Barry Soetero (a.k.a. "Obama") gave a rousing bit of speechifying to EPA employees a couple of days ago, in which he noted that “I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day.” For once, he was telling the truth; he just omitted a few minor details: on the previous day (Monday, Jan. 09 2012), the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments in a proceeding against the EPA - and the Justices were less than impressed with EPA arguments. That squealing sound you hear is the brakes being applied to a pushy agency.
It all came to something of an explosive verbal climax when Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. suggested that the scheme that Stewart had outlined would be considered by the ordinary homeowner as something that “can’t happen in the United States.” Alito ticked off the situation: the homeowner planned to build a house on a lot, the lot was found to have “a little drainage problem,” the homeowner was soon told by EPA that “you have wetlands,” that steps had to be taken to alleviate the environmental threat, that “you have to let us on your premises,” that every day “you face $75,000 in penalties,” that the homeowner cannot go to court to make a challenge, and that, if there is a court case, it won’t occur “until we choose.”
The unbridled brazenness of the EPA angered many of the Justices, although Justice Alito was perhaps the most vocal, noting that the himeowners in this case had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
"You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: `You have filled in wetlands, so you can't build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'" Alito said. "You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don't do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you."
Although complicated by the fact that one wetlands biologist told the homeowners that the property had wetlands, several others said that the first one was wrong.
Back in 2005, the Idaho couple bought "their" property for $23,000. Two years later, they decided to build a small three-bedroom home on "their" land. That's how it all started, and that's how EPA and other government "environmental" agencies operate: when threatened with fines ranging between $37,500 to as much as $75,000 per day, most people - over 99% - cave in to their demands. As Barry says,“I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day.”
A decision isn't expected until summer, but it isn't looking good for the EPA at present.
There's more to come: whether or not you think the EPA's a little heavy handed when they "touch on the lives" of folks who pay $23,000 to "buy" some land - you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The EPA is imposing massive fines upon refineries for failure to include a specific kind of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel fuel products. The refineries are getting socked to the tune of $6.8 million in penalties for their failure to incorporate a specific biofuel which, outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, does not exist.
Cellulosic biofuel is mandated under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, a law which supports my contention that all government employees should be subjected to mandatory, random drug tests.
This is the sort of thing that happens when you don't have sober, responsible grownups in charge. The companies didn't include a nonexistent ingredient, so they get fined nearly $7 million this year - and the fine will increase next year. Of course, these costs will just be passed along to you, so Barry wasn't lying: truly, the EPA touches the life of every single American, every single day.
I disagree very much with mandatory, random drug testing! VERY MUCH!! Every damned day is the right frequency; twice daily for department heads; and the agency chief should not be allowed out of the bathroom even for lunchtime.
Posted by: Sam L. | January 12, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Okay, maybe I set my sights too low on that one....
Posted by: Max | January 13, 2012 at 04:22 PM