Anti-govt Repugs prove once again they know how to fuck up governance

[boutons_]

Neglected Vows Cited at BLM

Agency Was to Monitor Impact of Wyo. Drilling

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 31, 2006; A03


The Bureau of Land Management has neglected its public commitments to monitor and limit harm to wildlife and air quality from natural gas drilling in western Wyoming, according to an internal BLM assessment.

In the Pinedale, Wyo., field office of the BLM, which oversees one of the most productive and profitable gas fields on public land in the West, there is often "no evaluation, analysis or compiling" of data tracking the environmental consequences of drilling, according to the document, which was written in May and which BLM officials confirm is genuine.

The BLM in Pinedale has failed for six years to honor its commitments to track pollution that affects air quality and lake acidification in nearby wilderness areas, the document says.

In the years that the agency was not tracking emissions, the level of nitrous oxides in the Pinedale area exceeded limits that the BLM had publicly agreed might have an "adverse impact" on air quality, according to the internal assessment.

Nitrous oxides, from gas-field engine exhaust and the burning of waste gas, are a primary cause of the ground-level ozone that has reduced air quality in the high sage plains of western Wyoming, a region that until recently had one of the most pristine air8sheds in the West.

The BLM, which has presided over a large increase in energy drilling across the Rockies, agreed after a long public hearing process to "limit surface disturbance and human activity" that could displace deer, antelopes and sage grouse in the Pinedale area, winter home to some of the nation's largest migratory herds of deer and antelopes and one of the few places in the West with a vibrant population of nesting sage grouse.

But the document says that recent studies show that deer and sage grouse have declined because of "the impacts of human activity" associated with drilling.

Earlier this year, Steve Belinda, a wildlife biologist in the Pinedale office of the BLM, quit his job because he said that he and other wildlife specialists were required to spend nearly all their time working in the office on requests for more drilling and could not go into the field to study the effect on wildlife of the thousands of gas wells.

( earlier stories said Repug operatives were energy industry lobbyists parachuted into BLM to do nothing but write leases as fast as they could, far exceeding, by many decades, the capacity of the energy industry to actually exploit the leases )

The leaked BLM document was not intended for public distribution. It was prepared this spring to brief Dennis Stenger, the incoming field office manager in Pinedale.

"It is stuff to kick us in the side to take a look at some of our requirements," Stenger said in an interview. He added that he had asked for the assessment to help him understand what needed to be done.

Since 1994, the BLM has agreed to 824 separate commitments as part of the public approval process for drilling around Pinedale, BLM spokesman Steven Hall said. He said that 90 percent of the commitments have been met or were on schedule for completion.

"We are not always going to be perfect," he said, adding that the agency now has "to look at whether all the commitments in various documents are even doable."

Critics of the BLM said that the leaked document is not much of a revelation -- except in the agency's willingness to put its failures on paper.

"The facts are no surprise whatsoever," said Bruce Pendery, a program director of the Wyoming Outdoor Council, an environmental group based in Lander, Wyo. "What is new is that, instead of us grumbling about the BLM not doing what it said it would do, the agency itself is acknowledging that this is the case."

Many national environmental groups have complained about the BLM's accelerating pace in issuing new drilling permits. Executives with oil and gas companies say the industry cannot keep up with the permits already issued. In the past two years, the BLM issued a record 13,070 drilling permits on federal land, but the industry drilled just 5,844 wells.

"While the leaked report shines light on the agency's failure in one specific place, we fear that it is emblematic of its handling of energy leasing and development throughout the West," said James D. Range, chairman of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a Washington-based group focused on the protection of hunting and fishing on public land.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who toured the Pinedale gas fields last week, told local reporters he was "impressed" with how companies there were working in a way that is "compatible with the environment."

But state officials in Wyoming have been complaining for years about how demands from Washington to speed up drilling is hurting the state's wildlife and causing long-term environmental damage.

( and WY is consider "safe Repug" red state )
The state's planning coordinator, Mary Flanderka, said BLM field offices in Wyoming are under extraordinary pressure to honor environmental commitments while, at the same time, dealing with orders from Washington to rush forward on energy extraction.

"There is not enough money or manpower to get the job done," she said.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company


==================

So they do there job poorly, which is exactly what the WH wants. And when the do their, job it's "fuck the enviroment and favor the energy cos", which is exactly what the WH wants.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If you hate this country so much, why don't you just fucking move to Tehran?

[boutons_]

Like most right-wingers, you can't think straight or read.

You can't defend your side, or refute the facts, so you slime.

Go fuck a chicken.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yeah Aggie, way to maintain the debate at a reasonable level. :rolleyes

To criticise the failings of one's government is not to hate one's country - it is an example of caring about the decisions made on behalf of us by our governments.

I love Australia, but I openly criticise government policy on Iraq, industrial relations and climate change because they are getting it so wrong. That doesn't mean I don't love and respect my country.

This article reveals yet another example of rampant development without proper regulation damaging the environment, yet to criticise that is to be un-American?! Get a freakin clue, seriously.

[101A]

"Fuck up Government" is redundant.

Shall we all go hunt for regulation out of control or ineffective while Clinton was in office, or while the Democrats controlled all three houses?

Why do you think conservative have fought since, well, the federalist papers, to limit the scope and power of Washington? The bigger the organization, the more inefficient it runs, the more possibility of ineptness or corruption to screw the whole thing up. Compound that with the nature of 8, 4, or even 2 year timetables (based on the election cycles) to "get something done" while your people are in office, and this is what you get.

I seriously laugh when you post crap like this trying to get a rise out of conservatives. It makes our point. I'm sure when the Democrats take the WH and/or Congress the same will happen from the "other" side. Point is: Government sucks. All of it, all the time. It does absolutely NOTHING well. From defense, roads, social programs to "protecting" the environment - some of it can be categorized as necessary evil, but all of it is run poorly. I simply want less government, no matter who controls it; then maybe the important stuff (like protecting public lands) can get more attention.

[boutons_]

"since, well, the federalist papers, to limit the scope and power of Washington"

Their context was 100s of years of Divine Right imperious kings in England and France with mostly unchecked powers.

The US context for the last 150 year has been the rise of rapacious, amoral/immoral, super-wealthy, robber-barons and corporations fucking over the market, the employees, the environment, and investors in the pursuit of $$.

So a key role of the US federal govt is as counter-balance to corporate abuses. But the corps abuse the Repugs as whores doing their bidding.

Less government is exactly what the Repugs and conservatives want. The result is increasing poverty at the bottom, increasong concentration of insane wealth at the top 2%, the middle class being destroyed with stagnant/decliing incomes while productivity rises, gaming of the "free" markent, and rip-offs from the health/insurance industries.

"important stuff (like protecting public lands)"

Based on the Repugs last 6 years, do you really think they are ever going to protect the environment and workers?

[101A]

"since, well, the federalist papers, to limit the scope and power of Washington"

Their context was 100s of years of Divine Right imperious kings in England and France with mostly unchecked powers.

The US context for the last 150 year has been the rise of rapacious, amoral/immoral, super-wealthy, robber-barons and corporations fucking over the market, the employees, the environment, and investors in the pursuit of $$.

So a key role of the US federal govt is as counter-balance to corporate abuses. But the corps abuse the Repugs as whores doing their bidding.

Less government is exactly what the Repugs and conservatives want. The result is increasing poverty at the bottom, increasong concentration of insane wealth at the top 2%, the middle class being destroyed with stagnant/decliing incomes while productivity rises, gaming of the "free" markent, and rip-offs from the health/insurance industries.

"important stuff (like protecting public lands)"

Based on the Repugs last 6 years, do you really think they are ever going to protect the environment and workers?

No, the Republicans over the past 6 years have been shown to be woefully unable to control govt. at all. Spending is out of control, etc...

IF the government didn't have so much on its plate, doing so much, it would be able to focus more on its primary mission; To protect citizens rights from abuses from other citizens (including the right to have non-screwed up public lands) - or to "counter-balance corporate abuses", as you put it.

