From the Lucy Burns Institute.
The Lucy Burns Institute is delighted to announce that effective July 1, 2009, it became the official sponsor of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia.
Since the Sam Adams Alliance was established in 2006, it has organized, nurtured and spun-off several important projects, including Common Sense with Paul Jacob, American Majority, and Texas Watchdog.
For the entire press release, click on Lucy Burns Institute is the new sponsor of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia.
{ 0 comments }
Oops, there’s a mistake below. I’ve just been told the higher wage doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2010. So if this law is such a good deal for Kansas, I wonder what’s the reason for the delay until it takes effect?
Today, the new Kansas minimum wage law takes effect. It’s likely that as employers are required to pay their workers more, some will lose their job.
So now minimum wage supporters have a duty to perform. They need to watch for people who may lose their job and for companies that may close due to this law’s effect.
It could be the case that everyone in Kansas is already paid more than the new, higher minimum wage. If so, we wouldn’t expect to see any job loss. But if this is the case, why need for the law?
Higher minimum wage advocates need to be on the watch for workers who lose their jobs because of the effects of a law they agitated for. They are responsible for the plight of those who lose their job.
These unfortunate workers, unfortunate first because they don’t have skills that allow them fill jobs that pay good wages; unfortunate again in their role as sacrificial lambs for those who see social injustice through the fog of social liberalism; unfortunate again to lose their jobs during a recession — what are they to do?
Will the newspaper editorialists who supported the minimum wage seek out these people?
Will newspaper and television reporters feature their stories? It’s easy for reporters to find the workers who will be paid more when the new wage takes effect. Finding the newly jobless is more difficult. But their story is more important.
The unions who supported the higher minimum wage: will they help the newly jobless?
Hopefully no one will lose their job and no firms will close because of the Kansas minimum wage law. This is not likely, and finding the victims of the law will not be easy.
More background is at Kansas minimum wage and Kansas minimum wage at issue again. A collection of articles on this topic is at minimum wage.
{ 7 comments }
Harold Schlechtweg, business representative of Service Employees International Union Local 513 in Wichita, makes the case that Wichita needs to keep employing its present park maintenance staff, even though it appears there is a way to get the work done at a lower cost. (Cutting park jobs will hurt city, June 30, 2009 Wichita Eagle)
The city has a responsibility to its citizens to operate as efficiently as possible. If it is possible to have work such as park maintenance done less expensively, the city should do so. It should have done so long ago.
Schlechtweg says that if wages and benefits are cut, the community suffers. Let’s remind him who pays the wages and benefits he’s trying to protect: the taxpayers of the city of Wichita. If the city can reduce their taxes and provide the same level of service, Wichitans benefit.
The idea that it’s good for a city to have highly-paid workers such as those the SEIU represents is highly self-serving. It places the interests of a few union members above that of the entire city.
If a private enterprise wishes to pay its employees higher wages than is necessary, that’s their privilege. But in the marketplace, companies can’t do that for very long, or they won’t be competitive with other companies.
The City of Wichita, however, doesn’t operate in a competitive marketplace. If it pays employees too much, it doesn’t suffer very much. Citizens may not even be aware that the city is operating inefficiently until stressful events like the current budget situation expose the situation.
Since the city doesn’t face the discipline of markets, it’s very important that citizens keep an eye on the city’s spending.
Schlechtweg’s argument — that the city should keep paying more to maintain parks than it needs to — is ridiculous on its face. It likens city spending to a perpetual motion machine: pour in more taxes to support more spending, and you get more wages and benefits paid to workers. That, in turns, feeds more taxes into the machine. The world doesn’t work that way.
Schlechtweg writes: “The bottom line is that workers’ wages and benefits are not the problem.” Unfortunately for the workers he represents, paying more than necessary to get a job done is a problem for Wichita’s taxpayers. If Wichita can save money at the expense of apparently over-paid workers, the city needs to do so, and now.
{ 5 comments }
Currently Congress is considering new regulations for chemical plants — Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards or CFATS — that will, if enacted, require substitution of technologies believed to be less vulnerable to terrorist attack.
