This summer has been warmer than average.  Midwesterners are known for having to tolerate all kinds of weather, but this summer has been unique due to the severe drought.  One of the hardest-hit commodities, corn, plays a critical role in our food supply, and now, even more so in our pocket books.

I am a city gal who grew up in a small farming community in Minnesota and when I dial back home, many farmers are in fear wondering how long last year’s corn yields will last due to this summer’s brutal drought.  This year’s crop yield is on track to be the worst in 15 years, and corn prices have already hit record high levels.  The drought has destroyed one-sixth of the country’s expected corn crop for the past month.[1]

Abusing Bureaucracy

Did you know that Congress is on the brink of passing a “pork”-filled farm bill? A farm bill is legislation used to shape America’s farm and food policy.  In the current bill, bureaucracy and special interests are sneaking in disguised as representing the best interest of farmers, but in reality this one is not a farm bill for the farmers after all. If this farm legislation is passed, the real drought will be forced on taxpayers with a trillion dollars worth of bad agriculture policy, while locking in increased food stamp spending.[2] 

That’s right, food stamp spending. Did you know that 80% of the current proposed farm bill is made up of entitlement spending on food stamps?  I do not see how this helps the farmers, drought or not!  With government dependence at an all time high – nearly 45 million people on food stamps[3] – this “farm” (food stamp) legislation will not help any American citizens.

Taxpayers cannot afford an expansion of federal government’s role in the business decisions of agricultural enterprises.  As a small business owner, I can’t imagine being encouraged to engage in expansion or risk in this economic climate, and then expect the taxpayers to bail me out if I fail.  This is “Kleptonomics”—not True Capitalism.

Enter The Renewable Fuel Standard

The EPA is now responsible for ensuring that transportation fuel contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel.[4] President Bush signed a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate with the Energy Policy Act in 2005.[5]  This RFS was expanded in 2007 in the Energy Independence and Security Act.[6] The expansion was an effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil, promote biofuel use, stabilize transportation fuel prices, and reduce greenhouse emissions, among other goals. The mandate requires “that increasing amounts of biofuel – 36 billion gallons by 2022 – be blended into transportation fuel.”[7]

Government Creating Value… Corn for Cars

Ethanol (ethyl alcohol) is a renewable energy biofuel often used as an additive for gasoline. The ethanol movement has been glorified and positioned as “greener” – a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our use of imported oil.  This is foolish considering the amount of land used and energy consumed growing and processing biofuel crops.[8]  Furthermore, scientific research suggests that some corn-based ethanol production may actually increase carbon dioxide emissions rather than reduce them.

According to a study published in Science by the Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota, many biofuels emit more greenhouse gases than gasoline. According to the researchers, the production of some biofuels may produce “17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the annual greenhouse gas reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.”[9]

Let’s be clear on the renewable fuel standard – nearly 40 percent of the corn harvest is consumed by making ethanol[10] to meet Obama’s “green” strategy and to win votes.  Once again, the taxpayer suffers in the form of higher grocery bills and our tax dollars going to questionable subsidies.

Another Layer Wrapped in Green Red Tape

The ethanol industry claims that the Renewable Fuel Standard minimally impacts corn and feed prices.[11]  Livestock producers claim just the opposite, as their feed-corn cost increases are rampant due to the drought and the mandated diversion of corn to ethanol production. These livestock producers are asking the hand of the EPA and Government to unlock and immediately consider waiving the RFS ethanol mandate to help ease the pressure it is placing on the feed corn they must purchase, and to help reduce costs that are passed on to consumers when costs go up for livestock farmers.[12]

Taxing Refiners and What These Programs Are Costing You

Pressuring the biofuel market, EPA renewable fuel standard is forcing refiners to pay a fine for not achieving cellulosic ethanol targets even though this type of ethanol is currently unavailable.[13]

Refiners were required to pay about $6.8 million in penalties for not blending cellulosic ethanol into gasoline in 2011.  How absurd, given cellulosic ethanol does not currently exist on the market. And it doesn’t stop there; the EPA has mandated that refiners blend even more cellulosic ethanol – 8.65 million gallons – into gasoline and diesel in 2012 or pay the EPA millions of dollars in fines.[14]

Who picks up the rewards of this bureaucratic punishment?  The EPA wins this one by setting an unrealistic requirement, and then bringing in money through the fines it demands.

So ethanol mandate is one more bad idea – government manipulation “run amok” – that benefits politicians and corn growers but does little of value for you or I, the consumers and customers.

Shucked Corn Trade

One of my clients works with Minneapolis based Cargill, a global grain-trading powerhouse.  She has been predicting unbalanced trade in corn import/export for some time, as her global co-workers joined the chorus that the U.S. government should temporarily curb its ethanol quotas. To make the trade situation worse for the U.S., our agricultural companies are importing corn from Brazil for the first time.[15]  This greatly hurts America’s position in global trade.

“Countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan are looking elsewhere for new [corn] suppliers because of skyrocketing prices and tight supply. America exports 50 million tons of corn – 15% of its crop – and Japan is America’s top buyer, importing 14 million tons, followed by Mexico, Korea, Egypt and Taiwan.”[16]  Now, between the drought and the ethanol mandate, these countries will have no choice but to turn to other corn producers such as Brazil, South Africa, China and Argentina to get their corn.

“[Cargil]l CEO Gregory Page said on CNBC that the U.S. biofuel mandate ‘needs to be addressed’ through existing policy tools, becoming the highest-profile executive to call for some relief from the Renewable Fuels Standard that requires that over a third of the corn crop is made into fuel ethanol.”[17]

When will our government stop trying to pick winners and losers?  Much like the alignment with Solyndra and other green companies, Obama is in the business of propping up the democratic vote by joining King Corn in a struggling economy.

From Burnt Corn Field to Level Playing Field

Congress needs to put agriculture and energy on a level playing field by killing unnecessary subsidies and backdoor regulatory mandates, while the Farm Bill needs to be “SNAPED” in half to remove it’s 80% earmark for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – the new name for food stamps.

We have a summer storm of invested political interests, the most severe drought since the 1930’s, shifting U.S. trade balances, and unnecessary mandated restrictions when it’s clear the nation’s corn crop is in a state of crisis.  Corn prices have gone from about $2 a bushel in 2005, when the first ethanol mandates were put into place, to a drought-induced $8 today.[18]

Obama’s energy agenda is the same as the Global Warmists: drive down the use of petroleum-based fuels by making them more expensive. This, however, raises the cost of living for all of us and is too much for our economy to bear.

Crisis or not, the market cannot work when big government mandates are in place. That’s what we call “Washington Inc.” and it is a manipulation of the markets.  We cannot stand for this bureaucracy as congress is ramping up to finish out the year and Obama plays more “executive order.”

Read more about Energy Solutions that will drive America back to greatness and into autonomy.

You wake up and hear on the news that the Government is going to start powering their Navy ships with $26-a-gallon biofuel.  Then you read that the EPA is fining oil refiners for not using a “green” additive that hasn’t been produced yet. You check the calendar to make sure it’s not April Fools’ Day.  Nope.  It’s true.  You couldn’t make this up.

At a time when budget cuts are hitting our military, the “Great Green Fleet” will be using a green biofuel that costs $26 per gallon compared to the standard fuel price of $3.60.^[1]

A spokesman for Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said, “Investments in biofuel will produce a competitively priced — and domestically produced — alternative to conventional fuel. Such investments help the Navy and the nation become less dependent on foreign oil and thus less subject to volatility in oil prices that directly affect our readiness.”^[2] 

If we want to lessen our dependence on oil from volatile foreign nations while maintaining affordable oil pricing, we should develop our domestic energy sources.  Why did the Obama administration tighten rules on fracking, a proven new technology?^[3] Why does this administration and the Democratic party always block the use of new oil field possibilities?[4]  Could it be they are waging war against the very industries that can provide national security? Slow approval of new sites, endless environmental studies (Keystone Pipeline), investment in costly alternative ideas (Solyndra), and business-killing regulatory laws against existing energy sources are the real “policies” of the liberal/progressive Washington Establishment.

At a time when America is in an economic crisis, the bureaucrats continue to play April Fools’ Day jokes on the public.

Nonsensical Regulation

How many of us expected a Federal Regulation that would demand “oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist?”^[5]  In 2005 the government set out requirements to blend this ethanol and created guidelines on its usage.  They assumed someone would make it, but its now 2012 and no one has developed it.

As you might expect, being forced to use a product that doesn’t exist has caused considerable frustration among oil refiners.

What is the driving force behind such nonsense policy?  Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufactures (AFPM), made this statement recently, “RFS2 (Renewable Fuel Standard) was really conceived at a different time in the nation’s history even though it was only a few years ago. There was a thought permeating through Congress that we were eventually going to run out of natural resources. Since then, as a nation we fully understand we’re not an energy poor nation, we’re an energy rich nation with the advent of fracking and horizontal drilling.”^[6]

The American Petroleum Institute notes that the United States has enough oil and natural gas to power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years.^[7] Beyond this, it’s important to remember the history of the private sector in solving large-scale problems when a need arises. Brian Lee Crowley, Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, made these comments:

“… human intelligence and ingenuity have consistently and repeatedly unlocked technological and scientific advances that have raised the standard of living of each generation compared to its predecessor…

The reason why the ecosystem hasn’t collapsed, why we haven’t run out of oil, why we are still successful in feeding ourselves, why incomes are rising and health status improving around the globe is that the doomsayers have completely misunderstood the way the world works.

Of all their misunderstandings, two stand out. They don’t understand what natural resources are. And they don’t understand that the greatest natural resource of all is the human mind.”^[8]

Whether natural energy resources are infinite or not is not the real issue.  Our instinctual drive to create, invent and find new ways to solve problems is the way to energy security, not government driven policy.

If You Think Government’s Problems are Bad, Wait Until You See Their Solutions

Let’s look at what happens when government creates a “solution” to a problem.

As part of the push to create biofuels, an American company called Range Fuels began construction on a commercial cellulosic ethanol plant in November 2007.^[9]  Remember cellulosic ethanol, the government mandated “green” fuel additive?  In January 2011 the Range Fuels plant in Soperton, GA was shut down!^[10] As a matter of fact Range Fuels went into foreclosure, shutting the doors on the new plant without producing one drop of the ethanol. For that effort Range Fuels received a $76 million grant from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, $6 million from the State of Georgia’s taxpayers, plus an $80 million loan guaranteed by the U.S. Biorefinery Assistance Program.^[11]

What did the taxpayers get for their Government supported project?  Nothing.  Taxpayers, private investors and the California state pension fund lost big.^[12]  $162 million down the Government sector drain.

That, however, has not stopped the EPA from fining oil refiners $6.8 million for not using the cellulosic ethanol.^[13] And do you know who actually pays that bill?  We do, the consumers!

A Return to Common Sense

What has happened to the people in Washington that good ole’ common sense doesn’t exist?  Does a new biofuel that costs over 700% more than what the Navy is currently using really seem like the best solution to our dependency on foreign oil?  What about the EPA fining the oil refineries for not using an additive that doesn’t exist – does that make sense?

What’s next? Will bureaucrats believe the smart way to proceed is to insist that every American own a unicorn, and then charge you a penalty for not acquiring one?

If you are outraged at the lack of common sense in Washington, join us in getting smarter about the economy.  Help your friends and family to understand what kind of lunatic ideology is running our Country.  Help us wake up the people and get them out to vote…

If we don’t get involved now, you may wake up on November 7 and find out that it truly is April 1st and we are the fools.

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to “frack” with?  Huh?  I had heard but not understood the term “fracking” until I read a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.  Fracking is the process of pumping water, sand or chemicals into the earth at high pressures to displace or dislodge oil or natural gas from rock formations deep in the ground.

The story I read starts with a rancher in the midst of a historic Texas drought facing choices about watering his stock or “fracking” for oil:

Darrell Brownlow, another cattle rancher, says that if the economically depressed region has to choose between the two, the choice should be simple.

Mr. Brownlow, who has a Ph.D. in geochemistry, says it takes 407 million gallons to irrigate 640 acres and grow about $200,000 worth of corn on the arid land. The same amount of water, he says, could be used to frack enough wells to generate $2.5 billion worth of oil. “No water, no frack, no wealth,” says Mr. Brownlow, who has leased his cattle ranch for oil exploration.[1]

Is there any question about how the rancher and America could benefit from fracking?

For any average person the choice seems clear and simple – fracking for oil takes less water than ranching or farming, and results in increased revenue.  For farmers, ranchers, or people just wanting to better themselves through land investments, the choice to look at fracking is obvious.

Does this mean we should stop farming, stop raising cattle and plug the ground with wells and rigs to hopefully find oil or gas?  No!  It would be foolish to assume that farmers and ranchers would all want to do that.  Also, not every piece of land has oil and gas underneath it.  We need cattle and crops to feed our nation.  We also need fuel for survival and our national security.

In America we are supposed to have the right to pursue happiness, and an income, by making choices about what we do for work.  Should big government, along with regulatory agencies like EPA and environmentalists, be allowed to tell farmers and ranchers what they are allowed to do on their private property?  Of course not.

Big government has interfered with jobs and energy creation in the past.  In 1973 a lawsuit was brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, supported by the Department of Energy and the EPA, against the building of the Tellico dam in Tennessee.  A biologist from the University of Tennessee said that building the dam might alter the habitat for the snail darter fish and it could become extinct.  The lawsuits and controversy dragged out until President Carter approved a bill on September 25, 1979 to allow the dam to operate after $100M had already been spent.  The fish was relocated and is doing just fine!

Was there an impact on the citizens?  YES.  According to then Senator Howard Baker from Tennessee in a speech on the floor of the Senate,

In the midst of a national energy crisis, the snail darter demands that we scuttle a project that would produce 200 million kilowatt hours of hydroelectric power and save an estimated 15 million gallons of oil.[2]

Imagine, too, how many jobs were in jeopardy because of these fish delays.  But the rest of the story is interesting in hindsight.  As it turns out, Baker and proponents of the dam overstated the estimates of energy creation.  For those who worried about the damage and the extinction of the snail darter, they over estimated the negative impact of the dam.  By 1984, the snail darter was taken off the endangered species list.  Biologists successfully transplanted the fish and the existence of the snail darter is no longer in question.[3]

The question is whether government should involve itself in a commercial endeavor?  Government’s role is not to search for or create energy, that’s not in the constitution.  In this case and countless others there is proof that government and politicians on all sides make mistakes with your money.  Can you say Solyndra?

Private sector investors, who must be certain when risking their own money on fracking or anything else they create, should run these initiatives.  Taxpayer money will not then be at risk and political debates on funding such projects can end.

More Oil Than We Can Consume – The Fracking Truth

The biggest problem in America’s recovery today is the stagnant growth of private sector jobs.  So what would more freedom to frack mean for helping economic and jobs growth?  Are there examples of that potential?

