Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category
Charles Koch’s op-ed in Thursday’s WSJ is a fantastic fact-filled defense of himself and his corporation.
Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.
Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”
Harry Reid said Charles Koch was “un-American.” If winning awards from the EPA for environmental excellence is un-American, then we need more of that type of un-Americanism. If winning awards for safety from OSHA is Sen. Reid’s definition of being un-American, then let’s have a new wave of that type of un-Americanism.
Let’s be blunt, though. This won’t stop Sen. Reid from criticizing the Koch Brothers. This op-ed won’t stop Al Franken from using the Koch Brothers as villains in his fundraising emails. That’s because they don’t care about facts. That’s because facts are irrelevant to dishonest people like Sen. Reid and Sen. Franken. This information isn’t relevant to Sen. Reid either:
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
It’s indisputable that Koch Industries are good corporate citizens. The top Obama fundraisers got guaranteed loans for green energy initiatives, then went bankrupt. Koch Industries asked for corporate welfare to stop. That comparison proves that Koch Industries’ priorities are the American people’s priorities.
It’s instructive that the Democrats villainize a corporation that’s a great corporate citizens. It’s instructive that Democrats sat silent when corporations that raised millions of dollars for Presiden Obama gets a guaranteed loan from the taxpayers, then files for bankruptcy.
It’s time for this nation to turn the page on this chapter in American history. It’s time to chart a new direction. It’s time to trust in the American people again. It’s time to stop listening to dishonest politicians like Sen. Reid and Sen. Franken. Finally, it’s time to start praising good corporate citizens like Koch Industries.
Last week, the DFL Senate’s spin about passing ‘tax relief’ was that the DFL added money to Minnesota’s Rainy Day Fund while providing tax relief to the people:
Nearly every Republican joined most DFLers in backing it, but GOP members criticized the majority for a provision in the bill that adds $150 million to state budget reserves. That brings the state’s rainy-day fund to more than $800 million, but Republicans said that money should go back to taxpayers too.
This puts the DFL in a difficult position. When they talk about a bonding bill, their predictable mantra is that spending x amount of dollars in a bonding bill creates thousands of jobs. When they’re talking about tax relief, though, taking $800,000,000 out of the private sector’s hands, the DFL’s argument essentially is that this doesn’t hurt job creation.
Having some money in the Rainy Day Fund is appropriate but having almost $1,000,000,000 in the Rainy Day Fund is criminal because it’s taking money that should be used for creating jobs and putting it away to maintain government spending longer than government spending should be maintained.
The other thing that the DFL has to be exposed on is the myth that the surplus is proof that Minnesota’s economy is booming. That’s BS. The government is wealthier than it was with the GOP legislature but that’s it. The surplus is proof that the DFL’s tax increase is stealing too much money from families and small businesses.
The DFL is ok with that because the DFL has sworn its allegiance to growing government to the point that it’s intruding in people’s lives too much. The DFL objected to PolyMet until recently. They’re still objecting to the silica sand mining in southern Minnesota. They’re objecting while chanting ‘the environment’. Nowhere in their chanting points is there a mention about families needing the high-paying jobs that silica sand mining and PolyMet would provide.
The DFL’s Rainy Day rip-off is proof that the DFL’s highest priorities are feeding government while appeasing militant environmentalists. Those aren’t the average Minnesotan’s priorities. They want policies that create jobs that don’t require raising taxes to create. At this point, the DFL doesn’t champion policies like that.
The DFL’s policies promote intrusive, expensive and inefficient government. How many people know that taxpayers’ money is being used to lobby the legislature to spend more of the taxpayers’ money? The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities spent $840,000 lobbying for the legislature to spend more of the taxpayers’ money. While they’re the biggest in that classification, they weren’t the only organization doing that. The League of Minnesota Cities spent $628,945 lobbying the legislature to spend more of the taxpayers’ money on cities.
The definition of corruption is using the taxpayers’ money to convince legislators that they aren’t spending enough of the taxpayers’ money. In that scenario, the taxpayers are getting shafted twice. How isn’t that corrupt?
That’s before talking about the millions of dollars being paid to legislative liaisons. Legislative liaisons is government-speak for taxpayer-funded lobbyists. State agencies are littered with legislative liaisons. If that position was eliminated from state government, government spending would drop dramatically.
It isn’t that legislative liaisons get expensive salaries. It’s that they convince DFL legislators to spend tons of money they don’t need to spend.
If Minnesotans want a real economy, the DFL is the worst option. If Minnesotans want money spent efficiently, the DFL is the worst option. If Minnesota families want government dictating to them what they can and can’t do, then the DFL is the right choice. If Minnesota families want government ripping them off and putting productive money into a dead fund, then the DFL is the only choice.
Technorati: Tom Bakk, Mark Dayton, Paul Thissen, Tax Increases, Rainy Day Fund, Silica Sand Mining, Environmentalists, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, League of Minnesota Cities, Legislative Liaisons, , DFL
According to this article, Rick Nolan understands that siding with the environmentalists is political poison for him:
“While the environmental review process for the project is still ongoing, I am convinced the plan put forward for the NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange will result in a productive mining operation that will produce minimal environmental impacts and will advance the technology of mining. It will set a high standard for additional mining proposals that may follow,” Nolan wrote.
The congressman went on to urge all agencies involved in the project to get it moving on permitting.
“I urge the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Forest Service as the primary lead co-agencies, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as a prime contributing agency, together with the major cooperating agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Tribal Cooperating Agencies at Bois Forte, Grand Portage and Fond du Lac, together with all other responsible agencies to move forward with final modifications and to adoption of the Final EIS in a timely manner.
“I also urge all responsible agencies to issue the Permit to Mine, complete the land transfers proposed, issue the necessary supplemental permits, and permit the NorthMet Project to proceed at the earliest possible,” Nolan wrote.
That’s quite the contrast with this edition of Rick Nolan:
Northern Minnesota is known for its great fishing, so perhaps it’s fitting that tracking 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan’s position on a bill that deregulates the mining industry and fast tracks the permitting process for PolyMet is a bit like watching a fish flopping around on a dock: first he’s against it, then he’s for it and now he once again opposes it, this time promising to vote against the legislation if it “comes anywhere near close to becoming law.”
Now that the DNR has announced that they’re holding things up while they supposedly study the impact sulfate has on wild rice, Nolan knows the permitting process won’t proceed. Isn’t it interesting that he wrote a strongly worded letter the day after the DNR’s announcement that they’re delaying the PolyMet permitting process?
Nolan’s support for PolyMet had always been conditional prior to this letter. Suddenly, he’s pedal-to-the-metal Nolan on mining? Here’s what Jesse Peterson thinks of Nolan’s flexibility:
The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, who characterized Nolan’s responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as “incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.”
The truth is that Rick Nolan isn’t a friend of the miners. His allegiance is with the environmentalists. The environmentalists’ goal is to prevent sulfide mining:
- This kind of mining has never happened in Minnesota before, but in other states, it is associated with long-lasting water pollution.
- No sulfide mine has ever operated without polluting its nearby waters.
- The EPA identifies the hardrock mining industry (sulfide mining is a type of hardrock mining) as the largest toxic-waste producing industry in the U.S.
Admittedly, I don’t know Jesse Peterson. What’s apparent, though, is that he isn’t a fan of mining. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Arrowhead envirornmentalists turn out for Nolan now that he’s sabotaged their anti-mining efforts.
Eric Foster is the chief pollster for Foster McCollum White & Baydoun. The first thing that caught my attention was that Mitt Romney leads President Obama by a thin margin of 47%-46%. As stunning as that was, this question got my undivided attention:
Ballot Proposal 12-2, the “Protect Our Jobs” proposed constitutional amendment would establish a new constitutional right for public and private sector employees to organize and bargain collectively with employers, Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively and override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment by adding section 28 to Article I and amending Article XI section 5 to the state Constitution. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-2, the “Protect Our Jobs” amendment?
Vote yes on the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment: 41.2%
Vote no on the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment: 51.3%
If Ballot Proposal 12-2 is defeated, that will be a stinging defeat for Big Labor. Coming right after Scott Walker defeated them in Wisconsin, they’ll be wounded for quite some time.
I thought this was interesting, too:
Ballot Proposal 12-3, the Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs constitutional amendment that would require utilities to obtain at least 25 percent of electricity from clean renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass and hydropower) by 2025; limit how much utilities can charge consumers for the cost of complying with this requirement; and require the legislature to create laws to encourage the development of Michigan clean energy jobs. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-3 the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment?
