EPA chief accuses House GOP of killing Americans

House Republicans may want to stop being so polite to EPA chief Lisa Jackson during hearings.

In a venomous Los Angeles Times op-ed today, Jackson writes:

Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation’s environmental laws…

How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens…

But, of course, no American’s health is threatened or impaired by ambient air quality today and we’ve challenged EPA and the enviros to prove that assertion wrong.

Moreover, if the EPA has its way and reduces the reliability of our electric grid, many Americans (especially the elderly) could die from power failures during heat waves.

Voting to rein in an out-of-control and highly politicized bureaucracy is not tantamount to undermining environmental protection.

The House GOP is merely trying to stop the from EPA misusing “public health” to kill America and Americans.

10 thoughts on “EPA chief accuses House GOP of killing Americans”

  1. Yes, really the whole concept. Legislation by proxy. And the nerve of the “proxy” to actually scold the body that give her her authority. Thanks for the added history, anyway.

  2. Actually it was Richard Nixon who created the EPA, so I would assume you are talking about the whole bureaucratic concept we are dealing with. I think that has to go back to his cousin Teddy, who gave personality to the Progressive movement, and then to Woodrow Wilson who gave form to it during the first world war. The New Deal wasn’t really a “new” daal, but it was in reality an expanded carbon copy of the socialist schemes imposed on the nation by Wilson. And many of the people in FDR’s administration worked in Wilson’s on the same programs. Just thought I would mention that.

  3. Jackson states: Nearly every day congress votes to “undermine the [EPA] and our nation’s environmental laws.” This person that heads an unconstitutionally created (thanks FDR) forth branch of government, harangues those who were constitutionally appointed to legislate, about undermining the nations laws? Sheesh! Lady Liberty must be crying her head off.

  4. It’s frustrating. The EPA routinely presents “evidence” that any high school freshman could see is not statistically significant. They present research methods so flawed that they are worthless.

    However, if you use a suma canister instead of a tedlar bag, or take 73 hours before performing the GC sampling on a Method 18 test, they whip out the fines. They actually removed a TCEQ rule that allowed you to go run 10% above the rates you achieved during your last stack test. This means that going 1% above the rate of your stack test is a federal crime.

    And then, any objections are yelled down as the “evil oil companies” wanting to pour toxic sludge into the ship channel.

  5. “How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens…”
    —-Lisa Jackson, EPA

    I think what disturbs me most is the myopic vision demonstrated by people such as Jackson. The environmental rules they are implementing to ‘control carbon pollution’ have had disastrous economic results in every country that has enforced them.

    These people express grandiose concerns about sickness, health, and premature death, yet they pay no attention to the health effects on a population after the economy, the government, and the very fabric of society come crashing down. Where are the government-funded studies about health effects of sudden destitution? Why are sickness, “and in some cases death”, that are attributed to ‘climate change’ so morally repugnant that nations must be impoverished and millions of lives sacrificed by laws that cannot effect any discernible change on the climate? Even the EPA admits it would cost some $170 trillion to reduce Earth’s temperature by 1C.

    Of course, there is always the possibility environmental megalomaniacs like Jackson aren’t myopic at all. Considering the house of cards on which AGW has been built, perhaps, the collapse of world economies is precisely what they have in mind.

  6. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to throw lies like that around with no worries of being held responsible for your words??

    I wonder if the Republicraps will ever wake up and clean out all the Leftard bureaucraps who cause so much of our gubmint waste and corruption. Oh wait, waste and corruption?? There goes the Republicraps appointments also!!!

  7. Just another political hack doing her thing. She has absolutely no understanding of health effects calculations and I am sure she doesn’t want to understand them.

  8. We need more CO2 in the atmosphere…!
    So the president and the EPA need to say this, get rid of the UN’s
    IPCC, and get with the program…!

  9. Every GOP candidate should promise to fire every Senior Executive Service (SES: serve at the pleasure of the President) in EPA as a precursor to draining this swamp of anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-business, Big Government political activists. No government agency reaches this level of leftist politics without the support of the top civilian leaders in the organization. So getting rid of all the political appointees–not just the head of the snake–is required IF EPA is ever going to agree to confine itself to what Congress originally intended. But I suspect the real solution is total elimination of this agency and returning the responsibility for environmental protection to the states. Let the environmental groups watch over the performance of State agencies instead. And let State agencies decide if it’s really worth running entire industries out of the state to provide protection to “locally endangered” species that have done nothing more than what similar species have done throghout their existance–relocate when their local environment presented problems whether it be due to Man, natural predators, or just searching for a favorite food source.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.