Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.
As Mr. Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr acknowledge in their by-line, both are associates of the Heartland Institute. From their opinion piece, it is obvious that one of their major roles is to promote the Heartland Institute’s political agenda. In this article, Dr. Lehr & Mr. Harris full endorse the Trump adminstration’s to allow cars to emit more pollution but even the automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
Dr. Lehr and Mr. Harris claim they are non-partisan and interested in science but their opinion pieces tell a different story. Mr. Harris wrote in comments, “The fact that we boost Trump’s position on prosperity and the environment is not partisan.” (Source “Real Environmentalists Should Support Trump – Here Is Why” By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, Mar 3, 2020. America Out Loud)
Mr. Harris and Dr. Lehr assertion about President Trump’s role back of CAFE standards is not accurate. There are many problems with Trump’s proposal among them: 1) The agencies were forced to abandon their cost-benefit analysis from the initial proposed rule, as it was riddled with errors. And now they have been forced to finalize a rule that shows net costs to society. 2) The agencies have overestimated the impact of fuel efficiency improvements on car prices by ignoring various compliance options available to manufacturers. 3) The agencies have underestimated the climate damages caused by the rollback, through the use of an arbitrary calculation of the social cost of carbon. 4)The agencies significantly overstate the extent to which rolling back the Clean Car Standards will lead to less pollution, less congestion, and fewer accidents as consumers drive less etc…(Source “Key Economic Errors in the Clean Car Standards Rollback Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, Apr 1, 2020)
Eventually, the Trump administration will have to defend this sloppy role-back rule in court. It must explain to judges why it made the decisions it did and what kind of data and analysis supported those decisions; otherwise, the court could rule it “arbitrary and capricious. The errors in the administration’s analysis are legion, and not subtle: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/trumps-clean-car-rollback-is-riddled-with-math-errors-clouding-its-legal-future/574249/