
The Obama administration is rejecting House GOP leaders' latest attempt to box him into a corner on environmental protections.
Late Monday afternoon the Office of Management and Budget recommended the President veto two bills House Republicans are planning to bring to the floor for a vote later this week.
President Obama pulled the plug Friday on a long-delayed environmental regulation that would have further limited industrial smog emissions, leaving in place an ozone standard that EPA administrator Lisa Jackson recently described as "legally indefensible." The development most likely means smog standards in many states will remain lower than they would have been if President George W. Bush's lax policy had been fully pursued.
The proposed limits have been under assault by congressional Republicans and the business community for months. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently called it "possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations."
Obama's decision comes the same day new employment figures show the economy created zero net jobs in August.
What was the regulation, and what does it mean now that it's been scotched? In short, it means Bush-era smog standards, declared inadequate by government science advisers, will likely remain in effect until mid-decade if not longer.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)President Barack Obama on Tuesday pushed back against GOP charges that he is saddling the nation with costly and overly burdensome regulations. In fact, Obama argued, he has led the way in trying to reduce the federal government's regulatory costs on individuals and businesses across the country.
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Obama said his efforts to reduce the government's regulatory burden will save $10 billion over the next five years, adding that he hopes to find billions more in additional savings. Earlier this year, Obama issued an executive order imposing a series of requirements designed to reduce burdens and costs and called for a government-wide review of rules now on the books.
When Congress returns from recess, House Republicans will begin a continuous assault on a series of health, environmental and labor regulations, which they say are hampering job creation. And they'll twin it with two tax cuts for both large and small businesses. One of those cuts will actually be aimed at preventing a scheduled tax increase -- but it's not the payroll tax cut President Obama has asked Congress to extend.
In a memo to members, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) laid out a list of 10 rules, most of which have yet to be implemented, which they'll seek to prevent week by week. These include regulations that would limit the amount of mercury and other toxins boiler and incinerator operators can burn into the atmosphere; that could make it easier for workers to unionize; and that assure that employer insurance policies exempted from new health care law -- so-called "grandfathered" plans -- meet the law's basic requirements and aren't gamed by employers to reduce workers' existing benefits.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)For six days and counting now, hundreds of protesters have gathered outside the White House to demand President Obama intervene and stop the construction of an oil pipeline that will span the breadth of the United States -- from Montana to the Gulf of Mexico. Over 300 of them have been arrested -- and not just wild-eyed idealistic college students, but high-profile advocates including environmental leader Bill McKibben. Despite all this, the administration says this is a question for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
What the heck is this all about?
At issue isn't just NIMBYism or standard concerns about oil spills, but the question of whether the United States should accelerate an extraction process that some environmental experts say will lose the fight against global warming forever.
In last week's debate, Republicans got their first look at a GOP field much more openly hostile to the environment than in recent elections, with several candidates openly calling for an end to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But many of the top contenders have also flirted with eco-friendly policy in the recent past, even if they aren't too quick to proclaim it these days. Making matters more confusing, here's even some overlap between the two camps. So where do the big players stand right now?
On the far end, you have the "Abolish the EPA" crowd. These were the loudest and most noteworthy voices at the New Hampshire debate.
"What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it's the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations," Michele Bachmann said at the event. "And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A Republican and a Democratic senator who both face re-election in 2012 are coming under attack for their votes to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory power.
BP plans to cut its overall tax bill by nearly $13 billion by writing off costs related to last year's mammoth oil spill as the Gulf Coast continues to grapple with the devastating environmental and economic costs of the disaster one year later.
The international oil giant suffered a $40.9 billion loss as a result of the oil spill, making its net losses for 2010 a total of $4.8 billion (BP had $36.1 billion in profits before factoring in the spill), according to its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and analysis by several tax experts consulted by TPM.
Under U.S. corporate law, companies can take credits on up to 35 percent of their losses. In this case, that means U.S. taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing at least part of cleanup cost and the $20 billion fund BP created to compensate people, fisherman and businesses along the Gulf Coast hurt by the spill.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Asked at a Capitol press conference this afternoon if he's starting to doubt whether House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) wants to avoid a government shutdown, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) didn't mince words.
