Friday, November 07, 2003
No More Questions!
Fearing more awkward situations, the White House sent out an email to Democratic members of the Appropriations committees, saying that in view of the plethora of requests for information as to how taxpayer monies are spent, they would no longer respond to such requests. Note: This is hardly business as usual.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9708-2003Nov6.html
Environment: Still More
(1) Rule Drafted That Would Dilute the Clean Water Act
More favors to the developers-supporters. Here they’re hoping to open more streams and wetlands to development, principally in California and other western regions that have long had water problems. Via the LA Times (Elizabeth Shogren)
Bush administration officials have drafted a rule that would significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, stripping many wetlands and streams of federal pollution controls and making them available to being filled for commercial development.
The rule, spelled out in an internal document provided to The Times by a senior government official, says that Clean Water Act protection would no longer be provided to "ephemeral washes or streams" that do not have groundwater as a source. Streams that flow for less than six months a year would also lose protection, as would many wetlands...
(2) Thursday’s NY Times lead story focused on changes in EPA enforcement efforts. According to the front page story (Christopher Drew, Richard A. Oppel, Jr.) investigators will drop 50 cases of violations of the Clean Water Act, since the newer less stringent rules would supersede the stricter ones that the cases were built on.
The lawyers said the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which urged the government two years ago to study industry complaints about its enforcement actions. The Bush administration has said its goal is to ensure cost-effective improvements to air quality.
Congressional critics, environmental groups and officials in some Northeast states described the change as a major victory for the utility industry and a defeat for environmentalists, who had viewed the cases as the best way to require the companies to install billions of dollars of new pollution controls.
Representatives of the utility industry have been among President Bush's biggest campaign donors, and a change in the enforcement policies has been a top priority of the industry's lobbyists.
Follow-up: Dean:
His “gaffe” was ”well” covered , infinitely more ink than, for example (and there are many) when Bush lied about “Kenny Boy” Lay being a Richards supporter in the’94 election, and that he hardly knew him.
With New Hampshire 3 months away, he’s looking solid, if not inevitable. The polls have held up, the money’s rolling in and now the SEIU endorsement and a likely one coming from AFSCME which severely damage the Gephardt hopes. With Lieberman and Kerry fading and Clark not getting ‘traction’, more talk of a dead-locked convention may emerge as the only way to stop Dean.
Krugman on Dean Gaffe: How overdone the reaction has been. Perspective from Mr. Krugman.
The fact that so many poor and lower middle class white southerners support a president (and party) whose economic policies demonstrably benefit the already affluent at their expense can only be explained by the Republicans' coded (and sometimes overt) appeals to racism and intolerance. That's where the rage belongs…
Mr. Dean wasn't suggesting that his party adopt the G.O.P. strategy of coded racial signals, and by and large African-Americans — my wife included — understand that. What he meant by his flag remark was that Democrats must make the case to working Americans of all colors that the right's elitist agenda isn't in their interest. And he's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
Follow-up: The Reagan Program
Effective political work by the Right. Keep in mind that the Reagan Legacy Project and other 'activists' are not satisfied with the airport and a federal building being named for the index-card reading ex-President. They are still working on replacing Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, putting a monument on the Washington Mall, and installing Reagan's bust on Mount Rushmore. http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/reagan_010330.html
Jobs:
“Good news”, that the official rate is now 6.0%. Some new jobs were created in the month; we are averaging 125,500 per month, for the last two months. We need between 170,000 and 200,000 per month to keep up with population growth. Yet, the Administration and the media are crowing about the 'surprising' job news.
War was Unnecessary, (encore une fois)
The flurry of activity in February-March revealed on the front pages yesterday further confirms that the Administration was determined to go to war over the “weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam had signaled that he no wmd, that we could endlessly comb the country for them, etc., yet there is no evidence that these signals were even treated seriously. Of course the White House now dismisses them with the general statement that "The United States exhausted every legitimate and credible opportunity to resolve this peacefully." The cautious New York Times editorialized: Administration supporters were fond of saying at the time that there were things Bush officials knew but could not share with the public. Little did we imagine that among those things was an offer that might have provided a way to avoid the war.