These regulations would affect facilities in addition to those we usually picture when thinking of chemical plants. The Wichita water treatment plant, for example, could be affected.
The problem is that chemical manufacturing and processing is a complicated matter, and mandates that force the use of one chemical instead of another can have consequences that lead to less safety.
An example of this may be found in the study Petroleum Refiners & Inherently Safer Technology: The Realities of Hydrofluoric and Sulfuric Acid. (I recommend reading the executive summary.) It’s from the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, a national trade association.
Proponents of IST would like oil refineries to switch to sulfuric acid as a safer alternative to hydrofluoric acid. This sounds like a reasonable measure, until you dig a little deeper. Then, you’ll find this:
The alkylation process takes roughly 250 times more sulfuric acid than hydrofluoric acid to achieve the same result; therefore, a forced switch to sulfuric acid would result in a significant increase in transportation and transfer of the substance. For a 10,000 barrel per day alkylation unit, this equates to one to two truckloads of hydrofluoric acid delivered to the refinery each month, compared to three to four truckloads of regenerated sulfuric acid coming in and three to four truckloads of spent sulfuric acid going out each day.
This is an example of how seemingly small shifts in technology can have a big impact. In this case, many more trucks carrying a still-dangerous acid would be on our roads and highways.
There’s also a cost consideration: “A mandate for a refinery to switch from hydrofluoric acid to sulfuric acid will result in capital and design costs between $45 and $150 million dollars per refinery and an increase in operating costs of between 200 and 400 percent.”
As all refineries would face these costs, it’s very likely that these costs would be passed on to consumers. Except: foreign refiners would not be subject to these expensive technology requirements. This raises the possibility of the United States importing gasoline in large quantities — an unintended consequence that I don’t believe Congress intends.
{ 0 comments }
A column by economist Walter E. Williams (Why we’re a divided nation) strongly makes the case for more decision-making by free markets rather than by the government through the political process.
When decisions are made through free markets, Williams says, both parties win, because in a free market, parties enter into only those transactions that benefit them.
When decisions are made for us by the government, however, it is almost always the case that one party’s gain is someone else’s loss. Therefore, there is conflict. The more decisions made through politics, the more potential for conflict. Coalitions arise in order to try to get more from the government, and the most effective coalitions “are those with a proven record of being the most divisive — those based on race, ethnicity, religion and region.”
The column concludes with this: “The best thing the president and Congress can do to heal our country is to reduce the impact of government on our lives. Doing so will not only produce a less divided country and greater economic efficiency but bear greater faith and allegiance to the vision of America held by our founders — a country of limited government.”
I’ve mentioned many columns by Walter Williams that I thought were important. This column is certainly one of his best, as it very simply, in one short page, shows us a major fault in our current system of making decisions through politics rather than through markets.
{ 0 comments }
Now that Mark McCormick is no longer with the Wichita Eagle, I think we can say that Rhonda Holman has taken over the role of chief cheerleader for USD 259, the Wichita public school district.
Not that she needed much of a push in that direction. But claims made in a recent opinion piece of hers (Hard times forcing hard choices) deserve some examination.
After praising President Obama’s stimulus spending — claiming that it will keep things from becoming worse — she writes this: “And thank goodness that school district voters had the foresight in November to approve a well-timed local economic stimulus plan — the $370 million bond issue for athletics and fine arts facilities, technical education and new schools.”
There’s so many untruths in this statement that it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s try.
First, did the school district know that we’d be in a recession this year? If so, they foresaw something that no one else did.
Second, does government spending stimulate anything except the school system? It’s true that there will be spending going on that probably wouldn’t have happened had the bond issue not passed. But right now Wichitans pay millions of dollars each year to retire the bonds from a past school bond, and soon we’ll have to start paying for this bond. These payments are a drag on the local economy. See Wichita school bond issue economic fallacy and Wichita school district economic impact for more.
The future tax burden is worse than the Wichita school district would admit to, and Holman doesn’t either. That’s because besides the capital expense of building new schools and more classrooms, there’s the ongoing cost of running the new classrooms. The bond issue doesn’t pay those expenses. Wichitans can expect the school district to propose tax increases as these new classrooms and schools come online.
Third, if we were getting something truly worthwhile from this extra spending, that might be one thing. But the Wichita school district’s goal — smaller class sizes — is not a goal worth pursuing. Well, it is if you’re part of the public school bureaucracy or the teachers union. But the narrow self-interest of these groups shouldn’t count in this debate.
If you’re interested in improving the prospects of Wichita’s schoolchildren, this extra spending is a distraction.
I wonder if Holman has read research like this: “Surprisingly, the data show that academic achievement cannot be accounted for by any of the measures of public investment used in this study (pupil-teacher ratio, per pupil expenditures, teacher salaries, and funds received from the federal government), either singly or as a blend.” It’s in the post Wichita-area school superintendents make flawed case.
Here’s some reporting by Malcolm Gladwell on what education researches are starting to realize about the effectiveness of class size, one of the goals of the bond issue:
What’s more — and this is the finding that has galvanized the educational world — the difference between good teachers and poor teachers turns out to be vast. … Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You’d have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you’d get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile. And remember that a good teacher costs as much as an average one, whereas halving class size would require that you build twice as many classrooms and hire twice as many teachers.
That’s reported in my post Wichita public school district’s path: not fruitful. In that post, you can also read that the current ways that teachers can advance their careers and salaries (longevity and obtaining extra education) aren’t relevant to their teaching effectiveness:
The problem is that the current standards for teachers don’t “track what we care about.” The path to increased pay as a teacher — longevity and more education credentials — doesn’t produce better teachers. But because of union contracts that govern pay, that’s the only way to earn more as a teacher. This is one of the reasons why teachers unions are harmful to schools.
Yet according to the contract with the teachers union in Wichita, longevity and more education credentials are the ways to earn a higher salary.
Innovations such as differential teacher pay and charter schools are being promoted by President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan as a way to improve our nation’s schools. But in Wichita, the existing public education bureaucracy and teachers unions are firmly opposed to these reforms. It’s too bad we don’t have opinion writers at the Wichita Eagle who are willing to look past these entrenched interests and consider what’s best for Wichita schoolchildren.
{ 1 comment }
Open records and meetings in Kansas are in the news.
Today, the Wichita Eagle’s Brent Wistrom reports on training held by the Kansas Attorney General’s office. The story’s headline — Many Kansas officials fuzzy on open-government laws — gives one reporter’s opinion as to the recognition of open records law in Kansas.
I attended the same training event in Wichita that Wistrom did.
Separately, a column last week in the Topeka Capital-Journal (Group’s search for info shows open records act is weak) reports on the difficulty the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy had in their quest to obtain property appraisal data. Read Paul Soutar’s report at Kansas open records, not quite.
{ 4 comments }
According to Gary Brunk, executive director of Kansas Action for Children, the Kansas tax system is broken. It’s the same message you hear from other organizations that depend on state funding, such as the public school spending lobby. In their eyes, the problem that needs fixing is that Kansans aren’t taxed enough to support their spending goals.
(State needs tax system that is efficient, fair, July 28, 2009 Wichita Eagle.)
Brunk writes: “We all rely on services paid for in the state budget, so it’s common sense that we should all contribute fairly toward the costs of providing those services.” He then mentions the public school system as one such service. I wonder what parents who have decided they can’t use the product that Kansas public schools produce think about that statement. They pay doubly: once in tuition to a private or parochial school, and then again to support the public schools.
Brunk complains that “sales-tax loopholes alone drain more than $4 billion from state revenues.” I think the Wichita Eagle needs to ask Brunk the basis for this claim. According to the Governor’s Budget Report, in fiscal year 2008 the state collected $1.7 billion in retail sales tax. For Brunk to claim that loopholes cost the state 2.4 times the amount of actual collections is absurd.
