Thursday, April 17, 2014

Where Are The Challenges To Putin's Aggression??

Putin is challenging the post-Cold War status quo nearly unopposed.  He's claimed the outrageous right to intervene in other country's business if the people happen to speak Russian!!  Naturally most of the freed Soviet states speak Russian!!  He's claimed that Kiev is the one creating problems in the Ukraine, but it's Russians who are there fomenting trouble.  He's even denied that there are Russian forces in Crimea!!   It's like we're back to Stalinist Russia complete with the outrageous lies! 

Putin is a Stalinist, a dictator and a murderer.  He clearly wants to re-draw borders and bring back the "glory" of the Soviet Union, despite the fact that all of the breakaway countries desperately want to get as far away from Russia as possible.  Putin is the closest thing to a Hitler in the West.  (Kim Jong Un is the Hitler of the East).

And like Hitler, if he is stopped early than we can avoid a larger conflict -- even avoid a war.  But we're seeing weak-kneed leaders everywhere including Obama and the Europeans.  All have ruled-out force to stop Putin's militarism. Putin will be emboldened by this.  Europe, the bloodiest place in human history during the past 100 years, still hasn't learned the lessons of the cost of appeasing dictators!  The US could move troops, ships and military assets into Eastern Europe and Ukraine in a few days if they wanted to.  Assets could be deployed to secure the Baltic states.  Instead, we have Obama stuck in his typical bureaucratic paralysis and indecision. Obama has a problem dealing with reality: it keeps hitting him on the head but he just doesn't get it!   This goes for all of his thinking and ideas -- he's wrong about everything but never learns anything.  It amounts to a mental illness.

The US military assets dwarf Russia's on the international stage.  The US controls international banking and has led successful economic embargoes against Iran by shutting down bank's access to international transactions and money transfers.  These are formidable weapons. What we don't have is leaders with courage, intelligence and knowledge of history.

Where are the speeches by Obama or Merkel publicly challenging the outrageous claim that Russia has a right to "protect" Russian speakers everywhere??   It MUST be challenged by a unified West.   Obama had better get off his ass and get "real" about Putin's intentions instead of standing around like a deer in the headlights.  If not, expect some kind of low grade war, more trouble-making in Eastern Europe and possibly outright war.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Solar Power Suddenly Cheaper and Economically Justified

Don't look now, but solar photovoltaic power installations have become much cheaper since 2010 and, even though the sun only shines about 4.5 hours per day on average in the US, these installations are now reasonably justified in the economic sense, especially taking into account tax subsidies from the government.

From Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at Telegragh,
The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory says scientists can now capture 31.1pc of the sun's energy with a 111-V Solar Cell, a world record but soon to be beaten again no doubt. This will find its way briskly into routine use. Wind cannot keep pace. It is static by comparison, a regional niche at best.
A McKinsey study said the average cost of installed solar power in the US across all sectors has dropped to $2.59 from more than $6 a watt in 2010. It expects this fall to $2.30 by next year and $1.60 by 2020. This will put solar within "striking distance" of coal and gas, it said.
Solar cell prices have already collapsed so far that other "soft costs" now make up 64pc of residential solar installation in the US. Germany has shown that this too can be slashed, partly by sheer scale.
For example, consider a 3 kW solar panel installation at a residence.  At $2.59 per watt, that installation would cost $7,770 (using the above figure).   At 4.5 hours of sun per day, this installation would give the owner some 4,928 kW-hours of electrical power per year.   At an average cost of power of $0.11 per kW-hr, the owner would save $542 per year or make about 6.9% rate of return on his investment.

I went to the Solar City company's website and they indicate a cost of $30,000 for a 4 kW system or $7.50 per installed watt or about 3 times the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory's figure.  Therefore, the rate of return would be 3 times less or a 2.3% rate of return.  This is about the same as a government bond.   But in the US and Europe, there are tax incentives for solar installations bringing the installed costs down by about 30% or more, so the return is somewhere between 2.3% and 6.9% per annum -- probably close to 3% rate of return (based on Solar City info).  Homeowners using local firms and doing some of the installation work themselves will probably get returns closer to the 6% return figure.

