OBAMA THE CZAR-MAKER BECOMES THE ULTIMATE CZAR

How do you affect public opinion? Start with the very impressionable young, in their formative years. Then they can tell Mommy and Daddy how wrong it is to drive such a big car, and we have to save the planet.

I noticed my son coughing into the bend in his arm, and had to finally laugh. Asking me what was so funny, I mentioned he was doing the Obama cough. He said "No way", his children taught him to do that, so how could that be, because they were also teaching it in Pre-School? Exactly! Because their teachers taught them to do that .... because Obama taught the teachers to do that. This is how it starts.

Now we have the threat of Cap & Trade, and a perfect opportunity to promote this using the spotlight on the Copenhagen convention, and a diabolical video using a hysterical child. Looks eerily similar to a Kennedy Center production, with the guest speaker being Steven Spielberg. It's Showtime.

If common sense rules, hopefully the Climategate emails will have more influence on logical minds, but America wants to play pretend while Rome burns. The Heritage Foundation writes further:


Obama the Czar-Maker Becomes the Ultimate Czar
December 8, 2009

An innocent young girl rises from her bed in a dry, barren wasteland and watches as an earthquake violently splits the land around her, while a tornado rips apart a metropolis far in the distance. A tidal wave rushes toward her, and she jumps to a tree branch with no time to spare, avoiding a horrific death. She awakens from her nightmare, screaming in fear, and then solemnly implores the viewer, “Please help the world.” This exploitative video from the environmental left shockingly debuted yesterday at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and is likely the first of many assaults on the senses employed to gin up support for a global climate treaty that would lead to an even more apocalyptic end for the U.S. economy.

Those disaster-movie-style scare tactics are an act of desperation necessary to sway the public’s wavering opinion on the notion of man-made climate change, particularly in light of the Climategate scandal, which exposed the dirty dealings of global warming “experts” who evidently deleted, doctored and destroyed inconveniently true data that rendered their climate change theories bunk and not beyond question. But where public opinion can’t be manipulated with fear mongering and lies, political victory will be won with the brute force of federal regulation.

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant under the Clean Air Act, granting itself authority for an enormous, unprecedented regulatory undertaking that would greatly expand the EPA’s power. Because 85 percent of the U.S. economy operates on fossil fuel, the EPA would essentially have the ability to regulate every aspect of life in America – and it would be able to enact draconian climate-change policies without any accountability to American voters.

The EPA’s actions are a regulatory end-run around a politically-unpopular Democratic Senate who may not be able – or willing – to deliver on cap-and-trade climate change legislation. A lack of a mandate from home might have been an embarrassment for President Barack Obama, who otherwise would have arrived next week at Copenhagen empty-handed, unable to tout climate change progress from back in the States. However, as The Wall Street Journal opines this morning:

President Obama isn’t about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda. With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon.

The un-democratic EPA ruling drew applause from the powers that be at Copenhagen, who saw the ruling for what it is – a despotic, unilateral decision designed to move a global environmental agenda forward, despite the lack of consent from the governed. An article on the Copenhagen Conference Web site declared, “US body aids Copenhagen conference,” and Yvo de Boer, the head of the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said, “This is very significant in the sense that if (…) the Senate fails to adopt legislation (on emissions), then the administration will have the authority to regulate.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), too, applauded the EPA’s power grab and cautioned that the agency’s actions should send a message to Congress that if they don’t act, the President will have the authority to act anyhow, so they better get on board the train before it leaves the station without them. Quoth Kerry:

The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration is more than justified to use the EPA to impose new regulations.

Obama the czar-maker becomes the ultimate czar.

The Heritage Foundation is keeping a close eye on the Copenhagen Conference, and two of its experts, Ben Lieberman and Steven Groves, will be among a handful of conservatives on site for the proceedings. They have already authored several articles and videos on the conference, and they will be video blogging from Copenhagen. You can follow them at Heritage’s Copenhagen Consequences Web site.


QUICK HITS

President Obama’s approval rating hit an all-time low of 47% on Monday, according to a Gallup poll. He enjoyed a brief post-Afghanistan war speech bump in approval, which has since evaporated.

Columbus, OH, city schools used $145,000 in federal grants to rent marble-clad banquet halls and hotels for a three-day conference to train its teachers; apparently the school district’s 120 buildings weren’t suitable for the occasion.

If one Obama usurpation of congressional power weren’t for one day enough, here’s another: the President is considering using $200 billion in leftover TARP funds for a new federal jobs program, rather than using the money to pay down the deficit.

After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared that Republicans and Democrats must “start trusting each other,” he compared the GOP’s position on health care to those who opposed the end of slavery.

TRANSPARENT COSTS OF CAP AND TRADE

Back in June, long before the August rallys, tea parties, townhalls, and the March on DC, Congress passed the Cap & Trade - barely, after back room threats and the total uproar over the Republican 'Gang of Eight'. Lest we never forget who they were, here's the list to remember come their next election (click to enlarge), because without their vote, it would not have passed:

If the Republicans had voted with their constituents, we would not have this threat hanging over our heads, but it is back now in the Senate. Like government run health care, it's not about saving the earth, it's about government control, and this time it will be every aspect of your life. Not to mention, Cap and Trade is the final straw that will destroy our economy, and push Americans over the edge -- in need of government hand outs. The Heritage Foundation writes:


The Transparent Costs of Cap and Trade
October 26, 2009

On June 26th of this year, the House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. More commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill (named after bill sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), the 1,427-page bill tries to control global temperatures by creating a “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions, and then hoping that greenhouse emitters would “trade” emissions permits meet the cap. Under the scheme, the government would issue fewer allowances each year, causing the cost of the permits to rise. The cost of these allowances is a tax, and under Waxman-Markey, the tax would rise each year. As with any tax, it will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy and product prices.

On August 6th, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis released a report detailing the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey. Since energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels, the Waxman-Markey bill’s arbitrary and severe restrictions on the current energy supply and infrastructure will not only have direct impact on consumers’ budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, but also cause unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. CDA estimates that Waxman-Markey legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

Surely our study did not produce the results Waxman and Markey expected. Earlier this month Reps. Waxman and Markey sent us, and a number of other institutions, a letter asking us to answer 33 methodological questions about the analytical techniques used in our study. We were delighted by Waxman and Markey’s letter since it is just the kind of thoughtful investigative work our lawmakers should do more often. For example, they asked if our model took into account an increase in private sector investments in research and development that would be sparked by the legislation and a new carbon market. Answer: It did. Our model incorporates both short and long-run responses to higher energy prices.

Waxman also asked if our model quantified any benefits of avoided climate change. Answer: It didn’t. Because according to estimates based on IPCC data, the Waxman-Markey bill would only impact global temperatures by .044 degrees C (about .09 degrees F) by 2050. There simply are no economic benefits from such a minuscule impact.

Waxman-Markey did not send their questions to some notable organizations that have conducted analysis of their bill like the Congressional Budget Office and the Brooking Institution. After we requested they do so, we have since received word that Waxman and Markey sent the same letter to the CBO. They had previously included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy Information Administration (EIA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CRA International, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC).

In the interests of an honest and transparent debate about the costs of cap and trade the Heritage Foundation has devoted a space on our website, http://www.heritage.org/, where we have posted our answers in their entirety. We have formally invited the other organizations who were asked these questions to allow us to post their responses as well, in the interest of full transparency.

Let’s hope the Waxman-Markey questionnaire signals that a serious debate can now take place. American families deserve to be kept fully apprised of how Congress intends to act, and how those actions will most likely affect their pocketbooks, their jobs, and their lives.

CAP AND TRADE IS BACK THIS MONTH

"You never want a good crisis to go to waste". Thank you Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel. And, they're piling it on, but for most of us who have lived in the real world, he's a rookie.  Bring it on.

Overlapping with the threat of government run health care will be Cap and Tax, and it's set to start a three-day hearing October 27th. The only thing is their new draft is conveniently unavailable to the voting public. Figure that, and so much for another broken campaign promise -- transparency.

Continuing their series on Cap and Trade, the Heritage Foundation writes:


A Call for Transparency
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
October 20, 2009

As you read this, the Environmental Protection Agency is modeling the economic impacts of a semi-draft form of the Boxer-Kerry cap and trade legislation. “Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer said a bill EPA is analyzing should be marked up in her panel by the second week in November. An EPA official said the agency has pledged to deliver the cost analysis Friday, in time for a three-day set of hearings starting Oct. 27.”

We’d do it too. But we can’t. According to Congressional Quarterly, the senators “produced a ‘semi-final draft’ of the legislation -- including the critical formula for distributing billions of dollars’ worth of pollution credits to different industries and interest groups.” But that draft is unavailable to the public. It has only been given to the EPA to model the economic impacts.

President Obama, in his memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, wrote that “Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.”

Bill Beach, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, wrote a letter to Senator Boxer (CCing Senator Kerry, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Senator Inhofe) asking for a copy of the semi-draft legislation to model the economic effects of the bill.

Charles River Associates (commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce), The American Council for Capital Formation (commissioned by National Association of Manufacturers) The Brookings Institution, the Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Political Economy Research Institute and The Heritage Foundation all produced economic analyses of the Waxman-Markey House cap and trade bill, but only the EPA has the semi-draft legislation of the Boxer-Kerry version.

For the sake of transparency, we’d like the EPA or Senator Boxer to publicly release the most recent version of the Boxer-Kerry cap and trade bill that includes the all-important allocation of billions of dollars of allowances. Clearly the more details we have about the bill, the better economic analysis we can provide in a timely manner for Members of Congress and for the general public.


>> Visit Heritage's Rapid Response page for a collection of the latest research and policy resources on cap and trade.

CAP & TRADE COSTS FLY SKY HIGH

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste", so says Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel, Hillary Clinton & Barack Hussein Obama. While we battle government run health care, Cap & Trade is over-lapping, with Sen. Barbara Boxer D-CA & John Kerry D-MA leading the way.

It's easy enough to throw up your hands, but if we do, the country we have known and loved will be seriously changed. So, onward Christian soldiers .... we continue to fight the good fight.

The continuing analysis of Cap & Trade's newest developments from the Heritage Foundation:


Cap and Trade Costs Fly Sky High
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
October 6, 2009

When gas prices surpassed $4 per gallon last summer, it forced families to cancel their vacations. Not only was the day-to-day driving eating up families’ budgets, but it made the cost of traveling somewhere for vacation all that more expensive. Purchasing airline tickets was out of the question for many. If cap and trade becomes law, news could only get worse for the air travelers and the airline industry.

From CQ Politics: “The most recent draft of the Senate bill by John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., includes aircraft and aircraft engines in its emissions-trading plan. The language tracks with provisions in a climate change bill the House passed in June.”
Cap and trade, which would artificially raise the price of energy, could cost the airline industry $5 billion dollars according to the article. When speaking about Waxman-Markey, Steve Sear, Delta Air Lines vice president of global sales, said passing cap and trade would result “in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fuel costs that will either have to be absorbed or passed on to customers.”

On top of that, Sear went on to say that Waxman-Markey, officially known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) would hurt the industry’s ability to innovate on its own:
“Those additional costs will undermine the ultimate aim of the act—to decrease carbon emissions—by making it difficult, if not impossible, for U.S. airlines to invest in the technology and alternative fuels that can reduce harmful greenhouse gases. ACES also would threaten our ability to provide jobs to thousands of U.S. workers, and airline service to hundreds of communities. It would put U.S. carriers in a competitive disadvantage against foreign airlines immune to the measure’s effects.”

Whether greenhouse gases are harmful is beside the point. An energy tax on any businesses will reduce the amount of money that can be spent on innovation and entrepreneurial activity that produce greater efficiency.

>> Visit Heritage's Rapid Response page for a collection of the latest research and policy resources on cap and trade.

A POLLUTION REDUCTION BILL?

More 'focus group' words in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. Are we really that dumb? I don't think so, but congress sure does.

Congress has obviously realized that "Cap & Trade" is not going over well with Americans, so how do they get the public on their side? Change the name so it sounds as though they really care. How does "Pollution Reduction and Investment" sound?

That would be laughable, if it were not so serious. It's another attempt to control major industries, collect more dollars from a weary public, and get rich in the process. Shades of the housing debacle. How many people got rich off of the backs of Americans, who are now losing their homes and their livelihood? This government is a trainwreck.

In their ongoing series of informative Cap & Trade reports, The Heritage Foundation writes:


A Pollution Reduction Bill?
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
October 1, 2009

Well, that depends on what your definition of pollution is.

As the Senators Boxer and Kerry unveil their cap and trade bill, John Kerry’s recent pitch to the American public is yet another example of how mainstream environmentalists have sought to change the definition of pollution. As Kerry explained last week, the bill is not a “‘cap and trade’ proposal but a ‘pollution reduction’ bill. I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don't think the average American does,’ Kerry said. ‘This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.’” To make this point clear, in the summary of the bill, Kerry and Boxer removed the phrase “cap and trade” and replaced it with “Pollution Reduction and Investment.”

Kerry’s statement points to the recent shift in environmental rhetoric which is less concerned about pollution being linked to smog and toxins in the air and water, and more concerned with what they believe to be the biggest problem: carbon. This new-found definition of pollution has permeated environmental rhetoric and has been heavily employed by the Obama administration. In his speech to the UN last week, Obama mentioned the disastrous consequences that will ensue from “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.” Furthermore, after the Waxman-Markey bill was passed in the House, Obama praised the effort saying that we have seen our reliance on fossil fuels “pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet” and argued that “There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening.”

No longer a debate? Contrary to Obama’s statements, there is a very vigorous debate among scientists as to whether Co2—an invisible component of the human respiratory cycle—can be classified as a pollutant. What is abundantly clear is that the Senate climate change bill is less interested in pollution that is visible or proven to be harmful to human health and almost completely focused on a new-found definition of “carbon pollution.” This is most apparent in the opening sentence of the bill, which repeats the opening of the Waxman-Markey bill: “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.” The bill includes four titles that tackle greenhouse gas “pollution” and pushes for a 20 percent reduction in carbon emission by 2020, compared to the 17 percent reduction in the House bill.

With most of the emphasis being on Co2 and with very little being on proven harmful pollutants, Kerry’s claim that the bill is a “pollution reduction” bill is highly dubious; but there is no doubt that it is a cap and trade bill that will cause massive damage to the economy. As the United States begins to recover from a recession, is the country going to sacrifice the economy for these sudden amendments to the dictionary? Let’s hope not.

>> Visit Heritage's Rapid Response page for a collection of the latest research and policy resources on cap and trade.

CAP & TRADE DESTROYS JOBS and DESTROYS WEALTH

One has to wonder if all this attention being spent on government run health care is a shield to the real threat, otherwise known and Cap & Trade.  The ramifications of this threat are huge and will effect each and every one of us in a time when struggling to keep food on the table is about all we can bear.

The Heritage Foundation has a series of analysises on Cap & Trade, and this report states:


Cap and Trade Destroys Jobs and Destroys Wealth
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
September 24, 2009

When it comes to cap and trade, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says it’s an economic stimulus. President Obama says it’s a jobs bill. Is it either?

Reporters asked Chu if he though the green movement would generate the townhall pushback the health care debate and he responded, “I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity.

George Mason economist Russ Roberts offers his own facetious response to Chu:

“That’s right. It’s a free lunch! There’s no trade-off between cleaner air and economic growth.”

Unfortunately for Americans, as taxpayers and energy consumers, the trade-off is rather large:

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
• Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035.
• Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;

But President Obama said the opposite was true in an endorsement of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill in June:

“The energy bill that passed the House will finally create a set of incentives that will spark a clean energy transformation in our economy. It will spur the development of low carbon sources of energy – everything from wind, solar, and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal. It will spur new energy savings, like the efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer. And most importantly, it will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs. Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill.”

Those “incentives” are subsidies and tax credits complements of the taxpayer. And the jobs President Obama speaks of are in fact real. He gave a few examples in his speech: “In California, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 permanent jobs. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people.”

There’s that free lunch concept again. The subsidies and government handouts for renewable projects means diverts those workers away from more productive use. Moreover, a cap and trade policy will destroy more jobs than it creates. Because cap and trade is a tax on energy, the cost of producing goods for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons; price hikes on goods reduce demand and people have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.

Higher energy prices force businesses to make production cuts and reduce labor. Furthermore, as we see in the current recession, reduced consumer spending only exacerbates this. The overall result is increased unemployment and slow economic growth.

And we’re not the only ones projecting such losses. In fact, at a recent Heritage event on the costs of cap and trade, not one of the 6 speakers representing groups who modeled the bill discussed economic benefits from cap and trade – it was all about the magnitude of the losses


>> Visit Heritage's Rapid Response page for a collection of the latest research and policy resources on cap and trade.

Don't Forget About Renewable Energy Mandates

As Congress gears of for the Fall session, there are several important bills that need attention. Centralizing health care, centralizing energy resources, owning America's largest industries is a road to complete government take over.

Focusing on Cap & Trade, The Heritage Foundation writes:


Don't Forget About Renewable Energy Mandates
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
September 1, 2009

It’s easy to forget that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is not just about cap and trade. There are a number of other problematic provisions buried in the 1,427 pages of legislation. Cap and trade should receive the most attention because it’s the most economically devastating part of the bill, but Waxman-Markey also includes a renewable electricity standard that mandates 6 percent of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar, by 2012. The mandate increases each year until it reaches 25 percent by 2025. It’s a provision that’s had a difficult time moving through Congress in previous bills.

Wind and solar power are promising ideas. They are renewable and clean, and parts of the U.S. are very rich in solar and wind resources. But right now it costs far too much money to generate energy from these sources. Established energy sources like nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas are far more efficient. If any renewable energy source is economically competitive (free of government subsidies that create government dependence), it will have its place in the market, but it’s not up to the government to pick winners and losers among energy sources. Doing so could crowd out energy sources we haven’t even discovered yet.

Government subsidies for renewable energy are only necessary because renewables are too expensive to compete in the market otherwise. In effect, the government is forcing costlier energy options on electricity consumers. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will mean higher taxes and higher electric bills for Americans.

This isn’t just a game of estimates; we can learn from example. Britain’s renewable energy plan will cost 11 to 17 times more than the economic benefits it will bring. In Spain, electricity bills are 10 times higher because of renewable mandates.

Right here at home, Austin, Texas, electricity providers gave consumers a choice to purchase renewable energy. The problem is people aren’t buying it because it’s too expensive and now utility companies are spreading the costs to all the consumers. Moreover, in West Texas, wind suppliers are actually paying people to take their energy.

Renewable energy and other innovative ideas to create energy have potential, but their fate should be decided by the market—not Members of Congress.

OUT-SOURCING YOUR TAX DOLLARS

As if there needed to be another argument against the job killing Cap and Tax bill, the idea of paying foreign countries for their signature on this bill with our tax dollars is mind boggling.

The Heritage Foundation reports:


Outsourcing Your Tax Dollars
August 28, 2009

During a July 7th Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) got Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to admit that “U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.” This is 100% consistent with all the best science which shows that the carbon reductions under Waxman-Markey will not affect global temperatures in any material way. For example a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded:

The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.

As we have asked before, “So how is that ‘developing country participation’ going?” Well, just this week ministers from 10 African countries renewed their intent to demand billions of dollars in aid before they sign any climate agreement and both China and India have also made it crystal clear that they require billions in aid to help finance carbon-reducing projects before they agree to reduce their emissions.

So where are all these billions of dollars going to come from? You, of course. A recently leaked document from the G20 Climate Finance Experts Group refers to “carbon market finance,” as a major source of the “hundreds of billions of dollars per year” delivered to the rest of the world by the U.S. and the other wealthier nations. So what is “carbon market finance?” It’s what Waxman-Markey proponents call cap and trade even though, in reality, all it is a huge new energy tax.

But the story gets even better. Remember all those EPA and CBO estimates purporting to show how little the Waxman-Markey energy tax would hurt consumers? Well, besides the fact that they all ignored the cost of lost GDP from higher energy taxes, the CBO and EPA also assumed that Waxman-Markey would rebate all of its tax proceeds back to consumers. For example, the CBO estimates Waxman-Markey would raise taxes on Americans by $872.8 billion between 2010-2019 but then also assumes that the federal government will immediately turn around and spend $863.8 billion.

In other words, the left in Congress has already spent 100.3% percent of the “carbon market finance” revenues raised. And not a single penny of it has yet been allocated to India, China, and the other developing countries that are demanding cash payments from us before they lift a finger to reduce carbon emissions.

As our economy struggles to recover, our leaders should be working to lower our energy costs and develop our own natural resources, not enacting complex regulatory schemes that will crush our economy and send our hard-earned money overseas.