Or, you can look at Brunk’s complaint another way: He wants to raise taxes by $4 billion. The state collected (in 2008) just short of $6 billion in taxes, so Brunk thinks taxes need to be raised by 50%. That’s what is necessary to fix the tax system, according to him.
There’s also the perverse idea that letting people keep more of their money “costs” the state. I guess it depends on who you think has first claim on the money that Kansans earn. If you believe that it first belongs to the state, then yes, tax breaks are a cost to the state. I view taxes as a cost that we have to pay, and tax breaks help reduce that cost.
Here’s another of Brunk’s complaints: “… the level of spending in Kansas has changed very little in comparison with personal income trends. In fact, in 1960, our taxes were equal to 10.5 percent of personal income. Nearly six decades later, taxes in Kansas are roughly 12 percent of personal income.”
If you’re not thinking as you read this, you might be persuaded to believe that spending in Kansas has increased by only 1.5 percentage points over a long period of time. But he’s using a clever ruse of expressing taxes as a percent of income instead of in actual dollars.
The truth is that since 1960, personal income has grown rapidly, even after adjusting for inflation. That’s a good thing. Government, according to Brunk’s analysis, has grown even faster, consuming a larger portion of what the people of Kansas produce. That’s not good. Then, according to Brunk, Kansans need to pay more, because the tax system is broken.
At the start of this piece, Brunk complained of “rhetoric and half-truths,” presumably referring to claims made by taxpayer advocates. He wants a “fiscally responsible, commonsense approach.” After reading this piece — full of its own brand of nonsense and doubletalk — I wish that Brunk and other state spending advocates would just say what they really want: more taxes and more spending. Then we could at least have an honest discussion.
{ 1 comment }
Here’s an announcement of an event that I hope is just the start of an ongoing operation.
Wichita Area Chapter Meeting of Americans For Prosperity
Monday July 6, 2009 and Tuesday July 7, 2009
Topic: Local Government 101: Learn how to get involved in Wichita city government and how to influence public policy as a citizen activist.
First meeting:
7:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m., Monday, July 6, 2009
Americans for Prosperity meeting room
800 E. 1st, Suite 401, (in Old Town), Wichita, Kansas 67202
(Northeast corner of First and Mead Streets. For a Google map, click here.
The first meeting is followed by this event:
Attend a Wichita City Council Meeting
9:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Wichita City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202
(Southwest corner Main and Central. For a Google map, click here.
Then, lunch at Mike’s Steakhouse (Private Meeting Room)
11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
2131 S. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas 67211
For a Google map, click here.
Menu: Individual choices off the menu with individual tickets plus gratuity.
Please RSVP to: either John Todd, Wichita AFP volunteer coordinator at john@johntodd.net, (316) 312-7335 cell, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director, Kansas at sestes@afphq.org, (316) 269-4170.
Attendees will participate in an interactive presentation of the inner workings of Wichita City Government. You will learn how to discover the secrets hidden in agendas, how to prepare for a meeting, how to foster constructive relationships with elected and non-elected officials and learn ways to influence public policy. Part One is an evening session at the Wichita office from 7:00-8:30 on Monday, July 6. In this class we will examine a typical Wichita City Council Agenda in conjunction with a video recording of the actual meeting.
Part two’s session will begin at Wichita’s City Hall to observe a City Council meeting from 9:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., followed by a luncheon discussion on at Mile’s Steakhouse meeting room from 11:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
The Kansas Chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP-KS) is committed to advancing every Kansan’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP-KS is an organization of grassroots citizen leaders who engage in spreading the message of fiscally responsible government, free market ideals and regulatory restraint to policymakers on the local and state levels.
{ 0 comments }
Bob Weeks discusses the difficulty of alternative media obtaining press credentials at the Kansas Legislature. From the KPTS public affairs television program Kansas Week on June 26, 2009. Tim Brown is the host. Randy Brown, Senior Fellow in the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University also appears.
Read the story behind this by clicking on Kansas alternative media shut out of legislative access.
