So here’s the latest clown woman who doesn’t know science, a career hack bureaucrat who would like to be a celebrity or a politician.
now happy to be at the top of her pyramid. She gives apparatchiks a bad name.
And incidentally for any stupid Republicans remember before she went to work at EPA, she worked for the latest stupid compromising RINO Mitt Romney, who now advises us to just go along and find ways to work together.
I knew we were lost when he could muster up the courage to be outraged when 4 died at Banghazi and big ears was on the ropes. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory–that’s what RINOs like Romney and McCain do.
Read about her behavior, do these people know how to sneer–and snark? Such self confidence, for a woman who’s way past being nice. She’s a rodent.
No, I take that back because I know some cute and decent rodents, country mice for a start.
Pretty frightening to think she wields so much uncontrolled resentment for Americans.
Sure hope Mother Gaia will accept her as well intentioned. I don’t.
The Heartland Institute
EPA’s Gina McCarthy: The liberal Obama never became
By Dana Milbank, Published: June 2
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy sounded like the sort of unflinching liberal that progressives had hoped Barack Obama would be.
Not only did McCarthy roll out a broad new rule Monday that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent at existing power plants over 16 years, but she did so while ridiculing those on the other side.
“Critics claim that your energy bills will skyrocket. Well, they’re wrong,” McCarthy told a crowd at EPA’s headquarters. Departing from her prepared remarks, she added, to laughter and applause, “Shall I say that again? They’re wrong.”
She declared that “the critics are wrong about reliability, too,” and she scorned those “pointing to the polar vortex as a reason not to act on climate.” She adopted a singsong voice as she mockingly anticipated “special interest skeptics who will cry the sky is falling.”
McCarthy belittled those who “cried wolf” in the past with predictions that industry would “die a quiet death” — she made quotation marks with her fingers — and she predicted that “those same critics, once again, will flaunt manufactured facts and scare tactics, standing in the way of our right to breathe clean air.”
Her speech finished, the administrator went to a table to sign a page atop a five-inch-high stack of paper explaining the rule — but she returned to the microphone with a final, unscripted thought: “Whoever said the sword isn’t mightier than the pen, they’re absolutely right.”
McCarthy, not quite a year into her job, spoke with a Massachusetts accent and a Puritan’s fervor. After a career as an environmental adviser to Democratic and Republican governors alike, she sounded more like a politician herself than a regulator, savoring a standing ovation from the crowd and pointing and waving at people in the audience.
Even more than the policy itself, McCarthy’s unambiguous and uncompromising words should delight environmental advocates and frighten industrialists, who have been led by Republicans to believe that the administration is pursuing a “war on coal.” President Obama’s energy policy is inherently contradictory because he proposes carbon reduction while simultaneously pursuing record carbon production. But McCarthy, wielding the “pen” in Obama’s pen-and-phone strategy of acting without congressional cooperation, made no attempt to strike the balance that the president does between energy and climate.
She made the obligatory mention of Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy, but the rest was about how Obama would “lead the world in the global fight against climate [change]” — an echo of George W. Bush’s “global war on terror.” (That war on climate change might begin close to home. In the room where McCarthy made her remarks, the chandeliers that hung from the 30-foot ceilings illuminated the room with what appeared to be incandescent bulbs — about 100 in all.) An EPA spokesman had no information about the lighting.
A strong bass line pumped through the sound system before McCarthy arrived, and she entered to woops and raucous applause. “Wow!” the administrator declared after some hugs and a handshake with Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), seated front and center. She interrupted her speech to note the presence of kids in the audience (“Are they Girl Scouts?”) and she added a few lines to her prepared text that seemed designed to reassure advocates in the hall. She praised EPA’s “wonderful rule-making” and boasted, “That is how you write a rule.” McCarthy assured those listening that “this was the preferred path forward.”
She rattled off the various ills attributed to climate change: “If your kid doesn’t use an inhaler, you should consider yourself a very lucky parent. . . . 2012 was the second-most-expensive year in U.S. history for natural disasters. . . . If we do nothing, in our grandkids’ lifetimes, temperatures could rise 10 degrees and seas could rise by four feet. . . . Lower-income families and communities of color are hardest hit.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the regulation would annually cut 224,000 jobs and gross domestic product by $51 billion. But McCarthy dismissed any cost from the regulation at “about the price of a gallon of milk a month,” and she ridiculed those who will “deliberately . . . overestimate the costs.”
McCarthy had a feistiness similar to that of her home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose populism has fired up progressives. As she bemoaned the critics using “the same tired play from the same special-interest playbook,” she paused for a digression. “In the ’60s — you remember the ’60s? Some of you do. I’m lucky enough — sort of.”
McCarthy’s words Monday contained a bit of the 1960s, a time before unapologetic idealism gave way to “all of the above.” Love McCarthy’s message or hate it, her honesty is refreshing.
Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more: Greg Sargent: Shock poll shows even red staters want to save the planet Editorial: Tough emissions cuts would prove the U.S. is serious Greg Sargent: Why climate change will be a big issue in 2016