The Obama administration announced new EPA rules Tuesday that sharply limit the output of carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants.

And not surprisingly, the mining industry objected.

"Requiring coal-based power plants to meet an emissions standard based on natural gas technology is a policy overtly calculated to destroy a significant portion of America's electricity supply," said Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Assn. "This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA's regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop. It is not an 'all of the above' energy strategy." 

Of course, what Quinn doesn't want to talk about is what types of jobs the EPA rules are "crushing."

To get a better idea of that, you need to read another Times story Tuesday, one headlined "Report: Safety agency failed to enforce laws at deadly mine."

That story tells of the regulatory and safety lapses at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, where an explosion in 2010 killed 29 coal miners and seriously injured two others.

It's a story of lax regulatory enforcement, of inspectors simply not doing their jobs, and of a mine operator that, as the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration said in a report on the deadly incident, engaged in  "systematic, intentional and aggressive efforts ... to avoid compliance with safety and health standards, and to thwart detection of that non-compliance by federal and state regulators."

How bad were conditions at the mine?  Bad enough that "Alpha Natural Resources, the company that acquired Massey Energy Co. after the explosion, reached a settlement late last year with the Department of Justice in which it agreed to pay a record $209 million in compensation and fines and federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue criminal charges against the company," according to The Times' story.

Even so, some former officials at the mine are under criminal indictment. 

Last month, prosecutors charged the then-superintendent of the mine with conspiring with others to block federal regulators from enforcing safety requirements -- a charge that suggests other individuals are likely targets of action as well.

Prosecutors allege that the former superintendent altered the mine’s ventilation system while an inspector was taking an air sample and ordered that a monitor be rewired so that mining could continue despite elevated levels of methane.

What industry spokesman Quinn also didn't talk about is that EPA regulations would apply only to new power plants, and that, as The Times story said, "the proposed regulations further bolster a trend that the power industry began years ago, as more utilities replaced aging coal-fired plants with new natural gas plants. Very few new coal plants are now on the drawing boards."

Coal is a relatively cheap power source, but it's only really cheap if you ignore the costs in lost lives mining it and the health effects from burning it, not to mention the environmental costs from digging it up.

As The Times story concludes:

"[W]hat this essentially says is we will never be building dirty old coal plants ever again," said Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, one of the litigants in the lawsuit that led to the development of the new rules. "The dominant power source of the 19^th and 20^th centuries won’t be built the same again."

This isn't about "crushing" jobs.

This is about progress. And it's time to move on.

ALSO:

Candidates go PG-13 on the press

Gov. Brown's tax-the-rich pitch looks like a winner

Did an open mic catch Obama making promises to Russia?

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: President Obama speaks about energy on March 22 at a TransCanada pipe yard near Cushing, Okla. Credit: Larry W. Smith / EPA

There are even more crappier jobs than last year for recent college graduates in California and around the United States. This is what passes for a recovery?

ALSO:

Excuse me, my tattoo is ringing

Photo gallery: Ted Rall cartoons

The battle over tax proposals hits the airwaves

Photo: Ted Rall cartoon. Credit: For The Times

When it comes to domestic issues, Americans should trust the private sector.

That's a Republican Party mantra, and two stories in The Times this week have me convinced as well.

Now, I know you think one concerns gasoline prices. Really, though, who cares about that? Snore.

That's right: I'm talking about snoring.  As The Times' Lauren Beale reported:

A so-called snore room is the latest offering from Del Webb, which builds communities for people 55 and older.

Buyers whose marriages are plagued by a spouse who snorts, grunts and wheezes while he or she sleeps can opt for an adaptable bedroom plan marketed as the "owners retreat" at Sun City Shadow Hills in Indio. Designed for couples who start out in the same bed but end up apart because of ear-piercing snoring, insomnia or late-night TV viewing habits, this secondary bedroom is connected to the bathroom of the master bedroom.

See?  Big problem; private-sector solution. You leave that to government, and pretty soon you've got government-run snore insurance instead.

Still, even the private sector can stumble. For example, I'm a bit puzzled by Del Webb's logic:

"A nice enclave that shares the master bathroom provides a civilized alternative to the family room sofa," said Jacque Petroulakis, corporate communications spokeswoman for PulteGroup Inc., the parent company of Del Webb.

About a quarter of couples in the 55-and-older age group sleep apart to get a good night's rest, according to PulteGroup, which got the data from a third party but also conducted focus groups and interviews as it developed the bedroom plan.

Now first of all, the sofa isn't for snoring husbands; it's for misbehaving husbands, or came-home-late-drunk husbands -- which, come to think of it, is redundant. (It's never for wives, of course, who are too savvy to choose the sofa, regardless of their transgressions.)

Second, if you're 55 or older and still married to someone who snores, isn't it a bit late to be dealing with the problem? Seems to me the snore room should be marketed at 30-year-olds, who need all the help they can get keeping their marriages together.

But, staying true to the private sector's can-do spirit, in addition to the snore room, Del Webb is offering other conveniences:

Among other new life-easing features the builder is offering are pass-throughs from the closet to the laundry room. A door large enough to push a hamper through connects the two spaces.

Which brings me to my second domestic issue story of the week: widespread thievery of Tide detergent.

The Times Dalina Castellanos reported:

Thieves seem to be embarking on an anti-grime spree, some media outlets are reporting, saying thousands of dollars in Tide detergent is being swiped from shelves across the country.

One Minnesota man stole about $25,000 worth of the liquid laundry detergent from a West St. Paul Wal-Mart over 15 months, authorities there say.

And who's to blame for this crime wave?  Sadly, dear liberals, it appears that Rush and Sean and Glenn are right: It's the government -- or, in this case, at least one peson who apparently has fallen prey to the liberal-nanny-state mentality.  

Lt. Matt Swenke of the West St. Paul Police Department said in an interview with The Times that Patrick Costanzo, 53, was the suspect in the Minnesota thefts.

"He told [police] he didn't have a job and the state didn't help him in any way so he did what he had to do to get by," Swenke said.

Yes, it's true, liberals: You do a man's laundry, he's clean for a day. You teach him to do his own laundry, and he won't steal Tide.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense, I'll admit. But then again, my wife keeps me awake a night -- either snoring or doing the laundry.

Speaking of which:  Why do we have so much Tide?

ALSO:

Red meat will kill you? Stick a fork in me, I'm done!

Sherwood Rowland, the scientist who saved the world 

Poll: What does Newt Gingrich need to do to stay in the race?

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: A so-called snore room is the latest offering from Del Webb, which builds communities for people 55 and older. Credit: Handout

America, it's time for a little presidential poker. Republicans and Democrats need to go "all in" on Rick Santorum vs. President Obama.

Yep, it's "put up or shut up" time for all you political Texas hold 'em folks out there.

Now, the Obama bet you probably understand. After all, he's the incumbent, and he's running unopposed in the Democratic Party.

But why Santorum? After all, he's not only anathema to Democrats, it's not clear whether most Republicans favor him over Mitt Romney (not to mention Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul).

For the good of the country, though, the GOP needs to run Santorum.

Wait, wait, hold the comments, angry or otherwise. I didn't say "Santorum would be good for the country."  If you're asking me personally, well, it's a secret ballot, but no, I wouldn't put my ink spot next to "Rick Santorum."

But I'm also sick and tired of the partisan divide. It's time to call everyone's bluff.

Conservatives maintain that Obama and the Democrats are destroying the country; that we need to return to Christian values, to exceptionalism, to less government, less regulation, less spending and less taxation.

Sure, Romney touts all that too.  But he just wants the Republican nomination. With that secured, he'll pivot to the center, and pretty soon you'll never know he said half the stuff he did to get the GOP nod. With an Obama-Romney clash, should Romney lose, plenty of Republicans would complain that he wasn't a true-enough conservative.

Santorum, on the other hand, is nothing if not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He might pivot to the center too, but he's so far right that he can't even see the center at this point. With an Obama-Santorum battle, we'd be able to settle the liberal vs. conservative debate that's stifling government. 

And here's where the "all in" part happens.

If Santorum wins, liberals should acknowledge that the country is on the wrong path. America doesn't want gay marriage, or legal abortion, or government healthcare, or environmental protections. It wants to slash the size of government and reduce or eliminate entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. It wants religion back in public life; it wants the government out of schools. It wants to spend big on defense; it wants to back Israel no matter what. 