{ 6 comments }
The Waxman-Markey climate bill, soon to be considered by Congress, will harm all Americans. Here’s a look at what it would cost Kansans. Two examples:
Higher cost for energy. “An average family could pay an additional $1,500 a year for energy.”
Fewer jobs: “For Kansas this could mean a loss of 22 thousand jobs just a few years from now. If those jobs were lost today it would increase Kansas’ unemployment rate from 6.1 percent to 7.6 percent.”
{ 5 comments }
Earlier this year, during the Kansas legislative session, I became interested in receiving press credentials from the Kansas Legislature. This, I thought, would make covering news made in the statehouse easier.
The issuance of legislative press credentials is handled, in alternating years, by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House. This year is the Senate President’s year. So in March I stopped by the office of the President of the Senate, and upon making my inquiry I was told by a staff member that my request would not be considered. The reason for that, I was told, is that my publication isn’t printed on paper.
Not satisfied with that, I made inquiry to Michael White, who is chief of staff for Senate President Stephen Morris.
In a recent telephone conversation with White, I was told that I’m not the only person who has inquired about press credentials. As a result, White hopes to develop a policy for the issuance of press credentials by this fall.
White said that for now, the primary reason for not allowing bloggers like me press credentials is lack of space on the Senate floor.
Mentioning my blog and the Kansas Jackass (a widely read “progressive” blog) specifically, he also said that the floor of the Senate has never been opened to, in his words, “partisan media.”
He also wondered what the impetus is for wanting floor access. Gallery access is available to bloggers and alternative media, just as it is to the public.
In an email I had sent to White (see below) I had wondered how a distinction could be made between Hawver’s Capitol Report (which has press credentials) and Kansas Liberty, which was turned down it its request for credentials. White said that partisanship is the key distinction. An additional factor is the ability of readers to post comments to articles on Kansas Liberty. Commenting is a consideration for blogs, too, according to White.
As a result, the Senate President’s Office is “not inclined” to issue credentials at this time.
We need to ask this question: Are the issues raised by White valid and legitimate concerns?
Is there a lack of space on the senate floor? Speaking with one Kansas statehouse reporter and several senators, I learned that sometimes the chairs in the press area on the Senate floor are full. But mostly, they’re not.
The issue of partisanship is a non-issue, too. When White said the Senate floor has not been open to partisan media, I should have asked if he meant overtly partisan media, as many in Kansas feel — correctly or not — that some newspapers in Kansas display a distinct bias towards one end of the political spectrum.
Whether or not you agree with that, here’s this fact: opinion writers in traditional media have been granted credentials. I spoke with Phillip Brownlee, opinion editor for the Wichita Eagle. He doesn’t currently hold a press credential at the statehouse, but editorialists at the Eagle have in the past. Being editorial writers, they, of course, express opinions.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense is the ability to post comments to stories or blog posts as a distinguishing factor. Most major newspapers in Kansas allow reader comments to stories and opinion pieces. Some have blogs whose major reason for existence is to gather reader opinion.
As for why I want press credentials: Several legislators told me that being on the floor of the Senate and House would be a big advantage in news reporting. It’s a factor that would let alternative media better serve their readers.
There is one important issue that White didn’t mention, but Tim Carpenter of the Topeka Capital-Journal did. That is, some advocacy groups that lobby the legislature also do news reporting and have blogs. If the floor of the House and Senate were open to them, they could lobby legislators right on the floor as votes are taken. This isn’t possible now, as lobbyists are prohibited from being on the floor of either chamber.
I believe that if we think about it, we could overcome this problem.
As shown in reporting by Paul Soutar and an editorial by Dave Trabert, both of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, Kansas lags badly in government openness and transparency. A notable exception Kansans can be proud of is KanView.
While the denial of press credentials by the office of the Senate President is not an open records issue, it is another way in which our state government makes it clear that citizen input and scrutiny is not welcome.
