Trump vs. the swamp, Round III, Dems turn to bureaucrats to stop POTUS
April 30, 2017 by Newt Gingrich
When Neil Gorsuch won long-overdue confirmation this month to serve on the United States Supreme Court, Republicans in turn won control of judiciary. This meant they led all three branches of the federal government – at least the three envisioned by our Founding Fathers – for the first time in a decade.
As a consequence, Democrats have pinned their hopes to stifle President Donald Trump’s pro-growth agenda on the unprecedented insurrection of an unchecked, de facto branch of government: the bureaucratic state.
Now that Alexander Acosta is confirmed as secretary of labor, President Trump has a better ability to reign in the bureaucracy.
Through executive orders, President Trump immediately began cutting needless red tape draped across the federal government by his predecessor. This led deliberately resistant entrenched civil servants to wage a campaign to subvert the administration’s clear intention of deregulation.
Consider this: In February, the president ordered the Department of Labor – previously run by Tom Perez, who is now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee – to review and re-evaluate the implementation of the so-called fiduciary rule, a controversial Obama-era rule that would deny middle-class Americans access to sound investment advice.
The order’s intention was clear-as-day. It aimed to indefinitely delay or outright kill this bad rule before it could hurt middle class American investors. Instead, Perez’s faithful holdovers at the Department of Labor effectively expedited the rule with minimal changes. This was exactly the opposite of President Trump’s instructions.
Now, the department will make the rule effective on June 9, before completing the president’s review, and argued that “the Fiduciary rule and Impartial Conduct Standards … are among the least controversial aspects of the rulemaking process.”
Nothing about this rule is uncontroversial. It would be the single largest government expansion over individual savings in four decades and the second-most expensive regulatory regime crafted in the last 12 years that doesn’t deal with environmental issues.
The rule changes the law to give the Department of Labor direct authority over individual retirement accounts, which are already regulated by the Securities and Exchange Committee, the federal agency responsible for protecting investors. For the first time, IRAs would be pulled into a complex Labor Department system created 43 years ago to regulate employee pension and health plans. Seizing control over IRAs by the Labor Department leads to bigger government, less competition, fewer jobs, and diminished savings for the American worker.
Disingenuously marketed as a way to raise the standards of advice provided to retirement investors, the rule would result in the “orphaning” of most ordinary American savers, left to seek advice on saving for their golden years from an online computer program using algorithms no investor would know about or understand.
The rule has received extensive criticism from those who’ve historically regulated the securities market. Acting SEC Chair Michal Piwowar called the rule a “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad rule,” adding that it was a “highly political” move that was “never about investor protection.” President Trump and the Congress want the rule gone. Business wants the rule gone. Ordinary Americans want the rule gone.
But none of that matters to the bureaucratic state. They’ve lost the battle over the Supreme Court and the president’s cabinet. More than anything, the swamp wants to win this battle. That’s why it’s so important that President Trump and Secretary Acosta implement the president’s instructions in a timely way.
So, the president and the secretary must work quickly to delay indefinitely or completely rescind the fiduciary rule under the secretary’s statutory authority.
More than that, the president needs to fully drain the swamp – especially by getting rid of the mutineers at the Department of Labor.
Newt Gingrich is a Fox News contributor. A Republican, he was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Follow him on Twitter @NewtGingrich.
May 1, 2017
The theory of human-caused global warming is straightforward. The level of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere, causing a worldwide increase in temperatures that ultimately will have a catastrophic effect on the planet.
To prevent this catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself.
But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?
That’s precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.
The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations “have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed.”
“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” the report said.
Brian Sussman, a former meteorologist and the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How The Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” hailed the report as a devastating blow to what he argues is a phony movement.
“The left wants the public to believe that human-caused climate change is scientific law, like the laws of gravity and motion,” he told WND. “Instead, human-caused climate change/global warming is a flawed hypothesis that should be discarded into the dustbin of other failed theories. Referring to carbon dioxide – a natural atmospheric component necessary for life – as a pollutant is insane. It’s no different than labeling H2O a pollutant.”
But the EPA did make the “insane” decision to label CO2 a pollutant in 2009, thus providing a justification for the the Obama administration to issue sweeping regulations cracking down on energy companies, industrial facilities, farms and vehicle manufactures.
Recently, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., author of “The Greatest Hoax,” denounced the kinds of tactics Obama’s EPA employed. He told WND’s Alicia Powe the “greatest problem we’ve had in this country has emanated from the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“[The EPA] was really set up to be concerned about the environment and pass regulations that we needed to do,” Inhofe said. “But then with the Obama administration, he got away from that and started worrying about regulating things the American people don’t want… The thing that President Obama did was try to get things through regulation that he couldn’t get through legislation.”
Marc Fitch, author of “Shmexperts: How Ideology And Power Politics Are Disguised As Science,” contends the global warming industry exemplifies the faux “expertise” he claims is harming so many Americans.
“What’s truly sad and funny about this entire episode is that it took a study to determine that CO2, a gas that supports all life on earth, is not a pollutant,” he said. “Plants need it to live and mammals exhale it and yet it was somehow labeled by the government as a pollutant. This is a point that has been repeatedly made by global warming skeptics over the years. The news is as revelatory as finding that ‘water is wet’ but it seems some people need to be reminded of those simple facts every now and then.”
Fitch accused the liberal media of misleading Americans about CO2 and the larger global warming issue.
“Branding is everything and the mainstream media has done a fine job in branding CO2 as the ‘enemy within’ without ever questioning the basic premise as to whether or not CO2 is really a problem,” he explained. “They have used the ‘consensus’ idea but have never bothered looking into the nuances of that finding, nor the arguments that debated those findings. The term ‘consensus’ is just a cheap and easy way to ignore any differing conclusions or the opinions of scientists who disagree.
“They also never bother to say what the ‘consensus’ is about and what it is not about. There most certainly is not a consensus that supports the hyperbolic alarmist claims made by some of the movement’s most vocal supporters. So to say there is a scientific consensus and then cite Al Gore’s predictions of melted ice caps and New York City underwater, conflates two very different positions. It tries to give scientific credence to ridiculous predictions.”
But both Sussman and Fitch said “science” itself, like the media, has become hopelessly politicized.
“Global warming,” asserts Sussman, simply functions as an excuse for leftists to fulfill their political goals. The supposed scientific rationale behind the agenda is all but irrelevant.
“The left sees global warming/climate change as their magic key to destroy industrial capitalism and implement socialism,” he said. “In the process it’s also a scandalous opportunity for a few wealthy liberals to make loads of money off of green investment scams that are subsidized with taxpayer dollars. The left, aided by their friends in the liberal media, are so stubborn and long-suffering that theylll never cave on this one; they won’t let the facts get in the way of their ideology.”
Sussman similarly dismissed the recent “March for Science,” not as a defense of scientific but as a “fresh public venue for Trump haters to parade their ignorant nonsense.”
And Fitch urged Americans and those who value real knowledge to resist the politicization of science and the dogma surrounding “global warming.”
“The March for Science was a confusing event,” he commented. “It risks associating the term ‘science’ with ‘left-wing politics’ which would ultimately not be good for those who claim a scientific mindset. But what I think is more damaging is the idolization of science. It risks becoming religious with people marching through the streets proclaiming that if we just all looked to science we would find utopia, heaven on Earth.
“Science is a practice, not an entity, but it is being treated like some god that must be appeased with praise and money. It is this same reason that I think many of the people marching for science were probably dyed in the wool global warming alarmists. They have created a religion out of global warming and science is supposedly their god. But, like many religions, dissent is not tolerated well and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.”