However, if Obama wins, all those conservative Republicans would have to acknowledge that they were wrong. That they're not America's voice. That America is OK with gay marriage and a woman's right to choose; it wants affordable healthcare for all, and a safety net that includes Medicare and Social Security.  It agrees with the separation of church and state and believes that while generating good-paying jobs is important, so is protecting the environment. It doesn't want a 1% and a 99% but a 100% that favors social and economic justice for all.

So after election day, that's it. Someone rakes in all the chips. 

If it's Santorum, then Republicans in Congress, the tea partyers and the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity crowd can crow all the way to the inauguration and beyond.

But if it's Obama, those same folks need to face reality. They need to stop the scorched-earth warfare and let him lead.

And we can go back to the old days, when elections mattered.

Did someone say "deal"?

ALSO:

The Dow is climbing! The Dow is climbing!

Issa's House hearings on contraception: Where were the women?

Presidential giants of our generation, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

 --Paul Whitefield

Illustration by Wes Bausmith / Los Angeles Times

The Dow briefly topped 13,000 on Tuesday.

Yippee! I guess.

The truth is, like many Americans, I have no idea what to make of this news. 

Sure, it can't be bad news, the fact that the Dow Jones industrial average is back to levels not seen since 2008, just before the housing bubble burst. (See "fool's gold" in the dictionary.)

So does that mean that it's good news?

Not necessarily. After all, next to The Times' headline about the stock market climb was this one: "Surging gas prices threaten to derail economic recovery."  And this one: "Consumers feel less financially secure than a year ago, poll finds."  Oh, and this one too: "How to survive an avalanche? Spit, expert says."

(Oops! Sorry, that doesn’t have anything to do with the Dow, or the economy. I just like to read stories of survival. Plus I've been a sucker for advice-type stories since childhood -- remember all the times your mom told you not to talk to strangers and what to do if someone tried to abduct you, and you waited and waited for that to happen because you knew just what to do, except it never did?)

But I digress. The stock market, to most of us, is like a roulette wheel in Vegas. We put our money down: We may win big; we may lose big. All we know for sure is that the house always wins, the house in this case being "them" -- the folks who work on "the Street" and who end up buying Ferraris with their end-of-year bonuses and vacationing in the Hamptons every summer, regardless of where the Dow finishes.

Honestly, I don't want to have to care about the Dow. I want the good old days, when "the street" was where we rode our bikes, "the market" was where mom went to buy groceries and a "hedge fund" was the money you got for taking care of the neighbor's yard.

Unfortunately, we have to care. Why?  The 401(k).

Yes, in the name of "choice" and the "free market" and "individual responsibility" -- not to mention corporate greed -- we've lost the pensions that paid for our parents' retirements. In their place, we've been given 401(k) chips, which we place on the stock market roulette wheel -- and the Dow's rise or fall determines whether in retirement we eat steak or dog food.

Really, though, it's a great system -- for those who sell or manage 401(k) plans.

So on Tuesday (appropriately enough, Fat Tuesday, and where did I put those beads?) the Greeks got their bailout (sheesh, at this rate the Germans would've been better off buying Greece), and the "bulls" celebrated. 

And tomorrow?  Ah, that's when the wheel spins again.

Do you feel lucky?

ALSO:

Democrats need to get serious about pension reform [Blowback]

Presidential giants of our generation, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Getty Images

"Some California officials are allowed to bank massive numbers of sick days -- including one who retired with 35 years' worth."

Cartoonist Ted Rall is referring to John Sandbrook, a retired University of California administrator, who, as Paul Pringle and Rong-Gong Lin II reported, "used the sick leave allotment for most of his university career to boost his annual pension by $655 a month for life, to nearly $183,000."

Some will argue that our tax money shouldn't go toward boosting an already generous pension. Rall puts out an additional issue up for debate: What's the most honest way of fulfilling one's public trust?

ALSO:

Paying the tax piper

Photo gallery: More Ted Rall cartoons

Mitt Romney picks the wrong fight over the auto bailout

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Cartoon: Ted Rall / For The Times

To paraphrase (badly) Neil Armstrong: "That was one small ad for Chrysler, one giant leap for political pundits."

Not to mention that Clint Eastwood apparently didn't "make Karl Rove's day," although I'm sure Bill O'Reilly was "feeling lucky" after Eastwood gave a statement to his Fox News show Tuesday night.

