PDA

View Full Version : Business as Usual


andyfox
02-16-2004, 03:22 PM
Exhibit 1: Bush is running around the country telling people how good his tax cuts are: From the AP story:

Bush spoke at a window factory, the latest such plant he has chosen to showcase what he says are the favorable impacts of his tax policies on small business. His makeshift stage was near the production floor, and he was flanked by small business owners and an employee.

The White House bills these events as "conversations on the economy," but there is never disagreement, only positive reinforcement of Bush's message. Each of Bush's "conversation" partners gave testimonials about the positive effect of his tax cuts.

"Mr. President, we have to keep this tax cut," said Sam Leto, chairman of Tampa Brass & Aluminum Corp.

Bush's tour of the factory floor was also highly stage-managed by the White House.

As he entered, a half-dozen workers were steadily polishing windows, as if Bush had walked into an ordinary shift on President's Day. News cameras snapped away as Bush picked up a caulking gun and hugged workers.

Five minutes after Bush and his entourage of journalists left, the factory floor was deserted, and there was no sign later in the day that production had resumed.

It was Bush's 19th visit to Florida . .

Exhibit B:

How policy is made in America:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans.

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision had its origin in the early days of President Bush's tenure when his administration decided not to move ahead with a Clinton-era regulatory effort to ban the clean-air additive MTBE.

The proposed regulation said the environmental harm of the additive leaching into ground water overshadowed its beneficial effects to the air.

The Bush administration decided to leave the issue to Congress, where it has bogged down over a proposal to shield the industry from some lawsuits. That initiative is being led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

The Associated Press obtained a draft of the proposed regulation that former President Clinton's EPA sent to the White House on its last full day in office in January 2001.

It said: "The use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline presents an unreasonable risk to the environment."

The EPA document went on to say that "low levels of MTBE can render drinking water supplies unpotable due to its offensive taste and odor," and the additive should be phased out over four years.

"Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and spreads readily in the ground water ... resists biodegradation and is more difficult and costly to remove."

People say MTBE-contaminated water tastes like turpentine.

In Santa Monica, Calif., the oil industry will pay hundreds of millions of dollars because the additive contaminated the city's water supply.

"We're the poster child for MTBE, and it could take decades to clean this up," said Joseph Lawrence, the assistant city attorney.

In 2000, the MTBE industry's lobbying group told the Clinton administration that limiting MTBE's use by regulation "would inflict grave economic harm on member companies."

Three MTBE producers account for half the additive's daily output.

The three contributed $338,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Republican Party and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000, twice what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since then, the three producers have given just over $1 million to Republicans.

The producers are Texas-based Lyondell Chemical and Valero Energy and the Huntsman companies of Salt Lake City.

"This is a classic case of the Bush administration helping its campaign contributor friends at the expense of public health," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington-based environmental group.

Huntsman spokesman Don Olsen, echoing comments by other MTBE producers, said, "We were not a huge campaign contributor and this has absolutely nothing to do with campaign donations. It has to do with good public policy."

The industry says it has become a victim in a Washington power struggle.

"Because of MTBE there has been a marked improvement in air quality and reduction in toxics in the air," Olsen said. "Because of leaking underground storage tanks in some relatively few instances, MTBE found its way into places it shouldn't be. But that has nothing to do with the product, which has done exactly what it was designed to do."

Said Valero Energy spokeswoman Mary Rose Brown: "It would have been impossible to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air Act without MTBE."

A daily Washington newsletter disclosed the existence of the draft rule shortly after Bush's inauguration; outside the industry, few people noticed.

At the direction of White House chief of staff Andrew Card and Mitch Daniels, then the White House's budget director, all government agencies withdrew their pre-Inauguration Day draft regulations.

The EPA withdrew agency rules, including the MTBE one, in mid-February 2001, White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said.

In subsequent months, agencies rewrote many Clinton-era regulatory proposals and went public with them. The proposed MTBE regulation, however, never surfaced.

