Friday, December 24, 2010

Half Hearted Denial

The Obama Regime has started its end run around the Constitution and legislation in the areas of green house gas emission regulation.

WASHINGTON, December 23, 2010 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced its plans to issue Federal Implementation Plans as part of its upcoming regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. American Petroleum Institute (API) Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman called today’s action unprecedented and coercive:

“In unprecedented fashion, EPA is now coercing some states to relinquish their authority and is directly usurping state regulatory authority in Texas. EPA’s stationary source greenhouse gas regulations are scheduled to take effect January 2, 2011, with court review still pending, and the EPA and state programs are still works in progress.

“EPA is cramming too much in too short of a time. The administration’s focus should be job creation and economic recovery, not unnecessary and burdensome regulations that will threaten jobs and create a drag on business efforts to invest, expand and put people back to work.

“API hopes that EPA will reconsider its costly and unworkable greenhouse gas regulations. The Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions, and elected members of Congress should chart U.S. climate change policy.”

API represents more than 450 oil and natural gas companies, leaders of a technology-driven industry that supplies most of America’s energy, supports more than 9.2 million U.S. jobs and 7.5 percent of the U.S. economy, and, since 2000, has invested nearly $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives.

And it has also decided to implement net neutrality without lawful or constitutional authority by a mere vote of the FCC that were previously ruled unconstitutional.

As you may have heard, this week the FCC approved net neutrality rules that sought to strike compromise between Internet companies, broadband providers and consumers. The nitty-gritty starts on page 27 of the document, but here's the gist:

Transparency: Broadband providers for both wired and wireless Internet must disclose their network management policies.

No Blocking: Wired broadband providers may not block any lawful content, applications or services. Wireless broadband providers are not required to allow all applications and services, but may not block any lawful Websites applications that compete with its telephony or video service. This is all subject to "reasonable network management."

No Discrimination: Wired broadband providers may not speed up or slow down individual types of lawful traffic, with exceptions for reasonable network management. No such rules apply to wireless broadband.

As the Washington Post's Cecilia Kang notes, one of the major sticking points is that last rule, which would govern deals between an Internet company and a broadband provider for faster delivery (also known as "paid prioritization"). Although the rules allow for paid prioritization, these deals would "raise significant cause for concern" according to the FCC, and would be subject to increased scrutiny.

How will the FCC's rules be enforced? Using the same process as its cable access complaint rules, the FCC will allow users to submit formal complaints, which are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In most cases the burden of proof will be on users, but based on the evidence, the FCC can also make Internet providers prove they weren't breaking the rules. The FCC believes it can "issue citations and impose forfeiture penalties for violations of our rules." See page 82 of the document for more on enforcement.

Overall, the rules are similar to the framework that Google and Verizon proposed in August. Given critics' reaction to the Google-Verizon framework, it's no surprise that net neutrality supporters are flogging the FCC's rules for being too soft on paid prioritization and wireless Internet. Meanwhile, Republicans have vowed to strike down the rules in Congress.

However, Bnet's Erik Sherman argues that the rules may not even exist, because only one commissioner voted completely in favor of the rules along with Chairman Julius Genachowski,according to the FCC's own press release. One commissioner voted "in part" while the remaining two dissented. With no clear 3-2 vote, the rules as a whole were not technically approved.

In other words, the battle over the Internet's future is far from over.

And in light of this unlawful and un-Constitutional action, what are we to make of the Regime's half-hearted denial that any similar action will not be taken on the immigration front?

Obama and the lawmakers will likely discuss ways to move forward on immigration issues heading into the next Congress, where Republicans will hold the majority in the House and a more robust minority in the Senate.

"I think both the president and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus wanted to talk about a series of issues, including how to move forward on the disappointing end to this session as it relates to the DREAM Act, and what can be done in the next session," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing Tuesday.

Members of the caucus, most visibly Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), had long pushed their colleagues to back the DREAM Act.

The administration signaled Monday it will push for passage of the bill in the future. Organizing for America — President Obama's political arm housed at the Democratic National Committee — sent out an appeal to supporters that vowed to revive the legislation.

Gibbs said it is unlikely that the administration will take executive action on immigration laws, saying any change has to go through Congress.

Half-hearted is certainly the correct description. Since the Regime has not categorically denied that it will take administrative action on behalf of amnesty for illegal aliens, and, more importantly, it continues its administrative amnesty, the possibility of either a secret or open administrative amnesty is highly likely. The Regime accepts victories by legislation, but in defeat goes outside the Constitutional order to impose its will, by hook or by crook.

No comments: