Char. Limit said:What about a mix of raising taxes (on everyone, just to be fair) and cutting spending? There's got to be some level of both that we can work with.
CAC1001 said:IMO that would be fine, the problem is that when that is usually agreed to, it's in a "Raise-taxes-and-then-we'll-cut-spending" manner, which results in the taxes going up and spending continuing unabated. It needs to be done in the inverse, with spending being cut, then taxes increased (provided such increases won't hurt the economy right now).
Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?mheslep said:Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?
That is a critical question. I live in Maine (if you didn't know) and we have rolling ozone alerts all summer, thanks to the big midwest coal plants. Children and women of child-bearing age are strongly advised not to eat wild-caught salmon and trout from our rivers and streams because of very high levels of mercury in their flesh. Everybody is under advisories recommending limited (or no) consumption of liver from deer and moose due to excessive cadmium levels, and we are watching some critical wild fisheries collapse due to acidification of our ponds and streams.feathermoon said:I just really want to know how this guy thinks that removing the EPA as a federal regulatory body is a 'good' idea. Does he really believe that each state will be responsible enough to even match the current protections afforded by the federal agency?
Evo said:Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs?Evo said:Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states?
Sure small ripoffs are usually easier to hide than larger ones. To my mind, the best way to avoid them regardless of scale is to have those paying the bill as close as possible to those spending it.Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
You and I both could no doubt fill pages on federal scandals like the above, all of which would be comical in comparison to the really big ripoffs like Medicare's ~$60B/year in fraud.In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes. ...
“A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo. ...
“frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”
Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.mheslep said:What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs?
I understand your point, but I think it's mostly a matter of which agencies have the resources (the power) to actually enforce regulations.mheslep said:Why is it that somehow you think the democratically elected state governments will do all these bad things, and that somehow a democratically elected federal government will do good things? That somehow the federal government is 'responsible', but the state governments are not?
mheslep said:I can think of factor that does seem to correlate well with environmental protection: economic success. Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, doesn't manage its environment very well.
Does this mean you favor an EPA armed agent* led invasion of Canada due west and upwind of Maine that would righteously regulate coal plants in Montreal and Quebec?turbo said:Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments. Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.mheslep said:What's magic about the federal government? Why must it be so that the federal government always gives better consideration to environmental protection in my state than the environmental offices of my state, when it's often crafting one-size-fits-all air and water regs?
Do you think the US federal government does a much better job of environmental protection than, say, Switzerland (7.6 million), or Norway (4.8 million), or New Zealand (4.4 million)? Those countries would rank between the 11th and the 25th largest US states. Is environmental oversight overrun by greed in those countries, simply because they are small? Not that I know of.
That's self-fulfilling if the federal government takes all the resources. It started out in 1913 taking ~2%.ThomasT said:I understand your point, but I think it's mostly a matter of which agencies have the resources (the power) to actually enforce regulations.
I generally agree with your statements in this and previous posts, but imho the FDA is pretty much a functionary of 'big pharma' etc.Evo said:I think the feds are doing a better job than if we made everything *optional*. Those states are doing testing in one area of major competition to discredit competitors to their fishing industry. I doubt they are as diligent in other areas that are less impacting to them.
Common sense. Don't think that because they are trying to protect one of their largest industries that they're doing anything else.
What that article shows me is that we need to give more support to the FDA.
It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.mheslep said:That's self-fulfilling if the federal government takes all the resources. It started out in 1913 taking ~2%.
This makes sense to me, unless and until mheslep or someone else has a compelling argument to the contrary.turbo said:Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.ThomasT said:The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments.
Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.
Yes I see you think this. Why?Sure, the federal government is also to a certain extent corrupt, but I think that the bureacrats entrusted with enforcing federal directives are generally less corrupt than local and state officials.
That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.ThomasT said:It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.
This is an interesting point, imho. Wrt, "less educated states" I don't think that that necessarily applies to the people running the states. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me that the "abuses pushed by greed" would be "easier to commit on a smaller level" (or at least more prevalent, as evidenced by the greater incidence of detection and prosecution of abuses on the state and local levels).Evo said:Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).feathermoon said:In a big way, in fact. Economic losses due to pollution, environmental factors are huge. Coupled with high health care costs associated with both, and regulations pay for themselves MANY times over.
It's not a circular argument, it's the argument that might makes right. Is there really any doubt about this?mheslep said:That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.
Good point. But we're talking about the enforcement of environmental protection laws.mheslep said:Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.
Another good point. But here's the thing. What the President of the US does in terms of advocacy of particular courses of action wrt things that will affect great numbers of people is immediately, more or less, evident to the mass populace.mheslep said:Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.
Because they're subjected to greater scrutiny. Precisely because their decisions and actions affect more people.mheslep said:Yes I see you think this. Why?
turbo said:Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.