Chrysler's Super Bowl ad Sunday, which featured a deeply patriotic message delivered by Eastwood, was quickly decried by Rove and others as a sop to the Obama administration and its bailout of the U.S. auto industry.

On Monday on Fox News, Rove, in essence, drew first:

"I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

On Tuesday night's "The O'Reilly Factor,' Inspector Harry Callahan let Rove look down the barrel of his .44 Magnum:

"I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain. l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK. I am not supporting any politician. Chrysler to their credit didn’t even have cars in the ad. Anything they gave me for it went to charity. If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, I say go for it."

Really, though, how did we get here?  Do we have to start reading the tea leaves of Bud Light commercials for political messages?

And as for Chrysler, who knows what to think. The company, which is owned by the Italian automaker Fiat, puts out a simple, pro-America ad, then somehow gets bashed for being pro-Obama.

What, you think Chrysler was supposed to say "Hey, thanks for nothing, America and Mr. President; now buy our cars"?

Meanwhile, in its other ad -- for a Fiat 500 Abarth -- the Italian company features a Romanian supermodel (speaking Italian) who seduces a nerdy American on a street in some big American city.

What horrible message did that send?  Oh, I know: That Obama's a European-style socialist, and that he's seeking to seduce Americans by flaunting the sex appeal of a native of a former Soviet bloc country, and he wants you to buy cars built in a profligate European nation that's deeply in debt, and ...

Ouch. Enough.

Although I will say, if someone calls Eastwood next year for a Super Bowl ad, I'm afraid his response will be right out of "Dirty Harry":

"Well, you can just get yourself another delivery boy."

ALSO:

Wait! Isn't that Marge Simpson behind that veil?

Pain at the gas pump: Round up the usual suspects?

M.I.A. has digit malfunction, flips off the Super Bowl

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Scene from Chrysler's Super Bowl ad featuring Clint Eastwood. Credit: Chrysler

It doesn't really matter. Because you know what the smart money's on? Gasoline.

That's right: While you and your buddies were putting down $10 or $100 on a football game, $10 billion has been placed in the futures markets by large hedge funds and commodity pools -- and they're betting that gasoline prices will keep climbing.

So, anyone know a good gasoline bookie? Or can someone give me directions from the sports book area in Caesars to the commodities room?

Actually, that won't be necessary: I can't afford the gas to drive to Vegas.

That's because while the hedge fund guys are doubling-down on gasoline prices, you and I are the ones left feeding the slots, er, pumps.

As The Times reported Monday:

January is typically a month of falling gasoline prices because fuel demand traditionally falters in the slower travel weeks that follow the end-of-the-year holidays.

Not so this year. The last month was the most expensive January ever for retail gasoline as prices averaged out at $3.37 a gallon, according to the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) in New Jersey. That compared with the previous record average for the month of $3.095 a gallon SET last year. ...

In California, the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.771, up 2.4 cents since last week. That was also 36.5 cents a gallon higher than the old record for Feb. 6, which was set just last year.

Of course, it's not just speculators who are driving up the price of gas.

High oil prices was one reason. Refineries exporting large amounts of fuel overseas was another.

And as those late-night infomercial guys say: But wait, there's more:

Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com, said, "Gasoline prices tend to start moving significantly higher toward the end of February and into mid-March, so motorists should be preparing for higher prices."

You might think that about now I'm going to start ranting -- to blame someone for all this. 

You know: It's President Obama's fault; after all, he's, well, the president.

Or: It's Mitt Romney's fault. He's one of those rich guys who makes money from, uh, money.

Or: It's the evil oil companies. That's an oldie but a goodie.

But that's not fair. 

No, I'm blaming high school and college guidance counselors. 

After all, not one of them ever advised me to major in hedge funds or commodities trading. How about you?

Talk about a failing education system: There it is in a nutshell. You, me and that worthless brother-in-law of yours are working 9 to 5 and buying lottery tickets, while someone somewhere apparently whispered to the chosen few in school: "Hedge funds."

It's enough to drive you crazy.

Except gas costs too much to make the trip.

ALSO:

Refloating the housing market

A Puritan's "war against religion"

College: Just a six-figure day care? 