From the Wall Street Journal: Less than three years after its discovery, the Eagle Ford oil field here already accounts for 6% of South Texas’s economic output and supports 12,000 full-time jobs, according to a study by the University of Texas at San Antonio earlier this year…[4]

Yes there is great potential, but the government is looming over this potential like a tornado!

In a report from CBS News on December 8, 2011 from Cheyenne, Wyoming, the EPA is announcing that fracking “may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution.”[5]

MAY BE TO BLAME!  This is an allegation being made by the EPA.

According to Sen. James Inhofe, the study was “not based on sound science but rather on political science.  Its findings are premature, given that the Agency has not gone through the necessary peer-review process, and there are still serious outstanding questions regarding EPA’s data and methodology,” the Oklahoma Republican is quoted as saying.[6]

Is this an isolated fracking case?  No.

The issue has been highly contentious in New York, where some upstate residents and politicians argue that the gas industry will bring desperately needed jobs while others demand a ban on fracking to protect water supplies. New York regulators haven’t issued permits for gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale since they began an extensive environmental review in 2008.[7]

How many jobs could have been created over the last three years if politicians and regulators had not intervened?

The current government with their relentless pursuit of regulations and day-to-day oversight of our choices is crushing our pursuit of happiness, freedom, and jobs.  You do have a choice, a monumental choice, in the 2012 election.  Do you want politicians who give unlimited regulatory power to agencies that slander industries?  Do you want politicians in states like New York to kill job creation and energy autonomy by allowing uncontrolled regulators to deny permits that would create jobs?

Washington insiders and politicians at all levels are to blame, and they will continue to compromise our nation’s principles to get your support.  Crippling environmental regulations and failed energy policies have cost us our energy autonomy and prosperity.  It is time to put people who will stop this madness into office.  It is time for real change now!

Take action. Support, contribute, campaign, call your friends, but most of all, help get out the vote that will change the direction of the United States of America.

We all have the right to work hard, prosper, and get ahead. This is the belief system a lot of us in this country have.

What about people who get ahead because of favors from the right people? Or, what about the people who don’t get into trouble (when they should) because they know the right people?

You may have heard of MF Global. This is the company that misplaced $1.2 billion dollars of customer money. Did you know that the president of this company, Bradley I. Abelow, has been a top financial advisor to the Environmental Protection Agency since 2010? No one seems to have voiced any concern about Mr. Abelow’s role in advising the $8.6 billion EPA on its finances.[1] If someone has misplaced $1.2 billion, should they be advising a government agency on finances?

What about the people who seem to be in the right place at the right time? We’ve all heard about insider trading, and how we would go to jail if we participate. But should members of Congress, who are privy to certain information about companies, be allowed to profit from this information? Or should they be held to the same accountability we are?

In November 2011, the CBS program 60 Minutes reported that some members of Congress (and their staff) profited from insider knowledge that would help them make money in the stock market.[2] These lawmakers have exempted themselves from a law that would otherwise send them to jail!

In 2006, Louise Slaughter, a Democratic Representative from New York, proposed a bill that would prevent insider trading by members of Congress.[3] The bill failed, but because of the 60 Minutes episode last November, the problem was brought to light again.

After a six-year battle by a small group of House members, insider trading for members of Congress is now illegal. On April 4, 2012, President Obama signed the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act.”[4] This law prohibits all members of Congress or their aides from using information they might gain while working on government projects to their advantage in trading stocks. The Wall Street Journal discovered that more than 50 members of Congress traded actively, and dozens made trades in companies that they help oversee.[5] Through the passing of this new law, members of Congress can no longer use information or knowledge gained on the job for their advantage.

Finally, let’s not forget about President Obama’s “green jobs” program. In addition to the Solyndra loan ($535 million tax-payer funded), the Washington Post discovered that the White House granted “easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration,” many of whom were Obama campaign donors. In addition, others were given jobs in the administration and “helped manage the clean-energy program.”[6]

This corrupt system, Washington Inc., has to stop! We need to elect candidates who will grant jobs and contracts based on excellence and qualifications, not connections and paybacks.

Become informed. As Benjamin Franklin once said, An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.

Inform your friends, neighbors and relatives. Subscribe to the ACEF newsletter. Get the message out to restore our country to Economic Freedom!

“The British are coming! The British are coming!” This is the phrase attributed to Paul Revere during his midnight ride at the start of the American Revolutionary War; but according to eye witness accounts in historical documents, he actually said, “The Regulars are coming out.”[1] The “Regulars” was a term referring to an official army of a country, and in this case, it referred to Great Britain’s army.[2]

The Revolutionary War in essence was an economic war. The colonists had had enough of Great Britain and King George’s trade and tax policies. They were making it nearly impossible for most American entrepreneurs to profitably run a business and support their families. The last straw was the Stamp Act of 1765 and soon the Boston Tea Party and the war followed.[3]

Paul Revere’s warning was uttered to the American colonists well over 200 years ago. In a sense, though, it could be pronounced again today, not in regards to Great Britain’s regular army, but in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s army of regulations. However, his cry today would probably be… “The Regulators are coming! The Regulators are coming!”

