Why Do Democratic Groups-- And Even Nonpartisan Good Government Organizations-- Give The Blue Dogs A Pass?

Ryan and McCarthy love to brag about how their most toxic legislation passes with "bipartisan" support. And technically, they're right. There is always a pack of bribe-hungry Blue Dogs and New Dems eager to sell their votes to the highest bidders. So far this cycle the 10 most corrupted Democrats in Congress so far-- from bad to worst:

• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Daniel Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

I often notice that when Democratic Party affiliated groups-- like the DCCC-- or even Democratic allies in the media chastise Republicans for destructive legislation, they give the handful of Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party a pass. Let me give you an example. MapLight is a non-partisan good government group whose mission is to reveal money's influence on politics. Last week they published a report, Oil, Gas, and Chemical Money Boosts House Members Pushing to Weaken Clean Air Act, a response to the 229-199 passage of what is commonly referred to as the "Smoggy Skies Act." MapLight notes that "Sponsors of a House measure that would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act received more than two and a half times more campaign money from chemical, oil, and gas interests than other House members, according to a MapLight analysis. The House passed the “Ozone Standards Implementation Act” Tuesday, which would delay implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s current ozone regulations until 2025. The bill also would permanently reduce the frequency of the EPA's assessment of ozone levels on health from once every five years to once every 10 years. Opponents of the bill claim it would harm air quality and public health; supporters argue it gives businesses more time to comply with pollution standards created by the agency in 2015. During the 2016 election cycle, the 25 Republican representatives sponsoring the bill received an average of $20,196 from chemical, oil, and gas interests. Other lawmakers received an average of $7,720."

All of that is true-- if slightly misleading. What MapLight identified as "the 25 Republican representatives sponsoring the bill" included 3 ultra-corrupt Blue Dog Democrats-- Henry Cuellar (TX), Jim Costa (CA), and Sanford Bishop (GA). When the bill came up for a vote of the floor last week, Those 3 were joined by another of Big Oil's most notorious congressional whores, Collin Peterson (MN), when they crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans. Meanwhile, 11 Republicans refused to tow the party lie and they crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Democrats. MapLight:

All told, chemical, oil, and gas interests contributed roughly $3.7 million to the campaigns of current House members. More than 200 members received at least $4,000.

A coalition of 121 organizations focused on health and the environment urged members of Congress to oppose the bill in March, arguing it would “systematically weaken the Clean Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans’ 46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and delay life-saving health standards already years overdue.”

And what about the 4 Blue Dog supporters? How much in bribes did they get from chemical, oil, and gas interests in the 2016 cycle? Let's take a peek:

• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- $158,305
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $110,525
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $44,075
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- $20,000

Map Light asserts that corrupt Republican bribe takers who sponsored the bill received an average of $20,196 during the 2016 cycle. OK... but the corrupted Blue Dog Democrats who co-sponsored and voted for the legislation took far more on average than even the Republicans! But there was no mention of that in their otherwise very accurate and important report. Odd!

Ignorant twitter commenters and others very frequently try to cover up this kind of fact-based analysis by claiming attacks on Blue Dogs and New Dems are nothing more than "purity tests." Sad.

Do You Hate The Republicans Who Voted To Allow More Air Pollution? How About The Blue Dogs Who Voted With Them?

Lately, I've been writing a lot about how the DCCC is trying to bring on the dancing Blue Dogs again-- so, like clockwork, I'm hearing from a packing of simpering whiners about what an awful purist I am and how only Blue Dogs can win on this district or that district, ideas born out of nothing at all except the purest and most overwhelming ignorance (with some shear stupidity tossed in for good measure generally speaking).

So today Ryan and McCarthy were bragging how they passed corrupt Big Oil-and-pollution-owned Republican Pete Olson's H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act. Ryan said it was a bipartisan effort and, technically-speaking, it was. 11 Republicans refused to vote for the horrific bill-- primarily Republicans in swing districts like Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Dave Reichert (WA), Bruce Poliquin (ME), Carlos Curbelo (FL), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Elise Stefanik (NY)... you know, districts where people care something about... well, clean air. And then there were 4 Blue Dogs who crossed the aisle in the other direction and joined the GOP-- as they do on a regular basis-- to pay back the immense bribes they take from pollution industries who wrote Olson's bill. Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) all voted for the bill.

Naughty, naughty Blue Dogs-- but vote for them anyway? This is what the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Medical Association. the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Public Health Association and 10 other non-partisan public health groups told every member of Congress in a letter.

Clean air is fundamental for good health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 806, the so-called “Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.” A more fitting name for this legislation would be the “Smoggy Skies Act,” as it delays lifesaving standards to reduce ozone pollution, or smog, and permanently weakens the Clean Air Act.

Clear, up-to-date, scientific evidence documented the need for greater protection from ozone pollution, and drove the stronger limit on ozone that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized in 2015. To meet the updated standard, the states have clear authority and plenty of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution under the Clean Air Act’s long-established, balanced implementation timeline. Despite those facts, the Smoggy Skies Act imposes additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten health, particularly the health of children, seniors and people with chronic disease.

The Smoggy Skies Act also reaches far beyond implementation of the current ozone standards. It permanently weakens the Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, the Smoggy Skies Act weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air pollution health standards, including those for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It would also permanently undermine the Clean Air Act as a public health law.

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science on the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air pollutants every five years and update these national ambient air quality standards according to the current science. The Smoggy Skies Act would lengthen the review period of the air pollution health standards from once every five years to once every ten years for all criteria pollutants. As the science continues to evolve, the public deserves that their protections be based on the most up-to-date science, certainly not a schedule that is twice as long as they currently have under the law. The work that EPA and states do to clean up air pollution should be based on the best and most current science.

Emerging research adds crucial information to our understanding of the impacts that air pollution has on human health, and EPA should not have to wait a decade to incorporate it. For example, on March 29, 2016, a newly published study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic Costs, showed new information linking particulate air pollution to nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under the Smoggy Skies Act, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade to consider such new evidence when setting standards. Ten years is far too long to wait to protect public health from levels of pollution that the science shows are dangerous or for EPA to consider new information.

In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks and resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. A growing body of research indicates that ozone may also lead to central nervous system harm and may harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA updated the ozone standards. While many of our organizations called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that the updated, 70 parts per billion standard provides greater health protections compared to the previous standard.

The Smoggy Skies Act would delay implementation of these more protective air pollution standards for at least eight years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will not be told the truth about pollution in their community and states and EPA will not work to curb pollution to meet the new standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when pollution in the air they breathe or the water they drink threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of delay to health protections and cleanup.

Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports upholding these more protective limits on ozone. A 2017 poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe Congress should leave EPA’s updated standards in place, showing clear public opposition to the Smoggy Skies Act.

The Smoggy Skies Act would also permanently weaken implementation of the 2015 and future ozone standards. The Act would delay implementation to a date when the evidence shows that most states would meet the standard with cleanup measures already in place. It would also reduce requirements for areas with the most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas classified as being in “extreme nonattainment” of the standard would no longer need to write plans that include additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail to provide the expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the public’s health, but the Smoggy Skies Act opens a new opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up, irrespective of the health impacts.

Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event, such as a wildfire, should not “count” in determining whether their air quality meets the national standards. This bill would recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant-- the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was designed to combat-- and declare those bad air days as “exceptional.” Changing the accounting rules will undermine health protection and avoid pollution cleanup.

Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation’s premier public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets the standard that is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the second phase during implementation of the standard.

This bill states that if EPA finds that “a range of levels” of an air pollutant protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that range. Further, the bill would interject implementation considerations, including projections of adverse economic and energy effects, into the standard setting process. These changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise of the Clean Air Act-- protecting the public from known health effects of air pollution with a margin of safety.

These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of public health would push technology to develop new tools and techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing the cleanup technology to meet the urgent need to protect health would help to expand job development and growth. They were correct, as the emission control industry today has helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-effective ways.

The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act does not authorize any additional funds to be appropriated to EPA for its work carrying out the bill’s provisions. Forcing EPA to perform the additional work of implementing this bill with no additional resources could put the agency’s current, lifesaving work at further risk.

Finally, an amendment adopted in committee would eliminate key enforcement provisions under the Clean Air Act. As amended, the bill could perpetuate poor air quality in communities with the highest pollution levels indefinitely. The provision waives the obligation for states with areas heavily polluted by ozone or particulate matter to write effective plans to attain the health standards. Currently, if an area with unhealthy air fails to write an adequate plan to meet air pollution standards, EPA can impose sanctions. Because that enforcement provision exists, EPA has almost never needed to use it-- states wrote effective plans. As amended, the Smoggy Skies Act would bar EPA from using this key enforcement tool for especially polluted areas, essentially eliminating the obligation for states to write a meaningful pollution cleanup plan that can demonstrate meeting the health standards.

The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving standards that protect public health from air pollution. This bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation’s proven clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards. Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote NO on the Smoggy Skies Act.

This isn't a fucking game about purity tests. This is about life and death, health or sickness. And what--if anything-- the Democratic Party stands for. 188 Democrats voted NO, but Ryan is saying the bill passed 229-199 in a bipartisan effort. Three of those scumbag, bribe-taking Blue Dogs were also co-sponsors of the bill, presumably to get a few extra bucks in their Xmas stockings this year. You might expect this kind of behavior from Republicans; that's who they are as a party. But from Democrats too? That's supposed to be OK? Back them anyway because the GOP is so bad. Tell them to emphysema patients.

Carol Shea-Porter is a normal Democrat, not a Blue Dog, not a New Dem, not from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. She's the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Asthma and Allergies Caucus. She told her constituents in New Hampshire that she's "working to raise awareness of the connection between air pollution and breathing problems. That’s why I’m so disappointed that my Republican colleagues in the House just voted for the 'Smoggy Skies Act,' which will delay badly needed restrictions that would have tamped down how much smog polluters can release into the air we all breathe. Our job is to protect children’s lungs and to stop diseases like asthma and COPD-- not to make people sick, not to make it easier for polluters."

Sam Jammal is the newest Blue America endorsee. He's running for the Orange County seat occupied by right-wing Ryan rubber stamp Ed Royce. This morning he told us that "When Donald Trump withdrew our country from the Paris Agreement, Ed Royce touted his support for clean air and clean water. It looks like once again, Ed Royce says reasonable things in public, but he votes extreme and hopes no one pays attention. Considering Ed represents the birthplace of Richard Nixon-- who created the EPA, it's ironic that Ed can't even support something as bipartisan as clean air. But this is typical Ed Royce.

