Is Your Governor For Sale?

Congress failed 3 times to pass laws (HR 2421, S. 1879 and S. 787) for federal control over almost all water, so the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are declaring jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Currently,  waters with a ‘significant nexus’ to ‘navigable waters’ are covered under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  The EPA is now trying to assert that the CWA “protects” (controls) traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, adjacent wetlands, tributaries, and ‘other waters’ which account for just about all water except swimming pools (see page 5).


Am I Too Hard on the Left?

Having watched the video of my recent speech in L.A., a critic writes:

Woods isolates himself by insulting the “Left,” since he’s still brainwashed by that false Left-Right paradigm.

I don’t know anyone – Left or Right – who appreciates being groped by the TSA, or who wants their food genetically modified, or wants to bailout banksters, or who embraces never-ending war.

Let’s grow up politically and recognize what we agree on, instead of dividing us further with these insults based on a 200-yr-old French label that no longer fits anyone today.

It may be a bit harsh to call me “brainwashed,” especially when at the end I went out of my way to look for people on the New Left who might have been sympathetic to my message, and given that I did, after all, do this:


Economic Development Administration Reauthorization

The Senate is set to take up legislation reauthorizing the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration. A relic of the Great Society, the EDA was created to help economically depressed areas of the country. Today it’s just another example of an unnecessary, unconstitutional program that lingers around because politicians like to demonstrate to the public that they’re “doing something.”

Politicians also like to present oversized U.S. Treasury checks to constituents.

The EDA’s forerunner was the Area Redevelopment Administration created by Congress in 1961. Sen. John McClellan (D-AK) presciently warned at the time: “if we ever begin permitting the government to enter into one area, one community, and foot the entire cost of a project, then we shall have every community in the country appealing to the federal government for the same treatment.”

Sure enough, when the EDA replaced the ARA in 1965, its scope expanded. Eligibility expanded as members of Congress fought to secure a piece of the pie for their constituents. Originally intended for depressed areas, over 80 percent of the nation eventually became eligible for EDA assistance. According to the Congressional Research Service (no link available), “An estimated 90% of counties in the United States qualify for EDA’s economic distress designation based on the per capita income criterion alone.”

The federal government now operates a small army of economic development programs. From a new Government Accountability Office report:

Our work involving 80 economic development programs at four agencies—Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA—indicates that the design of each of these programs appears to overlap with that of at least one other program in terms of the economic development activities that they are authorized to fund. For example, as shown in table 1, the four agencies administer a total of 54 programs that can fund “entrepreneurial efforts,” which include helping businesses to develop business plans and identify funding sources.

Comically, the Senate report to S.782 (the EDA reauthorization bill) notes that the legislation requires the GAO to report on duplication in economic development programs: