Obama EPA administrator resigns

[okie52]

Obama appointee quits after GOP seizes on 'crucify' remarks to describe oil, gas enforcement


04-30-2012 02:11 PM CDT |By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) --
The Obama administration's top environmental official in the oil-rich South and Southwest region has resigned after Republicans targeted him over remarks made two years ago when he used the word "crucify" to describe how he would go after companies violating environmental laws.

In a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson sent Sunday, Al Armendariz says he regrets his words and stresses that they do not reflect his work as administrator of the five-state region including Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. Armendariz, who holds a doctorate in environmental engineering, apologized last week for his remarks. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, told The Associated Press that Armendariz has since received death threats. His resignation was effective Monday, when he informed his senior staff. Sam Coleman, a career official who led the agency's response to Hurricane Katrina and served as Armendariz' deputy, took over as acting regional administrator.




"I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work," Armendariz wrote in the letter, which was obtained by the AP.

Republicans in Congress had called for Armendariz' firing, after Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe highlighted the May 2010 speech last week as proof of what he refers to as EPA's assault on energy, particularly the technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

At a town hall meeting in Washington on Friday, Jackson had said only that she would continue to review the case, calling Armendariz' words "inflammatory" and "wrong". President Barack Obama appointed Armendariz in November 2009, at the urging of Texas-based environmental groups. He is one of the few Latinos in senior leadership at the EPA.

The regional administrator's words "don't comport with either this administration's policy on energy, our policy at EPA on environmental enforcement, nor do they comport with our record as well," Jackson said.

The EPA, perhaps more than any other agency, has found itself in the GOP's crosshairs over its regulation of the gases blamed for global warming, steps it has taken to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants, and its increased regulation of fracking, which is responsible for a gas drilling boom. Republicans, including presidential contender Mitt Romney _ who has called for Jackson herself to be fired _ have blamed the agency for high gasoline prices and clamping down on American energy.

Armendariz, who was based in Texas, frequently found himself at odds with the state government and the oil and gas industry, which are often aligned.

The scientist and environmental activist had long been frustrated by the government's inability to clean up Texas' notoriously polluted air, and he had called the EPA broken and testified on behalf of activist groups about just how badly the federal and state environmental agencies had botched things.

Environmentalists said Monday that it was Armendariz getting crucified for doing his job _ enforcing the law.

"He took bold steps that have been needed for decades to move our state forward," said Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. "The only people who will celebrate his resignation are the polluters who continue to foul Texas air and the politicians who serve those special interests."

Several disputed contamination cases in Texas in which Armendariz was involved have helped stoke environmental concerns over fracking, a technique in which oil and gas producers inject water, chemicals and sand underground at high pressures to fracture rock so gas can come out.

In one case cited by Republicans, the EPA issued an emergency order in 2010 _ an unprecedented action in Texas _ accusing Range Resources of contaminating an aquifer and giving it 48 hours to provide clean drinking water to residents. Armendariz said he went around the state agency that oversees drilling because it wasn't responding quickly enough. The order later was withdrawn after a state court ruled evidence that fracking had caused the contamination had been falsified.

"He was flat wrong," wrote more than two dozen lawmakers in a letter to Jackson sent Friday, calling for Armendariz' firing. "There was no contamination and his office failed to conduct appropriate or adequate science to support his claims." The EPA has faced similar criticism for its analysis of potential drinking water contamination from fracking in Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

Armendariz' speech was made in Dish, a small town northwest of Dallas, where residents' concerns over the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing helped put the issue on the national stage.

Testing, which was urged by the EPA, showed some groundwater contamination and elevated toxic air pollution after operators began using a new method _ a combination of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling _ to extract once out-of-reach gas.

Referring to how Romans conquered villages in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages, Armendariz said, "They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them."

"And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not complying with the law," he said." Find people who are not complying with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and make examples of them."

[okie52]

Adios MF.

[OULenexaman]

Took long enough....

[Midtowner]

I agree with this:


"He took bold steps that have been needed for decades to move our state forward," said Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. "The only people who will celebrate his resignation are the polluters who continue to foul Texas air and the politicians who serve those special interests."

[okie52]

Kudos to Inhofe.

[okie52]

I agree with this:

Shocking.

And totally ignored this:


Several disputed contamination cases in Texas in which Armendariz was involved have helped stoke environmental concerns over fracking, a technique in which oil and gas producers inject water, chemicals and sand underground at high pressures to fracture rock so gas can come out.

In one case cited by Republicans, the EPA issued an emergency order in 2010 _ an unprecedented action in Texas _ accusing Range Resources of contaminating an aquifer and giving it 48 hours to provide clean drinking water to residents. Armendariz said he went around the state agency that oversees drilling because it wasn't responding quickly enough. The order later was withdrawn after a state court ruled evidence that fracking had caused the contamination had been falsified.

"He was flat wrong," wrote more than two dozen lawmakers in a letter to Jackson sent Friday, calling for Armendariz' firing. "There was no contamination and his office failed to conduct appropriate or adequate science to support his claims." The EPA has faced similar criticism for its analysis of potential drinking water contamination from fracking in Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

[pphilfran]

I agree with this:

His "bold" steps went just a tad too far when he opened his mouth...

[okie52]

His "bold" steps went just a tad too far when he opened his mouth...

Evidently. He should have been fired before now.

[pphilfran]

Evidently. He should have been fired before now.

He just needed a chaperone....

[KantoSooner]

Has anyone given much thought to the whole jihad on fracking? I mean, what's really up with that? People have been fracking in one way or another for something approaching a century now and it was never any big deal. Natural gas might not be the final solution to our energy demands, but it beats hell out of coal in just about every way, and it's domestic, it creates jobs. What's not to love? Right?
And yet it becomes a cause celebre. Why?
Methinks there is more here than meets the eye.

[pphilfran]

It is a fossil fuel...everybody knows that...except Nancy P.....

[Midtowner]

His "bold" steps went just a tad too far when he opened his mouth...

There's no evidence that he falsified those studies or knew they were false. I have no problem with crusading ideologues in the EPA. God knows we had the opposite during the previous administration.

[pphilfran]

There's no evidence that he falsified those studies or knew they were false. I have no problem with crusading ideologues in the EPA. God knows we had the opposite during the previous administration.

I doesn't matter which extreme you go to...either can be detrimental...

[Midtowner]

I doesn't matter which extreme you go to...either can be detrimental...

Maybe so... perhaps it's just cathartic to me to see polluters having to try harder after a Bush Administration which basically (possibly literally) let 'em get away with murder.

I'd like to have responsible middle-of-the-road leadership, but let's face it--Republican appointees to the EPA are going to do what their bosses in the polluting industries tell them to do. Democrats who get into environmental law are more than likely going to be idealistic crusader types. There's not a lot of middle-of-the-road in the environmental law crowd.

[okie52]

There's no evidence that he falsified those studies or knew they were false. I have no problem with crusading ideologues in the EPA. God knows we had the opposite during the previous administration.

Its a fact he bypassed state agencies in his witch hunt and had little or no science to substantiate his claims. But, then again, you never really believed in an innocent man being made whole.

[Midtowner]

Its a fact he bypassed state agencies in his witch hunt and had little or no science to substantiate his claims. But, then again, you never really believed in an innocent man being made whole.

The feds have the prerogative to bypass state agencies when the feds believe the states aren't doing their jobs. He apparently had science behind his claims, it was just bad science. That isn't the only time the state has presented bad science to a court. It happens all the time.

Of course with your loser pays crap, you're making a very compelling case for not being very familiar with our legal system. Keep it up.

[okie52]

The feds have the prerogative to bypass state agencies when the feds believe the states aren't doing their jobs. He apparently had science behind his claims, it was just bad science. That isn't the only time the state has presented bad science to a court. It happens all the time.

Of course with your loser pays crap, you're making a very compelling case for not being very familiar with our legal system. Keep it up.

Heheh, says the guy that supports an innocent man going broke.

Crusaders will often let ideology take the place of facts, as this zealot did.

[Midtowner]

Heheh, says the guy that supports an innocent man going broke.

You don't have a clue how ignorant this sounds. Most civil lawsuits involve insurance companies. They are one of the most profitable industries we have. They tend to hire the biggest and most expensive firms to defend claims.

In this country, we want the little guy to be able to seek redress from the courts without the threat of ruinous costs. There are often statutes which work around the American rule in certain sorts of disfavored lawsuits, but for the most part, we prefer access to the courts over corporate profits.

[okie52]

You don't have a clue how ignorant this sounds. Most civil lawsuits involve insurance companies. They are one of the most profitable industries we have. They tend to hire the biggest and most expensive firms to defend claims.

In this country, we want the little guy to be able to seek redress from the courts without the threat of ruinous costs. There are often statutes which work around the American rule in certain sorts of disfavored lawsuits, but for the most part, we prefer access to the courts over corporate profits.

You don't realize how self serving your drivel sounds.

While most suits may involve insurance companies, that doesn't protect John Doe from going broke proving his innocense against Mr Smith. And, there is no reason for an innocent party whether it is an insurance company or an individual, to have to pay for the costs of proving its/his innocense. Most "civilized" western countries accept this.

The little guy can still access attorneys on a loser pays basis.

For a guy that is for embracing the "civilized" countries universal healthcare you have always managed to eliminate one of their important components of cost reduction.

Now, counselor, let me ask you given your proclivity to help your fellow man....if the US could have universal healthcare but it would include loser pays would you be for it?

[diverdog]

Shocking.

And totally ignored this:

Okie:

Based on my reading of a few papers the EPA did not falsify the test. That was done by independent private company Wolf Eagle Environmental that was hired by some landowners who said their wells were contaminated from gas due to drilling in the area. What some of them did not know is that the people who filed the complaint had gas in their water before the drilling activity. So where I hold the EPA responsible is not doing its own test and coming to its own conclusion. Of course in the hostile regulatory environment of Texas that is probably hard to do.

And Okie I do not think there is a person in the US that thinks oil companies have a stellar environmental record.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scientist-often-plays.html


(http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scientist-often-plays.html)

[Whet]

There's no evidence that he falsified those studies or knew they were false. I have no problem with crusading ideologues in the EPA. God knows we had the opposite during the previous administration.

Completely false. This is the most political Administration, ever. Every action is weighed against its political impact. This Administration populated the political appointees with extreme leftist whackos. One of the keys to getting a post in this Administration, is their support of man-made climate change. This Administration wants to implement cap and trade because Obama and his buddies will make billions of dollars on this scam trading program.

The prior Administration did not inject itself into decision-making, make up new "regulations", weigh decisions based on political impact, or push their agenda in the Agency. They enforced the current regulations and required sound science to create new regulations. The current Administration has their own idea of "sound science", which is not sound science, but political science.

The Sierra Club is just another arm of the Democrat party, full of environmental extremists.

[Whet]

Maybe so... perhaps it's just cathartic to me to see polluters having to try harder after a Bush Administration which basically (possibly literally) let 'em get away with murder.

I'd like to have responsible middle-of-the-road leadership, but let's face it--Republican appointees to the EPA are going to do what their bosses in the polluting industries tell them to do. Democrats who get into environmental law are more than likely going to be idealistic crusader types. There's not a lot of middle-of-the-road in the environmental law crowd.

More BS, you do not know what you are talking about, when you spew your leftist crap about the previous Administration and their enforcement activities. Stick with ambulance chasing.

[Whet]

Okie:

Based on my reading of a few papers the EPA did not falsify the test. That was done by independent private company Wolf Eagle Environmental that was hired by some landowners who said their wells were contaminated from gas due to drilling in the area. What some of them did not know is that the people who filed the complaint had gas in their water before the drilling activity. So where I hold the EPA responsible is not doing its own test and coming to its own conclusion. Of course in the hostile regulatory environment of Texas that is probably hard to do.

And Okie I do not think there is a person in the US that thinks oil companies have a stellar environmental record.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scientist-often-plays.html


(http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scientist-often-plays.html)

And, another speculating out their arse. Region 6 should have conducted its own testing - and they have the ability to do it. This was sloppy science, something this Administration has a habit of undertaking. It is outrageous the Agency did not verify the results of the testing, but rely on biased 3rd party testing.

Also, if you look at the compliance and enforcement activities across the manufacturing sectors, you would see there is no difference between oil companies and other industries. It just sounds so good to say oil companies are the exception to compliance - almost a Democrat talking point.

[KABOOKIE]

Deer midtowner, you got owned by Mr EPA.

[diverdog]

Completely false. This is the most political Administration, ever. Every action is weighed against its political impact. This Administration populated the political appointees with extreme leftist whackos. One of the keys to getting a post in this Administration, is their support of man-made climate change. This Administration wants to implement cap and trade because Obama and his buddies will make billions of dollars on this scam trading program.

The prior Administration did not inject itself into decision-making, make up new "regulations", weigh decisions based on political impact, or push their agenda in the Agency. They enforced the current regulations and required sound science to create new regulations. The current Administration has their own idea of "sound science", which is not sound science, but political science.

The Sierra Club is just another arm of the Democrat party, full of environmental extremists.

Wow...not real partisan are we.

BTW the Sierra Club endorsed Newt when he was in congress. The also supported guys like Senator Bill Roth.

[diverdog]

And, another speculating out their arse. Region 6 should have conducted its own testing - and they have the ability to do it. This was sloppy science, something this Administration has a habit of undertaking. It is outrageous the Agency did not verify the results of the testing, but rely on biased 3rd party testing.

Also, if you look at the compliance and enforcement activities across the manufacturing sectors, you would see there is no difference between oil companies and other industries. It just sounds so good to say oil companies are the exception to compliance - almost a Democrat talking point.

I would not say other industries. Most of the top polluters are mining, chemical, power and oil. DuPont is about the worst.

The testing was not the only issue and there was gas in the well. The problem is it was there before the drilling and the landowners (based on the interviews) did not disclose it.

[Whet]

define "polluters"

[diverdog]

define "polluters"

Broadly speaking it can be about anyone from the guy putting excess fertilizer on his lawn to a company dumping millions of pounds o fcarcinogens into a river. Both can be a huge problem depending on the area.

The industries I referenced are the ones that are at the top of the Toxic Release Inventory list. You know the ones that release things like zinc, copper, cadmium, cyanide, benzine, cholrine and mercury into the environment.

[Whet]

I would not say other industries. Most of the top polluters are mining, chemical, power and oil. DuPont is about the worst.

The testing was not the only issue and there was gas in the well. The problem is it was there before the drilling and the landowners (based on the interviews) did not disclose it.

You may as well add paper companies, auto manufacturing, farming, lawn care products, building supply companies, forestry industries, transit companies, fisheries, city sewage treatment plants, aircraft manufacturing, food processing industries, smelter plants, recycling industries, and about all other sectors.

I recall Green Peace trespassed onto an incenerator's property, climbed the stack to hang a large green peace banner and the paint they used was a lead-based paint.

[Whet]

That is a good misuse of TRI data.

[sappstuf]

You don't have a clue how ignorant this sounds. Most civil lawsuits involve insurance companies. They are one of the most profitable industries we have. They tend to hire the biggest and most expensive firms to defend claims.

In this country, we want the little guy to be able to seek redress from the courts without the threat of ruinous costs. There are often statutes which work around the American rule in certain sorts of disfavored lawsuits, but for the most part, we prefer access to the courts over corporate profits.

The EPA didn't. They wanted the exact opposite.


On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped the monster right across the chops in Sackett v. EPA. An Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, were building a home but fell victim to an EPA compliance order in 2005. Their building permit was revoked after the EPA charged that they had violated the Clean Water Act by filling in their lot with rocks and dirt.

“The Sacketts were denied any hearing to contest the Compliance Order by the EPA,” American Civil Rights Union general counsel Peter Ferrara wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “[T]he Sacketts can ignore the EPA’s Compliance Order … That course entails incurring EPA fines of as much as $750,000 per month, $9,000,000 for a year.”

The court’s unanimous decision, which overturns - yet again - a wacky 9th Circuit ruling, will allow the Sacketts to appeal the order in court instead of going through a lengthy, expensive wetlands-permit process. They might still lose, but at least they won’t be bankrupted fighting a tyrannical bureaucracy.

The EPA fought all the way to the Supreme Court that they could bully little guys and keep them out of the court system. Luckily, the conservatives carried the day on a 5-4 split.... Just kidding. It was a 9-0 slapdown of the EPA's position.

Here is another case unrelated to the oil companies..


“In Florida, a state with one of the most aggressive and innovative water-quality-protection programs in the country, the EPA chose to impose its own costly, unprecedented and unscientific numeric nutrient criteria,” the attorneys general’s statement says. “The estimated impact the EPA’s rules would impose was dramatic, including billions of dollars in compliance costs, significant spikes in utility bills and the loss of thousands of jobs. The Florida Attorney General’s Office sued the EPA and two weeks ago prevailed when a federal judge in Tallahassee threw out the costliest of the EPA’s rules, the one governing Florida’s streams and rivers. In doing so, the judge found the EPA’s rules were not based on sound science.

It is almost like we are seeing a pattern here...

[diverdog]

You may as well add paper companies, auto manufacturing, farming, lawn care products, building supply companies, forestry industries, transit companies, fisheries, city sewage treatment plants, aircraft manufacturing, food processing industries, smelter plants, recycling industries, and about all other sectors.

I recall Green Peace trespassed onto an incenerator's property, climbed the stack to hang a large green peace banner and the paint they used was a lead-based paint.

Yes I would agree with you on everything you listed. However, you missed one big one.....the government.

[diverdog]

The EPA didn't. They wanted the exact opposite.



The EPA fought all the way to the Supreme Court that they could bully little guys and keep them out of the court system. Luckily, the conservatives carried the day on a 5-4 split.... Just kidding. It was a 9-0 slapdown of the EPA's position.

Here is another case unrelated to the oil companies..



It is almost like we are seeing a pattern here...

That was not why they fought it all the way to the supreme court.

[diverdog]

That is a good misuse of TRI data.

How so?

[Whet]

Wow...not real partisan are we.

BTW the Sierra Club endorsed Newt when he was in congress. The also supported guys like Senator Bill Roth.

Are you aware Carl Pope, the co-founder of America Coming Together and a Democrat strategist is the Sierra Club Executive Director? He is also part of convicted felon, George Soros' "Shadow Democrat Party"

[Whet]

Yes I would agree with you on everything you listed. However, you missed one big one.....the government.

The Federal government is not really an industry sector. But, in terms of contaminated media, yes, the Federal government has created massive amounts.

[diverdog]

Are you aware Carl Pope, the co-founder of America Coming Together and a Democrat strategist is the Sierra Club Executive Director? He is also part of convicted felon, George Soros' "Shadow Democrat Party"

I know Carl Pope and he is not the Sierra Club's Executive Director. The current Executive Director is Michael Brune and Carl Pope is the past Executive Director. What he does now is his own business. And yes he is a Democrat but he has supported numerous Republicans and also lamented about how the Republican Party...the party of the conservation movement turned its back on the environment. He also supported T Boone Pickens energy plan.

[diverdog]

The Federal government is not really an industry sector. But, in terms of contaminated media, yes, the Federal government has created massive amounts.

They have a lot of superfund sites....military bases, nuclear facilities, etc.

[Whet]

Their expenditures:


Independent Expenditures, Communication Costs and Coordinated Expenses as of July 13, 2009:Grand Total: $965,400
Total For Democrats: $478,066
Total Against Democrats: $417
Total For Republicans: $210
Total Against Republicans: $486,707




Sierra Club Contributions to Federal Candidates 2008

House
Total to Democrats: $316,733
Total to Republicans: $5,110

Senate
Total to Democrats: $57,853
Total to Republicans: $0

2010:
House
Total to Democrats: $293,724
Total to Republicans: $2,500

Senate
Total to Democrats: $76,633
Total to Republicans: $0

[Whet]

They have a lot of superfund sites....military bases, nuclear facilities, etc.
Don't forget Groom Lake

[diverdog]

Their expenditures:

I am assuming that your list is the political expenditures for the Sierra Club PAC in 2009. It looks about right. What you do not get is that the Sierra Club will support Republicans who support the environment and they have endorsed many in the past. The current slate of Republicans are so off the deep end (with the exceptions of Snowe, Collins and possibly Brown) that they have no one to endorse. It is no different than the NRA. Neither group really cares about the party but who supports their issue. And the Sierra Club does not endorse all Democrats and not all Democrats are against the NRA.

[diverdog]

Don't forget Groom Lake

I shudder to even think about it. :tennis: God knows what other earthly stuff resides on that site.

[sappstuf]

That was not why they fought it all the way to the supreme court.

I would like to hear your reason why.. Because it was most certainly their position. They did not want people to have the option of going to court.

The federal government in this case argued that if they EPA was subject to judicial review, it would make it harder to do their job. In another words, they didn't want people like the Sacketts to have due process.

If my description sounds outlandish, it is, because that was their position. It takes something outlandish to get Scalia and Ginsburg to agree on anything..

[Midtowner]

Their expenditures:

Meh.. pocket change.



So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry's $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.

[diverdog]

I would like to hear your reason why.. Because it was most certainly their position. They did not want people to have the option of going to court.

The federal government in this case argued that if they EPA was subject to judicial review, it would make it harder to do their job. In another words, they didn't want people like the Sacketts to have due process.

If my description sounds outlandish, it is, because that was their position. It takes something outlandish to get Scalia and Ginsburg to agree on anything..

It is the slippery slope argument. They feared this would open the flood gates on filling in wetlands.

I do not mind the courts ruling and in this case the EPA was wrong. However to think the EPA has some huge amount of power is nuts. We have lost more than 50% of our wetlands and I believe more than 80% of US waters do not meEt the swimmable, drinkable and fishable standards of the clean water act. 3 weeks ago I did a 40 mile backpacking trip on the Appalachia Trail. I was told to not use the water out of the Potamac River even though I was carrying a .02 ceramic micron filter system. That is nuts. There are places in Delaware where you can eat only one fish per year because of the pollutiom. I believe that is criminal that our waters and air have been used as waste dumps. People have a right to clean air and water.

[sappstuf]

It is the slippery slope argument. They feared this would open the flood gates on filling in wetlands.

I do not mind the courts ruling and in this case the EPA was wrong. However to think the EPA has some huge amount of power is nuts. We have lost more than 50% of our wetlands and I believe more than 80% of US waters do not meEt the swimmable, drinkable and fishable standards of the clean water act. 3 weeks ago I did a 40 mile backpacking trip on the Appalachia Trail. I was told to not use the water out of the Potamac River even though I was carrying a .02 ceramic micron filter system. That is nuts. There are places in Delaware where you can eat only one fish per year because of the pollutiom. I believe that is criminal that our waters and air have been used as waste dumps. People have a right to clean air and water.

Wetlands? The Sacketts bought 2/3 of an acre that was zoned for residential housing. The EPA had never before said the area was a wetland and they went on to say they had disturbed "navigable waters". Navigable waters? Who builds their house on that? The EPA in their infinite wisdom said the Sacketts did and it had to be returned to its original state. It didn't matter that it had never been a wetland... It was now! Oh, and by the way, the EPA said they would be fined $37,500 a day for each day they didn't return it and that fine was subject to double to $75K they were noncompliant
.
How long could you hold out at $37.5K per day until you changed your mind about the EPA not having any power?

The Sacketts requested a hearing to plead their case to the EPA. The EPA denied their request until AFTER the land had been returned to its original state. Then they argued in court that the Sacketts didn't have a right to civil court until after the final determination was made. Of course even the EPA didn't say when the final determination would be made.. Meanwhile, $37.5K.. $37.5K.. $37.5K.. $37.5K..

Hmmm..

That sounds like a LOT of power to me and the EPA was using it in an abusive manner on top of that. Clearly the SCOTUS agreed.

This had nothing to do with saving the wetlands and everything to do with a government agency operating in a lawless manner.

The only "floodgate" this ruling opened was the EPA dropping numerous cases afterwards.

I'm sure they weren't abusing their power in those cases either.....

[Whet]

Meh.. pocket change.

Not discussing the political leaning of the oil industry, just that of the Sierra Club.

[LiveLaughLove]

Ah good times.

Only bad trhing about this is another zealot will just replace him and this one will be quieter about their bullying.

Still any time a lib has to exit the public trough it makes me smile.

Of course, now he will just become a lobbyist. They don't know how to exist without being attached in some way to the federal government.

The day all of the EPA employees (and many other agaencies and departments for that matter) have to vacate and find real world jobs would be a happy dance day for me.

Oh the horror of a smaller Uncle Nanny Sam!

[TFSooner]

The EPA had never before said the area was a wetland and they went on to say they had disturbed "navigable waters". Navigable waters? Who builds their house on that? The EPA in their infinite wisdom said the Sacketts did and it had to be returned to its original state. It didn't matter that it had never been a wetland... It was now!

Didn't read the article, know nothing about the particulars of this specific case, and agree that federal governmental control could probably use a little reigning in, but I do know a little about "wetlands". The EPA does not have jurisdictional authority to determine what does and does not constitute a "wetland", the Corps of Engineers does. And, just because it had never been determined that the area was a wetland before does not mean that it could be sometime later through scientific analysis by a wetland biologist. There are three things that have to be present for a wetland determination: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and topography that "traps" enough water during enough time to support hydrophytic vegetation. Surface water does not have to present 100% of the time like a pond or lake (which often are not considered true jurisdictional wetlands).

Like I said, I am not arguing the merits for or against that particular case, just clarifying that wetlands determination can be done at anytime through analysis. Existing wetlands maps come in various forms, but on a large scale, most wetlands are determined through infrared aerial photographs, topographic analysis and other means. But on site-specific cases, an on-site analysis by a trained wetland biologist can determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands where none had ever been declared before.

[Midtowner]

Not discussing the political leaning of the oil industry, just that of the Sierra Club.

Can't really discuss that without acknowledging how totally innocuous the Sierra Club is at iinfluencing public policy when their overall contributions to their guys are only a small fraction of the money on the other side of the table from just one industry.

[okie52]

Okie:

Based on my reading of a few papers the EPA did not falsify the test. That was done by independent private company Wolf Eagle Environmental that was hired by some landowners who said their wells were contaminated from gas due to drilling in the area. What some of them did not know is that the people who filed the complaint had gas in their water before the drilling activity. So where I hold the EPA responsible is not doing its own test and coming to its own conclusion. Of course in the hostile regulatory environment of Texas that is probably hard to do.

And Okie I do not think there is a person in the US that thinks oil companies have a stellar environmental record.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scientist-often-plays.html


(http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scientist-often-plays.html)

Stellar? As compared to who or what in a similar industry? Oil and gas companies have to live by the rules like everyone else but they shouldn't be a particular target because of this administrations crusade against oil and gas. And, as the article indicated, the same issues in TX are occurring in the PA and Wyoming.

The EPA can do just about anything they want so there is no "hostile regulatory environment" that restricts their ability to conduct the tests that are necessary for an accurate approach to evaluating a case.

I'm still pointing to Obama shutting down both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans for his 4 years in office. Really inexcusable along with being court ordered twice to reopen the Gulf.

It would be hard to imagine any American believing the EPA has done a stellar job.

[OULenexaman]

Some folks have been permanetly poisoned by Obamas kool-aid.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I agree with this:

Whoo Hoo!! The Effer is gone!!!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You don't have a clue how ignorant this sounds. Most civil lawsuits involve insurance companies. They are one of the most profitable industries we have. They tend to hire the biggest and most expensive firms to defend claims.

In this country, we want the little guy to be able to seek redress from the courts without the threat of ruinous costs. There are often statutes which work around the American rule in certain sorts of disfavored lawsuits, but for the most part, we prefer access to the courts over corporate profits.

Then leave Big Oil alone and the measily 12-15% profits and go after Big Insurance...

[Midtowner]

Then leave Big Oil alone and the measily 12-15% profits and go after Big Insurance...

That doesn't even make sense.

No one is "going after" anyone, unless you want to argue that insurance companies are going after the little guy in order to prevent him from ever getting his day in court.

[okie52]

That doesn't even make sense.

No one is "going after" anyone, unless you want to argue that insurance companies are going after the little guy in order to prevent him from ever getting his day in court.

That's rich....the insurance companies are often protecting the "little guys" from the ambulance chasing attorneys.

[Midtowner]

That's rich....the insurance companies are often protecting the "little guys" from the ambulance chasing attorneys.

That's what they're paid to do. Paid handsomely, I might add.

[okie52]

That's what they're paid to do. Paid handsomely, I might add.

As are ambulance chasers. Remember the day when attorneys wouldn't advertise because it was thought to be unethical.....talk about ancient memories.

[KantoSooner]

Let's not downplay the clout of the environmental lobby. It's beyond doubt that 'industry' has money; though companies are far from monolithic in their interests and often undercut each other. The vast panoply of environmental lobby groups too have their money, their lobbyists, their pressure orgs and are not worthy of too much pity. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Nader's various 'watchdog' groups, the national PIRG, all the state PIRGs, virtually all national media (news, film industry, serialized tv industry and the like, including, but not limited to virtually every entertainment for kids (Captain Planet, anyone?)) etc, etc.

Much like adding up campaign donations and finding Sacre Bleu! when you include unions and the like, the left gets every bit as much money as the right, the raw power of 'environmental groups' is quite awesome. Combine that with a refusal on the part of much of anyone to point out the pecuniary interest that many of the players have (Al Gore's investments in 'Cap and Trade' being one example) and you begin to cast a chary eye at the supposed pure motives of the Greenies.

I'm all for environmental protection, but too often the regulators seem to believe that we get what we need for daily life from one of those Star Trek wall port thingies where you push buttons and out comes a steaming steak.

[diverdog]

Stellar? As compared to who or what in a similar industry? Oil and gas companies have to live by the rules like everyone else but they shouldn't be a particular target because of this administrations crusade against oil and gas. And, as the article indicated, the same issues in TX are occurring in the PA and Wyoming.

The EPA can do just about anything they want so there is no "hostile regulatory environment" that restricts their ability to conduct the tests that are necessary for an accurate approach to evaluating a case.

I'm still pointing to Obama shutting down both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans for his 4 years in office. Really inexcusable along with being court ordered twice to reopen the Gulf.

It would be hard to imagine any American believing the EPA has done a stellar job.

Lets look at BP. They knowingly lied about the cement and completely covered a similar accident to Deep Horizon and kept it silent through bribes. So yeah I would say they to have a huge PR problem.There is no other industry other than big tobacco that have paid the huge pollutions fines that oil companies have paid.

[dwarthog]

Can't really discuss that without acknowledging how totally innocuous the Sierra Club is at iinfluencing public policy when their overall contributions to their guys are only a small fraction of the money on the other side of the table from just one industry.

Innocuous isn't how they are viewed by their peers. Granted this is old, but it does indicate something other than "innocuous" with regards to influencing public policy


Sierra Club Named Most Influential Environmental Organization.




http://rmc.sierraclub.org/pandp/1999-02/page05-1.htm

[diverdog]

Wetlands? The Sacketts bought 2/3 of an acre that was zoned for residential housing. The EPA had never before said the area was a wetland and they went on to say they had disturbed "navigable waters". Navigable waters? Who builds their house on that? The EPA in their infinite wisdom said the Sacketts did and it had to be returned to its original state. It didn't matter that it had never been a wetland... It was now! Oh, and by the way, the EPA said they would be fined $37,500 a day for each day they didn't return it and that fine was subject to double to $75K they were noncompliant
.
How long could you hold out at $37.5K per day until you changed your mind about the EPA not having any power?

The Sacketts requested a hearing to plead their case to the EPA. The EPA denied their request until AFTER the land had been returned to its original state. Then they argued in court that the Sacketts didn't have a right to civil court until after the final determination was made. Of course even the EPA didn't say when the final determination would be made.. Meanwhile, $37.5K.. $37.5K.. $37.5K.. $37.5K..

Hmmm..

That sounds like a LOT of power to me and the EPA was using it in an abusive manner on top of that. Clearly the SCOTUS agreed.

This had nothing to do with saving the wetlands and everything to do with a government agency operating in a lawless manner.

The only "floodgate" this ruling opened was the EPA dropping numerous cases afterwards.

I'm sure they weren't abusing their power in those cases either.....

First of all the EPA rarely levies the fines you are talking about. Secondly I just read both sides of this case and the Sacketts could have avoided all this mess with a simple COE permit.

Here is a good read on the case:

http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=A706AFFB-D70B-9B5D-C6405D7D8237CEF9

[okie52]

Lets look at BP. They knowingly lied about the cement and completely covered a similar accident to Deep Horizon and kept it silent through bribes. So yeah I would say they to have a huge PR problem.There is no other industry other than big tobacco that have paid the huge pollutions fines that oil companies have paid.

Well lets go with BP. They are not even a domestic company and they should be held accountable for every thing wrong they do...and right now I think they are paying about $20,000,000,000 for their mistakes in the gulf. I think at least one of their managers is being criminally charged for his coverup. Any others, Im for hanging them. On the other hand there are environmental fanatics that are so predisposed to their hatred of oil and gas and other industries that they will lie, fabricate and/or distort any issue to suit their objective.

No other industry has the exposure that oil and gas has. When you talk about the energy supplied to this country you have oil for transportation that represents almost 100% of all transportation. You have NG that is the 2nd largest component of energy for electricity. Just name me another industry that comes close to that.

[Midtowner]

Innocuous isn't how they are viewed by their peers. Granted this is old, but it does indicate something other than "innocuous" with regards to influencing public policy



Seriously? A press release from Sierra Club touting the awesomeness of Sierra Club?





http://rmc.sierraclub.org/pandp/1999-02/page05-1.htm[/QUOTE]

[dwarthog]

Seriously? A press release from Sierra Club touting the awesomeness of Sierra Club?





http://rmc.sierraclub.org/pandp/1999-02/page05-1.htm[/QUOTE]

C'mon MT, clicking the link isn't that difficult! :nonchalance:


The study, released by the Aspen Institute Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, asked every member of Congress and key federal officials to "name the (two) national nonprofit organizations that you believe have the most influence on federal policy" in each of six issue areas. On environmental issues, the survey named the Sierra Club and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) as the two most influential organizations, with the Sierra Club receiving more than double the number of responses than NFIB - and nearly three times as many as the next environmental group, the Environmental Defense Fund...

[Midtowner]

Well good for them. Still can't hold a candle to most single industries' lobbies.

[diverdog]

Well good for them. Still can't hold a candle to most single industries' lobbies.

Actually the Club has done some incredible stuff with a small budget:


1892 - Sierra Club founded on May 28 with 182 charter members. John Muir elected first President. In its first conservation campaign, Club leads effort to defeat a proposed reduction in the boundaries of Yosemite National Park.1893 - The first Sierra Club Bulletin, forerunner of SIERRA magazine, is issued. U. S. President Benjamin Harrison establishes a 13 million-acre Sierra Forest Reserve. Club establishes an office in the California Academy of Sciences Building in San Francisco.
1894 - Sierra Club climbers place registers on the summits of six peaks and begin recording ascents.
1895 - John Muir and professors Joseph LeConte and William Dudley speak on preservation national parks and forest reserves at the Club's annual meeting. Muir urges the return of Yosemite to federal management.
1896 - Club publishes a map of Yosemite Valley and the central Sierra Nevada.
1897 - Club urges strengthening of public forest policy and supports U. S. Forestry Commission recommendations for additional "national forest parks," including Grand Canyon and Mt. Rainier. Membership reaches 350.
1898 - Club establishes an office in Yosemite Valley to aid and educate visitors; William Colby is attendant. Club urges establishment of parks to preserve coastal redwoods in California. Headquarters moves into Merchants Exchange Building in San Francisco.
1899 - Congress establishes Mt. Rainier National Park through legislation, based on a statement prepared by the Sierra Club and several other organizations.
1900 - Club assists in preserving the North Grove of Calaveras Big Trees.
1901 - In the Club's first outing, William Colby leads 96 participants on a trip to Yosemite Valley and Tuolumne Meadows, beginning a tradition of annual High Trips.
1902 - Sierra Club High Trip visits Kings Canyon.
1903 - President Theodore Roosevelt visits Yosemite with John Muir. High Trip to Kern Canyon includes an assent of Mt. Whitney by 139 Club members. LeConte Memorial Lodge built in Yosemite Valley in memory of charter member Joseph LeConte, Sr. Club office moves to Mills Building in San Francisco. Membership reaches 663.
1904 - Club first local outings begin in San Francisco.
1905 - In one of the Club's first conservation victories, the California Legislature agrees to return Yosemite Valley to federal management. Fifty-six members on the annual High Trip climb Mt. Rainier in the first Club outing outside of California.
1906 - San Francisco earthquake and fire destroys Club records and library. Club headquarters temporarily moved to Berkeley.
1907 - Club submits a resolution to the Secretary of the Interior opposing damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Club headquarters moves back into Mills Building in San Francisco.
1908 - Club membership reaches 1,000.
1909 - Club sponsors trail construction to make the High Sierra above Kings Canyon accessible.
1910 - Club advocates establishment of Glacier National Park. Devil's Postpile and Rainbow Falls are endangered by a proposed reservoir. Poll of members shows that the majority support Club's position on Hetch Hetchy.
1911 - Devil's Postpile National Monument established, largely through the work of Club member Walter Huber. Activists organize Club chapter in southern California, which later becomes the Angeles Chapter.
1912 - Club urges establishment of a National Park Service and buys inholdings at Soda Springs in Yosemite National Park.
1913 - Congress allows flooding of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Southern California Chapter builds Muir Lodge.
1914 - Last Sierra Club outing to Hetch Hetchy Valley. John Muir dies on December 24.
1915 - Club wins passage of California legislation appropriating $10,000 for construction of the John Muir Trail, the first of five such appropriations. Joseph LeConte, Jr., becomes Club's second President.
1916 - Club supports bill establishing National Park Service. Club member Stephen Mather is appointed National Park Service Director.
1917 - Club protests grazing in national parks as an unnecessary wartime measure.
1918 - Club urges enlargement of Sequoia National Park to include headwaters of Kings and Kern rivers. About 140 members serve in World War I.
1919 - Ansel Adams becomes custodian of LeConte Lodge in Yosemite Valley. Club supports formation of Save-the-Redwoods League.
1920 - Club opposes plan to build dams in Yellowstone National Park.
1921 - Club urges purchase of redwoods in California's Humboldt County for a state park.
1922 - Mt. Shasta Alpine Lodge is built by Club members.
1923 - Federal Power Commission rules against proposals to build hydroelectric dams on Kings River in the Sierra Nevada, in part due to effective Club protests. Club helps National Park Service purchase Redwood Meadow for inclusion in Sequoia National Park enlargement.
1924 - Club advocates establishment of a California State Park Commission and a statewide survey of land suitable for state parks. San Francisco Bay Chapter organized.
1925 - Club inaugurates a photographic collection for loan to educational and other institutions.
1926 - Congress adds Kern and Kaweah regions, including Mt. Whitney, to Sequoia National Park.
1927 - California legislature establishes a State Park Commission, with Sierra Club Secretary William Colby as its first chairman. Aurelia Harwood becomes Club President, the first woman to serve in that position.
1928 - Club contributes $1,000 toward purchase and donation to the National Park Service of a private inholding in Sequoia National Park.
1929 - Club works with San Francisco Bay Area conservationists to win establishment of Mt. Tamalpais State Park.
1930 - Membership reaches 2,537.
1931 - On annual High Trip, Club members Francis Farquahar and Robert Underhill introduce the use of rope and belaying techniques in rock climbing. They later lead first ascents on North Palisade, Thunderbolt Park, and east face of Mt. Whitney.
1932 - Club urges National Park Service to investigate Alaska's Admiralty Island as a national park. Winter Sports Committee organized. Club office moves to Mills Tower in San Francisco.
1933 - Muir Lodge destroyed by flood. Club advises Park Service in rebuilding Tioga Road in Yosemite National Park.
1934 - Club builds Clair Tappaan Lodge near Donner Pass and publishes A Guide to the John Muir Trail by Walter Starr.
1935 - Legislation introduced to establish Kings Canyon National Park; Club opposes a road into the area. Club supports legislation to create Olympic National Park and urges that the boundaries of Death Valley National Monument be extended.
1936 - Ansel Adams travels with his photographs to Washington, D.C., to lobby the Roosevelt administration to preserve Kings Canyon and the surrounding High Sierra.
1937 - Club opposes construction of a tunnel to divert water under Rocky Mountain National Park
1938 - Club protests proposal to dam Yellowstone Lake. John Muir Trail completed, and Club conducts first burro and knapsack outings. Club Directors meet with Interior Secretary Harold Ickes to support establishment of Kings Canyon as a wilderness national park.
1939 - Club produces its first film, Sky-Land Trails of the Kings, and publishes a booklet to promote establishment of Kings Canyon National Park. Club party climbs Shiprock in New Mexico.
1940 - Congress establishes Kings Canyon National Park. First Club base-camp outing.
1941 - Club helps enlarge Anza State Park in the California desert. Club film Skis to the Sky-Land encourages ski mountaineering.
1942 - Club contributes $2,500 toward Park Service acquisition of privately owned property on Tenaya Lake in Yosemite National Park.
1943 - Club successfully defends Jackson Hole National Monument and opposes repeal of the Antiquities Act, which allows establishment of national monuments. Outings are temporarily discontinued due to war.
1944 - Club seeks to protect sequoia trees in the South Calaveras Grove.
1945 - More than 1,000 Club members serve in the armed forces. (left out of this comment is some members were the backbone of the 10th Mountain Division)
1946 - Club supports legislation to establish Joshua Tree National Monument. Club purchases Flora and Azlea lakes to protect one of the last natural areas near California's Donner Pass.
1947 - Club succeeds in campaign to preserve San Gorgonio Primitive Area and works to protect Olympic National Park and Jackson Hole National Monument. Club publishes first edition of The Sierra Club: A Handbook.
1948 - Club opposes construction of Glacier View Dam, which would flood 20,000 acres of Glacier National Park. Club successfully protests hydroelectric dams proposed for Kings Canyon National Park.
1949 - Secretaries of Interior and Army reject Glacier View Dam after a public hearing in which the Club is represented by Olaus Murie. Club campaigns to preserve South Calaveras Grove in the Sierra and Butano Forest in the Coast Range. At the suggestion of Director Norman Livermore, Club sponsors a High Sierra Wilderness Conference, the first of 14 biennial wilderness conferences.
1950 - Interior Secretary orders study of alternatives to damming Oregon's Rogue River. After a long battle by the Club, Congress enlarges Grand Teton National Monument. Atlantic Chapter, comprising 18 eastern states and the District of Columbia, becomes first Club chapter outside of California.
1951 - In a campaign viewed as a test of the integrity of national parks and a major challenge for the Sierra Club, Club decides to fight to protect Dinosaur National Monument from two dams proposed by the federal government; a special edition of the Sierra Club Bulletin covers the issue for members. At the 2nd Biennial Wilderness Conference, Howard Zahniser introduces the idea of legislative protection for wilderness areas.
1952 - Interior Secretary Oscar Chapman temporarily protects Dinosaur National Monument by ordering a study of alternative dam sites. David Brower becomes the Club's first Executive Director. Club protests as Los Angeles renews applications to build dams in Kings Canyon National Park.
1953 - More than 200 Club members take six-day raft trips down the Yampa and Green rivers in Dinosaur National Monument; Club produces Wilderness River Trail to promote Dinosaur's values. President Harry Truman adds 47,000 acres to Olympic National Park.
1954 - Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay renews plan to build dams in Dinosaur National Monument; Club continues battle to save the park. River touring committee established. Club publishes Climber's Guide to High Sierra.
1955 - Dinosaur controversy continues, as do Club's efforts to publicize it. Alfred Knopf publishes This is Dinosaur, edited by Wallace Stegner, while the Club film Two Yosemitescompares the damning of Hetch Hetchy to plans to dam Dinosaur.

http://www.sierraclub.org/history/timeline.aspx




If it weren't for the Sierra Club many of the parks and wilderness areas we enjoy would not be around today. They were also instrumental in the founding of the Forest Service, Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.

[diverdog]

Well lets go with BP. They are not even a domestic company and they should be held accountable for every thing wrong they do...and right now I think they are paying about $20,000,000,000 for their mistakes in the gulf. I think at least one of their managers is being criminally charged for his coverup. Any others, Im for hanging them. On the other hand there are environmental fanatics that are so predisposed to their hatred of oil and gas and other industries that they will lie, fabricate and/or distort any issue to suit their objective.

No other industry has the exposure that oil and gas has. When you talk about the energy supplied to this country you have oil for transportation that represents almost 100% of all transportation. You have NG that is the 2nd largest component of energy for electricity. Just name me another industry that comes close to that.

And the oil industry has not done the same? (see bold)

Most of the people who are against fracking in Pennsylvania are coal miners not environmentalist. Your boy Aubrey McClendon gave the Sierra Club millions of dollars to fight big coal.


The Sierra Club, the largest and oldest environmental group in the U.S., accepted more than $25 million from the natural gas industry from 2007 to 2010 while promoting the fuel as a “bridge” to a clean-energy future, according to a Time magazine report (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/). The organization used the funds — which largely came from Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon — to support its Beyond Coal (http://beyondcoal.org/) campaign. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club when the donations were made, was a vocal supporter of natural gas as a “bridge” fuel. He accompanied McClendon — whose company is deeply involved in extracting natural gas through the controversial process of hydrofracturing shale formations — on trips to promote natural gas over coal, though Pope never divulged the large anonymous donations from McClendon, Time reports. Michael Brune (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_sierra_clubs_new_leader_charts_a_more_assertiv e_course/2303/), who became executive director of the Sierra Club in 2010, persuaded the group’s board to stop taking money from McClendon and to refuse millions of additional dollars that McClendon was reportedly prepared to give the Sierra Club. “The size and secrecy of [Chesapeake’s] gifts has prevented us from having an open and candid relationship with our supporters,” Brune wrote in a memo. He told Time, “The first rule of advocacy is that you shouldn’t take money from industries and companies you’re trying to change.”

[sappstuf]

First of all the EPA rarely levies the fines you are talking about. Secondly I just read both sides of this case and the Sacketts could have avoided all this mess with a simple COE permit.

Here is a good read on the case:

http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=A706AFFB-D70B-9B5D-C6405D7D8237CEF9

You know why they don't? Because the threat of financial ruin forced most people to return the land even when the EPA was wrong because they had no legal recourse up to this case. Your point isn't helping your case.

You should read the SCOTUS transcript of the case instead of websites describing the case before it went into to them.

They bought a house that had been zoned as a residential area. I didn't apply for a permit when I bought land in a residential area... Did you? Other houses were already built in the area and more importantly between the lake and where they were building their home. Once a compliance order is given by the EPA the COE permit is not an option. Per the SCOTUS findings:


The Corps’ regulations provide that, once the EPA has issued a compliance order with respect to certain property, the Corps will not process a permit application for that property unless doing so “is clearly appropriate.”

All avenues were blocked.

Abusive power.

9-0.

[diverdog]

You know why they don't? Because the threat of financial ruin forced most people to return the land even when the EPA was wrong because they had no legal recourse up to this case. Your point isn't helping your case.

You should read the SCOTUS transcript of the case instead of websites describing the case before it went into to them.

They bought a house that had been zoned as a residential area. I didn't apply for a permit when I bought land in a residential area... Did you? Other houses were already built in the area and more importantly between the lake and where they were building their home. Once a compliance order is given by the EPA the COE permit is not an option. Per the SCOTUS findings:



All avenues were blocked.

Abusive power.

9-0.

Sapp if you live near water especially the coast or areas like Delaware a COE permit maybe required. They are part of life in these parts .

You do understand that the courts did not rule if the Sacketts property is a wetland. All the court did was allow them to challenge the EPA ruling through civil proceedings. They are now going to have to prove that they property is not a wetland and there have been other COE permits issued in the area. They can still face fines and be forced to clean up the property.

And this was not a case of abuse of power. The lower courts supported the EPA and I can guarantee you those enforcement officers were probably following the letter of the law. If the appeal process is not clear then that is the fault of congress and poorly worded law.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Sapp if you live near water especially the coast or areas like Delaware a COE permit maybe required. They are part of life in these parts .

You do understand that the courts did not rule if the Sacketts property is a wetland. All the court did was allow them to challenge the EPA ruling through civil proceedings. They are now going to have to prove that they property is not a wetland and there have been other COE permits issued in the area. They can still face fines and be forced to clean up the property.

And this was not a case of abuse of power. The lower courts supported the EPA and I can guarantee you those enforcement officers were probably following the letter of the law. If the appeal process is not clear then that is the fault of congress and poorly worded law.Give it up Sap...Arguing with DD is like rassl'n with a pig in the mud...SOONER or later you're gonna realize the pig enjoys it...

[diverdog]

Give it up Sap...Arguing with DD is like rassl'n with a pig in the mud...SOONER or later you're gonna realize the pig enjoys it...

Says the pig.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Says the pig.Says the pig.

[okie52]

And the oil industry has not done the same? (see bold)

Most of the people who are against fracking in Pennsylvania are coal miners not environmentalist. Your boy Aubrey McClendon gave the Sierra Club millions of dollars to fight big coal.

What penalty befalls the EPA when they are wrong? Any hefty fines? Just how are they punished?

Old aubrey confessed to some stupid decisions lately. He admitted he voted for Obama and gave a big chunk of change to the Sierra club...self serving no doubt but stupid decisions. In case you didn't know McClendon is a Kerr...as in Kerr McGee and Robert s Kerr who was a longtime powerful democrat in this state. I suspect aubreys better judgement is sometimes clouded by memories of better times with the sierra club before they lost their marbles One of his biggest adversaries now with ng is the Sierra club...I'll be glad to post you many articles of their unfounded rants against ng and fracking but you already know that anyway.

[sappstuf]

Sapp if you live near water especially the coast or areas like Delaware a COE permit maybe required. They are part of life in these parts .

You do understand that the courts did not rule if the Sacketts property is a wetland. All the court did was allow them to challenge the EPA ruling through civil proceedings. They are now going to have to prove that they property is not a wetland and there have been other COE permits issued in the area. They can still face fines and be forced to clean up the property.

And this was not a case of abuse of power. The lower courts supported the EPA and I can guarantee you those enforcement officers were probably following the letter of the law. If the appeal process is not clear then that is the fault of congress and poorly worded law.

I agree, all they did was affirm that they had due process. You would think that would be a no-brainer and it was to the SCOTUS, but not to the EPA and this administration apparently....


And 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

Did the law preclude a hearing? The EPA wouldn't even listen to their side of the story. Nope, no response except the threat of financial ruin.

Here is the most laughable part of the government's position.


The Government warns that the EPA is less likely to use the orders if they are subject to judicial review.

I'm sure they are less likely to abuse citizens when the citizens have actual rights.. That sort of goes without saying doesn't it?

[Midtowner]

Sapp if you live near water especially the coast or areas like Delaware a COE permit maybe required. They are part of life in these parts .

You do understand that the courts did not rule if the Sacketts property is a wetland. All the court did was allow them to challenge the EPA ruling through civil proceedings. They are now going to have to prove that they property is not a wetland and there have been other COE permits issued in the area. They can still face fines and be forced to clean up the property.

And this was not a case of abuse of power. The lower courts supported the EPA and I can guarantee you those enforcement officers were probably following the letter of the law. If the appeal process is not clear then that is the fault of congress and poorly worded law.

The Sackett case is one of those which will come up from time to time when regulatory expedience conflicts with due process. To be sure, in 99% of cases, regulatory expedience is the clear winner. In some cases, however, this business of depriving someone the use of their property without notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

On remand, the Sacketts will have an uphill battle. They're going to have to prove that the EPA's action here was arbitrary and capricious. Folks will also now have the opportunity to pre-enforcement review of proposed EPA orders.

To claim that the Sackett's situation is representative of regular EPA action is just silly. For the most part, the EPA and its state subordinates are known for their inaction and passiveness more than anything else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/many-americans-left-behin_b_1079251.html

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/many-americans-left-behin_b_1079251.htmliWatch News...what a moran.

[okie52]

I agree, all they did was affirm that they had due process. You would think that would be a no-brainer and it was to the SCOTUS, but not to the EPA and this administration apparently....



Did the law preclude a hearing? The EPA wouldn't even listen to their side of the story. Nope, no response except the threat of financial ruin.

Here is the most laughable part of the government's position.



I'm sure they are less likely to abuse citizens when the citizens have actual rights.. That sort of goes without saying doesn't it?

Hey Sapp...I hear Obama is in your neighborhood and he wants you to have some fun there for the next 12 years.

Of course I realize you are under the cone of silence.

[sappstuf]

Hey Sapp...I hear Obama is in your neighborhood and he wants you to have some fun there for the next 12 years.

Of course I realize you are under the cone of silence.

He flew about 50 above my building.. I wasn't at his speech though... Different base.

[Midtowner]

iWatch News...what a moran.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

[okie52]

He flew about 50 above my building.. I wasn't at his speech though... Different base.

Was his plane corkscrewing in for a landing or was that just Hillary's?

[diverdog]

What penalty befalls the EPA when they are wrong? Any hefty fines? Just how are they punished?

Old aubrey confessed to some stupid decisions lately. He admitted he voted for Obama and gave a big chunk of change to the Sierra club...self serving no doubt but stupid decisions. In case you didn't know McClendon is a Kerr...as in Kerr McGee and Robert s Kerr who was a longtime powerful democrat in this state. I suspect aubreys better judgement is sometimes clouded by memories of better times with the sierra club before they lost their marbles One of his biggest adversaries now with ng is the Sierra club...I'll be glad to post you many articles of their unfounded rants against ng and fracking but you already know that anyway.

Okie:

I have read they are against fracking but I have not read they are against NG. Then again I have not been active with the club since they decided not to be the premier protectors of wilderness.

[diverdog]

Was his plane corkscrewing in for a landing or was that just Hillary's?
Actually that is a type of combat landing to avoid hand held missiles.

[sappstuf]

Was his plane corkscrewing in for a landing or was that just Hillary's?

It was his helicopter. I'm not on the US airbase, but I am in Kabul where he made his appearance with Kharzai.

[Midtowner]

What penalty befalls the EPA when they are wrong? Any hefty fines? Just how are they punished?


It's the same penalty which attaches to any law enforcement agency when they're wrong. Being wrong. Would you be in favor of the police having to compensate every potential criminal they stop and frisk? Does O.J. Simpson require a big pay day for being found not guilty of murder? How much should the state of Florida pay Casey Anthony for her whole ordeal?

[okie52]

Actually that is a type of combat landing to avoid hand held missiles.

I know...that was a little dig at Hillary who claimed she was fired on by snipers and her airplane corkscrewed in for a landing when she visited Croatia...except that none of it ever happened.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

That doesn't even make sense.

No one is "going after" anyone, unless you want to argue that insurance companies are going after the little guy in order to prevent him from ever getting his day in court.

Yeah, the dims and the media aren't going after Big Oil... That's rich... You must have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale...

[okie52]

It's the same penalty which attaches to any law enforcement agency when they're wrong. Being wrong. Would you be in favor of the police having to compensate every potential criminal they stop and frisk? Does O.J. Simpson require a big pay day for being found not guilty of murder? How much should the state of Florida pay Casey Anthony for her whole ordeal?

Exactly. Nothing happens to the EPA when they are wrong. They are at no risk for virtually any action they take, right or wrong.

[jkjsooner]

We need some moderates in our government. The Bush administration routinely pulled stunts like the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?pagewanted=all

Meanwhile there's no doubt that there are environmental zealots within the EPA.


All of that said, some of the Republican's plan to get rid of the EPA worries me. The EPA is not perfect and maybe reforms are needed but we do not want to go back to the smog and forest destruction policies of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, the dims and the media aren't going after Big Oil... That's rich... You must have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale...

Big Oil may make it into Democrat talking points. As far as actual action is concerned, that lobby is way too powerful. I could be surprised though. When giant companies like Exxon pay zero taxes, even after we've had both houses of Congress dominated by Dems, I don't think their tax subsidies are going anywhere.

[Midtowner]

Exactly. Nothing happens to the EPA when they are wrong. They are at no risk for virtually any action they take, right or wrong.

Same for all law enforcement.

You didn't answer the question... does the state of Florida owe Casey Anthony a pay day in your opinion?

And also, it's not like the EPA didn't suffer a pretty major setback in this case. Now all of its compliance orders are subject to judicial review. That's kind of huge where they're concerned.

[okie52]

Same for all law enforcement.

You didn't answer the question... does the state of Florida owe Casey Anthony a pay day in your opinion?

And also, it's not like the EPA didn't suffer a pretty major setback in this case. Now all of its compliance orders are subject to judicial review. That's kind of huge where they're concerned.

Well you are talking criminal cases, not civil. That is a good question on criminal matters. Certainly prosecutors enjoy an immunity no matter how frivolous the cases may be. The Zimmerman case may end up being reflective of that if you believe Dershowitz. Certainly someone like Zimmerman could go bankrupt defending themselves. Then you have Nifong and the Duke lacrosse team. I'm sure there are many other cases where the DA has been out of line and innocent people suffered. I do believe the defendants are deserving of some restitution for their legal costs if they are found innocent. Don't defendants that are found guilty in criminal cases often have to pay court costs upon conviction?

[diverdog]

Says the pig.

Damn dude is that all you got? I always look foward to your witty retorts.

[Midtowner]

Well you are talking criminal cases, not civil.

Well, you'd think that in criminal cases, with the whole presumption of innocence (which is actually the reverse in administrative judicial review cases where it's the burden of the regulated individual to show the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious or outside of its own rules) would tend to push towards public compensation of defendants for their attorney's fees when found not guilty under your notion.. maybe a little spending money too?

And you're right, Defendants do have to pay court costs even for simple appearances where their attorneys stand before the court and get a hearing pushed out a month (something on the order of $40 each time).


That is a good question on criminal matters. Certainly prosecutors enjoy an immunity no matter how frivolous the cases may be. The Zimmerman case may end up being reflective of that if you believe Dershowitz. Certainly someone like Zimmerman could go bankrupt defending themselves. Then you have Nifong and the Duke lacrosse team. I'm sure there are many other cases where the DA has been out of line and innocent people suffered. I do believe the defendants are deserving of some restitution for their legal costs if they are found innocent. Don't defendants that are found guilty in criminal cases often have to pay court costs upon conviction?

Nifong was disbarred and bad DAs lose their jobs when they're voted out of office.

[soonercruiser]

Actually that is a type of combat landing to avoid hand held missiles.

"Combat Descent"!

[KantoSooner]

Yeah, but they don't really lose anything. They simply walk out on Friday and start next Monday at a high dollar defense firm at 2-3X the pay.

I'm with the guys who want to see a sporting outcome. How about the DA is a dick and frivolously prosecutes some innocent person, we take his house, sell his wife and daughters to white slavers in Beirut and put his sons into the French Foreign Legion for 20 years. THAT, my friends, would encourage a little prosecutorial restraint.

[diverdog]

"Combat Descent"!

Funny.

I didn't mine the spiral down. The low stuff and some air drops made me air sick.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

When giant companies like Exxon pay zero taxes, even after we've had both houses of Congress dominated by Dems, I don't think their tax subsidies are going anywhere.

XOM doesn't pay taxes - BullShiite!!! You would be closer to the truth if you had listed Apple as your example...

LINK http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/04/26/exxonmobil-first-quarter-2012-earnings-results/

ExxonMobil’s first quarter 2012 earnings results

April 26, 2012 | Posted by Ken Cohen (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/about/#ken)
Earlier today, we announced our first-quarter results (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1001106&newsId=20120426005930&newsLang=en), which included global earnings of $9.5 billion.
This is a large number, but it’s only when you compare it to our revenues that you get a more accurate picture of our profitability relative to other industries.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Earnings-By-Industry-4Q-20111-420x337.png (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/04/26/exxonmobil-first-quarter-2012-earnings-results/earnings-by-industry-4q-2011-2/)Our global revenues were $124 billion in the first quarter, which means ExxonMobil earned 7.6 cents for every dollar of sales. That includes every unit of oil, petroleum products, natural gas and chemicals we produced, refined, manufactured and sold.
In fact, our profits per dollar are actually at or below those of many other industries. For example, some companies operating in the computer, smartphone, pharmaceutical, or beverage industries earn about two to three times more per dollar of revenue than ExxonMobil. As the chart shows, these industries average about 15 cents to 28 cents profit per dollar.
The size and volume of our business are significant factors in our earnings results – and they’re also significant factors in our contributions to the U.S. economy.
ExxonMobil’s activities put more than $12 billion back into the U.S. economy in the first quarter through our returns to shareholders, our investments to find and produce energy in the United States, and our local, state and federal taxes.
That’s more than six times what we made from our operations in the United States, and it doesn’t even include our payroll to more than 30,000 U.S. employees or the amounts we spent running our production, manufacturing and office facilities around the country.
Here’s a closer look at who’s benefiting from ExxonMobil’s earnings:

Shareholders: We distributed more than $7 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases in the first quarter. Our shareholders will earn about 20 percent more per share as a result of an increase in our second-quarter 2012 dividend (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1001106&newsId=20120425006426&newsLang=en) announced yesterday. As a publicly traded company we have millions of shareholders, who are primarily based in the United States. If you have money invested in a savings or retirement plan, or if you have a public or private pension plan, chances are you benefit from oil and natural gas company earnings.
Federal, state and local governments: Our taxes in the United States totaled $2.9 billion in the first quarter, a total that exceeded our U.S. operating earnings by almost $1 billion. In many states and towns, tax revenues from oil and gas operations are a significant source of funding for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and other public services.
Construction companies, contractors, manufacturers and others: We invested $2.6 billion on U.S. capital and exploration projects in the first quarter. Our efforts to find and produce new supplies of oil and natural gas are capital-intensive, which means we create a lot of demand for service providers such as construction companies, contractors, materials manufacturers and others.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ExxonMobil-2011-US-Economic-Contributions-420x313.png (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/02/29/a-72-billion-contribution-to-the-u-s-economy-in-2011/exxonmobil-2011-us-economic-contributions/)These figures are just part of our U.S. impact in the first three months of 2012. A look at our contributions over the course of a full year provides a bigger picture of our impact in the U.S. economy. In 2011, ExxonMobil contributed $72 billion to the U.S. economy through investments in new energy supplies, taxes, salaries, returns to our investors and money paid to other businesses and industries to keep our U.S. operations running.
When companies are earning, they’re also spending, marketing, investing and paying. It’s this type of activity that is the engine of economic growth, and the United States needs more of it to get its economy back on the right track.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Actually the Club has done some incredible stuff with a small budget:



If it weren't for the Sierra Club many of the parks and wilderness areas we enjoy would not be around today. They were also instrumental in the founding of the Forest Service, Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.

If it weren't for the oil industry, most of the cars, power plants, factories, etc we have would be completely inoperable.

[Midtowner]

XOM doesn't pay taxes - BullShiite!!! You would be closer to the truth if you had listed Apple as your example...

LINK http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/04/26/exxonmobil-first-quarter-2012-earnings-results/

ExxonMobil’s first quarter 2012 earnings results

April 26, 2012 | Posted by Ken Cohen (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/about/#ken)
Earlier today, we announced our first-quarter results (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1001106&newsId=20120426005930&newsLang=en), which included global earnings of $9.5 billion.
This is a large number, but it’s only when you compare it to our revenues that you get a more accurate picture of our profitability relative to other industries.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Earnings-By-Industry-4Q-20111-420x337.png (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/04/26/exxonmobil-first-quarter-2012-earnings-results/earnings-by-industry-4q-2011-2/)Our global revenues were $124 billion in the first quarter, which means ExxonMobil earned 7.6 cents for every dollar of sales. That includes every unit of oil, petroleum products, natural gas and chemicals we produced, refined, manufactured and sold.
In fact, our profits per dollar are actually at or below those of many other industries. For example, some companies operating in the computer, smartphone, pharmaceutical, or beverage industries earn about two to three times more per dollar of revenue than ExxonMobil. As the chart shows, these industries average about 15 cents to 28 cents profit per dollar.
The size and volume of our business are significant factors in our earnings results – and they’re also significant factors in our contributions to the U.S. economy.
ExxonMobil’s activities put more than $12 billion back into the U.S. economy in the first quarter through our returns to shareholders, our investments to find and produce energy in the United States, and our local, state and federal taxes.
That’s more than six times what we made from our operations in the United States, and it doesn’t even include our payroll to more than 30,000 U.S. employees or the amounts we spent running our production, manufacturing and office facilities around the country.
Here’s a closer look at who’s benefiting from ExxonMobil’s earnings:

Shareholders: We distributed more than $7 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases in the first quarter. Our shareholders will earn about 20 percent more per share as a result of an increase in our second-quarter 2012 dividend (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1001106&newsId=20120425006426&newsLang=en) announced yesterday. As a publicly traded company we have millions of shareholders, who are primarily based in the United States. If you have money invested in a savings or retirement plan, or if you have a public or private pension plan, chances are you benefit from oil and natural gas company earnings.
Federal, state and local governments: Our taxes in the United States totaled $2.9 billion in the first quarter, a total that exceeded our U.S. operating earnings by almost $1 billion. In many states and towns, tax revenues from oil and gas operations are a significant source of funding for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and other public services.
Construction companies, contractors, manufacturers and others: We invested $2.6 billion on U.S. capital and exploration projects in the first quarter. Our efforts to find and produce new supplies of oil and natural gas are capital-intensive, which means we create a lot of demand for service providers such as construction companies, contractors, materials manufacturers and others.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ExxonMobil-2011-US-Economic-Contributions-420x313.png (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/02/29/a-72-billion-contribution-to-the-u-s-economy-in-2011/exxonmobil-2011-us-economic-contributions/)These figures are just part of our U.S. impact in the first three months of 2012. A look at our contributions over the course of a full year provides a bigger picture of our impact in the U.S. economy. In 2011, ExxonMobil contributed $72 billion to the U.S. economy through investments in new energy supplies, taxes, salaries, returns to our investors and money paid to other businesses and industries to keep our U.S. operations running.
When companies are earning, they’re also spending, marketing, investing and paying. It’s this type of activity that is the engine of economic growth, and the United States needs more of it to get its economy back on the right track.

Oh I am so impressed.

With revenues near $500 billion, they paid 2.6 billion in taxes.

Less than 1% of revenue.

Or if you just look at net income of $30BN or so, they paid 2.6BN in taxes, less than 10% effectively. Who cares what their profit margins are? They make a lot of profit by doing lots of volume.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Oh I am so impressed.

With revenues near $500 billion, they paid 2.6 billion in taxes.

Less than 1% of revenue.

Uh, you don't pay taxes on revenue. Any business is allowed to deduct business expenses. They paid $2.9 billion on global EBIT of $12 billion. That's global so I didn't look up what US only EBIT was.

If you pay taxes on your revenue counselor, you seriously need to get a new accountant.

[Midtowner]

Their net income in 2011 in the U.S. was around $30 billion.

The revenue figure is important to show how absolutely huge this company is and what a small piece of the overall expense pie the tax debt is.

[KantoSooner]

It is also critical to note the taxes on Exxon's products charged to consumers. States and the Federal government charge a hefty load on each and every gallon.

If we as a society wish to tax businesses at a higher rate, then we can whenever we choose to do so. There may be consequences but we're adults and can vote for said change if we wish to.

We could, for instance, choose to do away with the biggest piece of garbage the legal profession has ever see, the Federal Tax Code and come up with something more 'equitable' (or at least easier for more people to understand). Until such time, expect every man Jack and lady Jane to strive to pay as little in tax as they can. And good on 'em.

A more productive discussion might be, "What should government be doing?" and "How much should our government cost out of each dollar?"

Just a hunch: the mohair studies done by Dept of Ag and the national helium reserve would not be long for this world.

[REDREX]

Oh I am so impressed.

With revenues near $500 billion, they paid 2.6 billion in taxes.

Less than 1% of revenue.

Or if you just look at net income of $30BN or so, they paid 2.6BN in taxes, less than 10% effectively. Who cares what their profit margins are? They make a lot of profit by doing lots of volume.--" Who cares what their profit margins are? They make a lot of money by doing lots of volume"-------------A truly stupid statement

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'd like to know where the arrogant *******s of this great nation come up with a monetary figure that they consider being "too much profit"...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Their net income in 2011 in the U.S. was around $30 billion.

The revenue figure is important to show how absolutely huge this company is and what a small piece of the overall expense pie the tax debt is.

You're self employed I assume. How big is your tax bill compared to the rest of your expenses? I still don't get your point. Your point is they don't pay enough taxes because they spend more drilling wells than they do on taxes?

[KantoSooner]

"too much profit"...

What is this thing of which you speak?

[Turd_Ferguson]

What is this thing of which you speak?
http://www.soonerfans.com/image.php?u=36414&dateline=1123297686

[diverdog]

I'd like to know where the arrogant *******s of this great nation come up with a monetary figure that they consider being "too much profit"...

I think the issue is not too much profit but not enough taxes on the profit. If Apple makes a trillion dollars profit it would be nice if they paid 15% on that profit.

[KantoSooner]

15% seems fair to me. 15% on everything. No deductions. No depletion allowance, no mortgage right off, no depretiation. None of it.
If the Feds and States together can't make do on 15% of the whole shootin' match, then I'd pretty much be for scrapping it and starting over.

It's even got a nice slogan: Flat, Fair, Fifteen.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ok, so did you just pull 15% out of your ***? Why 15? How bout 5, or 10 or 35 or 40?

[Sooner5030]

15% seems fair to me. 15% on everything. No deductions. No depletion allowance, no mortgage right off, no depretiation. None of it.
If the Feds and States together can't make do on 15% of the whole shootin' match, then I'd pretty much be for scrapping it and starting over.

It's even got a nice slogan: Flat, Fair, Fifteen.

Depreciation is an expense in the income statement not a tax deduction. Rather than expense the purchase of a large asset....you capitalize (debit property, credit cash) it and then expense the loss in value of the asset over time or usage.

[Chuck Bao]

Ok, so did you just pull 15% out of your ***? Why 15? How bout 5, or 10 or 35 or 40?

I dare not speak for KantoSooner, but a 15% effective corporate tax rate is competitive anywhere in the world and certainly wouldn't be a reason to displace American jobs.

[KantoSooner]

Depreciation is an expense in the income statement not a tax deduction. Rather than expense the purchase of a large asset....you capitalize (debit property, credit cash) it and then expense the loss in value of the asset over time or usage.
I am not saying it is. I am saying no capital equipment write offs against income. You sell something for a buck, Uncle Sugar (and his ugly step children) get 15%. You can't make it? Don't go into business. All of the 'adjustments' to income, or to tax, are attempts to use taxes to 'encourage' or 'discourage' some sort of behaviour. Why don't we just admit that:

A) our legislators and bureaucrats are not that smart and the rules tend to do almost everything but what they were intended to do.
B) Everyone is larcenous some of the time and some people are 24/7 and our regulators are (See A, above) not the sharpest tools in the box. Thus, the more complex things get, the more the dedicated will be able to game the system.
and, finally,
C) Even the honest, if they get some money, hire experts to help them on their taxes. This creates not only the appearance, but the dead bang certainty of unfairness in the system and undercuts the legitimacy of our union.

And the whole damn mess makes it well nigh impossible to tell who's paying what and whether it's 'fair'.

so, I say: get rid of the whole mess, move to something simple and clean and fix the rate at some figure we can all agree upon that allows the good folks in DC enough to keep them busy and out of the rest of the country.

