In any case, Scott Pruitt is coming in to clean this mess up and that is in all likelihood exactly what he is going to do.
"lawless" as in not voted on by elected representatives I very much expect leftist judges to rule that these regulations can be imposed, but can't be lifted. Stupid, but it achieves their desired political outcome.
The EPA will no doubt take a more business-friendly approach, but don't expect miracles from him. The CPP, for example, is mandated by the courts and can't be simply cancelled. Pruitt will change something and the EPA is going to get sued by many states and many businesses as a result. After several years of litigation, we'll know what the regulatory structure is going to look like. But there will most likely still be some kind of rule about emitting carbon. That's not a very sophisticated view of the law. Maybe a better word choice would have been "unlegislated." The great majority of the rules that utilities and the like must follow (and it's a highly regulated industry because it's an essential common good and a granted monopoly) are established by executive regulatory bodies like state utility commissions (appointed by governors). Even the legislation related to the industry primarily consists of ordering commissions to draft regulations. Why is this model suddenly illegitimate now because the head of the EPA is appointed? If the Public Utility Commission of Texas fines my company for breaking their rules, should we call foul because those guys were appointed by Gov. Perry and Abbott?
He doesn't have to change a thing, he just have to not enforce the laws by telling the agencies to ignore things.
If that were his PRIORITY, then we should all be raising heck, because the priority of the SecDef is.....defending the country. Period. End of Statement. I have no problem with those things being issues to be addressed, or with those groups serving in our military (they should, and they should be treated equally) but they should not be the priority. Unless you would prefer that it were, that we were defeated by another country, say an Islamic one, and we went with their social constructs, where those groups are even more persecuted????
I know it's not done this way, but executive agencies should be for enforcing laws (or rule/edicts/guidelines, whatever euphemism you want), not making them. That's basic representative democracy. "rules..must follow...are established by executive", this represents a complete breakdown of our understanding of separation of powers. Executive branches shouldn't be making rules. This is grade school level civics.
All we can do is speculate, but I actually work in the relevant industry and in the relevant function and it's my job to know what's up, particularly with the CPP. But go ahead and assume I must be mistaken. The way out of regulating carbon is by making a scientific finding that CO2 is not a threat to public health. They might even try to go that way. But that's the hard road. There will be lawsuits no matter what, but that'll be the tougher one to win. The easy way is to approve sweetheart state plans that make compliance really easy. Coal's enemy here is court precedent, not the EPA. We're not in grade school anymore. The actual government construct is a lot more sophisticated than what your grade school teacher told you about. Executive agencies have always made lots and lots of rules. If we had to have a bicameral Legislature with 500 congressmen write, agree upon, and vote on every nit-picky detail needed to provide a well-ordered and transparent set of regulations for all manner of our commercial enterprises -- well, we would have lawlessness because they can't do it. That's why they pass legislation to create and empower agencies like the EPA and then more legislation to order those agencies to write regulations. So they don't have to.
Yawn.... apparently evolution is a religion too... You fundamentalists use the same tactic to discredit science over and over....
Someone with a background in commercial banking (not investment) would be a better choice than her, yes. Or someone who ran a VC fund. Just someone who has lots of experiences working with small businesses. This person doesn't sound like they have a clue and will likely make counterproductive decisions
This is often the essence of "personnel is policy." The rules don't have to change but how the rules are enforced, which rules get enforced, and the focus of the angency can change. This was part of the lead up to the Rubinite movement to remove Glass-Steagall under Clinton. They pointed out the regulation wasn't being enforced anyway (Regan-era regulators had long turned a blind eye and the trend continued under Bush I), so repeal would be safe. Then longer, more detailed view of Glass-Steagall illustrates how long it can take and how it is possible to diminish a regulation before it is ultimately repealed via legislation.
It would be. But that's OK. Sweet Lou was telling us the general profile of the type of person he thought should head the SBA. It was a very reasonable and unusually thoughtful answer by Lou, so I want to give him credit for that. While this would be an interesting set of skills to have at that position, I respectfully disagree, as venture capitalists already fulfill the venture capital role and small banks fulfill the commercial lending role. The people at these financial organizations are as hungry as starving sharks looking for their next meal. They spend a great deal of their time looking for that next deal that meets their investment or lending criteria. However, they have a much harder time locating companies that meet these criteria than you might think. That is not because the companies cannot find them, or the banks/VC's cannot find interested companies, it is because a lot of these companies are just not good investment/lending risks. The SBA provides certain amounts of very targeted financing to bridge the gaps to a certain degree, but they have the same problem, trying to find companies that meet the lending and investment criteria. I know this may be confusing to some people, but banks, VC's and the SBA are not charitable organizations looking to just give money away. They give it out with the expectation that they will get it back, with a return. The purpose of the SBA is to help Americans start, build and grow businesses. Money is not the only way and frequently it is not the best way to help these companies, assuming they are really on a potential path to be successful. It is a harsh truth, but not every new business does have that potential. Quite frankly, the money is available, if you have the business plan and other resources that warrant the investment. That does not mean some sort of shucking and jiving hustle speech. It means that if you are set up to succeed and all you need is money to do that, it is very probable the money can be found - at a cost. I am not sure what Linda McMahon will bring to the SBA. In fact, her appointment may just be political payback to a campaign donor. Most of these companies need things like better marketing and sales, and training on how to manage the financial side of their business. If she and Trump actually have a vision for a way that Linda McMahon can provide some real leadership and make a difference in this role, then that is great. If not, to be fair, I cannot remember anyone else who ever really did anything special in this role either. So if it turns out to be more of the same here, then that is too bad, but it would hardly be surprising.
It's like they have no clue how much O&G production has occurred in the last several years and how much refining capacity is currently being built and how much that emits greenhouse gases. The truth of the matter is they are worried about utilities not being competitive once renewable truly takes off. Conservative Texas is a leader in wind energy and switching to cheaper and less polluting natural gas, and that's hasn't affected us at all in terms of getting industry to expand and relocate here.
