Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:

I agree that the line item veto COULD be used as a weapon by a President, though I’d think it could be modified in such a way as to allow for specific items to be removed from a bill or budget prior to a vote.

We are a point where arcane additions to bills inflate the dollars, to the point that a Senator might not vote for a bill that he/she believes in simply because of all the ancillary additions. Isnt this what John Kerry said he did with regard to the $87 billion for the troops?

We need to find a way to end this—the line item veto is one way to do it. What alternative solutions do you see as possible?

In regard to ANWR, I just dont see what the fuss is, on either side. From what I see, there isnt enough oil there to make a big difference, so why drill there? On the opposite side, the hyperbole of suggesting that anyone is going to “pave it over with asphalt and concrete” is silly. While it won’t be as pristine, lets remember that there currently is a pipeline running across Alaska already.

We need to become less reliant on overseas oil, and increased domestic production is one avenue. So too are alternative fuels, fuel cells, wind and solar energy etc. We need to do both.

jbod, my concerns over the line-item veto are two-fold.

First, The Constitution states that Congress, NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH shall control the purse strings of tax payers dollars. Want to change it, amend the Constitution - that was essentially the position of the Supreme Court, and I back that decision 100%.

Secondly, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Executive Branch of government already has far more power over our lives than our founding fathers intended. Additionally, the Executive Branch IS a partisan branch of government as this last election attests. To posit any President regardless of party, that kind of power over opposition party Congress persons elected to represent their constituencies is just asking for political catastrophe at some point in the future.

jbod said the hyperbole of suggesting that anyone is going to “pave it over with asphalt and concrete” is silly.

Tell that to Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. They would spit in your face to hear you say that if they were alive today. Tell it to the Mountain Men who would have to dodge skiiers, snowmobiles and automobiles today.

Tell it to the collective memory of native American peoples. Tell it to the Puritans who founded Thanksgiving, and respected the wilderness as much as they feared it.

Most of all, tell it to my wife who has been planning our Alaskan 25th Wedding Anniversary in the outback of Alaska for almost 10 years now. We ain’t buying it, jbod.

Destruction of environment has always come in small increments which once taken, become justification for further increments, positing that the last ones didn’t hurt anything, too much. You think more than half of the fresh water in our nation got polluted by a single act?

David:

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I understand your concerns about the line item veto, and I generally agree. We also seem to agree that Congress adding pork to bills is bad. The line item veto is one road block to such pork. What other methods do you think would work to eliminate or reduce pork.

I understand also your concerns about the environment. I share them, though perhaps to a lesser degree. I suppose if we took environmentalism to the Nth degree, we would never have altered society from the hunter/gatherer stage. Cars would not have come about, nor any advanced mode of transportation. Certainly computers, with the use of plastics which consume petroleum products, along with electricity would not be around, thereby depriving us of our beloved WatchBlog. Etc etc.

There has to be a give and take with the environment—I’m sure we both agree on that. I can’t quite figure out why drilling ANWR is so important since the oil they think is there wouldnt really solve the oil problem for very long.

David, society needs to continue to progress. Simultaneously, we must do our best to keep the environment healthy. Im assuming you will be flying or driving to Alaska, thereby damaging the very same environment you love. The Mountain Men you spoke of very well might have to dodge YOUR car. You yourself might cause Henry or Ralph to spit in your face, as a result of what you do to the environment.

We agree that the environment is important. And so is the economy. And so is the style of life we live, with vaccines made in factories, hospitals chewing up energy, transportation allowing us great gains, farming technology using up resources but creating much needed food.

We know the problems. Focus on the solutions.

One relevant question in this Alaska debate, “What do the Alaskans think about developing this land?”. I spoke with an Alaskan in Anchorage who told me that the majority of residents support it. She also told me she went with her husband to see what they intended to do. Apparently, the safeguards include never touching the actual tundra during the summer except for the drilling platform and helicoptering in at all other times.

I accept that we should raise concerns about the development of this resource. I do not accept that it is a simple yes or no question. Life if full of grey and we should work with that. Can we not put in place enough safeguards to satisfy both parties? Do we always have to debate from two opposite points of view? Is there not some middle ground?

Mike and jbod, millions of us say ANWR is where we draw the line. This far, and no further. If the line is not drawn, the environment hasn’t a prayer, and neither do we who depend upon it, take sustenance from it, and spiritual refreshment and renewal.

This far and no farther. Why is that so difficult? Only one reason, really. PROFIT! And what profits the person who sells their soul for a moment’s gratification?

David,
The line-item veto is attractive if a president could be trusted to use it without intent to punish the opposition party.

It just won’t work. I don’t think congress will even consider it. Neither side wants to be on the receiving end of line-item vetos when they’re out of the Executive Branch.

Changing House terms to four years, Senate to eight, and instituting publicly financed elections might be answer.

I’d like to see congress cut a deal- drilling in ANWR in exchange for tightened auto emission standards, and a hard push towards alternative energy solutions for cars and transportation in general.

1. On the line item veto, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional- so if we, the american people, want it- we should have to pass constitutional muster and adopt an amendment. I do not know if I woudl support such an amendment. I probably would only to the extent that it could only lead to LESS spending, and less spending is always a good thing in my book. but let me repeate again- a constitutional amendment is NEEDED for this to be ok in my book.

2. Profit? profit is what gives people jobs- profit is what allows people to buy medicines, food- profit is what has made America’s life expectancy double in the last 100 years Also, getting more DOMESTIC oil will mean we have less dependance on foreign oil. Countries that done make profit languish in the third world- countries that make profit lift the standard of living for all citizens (And then people try to cross over into those countries elligally, which our president wants to reward with an amnesty.. but thats another issue).

The oil drilling in Alaska is a good idea- and it will happen either now or whent gas prices get to 4 dollars a gallon and the people rise up and demand it. its gonna happen now or later, so lets figure out a safe way to do it. We can surely drill in ways that both balance environmental concerns and the human need for progress- to draw a bright line and not give an inch is not a productive position to take on an issue where there are clearly important concerns on both sides.

