The Kansas Meadowlark blog has a detailed post that explains some of the harm to agriculture that proposed legislation — chemical facility anti-terrorism standards — could cause.
The post also contains a section of helpful related links. Click on Congress could give government bureaucrats more control of farms and industry to read.
The website GovTrack.us is a great resource for citizens who are interested in the United States Congress. With the rapid expansion of government in the recent past, this is something we should all be concerned with.
By using GovTrack.us, you can search for bills by their bill number, words in the bill, the bill sponsors, and other ways. Once you’ve found the bill, you can read its text and see its status as it works its way through Congress. What’s really useful is to add a tracker to the bill, so that you can be notified — either on the site itself or through email or RSS feed — when there’s new information about the bill.
If you’re interested in information about particular members of Congress, you can find them by name, zip code, or by clicking on a map. Once found, GovTrack.us reports some useful information.
One thing reported is the member’s position across the political spectrum. This is done through a statistical analysis of cosponsorship of bills. Kansas Sen. Brownback is identified through this analysis as a “far-right Republican,” while Sen. Roberts is a “rank-and-file Republican.”
This analysis also reports that Roberts is “somewhere between a leader and a follower,” according to sponsorship of bills. Brownback is rated the same.
The page for each member also reports approval ratings from SurveyUSA and an analysis of missed votes. It also holds a link to the page at the Center for Responsive Politics, which lets you see information about campaign contributions. Information about committee membership and bill sponsorship and cosponsorship round out this page.
You can also add a member to your tracking page, so you can receive email updates when new information becomes available.
This website is a useful resource for citizens to keep with with Congress.
Currently two committees in the United States House of Representatives are considering legislation that would harm a vital American industry.
This industry is already regulated, and the regulations have accomplished their goal. As explained by the Texas Chemical Council:
The current chemical security regulations are enforced by the Department of Homeland Security, which has clear authority to inspect facilities and apply strong penalties for non-compliance. Since the regulations have been in place, not one incident as a result of terrorism has occurred. These regulations have been effective. Removing the sunset date and making the chemical security regulations permanent would provide the certainty needed to both protect citizens and support our nation’s economic recovery.
The bill, H.R. 2868, is known as Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards. More information from the Texas Chemical Council is below.
(This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)
Global warming alarmist James Hansen, inflation, Facebook, paygo deception.
NASA’s James Hansen was one of the first to warn of the “impending doom” of global warming. How has his message fared over the last 20 years? Here’s what other scientists have said about Hansen: “Hansen’s testimony in 1988 was ‘a huge embarrassment’ to NASA, and he remains skeptical of Hansen’s predictions. … describes Hansen’s belief in a man-made global-warming catastrophe as ‘almost religious’ and says he ‘never understood how [Hansen] got such a strong voice’ in the debate. … puts Hansen ‘at the extreme end of global warming alarmism.’ … Hansen got caught with his hand in the cookie jar in 2007, when Stephen McIntyre, the man who debunked the infamous “hockey stick” graph showing stable Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for most of the last millennia before a sharp upturn, found a flaw in Hansen’s numbers.”
The full article from the Weekly Standard is at The Man Who Cried Doom.
Arthur Laffer, writing in the Wall Street Journal, warns of inflation and other trouble ahead. The chart of the growth of the money supply looks a lot like Al Gore’s “hockey stick” chart of global temperatures. That chart, we know now, was in error. The chart of the rapid growth of the money supply, unfortunately, is true. Here’s some of what Laffer wrote:
But as bad as the fiscal picture is, panic-driven monetary policies portend to have even more dire consequences. We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s.
About eight months ago, starting in early September 2008, the Bernanke Fed did an abrupt about-face and radically increased the monetary base … The percentage increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10. It is so far outside the realm of our prior experiential base that historical comparisons are rendered difficult if not meaningless.
Now the Fed can, and I believe should, do what it must to mitigate the inevitable consequences of its unwarranted increase in the monetary base. It should contract the monetary base back to where it otherwise would have been, plus a slight increase geared toward economic expansion. … Alas, I doubt very much that the Fed will do what is necessary to guard against future inflation and higher interest rates. If the Fed were to reduce the monetary base by $1 trillion, it would need to sell a net $1 trillion in bonds. This would put the Fed in direct competition with Treasury’s planned issuance of about $2 trillion worth of bonds over the coming 12 months. Failed auctions would become the norm and bond prices would tumble, reflecting a massive oversupply of government bonds.
“Soon you will be able to have a username. Starting on Friday, June 12th, at 11:01pm in your time zone, you’ll be able to choose a username for your Facebook account to easily direct friends, family, and coworkers to your profile.” Facebook’s blog post Coming Soon: Facebook Usernames explains more.
So the cyberspace land rush is on, at least at 11:01 pm tonight for the Central time zone in America. With some 200 million Facebook users, it probably won’t be easy for most people to be successful in grabbing their own name for their Facebook profile.
A Wall Street journal editorial tells how President Obama is promoting “paygo” budgeting.
Paygo is “very simple,” the President claimed. “Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”
That’s what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that “the first thing” House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that “Republicans had let lapse.” By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.
The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won’t tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare … Mr. Obama’s new proposal includes even more loopholes …
The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama’s spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for “fiscal discipline,” even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.
The main political question now is when Americans will start to figure out Mr. Obama’s pattern of spend, repent and repeat. The President is still sailing along on his charm and the fact that Americans are cheering for an economic recovery. But eventually they’ll see that he isn’t telling them the truth, and when they do, the very Blue Dogs he’s trying to protect will pay the price. And they’ll deserve what they get.
