EPA tries hard to keep nominee Gina McCarthy 'clean' before confirmation hearings

• 

  FILE -- Feb. 21, 2013: Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator with the Environmental Protection Agency, speaks at a climate workshop sponsored by the Climate Center at Georgetown University in Washington.AP

It's as brazen a defiance of the law as Washington has seen, and the perpetrators are going to get away with it unless things change quickly.

The Environmental Protection Agency has bobbed and weaved, defied court orders, made a mockery of the FOIA process and spent barrels of ink redacting its clearly public records ... all to keep Gina McCarthy clean until she can be confirmed in the Senate to become the agency's next administrator.

The Environment and Public Works Committee will vote this week on McCarthy's nomination. Senators should not act on her nomination until she orders the veil lifted and lets Americans know her record with regard to President Obama's war on coal and efforts by the administration to build outside support for a carbon tax.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and a others have been after EPA since last fall for emails about its coordination of outside support for President Obama's energy and environment agenda.

There is a culture of secrecy at EPA characterized by widespread use of email aliases and illegal use of private email and messaging accounts to conduct agency business outside of the public's view.

CEI's Christopher Horner has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for former Administrator Lisa Jackson's emails on coal and carbon. When he found out she also had a fake name account -- Richard Windsor was her handle -- he FOIA-ed those records, too.

When he found out that Jackson and top staffers, including McCarthy, communicated through IMs and texts, he FOIA-ed those. 

EPA has responded with emails that were either irrelevant or comically redacted. Or it has missed deadlines or declined to produce documents despite court orders. Finally, as CEI alleged in a suit this week, it simply refused to acknowledge the requests.

As a result, we've learned little about Jackson's thoughts and deeds and considerably less about McCarthy's. 

Virtually none of the 9,000 emails EPA has turned over -- almost all heavily redacted -- are from McCarthy. Which is odd since the search was for coal and carbon and McCarthy now heads EPA's Air and Radiation Office.

This experience also told us there is a culture of secrecy at EPA characterized by widespread use of email aliases and illegal use of private email and messaging accounts to conduct agency business outside of the public's view-- and that McCarthy is an active enabler of and participant in that culture.

Something must be up. When the Richard Windsor account was revealed, Jackson's senior counsel quit. When it became clear her emails would have to be turned over, she quit. When Region 8 Administrator Jim Martin was caught using private email for public business, he quit.

That's a lot of quitting and a lot of obfuscating, and the Senate should demand answers before it moves on McCarthy.

Brian McNicoll is Senior Director of Communications for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Related Stories

EPA: Dust, Flame Retardant Harming House Cats, Possibly Children

EPA Ombudsman Loses First Round in Fight Against Transfer

EPA Chief Gives State Dept. Keystone Review A 'C' Grade

EPA: New York, California Have Dirtiest Air

View the original article here

Democrats summon the ghost of Joseph McCarthy

Just as Lenin's body remains on public display in Russia, because one never knows when he might be useful to rally the masses, so, too, does the ghost (but thankfully not the body) of the late Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., remain a useful symbol for Democrats in Washington.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., are the latest to summon McCarthy's ghost. After Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel whether he had been compensated by foreign interests hostile to the United States for speeches he made in which he seemed to favor their aspirations, Boxer said of Cruz's tenacious questioning, "It was really reminiscent of a different time and place, when you said, 'I have here in my pocket a speech you made on such and such a date,' and of course nothing was in the pocket. It was reminiscent of some bad times."

McCarthy said "hand," not "pocket," but why quibble?

That Democrats over the years have filibustered and smeared some people nominated by Republican presidents as "out of the mainstream," or "extremists" (remember Robert Bork?) does not register on the media hypocrisy meter, but hypocrisy is sometimes bipartisan, so let's move on to a more important topic.

Why do Democrats fear the double threats of Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.? A day after the State of the Union address, CNN ran a chyron that questioned whether Rubio's reach for a bottle of water during his pointed response to President Obama's speech might have been a "career-ender." Democrats wish.

After becoming the first Hispanic to win a Senate seat in Texas, Cruz told CBS News, "I think the values in the Hispanic community are fundamentally conservative, but you've got to have candidates that connect with that community in a real and genuine way and communicate that the values between the candidate and the community are one and the same."

This is what Cruz and Rubio are doing. They don't use their heritage as a wedge to divide; rather they are using it as an avenue for communicating ideas to those who share that heritage -- and to a wider audience -- in ways that can improve everyone's life.

Cruz talks about "opportunity conservatism," a phrase that contrasts with some Democrats' apparent belief that the federal government should reign supreme. Cruz and Rubio are dangerous to statists because they speak of things that ignited the Reagan revolution, including the belief that the power to improve your life is in you, not in Washington.

If those who have placed their faith and trust (and votes) in President Obama and the cult of big government awaken to the idea that only they have the power to change their circumstances, they won't need politicians. Such an awakening would not bode well for Democrats, whose political careers are often about bigger and more encroaching government and penalizing the successful with ever-higher taxes and burdensome government regulations.

Democrats aren't likely to sit still and allow Cruz and Rubio's ideas to reach not only Hispanics, but the rest of America. Their ideas are more powerful than the weapons used by Democrats in their race and class warfare where people are seen not as individuals, but as voting blocs.

That is why much of the media seems to focus on trivialities, rather than on what Rubio and Cruz are saying.

Some conservatives like to summon the ghost of Franklin Roosevelt, whose programs could be said to have sparked the modern entitlement mentality. For liberals, it's McCarthy. Both should be returned to the history books and removed from contemporary political debate. With McCarthy, it probably won't happen, because Cruz and Rubio threaten to damage the Democrats' base, and they can't have that. For some Democrats, it's more about political power and reliance on dysfunctional government than it is about ideas that work.

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

View the original article here