Vote yes for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 35.91%
Vote no for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 57.49%
Vote yes for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 6.6%
If Ballot Proposal 12-3 is defeated by this type of margin, it will be a harsh defeat for environmentalists. It would be a major victory for homeowners.
Finally, this ballot question is interesting, too:
Ballot Proposal 12-4 is a constitutional amendment Proposal to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and provide collective bargaining for in-home care workers.
This proposal would allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC) and require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care and authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-4 the “home care council & collective bargaining” amendment?
Vote yes for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 41.08%
Vote no for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 53.21%
Undecided for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 5.72%
Sorry for sounding like a broken record but rejecting this amendment would be a stinging defeat for the SEIU and AFSCME.
The fact that Michigan voters are poised to defeat 3 constitutional amendments that liberals really wanted explains, at least to me, why Mitt Romney is competitive in Michigan. If those amendments are defeated and Mitt Romney wins Michigan’s 16 electoral votes, conservatives will have plenty to squawk about Wednesday morning.
Conservatives didn’t disagree with Vice President Biden when he told a gathering in Council Bluffs, Iowa that the middle class had gotten squeezed the past 4 years. Gas was $1.84 a gallon when President Obama took office. It’s now at $3.79 a gallon. That’s the direct result of President Obama’s tightfistedness in granting permits for new drilling projects.
Electricity and natural gas prices have jumped, too, thanks in large part to President Obama’s EPA restricting coal mining and fracking. Other EPA regulations are causing coal-fired power plants to shut down or to announce that they’re shutting down.
This picture tells another important story:
It’s incredible seeing a picture showing gas prices at almost $6.00 a gallon. Those prices aren’t squeezing the middle class. They’re demolishing the middle class.
While other factors are driving up California’s gas prices, including a statewide cap and trade system, President Obama’s policies still strongly contributed to this expensive energy trend.
President Obama’s energy policies are one of the biggest contributors to struggling families’ plight. While President Obama’s policies can’t be blamed for California’s $6 gas and closed stations, they’re certainly the chief cause for the nation’s high gas prices.
Had President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Senate passed their cap and trade law, which was high on their list of priorities, it’s indisputable that the nation’s gas prices would mirror California’s. They certainly would mirror California’s prices.
It’s time to flush this administration’s policies from our system. We can’t afford 4 more years of rising gas prices, electric bills, high unemployment, explosive deficits and falling household incomes.
We can’t afford the sight of pictures fo $6 a gallon gasoline.
A new 501(C)(4) organization named Mined in America was literally created last week. In the weeks ahead, it’s likely that they’ll do something that President Obama can’t afford to have happen. They’re planning on getting the word out that President Obama’s administration have implemented rules that make producing cheap domestic energy almost impossible. This post explains what Mined in America is about:
America is a country of producers, makers and creators. It’s in our nature to work together and help each other grow, that’s just part of what makes our country great. But by now we’ve all seen the news, the American economy is perched in a precarious place, and in order for us to continue to thrive we have to do something to stabilize our economy.
One thing we know for sure is that American manufacturing is key to growing our economy. Despite signs of a manufacturing revival over the past two years the facts are clear: we need to do more to get America back to work.
Mined in America is just what the energy doctor ordered. This organization sounds like they’re determined to fight the EPA. That means challenging this administration in states critical to President Obama’s re-election. A large portion of the economies in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia come from mining.
Lots of the independent voters in those states don’t care whether President Obama is a Republican or Democrat. They’ll care about whether President Obama supports a robust increase in domestic coal mining.
People don’t need to question whether Mined in America will mix it up. This article ends that speculation:
Barack Obama’s chances of being reelected hinge on winning over blue-collar voters in the Midwest, but those efforts may have hit a hurdle—or run into a mine shaft, more like it—since a new nonprofit in the region started aggressively going after his administration. Mined in America, a 501(c)(4) created by an unlikely alliance of mine workers and mine owners, is running a series of attack ads against the Environmental Protection Agency, accusing the regulator of stifling resourcing mining that could boost the economy.
“Washington doesn’t get it,” reads one ad running across the region. “Remind environmental regulators to make Ohio jobs America’s priority.”
Also planned are calls and mailers to 500,000 voters in swing districts in the swing states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to ask them to push Obama for job growth over more environmental rules. An online and social media campaign has begun as well.
After reading that information, there’s no question whether MIA is willing to push back against President Obama’s EPA.
“It is not about President Obama winning or losing,” says Maurice Daniel, the executive director of the coalition, which includes manufacturers and labor unions. A lifelong Democrat, Daniel was the former political director for Al Gore when Gore was vice president. “We are not advocating for one candidate or another. What we are doing is educating the population about the issues at stake.”
Those issues have to do with the way the EPA implements mine safety rules. Mined in America says the rules are arbitrary and unfair. It points to the Spruce Mine project in West Virginia, which the Army Corps of Engineers approved but whose permit was then revoked by the EPA, and to Pebble Mine in Alaska, where it says the EPA is blocking a permit before one has been officially submitted.
The terms capricious and heavyhanded leap to mind in characterizing the EPA’s politics-driven decisions. MIA is hitting the ground running, with its focus on the right priorities.
What’s happening in those states started happening in Minnesota months ago. Thanks to Chip Cravaack’s willingness to build a coalition between unions and management, this coalition has started confronting the environmentalists. Their concern isn’t whether a politician has a D or R behind their names. Their concern is whether they’re enthusiastic supporters of mining.
Apparently, that movement is picking up steam.
When DFL opponent Jeff Anderson criticized Rick Nolan for not supporting miners, DFL congressional candidate Rick Nolan announced an initiative for a mining institute:
DFL congressional candidate Rick Nolan proposed on Wednesday, July 18, development of a new federal technical institute on mining and the environment to help the industry overcome production and environmental issues to create more jobs, an idea immediately panned by his opponents as expensive and ineffective.
Nolan said the institute would help push applied research that would help mining companies overcome technical problems such as how to extract more mineral from the same rock, but also to overcome environmental issues like reducing waste rock and making sure mine runoff doesn’t damage local waterways.
That’s a nice-sounding proposal if it wasn’t so expensive and ineffective. This paragraph is the key to understanding why the institute wouldn’t help miners:
Nolan said the institute should be built on Minnesota’s Iron Range and would create hundreds of jobs on its campus as well as attract mining research investment to the region as it worked to promote the local and national mining industry.
I can’t imagine any miners getting employed on the institute’s campus. I suspect that’s why Jeff Anderson criticized Nolan’s initiative:
Anderson blasted the Nolan plan as wasteful federal spending that would create no immediate mining jobs, and he challenged Nolan to support immediate regulation reduction such as changing the state’s long-standing sulfate standard for wild rice lakes and rivers. That standard currently is being upheld by the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act. Sulfate often is a byproduct of mining. Anderson said the standard threatens several taconite and copper mining projects if not changed.
“While I support the idea of doing more research into evolving mining technologies, the people seeking jobs in this district cannot feed their families with studies,” Anderson said. “They need jobs. They need good, livable-wages jobs.”
The point of Anderson’s criticism is that Nolan’s initiative is about creating political cover, not mining jobs.
During a DFL debate, Anderson highlighted the fact that there are tighter regulations for the mines than for wastewater treatment plants. There isn’t a scientific reason for having separate standards. There is a political reason for it, though, specifically to prevent mining.
Rick Nolan supports Twin Cities environmentalists more than the miners from the Range.
While Mr. Nolan was siding with Twin Cities environmentalists, Chip’s fought for creating high-paying mining jobs:
Today, the Cravaack for Congress Campaign issued a statement regarding the continued assault on Minnesota mining jobs by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the Agency proposes a rejection of the Minnesota State Implementation Plan put forward by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for upgrading taconite facilities.
The rule, which imposes an unrealistic timeline for compliance, would threaten Minnesota’s mining industry and the over 40,000 residents who depend on the mining industry for their livelihood.
“The silence from the DFL and Mr. Nolan on this issue has been deafening, and without surprise. On August 13, two days before the EPA’s rule was announced, Twin Cities–based Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness publically opposed the state plan and mining jobs in Minnesota,” said Michael Bars, Cravaack’s Press Secretary.
The only question left to answer is whether Mr. Nolan will be willing to admit he’s representing the Twin Cities environmentalists or if he’ll deny that until after the election.
Jim Graves is a portrait of someone who says one thing, then thinks the opposite. Graves told me that he’s pro free market. Then he told me that he thinks the ACA is “built on free market principles.” The free market doesn’t tell a person they have to buy something, then tell them what bells and whistles that something has to have.
To quote Andy Aplikowski, free markets don’t need thousands of IRS agents to make sure you do what you’re told to do:
The Government does’t need to hire an army of tax agents to enforce a free market based reform. And the Government doesn’t expressly lay out the parameters and scope of a free market plan.
Mr. Graves told Jack and Ben that he isn’t really a Democrat. He’s just running as one so he has a chance at winning. That’s BS. He’s a hard core liberal who made lots of money.
What other explanation is there for a man who thinks that global warming is manmade? If he believes that global warming is manmade and that it’s a problem worth solving, what’s his solution? The only conclusion is that he’s for cap and trade. That’s a hardline liberal position.
When Tarryl ran against Michele in 2010, one of her first visits was to Netroots Nation, the gathering of left wing kooks. Daily Kos published this letter from Jim Graves.
One of the things Graves continues harping on is Michele Bachmann’s ‘witch hunt’:
Watching Michele Bachmann’s McCarthy-like witch-hunt unfold over the past few weeks has been truly disturbing. Her baseless attacks upon honorable, hard-working Americans is not only designed to divide us through hate and fear, it weakens our ability to take on the real challenges facing our nation today.
Mr. Graves’ witch hunt meme is getting tiresome. It’s been discredited by terrorist expert Andrew McCarthy and former Muslim Brotherhood terrorist Walid Shoebat. Newt Gingrich discredited DC elites with impeccable logic and a relentless dose of reality:
This desperate avoidance of reality is not new. After Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great”) in Fort Hood, Texas, and killed 12 soldiers and one Army civilian while wounding 29 others, there was pressure to avoid confronting his acts as inspired by his support for radical Islamism.
An American of Palestinian descent, Hasan had been in touch with a radical American cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. He declared Hasan a hero. Al-Awlaki was himself declared a “specially designated global terrorist” and, with presidential approval, was killed by a predator missile.
Yet, despite the evidence, Wikipedia reports, “One year after the Fort Hood shooting, the motivations of the perpetrator were not yet established.”
In short, Jim Graves might know how to build and run hotels but he’s oblivious to facts, especially as it relates to free markets, terrorism and science.
Simply put, Jim Graves isn’t qualified to be a congressman. I’d want him on an economic development commission but I wouldn’t want him as a congressman.
Eleven days ago, DFL-endorsed candidate Jim Graves stopped at the Oxpitality Tuesday gathering at the Red Carpet. When Mr. Graves stopped past my table, we talked about his thoughts on energy independence and health care. In my opinion, those are the two biggest things preventing the economy from taking off.
My article in the Examiner about the conversation must’ve gotten under Mr. Graves’ skin because he sent me an email last weekend. Here’s something that he said that caught my attention:
Another point you seem to have brought up is how someone could be for a free market and not be totally opposed to the ACA. You imply that the ACA is completely incompatible with the free market. I know the ACA is long and complex, but one really needs to take a close and objective look at it and, of course, it is not perfect nor the final solution by any means. However, one must acknowledge that insurance companies are still independent entities. The various layers of health care providers are still independent entities.
First, it should be noted that he told me that “Whether people like it or not, government is already part of the health care system.” Government interference in the form of telling health insurance companies, or any companies for that matter, what products they must sell to stay licensed can’t be reconciled with free market principles.
Whether you think that’s a good or bad thing, it doesn’t fit the principles of a free market.
Here’s the statement Mr. Graves’ campaign released on the ACA:
St. Cloud, MN – “Rather than continue politicizing the extremely serious health care issue, Jim Graves believes it is time to come together in a bi-partisan manner to address bending the health care cost curve” said campaign spokesperson Donald McFarland. “Jim believes in working towards real solutions by pursuing an outcome based reimbursement model that incorporates prevention, transparency and free market principals. All Americans want the same things for themselves and their families. We all want sick children to get the care they need and our seniors to be protected. Working together across party lines, we can bring down the cost of health care so that it is both affordable and accessible.”
That’s some of the finest Klobucharspeak this side of Sen. Klobuchar I’ve seen in months. Since he doesn’t have an issues page outlining his policy perscriptions for our nation’s most difficult challenges, I don’t know what that statement means.
I know some of the things it might mean. It might mean he’s willing to scrap the ACA, though I doubt that. It might mean he thinks expanding Medicaid to cover children is a positive thing. It might mean he’s prepared to renounce the ACA and the process that led to it. That isn’t likely because that’d mean standing up to Nancy Pelosi and getting kneecapped by a ruthless autocrat.
The ACA is the worst piece of legislation of our generation by a country mile. It was crafted in Nancy Pelosi’s office and Harry Reid’s office. The amount of consultation with people from the Cleveland Clinic and other innovation leaders within the industry was miniscule.
The fact that Mr. Graves won’t put his policy perscriptions on his website is akin to him telling us to just trust him, that we don’t need to know the specific things he’d champion.
Graves’ interview with MPP’s Bill Prendergast doesn’t paint a picture of moderation:
GRAVES: So I’m not going to sit back when she says that there isn’t such a thing as global warming. I’m going to say “Uh, Ms. Bachmann have you had an opportunity to fly over the North Pole? I haven’t but I’ve seen pictures, and global warming is factual.” Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the scientists agree to that, and I guess I go with the science.
Perhaps Mr. Graves should read this article and the list of scientists that once believed in AGW who’ve switched. This isn’t exactly a fresh off the printer study, either. It was published in 2007.
Since then, scandals have riddled the scientific community. The IPCC report has been challenged as being more of a political document than scientific document. At this point global warming is a theory, not fact. The fact that Mr. Graves thinks this is settled science speaks volumes about the intellectual rigor that he’s used in reaching his opinion.
I won’t vote for a person who doesn’t have the confidence in his policies to publish them on his website because it tells me he’s hiding something. Fair or unfair, that’s life.
Jeff Anderson started picking a fight on mining with his Eighth District DFL opponents. Now he’s ripping Rick Nolan for not being serious about mining:
In a hastily called news conference to counter Nolan’s, Anderson said he would support the Republican-sponsored House legislation and that he supports incumbent Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack’s amendment that would extend the new rules to projects already in the works, such as the proposed PolyMet copper mine near Hoyt Lakes.
Anderson blasted the Nolan plan as wasteful federal spending that would create no immediate mining jobs, and he challenged Nolan to support immediate regulation reduction, such as changing the state’s longstanding sulfate standard for wild rice lakes and rivers. That standard currently is being upheld by the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act. Sulfate often is a byproduct of mining. Anderson said the standard threatens several taconite and copper mining projects if not changed.
“While I support the idea of doing more research into evolving mining technologies, the people seeking jobs in this district cannot feed their families with studies,” Anderson said. “They need jobs. They need good, livable-wages jobs.”
Nolan’s plan isn’t a serious proposal. It’s a PR stunt and a pork project straight from Jim Oberstar’s playbook. Anderson is right. Nolan’s worship of mother earth prevents him from making a serious proposal on mining.
As for Tarryl, her response wasn’t a response:
In a statement, Tarryl Clark, the third candidate in the DFL race, said she has been consistent in her support for reduced mining industry regulations. Clark noted she is supported by the United Steelworkers of America on the Range.
“With the right advocate in Congress, we can build on our past successes and lead the world in 21st-century mining that creates good-paying jobs while remaining responsible stewards of our environment,” Clark said. “I have always supported an efficient and effective permitting process which guarantees protections for our workers, our water and our air. In Congress, I will continue to work on improving this process.”
In other words, Tarryl wouldn’t say whether she’s support Chip’s amendment to minimize wait time for mining investors. Considering her position with the BlueGreen Coalition, it isn’t likely she’s a friend of the mining industry.
Rick Nolan and Tarryl Clark aren’t friends of the mining industry. They’re political opportunists trying their best to hide their hostility towards the mining industry with pork projects and spin about the mining industry.
A spokesman for Cravaack’s campaign, Ben Golnik, said “Chip Cravaack will continue to be laser-focused on working to improve the economy and bring more jobs back to the 8th Congressional District. In his short time in Congress, Chip has worked to reduce excessive and duplicative red tape blocking economic development and job growth.”
Chip’s taken a proactive approach to getting the mining industry up and running. He’s pushed for streamlined permitting, which has occasionally taken over 10 years to get approved. Chip’s worked hard to get PolyMet’s EIS approved by the EPA.
Chip Cravaack is the miners’ best friend. That isn’t just my opinion. It’s the story told by Chip’s actions.