[KantoSooner]

Oh, and Chuck, go ahead and speak for me any time you feel like it. Cheers.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I am not saying it is. I am saying no capital equipment write offs against income. You sell something for a buck, Uncle Sugar (and his ugly step children) get 15%. You can't make it? Don't go into business. All of the 'adjustments' to income, or to tax, are attempts to use taxes to 'encourage' or 'discourage' some sort of behaviour. Why don't we just admit that:

A) our legislators and bureaucrats are not that smart and the rules tend to do almost everything but what they were intended to do.
B) Everyone is larcenous some of the time and some people are 24/7 and our regulators are (See A, above) not the sharpest tools in the box. Thus, the more complex things get, the more the dedicated will be able to game the system.
and, finally,
C) Even the honest, if they get some money, hire experts to help them on their taxes. This creates not only the appearance, but the dead bang certainty of unfairness in the system and undercuts the legitimacy of our union.

And the whole damn mess makes it well nigh impossible to tell who's paying what and whether it's 'fair'.

so, I say: get rid of the whole mess, move to something simple and clean and fix the rate at some figure we can all agree upon that allows the good folks in DC enough to keep them busy and out of the rest of the country.

Why would you not allow depreciation deductions. You realize that depreciation is the cost of acquiring an asset amortized over the life of the asset? Are you saying operating the asset is a legitimate business expense but acquiring the asset is not? Why do you want to discourage capital investment? That would be really insane fiscal policy.

[Midtowner]

You're self employed I assume. How big is your tax bill compared to the rest of your expenses? I still don't get your point. Your point is they don't pay enough taxes because they spend more drilling wells than they do on taxes?

All things considered, I probably pay 25-30% of my revenue in tax.

No, my point is that their tax expenses compared to their revenue are miniscule.

[Chuck Bao]

Why would you not allow depreciation deductions. You realize that depreciation is the cost of acquiring an asset amortized over the life of the asset? Are you saying operating the asset is a legitimate business expense but acquiring the asset is not? Why do you want to discourage capital investment? That would be really insane fiscal policy.

Oil field accounting is just whack. I know that because I was temporarily an energy analyst and trying to make sense of their financial accounts and I couldn't. Enron is a very good example and it wasn't because we are too stupid to understand. It is because the disclosure requirements aren't enough for a publicly traded stock. For the record, I don't blame oil companies for being secretive because that is what they do. Many of them do write off investments while recognizing proven and possible reserves. Yeah, that is tricky and should be recognized as such.

That is old news. I am much more interested in Texas's taxing mineral rights owners for their oil/natural gas reserves based on oil company projections. It is a very strange counter-balance between public disclosure, stock prices and the interests of the mineral rights owners. I was told that Oklahoma will pass similar legislation. Do any of you have an opinion on this?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am just tired of the politicians playing games with the tax law and the money that is sent to them by US and entrusted to them to spend it wisely. They can't. Time to wean people off the teat and give them less to play with. A flat tax where EVERYONE pays is a fair way to start. Now whether it is 10% or 15% or whatever, I would let a good debate decide. But what we currently have is extremely broke and we as a nation need to stop the class warfare and the envy as well as the thought of "redistribution of wealth". Everyone needs skin in the game and not a free ride.

[KantoSooner]

Why would you not allow depreciation deductions. You realize that depreciation is the cost of acquiring an asset amortized over the life of the asset? Are you saying operating the asset is a legitimate business expense but acquiring the asset is not? Why do you want to discourage capital investment? That would be really insane fiscal policy.

I don't want to encourage or discourage anything with the tax code. The minute we start trying to jigger the economy through allowing this or that to be charged against taxes or against revenue, we start down a slippery slope that ends up with an 11,000 page tax code that no one has read through or really understands and that is rife with opportunities for gamesmanship, outright fraud and manipulation. What we have today.

[dwarthog]

I am just tired of the politicians playing games with the tax law and the money that is sent to them by US and entrusted to them to spend it wisely. They can't. Time to wean people off the teat and give them less to play with. A flat tax where EVERYONE pays is a fair way to start. Now whether it is 10% or 15% or whatever, I would let a good debate decide. But what we currently have is extremely broke and we as a nation need to stop the class warfare and the envy as well as the thought of "redistribution of wealth". Everyone needs skin in the game and not a free ride.

Agreed.

All of the information necessary to figure out a good flat rate is at their fingertips. Come up with 3 or 4 income ranges, determine what the actual effective tax is for that range, include a few "standard" deductions and then set the flat rate to that.

IMO, ain't going to happen. Politicians won't give up the ability to treat the money as their personal piggy bank, doling it out the "special interests" in their districts or blocks of voters who cry about "fairness" when they have to actually contribute to the system.

[soonercruiser]

Overhaul of the tax code needs to be a campaign promise from the "Right"!
(Not just Paul Ryan)

[Soonerjeepman]

one of the news stations up here in KC promoting a big story on fracking...just their leadin makes ya feel it's this big evil thing..all the dangers...blah blah blah...

[KantoSooner]

Overhaul of the tax code needs to be a campaign promise from the "Right"!
(Not just Paul Ryan)
You're correct that such a promise is more likely to come from 'the right' if only for philosophical reasons; but, frankly, I'd take it if Barney Frank was the guiding light.

It's been talked about my entire life and no one has the cojones to do a damn thing about it. Hell, my law school tax prof (I had to take the course, thought I'd hate it and it turned out to be fascinating) used to just laugh at the whole thing. He claimed that if you devoted about 45 minutes a day, you could avoid, quite legally mind you, virtually all of your tax, there was so much crap larded into the code.

[pphilfran]

Agreed.

All of the information necessary to figure out a good flat rate is at their fingertips. Come up with 3 or 4 income ranges, determine what the actual effective tax is for that range, include a few "standard" deductions and then set the flat rate to that.

IMO, ain't going to happen. Politicians won't give up the ability to treat the money as their personal piggy bank, doling it out the "special interests" in their districts or blocks of voters who cry about "fairness" when they have to actually contribute to the system.

We would need around 25%...

So the upper crust would pay something like 45%...upper middle 30...lower middle 20...and then the bottom at nada to 5%...

[pphilfran]

The more deductions you build into the rate the higher the top rate will be...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So the upper crust would pay something like 45%...upper middle 30...lower middle 20...and then the bottom at nada to 5%...

Why, make it like 10 or 15% for EVERYONE, no exceptions. I wouldn't even make it based on income. You older than 18 and have a heart beat, you pay... EVERYONE needs skin in the game... or we get into the class envy and redistribution of wealth. You earn an income- you pay, you on welfare - you pay, you go to school - you pay...

[pphilfran]

If you are going to make it the same for everyone you are going to need closer to 25%...

I can't expect someone making 20k a year pay 5k in taxes...

It would never fly...

[TitoMorelli]

The 'Crucify Them' Presidency
Al Armendariz, the EPA official who resigned in disgrace this week, was no outlier among the Obama administration's regulators.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL



Al "Crucify Them" Armendariz resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency this week, for the mistake of telling it like it is. All he leaves behind is an entire administration of Al Armendarizes.

EPA chief Lisa Jackson was quick to assure the public that her regional administrator—who was caught on video describing his desire to "crucify" oil and gas companies—was not "representative of the agency." Mr. Armendariz's views, she said, "don't reflect any policy that we have, and they don't reflect our actions over the past two years." At least she didn't say it under oath.

The Armendariz story matters precisely because he is the model Obama regulator. Hamstrung by both public opinion and Congress, President Obama has turned to these types to enact his broader agenda.

The regional EPA administrator was no rogue appointee. Rather, "there are Armendarizes all throughout this administration" says Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, who first drew attention to the "crucify" video. They were chosen for a purpose.

Consider the broader tale of Mr. Armendariz, lost in the wake of the sensational video. Prior to being appointed by President Obama in late 2009 to serve as EPA's point man for south-central states, Mr. Armendariz was at Texas's Southern Methodist University. His then-résumé showed a scant three years of private-sector experience, with far more time devoted to his work as an adviser to the militant fringe of the environmental community.

Mr. Armendariz's expertise—take note—was working with groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and "Downwinders at Risk" against hydraulic fracturing. Among his achievements: a cameo appearance in "Gasland," the anti-drilling propaganda film, as well as authoring a 2009 study making the wild claim that gas drilling was the cause of more air pollution in Dallas than even cars.

In other words, he was a perfect general for Mr. Obama's war against natural gas. The White House is hostile to fossil fuels, yet it has been unable to get Congress or the public to act. So it has unleashed the EPA to crack down on those industries....

...His actions are no aberration. This is the "Crucify Them" presidency. Mr. Obama couldn't get a card check law passed, so his National Labor Relations Board's union lawyers sue Boeing for locating in a right-to-work state. He couldn't outlaw offshore drilling, so Interior activists continue a permitorium in the Gulf. He can't make ObamaCare work, so Health Department officials threaten to exclude insurers from exchanges if they raise premiums. He couldn't outright kill nuclear energy, so his top nuclear regulator has shut down the Yucca Mountain waste repository to strangle industry growth.

Mr. Armendariz apologized for his "words," though you might wonder why. He was picked to do a job—to "crucify" industry—and he did it. His real mistake was admitting it.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577382492416602720.html

Read the whole thing. It also mentions his large role in the EPA-Range Resources fiasco.

[Chuck Bao]

My uncle's nephew (no blood relation to me) works for the EPA in Dallas or somewhere in North Texas. They say that he is a very disagreeable cuss. I've never met him that I remember. I don't think President Obama had anything to do with his employment or general demeanor. I think of the EPA sorta like the IRS. I wouldn't like it one bit if any of my family worked for the IRS or the EPA. Okay, I do appreciate what they do in a big picture sense but I don't like it when they bully ordinary folks.

[soonercruiser]

Birds of a feather, flock together!

[Whet]

Sierra Club - an arm of the Democrat party:


After months on the sidelines, major liberal donors including the financier George Soros (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/george_soros/index.html?inline=nyt-per) are preparing to inject up to $100 million into independent groups to aid Democrats’ chances this fall.
Organizations likely to be a part of the effort include Catalist (http://catalist.us/) , which creates voter lists for allied liberal groups; ProgressNow (http://www.progressnow.org/), a network of state-based Web sites for liberal opinion and activism; and the Latino Engagement Fund, a new group that works to register and turn out Latino voters for Democrats. Conservative independent groups are financing similar outreach to Latino voters: the American Action Network (http://americanactionnetwork.org/), which spent $26 million against Democratic candidates in 2010, last year unveiled the Hispanic Leadership Network (http://hispanicleadershipnetwork.org/), which will seek to mobilize center-right Latino voters.

Liberals outside the Democracy Alliance are also likely to make significant contributions, as are labor unions, which plan to spend up to $400 million on state, local and federal races, and advocacy groups like the

Sierra Club. (http://www.sierraclub.org/)