Be-Czar Be-havior Be-Lies Executive Order on National Defense Resources Preparedness

Over the two years, the President has demonstrated his penchant to issue Executive Orders that exceed his Constitutional authority as President and that – if not addressed by Congress – will create a regulatory framework which, for all intents and purposes, nullifies Congress’s authority under the Constitution.

On March 16, 2012, The White House posted its most recent Executive Order on the White House website: Executive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness. Under this order, as I read it, the Federal government can take – in the name of “Defense Preparedness” – food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transportation (viz., any vehicles, boats, planes), and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available. Specifically, the government is allowed to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate. Because this is an Executive Order, I assume this means that the President, without consultation with the Congress, decides what is necessary or appropriate.

Specific responsibilities are delegated to cabinet heads as follows:

1. the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
2. the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
3. the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
4. the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
5. the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
6. the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

Cabinet heads are authorized to loan money (viz., does that mean print money?), offer loan guarantees, and even subsidize payments at above market rates for whatever is needed. What happens if the government decides it needs all these things to be prepared, even if there is no war? Does this mean if energy prices are driven too high by his EPA mandates and threatens our defense preparedness, he can speak into existence alternative energy and compulsory conservation, even though these technologies will not produce a sufficient quantity of dispatchable, low-cost energy to meet America’s needs? Does it mean that if healthcare costs are too high, he can demand single-payer healthcare even though it is found to be unconstitutional? Does this mean, he can take my cars and boat, because the federal government simply decides to because it does not like the amount of energy they consume? Why did he not go the American people and explain why he needs this authority? Why did he not go to Congress? Where is the media?

Bottom line: in a crisis situation – which he defines – the President has given himself the authority to take whatever the government needs, print money to get whatever it wants, and distribute it as the government sees fit.

Up the Creek, Without any Power

In the Virginian Pilot Editorial “Coal Plant Harm Swamps Benefits” (March 4, 2012), the Pilot asserts that the 1,600 acre, Cypress Creek Power Station is an environmental nightmare and, if constructed, will cause “a few dozen deaths and cost $200M a year in medical expense in Hampton Roads.” The article then lists all the pollutants emitted by the plant and their potential impact on every political constituency they can identify. 

The Pilots argument is fear mongering at its worst: a text without a context.

First, the Pilot does not place these emissions within regulatory limits.  Since 1990, even as US coal use more than doubled, coal-fired power plant emissions have declined: 58% for mercury, 67% for nitrogen oxides, 70% for particulates, 85% for sulfur dioxide – as well as for most of the other 80 pollutants.  Second, the health impacts projected are most likely based on EPA studies that assume that the technology required to reduce mercury emissions will reduce other pollutants (primarily related to soot and particulate matter) that are already regulated elsewhere, in effect  double counting. Last, the article leaves it to the reader’s imagination to come up with another economic alternative to provide 1,500 Mw to 400,000 citizens: power which provides jobs and powers all the things progressives want to give away for free to their constituents.  Replacing this plant with a wind farm for example would require not 1,600 acres of land by a minimum of 800,000 acres of land. 

Life is full of risks: the question is do the benefits outweigh them and are the costs reasonable.