The EPA: Another power grab
As if the Environmental Protection Agency needs even more power to enforce its climate-change agenda, the Obama administration's eco-extremists now want to garnish the salaries of those who don't abide by its rules, a la the IRS.
The EPA announced its intention in the Federal Register as a “direct final rule,” which would become effective automatically on Sept. 2 “unless the EPA receives adverse public comments by Aug. 1,” reports The Washington Times. But not to worry — the EPA assures this isn't a “significant regulatory action.”
Tell that to private property owners who have come up on the losing end of disagreements with the EPA. This is the same thuggish agency that fined a Wyoming property owner $75,000 for creating a pond on rural land.
Now the EPA would have another weapon to “encourage” cooperation and dissuade court challenges from citizens and businesses that disagree with its diktats.
“(I)t seems like once again the EPA is trying to take power it doesn't have away from American citizens,” says Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. And what better time to do so than during the lazy, hazy days of summer?
In a letter submitted to the EPA, The Heritage Foundation criticized the rule for giving the government “unbridled discretion.” But it's doubtful public outcry will stop this power grab. Which is why Congress needs to intervene to stop yet another gross abuse of power.
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.
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- Blaming Israel: A new low
- Payments in lieu of taxes: It’s worth a try in Kittanning
- The Box
- The Chevy Volt: Short-circuited (again)
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat