President Bush trying to undo in the last minutes tough environ regs...

C

CanadianKid

New member
Bush launches last-minute deregulation push

White House moves to relax many rules covering private industry

updated 4:17 a.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 31, 2008
The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466701/

CK
 
Seriously if any conservatives arent upset with this they should be fucken shot in the head... and burned in the testicles...

CK
 
Actually, he is just taking a cue from the Clinton playbook.

When W. won the last election, Clinto signed legislation that lowered the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water to levels that he knew many systems could not comply with. It was lower than ANY medical or scientific group advocated. And he set this new law to take into effect right after Bush was sworn in, so Clinto himself didn't have to comply with it.

I am surprised you don't remember the outcry from people when Bush signed executive orders raising the level back to the same place it had been.



This is an old ploy. You make it so the incoming president has to handle some landmines you left in place.
 
Solitary said:
Actually, he is just taking a cue from the Clinton playbook.

When W. won the last election, Clinto signed legislation that lowered the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water to levels that he knew many systems could not comply with. It was lower than ANY medical or scientific group advocated. And he set this new law to take into effect right after Bush was sworn in, so Clinto himself didn't have to comply with it.

I am surprised you don't remember the outcry from people when Bush signed executive orders raising the level back to the same place it had been.



This is an old ploy. You make it so the incoming president has to handle some landmines you left in place.
Click to expand...

You dont make sense fool....

If Clinton did something bad to "hurt" Americans....

Than George W by reversing it would have done something "good" and would have been given credit by the people....

So your saying Clinton purposely tried to make Bush look better?

Your smoking too much dope!

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
You dont make sense fool....

If Clinton did something bad to "hurt" Americans....

Than George W by reversing it would have done something "good" and would have been given credit by the people....

So your saying Clinton purposely tried to make Bush look better?

Your smoking too much dope!

CK
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe if I type slower you will be able to understand it.

Clinton lowered the allowable levels of arsenic in our water from 50ppm to 10ppm. But he signed it to go into effect AFTER he left office. He knew full well that many western states would be unable to comply. In fact, the World Health Organization has reported that 50ppm is acceptable.

Bush took office and promptly RAISED the allowable levels back to where they had been before (during Clinton's 8 years in office).


It did not make Bush look good. In fact, there was considerable outrage over Bush raising the allowable levels of poison in our drinking water.

But it was basically a landmine left by the Clinto administration designed to give Bush headaches from the beginning.

Even Ralph Nader (no friend of Bush) said it was not meaningful legislation but an act designed to hinder the incoming administration.
 
Solitary said:
Ok, maybe if I type slower you will be able to understand it.

Clinton lowered the allowable levels of arsenic in our water from 50ppm to 10ppm. But he signed it to go into effect AFTER he left office. He knew full well that many western states would be unable to comply. In fact, the World Health Organization has reported that 50ppm is acceptable.

Bush took office and promptly RAISED the allowable levels back to where they had been before (during Clinton's 8 years in office).


It did not make Bush look good. In fact, there was considerable outrage over Bush raising the allowable levels of poison in our drinking water.

But it was basically a landmine left by the Clinto administration designed to give Bush headaches from the beginning.

Even Ralph Nader (no friend of Bush) said it was not meaningful legislation but an act designed to hinder the incoming administration.
Click to expand...


So your saying that Clinton put in an unpopular bill that would take into effect when Bush got in office....

Ok so Bush reverses the unpopular bill and gets the credit for it....Where is the beef?

Solitary why are u a partisan hack?

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
So your saying that Clinton put in an unpopular bill that would take into effect when Bush got in office....

Ok so Bush reverses the unpopular bill and gets the credit for it....Where is the beef?

Solitary why are u a partisan hack?

CK
Click to expand...

Ok, are you this dense or are you just being a pain.

What makes you think lowering the levels of arsenic in our water would be unpopular? Most people know that arsenic is a poison. They see that Clinton lowered the allowable levels and Bush raised them and it makes Clinton look good and Bush look bad.


But it was a ploy by the Clintons to make Bush look bad. If Clinton thought it was good for us, why did he wait until the last month of his 8 years in office to make the change. And why did he schedule the change to take effect AFTER Bush took office.



But the move to lower the arsenic levels was popular. But because its popular doesn't mean it does any good.

And Bush's raising the allowable levels was UNPOPULAR, despite the fact that he raised them to levels that were previously acceptable.


Is any of this sinking in yet?
 
CK, if you had read the article you linked, you would have seen mention of what I was talking about.

"While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure."

That came from the article you posted.
 
Solitary said:
Actually, he is just taking a cue from the Clinton playbook.

When W. won the last election, Clinto signed legislation that lowered the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water to levels that he knew many systems could not comply with. It was lower than ANY medical or scientific group advocated. And he set this new law to take into effect right after Bush was sworn in, so Clinto himself didn't have to comply with it.

I am surprised you don't remember the outcry from people when Bush signed executive orders raising the level back to the same place it had been.



This is an old ploy. You make it so the incoming president has to handle some landmines you left in place.
Click to expand...


No. You do it because it is what you would really do if you didn't have to worry about reelection or hurting your party's chances in congressional elections. It's the priorities and the policies of the president laid bare. I doesn't have much to do with "landmines." It's got much much more to do with giving gifts to those that supported you and that you want to support.

And the arsenic standard that you are referencing that Clinton put into effect was never repealed. The Bush EPA under Whitman reviewed the Clinton EPA process, confirmed their findings, and left the Clinton standard alone. Bush didn't sign any executive order raising the level, he simply suspended implementation of the Clinton standard pending review.
 
Solitary said:
Ok, are you this dense or are you just being a pain.

What makes you think lowering the levels of arsenic in our water would be unpopular? Most people know that arsenic is a poison. They see that Clinton lowered the allowable levels and Bush raised them and it makes Clinton look good and Bush look bad.


But it was a ploy by the Clintons to make Bush look bad. If Clinton thought it was good for us, why did he wait until the last month of his 8 years in office to make the change. And why did he schedule the change to take effect AFTER Bush took office.



But the move to lower the arsenic levels was popular. But because its popular doesn't mean it does any good.

And Bush's raising the allowable levels was UNPOPULAR, despite the fact that he raised them to levels that were previously acceptable.


Is any of this sinking in yet?
Click to expand...



You're buying into a hell of a lot of spin on the arsenic thing. Clinton's EPA proposed the rule when it did because that's when they were required to propose it if they wanted to get it done before they left office.

The legislation requiring the EPA to set safe levels of arsenic in drinking water was passed in October of 2000 and required the implementation of the rule by June of 2001. Clinton could have either done nothing or he could have done what he did. Obviously, he did what he did because he knew the Bush EPA would be more likely to impose a higher standard.

The timing wasn't some nefarious plot by Clinton. It was based on what the law required.
 
Dungheap said:
You're buying into a hell of a lot of spin on the arsenic thing. Clinton's EPA proposed the rule when it did because that's when they were required to propose it if they wanted to get it done before they left office.

The legislation requiring the EPA to set safe levels of arsenic in drinking water was passed in October of 2000 and required the implementation of the rule by June of 2001. Clinton could have either done nothing or he could have done what he did. Obviously, he did what he did because he knew the Bush EPA would be more likely to impose a higher standard.

The timing wasn't some nefarious plot by Clinton. It was based on what the law required.
Click to expand...

Solitary owned

CK
 
So Solitary is an idiot who thinks that trying to lower the level of arsenic in the water is a "landmine"

Ok so I guess combating global warming for you is a "ticking timebomb"

Yes....lets all follow Solitary's approach of doing nothing....

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
So Solitary is an idiot who thinks that trying to lower the level of arsenic in the water is a "landmine"

Ok so I guess combating global warming for you is a "ticking timebomb"

Yes....lets all follow Solitary's approach of doing nothing....

CK
Click to expand...

No, Solitary is someone who doesn't react to a news story without knowing what its about.

And, like the Global Warming hysteria, the arsenic levels may be just a knee-jerk reaction to hype.

The majority of the arsenic in water supplies are out west and are naturally occurring, not the result of pollutants.
 
CanadianKid said:
So your saying that Clinton put in an unpopular bill that would take into effect when Bush got in office....

Ok so Bush reverses the unpopular bill and gets the credit for it....Where is the beef?

Solitary why are u a partisan hack?

CK
Click to expand...
No, he's saying the regulations he put in place gave Bush issues at the beginning because it gave the Ds the "Republicans want poison in your water!" talking point.

Basically he's saying that Clinton put in codes that were unattainable, that he knew were unattainable, but it still made Bush appear to be drastically "bad" when he reversed them. He's also saying that he believes it was planned to do just that.

(Translating for the reading impaired does not mean that I am supporting the argument, I do not personally know enough on this particular issue to give such an opinion.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top