The Washington Times - November 5, 2012, 06:25AM

Congressman Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican, called it in September of 2011. One year ago, President Barack Obama claimed that during economic recovery, it was necessary to lessen  regulatory uncertainty so he asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Liberals and their allies in environmentalist groups were outraged by the decision. Former Vice President Al Gore wrote in a blog post, “Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution.”


Rep. Stearns a top member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not buy it, though. He told The Hill “issuing such a rule would cause [Obama] severe electoral problems in the next election.”

Stearns, who was redistricted this year and lost his seat during the Florida primaries, hinted to what was mentioned in the statement released by the White House:

Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.

Obama was not kidding when he said that “voting is the best revenge” because he may have the last laugh whether he gets re-elected or not.

 The Washington Examiner reported on Sunday that the EPA is readying up massive coal regulations after the elections: 

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

Bill Clinton did this to President George W. Bush in 2000 when the Clinton administration’s EPA pushed out that Mercury emissions from power plants was threat to the public and needed to be regulated, thus the regulatory process was handed over to the new Bush administration.

If Mitt Romney becomes president and coal regulations were rammed through by Obama’s EPA last minute, what will a new Romney administration do? Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams responded in an e-mail statement:

“President Obama won’t tell the voters of the Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania the truth about his plans to shut down the coal industry. Even after he loses on Tuesday, it appears that the President will still try to continue his efforts to kill their jobs and drive up their energy prices. Mitt Romney is committed to reversing the damage caused by the Obama Administration’s disastrous liberal agenda as soon as he takes office.”