Based on you post, btw, Boutons, you think the good 'ole days were 150 years ago? What IS you ideal society?

[boutons_]

"the Republicans over the past 6 years have been shown to be woefully unable to control govt. at all. Spending is out of control, etc..."

The Repugs have control of Exec and Admin branches.
The Repug Exec has not vetoed a single spending bill approved by the Repug Congress.
The Repugs themselves have been spending and "true" anti-govt conservatives are pissed.

Starting a phony $1T war, on credit, while cutting taxes for the super-rich is just another tactic for the Repugs to spend the govt into insolvency, while leaving the poison pill of debt for later govts to handle with raising taxes.

... as result, re-read the thread topic. Over-spending BY THE REPUGS is widely known to be nothing but yet-another "starve the beast" tactic.

'you think the good 'ole days were 150 years ago?"

Your words, not mine. Typical bullshit.

The Repug whores-of-corporations are not enforcing current regulations, hate and want to destroy OSHA, are not protecting the enivironment from rapacious developers, etc, etc. The Repug governance is nothing but politics, not policies, and just ignoring/inaction whatever is on its plate.

As result, the Repugs simply cannot run on their record of governance, but run on scaring the shit out of everybody, rousing the rabble, polarizing not uniting, and exploting WTC/war on terror for Repug partisan advantage.

[DarkReign]

Shall we all go hunt for regulation out of control or ineffective while Clinton was in office, or while the Democrats controlled all three houses?

If I remember correctly, Clinton presided over a Republican controlled Congress thru both terms.

EDITED: whoops. My bad. 6 out of 8 years the Republicans controlled congress.

EDITED: Wholly fucking Frankiln Roosevelt! Everyone knows he served 12 years, but did you know the Dems owned for Congress for all twelve?! Fucking amazing.

[Extra Stout]

When Bush is gone, will the Republican Party go back to being an actual party rather than a racket to steal from the American people?

[boutons_]

"a racket to steal from the American people"

Good question, here's an answer that says the plutocrats are both donkeys and elephants, ie the answer is NO:

==================

September 1, 2006
Guest Columnist, NYTines

Rendezvous With Oblivion

By THOMAS FRANK

Over the last month I have tried to describe conservative power in Washington, but with a small change of emphasis I could just as well have been describing the failure of liberalism: the center-left’s inability to comprehend the current political situation or to draw upon what is most vital in its own history.

What we have watched unfold for a few decades, I have argued, is a broad reversion to 19th-century political form, with free-market economics understood as the state of nature, plutocracy as the default social condition, and, enthroned as the nation’s necessary vice, an institutionalized corruption surpassing anything we have seen for 80 years. All that is missing is a return to the gold standard and a war to Christianize the Philippines.

Historically, liberalism was a fighting response to precisely these conditions. Look through the foundational texts of American liberalism and you can find everything you need to derail the conservative juggernaut. But don’t expect liberal leaders in Washington to use those things. They are “New Democrats” now, enlightened and entrepreneurial and barely able to get out of bed in the morning, let alone muster the strength to deliver some Rooseveltian stemwinder against “economic royalists.”

Mounting a campaign against plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity. What our modernized liberal leaders offer — that is, when they’re not gushing about the glory of it all at Davos — is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of the situation and to try to understand how we might retrain or re-educate ourselves so we will fit in better next time.

This last point was a priority for the Clinton administration. But in “The Disposable American,” a disturbing history of job security, Louis Uchitelle points out that the New Democrats’ emphasis on retraining (as opposed to broader solutions that Old Democrats used to favor) is merely a kinder version of the 19th-century view of unemployment, in which economic dislocation always boils down to the fitness of the unemployed person himself.

Or take the “inevitability” of recent economic changes, a word that the centrist liberals of the Washington school like to pair with “globalization.” We are told to regard the “free-trade” deals that have hammered the working class almost as acts of nature. As the economist Dean Baker points out, however, we could just as easily have crafted “free-trade” agreements that protected manufacturing while exposing professions like law, journalism and even medicine to ruinous foreign competition, losing nothing in quality but saving consumers far more than Nafta did.

