More than one dozen congressmen in the US House of Representatives are sponsoring legislation (H. Res. 417) to impeach embattled Environmental Protection Agency chief Regina McCarthy.
McCarthy is President Barack Obama’s go-to bureaucrat for finding ways to limit (and ultimately tax) carbon emissions as the major factor in the political issue leftists in government and financiers in allied corporations call “climate change.” The call for impeachment stems from ongoing disputes over EPA’s regulatory grab for power over bodies of water throughout the entire country.
McCarthy has been the subject of several scandals, and the latest involves allegations she perjured herself in congressional testimony. The congressmen sponsoring the impeachment articles cite differences between what McCarthy claims the Army Corps of Engineers did and said, and what the Corps leadership actually did and said. Sound confusing? That is the standard for the federal government nowadays.
McCarthy, according to a letter from the House Oversight Committee, testified that “all the concerns raised by the Corps had been satisfied in the final rule.” At odds with McCarthy’s testimony is a statement indicating the Corps’ concerns are definitely not “satisified.”
The two passages shown below, snipped from the House letter illustrate the great divide between McCarthy’s testimony and the Corps’ real position.
click here You don’t have to rely on the articles of impeachment or statements from the Corps to find conflicts in EPA’s claims to the public and the reality behind the agency’s power. For instance, the EPA provides a fact sheet about the agency’s new powers. Much of the public has been led to believe the new rules won’t affect certain ditches or temporary water basins. That is not true. The EPA fact sheet says the rule “protects Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands when they impact downstream waters.”
Therein lies deliberate obscurity. Some of those bodies the EPA will “protect” hold water during wet spells and then dry up. If an area experiences unusually heavy rainfall and even a shallow bay overflows, can the EPA step in and apply regulations? Such wiggle room is common in regulatory approaches nowadays with federal agencies in the US ever in search of ways to increase budgets and power. Protection of such areas is best left in the hands of the states.
McCarthy is a lifelong bureaucrat little concerned about the impact her ideology has on middle class financial wellbeing. Her agency has been caught squandering approximately $1 million taxpayer dollars on a rogue employee.
Before her current position, McCarthy was caught up in a scandal involving failures to monitor air and radiation. President Obama gave her the top job anyway.
If that’s not enough, recall the EPA disaster at the King Gold mine where a spill contaminated a river in Colorado. An EPA team admitted causing the spill. It had nothing to do with budget funding, and everything to do with the incompetence and outright oppression Americans witness not only in the EPA but in the federal bureaucracy at large on a routine basis.
Few media cover the dark side of the EPA, but organizations like The Heartland Institute do. McCarthy should never have been appointed to the top job, but whether the flaccid leadership on both sides of the aisle in Congress will do anything about the agency’s latest transgression is anyone’s guess. More often than not, bureaucrats receive not a “smidgen”, as the president is wont to say, of punishment when they do a poor job or squander taxpayer dollars.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Sept. 15, 2015)
Please help us continue to keep our site online by donating a small amount via the PayPal link in the right column. We don’t run ads from major search engines on this site, and we are not funded by any political party or group. Follow us on Twitter@DayontheDay.