The environment has been improving in american by virtually every measure over the last 30 years, and has improved under the Bush administration (you can say despite him- but in any case, it has improved). We have done this with business partnerships with government to allow progress in all fronts while doing it in a clean way. We should follow that model in the drilling context- rather than abandon the spirit of cooperations for bright lines where none are appropriate.

1. On the line item veto, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional- so if we, the american people, want it- we should have to pass constitutional muster and adopt an amendment. I do not know if I woudl support such an amendment. I probably would only to the extent that it could only lead to LESS spending, and less spending is always a good thing in my book. but let me repeate again- a constitutional amendment is NEEDED for this to be ok in my book.

2. Profit? profit is what gives people jobs- profit is what allows people to buy medicines, food- profit is what has made America’s life expectancy double in the last 100 years Also, getting more DOMESTIC oil will mean we have less dependance on foreign oil. Countries that done make profit languish in the third world- countries that make profit lift the standard of living for all citizens (And then people try to cross over into those countries elligally, which our president wants to reward with an amnesty.. but thats another issue).

The oil drilling in Alaska is a good idea- and it will happen either now or whent gas prices get to 4 dollars a gallon and the people rise up and demand it. its gonna happen now or later, so lets figure out a safe way to do it. We can surely drill in ways that both balance environmental concerns and the human need for progress- to draw a bright line and not give an inch is not a productive position to take on an issue where there are clearly important concerns on both sides.

The environment has been improving in american by virtually every measure over the last 30 years, and has improved under the Bush administration (you can say despite him- but in any case, it has improved). We have done this with business partnerships with government to allow progress in all fronts while doing it in a clean way. We should follow that model in the drilling context- rather than abandon the spirit of cooperations for bright lines where not are appropriate.

If earth and ecological science has anything to teach at all, it is that compromise may be fine for the interaction of human to human, but never ending compromise between man and the air he breathes can only result in suffocation.

Charles Horton Cooley said “”Prudence and compromise are necessary means, but every man should have an impudent end which he will not compromise.”

And so should every nation that aspires to be a great one. There can be no greater ‘impudent end’ than protecting the planet that sustains us, and I can find no greater symbol for that struggle than ANWR. Compromise the symbol, and one may just as well concede keeping an ‘impudent end’ is not in one’s character, personal or national.

David- that is not how environmental law has worked and thrived. It has worked by understanding that human needs to progress must go hand in hand with environmental goals. As a result, it has allowed business to function, but has made them adopt the best avaliable control technologies- or asked them to develop new technologiies to make things even cleaner. I agree that the final ends should not be compromised- but the final ends are HUMAN RIGHTS. those rights include progress, and include being able to use teh resources on this earth. We cannot have environmentalism at the expense of progress, just like we cannot allow short-term progress at the expense of our earth’s long term health.

If you use ANWR as a symbol for all environmental law, you will fail. The human thirst for life is too great to allow stuff necessary for daily life to go unused. If you remind people that the environment is important and that they must use the resources of earth in safe ways, you will win. Environmental law is a partnership between human needs and environmental goals- to push the environmental goals at the expense of human needs is to ultimately destroy the very thing you are trying to push.

Misha said, If you use ANWR as a symbol for all environmental law, you will fail.

Then the human species will fail.

If you remind people that the environment is important and that they must use the resources of earth in safe ways, you will win.

Misha, no disrespect intended, but, I find this sentence grossly naive. You are suggesting that polite reminders are all that is required to overcome global greed, global consumption of resources, global individual self interest vs. stewardship of our species’s very lifeline.

Where would the U.S. be without its symbols of the Statue of Liberty, Oh Beautiful, and our flag? Where would we be if we allowed such symbols to fall into commonality. Oh, that’s right, we did, didn’t we? And therein lies the heart of most of America’s problems.

So, too, if ANWR falls to commercial interests, no place on earth will be safe to be called a wildlife refuge. The REFUGE is IN FACT refuge from COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. Throw the word refuge on to the refuse pile if ANWR is compromised.

David- I think you are the one who is naive as to how environmental law and its amazing progress has worked over the last 30 years. It has worked EXACTLY in the way I suggested, not in the way you propose. Commercial interests are an expression of the human desire for progress and a better life. You can either work with them to further your environmental goals, or you can ignore them to the end of environmentalism. Our species survives and thrives through progress- it is the most fundamental human drive.

Flags and statues do not lead to less people having jobs, more dependance on foreign oil, and less people with money to spend on their families. This is why they can safety stand as symbols. But when something stands as a detriment to the progress of mankind it will fall- sooner or later.

We can either have that progress with respect for environmental goals, or we can have progress without respect for environmental norms. The answer to whether environmental norms will be respected is directly corelated to the extent that environmentalists are willing to work together with progress rather than against it.

The very idea of a “refuge” is a human contruct, and it can be altered, and it will be. I suggest we figure out the best way to alter it to balance environmental goals with progress goals, becuase if we refuse to balance, i can promise you which will win out (and rightfuly so, may I add).

David,
ANWR will be drilled. That is one of the consequences of a Republican majority in congress. Four Republicans have been added to the Senate who favor it, and one moderate who opposed drilling is gone. As a result, 52 Republican votes are assured for drilling in ANWR. A filibuster won’t work. ANWR will produce revenues for the federal government; as a result, it can be included in next year’s budget; and the budget bill, by rule, cannot be filibustered.

Generating a national uproar over this might deter Senate Republicans, but I suspect that’s highly unlikely to work. It was 52-48 last time around, and too many of the Senators who voted against it are gone.

I don’t see much alternative, other than to trade what little can be had in return for passing it.

These will be some very, very unpleasant years for Democrats and Greens.

Don, you are right. What Republicans don’t yet see however, is that drilling ANWR will become one hell of a chapter in American history, a focal point for anarchists, environmentalists, naturalists, campers, large segments of the RV crowd, and native Americans in Alaska. They know not yet what ground they propose to violate. I am getting pen and checkbook out immediately after posting this to aid GreenPeace’s efforts, as I am sure hundreds of thousands of Americans will too as the Legislation comes forward and the drilling moves toward commencement.

There is actually a debate simmering among some environmentalists about this—and a pro-environment argument for drilling in the ANWR that ought to be at least considered.