"I worked in clean energy and saw first hand that we have the technology to create jobs, save consumers money and help us have cleaner air. There is no technological barrier any more. It's just politics and whether or not someone like Ed Royce can say no to big oil money and yes to innovation. What's worse is that the EPA rules are ultimately about public health. Families are paying higher out of pocket expenses to deal with respiratory illnesses thanks to air pollution. These same families are watching as the Republicans attempt to dismantle their health care. The last thing we need are further attempts to erode clean air-- it affects jobs, health care and our environment."

Derrick is the progressive candidate vying to take on anti-science nut Lamar Smith in TX-21 (an Austin-San Antonio corridor district). Smith didn't just vote for the bill, he was a key co-sponsor or it! Crowe told us that "This isn't hypothetical for me. My wife suffers from asthma. When people try to weaken air standards, it directly affects my wife's health. Everyone who thinks that this is some technical adjustment should have to sit and watch Laurie during an asthma attack.Watching someone you love struggle to breathe is terrifying. Now couple this with Smith's vote on repealing 23 million people's health insurance, which would make it harder for families to afford asthma medications and maintenance treatments. I'd like to know how many people Smith would let choke to death to make his donors happy."

A 2018 Battle For A Changing Chicagoland District-- Guest Post By Geoff Petzel

This week, Blue America endorsed Geoff Petzel to represent Illinois' 6th congressional district in Congress, a seat currently held by conservative Republican Peter Roskam. The Chicagoland suburban district, which was Romney territory in 2012, voted for Clinton over Trump, 50.2% to 43.2%. The DCCC has given Roskam a free ride year after year but has finally vowed to prioritize IL-06 for the 2018 cycle. Blue America would like to make sure the Democratic candidate is a progressive, not another right-of-center corporate shill. Geoff fits the bill and we asked him to write a guest post on the issue he has been most associated with: environmental protection. After reading it, please consider contributing to his campaign by tapping on the ActBlue thermometer at the bottom of the page (or by clicking here.)

Clean Water And Air As Essential American Campaign Issues
-by Geoffrey Petzel

The appointment of Scott Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator is a troubling sign of things ahead. Clean air, clean water, endangered species, public lands and climate change solutions are all at risk under the Trump Administration and Republican Congress.

As someone who has been deeply entrenched in environmental policy for the last 20 years as an advocate, activist and professional, the implications of the Trump Administration appointments and statements on the environment are beyond disconcerning. I am the founder of an organization called Public Guardian. We have no website, no advertising and don’t care about media coverage. What we care about is fighting private interests and the government when they fail to protect the public trust. We believe that clean air, clean water and public lands belong equally to all Americans and that government decision makers are responsible to us-- the people-- in protecting those resources. So when the government or private industry tries to take away those public trust resources, we must fight back. In the courts and in our communities.

I started Pubic Guardian after I ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2012. I ran because I wanted to have a positive impact on society. I wanted to have a voice. I also said I would never run for office again.

It’s amazing how quickly things change. As I begin the campaign to replace my incumbent Congressman in 2018 it makes me wonder how we have gotten to this point-- putting an anti-science climate change denier in charge of the EPA. It makes me wonder how the American people can ignore the needs of clean air, clean water and protecting our public lands.

Take my Congressman, Peter Roskam, as an example. He has voted dozens of times to gut the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, to de-fund Endangered Species protections and exploit oil, gas and mineral resources on public lands. He has one of the worst environmental voting records in Congress. How is this possible? Don’t voters in our District care about the environment? What about Republicans nationally? How can they support Scott Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator?

When I try to make sense of that question, I think back to my race in 2012 where I had a confrontation with a Tea Party member who lived in my neighborhood. He told me he thought my priorities were wrong and that government regulations were killing American jobs and that the EPA should be eliminated. He was my neighbor and I didn’t want to get into a yelling match, but I couldn’t let that one go without a response. I reminded him that he got his drinking water from a well and without the EPA I would be free to dump toxic chemicals in my backyard. His well would be poisoned. I asked him if he would be better off in that situation. I then pointed to his mini-van and asked how he would feel if the gas tank exploded while he was driving his children to school. He was silent. I reminded him that the federal government put in safety standards to make sure his car was safe. And I reminded him that the EPA and clean water laws have ensured that our rivers aren’t so full of chemical waste that they start on fire like the Cuyahoga River did in 1969 (spurring the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972). He ultimately agreed me and tried to duck and cover from any further discussion. He later put my campaign sign in his yard.

I think we have lost sight of what’s important. The mainstream media and politicians don’t talk about Clean Water and Clean Air or the regulation of toxic chemicals. We take for granted the immense progress we have made in environmental protection since the 1960’s. That’s how my Congressman has been allowed to stay in office with an abysmal record that violates the essence of what almost every American values-- environmental protection. We need to remind each other that if we are not careful, history will repeat itself. I’m sure if we eliminate enforceable laws and eliminate consumer protections large companies will be happy to dump their waste in the air, land and waters of this nation. Our health and the health of future generations will be at stake if we allow private corporations to set the priorities. General Electric poisoned the Hudson River, DuPont has destroyed the rivers and streams of West Virginia with the production of Teflon and today Monsanto poisons our land and waters with dangerous pesticides.

