First Obamacare Waivers Now EPA Rules Waivers

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Obama Administration is quickly becoming the most corrupt administration in American history. Recently we reported about the mounting number of waivers that Obama is giving his union pals and union supporters so that they can get away from having to suffer under his Obamacare law and now the president’s jobs-killing greenhouse gas rules levied upon the nation using his fiat EPA powers are also being set aside for his best buddies. Naturally, all those getting these big waivers were big donors to Obama’s campaign.

At this point we are up to over 700 Obamacare waivers given to his union pals and other campaign donors and now the EPA has announced the first waiver for the new greenhouse gas rules that really haven’t even been implemented exactly yet. Timothy Carney reports that General Electric has been the lucky, lucky recipient of a waiver for Obama’s EPA rules. Yes, very lucky, indeed.

This particular waiver was for a 600-megawatt power plant project in the San Joaquin Valley in California being built by General Electric. The project would have been nearly killed by the EPA’s new rules so the Obama administration decided to allow this project to be “grandfathered in” to the new greenhouse gases and air pollution restrictions.

Now, can we recall just who Obama made a part of his administration? Why, yes, it is General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Only but a few weeks ago Immelt was appointed as Obama’s “jobs creation czar.”

With this announcement and the revealed monumental number of Obamacare waivers already given, one wonders if a whole slew of EPA waiver will be soon to come from Obama for his buddies and their businesses?

In any case, once again we see a close Obama associate suddenly finding all sorts of waivers coming his way so that his businesses can get out from under Obama’s ruinous, economy-killing regulations. Seems like Obama is picking and choosing which businesses live and which ones die with these beneficent rules waivers, doesn’t it? It seems like Obama is trying to destroy all businesses unless they happen to be his buddies or happen to give him millions in campaign donations. In that case, why, he’s happy to waive his jobs-killing rules.

Of course, the obvious question, one I’ve asked several times on this issue, is this: if all these Obamacare laws and EPA rules are so beneficial to the nation, why exactly does Obama’s buddies feel the need to get waivers so that their own businesses won’t be harmed by them? If these fiat rules are so great why would anyone need a waiver?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • did you expect anything else from this CROOKED administration or the democrats. The Senator, congressmen, their families and assistances are all exempted from OBAMACARE, and now they are exempting all their financial supporters and the unions from OBAMACARE. If this system was so good why are the democrat senators and congressmen not in the front of the line and enrolled in OBAMACARE. Could it be that they know what is going to happen with OBAMACARE. Can anyone say the words "RATIONING, DEATH PANELS, LONG WAITS, DENIED SERVICE,ROTTEN SERVICE, BAD HEALTH CARE"!!!!! Everywhere government run healthcare is in place. that healthcare system is filled with the above, That is why the rich from these countries come here for medical services!!!!

  • I'm not clear.
    Are the laws being waived good or bad?
    Are the waivers good or bad?

  • In reply to Waldock:

    The law is bad. The waivers are worse because they are doled out to Obama's friends in the president's worst crony capitalism modus. We call this fascism, really. Government controls business and only the favored businesses get the best treatment.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    I'd think that if a bad law is waived that it would be good.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    Are you actually reading anything here?

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    no seriously if the result is that business doesn't have to follow a law that is unnecessarily restrictive it would be a good thing. A beginning.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    ... except that "business" ISN'T finding that they don't have to "follow a law that is unnecessarily restrictive." ONLY Obama's FRIENDS are in that lucky category. "business" on the other hand, DOES have to follow those unnecessarily restrictive laws.

    These waivers are not "good" because they are letting companies out from under unnecessarily restrictive laws. These waivers are attempts by Obama to destroy any business that does not donate to his campaign or follow his dictates.

    THIS is what we mean by cronyism.

    Do try and keep up, huh?

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I'm trying.
    Tax breaks to Big Oil, Donations to Senators on Oversight committees, Defense contractors getting contracts for an airplane that the Defense Department doesn't even want.
    That's what i always thought of as cronyism.
    Hasn't this been going on for a long time?

  • In reply to Waldock:

    Yes, it has. And I don't like all THAT either!
    LOL

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Have you ever written a Blog piece that called out a conservative guilty for "cronyism"?
    I know George Bush and Dick Cheney have been accused of it.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    Ah, so NOW we get to your REAL agenda. You don't want to actually discuss anything. You just want to attack George W. Bush. THAT is why you were feigning being dense as a brick. Figures. Bye bye.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Not attacking. I don't know if Bush or Obama ever took money for favors. Neither have been charged or convicted.
    I was just trying to figure out if you were worth reading.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    My last word. I do not support crony capitalism no matter what "side" does it. Do I go about focusing on Republican troubles? No. My goal is to undermine the left -- the far more dangerous side. The GOP can take care of itself. Have I called out conservatives? Yes (see my recent smacks against Mitt "flip flopper" Romney, for instance). Do I consider myself a "Republican"? No. But my focus is not on revealing the right. It is in revealing the left for what it is. If that makes me "not worth reading," then it was nice knowing you.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Thanks, I appreciate your clarity on your POV. I can respect that. I will check in from time to time to see what your take is on issues now that I know how you view your function; as partisan as it may be.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    One more question, if "Government controls business" where does the Citizens United Supreme Court decision fit in. I thought that allowing Corporations to make unlimited anonymous donations to politicians created just the opposite effect.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    So, you don't want to either stay on topic or have a conversation? Gotcha.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I'm completely on topic. You stated that Government controls business, but if politicians can be bought (again your point) it seems just the opposite.
    Not a gotcha.

  • In reply to Waldock:

    @Waldock.... let's say your neighborhood made a rule that "everyone should keep their lawn green and trimmed." that way, your street would always look nice. But the committee who was elected to make the "rules" for your neighborhood had one "good ol' boy" that the committee really liked, so they "waived" the rule for him. Now everyone else's yards look very nice, except the one who has the waiver. He has broken down cars, weeds and junk all over his lawn. Waiver...NOT GOOD! If a "law" is made... everyone should have to follow it... even the lawmakers!

Leave a comment