Business Administration provide support, meaning many free services, to persons already receiving grants for research at universities.

This is a ridiculous proposal. Individuals should not be receiving government grants in the first place. Most of those research projects are completely impractical and this would be pouring money down the existing rat hole.

4. Obama is proposing a University Commercialization Prize. The National Science Foundation is involved, which means funding. Early talk is about $400,000.

Any research that universities have developed and which could be commercialized would normally be done to the advantage of the University, without the necessity of any half million dollar prize. This is only another attempt to push taxpayers money into the universities in order to obtain government control.

5. Obama proposes building stronger ties between academia and industry, investors, and federal agencies.

This is another ridiculous proposal, because it is not necessary. Academia and industry are already well connected and government should not even be involved. Anything that is supposedly offered free of charge by government is a cost the taxpayers.

6. Obama wants to add four universities to the Coulter Foundation's Translational Research Partnership Program.

Translational research is an attempt to develop processes for removing barriers to multi-disciplinary collaboration. This is a wonderful leftist idea, which has no practical significance. A good manager knows how to remove obstacles. One of the best ways is to eliminate involvement of government.

7. This is a proposal to harness biological research innovation to address national challenges in health, food, energy, and the environment.

Another boondoggle operation. It is pie-in-the-sky, because these completely non-definitive. It only makes sense as one considers that it supports Pres. Obama's position of increasing the role of government in our lives, without any benefit for employment and the general economy.

Kill Free-Trade As an Obama Agent to Redistribute Your Wealth

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

An article in the September 26 issue of C&E News concerns free-trade deals and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).

Let's start by saying that we should scrap the whole idea of free trade. It is free trade, which has partially gotten us into the economic mess we are in.

Wages in the United States are considered about the highest in the world. For that reason, many manufacturers have gone overseas, with a resultant loss of US manufacturing jobs. We have become a service economy. In order to regain our economic power, we not only need a service economy but also internal manufacturing.

The way to do this is to scrap free-trade and apply custom duties to all manufactured goods coming into the states in order to equalize foreign and US labor costs.

The alternative is to continue the route which we are still embarked on, which means shipping jobs overseas. It is only for that reason that Trade Adjustment Assistance was considered. It means providing health and employment benefits and retraining workers at high and unnecessary government expense for workers who lost jobs because of foreign competition .

The existing free trade policy is exactly what Pres. Obama has been advocating to redistribute wealth on a global basis. As magnanimous as that sounds, we are not in position to do this anymore. In spite of recent degradation in our economic system and GDP, we still have one of the highest standards of living in the world. We want to preserve what we still have left and not be forced to distribute our wealth among other countries of the world by government edict. Other countries can lift themselves by their own bootstraps, as we have previously done.

I find it interesting to be on the same side as the a AFL/CIO, deputy who says "This is the wrong time to put at risk good jobs in our manufacturing sector".

Advocates of free trade will immediately point out a reciprocity issue. They will claim that as we impose import duties, other countries will do the same, which will then work against US exports. I say let them do so, it will be to their own disadvantage, because there are many areas where the US has superiority in production. Let foreign governments explain to their people why they are imposing in import duty on US produced wheat.

I strongly encourage you to do everything possible to defeat ratification of the three free-trade agreements which will be considered by the House in the next few weeks.

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I saw the poll results on the 13 national issues, which you considered might be of interest to constituents. You were correct. They are interested in all 13, but the real question is their relative importance and whether you should be doing anything about them.

I am commenting on each of them as follows:

Agriculture Our main interest is to stabilize the cultural prices, keep farmers in the business, and avoid famine. Spend median time.

Border Security We need to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants looking for opportunity. Spend median time and concentrate on technology rather than fence building

Economy This is the big one. We need to wean the public from an entitlement attitude. Spend lots of time in discrediting the fascist liberals and promoting capitalism

Education Another big one, but but should not take a lot of time. Just quickly closed down the Department of Education.

Energy Another big one. But also should not take a lot of time. Get off the tickets to sustainable energy and promote gas and oil drilling. Kill any talk of taxing CO2 emissions.

Family Values & Pro-Life Important but not big, and you can't do much about it. Minimal time.

Federal Deficit Very important and worth a lot of time ferreting out government waste. However, I have mentioned the big ones of shutting down the Departments of Education And Energy. Get rid of all government grants, loan guarantees, in a promotion by government agencies. Product and process development belong to the private sphere and should be sold by private corporations.

Financial Services & Banking Very important. Put in some time restricting banks to traditional lending operations. Get rid of the quasi government organizations such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We organized the Federal Reserve to a National Bank under the control of Congress.

Government Spending Same as reducing deficit. Spend some time in closing down agencies and departments.

Health Care Repeal Obama Care. Spend some time convincing the American public that healthcare is the responsibility of the individual. Make individuals pay at least 50% of all medical expenses. When they can't afford it, have them get the money from their families or borrow it.

Immigration Establish a massive illegal immigration camp. All illegal immigrants without proper documentation should be confined to the camp until they are returned to their native countries.

National Debt Spent very little time on the national. It's important, but it will automatically be controlled as you control government spending and the federal deficit

National Security & the Global War on Terror Ensure national security by completing the Star Wars program did not ban any nuclear device carrying missiles while they are still in outer space. Remove traditional armies from the Middle East and the borders of other questionable countries to concentrate more on the use of high-technology surveillance combined with improved CIA ground data. Spend minimal time but give it an expense priority

Post Office Issues spend minimal time to appoint a director who knows how to make a service operation profitable. Chances are he will increase rates for junk mail and other solicitors as to discourage their use. The ancillary advantages is that the public will be saved the inconvenience of handling this junk

Science & Technology Spend a fair amount of time in eliminating research and development from federal agencies and departments. Technological development should come from the private sector and from universities, without any involvement of government. Government patents should be licensed free to any individuals or corporations desiring a license.

Second Amendment Rights Support Second Amendment rights using as much time as necessary. Guns must be in the hands of the general public so that it can protect itself against the government.

Small Business Spend little time on this, because there's nothing to do. Small business should promote itself in an environment where government is generally pro-business, which means a minimum of restrictive regulations, including taxes

Social Security Spend minimum time on modifying Social Security so that payments begin at receivers later ages, in conformity with our increased lifecycles. Consider general reductions in payments, with recommendations that individuals should be setting aside their own retirements through private financial institutions.

Trade Spend a reasonable amount of time in getting rid of "free trade". Regulate imports by applying import customs duties to partially protect local manufacturing and service industries. Have no concern of reciprocal trade restrictions on our exports. For example, countries who wish to apply a custom duty on wheat from the United States are welcome to do so with subsequent explanation to their citizens.

Transportation Spend a reasonable amount of time in killing off all government programs involving the transportation industry. It is not government's responsibility to decide whether we should have electric cars. If the people want to continue with internal combustion engines, government should not stand in the way. Do not spend government money on mass transportation. There's enough private industry capital to do that in cases where is justifiable.

Veterans' Affairs Spend very little time on this. Good veteran should have proper hospitalization and medical care, with appropriate retirement benefits they should also be allowed some paid access to university training, if they leave the services during their normal working ages, in order to better adapt to society.

Rep. Neugebauer on Afghanistan, IED's, EPA, and Banks

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Here are just a few comments on your latest newsletter.

Our Afghanistan troops are undoubtedly the best in the world, but they shouldn't be there. We are not in the business of nation building. There is no need for ground forces to eliminate terrorist activities as a threat to the US mainland. And, I'm glad to see you are talking with the Ambassador and General about the troop draw down. The sooner the draw down the better.

My heart bleeds for our troops who have been disabled by improvised explosive devices (IED's). This is a special shame, because it is so unnecessary. A little concentration on how to control these IED's through technology involving premature explosion or identification would have saved a tremendous amount of heartache and expense in rehabilitating the disabled. Don't tell me that this isn't a solvable problem. It is. We have tremendous technical capability and while it has not been duck soup, it could've been accomplished several years ago.

I am pleased to see that the House is considering two bills involving EPA limitations on mercury and other pollutants from cement plants and industrial boilers.

Mercury is not a hazard and should never have been considered as such. Mercury is released to the atmosphere primarily through the burning of coal, of which mercury is a minor contaminant. The atmospheric mercury eventually lands back into the soil from which it came, and where it caused no harm. A very small amount falls into swampy areas, where biological process involving microorganisms convert the elemental mercury to methylmercury. Methylmercury is toxic and is at the very low concentrations in swampy areas. The fact that swamps are not usually inhabited by human beings makes the health problem of minor or no significance.

With respect to "other pollutants", and since they cannot be specifically named, they must not be important, and we can quickly dispose of that.

I also need to comment on your new Question of the Week. You asked whether Bank of America's five-dollar fee for using a debit card would expand to other banks and the answer was a resounding "yes". My comment does not involve the "yes", but questions whether you as a member of Congress should have even raised the subject.
Let's have a quick rundown of what the banking business is all about. We need a medium of exchange for ease of negotiations in exchanges of goods and services. Hence, the development of the currency system. Government is best able to do this, and we have the Federal Reserve to establish a currency base by printing money. Banks have charters and because of their charters, they are able to borrow from the Federal Reserve at a low interest rate. They then use the borrowed money to lend to other borrowers at a retail level and at a higher interest rate. The difference between the interest rate they pay the Federal Reserve and the interest rate they collect from retail borrowers is the primary source of revenue from which they pay their rent, employees, and hopefully make a profit for the owners who originally put their money into establishing the bank. In addition, banks perform other services, for which they usually charge fees. Some services may not involve separate fees and are built into their general expense. The result is the same. Banks need to make a profit to stay afloat.

My question to you is why you and presumably other members of Congress even look at bank fees as a source of revenue. There's nothing wrong with them. There are many banks in competition. Let them work out their own fee schedules. If on the other hand, we see a number of banks going out of business, because the spread in borrowing and lending interest rates is too low, then you may want to do something with respect to the Federal Reserve.

American Chemical Society Mostly on Right Track in Promoting Entrepreneurship

In the September issue of Chemical and Engineering News, there is an article, "Creating Jobs for Chemists" by Rudy Baum, the socialistic editor-in-chief of C&E News.

Rudy reports that a Presidential Task Force of the American Chemical Society addressed the problem of employment. They concluded that as many as 100,000 new jobs for chemists could be created in the next 20 years by primarily helping entrepreneurs.

The Task Force suggested the following four action points for the ACS.

1. Give financial support to entrepreneurs.

2. Pressure government to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and startup companies.

3. Promote entrepreneurship with academic institutions.

4. Promote public awareness of the value of early-stage entrepreneurship and chemical enterprises.

With Rudy Baum's leftist philosophy, he must have found it difficult to write this article, because it advocates entrepreneurship while he is a believer in government operations. However, he works for the ACS and as the ACS Administration outlined these requirements, Rudy must conform if he wants to hold his job.

I personally like three of the four points, providing they are not overdone. I'm opposed to any financial ACS help to entrepreneurs, because it smacks of socialism. Members and advertisers will be paying the cost, whether they like it or not.

The other three promotions must be kept within bounds. C&E News is a magazine which is intended for such promotion. However, if the ACS plans a major advertising campaign outside its traditional house organ (C&E News), I am against it.

Hooray for Rep. Cantor Opposing 10 New Environmental Regulations

The September 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an interesting article entitled, "Politics: House Republicans Plan to Continue Anti-Regulation Push".

There are two aspects.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out 10 proposed environmental labor and health regulations, which he promised to block! It's not that some of these intended environmental regulations would not be helpful in some aspects, but the main point is that we can't afford them.

The second aspect is that it is claimed political studies show that conformity to these regulations would be job neutral or positive. Looking at spending of paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refineries and steel mills, researchers at an environmental group found that meeting environmental regulations is labor-intensive resulting in a net gain of 1.5 to 6.9 jobs per $1 million primarily for air pollution reductions.