In my Congressional District we are facing significant water challenges. The Fox River runs through the western edge of the District. The Fox River originates in Wisconsin and flows south before it enters Illinois. In the summer, in its southern reaches, 1/3 of the flow of the river is treated wastewater from the dozens of sewage treatment plants that discharge the treated water into the river. Over 350,000 people also get their drinking water from the same river. The enforcement of clean water standards is critical to ensure the preservation of the river environment, but also critical to the 350,000 people, manufacturers and businesses that depend on clean water. Imagine the implications if the Clean Water Act were repealed or if EPA stopped enforcing laws. Imagine if Wisconsin decided to increase pollution to spur economic development? These types of issues are why a strong and active EPA is critical to the people in my district.

Already the Trump Administration has overturned a provision of the Clean Water Act that will allow mining companies to dump mining waste into streams and valleys. Rumors are that the Administration has also ordered the EPA to stop enforcement actions. While the US EPA is responsible for over-seeing the Clean Water Act, the enforcement and implementation of the Clean Water Act is traditionally designated to the states. This delegation to the states will provide some protection from the full scale destruction of our nation’s waters in the short term as states have their own set of water quality standards on the books to mirror the Clean Water Act, but the long term implications can be devastating.

I believe in increased funding and stronger enforcement of our existing Clean Air and Clean Water laws. In Illinois for example, last month over 300 companies or government owned wastewater treatment plants violated clean water laws. The State of Illinois lacks funding to increase enforcement. If EPA won’t step in and enforce the laws we will see an increase in fish kills, contaminated drinking water and health problems.

I also believe in science and am very fearful of the climate change impacts that will happen because of a Trump Administration. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change will allow the United States to be a leader in global greenhouse gas reductions. Our policy is aligned with science and it must stay that way for the sake of our future. This is the most important policy fight we should have as a country because it’s more than just domestic policy at stake. A failure to follow the Paris Accord will unravel the global commitment 197 countries have made to fighting climate change.

I decided to run for Congress again because unlike during the 2012 Campaign when no one seemed to be paying attention, the country has awaken to what is at stake in our elections. And now is the time for bold candidates to make bold decisions based on values and not polls.

Through my not-for-profit I am fighting a copper mining project in Arizona that will destroy thousands of acres of National Forest land and sacred Apache cultural sites. The land for the proposed copper mine was transferred to the mining company in a land transfer agreement approval by Congress- kind of. John McCain attached a rider to the defense authorization bill at the last minute that included the land transfer. Congress approved the defense authorization bill with the rider. I’m sure some members knew the rider was attached but didn’t want to explain to their constituents why they voted against a defense spending bill. This is the wrong approach. If I had the opportunity I would have voted against the bill. I would be happy to go back to my congressional district and explain why I voted to protect public lands in Arizona.

My district is well educated and moderate on most issues. They value environmental protection. No one has been paying attention, but now that people are engaged, politicians like my opponent will have a lot of explaining to do. People in my district need a Representative in Congress who shares their values and will stand up for them. And sometimes they need to be reminded of what you, and they really do value.

Poisoning The Air We Breath Is Part Of The Corrupt Conservative Agenda

Some corrupt conservatives thought of a way to save some money

I don't remember the last time I drank tap water in Los Angeles, which is probably because I never did. Over the weekend the Associated Press put out a feature emphasizing a poll that found that only 47% of Americans say they're extremely or very confident about the safety of their drinking water.

The lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, has been in the headlines for months, and more than half of Americans believe it's a sign of widespread problems in the U.S. About seven in 10 drink tap water, but about half of them first run it through a filter.

As we discussed Friday, a lawsuit against the EPA-- Michigan vs EPA-- and a vote in the House by all 231 Republicans plus 7 corrupt conservative Democrats would permit deadly mercury gases to be released into the air to save a few dollars for manufacturers. One of the points of that post was that if all Republicans are corrupt conservatives, not all corrupt conservatives are Republicans. That more and more so called "moderate" (meaning right-wing, a word with negative connotations the corporate media never uses to describe establishment politicians) Democrats are conspiring with Republicans to realize the GOP agenda is illustrated in a move to poison Los Angeles' air, Los Angeles, a city with few actual Republicans in power, just some Democrats who enable then and behave like them when they can get away with it.

Southern California's air quality board moved forcefully to weaken pollution regulation Friday, firing the agency's longtime leader and reaffirming new smog rules backed by oil refineries and other major polluters.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District board dismissed Barry Wallerstein in a 7-6 vote during a closed-door session, a month after Republicans took control of the panel vowing a friendlier approach to industry.

Wallerstein, 62, was appointed executive officer in 1997 and presided over the agency charged with protecting the health of 17 million people in the nation's smoggiest region. During his tenure, pollution diminished sharply across the region, but remains far from meeting federal health standards.

The board's actions are expected to delay Southern California's progress toward achieving those standards by allowing industry to avoid costly air quality improvements.

Dwight Robinson and other new board members have been outspoken about the need to shift the balance between air quality regulation and economic impacts on businesses.

“With every rule-making and regulation we need to be looking at the economic impact as well as the environmental impacts,” Robinson said in an interview this week. The board's seven Republicans voted to fire Wallerstein. Its five Democrats and one independent opposed the dismissal.

The firing came just three days after board members posted an agenda item to evaluate Wallerstein's performance. The board named Michael B. O'Kelly, the air district's chief financial officer, as acting executive officer.

The ouster followed an emotional public hearing with dozens of speakers opposing Wallerstein's removal. They said he was an effective, fair-minded regulator and urged the agency not to veer further from its mandate to protect their health.

Board members heard testimony from residents of smoggy communities of the Inland Empire and near South Bay oil refineries and from people who struggle with asthma and other pollution-triggered health problems. No one spoke in favor of Wallerstein's firing.

“Your names will be etched on the lungs of our community members,” Sylvia Betancourt of the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma told the panel before the vote.

Board members did not speak publicly about Wallerstein before their closed-door vote. No allegations of wrongdoing or mismanagement were made in the public hearing.

...Republicans gained a seven-member majority on the board in February after elected officials from Orange County cities voted in Robinson, a Republican councilman from Lake Forest, to replace Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, a Democrat.

Environmentalists said Friday that Southern California's progress in cleaning its once-notorious smog shows clean air and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.

...Friday, the board voted 8 to 5 not to reconsider its controversial December vote to adopt an industry-backed plan to reduce smog-forming emissions. The regulations apply to refineries, power plants and other major facilities whose nitrogen oxide emissions have leveled off in recent years rather than continue to improve.

California legislators, state air quality officials and environmentalists criticize that vote as a violation of state law and harmful to public health.

The new plan, weaker than a version Wallerstein and his staff proposed, will delay the installation of costly pollution controls at the region's six major oil refineries and set back progress toward clean air.

...State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) vowed legislative action in response to the board's move, calling it “only the latest in a disturbing trend of dirty energy interests dismantling clean air rules that the public overwhelmingly supports.”

“We need strong leadership to address some of the worst air quality in the nation, not a rubber stamp committee for the oil industry agenda,” De León said.

The Los Angeles County Business Federation called for the agency's new leadership to act with sensitivity to the effects of its actions on industry and “with the active partnership of the business community.”

“Children deserve to breathe clean air and they deserve the healthy homes that result when a parent has a good-paying job,” said David Englin, the group's executive vice president.

The agency has been in the spotlight in recent years over its handling of years of dangerous lead and arsenic emissions from the now-closed Exide battery plant into communities of southeast L.A. County, its response to a massive gas leak near Porter Ranch and restrictions targeting smoke from beach bonfire pits in Orange County.

Business interests, however, have complained of the costs of complying with increasingly strict regulations. Regulated industries mounted a vigorous campaign to weaken the smog rules proposed by staff in December, arguing that they would force refineries and other facilities to spend billions upgrading pollution controls.

The plan that the board approved in December and affirmed Friday is backed by the Western States Petroleum Assn. and other industry groups.

Several Southern California political leaders are up in arms about this. Lou Vince, the progressive congressional candidate against pollution-protector Steve Knight in the Santa Clarita Valley area, was incensed "The last thing that Southern California needs is weaker air pollution standards," he told us this morning. "California leads the nation in environmental protections and now is not the time the start weakening any of our protections. As a congressman, I want to push Congress to follow California's lead and really start addressing climate change on the federal level." As a congressman, Ted Lieu (D-CA) has already been doing that. Earlier today, he told us "The action of the Republican majority in firing a dedicated public servant because he supported the environment can only be described as SHAMEFUL. If this makes you angry, make sure you vote for progressive officials at all levels of government." Thanks, Ted... I couldn't have said it better myself!

The Environment Has Many Enemies In Congress-- And Fred Upton Is The Most Dangerous Of All

There may be more than one reason so many voters in southwest Michigan want this to be Fred Upton's last term. First elected in 1986 (when Ronald Reagan was president), there's a general feeling that Upton's been in Congress too long and that he's now "one of them," not "one of us." He's become a creature of the Beltway and he pushes policies for K Street lobbyists and big special interests rather than for working families back in Kalamazoo, Portage, Niles, Benton Harbor/St. Joseph or Paw Paw. Or maybe it's because 69% of MI-06 residents say they opposed shutting down the government in order to stop Obamacare, something Upton voted for. People in southwest Michigan know he doesn't give a damn what they think… he's all about DC now and the only politics he's come to pay attention to are the politics inside the GOP House caucus.

Or maybe it's because Upton's role as one of the single most pollution-enabling politicians in the entire world has finally started sinking in. Filthy air, filthy water, Climate Change and global warming, all have Upton's paw prints all over them. The non-partisan, non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council-- which boasts 1.4 million members-- made yesterday Fred Upton Day. Their political Action Fund is in the midst of exposing the worst Members of Congress. "For some members of Congress casting dirty votes and accepting campaign contributions from polluters is a normal day in Washington," they explained last month. "But, this August, as members return home to face voters, the NRDC Action Fund will expose some of them for exactly who they are: dirty deniers. Beginning August 4, the NRDC Action Fund will name “Daily Dirty Deniers” each weekday, featuring members (#DailyDenier$) who allow polluters to foul our air by casting dirty votes and accepting dirty money."

The NRDC Action Fund will highlight 20 total members during the August recess which leads into the unofficial kickoff to election season. The “Daily Dirty Denier$” campaign is focused on bringing attention to these member Congress while they are home and trying to convince voters they have their best interests in mind. We will expose:

House members who have now voted almost 200 times in just this Congress to weaken or eliminate environmental protections;

• How outside polluter money is being used to support #DirtyDenier$;
• Why polluters lost in 2012 and why they will lose again in 2014; and
• Support for climate action specifically among the rising American electorate.

