If only our legislators would REPEAL ONE LAW PER DAY!
Here are suggestions for repeal.

Why repeal?

“That government is best which governs least.” Thomas Paine

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

REPEAL the Plastic Ban

First it was save a tree, then save the oil, then who the hell knows? NO ONE! ♘
Bag the Plastic Ban - National Review Online
By Nat Brown MARCH 29, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Bag the Plastic Ban
Banning or taxing plastic bags causes more problems than it solves.

Before they came for our light bulbs, they targeted our plastic bags. And they’re still after them.

It all began in 2002, when Ireland enacted a plastic-bag tax for the clearly stated purpose of lowering the amount of litter in the country. The fact that it would also raise tax revenue was an added bonus. And sure enough, weeks after its passage, the New York Times was already reporting a 94 percent drop in plastic-bag use, as reusable bags quickly caught on among Irish shoppers.

So naturally, when San Francisco (big surprise) became the first U.S. city to pass an all-out ban on plastic grocery bags, in 2007, supporters were quick to highlight Ireland’s case as an example of the positive impact such legislation would have on the environment. Aside from making up a sizeable percentage of total litter, they argued, the bags took up a large amount of space in landfills and were difficult to recycle.

In the years since passage of the San Francisco ban, several more municipalities have enacted similar legislation, including bans in Santa Monica and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and a tax in Washington D.C. In Oregon, a statewide plastic-bag ban has been introduced in the legislature, as have prospective statewide bag taxes in both Indiana and Maryland. And why not? Such legislation reduces the amount of solid waste, promotes the use of reusable bags, and (in the case of taxes) increases much-needed revenue for state and local governments all at once, right?

Well, not quite. [Read more at above link]

Repeal the ATF and 'Gunwalking'

NRA Wants Probe of ATF Over 'Gunwalking'

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has asked Congress to investigate allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) allowed thousands of weapons to cross the US border into Mexico, knowing they were likely to be acquired and used by Mexico's drug cartels.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, told CBS News that his group has heard from many of its law enforcement members who are outraged at the so-called "gunwalking" by ATF.

"They wanted to prove that there were guns flowing to Mexico, so they set up an illegal pipeline to send guns to Mexico," speculates LaPierre. "When does it stop being law enforcement and start being a criminal enterprise? To prove there's islamic terrorists are they going to start manufacturing and selling explosives? It just makes no sense."

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Repeal the fluorescent mandate

HILLYER: Save Edison's light bulb - Washington Times

Tea Partyers lit the latest American grass-roots fire at a national convention in Phoenix three weeks ago. It reached luminescence last weekend when a YouTube video of Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, went viral. Now Americans everywhere are demanding thatCongress repeal the pending ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Unfortunately, the light bulb still hasn’t switched on in the heads of congressional leaders, who have not made repeal enough of a priority. It ought to be easy procedurally, and good politics, too, to zip the simple repeal to the president’s desk sooner rather than later.

Americans like the good, old-fashioned Edison light bulb for good reason. Its light is better than that of the newfangled compact fluorescent ones. On the front end, it costs only about one-eighth as much. It’s easier to dispose of, with none of the mercury dangers of fluorescents. Most important, Americans resent when government limits their choices. People are sick of government meddling.

“You can’t go around your house without being told what to buy,” Mr. Paul said at a March 9 hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “You restrict my purchases. You don’t care about my choices.”

Sen. Jim Risch, Idaho Republican, worried about the safety of the new bulbs.

“In Idaho, we’ve had a number of instances where they’ve had a mercury spill in a science laboratory … and they immediately closed the school down for, I don’t know, a number of days while they cleaned it up,” he said. “Can you imagine mercury bulbs throughout a school? I mean, any time a kid wants a day off, he’s going to break a mercury light bulb, and that’s going to shut that school down.”

In the House, Rep. Joe L. Barton and Rep. Michael C. Burgess, both Texas Republicans, have introduced separate bills to repeal the ban. Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican, and Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, introduced their own bill on Feb. 17. Their BULB (Better Use of Light Bulbs) Act already has 27 co-sponsors. Timeliness is important. By next Jan. 1, selling 100-watt incandescent bulbs will be illegal. Bans on lower-watt incandescents are to follow in subsequent years. Already the ban has cost American jobs. In September, the last major GE incandescent plant in the United States closed, costing 200 jobs in Winchester, Va. Many stores already have stopped stocking the 100-watt versions. Distribution chains are rusting away.

It’s particularly galling that fluorescent bulbs often don’t even deliver the promised benefits to offset their higher upfront costs and safety hazards. “For some uses, they just aren’t good at all,” said Myron Ebell, president of Freedom Action, a grass-roots free-market group that collected 11,000 petition signatures against the ban in just three weeks. Mr. Ebellsaid he has found that basic fluorescent bulbs, which sell for about $4 each, last no longer than the Edison lights if they are turned on and off regularly, if used for outdoor lighting or if used in enclosed fixtures such as recessed lighting. He said expensive fluorescents in the $10 to $12 range might work well under those conditions - but compared to the approximately 50-cent cost of the old type of bulb, that’s a bad deal, too.

House conservatives could make a point of fighting obnoxious government controls on consumer products if they staged a series of quick, easy-to-understand votes on stand-alone bills repealing various silly mandates. On Feb. 28, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that low-flow toilets were backing up plumbing all over the City by the Bay, causing a major stink. Congress easily could repeal the ban on big-flush commodes. In separate votes, it could do likewise on energy- and water-efficiency standards for washing machines, dishwashers, shower heads and air-conditioning units - all of which cause problems, negating the aim of nanny-state regulations. It’s past time for politicians to understand what the public already knows: Limiting consumer choice isn’t very bright.