This is a ridiculous set of numbers to even present, because it is obvious that in the spending of $1 million by any of these 90 factoring companies, they have to recoup those expenses by increasing the prices of their products, which then makes them noncompetitive on a worldwide basis.Sooner or later they will be out of business.

In a fictitious analogy, I just bought 100-pound pack of sophisticated air quality measuring devices for my woodworking plant. I spent $50,000, and I have to carry it around on my back. I think we're improving the air quality, but I have to increase the price of my products so that I can recoup the $50,000, and I am also so tired from carrying around the equipment that I can't really get any production.

Hooray for the CIA in Awlaki Elimination!

EIN News says, "Al-Qaeda Cleric Awlaki Killed in Missile Strike, Yemen Says. Anwar al-Awlaki, the extremist al-Qaeda imam and an American citizen was killed in an assassination strike by U.S. missile-firing drones operating over strife-torn Yemen, according to Yemeni officials. (theglobeandmail.com)".

Any bleeding hearts or extreme advocates of personal liberty around?

Forget it! He was an outlaw and an enemy of the country in which he was a citizen. Hooray for the CIA! Wonderful to have them do something right.

Russian Poverty Compared to the US

EIN News says, "Russians Living in Poverty 'Up by 2 Million Since 2010' The number of people in Russia living below the poverty line has grown by about two million in the first six months of 2011, new figures released by the state statistics service said. (france24.com)".

I thought we might take a look at how Russian poverty compares with US poverty.

With the 2 million increase in Russia, the stated poverty level is 15%. The poverty level in the United States is also 15%. These levels are based on poverty levels, which are different in the two countries.

For a family of four in each of the two countries, the Russian poverty level is $9800 per year, while the US poverty level is $22,100 per year.

We don't have much detail on what goes into the Russian poverty level calculation, but in the US, public housing, Medicaid, employee healthcare, and food stamps are not considered in the poverty level. In other words, the American family of four may still have a real income above $22,100 and be considered below the poverty level.

A quick attempt to equalize the percentage poverty level for the two countries gives the stated level of 15% for the US. The calculated value for Russia on the same basis would be about 34%.

Americans seem to be pretty well-off economically compared to Russians. Consider also that 80% of four-member families in Bangladesh live below the international poverty level of $2700 per year.

Does that pull your heartstrings? It shouldn't. Those people have developed their own civilization, which likely is not based on monetary considerations, and they seem happy with it. It is not up to us to judge their degree of unhappiness based upon figures such as above. I am personally unhappy with the fact that 15% of Americans receive public housing, Medicaid, employee healthcare and food stamps, when they have an opportunity to supply for themselves in this great land.

Obama's Reduction of Regulations Has Little Effect on Budget Deficit

In the August 29 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "Fixing Regulations".

The article covers the recent Obama directive that his various agencies weed out outdated regulations and revamp others to promote job creation. On the surface, this is an admirable directive, but as the US Chamber of Commerce says, "It will not have a material impact on the real regulatory burdens facing American business today".

The Office of Management and Budget says regulation reform over the next year or so will save $4 billion over five years. Shortly thereafter, another $6 billion will be saved. This totals $10 billion. A $10 billion savings in comparison with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit is almost insignificant. We must always remember the difference between a billion dollars and a trillion dollars is a factor of 1000.

USAID Will Now Pay FOREIGN Researchers for "Global Science"

In the July 11 issue of C&E News, there is an article entitled, "Promoting Global Science". It says that a new partnership between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Agency for International Development will allow scientists from developing countries to apply and compete for support of research projects involving NSF funded US colleagues. NSF will fund the Us component of these projects, while USAID will foot the bill for international researchers.

It means that US taxpayers will be footing the bill for "promotion of global science" by paying foreign researchers, through USAID. This is a ridiculous project in these special times deficit government financing. We have previously used us taxpayer funds to promote research projects for US university scientists, which in itself is ridiculous. This new operation exacerbates the ridiculousness of this situation.

Represented Neugebauer's Newsletter

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your newsletter.

We all agree that Obama's job proposal is the same old, same old. I believe we are whistling in the dark when we expect the Super Committee to come up with $1.5 trillion spending cuts. I hope also that Obama's efforts to develop economic class warfare in the country will fail. We need a unified approach to big problems. Taxing the rich will not do the job and would only make the unemployment situation worse, as those with capital find other countries more amenable to investment.

Since the above efforts are bound not to be effective, we must be wary of subsequent techniques used by Marxists. These are to prohibit movement of capital to other countries, and to confiscate the assets of specified organizations and individuals. Both these procedures were used by Egypt about 1958. I'm not sure how you can protect the country from these developments if Obama wants to put them into effect. He controls the Justice Department and the Military and it seems that Congress's hands are tied. Is this where the arming of the militia comes into effect?

You note that the EPA continues to push sustainable development to the economic disadvantage of the country. You also seem to like the idea that we should continue pursuing innovative ideas that allow us to do more with fewer resources. May I inject a word of caution? That type of philosophy is generally "defeatist". There's no question that we should be against waste in any form, whether it is in energy, manpower, or whatever. We should always work efficiently with maximum use of our assets. At the present time we are not doing that, with respect to our energy resources. We have ample reserves of oil, which are not being developed. That is no reason why we should be on a particularly conservative program of reducing oil consumption. The reverse is true. We should be developing more oil for increased use.

With respect to the Palestinian request to the UN for state recognition, it is a ridiculous proposal that has been encouraged by our Muslim favored President. A state/country must have physical boundaries. That is, it must have control of land area, which the Palestinian population does not now have. They have been offered this possibility with the conciliation that they will not use their newfound benefits in conducting war with their neighbors. They have temporarily refused this offer, which I believe is continually available to them. There is a greater likelihood of a peaceful Middle East, if they were to accept the offer. Unfortunately, Obama has encouraged them to do otherwise.

Reduce Production of Ammonium Sulfate and Control Its Applications

The August 15 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "No Progress On Nitrate Runoffs". Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate fertilizers washes into the groundwater and rivers that make up the Mississippi River Basin. Eventually, the pollution makes its way into the Gulf of Mexico where it feeds a zone, an area of low oxygen water where many organisms cannot survive. Although the article does not say so, I suspect that the increased concentration of nitrate involving the zone also contributes to a decrease in fish and shellfish production in the the Gulf Coast area.

Efforts to reduce the nitrate pollution have been in effect since 1980, but recent shows that little progress has been made. The culprit is ammonium nitrate, which is a good fertilizer, but also has the disadvantage of the indicated pollution. In addition, ammonium nitrate mixed with diesel fuel is an excellent explosive for car bombs to damage buildings and kill people in the hands of terrorists. There should be controls on ammonium nitrate production, if not downright commercial elimination. It would be relatively simple matter, because it is not necessary to use ammonium nitrate as a nitrogen supplying fertilizer. There are reasonable substitutes, such as anhydrous ammonia, and ammonium sulfate, if a solid fertilizer is necessary. The nitrate contamination would be replaced by sulfate, which is not really a pollutant. Calcium sulfate is indigenously present in all of the Southwest.

The EPA is always looking for something to do and has come up with many ideas of restriction or promotion, which have no solid basis for reality. Here is something which involves environmental contamination and on which the EPA could easily place restrictions with justification.

The House Must Challenge EPA Regulations in Federal Court

EIN News says, "Fight Over EPA Regulations Heats Up U.S. House Republicans plan to advance two bills Tuesday that would delay and soften a pair of Environmental Protection Agency air toxics rules. (thehill.com)".

Sounds good but it's the same old problem. The House can pass the bills, but they will stall in the Senate, and never make the president's desk. He would veto them anyhow.

The House needs a different approach. Passing bills is futile, and we can't wait until November 2012.

The more likely successful approach would be to continually challenge EPA rules in the Federal Courts. Hopefully, a federal court will find an applicable previous congressional law unconstitutional.