Here’s the reason: it’s agreed that decreasing oil consumption and finding alternative energy sources is the the only long-term environmentally sound solution. Until then, however, we’re using oil and it has to come from somewhere.

So where is it going to come from? A central doctrine of environmentalist thinking is that we must think globally. So, thinking globally, do we want increased oil production coming from places like Russia and Venezuala, where there are few if any enironmental restrictions about harming habitats and eco-systems?

Or do we proceed, under very stringent protective laws to extract oil ourselves, developing new technologies and methods in the process? It’s at least worth thinking about.

I don’t buy the idea that the line-item veto is unconstitutional.

It’s not the reform I prefer—it would be better, I think, to find some legislative way of preventing absurd pork-barrel spending from piggy-backing on otherwise good legislation.

But if the majority of the people’s representatives in Congress want anything passed into law that the president vetoes, they can override his veto. If they don’t want it, they won’t override it. This is a clearly spelled out and constitionally defined process, in fact an inherent part of the checks and balances in government and not a violation of it.

Congress shall levy and allocate taxes, NOT the President. It just doesn’t come much clearer than that Martin, Constitutionally speaking. If the line-item veto is obtained without a constitutional amendment, we might as well rip the document up and start over, with language even GW Bush can understand.

Martin, it is rational argument. But, one that rations away the definition of REFUGE to refuse!

Double entendre’ intended.

jbod said: “We need to find a way to end this—the line item veto is one way to do it. What alternative solutions do you see as possible?”

An alternative is not needed since a proscribed method already exists. The Congress passes a budget and submits it to the President, the President sends it back without a signature with a list of objections on the People’s behalf. On the People’s behalf, the Congress overrides the veto or accedes to the changes. In between these formal operations are a number of opportunities for informal proposition, acceptance or refusal, between these branches of government to take place prior to the formal operations.

All that is lacking is the People to hold their elected officials accountable for their tax dollars absconded by special interest representatives. That is why our democracy always stands on the edge of demise. One day, perhaps today, we will fall over the edge, and perhaps not. It is a enormous oversight not to see the peril an uninformed electorate poses to the very idea of democracy.

Most Americans probably cannot fathom a growing 7.4 Trillion dollar national debt, its relationship to interest rates, deficits, and GDP. So how is such an electorate to provide informed choice at the ballot box?

Misha said: “David- I think you are the one who is naive as to how environmental law and its amazing progress has worked over the last 30 years.”

I see that progress as a band aid placed on a cut on the foot to address massive hemorraging (sp?) in multiple wounds around the world. Yes progress is being made. I read the Ozone hole is shrinking. Decades after we learned what was causing it, we got past the point of enlarging it, toward reducing it.

But, we got lucky on that one. We may not be so lucky on global warming with the Artic cap disappearing and the incumbent rise in ocean levels and destruction to human habitat and agricultural productivity that portends. The solution may come after the point of no return has already been passed. We must draw a line we will not cross; for if America does not, there is no hope the rest of the world will. We can afford to draw that line, the EU can afford to draw that line, China can afford to draw that line, and Australia can afford it, but if we do not, no others will.

“Congress shall levy and allocate taxes”—yes.

They have the sole authority to write bills to do so. No debate there.

But then, guess what? Any bills they write do NOT become law until they ARE SIGNED into law by the executive. This is also is in the Consitution.

If the president refuses to sign, Congress can overturn the veto with a two thirds majority. This is pretty basic stuff.

Giving absolute authority to Congress to pass laws
without checks and balances is not what the consitution guarantees. How would you like it if the current Republican-controlled banned abortion? After all, it’s allocated to Congress to pass law.

David R. Remer,

You have it EXACTLY correct…you wrote:
____________

“… All that is lacking is the People to hold their elected officials accountable for their tax dollars absconded by special interest representatives’”
____________

Ultimately, we ALL are ACCOUNTABLE.

We ALL should focus on how to hold Congress,
politicians, and ALL citizens to a higher standard ?

Some (not all) politicians and
lawyers (not all) are
master-cheater-parasites that
provide no net benefit to society, and
often substantially harm the fabric of society.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All systems need checks and balances.

Politicians shouldn’t have any power,
except for the power we temporarily give them.

I’m not implicating politicians and lawyers ONLY.
There are cheaters in all walks of life.
However, some professions are obviously
better than others for cheater-parasites to exploit.

It can be difficult (without practice and education)
to identify the cheater-parasites, because they
are clever, and they learn to bend the rules.
Creating new rules (i.e. line item veto) won’t resolve the problem.
After the creation of thousands of rules, it should be clear
that more rules and laws won’t help.

That just happens to be one of the favorite activities
of the master-cheater-parasites in government….
creating more useless, unnecessary rules and laws,
that all resemble each other.
Laws are meaningless where there is no common-sense,
honesty, and protection of inalienable rights.

The first thing to realize is that the
master-cheater-parasites are
all around us. They are amongst us.
This isn’t science fiction or paranoia,
or conspiracy theories. This is about
human nature….some respect others, and
some do not. Some obey the law, and
some do not.

There are clues to identify the cheaters,
and we ALL need to learn to recognize those clues,
so that we do NOT inadvertently empower them
to exploit others.

For example ( a few examples of cheater-parasites ):

A few obvious examples are thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists.
Those are easy to identify as cheater-parasites.
But, they’re not master-cheater-parasites, because they’re
crimes are obvious and they’re often not too smart.

However, others are not so obvious. Have you ever observed
some politicians that continually try to fuel the diversion
of petty partisan politics. It is a very effective.
and deceptive technique to obscure the facts,
shift the blame, deny and shift accountability,
change the subject, confuse the issues, confuse
their opponents with non-sequiturs, increase
the chaos, play manipulative games, make
false allegations, play the race card,
play the class card, promote affirmative action
in ways it shouldn’t be, stir up trouble between
groups with differences, blame the rich, and
promote race, religious, wealth, and class conflicts.

These are the tools of the master-cheater-parasites.

And, the damage they cause can be substantial.

Some in Congress behaved as described above
occasionally (e.g. Joe Biden, Trent Lott) and some
did it often or all the time (such as Pelosi, Daschele,
Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Rangel, ). Sorry,
I’m sure there’s more Republicans too. It’s just that
those few Democrats are striking examples.

