Dear President Obama

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I am writing you as a representative of a large American food chain that employ's tens of thousands of Americans. It has come to our attention that under your regime, we must now report all our actions to you. So, in following the law, I am saddended to report that we are no longer able to afford health insurance for our employees.

The measures you & your Democrat Congress have forced upon us will cause us to either drop coverage (allowing the US tax payer to pick up the new tab) or to cease operating in the United States. I hereby request leave from the recently passed Obamacare bill. Insurance will cease on November 1. 2010.

Sinceerly,
R McDonald.


PS...Jack Clown & my friends at 3M will be in contact shortly.
 
Dear Mr McDonald,


Seeing that it is an election year, here is a waiver.

President B H Obama
 
R. should learn that it is "employs" and not "employ's." maybe he will get a waiver for marginal literacy.
 
obama_vacation_3.jpg
 
You can never convince me that the dismantling of this country is not by design.

SOURCE

Beef Industry: U.S. May Need ‘Strategic Hamburger Reserve’ after Obama EPA Implements New Regulations
Thursday, October 07, 2010
By Chris Neefus

Washington (CNSNews.com) – According to a representative of the cattle and beef industry, America may need a “strategic hamburger reserve” if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements proposed new reguilations for cattle producers.

“From where I sit, (the Obama administration) appears to be aimed at destroying the cattle industry in America as we know it,” Tamara Thies, the chief environmental counsel at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said on Capitol Hill last week.

“It is ironic that as we work to become less dependent on foreign oil, Obama policies are likely to make us more dependent on foreign beef. Maybe we’ll need to start a strategic hamburger reserve after the Obama administration is finished with us.”

Thies' comments came at a hearing conducted by the House Republicans’ Rural America Solutions Group about the EPA’s proposed regulations on the industry, which include the toughest dust regulations in history – one which would significantly impact the rural economy by imposing steep fines on cattle producers who, Thies said, most likely cannot afford them.

“It is unlikely these realities are lost on the EPA, making one wonder if the real goal of the agency is to do away altogether with economic activity throughout the bread basket of this country and turn it into a vast national park,” she added.

The forum was held by Reps. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee; Sam Graves (R-Mo.), ranking member of the House Small Business subcommittee; and Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, to consider several of the new proposed EPA regulations.

In a periodic review of its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which allow the EPA to regulate certain forms of particulate matter in the air, the EPA determined that it might raise the standard so that only 65-85 µg/m3 of dust would be permitted in the air (as opposed to 150 µg/m3). Violating the proposed new NAAQS standards can result in civil penalties under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA published that draft policy assessment in the July 8, 2010 issue of the Federal Register.

“(EPA) is preparing to issue a proposed regulation that is twice as stringent as the current dust standard, and is more stringent than background levels of dust in many parts of the U.S,” Thies told the congressmen.

“Incredibly, we are talking about dust kicked up by tilling fields and harvesting crops, cattle movements, and pickups driving down dirt roads,”she said. “For agriculture, the current standard is already very difficult and costly to meet—doubling it would be virtually impossible.”

That new proposal also alarmed 75 members of Congress who represent rural districts, including Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), John Spratt (D-S.C.), and Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), who sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Sept. 27 urging the agency to “refrain from going down this path” on dust regulation.

“Considering the administration’s claim that it is focusing on revitalizing rural America and rural economic development, a proposal such as this would have a significant negative impact on those very goals,” they wrote. “We are hopeful that common sense will prevail and the EPA will refrain from causing extreme hardship to farmers, livestock producers, and other resource-based industries throughout rural America.

“Whether it is livestock kicking up dust, corn being combined, or a pickup driving down a gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event in rural areas. Common sense requires the EPA to acknowledge that the wind blows dust around in these areas, and that is a fact of life.”

Jackson did not attend the forum on Capitol Hill last week despite receiving an invitation. A spokesperson for the EPA indicated they would have a reaction about why they were proposing these rules in a difficult economy, but did not do so by press time.

The dust regulation is one of several new proposals the EPA is considering, including regulating ammonia emissions from cattle operations; nationalizing standards for soil phosphorus levels, which determine where farmers can use manure; regulating greenhouse gas emissions; and greater regulation of farming on the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

“The fact is, the EPA is waging an unprecedented war to end modern production of animal agriculture,” Thies said in her testimony.

“EPA exhibits reckless indifference to scientific fact and, instead, imposes stringent regulations based on nothing more than its biased anti-animal agriculture agenda that will leave many cattle operations with no recourse but to shut down and eliminate jobs,” she added.
 
You can never convince me that the dismantling of this country is not by design.

SOURCE

Slowdown in Shallow-Water Drilling Could Cost Gulf Economy $4.3 Billion
Friday, October 08, 2010
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The reduced number of shallow-water oil drilling permits issued by the government after the BP oil spill could place as many as 40,000 jobs at risk and cost the region $4.3 billion in lost wages and revenues, according to a study by the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University.

“We’re talking about a significant loss of income to a number of Gulf Coast communities whose livelihoods depend on an active oil and gas operation on the Gulf Coast,” Dr. Bernard Weinstein, the author of the study, told CNSNews.com.

While there is no official ban on shallow-water drilling – drilling occurring in less than 500 feet of water – the federal government has drastically reduced the number of drilling permits it has issued since a deepwater oil rig run by oil giant BP caught fire and sank in April 2010, leaking millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

In response to that event, the Department of the Interior issued a ban on all oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. The government lifted the ban on shallow-water drilling in May 2010, opting to keep the ban on deepwater drilling in place until at least November 30.

Despite the lifting of the shallow-water ban, Interior officials have not issued as many drilling permits as they previously did, leading to what the study’s author called a “de facto ban” on shallow water oil production.

“[D]espite the official removal of the limitation on shallow-water operations, the rate at which the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEM) now issues permits authorizing drilling of new shallow-water wells has slowed markedly in comparison to pre-April 20th levels,” the study says.

“As a result, the impacts of the deepwater drilling ban have been exacerbated by a de facto moratorium on shallow-water drilling operations,” it reports.

Compared to deepwater drilling, shallow-water drilling is relatively easy and historically safe, compounding the confusion over the government’s sluggish pace of approving drilling applications, which are necessary for businesses to drill for oil.

“Despite the industry's demonstrated safety record and straightforward approach to subsurface energy resource extraction, as of September 22, 2010 BOEM had issued only six permits for new shallow-water wells in the five months since the April 20th Deepwater Horizon accident,” the study reported. “Prior to the spill, the Interior Department issued an average of 10 to 15 permits for new shallow water wells per month.”

This slow pace has resulted in nearly one-third of the shallow water drilling fleet to sit idle, a fact that could “mothball” the entire shallow water drilling industry due to the fact that rigs move from one project to the next approximately every six weeks. If the government continues its slow pace of drilling permit approvals, nearly 75 percent of the shallow water fleet could be idled by November 30, the report stated.

This slowdown in drilling could cost the region’s economy an estimated $4.3 billion over the course of the year, the report found.

“Over the course of one year, should 75 percent of the rigs become stacked as a result of BOEM inaction on issuing permits, the direct economic losses to the nation’s businesses and workers would exceed $4.3 billion, with Louisiana taking the biggest hit and Mississippi second,” it said.

The economic effects of this “de facto” ban on shallow-water drilling are not confined to the drilling industry, the report explained. Because the oil industry is such a large regional employer, sectors from banking to hospitality are being negatively affected.

“Many small businesses are scaling back expenses and laying off workers while others are cutting back because of uncertainty about the cost of proposed new regulations for offshore drilling once the drilling ban is lifted,” the report said.

“Banks are leery about making loans to oil, gas and boat businesses for fear that more operations will move overseas,” according to the study. “Housing prices and sales have dropped markedly over the past several months -- even as they’ve stabilized nationally -- while pending residential home sales are down 23 percent from a year ago.”

The long-term consequences of both the deepwater and de facto shallow-water bans could be severe, the study warned, as jobs move overseas, oil imports rise, and U.S. technological leadership diminishes.

oil spill commission

President Barack Obama with BP Oil Spill Commission co-chairs, former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and former EPA Administrator William Reilly, in the Rose Garden on Tuesday, June 1, 2010. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

“If the bans remain in place much longer, additional exploration and production will move overseas, destroying thousands of high wage American jobs while weakening the nation’s economic and national security as larger quantities of fossil fuels are imported,” reads the report. “And as more rigs relocate to other countries, the U.S. risks losing its global technical leadership in offshore drilling, just as has occurred with nuclear energy.”

The report’s author, Dr. Bernard Weinstein, told CNSNews.com that the loss of income to Gulf Coast communities would be “significant” and would affect through the wider economy.

“That income [loss] ripples through the economy and affects not only those directly employed in offshore exploration and production but all the service industries for that matter [and] small businesses providing goods and services to residents in those communities, grocery stores, farmers – you can just go on down the list,” he said.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement did not respond to messages left by CNSNews.com inquiring about the slowdown in drilling permits at press time.
 
Back
Top