Quin Hillyer is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Times.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Repeal the EPA - Ending the global-warming argument

EDITORIAL: Ending the global-warming argument - Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Ending the global-warming argument

Leftist resort to the courts is sign of desperation

Leftists are rushing to the judiciary as a refuge against efforts to undermine their global-warming tax schemes. In the current economic environment, the idea of massive hikes in the price of gasoline and other sources of energy has become radioactive. In response, the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont are hoping activist judges will enact policies that elected, accountable representatives are increasingly afraid to touch.

Congress moved this week to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency ruling meant to bring about carbon-dioxide rationing. At the same time, the seven left-leaning states argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that they have the right to sue out-of-state corporations as "public nuisances" for their crime of emitting a harmless, colorless gas that's essential for life on this planet.

According to the complaint, carbon-dioxide emissions from various power plants around the country "increase smog and heat-related mortality"; "raise sea levels, thereby inundating low-lying property such as much of New York City's infrastructure"; "lower water levels in the Great Lakes, harming commercial shipping and hydropower production in New York"; and "make it impossible for several species of hardwood trees to survive in Vermont, Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island." It goes on to claim "even one degree of global warming will double the number of heat-related deaths in New York City, to 700 per year."

Never mind that none of these calamities have actually happened, or that if they did, there would be no link to the companies under legal assault. Never mind that if the power companies were to cease operations, it's likely heat-related deaths from the lack of air conditioning would be far more real than the casualties from these imaginary catastrophes. Still, it's enough for the '60s-era radicals who traded their tie-dyed T-shirts for judicial robes that someone claiming to be a scientist says it's true. That includes people like Pennsylvania State University Prof. Michael E. Mann, who created the famous hockey-stick graph that served as the centerpiece of Al Gore's Oscar-winning global-warming infomercial, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Ever since the Climategate e-mail scandal exposed how Mr. Mann's graph used "a trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, public support also has declined for the fable that cosmic irritation at mankind's exhalations has made things hotter by an imperceptible one-third of one degree over the course of a decade. In 2000, media-driven climate hysteria peaked with 72 percent of those surveyed by Gallup indicating they were worried about global warming. That number fell to 51 percent in a Gallup poll released Monday, with four in 10 Americans saying the seriousness of global warming was being exaggerated.

Lawmakers sense this skepticism in their constituents and can no longer get away with pursuing policies that sacrifice jobs and economic prosperity on the pagan altar of warmism. The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 34-19 on Tuesday to adopt the "Energy Tax Prevention Act" which denies the EPA any authority to regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and other naturally occurring gases as if they were actual pollutants. On Tuesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, promised a vote on the Senate version of the bill introduced by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, and his 43 co-sponsors, only to retreat the next day when it became apparent Mr. Inhofe had more support than expected.

It's time for the Supreme Court to put the states' bogus argument on ice.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.

[go to the above link]

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Repeal Bilingual, King, Inhofe Push Bill Making English Official Language

King, Inhofe Push Bill Making English Official Language

Friday, 11 Mar 2011 By Jim Meyer

Rep. Steve King and Sen. Jim Inhofe have introduced legislation to establish English as the official language of the United States government.

The English Language Unity Act of 2011 requires all official functions of the United States to be conducted in English, establishes a uniform language requirement for naturalization, and places an obligation on representatives of the federal government to encourage individuals to learn English.

Rep. King, an Iowa Republican, said in a statement: "A common language is the most powerful unifying force known throughout history. We need to encourage assimilation of all legal immigrants in each generation. A nation divided by language cannot pull together as effectively as a people."

King led a successful effort to enact legislation establishing English as Iowa's official language.

Sen. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said: "This legislation will provide much-needed commonality among United States citizens, regardless of heritage. As a nation built by immigrants, it is important that we share one vision and one official language."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: King, Inhofe Push Bill Making English Official Language

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Time to Repeal the EPA


Carbon and Democracy

Congress gets ready to overrule the EPA on cap and trade rules. March 15, 2011

Get a load of this. Some Members of Congress actually think that Congress should have a say in whether or not the government regulates carbon. Some of them even want to have a debate about it first. Don't these yahoos understand that democratic consent doesn't apply to the Environmental Protection Agency?

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began debating a bill that would prohibit the EPA from abusing the clean air laws of the 1970s to impose the climate regulations that Congress ...[go to above link]

Carbon Dioxide and Democracy

Carbon and Democracy
Congress gets ready to overrule the EPA on cap and trade rules.

Get a load of this. Some Members of Congress actually think that Congress should have a say in whether or not the government regulates carbon [dioxide]. Some of them even want to have a debate about it first. Don't these yahoos understand that democratic consent doesn't apply to the Environmental Protection Agency?

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began debating a bill that would prohibit the EPA from abusing the clean air laws of the 1970s to impose the climate regulations that Congress has refused to pass despite President Obama's entreaties. As EPA chief Lisa Jackson put it with her customary reserve at a hearing last week, the measure "would presume to overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers Americans' health and well-being. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question . . ."

We'll spare you the rest, though Ms. Jackson mentioned "science" a few more times in case anyone didn't get the drift. But the real presumption is that an unaccountable bureaucracy should use its self-assigned powers to make inherently political choices that will be a colossal drag on economic growth.