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: The average price of a gallon of regular gas in California has risen 2.4 cents since last week and 36.5 cents since a year ago. Credit: Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times

What's the opposite of "I told you so"? Because whatever it is, I need to say it about the draft map proposals released Wednesday by the Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission. Blogging on the recently concluded special election in Council District 15, I said there was just no way that Watts was ever going to be severed from the distant harbor.

But except for gaining or losing a few blocks at the far northern end, where Watts joins South Los Angeles and the central city, Council District 15 doesn't change. It can't, and it won't, because it has nowhere else to go. It's fenced in by the harbor on the south and the very strange shape of the city boundaries from there northward. Unless more territory is annexed to or detached from Los Angeles, this district will look pretty much the same in 50 years as it does today.

Never mind. The proposed map moves Watts out of the 15th and makes it part of a Council District 9, which traditionally takes in most of downtown but now would go only as far north as Olympic Boulevard.

Is that good or bad? It's different, and it could be good, although I'd be interested to know what Watts residents think. I suspect that many of them might like to finally be severed from San Pedro, the harbor community that always controls the election of the 15th District council member because it's where most of the money and most of the votes reside.

Every council member from that district, going back at least to World War II, has been a San Pedro resident. And it must be extraordinarily hard for the District 15 members not to promote the interests of their neighborhood and its very distinct demographic -- families with roots in fishing, shipping, loading, unloading and moving freight, largely white with a strong Italian, Croatian and Greek ethnic identity -- as opposed to Watts, with its distinct history and largely African American and Latino immigrant demographic, as well as environmental degradation, dense public housing problems and persistent gang crime.

Of course, not every community can have its own district. Communities must be joined with others that are like them -- or very unlike them. So would Watts now instead be pushed around by wealthy and gentrified downtown?

Perhaps not. The Bunker Hill and Flower Street office towers would be excluded, as would most of the 1920s bank buildings that are now condos and apartments. A lot of the conversation is going to focus on how the northern two-thirds of downtown would now be united as part of the same 14th District that includes Boyle Heights and far-away Eagle Rock. But the 9th District, in addition to Watts, would include downtown's Staples Center, L.A. Live and, assuming it gets built, Farmers Field football stadium.

So is this now the Anschutz Entertainment Group district, and will Watts now become the afterthought of AEG, instead of remaining the afterthought of the Port of Los Angeles? Could the AEG connection be better leveraged to help fund improvements in Watts?

Don't know the answer yet. Let's watch and listen.

ALSO:

Watts and Not-Watts

Planned remapping of  L.A. City Council districts draws fire

INTERACTIVE MAP: Current and proposed Los Angeles City Council districts

--Robert Greene

As predicted, Mitt Romney ratcheted up his attacks on Newt Gingrich in Monday’s umpteenth Republican presidential debate, drawing praise from tactics-minded commentators. Calling Gingrich an influence peddler and saying that he resigned as House speaker “in disgrace” is tough stuff, and (temporarily?) altered Romney’s image as a flat and diffident debater.

What it didn’t change -– at least for me –- is the impression that Romney is inauthentic. To put it bluntly: Does he really believe the aspersions he cast on Gingrich? Does he really think they’re disqualifying for the presidency?

I can’t buy it. In the era of attack ads, opposition research and cunning campaign consultants,  most candidates give short shrift to sincerity. Did Hillary Rodham Clinton really think Barack Obama was incapable of responding responsibly to that famous 3 a.m. phone call? Of course not. Is Romney really scandalized by Newt’s contract with Freddie Mac and his Washington insider status? Tell me another one.  (We’ll know Romney’s real view of Beltway insiders if he’s elected and chooses his White House staff.)

Whatever you think of Gingrich, his primary “personal” attacks on Romney -– that he’s insufficiently conservative and a trimmer –- seem sincere. Not that Gingrich isn’t capable of opportunism and flip-flops. He detests Romneycare now, but in 2006 his consulting company said it “has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.” Still, there’s no doubt that Gingrich thinks Romney is a muddleheaded moderate.  There’s plenty of doubt that Romney considers Gingrich an evil influence peddler.

RELATED:

McManus: Is Romney a true conservative?

McManus: Killer Mitt vs. President Newt at GOP debate

Mitt Romney doesn't want a tax break from Newt Gingrich

 -- Michael McGough

Photo: Mitt Romney gestures during a Republican presidential debate Jan. 23, 2012, at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Fla. Credit: Paul Sancya / AP Photo