Bush screwing Americans as he slithers out

[Skate Bait]

THE Bush Administration is on a tear to enact a slew of federal "un-regulations" in the waning days of the presidency, pushing through a wave of last-minute rule-making without customary checks and balances and oversight usually afforded such action. So much for transparency in government. The administration apparently aims to leave office the same way it came in, embracing a public policy process that disregards openness and avoids rigorous scrutiny by Congress or the public. While the country has been preoccupied with the election, administration operatives have been greasing the skids for a number of proposals that critics warn could adversely affect consumers, the environment, and public safety. Some of the changes would lift or ease constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines, and farms. These include relaxing standards for imported seafood and emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories, and other manufacturing plants, as well as prevention and containment of oil spills. Other changes would permit Interior Department officials to approve development projects without fully consulting federal wildlife and habitat scientists about endangered species or other environmental concerns. Federal agencies swamped with the deluge of the altered regulations are running out of time to review them, let alone invite outside input with scheduled periods for public comment. That's all by design. The administration wants to make it exceedingly difficult for the new administration due in January to change what it's done. While virtually every administration tries to pass some final rules and regulations before leaving for legacy's sake, the business-friendly Bush folks have elevated deregulation to an art form. All this will mean less protection for the public and more bad and costly policy for the country to overcome. Think of it as a parting gift from George W. Bush.

 

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ON02/811080338

[Robert Williams]

I know.... I know... Poor thing.

 

[eddy]

THE Bush Administration is on a tear to enact a slew of federal "un-regulations" in the waning days of the presidency, pushing through a wave of last-minute rule-making without customary checks and balances and oversight usually afforded such action. So much for transparency in government. The administration apparently aims to leave office the same way it came in, embracing a public policy process that disregards openness and avoids rigorous scrutiny by Congress or the public. While the country has been preoccupied with the election, administration operatives have been greasing the skids for a number of proposals that critics warn could adversely affect consumers, the environment, and public safety. Some of the changes would lift or ease constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines, and farms. These include relaxing standards for imported seafood and emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories, and other manufacturing plants, as well as prevention and containment of oil spills. Other changes would permit Interior Department officials to approve development projects without fully consulting federal wildlife and habitat scientists about endangered species or other environmental concerns. Federal agencies swamped with the deluge of the altered regulations are running out of time to review them, let alone invite outside input with scheduled periods for public comment. That's all by design. The administration wants to make it exceedingly difficult for the new administration due in January to change what it's done. While virtually every administration tries to pass some final rules and regulations before leaving for legacy's sake, the business-friendly Bush folks have elevated deregulation to an art form. All this will mean less protection for the public and more bad and costly policy for the country to overcome. Think of it as a parting gift from George W. Bush.

 

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ON02/811080338

 

any facts to back that up?

[Nebe]

any facts to back that up?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...004749_pf.html

[saltydawg]

The administration apparently aims to leave office the same way it came in

 

I thought the White House was in perfect order when he took over???? Is Clintopia a farce???

[eddy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...004749_pf.html

 

and what ones do you disagree with, and why?

[irlnd32]

[Punk Freud]

any facts to back that up?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103004749.html

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective

Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules,

which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period.

Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second

deadline of Dec. 20.

 

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations

of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows

natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland

Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from

airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on

airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

 

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would

ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with

administration deliberations.

 

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now

under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental

impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions

and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by

commercial and recreational fishing interests.

 

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could

speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration

officials promised to "get the rule done by the end of this month" and that

the outcome would be a big improvement.

 

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group said the

administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and

protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation

groups. "This thing is fatally flawed" as well as "wildly unpopular,"

Crockett said.

 

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from

power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that

is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

 

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental

Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to

match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that

more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's

estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide

into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming. A related

regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants

near national parks.

 

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical

factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

 

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come,

unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour

abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

[canyondiver]

I know.... I know... Poor thing.