"As legislation looked more promising in 2002 and 2003, we focused our energies on supporting language in the Senate's energy bill," Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's assistant administrator for air quality, said in a statement Friday.

"We have not ruled out the possibility of seeking a solution" by regulation, Holmstead said.

The EPA favors a phaseout of MTBE through legislation. But the legislation has stalled and it no longer calls for a ban in four years.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement Sunday calling the MTBE matter a case of the Bush administration "yet again putting special interests over America's interest." He pledged to "take on the big oil and gas companies and fight for clean water and a clean environment."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, "If the White House had not rejected this regulation, MTBE would be virtually eliminated by now and our groundwater would be protected." Waxman is the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.

On their own, 17 states banned the additive and dozens of communities are suing the oil industry.

"Nobody's talking about the trial lawyers campaign contributions to their supporters in Congress and its the trial lawyers who are the force behind these unjustified lawsuits," said Brown of Valero Energy.

To regulate MTBE, the EPA would have to use the Toxic Substances Control Act, which the agency considers cumbersome and unwieldy.

MTBE industry representative Scott Segal said, "It took EPA a decade to develop enough data to justify issuing a regulation for asbestos" under the law. "Even then, the courts still blocked it."

Bob Perciasepe, an EPA official during the Clinton administration, said a regulatory approach would have provided "a pressure point" to pass legislation.

Georgetown University law professor Lisa Heinzerling said regulating MTBE would be difficult, but "if we can't use the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate MTBE, which has contaminated water supplies all over the country, then what can you use it for?"

Documents excerpts available at: http://wid.ap.org/mtbe.pdf
EPA background on MTBE: http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/

adios
02-16-2004, 03:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly true. To date Bush hasn't vetoed one bill from Congress. The recent energy bill that was before Congress and died in the Senate because of Democratic opposition to the provision limiting liability for potential MTBE lawsuits.

Here's a relevant perspective IMO:

Energy bill spotlights trial attorneys' influence over Democrats (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dougbandow/db20040202.shtml)

Energy bill spotlights trial attorneys' influence over Democrats
Doug Bandow (archive)


February 2, 2004 | Print | Send


WASHINGTON - Congress is back in session, so Americans' lives and liberty again are at risk. Among the most divisive issues is the pork-laden energy bill, which failed in the face of a Democratic filibuster backed by a handful of Republican fiscal conservatives.

Although GOP opponents worried about unnecessary spending, Democrats focused on one of legislation's few worthwhile provisions - limiting legal liability for producers of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who pushed for even more lavish subsidies for already heavily subsidized ethanol producers, offered to deliver the necessary Democratic votes for passage if the MTBE limit was removed. But then there would be even less of value in the bill.

MTBE is a fuel additive used for gasoline. Its sales took off after 1990, when Congress mandated the use of oxygenates to reduce smog. Ironically, legislators thought they were providing yet another preference for ethanol, one of the most economically pampered interests in Washington. But MTBE proved to be the superior product.

Unfortunately, gasoline containing MTBE has leaked from some defective underground storage tanks and contaminated the water supply. Yet most concerns seem overblown.

For instance, two years ago Robert M. Hirsch, associate director for water at the U.S. Geological Survey, told Congress: "MTBE is primarily an aesthetic (taste and odor) problem." Indeed, he added, "Our studies also suggest that MTBE levels do not appear to be increasing over time and are almost always below levels of concern from aesthetic and public health standpoints."

Naturally, trial attorneys have flocked to the issue. Some firms now specialize in MTBE litigation and are soliciting states and municipalities as clients.

Damage claims eventually could run in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more.

Unfortunately, some plaintiffs use demagoguery to try defendants through the media. For instance, Santa Monica, renowned for violating the economic liberties of its citizens, tried to pose as a helpless victim after hiring Fred Baron, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, one of the most powerful lobbies in America: "Santa Monica is a small city, which needs to take on corporate giants with unimaginable financial resources and political power."