"Yes, I am," he said.
You can look at that sentiment a couple of ways. Ironically, Reid's statement gives Boehner credibility with his base, which makes it easier for him to strike a deal. But it's also about passing the buck to the other party, as the clock ticks toward a government shutdown.
If a government shutdown happens, it'll be because Republicans are demanding policy restrictions in addition to spending cuts before agreeing to fund the government through September. These policy restrictions would target abortion providers and seek to limit the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Which of the so-called riders are at stake and how do they work?
There are several riders addressing abortion and environmental regulation. It's not clear yet which of them specifically are at issue. Neither side is saying publicly which they are. But here's a primer on what they contain:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me that top negotiators for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are nearing an agreement that would cut federal spending by somewhere between $33 billion and $40 billion dollars but "much closer to 33."
The men quarterbacking that side of the spending fight are Boehner's chief of staff Barry Jackson and Reid's chief of staff David Krone. They're working with multiple frameworks that contain somewhat different allocations, and mixes of discretionary and mandatory spending, but according to the aide, are close to resolving that side of the issue.
However, another side of the equation is still holding up a final deal. That's where things get tough.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate will not accept the dozens of riders House Republicans added to their recently-passed spending bills -- policy measures that do everything from defund Planned Parenthood to rescind the EPA's authority to regulate pollution.
It's the latest salvo in the battle over funding the government -- and at some point House Republicans will have to decide whether they'll allow these measures to be flushed down the toilet.
Reid made the comments on a conference call to reporters after Republicans rejected his call for extending current spending levels for 30 days while the two parties craft a longer-term bill to cut those funds.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Republicans could turn the cooked-up controversy over end-of-life counseling into a "Death Panel" vote next year.
If they fully embrace their new strategy, outlined here, Republicans could cherry pick politically-charged executive branch regulations and put vulnerable Democrats, particularly in the Senate, in a bind: vote for regulations that are unpopular with their constituents; or rebuke President Obama as he attempts to govern from the White House.
One of those regulations -- scheduled to take effect January 1 -- would achieve the Obama administration's goal of encouraging end-of-life planning. It works by paying Medicare doctors for counseling patients with terminal illness on their medical options -- including advance directives compelling doctors and families to forgo certain medical interventions like feeding tubes, IV fluids or respirators. Obama and congressional Democrats tried to include these incentives in their health care law, but were forced to nix it after Sarah Palin and other Republicans started referring to the provisions as "death panels" that could "pull the plug on grandma."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A political mailer sent to voters in support of Wisconsin Senate candidate Ron Johnson (R) plays on unfounded conservative fears that Democrats will outlaw hunting ammunition.
"It will be hard to hunt when ammo is banned," the mailer reads.
An image of the flier was sent along by a reader, who found it disingenuous. And indeed, groups that support gun bans don't exactly count the Obama administration as an ally.
"Anti-hunting extremists groups are trying to force the federal government to ban traditional hunting ammunition," it reads. "And they just may succeed.... Choose Ron Johnson on November 2. Ron Johnson will lead the fight against the anti-hunting extremists to protect your right to hunt."
The mailer was paid for by Safari Club International's PAC, based in Tucson, AZ.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Progressives split over Jack Conway's Aqua Buddha campaign tactics may unite over the Democratic Senate nominee's other ad running in Kentucky this week. While Conway's attack on Republican nominee Rand Paul's college career fills the airwaves, voters in the Bluegrass State are also being subject to Conway's criticisms of what his ad calls "Obama's EPA."
At issue is Kentucky's coal industry, central to the state's economy and long a part of Conway's campaign rhetoric. The Democrat has said he's against cap-and-trade for a while now and told me in an interview back in August that his "number one" criteria when considering energy policy is "does it do the right thing by Kentucky coal?"
The new ad seeks to illustrate that message.
"Jack Conway will always stand up for miners," the ad's narrator says. "Conway opposes cap-and-trade and even sued Obama's EPA to protect Kentucky coal."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