Also, the cost of electricity is gradually rising which means that solar power will be increasingly attractive as years go by.  Home owners are well advised to factor-in the inflation hedge into their financial considerations.  

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Obamanation: Our Lousy Economic Recovery

In the chart below (from Doug Short), can you see the difference between the current "recovery" versus all of the other post-war recoveries??    Employment still hasn't recovered after 4 years of the Obama administration.   This despite the "pissing-away" of debt-financed money on "non-stimulus" stimulus (costing $400,000 per job "saved"), HARP, TARP,  ZIRP, Trillions of money printing and $6 trillion of new Federal debt.  What if these programs hurt the normal recovery process? 


Notice that all of post-War recoveries were much quicker even when the downturn was severe.  See the 1948 and 1957 recoveries for example.

Also note that the recoveries of 1990 and 2001 took noticeably longer.  But the current (2007) recession is far worse in duration than all of the others.  There is a trend of worse recoveries.  I wonder what the "recovery curve" for the next recession will look like?? 

The past two recessions were caused by burst financial bubbles and the next one will be too. 

Friday, April 4, 2014

The Stock Market Peaking at Same Valuations as 2007?

I wrote a blog a few days ago titled The Stock Market Is Probably Peaking.  I lay out a few arguments that the stock market is probably in the process of peaking.  Tops and bottoms are processes -- not a single day event.  Today the momentum names, the NASDAQ and small caps are all down 2 to 10%:  a big selloff on a Friday.  It feels bad this Friday afternoon, but things could look a lot different on Monday.   I added about 5% of equities to my portfolio:  I added Solar City (SCTY), Micron (MU) and a Solar ETF (TAN). 

At the start of the day today,  I only held about 12% equities comprised of 5 to 6% yielding MLP funds, infrastructure ETF fund (UTF), and some utility and telephone stocks.  The balance of the accounts are 35% in cash, 8% commodities (long and short) and alternative investments, and 45% in a mix of very short-term bank loan funds, other very short-term high yield instruments and a significant amount of longer term closed-end bond funds yielding up about 7 to 8%.

With a hat tip to Zero Hedge, the following chart shows that the stock market today is exactly at the same high valuation as the peak in October 2007.  The Market peaked in March 2000 at even higher valuations.  Valuations don't mark a market top but high valuations with technical deterioration do.  The number of stocks participating in recent highs has been declining for several months now.  Now momentum stocks and biotech shares are cratering -- many in bear markets in just a few weeks time.  A deluge of questionable IPOs is another bad sign.

Here's the chart:


Be careful out there! 


Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Health Insurance Premiums Rose Faster Last Year Than 8 Prior Years COMBINED

According to eHealthinsurance, healthcare premiums have risen 39 percent during the past year.  That compares to premium rises of 31 percent during the entire 8 year prior period (2005 to 2013).  Thanks Democrats!!  With friends like that, who needs enemies?  From Daily Caller,
Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years.
From Forbes using data from HHS, the graphs below show the average increase in premiums for 27 and 40 year old persons by State.  The increases are substantial.  The HHS didn't give data for older Americans, so the premium increases must be even higher and politically "inconvenient."   After all, we have an HHS as a part of the Ministry of Propaganda.

Premium Increases for Recent Year:  Data for 27 year old men and women



Premium Increases for Recent Year:  Data for 40 year old men and women

 


Tuesday, April 1, 2014

For This We Blew Up Our Healthcare Insurance Industry??

The new ACA law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, 6 regulatory systems, 6 compliance standards and 2 entitlements.  The Federal government will have drastically expanded with this law -- and such expansion is permanent because nothing is ever "fixed" by our incompetent and dishonest government.  See the chart below.