Today the regulations of the EPA are having the same destructive economic effects as King George and his taxation laws. According to a February 2012 study just released by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, never in the EPA’s 40-year history have so many environmental rules been put into effect simultaneously that have converging effective dates and massive compliance costs. These costs are estimated to be in the billions and some say even 1 trillion dollars![4]

Some of the EPA rules currently adopted or in various stages of proposal are:[5]

* Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

* Electric Utility Maximum Available Control Technology Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Utility MACT)

* Industrial Boiler MACT

* Portland Cement Kiln MACT

* Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule (CWIS)

* Coal Combustion Residuals Rule (CCR)

* Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

* Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS

* Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation of Stationary Sources

* GHG Regulation of Mobile Sources

Suffice it to say if you string a few letters from the alphabet together you’ve more than likely come up with an EPA regulation!

Not only are these rules costly to enact but taken altogether they would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process (a sobering thought to many in this already depressed economy).[6] An even more astounding aspect to all of this is the EPA, by their own admission, doesn’t even figure job losses into their economic analysis, a point that one Congressman incredulously observed and repeatedly pointed out to the EPA representative being questioned on Capital Hill![7] How can this be? An economic analysis on the consequences of EPA regulations without looking at the crucial impact on jobs! Why even bother.

Researching even further into EPA’s protocol for analysis and studies, it turns out the very method of their scientific procedures has been questioned by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) scientists.[8] The EPA has a program called IRIS (at least it’s not another regulation), which stands for Integrated Risk Information System. It is described on the EPA website as follows:

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a human health assessment program that evaluates information on health effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency’s regulatory activities.[9]

Notice the last sentence which states they provide “the highest quality science-based…” Yet on July 14, 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight held a hearing with the express purpose of evaluating the EPA’s IRIS program. In fact the GOA had this to say:

“The IRIS database was at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA had not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments. After subsequent reports, in January 2009 [GAO] added EPA‘s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals to [its] list of areas at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or in need of broad-based transformation.”[10]

This July 2011 hearing was prompted in part by a report from the NAS, which had raised concerns in prior years over EPA’s IRIS process. According to the charter on the NAS website, they are asked to provide scientific advice to the Government whenever called upon and they receive no compensation for their services.[11]

Here is what Dr. Thomas Burke, associate dean of The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and recent chair of an NAS panel on ways to improve EPA risk assessment had to say:

“The sleeping giant is that EPA science is on the rocks . . . if you fail, you become irrelevant, and that is kind of a crisis.” He also referred to EPA‘s risk assessment process as the agency‘s “Achilles heel.”[12]

So here we have EPA bureaucrats (meaning we have no direct way to vote them out of office) enacting “through the roof” costly regulations for businesses; putting people out of work; AND all of this is based on flawed economic studies and questionable scientific procedures!

This must stop! We cannot in good conscience allow our citizens and our country to economically suffer under this type of bureaucratic agency. The EPA is not, as some would like to believe, the 4^th branch of the Federal Government. It is time for Congress to take back control from this agency, ending its over-reaching rules and regulations. And it is time for us to research and then vote in 2012 for candidates who understand and will enforce the Constitutional roles and responsibilities of the true branches of our government.

Now is the time for our “midnight ride” but be warned: the Regulators aren’t coming out. They are already here and they must be stopped!

March 21, 2012 was a great day for the freedom of the Sacketts and the American people.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled against the EPA.  The story started when the Sacketts purchased a parcel of land to build their dream home. The EPA told them they could not build there because the land might be considered a wetland.  The EPA deemed that their land fell under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

This is a landmark decision, because up until now no one has been able to challenge an EPA compliance order before enforcement actions begin.

The ruling gives property owners the right to challenge an EPA compliance order from the time it is issued, rather than waiting for the agency to begin enforcement actions.[1]

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion stating, “There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction.” [2]

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not give the Sacketts clearance to build their home, it gives them the opportunity to bring their case before a judge to dispute whether their property is a protected wetland.

This ruling against the EPA is the first step in Americans’ ability to challenge the power of Bureaucracy in the EPA.

We keep seeing the word “sustainable” all around us these days. We have a choice at our local seafood market to purchase sustainable fish. Our coffee shops are offering sustainable beans. And, I recently observed an ad on television stating that FedEx offers sustainable solutions to their customers’ problems.

So what exactly is sustainability? Merriam Webster defines it as “relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.”[1]

Upon further study, I found that the United Nations is even involved in sustainability. They have a Department of Economic and Social Affairs with a Division for Sustainable Development.[2] Wow! This sustainability thing is more far-reaching than I thought.