Yet, after the city won a large settlement last year, it acknowledged that, "There likely was very little public exposure" to MTBE because Santa Monica closed its wells shortly after discovering the contamination. Moreover, Santa Monica said it was not "aware of" any health problems facing its residents.

The real issue is not the appropriateness of recompense, but who should pay. If someone was at fault, he should be liable.

However, plaintiffs prefer to find a deep pocket rather than a guilty defendant. So they are suing the MTBE makers under product liability laws, contending that the additive is defective.

Notably, product liability lawsuits do not require proof of negligence. If a product is ruled defective, liability is automatically established.

But MTBE as MTBE is not the problem. The cause of contamination is almost always faulty storage.

In fact, the government acknowledges that contamination largely reflects leaky underground tanks. The U.S. Geological Survey found that MTBE "typically is present at very low concentrations in shallow ground water within areas where MTBE is used," reported Hirsch.

He added: "The few locations in our database with high concentrations of MTBE may be associated with leaking underground storage tanks." The EPA's water surveys have found the MTBE problem to be decreasing as tanks have been upgraded.

Thus, Congress had good reason to approve MTBE immunity for product liability.

Contrary to claims by the trial bar, the measure would in no way prevent wronged parties from suing companies that were responsible for leaky storage tanks.

But litigants would have to demonstrate fault. That hardly seems unreasonable when they are seeking multimillion dollar awards.

Nevertheless, today the MTBE provision is tied to the fate of the larger, budget-busting energy bill. Its future remains uncertain, as the bill's core provisions look worse the more attention they receive.

In any case, the MTBE protection should not be sacrificed in an attempt to win Democratic votes. It would be better to add the few beneficial initiatives, such as the MTBE restriction, as amendments to other bills.

Yet again, Democratic legislators are doing the trial bar's bidding while proclaiming their commitment to the public interest. However, liability reform remains essential, both to protect legal justice and encourage economic growth.

Best would be to pass systematic changes to ensure that evidence of harm and fault precede any guilty verdict. But until Congress proves willing to fully confront the trial attorneys, more limited fixes like the MTBE provision are a necessary second-best approach.

andyfox
02-16-2004, 04:01 PM
I think the point "business as usual" is still valid. Whether it's the Republicans or Democrats, the business of Congress is to raise money for themselves. The public interest is a secondary consideration, if that.

Think Bush has visited Florida 19 times because he's close with his brother or because he can add (electoral votes)?

MMMMMM
02-16-2004, 06:00 PM
"I think the point "business as usual" is still valid. Whether it's the Republicans or Democrats, the business of Congress is to raise money for themselves. The public interest is a secondary consideration, if that."

OK Andy, let's take a little tangent here.

In the past I have recommended that the entire federal budget be drastically slashed (thereby eliminating ALL special interests) by the expediency of going back to a very strict and limited interpretation of the US Constitution. There wouldn't be any federal pork barrel projects if the federal government kept out of the states' business, and relegated itself to providing for the common defense and a few other matters which are explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

Put Henry David Thoreau in charge of the federal budget and watch how fast the average standard of living in this country rises, and how fast the deficit disappears--to be replaced with abundant savings and investment. The only way to do that is by limiting the places Congress can spend money, and the only way to do that is by the very strictest interpretation of the US Constitution regarding the intended role of the federal government. Any lesser measures and we get what we have now, which will only keep getting worse until people realize that less federal government is actually more money and more freedom for everyone.

Government has an insatiable appetite, and politicians themselves have insatiable desires. The first instinct of power is the preservation of power, and the second is the increase of that power. That is why government must be kept on an extremely short leash. One more good cause is always found, and one more special interest is always added, ad infinitum, until the tail is wagging the dog. For as Thoreau warned, "It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil." How prophetic, although Thoreau was speaking to personal encumbrances if I correctly recall. Sometimes--usually, IMO--the most basic truly is best.

George Rice
02-16-2004, 06:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In the past I have recommended that the entire federal budget be drastically slashed (thereby eliminating ALL special interests) by the expediency of going back to a very strict and limited interpretation of the US Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if we count negros as 3/5 citizen can we force them to work for 3/5 the salary?