The ACA law has nearly doubled medical insurance premiums in this past year alone for most of Americans.  My individual insurance premiums have gone up 5 fold since Obama's inauguration. 

The law has put a cloud over business due to cost and regulation uncertainty.  It has hurt the biggest driver of new employment which is small business (and small business formations).   No wonder the country still has 4 million fewer jobs than in 2008 after 5 years of "recovery."   Millions are languishing in un-employment or under-employment due to this law. 

For all of this, we have managed to insure only 1.4% of the uninsured or about 1/2 million of the 35 million uninsured??  See my blog regarding the exaggeration of ACA's "success."  I'm sure 90% or more of the newly insured will be expecting subsidies from the Federal gov't.  But it would have been infinitely less disruptive to send vouchers to uninsured persons to buy their own policies!

But the 1/2 million newly insured paid a huge price premium but are getting care that is eerily similar to the substandard care that you'd expect from Medicaid.  They are facing limited numbers of doctors, drugs and hospitals -- meaning that they probably won't be able to keep their doctor.  The best healthcare facilities are not covered by ACA.   For this we blew up our healthcare insurance system?

Lies About ObamaCare "Success" Continue

The lies and spin continue to be spewed from the White House about the so-called success of ObamaCare.   These people are incredibly desperate to put lipstick, rouge, eyeliner and everything else on that pig.   Obama himself is liar-in-chief and has been so for a long time.  See here.  Add Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to the serial liar club too.  And of course our lap-dog media outlets dutifully regurgitate anything the WH says with little or no critical analysis.

Numbers from Democratics touting Obamacare' enrollment numbers are a case in point.  They claim some 6 million people have signed up to the "program" and they have met their goals. Mission accomplished!  Isn't that wonderful??  Sorry, not so wonderful.  The numbers are vastly exaggerated and misleading.  First, 3 million signed-up for the "free" and sub-standard coverage of Medicaid. After all, it's easy to give people free stuff!  The expansion of Medicaid didn't need to be done as part of a re-organization (and blowing up) of the Health Insurance market!  So, 3 million is not to included in the same breath as paying customers.

Out of the remaining 3 million, the simply reality is that only about 500,000 of those people were previously uninsured.  The balance of "sign-ups" were previously insured but their policies were cancelled by the law itself.   That means that only 1/2 million people out of 35 million uninsured have gotten new insurance or about 1.5% of the total uninsured.   This is an extremely meager result -- hardly a success.  One-half million is nowhere near 6 million as the lying administration claims.  For this we disrupted the entire medical insurance industry and drastically drove up insurance premiums making healthcare insurance costs an even larger burden to every American??   Those who were kicked out of their previous policies had to pay about double for the high deductible policies of Obamacare.

It would have been infinity cheaper, more effective and far less damaging to the country if the administration would have sent vouchers to the uninsured to buy policies. 

ObamaCare Lies Aplenty

The White House keeps touting how some 6 million people have signed up for the inferior and over-priced ObamaCare policies.  This is a gross exaggeration. 

First, some  23% of the people who "signed-up" or indicated a "selection"on the ObamaCare  exchanges have not paid for their policies.  Calling those who ticked a box on the website a "sign-up" is an exaggeration.  Counting those who have not paid as "enrolled" is another exaggeration.

The third layer of exaggeration is that only 19% of the "sign-ups" were previously uninsured or only about a 500,000 uninsured people got insurance. .

So, after all the damage done to business confidence, the damage of rocketing medical insurance costs for our nation's population and the damage to the economy in general, only about 1.4% of the uninsured are newly covered.  From Forbes,
Only 19 percent of those who have paid a premium were previously uninsured. Among those that the administration is touting as sign-ups, only 14 percent are previously uninsured enrollees: approximately 472,000 people as of February 1.
The damage will continue too.  Insurers are warned that double-digit increases in costs for 2015 are in the offing.   Those increases will affect every American too. 

