« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

VIDEO: Barack Obama’s EPA Doesn’t Care About Jobs

By: Tabitha Hale (Diary)  |  April 18th, 2011 at 12:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The EPA has admitted that they don’t even consider jobs when they do their economic analysis. No really. They don’t even think about the potential impact on unemployment. This is appalling, coming from an administration that has said over and over and over again that jobs are the top priority.

To recap:

White House Briefing, 1/19/2010

“The top priority is to continue to work hard on getting this economy back on track and creating jobs,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told a news briefing.

State of the Union, 1/27/2010

“Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010,” the president said. His call for a new jobs bill drew bipartisan support from the Members of Congress seated before him in the House chamber.

Weekly Presidential Address last month:

While remarking on the fall of the unemployment rate, he singled out “creating jobs and opportunities in a fiercely competitive world” as a top priority because “we have a lot more work to do…for the millions more who still don’t have the right job or all the work they need to live out the American Dream.”

New Year’s Resolution! Weekly Address, 1/1/11:

“And our most important task now is to keep that recovery going… As president, that’s my commitment to you: to do everything I can to make sure our economy is growing, creating jobs and strengthening our middle class. That’s my resolution for the coming year.”

As much as this administration has been giving lip service to the idea that we need to get Americans back to work, they have failed to reconcile the fundamental conflict with their focus regulation of greenhouse gases through the EPA. To confirm, via Fox Nation:

The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.

An exaggeration? Not at all. Watch the whole thing.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • msctex

    Progressives are under the sway of a set of beliefs which function in the same place as does Religion in the minds of some. They are unquestionably running on Faith, but the stark contrast is the mutability of what stands in lieu of God. Depending upon the day, it can be Mother Earth, then Social Justice the next.

    They are thus perfectly willing to sacrifice other people towards this nebulous Greater Good. Jobs are relatively nothing. That thundering flake Ayers thought about 25,000,000 (twenty-five million) Americans would have to die before his plans could be put in place. Is it really surprising a few thousand pink slips would not show up on their moral radar, given it is all in the name of supporting Gaia?

  • kajun

    Says, “The video you have requested is not available.”

    Have the Obama censors beat us to it??

    • http://tabithahale.com Tabitha Hale

      No, it was my fault. Should work now!

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    without considering the impact on unemployment??

    That’d be doing clinical tests for a new drug without worrying about that pesky mortality stuff.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/CostEconomics/Guidances//eam.pdf

      The link above is the 159 page US Army Manual For Economic Analysis. You won’t find any directive in there to take employment impact of a project into account. In fact, if you aren’t careful, it can be easy to list fewer people requird as a benefit. Outside of entitlements, the government cuts costs pretty much the same way major corporations do. They gut middle management.

      • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

        In reading the first few pages of the Army manual, the concern is with financial impact to a single entity: the Army. The projects are Army projects, and the resources Army resources. Much like a business, it is very much a cost-benefit situation. It’s not ABOUT greater economic impact; only how it impacts the economics of that institution. Now, I would grant that such a project

        Not so with the EPA. The EPA analysis refers to rules proposed by the EPA to be imposed on THE CITIZENS. Their economic analysis, then, is necessarily one that is designed to look at how those rules IMPACT the economy at large, and NOT simply the institutional economy of the EPA.

        In other words, we’re comparing apples and oranges here.

    • ja_ak

      http://www.tnr.com/article/81990/obama-cost-benefit-revolution

      ‘Obama

  • cja99

    As America is going down the tubes, who is going to save her?