An Assessment by The Economist
The very Establishment magazine did an extensive summary of the Bush economic program. It ain’t pretty.
Although Team Bush wants a reformed tax code, aimed at consumption rather than income, their strategy of tax reform via tax cuts will not produce a clean reform. Many of the subsidies and loopholes of the current system will remain. The result will be a narrower tax base, full of distortions, which shifts the burden of taxation towards poorer Americans…
At some point, however, both Mr Bush and the rest of Washington will be forced to leave this fiscal Neverland. When will that be? Many look to the late 1980s and early 1990s as a model. Then, years of persistent fiscal deficits persuaded Americans that belt-tightening was necessary. Budget rules were introduced, spending was cut and taxes were raised. It was politically painful (particularly for George Bush senior, who thereby lost the 1992 election). But the tide of red ink was turned.
This time the turnaround will be much tougher. There will be no “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war (indeed, the pressure on military spending may continue to increase). America is unlikely to see another stockmarket bubble, with its surge in tax revenues. As baby-boomers retire, the pressure from entitlement spending will be more acute. Set against this background, the path back to a sustainable fiscal policy will be extremely painful, even without any dramatic fiscal crisis. Long after Dubya is back on his ranch, Americans will be trying to recover from the mess he created. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237
Demonstration:
The Guardian reports that 100,000 Israelis staged a demonstration to denounce the Occupation and call for peace. It marked the eighth anniversary of the Yitzhak Rabin assassination.
Chutzpah:
The Democrats were vowing to expose what it said were the Bush administration's "misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives" in making the case for war.
Angry Republicans accused the Democratic side of playing politics.
"It is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would actually try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war, even apparently reaching conclusions before investigations have been performed," said Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/intelligence.flap/index.html
-R
Fearing more awkward situations, the White House sent out an email to Democratic members of the Appropriations committees, saying that in view of the plethora of requests for information as to how taxpayer monies are spent, they would no longer respond to such requests. Note: This is hardly business as usual.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9708-2003Nov6.html
Environment: Still More
(1) Rule Drafted That Would Dilute the Clean Water Act
More favors to the developers-supporters. Here they’re hoping to open more streams and wetlands to development, principally in California and other western regions that have long had water problems. Via the LA Times (Elizabeth Shogren)
Bush administration officials have drafted a rule that would significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, stripping many wetlands and streams of federal pollution controls and making them available to being filled for commercial development.
The rule, spelled out in an internal document provided to The Times by a senior government official, says that Clean Water Act protection would no longer be provided to "ephemeral washes or streams" that do not have groundwater as a source. Streams that flow for less than six months a year would also lose protection, as would many wetlands...
(2) Thursday’s NY Times lead story focused on changes in EPA enforcement efforts. According to the front page story (Christopher Drew, Richard A. Oppel, Jr.) investigators will drop 50 cases of violations of the Clean Water Act, since the newer less stringent rules would supersede the stricter ones that the cases were built on.
The lawyers said the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which urged the government two years ago to study industry complaints about its enforcement actions. The Bush administration has said its goal is to ensure cost-effective improvements to air quality.
Congressional critics, environmental groups and officials in some Northeast states described the change as a major victory for the utility industry and a defeat for environmentalists, who had viewed the cases as the best way to require the companies to install billions of dollars of new pollution controls.
Representatives of the utility industry have been among President Bush's biggest campaign donors, and a change in the enforcement policies has been a top priority of the industry's lobbyists.
Follow-up: Dean:
His “gaffe” was ”well” covered , infinitely more ink than, for example (and there are many) when Bush lied about “Kenny Boy” Lay being a Richards supporter in the’94 election, and that he hardly knew him.
With New Hampshire 3 months away, he’s looking solid, if not inevitable. The polls have held up, the money’s rolling in and now the SEIU endorsement and a likely one coming from AFSCME which severely damage the Gephardt hopes. With Lieberman and Kerry fading and Clark not getting ‘traction’, more talk of a dead-locked convention may emerge as the only way to stop Dean.
Krugman on Dean Gaffe: How overdone the reaction has been. Perspective from Mr. Krugman.
The fact that so many poor and lower middle class white southerners support a president (and party) whose economic policies demonstrably benefit the already affluent at their expense can only be explained by the Republicans' coded (and sometimes overt) appeals to racism and intolerance. That's where the rage belongs…
Mr. Dean wasn't suggesting that his party adopt the G.O.P. strategy of coded racial signals, and by and large African-Americans — my wife included — understand that. What he meant by his flag remark was that Democrats must make the case to working Americans of all colors that the right's elitist agenda isn't in their interest. And he's right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
Follow-up: The Reagan Program
Effective political work by the Right. Keep in mind that the Reagan Legacy Project and other 'activists' are not satisfied with the airport and a federal building being named for the index-card reading ex-President. They are still working on replacing Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, putting a monument on the Washington Mall, and installing Reagan's bust on Mount Rushmore. http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/reagan_010330.html
Jobs:
“Good news”, that the official rate is now 6.0%. Some new jobs were created in the month; we are averaging 125,500 per month, for the last two months. We need between 170,000 and 200,000 per month to keep up with population growth. Yet, the Administration and the media are crowing about the 'surprising' job news.
War was Unnecessary, (encore une fois)
The flurry of activity in February-March revealed on the front pages yesterday further confirms that the Administration was determined to go to war over the “weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam had signaled that he no wmd, that we could endlessly comb the country for them, etc., yet there is no evidence that these signals were even treated seriously. Of course the White House now dismisses them with the general statement that "The United States exhausted every legitimate and credible opportunity to resolve this peacefully." The cautious New York Times editorialized: Administration supporters were fond of saying at the time that there were things Bush officials knew but could not share with the public. Little did we imagine that among those things was an offer that might have provided a way to avoid the war.
An Assessment by The Economist
The very Establishment magazine did an extensive summary of the Bush economic program. It ain’t pretty.
Although Team Bush wants a reformed tax code, aimed at consumption rather than income, their strategy of tax reform via tax cuts will not produce a clean reform. Many of the subsidies and loopholes of the current system will remain. The result will be a narrower tax base, full of distortions, which shifts the burden of taxation towards poorer Americans…
At some point, however, both Mr Bush and the rest of Washington will be forced to leave this fiscal Neverland. When will that be? Many look to the late 1980s and early 1990s as a model. Then, years of persistent fiscal deficits persuaded Americans that belt-tightening was necessary. Budget rules were introduced, spending was cut and taxes were raised. It was politically painful (particularly for George Bush senior, who thereby lost the 1992 election). But the tide of red ink was turned.
This time the turnaround will be much tougher. There will be no “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war (indeed, the pressure on military spending may continue to increase). America is unlikely to see another stockmarket bubble, with its surge in tax revenues. As baby-boomers retire, the pressure from entitlement spending will be more acute. Set against this background, the path back to a sustainable fiscal policy will be extremely painful, even without any dramatic fiscal crisis. Long after Dubya is back on his ranch, Americans will be trying to recover from the mess he created. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237
Demonstration:
The Guardian reports that 100,000 Israelis staged a demonstration to denounce the Occupation and call for peace. It marked the eighth anniversary of the Yitzhak Rabin assassination.
Chutzpah:
The Democrats were vowing to expose what it said were the Bush administration's "misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives" in making the case for war.
Angry Republicans accused the Democratic side of playing politics.
"It is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would actually try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war, even apparently reaching conclusions before investigations have been performed," said Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/intelligence.flap/index.html
-R