ObamaCare Burdens

It's obvious to anyone even remotely informed that ObamaCare is a disaster in every way.  The law and it's effect on inflating medical costs has put a cloud and a burden on the American people,  the country and our economy for 5 years now.

I've indicated in my blog that, since Obama's first term in office, that my medical insurance costs have risen 400% in those 5 years.  I am a healthy 56 year old who has had individual high deductible policies that have risen in price from about $100 per month in 2008 to nearly $500 per month for this year's ACA compatible policy.   That's medical cost inflation of about 40% per annum.  So don't believe the administration's inflation numbers either.

Not only have medical insurance costs rocketed higher for everyone, but the US economic recovery has remained stunted with US employment still not back to pre-recession levels while population continues to rise. Obamacare cost uncertainty has been a major part of problem.  Small business formations and lack of investment by business have remained depressed due to the uncertainty about taxes, medical costs, insurance costs, ObamaCare impacts and a variety of regulations and threats of more regulations from this administration.  In short, this administration has been a wrecking ball for our economy.

America, you got what you deserve by re-electing this idiotic administration.  You got a wrecking ball and a bunch of liars to boot.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Putin's Aggression Partly the Result of European Policies

European countries are facing a newly aggressive Russia with few military options and with a Russian "boot" on their collective throats in terms of oil and gas dependence.  Putin is challenging the entire Post-Cold War order with his aggression.  Some 80,000 troops and tanks are poised on the Crimea and Ukraine border as we speak. 

Twice in the past 10 years, Russia has curtailed gas to the Ukraine and in doing so gas to the Western Europe.  This should have been a wake up call to Western European nations.  Although some steps have been taken to by-pass the gas pipeline through the Ukraine, there has been no high priority strategic plan to diversify away from excessive dependence on Russia.  Europe depends on imports for more half of its energy consumption.  Russia provides about 30% of its gas and 35% of its oil.

Liberals in Europe and America may now be reaping the reward of their unwise policies: 1) appeasement of the Russian bear (think of Obama and his ludicrous Russia 'reset') and 2) diminishing of military strength in favor of social spending.  And, although they need more alternative energy supplies, much of Western Europe has banned the perfectly safe "fracking" technology that has brought a windfall to the USA.  How smart is that in light of current events?

Instead Germany and Western Europe has focused on expensive and uneconomic "Green" energy.  I have commented how Germany's electricity costs are 3 times higher than the US average, in part because of solar subsidies.  Germany, at 50 degrees North latitude and, having long and cloudy winters, is ill-suited for expensive solar photovoltaic energy, for example.  And Germany has partially shut-down many of it's nuclear power plants and has vowed to shut down the rest.  Remember, that once a nuclear power plant is built and the capital cost sunk, the cost of power is nearly free! 

There is also a natural tendency of Liberals to shrink the military.  This is as true for Liberals in America and in Europe.  Just the other day, Obama announced that he is reducing our army staffing to 1940 levels and letting our navy shrink through attrition.  (I find that odd since Obama has shown no concern regarding US budget deficits whatsoever.  It appears that he is just systematically weakening America in every way possible.)

Europe is not much better.  As recently as 2010, Robert Gates warned the Europeans of the folly of unwise military spending cuts in a still-dangerous world. From the Guardian in 2010,
Gates told a Washington meeting of Nato officials and security experts "the pacification of Europe" had gone too far.
"The demilitarisation of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st."  He continued "Not only can real or perceived weakness be a temptation to miscalculation and aggression, but … the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to operate and fight together to confront shared threats."
Only 4 out of 28 European countries have military budgets greater than 2% of GDP. 

In summary, Europe suddenly finds itself with it's "ass in a ringer" with the 'surprise' aggression from Russia.  Europe has a substantial reliance on energy from Russia, in part due to their emphasis on pie-in-the-sky "green energy" and the pooh-poohing "fracked" energy supplies.  Also there has been a steady movement in W. Europe and America to reduce military expenditures and military preparedness.  America's recoil from it's costly wars and retreat to isolationism is probably another factor.  Finally, there is little doubt that most enemies of the US view Obama as being weak and naive.   All of these trends may have 'encouraged' Russian aggression. 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

A Stock Market Peak is Probably Near

The S&P 500 has made marginal new all-time highs this year, finally exceeding the 1999 peaks.   However, adjusted for inflation, it's still not at a new high.   One could argue that the broad market has gone nowhere in 14 years -- with a paltry 1% annual gain in price (or 3% annual gain if you include dividends).  There is pretty good history that market cycles last about 17 years, so if history is any guide, we have a 2 to 3 years of a struggling market.  Take a look at the chart below.

Secular Stock Market Cycles Average About 17 Years -- Both Bear and Bull Markets -- The Current Bear Market cycle is only 14 years in Duration
Here are some of the many signs of a stock market top:
  • the Russell 2000 small cap index is trading for 49 times reported earnings, compared with a multiple of 39 in March 2000 (the peak of the dot.com bubble).  That's 26% ABOVE the sky-high valuation at the dot.com bubble peak!
  • Stimulus by Central Banks in China and US being removed (until markets crash).  Europe is slipping slowly into recession due to the Euro currency that is hurting the trade competitiveness of most Southern European countries and France. Also, no quantitative easing in Europe expected due to German resistance (until markets crash).
  • The long-term market's price-to-earnings ratio, the Shiller PE (the Cyclically Adjusted PE or CAPE) is 24 which is above the long term average of 16.5.  By this measure, you could say that the S&P 500 is overvalued by about 44%.  
  • The S&P 500 valuation is in the top 10% of valuations in the past 100 years of market history -- and much of those top 10% valuations were during the late 1990s.
  • According to John Hussman (a highly respected money manager and a investor advisor for investment advisors), the projected 10 year return for the S&P 500 is only 2% with expected returns negative for any time frame shorter than 7 years. (His methodology has a 90% statistical confidence level).  Interestingly, his 10 year expected return for bonds is also only 2% which adds up to a grim picture for investors for the next decade.  My advice:  wait for significant pullbacks in the months and years ahead to commit capital in order to take advantage of the declines.
  • Jeremy Grantham, who correctly called the 1999 market peak, agrees with Hussman that expected returns for the market NOW is negative for the next 7 years. See my blog covering Grantham here
  •  A "gold rush" of IPOs has started this year, many of the IPOs with thin investment stories and not many making money (no earnings).  There is a crowded IPO schedule in the months ahead.  This gold rush is one of the more reliable signs of market "froth" and long-term market tops in combination with elevated valuations after a long bull run.

Monday, March 24, 2014

Cuba's Stagnation, More Failure of Socialism

If you ever needed evidence of the cumulative failure of decades of Socialism, look no further than Cuba.   And don't blame the US.  The Castro family, and their devotion to the failed socialist ideology, is responsible.

For example, doctors and nurses in Cuba recently got a big pay raise; some over 100% increase.  Good news, right?  From CNBC,
 At the high end, doctors with two specialties will see their salary go from the equivalent of $26 a month to $67, while an entry-level nurse will make $25, up from $13.
That's right, the best doctors will now make $67 per month!    Now that's progress!!   NOT!!

Recently, I highlighted that the failure of Socialism that is bringing the Venezuelan economy to a collapse.  Yet, we still have nearly 50% of Americans who directionally still support the US moving toward more Socialism, ie., bigger government and more government control of the economy.   How can people be so blind?    Socialism brings stagnation and ruins societies.

Millions of people are being hurt by the stagnation of Socialism.  Remember, it's all being done to equalize wages so that there's no wealth inequality.  The problem is that everyone is being "equalized" at a very low and stagnate level.

Liberals in America would love to address income inequality, but rest assured that everyone would be worse off.