In his article Americans Love Government, Walter E. Williams wonders why we rely on something that we have so little faith in:
According to latest Rasmussen Reports, 30 percent of Americans believe congressmen are corrupt. Last year, Congress’ approval rating fell to 9 percent, its lowest in history. If the average American were asked his opinion of congressmen, among the more polite terms you’ll hear are thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks. But what do the same people say when our nation faces a major problem? “Government ought to do something!” When people call for government to do something, it is as if they’ve been befallen by amnesia and forgotten just who is running government. It’s the very people whom they have labeled as thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks.
So why do people rely on government so much? Here’s what Williams says:
I don’t think that stupidity, ignorance or insanity explains the love that many Americans hold for government; it’s far more sinister and perhaps hopeless. I’ll give a few examples to make my case. Many Americans want money they don’t personally own to be used for what they see as good causes such as handouts to farmers, poor people, college students, senior citizens and businesses. If they privately took someone’s earnings to give to a farmer, college student or senior citizen, they would be hunted down as thieves and carted off to jail. However, they get Congress to do the identical thing, through its taxing power, and they are seen as compassionate and caring. In other words, people love government because government, while having neither moral nor constitutional authority, has the legal and physical might to take the property of one American and give it to another. (Emphasis added.)
What does this lead to? Williams paints a grim picture, but if you’ve read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (or see the cartoon version), you know very well the danger that we face. Here’s how Williams explains the danger:
The path we’re embarked upon, in the name of good, is a familiar one. The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the ’30s and ’40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the name of “social justice.” In Germany, it led to the Enabling Act of 1933: Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation and, after all, who could be against a remedy to relieve distress? Decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of what Nazi Germany would become, succumbed to Hitler’s charisma.
Today’s Americans, enticed, perhaps enchanted, by charismatic speeches, are ceding so much power to Washington, and like yesteryear’s Germans are building the Trojan Horse for a future tyrant.
The Kansas Meadowlark contributes coverage about a chemical security law that promises to overburden an important American industry. Even the family farm is at risk. That’s the operative word — risk. As has been reported, Congressional testimony found that the legislation could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.
An important point of this article is the involvement of the left-wing Center for American Progress.
Coverage of this issue on this blog is available by clicking on Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards.
To read the coverage at the Kansas Meadowlark, click on Do we want Homeland Security telling businesses how to run their businesses? Telling farmers how to farm?
The United States Congress is considering legislation that aims to increase the security of America’s chemical industry to terrorism threats. The legislation, if passed, would require chemical companies to substitute government-mandated processes and technology for their current processes. The post Chemical security law goes beyond protection explains more about this legislation.
Even places that we might not consider to be “chemical plants” could fall under this act.
The Center for American Progress — described by Wikipedia as “a liberal political policy research and advocacy organization,” an understatement if there ever was one — has produced a report titled Chemical Security 101: What You Don’t Have Can’t Leak, or Be Blown Up by Terrorists.
The Wichita Water Treatment Plant appears on their list of 202 additional facilities that should be required to change their processes, according to the report. The Wichita plant appears because it uses chlorine to treat drinking water, and, apparently, because it’s located in a large city.
I asked David Warren, Director of Utilities for the City of Wichita, about the proposed legislation and about the Wichita Water Treatment Plant being on a list of dangerous facilities.
While declining — understandably so — to discuss specifics of security at the Wichita plant, he said that if the legislation passes and is found to apply to Wichita’s plant, “it would require expensive changes in our treatment process.”
He also said that the reason for the Wichita plant’s inclusion on the list is due to its location (near the center of Wichita) rather than to any defect in security precautions.
It would be one thing if these changes were necessary and would contribute to national security. But Congressional testimony found that the legislation could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.
Wichita water rates are already on the rise as the city undertakes capital improvement projects. It’s unknown how much bills might increase if the water plant was forced to make changes to its treatment technology.
But even slight increase can cause hardship. Last year Wichita city council member Lavonta Williams expressed concern that a $1 per month increase in water bills would be a hardship. And in her campaign last year, she stated “We need to start the conversation with service providers about whether we can offer laid-off workers reduced rates for water, heat and other essential services.”
As reported in this website, Congress is considering legislation that threatens to harm the American economy, while at the same time accomplishing little or none of its stated goals.
Articles like Chemical Facility Security Authorization Act threatens American economy give more detail.
It’s important to let your elected representatives in Washington know how harmful this proposed law will be to a vital American industry.
An easy way to let them know is by clicking on this link: Ask Your Legislator to Oppose the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act. This will take you to a form where you fill in your name and address. The site will determine who are your representatives and show you the letter it has created. Then, you can choose to have the site send it for you, or you can print it and mail it yourself.
Either way, it’s important to act.
Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.
As reported earlier, the United States Congress is considering legislation — the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards — that will increase regulation on chemical plants and facilities. Even the Wichita Water Works is on a list of facilities that would possibly be required to undergo expensive modifications if this new law passes. (See Chemical security law goes beyond protection)
The proposed legislation, however, would extend government control into another of our nation’s most important industries. It would require companies to change their manufacturing processes and substitute products in the name of safety.
But the legislation may not produce its intended effect. Congressional testimony found that this could actually increase risk to the businesses that the bill intends to protect.
Here’s a letter from a Texas industry group that explains the problems with the proposed legislation.
(This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Facility Standards Letter From Texas Chemical Council