Contact FreedomWorks

111 K Street NE
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20002

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
WATCH NOWThe Battle for Senate Heats Up in Georgia | Inside the StoryWatch Here


Claire McCaskill: Strong Politician, or Just Following Suit? Part II

McCaskill Sides with EPA Rather Than Economic Growth

While the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation waves are stirring up in Washington, America is begging for a life saver. However, with politicians like Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) aboard the good ship S.S. Big Government, the life savers are all made of stone.

In April 2011, Senator McCaskill voted against a bill that would prohibit the EPA from issuing harmful taxes on greenhouse gas (i.e. carbon dioxide) emissions. These taxes harm healthy competition between businesses, which would drive down prices, encourage expansion, and promote job creation. Whether there is even a need to restrict such emissions is controversial, yet Sen. McCaskill sided with those who are determined to plunge ahead with costly new taxes.

The argument for voting no on the bill is stated thus:

Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ: “We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: ‘Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better.’ They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.”

Regardless what scientists, courts, or politicians say, America’s economy is floundering in a massive sea of debt and red tape. With 14 million people out of work, is it really America’s number one priority to regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the air?

Annie Oakley

I was watching the Oversite committee which had Lisa Jackson, the head of EPA, in for questioning. Again the group was divided. One side is was almost a love fest though there were a few who asked credible questions, but most of them were there bashing Republicans and calling the skeptics, "idiots" essentially because this astute group new that there was scientific consensus (damn I hate when they use the oxymoron, scientific consensus--science is about proof and significance and indications--scientific consensus way back said the sun revolved around the earth and it was Newton who showed proof otherwise). I digress. One side had a love fest; the other side challenged her--requesting for the reports that she used to justify her statistics. Yes I'm biased! There is nothing that makes me more happy than to hear someone say, "where is your proof? Where are those reports I asked for several times ago?
I'm not a meanie, I like clean water and clean air, standards are necessary. But when are standards way beyond necessary--standards changed so that you can keep your job not to improve anything. I also like clean fuels like gas and oil which, BTW are renewable--Ha! And with existing standards are pretty good. Keep a check on them, don't lower standards, but don't make them impossible like EPA is doing now.
Another BTW, yes Lisa sounds like she is concerned about those with COPD, asthma and emphysema. But what happens when an environment is too warm or cold. Energy aids indoor climate control. More would likely die due to rolling blackouts that change the indoor temperatures causing extremes. But no one in the luv fest talked about that.
Check out CSPAN to watch for the two hours but bring the duct tape for your head!

Annie Oakley

Sorry. Too not to. Rats I need a secretary. Punctuation not puctuation. PFFTTTT!

Annie Oakley

Sorry I type to fast so forgive the puctuation, grammatical glitches.

Michael Palen

Actually, we need to be concerned about both. It's not an either/or proposition. We need to put people back to work, and we need to be concerned about our environment for our children and grandchildren. It's not environmental protection that put our economy on the's the thieving banksters. What we should do is prosecute the guilty, and levy steep penalties for the damage done to national and international economies.