To start with, to help identify the cheaters,
you first need to recognize two primary,
simple, important, common-sense
principles (laws) regarding:

(1) Inalienable Rights
(2) Protecting Inalienable Rights

———————-
Law # 1
Everyone has the inalienable right to do
anything they want as long as they do not
violate the inalienable rights of any one
else.
———————-
Law # 2
Force is never justified, except for
self-defense, and/or to arrest criminals
(criminals are those that violate Law # 1 above).
Society must enforce the laws to protect
the inalienable rights of all people.
———————-

The 2nd Laws is derived from
the first Law, and many other common-sense
sub-principles (laws) can be derived from
these two primary principles (laws).

The fact is, universal laws ALREADY exist to
support these two simple principles.
All good people everywhere already believe these principles.

Thus, law enforcement is more often the problem.
Why should enforcement be a problem ?
Look, and you will usually find cheater-parasites that
are protecting the criminals (for profit usually),
and others that do not recognize what is really happening.

Some of these cheater-parasites disguise
themselves as defenders of the law and civil rights,
when in fact, they pervert the law, and strive to
exist and profit from the chaos and misery and
hard work of others, and strive to find ways to
legally plunder society, and perpetuate the
great myth that everyone can exist at the
expense of the state.

So, some education may be what is necessary.
Most people may not be able to identify
a master-cheater-parasite.
If we did, so many would not exist.
Some of the cheaters are judges,
lawyers, politicians, clergy, professors,
journalists, consumer protectionists,
police, and brokers.

Look for clues. For starters,
look to see what the person creates or repairs.
Look to see what good ( if any ) they do.

Some people design, build, repair, and create.

And, some talk, talk, talk, and rarely do
anything, except try hard to make
everyone think they’re doing something important
(e.g. some politicians, lawyers, clergy,
journalists, media, etc.),
The cheaters not only provide no net benefit to society, but usually bring harm to society.

The national debt is another good example
of legal plunder. The taxpayers have been
duped, and they allowed it go on and on.
Now it is beyond help. Social Security is
doomed, and so is the career of any politician
brave enough to attempt to fix it. It’s
easier and safer to do nothing.
If the Federal government stopped borrowing
$1 billion per day, and also started paying
$1 billion per day against the $7.4 trillion
national debt, it would take 120 years to
pay off. Get the picture now ? Some argue
that the debt is not that big based on GDP
compared to past decades. If Social Security
survives, it will only be a remnant of what
it once was. With baby boomers approaching
retirement age, benefits will have to be
lowered significantly, and taxes will have to
be raised drastically.

David:

I admire your passion, while I disagree with your pessimism. I’m going to assume you agree that we (the world) need to balance environmental and productivity concerns. If we only have environmental concerns, then we must eliminate all cars, shut down all factories, stop cutting trees to provide wood for building etc.

If we only have productivity concerns, then allowing dangerous chemicals to run off into residential areas (like Love Canal) is no issue, we can eliminate catalytic converters from vehicles, clearcut forests, mine incessantly etc.

Its obvious that we need to moderate our activities, yet you draw a line in the sand around ANWR. Its clear to me that curbing our reliance on fossil fuels is a huge factor in the equation. But I don’t see us weaning ourselves as quickly as you might want. Therefore we need continued production.

Martin makes a valid point that by NOT drilling where environmentalists have a chance to be involved (such as ANWR or any other place in the US), we might face greater damage to our planet by allowing drilling where no environmental regulations are followed. Its called the law of unintended consequences.

We saw McCain Feingold created to reduce the money in political campaigns. The result—the most money ever spent in campaigns—-just the opposite of the intent.

David, I’m not for or against drilling in ANWR. To me its the same type of issue as holding nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Drilling has to happen someplace (as does nuclear waste need to be contained somewhere). The real question is if not ANWR (or Yucca Mountain), then where???

The only answer I’ve seen you provide is NOT ANWR. I havent seen you address where we should drill if not there. We cant simply not drill—that’s just a short sighted utopian dream.

But our energy policies MUST include conservation efforts. Detroit must be held to gas conserving rules. Energy must be considered a diminishing commodity that must be preserved.

If Bush can bring home a line-item veto, it’ll be the only good thing he’s done so far.

I’m no Constitutional lawyer, but since Congress can override each line-item veto, I think it’s within the spirit of the Constitution.

As for the ANWR,

there isnt enough oil there to make a big difference, so why drill there?

jbod, it’s all about the money.

And Mike, I think residents of Alaska get an annual oil subsidy, don’t they?

As for the environmental side, I’d personally trade the ANWR for legislating a switch to alternative energy (at least in the transportation and power generation sectors) within ten years.

AP:

You say ANWR is all about the money, but that’s really an easy and incomplete answer. Surely there are other places that can be drilled as well that will yield profits. So why ANWR?

From a profit perspective, with all the environmentalists watching the drilling, it might end up being more expensive to drill there.

The question is how much oil is there. Some say up to 11 billion barrels, which sounds like a lot until you look at the consumption side.

I’m with you on the idea of creating alternative energy sources, but lets not assume blindly that there are no problems inherent in them either. Nuclear energy is one such source, but obviously is fraught with danger.

Solar energy is great, but not very efficient at this point. I don’t see it, along with wind energy, getting efficient enough in the next decade or so to alleviate our need for oil. So it needs to be gradual but steady process.

I’m not exactly how this thread got turned to environmentalism, but of course I have to put my two cents in.

It’s exactly because people kept saying, “We need to make sure people have jobs,” and “Hey, it’s not that bad,” that we’re in the situation we’re in now. And what situation is that? Well, asthma is at an all-time high, as are allergies. And how about the fact that most of our bodies of water are unsafe to fish in and some aren’t even safe to TOUCH?

The reason things appear to be getting better is because some of the pollutants that are measured are decreasing. There are, however, many other pollutants that aren’t monitored and whose effects on humans and the environment are mostly or completely unknown.

I’m not Chicken Little. I’m not going to predict that the world will end. But I will predict that the longer we believe corporations have consciences the more likely we’ll regret it.

Alejo:

Part of David’s original topic referred to ANWR and the environment, which is how this thread got into that issue. I’ve stayed on that issue because I really don’t know much about the line item veto or its constitutionality, so better to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool than…..