How exactly did this division in the United Nations come about?  More than 178 different governments met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992 and developed a plan called Agenda 21. This was a plan related to sustainable development that called for action in every area in which humans impact the environment.[3] The Dalai Lama conducted the official opening ceremony and Al Gore led the U.S. delegation.[4]

Under Agenda 21, the UN has a vision for a centrally managed global society. This program would control everything in our lives – the way we live, eat, learn, and travel about – all under the guise of saving the earth.[5] The Agenda has eight areas that are designed to force the transition to Sustainable Development:

* Agriculture

* Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management

* Education

* Energy and Housing

* Population

* Public Housing

* Resources and Recycling

* Transportation, Sustainable Economic Development

Agenda 21 is being promoted in the United States through the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  EPA even commissioned a study titled “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA.”[6] This report cost you, the taxpayer, $700,000 and is designed to help the EPA integrate sustainable development as a key driver in its regulatory responsibilities.

Without the benefit of Congressional debate or decision, the EPA is using its power to become a conduit for Agenda 21 programs and policies.[7]  So when Congress won’t legislate, the EPA will regulate.[8]

According to data collected from 1996, the EPA spent a sizable amount of money funding Agenda 21 “Sustainable Development” initiatives. The following are some of the monies spent and the program titles:[9]

$48,000 Community Supported Agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic Region

$100,000 Washington Wood Smart Certification Program

$50,000 Sustainable Craft Industry in Appalachia

$72,070 Building Materials Exchange in New Orleans

$26,000 Sustaining Forestry in New Hampshire

$20,000 Marketing the Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development in the

Rappahannock River Watershed

$20,000 Preserving Sustainability in Central Virginia Region

$75,000 Eco Park Development in Omaha

$42,000 Implementing a Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development in South Carolina

$70,866 Sustainable Neighborhood Design for the Desert Southwest

Agenda 21 continues to have a presence in the U.S. today. One example is President Obama signing his 86th executive order in June 2011, and establishing the White House Rural Council (WHRC).[10] This order (a related Agenda 21 order) deals with “sustainable rural communities” where 16 percent of the American population lives. Its agenda is to seize greater power over “food, fiber, and energy.”[11] In essence WHRC, which is headed by Tom Vilsack (Sec. of Agriculture), gives the federal government control over rural America.

Why not “save our planet”? It sounds like a good thing to do. We don’t want to hinder the ability of future generations to meet their needs at the expense of our own. But, is this the real goal of Agenda 21? Or is Agenda 21, channeled through the EPA into the U.S., an attempt to regulate your life, your individual freedom, and your personal property, all while redistributing your wealth?

Do you really want a handful of “enlightened elites” from the United Nations dictating your behavior, while your tax dollars pay for their initiatives?

Examine what is really happening in our country. Uncover the layers. Dig deep. See the subtleties being thrust upon us. Elect candidates who will stop the biased Agenda 21 from being perpetrated on us through the EPA.

Elect candidates who can see clearly and take effective steps to stop the reckless spending that does not promote our freedom or our quality of life!

You work hard, you buy the land and start planning for your dream home.  Not so fast!  The EPA has a problem with your plan and is about to ruin your dreams.

In 2005, Chantell and Mike Sackett started to build their dream home near the shores of Priest Lake, Idaho. But an anonymous call to the EPA brought their plans to a screeching halt.

The Sacketts had obtained all the permits required by the county to build on their 2/3 acre weed-covered plot.  One day, two people from the EPA and a third from the Army Corps of Engineers showed up to cite the Sacketts for violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA); they were told they would not be allowed to build on their own land.[1]

America’s founders deemed it critically important to protect our right to own property without risk of government encroachment. This protection is stated in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution:

No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[2]

Unless … the EPA gets involved.

After the visit from the EPA, the Sacketts learned that the land they owned was possibly considered “wetlands.”  According to EPA’s website, the CWA (section 404) involves “navigable waters.”  Tributaries such as interstate waters, intrastate lakes, rivers and streams fall into this section of the CWA.

The EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order telling them they had to restore the site or face penalties, including fines of up to $32,500 a day.[3]  Mind you, they purchased the property for $23,000.

The Sacketts decided to stand up to the EPA, and have been on a legal journey ever since.

“The Sacketts dispute that their home site is a protected wetland, but finding a court willing to consider that possibility was a tall order. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, have ruled not only that the Sacketts must comply with the EPA’s orders, but that they may not challenge the government agency in court at all.”[4]

The idea that the Sacketts “may not challenge the government agency in court at all” is a stark and sobering judgment.  When a court decides that an agency of the Government is above challenge, we the people are in dangerous times.

“In the United States, where we have always benefited from private property and free enterprise, our biggest threat to continued prosperity lies in the slow erosion of the respect for private property by government through taxation and regulation.”[5]

The ruling by the court was not going to stop the Sacketts.  They found an attorney, Damien Schiff, to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  During the hearing, Judge Alito raised the following question to the attorney representing the EPA:

“Don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States? 

“You buy property to build a house. 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 was also critical of the government’s contention that “There is no way you can go to court to challenge [EPA’s] determination that this is a wetland until such time as we choose to sue you.”[6]

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on the case, but the decision is expected to change the way the EPA operates. The Sacketts’ plans to build a home are on hold at this point.

