President Trump may finally do something about the rampant Obama-era climate change alarmism in our regulatory agencies.
Too many government regulators burden and shut down private sector businesses and jobs.
Gabriella Hoffman: President Obama’s EPA deemed all bodies of water—including puddles and ditches— as “navigable waters” subject to regulation under the WOTUS rule.
By Greg Walcher Can no program be allowed to expire?
The author argues that the U.S. should dilute the massive regulatory powers that currently reside in a single EPA Administrator, whose agency in recent years has been responsible for fully 25% of all federal regulations, a number of which were sharply criticized as being based on faulty or insufficient evidence.
In America’s most powerful, intrusive and costly agency, power resides in one administrator.
Scott Pruitt’s departure leaves Andrew Wheeler as the acting administrator of the EPA for the foreseeable future, with much speculation as to how the former lobbyist and lawyer will run the agency.
Amazing growth – while protecting environment, health and welfare from actual threats.
EPA is asking for your input! EPA is considering changing how it does cost and benefit analysis for new regulations. This is great news, because the Agency's analyses have often been biased in favor of regulation, sometimes to the point of absurdity.
What happens to entry-level jobs when government policy raises the cost of hiring?
With methane, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is doubling down again.
Should the feds seize control over every wet ditch and puddle in the U.S.? Big Green foundations have been lusting after WOTUS power since the late 1990s. People are speaking up and sharing their stories. EPA is sweating. EPA should sweat.
WOTUS gives untrustworthy federal bureaucrats custody of every watershed, creates crushing new power to coerce all who keep America going and offers no benefit to the victimized and demoralized tax-paying public.
Far too often, the rules are based on speculative health and environmental claims, cherry-picked studies, dismissal of analyses that contradict agency assertions, and computer models that reflect unfounded assumptions and agenda-driven rule-making. They often impair our lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, life styles and life spans.