I agree that we shouldnt expect corporations to govern themselves environmentally. They have profit motives. Its tough for a CEO to make a decision to cut profits in order to implement environmental controls, knowing that his board and shareholders will possibly can him for producing lower returns. That’s not to say it wouldnt be the right and ethical thing to do, but its still tough to make decisions (even correct ones) that help others and hurt ourselves.

So we need to have enforceable laws and guidelines, and hold companies to those. We have lots of them—-I dont know if they are enough or not. The answer is in the middle ground somewhere.

Just as forest fires can be aided by NOT cutting out deadwood, they also can be aided by cutting too much. So it is with the environment. Swinging too much to one side of the pendulum rarely creates a good and workable solution.

jbod —

Hey, it looks like we agree on something! We should probably write that down somewhere….

Just as forest fires can be aided by NOT cutting out deadwood, they also can be aided by cutting too much. So it is with the environment. Swinging too much to one side of the pendulum rarely creates a good and workable solution.

This is true. The unfortunate thing — and this is increasingly the sort of thing that’s going on in the Bush environmental policy — is that the loggers aren’t just cutting deadwood. When the Healthy Forests Initiative passed the first thing the timber companies did was help themselves to some old growth forest that was miles away from any human habitation. That’s not the sort of compromise I find acceptable.

Alejo:

Hey, wait a minute. We’ve previously agreed that Blatz is unpalatable, so we haven’t disagreed on everything.

And in another newsflash, I agree with you on cutting the old growth forests. I’m not all that up to speed on the HFI, but we agree that a balance needs to be struck. I’m not educated on the timber industry to know whether the HFI is a good thing or not, nor whether it is being adhered to or not. So I’m stuck with the vague comments I’ve made about both sides meeting in the middle.

I’m struck by situations like what Clinton did with the arsenic in the water. The levels were acceptable to him for 7 years and 11 months, and then he instituted law to lower the limits. Bush comes in and immediately changes them back to the previous levels, and the environmental groups go nuts on him. Was it just a political trick by Clinton, or did the arsenic levels really need to be changed—-I don’t know the details.

But again, a meeting in the middle is much better than strident positions on the fringes.

Still, these environmental issues, like
all other issues, require one missing
ingredient: ACCOUNTABILITY

First we must recognize that allowing one
citizen’s rights to be trampled is to violate
your own and all citizens’ rights.

To ignore a crime and look the other way when one
citizen’s rights are violated, means that
it is only a matter of time until your rights
are also violated, and society ignores the crime
and looks the other way. So, to harm society, or
allow it to be harmed, is to harm yourself.

Without common-sense, honesty, transparency,
and being able to identify the cheaters,
and special interest groups, there’s little
hope for arriving at a decision that’s just.
Instead, it will end up going to the highest
bidder. Influence is for sale. Many of our
politicians are for sale.

And creating more new rules, line item veto, etc.
won’t resolve the problem. After decades and
the creation of millions of rules and laws
(which all closely resemble each other), it should now be obvious that more rules and
laws won’t help. Because we’re still failing
to overlook the underlying cause.

Besides, creating more rules and laws is
one of the favorite past-times of the
do-nothing politicians in government…

The other major part of the problem is knowing
where to focus our attention.

So, where should the focus be ?

Should a doctor be busy treating a hair loss,
while his patient is bleeding to death from a laceration ? You would certainly question the
doctor’s motivation. Perhaps, it was profit
oriented ?

Likewise, we should learn to identify the
cheaters amongst us, and scrutinize their
actions, and motivations. Too often, these
type of people disguise themselves as defenders
of the law and civil rights, when in fact, they
pervert the law, and strive to exist and profit
from the chaos and misery and hard work of
others, and strive to find ways to legally steal
and plunder society.

Most of our problems is our inability
to recognize the cheaters amongst us, and
then refuse to empower them to exploit us
and society.

Consider Hitler, Stalin, Saddam.
They are all extreme examples of the inability
of the people to recognize the evil amongst them.
Some knowingly and some unwittingly
empowered the evil to exploit society,
and then finally also destroy society.

These type of master-cheater-parasites are
very clever. Their motivations are initially
unclear, until it is sometimes too late.

Thus, we need to learn to identify the
master-cheaters, and incarcerate them if they
are violating the law, and refuse the empower
them if they are unethical.

The line item veto would be terrible. When Democrats and Republicans come to a compromise on a bill, the presient could just cross out the minority party’s portions.

While I seriously doubt new rules and laws
would remedy the problems, I do believe that
simplifying the rules would help.

One obvious thing to do is limit
only ONE (1) item per bill.

There are many benefits from this simple idea.

(1) CLARITY: Limiting one item per bill would
essentially undo all the damage that’s been
done to the system by the cheaters (and
unwittingly allowed by those that didn’t
recognize the strategy to over-complicate
everything); it would result in bills that
are simple to understand and can easily
be debated on the merit of the single
purpose for which the bill was created.

(2) TRANSPARENCY: There would
be more transparency, because every bill could
stand or fall for what ever reason, but it
would force Congressmen to explain why they
voted for OR against a bill, which would
eliminate the excuses about the numerous other
pork-and-crap attached to the bill. No more
fuzzy voting records.

(3) IDENTIFY CHEATERS: the transparency would
help identify the master-cheater-parasites,
or make them think twice about voting irresponsibly, or voting for special interest
groups, and bribes. The people will know who
is not returning to office, because they will
be voted out of office.

(4) REDUCE WASTE and UNNECESSARY OVER-COMPLICATION:
The Congressmen, then,
might actually read some of these bills…the
reality is that many of them don’t even know
what’s in a bill, because it’s been loaded up
with so much corrupt pork-and-crap and waste.
It’s abuse, and everyone knows it.

(5) EFFICIENCY: the single item per bill
may actually allow Congress to actually
accomplish something. Besides, as mentioned
earlier, Congressmen aren’t even reading the
fat, over-complicated, 20 thousand page bills
being presented. They’re full of pork, and
they all know it. It’s broken, and one
simplification could fix it.

It’s that simple.