One of the most important foundations of true capitalism and our Constitution is individual landownership.  When the first settlers came to America, they had adopted communal ownership of land and property.  As a result, most of them starved to death or died of disease[7] – a problem endured in later centuries by virtually every communist country that adopted collective agriculture.

As the EPA and other Government bureaucrats continue in their quest to control more of our liberties and circumvent the rights of the people, our very existence as a free capitalist society is threatened.

In the upcoming election cycle we must support candidates who understand that protection of our right to private landownership is vital to the health and survival of this Nation.

If we continue to allow agencies like the EPA to have unlimited power and access to dictate landownership and its usage, we will lose a fundamental right given to all American’s by the Constitution.

On April 22, 1970 the first Earth Day was born.  I remember as a little girl thinking that planting a new little tree was a good way to get out of the schoolroom for a little while. Who doesn’t love trees? I even learned in class that trees and plants were necessary for clean air.  That was it.  I could understand how littering was harming where I lived, how clean air and water are important to everyone’s health.  I can help with that.  I can help others understand.  Happy Birthday Earth!

I’m a little older now, and have long since discovered that simple thoughts do not always hold true.  That’s why I went to the Environmental Protection Agency’s website to fine out a little about it’s history.  Here is what the EPA says about itself…

EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment. It does not have a narrow charter to deal with only one aspect of a deteriorating environment; rather it has a broad responsibility for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards; air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems, guaranteeing that as we deal with one difficulty we do not aggravate others.

As we work toward pollution abatement, we shall also strive to provide information and leadership; to enhance the environmental awareness of all the people and all of the institutions of this society. A clean and healthy environment is up to all of us. So we shall be an advocate for the environment with individuals, with industry, and within government. [1]

At first glance, it seems like a good idea.  I mean, who can argue with wanting cleaner air and water!  But look closer at the words chosen.  No obligation to favor agriculture or commerce. It does not have a narrow charter.  It has a broad responsibility.  Those carefully chosen descriptors have left the door open for wide and far-reaching agendas.  The EPA, a government, taxpayer funded agency, is left with a wide charter and a broad responsibility. That means each Presidential Administration has an Agency Bureaucracy with a big budget that can be used to push through its own agenda.

In 1970 when the EPA was created, the budget was $1,003,984,000 with a workforce of 4,084.  Starting in 1993, with Bill Clinton’s presidency, the workforce was up to 17,000 which is where it has stayed give or take a few hundred.  The budget with the Obama Administration in 2010 hit an all time high of $10,297,864,000!  [2]

That is a 10,257% increase in their budget.  You read that correctly.  The budget went up by a multiple of about 103 times.  This means if you made $15,000 per year in income in 1970 (about the average middle class income in those days), your personal income would be $1,545,000 year today! Was that the vision when the EPA was created to help clean up the environment?

Would the American people have been able to clean up their act if they were just given education and options instead of hundreds of rules and regulations, costing Billions of dollars? It also has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs over the 30 years since the beginning of the EPA. The approach of total government mandate over the rules and regulation has been costly.

Given unbiased information and education, the American people, through the power of capitalism, can accomplish much of the same things.

Today’s news is filled with stories about groups of people around the country talking about themselves as the 99%, and expressing their feelings about the 1% who “control” the economy and the capital.  I asked, “Which am I?  Am I really one of the 99%, and are the people Occupying Streets representative of me?”  My conclusion is “No” to both, but am I alone in my thinking?

I had to apply some critical thinking to discover where this entire movement got its roots and foundations.  I found that this “movement” has its roots in Progressivism and in the halls of Congress today.  Politicians created the dialogue of the “haves” and the “have-nots” to divide people and to gain votes and power for themselves.  Are there facts to support this?  Let’s see…

The progressive movement began with Teddy Roosevelt, and was supported by a growing list of intellectuals focused on order, stability and social justice; things that the industrial society had started to change.[1]  His platform focused on social and political reform.  His movement was the birthplace for what we know today as a National Health Service, Medicare and Medicaid, OSHA, Inheritance Taxes, the Environmental Protection Agency and The Department of Education.  This was the start of a “Big Government” strategy that would touch every American’s life through government regulations and entitlements.  It also gave power to career politicians who viewed government as the solution to social injustice and unequal incomes.

Other politicians adopted and expanded the progressive movement, along with its costs and regulatory programs.  Presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter supported and expanded the movement into bigger, more costly social programs like the New Deal, the Great Society and the Departments of Energy and Education.  All of these programs and departments increased the size of government and the role government plays in how we live and what we earn.

With the increased size of our government came the need for people to enforce and oversee these programs.  Departments full of non-elected bureaucrats grew, as regulations were written with requirements to check on the enforcement of the regulations.  Do you get the feeling that progressivism means there are more people looking over your shoulder and into your home?

So how big are these progressive programs today, and how many people are involved in supporting these programs, agencies and departments?

