The coal debacle: More Obama lies
Waging war on coal and not letting the truth stand in the way of its far-left, anti-growth agenda, the Obama administration fudged figures to make a proposed coal-mining regulation seem less of an economic threat.
An Interior Department watchdog's report, first cited by The Washington Times, says the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement told a contractor to switch to another set of baseline criteria after media reports in January 2011 revealed the initial set yielded projections of 7,000 job losses and a broad decline in coal production. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and other coal-state senators reacted with a letter telling the administration it could not “discard the economic analysis because it does not like the results.”
The watchdog report documents damning internal discussions and emails, revealing that the administration's preferred baseline criteria involved a 2008 modification of the “Stream Protection Rule” that had been challenged in court and therefore enforced only in Tennessee and on Indian lands. An executive with a subcontractor working on the economic-impact projections told Congress in November 2011 that the 2008 baseline would “create a ‘fabricated' scenario that would show less impact and ‘soften' production losses,” the watchdog report says.
Appalling? Yes. Shocking? Not from an administration whose default position is lying about its radical policies' ruinous economic fallout, from environmental regulations to ObamaCare.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Death on the range: A fatal lapse
- Saturday essay: Mother’s message
- Police vests & big hearts
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The IRS scandal: Do the Lois Lerner emails still exist?
- Questions of transparency: The IGs’ plea
- Greensburg Tuesday takes