Now, watch the cheaters and brain-washed
try to explain all of the complicated reasons
why that wouldn’t work.

There’s much simplification like this that
could be implemented in many other facets of
government.

The master-cheater-parasites politicians
have had 2029 years to screw it all up,
clutter it up with nonsense, and
thousands of unnecessary rules and laws.
That’s because one of the tools of the
master-cheater-parasites is to
over-complicate everything, so that the people
can’t understand it, and don’t know what to do
about it, and will choose to believe that the
politician is doing something hard.

What we should all do, at every instance where
it’s been turned into a huge convoluted
quagmire, is break it down to it’s original
purpose, and strive to simplify it. NOTHING
that goes on in the government should be that
complicated, despite the politicians attempts
to make you think it is. We all need to learn
to recognize crap when we hear it and see it.
And believe me, the Federal government is
full of it. There are a few in government
that genuinely want to repair system, but
they need our help. We should also strive to
identify the truly honest, no-nonsense politicians, and help them do their
job to help us.

In the end though, there is no hope for justice
where there is not sufficient common-sense,
honesty, and transparency. So we must all
work to recognize the cheaters, vote the
cheaters out of office, and elect honest
people in their place. There are a lot of
honest people that could do these jobs for
much less money. We need to start finding
and championing people who we know are not
cheaters. And in all elections where there
are no good choices, vote out the incumbent,
and give someone else a chance, but let them
know their term will also be short if they
don’t do the right thing for society.

It’s really that simple.

To think otherwise is to fall into the
trap that the master-cheater-parasites want
you to fall into. They want to over-complicate
everything, obscure the facts, cloud the issues,
change the subject, make false allegations,
spout non-sequiturs, confuse the issues,
talk over the opposition, shift the blame, and
deny accountability.

Like this issue about line-item vetoes,
no line-item vetoes, over 50% vote, over two thirds vote, etc., etc. etc.
The politicians love this.
They make you think they’re fighting hard for society.
The fact is, they are doing only what is minimally
required to continue to live at the expense of the tax payers,
while doing nothing really and sometimes doing damage to society.

I’m not singling out lawyers, but as I’ve said before,
some professions attract more
master-cheater-parasites than others (such
as politicians and lawyers).

Have you ever wondered why so many lawyers aspire
to be politicians ? Some, occasionally want to
help society, but often, for many, it is the
ultimate position for the
master-cheater-parasite.
They can just talk, talk, talk,
and never really accomplish much, but make
everyone think they are doing the important
work of society.

So, try to observe what they’re really doing in Congress,
and you’ll begin to recognize which ones are the
master-cheater-parasites.
Here’s one clue (that’s usually
fairly reliable) for identifying the cheaters…
the Congressmen that are usually always involved
in the petty squabbles and petty partisan
politics, and often in the news, always
over-complicating things, and usually talking
a lot and not listening , and trying to stir
it up and make it stink, are most likely the
master-cheater-parasites.

It is not just the executive branch which has more power than the founding fathers intended; the legislative and judicial branches also have far more power than intended or desired. The founders would, almost certainly, recognize the structure of our federal government as it exists today, but they also would be horrifed at the ever-expanding size of it. They intended for the states and the people to have more power; they wanted a truly limited federal government.

The line item veto should be constitutional. As was already pointed out, it is certainly within the President’s power to veto bills. Even though a line item veto may create some new problems, I think it would eliminate some other, more serious, problems.

Perhaps a better solution, though, would be to stop our legislators from being able to slap on unrelated amendments to almost every bill. This would stop a lot of the shenanigans we see now. It would also allow us, the voters, to see exactly who voted for what. As it stands now, one candidate can accuse another of voting against some measure, when he really voted aginst some unrelated matter that had been tacked onto the original one. Also, with this, the need for a line item veto would be reduced; the President could merely veto the bills to which he was opposed.

Troy,

You’re on the right track.
Nothing in government should be that complicated.
What the government needs is some simplification.
Perhaps, some engineers ought to analyze all of
the overly complicated procedures, rules, and
practices and reduce them to their original
simple purposes.

The line item veto would be terrible. When Democrats and Republicans come to a compromise on a bill, the presient could just cross out the minority party’s portions.

How would that be different from what’s happening now? Except that it would be less expensive, of course. :)

Perhaps a better solution, though, would be to stop our legislators from being able to slap on unrelated amendments to almost every bill.

That’s an interesting idea. Someone else brought up a “name and shame” idea that was similar. The problem is, most of the time the pork is added to get a legislator’s vote for the bill. Also, the pork benefit’s that person’s state, so I doubt the citizens will rise up and vote their benefactor out.

Better to let the president veto the pork, and then see how bad 2/3’s of Congress wants to keep the porkers happy.

jbod said “The only answer I’ve seen you provide is NOT ANWR. I havent seen you address where we should drill if not there. We cant simply not drill—that’s just a short sighted utopian dream.”

We should drill anywhere that legal entitlement to land and mineral rights outside of public lands held in public trust for the preservation of wilderness, monumnents, or delicate habitats will permit, provided due diligence is required by the drillers to avoid ecological catastrophes. For example, the Everglades should be out, but coastal areas should be allowed. Everglades are a delicate habitat and ecosystem, coastal areas have a much higher capacity to heal themselves over time should a catastrophe occur.

Public trust lands were bought and paid for by all of the American people, and nothing short of a 60% national referendum should be allowed to sell use of public lands to private interests. In addition, if the public owns land to be made available to commercial interests (BLM for example) the public should be paid a fair market price for that land use and any costs in capital improvements to the land required by the commercial interests should be born by the commercial interests. Finally, extractions from public lands (minerals) should require a royalty per quantity removed be paid back to the public.

Regretfully, these common sense approaches are either absent from the laws, or ignored partially or entirely. At at time, when America needs to increase revenues, these are some of the first places we should be looking along with waste, fraud and abuse such as discussed in the original article.

David, if drilling happens in ANWR it WILL be because the elected represantives of the American people decide that it should happen. Hence it will reflect the public will for the lands which belong to the public.

Your idea that a national referendum should be held for any such decisions is an interesting one—however, it is not part of the current law. If you’re serious about wanting it, write your congressman and then perhaps it will be put to the democratic test and passed if it reflects the public’s will as well as your own.

Public lands, actually, are put to all kinds of private use. Sometimes this trust is abused—and I agree that such abuses should be stopped. But I can’t see putting up a national referendum every time some rancher in Wyoming wants a permit to graze his cattle on public lands or somebody wants to put a ski-area on a Colorado mountainside. Personally, I think there should be great oversight by the proper regulatary authorities in any such cases—and if the ANWR drilling happens, I’m sure there will be.

jbod, like I said, I have no problem with commercial use of public lands provided fair market pricing of leasing and use fees are extracted from the commercial users. That is only fair to the tax payers who own the land.

As it is, the majority of tax payers are cheated in return for campaign contributions or political support by small public land user groups. This should be illegal when the tax payer is not receiving fair market return on the use of the land.

David,

If not line item veto, how about panel, of say, 5 in house/senate, that must approve any attachment to any bill(pork),before it goes to final vote. You must have 4 votes to move anything to a full vote of congress. Make up the panel of 2 D’s, 2R’s and 1 Ind.,made up of the leadership of all partys, if a bill goes to a full vote of the body, the leadership is on record as approving all the pork!
What would this do ? The President still has a veto, the full congress still has a vote on the final bill, leadership still appoints com.’s, The only thing that changes is congress leadership is responsible for the pork it allows to move forward. Congress wants to approve all spending, fine, just go on record as approving all the pork!
End the blame-game crap.

Some would say that the senior leaders would’nt want that position, perhaps so, but if they wont control spending, I’d rather have minor members as watchdogs.

You can switch numbers around, but I think you get the general idea.
As far as enviromental issues go, The Dem party embraces that, but also stalls many enviro friendly things like wind power. We could dot the coastlines with wind generators but the coastal yuppies dont want to see them, spoils their view, the animal rights crowd crys that birds fly into them and are killed, this is true, however, they paint them in colors to blend in so the yuppies cant see them. Heres an idea folks…the freaking birds cant either!! Go to 4 prop generators and paint them black!

Both of these issues should be nonpartisan.
I hope that even my liberal friends can glean a grain of truth/fact from my points on this.

Came late into this disucussion, but Moderate Majority needs to take this country back in many ways and also need to start wiping out effects of pol.pimping and special interest lobbyists against Amer. citizens’ interests. We must force some genuine changes in processes of Congress, Senate, Pres. and make them more businesslike (not as in global corp. schemes and designs).

Single Item Bills is a good idea.
Moderates screening Bills is a good idea.
The whole ____ problem comes down to all the pol. pimps and how to get their machinations excised out and keep them out—no matter which Party is in power at the time.

The topic of ANWR- which is actually the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but much easier to tear apart for its commercial resources if we refer it by an acronym- the topic has evoked some memories which one or two of you might want to look at; it’s really more of a recollection, so please pardon for being off-topic.

There are no frogs in Ketchikan.

I live in Oregon. It rains a lot here, a gentle rain, ‘Oregon Mist.’ We’re near the ocean, so the climate is temperate, rarely below 40 degrees in winter, and incredibly green. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of frogs. You really hear them at night during certain times of the year, they’re kind of loud, but in a way it’s nice. Last summer I was fortunate enough to visit Alaska. The sourthern coasts of Alaska share the same climate as Oregon, cool and damp, and it’s green, green, green. And something extraordinary has happened in Ketchikan

There are no frogs in Ketchikan.

Not one. They’re gone. Used to be lots and lots, but they disappeared a few years ago. No one knows what happened. Of course, it’s suspected this has done something to do with Global Warming- or ‘climate change,’ as the Alaskans politely call it. But there are no frogs in Ketchikan anymore.

It almost never snows in Juneau now. Used to snow a lot in winter. And you can stand by a sign near the Mildenhall Glacier Visitors Center and see something remarkable. That glacier is BIG. It used to be right next to the sign. The sheer size and magnificence of the glacier and its blue ice isn’t the only thing that’s remarkable. You can still see the glacier; but it’s receding, and it’s now about a mile away from the sign. All the glaciers in Alaska are receding, fast.

Another persistent memory… Years ago, I was backpacking cross-country through eastern Washington state. It was very remote, wild country, forests and mountains. A freezing rain kept coming down the whole time. At one point, we came across a vast area of utter devastion. It looked like a World War I no-man’s land, only without craters; just churned mud, and stumps, and shattered tree limbs, and not a living thing, not even a blade of grass.
“What happened here?” I asked.
“Oh, this was a clear-cut,” was the reply.

I don’t know if there is such a thing as a crime against nature, but if so, then that was one.

Yes, yes, we need wood for houses and much more. It’s understandable how public lands can be used that way, isn’t it?

Did you know most of central Oregon was completely clear-cut at least once by 1940? That’s quite an accomplishment. Central Oregon is BIG. Logging also set off the first two fires of the devastating disaster known as The Tillamook Burn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillamook_Burn

When you hear about ‘The Healthy Forest Initiative’ you might want to think about The Tillamook Burn. During a debate, Bush started to explain how the forests in Oregon would by healthier if we cut them down, so there’d be no forest fires. The euphemism is ‘thinning.’ I think Bush realized he was not addressing a pre-screened audience of timber executives and logging communities, and quickly changed the subject.

When you recall how the Bush administration initially denied Global Warming was occurring, withdrew from the Kyoto Accords without consulting anyone, and now acknowledges Global Warming as something merely to be studied, consider it; and when you hear about drilling in ANWR, and energy wish lists that will be enacted in the coming years, yet no mention of Global Warming, consider it:

There are no frogs in Ketchikan.

Martin,

“David, if drilling happens in ANWR it WILL be because the elected represantives of the American people decide that it should happen. Hence it will reflect the public will for the lands which belong to the public.”

Martin, if we drill in ANWR it will be because the rights went to the highest bidder. Perhaps Haliburton?

A good article on energy, and non-partisan to boot!

http://www.factcheck.org/article288.html

Beagle,
the article you link doesn’t seem to say anything that hasn’t been said before.
Where are the alternatives? Neither one of our former candidates seemed to have a solution.
It would appear that the debate for hydrogen power has gone the way of the 100mpg carburator. Other than profit, why have we become less agressive in our search for other alternatives?
Even fusion seems safer than “Global Warming” in the long run.

The biggest problem with so-called hydrogen power is that it takes power to make the hydrogen in the first place - the best poor hydrogen can offer is a clean, efficient intermediary between power plants and cars.

Most of the hydrogen is refined from natural gas, to market that efficently, you must build pipelines, if enviomentalists want clean energy, you cant block pipelines and wind power, just simple facts.
Everything has a balance, whatever you do will effect something.

Beagle,
I will agree with your points, however we are running near capacity with the refineries we have now.
Where is the extra capacity going to come from? We haven’t built a new refinery in quite a while. Hell we haven’t upgraded a refinery in quite a while.
We can’t blame this just on environmentalists. Do you want a refinery in your back yard?
I don’t either.

This and that, that and this.
The politicieans, and special interest groups,
and lobbyists just love the bickering.

Don’t play their game.
They’re all over this.

Send some EFFICIENCY experts to Washington
to streamline the procedures and rules.
Restrict bills to one ITEM per bill.
Challenge anyone that opposes it by simpy
asking why they oppose it.

Take back the courtry.
It’s hard, because it requires common-sense,
and I’m not sure yet that America has enough
of it.

Rocky,

I’m not blaming anyone, just saying everthing has a balance.

End all energy production and go back to the stone age, I’ll do quite well,(city slickers might freeze and starve).
Nobody here cares more about the enviroment than I do.

The bird twits complain that some birds are becoming scarce, Heres a freaking idea, stop paving all the gravel roads!!

In the northern states everything freezes up in winter, the only place birds can get grit is off gravel roads or a gravel pit, without grit they will die in 7-10 days, reguardless of food!

Hollywierd nutballs want to ban fur, fine, now there is so many racoons that every ground nesting bird is getting scarce,frogs too.

Its much better to see 15 per mile squashed on the highway ?

Ban hunting, fine, but in my state there are 65,000 car/deer accidents a year, and thats with hunters shooting 3-5 hundred thousand every year!
I don’t want my family killed in a car/deer accident, yours either.

Everything has a balance.

I have had acqaintences who have been to Anwar Alaska. They tell me nothing really grows there. It is like frozen tundra, according to my friends. I agree that we need alternate sources of energy. Frankly, I am chagrined to see France develop a car that runs on compressed air. Solar panels, a good battery and a car that runs thusly should be American ingenuity at work. Sadly, it isn’t. Those who speak for hydrogen engines need to think harder about it. Hydrogen is produced by electricity- it takes more energy to produce than just running on either gas or electricity itself. I have seen a welder system that runs on compressed gasoline, what an amazing product. Let’s figure out a way to run car engines that way, too, time to be creative, if you ask me.

The beautiful thing about hydrogen is that it’s a storage medium for energy. You can create hydrogen using solar power, wind, tidal, AND gas & oil. So if the wind isn’t blowing, or the sun ain’t shining, you can use gas or even coal.

The goal is minimizing our reliance on petroleum - especially petroleum from the Middle East. I’d be all for letting the GOP pay back their oil corporation donors with the ANWR, if we get to legislate a 15-20 mpg boost in fuel efficiency and a massive public/private venture to commercialize hydrogen over the next ten years.

Beagle, I remember reading that factcheck.org article a while ago. I’m not convinced,

Borenstein also said the only way to bring about an immediate change is “an extremely large gas tax.”

How about raise fuel efficiency by 7 mpg? That would bring about an immediate change. There’s no need for a tax, and noone is asking for one. And why are all the experts the article cites from the Cato Institute or have won OPEC awards?

I don’t understand how this became a partisan issue. I’ve never heard anyone argue that we shouldn’t try to become more energy independent. The argument seems to be between those who whine it’s too hard or it’s too expensive, and those who say “Well then, we’d better roll up our sleeves and get started.”

AP, there is only one flaw with your reasoning.

Let’s say you and I combine our savings account and buy a piece of real estate in a joint venture with the agreement that we are partners. We won’t sell that real estate until we both agree to.

That is ANWR. WE ALL paid for ANWR when we bought it from the Russians, and a good deal it was. It has been handed down to your father’s offspring and mine. It was designate by the will of the people to be a Refuge for wildlife and to be maintained as a pristine wilderness and any American citizen may visit it, but may not take up residence on it, may enjoy its beauty and bounty, but may not use or convert any part of it for their personal gain.

This was a joint venture. My grandparents paid their share for it and handed it down to me as did so many hundred million others. I don’t want my share of ANWR sold or leased for commercial purposes which negates the definition of the purpose of ANWR as a REFUGE for wildlife. And I am not alone. Some 30 to 40 million other Americans don’t want their shares in ANWR compromised either.

So, will the partnership be dissolved by greedy interests in cheaper oil overriding contractual ownership and designated purpose which our grandparents paid for? Will greed and commercial interests be allowed to further divide the people of our nation on such basic core values as respect for maintaining a piece of pristine America for our grandchildren? Or are all of America’s core values and symbols up for sale like American flag shirts and pants and underwear, or mini-statues of the Statue of Liberty used to smuggle drugs in and out of the country?

David, I understand your argument. I’m not proposing we just give it away. I believe legislation that ends our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and puts us firmly on the road to alternative energy and technologies is worth the ANWR. Your mileage may vary. :)

Perhaps some strings should be attached to the
drilling in ANWR?

Perhaps the government should demand a deposit
from any company that drills in ANWR?

The deposit must be very large to be effective
(e.g. $100 to $500 billion U.S. dollars or
at least equal to what the company could hope to
profit from the drilling). And, the deposit
would not absolve the company of any additional
cost required to clean-up or rectify damage to
the environment.
The deposit would be forfeited in the event that
any unacceptable damage to the environment is
caused by the company.
That would give them an added incentive to take
additional steps to protect the environment.

It should be possible to drill in ANWR without
causing irreversible long-term damage to the
environment? Also, since the land belongs to
the people, perhaps a large portion of the
profits must be used to fund independent
research for practical alternative energy
sources and technologies? Especially for
transportation (e.g. automobile engines,
electric power generation, home electricity, etc.).