Health and Human Services – in budget year 2011, they had a total budget authority of nearly $902 billion, and over 72,900 (full-time equivalent) employees[2]

Department of Energy – in 2011 had over 116,000 employees and contractors’ total liabilities of $371 billion, including $30.3 billion in pension and related liabilities[3]

Department of Education – in 2011 spent $69.9 billion[4]

Environmental Protection Agency – has over 17,000 employees at a cost of $320 million[5]

According to a USA Today article from 2010, the government spent in 2008 about $224 billion on salaries for about 2 million civilian employees.  The article also stated that in a wide range of jobs, federal employees earn higher average salaries than private sector workers doing the same job.[6]

Do you think these costs have gone up since 2008?  Have your wages and benefits gone up by the same amount?

Remember, government does not grow crops, raise cattle, build small businesses or build factories.  They do, however, pay their workers more and have better benefits and pensions than private sector companies…and WE pay for this.

When people “occupy” the streets of cities, shouldn’t they really be in front of the Capital and the White House in Washington demanding a return of our freedom and a shrinking of the number of workers who don’t actually produce anything?  Big business is nothing compared to big government: at least private business is producing something of economic value that can be sold or traded when both parties believe they each receive equal or greater value in the trade – True Capitalism.

This is no longer “big” government; this is “HUGE” government.  The “haves” are the government employees and politicians. Who are the “have-nots”?  They’re us, the citizens.

We have the right and the might to change this in 2012.  We don’t need more politicians and more HUGE government; we need candidates who respect the constitution and the freedom for all to pursue prosperity without over-regulation at HUGE cost.

I recently read a poster that said, Government: If You Think The Problems We Create Are Bad, Just Wait Until You See Our Solutions.[7]

Your vote matters:  We must change our government leadership in 2012 to stop oppressive policies and regulations so the 99% can get back to providing the best means for ALL of us to prosper.

______________________________________________

Step one: Have people and pets leave the room, and avoid the breakage area on the way out.

Step two: Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5-10 minutes.

Step three: Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning (H&AC) system, if you have one.

Step four: Collect materials you will need to clean up the broken bulb.[1]

The procedures listed above are the steps the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends a homeowner take PRIOR to the actual clean up of a broken Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulb. The cleanup process itself is quite detailed and varies depending on the type of surface to be cleaned (carpet, hard surface etc.).

When Congress made the decision to “outlaw” versions of the common light bulb[2], it became imperative that we know about CFL’s, as they are one of the main replacements for the “Thomas Edison” type light bulbs that we have in just about every lamp and light fixture in our homes.

Due to the fact that CFL’s contain mercury, a highly toxic element[3], they must be handled very carefully to avoid breakage and the release of mercury into the environment. The EPA strongly recommends, and many states require, that all CFL’s be brought to special recycling locations, a bit inconvenient for most of us, to be sure.

When Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in 2007, they decided to require higher efficiency standards for our basic light bulbs. “As of January 1, 2012, traditional, inefficient 100W incandescent light bulbs will not meet the standards and will no longer be available at most stores.

Similar standards will phase in for other types of light bulbs over the next three years. Traditional 75-watt incandescent light bulbs will no longer be available as of January 1, 2013.

Traditional 40 and 60-watt incandescent light bulbs will no longer be available as of January 1, 2014.”[4]

Congress allowed 22 types of traditional incandescent lamps to be exempt from these new standards but the Department of Energy (DOE), another government office, will monitor sales of these exempted lamps after the law takes effect. If these exempted items double in sales, then more regulations and standards will be implemented by DOE.[^2]

In addition to the government telling us which light bulbs we can purchase, we apparently need government monitors for our light bulb sales. I can’t help but wonder how that’s being tracked and what it’s costing us as taxpayers. I also can’t help but wonder what all of these new laws and regulations are costing the businesses that manufacture and sell light bulbs and lamps. Just the cost to re-label these products as required by the Federal Trade Commission, another government agency, can’t be cheap.[5]

One of the many stated purposes of the EISA is, “to move the United States toward greater energy INDEPENDENCE and security.”[6] Isn’t it ironic that while Congress attempts to move the nation towards freedom, we aren’t allowed the freedom to choose our own light bulbs?

CFLs are not without some benefits as they can significantly lower utility bills. To have them as an option for consumers is a plus, but why should the government insist on the removal of certain types of incandescent bulbs? Shouldn’t it be the individual’s choice to weigh the benefits and risks of each of the products? Perhaps households with pets and small children, where light fixtures can easily be broken, would prefer to keep all CFLs out of the home due to the mercury. The extra cost to their electric bill might be worth the peace of mind until their children are older. No doubt these same families, in this deep recession, have already taken the extra measures to turn off lights that are not being used.

The bottom line is that it’s not the role of the Federal Government to monitor and dictate every aspect of our lives, right down to our lighting choices. Have you heard the joke, “How many government agencies does it take to screw in a light bulb?” The answer: “Too many”. Let’s make sure to vote for candidates in the 2012 election who understand the true Constitutional role of the Federal Government.

Now back to those detailed clean up instructions; I wonder if they have a link to where we can buy HAZMAT suits?