—
Here’s the email I sent to White, making the case for press credentials for alternative media:
As traditional media face declining resources and readership, alternative media are stepping in to help provide news and information to Kansans. Blogs like mine (Voice For Liberty in Wichita) and others such as The Kansas Jackass, Kansas Supreme Court Blog, Kansas Progress, and Kansas Meadowlark may have tens of thousands of readers each month.
Then, there are the new online sites that aren’t blogs, but provide valuable news services that are changing journalism in Kansas. Kansas Liberty is the most prominent example. Now, the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy in Wichita has hired an investigative journalist.
Alternative media in Kansas is growing. We need the type of access that is granted to traditional media.
In a previous email to me, you expressed this concern: “What would stop anyone from starting a blog site to get access to Senate floor?”
The answer is that it’s a lot of work to have a blog or news site. The sites listed above, plus maybe a handful of others, represent all the serious political bloggers in Kansas, meaning those who post on a regular basis. Some of these are operated by people who have full-time jobs and can’t spend a lot of time at the statehouse.
But the real consideration is this: Isn’t more news and information a good thing? I think it would be great if there was such interest in Kansas government that the press area was full of reporters, instead of being mostly empty, as I am told.
There’s also a consideration of equity. It is difficult for me to distinguish between KansasLiberty.com (whose request for press credentials was turned down) and Hawver’s Capitol Report. Both are publications that are available online only. Both have subscribers who pay substantial fees, $100 annually for KansasLiberty.com; $200 annually for Hawver’s. Why is it that one has press credentials and the other doesn’t?
It’s time to give Kansas alternative media the access and privileges they’ve earned.
{ 7 comments }
Here’s a message sent to me by Mike Shaw. This seems like it will be an interesting event. For more information, contact Mike Shaw at mshaw21@cox.net.
Too many times we have heard the upcoming National Holiday referred to as “firecracker day.” I wonder, have we really been dumbed down to the point we no longer know why we celebrate on that day?
As such, a team of good voices will be reading the Declaration of Independence aloud this upcoming 4th of July. We will be at the south steps of the old Sedgwick County Courthouse at 9:00 a.m., across the street east of the new courthouse. The building is located in the north east corner of the intersection of Main and Central. It is a Saturday, so we hope we will have a good turnout, and the county asks that we stay off the grass. Beware, it is a scary document when you realize these men were risking their lives, fortunes, and reputations in signing this document and declaring our country free of England. A copy of the original document will be on display. I’m hoping we can make this a yearly event.
Click to get a Google map to the event site.
{ 3 comments }
This Friday, Wichita Eagle investigative and special reporter Dion Lefler will speak to the Wichita Pachyderm Club. Here’s information about Lefler supplied by the Pachyderm Club:
Dion Lefler is an investigative reporter for the Wichita Eagle, specializing in government and politics.
Dion has been at the Eagle for 11 years. Before that, he was a reporter and editor with several papers in the Los Angeles area, including the Los Angeles Daily News and the Pasadena Star-News. Dion has a journalism degree from California State University, Northridge, and has been covering politics across the spectrum since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign.
Recently, he received two Heart of America awards, for online coverage of the Democratic National Convention and a package of stories that halted a city of Wichita plan to provide $11 million in incentives to a developer with a history of lawsuits, bad debts and bounced checks.
All are welcome to attend Pachyderm meetings. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.
At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosley in Old Town. You can view a map of this location by clicking on Google map of 233 N. Mosley.
{ 0 comments }
Is there any doubt that the crusade against global warming is motivated as much by politics as by anything else?
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has uncovered an effort within the Environmental Protection Agency to suppress “scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”
Further: “The study the emails refer to, which ran counter to the administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change, was kept from circulating within the agency, was never disclosed to the public, and was not added to the body of materials relevant to EPA’s current ‘endangerment’ proceeding.”
A CEI official said this: “This suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief. EPA’s conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the President’s widely-touted claim that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.’”
A Washington Post headline from March stated “Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics.” I guess they didn’t read that at the EPA.
ABC News quoted Obama earlier this year as saying this: “Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”
You can read CEI’s testimony, complete with the emails that prove its assertion, by clicking on Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.
{ 3 comments }