Friday, March 21, 2014

California and Texas; A Blue v. Red State Comparison

What does a US state look like without a Republican legislature since 1997?  Look no further than the State of California.  Conversely, Texas has been solidly Republican since LBJ. 

I grew up with an "understanding" that the future of America is best divined by looking at trends in California.  As California goes, so goes the entire US.  I hope it's not true as the future will be a story of decline and disappointment.   I hope that Texas is the new model for America's future. Texas is prosperous, growing and financially sound.  California is not.  

California hasn't had a balanced budget in decades.  So-called "progressives" in California have made that state one of the ultimate tax and spend states.  Even with significantly higher taxation, spending has risen faster.  Therefore California has chronic budget deficits.  Texas has had nothing but budget surpluses.  California is losing people as businesses flee.  Texas has an employment boom.  Although California has huge oil and gas reserves, oil and gas production continues it's decline whereas Texas oil production is soaring.

California businesses are fleeing the state due to 1) hyper-regulation especially environmental regulation, 2) threats of more regulation including threats of more disastrous carbon regulation, 3) higher taxes, and 4) high real estate prices due to over-regulated property markets.  Many of these businesses are relocating to Texas.  

See the following comparisons of the two states with the help from KQED News:
  • Even with high taxes, California still has chronic Budget deficits.  The Tax Foundation says that Californians paid an average of $4,935 in state and local taxes in 2010, while Texans paid $3,205.  Even with higher taxes California's 2012 budget is still $15.7 billion in the red. Why? Spending is out of control in California.  Texas has budget surpluses.
  • Taxes are much higher in California compared to Texas.  The Tax Foundation found that California had the fourth highest “tax burden” in the country, at 11.2 percent while Texas came in 45th with 7.9 percent.
  • Unemployment is high in California at 9.8 percent, compared to 6.1 percent in Texas, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  • Even educational results are better now in Texas.  In California, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, 23 percent of eighth graders scored at or above proficient in math on the National Assessment of Education Progress, compared to 36 percent of Texas eighth graders. For reading, 21 percent of California eighth-graders were at or above proficient compared to 28 percent of Texas eighth graders.
  • Due to over-regulated property markets, property prices are sky-high in California.  The median sales price of a home in California is $452,000, compared to only $144,900 in Texas according to Trulia.com.
Traditionally, California had a thriving oil and gas industry with many major oil/gas companies headquartered there.  California, for decades was one of the nation's biggest oil and gas producers and has large shale gas and oil potential.   Even though California has large potential oil and gas reserves it has eschewed the shale revolution.  Energy production there continues it's steady descent.  In contrast, oil and gas production in Texas has dramatically improved in Texas. 



Nearly all of the major oil companies have fled the state over the years -- mostly to Texas.  From Newgeography
In all but forcing out fossil-fuel firms, California is shedding one of its historic core industries. Not long ago, California was home to a host of top 10 energy firms – ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, Oxy and Chevron; in 1970, oil firms constituted the five largest industrial companies in the state. Now, only Chevron, which has been reducing its headcount in Northern California and is clearly shifting its emphasis to Texas, will remain.

These are losses that California can not easily absorb. Despite all the hype about the ill-defined “green jobs” sector, the real growth engine remains fossil fuels, which have added a half-million jobs in the past five years. If you don't believe it, just take a trip to Houston, where Occidental is moving. Houston now has more new office construction, some 9 million square feet, than any region in the country outside New York; Los Angeles barely has 1 million.