We'll get to Upton in a minute. These are the other dirty crooks they've exposed so far: Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Henry Cuella (Blue Dog-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Tom Latham (R-IA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mike Coffman (R-CO), John Boozman (R-AR), John Kline (R-MN), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Scott Brown (R-MA), John Shimkus (R-IL), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and, of course, Miss McConnell (R-KY).

Today’s Dirty Denier$ is Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan and Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Upton has used his leadership position to try to move the nation backward, and his record on clean air and climate change keeps getting worse.

Upton has been all over the map on the facts about climate change. In 2011, he said he didn’t believe humans are contributing to global climate change. Since then, he’s been mostly silent on that basic issue, but he’s been loud in his opposition to doing anything about climate. He has used extreme rhetoric to characterize the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, calling it “an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs” and a “train wreck.”

And consider that one of the first bills that Upton sponsored upon assuming the chairmanship of the committee would have permanently blocked EPA from doing anything at all to address carbon pollution. Moreover, the bill would have increased America’s dependence on oil by undermining efficiency standards for motor vehicles, and cost consumers $58 billion. Upton has also given his blessing to multiple bills to undo various aspects of the Clean Air Act.

The dirty fuel interests that have given nearly $2 million in campaign contributions to Upton over the course of his career are no doubt pleased with his record. However, the same can’t be said for his constituents back home. According to recent polling from the NRDC Action Fund in key states including Michigan, overwhelming majorities of voters in that group of states support strong action to stop dangerous carbon pollution. This includes 53% of Republicans. Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder has said, “People may not agree about why climate change is happening, but it is certainly affecting Michigan.”

Michigan has a lot to gain from a clean energy policy. In 2013 alone, Michigan announced more than 1700 jobs in the renewable energy sector, placing it 12th in the country for new job creation. And in a signal that better days are ahead for both the economy and the environment, 380 of those jobs were in clean vehicle manufacturing.

Our advice: It’s time for Congressman Upton to once again reinvent himself. It’s time to stop being a Dirty Denier$ and start being a clean energy champion for his state.

Obviously there's no chance whatsoever that Upton-- an hereditary multimillionaire, scion of the job-exporting Whirlpool fortune-- will be taking that advice to heart. So our advice is to replace him with progressive Democrat Paul Clements.

After the statement from the Natural Resources Defense Council we reached Clements in Kalamazoo and he told us that "when the Los Angeles Times singled Congressman Upton out as the #1 enemy of Planet Earth, they weren't exaggerating. He has used his role in Congress to raise millions from special interests, over $644,000 from the oil and gas industry alone, and advocated for those that fund his campaigns, not his constituents. He has led the extreme fight against the EPA, stopped any progress on Climate Change, and fought against creating the sustainable hi-tech jobs that will employ thousands in Michigan. He's voted against requiring companies to report dangerous chemicals found in our drinking water and has taken over $20,000 dollars from a company that has one of America’s most toxic waste sites here on the Kalamazoo River, which puts our Great Lakes in danger. The technology and the incentives are there to protect our planet and create the jobs of the future in the Midwest, but we can't do it with backwards, bought and paid for, members like Congressman Upton in Congress."

Blue America wants to remind you that you can help Paul Clements replace Fred Upton here.

Koch Brothers' War Against America Suffers A Setback In The Supreme Court

Clean air-- clearly a Marxist plot against the esteemed Koch borthers

The NY Times called it "a major victory for the Obama administration" but the 6-2 ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday to allow the EPA to regulate the smog from coal plants that drifts across state lines from 28 Midwestern and Appalachian states to the East Coast was a victory for the American people first and foremost. And no one is more incensed than the Koch brothers! "Republicans and the coal industry," asserted the Times, "have criticized the regulations, which use the Clean Air Act as their legal authority, as a 'war on coal.' The industry has waged an aggressive legal battle to undo the rules.

“It’s a big win for the E.P.A., and not just because it has to do with this rule,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard. “It’s the fact that it’s setting the stage and creating momentum for what’s to come.”

...Two weeks ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld another major E.P.A. Clean Air Act rule that would cut coal-plant pollution from mercury.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a resounding victory for public health and a key component of E.P.A.’s efforts to make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe,” Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A. administrator, said in a statement. She added that “the court’s finding also underscores the importance of basing the agency’s efforts on strong legal foundations and sound science.”

The interstate air pollution regulation, also known as the “good neighbor” rule, has pitted Rust Belt and Appalachian states like Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky against East Coast states like New York and Connecticut.

Predictably, the 2 dissenters-- with corporate whore Sammy Alito having had the out of character decency to recuse himself-- were Scalia and Thomas, who called the rules "Marxist." One of the Koch brothers' most shameless handmaidens in Congress, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), who has a free reelection pass from his pal Steve Israel, twisted the ruling into a simplistic and misleading statement, as is his wont: "This is just the latest blow to jobs and affordable energy... We cannot allow E.P.A.’s aggressive regulatory expansion to go unchecked. We will continue our oversight of the agency and our efforts to protect American families and workers from E.P.A.’s onslaught of costly rules."

With the Koch brothers bribing the majority of the Members of Congress, the EPA isn't used to winning these kinds of victories lately. "Today's Supreme Court decision," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, "is a resounding victory for public health and a key component of EPA’s efforts to make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe. It serves to support the ongoing work to see that air quality in downwind states continues to improve. The Court’s finding also underscores the importance of basing the agency’s efforts on strong legal foundations and sound science. This is a big win for the nation’s public health and a proud day for the agency."

The White House statement emphasized that "240 million Americans can breathe easier" because of the decision.

EPA previously estimated that the rule will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year-- achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits.

These substantial health benefits will be achieved at modest costs using readily available pollution controls already adopted by many power plants. While leveling the playing field, the rule also gives power companies the flexibility to choose the most cost-effective option for cutting air pollution and protecting downwind communities.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is one of President Obama’s major clean air and public health accomplishments. Other major actions include:

• First-ever national limits on mercury and other toxic pollution from power plants
• New car and gasoline standards to cut vehicle pollution
• Long-overdue limits on toxic air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators
• Rules to cut smog-forming pollutants from oil and gas wells
• Tighter air quality standards for particulate pollution (or soot), reflecting new science about dangerous health impacts

Overall, the Administration’s clean air safeguards will save tens of thousands of lives, avoid millions of lost work and school days, and make our cities and towns healthier places to live and raise families.

Although we’ve made important progress in cutting smog, soot, mercury, and toxic air pollution, our work is not done. More action is needed to cut the harmful carbon pollution that causes climate change, impacting our communities and public health. In June, EPA will issue a proposed Clean Air Act rule to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. This step, which will build on the Administration’s previous clean air successes, is a central element of the President’s Climate Action Plan.

Steven Mufson and Tom Hamburger, writing over the weekend for the Washington Post laid out some of the contours of the coming war the Koch brothers are planning against America.

In state capitals across the country, legislators are debating proposals to roll back environmental rules, prodded by industry and advocacy groups eager to curtail regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases.

The measures, which have been introduced in about 18 states, lie at the heart of an effort to expand to the state level the battle over fossil fuel and renewable energy. The new rules would trim or abolish climate mandates-- including those that require utilities to use solar and wind energy, as well as proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants.

But the campaign-- despite its backing from powerful groups such as Americans for Prosperity-- has run into a surprising roadblock: the growing political clout of renewable-energy interests, even in rock-ribbed Republican states such as Kansas.

The stage has been set for what one lobbyist called “trench warfare” as moneyed interests on both sides wrestle over some of the strongest regulations for promoting renewable energy. And the issues are likely to surface this fall in the midterm elections, as well, with California billionaire Tom Steyer pouring money into various gubernatorial and state and federal legislative races to back candidates who support tough rules curbing pollution.

The multi-pronged conservative effort to roll back regulations, begun more than a year ago, is supported by a loose, well-funded confederation that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and conservative activist groups such as Americans for Prosperity, a politically active nonprofit organization founded in part by brothers David and Charles Koch. These groups argue that existing government rules violate free-market principles and will ultimately drive up costs for consumers.

The proposed measures are similar from state to state. In some cases, the legislative language matches or closely resembles model bills and resolutions offered by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market-oriented group of state lawmakers underwritten in part by Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Duke Energy and Peabody Energy.

“Now more than ever is the time for states to lead the way,” ALEC’s top officials told its members at a meeting in December.

They turn their focus on Kansas, parcatically a Koch fiefdom, where normal people are beginning to fight back against the Koch plutocracy that controls the state. "The strong winds that blow across Kansas," they point out, "have carried new interest groups into the state. Kansas ranks sixth in the country in wind output, which jumped by a third last year and equaled 19 percent of the state’s electricity, the EIA says... Eventually, the Kansas Senate passed two bills, one postponing the renewable targets and one repealing them. Both failed in the state House, although the bill’s backers have vowed to bring them back."

Do Conservatives Want Their Constituents To Die? Judge For Yourself As The American Lung Association Looks At America's Most Unhealthful Air

With the Republican Party now dedicated to making their corporate donors' dreams come true by defunding and gutting the EPA, the American Lung Association just released an annual report showing that almost half the people in the country, 154 million Americans, already live in counties where smog levels are too high.

[A]bout 48% of U.S. residents live in counties where smog (ozone) is too high, 20% live in areas where there are too many short-term spikes in pollution and 6% live in areas with harmful year-round soot (particle pollution).

About 17 million Americans live in areas afflicted by all three air pollution hazards.
This worries scientists since research suggests air pollution threatens human health-- and not just the lungs.

On days in which smog levels spike, there's an increase in hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, heart attacks and stroke in the two or three days following it, said Michael Jerrett, a professor of environmental health sciences at University of California, Berkeley's School of Public Health.

Besides posing both long-term and short-term risks, pollution can contribute to low birth weights, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke and, ultimately, shorter life spans, he warned.

This is due, in part, to insidious changes caused by chronic exposure to pollution. According to Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, small particles of pollution can lodge deep in the lungs, triggering an inflammatory process that, over time, can spread elsewhere in the body and damage blood vessels and the heart.

The report found that the cities with the worst air include: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside; Bakersfield-Delano; Visalia-Porterville; Fresno-Madera; Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City (Calif.-Nev.); Hanford-Corcoran; San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos; and Merced-- all of which are in California with the exception of one county just across the border in Nevada.

Rounding out the top 10 list for smog is Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas and Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, N.C.-S.C.

Many of those same places show up on the top 10 list for year-round soot. That list includes: Bakersfield-Delano; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside; Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, Ariz.; Visalia-Porterville; Hanford-Corcoran; Fresno-Madera; Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.; Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Ala.; Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.; and Louisville-Jefferson County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, Ky.-Ind.

But there is some good news, said Janice Nolen, director of national policy for the American Lung Association. The majority of cities with polluted air have actually improved. Nolen credited the Clean Air Act, which, since its passage more than 40 years ago, has forced car and diesel truck manufacturers and coal-fired power plants, among others, to reduce emissions.

"The 'State of the Air 2011' finds the Clean Air Act is working. All metro areas on the list of the 25 cities most polluted by ozone showed improvement over the previous report, and 15 of those cities experienced their best year yet," Nolen said. "All but two of the 25 cities most polluted with year-round particle pollution improved over last year's report."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone.

And that's what the Republicans in Congress intend to turn around. The Koch Bros have spent millions of dollars financing the political careers of conservative Republicans dedicated to shutting down EPA. And last month the House voted to block it from implementing any climate change rules, something that failed to garner enough support in the Senate. Reactionary Michigan congressloon Fred Upton, an heir to the Whirlpool fortune, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee put forward legislation that would amend the Clean Air Act "to prohibit the Administrator of the EPA from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change."

Excludes GHGs from the definition of "air pollutant" for purposes of addressing climate change.

Exempts from such prohibition: (1) implementation and enforcement of the rule, "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards" and finalization, implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed rule, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles"; (2) implementation of the renewable fuel program; (3) statutorily authorized federal research, development, and demonstration programs and voluntary programs addressing climate change; (4) implementation and enforcement of stratospheric ozone protection to the extent that such implementation or enforcement only involves class I or II substances; and (5) implementation and enforcement of requirements for monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions. Provides that none of such exemptions shall cause a GHG to be subject to regulations relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality or considered an air pollutant for purposes of air pollution prevention and control permits.

Repeals and makes ineffective the following rules and actions:

• "Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases"

• "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act"

• "Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs" and the memorandum, "EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program"

• "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule"

• "Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call"

• "Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases"

• "Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan"

• "Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule"

• "Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program"

• "Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans"

• "Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule"

• Any other federal action under such Act occurring before this Act's enactment that applies a stationary source permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a GHG to address climate change

It passed 255-172 with 19 corrupt, conservative Democrats, mostly the remnants of the decimated Blue Dog Caucus, joining the Republicans. Several of them represent counties with some of the most unhealthful air. In fact among the Members of Congress representing districts with woefully unhealthful air quality 33 voted for the legislation, in effect voting to condemn their own constituents to elevated risks of lung cancer and other deadly, preventable diseases:

Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Dan Lungren (R-CA)
Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Darrell Issa (R-CA)
John Campbell (R-CA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Gary Miller (R-CA)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
Tim Murphy (R-PA)
Mark Critz (D-PA)
Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Ron Paul (R-TX)
Pete Olson (R-TX)
John Culberson (R-TX)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Rob Bishop (R-UT)
Mike Simpson (R-ID)
Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Dave Schweikert (R-AZ)
Ben Quayle (R-AZ)
Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Geoff Davis (R-KY)

The Republican Party Is On The Attack-- Now It's The Environmental Protection Agency

I'm not claiming Republican Party congressmen want to kill your children-- let alone their own; they just don't care. To them the dead and dying, whether in Afghanistan or in the American heartland, are just collateral damage in their quest for corporate profits. And this is nothing new. This is always how conservative have behaved.

The video above was released by American Family Voices and their take on what the Republicans are trying to do to the EPA is pitch-perfect. Their main point is that Congress’ multiple bills to defund, eliminate and take authority away from the EPA is an all put war on public health… By working to block EPA from implementing new safeguards for cean air they’re putting big polluters before our families and filling the air we breathe with harmful, toxic pollutants that threaten the health of our families and children.

The Clean Air Act protects the public health and reduces health care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, emergency department visits, hospitalization and premature deaths. Bills proposed by Congress would slash EPA’s budget by a third, prevent scientists from updating new standards for air pollution and allow polluters to continue to emit into the air toxics like arsenic, mercury, lead, soot, smog and carbon.

“The Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 early deaths last year, including 230 infants, yet Congress is busy working to prevent the EPA from updating and enforcing standards that would limit toxic pollutants that endanger the public health,” said Mike Lux, President of American Family Voices. “If we don’t curb those pollutants, they’ll end up in our air, water and food and eventually in our children. Congress needs to let the EPA do its job to protect public health.”

A recent bipartisan survey conducted for the American Lung Association indicates the overwhelming view of voters:

• 69 percent think the EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter limits on air pollution;

• 64 percent feel that Congress should not stop the EPA from updating carbon dioxide emission standards;

• 69 percent believe that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards.

A recent EPA analysis, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, found that the air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion and prevent at least 230,000 deaths annually by 2020.

As we saw yesterday, the most conservative state in Germany, Baden-Württemberg, which has been dominated by conservatives for 58 straight years, just defeated them-- over environmental policy-- and handed the state premiership over to a Green! We should do the same... if we care half as much for our future and our children's futures as the Germans do.