When you view the world from the satisfied environs of Washington — a place where lawyers outnumber machinists 27 to 1 and where five suburban counties rank among the seven wealthiest in the nation — the fantasies of postindustrial liberalism make perfect sense. The reign of the “knowledge workers” seems noble.

Seen from almost anywhere else, however, these are lousy times. The latest data confirms that as the productivity of workers has increased, the ones reaping the benefits are stockholders. Census data tells us that the only reason family income is keeping up with inflation is that more family members are working.

Everything I have written about in this space points to the same conclusion: Democratic leaders must learn to talk about class issues again. But they won’t on their own. So pressure must come from traditional liberal constituencies and the grass roots, like the much-vilified bloggers. Liberalism also needs strong, well-funded institutions fighting the rhetorical battle. Laying out policy objectives is all well and good, but the reason the right has prevailed is its army of journalists and public intellectuals. Moving the economic debate to the right are dozens if not hundreds of well-funded Washington think tanks, lobbying outfits and news media outlets. Pushing the other way are perhaps 10.

The more comfortable option for Democrats is to maintain their present course, gaming out each election with political science and a little triangulation magic, their relevance slowly ebbing as memories of the middle-class republic fade.

===================

Thomas Frank, a guest columnist, is the author, most recently, of “What’s the Matter With Kansas?’’

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Like most right-wingers, you can't think straight or read.

You can't defend your side, or refute the facts, so you slime.

Go fuck a chicken.

Look in the mirror dipshit. The next time you come up with a fact, call me. All I see you come up with is hate, profanity, and stupid ass conspiracy theories from democraticunderground.

Fuck a chicken? What was that about slime? Dumbass.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yeah Aggie, way to maintain the debate at a reasonable level.

When has croutons ever even had a debate, much less had one at a 'reasonable level'?

I swear, I thought Dan hated this country, but croutons is ten times worse.

[101A]

"The middle class republic" existed only after WWII...

This is another post that has you, Boutons, hinting that there was some glorious past. Of what past are you speaking? Pre-Civil rights? The '50's, 60's? I asked earlier - Do you have an ideal? Do you have ANY suggestions on what you want, other than Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld hung in the streets?

How can you go on tirade after tirade blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans and neocons, when you actually believe, apparently, that the entire premise of our society is flawed? Are you essentially Marxist? (didn't want to write that, because sounds insulting, but it is a legitimate political/ecnomic belief system - is that what you espouse?)

[boutons_]

"hinting that there was some glorious past"

There was a glorious past for the USA middle class, which underwent a huge expansion in numbers, and REAL increases in wages and personal wealth, after WWII and up to about 1973, the second oil shock.

Since 1973, real wages have been stagnant, and household incomes have increased due primarily to wives entering the workforce, double-wage-earner households, not to a single-wager earner having huge increases in real income.


That has been going on for a long time, under Dems and Repugs.

That stagnation has been exacerbated by the rise of conservatives and their class war in the last 15 years.

"the entire premise of our society is flawed?"

I don't believe that, but feel free to argue that point with the source, your asshole.

"blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans and neocons"

Who has been in near absolute power, Exec and Legislative branches, for the past 6 years?

What has been accomplished by the Repugs to advance ALL of Ameicans well-being in that time?, vs advancing only the top 2%, with poverty increasing all 6 years, and real(inflation adjusted) personal incomes stagnant and declining?

I'm not an economist, this guy below is, although I expect you won't read, or even try to refute his facts (skip his opinion if you can even distinguish fact from opinion)

Piss on him if you want, in principle, but can you refute his points?

================

September 1, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

The Big Disconnect

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There are still some pundits out there lecturing people about how great the economy is. But most analysts seem to finally realize that Americans have good reasons to be unhappy with the state of the economy: although G.D.P. growth has been pretty good for the last few years, most workers have seen their wages lag behind inflation and their benefits deteriorate.

The disconnect between overall economic growth and the growing squeeze on many working Americans will probably play a big role this November, partly because President Bush seems so out of touch: the more he insists that it’s a great economy, the angrier voters seem to get. But the disconnect didn’t begin with Mr. Bush, and it won’t end with him, unless we have a major change in policies.

The stagnation of real wages — wages adjusted for inflation — actually goes back more than 30 years. The real wage of nonsupervisory workers reached a peak in the early 1970’s, at the end of the postwar boom. Since then workers have sometimes gained ground, sometimes lost it, but they have never earned as much per hour as they did in 1973.

Meanwhile, the decline of employer benefits began in the Reagan years, although there was a temporary improvement during the Clinton-era boom. The most crucial benefit, employment-based health insurance, has been in rapid decline since 2000.

Ordinary American workers seem to understand the long-term disconnect between economic growth and their own fortunes better than most political analysts. Consider, for example, the results of a new poll of American workers by the Pew Research Center.

The center finds that workers perceive a long-term downward trend in their economic status. A majority say that it’s harder to earn a decent living than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and a plurality say that job benefits are worse too.

Are workers simply viewing the past through rose-colored glasses? The report seems to imply that they are: a section pointing out that workers surveyed in 1997 also said that it had gotten harder to make a decent living is titled, “As usual, people say things were better in the good old days.”

But as we’ve seen, real wages have been declining since the 1970’s, so it makes sense that workers have consistently said that it’s harder to make a living today than it was a generation ago.

On the other side, workers’ concern about worsening benefits is new. In 1997, a plurality of workers said that employment benefits were better than they used to be. That made sense: in 1997, the health care crisis, which had been a big political issue a few years earlier, seemed to have gone into remission. Medical costs were relatively stable, and in a tight labor market, employers were competing to offer improved benefits. Workers felt, rightly, that benefits were pretty good by historical standards.

But now the health care crisis is back, both because medical costs are rising rapidly and because we’re living in an increasingly Wal-Martized economy, in which even big, highly profitable employers offer minimal benefits. Employment-based insurance began a steep decline with the 2001 recession, and the decline has continued in spite of economic recovery.

The latest Census report on incomes, poverty and health insurance, released this week, shows that in 2005, four years into the economic expansion, the percentage of Americans with private insurance of any kind reached its lowest level since 1987. And Americans feel, again correctly, that benefits are worse than they used to be.

Why have workers done so badly in a rich nation that keeps getting richer? That’s a matter of dispute, although I believe there’s a large political component: what we see today is the result of a quarter-century of policies that have systematically reduced workers’ bargaining power.

( ie, that's his opionion. what's yours? )

The important question now, however, is whether we’re finally going to try to do something about the big disconnect. Wages may be difficult to raise, but we won’t know until we try. And as for declining benefits — well, every other advanced country manages to provide everyone with health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do.

The big disconnect, in other words, provides as good an argument as you could possibly want for a smart, bold populism. All we need now are some smart, bold populist politicians.

===============

Anybody seen any smart, bold populist politicians recently?.
The Repug aren't populist at all. The Dems aren't much better. Note that Krugman didn't mention either above.

Now after you've parked your dick and zipped up your pants, (try to) say precisely whats erroneous about Krugman's article.

[101A]

I think he's right...but something jumps out at me: '73 is when the baby-boomers were finishing college and entering the workforce.

Could we simply have a supply & demand problem - more workers = less clout for each of those workers to demand higher pay.

Also could explain health costs. It costs far more to insure a 55 year old than a 25, 35 or 45 year old - as the workforce has aged, the cost of keeping those people healthy has growed geometrically. Compound that with the growing sophistication of the pharmaceutical industry's add campaigns, and the protectionism they get from the FDA (HEAVILY influenced by Congress), and you have things even more out of control.

Benefits are decreasing because health costs are increasing at a ridiculous pace; employers simply cannot keep up.

Also, all of this started just a few years after the "War on Poverty" began. Apparently that war was lost.

[Crookshanks]

every other advanced country manages to provide everyone with health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do.

You mean like Canada and Great Britain - where they have socialized medicine? No thanks!

[DarkReign]

You mean like Canada and Great Britain - where they have socialized medicine? No thanks!

I post very regularly on a Canadian hockey forum which is very very popular.

By far, most Canadians are more than happy with their system. From the posts and people I have had discourse with, most Canadians (to my understanding) that arent poor supplement their social healthcare with their own at a fucking-ridiculous fraction.

Example off the top of my head...

One guy has his wife and 2 children. He pays under $50 Canadian a month to supplement what the government provides. For his contribution his family gets the absolute best possible health care money can buy. One of his children is very sick (my memory sucks, but IIRC it was a form of MS) and he stated there is really no delay or lack of attention when his child has his bad days. It was really, really sad story...Im really pissed i cant remember the disease/condition.

[Ya Vez]

USA Today article...

Martin's government survived a no-confidence vote in June with the support of the New Democratic Party. That support waned when the Liberals refused last week to cooperate with the New Democratic Party's demand for a ban on private health care.

The private system is forbidden by Canadian law but increasingly popular among the wealthy. The public health care system is struggling after a decade of cost-cutting under Martin, the Liberals' finance minister until shortly before he became prime minister a year ago.

Last year, Martin's Liberals launched a plan to pump an additional $35 billion over the next decade into the public health system, which costs $22 billion annually.

Despite this commitment, there has been little progress, according to the Wait Times Alliance, a coalition of Canadian physicians. The coalition says the lack of funding has resulted in too few doctors and hospital beds — the source of the long waits.

Conservative Party leaders including Steven Fletcher, the party's official health critic, say medical wait times have doubled since the Liberals took power in 1993. "This government and this prime minister have done nothing to fix the wait-time crisis they've caused," Fletcher says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-24-canada-no-confidence_x.htm

Now imagine 300 million americans on social health care.....

[ChumpDumper]

Now imagine 300 million americans on social health care.....If nothing is done about the cost of health care here, it's very easy to imagine.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What has been accomplished by the Repugs to advance ALL of Ameicans well-being in that time?, vs advancing only the top 2%, with poverty increasing all 6 years, and real(inflation adjusted) personal incomes stagnant and declining?

I don't consider myself in the top 2%, and I've got more money now in my pocket than I did six years of go.

Of course, I got off my ass and got a college degree too, instead of sitting around waiting for government handouts.



every other advanced country manages to provide everyone with health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do.

If by 'spending less' you mean that the co-pays, prescriptions, etc. are cheaper, I guess you have a point. Question though: are you prepared to hand over half of your income to make it happen? That's how it works in Europe.

My mom is English, and still has relatives over there. They say their health care system sucks for just that fact.

The other problem with the cost of health care here in America is the ridiculous amount of malpractice insurance doctors have to have these days due to lawsuits and the threat of them.

But of course the only time a couple of Republicans brought up legal reform in D.C. the libs were right there at the front saying no way, no how. Granted, they had some Repubs backing them up, but that's the biggest problem with the health care system in America today - lawsuits.

[boutons_]

"the ridiculous amount of malpractice insurance doctors have to have these days due to lawsuits and the threat of them."

This has been thoroghly debunked as bullshit before TX capped awards. Now that TX has capped awards the costs of insurance is about the same. The insurance companies are screwing the doctors. It's not the the victims/trial lawyers screwing the doctors.

"If by 'spending less' you mean"

Try to read, dumbfuck. The US spends 16% of GDP on medical care, the highest %age of all other industrial nations that do have national health plans, and still 45 million people in USA aren't insured, and very probably avoid getting early care for that reason, so they wait until they are much sicker/critical when the care is much more expensive. US has the highest infant mortality rate of all industrial nations.

A huge saving in medical care would be realized if Americans weren't so fucking overweight and obese, at all ages, since fat correlates and exacerbates with all kinds of serious diseases, from adult-onset diabetes to cancer. But it's big business to sell too much and too shitty foods to Americans, 24 x 7.

Amerian freedom and wealth, OK, but don't nobody expect any American to be responsible or accept voluntarily limits for the common good.