But seriously,

[ QUOTE ]
The first instinct of power is the preservation of power, and the second is the increase of that power. That is why government must be kept on an extremely short leash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but this doesn't apply only to governments. It applies to businesses too. And to police departments. And to the military. For many, government keeps these other power hungry types from ruining society.

MMMMMM
02-16-2004, 08:13 PM
M: "The first instinct of power is the preservation of power, and the second is the increase of that power. That is why government must be kept on an extremely short leash."

George Rice: "Yes, but this doesn't apply only to governments. It applies to businesses too. And to police departments. And to the military. For many, government keeps these other power hungry types from ruining society."

Yes, that's why the most basic guarantees of our rights as enumerated in the U.S. Constituion and Bill of Rights are so very important (I don't think you were arguing that special interest programs are what accomplishes the above, were you?)

George Rice
02-16-2004, 09:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you were arguing that special interest programs are what accomplishes the above, were you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but rather that government is necessary to protect the people from those who would take advantage. And shrinking government too much will cause problems in these areas. Let me think of an area where you might not agree--pollution.

Zeno
02-16-2004, 09:58 PM
Good points and useful article. Some other points are that MTBE is an additive of Gasoline - this means that gasoline has obviously leaked in order for the MTBE to be present. You find gasoline by sampling for BETX (short for Benzene, Ethyl benzene, Toluene, and Xylene(s) components of gasoline) all of which are just as noxious or more so than MTBE. But as usual, all this is blown out of proportion or misunderstood and the throbbing masses become paranoid and then the lawyers swoop in to stir the masses even more to reap the profits off of the public hysteria. Much of the same thing happened (and continues to happen) with PCB's and the whole asbestos issue. The actual pubic health risk is extremely low and the cumbersome regulations, which always lead to protracted litigations, are completely out of proportion to the health risks based on sound science.

And much of the money supposedly set aside for clean up ends up in attorney’s pockets and/or more money is wasted on pointless or mostly needless projects while more risky health problems languish by the wayside. I have personally dealt with these issues on numerous occasions. Needless to say, I am sick of it and I now think that the public should be poisoned into extinction and the sooner this happens the better.

I could add more but find I no long care about the imbecilities of humanity. You will all get what you deserve in the end, as will I.

Shalom, Le Misanthrope

Zeno
02-16-2004, 10:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And shrinking government too much will cause problems in these areas. Let me think of an area where you might not agree--pollution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take an example - The EPA, a very large government agency that has done some good. But the counterpoint is that it is run by, in the main, idiots and bureaucrats that cannot get things done in any orderly or efficient manner. And it attracts to its ranks people that either have no real initiative or are crusaders and idealists, both types cause more problems than they solve. In addition, environmental laws and regulations are so cumbersome and written so inanely (and sometimes without the benefit of sound scientific input) that interpretation becomes hard if not impossible. And because of all the above work usually crawls along at a snail’s pace and eats up tons of money.

I have work at jobs where the EPA, Business, State regulators, and then local officials are all vying for a say, jockeying for who is in charge of what and why and throwing regulatory rules and laws into the air like so much confetti. More could be done if a private concern simply shot all the officials and went in to do the job as needed based on practicality, money available, and sound science. But that is just a dream. It rarely if ever happens.

-Zeno, The Misanthrope

MMMMMM
02-17-2004, 02:41 AM
Yes, the pollution issue is a tough one and I probably don't agree there (also it is an area where conditions have changed drastically in the last couple of centuries). There are also probably very few exceptions such as pollution.

adios
02-17-2004, 04:08 AM
The cost of pollution is called a spillover effect in economics. Polluters make excess profits at the expense of society i.e. society bares the costs of pollution that should be borne by those who pollute. The role of government is to "regulate" the polluter through higher taxes, environmental laws, and the like so that polluter bares the costs of it's pollution. However, you may see the potential for special interests to influence government unfairly. Just thought I'd throw that in.