 Texas Versus California In Charts






Let's hope the Republicans, with the help of young responsible folks like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, can regain their credentials at the national level for being responsible fiscal administrators and leaders in promoting growth and employment.  The success story in Texas is being replicated in many, if not most, Republican led States. Some 60% of the States have Republican governors -- many also have Republican legislatures.  Success stories abound in these states.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Time to Reign-in the Federal Bureaucracy; EPA Overreach a Prime Example

The EPA, like most federal agencies in accordance with the Constitution, is supposed to concern itself with national and/or interstate issues.   But the EPA is intruding into the smallest local and private property issues -- with the most ridiculous of pretenses.   The worst examples include the EPA intruding itself into issues such as a home-made pond on an individual's property!  If that's not bad enough, they threaten these people with ruinous fines and deny administration remedies.  The EPA has strayed far away from it's Constitutional role when they step down hard on small private property owners well outside any reasonable interpretation of the laws.

Read what happened to Andy Johnson, a welder in Wyoming and his family.  From Charles Hurt at the Washington Times:
He and his wife built a small pond on their rural property using the stream flowing through it. They stocked the pond with trout so that their three small children could fish. The pond is an oasis for wildlife such as ducks and geese passing through.

It is precisely the sort of industriousness that reasonable people and zealous stewards of the environment applaud. But the EPA is made up of neither reasonable people nor zealous stewards of the environment. 
They are crazed hypocrites greedy for unchecked power and hellbent on destroying the passions that connect people to the nature surrounding them. Like the Food and Drug Administration in the movie “Dallas Buyers Club,” the EPA has become the face of absolute power in the hands of blind government bureaucrats.

That is why the faceless henchmen of the EPA have come after Mr. Johnson and his family, charging them with violating federal law and threatening to bankrupt them. These EPA thugs ordered the Johnson's to destroy the pond they built and threatened to fine them $75,000 a day for being in violation of the Clean Water Act.
This alone is enough to choke any freedom-loving American and cause tremors for anyone concerned with tyranny of a sprawling, unanswerable federal government. But what makes this all so much worse is the utter hypocrisy of the EPA and its legion of power-drunk bureaucrats.
The lack of true Congressional oversight, and the continual gov't expansion permitted by unlimited gov't spending has resulted in a huge EPA bureaucratic monstrosity stepping on even the smallest people in the most local properties and communities!!  It's outrageous!  It's totally unconstitutional!

Individual rights are being shattered by the most stupid and outrageous claims.  Clearly the EPA's power has now run amok.   

Remember The Sacketts


This is not the first case of the EPA running roughshod and irrationally over individuals.  Remember the case of the Sacketts?   This Idaho couple bought some land worth $25K near a lake but in a developed housing area with sewer lines and other homes.  The EPA arbitrarily said that they violated "wetland" restrictions by building a home on THEIR OWN lot without an EPA permit!   After hugely expensive litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sacketts that the EPA cannot arbitrarily impose HUGE fines of $75,000 per day without the homeowner being allowed to fight the action in court. The US Supreme Court also said that the EPA probably acted well outside of the Clean Water law's mandate.

Even now, it's still just the beginning for the Sacketts as they still face litigation against the all-powerful, unchecked and over-funded Federal bureaucracy.  How can any individual fight a Federal government that has unlimited financial and other resources that dwarf individual's?

More Examples Of EPA Overreach


The water issue is not the only are where the EPA is seriously out of control.  In my blogs Eco-Imperialism Thriving in Obama Administration and Reverse EPA's Carbon Regulation Power Grab and EPA's Carbon Regulation Power Grab all point to job-killing, counter-productive, unconstitutional and harmful administration action.  State's and Individual's Constitutional rights are being tossed aside with disregard.

Remember that Obama said that he was going to kill the coal business??  He's largely succeeded without any real challeng or checks and balances.  How can one man be allowed such power to kill those jobs and even kill an entire industry even though that industry is vital to the energy security of America??   How can one man hinder oil and gas development on US offshore land?   How can one man be allowed to hinder the nearly complete Keystone pipeline system?   Didn't we have a fight against the arbitrary rule of one man, King George III,  when we won the American Revolution?

We need a new American Revolution by scaling back the all-powerful Federal bureaucracy and blunting the power grabs at the Presidential and Agency levels.