 

 

You should be scared Robert.

Industry would take the environment with them if they could, and regulations to protect it are vital.

People are very poor at self regulation and this is really shameful.

[Plugged]

I wish people would stop feigning outrage and actually say what they actually disagree with and why these posts are just endless

[Robert Williams]

You should be scared Robert.

Industry would take the environment with them if they could, and regulations to protect it are vital.

People are very poor at self regulation and this is really shameful.

 

I agree. Industry would trash the environment to an intolerable level if left completely unregulated (and we know that because things were much, much worse during the 60's and 70's) but let's not automatically assume that every adjustment of legislation is designed to trash the environment for the sake of making money and paying off buds.

 

On the way out of office, Clinton dropped some bombs on Bush, including "progressive" environmental legislation that industry simply wasn't going to be able to meet and Bush is now adressing some of that.

 

Nothing wrong with being an environmental watchdog. I'm glad they're out there, but we can't go running to the fields every time they cry "wolf" and we can't say "to hell with the economy. No compromise on any environmental issues". Or at least we can't do that and then ***** about jobs getting shipped overseas, loss of manufacturing, no new power plants, excessive government spending, etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

Everything has consequences. Knee-jerk environmentalism causes a lot more harm than good. I love trees and wildlife, hunting and fishing as much or more than anyone. I also like living in a country with a sound economy and we'd better focus on that before it's too late.

[Nessmuk]

I wish people would stop feigning outrage and actually say what they actually disagree with and why these posts are just endless

 

 

This would take actual thought. And that's too HHHAAAAAARRRRDDDDD...

[flat addicted]

The rule being challenged by the National Marine Fisheries is so far reaching its preventing progress.

I own a small business that operates on public land and is regulated by the NFS. The required EIS's reach so far down the line ya gotta have one to fart on the National Forest. This law prevents progress on the smallest level by tying things up federally. All at the cost of small business. Don't get me wrong....I believe we need the regulation on our public lands, but not when destroys the very concept in which it is meant to protect.

That law simply NEEDS to be changed.

[Robert Williams]

The rule being challenged by the National Marine Fisheries is so far reaching its preventing progress.

I own a small business that operates on public land and is regulated by the NFS. The required EIS's reach so far down the line ya gotta have one to fart on the National Forest. This law prevents progress on the smallest level by tying things up federally. All at the cost of small business. Don't get me wrong....I believe we need the regulation on our public lands, but not when destroys the very concept in which it is meant to protect.

That law simply NEEDS to be changed.

 

I know, but the environmental activist groups worry as much about the slippery slope as gun owners and abortion rights activists do. We, as the voting public, owe it to ourselves to try to find out the real issues behind the rhetoric.

 

I've heard a lot lately about "change" being good, but ironically, it's the people who support "change" that are gainsaying this even though there's a hell of a strong argument that this change is needed.

[canyondiver]

I wish people would stop feigning outrage and actually say what they actually disagree with and why these posts are just endless

 

You mean like you do?

All you seemingly do is throw poo at everyone and act like a bitter kid.

I did say what I disagree with, but I guess you forgot to read and digest what I wrote?

 

The rule being challenged by the National Marine Fisheries is so far reaching its preventing progress.

I own a small business that operates on public land and is regulated by the NFS. The required EIS's reach so far down the line ya gotta have one to fart on the National Forest. This law prevents progress on the smallest level by tying things up federally. All at the cost of small business. Don't get me wrong....I believe we need the regulation on our public lands, but not when destroys the very concept in which it is meant to protect.

That law simply NEEDS to be changed.

 

Totally agree with you!

I would love to see more aquaculture, but I would love to see it done in a way that is not overly damaging to the surrounding waters.

I wonder if there is a way to filter/process the waste water, that is not too costly, and if aquaculturists can get a government grant to install these systems. Aquaculture is the future of our seafood industry, and is certainly worth spending some time and money on getting it running without too much environmental impact.

What are you involved in, if I may ask?