Free Market Mayhem: Do You Really Want to Live in a World without Environmental Regulations?

by Nomad

For corporations, a world without rules, without any annoying government interference might be heaven on Earth. But for the rest of us, it could be pretty damned close to hell on Earth.
We already have plenty of evidence of what life could be like if de-regulators get their way.

We often hear a lot of chatter about the benefits of deregulation and how important it is to avoid government interference in the world of big business. 

True to their Ayn Rand roots, both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, both candidates in 2016, have expressed the idea that "If only the government got its hands out of the private industries, then a purer form of capitalist harmony would emerge."

Free-market libertarians believe in a totally hands-off approach to government and this includes nearly all corporate oversight. Since governments (and the laws they create) are the only powers strong enough to regulate things, corporations would essentially become unrestricted and above the law. One way to that is by eliminating the agencies that are involved in policing.

In November of last year, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stated that his top priority was not going after the major polluters -such as the mining industry- His utmost concern was trying to do what he could “to get the EPA reined in.” 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is primarily tasked with effectively managing, overseeing, and enforcing environmental laws. It has the legal authority to go after and prosecute polluters who would choose the break the laws in the name of profits.

So, all in all, McConnell's soundbite might seem like an unusual position for a politician charged with protecting the public interest. However, an investigation explains his personal stake in shielding the coal industry. 

In other words,  blame  it on the in-laws.

How ALEC, The Koch Brothers and the Tea Party Congress Tried to Destroy the Constitution

by Nomad

The issue of "state's rights" is not at all new. In fact, the debate goes back before the founding of the nation. However, when Tea Party House members drafted the Repeal Amendment, courtesy of Koch-funded ALEC, it threatened to unravel the union that holds the United States together. And despite George Washington's warning, they very nearly succeeded.

Back in 2010, after taking over the House of Representatives, the Tea Party faction of the GOP proposed a "states' rights" change in the Constitution. Sponsored by Utah's Rob Bishop, the proposal was called the Repeal Amendment. It was designed to give states the authority to veto federal laws and regulations. Under this proposed amendment, supporters aimed “to push back the federal government's encroachment on sovereign states rights." 

Any federal law, like healthcare, abortion or gun control laws and even civil rights legislation, would be up for a vote in state legislatures. The resolution read:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

The Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank and another 501(c)3 organization, supports the idea saying:

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

Of course let’s not forget that the Cato Institute was co-founded by Charles Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party. So enthusiastic support for challenging the authority of the federal government shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

It is in fact a fundamental change to the balance of powers and not merely a corrective measure. In effect, it would invalidate the “united” part of the “United States” since state legislatures would have final say-so on the law of the land. The United States would, therefore, become about as united as say, the United Nations. 

In addition, the legislative branch in Congress would suddenly become irrelevant, since the eventual application of any congressional law would be subject to a vote in each state. The structure of the two houses of Congress prevents smaller less-populated states, most of which happen to be red states, from having undue influence or from dictating to the more populated states what national policy would look like. Under this proposed change, all that would change. 

The implications and the ensuing unnecessary complications are mind-boggling.

Are Republicans Finally Waking Up to the Realities of the Sequester?

With so many insightful investigative report s and op-ed articles appearing online all the time, it's no wonder that so many of us are turning their backs on cable news sources. With so much out there,  scattered hither and thither, it's next to impossible to catch them all.
That's where I come in! Here's an op-ed article that I thought you might find interesting.

President of the United Steel Workers, Leo Gerard has written an excellent piece at In These Times called:

The GOP’s Big Yellow Taxi Syndrome

The same Republicans who thought Norquist's infamous comment about "shrinking government small enough to drown it in the bathtub" was witty and wise are now having second thoughts about the idea. Especially when it comes to cuts that affect their own districts.

Republicans bellyached for years that government must shrink. It had to be smaller. Cut the budget come hell or high water, they yammered. Well, darn if the sequester hasn’t brought hell and high water to Republican districts across America.....

Now that it’s here, now that it’s affecting their constituents, Republicans contend the $1 trillion in indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts they demanded should have been specifically targeted to eliminate only “waste, fraud and abuse.”

"Waste, fraud and abuse" is apparently a stock phrase that that been on the lips of the Republicans-especially the Tea Party radicals. And yet, when called upon to explain where they would have cut, (note the past tense) the GOP remained vague and tended to change the subject. It was a phrase that played well in sound-bites on Fox News and back home but, without any specifics, it was about as hollow as Satan's heart.

Americans for Prosperity: The Koch Industries - Tea Party Nexus

By Nomad

Americans for Prosperity: What It is

The Tea Party members seem to take great pride in portraying themselves as modern day revolutionaries, the conscience of the people taking back their government. In their minds, the Tea Party is a spontaneously organized, leaderless and populist grassroots movement. 

In fact, many- if not most of them- have never heard of the oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, or what they do or how they spend their wealth. It is a sadly ironic fact that even those saluting the Kochs’ flag may not know who these brothers are. If they have heard of the organization named Americans for Prosperity, it would have probably have been on Fox News. And, for a news organization, Fox News is exceedingly good at keeping secrets.

Tornadoes and Koch Industries: An Elegant Solution

by Nomad

On one hand, we have the Tea Party demanding less government, except in an emergency, and on the other hand, we have the Koch Brothers- who've spent a fortune trying to undermine climate change legislation. Why not unite these two and cut out the middle man? That's the taxpayers. I'm just surprised nobody thought of this solution before.

(originally posted in April 2011 at Nomadic View blog)

A Declaration of Emergency

On April 28th, 2011, tornadoes swept through the south of the United States, killing 128 people in Alabama and 32 others in Mississippi and leaving long trails of destruction. Homes and businesses were left as piles of rubble. Towns were plowed down the middle and many residents, having lost all they owned, felt lucky just to be alive. My sympathies went out to the survivors and my condolences to the families that have lost loved ones.

This all came after a week in which storms torn through a half a dozen states in what meteorologists have called the deadliest season in nearly four decades. Republican Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama declared a state of emergency and said he was deploying 2,000 National Guardsman.

Similarly, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour declared a state of emergency for 39 counties. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost loved ones or property in these devastating spring storms,” Gov. Barbour said. “A large section of our state has been impacted, and our emergency responders are doing an excellent job in helping communities. This State of Emergency declaration will allow the state to offer aid to begin recovery efforts.”

The Mississippi Emergency Management Agency coordinates with the Federal emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA in administering disaster recovery. Federal sources contributes at least 75% of damage repair costs while while state and local entities share the remaining 25 percent or less of repair costs.

Nobody can blame the governor for requesting money when it is urgently needed. However, there's a ugly, hypocritical side to Barbour's requests. Like numerous Republican politicians of late, Gov. Haley Barbour last March chastised Obama for "limitless government" and out of control spending. His stand against Big Government has made him something of a "politician of note" in the Republican party.

Michele Bachmann's Constitutional Classes: Spring Training for the Minor Leagues?

by Nomad

Normally when a Republic as great as the United States elects a citizen to a high office, the public expects that person to be politically "fully-developed." Naturally we don't expect to have to give classes to teach them what they should already be familiar with, such as, for example, the laws of the land or the basic principles upon which that republic was founded, namely the Constitution. And we certainly don't expect the American taxpayers to foot the bill for these remedial classes. 
Yet, apparently Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks that new members of Congress - read, Tea Party members - need some indoctrination into the the extreme far right's world view.