Open email to Sen. Vitter (LA):
Dear
Sen.Vitter,
Chemical and Engineering News has reported that you, in
cooperation with Sen. Lautenberg (NJ), have proposed Senate Bill 1009 to update
the Toxic
Substances Control Act. The essence of the bill is to strengthen
EPA's authority to ban a substances outright.
Daniel Rosenberg of the
National Resources Defense Council, a private organization, later registered
several objections to your bill as follows:
It does not set deadlines or
minimum requirements for prioritizing, assessing or making decisions on whether
to regulate chemicals. Without them, likely nothing will happen.
It requires
the Environmental Protection Agency to develop multiple overlapping procedures
and criteria that will just tie the agency in knots and delay assessing
chemicals.
It broadens state pre-emption so no action would be taken for
years on “high priority” chemicals.
It doesn’t require EPA to protect
vulnerable populations such as women, children and workers.
I have no
objection to your consideration of Daniel Rosenberg's suggestions, but I am much
more interested in a separate point, which I consider extremely significant.
That is, we have had experience with the EPA abusing arbitrarily any controls
which have been delegated to them. I strongly suggest that as this bill is
modified, it has a requirement that the EPA must revert back to a congressional
committee for approval to ban a substance outright or to impose such limitations
as to effectively create a ban.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Piecemeal Government Funding
Open Email to Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times says President Obama opposes the House Republican caucus strategy to pass government funding in pieces, but the White House signaled Friday he will sign at least one of those bills — a measure that would ensure federal employees get paid even if they were forced out of work.
This is another way of saying that he directs the Democratic Senate to approve your bill proposing that government employees on furlough receive their back pay, and that he will sign the legislation.
This is a major victory for your piecemeal government funding strategy. Pres. Obama said previously that he would NEVER, NEVER approve of any piecemeal funding. That it must be a Continuing Resolution to fund total government. He has now relented, in the face of his absolute desire for public acceptance as part of his personal legacy.
You previously had him on the ropes. You now have him down for a count of five. Keep up the excellent work!
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times says President Obama opposes the House Republican caucus strategy to pass government funding in pieces, but the White House signaled Friday he will sign at least one of those bills — a measure that would ensure federal employees get paid even if they were forced out of work.
This is another way of saying that he directs the Democratic Senate to approve your bill proposing that government employees on furlough receive their back pay, and that he will sign the legislation.
This is a major victory for your piecemeal government funding strategy. Pres. Obama said previously that he would NEVER, NEVER approve of any piecemeal funding. That it must be a Continuing Resolution to fund total government. He has now relented, in the face of his absolute desire for public acceptance as part of his personal legacy.
You previously had him on the ropes. You now have him down for a count of five. Keep up the excellent work!
Government Default
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Congratulations! You are making excellent progress on your strategy for piecemeal funding of government operations!
The shutdown of the World War II Veterans Memorial in Washington by Obama was a major blunder. There is little doubt that Obama wishes he would never have done that, because it has made him look really bad. You have appealed to the public with your bill to fund national parks, including that Memorial, which has a favorable public reaction.
Your latest bill to guarantee back pay for federal employees now on furlough is again an excellent move. While the public is against big government, they are not particularly antagonistic to federal employees, and would not like to see them suffer by lack of income. In other words, your bill has general public support. Although Pres. Obama said he will not negotiate piecemeal funding, he and the Democrats would have great difficulty in turning down this proposal.
The next issue which seems to be coming to the table is a matter of government default. I believe most people don't really understand what would be defaulted, but they have the correct impression that it would be detrimental to the US future creditworthiness. For me, default means not paying the interest on previously issued government bonds. The obvious action on your part is to offer a bill to the Senate and the President to guarantee payment of interest on those bonds. It needs to be worded so that the people will relate this to your attempts to avoid default, and again the President and Democrats in the Senate will look bad if they do not approve your bill.
The main point is to maintain a strategy of piecemeal government funding. Everyone knows of your opposition to Obamacare and your passage of many bills to defund that program. However, the Senate and the President have dug in their heels, and will never agree to such defunding. My suggestion is that you have no choice except to let Obamacare develop into a system which is very likely to not work and only continue to exasperate most people. Our main objective is smaller government, and we are accomplishing that with piecemeal funding.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Congratulations! You are making excellent progress on your strategy for piecemeal funding of government operations!
The shutdown of the World War II Veterans Memorial in Washington by Obama was a major blunder. There is little doubt that Obama wishes he would never have done that, because it has made him look really bad. You have appealed to the public with your bill to fund national parks, including that Memorial, which has a favorable public reaction.
Your latest bill to guarantee back pay for federal employees now on furlough is again an excellent move. While the public is against big government, they are not particularly antagonistic to federal employees, and would not like to see them suffer by lack of income. In other words, your bill has general public support. Although Pres. Obama said he will not negotiate piecemeal funding, he and the Democrats would have great difficulty in turning down this proposal.
The next issue which seems to be coming to the table is a matter of government default. I believe most people don't really understand what would be defaulted, but they have the correct impression that it would be detrimental to the US future creditworthiness. For me, default means not paying the interest on previously issued government bonds. The obvious action on your part is to offer a bill to the Senate and the President to guarantee payment of interest on those bonds. It needs to be worded so that the people will relate this to your attempts to avoid default, and again the President and Democrats in the Senate will look bad if they do not approve your bill.
