what eye thynk: The Republican scandal hunt continues. The IRS thing has been wrung of all its juiciness potential and the Benghazi question has been answered...and answered...and... What is a Republican to do?
Representative Darrell Issa to the rescue! Mr. Issa has joined forces with Louisiana Senator David Vitter, ranking Republican member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, for what they see as an investigation double-header--they can target President Obama AND the Environmental Protection Agency. Republican nirvana!
This time they are investigating whether the Obama administration "improperly colluded" with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization, when drafting new carbon emissions regulations.
My first thought when I read that was, "Well, who did you expect them to meet with? Oil and coal producers?" Turns out, that's exactly Mr. Issa's complaint. "The E.P.A. appears to have a far cozier relationship with N.R.D.C. lobbyists on carbon emission rule-making than with any other stakeholders."
Why hide behind a euphemism like "other stakeholders?" If you mean oil and coal producers, which is undoubtedly the case, then say so. Why try to be cute about it?
While they Obama administration met with several environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council was the only one to present a detailed plan to the White House. The GOP doesn't accuse the president of copying that plan--it is similar, but nowhere near identical--but Mr. Issa says they have uncovered "friendly emails" between Gina McCarthy, the EPA head and allies in the environmental movement which raises some questions.
"Friendly emails" between the head of the EPA and environmentalists! Oh, the horror!
In 2005, W received a major report written by environmental scientists regarding global warming. He gave it to his chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, who was a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, to edit before making the report public.Environmental groups , excuse me, "other stakeholders" were not offered the same opportunity; neither were the scientists whose work had been edited permitted to defend their conclusions. Mr. Issa, who was chairman of the House's Oversight Subcommittee on Energy and Resources at the time, did not see that obviously biased move as worthy of investigation; but the Obama administration meets with environmental groups on environmental issues and he's all in a dither.
This whole pseudo-scandal is beyond ridiculous. As one pundit wrote, "There are multiple 'stakeholders' in the debate, and the administration worked closer with those who want to address the problem, and less with those who want to make it worse."
Political writer Rebecca Leber said "Nobody denies that NRDC might have helped shape the rule. Obama Administration officials speak with advocacy groups when making policy, just like their predecessors and their counterparts on Capitol Hill. That's called governing."
The EPA responded to the Issa and Vitter investigation: "The Clean Power Plan was developed through an extensive public outreach process--one that engaged tens of thousands of people across the country. EPA consulted with states, power companies, local communities, environmental groups, associations, labor groups, tribes and any more. This process was a critical component in developing the proposed rule because it helped focus our attention on what was going on, on the ground, in states and communities across the country. It generated public discussion and ideas from numerous groups and individuals that helped inform our thinking. To imply that one group had any undue influence on the proposal's development is ridiculous and absurd.
And finally, Mr. Issa, remember in 2011 when you sent letters to more than 150 oil companies, drug manufacturers and corporate lobbyists asking them to tell you which Obama administration regulations they would like to see eliminated? We do, but we don't recall you asking any environmental groups which of those regulations they supported.
Now go away. You're making a fool of yourself.
Representative Darrell Issa to the rescue! Mr. Issa has joined forces with Louisiana Senator David Vitter, ranking Republican member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, for what they see as an investigation double-header--they can target President Obama AND the Environmental Protection Agency. Republican nirvana!
This time they are investigating whether the Obama administration "improperly colluded" with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization, when drafting new carbon emissions regulations.
My first thought when I read that was, "Well, who did you expect them to meet with? Oil and coal producers?" Turns out, that's exactly Mr. Issa's complaint. "The E.P.A. appears to have a far cozier relationship with N.R.D.C. lobbyists on carbon emission rule-making than with any other stakeholders."
Why hide behind a euphemism like "other stakeholders?" If you mean oil and coal producers, which is undoubtedly the case, then say so. Why try to be cute about it?
While they Obama administration met with several environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council was the only one to present a detailed plan to the White House. The GOP doesn't accuse the president of copying that plan--it is similar, but nowhere near identical--but Mr. Issa says they have uncovered "friendly emails" between Gina McCarthy, the EPA head and allies in the environmental movement which raises some questions.
"Friendly emails" between the head of the EPA and environmentalists! Oh, the horror!
In 2005, W received a major report written by environmental scientists regarding global warming. He gave it to his chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, who was a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, to edit before making the report public.
This whole pseudo-scandal is beyond ridiculous. As one pundit wrote, "There are multiple 'stakeholders' in the debate, and the administration worked closer with those who want to address the problem, and less with those who want to make it worse."
Political writer Rebecca Leber said "Nobody denies that NRDC might have helped shape the rule. Obama Administration officials speak with advocacy groups when making policy, just like their predecessors and their counterparts on Capitol Hill. That's called governing."
The EPA responded to the Issa and Vitter investigation: "The Clean Power Plan was developed through an extensive public outreach process--one that engaged tens of thousands of people across the country. EPA consulted with states, power companies, local communities, environmental groups, associations, labor groups, tribes and any more. This process was a critical component in developing the proposed rule because it helped focus our attention on what was going on, on the ground, in states and communities across the country. It generated public discussion and ideas from numerous groups and individuals that helped inform our thinking. To imply that one group had any undue influence on the proposal's development is ridiculous and absurd.
And finally, Mr. Issa, remember in 2011 when you sent letters to more than 150 oil companies, drug manufacturers and corporate lobbyists asking them to tell you which Obama administration regulations they would like to see eliminated? We do, but we don't recall you asking any environmental groups which of those regulations they supported.
Now go away. You're making a fool of yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment