State of the Union: Analyzing Republican Reactions

[russ_watters]

Also good and very surprising. But as with the previous, it is so surprising from Obama it is tough to believe he's serious. Where's that "blue ribbon panel" report on nuclear waste you promised us?

I found it:

In a memo Friday, posted on WhiteHouse.gov, Obama asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to launch a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future...
Chu announced that the panel will be co-chaired by former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Its 15 members will provide an interim report within 18 months and a final report in 24 months.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...eeks-loan-guarantees-to-spur-nuclear-power-/1

Wait, what? Based on what he said last March, it should be done already!?:

Chu said he was convening a "blue-ribbon panel" of experts to "develop a long-term strategy that must include the waste disposal plan," after Obama's budget ruled out a proposed national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

"I don't want to suggest what this blue-ribbon panel might determine but let me stress this will be done this year,"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jq77xhDYfMKrP2HM0iPWHdhxqJfA

So what 11 months ago he promised to do in 9 months is now 18 months away - it hasn't even been started yet? Ugh - we're never going to get to see that Ft. Hood Report you have sitting on your desk, are we?

Also in the first story:

Obama will ask Congress in his 2011 budget -- to be unveiled Monday -- for $54 billion in loan guarantees to build new nuclear plants, up from the $18.5 billion now available.

But wait, that March, 2009 story said:

He encountered criticism from Republican senators after the Obama administration stripped 50 billion dollars in loans for new nuclear power plants from a 787-billion-dollar economic stimulus plan. Chu said federal loans worth 18.5 billion dollars were still available...

Could an ObamaFan please tell me if there is a positive way to spin this? Because the way it all sounds to me is like he's just plain jerking us around.

Perhaps this, from September, provides some insight into the delay:

The U.S. Department of Energy will soon make an announcement on a blue-ribbon panel to study how to deal with the country's growing civilian nuclear waste, a spokeswoman said Wednesday...

Although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in April he would appoint a panel to determine the country's future nuclear waste policy, there's been no news since of who would be named and when the panel would be convened...

The Department of Energy won't say what caused the delay, but some industry officials have said one of the difficulties could be the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which guides how such panels are appointed. The law - designed to ensure an objective and balanced representation of policy options - prevents the administration from stocking the panel with members who would likely reach the same conclusion.

That could pose a problem for opponents to the Yucca Mountain repositary, especially if the consensus leads back to that option, and not to the alternative some Democrats want.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...tnuclear-waste-panel-announcement-coming-soon

In other words, they are suggesting that federal law prevents Obama from stocking the panel with yes-men, who would support whatever Obama's pre-chosen position is. Gee, I remember a certain other recent President who did similar underhanded things with scientific reports...can't remember his name, but I'm sure we must have talked about him in here...

 

[russ_watters]

Another article, written 3 weeks ago, about the nuclear issue:

While President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal is expected to sound a death knell for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the administration has so far failed to launch the blue-ribbon commission it promised almost a year ago to decide on a waste-disposal alternative...

No one expected the issue would be left to fester last February when Obama dramatically cut funding for the Nevada repository in his fiscal 2010 budget request and announced his intention to form a commission to chart an alternative waste-management solution. Energy Secretary Steven Chu quickly followed up, telling Congress last March that the commission would be formed "ideally" within a month and would craft recommendations by the end of 2009.

Last week, Chu responded to questions about the commission by saying the Energy Department is "working as hard and fast as we can on that."...

But despite agreements between Reid and the administration, Yucca Mountain remains -- by law -- the disposal site for U.S. nuclear waste. The DOE repository license has not been withdrawn, nor has the department moved to do so, according to an industry source. Meanwhile, Reid is facing a tough re-election battle this year.

Moreover, some say that disagreement over whether the blue-ribbon panel should consider Yucca Mountain as a potential waste management solution is one reason the administration has taken so long to get the commission going. Qualified candidates, several sources say, do not agree Yucca should be taken off the table.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...-admins-lagging-efforts-on-nuclear-24943.html

 

[edpell]

I did not hear any of the four things I wanted to hear 1) balanced budget 2) peacful relations 3) energy independence 4) a rule of law that applies to the rich not just the working class. Yes some lip service on point 3 but no real action.

 

[Al68]

So then are you implying that the previous administration had no part to play in the current economic state of this country, and that saying they did play a part is a logical fallacy?

No, I'm saying that "look where that got us" is a logical fallacy when referring to policies that there is no logical reason to believe are the cause.

Using a single temporal relationship as proof of a causal relationship is the logical fallacy.

Sure the policies that contributed to the recession preceded it, but not every government policy that preceded the recession contributed to it. Some did. Some didn't. Some kept it from being worse.

And some of them were policies enacted by Democrats despite Republican objections, such as the Fannie May/Freddie Mac mortgage policies, which has an obvious causal link instead of just a temporal one.

 

[mheslep]

Not quite. There is a much stronger short term correlation between deficits and government fiscal policy, than there is with GDP growth. If I cut government spending in half next year, it will have an almost immediate and direct effect on the federal deficit, but it's effect on GDP is both hard to determine and could manifest years later.

Yes, exactly! I wish we had more of this realism rather than the spending-creates-GDP-and-jobs assumption that is thrown around as if it were a law of physics.

 

[edpell]

Keynes said if you have a system (free market spending) that oscillates and you want to damp the oscillation couple another system (government spending) to it that is 180 degree out of phase. Of course they never remember the part about running government surpluses during the boom years to slow the economy. They also never remember that Keynes went to Brenton Woods and promoted an international system that required each nation to run a zero surplus/deficit with the rest of the world. That worked out great when the US was winning but not so well now that the US is loosing.