The main point is to maintain a strategy of piecemeal government funding. Everyone knows of your opposition to Obamacare and your passage of many bills to defund that program. However, the Senate and the President have dug in their heels, and will never agree to such defunding. My suggestion is that you have no choice except to let Obamacare develop into a system which is very likely to not work and only continue to exasperate most people. Our main objective is smaller government, and we are accomplishing that with piecemeal funding.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Obama Discriminates against World War II Veterans
Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your Newsletter about Pres. Obama shutting down veterans access to the World War II Memorial in Washington.
You said that what the Obama Administration is asking the Park Service to do is disgraceful. It’s a deliberate attempt to dramatize the debate over government funding and health care. It’s meant to provoke people into anger, and I sure was provoked. I believe that what the Park Service is doing at the direction of the Obama Administration is shameful, and we should all be ashamed of these political ploys.
You are right on, except for the fact that I am not ashamed. This is the doing of Pres. Obama, and I hope it backfires on him as the public realizes he has particularly discriminated against World War II veterans.
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your Newsletter about Pres. Obama shutting down veterans access to the World War II Memorial in Washington.
You said that what the Obama Administration is asking the Park Service to do is disgraceful. It’s a deliberate attempt to dramatize the debate over government funding and health care. It’s meant to provoke people into anger, and I sure was provoked. I believe that what the Park Service is doing at the direction of the Obama Administration is shameful, and we should all be ashamed of these political ploys.
You are right on, except for the fact that I am not ashamed. This is the doing of Pres. Obama, and I hope it backfires on him as the public realizes he has particularly discriminated against World War II veterans.
Spending Versus Debt
Open
Email to House Speaker Boehner:Dear Speaker Boehner,
President Obama and the Democrats claim they need a Continuing Resolution, which would completely fund Federal Government operations, in order to pay debts and not go into default. Ridiculous!
Is the President and his administrative staff so naïve that they actually believe that?. They cannot be. Then why make that claim? The real purpose is to remain in control of all federal spending. Debt payment is not the issue, but making the claim is an effort to obtain public support by a process of deception.
Most citizens know from their own experience that while spending and debt are related, they are not interchangeable. If one makes a purchase, then one has a debt, which must eventually be paid. While old debts from previous purchases must eventually be paid, accumulation of new debt can be avoided by not spending.
In continuing to fight against a Continuing Resolution, you must remind the public through the media of this basic economic fact. You are not against the payment of debt. You are for reduced spending to not accumulate future debt, at least at the same rate as it has been accumulated in the past. Your piecemeal approach to government funding actually does this.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
What Government Shutdown?
It has been three days since the
supposed government shutdown. I have felt no pain. My mail delivery continues.
Gasoline stations are open with prices dropping. My bank and financial
investment institution are open for business. I bought food yesterday at the
supermarket operating as though nothing was happening. My electricity and water
are on. I got a haircut yesterday. I also noticed the news that a gang of
operating policeman and other security guards were able to chase down and kill
an unarmed woman, who crashed a barricade at the White House. While I was
running errands, a fire truck passed me on its way to an emergency. I had no
need of emergency medical attention, but I'll bet a hat that if I did, I would
have found the emergency rooms at the hospital operating.
All of the above are my essential services, and they are going well. I really don't need operation of the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education, and a multitude of other agencies and departments of the federal government. I guess I can conclude that most of those are a waste of taxpayer money.
Since we seem to be doing fine with the government shutdown, let's keep it going, and see whether it really does any damage, or whether it's actually good for most of the public.
All of the above are my essential services, and they are going well. I really don't need operation of the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education, and a multitude of other agencies and departments of the federal government. I guess I can conclude that most of those are a waste of taxpayer money.
Since we seem to be doing fine with the government shutdown, let's keep it going, and see whether it really does any damage, or whether it's actually good for most of the public.
More Second Amendment Infringing by Democrats?
In Breaking News, the Washington Times said that a woman tried to ram a barrier at the White House with her
vehicle Thursday then sped over to the Capitol where police said shots were
fired, sending the entire complex into lockdown.
Staffers later said the shooter had been caught and an officer was injured. News reports said the suspect was shot at the end of the chase.
This is the sort of thing that immediately captures the attention of Democrats.
Staffers later said the shooter had been caught and an officer was injured. News reports said the suspect was shot at the end of the chase.
This is the sort of thing that immediately captures the attention of Democrats.
It is the policy of Democrats to establish a
communistic/socialistic form of government, with autocratic control of the
masses at the highest level. A similar form of government existed in Russia with
control by Czar Nicholas II. The Russian Revolution replaced that autocracy with
another one in the form of a Kremlin. Czar Nicholas II was deposed by armed
rebellion.
US Democrats want to avoid any such armed rebellion in the
US, for which reason they have a continuing program to confiscate all firearms.
Our founding fathers recognized that the only way citizens could protect
themselves from abusive government, was with a threat of armed rebellion,
through an armed citizenry.
The recent situation with the woman at the White House appears to be an isolated incident, which may or may not be a forerunner of general dissatisfaction of government by our citizenry. In any case, it is a worry to Democrats, and reason to redouble their efforts to infringe the Second Amendment to the Constitution, contrary to the wording thereof.
The recent situation with the woman at the White House appears to be an isolated incident, which may or may not be a forerunner of general dissatisfaction of government by our citizenry. In any case, it is a worry to Democrats, and reason to redouble their efforts to infringe the Second Amendment to the Constitution, contrary to the wording thereof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
